1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT 9 Regular Session 10 Monday, April 12, 2004 11 9:00 a.m. 12 Commissioners' Courtroom 13 Kerr County Courthouse 14 Kerrville, Texas 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 PRESENT: PAT TINLEY, Kerr County Judge 23 H. A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1 JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3 24 DAVE NICHOLSON, Commissioner Pct. 4 25 ABSENT: WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2 2 1 I N D E X April 12, 2004 2 PAGE --- Commissioners Comments 5 3 1.9 Approve interlocal agreement between Kerr County 4 & Kimble County for housing inmates, authorize signatures of the Judge and Sheriff 10 5 1.1 Proposal to TexDOT that a south-of-the-river 6 road to connect new high bridge in Kerrville with Hunt be considered in the planning process 7 of the Texas Mobility Fund Strategic Plan 14 8 1.2 Accept offer from the TexDOT for Kerr County to assume ownership of a portion of old Highway 39 9 near Ingram 19 10 1.3 Discuss provision of fire and emergency services to citizens who reside in the far northwest corner 11 of the county, including Y.O. Ranchlands residents 21 12 1.4 Request to waive inspection fees for septic systems removed from service in Phase I of Kerrville South 13 Wastewater Project 30 14 1.5 Agreement For Professional Services with Texas Conference of Urban Counties to bring the County 15 into compliance with HIPPA privacy regulations 34 16 1.6 Approval of 2004 Employee Benefit Administrative Service Agreement, authorize County Judge to sign 40 17 1.7 Adopt Kerr County Safety Policy Statement and 18 Safety Committee Members 45 19 1.8 Consider whether January 2, 2004, is to be considered an official County holiday 47 20 1.10 Budget amendment to Constable 3's Capital Outlay 21 line items to acquire radio 52 22 1.11 Approve contract to participate in Failure to Appear Program with Texas Department of Public 23 Safety, authorize County Judge to sign 60 24 1.12 Approve electric line easement and right-of-way, authorize County Judge to sign 64 25 3 1 I N D E X (continued) April 12, 2004 2 PAGE 3 1.13 Approve Earth Day Proclamation 65 4 1.14 Authorize staff to enter into contract for erecting airport fencing 67 5 1.15 Resolution authorizing Airport Manager to pursue 6 funding avenues for airport capital improvements 71 7 1.16 Authorize execution of Professional Services Agreement Pursuant to the TexDOT General Aviation 8 Terminal Grant 79 9 1.17 Set public hearing date for alternate plat process, Lots 14 & 15 of The Horizon, Section One 83 10 1.18 Set public hearing date for alternate plat process, 11 Lots 32 & 33 of The Horizon, Section One 84 12 1.19 Present Engineer's Flood Study for Lots 42-44 of of Bumble Bee Hills, consider whether revision of 13 plat is required for same 85 14 1.20 Request by City of Kerrville for the Kerr County Environmental Health Department Manager to act as 15 City's Designated Representative in administering O.S.S.F. program 120 16 17 4.1 Pay Bills 122 4.2 Budget Amendments 124 18 4.3 Late Bills 134 4.4 Read and Approve Minutes 134 19 4.5 Approve and Accept Monthly Reports 135 20 5.1 Reports from Commissioners, Liaison/Committees 136 21 --- Adjourned 137 22 23 24 25 4 1 On Monday, April 12, 2004, at 9:00 a.m., a regular meeting 2 of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in the 3 Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, Kerrville, 4 Texas, and the following proceedings were had in open court: 5 P R O C E E D I N G S 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Let me call to order the 7 regular Commissioners Court meeting scheduled for this time 8 and date, Monday, April 12th, at 9 a.m. Commissioner Letz, 9 I think you're up this morning. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Would everyone please 11 stand and join me in a moment of prayer? 12 (Prayer and pledge of allegiance.) 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. At this point, if 14 there's any member of the public who wishes to address the 15 Court or say anything to the Court about anything that is 16 not a listed agenda item, you're privileged to do so at this 17 time. If you wish to be heard on an agenda item, we would 18 ask that you fill out a participation form. The forms are 19 at the back of the room. That's not an absolute 20 requirement; it just helps us -- or helps me, at least, be 21 aware of who wants to be heard on a given matter, so that 22 hopefully I don't miss you. But, at this time, if there's 23 anybody that wishes to be heard on any matter that is not a 24 listed agenda item, feel free to come forward at this time. 25 Seeing no one, why, we'll move on. Commissioner Letz, have 4-12-04 5 1 you got anything for us this morning? 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just a -- I'd like to 3 thank Road and Bridge Department for their great work on 4 getting out after the floods and cleaning things up 5 extremely quickly, at least in my precinct. I received a 6 number of calls thanking them, and I wanted to pass that 7 along. That's it. 8 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The -- we got 5, in 9 some places 6 inches of rain in two to three hours, and had 10 a pretty good-sized flood, not a real bad flood. Was 11 isolated for, oh, 18 hours or so. A lot of debris because 12 of the speed of the water. And same thing; our Road and 13 Bridge group and the state Highway Department got out there 14 and got things cleaned up. Nobody got hurt. Little bit of 15 water in some houses, but not as bad as it has been, so I'm 16 thankful for that. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Let me get one quick 18 aside. The Hermann Road -- Hermann Son's road and bridge 19 made it. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, hallelujah. Go 21 through that. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Baldwin? 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. I just 24 wanted to alert the Court to one issue, that the -- will be 25 coming in here pretty soon, and that is Boy Scouts of 4-12-04 6 1 America, local group, is going to want to erect a monument 2 of some sort on the courthouse lawn. I think there are 3 three different troops in this town, plus a home-schooled 4 troop as well. And Troop Number 1 is in Kerrville, Texas, 5 and I think that that is -- means that's the first troop in 6 the United States. So, collectively, I understand that 7 they're going to come to us and want to put some kind of a 8 monument or something on the courthouse lawn, so I just 9 wanted you to -- I wanted Commissioner Letz to start 10 thinking about that and -- and to be nice to them when they 11 do come in. That's all. Thank you. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Couple of items 13 this morning. One is, tomorrow is runoff election day, and 14 I haven't heard much interest generated, but there -- 15 there's at least one race on the Republican, and I think 16 more than one on the Democratic primary runoff ballots, and 17 so I would urge everybody to exercise their right to vote 18 and participate in that election. The second item that I 19 have is a -- is a good news item. Some of you may recall, 20 and I'm sure the members of the Court recall, we -- we opted 21 to participate in a safety incentive program sponsored by 22 the Texas Association of Counties, and we have been selected 23 to be the recipient of an incentive award. And we have a 24 representative from Texas Association of Counties, Mr. Larry 25 Boccaccio, here this morning, and I'd like to take a few 4-12-04 7 1 minutes and -- and thank Mr. Boccaccio for all of his 2 efforts. We've had some safety issues recently that have 3 been unexpected and unprecedented here in the county, and he 4 has been extraordinarily helpful, and Texas Association of 5 Counties has allowed him to be somewhat of a semipermanent 6 fixture over here to assist us, and I want to thank him for 7 all of his efforts, and Texas Association of Counties for 8 permitting him to assist us. We've -- we've still got a 9 ways to go, and we're going to do what it takes to comply 10 with any lawful requirements, and we want a meaningful and a 11 very effective safety program here in Kerr County, because 12 it's going to result in considerable savings to -- to the 13 taxpayers of this county. It impacts a number of things. 14 It impacts our workers compensation rate, and Mr. Boccaccio 15 will let you know a little something about that in a minute. 16 It also affects our lost time. It affects a whole lot of 17 things. And so we -- we want and will obtain a real 18 effective safety program. And, Mr. Boccaccio, the floor is 19 yours. Thank you very much for being here. 20 MR. BOCCACCIO: Great. Thank you, Judge, 21 Commissioners. I -- I don't get to do as many of these as I 22 would like to do, so I -- I take full advantage of it when 23 my little number comes up. It's like, "Oh, great." So, 24 yeah, I have actually two things for you. And, Judge, you 25 mentioned the Safety Incentive Program -- see how long my 4-12-04 8 1 voice lasts. But what that is, the County opted to 2 participate in our safety program. It's a mandatory 3 seven-step component, and as a result of that, the County is 4 eligible, and we're rebating back to you about $18,000. 5 This is actually a full 10 percent of the workers comp 6 premium. So, one of my few that got the full 10 percent. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That is good. 8 MR. BOCCACCIO: So, congratulations on that. 9 That's a good -- a good one. Now, this year at C.M.I., all 10 the safety guys were actually asked to come up with about 10 11 counties that we consider good examples of safety programs. 12 This year, I only could come up with seven. So, as a result 13 of that, you're -- you're one of my seven as far as a good 14 program that's in place, and like the Judge said, we're 15 working towards some things. Had a little misfortune with 16 the -- the wonderful State of Texas and the Workers Comp 17 Commission, but we're -- we're going to succeed over that. 18 So, that's -- that's going to be kind of a drawn-out 19 project, so you'll probably see me, like he said, around 20 here a good bit. So, if you'd like -- would y'all like to 21 do a picture? 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Sure. 23 MS. LAVENDER: Come down and somebody accept 24 it, at least. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Come down? Come up? 4-12-04 9 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Whichever. Where do you want 2 us? 3 MS. LAVENDER: He can hand it to you. 4 MR. BOCCACCIO: How's that? 5 MS. NEMEC: In the years past, the 6 Treasurer's office gets in the picture, since we do all the 7 work. Come on, Cindy. She's the one that does a lot of 8 work on this. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I like this. 10 MS. NEMEC: Think we should stand behind 11 them? Behind them. 12 (Discussion off the record.) 13 JUDGE TINLEY: This is great, 18 grand, 14 10 percent cut. You betcha. It adds up over the years. 15 Thank you, -- 16 MR. BOCCACCIO: You're welcome. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: -- Mr. Larry. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, Treasurer's 19 office. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you for your efforts, 21 and we look forward to seeing you a good deal more. 22 MR. BOCCACCIO: Good. I like to do the 23 positive things too. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 25 MR. BOCCACCIO: Thank y'all. 4-12-04 10 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. At this time, I'd 2 like to take an item out of order because of some 3 commitments that the Sheriff has, and go to Item 9 on the 4 agenda, and that is to consider, discuss, and approve an 5 interlocal agreement between Kerr County and Kimble County 6 for the housing of inmates, and authorize the signatures of 7 the Judge and the Sheriff on that agreement. Sheriff? 8 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. Real quickly -- 9 and I appreciate your taking it out of order. I have Grand 10 Jury this morning also. This is our standard agreement we 11 have signed with all the surrounding counties around us. 12 Bandera, Kendall, Gillespie. And Kimble has asked us from 13 time to time to house inmates, so I felt we needed to have 14 an agreement with them also due to their population 15 constraints that they have. It's -- nothing's changed in 16 this agreement compared to what we've had with the other 17 ones. It's $37 a day and any reimbursement for damages 18 intentionally caused by their inmates, if there were any, 19 and reimbursement for any medical. The agreements have all 20 been looked at by the County Attorney. And, like I said, 21 they're just standard agreements. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move the agreement. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 25 approval of the agenda item and the agreement. Any further 4-12-04 11 1 questions or discussion? 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have a question for 3 the Sheriff. Do we have any relationship with Menard 4 County? 5 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Every once in a while, 6 when they have a trial coming up and they need one, we do 7 house one. I don't have an agreement with them. I do have 8 one, I believe, with Mason or Brady. But -- 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Next time you get 10 something going with Menard County, let me know. I got a 11 speeding ticket there last weekend, and I -- I think it's 12 time to visit about that relationship. 13 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't even want to 14 know about your speeding ticket you got in Menard County. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I do. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: I'd like to know more about 17 it. What was the allegation, Commissioner? 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, they were wrong. 19 So wrong. (Laughter.) 20 JUDGE TINLEY: They made the allegation that 21 they were wrong? 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, they didn't make 23 that allegation. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: I see. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They felt like they 4-12-04 12 1 were right. 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: One other question. 3 Have we been recently housing out-of-county inmates? 4 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We have all along been 5 housing up to about 26 of Bandera County's. Now, we got too 6 full here a few weeks ago. We hit 185, 186, which is way 7 over what we can have to classify, due to the number of gang 8 members and that we have in there. We had to ask Bandera 9 County to come get theirs. Now, at the same time, Bandera 10 County has entered into another housing contract, I believe 11 with Frio County. I don't know what all the terms are in 12 that, but one that we cannot continue to keep housing 13 theirs -- and 'cause of our in-house our own population 14 going up, I can't be concerned about it, but I doubt if we 15 will be housing very many of Bandera County's any more, 16 except on special occasions, because the contract they have 17 with Frio County, Frio County has also agreed to transport 18 Bandera's inmates back and forth to court, and there's no 19 way we can transport another county's inmates, and I 20 wouldn't even consider it. So, you know, we're kind of 21 going to lose a vast majority of our out-of-county housing, 22 but our population last week was averaging 160 to 170. Now, 23 80 percent of our max is 153 to keep it where we can really 24 classify us, so we're at the point where most of our 25 out-of-county housing's going to be few and far between. 4-12-04 13 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Are you dealing with 2 gang members now more than you have historically? Is the 3 problem increasing? 4 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes, the problem has 5 gotten serious in the last year, and we have a number of 6 gang members in our -- in our jail now. We have a number of 7 investigations going involving gang members, and it is, 8 unfortunately, getting to be a serious problem. 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And these are adult 10 gangs, not youth? 11 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, these aren't your 12 little youth gangs. These are Mexican Mafia, Aryan 13 Brotherhood, Latin Kings, some of our more serious gangs 14 that have started coming in. And we've always maintained a 15 zero tolerance on them, and we have to do that, and so, 16 consequently, we've got a number of them in jail. 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Thank you. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Sheriff. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We need to vote. We 20 need to vote. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Hmm? Did I not call for a 22 vote on that? 23 MS. PIEPER: No. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any further question or 25 discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 4-12-04 14 1 your right hand. 2 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 3 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 4 (No response.) 5 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Next 6 item on the agenda is consideration and discussion of a 7 proposal to the Texas Department of Transportation that a 8 south-of-the-river road to connect the new high bridge in 9 Kerrville with Hunt be considered in the planning process 10 and development of the Texas Mobility Fund Strategic Plan, 11 and authorization of the County Judge to communicate this 12 proposal to the Director of Transportation Planning and 13 Programming Division by the April 16, 2004 deadline. 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: First, there's some 15 documents -- there a cover letter from Attorney Oehler -- 16 that don't belong in there. They belong in -- under Item 17 1.2, so the only thing you -- you have on this item is the 18 note -- the note that I sent. I've been -- been talking 19 with a number of people, but particularly Len Odom, for some 20 time now about the need to do some planning, long-term 21 planning on the traffic issue for west Kerr County. Highway 22 39 is -- from Ingram to Hunt, Hunt to Ingram, is barely 23 adequate. There's a lot of traffic on it. It's dangerous, 24 and there's been a number of auto accidents there, and some 25 of them very serious; there have been people killed on them 4-12-04 15 1 over the years. It seems like there's very little 2 alternatives toward improving that stretch of highway. You 3 got the river on one side and you've got bluffs and rocks 4 and -- and private property on the other side. Someday 5 what's going to be needed is an alternate route from 6 Kerrville, Ingram, to west Kerr County and Hunt, and a 7 south-of-the-river route is -- is feasible and probably 8 preferable. 9 If we could get some help from TexDOT, I'm -- 10 and I'm guessing this may be a 10-, 15-year project. We're 11 not going to have a road out there any time soon. If we can 12 get some help from TexDOT on funding the planning of it, 13 which would include surveying, and then probably naming an 14 easement, telling the landowners out there that there's 15 going to be an easement and here's where it's going to be, 16 and someday we're going to -- to build a highway out there, 17 that would be -- that's step one, if we're going to do that. 18 So, when this opportunity came along from the Director of 19 Transportation Planning and Programming Division, we thought 20 it would be a good idea to nominate this project for their 21 consideration. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I mean, I 23 think that this is something that we -- the Court has talked 24 about for some time, this particular project, and other 25 long-range planning on roads. I think that this is -- this 4-12-04 16 1 particular road is also in the Kerrville -- City of 2 Kerrville's Master Road Plan. I serve on that committee, 3 along with a bunch of other roads, but this is one of those 4 to try to figure out how to get traffic basically into 5 Kerrville and around Kerrville, so I think that the -- you 6 know, I certainly have no problem with going with TexDOT on 7 this particular one right now. If we can get on the list, 8 great. But I think that, beyond that, the next step is for 9 us to look at the Master Road Plan that the City adopted and 10 proceed with that, and then get something probably in our -- 11 either court order or subdivision rules or something that -- 12 so that when property becomes available, there's a mechanism 13 for the County to start acquiring those rights-of-way, even 14 if we do stockpile it. I don't know. And -- and I think 15 some of the planning and surveying that you mentioned, 16 that -- I think that would be a good topic to bring up with 17 the City of Kerrville at our joint meeting with them, 18 because I think it's -- if TexDOT will come up with the 19 funds for it, that will be, obviously, number one, but if 20 they won't, then we have the City of Kerrville and the 21 County to join and look at planning for some of these roads 22 that are way out in the future; you know, 15, 20 years. To 23 get that built in 15, 20 years, we need to start doing the 24 work now. 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. 4-12-04 17 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Essentially, if I understand 2 your request today, Commissioner, is that we go on record as 3 supporting that project in general terms as a long-range 4 project, hopefully to be done by TexDOT. Is that 5 essentially what you're requesting today? 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And I'm requesting 7 that the Commissioners authorize you to communicate this 8 project to the Director of Transportation Planning and 9 Programming Division. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- the Texas Mobility 11 Fund that is in the backup material, is there anything in -- 12 there was, I believe, an April 16th date in there. Is there 13 any particular form that you're aware of? Or we just need 14 to send a letter to TexDOT and say we want to be considered 15 for that particular fund or any funds? Or -- 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: They just -- they 17 sent -- it seems fairly informal. They say provide us with 18 any comments you would like us to consider when developing 19 the plan. So, I'm -- I was thinking simply a letter from 20 the County Judge, just briefly describing -- one paragraph 21 describing what the project might be. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: To see if it fits 24 their criteria. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Is that a motion? 4-12-04 18 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second -- third. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 5 approval of the agenda item. Any further questions or 6 discussion? 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd like to make a 8 comment. About 15 years ago, when I was a Commissioner out 9 in Precinct 4, we built a road from Indian Creek over to 10 Bear Creek, connected those two for the first time, with 11 this basically same thought in mind. And when we -- we 12 built it, we built it with 120 feet right-of-way, which is 13 what the State requires. So, that -- that segment is in 14 place and ready to go. Now, connecting Bear Creek on into 15 Kerrville, from Bear Creek to Thompson Drive, I understand 16 -- I was in a meeting not too long ago -- that there's plans 17 on the table of connecting those two now, so it's getting 18 there. I know it's a little slower than we'd like, but, 19 boy, that's a tough one. But you were going in the right 20 direction, Commissioner. I appreciate your -- you doing 21 that. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: The meetings that I've been 23 involved in at -- and I believe it's called Freedom Trail, 24 the segment you were talking about. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Correct. 4-12-04 19 1 JUDGE TINLEY: That segment has been 2 mentioned as being the intermediate or middle segment in 3 that -- in that south-of-the-road route. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: South of the river. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Or south of the river, excuse 6 me, yeah. Any further questions or discussion? All in 7 favor of the agenda item, signify by raising your right 8 hand. 9 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 10 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 11 (No response.) 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Next item 13 on the agenda is to consider and discuss accepting an offer 14 from TexDOT for Kerr County to assume ownership of a portion 15 of old Highway 39 near Ingram. That runs from a point south 16 of the new Highway 39 on the Hill Country Arts Foundation 17 property, across that property and across the property of 18 the little -- Ingram Little League to connect back to the 19 new Highway 39. Mr. Odom -- 20 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: -- and Commissioner Nicholson. 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This is -- this 23 issue came up, I guess, two meetings ago, and it's -- the 24 source of raising the issue is -- is two places. One, 25 TexDOT asked us to -- wrote a letter to the Judge and asked 4-12-04 20 1 us to assume ownership of this old Highway 39 that runs 2 through the Point Theatre and the Ingram Little League. 3 Then I got a letter from Attorney Oehler, and he is 4 representing Point Theatre, and he was proposing essentially 5 the same thing. A little more complexity to it, in that 6 there would be a separate piece of business between TexDOT 7 and the Point Theatre where they would gain ownership to 8 their entrance to the Point Theatre property. I've had 9 occasion to talk with Attorney Oehler, and to ask him if the 10 Point Theatre was interested in owning that road, and he -- 11 he affirmed that he thought they were interested in owning 12 the road. And I talked with some Little League officials, 13 but at this point they're a non-meeting organization. 14 That's a pretty loose-knit group, and there's more 15 information that's needed from them about what their 16 intentions would be. What I'm going to suggest is that 17 we -- that Commissioners Court assemble the parties to this 18 issue, TexDOT, City of Ingram, Point Theatre, and the Little 19 League and Commissioners and County government, and review 20 the issues and see if we can -- we can come to a place where 21 all -- we're all of one mind on what needs to be done. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: I had a discussion with 23 attorney Danny Edwards, who is City Attorney for the City of 24 Ingram, and he had originally placed this on the City of 25 Ingram's council agenda for last week, and after our 4-12-04 21 1 discussion, we came generally to the conclusion that 2 probably before this thing gets going off in the wrong 3 direction again, that we needed to get all of the parties 4 together that -- that are stakeholders in this issue, and 5 see if we can find out something that's commonly acceptable 6 to them and then move forward from there. And he's going to 7 suggest to the Ingram Council -- I assume he did last 8 week -- that they not take any formal action on this item 9 and essentially do what you've requested. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, no action is needed 11 today? 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If there's no 13 objection to this plan for going forward, we can -- we can 14 just pass on this one now. By the way, there was a -- 15 Commissioners, there was a document with a cover letter from 16 the Bandera County Judge that was in that section that 17 belongs in the reports section, so I'll talk about that at 18 the end of our meeting. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: All right, thank you. 20 Anything further on the second item on the agenda? If not, 21 we'll move on to the third item on the agenda, and that is 22 consideration and discussion of the provisions of fire and 23 emergency services to citizens who resides in the far 24 northwest corner of Kerr County, including the residents of 25 the Y.O. Ranchlands Subdivision. Commissioner Nicholson. 4-12-04 22 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Terri Budow is a 2 resident of Y.O. Ranchlands Subdivision, and she's present 3 today and she would like to address us. 4 MS. BUDOW: Judge, Commissioners, Jannett, as 5 Mr. Nicholson said, I'm Terri Budow and I'm from the Y.O. 6 Ranchlands Homeowners Association. For those of you who 7 aren't familiar with us, we are 10,000 acres just north of 8 the Y.O. itself. We have about 100 families, and the 9 Ranchlands Home Owners Association was established through 10 the C.C.& R., the deed restrictions on each of the 11 homeowners' property. My husband, Harry Budow, is president 12 of the homeowners association. I'm on the infrastructure 13 committee, which is charged with the issues that we're 14 asking you to address today. Our issues are as follows: We 15 would like the Commissioners to insure that 9-1-1 both 16 dispatches fires and the first responders for our areas are 17 the Junction Volunteer Fire Department and the Junction EMS. 18 Regarding the fire services, in looking at 19 the KARFA protocol, we understand that they've established 20 that the Divide Volunteer Fire Department would be our First 21 Responders. Divide is at least 11 miles further than 22 Junction. Divide, on its -- by its own admission, isn't yet 23 fully ramped up and doesn't have the equipment to respond. 24 Kerr County, as I understand it, has a contract with 25 Junction to respond in the Kerr County area. It's just not 4-12-04 23 1 established that it will be a first responder in our area. 2 Lee Hall, who runs the volunteer fire department for 3 Junction, believes that he should be a first responder. 4 He's fully familiar with our area, and agrees that he should 5 be. And so, to the extent that the contract needs to be 6 amended to reflect that they will be the first responder, 7 we'd ask that you do that, and we'd ask that you charge 8 9-1-1 with dispatching them as our first responder. We 9 haven't yet had any fires in our area where it's -- we've 10 had to call upon any fire service, but we'd like to make 11 sure that they are our first responders. 12 As far as EMS, in the last two years -- or in 13 the last 12 months, we've had two occasions to have 9-1-1 14 dispatch EMS. Kerrville responded in each of those 15 occasions. They were both thought to be heart attacks, and 16 the first incident, it took an hour and 40 minutes for the 17 Kerrville EMS to respond. In the second incident, it took 18 over an hour. It was a fatal heart attack in each case. 19 Kerrville EMS turned out to be of no effect in both 20 instances. We understand that, again, Kerrville Fire 21 Department has a contract with Junction EMS to respond in 22 our area, or to respond for Kerr County, but it's just not 23 reflected in that contract that they be first responder. I 24 haven't been able to get ahold of Becky Chenault, who, it's 25 my understanding, is responsible for the EMS in Junction, 4-12-04 24 1 but I understand there wouldn't be any objection to them 2 being first responders for our EMS. So, we'd ask that the 3 Commission do that; make sure that 9-1-1 dispatches Kerr -- 4 Junction EMS, and then that they also actually be required 5 to respond. Thank you. Any questions? 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you very much, 7 Ms. Budow. 8 MS. BUDOW: Sure. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sounds reasonable. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The City of 12 Kerrville, I'm told, does have a mutual aid pact, so I 13 suppose that's the vehicle for -- for causing Junction to be 14 dispatched instead of somebody else. We -- that's not the 15 County. County doesn't have the authority to make that 16 call, but we can ask the City to do it. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that we can enter 18 into an interlocal agreement with Kimble County. I think 19 Kimble -- the Commissioners Court, Kimble County, and/or, 20 you know, City of Kerrville, as well as wherever the 21 counterpart -- Kimble County, probably, all need to sign. I 22 think the mutual aid agreement is a little bit different 23 than what you're talking about here. I think that's just a 24 -- everyone agrees help to each other. I think you probably 25 need a separate interlocal agreement that specifically says 4-12-04 25 1 who the first responder is, because with that comes a lot of 2 liability issues to one or the other. And -- you know, and 3 the same issue we've talked about before certainly comes up 4 in the eastern part of the county as well, between Kendall 5 County as much, you know, for -- it's willing to at times 6 provide the services. 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Who would be the 8 party to the interlocal agreement -- parties? 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess you'd probably 10 need the City of Kerrville, Kimble County, Kerr County. I 11 don't know if it's the county or who handles the EMS portion 12 in Kimble County. I guess that's -- they're the parties. I 13 think you need both entities or both sides from both of the 14 counties, would be my thought, and that's how I would 15 proceed. I think -- I mean, I've been trying to get one of 16 these with Kendall County for a while; haven't been 17 successful to get them to agree to it. It sounds like 18 Kimble County is more willing to work with the residents of 19 far western Kerr County than -- than my area. But I think a 20 separate interlocal agreement is the way, because I think it 21 needs to be real clear who the first responder is, and 22 it's -- and not -- I mean, 'cause I know the -- the current 23 system in the eastern part of the county I bet is the same 24 in the west, is that I bet Kimble County is probably 25 notified or toned out at the same time that it goes to the 4-12-04 26 1 fire department in Kerrville. However, who does the 2 transportation and who is the -- actually the liable party 3 is -- you know, needs to be addressed. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's my question, 5 the whole thing. And 9-1-1's sitting here; might be able to 6 answer. If we do that and Kimble County is the first 7 responder, that doesn't mean that City of Kerrville is just 8 completely dropped out of the picture. I mean, will they 9 get the same message and know that there's something going 10 on? 11 MR. AMERINE: Certainly. I mean, the 9-1-1 12 call will still terminate with our answering point here in 13 Kerrville. The protocol that was mentioned can be adjusted 14 to whatever would meet that homeowners association for their 15 benefit. But there's all sorts of -- one of the things to 16 consider in this follow-up discussion is mutual aid and 17 understanding that even though -- I want to say Divide -- 18 even though you'll be changing who will be responding for 19 fire or for EMS, that there's always a backup in all these 20 circumstances. But -- I think someone mentioned this 21 earlier. The 9-1-1 organization doesn't have the authority 22 to change the protocol and, you know, start dispatching 23 Kimble County EMS or even a different fire department. 24 That's something that we'll have to work through KARFA and 25 through the County on a local -- interlocal agreement, or 4-12-04 27 1 the City of Kerrville with an interlocal agreement. We'll 2 do whatever we're told to do; we're happy to serve the 3 public however it best suits them. We can't just simply go 4 in and change the protocol dispatch, because -- 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand that. 6 MR. AMERINE: -- somebody wants us to. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand. I just 8 don't want the ball dropped. Most -- Junction being a 9 volunteer department, I love them and they're great. I are 10 one. But there's just something about that, somebody 11 sitting at the City of Kerrville picking up the telephone, 12 that I like more. I just don't want the ball to drop 13 somewhere. 14 MR. AMERINE: I understand. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the other issue 16 comes, I'm sure -- I mean, I don't know how many ambulances 17 they have on call in Junction, but I guess it's probably 18 one, and if that ambulance -- or even if it's two, whatever 19 it is, those could all be already at accidents or on other 20 calls in Kimble County, and you still may have to dispatch 21 out of Kerrville. So, I mean -- you know, so it all needs 22 to be taken into consideration and all the protocols worked 23 out. 24 MR. AMERINE: That's part of the mutual aid 25 thing I was mentioning. Most of the departments have this 4-12-04 28 1 where, if they're currently occupied, then there are 2 secondary backup people that you will dispatch. Those 3 things need to be worked out in the circumstances. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. And maybe -- I 5 mean, I'm not really familiar with the verbiage of the 6 mutual aid agreement. Maybe we need just to modify that; it 7 may be a simpler approach. I just don't know. But I think 8 we need to have it in writing in one of those agreements. 9 Once it's done, then I'll try to use the same one in the 10 east, because I think we definitely need one in the eastern 11 part of the county as well. And, I mean, the next step 12 is -- I don't know if it's -- you know, maybe Bill can help, 13 or County Attorney's office representative, maybe. You 14 know, I don't know how we proceed. Maybe talk to Chief 15 Holloway. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: My thinking would be that, 17 from Mr. Amerine and the County Attorney's office making 18 contact with whoever the other parties are involved, City of 19 Junction, the VFD up there, and City of Kerrville, that a 20 draft of a proposed agreement or amendment to an existing 21 agreement, be that mutual aid agreement or interlocal 22 agreement, be prepared to be presented to us, such would 23 change the primary responder for fire and EMS purposes at 24 the Y.O. Ranchlands to the Junction personnel, with 25 secondary or backup being Divide and then other personnel as 4-12-04 29 1 falls under the KARFA protocol, and start putting that 2 together. That would seem to be the appropriate way to at 3 least begin. 4 MS. BUDOW: We would ask that Divide just be 5 excepted at all from responding. In discussing with Divide, 6 they are -- by their own admission, aren't ramped up at all 7 to respond, and neither have their equipment going nor their 8 volunteers marshaled, so we would ask that Mountain Home or 9 Kerrville be the secondary. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, that could be one of the 11 issues to be looked at in this entire process, I would 12 think. 13 MS. BUDOW: Okay. 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, we need a 15 motion. Move that the Court authorize the County Attorney 16 to -- to prepare an interlocal agreement with Kimble County 17 and/or the City of Junction to provide emergency EMS and 18 fire services to a portion of far northwest Kerr County. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is that -- 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that will work. 22 Second. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Any 24 questions or discussion? All in favor of the motion, 25 signify by raising your right hand. 4-12-04 30 1 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 2 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 3 (No response.) 4 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Thank 5 you very much. We appreciate your participation today. The 6 next item on the agenda is consideration and discussion and 7 take appropriate action on request to waive Kerr County 8 Environmental Health Department inspection fees for septic 9 systems removed from service which are pumped, crushed, or 10 filled in Phase I of Kerrville South Wastewater Project. 11 Commissioner Williams put this on the agenda, and because of 12 his inability to be here today, asked that I present the 13 item. As most of you know, the -- Phase I of the Kerrville 14 South Wastewater Project is substantially complete. It is 15 online. The last phase of it, I guess I'm going to call it 16 for lack of a better term, is apparently T.C.E.Q. requires 17 there be -- there be some taking out of service, as it were, 18 the existing septic systems that were previously utilized by 19 the -- by the people in this project, and that they be 20 crushed or filled, and as part and parcel of that, there 21 would be an inspection performed by the Designated 22 Representative of the Environmental Health/O.S.S.F. 23 representative here in Kerr County. 24 And, that being the case, under normal 25 circumstances, there would be a fee for such inspection, 4-12-04 31 1 which I believe is $50, if I'm not mistaken. Commissioner 2 Williams wanted this placed on the agenda. Prior to -- 3 prior to Kerr County assuming the responsibility for 4 O.S.S.F. in November of '03, the Upper Guadalupe River 5 Authority, as the Designated Representative, had agreed to 6 waive that inspection fee as part of its in-kind 7 contribution to this entire project, and Commissioner 8 Williams' intention and desire was that that in-kind 9 contribution merely be carried forward and -- and be -- 10 become now an in-kind contribution to be made by Kerr County 11 in support of that entire project. So, that's the basis of 12 his request. I believe there are approximately -- what, 70 13 units? -- that are connected onto the -- the new Kerrville 14 South Wastewater Project, Phase I, that has recently gone 15 online, and those will be the ones for which the inspection 16 fees -- the request is that they be waived. I think I 17 substantially stated it correctly, did I not, Mr. Arreola? 18 MR. ARREOLA: That's correct, yes, sir. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How many? 21 MR. ARREOLA: There's 70. Total is 70. The 22 first part, it's 15, and then the rest will be done in a 23 second part, but it's the first phase, total of 70. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I move that we 25 -- the County waive the $50 fee for 70 inspections. 4-12-04 32 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 3 waiver of the $50 inspection fee for 70 of the hookups to 4 the Kerrville South Wastewater Project. Any further 5 question or discussion? 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I've got some -- I 7 want to share my thinking with you on the issue. A couple 8 things. There's 70 -- 70 hookups that -- right now that 9 need to be dealt with, and in the future there may be 10 another 400. The inspections are going to put a strain on 11 the workload of our -- our Environmental Health Department. 12 That's a lot of inspections. 70 is a lot; 470 is a whole 13 lot. I don't -- I don't view the U.G.R.A.'s intention to 14 waive these fees as a commitment or a promise. I think we 15 could decide to collect the fees without -- without breaking 16 any promises. The -- the third item, in my thinking, is 17 that the fees would amount to about $25,000 or $26,000, full 18 cycle of the project. We would be passing up a lot of 19 fee-based revenue that will help support our Environmental 20 Health Department. So, it's going to be -- it is a stress 21 on our department, and it's -- could be a much larger 22 stress, and it could be very, very costly. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I mean, I 24 agree with everything Commissioner Nicholson said, but I 25 also think that the -- and it really has nothing to do with 4-12-04 33 1 U.G.R.A.'s promise. I think that it's a -- we need to get 2 these systems on -- I mean, our goal in this whole project 3 was to get these people off of septic, and all along in the 4 earlier discussions, it was how to -- you know, what costs, 5 you know, were these people going to bear? And it was 6 basically trying to get to the point of no cost to get them 7 to actually make this connection, 'cause we were -- we're 8 not making them. We have no -- we're not going to make them 9 get on the system. So, I look at it as a -- as a public 10 health benefit, and that's worth taking on, on the cost -- 11 or the revenue that we will not receive from it. The 12 concern -- or the issue of workload is more, I guess, you 13 know, troubling to me. And I can just ask, you know, that 14 -- to me, this needs to be scheduled and done in a -- over a 15 long enough period of time that it's -- that it has a 16 minimum impact. And I think the -- you know, initially is 17 what we're talking about; 15 right away. So, I mean, I 18 think that can be scheduled in. I think, down the road, it 19 could be more of a problem, and I think Commissioner 20 Baldwin's motion only covered the first 70. It may not 21 include the next 400. There may be another way to fund that 22 through the grant. So, I mean, I think the -- I'm 23 comfortable with what we're doing at this point. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: As Commissioner Letz said, the 25 70 of them included that first phase that's already 4-12-04 34 1 virtually complete. I would hope that, in the next phase, 2 that planning can be accomplished that would provide the 3 funding so that we don't have to do this same thing with 4 respect to the upcoming 400 or whatever that number is. I 5 think we're a little too far along to try and back into 6 getting those fees covered under the existing project funds, 7 because we're virtually complete, but I'd like to see -- see 8 us get back on an even keel now that -- that we're 9 administering that program and find those funds so that the 10 program will stand on its own, as it were, 'cause that's 11 what -- that's what needs to happen, as Commissioner 12 Nicholson says. Any further questions or discussion? All 13 in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. 14 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 15 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 16 (No response.) 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. The next 18 item on the agenda is consider and discuss the agreement for 19 professional services between Texas Conference of Urban 20 Counties and Kerr County to bring County into compliance 21 with privacy regulations relating to HIPAA, and authorize 22 County Judge to sign same. Ms. Nemec? 23 MS. NEMEC: Good morning, Judge, 24 Commissioners. A couple of weeks ago I contacted the Texas 25 Conference of Urban Counties, spoke to John Dahill. And on 4-12-04 35 1 the HIPAA regulations, there's a lot of forms that need to 2 be prepared, and some training that we need to do and stuff. 3 I had gotten several samples from our association and from 4 other counties that have -- already have theirs in place, 5 and so I kind of put together something for our county. And 6 what I asked Mr. Dahill if he could do was, since I kind of 7 had already done the legwork and typed everything out, is I 8 could just send him our documents; if he could review those 9 documents and let us know if everything was in order and we 10 would be in compliance, and maybe we could get this done for 11 a lesser cost than what it would be if we contracted their 12 services. 13 What he told me was that, really, it's just a 14 matter -- when contracting with them, it's just a matter of 15 filling out a little survey like this and sending it to 16 them, and they have notebooks already based on this 17 information that we send, and they just send it to us. And 18 so this would be more costly for him to go through all my 19 stuff that I've done. It would be more costly to the 20 County, and we would have to contract with him and not Urban 21 Counties. And, so, his suggestion was that we just fill out 22 this survey, contract with him and pay the costs that it 23 would take to do that. He assured me that we would be okay, 24 being the deadline is April the 14th, and as long as we have 25 something in place, an order that we are contracting with 4-12-04 36 1 them. And, like I said, they already have the books there, 2 so he'd probably be able to get it to me by that time, but 3 if he couldn't, he said that the law states something that 4 as long as we're in the process of doing it, we'll be okay. 5 So, I think the fee for that is $3,000. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Barbara, you said 7 something about you contacted "our association." Is that -- 8 MS. NEMEC: No. No, I took -- I took copies 9 from the Treasurer's Association. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh. 11 MS. NEMEC: Sample copies of all the HIPAA 12 policies and -- and rules and stuff like that, and from 13 other counties, and that's how I put my package together -- 14 my HIPAA agreement together. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are these Urban folks, 16 are they the only ones that provide this service? 17 MS. NEMEC: That I know of, yes. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We have budgeted funds 19 for this? 20 MS. NEMEC: No. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And you don't think -- 22 it's not possible -- I mean, you say you've done quite a bit 23 of work on it already. It's not possible just to do it 24 in-house? 25 MS. NEMEC: We can do it in-house. I feel 4-12-04 37 1 pretty confident that my -- my research and everything that 2 I have put together is in order, but, you know, they're the 3 professionals in this, and if there is something in here, 4 I -- you know, it's not like I can give it to the County 5 Attorney and say, "Please review my documents," or anybody 6 else, 'cause we're all kind of new at this. It's just a way 7 of just covering all our bases and making sure that 8 everything is in order for $3,000. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: If -- if the Commissioners 10 will recall, there was a presentation that we received at 11 the West Texas County Judges and Commissioners Association 12 conference that we attended, what, two weeks ago, I guess. 13 There was a presentation by someone who had spent a 14 considerable amount of time -- and out of Victoria, I 15 believe. I took the liberty of making the request of that 16 young lady who had done all that work, and she was kind 17 enough to share her work product. I have that available, 18 and I'll be happy to furnish that to -- to Ms. Nemec. It's 19 pretty comprehensive. I've got a stack of documentation 20 that's probably better than a half an inch thick that she 21 was kind enough to furnish me, and she'd been working on it 22 for a considerable period of time. That could be a 23 significant benefit to you. I just got it last week. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I -- my gut 25 feeling is to go this route the Judge is talking about, and 4-12-04 38 1 if we need to spend money -- which is more on the education 2 side, based on that -- the presentation that we heard. 3 There's a lot of things that I think we need to do some 4 education to all our employees as to what they can and can't 5 say under these rules. I mean, it's pretty strict as to -- 6 basically, you can't say anything about anyone's health, 7 period. 8 MS. NEMEC: The only employees that that 9 training would affect is employees in my office, and, 10 really, I've already trained them. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, that's what I'm 12 saying. 13 MS. NEMEC: I've done a lot of the work 14 already. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What I'm saying is, I'd 16 rather try to figure out some way to get the information to 17 all employees, and certainly all supervisors and elected 18 officials, because some off-the-cuff comment made can be a 19 severe violation under the HIPAA regulations, and I think 20 that we need to do some, you know, work in that area. I 21 just -- you know. 22 MS. NEMEC: And I can set up someone to come 23 and do that training, too, with all the elected officials 24 and department heads. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. You know, it just 4-12-04 39 1 seems like a lot of money to me for something that's going 2 to be very, you know, cookie-cutter, that's just going to -- 3 you know, we're -- I think we, you know, maybe -- probably 4 have the ability to do it ourselves. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What's the deadline? 6 June what? 7 MR. AMERINE: April 14th. But as long as 8 we're working on it and show that we are trying to get 9 there, then -- and, really, it's just if someone makes a 10 complaint against us. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Two days. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's two days. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But we are -- I mean, we 15 are working on it. 16 MS. NEMEC: Sure. I have documentation where 17 I've been working on it for a year already, so we're okay; 18 I'm not worried about that. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that -- from that 20 standpoint, I think that we can just send out a memo to all 21 department heads and elected officials and say, you know, 22 "We are under HIPAA regulations, and that has changed at 23 this time," and -- you know, something along those lines. 24 MS. NEMEC: Okay. Well, if you would like, 25 then I'll get that copy from the Judge and compare it to 4-12-04 40 1 what I've already done, and then just bring it back to the 2 Court for approval on that. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Super. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Super. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. I'll try and get 7 that to you today, Ms. Nemec. 8 MS. NEMEC: Okay, thank you. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: I assume there's nothing 10 further on that particular item? 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's it. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Next item is consideration and 13 discussion of approval of a 2004 Employee Benefit 14 Administrative Services Agreement and authorize the County 15 Judge to sign the same. Ms. Nemec forwarded to me the 16 administrative services agreement with our third-party 17 administrator. I asked Ms. Nemec to -- to verify that the 18 basic factual elements were in compliance with the bid which 19 the third-party administrator made, and the award which was 20 subsequently made by the Court, and she confirmed the -- the 21 monetary aspects of it, I believe, in a memo to me at the 22 end of last month. I have some questions about the 23 administrative service agreement. It was forwarded, I know, 24 to the County Attorney's office, and last time I talked to 25 the County Attorney's office, he was requesting certain 4-12-04 41 1 information. I don't know whether there's been any response 2 to that or not. Do you know, Mr. Feary, whether or not the 3 information that you or Mr. Motley requested has been 4 received? 5 MR. FEARY: No, Judge, I do not. As far as I 6 know, it has not yet been -- 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Okay. I think, 8 basically, it had to do with the -- the bid information 9 that -- the bids that were submitted, and secondly, the 10 awards that were made after our consultant review. Is that 11 correct, Mr. Feary? 12 MR. FEARY: That is correct, yes, Your Honor. 13 MS. NEMEC: May I ask who the request was 14 made to? 'Cause we haven't received anything. Do you know 15 who the request was made to? You haven't received it, and 16 if you're waiting on my office, we haven't received a 17 request, so -- 18 MR. FEARY: No, I do not. I recall an 19 initial discussion that it was going to be requested, and I 20 don't know whether it was to be from Ms. Nemec's office or 21 from another source, outside -- 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 23 MR. FEARY: -- consultant. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I -- I'm confused. 25 I mean, this is -- was on the agenda, I thought, directing 4-12-04 42 1 you to sign it two months ago. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: February? 4 JUDGE TINLEY: February. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I guess I don't 6 understand what the holdup is. I think this is a -- this is 7 important to our employees, 'cause it's our insurance 8 coverage, and I don't understand what the delay is. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I have some questions 10 about it myself, and maybe somebody can answer them today. 11 On Page 4 of the proposed agreement, there's a plan document 12 fee with a -- a request that one option be selected, and in 13 my review of the -- what meager copies I have about the 14 analysis that was made by our consultant, and also in the 15 submission by E.B.A., I don't find that there's provision 16 for such a fee to be charged. Maybe I'm missing something. 17 Like I say, I don't have all that documentation. And that's 18 the reason I requested that the -- that the Treasurer, as 19 the employee benefits ad -- as the employee benefits 20 officer, confirm those items, and requested her to do so. 21 If that is an item that -- that we're obligated for, I'm not 22 aware of it. 23 The other item that I see in the agreement, 24 it provides for a three-year agreement. I'm not aware that 25 this Court is able to make a three-year agreement to 4-12-04 43 1 obligate funds of future courts, future budgets, firstly. 2 Secondly, my understanding of the proposal that was 3 submitted and the subsequent award was based upon a one-year 4 agreement. There was a -- a guarantee issued by E.B.A. that 5 they would freeze their administrative costs for three years 6 in their submission, but that certainly didn't -- didn't 7 make it a three-year agreement. So, that concerns me. The 8 termination clause of the existing contract, of course, is 9 tied to a three-year agreement, and provides automatic 10 renewability unless there's 30 days written notice prior to 11 the anniversary date, rather than 30 days written notice at 12 any time. Those are some of the things that I'm concerned 13 about. And -- and, as I say, I don't have access to the 14 documents that I feel like are absolutely essential to 15 confirm that it does, in fact, conform to the bid that was 16 made, and -- and the award that was granted by this Court. 17 And that's the reason I requested the benefits officer do 18 that. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree. I don't 20 understand the contract for three years; I thought it was 21 one year. But on the other issue -- I mean, but on the bid 22 documents, my understanding was that all the information was 23 sent to Mr. Gray, and that he -- after he looked at it, he 24 sent everything back to Kerr County, so I don't see why we 25 can't find the documents. 4-12-04 44 1 MS. NEMEC: They're in my office. No one's 2 asked me for them yet, unless the request came in last week 3 while I was at conference. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, my recommendation 5 is that the County Treasurer provide all documents to the 6 County Attorney and let's get done with this. I mean, I 7 think this is something we need to -- I mean, I think it's 8 been hanging around way too long. I'll so move. 9 MS. NEMEC: I'll get it to him today. 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that 12 the County Treasurer, as employee benefits officer, provide 13 all the documentation to the County Attorney in order to 14 analyze the administrative services agreement, and for the 15 County Attorney to then make that analysis and present it to 16 the Court. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: At our next meeting. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, will the County 19 Attorney -- will he be in need of your concerns? Specific 20 concerns? 21 JUDGE TINLEY: I can sure make them available 22 to him. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I would hope that they 24 would address what you're concerned about, and so we don't 25 have to do this again. 4-12-04 45 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I really hope -- my 3 intent is that we can get this settled and done at our next 4 meeting. I think it should have been done long ago. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: I'll bring it to the attention 6 of the County Attorney, what my concerns are. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Super. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or 9 discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 10 your right hand. 11 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 12 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 13 (No response.) 14 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Next 15 item on the agenda is consider and discuss adopting the Kerr 16 County Safety Policy Statement and Safety Committee members. 17 Ms. Nemec? 18 MS. NEMEC: Okay. As a result of getting 19 this $17,856 check this morning, there were several things 20 that had to be in place, and one of them -- or in the 21 process of being in place, and one of them is adopting a 22 Safety Policy Statement and adopting the Safety Committee 23 members. So, this is the Safety Policy Statement that you 24 have there, along with the members, and we need to adopt 25 this and post this at every county building that we have. 4-12-04 46 1 So, that is what is before you. I will have to -- once it's 2 adopted, if the Court considers these names, I will have to 3 make another form, because the required -- your required 4 signature is -- is required on this document, so I'll bring 5 that back later to you all. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Move for approval. 7 MS. NEMEC: Not for approval. I'm here for 8 approval today, but if you can approve it based on this 9 document having the lines for your signature -- 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's exactly right. 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion -- I'm sorry. Motion 13 made and seconded for approval of the agenda item, and the 14 policy statement with signatories on each of the Safety 15 Committee members. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the -- there's a typo 17 that -- on the second paragraph. 18 MS. NEMEC: "To manage." Yeah, I've caught 19 that one on mine. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: I want to thank Ms. Nemec for 21 all of her work on this. She's been kind of thrown in the 22 breach here of late with our -- all of our safety emphasis. 23 She's been responsible for the safety meetings, and we've 24 had some safety training that's going on that she's been 25 kind of riding herd on, and I appreciate that. And she's -- 4-12-04 47 1 she's been doing the yeoman's work on this, and I want to 2 thank her for that. 3 MS. NEMEC: Thank you. My assistant has 4 helped me greatly. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions or 6 discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 7 your right hand. 8 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 9 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 10 (No response.) 11 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Thank 12 you, Ms. Nemec. 13 MS. NEMEC: Thank you. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: The next item on the agenda is 15 consider and discuss a budget amendment of -- oops. 16 consider and discuss whether or not January 2, 2004, is to 17 be considered an official County holiday, Item 8 on the 18 agenda. 19 MS. NEMEC: Okay. The problem we have here 20 is, this was not an official, so-to-speak, holiday. It was 21 just kind of brought up, I think, by several elected 22 officials that they were going to close their office, and so 23 the problem I have now is with timesheets that were turned 24 in. Some -- some employees did not work, and those who did 25 not work either put -- charged it against -- or put that it 4-12-04 48 1 was a holiday. Some employees that did not work charged it 2 against their vacation, some charged it against their comp 3 time, and some employees actually worked. So, when these 4 timesheets get audited in September, we're going to have a 5 problem. So, in order to prevent a problem in September, 6 I'm here to, I guess, ask that January 2nd be declared an 7 official County holiday so we can get all these timesheets 8 in order. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The holiday document 10 in the budget does not include January 2nd. 11 MS. NEMEC: It does not. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And what's the second 13 question, then? 14 MS. NEMEC: Okay. Well, I guess we need to 15 discuss it, whether you -- whether the Court wants to make 16 it an official holiday or whether I send letters back to 17 these people who marked "holiday" on there and ask them to 18 either charge it to comp or vacation. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the issue came 20 up -- I mean, I was asked by several elected officials. I 21 told them if they wanted to close, that's their prerogative; 22 I think they can do whatever they want in their offices. 23 You know, that's just -- that was my feeling on it. I mean, 24 I personally don't have a problem with it being a holiday. 25 I think that it was a date that not much was being done. I 4-12-04 49 1 think most people were off. I don't think it's really fair 2 to those that -- 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm not going to vote 4 for that, but -- 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, you know, that's -- 6 whether it's a comp day or -- anyway, I look at it as 7 something each department could handle their own way. 8 MS. NEMEC: Well, I'm just trying to protect 9 myself. Like I said, when we do get audited -- they do 10 audit these timesheets, and we will be written up for it if 11 some are charged in a different way. So, I just want to 12 bring it to the Court and put it in the minutes that this 13 has been addressed. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that the -- I 15 mean, to me, the way to handle it -- or what was done is 16 that it is not an official holiday. If an elected official 17 chose to give it as a personal day, they chose to give it as 18 a personal day. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I see that, you 20 know, the -- we vote hundreds -- literally, hundreds, maybe 21 thousands of times a year, and the single most important 22 vote is on that budget book. And this -- the holiday 23 document is a part of that -- of that budget, and it's -- I 24 can't see being wishy-washy about that. I don't understand 25 this at all. It's either a holiday or it's not a holiday. 4-12-04 50 1 And I -- and coming back and changing it in April just 2 doesn't make sense to me. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Couldn't agree with you more, 4 Commissioner. We designated the holidays prior to last 5 October, at the beginning of this current fiscal year. 6 And -- 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Everybody understands 8 it. 9 MS. NEMEC: The other problem that we have 10 here is that there's -- I'm sure that there's going to be 11 several employees that are going to complain if their 12 department did not give them a personal day and they had to 13 charge it as a holiday or they had to charge it as comp or 14 vacation, or they actually worked. They make the complaint 15 against this county. All employees need to be treated 16 equally, and if they make a complaint that they weren't, 17 it's not going to be against their individual department, 18 it's going to be against Kerr County. So, I just want to 19 make you aware of that, that that is -- 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Now we're being 21 threatened because we're trying to stand on -- on some 22 principle here? 23 MS. NEMEC: Well, no. We're being threatened 24 because some departments did not abide by the policy -- by 25 the budget book. 4-12-04 51 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That makes me hold my 2 neck up even stronger. 3 MS. NEMEC: It's going to come down to Kerr 4 County, not that department. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Bring it on. 6 MS. NEMEC: It's unfortunate. I agree 7 completely with what y'all were saying. I'm just letting 8 you know what's -- what's out there. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it was -- at the 10 time, we said, "If y'all choose to close your office 11 individually, you can do what you want; it's your office." 12 But, I mean, it's not a county holiday. If they want to 13 give personal days -- and I don't know how they handle it -- 14 that's up to them. I mean, I -- 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with that. I 16 agree with that, you know, to do what they want to. But you 17 can't get paid because they decide that some day's a 18 holiday. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Do we even need to take any -- 20 any -- 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Not to my knowledge. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: -- action to affirm that it 23 was not a holiday, having -- having established what the 24 holiday schedule was earlier? 25 MS. NEMEC: I don't think so, no. 4-12-04 52 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Is there a motion to be 2 offered on this, gentlemen? If not, we'll move on. Next 3 item -- 4 MS. NEMEC: Thank you. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: -- on the agenda -- thank you. 6 Next item is consideration and discussion of an amendment of 7 Constable Precinct 3 Capital Outlay items to acquire a 8 radio. Constable Garza, thank you for being with us this 9 morning. 10 MR. GARZA: Good morning, Commissioners and 11 Judge. I'd like to just give you first my monthly report, 12 if I can, please. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, sir. 14 MR. GARZA: Yes, sir. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you very much. 16 MR. GARZA: Yes, sir. This is one for 17 Commissioner Williams. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 19 MR. GARZA: Morning, Commissioner. 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Constable Garza? 21 MR. GARZA: Yes, sir? 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Are you able to 23 always receive calls on your radio? 24 MR. GARZA: Yes, your -- Commissioner. 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No spots in your 4-12-04 53 1 area where you -- where you can't get a call? 2 MR. GARZA: Yeah, there is spots in my area. 3 The main question with that radio, it's an older model radio 4 that was given to me by the Sheriff's office. It -- the 5 speaker on it is very weak. At times I have to turn it up 6 full blast to hear. I was part of the chase on -- on 7 March 1st with the felony pursuit there in Ingram. On the 8 interstate, I picked up a trooper in the pursuit, and the 9 radio -- I had it full blast, and the -- you know, with the 10 sirens and everything going, I had a hard time trying to 11 keep up. But it is, in spots, kind of weak. I do patrol 12 out in my precinct, which is eastern Kerr County, and at 13 times I do get, you know, spots where I don't get traffic. 14 I do have a portable also, thanks to Commissioners Court, 15 but the radio is weak in spots, and I'm just concerned about 16 my safety. And it also does have a digital readout of 17 exactly what -- I guess, displays what channel I'm actually 18 speaking to; like, it will say "Sheriff's Office" or "P.D.," 19 whereas the radio I have now is just numbers. Sometimes, 20 you know, I could be driving, you know, a call comes up. 21 I'm not sure exactly if -- I got to make sure I can 22 remember, okay, Channel 6 is P.D., Channel 1 is S.O., 23 Channel 2 is Sheriff's Office secondary channel. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: My feeling is -- I mean, 25 I think you may very well need a new radio, but it's a 4-12-04 54 1 budget item. We need to do it during the budget process. 2 That's -- you know, that's just where I think we are. 3 Otherwise if we -- I mean, if we open this up, I mean, if 4 you have -- if it's, you know, clearly broken and not 5 working, that's one issue. But if it just needs to be, you 6 know, upgraded, which is what it sounds like to me, I think 7 that opens up the door for budget amendments in this area, 8 you know, throughout. Now, you -- I do note you have some 9 money left in Capital Outlay. Why do you have the excess? 10 MR. GARZA: Well, I've been very frugal with 11 the money there, sir. On a lot of the items that were -- 12 like the radar and the -- the radio installation for the 13 constables, I actually installed myself to try to save some 14 money in the budget. So, I was trying to be frugal with 15 that, so I saved the labor costs that the Advantage 16 Communications would have charged me for installing the 17 radar. And when -- also, when I got this radio, installing 18 this radio, I installed it myself and saved -- I think it 19 was at least $150 on both items, as far as being installed. 20 So, I was trying to just be frugal with the budget. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We applaud you for being 22 frugal. 23 MR. GARZA: Yes, sir. I'm a taxpayer too, so 24 I -- you know, I'm just trying to make sure that we, you 25 know, account for every penny. I'm very -- you know, just 4-12-04 55 1 try to be as efficient as I can with County funds that I 2 have in my possession. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: If you do make -- or if 4 we were to approve it, you're not going to be short on any 5 of the other items in your budget? 6 MR. GARZA: I can't say, Commissioner. One 7 of the items is -- 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Vehicle repair. 9 MR. GARZA: -- repair and maintenance. I do 10 have a brand new vehicle. The money there I've been using 11 to -- for the gas and oil changes. It is under warranty at 12 this time. Including -- I've also gone to a -- the County 13 goes to one place to get the oil and gas changed. I go to a 14 different place, 'cause I think I found a better location 15 and a little cheaper. So -- 16 JUDGE TINLEY: What you're proposing to do 17 is -- is not to charge any excess costs of this radio 18 against anything outside of your own budget; you're going to 19 scrounge it from within your own budget? 20 MR. GARZA: Yes, sir, that's what I'm trying 21 to do. And I gave you a proposal; I don't know if you have 22 it in front of you. They did gave me a bid. It was $440. 23 The antenna was $48, installation was $65. I can -- I still 24 have the old antenna that I've got for the radio I have, so 25 no antenna. Basically, just $440. I would install it 4-12-04 56 1 myself. It's programmed, and I would just -- I'll install 2 it myself in my own vehicle. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Angel, are you 4 considering this a safety issue? 5 MR. GARZA: In a way, Commissioner, I -- I am 6 in a way. I just feel that I do have a -- the radio is 7 adequate that I have, but it's an older model radio that I 8 was given by the Sheriff's Office. Like I said, the speaker 9 on it is very -- you know, I have to turn it up all the way, 10 you know, sometimes to hear the -- to hear better. And, you 11 know, at times it -- some spots out there, it is a little 12 weak. I think it's a 25-watt radio. The radio that I'm 13 looking at is a 40-watt radio; it's a stronger radio. The 14 Sheriff's Office has a newer model radio that they buy for 15 their new cars when they get them, you know, bought for the 16 County. This would just be an upgraded model. That's -- 17 JUDGE TINLEY: You'd feel more secure if you 18 had this newer radio, being able to hear it better and 19 knowing that you didn't have the dead spots? 20 MR. GARZA: I feel I would, sir. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 22 MR. GARZA: I just feel like it would just be 23 an upgraded radio. I think, you know, the features on it, 24 too, has some extra features on it, such as I can have it 25 hooked up to the outside speaker, so when I'm out on a 4-12-04 57 1 traffic stop on the interstate, you know, I'd be -- besides 2 my portable, it will have -- like, I can hear it a little 3 better. But that's what I'm looking at, you know. It's 4 just -- I'm just here just to ask for it, if -- and go from 5 there. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do you have any -- what 7 do you see on the horizon in your budget for next year for 8 Capital Outlay? Anything? 9 MR. GARZA: Yes, sir. Hopefully, matching 10 funds for a video -- video recorder for the -- the vehicle. 11 I mean, like I said, I'm out there and, you know, I do make 12 a lot of stops at night. Mainly at night. You know, during 13 the day, a few, but at nighttime, you know, I just want to 14 have more documentation on my stops. And that was one of 15 the items that we had to cut out to get the cars, but I felt 16 that it was -- it was worth it to get the vehicles, to get a 17 little bit more, you know, visibility in my precinct and my 18 constituents, that that would be the main thing. I think 19 that this upcoming budget that I'm looking at would be the 20 video camera for my vehicle. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think Commissioner 22 Nicholson has asked an excellent question about reception 23 and blind spots and those kinds of things, after we have 24 spent a million dollars on a radio system in the Sheriff's 25 Office where we're supposed to have 98 percent coverage in 4-12-04 58 1 the county. I think it's time that we maybe we had a talk 2 about that and make sure that we're getting -- that these 3 guys have the coverage that we were promised to get. I 4 never have heard whether that -- what has happened in the 5 final analysis of it. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: A few weeks ago, 7 KARFA officials put together a package to try to get a grant 8 for -- to buy three repeaters, and they didn't get it in in 9 time. The deadline passed. Maybe there's a -- maybe 10 there's another time they can do that. But their -- their 11 rationale is that in the eastern part of the county and the 12 western part of the county, there are dead spots where 13 they -- where they lose contact with the Sheriff's Office or 14 the EMS or dispatch. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: I think Constable Garza's 16 concern is not the equipment that the Sheriff's Office has. 17 They have newer radios in their units and have the greater 18 power. That's what he's lacking, is his ability to 19 communicate with them because of just the equipment he has 20 in his unit. 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, I think 22 they're two separate issues. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Yeah. 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If there are dead 25 spots out there, a new radio is not going to fix it, 'cause 4-12-04 59 1 some of these other outfits have got terrific radios. So, 2 it's two different issues. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, he now has a 4 25-watt, and the new one's a 45-watt. 5 MR. GARZA: It has the ability of 25 and 6 40 watts; 25 watts, like, when you're in the city. Like, 7 that way, it's -- you don't overpower the system. But, you 8 know, 40 watts I can switch it over to, you know, when I'm 9 out there. It's just a little bit stronger reception. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 45. 11 MR. GARZA: Or 45, I'm sorry. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I -- I'm torn on 13 this. I think that it's a -- I don't like things that 14 aren't in during the budget, but you are finding the money 15 within your own budget, so I'll go ahead and -- 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- move approval. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 19 approval of the -- of the amendment as requested by the 20 constable. Any further question or discussion? 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 22 MR. GARZA: Yes, sir? 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If you go through 24 Menard or if you see a Menard Sheriff's Office car in this 25 town, write them a ticket. (Laughter.) 4-12-04 60 1 MR. GARZA: Yes, sir. I did get somebody 2 from Pecos County, and he was -- I don't know. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's close enough. 4 MR. GARZA: He was very upset with me the 5 other day. But, you know, he was going over the speed 6 limit. Thank you very much. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions or 8 discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 9 your right hand. 10 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 11 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 12 (No response.) 13 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Thank 14 you, Constable. 15 MR. GARZA: Thank you, Your Honor. Thank 16 you, Commissioners. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you for being here. 18 Next item on the agenda is consider and discuss approval of 19 the contract to participate in Failure to Appear Program of 20 the Texas Department of Public Safety, and authorize the 21 County Judge to sign the same. I was advised by the 22 Department of Public Safety last week that they are 23 discontinuing their Warrants program. What that had 24 consisted of was, if an out-of-county resident, for example, 25 was issued a ticket or a citation by some of our in-county 4-12-04 61 1 officers, and they were from out of county and went on about 2 their business and just gave us a general "leave them alone" 3 and not -- not responding, the Justice of the Peace had the 4 ability to input a warrant for that individual into the 5 statewide D.P.S. computer system, and if that individual 6 were subsequently stopped and records run anywhere in the 7 state by a D.P.S. trooper, there would be an outstanding 8 warrant shown, and all sorts of things would happen. The 9 individual would either be required to take care of the 10 matter right then and there, or they would be arrested and 11 incarcerated. 12 The D.P.S. elected, because of some legal 13 issues, to terminate that program. What they did instead 14 was contracted with a third-party provider that's listed in 15 the materials; I believe it's Omni Systems or something of 16 that nature. And that provider would maintain a database 17 that those jurisdictions, be they J.P.'s or -- or 18 municipalities, could opt to be a part of and transmit this 19 information into that database. That database would then be 20 utilized not as a database for warrants, but as a 21 prohibition for driver's license renewal within the D.P.S. 22 system, so that when that same individual went to renew his 23 or her driver's license, they would be told that they had 24 some business they needed to take care of. And, according 25 to the D.P.S. sergeant that I talked with, they would be 4-12-04 62 1 issued a temporary permit for 60 days, within which to get 2 that solved. If they did not, they were there after driving 3 with a -- while license invalid, and would be subject to a 4 Class B misdemeanor. A number of jurisdictions have opted 5 into that. What it would require is for the Court to 6 approve the interlocal agreement between the County and 7 D.P.S., and then each J.P., as that J.P. saw fit, could opt 8 into the system, and it's all handled electronically. The 9 cost in -- in doing this is via an administrative fee that's 10 tagged on top -- 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 30 bucks. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: $30, a small portion of which 13 would come back to Kerr County in each instance. I believe 14 it's a $4 part would come back. $20 would go to the State. 15 $6 would go to the provider that maintained the database in 16 each case. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I would prefer 18 that we remain with the system of when a police officer 19 pulls somebody over, that the information comes up and get 20 them right there; however, we don't have a choice. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: The -- the Department of 22 Public Safety says there's a legal issue involved. 23 Heretofore, what's happened was that when they would stop an 24 individual, run his driver's license, and if they found that 25 there was an outstanding warrant, they -- they would tell 4-12-04 63 1 that driver, "You've got some outstanding business to take 2 care of, and you got two choices. You can be under arrest 3 and go to the local hoosegow, or you can write a cashier's 4 check or money order in the amount of" -- whatever it 5 happened to be. The trooper would receipt for that, and 6 then the trooper would be responsible for transmittal of 7 that amount to the court where the obligation was 8 outstanding. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Trooper's not a court. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, that was the problem 11 that they finally woke up to. That would be tantamount to 12 accepting a plea, and a magistrate is the only one who can 13 accept a plea. So, the D.P.S. says, "No mas. No more." 14 That's how we got -- 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We don't have a lot of 16 choice. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: No, they have discontinued the 19 warrants program. It's gone. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Correct. Well, I move 21 that we participate in the Failure to Appear Program with 22 D.P.S. and authorize the County Judge to sign it. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 25 approval of the agenda item. Any further questions or 4-12-04 64 1 discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 2 your right hand. 3 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 4 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 5 (No response.) 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. 7 (Discussion off the record.) 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Next item, consideration and 9 discussion of approval of electric line easement and 10 right-of-way, and authorization for the County Judge to sign 11 the same. This relates to the lease property out at the 12 Youth Exhibit Center that's under lease to the Arts and 13 Crafts Foundation. It's detailed in your -- in your 14 materials, and -- 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I move approval of 16 the right-of-way easement with KPUB and authorize County 17 Judge to sign same. 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 20 approval of the agenda item. Any further question or 21 discussion? All in favor, signify by raising your right 22 hand. 23 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 24 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 25 (No response.) 4-12-04 65 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Next item 2 is consideration and discussion, approving the Earth Day 3 Proclamation as requested by the Riverside Nature Center. 4 We do have a speaker here. Ms. Bailey? 5 MS. BAILEY: Thank you, Your Honor. Good 6 morning, Judge and Commissioners. For the record, my name 7 is Ilse Bailey, and I'm appearing before you this morning as 8 the secretary of the Board of Directors for the Riverside 9 Nature Center, and I'm here to express our appreciation for 10 your willingness to issue this proclamation declaring 11 April 24th Earth Day in Kerr County. As you know, we're 12 having a -- a community-wide Earth Day celebration at the 13 Riverside Nature Center on that day. The actual Earth Day 14 is April 21st, I believe, but we'd like to have it on a 15 weekend day. The major sponsors of the event are Riverside 16 Nature Center Association, the Native Plant Society of 17 Texas, Upper Guadalupe River Authority, the City of 18 Kerrville, and Headwaters Groundwater Conservation District. 19 On the day in question, we will have a large native plant 20 sale and what we like to call nearly native plants that are 21 adapted to this climate, educational presentations, 22 children's activities, food and beverages and music. 23 Promises to be a fun event for everyone, and we would like 24 to invite all of you, as well as members of the public to 25 attend. And, again, thank you for the proclamation. 4-12-04 66 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 4 approval of the agenda item. Any further question or 5 discussion? 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just a quick comment. I 7 appreciated Ms. Bailey's letter -- letter to the editor 8 regarding the damage done out -- I wasn't aware what was 9 done, the vandalism to the Nature Center, and I appreciate 10 you just informing the public, and hope y'all -- 11 MS. BAILEY: We're hopeful that that will 12 bring someone forward to find out, because we've been very 13 fortunate in the past, not having any vandalism. So -- 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Very sad that happened. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions or 16 discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 17 your right hand. 18 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 19 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 20 (No response.) 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. At this 22 point, why don't we go into our mid-morning recess? We'll 23 -- we'll stand in recess until -- he's standing. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm in recess. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Till, oh, approximately 15 4-12-04 67 1 before the hour. 2 (Recess taken from 10:31 a.m. to 10:45 a.m.) 3 - - - - - - - - - - 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's come back to 5 order. We went into recess a little bit after 10:30 until 6 approximately quarter until the hour, which it is now. Next 7 item on the agenda is consideration and approval to 8 authorize staff to enter into a contract to erect airport 9 fencing. Mr. Pearce. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, Dave, before you 11 start, let me just make a comment. On the next three, all 12 three of these items have been presented, discussed at 13 Airport Board meetings, and we're familiar with them, and 14 have been approved by the Airport Board, and are being sent 15 both to us and the City for -- for review and approval. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, thank you. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Also, on that topic of 18 approval, the committee that was authorized by this Court 19 regarding the governance issue at the airport, it has met 20 and it is meeting on a regular basis. We've had some good 21 meetings so far, and I would say within the next month to 22 six weeks, we should have a -- a new governance agreement 23 ironed out between the City, current Board, and this 24 Commissioners Court as to how to run the airport. I think 25 it's turned out to be very productive, and it'll be -- I 4-12-04 68 1 think it will work out for the best. 2 MR. PEARCE: Good morning, Judge and 3 Commissioners. This first item on your agenda is for the 4 fencing of the airport. As you recall, last year you 5 authorized us to pursue the fencing. We had two years of 6 entitlement money that we combined, and also some R.A.M.P. 7 money; gives us $357,000 to do airport fencing. It's chain 8 link fencing that goes around the entire airport. We are 9 extremely pleased with this. We bid the project. It was 10 quite extensive and lengthy with respect to F.A.A. specs and 11 all of the things that are in there for the requirements for 12 D.B.E. and for the requirements for the bidding. I was real 13 worried that after it went out and it was advertised, that 14 steel prices shot through the roof, and I thought I was 15 going to choke. However, out of the folks that picked up 16 packages -- we had 25 people that picked up packages -- we 17 had eight people that actually responded, and our low bid 18 was $19.25 a linear foot, which is substantially cheaper 19 than when we did that small section last year, which I'm 20 extremely pleased with. 21 This will allow us -- and in your packet, you 22 should see that lengthy picture in the back. This will 23 allow us to do the items that are in blue. About 80 to 85 24 percent of the airport will be fenced with this. We also, 25 on the contract, had them lock into a price for two years, 4-12-04 69 1 so if we get additional funding, we're able to get it at the 2 same rate, which made it attractive for the -- for the 3 airport; makes it attractive for the contractor, 'cause they 4 knew when they bid this job that they would -- they would 5 have the whole enchilada, so to speak. So, I'm real pleased 6 with this. It's exactly what we had hoped for -- better 7 than what we had hoped for, and we're asking that -- if you 8 would authorize us to enter into the contract. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Dave, can you -- I know 10 you have the backup in here on all of the eight people that 11 bid on this project. Can you give us the -- I guess the 12 difference between the first and the second bid, the bidder 13 we're accepting? 14 MR. PEARCE: Yes, sir. This is absolutely 15 amazing. $19.25 was the low bid. The high bid was $42 a 16 linear foot. The difference in that is about $400,000. We 17 had -- the middle range seemed to be $26, $27, $28 a linear 18 foot. There was three people in that range also. What's 19 good about this is every one of the folks that bid had a 20 bond, a bid bond. It is a bonded project, so we're 21 protected on that. And we're just, again, thrilled with the 22 low bidder. That -- that's quite a spread. I mean, my 23 first fear was, okay, let's go back and validate the -- you 24 know, all the criteria, and they are bonded. So, good to 25 go. 4-12-04 70 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: David, did any local 2 construction companies bid on this project? 3 MR. PEARCE: No, sir. This -- this 4 construction company was from Eagle Pass, and we did not 5 have any local construction companies. We advertised. I 6 sent them to a number of folks. I was really hoping to see 7 a couple -- couple of folks here, but their -- their 8 feelings were that true fence companies were going to take 9 this -- this job, that we geared up with them. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and approval -- 13 seconded for approval of the agenda item. 14 MR. PEARCE: And if you'll bear with me, 15 Judge, I know in your -- your transferring with Thea being 16 gone, they asked me to hold the originals and give these to 17 you, so Jannett didn't have that. These are the ones that 18 were signed by -- I'm sorry -- County Attorney and all of 19 that. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or 21 discussion on the motion? All in favor -- 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question. And the County 23 Attorney has reviewed these? 24 MR. PEARCE: Yes, sir, and that -- and has 25 signed, yes. 4-12-04 71 1 JUDGE TINLEY: All in favor of the motion, 2 signify by raising your right hand. 3 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 4 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 5 (No response.) 6 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Thank 7 you very much, Mr. Pearce. 8 MR. PEARCE: Okay. And the next one, Judge 9 and Commissioners -- 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Let me go ahead and do the 11 agenda item. I apologize. Next item is resolution 12 authorizing the Airport Manager to pursue funding avenues in 13 order to proceed with identified airport capital 14 improvements. Proceed. 15 MR. PEARCE: Judge and Commissioners, this 16 next item is in our pursuit for funds, one of the things 17 that we do is we try to get on the TexDOT and the F.A.A. 18 laundry list, if you will, so we can pursue grant-type 19 fundings, which are 90/10. Certainly does help when we have 20 -- and I think this is a very positive step when we have the 21 County and the City also behind us on a resolution, it puts 22 a lot more horsepower behind it. It's a request to get us 23 into the funding cycle, if you will. And there's three 24 areas on there. I know the back of your package looks 25 pretty busy, and you have this item here on the back with a 4-12-04 72 1 lot of colors and stuff on it. Let me just kind of walk you 2 through those three items, and I know we addressed this when 3 -- when Dr. Davis and myself were here in the pursuit -- in 4 addressing some of the future projects when we briefed the 5 Court approximately two months ago. 6 First one has to do with our Airport Layout 7 Plan, and if you look at the very -- toward the bottom, you 8 see kind of a drafted-in -- sketched-in relocation of 9 Highway 27, if you will. That was placed on the Airport 10 Layout Plan because of some penetrations that have to do 11 with airport approaches and also future approaches which 12 were precision. One of the things that -- when they did the 13 Airport Master Plan about three years ago, this was kind of 14 incorporated in the document, but I don't think it was 15 communicated well enough what the impact would be and what 16 needed to happen to have this accepted. TexDOT Aviation 17 Department addressed it, and did put in that they had not 18 intended on moving the road, but what wasn't communicated 19 was the fact that approval for any modification to design 20 standards, which is what the F.A.A. terms this on an 21 airport, has to come from the F.A.A. 22 We have requested the modification to design 23 standards, which is something that is annotated here on this 24 document, that we need to go in to request this. And what 25 that would do is allow the highway to sit in its present 4-12-04 73 1 condition, but approve where it's located, and we can go on 2 with future funding issues and runway extensions and 3 different approaches. However, if the F.A.A. elects not to 4 approve this modification, then we've got to tackle some 5 other issues here which pursue funding to relocate the road, 6 or to do something different. We had a -- Dr. Davis hosted 7 a meeting with TexDOT and Commissioner Williams. We did 8 talk about -- that's TexDOT Highway Department. We did talk 9 about the possibilities of -- of road relocation or some 10 areas of penetration, and they were very favorable, as far 11 as the discussion, but we have to wait for a response from 12 the F.A.A. before pursuing that any further. 13 My position has always been, in communicating 14 to the F.A.A. and TexDOT, this is not an issue that they 15 need to decide to sweep under the rug. What we have to do 16 is we need to identify what the problems are, identify what 17 the options are, and then the owners make the decision from 18 there on what we need to do, and that is what I'm trying to 19 do right now at this point. Then we can come to the 20 Commissioners Court, we can go to the City Council. And, if 21 so, if there's some things that need to be relocated, if 22 there's some joint funding objectives, if there's some 23 outside requests that go in from senators and congressional 24 folks, which are also options, that would be a decision of 25 this Court to make at that time. So, I want to make sure 4-12-04 74 1 that we communicate the options that we have and that you 2 have all the information for the ability to take it from 3 there. 4 In addition to that, one of the things -- if 5 you look right in the middle of that east-west runway, you 6 see a taxiway and then a sketched-in taxiway just above 7 that. That taxiway has always been looked at to relocate 8 it, 'cause it has to go further away from the main runway 9 for a precision approach. The -- the existing taxiway is 10 not up to standards. We are basically nursing it, if you 11 will. We did not do an overlay at this time, because we 12 don't need it to be relocated; at the same time, to look at 13 lighting. This is on the future planning document, but what 14 we're trying to do is now say, "Okay, TexDOT, F.A.A., we 15 want to -- we want to pursue the 90/10 funding for this. 16 Get us on your document. Let's start looking ahead." In 17 other words, we're trying to say these are our priorities. 18 We need you to start putting them into the funding cycle, 19 and this is important to us. 20 And then, along with that, I believe the last 21 item on there, if you will, was the MALSR. And I know we 22 always use terms; if you ever had a -- a medical doctor and 23 an airport person, you'd probably never be able to 24 understand them. But the MALSR's basically are -- if you go 25 into a large airport and you see -- or you've seen on movies 4-12-04 75 1 where those white lights that come in at the end of the 2 runways, and folks will fly and then land on the runway, and 3 that gives them a visual location of the runway. That's 4 utilized in instrument approaches, and we would like to have 5 those also identified in our funding cycles. So, this is 6 not a commitment of funds. This is saying that these 7 projects are important to us; we'd like you to put them on 8 your funding document. We'd like to -- for you to put us in 9 the ticket line, if you will, and start pushing forward 10 to -- to take care of these. And with the support of the 11 Commissioners here, and also with the City Council tomorrow, 12 the Board, I think that we stand a very good chance of 13 seeing these -- these funding issues popping up here in the 14 next couple years. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Pearce, am I to understand 16 that the existing situation which we presently have on the 17 ground out there, that the clear zones that we're required 18 to have in order to get these various navigational aids and 19 landing systems and so forth, that we're not totally in 20 compliance with F.A.A. requirements to -- to have those 21 particular items? Am I to understand you correctly? 22 MR. PEARCE: Yes, sir, that is correct. And 23 there is some penetrations there, and what we're trying to 24 do is say, "Give it to us in writing that it's acceptable." 25 There's a certain criteria for every airport, for every 4-12-04 76 1 runway, for every type of airplane that comes in, and you're 2 supposed to have a certain distance from the runway for 3 penetration for certain types of approaches, depending on 4 how low you can go on an instrument approach. That is 5 dependent on what the obstacles are in the area, and these 6 are identified as being deficiencies, if you will. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 8 MR. PEARCE: And, so, we are saying, "Okay, 9 then, if this is acceptable, then you need to get it to us 10 in writing that it's acceptable." 'Cause there's going to 11 come a time when myself and the Commissioners are not here 12 and there'll be a different group of folks here, and 13 somebody's going to say, "Hey, we're ready to go ahead with 14 this," and the old question is, "Show it to me in writing 15 that we said this is okay." 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Essentially, what you're 17 asking for is, to the extent there are deficiencies, to 18 grant us a variance and say we're okay to proceed? 19 MR. PEARCE: That is the first -- 20 JUDGE TINLEY: For these various types of 21 improvement? 22 MR. PEARCE: Yes, sir, that is the -- the 23 first and utmost priority. If, however, that is not 24 acceptable, then we want a detailed listing of what those 25 deficiencies are and what our options are, if you will, to 4-12-04 77 1 collectively put our heads together and see which option 2 that we want to do. Or we may just say, you know, we don't 3 want to do it; we're going to leave it like it is. But I 4 think that's not a decision for TexDOT Aviation to make. 5 That's not a decision for Dave Pearce to make. That's a 6 decision for the owners to have all the options laid in 7 front of them, and to look at what -- the cost variances. 8 Or there's other avenues, as I mentioned, to have assistance 9 in funding, if it's a funding issue. There's, a lot of 10 times, a straight line item out of a congressional budget or 11 senatorial assistance that can help facilitate additional 12 funding. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: I notice that the clear zones 14 on either end of the main runway appear to be slid a little 15 bit to the south, rather than being equidistant on either 16 side of -- of the runway. Maybe I'm not looking at it 17 correctly. Or maybe it's the taxiway that's got me 18 confused, that makes it appear like it's slid south. Is it, 19 in fact -- 20 MR. PEARCE: It is slid to the south. If you 21 look at the -- the penetration, it's more on the east end of 22 that runway than it is on the west end, to the south of the 23 main east-west runway. So, there are other options that you 24 can do with -- let's say that the -- and I'm just grabbing 25 out of the air here, but let's say the F.A.A. comes back and 4-12-04 78 1 says everything's fine foot-wise, but if you go to the east 2 side, we have penetrations that are not acceptable here on 3 Highway 27, and here they are. It may just be relocating a 4 portion of that. But what we want them to do is to tell us 5 specifically what it is, and then sit down with the Highway 6 Department and -- which we've already had preliminary 7 discussions. They can analyze, and in their future 8 planning, this may -- may accommodate what they're trying to 9 look at in the future anyway, 'cause they're looking at 10 widening, extensions of Highway 27, and possible relocation, 11 so all of this could bubble in together. And I think the 12 important thing here is for everybody to -- to get their 13 cards on the table and talk to each other. And I think 14 Dr. Davis did an outstanding job with Commissioner Williams 15 as far as hosting the meeting with the Highway Department, 16 and we got the preliminary discussions. Now we're waiting 17 for the concrete specifics so we can move forward from there 18 and give you a -- 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are you -- are you 20 waiting on some kind of response from TexDOT now? Or are 21 there -- the real conversations -- 22 MR. PEARCE: I'm waiting for a formal 23 response from the F.A.A. TexDOT forwarded our document to 24 the region, which is -- the south central region of the 25 F.A.A. is Louisiana, Arkansas, New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, 4-12-04 79 1 and that group in its entirety took a look at it, and then 2 it has to forward it on to Washington, D.C. F.A.A. for a 3 modification, or a waiver -- better term -- for the design 4 standards. So, in that portion, I'm waiting for a response 5 from them for us to start pushing forward and staying, okay, 6 let's look at what our options are. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 10 approval of the agenda item. Any questions or discussion? 11 All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right 12 hand. 13 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 14 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 15 (No response.) 16 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Next 17 item, consideration and approval to authorize the execution 18 of Professional Services Agreement pursuant to the Texas 19 Department of Transportation General Aviation Terminal 20 Grant. This is in connection with the terminal that was 21 previously approved. 22 MR. PEARCE: Once again, this is a great time 23 for us, 'cause we're getting to the actual formal stage when 24 we approve the terminal, and Commissioners and City Council 25 approve the terminal that -- well, we received funding for 4-12-04 80 1 back in November. Our next step was to move forward and to 2 get a design consultant to do the preliminary design, if you 3 will, to do the geo-tech and all of that. We followed 4 the -- the guidelines of TexDOT. There was an advertisement 5 for -- for design consultants. We had 13 people that were 6 interested. We had six submittals for that, assessed with 7 point values on all of the -- the individuals, and from 8 there we're ready to award the contract to GRW Willis. I 9 think it was an overwhelming support for him, because he's 10 done 14 of the small TexDOT Aviation terminals, so he's very 11 familiar with the program. He's got an outstanding 12 relationship with TexDOT, and this is state money that goes 13 with that. This really starts the kickoff. Once we have 14 him under contract, if you will, that's when he comes in, 15 starts the meetings with all of the folks. 16 I'm not sure how the -- this Court would like 17 to proceed with that; whether you want two people, to work 18 on it individually, or you want him to work with everybody 19 in open forum. He's amenable to do any of the above. But 20 what will happen is, typically, in a terminal like this, you 21 will have the individual meet with -- with all of the 22 political bodies, airport users in themselves, board 23 members, individuals, then spend some time in the community 24 driving around, looking at what the facades are, what we 25 want to see, because each thing is different. This is our 4-12-04 81 1 gateway to -- to Kerrville. This is our gateway to our 2 community. And then start pulling together all of the 3 specific wants, if you will, and desires for -- and then 4 start doing sketches. 5 From there, the sketches will be done two, 6 three, four times over, and I guess it's same thing as if 7 you were going to build your own house from scratch. And 8 when everybody, then, is approved and the design is 9 acceptable, then he finalizes the blueprints, the plans, 10 goes out for bid, follows the project all the way through. 11 The -- the design consultant is really the hub of everything 12 that we have here. He's an engineer; he does all of the 13 geo-tech survey with it. He follows the project from A to 14 Z. We tell him what we want, we tell him what we don't 15 like, back and forth. And then, when it's all done, he has 16 all the bid documents; he does everything for the 17 construction documents. It is my -- I envision that this 18 will take approximately till August-September to finalize 19 everything and we have an actual good document to bid. At 20 that time, we should get the go-ahead for construction, and 21 then we bid the document and you just continue on with the 22 facility at that point. I'm real excited about this, 23 because now we can start sitting with somebody and start 24 listing out what we need. With that, I'd ask for this 25 Court's approval, and to move forward with us. 4-12-04 82 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move approval of 2 awarding the Professional Services Agreement to -- 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 5 approval of the agenda item. Any further question or 6 discussion? 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask one thing. 8 The agenda item here, is that approving contracting with 9 this company? 10 MR. PEARCE: Yes, sir. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's approving hiring an 12 architect and engineering. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Hiring architect and 14 engineering, and the expenditure of 80 grand. 15 MR. PEARCE: Yes, which is -- 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And what else? 17 MR. PEARCE: And that's it. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Those two items? 19 MR. PEARCE: Those two items. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: And I assume it authorizes me 21 to sign? 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 24 MR. PEARCE: And what I would ask from this 25 Court, if you don't mind, if -- if you have an idea of how 4-12-04 83 1 you would like -- or if you have some folks that you -- I 2 assume possibly Commissioner Letz and Williams would be 3 working with the architect, or maybe you want to approach 4 that differently; if you can include that in your same 5 motion. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know if it 7 needs a motion or not. I think it -- just carry on with the 8 work that you're doing. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. And we'll -- you 10 know, once we get some drawings and -- preliminary drawings, 11 we'll bring them back to the Court at that time, get 12 feedback. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or 14 discussion on the motion and second? All in favor of the 15 motion, signify by raising your right hand. 16 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 17 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 18 (No response.) 19 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Thank 20 you very much. 21 MR. PEARCE: The last of the stacks. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Next item on the agenda 23 is to set a public hearing date for the alternate plat 24 process for Lots 14 and 15 of The Horizon, Section One. 25 MR. JOHNSTON: May 24th. Alternate platting 4-12-04 84 1 process requires a public hearing, and they only have to 2 bring the platting in at the time of final plat, so this is 3 the procedure. Set the date that they can have the hearing, 4 and do the final platting at the same date. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're just combining 6 two lots into one lot? 7 MR. JOHNSTON: Just combining two lots, 8 right. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move we set a public 10 hearing on May 24th at 10 o'clock. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 13 setting public hearing on the agenda item for May 24th at 10 14 a.m. Any further question or discussion? All in favor of 15 the motion, signify by raising your right hand. 16 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 17 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 18 (No response.) 19 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Next 20 item on the agenda is to set a public hearing date for the 21 alternate plat process for Lots 32 and 33 of The Horizon, 22 Section One. 23 MR. JOHNSTON: This is the same issue, set a 24 date for public hearing. Probably 10:15 on the same date. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved. 4-12-04 85 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to 3 set a public hearing for May the 24th, 2004, at 10:15 a.m. 4 on the agenda item. Any further question or discussion? 5 All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right 6 hand. 7 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 8 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 9 (No response.) 10 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Next 11 item on the agenda is to present an engineer's flood study 12 for Lots 42 to 44 of Bumble Bee Hills, consider whether a 13 revision of plat is required for the same. 14 MR. JOHNSTON: We had the engineer, 15 Vordenbaum Engineering -- in fact, Stewart Vordenbaum is 16 here to go over his flood study and answer any questions 17 that you might have concerning it. And then, after that, I 18 might bring up the issue of this -- this site consists of 19 three lots. They want to build one residence on three lots, 20 and they're -- I'm getting the feedback from them that 21 they -- they think they can; they don't need to do a plat 22 revision in order to do that. And it sounds to me like it 23 needs to have a plat -- a lot combination of those three, 24 but I'll bring that to the Court. This is Stewart 25 Vordenbaum, if you have questions concerning -- or if you 4-12-04 86 1 just want him to walk through it or whatever your wish is on 2 it. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What did you do, 4 Stewart? Tell us about it. 5 MR. VORDENBAUM: We looked at -- we did a 6 detailed study, albeit limited, on Bumblebee Creek to 7 determine whether or not the existing fill had any effect 8 on -- on the flow of Bumblebee Creek. The findings are 9 that -- that the fill that's in place has -- has no effect 10 on the flow in Bumblebee Creek. The flooding source, then, 11 would be backwater from the Guadalupe, so the backwater -- 12 we did look at the detailed study on the Guadalupe. If 13 you're at the site, just -- just from the physical 14 appearance of the site downstream, the embankment is higher 15 than the fill that's -- that's in question, so the -- the -- 16 there is no effect on the flow of the Guadalupe for this 17 fill. The question -- 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Say that again, Stewart? 19 I'm sorry, repeat that? I was just looking at this. 20 MR. VORDENBAUM: Just -- let's leave the 21 engineering and everything aside. We have a detailed study 22 on the Guadalupe River with cross-sections. If you're 23 standing at the site looking downstream, the embankment is 24 higher than where you're standing on this site, so the -- as 25 far as the Guadalupe River is concerned, it doesn't even see 4-12-04 87 1 this fill. So, there would be no effect on the detailed 2 study on the Guadalupe because of this fill. We also looked 3 at the flow in Bumblebee, which I'm repeating myself, but it 4 has no effect on that. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 6 MR. VORDENBAUM: The flow did -- just to give 7 you an idea, the flow in the Guadalupe, the 100-year flow, 8 is 129,000 CFS. Bumblebee Creek is 4,500 CFS. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: And did I understand you 10 correctly that there's an embankment on the river itself 11 downstream which has a greater elevation than the fill in 12 question? 13 MR. VORDENBAUM: Yes, sir. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: But that's on the river 15 itself? 16 MR. VORDENBAUM: Yes, sir. We have the 17 original runs -- the computer runs that FEMA used for the 18 runs on the Guadalupe River, and we took a look at the 19 cross-sections and the flows in the Guadalupe also. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And on your diagram here, 21 I mean, you've got the Guadalupe BFE drawn. That's the -- 22 MR. VORDENBAUM: I'm sorry, let me look at 23 what you're pointing at. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's the dotted line 25 right here. 4-12-04 88 1 MR. VORDENBAUM: Right. Right. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that's the flood 3 line. 4 MR. VORDENBAUM: This is the base flood 5 elevation. This -- this is off of the FEMA floodplain map 6 150. So, the BFE, the -- the flood elevation that affects 7 this property is the backwater off the Guadalupe, not -- not 8 the flow in Bumblebee Creek. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But this elevation is -- 10 is still lower than the pad, correct? 11 MR. VORDENBAUM: Yes. Yes. Top of the pad 12 is -- now, we didn't -- we did not address, you know, the 13 house being there, but typically you want the top of the 14 slab at least a foot above this BFE. But the -- the soil 15 that's there is already above it. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, okay. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Maybe I don't understand it 18 correctly. You say the soil that is on the pad now is above 19 the BFE that you measured? 20 MR. VORDENBAUM: Yes, sir. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Off the Guadalupe, which shows 22 it as 1734? 23 MR. VORDENBAUM: Right. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: And I'm looking at -- 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, it's 1735. 4-12-04 89 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Okay. I was looking at 2 the corner fill, 1731 -- okay, I'm seeing where you're 3 talking about now. 34.83, 35.61, 35.24, and -- okay. Okay. 4 Just barely a foot or so above, all right. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I tell you, I think 6 it's great that our engineer's office has this kind of 7 information for future use, and I appreciate Mr. Vordenbaum 8 and Mr. Vlasek both for providing this information for us. 9 This is a lot of information that we didn't have before. 10 MR. JOHNSTON: It all accumulates. It was an 11 unstudied area before, and now -- so this whole portion has 12 been, you know, studied, so now we have more information on 13 it. And the second -- the second part of our -- our agenda 14 is whether or not those lots need to be combined. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think -- 16 MR. JOHNSTON: I think we've always done that 17 in the past, but they come up and said, "Where in the rules 18 does it say you have to do it?" And I don't think it really 19 says that. It just assumes that that will be done. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the issue would 21 come on -- we have requirements on lot lines for 22 construction and septic and things of that nature. 23 MR. JOHNSTON: Right. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And if they situate their 25 house -- 4-12-04 90 1 MR. JOHNSTON: It will cross a line, yes. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, let's say they're 3 going to -- and if it does have a -- cross a line, you need 4 a revision. In other words, you need to get a waiver. But 5 if they configure it where they don't, if they just build on 6 one of the lots, under those requirements, they won't have 7 to. So, it depends on the house they're building, the way I 8 see it. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions for the 10 engineer? 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah, I do. I got a 12 call early this morning from Mrs. Fox, a nearby resident of 13 this building site, and she told me that she had, Saturday 14 night, received the results of a hydrology study that she 15 and some of her neighbors ordered, and it was done by SGA 16 Consulting Services of Spring Branch, Texas. At the -- at 17 the break, Ms. Mary Hart Frost gave me a copy of this report 18 that they just received Saturday night, and I've given you 19 the cover letter, not the backup detail. And it -- and I'm 20 going to ask a question, Mr. Engineer. It appears to 21 conflict the studies done by Mr. Vordenbaum, and I'll read 22 just one paragraph. "The main result of the analysis we 23 performed is that the entire three lots, 42, 43, and 44, on 24 which the fill has been placed will be underwater from back 25 flow from the Guadalupe in events less than the flood of 4-12-04 91 1 record with no flow at all in Bumblebee Creek. There's any 2 number of combinations of creek versus river flood that 3 could put these lots underwater, even with the present fill 4 in place." Do you -- do you need time to consider -- 5 MR. JOHNSTON: First of all, there's really 6 no meaning to the term "flood of record." The flood we're 7 looking at, the universal throughout the county, is 100-year 8 flood. That's a FEMA -- what FEMA requires, and that's what 9 Stewart's report was based on. So, whatever they say the 10 flood of record is, that, you know, could be more or less, 11 but what we're looking at is a 100-year flood, and that's 12 what's required in the floodplain ordinance. 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, you don't 14 believe this work provides you with any more information 15 that would be useful to you? 16 MR. JOHNSTON: I'm just responding to your 17 question there on that particular item. I -- actually, I 18 just had a few minutes and read through it once. I think 19 Stewart had a chance to read it, but there's any number of 20 combinations of -- of -- well, maybe you ought to explain 21 that part of it, Stewart. 22 MR. VORDENBAUM: I read that letter briefly 23 in a few minutes. There's a couple of things -- and I'm not 24 being derogatory at all, but the letter states that the 25 author had just downloaded HEC-RAS and had to become 4-12-04 92 1 familiar with it. I didn't see anything in the report that 2 disagreed with our study. The conflict may be in knowledge 3 of how FEMA operates and what is and is not required in -- 4 in a study like we've submitted to you. We used the HEC-RAS 5 program. We've been using it for approximately 10 years. 6 We have -- our organization has submitted to FEMA over 30 7 similar flood studies which have been approved as submitted. 8 I have not had a chance to study that letter, but the letter 9 refers to the effects of the 100-year flood coming down 10 Bumblebee Creek with some flooding in the Guadalupe. Well, 11 FEMA does not require the scenario of combining flows; this 12 being up, that being up. 13 We -- we just recently submitted a study on 14 Goat Creek, and same scenario where we looked at backwater 15 flow, and also -- that was a controlling factor. We looked 16 at, individually, the flow in the creek with no flow in the 17 Guadalupe. The scenario of the flooding, the Guadalupe 18 being at 100-year flood stage, plus Bumblebee Creek being at 19 100-year flood stage, is not a reasonable and rational way 20 to analyze a situation. We looked at them individually. 21 The flood of record is 1932, yes. That flooding is in 22 excess of what FEMA, in their detailed study that we looked 23 at -- the flow and the BFE that's based on that flow is the 24 1734. That's based on 129,000 CFS, okay? Yes, the 1932 25 flood was something greater than a 100-year frequency. So, 4-12-04 93 1 in other words, the -- the FEMA -- and these studies that we 2 do are based on 100-year frequency. So, is there any other 3 questions concerning that? 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, to me, as I 5 understand the issue, we have federal laws that we need to 6 comply with when it comes to constructing near waterways in 7 this county, and -- and those are the rules we follow. And 8 whether -- it may or may not protect someone from a -- from 9 an event that may cause a flood. But, I mean, I don't think 10 that we can -- if someone -- if the FEMA rules and our 11 development rules allow something to be built, it can be 12 built. I mean, I just I don't see how you can deny someone 13 the right to build on their property. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree, sir. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And, I mean, 16 Mr. Vlasek -- or it doesn't make any difference if it's 17 Mr. Vlasek. They bought lots in a development. They are 18 meeting the requirements of FEMA. They can build. You 19 know, that's -- I don't see any alternative. I think that 20 the alternative, if we were to say no, you can't build, 21 would be a liability to the County. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Vordenbaum, you indicated 23 that analyzing this particular situation on the basis of 24 both a 100-year flood on the Guadalupe and a 100-year flood 25 on Bumblebee Creek is not a rational way to analyze it, I 4-12-04 94 1 believe, or something similar to that. 2 MR. VORDENBAUM: Yes. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: It occurs to me that if 4 there's heavy general rains in the area, that it very easily 5 could occur that you're going to get 100-year occurrences on 6 both of them. But I guess the pertinent question is, does 7 FEMA permit the analysis by considering one to the exclusion 8 of the other, and does not require that they be considered 9 together? 10 MR. VORDENBAUM: Yes, sir, that's -- that's 11 why I mentioned that we had just recently submitted a second 12 study on Goat Creek right at 27, and that's the way it was 13 approached, you know. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: So, under the FEMA 15 calculations, what you've done is within the parameters of 16 what they require in order to come up with a base flood 17 elevation and the other parameters that we're talking about 18 in this particular case? 19 MR. VORDENBAUM: That's correct. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 21 MR. VORDENBAUM: I might add that Bumblebee 22 Creek is a relatively small watershed. It's very steep. 23 The -- if -- if there was a hydrology analysis done which 24 would indicate when the peak flow times were down the 25 Guadalupe and versus Bumblebee Creek, the chances of the 4-12-04 95 1 peak flow in both hitting the same place at the same time is 2 almost nil. So, basically, what would happen in a storm 3 event, the -- and I haven't done calculations on it, but 4 it's based on many previous similar scenarios. The peak 5 flow on Bumblebee Creek would be gone before the peak flow 6 hit on the Guadalupe, just because of the travel time and 7 the steepness. Both are steep in a regime of flow, but 8 Bumblebee Creek is much steeper than -- than the Guadalupe. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Any more questions for 10 Mr. Vordenbaum? I've got a participation form. 11 Mrs. Frost -- Mary Hart Frost has indicated a desire to 12 speak with us. 13 MS. FROST: I've already given a copy of this 14 to Mr. Nicholson and to the Judge. Do you want me to leave 15 a copy for Mr. Williams? 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, no, let's leave 17 him out in the cold. If he doesn't want to show up at 18 meetings, he doesn't need this stuff. 19 MS. FROST: Okay. My name is Mary Mart 20 Frost, and I live in Bumble Bee Hills at 312 Queen Bee. I'd 21 like to share this review of the hydrology of Bumblebee 22 Creek at flood stage with all of you. As -- as 23 Mr. Nicholson said, we did not get this report back until 24 Saturday night, and so it's -- it's fairly new to me, too. 25 But one of the things that really impressed me was how he 4-12-04 96 1 could make someone like me, who is not technically aware, 2 understand very clearly what the danger is here. 3 "Dear Mrs. Fox, I reviewed the subject report 4 prepared by Vordenbaum Engineering, Incorporated, and it 5 looks reasonable for the limited analysis performed. To do 6 this work, I had to familiarize myself with the Corps of 7 Engineers' computer program HEC-RAS, Version 3.1.1., which 8 is available without charge from their web site. Because of 9 the limited time available for this analysis, I was not able 10 to do some modeling that would tweak the output a little 11 better. However, I believe this report will show that we 12 cannot model the flow in Bumblebee Creek without taking into 13 consideration the water level in the Guadalupe River. It 14 was also necessary to become familiar with the program to 15 evaluate the data and conclusions drawn by V.E.I. 16 "The case modeled by Mr. Spraggins of V.E.I. 17 does represent the case of a flash flood on Bumblebee Creek 18 before a significant rise has occurred in the Guadalupe. I 19 duplicated this case to be sure the older version of the 20 program which V.E.I. is using is compatible with the latest 21 version we downloaded this week. I used all the data as 22 presented in the V.E.I. report dated March 11th, 2004, and 23 duplicated the results in the report. However, I could not 24 justify the boundary conditions and would like more 25 information on the determination of the input values of the 4-12-04 97 1 slope." We definitely need that before you all make a 2 decision on this. 3 "The HEC-RAS instructions say to use the 4 slope of the channel bottom in the absence of energy data, 5 and this is what I did in later cases by scaling the V.E.I. 6 drawing Number C-1, which you supplied to me. I could not 7 determine the slopes used by V.E.I. in this manner, and 8 presume they have information withheld from the report, or 9 did not supply a scale drawing, although a scale is noted on 10 the drawing. The program is sensitive to the slope used for 11 the downstream boundary condition, and if a zero slope or a 12 very small value for slope is used, the program will show 13 the creek backing up and flooding the lots. This is a 14 mathematical problem solved by adding more cross-sections 15 downstream, which the error analysis in the V.E.I. report 16 stated is desirable for this case. 17 "The conclusions presented by V.E.I. based on 18 this one case are reasonable. The water level in the creek 19 is far below the elevation of the lots, so adding fill on 20 the three lots has no effect on the flow dynamics. To 21 investigate the influence of the Guadalupe, I added a reach 22 and junction to the schematic required by HEC-RAS for any 23 analysis to include the Guadalupe. The schematic is shown 24 in Figure 1" -- which you have there. "Since I do not have 25 channel geometry for the river, I created a rectangular 4-12-04 98 1 channel and generated a rate curve for boundary conditions 2 using U.S.G.S. data. The flood data is sensitive to the 3 actual elevation of the bottom of the river, but as we will 4 show, the flood record is such that river water levels in 5 the Guadalupe generated by the model are not uncommon, and 6 far below the flood of record that occurred in 1932. The 7 rate curve used is shown in Figure 2. The flood of record 8 caused Guadalupe River to crest 36.6 feet above normal 9 upstream of Bumblebee Creek at a flow rate of 206,000 CFS's. 10 "The Bumblebee Creek flood condition at two 11 different flow rates in the Guadalupe using the 100-year 12 flood flow for Bumblebee Creek calculated by V.E.I. are 13 shown in Figures 3 through 8. The elevation of the water 14 surface in the Guadalupe was 4 feet over Highway 39 at 15 53,000 CFS's, and less than 1 foot over the pavement at 16 40,000 CFS's. As may be seen, the water backs up at 17 cross-section 11, well above the river level, and goes from 18 critical, rapid flow, in the V.E.I. analysis to sub-critical 19 flow and about 5 feet deeper when taking the Guadalupe flood 20 stage into effect. At a Guadalupe River elevation of 21 1,727 feet, 53,000 CFS's, Bumblebee Creek just floods the 22 fill at elevation 1735 feet at all sections. 23 "We did not consider the effects of fill 24 versus no fill on erosion, as there is a subroutine in 25 HEC-RAS for this purpose that I did not have time to study. 4-12-04 99 1 HEC-RAS is a comprehensive program, and it seems V.E.I. 2 could have done a much more detailed analysis with little 3 added expense, considering their familiarity with the 4 software." The main reason of analysis we performed -- 5 pardon me. "The main result of the analysis we performed is 6 that the entire three lots, 42, 43, and 44, on which the 7 fill has been placed will be underwater from back flow from 8 the Guadalupe in events less than the flood of record, with 9 no flow at all in Bumblebee Creek. There is any number of 10 combinations of creek versus river flood that could put 11 these lots underwater, even with the present fill in place." 12 And then he goes on to give his credentials 13 and where you can call him. And you'll see that each page 14 of the report which I gave you is signed with his seal. We 15 have another concern, and that is that Mr. Gregory's 16 analysis and Mr. Spraggins' analysis did not take into 17 consideration the Bumblebee Creek bridge and how that small 18 area where Bumblebee Creek comes out into the Guadalupe and 19 where the Guadalupe River backs up over the Bumblebee Creek 20 bridge, that was not taken into consideration. Mr. Gregory 21 apologized for that. He said he did not have time to do 22 that, and so that is something that we would like to see 23 done. We think there's another -- there's additional 24 analyses that need to factor into -- that need to factor in 25 the bridge. 4-12-04 100 1 Also, as a private citizen living in Bumble 2 Bee Hills, I'm very concerned about my neighbors who are 3 directly across from this pad, Mrs. Lillian Lewis and 4 Mrs. -- her name is -- I can't recall it right now; it's 5 gone away from me. But, anyway, both of them are physically 6 impaired, and if the water comes around that pad and floods 7 over Should Bee, they will have no way to escape, because 8 the low-water crossing will also be flooded. This is a very 9 serious problem. We are very concerned about this, and I 10 would urge you to have an additional study done on this 11 before you make a decision in this matter. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've got a couple of 13 questions. 14 MS. FROST: Yes. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: On the letter -- I'm 16 going to go back to this letter. The second paragraph down, 17 the last sentence, he says, "I couldn't justify the boundary 18 conditions and would like more information." 19 MS. FROST: On the determination of the input 20 values of the slope. And so we would like that from -- from 21 the Vordenbaum report. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. And then, on 23 Page 2, the Figure 1 -- 24 MS. FROST: Right. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It says. "Since I do 4-12-04 101 1 not have the channel geometry for the river, I created a 2 rectangular channel..." This guy created some kind of 3 model, just out of the blue? 4 MS. FROST: Mr. Baldwin, this man is not 5 someone who creates something out of the blue. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I know. I'm just 7 reading -- 8 MS. FROST: He is -- 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm asking you. 10 MS. FROST: He is a trained hydrologist, and 11 that was what he had to use, because he didn't have the 12 information that he's requesting in Paragraph 2. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: My -- to me, it's very 15 simple, and the question goes to the County Engineer, who is 16 our Floodplain Administrator, you know. Based on FEMA 17 rules -- and I don't mean to be, you know, callous from the 18 standpoint of not of caring if the property floods or not. 19 I do care, but that's not -- my position is the fact that it 20 may or may not flood is somewhat irrelevant to allowing Mr. 21 Vlasek or someone else to build on the property. We're 22 required to follow FEMA rules. If FEMA says -- if FEMA 23 rules were followed by the Vordenbaum study and said that 24 development can take place on this lot, I don't see where we 25 have any prerogative to stop that. I mean, he bought the 4-12-04 102 1 lots in the -- in a grandfathered subdivision. I mean, it's 2 really not even subject to our rules. 3 MS. FROST: Well, also -- 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Our current Subdivision 5 Rules. 6 MS. FROST: Also, Mr. -- 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Let me finish, please. 8 So, I mean, you know, this issue is really -- it's, you 9 know, does the Vordenbaum study comply with the FEMA rules? 10 And if the answer is yes, then I think that Mr. Vlasek is 11 allowed to build. 12 MS. FROST: Well, you know, there's the 13 history of that fill. It was placed there without a permit. 14 It was then permitted by the U.G.R.A. after the fact, and it 15 was only for six months. And he was not allowed to build on 16 that without reapplying. In the meantime, he put additional 17 topping on that without a permit, and you said that that 18 topping should be removed because he did not have a permit. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: He did have a permit when 20 he started it originally. 21 MS. FROST: He did not have a permit. He did 22 not have a permit to put the top layer on top of the 23 original fill. There's a pattern here of granting permits 24 after the fact. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, you know, there 4-12-04 103 1 probably was some mistakes. I remember that, talking about 2 requiring him to take off the 2 or 3 feet or whatever it 3 was; I can't remember what -- the number. However, what 4 Commissioner Letz was saying earlier, if he -- you know, we 5 do a lot of things here that I personally disagree with, a 6 lot of subdivision things that I personally disagree with, 7 but they comply with the law. And if they comply with the 8 law, I'm not going to stand in the way and cause the County 9 to go out and have to purchase people's property, their 10 private property, because of something I held up. And this, 11 to me, is one of the those issues. Whether I agree with 12 Mr. Vlasek or Mr. Vordenbaum, if they're complying with the 13 law, there's nothing I can do about it. We -- we have to -- 14 we have to let them do what they need to do on their own 15 property, and we've said that a hundred times in here over 16 the issue. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I do have a question. 18 Going back to that -- and maybe I'm reading this wrong. It 19 appears to me -- this is to Mr. Vordenbaum or Mr. Johnston. 20 It appears to me that the -- the pad, before any fill was 21 ever put there, is outside the floodplain. I mean, on your 22 drawing, here's the creek and here's the floodplain. So, I 23 mean, it appears to me that the permit was not even really 24 required, 'cause it wasn't in the floodplain. 25 MR. JOHNSTON: I think that's the floodplain 4-12-04 104 1 not considering the river. 2 MR. VORDENBAUM: That's the floodplain only 3 considering Bumblebee Creek. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 5 MR. VORDENBAUM: The whole thing's in the 6 floodplain when you look at backwater off of the Guadalupe. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, thank you. 8 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: My thinking is not 9 too different than y'all's. A few months ago I promised 10 David I wouldn't practice law, and I'll promise Franklin I'm 11 not going to practice engineering either, so I'm going to 12 look to Franklin Johnston to tell us whether or not we're 13 complying with FEMA requirements. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. 15 MS. FROST: Well, let me just ask you one 16 thing. Is it going to be a pattern of the new Floodplain 17 Administrator to allow fill to be put in a floodplain 18 without a permit, and then afterwards say, "Well, that's 19 okay; you can leave it there"? 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The answer to that is 21 no, he will not set a pattern and do that on a regular 22 basis. No, ma'am. 23 MS. FROST: Well, that's happened here. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It might have happened 25 here, but no. Your question was is there going to be a 4-12-04 105 1 pattern. The answer is no. 2 MS. FROST: But, in this case, it's going to 3 be okay; he doesn't have to remove that fill that he put in 4 there without a permit? 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I -- I think the 6 other issue is -- I mean, it's -- just because it's in the 7 floodplain doesn't mean you can't build on it. 8 MS. FROST: But you have to have a permit to 9 put it there. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 11 MS. FROST: And he did not have a permit to 12 put it there. The permit that he had for the first fill was 13 issued after the fill was put there. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 15 MS. FROST: It was issued for six months, and 16 it was issued without the ability to put any kind of 17 building on it. So then, when he wants to put a building on 18 it, he moves in some more fill and puts it on top of this 19 fill. Does not have a permit for that, and no permit has 20 been issued after-the-fact, as far as I know. There was a 21 court order here that he was to remove that fill because he 22 did not have a permit for it, and I'm saying that that still 23 needs to be done. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think that the 25 -- I mean, my feeling would be -- I mean, I guess we can 4-12-04 106 1 require the fill to be removed, then grant a permit to bring 2 it back. Doesn't that seem somewhat -- doesn't make much 3 sense to me. 4 MS. FROST: Well, it makes a lot of sense to 5 me, because I don't think he should again be able to get 6 away with putting fill in an area where he did not have a 7 permit, and then having granted a permit after-the-fact. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So that would make you 9 happy, if we made him remove the topsoil and obtain a permit 10 and then put the topsoil back? 11 MS. FROST: Mr. Baldwin, it's not a fact of 12 what's going to make me happy. It's a fact of what is 13 right. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Would that be 15 the right way do it, then? 16 MS. FROST: I believe so. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Well, I'm with 18 you, then. Let's make him do that. 19 MS. FROST: And I'd also like to know where 20 he's going to put that fill when he removes it, because I 21 don't want it to damage anybody else's property. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, what is this? 23 I mean, it looks like a letter from some lawyer or 24 something. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: That's exactly what it is, 4-12-04 107 1 Mr. Baldwin. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: See, I begin to 3 recognize this stuff, huh? 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The agenda item is 5 pretty limited. It says present the engineer's study and 6 consider whether a revision of plat is required. So, the 7 issue of whether or not the County Engineer is going to 8 approve the -- going to grant a permit to build there is not 9 on the agenda. 10 MS. FROST: Mr. Nicholson, what about the 11 court order to remove the top layer of -- does that have to 12 come up at a different -- 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It would have to 14 be -- 15 MS. FROST: -- meeting? Have to be a 16 different agenda item? 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Have to be on the 18 agenda, yes. 19 MS. FROST: And, in the meantime, the Court 20 order still stands? 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Still stands. 22 MS. FROST: Okay. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: The -- 24 MR. FEARY: My recollection is that the order 25 was for the County Attorney's office to prepare the 4-12-04 108 1 documents to go forward with contempt -- a motion for 2 contempt and an order. That is available to us today; 3 however, in light of this engineering study, the -- the 4 Court may not want to move forward with that. So, the 5 documents are available if the Court does. If the Court 6 decides not to, then -- 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't think you 8 should move forward until the County Engineer's had an 9 opportunity to review all the -- the floodplain analysis and 10 hydrology. 11 MR. FEARY: Yes, sir. I just wanted to 12 express what I thought my recollection of the order was, and 13 that that's where we are now, is we do have whatever 14 available if the Court would like. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Basically, what you're saying 16 is the County Attorney has things to the point where they 17 were requested to be at the last time you were instructed, 18 and you -- you will await further instructions? 19 MR. FEARY: Yes sir, exactly. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 21 MR. JOHNSTON: I have one additional item to 22 maybe clarify the record. It was brought up that there's 23 found to be a pattern for this current Floodplain 24 Administrator to allow fill to go into the floodplain 25 without a permit. Might bear in mind that the -- all this 4-12-04 109 1 fill was put in prior to my time as Floodplain 2 Administrator, so no permit's been issued as of now. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Do we have a motion to present 4 in connection with the agenda item as framed? 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, what say ye? 6 Are you telling us -- I'm looking at the engineer here. Are 7 you telling -- what are you telling us? 8 MR. JOHNSTON: What am I telling you? 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Are you 10 recommending that we break for lunch? Or are you 11 recommending that we approve this? Or -- 12 MR. JOHNSTON: The requirement was -- it came 13 up when your court order was issued that, in lieu of him -- 14 Mr. Vlasek, the owner, having an engineering study -- that 15 you were concluding that he didn't. Without a permit, he 16 would have to remove -- you know the whole story on that. 17 It was all premised upon having the engineering study. 18 That's what's required by the floodplain rules, to have -- 19 you know, if you build in a floodway, you have to have an 20 engineer -- in a floodplain, you have to have an engineering 21 study made. So, that's -- we finally caught up to that 22 point. Have that done. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It seems to me where 24 we are is that the study's been presented, and it's up to 25 the -- 4-12-04 110 1 MR. JOHNSTON: I think, you know, I can issue 2 the -- or not issue the permit without bringing it back to 3 court, but I wanted -- since it's been in court, I wanted 4 the Court to know that this engineering study has been 5 completed. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Are you saying that it's your 7 opinion, based upon the study, that a revision of plat is 8 not required? That's the agenda item, as I see it. Is or 9 is not required. 10 MR. JOHNSTON: Well, it's supposed to be a 11 two-part -- one of them was informational on the floodplain 12 -- the floodplain study. The other part was a platting 13 question of whether or not these lots had to be combined 14 before they did their development, as opposed to building on 15 three separate lots with one -- one structure. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- 17 MR. JOHNSTON: Apparently, there's some legal 18 documents that -- Fred, you might talk to them about that, 19 that -- where he signed some papers; said that they would be 20 forever combined. But that's not a -- not going through the 21 platting process. 22 MR. HENNEKE: If I might, gentlemen, I'm Fred 23 Henneke, here on behalf of Mr. Vlasek. Mr. Vlasek has 24 signed and delivered to the Designated Representative for 25 Kerr County for O.S.S.F. a document whereby he states and 4-12-04 111 1 avows that the tract of land in question shall be considered 2 a single tract by virtue of a single water treatment system 3 servicing these tracts of land. In other words, he has, in 4 effect, consolidated these three tracts of land into one 5 land for purposes of O.S.S.F. This document is on file in 6 the septic system file relating to these properties, and I 7 have a copy of it here which I'll be happy to make available 8 to Mr. Johnston and anyone else who would like it. I think 9 Commissioner Letz would agree with me, there's no 10 requirement in the Subdivision Rules that he consolidate 11 these lots for purpose of construction upon them, and he 12 has, by virtue of this document, which is on the U.G.R.A. 13 form -- I mean, it's their form -- effectively consolidated 14 them for purposes of O.S.S.F. 15 If I might take just a minute, too, with 16 regard to the issue of the additional fill, I believe I 17 provided each of you gentlemen with a document from the 18 Floodplain Administrator at the time the additional fill 19 was -- was placed on the site authorizing an additional 12 20 to 24 inches of fill. That was all part of the development 21 permit process. The original fill was inserted as part of 22 only a fill. This was done as part of Mr. Vlasek's efforts 23 to move forward to actually develop the project. So, I 24 would take the position that the additional fill was 25 authorized and is legitimate, although I know that's not 4-12-04 112 1 before the Court today. If anyone has any questions, I'd be 2 glad to respond to them on behalf of Mr. Vlasek. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: My only comment would 4 be -- is, you know, on the document that combines the lots 5 from a septic standpoint, I mean, that -- I don't want it. 6 Give it to the County Attorney, if anybody. It's -- it's 7 just whether, you know, that -- that meets the O.S.S.F. 8 rules. 'Cause, I mean, I think Fred is correct that there's 9 nothing in our Subdivision Rules that would require a 10 revision of plat, but there are some requirements in the 11 O.S.S.F. rules regarding lot lines, and I don't know if that 12 document satisfies those or not. 13 MS. FROST: I would just like to request 14 where I could get a copy of that document authorizing the 15 additional fill, because we have the complete file from 16 U.G.R.A. and we never saw that document. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: That's it right there? 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is this what you're 19 considering the authorization? 20 MR. HENNEKE: Yes, Commissioner. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Excuse me. 22 MS. FROST: Yes, we did have this, but this 23 is not -- this is not a permit. This is just simply a -- a 24 note from Stuart Barron on 10/14 that says, "Okay to bring 25 in additional fill -- 12 inches to 24 inches of fill to 4-12-04 113 1 elevate the home site." There's no official document here. 2 There's no official request that this be done. This is 3 not -- this is not authorization. This is not a permit. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I can't answer that 5 question. That's a legal issue, and that's -- I mean, I 6 don't know if it's sufficient or not. 7 MS. FROST: Well, anything else that we saw 8 that was permitted was on official U.G.R.A. forms for 9 permitting, not just a written okay. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I mean, you 11 know, I don't know what the legal status of that note is, 12 but I think there's a -- you know, and, granted, this was 13 all done before the County took over floodplain directly. 14 But when a member of the public -- in this case, 15 Mr. Vlasek -- I think he's in pretty good standing to rely 16 on a handwritten, you know, memorandum. I wouldn't know why 17 he would not rely on it. So, I think that there's -- I 18 mean, there may be -- the issue is more in the way, you 19 know, it was handled prior to the County taking over this 20 program. But, you know -- 21 MS. FROST: Is that something that the County 22 Attorney's office has looked into, the authority of this 23 note? 24 MR. FEARY: I don't think it's appropriate to 25 discuss that right now. 4-12-04 114 1 MS. FROST: Okay. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I'd like to 3 know from the County Engineer and Floodplain Administrator 4 if -- if Mr. Vlasek's property complies with FEMA or not. 5 Yes or no. One or the other. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's the question. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Good question. Mr. Engineer? 8 MR. JOHNSTON: FEMA -- the FEMA requirement 9 is that you can develop property within the floodplain 10 fringe if it's elevated above the 100-year floodplain, or 11 the 1 percent flood, and the County has an additional 12 requirement that it be elevated to 12 inches above the BFE. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And, according to 14 Mr. Vordenbaum, does -- does it comply with FEMA? 15 MR. JOHNSTON: Best I -- yeah. I think it 16 does, yeah. We have an engineer that does this type of work 17 and that sealed that report that said it meets the FEMA 18 requirements. I don't know why we would challenge it. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Is there or is there not a 21 revision of a plat required as a result of that flood study? 22 MR. JOHNSTON: That was a question of -- 23 that's really a separate item. I don't know how it's 24 written on there, but that should be part one and part two. 25 A revision of the plat was whether or not, you know, those 4-12-04 115 1 lots need to be combined, go through a plat combination 2 process, and that's what that letter that Fred Henneke just 3 read that -- to give to the County Attorney to see if that's 4 sufficient, or if they need to go through the -- through the 5 plat process. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: So, you don't have an opinion 7 as to that question at this point? 8 MR. JOHNSTON: That's why I brought it to 9 court. It doesn't really spell it out, A-B-C, in our rules, 10 as such. But -- 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 12 MR. JOHNSTON: -- that's an option that they 13 can do. But it doesn't really say they have to do it, I 14 don't think. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Does anyone have a 16 motion they wish to offer? 17 MS. FROST: Could I have one more question? 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We are dealing with 19 the flood study thing today, but I -- I don't know if we can 20 deal with the revision of plat. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Apparently, we can't, because 22 there's -- that's in the hands of the County Attorney. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But we can on the 24 first one. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Do we have a motion to be 4-12-04 116 1 offered? 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move that we 3 approve -- I don't know what all language needs to be in it. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's "accept." 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, we're accepting 6 the recommendation of the Floodplain Administrator that 7 Mr. Vlasek be able to move forward with his building 8 project. 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't think that 10 question's on the agenda. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. We accept 12 the -- Mr. Vordenbaum's flood study, then. We can do that. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll second accepting the 14 study. That's as far as we can go, as I see it. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I have a motion and 16 second. Did you -- 17 MS. FROST: When it's appropriate. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: You have a point? 19 MS. FROST: Yes. I think it's very important 20 that there be further analysis that factors in the bridge 21 and the amount of flow that goes under the bridge, and I 22 think there should be additional study. If the County 23 Engineer doesn't want to do it, we'll be happy to pay for 24 it, because that's very, very important and very significant 25 in terms of the volume and the velocity of water that comes 4-12-04 117 1 from Bumblebee Creek into the Guadalupe and what -- well, 2 mainly that, because the backflow is not affected by that 3 area under the bridge. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mrs. Frost, I don't -- I 5 mean, I'm not -- don't disagree with you, but Mr. Vlasek or 6 anybody else shouldn't be required to do more than the 7 FEMA -- than the law requires. And the -- and if the study 8 that was performed meets the FEMA requirements, then it 9 meets the FEMA requirements. And the County Engineer says 10 it does, so I don't see how we can all of a sudden say, 11 "You've met the requirements, but now we're going to make 12 you" -- not making you; I mean Mr. Vlasek -- "do an 13 additional study." I mean, I don't think we have that 14 authority. 15 MS. FROST: Well, I do know that at one point 16 you did say that you would factor in in this study -- you 17 would factor in the opening under the Bumblebee Creek 18 bridge, and that was not done. 19 MR. JOHNSTON: We have the engineer here that 20 did the study. Is that a significant factor? I don't know. 21 MR. VORDENBAUM: I don't think this bridge 22 opening is going to make any difference to the study. 23 MS. FROST: You don't think that small bridge 24 opening is going to make any difference in the velocity and 25 the volume of water coming from Bumblebee Creek or backing 4-12-04 118 1 up? 2 MR. VORDENBAUM: No, because we have 3 elevations on Highway 39 when you're -- the -- the elevated 4 pad is here, all right? Highway 39 is way down there. The 5 water's going to go over 39 from Bumblebee Creek long before 6 it gets to this pad. 7 MS. FROST: I'm talking about the opening of 8 the bridge, of the -- of the creek coming down through the 9 bridge where it stopped, because there's only a small amount 10 of space there -- 11 MR. VORDENBAUM: Okay. 12 MS. FROST: -- for it to get through, so it's 13 going to back up onto the -- that pad. 14 MR. VORDENBAUM: No. Let me -- I'm going to 15 take your scenario. If the bridge chokes the water off -- 16 we have an elevation on the study, but just as a matter of 17 common sense, if I'm standing on the pad here, I'm looking 18 down at 39, the water is going to go over 39 from Bumblebee 19 Creek long before it ever gets to the pad. 20 MS. FROST: Okay. What's it going to do on 21 the Should Bee side of the pad? 22 MR. VORDENBAUM: On the Should Bee side of 23 the pad? 24 MS. FROST: Right. That's the road -- the 25 county road that's on there. It's not going to back up over 4-12-04 119 1 that road? 2 MR. VORDENBAUM: I don't believe so. 3 MS. FROST: You mean a pad of that size is 4 going to let the water flow around it, just as it would have 5 if that were what it originally was? 6 MR. VORDENBAUM: The flooding source that 7 sets the -- the base flood elevation is the Guadalupe. 8 Bumblebee Creek flow is well below the pad and the road, and 9 the houses on the other side that you're concerned with are 10 much lower than this pad. 11 MS. FROST: Right, that is my concern. That 12 is my concern. 13 MR. VORDENBAUM: They're going to -- they're 14 going to flood -- they're in the floodplain of the 15 Guadalupe, regardless if the pad is there or not. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Why don't y'all resume this 17 discussion -- it's not germane to the motion that we've got 18 before us, which is merely accepting the study, and that's 19 the motion before the Court now. Y'all can resume that 20 discussion privately. Is there any further discussion on 21 the motion? 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. What is the 23 motion? 24 JUDGE TINLEY: To accept the study. 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That means we heard 4-12-04 120 1 the report and we received a written -- 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We received the report. 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: That's all it means. Anything 5 further? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 6 your right hand. 7 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 8 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 9 (No response.) 10 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. The 11 next item on the agenda, the addendum, is consider and 12 discuss a request from the City of Kerrville for the Kerr 13 County Environmental Health Department Manager to act as the 14 City's designated representative in administering the 15 On-Site Septic Facility program. 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think we can 17 dispose of this real quick. Here is the promised letter 18 from the City, and this is to -- quote, to serve as notice 19 of continuing authorization for Environmental Health office 20 to act as the City's authorized agent. It's a matter of 21 cleaning up some loose ends, I think. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What do we need t do? We 23 need to -- 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think we can make 25 a motion that the County Judge confirm to the City the 4-12-04 121 1 receipt of their notice of continuing authorization. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Continuing 3 authorization, I agree. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Did you make that as a 5 motion and second? 6 JUDGE TINLEY: That was a motion. Did you 7 second? 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any question or 10 discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion -- 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Could you restate the 12 motion, just so it's clear on the record? 13 JUDGE TINLEY: That the County Judge 14 acknowledge to the City of Kerrville that we are in receipt 15 of their continuing authorization for our Environmental 16 Health office to act as the City's authorized agent for the 17 O.S.S.F. program. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you, Judge. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or 20 discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 21 your right hand. 22 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 23 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 24 (No response.) 25 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. 4-12-04 122 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Miguel? 2 MR. ARREOLA: Yes, sir? 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Here's a copy of it. 4 MR. ARREOLA: Thank you, sir. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Now we go to the 6 executive session items, unless you want to put those at the 7 tail end. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I wouldn't want to 9 break up that meeting over there. Do we have an executive 10 session issue? I didn't look at the -- 11 JUDGE TINLEY: The only thing would be a 12 report on the status of the civil attorney's action on the 13 health insurance claim. That's the only thing that is 14 active, as far as I know. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there any reason we 16 need to go in executive session? I don't see it. I mean, 17 I -- I just -- I really think the -- in my mind, I think 18 it's executive, but I would like to say, at our next 19 meeting, I think it's about time that we get a good report, 20 and possibly the attorney can come advise our Court. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, we're going to forego 22 the executive. Nobody has any other reason to go into 23 executive? All right. Let's -- let's talk about paying the 24 bills. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 4-12-04 123 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Auditor? 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's one thing I 3 believe in; we need to pay our bills. And I've got two sets 4 this week. Somebody show up with none? 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I had two. I had two 6 sets, too. I threw the first set away. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move we pay the 8 bills. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to 11 pay the bills. The only comment I'd make is that it looks 12 like this was -- Santa Claus came to The Software Group this 13 month. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, yeah. Yeah, year 15 after year after year after year; 15, maybe 17 years now. 16 MR. TOMLINSON: We paid two quarters at 17 one -- at one time. We didn't -- we didn't receive their 18 invoice for the prior quarter, so we're catching up. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: They're doing so good that 20 they're not even invoicing us. I think we ought to do so 21 good in delaying payment to them. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Go for it. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Did they issue them a gun when 24 they gave them that franchise agreement? Appears that they 25 have one. 4-12-04 124 1 MR. TOMLINSON: Yep. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to 3 pay the bills. Any further question or discussion? All in 4 favor, signify by raising your right hand. 5 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 6 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 7 (No response.) 8 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Budget 9 Amendment Request Number 1. 10 MR. TOMLINSON: Number 1 is for Environmental 11 Health. Their request is to transfer $948.10 from Capital 12 Outlay to Office Supplies, and $1,000 from Postage to 13 Operating Expenses. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Why? They've got no current 15 expense. Why -- are they just positioning themselves for 16 something or what? 17 MR. TOMLINSON: I don't have a memo or 18 anything from them, so I don't -- I don't know the reason. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That would be a great 20 way to learn how we function around here, is to hold it 21 until we get an answer. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, there's no current 23 expense in any of those items. There's an unexpended budget 24 balance in the two to which there's a request to transfer 25 funds. I don't see the need for it, very frankly. 4-12-04 125 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't see it. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Anyone have a motion to offer? 3 Let's move on to Budget Amendment Request Number 2. 4 MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. Number 2 is for the 5 District Clerk. She's requesting a transfer of $500 from 6 Maintenance Contracts to Machine Repair, and then another 7 $2,000 from Maintenance Contracts to Microfilm Expense. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: She does say in the event that 9 there's not an actual need now in the microfilm category, 10 that there's an estimated future expenditure. At least she 11 gave us the benefit of that information. 12 MR. TOMLINSON: Right. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move for approval. 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 16 approval of Budget Amendment Request Number 2. Any question 17 or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by 18 raising your right hand. 19 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 20 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 21 (No response.) 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Budget 23 Amendment Request Number 3. 24 MR. TOMLINSON: Number 3 is for the Lake 25 Ingram Estates Road District Number 1. This amendment is to 4-12-04 126 1 increase the budget for -- for that fund by $530 to pay the 2 service fees related to the payment of the principal and 3 interest on that debt. The prior year's service fee was 4 $470, and they -- the paying agent raised it to $1,000, so 5 we need the extra $530 to pay that. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: I think Lake Ingram Estates 7 Road District -- that's a dedicated fund, is it not? 8 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. It's a sinking fund, is 9 what it is. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: 63, surplus funds are county 11 funds, are they not? 12 MR. TOMLINSON: No, they're -- 63 is the 13 surplus funds in that -- in that sinking fund. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Okay. 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Tommy, is this our 16 money, or -- 17 MR. TOMLINSON: No, this is not our money. 18 We're -- 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. 20 MR. TOMLINSON: We're the paying agent for 21 it, so we need to approve the use of that surplus. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: This comes out of the 23 people paying the road district? 24 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sure seems like a high -- 4-12-04 127 1 I make a motion to approve, but it seems like a pretty big 2 increase in -- 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, does the contract, by 4 whoever's administering, authorize them to just increase 5 their funds -- increase their charge by over 100 percent? 6 MR. TOMLINSON: I don't recall any -- any 7 language in any of our -- any of our agreements that would 8 preclude that. I know that this has been an issue ever 9 since -- since the '90's with all of our debt. I mean, 10 they -- our servicing agents have all have continued to -- 11 to increase, and it seems like it's all at one time. They 12 never do it in increments. It's -- it's every, you know, 13 four or five years, they decide to do it all at one time, 14 and that's what they're doing. Well -- 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, if they can get over 100 16 percent in one lick, that's -- seems like they wouldn't need 17 to do it a piece at a time. I mean, it's a blank area, a 18 place to take people's money, but I don't think they should 19 have an interest in this thing. If they're being 20 overcharged by somebody, they need to bring in somebody to 21 take them to task on it. 22 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I don't consider -- I 23 mean, I don't -- I mean, relative to the -- to the service 24 fees or the County's debt, it's not as much as we're paying. 25 So, I think -- I think it's a reasonable charge in relation 4-12-04 128 1 to -- to the fees that we're paying the other paying agents. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: You don't live in Lake Ingram 3 Estates, though, do you? 4 MR. TOMLINSON: No. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Maybe today I'm just 6 obstreperous; maybe that's it. 7 MR. TOMLINSON: I do remember that -- that 8 they're happy just to have the road district, period. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: There's at least one resident 10 out there that I can assure you is not happy. 11 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I know there is one, 12 too. Yeah, I've had numerous conversations with that 13 person. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. Commissioner 16 Baldwin's getting hungry; we got to move on. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is there a motion or 18 anything? 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Somebody -- I made a 20 motion. 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I second. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 23 approval of Budget Amendment Request Number 3. Any further 24 question or discussion? All in favor, signify by raising 25 your right hand. 4-12-04 129 1 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 2 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 3 (No response.) 4 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion carries. Budget 5 Amendment Request Number 4. 6 MR. TOMLINSON: Number 4 is for the Sheriff's 7 Department, to transfer $15,000 from the Dispatchers line 8 item to Maintenance Contracts, and this is for a maintenance 9 agreement with Dailey Wells for -- for the maintenance for 10 that radio system through September the 30th. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tommy, do you have any 12 idea, is this radio system working wonderful and everybody 13 just thrilled to death and happy and get goosebumps every 14 morning? 15 MR. TOMLINSON: I can't answer that one. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I would think that it 17 would be if we're -- if we're doing this here. 15 grand 18 for -- 19 MR. TOMLINSON: And along with that, I need a 20 hand check for that -- 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved. 22 MR. TOMLINSON: -- payable to Dailey Wells. 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have a question. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Hand check to whom? 4-12-04 130 1 MR. TOMLINSON: Dailey Wells. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: David Wells? 3 MR. TOMLINSON: Dailey Wells. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Dailey Wells. 5 MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question. Is the -- go 7 ahead. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to 9 approve Budget Amendment Request Number 4 and authorize hand 10 check to Dailey Wells Communications in the sum of $15,000. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: My question is, the 12 expenditure -- there's $7,000 in the account. The expense 13 is $15,000. Why are we not only putting $8,000 in? 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Good question. Another 15 question let me throw out on the table, and for some of you 16 more experienced members of the Court. I was somehow under 17 the impression that when we had vacancies in -- in the 18 personnel positions, that it wasn't fair game to use the 19 funds that had accumulated as a result of those vacancies to 20 pad your budget in other places, or utilize it to make up 21 shortcomings. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Excellent point. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Is that -- am I off-base on 24 that, or has that been kind of a rule of thumb? 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think it has been 4-12-04 131 1 the rule of thumb. I think not a policy by any means, but 2 we certainly have functioned like that in the past, and it 3 would be a good policy. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It would be a good -- but 5 usually the later we get in the year, the more lax we get 6 with that policy, you know. But I think it -- I mean, those 7 funds are -- should not be used for these purposes. I mean, 8 I think the Sheriff or whoever -- Auditor, whoever came up 9 with this -- 10 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I think the Sheriff 11 just overlooked the fact that -- that this system was going 12 to be a year old during this year, and didn't anticipate and 13 totally forgot about having to have a maintenance agreement 14 for the remainder of this fiscal year. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, it appears he knew 16 we were going to have the contract; there's $7,000 in 17 Maintenance Contracts. Or maybe that's for other -- 18 MR. TOMLINSON: I think that was for other 19 things. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. So, the reason 21 he's transferring the full $15,000 is that he wasn't -- 22 MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah. We had -- he has other 23 maintenance agreements other than this one. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 25 MR. TOMLINSON: For different things. 4-12-04 132 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, we're going to be 2 doing this again every month from now on. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, if we have -- but 4 if -- we may. 5 MR. TOMLINSON: Of course, I think if he'd 6 have known -- if he'd have remembered that this was going to 7 be an issue, then he would have asked for much, much more in 8 the budget process. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, how did we have 15 10 grand laying around in the Dispatcher's line? 11 MR. TOMLINSON: He's had some -- some 12 positions that just haven't been filled. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. So, when it 14 comes budget time, it's going to appear that we have had 15 them filled when, truly, we have not. It's going to look 16 that way because we spent it here. 17 MR. TOMLINSON: No, it's going to come out of 18 there. I mean, the $15,000 will come out of the budget, so 19 we just look at what he's actually spent, as far as -- but, 20 really, I mean, we're budgeting positions, regardless of 21 whether he fills them or not. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: The correct answer to your 23 question, Commissioner, is yeah, it'll look like that was 24 utilized there because we're going off a position schedule 25 with grades and classifications and steps, and that's one of 4-12-04 133 1 the reasons that I was under the impression that -- that you 2 don't use unexpended personnel funds as a hidey-hole. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Does he have any other 4 source for those funds? 5 MR. TOMLINSON: Not that much. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions or 7 discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 8 your right hand. 9 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 10 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 11 (No response.) 12 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. 13 MR. TOMLINSON: It'll be -- it will be double 14 this next budget year. I mean, this is just -- this is just 15 for six months. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Budget Amendment Request 17 Number 5. 18 MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. Number 5 is for 19 Nondepartmental. The request is to transfer $381.04 from 20 Liability Insurance line item to Maintenance for Mainframe. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 24 approval of Budget Amendment Request Number 5. Any further 25 question or discussion? All in favor signify by raising 4-12-04 134 1 your right hand. 2 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 3 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 4 (No response.) 5 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Do we 6 have any late bills? 7 MR. TOMLINSON: I have one to Gary Kerrick 8 for $70 with Road and Bridge. It's to reimburse him for -- 9 for road sign expense. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to 13 approve late bill, and I presume hand check, to Gary Kerrick 14 in the sum of $70 as reimbursement for road sign expense. 15 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or 17 discussion? All in favor, signify by raising your right 18 hand. 19 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 20 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 21 (No response.) 22 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. I have 23 before me the transcript of the Kerr County Commissioners 24 Court regular session from Monday, March 8, 2004, and the 25 Kerr County Commissioners Court special session from Monday, 4-12-04 135 1 March 22, 2004. Do I hear a motion to approve these 2 transcripts as submitted? 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move to do that. 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 6 approval. Any further question or discussion? All in 7 favor, signify by raising your right hand. 8 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 9 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 10 (No response.) 11 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. I have 12 monthly reports from the Sheriff, Justice of the Peace, 13 Precinct 2, Justice of the Peace, Precinct 4, County Clerk, 14 District Clerk, Justice of the Peace, Precinct 3, and we 15 were handed this morning Constable Precinct 3's monthly 16 report. Do I hear a motion to approve these reports as 17 presented? 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So moved. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 21 approval of the reports as presented. Any further question 22 or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by 23 raising your right hand. 24 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does -- all opposed, 4-12-04 136 1 same sign. 2 (No response.) 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. That brings 4 us down to the reports section. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, sir. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Baldwin? 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, sir, not a word. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Letz? 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 15 seconds. 11 Misplaced in your book was a package that included a letter 12 from Bandera County Judge Richard Evans, and he was calling 13 a meeting in Bandera to -- to -- of the several counties who 14 are in the TexDOT area headed by David Casteel. And what we 15 -- I attended in the Judge's absence, and there were, I 16 think, six counties represented there, five judges and two 17 Commissioners -- seven counties, I guess. We -- we heard 18 about a -- probably a group of counties that organized up in 19 Wichita Falls area to meet periodically and talk -- talk 20 about area-wide transportation issues, and they felt like it 21 was worthwhile in that they -- they believe that those 22 counties got better participation in TexDOT funds because of 23 it. The bottom line is that they agreed -- I understand 24 they agreed to meet in connection with AACOG meetings, a 25 little bit before or a little bit after it, and see if they 4-12-04 137 1 want to get organized and see where this would go. It's 2 probably worth following up on. The Judge will get another 3 letter one of these days talking about it. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Anything else? 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've got a question 6 about this thing. When is the meeting? March 29? 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I guess that's the 8 next AACOG meeting. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, March is gone. It is in 10 my book, anyway. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Good point. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I really wanted to go, 13 Commissioner. 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Dadgummit. 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm sorry I let you 17 down. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further, gentlemen? 19 Being nothing further, we'll stand adjourned. 20 (Commissioners Court adjourned at 12:24 p.m.) 21 - - - - - - - - - - 22 23 24 25 4-12-04 138 1 STATE OF TEXAS | 2 COUNTY OF KERR | 3 The above and foregoing is a true and complete 4 transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as 5 County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County, 6 Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth. 7 DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 15th day of April, 8 2004. 9 10 11 JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk 12 BY: _________________________________ Kathy Banik, Deputy County Clerk 13 Certified Shorthand Reporter 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4-12-04