1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT 9 Special Session 10 Monday, July 25, 2011 11 9:00 a.m. 12 Commissioners' Courtroom 13 Kerr County Courthouse 14 Kerrville, Texas 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 PRESENT: PAT TINLEY, Kerr County Judge H. A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1 24 GUY R. OVERBY, Commissioner Pct. 2 JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3 25 BRUCE OEHLER, Commissioner Pct. 4 2 1 I N D E X July 25, 2011 2 PAGE 3 --- Commissioners' Comments 7 4 1.1 Public hearing concerning revision of plat for Lots 119 and 120 of Vistas Escondidas De Cypress 5 Springs Estates, Precinct 4 8 6 1.2 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action concerning revision of plat for Lots 119 and 7 120, Vistas Escondidas De Cypress Springs Estates, Precinct 4 8 8 1.3 Public hearing concerning revision of plat for 9 Lots 78 and 79A of Cypress Park Section Two, Precinct 3 10 10 1.4 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for 11 final approval of plat for Lots 78 and 79A of Cypress Park Section Two, Precinct 3 10 12 1.12 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to 13 approve $1,800 structural fee to T-Mobile for use of Center Point tower for Volunteer Fire 14 Department frequency 11 15 1.5 Update regarding the Alamo Colleges Greater Kerrville Center 19 16 1.6 Public hearing for revision of plat for Lots 17 45 and 46 of Bee Caves Ranch, Precinct 4 29 18 1.7 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for final approval of revision of plat for Lots 45 19 and 46 of Bee Caves Ranch, Precinct 4 29 20 1.8 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to open, read, and award bids on Ingram Loop 21 Subdivision property 33, 89 22 1.9 Public hearing for revision of plat for Lot 79 of Clear Springs Ranch Estates, Precinct 1 35 23 1.10 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for 24 final approval of preliminary revision of plat for Lot 79, Clear Springs Ranch Estates, Pct. 1 38 25 3 1 I N D E X (Continued) July 25, 2011 2 PAGE 3 1.11 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to accept preliminary revision of plat for Lots 2 4 and 3 of The Horizon, Section One, Precinct 1, and set a public hearing 51 5 1.13 Consider/discuss, take appropriate actions to 6 set a public hearing for August 22, 2011 for County Clerk's Records Management and Records 7 Archival Written Plan, in accordance with Local Government Code 52 8 1.14 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action 9 concerning adoption of Child Safety Fees by Kerr County as permitted by TexDOT 53 10 1.15 Consider/discuss pending or proposed interlocal 11 agreements with City of Kerrville for various services and/or operations; take any appropriate 12 action thereon 55 13 1.16 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on resolution regarding Southern Edwards Plateau 14 Conservation Plan 70 15 1.17 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to determine appropriate criteria for naming rights 16 for various improvements at Hill Country Youth Exhibit Center 91 17 1.18 Consider/discuss lease agreement with Stock 18 Show Association for month of January and one weekend in September each year 98 19 1.19 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on 20 Kerr County's application to E.I.C. regarding Hill County Youth Exhibition Center renovation & 21 expansion project; report and updates 104 22 1.20 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to allow closure of Riverside Drive from 3-10 p.m. 23 on August 5, 2011, for KerrFest 2011 --- 24 1.21 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to adopt resolution designating and authorizing the 25 planning, establishment, development, construction and financing of a venue project within the county 123 4 1 I N D E X (Continued) July 25, 2011 2 PAGE 3 1.27 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to hire part-time kennel worker at Animal Control 129 4 1.22 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to 5 call an election to be placed on the November general election ballot on the question of 6 creating a County Assistance District 130 7 1.23 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action regarding Kerr County's participation as a 8 class member in the Municipal Derivatives Antitrust Litigation class action lawsuit 9 pending in U.S. District Court for Southern District of New York 132 10 1.24 Acknowledge receipt of quarterly investment 11 report from Patterson and Associates for quarter ending 6-30-11 134 12 1.25 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to 13 approve changes to investment policy as a result of H.B. 2226 134 14 1.26 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to 15 set date and time to discuss redistricting 138 16 1.28 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action regarding allocation of H.R. functions/duties 17 on an interim basis & designation of new administrator(s) for various H.R. functions 18 (Executive Session, as needed) 139 19 4.1 Pay Bills 145 4.2 Budget Amendments 146 20 4.3 Late Bills 146 4.4 Approve and Accept Monthly Reports 147 21 5.1 Reports from Commissioners/Liaison Committee 22 Assignments 148 5.2 Reports from Elected Officials/Department Heads 148 23 1.29 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on 24 purchase or lease purchase of real property for Ingram Annex (Executive Session) 149 25 5 1 I N D E X (Continued) July 25, 2011 2 PAGE 3 1.30 Consultation with County Attorney concerning possible litigation concerning floodplain 4 violations at 7261 Highway 27, Comfort, Texas (Executive Session) 150 5 1.31 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action 6 regarding LCRA Transmission Services Corporation proposed McCamey D to Kendall to Gillespie 345-kv 7 CREZ Transmission Line (Executive Session) 151 8 --- Adjourned 151 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 6 1 On Monday, July 25, 2011, at 9:00 a.m., a special 2 meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in 3 the Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, 4 Kerrville, Texas, and the following proceedings were had in 5 open court: 6 P R O C E E D I N G S 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. 8 Let me call to order this regularly scheduled meeting of the 9 Kerr County Commissioners Court posted and scheduled for this 10 date and time, Monday, July 25, 2011, at 9 a.m. It is that 11 time now. Commissioner Letz? 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. If everyone would please 13 stand and join me in a moment of prayer, followed by the 14 pledge. 15 (Prayer and pledge of allegiance.) 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. At this time, if there's 17 any member of the audience or public that wishes to be heard 18 on a matter which is not a listed agenda item, this is your 19 opportunity to come forward and tell us what's on your mind. 20 If you wish to be heard on an agenda item, we would ask that 21 you fill out a participation form. There should be some 22 located at the rear of the room. It's not absolutely 23 essential, but it helps me to know that there are folks who 24 wish to be heard on that particular item when we get there. 25 If you haven't filled out a participation form on an agenda 7-25-11 7 1 item, why, get my attention in some manner when we do get to 2 that item, and I'll see that you have an opportunity to be 3 heard. But right now, if there's any member of the audience 4 or public that wishes to be heard on any matter which is not 5 a listed agenda item, come forward and tell us what's on your 6 mind. Seeing no one coming forward, we will move on. 7 Commissioner Letz? 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think you'll hear enough from 9 me during the meeting today, so I'll just pass it on to 10 Commissioner 4. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: I was wondering when you were going 12 to recognize that. (Laughter.) Commissioner Oehler? 13 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'm not going to have a whole 14 lot. I do want to say thank to you Buster and all the group 15 that played for the benefit in Ingram on Saturday. I don't 16 know what the crowd wound up being, but it's good to see 17 people supporting somebody in need of help. You know, I 18 don't compliment him very often, so I thought this would be a 19 good opportunity. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are you getting all that 21 down? Okay. 22 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's it. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Baldwin? 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm speechless. Thank you. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Overby? 7-25-11 8 1 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: Not at this time. Thank you, 2 Judge. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's move on with our 4 agenda. At this time, I will recess the Commissioners Court 5 meeting and convene a public hearing concerning the revision 6 of plat for Lots 119 and 120 of Vistas Escondidas de Cypress 7 Springs Estates, as set forth in Volume 7, Pages 363 and -4, 8 and located in Precinct 4. 9 (The regular Commissioners Court meeting was closed at 9:04 a.m., and a public hearing was held in open 10 court, as follows:) 11 P U B L I C H E A R I N G 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Is there any member of the public or 13 audience that wishes to be heard with respect to the revision 14 of plat for lots 119 and 120 of Vistas Escondidas de Cypress 15 Springs Estates? Seeing no one coming forward, I will close 16 the public hearing concerning the revision of plat for Lots 17 119 and 120 of Vistas Escondidas de Cypress Springs Estates. 18 (The public hearing was concluded at 9:04 a.m., and the regular Commissioners Court meeting was 19 reopened.) 20 - - - - - - - - - - 21 JUDGE TINLEY: And we will go to Item 2; consider, 22 discuss, take appropriate action concerning the revision of 23 plat for Lots 119 and 120 of Vistas Escondidas de Cypress 24 Springs Estates, as set forth in Volume 7, Pages 363 and -4 25 of the Plat Records, and located in Precinct 4. 7-25-11 9 1 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. Since we've put this on the 2 agenda for a final, the Reinbachs have bought another lot, so 3 at this time, I would ask the Court to cancel this agenda 4 item, and we'll move on at a later point. Mr. Voelkel will 5 bring back a preliminary, and then we'll go through the whole 6 process again. And if there's any questions, I certainly -- 7 Lee is here. 8 MR. LEE VOELKEL: Sounds good to me. 9 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You think that's easiest? 10 MR. LEE VOELKEL: Yes, sir, I do. 11 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You're combining lots? 12 MR. LEE VOELKEL: Right, correct. We're going to 13 combine three lots. 14 MR. ODOM: Do it at one time. 15 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: At one time. 16 MR. LEE VOELKEL: If that's all right with you 17 guys. 18 MR. ODOM: We'd already set this, and we had to go 19 forward with it. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We'll defer any action on 21 Item 2, then, and go to Item 3. Again, I will recess the 22 Commissioners Court meeting and convene a public hearing 23 concerning revision of plat for Lots 78 and 79A of Cypress 24 Park Section Two, as set forth in Volume 3, Page 45, Plat 25 Records, and also Volume 7, Page 336, Plat Records, and 7-25-11 10 1 located in Precinct 3. 2 (The regular Commissioners Court meeting was closed at 9:06 a.m., and a public hearing was held in open 3 court, as follows:) 4 P U B L I C H E A R I N G 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Is there any member of the public 6 that wishes to be heard with respect to the revision of plat 7 for Lots 78 and 79A of Cypress Park Section Two, as set forth 8 in Volume 3, Page 45, and Volume 7, Page 336, Plat Records? 9 Seeing no one coming forward, I will close the public hearing 10 concerning the revision of plat for Lots 78 and 79A of 11 Cypress Park Section Two, as set forth in Volume 3, Page 45, 12 and Volume 7, Page 336, Plat Records, and I will reconvene 13 the Commissioners Court meeting. 14 (The public hearing was concluded at 9:06 a.m., and the regular Commissioners Court meeting was 15 reopened.) 16 - - - - - - - - - - 17 JUDGE TINLEY: And we'll go to Item 4 -- getting 18 ahead of ourselves here, aren't we? 19 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. Mr. Jons would like to 20 combine both lots -- 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Let me go ahead and call the item, 22 I'm sorry. 23 MR. ODOM: I'm sorry. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: I apologize. Consider, discuss, 25 that take appropriate action for the final approval of plat 7-25-11 11 1 for Lots 78 and 79A of Cypress Park Section Two, as set forth 2 in Volume 3 Page 45, and Volume 7, Page 336, and located in 3 Precinct 3. Okay. Now it's yours, Mr. Odom. 4 MR. ODOM: All right, sir. Mr. Jons would like to 5 combine both lots, 78 and 79, into one lot. Lot 78 is 9.98 6 acres, and 79A is 8.3, making them a total of 18.28 acres. 7 So, at this time, we ask the Court for their final approval 8 of the revision of plat for Lots 78 and 79A in Cypress Park 9 Section Two, Volume 3, Page 45, and also in Volume 7, Page 10 336, Precinct 3. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 14 approval. Question or discussion? All in favor of that 15 motion, signify by raising your right hand. 16 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 17 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 18 (No response.) 19 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. We've got a 20 number of timed items following that that I don't want to get 21 ahead of. Let's go to Item 12; to consider, discuss, take 22 appropriate action to approve $1,800 structural fee to 23 T-Mobile for use of Center Point tower for Volunteer Fire 24 Department frequency. Chief Deputy Barton? 25 JUDGE BARTON: Good morning. How are y'all doing 7-25-11 12 1 today? 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Morning. 3 MR. BARTON: Back in February, I came to the Court 4 and talked about AACOG providing some repeater equipment for 5 the volunteer fire departments to use. At that presentation, 6 I told the Court that T-Mobile had agreed for us to use a 7 tower they have down off of Highway 480 in Center Point to 8 put some of this equipment on, at no cost to the county. 9 Since that time, the person who gave me that information has 10 determined that they weren't authorized to do so, so I'm 11 having to go through other people. But the -- T-Mobile has 12 to conduct a stress analysis any time they hang more 13 equipment on a tower, just to make sure the tower is safe, so 14 they have to get an engineering firm in which to do that. 15 They've -- so they're requesting this $1,800 to be utilized 16 for that purpose. We're still negotiating about -- I'm still 17 hoping to be able to get this tower lease free. This $1,800 18 will not be paid until we determine what the lease 19 agreement's going to be and if it's something that we can 20 even afford to do. But I wanted to come to the Court and see 21 if we can come up with $1,800 in which to pay this, because 22 this project actually got started and came up, of course, 23 after the budget process. 24 AACOG has now spent over $100,000 on equipment for 25 this. The Kerr 911 Board has agreed to pick up yearly 7-25-11 13 1 expenses for all three of these towers, and also maintenance 2 agreements, so they'll be spending roughly $6,400 a year. So 3 far, Kerr County has not spent any money on this project. 4 The only additional funds I can anticipate on this project 5 from the county will be if we get approval to move on this 6 tower for T-Mobile in Center Point, we have an 8-by-10 7 equipment shed that has to be set up to hold the equipment, 8 and we'll have the expense of running the electricity from 9 KPUB's pole to the equipment shed. So whatever that expense 10 is going to be, we'll have that. We'll have the expense of 11 reprogramming our radios with these new frequencies, which 12 that's usually built into our budget. And -- and then the 13 County just picking up this equipment on liability insurance. 14 That's the only expenses this complete project should cost 15 the county. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Essentially, what you're asking, 17 Chief, is that you're asking the Court for approval to expend 18 that if, and only if, you get a commitment for a lease which 19 is hopefully free, or otherwise very, very nominal? 20 MR. BARTON: Something that we can cover. But I'm 21 not going to send this structural fee until we determine what 22 this lease agreement's going to be. And they're currently 23 working on that for me, too. They're just having to go 24 further up the chain in order to get the free lease as 25 opposed to the normal charged lease. But that's what I'm 7-25-11 14 1 just looking for, $1,800 in which to expend to do this. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Hargis, where would the funds 3 come from? 4 MS. HARGIS: They would have to come out of 5 contingency, because the fire has no extra money. The fire 6 budget has no extra money. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 8 MS. HARGIS: So it would have to be contingency. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Have to come from contingency 10 because the fire budget has no additional funds; they're all 11 committed. 12 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: What about in jailer 13 salaries? 14 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't mind doing that. 15 There's going to be some other issues, such as prisoner 16 transport, that we're -- we have already expended all our 17 funds. That's going to have to draw out of that jailer 18 salary, and I think we're going to be cutting that pretty 19 close. 20 MS. HARGIS: You've got prisoner meals that are 21 over, and medical, so we've already drawn down for that. 22 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Unfortunately, the contracted 23 medical this last year sent us -- where we contracted for it 24 for 12 months, they sent us a last September bill in 25 December, which put us short, so we ended up having 13 months 7-25-11 15 1 this year and only 11 last year. But since we didn't receive 2 that bill until December, it didn't get -- get in on last 3 year's budget. 4 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I just think, being as you're 5 -- you're short some positions that aren't filled right now, 6 that you also have, looks to me, like quite a bit of money in 7 deputy salaries. 8 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes, there's a total of three 9 positions that have been open most of the time in deputies, 10 which is quite a bit of money, and then two positions in the 11 jail, one being a clerk and one being a jailer. Which I 12 don't -- you know, I don't have a problem; it's just there 13 are some overages in prisoner medical and prisoner transport 14 that are going to have to be covered before the end of the 15 budget year. 16 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's where I would suggest 17 it come out of, either the deputy salaries or out of jailer 18 salaries. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: If we get to the end of the road and 20 there's not adequate funds to cover, why, we'll -- we'll find 21 a spot. 22 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Sounds good. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Pieper, you had a comment? 24 MS. PIEPER: I was going to say that I do have some 25 money in my deputy line item that might help out. 7-25-11 16 1 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I appreciate that. But I 2 don't have a problem with it coming out of deputies or 3 jailers. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 5 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Just at the end of the road, 6 right before, you know, the new budget takes effect, I'm not 7 sure where we're going to be, 'cause we're going to have to 8 draw somewhere. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Ms. Pieper. Appreciate 10 that. 11 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: I had -- I'm sorry, Judge. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Go ahead. 13 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: I had one other question, 14 just for my information. I know that AACOG has spent over 15 $100,000 on the three towers, and this one we're talking 16 about is for the eastern Kerr County tower in Center Point. 17 The other two towers, are they -- have they already been 18 completed as far as the -- 19 MR. BARTON: They have not been completed yet. 20 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: Will we have to do stress 21 tests on those as well? 22 MR. BARTON: No. 23 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: Okay. 24 MR. BARTON: No, those are -- we're going to be 25 putting the west equipment on the CTEC tower. They've 7-25-11 17 1 already approved that. There's currently some equipment 2 already on there. 3 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: Okay. 4 MR. BARTON: They've -- Dave Mars is going to give 5 us some lease space on the tower out by Cherry Ridge for the 6 central channel. There's never been an east tower, so this 7 is a new -- 8 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: Okay. 9 MR. BARTON: We never have had anything on the east 10 end of the county. This is going to actually give us three 11 fire frequencies, as opposed to two that we're currently 12 working off of. But, no, there will be no other expenses on 13 the other ones. 14 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: Okay, thank you. 15 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: This should bring the 16 volunteer fire departments up to where they've got to be 17 within a couple years. 18 MR. BARTON: They're using lease agreements -- 19 lease lines right now that aren't even public safety lines. 20 This will give them public safety lines, and we're hoping 21 that we can reach this agreement with T-Mobile, because the 22 frequencies -- when we got the FCC's approval, we're -- we're 23 using those coordinates for that east tower, which we can 24 always redo if we had to, but we're just trying to move 25 forward what we had started. 7-25-11 18 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, thank you. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm going to make one 3 comment. Clay and Rusty, I appreciate you guys for going to 4 all this trouble and researching and finding and dealing to 5 get all this done for our volunteer fire departments. I 6 mean, it's not -- it's not for Rusty. We wouldn't let him 7 have it, of course. (Laughter.) But -- 8 JUDGE TINLEY: He gets all the money anyway. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He gets all the money 10 anyway. He thought Jannett was going to give him some of her 11 money a while ago. But -- but you guys doing that, and for 12 the betterment of our county, and I appreciate that very 13 much. 14 MR. BARTON: Thank you. 15 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I have to give this credit to 16 Clay. Clay's been working on this by himself the whole time. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. 18 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Absolutely. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: He's managed to have a pretty good 20 nose to sniff out some of these money and equipment grants. 21 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: He's done well. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Do I hear a motion to 23 approve? 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I do. 25 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second. 7-25-11 19 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 2 approval of the agenda item. Any question or discussion? 3 All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right 4 hand. 5 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 6 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 7 (No response.) 8 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Let's now 9 go back to Item 5, since we're on time right now. Update 10 regarding Alamo Colleges Greater Kerrville Center. Ms. 11 Fahrenthold, good to have you here this morning. 12 MS. FAHRENTHOLD: Thank you for having me, Judge. 13 I appreciate the invite. I'm Shawna Fahrenthold. I'm Alamo 14 Colleges -- I'm the off-site coordinator. Just wanted to 15 give you a little update on what we got -- we've been doing. 16 We had an Advisory Board not too long ago that Judge Tinley 17 was with us, and he was impressed with some of our things 18 that we've accomplished, and so he wanted us to share. I've 19 done some research, 'cause I have some other meetings coming 20 up. Last year -- I'm going to give you just all of last 21 year's numbers that we -- that we've done. This is students 22 that enrolled in classes. Our student enrollments for the 23 whole year last year was 1,090. Unduplicated, that's 538 24 individual students that we served in that -- that year, and 25 we provided them with 65,913 contact hours; that's seat hours 7-25-11 20 1 that they received instruction from a teacher. We've served 2 in the last year over 3,000 students. That means that they 3 walked through our doors, they called our phone, they 4 e-mailed us and asked for guidance in some way to attend 5 college. Our enrollment for spring was 490. We had 449 arts 6 and sciences -- that's your academic core classes -- and 41 7 in technical. 8 And I'll explain technical to you really quickly. 9 That's the program that we have that takes students who are 10 LVN's to RN's in a year. And so we have a cohort of those 11 students that come through, and at the end of December they 12 will be ready to sit for their NCLEX, which is their RN 13 boards test. We also recently started an LVN academy. We 14 have four students. The LVN academy are -- these four girls 15 are in high school. It's a dual credit program for them. 16 They will -- they started this summer. They're in two 17 classes this summer, and then they start -- I mean, they keep 18 taking classes in the fall, throughout their junior and 19 senior year. They take them along with their high school 20 classes, and the summer after their -- their senior year, 21 they'll be able to sit for their NCLEX LVN license. So, that 22 means they can come out of high school, and the summer after, 23 if they've completed all courses, they can be an LVN in this 24 community and go to work at 18 years old. Most of them will 25 be 18. The good thing about that also is that we have the 7-25-11 21 1 LVN to RN, so that they can get some prerequisites that they 2 need for that and they can go right into the RN program, and 3 maybe have some 20-year-old RN's that are in our community 4 working. 5 We had a class of the career mobility program 6 students that graduated last December; there were nine of 7 them. Seven of them are employed in Kerrville, one in 8 Comfort, and one in Fredericksburg, so we're giving back to 9 the community what we're giving to them through this -- 10 through this program. It's providing people in our 11 community, and I think that that's a good thing. Other 12 things we're working on are, like, CNA classes, certified 13 nurse's aides. We're working on getting a class going on 14 that for -- for local people. My hope is that they go do 15 CNA, then do LVN, and then do RN and better themselves going 16 up. We also, in the last year, completed a child development 17 associates. We had 17 students graduate. Judge Tinley came 18 and spoke to these girls. I have never seen a group of 19 people so excited about completing a program. Child 20 development associates. These are the people who take care 21 of our kids and grandkids, nieces and nephews. Fabulous 22 group of people. 23 We're working on a QuickBooks and Excel training 24 right now. We're recruiting for those things and trying to 25 get people in -- in those areas. Another new thing that's 7-25-11 22 1 come up that's good for our center is that Northwest Vista, 2 which is kind of our home campus, came out and spoke with us, 3 and starting in the fall next year, we're going to be 4 offering a complete set of classes for a student to get an 5 Associate's degree in Kerrville. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Wow. 7 MS. FAHRENTHOLD: And so we're very excited about 8 that. They will be able -- we will offer all the courses 9 that they need to get an Associate's degree in science and 10 general studies. 11 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: This fall or next fall? 12 MS. FAHRENTHOLD: Starting next fall. 13 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: Fall of '12. 14 MS. FAHRENTHOLD: And my dilemma with that right 15 now, which is not a huge dilemma -- I'm working on it. We're 16 having to remodel a room in our building so that we can have 17 chemistry. I've ordered the chemistry supplies; they're on 18 the way. Once we get the remodel done and we get an 19 instructor for chemistry -- having a lab science was our 20 hold-back, and so we've kind of hurdled that -- jumped that 21 hurdle and we're on to the next one. But we will be starting 22 in the fall of 2012; we will have where they can complete a 23 whole Associate's degree here in Kerrville, and I think 24 that's fabulous for our community. They don't have to drive 25 to San Antonio. We've -- you know, we've been offering these 7-25-11 23 1 classes and they can get so many of them, but then they have 2 to go on to San Antonio to finish them, because I couldn't 3 offer -- offer a lab science, and you have to have that in 4 your degree. So, we're getting there on that. We're working 5 with Youth Build with B.C.F.S. to train some at-risk 6 students -- youth, and they're going to be learning 7 construction trades, and hopefully they're going to come out 8 with some type of certificate or go into an apprentice-type 9 scenario where they can -- 10 JUDGE TINLEY: What are the various disciplines on 11 that construction trade? 12 MS. FAHRENTHOLD: They're going to learn just basic 13 construction, heating and air conditioning -- I mean, heating 14 and air conditioning, plumbing and electrical, so they're 15 going to be able to learn many trades. It's going to be 16 really fabulous. They have started doing a little bit of 17 advertising. But it's -- I've been in meetings every two 18 weeks for several months, and it's going to be a really good 19 thing for some -- for some youth in this area to get them 20 through that hurdle and get them on -- get them on the right 21 track and getting them a job where they can do well for 22 themselves. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Shawna, is that just for the 24 whippersnappers? What about us geezers? 25 MS. FAHRENTHOLD: It's a grant that they got, and 7-25-11 24 1 it's from 16 to 24, so it's -- sorry. 2 MR. DON VOELKEL: Just missed it. Just barely. 3 MR. ODOM: You just turned 24. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Golly. 5 MS. FAHRENTHOLD: We've received lots of 6 scholarships this year, to the tune of about $25,000. Most 7 of those were from the Neil and Elaine Griffin Scholarship 8 that we were given last year. We're very proud of that; it 9 helps some very deserving students get through their classes. 10 As we know, education prices are on the rise, and budgets are 11 -- you know, and ours as well. Our budget is a big thing at 12 the college; we're having to work on that. We're going to 13 have a meeting about the budget tomorrow at our office, and 14 so we're working on that. I did bring somebody with me that 15 I would love to recognize. Sergio is our first student that 16 I'm aware of -- I just say that, because there might be 17 somebody, but they didn't come talk to me -- that started 18 with us here in Kerrville, and just got his Associate's 19 degree in May. Associate's in -- 20 AUDIENCE: Business management. 21 MS. FAHRENTHOLD: -- business 22 management/information systems. 23 (Applause.) 24 MS. FAHRENTHOLD: We hope to have many more, but 25 he's our first. I'm very excited about that, so I asked him 7-25-11 25 1 to come with me today so that we could recognize him for -- 2 for doing a good thing and getting his associates degree. I 3 think that that's all I have. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: You have the ability, do you not, 5 if there's adequate interest, to put together various 6 vocational -- 7 MS. FAHRENTHOLD: Absolutely. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: -- subjects that employers may want? 9 MS. FAHRENTHOLD: Absolutely. If employers need a 10 specific area, we -- you know, within our capabilities, we 11 can do that. Obviously, we can't offer a welding class; I 12 don't have a welding lab. I can't do auto mechanics, 'cause 13 I don't have a mechanic lab. But if they're within our 14 ability, absolutely. We will -- the construction thing we're 15 working with B.C.F.S. on; we're going to be able to do that 16 because their lab -- their actual work site is going to be on 17 a Habitat For Humanity home, so it won't be in -- we won't 18 have to provide a building for them to do that training; it 19 will be at a site. But, absolutely, we would love to do some 20 community education, corporate education, whatever it may be. 21 If they want, they can call. We can figure out a way to make 22 it happen. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: And there's also a good possibility 24 for tuition assistance or -- 25 MS. FAHRENTHOLD: Oh, yes. 7-25-11 26 1 JUDGE TINLEY: -- coverage from Workforce? 2 MS. FAHRENTHOLD: Right. There -- there are many 3 scholarships and grants available to students who might need 4 them, and we're -- and we'll help them in any way we can to 5 get those. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Super duper. 7 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: Shawna, is the big question 8 -- and, again, fabulous job. I remember when this first 9 started five years ago when this was being discussed in our 10 community, and I see where it's evolved now, two and a half 11 years later, to where you are right now. Welding and auto 12 mechanics, my main -- my main thing here. Is the big 13 hindrance because we don't have a location? Or -- or is it 14 lack of a sponsor to help you? 15 MS. FAHRENTHOLD: It's more of location. 16 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: Okay. 17 MS. FAHRENTHOLD: I mean, 'cause -- 18 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: Liability? 19 MS. FAHRENTHOLD: And liability. Location and 20 liability are a big thing for us on that. 21 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: And the reason why I say 22 that, again, those are two sectors in our community that we 23 have to get something going on, as far as mechanics, because 24 if you look at our garages, our ownerships in our garages in 25 our communities, they're all over -- you know, I'm 50 now 7-25-11 27 1 too, myself, but we're getting older, and we need to start 2 training younger mechanics in our community. I still think, 3 through this program, we need to find a way to help you, is 4 what I'm saying. 5 MS. FAHRENTHOLD: Absolutely. 6 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: And in our welding area, we 7 have a -- a company that wants to locate in Kerr County; 8 couldn't locate here because of facility, but he located in 9 Comfort, and they've hired 12 former welders in our community 10 who are all now working in Comfort, just right past the Kerr 11 County line. But they're going to be needing more welders as 12 they continue to ramp up on what they're doing, so I hope our 13 community will -- will start again helping you in trying to 14 find a location. This is a priority, that we need to help 15 train future auto mechanics and welders. So -- 16 MS. FAHRENTHOLD: Absolutely. 17 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: -- we need to find a way to 18 help you still. But you're doing a great job. 19 MS. FAHRENTHOLD: Just quickly, just what you said 20 about being here for -- when we started in the fall of 2008, 21 our enrollment was 131, and in the spring it was 490. And 22 for fall that we're working on right now, we're at 326, so 23 we're on track to pass our enrollment for the spring. And 24 that's always my goal, is just to beat the -- and for a 25 little while, we were doubling every -- every semester, we 7-25-11 28 1 would double the semester before that. But -- 2 JUDGE TINLEY: You can only do that so long. 3 MS. FAHRENTHOLD: -- we can only do that so long, 4 and we've about ran out of that. But at least if I just beat 5 it by one, that makes me happy. But we're on track. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: The bottom line, there's been a 7 tremendous response -- 8 MS. FAHRENTHOLD: Absolutely. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: -- to the Alamo Colleges in 10 Kerrville, -- 11 MS. FAHRENTHOLD: And we appreciate it. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: -- in this area, and it's -- you're 13 providing a whole lot of opportunities to folks that may not 14 otherwise have that available to them, or take advantage of 15 it, and so we really, really appreciate what you're doing. 16 We thank you. 17 MS. FAHRENTHOLD: Thank you. 18 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: The National Guard Armory 19 building would sure have been a good place for that. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody from Extension here? They'd 21 probably take issue with that. But -- 22 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, but, you know, it can 23 be shared. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Big building. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Than you, Shawna. 7-25-11 29 1 MS. FAHRENTHOLD: Thank you. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: At this time, we'll go to Item 6. I 3 will recess the Commissioners Court meeting and convene a 4 public hearing for the revision of plat for Lots 45 and 46 of 5 Bee Caves Ranch, as set forth in Volume 4, Page 120, Plat 6 Records, and located in Precinct 4. 7 (The regular Commissioners Court meeting was closed at 9:29 a.m., and a public hearing was held in open 8 court, as follows:) 9 P U B L I C H E A R I N G 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Is there any member of the public 11 that wishes to be heard with respect to the revision of plat 12 for Lots 45 and 46 of Bee Caves Ranch, as set forth in Volume 13 4, Page 120, Plat Records? Seeing no one coming forward, I 14 will close the public hearing for the revision of plat for 15 Lots 45 and 46 of Bee Caves Ranch, set forth in Volume 4, 16 Page 120, Plat Records. 17 (The public hearing was concluded at 9:29 a.m., and the regular Commissioners Court meeting was 18 reopened.) 19 - - - - - - - - - - 20 JUDGE TINLEY: And I will reconvene the 21 Commissioners Court meeting. We'll go to Item 7; to 22 consider, discuss, take appropriate action for final approval 23 of the revision of plat for Lots 45 and 46 of Bee Caves 24 Ranch, as set forth in Volume 4, Page 120, Plat Records, and 25 located in Precinct 4. Mr. Odom? 7-25-11 30 1 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. Thank you, Judge. We're 2 combining -- Ms. Brown owns Lots 45 and 46 of Bee Caves 3 Ranch, and wants to combine both 45 and 46, making a total of 4 36.89 acres. So, at this time we ask the Court for their 5 final approval of the revision of plat for Lots 45 and 46 of 6 Bee Caves Ranch, Volume 4, Page 120, Precinct 4. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Len, are you sure that's what 8 we're doing? We're re -- it shows we have 46R and 45R. 9 MR. LEE VOELKEL: We're actually just moving a lot 10 line. 11 MR. ODOM: Just moving a lot line. 12 MR. LEE VOELKEL: Taking some acreage out of one 13 lot, putting it in the other lot. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval. 15 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: Second. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 17 approval. Question or discussion? 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm looking at all these 19 e-mails back and forth. The Environmental Health, are they 20 happy? 21 MR. LEE VOELKEL: To my knowledge. 22 MR. ODOM: To my knowledge, they are. I haven't 23 heard anything. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Ray's here. Are you happy, 25 Ray? Sort of? 7-25-11 31 1 MR. GARCIA: Sort of. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Was that a yes? 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I saw a brief nod. 4 MR. GARCIA: That's fine. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is one of the ones -- 6 we're looking at our subdivision rules and making sure 7 that -- we're making some tweaks in our subdivision rules, 8 and they haven't been made yet, but it does certainly follow 9 where we're going. Do we need -- is there a -- I'm not sure. 10 Is this the one we need the waiver on? 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's close. 13 MR. ODOM: This is -- this is different. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the issue that comes in on 15 these larger lots is the degree of Environmental Health 16 review, and we're just trying to work through with the County 17 Attorney on this. So the public's aware of what we're 18 talking about here as to -- on these larger lots, there's 19 almost a conflict. The Environmental Health Department has a 20 statutory -- or I guess a regulatory requirement to review 21 plats, and yet there's also a state law that if you're over 22 10 acres, you don't need a -- 23 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Total review. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I don't want to misstate 25 this, but tell me if I'm wrong. If you're over 10 acres, you 7-25-11 32 1 don't have to get a permit to do your septic system. You 2 have to do it according to state law, but you don't have to 3 get a permit. Then you're in that situation where we have 4 lots over 10 acres, one law says one thing and one law says 5 another. We're trying to work through that right now with 6 the County Attorney. 7 MR. ODOM: Doesn't the newer law prevail over the 8 old law? 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're still both on the 10 books. So, it's -- we're just trying to figure out exactly 11 what that requirement is. And we looked at this several 12 years ago, and we need to look at it again, or are looking at 13 it again right now. It's a little bit complicated by Texas 14 Water Development Board and our obligation with them as well. 15 So, I'm sure that I cleared that confusion up. (Laughter.) 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Absolutely. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Clear as mud. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do you have -- 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or discussion? 20 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: All in favor of the motion, signify 22 by raising your right hand. 23 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 24 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 25 (No response.) 7-25-11 33 1 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Let's go to 2 Item 8, which is a timed item also. Consider, discuss, take 3 appropriate action to open, read, and award the bids on 4 Ingram Loop Subdivision property. Commissioner Letz now has 5 a pocketknife in possession. 6 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: But it's not doing him any 7 good. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll just tear them. I'll get 9 it out. 10 (Low-voice discussion off the record.) 11 JUDGE TINLEY: The first one that we have is from 12 Raymond Brothers I, Limited. The bid amount is $39,900. The 13 next one we have is from the City of Ingram, $37,500. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's it. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Only two bids submitted, 16 Commissioner? 17 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's it. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do you want to accept them or 19 act on them? 20 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I don't know that we don't 21 need to act on them. We put it out there; we put a minimum 22 bid. That was exceeded. And I don't know that we have any 23 reason to not accept the high bid. Anybody have any problem 24 with that? 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. It's on the agenda 7-25-11 34 1 item, and I think you're right. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do we have to do it -- is there 3 anything we need to do from a -- I mean, we just accept it 4 and authorize you to prepare the deeds? 5 MR. HENNEKE: Well -- 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess what -- 7 JUDGE TINLEY: You may want to submit them to the 8 County Attorney for review, and see that the bids are in 9 proper form and so forth. And once he determines that, then 10 bring them back later in the meeting, and we can take action 11 on them. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, that'd be good. 13 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Sometime later today? 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 15 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'll make that motion. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to accept 18 the bids as -- as received and submit them to the County 19 Attorney for review for completeness and compliance, and 20 report back to the Court so that we might take further action 21 later on in the meeting. Question or discussion? All in 22 favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. 23 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 24 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 25 (No response.) 7-25-11 35 1 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. At this 2 time, I will recess the Commissioners Court meeting once 3 again and open a public hearing for the revision of plat for 4 Lot 79 of Clear Springs Ranch Estates, as set forth in Volume 5 3, Pages 116 and -17, and located in Precinct 1. 6 (The regular Commissioners Court meeting was closed at 9:36 a.m., and a public hearing was held in open 7 court, as follows:) 8 P U B L I C H E A R I N G 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Is there any member of the public 10 that wishes to be heard with respect to the revision of plat 11 for Lot 79 of Clear Springs Ranch Estates, as set forth in 12 Volume 3, Page 116 -- Pages 116 and -17, and located in 13 Precinct 1? Ms. Calcote? 14 MS. CALCOTE: My name's Hazelle Calcote, and I live 15 out there. And I have no objection to the division of Lot 16 79, but I would like to know if the County permits any kind 17 of commercial endeavors in any subdivision. That's my 18 concern, that no commercialism of any kind be undertaken out 19 there. We don't need any more junk. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Let me respond to that, if I might, 21 Ms. Calcote. And I think the County Attorney will confirm 22 this. Once you get outside the -- outside the city, the use 23 -- land use, as it were, that's normally covered by zoning 24 laws within the municipality is covered by the deed 25 restrictions or covenants with regard to subdivisions, and 7-25-11 36 1 it's not a matter that this Commissioners Court has the 2 authority over. We have very limited land use authority, and 3 as far as I know, it doesn't extend to anything in that -- in 4 that context. 5 MR. HENNEKE: That's correct, Judge. The County 6 doesn't have zoning authority. You have state law, and then, 7 of course, you have the restrictions that may be on the deed, 8 but that's not within Kerr County purview to regulate. 9 MS. CALCOTE: Okay. Then, if, according to the 10 deed restrictions -- if they have expired, then it's my 11 understanding that it's open to anything? 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Without looking at those 13 restrictions and knowing the exact facts, I couldn't tell 14 you, Ms. Calcotte. My experience has been normally in deed 15 restrictions, they apply for a period of, like, 25 years. 16 MS. CALCOTE: This was 20. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Unless amended or rescinded, they're 18 automatically renewed and/or extended, oftentimes. Now, 19 you'll have to check the restrictions, and -- 20 MS. CALCOTE: I think -- 21 JUDGE TINLEY: -- that will be governed by the 22 documents. 23 MS. CALCOTE: I think ours did not extend. I'm not 24 sure. But, anyway, I was just concerned about it. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: But it's not something which this 7-25-11 37 1 Court has -- 2 MS. CALCOTE: Okay. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: -- any authority over. 4 MS. CALCOTE: So, actually, the County, per se, 5 would only control, as I understand, septic regulations, 6 then. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, ma'am, we do that. Sure do. 8 MS. CALCOTE: Okay. Okay. Like I say, I have no 9 objection to it. I just would want to be -- I'd like to be 10 assured, which I don't feel like that I am. 'Cause I'm an 11 independent old woman, as you will agree, and -- (Laughter.) 12 JUDGE TINLEY: I'm not going to agree with the 13 "old" part, now. I'll agree with the "independent." 14 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That was never up for debate. 15 MS. CALCOTE: Anyway, I just would like to keep our 16 area under what it is. You know, we've got some super people 17 out there. Just wanted to keep it. Thank you. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, ma'am. Any -- any other 19 member of the public that wishes to be heard with regard to 20 the revision of plat for Lot 79 of Clear Springs Ranch 21 Estates, as set forth in Volume 3, Pages 116 and -17? Seeing 22 no one else coming forward, I will close the public hearing. 23 (The public hearing was concluded at 9:40 a.m., and the regular Commissioners Court meeting was 24 reopened.) 25 - - - - - - - - - - 7-25-11 38 1 JUDGE TINLEY: And I will reconvene the 2 Commissioners Court meeting, and we'll go to Item 10; to 3 consider, discuss, take appropriate action for the final 4 approval of the preliminary revision of plat for Lot 79 of 5 Clear Springs Ranch Estates, set forth in Volume 3, Page -- 6 Pages 116 and -17, and located in Precinct 1. Mr. Odom? 7 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. Mr. Ruiz owns Lot 79 of Clear 8 Springs Ranch Estates. He would like to subdivide Lot 79 9 into two parts. 79A would consist of 5.96 acres, and Lot 79B 10 would consist of 5.36 acres. Now, this is the one that has 11 -- that may need a variance because of O.S.S.F. It's not 12 that O.S.S.F. is wrong with their interpretation thereof, but 13 basically, an engineering study on the soils was done a year 14 ago, and that date falls outside the statute of limitations, 15 whatever that year, I think, fell on it. The Voelkels are 16 asking for an opinion of the Court if this can go through 17 without redoing all this soil analysis, which is going to 18 cost a property owner probably $450, $500 just to do. It's 19 something -- you're not changing the soil conditions. 20 However, as far as Road and Bridge is concerned, this meets 21 our criteria. It meets -- it's fine, with the exception of 22 O.S.S.F. So, I've asked for guidance through the Court, if 23 they would give a variance on a new soil engineering report. 24 Am I correct on that, Don? 25 MR. DON VOELKEL: Yes. 7-25-11 39 1 MR. ODOM: And if you have any questions, 2 certainly, Don is here to address that. But I -- I say at 3 this time we ask the Court for their approval of the 4 preliminary revision of plat for Lot 79 of Clear Springs 5 Ranch Estates, Volume 3, Page 116 and 117, Precinct 1, and 6 also set a public hearing for the same on Monday, July the 7 25th, 2011, at 9:30 a.m. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This -- this is one of those 9 issues that Commissioner Letz was just referring to, and it 10 does need to be looked at. We do need to fix this, because 11 you're -- you're -- we've been causing people -- or could 12 cause people to pay two fees on the same piece of property. 13 And -- 14 MR. ODOM: That's -- 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- we've been working real 16 hard through years to get away from that kind of thing. And 17 so I'm going to -- did you want to talk about that further? 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, not unless you want me to. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. I'm -- I'm going to 20 move that we grant a variance from the additional O.S.S.F. 21 fees, and then approve the final preliminary revision of Lot 22 79, Clear Spring Ranch Estates. 23 MR. ODOM: Approval of the preliminary revision, 24 and set a public hearing. 25 MR. DON VOELKEL: We already had the preliminary. 7-25-11 40 1 MR. ODOM: Oh, I'm sorry. Okay, it is a final. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It is final. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Are we able to grant the variance 4 without an additional public hearing with regard to the 5 variance? 6 MR. HENNEKE: You know, we're -- essentially, I 7 guess, it's incorporated in our model subdivision rules, that 8 we'd be waiving the one-year period within which you have to 9 have this soil analysis. You know, given -- given that fact 10 and given that issue that was presented after the public 11 hearing today, I would be more comfortable if we would post 12 it for -- you know, give the public a chance to comment on 13 the waiver of that requirement. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: If I -- I wasn't going to say 15 anything, Buster, but the model subdivision rules apply to 16 lots 5 acres and under. This -- we're at 5.36 and 5.96, so I 17 don't -- I don't think the model rules apply to this. 18 MR. HENNEKE: But you're still talking about a 19 waiver of an environmental -- you know -- 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That doesn't -- that's not -- I 21 mean, that's not part of -- I mean, it's nothing to -- this 22 one shouldn't be tied up with the model subdivision rules and 23 Texas Water Development Board. I mean, we need to do a -- I 24 mean, because they're not applicable. 25 MR. HENNEKE: That's true. 7-25-11 41 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So that part of it doesn't -- 2 you know, we don't need any -- to me, we don't need to worry 3 about that. But the waiver, I have a question. I want to go 4 back to -- I'm not sure exactly what Commissioner Baldwin 5 said. Waiving the fees, or waiving the requirement? 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The requirement. Did I say 7 the fees? 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You said fees. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm sorry. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's what threw me a little 11 bit. And the -- the issue comes in as to if a person has to 12 get a permit to put a septic system in. On this tract, 13 they're required by law to -- they have to go through the 14 environmental department, and it's difficult to envision 15 exactly how -- why you -- how you can go through a full 16 process now, what sense it makes, when you have to go back 17 and do it again when you put the system in. And that's the 18 way we're -- we looked at this. We had some draft language, 19 oh, three or four meetings ago that we're working on to try 20 to fix this problem, because it just doesn't -- certainly, an 21 environmental assessment is required, but how far that 22 assessment goes is the issue. And they have to go through 23 Environmental Health Department to get the permit. And they 24 have to get a permit; therefore, it doesn't make sense to do 25 it twice. 7-25-11 42 1 MR. HENNEKE: I mean, I guess the question is, but 2 for the time constraint, does the assessment -- is it 3 sufficient? I mean, if it just -- nothing has changed, and 4 it's -- you know, it's still -- but for when it was taken, 5 you know, do the current conditions still satisfy the 6 environmental rules that Ray's trying to enforce in doing his 7 job? 8 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, it does meet the rules, 9 because, you know, in order to get a permit to construct, you 10 have to do an environmental assessment and an evaluation to 11 be able to get that before they can issue a permit. I mean, 12 that's -- that's just common, anything under 10 acres. And 13 this is over 5, and you're not -- I mean, it's not necessary 14 to do the same site evaluation twice whenever you don't know 15 for sure where you're going to build your house. 16 MR. HENNEKE: I think, then, to clarify, what -- 17 what y'all are asking -- or being asked to do is not to waive 18 the environmental assessment. That's been done. And not to 19 waive any fees, because those have been paid. 20 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah. 21 MR. HENNEKE: But just waive the -- I guess, the 22 time frame during which typically one is required to have 23 been done, within a time period of when the final plat 24 approval is -- is taken. So, it seems from discussion that 25 the assessment's been done, and the assessment's fine. And 7-25-11 43 1 what Leonard is saying is he's satisfied that that assessment 2 is still current and valid. You know, the issue's been 3 noticed for today; there's been a public hearing. I withdraw 4 my opinion that we have to have another public hearing, and I 5 think just, then, the question is waiving that -- waiving 6 that time frame, which I'm still working on that issue. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. And I think the -- 8 my question goes -- the assessment was done, but I don't 9 think the assessment was done in accordance with our current 10 rules, and that's why the waiver's needed, in my mind. I 11 mean, 'cause our requirements are -- are requiring a full 12 assessment. Was a full assessment done according to the 13 rules? 14 MR. DON VOELKEL: They -- I'm Don Voelkel. They 15 did an assessment on the whole lot, not -- not in each half, 16 and they put a septic in. It's already been -- you know, one 17 of these lots has the septic on it. And I just wanted to 18 reiterate, Bruce. What you're saying is if you do this, it's 19 not saying that they're not going to have to come in and do 20 the same thing over again when they come in to build a septic 21 on the one that they would have to -- you know, the one that 22 these people are going to sell. So it's not like if we don't 23 do this, you know, we're never going to get a chance to do 24 it. It'll all be done when they come in to get a permit on 25 the lot that doesn't have a septic. We got a price for $450 7-25-11 44 1 to do this again. They've already done it once. You know, 2 if we do it again, then when that lot's sold and they build, 3 they're going to have to do it again, is what we're doing. 4 Let's just wait and let them do it when they come in for the 5 final for the lot that doesn't have a septic. So, it's not 6 like we're losing any ground. They'll still have it. It's 7 just they'll have it when they come in to build the septic on 8 that property. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. And this goes back to 10 the regulations. Environmental Health requirements are very 11 explicit as to what has to be done, and it's making sure 12 we're in compliance with the T.C.E.Q. requirements, and at 13 the same time, not causing people to design a septic system 14 twice. And that's where -- you know, that's where Rob and I 15 and Ray -- we are trying to figure out the best way to do it. 16 We're just not -- so we may need to do a waiver on this one, 17 in my mind. 18 MR. DON VOELKEL: Okay, thanks. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Ray? 20 MR. GARCIA: Sir? 21 JUDGE TINLEY: The proposed septic system, has that 22 been reviewed? 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: There isn't one. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. The only thing that's been 25 done is -- is the assessment of the property itself for the 7-25-11 45 1 suitability and type of soils? 2 MR. GARCIA: Right. And let me add something here 3 that will add more confusion to this whole thing. We -- we 4 read these things over and over and over again, and 5 interpretations flying all over the place. Site -- there's 6 soil analysis, and then your site evaluation, two different 7 things. The U.S.D.A. soils chart for your soil analysis, you 8 click, drag it over. Boom, there it is. Okay. Site 9 evaluation, when you're digging profile holes for your 10 O.S.S.F. system that's going to go in, wherever you decide 11 and the professional decides the best place to put this in, 12 that's site evaluation. And the profile holes are required, 13 and they'll dig profile holes down in, okay? That is 14 different than the soil analysis, okay? Some do. Some 15 people want people to -- or want the professional to dig 16 site -- profile holes for their analysis, because they want 17 to know what's going to be the usable part of their property 18 way before they come down to get their permit. 19 The other problem with this, to add to this 20 confusion, is that when the site -- or the soil analysis is 21 done, okay, they come down; they've already been through the 22 platting process, finished with that. Now they're 23 downstairs. For whatever reason, they -- they chose their 24 area -- obviously, a lot of times it's on the side of a hill 25 or on top of a hill. Now we got to find a place to put the 7-25-11 46 1 O.S.S.F. system. Well, that only gives that landowner a 2 specific area to put this thing in, okay? So wherever they 3 dug the site -- or the profile holes might not be the place 4 where they want that septic, because they want to use that 5 piece of property for something else. Keeping in mind, once 6 you put this system in, you know, you want to keep traffic 7 and everything off of your system. 8 Now, that's where the problems come into it, okay? 9 If you get the soil analysis done, that's fine. A lot of 10 times, like I said, it's just using the U.S.D.A. soils 11 analysis chart, and then you move on. When the homeowner -- 12 when the landowner comes in and says, "I want to put a system 13 in," their professional comes out and does a site evaluation. 14 We do a site evaluation inspection with them, look at the 15 profile holes. A lot of times where they're digging those 16 profile holes is where their best soils are, okay? But 17 that's not where the system's going to go. It's going way on 18 the other side, or you know, or a totally different location 19 on the property. That's where the confusion is here, is soil 20 analysis and site evaluations. Site evaluation inspections, 21 profile holes are to find out where and what soils are going 22 to be suitable, and what type of system you are going to get 23 in that -- in your site evaluation. 24 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: What about your -- what about 25 the soil evaluation? What does that -- you say you drag that 7-25-11 47 1 over off of U.S.D.A.? 2 MR. GARCIA: Yeah. Lee and Don know what I'm 3 talking about there for the soil analysis chart. 4 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah. 5 MR. GARCIA: Which a lot of these guys do. They 6 just use that chart for their soil analysis. 7 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Maybe that's what we need to 8 do, so that they don't wind up paying double. But they wind 9 up doing a -- a site evaluation when they get ready to do it, 10 but they know what soils exist on that property based on what 11 the U.S.D.A. says. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I think they need some site 13 evaluation also, because you go -- to take an example of the 14 Heights -- is that what it's called? The one there on the 15 side of hills. And -- and we're looking at those, and, you 16 know, the smaller you get, the more scrutiny we need to do 17 with the platting, is the bottom lime. That's what we need 18 to work into our rules, that there's a little bit of 19 discretion. If you're at 10 acres or more, you're going to 20 be able to figure out a way to put a septic system on this 21 property. If you're down to 3 acres, building a home, you 22 better have -- you kind of have to kind of start designating 23 those things ahead of time. That's what we're trying to work 24 through with the County Attorney. 25 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I totally agree on the 7-25-11 48 1 smaller ones. On the bigger ones, your options to where 2 you're going to locate your actual residence, whatever, you 3 got more options that way than you do on a 2- or 3-acre lot. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 5 MR. GARCIA: That's probably one of the key points 6 there, is that even though you may not use a certain part of 7 your property, when they come in after the fact, which we've 8 dealt with -- and I think I've expressed this to you guys 9 before, is that they'll come and start complaining to us 10 that, you know, I have -- "You're making me do this, this, 11 this, and that." Well, we're not making you do anything. 12 It's what happened during -- or their lack of site evaluation 13 on your preliminary, you know. So you didn't -- you weren't 14 aware that you're going to have a 30 percent grade, and 15 you're going to try to put a system in there, which, you 16 know, your retaining wall alone is going to probably be about 17 $200,000 to put in a system. You know, we'll hear drainage 18 and everything else, okay? But, again, those are the things 19 we discussed as far as the smaller lots. A larger tract of 20 land, obviously, you're going to find somewhere to put a 21 system. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Baldwin? 24 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: What are we going to do here? 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Do you know what your motion is? 7-25-11 49 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely not, but Ray's 2 fixing to tell me. Do you have a recommendation here? 3 MR. GARCIA: For this current -- 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: For this one. 5 MR. GARCIA: Can you please restate it again? 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: State it again. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: The agenda item calls for the 8 preliminary -- excuse me, the final approval of preliminary 9 revision of plat for Lot 79 of Clear Springs Ranch Estates. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And we have a 5.96-acre and a 11 5.36-acre lot. 12 MR. GARCIA: I would just defer to the Court and 13 your recommendation again. You know, that -- that tract of 14 land is small. You know, in the Hill Country you can go from 15 one area to the next and get a different soil analysis, 16 different site evaluation. So -- 17 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: But the soil analysis has 18 already been done on this property. It's now being divided, 19 so the land hasn't changed. Soil hasn't changed; it's 20 whatever it is. 21 MR. GARCIA: And I refer back to again -- 22 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: May be making two lots out of 23 one that you already evaluated. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: And I assume since there hasn't been 25 a system approved, when it comes to site selection, that 7-25-11 50 1 remains to be done. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's correct. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Wherever. So your motion, then, 4 Commissioner, is that we approve the preliminary revision of 5 plat, and also grant a waiver as to the time frame in which 6 the soil analysis was performed? 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's correct. We're right 8 back to what the County Attorney said earlier, yes, sir. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That is my motion. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. So, it's a waiver only 12 as to the time frame. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Time frame. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Which the soil analysis was 15 performed. 16 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: I'll second that. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as 18 indicated. Any further question or discussion on that? 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Soil analysis and site 20 evaluation? 21 JUDGE TINLEY: I don't think site evaluation's been 22 done. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Soil analysis, okay. 24 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Site evaluate will come 25 whenever they get ready to build. 7-25-11 51 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Soil, though, definitely. 2 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Soil analysis, but no site 3 evaluation. 4 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: Right. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Other questions or comments? All in 6 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: Motion carried. Okay, let's move on 11 to Item 11; to consider, discuss, take appropriate action to 12 accept the preliminary revision of plat for Lots 2 and 3 of 13 The Horizon, Section One, Volume 6, Pages 323 through -26, 14 located in Precinct 1, and set a public hearing. 15 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. Roger and Patricia Presley 16 own both Lot 2, which is 5.23 acres, and Lot 3, 6.53 acres, 17 making a combined acreage of 11.76. They're trying to 18 combine both lots. So, at this time, we ask the Court to 19 accept the preliminary revision of plat for Lots 2 and 3 of 20 The Horizon, Section One, Volume 6, Page 323 through 326, 21 Precinct 1, and to set a public hearing for Monday, September 22 the 12th, 2011, at 9 a.m. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Taking two lots and making 24 one big one? 25 MR. ODOM: That's right. 7-25-11 52 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved. 2 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to set a 4 public hearing on the matter for September the 12th at -- did 5 you say 9 a.m.? 6 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: At 9 a.m. Question or comment on 8 the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 9 your right hand. 10 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 11 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 12 (No response.) 13 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Let's move 14 to Item 13; to consider, discuss, take appropriate action to 15 set a public hearing for August 22, 2011, for the County 16 Clerk's Records Management and Records Archival written plan 17 in accordance with Subchapter C, Chapter 262 of the Local 18 Government Code. Ms. Pieper? 19 MS. PIEPER: Gentlemen, this is just an annual 20 formality that we have to do every year in order to expend 21 this money. We have to set a public hearing, and then it has 22 to be approved with the budget, so I'm requesting that we do 23 a public hearing August the 22nd, 2011, at whatever time we 24 have available. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: How about 9:10 a.m.? 7-25-11 53 1 MS. PIEPER: Sounds good. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval. 3 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made seconded to set a public 5 hearing on the matter for August 22nd, 2011, at 9:10 a.m. 6 Question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify 7 by raising your right hand. 8 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 9 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 10 (No response.) 11 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion carries. Let's go to 12 Item 14; to consider, discuss, take appropriate action 13 concerning adoption of child safety fees by Kerr County as 14 permitted by the Texas Department of Transportation. This is 15 a matter that's been placed on the agenda again after it was 16 discussed last time, and the issue was the Tax Assessor was 17 going to give us more information on how that was to -- 18 MR. HENNEKE: Judge, I met with Ms. Bolin on this. 19 I believe that she's at some kind of training that couldn't 20 be rescheduled, but the -- in our research on the issue, the 21 funds that would be raised from this would be -- would go 22 towards a municipal child safety program, like a crossing -- 23 crosswalk program. The problem is that there aren't any that 24 are established. Kerr County, under the statute, would keep 25 10 percent for administration, but I understand from 7-25-11 54 1 Ms. Bolin that her estimate of the cost of bringing in the 2 money, keeping track of it, and administering the program and 3 disbursing the funds would be more costly than the funds that 4 would be generated that Kerr County would receive. She's 5 advised me that in her research, other communities that have 6 done this, the counties have adopted this after a municipal 7 program has been put into place as a way to support the 8 municipal program through the funding mechanism that's 9 provided. But she's checked with the City of Kerrville, and 10 I think the City of Ingram as well, and they don't have that 11 program in place yet, so it's her opinion, which I guess I 12 agree with, that this might be putting the cart before the 13 horse; that we would encourage the cities to adopt such a 14 program, and when they do, then it would make sense for us to 15 take the initiative to adopt this fee so as to support that 16 program. But the funds are very limited, and the funds 17 aren't funds that we can use. And I'm not sure how this 18 really be used productively without a program being in place. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, last meeting when 20 this came up, I moved to adopt this program. Now I've looked 21 at it closer and realize that it is really, in my opinion, a 22 function of Kerrville ISD, so I'm not in favor of doing this, 23 and I recommend that we check -- we have to respond, I 24 understand, to these folks. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 7-25-11 55 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That we take Option A, check 2 that and go on with life. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. If we -- we don't adopt it, 4 we automatically take Option A, so -- 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Yeah, that's right. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Any member of the Court wish to make 7 a motion to adopt the child safety fee? Hearing nothing, 8 that item's dead. Let's go to item 15; to consider and 9 discuss pending or proposed interlocal agreements with the 10 City of Kerrville for various services and/or operations, 11 take any appropriate action thereon. This item has come up 12 on the last several agendas, and I think we finally got 13 something, don't we, Commissioner? 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I believe so. Y'all have 15 several drafts, I think, that were e-mailed out. Last 16 Friday, the Judge and I met at some length with the Mayor, 17 Councilman Conklin, City Manager, and went through 18 agreements, and I think we have deals on three; animal 19 control, library, and fire/EMS. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You think? 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I think -- 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Or do we? 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, it depends. The thinking 24 parts depends on about three other colleagues on the Court, 25 how they vote today. The -- we spent a lot of time with the 7-25-11 56 1 County Attorney; he's gone back and forth with the 2 agreements. The issues that we had on the -- I'll go through 3 them one by one quickly. The animal control, there really 4 has not been many changes to this one along the way. In 5 fact, there's none. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Not on animal control. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: On animal control -- 8 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah, we're providing it. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: There is a change on animal 10 control, isn't there? I think we might have changed the -- 11 let's look at animal control real quick. 12 MR. HENNEKE: They changed the termination clause. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Changed the termination. We 14 changed the termination clause on all agreements to have them 15 the same. They all end in three years on a certain date. 16 There's not an automatic renewal provision any longer. So, 17 we did -- you know, that was done on all of them, so that was 18 the only change the animal control. On the library, the 19 draft that we worked off of on the 22nd, last Friday, the 20 City agreed to the changes. They had some language in there 21 about a 1 percent penalty; that was eliminated. We -- you 22 know, on all the agreements. And then the other language on 23 that agreement pretty much reflected that our payment -- we 24 pay a lump sum fee November 1st. They would present an 25 invoice 30 days in advance so we have time to process it, and 7-25-11 57 1 that is subject to receiving the funding from the Cailloux 2 Foundation. If we have not yet received that funding, 3 it's -- we're to make the payment 30 days -- or within 30 4 days after receipt. Other than that, that agreement is fine. 5 And that agreement also terminates in three years. And we'll 6 address obligations of just -- you know, in our relationship. 7 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Do some of those -- I 8 notice -- I went through some of this on the computer over 9 the weekend. I noticed a 180-day, you know, clause to -- 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Terminate. 11 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- terminate. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Either party can terminate 13 either agreement pretty much at any time. 14 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: For 30 days or 180? 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 180. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: 180. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 180. But I think there's a 18 provision on one of them that if we don't pay the money, they 19 have a 30-day revision clause for us not paying, just a 20 shorter termination period. But -- so the library pretty 21 much is as we wanted. There was lots of other language in 22 there originally, and that was all taken out. That is our 23 funding is based totally on us receiving funds from the 24 Cailloux Foundation for the next three years. And those on 25 the Court, I'm sure -- well, I know the Court is aware that 7-25-11 58 1 that funding was approved by the Cailloux board of directors 2 on an annual basis for the next three years of up to a 3 maximum of 600,000, 200,000 a year. 4 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: Appreciate that. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. And that's -- that was a 6 big help, getting them to go through all these. Fire/EMS was 7 that one that we spent probably the most time on. The -- the 8 areas where we, you know, I guess, focused was they continue 9 to have language in there about one truck -- one brush truck, 10 one rescue truck, and that -- and our -- you know, going back 11 and forth over that, if that should be included or not. That 12 is the protocol that the City currently has for this area. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Initial protocol. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Initial protocol. And they 15 were -- you know, and we had them add that language, and this 16 is on their current protocol; that's what they do. It's also 17 very clear in the agreement that the battalion chief can 18 request additional information -- or equipment as they see 19 fit, and that's kind of where we are right now. I mean, it's 20 -- and that's, I think, what we've agreed to. And later in 21 the agreement it does talk about that, you know, the City has 22 the right to evaluate the services into the county based on 23 needs in the city at any given point in time. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're basically talking 25 about the fire? 7-25-11 59 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Fire. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm, yeah, fire. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's a fire deal. EMS, there 4 really wasn't -- you know, I don't recall any real issues 5 there, other than there's a liability issue where the City 6 refused to take any liability for civil problems. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Civil liability. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Civil liability. And we were 9 able to have that so we have joint liability. We have -- 10 we're liable and they're liable, and they agreed to that. 11 The other thing we did was on the -- we changed the 12 termination clause around some, pretty much gave either party 13 the right to terminate the agreement. My recollection is 14 that that also brought about deleting the paragraph about 15 ESD's which is currently in the agreement. It doesn't hurt 16 to have it in there, but it was a little bit cleaner not to, 17 but we're in agreement on that one too. So, you know, I will 18 make a motion that we conceptually approve, subject to formal 19 approval by the County Attorney and a little wordsmithing to 20 get the language exactly right in a few sections, and 21 authorize the County Judge to sign all three of those 22 agreements. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Now, when you're talking 24 about wordsmithing and changing some things here, is it going 25 to be something that they will receive, or are we going to go 7-25-11 60 1 through this again? 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, we're done on these. We're 3 talking -- and the changes are very -- one would be the -- I 4 call it wordsmithing. It's the paragraph about ESD's. I 5 thought we agreed to delete it. To me, it's cleaner to 6 delete that; it doesn't make any sense. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Doesn't do anything. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: The explanation on that was, I posed 9 the possibility if we only have our proposed ESD as to one 10 service, that the contract would remain in force; those 11 provisions applicable to the other service remain in force 12 with that consideration. They were very, very firm that if 13 there's any ESD, the whole thing gets scrapped and we start 14 over. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: So based upon that, I think that's 17 where Commissioner Letz got the clear understanding that we 18 just rely upon the -- the ordinary termination -- 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: -- paragraph. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: We wouldn't need the ESD language, 23 'cause the -- the acceptance of an assignment would be 24 subject to their willingness to accept. Which, of course, 25 that would be there anyway. 7-25-11 61 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Fantastic. 2 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: All these -- let me ask a 3 question. All of these are independent of each other? 4 They're not all lumped together where we either take one 5 or -- 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're independent. 7 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: They're all independent ones, 8 and they're not -- if we decide to terminate one sometime 9 down the road, it's not tied to the others? 10 JUDGE TINLEY: No, it's not. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Independent. 12 MR. HENNEKE: Of course, they -- they would have 13 the equal right to terminate them. 14 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's right. That's okay. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All of them. 16 MR. HENNEKE: That's how it works. 17 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You terminate one, we 18 terminate two. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I'm not going to say 20 that I'm 100 percent happy with all the language, but it's 21 close enough, and it gets us to what we agreed to do. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, and I want to say 23 something nice about them, particularly about this -- the 24 fire part of it, the fire truck part of it. They can -- we 25 can put those -- the Number 1 fire truck and three guys and 7-25-11 62 1 300 gallons of water or whatever, all that; you can put that 2 language in there, but that's what we're dealing with here, 3 is those guys over at the City Hall. You know, the guys that 4 are out on the ground, the firefighters, they're there to 5 save lives and property. They're not interested in 6 contracts. They're there to save lives and property, and the 7 fire chief has done that over and over again. If there's 8 more -- more than one truck needed out there, he sends more 9 than one truck, and I appreciate that. That's just -- that's 10 good servanthood, if that's a word. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the agreement gets us there 12 and gives him the authority to do just that, without any -- 13 you know, I wouldn't say it's crystal clear, but it's clear. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: What you said, he stood right here 15 before us and said he doesn't read these contracts; he's 16 going to do whatever's necessary to handle the situation. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: And his subordinates also have that 19 same discretion and ability. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I also -- you know, our 21 last meeting was -- it was the most productive meeting we've 22 ever had with them. I think the Mayor came; he understood we 23 had to get this done, and he negotiated with us, and we 24 talked about the language, went back and forth until we came 25 to something that everyone in the room was comfortable with. 7-25-11 63 1 I mean, I'm happy with it. 2 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: Commissioner, I'd say that 3 you and Judge Tinley -- again, appreciate all of y'all's hard 4 work on these subcommittees that you guys have been doing, 5 and appreciate the updates and this report here today. But 6 thanks again for all the hard work you guys have been putting 7 into this. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is someone going to second my 9 motion now? 10 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: I'll second that. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: I was going to inquire. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tell me what the motion was. 13 Is it -- that's on three? 14 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: That's three. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Library, animal control, and 16 fire/EMS. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We'll deal with the airport in 19 a second. 20 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Airport's going to be in a 21 minute, okay. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: We need to meet with the Airport 23 Board as part and parcel of that. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: In a meeting, because it necessarily 7-25-11 64 1 affects them. And -- 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's talk about it now. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: -- they agreed -- 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: He wants to, evidently. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: To meet with the board. So, I think 6 that's a good thing. Further question or discussion on the 7 motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your 8 right hand. 9 (Commissioners Baldwin, Overby, and Letz voted in favor of the motion.) 10 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed? 11 (Commissioner Oehler voted against the motion.) 12 13 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'm opposed because it's too 14 much money for the fire contract; it's not justified. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: On the airport, if I might make 17 a comment there, we're, you know, fairly far apart on the 18 airport agreement. And a lot of it is -- relates to the 19 budget, and that is specifically where we need to -- and the 20 City has agreed now to meet with the representatives of the 21 Airport Board, representatives of this Court, and 22 representatives of City Council to sit down and go through 23 their budget and work on it. And it's not just the budget; 24 it's the mechanics of the operations related to the budget at 25 the airport. And we need -- and I mentioned at the meeting 7-25-11 65 1 that we need to certainly have our Auditor very much involved 2 in that conversation, because it's not just looking at line 3 items, necessarily; it's a little bit of concept coming in 4 there too. And they're -- they have some other -- they came 5 up -- they threw a curveball, in my mind, on some of the 6 other -- a new provision that's put in the airport agreement 7 that I haven't agreed to, I don't think the Judge has agreed 8 to, and we're going to -- we're still working on that. I 9 think we'll come to an agreement on the airport; it's just a 10 matter that we're just not quite at that point. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: The composition -- the new proposal 12 for composition is probably the thing that surprised me. And 13 we discussed that in some depth, and hopefully they've pulled 14 away from that. I certainly hope so. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think when the budget side or 16 the dollars and how it's funded and all of that gets worked 17 out at the airport, I think the rest of it will fall into 18 place. And that's why it's going to be critical to have the 19 Airport Board a part of that, because they know the details 20 there better than the County or the City. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, let me ask you a 22 question. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, sir. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Talking about this 25 composition, I'm not real sure what you're talking about, but 7-25-11 66 1 let me -- let me take a guess and see how far off base I am. 2 When we set up that board out there, we simply followed some 3 kind of law, whether it was state law or -- maybe not -- on 4 how to set up an airport board. And they -- that those 5 people were selected by both government bodies in the 6 beginning, and then they just evolved on their own from that 7 point on, and -- do they not? And we approve them as they 8 come on? 9 JUDGE TINLEY: In a fashion. Actually, what we 10 have is the right to disapprove. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Correct. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: I call it the KPUB model, for lack 13 of a better term. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That works. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: I think it's a wonderful thing. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: You got a board that, when they have 18 a vacancy, that board itself proposes the successor or the 19 new person to take that position, and either of us would then 20 have the ability to veto, as it were, or decline to accept. 21 And you get two shots at it, and after -- after the second 22 one is declined, then the board makes a choice of the third 23 one, and neither of us have any ability to veto that person. 24 I think we need to keep that model in place. I got the 25 impression that the mayor was of the understanding that there 7-25-11 67 1 was only one veto, and I think that's what concerned him, and 2 he indicated that's what led to the new composition. But 3 once he was assured that there were, in essence, two strikes, 4 he seemed to back off from that. Wasn't that your 5 impression, Commissioner? 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, until I got their new 7 draft version and they still had the same language in there. 8 That's what kind of confused me. Maybe they just didn't 9 change it, but the City did -- they worked very hard late 10 Friday trying to come up with something for us to have before 11 us today, this morning. And maybe they just knew the airport 12 was something we needed to still spend some time on, and 13 weren't -- didn't go through the details, 'cause nothing was 14 agreed one way or the other on that totally. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, and, you know, basic 16 thinking, that model has been in place at KPUB for 50 -- 17 what, 50 years, or a long time. A long time. Older than you 18 and I. And it works. It's proven. It works. And we set it 19 up that way out there. I just -- I don't -- I hate to see us 20 monkey with that. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: I think it's a good model, 22 Commissioner, 'cause it takes the politics out of it. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: And that's what we -- 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Need even more of that. 7-25-11 68 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: On the airport -- and there 3 will be some sort of a joint meeting. I think the Court does 4 need -- we need to address whether the Court is comfortable 5 with the Judge and I doing it, or Commissioner Overby being 6 involved also. We can't have a quorum, but Commissioner 7 Overby is one of the liaisons to the airport, as am I. So, I 8 mean, I think we need to -- 9 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Fine with me for y'all to do 10 it. 11 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: I think we need to remember 12 also, this airport just recently got named airport of the 13 year. I mean, I think any tinkering with something that has 14 been a model statewide already for airports is absolutely -- 15 for what, from their standpoint, to me, doesn't make any 16 sense. We have a fantastic independent board, and I think 17 that we need to continue to keep functioning like we're 18 doing, and let's continue to be a model in the state. I 19 think it's kind of crazy what they're -- what they're trying 20 to request. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Look here; there's a little 22 bit of anger. 23 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Took a long time to get to 24 this point. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I kind of like that. 7-25-11 69 1 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: If everybody will leave them 2 alone, maybe we can get the contribution for both parties 3 down where they can get some -- generate some more revenue. 4 That's the goal. 5 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: And the independent board is 6 doing a fantastic job. I'm in support. 7 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I couldn't agree more. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Hear, hear. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Did we vote? 11 JUDGE TINLEY: No. Okay, any further question or 12 comment on the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify 13 by raising your right hand. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We voted. He voted against it. 15 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I voted against it. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We don't have a motion. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: I'm sorry. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We don't have a new motion. 19 THE CLERK: We didn't have a new motion. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not on the airport. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Here's the computer printout 23 that you sent me. You're making it difficult for me to play 24 this game. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Let's move on to Item 7-25-11 70 1 16; consider, discuss, take appropriate on resolution 2 regarding the Southern Edwards Plateau Conservation Plan. 3 Commissioner Letz. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh, boy. We got to back up a 5 little bit. I know that you have at least one member of the 6 public that wants to make some comments also. This is one of 7 those strange things that happens occasionally where you get 8 involved with something, and it's -- you're not quite sure 9 where you're going and where it's going, and a lot of things 10 happen along the way. But as background, I was appointed or 11 nominated by some residents in Kerr County, some landowners, 12 and then appointed by Bexar County, City of San Antonio, to 13 serve on what's called the C.A.C., the Citizens' Advisory 14 Committee, which is one of two groups that advises the 15 applicant, which is Bexar County, on the formation of a 16 habitat conservation plan. The other one is a Biological 17 Advisory Group, or B.A.T. And then, to my shock, this group 18 elected me co-chair, and for the better part of the last, oh, 19 I guess 18 months, I've been very much involved with the 20 Southern Edwards Plateau Habitat Conservation Plan. 21 And somehow along the line, quite a few members of 22 the public got to assume since I was chair, that I was in 23 favor of it, and I spent a great deal of time saying I'm just 24 doing -- I'm just serving as chair; I was asked to be on it 25 and agreed to it, and I was. And I don't know why -- even 7-25-11 71 1 though I told many people that I -- you know, I have not cast 2 a vote on it, and I will cast a vote down the road, and that 3 vote will show my position on the -- on the Citizens' 4 Advisory Committee, which is also on the habitat conservation 5 plan. The first draft came out in April, and the C.A.C. as a 6 whole, and myself as just a vote on the C.A.C., voted -- I 7 think it was actually worded a vote of no confidence in the 8 first draft. The C.A.C. did not like what the applicant 9 prepared, or had prepared as a first draft. 10 Since that time, we spent a great deal of time on 11 the C.A.C. going through the -- the plan and figuring out 12 really a lot more of the specifics. A lot of recommendations 13 were made that, in my opinion, help Kerr County and the other 14 counties outside of that totally. It removed -- it 15 requested, anyway, that there be no authorization allowed in 16 any of the counties outside of Bexar County. The only way 17 that that would be changed was an affirmative vote or vote 18 from the commissioners courts of those other counties to get 19 involved. And that was a better position, but it still 20 wasn't end-all, in my mind, but certainly better than what 21 the first draft said. In July, we went through on the C.A.C. 22 and saw if there was approval to a formal recommendation to 23 Bexar County, if the C.A.C. could give a formal 24 recommendation. And after nine votes, it was decided that 25 the C.A.C. will not vote to recommend anything to Bexar 7-25-11 72 1 County. There was not agreement, and I voted against doing 2 anything nine times, as did some other members of the group. 3 So, bottom line in the C.A.C. is, there is no 4 recommendation going to Bexar County to proceed. It doesn't 5 say not to proceed; it just says we don't agree on what you 6 should do as a group, and therefore we're not going to give 7 you a recommendation. But we have voted that we are, as a 8 group, opposed to the first draft. Other -- well, I and the 9 Judge and the Court received some resolutions and other 10 documentation that I believe was prepared by Margaret 11 Byfield, I think, who is very involved with endangered 12 species issues on the state and national level. And she came 13 in with some -- you know, a new resolution and some other 14 much more technical information on letters to Fish and 15 Wildlife Service and to Bexar County. I certainly 16 conceptually agree with what she's done, for a couple of 17 reasons. And I wanted to go through the problems on the -- 18 the plan -- the draft plan, the big problems that I see. 19 There are a number of things, but one is cost. 20 This -- the plan that the -- that we voted on that was 21 rejected nine times ranged in cost to Bexar County of 22 anywhere from 420 to 810 million dollars. Ridiculous. It 23 was -- I mean, Bexar County doesn't -- it's just absurd to 24 spend that kind of money on what Bexar County was trying to 25 achieve, and I suspect Bexar County is going to agree on that 7-25-11 73 1 point. I don't know what Bexar County's going to ultimately 2 do; I have no idea. The other problem I had was it didn't 3 meet the needs of Bexar County. Bexar County was originally 4 trying to solve the problems around Camp Bullis and help some 5 development areas. Bexar County has largely solved the Camp 6 Bullis problem already; they have gone out and bought 7 property to mitigate and help the Army out. And so a large 8 -- in my mind, a large part of the need for any kind of 9 habitat conservation plan is gone. 10 Kerr County -- I can't really speak for other 11 counties, but I see no reason why Kerr County needs a habitat 12 conservation plan. Therefore, you know, certainly, we should 13 not be included in it. And for that reason, you know, I 14 think Bexar County needs to be told that again. And the 15 other thing is, there's -- I think a lot of the members of 16 the Court know I do research this fairly carefully when I get 17 involved. I've gone back and looked at it. This whole plan 18 is largely for the golden-cheeked warbler. They talk about 19 black-capped vireos, karst invertebrates and some other 20 stuff. When it got down to the cost of the golden-cheeked 21 warblers, I went back to the original recovery plan that was 22 drafted when the bird became listed as endangered in 1992 and 23 found some pretty interesting things. One, the total cost 24 projected to get the bird unlisted was $12 million. So, this 25 one plan, we're talking about 500 million, just by itself. 7-25-11 74 1 And that doesn't count what Travis County, Williamson County, 2 Hays County, Comal County have already spent on this program. 3 So, I mean, obviously, to me, the Fish and Wildlife Service 4 isn't doing a very good job of figuring out how to get birds 5 un -- de-listed, because their projections are over ten-fold 6 wrong. 7 Secondly, if you were to do what they recommended 8 in the 1992 plan -- and far more than that was actually 9 done -- the bird would have been delisted in 2008. There has 10 been no action by the Fish and Wildlife Service to de-list 11 the golden-cheeked warbler, and that is despite two studies 12 fairly recently in the past two or three years. One study a 13 year ago -- I should say that Texas A & M did it; that was a 14 four-year study, I believe, that shows that there are more 15 golden-cheeked warblers around than anyone could possibly 16 imagine. And that has been further documented that there are 17 some new studies going on this year that the habitat range is 18 far broader than Fish and Wildlife Service gives credit. And 19 I bring that up because those two plans, even though -- well, 20 the first plan, even though it has been approved, we were not 21 allowed as a C.A.C. to even review that plan because it had 22 not had, quote, peer review. Well, to me, that's ridiculous. 23 There's a study out there by probably the leading university 24 on wildlife, certainly in the state of Texas, one of the 25 premier in the country, and we were told no, we don't like 7-25-11 75 1 that data, so you can't use that. And that bothered me. 2 So, bottom line is, I've -- after going through 3 this process, you know, I think it is unnecessary; it's a 4 waste of money, and I certainly recommend that Kerr County 5 not be involved with it, and I hope that Bexar County does 6 not go forward with the application. I think that's a very 7 good chance, but that's something that Bexar County will have 8 to decide what they want to do. Concerning the documents 9 that are before us today, they're largely based on -- aside 10 from the resolution, it refers -- a lot of this is based on 11 notice given under the environmental impact statement process 12 and what's posted in Federal Register. And I -- quite 13 frankly, while I'm aware of those things, I don't understand 14 them, don't know about them. Don't particularly care to -- 15 to go into the details of them, and would -- I will defer 16 this to the County Attorney, whether it makes sense for us or 17 not to -- the actual language included. I certainly have no 18 problem in support of going to both Bexar County and Fish and 19 Wildlife Service and saying, we want Kerr County out of it. 20 And if there's other issues, that's fine. 21 Concerning the resolution that was sent, I think 22 it's -- there's some technical issues with it. On the first 23 line, for example, it says Kerr County executed Resolution 24 31945 on December 13th, 2010, opposing the Southern Edwards 25 Plateau Conservation Plan. I'm not sure that that resolution 7-25-11 76 1 actually opposed it. I think the resolution said we didn't 2 want Kerr County included in it. So, I want to make sure 3 that anything that, you know, we support today goes forward. 4 I think we do need to do another resolution, and I do think 5 we need to advise Fish and Wildlife Service and -- you know, 6 that, you know, we're opposed to it and want to be withdrawn 7 from it. The actual language on here, I'd -- you know, I'm 8 not sure if it's good or not. I just -- a large part of it, 9 I just don't know the details of the Environmental Impact 10 Statement system. So, that's kind of where I am on it. I'm 11 in favor of doing both of these. I'm not sure if this 12 language gets us right there. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, Commissioner, the reference to 14 the Commissioners Court resolution, it speaks for itself, and 15 whatever it did, that's what it did. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: So, the terminology, opposed -- or 18 proposed inclusion of Kerr County, as a more particular 19 statement, I don't think is that material. The operative 20 language, of course, is down at the bottom on the resolution 21 part itself. I think the intent is to try and do this at 22 this time in a manner so that we can actually get it in 23 before the close of the Environmental Impact Statement, so as 24 to try and have our voice heard and our objections heard at 25 the next available -- possibly available stage of this entire 7-25-11 77 1 process. And -- and I think that's the -- from a time 2 standpoint, I see that as if, in fact, the Court's desire is 3 that Kerr County not want to be included and we want to say 4 that again, that we do it now and get it in before the close 5 of the Environmental Impact Statement input, which I believe 6 is -- July 28? 7 MR. SEALE: No, it ends in September, Judge, so we 8 do have time on the actual public comments portion of what 9 you're talking about. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. And there's also a -- 12 the -- you know, certainly, we need to -- I think it's a good 13 time to do it under this time framework, in this, I guess, 14 notice period. There's also a second draft that will be 15 prepared -- I want to say September 1st. It's going to be 16 released in September or the early part of fall. Maybe it's 17 October; I can't remember. And after that, there's another 18 whole opportunity to weigh in. And, you know, so it's -- 19 it's certainly timely, I think, to say no three times; once 20 at the beginning, once in the middle, where we are right now, 21 and then do it again. But I think just because we say no 22 now, I would -- doesn't mean we can just quit looking at it. 23 I think you have to watch this all the way through to the 24 end, until the point that Bexar County submits its final 25 application, if they do submit one. And I don't -- and I 7-25-11 78 1 don't think that's a given, in my mind. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Talking about the guts of 3 all this thing, outside the -- the first part, just one 4 simple thing here. I think, you know, to me, it looks like 5 that we are putting them on notice of some issues, is what it 6 is. And one of those just jumps off the page at me, and that 7 is if Bexar County moves forward with their application, 8 which includes all these other counties, the Constitution 9 does not provide for counties to extend outside their county. 10 They don't have the authority to go out there and control 11 another county. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That is an issue. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That is an issue. And 14 that's -- and that's just a simple point. So, I think that 15 the guts of this thing is putting the federal people on 16 notice that we're aware of that, and you need to be aware of 17 that and deal with it. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree, and I think Bexar 19 County's been very troubled by that point as to, you know -- 20 I mean, they're kind of -- Bexar County -- 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They should be. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know they should be, but 23 Bexar County -- how do I say this? Should I even say it? 24 (Laughter.) Bexar County, I think, was pushed into doing 25 this. I don't think they had a lot of choice. From various 7-25-11 79 1 powers, various constituencies, including the federal 2 government. I'm not positive that -- you know, that's why I 3 say, and I've said several times, I'm not sure they're going 4 to go forward with the application, certainly as drafted. I 5 don't think they can afford it. You know, that's the bottom 6 line. And from what they've told me, you know, they were 7 expecting something to come in a whole lot less. And I know 8 I have visited with some of the commissioners down there and 9 members of their staff down there, and they have to go 10 through with the process. They're -- and they are; they're 11 going to complete the process, but whether they submit a 12 submission or not, I have no idea. I don't think it's a -- 13 it's a hands-down "yes." I think it's a -- it will be very 14 questionable. 15 I mean, you have people -- the -- I found -- I 16 learned a lot being on the C.A.C., and I learned a lot about 17 groups like Edwards Aquifer Alliance, things of that group. 18 They've got some different views than I do on a lot of 19 things, and they don't like the plan either. It's kind of 20 interesting. There was virtually nobody that liked the draft 21 plan, and that's why it wasn't approved. There was no 22 consensus to go forward in any direction. It was -- you 23 know, the builders didn't like it, environmentalists didn't 24 like it, and the property people didn't like it. So, I mean, 25 I think Bexar County has -- they have a challenge to figure 7-25-11 80 1 out to go forward. 2 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Be cheaper for them just to 3 have the bird taken off the endangered list. Rather spend 4 12 million as opposed to 800 million. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That goes to the whole issue as 6 to what's the real purpose of the Endangered Species Act? Is 7 it control and getting birds unlisted? That's -- you really 8 look at this, and you can say if their concern is really the 9 bird, they're ignoring the documentation and the science that 10 says the bird is recovered, if it was endangered, and they're 11 going through with a lot of these plans and they're spending 12 a lot of money for something, and I don't think it's 13 necessarily just the bird. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: We have a participation form from 15 Mr. Charlie Seale. Good morning, sir. 16 MR. SEALE: Good morning, Judge. Thank you very 17 much. And just for the record, my name is Charlie Seale. 18 I'm the Executive Director of the Exotic Wildlife 19 Association. As Commissioner Letz knows, we've been a strong 20 opponent to this H.C.P. since the beginning. Commissioner 21 Letz, I appreciate your comments this morning. I sincerely 22 do. We're going to give you an out on this thing, and we're 23 going to do it legally. I've asked the County Attorney to 24 look at Texas Parks and Wildlife Code, Section 83.016, 25 Paragraph (b). It says at least four members, or 33 percent, 7-25-11 81 1 of the Citizens Advisory Committee, whichever's the greater 2 number, must own undeveloped land or land in agricultural use 3 in the regional habitat conservation plan area. A landowner 4 member may not be an employee or elected official of a plan 5 participant, or any other local, state, or federal 6 governmental entity. Now, our -- and the reason I throw this 7 out is I think there's -- if you were serving as a 8 landowner -- 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I wasn't. 10 MR. SEALE: Okay. Then if you were serving, then 11 you can't be an elected official. If you're serving as an 12 elected official, the county's opted out of it, and at the 13 time, we believe, that it opted out of it, that became a 14 conflict of interest. Now, that gives you the out. I'll ask 15 the County Attorney to look into that. I would hate for this 16 County to be involved in violation of that statute, so that's 17 all we throw that out for. The reason -- 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can I make a comment on that? 19 MR. SEALE: Sure. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Federal law requires that a 21 certain -- a certain number of landowners be appointed to a 22 citizens' advisory group. And this -- you know, and that 23 landowner group almost acts -- I think in most of these, and 24 certainly in the one I was involved with as a -- as a block 25 vote; you know, a largely odd -- in my mind, very odd block 7-25-11 82 1 vote, but a block vote in this case. But that group is a -- 2 a certain group, and I was appointed as a public 3 representative, but not -- I mean, I've talked to the County 4 Attorney about this. I wasn't appointed -- I was appointed 5 because I'm a commissioner, but not as a commission -- but 6 not serving representing Kerr County. 7 MR. SEALE: I'm not sure I understand that, but 8 okay, I'll defer to that. What you were talking about a 9 while ago, Commissioner, was the National Environmental 10 Policy Act, and that's why it's so important that we need 11 this resolution again passed with that specific language. 12 Because what has happened, even though the five counties in 13 and around here have opted out of this -- which you know who 14 those are: Medina, Blanco, Kendall, Kerr, and Bandera. It's 15 still -- when you look at the Federal Register, it's -- these 16 counties are still in there as participants. That's why this 17 resolution is -- is very important, because the federal 18 government is in violation of -- of NEPA, and that's what 19 we're going to put them on notice through all these 20 resolutions that we are definitely wanting out. 21 We need -- they need to come back to the table and 22 discuss this with the individual elected officials. Fish and 23 Wildlife cannot do this on their own; they have no statutory 24 authority. They have no resources to do what they're doing, 25 so that's why they have to come try to get the elected 7-25-11 83 1 officials to do that. The elected officials have opted out 2 of this in these five counties. You know, they need to take 3 that into consideration. Same thing happened with the 4 Trans-Texas Corridor. That was shut down because they -- a 5 governmental body said, "No, we're not going to allow you to 6 come through 33 miles of our county," so that shut it down, 7 basically. So, that's why we ask and urge that Commissioners 8 do that this morning. 9 The second part of that is also, I'd like to just 10 say, Judge Tinley and Commissioner Baldwin, we appreciate 11 what y'all did at the public scoping meetings. We do. And 12 to the objections of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 13 Commissioner Baldwin cannot be denied. You know, he stood up 14 and read the resolution into the record, and that was very 15 important, because that had not been done in the other 16 counties, and that really put them on notice through public 17 record that that happened, so we do appreciate that, and 18 appreciate this Commissioners Court on that. And that's -- 19 you know, that's basically all I have to say this morning. I 20 would urge the passage of this resolution. And one last 21 thing is the -- the money that was talked about, I don't want 22 the Court to forget that, for the Byfields. And I just would 23 urge that, for y'all to consider that. The citizens will 24 come up with it if -- you know, that was a voluntary-type 25 deal; there was no expenditures. It was just asked as a 7-25-11 84 1 voluntary thing. So, I -- 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Charlie, was that 1,800 -- 3 MR. SEALE: 1,500 per county to go forward with the 4 resolutions and to file the paperwork and to make sure 5 everything's done correctly, that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 6 Service is put on notice and done correctly. So -- 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I appreciate you coordinating 8 with the Byfields. I talked to Dan early on in the process. 9 This is far beyond my knowledge, what they've done here. I 10 mean, all I did was serve on a committee. You and I will 11 probably differ for -- you know, I think you or some of the 12 members that I've talked to in some of the counties thought I 13 should have resigned from the C.A.C. I think my vote 14 opposing this on the C.A.C. is probably -- you know, even 15 though I wasted a lot -- I won't say "wasted." It took a lot 16 of my time. I think it's better to be at the table and 17 voting no than letting that thing get passed and trying to 18 scamper around the other way. What y'all have done here is 19 provide another area that is beyond my -- you know, what I 20 was involved with, certainly. And I appreciate the Byfields; 21 appreciate you watching it and keeping it in the forefront in 22 these communities. 23 MR. SEALE: Well, again -- and they have the 24 expertise in this field, and that's why we asked them to come 25 in, because this thing is bad. It was bad from the get-go. 7-25-11 85 1 And this is not to say -- and for the Commissioners that may 2 not be up to speed on everything of this, it does not end an 3 individual's ability if they choose to participate on a 4 voluntary basis with their land. They can -- they can enter 5 into conservation agreements with Bexar County; they can 6 mitigate their own deals with U.S. Fish and Wildlife. This 7 does not stop that at all. It's just saying we, as a county, 8 do not choose to do it and participate. Thank you, sir. 9 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: Thank you. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Seale. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, do you -- do you have 12 99 reasons not to pass the resolution? 13 JUDGE TINLEY: I don't have any reasons not to. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move for approval. 15 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 17 approval. Does that include the -- the letters to Bexar 18 County, Fish and Wildlife and so forth that are included 19 here? 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, in my opinion, it -- I 21 mean, I have no problem with them. I looked at them as 22 closely as I could. There's some typos. Are they going to 23 come out of your office -- out of our office? 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So I can get with Jody with 7-25-11 86 1 these -- I mean, as an example, the County Judge in San 2 Antonio is Judge Wolff, not Judge Nelson. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, I noticed that. 4 MR. SEALE: Commissioner, that's been changed 5 already, and that resolution -- there'll be a new resolution 6 sent over with that change. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What, now? 8 MR. SEALE: That has been changed. Nelson Wolff's 9 name was put -- was put backwards. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We have a new piece of paper 11 coming? 12 MR. SEALE: Should be a new piece of paper coming 13 to the Judge. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We have a new piece of paper 15 coming. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What -- 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And then the -- the letter 18 to -- hold on. Yeah, the letter to Dr. Tuggle seems to be 19 okay. But this other stuff in here, this notice of invalid 20 application -- 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The only thing that bothers 23 me -- and I guess maybe it's -- probably not anything wrong 24 with it, but it bothers me a little bit, is that this is a 25 letter from you. 7-25-11 87 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: To Judge Nelson and 3 Dr. Tuggle. And it -- and it's approached from all the 4 counties, and we're just Kerr County. You know, in other 5 words, it talks about us, and the counties named above have 6 been involuntarily included. You know, I don't know that 7 they have. I know it as Kerr County. You understand what 8 I'm saying? 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That just bothers me a 11 little bit. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: It needs to come individually from 13 Kerr County, and likewise from each of the others. 14 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I agree. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Individual counties. 16 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We can't speak for the other 17 ones. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I can't speak for them. 19 MR. SEALE: Judge, could I make one addition? 20 Commissioner, if you remember, in that meeting they said that 21 the counties could sign on this together and do it as one, 22 but I think you and Judge Tinley said that you would rather 23 have an individual county. That was just a format for the 24 Judge to use. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So you're not going to go 7-25-11 88 1 get your -- you still carry guns? 2 MR. SEALE: I do, yes. (Laughter.) 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just want to make things 4 clear while we're here. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, but the motion then can 6 be to approve the documents and authorize the County Judge to 7 sign same, with making the documents -- the notice documents 8 only for Kerr County. We can do that internally. We have 9 the document -- 10 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah, I agree with that. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll second the motion, 12 Commissioner. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as 14 indicated. 15 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I already did that. But you 16 third it? 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any other question or 18 comments? All in favor, signify by raising your right hand. 19 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 20 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 21 (No response.) 22 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Let's take 23 us about a 15-minute recess. 24 (Recess taken from 10:47 a.m. to 11:07 a.m.) 25 - - - - - - - - - - 7-25-11 89 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to order, if 2 we might. Let me go back to Item 8 -- recall Item 8; to 3 consider, discuss, take appropriate action to open, read, and 4 award the bids on Ingram Loop Subdivision property. The 5 matter was deferred to the County Attorney for review as to 6 completeness and compliance with the bid procedure. Have you 7 had an opportunity to examine the bids as submitted, 8 Mr. Henneke? 9 MR. HENNEKE: Yes, sir, I have. Both are complete; 10 both comply with the bid requirement, the Raymond -- Raymond 11 one, of course, being the higher bid. But there's no 12 deficiency in either that I see. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: And it's your opinion that we're -- 14 if desired, we can proceed to accept -- 15 MR. HENNEKE: Accept and award, yes, sir. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 17 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I move that we accept and 18 award the bid to Raymond -- and what was the -- 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Raymond Brothers I, Limited. 20 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Raymond Brothers I, Limited, 21 of 39,000 -- 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Nine hundred. 23 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- 900, for sale of the 24 property of the lots on Loop -- Ingram Loop Estates. I 25 believe it's Lots 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10. 7-25-11 90 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Lots 5 through 10, Ingram Loop 2 Subdivision. 3 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Subdivision. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion and a second. 6 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'm not through yet. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Oh. 8 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And that the proceeds from 9 this sale be placed into the capital funds for improvement or 10 replacement of the annex in Ingram. I knew you wouldn't like 11 that. But I would like to make sure those funds go 12 towards -- or they at least get put in the capital line item. 13 MR. HENNEKE: I -- 14 JUDGE TINLEY: We may have to -- legalities. 15 MR. HENNEKE: I don't think that's noticed, 16 Commissioner. Now, what we're talking about is just taking 17 action on -- on the bids. 18 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I understand. I will 19 withdraw the last part of that motion and go with the first 20 part. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We have a motion to accept 22 the bid of Raymond Brothers I, Limited, for sale of Lots 5 23 through 10 in Block One, Ingram Loop Subdivision, for the 24 consideration of $39,900. And there's a second, as I recall? 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct. 7-25-11 91 1 JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion and second. 2 Question or discussion on the motion? All in favor of the 3 motion, signify by raising your right hand. 4 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 5 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 6 (No response.) 7 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Okay, let's 8 go back to Item 17; consider, discuss, take appropriate 9 action to determine appropriate criteria for naming rights 10 for various improvements at the Hill Country Youth Exhibit 11 Center, which is scheduled to be renovated, improved, 12 constructed, or otherwise established in accordance with the 13 proposed master plan or later amendments thereto. 14 Commissioner Oehler? 15 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Guy Overby and I attended a 16 Stock Show meeting a while back, and it was proposed that 17 some money could be raised for improvements to that property 18 if we could put a value on naming rights for various 19 buildings that will hopefully be there someday. I visited 20 with the Stock Show group, mainly Steve Bauer and -- and old 21 Bob Reeves, and they would like to do a little more research 22 with other areas who have done this and get an idea of what 23 the value of some of those are, so we would have a -- 24 something to kind of base it on, rather than just taking a 25 shot in the dark. And so what we'd like to do is to kind of 7-25-11 92 1 get a thought and get authorization -- or give me 2 authorization, or Guy and I together, however you'd like to 3 do it, to research this, and then come back with a 4 recommendation on the amount that we can set as being the 5 amount for naming rights of certain facilities to be built 6 out there. And also to get your input, what you think. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And so you want to name 8 something that may or may not be built? For what reason? 9 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: No, that's not it. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The fun of it? 11 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's not it. This is 12 putting a value on -- on a deal that they would contribute 13 money to build. 14 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: I think what we're saying, 15 Commissioner, is if we -- if this project moves forward. I 16 mean, obviously, there's a lot of things we're going to be 17 discussing today. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: When you say "this 19 project," -- 20 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: If this project -- 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- go through with me -- 22 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: If this project moves 23 forward. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What project? 25 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: We're talking about once -- 7-25-11 93 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What's "this"? 2 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: The Hill Country Youth 3 Exhibit Center. If you read -- if we read what it says, it 4 talks about the renovations and improvements made. If it 5 moves forward, one of the avenues of what we're trying to 6 look at as far as funding from the private sector -- 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. 8 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: -- could be potentially, if 9 you construct it, you could construct it with naming rights 10 on certain buildings would be part of their contribution 11 coming to that. So, I think the -- the item here is that if 12 this project moves forward, and then what I'm saying is we're 13 going to be discussing several things that are going to be 14 very important for this project to move forward. One of the 15 opportunities is, if it does move forward as we look at the 16 private sector, we need to involve the livestock group. I 17 think there's several other things that we -- we would need 18 to have their, you know, partnership with on several things. 19 But, obviously, naming rights for certain buildings and stuff 20 like that could be a potential way of raising additional 21 revenue to help that project move forward. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If you build this thing, 23 we'll let you put your name on it? 24 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: If you contribute half a 25 million, up to a million dollars or something like that, then 7-25-11 94 1 we'll let you put your name on it. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Including Budweiser? 3 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Doesn't bother me. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It does me. 5 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Why does it bother you? 6 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: Well -- 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, promoting alcohol. I 8 don't think that that's a smart thing around -- it's just my 9 opinion. 10 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, okay. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have the right to have an 12 opinion. 13 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: I agree with your opinion. I 14 think there are folks, though, in our community -- and we 15 have to explore those options. I think we need to see -- 16 again, there's a lot of private individuals in our community, 17 and there may be grants that may want to step up and do a 18 million dollars towards a contribution, and would we look 19 forward to that and accept it? I think that we should. But 20 I think what we're trying to do now is just trying to get 21 some type of format that if this project does continue to 22 move forward, that what we're trying do is work with the 23 livestock folks and trying to -- how we would potentially 24 look at raising those private sectors. I think naming rights 25 has the biggest deal that they want to do. 7-25-11 95 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure, that makes sense. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What are we specifically trying 3 to do today? 4 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, I just wanted to bring 5 it forward, kind of get the ball rolling, make the Court 6 aware of it and get input in -- maybe there's a number that 7 you have in mind that you think that would be considered for 8 allowing somebody to put their name on that building. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are you trying to get them 10 to give you some money? 11 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We'll take it. 12 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: I think, conceptually, we're 13 just trying to discuss if the project moves forward, I think 14 part of the -- of our strategy is, if it starts moving 15 forward, we've got to start thinking about how that private 16 sector's going to start shaping. And part of that is going 17 to be exactly what Commissioner Oehler was talking about, is 18 naming rights. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- 20 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: There will also be some other 21 things within the building that can be, you know -- 22 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: Exactly. 23 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You know, but some other 24 recognition of people that can't afford to give a half a 25 million dollars or 100,000 or whatever. 7-25-11 96 1 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: Right. 2 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I mean, it's done all the 3 time all over the place. You know, you put a plaque up and 4 something. 5 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: It can be doing something in 6 the concession area. They could -- they could select a 7 sponsor for all those -- 8 JUDGE TINLEY: There are various aspects. We're 9 not just talking about a single individual or -- or 10 foundation, and a single building. Various aspects, 11 components, areas. 12 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Right. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: There's all sorts of ways it can be 14 broken down. But what -- you're just wanting to explore 15 trying to firm up some criteria to quantify what those rights 16 are going to require. 17 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Absolutely. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think -- I mean, I think 19 we just need -- it needs to be based on -- we've got a plan. 20 We have basically a -- the current indoor arena that needs 21 major renovation. We got a new show barn. We've got the 22 outdoor arena, and we have an exhibit hall. There's four 23 components. I think we need to come up with -- you know, I 24 think trying to get too far beyond that at this point is a 25 little bit much. But I think you can figure out -- and I 7-25-11 97 1 think the -- you know, to me, you kind of look at them as a 2 percent of the estimated cost to build it. I mean, if it's 3 going to be a -- if it's a million dollar building, you know, 4 I think you want, at a minimum, 50 percent from -- to get the 5 naming rights. Something, you know -- 6 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think Judge Tinley and I 8 are going to round up all of our -- all seven of our friends, 9 and we can buy chairs or something. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: When did we get those other five? 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There's some things I 12 haven't told you about. We can buy us a chair for that 13 price. 14 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I kind of want the -- you to 15 be aware that this is something -- this is another way we 16 might go after some funds. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You want an appointment? 18 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That would be all right. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll move that we appoint 20 Number 2 and Number 4 to do this study. You want to bring it 21 back at a certain time? Or -- 22 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: Well, I -- 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's moving, though. 24 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Thirty days? Would that be 25 long enough? 7-25-11 98 1 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: I think so. 2 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Be the second meeting in 3 August. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That would be good. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as 7 indicated. Question or discussion? All in favor, indicate 8 by raising your right hand. 9 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 10 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 11 (No response.) 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carried. Let's go to Item 13 18; to consider/discuss a lease agreement with the Stock Show 14 Association for the month of January and one weekend in 15 September of each year. Commissioner Oehler. 16 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, this goes hand-in-hand 17 with some of what we're trying to do. The stock show group 18 has a -- you know, we made a deal with them, and the Court 19 did a long time ago back in '94, I believe, that they would 20 have the use of it for those specified times. They want to 21 get on board to help, and I think they have people that will 22 give a sizable amount of money toward this project. Their -- 23 their concern is that any commissioners court can come along 24 at any time and void that agreement in that they have use of 25 that. I came up with the idea of a possible lease agreement 7-25-11 99 1 that would -- that could say various things for, you know, 2 them to be doing something for that, and one of those being 3 help us to raise funds for that project. But I just -- you 4 know, and I think that they do now -- they told me a while 5 ago, they do now have a legal counsel. And I think that it 6 would be a good idea for their legal counsel and the County 7 Attorney to get together and come up with some language that 8 would address that. I think a lease agreement is probably 9 harder to break than just saying, "Yep, you got it." And 10 they would like some assurance, and I don't mind giving -- 11 that's the time of year when they've had it always, and I'll 12 put language in that that says if they ever cease to exist 13 and -- and have that function, then it goes away. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Let the lawyers work it out. 15 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Let them work it out. But I 16 would really like to see us do that. And they really want 17 something that's more set in stone than what they have now, 18 and I can't really blame them. They have a vested interest. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is there not -- is there not 20 any kind of agreement we -- with them? 21 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yes, there is. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There is one now. 23 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yes, there is one that was 24 done in '94; I have a copy of it on my desk. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What do we change? 7-25-11 100 1 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It needs to go from just a 2 designated use at a certain time of year to some formal 3 agreement, like a lease agreement. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. For -- 5 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Another commissioners -- 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Would there be a -- 7 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Timeline period? 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes. 9 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yes. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Time period, yes. 11 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yes, there would need to be a 12 time period, and maybe an extension or something, but -- or 13 an option. But I understand where they're coming from. They 14 invested -- a lot of people have invested a lot out there -- 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure. 16 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- over the years. And, you 17 know, you realize that being the intent was fine as long as 18 that group is -- as long as we're commissioners, they're not 19 going to ever have a problem. But we ain't going to be here 20 forever. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, come on. 22 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We don't know what comes 23 next. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Bruce, come on. 25 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You may be up here flying 7-25-11 101 1 around somewhere, but -- 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've always hung my hat on 3 the original document when it came from the federal 4 government to Kerr County, and it says they're to be used for 5 agricultural youth of Kerr County. 6 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I've always been 8 uncomfortable about having the quinceañeras and the dog shows 9 all that stuff out there because of that document. I feel 10 like it was a real thing that needed to be honored. But -- 11 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, I think this furthers 12 that agreement. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Huh? 14 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: This will further that 15 agreement and more set it in stone, in my opinion. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's no question. I mean, 17 we need to -- I understand their position, because long-term, 18 as Kerr County becomes less agricultural in many ways, and 19 more and more people move in that really don't have a tie to 20 that stock show and things like that, I think we need to 21 protect it. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I thought we did that, 23 though. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We tried. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We didn't do it? 7-25-11 102 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We worked on a number of 2 drafts, and we never could quite get there. It's been five, 3 six years ago. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: These guys' fault. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's all their fault. 6 (Laughter.) 7 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I just wanted to bring this 8 up, and I think, you know, if it's okay with the Court, I'd 9 like for it to move forward between the two attorneys, and 10 come with some form of an agreement that's acceptable to both 11 parties, and move on. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think one of the things that 13 we need to remember, 'cause I know one of the things that we 14 get -- attorneys start getting involved with these things 15 when we start talking about, you know, making a deal with 16 just one organization. All that's going to come up again. 17 But we got to remember, they built it, and they gave us 18 consideration, in my mind, when they gave it to us, and part 19 of that was contingent on us doing certain things. We're 20 just furthering that original agreement, because they gave 21 the county a big asset. 22 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: Yeah. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So that kind of is how we get 24 moving down the road, in my mind. 25 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, I just think -- 7-25-11 103 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know we get hung up on that 2 sometimes. 3 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I agree. 4 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: I'll say also, the Stock 5 Show, again, in the month of January, is the largest economic 6 driver for whole community in January, and that's a month 7 when everything's kind of slow. You guys do a great job; we 8 appreciate everything. I think it's a long-term investment 9 for everybody to continue that relationship. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But do not ask for any of 11 that money back. 12 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: We'll talk about that in just 13 a moment. 14 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Is that okay with you guys? 15 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: Been waiting for that. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Do we need to take formal action, 17 other than just instruct him to go work on it? 18 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I don't think so. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: I don't think so either. 20 MR. HENNEKE: Just while we're all communicating on 21 this, I have asked -- the Stock Show, I think, knows what 22 they want, or has an idea, and rather than me guessing at it, 23 I've asked their attorney to send us your proposal, or -- 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Sure. 25 MR. HENNEKE: -- send us your terms when you 7-25-11 104 1 contact him so we can start the ball rolling. 2 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Sounds good to me. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move to Item 19; to consider, 4 discuss, take appropriate action on Kerr County's application 5 to Economic Improvement Corporation regarding the Hill 6 Country Youth Exhibit Center renovation/expansion project. 7 Report and update. Commissioner Overby. 8 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: Judge Tinley and 9 Commissioners, again, we're -- I'll kind of give you a report 10 today. Of course, recently we had made our application to 11 E.I.C., and we've been reading about a lot of the -- of the 12 comments in the papers and around the community here 13 recently, but I wanted to kind of give a recap and an update 14 of where we are today and the process that we have gone 15 through on the Hill Country Youth Exhibit Center and trying 16 to help this program move forward. As you remember, in 17 February of this past year, we revisited the plan. We looked 18 at 2011 estimates of construction costs on how to move this 19 project and the different phases at the ag facility on 20 Highway 27. We, again, remember that this facility was built 21 in -- the original building was built in '56, and the indoor 22 arena next to it in 1981. 23 Just for a little information that we stated also 24 at that time, again, going back, Kerr County, in 2003, tried 25 to pass an ad valorem tax increase of one cent to help with 7-25-11 105 1 the renovations of this facility and to help it move along. 2 It was turned down by 76 votes in 2003. And prior to that in 3 2002, we looked at a possible venue tax -- a substantial 4 venue tax increase that was not endorsed at that time. The 5 project has been looked at getting renovated for some type of 6 expansion for the discussion over the last 13 years. In 7 April of this past year, we took those revisions and made a 8 presentation to the new K.E.D.C. group. In June, before we 9 went to E.I.C., Commissioners Court authorized me to, on 10 behalf as the liaison for the economic development for the 11 county, to go and explore what our funding options are, and 12 that was a look at all avenues of economic development 13 resources on how we could get this project to move forward. 14 One of those resources are local 4B funding money, and, you 15 know, the 4B funding -- funding from E.I.C. is about a $2.2 16 million budget annually that's received here in Kerrville, 17 Kerr County. 18 Now, the discussion since 1995 has always been, 19 going back and forth, is, you know, the County owns 50 20 percent of that; the City owns 50 percent of that, and that's 21 been argued back and forth with the City for a long time. 22 And so let's look at reality here. If we can just take an 23 interlocal agreement percentage, what the City of Kerrville 24 uses -- and let's say the library, for example, is 45 percent 25 used by Kerr County residents. Let's go ahead and 7-25-11 106 1 extrapolate that number with the E.I.C. funding. So, 2 therefore, Kerr County citizens use $990,000 of that 4B 3 funding that's contributed by our county of the $2.2 million 4 total budget. In June of this year, we made a request to 5 E.I.C. on behalf of the County for Phase 1 and Phase 2 of 6 this project for $750,000 for Phase 1 and Phase 2, and we 7 talked about that with the renovation of the indoor arena, 8 that is the 1981 facility, and $750,000 to go towards the 9 development of a show barn. So, we made a request for one 10 and a half million dollars of the total Phases 1 and 2, which 11 was about $6.2 million. 12 We based our application on a similar project that 13 was done here recently a few years ago on the Hill Country 14 Shooting Sports Center, where they received a million and a 15 half dollars, and they were categorized when they first 16 started as a business development application. I want to 17 note that when Kerr County made our application in June, our 18 application was categorized as a business development project 19 request from the I.R.T. committee. The same benefits that 20 the Hill Country Shooting Sports Center made on their 21 application for one and a half million dollars were the same 22 benefits that the County made, and those benefits in this 23 project included -- the indirect benefit was the main 24 component of their application, and this focused in on 25 hotels, restaurants, and retail business investment, job 7-25-11 107 1 creation directly in those sectors. And, again, our project 2 at the current ag facility, there was going to be minimal 3 jobs created at the actual venue at this facility. But, 4 again, the attraction of other opportunities that came in 5 were identified as well. 6 I want to state here that the Hill Country Shooting 7 Sports Center, they did not have the World Cup or the 8 National 4-H tournaments secured in their process of asking 9 funds for the E.I.C. to help move their project forward. As 10 is similar with -- with the County, we have identified 11 organizations all over the state that we potentially could 12 bring here as attractions to use this venue. Not until the 13 funding was secured by the Hill Country Shooting Sports 14 Center were they successful in going out and getting the 15 World Cup and the National 4-H tournaments here. I just want 16 to state that for the fact that you have to have the 17 investment before you can go out and secure what identified 18 organizations that you have. 19 Kerr County supplied all of the adequate 20 information that was needed for the economic impact data to 21 I.R.T. to support this project. At the conclusion of our 22 presentation in June, E.I.C. recommended for Kerr County to 23 come back and make a request as to how that we could take 24 this project and to build all of the phases in a timeline 25 manner that could help the economic environment for our 7-25-11 108 1 community. If you remember, again, the County's first two 2 phases is what we asked. E.I.C. requested us to come back 3 and look at the whole $13.8 million and what would it take to 4 get this project to move forward? That brings us to July. 5 E.I.C. -- we made a presentation to E.I.C. here about two 6 weeks ago; it was presented to E.I.C. At that presentation, 7 we gave the presentation to E.I.C. and to its members that in 8 order for this project to move forward, it would require 9 equal participation to build a project like this in a 10 reasonable timeline, about two years, and that it would 11 require a third investment or a partnership not only from 12 Kerr County, but from the private sector and E.I.C. 13 And, again, when we made our request to E.I.C., we 14 noted to them that their support would not come in until 15 after the first two phases were secured, so E.I.C. would not 16 have had to give or contribute a penny until after the County 17 had secured its portion and the private sector had been 18 raised. One of the other questions in there it talked about 19 was annexation. E.I.C. talked about annexation. That was 20 one of the carrots that they liked about having this as a 21 possibility. And our comments back to them, of course, it 22 would have to take Commissioners Court's approval, but the 23 only way that annexation could even be possibly discussed 24 would have to be a third contribution from E.I.C. of those 25 funds for annexation to be considered. And so that 7-25-11 109 1 discussion was brought up and requested by E.I.C. 2 The County again in July was requested additional 3 information about the project and its current operations of 4 the current ag facility, and we also were requested for 5 projections on new development and, again, what potential 6 organizations could come use this facility. Our main 7 questions on our application again focused in on the indirect 8 benefit. When we went to July's meeting, the I.R.T. comments 9 and recommendations focused in on the direct benefit only to 10 this facility, and they were basing it on the current ag 11 facility's operations. And they were requesting -- and also 12 focused in on what jobs would be created if the project moved 13 forward on the current ag facility. And, again, those 14 numbers were going to be very minimal. And, again, our 15 indirect benefit is what we focused our application on. The 16 comments that came back from E.I.C. and the city 17 representation on the committee, basically, at that time in 18 July, the I.R.T. committee categorized, you know, the project 19 as a quality of life project, and not a business development 20 project. 21 Now, you can make an argument on both categorizing 22 these projects as far as business development and quality of 23 life project, with some similarities, but they changed it to 24 a quality of life project. The I.R.T. committee, which is a 25 committee that recommends applications to the E.I.C., again, 7-25-11 110 1 they stated their facts on the direct benefits on this -- on 2 this application and the current ag facility operations. I 3 think we all know that the current ag facility operations, 4 its budget is not currently too strong to go out and request 5 $4.6 million for this application to move forward. But, 6 again, they focused on what the current operations are and 7 did not look at the indirect or the possible benefits to the 8 community on an indirect benefit. The County had supplied 9 adequate information and data to I.R.T. for the 10 recommendation for this project to move forward. I will tell 11 you that serving on the I.R.T. committee myself on previous 12 applications, I will tell you that the application -- the 13 data that the County provided on this application was more 14 than adequate to give an answer on. 15 Again, if we go back to our first request for Phase 16 1 and 2, the data as to economic benefit, the analysis of 17 what we had to the projections was more -- more than -- more 18 than there to provide an answer from our I.R.T. committee to 19 give a recommendation. I want to say that the E.I.C. 20 committee that was recently appointed, I think, did a 21 wonderful job in the process of the application. Their 22 comments and questions -- I think we have some quality 23 members on the E.I.C., and I appreciate their comments that 24 have been asked over the last week and two -- last month or 25 two, and their comments in general have been very supportive 7-25-11 111 1 and positive of this project. What concerns me is that the 2 comments that were addressed to us were more -- I think from 3 the I.R.T. process, were -- and the representative from the 4 E.I.C. that talked was more City-led, and you could tell that 5 there was city -- city direction there as far as maybe staff 6 and city leadership, as far as the comments on why this 7 project was turned down in July. 8 I want to state some of those comments that were 9 made. And, again, they focused in on the current ag 10 operation and did not look at the indirect benefit and the 11 benefit to this community as far as what it could do. Their 12 comments were that it was a poor project, lack of jobs 13 created as far as the current facility. Of course, if you're 14 looking at it directly, that's what they're focusing in on. 15 The payback on this request was 110 years. Well, if we look 16 at our current ag facility operation, yes, it's going to be 17 110 years. We provided you that information. Our request is 18 to look at what we're trying to do to enhance and move this 19 facility forward. They wanted names of private contributors, 20 a whole list of private contributors, the same type of thing 21 we get back to other projects who did not have private 22 contributors already named or coming to those facilities. 23 It's very hard to do that in that process until later on down 24 the road. They wanted the list of new businesses that were 25 coming into the community. 7-25-11 112 1 These were other questions. And the other thing, 2 that they had made a comment that there was no hotel attached 3 to this facility request. Those are things -- again, our 4 application did not state it was on an application for a 5 hotel in this venue. That never was our intention. Which 6 raises some questions, again, that we're going to go around 7 in just a moment in our community. And then the last comment 8 that was made back to us from the E.I.C. council 9 representative was, "Go do another study." I don't think 10 that studies -- we've done enough studies in this community. 11 We need to start acting upon some of the studies that we've 12 done and start moving forward. 13 And so, in conclusion, what I did find out from our 14 application that the Commissioners Court had requested that I 15 go do, I found out first of all, no surprise, we're not on 16 the City's list of priority list for projects. And, again, 17 that's something that just we verified. E.I.C. and the City 18 Council are going to be meeting soon to identify a priority 19 list. I will say that it was good to hear E.I.C. member Rex 20 Borland made the comment that they requested that the ag 21 facility go back on this list for them to discuss when they 22 go back to have further meetings, and again, I hope that they 23 would do that, because this is a facility that has a strong 24 community presence, and it has a need in our community, and 25 funding from our county citizens is an annual basis of almost 7-25-11 113 1 a million dollars a year, and they sure need to be 2 contributing to it. 3 So, what have we heard? Project list doesn't 4 include the Ag Barn. I think everybody here knows what that 5 list is. I think that as we go down the road, those listings 6 are going to have to create jobs; they're going to have to 7 have involvement and produce an economic advantage to this 8 community. They're talking about different type of 9 infrastructure, river trails and those type of projects. I'm 10 not against all -- all those things, but again, they're going 11 to have to be -- to be really looked at and reviewed. And I 12 think the comment about not having a hotel attached to this 13 facility raises your eyes again to see a third attempt about 14 coming back to develop a convention center in this community. 15 The first one was 10 to 15 million dollars. The second one 16 was 21 to 30 million. And let's remember that this phase 17 here is still a fraction of the cost of developing a meeting 18 center in this community, for this type of ag and non-related 19 ag -- different events that we can contribute to this 20 community. Again, so we're back to where we are now. We're 21 looking at the potential part of moving Phase 1 and 2 22 potentially forward. It has been a -- a funding dilemma. It 23 has been a deal under consideration for over 13 years. How 24 do we renovate? How do we help this facility that's 25 literally falling apart? 7-25-11 114 1 I will say one last thing about the comment that 2 was here about a study, and that's the reason we don't need 3 to do any more studies, 'cause the studies that we have -- 4 this study that was done here in 2002, that this 5 Commissioners Court supported the type of ag facility for our 6 community. And it's the type of facility that we can -- we 7 can do in our community. It does support a larger structure 8 in our community. Actually, if the community will see it, 9 the ag facility, if it could be built out, could be a good 10 stepping stone or a bridge to someday having a potential 11 larger facility down the road. But this is something, again, 12 about a third or half the cost that we could look at. So, my 13 report coming back to you, basically, in general -- you know, 14 I hope that E.I.C. will go back, if they -- if they do come 15 back, and come back to our first Phase 1 request, and do 750 16 for Phase 1 and Phase 2. 17 Should we take E.I.C. funding? Yeah, you bet we 18 should. I mean, we -- we have an investment. We are 19 partners, is how I consider it. Sometimes they -- we don't 20 feel like we are included in that, but again, Phase 1 and 21 Phase 2 was that initial million and a half dollars. And as 22 far as the exhibit center is concerned, it has to be tabled 23 right now. We -- we gave that information to them. They 24 know that that is a big benefit to our community. It can be 25 a strong economic driver for new organizations, new events to 7-25-11 115 1 come in. But right now, we're not on that list to move 2 forward with it. So, that's my report back to you as far as 3 where we are with E.I.C. and our economic 4B funding. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, I guess if I can put all 5 that into, like, a one-sentence comment, is that E.I.C. is 6 not autonomous; they're still into the city. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Kind of, I agree. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's what I got out of that. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I heard that too. And when 10 he was saying all that, I was thinking, Okay, where is this 11 meeting? And -- and what is the group that recommends to the 12 other group that recommends to the big group? 13 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: The I.R.T. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I.R.T. Let's see, and is 15 that City-appointed? 16 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: I.R.T. has two city officials 17 out of the three. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: City officials. And then 19 the -- 20 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: City staff. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And then what's the next one 22 in line? 23 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: Well, then you go through the 24 E.I.C. process. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: E.I.C. You know, who are 7-25-11 116 1 those folks? Where do they meet? 2 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: They are independently 3 selected. And I -- 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: By? 5 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: They are selected by the 6 City. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: City Council. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me think here, now. 9 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: Yeah. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I begin to -- pictures begin 11 to form. 12 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: But, again, I do want to say 13 that I do think there's been a change in that structure. I 14 think they've asked a lot of good questions, but ultimately, 15 they could not get a recommendation through the I.R.T. 16 process, and I think you know the reason why. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, I don't. 18 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: But I think that the reality 19 of it is, the information is there. They all agree this is a 20 very, very good project. They kept on coming back to we got 21 to make it economically sense -- sensible to do it. But, 22 again, if you get back to the indirect benefit, that's where 23 the benefit of this application is. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It makes so much economic 25 sense, we need to commission another study and spend some 7-25-11 117 1 more money. 2 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: We're not going to do another 3 study. Not doing another study. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner, was there any 5 suggestion made that this joint meeting of E.I.C. and City 6 Council be a super joint meeting of E.I.C., City Council, and 7 Commissioners Court? 8 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: I did not hear that, Judge. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: What about the possibility of -- of 10 suggesting either that, or maybe having an independent 11 meeting with E.I.C. and Commissioners Court requesting that? 12 Because the Economic Improvement Corporation is charged with 13 the responsibility of -- of expenditure of 4B sales tax 14 dollars, not just for the city of Kerrville, but for all of 15 Kerr County, and unless and until they have -- they have the 16 benefit of examining all the priorities or needs county-wide, 17 I would think it would be difficult for them to establish 18 overall priorities, wouldn't you? 19 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: I would not disagree with you 20 at all. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, why don't I write to the 22 chairman of the E.I.C. and request that we either be included 23 as part of that meeting with Council, or separately meeting 24 with E.I.C. and this Court? 25 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: I'd make that recommendation. 7-25-11 118 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We need a motion for that? 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can you tell me one more 4 time about how much money, because of that facility out 5 there, that goes to E.I.C. money, the 4B sales tax? 6 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: How much money from the 7 county standpoint? 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Correct, just generated 9 through the facility, the ag facility. 10 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: Through that facility? Well, 11 I mean, that's minimal as far as that. That's -- if you get 12 back to the direct benefit. If you look at the direct 13 benefit from the facility to the community, it's going to be 14 very minimal. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd still like to have it. 16 I'm talking about -- 17 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: Let's take -- let's -- you're 18 talking about the hotels and all that? 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, talking about hotels 20 and restaurants and -- 21 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: Well, if you looked at -- if 22 you looked at if you could build the project out, the 23 economic benefit -- 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, I don't want to do that. 25 I want to know how much -- 7-25-11 119 1 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: What it is right now? Right 2 now -- let's take the Texas State Arts and Crafts Fair, a 3 down year, which they had. I can't tell you what the numbers 4 are this year, but the year before -- these are numbers from 5 Sudie -- $300,000 was in the C.V.B. that year as far as what 6 it was. Now, we only get a half cent sales tax on that. So, 7 remember, the current facility is not annexed, and right now, 8 unless they come up with a third, it won't even be discussed. 9 But there is no 4B or city tax on that, so there's a half 10 cent sales tax that we get out of that one event, okay? So, 11 what other rooms that come in, there are some -- generation 12 of some numbers. But for the convention -- for the state 13 Arts and Crafts Fair, we probably get about between $1,500 14 and $2,000 just in revenue from the tax that comes in from 15 that one event. So, it's minimal. But if you're able to 16 start putting more venues in there and more opportunities -- 17 and, obviously, you need to change your rates of what you're 18 going to have for, you know, rental rates and those type of 19 things. And then, obviously, the rooms that we're looking at 20 are going to considerably increase, which is the benefit to 21 the community. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But what's the economic impact 23 of the stock show? 24 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: Of the stock show? 1,265 25 people last year participated in it? 7-25-11 120 1 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's entries. 2 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: Entries. 3 MR. REEVES: We had over 2,700 entries, roughly 4 1,200 exhibitors. 5 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: And I believe the number that 6 we're using was $100 per day? 7 MR. REEVES: Well, if you figure that the 8 exhibitors are high school age, they're going to come with 9 parents. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Grandparents. 11 MR. REEVES: Grandparents coming to watch the show, 12 so they're coming into town. This is the district, from out 13 of Kerr County. This is the district. Mr. Bauer and I can 14 attest to what it costs when you take your family to a stock 15 show, believe us; we've done enough of that. But you can 16 conservatively spend $100 per person, per day at a stock 17 show, by the time you pay for your room, fill up your pickup 18 truck, -- 19 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: Eat. 20 MR. REEVES: -- go to our local restaurants. So, 21 if you figure two parents with each kid, that's roughly 3,600 22 people coming into Kerr County at $100 a person. My Tivy 23 High School math is a little rusty, so -- but you can figure 24 what that directly spends, and then how many times that money 25 turns over before it leaves Kerr County. In addition, the 7-25-11 121 1 annual auction this year was over 900,000. Well over 2 two-thirds of that is Kerr County kids, which that money, a 3 lot of it has been spent prior to -- to them selling their 4 animal through ag businesses like Mr. Bauer's or some of the 5 other ones in town. So, just the month of January, our 6 five-day event, you can tell what the economic impact in 7 the -- in the community, whether it's county or in the city 8 of Kerrville, is spent. And so everybody has their own 9 multipliers on how many times that money turns over, and I'm 10 not an expert in that, but I would -- three would be 11 conservative, in my opinion, Commissioner. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, and that's just one. 13 You know, we have 100 lesser-sized operations out there that 14 we -- that we have out there throughout the year. I mean, 15 golly, seems like to me that we generate -- we generate that 16 facility out there. Just tell them we want our damn money; 17 that's all there is to it. Just tell them we want our damn 18 money. 19 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: Just invest it wisely. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I need to teach you how to 21 cuss a little bit, don't I? 22 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: Well, and I think another -- 23 another aspect of this -- and, again, getting back to 24 something we normally have -- you know, we have a facility, 25 and the comment was made to me here recently -- we have 7-25-11 122 1 events we're getting ready to do here pretty soon. A comment 2 came back, you know -- you know, the person said I give up -- 3 I've given up on the County doing anything out here. But he 4 says -- he says, I'm excited now to hear that there's 5 potential for doing some venues that are coming up, like with 6 the Chamber deal coming up, but that the Commissioners and 7 the Court is looking at trying to see this project to go 8 forward again. Because, he said, if you guys can move 9 forward with this project, he says, you have a piece of 10 property that sits on the river. With the type of events 11 that we could do, that really could be a -- a really 12 wonderful facility that we could do a lot of these type of 13 events, Commissioner, that you were just talking about. So, 14 again, it's -- it's the process that we had to go through, 15 through E.I.C. We had to find out where we thought we were 16 heading. I think the Judge makes a very good comment about a 17 letter to them requesting some type of seat at the table. 18 It's very -- very much in line. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, you don't need a motion 20 to write this letter, do you? 21 JUDGE TINLEY: I don't think so. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, I didn't think so. I 23 wanted to make sure; I wasn't going to hold you up. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Anything further on that 25 agenda item? Item 20; that item, I've been advised that that 7-25-11 123 1 one needs to be passed. 2 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Item 21; consider, discuss, take 4 appropriate action to adopt resolution pursuant to Chapter 5 334, Texas Local Government Code, designating and authorizing 6 the planning, establishment, development, construction and 7 financing of a venue project within the county of the type 8 described and defined and permitted by the Act, and described 9 as follows: Restoration, renovation, development, expansion, 10 and construction of the Kerr County Hill Country Youth 11 Exhibit Center, exhibition center and related infrastructure. 12 Commissioner Overby? 13 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: Judge and Commissioners, 14 again, this is brought before you here today -- if you 15 remember, at our last Commissioners Court meeting, County 16 Attorney Rob Henneke presented to us this particular Act 17 underneath the Texas Local Government Code, Chapter 334, 18 about the request for a venue tax. This is before you here 19 today as far as the -- the method that we've discussed about 20 the -- how that we could move forward and using a venue tax 21 to help fund the renovation of the -- and expansion of the 22 Hill Country Youth Exhibit Center facility. It is before you 23 here today. It is a 2 percent hotel venue tax, bed and 24 breakfasts, places like that that sleep overnight 25 county-wide. It's for you here to discuss. This is one of 7-25-11 124 1 those methods here of accompanying, helping this project to 2 move forward. With that, I'll stop and hear your comments. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think this is a -- two 4 things. One, I think it is a good source of revenue to do a 5 lot out of that project. And second, I like putting things 6 before the voters and letting them decide up or down. So, I 7 mean, I think I'm in favor of putting it on the -- proceeding 8 to get it before the voters. I think this is a very 9 attractive option for that facility, because the majority of 10 the payers of this will be from out of town, out of county. 11 And, you know, I know I've heard that you can -- can raise 12 the Hotel Occupancy Tax too high, and it starts deterring it, 13 but I have a hard time thinking that 2 percent's going to get 14 us there. So -- 15 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'm in total agreement with 16 you, and for the same reasons. I guess my question is going 17 to be, aren't we going to have to put a dollar amount on this 18 so that we have a term that this will be in force if approved 19 by the voters? And we have to be able to sell bonds that are 20 at a certain amount, that it would be retired over a certain 21 amount of time. That would have to be part of what the 22 citizens vote on, wouldn't it? 23 MR. HENNEKE: Well, not -- not on the ballot 24 language. The -- I guess the venue -- the venue tax exists 25 until the venue project is paid off. And the statute 7-25-11 125 1 requires that the tax expires upon that payment, and the 2 statute actually requires that within a year following the 3 passage of the provision, that there be a debt instrument 4 executed that, you know, sets forth what it's paying off, and 5 when it's paid off, it goes away. So, it's neither required 6 with the resolution to go to the Comptroller for their 7 evaluation as to whether this proposal presents a negative 8 state fiscal impact, which is the first stage of the 9 proceedings, nor at the -- the language the statute requires 10 to go onto the ballot, that you state the figure. But you're 11 going to have to figure that out, because that's going to be 12 the amount paid off by -- by the tax. Either you'll have to 13 set up some kind of debt service, or if you don't, then after 14 a year -- 15 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Have to be a projected -- a 16 projected amount that you could retire a certain amount of 17 debt. 18 MR. HENNEKE: And I think -- 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Once you create the debt instrument, 20 that's going to be the term of the amount. 21 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: There is a limit on what the 22 revenue will -- will serve, you know, based on a bond that 23 has -- requires interest to be paid as well as the principal. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But -- yeah. But, I mean, the 25 resolution will specifically go to the Hill Country Youth 7-25-11 126 1 Exhibit Center, and, you know, once we figure out, calculate 2 exactly how much this generates, that determines what you do, 3 I think. 4 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: I think -- go ahead, 5 Commissioner. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just a simple question. I 7 want to know who collects and administers the tax. Does the 8 State collect it, or -- 9 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: They turn it over to the 10 State, I would think. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Probably the Comptroller. 12 MS. HARGIS: We do. We bill it, we collect it, and 13 then we send the State their portion. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh, the hotels pay you? 15 MS. HARGIS: Mm-hmm. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 17 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: They pay directly to the 18 County? 19 MS. HARGIS: Mm-hmm. 20 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay. That's even better; 21 doesn't go through Austin. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Doesn't go through 24 Kerrville. 25 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Doesn't go through Kerrville 7-25-11 127 1 or Austin. That way Austin doesn't get a part of it. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I like Austin compared to -- 3 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah, I understand. 4 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: But, again, this resolution 5 here, Rob, is -- again, this is something that we would -- if 6 we approve it here today, it goes to Austin. They have 30 7 days to review it to see if there's any implications that 8 would be a negative impact to the state of Texas. They 9 evaluate it, send it back to us with their report from this 10 resolution; is that correct? 11 MR. HENNEKE: Correct. This -- this resolution to 12 the Comptroller is the prerequisite prior to the Court being 13 able to call for the election to do this. And so the 14 Comptroller's office has up to 30 days to make that fiscal 15 analysis. If they do not do anything within 30 days, then it 16 is deemed approved. If, for some reason, they reject it, 17 then we'll have an opportunity to cure. We'll certainly 18 encourage the Comptroller's office to expedite the request, 19 given that the deadline to place anything on the ballot is in 20 early September. But this -- before it can be put -- before 21 the voters can approve it, it has to be put on the 22 election -- or placed on the ballot. Before it can be placed 23 on the ballot, the Comptroller has to do their evaluation, 24 which they do based on this resolution. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Do I hear a motion for approval of 7-25-11 128 1 the agenda item and adoption of the resolution? 2 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yes, sir. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and a second for 5 approval of the agenda item and adoption of the resolution. 6 Further question or discussion? 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And the beauty of the thing 8 is that the people make the decision. 9 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: That's right. 10 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: There's been a lot of 11 misconception about that. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, absolutely. 13 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Thinking that we can just do 14 it without any approval from the voters. 15 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: That's right. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You got those e-mails too? 17 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah, I got those e-mails. 18 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: Let them vote on it. 19 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We don't have a choice. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Further question or discussion? All 21 in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. 22 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 23 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 24 (No response.) 25 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Ms. Whitt, 7-25-11 129 1 my apologies to you for overlooking the fact that we had an 2 11 o'clock timed item. We'll go to that item now. Item 27; 3 consider, discuss, take appropriate action to hire part-time 4 kennel worker at Animal Control. 5 MS. WHITT: Well, I was notified Thursday that my 6 part-time kennel worker is going to work full-time for Road 7 and Bridge. I currently have two staff members that are on 8 light duty, so that really puts me in a bind. Currently, 9 it's myself and another officer that are running all calls 10 and covering on-call, so I'm pretty much on-call 24/7, and if 11 I don't hire a part-time kennel worker, that means I'm going 12 to be working weekends as well. So, I'm asking for -- for 13 approval to hire a part-time -- 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval. 15 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 17 approval. Question or discussion? The good news, as I see 18 it, Ms. Whitt, is you're an exempt employee. 19 MS. WHITT: I know. That's why I want to hire 20 someone. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Now, does this employee 22 start at the 1? 23 MS. WHITT: Yes. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Where's the other one that 25 went to Road and Bridge? 7-25-11 130 1 MS. WHITT: What do you mean? 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Step and grade. 3 MS. WHITT: Oh, no. No, this one is not even on 4 the step and grades. This is strictly an hourly -- 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, part-time. 6 MS. WHITT: Part-time, yeah. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All right, cool. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions? Comments? 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Groovy. 10 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: Good deal. Appreciate you. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: All in favor, signify by raising 12 your right hand. 13 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 14 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 15 (No response.) 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, ma'am. 17 MS. WHITT: Thank you. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's get back to Item 22; 19 consider, discuss, take appropriate action to call an 20 election to be placed on the November 2011 general election 21 ballot on question of create a county assistance district 22 pursuant to Chapter 387, Texas Local Government Code, to 23 perform the functions in the district as provided by Texas 24 Local Government Code Section 387.003(a), and to adopt a 25 county assistance district sales and use tax at the rate of 7-25-11 131 1 one-half of one percent. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Read the rest of it. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, I was going to say, you 4 can't stop. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm not going to understand 6 it unless you read it all. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Letz. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. I talked to Commissioner 9 Overby about this. I think it was actually talked about by 10 Commissioner Overby, and the County Attorney looked into it a 11 little bit at our last meeting. And I put my name on it, 12 'cause I think it's something that I'm in favor of putting 13 before the voters. I'm not -- you know, the one above this 14 is -- I'm more in favor of, but I'm in favor of this. And 15 the reason I'm in favor of this, we're going to continue to 16 have a very tight budget for the coming years, in my opinion, 17 and I am extremely adverse to raising our property tax, ad 18 valorem taxes to be the way. With the exemptions we 19 currently have, it's a -- it's just unfair to the young, 20 working people mostly in the community. I think a sales tax 21 is a -- a fair tax across the board to raise revenue for the 22 county than an ad valorem tax, and I think that it also does 23 bring in -- because we are a little bit of -- Kerrville's a 24 regional center, it brings in dollars from outside the county 25 that are used in our infrastructure. So, I'm in favor of 7-25-11 132 1 putting it before the voters. I think it's a -- I don't like 2 raising taxes, but I think this is a better option for 3 raising taxes than an ad valorem tax increase. And I'd like 4 to put it before the voters and let them make this decision. 5 Hopefully we can make a case that it can make sense, and for 6 that reason, I'll make a motion to put on it the November 7 2011 ballot. 8 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion and second for 10 approval of the agenda item and adoption of the resolution. 11 Question or discussion? 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just want to add, I'm kind 13 of like Letz there a little bit, that it's a tax increase, 14 but not -- that I dislike very much, but my vote is to allow 15 the taxpaying public to make some of these decisions. I wish 16 there were more of this kind of thing for them to 17 participate, so I third the motion. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Any other question or comments? All 19 in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. 20 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 21 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 22 (No response.) 23 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Let's go to 24 Item 23; to consider, discuss, take appropriate action 25 regarding Kerr County participation as a class member in the 7-25-11 133 1 "In re: Municipal Derivatives Antitrust" class action lawsuit 2 pending in the United States District Court for the Southern 3 District of New York. Mr. Henneke? 4 MR. HENNEKE: Gentlemen, attached to the backup, we 5 received notification that Kerr County was a potential class 6 member arising from its purchase of municipal derivatives 7 some time ago in a pending class action lawsuit in New York. 8 Working with the County Auditor, she's confirmed that we do 9 qualify as a class member, that we purchased the municipal 10 derivatives and would qualify. I put this on the agenda 11 because we can opt out and pursue our own action if we wanted 12 to. I don't think we do, but if we do nothing, then we are a 13 member of the class. We remain that, and if it settles, we 14 might get some money. But we'd certainly have any right to 15 spend a fortune hiring a New York attorney to file their own 16 lawsuit, pursue their own claims. But because it is an 17 election of if we don't opt out, then we opt in, I wanted to 18 put it in front of the Court. And, like I said, if we don't 19 take any action, then we would stay -- remain a class member, 20 and whatever happens, we may get something out of it. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And your recommendation is -- 22 if you have one, is to do nothing and stay a member, and we 23 may get something? 24 MR. HENNEKE: Yes. I think the cost -- 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 7-25-11 134 1 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Sounds like the solution to 2 me. 3 MR. HENNEKE: The cost to pursue something on our 4 own would far outweigh any speculative benefit. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We need a motion to do nothing? 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll second the attorney's 7 emotion. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody wish to offer a motion to 9 opt out? Hearing nothing, I'll move to Item 24; acknowledge 10 receipt of quarterly investment report from Patterson and 11 Associates for quarter ending June 30th, 2011. 12 MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. This is the same thing; I 13 come back to you guys every three months just to get you to 14 acknowledge the receipt of the quarterly investment report. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Move for approval. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to 18 acknowledge the report. Question or discussion? All in 19 favor, signify by raising your right hand. 20 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 21 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 22 (No response.) 23 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Item 25 is 24 to consider and discuss, take appropriate action to approve 25 changes to the investment policy as a result of House Bill 7-25-11 135 1 2226. Ms. Hargis? 2 MS. HARGIS: Good morning. As you're aware, every 3 time the Legislature meets, they like to change the way we 4 invest our funds. This new policy change is really just 5 widening the type of vehicles that you can invest in, and 6 kind of being a little bit more lenient about the reports 7 that we get. The recommendation that I'm making and the 8 recommendation that our financial advisers, Patterson and 9 Associates, are making is that we stay within the realm that 10 we're already in and we don't go out and purchase some of 11 these things that they're recommending. One of the things is 12 to purchase C.D.'s out of the state of Texas. The current 13 investment policy has always been that you had to purchase a 14 C.D. with -- from a bank that was domiciled in the state of 15 Texas, and that kind of limited some of the banks that are 16 not necessarily domiciled; in other words, their headquarters 17 was not in the state of Texas. They may have a branch here, 18 but they weren't necessarily here. I'm not real gung-ho 19 about us getting out there and investing in a lot of areas 20 that we don't have any knowledge of, but sometimes we do have 21 an opportunity to invest with a C.D. that's a bank located in 22 Texas, but not domiciled. I don't mind working with that. 23 But she's written some changes that you have that are 24 red-lined. The County Attorney and I have read them. We 25 both agree on them. Basically, we're staying within the 7-25-11 136 1 realm that we're already in. We have the option of doing 2 that, but we're not going to run out there and do it. I'm -- 3 I think we need to stay very conservative with our approach 4 to investing. That's how a lot of folks got in trouble, and 5 the banks are constantly lobbying for them to widen, and as 6 well as, you know, all of your investment firms who like to 7 buy derivatives, and we don't, just like the lawsuit says. 8 So, we're basically -- she's just leaving it the same, and 9 not recommending that we change it. For instance -- 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Ms. Auditor? 11 MS. HARGIS: Mm-hmm. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: When you say that she's -- 13 "she's" -- 14 MS. HARGIS: Linda Patterson is -- 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Linda Patterson. Thank you. 16 MS. HARGIS: Linda is actually an instructor for 17 investments, and I've known Linda -- 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is she a full-time county 19 employee? 20 MS. HARGIS: She's a contract person that we pay to 21 give us this type of advice, yes. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see. And so we're in our 23 second year with her? 24 MS. HARGIS: Actually, we're in our fifth year with 25 her. 7-25-11 137 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, you're kidding. 2 MS. HARGIS: No. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Time is fun when you're 4 having flies. And she makes this recommendation as well as 5 you do, huh? 6 MS. HARGIS: I do. Again, Linda and I kind of -- 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What about the County 8 Treasurer? What does she say about it? 9 MS. WILLIAMS: I acquiesce to what our investment 10 adviser recommends. She has a lot more track history in this 11 area than I do. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that Linda Patterson? 13 MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. I'm sorry I 15 interrupted -- no, I'm not sorry, but forgive me for 16 interrupting you. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: She's done, isn't she? 18 MS. HARGIS: There's basically two changes. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: She's through? 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. I would move we approve 21 the changes to the investment policy as recommended by the 22 Auditor and our investment adviser. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as 25 indicated. Question or discussion? All in favor, signify by 7-25-11 138 1 raising your right hand. 2 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 3 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 4 (No response.) 5 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion carries. 6 MS. HARGIS: Thank you. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Item 26; consider, discuss, take 8 appropriate action to set date and time to discuss 9 redistricting. Commissioner Oehler? 10 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, I think that's probably 11 a moot issue now. I put it on there basically before we got 12 the Wednesday meeting, which we're going to do those -- do 13 that very thing. We're going to be -- 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 15 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We have a posted meeting to 16 do that and go through some changes, I believe, that need to 17 be made, but I just wanted to make sure that this didn't get 18 put on the back burner before it was too late. We need to 19 have input on this pretty quickly. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Looking at Items 28 through 21 31, they all indicate possible executive session. I can 22 certainly see that 29, 30, and 31 are definitely executive 23 session items. 28, as far as I know, we're not necessarily 24 discussing specific individuals. 25 MS. WILLIAMS: No, sir. 7-25-11 139 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Would it be possible to do that one 2 in open? 3 MR. HENNEKE: You can always do anything in open. 4 That would be something that the Court could choose to go in 5 executive session, since you're talking about duties of 6 individuals that are officials and employees. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Let me go ahead and call Item 28; 8 consider, discuss, take appropriate action regarding 9 allocation of H.R. functions or duties on interim basis, and 10 designation of new administrators for various H.R. functions. 11 Let me set this up for you, if I might. A short time back, 12 after the resignation of our H.R. Director, the Court kind of 13 dropped the H.R. function into the County Treasurer's lap, as 14 it were. The County Treasurer has had that interim 15 designation by court order. She chooses not to have that 16 designation, and we need to go somewhere else with it. 17 MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Knowing this was coming, 19 Commissioner Baldwin and myself, as I recall, had a set-to 20 with the functionaries in that area, and came to the 21 conclusion on an informal basis, until a more formal basis 22 was taken, that the worker's comp function would be handled 23 on an interim basis by the Indigent Health Care Coordinator, 24 and that all remaining H.R. functions would continue to be 25 handled by the remaining folks in H.R. Is that your 7-25-11 140 1 understanding? 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That is exactly right. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: And that's kind of the way we've 4 been operating. 5 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Is that acceptable? 6 MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, with the exception, there are 7 some administrative duties, I think, that possibly we need to 8 have someone else be able to -- like the plan administrators 9 for T.C.D.R.S., A.X.A., some of those things. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Some formal designations of people 11 to sign off as -- 12 MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: -- approving authorities on various 14 and sundry things? 15 MS. WILLIAMS: Yes. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do we have a recommendation of 17 who should sign for those things? 18 MS. WILLIAMS: At this point in time, possibly the 19 County Judge or the -- one of the liaisons for H.R. I don't 20 know. I would leave that up to you gentlemen. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: The only other possibility that I 22 can think of would be the only full-time person that we have 23 down there. 24 MS. WILLIAMS: Ms. Scherwitz. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Scherwitz, yeah. 7-25-11 141 1 MS. WILLIAMS: We can do that. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Those are the only possibilities. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I would agree going that 4 route; that's fine. Or you. 5 MS. WILLIAMS: I think that she would be very 6 capable of handling those duties. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Or that guy that rides a 8 bicycle that runs for mayor all the time, him. What's his 9 name? That's Jody's friend. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, where two signatures are 11 required -- 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He can handle both. 13 (Laughter.) That's pretty funny. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's his name? 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Demery. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's right, Brian Demery. 17 All right. 18 MS. WILLIAMS: Okay. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do we need motions for this 20 stuff? 21 JUDGE TINLEY: If you're going to designate 22 administrative authority to sign off on those various H.R. 23 items. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Buster, are you going to make a 25 motion? 7-25-11 142 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I sure can. I move 2 that -- let me read this thing here. I move that we assign 3 the H.R. functions/duties on an interim basis to -- what's 4 her name? 5 JUDGE TINLEY: The administrator authority? 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: To Cindy Scherwitz. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Cindy Scherwitz, a voter 9 from my precinct. That's basically the motion right there. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as 12 indicated. Question or discussion? Does that solve your 13 problem? 14 MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir, it does. Thank you very 15 much. 16 MR. HENNEKE: Judge? Question. It's my 17 recollection that the Court, through a prior order, assigned 18 the H.R. functions to -- to the Treasurer. Does that order 19 need to be rescinded and those functions need to be then 20 assigned to yourself -- move those people to report to you, 21 and assign those functions -- 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're right. 23 MR. HENNEKE: -- from there? 24 JUDGE TINLEY: I think -- I think there's probably 25 two things that need to occur. Number one, the -- the order 7-25-11 143 1 which designates the Treasurer to perform all those H.R. 2 functions needs to be superseded with another order that says 3 the worker's comp function will be performed by Indigent 4 Health Care, and the remaining H.R. functions be performed by 5 those in the H.R. department. And then the administrator 6 aspect of it, where required, be done by Ms. Scherwitz. Or 7 it can be all in one motion, as far as that goes. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Be easier to do it in two at 9 this point. It seems to me we already have one. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Wait, wait, before do you 11 that, though, should we rescind her? 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Whatever. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Rescind or supersede, either one. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, yeah. Whatever that 16 court order was. 17 MS. WILLIAMS: Do you need those order numbers? I 18 have them with me. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We'll get to it in just a 20 minute. Your motion, Commissioner, is that for -- as 21 administrator, to give administrator authority to sign off on 22 various H.R. functions, that henceforth, those be performed 23 by Cindy Scherwitz in the H.R. department? 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's correct. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. And that's the motion you 7-25-11 144 1 seconded, right? 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or discussion 4 on that? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your 5 right hand. 6 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 7 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 8 (No response.) 9 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion that we 11 rescind Court Order -- what number? 12 MS. WILLIAMS: Are we going to do the interim basis 13 of functions first? Because there were two court orders. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Both of them. 15 MS. WILLIAMS: Okay. Court Order 32175 was the 16 allocation of Human Resources functions on an interim basis 17 to Kerr County Treasurer's office, and Court Order 32176 was 18 action to designate new administrators for various Human 19 Resources functions. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. The motion is to rescind 21 both of those court orders and assign the worker's comp 22 function to the Indigent Health Care Manager -- is that what 23 her title is? -- and that the H.R. functions be handled by 24 the employees in the H.R. department. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 7-25-11 145 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as 2 indicated. All -- any further question or discussion? 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is that the correct title for 4 Dawn? 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Close enough. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: She would be the manager. She's the 7 only one there doing it. 8 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: And the department head. 9 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Department head. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, okay. 11 MS. WILLIAMS: Thank you. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Further question or discussion? All 13 in favor, signify by raising your right hand. 14 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 15 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 16 (No response.) 17 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Why don't we 18 go to Section 4 of the agenda now, payment of the bills. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move we pay the bills. 20 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: Second that. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to pay the 22 bills. Question or discussion? All in favor, signify by 23 raising your right hand. 24 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 25 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 7-25-11 146 1 (No response.) 2 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Budget 3 amendments. We have eight of them, Budget Amendment Request 4 Summary Numbers 1 through 8. Do I hear a motion that the 5 budget amendments, as evidenced by Request Numbers 1 through 6 8 on the summary sheet, be approved? 7 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: Motion to approve. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to approve 10 Budget Amendment Requests 1 through 8 under the summary dated 11 25 July 2011. Question or discussion? All in favor of the 12 motion, signify by raising your right hand. 13 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 14 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 15 (No response.) 16 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. We have two 17 late bills, it appears. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move we pay the late bills. 19 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Abel Irrigation, 2,947. Sears 21 Commercial, 32.53. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Where's Abel Irrigation? What 23 facility? 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Annex. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Still working out there on that 7-25-11 147 1 system out there? 2 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, they just now started. 3 MS. HARGIS: Just now started on it. This is the 4 down payment. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 6 MS. HARGIS: And they requested that in advance. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Any question or discussion on the 8 late bills motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by 9 raising your right hand. 10 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 11 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 12 (No response.) 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. I've been presented 14 with monthly reports from Justice of the Peace, Precinct 2; 15 Justice of the Peace, Precinct 1; District Clerk; Constable, 16 Precinct 3; Kerr County Treasurer for June 2011. Do I hear a 17 motion that the indicated reports be approved as presented? 18 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: Motion made. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that the 21 indicated reports be approved as presented. Question or 22 discussion? All in favor, signify by raising your right 23 hand. 24 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 25 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 7-25-11 148 1 (No response.) 2 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Do we have 3 any reports from Commissioners in connection with their 4 liaison or assignments? Commissioner Letz? 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, sir. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Oehler? 7 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: No. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Baldwin? 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, sir. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Overby? 11 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: No, sir. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Reports from elected officials or 13 department heads? 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Nope, there aren't any. 15 (Laughter.) 16 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Just the update on the -- 17 'cause I told y'all I would have the minimum security 18 facility -- talk about the female housing on this agenda. I 19 did not. We have talked to Bastrop, who has one and built 20 one, and I'm trying to set up a time when maybe a couple of 21 y'all and us can go down there and look at theirs. They 22 built it for about 150,000, which is not bad, I don't think, 23 for that type of facility. So, sometime in the next few 24 weeks -- 25 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: Where -- where was that, 7-25-11 149 1 Sheriff? 2 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Bastrop. See if we can get 3 something set up. That's it. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Any other elected officials or 5 department heads? Okay. We've got some executive session 6 items, so at 12:22, we will go out of open or public session 7 for the purposes of going into executive session to consider 8 Items 29, 30, and 31. 9 (The open session was closed at 12:22 p.m., and an executive session was held, the transcript of which 10 is contained in a separate document.) 11 - - - - - - - - - - 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, we're back in open or public 13 session. It's 12:53. Anyone have anything to offer in 14 connection with Item 29; consider, discuss, take appropriate 15 action on purchase or lease/purchase of real property for 16 Ingram annex? 17 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I move that we have a fee 18 appraisal done not to exceed $750. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Question 21 or discussion on the motion? All in favor, signify by 22 raising your right hand. 23 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 24 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 25 (No response.) 7-25-11 150 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Anyone have 2 anything to offer in connection with Item 30, consultation 3 with County Attorney concerning possible litigation 4 concerning floodplain violations at 7261 Highway 27, Comfort, 5 Texas? 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Comfort, Texas. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion that we 8 authorize the County Attorney to file civil litigation 9 against the property owners at 7261 Highway 27, Comfort, 10 Texas, for floodplain violations, and pursue mediation 11 related to same. 12 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Question 14 or discussion? All in favor, signify by raising your right 15 hand. 16 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 17 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 18 (No response.) 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: On that one, do we need a 21 motion, Rob, to appoint me to mediate -- help with mediation 22 if it gets going? 23 MR. HENNEKE: I don't think so. We can do that 24 later. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 7-25-11 151 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Item 31; consider, discuss, take 2 appropriate action regarding L.C.R.A. Transmission Services 3 Corporation proposed McCamey D to Kendall to Gillespie 345kv 4 CREZ transmission line. Anything to offer in connection with 5 that? 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We don't need a motion to go 7 listen, do we? 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Are you talking about the settlement 9 meeting that's going to occur -- or pre-settlement discussion 10 that's going to occur this afternoon? 11 MR. HENNEKE: I don't think there's any motion 12 necessary. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further to come before the 14 Court? We'll be adjourned. 15 (Commissioners Court adjourned at 12:55 p.m.) 16 - - - - - - - - - - 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 7-25-11 152 1 STATE OF TEXAS | 2 COUNTY OF KERR | 3 The above and foregoing is a true and complete 4 transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as 5 official reporter for the Commissioners Court of Kerr County, 6 Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth. 7 DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 29th day of July, 2011. 8 9 JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk 10 BY: _________________________________ Kathy Banik, Deputy County Clerk 11 Certified Shorthand Reporter 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 7-25-11