1 2 3 4 5 KERRVILLE CITY COUNCIL 6 and 7 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT 8 Joint Meeting 9 Wednesday, July 29, 2009 10 2:00 p.m. 11 KPUB Meeting Room 12 2250 Memorial Boulevard 13 Kerrville, Texas 14 15 16 17 18 Kerrville City Council: 19 TODD A. BOCK, Mayor T. SCOTT GROSS, Mayor Pro Tem 20 R. BRUCE MOTHERAL, Councilmember, Place 1 STACY KEEBLE, Councilmember, Place 2 21 CHUCK COLEMAN, Councilmember, Place 4 TODD PARTON, City Manager 22 Kerr County Commissioners Court: 23 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 July 29, 2009 2 PAGE 3 1.1 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action regarding funding and other aspects of City/ 4 County jointly provided services or operations, including, but not limited to: EMS, Fire 5 Department, Library, Recycling Center, Animal Control, and Airport 4 6 1.3 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on 7 regulation, rules, and other issues concerning properties and/or subdivisions in the ETJ of 8 the City of Kerrville 38 9 1.2 Consider/discuss City of Kerrville policies regarding Economic Improvement Corporation, 10 including, but not limited to, the City Council's position with regard to the EIC's support of 11 projects which are located outside corporate limits of the city of Kerrville, and projects 12 upon property in which Kerr County owns an interest, and the role of EIC, legal makeup of 13 the EIC, the permitted expenditures of EIC funds, the role(s) or function(s) of City staff and/or 14 City Council in matters presented or to be presented to the EIC, authority and actions 15 taken by Council subsequent to EIC decisions, and responsibilities regarding funding and 16 compliance of EIC-approved projects 84 17 --- Adjourned 88 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 1 On Wednesday, July 29, 2009, at 2:00 p.m., a joint 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: Okay, let me open this up for the 8 County. I'll call to order the Kerr County Commissioners 9 Court joint meeting with the Kerrville City Council posted 10 and scheduled for this date and time, Wednesday, July 29, 11 2009, at 2 p.m. It is that time now. We're at KPUB Utility 12 Board meeting room. 13 MAYOR BOCK: Thank you, Judge. I'd like to now 14 call to order the special joint meeting of the Kerrville City 15 Council and Kerr County Commissioners Court Wednesday, 16 July 29th, at 2:05 p.m., at KPUB Board meeting room. 17 Welcome, everyone. Appreciate everybody being here. Judge, 18 if you don't have any objections, we can get straight started 19 and get into Agenda Item 2A. I'll open mine up, and then I 20 guess you can open yours up. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, sure. 22 MAYOR BOCK: Agenda Item 2A, consider, discuss, and 23 take appropriate action regarding funding and other aspects 24 of City/County joint-provided services or operations, 25 including, but not limited to: EMS, fire department, library, 7-29-09 jcc 4 1 recycling, animal -- recycling center, animal control, and 2 airport. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. And I will call Item 1 on the 4 County posted agenda; consider, discuss, take appropriate 5 action regarding funding and other aspects of City/County 6 jointly-provided services or operations, including, but not 7 limited to: EMS, fire department, library, recycling center, 8 animal control, and airport. I think very -- I think this 9 should be a rather short item. Most of those items we have 10 set based on a policy discussion that we had in the past. 11 The -- the fire department, I think, is set forth in a letter 12 that we received addressing all of these items, budgeted at 13 185,000, which is a $5,000 increase to be paid by Kerr 14 County. That was my recollection of what the policy 15 discussion was. Is there any member of the Court that has 16 any -- any different recollection on that? 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Animal Control, there was 20 a -- a policy reached in the past where that would be phased 21 into Kerr County. The communication from Mr. Selleck at City 22 of Kerrville indicates that his understanding of the 23 agreement is that the City will pay one-third of the total 24 net cost of this coming fiscal year's budget. That's the 25 operational expenditures, less the anticipated revenues, and 7-29-09 jcc 5 1 then from that, you take care of one-third. Is that -- 2 MR. SELLECK: On which? Is this Animal Control? 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Animal Control. 4 MR. SELLECK: Actually, 17 percent. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Pardon? 6 MR. SELLECK: It's one-third of the old -- it's 7 one-third of the half, so 17 percent. But the concept's -- 8 that's accurate. It's one-third of the -- 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Of the net. 10 MR. SELLECK: Yes, sir. I've also got a copy of 11 the interlocal agreement, so -- 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 13 MR. SELLECK: -- the concept is right. That's how 14 it's worded in the letter. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. That was my understanding of 16 the -- of the policy agreement that we reached. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. Let's see. I'm 18 between the two lawyers. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Brave man. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm sorry. 21 MR. SELLECK: Judge, the way the letter is worded 22 is, it starts with the previous calculation, which took 50 23 percent of the net cost, same formula that you just 24 described. And the one-third is one-third of the 50 percent 25 that we had paid up until this agreement. So, yes, it's 7-29-09 jcc 6 1 one-third, but that comes out to 17 percent in that total 2 cost. Jeannie, is that your understanding as well? 3 MS. HARGIS: Yes. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Maybe I was trying to be too 5 simplistic on it. 6 MR. SELLECK: Nothing said, I suppose. Everybody 7 get one of these? 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further concern on that from any 9 member of the Court? Okay, let's go to library. The 10 understanding was that the City's library contribution would 11 be reduced to -- 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: County's. 13 MS. HARGIS: The County. Be reduced to 300. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Three hundred this year, and then a 15 subsequent deduction the following year, but right now we're 16 concerned about this year. 300,000 flat contribution. Any 17 misunderstanding, disagreement on that? Okay. Recycling. I 18 don't know that there was any particular bargains struck on 19 that, nor had there been one in prior years. Essentially, 20 the County owns the property, City operates it, and that's 21 the wash. Correct? Any disagreement on that? Okay. EMS. 22 I understand that Mr. Selleck's got some numbers that he's 23 crunched out of the EMS operation. And you provided those to 24 us, but I'm not sure everybody here has gone through those. 25 If you'd give us a quick run-through on those, Josh? 7-29-09 jcc 7 1 MR. SELLECK: On EMS contribution, generally what 2 we were able to do this year, our overall budget theme is 3 basically almost simplified even further than what we've 4 said, but it's keeping the wheels on. We had addressed some 5 increased service demand in the EMS function. Even taking 6 that into account, adding a transfer crew, that kind of 7 offsets the increased overtime that we had been experiencing 8 related to the increased service demand, so we were able to 9 reduce the County's contribution for this year from 181,000 10 down to 139,000, so you're looking at about a $41,000 11 decrease in the EMS contribution. That's what we did for 12 this year. It may be necessary to phase in additional 13 staffing to take care of that increased service demand if 14 that trend continues, so we just set that as a caveat. That 15 being said, Judge, you and I had had a conversation that next 16 year should also be the year that we reevaluate EMS rates, so 17 hopefully those can potentially offset. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. I think you had indicated to 19 me that it was the City's plan to take a global look at those 20 rates next year. 21 MR. SELLECK: Yes, sir. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: As part of their overall revenue 23 issues. 24 MR. SELLECK: Yes, sir. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We okay there, gentlemen? 7-29-09 jcc 8 1 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Mm-hmm. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sure. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, we have the airport. The 4 operational budget, according to the policy that was reached, 5 would be a phase-in where the County would assume the 6 operational expenses of the airport. This year, this coming 7 budget year, the City would be responsible for 25 percent of 8 those operational expenses. We okay on that? 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Operational side. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Operational, yeah. Yeah. The only 11 thing additional that I know of that's open for discussion, 12 then, under -- well, we talk about operations, services or 13 operations. Do we want to get into any airport capital at 14 this time? 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, can we go back just 16 for a second before you launch off into this? 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: On the EMS issue -- 19 MR. SELLECK: I'm sorry. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's all right. On the 21 EMS issue, when you take your -- next year, when you take 22 your global look at this thing, would you make sure that a 23 member of our Court is there peeking at the global thing? 24 And, of course, I'm the nicest guy over here, so you may want 25 to choose me. (Laughter.) 7-29-09 jcc 9 1 JUDGE TINLEY: And he's also the liaison for fire 2 and emergency services. 3 MR. SELLECK: Okay. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, when you start peeking, 5 let me know so I can peek with you. 6 MR. SELLECK: Yep. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. And, you know, he's got 8 a mind like a steel trap. He can crunch numbers so fast, -- 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, yeah. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: -- it will make a computer look 11 slow, so don't even -- 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And he also wants to ride 13 in a square box. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Seems like we own half of 15 something that y'all have, and I still haven't found out if 16 we own the front half or the back half. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Maybe you can find that out next 18 year. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Maybe I can find that out. 20 MAYOR BOCK: We'll work on it. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: As we peek. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Are we ready to see if we're going 23 to talk about -- 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I appreciate you very 25 much. 7-29-09 jcc 10 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Okay. Capital issues at the 2 airport. I know that the City has proposed in its letter of 3 July 23 some capital items; looks like there are two of them, 4 an airport master plan at 17,500, and then it's slated to 5 have an airport water line project at 600,000. 6 MR. SELLECK: Those are the two C.I.P. proposals 7 for this year. Generally, what we have done is 8 operationalize the -- the routine airport maintenance 9 program, and as a result, that's rolled into that portion. 10 So, as you consider capital -- capital program, those are the 11 two projects that the Airport Board has proposed for this 12 year. And -- and I can answer any questions. Also, Bruce is 13 in the audience as well. We do have the five-year C.I.P. 14 coming. I failed to make copies, so I apologize for that, 15 but we have that coming. It's probably 20 to 30 minutes out 16 from being delivered. But as far as the F.Y. '10, those are 17 the two projects that are up for consideration this year. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess the question I have -- 19 and I'm not -- do not have the C.I.P. things that I guess 20 haven't changed. I guess these have changed; these are, I 21 think, from the Airport Manager. July 13th, I believe, is 22 the date of that e-mail. And in that, there was another one 23 that also has a T-hangar project as an F.Y. 2010 project, and 24 the water project or water line project on the updated master 25 plan. Has one of those slid? 7-29-09 jcc 11 1 MR. McKENZIE: The T-hangar project, the board 2 hasn't decided which way they're going to do that. We're 3 still trying to get some prices to see what the site work's 4 going to be. Building prices were not there yet on that 5 T-hangar project. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, does that mean it's not 7 under consideration? 8 MR. McKENZIE: Not in the 2010 budget, no, sir. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: The water -- water line project, 10 would that become part of the city utilities system? 11 MR. HASTINGS: Yes, sir. 12 MAYOR BOCK: Bruce, can we ask a quick question to 13 bring us all up to date? What is the -- can you give us the 14 need for the water line and the reason for the water line 15 being in the capital project? 16 MR. McKENZIE: At this point in time, the fire 17 marshal -- well, actually, about a year ago, he informed us 18 that we need 1,500 gallons per minute flow through a fire 19 hydrant in order to meet the National Fire Code standard. At 20 best, we have 900 gallons per minute, and the reason being, 21 we have a 6-inch water line that encompasses that part of the 22 airport, and physics won't allow us to push 1,500 gallons a 23 minute through a 6-inch water line. So, we're having it 24 engineered now to upgrade that to a 12-inch line. That's 25 what we think it's going to cost, around $600,000 to do that. 7-29-09 jcc 12 1 We have an engineering firm right now getting -- drawing up 2 the plans for that, so we'll have a more accurate number by 3 October. We should know what that's going to run, exactly. 4 But we think -- we talked to Charlie about it, and Mike went 5 over, and they both concurred it's going to be about $600,000 6 more or less to do that project. But the reason we can't 7 lease any land out there, Mayor, for anyone to build on, the 8 fire marshal won't let us build anything out there till we 9 get the firefighting water flow up to standards. 10 MAYOR BOCK: Okay. So, current operations now are 11 not affected? It's any addition -- 12 MR. McKENZIE: No, sir. 13 MAYOR BOCK: -- any additional pressure to the 14 system? 15 MR. McKENZIE: Yes, sir, that's correct. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: There -- and I think some of 17 the -- if not all in the room -- many in the room know 18 probably what I'm about to say, is that I don't understand 19 why the County should upgrade City infrastructure, something 20 the City would generate revenue off of in the future. We 21 have no ownership in it; we got nothing to do with the size 22 of the lines that are out there right now. We didn't pay for 23 the lines that are out there right now, and I don't know why, 24 all of a sudden, the County should be responsible for half of 25 the city utility at the airport. 7-29-09 jcc 13 1 MR. HASTINGS: It's all right, sir. The revenue 2 that's generated in the utility fund -- we're a nonprofit 3 organization; it just goes back into upgrading the system and 4 to keep the thing up to standard. There's not profit that's 5 going -- 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not profit, but it's going into 7 -- it's revenue that offsets other city projects that the 8 County would not participate in ordinarily. 9 MR. SELLECK: Let me try to -- we've had that 10 conversation on multiple occasions with the Airport Board 11 also, and I've typically been the one to jump in and address 12 it. Generally, when you consider the airport as a commercial 13 development, the airport is a stand-alone entity. The 14 project that's being considered here is a project that solely 15 benefits the airport as a campus. The only users at this 16 point that will ever benefit from the addition or upsizing of 17 this line are the airport. The only thing that makes it 18 necessary is the airport's interest in expanding to be able 19 to encourage future growth. That being said, I think the 20 City and the County both have an interest in the line going 21 in in order to allow for future development on the campus. 22 But the City's policy related to upgrading water 23 service or wastewater service is the same as installing it 24 from scratch. Basically, you -- we have what's in the ground 25 now. If an extension or upgrade is necessary to improve the 7-29-09 jcc 14 1 interest of one entity, that specifically being the airport, 2 then that would be something that that business entity would 3 need to foot the bill for, or at least foot their pro rata 4 share. If it were going to benefit multiple other entities, 5 then the utility could interact. One of the issues here is 6 the revenue bond -- bond covenants that -- that forbid the 7 water utility from giving away free service or money that 8 doesn't end up benefiting the utility. And doing a cost 9 benefit analysis on that $600,000 cost for the -- the minimal 10 amount of revenues that exist there, I don't know how we 11 could legally extend water utility funds to this portion of 12 the utility that really doesn't benefit the utility. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Then the County has 14 participated in any of the water utility structure at the 15 airport up till now? 16 MR. SELLECK: Yes. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We paid for half of that 6-inch 18 line. 19 MR. SELLECK: No. When you consider the 20 low-profile hydrant project and other projects along those 21 lines that have gone in -- and, yes, up to this point, that 22 water line has solely served -- since -- Charlie, how long 23 has that line been in place? 24 MR. McKENZIE: Since about 1970, Josh. 25 MR. SELLECK: There really haven't been major water 7-29-09 jcc 15 1 utility projects up till this point. That being said, the 2 County has participated in projects like the road projects 3 that have taken place out there. And, you know, those have 4 always been joint projects where the City's able to perform 5 the tasks that they're capable of, and the County typically 6 comes in on a -- 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the roads are an asset that 8 we have on our books as an asset. The water line is an asset 9 the City has on its books, and we will never have on our 10 books. Unless I don't understand government accounting. 11 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Let me ask a question. Is 12 that -- if you upgrade that to a 12-inch line, is that going 13 to be a dedicated line that will only be used at the airport? 14 Or could that line be tied onto and used off campus? 15 MR. SELLECK: To my knowledge -- I'm trying to 16 think of the campus borders, but that line would cross 17 Highway 27 and instantly be on the airport campus. And would 18 it only extend to the airport campus? I can't -- 19 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's in excess of what you 20 need for 1,500 gallons a minute. 21 MR. HASTINGS: Not by much, no, because the 12 -- 22 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: The 6-inch will carry 900. I 23 can assure you, a 12-inch will carry better than three times 24 that amount. 25 MR. HASTINGS: Can carry better than three times as 7-29-09 jcc 16 1 much, depending on the system pressure, and system pressure 2 stays the same. That gets us above the 1,500 gallon 3 threshold in some areas, and some areas, you're right, maybe 4 1,700. But the -- the problem areas that were -- that were 5 900 gallons per minute was the best we had. We had some 6 areas that were in the 700's and less. That gets that up to 7 just above 1,500. 8 MR. SELLECK: And one of the other issues that came 9 up at the Airport Board meetings related to this project 10 specifically addressed your concern. To-date, this may be 11 slight overkill for some areas. For some areas, it'll just 12 meet the demand. That being said, that's one of the 13 criticisms of the construction of the 1970's era line, was 14 that it was only built to serve the development that was 15 existing and in the near future. Here we are, you know, 16 30-some years later, almost 40 years later, and that line is 17 no longer adequate. So, for them -- the minimal incremental 18 cost of upsizing, I think the Airport Board is under the 19 impression -- and still waiting on the final design, but was 20 under the impression that the difference between an 8- to a 21 12-inch isn't that much, and it may be better to go ahead and 22 build out. 23 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's what my comment was 24 about when we talked about, you know, do you plan on anything 25 going off campus off that line? Because it would be in 7-29-09 jcc 17 1 excess of your need on campus. 2 MR. SELLECK: All of the other properties that are 3 behind the airport there on that loop, I believe all of them 4 have independent wells. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Shady Grove. 6 MR. SELLECK: That's the name of it. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Shady Grove. 8 MR. SELLECK: They all, to my knowledge, have 9 independent wells. There is no centralized water system 10 there. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's true. 12 MR. SELLECK: And outside of that, again, I'm not 13 aware, and I don't believe that the City's water utility 14 master plan plans for any future extensions outside of the 15 airport campus. 16 MR. HASTINGS: No, there's nothing planned. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Help me understand. The 18 airport is served by a single line for all purposes? Or are 19 we talking about a line that is expressly for fire? Are we 20 talking about a new line that can accommodate fire plus 21 current -- all other current uses? What are we talking 22 about? 23 MR. SELLECK: Somewhere in between all of that. 24 Right now, it's -- 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Somewhere between all. 7-29-09 jcc 18 1 MR. SELLECK: It's served by a single line right 2 now, and the goal of this project is to -- to basically loop 3 in a second line. That -- that's the $600,000 cost. It's a 4 shorter run, I believe, to go ahead and run from the Highway 5 27 line, a 12-inch across and tie in with the existing 6 system. That will bring that existing system up to -- with 7 the engineering study being qualified, that will hopefully 8 bring the existing system up to the specifications necessary. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make two comments on this. 10 First of all -- I mean, and Charlie, I'm sure, will correct 11 me if I'm wrong. And it goes to Bruce's statement about 12 the -- some of the size of the line. The Airport Board 13 discussed at length the type of system and options, and the 14 City said it will be a 12-inch line, because the City was 15 going to be responsible for it; it would be a city line. So, 16 I think that the -- and, basically, from my memory of those 17 meetings, the -- the City Engineer took other options off the 18 table for the Airport Board, because they said it was -- you 19 know, that's just -- it was their system; it was going to be 20 built to their specifications. So -- and I think I -- and I 21 don't -- 22 MR. HASTINGS: Well, what -- what is going on right 23 now is that an engineer has been hired, and he has been given 24 the task by the Airport Board to look at all feasible 25 options. And some of the -- the options that were initially 7-29-09 jcc 19 1 being proposed were a pump station and so forth to try to get 2 the pressure and volume that you need in the existing 6-inch 3 line by installing things of that nature, which that doesn't 4 meet any of our minimum standards or specifications. That 5 was the -- the argument that was being had. But in the end, 6 the engineer that is designing it right now, B.W.R., their 7 charge is to find the most efficient manner of installing 8 some type of a system, and we all had run it through our own 9 computer models. We know a 12-inch is going to work beyond a 10 shadow of a doubt, and a 12-inch line is an industry standard 11 for industrial commercial areas. That's not uncommon. You 12 go to any city, and if they're putting in an industrial park, 13 they're going to put in a minimum of a 12-inch line. You go 14 to another airport, it's probably be going to be a minimum of 15 a 12-inch line, and it's because of the fire flow needs that 16 -- that are required by Fire Code. That's really the driving 17 force. The other thing, of course, is if you're putting in 18 some type of industry, typically you're going to have a large 19 water user in an industrial setting. That's not always the 20 case. It depends on what's it being used for, but those are 21 the two main factors that drive the size of the line. 22 MAYOR BOCK: One comment I'd like to make, 23 Jonathan, kind of along with what -- what you're asking, some 24 of the questions about the water line, the need, the size. 25 Bruce, when the board was discussing this, we were talking 7-29-09 jcc 20 1 about existing airport is operational. We can't expand on 2 that campus without this water line. Normally, when the City 3 has inefficiencies in our system, somewhere, at some point in 4 the system, and we have a developer come in and the developer 5 wants to expand, that's usually a -- usually a joint venture 6 with that developer. I mean, Charlie, isn't it not uncommon 7 for us to require developers to foot -- to bring our system 8 -- their use of the system up to code? Would that be -- 9 MR. HASTINGS: That's the way it works. 10 MAYOR BOCK: Pressure system. So, I guess my 11 question is, do we have someone -- do we have someone in 12 mind? Are we losing out on anything at this point in time, 13 or should this be driven by development? 14 MR. McKENZIE: I'll -- 15 MAYOR BOCK: 'Cause development helps share part of 16 the cost. 17 MR. McKENZIE: That's one avenue, but I -- to 18 answer to your point, I've had -- I've turned down several 19 people in the last two years, "several" meaning a dozen or 20 more, because I couldn't lease them any property. Could not 21 lease them any property, because we just didn't meet the fire 22 flow requirement. 23 MAYOR BOCK: Is it existing buildings that they 24 couldn't lease, or build new? 25 MR. McKENZIE: Yes, sir. The two buildings out 7-29-09 jcc 21 1 there we have now that are vacant, a 10,000 square foot 2 building, a 4,500 square foot building, I can't lease those 3 out as well, nor can I lease any property for someone to 4 build a structure on; for example, a hangar. That's what 5 most of these folks are wanting. And I've talked to the fire 6 marshal many, many times, and he says it's out of the 7 question until we meet the criteria that Charlie was talking 8 about. 9 MAYOR BOCK: Have we looked at any of those 10 businesses, maybe in a business plan to show, you know, what 11 we're missing? Maybe we need to see what we're missing, you 12 know, these hangars being rented at full rental, the business 13 in there and the impact that they're bringing to the projects 14 or to the airport commerce or to all of our revenue streams. 15 MR. McKENZIE: I'm not sure I understand your 16 question. 17 MAYOR BOCK: If you're looking at -- I mean, are we 18 looking at the rental of these -- the buildings that we can't 19 rent, obviously, and we're losing revenue. To what -- to 20 what revenue level are we losing? I know we've done some, 21 and -- 22 MR. McKENZIE: Okay. 23 MAYOR BOCK: -- we've analyzed the airport several 24 years ago while building some hangars. It wasn't feasible 25 building a taxiway; it didn't pay for itself for 20, 30, 40 7-29-09 jcc 22 1 years. Are we talking about a $600,000 water line that 2 brings us in $300 a month in rental? I mean, are we -- 3 MR. McKENZIE: Yes, sir, I understand now. The one 4 10,000 square foot building that we have out there leases for 5 about $2,600 a month, so that's about, what, $32,000 a year? 6 We're losing that revenue on that structure. And then the 7 4,500 square foot building, the lease rate's the same; it's 8 $3.14 a square foot, so you back that down to a little bit 9 less than half, so that's an annual net loss that we're 10 losing, just on those two buildings alone, not to mention the 11 property that we couldn't lease to build hangars for private 12 individuals or corporations. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mayor, I think the -- I mean, I 14 don't want to be construed that I don't support the water 15 line. The water line is vital to the airport. It's just I 16 have a little heartburn on the County paying to upgrade the 17 city utility district. I'm just -- it's something that's 18 just new for me to try to get in my mind that we should do 19 that, or our tax -- you know, use our tax dollars for that. 20 There may be a -- an alternative, kind of what you said, 21 doing the revenue bonds, and making the Airport Board, to get 22 the money, dedicate the rental off of the space that comes 23 available to help pay the debt off. 24 MR. PARTON: And that's kind of along the lines 25 that we looked at it. If you look at the airport -- which, 7-29-09 jcc 23 1 really, you should aspire to be a -- a self-funding 2 operation. We've got to get the revenue streams up. It's 3 impossible to get there without the adequate infrastructure. 4 So, from my perspective, when you look at this, just like any 5 other development, it's got to pay its own way as much as 6 possible to make it operational for expansion needs. What 7 goes into that system ought to be funded back through the 8 airport; it shouldn't have to come directly out of city or 9 county coffers. In theory, it should come from operational 10 revenues coming through the airport. 11 One of the things we had kind of kicked around on 12 the staff level was to say if we were to look at -- at -- if 13 the City has the ability to do a city loan to the airport, in 14 looking at a rate structure that could come back and repay 15 the City, basically an amortization schedule that we could 16 put together on some fairly reasonable rates to do that. And 17 so we're going to run a little amortization schedule on that 18 and look at it, look at what that rate impact would be. And 19 also, go back. If you look at the airport master plan, the 20 business plan that was put together back in '08, it does a 21 comparative analysis of Kerrville T-hangar rates versus those 22 in the region, other facilities. I think we go back and 23 update that study and see where we fall. 'Cause, Bruce, 24 correct me if I'm wrong; it looks like on the T-hangar rate 25 side, you know, we're somewhere in the middle to low middle 7-29-09 jcc 24 1 in terms of the rates that are out there, and so we may have 2 some room to increase those rates to cover the cost of the 3 infrastructure and stay within marketable -- in a positive, I 4 guess, position regarding the rate structure. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I like that concept you're 6 talking about, and we talked about it, I think, at our last 7 Commissioners Court meeting of looking at the project. 8 That's why I was interested that the T-hangar was off of the 9 C.I.P., taking -- moved back, because I would like to 10 accelerate the T-hangars. Certainly, no one can build any 11 T-hangars until you get the water line to -- to allow it to 12 be operational, but the revenue at the airport, I think we 13 should try to position the Airport Board with enough funds to 14 accomplish some of these projects right now, but at the same 15 time, get the money back out of the airport as much as we can 16 in the future. There is a philosophical difference on all 17 those other projects, in my mind, compared to the water line. 18 I mean, at a minimum, it would seem to me that the City 19 should at least dedicate any revenue, as minimal as it may 20 be, for the County to get half that money back. I mean, it 21 just seems that the County is paying for something -- the 22 City gets some money back on the utility, and it just seems 23 odd to me that we're being asked to pay 50 percent of a water 24 utility. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think you're dealing with 7-29-09 jcc 25 1 the capital -- capital recovery portion of the -- of the rate 2 that's charged for water service. I have no idea what that 3 is, but there is a charge for water service, and there's a 4 capital recovery fee. To what extent is the capital recovery 5 fee built into the current rates, and is that something we're 6 talking about as a -- as a means to offset some of this cost? 7 MR. PARTON: Well, and that's -- y'all are hitting 8 on the point that we were looking at. Neither the City nor 9 the County ought to be on the hook for putting out the funds 10 and getting return of those funds back. Again, if you look 11 at the airport as an enterprise fund type of operation, where 12 it should be, self-sustaining revenues ought to equal 13 expenses. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the goal. 15 MR. PARTON: That's where we're trying to get to. 16 We can't get there, obviously, without a physical expansion 17 and increased marketability out there at the airport. So, if 18 we can find a way to structure this financially so that the 19 County and the City both get our funds back is the objective 20 that we looked at, so we shouldn't be out-of-pocket -- either 21 one of us shouldn't be directly out-of-pocket. It should 22 come back to us. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think you can do the same 24 thing by bonding. Or separately, perhaps. 25 MR. PARTON: We think we might be able to do better 7-29-09 jcc 26 1 rates if we can do something else with financing. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I need to ask, if I can, 3 Bruce a question. The DuPerier hangar, was that constructed 4 before the fire marshal issued his edict, or after? 5 MR. McKENZIE: They had poured the slab and the 6 edict came down. The previous City Manager then allowed the 7 building to go forward and to be constructed. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Interesting. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: On the -- I think Bill kind of 10 hit where my problem area is on the capital recovery fee. 11 And while I've heard several say that that line can't be 12 expanded, I've been working on another project. Maybe y'all 13 know about the ETJ and that area just -- this line could 14 access has been an area of much discussion. So, there 15 clearly is a thought -- I'm sure the City is not going to 16 build a new 12-inch line to service the area east of the 17 airport, north of Highway 27. So, I mean, I think that there 18 certainly is a possibility in the long-term of this line 19 having other purposes, and I think if the capital recovery 20 fee is built into it, that certainly reduces my heartburn on 21 the County having to pay some of it. 22 MR. PARTON: What we can do, too, is if that 23 12-inch line can serve the ultimate capacity for the airport 24 and there's additional capacity beyond, that -- 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 7-29-09 jcc 27 1 MR. PARTON: -- we can do a reimbursement 2 resolution where, as new developments tie in, we can collect 3 a fee and, again, repay ourselves and repay the County for 4 that -- those dollars we put in there for that excess 5 capacity that might be built into that line. So, we can 6 recapture those fees. We can set it up to do that. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that also covers, as 8 Commissioner Williams said, new tie-ins to it for businesses 9 that tie in after this line is built at the airport. I think 10 there -- 11 MAYOR BOCK: If there's capacity. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm talking about on the 13 airport proper. 14 MAYOR BOCK: Oh, yeah. That goes back to what I 15 was saying, where when you start talking about a business 16 wants to come in and be a part of it, they need to -- 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They need to pay a portion of 18 this, and we get our money back, I think. But the line has 19 got to be built first. We can't -- we cannot wait for 20 businesses -- or expect any business, unless we were trying 21 to find -- go out and find a developer to take care of all 22 this property, and maybe have them do it, and I don't think 23 that's what we want, the direction I hope to see the airport 24 go. 25 MR. PARTON: Well, and I guess, in my mind, is 7-29-09 jcc 28 1 that -- is that to come up with an amortization or a debt 2 service schedule, if you will, then the T-hangar rates that 3 are there that we collect go back into the airport's 4 repayment of that loan. So -- so -- and I hadn't thought 5 about the capital recovery fee component. There could be an 6 additional capital recovery component that comes in. That's 7 probably a one-time fee that comes in at the time that the 8 T-hangar's built. But I think then you run into the 9 question, again, of -- of setting up who's -- who exactly is 10 going to pay for that tap fee or that capital recovery fee. 11 Is that the airport, if they're constructing the T-hangars, 12 or is that a private entity that's going to construct the 13 T-hangars and do that? So -- 14 MR. SELLECK: Do you want me to share some numbers? 15 MR. PARTON: Yeah. 16 MR. SELLECK: Now, there's two potential goals of 17 the internal loan, if it's available. I need to check on all 18 of our cash balance requirements to make sure that we can 19 even do something like that. But if we were able to come up 20 with an internal loan and assume a 4 percent interest rate, I 21 think that's much better than we would ever be able to get on 22 the current market, on revenue bonds especially. And it's 23 probably better than what we can get for bonds even backed by 24 the full faith and credit. Jeannie, do you think 4 percent's 25 about -- below market right now? 7-29-09 jcc 29 1 MS. HARGIS: Well, I don't know; I haven't -- we 2 haven't sold any. But, you know, the last one we sold is 3, 3 so I don't know. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: That was a short-term, though. That 5 was a short-term. 6 MR. SELLECK: Right. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: You're talking about something 8 that's probably going to a longer term than that, aren't you? 9 MR. SELLECK: That's right. So, if you look at, 10 let's say, a 15-year amortization at a 4 percent average 11 interest rate, you'd be looking at a total annual payment of 12 around $54,000. That's a 15-year financing on a 4 percent, 13 600 original principal. And, of course, that payment would 14 become first due one year after the -- after the principal 15 was forwarded to the airport, so it would be a fiscal '11 16 impact. If you're looking at it in that way, I'm not sure 17 how that impacts our ability to move forward, though. So, if 18 we look at it more of a short-term financing, if the goal is 19 just to kind of smooth out this wrinkle for the City and 20 County's budgets and not to fully place that burden on the 21 airport, if you're looking at, let's say, a three-year debt 22 service, similar interest rate, you'd be looking at about 23 216,000, so the City and the County would both need to budget 24 an extra approximately $108,000 next year to go towards the 25 payment of that. That could be potentially offset by the 7-29-09 jcc 30 1 revenues that the City Manager was just referring to, but if 2 -- if the cash is available in -- in this city budget 3 somewhere -- again, I'm not sure that it is -- either of 4 those options could move forward, I would imagine. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that -- I mean, sounds 6 like we're going on the same page, but I'd like to get the 7 direction from -- through Bruce back to the Airport Board. 8 I'd like to see them accelerate their plans for the 9 T-hangars, and also that property that's behind the hangar, 10 behind that area that's undevelopable, where, really, what's 11 it going to cost to get that property on the market or open 12 to the market? And I'd like to do -- I mean, get the water 13 line, the T-hangars, and that site work all done at one time, 14 because otherwise, we're just stringing it out for multiple 15 years for no reason. I mean, that's -- if our goal is to do 16 this to generate revenue, let's do it. And I think debt 17 service of some sort -- and I'll rely on Jeannie for the 18 guidance on how we do that debt service, but that makes the 19 most sense, I think, with the understanding it goes to the 20 Airport Board after it's done. I mean, pretty much they're 21 on their own to start generating some revenue out there, 22 other than some of the routine grants that we do. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I like that suggestion, 24 because I think we're still dealing with a projected or an 25 estimated cost of 600,000. We don't know what that cost 7-29-09 jcc 31 1 really is. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Charlie, when -- when do you expect 3 the response from the engineer that's going to have that 4 thing crunched through and tell us what -- what he feels like 5 is the best solution to this problem? 6 MR. HASTINGS: Probably within the next month. 7 They've spent the first few weeks out there with surveyors 8 gathering data, and so they -- they've been heavy on 9 surveying up front since we've awarded that -- or since the 10 Airport Board has awarded that engineering contract. I'd say 11 in the next four weeks or so, they ought to have a better 12 estimate than the 600 that we used for budgetary purposes. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, if we get the actual 14 number within a month or six weeks or whatever it is, and 15 that gives you time to develop the T-hangar number and 16 whatever site work is necessary to do on the northwest side 17 over there, I think that's what we're talking about. Then we 18 have the potential of what a capital improvement project of 19 this nature for the airport in total might be, and we have a 20 better estimate of what we're going to go out for and how 21 it's going to be paid. 22 COUNCILMAN COLEMAN: Tell me again, the site work, 23 what all does that encompass? 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's -- well, a summary, again, 25 if the Brinkman hangar is down at that end, if you go up 7-29-09 jcc 32 1 towards the fuel tanks up there, there's a slope. You can't 2 get aircraft up there. That's left to develop -- or not 3 left. It's the most likely property to -- that needs to be 4 developed out there. Right now, we're -- pretty much all the 5 buildings are along the ramp. Just no room for any more 6 buildings. 7 COUNCILMAN COLEMAN: Okay. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Going north, right. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're going up towards the 10 fuel farm, and this would be going up into the area -- by 11 changing the grade a little bit and putting in some ramps, 12 adding new ramps up there makes that accessible. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's a significant grade 14 behind the -- behind the existing T-hangars. If you've been 15 out there, Chuck, there's a tremendous grade behind there, 16 and that renders some problems. 17 COUNCILMAN COLEMAN: And this would allow another 18 aisle of -- 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, another aisle of ramps. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Space there -- back there. 22 COUNCILMAN COLEMAN: So, we could add several -- 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the Airport Board is -- I 24 mean, they're gung-ho, ready to go. They understand -- or I 25 understand from when I go to their meetings, they want this. 7-29-09 jcc 33 1 MR. McKENZIE: That's correct. And that road that 2 goes toward the -- there's another issue in play, and TexDOT 3 Aviation informed me of this recently. You can't exceed a 4 2 percent grade for a taxiway for a C-2 type airport, which 5 we are. And they've got some ideas how to correct that so we 6 can taxi up that road-slash-taxiway, but we haven't got there 7 yet. But -- but everybody's aware of that. That's one 8 hiccup in this, is the grade up toward that gate. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But assuming that diagram can 10 be challenged, then you can put another row of hangars, 11 buildings, whatever, behind Kerrville Aviation -- between 12 Kerrville Aviation and the road. The whole area's 13 developable. 14 COUNCILMAN COLEMAN: Do we have a preliminary 15 statement on the site work? 16 MR. McKENZIE: Not back there, no, sir. 17 MR. PARTON: 235,000. 18 COUNCILMAN COLEMAN: How much? 19 MR. PARTON: 235. 20 MR. McKENZIE: That was just for the T-hangars down 21 by the -- beside the Brinkman hangar. That's not where 22 Mr. Coleman's talking about. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's large. I mean, I don't 24 know. They're looking at -- TexDOT's looking at lots of 25 different options, and maybe this package can be done in two 7-29-09 jcc 34 1 phases. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 275 buys how many more 3 T-hangars? 4 MR. McKENZIE: That'll get us one set of eight. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One set? 6 MR. McKENZIE: 300,000 will get us eight more 7 T-hangars. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Eight. Cost's up 9 considerably since the last time. 10 MR. McKENZIE: It's almost doubled since we built 11 the last ones. 12 COUNCILMAN COLEMAN: And, Bruce, is the incremental 13 profit on T-hangars still pretty small? 14 MR. McKENZIE: Say again? 15 COUNCILMAN COLEMAN: The incremental profit on 16 T-hangars. 17 MR. McKENZIE: Yeah. 18 COUNCILMAN COLEMAN: Still pretty close? 19 MR. McKENZIE: Pretty close. 20 COUNCILMAN COLEMAN: Just that we bring the 21 activity in and they use the services. 22 MR. McKENZIE: They use services. They buy fuel, 23 et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. 24 COUNCILMAN COLEMAN: And we're paying for it as we 25 go, paying for the hangar. 7-29-09 jcc 35 1 MR. McKENZIE: Yes, sir. 2 MR. SELLECK: You know, from a -- Councilman, 3 thanks for opening that door. One of the items that -- from 4 a business perspective, if we're looking at running the 5 airport in that manner, with the waiting list that we have 6 for the current T-hangars, there's two methods of addressing 7 that opportunity. One is to build additional T-hangars. The 8 second is that any time the supply is that high for a limited 9 resource, that's a premium resource. Typically, you look at 10 addressing your rates as well, and there may be opportunity 11 there. You know, I hate to see us lose any of our existing 12 tenants, but with as many folks lined up behind them as we 13 have, that may be an additional option to look at; A, making 14 an additional T-hangar project cost-effective, and B, 15 addressing some of this financial burden that we're looking 16 at here today. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In reality, you could build 18 twice that number now and fill them up, 'cause we displaced 19 eight to ten aircraft from Dugosh, because he has to move the 20 patio hangars. He's got a waiting list on existing 21 T-hangars. So, you could do 16 more and full them up 22 immediately. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: In addition, I mean, there's -- 24 you have the T-hangars, but there's also box hangars, 25 T-hangars; there's all different types. There's a whole 7-29-09 jcc 36 1 different market of different types of hangars that are 2 needed out there. I'm not -- I'm going to defer to -- what 3 needs to be done to the Airport Board and the Airport 4 Manager. But the -- you know, we've spent a lot of money out 5 there. We're spending a whole lot more this next -- or next 6 year, anyway, or this -- TexDOT Aviation is, certainly. And 7 the purpose of all this is to try to get to the next step, 8 and we're almost there. And this seems to be -- we just need 9 to spend that money to get there, and then I think we're at a 10 point that the airport really is on a -- you know, not 11 stand-alone; they have the City/County for some time, but at 12 least they have the ability to start generating significant 13 revenue. Right now, they don't even have that ability. 14 We're spending money and we can't get any additional revenue 15 in, and that's not good business sense. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Catch-22. 17 MR. PARTON: And if I understand Bruce correctly, 18 on the 15,000 square feet that's out there now, it's about 19 $45,000 annual revenue -- 20 MR. McKENZIE: Yes, sir. 21 MR. PARTON: -- potential there. You know, 10-year 22 debt service on the water line is about 75,000. So, you 23 could even amortize the existing principal back further and 24 equal out in the initial years with the revenue stream that's 25 coming in, you know, the loan repayment there, and you kind 7-29-09 jcc 37 1 of backload the loan towards the back side, or stretch the 2 term out a little bit. Got a couple options to look at that. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This is a good discussion, 4 'cause it's exploring options. That's what I was hoping we 5 could do, is explore options, and I like the idea of 6 incorporating several things into this discussion in this 7 mix, how we figure it out. 8 MAYOR BOCK: So, where do we go from here? 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, mayor, it sounds to me like 10 we're pretty much on the same page. The Airport Board is 11 going to try and put their package together. We need to get 12 Charlie's engineering studies and numbers, and it looks as 13 though we're looking at trying to put together some sort of 14 debt structure, and we've got the two numbers crunchers to 15 give us some options on the numbers. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That can be -- 17 JUDGE TINLEY: And then you got the components of 18 the amortization of the debt, the capital recovery costs, the 19 revenue costs, the provisions dealing with tie-ons, both 20 outside the airport and inside the airport. Looks to me like 21 a total package. 22 MAYOR BOCK: Sound counsel. 23 COUNCILMAN COLEMAN: I feel good about this 24 discussion as well. I have a concern, and, Bruce, I know you 25 guys want the very best airport that can possibly be had, and 7-29-09 jcc 38 1 I agree with that, but we do have that tough balancing act 2 between economic reality and -- and what we can cover. And I 3 think this is a good business-oriented way to do it, so I'm 4 pleased with this. 5 MAYOR BOCK: Great. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The other thing -- other 7 item had to do with the master plan, and that was what, 8 $17,500? 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Total, yeah, 17,5. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's just -- we have to 11 do that. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's kind of every, what, 13 five years, we -- or ten years? 14 COUNCILMAN COLEMAN: That's a requirement -- 15 statutory requirement. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Has to be done. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Kind of like a RAMP -- like a 18 RAMP grant. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Have we knocked this one out? Do 20 you want to go ahead and call your second item? 21 MAYOR BOCK: Are we good? Council agenda Item 2B 22 is consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on 23 regulation, rules, and other issues concerning properties 24 and/or subdivisions in the ETJ of the City of Kerrville. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: And Commissioners Court Agenda Item 7-29-09 jcc 39 1 3; consider, discuss, take appropriate action on regulation, 2 rules, and other issues concerning properties and/or 3 subdivisions in the ETJ of the City of Kerrville. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They have pillows out here. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: They do. They do, as a matter of 6 fact. Do you want to sit on them or sleep on them? 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think Kevin's handing 8 something out. After the Commissioners Court meeting on 9 Monday, I met with Todd Parton, Kevin Coleman, and Councilman 10 Motheral, and we ironed out some things. And the map that 11 was approved by Commissioners Court of the ETJ jurisdiction 12 was given to staff to present to Council Tuesday night. Now, 13 I'll turn it over to the City and see what they did with that 14 map. 15 COUNCILMAN GROSS: You didn't have to wait; we were 16 on television. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It wasn't that exiting to me to 18 watch. 19 COUNCILMAN COLEMAN: Ought to see it some nights. 20 MAYOR BOCK: Council, correct me when I'm wrong 21 here as we go in. Commissioner Letz, what we did last night 22 was, after quite a bit of discussion and going round and 23 round, the direction of the Council was to reissue the 24 existing map -- and, Council, help me here -- reissue the 25 existing map that we originally issued to the Commission with 7-29-09 jcc 40 1 no changes; is that correct? With the same caveats. Did we 2 change -- we didn't change any caveats. The -- the existing 3 map -- we received this map from the County, Jonathan, right? 4 Is that your map? 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. 6 MAYOR BOCK: And we went back and forth several 7 times, and went back to the original -- the original map, the 8 original proposal. Is that correct? 9 COUNCILMAN MOTHERAL: Correct. 10 MAYOR BOCK: Now, we did -- we have a line item 11 list of bullet points that you had sent to us, and I think we 12 were in agreement on all those bullet points, with the 13 exception of 2 and 7. 14 COUNCILMAN MOTHERAL: There was questions about a 15 number of them. 16 MAYOR BOCK: Okay. I only marked 2 and 7. What -- 17 which ones do you have marked there, Bruce? Paragraph 18 numbers? 19 COUNCILMAN MOTHERAL: Paragraph Number 2, 20 obviously, that was one of them. 21 MAYOR BOCK: Okay. 22 COUNCILMAN MOTHERAL: Paragraph Number 3. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Bruce, hold on a second. Did 24 you bring copies of that? 25 COUNCILMAN COLEMAN: I got copies. 7-29-09 jcc 41 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, good. It was on my other 2 computer than my county computer; I couldn't get a copy 3 today. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: These are not numbered. 5 Will you speak -- these things are not numbered. 6 COUNCILMAN MOTHERAL: They're not numbered. Start 7 at the top of the page, and below the date there, the 8 July 28th, the first one -- that's the first paragraph. 9 That's Paragraph 1. The second paragraph is Paragraph 2. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 11 COUNCILMAN MOTHERAL: And Paragraph 2 is what the 12 mayor has talked about. There are some -- the -- I think 13 that what we were talking about -- do we want to go into 14 detail on each of these, or do we want to just mention -- 15 MAYOR BOCK: I'm up for discussion. I mean, I'm 16 throwing this out here. You two guys pretty much have 17 been -- 18 COUNCILMAN MOTHERAL: In some cases, this is simply 19 wording. In other cases, it perhaps didn't hit the point or 20 missed the point that we were talking about on Monday 21 evening's meeting. On that second -- in that second 22 paragraph, on the third line, if you put a period after 23 "gutter drainage" and mark out the rest of the paragraph, 24 that's basically what we were talking about. It's not only 25 for those subdivisions; it's for any subdivision. If the -- 7-29-09 jcc 42 1 if the contractor wants to select a -- because he wants to 2 gutter -- or save property, and his lot values or his 3 property values are high and he wants to save room in that, 4 he can elect to use curb and gutter. That's a narrower 5 street section. If he wants to -- doesn't care about that 6 and wants to use the bar ditch, then put in the ribbon curbs, 7 put the bar ditches in, and it's a wider section. That's 8 really a developer cost issue, or value issue from his 9 standpoint, whether his property is of that -- that much 10 value and he wants to save it. Either way, you get a good 11 substantial road section. Now, we have -- 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have no problem with that, as 13 long as the last sentence stays. Those roads are not 14 eligible for county maintenance. 15 COUNCILMAN MOTHERAL: Okay. May I ask you why? 16 Because they are built to your standards, with the exception 17 of the ribbon curbs. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, we don't have curb and 19 gutter, and that gets into a drainage situation that we're 20 not equipped -- and we don't do that, ribbon curbs. I don't 21 have a problem; we do actually have some private roads or 22 roads right now that have ribbon curbs, but I don't think 23 that we want to accept roads that have a gutter system. It 24 requires more maintenance that we're just -- we just don't 25 have the equipment and don't have the expertise in doing 7-29-09 jcc 43 1 that. And -- I mean, and I don't think that should be a 2 problem, 'cause I cannot imagine somebody building curb and 3 gutters on 5-acre lot size. Therefore -- 4 COUNCILMAN MOTHERAL: I can't either, Jonathan. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's what I said. So, as 6 long as it's real clear we're not going to accept the curb 7 and gutters, unless Leonard -- and I haven't asked Leonard 8 this. Maybe he wouldn't have a problem with it, but I 9 suspect he -- 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He would have a problem 11 with it. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 13 COUNCILMAN MOTHERAL: Well, we can put something in 14 there about the -- that maintenance, that last sentence is 15 fine, where there's curb and gutter. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 17 COUNCILMAN MOTHERAL: I mean -- 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. That's not an issue, 19 then, 'cause it doesn't change anything in that agreement. 20 Okay. 21 COUNCILMAN MOTHERAL: And in the next paragraph -- 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Hold on. So we understand, 23 you're proposing that a period be put after "gutter 24 drainage," period? 25 COUNCILMAN MOTHERAL: Correct. 7-29-09 jcc 44 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And the rest of that 2 sentence is deleted? 3 COUNCILMAN MOTHERAL: Correct. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And then, as Jonathan 5 suggested, the last sentence remains. With some tweaking, 6 perhaps. 7 COUNCILMAN MOTHERAL: With some tweaking to say 8 that the -- such roads will not be eligible to be accepted 9 for county maintenance if curb and gutter is constructed. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 11 MAYOR BOCK: Council, anybody have any problem 12 with -- 13 COUNCILMAN GROSS: That's nothing. 14 COUNCILMAN COLEMAN: Might -- just for my 15 edification, maybe clarification, Jonathan, you -- I'm 16 hesitant to -- you guys to say will not be eligible under 17 any -- 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I sent Kevin an e-mail about 19 that. There's always the option of any government -- or 20 certainly of us, I presume y'all, of granting a variance and 21 accepting. There could be a situation where a developer 22 would give us a million dollars and we accept them. You 23 know, we probably would do that. But -- 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mercenaries that we are. 25 (Laughter.) 7-29-09 jcc 45 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, I mean, you know, I think 2 you have to be pretty definitive in your rules to say we're 3 not going to accept it. Then we can always say we'll grant a 4 variance and we will accept them in this situation, if that 5 happens. 6 COUNCILMAN MOTHERAL: Okay. In the next paragraph, 7 any proposed subdivision in the ETJ that falls within the 8 boundary of both jurisdictions. I'm not sure what you're 9 talking about there. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Crosses the line of the city 11 jurisdiction and county jurisdiction. 12 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Where part of it's in ours, 13 part of it's in the City's. 14 COUNCILMAN MOTHERAL: Okay. Okay. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: You're saying totally within the 16 ETJ? 17 COUNCILMAN MOTHERAL: No, he was saying partly 18 within the city limits and partly -- 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not city limits. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: No, that's the next one. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is with -- outside city 22 limits, inside ETJ, if it crosses the -- the white line that 23 the City has, the yellow line the County has. It's good for 24 the City. 25 MAYOR BOCK: If it's in the yellow -- in the yellow 7-29-09 jcc 46 1 territory out there, if it crosses that line, it 2 automatically becomes the City's jurisdiction. 3 COUNCILMAN MOTHERAL: Well, that's assuming -- you 4 know, that goes back to assuming his one down below there, 5 the one talking about 3,280 feet and that kind of thing. 6 That's where you're coming from on that? 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. I mean, that actually was 8 taken out by your proposal. That whole provision was deleted 9 when you went back to the old map. 10 COUNCILMAN MOTHERAL: Yeah, I realize that. 11 COUNCILMAN COLEMAN: In a couple of places, but -- 12 potentially, but -- 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Cotton Gin. 14 COUNCILMAN COLEMAN: Cotton Gin a little bit. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: The next one. 16 COUNCILMAN COLEMAN: That's the next one, correct. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The way I read this to say, 18 if it's in the ETJ and it crosses the boundary -- 19 COUNCILMAN MOTHERAL: Which boundary? 20 COUNCILMAN COLEMAN: The boundary between the 21 City's responsibility and the County's responsibility. 22 COUNCILMAN MOTHERAL: Okay. 23 COUNCILMAN COLEMAN: Then it stays with the City's 24 responsibility. 25 COUNCILMAN MOTHERAL: Okay. 7-29-09 jcc 47 1 COUNCILMAN COLEMAN: If it's at all in the City's 2 responsibility, it's all in the City's responsibility. Okay. 3 COUNCILMAN MOTHERAL: Okay. Any proposed -- the 4 next paragraph -- thank you for that explanation. Any 5 proposed subdivision in the ETJ that extends beyond ETJ 6 boundary shall only be subject to the standards of Kerr 7 County. Now, we discussed this, Jonathan, and I think what 8 we had -- in our Monday meeting, had decided was not if it 9 crossed a line in any way, but if 50 percent of it crossed 10 the ETJ line, that it was in the county. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We talked about both. You 12 know, I don't have a real problem putting a percentage on it. 13 It doesn't make that much difference. 14 COUNCILMAN MOTHERAL: Okay. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I think once you do -- and 16 my reason for the way I put it in here was for developers. I 17 think it's -- we're -- and that's why I did the one prior to 18 that. Doesn't make any difference to the County, I don't 19 think, but developers now have to work with two sets of 20 standards. Once you get outside the ETJ, they never have to 21 look at city standards; they only have to deal with county 22 standards. So, if our -- and since we're going to have very 23 different standards under this agreement, a developer's going 24 to have one set of standards to the ETJ line, different 25 standards outside the ETJ line, for the same development, and 7-29-09 jcc 48 1 that seems burdensome to the developers. And I -- you know, 2 and unnecessary to developers. 3 COUNCILMAN MOTHERAL: I'm not sure that that's 4 really the situation, in that our standards, with the 5 exception of O.S.S.F. and curb and gutter and a few things 6 like that, are so similar, there's not going to be -- 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sidewalks. You have sidewalks, 8 street lights. 9 COUNCILMAN MOTHERAL: Well, sidewalks are only 10 applicable, as we discussed, on our thoroughfare streets. We 11 don't -- we're not doing, in the residential sections, 12 sidewalks now, so that's a nonissue. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 14 COUNCILMAN MOTHERAL: So, that's what I'm saying. 15 We are so similar with -- with some very, very minor 16 differences, that I don't think, from a developer's 17 standpoint, it really makes any difference. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: How is the -- is a 19 thoroughfare, like, the only ten roads, whatever it is, on 20 the thoroughfare plan? Or "thoroughfare" as in what we call 21 our arterial road? What are you calling a thoroughfare for 22 the sidewalk? I have no idea what the City's rules are on 23 sidewalks, other than -- 24 COUNCILMAN MOTHERAL: Kevin, give us a definition. 25 MR. COLEMAN: Oh, okay. The -- the essential piece 7-29-09 jcc 49 1 about sidewalks, you understand, is that we require sidewalks 2 by our ordinance, and the ordinance doesn't extend to the 3 ETJ, but for the thoroughfare plan. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. That answered it. 5 MR. COLEMAN: Okay. All right. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 7 COUNCILMAN COLEMAN: Without this statement, 8 though, just so everybody's clear, if it's a piece that is 9 sitting part in the ETJ, part beyond the ETJ, without clarity 10 of whose process it goes through, it goes through both 11 processes, okay? Because we -- we cannot extend our 12 jurisdiction past the ETJ. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you talking about 14 Number 4 still? 15 COUNCILMAN COLEMAN: Still talking about 4, yes, 16 sir. And I'm all right with having everybody come through 17 the same process, because at that point it's truly the same 18 set of standards. It's two sections that come through two 19 different bodies. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What about paying the fees? 21 COUNCILMAN COLEMAN: I'm sorry? 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What about paying the fees? 23 COUNCILMAN COLEMAN: I think they pay 24 administrative fees to us as they came to our process. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Paying fees at both places, 7-29-09 jcc 50 1 that's what we're trying to get away from. 2 COUNCILMAN COLEMAN: I understand. That's my 3 warning of not having this language in here. Okay. Might be 4 alternative language where, if it's more than half, they come 5 through our process with full review from the County, so 6 there's just one set of applications or one set of actions. 7 It needs to be addressed, I guess, is my point. There will 8 always be that piece that crosses the line, and we have one 9 that we know that goes across the line. It's kind of out 10 there in a concept plan. 11 COUNCILMAN MOTHERAL: The -- I think we're talking 12 about several things here at one time. Maybe we need to back 13 up and segment them so that it's more clearly understood. 14 The rules, whether they be the county rules or the city 15 rules, that's one thing. Or a blend within the ETJ, 16 whatever. That's one thing. The process that the developer 17 needs to go through is quite another. What we have 18 instigated several months ago, realizing that the process was 19 part of the problem out there, and not wanting the developer 20 to have to do it twice, we -- anything that has come in that 21 we have been aware of that's within the ETJ, our staff has 22 notified your staff when -- of the project when it -- the 23 meeting -- staff meetings were going to be, and asked them to 24 participate. In other words, it was a single stop, if you 25 would. Yes, the County's involved; yes, the City's involved, 7-29-09 jcc 51 1 but it's a single process. And that -- that reduces the 2 burden on the developer, since they're all put into that one 3 process. It -- it does not necessarily -- for example, it's 4 not going to take away the O.S.S.F. It's not going to take 5 away the storm drainage. It's not going to take away or 6 change or reduce the County's road standards, because the 7 County is -- we're asking the County to participate in every 8 one of those. And that's -- that's what I'm hoping, that one 9 of the things that we can reach through this is that, okay, 10 so we, as different entities, participate in a single 11 activity that -- that minimizes the efforts and the 12 dislocation to the developer. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- I'll make a comment, 14 going back to the one above this. 15 COUNCILMAN MOTHERAL: Which one is that? 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Any -- the crossing the 17 boundaries of both jurisdictions. 18 COUNCILMAN MOTHERAL: Okay. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The reason that was put in 20 there was because of a new map, and I'm really not in favor 21 of leaving that provision in there if we don't have the same 22 map, because that was the reason for the expanded map 23 boundary, was to solve the problem of any developments that 24 didn't go out and cross further into the area, since the 25 County was picking up some of those peripheral areas. It 7-29-09 jcc 52 1 doesn't make sense to me to really leave that in at this 2 point. 3 COUNCILMAN MOTHERAL: It's all right to take it 4 out, as far as I'm concerned. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because, I mean, I don't -- you 6 know, I apologize that I have to leave shortly, but I think 7 it's really -- we're obviously at a disagreement as to where 8 we're going with this. I think it's much more to figure out, 9 are we going to try to work it out or go to arbitration? I 10 mean, that's the issue. I thought we were very, very close 11 to working it out. I thought that we had a good meeting 12 Monday, and, you know, I thought there was an agreement. 13 Granted, there was -- the mayor and City Councilmen were not 14 present at that meeting, but the logic behind changing the 15 boundaries of the map were areas that the City can't provide 16 services, I understand, over the next five years. It's areas 17 that are only by topography and the location of it. Two of 18 the areas were in existing subdivisions. One of those has a 19 minimum of 25-acre lot size right now, and that's not going 20 to change; it takes 80 percent vote of that subdivision to 21 even change that. So, we're talking about rural standards 22 that we are the better equipped to handle, I think. The 23 rural standards of the City, by the City Manager, is under 24 review as to what that's going to be. 25 The area up north of Kerrville on Scenic Hills 7-29-09 jcc 53 1 area, you know, those are all existing subdivisions. There's 2 really not a capacity to get a lot of city services up there. 3 And -- and in the area off in the Highlands area, the high 4 ground, topography-wise, area around Bear Creek, that terrain 5 is such, that's never -- that's only suitable for lower 6 density development. And when we added that other provision 7 there about crossing the boundaries, that was to accommodate 8 if someone wanted to do, like, a Saddlewood. So, I guess -- 9 I mean, seems to me we're just basically at an impasse, and 10 if that's where we are, well, then, you know, we probably 11 should do what many of us thought -- or many on City Council 12 probably thought should have been done about two months ago, 13 and go to arbitration. I mean, it's really sad to me that 14 we're -- we can't agree on this, but if we can't, we can't. 15 MAYOR BOCK: Let me ask a question along those 16 lines. What we're looking at here is, we're looking at two 17 maps that -- and we spoke to this last night. If the maps 18 don't match, then the language doesn't matter, basically. Is 19 that what -- 20 COUNCILMAN COLEMAN: I think more -- more to the 21 point, dependent on the map you use, then these bullet points 22 might look different. Jon pointed out the need or not to 23 determine a cross-jurisdictional line. 24 MAYOR BOCK: Okay. 25 COUNCILMAN COLEMAN: But that line's not there. 7-29-09 jcc 54 1 The statement's not there. That kind of would -- 2 MAYOR BOCK: Yes. But I'm, again, only asking for 3 my education. Regardless of which map you're looking at, 4 you've got that line that we cross. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Minimal, because most of the 6 this area, if you look at the map that City Council approved 7 last night, I guess, this is existing subdivision. That's 8 existing subdivision. That's existing subdivision, and this 9 is existing subdivision in the corner here. That's all -- 10 it's all existing subdivision. I mean, you know, unless 11 someone goes into -- and their -- and the likelihood of any 12 of those getting -- subdivisions getting expanded across that 13 line are slim to none. A developer's not going to go in and 14 do a revision of plat; he's going to go in and do a new 15 development outside the -- outside the subdivision. I mean, 16 there's no big acreage tracts in any of those subdivisions 17 for development. So, I just -- it doesn't -- it really 18 reduces the need for it. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Commissioner Letz? I went 20 off into a coma there for a minute. What made you launch 21 into us going to the courtroom? What was the issue? 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, the issue to me -- I 23 think we can work on the bullet points. We got off on 24 talking about these bullet points. We get -- every time we 25 have a discussion, we start getting into minutiae. This is 7-29-09 jcc 55 1 the critical thing, is the areas of jurisdiction, and if we 2 can't agree on that, well, there's no point to talk about 3 this, to me. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. 5 COUNCILMAN GROSS: I think Buster made a good 6 point. I think arbitration would be an embarrassment. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Say that again? 8 JUDGE TINLEY: At a minimum. 9 COUNCILMAN GROSS: Arbitration would be an 10 embarrassment. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: At a minimum. 12 COUNCILMAN GROSS: Grown men and women. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I really don't know why we 14 can't find an agreement. 15 COUNCILMAN GROSS: Well, we can. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: And your point is well made, that 17 just as in the issue dealing with the capital project at the 18 airport, that's why we're here. We're to sit down and 19 discuss issues that may be somewhat unpalatable to each of us 20 in some respects, but if you don't discuss it, you're not 21 going to find a common ground. 22 COUNCILMAN GROSS: That's my point. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Sure. 24 COUNCILMAN GROSS: May go long, but it's okay. 25 COUNCILMAN COLEMAN: Let's start from the very 7-29-09 jcc 56 1 get-go, just for my benefit. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 3 COUNCILMAN COLEMAN: Four years ago, what did the 4 State want us to do, collectively? 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Wanted us to come up with one-stop 6 shopping, is what it was geared to. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And gave us several exceptions 8 -- options to get there. 9 COUNCILMAN COLEMAN: And then what were those 10 options? I mean, what's the best we're really trying to do? 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Whether city rules can be 12 applied throughout the ETJ, county rules throughout the ETJ, 13 or come up with our own set -- with a new set of rules that 14 one of us has to administer. Or we divide up geographically. 15 Those are the four options. 16 COUNCILMAN COLEMAN: And I guess in my mind -- and 17 here's where I'm trying to be a good steward for my -- what I 18 perceive to be my constituents. The ETJ is basically defined 19 for the City's area of future growth, right? 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's the -- yeah, I would 21 agree, the purpose of it, yes. 22 COUNCILMAN COLEMAN: And I guess my concern is that 23 we have to be able to grow. If we get to a point where we 24 don't grow, we become stagnant and we just slowly die off. 25 We can't continue to expand our infrastructure and our sewer 7-29-09 jcc 57 1 plants and water plants and that kind of thing. So, in my 2 mind, I personally feel -- and, again, I'm speaking for my 3 constituents. I personally feel that we need to be dominant 4 in the ETJ. And to that end, I -- or in what -- Tuesday 5 night we talked about some caveats, where we -- we cannot 6 afford to be limited in our growth. And when you look at the 7 maps, we're just totally bracketed. I mean, we just we have 8 very little growth out that top north end. Around Harper 9 Road, that's about it. And that's scary. But you -- and 10 I'll make another point. Some of these subdivisions out in 11 the ETJ, they're all going to be development-driven. If a 12 developer comes in and he's willing to extend sewer and water 13 lines out to an acreage, and he's going to put in a big 14 subdivision of affordable housing, the City could work with 15 them and take care of that, whereas it might not right now 16 appear to be feasible on a map. We'd certainly -- 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Certainly wouldn't preclude it. 18 No map would preclude that. 19 COUNCILMAN COLEMAN: Well, that's right. Now, what 20 we talked about the other night, we talked about three 21 caveats, and we've always had these three caveats throughout 22 all of our discussions, and one was that the stronger of the 23 city or the county rules prevail, whatever those are. And I 24 think -- I think you all are in agreement with that, too. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But -- yes, but the question 7-29-09 jcc 58 1 is, what does "stronger" mean? And that's why I brought up 2 Monday, is a 60-acre right-of-way more stringent than a curb 3 and gutter? It depends on the value of the land. 4 MR. COLEMAN: Council, y'all heard my spiel on 5 this, but briefly, my spiel is, you guys need to decide if we 6 were coming up with a blended set of rules that apply in the 7 ETJ, 'cause our city rules do not apply in every sense, or if 8 we need to come up with a blended set of -- or a blended map, 9 okay? Thus far, over the last couple months, we've worked 10 through the process of coming up with a blended map. Based 11 on what I think I hear from the County is that they want 12 protection of the users on the ground today, and what I hear 13 from the City is we need protection for the future growth. 14 That's really the two pieces. 15 COUNCILMAN COLEMAN: To me, that's -- from our 16 standpoint -- 17 MR. COLEMAN: If we fail to come up with a map that 18 works, perhaps we need to let that rest and shift our 19 attention to a blended set of rules. 20 COUNCILMAN COLEMAN: Kevin, that may be the answer. 21 MR. COLEMAN: But you still have to deal with the 22 point that somebody controls those rules when somebody walks 23 in the door, and we haven't dealt with that, either. 24 COUNCILMAN COLEMAN: Well, that's a good point. 25 Let me get these other two. City approves all the plans in 7-29-09 jcc 59 1 the ETJ, and City inspects all the projects and charges the 2 fees. Now, to me, that's correct, us being good stewards for 3 ETJ land. 4 COUNCILWOMAN KEEBLE: And let me add to -- you're 5 saying those caveats with this map. 6 COUNCILMAN COLEMAN: Stacy, I don't know. 7 COUNCILWOMAN KEEBLE: This is the original map that 8 we agreed on. 9 COUNCILMAN COLEMAN: I haven't looked at the map. 10 I don't know. I don't know that I want to -- to me, that's a 11 complexity addition to the whole process. It may be Kevin's 12 right. Maybe a blended set of standards is the answer; I 13 don't know. But to me, that's complexity. All of these 14 caveats on this sheet is complexity. We're making it harder 15 for that ultimate user out there. 16 COUNCILMAN GROSS: I really like the idea of 17 blended standards. We're not that far apart. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We tried that for six or nine 19 months, and that's when Councilman -- or the City Manager 20 came up with the idea, let's try to divide it. We haven't 21 been able to get that the other direction. We tried since 22 last September to do blended rules and we couldn't get there. 23 MR. COLEMAN: And it's hard. It is mentally hard 24 to do this, because both groups care about what they're 25 trying to protect. But to use -- to use an analogy here -- 7-29-09 jcc 60 1 and I hate to, almost, but to use an analogy, it is as if two 2 professional tennis players have been asked to play doubles 3 together, and they can play by themselves and do very well, 4 but they can do better as a team if they can decide whose 5 responsibility it is to hit the ball when it's hit to them 6 and who -- who's stronger and who isn't, and who hits first. 7 It's as easy as that. That's the basis of this map. All 8 right? If it's in the County's side of the court, they're 9 the dominant player, and if they're not, then they step down 10 and -- and the City is the dominant player in here. I think 11 I agree with Mr. Letz; we're pretty close to finishing that. 12 If we are settled on that, that's the basic path we want to 13 go down. If we're not settled on that, that that's the basic 14 path we need to go down, we need to fall back and regroup. 15 We've tried to blend standards, and it is an intricate and 16 tedious path to go down, because virtually every standard 17 needs to be blended. A broader brush is to look at the broad 18 playing field and determine who takes the dominant role in an 19 area and who doesn't. 20 MAYOR BOCK: What is the -- what is the 21 repercussions of trying something? I know this is all going 22 to change in a short period of time. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Five years. 24 MAYOR BOCK: I would just like to try something. I 25 mean, if -- we all know what happens if it doesn't work; we 7-29-09 jcc 61 1 let the other one know. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Cancel it. We've done that. 3 MAYOR BOCK: And, again, to prevent us from going 4 to arbitration, again, 'cause we're going to get this in 5 front of a judge and they're going to look at it and they're 6 not going to have any problem. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I've got to run. I apologize. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He gets everything stirred 9 up, then he leaves. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, I guess. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Somebody made him a better 12 offer. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Better fight down the road. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Better fight down the road. My 15 final thought on this, Kevin, is I think the differences on 16 the maps are three areas. To me, either -- 17 MAYOR BOCK: These single marked areas? 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, marked. I guess, you 19 know, refer it back to, you know, the City Manager. 20 COUNCILMAN COLEMAN: Well, and, Jonathan, this is 21 your map that I've been looking at. I can't understand that, 22 and I'm a pretty smart guy. I mean, that's got yellow and 23 green all over it; it's got red dashes, it's got red lines, 24 and I'm real confused. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's -- okay. Well, we 7-29-09 jcc 62 1 can get with the City; we can come up with a clearer map. 2 The reason that map is confusing is it shows existing 3 subdivisions, and it also shows topography. Those are two 4 very strong, important points on the way it was drawn. But 5 we can come up -- I can get with Kevin. We can come up with 6 that same map, easier to look at. I agree. That was done -- 7 it was done by hand, a lot of that. And get it out, and give 8 us two weeks to come up -- 9 COUNCILMAN COLEMAN: And, Jonathan, Stacy's map 10 here -- I think that's the one. 11 COUNCILWOMAN KEEBLE: This is the one that we came 12 up with. 13 COUNCILMAN COLEMAN: There's a lot of yellow. 14 COUNCILWOMAN KEEBLE: There's still a lot of 15 yellow. 16 MR. PARTON: What did you say? There's three -- or 17 at least two basic points that have been the common things 18 we've talked about. One is the standard that gets applied in 19 consideration for the rural very low-density project, and the 20 other is the long-term maintenance responsibility. And you 21 expressed the County's concern has been if you put in a 22 certain street level standard, then there's the concern about 23 the County's ability to be able to maintain. If it's a 24 concrete curb and gutter or a ribbon curb, that concrete edge 25 has been a concern when we've talked about maintenance. 7-29-09 jcc 63 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The standard has to be -- the 2 road standard has to be the County's if it's going to be 3 County-maintained, certainly, because we have to maintain the 4 roads. And it's not fair to the -- to us as a department, or 5 the taxpayers as a whole, for us to have to accept a road and 6 then go in and fix it or change it. So, the road -- and the 7 road standards are -- I mean, the road standards are close 8 enough, other than grade right now, and I think the City's 9 aware of what our requirements are there. Curb and gutter is 10 something we're just not equipped to take care of. And on 11 the areas where there's yellow on either map, curb and 12 gutters aren't going to go in there anyway. I'm sorry, I -- 13 COUNCILMAN COLEMAN: Jonathan, one other thing to 14 be thinking about in the back of your mind is, in a couple 15 years, when we hit that 2 -- that 2-mile ETJ, what do we do 16 then? What happens to these yellow areas? 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's a basis to start 18 talking. I mean, I think you look at that a lot. I think in 19 the -- in many areas -- well, you look -- you have to know 20 where development's going. I think you have to look -- there 21 has to be a provision that you look at this as it goes. If a 22 developer comes in and -- out in the Bear Creek area comes in 23 and wants to put in a big development like the Comanche 24 Trace, well, that's going to clearly necessitate this map 25 being amended that year, because it changes everything, and 7-29-09 jcc 64 1 that needs to be a provision. This is not an etched-in-stone 2 map. It needs to be flexible enough that we can change it as 3 the city limits change. 4 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: High-density subdivisions are 5 going to require sewer and water. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're going to have -- and to 7 do that, the only -- 8 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We don't do that. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The only way you do a 10 high-density subdivision anywhere in Kerrville is to get 11 water from the city of Kerrville. You're the only ones that 12 has water. No one -- no utility has it, the quantity 13 required. And none of them right now -- Aqua Texas, they're 14 not going to pay for the infrastructure to put in the 15 requirements that we put in the agreement for fire flow, 16 which the County supports that for any kind of high-density. 17 Sorry, y'all. 18 MAYOR BOCK: Thank you, Jonathan. 19 (Commissioner Letz left the meeting.) 20 MAYOR BOCK: So -- so, I guess the next step is 21 where we go from here. Do we want to go -- I heard that we 22 take this map back, Bruce, and y'all -- Jonathan's going to 23 get with staff and clear this up, clean the map up for a 24 better look at the map. But I also understand that as the 25 County, we extend -- we extend an offer to the County to come 7-29-09 jcc 65 1 review. Is that offer also extended to the City any time you 2 guys review anything in your jurisdictional area? Would that 3 be something that would be extended back? 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: You're talking about specific 6 projects? 7 MAYOR BOCK: Specific projects. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Sure. 9 MAYOR BOCK: Ultimately, they'd still have the same 10 development review committee working on county jurisdiction 11 or city jurisdiction. We have one development review 12 committee. We have one committee. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: I think you're necessarily going to 14 have that to determine the future direction of -- 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: -- what your jurisdictional -- the 17 resolution of your jurisdictional issues, just like was 18 mentioned a little bit ago. If there's -- if there's a 19 developer who wants to come in out of Bear Creek, put in some 20 high-density situation, it's time to sit down and -- and 21 restructure at least that portion of the map. 22 MAYOR BOCK: So, then, in essence, though, we still 23 will have one development review committee, so one will 24 always know what the other one's doing, so if the need for 25 fire flow is there and the developer that's in the yellow 7-29-09 jcc 66 1 shaded area says -- you guys go, "Oh, no, you got to talk to 2 these guys here about that," then we still create that 3 one-stop shopping. Is that -- 4 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'll tell you one way to 5 resolve that -- some of those issues, and I think we do it at 6 the county level, is we'll have preliminary conferences with 7 the developers, and at that point in time, it might be a good 8 time for the -- if there's an area that's in question, to 9 have the City representation as well as the County to review 10 that and give that developer some direction about what the 11 needs are going to -- and the requirements are going to be 12 for that area. It's a preliminary step. You don't want to 13 wait and deal with this stuff when you get to a preliminary 14 plat. He needs the direction prior to going out and spending 15 a bunch of money and time to figure out what he's supposed to 16 do, that this is a really good time. 17 COUNCILMAN COLEMAN: That exists in our process, 18 too. Now, there is that occasional developer that will go 19 out and spend a bunch of money and then say, "Hey, make this 20 work for me," but that's a different person. We can't really 21 fix that. 22 MAYOR BOCK: Well, I think, as we know -- like you 23 say, as long as all development emanates from both bodies, we 24 have a body you go to. This is our development review 25 committee in the ETJ, which is -- and I would feel 7-29-09 jcc 67 1 comfortable if we had it listed by who they are, so we all 2 could put our hands around it and go, "Okay, we're 3 represented." 4 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah. It's just a matter of 5 getting the group together to review, and in pretty much a 6 relaxed setting. You don't have to have a formal meeting to 7 do these sort of things in the very beginning, kind of give 8 somebody direction, the rules that are already in place. 9 It's just a matter of getting people that are knowledgeable 10 to give that direction, and then -- then you go to the formal 11 process of approvals and whatever through the Council and the 12 Court. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I like your idea, and I 14 never have had a problem with doing that kind of thing, or 15 even having people go from one place to another. That 16 doesn't bother me at all. I just don't want him paying the 17 fee at our place, and then going to your place and paying 18 another fee. How dumb is that, to treat our citizens that 19 way? You -- we can't do it. If they can drive back and 20 forth, I couldn't care less. I just don't want them paying 21 the fees. But I like -- 22 COUNCILMAN MOTHERAL: Yeah. The way you were -- 23 that it was proposed, whichever entity was the primary or the 24 initiator or whatever you want to call it would collect the 25 fees, not only for themselves but for the other party, and 7-29-09 jcc 68 1 one stop. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So if we collect yours, we 3 can rake off 10 percent? (Laughter.) Administrative fee 4 here. 5 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Really, I think this is a 6 fairly simple problem to solve. If you really look at what 7 you're wanting to control, all of us, the City has a master 8 plan of some sort, I understand. And, of course, the County 9 doesn't, but that's just neither here nor there. But it 10 seems to me like that if you have an area within the ETJ that 11 you're planning to annex at some point in time that's going 12 to be a dense enough development for you to provide sewer and 13 water to, then you would definitely want control in that 14 area, without any question. If you have an existing 15 subdivision that already has covenants on how it can be 16 divided, and it -- I mean, you're not going to put sewer and 17 water into a subdivision that has 25-acre lots. Ain't going 18 to happen. And those lots are probably not going to be 19 divided for many, many years, until that land becomes worth 20 so much that the whole homeowners association will agree to 21 change the covenants and sell out, or redivide. So, really, 22 you know, I've looked at -- and I have an area. You can't -- 23 you're not going to move your ETJ any further west, because 24 you can't run over Ingram. That's the end of it, where it is 25 right now going west. You can do -- you can do different 7-29-09 jcc 69 1 things going south and going -- going east and north, but not 2 too much north, 'cause you run into the county line. But 3 it's really pretty simple, you know, in my mind to what we -- 4 we have to control O.S.S.F. That's the only -- I mean, 5 that's state law. 6 COUNCILMAN MOTHERAL: That's why we invite you all 7 to these meetings. 8 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Right. And that's just -- 9 that's a given. And, you know, I -- I guess the burr under 10 my saddle has been that there was a development approved on 11 Goat Creek Cutoff with substandard lot sizes, and now they 12 can't get reasonable septic. 13 COUNCILMAN MOTHERAL: Can't get what? 14 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think they're -- the 15 allowable water use a day in that subdivision, some of those 16 little places, is going to be 11 gallons a day is all they 17 have room for a system. That's the max system they can put 18 on those properties. That's the kind of thing we don't want 19 to happen, because you don't have sewer out there, you don't 20 have water out there, but yet you approved a substandard lot 21 size. 22 COUNCILMAN COLEMAN: What -- just to be clear, 23 though, whoever was handling O.S.S.F. at that point signed 24 off on that, so -- just to be clear that our process was in 25 place and they're in the game. 7-29-09 jcc 70 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That must have been U.G.R.A. 2 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think it -- 3 COUNCILMAN COLEMAN: I hate to ask this. What does 4 "O.S.S.F." mean? 5 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: On-site sewage -- septic or 6 sewage -- 7 COUNCILMAN COLEMAN: Thank you. 8 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- sanitary sewage facility. 9 COUNCILMAN COLEMAN: Thank you. 10 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And, you know, you have to 11 have -- there's a certain amount of room required for those. 12 There have to be setbacks from property lines. It's tied to, 13 you know, size of the home and water usage and all that. 14 COUNCILMAN COLEMAN: I got it, spacing. I 15 understand. 16 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You don't know about that, 17 but, you know, that's the thing that really concerns me. We 18 don't want you to approve something that's too small whenever 19 you're not going to provide water and sewer to it. We don't 20 care if you're going to provide water and sewer. Get on with 21 it; we couldn't care less. But if you're not, it makes a big 22 difference. And that developer says, "Well, I got approval." 23 COUNCILMAN COLEMAN: And the water is -- water is a 24 big issue, too. That one little lady over here brought it up 25 last night. Water is driven by Headwaters -- groundwater, I 7-29-09 jcc 71 1 guess. 2 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Mm-hmm. 3 COUNCILMAN COLEMAN: And in times like this, where 4 we are in a dry -- drought conditions, it's -- it receives 5 even greater emphasis. Or -- and I have not kept up with 6 that water. Are they in a posture to where they're 7 increasing their standards? Are they making it tougher on 8 spacing? 9 COUNCILMAN MOTHERAL: What they have done, the new 10 set of rules is actually forcing the individual wells to be 11 more prolific, because they're strengthening the standard 12 requirements on central systems, and it makes it more 13 difficult. 14 COUNCILMAN COLEMAN: So, they're trying to 15 concentrate on the number of wells in the future, wells to 16 serve more properties? 17 COUNCILMAN MOTHERAL: No. No, the other way 18 around. What is effectively going to happen is that you will 19 see fewer central systems go in and more independent, 20 individual wells, because they've strengthened the 21 requirements on the central systems. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But that's essentially 23 going to be 5 acres or greater. 24 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah, that's why -- 25 COUNCILMAN COLEMAN: And they control the well 7-29-09 jcc 72 1 spacing by the septic. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's right. 3 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We're tied to the water 4 availability. 5 COUNCILMAN GROSS: I'm looking at this and thinking 6 maybe we were trying to solve a problem we really didn't 7 have. And if we did have a problem, have we not solved it? 8 MAYOR BOCK: Sounds good. I think what we'll end 9 up doing now is seeing this back on both of our next agendas. 10 Y'all are going to meet sometime between the next -- 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Talking about the 10th. 12 You may not get it ready by the 10th. 13 COUNCILWOMAN KEEBLE: Todd, can I just add, I come 14 at this from a whole new perspective, 'cause I -- I'm new to 15 Council. I'm new to this ETJ issue. And from my 16 perspective, I've talked to developers and they told me, 17 "Look, all I want to know is what the rules are, and I just 18 want to go to one place and get it done. And all I want to 19 know is the rules. I don't care if it's county; I really 20 don't care if it it's city. I just want to know what the 21 rules are and I want to get it done." And I want to help the 22 developers, 'cause, you know, we need to improve our economic 23 development around this whole area, especially right now. 24 So, if our goal -- I think our common goal is to help the 25 developers, to simplify the process. I look into the other 7-29-09 jcc 73 1 cities, and it seems to me that the city controls the ETJ, 2 because the ETJ is the area that the city will expand into, 3 probably. We don't know which areas, but most of it, any of 4 it, all of it. It's the area that the city will eventually 5 become, and so cities control the ETJ. 6 Now I come into this situation and learn that we've 7 been sharing responsibility with the county, and I think 8 that's okay, and we made a -- an agreement. We gave you a 9 map, and the three caveats that we said, "Okay, if you want 10 to share in the responsibility, here's what we'll share with 11 you." And that's as far as I thought we should go. And so, 12 you know, now we have this more extensive map that we didn't 13 approve last night, and so that's where I feel like I have 14 gotten to. I mean, I think -- it may not even be the city's 15 prerogative to have to -- to share with the county, is where 16 I think -- for efficiency's sake, for the developer's sake, 17 for simplicity's sake, if the city just ran the whole ETJ, 18 that would be the most efficient and helpful and clear, 19 concise, just like other cities do. If we are going to 20 share, I think we should limit it to the offer that we made. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There -- 22 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That -- go ahead. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's -- I think you have 24 to harken back to one of the comments that Commissioner 25 Oehler made. If there's a strong intention of annexation 7-29-09 jcc 74 1 because of a proposed development which is going to require 2 city services, God bless, do it. But there's also -- there 3 is also a concern that it is really not reasonable to impose 4 city standards in areas -- unincorporated areas of the 5 county, whether they're within the ETJ or beyond, where there 6 is no reasonable intention or expectation that you're ever 7 going to annex it. You're saying to a property owner, just 8 because you happen to be fortunate or unfortunate enough to 9 be within the ETJ, we're going to impose these standards on 10 it, and the City has no intention ever of taking it within 11 the city limits. 12 COUNCILWOMAN KEEBLE: But you can't always know -- 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: To me, that's a problem. 14 COUNCILWOMAN KEEBLE: -- which area is which. 15 COUNCILMAN MOTHERAL: That's the same approach -- 16 mentality that got us Kerrville South. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, let's figure out a 18 way to get out of it. 19 COUNCILMAN MOTHERAL: That's what we're saying now. 20 And I think that the one-stop shop that we have attempted to 21 put up with, and notifying the County of everything that's 22 happening that we know about within the ETJ, inviting you all 23 to participate at that level so that as early as possible, 24 whether it's a conceptual plan, whether it's a visit, 25 whatever, the developer knows immediately what he's got to 7-29-09 jcc 75 1 do. And that's the point. And I'm with Stacy on this, quite 2 frankly. It simplifies it a whole lot if the city takes the 3 ETJ in its entirety, but the county participates in all of 4 these communications with the developer -- pardon me, the 5 development community so that there is no foggy area. 6 COUNCILMAN COLEMAN: And, guys, I agree with -- 7 philosophically, I agree with both, and I think that's where 8 we were four years ago. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One point of rebuttal. 10 Participate is one thing. Participation with the intention 11 of enforcing a blended set of standards is quite another. 12 And that gets us back to the -- to why can we not develop a 13 blended set of standards that embodies the best of the City's 14 standards and the best of the County's? Why can we not, as 15 intelligent people, find that kind of a solution? 16 COUNCILMAN COLEMAN: And, Bill, I thought we did 17 that four years ago. 18 COUNCILMAN MOTHERAL: Every time that I think we're 19 just about there, I get a new set of deals. This -- this 20 page that you were given here, this was the page that we were 21 given Monday afternoon. This is the page that showed up with 22 this meeting. I mean, it changes every time we meet. And 23 I -- I'm perfectly willing to create a set of blended 24 standards for the ETJ. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Then let's be about it. 7-29-09 jcc 76 1 COUNCILMAN COLEMAN: And, Todd, didn't we have a 2 blended set of standards four years ago? Dust them off. 3 MR. COLEMAN: And the problem with that blended set 4 of standards, just for clarity, is that there are always 5 developments that don't match that. 6 COUNCILMAN COLEMAN: I agree. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what variances are 8 all about. Right? 9 COUNCILMAN COLEMAN: But we've drawn trees on how 10 many different paths of variance -- of rules there would be 11 to kind of come up with a -- "trees" as in this piece of 12 property is within the service area of the city, within the 13 service area of the city streets. This set of standards, 14 this set of properties is, you know, served by something 15 else. Water, this set of standards. There's, like, 20 of 16 them. That's not easier for the user, and I submit, that's 17 not easier for the City or for the County. 18 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, I guess it really gets 19 down to what are your basic rules. I mean, in our situation, 20 it's going to be lot size, and that's tied to water 21 availability, and whether you're on the city or whether 22 you're on a public system, whether you're on a well, that's 23 real simple. It's lots. I mean, that's within our rules. 24 And the O.S.S.F. is within those same rules, same guidelines. 25 They match, and so that all ties to lot size. You can't have 7-29-09 jcc 77 1 high-density development in a situation like I just 2 described. You're looking at 2 and a half acres plus, 3 minimum, you know. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Unless public utilities are 5 made available. 6 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Exactly. And that -- 7 COUNCILMAN COLEMAN: I'm going to use that 8 statement. I'm going to use that statement and speak 9 specifically to the City Council part of this group. Guys, 10 that is exactly what this map differentiates between our map, 11 okay? So that we're all clear about that. The original map 12 that y'all approved showed existing city -- existing 13 subdivisions and areas that are already developed in 14 large-lot developments, okay? This map presumes that these 15 single cross-hatched areas are going to be large-lot 16 developments, I presume. 17 COUNCILMAN MOTHERAL: I think that's it. 18 COUNCILMAN COLEMAN: That's the caveat, that if 19 they are not, the County will stand down and submit that back 20 to us. 21 COUNCILMAN MOTHERAL: But that is a confusing 22 statement that doesn't need to be made. And the -- the 23 bottom line is that we don't need to go to the development 24 community with it and say, "Well, we'll consider this, but if 25 you're in this area, we're going to change it to that," and 7-29-09 jcc 78 1 this kind of thing. Well, that's confusing. Forget it. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's why blended 3 standards make sense. 4 COUNCILMAN MOTHERAL: I agree with you, Bill. I 5 thoroughly agree with you, and we are perfectly willing to 6 develop a set of standards or propose a set of standards for 7 your review that are blended. And, basically, what it will 8 amount to is that if your standards are more stringent, we're 9 going to use them. If our standards are more stringent, 10 we're going to use them, and that's the bottom line of 11 what -- what we have proposed now for months. And it's very 12 frustrating to think you have an agreement and come back at 13 the next meeting with a whole new set of stuff. 14 COUNCILMAN GROSS: Let me ask a question. 15 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Need to stop coming back with 16 more stuff. 17 COUNCILMAN MOTHERAL: Yeah. I mean, it's very 18 frustrating. 19 COUNCILMAN GROSS: So, we're talking about blending 20 county standards and city standards. Why couldn't the city 21 have a set of standards that will apply to large lots and a 22 different set that -- in other words, if you have a 5-acre 23 lot, then this is the standards. If you have a small 24 subdivided lot, then it's regular city standards. 25 COUNCILMAN MOTHERAL: Essentially, we do that. 7-29-09 jcc 79 1 COUNCILMAN GROSS: Maybe we should just stick with 2 whatever's in the ETJ, we control, and we have a set of 3 standards that is flexible enough that would accommodate 4 developments of various sizes. Then we don't have to blend 5 with their standards, just fix ours. 6 COUNCILMAN MOTHERAL: I -- if you all want to, I 7 think, Kevin, if you agree, and Todd, I will be glad to work 8 with you all and come up with a suggested set of standards to 9 be used in the ETJ so that we're all on the same standard. 10 It's not county standards or city standards; it's ETJ 11 standards. And then we don't need to go through this map and 12 all of this other stuff. That goes away. 13 MAYOR BOCK: Would the map go away? 14 COUNCILMAN MOTHERAL: Yeah. 15 MAYOR BOCK: Then we don't talk about this; we talk 16 about standards. 17 COUNCILWOMAN KEEBLE: And the developers know 18 exactly what's required. 19 COUNCILMAN MOTHERAL: Exactly. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm cool with that. 21 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's fine. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: With that approach. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, what we've done so far hasn't 24 worked. Why not try something else? 25 MR. COLEMAN: I'll submit to you, we will retry 7-29-09 jcc 80 1 this, but we have tried this. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: I understand. This is a retrial 3 coming from a different direction. 4 MR. COLEMAN: Right. 5 MR. PARTON: I think the first words of business, 6 when you really look at it, you look at what the county 7 standard is, you look at what the city standards are, 8 especially as they pertain to rural developments. They are 9 very, very close. They are so close. 10 COUNCILMAN MOTHERAL: Yeah. 11 MR. PARTON: I think the real issue is a procedural 12 issue, and from the city's perspective, we'd like to be able 13 to have the city be the signatory on plat documents. That 14 doesn't preclude the county and the county's right to be able 15 to review those subdivision standards, request or demand 16 corrective action be taken to bring you into conformance with 17 the standard. 18 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It's just -- it's got to be 19 reviewed because of lot size, mainly water availability and 20 all those things. Unless -- if you're going -- if you go 21 into the ETJ and you identify areas that you're going to say, 22 "Those areas are going to be high density and we are going to 23 serve those with sewer and water," we don't have any 24 jurisdiction whatsoever. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Don't want it. 7-29-09 jcc 81 1 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Don't want it. Don't want 2 any part of it. That's your deal, but when you approve lots 3 that come within the regulation of -- of water availability 4 and O.S.S.F., then I think we have to be, 'cause we are by 5 law. 6 COUNCILMAN COLEMAN: We get away from the stigma of 7 the map. So, I agree; I think that's a good way to go. 8 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Because you have a lot of 9 areas that you are not going to have high-density 10 subdivisions in. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: If you want to simplify it even 12 further and just assume everything within the ETJ, if you 13 will guarantee to annex and provide city services for 14 everything that occurs there, I'd say you can have it all. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: School's out. 16 COUNCILMAN COLEMAN: We need to have the ability to 17 make that decision, Judge. That's a good point. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: You know, if you say this is where 19 we're going to grow, -- 20 COUNCILMAN COLEMAN: And the only issue -- 21 JUDGE TINLEY: -- if you'll commit to provide city 22 services -- I'm talking about water and wastewater, you know. 23 COUNCILMAN COLEMAN: The only issue -- 24 JUDGE TINLEY: We're out of the game. 25 COUNCILMAN COLEMAN: Development is organic and you 7-29-09 jcc 82 1 never know where it's going to go, but where it goes, 2 everything else follows. And if somebody wants to come in 3 and do a big high-density, we're going to go there. We're 4 going to take care of them. But you're right. If it's a 5 lower -- very low density, we can't feasibly do that. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, you're not going to 7 extend services. 8 COUNCILMAN COLEMAN: I agree. 9 MAYOR BOCK: So, no more map; we're done with the 10 map. Now we're going to be all about one set of standards 11 and one development review committee. So, no more yellow on 12 maps or crosses on maps. Maps are done. 13 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, the yellow's always 14 going to be there, because it's in the ETJ. 15 MAYOR BOCK: Right. 16 COUNCILMAN COLEMAN: Can we call Jonathan and tell 17 him? 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: You can call Jonathan. We're not. 20 (Laughter.) 21 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And there will be a map, only 22 just not a revised one. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Don't even mention his name; 24 he may come back. 25 COUNCILMAN COLEMAN: Oh. 7-29-09 jcc 83 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've seen it happen before. 2 (Low-voice discussion off the record.) 3 MAYOR BOCK: Any questions by staff? Or any -- 4 MR. PARTON: Okay. Can we put a timeline? Can we 5 have a timeline, so -- so, within the next month, we should 6 try to come back with a draft set? I think we can get it 7 through it pretty quickly, a draft set. A draft set. 8 'Cause, again, I think it's -- 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: By August 10? Or by later 10 in the month? 11 MR. PARTON: Well, I think -- 12 COUNCILMAN COLEMAN: I'll go with August 10, but 13 I'm not committing to a year. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What did you say? 15 COUNCILMAN COLEMAN: I'll go with August 10, but 16 I'm not committing to a year. 17 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I agree with you. It's 18 really all -- it already exists; it's just a matter of how to 19 implement it. 20 MAYOR BOCK: Right. It's there. 21 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: All it is is implementation 22 and giving developers exactly one-stop shopping. 23 MAYOR BOCK: I don't think there's a lot of code 24 work to do. 25 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: No. 7-29-09 jcc 84 1 MR. PARTON: There's not a lot of code work to do. 2 It's simply ironing out the process, making sure we've got 3 accountability where it's supposed to go, and everybody's 4 involved in the loop. A procedural question, really, not 5 a -- 6 COUNCILMAN COLEMAN: Been a good meeting, guys. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: You got anything else, Mr. Mayor? 8 MAYOR BOCK: No. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: You probably notice, those of you 10 that have a county agenda, there's another item on the county 11 agenda. That, of course, is the result of the letter which I 12 wrote seeking a meeting for the purpose of having a 13 discussion concerning E.I.C. matters. And I'm thinking back 14 to a comment a moment ago about the need to have discussion 15 and -- and exchange of ideas to make progress. And the -- I 16 feel compelled, now that we've gotten through the policy 17 portion of the meeting, to express my very extreme 18 disappointment in the City's refusal, I would have to term 19 it, to meet to discuss E.I.C. issues. E.I.C. issues, I 20 think, are very, very -- there's a great deal of interest in 21 them now. We've heard a lot about them more recently. I 22 think there is constituent concern, even to the point of 23 those that have watched the local scene for a number of years 24 and recall that, even to the point where there was an 25 initiative by the citizens that probably had something to do 7-29-09 jcc 85 1 with political careers of some former council members, there 2 was a degree of interest by constituents. I think these are 3 issues that need to be discussed, and I was very 4 disappointed. I thank Ms. Keeble for her willingness to be 5 able to discuss those, voting to go forward that way, but I 6 was very disappointed. I feel compelled to tell you that. 7 And, very frankly, I see it as something discourteous on your 8 part, and that's my shot at it. That's my personal opinion. 9 And we've got it on our agenda for today, and -- 10 COUNCILMAN COLEMAN: Judge, we don't have it on our 11 agenda. I'm not sure how much I can say, but I will -- I 12 will share with you, this is one area -- and I've gone 13 through this four or five times, and not only E.I.C., but 14 City Council meetings. I know you've been there for a couple 15 of them. That -- and I don't want to go through all the 16 litany of why and the logic of why that E.I.C. money sources 17 from the city, and why it is really the city, and why it 18 should not be used in those instances where it's county-owned 19 assets. Now, I will tell you, when your letter came through, 20 it was -- I perceived that letter to be very condescending 21 and arrogant. You were going to educate us poor dumb guys as 22 to how E.I.C. money should be used, and you invited the 23 airport and E.I.C. and us, and you all, and you wanted to 24 bring in a guy from Austin. And we've already had all of 25 that. And I guess the tone of the letter emboldened me to a 7-29-09 jcc 86 1 point that I thought, no, that's not appropriate. And I'll 2 go one step further. My whole stand on this is reflected, I 3 think, pretty much in total by both the council and the 4 E.I.C., and I guarantee you, I have had more attaboys from 5 citizens out in the community on my stand on this issue. And 6 beyond that, I can't say. 7 MR. HAYES: We need to -- it's not on Council's 8 agenda. The Judge alluded to that, so we really can't 9 deliberate, certainly, or even participate. I kind of let 10 that go, just to be the kind of framework with which they -- 11 they decline to put it on the agenda. 12 COUNCILMAN COLEMAN: And I hope that doesn't damage 13 our good relationship. We've done good thing here today. We 14 did an excellent thing a year ago when we locked in on our -- 15 our cost-sharing issues, and I think we do have a good 16 relationship. And, Judge, we have gone through -- we used it 17 for the shooting center, which is out in the county. We used 18 it to build the parks pavilion out on y'all's land. We're 19 going to use -- E.I.C. money's going to be used for county 20 projects; there's no doubt about that, but you just can't 21 come demand it for our citizens to pay for your half of the 22 airport asset. And I shouldn't have said all of that. I 23 quit. I quit. (Laughter.) Go ahead. Go ahead. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: I merely asked for a discussion on 25 some broad general areas, and I was asking for everybody to 7-29-09 jcc 87 1 be educated. And with respect to the various components of 2 the interplay, and as I'm sure you're aware, there has been 3 significant criticism in the past of the use of the E.I.C. 4 funds, not just here, but across the state. And -- and we 5 had an issue here locally that I think should have been a 6 wake-up call for some folks. But -- 7 COUNCILMAN COLEMAN: Are you speaking of the 8 shooting center? 9 JUDGE TINLEY: The issue that it very simply boiled 10 down to is, let's sit down and talk about these things. And 11 the answer I got was, "No, we do not want to talk to you 12 about that." 13 COUNCILMAN GROSS: On a personal note, I'm sure you 14 didn't mean to be offensive, and -- and we didn't mean to be 15 offensive either. Not to discuss the issue, but the context. 16 It wasn't our intention to draw a lock. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I felt compelled to pitch that 18 out. That's the reason it's on the agenda. Obviously, we 19 can't talk about it. 20 COUNCILMAN COLEMAN: And your persistence is noted, 21 Judge. That was the third time. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You feel any better or 23 anything? 24 JUDGE TINLEY: I may renew my request. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There you go. I thought it 7-29-09 jcc 88 1 was a good idea. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Kind of like when you go before an 3 appellate court; if you don't get the right solution, you ask 4 for a rehearing. Anything else, Mr. Mayor? 5 MAYOR BOCK: No, sir. Our agenda is complete. 6 And, Council, I would move that we adjourn. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Hear, hear. 8 COUNCILMAN COLEMAN: Thanks, everybody. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further from any member of 10 the Court? 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, sir. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: We'll be adjourned. 13 (Joint meeting was adjourned at 3:55 p.m.) 14 - - - - - - - - - - 15 STATE OF TEXAS | 16 COUNTY OF KERR | 17 The above and foregoing is a true and complete 18 transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as 19 County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County, 20 Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth. 21 DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 17th day of August, 22 2009. 23 JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk 24 BY: _________________________________ Kathy Banik, Deputy County Clerk 25 Certified Shorthand Reporter 7-29-09 jcc