1 2 3 4 5 6 7 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT 8 Regular Session 9 (Continued from July 12, 2010) 10 Tuesday, July 13, 2010 11 1:00 p.m. 12 Commissioners' Courtroom 13 Kerr County Courthouse 14 Kerrville, Texas 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 PRESENT: PAT TINLEY, Kerr County Judge H. A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1 24 WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2 JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3 25 BRUCE OEHLER, Commissioner Pct. 4 2 1 I N D E X July 13, 2010 2 PAGE (Continued from July 12, 2010) 3 1.6 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to 4 adopt a resolution in opposition to the proposed pending federal law which would require public 5 safety workers to organize or unionize 3 6 1.7 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to request that the PUC delay further proceedings 7 on the proposed McCamey D-Kendall-Gillespie CREZ transmission line until appropriate study can be 8 done to show need/necessity for having such line 6 9 --- Adjourned 17 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 1 On Tuesday, July 13, 2010, at 1:00 p.m., the regular 2 July 12th meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was 3 continued in the Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County 4 Courthouse, Kerrville, Texas, and the following proceedings 5 were had in open court: 6 P R O C E E D I N G S 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to order. We 8 were in recess from our meeting of yesterday. We had at 9 least two more items that we left hanging. First one is 10 Item 6; to consider, discuss, take appropriate action to 11 adopt a resolution in opposition to the proposed pending 12 federal law which would require public safety workers to 13 organize or unionize. Commissioner Williams? 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Judge. I did 15 take a look at all of the material that we could get our 16 hands on regarding this topic, including the resolution that 17 came over from the City of Kerrville, and I took some 18 liberties to do some rewriting. And give me a minute; I'll 19 read it into the record and we'll see where it goes. This is 20 a resolution of Kerr County Commissioners Court opposing the 21 passage of federal legislation mandating collective 22 bargaining for state and local police, sheriff's deputies, 23 firefighters, and emergency medical service personnel. 24 Whereas House Resolution 413, the Public Safety 25 Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2009, sponsored by 7-13-10 4 1 Representative Dale Kildee, Democrat, of Michigan, is pending 2 in the U.S. House of Representatives; and whereas this 3 legislation would establish collective bargaining standards 4 for state and local police, firefighters, emergency medical 5 service personnel, directing local governments to recognize 6 the employees' labor unions and bargain for working 7 conditions such as wages, hours, and other terms of 8 employment; and whereas the separation between state and 9 federal government authority over collective bargaining was 10 recognized by the federal government when it adopted the 11 National Labor Relations Act in 1934 that specifically 12 exempts states and local governments from its coverage; and 13 whereas for Congress to mandate that local government 14 employers recognize and bargain collectively with specific 15 employees is a radical and unwarranted intrusion into the 16 operation of local governments; and whereas, in addition to 17 House Resolution 413, similar legislation such as Senate Bill 18 3194 and Senate Bill 1611 has been filed with the United 19 States Senate; and whereas the National Association of 20 Counties, National League of Cities, the National Sheriff's 21 Association are all opposed to this legislation and have 22 asserted that the legislation, quote, would establish a 23 precedent for federal interference in all employee-employer 24 relationships between state, county, and municipal 25 governments and their employers, unquote; 7-13-10 5 1 Now, therefore, be it resolved, Kerr County 2 Commissioners Court, by adoption of this resolution, opposes 3 the enactment of this or similar legislation as it undermines 4 county authority with respect to fundamental employment 5 decisions and interferes with state and local laws, and may 6 be found unconstitutional; and be it further resolved that 7 U.S. Senators Hutchison and Cornyn, Congressman Lamar Smith, 8 the Texas delegation to the U.S. House of Representatives, 9 and all other members of Congress are urged to vote against 10 the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2009 11 or any other similar legislation that may emerge that 12 mandates local governments to bargain collectively with any 13 local government employee unions that may form. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Hear, hear. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move the resolution. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 18 adoption of the resolution as read into the record. Do we 19 have any questions or comments? 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I do. Just one question. 21 Who's this thing going to? 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, it's going to all 23 these in the final "Resolved," the whole Texas delegation, 24 our two senators, Lamar. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 7-13-10 6 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And whomever else we can 2 send it to. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: President? 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: President, Congress. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Further question or discussion? All 6 in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. 7 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 8 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 9 (No response.) 10 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Let's move 11 to the -- to Item 7; that was unfinished from yesterday. 12 Consider, discuss, take appropriate action to request that 13 the P U.C. delay further proceedings on the proposed McCamey 14 D-Kendall-Gillespie CREZ transmission line till an 15 appropriate study can be done to show the need or necessity 16 for having such a line. Commissioner Letz? 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I actually wasn't aware that I 18 was writing that resolution totally, but anyway, I read the 19 -- I have a copy of the City's resolution, and we can pretty 20 much, I think, incorporate this same resolution with a few 21 changes, and I'll go ahead and read the resolution into the 22 -- or I guess how I would reword it slightly -- into the 23 record, and we can discuss it. Would the Court rather have a 24 quick copy of this? Has anyone else seen this resolution? 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There might be some other 7-13-10 7 1 folks that might want to see it. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Jody, will you go ahead and run 3 a few copies? And we can just -- 4 JUDGE TINLEY: We'll come back to that item 5 momentarily. Also, the Auditor has brought to my attention a 6 late bill which needs to be considered by the Court at this 7 session. It deals with the capital operations out at the 8 airport, and it amounts to capital improvements in the amount 9 of $285,958.08. Included within that amount are 277,208.08 10 dealing with the water line -- our portion of the water line, 11 and our portion of the master plan in the amount of 8,750. 12 That's one-half of the grant match, the -- I believe that's 13 a total of a 10 percent match, and we pay 5 percent; City 14 pays 5 percent. And that equates to -- 15 MS. HARGIS: That's for the master plan. And then 16 the water line was reduced to 482,000. They didn't give me 17 an exact figure. And then the board adopted a 15 percent 18 contingency on that water line, so there's probably a little 19 bit more money than we needed. But it originally was 20 700,000, so it was greatly reduced. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How many more projects do we 22 have at the airport? 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This will be the second 24 major one ongoing. The big one out there, which is the 25 relocation of the taxiways and so forth and the -- and the 7-13-10 8 1 under structure for stormwater takeoff, is in its second 2 phase. I think that's 8 million. It's in its second phase. 3 This is -- this is the water line that needs to be enlarged 4 because of fire suppression issues that were raised by the 5 fire marshal, which right now prohibits any economic 6 development out there until we get that corrected. To answer 7 your question, other than that, that was the only two that I 8 know that are on board right now. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And they -- will they be 10 completed this year? 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Next year. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Either late this year or 13 early next, yeah. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But we budgeted as if they 15 were going to -- 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, this is all provided 17 for in our budget, in our capital plan. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: This year? You mean the budget 19 we're looking at? Should finish in the budget year we're 20 talking about, which is next budget year. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And probably both projects. 23 The water line project's going to start this year and carry 24 over to next year, I believe. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right. 7-13-10 9 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the other project will as 2 well, and I think the other one should finish. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This is just a partial -- 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, this is our amount. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We have -- 6 JUDGE TINLEY: The only other thing that's pending 7 out there, to my knowledge, are new hangars that they're 8 still working on, but that's -- they haven't zeroed in 9 completely on that. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's -- that's a couple years 11 out at the earliest. To answer your question, yes, this is 12 the last projects out there for the -- you know, that's 13 definitely on the books. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's some other projects 16 that they have, but this is pretty much it. This water line 17 will enable them to do some -- you know, get some hangars 18 built and things of that nature. 19 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think I asked this question 20 a while back, but I'm going to ask it again, about the water 21 line this year and the amount of -- is it the Kerrville fire 22 marshal that made the determination that we didn't have 23 enough water for fire suppression out there? 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- 25 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Who made that determination? 7-13-10 10 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The way the City Council 2 adopted the new National Fire Code. 3 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Oh. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that fire code required 5 hangars, you know, a certain -- you know, conditions that 6 hangars have to have 1,500 gallons a minute, or those types 7 of facilities need 1,500 gallons a minute, and they are -- 8 the line that was there is a 6-inch line; it could not 9 deliver that. 10 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I understood that part. I 11 just want to make sure who made that determination. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It came as a result of 13 adopting a new code. 14 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Oh. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Fire code. 16 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay. I don't like it; I 17 understand it. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, I understand. I 19 don't like it either. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: With regards to the late bill, do I 21 hear a motion for approval? 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 25 approval of the late -- payment of the late bill as 7-13-10 11 1 indicated. Question or discussion on the motion? All in 2 favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. 3 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 4 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 5 (No response.) 6 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Let's go 7 back now to Item 7 on our agenda dealing with the resolution 8 concerning the CREZ transmission lines. Commissioner Letz, 9 back to you. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. The -- the resolution, 11 I think, is really fine the way it was originally drafted by 12 City -- City Council, presumably Mike Hayes. I'll probably 13 read it into the record, try to make the changes to make it 14 applicable to Commissioners Court as well. A resolution 15 requesting that Texas Public Utility Commission, P.U.C., 16 reevaluate the functional viability and economic feasibility 17 of the Competitive Renewable Energy Zones (CREZ) project, and 18 that the Texas Public Utility Commission postpone any action 19 on this matter until a time that such interests are 20 confirmed. Whereas Kerr County Commissioners Court recently 21 filed a resolution by Court Order "blank" which stated 22 opposition to the proposed -- well, just -- they have a word 23 here, one of the proposed routes for Competitive Renewable 24 Energy Zone (CREZ) project, and that Lower Colorado River 25 Authority is considering which would -- oh, is considering, 7-13-10 12 1 which will connect the proposed McCamey D substation to 2 existing Kendall County substation. Might need to change 3 that slightly, 'cause our resolution was a little bit 4 different, and we also gave a recommendation as to the 5 criteria that should be used. I think I'll add that in 6 there. 7 And then, Whereas, the rationale for implementing 8 the CREZ project across the state was based on an Electric 9 Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) report titled "Analysis 10 Transmission Alternatives for Competitive Renewable Energy in 11 Texas" dated December 2006, (the Report); and whereas at the 12 time of the report, only 2,508 megawatts, or 14.8 percent of 13 the 17,000 megawatts of wind generation as needed across the 14 state was actually in service; and whereas the wind 15 generation facilities constructed since the Report appear to 16 be less productive and more costly to operate and maintain 17 than originally forecast; and whereas the ERCOT report is 18 based on a 10-year horizon due to the fact that a longer view 19 of the system would not provide useful guidance to nearer 20 term decisions because of the uncertainties in future 21 generation patterns and the variables of highly -- that 22 highly influence electric load growth, such as population 23 trends, economic conditions, transmission technology, and the 24 trend toward greater efficiency for devices that use 25 electricity; and 7-13-10 13 1 Whereas, because of time constraints in preparing 2 the Report, it is not definitive on the costs involved in 3 providing transmission services; and whereas significant 4 issues related to adding new wind generation in west Texas 5 were not addressed, including ancillary service costs and the 6 impact in dynamic response on the electric system; and 7 whereas the primary purpose of the CREZ project is the 8 P.U.C.'s response to a public mandate to deliver renewable 9 power to the consumer in the most cost-effective manner; and 10 whereas at present there is insufficient analysis to 11 determine that the CREZ project is capable of meeting the 12 P.U.C.'s mandate as specified above; Now, therefore, be it 13 resolved by Kerr County Commissioners Court that Kerr County 14 urges the P.U.C. to reevaluate the functional viability and 15 economic feasibility of the Competitive Renewable Energy 16 Zones (CREZ) project, and that the P.U.C. postpone any action 17 on submissions related to the CREZ projects until functional 18 viability and economic feasibility is -- or are confirmed. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I couldn't agree more. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you, Mike Hayes. I'll 21 make a motion to adopt that resolution with the couple of 22 changes that I mentioned. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as 25 indicated. Question or discussion on the motion? All in 7-13-10 14 1 favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. 2 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 3 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 4 (No response.) 5 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, how -- what is the 7 time frame for this thing? I mean, is this -- is this really 8 and truly too late in the game to be doing this? Or -- 9 JUDGE TINLEY: No, I don't think so. The filing by 10 the L.C.R.A. of their -- of their application is scheduled to 11 take place July 28th. It could occur earlier than that, but 12 it's doubtful -- 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Two weeks. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: -- it's doubtful if it'll occur 15 until maybe, at most, the day before. But at any time before 16 that time, P.U.C. could order that -- that this be 17 reevaluated, as they did in the Gillespie to Newton case. 18 That was -- the Gillespie-Newton case was after full hearing 19 to determine the route, and the result was not only did it 20 not determine the route; the P.U.C. directed L.C.R.A. -- or, 21 excuse me, the ERCOT to confirm the viability of the project. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Back to the drawing board. So, all 24 of that proceeding was essentially for naught. I would note 25 that there is a meeting of the P.U.C. scheduled for July 7-13-10 15 1 15th, which is this Thursday, in Austin, and one of the 2 agenda items deals with the CREZ transmission lines, which 3 would presumably give them the ability at that point in time 4 to take action on what we're requesting. Whether or not 5 they'll do that is another story. In fact, we need to be 6 sure that the resolution, once it's completed and executed, 7 gets to them, probably overnight -- by overnight delivery. 8 So -- 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: At least pigeon. Send it by 10 pigeon. 11 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Don't want to send it, maybe, 12 any other way than by Fed Ex. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: No, I think overnight -- overnight 14 delivery, probably. 15 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Will overnight get it there? 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, if it's dropped in the 17 overnight this evening. 18 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: It'll get over there tomorrow. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Now, these ERCOT folks, 21 they're the ones that are selling the energy, actually. I 22 mean, they put the program together. They're not -- they're 23 not an arm of the state, a state agency, are they? 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Not to my knowledge. They're the -- 25 they're the folks that oversee the power grid. 7-13-10 16 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. And -- well, I'm not 2 going to say that. But if I were, I was going to say they're 3 the ones that are going to make the money. Somebody's making 4 some money on this deal. They're in that line, aren't they? 5 They're in that money line. Well, pretty interesting. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Do we have anything else to 7 come before the court in connection with its regular meeting 8 that convened yesterday and was recessed over until today? 9 THE CLERK: Judge, we didn't vote. We had a motion 10 and a second, but no vote. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, thank you. Appreciate that. We 12 have a motion and a second. Any further question or 13 discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion, 14 signify by raising your right hand. 15 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 16 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 17 (No response.) 18 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. 19 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: She did what you told her to 20 do. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: I appreciate that. 22 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: What you asked her. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Now I'll ask if there's anything 24 further that needs to come before the meeting which 25 originally began yesterday, recessed over until today? 7-13-10 17 1 Hearing nothing further, the meeting will be adjourned. 2 (Commissioners Court adjourned at 1:28 p.m.) 3 - - - - - - - - - - 4 5 6 STATE OF TEXAS | 7 COUNTY OF KERR | 8 The above and foregoing is a true and complete 9 transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as 10 official reporter for the Commissioners Court of Kerr County, 11 Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth. 12 DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 14th day of July, 2010. 13 14 JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk 15 BY: _________________________________ Kathy Banik, Deputy County Clerk 16 Certified Shorthand Reporter 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 7-13-10