1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT 9 Special Session 10 Monday, November 26, 2007 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 BRUCE OEHLER, Commissioner Pct. 4 2 1 I N D E X November 26, 2007 2 PAGE --- Visitors' Input 5 3 --- Commissioners' Comments 6 4 1.1 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to approve contract with Kerr County Soil & Water 5 Conservation District & allow County Judge to sign 8 6 1.2 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on contract proposed by Court-Appointed Special 7 Advocates (CASA) for funding 9 8 1.3 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for final plat of Longbow Subdivision 19 9 1.4 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for 10 variance for roads in Phase II and III of Headwaters Ranch 23 11 1.5 Public Hearing on Taxation of Personal Property 12 in Transit 31 13 1.6 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to tax goods-in-transit personal property as defined 14 in Texas Tax Code § 11.253 by Kerr County, Texas 31 15 1.7 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to authorize Community Resource Group of Austin, 16 Texas, to conduct new mail survey of persons living in the service area of proposed wastewater 17 collection system for Center Point & Eastern Kerr County; provide same to TWDB in support of pending 18 application for EDAP financial assistance 36 19 1.8 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on how to allocate excess funds from the 06/07 20 Library budget 40 21 1.12 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for concept of The Estates of Center Point 43 22 1.13 Consider/discuss and authorize Sheriff to dispose 23 of three county vehicles 48 24 1.14 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on the purchase, rather than the lease, of the 25 NICE CallFocus III Recorder System from Voice Products, Inc. 49 3 1 I N D E X (Continued) November 26, 2007 2 PAGE 1.9 Public Hearing for revision of plat for Lot 67, 3 Cypress Springs Estates, Phase 2, Section One 53 4 1.10 Public hearing for revision of Kerr County Subdivision Rules and Regulations 54 5 1.11 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to 6 approve new Kerr County Subdivision Rules and Regulations 54 7 1.15 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on 8 future airport governance agreement with City of Kerrville 57 9 1.16 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to 10 approve salary for secretarial position at the Extension Office (Executive Session as needed) 61 11 1.17 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on 12 Commissary Audit presented at November 13th meeting to be sent to the Jail Commission 62 13 1.18 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on 14 Tax Assessor's Audit 62 15 3.1 Action as may be required on matters discussed in Executive Session 65 16 4.1 Pay Bills 65 17 4.2 Budget Amendments -- 4.3 Late Bills -- 18 4.4 Approve and Accept Monthly Reports 81 19 5.1 Reports from Commissioners/Liaison Committee Assignments 82 20 5.2 Reports from Elected Officials/Department Heads 82 21 1.19 Hearing on Appeal of J. Nelson Happy to the issuance of a floodplain permit to Martin 22 Marietta Materials Southwest, Inc., for a "haul road" as specified in the permit appli- 23 cation; appropriate action as may be required 87 24 --- Adjourned 106 25 4 1 On Monday, November 26, 2007, at 9:00 a.m., a special 2 meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in 3 the Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, 4 Kerrville, Texas, and the following proceedings were had in 5 open court: 6 P R O C E E D I N G S 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. 8 Let me call to order this regularly scheduled meeting of the 9 Kerr County Commissioners Court posted and scheduled for this 10 time and date, Monday, November the 26th, 2007, at 9 a.m. If 11 you'd please stand and join me in a moment of prayer? 12 (Prayer and pledge of allegiance.) 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Please be seated. At this time, if 14 there's any member of the public that wishes to be heard on 15 any matter that is not a listed agenda item, feel free to 16 come forward at this time and be heard. If you wish to be 17 heard on a listed agenda item, we'd ask that you fill out a 18 participation form. They can be found at the back of the 19 room. I think there's some forms back there. If we happen 20 to get to an item that you wish to be heard on, and you've 21 not filled out one of those forms, just get my attention in 22 some form or fashion and I'll see that you have the 23 opportunity to be heard. But right now, if there's any 24 member of the public that wishes to be heard on any matter 25 that is not a listed agenda item, please feel free to come 11-26-07 5 1 forward at this time and tell us what is on your mind. 2 Seeing no one -- 3 MR. OVERBY: Yes. County Judge and -- 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Better hurry. 5 MR. OVERBY: Quickly. Guy Overby, the president of 6 the Kerr Economic Development Foundation. And just quickly, 7 I just would like to come before the County Commissioners 8 Court this morning and -- and just extend an invitation to 9 you, to the County Commissioners. We have a special meeting 10 planned at the Hill Country Shooting Sports Center on 11 December 13th, Thursday. This will be an open public 12 meeting. This meeting is just an invitation for our full 13 board of directors that will be there, plus our economic 14 partners. That meeting will be from 11:45 to 1:15 that 15 Thursday. We have a special meeting planned that day. Not 16 only do we have lunch there for our -- our guests and our 17 economic partners, but our program that day will be with the 18 U.S.A. National Shooting Team that will be representing the 19 United States in Beijing, China next summer. So, we have a 20 special program planned that day. Our meeting will be in the 21 Air Hall facility. We hope that you can come and attend and 22 be there. It'll be a really good meeting opportunity for our 23 community to be there. I do know that there are several 24 folks from the U.S.O.C. Olympic Committee and U.S.A. Shooting 25 planning also being there, so I just wanted to come to the 11-26-07 6 1 County Judge, Judge Tinley, and extend an invitation to the 2 Court. And, like I said, it's an open public meeting. We 3 hope to have as many folks come and join us and enjoy that 4 special day. Appreciate that very much. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Overby. 6 MR. OVERBY: Thank you. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Is there anyone else that has a 8 matter they wish to bring to the Court's attention that's not 9 in connection with a listed agenda item? If not, we'll move 10 on. Commissioner Baldwin, what do you have for us this 11 morning? 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I don't have much -- 13 much news out of the -- out of the community, other than I 14 wanted to say happy birthday to Commissioner Oehler on the 15 other end of the table. Today is his birthday. And I think 16 he has a -- one of those champagne shower things for 17 10 o'clock this morning. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Public is invited, of course? 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: For us, I guess. I don't 20 know. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He's taking it, or he's 22 offering it? 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Not sure yet. I'm going to 24 be there, though. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else? 11-26-07 7 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, sir. Thank you. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Williams? 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It was a great holiday 4 weekend; it's good to be back. Let's go to work. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Letz? 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Christmas in Comfort went on 7 Saturday, and the parade, even though it was a little bit 8 damp, a little cool. But, actually, the attendance was 9 pretty good, from what I hear. Most people did pretty well, 10 and the rains were certainly welcome. I think it was pretty 11 general throughout the county. Burn ban is lifted in -- I 12 know in my precinct; I think in all precincts till Wednesday. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Is that it? 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Oehler? 16 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Only thing I really want to 17 mention is that, all the elected officials and everybody, I 18 think, if it's okay with the Court, the Christmas dinner for 19 the employees and department heads and all, I'd like to do 20 that on the 18th of December. And I'll take care of doing 21 all the cooking and all that thing. We just need to gather 22 up a little -- some funds from various places to pay for this 23 meal. Other than that, I don't have anything. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: One place being the 25 Commissioners? 11-26-07 8 1 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Commissioners and other 2 elected officials and department heads. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else? 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: On the 18th? 18? 5 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: 18th. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Where's it going to be, 7 downstairs or at the Ag Barn? 8 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Ag Barn. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Ag Barn. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Let's get on with our agenda. First 11 item on the agenda is to consider, discuss, and take 12 appropriate action to approve contract with Kerr County Soil 13 and Water Conservation District and allow the County Judge to 14 sign the same. This contract is one of our regular contracts 15 that we deal with, and I assume the County Attorney has 16 approved the form? It's the standard form that we've used in 17 past years. 18 MR. EMERSON: I haven't seen this year's, but if 19 it's the same as last year, then yes. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval. 21 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 23 approval. Any question or discussion? 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just want to make a comment, 25 that the Soil Conservation folks, they do a lot of good in 11-26-07 9 1 this county, and just a real good program overall. I think 2 they really help throughout. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Any other question or discussion? 4 All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right 5 hand. 6 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 7 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 8 (No response.) 9 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Let's move 10 to Item 2; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on 11 contract proposed by Court-Appointed Special Advocates, CASA, 12 for funding by Kerr County to CASA. I placed this on the 13 agenda at the request of Ms. Oehler, who's the, I believe, 14 Executive Director at CASA. The contract was originally 15 prepared by Ms. Grinstead and forwarded over to CASA, and if 16 the Court will recall, at the last meeting, the matter was 17 before the Court. I asked that it not be considered at that 18 time because I thought there were some budgetary problems, 19 and I wanted to check on it. And, sure enough, in checking 20 on it, I ascertained that funds were not budgeted for that. 21 There was a change made in the budget from previous years. 22 However, the actual language on the budget was a little 23 confusing, and in talking with the Auditor, she indicated it 24 needed to be styled that way for some carryover reason from 25 the previous year that I still don't understand. But that 11-26-07 10 1 budget item, as can be seen from the information on the 2 proposed budget, I deleted that item, and instead inserted 3 our AACOG dues. That's where we came up with that odd dollar 4 figure. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: And AACOG was added to that budget 7 account on our current year's budget. When Ms. Oehler was 8 called and advised that this was a clerical error and no 9 contract should have been prepared or submitted, she asked to 10 appear before the Court, and she's here today. Ms. Oehler? 11 MS. OEHLER: Thank you for letting me come on such 12 short notice. I'm not going to take any of your time. I've 13 prepared a packet that I'd like you all to look over. That 14 includes our working agreement with 216th, the 198th, the 15 Kerr County Court at Law, and the Child Protection Court of 16 South Texas, as well as the report I sent Judge Tinley at the 17 end of October. There's also a program evaluation done by 18 the judges, the attorneys we work with, our working agreement 19 with C.P.S. I think there's enough stuff there for y'all to 20 look at. Statistics, currently, as I'm sure you're aware, 21 the number of children that are in C.P.S. care in Kerr County 22 has more than tripled in the last five years. I've given you 23 the last three year's statistics on my cover letter. When I 24 spoke with the Judge's court coordinator, she told me that we 25 had been taken out of the contract for the first time in 18 11-26-07 11 1 years because we didn't provide a service to the county, and 2 I believe we do. I've given you not only the -- this 3 information, but also my board of directors or contact list, 4 the four judges that we have working agreements with this 5 year. You can talk to them. I'm sure Judge Ables, Judge 6 Prohl, and Judge Dubose will tell you that the 51 community 7 volunteers we have working with these kids in C.P.S. care 8 provide a service. Our budget this year is $170,000. Kerr 9 County's $3,000 contribution is just a token, but it's very 10 important because we can't show local support without it. 11 So, I -- several years ago, we -- we kind of had this same 12 discussion. There was an Attorney General's opinion that 13 David Motley sought clarifying to you all that you could, 14 indeed, fund CASA; in fact, encouraging you to fund CASA. I 15 have that opinion, if anybody would like it. I submitted a 16 copy of our audit to Judge Tinley and to the County 17 Treasurer's office. If anybody else would like a copy of it, 18 it's public information. We always have clean audits. Alan 19 Massey is our auditor. So, I would just ask to you take some 20 time to look over this and then perhaps reconsider funding 21 CASA, because it will be hard for us to seek the kind of 22 funding we need from the federal government and from private 23 foundations if we can't -- Kerr County, the main county we 24 serve, doesn't support us. So, I'd be glad to answer any 25 questions you have, but it's not my intent to argue with you 11-26-07 12 1 today about this. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Any member of the Court have any 3 questions for Ms. Oehler? 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have a question, probably 5 more directed to you. Just from the budget standpoint, why 6 did you feel that they don't serve a -- 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Two reasons, Commissioner. The -- 8 my best understanding is that CASA has made a transition to 9 providing services to C.P.S., and is no longer providing 10 direct services at the request of the district courts in 11 connection -- in connection with domestic cases which they're 12 handling. That's the information they gave me. Are they 13 wrong, Ms. Oehler? 14 MS. OEHLER: Well, we don't provide services to 15 C.P.S. The Legislature and the Texas Family Code make it 16 very clear that our position is to monitor C.P.S. for the 17 courts. Now, if what you're saying is, do we do custody home 18 studies for the district courts any more, not for four years. 19 Because the C.P.S. case load, which is almost all of our 20 federal funding for victims services, has gotten so large. 21 Just on that cover letter right in the middle, you can see 22 just in -- you can see in Kerr County, that the number of 23 children in C.P.S. care in the county three years ago was, I 24 think, 96, and so far this year, we've already served 168. 25 So, those cases last a year, and our volunteers are tied up 11-26-07 13 1 monitoring those children in foster care and making regular 2 reports to the courts. We do nothing without court order, so 3 I'm not quite sure what you're saying, Judge. It's true we 4 don't do custody. It's true we don't do juvenile court, 5 because those children are not victims. Although we do have 6 a working agreement that if the judges feel like a child is 7 being abused, we'll do a home study. There's one on there -- 8 I guess maybe it's off now -- for Judge Brown last week. But 9 the majority of what we do are for the children in C.P.S. 10 care, children who are wards of the state. And 60-some-odd 11 percent of the children we served last year, in your fiscal 12 year, which I gave you a report, were Kerr County kids. And, 13 so, we do -- we have working agreements with those courts, 14 and we work directly at their pleasure and only under signed 15 court order. We don't work for C.P.S. We don't do anything 16 for C.P.S. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Let me approach this a different way 18 so that I can have a better understanding of it, possibly. 19 MS. OEHLER: Yes, sir. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: You say your charge is to provide 21 oversight of Child Protective Services, and that is the basis 22 for your federal funding? 23 MS. OEHLER: We have federal funding for victims of 24 crime. The Texas Family Code clearly outlines what CASA 25 does, and that is to provide advocacy for children who are in 11-26-07 14 1 Child Protective Services custody, wards of the state of 2 Texas. And, so, what our volunteers do is they read records, 3 they visit children in foster care, and they follow cases and 4 they file written reports for every single court hearing that 5 is held in an abuse and neglect child suit in the four 6 counties. Kerr County is 66, I think, percent of what we do. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: And that's the basis for your 8 federal funding, is C.P.S. cases? 9 MS. OEHLER: That's the basis for our federal 10 funding, is victims services. And children who are in C.P.S. 11 care are considered victims, so, yes. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. And that is what portion of 13 your budget Ms. Oehler? 14 MS. OEHLER: Our budget is about 60 percent public 15 sources. That's Texas Attorney General, Victims of Crime 16 from the Governor's Division of Criminal Justice -- that, and 17 then the counties, the counties we work with, Texas CASA 18 grants us. And then the other 40 percent of our budget is 19 Sterling Turner, Kronkosky, Swan Foundation. We do a very 20 good job. I think that our program evaluation from judges, 21 attorneys, and our own volunteers evaluating us as a program 22 will tell you that. We spent $3,000 last year on blue jeans 23 and tennis shoes for kids from Kerr County. Our money 24 doesn't go towards salary; it goes towards operating expense, 25 kids, travel. We reimbursed our volunteers $17,000 in travel 11-26-07 15 1 last year, 'cause they travel not only to all four counties, 2 but they go all over the state visiting kids in foster care. 3 Sometimes they're the only adult who are visiting kids in 4 foster care that know the children, because C.P.S. can no 5 longer travel out of region to visit their kids. So, if 6 we've got a Kerr County kid in Houston, the C.P.S. worker 7 from Kerrville can't go to Houston. There has to be a worker 8 in Houston who doesn't know that child. But our volunteer 9 can go down and check out where they are, make sure they're 10 okay, talk to doctors, and let Judge Dubose know, or in 11 the -- in the instance of a trial, let Judge Ables or Judge 12 Prohl know. I think if you speak with those judges, you 13 would be reassured that our people do a really good job and 14 that Kerr County is served. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: I -- I'm not questioning the quality 16 of your work. I'm questioning who and in what manner it's 17 done. Any my best understanding was that you did not provide 18 direct services to either of the district courts during this 19 past year, other than through the C.P.S. mode. Is that 20 incorrect? 21 MS. OEHLER: No, that's -- well, other than maybe 22 two custodies and an adoption where the judges felt like the 23 kids were at risk, that's true. But those district courts 24 are the presiding courts, as you well know, of that Child 25 Protection Court of South Texas. Those cases were pulled out 11-26-07 16 1 of your courts because y'all were so busy, and so now there's 2 a Child Protection Court sitting in Kerr County. But Judge 3 Ables, Judge Prohl, and Judge Brown sign off on every order. 4 So, we provide service to Kerr County children in C.P.S. care 5 to those -- for those courts, but that's pretty much all we 6 do, because of the size of the caseload. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: And that's the C.P.S. connection 8 that I was speaking of? 9 MS. OEHLER: Yes. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 11 MS. OEHLER: Yes, sir. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. And as you indicated, you 13 provide no services to the juvenile court? 14 MS. OEHLER: We haven't provided services to the 15 juvenile court since shortly after you took office, because 16 you didn't particularly want it in the beginning, and then 17 later the C.P.S. caseload had just grown so much, and that 18 program had died, that's correct. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. And you notified me that -- 20 MS. OEHLER: Yes, sir, I did. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: -- that you would no longer provide 22 services? Okay. Thank you, ma'am. 23 MS. OEHLER: Yes, sir. Thank you. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions for Ms. Oehler? 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I understand that -- 11-26-07 17 1 first of all, I mean, I'll just make a comment in general, 2 that all of these County-sponsored activities, as we list 3 them, are -- it's kind of a -- almost a slippery slope. When 4 you do one, where do you draw the line? It's always been 5 very hard. We've tried to -- the Court has, you know, direct 6 workings with primarily the juvenile court, is kind of our 7 rule of thumb, and -- you know, at least in this area of 8 services. But at the same time, it seems that you do provide 9 a service to the youth of Kerr County, and if all you need is 10 a token amount so you show support, I don't have a problem 11 with that and reevaluating this. We can look at it next 12 year, but maybe funding it at a $1,000 level this year, and 13 then relooking at it next year. If that -- if that's what 14 you need, and it's kind of -- that's what I heard, I have no 15 problem with that. We can take it out of Commissioners Court 16 Contingency and look at this again a little bit more. If -- 17 you know, where do you draw the line? I mean, you know, 18 we're an arm of state government. C.P.S. is -- is, you know, 19 part of state government, not -- certainly not an arm of it; 20 it's part of it, and so there's definitely a relationship 21 there. You do provide a service, I think, with the C.P.S. 22 program state-wide. I think the advocacy group is important. 23 So, I mean, my recommendation is that -- and I make a motion 24 that we fund it at $1,000 this year, and take the funds out 25 of contingency -- Commissioners Court Contingency. 11-26-07 18 1 JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: We have a second. Any question or 4 discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion, 5 signify by raising your right hand. 6 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 7 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 8 (No response.) 9 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion carries. Thank you, 10 Ms. Oehler. 11 MS. OEHLER: Thank you, Commissioner Letz. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Does that include the agenda 13 item? That talks about contracts; it doesn't talk about 14 money. Are we approving the contract as well that says 15 $1,000? Is that what the issue is? 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Approval, to me -- I would say 17 it's all-inclusive, but I'll add to the motion, if it's all 18 right, that it's subject to the County Attorney looking -- 19 reviewing the form of the contract. 20 MR. EMERSON: That's fine, but the agenda item 21 itself says "contract for funding." 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, ma'am. 25 MS. OEHLER: Thank you all. 11-26-07 19 1 JUDGE TINLEY: We'll move to -- we have a timed 2 Item, Number 3, as it were -- we ran over a bit -- for 9:15. 3 Consider, discuss, and take appropriate action for final plat 4 of Longbow Subdivision, and located in Precinct 2. 5 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. Good morning. 38 to 30, I 6 think that was. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: What? (Laughter.) 8 MR. ODOM: Gave you three. Aggies. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You looking for a coach? 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: In basketball, too. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Got rid of a coach. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you guys looking for a 13 coach? 14 MR. ODOM: N.I.T. championship. 15 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I even wore the appropriate 16 colors today. 17 MR. ODOM: I had them on all week. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Odom, I'll be the first to 19 acknowledge that the University of Texas was seriously 20 outplayed. 21 MR. ODOM: They were seriously outplayed. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: That's exactly what happened. 23 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. 88,235 was the attendance. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Were you there? Were you 25 among them? 11-26-07 20 1 MR. ODOM: I was among them. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Now that we have 3 that in the record... 4 MR. ODOM: This property was sold as metes and 5 bounds as a 10-acre tract. When the survey was done, it was 6 9.95 acres including the right -- road right-of-way at Willow 7 Bend Drive. The existing home, well, and septic are shown on 8 Lot 1. There are no improvements on Lot 2. At this time, we 9 ask for a variance to Lot 1 -- and I think I have this -- she 10 has this backwards. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, I think so. 12 MR. ODOM: I believe that we're asking for a 13 variance for lot size of Lot 2 as 4.52 acres, making Lot 1 14 5.01 acres. And approve this final plat for Longbow 15 Subdivision done under the alternate plat process. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're asking for a variance 17 on Tract Number 2, which consists of a residence, storage, 18 septic, well. 19 MR. ODOM: That's correct. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Already in place? 21 MR. ODOM: That's correct. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 23 MR. ODOM: Because the other one should meet the 24 unimproved lot... 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval. 11-26-07 21 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 3 approval. We do have a participation form that's been filed. 4 Mr. Williams? If you wish to be heard, please come forward. 5 MR. WILLIAMS: Gene Williams from the Headwaters 6 Groundwater Conservation District. We received this plat, I 7 think, last week, and just wanted to make the comment that it 8 does not meet the Headwaters rules on 5-acre spacing. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I thought your rules were 10 for lots on which you were going to give a permit to drill a 11 well, as opposed to a lot where a well already existed. 12 MR. WILLIAMS: Well, we would consider a replat a 13 new plat, so thereby, it should retain 5 acres with any well 14 that's already existing. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think I understand your -- 16 Headwaters' position on this, but I think the key is that the 17 intent was -- for purchase of this property was to have a 18 10-acre tract that they could divide. 19 MR. ODOM: That's right. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that was a -- you know, I 21 wouldn't say a clerical error, but it was -- wasn't a 22 surveyor. Surveyors don't make mistakes, do they? But it 23 was just probably they thought it was, you know, a 10-acre 24 tract, and it turned out not to be, so I don't see that it's 25 that big of a problem on this one lot being retained large 11-26-07 22 1 enough to get a well permit. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Any other -- 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Any other question or discussion on 5 the motion? 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've got a question here. 7 Leonard, have you heard from Mr. Williams or anybody else 8 from Headwaters before this moment? 9 MR. ODOM: No, I haven't. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Gene, this is horrible, 11 walking in here at the last moment when we're fixing to vote 12 on this damn thing, and you walk in here and want to change 13 it. No way, cat. That doesn't work. 14 MR. WILLIAMS: The surveyor brought this to our 15 office last week and asked us to sign off on it, and I 16 assumed they were going to come back and pick it up. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd like to third the 18 motion, if I have the opportunity. 19 MR. WILLIAMS: Didn't see it on the agenda till 20 this morning. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Any other question or discussion on 22 the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 23 your right hand. 24 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 25 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 11-26-07 23 1 (No response.) 2 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. It is 9:25 3 now, so we'll take up Item 4; consider, discuss, and take 4 appropriate action for a variance for roads in Phase II and 5 Phase III of Headwaters Ranch located in Precinct 4. 6 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. Let me go ahead, and then if 7 they have any questions... Headwaters Ranch submitted a 8 concept for approval of Phase I, and the Court gave them 9 permission to make the road a paved country lane instead of a 10 local road because of the lot sizes and projected traffic 11 volume. Developer's now asking for a road variance for 12 Phase II and III, and none of these phases have a preliminary 13 at this time. So, I'll turn it over to the developer to 14 answer any questions you wish to -- I don't see a problem 15 with it, but... 16 MR. POORMAN: Yeah. What we're asking this 17 variance -- the reason we're asking it is, the definitions in 18 the subdivision regs for local road, it has to do with the 19 number of lots first, and we do have more than eight in each 20 of these; there's 10 in the second and 12 in the third. But 21 the other criteria is, it's the lot size or the traffic 22 volume, and the traffic volume for the local road is 60 to 23 400 vehicles or more per day in volume. For the country 24 lane -- a paved country lane, it is for less than 60 25 vehicles. All of these roads are cul-de-sac roads. There 11-26-07 24 1 are no through roads. The lot sizes are 20 acres. We do 2 restrict them to one residence per tract. I just don't see 3 where there's going to be more than 60 vehicles on that road. 4 If it was -- if there was a home built on every tract in 5 there, and each household had four vehicles, we still 6 wouldn't be over 60 vehicles per -- in traffic volume per 7 day. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, you would. But aside from 9 that -- 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I was waiting for the 11 answer. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: With four vehicles -- the 13 average person goes in and out twice a day. That would be 14 80, easily. And that's with no guests, no deliveries, no 15 garbage, nothing else. So, anyway -- but that's just 'cause 16 you said four. 17 MR. ODOM: That's by his deal. But normally you 18 would use two. Based upon the household, which is two. And 19 if you were close to the city or to the municipality of 20 someplace, Ingram or whatever, then that would be higher. 21 But you're in the middle -- you're a long ways from 22 everybody -- 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 24 MR. ODOM: -- out there. 25 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: These tracts are not to be 11-26-07 25 1 divided, either. That's part of the covenants? 2 MR. POORMAN: That's part of it also. 3 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay, thank you. Seems like 4 if you're going to divide them, that's going to give -- you 5 wouldn't make it. 6 MR. ODOM: Some of these lots face 1340 anyway; two 7 of them do, and -- on each phase right there. So, there's a 8 -- you know, the probability of them having that -- and we 9 discussed before that, you know, to -- to put everybody under 10 the same rules, and instead of putting them outside of it. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm confused by the letters. 12 We're talking about lots, or phases. 13 MR. POORMAN: Phase II has 10 lots and Phase III 14 has 12 lots. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And there's a letter in here 16 dated November 15th, 2005, related to these two lots, if I'm 17 not mistaken, in the backup material. There's a -- we had a 18 letter -- or is that letter just about the other one? 19 MR. ODOM: That was to the Phase I. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So that doesn't -- okay. 21 MR. ODOM: Has nothing to do with Phase II or III. 22 They just came up with Phase II and III. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: My personal feeling is that if 24 you make an exception here, you might as well change our 25 rules. I mean, this is no different than any other 11-26-07 26 1 subdivision. The difference in the cost to the developer is 2 not huge here. We're talking about 2 inches additional base 3 and 2 foot additional width to upgrade those types of roads. 4 Yes, that is money, but if you're not going to -- if the 5 Court's not going to go by the standards we set, well, then 6 we should change our standards. I mean, giving a variance 7 doesn't make any sense to me. In 2005, we didn't look at 8 traffic count; that was a fairly new thing that we came up 9 with at the last revision. I don't believe we did in 2005. 10 It was 2006 when we came up with -- started looking at that. 11 The engineers looked at it. Both Mr. Wells, and I think 12 Mr. Harvey helped with this. In their mind, the -- the 13 number of lots and traffic count numbers mesh in here 14 according to state standards and traffic studies and all that 15 stuff that I know nothing about, but that's why we have the 16 engineers to give advice on those. So, you know, I don't 17 support a variance, but I'm just one person. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The Court's variances are 19 there for a reason, for people that have a hardship of some 20 sort reaching the threshold of our rules. Now, you know, I 21 don't know that -- that they've reached that level. I have 22 no idea. You know, you -- if you're going to sit there and 23 argue about whether each family has four cars or three and a 24 half cars, and one of them is an electric, and -- you know, I 25 don't see that reaching any level of debate. I'm with Jon on 11-26-07 27 1 the issue, that we either have the rule or we don't, and I'm 2 just not sure that Mr. Poorman's argument reaches the level 3 of authorizing a -- a variance from the rules. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is the road intended to be 5 private, not County-maintained, Mr. Odom? 6 MR. ODOM: No. 7 MR. POORMAN: No, they're going to be 8 County-maintained. 9 MR. ODOM: County-maintained. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't see the need for -- 11 based on what Commissioner Letz said in terms of the 12 difference of the roadbed and the road width, I don't see a 13 need for a variance. 14 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, only thing we did, we 15 set a precedent, I think, in the last one by granting them -- 16 they had one extra lot in the first phase. And I talked to 17 Mr. Poorman last night, and I said, you know, where does it 18 stop? I mean, where do you draw the line on -- you know, we 19 gave you a variance one, basically, because it -- they did 20 front the highway, but we made it mandatory for those -- that 21 access from those two lots that front the highway be to 22 that -- will be a County-maintained road. So, I don't know, 23 you know, whether -- I mean, does it come back next and say 24 there's going to be 12 lots or 13 lots, and we want to get 25 this thing a variance? You know, if -- if we let them access 11-26-07 28 1 those front two lots from 1340, then he would only have eight 2 lots within the subdivision. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mm-hmm. 4 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Is that correct? 5 MR. POORMAN: In Phase II, yes. 6 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: In Phase II. Then Phase III, 7 you're going up to how many lots? 8 MR. POORMAN: There's 12 lots in there. 9 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Twelve lots in there. Well, 10 that would be 10, then, that would be accessed. So, I mean, 11 you're going -- 12 MR. POORMAN: Our only contention is the number of 13 vehicles that are going to use the road, and the County's 14 going to maintain this road, so if they want to maintain the 15 full size, then we don't have a problem with it, you know. 16 If y'all don't grant us a variance, that's fine. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that -- you know, I 18 have no problem at all going back to Mr. Wells and having him 19 look at these numbers to make sure, in his mind, that they're 20 consistent, that the 60 vehicles meshes with eight lots. And 21 if that is not correct, I think we need to make an 22 adjustment. I think our rules need to be consistent, and I 23 think -- I have a question that they are right now. 24 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, the only -- the only 25 argument that I see for doing this would be the fact that the 11-26-07 29 1 lots can't be divided based on the covenants, and so you're 2 not going to increase the number of lots and that over a 3 period of time. But by the same token, our rules say eight 4 lots, and this is in excess of that. I mean, the last time, 5 the one lot difference, you know, I could sort of see that, 6 but this is -- I don't -- you know, I really don't think, 7 because -- 8 MR. ODOM: I say, well, change the rules, if we're 9 going to have these larger lots, and not have, you know, say, 10 more than 15. But you got to put a number on it somewhere, 11 and you've got to stick with it, I think. And I agree with 12 Commissioner Baldwin; it's not hardship, I don't believe, for 13 this to happen. And the variances are there for minor 14 adjustments, I believe, and not -- not something that could 15 be considered -- 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We have a public hearing in 25 17 minutes to look at changing that rule. 18 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah. And maybe -- you know, 19 maybe that's something we should do. But I think we need to 20 change our rules instead of just continue to grant variances. 21 MR. ODOM: Basically, what you're telling me is 22 that Phase II and Phase III is a no-no. You're going to go 23 to a local road. 24 MR. POORMAN: That's fine. 25 MR. ODOM: That's what he really needs to know from 11-26-07 30 1 the Court. Will there be a variance for a country lane, or 2 will it be a local road? 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Doesn't sound like it. 4 MR. ODOM: Doesn't sound like it to me. He can 5 keep the Phase I under the local road? 6 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Oh, yeah. We granted that 7 one. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What is, is. 9 MR. ODOM: What it is, it is. Okay. 10 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Maybe we ought to look at 11 changing it. You know, if we're going to amend the rules, 12 that's fine. Maybe we come back, see what happens after the 13 public hearing and after we address the Subdivision Rules, 14 and then maybe it would be allowed. It might not. 15 MR. POORMAN: Okay. All right. Thank you, 16 Commissioners. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody on the Court have anything 18 further to offer in connection with that particular item? If 19 not, we'll move on to our 9:30 item, Item 5. At this time, I 20 will recess the Commissioners Court meeting and I will open a 21 public hearing on the taxation of personal property in 22 transit in Kerr County, as that term is defined in the Texas 23 Tax Code, Section 11.253. 24 (The regular Commissioners Court meeting was closed at 9:40 a.m., and a public hearing was held in open 25 court, as follows:) 11-26-07 31 1 P U B L I C H E A R I N G 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Is there any member of the public 3 that wishes to be heard in connection with the taxation of 4 personal property in transit in Kerr County, as that term is 5 defined in the Texas Tax Code, Section 11.253? 6 (No response.) 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Seeing no one seeking an opportunity 8 to be heard, I will close the public hearing, and I will 9 reconvene the Commissioners Court meeting. 10 (The public hearing was concluded at 9:40 a.m., and the regular Commissioners Court meeting was 11 reopened.) 12 - - - - - - - - - - 13 JUDGE TINLEY: And we'll go to Item 6, to consider, 14 discuss, and take appropriate action to tax goods-in-transit 15 personal property, as defined in the Texas Tax Code, Section 16 11.253 by Kerr County, Texas. I put this on the agenda 17 because there was a legislative enactment that exempts the 18 taxation of -- of goods in transit, as that term is defined 19 in the noted Tax Code section, unless the Commissioners Court 20 in a particular county specifically takes action to tax that 21 property on or about January 1st of 2008. It's an annual 22 thing that must be done every year in order for that 23 exemption not to apply in a particular county. You will see 24 a -- in your material, I believe there should be a -- I 25 thought there was a resolution attached there. 11-26-07 32 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There is. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Somewhere I saw it. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's a resolution, though, 6 that -- that the taxes remain in place? 7 JUDGE TINLEY: That's right, that the exemption 8 from taxation not apply in Kerr County in 2008. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Right. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Meaning the tax -- that it 11 is taxable. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes. It would continue to be 13 taxable. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Whatever the goods in 15 transit is. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: As that term is defined in the Tax 17 Code. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I understand. I 19 haven't read the Tax Code, but I'm assuming that is actually 20 some kind of -- something that you can put your hands on, 21 that you can feel. Or is this some kind of -- another 22 Austin, feel-good, sit around the table and sing Kumbayah? 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For example, Mooney 24 Airplane Company. They import engines for their aircraft. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 11-26-07 33 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: High-priced engines. And 2 they're -- they're shipped in here; they're here for a period 3 of time. They ultimately go in an aircraft, and the aircraft 4 is completed and sent out someplace else. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, they're taxed while 6 they're sitting on the ground. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: As inventory. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And can you think of another 9 example in Kerr County? 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm not sure about the -- 11 the plastics company out here. That might be an example. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: James Avery may have 13 something -- they may have some things that are -- if they 14 have -- I don't know how, because it's gold. Because if they 15 have something -- anything that's in the process of 16 manufacturing has a value, like, especially if it is gold, at 17 least the value of the gold. And I don't know -- you know, 18 it's that type of -- I'm guessing. I mean, I'm kind of 19 trying to figure out who else manufactures around here. We 20 don't have a lot of manufacturing, but those are examples. 21 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Is that going to be revenue 22 for the county or the state? 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: County. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: County. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And schools, I guess -- oh, I 11-26-07 34 1 don't know. Does this cover -- probably not schools. This 2 does cover schools. But the change is to leave it as it is, 3 not exempt it. It's not adding a tax or anything. All we're 4 doing is saying we're just going to leave the law the way it 5 has been historically. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what I want to do. 7 So, by -- by passing this court order, nothing changes? 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: That's correct. We would continue 10 to tax that property just as we have in the past. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's my desire, by golly. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Is that a motion? 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It is. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. We have a motion. 15 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'll second it. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: And a second to adopt the order to 17 tax tangible personal property in transit, which would 18 otherwise be exempt pursuant the Texas Tax Code Section 19 11.253. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, one other question, 21 now. So, this is an annual event that we have to do in 22 order -- 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- to do this. Who is 25 going -- 11-26-07 35 1 JUDGE TINLEY: The County Attorney is saying no. 2 My understanding, it was. Maybe I'm -- 3 MR. EMERSON: No, the wording in the statute is 4 that -- I'm sorry, bear with me while I find it -- the goods 5 in transit remain subject to taxation by the taxing unit 6 until the governing body of the taxing unit, in the manner 7 required by official action, rescinds or repeals its previous 8 action. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's better. 10 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Put it in stone. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I can't imagine us trying to 12 track the thing every year. We can't even keep up with each 13 other's birthdays. (Laughter.) 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good point. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: That makes it even -- 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: -- even less -- 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm liking it. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: -- less difficult, doesn't it? 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm liking it more and more. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any other question or comment 22 on the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by 23 raising your right hand. 24 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 25 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 11-26-07 36 1 (No response.) 2 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Let's move 3 to Item 7; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to 4 authorize Community Resource Group of Austin, Texas, to 5 conduct a new mail survey of persons living in the service 6 area of the proposed wastewater collection system for Center 7 Point and eastern Kerr County to establish the current median 8 household income and provide same to the Texas Water 9 Development Board in support of pending application for EDAP 10 financial assistance. Commissioner Williams? 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This is on the agenda, 12 Judge, because I received a letter which I put into your 13 packet from Water Development Board, and after they reviewed 14 our second submission on this topic, what is the median 15 household income, and it has to be below 75 percent of the 16 state on median average, they wrote back and said they didn't 17 like what we sent and that they have some questions about 18 whether or not the median household income is, in fact, the 19 way it was represented. We represented that it is around 20 66 percent of the state median, and that was based on the 21 2004 survey that was conducted by the Community Resource 22 Group for this Court, and updated for inflation since 2004, 23 and that number still came in at 66 percent. 24 So, a couple members of the review team have 25 determined that we need to try to do this again, so I 11-26-07 37 1 contacted the -- that they want us to do this again, so I 2 contacted Community Resource Group in Austin, the folks who 3 did it for us before, and they agreed to do it again at a 4 cost of $2 per household survey, which would be a mail survey 5 conducting and asking for the return of the -- of the income 6 assessment and compiling all the -- all the information, 7 preparing the report, and giving it to us for submission to 8 Water Development Board. The gentleman who does this work 9 for us is a young man named Mark Pearson, and I received this 10 e-mail from him this morning. He said here -- in sending me 11 the income survey contract for our consideration, he said I 12 had a brief conversation with Amanda Lavin at the Water 13 Development Board. She's the one who wrote the original 14 letter to which I responded, and providing information. And 15 she intends to discuss the possibility of waiving the repeat 16 survey with the two members of the survey team who said we 17 ought to do it again, and she'll do so after the holidays. 18 Don't know whether or not it will get waived, but 19 in the event it does not get waived, we are required to move 20 forward with a new income survey. I believe it's important 21 that we provide the authority to do that, and Community 22 Resource Group will do it for $2 per -- per household that 23 they're surveying. Commissioner Letz, I'd like for this new 24 survey to include not only the core area of Center Point 25 where the wastewater collection system would be, but also 11-26-07 38 1 some of those subdivisions that are in Precinct 3 to the 2 north, I believe, on Highway 27. I think those -- those 3 communities as well would provide support to our intention 4 and so forth. So, the action of the Court would be -- what 5 I'm requesting is to approve a contract, which I have a draft 6 of it on my e-mail today for the County Attorney to take a 7 look at. The cost would be $2 per -- I can't imagine it 8 going over $2,000. That's 1,000 homes surveyed; I don't see 9 that being more than that. And I'm going to ask for 10 approval. Move approval of that agenda item. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second, with a question. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and a second. 13 Question or discussion? 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question is, and we will 15 delineate -- it's based -- well, we don't -- it's the service 16 area for the proposed project? 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's all we're surveying? 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Exactly. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're not surveying just 21 randomly out there. This is a very specific survey. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And part of the reason is 23 that you can't go to the census blocks in 2000, because 24 they're skewed because of some of the higher income levels 25 and homes and so forth that are in those two census blocks, 11-26-07 39 1 so we've had to separate out the core area of the -- of the 2 -- for the survey purposes and take all that extraneous stuff 3 out which skews the number. And by adding in those in your 4 precinct, I think we'll be in good shape. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions or comments? 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Did you not say that 7 the lady is going -- pursuing waiving this whole program? 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what this e-mail 9 says. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And we're going to do it 11 anyway? 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In the event they don't 13 waive it, then we have to be prepared to conduct the survey. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. So -- so we're going 15 to approve spending the money today, and just kind of set 16 that aside in case we need it? 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're not going to spend it 19 unless they do? 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If we have to do it, we'll 21 do it. If we don't have to do it, we won't spend the money. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know that it's a 23 wise thing to include anything in Precinct 3, because all 24 those people down there are so, so rich. That number's going 25 up very, very fast. (Laughter.) 11-26-07 40 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We'll try to -- 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, I'm not sure you're 3 doing the right thing there. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We'll try to avoid that. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Isn't that true, Judge? I 6 mean, you get down there, just -- you can smell money when 7 you leave Center Point. Lane Valley Road is a good place. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You can smell money? 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, then, Commissioner, your 10 motion is contingent upon the fact that it is required and 11 not waived? 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: My motion is to approve 13 conducting the survey, and funding it through the line item 14 that I identified for the Court, Account 409-571. Go ahead 15 and approve it and fund it, and if we don't have to do it, we 16 won't spend it. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Other questions or 18 discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 19 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. Let's move 24 to Item 8; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on 25 how to allocate excess funds from the '06-'07 library budget. 11-26-07 41 1 Commissioner Oehler, we have some good news, it appears. 2 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, we do, I think. I was 3 hoping from the -- that I would know what that figure was 4 from our last Tuesday Library Board meeting, so that we could 5 have a number to work on, but that number was not provided 6 because they don't have the final -- the final number yet 7 from the -- from the City of what the excess is. But there 8 is some excess funding left from last year's budget. Because 9 I did, I guess, raise enough stink over there to think that 10 we need to get either credit or reimbursement for funds that 11 aren't used for the purpose they were budgeted for at the end 12 of the year. And rather than just let it roll into the 13 City's general fund, our portion of it should be, I think, 14 either credited or given back, or we should decide what we 15 want done with those excess funds. I do not have a figure, 16 so I think we should probably put this off until the next 17 meeting. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 19 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Just to give you a little 20 update of what is going on. And, of course, the library 21 would prefer that that money be put back into the library in 22 some form or fashion, which I believe we can designate that 23 however we'd like to once we find out what that figure is. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This story sounds very 25 familiar. 11-26-07 42 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I know. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: From a few years ago. And I 3 agree with you; probably the right thing to do is to roll it 4 back in there, but I would like to have a pretty firm 5 agreement or an understanding with the City, whether it's a 6 credit or reimbursement, or have we gotten it yet, or maybe 7 did we get it? And -- you know, you have all those things 8 cleared up before we make any kind of -- 9 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We are going to get -- we are 10 going to get confirmation, I assure you. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, good. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there going -- 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: My preference would be a 14 credit, and just reduce our commitment for this year by 15 whatever that amount is. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's my preference. I don't 17 -- I'm not real inclined to leave it sitting over at the 18 City's accounts. 19 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, I -- I don't believe 20 that's the right thing to do. Now, if we wanted to make a 21 contribution to the library funding each year instead of a 22 percentage payment based on what it's been in the past, then 23 I think, you know, if they have funds left over, that's 24 different. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's different. 11-26-07 43 1 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: But if we have an allocated 2 amount based on a percentage, I think if there's a percentage 3 left, we ought to have our percentage credited. So, that's 4 where we are. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: If they're rightfully our funds, we 6 need to make that decision, not somebody else. 7 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Exactly. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: I agree. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further action on that item? 11 Let's move to Item 12; consider, discuss, and take 12 appropriate action for the concept of the Estates of Center 13 Point located in Precinct 2. 14 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. This concept is a 23.74-acre 15 tract comprising 11 lots and one road. The tract is located 16 off F.M. 480 just past Verde Hills Drive, in the high-density 17 area of Center Point, and will have community water. Even 18 though the name is not a duplicate, it might be easily 19 confused with Center Point Estates. We wanted to bring that 20 out to you. The number of lots comprised in high density is 21 divisible by two, so the 11 lots are appropriate. It has 22 community water from Wiedenfeld. He has a letter that he can 23 supply that water, and the developer wanted to present this 24 before and see if there's any problems. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have some questions about 11-26-07 44 1 it. First of all, it appears from the subject -- the 2 vicinity map that the subject property quite likely is within 3 the proposed service area of the sewer collection system, and 4 if that is the case, I'd like to know what would be the 5 potential for the subdivision to be hooked up to the sewer 6 system when and if -- when it becomes available. Can we get 7 some enlightenment on that? 8 MR. ODOM: I'm not quite sure. I did present that 9 to the surveyor to talk to his client. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Who's the surveyor and 11 who's the developer? 12 MR. ODOM: Gary Brandenburg. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Gary? 14 MR. BRANDENBURG: Morning, gentlemen. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Morning. 16 MR. BRANDENBURG: Essentially, I don't know if I 17 know the answer to that question either. It's hopeful that 18 that can be accommodated. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, it can be 20 accommodated if the developer wishes to have it accommodated. 21 We can work out similar arrangement -- arrangements similar 22 to what we've done in the past where there were septics in 23 place. And this is a little different in terms of you're 24 talking about doing septics; septics are not yet in place. 25 But this is to the north of Verde Creek; is that correct? 11-26-07 45 1 MR. BRANDENBURG: Correct. 2 MR. ODOM: Correct. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That would put it in the 4 proposed service area. 5 MR. BRANDENBURG: Correct. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, I'd kind of like to 7 have some -- some discussion about that, some commitment that 8 that might be the potential for the future. Secondly, the 9 name kind of troubles me. The Estates at Center Point is 10 tremendously confusing with Center Point Estates. And we've 11 been down this road with names of subdivisions similar but 12 not exact in the past, and I would like to avoid that if at 13 all possible in the future. 14 MR. BRANDENBURG: I agree. I forewarned them of 15 this name. I said, you know, we can at least, you know, give 16 it a whirl. But he is prepared to, you know, have, you know, 17 an alternative name, obviously. And in regards to the sewer, 18 I'm sure he'd be very open to that. He wants to put kind of 19 higher-end homes in this area, and -- 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What size lots are we 21 talking about? 22 MR. BRANDENBURG: Generally around 2 acres. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Two? 24 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Two and less. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Two and less, yeah. Yeah, 11-26-07 46 1 I see it, 11 out of 23. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is that all your questions, 3 Commissioner? 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For the moment. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: This will be -- depending -- 6 you might want to make sure you stay around till 10 o'clock, 7 because this will be subject to our new rules, and there will 8 be significant additional requirements, based on our new 9 rules, -- 10 MR. BRANDENBURG: Okay. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- for this development, from 12 engineering, being -- a letter from Mr. Wiedenfeld isn't 13 enough any more. Now we have to have full engineering cost 14 estimates per lot, and there will be probably a requirement 15 for a full water availability study. 16 MR. BRANDENBURG: Okay. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the -- those -- but they're 18 outlined in here. Also, there's a likelihood of a -- unless 19 we change it right after considering the public hearing, 20 there will be a fire suppression requirement of a storage 21 tank. I think it's 2,500 gallons, pretty minimal, with a dry 22 hydrant hooked up to it, but those are all things that are in 23 our draft rules. 24 MR. BRANDENBURG: Okay. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So be sure that you're aware of 11-26-07 47 1 that, 'cause you would be under the new rules, whatever we do 2 approve. 3 MR. BRANDENBURG: Sure. I will convey that on to 4 them. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that's, you know, not 6 overly burdensome, just more requirements of stuff that 7 probably needs to be done anyway. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'd like those two issues 9 addressed, Gary. I am -- I am really very reluctant to put a 10 stamp of approval on a subdivision within the service area on 11 septic when we know that the future is going to provide 12 sanitary sewer system. 13 MR. BRANDENBURG: Sure. I will get the answers to 14 those questions, and I'll -- 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 16 MR. BRANDENBURG: -- recycle this through. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And the name of the 19 subdivision. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And the name as well. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It looks good. Other than 22 that, it looks good. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Gary, what you want to do 24 is, when you decide on a new name, I'll give you Rusty's home 25 number and you can call him and just run it by him, you know, 11-26-07 48 1 just to be a good neighbor kind of thing. 2 MR. BRANDENBURG: Sure. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If you can't find him, call 4 me. 5 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's a better phone call. 6 Call him first. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Is that it on that one, gentlemen? 8 MR. BRANDENBURG: Thank you. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move to Item 13; consider, 10 discuss, and authorize the Sheriff to dispose of three county 11 vehicles. 12 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: This is the same agenda item 13 that was on last time on the three cars. Rex did do some 14 research, and under the Local Government Code, it does 15 authorize us to trade surplus property for something of same 16 or equal value. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 20 approval of the agenda item. Question or discussion? All in 21 favor of the motion signify by raising your right hand. 22 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 23 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 24 (No response.) 25 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. We'll move 11-26-07 49 1 to Item 14; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on 2 the purchase, rather than lease, of the NICE CallFocus III 3 recorder system from Voice Products, Incorporated. Sheriff, 4 that also is your item. 5 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. This is one of those in 6 the budget during the -- in the budget process, we had put in 7 under lease agreements to acquire a new recording system for 8 the dispatch office and all phones, 'cause the old one has 9 been way outdated and is not worth it. And that was approved 10 during the budget, $5,576.60 a year for a five-year lease 11 term. The entire -- and that included maintenance. But the 12 entire purchase of that system was $12,960.56, and after the 13 County has decided to do the short-term/long-term obligation 14 bonds, you know, for a lot of the stuff, I talked to the 15 Auditor and the County Judge, and we really kind of came to a 16 decision it would be more beneficial to the County to 17 purchase this thing outright. And the first year maintenance 18 is, of course, under warranty, and then you pay about $2,000 19 to $3,000 each year after that for maintenance. But I think 20 an outright purchase would be better included in with that 21 long-range deal. But because I was going from 5,500 that had 22 been approved for a lease-purchase -- lease payment this year 23 up to $12,960, I just wanted Court approval to do that 24 purchase instead of leasing. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: When you roll the maintenance costs 11-26-07 50 1 in, have you calculated the total savings over a five-year 2 period, Sheriff? 3 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I did not calculate the total 4 savings. There was definitely a savings, but I did not 5 calculate what that would be, 'cause, you know, I don't have 6 a calculator, unless you do, that you would like to add it 7 up. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That might be an interesting 9 number to have. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 11 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You have the Year 2, 3, 4, and 12 5 on maintenance, Judge? 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can you -- and while he's 15 doing that, though, Rusty, you can apply this same kind of 16 thinking to your vehicle issue, huh? 17 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, the vehicles on the 18 trade-in and that, and the maintenance on them, I'm not sure 19 we'd come out as well. We can look at it and see. It's just 20 coming up with -- if you're purchasing, you know, five 21 vehicles a year, you're spending 150,000, 170,000 out of the 22 budget in one year purchase, where we spend 30-something a 23 year for purchase, you know -- or on that lease. So, it just 24 depends on where you want to go with it. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: It'd be almost a $6,000 savings. 11-26-07 51 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 6,000? 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Almost, yeah. Yeah, it's about 3 5,800. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: In three years? 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Five. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Five years. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Five. 8 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And then it would also deduct 9 -- since it's going in the short-term/long-term deal, it 10 would free up the 5,500 in my lease agreement that's already 11 in the budget. It could go back. 12 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We could use that for 13 Court-appointed attorneys. 14 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Probably will be sooner or 15 later anyhow. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it makes sense to go 17 ahead and purchase. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I do, too. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just -- I just -- the 21 question I have is, where's the 12 grand? 22 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It would be in -- the Auditor 23 would have to do it as part of that long-term obligation 24 funding. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: $12,960 purchase? 11-26-07 52 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Be considered a capital expenditure 2 to be included in the cost of our long-term. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see. Got it. Second. 4 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And in the motion, we -- well, 5 we don't need the lease contract any more. Just be able to 6 go ahead and get it, because we do have problems with our 7 current one. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Bill, did you make a motion? 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll so move it. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. I heard talking down 11 there; I didn't know who did what. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I thought Buster did. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: He seconded. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I seconded. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Then I'll move it so 16 somebody can second it. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: By golly. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and a second to 19 approve the purchase. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second the motion. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: As opposed to the lease we 22 previously budgeted. Any further question or discussion? 23 All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right 24 hand. 25 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 11-26-07 53 1 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 2 (No response.) 3 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Let's go 4 back to our 10 o'clock. At this time, I will recess the 5 Commissioners Court meeting and open a public hearing for the 6 revision of plat for Lot 67, Cypress Springs Estates, Phase 7 2, Section One, as set forth in Volume 7, Page 172, Plat 8 Records, located in Precinct 4. 9 (The regular Commissioners Court meeting was closed at 10:06 a.m., and a public hearing was held in 10 open court, as follows:) 11 P U B L I C H E A R I N G 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Is there any member of the public 13 that wishes to be heard on the revision of plat for Lot 67, 14 Cypress Springs Estates, Phase 2, Section One, as set forth 15 in Volume 7, Page 172 of the Plat Records? Seeing no one 16 coming forward, I'll close the public hearing for the 17 revision of plat for Lot 67, Cypress Springs Estates, Phase 18 2, Section One, and I will reconvene the Commissioners Court 19 hearing. 20 (The public hearing was concluded at 10:06 a.m., and the regular Commissioners Court meeting was 21 reopened.) 22 - - - - - - - - - - 23 JUDGE TINLEY: I will recess again the 24 Commissioners Court hearing and call a public hearing for the 25 revision of the Kerr County Subdivision Rules and 11-26-07 54 1 Regulations. 2 (The regular Commissioners Court meeting was closed at 10:07 a.m., and a public hearing was held in 3 open court, as follows:) 4 P U B L I C H E A R I N G 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Is there any member of the public 6 that wishes to be heard concerning the revision of the Kerr 7 County Subdivision Rules and Regulations? Seeing no one 8 coming forward, I will close the public hearing for the 9 revision of the Kerr County Subdivision Rules and Regulations 10 and reconvene the Commissioners Court meeting. 11 (The public hearing was concluded at 10:07 a.m., and the regular Commissioners Court meeting was 12 reopened.) 13 - - - - - - - - - - 14 JUDGE TINLEY: And we'll go to Item 11; consider, 15 discuss, and take appropriate action to approve the new Kerr 16 County Subdivision Rules and Regulations. Commissioner Letz? 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I visited with Rex a little bit 18 after our last meeting based on some comments that I made 19 about I needed to do some tweaking, and I -- I guess with 20 some confusion, he received some calls -- a call or calls 21 about changing some little bit. I really think the best 22 thing to do is to adopt our rules as they are. I think we 23 can then -- the things I was talking about changing really 24 were page numbering. The requirements of a letter of credit 25 are listed. There's a form that we have not received from 11-26-07 55 1 Water Development Board that would be attached as part of our 2 final copy. So, my recommendation is, and I'll make a motion 3 that we approve the Kerr County Subdivision Rules and 4 Regulations as proposed. And then -- that's it. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and second to 7 approve the proposed Kerr County Subdivision Rules and 8 Regulations. Questions or discussion? 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just from the discussion 10 standpoint, the draft -- nothing's going to change. A more 11 reader-friendly version will be available probably in about a 12 month. It takes about that long, or -- you know, to go 13 through a number of proofreadings, making sure that 14 references back and forth are all consistent, and get 15 everything put in. But, certainly, until then we can go 16 through the current draft version, and the rules are in place 17 now. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This is substantially just 19 the addition of section -- a new section, 5.09? 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 5.09, and then there's a 21 requirement for all subdivisions to add, for fire suppression 22 purposes, a storage -- water storage tank, as based on the -- 23 less than 50 lots, it's 2,500 gallons with a dry hydrant, and 24 then over 50 lots, I think it's 5,000 gallons. Pretty 25 minimal on that side, but that is something that I think is a 11-26-07 56 1 good thing that we can now require, and I think incorporate 2 some of the previous changes that we made related to platting 3 and things of that nature, size of plats and that, because 4 they're already approved. So, yes, it's basically -- it's 5 just that one section. And those -- well, the other part of 6 that change is that the -- for individual wells, you have to 7 now have greater than 5 acres, as opposed to 5 acres or 8 greater. It's a real slight change there, and anything less 9 than 5 acres will require, whether it's individual wells or 10 -- or a water system, a lot more work from the developer 11 standpoint. There will be more engineering required. There 12 will be a full water availability study required by Chapter 13 230. That is a good and bad thing, in my opinion. 14 I know there's some members from Headwaters here. 15 Mr. Hayes has been a strong proponent of this for a number of 16 years, but there is a down side, to let the Court be aware 17 of. That is, if a developer comes in, and -- anywhere in the 18 county, and their water availability shows that they can have 19 individual wells on less than 5 acres, which is the current 20 minimum, we will have to approve it. And Headwaters is going 21 to have to figure out how they're going to regulate 22 subdivisions on a much smaller spacing, potentially. I 23 visited with Rex about that, and that's how he sees it too. 24 So, the water availability study that the developer prepares 25 or has prepared will trump our minimum lot size for water 11-26-07 57 1 wells, and our averaging. So, how much of that will happen, 2 you know, who knows? 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Remains to be seen. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 5 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It's proved to be available, 6 you know. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's there. 8 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It's there. So -- 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. It's -- 10 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's the way it is. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, that's the way it is. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions or comments on 13 the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 14 your right hand. 15 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 16 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 17 (No response.) 18 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. We'll move 19 to Item 15; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on 20 future airport governance agreement with the City of 21 Kerrville. Commissioner Letz? 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I put this on before I 23 saw the agenda for the City of Kerrville for tomorrow night, 24 and they have an agenda item which is to -- let me find how 25 they have worded this. I'm not sure what they're planning on 11-26-07 58 1 doing with it, but I suspect it's because the -- well, it's 2 Item 6 on this, interlocal agreement for joint management of 3 Kerrville/Kerr County Airport and pending request for opinion 4 from Texas Attorney General regarding the governance and 5 management of the airport. I'm not sure what they're going 6 to do with that, but I really -- my intent was to authorize 7 you to write a letter to the City again asking them to get 8 off high center and appoint two people to work with 9 Commissioner Williams and myself on the long-term governance 10 agreement. You know, if they are going to start down that 11 road, I see no reason to write a letter to them, but if they 12 don't, I do. And that's kind of what -- where I was at. And 13 this is, again, based on what the other comments I made at 14 the last meeting, that the Airport Board members really want 15 this issue solved, and at least want discussions to start, 16 and don't see any reason to postpone discussions any further. 17 And that's -- and Mike Hayes put this on their agenda. He 18 was at that meeting; he heard the same comments I did. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And what Commissioner Letz 20 said is correct. The Airport Board, three members trying to 21 function is -- is severely handicapped in their ability to 22 conduct their business, so it's time for us to be able to sit 23 down and negotiate an interlocal agreement, and hopefully the 24 Attorney General will respond to the County Attorney's 25 request. In that context, the County Attorney sent me an 11-26-07 59 1 e-mail -- you probably got it too, Commissioner -- with 2 respect to the Attorney General had sent a request for a -- 3 for a position statement -- right? -- from the Airport Board. 4 MR. EMERSON: Right, from multiple agencies. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And I forwarded that 6 information to the three members of the Airport Board and 7 indicated to them that the Attorney General's request was for 8 a position statement from the board. Not the City, from the 9 board. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Did the County get a request 11 for a position statement? 12 MR. EMERSON: No. But we asked for the original 13 three. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We asked for the original 15 opinion with supporting three. They've asked for position 16 statements from the City, the Airport Board, the Texas 17 Municipal Airport Authority, TexDOT, and two or three other 18 agencies. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is the -- it seems to me that a 20 request is different than a position, that we've made. So, 21 if we want -- if the Court chose to write a position, we 22 could. I mean, there's no reason not to do it, but we just 23 weren't asked to do it. 24 MR. EMERSON: Correct. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, what we're really 11-26-07 60 1 asking is, does the authority that was approved by the voters 2 37 years ago still hold? Because -- or has it been negated 3 because of the neglect of populating that board? 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. But the position 5 statement is, do we have a leaning one way or the other? Do 6 we -- would we like it to stand or not to stand? And that's 7 a lot different than just asking the question, in my mind. 8 And since they're asking for a position from the other 9 entities, I think that we should probably give a position 10 too. At a future meeting, we can discuss that. But on this 11 one, I guess, basically, I think I just -- I'll make a motion 12 to authorize the County Judge to write a letter to the City 13 asking them to appoint members to negotiate with the 14 Commissioners Court on long-term governance issues related to 15 Kerrville/Kerr County Airport, and just ask the Judge to only 16 send that letter if they take no action tomorrow to go down 17 this path. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion and second as 20 indicated. Further question or discussion? All in favor, 21 signify by raising your right hand. 22 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 23 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 24 (No response.) 25 JUDGE TINLEY: I'll enlist the aid of Commissioner 11-26-07 61 1 Baldwin if it becomes necessary. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think what you have to 3 do -- what immediately comes to my mind, what you have to do 4 is tie that with the medium income in Center Point. And -- 5 after you throw in the Comfort folks, and then, I mean, it 6 should become crystal clear. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: And it will all shake out then, 8 won't it, Commissioner? That's exactly what I was thinking. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would that be before we get 10 to Lane Valley Road or after? 11 JUDGE TINLEY: No, we go to just -- at that point, 12 we go north of 27. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're right, we do. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's exactly right. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We'll move to Item 16; 16 consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to approve 17 salary for secretary position at the Extension Office. I 18 guess the first question I have, Mr. Walston, Ms. Hyde, is, 19 is that something that we need to defer to executive session, 20 or can we talk about this in the clear? You're shaking your 21 head no. What does that mean? 22 MS. HYDE: We have names. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: You have names? 24 MS. HYDE: There will be names. So -- 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So we need executive session. 11-26-07 62 1 MS. HYDE: Please. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We'll defer on that item, 3 then. Item 17; consider, discuss, and take appropriate 4 action on the commissary audit presented at the November 13th 5 meeting to be sent to the Jail Commission, with attachments 6 being in the November 13th meeting binder. The Auditor has 7 entered this item. Yes, Ms. Hargis? 8 MS. HARGIS: On the last agenda item, I didn't have 9 that you could approve the particular one, and this one has 10 to be approved by you and then forwarded to the Jail 11 Commission. This is a mandatory requirement. So, this was 12 an error on my part I just am trying to correct. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move for approval. 14 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 16 approval of the agenda item. Question or discussion? All in 17 favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. 18 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 19 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 20 (No response.) 21 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. We'll move 22 to Item 18; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on 23 the Tax Assessor's audit. Internal audit for the Tax 24 Assessor's office has been completed, and recommendation is 25 that the Court consider additional security for Ingram Tax 11-26-07 63 1 Office, the audit being attached for the Court's review. 2 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Only thing I'd ask, if you get 3 into the security discussion, that that be moved to executive 4 session. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: I assume that's permissible, 6 Mr. County Attorney? 7 MR. EMERSON: Yes, sir. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And that's the only part of 10 it I wanted to discuss. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, let's go to exec. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Is there any statutory requirement 13 that we -- the Court take formal action to approve that 14 particular audit? 15 MS. HARGIS: No, there is not. But I did want to 16 mention in Court that that department did come out with a 17 very clean audit. We didn't have any opinions on any of 18 their work, except they were being done in a very excellent 19 manner, and we're very proud of that department. We just 20 wanted to discuss this one other item. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 22 MS. HARGIS: And since we are going to include this 23 kind of thing in our long-term debt, we thought we would add 24 that at that time, any costs that might occur. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Bolin, you indicated -- with 11-26-07 64 1 that glowing report that you just got, I'm not sure you can 2 improve on that. You may want to -- 3 MS. BOLIN: The only thing I request is a copy of 4 the audit. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, I think we can get you that. 6 Okay. The security item, we'll defer. Okay. Does the Court 7 -- what's the Court's pleasure with regard to the routine 8 items at the tail end of the agenda versus the executive 9 session items? Any preference? 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Take it up. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, let's do them. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. At this time, what we'll do 13 is we'll take our mid-morning recess. We'll be in recess for 14 about 15 minutes. We will then go into executive session, so 15 except those that need to be present, your recess is going to 16 be considerably longer than 15 minutes for the rest of you, 17 and then we'll come back into open session. So, at this 18 time, we'll be in recess. 19 (Recess taken from 10:20 a.m. to 10:37 a.m.) 20 - - - - - - - - - - 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to order, if 22 we might. We were in recess -- mid-morning recess. At this 23 time, will recess the public or open session of the 24 Commissioners Court, and we will go into executive session. 25 Our recess is at 10:37. We'll go into executive or closed 11-26-07 65 1 session. The first item will be on Item 17 -- excuse me, 2 Item 16. 3 (The open session was closed at 10:37 a.m., and an executive session was held, the transcript of which 4 is contained in a separate document.) 5 - - - - - - - - - - 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, we are back in open or public 7 session at 10:59 or 11:00, whichever. Any member of the 8 Court have anything to offer with respect to matters 9 considered in closed or executive session? 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I move we approve the 11 request from Mr. Walston to hire one Elsa Villareal as a 12 secretary for the Extension Office; she has 15 years 13 experience, at a 14-3 level, and the amount is $24,471. 14 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion and a second. 16 Question or discussion on the motion? All in favor of the 17 motion, signify by raising your right hand. 18 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 19 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 20 (No response.) 21 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion carries. Any other 22 matters to be offered by any member of the court as a result 23 of what was considered in executive or closed session? 24 Hearing none, we'll move forward and go to Section 4 of the 25 agenda, payment of the bills. 11-26-07 66 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have a few questions. And 2 mother always said when you're paying the bills, start on 3 Page 1. I believe she said that. The -- let's see. Acer 4 Computers, those last two, I just want to make sure there's 5 not a duplicate here. There's 10 computers and 10 computers, 6 and the amount out to the side is exactly the same. 7 MS. HARGIS: That's right. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, we're purchasing 20 9 computers? 10 MS. HARGIS: Well, we're going to purchase 60 11 altogether, but this is just the beginning. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This is a part of that 13 program? 14 MS. HARGIS: And this is going into -- to be held 15 into our long-term capital program. We just released these. 16 This is the only thing I've released. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Page 9, the County 18 Court at Law, the bottom, the last one is Robert Henneke? 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that a -- is that an 21 attorney at law? 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm, sure is. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And so it's not the same as 24 our good friend, Mr. Henneke? 25 JUDGE TINLEY: No, this is -- this is his son, 11-26-07 67 1 commonly known as Rob. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, good. And I see his 3 client's name is Roy Rogers. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: That's what I picked up on. 5 MR. EMERSON: They did bring Trigger to court. 6 (Laughter.) 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Got to start somewhere. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. I mean -- 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Even for the -- for the minor sum of 10 $157.50, I assume that Roy Rogers was acquitted, being the 11 good man that he was in the white hat. 12 MR. EMERSON: I don't think I'd bet on that one. 13 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The County Attorney probably 14 convicted him. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I kind of smelled something 16 here with that Henneke name, and the Roy Rogers name really 17 triggered it. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: No pun intended? 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No pun intended. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No pun intended. Trigger. 21 The next page, Page 10, the top one, National Court Reporters 22 "A". 23 MS. HARGIS: Association. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Association. 25 MS. HARGIS: Probably her annual dues. 11-26-07 68 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Her annual dues into her 2 membership for some national something. Is that a 3 requirement to be -- to work in Kerr County? 4 JUDGE TINLEY: I seriously doubt it. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Me too. 6 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Let's spend some of that 7 money. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Page 12. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Been a busy little boy lately, 10 haven't you? 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: As soon as the turkey was 13 gone, he went to work. 14 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Too much time at home. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can we go back to Page 10? 16 This one's really pushing the limits of what we normally 17 approve. I mean, we're -- we talk about these association 18 things, but an association for a court reporter? It's not -- 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: National. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: A national one. I mean, I 21 don't think so. I just -- I mean, I -- and, I mean, it's -- 22 we do dues for, you know, associations for, really, only 23 people that are required to do it, as far as I know. Unless 24 there's some requirement that she has to have this for CEU 25 purposes or something like that, I say no. 11-26-07 69 1 MS. HARGIS: I have no idea. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: See, I agree with you. 3 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I agree too. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And it might be that she -- you 5 know, kind of like our association that we join, that's how 6 we get our CEU's, go to the convention. So if that's it -- 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You would think that would 8 be more on a state level, though. Or that's what I would 9 think. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: I think there is also a Texas 11 Shorthand Reporters Association, I think is what it's called. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, anyway, just depends on 13 the purpose of it as to why she has to be a member. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Do you want to pull that one, then? 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Okay, we're back on Page -- 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Page 12, the bottom one. 18 Hanna Security and Investigation. This is 198th District 19 Court. For what reason would they -- or one of you -- 20 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The defense attorney's private 21 investigator. Defense attorney's motion to have an 22 investigator appointed to help investigate for his client. 23 And the Court would have gone along with that and appointed 24 an investigator. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Say that again? He's -- 11-26-07 70 1 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Court appointed an 2 investigator to assist the defense attorney. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Defense attorney? 4 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, an already employed 6 investigator -- 7 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We ain't doing it for a 8 defense attorney. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We don't do it for defense 10 attorneys. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: And customarily, those fees are 12 approved by the District Judges, or whatever court that case 13 is pending in. 14 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's correct. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, Page 20. This is kind 16 of an interesting information type thing, where -- this is 17 payment to the City of Kerrville for water. Where are these 18 places? 19 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Ag Barn is one of them. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 317 Sidney Baker is Ag Barn? 21 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: No. 22 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: 317? 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Travis street is going to be Union 24 Church. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, okay. Good. 11-26-07 71 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 317 Sidney Baker is probably 2 the courthouse. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I thought it was 700 Main. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: They probably show it as coming 5 across from Sidney Baker, though. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We didn't use much water, 8 though, did we? 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Tim's got the toilets where they're 10 not leaking. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, y'all feel comfortable 12 that's what that is? It's the courthouse? 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, there's three different 14 buildings there, you'll note. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I do notice that. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: I don't know what the YM code there 17 is. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What do you think? 19 MS. HARGIS: I don't know. I'll check it out. I 20 have -- 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would suspect we have 22 three meters here; one for the annex, one for the 23 courthouse -- old courthouse, and probably one for the 24 irrigation. 25 MS. HARGIS: Irrigation, there usually is one, 11-26-07 72 1 yeah. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, but this is 700 Main; 3 don't forget the right address for this building and all of 4 its facilities on this square. Okay. 5 MS. HARGIS: Well, a lot of times they -- they use 6 the address on the street where it's located so it makes it 7 easier for the meter readers. They know what street -- 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Makes it easier for them, 9 yes. 10 MS. HARGIS: Yes, sir. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Page 30, about halfway down, 12 Kerr County Juvenile Facility, medical. Tell me what that 13 is. We are paying -- just to make sure I'm seeing this 14 correctly, we are paying the Kerr County Juvenile Facility 15 for some kind of medical bill? 16 JUDGE TINLEY: What happened, I'll bet you, 17 Commissioner, is that the juvenile facility had a medical 18 issue with one of the Kerr County residents, took the child 19 for medical treatment, incurred an obligation, paid it, and 20 then, under the contract, there's a requirement that Kerr 21 County reimburse the facility for those costs, and I'm sure 22 that's a reimbursement for that particular individual. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. I thought that same 24 thing, but generally when we see that kind of thing, the word 25 "reimbursement" shows up somewhere -- 11-26-07 73 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- in this line. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Why it wasn't -- you know, it would 4 seem like we'd pay it direct, but I think under the contract 5 that we have to place our children there, they incur the 6 cost, they pay it, and then we reimburse. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. That's all my 8 questions, thank you. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Page 28. Sheriff, did you 10 buy some narcotics? 11 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I'd like to sometimes. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: $760 worth? 13 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That is what we call our -- 14 our fund that -- you might say, to purchase some -- our 15 undercover buy money and expense money for the narcotics 16 unit. We keep so much in there. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: You apparently advanced some money 18 into the fund? 19 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We keep a cash -- 20 JUDGE TINLEY: And you're being reimbursed? 21 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right. Because what we do is 22 keep cash in a safe for -- if they have to go out and need 23 buy money, and then we have our own accounting and all of 24 that. That's our undercover funds. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: So, this comes to you as custodian, 11-26-07 74 1 then, and -- okay. 2 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's correct. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. All right. All right, let's 4 go to Page 40. Fritztown Diesel. We spent $10,000 to 5 refurbish a '68 Ford, or repair a '68 Ford? 6 MS. HARGIS: I think it's a piece of heavy 7 equipment. 8 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Probably a Ford tractor, Ford 9 loader, Ford backhoe. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: '68? Even at that, I didn't 11 think we had anything that old in our fleet. I don't know of 12 any '68, that old. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: I could buy one of those for half of 14 that, couldn't I? 15 MS. HARGIS: I mean, we can look this one up. I 16 wasn't made privy to this one, so I -- 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, while we're there, 19 this -- Bruce, this Jerry Adam, building a fence around the 20 yard out at Ingram, I'm sure that's what's that means. 21 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's exactly what it is. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Now, it -- I haven't been 23 by there in -- or haven't looked at it in a week or so, but 24 do we have a nice gate put in, and a security -- I mean, is 25 that -- 11-26-07 75 1 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Looks nice. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- secured now? 3 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It does look nice. He put 4 some no-climb fence wire up, I think about 6-foot, 6 and a 5 half foot fence. And I believe they installed some pipe 6 frame gates, double gates across the new entrance going up on 7 the top of the hill, rather than the old one that was unsafe. 8 It does look nice. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Fantastic. Great. Let's 10 look at Fritztown, Judge, while you're -- 11 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Surely that wasn't all he 12 charged; he did a lot more work than that. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 14 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: This must have been -- 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's a gate there. 16 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah. It really -- they've 17 cleaned it up. They've cleaned up a lot of those fence lines 18 and things, made it look presentable. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: 68 Ford, brought truck into shop, 20 drained oil, removed oil pan, found cylinders 4, 6, and 8, 21 piston scarred up, removed cylinder head, put a 22 remanufactured engine in it. That's what they did. 23 Remanufactured engine was $7,000 of that. Labor was about 24 2,300. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Old Ford -- '68 dump truck, I 11-26-07 76 1 take it? 2 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's what it sounds like. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: I don't know which particular truck. 4 It just says 68 Ford, and it's referred to as a truck. 5 MS. HARGIS: Leonard's not here, so -- 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That old green one could be a 7 '68. 8 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's a Chevrolet, isn't it? 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you want me to call and 10 find out? 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 12 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah, call him. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: The only other comment that I'd 14 have, in Indigent Health Care, we had an 80 -- 84 -- $86,000 15 dollar hit starting the year, and I was told that there were 16 a bunch of -- bunch of that had been held, and that's why it 17 was so high. I notice this one is slightly over 62,000. We 18 keep going like that, we're going to run out of money pretty 19 quick, folks. 20 MS. HARGIS: Keep in mind, we have those two -- two 21 patients that are -- one's cancer, one's a heart patient. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Under the Indigent Health program? 23 MS. HARGIS: (Nodded.) And their bills were -- 24 last month, 20,000 was one of them, and the other one, I 25 think, was 13. So, they're probably in here again. I was 11-26-07 77 1 very surprised we had an indigent for a heart transplant, but 2 we did. 3 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Inmate medical has skyrocketed 4 this year. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. Yeah, I notice our 6 prescription bill is the biggest single item on the Indigent 7 Health care. It's 14,5. 8 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah, but there's some regular 9 medical bills on serious surgeries and that from inmates that 10 are even being done in San Antonio. They're inmates that are 11 going to be some major hits. 12 MS. HARGIS: Now, we do have some catch-up with 13 CVS; there were some wrong codes put on that. So far, I've 14 been told it's around $1,200. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's -- 16 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's the number of the 17 truck, not the year model. It said Road and Bridge Unit 68. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Unit 68 is the truck? 20 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: (speaking on cell phone.) 22 Leonard, 68. Number 68. 23 (Discussion off the record.) 24 (Commissioner Williams left the courtroom.) 25 MS. HARGIS: You need to get some better 11-26-07 78 1 descriptions in here. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, the VIN numbers on there. 3 It's -- there's a lot of information, not necessarily the 4 year. It's got the VIN number, got the mileage on there. 5 60,000 miles is all that's on there. 6 MS. HARGIS: So, it's got to be Unit 68. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: RBU, Road and Bridge unit. 8 (Discussion off the record.) 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Boy, you got him wound up now. 10 He was flying high with A & M. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody else have any comments with 12 regard to the bills? 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move we pay the bills. 14 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I second it. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to pay the 16 bills. Question or discussion? 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No -- oh, yes. Bye, 18 Leonard. That's right, Number 68. It's not the year of it, 19 and it's the -- the distributor. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, the asphalt distributor? Okay. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's not a 40-year-old 22 truck. 23 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It's not a 40-year-old truck. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Any further question or 25 discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion, 11-26-07 79 1 signify by raising your right hand. 2 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 3 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 4 (No response.) 5 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion carries. No budget 6 amendments, right? 7 MS. HARGIS: No. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Wow. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: We have any late bills? 10 MS. HARGIS: None. 11 MR. EMERSON: Can I make one comment? I'm sorry, 12 can I make one comment associated with bills? 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 14 MR. EMERSON: There's been several elected 15 officials that have talked about this. Is there any chance 16 that I.T. can have their own budget next year for computers? 17 Because the money's budgeted to our departments, but we have 18 zero control over which piece of technology is purchased, 19 where it's purchased, when it's purchased. 20 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: How much. 21 MR. EMERSON: It just shows up and we get the bill. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's the way I think it 23 should be. I think it all should be in his deal. And -- 24 JUDGE TINLEY: We actually discussed that last -- 25 actually, two years ago for the first time. 11-26-07 80 1 (Commissioner Williams returned to the courtroom.) 2 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, there was a deal that 3 y'all wanted to be able to keep track of what departments 4 were spending what, and I understood that. But I agree 5 totally with Rex. When I have no control over a line item, 6 don't even know when, how, or what's going to be purchased, 7 it's not right. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And also, you don't know, then, 9 if there's a little excess around that you have one big -- it 10 might be a pretty sizable amount of money. You may compare 11 purchases. 12 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Actually, I don't know if it's 13 being purchased and I'm being charged for it and it's being 14 used over here or where. We have no idea. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But aren't you brought into 16 it in terms of what's going to be purchased by discussions 17 with I.T. during the budget process? 18 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No. He has his recommend -- 19 see, my recommendation for Sheriff's Office this year was a 20 total of about 23,000. His recommendation this year was 21 40-something thousand in I.T. purchases, 'cause he wanted to 22 replace computers that I didn't personally think were 23 negatives, okay? The 40-something thousand was what was 24 budgeted, which will be in the long-term/short-term 25 obligation, and then after that, I have no idea what 11-26-07 81 1 computers he's going to replace, what he's replacing them 2 with, or -- I have no control over when or how much he's even 3 spending. I don't know. I just think it would be a whole 4 lot better for that to be in it's totally separate budget, 5 'cause it really hurts us trying to keep track. 6 MS. HARGIS: Doesn't matter to me. However y'all 7 want to do it. 8 MR. EMERSON: Good luck, Bruce. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Have a good time. 10 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Thank you. 11 (Commissioner Oehler left the courtroom.) 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Are we through whipping that 13 horse? Okay, we'll go to Item 4; approve and accept monthly 14 reports as presented. I've been presented with monthly 15 reports from the District Clerk; Justice of the Peace, 16 Precinct 2, as amended for October 2007; and Justice of the 17 Peace, Precinct 4; and Constable, Precinct 3. Do I hear a 18 motion that these reports be approved as presented? 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 22 approval of the reports as presented. Question or 23 discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 24 your right hand. 25 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 11-26-07 82 1 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 2 (No response.) 3 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Do we have 4 any reports from Commissioners in connection with their 5 liaison or other assignments? 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just a question to Rex related 7 to the Attorney General opinion. With those -- with that 8 number of position statements coming out, is that likely 9 going to even drag it out closer to the six-month period? Or 10 is this a good sign that they're looking at it real quick? 11 MR. EMERSON: It's probably going to drag it out, 12 because they'll give them 30 to 60 days to respond, and then 13 after everything's gathered back in, they'll evaluate it. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's what I was -- that's 15 what I thought, but I thought I'd be optimistic. Okay. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Better known as "hurry up and wait." 17 MR. EMERSON: Yes, sir. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any reports from elected 19 officials? Mr. County Attorney? 20 MR. EMERSON: One brief one. A while back, this 21 Court authorized myself and Eva Hyde to pursue repayment of 22 overcompensation to a Road and Bridge employee that was no 23 longer employed by the County. We do have a written 24 agreement that's been signed, and a first payment toward 25 that, and at the next Commissioners Court, I'll present the 11-26-07 83 1 agreement for the Judge's signature. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I just have a question. 4 Have we set the date for our second meeting in December? 5 MS. HARGIS: Yeah, can we move that one? 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pardon? 7 MS. HARGIS: Can we move that second meeting in 8 December -- it's on the 26th. Can you move it to the 27th? 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Which is the first business day that 10 week. 11 MS. HARGIS: I know. The Judge is arguing with me, 12 but it is kind of a bad day. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Would you care to preside at the 14 meeting on the 27th, if it's held on the 27th? 15 MS. HARGIS: Sure. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'd prefer the -- 17 JUDGE TINLEY: That's the way it'll have to be, 18 because I won't be here on the 27th. 19 MS. HARGIS: That's why you wanted the -- 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 26th. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, what -- historically, 22 what we've done in that meeting is limit it to paying the 23 bills, so that we can wrap up the end of the year and we have 24 electricity when we come back in in January. But if you 25 start letting all this nonsense get on there and piling up, 11-26-07 84 1 then both of y'all need to be here. I can answer that 2 question. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I think what would solve 4 the problem is, the Judge won't be here for this meeting; one 5 of us decide what's on the agenda. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There you go. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I'll be here. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: I won't be here on the 27th. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll be here on the 27th. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Three of us can walk in and 11 pay bills and walk out. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I like your idea. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, that's what we always 14 did. I don't know when we started letting things get on 15 there, but that's all you need to be doing at the end of the 16 year. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: If you're going to do it on the 18 27th, sounds like the senior member of the Court controls the 19 agenda. And you walk in -- 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That always hurts his 21 feelings. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: I'm talking about it in terms of 23 years of service. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, I see. Okay. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Which is you. 11-26-07 85 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Does that change the 2 dynamic any? 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It does? 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Do you want to change your position? 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 9 MS. HARGIS: So? 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Don't let anybody on the 11 agenda. 12 MS. HARGIS: Okay, what's the day? The 27th? 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't care. 14 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You're going to put Buster in 15 charge of that Court meeting? 16 MS. HARGIS: December 27th? 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 27th. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's fine. 19 MS. HARGIS: Jonathan's got to clean up Santa 20 Claus. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Makes no difference. 22 MS. HARGIS: Thank you. There is one other thing 23 I'd like to put on the next agenda. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. 25 MS. HARGIS: We need to talk to the financial 11-26-07 86 1 adviser. And after we have the meeting tomorrow, I think we 2 should be able to sit down with him and start those 3 discussions. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Meeting tomorrow? 5 MS. HARGIS: Tomorrow you're talking about the Ag 6 Barn design, I believe. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, we were, but Bruce isn't 8 going to be here. 9 MS. HARGIS: Oh. Well, let's just go ahead and 10 have Henderson come, because I think we need -- we can get 11 the paperwork ready without the amount, okay? And decide 12 what type of a vehicle we're going to use. Let him present 13 that, 'cause I'm concerned that -- people are wanting me to 14 release other things, and I'm hesitant to do that. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What meeting do I have 16 tomorrow? Do I have a meeting tomorrow? 17 MS. HARGIS: Well, I guess if -- 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is that what you said? 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Check your calendar. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. What time? Get with me 21 after this. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Any other reports? We'll be 23 adjourned. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 1:30? 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Excuse me, let me retract that. We 11-26-07 87 1 will be in recess until 1:30 for an agenda item that we have 2 on this agenda dealing with the haul road permit with Martin 3 Marietta. So, we are in recess until 1:30. 4 (Recess taken from 11:25 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.) 5 - - - - - - - - - - 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Let's come to order, if we might. 7 We were in recess until 1:30 to consider Item 1.19, that 8 being a hearing on the appeal of J. Nelson Happy to the 9 issuance of a floodplain permit to Martin Marietta Materials 10 Southwest, Incorporated, for a haul road as specified in the 11 permit application, and appropriate action as may be 12 required. Commissioner Williams, do you have any initial 13 comments? 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, Judge. This is a 15 matter that was originally brought to the Court two weeks 16 ago, November 14th or November 12th, and was continued at the 17 request of Mr. Happy at that time for this matter to be 18 brought to the Court this afternoon at 1:30 p.m. Prior to 19 the Judge opening the hearing for any comments that might be 20 forthcoming from the two participants, I want to read into 21 the record a statement of my position on this matter. During 22 the course of this year, I have been engaged with Mr. J. 23 Nelson Happy in compiling a feasibility study of local 24 business for investment purposes. The business referenced is 25 wholly unrelated to mining or wholly unrelated to county 11-26-07 88 1 government. However, to avoid the appearance of impropriety 2 or the appearance of a conflict of interest, I will recuse 3 myself from participation in this hearing before 4 Commissioners Court, and any action that may be forthcoming 5 thereafter. That's it, Judge. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: So you'll not be further 7 participating; is that correct, Commissioner? 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. Unless the 9 parties want me to vacate, I'll sit here and listen. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. The -- the matter before us 11 is a matter under the rules which comes before us as somewhat 12 of a -- a quasi-judicial body. It's an appeal for the 13 granting of a -- a permit by the Floodplain Administrator, 14 and as such, will involve whether or not there was compliance 15 or noncompliance with the rules. That being the case, I've 16 noted that I have three different participation forms that 17 have been filed. I've actually got four, but one of them 18 involves the lawyers for one of the parties. 19 AUDIENCE: I'll drop one off in just a second, 20 Judge. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: And my reason for mentioning these 22 is, in the capacity in which we are sitting as a 23 quasi-judicial body, as it were, this -- this is not a matter 24 of policy, but rather a matter of determination of whether or 25 not there was compliance with procedural rules of the Court. 11-26-07 89 1 I'll be happy to file these participation forms, which 2 indicate the preference of the party that filed it as to 3 whether they are for or against the particular agenda item, 4 but under the circumstances, I don't think it is appropriate 5 for anyone except the principals and/or their attorneys to be 6 making a part of the record in this case. So, if you wish to 7 file a participation form, feel free to do so, and we'll be 8 happy to make them a part of the record in this case. Now, 9 with regard to the procedure here today, number one, it will 10 be limited to the agenda item as it is styled, which is 11 the -- the issuance of a floodplain permit to Martin Marietta 12 Materials Southwest, Inc., for a haul road as specified in 13 that permit application. The Floodplain Administrator 14 granted that permit initially. The appeal before the Court 15 today is whether or not that permit was properly granted. 16 When we open it up, there will be 15 minutes 17 allocated to each side, with the appellant, or the party 18 bringing the appeal, going first, with the respondent then 19 responding. There will be no rebuttal. The -- the 20 preliminary issue before the Court -- there was a matter 21 filed this morning seeking to disqualify the floodplain 22 administrator. The matter is before this Court now; the 23 floodplain administrator is not presently involved. This 24 Court will decide that issue. Therefore, I determine that 25 the disqualification of floodplain administrator is not 11-26-07 90 1 material to these proceedings, and in fact is moot, since it 2 comes before the Court now. So, I will open up the hearing 3 on the appeal with the appellant, Mr. J. Nelson Happy. You 4 may proceed, sir. 5 MR. HAPPY: Thank you, Your Honor. If it please 6 the Court, my name is Nelson Happy. My wife Mary is with me 7 today. We are the owners of the H.M. Naylor Ranch, which is 8 the subject of this hearing. I'd like to do a couple of 9 little administrative things first. One, Your Honor, if I 10 could pass to the Court some additional materials for the 11 Court's consideration. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. 13 MR. HAPPY: The first is a letter of support from 14 Mr. Haskell Fine. And Mr. Joe Luther of the Kerr County 15 Historical Commission is here today if there are any 16 questions about the historical nature of the home. I'd like 17 to start with the maps which are attached to my reply brief, 18 and just briefly review those with the members of the Court 19 so that you'll be sure where this property is. Map Number 1 20 was prepared by Martin Marietta. In fact, all of the maps 21 were prepared by Martin Marietta. And it shows the proximity 22 of the airport to my ranch, and also to Martin Marietta's 23 proposed mining activity, which is the 104-acre tract. Since 24 this map was prepared, the Airport Loop Road has been 25 relocated, and now is directly across from the proposed 11-26-07 91 1 Martin Marietta mine, so if that helps you orient where this 2 property is. 3 Go on to Map Number 2, which shows the location of 4 the various mines already in the vicinity of the Martin 5 Marietta mine. And you can see there the Edward Wellborn 6 Ranch, which is right across the road from ours, and Mr. and 7 Mrs. Wellborn are here today, because this concerns them as 8 well as us. Probably most important about Map Number 2 is 9 you can see the yellow portion where Martin Marietta said 10 "future pit area," and then storage -- "stormwater detained 11 within," I think. It's hard for me to read. But that is 12 what Martin Marietta has filed with the floodplain 13 administrator to show where their new pit is going to be 14 located. And you can see right on top of it to the left is 15 where our house is, and in the middle of the circle, and in 16 addition, the perimeter of the ranch that we own. 17 Map Number 3 is the detail of our particular 18 property, showing where Martin Marietta's new proposed mine 19 is, where the prevailing winds come from over the proposed 20 mine. Map Number 4 is a piece of information that was given 21 to me by Martin Marietta's employees that show four quadrants 22 of their intention to mine. You can see also our house a 23 little better and how close the proposed mine is to our 24 house. Map Number 5 shows how the proposed mine sits with 25 respect to the 100-year floodplain. You can see in the dark 11-26-07 92 1 area the floodplain. There's a white line that says "limit 2 of detailed study." And the proposed haul road is very, very 3 close to that line, and you can see on Map Number 6 where the 4 proposed haul road is located. 5 If you go back to Map Number 2, you can see a red 6 area where Martin Marietta has apparently obtained an 7 easement next to the Drymala property, and they intend to use 8 their haul trucks to go from their current operation site 9 through that red corridor through the new proposed haul road 10 and enter the pit. And you'll also notice that under the 11 plans, that the pit is -- is going to be almost just -- just 12 a few hundred feet from the H.M. Naylor Ranch and our house. 13 I want to also ask you to take judicial notice and include in 14 the record all of the matters that I've filed up to date. If 15 you could include that with the record, so, Your Honor, that 16 I wouldn't have to read all that material into the record. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: I think it's -- having been filed, 18 it becomes a part of the record. 19 MR. HAPPY: Thank you, Your Honor. And I've tried 20 to summarize the points that are made in my brief to just a 21 few because of the time -- the short time limitation on this 22 issue. First of all, Martin Marietta chooses to call this a 23 haul road rather than an application for permission to mine. 24 I actually am in this same business in the Dallas metroplex 25 and have haul roads and haul trucks on my property. We are 11-26-07 93 1 regulated by M.S.H.A., which is the Mine Health and Safety 2 Administration. If I were to tell an inspector for M.S.H.A. 3 that my haul road and my haul truck had nothing to do with 4 mining, that those were just incident to building a road, I 5 would probably end up in the hoosegow, because the definition 6 of mining under federal law includes an area of land from 7 which minerals are extracted, and private ways and roads 8 appurtenant to such occurring. So, a road, particularly a 9 haul road, is integral to a mining operation. 10 Now, this Court has determined that there should be 11 regulation of the floodplain. And the particular ordinance 12 that -- and order that the Court entered into in 1992 was a 13 joint order between the City of Kerrville and Kerr County 14 which regulates the uses of the area that the aircraft hazard 15 zone encompasses. Now, regardless of whether you agree that 16 this application is about a haul road or a mine, the fact is 17 that the joint order and ordinance in 1992 deal with changes 18 in uses that occur in the property which is within the flying 19 zone of the airport. Under the ordinance, and I've quoted it 20 in my brief, a change of use requires the permission of the 21 City Manager of the City of Kerrville. Now, at the time 22 Martin Marietta applied for this permit and the time that it 23 was considered by Mr. Odom, we did not know about the 24 existence of this joint order and ordinance. It wasn't cited 25 by him. He didn't review it. I didn't know about it. It 11-26-07 94 1 just came up very recently as we were doing investigation for 2 this case. And no one has attempted to comply with that 3 ordinance and order in order to get approval from the City of 4 Kerrville for a change of use in this agricultural area. I'm 5 confident that Martin Marietta will not claim that they are 6 not going to mine this particular area in the flight path. 7 So, one of the most important parts of this Court's 8 prior order is that you must, before granting a permit, have 9 all of the appropriate permits from state, federal, and city 10 jurisdictions before this Court can act. So, this matter 11 should go back to the City of Kerrville, should be referred 12 to the City Manager, and the proposed new use of this 13 property in the flight zone should be considered before you 14 make any determination about the propriety of the permit. 15 Secondly, the U.S. Corps of Engineers also has jurisdiction 16 in the floodplain and with respect to wetlands. Martin 17 Marietta, in letters to Mr. Odom, indicated that there is a 18 wetlands on this property. I have referred this matter to 19 the U.S. Corps of Engineers, and today I received an e-mail 20 from them saying that they were opening a case to investigate 21 their jurisdiction with respect to the wetlands. So, as of 22 this moment, the U.S. Corps of Engineers has not made a 23 determination that it is appropriate for Martin Marietta to 24 operate in this area until the Corps of Engineers has ruled 25 on it. 11-26-07 95 1 And, as a matter of fact, Martin Marietta has cited 2 Nationwide Permit Number 14, which relates to linear 3 transportation projects in mines, and that specific order 4 requires the Corps of Engineers' chief engineer to refer this 5 matter to the state Historic Preservation Office and the 6 Advisory Council on Historic Preservation for comment before 7 the Corps of Engineers will make a decision of what to do in 8 this wetlands, if, in fact, this property is near a National 9 Register home, which, of course, ours is. So, the Corps of 10 Engineers has not had an opportunity to rule on this issue, 11 and under this Court's rule, Corps of Engineers approval is 12 necessary before you can proceed. 13 My last point is to briefly say that the -- that 14 this Court has judicial discretion to make a determination 15 under Section C(2)(d) about the compatibility of a proposed 16 use with existing and anticipated development. And all of 17 you, I'm sure, have been out to this part of the county, know 18 what is happening with the airport, the development there, 19 the potential impact of a mining operation on the future of a 20 precision approach to the airport that has not been 21 considered by the F.A.A., the advance of the airport 22 industrial park, which specifically prohibits mining, and the 23 fact that there are growing single-family uses in this part 24 of the county which mining is antithetical to. Finally -- 25 and I know Commissioner Letz was involved in this. This 11-26-07 96 1 property is in the ETJ of the City of Kerrville, and is a 2 gateway to the city. The City is attempting to protect and 3 beautify these gateways, and its jurisdiction should be 4 considered before any decisions are made that will permit the 5 building of a haul road by Martin Marietta to facilitate 6 their mining. Thank you. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. For Martin 8 Marietta, we have Mr. Figueroa. 9 MR. FIGUEROA: Good afternoon. My name is Rodrigo 10 Figueroa, and I'm here on behalf of Martin Marietta 11 Materials. I'd like to take a few brief moments to make a 12 few statements. Y'all recall that on May 14th, 2007, 13 Mr. Nelson protested the grant of the floodplain development 14 permit issued to Martin Marietta by the Kerr County 15 Floodplain Administrator, alleging that the permit had not 16 been granted in compliance with the Kerr County Flood Damage 17 Prevention Order. Mr. Nelson raised, as he continues to 18 raise, several legal issues regarding the grant of the 19 permit, and as a result, you directed the County Attorney to 20 investigate the legal issues raised by Mr. Nelson and provide 21 a recommendation to you regarding Mr. Nelson's protest. You 22 also allowed both parties, Mr. Nelson and Martin Marietta, to 23 submit briefs to the County Attorney setting forth and 24 supporting each party's position regarding the permit. 25 Since that time, Martin -- I've submitted a brief 11-26-07 97 1 on behalf of Martin Marietta. Mr. Nelson has submitted 2 numerous materials, and including a brief, to the Kerr County 3 Attorney. And the Kerr County Attorney, again, since that 4 time has had occasion to review both briefs and review all 5 the legal issues raised by Mr. Nelson, and has recommended to 6 you -- made a legal recommendation that the permit -- the 7 floodplain development permit be reinstated to Martin 8 Marietta as originally granted. Now, under the -- the terms 9 of the Kerr County Flood Damage Prevention Order, your 10 decision -- the issue -- the only issue properly before you 11 today is whether or not the permit was granted to Martin 12 Marietta in compliance with the terms of the order. And as 13 we've detailed and further set forth in Martin Marietta's 14 brief, the Kerr County floodplain administrator clearly 15 complied with the terms of the order. He had a -- a 16 few-month period of due diligence, and he issued -- validly 17 issued the permit to Martin Marietta in compliance with the 18 terms of the Flood Damage Prevention Order. The -- it has 19 been a little bit over six months since Mr. Nelson's original 20 protest on May 14th, 2007, and as recommended by the County 21 Attorney, Martin Marietta respectfully requests at this time 22 that the permit be reinstated and reissued as it was 23 originally granted. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Does any member of 25 the Court have any questions of either of the participants at 11-26-07 98 1 this time? 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I do not, sir. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have just one question, and 4 it's to Mr. Figueroa. In your brief, you have a -- there's a 5 letter. It's Exhibit E, a letter from F.A.A. relating to the 6 excavator not being a hazard to aviation or navigation. 7 Where was that taken, at what point on your property? Was it 8 near the -- I mean, was it on the haul road? 9 MR. FIGUEROA: It's on the haul road. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It has a point listed as a -- a 11 long./latitude point, so it is on the haul road? 12 MR. FIGUEROA: It's on the haul road. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And up 36 foot? 14 MR. FIGUEROA: Exactly. Took the -- the tallest 15 equipment that Martin Marietta will have on that property, 16 and we took it at its tallest point and submitted that 17 information to the F.A.A. Now, under the -- 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: On the property or on the haul 19 road? 20 MR. FIGUEROA: We took it on the property, just out 21 of an abundance of prudence and caution. Under the F.A.A. 22 regulations, we were not required to submit that form, but in 23 order to address any concerns that you may have regarding 24 Martin Marietta's construction of the permit, we voluntarily 25 submitted that to the F.A.A., letting them know what the 11-26-07 99 1 tallest point of equipment was going to be, fully extended. 2 And they have, in turn, issued a clearance that -- in other 3 words, no -- the equipment that Martin Marietta will have on 4 the property, including the equipment they will have on the 5 haul road, will not in any way cause a hazard to air traffic. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- and your property 7 adjoins Highway 27, basically, right at Airport Loop Road, 8 very closely -- within 100 feet of that intersection? 9 MR. FIGUEROA: That is my understanding. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That is in conflict with what 11 TexDOT Aviation has told the Airport Board recently. They 12 were told they can't put anything in that area, and they even 13 have to remove -- we have to remove a telephone pole at that 14 intersection. And that was not on the haul road at that 15 point, but, you know, it's not a haul road issue. It's a -- 16 I don't think it's even necessarily germane here. But I 17 question that. And TexDOT Aviation has told the Airport 18 Board recently they cannot -- we wanted to put a sign there 19 that was about 8 foot tall, and we were told absolutely not. 20 So, use on that property -- you know, the haul road's lower 21 down, so it may not have that elevation, but up in the 22 northern part, I think there's some problems. Did you talk 23 to the City of Kerrville specifically about the ordinance 24 related to the airport? 25 MR. FIGUEROA: It is my understanding that the City 11-26-07 100 1 of Kerrville was aware of and is aware of the -- 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, that's -- I don't mean to 3 be splitting hairs, but the letter was from the City of 4 Kerrville. City of Kerrville doesn't own the airport. It's 5 governed by the Airport Board, and I don't see anything 6 from -- it's almost a round-robin issue with that. But 7 the -- the City's legal staff will make the determination, 8 but coming from the city -- the City's letter responds to 9 nothing about the airport, and they don't have the authority 10 to respond for the airport. So, the issue is that Mr. Happy 11 is alleging that this is a change in use; the haul road is a 12 change in use of that property, and I'm wondering if the City 13 has ruled on -- well, if you haven't asked anybody from the 14 Airport Board, whether it came from the City or the Airport 15 Board, about the haul road being a change in use of that 16 property -- 17 MR. FIGUEROA: We do not. The haul road is a -- 18 the ordinance divides the interpretation analysis into 19 structures and change of use. The construction of a 20 structure, which is what the haul road will be, is governed 21 -- is accepted from the permitting requirements of the 22 ordinance as set forth in our brief. Any structure below 23 75 feet in height does not require a permit under the -- the 24 airport hazard zoning ordinance. And, again, the 25 construction here will be of the haul road, which is a 11-26-07 101 1 structure. And, again, out of an abundance of prudence and 2 caution, we not only looked at the structure itself, but 3 what's going to be on that structure, took the highest -- the 4 tallest equipment Martin Marietta will have at its heightened 5 peak, and it would still be covered under the exception to 6 the ordinance -- to the permit requirements under the 7 ordinance. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. That's not my 9 understanding of that, but -- I mean, I'm under the 10 understanding if you're -- if you're right at the O.F.A., the 11 area to land, the main runway, I don't think you can go up at 12 all. I mean, an 18-wheeler can't be on -- they're judging 13 the height -- the problems that we're having on approaches 14 right now off the top of the height of the back of an 15 18-wheeler, so I don't -- the 75-foot number, I have a 16 question about that, because I don't think that covers this 17 particular O.F.A. Maybe it covers part of the airport 18 ordinance. But that's why I asked if you have anything from 19 the City Attorney relating to the ordinance as related to the 20 airport, because that's the legal staff the airport uses, is 21 the City Attorney. Anyway, okay. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions? 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Baldwin, do you have 25 any questions? 11-26-07 102 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Not at this time, sir. 2 Thank you. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Thank you, sir. The 4 Chair will entertain a motion. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's it? That's the big 6 hearing? 7 JUDGE TINLEY: That was it. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If I'd have known that, I'd 9 have come in earlier. I just want to make some comments, and 10 I'll be happy to make a motion. Mr. Happy, in his 11 presentation, mentioned the Corps of Engineers possibly 12 opening a case today. Talked about the Historical Commission 13 locally, as well as the National Landmark program. Talked 14 about F.F.A. -- F.A.A. and the local airport and those kinds 15 of things. And I just want to say that of the hundreds, and 16 possibly even thousands of times that I vote as an elected 17 official in this room, I never base my vote on what might 18 happen or what could happen or what should happen, or maybe 19 is going to happen. I have to base my votes on the things 20 that I know are real. And what I know is real -- you know, 21 Mr. Happy also talked about relating this haul road to actual 22 mining. Well, I can't -- my mind won't go there. What I see 23 is a private owner -- private property owner building a road 24 on his private property. Now, it's my understanding that if 25 they do get into mining from that point, then that's an issue 11-26-07 103 1 that another government body has to take up. It's not this 2 body. All we're dealing with is this road that I see as a 3 private company building on their private land. So, 4 therefore, I think that they comply with the terms of the 5 order, and I will -- I will make that motion that -- however 6 it should read, Judge. I'm not sure that -- 7 JUDGE TINLEY: That we affirm or uphold the 8 granting of the permit by our floodplain administrator? 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That would be my motion. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Very well. We have a motion on the 13 floor. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Got to read some more before I 15 can make a second. I'll comment in maybe a few minutes. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Would it be helpful if we 17 took a recess? 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, if we could, about 10 19 minutes. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Why don't we take us about a 21 10-minute recess. 22 (Recess taken from 2:02 p.m. to 2:12 p.m.) 23 - - - - - - - - - - 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to order, if 25 we might. We were in a short recess. There's a motion 11-26-07 104 1 before the Court to affirm or uphold the issuance of the haul 2 road permit to -- by the floodplain administrator. Is there 3 a second to the motion? 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I will second it and make a 5 comment, please, Judge. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion is made and seconded. 7 Question or discussion? 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The reason for my wanting to 9 read this a little bit more carefully during the brief recess 10 was, the airport's very important to me, and it's been -- 11 I've served on the Airport Board for a while, and still keep 12 very involved in it. And things that happen near the airport 13 are -- have a great impact on the future of that airport. 14 The issue before us right now is a -- it's a haul road. The 15 City's 2002 comprehensive plan that was referenced in the 16 letter of October 26 of 2006 from Gordon Browning, City of 17 Kerrville, said this site was suitable for industrial use. 18 That being said, a haul road -- and I'm assuming a little bit 19 about, you know, change in use. And I've read through the 20 city ordinance -- or the Airport Board ordinance data a 21 couple times, but it -- changing use could be changing use of 22 the property, not whether it's -- from their standpoint, not 23 a change in the person living on it who sold it or something 24 like that. 25 So, from the airport standpoint and the city 11-26-07 105 1 standpoint, there is not a change in use with a haul road by 2 itself, and that's why I'll -- you know, I'll affirm the -- 3 vote to affirm the floodplain application. I will also make 4 note, though, that the -- the mining issue, while this Court 5 has no -- the Commissioners Court does not have any authority 6 over mining in the state of Texas; that's a state of Texas 7 issue, the airport, through input through the Airport Board, 8 which is an independent body, we do have some input. And 9 there's -- I have a lot of concerns about a mining 10 operation -- which is not before the Court right now, but a 11 mining operation on this site. And I do not see anything in 12 the backup and all the piles of paper that I've received on 13 this matter saying that this has been cleared by the Airport 14 Board. And I think that is going to be a major hurdle, to 15 get a mine put in as shown on some of these plats. And the 16 part that I see the biggest problems tend to be up towards 17 Highway 27, where I know that we were just told -- or the 18 Airport Board was just told that we cannot put an 8-foot sign 19 identifying that airport. So, I think there are some other 20 issues that need to be dealt with, but the haul road issue, I 21 don't see from the documentation I have here that there's any 22 reason that we should not approve that. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or discussion 24 on the motion? If not, all in favor of the motion to affirm 25 and ratify the issuance of the haul road permit by the 11-26-07 106 1 floodplain administrator to Martin Marietta Corporation, 2 please signify by raising your right hand. 3 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 4 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed? 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Abstain. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: A quorum of three. The ayes have 7 it. The motion carries and the permit is affirmed. 8 (Discussion off the record.) 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Gentlemen, is there any further 10 business to come before the Court in connection with the 11 regular meeting of the Court which was originally convened 12 Monday, November 26th, '07, at 9 a.m.? 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Not to my knowledge, Judge. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Nothing that I know of, 15 Judge. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: That meeting will be adjourned. 17 (Commissioners Court adjourned at 2:17 p.m.) 18 - - - - - - - - - - 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 11-26-07 107 1 STATE OF TEXAS | 2 COUNTY OF KERR | 3 The above and foregoing is a true and complete 4 transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as 5 County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County, 6 Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth. 7 DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 30th day of November, 8 2007. 9 10 JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk 11 BY: _________________________________ Kathy Banik, Deputy County Clerk 12 Certified Shorthand Reporter 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 11-26-07