1 1 2 3 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' COURT 4 Special Session 5 Tuesday, August 30, 2016 6 11:00 a.m. 7 Commissioners' Courtroom 8 Kerr County Courthouse 9 Kerrville, Texas 78028 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 PRESENT: TOM POLLARD, Kerr County Judge TOM MOSER, Commissioner Pct. 2 24 JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3 BOB REEVES, Commissioner Pct. 4 25 2 1 I-N-D-E-X 2 NO. PAGE 3 1.1 Consider, discuss and take appropriate 3 action regarding an engineering study 4 for the Kerr County Flood Warning System. 5 1.2 Consider, discuss and take appropriate 10 action to accept the resignation of a 6 Motor Vehicle Clerk effective September 2, 2016 and request the Court to allow me to 7 hire for the budgeted position. 8 1.3 Discuss the City of Kerrville's Water 11 Reuse Facility. 9 2.1 Pay bills. 35 10 *** Adjourned. 35 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 1 JUDGE POLLARD: It's Tuesday, August the 2 30th, 2016, it's 11 a.m. and this is a special called 3 Commissioners' Court meeting, special meeting, for a 4 limited agenda consideration, and I call the meeting to 5 order, and we skip all the preliminary and just get 6 right to the agenda on this, because it's a special 7 called meeting. 8 And I'd like to -- are there any comments or 9 whatever by any of the commissioners? Have any 10 Mr. Moser? 11 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Other than the agenda, 12 no. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I will on the agenda 14 items, Sir. 15 JUDGE POLLARD: Okay, and I have none either 16 at this time. Let the record reflect that Commissioners 17 1 and 4 are absent at this time and we haven't heard 18 from them, we don't know if they're going to show up 19 here or not, but we do have a quorum and we will proceed 20 at this time. 21 The first item on the agenda is item 1.1 22 concern, discuss and take appropriate action regarding 23 the engineering study for the Kerr County Flood Warning 24 System. Mr. Hastings, would you like to address that? 25 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Mr. Moser would like to 4 1 start it. 2 JUDGE POLLARD: Okay. Go ahead. 3 COMMISSIONER MOSER: This is an issue or an 4 idea that we've brought up at last Commissioners' Court 5 and it's to have an engineering study to evaluate the 6 flood warning system that we have. We have reviewed 7 this with the committee made up of the -- comprised of 8 the County, the City of Kerrville, the City of Ingram 9 at that time, upper Guadalupe River Authority, Emergency 10 Management Coordinator for the County, Emergency 11 Management Coordinator for the City. 12 And with that, that steering committee which 13 we formed thought it was a good idea to proceed with an 14 engineering study only at this time. And at last 15 Commissioners' Court we -- we approved an interlocal 16 agreement between those parties, okay, to proceed. 17 There was some -- the salient feature in the Interlocal 18 Agreement is it will be for the engineering study only. 19 The engineering study is to look at what we have, what 20 options we may need or we should have to improve it, 21 what those options could be, and then decide whether or 22 not we would want to go further. So this is not looking 23 at a plan to fix it or change it in anyway; it's just to 24 perform a study. 25 The other thing that we discussed was -- is 5 1 the County, we -- on the cost for an engineering study 2 if we are to proceed according to the Interlocal 3 Agreement is 40 percent of the cost of engineering study 4 would be born by the County, 40 percent by Upper 5 Guadalupe River Authority and 20 percent by the City. 6 Of those other two entities have passed that, and they 7 agreed to that. We did the same thing when we approved 8 the Interlocal Agreement. 9 The County auditor had a question at that 10 time of we have the funds in this year's for the 11 County's portion of that which would be -- and this 12 contract would be not to exceed or up to 50 thousand 13 dollars, and not to beyond that. So the County's 14 portion of that would be 20 thousand dollars, and we 15 have it with funds this fiscal year in special projects 16 and Road & Bridge. So that was a proposal about a pay 17 part. 18 We have to complete our portion -- we have 19 to complete and have a deliverable for that 20 thousand 20 dollars in this fiscal year. So we've asked the County 21 Engineer to come up with a way to do that, and then 22 we've broken it out, and let me delineate that if I may 23 exactly what we would do for the County's portion will 24 do phase one of the engineering study, the other 25 entities the City and UGRA would do phase two. Okay. 6 1 But briefly, phase one would be collecting 2 the data and working with the local agencies, that's 3 Commissioners' Court, Emergency Management Coordinators, 4 the Sheriff, County Engineer, the City of Kerrville, 5 TxDOT, and UGRA to see what we have and what the current 6 system is and what may be needed as to will be identify, 7 prioritize low water crossings. There are a lot in this 8 County. So what we'll do is look at them where all the 9 potential dangers are and prioritize them. 10 Task three would be to evaluate the software 11 and communications options. Once we decide something 12 need to be done how do we inform the public, and then to 13 have a summary report, and that would complete phase 14 one. And that would have to be finished by September 15 30th, okay, and we can do that. The County Engineer is 16 working with some other engineers, decided that that can 17 be done. 18 And then the phase two will be evaluate the 19 high water detection systems, that's getting into the 20 details of the -- of the technicalities of it. Final 21 prioritization of low water crossings, estimate cost and 22 funding options, or if we implement the whole thing 23 prepare a summary report. 24 So that's the plan to keep this thing 25 moving. We generated a request for qualifications, it's 7 1 been published in the paper, it's published on the -- 2 it's on the website, and so what the recommendation here 3 today is to move toward, consistent with the Interlocal 4 Agreement to engage -- or ask for request for 5 qualification, which we've done, they will be submitted 6 by September the 6th, okay. We will review those on 7 September the 6th, and enter into a contract on 8 September the 7th. We'd enter into a contract with the 9 overview steering committee made up of the entities 10 involved. 11 So my motion is to -- is to approve, my 12 motion is to approve the entering into an engineering 13 contract not to exceed 20 thousand dollars for the 14 County for phase one of the study for the flood warning 15 system for the County. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. And then I have 17 a question. 18 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Sure. 19 JUDGE POLLARD: All right. Is there 20 discussion? Been moved and seconded, the motion's on 21 the floor. Now, discuss? 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The question was a 23 little bit of the Commissioner's of the wording of the 24 motion, enter into the contract -- aren't we -- we don't 25 have a contract yet, we're authorizing to proceed with 8 1 the RF -- 2 COMMISSIONER MOSER: You're exactly correct. 3 And then to proceed and then present to the 4 Commissioners' Court. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Let me start over. Let 6 me withdraw that motion and redo a new motion. 7 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Okay, okay. 8 JUDGE POLLARD: You withdraw your second, 9 you withdraw your motion? 10 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Yes, yes. Let me 11 restate it. 12 JUDGE POLLARD: All right. It's withdrawn. 13 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Okay. It is to release 14 the request for qualifications. Evaluate those releases 15 for qualifications, and come to Commissioners' Court 16 with a recommendation on how to proceed with a -- on the 17 entering into a contract with an engineering firm. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Based on this. 19 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Based on that and we'll 20 put that in the record, which would be the scope and of 21 services to be provided by the engineer. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And want to clarify, and 23 Kerr County will pay for phase one and then you generate 24 and the City will pay for phase two. 25 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Right. And the way 9 1 that will work, and I'll let the County auditor get into 2 this, we will be obligated for the full -- full 3 engineering service, but we will be in agreement with 4 UGRA and the City, we will be reimbursed by those 5 entities. You want to comment on that? 6 MRS. DOSS: Yes. And then in fiscal year 7 budget year 2016-17 then we would pay for the UGRA and 8 the City portion, but we would be reimbursed for that, 9 so they would offset each other. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I think I 11 made a lot of comments at our last meeting, don't need 12 to go over that again. I think this as worthwhile study 13 to do, not sure where it will lead but I think we do 14 have an obligation to the citizens to evaluate our low 15 water crossings due to the flooding in this area, and 16 that's all for you being rather imaginative on how to 17 get this done. 18 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Every problem's got a 19 solution. So a little creative -- a little creative 20 engineering there. 21 JUDGE POLLARD: All right. It's been moved 22 by Commissioner Moser. Seconded by Commissioner Letz as 23 stated by -- as read into the record by Commissioner 24 Letz and Commissioner Moser. Is there any further 25 discussion? There being none, those in favor of the 10 1 motion signify by raising your right hands. I'll join 2 you, it's three zero, unanimous. 3 By the word just came Commissioner 4 will be 4 here in about two or three minutes. 5 Let's go on to item 1.2 on the agenda 6 consider, discuss and take appropriate action to accept 7 the resignation of a motor vehicle clerk effective 8 September 2, 2016 and request was made to Commissioners' 9 Court to allow the Tax Assessor to hire, to fill that 10 position, it's a budgeted position. 11 MS. DIANE BOLIN: Yes. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move for approval. 13 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Second. 14 JUDGE POLLARD: Been moved and seconded for 15 approval of authorizing her to hire somebody to fill 16 that budgeted position. I don't think you need to say 17 anything, okay. 18 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Diane, when you're 19 ahead, don't say anything. 20 MS. DIANE BOLIN: Okay. 21 JUDGE POLLARD: Any further discussion? 22 COMMISSIONER MOSER: I don't. 23 JUDGE POLLARD: Those in favor signify by 24 raising your right hand. It's three zero, unanimous. 25 MS. DIANE BOLIN: Thank you. 11 1 JUDGE POLLARD: All right. 1.3 discuss the 2 City of Kerrville's Water Reuse Facility. I have down 3 Commissioner Moser and Mr. Hastings to address that 4 issue. 5 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Let me be very brief 6 and say something at the very beginning of this. I 7 think we've all read about it and heard about and heard 8 about the reuse water reservoir in various entities 9 around the area for irrigation, and perhaps even longer 10 term thing where drinking water, but that's the City's 11 thing. The concern -- not the concern -- several people 12 have I think spoken with several of the commissioners. 13 And I don't know if they've spoken with you, Judge, but 14 where is this reservoir, what's it mean, what can be a 15 potentially downstream effect if it's all on City 16 property but going into the County property. 17 So I hadn't seen the report in some -- and 18 Charlie Hastings, the County Engineer and myself were 19 talking last week, Charlie hadn't seen it, so we asked 20 the City if they would share that with us, which they 21 they did, almost instantly. We met with the City 22 Manager, the Mayor, and a few other of the staff of the 23 City, and went through the engineering report. 24 I put on my professional engineering hat 25 okay and looked at the report that was done by Freese 12 1 and Nichols. It looked like it was very thorough, and 2 basically from my take away on the thing is they -- 3 they've stamped this with their seal of approval from a 4 certified registered professional engineer. It 5 basically says that for this reservoir where it's 6 located it's in close proximity to the Road & Bridge 7 facilities out there, and to the Veterans Cemetery and 8 where the creek crosses Spur 100. They looked at what 9 the effect of this reservoir in the floodplain was, to 10 upstream, not involve us, and downstream, which involves 11 us. 12 And their engineering analysis they say 13 there's no impact on it, there's no change. The City, 14 and they can elaborate on this if they care to, stay 15 within their requirements on the modifications on the 16 obstructions, let me put it that way, in the floodplain. 17 They meet all their own requirements. 18 There was one part, and I'll let Charlie 19 talk now, there was one concern that Charlie had, and 20 that was not showing the velocity of the water going 21 down the creek because of this added obstruction, and 22 that was something that he was concerned about. And so 23 let me just say that as background I personally don't 24 have any issue with what Freese and Nichols has done. 25 It looks like it's very thorough. Charlie has gone 13 1 through it in a lot more detail and so what we want to 2 do today is just to probably alleviate some of the 3 concerns that some of us may have heard, the 4 Commissioners on various things. And here comes Bob 5 Reeves, and I think he may have something on this, too. 6 So Charlie, let me -- 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Before you get to 8 Charlie, I'd like to make a comment. And I don't know, 9 maybe Mr. Reeves does as well. You know, I received a 10 number of comments about it and talked about it. And oh 11 I guess it was a year ago or so the Judge received a 12 packet from the City on a plan, and that was the only 13 packet that I have seen, and in that packet the language 14 was that the County's property would be impacted and 15 that was the only thing I ever saw from the City on 16 that. And I have, you know, received a lot of calls. 17 The overall project, I think it's a great 18 project, I think the City moving to use the -- reuse 19 water where my Region J had, I've known about that a 20 long time. I think personally the right way for the 21 City to go, I think it makes a lot of sense. 22 I had a little bit more question, I was 23 involved in some of the conversations with Mr. Moser and 24 with the County Engineer last week, and just trying to 25 figure out exactly where it was. And it's because my 14 1 understanding now is this project is going to be bid 2 pretty quick, or contracted before long and I just 3 hadn't heard anything. And so I had some questions and 4 just thought that we needed to be aware of exactly what 5 was going on, and the people in the community have 6 contacted me. That does -- well just -- you know, I 7 think it doesn't affect the flood plain necessarily but 8 it could as I understand it impact County property. So 9 I think that I'm interested to see what Charlie has to 10 say and what the City has to say. But as it is it's 11 a -- the location of it is right next to County 12 property, and that's why there could be a concern. So 13 that's the only comment I have. It's more of an 14 educational -- 15 JUDGE POLLARD: And the County property is 16 lower. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 18 JUDGE POLLARD: And it's between this 19 project and the river, and so there's going to be some 20 flow of some kind, some effect across the County 21 property, so we need to be concerned about that. 22 COMMISSIONER REEVES: That's my same feeling 23 on it that initially you do not think that in fact we 24 could be impacted that much, but when you get to looking 25 we have Juvenile Detention and, you know, we've already 15 1 talked about these, and I apologize for being late, but 2 Juvenile Detention: Little League, Road & Bridge, the 3 Event Center, so there -- so as good stewards of 4 everything I think we should be aware of it and know 5 what it's -- what it's -- 6 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Do you have a copy? 7 COMMISSIONER REEVES: I just walked in. 8 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Jody, would you get him 9 a copy of that engineering report, because we're going 10 to refer to various pages in there. Okay, so Charlie. 11 MR. HASTINGS: Thank you. Commissioner 12 Moser and I met with City Manager Todd Parton last week 13 on Thursday, and pursuant to that meeting he gave us 14 copies of the report that you have before you, which was 15 produced by Freese and Nichols in June of this year is 16 when it was signed and sealed, and I had a chance to 17 look at it over the weekend and come up with some 18 questions of my own. And one of the concerns that I had 19 is, or question was, what are the velocities going to be 20 at the cross sections along the creek. I put in a 21 request to the City for that, and this morning I 22 received something right before the meeting, so I will 23 continue to look into that and see if there are any 24 other concerns, but our understanding from the meeting 25 as Commissioner Moser stated was that Freese and Nichols 16 1 had determined that there was little or no impact to 2 neighboring properties, that the -- that the proposed 3 effluent pond in the floodplain was going to cause a 4 rise in the floodplain only on City property, and that's 5 where the change, from what I've seen this morning, 6 that's where the change in velocities are happening. 7 You have velocities slow down where it rises, and you 8 have velocities that speed up where the elevation goes 9 back to normal, or less than what's normal. But the 10 report did show that elevations were back to normal 11 levels by the time they got to Spur 100. We have a 12 crossing there that was one of our first concerns, and 13 the velocities that I saw this morning showed that the 14 velocities returned back to very near normal by the time 15 they got to Spur 100. That does allay one of our 16 concerns. The other concern that I expressed was we -- 17 COMMISSIONER MOSER: You might say why 18 velocities are important, too, okay. 19 MR. HASTINGS: Very good. Velocities are 20 important in stream evaluation. If they get over a 21 certain feet per second, they'll cause erosion. So you 22 you want your velocities to remain as near as to what 23 they are today if you're going to be doing any work in 24 the floodplain. You don't want to cause them to 25 increase too much or they'll cause erosion for you. 17 1 COMMISSIONER MOSER: And we don't want to 2 incur damage to the crossing at Spur 100 and the 3 creek -- 4 MR. HASTINGS: Correct. 5 COMMISSIONER MOSER: -- that was just redid. 6 So that would be the concern for the increase velocity, 7 okay, excuse me. 8 MR. HASTINGS: The other concern, and that 9 this will take a little bit -- there's some more data 10 that I would like to see. The City limit line is right 11 there at Spur 100 and then where the creek crosses Spur 12 100 you get into outside the City limits, the floodplain 13 in that area is regulated by the County. And what I 14 don't know right now is the -- I know that the City is 15 preparing or has prepared a conditional letter of map 16 revision, based on their engineering design, that is 17 submitted to FEMA asking FEMA to update their maps. The 18 area had formally never been studied before. So now 19 that -- that Freese and Nichols has had a a chance to 20 study it, they have an opportunity to put together what 21 the boundaries of the floodplain really should be based 22 on the model. And I don't know how far they've taken 23 that model, I don't know if it affects anything on the 24 other side of the City limit line, in the County, and so 25 I've requested that information. 18 1 COMMISSIONER REEVES: So the long and short 2 of it, Mr. Hastings, what is your opinion as of today 3 regarding this project, is it going to damage our 4 property, could it damage, what do you see as far as our 5 County property? 6 MR. HASTINGS: In the data that I've seen it 7 looks to me that if the velocities are returning back to 8 normal at Spur 100, which their reports are showing that 9 they are, that the floodplain should be unchanged when 10 you get to Spur 100 on down. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I'm just 12 basically -- what I'm looking at figure 1.1 and and 5.3. 13 They're the -- I'm just looking at it. It's just a 14 question, they're both -- I don't understand why the 15 maps are different, why the floodplain portion is 16 different. 17 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Say again. Which 18 figures are you looking at? 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 1.1 and 5.3. I look at 20 pictures. 21 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Well, a picture's worth 22 a thousand words. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They both say 24 pre-project 1% floodplain, but they're different 25 floodplains, or different areas of shading. 19 1 MR. HASTINGS: What I'd like to do from this 2 point forward, if we could, we've got City Manager here 3 and several of their staff, I think it would be 4 appropriate as since it's their report, I think they've 5 got a rep from Freese and Nichols here, too as well, and 6 maybe we could ask them these questions. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, just the 8 difference, there's several maps. I presume there's 9 different conditions or something. 5.4 it says project 10 one percent floodplain, and it shows different than it 11 is -- I guess it's about the same on that one. I just 12 see the difference between 1.1 and 5.3. 13 JUDGE POLLARD: Can somebody from the City 14 or Freese and Nichols want to address that, and answer 15 that? 16 MR. NEW: Yeah. I'm John New with Freese 17 and Nichols, and I guess to answer Charlie's -- or to 18 answer the question, I believe that figure 1-1 that you 19 were referring to does show -- it's going to affect 20 the -- it has the reuse pond there, whereas figure 5-3 21 is purely a pre-project condition where that's what it 22 is as of today. And so there's going to be little bit 23 of difference there because of the pond impact on that 24 area. So I don't know if that answers your question 25 clearly enough, but that's really what we're talking 20 1 about. 2 COMMISSIONER MOSER: And so 5-4, Jonathan, I 3 think is with the pond there. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: With the pond there. 5 MR. NEW: Right. And 5-3 and 1-1, I 6 believe, if you look at 5-3 and 1-1 there might be -- I 7 know there's a little bit of a scale difference, but 8 they're actually very similar. I think it's just maybe 9 the scale that where it's a little different, because 10 part of the top is cut off on one page. But I think, 11 yeah, in 5-4 shows a little bit of a change with the 12 pond. So thank you. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So the difference is 14 between 5-3 and 5-4. 15 MR. NEW: Right. And as Charlie said 16 earlier, he is correct that we did do the study, and I 17 think somebody made the comment that at early on, like a 18 year ago, there was to going to be an impact to other 19 properties. And when we were doing the feasibility 20 study what the City tasked us with doing is to look at 21 options. And so we looked at options and really what we 22 did to kind of boil it down is we looked at a north pond 23 and south pond, all in the same general area, but one 24 further north. The one that was further north did 25 have -- was going to have impact on various properties, 21 1 so we eliminated that as an option. And then we looked 2 at the south pond, and the south pond would only have 3 possible impact on the City property and the County 4 property. So then we were instructed to okay eliminate 5 any impact on the County property. So we designed it to 6 minimize the impact and do exactly what Charlie said, is 7 when you look at the flood impact, a hundred year flood 8 impact, with the velocities through there by the time 9 everything coming when it gets to Spur 100 it's back to 10 normal condition. And so and there's also no elevation 11 impact on County property, which is basically you own a 12 pretty good section of the creek through that area, all 13 the way down past Spur 100. 14 JUDGE POLLARD: You used the language that 15 you looked at it and found that it impacted County 16 property, and then you wanted to minimize that -- 17 MR. NEW: Eliminate it; not just minimize 18 it, eliminate. 19 JUDGE POLLARD: Then use that word. And 20 that you said minimize, and that worries me. 21 MR. NEW: No, no. We were instructed to 22 eliminate any impact, any adverse impact on County 23 property, and so that's what we did. And so basically 24 what that entailed adjusting the size of the pond to 25 allow the floodway to be a little larger so that it did 22 1 not impact County property, and also we created a swale 2 or an additional drainage way on City property to 3 alleviate any concerns or alleviate any potential impact 4 on the County property right adjacent to it. So what we 5 have designed now has zero impact from a flooding 6 standpoint or from an elevation through a flood event on 7 County property. 8 JUDGE POLLARD: Charlie used the phrase that 9 the velocities had gotten close to what they were 10 before. Did they get all the way down to normal? 11 MR. NEW: Yeah. The actual number is -- 12 I'll just read it to you. At Spur 100 the hundred year 13 flood -- on the hundred year flood velocity at Spur 100 14 at your bridge there is 7.14 feet per second, 15 pre-project was 7.13 feet per second, so it's 100th of a 16 foot per second difference there. That I mean just in 17 the computer model. That's relatively nothing. So 18 that's the only -- that's the only difference at that 19 point. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Two questions. 21 MR. NEW: Yes, Sir. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: More to just try to 23 educate myself. 24 COMMISSIONER MOSER: That's what it's all 25 about. 23 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So the original plan to 2 have multiple ponds is gone so there's only going to be 3 one pond? 4 MR. NEW: Correct. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: When you do the models, 6 is it -- and you said you mentioned a hundred year 7 flood. Is it a hundred year flood on Third Creek or a 8 hundred year flood on the river and Third Creek? 9 MR. NEW: Well, I'll clarify and say I'm not 10 the designer on this, and I'm not an expert on this 11 hydraulic modeling. But what happens is it's primarily 12 Third Creek. But at some point you're talking about the 13 Guadalupe. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 15 MR. NEW: Those would impact each other at 16 some point, but we looked at Third Creek and what 17 happened if you had a hundred year flood event -- well, 18 actually a 10, 50, and hundred year flood event on Third 19 Creek. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And then my last 21 question is -- I mean I looked, and the only impact 22 would be on the County property, and it would be a 23 pretty significant impact if it ever happened and 24 hopefully it won't. Hopefully the City has good 25 insurance or y'all have good insurance, if it reaches. 24 1 MR. NEW: Yes. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So at that point there 3 is a significant impact. 4 MR. NEW: Yeah. And there's a couple of 5 situations to look at that, but yeah, a breach or 6 otherwise a failure of the damn. We have another figure 7 that basically if you had a full pond, which is a 8 hundred million gallons, if it was completely full, and 9 you had a catastrophic failure whereas basically the 10 best way, and I think the example to use, if you took a 11 glass of water and you dumped it out, you immediately 12 have all of the water at one time. What we've done is 13 we've done a calculation to see what that would do. And 14 it would basically be for -- it would flood several 15 areas. There's across the road kind of where the County 16 fairgrounds are and right at the highway, you'd have 17 about five foot of water, but that is assuming that you 18 had a catastrophic failure as in it was literally the 19 berm was there and then all of a sudden it's gone. And 20 you have all of that water in a big rush, which 21 typically when you do have a failure it doesn't occur 22 that way; it's a little slower. And because immediately 23 the area downstream of this is -- there's plenty of room 24 for the water to spread out. So it doesn't -- it's not 25 channelized where it's 20 feet deep. It spreads out 25 1 pretty quickly. So, yeah, if you had that catastrophic 2 breach that's the kind of flood level you would have for 3 a matter of a few minutes. 4 COMMISSIONER MOSER: What's the depth of the 5 pond? I forgot. 6 MR. NEW: Well, the depth is going to be -- 7 I think the top of the water elevation at the deepest 8 point is about 26 feet, the berm is about 28 feet -- I 9 think it's actually 25 feet. Water elevation 28 feet to 10 the top of the berm. 11 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Okay, so three foot. 12 MR. NEW: You have freeboard there for wave 13 action, that's one of the requirements for the State and 14 to have some freeboard there so you don't have any wave 15 action there and won't cause you any problems there. 16 JUDGE POLLARD: I would ask Mr. Hastings, do 17 you -- you said you're evaluating things. Is there 18 anything else that you need to look at, need time to 19 look at anything on that to come up with any 20 conclusions? 21 MR. HASTINGS: What I'd like to do, 22 Commissioner -- or Judge, is moving forward is submit 23 some questions for more information. I'd like to get a 24 copy of their conditional letter of map revision when 25 it's -- when it's appropriate to receive it, when you're 26 1 ready to submit it, so that I can verify what portions 2 of the floodplain are being affected. I also in looking 3 at the velocity the main concern is what is the velocity 4 loss at Spur 100, the velocities where they increased 5 upstream from that. It is adjacent to -- there is a 6 section here where the velocity increases by it looks 7 like about four and a half feet per second. Anything 8 over six feet per second becomes erosive. We're already 9 having erosion on the creek in certain areas because 10 we're over six in some portions. But this would bump it 11 from about five to ten, five and a half to ten, adjacent 12 to the Juvenile Detention Facility property. I know 13 that's down in the creek, but I think it would be 14 appropriate if we could maybe visit with some staff on 15 the ground, and walk that portion of the creek and see 16 what are we talking about here, and is that a concern or 17 not. Maybe have Jason Davis out there, and liaison for 18 the Juvenile Detention Facility, so that those concerns 19 are also taken care of. That would be my recommendation 20 moving forward. 21 But from the data I have the only area of 22 velocity that concern me are the bluff side of the creek 23 that is adjacent to the Juvenile Detention Facility. 24 JUDGE POLLARD: So we need a little more 25 time to get some more information? 27 1 MR. HASTINGS: Yes, Sir. 2 MR. NEW: And to elaborate on what Charlie 3 said the additional letter of map revision, CLOMR is 4 what we'll call it, it's in draft mode right now. That 5 is usually not prepared until the design is complete. 6 So we are in the process of completing that. So we 7 haven't submitted that yet to the City to review, but as 8 soon as we can we will make it available to the County. 9 JUDGE POLLARD: Well, do you plan to proceed 10 with construction even if the County hasn't approved it 11 by that time, or you going to wait until the County 12 approves it? 13 MR. NEW: I'll let Todd speak to that. I 14 mean right now I think that -- I don't think that 15 everything that -- 16 JUDGE POLLARD: What I'm saying is maybe it 17 doesn't make any difference, if y'all are going to go 18 ahead. 19 MR. NEW: But there's nothing in the -- 20 there's nothing that's going to be in the CLOMR that's 21 any different than what you have in front of you now, 22 because some of the velocities that Charlie's talking 23 about, we didn't have all of that information, that was 24 as a result of developing the CLOMR, and so now we have 25 some of those and a lot of them we did have, because we 28 1 needed that for our design, but some of them we didn't. 2 So there's not going to be a lot of new information 3 that's provided that's in the CLOMR that's not already 4 there. But we can still certainly meet with Charlie and 5 look at it. 6 COMMISSIONER MOSER: So basically there's no 7 impact to the County property, of both and from the 8 flood elevation sense nor a stream velocity sense. Now, 9 there's in the case of a breach, you know, where just 10 the earth and damn goes away. 11 MR. NEW: Right, right. 12 COMMISSIONER MOSER: And, you know, 13 statistically that's beyond belief. 14 MR. NEW: It's designed as a high hazard, 15 right. It's designed as a high hazard damn. 16 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Right. So from County 17 perspective, you know, I think what's been presented 18 is -- 19 JUDGE POLLARD: I want to hear some more 20 information from Charlie. I want to hear what Charlie 21 comes up with -- 22 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Oh, absolutely, yeah. 23 JUDGE POLLARD: But I want to get back, I 24 thought originally Freese and Nichols had recommended to 25 the City that it did impact the County, and the County 29 1 needed to be -- consent, let's say. Now you're telling 2 us that you've eliminated the impact of the County, so 3 my question and going back to what I said before, is it 4 now your situation that you don't need the County's 5 consent to it, or what's the situation here? 6 MR. NEW: Well, again, as I -- two 7 questions, I guess. Originally and during the 8 feasibility report that we did about two years ago it 9 was -- we were just asked to determine what was feasible 10 and what was not. So we simply said a north pond, a 11 south pond, what does that do to anybody. We didn't 12 know what the impact -- we didn't know the capacity of 13 the pond, so we were looking at simply the feasibility. 14 Does this make sense for the City to proceed with this 15 project or does it not. And at that time once we 16 completed the feasibility report it was determined that 17 yes it does make sense to proceed with the south pond; 18 not the north pond because we could not -- we could not 19 reasonably eliminate the impact on neighboring 20 properties. 21 On the south pond there was only two impact, 22 potential impact, City property, County property. And 23 so we were instructed by the City to eliminate the 24 impact on the County property. So we designed the 25 property so it did not have the impact on the County 30 1 property. 2 JUDGE POLLARD: So you're asking for 3 County's consent anyway even though it doesn't impact us 4 according to your studies. 5 MR. NEW: Well -- 6 JUDGE POLLARD: What I'm trying to say is 7 why are you asking the County for consent now, okay? Is 8 it required? 9 MR. PARTON: Well, we're here because this 10 is on your agenda, so we were here to be able to address 11 any questions that y'all have. So we're not requesting 12 consent from the County. This is jurisdictional to the 13 City, and we're processing this through our floodplains 14 process on our side, because there is no effect onto the 15 County property when we look at elevation of the 16 floodplain that's there. 17 So that being said, you know, certainly we 18 want to answer any questions that are there, and if 19 there are concerns from the Commission and from the 20 County Engineer of -- of making sure there's not some 21 other impact that we need to be aware of. We'll be 22 happy to look at that and make some change orders to 23 address that. But ultimately this project has a very 24 minimal affect on floodplain elevation, it's about four 25 tenths of a foot on floodplain, which is entirely on 31 1 City property. 2 When the initial feasibility came in and we 3 weighed the issues of looking at two versus one pond, we 4 said listen, one pond makes sense from a functional 5 perspective and from a cost perspective for the City at 6 this point. We looked at what the potential long term 7 use of this project would be, and so from that we looked 8 at needing the pond to develop a reservoir of water to 9 ultimately develop a water treatment facility, so that 10 we could treat water and find other means to utilize 11 that. So the ultimate objective of this project really 12 is further than irrigation; it really is getting into 13 water supply use on down the road. But when we looked 14 at that, we did go back to Freese, and looked at this 15 design and come up with a design that has zero upstream 16 and zero downstream effect. And any effect please keep 17 that entirely on City boundaries, within City property. 18 And so that's -- that's what this design is designed to 19 do. And again, since it's contained in City property, 20 on City land then we're taking it through our floodplain 21 permit process. 22 Now the CLOMR, as I understand it, aren't 23 required on this project, but we're doing it at the next 24 step to establish what permanently what those flood 25 boundaries should be and be able to document that we 32 1 don't have that impact above stream or below stream onto 2 the property. So we've channelized the study, we have 3 established what those boundaries are. We know what 4 that potential impact is going to be and we want to go 5 through the CLOMR and ultimately the map revision 6 process, to finalize and document and establish this. 7 And any issues, questions, concerns be happy to address 8 those, be happy to address and look at any kind of field 9 concerns that the County Engineering office has. 10 JUDGE POLLARD: Thank you. 11 COMMISSIONER REEVES: Mr. Parton, I 12 appreciate your comments regarding no impact to the 13 County property. Is there going to be any impact to any 14 other properties in the area that the City of Kerrville 15 does not own i.e. VA property, KISD property or 16 individual property owners, are they going to be 17 impacted? 18 MR. PARTON: No, Sir. 19 COMMISSIONER REEVES: None whatsoever? 20 MR. PARTON: No, Sir. And that was our 21 directive to Freese and Nichols. Zero upstream, zero 22 downstream, zero offside effect in terms of the flood 23 elevation. 24 COMMISSIONER REEVES: So with the exception 25 of the catastrophic example that you have presented, 33 1 take the VA cemetery, however many years old it is, with 2 the exception of that catastrophic, it would have no 3 impact on that? 4 MR. PARTON: That's correct, yes. 5 COMMISSIONER REEVES: Or KISD school barn 6 there, or any individual property owners? 7 MR. PARTON: No, Sir. 8 COMMISSIONER REEVES: Okay, thank you. 9 JUDGE POLLARD: My personal thoughts are 10 that I'd still like to hear from Mr. Hastings as to 11 further studies on this thing. And if he concludes that 12 and recommends to us that we don't have any impact on us 13 then I don't think there's any approval requested by us. 14 They're not asking for our approval, and they say 15 they're not impacting our property, so I don't think we 16 need to do anything. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is more 18 informational in my mind. 19 COMMISSIONER MOSER: This is informational; 20 not for action. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And it's probably just 22 the way it's drawn. How close is the berm to the 23 property, County property line, the Juvenile Detention 24 Facility? It looks like it's within feet. 25 MR. NEW: The total, I don't remember the 34 1 exact number, Commissioner, but it's probably within a 2 hundred feet or so. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's more of a scale, 4 it's not at -- 5 MR. NEW: Well, it's not like ten feet, it's 6 relatively close. I don't know the exact number, I have 7 to go back and check. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean I think from what 9 Charlie said, little bit of knowledge makes sense that 10 the only impact's going to be possibly on the Juvenile 11 Detention Facility property, which is already in the 12 floodplain just because of the velocity that's going 13 through that property. 14 MR. PARTON: And there's a portion of that 15 where there is an increase and there's a portion that's 16 a decrease, so it's preexisting. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But it's not usable 18 property from our standpoint right now. I -- you know, 19 I appreciate y'all coming over and explaining it to us 20 and it answers questions that I've had and that others 21 have voiced to me about what they've about the project. 22 Thank you. 23 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Thank you very much. 24 JUDGE POLLARD: Appreciate it. 25 MR. PARTON: Thank y'all. 35 1 JUDGE POLLARD: Okay. We got the next item 2 on the agenda is pay bills. 3 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Oh, do we? Oh, didn't 4 see that. 5 JUDGE POLLARD: Anybody have any discussion 6 or motions about paying bills? 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move to pay the bills. 8 COMMISSIONER REEVES: Second. 9 JUDGE POLLARD: Moved by Commissioner Letz, 10 seconded by Commissioner Reeves to pay the bills as 11 presented. Any further discussion? There being none, 12 those in favor signify by raising your right hands. 13 It's three zero, it passes. And that's it. We have any 14 other business? If not, we're adjourned. Thank you 15 very much. 16 * * * * * * 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 36 1 STATE OF TEXAS * 2 COUNTY OF KERR * 3 I, DEBRA ELLEN GIFFORD, Certified Shorthand 4 Reporter in and for the State of Texas and Official 5 Reporter for Kerr County Commissioners' Court, do hereby 6 certify that the above and foregoing pages contain and 7 comprise a true and correct transcription of the 8 proceedings had in the above-entitled Commissioners' 9 Court Special Meeting. 10 Dated this the 13th day of September, A.D. 11 2016. 12 13 /s/DEBRA ELLEN GIFFORD Certified Shorthand Reporter 14 No. 953 Expiration Date 12/31/2016 15 * * * * * * 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 37 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25