1 ,~,- 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 --- 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .-- 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 .-, 25 2 I N D E X February 23, 2004 --- Commissioners' Comments 1.1 County approval of improvements to property at intersection of Hays and Schreiner Streets 1.2 Discuss mediation prior to engaging an attorney in the health insurance issue 1.3 Presentation of 9-1-1 status update 1.4 Discuss transferring 792-HEAT from 9-1-1 to Commissioners Court 1.5 Presentation of proposed agreement with Kerrville Christmas Lighting Corporation in reference to installation, storage & take-down 1.6 Preliminary plat, Big Sky Ranch, Pct. 4 1.7 Consider whether Kerr County Subdivision Rules apply to land partitioned by a partition deed by mutual consent 1.9 PUBLIC HEARING on road name changes, regulatory sign, and abandoning, discontinuing, and vacating County road maintenance 1.8 Court Order and notification by Floodplain Administrator concerning Lots 42-44 of Bumble Bee Hills Subdivision 1.21 Request to use the grounds in front of Kerr County Courthouse May 6, 2004, for National Day of Prayer 1.10 Consider road name changes, regulatory sign, and abandoning, discontinuing, & vacating county road maintenance as discussed in public hearing 1.11 Request from Environmental Health Department for additional staff 1.14 Change Order #5 to compensate Compton Construction for extra rock excavation & stabilized base 1.12 Discuss location of two small equipment sheds 1.24 Consider providing space for greenhouse as part of Extension program 1.13 Proposal for management of Union Church, proposed use fee schedule 1.15 Resolutions to TexDOT requesting turn lanes and relocation of traffic signal at the Kerrville/ Kerr County Airport 1.16 Resolutions of thanks to Christopher M. Avery, Ph.D. & Ken and Betty Wardlaw 1.17 Reappoint G. Granger MacDonald and Jim Miller to the Airport Board for two-year terms 1.18 Consider requiring County Attorney to provide a schedule and status report of all civil work PAGE 4 9 11 23 30 52 59 65 79 80 96 98 100 113 122 124 127 136 138 139 141 1 .-. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ,,.._ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 3 I N D E X (Continued) February 23, 2004 PAGE 1.19 Discuss report and status of civil attorney hired by County Attorney to pursue health insurance claim 152 3.1 Action as may be required on matters discussed in executive session 174 1.27 Consider tentative agreement to consolidate and extend leases for property and facilities at Kerrville/Kerr County Airport between Mooney Airplane Company and Kerr County/City of Kerrville 175 1.20 Discuss requesting/requiring County Attorney to forward all information concerning health insurance claim issue to D.A. for criminal investigation 191 1,22 Advertisement and solicitation for applicants for the position of Commissioners Court Coordinator/ Administrative Assistant 193 1,23 Consider proposals submitted and approval of Telecommunications Equipment Lease or Purchase for Road and Bridge Office 195 1.25 Status of Burn Ban 196 1.26 Application for continuation of grant to fund 216th Judicial District Narcotics Task Force, authorize Judge to sign same 196 4.1 Pay Bills 198 4.2 Budget Amendments 198 4,3 Late Bills --- 4.4 Read and Approve Minutes 199 4.5 Approve and Accept Monthly Reports 200 Adjourned 203 25 1 ,.-,. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ,,.., 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4 On Monday, February 23, 2004, at 9:00 a.m., a special meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in the Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, Kerrville, Texas, and the following proceedings were had in open court: P R O C E E D I N G S JUDGE TTNLEY: Good morning. Let me call to order the special Commissioners court meeting scheduled for this date and posted for Monday, February the 23rd of 2004 at 9 a.m. If you would all please stand and join me? (Prayer and pledge of allegiance.) JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. At this time, if there's any citizen that wishes to bring any matter to the attention of the Court or address the Court on any issue which is not a listed agenda item -- not a listed agenda item -- you're privileged to come forward at this time, and we would be most happy to hear what you have to say. If there's any member of the public that wishes to address any item that is not a listed agenda item, we'd ask that you come forward now. Being none, we'll get on with the business at hand. Commissioner Baldwin, do you have anything for us this morning? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir, I do. I do have a couple of comments. The controversial movie, The Passion, I'm going to alert everyone that begins in Kerrville tomorrow -- tomorrow evening, and I understand -~3-04 1 ,,, 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 5 it's going to be here for about three weeks, so that'll be something fun to do. I think the first few days are -- some different churches, maybe, are hosting special viewings, but -- or I don't know how -- exactly how it's going to work, but it's going to be here for a couple weeks. Five dollars to see maybe the most controversial movie in history, so I can't wait till tomorrow. Also, you know that this Commissioners Court is going to Midland next month, and to our annual learn-how-to-be-a-commissioner and learn-how-to-be-a-judge meeting, and while we're there, we're going to bid on that conference coming to Kerrville in 2006. And normally how that works -- I've been members of those boards before, and normally how that works is that we'll go out there and we will do a dog and pony show for them, and then that committee will select -- or, actually, the -- the committee will then turn to the president of that year and say, okay, where do you want to meet? And so that judge -- that president of the association in 2006 will generally make that decision. And what generally happens is, after that selection is made of what county they're going to, then the -- then that board of directors starts going into that community, setting up the meetings and putting the programs together. However, this year is a little bit different. They're not waiting until their selection. The president is _-~3-09 1 .^. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 6 coming into Kerrville this week, way ahead of time, and that kind of excites me. So, he's coming in Friday, and I'm going to wine and dine him all weekend and take him to the -- all the stuff in Kerrville and Kerr County. And so it -- it appears to me that he really has a genuine interest in bringing the convention to Kerrville. It's pretty exciting. And, if you remember, in our earlier talks, we talked about that convention probably drops in the neighborhood of $750,000 in -- in this town, and in three days. So, it's a good convention; it's worth going after for us. That's all. Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Commissioner Williams? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. Judge, let me pass out these Heart of Texas Wildlife Trail West maps. You might want to take a look at it, because inside this map it identifies about 17 locations in Kerr County, particularly, which are -- are part of the Wildlife Trail West, and birding locations and other locations. And what's important about it is that this has been about four years in the making. It is a Texas Parks and Wildlife map, but this particular one is about four years in the making, and was worked on extensively by our own C.V.B. Board and staff, and the 17 locations were selected and chosen by these -- by these folks and turned over to Parks and Wildlife, and were _-?3-04 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 selected to be a part of the map. I think it's a great map. It's a great opportunity to promote Kerr County and our wildlife and the things that happen here, and I would just like to say thanks and appreciation to C.V.B. for doing a heck of a job and getting it out. And if you want extra copies, you can go out to C.V.B. and buy one for about $3.50. In the meantime, you can have that one for free, COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All right, that's what I wanted to hear. JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's it. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Commissioner 3? Jonathan Letz. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Must be a day to hand things out. I received in the mail -- probably got it because of the Region J position that I hold. It's about a workshop. It's an interesting one. Usually I don't bring these to the Court's attention. Landowner and citizen information on groundwater leasing, marketing, and sales. This is not a real big issue at the moment in Kerr County. Hopefully it won't become an issue in Kerr County, but it could be. But in other parts of Region J, it is a very big issue at the moment, and I just wanted to, you know, let everyone know there is a workshop being held April 1st in San Antonio at the San Antonio Garden Center. I have a few -~3-04 8 1 ~-- 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 extras of these I'll put out with the court coordinator if anyone is interested. It's put on by -- I mean, it's a reputable -- Texas A & M, Texas Cooperative Extension Service, Texas Department of Agriculture, U.S.D.A., so it's people that are knowledgeable. It's not a group trying to promote, necessarily, but it should be a pretty good information conference. That's really all I have today. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Commissioner Nicholson? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner Baldwin, I will be in the theater on Wednesday to see The Passion, and I want you to know, it's the first time in 33 years I've been in a movie theatre. I expect the price of popcorn's up to about 25 cents. (Laughter.} COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, right. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Judge, a lot of good things going on out in west Kerr County, but I won't describe all of them in the interest of trying to end this meeting before sundown. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're a dreamer. JUDGE TINLEY: The only thing I'd like to bring -- bring to the table this morning is that, as I'm sure most of you know, the primaries are now in full swing. Early voting started this morning. I believe it's 8:00 to -^_3-04 1 ,.--, 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ?_ 1 22 23 24 25 9 5:00 -- MS. ALFORD: Correct. JUDGE TINLEY: -- Monday through Friday for the next two weeks, here in the basement or the lower annex, as we sometimes call it -- more refined term -- of the courthouse. And then the primary, of course, is on March the 9th, and we would encourage everyone who is eligible to exercise their right to vote, and probably it might be well to consider early voting, since you never know what`s going to come up on election day, and if you got it out of the way, you know that you've done your civic duty. Thank you. That's all I have. We'll get right on to the business at hand. First item on the agenda is scheduled for 9:00, and we're getting to it fairly timely, I suppose. Consider and discuss County approval of improvements to property at the intersection of Hays and Schreiner Streets in accordance with lease agreement. Mr. Knippel, the Public Works Director from City of Kerrville, is here. MR. KNIPPEL: Yes, sir. Thank you, Judge and Commissioners. As it's stated in the agenda bill, the County owns this property and the building and all the improvements thereon. The City operates the recycling center from ttrere. In accordance with the -- the City's made application to AACOG for funding to add roof expansion to the building to cover some of the driving areas, and _ - _ ~ - U 4 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 before we could actually do the work to that, we would need Court approval to make such improvements. There's no cost to the County, but in keeping with the lease agreement that we do have with the County, we do need your approval for that work. So -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Paul, these are the -- the improvements that were discussed during the budget workshop? MR. KNIPPEL: Yes, sir, they were, yes. And -- they were, and they were chosen not to be funded by either the County or the City at that time. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Paul, you'll be happy to know that your grant application is being recommended for funding; it's moved -- it moves on to the board for approval. MR. KNIPPEL: Thank you. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move approval. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second -- third. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion is made and seconded for approval of the agenda item. Is there any further discussion or questions? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just want to say thank you for going this route as opposed to going into the 2-~3-.,4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ~. 25 11 taxpayers' pocket. Appreciate it. MR. KNIPPEL: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Thank you, Mr. Knippel. We appreciate you being with us this morning. MR. KNIPPEL: Thank you, gentlemen. JUDGE TINLEY: Next item on the agenda is a timed item for 9:15. Consider and discuss approving mediation prior to engaging an attorney in the health insurance issue. Commissioner Baldwin, I believe, placed this matter on the agenda. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I did, sir, and I appreciate it. I just -- I just believe -- you know, it's a part of my fabric to believe that when two people have a problem, that they should sit down and visit about it. And we have our own mediation group here that this -- that this Court has actually funded in one way or another before, and so they're -- they're kind of part of our program. And -- and I just think that we ought to give that a shot before we actually get into litigation and go into trial and suing -~3-04 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 12 people and all that. That should -- we should sit down like gentlemen and neighbors and discuss the issue. Who knows? We may come to a conclusion in that meeting, and it would save a lot of heartache and headache and money. And I think our goal here is to get -- to get some of our money back or all of our money back, and I don't see why we couldn't go this route. I have spoken with Ms. Brown, which is in the courtroom. She's the director of the Hill Country Alternative Dispute Resolution Center, and I've asked her to come forward and kind of tell us a little bit about the organization and how that system works. And so, Ms. Brown, if you would come to the podium, please, and we'll go from there. MS. BROWN: Well, this is definitely an opportunity to try to save the County some money. I feel like the cost involved in mediating this case would run about $100 for the -- for setting it up and doing it. We have several attorney-mediators who are very familiar with insurance laws and are trained in mediation that do pro bono work for our center, and I'm sure that one of them would be happy to help us with this case. The mediation could be held either at our center or here in the courthouse up in the district court area; we use those jury rooms for mediation quite often, and we'd be very happy to work with the County in setting this up and providing an -~~-o~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ,~-.. 25 13 attorney-mediator and taking care of this. Are there any questions that you would like to ask us? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not necessarily of you, Mrs. Brown, but there is a question comes to mind. I certainly have no objection to mediation. I think in many cases it's a preferred route. In this particular instance, if it applies to us and if we're able to do this, my only question would be, with whom would we be -- would Kerr County be mediating? Would we be mediating with Employee Benefit Administrators or would we be mediating with Union Labor Life to find a solution? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't think she can answer that question. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Probably not. That's the question that begs for an answer. JUDGE TINLEY: I'm not sure anybody can answer that question at this point, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think both. JUDGE TINLEY: One of the problems -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think both. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- could be -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think it's -- this is a good idea. You know, I don't know -- I don't see any down side from going this route. You know, especially with basically a cost of $100, and it's for an agency that - ^ ~ - U 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 .-,. 25 14 we have helped fund with tax dollars. I think we should try to use that agency if at all possible. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Mediation is a good alternative to litigation. I've had good experience with holding down costs and getting a quicker resolution by it. On the other hand, I -- I'm very reluctant -- I think it may be inappropriate for Commissioners Court to get into the business of micromanaging the County Attorney's business. The deal I have with the County Attorney is I don't practice law and he doesn't manage the burn ban in west Kerr County. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Commissioner, the County Attorney is not acting in his capacity in this situation; that is, as the County Attorney. He's acting as our legal representative and works directly for the Commissioners Court, like we can hire any other attorney to work for us. He is not doing this as the County Attorney. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: As a civil matter. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I understand that, and I still hold that it's inappropriate, as the client, for us to try to micromanage his -- his approach to resolution of the dispute. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think it's micromanaging to give direction. And he's not here. I wish he would be present to -- -~3-G9 1 _ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .-, 14 1J 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He's right there. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh. David, do you have a comment? MR. MOTLEY: Well, I think that Commissioner Williams asked a good question. Who is going to be involved here? Who are the parties? What are the issues going to be? These are things that have to be determined. And we can't just go in and guess at that. We have to know who the liability, you know, coverage -- companies are for Union Labor Life or for E.B.A. We don't know if the local representative of Union Labor Life is involved. We don't know at this point what's involved. At this point, there is -- what I asked the Commissioners Court for permission to do was permission to retain counsel to find out about this -- this third option, whether it should have been offered to the Court, and if it should have, and then to go on from there and try to find out what moneys might be returnable to Kerr County, where they might have gone. That's going to require a considerable amount of investigation. That's why I think it's -- that's why I recommended that we retain counsel, and a firm experienced in that kind of work so that they can investigate and find out where this money went, and that would have some extraordinary powers should litigation ensue. There's no guarantee at this point that any litigation of any sort is going to ensue, but I think it - 3 - 0 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 16 would be more in the line of something that this law firm would do than for the Alternative Dispute Resolution Center. Seems to me this might not be a job that they would be prepared to handle. I wonder if they've handled anythinq quite like this before. This is a substantial amount of money we're talking about, and -- and maybe some intricacies involved in tracing, looking at where this money went, and so I think investigation is key to this, before we even find out who the parties are. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess my question is -- to me, the issue is getting our money back. That's what we're trying to do. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's the goal. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's -- I mean, that's the whole purpose. And, to me, it doesn't make a whole lot of difference if -- you know, who we talk to to get the money back. I mean, it seems to me that the -- I mean, from my way of thinking, Union Life is a -- you know, they're more at the root of the problem than E.B.A. But I'm not an attorney; it's not my job to make that, necessarily, determination. But if the issue is to get the money back, to me, mediation is a -- a first step. And letting them look at trying to, you know, talk to whoever -- and they're clearly people -- I mean, there are people with the mediation group, Ms. Brown said, that deal in insurance -~3-04 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ,.-~ 25 matters. Why would they not be qualified to try to get the money back? MS. BROWN: May I speak? Our largest case to date involved a million, six, and we have very well-trained attorneys who are versed in insurance law that will mediate for our center as pro Bono work for us. So, once the parties and the issues are identified, if you want to bring this case to mediation, I feel that we are very much the appropriate agency, because we will only -- it will only cost the County about $100 to get the same thing that a private firm would probably charge $1,500 to $3,000 for. JUDGE TINLEY: I think your statement clearly identifies the shortcoming where we are now. Once we identify the parties and the issues. And if I'm understanding Mr. Motley correctly, and if my overall understanding is correct, we've not yet done that. Once that has occurred, certainly, one option would be to come to you and see at that point -- and I gather that's what you're telling us now; is that correct? MS. BROWN: Yes, sir, we'd be very happy to help set the mediation up for the County when we reach that point. JUDGE TINLEY: Certainly, that would be appropriate once we have the parties and the issues identified and fully developed. -~3-04 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, Judge, at that point, 40 percent of the recovery at the mediation goes to the other law firm, correct? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Forty percent of the recovered amount. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, the amount. I JUDGE TINLEY: Whatever the contract with the -- with the litigation firm provides. Let me ask you, Ms. Brown, the -- the 1.6 case that you were speaking of, that case had been fully developed, had it not, before it reached you? MS. BROWN: There was an attorney -- one party was represented by an attorney; the other party was pro se. But it was a distribution of assets case, and we did settle it. If -- I'm not sure that I know enough about what y'all are doing to -- to appropriately address it, but let me just say this. If the County Attorney and the Commissioners can identify -- surely the insurance company's going to be a party, and surely the people who administer County benefits is goinq to be a party. And if the issue is going to be the return of moneys that -- that may or may not be owed to the County, and I think that we could properly lay out those issues and set up a mediation, possibly without retaining another law firm that would want 30 or -?s-o~ 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 40 percent of whatever moneys are recovered. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't see the down side. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't see any down side. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I want to make a motion. MR. MOTLEY: May I make a -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: May I make my motion, please? JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes. I move that we request the County Attorney to engage the insurance companies and sit down with -- in mediation. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Say it again, please? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Request the County Attorney to sit down with the insurance companies in mediation. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and seconded. Any questions or comments? Did you have a comment, Mr. Motley? MR. MOTLEY: Well, I just wanted to say that for things to work where we're going to spend $100 versus a _-~3-09 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 contingency fee on the total sum of money we're seeking to get back, it seems as if everybody is assuming that these are equal services -- equally effective services. I'm submitting that they're not. I have nothing whatsoever against the Alternative Dispute Resolution Center, and I think they serve a valuable purpose, but in this particular case, I don't think that they are a particularly good fit for what it is that we need to do, which is a lot of investigation and a lot of determination of party's actions, the rightness, correctness of these actions. It's not exactly the same thing. I -- I know they've had big cases number-wise, but this one is a little bit more elaborate-type case. It's going to be, I think, a little bit more difficult to trace some of these funds and find out where they went, and find out what sorts of refunds, if any, may be due to the County. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't -- I don't -- I understand what you're saying, and I don't see it as all that complicated. I see it as sitting down with the insurance companies and say, "Would you please give us our money back?" You know, it's -- to me, it's that simple, almost. business. MR. MOTLEY: We've already done that. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But that's her ,,-o~ 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ,,,^ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. MOTLEY: We've done that. We've asked on at least four or five occasions. I believe this Court has asked Mr. Rothwell, "What is the status of our money?" "Well, you've gotten back all you're going to get back," is about the latest I remember them saying sometime, I believe, in June or July, somewhere in there. And we did about as well as we're going to do on it. So, I mean, he's basically already told us that we've gotten back what we're going to get back. You know, I don't know what's going to make anybody believe that if we go in and say, "We'd like the rest of our money back," he's going to say, "Oh, sure," you know, "here it is," or whatever. I -- you know, I can't see that being likely. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But -- MS. BROWN: May I say something? In order to set Mr. Motley's mind at ease, we -- the center -- the Hill Country Alternative Dispute Resolution Center is not the entity that will sit down at the table and mediate between the County and the insurance company. We will engage a highly qualified, highly trained, professional attorney/mediator that would be the same quality of mediator that any law firm in Texas or the United States would send into a mediation to do the same job. It just won't cost you as much money. But the person that sits down to mediate this case will have the same training and knowledge and -; 3-~~9 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 skill that any other mediator would. So, if Mr. Motley and the benefits administrator of the County can bring to the table the facts from the County's side, and I'm sure the insurance company will have the facts from their side available, I don't see that there's anything to lose by mediation. Even if it doesn't settle at the mediation table the first time, it's a great fact-finding and discovery tool. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's basically what my -- the comment I was going to make, I mean, is that I just -- I don't see how this can hurt anything by having another attorney look at it before we have to hire another attorney that we're going to have to spend a lot of money with. I mean, it just makes sense to me, from taxpayers' dollars, that you go the mediation route, you know, first, especially with the mediation route set up the way it is. 17 18 than once. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. BROWN: And a case can be mediated more COMMISSIONER LETZ: You know, and if it doesn't work, it certainly hasn't closed the door on the other option. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And, again, the -- mediation is a good alternative to litigation, and in due course, a judge may order mediation. Often does. Maybe all the time; I don't know. Or before that occurs, the two -~3-04 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 parties could agree to mediation, and so an alternative here is that the soon-to-be plaintiff in the case would come forward and say just what -- say, "Let's sit down and talk and see if we can work this out without going through a lot of costs." COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just think that we need to go this route, try it, and if it doesn't work, you certainly have the authority to hire a lawyer and sue everybody in town. So that's my idea, is that we try to sit down like neighbors and gentlemen and work the issue out. JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions or discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (Commissioners Baldwin, Williams, and Letz voted in favor of the motion.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Next item on the agenda is a timed item -- boy, are we on the money -- presentation of a 9-1-1 status update. Commissioner Baldwin. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: This also is your agenda item, I believe. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir, thank you _-23-G4 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ,--~ 25 very much. I see Mr. Amerine in the audience. I asked him to come and give us a status update with the 9-1-1 issues. Thank you, Mr. Amerine. MR. AMERINE: I'd like to thank the Court for this opportunity to come forward and speak again about the addressing projects in Kerr County. I don't know that, publicly, myself or anyone else has given credit to all the parties that made this possible. First and foremost, I want to thank the gentlemen sitting at the front here. It wouldn't have been possible without the 100 percent cooperation I've received from every one of the Commissioners and the Judge sitting here today. Secondly, I think we've had unprecedented support from the two city jurisdictions, City of Kerrville and Ingram, the U.S. Post Office, and the two phone companies, Kerrville Telephone and Hill Country Co-op. All these parties needed to be present and participating to make this addressing project work for our citizens, and they were. We've had a very proactive group of citizens also participate, and that's primarily why I'm here today to talk about status. I'll give you the 5-cent version of where we were last year versus where we are now, and then talk about what I'd like to ask the Court and, publicly, for the media, try to generate some additional support from our citizens that have yet to come forward. Last year about this time, -`_'3-49 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ,.-. 25 we had 49,000-some-odd phone numbers covered by the 9-1-1 system in Kerr County. About 35,000 of those had some form of address when that individual would dial 9-1-1, so that leaves 14,000 that, when they dialed 9-1-1, we simply got their name and their phone number and no address. That's a critical issue that we're still addressing. After the addressing project this year, we have added nearly 10,000 bona fide addresses to the system, so we're currently at 45,000 out of 49,000 addresses in the 9-1-1 system. This is going to save not just people's lives, but their property, and I'm real happy with it. Anyhow, like I said, all these key stakeholders participated in making that map, but we're not done. We have about 4,300 additional people to reach and get them into our 9-1-1 system, fully in our system, so that when they dial 9-1-1, we have their name, phone number, and address. The reason why I'm here beyond that is to hawk something that I've noticed recently that bothers me greatly, and it's truly the key to making 9-1-1 work the way it's supposed to. As you can imagine, in the city, where just by default most people have displayable addresses on their properties, either on the curb, their mailboxes, which are right there in the front of their homes, or on their homes themselves, when someone dials 9-1-1, it's not a difficult problem to locate them. However, more than half _-~3-09 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 of our citizens live in the rural area. And I've done a lot of driving from one side of this county to the other, from Mountain Home all the way out to Comfort, and the one thing that still disturbs me is the significant lack of property signage, and this is critical. I don't know how to say this any other way than having this address in the 9-1-1 system is meaningless -- meaningless, without there being an address sign on a gate, on a driveway, a fence that would help the emergency service folks identify where these people live. We have just recently -- and I would like to acknowledge one of my board members, Tom Michaels back here, who represents KARFA, received approval for increased spending on the sign materials so that we'll have more than enough available if I get the response I'm hoping from today's discussion. It's -- it's the critical piece of this. The addressing, obviously, is a prerequisite piece. Signage is the final piece. Without that signage, I lose sleep over the fact that someone is going to dial 9-1-1, we're going to have the wonderful brand-new address displayed, and emergency services is going to drive out in the county and not find them because there's no way to identify where that property is. A lot folks have told me that the -- if they have an emergency, they'll walk out to the end of their drive with a flashlight, wave the -~3-09 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 flashlight, or that they'll be capable in that emergency situation to adequately describe how to find that property. That's not reality. That's just foolishness, and that's -- you know, the question I always ask is -- and it's kind of confrontational or inflammatory -- "Are you willing to risk your grandchildren or your children's life on that statement?" It's a simple thing. It's a very simple thing to put a 6-by-12 blue sign at the end of your property to access -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 6-by-12 inch. MR. AMERINE: 6-by-12 inch sign that the emergency services are looking for. It costs $5. If you don't want to buy ours, make your own. But make it visible both -- from both directions of travel on the roadway, at night as well as the daytime, and that's a small piece of insurance to make sure that we find you. As an example, and then I'll -- I'll take questions, I drove from Kerrville all the way out to -- to Comfort. There's over 132 accessed properties off of Highway 27, and I saw four signs. The percentage is pretty poor. That's about 3 percent of the people out there putting signs up. Questions from the Commissioners? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have a sign. MR. AMERINE: Yes, sir, you do. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I am so proud of it; -~3-09 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ~. 25 it's so pretty and I feel a lot safer because of it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Bill, how many -- this probably just sounds like a stupid question, but I'm one of the guilty parties. How many people have bought them and not put them up? MR. AMERINE: I don't know the answer to that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: 'Cause I know a lot of people on 27; I know they bought them, 'cause -- I mean, from -- just from discussions with them. I drive up and down the road and I don't see them either. Hopefully they'll get to that point -- MR. AMERINE: Right. COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- they'll start putting them up. MR. AMERINE: One of the things that we talked about doing, and I had one -- the Center Point Volunteer Fire Chief came to me just this last week and asked me if we could do this, and I think it's a good idea, is we're going to take our sign machine materials to the volunteer fire departments, prescheduled, and so that citizens of, like, Center Point, Comfort, Mountain Home or Ingram or Hunt don't have to take the time to come in to Kerrville to our office. Plus it gives a lot of good publicity to the volunteer fire departments that are out -^3-U4 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ,., 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 there to help these folks, and we'll make the signs available a little closer to their home. We're going to do anything we can to get this final step done. It's like I said; it's the most critical part. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: To what extent are you going to publicize that you're taking your sign making on the road? MR. AMERINE; I'm going to use every possible form of media I can. You know, in the past when we`ve done these media blitzes, we've talked to the four papers that service Kerr County, we talk on the local TV station, we get on the two radio stations that people listen to here in town. And I won't mention those; that way I can`t get in trouble for my preferences. But I -- we really try to hit every possible spectrum of media so that people will be aware of that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think it's a great idea. MR. AMERINE: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER LETZ: What is the possibility, Bill, of going to, I guess, community groups? I know a lot them that meet on weekends, unfortunately, from a time standpoint. But I know that in the eastern part of the county, there are several; there's Cypress Creek Community, Lane Valley Community, and I'm sure there's others around _-~3-04 30 1 .-- 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the county that get a pretty good turnout. You probably -- you know, over time, it may be a way to at least get publicity out to some of the people that don't -- or I guess aren't looking at the -- what we have now. MR. AMERINE: Well, I think that's a great idea, and I'm aware of several that you personally have gotten me involved in. I'd ask the other Commissioners here if you're aware of either homeowners' associations or public groups that service an area of our county, that you let me know, especially if you've got something coming up to go out and speak about any other subject that I could piggy-back on to kind of hawk the idea of property signage. I'd be glad to do that, whether it's the weekend or during the week. Like I said, this is -- it's kind of like making a cake and not icing it. If we don't get this step done, it's just not going to work as well as it should. Any other questions? Thank you. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, Bill. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. The next item on the agenda is consideration and discussion of the transferring of the 792-HEAT number from 9-1-1 to Commissioners Court. Is it the other way around? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This is correct. ?-z~-u~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ~-,. 25 31 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Baldwin? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. Thank you. For -- this is related to the burn ban issue that is beginning to drive me up a wall. But what happens, as you gentlemen know, when the burn ban goes on or off, two things happen. Our administrative assistant contacts 9-1-1 for them to deal with the recording for the telephone number, 792-HEAT, and then we also contact our computer guru that changes the web site here. 9-1-1 has been doing that telephone service for us for several years, and just out of courtesy; for nothing else. They just -- because they want to. But what has happened recently, they've gotten so busy in this addressing program that a lot of times when we call them and say, okay, the burn ban is -- status is changing, they -- it may be a small delay before they get to actually changing it -- changing the phone site, and some folks are -- are getting upset out in the community 'cause it's not changed timely. So, I'm saying that when me, as a Commissioner, walks up to Thea's desk and says, okay, I'm -- and I sign the notice that says that we're changing the status, she can immediately call the 792-HEAT number and change it ourselves, and it's done right there on the spot and it's done immediate, and it's probably where it belongs anyway, not over at 9-1-1. It belongs here in this place. Now, the only problem with that is the cost, the high cost -~3-09 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .._ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 _.-. 25 32 of a telephone, and 9-1-1 has agreed to continue funding that telephone line for us through the remainder of the year. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Single line? Or is that multiple rotary lines? MR. AMERINE: Single line. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Single line. I'm not sure it's going to break them or not, but it -- I really appreciate you doing that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sounds like a good idea. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The -- that will -- I'm asking a question for understanding here. That will change the responsibility for -- for the recording the citizens call in on to find out the status of burn bans? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What will it have to do with the need to notify the various law enforcement agencies and the emergency service agencies? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I think -- I think that there is a call -- Bill and I were talking about this last week, and I think he has a -- a comment to make on that. MR. AMERINE: The way it works today is, after the County has called us and we've updated the -~3-04 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ,--~ 25 33 reporting, we currently make a single phone call to K.P.D. -- that's consolidated dispatch -- and they're responsible for doing a page to all the responsible parties that need that information. Now, there's two choices for the Court to consider. If you take on the responsibility of updating the recording, which I think is a good idea for expediency of that, there would be an additional call for Thea or whoever would be doing this to P.D. to pass on that information so that that page-out can occur. The second option, if the County wants to take total responsibility for this and not have any middlemen, is if you have the ability to do a page-out from any one of your P.C.'s in this building with WIN-P or Air Source Pro, that you could set up a call list. and make the page-out yourself, I understand. The -- what I've explained to the volunteer fire departments who've had some vested interest in seeing this timely update through page, the problem that we have, as Commissioner Baldwin said, is conflicting priorities at this point. But, looking at it in a practical sense, you currently have four different offices involved in this update process. You have the County Commissioners' office, you have 9-1-1, and then you have P.D. who gets it out to the final fourth user group. The -- the ideal way of doing this is to get rid of all those middlemen and have as few people involved in this update as possible. I -- to answer -~'3-G9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 r 25 34 your question, Commissioner Nicholson, I would guess -- and this wasn't mentioned -- that the phone call would come from here to P.D. to make that page-out occur. Now, you know, P.D. is not here. I don't think I see Bill Williams -- I'm sorry, Bill -- sorry, sir. I don't see Bill Price here to represent P.D., but he's explained this before at KARFA meetings. He has the same problem that I do. This is an advisory message, and if he has currently, at the time that the update is requested, conflicting priorities, 9-1-1 calls or police calls that he's dealing with, there is an inherent delay there. It isn't going to take priority over normal police business or 9-1-1 business. So, I know in the past there's been this idea that this should be something that's immediate; the moment at 8:30 or 8:20, when a commissioner makes a choice, that within five minutes, that the volunteer fire departments or other public safety organizations should be notified. I don't see how that's ever going to be possible with either 9-1-1 or P.D. involved in that update, because they are going to have conflicting -- conflicting priorities. Now, just for the sake of argument, I do think there's a period of a reasonable response. What is that? I don't know. Is it 30 minutes? Is it 15 minutes? I don't know how long a reasonable period is. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Mr. Amerine, when _ - ^ 3 - 0 4 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 35 you said Kerrville P.D., don't you really mean PSAP? MR. AMERINE: No, I don't. PSAP is a reference to the equipment and the -- the software and the data. It's the public safety answering point. I own that piece of equipment. We have a contract with the City of Kerrville to operate dispatch. Dispatch is not PSAP; PSAP is simply the answering point. For instance, let's say that all my equipment burns down or that the building collapses over there. The phone system automatically switches the answering point over to the Sheriff's Office. At that point, I have no equipment; all I have is a service. But PSAP is -- is just a figurative phrase for the equipment, the software, and the data that's housed in that -- in that equipment. The contract I showed my board member just this last week with the City of Kerrville gives Kerrville -- City of Kerrville and P.D. complete discretion on how to execute the function of dispatch. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Who's accountable for the functioning of PSAP? Who's accountable for someone answering the 9-1-1 call and dispatching, in a timely manner, the proper equipment? MR. AMERINE: Are we talking about burn ban or something else here? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Everything. The purpose of 9-1-1 -- - 3 - G 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 36 MR. AMERINE: Who's accountable? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Purpose of 9-1-1 -- MR. AMERINE: Certainly. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- is to have one place to call so that emergency services can be dispatched in an effective way. MR. AMERINE: I agree. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Who's accountable for that in Kerr County? You? MR. AMERINE: Right now, by contract, that would be the City of Kerrville and the P.D. Now, I made it very clear in the past, 'cause I don't want to appear like I am severing the umbilical between 9-1-1 and that contract and the City of Kerrville. I act as, hopefully, an influential person, as someone who can facilitate problem resolution, but I have no authority or administrative control over City employees, or for that matter, County employees at the Sheriff's Office. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You have a contract with them, but you don't have any control over the quality of their services? MR. AMERINE: The contract makes it very clear that they have full discretion on dispatch. To be perfectly honest, and not to go down this path too far, some of the issues that have been raised to my attention have -~3-C4 1 ,~ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 .•- 25 37 been brought forthwith right to that party, and I -- I have not seen, with the exception of the volunteer fire departments -- and I'm not trying to narrow them out of that discussion. I have not had any other complaints from other dispatched agencies about the quality of dispatch. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Does your -- does your board and your general counsel agree with you that -- that emergency -- 9-1-1 is not accountable for PSAP? MR. AMERINE: Well, let me -- let me -- let me digress. I'd be happy to be accountable fully, if the County and the City of Kerrville would like to come up with close to half a million dollars a year I'd need to separate dispatch. That's what I'd need to hire 10 employees, to provide the building and -- and enforce the policies and procedures. Every district in the county -- every district, I'm sorry, in the state of Texas is set up differently, based upon their demographics, their appropriate revenue, and some of the synergies that already exist with public agency answering points such as Sheriff's offices. And in some cases, like Ector County, 9-1-1 is only responsible for contracting with services. The Sheriff's Office is fully responsible for PSAP operations; they even buy the equipment. They -- you know, 9-1-1 in that county doesn't even own the equipment. We have the ability to change the system we have here, but someone's going to have to shell -?~ ~~~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 38 out some money, and I mean a lot of it. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Just so I'm clear -- MR. AMERINE: Yes, sir? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- if an individual or an organization out in the county has some concern that the dispatch of emergency services to that area is inadequate, they don't go to 9-1-1 with that concern. MR. AMERINE: Yes, they do. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: They don't go to Commissioners Court. They go to the City of Kerrville. MR. AMERINE: No, they come to me. And, as I have said from the date of my employment -- I don't know how many times I have to say this -- I'll be glad to facilitate. The expectation, however, for some of these agencies is that I can flip a light switch and make something happen in the city of Kerrville. That's simply not reality. This is an interagency contract we have here. I have to sit down, as we have done in the past, and provide recommendations for change, and then get them to agree to that. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Bill, just stop. Just stop and sit down. I'll see you later. Thank you for your time. No, it -- it is strictly 100 percent City of Kerrville Police Department. And -- and on top of that, they provide a service to volunteer fire departments at no charge, and it is strictly courtesy. They do not have to do -_~-o~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 39 anything. And that's the way it's set up, and this man right here is really not in that loop. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, if my neighbor is concerned about the quality of -- of provision of emergency services to him -- he lives way out there in Kerr County. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: His issue is with the City of Kerrville? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It depends -- wait. It depends on what -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: For dispatch. COMMISSIONER LETZ: From a dispatch standpoint. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Whether your fire department doesn't show up -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Fire department doesn't show up, or the EMS is coming out of Kerrville. So, I mean, I get a lot of complaints about slow response time. That's a totally different issue. If the County wanted to go into a -- you know, and we have discussed trying to put remote stations out, but the cost is substantial to the County, if the City of Kerrville would be willing to do that. But we contract with the City of Kerrville right now for emergency -?3-04 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ~,,, 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 40 services. So, I mean, the response time is long to the far distant-reaching regions of the county, which you and I probably see the most complaints about that. But that's not -- doesn't mean it's not dispatched timely. The dispatch is just a matter of getting an ambulance out somewhere or fire truck or something. But I think the -- the central -- the issue with the volunteer fire departments and getting them information timely is very easy to resolve from our -- from this body right here, just by figuring precisely our dates of burn bans. And we frequently have them expire, like, this morning. Well, we could have them expire tomorrow morning; we would have all day today to make a decision and get that word out to the public. So, I mean, I think it's just really a matter of timing. And if -- and if we, as the Court, would -- you know, would be cognizant of the tact that -- of setting our dates, that would solve probably 95 percent of the problems from a dis -- from the volunteer fire departments getting information in a timely manner. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's kind of the point I wanted to bring up, too, what you just made. It's just really -- it's just, simplistically, some 1_ogistical tweaking on our part. Instead of the burn ban expiring at 7 a.m. -- or if we made it at noon, even, the same day, which would give whoever that we choose to do this the -^~-04 1 ~-- 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 41 opportunity to make those -- make those calls and change the recording, it would be seamless. Right now, we have people out there who get antsy about it, and if it's not changed within 30 seconds after 8:30 or whatever the time is, they think that the whole world is just collapsing around their heads. And so I think there's things we can do to make it better. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think if we could -- were more consistent, that it's always going to expire on a Tuesday, you know -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, we try to do that, but it doesn't always work. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know. But we just, you know, make an effort, and I think that we can solve a lot of these concerns. 24 25 punishn -_'3-U4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're a glutton for COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I move that the Commissioners Court takes over the notification to the telephone number 792-HEAT, as well as the Kerrville Police Department when we change the burn ban. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll second it. MR. AMERINE: Before you vote, could I make one last comment for the record? I know you told me to sit down, Commissioner. 1 .-, 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 42 MR. AMERINE: I just can't shut up. I want to make something very clear. I don't want the Court or people present here to misunderstand what I'm trying to communicate. The 9-1-1 District here is responsible for end-to-end 9-1-1 operation, from call inception through that person receiving help. What I'm trying to explain very simply is that there's contracts in place, multiple agencies involved; that this director standing before you will act as a facilitator on those issues. All I'm trying to do is manage expectations. I do not have administrative or functional authority over the City or County employees. So, the right thing to do, as someone said earlier today, is sit down and negotiate these things when they're not working correctly, and I'll do that. So, when there is an issue with any 9-1-1 failure, I'll be glad to sit down and negotiate that as a director of 9-1-1. I just want people to grasp the reality that there's contracts in place and that there's functional authority -- lines of accountability and authority that I have to work through, as any businessman will. Thank you. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and seconded -- let me see if I understand your motion, Commissioner -- that the 792-HEAT number be transferred to Kerr County, and upon any change in the status of burn ban 2-:_'3-04 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 43 being placed there, that Kerrville Police Department, as the dispatch authority, be notified of that change of status? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That is correct. That is correct, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: All right. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Any further questions or discussion? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I want to make sure I understand what I'm voting on. Ms. Sovil, what happens now when we change the status of the burn ban? MS. SOVIL: I call 9-1-1 and turn in the orders to the clerk's office to be faxed to the Sheriff's Department. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So we're not going to call 9-1-1 in the future? MS. SOVIL: Not according to what y'all just said. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's an improvement? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It removes -- I mean, it's all -- I mean, it doesn't mean that we're doing it here. It's not a 9-1-1 function. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We call 9-1-1 and then - 2 3 - G 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 44 they change that recording on 792-HEAT. And it -- because of the recent workload that they've had, sometimes that takes a long time for them to pick up the phone and change the recording and all of that, where we can do it immediately. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: They change the recording, and they also notify those that need to know? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Notify Kerrville Police Department, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER LETZ: We would do that. What it is, basically, is trying get information to the fire departments quicker. Because it's about -- it's under our control here, as opposed to having a customer out there at 9-1-1 and, all of a sudden, I mean, they have to -- it may be an hour until they get time to update, because they have responsibilities. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a question. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, we're simply calling -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're taking them -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- the place where PSAP is located instead of the 9-1-1 administrative office? JUDGE TINLEY: Yes. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. JUDGE TINLEY: We're taking 9-1-1 out of the -~3-04 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 45 loop. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's fine. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes. JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are we talking about more than just a single-line telephone? Are we not talking about recording equipment as well? MR. AMERINE: No. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No? MR. AMERINE: No, the recording equipment is part of the service that the line has with Kerrville Telephone. COMMISSIONER MR. AMERINE: COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER that phone, aren't you? COMMISSIONER MR. AMERINE: COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's one WILLIAMS: BALDWIN: WILLIAMS: One last WILLIAMS: Okay. of those deals. Thank you. You're concerned about I just want to know. clarification. Inquiring minds want to know. MR. AMERINE: And I know there's some -- some -- some angst here. I want to do everything I can to resolve it. I don't know the history of why 9-1-1 is involved in advisory information. Health and Safety Code is -~ 3-;, 4 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ~-. 25 very clear that our only responsibility -- and so I can only assume that we're doing this advisory update as a public service and a courtesy -- is to make sure that when someone picks up the phone and dials 9-1-1, that their phone call is answered by the appropriately -- appropriately set up PSAP, as such. Now, it's come to the -- as I've made clear to everyone, we have conflicting priorities at this point. It would make sense that that responsibility would be shifted back to the County, where I believe it will improve the service. We don't do anything with that advisory information at 9-1-1 but pass it on. Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Just an unnecessary conduit, it seems. Any further question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Commissioner, what's the effective date of this going to be? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mr. Amerine? MR. AMERINE: Yes, sir. I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The question was, what is the effective date? We can just take it, like, right now. -~3-04 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ,_., 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ~-- 25 47 MR. AMERINE: Well, I think that would be fine. I think that we can probably sit down with Thea and explain how to set up that recording, rather than just tossing the hot potato over the fence. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The line has to be transferred? MR. AMERINE: Actually, since it's going to be billed out of our office, we can maintain that line until the next budget cycle. But, yeah, we'll sit down with Thea and have Ellen come over and do that today. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you very much. JUDGE TINLEY: As a practical matter, she's going to be the first to be notified from this end, and when she feels she's gotten the adequate information from you to take care of it herself, that's when it'll happen. MR. AMERINE: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, sir? MR. MICHAELS: I'd like to just, on behalf of the fire department -- I represent the Kerr County fire departments and KARFA. And the concern we have, and the issue -- and I want to speak to that issue. I want to thank you very much for shortening the circuit, so to speak. Because, unfortunately, as Bill had talked about, we just -23-04 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ,.- 25 48 round-robin this thing. The issue -- and the big issue that we have is that we are -- we are -- most of us are volunteers, okay? We do not have a tone, so we cannot be toned out. We need to have that page. It's very, very important to get that page out to the fire departments. And so what happens, as Commissioner Nicholson said, the PSAP really doesn't do it. It's the dispatchers at Kerrville Police, and which is Bill Price's. He has assured me, as he is part of the -- part of the board of 9-1-1, that as soon as he gets that information, it'll immediately go out to the fire departments. Why is that so important? Well, honestly, before, what has happened is it's been very, very confusing for the fire departments, because what's ended up happening is the information goes out that the fire ban's off, and we get a call that there is a fire out at so-and-so, and the burn ban, as far as we're concerned, is still on, so we immediately respond to that. Thank you very much. JUDGE TINLEY: They're going to give you an immediate alpha page, is what you're saying? MR. MICHAELS: Yes, if you directly go to the dispatcher at Kerrville Police, and Bill Price has assured me that he'll handle it in a very, very timely manner. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I - - just as a comment on that, instead of seeing smoke - - because even -~3-04 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ~-. 25 49 with a burn ban, prescribed burns that are done properly are MR. MICHAELS: That is correct. But, unfortunately, we -- when you have a marshal out there or -- fire marshal or a person that's -- that is out there handling that prescribed fire ban in behalf -- they burn if the fire ban is on or off; it don't make any difference to them. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm just saying, I mean, under state law and what we've adopted, certain prescribed burns done under -- you know, with the proper format -- MR. MICHAELS: Right. COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- are allowed at any time. MR. MICHAELS: If -- if that person is there. If that marshal's there. If they -- they just arbitrarily cannot -- rancher cannot just go out there and burn without having that person there that is in charge of that burn. And it's probably -- it's by the State, not -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, you're wrong. A prescribed burn, if have you a plan, you can do it -- I mean, I did a prescribed burn this weekend. And any -- and I have a -- we have, you know, lots of equipment, and we've done it many times, and many other ranchers do that. There's professional companies -- Red Buffalo does -23-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 50 prescribed burns frequently. MR. MICHAELS: Correct. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And there's not -- you don't have to have a state employee present when you're doing that burn. MR. MICHAELS: When you have the fire ban that's off or on? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Either way. You have to have it under our format. We have to -- the plan has to be approved by the N.C.R.S office. MR. MICHAELS: That is correct. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But that doesn't mean anyone's going to be present out there from that office or -- or by the State. MR. MICHAELS: No -- well, but by that time, all the information is set forth. But a person such as Mr. Rancher out there that just doesn't go through all those prescribed issues, just says, "Hey, I'm going to go out and I got a big brush pile to burn," he goes out and burns that and, of course, the neighbors see that. They immediately notify the fire department. Now, if the burn ban is on, we immediately -- that's an alert to us, so we respond. COMMISSIONER LETZ: My -- I guess -- MR. MICHAELS: That's what I'm getting at. COMMISSIONER LETZ: What I'm trying to say is _-~3-04 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 .-~ 25 51 that there's still a potential -- I don't know, a problem or issue that we -- that needs to be worked with volunteer fire departments so they get the information as to prescribed burns. And maybe there's a step that needs to be done in burn plans that it's a requirement that the fire departments know that, hey, this ranch is able to do prescribed burns. Maybe that's -- I'm thinking of another step to keep you in the loop. MR. MICHAELS: Yeah. Currently what happens, it's called in to the Sheriff's Department, okay? And then the Sheriff -- and then the Sheriff goes ahead -- and, you know, we're working with -- again, Bill has been more than willing to work with us to mediate a situation with the Sheriff and others so that both the Sheriff's Department and the local -- wherever that fire is being done is being notified. See, we are not notified. What happens right now, the Sheriff is notified. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. MR. MICHAELS: And they -- and deemed on their information, they may or may not know, okay? So they immediately send a squad out. The squad checks to make sure that the fire is under control, blab, blab, blab, and then they call the fire department. We've had issues out there where we've had it, you know, out of control, and there's probably -- by the time the Sheriff's Department has made -~3-04 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ,--~ 25 52 that decision -- really, what's happened is the Sheriff's Department is making a decision for the fire department on how to respond, and that's where the issue comes. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's -- basically, this goes into the -- the whole issue on -- we're waiting on the County Attorney to give us information on what we can do from a burning standpoint. I think we need to have an overall County policy to address -- to figure out how to get in communication, to work better. MR. MICHAELS: You don't know how much this is going to help, what you just made. It's going to -- it's going to cut the conduit in half, so thank you very much. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Thank you. Next item on the agenda is consideration and discussion of a presentation of proposed agreement between Kerrville Christmas Lighting Corporation and the Court in reference to the installation, storage, and take-down of the Christmas lights on the courthouse during the holiday season per the request of the Court. Mr. Schellhase, you requested this item to be on here. Thank you, sir. MR. SCHELLHASE: Walter Schellhase, 529 Water Street, president of the Kerrville Christmas Lighting Corporation. Last October, Commissioner Baldwin brought a subject to the Court with regards to the procedures used by the lighting corporation to do the decorations at the -''3-04 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 53 courthouse. Which is the full volunteer organization. At that time, it was agreed when we left that there needed to be an agreement between the Lighting Corporation and the County. Since we did not receive any recommendation from the County, we had an agreement -- a recommended agreement drawn up by legal counsel, and have presented it to the Court for consideration at this time. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Somewhere, I have read a -- a revised contract that Maintenance has looked at. Did we not get something in our box? Or did I just dream that? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, that's Union Church. topic. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh, okay. Thank you. MR. SCHELLHASE: That's another subject. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Same guy. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Same guy, different COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Different view. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I knew I read that somewhere. My first comment would be that the -- the format needs to be the same from the County -- you know, that we use with other county contracts, and I think this needs to be referred to the County Attorney to -- you know, to go over it from a form standpoint. Now, that's, I guess, my _-~3-J4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 r. 25 54 first step, would be the form has to be approved. And the -- I guess the other comment that I have is, going through -- you know, under the Commissioners Court agrees to the following -- it's Item 5 -- provide a minimum of $5,000 income in the 2004 budget. We can't do that. We can't precommit next year's budget. And I think the -- so that's something that can't be worded that way. But I guess what I'm hearing is that the -- your group is asking us to put financial -- start financially contributing to this project? MR. SCHELLHASE: Correct. COMMISSIONER LETZ: This would be similar to our other social contracts. I mean, you know, like the Historical Commission and other -- you know, talking about we start doing it on an annual basis. MR. SCHELLHASE: The recommendation we're making is a single-year agreement, because the dates won't be the same because of the different -- the discussion last time with regards to the date when we start and where we do things. We thought it important to put the calendar date specifically with those things that we're dealing with so that we meet the requirements of the Court that was discussed of having displays up too early. So, we've reworked our schedule so we can do some of those things that are not visible, starting on the fifth Saturday before Thanksgiving -- Saturday before Thanksgiving so that we can _-23-G9 1 -- 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .._ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 55 get a lot of those things done that aren't visible, and do the last two days of -- the last two Saturdays to displays, which are the big, visible items. COMMISSIONER LETZ: To me, the -- the calendar portion makes sense. I mean, I have no problem with that, and I think that involves the concerns that I had with this year's as the -- you know, really, as the big things are going up in November, which is, I think, the concern that I had heard earlier. Now, see, to me, this needs to probably first go to Maintenance, 'cause they're greatly involved with it; get their input, and then to the County Attorney, or simultaneously to the County Attorney's office for form approval, and I think it's a good, you know, starting point. JUDGE TINLEY: General, I have -- I have two areas of concern. One is similar to Commissioner Letz' concern about Item 5. Under Item 9, add all new underground electrical installation to the master plan from information provided by your group. And please correct my recollection if it's wrong; my understanding was that you folks worked up a very -- a very detailed and -- and very fine master plan for the electrical outlay of this, and -- but your previous information to the Court was that you were going to seek outside funding from grants or other sources, something other than -- than taxpayer funds from the Court, in order _-23-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 r-,. 25 56 to make this installation happen. MR. SCHELLHASE: Correct. JUDGE TINLEY: Would my -- my recollection is correct? MR. SCHELLHASE: That's correct. JUDGE TINLEY: That's wonderful to hear. MR. SCHELLHASE: However, we've been to all the foundations in the area, including L.C.R.A., which provides all -- or KPUB, which provides all the electrical for this big system, and all have been turned -- we've been turned down by all of them. Most of them feel it's -- it's a county issue; the property's theirs, the issue's theirs, the decorations are theirs. And so those grants have been denied in all cases. JUDGE TINLEY: What were your original estimates that you had with regard to -- MR. SCHELLHASE: $23,000. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MR. SCHELLHASE: We've spent 4,900 this year to do the east side, which has not been completed yet, from the sidewalk around to the back drive. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. The other area of concern which I have is under Item Number 3. It is my understanding of how the program has worked in the past that the people with your organization had tested all of those -~3-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 57 strings, and if there were any lights that weren't functional, you replaced them. And then, once that had occurred, when they were to be installed and put up from the top of the building here, we then used County personnel supervising either community service or inmate personnel. MR. SCHELLHASE: All of the lighting on the courthouse strings, the bulbs must be replaced as the lights are installed, because they have to be installed hot. Because there's so much breakage that takes place in the process of stringing out these 100-foot lights that, as the community service people or the prisoners lower the -- the lights over the parapet or the wall, each bulb has to be replaced as it goes down. But all the other bulbs -- you know, we're in the process of doing some of that now, and general maintenance. The bulb replacement, the rust inhibitors, the connections, the relay replacements, that's carried out throughout the year. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Walter, in addition to the comments of others, there are about eight or nine items I see that -- that I've marked up. I'm not going to go through them right now, but I'd like to get with you, that are basically tweaking items. And one of them has to do with this being a single-year type agreement, or an agreement that could be renewed. And it has to do with the dates, 'cause, you know, you're trying to be specific in -~3-04 1 -- 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 „_, 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ~-.. 25 58 this year with the dates, and I think we can -- we can establish that, but then we can do on-or-about dates for subsequent years, so that the -- you hit the same time frame. And I'd like to sit with you and talk about some of these things so that -- and a few other little tweaking items, if you don't mind, and then we can send it down to the County Attorney with a memo asking him to put it in the format that we prefer to have for these types of agreements. MR. SCHELLHASE: The only reason we took this initial step to move -- move forward was we didn't receive anything from the Court. We thought you might send us one, but being as you didn't, we moved forward. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- just as a comment, I think it's -- you know, Commissioner Williams is going to meet with you. I think it would be better to probably try to come up with a contract that can be renewed every year, and just change out the dates. And then, on the -- the, you know, additional funding and things that need to be done under a percent of the master plan, probably meet on an annual basis during the budget process and look at those each year, and see how we can do them. 'Cause, I mean, to me, they'r.e two issues -- would be really two issues from the standpoint of, even if no new things are done, the old lights are still going to go up each year. MR. SCHELLHASE: Oh, yes, they still need to - ~ 3 - 0 4 59 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 be maintained. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So I think, to me, it's two issues, and we could break it up. I think it would be a lot easier to keep going on -- because it really becomes a budget issue for the Court. MR. SCHELLHASE: Any questions? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Can we get together and talk? MR. SCHELLHASE: Yeah. What evening you want to buy lunch? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll refer to my electronic brain and I'll get back to you. MR. SCHELLHASE: Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. MR. SCHELLHASE: You bet. JUDGE TINLEY: Next item on the agenda is consideration of the preliminary plat of Big Sky Ranch located in Precinct 4. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I can't -- where is this? MR. JOHNSTON: Morning. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 27, isn't it? MR. JOHNSTON: Big Sky Ranch is on Lower Reservation Road, formerly known as Tatsch Road. You notice this plat shows some proposed detention ponds. They -- the -23-09 1 ~-- 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 60 developer has an engineer working on the hydrology study, and they have a preliminary -- preliminary one, the final one to be finished and submitted before the final plat. But, based on what they've done so far, these are the lots that would have detention ponds located on them. I'd recommend that they take a detailed look at those four lots and make certain that there's room for wells and septic and houses and all driveways and all setbacks when -- when the detention ponds are completely full. The road going into the subdivision will be a county-maintained road, local road specs. They will have an engineer submit plans on that road before the final plat for approval. This subdivision has 215 acres. I believe our rules still require two test wells be provided before plat approval, and certified by an engineer that they have sufficient groundwater of a quality adequate for use of persons purchasing a tract. And with those things being said, I would recommend approval of the preliminary plat. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Mr. Johnston, earlier we wondered if we had seen a concept plan on this. Is the developer here to tell us whether or not a concept plan was submitted? MR. JOHNSTON: I don't see anyone from -- they're not here. They had submitted this in -- in a form. I think we did have a concept plan last fall. I'd have to -~'3-04 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 61 look up the exact date and specifics on it, but -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't remember seeing it. MR. JOHNSTON: As you brought up this morning, I believe we did have one. I don't recall off the top of my head. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Do we know that there are no contiguous subdivisions? MR. JOHNSTON: Far as I know, there are no contiguous subdivisions. The only subdivisions are at the end of this road where it runs into Weatherby Road. And there's subdivisions beyond Weatherby, but I don't believe there are any -- any subdivisions on this road. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I've got two more questions here. I don't have any information that the requirement that topographical information's been provided. MR. JOHNSTON: I'm sorry, say that again? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't see here in my package any information that topographical information has been provided. MR. JOHNSTON: Well, there's contour maps on the preliminary plat. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Oh, is that sufficient detail? (Mr. Johnston nodded.) _-_3-04 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 62 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah, it's a little -- MR. JOHNSTON: 20 foot. JUDGE TINLEY: Little flatter than we usually see. MR. JOHNSTON: It's pretty flat, yeah. Gradual slope. COMMISSIONER application for preliminary for an agenda date of March looking at this earlier tha and David Lehmann requested 2004. NICHOLSON: The -- in the plat of a subdivision, they ask 8, 2004, so we're -- we're n they requested. Deana Krause an agenda date of March 8th, MR. JOHNSTON: Oh, okay. I -- it was ready and we put it on the agenda. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. I would like to defer consideration of approval of a preliminary plan till March 8, 2004, for a number of reasons. The Subdivision Rules and Regulations require that the County Commissioner for that precinct have something like 15 days or something like that advance notice of it, and I'd like some time to -- to look at this area, and so that we can make a fully informed decision on it. MR. JOHNSTON: That's fine. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Defer this? -~3-04 63 1 2 dE 3 4 4. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's been COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Job well done, Number MS. HARDIN: I have one require that they bring us more copies to do that, or will the ones they have COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: promise to all keep our current copies do that. question. Do we of the plat in order be acceptable? No, ma'am, we'll so you won't have to MS. HARDIN: Okay, thank you. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Let me pull that out of my stack. Judge, before we leave that, one comment I might make. And if -- you know, road -- either Road and Bridge or Commissioner Nicholson, in lieu of the fact that at our last meeting, we agreed that we're going to eliminate the water availability requirements, you know, I see no reason to require the developer to spend a bunch of money that's unnecessary, but since we do have those in our rules, I would recommend that we contact Headwaters and see if they have any desire whatsoever for a test well -- or for a monitor well in this part of the county. And, in lieu of spending the -- drilling two wells as test wells, drill a monitor well and turn it over to Headwaters. That may be a way to get a well drilled for Headwaters and save the ?-23-04 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 64 developer money. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's an excellent thought, because in your studies on the Trinity and all the talk on the Trinity, it talks about how the Trinity pinches out on the Divide. That's where you're going to find that pinch, is right in there somewhere. That's where that thing is going to head up, Trinity Aquifer. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But if the developer would be willing to turn over a site out there for a monitor well, it may be -- I don't think Headwaters would turn down a location of a free well. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's a great idea. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It is a good idea. JUDGE TINLEY: It's a win-win deal. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Just for my information, would a monitor well cost more or less than the two -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Less. JUDGE TINLEY: Less. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That does sound like a win-win. COMMISSIONER LETZ: One cheaper versus two expensive. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Okay, that matter will be deferred. Next item, consideration of whether Kerr -~3-G4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ,~-~ 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 65 County Subdivision Rules apply to land partitioned by a partition deed by mutual consent, and if existing access road shall be upgraded to Kerr County standards upon acquisition by a new purchaser. MR. JOHNSTON: This item was on the agenda -- on Commissioners Court agenda September 22nd, 2003. No formal action was taken. No court order was issued after a considerable discussion. Transcript's attached. There's one small change to this one from that one, from the one on that date, wherein the -- at that time, we use the wording "the land was partitioned by a court action," where we subsequently found it was partitioned by a mutual consent and not through a court. There's a case pending in the 198th District Court concerning this -- this land in a real estate contract dispute of some kind. I'm not sure about the particulars on it, but both sides are using the Commissioners Court transcript of September 22nd to try to determine what the Commissioners Court's will is in this particular case, and I brought it back. I thought it might be better for the Commissioners Court to make their own determination, instead of letting a precedent be set by the 198th Court. I think the -- the questions are, does this property, with the facts stated above, require platting? And, two, does the road which accesses the two parcels, 1 and 2 on that drawing, require upgrading to county -2s-o~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 66 standards? The transcript kind of indicates we talked kind of around the issue, and yes and no. So -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can I make a comment and kind of get the -- open the ball? Mr. Motley has said in our hearing many times that any time that you take a piece of property and -- you take one piece of property and make it into two or more pieces of property, then that's a subdivision, and I couldn't agree more. That -- and once you have a subdivision, then you're required to update the roads. Where outside of that is this issue? MR. JOHNSTON: We have -- it's complicated a little bit by the Property Code, which I think supersedes the Subdivision Rules. Where land is partitioned -- I guess the issue is whether it's by a court or by mutual consent -- it's exempt from platting. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Our Subdivision Rules track state law exactly. I mean, I think the issue is -- I mean, it can be referred to the County Attorney. He was here at the last meeting and was aware of the situation, and he and I, I believe, discussed that, looked at the -- you know, at our rules. I mean, the wording's different, but basically they track as close as -- you know, the intent was to track state law exactly, and the state law requires us to be platted. It's stated -- and the state law doesn't -- that's an issue that this Court, I don't think, should make - ~ 3 - 0 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ..-, 25 67 that decision. That's either -- I think it's the County Attorney's office. MR. JOHNSTON: Seems like it's a legal question based on that Property Code question that came up last time. MR. MOTLEY: The way this went about last time, back -- I think it was iii September -- on September 26th. The consensus of the Commissioners Court was that, well, this -- let me refresh my memory somewhat -- that was one large piece of property that was partitioned by agreement into two somewhat rectangular tracts, and then a long tract, which is a road -- low-grade type road, which gives access to those two tracts. The Court was fairly much -- you know, they were fairly unanimous in saying -- well, here's -- Commissioner Letz says, "I think it's clearly not subject to platting. I think it's under H of our rules; a tract is subdivided and all parts transferred to persons who own undivided interest. That's clearly what they did. Had a partnership, it was divided, and they had an undivided interest. They split it up. It's not subject to Subdivision Rules." Well, then we talk about this -- talk about all other sorts of events that might trigger other platting requirements. Commissioner Williams said, "If either property owner 1 or 2 had intention of subdividing, that 2-~3-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 68 would trigger it." Commissioner Letz said as soon as one of the two owners did anything, when they -- you know, if they sell it again or do something, that road at some point, you know, would -- would likely have to be brought up upon their taking. The general idea, it sounded like to me, back -- by the Commissioners Court back on 9/22 was that these guys were coming to court doing all they could to find out what they had to do, whether they had to plat the property or not. If they platted the property, what had to be done to the road. And the way I understood it at that point in time was very much a consensus of the Court that this was not an event that would require a platting, but that in the event that one of these other two lots was sold or intended to be subdivided, that platting at that time would be sufficient to take care of the interests of the property and assuring that the roadways were adequate in and out of the property. That was pretty much the consensus of the Court at that time. Now, it is a road. I mean, it is a division of land, and there is a portion laid out for a street, a road, whatever you want to call it. So, technically, it does come under the requirements that the land be platted. Just seemed to me that it was -- the Court was almost of the idea that it might be variance territory or something like that. It just seemed like everybody on the Court was pretty _-^3-04 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ,.-. 25 69 much of the mind that, you know, if it came back again -- one of these guys came back again, at that point in time would be an adequate time to plat it. That's where we left it. MR. JOHNSTON: Well, too, this was done long before I even knew that this was happening. They come up to us at this late date and said, "Well, it's already been partitioned." So -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think the -- and I'll try to say this clearly. Our rules track state law, and state law says that if you have an undivided interest in a tract and you partition it, and that's all you're doing, no road's changing or anything else, just partition the tract, that does not require platting until further development takes place. Once that tract gets sold -- you know, once one of those partitioned tracts gets sold, platting is required. If the road -- if the access to that property -- you know, something has to happen to get access to it. That will also trigger platting automatically. MR. JOHNSTON: I think what they've done with that blue section is they laid out a road. MS. GARTNER: May I say something? I represent one of the -- JUDGE TINLEY: You need to identify yourself. 2 2 3 G 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ... 25 70 MS. GARTNER: I'm Kimberly Gartner, and I represent Curt Rickert, who was sued by Mr. Colvin. That is the lawsuit that Mr. Johnston's referring to in the 198th. My client and another party owned 1,200-plus acres together. They didn't get along, so they partitioned the property. Actually, they bought each other's half, all right? But it was accomplished through a partition deed. So, now my client has 87-plus acres. The other guy has 87-plus acres, and there's 30-some-odd acres that they jointly own that makes up the road. Okay? We're not talking about lots that are 10 acres or 5 acres or whatever is traditionally subdivided and platted. And the issue is, my client just wants to sell his 87 acres, plus his half interest in the road to -- or he wanted to -- to Mr. Colvin. And Mr. Colvin said no, I'm not going to -- you can't sell it until you upgrade the road. Okay? And it's our -- we came -- my client and I came to Mr. Johnston and said, "What do we need to do?" And after a couple tries at trying to get the facts straight, it was Mr. Johnston's opinion that it -- nothing had to be done to the road in order for my client to sell his 87 acres. Now, whoever buys the 87 acres, if they want to further subdivide that, then it was his opinion that, yes, maybe there does need to be some platting, but all we're trying to do is sell the 87 acres and a half interest in the road. 2 3 0 4 71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 But it was all 200 at one time, and they -- the two parties just ceased getting along and decided to split their ownership. So, I'm afraid if you require subdividing -- or platting for that, then everybody with any amount of acreage is going to have -- a road that has access to their property with any amount of acreage is going to have to have it up to county standards, and I don't think that's the law. I'm confused, though. Are you -- I'm Kimberly. I've never met you. I think we've spoken on the phone. Are you saying it is or is not? MR. MOTLEY: I'm saying that what the Commissioners Court said on September 22nd was they thought -- at that time, they thought it was an event not subject to platting. That's -- MS. GARTNER: The road was fine as it is? MR. MOTLEY: That was what they said. And they said that -- I've never given a written opinion as I know of on this. I know I've signed some affidavits concerning factual allegations in the case. But my belief was that Commissioners Court at that time was satisfied with the roads as they were, the two lots and the roads; that if further developments were to take place, further subdivision, that at that point in time, it would be adequate to require the upgrade of the roads necessary to support the types of subdivision intended for Lot A or B. -~3-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 .~ 2 4 25 72 MS. GARTNER: Yeah. One of y'all said at the September meeting, which I was not at, as long as, you know, two parties owned it, they partitioned it, and the same two parties own it, and they own that road as well, that there was no platting that needed to be required. Therefore, there was no work that had to be done on the road. And that is -- that is what we're trying to get straight, 'cause it's going to help with one issue in our lawsuit. COMMISSIONER LETZ: My view is that we're dealing with very specific facts that are very -- I mean, and I want to refer it and I think it needs to be referred to the County Attorney to review the facts, and he will then interpret those facts based on our law and state law. I don't think that it's an issue that this -- I mean, because, you know, I don't know all of your -- your side and what's being said on your side. I don't know Mr. Colvin's side. I don't know that -- just don't know all the facts, and I can't make a determination on platting until I know the facts. And I think that the person that needs to make that determination from -- to represent us is the County Attorney on a civil matter. MS. GARTNER: And -- yeah, and we don't care who makes it. We would just really like a decision one way or the other. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. -_3-04 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 73 JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. -- I'm sorry, I thought you were through. I'm sorry. MS. GARTNER: I am. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Mr. Hart, you had -- you had requested to be heard on this matter. MR. HART: Yes, Your Honor, and I prepared a brief memorandum, but I will just summarize it and circulate a copy. Basically -- JUDGE TINLEY: You need to state your full name, please. MR. HART: William Spencer Hart. I represent Jay Colvin. And there is a lawsuit pending in the District Court; it has to do with a contract which had a special provision that required that when the purchaser, Mr. Colvin's company -- when the land was delivered to it, it would be in compliance with the Kerr County regulations. The previous September 22nd conversations of this Court kind of left things up in the air, but also, the agenda item on that day specifically was that the Court consider whether the Subdivision Rules applied to land partitioned by a legal action. Well, I'm not sure where anyone got the idea there was land partitioned by a legal action of this property. There was not. Mr. Motley has given an opinion that the September 22nd -- that your consideration on that date did not result in any decisions being made, and so I think that -~3-u9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ,~, 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 74 transcript is somewhat past-tense. Engineer Johnston has given a couple of different opinions on this matter previously. One was based on his understanding that there was a legal or court-ordered partition. That was not the case. His earlier opinion said that when the land was partitioned into three parcels in 2002 -- now, this is an April 21st letter -- that it should have been platted in accordance with the Kerr County Subdivision Rules. I have trouble understanding why people fight platting so much. I've checked with the surveyor, and he said it would only cost another thousand dollars for the survey to be converted into a survey plat. There's already been $4,000 of expense on the plat already. Section 1.02 allows exemption from the platting requirements -- or, excuse me, 1.03 has certain exemptions, but those only provide for exemption provided the owner does not lay out part of the tract as described in Section 1.02. 1.02.C -- 1.02.C says streets or other parts of the tract intended for use of purchasers or owners of lots fronting on or adjacent to the streets. We have three tracts. One of the tracts is 31 acres. It is set up -- and by an easement and agreement, it is set up so the only thing it can be used for is a roadway for the adjoining tracts, and for use of the -- in fact, it's an irrevocable, nonexclusive easement over and -~3-~4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 75 through the tracts. It's also for utility lines, so on. I think, clearly, that tract makes this subject to 1.02 and subject to the platting requirements. There doesn't seem to be an exemption available. The lowest grade of road, I think, under Kerr County Subdivision Rules is a country lane. This type of road -- and this is quoting from -- it's -- a country lane is defined twice in the rules, in Section 7.06.14(a)(4), and also in the Definitions section under "road" in Section II of the rules. And it says, "A country lane is a low-volume road used primarily for access to abutting residential property with lots of 10 acres or more. This type of road shall be mandated by the Commissioners Court in those cases where a right-of-way exists and minimum access is desired." I think that language is pretty clear. I think the language of the rules is pretty clear. I would like for the Court to rule at this time that it is subject to the platting requirements. On the other hand, should the Court defer to an opinion of the County Attorney, I think that would also be an appropriate manner of handling this. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. The consensus that I've heard from members of the Court is that -- certainly, we don't want to get involved in the middle of your litigation. That's your lawsuit, and we -- we want y'all to have the privilege of doing that any way you want -23-04 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 .-. 25 76 to. Our concern is the degree to which this transaction does or does not comply with our Subdivision Rules, and it does seem appropriate, as Commissioner Letz has suggested, that we need to refer this matter to our legal counsel, the County Attorney, to have him ascertain any necessary facts he needs to ascertain, and after doing so, to give his opinion to this Court whether or not this transaction is subject to the Subdivision Rules. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would so move that, Judge. I'll move what you just said, to dispose of it. JUDGE TINLEY: All right. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll second it. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Any further discussion on the motion? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I don't have any discussion on the motion, but I did want -- we take advice of the County Surveyor quite frequently, and I -- at some point, I wanted him to advise this Court on his -- what he thinks is the right thing, which is always the right thing. Could we have that right now, please? I see him coming up here. MR. VOELKEL: I'll be glad to give my opinion. I thank you for the time, Commissioner. Lee Voelkel, and I'll speak this morning as the County Surveyor. I sat back in the back and I just -- I'm just thinking in my -?3-04 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 77 mind -- the more we talk about it, it seems, the more confused I get over it. In this specific case -- and I didn't know y'all were going to talk specifically about this transaction, but -- and the way I look at it, I don't see what all the confusion is. There are certain rules set out by the State and Kerr County, and I think those are very -- very similar, as Mr. Letz pointed out, as far as dividing land. And it seems like the big issue or the big statement in both the Kerr County rules and maybe even the state rules is, if you lay out a parcel for a -- a tract of land for access or for a road -- and every exemption in Kerr County's rules say you can have this exemption if you're not laying out a road. Dah, dah, dah, "if you're not laying out a road." And in this case, I thought it was real clear that a road was -- was being laid out. The land was partitioned. It was an undivided interest. I would just hate to see Kerr County get into a situation where people go out and buy property with undivided interests and then come back and divide that to circumvent the platting requirements. I think that would be something that we would -- we, as Kerr County, would not want to get into. So, I -- the only point I would say is, to me, the important issue is -- and Mr. -- the County Attorney will probably address this also -- is the fact that if you're laying out a road, ,?-~ 3-U 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 78 you're going to have to plat the property. I think that's -- that's -- that rule is very specific, and there's a reason for it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree with that. And I -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I do too. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just -- but the County Attorney -- I mean, they want us to make a determination to use the Court, and I want, you know, the County Attorney to give us his opinion. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's why he's the highest vote-getter in Kerr County. JUDGE TINLEY: Any -- any further questions or discussion on the motion? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I thought I got a second. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I seconded. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, it was seconded. All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you very much. Do you want to go ahead and do that public hearing right quick? (Discussion off the record.) -23-G4 79 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Let's go ahead and move to a timed item at 10:30. It's a public hearing item, so at this time, we will recess the Commissioners Court meeting of this date and we will open a public hearing on road name changes, regulatory sign, and abandoning, discontinuing, and vacating county road maintenance as indicated in the notice of the public hearing. (The regular Commissioners Court meeting was closed at 10:40 a.m., and a public hearing was held in open court, as follows:) P U B L I C H E A R I N G JUDGE TINLEY: Is there any member of the public that wishes to be heard on that matter? Any member of the public that wishes to be heard on that matter? (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: There being no one to step forward and offer anything on that, I will close the public hearing, and I will reconvene the Commissioners Court meeting for this date. (The public hearing was concluded at 10:41 a.m., and the regular Commissioners Court meeting was reopened.) JUDGE TINLEY: It's almost a quarter of 11:00 now. Why don't we stand in recess until about five minutes till 11:00? (Recess taken from 10:41 a.m. to 10:55 a.m.) -~3-G4 80 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ,_,. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 .-- 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's come back to order, and reconvene the special Commissioners Court meeting scheduled for this date. Next item on the agenda is consideration of a court order and notification by Floodplain Administrator concerning Lots 42 through 44 of Bumble Bee Hills Subdivision. MR. JOHNSTON: I'm looking around; I don't see the party that requested to be on the agenda here. Do we want to pass this, or do we want to just go through it one more time? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Just bring us up to date on where we are on this. I think we have a court order -- MR. JOHNSTON: I'll be glad to do that. JUDGE TINLEY: We've got a number of parties that have asked to be heard on this, and I want them to have every opportunity to be heard also. MR. JOHNSTON: Let me give you a brief rundown on what's happened so far. Mr. W.E. Vlasek added fill material to Lots 42 to 44, Bumble Bee Hills Subdivision, in 1999. He had a development permit Number F-99-32 from U.G.R.A. This permit was for placing fill only, and was not for construction, and it was valid for six months. The elevation of the fill placed under the Permit _-23-04 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ..... 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 81 F-99-32 varied from 1732.0 to 1734.7 feet above mean sea level. That's the low elevation and the high elevation on determined by U.G.R.A. is 1735 feet above mean sea level, and it's shown on the firm map 482-65-6150-E, dated July 19th, 2000. Additional fill was added in October of 2003 to raise the top of the fill to an elevation of 1735.5, which is the lowest point, to 1736, which was the highest point. Brought it above the floodplain level. January 26th, 2004, Court Order 28499 directed the County Attorney to issue notice to the landowner to remove fill above the mentioned -- what he added in 2000 -- October 2003, because it was placed without a permit. At the direction of the County Attorney, I sent a letter to W.E. Vlasek on January 27th, 2004, stating that the 2000 -- the October 2003 fill must be removed within 30 days, which is February 27th of this -- this week. February 27th, 2004. Also stated in this letter that any further development on these lots will require a hydrology analysis by an experienced registered professional engineer of the Bumblebee Basin to insure that it meets the requirements of the Kerr County Flood Damage Prevention Order 26463. That's where we are. Mr. Vlasek called and requested to address the Commissioners Court concerning this matter, so I put him on the agenda. He's not in the courtroom. - 2 3 - 0 4 82 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, as it stands right now, he's got until February 27th to remove that -- MR. JOHNSTON: That is correct. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- fill that's not permitted? MR. JOHNSTON: That is correct. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Then what's going to happen on February 28th if he doesn't do that? MR. JOHNSTON: Turn it back over to the County Attorney, and there's a provision in the Floodplain Damage Prevention Order to file -- what do they call it? -- an injunction or whatever, start fining him $25 a day until he removes it. That's the background. That's all I know. I guess -- have a good day. JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Frost? MS. FROST: Yes. JUDGE TINLEY: You had asked to be heard on this item. MS. FOX: Yes, sir. MS. FROST: Ms. Fox wanted to go first. JUDGE TINLEY: And Ms. Fox also. MS. FOX: Oh, I thought he said Fox. My name is Catherine Fox, and I honestly thought that the other party would be here today. And this is the most important issue that I have ever come to this court for. It is. -23-04 1 ~^ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 83 Therefore, I, in advance, apologize for taking a little bit more time than I usually do. Please, I -- bear with me, and I will try to be as quick and as concise as possible. I have turned in some permission slips that have been signed, because today I am formally representing myself; my husband, Terence Fox; my son, who is a legal adult in the eyes of the court, Andrew Fox; Mr. and Mrs. George Vlasek, who are my parents; Mrs. Lillian Lewis, Mrs. Lee Keiser, Mr. Michael Keiser, and Caroline and Warren Spector. I would like to read some statements from just a few of these individuals, not all, so as not to take up so much time. Lillian Lewis' statement: "I have lived in my house on Should Bee Street in Bumblebee since 1986. This is my retirement home. In the July flood of 1987, the water backed up from Bumblebee Creek halfway into my front yard and driveway, and I am way back on -- off the road. This occurred before any berm or hill was in the front of my house. All of that land was flat. I am afraid, now that" -- and it was cut off. I can't understand what she was about to say, but she does indicate that she was afraid. Caroline and Warren Spector -- I'm not going to read the entire article -- letter that they've submitted. The Judge has it if anyone wants to look at it. But, basically, it is troubling to them, and it says, "Now it appears the owner of the property feels he can wantonly dump _-z3-u~ 1 -^ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 .._ 25 84 excess dirt there whenever the mood strikes, regardless of its effects on the surrounding property. We feel this is -- is inappropriate, and would like to put a stop to such activities. Thank you for your time," et cetera, et cetera. The final one that I would like to read is written by my father. I do not have a copy of it for you, but I could gladly get one and have it signed and dated by him. This is from George Vlasek. "I have lived on Bumblebee Creek and property for 54 years. I have witnessed firsthand probably more flooding events right at the field in question referred to as Lots 42 through 44 in Bumble Bee Hills than any living person. I have seen the flood waters of Bumblebee Creek, and in some of the great floods, the power of the Guadalupe River and Bumblebee Creek as they converged in the fields, and that has now been turned into these lots. I find it unbelievable that anyone who had any knowledge of the area would even consider actually attempting to live there. Since the individual seeking a permit to build there did not live in Kerr County in 1959 or 1960, it would have been impossible for him to ever have witnessed these big floods right at the spot, because two river bridge crossings separate -- and in other flooding events, he would not have been able to either, because two river bridge crossings separated him until the water receded. ''-~3-G4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 85 "In 1959, I lived in a cottage owned by R.B. McAshan, which still exists today, directly adjacent to the northwest and at a much higher elevation than the field or the fill that has been placed in it. The night of the flood, the water from the creek was inches from coming in. I made the decision to move my family to higher ground. We took off in the dark toward the west over a field to what is now known as Hog Haven. We never made it. We heard cries in the dark for help. Shining a flashlight in the dark, we spotted a man way up in the top of a cypress tree. His name was Mr. Gallagher. He and his wife lived in a house dangerously close to the Guadalupe River and a minor tributary that flows into it across the highway, much like the fields -- and much like the field where the lots are that are in question today. We, along with other people in the darkness, took turns yelling at him until 7:00 in the morning to keep him awake and encourage him not to give up hope. His wife was found several days later near Center Point, Texas. I never forgot that night. It was terrifying. "The very next year, it rained approximately 15 inches right on Bumblebee Creek. That, too, was something you had to see to believe. In the '80's, two homes were built across the road to the north from the mound of dirt. Before the dirt was placed there, the flood waters -23-04 86 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ,,^ 2 4 25 came right up to those two houses. I am fearful what can happen to the people living in those homes now with the mound displacing the flow of flood water and diverting it onto existing properties. The water in Lots 42 through 44 used to fan out and slow down before. Now it cannot. My family and I have witnessed that during the October 2000 flood after the mound was placed there, which was nothing compared to the floods of 1932, '59, '60, '78, '87, and many others. In the 1932 flood, the water covered the entire field in Bumble Bee where Lots 42-44 are, as well as where Mrs. Lewis and Mrs. Keiser's houses exist today, and even went way past them to the north into my driveway. I find this hard to believe, but Mr. Judd Trolinger, who witnessed it, pointed it out to me in person before he died. Even before the last addition of fill, when just the first mound of dirt was placed on these lots, the velocity of water in the creek increased tremendously. Now the water is so fast and powerful that it sweeps through the area and makes everything clean. I am fearful for my river pump, my water line, and the erosion of my private drive, which is my ingress and egress point to Highway 39. "Seeing the floods as they are happening, watching in total disbelief as the water keeps rising, hearing the roar of the flood is incredibly awesome. It puts the fear of God in a man and makes one truly respect -~3-04 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ~,,, 2 4 25 87 the destructive powers of flood waters. I hope that the Court will not allow any variances or let this dirt remain. If you were me, you would want nothing -- nothing more than to help my neighbors, and protect our property and ourselves and give us back some peace of mind." All of the people that presented -- I'm sorry, I'm having a sore throat today -- presented petitions do feel the same way, and live in either north, south, east, or west directions of this property. I have one for each of you. With your permission, pass those on, please. I was under the understanding that Mr. William E. Vlasek would be here this morning to request a variance not to have to remove the fill. His argument was probably based on the premise of having already obtained a development permit, which was Number F-99-3, and that he was simply bringing in more fill in order to raise the existing fill in his lot to the presumably required height above base flood elevation, as required by the County. If this were merely the case, I would not be here this morning taking up your -- the Court's valuable time. What is actually occurring is, if anyone would come and ask for a variance in an attempt to oversimplify a very serious, complex issue within an unmapped, special flood hazard zone in order to obtain a permit. If you will look at the first page of the 2-23-04 88 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ,--. 25 handout in the highlighted area, the original development permit is a conditional permit stating, quote, "Placement of fill on Lots 42 through 44, Bumble Bee Hills, per agreement." Mr. Vlasek's signature clearly indicates, quotes, "acknowledgment of conditions by permittee." On the second page, please note the conditions of the agreement. Number one, soils placed within 60 feet of center line of Bumblebee Creek will be relocated uphill, which preserves the floodway -- I only have one copy of these, I apologize. I'll pass it to Judge Tinley, and I'll have to have it back. But the photos clearly state -- I mean, they don't state; they clearly show and point out that the caliche/gravel mix, which is the second portion of fill which is in question in this matter, has been placed back in the area along the creek, which is within that 60-foot center line. It also states, number two, these soils will form a mound having sides sloping at a rate of 1 foot for each 3 feet of horizontal distance. Mr. Vlasek has not -- I'm sorry. If you will move on to Page 3, where the quote is, "Mr. Vlasek must abide by each of the conditions of the agreement to receive a permit to build a structure on these proposed pads," it is our belief Mr. Vlasek has knowingly disregarded this condition. On Page 4, there's a summary of some past events, and a -- and a document that was presented to the -23-G9 89 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 County Attorney's office by U.G.R.A. Floodplain Administration representative at the time, and Mr. Vlasek has not once, but now twice placed fill in a special flood hazard zone without a permit. He has failed in the past to meet issued deadlines for providing information to the Floodplain Administrator, and has previously had a motion of contempt filed against him concerning the area in question for failure to comply with a county order. The motion was only dropped by his explicit agreement to comply with a conditional permit, which he has now disregarded. He may argue that he has a second permit application, Number F-03-019, submitted to the County at this time dated September 25th, 2003, and that people place fill on their sites all the time in our county before they have obtained the necessary permit. The flaw with this argument, however, is that Mr. Vlasek has a preexisting conditional permit to abide by, as well as prior knowledge that he is within a special flood hazard zone, and that he has affixed his signature to a floodplain acknowledgement affidavit which clearly states, quote, "No work may start until a permit is issued." He could claim he didn't know this the first go-round, but there is no excuse for this time. To me, it's all a question of whether he's being ordered to remove the second amount of fill, when it is his contention that he will just have to bring the fill back -~3-04 90 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 after obtaining the development permit. This is quite presumptuous an argument, which is based on the premise that the permit will be granted come hell or high water. Pardon the pun, gentlemen. But since we know the high water will be coming back, and no one in this room can predict exactly when, we want the new pad fill removed until this matter is completely resolved. The flood could come tomorrow. Kerr County Flood Damage Prevention Order Number 26463 is not simply in effect to protect the permittee, Mr. Vlasek, and his rights. As a member of the National Flood Insurance Program, Kerr County is bound to protect neighboring property owners and their properties as well. Throughout the course of the three-plus-year ordeal, we believe that at times more concern has been shown for the permittee than to some of the concerns for existing state, county, private properties and their owners. A letter from Franklin Johnston to Mr. Vlasek, which he alluded to a moment ago, dated December 2nd, 2003, brings numerous flood damage prevention order articles and sections to Mr. Vlasek's attention and continues to state that they must be addressed with a detailed hydraulic analysis. That would be Page 5 in your handout. However, on the last page of your handout, the January 27th, 2004 letter from Mr. Johnston to Mr. Vlasek informing him that the second layer of fill must -23-U9 ~, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 91 be removed by February 27th, 2004, requests a hydrology analysis by a registered professional engineer, but it does not use the terminology, quote, "detailed analysis." We believe that there is a difference legally between the two, and therefore, as it is within our right to be equally protected, we appeal to the Court today to change this verbiage back to, quote, "a detailed hydrology analysis." Based on our argument that only a detailed flood profile hydrology analysis using HEC-1 or some other comparable modeling and cross-sectioning of the entire Bumblebee Creek Basin will assure that the following duties and requirements taken from Kerr County's Flood Damage Prevention Order will be fully addressed to the degree required in this unique area surrounded on all sides by existing development, state and county property. Variances shall not be granted within a designated floodway if any increase in flood levels during the base flood discharge occur. Variances shall only be issued upon a determination that the granting of a variance will not result in increased flood height, additional threat to public safety, or conflict with existing local laws or orders or victimization of the public. Because this is an extremely low-lying area with existing homes and other types of real property, state, county, and private roads, a state bridge, a county-maintained low-water crossing located -~3-09 92 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ,..._ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 north, south, east, and west, because all of these must be considered and protected, because this is a special flood hazard zone location where two floodplains converge within an unmapped area where a flood area has never been determined, combined with the fact that two other large areas located upstream within the same creek basin, Bumblebee Creek, have just recently begun developing, this simply complicates the entire situation further, and no variances should be granted. Imagine my surprise when I discovered that, as a contract holder with the National Flood Insurance Program, Kerr County has the authority to leave an unmapped area unmapped and deny permits within it to protect. I am so accustomed to trying to learn what the Court explains they cannot legally do that I had never considered this as an option. As there truly are places in the world where people should not place a conventionally designed home, this makes sense. But, you see, the structure itself is merely a proposal at this point in time, and is not even a concern of us. We have been trying to explain to the Floodplain Administrators -- three of them now -- and to explain to the Court that it is the fill that is our concern and is the problem, not the structure that would be placed on top of it. We are the ones who have witnessed the flooding at this location, not Mr. Vlasek and not the Court. As I said _-^3-04 93 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 before, you cannot have firsthand knowledge at this location unless you are right there while it is occurring or you are flying over in an aircraft or helicopter. In fact, even residents within the subdivision who reside to the west of the low-water crossing on Should Bee Drive cannot see what is occurring at that location from where they are located. The flooding on Bumblebee Creek, as recounted by my father during the 1960 event, when approximately 15 inches of rain fell right on Bumblebee Creek in just a few hours' time, is comparable to the recent Kerrville flooding that brought horrible devastation along both Quinlan and Town Creek. In conclusion, based on the requirements of the Kerr County Flood Damage Prevention Order, especially as they specifically apply to our grievances, as well as to Mr. Vlasek's own personal safety, we request the Court grant no variances, enforce the February 27, 2004 deadline to remove the top layer of fill, and order an underlying detailed hydrology study of the entire Bumblebee Creek Basin which addresses our specific concerns. There are extremely complex questions that need to be addressed. If Mr. Vlasek cannot afford such an extensive study at this time, then we ask the Court to stop the permitting process until this unmapped area is dealt with. I spoke, right as I was leaving the house 3-~3-G4 94 1 '- 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ,,,_,, 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 this morning, with a man who is the Floodplain Manager of the State of Texas in Austin; he returned my call. His name is Mike Howard, and he explained to me something that I did not know. The Court may know, but I would like to have it on the record. The Court does not have to pay -- Kerr County does not have to pay to have an extremely detailed study of that unmapped area done. FEMA has now embarked on a five-year plan which provides federal grant money to counties where they have a unique situation where they really need a specific unmapped portion of an area to be determined safe or not to put in fill or some type of structure. We would like the Court to just at least consider looking into that. I know that sometimes we don't want the State to get involved; we would like to keep it at the local level. But this is an extremely unique situation, and we fear not only for our properties, the erosion that has already occurred since the original fill was placed, but for the safety of anyone who might decide to someday live in that home, if it is allowed to be built there. To continue to allow individuals to disregard agreements, orders and permitting affidavits is not the way for us and Kerr County to start off on the right foot with a new floodplain management duty or to retain the trust of the citizens of our county, especially when you're experiencing such rapid ?-~3-0~ 95 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 growth. Citizens want to know that they can trust the County to enforce and protect -- to consider all citizens' rights, not just those seeking permits. I thank you very much for your time. I apologize that I took longer than I normally do. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Ms. Fox. Ms. Frost? MS. FROST: You'll be happy to know that I will be much briefer. My name is Mary Hart Frost, and my husband and I own a home in Bumble Bee Hills Subdivision, and I share ownership of property at Pleasure Hill with my cousins. As an officer of the Bumble Bee Hills Property Owners' Association, I fully support my neighbors' concerns as well as Mrs. Fox' presentation. As the owner of Lots Number 27 and 28, which are adjacent to Bumblebee Creek, and having spent summers with my family at Pleasure Hill since the early 1940's, I have witnessed flooding of the creek and the Guadalupe River on numerous occasions. The floodway where the creek feeds into the river under the Bumblebee Creek Bridge must be preserved for the safety of everyone concerned. Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you very much. Mr. Johnston, did you have something further on this? MR. JOHNSTON: Two comments for clarification. If Ms. Fox had read the entire sentence in -~3-C4 96 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the letter of January 27th, which you probably have in your copy, it said do a hydrology analysis using the same criteria as FEMA uses to develop base flood elevations along the Guadalupe River, which would be more -- in fact, they're more rigorous than the -- what I had previously said in the other letter. JUDGE TINLEY: Detailed hydrologic analysis would be more rigorous than MR. JOHNSTON: I would think so. I specified what it was. And, number two, there is no variance on the table, so that's all just speculation. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Anything further on this agenda item? If not, I'd like to go to Item 21, without objection. Consider and discuss request to use the grounds in front of the Kerr County Courthouse on Thursday May the 6th, 2004, for National Day of Prayer by the Clergy Women, Inc. The material is in -- in your packet, gentlemen. The same request was made last year, as I recall, by the same group. I don't think we had any riotous conduct or other distractions. This is Ms. Lancaster. She's with the Clergy Women, and if you have any questions for her, I'm sure she'll be able to answer them for you. MS. LANCASTER: Yes. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How many years now? MS. LANCASTER: Well, this will be the eighth 2-~3-09 97 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 year that we've been doing the different things for National Day of Prayer. What we would like to do at 11:30 to 12:30 this year again is have a military emphasis. I have not pursued this too much, because -- since this is being considered, but we would like to have the active color guard and our veterans from different things, and then some from the current wars that could do different things, and also have our proclamation again this year that I have copies of if you would like that at this time. JUDGE TINLEY: That's the proclamation that's going to be read -- issued and read at the May 6th event? MS. LANCASTER: Yes. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MS. LANCASTER: Yes, Thursday, May 6th. This is the 53rd year -- anniversary for National Day of Prayer. In fact, the theme this year is Let Freedom Ring. The freedom to gather, the freedom to worship, the freedom to pray. And our scripture this year is from Leviticus 25:10, "Proclaim liberty throughout the land, all its inhabitants." COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'll move to approve the request to use the grounds in front of the Kerr County Courthouse Thursday, May 6th, 2004, for National Day of Prayer by the Clergy Women, Inc. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Any -23-04 98 1 "`_ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 further questions or discussion on the motion? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm proud to make that second. JUDGE TINLEY: All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. MS. LANCASTER: Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you very much, Ms. Lancaster. JUDGE TINLEY: Next item is Item 10, consider the road name changes, regulatory sign, and abandoning, discontinuing, vacating county road maintenance as discussed in the public hearing which we held shortly before the break. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I move for approval. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of the agenda item. Any question or discussion? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just have a comment, that one of them's a little bit unusual. It's to remove a stop sign, and it's at an intersection where people keep -~3-09 99 1 °' 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 stealing the stop sin. We put it up; they don't like the fact that we put one up there. They requested it. We put it up, and now they steal it. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Won't cost us anything to remove it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Won't cost much to remove it. And part of it is also liability, little bit of a liability issue that Road and Bridge had if we had a sign that wasn't up. MS. HARDIN: I do have one comment on that. We went from a stop sign to a yield sign. They took those down. We recently put up an "Intersection Ahead" sign, which they are now taking down too. Do you have any suggestions on maybe law enforcement or something that we -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Pass the word on to the constable; hope he can patrol the area. But I have no idea who's -- why someone at that intersection doesn't want a street sign. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that down in your neck of the woods? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Out Hermann Sons Road. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That should explain some of it. MS. HARDIN: Do you have a suggestion as to how -- how long we should continue to put up the one that -~3-04 100 1 '" 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 shows "Intersection Ahead"? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd just say no signs. I don't see a point in -- if they're going to steal them, I think there's a -- I mean, I have a concern from a safety issue of not putting signage up, but when they steal them, what can do you? MS. HARDIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Stop putting them up. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Any further question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Next item on the agenda is consideration and discussion of the request from the Environmental Health Department for additional staff to handle a significant increase in O.S.S.F. and solid waste activity. Commissioner Nicholson, you asked that this be placed on the agenda. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes, sir. I think all of you have some backup about the request and the basis for the request, backup data about increased activities and licensing and inspections, and backup data on costs and income. I'm going to turn it over to Miguel here in a _-~3-G9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ..-~ 25 101 second, but my summary of the costs and income data that may be relevant to our decision about whether or not to approve additional staffing is there are forecasts for operating expense for '03-'04, this year, of about $140,000, and expense of about $108,000 -- and income, for a net cost of the program to the County of $32,000. We had budgeted previously to spend, I think, around $65,000 as our contribution to the U.G.R.A., and a -- a Solid Waste budget of about $16,000, for total operating costs of $81,000. So, if you subtract the $32,000 we project it's going to cost from the $81,000 that we thought earlier it would cost, we have about a $50,000 benefit to the County in terms of operating costs. Miguel? MR. ARREOLA: We -- yes, sir. I'm here just to request that extra help due to the increase of activity in the department. The numbers looks good so far. We hope it's still good. The income we receive, it's -- it's already -- it shows steady growth throughout the first quarter and the first month of the second quarter. We need to provide a better service, faster paperwork turnaround, and we need the extra help. Questions on that? COMMISSIONER LETZ: The question I have is probably to Commissioner Nicholson. I mean, I agree we need, I think, more staffing down there. On the projections on income, did you pretty much -- I mean, I guess the first -23-04 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 102 three months are somewhat meaningless, because real estate transfer revenue was in there. Were those taken out? MR. ARREOLA: It's not considered. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's not considered? MR. ARREOLA: We took it out. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: These are forecasts from Mr. Tomlinson and Miguel. And the unanswered question, I think, is whether or not we're seeing a unique peak in activity, or if it's a predictor of future activity, and I -- anybody could guess at that. But it now appears that activity is up, development's up, and we're probably looking at a steadily increasing level of activity and costs and revenues for the future. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And we reduced staff when they came over. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We did. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where is the added personnel needed? Inside work or outside work or both? MR. ARREOLA: In O.S.S.F., it's inside work; it's in the office. Mainly, it's for paperwork and taking care of customers in the office. On the Solid Waste division, we need a part-time person to continue with what the Code Enforcement Officer does right now, and it's outside. It's a lot also inside, but mainly outside. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What -- from -- my 2-~3-04 1 ^ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ..-_ 25 103 point of view, from what I've seen there, is that the -- our staff of three down there has done a good job of getting more flexibility in how the work gets done. And Tish Hulett, I think, is now fully qualified. MR. ARREOLA: She's a licensed D.R. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: She can do the field work, and there's a lot of it, and her and Miguel are -- in fact, I regret that you had to spend so much of this morning in here. You don't have time to do that. But her and Miguel are spending a lot -- most of their time in the field, and I -- I think what we need is an additional person in the office to free Tish and Miguel up more so that they can do the more technical part of it, and continue to do the cross-training and gaining flexibility where everybody can do each other's job. I'm -- I'm not ready to -- to have an opinion to you about the need to beef up solid waste. I'm not sure that we -- what we've seen lately is not -- has not just been a build-up of demand for help in solid waste problems, and it may level off some. No? COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're getting ready to get a bunch from my precinct. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Getting ready to what? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Get a bunch of solid waste complaints. -'3- ~'4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 .._ 25 104 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They're not going to level off. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: There's two different issues -- two different functions here. One is O.S.S.F. and the other one is solid waste. And, as you pointed out, we're doing O.S.S.F. with something less than the staffing level that used to be -- even taking into consideration Floodplain. And Miguel spends some of his time, and not very beneficially, on solid waste matters, as well as O.S.S.F. JUDGE TINLEY: Would it be appropriate to maybe give some consideration to possibly having a part -- starting out with a part-time in one or both capacities, one in the O.S.S.F. part-time, and one in the solid waste part-time? If that's going to be -- if this thing isn't going to be a sustained growth, I don't want to get us plugged into some staffing levels that's really not going to be sustained on a needed basis. Then, if it turns out that these growth figures continue to escalate, why, we can either convert these people to full-time or -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Judge, on the office, I've -- I've thought about that, too. That's a concern I have. On the office part of it, one, I have enough confidence that the activity level is going to be sustained that I would be willing to hire a full-time - 3 - 0 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ..... 25 105 person, as you can invest training and commitment into them, but that if we hired that person, to tell them that it's based on a -- a certain level of activity. If that doesn't perpetuate itself, that the job might go away. JUDGE TINLEY: Or be reduced to part-time status. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- I mean -- I mean, I tend to agree with what Commissioner Nicholson says. I see another avenue also with Tish Hulett, you know, who is kind of an office and field. And if the workload falls -- you know, is reduced some, we can get her more into the field only, and maybe get some of the solid waste onto her time. I see -- I think we need another full-time person down there, another slot, and I think we can -- as time goes, we may adjust what that spot is. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Good point. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I think I would agree with you that we need a full-time slot, and then, you know, we can adjust what that position is as we do cross-training. We can -- we're pretty flexible. JUDGE TINLEY: And utilize the one full-time person in both capacities, possibly. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. JUDGE TINLEY: Flex. -23-04 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ,~-- 25 106 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Commissioner, does your -- does your assessment of the dollars that the County is spending also reflect what we're spending for Floodplain? Because, on the other side of the equation, that was built into the U.G.R.A.'s numbers. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes, it was built into the U.G.R.A.'s number, and my assessment does not include that cost, so we have less than the $50,000 I talked about. And we can staff that additional full-time position for quite a bit less than $50,000. COMMISSIONER LETZ: What level are you looking at? MR. ARREOLA: It's a clerical person, just basically answering phones and taking care of paperwork. I did some -- I went to the Treasurer's office and got the -- the step and grade, and I think we can be on a Pay Group 8, and start on Step 1. MS. SOVIL: 12. 12-1. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It would have to be 12. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I thought it was more than that. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I didn't know we still -~3-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 107 MR. ARREOLA: Well, that's what I think might work, but I don't have the last word on that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Twelve? MS. SOVIL: 12-1 is a beginning clerk. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: 12-1. MR. ARREOLA: 12-1? JUDGE TINLEY: Don't know whether you can get it for a 12-1, either. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm wondering if a 12-1 is -- JUDGE TINLEY: That could be a little low. We -- we converted all the -- MS. SOVIL: $18,400 a year. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Ms. Sovil, you spent a lot of time looking at these salary grades and job descriptions. What's your sense of what that job would be? MS. SOVIL: Shouldn't be any more than a clerk. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. Are you thinking 12-1? MS. SOVIL: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Does this position also have something to do with the increased volume of solid waste complaints coming in? -23-04 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ,^._ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 108 MR. ARREOLA: It will help. It will help. We can use -- like you were mentioning, we can use that person to help also solid waste, on all the paperwork that it creates, and use the Code Enforcement officer to be more dedicated in the field, and myself also. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think what it does, it frees up -- it gets the clerical work done by this new hire, and then lets Judy and Tish be able to do some of the administrative work on the solid waste side. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How much is the salary at 12-1? MS. SOVIL: $18,407. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What about benefits? MS. SOVIL: That's plus the benefits. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Includes? MS. SOVIL: No, that's plus. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Plus. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Say, 20 percent on (Discussion off the record.) COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm going to move that we authorize the Environmental Health Department to employ an additional clerk at a Salary Grade 12, Step 1. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to ''-"' 3-04 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ,,, 2 4 25 109 authorize the Environmental Health Department Manager to employ a -- advertise and employ a clerk in the 12-1 slot. Any further question or discussion? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. I'd like to know how much it's going to cost. I see the $18,407 salary, but how much benefits, and exactly where does that money come from? I mean, it's not -- it is not a budgeted -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- line. Just, I mean, tell me where. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I was going to -- that was my question, as to where it comes from. I think it comes out of the -- the U.G.R.A. line item. In our budget we had 65 -- $65,000? The money could come from that line item. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, there's in excess of 50 grand in that -- in that line? Do we need to transfer that money from that line over to a salary line? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, that's where it comes from. Now, because of the way they book revenues in versus expenditures, it may have to come out of reserves. I'm not sure. Is Tommy still here? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tommy, do you want a court order to transfer that money out of Place A to Place B? ' - ? 3 - 0 4 110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I know we just need an order to increase the budget for Environmental Health by -- by whatever the -- the amount is. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, we don't know what that amount is. JUDGE TINLEY: We can figure it pretty easy. MR. TOMLINSON: It's about -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, you need to have that figure in the court order, think. MS. SOVIL: There's no money in that line item any more. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I suspect it's going to have to come out of reserves, because I think the U.G.R.A. line item was transferred into this department already. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, we're not talking about U.G.R.A. money any more; we're talking about reserve money. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. But the reason is, the revenue that he's -- that Commissioner Nicholson is offsetting goes into the General Fund; it doesn't go back into this account. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see what you're saying. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We amended the budget. -^3-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ~. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 111 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. So, I mean, there's really -- the budget -- yeah, we've already moved, I think, $65,000, so it's coming out of reserves. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're talking about declaring an emergency, going into reserve funds for how much exactly? MR. TOMLINSON: On an annual basis, it would be about $24,000. MR. ARREOLA: This is for seven months of operation? Is that what we're going to be budgeting for? COMMISSIONER LETZ: About. MR. ARREOLA: Not the -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: March 1? Is that a fair assumption? JUDGE TINLEY: That'd be seven months, yeah. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Seven months, yeah. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Be about $14,000 this -- this budget year. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How much are the revenues up? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, they're projected to be $108,000. You know, projected to be $108,000. I didn't do that, Commissioner. What I did was compare that -- that net cost of $32,000 to the -- the moneys budgeted earlier for these two things of $81,000, so -23-04 112 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I -- I see that actual difference between costs and revenues for the County will be $50,000 on the plus side for this -- this fiscal year. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I guess that's what I'm getting at. Is this position to be funded out of the increase in revenue? Or do we have to go to reserves to fund it? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think from the Auditor's standpoint, it has to come out of reserves, 'cause we don't book revenue to specific departments. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I see him shaking his head -- thank you -- affirmatively. MR. TOMLINSON: Should be about -- for seven months, I estimate it'll be $14,000. JUDGE TINLEY: Not to exceed 14? (Mr. Tomlinson nodded.) COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's what I came up with. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Will you add that to your motion? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll add it to my second. JUDGE TINLEY: That includes declaring an emergency? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes. -^_3-04 113 1 2 3 Judge. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Wait just a second, MS. SOVIL: Effective date? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: March 1. JUDGE TINLEY: -- to authorize the Environmental Health Department Manager to employ a -- a clerk, Grade 12.1, for that department effective March 1, and cost for same not to exceed $14,000, to be taken from reserves on the basis of a declared emergency. Any further question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Let's move to Item Number 14, if we might, without objection, to consider and discuss and take appropriate action to approve Change Order Number 5 to compensate Compton Construction for extra rock excavation in the Oak Grove Mobile Home Park and additional stabilized base used to cover 10-inch line in Riverhill Golf Course. Commissioner Williams. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And I've just given -- thank you, Judge. I've just given you a revised change order which came from the engineer. It will include one -~3-04 114 1 '"' 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 . ~ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 additional item, as per the City of Kerrville's request. I'm going to ask both Ron Compton and Kamran Kaviani, the engineer on the project, to come to the podium and help us dispose of this item, please. This is the third time this item has been before us, but the last item that I just mentioned, having to do with some drain caps being added, is a relatively new item. I think in the past, gentlemen, the Court had some questions about two of the items that were specified in here, having to do with additional costs to compensate the contractor for rock excavation or -- or digging through rock, and the other having to do with additional fill required on the Riverhill Country Club Golf Course, in that portion of the project where we did work over there. So, I think we need to address both of those items, and I think, Kamran, if you'd be so good as to explain why the City wants brass plates instead of some other kind of plates so that we can dispose of this, and then at the conclusion, I'd like to talk to Ron a little bit about timeline to wind up this phase of this project. MR. KAVIANI: The project had a 25 percent max number change order. At the time Ron was trying to finish the project in Riverhill, because of the flood that we had in the previous year, the creek bed had excessive erosion that we hadn't encountered in the project bid price. Ron provided us a price that exceeded at that time -- - ~ 3 - U 4 115 1 "' 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 exceeded the amount that was available to be used for the change order, the 25 percent of the project, so Ron agreed, in order to expedite the project, to reduce his price, and hopefully it would be compensated by the Riverhill decision that they didn't want -- there was an existing lift station that, originally, they just said that they wanted to keep it, keep the building itself. But then, later on, when the project was towards finishing, they changed their mind. So, at that point, we had a difference of about $2,000 that is reflected in that change order. That's where the additional backfill comes in that Ron had agreed on going ahead and putting in, thinking that the demolition would be -- since he didn't have to do the demolition, it would be a wash; it would be compensated that way. Well, that didn't work in that direction. The next item is the cleanup covers. That was -- everything's installed at this time, but during the final or substantial walk-through that we had last week, the inspectors said that they had missed that on some of the cleanouts that they were in the driveway. They want us to go ahead and put a brass cover on there. And the rock excavation, it's due to the nature of the rock that Ron encountered during the construction. Apparently, it was harder than normal rocks that you, you know, encounter. He had to rent special equipment to cut through the rock, and 2-~3-04 116 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 it shows from the -- when -- if you visit the job site, you can see it from the excavation operation, how, when they were trying to cut that rock, it created these cracks throughout the pavement. So, that's what I have to offer as to an explanation. If you have any questions? JUDGE TINLEY: Did the contract provide for -- for there to be extra -- extra compensation or additional to be paid to the contractor if there were extraordinary circumstances encountered that required additional excavation, or more -- more difficult excavation? MR. KAVIANI: It's not in the contract, but it always is considered by the owner and the engineers for the -- you know, for the fair project. JUDGE TINLEY: Was the -- was the stabilized fill that was used to cover that 10-inch line -- MR. KAVIANI: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: -- was that over and above the number of units that were covered by the contract, or was that -- MR. KAVIANI: Yes, sir. It wasn't -- it wasn't in the contract at all. When we did the preliminary plans, we had plenty of cover when we were crossing the creek. But after the -- after the flood, the erosion had reduced the -- had lowered the creek bottom where we were crossing it, and that's when we had to add backfill with _-23-04 117 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 .... 25 cement as stabilized backfill in order to satisfy the City as far as the -- 'cause normally you have to have 3 to 4 feet of cover, natural ground. Whenever that's reduced, then you got to provide additional support, which is similar to stabilized -- JUDGE TINLEY: So, at the time that the contract was signed, there was -- there was plenty of -- MR. KAVIANI: Cover. JUDGE TINLEY: -- plenty of fill there. Then, subsequent to the contract being signed, there was significant erosion because of flood waters? MR. KAVIANI: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Which required this additional -- MR. KAVIANI: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MR. COMPTON: I might say, at the time, there was a -- the cost of that cement stabilized base was -- was a lot more than what was put -- what was left in the contract, okay? So I just told them, yeah, we'll do it that way, and we'll make it up on the lift station demo. And -- because the Riverhills wanted to keep that building; then they decided not to keep the building, so we had to do a demo. MR. KAVIANI: If I may add something else, - 2 3 - U 4 118 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 those two other items, Ron -- Ron will not get compensated if we keep that other change order, that it's an extension of the line. If that line -- that change order, that $18,260, we stick to that, we are at the maximum allowable based on the contract, so Ron would not be compensated for the -- for the stabilized base and the caps at this time. There -- there were some -- they were surprises. JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions? (Low-voice discussion off the record.) COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Anybody have questions? I would move the change order be approved as submitted by the engineer and the contractor. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of the change order as submitted. Any further questions or comments? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Comment. JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I understand that these -- you know, a lot of these contract forms state -- and I agree that it is customary that if you hit some sort of conditions, such as harder rock, that should be included. I would recommend that we try to get that included in future contracts. I mean, it's -- everything else, I mean, is _-~3-G9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ,,,,,, 2 4 25 119 clearly a change order and is qualified. That is the only one that's a little bit questionable in my mind, the rock, the -- but I know what you're saying, and I know that -- MR. COMPTON: It needs to be included, not as -- maybe as an alternate bid item. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. MR. COMPTON: Per cubic yard. Unless you go out and do a bore, you're not going to know if there's rock there. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think that's a valid point. As we get closer to going out for bid for the second phase, that needs to be considered. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And at this point it should be, 'cause we may hit, you know, unusual conditions again, just because of the nature of this terrain. JUDGE TINLEY: Possibly another way of looking at justification for this would be the demolition of that building was clearly not within the contract, and so the demolition cost would be -- would be in addition to the contract, and we could just as easily couch this as a way of paying you for the demolition. MR. COMPTON: Yeah, that's what we were going to try to do. MR. KAVIANI; Didn't work that way. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, okay. -~3-04 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 120 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: My only other comment, Judge, is knowing that Mr. Compton's' a former Tivy Antler, I'm surprised it took him so long to get in here. Usually they're prompt, and especially when putting money in their pocket. living. MR. COMPTON: Some of us have to work for a COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, right. JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Commissioner Williams, you had some mother comments? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just one more -- one more thing. Ron, I'm -- I'm in possession of this punch list that was walked over by you folks and -- and Scott Loveland of U.G.R.A., and my question is, how quickly are we going to get this done and get out of there? MR. COMPTON: We're trying to schedule the asphalt for this week, next week at the latest. And after -- I understand after that, it's got to be -- I'm not exactly sure how this works, but it has to be accepted by 2-23-04 121 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the City and the County before we can start tying the mobile homes onto the sewer. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We have to accept that based on your getting the punch list finished. MR. COMPTON: Right. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which would include the paving, that we're putting the roads back like they were. MR. COMPTON: COMMISSIONER would hope that we could be next meeting so that sewage MR. COMPTON: COMMISSIONER have it flowing by the end Right. WILLIAMS: At which point, I in a position to do this at our can begin to flow. I'm -- WILLIAMS: And it is the goal tc ~f March. MR. COMPTON: Right. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Through the pipes, I might add. (Laughter.) MR. COMPTON: It's been my understanding this whole -- this -- the last three or four months, that the last thing that was supposed to have been done on the project was the streets. Now I understand that that's by the way, and the last thing we need to do now is connect them, so we're going ahead with the streets and all this -- all other punch list items. -23-04 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 122 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. Appreciate you explaining as much as you can. Thank you for coming down, Kamran. MR. KAVIANI: Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Appreciate you being here, gentlemen. MR. COMPTON: Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: The next item on the agenda, Number 12, consideration and discussion of location of two small equipment sheds. Mr. Holekamp. MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes. I'd like to ask the Court if possibly we could -- we have another building on the same grounds. Can we do that one at the same time, possibly -- Number 1.24 -- as soon as we finish this one, if y'all don't mind? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This is the day of little buildings. MR. HOLEKAMP: It won't take a minute. JUDGE TINLEY: Day of little buildings. MR. HOLEKAMP: Day of little buildings. We got little buildings. All right. 1.12, this is -- this is a request -- it's a two-part. As y'all all know, 216th Judicial District has a community service program. Everybody's familiar with Dan Edward's weekend crews who work primarily -- I would say probably 70 to 75 percent of -~3-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ,~ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 123 their -- their time goes to county projects. County. So, we do gain much, much benefit, and I don't have any hours exactly, but it's considerable. What they -- they are going to extend their program to have a female crew that is going to start, I believe, in March, is what I've been told, and what they would like is a meeting place to separate the two different crews. Male -- males would be one place, females would be in another. And the -- since we are using the -- the male crews pretty much -- so much on our projects, it would be a natural for us to place two little -- they're small storage buildings, as you saw on the map thing, directly behind the horse stalls. I mean, it -- you can see them from Riverside Drive, but they would not be visible from the front of the facility at all, and there would be a van there and a trailer that they haul their lawnmowers on, and the tractor when they need it. They are going to fund the fencing of that little lot -- it's not very big at all -- with a secure fence and lighting. That'll all be at no cost to the County -- no, that's not really a fair statement. Electricity probably will be covered by Kerr County for those security lights, but it's really not a -- an expenditure on our part. And there's a backup letter from Dan explaining that they wish to use the current yard which is over on by the recycle center for the females to meet on Saturdays and Sundays. They will have their own -23-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 124 van. And this is -- for y'all's information, we're really planning to use them for litter pickup crews, strictly. So this may really turn into something very positive in the county that we can get some trash picked up. They won't pick up junk cars, probably, or -- but the littering in some of these subdivisions, in some of these county roads, that I really think this is a win-win deal for us. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Good idea. I have no problem. So moved. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of the agenda item. Any further question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. We'll now move to Item Number 24. MR. HOLEKAMP: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: Consideration and discussion of providing space for a greenhouse as part of the Extension program. MR. HOLEKAMP: Okay. I'm going to start, and 3 0 9 1 `" 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 125 if you have any questions about the program itself, Amy Chapman is here. Commissioner Letz -- the last time when we visited on this particular project, Commissioner Letz was -- was kind of appointed to look at the location of the site and try to come up with one that seemed reasonable. We really didn't move it a whole lot, because it's -- it's really a difficult scheme because of the footage. I mean, we were 6 inches short to put it behind the building. So, what I'm asking is to basically move it a little closer from the last scheduled place, closer to the building, closer to the fence to the Arts and Crafts property line, or at the lease property line, and put a berm in between Highway 27 and that building, and place, as Commissioner Letz had said, some type of greens or combination of -- of greens, screening, shrubs, whatever, and we can -- then the Master Gardeners -- and I'm going to put a pitch in for them right now. They really are very particular. I would -- I would guaran -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Don't use that word. MR. HOLEKAMP: I won't use that word. I'm very assured that these people will keep this very, very neat. Very, very neat. So, I do not see it as an eyesore. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm looking at a revised drawing from the last time we talked about this. MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, sir. -^_3-u4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ..... 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 126 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Instead of putting it over behind the Extension building, close to the Arts and Crafts park entrance, you're now proposing to put it on the Highway 27 side; is that correct? COMMISSIONER LETZ: The location is the same side as it was last time. And I tried everything I could to move it, but it doesn't fit behind, and it interferes with the entrance to the Arts and Crafts on the other side. And after looking at it, walking around the building several times, this is, I think, the best location. And they -- I think with the -- you know, a small berm with screening, or however the Master Gardeners group wants to do that, I think it's not going to be unattractive; no more unattractive than some of our other things out there. MR. HOLEKAMP: The other question is -- the other statement, I should say, is since that last statement, they are paying for the -- all of the electrical and everything. There is no -- no expenses to Kerr County as far as monetary expenses on this placement. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I second the motion. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of the agenda item. Any further question or comments? All in favor of the agenda item, signify by raising your right hand. _-23-04 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 127 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I'm going to bring a wood heater with me next time I come in here. It is freezing in here. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would you adjust that thing down -- upward again? (Discussion off the record.) COMMISSIONER LETZ: Next one, we've got -- I know General Schellhase has been here for quite a while. JUDGE TINLEY: Let's go ahead and do Item 13, consider, discuss, take appropriate action on proposal for management of the Union Church and appropriate use fee schedule as prepared by the Facilities and Maintenance Director. MR. HOLEKAMP: Okay. I had submitted to the -- to the Court, individually in your boxes, the -- the proposed management proposal that I did. And -- and I -- it was kind of -- what I was hoping is that if y'all wished to do some input, individually or as a group, that's kind of what -- it was a starting point for y'all. In fact, I even made some notes since then, because on here -- on the management proposal, I think what we're going to have to do 2 2 3 G 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 128 is we're going to have to make it very clear that there's a maximum of about 100 people that can use that building at a time. I mean, it's a small building. So, when somebody wants to rent this thing or utilize this building, I think it needs to be brought to their attention that it's small. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, the building may be small, but isn't it possible that events could be staged there where it used both the building and the grounds? MR. HOLEKAMP: Oh, well, yeah. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that possible, General? MR. SCHELLHASE: Our Fire Marshal occupancy's going to be 122, I believe. MR. HOLEKAMP: 122? Oh, thank you. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Does the lease agreement with Schreiner allow us -- or allow someone to put, like, a tent out there for whatever? MR. SCHELLHASE: Repeat that? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Does the lease agreement with Schreiner allow, for example, an outdoor tent to be set up for a wedding reception? MR. SCHELLHASE: There's nothing in the lease agreement with Schreiner that makes reference to that, I don't believe. -~3 04 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 129 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What I was -- MR. SCHELLHASE: The whole 6 acres is the lease. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. It covers 6 acres? Okay. That probably covers it. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So that would include the -- probably include the ability to do that, plus parking. MR. SCHELLHASE: Oh, yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. I thought the lease was just this -- the footprint of the building. I didn't know it was all the property around it. MR. SCHELLHASE: No, we have about 6 acres. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Glenn, I put this on here because, you know, I thought the basis of our discussion originally was the presentation General Schellhase made, and -- and we said let's refer it to you for comment. And I didn't see a lot of things penned in there, so I -- MR. HOLEKAMP: Yeah. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- assumed these were your comments. MR. HOLEKAMP: They are. And I just added these as -- after -- when I started thinking about some of the issues that may be asked at rent time, like the 100. I -23-09 130 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 didn't know what the Fire Marshal deal was; I didn't have that information. No, my numbers, as far as the rental and stuff, those are my recommendations. And the deposit and the -- that and this here, I think it -- I think there's some language in here, in this -- on the management proposal that may need to be straightened up a little bit. I don't know if it's -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What are you looking at there? gave y'all. MR. HOLEKAMP: The management proposal that I COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The first thing. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: First page? MR. HOLEKAMP: See -- see, there's some discrepancy -- I mean -- well, my point, I guess, is -- is that the management -- proposed management plan that the Historical Commission gave us does not mirror this one here. So, I would assume -- and that's an assumption on my part -- that they may have some input as to -- you know, as to what I proposed. And -- and that's the reason why I think the discussion has to -- has to take place as to -- because in here -- it says in here they want to be -- to put it very -- they want to be able to call me and tell me -- or request that we do things, I don't know, in their proposal. And I -- I took that out of mine. Do you understand what I'm ?3-G9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 .-, 25 131 saying? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Frankly, no. MR. HOLEKAMP: See, "KCHC will serve as an oversight committee to make recommendations to Commissioners Court regarding needed repairs, routine maintenance, fee schedule..."? Okay, what I'm asking is, how's that going to work? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, see, I have -- the way I look at this is -- is two issues, here again, kind of like the courthouse lighting. One's an ongoing maintenance and how -- you know, that part of it really is a Commissioners Court function, once we agree to enter into an agreement to do it. The other part of it is, I think we need an agreement with the Historical Commission on input similar to what we have with the Stock Show Association, the Ag Barn, 'cause it's basically the same situation as that. There was a group of volunteers that raised money and did the work, and that then are giving it to the County, same as the Ag Barn is. So, I think that we need an agreement with the Historical Commission or the -- whatever the group is. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Friends. COMMISSIONER LETZ: With the Friends, and transferring the management to the County. But then, once -- that's one agreement. But then, how it's -- the fee structure and all that is a county issue, so I think we get 2-^3-04 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 132 input from the other -- from the organization. That's how I would see it work. You can't have one agreement to do both, I don't think. MR. HOLEKAMP: Right. JUDGE TINLEY: Am I hearing from you, Mr. Holekamp, that your presentation of what you've presented to us was not necessarily a final form, -- MR. HOLEKAMP: Oh, no. JUDGE TINLEY: -- but a working draft? MR. HOLEKAMP: Because I -- I thought that y'all would say, yeah, I like this plan, and Glenn, let's go ahead; we'll visit with the Historical Commission, make sure everybody's signed off on it. Because what's going to happen, and I guarantee you -- and I'm not talking about Walter or anybody else. I'm saying what's going to happen is, I get -- I get my person to clean the building, and somebody decides to have a meeting that's connected with the Historical Commission. They -- they go out there, have a meeting, 'cause everybody knows where the key is. Then we have an event booked for Saturday evening, and they get there and the place is not neat. I'm the one that's going to get blamed. Somebody has -- you know, there has to be something that someone is in charge. Somebody. And you can't have three or four, 'cause it won't work. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I think -- _-z?-o~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 133 perhaps we put this on here prematurely. I thought you were putting it back to us so that we could finalize the management plan and put the rate structure in place. It appears that we don't have -- have not yet had sufficient discussions to get us to that point, so why don't we do that and save everybody some time and effort? MR. HOLEKAMP: What do y'all want me to do? COMMISSIONER LETZ: My comment is -- I mean, I think that the -- one issue is a facilities use issue. That is separate from the management proposal. To me, they're two different things. They're two completely separate -- one is our relationship with the Historical Commission. The other is what we're going to charge the public and how we're going to operate the use of that facility. I mean, to me, they're two separate things, and you can't have one agreement. MR. HOLEKAMP: We're ready to go with whatever. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. MR. HOLEKAMP: Quite frankly, I am ready to go whenever y'all tell me, but I -- I think there's some of those issues that really -- we really need to resolve first. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think that the facilities portion of it and the rates and things of that nature need to be incorporated in the same document that -~3-04 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ,... 13 I4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 134 have all our other instructions so we don't have multiple documents floating around. There needs -- basically the Ag Barn, that whole thing, needs to be brought before the Court and updated, and with these new rates and things for the building. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One question. Walter, is it possible that you and Glenn and I can get together and hash this one out, too? MR. SCHELLHASE: Sure. MR. HOLEKAMP: You bet. MR. SCHELLHASE: What we need to do is get the rates set, because we're preparing a promotional brochure now, you know, for wide distribution for the use of this. Because, you know, I think we have two more weddings now scheduled, other than the list that I gave y'all last time, and we -- we need to get it out of volunteer hands and have someplace where someone can call and get ahold of somebody. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, the rate schedule as proposed, you're not proposing any changes, are you? MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, sir, there were some. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just one. MR. HOLEKAMP: I think one that was on that -- -~3-04 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -- 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 135 MR. SCHELLHASE: Well, since our last meeting, we've come up with some also. We think we ought to take the tours off. Y'all raised some good questions, and we had tours free, and we think that ought to be eliminated because of the restroom issue. That -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why don't we just talk about the whole thing, bring it back in two weeks? MR. HOLEKAMP: We can do that. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Anything further on this item? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm going to weigh in on it. I think that his management proposal and his proposed rental schedule is right on. I mean, if -- if I could get y'all to vote on it, I'd approve it today. I like it. JUDGE TINLEY: Well, you can't. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I know I can't, but I'm telling you it's a good document, ready to go. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MR. HOLEKAMP: Thank y'all. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, we'll stand in recess until 1:30. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioners, I'm lifting the burn ban in Precinct 4 until 7 a.m. Tuesday, March 9. That's the day after our next meeting. 2-~3-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 136 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Hear, hear. (Recess taken from 12:14 p.m. to 1:30 p.m.) JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to order. It's 1:35. Next item on the agenda is Item 15, consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on Resolutions to Texas Department of Transportation requesting turn lanes and relocation of traffic signal at the Kerrville/Kerr County Airport. Commissioner Williams? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This came as an outgrowth of the last Airport Board meeting in which we discussed the relocation of the entrance and the new road and so forth and so on. And the Airport Manager reported that TexDOT was -- was in the process of moving the blinking signal -- at this point, they hadn't done it -- but the discussion led us to talk about the need to have turn slots both east and west to accommodate left turns for traffic going eastbound and right turns for traffic coming westbound into the airport. So, bottom line was that Commissioner Letz and I agreed to introduce a resolution to TexDOT requesting that they give favorable consideration to the construction of those turn slots. While they may not have it budgeted now, it was Mike Howard's thought that a resolution of this nature, which he forwards on to his brass, would be beneficial in helping to move it down the -~3-04 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 137 road a little bit. But this one does call for moving the blinking signal, and we can delete that, because the signal has now been -- has now been moved. JUDGE TINLEY: That was just done in the last few days. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes. COMMISSIONER LETZ: There was an issue of whether it -- when it was going to be moved, and they were waiting to put a new type up. They were going to not do anything for up to six months; that's why it was in here originally, and then they decided to go ahead and move forward on the -- or at least they moved the old one, and they'll put the new one up whenever it comes in, I would guess. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, I move that the permanent copy be altered to put a period in the Resolved after -- one, two, three, four -- fourth line down after "earliest possible date," period, and take out the rest of that sentence that says, "and expedite the relocation of blinking signal." With that change, I would move approval. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of the agenda item as -- as resolution is modified. Any further question or discussion? Do you suggest that I just interline on this one, or -- 2-~3-G9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ,,,,. 2 4 25 138 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, why don't we -- JUDGE TINLEY: -- clean it up and sign a new one? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let's see if Ms. Sovil still has it in her computer. (Ms. Sovil nodded.) COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You do? Then I would say we need a clean copy. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Any further question or comment? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Next item on the agenda is consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on resolution -- resolutions of thanks to Christopher M. Avery, Ph.D., and Ken and Betty Wardlaw, Rockin' River Inn, for their contributions to Kerr County Commissioners Court long-range planning meeting on February 11, 2004. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They pretty well say what I would say, Judge; extending our thanks to the proprietors of the Rockin' River Inn for their hospitality, and to Christopher Avery for the excellent service he rendered Kerr County in conducting the meeting. There is, 2-~3-04 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ,,,~ 2 4 25 139 however, an error that needs to be corrected on the Wardlaws'. On the second Whereas, there are two "The Courts" in there, "To assist the The Court..." So, one of those t-h-e's needs to come out of there. And, with that change, I would move the adoption of both resolutions. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for the agenda item and the resolution as indicated. Any further question or discussion? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just one other note. With the Court's permission, I will send them both with covering letter, but I would urge any of the members of the Court that wish to write either and/or both of them a personal thanks to do so. JUDGE TINLEY: Good idea. I've already done so. Any further question or comments? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Next item on the agenda is consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to reappoint G. Granger MacDonald and Jim Miller to the Airport Board for two 2-year terms expiring March 26, 2006. I assume that that means each one to have -- each one -^3-04 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ,_. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 140 of the two to have a two-year term? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Take that "two" out of there, "for 2-year terms." Yeah, for each to have a 2-year term. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And their expiration date is the same time? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, right, because we did put them on there both at the same time. I believe Commissioner Letz concurs in that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, I do. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So I would move approval of reappointment of G. Granger MacDonald and Jim Miller, each for a 2-year term, to the Airport Board, and their terms expiring March 26, 2006. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of the agenda item, in that each of the named individuals be appointed for a 2-year term expiring March 26, 2006. Any further question or discussion? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner Williams, the little bit I've worked with these two, I've found them to be very knowledgeable people, and seem to have good organizational and business skills. Should we change the board to a managing board rather than an advisory board, will they be the right people on there? And, more -~3-G9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 141 importantly, would they want to do that? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, my sense of it is, yes, they would continue to act in the best interests of Kerr County. They both know that Kerr County appointed them and that their service is rendered to this Court, and I think they've both done a wonderful job and will continue to do so. My sense is they would want to continue. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's my sense also. Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions or discussion on the agenda item? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Next item, Number 18, consider and discuss requiring the County Attorney to provide a schedule and status report of all civil work being done for Commissioners Court. Commissioner Letz? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I put this on the agenda primarily as there are things that have been down in the County Attorney's office for some time, and maybe it's -- I just would like to know a status on a regular basis of the -- I've worked very closely with the County Attorney on -~3-04 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ,..,. 25 142 the Hermann Sons right-of-ways recently; we finally got those done. In my mind, they could have been done a little bit more timely, but he has a workload, I understand as well. But I think it would be -- I would probably be more sympathetic to the length of time it takes if I knew what-all he's working on. I mean, I know what I send down there. I know occasionally what other Commissioners send down there. I certainly know what the Court sends down there. But, as an example, I have a -- you know, one item that certainly is not a pressing matter from the standpoint it has a real short time fuse; it's related to open grazing in part of my precinct. About every six months I get an irate phone call from someone wanting me to have a definite answer. I have not received an answer back from the County Attorney on that one. That's been since May of last year. I don't know if we're going to get a report on the burn ban and burning information today that we requested two Commissioners Court meetings ago. I know, based on a copy of a letter, Mr. Williams requested some work on the airport contract -- on the library contract at the end of December. And it's just a matter of -- you know, I would like to know what exactly the status is of the work that we have down there, because I know that I have been many times critical of the amount of time it takes, and I think that -- you know, maybe there's good reason. But I 3 0 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -- 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 143 think that we require other departments to give reports. And this is really not a department we're talking about; this is a -- I mean, we -- per an agreement that we have with the County Attorney, he does the civil work for this Court, and I don't see that it's any different than if we hired Tom Pollard, as we have in the past, or David Jackson, as we have in the past, to give us an update as to exactly what's going on, what he's working on. So, I just think that if we require it on a monthly basis, it would clarify all that information for me. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There are other issues, too, besides the ones you mention, and they have to do with enforcement issues. One that comes to mind was the one that we had the long discussion about, was the failing septics on the one plot of ground over in Center Point. I don't know what the disposition of that is. I assume it went to court afterwards, and I don't -- but I don't know the disposition, 'cause I've never heard back from the County Attorney's office. So, I would throw enforcement issues in on top of everything you said. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, that's a -- the enforcement issue -- I mean, the enforcement issue is a different issue. I agree, I'd like to know that, but I look at that as more of a -- that's the County Attorney doing his job as County Attorney, and I don't see that we have -- we -?3-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ,_ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 144 can require him to do something on what he's elected to do. But I do feel that we can, you know, require a -- you know, a summary or list of -- status report on work that's he's doing on a civil basis for the Court. I would like to have the other as well, but I think that's more of a voluntary basis. I think it would be nice to know that, but I don't know that -- I would be uncomfortable requesting an elected official to report on what his office is doing. I mean, many of them do it. We have requested it, and I don't have any problem with requesting it, but from the standpoint of civil work, I think it's something we -- well, that I would like to require. Does the County Attorney -- do you have any comments? MR. MOTLEY: Sure. Number one, I thought that the burn ban information was information that was supposed to be done for Commissioner Nicholson. It's ready. It took quite a bit of work to get done. The open grazing is an issue that has come up in the past, and I thought we had provided you opinions about that in the past. Or are you saying that you need a new opinion every so often on the same thing, on open range? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm saying you gave me a stack about an inch thick, and I expect to get an answer. I don't -- I don't think that I am supposed to read through it and make a legal interpretation of what it all is. -~3-04 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 145 MR. MOTLEY: Backup. That's just backup to show what we looked at. I'm just showing you the backup of what we looked at. I thought we provided you an answer on that some time ago. If not, if you would like to, you know, send me something specifically that you want a yes or no answer, if that's how you like it, without any legal backup, that's fine. That's fine. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's not a matter of legal backup; it's a matter of getting an answer. And, clearly, the Commissioners Court is asking for the information on burn ban. It was here in court we asked for it. MR. MOTLEY: Yeah, and I just told you that it's ready. It's sitting right here. It's ready. It took quite a bit of work to get it ready. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I don't -- David, I'm not trying to be confrontational with you. I don't have it. I don't know that it's ready. And, you know, the fact that it is -- I'm just saying that -- MR. MOTLEY: It wasn't requested for any specific time; is that correct? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. All I'm saying is -- David, is we have an agreement with your office for you to provide civil work for this Commissioners Court, as we have done with private outside counsel in the past. I -~3-04 1 ~- 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 146 think that we are very well within our rights, and what I think would be that you should provide an update of what you're doing. That's all I'm asking. I mean, I don't -- you know, this may grow into -- if you -- if you say no, you don't think I'm entitled to that information, well, that goes to another issue. But I don't see how there's any discussion -- why wouldn't you want to give us a status report on what you're working on for the Court? MR. MOTLEY: Well, there's a lot of things we're working on for the Court. I guess you know that. I mean -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know. That's why I want a status report. I have no idea. MR. MOTLEY: I mean, I sure don't mind looking at that issue and seeing what we can do along those lines. I -- we try to get you the information as fast as we can get it to you. And on the Hermann Sons thing, you said that it was a little too slow for your taste. As you recall, much of the delay was due to your own action. COMMISSIONER LETZ: David, I forwarded those deeds to you last April so you would be ready to go. I gave you a rush memo the first week of December, as I recall, and I got them about two weeks ago. Two months to prepare five deeds that are basically the same, are not that difficult. And then I had to go to -- I had to go to Fidelity Abstract 2-~~-0~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ,._ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 147 and get them started on it, 'cause you never called them. MR. MOTLEY: No, you didn't have to do that. That's what you decided to do. COMMISSIONER LETZ: You agreed to do -- MR. MOTLEY: Excuse me, wait just a minute, Jonathan. You are completely mischaracterizing that whole arrangement. You said -- you said something back in April and said just let it chill for a while, while you did some negotiating. That was not supposed to be an active time for us to work on anything. You were negotiating with this one and that one and this one and that one, trying to purchase property, so don't sit here and tell the Court and tell everybody that that was time that you gave us to be working on something specific. We were waiting on you. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I gave you time to be ready for it, yes. MR. MOTLEY: But we didn't have any -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: You had everything. You had the names; you had everything. MR. MOTLEY: We didn't know if we were going to have condemnations or what we were going to do. We were waiting to see what the negotiations resulted in. That's your department. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, David, put it this way. If I was paying you as an outside counsel to do that -23-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 148 work and it took you as long as it did, I would have fired you. MR. MOTLEY: Well, that's fine, Jonathan; I'm glad you would have. But let me tell you what, if I were doing the work for you and you took so long to get me the information I needed, I might not have you as a client. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, good. Okay. So, you're telling me that you're not going to provide the Court -- MR. MOTLEY: I didn't tell you that. I said I think it's a good idea, and we'll try to figure out some way maybe to do it, some kind of basis. I don't know exactly how to do it, but we'll try to update you. We don't mind updating you on stuff we're doing. My response was that we try to get you the stuff as fast as we can. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And you -- and I agree. You and I have -- you've worked with me on many issues. But there are other issues. I just think that, you know -- MR. MOTLEY: So why in the hell are you bringing all this up and bitching about it today? That's what you're doing. Why are you doing that? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm bringing it up because I want -- MR. MOTLEY: If we've worked well on other issues, why are you bringing up the shortcomings? Why are -~3-04 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 149 you bringing it up today? Why are you wasting time? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I make a motion to require the County Attorney to provide this Court with an update of work he's working on for this Court on civil issues. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Any further question or discussion? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: David? MR. MOTLEY: I have some discussion. Go ahead. I'm sorry, Buster. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. Would it help you if we sent down there some of the -- a list of those issues that we had sent down there before? MR. MOTLEY: That wouldn't hurt in any way. I think that we try to respond as fast as we can on issues. I think many of your issues, you get the answer within the day. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand. MR. MOTLEY: I believe -- I believe the last five things you've asked us, you've gotten your response back within the day, right? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm just -- MR. MOTLEY: Is that right? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, that is incorrect. -'3-04 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ~-~. 25 150 But would it help you -- MR. MOTLEY: You came and kissed me and told me how fast the responses were, and in open court. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Who kissed you? MR. MOTLEY: You did, on the cheek, telling me how good a job that we were doing, and gave me a kiss on the cheek. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Television audience, I have never kissed that man at all. MR. MOTLEY: Okay. Well, I'm just saying just lately it's been going pretty good, Buster. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Would it help you if we sent down those things that are -- that we think are pending? MR. MOTLEY: If you'd like to do that, that would be great. That would be great. I think that probably would be a help. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All-righty, thank you. MR. MOTLEY: That would probably help, yeah. JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions or discussion? MR. MOTLEY: And I want to mention one other abated. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good. -23-04 151 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 MR. MOTLEY: That system has been collapsed; there's a new system in place. It complies with all state and local law. It's working on that facility. So, the entire thing has been abated. We -- in looking at that property, we went out, visited the property, found an illegal cesspool, which has also been collapsed. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's wonderful 8 I news . 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. MOTLEY: Whole thing is fine. It's been taken care of. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But I didn't know it until I just asked, but I appreciate that. Thank you very much. When can I expect the library contract notes back? MR. MOTLEY: I don't know. But, you know, that's just such a smart-ass question, the way you asked it. I don't know whether -- I mean, I don't know. We're working on it now. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. MR. MOTLEY: You want a date certain? Do you want it by a date certain? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, I'll wait till I get it. MR. MOTLEY: Do you just want everything first? Everything is first, right? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, I'll wait till -23-u9 152 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I -- till I see it in my box. Thank you. MR. MOTLEY: Are we not providing the stuff fast enough for you? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let's not go there, David. JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions or discussion? A11 in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Next item, Number 19, receive, consider, and discuss reports of status of civil attorney hired by County Attorney to pursue health insurance claim, determine reporting schedule, and clarify who the civil attorney reports to. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I put this on the agenda for -- similar to the last item. I think that the -- the Court authorized the County Attorney to hire a litigator per his recommendation as our civil attorney at our last court meeting. But after that meeting, I started thinking about it, and it -- we paid for that out of Professional Services that we have, you know, discretion under -- it's a civil matter. It's nothing to do with the County Attorney's office. And in the past, when we've had these situations, 2-23-09 153 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 we've dealt with the attorneys by this Court. And the time I recall this is related to the jail issue, when we had some issues out there, and it was not -- you know, there's some other outside counsel involved and attorneys, and they have always come to make presentations to the Court, in executive session, generally. I don't see where this is any different. So, my basic question is, is the -- you know, how is it going to work this time, and what -- how are we going to be informed? When I asked -- every question that I asked of Mr. Motley at the last meeting, I was basically told I didn't have the right to know that information. I think, actually, that was probably in response to Buster, but he made comments -- I asked for specific details -- Commissioner Williams did, and Mr. Motley said he's given us all he's going to give us. Well, that's not an acceptable answer from an attorney that's working for this Court, in my opinion. So, I want to know how I'm going to be updated, exactly who's going to be in the discussions, and how it's going to be handled and who the person is. I mean, I think the Court has a -- and the public has a reason to know -- a right to know who this litigator may be, or is. I have no idea if we've hired one or not. JUDGE TINLEY: It seems to me that the authorization given to the County Attorney at the last -23-04 154 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 meeting authorized the County Attorney to take that action. That being the case, the communication initially would be to -- to the County Attorney as being that point of contact, and then I would expect the County Attorney, then, to communicate to this Court on an as-needed, as-required basis, and any ultimate decision made on any final resolution of that matter to be approved by the Court. Do you see it any differently, Mr. Motley? MR. MOTLEY: Not substantially. The only thing I can think of that might be different, it would be probably be wise to have these interchanges in executive session. JUDGE TINLEY: Well, certainly, if it's pending litigation, that would be permissible under the Open Meetings Act. MR. MOTLEY: Pending or threatened. And I don't know where we are on that. I'm certainly not saying that's where we are. I have no idea where we are, but my view is that -- that I'm the -- you know, the legal manager, or the manager for legal affairs for the county, that that's my job, and I'm put in that position by the citizens of this county. And that if you hire a private attorney, then that attorney is there to do the bidding of the Commissioners Court, and not the bidding of the citizens of the county. So, I think I have the citizens behind me in what I do, and 2-~3-04 155 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I think that I am the manager for the legal affairs of the county; that the attorney, whoever that attorney is, will communicate through me, and I have no problem making reports to the Court and updating the Court on the issues. I think it's an important issue. I don't mind obeying the Court, but, again, I do think we may want to well consider certain strategic items and take this up in executive session. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So your position is that the county -- being the elected County Attorney gives you authority over all civil matters of the Commissioners Court? MR. MOTLEY: I think that the state -- the Constitution of the State of Texas says the County Attorney shall be elected by the qualified voters of each county and shall represent the state in all cases in the district and inferior courts in their respective counties. All cases. That's what it says in the Constitution. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, why did you come to us to get permission to hire this person? MR. MOTLEY: Because I can't spend money. You're the guys -- only guys that can spend money. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm very confused. Up until this point, I've always been told -- or under the impression that there was a distinction between civil work and criminal work. And that's the reason -- and we made it back when the authorization was given to the County 2-?3-04 156 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 .-. 25 Attorney's office to hire another attorney, and to do that, we gave all the civil work back to the County Attorney that we used to have a -- most recently, Tom Pollard was our legal counsel for civil matters. Tom Pollard handled all of the issues related to the jail construction and the -- or where we got the lawsuit -- I guess lawsuits that resulted from that. Potential lawsuits. Why didn't you do that for us at that time? MR. MOTLEY: You had chosen to hire Tom Pollard. COMMISSIONER LETZ: You're telling me we didn't have that choice. You're telling me that you are the only one that can make that decision. MR. MOTLEY: No, the relationship I have with Commissioners Court is not a -- it's not a mandatory relationship. It's a voluntary relationship. I do the work for the Commissioners Court. I charge no money for it, and do it to the best of my abilities, and that's the relationship we have. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, you can pick and choose what cases you want to work on for the Court? MR. MOTLEY: I didn't say that. I didn't say that at all. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I don't understand how we didn't ever have authority to use the -- your office -~3-G9 157 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 for our civil work, then. MR. MOTLEY: What? I didn't understand you. I didn't understand you. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't understand how it was ever permitted -- or how you ever permitted, I guess, since you're County Attorney, the Commissioners Court to hire outside counsel. MR. MOTLEY: Because when one of my attorneys left in December of '95, the Commissioners Court said we're not going to allow the funds to hire another attorney, so I had nobody to do this work. I had to use the people we had left to do mental health, juvenile, criminal prosecution, and J.P. prosecution, so we didn't have staff to do it at that point. You cut us an attorney in December of '95. I remember very well. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I remember. MR. MOTLEY: That's when Mr. Pollard's employment began, and began based on it was going to cost the County a lot less money and free up time for me to do other things, because we were just too busy doing things. It was going to free up time and let us have other time, but it was going to cost the County less money because they didn't have to pay benefits and such as that. That was the rationale given for it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, you're doing -- your _-"?3-U4 158 1 ~--- 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 .-,. 25 feeling is that all the work you've done on this is as a -- the County Attorney, not as an attorney working for the MR. MOTLEY: You know, I'm really having quite a bit of difficulty distinguishing what you mean between those two terms. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well -- MR. MOTLEY: I think I'm the County Attorney. I'm the attorney for the county. I'm attorney for -- for the men here on the Court, I'm attorney for the people of the county, I'm attorney for the best interests of the people of the county. I think it's in the best interests of the people of the county that we do what we have done and retain counsel on this case, take a look at it. That's all I said I wanted to do, was take a look at it. That's it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know, and I -- and during that process -- I mean, I don't want to rehash last meeting, but I asked for information and you refused to give to it me because I wasn't entitled to it. MR. MOTLEY: Well, you know, the information I believe you were asking about was, like, have you talked to A? Have you talked to B? Did you consider that? Did you do this? Do you do -- you were kind of like, you know, sort of like micromanaging my decision of what I was telling you that I thought we needed ultimately to do, and that was -23-C4 159 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 my opinion; we needed to hire counsel. And you kept saying, well, have you conferred with this one? Have you conferred with that one? Have you done -- you know, and -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Have you provided -- MR. MOTLEY: -- I absolutely wasn't in a position to sit here and say, well, we talked to this one; we didn't talk to this one. We talked to A; we didn't talk to B. We did all these things. I didn't want to sit there and tell you all this in open court, what we did and did not do. I just think -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: But you agree, you have never provided this Commissioner with any written information related to anything you've done on that case? MR. MOTLEY: That's true. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I've asked for it. MR. MOTLEY: You asked if -- you wanted me to go into some kind of a meeting with different county officials and talk to them about what their position was on it, and such as that. That's getting into telling me how to do my job. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just asked if you did it. MR. MOTLEY: And I told you no. And I told you I wasn't going to give it to you, 'cause I didn't have it to give it to you. -^3-04 160 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would it be helpful if we went into executive session to talk about the -- the base topic in this agenda item? MR. MOTLEY: Today, are you talking about? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm asking -- yeah. MR. MOTLEY: I don't know if it's posted for today, but I don't know exactly what you think would be helpful about it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: My agenda item is as to how are you going to keep us informed on what you're doing? MR. MOTLEY: I'll keep y'all informed. Do y'all not trust me? COMMISSIONER LETZ: David, at the moment that trust is very slim, based on your exchange to me at our last meeting; I'll tell you that. Because -- MR. MOTLEY: You were asking -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, you MR. MOTLEY: -- inane questions. COMMISSIONER LETZ: You -- the manner in which you answered the questions that I asked, that I think I have a right as a Commissioner and as a representative of the constituents of mine in the county, as to what you had done and request that you go through some sort of -- you know, trying to meet with this and resolve it before litigation, I think I have every right to. And you told me _-23-04 161 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 no, I didn't. Well, that means -- MR. MOTLEY: I told you I wasn't going to do it, that's right. going to do it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: You told me you weren't MR. MOTLEY: Right. I think you're telling me how to do my job. I think you're micromanaging my job as County Attorney to tell me to go meet with this person or talk to that person or have some little warm and fuzzy, you know, whatever. I'm just -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: You can't even tell me what the allegation is. You can't tell me anything on this matter. referring to? MR. MOTLEY: What allegation are you COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know. MR. MOTLEY: Do you realize there's maybe more than one allegation in this case? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know. You have never given me -- MR. MOTLEY: Let. me tell you what I told you a half dozen times last meeting, and let me state it for you right now, plain and clear. I'm wondering if we had the right -- or if our agent had the duty to give us the third option in the insurance case, that option being to do _-~3-04 162 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 nothing. Should he have given us that right? Did he give us that right? COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's your issue? Not whether we can get the money back from the reinsurance -- MR. MOTLEY: That's where I'm starting. Not whether we can get -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: So you want -- wait. Wait. MR. MOTLEY: Of course. COMMISSIONER LETZ: If that's your point, then what I want to do is go after the reinsurance person and go out and try to get the money back. You're worried about whether we were given an option. I'm trying to get the money back to Kerr County. MR. MOTLEY: Well, don't you want to take the first step before we take the second step? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think you do both. MR. MOTLEY: Well, I didn't say I wasn't going to do anything further. I said the first thing I want to find out is, did he have an obligation to give us this information, and did he give us the information? That's what I'm looking at first. If the money is elsewhere, you know, it's plain -- it was plainly stated that if there were money elsewhere, that I wanted to find out where the money was and attempt to recover any moneys that were due to Kerr -~~-o~ 163 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 County through any entity that was stated in the -- in the agenda item and in the backup. COMMISSIONER LETZ: David, I guess we're -- I mean, I don't see any point in going around this over and over again. I think this Commissioners Court, and certainly this Commissioner, is entitled to information related to this case. MR. MOTLEY: And I told you -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: You said no. So, you know -- MR. MOTLEY: I didn't say no. I said just the opposite. I said I'll be happy to give you information. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Commissioner Williams had a list at the last meeting. I want that information. I think -- I think we're entitled to it. I think the public is entitled to this information. MR. MOTLEY: Well, I'm going to have to look at the list and see what I believe I can share with you, because I don't think that those questions, all of them, are necessarily questions seeking information, as much as they were questions for other purposes. I don't think they're necessarily seeking information. And I think a lot of it really boils down to micromanagement. I really do. And, you know, I'm going to do this the way I know how, just the best way I can do it, is all I'm going to do. I'll be more -~3-C4 164 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 than happy to tell y'all whatever it is, keep you updated on progress. Be happy to. Again, I think it probably ought to be done in executive session. COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can go in executive session right now; you can give us a status report on where we are. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what I would move we ought to do. MR. MOTLEY: I don't think it's posted. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, it is. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is that the issue we're dealing with? Asking for an update now on the status of the case? Or are we talking about a procedure or process? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Both. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Both. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It says, "receive, consider and discuss report and status." COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, I'll go ahead, if we -- I don't know if we want to go into executive session or not, but I'll go ahead and say that -- what I've said before. I don't intend to supervise or micromanage the County's attorney. I think you have to trust him to -- to pursue this case and use his particular skill and experience in the way that he knows how to, and we should not be -23-04 165 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 directing him. I'm reminded of the saying, which I'm sure you've heard of, that the person who has himself as a client in a matter of law has a fool for a client. I'm -- I think that the outcome of this case will not be better if we try to manage it for our County Attorney. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't think we can manage something we don't know about, and I think that's at the basis of it. We need to know a little bit more about what's taking place. If there's going to be a civil attorney hired, I think the Court has a right to know who that is and what are the terms and conditions of that hire, and we haven't heard that. But I have one basic question I really have to ask, 'cause I've heard you say it repeatedly, not only today. You said it again today, but in the past, that you believe that -- if we need to go in executive session, that's fine. You believe that one of the options Commissioners Court was not given was the right to do -- was the option of not to do anything, not to take any action. My question, Mr. County Attorney, is, isn't that inherent to Commissioners Court, the right to do nothing? We can either do something or we can do nothing. MR. MOTLEY: You can always do nothing. But I'm talking -- this is an affirmative act of refusing to pay money. It's different than just doing nothing. It's like refusing to pass a bill or something. -~3-04 166 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Excuse me, let me interject here. This is one of the problems of -- of the exchange or interchange of this information. There's probably been far too much of it -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Ought to have been in executive, Judge. JUDGE TINLEY: -- hashed over in open session, and I'm sure if any of you will recall some of the basic government administration principles that we're required to undergo when we take office, there's some caveats issued that you need to be very, very careful of not getting involved -- an elected official who's not the County Attorney not getting involved in litigation matters, because it can create some problems with confidentiality, with privilege; you've got all sorts of potential problems that can arise. But if we're going to talk about the -- the theories or the aspects of -- of procedure with a litigation, I think we definitely need to go into executive session and not be hashing and thrashing it about out here in the open forum, because I think to do so would be adverse to the interests of the taxpayers of this county. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree. But I think this is an important issue, and it needs to be resolved as to, you know, what the relationship's going to be between 2-_^3-G9 167 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the County Attorney and this Court in this matter. MR. MOTLEY: I think I have expressed that I intend that I'll be the contact. As the County's legal affairs manager, I'll be the contact with the attorney, and I'll be happy to make some sort of report to you as I'm able to report. I'm not sure that I'll be able to share all the information with you, each acid every member of the Court, at the time I get the information. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Each and every member? If you share it to one, it goes to all. MR. MOTLEY: Well, Jonathan, I think, you know, there may be members of the Court that have a conflict of interest which may arise in this case at some point. It may be that they shouldn't be making decisions concerning the progress of the case, and it may be they shouldn't be making decisions as to what we're going to do or not going to do, what we're going to fund and what we're not going to fund. These -- these conflicts could become readily apparent in this case. So, you know, it's a very delicate situation right now, as I see it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So you're going to keep some members of the Court informed and not other members? MR. MOTLEY: No, that's not what I'm saying. COMMISSIONER LETZ: You just said -- MR. MOTLEY: No, I'm saying there may be -?3-04 168 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 things that I'm not able to share with everybody in the same way. COMMISSIONER LETZ: You shared that information up to now, since our last meeting, with anyone on this Court? MR. MOTLEY: Have I shared any information? Yes. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes? See, that's my problem. You're -- you're talking -- you work for five us of up here on this issue. MR. MOTLEY: I work for the people of the county on this issue. That's who I'm working for on this issue. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I was under the impression, for civil matters, you worked for Commissioners Court. MR. MOTLEY: And I have a voluntary arrangement with the Court. I'll be happy to keep the Court informed as I'm able to, so -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is a civil -- well, you work on a voluntary basis when you choose to, and you keep us informed as you choose, and that's my problem, David. You're not representing this Court equally, or even informing us equally. You're not giving us information. I mean, we have asked for information, and you refuse to give 2-23-04 169 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 it, and I don't -- you know -- MR. MOTLEY: The information you asked for didn't seem to me to be of great weight or substance. It seemed to be, like, have I talked to this person? Have I talked to that person? Have you thought about this? Have you thought about that? I'm not going to sit here and tell you my thought process going up to the ultimate conclusion. I was giving you my recommendation that we needed to handle the case in this way. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are you going try to use mediation that was requested this morning? MR. MOTLEY: No. COMMISSIONER LETZ: See? He's refused to try to settle it without hiring an attorney. He's refused to use mitigation -- mediation. Yet, you know -- MR. MOTLEY: I don't -- I don't think it's appropriate for mediation; I said so this morning. That's no surprise, if you were listening. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, others seem to think it is a good source -- good point for mediation. MR. MOTLEY: You know, I'm the guy -- you know, I'm the -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: And you'd rather -- MR. MOTLEY: -- legal adviser for the County. I think it's a bad idea. -~3-04 170 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 .-~. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You would rather spend taxpayers' dollars rather than try to get this resolved. MR. MOTLEY: You didn't have any concern about taxpayers' dollars until about two weeks ago. I didn't hear anything about it. I didn't hear anything about the 400,000, the 200,000, or any of it. And as soon as this thing came in open court, all of a sudden, you became worried about an ambulance chaser getting -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's the first time I ever heard of it, 'cause it never entered my mind that you were going to hire -- MR. MOTLEY: We talked about it before. I beg to differ with you. We have talked about this case. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Where were you when we made the decision? Why weren't you in court like you were requested to be? MR. MOTLEY: I don't even know which decision you're talking about. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The original one. MR. MOTLEY: I don't know that I was asked to be in court. COMMISSIONER LETZ: You get copies of every agenda, and it's your -- our agreement with you is you're supposed to have you or a representative here to answer questions. And you agreed to that. -Z3-u4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 171 MR. MOTLEY: I'd like to have some advance notice on those things, too. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's right. Agenda postings aren't advance notice? MR. MOTLEY: Well, Friday, is when I get them, so how for everything? Over the weekend? don't get very much advance notice COMMISSIONER LETZ: they're on Thursday or am I supposed to prepare What do you expect? I on those, Jonathan. What you're saying is you're just going -- MR. MOTLEY: Jonathan, did you hear what I said? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not listening. MR. MOTLEY: Two days, you're talking about. Is that good advance notice -- JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Auditor? MR. MOTLEY: - - to do a good job? JUDGE TINLEY: Was the issue that came up in December 2002 on the health insurance -- didn't that come up as a budget amendment? That wasn't a posted agenda item; it came up as a budget amendment, did it not? MR. TOMLINSON: I think -- I mean, part of it was, but I don't remember if the whole issue was -- was an agenda item or not. I know we did talk about it, or part of it, as -- as a budget amendment, because that was the only -~3-U4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 172 way to pay for it. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess what my problem is, you and maybe other members of the Court have a mind-set of going one -- to investigate it one way, and I think it needs to be investigated a different -- not a different way. I don't care if you're involved with it. I want it investigated. I don't see why we need to hire an attorney and a lawsuit right away. We authorized that to be done, so it's done; I'm not going to go back and try to rehash that, but I do think that there's an obligation for you to keep this Court informed as to what's going on, and you're telling me no. You refused to give -- MR. MOTLEY: I didn't tell you no. COMMISSIONER LETZ: You just told me a minute ago you're going to give information to those that you want to when you want to. MR. MOTLEY: No, I told you I would try to keep the Court informed. I was reminding you that there may be some people on the Court with -- who were in a conflict of interest sort of a situation, and information may be developed during the investigation of this case that may, you know, possibly compromise some of those people. COMMISSIONER LETZ: If you're saying that, I mean, it appears to me that you're going after three members -?3-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 173 of the Court, basically. MR. MOTLEY: You know, you keep saying that. That is just absolutely ludicrous for you to keep saying -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess we're getting to the point that I -- that I think that I'm going to have to -- maybe on the next agenda, have to hire another attorney. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Have we crossed the boundary on what ought to be talked about in open session? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Crossed. JUDGE TINLEY: I'm waiting on a motion, and if I don't hear a motion, we're going to move to the next item. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I move we take it into executive session. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't see any point. I mean, the County Attorney has told us he's not going to give us information -- MR. MOTLEY: COMMISSIONER it'll do any good. MR. MOTLEY: COMMISSIONER MR. MOTLEY: said I would provide inform I didn't tell you that. LETZ: -- and I don't think I haven't told you that. LETZ: You did. No, I have not told you that. I ation. I said there may be some -23-04 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 174 times where I'm not able to give everybody information. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are you going to give us the information we've asked for up till now? JUDGE TINLEY: The motion dies for lack of a second. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll second that motion, Judge. Let's go to executive session to get this resolved. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We will -- we will go out of open session at 2:15, and once we get things cleared out, we'll go into executive session. Excuse me -- excuse me, that was premature. Motion's been made and seconded to go into executive session. Is there any discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. We'll go into -- close the open session at 2:15, again. (The open session was closed at 2:15 p.m., and an Executive Session was held, the transcript of which is contained in a separate document.) JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. It's now 2:48, and we will -- we will reconvene in open session. I guess the question is, do we go straight to the 2:30 item and come back to the item we were on? What's the pleasure of the Court? 2 ~3 04 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 175 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we can deal real quick with this with a quick motion, in my opinion. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Does anybody have any motion to offer in connection with Item Number 19? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion that Item 19 will be placed on, for the foreseeable future, every Commissioners Court agenda, and we'll receive an update as necessary from the County Attorney. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: As an executive session item? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Executive session item. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Motion made and seconded. Any further discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. We've got a 2:30 item listed; that's Item Number 27, consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on tentative agreement to consolidate and extend leases for property and facilities at Kerrville/Kerr County Airport between Mooney Airplane Company and Kerr County and the City of Kerrville. Commissioner Williams, and we have City Manager, Ron Patterson, and Airport Manager, Dave Pearce. -23-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ,.-.. 25 176 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I see we have Mr. Jim Price also from Mooney Airplane Company in the audience, too. Judge, I would just ask Ron and Dave and Ilse, whomever -- any and/or all -- to bring us up to date on what we believe is a tentative agreement for the extension and consolidation of lease with Mooney Aircraft. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner, before you get on the details of the agreement, it would be helpful to me to know when we would expect the effective date of this agreement, and would that effective date be before or after we've settled the issue of whether or not the board is advisory or management? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm going to presume -- I think Ron will answer part of that. I'm going to presume it's going to probably be in advance of the governance issue being totally resolved. Am I correct, Ron? MR. PATTERSON: That would be my assumption at this point in time. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, I think so. And I think he'll -- when he steps us through all of the bells and whistles here, we'll end up with the proposed effective date. Go ahead, Ron, please. MR. PATTERSON: Yes, sir. The proposed effective date, sir, just to answer that right up front, is for lst of March. I know that Mooney Airplane Company is ?-~3-G4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 177 wanting to get this put to bed, just like all the rest of us. They've got some financing issues and those types of things they're trying to deal with, and I don't -- won't speak to those specifically. I know Mr. Price is here; he can answer those questions for the company. With regard to the proposal, it's my pleasure to be before you today to be able to present to you the -- the commercial lease agreement between the County and the City, as well as the Airport Board for Mooney Airplane Company. We've been working on this for some time. We feel very confident and comfortable that we've been able to reach an agreement that all the parties should be able to live with, we hope. Should you decide to -- to approve this today, as I said, the tentative date right now would be 1st of March to go into effect. What I'd like to do is just very quickly -- I don't want to rehash all of the information. You got a full briefing in executive session a couple of weeks ago with regard to the terms that are in the agreement. I thought I would just touch on those very quickly. Then I thought, secondly, what I would do is very quickly touch on some of the nuances that have changed since you got that briefing. I will say to you up front that nothing substantial changed in terms of the terms of the agreement. There are some things that have occurred in our discussions with the -- the lessee's attorney, as well as they've got some financing 2-23-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ,~- 25 178 issues that we wanted to make sure we could address via this lease. Very quickly, just in summary, the previous leases that we had in place with Mooney involved 51.69 acres of land. Via this particular agreement, those acres have been divided into what will now be known as Tracts 1, 2, 3, and 4. Those would be designated via survey. That would be subject to -- to any approval of this particular agreement. As part of the agreement, the owners have agreed to allow Mooney to release 33.69 acres back to the control of the owners, which would be the County and the City, so that that could be used for other purposes or for Mooney via right of first refusal. In other words, if we have someone who might want to use that property, or if the County or the City wanted to utilize that property, for example, for additional T-hangars, et cetera, then that could be done after giving notice to Mooney and allowing a right of first refusal. In other words, they can decide to take it or not, and if they decide not to, then at that point in time we could proceed with that other use. The good news is -- is that also allows us to market this property at market rate, not necessarily at the rates that are contemplated within this particular agreement for this particular user. However, one of the issues that we talked about at length, as you well know, was the idea of being able to have a rate structure -~3-U4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 .~.. 25 179 that works for Mooney, but also a rate structure that's fair and competitive, and also fair with regard to the other users. In this particular case, with 33.69 acres coming back, what we wanted to be able to do was ease in those rates over time. That's something that, when this was conceptually presented to the Airport Board, they looked at and said yes, that makes sense, easing into it when it's presented to the County and the City as well. So, this allows us to be able to do that, and the numbers make sense with the release of that property. This right of first refusal, just to touch on that a little bit more, the right of first refusal does not allow what some people would term land-banking. What it does require is that if Mooney decided to exercise that and take that additional property, they would have to do something with it within a given amount of time, so it can't just be land-banked, as we call it. Some of the additional language that you received in the late version of the agreement -- which I apologize for that, but we finally got the final touches on it -- that also says that the City and the County, the owners, won't be land-banking either. It says that if we're going to offer this to someone, that we have some plan in-hand. Now, that plan doesn't have to be another company; it could be the owners themselves who want to use that as well. -23-04 1 •-- 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ..--~ 25 180 In addition to that, we also applied an easement across one of the tracts that's being released so that we could assure Mooney access to Tract Number 3, which is their paint shop currently. That would still allow them to have full access to that via their agreement. And then, finally, we have the rate structure, which is in increments of 10 years. The first increment would allow there to be a rate of $1,433.92 per month. That is their current rate, takes them through their current lease, so that is how we were able to get to that to be able to work with Mooney to ease into that. And, again, we were able to do that because of the release of the acreage. The second ten-year time frame gets them to .05 per square foot, which is $3,200 -- excuse me, $3,263.37 per month. And then the final ten-year term, out to October lst, 20023 -- through September 30th, 2033, gets them to the market rate of 10 cents per square foot, or $6,526.74 per month. The last item that was covered was in connection of the sewer and closure of the ponds, and in the agreement, there is a requirement that the connection would continue. Right now, as you well know, as we've talked about, the domestic waste stream has been connected. There is some final testing undergoing -- being done right now at this point in time. Beyond that, we also have a pretreatment study that Mooney has undertaken to be able to ~3-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 181 make the connection for industrial waste. This would allow -- or I should say would require that that study be finished by March 31st. Once that finish -- is finished, then connection to the system for the waste system for the industrial waste would be September 30th of '04, which would be about six months post-report. In other words, they'd have a six-month period once the report was finished, saying, "What do you need to do to connect, to make that connection?" The final item in that is -- is that there would also be the requirement to discontinue the use of the ponds. One of the changes that's happened since our briefing was -- and we kind of discussed it a little bit in that briefing -- was the ability to allow the ponds to dry versus pumping them out. There is a process that they can get approved through T.C.E.Q. to allow that to happen. It's also a cost savings. And then do the cleanup work after that. The other changes that occurred since the draft that you had initially received for this, I put a cover memo on those and gave that to you. I'll just touch on a couple of them very quickly. Most of them are simply clarification points. The -- Mooney wanted to be sure that they were clear, and their attorney wanted to be sure that they were clear on what the terms were, so we added some language to clarify those. Items such as the term "base -23-04 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 182 rent" was used in the agreement. Base rent is really not valid any more, 'cause we originally talked about splitting out rents. It's just rent at this point. Those are some of the minor ones. Quite frankly, the real issue, or the larger issue that came to our -- I'm sorry, I'm losing my train of thought -- that came to our attention late Friday was the issue that has to do with the ability to secure financing through the use of this lease, encumbering this lease for the financing. That was the major change that was added in there. The preponderance of the change had to do with that. One of the things that I'd like to point out to you is that that language is very similar to what we've used in other leases. The only reason it's not exactly the same is because, in those other leases, it talks about a hangar or a facility, where in this case we're talking about the leased property. So, those are the main changes with regard to that. Other than that, I will try not to take any more of your time, but I would like to be able to answer any specific questions that you may have with regard to any changes that we delivered to you, or anything else. JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Patterson, I noticed quite a bit -- I mean, not just permitting them to encumber the leasehold estate for financing purposes, but also some language in there about improvements placed upon the - ~ 3 - U 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 183 property, being the property of the lessee, or Mooney in this case. It says during the lease, or through the lease term. Am I to assume -- it goes on for a good couple of pages here. Do those improvements revert to the lessor or the fee property owner at the expiration of the lease term, whether it be by this lessee or any successor-in-interest mortgagee or whatever? MR. PATTERSON: Yes, sir, they do. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, thank you. MR. PATTERSON: Would you like me to direct you to that section? Or -- it would be 6.04, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Ah-hah. Okay. Well, that was going to be my next question. All buildings existing on the leased premises at the inception of this lease and previously owned by lessee shall remain the property of lessee under this lease. Should that be "lessor"? MS. BAILEY: Doesn't it say after that that they revert to the lessor at the end of the lease? MR. PATTERSON: Yeah. You've got to go on down further. JUDGE TINLEY: We're talking about existing buildings at the inception of the lease. First sentence. MR. PATTERSON: Correct. There was some clarification that Mooney wanted to be sure that whatever's existing today will remain theirs, because we're going -- 2-23-04 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ~..,, 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ~-. 25 184 we're ending one lease and going into a new one, and you'll recall the other leases said that if they terminated, it would become our property. What this is supposed to clarify is simply the fact that those would remain their property, even though we're going into a new lease. However, if you go down to -- MS. BAILEY: Except as otherwise provided. MR. PATTERSON: Right, except as otherwise provided in this lease. It's after the red-line section. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MR. PATTERSON: Or an addendum here to any and all buildings, improvements, additions, alterations, and fixtures thereon shall become the sole property -- JUDGE TINLEY: Upon termination. Okay. MR. PATTERSON: Yes, sir. So, again, that language -- the initial language in that section was clarification for Mooney that, because we're changing the lease, it's not coming to us and then going back to them. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just to survive the transition? Is that what you're -- MR. PATTERSON: Yes, sir, that's correct. JUDGE TINLEY: It remains part of the leasehold estate, is what that's meant to say. MR. PATTERSON: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. -23-G9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 185 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Ron, what's the current market rate out there? MR. PATTERSON: Unimproved property is 10 cents, sir. COMMISSIONER LETZ: 10 cents? MR. PATTERSON: Yes, sir, and 3.14 on improved per square foot. JUDGE TINLEY: 3.14? MR. PATTERSON: For improved, yes, sir, per square foot. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: .0314? MR. PATTERSON: It's $3.14 per square foot on improved property, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. And 10 cents on -- MR. PATTERSON: That's correct, sir. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, we're getting the term, I mean, up to a -- I mean, we're up to an unimproved amount for the total amount of property? MR. PATTERSON: That's correct sir. Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I've got a pretty good feeling about the way the various parties worked together on this, and I've got a pretty good feeling that we wind up with a good product, but I'd like to hear that the -~~-c~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .-- 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 186 principals, Mr. Williams and Mooney Aircraft -- is everybody -- is Mr. Happy happy with this? Is Mr. Williams happy with it? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, Mr. Price can answer about the Happy state of mind, but I can tell you that I think, from our point of view, we -- we did fine. MR. PRICE: Nelson is very happy with it, and we are all happy with it out there. I think it's a win-win situation for all three of us. That's the great part about it. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I've just got one other question. Mr. Williams, it may not be relevant, but I see that the lessor is signed by the Kerrville/Kerr County Airport Board, Dr. John Davis, Chair, Airport Board. As an Advisory Board, is that okay? Do they -- does he have the authority to sign this as the lessor? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I'm glad you mentioned that, 'cause I noticed it also, and I'm not sure whether Ron has put it that way in anticipation of -- of our future moves toward resolving governance issues or what. JUDGE TINLEY: I can probably give you a better answer to that. Ms. Bailey and I, early on, when we started talking about this big question mark on governance -- and it came up with the Kennedy lease; you had the same situation with the Kennedy lease. The conclusion -~3-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 187 we came to is, put everybody in there, and that way you've got it all covered. So, the board, both the City and the County, and however it shakes out after that, it's still covered, so that's why we did what we did. MS. BAILEY: Can I address that a little bit further? JUDGE TINLEY: Sure. MS. BAILEY: And the reason, instead of having "Lessor, Lessor, Lessor," it's done the way that it is, is that until we get that clarification from the Attorney General or the Legislature about the County's ability to lease, the County really isn't authorized on its -- in its own name to lease real estate without competitive bidding, which is why the board was created in the first place. So we thought that, to be strictly legal and still have all the owners on the signatory line, we could set it up the way we did, which is the lessor, being the Board, as the only entity entitled to lease, and then the two owners approving it would be really the only way -- we either have to do that, or we just have to not lease at all until we get the -- that issue straightened out. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. If it hadn't been obvious previously, my prejudice in this is I very much want to see the Airport Board become a managing board with authority to manage and run that airport, as opposed to the _-~3-04 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ,.^ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 .-, 25 188 way it is now. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That makes two of us, Commissioner. Judge, I would move approval of the consolidation, extensions of the leases between Kerr County and the City of Kerrville and Mooney Airplane Company. This would be -- oh, this is going to be approval -- somebody else here -- Mooney Aerospace Group, Limited, on behalf of Mooney Airplane Company, Incorporated. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of the final draft of the proposed lease agreement. Any further questions or discussion? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd like to make -- JUDGE TINLEY: I assume that that means that -- that the appropriate designated signators are authorized to sign it? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And the County Judge and the Airport Board President be authorized to sign same. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I just want to make a comment. I appreciate Mr. Patterson going above and beyond the call of duty to come over here and brief us twice now, and I appreciate that very much, Ron. I do. It's -- MR. PATTERSON: Thank you, sir. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's indicative of our -~'?-04 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 189 great relationship. Although I see some new gray hairs in the last year or so. MR. PATTERSON: Yes, sir. Part of that's my daughter turned 10 today, so -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'd like to weigh in also and thank Jim Price for coming today. And then I'm just going to say openly that if, as, and when you get ready to go after those Brownfields money, let us know and we'll see what we can -- if we can weigh in and help you. MR. PRICE: I'm going over the package right now. MR. PATTERSON: I think we're also looking at -- MR. PRICE: The Texas grant. MR. PATTERSON: -- the Texas -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Texas Capital Fund? MR. PRICE: The Texas Capital Fund, too. MR. PATTERSON: We're crossing all the fingers and toes on that one this time. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it shows -- it's a great example of the City and the County and private business working together for a common good for Kerr County. And it's good to toot our own horn on that one, because it's something that we -- I think we should be commended for as a -23-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 190 group, getting it done. MR. PATTERSON: I appreciate y'all's help. JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions or comments on the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Thank you, gentlemen. MR. PATTERSON: Thank you, gentlemen. Appreciate it. JUDGE TINLEY: Appreciate you being here. Jim, good to see you. MR. PRICE: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Any comment about that glare off the head? JUDGE TINLEY: No, I'm not going to say anything about that. Next thing you know, you'll be talking about me. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I do when you're not in the room. JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, okay. Would you feel better if I left? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Running a little 2-?3-04 191 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ,,.~ 2 4 25 late, aren't we? JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Next item we have is consider and discuss requesting and requiring the County Attorney to forward all health -- all information concerning health insurance claim to the District Attorney for criminal investigation. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is that pause for me to start talking? JUDGE TINLEY: Yes. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes? I just think, because of some of the statements that have been made, that I think it would be -- to clear the air, that this matter should be referred to one of the District Attorneys' office to be reviewed for -- you know, if there's any criminal wrongdoing that has been done. Now, that's just my opinion on it, and I think it's the best way to proceed. MR. MOTLEY: You know, really and truly, there's nothing to prevent or prohibit you, as a citizen, from making a complaint to the District Attorney. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I understand. MR. MOTLEY: That's a fact. JUDGE TINLEY: You got any problem with consulting a District Attorney? MR. MOTLEY: I have consulted with one already, and I've not consulted with the other. I'd like to -~3-04 192 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 do it when I feel like it's timely, when it's appropriate, but I don't want to do it necessarily immediately. I understand the Commissioner's concern. It's a valid concern, and I understand that concern. I don't mind, you know, inquiring of the other. But, like I said -- JUDGE TINLEY: The fact that you do it now, I'm -- we're not precluding that from happening at a later point in time, either. MR. MOTLEY: Right. And I don't know -- the only thing that might prohibit me from doing it now is for fear of something unanticipated, some negative effect it might have on the civil action. That's the only reason I might do that. I don't see anything right now -- any connection at all, but I wouldn't want to do something that would mess that up, and so I may -- let me talk -- I can talk to the D.A., but I can also talk to the attorney and see -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: How about this? How about if I make a motion to request the County Attorney to visit with the District Attorney before possible criminal investigation? 22 23 24 ~--, 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Sure. MR. MOTLEY: You can do that. I'll do that. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Any -23-C4 193 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 further question or discussion? MR. MOTLEY: No problem. JUDGE TINLEY: All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Next item, consider and discuss advertisement, solicitation for applicants for the position of Commissioners Court Coordinator-slash-Administrative Assistant. I put this on the agenda because Ms. Sovil has indicated that in the near future, she's going to be leaving county employment, and I think we need to get some sort of an activity going to try and get an orderly transition. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I think I agree we need to get moving on this. In my opinion, I think the first step is for the Court to approve -- or review the job description, see if we're going to go with that same job description. I don't think we can go out -- well, first of all, we haven't received notice yet, to start with, and she may change her mind. I don't think we want to go that step, but I think that it is a good time to kind of get on the table, maybe at our next meeting, the job description of that position, and we can discuss it and see if there's any 2-23-04 194 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ,--. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 change we'd like to make. Because I think that needs to be done, certainly, before we go out, you that position, should Ms. Sovil choose that she's going to retire. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, and I have taken the liberty of it, and I've got it rather well marked JUDGE TINLEY: That's f description? know, to try to fill to give us her notice I agree with that, acquiring a copy of up. rom the old Nash COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I assume that's the latest one in existence. And if that is the latest one in existence, I think it needs to be brought up to speed. And I'm willing to do it, but I think you're right; we have time. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'd just add one thing to that. In addition to reviewing the duties and responsibilities of the job, I'd also like to review how the incumbent interacts with the five members of this Court so that there's real clarity about how things get done and how supervision occurs and that sort of thing. And the second point was, when it's appropriate to start looking for a replacement, that we first look inside before we go outside. It may be that nobody currently in the employment of Kerr _-~3-04 195 1 ~-- 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ,_,_„ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 County would want to work for this Court, but then it may be that there's somebody out there that really does, and could bring some knowledge of county government to the job. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You may be right about your assumption that there's nobody in the system already that wants to work for Commissioners Court. But isn't posting of that job -- isn't that one of the things that we're supposed to do in-house for people in here before we advertise out? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't know. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we should do it either way, but I just think we need to kind of bring it back next time with job descriptions and, you know, discuss that. And then see if Ms. Sovil is, in fact, going to turn in her resignation at some point. Not that we're hurrying you along at all. MS. SOVIL: No. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Anything further on that one, gentlemen? We'll move on. Item 23 I put on the agenda. I was expecting to have more information on that. The information has not yet been made available, so it's not ready. I'd like to go ahead acid pass that one. Not going to make anybody unhappy, is it? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Item 25 is consider and 2-^3-04 196 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ..-, 25 discuss status of burn ban. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I believe we -- the Commissioners each have handled that individually. And, from what Mr. Motley said earlier, he has prepared a memo, which is the other part of this item, as to the County's authority for burn bans. So, I think we really need to have time to look at that, and we'll bring this back at the next meeting. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Next item, 26, consider and discuss approving the application for continuation of grant fund to 216th Judicial District Narcotics Task Force, and authorize the Judge to sign the same. The Sheriff asked that this item be placed on the agenda. The Sheriff is not available to be here with us today. He is, in fact, at AACOG at the grant workshop, which is a requirement that -- that you attend in order to be able to ask for AACOG grants. So he asked if -- if I would present that to the Court. He indicated that the County Attorney's reviewed it. It's a continuation of our existing arrangement that has gone on for a number of years, and -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I move for approval. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of the agenda item. Any further question or -23-04 197 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 discussion? MR. MOTLEY: And authorize Judge to sign the same. JUDGE TINLEY: That was in the agenda item. MR. MOTLEY: Okay. I didn't hear that in the motion, so I -- I told Rusty I would help get that one through. There's two documents, by the way, on that. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You did a good job, David. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm going -- JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions or discussion? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Question. Why would the Sheriff be introducing this, anyway? We always have the Task Force people come do it. JUDGE TINLEY: You'll have to ask somebody other than me. MR. MOTLEY: He asked me to do -- Bill Hill asked the different sheriffs and police chiefs and such to do it, run it for him. He did offer to be here and be available to answer any questions the Commissioners Court might have on it. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or -~3-0~ 198 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ,~ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. I assume we have nothing further in executive session, gentlemen? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Not to my knowledge. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't think so. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Maybe we need to pay the bills. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move we pay the bills. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion was made and seconded that we pay the bills. Any questions or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Budget amendments. We have Budget Amendment Request Number 1. MR. TOMLINSON: Budget Amendment 1 is for the County Treasurer. Her request is to transfer $40.95 from Office Supplies to Books, Publications, and Dues. -23-09 1 ^ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ,._, 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 199 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of Budget Amendment Request Number I. Any further question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: Do we have any late bills, Mr. Auditor? MR. TOMLINSON: No. No, we don't. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I have before me the transcript minutes of the Kerr County Commissioners Court regular session, Monday, January 12, 2004; the Kerr County Commissioners Court special session, Monday, January 26, 2004; and the Kerr County Commissioners Court emergency session, Wednesday, January 28, 2004. Do I hear a motion to approve these transcripts and minutes as presented? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval. Any further question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 2-23-04 200 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ~^ 2 4 25 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. I also have before me monthly reports from the County Clerk, Justice of the Peace Precinct 1, Justice of the Peace Precinct 2, Justice of the Peace Precinct 3, District Clerk, Road and Bridge, Kerrville/Kerr County Joint Airport Advisory Board -- minutes in that case -- and the Kerr County Historical Commission. Do I hear a motion to approve these reports as presented? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval. Any question or discussion? All in favor of the motion signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Do we have any reports from any of the Commissioners, either as Commissioners or in their liaison assignments? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: None here. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Nothing here. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I do have one. I met with Bob Miller, the Arts and Crafts Foundation, and they 2-~3-G4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ,..-_ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ,,.._ 2 4 25 201 are -- if you've been driving out there, they are working on -- they're getting that ready for the Arts and Crafts show. One of the things they needed -- an immediate thing -- is electricity, and they have offered to pay the electric bill -- the full meter amount on the rodeo arena meter for -- until they get service from KPUB, which may be -- who knows when. And I told them to go ahead and do it, and if that -- if there's a problem on the Court, we would get it on the agenda. But he just -- the 4-H -- someone used it. They'll just pay that portion of the bill or pay that bill. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Only thing on that meter is the arena? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, the only thing on it is the arena. I didn't see any problem with that. They were willing to pay the entire amount. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He talked to me about it also. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I also understand that all the earth that's being removed out at the airport deal is being moved to that -- to our Arts and Crafts location and being used for fill dirt. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think all of the excavation for Joe Kennedy's new hangar is coming -- is going straight to the -- 2-23-04 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 202 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What did I just say? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I thought you meant the airport, itself. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, as part of -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The entrance road. Well, it is; you're right. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's the only comment I had. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So long as it's not going to Bumble Bee, I'm all right with it. (Laughter.) JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Do we have any reports from any elected officials or department heads? Ms. Uecker? MS. UECKER: What? JUDGE TINLEY: Do you have a report for us? MS. UECKER: No. JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Shaun? MR. BRANHAM: No, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Brad? MR. ALFORD: No, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. That's the only folks that are here. Any reports from boards, commissions, committees? We had one City/County joint project report on the airport. Do we have any others? Hearing none, we'll go on. We received the Road and Bridge report. Maintenance is not here. Gentlemen, I show that we're through. -~3-04 203 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We've got a workshop coming up. JUDGE TINLEY: We have a workshop coming up? COMMISSIONER LETZ: 3 o'clock. Oh, it's 3:20. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're just running 20 minutes late. JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Well, at this point, I will adjourn the Commissioners Court meeting scheduled for this date, and I guess y'all choose up sides and see who's going to preside over this next rodeo, and I'm going to go down the hall and hear some cases. (Commissioners Court adjourned at 3:21 p.m.) -~3 04 1 ~^ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ~,,, 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 204 STATE OF TEXAS ~ COUNTY OF KERR ~ The above and foregoing is a true and complete transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County, Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth. DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 1st day of March, 2004. JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk Kathy B ik, Deputy County Clerk Certified Shorthand Reporter 2-23-u9 ORDER NO. 28527 APPROVAL OF IMPROVEMENTS TO RECYCLING DROP-OFF CENTER On this the 23rd day of February 2004, upon motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4- 0-0, of improvements to property at the intersection of Hays and Schreiner Streets, in accordance with lease agreement on the Recycling Drop-off Center. ORDER N0.28528 APPROVAL FOR COUNTY ATTORNEY TO ENGAGE IN MEDIATION On this the 23rd day of February 2004, upon motion made by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court approved by a vote of 3-0-0, to require the County Attorney to engage in mediation on the Health Insurance issue. ORDER N0.28529 APPROVAL TO TRANSFER BURN BAN PHONE NUMBER On this the 23`d day of February 2004, upon motion made by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4- 0-0, to transfer 792-HEAT from 9-1-1 to Kerr County and upon any change to the status of burn ban being placed there, that Kerrville Police Department, as the dispatch authority, be notified of that change of status. ORDER N0.28530 APPROVAL TO REFER LAND IN QUESTION TO COUNTY ATTORNEY On this the 23~ day of February 2004, upon motion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to refer to land partitioned by a partition deed by mutual consent, and if existing access road shall be upgraded to Kerr County standards upon acquisition by a new purchaser to Ken County Attorney for opinion whether Kerr County Subdivision Rules apply. ORDER N0.28531 APPROVAL TO USE COURTHOUSE GROUNDS FOR NATIONAL DAY OF PRAYER BY THE CLERGY WOMEN, INC On this the 23'~ day of February 2004, upon motion made by Commissioner Nicholson, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4- 0-0, to use Courthouse Grounds for National day of Prayer on Thursday May 6, 2004 by the Clergy Women, Inc. ORDER N0.28532 APPROVAL OF ROAD NAME CHANGES, REGULATORY SIGNS On this the 23'~ day of February 2004, upon motion made by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0- 0, of road names changes, regulatory sign, and abandoning, discontinuing and vacating County Road maintenance as follows: Current Name Roane Rd. N Sidney Baker N (from City Limits to Gillespie County Line) Changed to Wilson Creek Rd N Fredericksburg Rd N Regulatory Signs Remove Stop Sign Lindner Branch Rd E at Hermann Sons Abandon, Discontinue and Vacate Kerr County Maintenance Run Rd W Gulch Ranch Rd W ORDER NO. 28533 DECLARE AND EMERGENCY AND APPROVAL OF REQUEST FROM ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT On this the 23rd day of February 2004, upon motion made by Commissioner Nicholson, seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to declare an emergency and to authorize the Environmental Health Department Manager to employ a clerk, Grade 12.1, for that department effective March 1, 2004 and cost for same not to exceed $14,000.00, to be taken from reserves. ORDER N0.28534 APPROVAL OF CHANGE ORDER #5 TO COMPTON CONSTRUCTION On this the 23`a day of February 2004, upon motion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4- 0-0, change order number 5 to compensate Compton Construction for extra rock excavation in the Oak Grove Mobil Home Park, and additional stabilized base used to cover 10" line in Riverhill Golf Course. ORDER N0.28535 APPROVAL OF LOCATION OF TWO SMALL EQUIPMENT SHEDS On this the 23'~ day of February 2004, upon motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4- 0-0, of the location of two small equipment sheds. ORDER N0.28536 APPROVAL OF SPACE FOR GREENHOUSE AT THE EXTENSION OFFICE On this the 23rd day of February 2004, upon motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4- 0-0, of the space for a greenhouse as part of an Extension program by the Extension Office. ORDER N0.28537 APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION TO TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION On this the 23rd day of February 2004, upon motion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4- 0-0, of the resolution to Texas Department of Transportation requesting turn lanes and re- location of traffic signal at the Kerrville/Kerr County Airport as amended. ORDER N0.28538 APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS OF THANKS On this the 23'~ day of February 2004, upon motion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, on resolutions of Thanks to Christopher M. Avery, Ph. D., and Ken and Betty Wardlaw, Rockin' River Inn, for their contributions to Kerr County Commissioners Court Long Range Planning meeting on February 11, 2004. ORDER N0.28539 APPROVAL TO REAPPOINT AIRPORT BOARD MEMBERS On this the 23rd day of February 2004, upon motion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4- 0-0, to reappoint G. Granger MacDonald and Jim Miller to the Airport Board for two year terms expiring March 26, 2006. ORDER N0.28540 APPROVAL REQUIRING COUNTY ATTORNEY TO PROVIDE A SCHEDULE On this the 23rd day of February 2004, upon motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4- 0-0, requiring the County Attorney to provide a schedule and status report for all civil work being done for the Commissioners Court. ORDER N0.28541 AUTHORIZE TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION On this the 23`~ day of February 2004, upon motion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to close the Special Commissioner Court Meeting of February 23, 2004 at 2:15 p.m. and go into Executive Session. ORDER N0.28542 AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO UPDATE COMMISSIONERS COURT On this the 23~a day of February 2004, upon motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4- 0-0, that Item 1.19 -Receive, consider and discuss report and status of civil attorney hired by County Attorney to pursue health insurance claim and determine reporting schedule and clarify who the civil attorney reports to, to be placed on, for the foreseeable future, every Commissioners Court agenda, and we'll receive an update as necessary from the County Attorney. ORDER N0.28543 APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT TO CONSOLIDATE AND EXTEND LEASES FOR PROPERTY AND FACILITIES AT KERRVILLE/KERR COUNTY AIRPORT On this the 23rd day of February 2004, upon motion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4- 0-0, of agreement to consolidate and extend leases for property and facilities at Kerrville/Kerr County Airport between Mooney Airplane Company and Kerr County and the City of Kerrville. ORDER N0.28544 APPROVAL REQUESTING COUNTY ATTORNEY TO VISIT WITH DISTRICT ATTORNEY On this 23rd day of February 2004, upon motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to request the County Attorney to visit with District Attorney before possible criminal investigation on information concerning the health insurance claim issue. ORDER N0.28545 APPROVAL OF APPLICATION FOR CONTINUATION OF GRANT TO FUND 216TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NARCOTICS TASK FORCE On this the 23'~ day of February 2004, upon motion made by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4- 0-0, of the application for continuation of grant to fund 216th Judicial District Narcotics Task Force and authorize the County Judge to sign same. .._. ORDER N0.28546 CLAIMS AND ACCOUNTS On this the 23rd day of February 2004, came to be considered by the Court Various Commissioners precincts, which said Claims and Accounts are: 10-General: $120,513.21 15-Road & Bridge: $31,990.10 28-Records Management & Preservation:$12,000.00 50-Indigent Health Care:$31,428.19 80-Historical Commission: $79.61 TOTAL CASH REQUIRED FOR ALL FUNDS: $196,011.11 Upon motion made by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the r Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to pay said Claims and Accounts. ORDER N0.28547 BUDGET AMENDMENT IN COUNTY TREASUER On this the 23rd day of February 2004, upon motion made by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to transfer $40.95 from Line Item No. 10+497-310 Office Supplies to Line Item No. 10-497-315 Books-publication-dues in the County Treasurer's office. ORDER N0.28548 APPROVE AND ACCEPT MINUTES AND WAIVE READING On this the 23rd day of February 2004, upon motion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4- 0-0, to waive reading and approve the minutes of the Regulaz Commissioner Court for January 12, 2004, Special Session on January 26, 2004, Emergency Session for January 28, 2004. -- ORDER 28549 ACCEPT MONTHLY REPORTS On this the 23~ day of February 2004, upon motion made by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to accept the following monthly reports: County Clerk J.P. #1 J.P. #2 J.P. #3 District Clerk Road & Bridge ,~ Kerrville/Kerr Co. Joint Airport Advisory Board Minutes Kerr County Historical Commission