1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT 9 Special Session 10 Tuesday, May 28, 2013 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 TOM MOSER, Commissioner Pct. 2 JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3 25 BRUCE OEHLER, Commissioner Pct. 4 2 1 I N D E X May 28, 2013 2 PAGE 3 --- Commissioners' Comments 6 4 1.1 Public Hearing regarding revision of plat for Harrison Tract, Volume 5, Page 270, Pct. 2 7 5 1.2 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for 6 final approval regarding revision of plat for Harrison Tract, Volume 5, Page 270, Pct. 2 7 7 1.3 Discuss/consider, take appropriate action 8 regarding resolution to apply for 2013-2014 Rural Community Development Block Grant 9 assistance for Kerrville South wastewater system 10 10 1.4 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to rescind Kerr County OSSF Contract No. 710065 11 assistance agreements For based on grant assistance ineligibly 12 12 1.5 Public Hearing regarding revision of plat for 13 Lots 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10 of Ranches of Sunset Ridge, Volume 8, Page 1, Pct. 3 14 14 1.6 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for 15 final approval regarding revision of plat for Lots 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10 of Ranches of 16 Sunset Ridge, Volume 8, Page 1, Pct. 3 14 17 1.7 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to cancel a right-of-way filed and recorded illegally 18 by developer without a hearing in Kerr County, violating covenants coalition and restrictions of 19 Live Springs Ranch Subdivision 17 20 1.8 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to delay hearing on Live Springs Ranch to give 21 owners more time to evaluate consequences to the subdivision by combining property 33 22 1.9 Public Hearing regarding revision of plat for 23 Lots 13, 18 and 19 of Live Springs Ranch, Pct. 4 37 24 1.10 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for final approval regarding revision of plat for 25 Lots 13, 18 and 19 of Live Springs Ranch, Pct. 4 50 3 1 I N D E X (Continued) May 28, 2013 2 PAGE 1.11 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to 3 approve annual renewal of MOUs with Indigent Healthcare Solutions, software provider for Kerr 4 County Indigent Health Program, with fee increase of $4 per month; authorize County Judge to sign 55 5 1.12 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on 6 presentation of Airport FY 14 Budget 56 7 1.13 Presentation by Community Action Group regarding Aqua Texas rate settlement and 8 related legislative issues 60 9 1.14 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for approval of proposed driveway to access Lot 631 10 in Southwind Mobile Home Park located in Rancho Oaks, Precinct 1 65 11 1.15 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for 12 Court approval regarding amended plat for Lot 1 of Verde Acres, Precinct 2 77 13 1.16 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to 14 post and fill Assistant Director/ACO position as an ACO, doing away with Assistant Director title 78 15 1.17 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to 16 give Sandra Moellering an educational increase for acquiring her Euthanasia Technician Certification, 17 taking her from a 14.2 to a 14.3 79 18 1.18 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to determine budget impact to hire a Veterans 19 Services Officer 80 20 1.19 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to initiate process and/or steps to construct fire 21 station on Ranchero Road on property owned by Kerr County 108 22 1.20 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to 23 approve contract with Ricoh USA, Inc. for two copiers in the Sheriff's Office 109 24 1.23 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action 25 regarding 216th District Attorney assistant district attorney position 110 4 1 I N D E X (Continued) May 28, 2013 2 PAGE 1.21 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to 3 designate rainwater catchment system for use by VFWs as a water source for firefighting 118 4 1.22 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action 5 regarding pay increase to Shane Evans for completing County Corrections Officer course 6 certification, requesting grade increase from 15.6 to 18.5/1 effective June 3, 2013 119 7 1.24 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action 8 concerning clarification of fee structure for recording of plats pursuant to Kerr County 9 Subdivision Rules and Regulations 123 10 1.25 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on agreement with Friends of Historical Commission 11 regarding Union Church Building 124 12 1.26 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on offer of Kerr County Commissioners Court to 13 City of Kerrville to extend current interlocal agreement for EMS services for 10-year period, 14 and clarify status of offer and Kerr County's legal position with respect to same 126 15 1.27 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to 16 hire consultant to assist with RFP/RFQ for emergency medical services to serve citizens 17 of Kerr County commencing on October 1, 2014 126 18 3.1 Action as may be required on matters discussed in Executive Session 127 19 4.1 Pay Bills 130 20 4.2 Budget Amendments 131 4.3 Late Bills --- 21 4.4 Approve and Accept Monthly Reports 136 22 5.1 Reports from Commissioners/Liaison Committee Assignments --- 23 5.2 Reports from Elected Officials/Department Heads --- 24 --- Adjourned 137 25 5 1 On Tuesday, May 28, 2013, 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 which is posted and scheduled 10 for this date and time, Tuesday, May 28th, 2013, at 9 a.m. 11 It is that time now. I'll call on Commissioner Moser. 12 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Please rise and pray with me, 13 and then we'll do the pledge of allegiance. 14 (Prayer and pledge of allegiance.) 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Please be seated. At 16 this time, if there's any member of the audience or public 17 that wishes to be heard on a matter which is not a listed 18 agenda item, this is your opportunity to come forward and 19 tell us what's on your mind. If you wish to be heard on an 20 agenda item, we would ask that you fill out a participation 21 form. There should be some located at the rear of the room. 22 That gives me a heads-up that someone wishes to be heard on 23 that item. If, however, we get to that item and you wish to 24 be heard, and you haven't filled one out, just get my 25 attention in some manner and I'll give you the opportunity. 5-28-13 6 1 But right now, we're talking about items that are not on the 2 agenda. Anybody that wants to talk about something that's 3 not on the agenda, this is your opportunity to come forward 4 and tell us what's on your mind. Seeing no one coming 5 forward, we'll move on. Commissioner Moser, what do you have 6 for us this morning? 7 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Judge, thank you. Two or 8 three things. Number one, some big events in the last 10 9 days in the county. The KerrFest, I think, was absolutely 10 fantastic and a lot of people showed up for that. That thing 11 just keeps getting bigger and better. The arts and crafts 12 fair was held this past weekend, and I just want to recognize 13 what the people have done out there at that River Star 14 facility. It had been raining like everything. It was 15 totally dry in a couple little places, but I think they did a 16 great job, and there was a really good turnout for that. And 17 the other thing that I'd mention -- that I would mention 18 is -- is our two major projects, the wastewater system in 19 Kerrville South and the Texas Water Development Board, our 20 audit, Jeannie, was perfect. They gave us a clean bill of 21 health on that. And we have a big town hall meeting in -- 22 public meeting June the 17th in Center Point for that event. 23 So, that's all I have. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Commissioner Letz? 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think I have anything 5-28-13 7 1 special this morning. 2 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Nope. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Oehler? No? 4 Commissioner Baldwin? 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, thank you. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Well, let's get on with 7 our agenda. We can move this thing along pretty good. At 8 this time, I will recess the Commissioners Court meeting and 9 I will convene a public hearing regarding the revision of 10 plat for Harrison Tract as set forth in Volume 5, Page 270, 11 and located in Precinct 2. 12 (The regular Commissioners Court meeting was closed at 9:04 a.m., and a public hearing was held in open 13 court, as follows:) 14 P U B L I C H E A R I N G 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Any member of the public or audience 16 that wishes to be heard with regard to the revision of plat 17 for Harrison Tract, as set forth in Volume 5, Page 270, and 18 located in Precinct 2? Seeing no one seeking recognition to 19 be heard, I will close the public hearing with regard to the 20 revision of plat for Harrison Tract, Volume 5, Page 270, and 21 located in Precinct 2. 22 (The public hearing was concluded at 9:05 a.m., and the regular Commissioners Court meeting was 23 reopened.) 24 - - - - - - - - - - 25 JUDGE TINLEY: And we will move to Item 2; to 5-28-13 8 1 consider, discuss, and take appropriate action for the 2 final approval regarding the revision of plat for Harrison 3 Tract, as set forth in Volume 5, Page 270, and located in 4 Precinct 2. Mr. Odom? 5 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir, Judge. The Harrison Tract was 6 approved August the 5th, 1986. Included in this plat was the 7 note stating Lots 1, 2, and 3 of Block 2 are not buildable 8 sites. These lots are river access for the corresponding 9 lots in Block 3. Rick Steadham owns Lot 1, Block 3, and Lot 10 1, Block 2. Stephen Hight owns Lots 2 and 3 of Block 3 and 11 Lots 2 and 3 of Block 2. Mr. Steadham and Mr. Hight would 12 like to have the plat note on the original plat stating that 13 Lots 1, 2, and 3 of Block 2 are non-buildable sites removed. 14 Mr. Steadham has worked with Rob Henneke, the County 15 Attorney, on this project. Rob requested that Mr. Steadham 16 have the other lot owners of the Harrison Tract sign off on 17 the waiver of plat note documents, and have each signature 18 notarized. We have included all of this information today to 19 the Court. So, at this time, we ask the Court for the -- for 20 their final approval regarding the revision of plat for 21 Harrison Tract, Volume 5, Page 270, Precinct 2. 22 COMMISSIONER MOSER: So moved. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 25 approval of the agenda item. Question or discussion? 5-28-13 9 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've got a question. Why, 2 in the beginning, was that note on there, "non-buildable"? 3 MR. ODOM: I think -- I wasn't here then. That was 4 a long time ago. That's about the time that you first came 5 on the Court. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Hey, don't bring me into 7 this thing. (Laughter.) I'm asking the question. 8 MR. ODOM: I believe that it was for visibility for 9 the people. The people that originally had the land wanted 10 that for visible -- the esthetics of it, that they'd look at 11 the river right there. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 13 MR. ODOM: That was my understanding of it. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It has nothing to do -- 15 MR. ODOM: That is the only reason. The rest of 16 them were buildable, but I think the -- the original 17 developer or the landowners wanted that so they could look at 18 nothing built in front of them. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, thank you. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Quick comment, Judge. I 21 appreciate the patience of Mr. Steadham. He's been working 22 on this for several years, trying to get this done. It was a 23 little bit of an odd situation, and I think we came up with a 24 way to get it done that meets all of our rules, and I think 25 does what he wants to have done. I think it's good for the 5-28-13 10 1 community. It'll put -- some very nice homes are being built 2 over there right along in that area, and this will continue. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions or comments? 4 All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right 5 hand. 6 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 7 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 8 (No response.) 9 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. We'll move 10 to Item 3, which is a 9:05 timed item; to consider, discuss, 11 take appropriate action regarding a resolution to apply for a 12 2013-14 Rural Community Development Block Grant assistance 13 fund -- Colonia Fund for construction activities for 14 Kerrville South wastewater system. Commissioner Moser? 15 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Thank you. This is the next 16 phase of the Kerrville South wastewater system. It's been 17 very successful to-date. There's some specifics that we need 18 to go forward with a $500,000 grant request, and Regan is 19 here to present the details for us. 20 MS. LENEHAN: Good morning, Commissioners. Good 21 morning, Judge. Good to see you again. I'm Regan Lenehan 22 from Grantworks, and I'm here to ask the Court to consider 23 and take action on a resolution to apply for a new colonia 24 Community Development Fund grant for $500,000. And the 25 purpose of this grant will be to benefit the final phase of 5-28-13 11 1 the Kerrville South sewer project that we've been working on 2 since 2001, I believe. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Final phase? 4 MS. LENEHAN: Hope so. 5 COMMISSIONER MOSER: I think it's the final phase. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Does this include the 7 apartments? 8 MS. LENEHAN: Yes. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 10 MS. LENEHAN: The primary -- the bulk of the funds 11 on this one will be to connect the apartments, and then 12 mitigate the septic tanks out there. And then, if -- we're 13 hoping that we're going to have a little bit of extra funds 14 to go back through the Loyal Valley area and maybe capture a 15 few of the homes that were vacant when we installed the yard 16 lines and the public sewer out there. 17 COMMISSIONER MOSER: There's a little bit of work 18 to be done on the lift stations so it is compatible with the 19 city's wastewater system. 20 MS. LENEHAN: Exactly. 21 COMMISSIONER MOSER: As far as flow rate's 22 concerned. And so we sync up -- every month we review the 23 project, and we have the City involved with us, so I think 24 we're ready to move forward. Move approval. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 5-28-13 12 1 JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and a second 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: The motion does carry. We'll move 9 to Item 4, a 9:05 timed item, to consider, discuss, take 10 appropriate action to rescind Kerr County O.S.S.F. Contract 11 Number 710065, assistance agreements for the following based 12 on grant assistance ineligibility: 103 Ash Drive, Ingram, 13 that's in Westwood Oaks; 313 Skyview Drive, Ingram; 132 14 Greymoss Court, also in Ingram and Westwood Oaks; and 112 15 Colt Court in Ingram, also being in Westwood Oaks. 16 Ms. Lenehan? 17 MS. LENEHAN: Hi there. I am here to talk to you 18 about the County's 2010 septic tank replacement grant. We 19 had four applicants that applied for the grant, and upon -- 20 met the initial approval criteria in order to be offered 21 assistance. However, once we went out and did further 22 investigation on their actual sites, we determined that they 23 were ineligible. Two of them were ineligible based on the 24 location of the floodplain, and one of them was ineligible 25 because it turns out that their septic tank actually wasn't 5-28-13 13 1 in failure after all. Someone else moved away, and they're 2 no longer at the home. Therefore, we're asking the Court to 3 terminate the assistance agreements that were originally put 4 in place for these homeowners. This is typical checks and 5 balance that we do. The homeowner applies. If they're in 6 the target area and they meet the income criteria, then we 7 move forward with their application. After that, we go out 8 and actually do a full review of their septic tank and make 9 sure that their property criteria would -- would allow them 10 to have assistance, and in most of the cases, everyone went 11 through; septic tanks were replaced and mitigated. However, 12 for these four, it turned out that the homeowners were 13 ineligible once we looked at the actual criteria for their 14 septic tanks. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: So we need to cancel these contracts 16 that are outstanding because of their ineligibility? 17 MS. LENEHAN: Exactly, the four assistance 18 agreements with those homeowners. 19 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'll make a notion that we 20 rescind Kerr County O.S.S.F. Contract Number 710065, 21 assistance agreement, for the ones listed. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 23 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Second. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as 25 indicated. Question or discussion on the motion? All in 5-28-13 14 1 favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. 2 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 3 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 4 (No response.) 5 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. At this 6 time, I will recess the Commissioners Court meeting and 7 convene a public hearing regarding the revision of plat for 8 Lots 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10 of Ranches of Sunset Ridge 9 as set forth in Volume 8, Page 1, located in Precinct 3. 10 (The regular Commissioners Court meeting was closed at 9:12 a.m., and a public hearing was held in open 11 court, as follows:) 12 P U B L I C H E A R I N G 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Is there any member of the public 14 that wishes to be heard with respect to the revision of plat 15 for Lots 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10 of the Ranches of Sunset 16 Ridge as set forth in Volume 8, Page 1, and located in 17 Precinct 3? Seeing no one seeking to be recognized, I will 18 close the public hearing regarding the revision of plat for 19 Lots 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10 of Ranches of Sunset Ridge, 20 as set forth in Volume 8, Page 1, and located in Precinct 3. 21 (The public hearing was concluded at 9:13 a.m., and the regular Commissioners Court meeting was 22 reopened.) 23 - - - - - - - - - - 24 JUDGE TINLEY: I will reconvene the Commissioners 25 Court meeting and call Item 6, which is a 9:15 timed item; to 5-28-13 15 1 consider, discuss, and take appropriate action for the 2 Court's final approval regarding the revision of plat for 3 Lots 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10 of Ranches of Sunset Ridge, 4 as set forth in Volume 8, Page 1, and located in Precinct 3. 5 Mr. Odom? 6 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. Ranches of Sunset Ridge 7 development was done in 2007, and was 10 lots that were each 8 20-plus acres. The developer would like to reconfigure some 9 of the lots into six 5-acre tracts and a 10-acre tract in 10 hopes of selling some of the lots. O.S.S.F. requirements 11 have been met, and the drainage study has been reviewed and 12 approved. I would like to note that in Wayne Wells' drainage 13 study review, the methodology that Mike Wellborn used, the 14 rational method, for the integrated storm system is used by 15 the cities of Austin, San Antonio, and Kerrville. This 16 methodology is more for an urban environment than a rural 17 environment. What we're saying is that basically there's two 18 different viewpoints, as all things. It's like being a 19 lawyer, Judge; there's always a different viewpoint. But the 20 calculations are such that it doesn't impact it from zero to 21 2.34 percent runoff, depending which method. The rural 22 method, the method that Wayne was using, was little bit 23 different than Mike's. So, there's nothing wrong with it. 24 So, at this time, we ask the Court for their final approval 25 regarding revision of plat for Lots 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 5-28-13 16 1 10 of Ranches of Sunset Ridge, Volume 8, Page 1, Precinct 3. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I'll make a motion to 3 approve. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion and a second. 6 Question or comments? 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The question I have is really 8 just to the County Attorney. I don't know if you read 9 through the engineer's report. And the question is whether a 10 variance should be in the motion, or included or not. The 11 drainage study -- and Mr. Wells has signed off that it's -- 12 there's no adverse effect from the drainage standpoint, but 13 the actual study is not the normal type that we use. It's a 14 little bit different. So, I mean, we're talking about -- but 15 Mr. Wells clearly does state there will be no adverse impact, 16 and it does meet the -- you know, the basic criteria of our 17 rules, but not exactly the way our rules are written. 18 MR. HENNEKE: I mean, does it -- does it meet the 19 requirements or not? 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: To me, yes. I mean, the -- I 21 mean, our County Engineer that we've hired for this, you 22 know, supports -- he agrees that it meets our requirements. 23 MR. ODOM: Meets the requirements. Methodology is 24 a little bit different than what he would use. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 5-28-13 17 1 MR. HENNEKE: If it meets the requirements, there's 2 not a need for a waiver or variance. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. I'm glad I'm not an 4 engineer, after reading through the drainage reports. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Likewise. Any further question or 6 comments on the motion? All in favor of that 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: That motion does carry. Let's move 12 to Item 7; to consider, discuss, and take appropriate action 13 to cancel a right-of-way that developer filed and recorded 14 illegally without a hearing in Kerr County, and violating 15 covenants coalition and restrictions of Live Springs Ranch 16 Subdivision, with reference to Article VII, easements. This 17 matter was placed on the agenda at the request of Mr. Chet 18 Whatley. Mr. Whatley? 19 MR. WHATLEY: Good morning. I'm Chet Whatley; I 20 live at 100 Sedalia Trail, Live Springs Ranch, Ingram. I'm 21 here this morning because we've had a lot happen at Live 22 Springs Ranch, and there's two items here, and I'll try not 23 to digress back and forth. But we're here because it was 24 granted a right-of-way through our main gate, which we bought 25 out there -- I bought four years ago. There's several of us 5-28-13 18 1 here this morning that -- that we were given a secure 2 subdivision. We had security. We have a main gate there. 3 Recently, they have sold off the north end of the ranch, the 4 developer. In the deal, they granted the new buyer, the 5 rancher to the north, right-of-ways, four of them, three of 6 them in Gillespie County, one in Kerr County. Free. We 7 have -- the roads are private roads. They're our roads. We 8 have to pay for them. We have to maintain them. Under this 9 right-of-way -- this gentleman has ranch hands on those 1,000 10 acres up there. This gentleman has right-of-way through our 11 property. Trucks, cars, it doesn't matter. And no other -- 12 you know, we've lost all our security through our gate. They 13 all have codes; they all go through it. 14 The bad part about it is, not only did they sell it 15 to him; it's forever. If he decides to sell the property 16 five years or ten years from now, whoever buys it to the 17 north can go up there, develop it, whatever they want. They, 18 you know, have our roads that we have to pay for them to 19 drive over. Now, we're not unreasonable people out there. 20 We can sit down with the developer, who has not had but maybe 21 one letter in this whole deal to us as property owners out 22 there, that -- several million dollars we paid out there. 23 One letter to tell us they were doing it, and they'd let us 24 know when it's done. Then they get upset with lawyers and 25 the whole thing because we push back, and I wonder why we 5-28-13 19 1 might be a little upset. I'll give you each -- if we can, 2 Judge, you can see what they took in the purple. Now 3 they're -- there's more going on. 4 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'll pass them out. 5 MR. WHATLEY: Okay, I'm sorry. Now, what you see 6 in front of you in the purple is what we originally bought 7 now is gone. Now, this in my hand here is what's left, and 8 next week in Gillespie County, on the 10th, they're trying to 9 take this much more. So, we have this part in Kerr County 10 left. That's just about what they're after. They want to 11 take more roads. They want to put up 8-foot fences round 12 people's property. The new ranch -- the new buyer, he wants 13 a high fence out there. Now, we have nothing against them 14 removing their property. It's theirs to sell. But their 15 attitude has been ridiculous. They have not come to the 16 property owners with any offer, any discussion, no seat at 17 the table where we could sit down and maybe have a solution 18 to where we could give right-of-way for three years, for a 19 certain amount, into our homeowners' association. Because 20 when these guys pull the last roads out of here, they don't 21 give a twit about the property owners. When they put the 22 last dollar in their pocket, they're down the road. Now 23 we're stuck with their decisions that -- that they sold. 24 Now, under the rules -- and state law 232.008 says 25 we have established rights. Those established rights are 5-28-13 20 1 located, I believe -- the County Attorney can correct me if 2 I'm wrong -- in our covenants and restrictions for the 3 subdivision, and that clearly states in there that they have 4 a right to give a right-of-way to improve or economically 5 develop the property. Well, I don't see where they're 6 improving our property, and I don't see where they're 7 economically developing. That's under 7.1 in our 8 restrictions. Also, the covenants says the roads are common 9 area. When we bought out there, knowing "common area" 10 means -- and somebody can correct me -- we own part of those 11 roads. They're our roads. Now they've been removed. They 12 want more. They want to give right-of-ways. It's not fair, 13 and it's wrong. 14 So, we're sitting here today asking you to cancel 15 that right-of-way. If, in fact, they want to have a 16 right-of-way, they can put -- give us a seat at the table and 17 we can discuss it. But not forever. And at cost, not free, 18 'cause it's our roads. We have to maintain them. We 19 property owners have to write checks to pay once these guys 20 pull out of there, which they will very shortly, and we're 21 stuck forever. It lowers our property values. It sure 22 doesn't economically develop it. So, that's what we're 23 asking you today to do. They never came to Kerr County and 24 asked for a hearing. They said they did it under the 25 homeowners' association. Well, they're the declarant; they 5-28-13 21 1 can't be both. They're not looking fiduciary to the 2 homeowners out there. They're looking to stuff a dollar in 3 their own pocket. That's all it's about, and that's why 4 we're fighting back, 'cause it's wrong. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mr. Whatley? 6 MR. WHATLEY: We're asking you to cancel that. 7 Yes, sir? 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question. By -- under the 9 drawing here, I'm not that familiar with Live Springs, so -- 10 I'm remembering it vaguely. Did they amend the plat and 11 remove this acreage from the plat, or not? 12 MR. WHATLEY: You mean for the north up there? 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 14 MR. WHATLEY: What they did, this is the type of 15 hearing we got. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. Just -- 17 MR. WHATLEY: Okay, I'll just quickly tell you that 18 what they did is they went before the Kerr County -- I mean 19 the Gillespie County Commissioners Court. We had an open 20 hearing. They did not tell us a single thing. They are 21 lying by omission. I promise you, they have tried to hide 22 every single thing they've done. But they went up there. We 23 knew what was happening. We showed up. We got a hearing. I 24 stood up and gave the spiel about common area, thinking, you 25 know, this is what the law says. This is what we can read; 5-28-13 22 1 this is how it is. At the end of that, the Commissioners 2 Court voted they had no discretion, none. They had to do it; 3 they had to give it to them. So, I filed -- we filed for a 4 temporary restraining order, because we weren't even offered 5 counsel in that meeting. And that's the only thing they 6 said; they never explained the law, never said anything. 7 Just said, "We have no discretion; we have to do it." 8 So, we take them into district court. They hired 9 an attorney out of San Antonio that handles property, 10 high-dollar boy. At taxpayer expense, might I add. He comes 11 in, and guess what he argues? "Well, we had all the 12 discretion, and that's why we decided to do that." Well, the 13 property owner has no discretion in the court, but all the 14 discretion in the other court. We couldn't win that one. 15 This is the kind of thing that they use. And they're moving 16 this stuff around as fast as they can. I'm not caring what 17 deal they made, how much money they've lost or made. That's 18 none of my business. I do know we paid 10,000 an acre. That 19 rancher's paying $5,000 an acre to get the stuff. They sure 20 didn't make an offer to us. So -- 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess my question would 22 really be to the County attorney. I mean, from my knowledge, 23 this is a civil matter, not a -- 24 MR. WHATLEY: It can be a civil matter. But under 25 the rules of 232.008, and here in state law, it clearly 5-28-13 23 1 states you guys have discretion to change that. It's not a 2 civil court, by what I'm seeing here. Now, maybe -- 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I guess my question is, we 4 may have authority on revisions of plat, but I don't -- the 5 right-of-way issue is what confuses me. We have authority to 6 rescind a right-of-way. I don't think we have that authority 7 in -- 8 MR. WHATLEY: If you look under 232, yes, you do. 9 It says it right in there. And it says our established 10 rights cannot be violated. And your own subdivision rules 11 state clearly we're not with certainty to be harmed, and we 12 were and are. Now, that puts it in this Commissioners 13 Court's lap. It's here. 14 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Let me ask a question, too. 15 I'm kind of with Commissioner Letz here. 16 MR. WHATLEY: Sure. 17 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Does not the homeowners 18 association have the authority to -- 19 MR. WHATLEY: What's that? I'm sorry, Mr. Moser. 20 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Does not the homeowners 21 association, landowners association, have the right and the 22 authority to do what with the roads which they choose to do 23 based on a vote of the homeowners association? 24 MR. WHATLEY: Correct, but we're not a homeowners 25 association. They hold it till there's 90 percent sold. The 5-28-13 24 1 developer holds control. 2 COMMISSIONER MOSER: I got you. 3 MR. WHATLEY: So he's now saying under the name of 4 the homeowners association, he's doing this to us. 5 COMMISSIONER MOSER: You answered that question, 6 okay. Next question -- 7 MR. WHATLEY: Yes. So, therefore, it doesn't -- he 8 can't be both. I mean, that's in direct conflict. 9 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Got you. Next question is, 10 the agenda item said -- 11 MR. WHATLEY: He has a fiduciary responsibility 12 sometime to us. Excuse me, I'm sorry. 13 COMMISSIONER MOSER: That's all right. Let me ask 14 my question. The item on the agenda says the developer filed 15 and recorded illegally without a hearing in Kerr County, and 16 violated covenants and conditions. 17 MR. WHATLEY: I believe that they're required to 18 hold a hearing in Kerr County to grant a right-of-way through 19 a subdivision. Now, I was waiting on the County Attorney. 20 Maybe he can explain that I'm wrong or right, but I don't 21 know. I'm not a lawyer. All I can do is read. We 22 homeowners, property owners out there, we can read. So, what 23 it says is pretty black and white, and our established rights 24 were violated. The right-of-ways need to be granted by you 25 guys, not a civil court. But it says it clearly in there, 5-28-13 25 1 that you have discretion to do that or not do that. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It seems -- I mean, and I 3 understand the frustration from the standpoint -- and it's 4 pretty common for developers generally in subdivisions, they 5 maintain total control of the HOA until somewhere between 70 6 to 90 percent of the lots are sold, and they -- that's just 7 the way it is. 8 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Right. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The homeowners buy knowing 10 that. It just seem to me -- I don't see how this falls under 11 Section 232. To me, what I'm reading, what you have on the 12 agenda item is a right-of-way issue, which is a civil matter, 13 and the -- you know, the developer didn't change a road, 14 didn't do anything. I mean, there was -- he just, I guess, 15 modified the right-of-way. I mean, I would think he has -- 16 MR. WHATLEY: It says right here, Mr. Letz, if, on 17 the application -- which they didn't file, I don't think, an 18 application to you guys for right-of-way. If, on the 19 application, it is shown the cancellation of all or part of 20 the subdivision does not interfere with the established 21 rights of any purchaser who owns any part of the subdivision, 22 or shown that the purchaser agrees to the cancellation, which 23 we don't. So, obviously, this is the law that you guys live 24 under. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But my question is -- I guess 5-28-13 26 1 your agenda item is talking about a right-of-way. You're 2 talking about a cancellation of a subdivision, and I -- I 3 agree. 4 MR. WHATLEY: I'm talking about right-of-way right 5 now. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. But, see, I don't -- what 7 I'm saying is that I don't think we have authority over that 8 issue. We do have authority over cancellation of a 9 subdivision or -- or of -- 10 MR. WHATLEY: It says right here right-of-way. 11 Right here. 12 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It seems to me that we 13 granted right-of-way -- the right-of-ways were granted at the 14 time that the subdivision was put in. 15 MR. WHATLEY: Correct. And they were applied 16 for -- 17 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That was part of a plat that 18 was approved for that subdivision, and that all those roads 19 were accessed to the entire property, and multiple tracts. 20 So, if -- if it had been sold out, everybody would have 21 shared in it, in the cost of maintaining the roads, because 22 they're private roads. And so what you're -- what you're 23 saying and what I'm hearing is that if part -- the portion 24 that goes through what is Kerr County has been sold, that -- 25 that now, the way that they have supposedly conveyed the 5-28-13 27 1 property behind grants rights for those people in the back to 2 continue use of that road without paying maintenance. 3 MR. WHATLEY: They should not -- they have access 4 on their own property to go to that land. They don't need 5 our roads. It was just sold to them as a convenience, and 6 that was part of the cash -- $8.2 million deal that these 7 boys put together, and told us property owners, "You lose." 8 You know, "We're going to take your right-of-way; we're going 9 to give them gate codes, and we're going to give them the 10 little clickers you got." And, you know, anybody can see 11 something unfair about that; that, "No, you got to maintain 12 the roads, but he gets free access," only because it's a 13 convenience to the man. And that was part of our sale for 14 doing the development. We're just going to take it and put 15 the money in our pockets. Nevermind, we wouldn't give 16 anything to the -- to the property owners out here, and we 17 wouldn't put a time limit on those, where if he starts 18 running base trucks and two and a half ton dump trucks up and 19 down our road, we have no right to stop them. So, we're 20 paying for it. But you have a right today to deny that 21 right-of-way. By the law, you do. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner, I -- you know, my 23 comfort level to do what we're being asked to do here is not 24 sufficient, without having the County Attorney specifically 25 look at what authority, if any, we have with regard to the 5-28-13 28 1 request that's being made. And only after I see that, after 2 the research is done, will I have a comfort level as to how 3 we can proceed, if at all, with regard to this matter. So, 4 I -- I would certainly suggest that we not -- we not take any 5 action on the request today, but rather have the County 6 Attorney specifically look at what the request is that's 7 being made by this agenda item, and to give us an opinion as 8 to what authority we have, if any, with regard to taking that 9 action. I think that's really what I need to know first. 10 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I agree. 11 COMMISSIONER MOSER: I agree. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with that, Judge, 13 only there's something about what he is saying that rings 14 true to me. And I agree that we need -- he needs to do a 15 study and come in here and give us the law straight up, and 16 let us make a decision. I'm just wondering if it wouldn't be 17 the right thing somehow to cause a "cease and desist" on 18 anything going on out there until he comes back in two weeks 19 or -- two weeks, I guess. 20 MR. HENNEKE: Until -- until I research otherwise, 21 I'd start with a default that we don't have any oversight or 22 authority on this. I can -- I'll certainly be glad to look 23 at it and come back, but I don't advise the Court to take any 24 action -- any affirmative action until something is more 25 clear. 5-28-13 29 1 MR. WHATLEY: I hear what the attorney is saying, 2 but then again, just being a layman, I go back to 232.008, 3 state law -- state statute, which clearly says in here, 4 cancellation of subdivision, and it clearly says, dedicated 5 easement or roadway. That is your law. 6 MR. HENNEKE: But just to make clear, too, 232.008 7 deals with cancellation of a subdivision petition. Nobody's 8 done that. It's not on the agenda. The application hasn't 9 been filed. That revision of the statute isn't even 10 triggered. So, I will look at it. I'll be glad to look at 11 it, and I understand what Mr. Whatley is arguing. But I 12 can't say from this point that that provision is even 13 applicable currently, because nobody's looking to cancel the 14 existing subdivision. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. I think we -- we need to know 16 under that specific chapter, or maybe some other chapter, do 17 we or do we not have the authority to do what Mr. Whatley's 18 asking us to do, before proceeding forward. And I just 19 wouldn't be comfortable taking any action on it now until we 20 have that opinion. 21 MR. HENNEKE: I'll be glad to look at it and report 22 back to the Court. 23 MR. WHATLEY: That's all we're asking for, is some 24 kind of fair, up-front hearing. I can read this law. I'm 25 not saying I'm a lawyer, and I'm not. Don't even claim to 5-28-13 30 1 be, nor do I wish to be. But -- 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Don't ever admit that, 3 though. 4 MR. WHATLEY: I never want to be that. But, in 5 fact, that's what's the law said, and this is what we didn't 6 read in Gillespie County. They didn't even go over this. 7 And we still today don't know why they said they had no 8 discretion, but we're having a hearing on the 10th, so we'll 9 find out then, okay. Is that -- anybody else have anything? 10 I'm not the only guy out there. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: I've got some participation forms 12 that are filed generally with regard to -- to the Live 13 Springs matter, and so I'm -- and we've got several more 14 following here in just a moment. But let me ask, 15 Mr. Barney -- Mr. Dave Barney, do you wish to be heard with 16 regard to this particular agenda item? 17 MR. BARNEY: Well, what I can say is I feel 18 basically the same way. Access through the front gate, 19 through Kerr County, access for them to the Gillespie County 20 tract of land, it seems to me that there's something wrong 21 here with no public hearing in Kerr County to be able to 22 speak to that, to be able to voice against that. Something 23 wasn't right. So, I am in agreement with Mr. Whatley. I 24 think it does need to be researched by the County Attorney 25 and by the Commissioners, and let's take a hard look at this, 5-28-13 31 1 whether it be this particular statute that Mr. Whatley cited 2 or some other statute that you all can rule on. Something is 3 not right here about gaining main access through a gated 4 community, paying no dues for the maintenance of those roads. 5 And like Mr. Whatley stated, who knows what the land owner's 6 going to do in the future, and what kind of traffic -- what 7 kind of industrial traffic might be coming through that main 8 gate? So, I'm in agreement. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Ronnie Burrier? 10 MR. BURRIER: Right here. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Do you wish to be -- 12 MR. BURRIER: I don't want to beat a dead horse 13 here. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Let me preface. If you don't wish 15 to be heard on this item, but do on a subsequent Live Springs 16 item, by not participating on this item, you're not waiving 17 your right to participate on the other items. 18 MR. BURRIER: No, I'm fine. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 20 MR. BURRIER: My feeling is the same way. You 21 know, we're paying for the gate; not only the roads, but 22 electricity on the gate, to open that gate, you know, 20 23 times a day for them to come in and out, which translates 24 into 200 times a month. You know, you can do the math on 25 this. Plus the maintenance on the gate. You know, that gate 5-28-13 32 1 has to keep opening and closing. So, anyway, I don't want to 2 take up any more of your time. I feel the same way that 3 Mr. Whatley and Mr. Barney do. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Anyone else wish to 5 be heard with regard to this particular agenda item? Any 6 member of the Court have a motion -- yes, sir? 7 MR. HAMILTON: Gary Hamilton. We've just recently 8 purchased property out there, closed about a month ago, and 9 learning of all this, I agree with Mr. Whatley's position and 10 the rest of the homeowners in Live Springs Ranch. We -- my 11 wife and I are of the same opinion. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. 13 MR. HAMILTON: Thank you. 14 MR. WHATLEY: Can I just add one more thing? All 15 the cooperation that these guys give us, they didn't even 16 disclose that to them. 17 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Okay. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Does any member of the Court have 19 anything they wish to offer in the way of a motion with 20 regard to Agenda Item Number 7? 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't have a motion. I 22 have a question of the County Attorney, though. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: When you report back to the 25 Court, is it going to be an agenda item, or are you just 5-28-13 33 1 going to send a written report or -- 2 MR. HENNEKE: Most likely, I'll just issue a memo 3 to the Court, and in writing, and then you gentlemen can -- 4 can take any following action that you need to. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. All right, thank you. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Any member of the Court have 7 anything further on that agenda item? Let's move forward to 8 Item 8; to consider, discuss, take appropriate action to 9 delay the hearing on Live Springs Ranch. Property owners 10 request more time to evaluate consequences to the subdivision 11 by commanding property. Mr. Whatley again. 12 MR. WHATLEY: This may be something we're for or 13 something we're against, because we don't know yet what our 14 Commissioners Court in Gillespie County's going to do on a 15 hearing on the 10th that they're trying to remove more 16 property, more roads up here -- this. I'm sorry, but that's 17 small. I should have made -- but, you know, going to take 18 it -- you know, we're down -- we have three owners in 19 Gillespie County. They're going to put 8-foot fences around 20 their property. And, I mean, literally fence the guy in to 21 the north on his 30 acres or whatever with 8-foot high wire. 22 That's what the rancher told us. We haven't seen it yet, but 23 they're moving trucks and fence up and down that road right 24 now. This is what we're left with. Now, you see what we 25 started with when we went out and plunked down our -- the 5-28-13 34 1 minimum tract out there is about a quarter million. You can 2 see what we have and what's left. And that's why we're 3 upset. It's not that we do -- we care what they do with 4 their property. That's their property. They can move it, 5 sell it, whatever they want. But when they start infringing 6 on us with right-of-ways, dirt, taking our roads, we went out 7 there for the lifestyle we have. We have a large acreage 8 where we can drive around on our ATV's and we get to look at 9 stuff, and we bought that, and now it's gone. And they don't 10 care. They literally -- it's whatever is in their pockets, 11 and it's over. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: So, your request is that the -- 13 MR. WHATLEY: So we're just asking -- 14 JUDGE TINLEY: -- public hearing be delayed? 15 MR. WHATLEY: I'm sorry, Judge? 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Your request is that the public 17 hearing which we have scheduled -- 18 MR. WHATLEY: Today. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: -- for today, I believe, be 20 postponed, and that it be held at some future date? 21 MR. WHATLEY: Yes, sir. To the -- at least the 22 28th would be fine. I guess if you want to make it on the 23 28th of June, we'd have more information. We'd know what's 24 happening. Us property owners would know whether to file 25 suit, whether to stand up, sit down. We don't have the 5-28-13 35 1 information right now. And this is what they came in to do, 2 was combine this 200 acres, go back to Gillespie County and 3 pull the roads. That's what they're after. So, I'm asking 4 for that delay. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, the resetting of the public 6 hearing would necessitate notices to be given, and so that -- 7 that would dictate the time at which it could be held. 8 MR. WHATLEY: Okay. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Because of the requirement of 10 notice. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge? 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, sir? 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know that -- I've 14 already been asked this. I don't know that we can delay a 15 public hearing. I mean, what authority do we have to delay 16 it? We've posted it. We can delay acting on it, which is 17 the action after the public hearing. Frequently, we do that, 18 but the public hearing is set. We can't just arbitrarily say 19 we're not going to do it, can we? It's been in the 20 newspapers, and it seems to me we have to have the public 21 hearing. We don't have to act on it. 22 MR. WHATLEY: I'm just asking you not to vote on it 23 today, I guess, bottom line. 24 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Yeah. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, that's not a big deal. 5-28-13 36 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. I don't disagree with 2 that. I mean -- 3 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: When the County Attorneys comes 5 back, we'll get some more information, but the public hearing 6 itself -- 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We just have the public 8 hearing and not take any action. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 10 COMMISSIONER MOSER: There you go. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That settle that deal? 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Any more action to be taken on that 14 item? More participants? 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But let me ask you a 16 question. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, sir? 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: In relation to Mr. Letz' 19 concern, to reset this, do we have an agenda item, you know, 20 that says that we're going to create a public hearing? 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We don't do it. We do the 22 public hearing; we just don't take action on it. We -- you 23 know -- 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What about the new one, 25 though? 5-28-13 37 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We don't need a new one. I'm 2 saying we don't do it. We do the public hearing. We don't 3 need a new public hearing, unless they change what -- their 4 revision of plat they've requested. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I thought the request was to 6 have a public hearing at a later time. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: His -- I mean, his request is 8 that, but I'm saying I'm not sure -- the County Attorney's 9 out of the room. The public hearing is set. I think we have 10 the public hearing. We don't have to take action on it, 11 which is what I think he essentially asked us, not to vote on 12 doing a revision. If another public hearing is called, so be 13 it. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just call it without a court 15 order, that's fine. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Anything further on that 17 item? At this time, I will recess the Commissioners Court 18 meeting, and I will convene a public hearing regarding the 19 revision of plat for Lots 13, 18, and 19 of Live Springs 20 Ranch, as set forth in Volume 7, Pages 372 through 378, and 21 being located in Precinct 4. 22 (The regular Commissioners Court meeting was closed at 9:44 a.m., and a public hearing was held in open 23 court, as follows:) 24 P U B L I C H E A R I N G 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Any member of the public that wishes 5-28-13 38 1 to be heard with regard to the revision of plat for Lots 13, 2 18, and 19 of Live Springs Ranch, as set forth in Volume 7, 3 Pages 372 through 378, and located in Precinct 4? Yes, sir? 4 If you'll give us your name and address, and give us your 5 thoughts on this matter. 6 MR. BARNEY: Sorry, one more handout. Morning. My 7 name is Dave Barney. I'm the owner of Lot 14. I'll read my 8 comments to try to be more concise, but this does concern a 9 combination of 13, 18, and 19 tracts of land. I realize you 10 won't take action today, but since I'm here today, I'd like 11 to go ahead and give comments out. Lot 14 adjoins the Lots 12 13, 18, and 19 that the developer proposes to bundle together 13 into one parcel, all of which are located in Kerr County. 14 I'm here to express my concern about this proposal because of 15 past actions which have changed the Live Springs Ranch 16 development, because the current proposal can further impact 17 my property. The Live Springs Ranch subdivision map that I 18 handed to you shows the original subdivision outline, with 19 each tract's current ownership. The dark gray shading means 20 that it's sold. The light gray shading means that tract is 21 owned by the developer. The pink shading means that it's 22 recently withdrawn from Live Springs Ranch by the developer, 23 and as we understand it, sold to TRT Ranch Corporation. All 24 the pink tracts are located in Gillespie County. 25 The developer is here today proposing to combine 5-28-13 39 1 three tracts -- Lots 18, 19, and 13 -- into one larger tract. 2 As I mentioned earlier, these tracts are adjacent to Lot 14, 3 which my wife and I purchased six years ago as one of the 4 first tracts sold by Texas Diamond Property under their 5 vision of large-acreage tracts, and in a gated subdivision 6 that would be enhanced by specific deed restrictions and 7 enforced by a property owners' association for the benefit of 8 all Live Springs Ranch land owners. But then in 2008, the 9 developer proposed a massive replat of Live Springs Ranch to 10 carve up the original large tracts into smaller tracts, 11 starting at 5 acres. We stood before you in Commissioners 12 Court at that time to protest that proposal, which ignored 13 the public -- sorry, which ignored the published deed 14 restrictions of 15-acre minimum tracts, and ran counter to 15 the premise of large-acreage lots when we bought our tract. 16 Which you can see from the map, these lots that are shown 17 with the hyphenated "R," they did receive approval from the 18 Gillespie County Commissioners to replat into smaller 19 acreages. But they did not pursue this further in Kerr 20 County after protest from Live Springs Ranch landowners. 21 In the fall of 2012, the developer filed a motion 22 with the Gillespie County Commissioners to withdraw 23 approximately 1,300 acres, or 44 tracts of land, and the 24 adjacent roads in Gillespie County from Live Springs Ranch in 25 order to sell this as one large parcel to the neighboring 5-28-13 40 1 large ranch owner. This action meant that those tracts would 2 no longer be part of Live Springs Ranch and would no longer 3 be subject to the Live Springs Ranch deed restrictions. Our 4 initial reaction was one of surprise, but our later reaction 5 was one of concern when we learned that the developer, as a 6 condition of sale of this large parcel, intended to provide 7 unrestricted access through Live Springs Ranch for the 8 benefit of the new land owner. They would do this by having 9 the Live Springs Ranch property owners association, which the 10 developer retained sole controlling interest, grant permitted 11 easements through the gated main entrance, and also several 12 other subdivision roads in Gillespie County that adjoin the 13 withdrawn parcel. Currently, Live Springs Ranch lot owners 14 protested this land withdrawal proposal in a Gillespie County 15 Commissioners Court public hearing, but we were told by the 16 commission they had no discretion to deny this proposed 17 motion, and would therefore have to approve the developer's 18 proposal based on state statute. 19 Live Springs Ranch landowners filed a motion for 20 injunction to halt the withdrawal in state district court. 21 In that hearing, defendant's attorney presented argument that 22 the Commissioners did have the discretion to approve the 23 withdrawal for state law, so the District Court denied our 24 motion for an injunction, and the withdrawal of the 1,300 25 acres proceeded. The outcome of these actions was as 5-28-13 41 1 follows. First, TRT Ranch Corporation purchased the 2 withdrawn parcel, and now has an easement through the Live 3 Springs Ranch Subdivision main gated entrance in Kerr County, 4 and subsequently at three additional Gillespie County points 5 within the subdivision. We've already seen increased traffic 6 through the subdivision by their fencing contractors and 7 equipment as they access both their new land purchase and 8 their existing adjacent land as they erect high game fence. 9 Second, TRT Ranch Corporation is not subject to any of the 10 Live Springs Ranch deed restrictions, including those 11 involving high-powered firearms, building and fencing 12 esthetics, livestock and swine restrictions, mineral 13 extraction, and drilling prohibitions. And third, TRT Ranch 14 Corporation does not have to pay any property owners' 15 association dues, and has no obligation to help maintain the 16 remaining Live Springs Ranch subdivision roads, the main 17 entrance, or the electric sliding gate, which they now use 18 unconditionally. 19 So, now the developer's newest proposal is to 20 combine Tracts 18, 19, and 13 into one larger 99-acre tract, 21 presumably in order to sell this as part of the Live Springs 22 Ranch Subdivision, and presumably subject to the deed 23 restrictions that they are -- that are controlled by the 24 property owners' association. But I remind you that the 25 developer still retains sole control of property owners' 5-28-13 42 1 association. Based on the developer's past actions, we have 2 seen ongoing changes to the original Live Springs Ranch 3 development that was sold to us in both vision and property 4 value. Judge and Commissioners, we intend to build and live 5 on our 40-acre tract, and we would welcome adjoining 6 neighbors that comply with the same deed restrictions and 7 association dues to help maintain the subdivision's property 8 values and infrastructure. But we have no confidence in the 9 developer's most recent stated proposal and what may come 10 next. 11 I base this on knowing that the developer recently 12 presented a new motion to the Gillespie County Commissioners 13 for the withdrawal of the remaining unsold tracts and 14 adjacent roads that are in the subdivision located in 15 Gillespie County. Access to Lots 18 and 19, which are 16 located in Kerr County, is required by two of those Gillespie 17 County subdivision roads that are part of that withdrawn 18 motion. So, it's obvious to me that combining Lots 18 and 19 19 with Lot 13, all of which are located in Kerr County, will 20 provide new access through Lot 13 and facilitate another 21 large parcel sale of Live Springs Ranch tracts and roads to 22 TRT Ranch Corporation. But then what's next? If the motion 23 before us today in Kerr County Commissioners Court for the 24 combining of these three lots is approved, will the developer 25 then present a new motion in the future to withdraw the newly 5-28-13 43 1 combined lots from the subdivision for an eventual sale to 2 TRT, resulting in the same scenario of no deed restrictions, 3 no dues, granting a new permitted easement through Lot 13, 4 and increased traffic from TRT Ranch Corporation activity on 5 a previously dead-end cul-de-sac road in front of our Lot 14 6 on that same street? 7 I certainly understand the developer's interest in 8 selling their property to recoup their investment and make a 9 profit. As a matter of fact, they've been successful in 10 selling three original platted lots in the past seven months. 11 But what's disturbing to current Live Springs Ranch 12 landowners is the developer's unilateral actions to 13 disintegrate Live Springs Ranch Subdivision and the apparent 14 disregard to the impact on our property investments that have 15 been made under the developer's representation of a quiet 16 gated community of large-acreage tracts, governed by 17 reasonable deed restrictions and limited access only for Live 18 Springs Ranch landowners. Commissioners, I'm not in favor of 19 combining Lots 18, 19, and 13 as currently proposed. My 20 desire is to see the remaining tracts of land sold as 21 currently platted, and to continue under the same deed 22 restrictions and property owner association fees for the 23 shared maintenance of the infrastructure, with no additional 24 granting of easements to additional landowners outside of 25 Live Springs Ranch. 5-28-13 44 1 Apparently, the state of Texas says that a 2 Commissioners Court has discretion in its decision making. 3 This was argued successfully in state district court during 4 the injunction hearing that I mentioned earlier. So, I'm 5 asking the Kerr County Commissioners to use your discretion 6 in deciding the merits of the developer's proposal on what 7 requirements need to be in place to protect the current land 8 owners in Live Springs Ranch from further impact by the 9 developer's ongoing changes to the subdivision. Thank you 10 for your time and consideration this morning. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. 12 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Thank you. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Any member -- any other member of 14 the public wishing to be heard with regard to the public 15 hearing regarding the revision of plat for Lots 13, 18, and 16 19 of Live Springs Ranch? Seeing no one else -- Mr. Voelkel? 17 MR. DON VOELKEL: My name is Don Voelkel. I'm not 18 a Live Springs landowner. I'm the one that did all the -- 19 the subdivision replat, revision of plat for the development. 20 And, I mean, I'm not trying to say we didn't do what we were 21 supposed to do. I think we've done everything by ordinance 22 for what we're talking about today, just combining those 23 lots. I don't think what y'all had before you has anything 24 to do with what everybody -- everything I've heard from these 25 gentlemen about whether or not they should have access or, 5-28-13 45 1 you know, whether or not that's a homeowners association's 2 deal at this time or what. I think that's a separate matter. 3 But I think -- and Len will tell you that we -- when we get 4 to the item, I think we've done everything as far as 5 combining these lots by the law. And other than y'all trying 6 to enforce subdivision regulations or restrictions, we've 7 done everything we're supposed to be doing, I think. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 9 MR. DON VOELKEL: And if y'all have any questions, 10 let me know, but I just wanted to tell on you behalf of the 11 surveyor end of it, we've complied with all the 12 restrictions -- I mean, the regulations, state and local, 13 subdivision ordinance. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, sir? 15 Come forward and give us your name and address. 16 MR. DOOLEY: Thank you, Judge Tinley and 17 Commissioners Court. I'm Patrick M. Dooley. I'm not a 18 high-dollar attorney from San Antonio. I'm a low-dollar 19 attorney from north of the Pedernales in Fredericksburg. I 20 represent the developer of Live Springs Ranch. We've heard a 21 lot of discussion today about what happened in Fredericksburg 22 when the Gillespie County Commissioners vacated the 23 subdivision. They did that because the developer complied 24 with the state laws and the Gillespie County subdivision 25 rules and regulations and requirements. Today we're here for 5-28-13 46 1 a public hearing on a revision, not a cancellation of a plat. 2 What we're here to do is, as was already discussed by 3 Mr. Voelkel, is to comply with the Kerr County and state 4 subdivision regulations to combine three tracts of land, to 5 combine them into a total of close to 100 acres. And it's no 6 different than a lot of other replats where you combine land, 7 and it's no different whether or not some of these people 8 complaining today had decided that, rather than own 40 acres, 9 they'd like to own close to 100. Whoever buys this tract is 10 going to buy it subject to all the subdivision regulations in 11 Kerr County, the subdivision regulations the state of Texas 12 has, and the covenants, conditions, and restrictions that 13 burden that ranch. 14 Now, it seems like today, they have asked in the 15 next agenda item -- or in the previous agenda item that you 16 take a delay in acting on this request, and it seems like 17 everybody is very concerned about rights. But let's look at 18 this thing from the standpoint of what rights everyone has. 19 When you buy a piece of property, you certainly have a 20 certain standard, a certain set of rights that attach to that 21 land, the right of possession. Nobody's denying these people 22 the right of possession of the land they've purchased. But 23 they weren't guaranteed that the rest of the subdivision 24 would be there for them to enjoy driving around on the other 25 roads, or driving around on the other property. But their 5-28-13 47 1 right of possession to their property is not being denied. 2 The right to control, they still have the right to control 3 their property, within the law, including the subdivision 4 regulations of Kerr County. They still have the right to 5 exclusive -- exclusiveness of their property, the right to 6 enjoy their property. But nowhere were they given the right 7 to enjoy all of the other subdivision property that the 8 developer owned. 9 And when they gain control of the homeowners' 10 association, they'll be able to change the rules and 11 regulations the way that they seem to want them to be 12 applied. They have the full right to dispose of their 13 property with access easements to grant everybody their 14 property. Now, I believe that we've -- the developer has 15 complied with all of the requirements to have this replat. 16 And I know that they have asked you to delay the next item, 17 which would be to discuss and take action on that. But 18 that's why I spent a few minutes talking about what their 19 rights are, and their rights have not been abrogated or 20 denied by the actions of Live Springs. And in addition, 21 quite frankly, they mentioned certain other litigation in 22 state court, which I understand the Court wants to wait for 23 the County Attorney to get back with respect to these other 24 matters, but I don't believe that it would be required to 25 wait for the County Attorney if the subdivision replatting 5-28-13 48 1 requirements have been done with respect to this agenda item. 2 Thank you. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. 4 MR. WHATLEY: One-minute rebuttal? 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 6 MR. WHATLEY: The attorney just said that we didn't 7 have the right to enjoy and use -- the word he used was 8 "enjoy." Under our covenants and restrictions, "common area" 9 shall mean the portion of property owned by the association 10 for common use and enjoyment of the members of the 11 association, including, but not limited to, all parks, 12 recreational facilities, community facilities, pumps, 13 landscaping, sprinkler, pavement and streets. Obviously, 14 it's for our enjoyment, and it's common area. If you go over 15 to roads under our restrictions, same thing. If you go over 16 what they're allowed to do, they're just blowing by what's in 17 these documents that's been filed and sealed in Kerr County 18 and Gillespie County. And claiming we don't have it for 19 enjoyment? Why would we buy out there? We could have went 20 out on Interstate 10 and bought 10 acres. This was a 21 subdivision created, and we use it for enjoyment, peace and 22 quiet, hopefully, and this right here says enjoyment. So, 23 that's my rebuttal. 24 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Question. Is the only -- is 25 the -- 5-28-13 49 1 JUDGE TINLEY: No, not in a public hearing. 2 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Okay. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can't talk. 4 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Yeah. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Anyone -- 6 COMMISSIONER MOSER: I'm listening. 7 MR. DOOLEY: Very briefly, Your Honor, I'd just 8 like to state I don't believe that this replat involves any 9 of the common area. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, ma'am? If you'll come forward 11 and give your name -- 12 MS. BARNEY: My name's Niki Barney, and I'm a lot 13 owner on 14 also. And one of the things that they have not 14 addressed by combining the four lots into one, we lose two 15 more lots of dues, another $800 a year, and so it does affect 16 us financially. In addition, if they remove, as they've 17 applied to remove in Gillespie County, they're removing all 18 of those lots also, so our homeowners' association account is 19 going down by the minute, so it does affect us financially. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Anyone else? At this 21 time, I will close the public hearing regarding the revision 22 of plat for Lots 13, 18, and 19 of Live Springs Ranch, as set 23 forth in Volume 7, Pages 372 through 378, located in Precinct 24 4, and reconvene the Commissioners Court meeting. 25 / 5-28-13 50 1 (The public hearing was concluded at 10:04 a.m., and the regular Commissioners Court meeting was 2 reopened.) 3 - - - - - - - - - - 4 JUDGE TINLEY: And I will call Item Number 10; 5 consider, discuss, take appropriate action for the Court's 6 final approval regarding the revision of plat for Lots 13, 7 18, and 19 of Live Springs Ranch, as set forth in Volume 7, 8 Pages 374 through 378, and being located in Precinct 4. 9 Looks like we've got this one wrung out pretty good. What's 10 the pleasure of the Court? 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I think my comment is a 12 little bit -- and I -- part of this is, I'm confused. I 13 really don't want to take action, 'cause I really don't 14 understand what's happening in Gillespie County. And I'm 15 really not that -- and I don't care a whole lot what they do 16 in Gillespie County related to subdivisions, but the -- our 17 rules, and I'm paraphrasing, but I think generally on 18 revision of plats, is as long as it does not adversely affect 19 the other lots. If, as I've heard, all of the roads in 20 Gillespie County have been abandoned or vacated, which I 21 don't know -- I don't see how that can happen, because 22 there's three lots that were sold up there, but some of them 23 may have been. It could -- it changes the -- I guess, the 24 possible traffic pattern of roads and all that in the Kerr 25 County portion. And if 14 -- or whatever that road is that 5-28-13 51 1 goes by the lower side of access to Lot 14, becomes a, you 2 know, different -- a thoroughfare or something like that, it 3 does have an impact on that property owner. 4 So, I really -- you know, I'm confused at what they 5 did in Gillespie County, and for that reason -- and I really 6 would like to hear from the developer what they plan to do 7 with the rest of the lots in Kerr County. Because doing it, 8 to me, piecemeal, is -- is not the way to do it. I'd like to 9 see what they're trying to do. And I have no problem -- I 10 mean, you know, if they want to abandon lots and sell it to 11 TRT Holdings, I -- I will support you in that and I'll vote 12 for that. But I do think we do have an obligation to -- you 13 know, a piece of property was platted. I don't really care 14 about the HOA and that agreement. The developer controls it; 15 that's just the way it is. We're not going to have any 16 control of that. That can be litigated as a civil matter. 17 But how it affects the -- the rights of some of 18 these property owners -- and the property owner on Lot 14 19 could be impacted, and for that reason, I'd like to defer on 20 it until we look a little bit more -- I really, you know, 21 hope that the next time it comes, I can see a clear picture 22 of what's going on, 'cause I am -- I don't understand what's 23 happening in Gillespie County. And I really don't -- you 24 know, like I say, only from an access standpoint, and it 25 doesn't really have relevance to me, but I think that is part 5-28-13 52 1 of it. 2 COMMISSIONER MOSER: I need clarification too. The 3 question I was going to ask a while ago is, is the only 4 common property the roads? So that's -- that's the common 5 property out there? 6 AUDIENCE: Yes, sir. 7 COMMISSIONER MOSER: And I tend to agree with 8 Mr. Letz. On the other hand, this Court approves replatting 9 for a lot of things very similar to this, and I don't -- you 10 know, I think if we say no to a request for replat, we ought 11 to have a reason to say no, because we're setting a 12 precedent. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I agree totally with 14 that, and I -- I mean, from what I know, I would anticipate, 15 unless -- if I had to vote right now, it would be to support 16 the revision, but I don't want to vote right now. I really 17 would like to hear more information from the County Attorney. 18 The other -- the difference between this and other plats is 19 that we do have people saying that it does adversely impact 20 them, and for that reason, I think it deserves a little bit 21 closer consideration. 22 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Generally, on revision of 23 plats, there's no -- there's no opposition. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No opposition. If there's no 25 opposition, you know, then you do it. If there is 5-28-13 53 1 opposition, I think we have to look at that a little bit more 2 closely. And this clearly is from the adjoining lot owner 3 here, who thinks that it may have an impact on his property. 4 You know, and it may or may not, but I think that the -- you 5 know, for that reason, deferring makes sense to me. But I am 6 just confused about exactly what has been happening in 7 Gillespie County, because I've heard different terminology. 8 I mean, Mr. Whatley was using -- I'm not sure the term he 9 used, but then I heard the attorney representing the 10 developer use the word, actually, "vacated," and what was 11 done up there and what's happened to these roads does have an 12 impact on what happens in Kerr County, because the access 13 comes from both sides, I believe. 14 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, it's mainly in Kerr 15 County. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mainly from Kerr, but it does 17 have some access. And, you know, it's -- this -- the 18 property owners understand this. I mean, from my standpoint, 19 you know, if its primary access is through Kerr County, I 20 understand your concern about people using -- going through 21 your subdivision, but I think the developer probably has a 22 right to do that. I mean -- 23 COMMISSIONER MOSER: But it seems like that -- 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's just unclear to me. 25 COMMISSIONER MOSER: The agenda item only pertains 5-28-13 54 1 to Kerr County. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mm-hmm. 3 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We can't do anything about 4 Gillespie. 5 COMMISSIONER MOSER: So, therefore, does the Court 6 have the authority to say no to the request based on -- 7 what's the basis for saying no? 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The basis for saying no, to me, 9 is that I want to further look and visit with the County 10 Attorney about Lot 14, and -- 11 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Okay. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- his concerns, because he is 13 a Kerr County resident. Or -- 14 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's my concern. I think 15 we need to look at it a little bit closer. You know, as far 16 as combining lots, we do that stuff all the time. And that 17 -- and there are -- to my knowledge, we've never had one 18 opposition to any of those. I mean, we -- we encourage that. 19 But in this case, it could affect the integrity of the 20 subdivision as platted, and I think -- you know, if you're 21 going to vacate a plat, you got to go through that process. 22 And what this proposal is right now is not to vacate; it's 23 only to combine and revise. So -- 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Any member of the Court have a 25 motion that they wish to offer with regard to this agenda 5-28-13 55 1 item? 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think just one last comment. 3 We're not declining, we're just deferring. 4 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Right, I understand. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 6 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Getting more information. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move on. Item 11, to 8 consider, discuss, take appropriate action to approve the 9 annual renewal of memorandum of understanding with Indigent 10 Health Care Solutions, software provider for the Kerr County 11 Indigent Health Care program, with a fee increase of $4 per 12 month beginning January 2104 -- I think that's 2014. 13 MS. LAVENDER: I believe that's correct, Judge. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Little dyslexia going on. 15 MS. LAVENDER: Right. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: And authorize the County Judge to 17 sign the agreement. Ms. Lavender? 18 MS. LAVENDER: This is just our annual renewal of 19 our software for our Indigent Health program. And, as it 20 states, beginning January 1, they're going to go up $4 a 21 month, so it will be a very minimal amount of money. And we 22 have to have the software in order for the Indigent Health 23 program to operate. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Four dollars from where? 25 MS. LAVENDER: From -- we'll add it to our budget 5-28-13 56 1 for next year. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Four dollars -- from $2 to 3 $4, or -- 4 MS. LAVENDER: Oh, the total amount? It's about 5 4,000 a year. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see, yeah. 7 MS. LAVENDER: Very minimal amount. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. So, it's a -- okay. 9 COMMISSIONER MOSER: So, is this something we need 10 to consider now, or just consider as part of the budget 11 process? 12 MS. LAVENDER: No, we have to consider it now, 13 because the memorandum of agreement has to be signed by the 14 Judge. 15 COMMISSIONER MOSER: I see. Got it. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move for approval. 17 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 19 approval of the agenda item. Question or discussion? All in 20 favor, signify by raising your right hand. 21 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 22 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 23 (No response.) 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Let's go to our 25 first 9:30 timed item; Item 12, to consider, discuss, take 5-28-13 57 1 appropriate action on presentation of the airport fiscal year 2 2014 budget. Let's give these folks an opportunity to clear 3 out. 4 (Discussion off the record.) 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Bruce McKenzie, Airport Manager. 6 I believe that's how we designate your title. 7 MR. McKENZIE: Yes, sir. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Good to have you here. 9 MR. McKENZIE: Good morning, Judge. Good morning, 10 Commissioners. Thank you for this opportunity. This is not 11 a protracted presentation; this should be short. This is our 12 budget for FY '14 that we've been diligently working on since 13 February. We're presenting it to you now and asking for your 14 approval of this budget. I would like to say that we've 15 decreased this budget yet again this year another $20,000, 16 10,000 from each of the owners, which is the City of 17 Kerrville and Kerr County. We're -- we are making an 18 attempt, like I say, diligently to make this airport 19 self-supporting, and we're taking bites out of it every year. 20 So, with that, I'd be glad to answer any of your questions. 21 I appreciate the opportunity to present this to you, as we're 22 required to through the interlocal agreement. And I would 23 request that you approve our FY '14 budget. 24 COMMISSIONER MOSER: I move that we accept the 25 budget as presented to us by the Airport Board, without any 5-28-13 58 1 modifications. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to approve 4 the agenda item and approve the budget as submitted. This is 5 a matter that's been thoroughly vetted by the Airport Board, 6 and all sorts of discussion and gnashing of teeth and all 7 those things that go on with budget discussions. And the -- 8 that board continues to do an excellent job out there, and 9 we're very, very happy with the job they're doing, and the 10 job that you're doing. 11 MR. McKENZIE: We appreciate that. We appreciate 12 your support. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, just a quick comment. 14 One, I received a call from Steve King, board president. I 15 believe Mr. Moser did as well. He generally comes for this, 16 but he was out of town and could not make it back to town, so 17 that's why Mr. McKenzie's here. Always glad to see Bruce. 18 And to echo your comments, y'all have done a great job, been 19 fine stewards of the taxpayers' dollars, both city and 20 county, and continue to move the airport in the right 21 direction, and again, reducing the budget contribution from 22 the City and County, so we appreciate it. 23 MR. McKENZIE: You're welcome. Thank you. 24 COMMISSIONER MOSER: I'd like to make a comment, 25 too. We need to thank Bruce and Jeannie, who've worked very 5-28-13 59 1 hard on putting the draft together, and the board going 2 through several iterations of this and getting it to where it 3 is today. And then to reflect a bit, too, on the last few 4 years, the budget's gone from $600,000 a year to now less 5 than $400,000 a year. I think next year, when Bruce comes 6 before us, there's a potential for this to be reduced another 7 $120,000 or so. The -- the County and the City will take 8 ownership to the -- to the Brinkman facility at the end of 9 this calendar year. That's going to mean a large increase in 10 revenue for the Airport Board and for the City and the 11 County. Also, the T-hangar project is approved. We'd hoped 12 to have it as part of this budget, but TexDOT has delayed it 13 a bit, so I think the glide slope is very good. The glide 14 slope is reducing the budget, and look forward to next year 15 even being lower. 16 MR. McKENZIE: We do too. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions or comments on 18 the motion? All in favor, signify by raising your right 19 hand. 20 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 21 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 22 (No response.) 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Thank you, Mr. 24 McKenzie. We appreciate it. 25 MR. McKENZIE: Thank you. Good to see you. 5-28-13 60 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Appreciate you being here today. 2 Ms. Hargis, thank you for your work with them on this budget. 3 I know you were involved in the trenches with them on a 4 day-to-day basis. We appreciate that. Let's go to Item 13; 5 a presentation by the Community Action Group, Mr. Larry 6 Westfall and possibly others, regarding the Aqua Texas rate 7 settlement and related legislative issues. Good morning, 8 sir. 9 MR. WESTFALL: Good morning. Thank you very much 10 for the invitation. I'm pleased, on behalf of the Kerrville 11 South Community Action Group, to report after 15 months of 12 long and tedious time, an informal settlement of the rate 13 dispute that we had with Aqua Texas, Inc. The settlement 14 constitutes a significant win, I think, for more than 2,000 15 Kerr County residents, and in addition, about 500 residents 16 located in Gillespie County. Under the agreement terms, 17 starting January 1 of 2013, and for the next three years, 18 rates will be reduced between 14 and a half and 20 percent, 19 depending on water usage. And for an average customer using 20 4,000 gallons of water, the decrease amounts to about $10.24 21 per month. In the fourth year, most customers will receive a 22 smaller decrease, but still a decrease of about 6 percent. 23 Noteworthy, I think, in the agreement is that Aqua Texas will 24 not attempt another rate increase for at least three years. 25 Another stipulation is that Aqua Texas waived its 5-28-13 61 1 right under current Texas law to recover more than $700,000 2 it had incurred in legal fees fighting with us and others 3 about this water rate increase. And a final provision I want 4 to reference requires that, upon request, Aqua Texas, Inc., 5 must enter into good faith negotiations with the City of 6 Kerrville for the possible purchase of all or part of the 7 Kerrville South Water System. You will recall that this rate 8 dispute started February of last year, and has gone on for a 9 lengthy period of time, almost as long as Buster's been -- 10 no, I don't want to... (Laughter.) 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Couldn't be that long. 12 MR. WESTFALL: No, couldn't be that long. The 13 original rate increase involved a 65 percent increase in base 14 rate, and a 49 percent-plus increase in gallonage charges, 15 depending on usage, which we thought at the time was quite 16 unreasonable, and I think the outcome of this process has 17 proved that that was the case. It has been a long and hard 18 fight, and we have learned more about water rate setting in 19 the state of Texas than we ever wanted to know; I assure you 20 of that. We appreciate the support very much shown by the 21 Commissioners Court, and also by City of Kerrville. The 22 City, of course, intervened in this process on behalf of the 23 approximately 100 customers in the Kerrville South system who 24 are located inside the city limits, and that had a 25 significant impact, I think, on the final outcome. 5-28-13 62 1 So, that essentially brings us to what we believe 2 and hope is the end of the water rate dispute process. And I 3 do want to mention briefly a piece of legislation that I 4 think we've successfully advocated, which will have a very 5 significant impact on balancing the playing field on this 6 whole thing for the future. As you know, citizen 7 dissatisfaction with the high-handed practices of these 8 for-profit water companies has been intense in this state, 9 and as a result of that, there have been numerous pieces of 10 legislation introduced in the -- in the current session 11 dealing with various issues and making proposals, all of 12 these focused on rebalancing in one way or another the -- the 13 rights and entitlements of ratepayers to dispute what's going 14 on and have some halfway reasonable opportunity for impact. 15 Perhaps the most important legislation of all has cleared 16 both houses in the Texas Legislature, and is awaiting 17 signature by the Governor. 18 I tried to determine the outcome of that this 19 morning before I came here to see whether anything had 20 happened in the Governor's office yet. It's my understanding 21 that if no action is taken after 20 days, this becomes 22 legislation, and so we think we're there on this legislation. 23 This law will change -- will move the regulatory jurisdiction 24 over water rate setting from T.C.E.Q. to the Public Utilities 25 Commission, which many of us believe should have had 5-28-13 63 1 jurisdiction all along, and would have exercised considerably 2 more aggressive regulatory authority relative to rate setting 3 than what has been the case. The bill also authorizes the 4 Office of Public Utilities counsel to intervene and represent 5 ratepayers in future rate disputes. And, of course, as you 6 recall, we had no representation in this at all. We could 7 not afford the $100,000 to $200,000 in legal fees that were 8 estimated to us to secure that kind of representation. So, 9 potentially, this would deal with that problem for the 10 future. 11 There are other features in this same law that will 12 help balance the playing field as well, including a provision 13 for expedited proceedings, instead of these long, drawn-out 14 processes that take place under the -- under the current 15 legal system, and also granting the ability to regulators to 16 defer implementation of rate increases in the future during 17 the rate challenge process. Big, big issue here, of course, 18 for us was that after a 60-day notice period, Aqua Texas, 19 Inc., implemented this rate increase. It's been in effect 20 since last February. And this is totally legal within the 21 process, as it has been stated in the past. During the 22 entire period of litigation, they continued to collect the 23 higher rates, and this is just one more part of this that 24 puts the ratepayer at a major disadvantage. 25 So, all told, we believe our efforts, combined with 5-28-13 64 1 those of many others, have achieved much of what we sought to 2 achieve in this whole process. We're very proud of the 3 Kerrville South citizens who have spoken out so aggressively 4 and so frequently on this whole thing. We have generated 5 hundreds -- virtually hundreds of letters to various places 6 within the Legislature and other places that I think have -- 7 have significantly impacted this process. So, my thanks to 8 you, and -- and to the City of Kerrville as well for 9 cooperating and working in this problem area in a joint way 10 with us. I think it proves what can happen when we all work 11 together to solve these problems. And we'll be happy if we 12 never have to talk about water again. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Westfall, we -- we are extremely 14 grateful to you and those who worked with you in your 15 untiring efforts to pursue this matter. I know there were 16 times when you thought this was going to be a never-ending 17 process, and seemingly it was. But through your leadership 18 and your actions, you've done a tremendous service to the 19 ratepayers out there, and we thank you. We thank you very, 20 very much. 21 COMMISSIONER MOSER: And a service to the entire 22 state for getting that legislation passed. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Rarely do you see the level 24 of -- the playing field leveled up that much. Incredible. 25 MR. WESTFALL: We hope so. If they -- if we just 5-28-13 65 1 don't, through a back door process of some kind, find this 2 all reversed in the final analysis. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Don't go to sleep. 4 MR. WESTFALL: Some of us grow a little cynical 5 over time. So, hopefully victory will stay pure. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, Larry. You're 7 our hero. 8 MR. WESTFALL: Thank you. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mr. Millican, thank you very 11 much as well for your leadership and all the work you did. 12 What are y'all going to do with your free time now? 13 MR. MILLICAN: It's been taken. 14 MR. WESTFALL: I think it's gone, yes. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move to Item 14; to consider, 16 discuss, take appropriate action for the Court's approval on 17 the proposed driveway to access lot 631 in the Southwind 18 Mobile Home Park located in Rancho Oaks, set forth in Volume 19 5, Page 168, located in Precinct 1. Mr. Odom? 20 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. The vice president of U.C.R., 21 which owns the mobile home park -- what we're talking about 22 is off Ranchero there, Buster. And if you would relate back 23 to Page 8 of our agenda, it should show Exhibit A right 24 there; you have a better idea. The gentleman wanted -- 25 proposed originally four lots to us, and on South Trace Lane, 5-28-13 66 1 and this mobile home park is privately maintained. South 2 Trace goes up -- or goes down back toward the creek there. 3 And you can see by that Exhibit A that all this land is 4 inside the mobile home park. What he proposed with two of 5 them -- I didn't have a problem with that South Trace Lane. 6 On the other one, he wanted to put two lots in here off to 7 the right of South Trace, and I told him if he put in two 8 lots, that he would have to build a county road for about 220 9 feet. You can't have a shared easement. So, I told him that 10 I would come to the Court if he would put one lot, mobile 11 home park, and bring it to y'all, back behind, and that he 12 would be allowed to put a driveway in. All the utilities -- 13 they've gone to all the utilities; the water, the sewer, 14 O.S.S.F.'s. All this can be done. The utility easements and 15 all, everybody signed off on it. So, the question is to the 16 Court, can he build a driveway off South Trace Lane to put an 17 extra mobile home in there, which will fit. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm looking at it, trying to 19 figure out -- 20 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Me too. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: On the Exhibit A drawing, I see 22 South Trace. 23 MR. ODOM: What you have is several buildings 24 there. You have one home and then a storage shed next to it. 25 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Give the number. 5-28-13 67 1 MR. ODOM: Sir, that would be number 629. 2 COMMISSIONER MOSER: 629, okay. 3 MR. ODOM: And he's proposing 633. 4 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Which is where? 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, 633 doesn't show up on 6 this thing. That's one of my questions. 7 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Right. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You talk about here, you've 9 advised him to delete 633, and I haven't located it yet. I'm 10 assuming that it's to the right of 631. 11 MR. ODOM: Well, his number's wrong. I mean, we -- 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 13 MR. ODOM: -- messed up. Say, oh, we delete 631, 14 but what we're saying is that he originally proposed four. 15 Now he's coming back with three. That number may have been 16 631. There's only one building there on that lot to the 17 right. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 19 MR. ODOM: That's 629. 633 is what he's proposing, 20 the one. 21 COMMISSIONER MOSER: I'm confused. 22 MR. ODOM: Okay. He originally proposed two back 23 there. The next page, on Page 9, the one behind it shows the 24 631. Mr. Odom messed up. I should have showed y'all Page 9. 25 Page 9 shows 631. 5-28-13 68 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There's still not a 633 on 2 there, though. 3 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Right. 4 MR. ODOM: Does it -- 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Your agenda item, Mr. Odom, talks 6 about approval on a proposed driveway -- 7 MR. ODOM: 631. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: -- to access 631. That's really 9 what's before the Court. 10 MR. ODOM: That's what's before you. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: And what is your recommendation with 12 regard to the specific -- 13 MR. ODOM: I believe -- 14 JUDGE TINLEY: -- proposed driveway? 15 MR. ODOM: I don't see a problem, because you have 16 mobile home parks that really don't have a designated -- they 17 have space, is the way all this was built. This was built 18 before I ever came here, and so that lot is there. What I 19 wanted to do was to make sure that it was compatible with 20 O.S.S.F. and the utilities and water, and that water is 21 available down that easement. 22 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Len, where does -- I'm still 23 confused. I see 631, I see 629, but 631 is a proposed 24 driveway to access 631. 25 MR. ODOM: That's correct. 5-28-13 69 1 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Proposed driveway from where 2 to where? 3 MR. ODOM: From South Trace Lane. 4 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Okay. 5 MR. ODOM: That goes up -- you see two mobile homes 6 to the left. 7 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Correct. 8 MR. ODOM: And come off that road to get back to 9 this proposed mobile home park. A driveway, not a road. 10 COMMISSIONER MOSER: South Trace Lane is part of 11 the mobile home park? It's not a county -- 12 MR. ODOM: It's not County-maintained. It's 13 privately maintained. It's 35 foot wide, which is 5 foot 14 wider than what we need. 15 COMMISSIONER MOSER: So, this is -- 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess my biggest -- is this 17 in the ETJ? 18 MR. ODOM: Yes. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm really more concerned with 20 the City of Kerrville. I mean, these issues, to me, are more 21 driven by fire than anything else, and access and being able 22 to maneuver around in the fire trucks. And -- and that's one 23 of the reasons -- I mean, the few times we deal with these 24 types of things, or these mobile home communities, which I 25 guess is what this really is, is a mobile home rental 5-28-13 70 1 community, but it was done before we had those rules. 2 MR. ODOM: That's right. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Now, part of that -- I mean, 4 the current rules are driven by fire, a lot of the rules and 5 the roads and all that. So on this particular one, I think 6 I'd defer to the City of Kerrville, 'cause to me, it's an 7 emergency issue. And if they -- if they can get this through 8 their process, I would support it. I mean, it doesn't make a 9 whole lot of difference to me, but I think it's -- that's the 10 reason, but it is in the ETJ. 11 MR. ODOM: Refer it back to the developer to go to 12 the City? 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: He has to go there anyway -- I 14 guess it's not a revision or anything, just a driveway. 15 MR. ODOM: It's a driveway. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd still like to get their 17 input, because, gosh, that's an important issue on how a fire 18 truck gets to this -- 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: See, I thought of all that 20 too, but I see it as an enhancement of that -- 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And it may be. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- that emergency services. 23 This opens up a way to get to that end of the property. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: How do they get there now? 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Helicopter. Rusty's the 5-28-13 71 1 only one that can get there. 2 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't have a helicopter. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have no problem, but the fire 4 issue's the only issue, and that's the reason -- in rental 5 communities, you know, that's one of the things that -- 6 MR. ODOM: That's a thought when we redo our 7 subdivision rules. Maybe we really consider everything in 8 the ETJ not ours. 9 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Let me ask a question, because 10 I don't understand. What -- what jurisdiction does the Court 11 have over this? 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's a good question. 13 MR. ODOM: That's a very good question, because 14 it's grandfathered, I mean, under our rules. I mean -- 15 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Yeah, but grandfathered 16 still -- what is your -- what are we changing here? What do 17 we have the authority to approve or disapprove? 18 MR. ODOM: Two mobile home lots back there having a 19 shared easement. That we would have jurisdiction over. They 20 can't have a shared easement. They can have a driveway off 21 an existing road, but to do it the other way, you're going to 22 have to build a county road. 23 COMMISSIONER MOSER: So, is this a plat change? 24 MR. ODOM: Well, this would be -- it's not a plat 25 change. It's -- it's a shared easement. It's in violation 5-28-13 72 1 to have a shared easement; be in violation of state law and 2 our subdivision rules. But under one -- on available land, 3 to me, the way I saw it, is a driveway, a driveway to 631 off 4 South Trace Lane. Pure and simple. And if the utilities 5 could go in -- all the utilities can go in -- 6 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You're saying you're in 7 excess of what you need by 5 feet? 8 MR. ODOM: Yes. The road -- 9 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You really only need 30, but 10 you've got 35, so you got room to get everything together and 11 get access to 631. 12 MR. ODOM: Right. And they have access all the way 13 through, so whatever's there now is accessible. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: How do they get there now? How 15 do they get to 631? 16 MR. ODOM: Come off -- you'll come off 16, off the 17 back side. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: South Trace runs -- 19 MR. ODOM: The back part of the road. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And dead-ends up there right 21 past 640? 22 MR. ODOM: Well, I can't see any more, 23 Commissioner. Yes. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's kind of on the 25 subdivision line. 5-28-13 73 1 MR. ODOM: Right. Now, in the past they proposed 2 to develop that other part that goes down to the creek. That 3 fell through. They didn't develop it, so the road goes all 4 the way through there. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- one more question. 6 Where there's, looks like, three water meters drawn in, -- 7 MR. ODOM: Yes. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- is that a road there that's 9 drawn in? 10 MR. ODOM: No, that is three water lines. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Three water lines. So, the 12 road just ends right there; it goes up past 640? 13 MR. ODOM: Mm-hmm. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why can't they just build a 15 little spur off of South Trace to access that area? I mean, 16 I guess I'm confused as to why we're doing any of this. 17 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Me too. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: We've got a gentleman here -- give 19 us your name and address. 20 MR. GARANSUAY: Craig Garansuay; I'm one of the 21 asset managers for this property. I just want to make a 22 comment that the addresses that are shown for those new units 23 were given by the fire department. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Which ones are the new 25 units? 5-28-13 74 1 MR. GARANSUAY: Let me -- I'm not sure. 2 MR. ODOM: 640, 630, and 631. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 629 is there? 4 MR. GARANSUAY: 629 exists, and I think 631 is what 5 you're looking at. 6 MR. ODOM: Right. 7 MR. GARANSUAY: And that would be the new driveway 8 to access off of South Trace Lane, which would be about 60 9 feet or so -- 60, 70 feet. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, you just want to put a 11 driveway off of South Trace going to 631? 12 MR. ODOM: That's right. 13 MR. GARANSUAY: Yes. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know that we -- I don't 15 see why we need to vote on it. 16 COMMISSIONER MOSER: I don't either. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, it's -- it's private; 18 it's not shared. 19 MR. ODOM: It's not shared. What he proposed 20 before had to be shared. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. I think it's -- build 22 your driveway. 23 MR. GARANSUAY: Thank you. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what I would do. 25 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Just build it. 5-28-13 75 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. I don't think this is -- 2 COMMISSIONER MOSER: I agree with you. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Doesn't require Court approval? 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know why. 5 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Not unless the County Attorney 6 says it does. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's no lots on here, are 8 there? 9 MR. ODOM: There's no lots. That's the reason I 10 say -- that's the reason I came to the Court. There's no 11 lots, but everything that was proposed was done a long time 12 ago. That's a vacant lot behind an existing -- existing 13 home. So, to me, it was don't build -- don't put two; put 14 one. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would encourage you to still 16 visit with the fire department and make sure that -- you 17 know, things like that, because I think that is an important 18 issue in a high density area like this. But I don't know 19 this is within our purview. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I do have one question. In 21 some of your backup, there's a note in here from Mr. Hastings 22 over at the City. It says all of the sewer in the area was 23 in -- was in the attached mobile home park, and it flows to 24 the lift station on Quail Valley, which unfortunately was 25 under-designed and currently at capacity. The new -- the 5-28-13 76 1 three new homes cannot connect at this time. 2 MR. ODOM: That's correct. But O.S.S.F., a septic 3 system can be put in. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, but we just spent a bunch 5 of money trying to get rid of septic systems. 6 MR. ODOM: I -- that's surprising to me too, but 7 that's Charlie's problem. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, but it's our problem too. 9 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Is this -- 10 MR. ODOM: If you pay a man to do something, maybe 11 he ought to do it right. 12 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Is this close to the 13 apartments? 14 MR. GARANSUAY: Yes. 15 MR. ODOM: Yes. 16 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Well, let me add one thing. I 17 think there's been some clarification of some of the new 18 wastewater systems, and that is to add additional capacity of 19 the lift station so that the flow rates going into -- 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what he's saying. 21 COMMISSIONER MOSER: And Charlie didn't understand 22 that until we explained it to him, I think last week, and he 23 says, "Yea, verily, that's okay." 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what he's saying. 25 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Yeah, I think that's okay. 5-28-13 77 1 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's what you said earlier, 2 and part of the grant request -- 3 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Right. 4 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- was going to cover that. 5 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Right. 6 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody on the Court have anything 8 they wish to offer on this item? Looks like not. Why don't 9 we take about a 15-minute recess. 10 (Recess taken from 10:40 a.m. to 10:55 a.m.) 11 - - - - - - - - - - 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to order, if 13 we might, from our recess, and go to Item 15, a 9:35 timed 14 item. Consider, discuss, take appropriate action for the 15 Court approval regarding the amended plat for Lot 1 of Verde 16 Acres, Abstract A0050, BBBC Railway Survey 47, 16.74 acres 17 out of several different tracts there. 18 MR. ODOM: Several different tracts. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: As shown by public records of Kerr 20 County. Mr. Odom? 21 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. The description's enough to 22 confuse you, I assure you. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 24 MR. ODOM: Mr. and Mrs. Burton purchased 5.19 acres 25 out of 21.21 acres, and had the alternate plat approved by 5-28-13 78 1 Commissioners Court on January the 28th, 2013, Court Order 2 Number 33012. After the plat was approved, O.S.S.F. noticed 3 that the sanitary sewer easement was 150, when it should be 4 100, and also the 20-foot water line easement that was 5 released and terminated June of 2002 was placed on the plat. 6 We have resubmitted this amended plat back to the Court to 7 correct the terminated water easement and the sanitary 8 easement radius. We've included in the backup data the water 9 easement termination document. So, at this time, we ask the 10 Court for their final approval on the amended plat for Lot 1 11 of Verde Acres, Abstract A0050, Survey 47, 16.74 acres, and 12 Abstract A0050, Survey 47, acres 5.0, and Document 13-1360, 13 Precinct 2. 14 COMMISSIONER MOSER: I make a recommendation for -- 15 or a motion to approve the amended plat. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 18 approval of the amended plat as requested by the agenda item. 19 Question or discussion? All in favor, signify by raising 20 your right hand. 21 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 22 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 23 (No response.) 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. We'll move to Item 25 16; consider, discuss, take appropriate action to post and 5-28-13 79 1 fill the Assistant Director/animal control officer position 2 as an animal control officer, doing away with the Assistant 3 Director title completely. Ms. Fegenbush? 4 MS. FEGENBUSH: I am going to ask to pass on the 5 agenda item at this time, please. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 7 MS. FEGENBUSH: Thank you. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Let's go to Item 17; to consider, 9 discuss, take appropriate action to give Sandra Moellering an 10 educational increase for acquiring her euthanasia technician 11 certification, which would take her from 14.2 to 14.3. 12 Ms. Fegenbush? 13 MS. FEGENBUSH: On May 10th, Sandra completed her 14 euthanasia training course and passed her euthanasia 15 certificate. I sent her to euthanasia class with the intent 16 to spread out the mental burden of euthanasia. This now 17 gives me only two employees certified to use euthanasia, 18 Sandra Moellering and Nicole Golton. This also allows for a 19 person who is at the shelter at all times to be certified in 20 case an injured animal comes in and must be humanely 21 euthanized immediately. I'm asking to give Sandra her 22 educational increase that she has earned, taking her from a 23 14.2 to a 14.3. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Effective when? 25 MS. FEGENBUSH: Effective immediately. This is in 5-28-13 80 1 -- this is in the budget. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move for approval. 3 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 5 approval. Question or discussion? All in favor of the 6 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 MS. FEGENBUSH: Thank you. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, could we go back to 12 16 just for a second, while she's still in here? You -- are 13 you going to bring 16 back at some point? 14 MS. FEGENBUSH: Yes, I plan to. But I really can't 15 move on that until a decision is made as far as the interim 16 -- interim-ship of me, because I am in that position right 17 now. So, although I need the body really bad, I am going to 18 have to wait on it until a decision is made. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All right, thank you. 20 MS. FEGENBUSH: Thank you. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's go to Item 18; to, 22 consider, discuss, take appropriate action to determine 23 budget impact to hire veterans services officer. 24 Commissioner Baldwin? 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir, thank you. We've 5-28-13 81 1 had considerable discussion in this room on hiring a new 2 employee to handle these issues, and I just thought we needed 3 to have a discussion, and I've got questions. I've got some 4 questions. You know, how do you set a salary to that person? 5 Do you compare it to another person, like the guy that's 6 already out at the V.A.? How do you do that? And is there 7 going to be benefits? What kind of requirements does that 8 person have to be certified? We've always talked about, you 9 know, there's different levels of people that do this kind of 10 work, and the one that we want is the person that can access 11 files in Washington, D.C., and that requires a different 12 certification, as I understand it. You know, what kind -- if 13 we're going that route to be totally certified, do -- when we 14 hire a guy or a person to come in and do that, is that person 15 going to be certified at that time, or is the -- is there a 16 period of time that a person -- it takes a person to get 17 certified, you know, like a year or whatever? Those kinds -- 18 those kinds of things. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Well, Commissioner, as -- as 20 budget officer for the county, I have been working with the 21 Auditor, and there will be, in the budget which I filed, a 22 provision for a veterans service officer and those things 23 that will normally go with that office. There will be 24 benefits, because it will be a full-time position. We'll 25 have to find space for the individual and the appropriate 5-28-13 82 1 things that are needed, be it office supplies and things of 2 that nature. We've probably got enough file cabinets and 3 desks laying around, we can probably take care of that, 4 but -- but we'll equip an office, and -- or at least I'll 5 propose so in the budget. 6 With regard to the compensation to that individual, 7 I think in large measure for budgetary purposes, at least 8 preliminarily, we've been guided by the original numbers that 9 were furnished to us, a lot of those coming from the veterans 10 service officer in Gillespie County. And you're right, there 11 are basically, I think, three levels that they talk about. 12 One is kind of an entry level, and then there's a secondary 13 level of -- of having certain training and certification, but 14 not the ultimate amount or the optimum amount. And then the 15 third level, of course, being one that truly has access into 16 the system and has the better ability to -- to assist 17 veterans in connection with their -- with their difficulties. 18 What we have done is we have plugged in, I think, a -- we've 19 struck an average, I think, kind of between Level 2 and Level 20 3, somewhere in there. Help me out with that. 21 MS. LAVENDER: Rosa Lavender. Jeannie and I worked 22 on it, and we actually put in for the highest level in the 23 budget, because if we hire someone who's already certified 24 and ready to, you know, hit the ground running, we've got to 25 pay them, and at the appropriate deal, and we did put the 5-28-13 83 1 salary in our pay grade and step, all of that. Dawn helped 2 me with that, and we did that at the time that we did the 3 grant. And we just carried over that salary and benefit 4 schedule into the budget proposal that we've put together for 5 next year. 6 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Let me comment on something 7 that Buster raised. I think that Buster raises some very 8 good points here. Every bit of them needs to be addressed. 9 But let me ask Dawn, is this not for any new position, as 10 part of the position description, minimum requirements to 11 satisfy -- to fill that position? And -- and if so -- if 12 it's not, we should have that in there, I mean, what the 13 level of certification is, what the salary range is, 14 benefits, blah, blah, blah, blah, all that. But that's true 15 for any county employee, is it not? 16 MS. LANTZ: Yes, it will be part of the position. 17 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Yeah. So -- 18 MS. LANTZ: Or job description. 19 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Buster raises a question 20 which, to me, ought to be just part of that position, if it's 21 a new position for the county, county employee. And I 22 certainly agree with the Judge on the need and the work that 23 we've looked at, okay. The V.S.O. is clearly a benefit to 24 the county, but I also agree with Buster that it be well 25 defined, and so we understand what the requirements and scope 5-28-13 84 1 will be. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess I have a question. And 3 I was clear on this when we started. (Laughter.) 4 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Weren't we all? 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But since then, it's gotten 6 rather gray. And I say that because, I mean, I was very in 7 favor of -- it came to -- presented to us as a Court that 8 this was a void that needed to be filled, and it needs to be 9 filled, in my mind. But since then, we've had, I believe, 10 one individual who has a certification, but deals with 11 disabilities or certain -- you know, a segment of the veteran 12 population, and then there's -- there is a person at the V.A. 13 that does it, so he says. 14 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Two. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or two. From what I hear from 16 many of the veterans, that person doesn't do anything. So, I 17 mean, I'm kind of -- or doesn't do much. So, I mean, my 18 question is, you know, exactly what do we need? I guess, is 19 -- you know, and I'm not clear on that. And maybe this is 20 going to have to come up in the budget process. I don't know 21 if it's now or then, but at some point, I need to understand 22 as to exactly what it is that we need to fill. I do agree 23 that evidently this service is not being -- or this is not 24 being taken care of properly, and it needs to be. But I'm 25 trying to figure out how we get there. And early on, we 5-28-13 85 1 talked about some sort of interlocal, possibly with Gillespie 2 County, and that's not off the table, and I'm wondering why 3 that's not even discussed any more, because there was some 4 way to get into this more -- a slower process. Originally, 5 we talked by phasing into it part-time and build, and now it 6 looks like much more going into hiring the higher 7 certification right at the beginning. So, I'm just kind 8 of -- a lot of this discussion -- I think we just need to 9 have more discussion on it so that I know what we need to 10 approve. 11 COMMISSIONER MOSER: I think there's multiple steps 12 here. Number one, you need to have, assuming that would go 13 with what's being discussed, the position description which 14 clearly delineates what that position is and requirements. 15 That's Item Number 1. Item Number 2, do we take that 16 approach, or do we do something like you're saying, 17 something -- some interlocal agreement with Gillespie or some 18 part-time position, which would be, you know, an intermediate 19 step, and what are we trying to -- what are the benefits? 20 And I think it's been presented to the Court, with 5,900 21 veterans, -- and this will be part of the budget discussion, 22 I would assume -- that there is significant additional 23 revenue that can be brought into the county if we have the 24 position. So, if it's a full position or a part-time 25 position, whatever, and I think that's the decision -- 5-28-13 86 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 2 COMMISSIONER MOSER: -- we have to make. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: For budgetary purposes, which is 4 what we're looking at now, we have intentionally hit the high 5 end of the employment. This does not preclude us from doing 6 something part-time. 7 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Correct. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: It may evolve initially, the 9 part-time to evolve into full-time. But if the decision is 10 made for a full-time, and you have someone that presents that 11 has all these required certifications, we got to have the 12 money in the budget in order to be able to take care of that 13 individual. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No doubt about it. That's 15 very wise. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: We've not foreclosed any options 17 insofar as whether or not this is going to be a part-time or 18 full-time position. What we have done or are doing in the 19 budget that's going to be presented is we're going to have an 20 allowance there for the best that we can get at this point. 21 With regard to some interlocal agreement with Gillespie 22 County and their service officer over there, there have been 23 some discussions about that, and I think the feeling is 24 that -- that based upon those discussions, the Gillespie 25 service officer, she feels like she's got a lot on her plate 5-28-13 87 1 over there, and -- 2 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's what I got out of it. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: With regard to the need for a 4 veterans service officer here in Kerr County, one that's 5 truly performing as he should perform -- he or she should 6 perform is going to have all on their plate that they know 7 what to do with. There are all sorts of outreach programs, 8 and the number of veterans initially, I think, is going to 9 probably, once the word gets out, inundate this officer, and 10 there's going to be a lot of catch-up having to be done. But 11 that's why we need the officer. But we're making allowance 12 for the maximum that -- for budgetary purposes. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, that answered my 14 question. I don't know -- I don't know what you base that 15 on. You know, is there an average amongst V.S.O.'s in the 16 state of Texas, or you know how that happened? But it 17 doesn't matter. You answered my question. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. This is based largely on the 19 numbers that we got that were presented to us by the group 20 that -- that worked hard to put those numbers together. And 21 if you'll recall, they, in essence, said if you want -- if 22 you want to staff up a V.S.O., here's what you're looking at 23 for an entry-level position. Here's what you're looking at 24 for mid-level certification, and here's what you're looking 25 at for -- for the max certification -- optimum certification. 5-28-13 88 1 And that's what we've based ours on, in large measure. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So -- and another -- another 3 part of my questioning is, let's say you bring a person in 4 that is at entry level and is going to require some education 5 to reach that point that we want, that needs to happen. How 6 long does it take a person to obtain that education -- that 7 certification, and who pays for it? How does all that work? 8 Or is that -- are we going to have a V.S.O. sitting around 9 here doing nothing for a full year? Or -- well, I know 10 you're laughing. I laughed the first time I thought of that 11 too, but -- but that's a real question. 12 MS. LAVENDER: Can I answer that? It's going to 13 take about two years for someone who would come in at the 14 entry level, through training, to be able to have a V.S.O. 15 officer. A lot of the training is provided, but we'd have to 16 pay travel and whatever expenses that the person would need 17 to go through the training. Our hope is that we won't start 18 with an entry level. We would hope to start with someone -- 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, sure. 20 MS. LAVENDER: -- higher up, because of the need -- 21 the current need for the underserved and the unserved people 22 in this community. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand that, and I 24 appreciate that very much. I'm approaching this thing as a 25 -- I want to see what's going to go in the budget, and I want 5-28-13 89 1 to participate in it. I don't want to wait until we get 2 ready to vote on the budget and then say, "Oh, yeah, is that 3 V.S.O. officer in there?" I'd like -- I think it's important 4 enough that we deal with it, and as we go along, from this 5 point on. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: I think we've got those numbers, at 7 least in draft form. 8 MS. LAVENDER: We've got it right in the area of 9 65,000 a year. That's everything. That's -- that covers it 10 all. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Everybody in the room knows 12 about it but me. 13 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Or me. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All right. Now, you know 15 quite a bit about this, don't you? 16 MS. LAVENDER: Yes, sir. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All right. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: If you'll recall, she worked on the 19 grant. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I do recall that. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: And that's where she came from. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tell me, what is the 23 shortcoming of the young man that's out at the V.A. that is a 24 V.S.O.? That's a special -- 25 MS. LAVENDER: Well, the V.A. people don't go out 5-28-13 90 1 and do community outreach, and I think that's probably the 2 major thing that we need. We've got people out in this 3 community that need services that are not being served, 4 because they have no singular place to come to seek those 5 services where they would get the kind of support that they 6 need. The outreach in the nursing homes, assisted living 7 facilities, people in their homes, the people in the V.A. 8 don't do that. And that's -- you know, it all -- it's kind 9 of like my program, when we brought everything together under 10 one umbrella. You're bringing this together under one 11 umbrella, with one person holding the umbrella. You've got a 12 lot of support people in the community. You need someone at 13 the -- at the lead of it to put all of those resources 14 together. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I don't -- I don't get 16 it. There's already a guy out there that's paid by somebody 17 else. 18 MS. LAVENDER: But he also serves 15 other 19 counties, I believe, in this -- 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that the issue? 21 MS. LAVENDER: Yes. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Now we've -- 23 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Now we're beginning to get 24 somewhere. 25 MS. LAVENDER: And many counties -- 5-28-13 91 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But he does his job, doesn't 2 he? 3 MS. LAVENDER: Sir? I don't know; I'm not aware of 4 that. But many counties with populations of 5,000, 8,000, 5 20,000 people have V.S.O.'s, and have had them for years. 6 And this county has 50,000 people, and there's more veterans 7 in Kerr County than there are in a lot of counties that have 8 a V.S.O. population. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, it just seems to me -- 10 MS. LAVENDER: And we -- 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- it needs to be 12 considered. One of the things we need to consider, then, if 13 this fellow's not doing his job, he's too busy because he has 14 a catchment area that's large, much like State Hospital, 15 probably, that we -- one of the options would be that we hire 16 support staff for him. 17 MS. LAVENDER: No. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What do you mean, "no"? 19 COMMISSIONER MOSER: It's an option. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What do you mean, "no"? 21 MS. LAVENDER: Well, where are you going -- how are 22 you going to have county people working at the V.A. Hospital? 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have no idea; that's not 24 my business. It's his. But -- but it needs -- that needs to 25 be talked about. Don't tell me no. 5-28-13 92 1 MS. LAVENDER: Okay. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Of course that can be done. 3 But the thing is, y'all don't want to do it. You want to 4 have your own employee in the courthouse. Where's the big 5 fellow that's in here all the time? No. 6 MR. HILL: Right here. Jim Price, you're asking 7 about? 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, I'm not asking anything 9 about Jim Price. Oh, Gary. 10 MR. HILL: Gary Noller? He's right here. 11 MR. NOLLER: I'm right here. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There he is right there. 13 MS. LAVENDER: There he is. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Gary was in here last -- 15 last meeting and made the statement, "We want this employee 16 in the courthouse so veterans can find him." Are you saying 17 that veterans can't find the V.A. Hospital? I don't get 18 that. So, that just -- that wasn't a real question; it just 19 points out to me that y'all simply want your own guy, and why 20 don't you say that? 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Alan? 22 MR. HILL: My name is Alan Hill. I'm an accredited 23 veterans service officer, accredited by the Department of 24 Veterans Affairs to represent veterans filing claims. To 25 answer some of your questions, the gentleman at the Texas 5-28-13 93 1 Veterans Commission, at the V.A. Hospital, was newly hired 2 after Mr. Monroe -- Steve Monroe died on September the 6th; 3 Fred Jack was hired to take his position and try to assist. 4 He handles the veterans at the V.A. Hospital that come there 5 for outpatient, and he handles the inpatient ones. Myself 6 and my partner, who has just been accredited about nine 7 months ago -- I've been doing this now for five years or 8 more. We are now located at the old National Guard Armory, 9 so there are places people can get to. But what the county 10 service officer would do would be a person that would travel 11 to the nursing homes, for the people who cannot come to us. 12 They would travel to the people out into Harper, Mountain 13 Home, Hunt, Ingram and all like that, that are having a hard 14 time getting out of their homes and like that, and they need 15 services to be able to get their claims or their benefits 16 through the Department of Veterans Affairs. 17 So, is a county service officer needed? Yes, sir, 18 a county service officer is needed to be able to provide 19 these services. I provided the services at the -- I was at 20 the V.A. Hospital until just a few days ago, when we finally 21 got our own place and moved in, but I handle 17 counties. I 22 have approximately -- right now on record, I have about 23 350-plus veterans that have open claims against the 24 Department of Veterans Affairs. Believe it or not, two of 25 them are from the state of Maryland, two from the state of 5-28-13 94 1 Washington, one from South Dakota, one out of Louisiana, and 2 one out of Missouri, besides Kerr County and the other 16 3 counties in Texas, so I'm handling people from all over. 4 They come to me. They file their claims. But there's people 5 that cannot get -- I know a veteran that lives right down 6 near me off of Ranchero Road. He has a hard time getting out 7 of the house, even getting his own food and like that. He 8 has to have people go shopping for him. 9 This is where a county service officer could come 10 in. He could go to that place, provide those services, 11 'cause he can carry a laptop with him, fill out all the 12 information. He can carry a printer with him, print it off, 13 get the veteran to sign it, and send it in. So, this would 14 provide that service that is needed. The young lady here 15 spoke -- where was she? Okay -- that it would take two years 16 if you hired a basic person. Talk to Tami King, which I 17 have. It takes approximately five years, 'cause this person 18 has to go through an internship, a mentoring and all like 19 that, and they have to follow the guidelines that are set up 20 by the County Veterans Service Officer Association. It's 21 taken me a good while. I mean, I started -- I got my 22 certification in September of 2007, and I've been going every 23 year. I have to recertify with a minimum of 32 hours each 24 year. Tami has to go twice a year. 25 You know, it's -- it's not just you get somebody to 5-28-13 95 1 start right off the top of the game and be able to do this, 2 unless you can find a person that is fully certified and 3 fully accredited like Tami. Then you would have that person. 4 There really is nobody here in this area. I'm closer to it 5 than a lot of people, and I do have access to veterans' 6 records and all like that through the Department of Veterans 7 Affairs, 'cause our organization now has opened that up to us 8 just in the last three months. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Alan, are you saying that 10 Mr. Jack is not fully accredited? 11 MR. HILL: No, he is not. He just started. He had 12 the initial training, which the initial training is a 40-hour 13 online with the National Veterans Legal Service program. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see. 15 MR. HILL: And the 40 hours through the Texas 16 Veterans Commission. That is the basic training. He has it. 17 I had it when I started out. You have to have that 80 hours 18 to start with. You have to have a minimum of 32 hours a year 19 continuing on. T.V.C. and the county service officers do it 20 twice a year, so they're actually doing 64 -- 60 to 64 hours 21 a year of recertification. It's going to take him time, 22 because he has to be mentored through -- he doesn't even have 23 access right now to the V.A. records. I've talked to Fred a 24 couple times, and he says, "Hey, Alan, can you look this up 25 for me, cause I can't get to it." So, you know, it -- it's 5-28-13 96 1 an ongoing training process that has to be -- you know, has 2 to be done. But it is something the County really needs. A 3 part-time position -- you cannot do this with a part-time 4 position and get accredited. It has to be a full-time, 5 40-hour position as required by the C.V.S.O., the County 6 Veterans Service Officers Association. You have a part-time 7 person down in Bandera County. I forget her name, but she's 8 down there. She does not have full certification like Tami 9 does, 'cause she is only part-time. She's a real estate 10 agent three or four days a week and a veterans service 11 officer one to two days a week. You know, it just -- 12 COMMISSIONER MOSER: But, Alan, could you -- if we 13 could magically find a person that's fully accredited at the 14 highest level, -- 15 MR. HILL: Yes. 16 COMMISSIONER MOSER: -- and the person wanted to 17 work part-time, that would still be -- 18 MR. HILL: It would be fully accredited, but my 19 understanding is they have to keep their accreditation up, 20 and to do so, they are supposed to be a full-time employee. 21 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Oh, is that to get -- to 22 maintain the accreditation? 23 MR. HILL: My understanding, yes. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Ah. 25 MR. HILL: Like ours, yes. I'm a volunteer. I 5-28-13 97 1 don't get paid for what I do. I'm retired; I can get away 2 with doing things like that, that, you know, other people 3 can't do. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 5 MR. HILL: But any other questions? 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think just kind of -- not a 7 question, more of a comment. And, you know, I think the -- 8 there's a number veterans in the room. There's nothing 9 that -- certainly, by me, and I don't think the rest of the 10 Court -- of not trying to do this. The issue that comes up 11 is funding. And if this cost gets to the point of being 12 100,000, something like that, annually, you know, that -- it 13 becomes a budget issue as to how we prioritize and what we 14 do. And if it -- if it's -- you know, so this is very 15 helpful, for me anyway, when I've got to make a decision down 16 the road. Is it kind of an "all or nothing" deal, or is 17 there something in between that we can do? Or -- you know, 18 so that's why. It's not that -- you know, from my 19 standpoint, that I don't want to do it. I just need to 20 figure out how we pay for it. 21 MR. HILL: Commissioner, there's something to look 22 at along the way also. In the time frame that I started 23 doing this, I have -- up through my last quarter that I 24 turned in, I've brought in 6.9 million dollars into this 25 county on a yearly basis through claims that I've gotten for 5-28-13 98 1 veterans. If you had a full-time veterans service officer 2 for the county, I imagine he could probably do three to four 3 times that amount in a year, so there is more money coming 4 into the county, more tax revenue coming into the county and 5 the city. You know, it would -- you know, it would pay for 6 itself. Not immediately, but it would pay for itself along 7 the way, you know, providing that service. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I -- I mean, the need has 9 been demonstrated to me. 10 MR. HILL: Yes, sir. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know it's needed. It still 12 is -- it's a funding issue. And, you know, money comes in, 13 but it's just one of these issues that, you know, when budget 14 comes -- you know, and we haven't seen our projections for 15 next year, revenue and all that, but when all that comes in, 16 if -- say our revenue is flat, to do something like this 17 means we have to cut. And who do we lay off to be able to 18 hire a new employee? That's what -- that's the mind-set that 19 I've got to be in. As to -- and to me, it's very helpful to 20 understand these issues. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: The other approach, Commissioner, 22 would be, you know, if we were to ask the citizens of this 23 community, the taxpayers, if they'd be willing to have a 24 quarter or half penny increase in their tax rate for a 25 veterans service support. I would hope, based on what I saw 5-28-13 99 1 just yesterday, as a matter of fact, that you can't put a 2 price on these folks. I'm reminded of Commander Cantrell's 3 item that he gave to us, that when -- when veterans sign up 4 to serve their government, they, in essence, each write a 5 blank check to the government for any amount, up to and 6 including their life. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: I, frankly, don't want to be 9 quibbling about how big the check we write to give these 10 veterans the support that they need, and I think the 11 community would -- would agree with me that it ought to be a 12 priority, and it needs to be funded. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I wish -- 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's probably true, Judge, 15 but we want to do that -- or at least I want to, or I think 16 we're doing this -- we do that in a fashion that makes sense. 17 I mean, you -- you do it in the right way. I mean, a blank 18 check, no. But you do it in a fashion that is comfortable to 19 everybody, and you dot all the I's and cross all the T's, and 20 -- and you -- all the options and the whole thing, and that's 21 what I'm trying to do. I'm not opposed to this thing. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 23 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, I'd just like to see us 24 do it right to start with. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, do it right. 5-28-13 100 1 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Just make sure we know what 2 we're getting and what the service is that's going to be 3 provided, and not just say, "Well, we're just going to fund 4 it," and then we don't know the kind of person, what the 5 qualifications are. We don't want to hire somebody that's 6 ineffective. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: That's exactly right. 8 COMMISSIONER MOSER: On that -- on that, could we 9 ask Dawn and Rosa to prepare this position description which 10 has the requirements for that job in there? And that's the 11 kind of thing that Buster -- 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure, absolutely. 13 COMMISSIONER MOSER: We need to have that as part 14 of this process. 15 MR. HILL: And, Commissioner, if I may, you may 16 wish to talk to Tami King. 17 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Sure. 18 MR. HILL: Elliott-King, to speak to her, because 19 she has -- you know, she has gone through the process. She 20 knows it. 21 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Right. 22 MR. HILL: Forward and backward. She can guide you 23 through it exactly, because she's been there; she's done 24 that. 25 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Right. I wasn't precluding 5-28-13 101 1 that; I was just saying -- 2 MR. HILL: Yes, sir, I understand that. Because 3 your county needs this person. I serve approximately 10 4 percent of the veterans in this county. Fred Jack serves 5 approximately 10 percent. That's leaving 80 percent that's 6 unserved. Those are the people that need to be served. 7 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Yeah. I don't want to beat 8 this thing to death, but there's just one other point to 9 make, the Judge's point also. I think it's been fairly 10 clearly documented that all the funds are there for the 11 service for the veterans, okay. The issue is getting it 12 through the bureaucracy of the Veterans Administration. So, 13 once you can -- anything we can do to help that part of the 14 problem, and I think that's what this county V.S.O. would do, 15 then it just makes all the sense in the world to me. 16 MR. HILL: Yeah. I think I pointed that out 17 yesterday at the court -- when we had the meeting. Anyway, 18 thank you, gentlemen. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. 20 MR. HILL: Very much. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. 22 MR. HILL: Appreciate it. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: That's a budgetary item, and we can 24 also work on that job description. Let's move to Item 19; to 25 consider, discuss, take appropriate action to initiate 5-28-13 102 1 process and/or steps to construct a fire station on Ranchero 2 Road on property presently owned by Kerr County. We've got a 3 drainage -- Mr. Price? 4 MR. PRICE: We have a couple people here that have 5 asked to speak on this. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: I understand. I -- I apologize for 7 that. 8 COL. MARSH: Gary Noller just stepped out of the 9 room, and he's our resident expert. I'm Vicki Taylor -- 10 Vicki Taylor Marsh, and I'm the president of the Hill Country 11 Veterans Council, and we focus on the hospital and 12 maintaining that hospital and expanding the services 13 available to veterans. I want to address a few things. Fred 14 E. Jack now has computer access. I've been personally 15 involved in getting Fred computer access to the V.A. records, 16 and that was a hassle between two bureaucracies, the Texas 17 Veterans Commission and the V.A., who had a breakdown in 18 their host/tenant relationship, but that's been resolved. It 19 took a long while. A veteran county service officer, his or 20 her number one priority is going to be Kerr County veterans; 21 that's the point to drive home, and to help our veterans and 22 their survivors get the benefits that they've already earned 23 and deserve. They need that help. As was said, if we get 24 through the bureaucracy, the money's available. We get a 25 huge return on our investment by doing this. We already get 5-28-13 103 1 $58 million from the V.A. in expenditures for disability 2 compensation and pensions and for medical expenses, plus 3 you'd probably double that number for the salary over there 4 at the V.A. If we took care of our underserved population, 5 primarily survivors -- I'm speaking primarily of widows and 6 widowers in the assisted living facilities and nursing homes. 7 That would also bring up that economic benefit to the county, 8 and this is a stable, uninterruptible flow of income, and 9 these people pay taxes and do their business here in Kerr 10 County. Do you have any particular questions for me? 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes. Do you see a 12 possibility -- now don't get mad. 13 COL. MARSH: I won't. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm just asking a simple 15 question. 16 COL. MARSH: I won't. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Of this person housing at 18 the -- at the old armory building, the one-stop shop thing 19 that it seems like everybody's trying to get to? 20 COL. MARSH: I personally don't have any objection. 21 I think where that person needs to be is to have a safe and 22 secure office. We have a number of -- it's all over the 23 news -- military sexual trauma that women veterans primarily 24 suffer from. That's one in four military women who've 25 served. It's one in ten for our civilian counterparts. 5-28-13 104 1 Military sexual trauma does not just affect women; it affects 2 men also, which is a surprise to me, but if you've been 3 seeing a couple of documentaries, "The Invisible War," which 4 is one that was shown on PBS a week or so ago, and most 5 recently "Service: When Women Come Marching Home," they do an 6 excellent job of stating the case for getting help for these 7 women and men me who suffer from military sexual trauma. 8 And many times -- and also the San Antonio Express 9 News just did a three-part series called "Twice Betrayed," 10 and it focused largely on women and military sexual trauma, 11 but men are also affected. I call it "Thrice Betrayed," 12 because many times they don't get that attention by the V.A. 13 that they need. And the V.A. is doing a lot, but it's -- the 14 need is overwhelming for our veterans and -- for veterans and 15 their survivors. So, I see that there is no better way to 16 honor our military veterans and their survivors than by 17 helping them get the benefits they deserve. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. Thank you very 19 much. Judge, do you see a possibility of having the office 20 over there at the -- 21 JUDGE TINLEY: I haven't given it that much 22 thought, very frankly. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I keep hearing about them 24 opening that up to a one-stop shop, and it just seemed like 25 to me it would be kind of a fit. That's all, thank you. 5-28-13 105 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 2 COL. MARSH: One parting comment is we want that 3 person to be accountable to someone. Fred Jack is 4 accountable to the Texas Veterans Commission. He's not 5 accountable to anyone here in the county. That's an 6 important consideration. Tami King responds to her County 7 Judge and her Commissioners on everything. Thank you. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Mr. Price, do you wish 9 to be heard? 10 MR. PRICE: Yeah, I've got just a couple words. 11 Buster, don't get mad. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm not mad. You got your 13 hat on, though, and it's against the rules to have your hat 14 on in this room. 15 MR. PRICE: I'm James Price; I live at 210 16 Coultress Road in Kerrville, Texas. I am a veteran, and I 17 work for a nonprofit that helps homeless veterans, primarily. 18 I am probably the only person in this county, in the five 19 surrounding counties, that does outreach to veterans. I've 20 helped 190 homeless veterans in the last little over a year. 21 (Judge Tinley left the meeting.) 22 MR. PRICE: I was told when I started there were no 23 homeless veterans here. The county service officer needs to 24 be full-time. I deal with all the surrounding counties, and 25 the part-time service officers are useless. And I'm not 5-28-13 106 1 being nasty, but even the veterans will tell you they're 2 useless. They don't know -- they're mostly not veterans. 3 They work half a day a week to a day a week, and they are not 4 certified. They can't really do anything. In fact, they 5 refer people to me constantly, because I am the -- the only 6 person around here that has built a network of Alan and Gary 7 and, you know, everybody around here that can help veterans. 8 That's what our county veterans service officer does. I'm 9 not going to be here much longer. I'm in my mid-70's, and my 10 grant will probably run out in another year or so, and, you 11 know, we need one here. That's all I want to way. Thank 12 y'all. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, sir. 14 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Thank you. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Ramos? Ms. Ramos? 16 MS. RAMOS: Well, we made it just before noon, so 17 it's still good morning. I'm Alison Ramos. I live at 139 18 Riverpark Drive, Ingram, and I'm the survivor/widow of a 19 World War II veteran who died at the end of July. And I'm 20 going to quote Judge Tinley right now. I am begging you guys 21 not to gnash your teeth when you consider the expense of a 22 veterans service officer. Mainly, my point of view is that I 23 applied -- and this just happened -- in August for the burial 24 benefits for my husband, 300 bucks. Now, it's not much. 25 Well, knowing what's going on up in headquarters, shall we 5-28-13 107 1 say, time went by. I went to see my Texas service veteran 2 officer, charming gentleman. "I can't get anything 'cause I 3 can't get on the computer, Mrs. Ramos." Okay. Okay. So, it 4 went on, and finally beginning of this month, I got a check 5 for 300 bucks, and I immediately deposited it, because I'd 6 already spent my money on that. 7 I think, from my point of view, you need the 8 service officer to help people once they've applied for the 9 darned things. I've got other applications as well, but, you 10 know, I'm not going to hustle that along. But in the 11 meantime, you know, it's pretty discouraging for us just 12 common folks to be told, "Well, we can't tell you anything, 13 we don't know what's going on." And so then you go home and 14 you think, well, how the hell am I going to get through the 15 next few months or so on what I've -- the money I've got? 16 I'm fairly lucky in that respect, but I am just begging you 17 that it's really important, and it's important for Kerrville 18 to announce to the rest of Texas that you're doing this, and 19 not be shamed -- shamed -- by the other counties like 20 Gillespie who have had somebody doing this job for a long 21 time. And I think -- you know, just think of it. You know, 22 we go by, well, you know, what's Kerrville doing -- or Kerr 23 County doing about this? Well, you know, they're not doing 24 very much, okay? So, please don't gnash your teeth. Please 25 get on with it. 5-28-13 108 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, ma'am. 2 MS. RAMOS: Thank you. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Anyone else? Leonard, do 4 you want to fire a shot at this thing? 5 MR. ODOM: No, sir. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge Tinley has had to 7 leave for the day, and he left on one of his agenda items. 8 Do we know anything about -- about the fire station, 9 Kerrville South? 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm -- 11 COMMISSIONER MOSER: I had a bunch of questions of 12 the Judge, but he's gone. 13 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I thought that was your 14 bailiwick. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, it's in his precinct, 16 but it's the Judge's agenda item. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I talked to him briefly about 18 it. He mentioned just what the agenda item is; he thinks we 19 need to move forward. I don't know that it's going to make 20 that much difference if we pass on this and move forward in 21 two weeks. 22 COMMISSIONER MOSER: I would think move past -- 23 past it, move forward. I was going to ask a couple of 24 questions of the Judge or whoever. I think this is a good 25 idea. On the other hand, is this spot more important than 5-28-13 109 1 another place to have a volunteer fire department? I don't 2 know the answer to that. I think that's a question we need 3 to ask. The other thing is, what is the -- what is the 4 policy and past history of this Court in building volunteer 5 fire department stations and locations? I know in some, the 6 County hasn't contributed anything, so it's just a policy 7 question. I think that as we bring this forward, we need to 8 ask. I'm not against it; I'm just -- there's just some -- 9 what are those other priorities? 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You know, the property was 11 donated to us, and shortly thereafter the lady deceased, but 12 it's earmarked for a fire station. I don't know if you can 13 do anything else to it. 14 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Well, okay. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's move on. 16 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Let's do. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Item 20; consider, discuss, 18 take appropriate action to approve contract with Ricoh U.S.A, 19 Inc., for two copiers in the Sheriff's Office. W.R. 20 Hierholzer, the honorable one. 21 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. I believe -- I don't 22 know if y'all got another copy of those contracts or not in 23 your backup. You should have. If not, Rob does have them 24 and has had them. The issue with that is not with the 25 contract itself, but this company also has a master contract 5-28-13 110 1 with the County that went back to '97, something like that. 2 MR. HENNEKE: Before me. 3 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah, before Rob. So, Rob is 4 taking time intelligently to go over that master contract and 5 get it updated at the same time. So, what I would ask, 6 because we are having copier issues, is that you approve 7 this -- it is less money -- pending the final approval 8 arrived on the master contract. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 10 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Motion and second. All in 12 favor, please say "aye." 13 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Motion passes. I'm going to 15 skip over and go down to Item 1.23; consider, discuss, and 16 take appropriate action regarding 216th District Attorney 17 assistant district attorney position. Commissioner Jon Letz. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I put this on the agenda. I 19 think a lot of it has been resolved since then. It came up 20 originally when I got a call from H.R. Department wondering 21 how to process the paycheck for an individual that we didn't 22 know anything about, essentially. And I've talked to 23 Mr. Curry about it, and, you know, the issue is that the 24 individual -- or the new Assistant District Attorney is not 25 working at all for Kerr County, and is being funded by three 5-28-13 111 1 other counties, which is -- is good. The problem is, you 2 know, it's kind of more of a bigger general problem, is how 3 do we -- it goes beyond this -- your office, certainly both 4 D.A.'s, and probably Adult Probation, as to how do we -- when 5 employees are hired that are under the Kerr County benefits 6 program and get a paycheck, how do we get those people 7 integrated into our system? And it probably is going to be 8 some sort of a letter or some way so H.R. knows that this 9 person needs to be, you know, added. Here's the position, 10 here's the salary, all of the various things. But because 11 right now we just don't have a process for it, and I really 12 don't know that we need any action on this particular item, 13 but I do think that I'll bring it back on a future court 14 date, and after I visit with probably the Auditor, who's 15 familiar with these, and the H.R. Department. You know, how 16 do we get these people into the system so that they possibly 17 don't fall through the cracks? 18 MR. HENNEKE: I still think -- I mean, we discussed 19 this deal. And Mr. Curry is here, of course. And even 20 though it's been -- even though it's paid by the other three 21 counties under this arrangement, I still think the statute 22 requires that this Court approve -- you know, approve the 23 salary. So, I guess it's noticed under the agenda item, but, 24 you know, part of how this arose is, you know, the provision 25 of the Government Code says subject to approval of the 5-28-13 112 1 counties within the district, and it discusses an assistant 2 prosecutor position or an investigator or whatnot. I've 3 never heard of this arrangement where you have, I guess, 4 three counties that are saying we're going to fund this 5 specific position. So, you know, budget-wise to Kerr County, 6 Mr. Curry and I have discussed -- and, yeah, it doesn't sound 7 like it has any impact, but, you know, anyone within a 8 judicial district serves the entire judicial district. Of 9 course, he can assign his folks as he wants, but I just don't 10 know that, you know, in a multi-county judicial district, 11 only certain counties, you know, take an action and the rest 12 don't. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's an issue that -- I mean, 14 that issue, I don't -- don't know. My big concern is, how do 15 we get people on a paycheck? But, you know, if we do need 16 to -- I don't know what action we would take, other than it 17 would be, I guess, affirming that the other counties -- or 18 that 216th has a district -- 19 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It's reimbursed or paid for 20 by those counties at no expense. The thing is, what happens 21 to that employee if those counties quit funding it, the other 22 counties? It goes away too? 23 MR. CURRY: Yes, sir. 24 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It wouldn't, all of a sudden, 25 become our responsibility? 5-28-13 113 1 MR. CURRY: No. The -- good morning, 2 Commissioners. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Morning. 4 MR. CURRY: This is -- we call him "Dos" because he 5 just passed the Bar. He had been working with us summers as 6 an intern and law school, and just passed the Bar, and got 7 notified he was Number 2 in the state on his Bar exam. 8 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Wow. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's great. 10 COMMISSIONER MOSER: The level of the office just 11 went up. 12 MR. CURRY: Yeah. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, anyway, you know, what's -- 14 I guess, Bruce, what is your take on what the County Attorney 15 said, that from a -- that the 216th, that we should approve 16 the position? 17 MR. HENNEKE: Approve the salary. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Approve the salary or position. 19 MR. CURRY: Well, I never thought it was necessary. 20 The other three counties have approved it, the commissioners 21 courts. Of course, you've got to go -- like, if he was in 22 Kerrville, I would certainly come through Kerr County, but I 23 never thought it was necessary with the other three doing it. 24 I mean, for instance, if Kerr County denied it, I don't know 25 what effect that would have if the others were paying it. 5-28-13 114 1 There's no fiscal impact, and I'm not sure the reading of the 2 statute would require that it's a judicial district. But, 3 for instance, Mr. Hoover will not be serving Kerr County at 4 all. He is designated only for those three counties. So, 5 anyway, my thought on it was that the other three 6 commissioners courts would be in total control of that since 7 they're paying for it, and he's designated to work only for 8 them. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I don't -- I don't 10 know. We can certainly -- if it makes -- you know, I guess 11 approve the position, whatever the salary is. That doesn't 12 have really an impact on what he's doing. My biggest 13 concern, like I said before, is that we've got to figure out 14 a way to get these employees integrated into our benefits 15 program without a bunch of unknowns, and we'll address that 16 at another -- 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We provide benefits to him? 18 MR. CURRY: No, the other counties provide the 19 benefits. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We provide them; they pay -- 21 they reimburse us. So, we're providing health insurance, 22 retirement, all that stuff. We're -- 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And they pay -- but they are 24 fully paying for them? 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. 5-28-13 115 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I don't -- I don't see 2 how it's much of our business. That's kind of like Adult 3 Probation people, and they just use our system to run 4 through. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I think that we -- there 6 needs to be a -- I don't think we approve the position, but 7 we need to get them integrated into our system. How does our 8 H.R. Department know, other than someone calling up saying, 9 "Hey, I'm a new employee on your benefits package," you know. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I guess that's right. 11 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think you have to ratify 12 it, anyway. Have to ratify the actions or accept -- you 13 know, I guess create a position for that, even though it's 14 not funded by Kerr County. 15 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Sounds like there's two things 16 here. Creating a position is one thing, which I think is 17 what Jonathan's suggesting, which to me makes sense, and then 18 how it gets funded is a different thing, right? But if it's 19 -- if it's created under our county, I think we'd -- 20 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Put it on the list, and then 21 you get paid. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that was the issue. I 23 mean, it came up because the person was on the list, but we 24 didn't have them in our system. 25 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Right. 5-28-13 116 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think all that is -- that's 2 been worked out on this this time, but it's still -- but 3 Adult Probation does the same thing, from what I understand. 4 COMMISSIONER MOSER: So, what you're recommending 5 is that you work with the Auditor and H.R. and get some 6 process -- 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Get a process through. 8 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Good. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And to make everybody happy, I 10 guess I'll make a motion that we ratify the action of the 11 other three counties to authorize the 216th to hire an -- 12 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'll second your motion so 13 Rusty can talk. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- Assistant District Attorney. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We have a motion and a 16 second to do something. (Laughter.) And we're very happy 17 about it. Any conversation? 18 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The only issue I would have is 19 for him mainly, because last weekend the House and Senate 20 both passed, and the bill went to the governor for the 21 redistricting. And the way it reads in that bill is that it 22 would become effective September, and that would -- 23 MR. CURRY: We're going to have to... 24 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That would drop -- 25 MR. CURRY: Two counties. 5-28-13 117 1 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, one county -- well, two 2 of the paying counties out of that, and he would take a 3 drastic pay cut unless this county continues to absorb it at 4 that time, because he's an employee, and -- and take it on. 5 MR. CURRY: No, we -- 6 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I just saw that that went 7 through this weekend. 8 MR. CURRY: Yes. We've got -- when we did this, of 9 course, we thought there were three counties. We didn't know 10 this was going to happen. But, yeah, we'll have to address 11 that. But I intend to keep that for the other two counties, 12 actually. That's -- I'm not planning to bring that into Kerr 13 County at all. 14 COMMISSIONER MOSER: So, your particular motion is 15 a generic -- 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's -- 17 COMMISSIONER MOSER: It's not specific to this? 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's specific to this, but 19 we're just -- just to get this -- the County Attorney has a 20 concern. We're ratifying the hiring of the position that's 21 funded by the other three counties, and it will still go back 22 with the H.R. Department, try to figure out a mechanism so 23 these things don't happen again. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have a motion and second 25 to -- to ratify this position. Any further discussion? All 5-28-13 118 1 in favor, raise your right hand and say "aye." 2 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Motion passes. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Bruce. Good to see you. 5 MR. CURRY: Thank you. 6 MR. HOOVER: Thank you, Commissioners. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, young man. 8 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Congratulations. 9 MR. HOOVER: Thank you. 10 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah, good luck. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's go back to Item 21; 12 consider, discuss, take appropriate action to designate the 13 rainwater catchment system for use by the volunteer fire 14 departments as a water source for firefighting. Commissioner 15 Bruce Oehler. 16 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, I put this on. It was 17 something that we intended to be done with that water out 18 there, and I believe that the connections are already 19 available for that to happen. We just kind of want to make 20 that known, and -- 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What do we have, standpipes 22 that they can hook onto? 23 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Pipe with a couple of quick 24 connects on it for the different kinds of connections. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Fantastic. 5-28-13 119 1 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And it's just -- those tanks 2 are full and running over. 3 MR. BOLLIER: Yes, they are. 4 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: They have been. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I bet they are. 6 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So, I move approval of the 7 agenda item. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have a motion. Is there a 9 second? 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There's a second. Let's 12 see, Number 4 and Number 3, motion and second for approval. 13 Any further discussion? All in favor, please say "aye." 14 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Item 1.22; 16 consider, discuss, and take appropriate action regarding pay 17 increase to Shane Evans for completing County Corrections 18 Officer course certification, requesting grade increase from 19 15.6 to an 18.5, I think, slash one -- oh, yeah, slash one -- 20 effective June the 3rd, 2013. Money is budgeted and would 21 reflect a difference in the current budget of approximately 22 $600 with the roll-ups for remainder of 2012-2013 budget. 23 Mr. Bollier and Ms. Lantz. 24 MR. BOLLIER: Yes, sir. Shane has just completed 25 the jail school over at the Sheriff's Department, and we're 5-28-13 120 1 just trying to get him a little money with it. This will 2 considerably help the Maintenance Department and Rusty over 3 there. If he needs help, you know, and they have the people 4 in the back that Shane can -- trustees that Shane can go and 5 get and bring to the front, without -- if I'm not saying this 6 right, Rusty can tell you what -- without Rusty's people, and 7 Shane can do that on his own. 8 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Basically, he's going to be 9 able to supervise some trustees to help assist in some work. 10 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: What the -- once it's all 11 complete. It's not complete yet. Getting through jail 12 school was the first part. What my plans are to be able to 13 do with Shane -- I've explained this to him -- that we, you 14 know, schedule him for the same thing any other jailer would 15 have to go through; psychological, physical, drug screen. 16 Once he gets through all that, I intend on carrying him and 17 getting him commissioned through Texas Commission on Law 18 Enforcement Officers as a commissioned jailer, as a reserve 19 jailer, okay. What that allows me to do is, when he is in 20 the jail working on plumbing and maintenance issues that we 21 have -- now, of course, if he's inside a cell, my regular 22 policy is still in effect, and two officers have to be in 23 there. But if he's in any other part working, I don't have 24 to assign another certified jailer with him, because he will 25 be one, and it will -- will free up some of my manpower 5-28-13 121 1 issues inside the jail itself, to where he can go work in a 2 pipe chase or something without having to have a certified 3 jailer just standing there next to him the whole time he's 4 there, because he is a certified jailer. 5 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: He can also supervise 6 inmates. 7 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, he won't be doing much 8 of that. 9 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Not much of that? 10 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Not -- not at all, all right? 11 It's mainly to give him access to that -- 12 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: For access only. 13 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: There's all kinds of other 14 policies and procedures I have internally before he could 15 ever do any type of inmate supervision. 16 COMMISSIONER MOSER: So it's a net positive, even 17 with the $600, being able to free up some of your other 18 jailers. 19 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: $600 a year difference. I'll 20 be able to have jailers doing other duties that they should 21 be doing. That will easily make up that difference. 22 COMMISSIONER MOSER: That's why I say it's a net 23 positive. 24 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It's definitely a net 25 positive. You know, it may take us another three weeks or so 5-28-13 122 1 to get him certified, all right, for me to get everything in. 2 But yes, it's definitely a net positive. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd entertain a motion. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Motion to approve. 5 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Second. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Motion and second to 7 approve. Any questions? 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And are we creating a new job 9 description for -- not you. 10 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: For a maintenance person. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: For a maintenance/jailer? 12 MS. LANTZ: Well, with this new survey, we're going 13 to incorporate that in there, into this position. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 15 MS. LANTZ: So that's part of it, yes. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, yes, we will be doing that. 17 MS. LANTZ: Yes. 18 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, it won't be for a 19 maintenance/jailer. It will still be maintenance. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 21 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: One of the qualifications may 22 be that he's also a certified jailer. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Rusty, that's what I'm talking 24 about. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Any further questions? I 5-28-13 123 1 have one. The words "money is budgeted," did we foresee this 2 happening last year when we were doing the budget? That 3 Shane was going to -- tell me about, "The money is budgeted." 4 MR. BOLLIER: We -- 5 MS. LANTZ: He's had an employee that has been out. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So there's extra money 7 brought in from some other place? 8 MS. LANTZ: Yes, sir. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's not actually budgeted 10 for someone to go to jailer's school? 11 MS. LANTZ: No, sir. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. That's what that 13 means to me. When you -- when I see the words, "Money is 14 budgeted," that means to me that it was -- 15 MS. LANTZ: There was extra funds in the line item 16 to cover the expense. 17 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It'll also affect next year's 18 budget. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, it will. All in favor 20 of the motion, please say "aye." 21 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Motion carries. 23 MR. BOLLIER: Thank you. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Item 1.24; consider, 25 discuss, take appropriate action concerning clarification of 5-28-13 124 1 fee structure for recording of plats pursuant to Kerr County 2 Subdivision Rules and Regulations. Commissioner Letz? 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Actually, this will be very 4 short. We did this on February 11th, 2000; we don't need to 5 do it again. 6 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And what? 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Don't need to do it. We've 8 already done it. 9 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Already did it. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We already did it? 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We already did it. And it 12 relates to how you -- the fees we assess on revision of plats 13 and how we do it. And Cheryl found that we already did it, 14 so -- 15 COMMISSIONER MOSER: So no action required. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- we don't need to do it 17 again. The problem is, it's not real clear in our rules that 18 we were going to address that. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Item 1.25; consider, 20 discuss, take appropriate action on agreement with the 21 Friends of the Historical Commissioner -- Commission 22 regarding the Union Church Building. Mr. Henneke? 23 MR. HENNEKE: I don't think there's any action to 24 be taken on this. We had discussed at the last Commissioners 25 Court meeting -- I did get a really nice e-mail from Ms. Dyke 5-28-13 125 1 about their plans for the parking lot improvements, and I 2 need follow up with her about what they want to do in the 3 landscaping. But working on getting that into an agreement, 4 just like we did with the gate and fence, and bring that back 5 to the Court for y'all's approval. Thank you. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, sir. Let's see, 7 do we recess from this meeting to go into executive session? 8 COMMISSIONER MOSER: If we have to. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's see here. 10 MR. HENNEKE: Well, there's -- and before -- this 11 is a -- the last two agenda items deal with negotiations over 12 a contract, so we've done this before. Y'all looked at me 13 weird the first time, but there has to be a vote of the Court 14 that -- agreeing that deliberations on this contract in an 15 open meeting would have a detrimental effect of the position 16 of the Commissioners Court in the negotiation. Y'all agree 17 that that is the case, and we can go into executive session. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You need an actual vote? A 19 full -- like, a court order? 20 MR. HENNEKE: Yeah, a vote. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move that we declare that 22 to be so. 23 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Second. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There's a motion and second. 25 Any discussion? All in favor, say, "I do." 5-28-13 126 1 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 2 COMMISSIONER MOSER: We're in executive session. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And so we will now go into 4 executive session. Do I need to read those items in open 5 session? 6 MS. PIEPER: You need to, yes. 7 MR. HENNEKE: Yes, you call the agenda item. Yes, 8 sir. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Item 1.26; consider, 10 discuss, take appropriate action on offer of Kerr County 11 Commissioners Court to City of Kerrville to extend current 12 interlocal agreement for the EMS services for 10-year period 13 and clarify status of offer and Kerr County's legal position 14 with respect to the same. The second item is Item 1.27; 15 consider, discuss, take appropriate to hire consultant to 16 assist with the RFP/RFQ for emergency medical services to 17 serve citizens of Kerr County commencing October 1, 2014, 18 both asked by Judge Tinley, and -- and requesting executive 19 session. We're now in recess, and we'll be in executive 20 session within 25 seconds. 21 (The open session was closed at 11:59 a.m., and an executive session was held, the transcript of which 22 is contained in a separate document.) 23 - - - - - - - - - - 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All right. Court's back in 25 session. It is, I think, 12:20 -- 12:21. We dealt with -- 5-28-13 127 1 in executive session, we dealt with 1.26 and 1.27. Is there 2 any action to be taken on 1.26? 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a comment on 1.26. 4 This is -- this is to refresh everyone's memory. We sent an 5 offer over to the City to extend the current EMS fire 6 contract, oh, some probably 60 days ago now, but to extend it 7 in the same terms for 10 years, with an escalator built in 8 for basically C.P.I. We have not ever received back a formal 9 response from City Council as requested, though we did 10 receive back what we call a position statement from the 11 Mayor. And the position statement stated that there would 12 essentially be a -- a new $500,000 increase to that 13 agreement, which raised it from 900,000 to 1.4 million, and 14 basically requested that we provide the City with a new offer 15 based on that number and some other requirements that they 16 put in -- or the Mayor put in his letter. Based on that, 17 I've nothing to offer on 1.26. 18 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Nor do I. I feel the same 19 way. 20 COMMISSIONER MOSER: I agree. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No action to be taken on 22 1.26. 1.27, I'm going to read it again. Consider, discuss, 23 take appropriate action to hire consultant to assist with 24 RFP/RFQ for emergency medical services to serve citizens of 25 Kerr County commencing on October 1, 2014. Is there any 5-28-13 128 1 action to be taken there? 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll -- 3 COMMISSIONER MOSER: I have a question. It's -- 4 the agenda item is for emergency medical services only? Or 5 is it emergency medical services and fire? 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think it's emergency 7 services only. 8 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Okay. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's correct here. 10 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Okay. All right. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion that we 12 authorize the County Attorney to prepare an RFQ so we could 13 -- for a consultant/adviser to Commissioners Court relating 14 to going out for bid for emergency medical services. 15 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We have a motion and a 17 second. Any further discussion? 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I will -- 19 MR. HENNEKE: Can I have the Auditor on the 20 committee? 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I'm -- I would recommend 22 that on that committee, it would be the Auditor, County 23 Attorney, County Judge, and one of you two. 24 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Okay. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Which one of you two wants to 5-28-13 129 1 be on that committee? Buster, you were -- 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, I'm sorry. 3 COMMISSIONER MOSER: I was actually thinking -- 4 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Just say yes. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: An RFQ committee? 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, and Commissioner Baldwin. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, that's what that "yes" 9 was about? 10 COMMISSIONER MOSER: You snookered him. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Now, say again? The 12 Auditor, attorney, and who? 13 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, me. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the County Judge. 16 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And the County Judge. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I'm really the guy to 18 do that, to be honest with you. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, we have a motion and a 21 second to authorize the County Attorney to start this 22 process. Is there any further discussion? 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question I would have. Do we 24 want anything brought back to us, or just go mail it out? 25 I'm ready just to mail it out or send it out or distribute it 5-28-13 130 1 as needed. 2 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Yeah. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You have a comment on that 5 at all? 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And authorize publication, if I 7 could add that to my motion. And authorize publication. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, let's vote on that. 11 All in favor of that motion, raise your right hand. 12 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: None opposed. The motion 14 carries. And you can -- nevermind. 15 MR. HENNEKE: Be glad to. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, you already have. I 17 just realized that. Let's see, is that -- that's it, isn't 18 it? 19 MS. HARGIS: Section 4. 20 MR. HENNEKE: Bills. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Bills. 22 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's where we're going. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Approval agenda. Number 4, 24 pay the bills. 25 COMMISSIONER MOSER: I move we pay the bills. 5-28-13 131 1 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We have a motion and a 3 second. Is there any questions or discussion? All in favor, 4 raise your right hand. 5 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Bills have been paid, lady. 7 Budget amendments. Is -- there's a number of them here on 8 two pages. 9 MS. HARGIS: Yes. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is there -- do I hear a 11 motion to approve the budget amendments? 12 COMMISSIONER MOSER: So moved. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is there a second? 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second, with a question. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Now we're open for 16 discussion. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: On the -- I think Buster 18 brought this up a while back, but on the first one, it's 19 going from contingency to capital outlay. It seems -- what 20 -- I guess, what is the capital outlay for Road and Bridge? 21 MS. HARGIS: The capital outlay here was he -- he 22 bought some equipment that he didn't have all the money for, 23 and in the capital account, so he wanted -- needed to put it 24 here so we could pick it up. 25 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So, he's taken a little bit 5-28-13 132 1 out of his reserve, -- 2 MS. HARGIS: Mm-hmm. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- contingency? 4 MS. HARGIS: This was equipment that needed to go 5 on one of the trucks that we purchased with the Fund 16 6 capital money, but it went over. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And the 570 account actually 9 was activated for a few minutes? 10 MS. HARGIS: Yes, sir. 11 COMMISSIONER MOSER: I'm going to ask the same 12 question -- 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Don't laugh about that. 14 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Going to ask the same question 15 I asked you at Airport Board the other day. On capital, what 16 constitutes capital? Before, you told me it was only for 17 construction, for capital. But what constitutes capital in 18 this case? 19 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Cars. 20 MS. HARGIS: The County has an order that all 21 capital items have to be 5,000 or greater, and the reason for 22 this is that anything that goes in the capital outlay account 23 must be depreciated. 24 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Okay, I got you. 25 MS. HARGIS: And some of these items are not 5-28-13 133 1 depreciable because they're not greater than a year. 2 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Okay. So that -- you answered 3 my question; it's $5,000. Okay. But when I asked that 4 question about the airport -- 5 MS. HARGIS: It was a different question. 6 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Well, no, it was the same 7 question, what constituted capital. And I thought your 8 answer to me was capital was only for construction. 9 MS. HARGIS: You asked me about the capital fund. 10 There's a difference between a capital account, a line item, 11 and a capital fund. 12 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Okay. So, at the airport, the 13 same thing would be true; a capital item is $5,000? 14 MS. HARGIS: I don't think they have actually 15 approved a threshold at the airport, but we probably need to 16 put that on the agenda. 17 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Okay. All right. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But if they had it 5,000, it 19 would be, like, if you bought a tractor. It would be -- 20 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Okay, I got you. 21 MS. HARGIS: But the capital fund is a different -- 22 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Okay. 23 MS. HARGIS: -- animal than a capital line item. 24 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Okay. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's get back to the 5-28-13 134 1 amendments here. 2 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Thank you. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is there any further 4 questions or concerns? We have a motion and second -- do we 5 have a motion and second? 6 THE CLERK: Yes, sir. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. All in favor, raise 8 your right hand. 9 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Unanimous, unopposed. 11 MS. HARGIS: Most of these revenue items were 12 picked up during the revenue analysis. We were able to get 13 that done, but not enough to review it. So, I will put it in 14 your boxes and let you start looking at that, and then I'll 15 have an item on the agenda. Because my office was torn up; I 16 wasn't sure we would get it finished in time and be able to 17 check it to make sure before we give it to you. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What is it you're going to 19 give us? 20 MS. HARGIS: The revenue analysis. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Any late bills? 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Wait, before you go off this 23 one, I have a question. On the second page, all the -- the 24 revenue received -- 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We've already voted on it. 5-28-13 135 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know. I'm just asking a 2 question; I don't want to change it. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Now you're going to look at 4 it? 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Does the -- does all the funds 6 just go into our general fund? 7 MS. HARGIS: Yes. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is that why it doesn't have 9 anything written there? 10 MS. HARGIS: Well, that's -- those are -- those are 11 items of revenue that you received. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I see. 13 MS. HARGIS: That were not budgeted. You have to 14 budget them in order for them to be used. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 16 MS. HARGIS: The same -- you have to budget revenue 17 the same as you budget the expenses. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 19 MS. HARGIS: And -- 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And we're budgeting the tobacco 21 and insurance 'cause we're going to spend that on our -- 22 MS. HARGIS: Because we didn't budget for it, 23 because we hadn't received those in a couple of years, and 24 those were unexpected revenues. So -- 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And then we can -- now we can 5-28-13 136 1 spend them, which we already did. 2 MS. HARGIS: You can spend it for what you want. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, we spent it on the salary 4 deal. Okay. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is there any late bills? 6 MS. HARGIS: No, sir. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No late bills. Approve and 8 accept monthly reports. I have monthly reports here from the 9 Kerr County Treasurer, Kerr County Treasurer for March 2013, 10 revised on Page 5, whatever that means, and Animal Control. 11 I'd entertain a motion to accept these monthly reports. 12 COMMISSIONER MOSER: So moved. 13 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So moved -- second. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have a motion and second. 15 All in favor, say "aye." No hands, just "aye." 16 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Any reports from the 18 Commissioners or -- as the liaison? 19 COMMISSIONER MOSER: No. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Elected officials? 21 MR. HENNEKE: Thank you for your consideration. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you for your 23 consideration, young man. Department heads? Jody? 24 MS. GRINSTEAD: I'm good. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are you sure? You got your 5-28-13 137 1 hair done, I see. Boards, commissions, committees, 2 City/County projects, other? Anything else to come before 3 this -- 4 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Move for adjournment. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We can adjourn. We are 6 adjourned. 7 (Commissioners Court adjourned at 12:32 p.m.) 8 - - - - - - - - - - 9 10 11 STATE OF TEXAS | 12 COUNTY OF KERR | 13 The above and foregoing is a true and complete 14 transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as 15 official reporter for the Commissioners Court of Kerr County, 16 Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth. 17 DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 3rd day of June, 2013. 18 19 JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk 20 BY: _________________________________ Kathy Banik, Deputy County Clerk 21 Certified Shorthand Reporter 22 23 24 25 5-28-13