1 1 2 3 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' COURT 4 Special Session 5 Tuesday, December 20, 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 H. A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1 24 TOM MOSER, Commissioner Pct. 2 JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3 25 BOB REEVES, Commissioner Pct. 4 2 1 I-N-D-E-X 2 NO. PAGE 3 1.1 Consider, discuss and take appropriate 3 action on the City of Kerrville's proposed 4 Floodplain revision as it relates to reuse pond in Third Creek area; and the potential 5 impact to County property. 6 *** Adjournment. 30 7 * * * * * * 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 1 JUDGE POLLARD: It's Tuesday, December the 2 20th, 2016. It is now 11 a.m. We have a posted special 3 Commissioners' Court at this time. And we will -- this 4 is just a special one; we're not going to go through 5 with prayer and the all of that other stuff, so we get 6 right to it. It's a short session, I hope so. It's 7 only one item to be concerned. 8 Item up 1.1 consider, discuss and take 9 appropriate action on the City of Kerrville's proposed 10 floodplain revision as it relates to reuse pond on Third 11 Creek area, and the potential impact to County property. 12 We might have an executive session if needed, but we're 13 not going to start off with that. 14 So I think we start with Commissioner Letz 15 to address the issue. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: A few comments why I put 17 it on the agenda, the necessity rather than waiting. 18 One of the things is there was some things that came out 19 of the City Council meeting, I was not at the meeting, 20 but what I've been told about comments about basically 21 that the County shouldn't have built some of their 22 businesses in the floodplain. And I want to make it 23 very clear to the public that currently, and when we 24 built all those structures, and we're talking about the 25 Hill Country Youth Event Center, the extension office, 4 1 the Road & Bridge building, both concession stands on 2 the baseball fields, the outdoor arena, and all the 3 improvements at River Star, that none of those are 4 currently in the floodplain and were in the floodplain 5 when we built them. I want to make that real clear. 6 Because there was some false information that came out 7 in the paper. And just to make it clear we didn't build 8 anything in the floodplain ever, and is not in the 9 floodplain on the current maps. 10 The other reason why I put it on the agenda 11 and really a more important area, is you know, we have 12 as I think the community knows and the Court knows, and 13 city's aware, we're going to do some survey work to 14 verify some numbers that didn't think looked right. We 15 didn't thing looked right under the maps that we were 16 given by the City as their proposed floodplain maps nor 17 the CLOMR, as it's known. And that work is working, and 18 but what one of the delays has been, we've had 19 difficulties, and I'm not sure Charlie is -- we can't 20 really do that verification of their maps until we get 21 the data from the City as to where their cross sections 22 are, and as of Thursday when I posted this, the City 23 would not give us that information. So it was kind of 24 like, you know, it was causing a bit of a problem. We 25 can go out there and survey all we want. But if we 5 1 can't tie it to the maps, it doesn't make a whole lot of 2 difference. I'm not sure if we've received that 3 information or not, but I'm sure Mr. Hastings can answer 4 that. 5 The other thing that was a big concern when 6 we started looking at the maps a little bit closer that 7 we did receive from the City, on the more or less south 8 side of Third Creek, the area that was studied, which 9 we're talking about Highway 27 and over towards Mosty 10 County property, the area that was studied was stopped 11 at the line that was the new proposed floodplain line, 12 and when you look at the contours, it didn't make sense 13 because the contours on the other side were at one 14 level, and the contours went beyond the spot that they 15 stopped studying. So my common sense tells me that when 16 this revision finally goes through to FEMA they're going 17 to want to know where the water keeps on going that way. 18 And it was stopped abruptly, I mean it's hard to explain 19 it, but it's -- on the maps it made a lot more clear. 20 So that was the concern is okay why did the City study 21 stop right there, because if the water is going to be 22 two feet deep, and it's not going stop where you stop 23 the line it's going to go two feet over there. And that 24 would potentially impact a lot more County property. 25 Why this is such a big concern to me is two reasons: 6 1 One, where that hundred year floodplain is on the FEMA 2 maps determines what the County can do in future 3 development on all of our property there. We have a lot 4 of property. So it has an impact of one of the things 5 we've talked about doing as the Court at some point, 6 there's really no immediate plan, but covering the 7 outdoor arena. We probably can't do that in the 8 floodplain, or we have to do some mitigation because 9 that's a permanent structure. But I understand it is 10 the easy way without having to go get special permits 11 and things. You know you can't -- you don't want to be 12 in the floodplain. Also, you have to get flood 13 insurance. We can't get the quantity that we would need 14 so a lot of those buildings we'd just to have self 15 insure. And it could impact lots of uses for the 16 County, and affect the taxpayers, our insurance rates, 17 so it is a big issue, and we need to get it resolved. 18 The final thing was that I guess last week, 19 I received word that the City had started construction 20 on the reuse pond. I wasn't aware that that was going 21 to happen that quickly. You know, I don't care if 22 personally if they go out for bids and do all this stuff 23 they want to get ready for. But considering we've had a 24 lot of false information come from the City, and that's 25 false or inaccurate or whatever you want to call it, and 7 1 the maps have been inclusive, I've got a problem with 2 them starting a project that may impact a lot of County 3 property, until we get all these resolved. And that's 4 kind of why I put it on the agenda. I've looked at it a 5 lot. I know Charlie Hastings has looked at it, 6 certainly a lot more detail than I have, and I don't 7 know if Commissioner Moser wants to make any comments 8 right now or not. 9 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Yeah, I would like to, 10 thanks. And say I think Jonathan did a good job 11 summarizing. I think there are a couple facts. Number 12 one Jonathan said when the AG barn was built and 13 remodeled and all the infrastructure put in out there, 14 we didn't put anything in the floodplain, in the FEMA 15 hundred year floodplain, the official floodplain, Number 16 one. 17 Item number two is there's more 18 topographical engineering data which says we can better 19 define what that floodplain may be. Now that's the 20 quote LIDAR data that exists, that's a fact. The other 21 fact is engineers model things and engineers have done 22 that my entire life. Modelling is a lot of assumptions, 23 the thing that you do in modeling is you try to verify 24 the model that you have to see if it's good. Are your 25 assumptions good or not. Difficult in doing something 8 1 like this. But I think Charlie can talk about that a 2 little bit. I think that's a possibility. 3 The City, you know, can do on their property 4 what they want to, and if you know, if they want to 5 proceed with construction, I think that's their 6 prerogative. I think there's some risks in doing that, 7 but that's City decision whether or not to proceed 8 before all these models are verified. 9 JUDGE POLLARD: So they can do what they want 10 to on there property within reason, providing it doesn't 11 cause damage to adjacent properties such as the 12 county's. 13 COMMISSIONER MOSER: And that's what I say, 14 that's the risk. That's the risk that they would 15 perceive if they did that, right. So they would be 16 liable for that. And that's my point, that's the risk. 17 So with those things, I think there's -- and it's also 18 the other fact is, that I don't know where Lee Voelkel 19 is on doing the new survey data, getting the new survey 20 information, but that needs to be put in the existing 21 data to see where the floodplain is based on new 22 measured data and to verify that model as best can be 23 done, because it just doesn't from an engineering 24 perspective, from my engineering perspective, it doesn't 25 pass the look right criteria, okay. To have an 9 1 obstacle, and an obstacle is a damn around a pond of 2 water, okay, put in a flow path. Now, it may be that 3 that doesn't change anything. It's hard for me to 4 believe it doesn't. It's hard for me to believe that you 5 put a restriction in a flow path is not going to cause 6 more flooding, but that's what models -- that's what 7 engineering models can be verified or not. And so, look 8 forward to that. So that's all I have to say. 9 And you know, I think the City and the 10 County have worked very well together, and I think this 11 is another thing, it's an engineering problem, guys, 12 okay. That's what it is. We just need to look at this 13 thing and see what the right answer is, and what the 14 options are. So that's all I have to say. Thanks, 15 Jonathan for doing that. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know if anybody 17 else on the court wants to comment on it, but I want to 18 turn it over to Charlie and let him explain looking at 19 data and the models and the differences, and things and 20 and why we have a concern. 21 MR. HASTINGS: Okay, thank you. I have 22 received from the City several weeks ago, when I asked 23 for it, I got a model that was done by LNV Engineering a 24 year ago for the landfill property that models Third 25 Creek. A good stretch of the same portion that is 10 1 modelled by Freese and Nichols. Freese and Nichols did 2 a study as well a year later for the effluent pond. So 3 one's for the landfill, one's for the effluent pond, but 4 they're both for the same Third Creek. And there's a 5 lot of data that is the same, and then there's the 6 modeling and assumptions that are different. 7 The differences that I noticed is that both 8 models, I don't see in either one them, and especially 9 in Freese and Nichols, they have been very explicit in 10 putting in their report that they have not calibrated 11 their model. I don't believe that LNV has calibrated 12 their model either. 13 Number two -- 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Charlie, what's that 15 mean? 16 MR. HASTINGS: It's a way to verify your 17 model if you would to -- a way that they could calibrate 18 their model is to find some historical high water marks 19 along Third Creek, which that should be available. They 20 have staff that were working for the City in the 2002 21 flood, July third, 2002. That storm had a frequency 22 of -- for the -- for the Quinlan Creek area, which is 23 kind of the center of Kerrville and then to left, to the 24 west is Town Creek, and to the east is Third Creek. And 25 the storm was centered right above Quinlan Creek. And 11 1 it kind of encompassed some of Third Creek as well, and 2 following that storm, we were able to, when I worked for 3 the City in 2002, determine that that was somewhere 4 between a hundred year and a thousand year event. So 5 Town Creek, it matched the hundred year perspective. So 6 Quinlan Creek it was well beyond the 500 year and above 7 in my opinion, above a thousand year event. 8 On Third Creek, we didn't -- Third Creek had 9 not been studied back then, so we're not able to 10 compare. But there's staff that worked for the City and 11 for the County that can verify how high the water got 12 going over Landfill Road, it destroyed Landfill Road, it 13 took out fences along the wastewater treatment plant. 14 So there's staff that work there today that can tell you 15 this is how high the water got, and then we've also got 16 staff at the County who was maintaining the Spur 100 17 crossing of Third Creek. They can tell you how high the 18 water got through there and on through the ball fields, 19 so all that data if it's given to both of those 20 engineers they can go back and recalibrate their model 21 and then they can get an idea of okay what do we have 22 here. And I would suggest that that storm along Third 23 Creek it was bigger than a hundred year for sure. I 24 don't know if it quite reached the thousand year, or 25 500, or 200 year event, I don't know, but it was bigger 12 1 than the hundred. It would be a good very benchmark for 2 them to use to do determine if their model is giving 3 good data or not. 4 So for example between these two engineers 5 that looked at the same drainage bases, one said there's 6 about 9 thousand cubic feet of water going through Third 7 Creek; the other engineering firm said there's about 16 8 thousand cubic feet. So there's a big discrepancy 9 between the two. If they both were to calibrate they 10 would probably get their data to realign, and I would 11 suggest that the answer is going to be between those two 12 numbers. I really feel like the 9 thousand cubic feet 13 number is too low. It looked like there was water going 14 through in some sections only 8 feet deep, but then you 15 look at the Freese and Nichols model and it's showing 16 water's going through Third Creek at 28 feet deep, and I 17 have a hard time believing that in a hundred year storm. 18 I think the answer is somewhere in between the two. And 19 I think calibrating would help. 20 JUDGE POLLARD: Would the older storms like 21 the '78 storm have any -- would that information also be 22 helpful? 23 MR. HASTINGS: The information that we have 24 from the '78 storm is restricted to the Guadalupe River. 25 And so those storms have been used to calibrate the 13 1 models that have been run on the Guadalupe, and this 2 model does tie in to the Guadalupe, where at the 3 confluence of Third Creek and Guadalupe River, and I 4 believe the flood elevation there is about 1583, 5 somewhere around there, and their model ties in. 6 Everything ties into that. But then going up, I just 7 think we got some numbers that are too high in one study 8 and too low in the other. I think if the City were to 9 have their consultants calibrate it, they have the 10 staff, they have data available in their files. They 11 know where there's pictures that were taken, the road 12 was reconstructed at Landfill Road. This data is 13 available. 14 COMMISSIONER MOSER: What you need is how 15 high did the water get and how much rain did you have. 16 And so probably '78 you probably don't have that; in 17 2002 you do. 18 JUDGE POLLARD: But there are people alive 19 and available that were here in '78. You're looking at 20 one of them that can give you some information and all 21 of that and a lot of people. 22 COMMISSIONER MOSER: And how much rain came, 23 too. 24 JUDGE POLLARD: That's right. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: One of the things, and 14 1 it's interesting, and I've got copies to hand out. I 2 don't want to confuse things too much, but I'll hand 3 them out afterwards because it's nice to look at. We've 4 talked about the floods we've had historically. The '78 5 flood was the second biggest flood ever in Comfort. It 6 doesn't hit the top five in Kerrville. The '87 flood is 7 the second biggest flood in Kerrville based on this 8 USDA. They said it was the second biggest. It didn't 9 register on the top five in Comfort. So the flooding on 10 the Guadalupe varies greatly on a basically a ten or 15 11 mile area, it's based on what the tributaries to the 12 Guadalupe are doing. The '87 flood had a lot of water 13 at the North and South Fork. The Guadalupe that caused 14 that big flood in '78 the water was on Cypress Creek. 15 That's why it hit Comfort so bad; didn't hit Kerrville 16 that bad. What is interesting in the '87 flood because 17 the little league fields were built then, it didn't 18 flood. 19 JUDGE POLLARD: See, here's empirical data 20 right here sitting in this chair. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, as I said that 22 flood event was on the North and South Fork; it wasn't 23 on Third Creek. So you gotta kind of look at it all. 24 But it varies so much and it's not a real simple thing 25 to determine how these floods what the impact is going 15 1 to be. And I think Charlie's right. I mean we do have 2 the data for the 2002 flood, which was a major flood in 3 that area, up Third Creek. And we probably could even 4 look back at the data we had -- not this past -- maybe 5 two years ago, was it 2015. 2015 in May, that was 6 another big storm on Third Creek, and that would be very 7 easy to look at high water marks and the rainfall there, 8 because that data is kept by the National Weather 9 Service. 10 MR. HASTINGS: So to sum up, I think that 11 the things that need to happen is the models need to be 12 calibrated. I know that the latest Freese and Nichols 13 model doesn't show floodway or base flood elevations. I 14 believe that their flood plain ordinance that the City 15 has requires them to determine what those are. Before 16 proceeding they need to make sure they're not putting 17 their pond in the floodway, and if you haven't shown the 18 boundaries of the floodway you don't know if you've done 19 it or not. 20 And then if we could get copies of the 21 computer models that would really be helpful. I know 22 that the engineers obviously they put them together. 23 They list them as exhibits in these studies that are 24 going to be submitted, or have been submitted to FEMA, 25 and I'd like to get my hands on it also from being -- 16 1 from the standpoint of being the floodplain 2 administrator or Kerr County and a good portion of this 3 study's not in the City limits; it's in Kerr County. I 4 think it needs to go through our office. 5 And then I will also say that I did get in 6 contact with the floodplain administrator or Kerrville 7 late yesterday and he is working on getting some of the 8 data that we asked for so that we can proceed with the 9 surveying. 10 COMMISSIONER MOSER: So we just want to do 11 the best job we can. 12 MR. HASTINGS: Yes, Sir. 13 COMMISSIONER MOSER: And I say we, the City 14 and the County both. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And one of the reasons I 16 put it on the agenda, and like said I was not at the 17 City Council meeting, but my understanding is from what 18 the basic comment was made that the City was going to 19 proceed, because all we asked for them was not to submit 20 the CLOMR, and they've agreed not to submit the CLOMR 21 for 60 days even though we haven't got the information 22 to do that work. And it's -- I don't want to get -- I 23 guess I'm trying to avoid a situation where we have a 24 disagreement over their proposed floodplain map and 25 they've got a pond half built. You know, that's what 17 1 I'm trying to avoid. And I don't know where they are on 2 actual construction. My understanding is they're 3 actually clearing brush over there, not doing the dirt 4 work, but I don't know that. 5 JUDGE POLLARD: Site preparation. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I've never been over to 7 the site to be honest. I mean, you know, I know where 8 it is on the map but other than that, I don't know. And 9 I think it's appropriate to ask the City not to start 10 actual dirt work; they can do all the site work and 11 clearing that they want, until we get this resolved, 12 because that's -- I mean -- I don't want -- I'm trying 13 to avoid getting into a situation where we're in 14 litigation over this pond, and I think the pond's a good 15 idea. I just don't want the pond to impact our 16 property, the public's property, and in a negative way. 17 COMMISSIONER MOSER: That's the bottom line. 18 That's it. 19 JUDGE POLLARD: We do have the Mayor in the 20 audience here and would you like to comment? We don't 21 -- we weren't at the City Council meeting, so if would 22 you at least enlighten us a little bit, Mayor. 23 MAYOR WHITE: Yes, I understand. And let me 24 just say at the outset that my intent from the beginning 25 is always been for the City and the County to work 18 1 together as good neighbors. 2 JUDGE POLLARD: Thank you. 3 MAYOR WHITE: And as you recall I came to 4 you, Judge, a while back -- 5 JUDGE POLLARD: You did. 6 MAYOR WHITE: -- with the initial 7 feasibility study, drawings and information. And at the 8 time the feasibility study from Freese and Nichols 9 suggested that the City seek County approval for this 10 project, because as the feasibility study determined, 11 and again that's been replaced by a final design, but 12 the feasibility study said that for this particular 13 alternative, the south pond, it would only impact as far 14 as flooding the public properties, including City and 15 County; therefore, it says if you seek the approval of 16 the County, it suggested to, then they think everything 17 should be fine. The north pond included potential 18 problems to private property, flooding issues with 19 private property, thence they determined to do the south 20 pond. 21 With that bit of history in mind, my concern 22 now as Mayor ultimately is safety, health and welfare, 23 which is part of the duty of the Mayor by ordinance. 24 And the meeting that Charlie I believe referred to, we 25 discussed the design that he referred to which included 19 1 the floodplain, the revised floodplain by the Freese and 2 Nichols study. Obviously, there's been some issues 3 arise with that. I just want you to know that I did 4 attend -- let me digress for a moment. I received the 5 Commissioners' letter dated November the 15th, presented 6 it to the City Manager, in which you asked for a delay 7 in the submittal of the CLOMR. I scheduled an agenda 8 item for the last meeting to -- well actually, the 9 interim city manager asked for an agenda item to discuss 10 the bids for the distribution lines. In the course of 11 the conversation some of this topic came up. When I 12 mentioned the letter from the County -- and by the way I 13 came to your last meeting a little late apparently, you 14 rushed things through it, and I wasn't able to address 15 the issue at your last meeting. So as we were 16 discussing your letter, I asked that the Council in 17 fact, according to your wishes, defer the submittal of 18 the CLOMR, and suggested from the inference in your 19 letter that we delay the project until the County was 20 able to determine their own study. I did not receive a 21 second. And I was told that I made a misstatement as to 22 your intent. You did not state that you wished us to 23 cease and desist until you did a study, but that was the 24 inference that I gathered from your letter, and actually 25 I was perfectly willing to do that, because you had 20 1 agreed to quickly engage an outside source to do your 2 study. 3 JUDGE POLLARD: Let me interrupt for a 4 second, and let's settle that issue now. Your 5 interpretation of our intent was correct. And let there 6 be no question about that. We do request that they 7 delay the project until we can get this information 8 done, and work with them on it, okay. 9 MAYOR WHITE: That was the inference that I 10 gathered -- 11 JUDGE POLLARD: You were correct. 12 MAYOR WHITE: And I appreciate the 13 clarification and obviously that's why you're having 14 this meeting today. That having been said, I've 15 approached my interim city manger about having a special 16 meeting. He wanted to do so earlier. I said we should 17 wait until you decide what the Commissioners' Court is 18 going to do today. I thought it would be prudent to 19 wait and see what direction you decided to take. But I 20 am going to ask for a special meeting after Christmas 21 so that we can gather this information, present it to 22 Council, and ask that they make a determination. 23 I also want to say that if there is 24 information, which I understood from Mr. Hastings that 25 the City has not delivered to the County, I asked 21 1 yesterday at my weekly meeting that we present 2 everything the Commissioners ask for. I wrote my 3 interim City Manager Mr. Davis this morning, I've not 4 heard back from him yet, but I wrote him a little late, 5 asking to clarify why the City had indeed withheld 6 information from a public study, which I believe is 7 designed to be, and if it is proprietary to let me know 8 under what auspices that information should be kept 9 proprietary. So I scheduled a special meeting to 10 discuss what you decide today and act accordingly. 11 I have contacted my City Manager about 12 releasing information that your County Engineer needs, 13 and hopefully we'll have a response to that, and then 14 anything else that we can do to help in this. 15 I apologize that there has been some 16 misunderstandings and perhaps misinformation. I was in 17 attendance at a meeting where we were given some 18 information on that map that has now been disclosed was 19 a misstatement. So we'll try to get that from my part, 20 I want clarification there. I understand your concerns. 21 I'm a taxpayer, I'm a County taxpayer, just like 22 everyone else here today. And I don't want the City to 23 engage in an activity that might cause the loss of great 24 amounts of dollars and activity for the County. I am 25 part of the County, so I just want to clarify that for 22 1 everybody today. And I'm hoping for an answer if Mr. 2 Hastings needs information, I will look to him to speak 3 to me today, if he hasn't received it. Again if it's 4 proprietary for some reason that I don't know, I'll 5 relay that information back to you as well. 6 JUDGE POLLARD: Thank you very much, Mayor. 7 MAYOR WHITE: Thank you very much. 8 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Thank you, thank you. 9 JUDGE POLLARD: All right. Any further 10 comments or suggestions? 11 COMMISSIONER REEVES: Just a comment, Judge, 12 that I don't remember the exact date that there was a 13 workshop here one day, staff from City, some of the 14 Council members were here, and I asked the former City 15 Manager, I believe twice, and not quoting what was said 16 because we'd have to pull the minutes, but basically was 17 there going to be any impact to not only our property 18 but any of the other properties around, whether it's the 19 cemetery or -- 20 JUDGE POLLARD: The VA property. 21 COMMISSIONER REEVES: VA, KISD has property 22 there, plus individuals, and twice he said no. 23 JUDGE POLLARD: I remember that. 24 COMMISSIONER REEVES: And this -- this 25 concerns me -- was it given without total understanding 23 1 of what was going to happen, because I was thinking in 2 the beginning and it was said here that -- and I think 3 the Mayor repeated that a minute ago, that they did 4 several studies or models or whatever you want to call, 5 and each time if it was going to take it out of the 6 boundaries of the City property, they redesigned it. So 7 with this intent this concerns me greatly. I did not 8 hear the comments you heard, Commissioner, about the 9 County buildings and -- but that concerns me because I 10 think we spent a lot of time using the information that 11 was available at the time to ensure that nothing like 12 that happened. And you know if it does show it's in the 13 floodplain after Mr. Voelkel and his staff complete the 14 work, then we'll deal with it, but we need the 15 information, and I implore on the Mayor to do everything 16 she can to help us with Mr. Hastings, Mr. Voelkel to get 17 the information so we can see what it is. And it will 18 help all of the tax payers in the county regardless 19 where you live. 20 JUDGE POLLARD: You have any comments, Mr. 21 Baldwin? 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. I appreciate him 23 saying those things because I remember exactly the same 24 way. I'd like for Mr. Hastings if you don't mind, just 25 for giggles, to get up and tell us the difference 24 1 between the floodway and the floodplain. 2 JUDGE POLLARD: And also address what you 3 know about what would happen if we gave some kind of 4 notice to FEMA that about this dissatisfaction in here, 5 can they stop the process or what, do you have any idea, 6 okay? 7 MR. HASTINGS: Yes, Sir. 8 JUDGE POLLARD: Thank you. 9 MR. HASTINGS: Well, we'll go in order. 10 Floodplain if it's been studied, a hundred year 11 floodplain is designed as the area of an elevation along 12 the topography of say a creek that will contain the 13 hundred year flow. So let's say the elevation is 100 14 feet above meeting sea level, and the floodway is you 15 take the ends of that and you start putting impediments 16 in the way, and you keep bringing them in until that 17 elevation raises one foot, to 101 feet, that's the 18 floodway. And the idea was that when a community adopts 19 elevation requirements, you have to build one foot above 20 the base flood elevation. The idea is that you may be 21 in the floodplain building a house, and you build one 22 foot above. If everybody does that on both sides of the 23 river or creek, eventually -- and if they come all the 24 way up to the floodway fringe, right on the edge of the 25 floodway, eventually the water level's going to come up 25 1 a whole foot. So the idea was you bought yourself a 2 foot. And that's why they always tell you should go 3 higher than a foot. That's what the floodway is. 4 And then we have had conversations with 5 FEMA, and we asked when this study gets submitted if we 6 object to it what's going to happen. They said well, if 7 you have scientific data that you want to present for 8 your objection, you can't just object and say well I 9 don't like it. You present some scientific data -- 10 JUDGE POLLARD: I can't object to it based 11 on the inaccuracy and the conflict of the information. 12 MR. HASTINGS: It would have to be based on 13 scientific data. 14 JUDGE POLLARD: We're about to get that we 15 hope. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, Charlie. 17 MR. HASTINGS: You're welcome. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The question is, do we 19 need to take any formal action. I mean I think there's 20 a difference of opinion on Council as to what our intent 21 is, we oughta clarify that in my mind. And that can 22 either be done by you sending a second letter, which is 23 probably the easiest way to do it. And I drafted a 24 letter this morning, but I'm not sure it's accurate 25 right now after some of Charlie's comments. I'm not 26 1 sure if it is or isn't, I'll have to relook back at it. 2 But if I could just make a motion to send a second 3 letter to the City, and I just recommend that maybe 4 Commissioner Moser and I agree on the wording, along 5 with the County Attorney, and the County Engineer. 6 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Yeah, and the other 7 thing is perhaps we should include in that letter I 8 would really encourage the technical staff of the 9 County, the City, and the Freese and Nichols, and 10 whomever else, floodplain engineer, floodplain 11 administrators, Lee Voelkel, whomever, sit down around 12 the table and look at the data. I think, you know, it's 13 always, you know, we don't need to go back and forth 14 between between Commissioners' Court and City Council 15 looking at data. I think we can get a group of 16 responsible engineers to look at this data together. I 17 think we can pretty well come down to an agreement on 18 what should and should not be done, so I think that that 19 oughta be part of what we leave here with also. 20 JUDGE POLLARD: You have something you'd 21 like to add, Mr. Wolff? 22 MR. WOLFF: Well, just one comment on that. 23 I think the best way to get this -- for a group to get 24 something resolved, is first get the problem defined, 25 and that would be first to get this new elevation 27 1 determined, or surveyors' information -- 2 JUDGE POLLARD: Of what they are accurately, 3 what's the truth. 4 MR. WOLFF: And let the County Engineer look 5 at it, study it and then come up with his list of 6 questions. Then I think it's appropriate for all 7 parties to get together and discuss it. 8 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Sure, I agree. 9 MR. WOLFF: And I think it should be done in 10 somewhat of a formal manner. There should be a report 11 from the County Engineer for this meeting to present 12 what his findings are, and I think whatever comes out of 13 that meeting should be written up, and presented as a 14 formal report. There's a little bit been-- that's not 15 our common nature of how we do things up here in 16 Kerrville, but I come out of a corporate environment and 17 it's much more formal where you do things like reports, 18 and then you can go back one day and study it and look 19 at it, and you can take it away and say I'll be back in 20 a week, I've got something -- I had something to look 21 at. So that's a comment I wanted to make. 22 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Thank you. 23 MR. WOLFF: Thank you. 24 JUDGE POLLARD: Anybody else have anything, 25 any comment? All right. 28 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I'd like to 2 make one comment. I think another letter would be okay. 3 I think it's going to be fine. 4 JUDGE POLLARD: Especially in view of their 5 -- they weren't sure what our intent was. We need to 6 make that clear. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely. But I 8 would hope that we really be careful and let's not get 9 offensive in anyway, because above all the City and 10 County are friends, and I don't want to -- I don't want 11 to see that affected in any way. 12 COMMISSIONER MOSER: And I'd like -- I'm 13 sorry. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Go ahead. 15 COMMISSIONER MOSER: I'm going to say and 16 add to that, there shouldn't be anybody -- at least in 17 my perspective, I'm not saying anything negative about 18 the effluent pond. I think what that means to the 19 entire community economically is big, so it's probably a 20 lot more benefits there than people are realizing, so 21 this is not the net, it's just a matter of making sure 22 that the -- that the design is right, and the impacts of 23 all parties is numerous. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, then I'll make a 25 motion to authorize Commissioner Moser and Commissioner 29 1 Letz, the County Attorney, and County Engineer to draft 2 a letter for the judge's signature to be sent to the 3 Mayor and the City Council outlining the questions we 4 have related to the issues about the floodplain issues 5 on Third Creek, and requesting that the City not 6 commence construction until these are resolved. 7 COMMISSIONER MOSER: I second. 8 JUDGE POLLARD: Been moved and seconded as 9 dictated into the record by Mr. Letz. Any further 10 comments or questions? There being none, those in favor 11 of the motion signify by raising your right hands. It 12 is four -- make it five in favor of it, it's unanimous. 13 I want to underline that. Okay. Is there any further 14 business? 15 AUDIENCE: Can you restate the motion? 16 COMMISSIONER MOSER: No. 17 JUDGE POLLARD: Can you read it, read it out 18 to us? 19 COMMISSIONER MOSER: She's got it right 20 here. Thank you, Mayor -- 21 JUDGE POLLARD: Hold on, she's going to read 22 it. 23 THE REPORTER: "Well, then I'll make a 24 motion to authorize Commissioner Moser and Commissioner 25 Letz, the County Attorney, and County Engineer to draft 30 1 a letter for the judge's signature to be sent to the 2 Mayor and the City Council outlining the questions we 3 have related to the issues about the floodplain issues 4 on Third Creek, and requesting that the City not 5 commence construction until these are resolved." 6 COMMISSIONER MOSER: I second. 7 AUDIENCE: Thank you. 8 JUDGE POLLARD: All right. Any further 9 comments or questions? 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's really a good 11 motion. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They usually don't sound 13 that good. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Doesn't read that 15 good either. 16 JUDGE POLLARD: She cleaned it up. 17 Okay, if there's no further business, we're 18 adjourned. 19 * * * * * * 20 21 22 23 24 25 31 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 21st day of December, 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