1 1 2 3 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' COURT 4 Special Session 5 Monday, September 16, 2019 6 11:30 p.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: ROB KELLY, Kerr County Judge TOM MOSER, Commissioner Precinct 2 24 JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Precinct 3 DON HARRIS, Commissioner Precinct 4 25 2 1 I-N-D-E-X 2 NO. PAGE 3 1.1 Pay Bills. 3 4 1.2 Budget Amendments. 4 5 1.3 Late Bills. 4 6 1.4 Court Orders. 5 7 1.5 Consider, discuss and take appropriate 5 action on request to enter into a 381 8 Economic Development Agreement with Thompson Drive Partners, L.L.C. 9 1.6 Consider, discuss and take appropriate 60 10 action to approve application for the County Feral Hog Abatement Grant, and 11 allow the County Judge to sign same. 12 2.1 Status Reports from Department Heads. 61 13 2.3 Status Reports from Liaison Commissioners. 71 14 *** Adjournment. 75 15 *** Reporter's Certificate. 76 16 * * * * * * 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 1 JUDGE KELLY: It is Monday, September the 2 16th, 2019. It is 11:30, and the Kerr County 3 Commissioners' Court is now in session. I do see one 4 request for speaking. We can either do that at the 5 beginning of the meeting, or is there a topic, or -- 6 MRS. DOWDY: It may be related to 1.5. 7 JUDGE KELLY: Pardon? 8 MRS. DOWDY: I believe it's in relation 9 to 1.5. 10 JUDGE KELLY: 1.5, okay. Good. 11 Okay, first item on the agenda is to pay the 12 bills. 13 MR. ROBLES: All right. 14 Approval for the Treasurer's disbursement of 15 Kerr County, $279,993.25. Fund 95 $4,095.47. Adult 16 Probation, $15,873.14. Juvenile Probation, $2,179.08. 17 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Move we pay the bills 18 as presented by the Auditor. 19 COMMISSIONER HARRIS: Second. 20 JUDGE KELLY: Been moved by Commissioner 21 Moser, seconded by Commissioner Harris to approve the 22 bills as presented. Any further discussion? Those in 23 favor raise your hand. Four zero, unanimous. 24 Let the record reflect that Commissioner 25 Belew is not present this morning; however, he was 4 1 present at the joint meeting with the City. 2 Item 1.2. Budget amendments. 3 MR. ROBLES: We have ten today. The first 4 three are certifying new revenue for insurance proceeds 5 and donations. We have one for the District Clerk, 6 District records management, Justice of the Peace 2, 7 County Attorney, Tax Office, County Jail, County 8 Engineer, and 216th DA. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move for approval. 10 COMMISSIONER HARRIS: Second. 11 JUDGE KELLY: Been moved by Commissioner 12 Letz, and seconded by Commissioner Harris to approve the 13 budget amendments as presented. Is there any 14 discussion? Those in favor raise your hand. Four zero, 15 unanimous. 16 Late bills. 17 MR. ROBLES: We have two of them. One for 18 Billy Morgan's Construction. This is related to the tax 19 office that the County Court at Law door between those 20 two. And the second one is for Indigent Services, 21 employee training. 22 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Move we pay the late 23 bills. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Been moved by 25 Commissioner Moser, and seconded by Commissioner Letz to 5 1 pay the late bills. Any more discussion? Those in 2 favor raise your hand. Four zero, unanimous. 3 Court orders. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. We have Court 5 Orders from our September 9th meeting. Court Orders 6 37683 through 37703, and I move we approve all as 7 written. 8 COMMISSIONER HARRIS: Second. 9 JUDGE KELLY: It's been moved by 10 Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Harris to 11 approve the Court Orders as presented. Any discussion? 12 Those in favor raise your hand. Four zero, unanimous. 13 1.5 consider, discuss and take appropriate 14 action on request to enter into a 381 Economic 15 Development Agreement with the Thompson Drive Partners, 16 LLC. 17 MR. SCHULTE: Good morning. My name is 18 Steve Schulte. I'm here on behalf of the MacDonald 19 Companies. And we were here a couple weeks ago and I 20 presented our request for a 381 Agreement. I'll be 21 brief and I'll repeat some of that just to get everybody 22 up to speed and refresh your memory. 23 We have 60 acres on the other side of 24 Thompson Drive. When this is all said and done, we'll 25 be adding about 250 housing units. We'll have 6 1 restaurant pads, retail space, and office space. Right 2 now we're putting in the streets and we're bringing in 3 wastewater from Francisco Lemos Bridge and we're 4 bringing in water service from the water plant. That's 5 all ongoing right now. And we're in the process of 6 putting our streets in. 7 We're asking for a 381 agreement with the 8 County for a five-year period. And I want to remind you 9 the 381 agreement, we're not asking the County to give 10 us any money. We're asking in this type of agreement 11 requires the County to forbear collection of ad valorem 12 taxes on the improvements only. So in other words, our 13 land value will continue to go up, the County will 14 continue to receive full ad valorem tax payments on the 15 land value. We're asking the County to forbear five 16 years of the improvement only. 17 Ms. Stebbins and I have drafted a proposed 18 agreement that should be in your packet. It's in the 19 same format and has the same material terms as the 381 20 that the County did with James Avery. Last time I 21 passed out a worksheet. 22 Commissioner Moser, I don't know if you have 23 a copy or not. 24 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Thank you. 25 MR. SCHULTE: Do you still have a copy of 7 1 one? 2 JUDGE KELLY: Yeah, I have it. 3 MR. SCHULTE: Okay. This hopefully better 4 explains what it is that we anticipate doing with the 5 project and the economic impact it will have on the 6 County. This is -- these numbers in here are based on 7 the third-party report that we obtained. And it should 8 be in your packet as well. We believe it's a 9 conservative estimate. 10 But basically in the first box it shows you 11 the anticipated taxable value of the project, total 12 project. It shows that the land increasing three 13 percent a year and it shows the anticipated value as the 14 land goes up in value through 2025. And again, the 15 County will continue to collect full ad valorem taxes on 16 the land value. 17 The next line shows the improvements that 18 are -- the value of the improvements that are 19 anticipated on the property over the next five years. 20 Then you go down to the middle box and that shows the 21 anticipated ad valorem tax revenue, separated between 22 the land and the improvements. 23 And if you go down to where it says 24 agreement affect on taxes, that's the number that the 25 County will be forbearing for the next five years. So a 8 1 total of $591,000. So based on the report, we estimate 2 that over a 30-year period that the County will collect 3 over seven and a half million dollars in ad valorem tax 4 from this project and it will collect almost seven 5 million dollars in sales tax revenue, leaving a total 6 economic impact potentially for this project is over 14 7 million dollars. 8 So what we're asking to do -- the Court 9 today to do is to approve the Economic Development 10 Agreement, the 381 agreement that was drafted by 11 Ms. Stebbins and I. 12 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Question to either 13 Granger or Justin or to whomever. The phases of 14 development have -- you said that there was 250 15 residential -- 16 MR. SCHULTE: Yes. 17 COMMISSIONER MOSER: -- is that right? So 18 what -- how does that phase residential to commercial to 19 whatever? 20 JUDGE KELLY: Let me stop you, Justin. 21 You're going to have to tell us who you are because I 22 don't recognize the family resemblance. 23 MR. MACDONALD: Justin MacDonald, 2956 Dry 24 Hollow here in Kerrville. 25 Commissioner Moser, to answer your question, 9 1 that's -- the first phase is 120 units of apartments 2 that will be, you know, just general multi-family market 3 rate apartments. Then after that we're looking at doing 4 somewhere around 60, more or less, 60 to 75 units of 5 55-plus independent living that'll be within the 6 development. And then the final phases after that will 7 be for sale townhomes that we'll be developing on some 8 of the remaining land. So that's where the 250 housing 9 units comes from. 10 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Uh-huh. 11 MR. MACDONALD: Then in addition to that, we 12 have four -- excuse me, five and possibly a sixth 13 restaurant pad site that overlook the river. And then 14 we also have four retail sites up along Thompson Drive. 15 And we would also consider additional retail sites on 16 some of the land within the development that doesn't get 17 used for restaurants or townhomes. 18 COMMISSIONER MOSER: So when does the 19 commercial part come into play? 20 MR. MACDONALD: Those sites would be 21 available, I guess, anytime really. The utilities are 22 currently under construction for that to serve the site 23 with water and wastewater. So as soon as we get that 24 finished and then get the streets completed, we're 25 anticipating the early part of next year for those to be 10 1 finished and for those sites to be available for 2 construction and shovel ready. 3 COMMISSIONER MOSER: And this is City water 4 provided? 5 MR. MACDONALD: Yes, sir, it is. 6 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Okay. Good. 7 MR. MACDONALD: City water and City sewer. 8 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Okay. All right. 9 JUDGE KELLY: Remind me the number of 10 apartments again? 11 MR. MACDONALD: 120 in the first phase and 12 then somewhere between 60 and 75 in the 55-plus second 13 phase. 14 JUDGE KELLY: Got it. Okay. Any other 15 questions for Mr. MacDonald? 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: On the restaurants and 17 the commercial, what's the value projected in your 18 numbers of that portion versus the residential portion? 19 MR. MACDONALD: Do you have that, Steve? 20 That's a good question. I'm not sure that I've got that 21 right in front of me. It's in that lengthy report, 22 economic analysis that we submitted initially. 23 All right, so looking here, your total 24 taxable value for your retail -- well, that's out in 25 2030. Let's look a little closer. So say five years 11 1 from now -- so 2024, your retail taxable value of -- our 2 consultant projected that to believe 8.8 million 3 dollars. And they projected the restaurant to be about 4 20, slightly over 20 million dollars. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the residential? 6 MR. MACDONALD: The residential -- I believe 7 we're projecting that to be somewhere about nine to ten 8 million off the top of my head. 9 COMMISSIONER MOSER: So the commercial thing 10 on the need, and sound like the site would be available, 11 could be fairly early? 12 MR. MACDONALD: Yes. 13 COMMISSIONER MOSER: As opposed -- you know, 14 because when I was looking at this, you know, if it was 15 just a residential 381 request, you know, that would 16 probably be looked at a little bit different. 17 MR. MACDONALD: Right. No, the commercial 18 will definitely be available next year, and we'll be 19 shovel ready, you know, in the early part of next year. 20 So that's available for development pretty much anytime 21 after that. Of course, you know, we don't anticipate 22 that it will all sell and develop at the same time. 23 There will be, you know, some amount of lead time to 24 that and, of course you know, time to market. 25 We have engaged a real estate broker to go 12 1 ahead and start the marketing portion of that. We did 2 that last week. And so we will start contacting folks 3 to look at those sites here very soon. 4 Commissioner Letz, to answer your question. 5 I found the -- it's on -- well, of course there's not a 6 page number here. But I found the answer to your 7 question. I believe the multi-family total, again five 8 years from now, so in 2024 would be a 22 million dollar 9 taxable value, and then the townhomes as built out would 10 be roughly 10 million. 11 COMMISSIONER MOSER: So say that again, 12 Granger -- I mean Justin. 13 MR. MACDONALD: The townhomes are -- 14 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Townhomes, okay. 15 MR. MACDONALD: -- are about ten million. 16 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Okay. 17 MR. MACDONALD: And the multi-family would 18 be about 22 million -- 19 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Okay. 20 MR. MACDONALD: -- in total. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So the total commercial, 22 I combined restaurants and retail, it's about 29 23 million, correct? 24 MR. MACDONALD: I believe that sounds right, 25 yes, sir. 13 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So it's about -- pretty 2 close to 50/50. 3 MR. MACDONALD: Yes. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the reason I ask the 5 question is that I don't recall us giving a tax 6 abatement on a residential in the past. 7 MR. MACDONALD: Sure. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not saying we 9 haven't, I just don't recall doing one. And I'm -- I'm 10 thinking precedent. Are we going to start getting a 11 request for every subdivision that goes in? The 12 commercial side of it is something that we've done in 13 the past, and I support doing definitely. The 14 residential side is a little bit of a question mark 15 because of the precedent issue. 16 MR. MACDONALD: Sure. And I understand 17 that. I would have two answers to that. First have 18 all, since this is a mixed use development, they're kind 19 of inextricably tied as far as The Landing itself is 20 concerned, because you kind of can't really have one 21 without the other. I think they kind of feed off of 22 each other. 23 And then of course second of all, you know, 24 we hear all the time about shortage of affordable 25 housing units in Kerr County. So I think that, you 14 1 know, that certainly it's within your purview to address 2 that through a 381 Agreement if you so chose. But even 3 if you were to, kind of, exclude the housing off the 4 table, I think the commercial kind of speaks for itself 5 on this development as well. 6 COMMISSIONER MOSER: If I go back to your 7 numbers, Justin, the 22 million for multi-family and 8 10 million for townhouses, that was like in 2024 and the 9 total that you have is like 38 million. So that's about 10 six million, then, would be for commercial? 11 MR. MACDONALD: And I may have misread that. 12 I'm kind of working on the fly here, so I will have to 13 -- I'll have to double check those numbers. 14 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Well, while you're 15 looking at that, I'm with Commissioner Letz, you know. 16 I couldn't recall anything since I've been here for six 17 or seven years, whatever, that you know -- 381's for 18 residential development. And you guys have developed 19 things around this area for some time. Has that been 20 the case in the past for 381's on apartments and things? 21 MR. MACDONALD: I can't speak to anybody 22 else. I can tell you that we have never requested one 23 in Kerr County before, but we also have never developed 24 anything -- or not developed anything in Kerr County 25 within the last ten years because largely due to land 15 1 availability and affordability. So I would say that 2 that's part of it. 3 Previous developments that we have done in 4 Kerr County have all been assisted in other ways. 5 Generally through a state allocated housing tax credit 6 or other, you know, low interest loan fund or something 7 like that for low income housing. But those funds are 8 not available for market rate, kind of, general work 9 force housing like we would be doing here. 10 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Okay. My concern is 11 the same as Commissioner Letz. The precedent that we 12 might be setting here on housing, there's -- you know, 13 we're putting in 60 million dollars of infrastructure, 14 sewer down into Center Point to Comfort area, which I 15 think is -- could be a potential big housing development 16 and, you know, I can see developers coming back -- 17 coming to us pretty soon if we do this and say, you 18 know, we need -- we need an agreement on this so we can 19 make this thing play. 20 MR. MACDONALD: Well, I think, you know, 21 your response to that would be that you've already 22 subsidized that development by the installation of the 23 infrastructure. 24 COMMISSIONER MOSER: But they -- they'll pay 25 for it eventually, okay. 16 1 MR. MACDONALD: Well, could be. 2 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Right. 3 MR. MACDONALD: I mean we're having to 4 shoulder the majority of the cost for the infrastructure 5 to get to the site, which is about four million dollars 6 in total. 7 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Yeah. 8 MR. MACDONALD: So, you know, that's -- 9 that's a cost that we've chosen to bear. We've received 10 some amount of funds from the City and the EIC, which 11 help defray that, but that was not -- not even a 50 12 percent, you know, or a matching funds deal. 13 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Yeah. 14 MR. MACDONALD: So that's -- that's one of 15 the reasons why we're here today to talk to you guys. 16 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Okay. Yeah. Well, 17 just apples and apples, some future development down 18 there, sewer is one thing. And it's -- there would be a 19 big connection between -- running down Highway 27 to 20 where they want to go, plus roads and water, etc., etc. 21 So that would still be big on their part too. So I 22 think we need to think about precedent on -- on 23 residential. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Heather, did you visit 25 with the Tax Assessor on this? And the reason is, there 17 1 is a -- how -- if it's a rebate or a refund or 2 something, there's a big difference to how it gets 3 treated internally, according to Bob. And we need to 4 make sure that it's done -- and it comes in -- it's a 5 how the effective tax rate gets calculated. One way the 6 dollars are the same, but if it's -- if it -- if we 7 exempt it it's done one way; if we refund it or rebate 8 it, it's done a different way. And one way is included 9 in the effective tax rate calculation; the other way it 10 isn't. And it's important that we do it in the manner 11 that it does not impact our effective tax rate. 12 MRS. STEBBINS: So the -- what Bob sent me 13 was the tax abatement agreement will provide for 14 counting as new property. The abated value as the 15 abatement agreement expires. The amount will depend on 16 the terms of the abatement agreement and the County 17 would -- could offer one that reduces the percentage of 18 abated value each year. There's no adjustment for a 19 rebate in the tax rate calculations. 20 MR. SCHULTE: So the way it's set up now is 21 it's not an abatement; it's a -- it's a refund. So at 22 the designated mile post, the County would refund the 23 taxes that are actually paid. And I understand your 24 concern is how it's treated internally and affecting the 25 effective tax rate. 18 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. And I just want 2 to make sure, I mean, that the net impact to the 3 developer is the same, but it does have an impact on our 4 tax calculations, which are becoming very critical 5 because of the ceiling for the 2.5 on the effective tax 6 rate calculation. I just want to make sure that we're 7 doing it -- what's beneficial from our standpoint. 8 JUDGE KELLY: Do we know which way is best 9 for us? 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's what I can't 11 remember. 12 MRS. STEBBINS: So the Tax Assessor's 13 suggestion was to offer the exemption where we get some 14 new value each year as opposed to having all the 15 money -- or all of the new value in one year, was his 16 suggestion. 17 JUDGE KELLY: Say that again. 18 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Yeah. 19 MRS. STEBBINS: Okay. Offer an exemption 20 where we get some new value each year as opposed to 21 having all of the new value in one year. I guess after 22 the abatement period runs. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh, so it -- so what 24 he's saying is that 5th year if it's in abatement, all 25 that value is hitting at that one year so then it makes 19 1 the effective tax rate is going to hit -- affect that 2 calculation that year, whereas if we refund it each 3 year, the value is going up on it from the effective 4 rate calculation each year. So doing a refund as 5 opposed to an abatement. 6 MRS. STEBBINS: Yes. 7 MR. SCHULTE: The concern I have with an 8 abatement is, the way it's set up now, the money would 9 be refunded to the developer. Okay. The tax money 10 would believe paid to -- if we sell the land to a big 11 restaurant and the restaurant pays their taxes, that 12 money doesn't get refunded to the restaurant. It gets 13 refunded back to the developer. The abatement wouldn't 14 work that way. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You're beyond my pay 16 grade. 17 MRS. STEBBINS: And what the attorney 18 suggested to him was that there's no adjustment for the 19 rebate in a tax rate calculation. So the rebate would 20 be -- 21 COMMISSIONER MOSER: But he's not saying a 22 rebate. He's saying not rebate; it's a repayment. 23 MR. SCHULTE: No, I'm saying not abate; I'm 24 saying -- 25 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Right. 20 1 MR. SCHULTE: -- it is a rebate. 2 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Okay. It's a rebate -- 3 MR. SCHULTE: You get it back. 4 COMMISSIONER MOSER: -- but not an 5 abatement. I -- I said the wrong thing. 6 MR. SCHULTE: Yeah. Yeah. 7 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Okay. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just -- I mean, if we 9 do something we just need to make sure that it -- 10 because it's a very -- I'm really not the expert there. 11 MR. SCHULTE: And I set -- we set it up just 12 the same way that Avery is doing it. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the effective tax 14 rate calculations changes that. That's the issue. 15 MR. SCHULTE: Okay. I understand. 16 JUDGE KELLY: The legislature gave us a new 17 method. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 19 MR. SCHULTE: So -- and real briefly, I'd 20 like to address your concerns about precedent. And just 21 pose a question is, is that a bad precedent to set? 22 Because everybody will agree that housing is one of our 23 biggest or about the biggest concern in the County. And 24 maybe you do start a precedent, but is it a bad 25 precedent? 21 1 COMMISSIONER MOSER: That's a good question. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's the, I guess, the 3 household income that residential portions is projected 4 to? 5 MR. SCHULTE: Our goal is to have it set up 6 as affordable to the workforce. The young 7 professionals. All of the new people that are coming in 8 to work at the state hospital expansion, nurses, 9 firemen, teachers, policemen. It's that level. We want 10 to have affordable places so the people that we need 11 housing for can live. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So -- so a number -- so 13 income in the 75,000 range? I mean, is that 14 somewhere -- 15 MR. SCHULTE: That's fair. 16 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Yeah. I think it was 17 presented the other day -- I can't remember where I was 18 -- it was like the mean in this area is -- or probably 19 for Kerr County is a little less than 50,000 per year? 20 MR. MACDONALD: Upper 40's, yeah. 21 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Huh? 22 MR. MACDONALD: Upper 40's, yeah. It 23 changes about how many people are in the housing group 24 with two children, three children, four children -- 25 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Right. 22 1 MR. MACDONALD: That mean goes up and down 2 accordingly with that. 3 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Yeah, it was a mean 4 income per whatever, okay. And then mean income of a 5 sale of properties was a little less than 300,000 as I 6 recall, so it's -- you know, there's a big -- so I'm 7 with Commissioner Letz. So how does this fit within a 8 low mean income and what's being proposed here for some 9 of the workforce housing? 10 MR. MACDONALD: We do not have income 11 restrictions on this property. 12 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Yeah. Right. 13 MR. MACDONALD: It's not a low income 14 housing tax credit by any stretch of the imagination; it 15 is for anybody. You could walk up and rent a unit. I 16 can walk up and rent -- anybody can. But typically who 17 will be -- who we say is our tenant base in this will be 18 the -- the working folks who have been really forgotten. 19 You know, if you're on the lower end of the income 20 spectrum, you can get a Section 8 voucher, you can get a 21 tax credit unit, and you can get help. If you're on the 22 upper end of the bracket you don't need help. It's the 23 folks in the middle that are jammed out. 24 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Yeah. 25 MR. MACDONALD: And I guess the real 23 1 question you have to ask yourself on this whether you 2 want residential or not, is do you believe there's a 3 housing shortage in Kerr County? Do you believe 4 everything you read and hear about it? 5 And I think to your point, when you have a 6 50,000 or under median income, and $300,000 median home 7 prices, then you've got a delta because you can't afford 8 a $300,000 home on a $50,000 a year income. But you can 9 come in and pay $1,200 a month rent and have a nice two 10 or three bedroom apartment and have a place to live here 11 and get a job here and function in Kerr County. 12 And the other thing I would say about, you 13 know, down County in the future, we're standing here 14 ready to start 120 units today; not in the future. 15 We're ready to have them up and started. There's nobody 16 else standing here saying I want to go build 120 units 17 today. 18 And if this is approved today, our next stop 19 -- Hunter's got the check, he's going across the street 20 and pick up the building permit. If it's not approved 21 I'm not sure yet. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I think the -- I 23 mean, what you have to understand if we do a 24 precedent -- if we do it for you it is even more -- do 25 we have to do it for the next person? No. But it's 24 1 more difficult to turn them down. But I go back to -- I 2 don't disagree with what Steve said, and that is it a 3 bad precedent? That, to me, is kind of the issue as 4 much as anything. On the commercial side, I'm in favor 5 of it. The residential, I have a little bit more of a 6 pause. And it may be a good thing to do. And if this 7 came along in other areas of the County, will it be 8 supported? 9 And that's kind of where I'm -- my mindset 10 is. It's something that we should as a Commissioners' 11 Court support moderate income housing through this type 12 of a method. And quite frankly, I hadn't really thought 13 about it the way Steve brought it up, but I think it's 14 be a good point. 15 COMMISSIONER HARRIS: It is a good point. I 16 see both sides. The precedent is important. You're 17 standing here ready to go with something. We do have a 18 housing shortage, and that's important to look at. And 19 your argument is fine. The people in the middle are the 20 ones that are kind of left out a lot of times. But then 21 again, it opens the door, so -- 22 COMMISSIONER MOSER: One other secondary 23 question. On your projected improvements, that's for 24 assuming that the restaurants or whatever are there, the 25 value of those properties are included in that bottom 25 1 line number. So it's just -- not knowing who that might 2 be or what it would be, how do you -- how do you come up 3 with what those commercial values are? 4 MR. MACDONALD: Our economic development 5 consultant came up with those. And it's -- it's all 6 based on averages. 7 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Okay. I -- okay. 8 MR. MACDONALD: Aggregated data. 9 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Yeah, okay. 10 JUDGE KELLY: And I think that's -- to me, 11 that's the key to this whole issue, is this is a 12 mixed-use development. This is Kerrville. We've done 13 things the same way forever. We've approached the real 14 estate market both commercially and residentially from a 15 traditional point of view. This is not traditional. 16 This is the wave of the future. This is what we're 17 going to have to do for this town to be able to meet its 18 labor needs and provide affordable housing. 19 Any precedent that we set in my mind clearly 20 is mixed-use precedent only; this is not open 21 residential. We don't get the apartments built over 22 there if we don't have the commercial development. 23 They're tied together. I agree with what Justin said, 24 they're inextricably tied, so this is a unique 25 development. It's a unique property. It's a unique 26 1 opportunity, and I view this as a one of a kind thing. 2 And if we're setting any precedent, it's going to be 3 bring us more one of a kind things that we can take a 4 look at. That's the way I see it. 5 MR. MACDONALD: Commissioner Letz, I'd also 6 say that you have commercial multi-family and 7 residential; it's not residential or commercial. And I 8 think that, you know, if someone's willing to come in 9 here and talk to you about something in Center Point 10 that's multi-family, that's a different story than a 11 subdivision. Multi-family is a -- in a -- we're getting 12 ready to spent $126,000 a unit right now times 120. 13 Well, that -- I'm sorry, I just don't think you're going 14 to see 120 subdivision lots come up in the next five 15 years. And I think maybe the definition should be 16 single family, multi-family, commercial when you talk 17 about subdivisions versus what we're doing here. 18 JUDGE KELLY: That's a good point. 19 COMMISSIONER MOSER: It is. And I think the 20 other point that finally came out of this discussion, 21 too is that the improvements -- I think it was stated 22 like about 50/50, so that's a good ratio. And I assume 23 that that's -- starts off at not 50/50 first couple of 24 years, but -- 25 MR. MACDONALD: Long term. 27 1 COMMISSIONER MOSER: -- long term gets 2 there, and I would -- it looks like it's there within 3 five years per your projection. 4 JUDGE KELLY: And I think that's -- I think 5 that's a -- that oughta be a -- a threshold that when 6 you come to us with these mixed use projects, we've 7 gotta have a 50/50 balance. If we don't have 50 percent 8 commercial, we're not talking to you about an abatement. 9 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Or something like that, 10 yeah. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: My only remaining 12 concern -- and I think, Steve, your point was very well 13 taken. To make sure we're doing it most advantageous 14 from our effective tax rate. Because I'm very concerned 15 about down the road if we have -- if it has a negative 16 impact. And is there a way that you can verify through 17 our Tax Assessor or through our tax attorney as to -- 18 there's a way to structure it where the developer gets 19 the benefit but the County doesn't get hurt? 20 MR. SCHULTE: Well, that's -- that's our 21 intention. 22 COMMISSIONER MOSER: He said verify. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Verify. 24 MR. SCHULTE: Well, I can -- and this may be 25 getting beyond my pay grade, too. But I -- we are 28 1 certainly willing to work with the Tax Assessor and make 2 sure that the effective rate is not -- 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I mean I'm -- 4 there's bound to be a way to accomplish both. 5 MR. SCHULTE: I agree. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So I mean -- I just want 7 to make sure that I understand what -- 8 JUDGE KELLY: But I want -- I want the 9 answer to the question. 10 MR. MACDONALD: Yeah. 11 MRS. STEBBINS: I think the answer to the 12 question is right here from the tax attorney. There is 13 no adjustment for a rebate in the tax rate calculation. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's no adjustment 15 for the rebate. 16 MR. SCHULTE: And that's what we're asking. 17 MRS. STEBBINS: Right. 18 COMMISSIONER MOSER: So what you're saying 19 is if we rebate that then -- well, you just said it, 20 huh? Period. Got it. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So a rebate -- a rebate 22 is okay. It isn't going to hurt us, and the value is 23 going to go up. You pay the taxes each year and then we 24 refund the taxes each year as opposed to giving you a -- 25 MR. SCHULTE: That's the way -- 29 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- end of tax -- 2 MR. SCHULTE: -- that's the way we have it 3 set up, yeah. 4 COMMISSIONER MOSER: So the appraised value 5 goes up each year -- 6 MR. SCHULTE: Each year. 7 COMMISSIONER MOSER: -- whether or not we 8 realize -- whatever we do with the revenue from ad 9 valorem taxes. 10 MR. MACDONALD: Well, and you actually 11 collect the revenue and then -- 12 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Right, I understand. 13 And then we give it back. You sound like my wife. 14 MR. MACDONALD: I would think that that 15 would be the most advantageous because the County is -- 16 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Yeah. 17 MR. MACDONALD: -- assessing and collecting 18 and then they're -- you're just turning around and 19 rebating it back. 20 MR. SCHULTE: And that's probably why it was 21 set up that way originally because if you just abate it 22 then it would affect the tax rate. 23 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Okay. Well, I will -- 24 I'll move for approval of the 381 tax -- is it called a 25 tax abatement, or the 381 Economic Development Agreement 30 1 with Thompson Drive Partners, contingent on the fact 2 that it is not affecting our effective tax rate. 3 COMMISSIONER HARRIS: She's got that look on 4 her face. 5 MRS. STEBBINS: Well, so in one of these 6 e-mails between the Tax Assessor and the attorney, the 7 tax attorney -- 8 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Sounds like it's not, 9 so -- 10 MRS. STEBBINS: -- it sounded like that he 11 was leaning toward it would be more beneficial to do the 12 rebate. And then in the last e-mail that he sent to 13 Commissioner Letz and me, says this confirms my thinking 14 as far as the effective tax rate goes it would be better 15 to offer an abatement -- an exemption versus the rebate. 16 And I think that's conflicting with the attorney. 17 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Well, so is my motion 18 still okay with contingent on? 19 MRS. STEBBINS: I think your motion is fine 20 with that -- 21 COMMISSIONER MOSER: And then we can -- 22 MRS. STEBBINS: -- I just have to say it out 23 loud to y'all. 24 COMMISSIONER MOSER: -- if it's not then 25 we'll work out what's there. 31 1 JUDGE KELLY: Well, if I'm sitting in that 2 seat out there, I want certainty. I know what you need. 3 And sitting in this black chair here, I want certainty. 4 And I don't feel like I'm getting it right now. That's 5 not critical. I'm just saying I really want -- I wish 6 our Tax Assessor was here to talk to us about it. 7 MRS. STEBBINS: Do you want me to go run and 8 see if he's here? I'll go check. I'll be right back. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Did we have somebody 10 else that wanted to speak to this? 11 JUDGE KELLY: Bruce signed up. Do you want 12 to speak? 13 MR. STRACKE: Certainly. 14 JUDGE KELLY: See what happens when you show 15 up in Commissioners' Court? 16 MR. STRACKE: You know, that's exactly where 17 I'd like to start because I don't come here often 18 enough, and Commissioner Moser and I were talking about 19 that earlier. And I know Commissioner Letz and I have 20 talked about that in the past and -- and it's something 21 that I do want to add to my calendar. I hope to come 22 here more frequently and speak. So thank you very much. 23 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Second and fourth 24 Monday every month. 25 MR. STRACKE: Yes, sir. 32 1 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Yeah. Bring donuts. 2 MR. STRACKE: No. I got it. No, no, I got 3 it. It's a calendar issue for me. But I want to thank 4 you guys for thinking about Kerrville and looking 5 forward and looking at ideas like this that -- and Judge 6 Kelly, you essentially hit every -- I'm not even looking 7 at my notes because you hit every point -- one of the 8 points, that I had about this project. 9 This is a unique project for the County that 10 we have not contemplated in the past. We don't see 11 these kinds of mixed use developments here, and that's 12 unfortunate. This one adds another element where it 13 takes advantage of the Guadalupe River, which is a 14 resource that really -- we have turned our backs to over 15 and over again in the City and the County. And this is 16 the first project in the 12 years, very short time that 17 I have been here, that the developer, the owner, and 18 the -- all the teams that they have assembled to look at 19 a project has really looked at how do we take advantage 20 of the resources that are available to us, the views, 21 the tourism, the river, and find a way to really keep 22 Kerr County the capital of the Hill Country, which is 23 what we are. 24 And this is the first project to do that. 25 And it is a great precedent to set. And so, I don't 33 1 want to go over everything that Judge Kelly brought up. 2 He's exactly right. There's a -- there's -- this sets a 3 bar that few developers in Kerr County can achieve and 4 none have done in the past. So I just thank y'all for 5 everything you're doing to make Kerr County the 6 wonderful place to live that it is and you're building 7 upon those that came before you and I appreciate that. 8 JUDGE KELLY: But it is the kind of 9 development that we want to attract. 10 MR. STRACKE: Yeah, I believe it is. Now, 11 I'm a commercial broker, right, so I'm biased. I'll 12 admit the bias. That's what I do. But yes, this is 13 exactly the kind of thing that we need in Kerr County, 14 in my opinion. Yes. 15 JUDGE KELLY: Thank you. 16 Bob. Let's hear what Bob's got to say. 17 COMMISSIONER REEVES: I will say I'm here 18 without a subpoena. 19 MRS. STEBBINS: He asked if I had one, and I 20 said no. 21 MR. REEVES: I actually conceded the 22 appearance fee so I could buy lunch. 23 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Lunch is over so -- 24 MR. REEVES: Yeah. How can I help the Court 25 today? 34 1 JUDGE KELLY: We're trying to make sure. I 2 think the Board is inclined to favorably consider this 3 request for the 381 abatement, but we want to do it in 4 the most constructive way for the County. And we 5 understand there's a difference between rebates, 6 refunds, abatement, and we're not exactly sure. That's 7 why we're asking you what -- what light can you shed on 8 the best way to do this? 9 MR. REEVES: Okay. This is only speaking 10 from the best way for calculating what is now known as 11 the effective tax rate, which plays a major part as we 12 know what has happened. 13 After Mr. Schulte and MacDonald's were here 14 a few weeks ago, I e-mailed our liaison with the law 15 firm of Purdue, who does our delinquent taxes, but also 16 helps on the truth and taxation part of it. And my only 17 question was looking from the best way and calculating 18 effective tax rates, would it be more advantageous to us 19 to receive -- or for us to issue a refund check to the 20 development out on Thompson Drive on an annual basis, 21 much as we're doing with -- 22 JUDGE KELLY: Avery? 23 MR. REEVES: -- the Avery's, or would it be 24 better to offer some type of tax exemption with the same 25 terms. In other words, year one it's for Kerr County, 35 1 and I'm assuming you're talking lateral roads, that it 2 would be a hundred percent exempt of new value. Year 3 two, a different percent. 4 Why I say this, if you're recalling what I 5 presented to the Court a few months ago on how effective 6 tax rates are calculated, new value is not figured into 7 the effective tax rates. It's -- it's new money to us 8 because it's new value. If we were to rebate on a 9 percentage and while the money coming into the County 10 Treasurer would be the same, the money available at new 11 value would only be that first year. With -- with an 12 exemption abatement where say a hundred percent, then 13 90, at least we're getting that percentage in new value 14 that would be taxed. 15 Now, that -- that may not fit the plan of 16 this new development, and I'm not here to judge that, 17 I'm just here to offer my opinion. And I also sought 18 counsel from the Purdue Law Firm on what it would be 19 best only for the effective tax rate calculation. 20 JUDGE KELLY: So I'm trying to -- I'm 21 trying to understand what you're explaining to me. And 22 I don't know enough about the effective tax rate to do 23 that. But right now, if we did the refund -- and I'm 24 just going to call it a refund -- 25 MR. REEVES: Okay. 36 1 JUDGE KELLY: -- because that's -- they pay 2 and then we refund money -- 3 MR. REEVES: We give it back. 4 JUDGE KELLY: -- back to them. 5 MR. REEVES: Yes, sir. 6 JUDGE KELLY: That's what we did with Avery 7 and that's what they're proposing that we do here. The 8 first year, let's just say that there's a million 9 dollars worth of value added. 10 MR. REEVES: Okay. 11 JUDGE KELLY: Now, that's the part that's 12 going to be refunded. Let's -- let's just start off and 13 say -- just using as an example here. That -- that the 14 land value is a million. 15 MR. REEVES: Yes. 16 JUDGE KELLY: Okay. And the first year's 17 worth of work is going to increase that another million. 18 MR. REEVES: Okay. 19 JUDGE KELLY: So he's paying taxes on two 20 million. And we're refunding him the tax on the one 21 million worth of improvements. 22 MR. REEVES: The new value. 23 JUDGE KELLY: The new value. 24 MR. REEVES: Okay. 25 JUDGE KELLY: Okay. That new value is not 37 1 considered in calculating our effective tax rate for 2 year one. Right? 3 MR. REEVES: That is correct. That one 4 million dollars. 5 JUDGE KELLY: That's right. And so then 6 year two, let's say he adds another million dollars. So 7 now we're up to three. So the second year he's 8 paying -- he's paying taxes on three million dollars to 9 us. And -- on three million dollars worth of value. 10 And then -- and we're refunding him the improved value 11 not only for the first year but now the second year. 12 That second year is increased value is new value on our 13 tax rolls, right? 14 MR. REEVES: That is new value. 15 JUDGE KELLY: Okay. And so, we're just 16 doing the same thing by refunding it. If we get the 17 value for year one, increased value, and improvements 18 for year one. We get it for year two. Same for years 19 three, four, and five. 20 MR. REEVES: If the value's going up. 21 JUDGE KELLY: Uh-huh. Yes. 22 MR. REEVES: Well, where -- where you're 23 looking at, year one is totally the same in your 24 example. My example, though, would be year one, a 25 hundred percent, we don't have to report that million 38 1 dollars -- or -- let me back up. I misstated. Year 2 one, one million dollars, it's new value. It doesn't 3 affect our tax rate for year one. 4 JUDGE KELLY: Uh-huh. 5 MR. REEVES: But we're not receiving any 6 benefit in tax dollars. We're not talking about 7 benefits what it brings, and please be clear on that. 8 But we're -- we receive no value -- or no tax dollars 9 net, because we turn around and write them a check. Am 10 I understanding what you're saying? 11 THE COURT: Uh-huh. Yeah. 12 MR. REEVES: Okay. If we go to year two, 13 we're still writing a check for a million for the taxes 14 refunded to them for that million dollars. 15 JUDGE KELLY: The first million. 16 MR. REEVES: The first million. Let's just 17 use this for my example. 18 JUDGE KELLY: But let's change the example 19 to make year one, one million, year two, two million. 20 MR. REEVES: If I could -- if I could 21 finish, Judge, just -- 22 JUDGE KELLY: Okay. 23 MR. REEVES: -- to show you on this. And 24 with all due respect, where I'm coming out is that say 25 your year one, it's no taxable value in my example. 39 1 Year two, we get ten percent of it or five percent or 2 one percent. We get to declare that value as new, it's 3 still exempt, and we don't write a check. I'm trying to 4 gain the new value in increments rather than in one time 5 and never get to get any net benefit to our calculation. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- the abatement's a 7 hundred percent each year for five years. 8 MR. REEVES: Okay. If that's -- and if it's 9 not staggered. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, it's not staggered. 11 It's -- it's a full -- 12 MR. REEVES: Then -- 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- resource -- I 14 shouldn't say -- 15 MR. REEVES: Then -- 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- it's a full refund 17 for each year. 18 MR. REEVES: Then in that example, 19 Commissioner, it's more than adequate for us to do it as 20 an exemption, whether refund -- because in year five or 21 year six, I guess we're going, then we get all that as 22 new value. It's still bottom line would be the same 23 to -- to your net position, whether you get a refund or 24 you don't. The -- the bottom line would be the same but 25 to us. We get that new -- all that new value to use at 40 1 the end of whatever period you're discussing, and that 2 doesn't figure into the effective tax rate. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So we're better doing 4 the exemption? 5 COMMISSIONER REEVES: In my opinion only, 6 we're good. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're looking at 8 effective rate only? 9 COMMISSIONER REEVES: Effective rate. And I 10 have confirmed this through the delinquent tax attorney. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because this way if you 12 do the exemption, we never get the increased value -- 13 MR. REEVES: We never get the -- 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- for the last year. 15 MR. REEVES: We never get the -- 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So if we do a refund the 17 value goes up every year. 18 MR. REEVES: We never get the benefit of it. 19 Now, I understand there's plenty other aspects y'all 20 have to look at, but I am only looking at it from the 21 effective tax rate. 22 COMMISSIONER MOSER: So exemption -- if you 23 exempt it, then -- 24 MR. REEVES: It's not new taxable. 25 COMMISSIONER MOSER: -- it's not -- it 41 1 doesn't affect the tax rate. 2 COMMISSIONER REEVES: It doesn't affect the 3 calculation. 4 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Then -- okay. 5 MR. REEVES: Because in year one we got that 6 million dollars or whatever it is. But in year one, it 7 doesn't affect the calculation, but we receive no 8 monetary contribution for it. 9 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Well, let -- let me ask 10 it a different way. We could either exempt or we could 11 rebate their taxes. 12 MR. REEVES: That is correct. 13 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Okay. Option one is 14 exempt, what does that do to the tax rate versus option 15 two if we rebate the taxes paid? 16 MR. SCHULTE: In which year? 17 MR. REEVES: No. And I'm -- I'm asking 18 because year one, it's new value. It doesn't affect us. 19 Year two, it'll already -- 20 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Now year one for 21 exemption, or for rebating the -- 22 MR. REEVES: For rebating. 23 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Rebating. 24 MR. REEVES: Right. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But in year two that one 42 1 million dollar value is included. 2 MR. REEVES: In our effective tax rate. And 3 we're not -- we, being -- 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And though we're 5 refunding all the money so we're not getting -- we're 6 enjoying our values going up but we're not getting any 7 taxes for it. 8 MR. REEVES: That is correct. Including an 9 appreciation on their property that year one it was 10 worth a million based -- 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The land is not included 12 in that, though. 13 MR. REEVES: I understand. But just the new 14 improvement. Year one it was worth a million. Year two 15 it goes up to 1.1 million. 16 COMMISSIONER MOSER: So from accounting 17 perspective, tax rate consideration, effective tax rate, 18 it's better to exempt, if I'm understanding, than to 19 rebate. 20 COMMISSIONER HARRIS: Is that what you're 21 saying, Bob? 22 MR. REEVES: From the effective tax rate 23 calculations, yes. 24 COMMISSIONER MOSER: It's better to exempt 25 than to rebate. 43 1 MR. REEVES: For the effective tax rate. 2 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Right. And the 3 effective tax rate is even more important next year than 4 this year. 5 MR. REEVES: Coming into the next year's. 6 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Okay. So what does 7 that mean to the development? 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, that's not -- 9 that's not the structure of the current agreement. 10 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Right. Right. Right. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The question is, can you 12 agree to be structured to accommodate that? 13 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Right. 14 MR. SCHULTE: We're happy to do it either 15 way. And I just checked the enabling statute and the 16 enabling statute expressly gives y'all the authority to 17 have a tax abatement agreement, which that's what that 18 would be. 19 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Well, this would be -- 20 JUDGE KELLY: Let me make sure -- 21 COMMISSIONER MOSER: -- if we did it that 22 way it would be an exemption. 23 JUDGE KELLY: But let me make sure I 24 understand it and y'all understand it. Because it's -- 25 it's your money. Okay. I mean, we're talking about 44 1 what our tax -- and -- and I'm going to change my -- my 2 example up to make sure that I understand this. 3 Let's say the land is worth a million. 4 We're going to get the tax on that million. It's going 5 to be whatever the value of that land is, each of those 6 five tax years for the abatement period. 7 MR. SCHULTE: Correct. 8 JUDGE KELLY: If it appreciates in value we 9 get the increased appreciated value tax rate, right? 10 Okay. So that's a million. 11 Now let's say that the first year we're 12 going to put -- we're going to -- and we're going to get 13 another million of improvements. That's new value. 14 That doesn't go into calculating the effective tax rate. 15 Correct? 16 MR. REEVES: New value does not. We'll get 17 the benefit on the tax rolls, but it -- 18 JUDGE KELLY: So we get -- we get the 19 benefit on the tax rolls, but it doesn't affect our 20 effective tax rate. Now that second year, let's make 21 that two million so we can follow the ones, twos, 22 threes, fours and fives. Okay. Make that two million. 23 That two million is new value. And so that 24 does not get counted on the effective tax rate for the 25 second year. But the first million for the first year 45 1 does. And we're not receiving the taxes off of that, so 2 that that is the economic disadvantage to the County at 3 that point. And the same for the third. The third 4 year, let's say it's three million. Well, we have to 5 count year one, one million, and year two, two million, 6 but we don't have to count year three, three million. 7 MR. REEVES: And and I will only qualify 8 this. If it is new value; not increased value. In 9 other words, Mr. MacDonald's wish that I would come true 10 to a million one year, a million point one the next 11 year. That hundred thousand is not new value for us. 12 That's increased value, and that's where the effective 13 tax rate is. 14 JUDGE KELLY: And so if we exempt it, then 15 we defer all of that new value for the five years. 16 MR. REEVES: Until the end of -- 17 JUDGE KELLY: And on -- at the end of the 18 5th year, on year six, boom, we've got a lot of new 19 value that does not go into calculating our effective 20 tax rate, and that would be the year of opportunity for 21 us. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And year six we get the 23 taxes for it when the -- 24 JUDGE KELLY: We get the taxes and -- and we 25 get the benefit of that not counting -- 46 1 MR. REEVES: Correct. 2 JUDGE KELLY: -- on our effective tax rate 3 for that year and receiving the income off of that. 4 MR. REEVES: Right. 5 MR. SCHULTE: Okay. I want to clarify 6 something. Because we've been throwing around a lot of 7 different terms. Is an abatement the same thing as an 8 exemption? 9 MR. REEVES: I'm using exemption -- 10 JUDGE KELLY: Differently. 11 MR. REEVES: -- as a generic term, 12 counselor. 13 MR. SCHULTE: As the same thing as an 14 abatement. Okay. 15 MR. REEVES: Yes. 16 MR. SCHULTE: Okay. Good answer. 17 COMMISSIONER MOSER: So therefore, the way 18 it's -- the 381 Economic Development Agreement was 19 written, it is not an exemption using the same terms we 20 just stated, but it's a rebate of the taxes paid, so -- 21 MRS. STEBBINS: That's right. 22 COMMISSIONER MOSER: -- so it's got to be 23 rewritten. 24 MRS. STEBBINS: It's got to be rewritten and 25 we can probably post it on your next regular meeting 47 1 and -- 2 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Right. 3 MRS. STEBBINS: -- we can make that happen. 4 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Okay. Okay. But I 5 think to the development that it's the same, the same -- 6 it's just what it means to us and the effective tax 7 rate. 8 MR. SCHULTE: I would have another 9 suggestion so we don't have to come here and have the 10 motion be approving the agreement subject to changing it 11 to an abatement rather than a refund, and your tax 12 attorney and -- 13 COMMISSIONER MOSER: See, I don't think we 14 can do it unless we see the agreement. I'm -- I mean, 15 I'm not going to look at it; Heather is, okay? 16 MR. SCHULTE: Okay. 17 COMMISSIONER MOSER: But I think it would be 18 better and cleaner to say, you know, have it an agenda 19 item. I think we've been through it, we understand it, 20 and we -- 21 MR. SCHULTE: Okay. 22 COMMISSIONER MOSER: -- can simply say there 23 that it's -- that it's an exemption, the way it's 24 written and we press on. 25 MR. SCHULTE: We can get on the next -- next 48 1 meeting agenda? 2 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Which is -- 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're here next Monday. 4 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Which is -- we'll be 5 here on the 23rd. We'll be here next Monday. 6 MR. SCHULTE: Okay, that works. 7 JUDGE KELLY: Mr. Baroody, did you have 8 something to say to us? 9 MR. BAROODY: Yes. So I don't have to come 10 back to the next meeting. 11 JUDGE KELLY: You're welcome to come back to 12 the next meeting. 13 MR. BAROODY: I know. 14 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Yeah, Bruce is going to 15 be here so you may as well be here. 16 MR. BAROODY: I told you at the last meeting 17 and got a little bit of a deaf ear on the way out so I 18 don't really want to go through that again, but -- 19 George Baroody. So I had some stuff to say, 20 but it's basically the stuff that's been talked about 21 kind of hit on it. So what I talked about last time is 22 the same thing. You guys talked about precedent and 23 you're talking about precedents being set to donate 24 to -- or incentivize the residential. 25 But the real precedent you're setting is 49 1 that you're choosing to -- sounds like you're choosing 2 to incentivize a project that's already actually begun. 3 And that's a pretty dangerous precedent to me. It 4 doesn't seem like the way it's set up to do an economic 5 development in the -- in the locality -- in this 6 municipality or the area, we've got KEDC set up, which I 7 believe Mr. Moser and I think Mr. Letz are both on. And 8 it's supposed to be the clearinghouse for economic 9 development from the County, the City, EIC, and whatnot. 10 And this particular project went through 11 that process back in -- with the same -- I mean, I'm 12 sure there's details that have changed, but generally 13 speaking it's the same exact project it is now. A 14 60-acre development, mixed use. I think everybody 15 agrees it's a wonderful project. Nobody is going to say 16 different. And so it was presented there, and out of 17 that -- 18 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Wait a minute. For the 19 record, it went to EIC; it did not come to KEDC. 20 MR. BAROODY: Well, there was a GO Team. 21 The GO Team made -- 22 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Okay. 23 MR. BAROODY: -- a decision on it and that 24 essentially is -- 25 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Correct. 50 1 MR. BAROODY: -- the -- 2 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Okay. That was the 3 EIC, though, just to be clear. Okay. 4 MR. BAROODY: Yeah, the GO Team has a tie in 5 through the County. 6 COMMISSIONER MOSES: We have -- right. 7 MR. BAROODY: And a tie into the KEDC. It's 8 kind of how it gets filtered through. They act as a 9 clearinghouse to as to where to send the funding 10 agreement. And so at that point the decision was made 11 to have the EIC provide some funding, the City provided 12 a tax abatement as well and the project moved forward. 13 Also, what's been said here is that the 14 residential and the commercial are inextricably linked. 15 Essentially, The Landing is the project, And The Landing 16 development has begun. We have the -- the water -- the 17 water and sewer lines are being placed in the ground -- 18 or that development is occurring. They -- they said the 19 streets are being worked on. You can see that dirt's 20 being moved. The apartment complex -- they've applied 21 for building permits. I guess they haven't received 22 them or gone to get them yet. 23 But the bottom line is this project has 24 begun, so it's different than Avery. Avery came to you 25 all, the Commissioners' Court, to ask for their funding 51 1 agreement, their 381 agreement before they even had 2 purchased the land, to finalize the purchase of the 3 land. So they were getting their ducks in a row ahead 4 of time with the funding. Therefore, it followed the 5 typical economic development but for test. But for this 6 incentive, the development would not occur. 7 This one, the commitments already been made. 8 He -- he referenced -- Mr. MacDonald referenced that if 9 they can get this agreement, at least in principal, then 10 they can go purchase the building permits for the 11 apartment complex. Well, one of the drawbacks to the 12 City and the EIC is that those apartment complexes are 13 built, so presumably the incentive agreement from that 14 one should have had that lined up. 15 So you all's incentive isn't to make those 16 apartments go; it's for -- just to further the project 17 along. But like I said, it seems -- seems like a 18 dangerous precedent. Anybody that's building a project 19 comes up a little bit short or wants a little extra 20 financing, they come and ask for it. That just seems 21 like a backwards way to do it. 22 And as a taxpayer, if you're going to vote 23 for that, and you're perfectly entitled to, but I think 24 you should explain to us why you would set that 25 precedent as far as, you know, after the fact. It's not 52 1 an incentive anymore. Now it's a gift. And at that 2 point, now I think you start running into a little bit 3 of a gray area with the Constitution with Article 3, 4 Section 52, where you're not actually allowed to give 5 away resources and, you know, you could argue -- an 6 argument could be made that the project has already 7 begun, it's no longer an incentive. It's just a -- it's 8 a give away. 9 And so I would -- I would ask that you guys 10 at least explain how you got to that justification to 11 set that precedent. And then, in -- like I said last 12 time, in light of the budget deficit you guys are 13 running that's a difficult one to explain to the 14 taxpayer, that you're going to leave money on the table 15 that is going to come in. Whether you give this money 16 or not, that project is going to occur. It basically 17 has to. So -- 18 COMMISSIONER MOSER: I think -- I think you 19 made some good points, George. From my perspective, I 20 called this weekend, as a matter of fact, I verified 21 that this had not come to KEDC, which kind of surprised 22 me, okay. I mean, I should have known it but -- without 23 asking, but I wanted to make sure I didn't miss 24 something that went through KEDC I wasn't aware of. But 25 it had not come to KEDC and it should have. But I would 53 1 also -- and I understand everything you're saying, but I 2 also look at the improvements are not there yet, okay. 3 There's some of the improvements are going in. But when 4 you look at the values here for the improvements that 5 are not they're yet, the apartments, the multi-family, 6 etc., etc., etc., and the commercial. So, you know, I 7 wouldn't have any trouble explaining to a constituent 8 why it came here and the reason any action would be 9 taken, you know, in light of the -- 10 MR. BAROODY: Can I respond to that? 11 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Huh? 12 MR. BAROODY: Can I respond to that? 13 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Sure. 14 MR. BAROODY: Okay. So it's -- well, I 15 understand what you're saying there but it's kind of 16 like this. If -- if the beginning is inextricably 17 linked to the end -- 18 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Yeah. Right. 19 MR. BAROODY: -- then it's kind of like 20 saying, if I have laid the foundation for my house, I 21 haven't begun building the house yet because the 22 improvements for the upstairs -- 23 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Right. 24 MR. BAROODY: -- aren't there yet. So if 25 they're linked, the project starts when ground is 54 1 moving. 2 COMMISSIONER MOSER: I'm not arguing with 3 you. I -- I understand. I think we're on the same 4 page. 5 MR. BAROODY: Okay. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Let me make a comment 7 first for Mr. Baroody, or George, as I usually call him. 8 We don't do a whole lot of 381 agreements. 9 But two out of the last three projects were already 10 underway. Bending Branch -- 11 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Right. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- and LeMeilleur. Both 13 of those were existing businesses that were ongoing and 14 the projects were going or, you know, where they were 15 exactly -- this is a little bit different, the real 16 estate development, one's a winery, one's a repair shop. 17 But we have -- you know, I don't think this 18 is a new precedent on that part of it because it's a 19 different -- it's new to that degree. And, you know, 20 it's a semantics thing and so I'm not going to get into 21 a debate about it but we have done that before. 22 And the other issue is, you know, I don't -- 23 I can't say what Mr. MacDonald's going to do or not do. 24 If we do or don't do this. He feels -- or his companies 25 feel that this is an important aspect to their 55 1 development, but to me the issue isn't this particular 2 development as much as -- I think you'll look back to 3 what the Judge said is that, do we want to incentivize 4 this type of development in Kerr County? We need the 5 housing and I think it's a good -- and I think we do 6 need to incentivize this. We need to get developments 7 like this off the table. So, to me, it's more yes, it's 8 helping this first one that's up, but it's also sending 9 a message that we will support this type of development. 10 MR. BAROODY: Can I just read one little 11 thing? 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sure. 13 MR. BAROODY: Thanks, I appreciate it. And 14 then I'll sit back down. 15 MR. MACDONALD: I rather doubt it. 16 MR. BAROODY: Yeah. Appreciate that, Sir. 17 JUDGE KELLY: You know, this is not a 18 debate. This is an opportunity for you to share input 19 with us. 20 MR. BAROODY: That's what I'm doing. And 21 it's just basically, what is the -- the precedent that 22 you guys talked about, the two out of the last three. 23 You're actually supposed -- I assume, running off the 24 City of Kerrville's, City of Ingram's economic 25 development and standard policy is the most recent one 56 1 that I'm aware of in 2008 and it explicitly says, It's 2 not the intent of this policy to consider a project that 3 is already underway as originally planned when 4 application was received. So if you've been doing that, 5 I guess the question is why, you know. So anyways -- 6 MR. MACDONALD: Commissioner Moser, you're 7 exactly right in that it didn't go to the ECDC at the 8 time because there was a vacancy, there wasn't a quorum 9 and they weren't -- weren't able to hear us. And you're 10 -- you're quite exactly right. They did not take this 11 there. 12 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Okay. Okay. 13 MR. MACDONALD: The basic line is, do you 14 want this to take 30 years to get developed or do you 15 want it over five or six? Do you want the development 16 now or do you want it over a long period of time? Yes, 17 we're putting streets and utilities in. That was Phase 18 1. That's how you get started. That has nothing to do 19 with the improvements or our ability to do the 20 improvements. 21 Our ability to do the improvements is based 22 on where we go now. What we're up here for today. 23 Plain and simple. 24 I know Mr. Baroody has had a lot of 25 animosity toward our family. It's been well documented. 57 1 I want to apologize that he's allowed that to spill over 2 from across the street over here. But I -- I do believe 3 that we've adequately made our case, that what we're 4 trying to do is expedite what's good for the community 5 and get this on the tax rolls. Get it up. Get it 6 built. Get people in housing and get moving forward. 7 COMMISSIONER MOSER: So I -- I think we're 8 there. I think we're just saying let's get the 9 agreement so we can see it so the attorney can see it. 10 And based on the things that we talked about. So I 11 think it's okay. 12 So no action or I -- my motion -- or it 13 didn't get a second anyway, so I will withdraw the 14 motion. 15 JUDGE KELLY: Well, but I -- I think it's 16 important that the applicant in this case can at least 17 have the benefit of our thinking because there are a lot 18 of important decisions to be made here. And there is 19 this -- this last minute effort to derail what I thought 20 was in place. 21 And just for the record, your attorney 22 approached me about getting this on the agenda about a 23 month before we started the budget process, and I'm the 24 one that didn't get it on the agenda. So I'll -- I'll 25 take the responsibility for that because I was -- my 58 1 priorities were focused elsewhere. 2 But I -- I would like to go on record that I 3 don't -- I don't want to penalize our local business 4 people that are in business here. And when we did the 5 LeMeilleur and when we did Bending Branch and -- and 6 this one, when we're courting people from outside to 7 bring them into our community, to bring their capital 8 and invest it in our community, that's one thing. 9 But when we have local businessmen with the 10 ability to develop here, and they ask to get put on an 11 agenda and i put them off because I'm busy trying to 12 balance the budget -- didn't do too well with that but I 13 tried -- I don't want to penalize local people. We 14 want -- we want our local businessmen to help lead the 15 way for the growth that we're going to have in this 16 County. And this is not just about bringing people in 17 from the outside. 18 So I'm in favor of the project. I do want 19 to do it to maximize the benefit to the County. So my 20 vote would be yes if we had a vote. 21 COMMISSIONER HARRIS: I've got to get the 22 right interpretation and -- and get everything -- cross 23 the T's and dot the I's. So we're putting you off one 24 more week it looks like. 25 JUDGE KELLY: But we're going to do it 59 1 right. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. But the -- I 3 think it was either Mr. Avery, but I believe it was 4 probably L.D. Brinkman who told me at one point when I 5 first became a Commissioner that economic development is 6 great, but make sure you're not -- you're taking care of 7 the companies and businesses that are here first, rather 8 than trying to court and bring them from outside all the 9 time. And I appreciated what he told me. And so it 10 stuck with me because it's true. I mean, you know, we 11 have people here in this community that have done a lot, 12 done a lot of business, and we need to help them get 13 ahead. 14 JUDGE KELLY: Well, I don't want to penalize 15 somebody because of my personal relationship with the 16 lawyer. I get around to it when I get around to it. I 17 didn't get around to it and somebody says, time out, too 18 late. 19 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Yeah, now I know. 20 That's true. This morning I said, why did we put this 21 on a special agenda? Now I understand. 22 JUDGE KELLY: Okay. All right. Any other 23 discussion? Okay. I think you know our sentiment. 24 Court stands adjourned. Oh, we've got an amendment, 25 1.6. 60 1 COMMISSIONER HARRIS: When we first put this 2 on -- I'm filing -- or I'm applying for a grant to help 3 supplement our Feral Hog Abatement Program. And so 4 they're offering -- they're going to offer up to 20 -- 5 anywhere from 5 to $20,000. And so I'm sure there's 6 going to be a lot of competition for it, but if we can 7 get anything out of it I think it would be a good thing. 8 JUDGE KELLY: Well, we got plenty of hogs. 9 COMMISSIONER HARRIS: Yeah, we've got plenty 10 of hogs. So anyway, that's why I put it on here. And 11 so I move that we approve the application. I'll be 12 sending in for the County's Feral Hog Abatement Grant, 13 and you don't actually have to sign it, but I won't be 14 able to send it off. Today's the deadline. 15 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Today's the deadline? 16 COMMISSIONER HARRIS: Yes, Sir. 17 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Okay. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 19 JUDGE KELLY: It's been moved by 20 Commissioner Harris, seconded by Commissioner Letz to 21 approve the application for the County Feral Hog 22 Abatement Grant. Any other discussion? Okay, those in 23 favor raise your hand. Four zero, unanimous. 24 COMMISSIONER HARRIS: Okay. Good. 25 JUDGE KELLY: I guess we still do have to -- 61 1 have some information items down here. 2 Status reports from department heads. Do we 3 have any reports? Okay. 4 MRS. DOSS: You're very lucky it's me and I 5 love being short, and I know y'all are hungry for lunch. 6 JUDGE KELLY: Did that have a double 7 meaning? 8 COMMISSIONER HARRIS: It would if it was me. 9 MRS. STEBBINS: I bet she has lots of stools 10 in her house. 11 MRS. DOSS: Hey, I do. 12 MRS. STEBBINS: I do too. Hey, I'm wearing 13 heels. 14 MRS. DOSS: So I just took these numbers, if 15 you look at the first page, since the beginning of the 16 last fiscal year -- because my first report was in 17 February so I didn't have a whole lot of time to go off 18 of. So since 10/1 of last -- of '18, we have hired 201 19 people, 143 of those are in elections. So not including 20 the election department, we have hired about 58 people. 21 Total terminations, about 187. Of those total 22 terminations, 143 were elections but that's still a lot 23 of, you know, data entry. And then this just shows you 24 where our hires -- hires, different departments that 25 they're going to different terminations, where it's 62 1 coming out of. 2 Okay, on the second page, we have a total 3 budgeted salary. Assuming that this last pay in 4 September is about the same as it has been, we'll still 5 have about 172 -- $173,000 balance in the salary budget. 6 Now, human resource budget, we have an HR budget 7 remaining about 14 and a half percent. 8 So moving on over to indigent health, the 9 Kerr fiscal year ended 8/31 so these are annual numbers. 10 So she served 1,025 clients. Total expenditures were 11 $125,143.97. Of those expenditures, three were public 12 citizens, and that cost was 21231, which is on a bar 13 chart at the very end, for your reading pleasure. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So what's a public 15 citizen? 16 MRS. DOSS: A public citizen that comes in 17 and applies -- a Kerr County citizen that applies for 18 indigent health. We have three on the book. The 19 remaining 176 are jail inmates. And that's -- we have 20 to go through the application process for all of those 21 inmates, and that's where a lot of the work comes in. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a comment. 23 Before we moved the indigent health under our direct 24 control, prior to that it was at Peterson Hospital, and 25 the last year that I recall, we spent $896,000 on 63 1 indigent healthcare. So it's amazing that -- and that 2 was because we do a lot more thorough job on checking 3 that they're truly indigent. 4 JUDGE KELLY: Well, and let me say, I did go 5 down to Human Resources and I did sit with Mary Lou 6 Ayala for some time, and let her walk me through exactly 7 what she does from intake to the final payments. And 8 she's doing a very thorough job of screening for 9 indigents. I could not have been more impressed -- 10 MRS. DOSS: Yeah. 11 JUDGE KELLY: -- with what they're doing 12 down there. 13 MRS. DOSS: And that's one of the things 14 that I wanted to bring to light as well. She treats it 15 like her own money. She is like the best investigator 16 when she sits down and talks with these people. It just 17 -- she has found her calling, she really has. She's 18 really, really very thorough. 19 JUDGE KELLY: Now, you're putting your 20 glasses back on before you start up -- 21 MRS. DOSS: Uh-huh. 22 JUDGE KELLY: -- my footnote to that 23 conversation, this sharing with the Court because of the 24 open meetings act, I haven't been able to tell you guys 25 what a great job she's doing down there, but there is a 64 1 huge problem in Human Resources. 2 I'm sitting over there talking to Mary Loud 3 Ayala, and she's explaining things to me and we're 4 talking in conversational tones. And I say just in a 5 conversational tone -- you weren't there that day, 6 but -- and I said -- 7 MRS. DOSS: I took a late lunch. 8 JUDGE KELLY: Cindy was back there. And I 9 said now, of course there's no HIPAA violations, you 10 don't hear what I'm talking about, do you, Cindi? And 11 she sticks her head around the corner and she says, I 12 hear every word. 13 We have to do something about the HIPAA 14 confidentiality laws. That's my point. 15 MRS. DOSS: And they're working on it. 16 JUDGE KELLY: It has to be done. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're working on it. 18 It's ready to go. As soon as the money comes up, it's 19 ready -- Shane's ready to start construction on 20 October 1st. 21 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Yeah, I think we have 22 four or five of those things that we need to do. 23 JUDGE KELLY: Well, that's -- that's one 24 that -- 25 COMMISSIONER MOSER: We needed a petition in 65 1 Veterans Service and on and on, yeah. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But that one's critical. 3 JUDGE KELLY: That's against the law. 4 MRS. DOSS: Right. 5 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Yeah, understand. 6 JUDGE KELLY: So put your glasses on. 7 MRS. DOSS: Okay. So anyway, about 8 twenty-one two has been spent on those three public -- 9 Kerr County citizens. The remaining 139 has been spent 10 on inmates. And if you'll look there's a breakdown in 11 physician services, prescription drugs, hospital 12 inpatient outpatient and lab x-rays. And so there's a 13 bunch of bar charts. I won't bore you, you can read 14 those if you want to put yourself asleep. 15 COMMISSIONER MOSER: A quick question. On 16 the new hires, etc., that was full-time, or is that a 17 combination of both or -- 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Both. 19 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Both? 20 MRS. DOSS: That is a combination of both. 21 Yes, Sir. 22 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Okay. Good enough. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I think the -- the 24 intent here is that whether it's any employee that gets 25 hired or terminated, there's a lot of paperwork. 66 1 MRS. DOSS: Right. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So the fact that a 3 part-time person just to run elections, they also have 4 to be put into the system. Takes a lot of time. 5 COMMISSIONER HARRIS: I have a quick 6 question on your bar graph. The last one, 2020, we've 7 already got 17 on the books? 8 MRS. DOSS: Those are probably the ones that 9 she has pre-identified. It's probably inmates. 10 COMMISSIONER HARRIS: Okay. 11 MRS. DOSS: I mean every six months she has 12 to reassess all of the inmates and make sure that 13 they're still eligible for the program, and you have to 14 have $219 or less in your commissary account to be 15 eligible. And, you know, depending on if they bought a 16 bag of socks or not, that continually goes up and down. 17 So -- 18 JUDGE KELLY: And that really ties back to 19 the mental health problem we were talking about at our 20 joint meeting this morning. It is acute. It's an acute 21 problem. 22 COMMISSIONER HARRIS: Sure. 23 JUDGE KELLY: Especially in the jails. 24 MRS. DOSS: So things that we have been 25 working on or have worked on. The open enrollment 67 1 process, I believe was a success. We had 2 representatives from TAC, SWBC, Edward Jones, Axis, and 3 Boston Mutual, and Avesis. I received great comments 4 from the vendors. They like the new schedule. I told 5 them next year we're going to try to do one meeting for 6 two days. So eventually this is going to be an online 7 open enrollment process, which I visited with several 8 over counties and they have be doing for several years. 9 So that's in the works. 10 We had 219 employees RSVP for the open 11 enrollment meetings, and I think the actual number that 12 showed up was higher. So all the employee changes to 13 the coverages have been input in the system. They 14 started coming out to the first payroll of September. 15 We had a few glitches with SWBC, but those have all been 16 worked out. 17 Another project we've been working on is 18 going paperless. So the projects -- these paperless 19 projects we've completed, all terminated employee 20 personnel files have been scanned into the system. And 21 terminated employee medical files have been scanned. 22 All workers' comp documentation has been scanned. 23 General liability claims have been scanned. Historical 24 training documentation has been scanned. FMLA files 25 have been scanned. And currently I'm about halfway 68 1 through the current personnel files confidential 2 information, of getting all that scanned. So we're 3 reducing our fire hazard. 4 So upcoming training and other events. 5 Larry Boccacio was here on September 11th and he gave 6 safety training for the courthouse staff. We had 39 7 attendees. It was very well received. He was -- he 8 does a great job. Anybody that can make that topic 9 entertaining and amusing, he does really good. 10 Mary Lou and Joy Johnson are going to be 11 going to the annual indigent healthcare solutions 12 training, starting tomorrow through the 19th. 13 Heather and I will be doing supervisor 14 onboarding training for new -- for the supervisor 15 training manual that was approved a couple months back. 16 So far we've had about 25 RSVP's for that. 17 MRS. STEBBINS: That's good. 18 MRS. DOSS: Yeah. I'll be going to a mini 19 regional pool workshop in San Antonio on the 26th. 20 There's annual TIHCA, which is the Texas Indigent 21 Healthcare Association conference in Galveston later in 22 October. And then also Larry's going to come back and 23 do Road and Bridge -- specific safety training for Road 24 & Bridge on October the 16th. We're going to have that 25 at the Hill Country Youth Event Center. 69 1 And then the tentative dates for our remodel 2 are the 7th through the 18th. I think that part of that 3 time Mary Lou is on vacation and I'm at a conference, so 4 we're going to share -- we're going to have an office in 5 Maintenance Department. I think there's enough room to 6 put us in there. 7 And then the second week of it, I think 8 there's -- the three of us are going to be back. I'm 9 going to use Lisa's -- she's offered her office and she 10 can just work remotely, or I can bunch up there with 11 her. So I think we've got that worked out. 12 JUDGE KELLY: Well y'all are both short. 13 MRS. DOSS: We don't need a lot of leg room, 14 right? And then there's an annual HR Southwest 15 Conference in Fort Worth at the end of October, I'll be 16 going to. 17 And then employment law training in 18 New Braunfels that I'm planning on going to. 19 That's all I have. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Good. Thank you. 21 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Very good. Appreciate 22 it. 23 MS. DOSS: Thank you. 24 JUDGE KELLY: Any other department reports? 25 MR. ROBLES: I don't really have a report, 70 1 but I did give y'all each one of these sheets, and it's 2 just a list of changes from the proposed budget. Some 3 additions and property insurance and auto liability 4 insurance. I also had a few reductions in there. I 5 just wanted to make the Court aware that when we come 6 back next week to adopt the bunch that there will be 7 some proposed changes to discuss and here's your 8 opportunity to go through it. 9 COMMISSIONER MOSER: No big changes. 10 MR. ROBLES: No, the net effect is quite 11 small actually, 6,700 for general fund. We actually 12 took a reduction in Road and Bridge which was nice. And 13 juvenile detention has enough fund balance in it to 14 where this property insurance increase won't affect any 15 tax allocations. 16 JUDGE KELLY: While we've got you up there, 17 James. How are we looking on what's going to be 18 returning to us at the end of this fiscal year? 19 MR. ROBLES: I've completed every department 20 for every fund, revised fund balance projection with the 21 exception of the general fund, which is the largest and 22 most important piece I'm sure, but I hope to get that to 23 you sometime in the middle of this week so that we'll be 24 prepared to that prior to coming back. 25 JUDGE KELLY: How's it looking? 71 1 MR. ROBLES: It's looking okay. 2 COMMISSIONER MOSER: What would you guess? 3 MR. ROBLES: There's a lot of pieces to the 4 puzzle. 5 COMMISSIONER MOSER: I think that was a no 6 response, no comment. 7 MR. ROBLES: Really with the comp time 8 payout, there's a lot of math we've got to do. I'm 9 still working on it. But less. 10 JUDGE KELLY: We anticipated that. 11 COMMISSIONER MOSER: I think that was a 12 non-answer. 13 JUDGE KELLY: Okay. Do we have any elected 14 officials reports? 15 Liaison Commissioner status reports. Let me 16 lead off by a lot of you were not at the joint meeting 17 this morning, but those of you that were learned that 18 we've had very successful outcome in dealing with our 19 scrap tire restoration project. The -- you'll recall 20 that's the one where they came to us and said they 21 wanted to use the split tires and used tires in our 22 gravel pits and put down a layer of tires and a layer of 23 dirt and gravel and what have you, backfill, and build 24 lips and fill these pits, these empty pits. We had 45 25 days. They were making application to TCEQ, which 72 1 requires that they notify us. We had 45 days to file 2 comment. 3 During that period of time, we found out 4 that they had actually gone to AACOG and applied for a 5 grant to get the money for the Government to pay for 6 them to come carry their used tires in our -- on our 7 river. And I gave a shout out to Reagan, who happened 8 to be at the resource recovery meeting and hear them 9 represent that we approved this, that the County 10 approved the project. And we're all sitting back trying 11 to figure out how to stop it. They're telling people 12 that we approved it. 13 The next day I got a call from the committee 14 chair, Georgia Zannaras, wanting to confirm that we in 15 fact approved it, and when I advised her that we did 16 not, she proceeded to start laying out all of the 17 arguments that we needed to put in our objections to 18 TCEQ. 19 And when we found out we had about five days 20 to go on our 45, we got the letter -- six-page letter 21 out, got it to TCEQ, got back to AACOG, got a call from 22 Diane Rath, the Executive Director. They have pulled 23 the grant application. It will not appear on the 24 agenda. So we've at least stopped any outsource or 25 any -- any source of funds for the project. We still 73 1 may have to deal with them at TCEQ, but it's been a 2 really good outcome for the people. A good outcome for 3 the river. 4 Remember, Ray Buck testified that it is over 5 alluvial aquifers, and there is unknown data right now 6 as to what the affects of the leaching would be down at 7 the river, So I feel like we did something good. We got 8 something done. 9 COMMISSIONER HARRIS: Yeah. We wouldn't 10 want to be the ones that we found out there was 11 something negative. So -- 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: One comment I have is -- 13 I think most of the Court knows it, but I do want to 14 thank Lisa. Last Thursday an unusual situation off 15 Meadow View by the apartments up there, there's a cat 16 colony up in that area, and four individuals were 17 bitten, including a child. 18 I talked to Reagan, and I said Reagan, is 19 this significant enough I need to get a press release 20 out? He contacted me, got ahold of Lisa, Lisa got a 21 press release out, and it was in the paper over the 22 weekend. 23 I guess to be expected, Reagan and I both 24 have received -- I think Commissioner Belew did also -- 25 e-mails from some members of the public complaining 74 1 about the press release, and the response was that -- 2 that I responded and I think Reagan responded to people 3 who talked to him, is that that's a very serious 4 situation. There are four people that are probably 5 going to have to undergo rabies shots now because we 6 don't know where those cats are, for sure which cats 7 there were. We're trying to bring -- trying to trap a 8 bunch of them right now. 9 And it's infesting -- but anyway, Lisa, 10 thank you very much for getting that press release out 11 quickly. I think the public needed to be alerted about 12 that. And Animal Control did a good job trying to get 13 ahead of that one. 14 JUDGE KELLY: Good work. 15 COMMISSIONER HARRIS: This isn't exactly 16 liaison deal, but we have somebody I think needs to be 17 recognized. Tracy, I just saw somewhere over the 18 weekend that you were appointed, or elected, President 19 of -- can you explain? 20 MRS. SOLDAN: I'm President of the County 21 Treasurer's Association of Texas. 22 COMMISSIONER HARRIS: Of Texas. 23 Outstanding. 24 (Applause.) 25 COMMISSIONER MOSER: A couple of the liaison 75 1 things real quick, without getting into naming specific 2 things. KEDC, I think we identified in the past four 3 major potential economic development things. Two of 4 them are really hot and are really big, which would mean 5 hundreds of people. Stay tuned, okay. May materialize; 6 may not. But we'll give you more information later. 7 And I think in the library -- I may have 8 mentioned this before, I think they're -- the library's 9 planning on $400,000 worth of improvements in the 10 library using some trust fund stuff for that, so that'll 11 be good. 12 JUDGE KELLY: Anything else? 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm hungry. 14 JUDGE KELLY: Okay. Adjourned. 15 * * * * * * 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 76 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 in and for Kerr County, do hereby certify that 6 the above and foregoing pages contain and comprise a 7 true and correct transcription of the proceedings had in 8 the above-entitled Commissioners' Court Approval Agenda. 9 Dated this the 18th day of October, A.D., 10 2019. 11 12 /s/DEBRA ELLEN GIFFORD Certified Shorthand Reporter 13 No. 953 Expiration Date 04/31/2020 14 * * * * * * 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25