Apr 25, 2023 Regular

>> OKAY SIR. >> GOOD MORNING JUDGE AND COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. REAL QUICK, I WILL BRIEF YOU ON WHAT WE ARE GOING TO BE PRESENTING TODAY.

I HAVE A FEW OF OUR STAFF MEMBERS FROM OUR DEPARTMENT ARE PRESENT. OUR CHIEF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SPECIALIST AND OUR ENVIRONMENT THE HEALTH SPECIALIST WILL SPEAK MORE ON THE JUSTIFICATION AND CHANGES MADE TO THE REVELATION ITSELF. BUT FIRST, LITTLE BACK STORY.

IN AUGUST 2021, THE TEXAS FOOD ESTABLISHMENT REGULATIONS WERE

[02:05:04]

AMENDED BY THE STATES. THE MINIMUM BASELINE REQUIREMENTS FOR FOOD ESTABLISHMENT REGULATION FOR ENFORCEMENT. THE BEST WAY I CAN GENERALLY DESCRIBETHE CHANGES AS THEY ARE OPEN TO TWO GENERAL CATEGORIES . THE FIRST IS TO INCORPORATED CHANGES THAT WE HAVE ADOPTED AND BEEN HANDLED BY THE STATES.

ALSO, STAFF RECOMMENDED CHANGES.

THEY ARE ALL THE STAFF RECOMMENDED CHANGES, CHANGES THAT WE FEEL AT THE LOCAL LEVEL PROVIDE A BETTER SERVING PUBLIC HEALTH FOR ALL OF OUR STOPS WAS IN THE COUNTY.

I WILL ECHO THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF DISCUSSIONS ABOUT GROWTH IN THE REALM OF THE COUNTY BECAUSE - - ESTABLISHMENT IN HAYS COUNTY. I WILL THROW A STATISTIC OUT THERE, BUT I WILL WAIT UNTIL THESE TWO HAVE THE TIME TO TALK. IF APPROVED, THE CHANGES WE HAVE CURRENTLY - - STAFF NOT THERE WAS A LEARNING CURVE ANYTIME TODISCUSS . WHAT I WILL DO NEXT IS PASS IT OVER TO - - TO PRESENT THE PROPOSED CHANGES AND ANY QUESTIONS AND ANY OTHER QUESTIONS WE HAVE RELATED TO

THE PROCESS AS A WHOLE.>> GOOD MORNING JUDGE AND COMMISSIONERS. WE ARE HERE TO TALK ABOUT THE CHANGES IN OUR RULES. THESE ARE MINOR CHANGES TO OUR RULES BUT FOR RIGHT NOW, AS REQUESTED WE HAVE MADE A DOCUMENT OF THESE RULES IN BOTH ENGLISH AND SPANISH AND HAVE THEM FOR YOU IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO TAKE A LOOK AT THEM.

WE CAN HAND THEM OVER TO YOU LATER BUT ALSO THE SAME WITH OUR FEE SCHEDULE SORT CITIZENS CAN EASILY SEE THE CHANGES MAD

. >> CAN YOU GIVE US SOME OF THE

HIGHLIGHTS ON THE FEE SCHEDULE? >> ON THE FEE SCHEDULE, WE ARE ADDING ESSENTIALLY FOUR DIFFERENT ITEMS ON THEIR.

WE HAVE SOME PEOPLE THAT WILL POTENTIALLY SELL EGGS IN A FARMERS MARKET AND WE WILL ASSESS A $50 FEE GOOD FOR THE

YEAR. >> JUST KNOW THIS.

I'M GLAD YOU SAID GOOD FOR A YEAR BECAUSE I WILL: THIS WITH A CRITICAL YEAR ABOUT THE VERY FIRST ONSET.

$50 TO SELL EGGS FOR PERMITS, WHAT ARE YOU LEAVING THE PERSON SELLING THE EGGS? JUST KNOW THAT IS MY CRITICAL LENS. NOTHING AGAINST YOUR WORK, BUT I WILL APPROACH IT THAT WAY SO AS THE OF THE CONTRACT POTENTIAL, HERE'S WHAT IT WAS AND HERE'S WE ARE ASKING ABOUT

THE RESIDENT. >> THERE ARE THREE THINGS HERE.

THERE IS AN EXIT FEE, TEMPORARY FOOD ESTABLISHMENT THE AND FARMERS MARKET FEE. THE COUNTY SHOULD HAVE ALWAYS BEEN REGULATING THESE THREE WE ARE ASSESSING A PIECE OF CAN PERMIT THEM, IS $50 FOR THE EDIT VENDOR.

FOR THE FARMERS MARKET, OFFERING A FARMERS MARKET, THERE MIGHT BE OTHER TYPES OF - - THIS WILL BE GOOD THE ENTIRE YEAR. THE $200 FEE AND FOR A TEMPORARY FOOD ESTABLISHMENT, WHICH IS SOMEWHAT OPERATING A ONE-TIME EVENT, IT COULD BE GOOD FOR UP TO 14 DAYS WITHIN THE CITY A $50 FEE. - - FOOD ESTABLISHMENT COMMITTEE WORKING SETTING OUT APPLICATIONS AND FOR WHATEVER REASON THEY DO NOT KNOW THE NEED A PERMIT, - - COME TO OUR OFFICE AND SAY WE WANT TO OPEN UP IN TWO WEEKS, BUT WE'LL HAVE AN APPLICATION OR ANYTHING. WHAT THIS ALLOWS US TO DO IS PRIORITIZE THAT APPLICATION OVER ANY OTHER APPLICATIONS

THAT WE MAY HAVE. >> HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT THAT?

>> THE RUSH REVIEW FEE? I GUESS MY ONLY QUESTION WOULD BE WHAT ARE WE DOING NOW TOO WAS THE PROCESS WHEN SOMEONE COMES IN AND SAYS I WILL BE OPENING UP IN TWO WEEKS?

[02:10:04]

>> AND ERIC AND HIS TEAM CAN COMMENT MORE ON THAT BUT LIKE ANY ACCOMMODATION, WE DO OUR BEST TO ACCOMMODATE THE REQUES . NO GUARANTEES, BUT WE ALSO OPERATE IN A - - FORM AND FASHION.

WITH NOT JUST FOOD PERMITS BUT ANY KIND OF PERMIT REQUEST.

WE UNDERSTAND THERE IS A NEED, THERE MIGHT BE A JUSTIFICATION BUT THESE FOLKS THE FOOD ITSELF AND PERMITS AND PER OUR REQUEST - - REVIEW ASPECT: FOOD OUT THE APPLICATION WAS ONE APPLICATION TYPE THAT WE GOT INTERNALLY THAT WE COULD HAVE A BETTER GRASP ON IN MAKING THAT ACCOMMODATION .

WHAT I MEAN BY THAT IS OBTAINING IT.

>> WHAT IS THE CHARGE RIGHT NOW SOMEBODY WANTS TO COME IN?

>> THERE IS NO CHARGE. >> THIS WOULD ELIMINATE LARGER FOOD ESTABLISHMENT THAT ARE COMING IN THAT ARE ALREADY PREPARED FROM THE DATA SOME OF APPLICATION.

WE ARE FINDING SOME OF THEM AND WORK WITH THEM TO GET THEM TO COMPLIANCE . THAT WILL MOVE THAT OUT IS A

TURNKEY OPERATION. >> LET ME MAKE SURE COMMISSION

- -. >> I KNOW WE'LL HAVE A RUSH FEE RIGHT NOW, THEY WILL COME IN AND OPEN IN TWO WEEKS, WE DO

HAVE A FEE THOUGH, RIGHT? >> OH YES, MA'AM. DEPENDING ON THE WAY WE HAVE, THE TYPE OF ESTABLISHMENT WITH OUR FIXED FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS, IT IS GENERALLY BROKEN DOWN BY THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES IN THE ESTABLISHMENT.

IF YOU HAVE I BELIEVE UP TO 15 EMPLOYEES, AS THE $200 FEE.

ALSO, I WANT TO SECOND THAT FEE SCHEDULE PROPOSED TO THE COURT ALL THE OTHER ESTABLISHMENTS WHETHER IT IS TEMPORARY, FARMERS MARKET, WITHOUT THESE INCORPORATIONS OF THE FEE SCHEDULE, WE CAN TRY TO FIT THEM INTO THAT MOLD OF A FIXED OR MOBILE ESTABLISHMENT BECAUSE THAT'S THE ONLY FEE SCHEDULE OPTIONS THAT WE HAVE. IF NOT TESTIFY TO SAY THAT IS TEMPORARY EVENT. WE WILL CHARGE A FIXED FOOD ESTABLISHING FEE OF $200. IF WE DO TEMPORARY ASPECT - -

IN THE COUNTY. >> HOPE THAT EXPLAINS IT A BIT.

THOSE APPLICATION AND PERMITS BEING REQUIRED AT THE STATE LEVEL BUT IT IS ALSO WHAT WE HAVE EXPERIENCED AND ALLUDED TO WITH RUSH REVIEWS BEING REQUESTED DAILY.

AS FINGERING A MECHANISM AS HAVING ACCOMMODATE THAT REQUEST BY ALSO NOT HOLDING ONE ESTABLISHMENT ABOUT THE OTHER.

IN TERMS OF EQUAL. >> IF A PERSON WANTS TO OPEN SOME, THEN ATTEND OUR FEES ASSOCIATED WITH THAT.

I DID COME ACROSS SOMEBODY THAT DOES NOT HAVE THE FUNDS OR

PERMITTING? >> IN MY EXPERIENCE THUS FAR, I PERSONALLY NOT EXPERIENCE THAT. I KNOW ERIC AND HIS LONGER TENURE HAS. IT IS A PART OF THE APPLICATION PROCESS, IF YOU DON'T THE MONETARY ASPECT TO PAY FOR YOUR APPLICATION, YOU NEED THAT FOR US TO THE EDUCATION PROCESS.

>> THOSE FEES ARE POSTED WHEN THEY GO ONLINE?

>> YES, MA'AM, THEY ARE AVAILABLE ON OUR WEBSITE.

IF THERE ARE CHANGES MADE, THE COURT CAN APPROVE THE CHANGES WE PRESENTED. LIKE ERIC AND LYNETTE EXPLAINED, WE HAVE THOSE AVAILABLE IN SPANISH.

[02:15:04]

THE FEE SCHEDULE AND ALSO THE REGULATION.

>> HOW MANY RUSH REQUESTS ARE YOU ARE PROCESSING DO YOU

THINK? >> WITH IN THE PAST YEAR, I WANT TO SAY MORE THAN A HANDFUL, DO YOU GUYS KNOW?

>> HAVE A DOZEN. >> THEY ARE EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES. EITHER I DID NOT DO PROPER PLANNING OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT OR SOME ESTABLISHMENTS WERE NOT AWARE OF THE FULL PARAMETERS OF WHAT GOES INTO OPERATING A BUSINESS. OUR FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS, NOT ONLY - - RESPECTIVE CITIES. IF THEY ARE PLANNING TO OPERATE IN THE SAID CITY THAT THERE IS INFORMATION TO SHARE, BUT IT CAN BE EASILY WITH THE INFORMATION OBTAINED THE PROPER PERMIT IN THE FOOD ESTABLISHMENT - - GET TO THE PROCESS OF THE CITY FROM A BUILDING PERMIT AND FIRE REVIEW AND FAILED TO RECOGNIZE THAT IT NEEDS TO BE - -.

THAT'S A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WHERE THERE IS A MISSING LINK THERE, ESPECIALLY IF YOU'VE A PREOPENING DATE.

THAT IS WHERE I CAN SEE THAT. CAN I GUARANTEE THAT WILL ALWAYS BE THE CASE? NO, I DON'T MIND PAYING THE $500 FEE BECAUSE ANIMAL MY APPLICATION TO BE RUSHED.

WE DO SOMETHING REAL EXPERIENCE WITH.

THE GOOD THING THAT OUR PAY SCHEDULE IS THAT WE CAN ALWAYS

BRING IT BACK. >> I WANT TO POINT OUT ONE THING. STATUTORILY, THE COUNTY CANNOT CHARGE MORE THAN $300 FOR A PERMIT, EVER THAT IS THE MAXIMUM. SOME OF HIS OTHER FEES ARE ALSO PRETTY LOW. MUNICIPALITIES CAN CHARGE WAY MORE FOR ANY TYPE OF FOOD ESTABLISHMENT PERMIT FEES.

THE FEES WE ARE PROPOSING A PRETTY LOW HERE.

THE ONLY ONE THAT SEEMS TO BE A STRETCH IS THE $500 RUSH REVIEW. WE OFFER THAT IS NECESSARILY TOO MUCH OF A STRETCH. IT IS UP TO THE APPLICANT FOR PEOPLE TO KNOW THAT THEY NEED A PERMIT IF THEY OPEN UP A RESTAURANT SOMEWHERE. IT THEIR WAY INTO LAST-MINUTE OPEN, AGAIN, MARCUS STATED THAT HE WILL TRY TO HELP PEOPLE OUT.

WE DEFINITELY DO TO THE BEST OF OUR ABILITIES, BUT IT MIGHT NOT NECESSARILY BE A GIANT PRIORITY OVER SOME OTHER THINGS THAT WE MAY BE LOOKING AT LIKE FAILING SEPTIC SYSTEMS. IT MAY NOT BE THAT MUCH OF A PRIORITY.

>> I WILL TOUCH UPON THE PERMIT FEES AS WELL.

PREVIOUSLY, THEY WOULD ALL FIT UNDER RETAIL FOOD ESTABLISHMENT DEPENDING ON THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES.

WITH THE BROKEN DOWN FEES FOR THE VENDOR AND THE FARMERS MARKET VENDOR, IT'S A VERY DIFFERENT APPLICATION WITH NO ADDITIONAL REVIEW FEE ADDED TO IT.

>> MY NAME AND ASKING THE QUESTIONS IS MOST WHOLESOME IN SPIRIT, TO NOT PLAY GOT YOU GOVERNMENT.AS A LIFELONG SMALL BUSINESS ORDER, WE HAVE THIS GOING ON.

WE HAVE THIS PERSON DOING A MYRIAD OF THINGS TRYING TO OPEN A SHOP WHETHER THEY HAVE AN ARMY BECAUSE THEY ARE KFC AND THEY CAN SEE ALL THE ANGLES. THEY WENT THROUGH ALL THE PERMITTING AND HEAVEN FORBID THEY HAVE A BEER AND WINE LICENSE. YOU ARE PLANNING AND ZONING AT PFIVE DIFFERENT - - ONE LICENSE AN ADDITIONAL FEES.

AND ON THE SAME PERMITS, MY ONLY WORK HOPE IS THAT WE DON'T PLAY WACCAMAW WITH THOSE THAT DID NOT KNOW THEY NEEDED TO HELP PERMIT FROM THE COUNTY PBECAUSE THEY WERE IN THE CITY OR SOME KIND OF, YOU UNDERSTAND MUCH REGULATION OF GOT YOU

[02:20:01]

GOVERNMENT.I WANT TO BE ENDLY FOR THOSE TRYING TO MAKE A LIVING, SELLING EGGS THE FARMERS MARKET BUT OF COURSE KEEPING A SAFE. IT IS YOUR JOB TO MAKE SURE THAT IS NOT HAPPEN. AT THE SAME TIME, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE ARE DOING THESE THINGS IN THE SPIRIT OF CONSCIENTIOUSNESS. HEAVEN FORBID - - GO SELL EGGS THE FARMERS MARKET AND GET A BARRAGE OF PERMIT FEES.

I NEED A LEARNERS PERMIT, SO I'M TRYING TO FIND A WAY TO HAVE LESS GOVERNMENT THE CONTROLS AND WHAT WE REPRESENT.

THAT IS ALL I'M ASKING FOR, IT IS MOST USER-FRIENDLY TO THE

RESIDENCE. >> THE JUSTIFICATION AND REASON WHY, TRYING TO GO THROUGH PROBLEMS AND FIND YOU NOT OPERATING WITH THE PROPER PERMIT.

WE START OFF OUR FIRST FOOT FORWARD TO UNDERSTANDING THIS IS WHERE WE ARE COMING FROM AND WHY WE HAVING THIS DISCUSSION WITH YOU. FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND THAT GOING FORWARD, THIS IS WHAT IS BEING REQUIRED AND YOU WILL FEEL LIKE YOU ARE BEING PRESSURED.

>> $500 CAN FEEL LIKE A HUSTLE. IT CAN BE LITERALLY, I DIDNOT KNOW . I'M DOWN TO MY LAST NICHOLS TO BUY A GALLON OF PAINT AND NOW I HAVE TO PAY $500.

SADLY, I'M THINKING OF IT THAT WAY AND YOU ARE RIGHT TO SAY YOU FAILED, BUT STILL, I AM LOOKING FOR THE COMPASSION IN

THAT PROCESS, THAT IS ALL. >> WE CAN FULLY UNDERSTAND, WE ARE TAKING OUR FIRST STEP FORWARD WITH THIS PROCESS.

THE REGULATIONS ITSELF, OUR STAFF IS WORKING ON THE CHANGES AND HAVE BEEN FOR SIX MONTHS OR LONGER.

WE ABLE TO THE CHANGES THE STATE MANDATED CHANGES TO OUR OWN STAFF CHANGES WHICH IWILL GET TO A FEW OF THE CHANGES IN A BIT . WE HAVE LOOKED AT EVERY POSSIBLE SCENARIO. I KNOW WE CAN'T FULLY PREDICT FOR EVERYTHING, BUT WE HAVE CONSIDERED ALL ASPECTS.

>> JUDGE: I FULLY SUPPORT BECAUSE THAT WILL CREATE LESS GOT YOU GOVERNMENT. WE HAVE TO BE UNIFIED IN EVERY WAY POSSIBLE IN CITY, COUNTY AND STATE.

THAT CREATES HARMONY IN THE PROCESS FOR SOME OF HER TO OPEN UP THEIR LIFESTREAM, POTENTIALLY.

>> WHICHEVER DIRECTION TO TAKE WITH THE COURT TODAY, OUR GOAL IS THAT BUILDING ON THE OUTREACH.

SHOULD IT BE APPROVED WITH THE REGULATIONS AND FEE SCHEDULE, WE PLAN ON HAVING AVERAGE PRESENTED TO NOT ONLY AND ESTABLISHMENTS TO MAKE SURE THEY REQUESTED BUT ARE JURISDICTIONS, THE CITY SUGGESTS - - AND LOCAL AGREEMENTS THAT THE INFORMATION TO POSSIBLY IN THE FUTURE AVOID SITUATIONS SOMEBODY SPACE WITH A SITUATION WHERE I DO NOT KNOW THE INFORMATION THAT COMES WITH THEM.

IT IS A LOT. YOU FOCUS ON THE PRIORITY THINGS LIKE GETTING A BILL THE PERMIT OR UTILITIES COME ALL THE GOOD STUFF. PEOPLE MAKE MISTAKES, A LOT OF THINGS ARE FORGOTTEN. THE MORE INFORMATION WE CAN PROVIDE TO THE PUBLIC IN THE CITIES, THE BETTER.

>> YOU DEPARTMENT HAS BEEN MAGNIFICENT IN ALL THE REQUESTS OF MINE TO DO MORE THAN WHAT IS REQUIRED.

FOR EXAMPLE, PUTTING OUT CERTIFIED LETTERS, LETTERS IN THE PAPER ON REAL ESTATE COMMISSION CHANGES AND MODIFICATIONS. I ASKED IN THIS SPACE THE SAME THING. MY STRONG SUIT IS TRYING TO BE CREDITABLE AND CONSISTENT. WILL YOU GUYS HELP TO ENSURE THAT THE CITY OF WIMBERLEY HAS DOUBLED DOWN INFORMATION THAT YOU HAVE TO DO THIS TOO. CAN YOU GUYS PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT EFFORT IS MADE BY US, COUNTY TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE

[02:25:06]

HAVE DOUBLED DOWN INFORMATION AS A CERTIFIED LETTER PLUS ARE

NOT CERTIFIED LETTER? >> AS OF THIS MORNING, WE HAVE A PREPARED DOCUMENTATION IN VARIOUS FORMS.

>> THE LAST THING I WILL SAY THAT I WILL PASS IT TO COMMISSIONER SCHMIDT, WILL BE REFERRED BACK TO US AND TELL US HOW IT IS GOING TOO I KNOW COMMISSIONER - - WAS HERE LAST UPDATE IN 2016. THAT WAS AS A RESULT OF A STATE CHANGE BUT BACK IN 2016, STAFF DID RECOMMEND WHEN IT COMES TO ESTABLISHMENTS ON THE LETTER GRADE OF A THROUGH F AND WERE THAT FALLS A NUMBER OF VIOLATIONS.

ONE OF THE BIG STAFF RECOMMENDED CHANGES IS TO REMOVE A REQUIREMENTS. WE FEEL GOING FORWARD THAT REMOVING THE LETTER GRADE - - HIT OR MISS AND OUR EXPERIENCE IS PALPABLE WHEN WE SEE DISCUSSIONS IT IS MISLEADING POSTED ON THEIR ESTABLISHMENT BECAUSE THEIR MOST RECENT MAY NOT BE INDICATED. ERICA MY FETAL MIND SCRUBBING

THE PROCESS. >> WE HAVE BEEN DOING THIS NOW FOR THE LAST SEVEN YEARS OR SOMETHING.PROBABLY THE LAST YEAR AND A HALF, WE WOULD STOP ISSUING THEM.

THEY ARE MISLEADING AND DON'T INDICATE PROPERLY WHAT IS GOING ON THERE. SOMEONE CAN RECEIVE A CAPITAL A LETTER GRADE - - THE REALITY OF IT IS THAT THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT VIOLATIONS. THEY CAN HAVE A WALK-IN COOLER TEMPERATURE ABOUT 20B0 AND THAT'S A SERIOUS HEALTH HAZARD.

THAT'S IT WILL BE MISLEADING AND CAN BE 6 TO 7 POINTS TAKEN OFF BUT IT IS NOT APPROPRIATE. WE ARE NOT UPGRADING ANYBODY ANYMORE, YOU'RE GIVING YOUR INSPECTION REPORT.

THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO HAVE A DOCUMENT OUT THERE ACCORDING TO THE ENGAGEMENT CODE WHICH SAYS A COPY OF THE MOST RECENT INSPECTION REPORT MAY BE MADE AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST AND IF ANYBODY WANTS TAKE A LOOK AT I , MOST PEOPLE WON'T WANT TO DO THAT, WE UNDERSTAND THAT HOWEVER IF SOMEBODY REALLY WANTS TO KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON THERE IT IS RIGHT THERE.

>> ANYTHING ELSE TO CONTRIBUTE? >> I HAVE ENOUGH RESPECT FOR MORE THAN FIVE YEARS DOING FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS AND I HAVE SEEN - -. IT BLURS THE LINES BETWEEN CLOSING IT DOWN.

>> THIS IS ANOTHER ITEM WHICH WAS A LATE RENEWAL FEE, SO THE REQUEST BEHIND IT WAS IN DEALING WITH RENEWALS, YOU ARE PROBABLY KNOW THIS BUT FOR THOSE THAT DON'T, WHEN IT COMES TO FOOD ESTABLISHMENT IN THE COUNTY, IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM FILING FOR YOUR ESTABLISHMENT, YOU PAY THE NEW FEE.

AFTER THAT, YOU ARE REQUIRED TO RENEW WITH THE JURISDICTION

EACH AND EVERY YEAR. >> THANK YOU FOR THE DOLLAR

AMOUNT TO THAT. >> YOU ARE RENEWING FOR TWO TO $300? YES, SIR, THE FEE ITSELF IS NOT THE CONCERN, THE ISSUE IS THE RENEWAL PROCESS.

NOT JUST RECENTLY, IT IS SOMETHING GOING ON FOR WELL OVER A NUMBER OF YEARS. OUR ESTABLISHMENTS, I DON'T WANT TO SAY THEY DON'T PRIORITIZE BUT - - CAN LAG OVER EVERY YEAR. THERE IS A RENEWAL LATE FEE OF

$250. >> THE ARE RUNNING THE BUSINESS TRYING TO KEEP UP WITH STUFF? OW ARE YOU REACHING OUT WITH

THE RENEWAL? >> WE ARE PROVIDINGMULTIPLE

[02:30:01]

INCIDENTS OF OUTREACH AND RENEWALS ALL ESTABLISHMENTS .

WE SEND OUT RENEWAL NOTIFICATIONS AS EARLY AS SEPTEMBER OR OCTOBER TO EXPLAIN TO ESTABLISHMENTS THAT IT IS THATTIME OF THE YEAR YOU LIKE AND THE OTHER PROCESS .

WE WILL NOTIFY ALL ESTABLISHMENTS WELL AHEAD OF THE CALENDAR YEAR TIMEFRAME, RENEWALS ARE OFFAT THE END OF THE YEAR . OUR RECOMMENDATION COMMISSIONER COURT EXCEPT - - THERE IS NO APPLICATION FOR THAT ESTABLISHMENT THAT WOULD IMPOSE THE $250 FINE FOR NOT RENEWING.

>> IS THERE A FINE NOW? >> THERE IS NO FINE.

>> I WILL TO ADD THAT WE AS INSPECTORS WOULD EMAIL THE ESTABLISHMENTS TO INFORM THEM BEFORE THAT HAPPENS.

>> JUST GIVE PEOPLE A HEAD'S UP. IF YOU ARE RUNNING A SMALL BUSINESS, - - JUGGLING FIREBALLS.

>> THEY ARE GIVING THEM A MONTH, JANUARY 1 WHEN IT IS DU

. >> OF PEOPLE TO THE RENEWALS NOVEMBER THIS IDEA BEFORE IT IS EVEN DO.

INITIAL OUTREACH DOES NOT SEPTEMBER TO OCTOBER TIMEFRAME.

EVERY JANUARY OR CURRENTLY NOW, THEY CAN PROBABLY EXPLAIN HOW MANY DISCUSSIONS HAVE BEEN RENEWED IN THE COUNTY.

>> PROBABLY 40 TO 50 ESTABLISHMENTS AND PROBABLY HALF OF THAT HAVE NOT TURNED IN AN APPLICATION AT THIS TIME, EVEN WITH EMAILS AND PHONE CALLS AND CITATIONS.

WE HAVE ISSUED AROUND OF CITATIONS AND OFFERED ESTABLISHMENT BY THE RENEWAL APPLICATION AND WITHIN A COUPLE OF DAYS AND THAT HAS WORKED TO GAIN COMPLIANCE, BUT IT'S A LONG CYCLE THAT WE ARE PURSUIN .

>> WHAT IS IT ALSO WORKS REALLY WELL IS RENEW WHERE YOU ARE

SHUT DOWN. >> WE HOPE THAT THIS, BEFORE WE GET TO THAT POINT, CAN INCLUDE THIS TYPE OF LITIGATION EFFORT

TO SEE IF I CAN HELP FOLKS. >> IMAGINE SOMEONE THAT WAS A

YEAR. >> THAT IS THE SPACE THAT YOU

HAVE TO LEAN ON. >> TO WRAP THIS ALL WITH A NICE LITTLE BOW, OUR COUNTY AS A WHOLE IS GROWING.

IT'S BEEN ECHOED IN NUMEROUS CONVERSATION SO FAR TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO DO OUR BEST TO CONTROL ALL ASPECTS AND PROVIDE TWO QUICK STATISTICS. CURRENTLY RIGHT NOW, BE OF 671 FOOD ESTABLISHMENT IN HAYS COUNTY, ALL UNINCORPORATED AREAS. OUT OF THOSE 671, WE AFFORDED 75 FIXED FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS. SINCE JANUARY 1, 2022, FOR FIXED FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS WE HAVE GAINED OVER 101 AND FOR MOBILE FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS, WE HAVE GAINED 91.

WITHIN 18 MONTHS, REACHING UPWARDS OF 200 FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS BEEN OUT EFFORTS FOR THE CHANGES OF REGULATIONS AND FEES ARE JUSTIFIED IN THE ASPECT OF FIGURING OUT AND ADAPTING, GOING WITH HOW THINGS ARE BEING PART OF THE COUNTY.

>> COMMISSIONER: [INAUDIBLE]. IN MY PRECINCT, I PROBABLY HIT MORE OF THESE MEANS OPENING TWO WEEKS KIND OF SITUATIONS.AT THE END OF THE DAY, I FEEL BUSINESSES ARE SET AND READY TO GO AND THEY FEEL US OF THE COUNTY IS THE ONE THING STANDING IN THEIR WAY. THE PROBLEM THAT I HAVE IS ON THIS EXPEDITED SCHEDULE, I WANT TO ENSURE THAT THE GUY WAS BEEN ONLINE FOR TWO MONTHS AND HAS AN APPLICATION IN THE MY GOING TO THE PROCESS IN THE CORRECT WAY IS - - $500 AND JUMP TO THE FRONT OF THE LINE. MAYBE WE PUT A TIME LIMIT ON IT AND OFFER IT TO ALL APPLICANTS. I CAN TELL YOU THAT MOST OF THESE SERVICE ESTABLISHMENTS, IF THEY WERE IN A TIME CRUNCH EVEN A MONTH AND A HALF OR TWO MONTHS OUT AND THERE WAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO GET TO THAT FRONT OF THE LINE, THAT IS WHAT

[02:35:01]

WE ARE DOING HERE. THEY WOULD DO IT.

I'M TALKING ABOUT CULTURE, THE PROCESS AND KNOWWHAT TO DO .

AS A SMALL BUSINESS OWNER, ESPECIALLY A FOOD SERVICE ESTABLISHMENTS, THERE IS ONE PERMIT THAT YOU HAVE TO GET, PERIOD. THE PROBLEM THAT WE RUN INTO YOU ABILITY PRETTY WELL, MARCUS.

THEY ALREADY SAID THE GRAND OPENING AND ARE READY TO GO AND HAVE GONE TO THE ENTIRE PERMITTING PROCESS WITH THE CITY OF DRIPPING SPRINGS AND HAD NO IDEA THEY HAD TO, THE COUNTY FOR THE FOOD SERVICE ESTABLISHMENT PERMIT .

THAT WAS ONLY RECENTLY CANNOT OPEN.

I GET TO THEIR WORK TO THAT PROCESS, BUT FROM A FUNCTIONAL LEVEL, THAT IS THEIR ENTIRE BUSINESS, BASED ON THEIR ABILITY TO GET THAT PERMIT. WHILE MY HEART GOES OUT TO THEM THAT THEY MAY HAVE MISSED SOMETHING, AT THE END OF THE DAY THAT IS THE MOST BASIC THING.

YOU HAVE TO PAY THE LIGHT BILL AND PAY A WATER BILL TO ENSURE YOU HAVE UTILITIES, AND YOU BETTER HAVE A PERMIT TO OPERATE. I JUST DON'T WANT TO SET UP A SITUATION WHERE WE ARE UTILIZING THAT BEHAVIOR AND PEOPLE DO NOT WANT TO DO IT FOR THE LAST TWO WEEKS OR A WEEK BEFORE THEY MOVE FORWARD AND THEY GET $500 AND GET IT DONE BY JUMPING PEOPLE ABOUT THE PROCESS THE CORRECT WAY.

I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH YOU STRUCTURE IT TO DO THAT BUT I THINK THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE REALLY HAVE TO LOOK AT .

>> YES COMMISSIONER, BUT I CAN PROPOSES THAT THE COURT WILL APPROVE, VACANT - - FEE AT THIS TIME AND CONSIDER COMMISSIONER SMITH OR ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER JUDGES REQUEST TO FIGURE OUT IF YOU WERE TO PUT IN MORE RECOGNITION IS TO SPECIFY THAT REQUEST AND TO AVOID MAY BE ANY OF THE CONCERNS ALLUDED TO.

I AM OPEN TO EITHER OR. >> THINK THE, YES EXCEPT BELIEVE PEOPLE FOLLOWING THE PROCESS SHOULD NOT BE PENALIZED AT ONE IOTA. I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO CONSIDER A SCALE ON OTHER THINGS. IF YOU ARE ONE DAY LATE, $250, OR IF YOU ARE 90 DELAYS, $50, OR - - SIX MONTHS LATE THEN DOUBLE THE FEE. THAT MIGHT BE A GOOD IDEA, SCALE IT IN A WAY THAT YOU GUYS THINK MAKES SENSE INSTEAD OF YOU ARE 12 HOURS LATE, $250. THAT SOUNDS TERRIBLE.

I'VE SEEN IT AND LIVED IT. >> BOTH OF THOSE FEES ARE SOMETHING WE CAN PUT ON AND MODIFY CHEMICALS INTO EFFECT NEXT WEEK, THE RENEWALS WE ARE PRACTICING UNTIL THE CALENDAR YEAR NEXT JANUARY (FEBRUARY 2024.

>> THE OTHER THING THAT MIGHT BE HELPFUL IS IF YOU HAVE THE EXPEDITED FEE, PUT A TIME LIMIT ON IT.

IN OTHER WORDS, IF YOU PAY THE EXPEDITED RATE, THAT WILL GUARANTEE YOU WITHIN 30 BUSINESS DAYS OR WITHIN 15 BUSINESS DAYS, COMPLETION OF THE APPLICATION.

AT THE END OF THE DAY, EVEN THOSE GOOD ACTORS NEVER WORKED INTO THE PROCESS, IF WE ARE THERE AND IT IS 20 DAYS OUT, IF I'M A BUSINESS OWNER - - PIECE OF MIND TO KNOW THAT AN OPERATION WILL BE RUNNING IN 20 DAYS.

AGAIN, THERE HAS TO BE SOME TYPE OF TIME LIMIT OR MECHANISM FOR THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PROCESS.

>> HOW DID YOU WANT TO ENCAPSULATE THIS?

>> I HAD A QUESTION, WHEN YOU HAVE COMPLETED PROCESS AND HOW

LONG IS THAT PROCESS TO REVIEW? >> 1 TO 3 MONTHS.

THAT IS DUE TO THE VOLUME OF MONTHS.

THESE FOLKS DO AFFORD OUR HAZARD.

>> ON THE NEW BUDGET CYCLE, IF THE COURT WOULD WANT TO MOVE, WE CAN PLAN ON FOR NOW THE COURT WANTS TO ADOPT THE FEE SCHEDULE MINUS LATE RENEWAL IN THE FOOD ESTABLISHMENT PERMIT APPLICATION RUSH REVIEW FEE, OUR STAFF AND GO BACK TO THE

DRAWING BOARD. >> SO MOVED.

>> SECOND. >> WASN'T PART OF THE LAST

[02:40:05]

LEGISLATIVE SESSIONTHAT IS NEW , THAT'S NEW PERMITTING OF FARMERS MARKET VENDORS? WHAT IS THAT TAKE? SOMEBODY SAYS I HAVE VEGETABLES I WANT TO TAKE TO THE FARMERS

MARKET. >> I CAN SPEAK TO THAT.

FOR A FARMER - - NO PERMITTING WILL BE NECESSARY.

MOST DATA PROCESSING OF THE VEGETABLES OR FOOD IS ONE OF FOOD PERMIT WILL BE REQUIRED. THE FARMERS MARKET IS ALLOW FOR A DIFFERENT SET UP THAN WHAT THE FDA FOOD CODE REQUIRES.

FOR MOBILE UNITS, THAT WERE REQUIRED - - THEY CAN OPERATE UNDER THE SAME CONTEMPORARY PERMIT.

ALLOWING A DIFFERENT TYPE OF OPERATION THAT IS NOT NORMALLY

ALLOWED. >> MORE USER-FRIENDLY.

>> IF I AM SELLING VEGETABLES IN THEIR NORMAL STATE, I CAN SHOW UP AND SELL MY VEGETABLES? IF I'M MAKING SALSA, THINNING

ME TO COME AND GET A PERMIT? >> ON THE OUTREACH AND DOCUMENTATION, I ECHO HER COMPLIMENTS.

SHE IS ABLE TO PROVIDE DEPICTION OF WILL FOR BOOT LOOK LIKE SHOULD SOMEONE NEED ASSISTANCE IN FALLING TO THE T WHAT WE ARE RECOMMENDING. I CAN BE SHARED WITH THE ENTIRE

COURT. >> JUDGE: COMMISSIONER SHELL, ANYTHING ELSE? WE'VE A MOTION AND A SECOND,

PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. >> CLERK:

>> JUDGE, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, THOSE WERE ON

THE TWO ITEMS, CORRECT?KAY. >> WE WILL REVISE THE SCHEDULE IMMEDIATELY AND HAVE NOT POSTED ON THE COUNTY WEBSITE MINUS THE

[Items J1 - J3]

TWO ITEMS. >> JUDGE: AND FOR THE CALENDAR INVITES JUST HOW IT ISGOING. THANK YOU SO MUCH.

PLEASE OPEN J3 . THE HUB ALSO DIVISIONS, DO YOU HAVE A PREFERENCE OR LEGAL STRAIGHT TO J3 SINCE OUR PUBLIC

COMMENTS UNDER J3? >> YOU CAN OPEN ALL THREE AND I CAN RUN THROUGH DAY ONE AND TWO REALLY QUICKLY.

>> PLEASE OPEN J1, TWO AND THREE.

>> J1, PLN-2020-NP, SESSION OF POSSIBLE ACTIONS - -.

PLN-2166-PC, HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING FOLLOWED BY POSSIBLE ACTION OF LOT 3, REPLATTED. J3, PLN-2090-NP.

DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING THE HAZE, SUBDIVISION

LUMINARY PLAN. >> JUDGE: OKAY, I WILL START WITH THIS. HE WILL TALK ABOUT ONE OF OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING FOR TWO, THEN WE WILL GO TO COMMENT ON THREE.

>> J ONE IS A SUBDIVISION KNOWN AS PROPOSED IN A TARTAN HILLTOP LUMINARY PLAN. FOR THE SUBDIVISION, THE PROPOSING A SUBDIVISION OF NYLONS ACROSS 11.31 ACRES LOCATED ALONG - - OFTEN IN PRECINCT 4. FOR THE SUBDIVISION, WATER UTILITY WILL BE ACCOMPLISHED BY PUBLIC UTILITY AGENCY AND FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT, THERE PROPOSING INDIVIDUAL ON-SITE FACILITIES AS THEIR TREATMENT OPTION FOR AT THIS TIME, THERE ARE NO VARIANCES REQUESTED.

STAFF IS RECOMMENDING AN APPROVAL BASED ON CONDITIONS PURSUANT TO STATUTORY TIMELINES OUTLINED IN THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE. THE CONDITIONS AS PROVIDED IN THE BACKUP ARE RELATED TO TWO MAIN ITEMS. ONE IS DUE TO THE INDIVIDUAL DATA REVIEW THAT IS REQUIRED AND IN THE SECOND ITEM IS OUR PLANNING REVIEW.

THERE ARE STILL SOME NOTATIONS MISSING ON THE PLOT ITSELF RELATED TO THE DEPICTION OF LOT SIZING.

ALSO, - - ADMINISTRATOR. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT APPROVAL CONDITIONS BASED ON THE CONDITIONS OF THOSE ITEMS

BEING MET. >> YOU SPOKE REAL FAST AND WE SEE HERE YOU ENTER YOU STUPID. THERE ARE THOSE YEAR FOR THE FIRST TIME. IN SUMMARY, THE CONDITIONS YOU ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL AS A DEPARTMENT BUT THE CONDITION YOU ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL WE MET OUR ADMINISTRATIVE, IS THAT A GOOD SUMMARY? THIS IS ON J ONE,

COMMISSIONERS? COMMISSIONER SMITH?>>

[02:45:06]

COMMISSIONER: [INAUDIBLE]. THIS ONE IS CLEAR AND STRAIGHTFORWARD WITH THE MINISTRY OF, I WOULD MOVE FOR APPROVAL PENDING THE MINISTRY CHANGES CONTRACTED BY - -. THE.

WE HAVE A VOTE ON J1 ONLY FOR APPROVAL WITH THE SECOND,

PLEASE CALL THE ROLE. >> CLERK: COMMISSIONER SHELL? HEARING FOR J2. THOSE WISHING TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST AGENDA ITEM PLEASE SUPPORT THE PODIUM.

IF YOU HAVE SIGNED UP, YOU WILL HAVE A CHANCE TO SPEAK SO DON'T

WORRY ABOUT IT. >> SPEAKER: I OWN AN UNDIVIDED 21 - - SUBDIVISION LAND AND WAS NOT CONSULTED ON THIS OR NOTIFIED ON THIS. I WAS GIVEN NOTIFICATION BY OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS THAT HAVE ADJACENT PROPERTY.

I OBJECT TO THE SUBDIVISION. MY ATTORNEY SENT A LETTER TO COMMISSIONER SMITH AND EVERYTHING.

I AM HERE JUST IN CASE. >> IS THERE ANYONE HERE WISHING TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS AGENDA ITEM FOR J2? I SEE NO ADDITIONAL MOVEMENT, ENCLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING.

MR. PACHECO: >> STAFF RECOMMENDS NO ACTION BEING TAKEN, WE ARE INVESTIGATING THAT MATTER BUT MORE SO THE APPLICATION ITSELF LIES WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF THE CITY OF DRIPPING SPRINGS.

AS A RESULT, OUR INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY AS OUTLINED THE APPROVAL PROCESS FOR SUBDIVISION APPLICATIONS.

WHEN A COUNTIES APPLICATIONS, EVEN IN THE CASE OF A REPLATTED, THE COUNTY IS DEFERRED THE APPROVAL FOR THOSE APPLICATIONS. IN ALL REALITY, IT SHOULD NOT

HAVE MADE IT HERE. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

DO YOU HAVE WHAT YOU NEED? YOU TAKE THE TIME TO WATCH US TO WORK HERE AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE, DO YOU HAVE WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW THAT IS A DRIPPING SPRINGS ITEM?

>> YES, SIR, I PLAN TO BE AT THE HEARING AS WELL.

>> BEAUTIFUL, YOUR PRESENCE IS DULY NOTED, THANK YOU FOR BEING

HERE. >> JUDGE, WHAT HAPPENS IF THERE IS INTEREST IN A PIECE OF PROPERTY, SALES MAJORITY OWNER, WHAT IS THE PROCESS THEY ARE? HOW DO WE KNOW SOMEONE HAS AN

PUNDIVIDED INTEREST?>> THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION, A LOT OF OUR PROCESSING AND INFORMATION IS BASED, WE CERTIFY HAVE BUILT AN PROVISIONS TO AVOID SITUATIONS LIKE THAT TO AN OWNER ARE AN APPLICANT IS PROVIDING THIS DOCUMENT, YOU ARE CERTIFYING YOUR PROVIDING - - POSSIBLE. GOING TO VERIFY THAT 20% OWNERSHIP IS BEING ACCOMPLISHED, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT QUITE FRANKLY WE DON'T ANTICIPATE - - COMPLETE.

>> IT WOULD PROBABLY FIGURE TITLE SEARCH IF YOU WANT IT WAS IN THE COMPLETE OWNERSHIP BECAUSE THAT CAN BE DEBATED.

SOMEONE HAS TO SWEAR TO ASSIGN SOMETHING THAT SAYS I AM THE LEGAL OWNER AND THE ONLY LEGAL OWNER'S PROPERTY BEFORE THEY

APPLY. >> IF YOU GIVE ME ONE SECOND - - ADDITIONAL AUGMENTATION AS WELL.

>> OFTENTIMES SITUATIONS LIKE THIS, WE HAVE PARALLEL PATHS BUT THERE'S A PATH BETWEEN LANDOWNERS AND AN ADMINISTRATOR PATH OF REVIEWS TO SUBDIVIDE AND DEVELOP IT.

THOSE PATHS SOMETIMES CROSS AND SOMETIMES THEY DON'T.

I THINK HERE, IT MAY BE THAT THERE IS A SIMPLE PATH TO GET A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND INJUNCTION WITH THE OTHER JOINT

[02:50:03]

OWNERS WITH DEVELOPMENT AND ACTIONS ON THE PROPERTY AND DOES NOT INVOLVE THE COUNTY.I ALSO THINK THAT THERE ARE CROSSOVERS HERE MARIA THE SIGN DOCUMENTS THAT THEY HAD THE RIGHT - - HAVE MOUNTED THOSE KIND OF DOCUMENTS IN A LONG TIME I DON'T KNOW OFFHAND. GUESS MR. PACHECO CAN GIVE US INFORMATION ON THIS AS HE FINDS IT.

>> WE HAVE A STANDARD APPLICATION PROCESS THAT OUR DEPARTMENT ADMINISTERS. BY SUBMITTING THE APPLICATION ON THESE REGULATIONS, THE COMMITTEE AND OWNERS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY REPRESENT CERTAIN THINGS.

THE OWNER OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY - - THE MIDDLE OF THE

APPLICATION. >> IN THE ASPECT OF THE REVIEW, STAFF CAN HAVE A HARD TIME DOCUMENTING THAT AND CERTIFYING

THAT. >> IN GENERAL SITUATIONS, THERE IS AN UNDIVIDED INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY.

SOME OF THE MAJORITY OWNER COMES IN, OF COURSE WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO A DEEP AND RESEARCH THE PROPERTIES BUT AT ANY POINT IN TIME THEY SAY THEY ARE THE OWNERS OF THE RIGHTS WHETHER IT IS AN ENTITLEMENT ON THE PROPERTY AND SOMEONE ELSE WOULD COME TO US AND SAY DEAR LOOK, I HAVE A DEED THAT SHOWS I HAVE AN INTEREST IN THIS PROPERTY AND NOT ONE OF THE APPLICANTS, I WOULD THINK THAT WOULD GIVE IS REASONABLE PAUSE.

THE APPLICATION IS TO BE COMPLETED.>> QUITE FRANKLY, WE DO GET OUR FAIR SHARE OF DIRECT OWNERS ESTIMATE ALL THE PROPER DOCUMENTATION, BUT THE MAJORITY APPLICATIONS WE GET HERE IS SOME SORT OF ENTITY. EVEN THEN, WE HAVE A FURTHER STEP OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT THAT IF YOU'RE PREPARING A DOCUMENT ON BEHALF OF OWNER OWNERS, YOU ARE CERTIFYING THAT THE DOCUMENTIN YOUR PROVIDING IS TRUE . THAT IS SIGNED BY THE OWNER THEY ARE REPRESENTING AND THE APPLICANT ITSELF IS CERTIFY THE

DOCUMENT. >> I WAS GOING TO POINT OUT THAT THERE ARE SOME THAT SITUATIONS WHERE THE PLAN TO DEVELOP THEPROPERTY WOULD VIOLATE HOA RULES , OR SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE. THAT IS WHAT THEGOVERNMENT REVIEW AND CIVIL PATH DOES NOT CROSS .

WE HAVE AN OWNERSHIP IS TO ISSUE SO PATHS DO CROSS AND

THERE IS AN ISSUE FOR PAUSE. >> JUDGE: IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT COMMISSIONER SHELL IS STORYLINE, WE CAN ISSUE A PERMIT BECAUSE IT IS NOT COMPLETE.

>> IS CONCERNING BECAUSE IF THEY WERE NOT HAVE BEEN TOLD, HE WOULD'VE TAKEN ACTION POSSIBLY.

- - NOBODY'S COME TO US. CLOTHES IS A LITTLE TRICKY BECAUSE OF THE TAX STATEMENT AND REQUIRED SIGNATURES ON THAT PART DOCUMENT, IT WILL BE REQUIRED UNDER THE UMBRELLA OF

A DOCUMENT. >> OFTENTIMES, THE SITUATION HAPPENS WHEN THERE IS AN ESTATE AND A DECEASED AND THE DECEASED PHAS LEFT THE PROPERTY. USUALLY, THERE IS A REFLECTION OF THAT IN THE DEED HISTORY. MOST TIMES, WE WOULD NOT RUN TO

THE SITUATION WE DONOT KNOW . >> I WILL LIKE TO YIELD TO COMMISSIONER SMITH FOR CLOSING COMMENTS.

>> THANK YOU JUDGE. I WANT TO NUMBER ONE, I THINK THERE ARE SERIOUS ISSUES WITH THOSE ITEMS. I TRIED TO PULL IT YESTERDAY BUT BECAUSE OF OUR PUBLIC

[02:55:02]

HEARING, I WAS NOT ABLE TO DO THAT.

BUT I CAN TELL YOU THAT PERSONALLY, I'M NEVER GOING TO PUT AN AGENDA ITEM ON WHERE THERE'S NOT A CLEAR - - IN THE PAST WE FIND THIS MEETING BUT NEVER HAD A RUN-IN WITH THE OTHER OWNER WERECLEARLY UNAWARE OF THE PROCESS .

ON THE FRONT, I'VE DISCUSSED THIS WITH HAVING SOME ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION ON OUR APPLICATIONS, SPECIFICALLY WITH THE CERTIFICATION AND NOTIFICATION WITH THE ACTUAL APPROVAL FOR ALL OWNERS. WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT THAT WE ARE CONTEMPLATING FOR THE FIRST OF THEYEAR .

THIS IS THE PROBLEM THAT WE WILL SEE WHAT THE SUBDIVISION AND THE MORE CEMETERIES THE COUNTY WHERE A LOT OF THOSE PROPERTIES WERE DIVIDED YEARS AGO AND MOST NUMBER TWO UNDIVIDED ENTITIES.THAT'S THE REASON I WANT MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS AND - - WAS NEVER EVEN CONSULTED.

AT LEAST THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING.

I MADE A STRONG PLEDGE TO MY CONSTITUENTS.

I DON'T KNOW THAT THIS AGENDA ITEM COULD COME BACK.

I THINK IT WILL PROBABLY. IT REALLY SHOULD HAVE GONE THROUGH THE CITY OF DRIPPING SPRINGS TO START WITH AND I WOULD HOPE THERE ARE BETTER - - PROVIDED BECAUSE I WOULD IMAGINE THEY WOULD ARRIVE AT THE SAME CONCLUSION WE DID.

>> THANK YOU COMMISSIONER, THERE WILL BE NO ACTION ON THIS ITEM. I WILL START WITH A LIST OF THOSE THAT SIGNED UP TO SPEAK STARTING WITH CAROL PENNINGTON, YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK AT THE PODIUM.

>> SPEAKER: THIS PLAN AS PRESENTED IS NOT A GOOD DESIGN ON SO MANY LEVELS. THE FIRST I WILL TALK ABOUT THIS CREEK SPREAD 95% OF PROPERTIES OVER THE EDWARD RECHARGE ZONE. THERE ARE OVER 60 SENSITIVE ENVIRONMENT OF FEATURES AND LITTLE BEAR CREEK FLOWING TO THE PROPERTY AS WELL AS SEVERAL TRIBUTARY CREEKS.

THIS PLAT IS A HUGE HAZARD WITH A HIGH PROBABILITY OF CONTAMINATION OF THE RECHARGE ZONE BECAUSE FERTILIZERS AND PESTICIDES OR PHONE TO THE CREEKS.

A WATERPROOFING STUDY HAS PROVED THAT WATER UPSTREAM OF HIS PROPERTY REACHED THE SPRINGS IN JUST FIVE DAYS.

MILESTONE IS BEING TOTALLY IRRESPONSIBLE BY BUILDING THE - - OVER THE LANDS WITH OUR OTHER SENSITIVE ENVIRONMENT OF FEATURES. EVERYONE IN THIS PART OF HAYS COUNTY ON WATER WELLS AND THAT IS THE ONLY SOURCE OF DRINKING WATER. THE RECHARGE ZONE IS NO PLACE TO SPREAD TREATED WASTEWATER. THE AREA WHERE THEY WANT TO BUILD HOMES IS HEAVILY WOODED AND IS PRIME HABITUDE HABITATS - - OTHER TEXAS NATIVE SPECIES. THERE IS NO WAY YOU CAN BUILD HOUSES IN THIS AREA WITHOUT TAKING OUTMUCH OF THIS VALUABLE HABITAT . IT WILL BE A HUGE LOSS FOR THE BIRDS AND ANIMALS I CALL THIS PLACE HOME.

THE HOUSE WILL ALSO BE LARGE, ANYTHING

>> TOO MUCH COVER WILL NOT ALLOW PROPER WATER FLOW INTO THE PARKS AND CREEK. HOW ARE IT ALL THAT ARE THERE MUCH TROU.

THE 81 ACRES OF CONDOS DOES NOT FIT IN WITH THE RURAL CHARACTER IS PARTOF THE COUNTY . ALL OF OUR NEIGHBORHOODS ARE SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES AND IT SHOULD STAY THAT WAY, IT SHOULD BE SINGLE-FAMILY FOR BUILDING OVER THE RECHARGE ZONE.

PLEASE DO NOT APPROVE THIS APPLICATION WITH CONDITIONS.

I DON'T TRUST MILESTONE TO FOLLOW THROUGH AND DO THE RIGHT THING. YOU MUST KNOW WHAT THEY ARE PLANNING ON BUILDING BEFORE VOTING.

THANK YOU. >> JUDGE: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

[03:00:04]

NEXT WE HAVE ROXANNE O'NEILL. THE TIME IS, YOUR POST THE

PODIUM. >> I WOULD LIKE TO LOOK AT THE ADDITIONS FOR APPROVAL FOR THE PRELIMINARY PLAT.

LET ME INTRODUCE MYSELF, I AM ROXANNE O'NEILL.

I COME TO YOU AS A VERY CONCERNED CITIZEN OF THE CITY OF HAYS. THESE CONDITIONS ARE SUCH THAT IN OUR VIEW, THE PULMONARY PLAT SHOULD BE AT THE VERY LEAST POSTPONE UNTIL SOME OF THESE CONDITIONSARE ANSWERED .

I CAN TELL YOU THAT THE HAYS CITY COUNCIL VOTED DOWN THEIR APPLICATION. IT WAS A UNANIMOUS VOTE THAT OCCURRED IN NOVEMBER, AND WE VOTED DOWN THE PRELIMINARY PLAT IN NOVEMBER AS WELL WITH THE ONE OBTAINING VOTE.

SO, THIS DEVELOPMENT IS MOSTLY IN OUR ET J. THERE ARE SOME LEGAL QUESTIONS CERTAINLY ABOUT JURISDICTION, WHICH WE HOPE TO ADDRESS IN OUR PRESENTATION LATER WITH OTHER PEOPLE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK. FIRST AND FOREMOST, GOING THROUGH THESE CONDITIONS, THEY DON'T ADDRESS THE FLOODPLAIN OF THE DRAINAGE EASEMENT, THE MILESTONE HAS BEEN KNOWN TO CLEAR-CUT, BULLDOZE, CHANGE THE DRAINAGE PATTERNS, SO QUITE POSSIBLY THERE WILL BE A LOT OF RUNOFF AND CREATE A RECHARGE ZONE. THE WASTEWATER PROPOSAL, THAT IS TEXAS LAND APPLICATION PERMIT WHERE THEY CAN SPRAY OUT SEWAGE, AND THIS IS DIRECTLY ON THE RECHARGE ZONE DIRECTLY TO LITTLE BEAR CREEK. IT'S ALSO BEHIND ABOUT 100 FEET IN THE RESIDENTIAL AREA AND 150 FEET BETWEEN FROM OUR CITY DRINKING WATER WHICH IS A HUGE CONCERN.

WE ARE ONLY ON WELL WATER AS MOST OF THE PEOPLE AND HAYS COUNTY. CERTAINLY THE CONCERNED CITIZENS HERE. ANY POLLUTION RUNOFF BECAUSE OF THE SOIL COMPOSITION MAKEUP IS HEAVILY LIMESTONE WITH HARDLY ANY TOPSOIL. THIS RUNOFF IN THE TREE SEWAGE WE GO DIRECTLY INTO THE CREEK AND THE AQUIFER.

ONCE IT IS TAINTED, IT CANNOT BE UNPOLLUTED.

THERE IS NO FACILITY PLAN ON GOLF PLAT.

WHERE ARE THEY GOING TO PUT THIS? WHERE ARE THEY GOING TO PUT THE MUD? THAT - - HAS NOT GRANTED THEM THE PUMPING ALLOTMENT.

THAT CORRESPONDS WITH HOW MUCH BUILDING THEY CAN DO.

IT'S GOING TO BE 500, 400, 300? ONE OF THE THINGS THAT ARE CITY ENCOUNTER WAS THAT THE MILESTONE WOULD NOT COMMIT TO WHAT EXACTLY IT IS THEY ARE BUILDING.

WE THOUGHT IT WAS GOING TO BE SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES, IT TURNS OUT IT IS A LOT OF CONDOS. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE LOTS ARE GOING TO BE OR BUILDING SIZE, THAT DIRECTLY AFFECTS HOW MUCH SEWAGE IS GOING TO BE PUMPED OUT.

IS IT GOING TO BE 100,000 GALLONS TODAY OR 500? WE DON'T KNOW BECAUSE THEY WON'T COMMIT.

SAME WITH YOUR PLAT, THEY WILL TELL YOU WHAT THEY ARE BUILDIN

. >> MAY YOU PLEASE WRAP UP YOUR COMMENTS? YOU'VE GOT WAY PAST.

>> SO SORRY, I DON'T MEAN TO BE REDUNDANT SO I WILL OTHER

PEOPLE GO. >> NEXT UP, MS. CANDACE BLAKE.

>> THINK THE JUDGE IN COMMISSIONERS,MY NAME IS CANDACE BLAKE . I HAVE LIVED IN THE CITY OF HAYS FOR 38 YEARS. AMIDST ALL THE CHANGES, I LITTLE CITY AND STATE HAS STAYED THE SAME POPULATION AND IS A SWEET LITTLE PACE. I GOT TO KNOW MANY OF THE

[03:05:08]

NEIGHBORS AND RESIDENTS AND THE PEOPLE, I'VE GOTTEN TO KNOW THEM. WHAT I WANT TO SPEAK TO IS THE CONDITION OF THE ON-SITE SEWAGE FACILITY AND HOW PEOPLE IN THE CITY OF HAYS FEEL ABOUT THAT. THROUGHOUT ALL OF MY VISITING THE PEOPLE THAT I KNOW, I NEVER HEARD OF ONE PERSON EVER SAY THAT THEY HAVE APPROVED OF THIS OR WERE APPALLED BY THIS, THEY WANT TO SPREAD THE SEWAGE ALONG THE LINE STREET OF HOMES IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS SO SMALL THERE IS NO WAY WE WOULD NOT SPELL IT FOR ANY OF OUR HOMES BECAUSE IT ALWAYS DOES, REGARDLESS OF WHAT THEY SAY. IN THE CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS, THERE HAS NEVER BEEN ONE PERSON THAT HAS ATTENDED AND SUPPORTED THEM DOING THAT. I'VE NEVER HEARD ANYONE SAY THAT WOULD BE REALLY NICE TO HAVE ANY OF THE THINGS THAT THEY ARE PLANNING. WE HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE COME TO THESE MEETINGS AND TALK TO US AND SAY THEY ARE OPPOSED TO IT, BUT NOBODY IS EVER STOOD UP AND SAID THEY WERE IN FAVOR OF IT.

ALL OF THESE CONDITIONS ARE IMPORTANT AND SERIOUS AND NEED TO BE DEALT WITH BEFORE ANYTHING IS APPROVED BUT PARTICULARLY, THIS SEWAGE FACILITY, THE MUD THAT WAS REQUESTED BY CITY COUNCIL WAS TURNED DOWN FIVE ÃZERO UNANIMOUSLY. IT'S OBVIOUS THE PEOPLE IN THE CITY OF HAYS DO NOT THINK THIS IS A GOOD THING FOR OUR CITY,

THANK YOU. >> JUDGE: THANK YOU SO MUCH.

NEXT UP WE HAVE MR. BOBBY LIPINSKI.>> SPEAKER: THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS. I AM AN ATTORNEY REPRESENTING THE CITY OF HAYS. WE ARE ASKING YOU TO ADD LEAST POSTPONE IT FOR 30 DAYS. I'M SORRY, HAVE A PRESENTATION, WOULD YOU MIND PULLING UP THE SLIDES? THERE ARE TWO MAJOR PLAT NOTES THAT I WANT TO POINT YOU TO THE KESWICK AS TO WHETHER YOU CAN APPROVE IT TODAY.

PLAT OF NUMBER ONE, THIS PLAT IS ENTIRELY LOCATED IN THE CITY OF HAYS. THE REASON THIS IS GOING TO USE IS THAT THERE'S A LOCAL AGREEMENT THAT DEFERS TO HIS COUNTY FOR THE APPROVAL ENTIRELY WITHIN THE ET J. IT IS NOT ENTIRELY WITHIN THE ET J, THERE'S A PORTION OF THIS PLAT WITHIN THE CITY OF AUSTIN, AND I LOOK INTO WHY THAT IS IMPORTANT. THERE'S ALSO A PORTION THAT IS WITHIN OUR JURISDICTION AND WE ARE GETTING TO THE BOTTOM OF THAT, OUR CITY ENGINEERS ARE LOOKING INTO IT.

THE REASON WHY THE CITY OF AUSTIN PART IS IMPORTANT IS BECAUSE THERE'S AND SECURE STATE LAW THAT ISWHEN THERE IS A PLAT , THE TWO CITIES THAT HAVE ETJ WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE PLAT, THE MORE POPULAR THE CITY HAS - - APPROVED THE PLAT. THAT MEANS WE CAN APPROVE IT WHICH MEANS YOU CANNOT PROVE I .

THAT IS TO GO TO AUSTIN, NOT TO HAYS COUNTY.

THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THIS IS A BIG PART OF THIS WHOLE SITUATION, THIS PLAT IS RECOMMENDED BETWEEN THE CITY OF HAYS AND THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY.

IT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.

THERE IS AN OBVIOUS ERROR AND THE WATER QUALITY TRANSITIONS, NEXT SLIDE, YOU CAN SEE THAT THE ROAD THAT GOES TO - - THOSE BOUNDARIES. THAT'S NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT TO THIS PLAT SHOULD NOT BE - - COMPLIANT WITH THE STANDARDS SET.

I THINK WE NEED TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THAT AND AT LEAST TABLE IS FOR 30 DAYS. THANK YOU.

>> JUDGE: THANK YOU. NEXT UP, WE HAVE BRETT MONDAY AND. SEE, I COULD OF GOT MR. ON THAT

ONE AN ACCIDENT. >> SPEAKER: I SUBMITTED A COUPLE OF PAPERS, MY NAME IS (NAME), I OWN A DOG BOARDING FACILITY ON AN 11 ACRE RANCH. IT HAS BEEN MY LIFELONG DREAM,

[03:10:04]

I HAVE SAVED ALL THROUGHOUT MY 20S TO BUY THIS LAND IN 2012.

SPECIFICALLY LOOKING FOR THE ZONING SO I CAN START A BUSINESS LIKE THIS, I HAVE 35 EMPLOYEES AND $120 PER DAY ON THE PROPERTY. FIVE OF MY EMPLOYEES INCLUDING MYSELF LIVE ON SITE. WE HAVE SURVIVED STARTUP STRUGGLES, GONE THROUGH COVID, NOW I'M DEALING WITH LAND DEVELOPERS. I AM NOT A VIEWER MYSELF, I'M NOT HERE TO BLOCK PEOPLE FROM BUILDING THEIR BUSINESSES, HOWEVER, THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT PLAN IS CONCERNING ME FOR MY BUSINESS IN PARTICULAR.

THE FIRST PART IF THAT IS IN THAT PAPER I GAVE YOU.

YOU WILL SEE THAT THERE IS AN AREA THAT SAYS DOG PLAYGROUPS.

THAT IS WHERE DOGS ARE OUTSIDE PLAYING AND BARKING ALL DAY LONG. HOUSES ONE THROUGH FOUR ARE GOING TO BE BY THESE BARKING DOGS.

I AM NOT SURE WHO IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WOULD BUY A HOUSE NEXT TO A DOG DAYCARE, BUT LIVING OUTSIDE, I LIVE IN A SMALL FOR WONDERFUL HOME.I WAKE UP EVERY DAY AT 6:00 A.M.

WHETHER I WANT TO OR NOT BECAUSE DOGS ARE BARKING.

I HAVE CHOSEN THAT LIFESTYLE, I'M NOT SURE PEOPLE WHO HAVE BOUGHT THESE HOMES WOULD BE HAPPY THAT LIFESTYLE.

MY CONCERN IS THAT THESE PEOPLE WILL MAKE A NOISE COMPLAINT AND TRY TO SHUT MY BUSINESS DOWN AND I WAS THEIR FIRST I'M PROPOSING MAY BE AN OPTION FOR THEM TO BUILD SOME SORT OF STONEWALL OR SOMETHING TO HELP KEEP THE SOUND OUT OF THE DOGS SO THAT PEOPLE DO NOT COMPLAIN OR SOME ASSURANCE FROM THE COUNTY THAT I WILL HAVE MY BOAT BUSINESS SHUT DOWN BECAUSE FOR PEOPLE WHO BOUGHT HOMES ARE UPSET ABOUTDOGS .

THE OTHER THING I WANT TO KNOW WITHOUT WALL IS, ARE THEY LOOKING TO FLOODING OR DRAINAGE? WILL IT CAUSE MY LAND TO FLOOD, WILL DOGS BE STANDING IN FLOODWATER BECAUSE OF THE EROSION? I'M NOT SURE WHAT WILL HAPPEN THERE.

MY BIGGEST CONCERN IS THE ROAD THAT WE USE TO ACCESS MY BUSINESS, CARPENTER LANE, JUST ABOUT 20 REMEMBER THIS ROAD AND THANKFULLY, ONE OF HER NEIGHBORS HAS BOTH LITTLE DRAWBRIDGE OVER A LOW WATER CROSSING.

THERE'S A PICTURE OF IT. STORYTIME LIQUID, I RECEIVED A PHONE CALL AT 6:00 IN THE MORNING FROM ONE OF MY EMPLOYEES SCREAMING AND CRYING, SHE IS TRAPPED IN HER CAR IN THE FLOODWATER AND IT WAS RISING IF YOU CANNOT GET OUT.

THE POLICE CANNOT GET TO HER SOON ENOUGH.

I WAS ABLE TO DRIVE MY TRUCK, CLIMBED OVER THE DRAWBRIDGE AND PULLED HIS 90 POUND GIRL OUT OF HER CAR BEFORE SHE DIED.

I'M CONCERNED THAT THIS WILL HAPPEN TO PEOPLE WHO ARE COMING DOWN THIS ROAD AT 6:00 A.M.. ESPECIALLY IF THE CITY IS NOT COME OUT PROGRESSIVELY AND THEY ARE NOT OUT THERE PUTTING THE LOW WATER CROSSINGS. THIS LITTLE GIRL COULD HAVE DIED, I AM CONCERNED SOMEBODY ELSE WILL HAPPEN TOO.

I'M CONCERNED THAT MILESTONES WERE FOR THE CITY TO BUILD SOME SORT OF COVID THAT PEOPLE CAN ACCESS THEM.

IF SOMEONE WERE GOING TO HAVE A HEART ATTACK - - THREE TIMES PER YEAR, HOW THE PERSON GET EMERGENCY SERVICES?THE ISSUE WITH CARPENTER LANE IS TO BE ADDRESSED WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT AND I WOULD LIKE ASSURANCES TO THECITY THAT MY BUSINESS WILL NOT BE AFFECTED . THANK YOU.

>> JUDGE: BEAUTIFULLY DONE, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

WE HAD MISSED ARLENE START. >> SPEAKER: THANK YOU FOR WELCOME ME TODAY. (NAME), I LIVE ONE PARCEL FROM THE FOOTPRINT OF THE TRACK BEFORE YOU TODAY.

I'VE BEEN ATTENDING MEETINGS FOR THIS PROPOSAL FOR QUITE SOME TIME. I HAVE SEEN VARIOUS INTERESTING PRESENTATIONS OF THE DEVELOPERS PLANS AND MANY EXAMPLES OF LACK OF TRANSPARENCY BY THE DEVELOPER.

AFTER DECEMBER 20, 2022 MEETING BEFORE THE HAYS COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, MILESTONE ENGINEER BUT ONLY THROUGH OUR Q&A PLANS THAT THEY WISH TO DO ON THE AUSTIN E TJ SIDE WHICH WOULD BRING HIGHER DENSITY AND GREATER AMOUNTS THAN WHAT YOU ARE VIEWING IN FRONT OF YOU. ALL OF WHICH HAS BEEN MENTIONED TO BE SUPPLIED BY OVERPUMPING GROUNDWATER FROM THE HAYS CITY E TJ AND DISPERSAL ON THE HAYS CITY ETJ SIDE.

THE WASTEWATER DISPERSAL ON THE ETJ SIDE AND ATTRACTED HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED TO HAVE OVER 60 SENSITIVE RESEARCHFEATURES .

AS SOME OF MY COLLEAGUESHERE MENTIONED , THE SLIDES ON THE RECHARGE ZONE AND ACCORDING TO MANY GEOSCIENTISTS, IT IS ONE

[03:15:01]

OF THE MOST SENSITIVE PARTS OF IT.

A TRACING STUDY OF THIS AREA SHOWS CONTAMINATION IMPACT TO LOCAL WELLS AND TWO SACRED SPRINGS WITHIN FIVE DAYS.

I AM ONE OF ONLY 75 INDIVIDUAL LANDOWNERS WHO ARE ON PRIVATE WELLS IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY OF THIS FOOTPRINT AND HIS ONLY SOURCE OF WATER WOULD BE IMPACTED.

AS ALREADY MENTIONED, WILL ALL THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS ARE ON THIS PROPOSAL DEPEND ON THE WELL AS THE SOLE SOURCE OF WATER, INCLUDING THE ENTIRE CITY OF HAYS.

IN ADDITION, THIS AREA IS ONE OF THE LAST OLD-GROWTH AREAS IN THE PRIVATE COUNTY AND IS A SPACE IN INCREDIBLE BIODIVERSITY. THE INTRINSIC IS OF ECONOMIC VALUE OF PRESERVING THIS ARTICLE FOR PROTECTING BIODIVERSITY SHOULD BE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED.

AS PROOF OF THAT BIODIVERSITY, I WILL SHARE WITH YOU MY HOME PROPERTY IS ONE OF THREE PROPERTIES IN THE STATE OF TEXAS THAT ARE CERTIFIED AS A BOTANICAL SANCTUARY NETWORK FOR ENDANGERED AND MEDICINAL PLANTS THAT ARE UNDER INTENSE PRESSURE OF THIS COUNTY WITH ALL OF OUR GROWTH.

YOU ARE WELCOME TO COME SEE IT IF YOU WOULD LIKE.

THERE ARE MANY OTHER CONCERNS CITIZENS HAVE ABOUT THE PROPOSAL WAS A VERY SERIOUS AND CANNOT BE UNDONE IF IT IS ALLOWED TO TAKE PLACE. SEVERAL MEMBERS OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD HAVE REPORTED REACHING OUT TO OUR COMMISSIONER AND EITHER NOT RECEIVING A REPLY, OR BEING TOLD HE WAS NOW AWARE OF THE DETAILS OF THE PROPOSAL.

I MYSELF SCHEDULED AND ATTENDED TWO MEETINGS WHERE HE HAD TO CANCEL LAST MINUTE, SO WE WERE ABLE TO VOICE OUR CONCERNS TO HIM. I AM REOMMENDING A POSTPONEMENT FOR THESE REASONS AND ALL THOSE EXPRESS, OR A CLEARING NO VOTE UNTIL ALL THE COMMISSIONERS CAN MEET WITH CONCERNED CITIZENS ABOUT OUR CONCERNS.THIS IMPACTS THE ENTIRE COUNTY OF HAYS AS WELL AS AUSTIN AND TRAVIS COUNTY.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR VERY CAREFUL CONSIDERATION AND CAUTIOUS

CONSIDERATION OF THIS PROPOSAL. >> JUDGE: YOU ARE ON TIME, WELL DONE. I HAVE DUPLICATES FOR BRETT AND DARLENE. SOMEONE BROUGHT IT IN FOR YOU, GOOD JOB. I THINK I HAVE EVERYONE THE TIME TO SPEAK. SOMETIMES, THE COUNTY CLERK - - EVERYTHING PERFECT. IS THERE ANY MATH ASSIGNMENT TO SPEAK AT THE MACA CALLED UP? WRITTEN COMMENT AS WELL?

>> CLERK: I HAVE THREE. THE FIRST IS FROM MIKE CLIFFOR , THE GREATER EDWARDS AQUIFER ALLIANC.

THE GREATER EDWARDS AQUIFER ALLIANCE RECOMMENDS AGAINST APPROVAL OF THE HAYS COMMENTS PRELIMINARY PLAN AND PLAT DUE TO THEIR INCOMPLETE AS WELL AS MANY OTHER REASONS.

THE HAYS PRELIMINARY PLAT IS MORE NOTABLE FOR WHAT DOES NOT INCLUDE RATHER THAN WHAT IT DOES.

MOST OF THE AREA HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK WITH ONLY THE VAGUE DECLARATION OF 24 - - SHOWN ON 80 ACRES FOR EXAMPLE WITHOUT SPECIFYING THE TIMELESS BUILDINGS, THE APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF THE CONDO BUILDINGS AND THE APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF ANY ROADWAYS OR SIDEWALKS CONNECTING THE CONDO BUILDINGS.

BECAUSE OF THIS LACK OF DEFINITION, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WOULD COMPLY WITH EXISTING HAYS COUNTY CODE AND THE SOS ORDINANCE OVER THE RECHARGE ZONE. IT IS ALSO NOTABLE THAT THE DEVELOPER MILESTONE HAS VARIANCES FOR IMPERVIOUS TO FEDERAL LIMITS IN NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE CITY OF HAYS.

DUE TO THE INCOMPLETENESS, IT IS ALSO POSSIBLE TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY OF THE DETERMINE HOW THE UNITS WILL ENCROACH UPON ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE FEATURES, OF WHICH THERE ARE AT LEAST 10 IN CONDO DEVELOPMENT. ONLY ONE OF THE SENSITIVE FEATURES IN THIS AREA IS SHOWN WITH THE BUFFER ZONE AROUND IT IN VIOLATION OF LOCAL ORDINANCES WHICH REQUIRE A MINIMUM 50 FOOT RADIUS BUFFER ZONE AROUND THE CARS FEATURES.

AN ADDITIONAL 40 ACRE PARCEL ORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT.

WHILE A TYPICAL PERMANENT PLAT AND PROVIDE DETAIL REGARDING WATER AND WASTEWATER SERVICE, THE PROPOSED HAYS DEVELOPMENT IS OVER THE EDWARDS AQUIFER RECHARGE ZONE AND THEREFORE SUCH DETAIL IS RELEVANT AND NEEDED.

INTENTION IN THIS REGARD ARE CLEAR, EARMARKED FOR PUBLIC WELL AND 12 ACRES OF PUBLIC UTILITY. ACRES OF PARKLAND THAT IS SLATED FOR TREATED SEWAGE IRRIGATION.

[03:20:04]

MILESTONE HAS MADE CLEAR THEIR INTENTION TO ESTABLISH A MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT OR MUD TO SELL WATER AND WASTE WATER SERVICE TO NEARBY DEVELOPMENTS. THIS IS SPELLED OUT CLEARLY IN THEIR DRAFT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT THEY HAVE THUS FAR TRIED UNSUCCESSFULLY TO GET THE CITY OF HAYS TO SIGN ONTO. WHILE THE RISKS OF OVERPUMPING THE TRINITY AQUIFER ARE HIGH. ESPECIALLY GIVEN STUDIES SHOWING THE FLOW PATH OF THE EDWARD'S AQUIFER IN THE PROPOSED.

>> FROM THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AREA DIRECTLY TO

BARTON SPRINGS. >> AND FROM BILL BUNCH. OF THE SAVE OUR SPRINGS ALLIANCE. THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AND FOR YOUR SERVICE TO HAYS COUNTY. SOS ALLIANCE HAS 300 MEMBERS LIVING IN HAYS COUNTY. AND THE MATTER OF THE HAYS COUNTY SUBDIVISION AFFECTS THE WATER SKWAULT OF THE BARTON SPRINGS EDWARDS AQ UIFER RAIN FALLING ON THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AS WELL AS THE PROPOSED IRRIGATION OF TREATED SEWAGE WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT FLOWS DIRECTLY INTO THE GROUND THROUGH OPEN FRACTURES THROUGH THE LIMESTONE WHERE IT FLOWS QUICKLY TOWARDS WELLS AND TOWARDS BARTON SPRINGS. AND I ASK THAT YOU POSTPONE THIS MATTER FOR CONSIDERATION. I TRIED REPEATEDLY TO ACCESS THE COMMISSIONER IT IS COURT AGENDA FOR TODAY'S MEETING AND WAS TAKEN INTO AN ENDLESS LOOP THAT NEVER LED TO THE AGENDA OR THE SUPPORTED MATERIALS. I ONLY KNOW OF THE POSTING BECAUSE IT WAS SHARED WITH ME BY OTHERS.

THE APPLICATION FAILS TO MEET HAYS COUNTY SUBDIVISION STANDARDS FOR MANY REASONS, CANNOT SHOW THAT IT HAS ACCESS TO WATER OR SUE WE ARE SERVICE AT THIS TIME. B, AS NOTIFIED COUNTY STAFF PROVIDED, THE PROJECT DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR MINIMUM LOT SIZES WHERE ON-SITE SEWAGE WOULD BE PROVIDED AND DOES NOT SHOW SUBDIVISION LAY OUT IN DETAILS FOR STREETS, UTILITIES, AND FLOOD PLAIN PROTECTIONS. AND C, THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION IS LOCATED WITHIN THE HAYS CITY AND TO MY KNOWLEDGE NEITHER ENTITY HAS REVIEWED THIS SUBDIVISION. JOIN WITH US IN OPPOSING THIS AN EVERY PROPOSAL TO IRRIGATE TREATED SEWAGE DIRECTLY ON THE RECHARGE SEASON WHETHER IT BE BARTON SPRINGS OR THE SOUTHERN, SAN ANTONIO T EDWARD'S AQUIFER RECHARGE ZONE. IT WILL FLOOD DIRECTLY DOWN INTO THE AQUIFER, BEFORE FLOWING INTO DRINKING WATER WELLS AND BARTON SPRINGS.

THANK YOU. >> ONE MORE?

>> ONE MORE. THIS IS SHORT AND SWEET FROM JIM CAM, PLEASE DELAY

FOR TWO WEEKS. >> IS SOUNDS LIKE YOUR JOB'S

BEEN DONE FOR YOU. >> THERE'S, COMMENTARY PROVIDED, I DO AGREE WITH SOME OF THE OUTLYING CONCERNS AND HOPEFULLY THAT WAS DOCUMENTED IN OUR PENDING COMMENTS THAT WE HAVE FOR THE PRELIMINARY PLAN. I'LL GET INTO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND THE ACTUAL IMPACT OF THE JURISDICTIONS SHOWN ON THERE. AND THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING THAT CAN CHANGE THE NARRATIVE HERE. BUT, I'LL ECHO AGAIN, THE COUNTY'S PROCESS, NOW, THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IS BEING DISCUSSED OVER WHAT'S BEING PRESENTED TO MY KNOWLEDGE IN THE DEVELOPMENT AREA BETWEEN DEVELOPER, OWN E AND THE CITY OF HAYS, THE COUNTY WAS NOT PRIVY TO THAT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT TO MY KNOWLEDGE. EVEN OVER SEVERAL YEARS AGO AND TO THIS POINT NOW. SO, WITHOUT THE COUNTY BEING INVOLVED WITH THE ASPECTS OF THOSE TERMS, OUR PROCESS IS TO FORCE ALL OF OUR REGULATIONS AS WE SEE FIT AS THEY'RE PRESENTED TO US. IN ADDITION, STATUTORILY, WE'RE REQUIRED TO ACT ON A SUBMITTAL BY A CERTAIN TIME, WHETHER IT'S APPROVAL, OR DISAPPROVAL OUR GENERAL PRACTICE IS TO GRANT A CONDITIONAL

[03:25:03]

APPROVAL AND IN NO FORM OR FASHION IS A CONDITIONAL APPROVAL SIGNED, SEALED, STAMPED SAYING THIS IS DONE. THE TERMS OUTLINED IN THE STATUE PROVIDE RECOURSE AND THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS STILL HAS ITEMS THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED BY WRITTEN POWER OF RESPONSE AND STILL HAVE THE PARAMETERS WITH ALL OF OUTLYINGS THAT I OUTLINED. A COUPLE OF COMMENTS THAT I WOULD LIKE TO DIVE DEEPER ON IS TMUNICIPAL UTILITY CONDITION. THE REQUIREMENTS AS OUTLINED IN THE COMMENT LETTER THAT WAS ATTACHED, FOR OUR REG REGULATIONS, WE REQUIRE FOR THE PROHE IS POSALS PROVIDE A LOT MORE INFORMATION THAN JUST A SIMPLE NOTE SAYING A MUD WILL BE PROVIDING WATER AND WASTE WATER TO THIS. SO, WE REQUIRE DETAILED INFORMATION OF THAT DISTRICT, THE BOUNDARIES, THE TIME TABLES, I KNOW, HAVE BEEN CREATED. AND THEN, THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE ORGANIZATION. THAT WASN'T REQUIRED TO US. THE CONDOMINIUM UNIT ASPECT, OUR STANDARD SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS HAVE ALWAYS REQUIRED THAT FOR CONDOMINIUM STYLE DEVELOPMENT, REGARDLESS OF THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENTS THAT'S GOING TO GO IN THERE, A TOWN HOME OR A DUPLEX OR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. IF YOU'RE PROPOSING A CONDOMINIUM STYLE DEVELOPMENT, WE REQUIRE THOSE TO BE SHOWN OR DEPICTED IN THE PLAT. AND THAT WAS ALSO

COMMENTED AS WELL. >> CHAIR: THAT WAS WHAT?

>> IT WAS A COMMENT THAT WAS ADMINISTRATED WITH THE REVIEW.

>> IN ADDITION, THE OTHER ASPECT MENTIONED WAS THE SERVING OF, I THINK THERE WAS A WESTERN PORTION OF LOTS THAT ARE GOING TO BE ACCOMPLISHED BY INDIVIDUAL ON-SITE SEWAGE FACILITIES. AND IF THEY'RE GOING TO BE PROPOSED, WE HAVE CONCERNS OF THE PROPOSED LOT SIZING ON THE PLAN AS IT IS CURRENT WILL I DEPICTED. AS WELL AS PROPERTY FEASIBILITY OF OF THE LOT SIZE ASPECT AND URES- ADDITIONAL CONCERNS RELATED TO SEPTIC SUCH AS SPRAY. ALL OF THAT GETS EVALUATED THROUGH THAT FEASIBILITY REPORT. THAT WASN'T SUPPLIED T THOSE ARE ALL ITEMS THAT WE COMPLETELY AGREE AND UNDERSTAND ARE NEEDED AND WE HAVE DOCUMENTED THOSE IN OUR PREVIEW LETTER. AND AS A PRACTICE THAT WE'VE DONE THUS FAR, OUR HOPE IS THAT IN GRANTING CONDITIONAL APPROVAL, WE'LL HAVE THE ITEMS MET BEFORE AN APPROVAL WILL BE GIVEN BY OUR DEPARTMENT. THEY, UM, THE ASPECT OF THE CITY OF HAYS, I UNDERSTAND THAT THEY ALSO, MONTHS AGO DENIED THAT APPLICATION AND THEY HAVE THAT RIGHT. WE HAVE AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY AND I'LL ADMIT THOSE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENTS ARE FROM 2018, THAT COULD USE UPDATING. BUT, THERE ARE PROPER PROTOCOLS AND PROCEDURES AND EVEN UPON A FINAL APPROVAL GIVEN SHOULD IT BE SAID, WE WILL HAVE PROVISIONS THAT WE WILL NEED DETERMINATION FROM THE CITY OF HAYS THAT THEY

HAVE APPROVED SUCH PLAN. >> CHAIR: IN SUMMARY, FOR THE VIEWING PUBLIC, I'M USED TO YOUR EXPLANATIONS, AND THAT'S WHY I'M GOING TO RECAP. IN SUMMARY, YOU'RE SAYING, YOU'RE SUGGESTING A RECOMMENDED, CONDITIONAL APPROVAL ON THESE LIST OF CONDITIONS THAT YOU'VE JUST OUTLINES, BUT, WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THOSE ARE BIG LEAPS OF CONDITIONS. AND MAY BE I COULD ASK MR. KENNEDY THIS, INSTEAD OF A CONDITIONAL APPROVAL, COULDN'T WOULD IT BE A NEGATIVE THING FOR US, INSTEAD OF A CONDITIONAL APPROVAL, SAY A DENIAL BECAUSE THEY'VE NOT MET.

WHAT WOULD BE THE REPERCUSSIONS OF THAT?

>> SO, THIS IS A, PRELIMINARY PLAN APPROVAL WHICH IS NOT FILE APPROVAL. PRELIMINARY PLAN DOES NOT GIVE THEM APPROVAL TO CONVEY LOTS OR START DEVELOPMENT. IT'S A STEP IN THE PROCESS. ONE OF THE THINGS ASKING ABOUT THAT IS THAT, THERE'S A DIFFERENT SET OF CRITERIA AND REQUIREMENTS THAT WE HAVE FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAN THAN THERE IS FOR FINAL PLAT. IT'S NOT, IT'S MEANT TO BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR FEEDBACK, BUT, WHEN THE FINAL PLAT APPLICATION IS FILED THAT WILL BEGIN A TIMELINE FOR US THAT IS VERY RESTRICTIVE, ESPECIALLY WITH THE LEGISLATION THAT WE HAD LAST CYCLE. AND, THAT'S THE POINT WHERE, I THINK WE'LL HAVE TO

[03:30:01]

EITHER DENY, GRANTED CONDITIONAL APPROVAL, OR APPROVE, ONE OR THE OTHER. THE, CONDITIONAL APPROVAL AT THIS POINT OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAN GIVES THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO REMEDY SOME OF THESE PROBLEMS, IF THERE ARE PROBLEMS THAT ARE THAT CAN BE REMEDIED. AND THERE ARE OTHER THINGS THAT SOME OF THE SPEAKERS RAISED INCLUDING MR. BUNCH AND HIS LAST WRITTEN COMMENT, REGARDING THE TEXAS LAND APPLICATION, WHICH IS REFERENCING AN APPLICATION, PRESUMABLY, WHICH I COULDN'T FIND ONLINE, BUT, WITH THE TCEQ TO APPLY THE WASTE WATER ON THE LAND. AND WHEN THERE'S AN APPLICATION FOR THE TCEQ FOR THAT PURPOSE, NEIGHBORS, GOVERNMENTS, OTHER ENTITIES HAVE THE ABILITY TO PROVIDE PUBLIC COMMENT AND EVEN FILE A CONTESTED CASE HEARING. SO, THERE'S A DIFFERENT PROCESS AND ANOTHER PARALLEL PROCESS IT THAT'S AVAILABLE FOR THAT ISSUE.

IT'S NOT APPROPRIATE TO, YOU KNOW, AIR THAT OUT HERE. YOU COULD CERTAINLY MENTION IT. THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH MENTIONING THE CONCERNS. BUT, THERE'S A PROPER VENUE FOR THAT PROCESS TO TAKE PLACE AND THAT'S NOT HERE IN COMMISSIONER'S COURT. I WANT TO BE SURE THAT WE'RE ISOLATING THE ISSUE. THE ISSUE HERE IS A SUBDIVISION PLAT THAT IS THE ISSUE. AND THE SUBDIVISION PLAT HAS TO BE REVIEWED ONCE ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLETE AND WE ARE RESTRICTED TO EITHER GIVING ONE OF THREE RESPONSES, APPROVAL, CONDITIONAL APPROVAL, OR DENIAL. WHEN WE PROVIDE CONDITIONAL APPROVAL, WE NEED TO PROVIDE SPECIFIC FEEDBACK BEEN WHAT THOSE CONDITIONS ARE, SO THAT REMEDY

CAN BE HAD IF POSSIBLE. >> CHAIR: PERFECT AND THANK YOU FOR THAT. IT WAS VERY WELL DONE. COMMISSIONER SMITH, THIS

IS YOUR AGENDA ITEM. >> THANK YOU, JUDGE. . I WOULD LIKE TO FOLLOW UP ON COMMENTS SPECIFICALLY ON THE TLAP, I HAVE CONCERN OVER THE TLAP AS WELL, AND I'VE SPOKEN TO A NUMBER OF RESIDENTS OUT THERE RELATIVE TO IT. BUT, AT THE END OF THE DARKS THE INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE FACILITIES OUTLINED OR POSSIBLY OUTLINES, THAT'S THE ONLY PLACE THAT THE COUNTY HAS REGULATORY AUTHORITY. IF THEY GO WITH THE TLAP, OF COURSE, THAT'S 5,000 GALLONS A DAY, THEY TELL US WHAT'S GOING TO BE DONE THERE, WE DON'T HAVE MUCH INPUT. BUT, I'LL TELL YOU AND I, AND MARCUS OUTLINED IT DISTINCTLY. THE COUNTY WAS NEVER A PARTY OR WAS NEVER CONSULTED RELATIVE TO THE NEGOTIATION VITEAE DA WITH THE CITY OF HAYS. THE ONLY FEEDBACK WE GOT ON IT, AT LEAST IN MY OFFICE, WAS DIRECTLY FROM OTHER CITIZENS, AND CONSTITUENTS IN THE AREA. AND, UM, I CAN TELL YOU THAT I'VE NEVER HAD ANY OUTREACH FROM THE CITY OF HAYS, RELATIVE TO THE AGREEMENT FOR HOW THEY NEGOTIATED OR GOT TO THE POINT THEY DID IN THE FINAL PROCESS. I DO BELIEVE THAT WE'RE GOING TO SEE A LOT MORE OF THESE. WHERE, IF A DEVELOPER CAN'T WORK WITH THE CITY, THEY'RE GOING TO GO TO THE COUNTY. AND THEY'RE DOING THAT STRICTLY BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THE SAME STATUTORY ZONING AND PLANNING AUTHORITY THAT THE CITY DOES. AND, DISTRICT 1 AND WE'RE GOING TO SEE A LOT OF THESE. AND THEN THEY'RE GOING TO BE PROBLEMATIC. AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE HAVE STATUTORY GUIDELINES THAT WE HAVE TO FOLLOW RELATIVE TO APPROVING THIS. WHETHER WE LIKE THEM OR NOT. AND, ESPECIALLY, I'M NOT SURE IF THE FOLKS KNOW THIS, BUT, MARCUS, CAN YOU MAY BE WALK THROUGH WHAT HAPPENS IF WE DON'T TAKE ACTION ON THIS AS FAR AS

AFTER ONCE THE SHOCK STARTS. >> THE TYPICAL, WHAT HE REFERRED TO, IS THE STATUTES FOR TIMELY APPROVAL OF PLATS AND PLANS, OUTLINED IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE CHAPTER 232, IF NO ACTION'S TAKEN WITHIN A 30-CALENDAR DAY, IT COULD BE DEEMED ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLETE PURSUANT TO THE STATUTES AS THEY ARE WRITTEN. ANOTHER ITEM I WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON BRIEFLY, IS THAT WHENEVER WE GET THESE APPLICATIONS, SIMILAR TO THE LAST ITEM, NOT, SIMILAR BUT HOW IT'S PRESENTED TO US, IF AN APPLICATION COMES IN PROPOSING, THE BEST INTENTION, RIGHT, ESPECIALLY THE PRELIMINARY LEVEL, IF THEY ARE BEST INTENTION IS TO HAVE A MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT OR WATER. IF THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN, THAT CHANGES THE SCOPE OF THE APPLICATION AND THE PROJECT ALL TOGETHER. IN YEAR'S PAST, PRIOR TO THESE MORE CON STRAINED TIMELINES AND PROTOCOLS THAT THE STATUTES HAVE NOW INCORPORATED, JURISDICTIONS USED TO BE ABLE TO

[03:35:01]

WORK WITH DEVELOPERS AND DEVELOPMENTS ON ADAPTING IF THINGS CHANGE. WE HAVE LOST THAT CONTROL. SO, IF THERE'S A CHANGE TO THE SCOPE OF WORK, THE SCOPE OF THE PROJECT, SHOULD IT BE, NOT CONDOS, ALL 100 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL WITH A WELL AND SEPTIC, THAT WOULD START THIS PROJECT FROM SQUARE ONE. ESSENTIALLY. AND THE APPLICATION WOULD BE NULL AND VOID FROM OUR STANDARDS AND THEY WOULD HAVE TO START FROM SCRATCH AGAIN. AND THAT'S ANOTHER THING THAT I WANT TO BE SURE IS OUT THERE AND I WANT EVERYBODY TO BE CONCERNED THAT THE FLUIDITY AS IT IS CONCERNED, WILL ALLOW THE DEVELOPER TO MANEUVER THEIR WAY.

IF IT'S DETERMINED, AND I'M FAIRLY SURE THE STATUTE SPEAKS TO THAT, IF IT IS CHANGED, WITH WATER OR ROADS, THAT CALLS FOR A WHOLE NEW SUBMITTAL OF AN APPLICATION OF A PRELIMINARY PLAN IN THIS CASE. THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THE DEVELOPER REALLY HAS TO COME TO US WITH THE ANSWERS ASKED. AND THE REASONS THAT WE DO SOME OF THESE, AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE CONDITIONS THERE, THEY'RE SPECIFIC ON ASKING QUESTIONS ABOUT YOU KNOW, WHERE SETBACKS WOULD BE, AND IT'S PRETTY THOROUGH AND THAT'S WHAT MARCUS AND HIS STAFF DO. WITHOUT THIS PROCESS OF APPROVALING OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT, WE WOULDN'T HAVE THAT ABILITY. THAT'S KIND OF ONE OF THE REASONS THAT I'M SORT OF DOING THESE IS SPECIFICALLY SO THAT WE COULD FIND OUT SOME OF THAT INFORMATION FOR NEIGHBORS AND OTHER STITHES. UNLESS WE WENT THROUGH THIS PROCESS, BECAUSE, IF WE JUST LET IT SIT THE THERE,

>> I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS. >> WHAT'S THE CLOSEST THING, BECAUSE, THIS SEEMS LIKE THE CART WAY BEFORE THE HORSE.

>> SO, I'LL BE HONEST, WE HAVEN'T SEEN ANYTHING THIS CLOSE TO A LIFE LIKE PAGE AS POSSIBLE. ESPECIALLY WITH THE CONDO ASPECT OF IT. BY, JUST, DEFAULTING AND SAYING, MULTI-FAMILY CONDO, WE'RE NOT JUST GOING TO SAY, GO AHEAD. BECAUSE, I THINK ONE OF THE COMMENTERS MENTIONED, DEPENDING ON HOW MANY UNITS YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE, AND I DID GET THE INFORMATION THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING APPROXIMATELY 258 CONDO UNITS IN THOSE TRACTS ALL TOGETHER. THAT CAN BE IMPACT ON THE ROADWAY ACTIVITY, EVEN IF THE ROADS WOULD BE PRIVATELY MAINTAINED, IT'S STILL SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE SHOWN TO SEE WHAT IMPACTS IT WILL HAVE. IT IS A CONCEPT THAT'S PROBABLY SOMETHING THAT WILL BE MORE AND MORE POPULAR, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT IS DETERMINED THE CONCEPT OF CONDOMINIUMS, AS YOU KNOW, COMMISSIONERS AND OTHER MEMBER OF THE COURT KNOWS THAT THERE'S A LOT OF DISAGREEMENT ON WHETHER A CONDOMINIUMS ARE A SUBDIVISION OR A SUBDIVISION DOES NOT EQUAL A CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT. PLAT IT AND THEN HAVE A REGIME FILED WITH THE CLERK'S OFFICE AND NOT BE ANY REGULATION BY A LOCAL JURISDICTION. THE MIXED USE COMPONENT IS SOMETHING THAT IS PROBABLY THE BIGGEST UNIQUE FACTOR OF THIS HAVING COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY ALONG THE STATE HIGHWAYS AND SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TOWARDS THE BACK END ON THE WEST SIDE. THAT'S WHAT MAKES IT UNIQUE IN THE MIXED-USE ASPECT.

>> GO BACK TO WATER AND WASTE WATER. I'VE NEVER SEEN ANYTHING LIKE THIS BEFORE. IF SOMEONE'S GOING TO DEVELOP A PIECE OF PROPERTY, AND THERE IS NO WATER OR WASTE WATER SERVICE, HOW DO WE APPLY OUR RULES IF WE DON'T KNOW WHAT IT'S GOING TO BE SERVED BY, FOR INSTANCE, LOT SIZE, IF IT'S ON-SITE TREATMENT, OR IF INDIVIDUAL WELLS. HOW DO WE, WELL, I'M SAYING I'M GOING TO CREATE SOMETHING, AND THEREFORE I WANT IT TO LOOK LIKE THIS, THEN, WHAT'S THE PURPOSE OF US APPROVING A PRELIMINARY PLAN THAT SEEMS TO BE, AGAIN, A CART BEFORE THE HORSE, TO THIS EXTENT. I'VE NEVER SEEN THIS MANY CONDITIONS, IF YOU DON'T NEED OUR LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT, WHY AM I ASKED TO PROVE IT, YOU HAVEN'T MET THE RULE. DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M SAYING?

>> YEAH, I UNDERSTAND. >> A CONDITION LIKE YOU HAVE TO

[03:40:02]

CHECK THE BOX, YOU NEED A SIGNATURE BLOCK, OBVIOUSLY IF YOU DON'T PROVIDE THESE THINGS, THE APPROVAL IS MEANINGLESS, BUT, WHY WOULD WE CONDITIONALLY APPROVE SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T

MEET THE RULE AS PRESENTED. >> I THINK THE ASK IS, AND I AGREE WITH YOU, COMMISSIONER, LOOKING AT A PRELIMINARY PLAN, AS WAS ALLUDED TO, THE PRELIMINARY ASPECT DOES HAVE THAT NOT AS COMPLETE. NOT AS IN THIS SCENARIO TO THIS DRASTIC MEASURE, BUT, IT HAS A MORE FLUIDITY MEASURE. OUR REGULATIONS AS THEY SPEAK, AND FOR MUDS DOESN'T CALL FOR A SPECIFIC ADOPTION AND CREATION OF THAT MUD PRIOR TO APPROVAL AND PRELIMINARY PLAT. IT'S JUST TELLING A STORY OF HOW IT'S GOING TO BE CREATED. SAME THING WITH WASTE WATER TREATMENT, IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO A SEPTIC, WE DON'T REQUIRE DESIGNS TO BE SUBMITTED FOR THE APPLICATION. IT'S THE FEASIBILITY AND THE LOT SIZING. DO YOU HAVE ENOUGH OF THE LOT SIZING IF IT'S GOING TO BE SERVED BY SEPTIC. IF IT'S GOING TO BE A CONDOMINIUM UNIT, DEPENDING ON WHAT YOU ARE PROPOSING FOR THE WATER, THE WATER OF THE UNIT SIZE AND THE DENSITY OF THAT UNIT SIZE MET ON THE PROPOSAL. BASED ON THE INFORMATION GIVEN, I AGREE, IT DOESN'T SHOW THAT IT WILL BE EXACTLY MET. BUT, BASED ON HOW WE'RE ALLOWED TO COMMENT PURSUANT TO THE STATUTE, WE HAD TO ASK THE QUESTIONS AS GENERAL AS THEY ARE, THIS DOES NOT MEET

LOT SIZE. >> CHAIR: MR. KENNEDY WOULD LIKE TO ADD SOMETHING, COMMISSIONER.

>> SET UP A SYSTEM FOR ORDERLY AND HELPFUL DEVELOPMENT. WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THAT A LONG TIME. WITH R WE LIVE WITH IT ALL THE TIME. BUT, THE LAST TIME WE TALKED ABOUT IT WAS WHEN WE WERE LAST DRAFTING AND ADOPPING THE RULES 14 YEARS AGO.

AND THE RULES THAT WE HAVE WHICH WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON AN UPDATE, WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON AN RFQ THAT WOULD, GIVE US THE ABILITY TO BRING ON CONSULTANT TOSS HELP US UPDATE THE RULES PROPERLY.

THOSE RULES NOW ARE A LITTLE ANTIQUATED, BECAUSE, THEY COME FROM A TIME WHEN WE DID WORK WITH DEVELOPERS MORE. THERE WAS A LOT MORE BACK AND FORTH, AND A LOT MORE OF A CONVERSATION HAPPENING ABOUT THIS ORDERLY AND HEALTHFUL DEVELOPMENT. AND UNFORTUNATELY, THE LEDGE IN IT'S WISDOM SET THESE TIMELINES IN PLACE WHICH DON'T REALLY RECOGNIZE THAT CONVERSATION THAT HAS BEEN HAPPENING IN HAYS COUNTY AT LEAST FOR MANY, MANY YEARS NOW. I THINK THE LAST CYCLES OF LEGISLATION IS A RESPONSE TO PERHAPS SOME OTHER LOCAL GOVERNMENT THAT WERE HEAVY-HANDED WITH DEVELOPER, AND DEVELOPERS ARE ASKING THE LEDGE TO GIVE THEM THE ABILITY TO SET THE TIMELINES RIGHT TO LET THE ADMINISTERIAL DUTY IS. AND UNFORTUNATELY, THAT'S NOT ENOUGH TIME TO HAVE A REAL CONVERSATION ABOUT A COMPLEX DEVELOPMENT.

AND I THINK THAT'S WITH A WE HAVE HERE, A SITUATION WHERE WE HAVE SOMETHING THAT NEEDS A LITTLE MORE CONVERSATION AND ORGANIZATION, AND, THE, TIGHT TIMELINE THAT IS LEGISLATED TO US, HANGING OVER OUR HEADS, THAT WE THERE'LL BE A POINT WHERE THEY'RE ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLETE, AND THEY HAVE EVERYTHING IN THE FILE THAT OUR RULES SAY THEY NEED TO HAVE IN THE FILE. AND ONE OF THOSE, SHOW, WILL BE WATER AVAILABILITY. RIGHT? AND SO, WE DO HAVE THE ABILITY TO SAY NO. IT'S NOT LIKE WE'RE POWERLESS. BUT, IF THEY HAVE MET ALL OF THOSE CRITERIA, THEN, AT SOME POINT WE DO HAVE AN ADMINISTERIAL DUTY TO APPROVE. THE SUBDIVISION PLATTING PORTION OF THIS DEVELOPMENT. NOT THE TLAP OR THE OTHER ASPECTS OF THE

DEVELOPMENT THAT MAY BE IN PLAY. >> AND I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT, AND I UNDERSTAND THE CHANGES TO THE TIMELINE AND 30 DAYS, AND THAT WHOLE PRELIMINARY PLAN, I COULD GET INTO A WHOLE DISCUSSION ON WHY A PRELIMINARY PLAN, IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S TOO SET. I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU ARE WORKING ON THINGS THAT ARE LONG-TERM AND YOU WANT TO KNOW THE RULES THAT I'M GOING TO BE FOLLOWING WHEN I ACCOMPLISH ALL THE THINGS I HAVE TO DO. I

[03:45:03]

DON'T WANT TO DESIGN A MUD OR A PLAT CHANGE, AND BY THE TIME I COME TO FORMERLY SUBMIT TO YOU, I'VE DESIGNED A SUBDIVISION ON RULES THAT YOU'VE JUST CHANGED ON ME. SO, I UNDERSTAND THE IDEA OF GETTING SOMETHING FORWARD TO SAY, YOU'RE OKAY ON THESE RULES. I STILL DON'T UNDERSTANDING DISAPPROVING OF SOMETHING BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T MEET OUR LOT SIZE AND SAYING, MEET OUR LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS AND COME BACK. IT'S NOT, MOST OF OUR CONDITIONAL APPROVALS ARE SOMETHING THAT, UM, IS JUST TECHNICAL FOR THE MOST PART. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS NOT, IT DOESN'T FOLLOW THE RULE. I JUST DON'T KNOW WHY WE WOULDN'T JUST SAY, JUST ON THAT ONE ISSUE, YOU HAVE YOU'RE SAYING THAT YOU'RE SERVING THIS LOT BY ON-SITE WASTE WATER. AND IT DOES NOT MEET OUR RULE FOR LOT SIZE TO DO THAT. WHY WOULD I APPROVE IT CONDITIONALLY WITHOUT YOU CHANGING THE LOT SIZE INSTEAD OF SAYING, IT'S NOT APPROVED, CHANGE THE LOT SIZE

AND COME BACK FOR APPROVAL. >> TO MAKE THAT DISTINCTION, WE HAVEN'T, ESPECIALLY WITH GIVEN THE PROCESS AND THE TIMELY APPROVAL OF THE PLANS, ADMINISTRATIVELY, WE HAVEN'T COMFORTABLY SAID THAT FROM A DISAPPROVAL STANDPOINT WE'RE GOING TO SAY IT'S A DISAPPROVAL. OUR TRACK RECORD THUS FAR, WE HAVEN'T COME OUT AND SAID THESE ARE THE CLEAR THRESHOLDS FOR A DISAPPROVAL OF AN APPLICATION. WE'VE ALWAYS SAID, EVEN WITH THE SMAL SMALLEST DEFICIENCY, WE'RE STILL GOING TO WORK WITH THEM. EITHER WAY.

>> OKAY, THERE'S FULL COMPLIANCE AND THERE'S MORE THAN

ME TURNING IN A PIECE OF PAPER. >> CORRECT.

>> I'M NOT GOING TO WRITE, YOU'RE CONDITIONAL FOR THIS PIECE OF PAPER. SO, WE'RE NOT EVER GOING TO I A PROVE CONDITIONALLY, LIKE, I JUST GAVE YOU A MAP OF THE COUNTY AND SAY, I WANT TO CREATE A SUBDIVISION IN HAYS COUNTY, CONDITIONALLY APPROVE MY SUBDIVISION BASED UPON OUR RULES. SO, IT'S

SOMEWHERE IN BETWEEN THOSE TWO. >> AND I'LL ADD ONE STEP FURTHER, I DON'T THINK IT WILL IMPACT RIGHT NOW, BUT, THERE COULD BE IN DISCUSSIONS WE COULD HAVE WITH THE COURT TO, INSTILL THAT KIND OF PRACTICE WHERE, WITH THE PROPOSED CHANGES COMING IN THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION ABOUT THE APPROVALS OF PLATS TO WHERE THE COUNTY IS MORE DESIGNATING, SPECIFIC COURT DESIGNEE TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION. FROM THERE, REGARDLESS IF IT'S ONE DEFICIENCY OR NOT, IT'S GOING TO BE BROUGHT TO COURT FOR COURT CONSIDERATION AND AFTER THE FACT, WORK ON IT ADMINISTRATIVELY, IF THAT MAKES ANY SENSE.

>> I UNDERSTAND APPROVING OR DISAPPROVING, TECHNICALLY, THERE'S NO DIFFERENCE BECAUSE YOU'RE APPROVALING WITH CONDITIONS, IT'S TECHNICALLY NOT APPROVED. I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IF THIS IS GOING TO BE THE WAY IT'S DONE, WHERE DO WE DRAW A THRESHOLD OR LIKE A MINIMUM AMOUNT OF INFORMATION AND COMPLIANCE. BECAUSE, IF SOMEONE WANTED DO A SIMPLE SUBDIVISION THAT GOT IT BELOW THE EXEMPTION FOR 6-ACRE LOTS.

MAKE A 10-LOT SUBDIVISION AND NONE OF THEIR LOTS WERE SIX ACRES AND THEY WERE GOING TO HAVE ON-SITE. THAT SIGNIFICANTLY CHANGES THE DESIGN. THE LOT ISN'T GOING TO

LOOK LIKE THAT. >> YOU CAN CONDITIONALLY AL APPROVE IT EVEN IF IT'S NOT GOING TO GET MET.

>> COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SUBDIVISION. SO, WOULD WE APPROVE IT CONDITIONALLY AND SAY, NO, YOU CAN'T PHYSICALLY CREATE TEN LOTS AND MEET OUR RULES OR WOULD WE SAY, YOU NEED TO TURN ONE IN THAT MEETS OUR RULES?

>> AND THAT'S WHERE I THINK WE CAN HEAD IN THAT DIRECTION, I WOULD BE STRONGLY IN FAVOR FOR, WITH MORE OF THESE SUBDIVISION

APPLICATIONS WITH GOING IN. >> THIS SQUARE PEG WILL NOT FIT

[03:50:01]

IN THE ROUND HOLE. >> IT GIVES MORE LATITUDE TO HAVE THESE DISCUSSIONS AND IF THE COURT WITH INSTILL THE PARAMETERS, THAT THESE ARE THE NO, IF, ANDS, OR BUTTS, THAT IF THIS IS MET, BEFORE IT COMES TO THE COURT FOR CONSIDERATION, THIS COURT DOESN'T NEED TO DISAPPROVE THESE APPLICATIONS WITHIN THOSE 30 DAYS. UM, I JUST, WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN THROUGH THAT ORGANIZED PROCESS OF ESTABLISHING WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE AND IF THE COURT GRANTS OUR DEPARTMENT TO DO IT, WE COULD DISAPPROVE IT RIGHT OUT OF THE GATE.

>> I UNDERSTAND, LET'S GO BACK TO THIS TEN LOT, THEY'RE ALL 5-ACRES, AND THEY HAVE INDIVIDUAL GROUND WATER WELLS PER LOT. AND THEY TURN THAT INTO YOU, AND YOU GO, OKAY, IT'S DAY 25, YOU DON'T MEET ANY OF THE RULES. TECHNICALLY, IF YOU DON'T COME TO COURT AND HAVE US APPROVE IT CONDITIONALLY OR DISAPPROVE OF IT, THEN, IT'S APPROVED?

>> CORRECT. >> THAT'S THE WAY IT WORKS.

SO, YOU HAVE TO BRING IT TO COURT AND WE CAN SAY, IF IT WAS SOMETHING MINOR, WHICH IS NORMALLY WITH A WITH HE DO, OR THINGS THAT CAN BE DONE WHICH DON'T CHANGE THE SUBDIVISION IN A MATERIAL WAY, HE COULD APPROVE IT WITH CONDITION. BUT, WE CAN'T DISAPPROVE SOMETHING IF IT DOESN'T MEET OUR RULES. THEY HAVE TO COME BACK -- AND I'M NOT SAYING WE WANT TO COME TO COURT EVERY WEEK AND DISAPPROVE AND DISAPPROVE AND DISAPPROVE, OVER, BECAUSE OF THE SIGNATURE BLOCK. BUT, I THINK THAT WE HAVE TO DECIDE WHERE THAT AREA IS OF SOMETHING THAT CAN BE DONE AND CHANGED AND EASILY MEET OUR RULES AND BE FAIR BASED UPON THE 30-DAY TIME CLOCK VERSUS SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T MEET OUR RULE TO BEGIN WITH. AND IF IT DOESN'T MEET OUR RULES, WHY ARE WE APPROVING OR DISAPPROVING SOMETHING THEY HAVEN'T MET YET.

>> I DID DO SOME DIGGING WHILE WE'RE TALKING, AN APPROVAL CONDITION WAS GIVEN ON THE 4TH OF APRIL. BECAUSE, THAT WAS THE DIRECTION OF WITHIN 30 DAYS ON THE APPLICATION. SO, THERE WAS A COMMENT LETTER, WITHIN THE 30 DAYS ALLOWED BY THE STATE ON THE LETTER GIVE P TO THE APPLICANT ON APPROVAL OF MEETING THE CONDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS THAT YOU SEE IN THE BACKUP TODAY.

SO, THAT WAS CONVEYED TO THE APPLICANT.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO TALK ABOUT THIS.

>> JUDGE: FOR SURE. >> I HONESTLY, THINK WE'RE GOING TO SEE A LOT MORE OF THESE. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THE STATE SET UP, TO OUR DETRIMENT IS THAT OUR HANDS ARE TIED, THAT ONCE AN APPLICATION IS SUBMITTED, WETHER OR NOT WE HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION, WE HAVE TO ACT ON IT. AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S FAIR TO THE LOCAL MUNICIPALITY, BUT I KNOW IT'S DARN NOT FAIR TO MARCUS AND HIS FOLKS. AND THE FIRST TIME I SAW THIS WAS ON THE AGENDA. AND I WAS ASKED TO HEAR IT BECAUSE IT WAS IN MY PRECINCT. I HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS ON THE FUNCTIONALITY AND MORE QUESTIONS OF WHAT THE STATE WILL DO WITH THAT TLAP, I THINK THAT WILL PROBABLY DETERMINE MORE WHAT WE WOULD DO WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE. THE AVAILABILITY FOR WATER AND THE AVAILABILITY FOR WASTE WATER AND WHAT THEY DO WITH IT. AND AT THE END OF THE DAY, I DON'T KNOW WHAT OTHER OPTION WE HAVE. CAN MARCUS PLEASE OUTLINE ONE IF YOU COULD THINK OF ONE. BUT, I DON'T KNOW, WITH THE STATUTE, WHAT OTHER OPTION WE HAVE. WE CAN'T LOOK IN THE PAST BUT IT WOULD BE GREAT IF THE CITY OF HAYS INVOLVED THE COUNTY IN THESE NEGOTIATIONS OR REACHED OUT TO US TO ASK WHAT WE THOUGHT ABOUT IT. THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN HELPFUL. BUT, WE HAVEN'T.

WHENEVER THAT DA HIT THE CITY COUNCIL, WHENEVER IT WAS PUBLIC, THAT WAS THE FIRST TIME I HAD EVER SEEN IT AND I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE REST OF THE STAFF, WE WERE NEVER CONSULTED ON THAT.

BUT, WE WERE THROWN INTO A SITUATION WHERE WE HAVE 30 DAYS TO CONSIDER EVERYTHING AND EVERY OPTION. THE ONLY OPTION THAT I THINK WE HAVE IS TO GO WITH A PRELIMINARY APPROVAL WITH SO MANY, I MEAN, THIS SOUNDS BAD, WITH SO MANY CAVEATS IN THIS THAT WE KNOW THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO COME BACK TO US AND WE KNOW THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO ASK THOSE QUESTIONS. IF WE DON'T DO THIS, WE DON'T HAVE THE OPTION TO GLEAN THAT INFORMATION

[03:55:03]

AND TRY TO MAKE THE CHANGES. WHEN IT COMES TO CONDO REGIME, I KNOW THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO AGREE WITH SEPTIC OR ANYTHING ELSE WITHOUT ACTUALLY KNOWING THE LOCATION OF THE BUILDINGS AND THE CAPACITY. I LOOK FORWARD TO THAT AND HOPEFULLY FINDING THAT OUT IN THE QUESTIONS THAT WE ASKED IN THIS DOCUMENT THAT YOU SEE BEFORE YOU. MARCUS, ARE WE MISSING

ANYTHING THERE, BEFORE WE VOTE? >> NO, YOU'RE CORRECT AND I'LL ECHO THE COMMENT MADE EARLIER, BASED ON THE RESPONSES AND THE BACKUP AND THE CONDITIONAL APPROVAL ESTABLISHED BACK ON APRIL 4TH. THOSE CONDO UNITS ARE GOING TO BE REQUIRED, THERE WILL NOT BE AN APPROVAL IN ANY FORM OR FASHION GIVEN WITHOUT THAT SHOWN ON THE PRELIMINARY PLAN. AND IF THAT IMPACT CHANGES THIS WHOLE SCOPE OF THE APPLICATION, THEN, YOU COULD POSSIBLY BE LOOKING AT AN APPLICATION THAT'S NO LONGER, WHETHER IT'S FROM A WASTE WATER STAND POINT OR A TRAFFIC IMPACT STAND POINT WILL BE NOT APPLICABLE BECAUSE THE CHANGE.

>> JUDGE: GOING TO GO TO MR. INGALSBE AND MR. KENNEDY AND BACK TO YOU, MR. SMITH AND IN BETWEEN THERE, COMMISSIONER

SHELL. >> SO, FROM OUR TECHNICAL

REVIEW, WE'VE EXCEEDED 30 DAYS? >> FROM A COURT IT CONSIDERATION, IT'S BEEN EXCEEDED. WE HAD TO ACT ON IT WITHIN THE FOURTH OF APRIL, WE WERE IN THE 30-DAY STATUTORY TIMELINE AND THE DEPARTMENT WAGS ACTING ON THE CONDITIONAL APPROVAL BASED ON THE CONDITIONS AND HOW WE'VE BEEN OPERATING ON

APPROVAL. >> SO, I WAS GOING TO ASK, THE CONDITIONAL APPROVAL. I AGREE WITH MR. SHELL, I DON'T THINK WE'VE DONE ANY KIND OF APPROVAL SUCH AS THESE. SO, HOW DO WE IDENTIFY WHAT WHEN WE SEND OUT A CONDITIONAL APPROVAL LETTER, ARE THERE AREAS THAT WE FEEL SUCH AS LOT SIZE OR OTHER WATER AVAILABILITY AND THOSE TYPES OF THINGS, YOU KNOW, LARGE ITEMS, CAN WE IDENTIFY SOME OF THOSE ITEMS AND SAY, NO, WE WON'T GIVE

A CONDITIONAL APPROVAL. >> WE CAN, I JUST THINK IT'S A PART OF THE CONVERSATION BETWEEN MY DEPARTMENT AND THE COURT TO DELINEATE THOSE. WHITE HOUSE, WE COULD HAVE OUR OWN OPINION, BUT, THAT MAY NOT ALIGN WITH YOUR OPINION OR THE ENTIRE COURT'S OPINION. AND I DON'T WANT TO GET IN THE BUSINESS OF, BECAUSE, THERE'S ALWAYS BOTH SIDES, SO IF WE'RE ADMINISTRATIVELY DENIED A CONTRACT, IT'S MY OPINION THAT SAY, A TRAFFIC STUDY ONE COMMENTER SAID, A TRAFFIC STUDY REQUIRES A DISAPPROVAL. WHEREAS, YOU ALL FIVE MAY DISAGREE AND SAY, WELL, WE COULD DO A CONDITIONAL APPROVAL.

THAT'S WHERE IT GETS, WITHOUT HAVING THOSE CONVERSATIONS AND WITHOUT ESTABLISHING THAT CRITERIA. I'LL SAY FROM A STAFF LEVEL YOU DON'T WANT TO PICK AND CHOOSE, EVEN THOUGH YOU KNOW THE SEVERITY, 99%, IT COULD BE THAT 1% WHERE YOU JUMP THE GUN, YOU

NEED TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION. >> WELL, I THINK THAT WE NEED TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION SOON AS COMMISSIONER SMITH STATED, THESE MAY BE COMING MORE AND MORE TO COURT. AND I'M NOT COMFORTABLE ACTUALLY MOVING FORWARD.

>> I WOULD HIGHLY RECOMMEND THAT AS WELL. BECAUSE, WHAT IT CAN ULTIMATELY LEAD TO IS, I FEEL LIKE A MORE EFFICIENT AND FINE-TUNED PROCESS, WHEN YOU FIVE GET ITEMS ON YOUR AGENDA AND WE ESTABLISH THE CRITERIA, THAT CAN SAY, HEY, THIS IS WHAT WE FEEL FROM A COUNTY WE WANT TO DISAPPROVE BASED ON THIS CRITERIA. AND ULTIMATELY, WHAT IT WOULD LEAD TO, FINGERS CROSSED, THAT ANYTIME YOU HAVE AN AGENDA A SUBDIVISION, IT'S GOING TO BE AN APPROVAL BECAUSE BY THAT POINT, WE'LL HAVE GONE THROUGH AND HAD THE CONVERSATIONS AND DONE THE PROCESS AND DONE THE THOROUGH VETTING. WHERE ALL ITEMS FOR SUBDIVISION THAT CAME IN WERE APPROVALS ON THE AGENDA.

>> WELL, SO, BUT, MARK, IF THE COURT VOTED AND IT WAS WHATEVER VOTE BUT IT WAS DENIED, YOU KNOW, WE DIDN'T MOVE FORWARD AND IT JUST SOMEHOW GETS APPROVED ANYWAY, RIGHT? BECAUSE

OF THE TIMELINE OR, WHAT? >> THE TIMELINES UNDER 232 ARE ORIENTED AROUND A FINAL PLAT APPROVAL. AND, I'VE HAD MANY OF THESE CONVERSATIONS WITH MICHAEL AND MARCUS IN MY OFFICE, AND,

[04:00:01]

WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THESE CONCEPTS IN RELATION TO THE NEW SET OF RULES, RULE RULES, BUT, WE'VE NOT HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE A LOT OF THESE CONVERSATIONS HERE IN COURT.

SO, THIS IS PERHAPS JUST AN OPPORTUNITY TO SAY SOME THINGS THAT WE'VE BEEN THINKING. YOU KNOW, UNDER 232-00285, WHICH WAS, YOU KNOW, NEW TO THE CODE IN 2019, IT SAYS THAT A DEVELOPMENT PLAN, WHICH INCLUDES A PRELIMINARY PLAT OR A PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAN, UNLESS EXPLICITLY AUTHORIZED BY ANOTHER LAW, MAY NO BE REQUIRED BY THE COUNTY AND, SO, I THINK WHAT THIS IS. AND WE COULD DEBATE WETHER OR NOT WE'RE AUTHORIZED UNDER SOME AREA OF THE LAW TO HAVE THESE KINDS OF CONVERSATIONS, BUT, AGAIN, THIS WAS WHAT I WAS ALLUDING TO EARLIER WHEN I SAID THESE NEWEST ROUNDS OF LEGISLATION ARE TRIMMING THE OPPORTUNITY FOR CONVERSATION AND SIMPLY SAYING, YOU GIVE US THE SET OF RULES, WE'RE GOING TO SUBMIT AND WHEN WE COMPLY WITH THAT SET OF RULES, YOU HAVE TO APPROVE US.

AND YOU HAVE TO DO IT WITHIN 30 DAYS. AND THIS, AGAIN, I THINK IS PROBABLY THE PRODUCT OF THE NEGATIVE INTERACTIONS BETWEEN DEVELOPERS AND OTHER LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, OF, I DON'T FEEL THAT'S THE HAT WE WERE WEARING IN HAYS COUNTY, AT LEAST, FOR ALL OF THESE YEARS, I THINK WE'VE DONE OUR BEST TO SEA APPLICATIONS, HAVE A REAL CONVERSATION WITH A CONSISTENT SET OF RULES. TALK ABOUT WHERE THEY'RE DEFICIENT. YOU KNOW, HAVE THAT CONVERSATION AND BRING THEM INTO COMPLIANCE IF AT ALL POSSIBLE. THAT WAS WHAT I SAW HAPPENING HERE. BUT, THIS THESE RECENT ROUNDS OF LEGISLATION ARE THE REFLECTION, I BELIEVE, OF OTHER KINDS OF INTERACTIONS ELSEWHERE IN THE STATE, PERHAPS.

WE'RE IN NEED OF AN UPDATE. WE'RE WORKING ON THAT. I THINK HERE, PUTTING IT BACK IN THIS CONTEXT, IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER WHAT THE COURT DOES IN RELATION TO THE PRELIMINARY PLAN. IT MATTERS WHAT THE COURT DOES IN RELATION TO THE FINAL PLAT. I THINK THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO GIVE FEEDBACK WHICH WOULD BE, YOUR PLAT'S GOING TO BE DENIED IF YOU DON'T HAVE WATER AVAILABILITY OR IF YOUR LOT SIZING ISN'T THERE.

SUCKED DENY NOW, IF IT'S JUST A LOT SIZING ISSUE OR SOMETHING IS SIMPLY NOT COMPLIANT WITH THE RULES. BUT, DENYING IT ON THE COMP PLAN DOESN'T EXACTLY SIT WITH SOME INTERPRETATIONS OF WHAT 232 LOOKS LIKE NOW. IF THAT MAKES SENSE.

>> THERE'S ALSO, AND YOU COULD STOP ME, MARCUS. BUT, IT COULD ALSO BE THE POSSIBILITY OF, JUST BECAUSE I KNOW THAT WE'VE DONE IT IN ANOTHER EXAMPLE RECENTLY, A CONDITIONAL APPROVAL WAS GIVEN, THERE WAS A CONDITION THAT WAS ESTABLISHED ON THAT APPLICATION, AND, THAT CONDITION WAS NOT MET UPON THE SECOND REVIEW, AND IT WAS A VARIANCE REQUEST. SO, THE APPLICANT DID NOT MEET THAT. I KNOW, THE VARIANCE REQUEST WILL BE SUBMITTED HERE, BUT, I'M MORE SO SPEAKING TO THE FACT THAT THE ACT IN COURT RESCINDED SAID CONDITIONAL APPROVAL WHEN OTHER CONDITIONS WEREN'T BEING MET OR AN ALTERNATIVE TO A CONDITION WAS PROPOSED, OUR DEPARTMENT BROUGHT IT WHACK TO THE COURT TO APPROVE OR DISAPPROVAL. SO, I DON'T KNOW IF MARC FEELS LIKE THIS CAN BE PUT IN THERE AS WELL. IF YOU WANTED TO RESCIND A CONDITIONAL APPROVAL IN THE FUTURE.

>> AND IF YOU VOTE KNOW, IT'S PRELIMINARY.

>> AND I THINK WE COULD GO BACK AND SAY, YOU NEED TO PROVE UP

THESE THINGS. LIKE LOT SIZE. >> JUDGE: LAST COMMENTS FROM

COMMISSIONER SMITH. >> YEAH. SO --

>> JUDGE: ARE YOU AT THE PRINCE CONCERT? YOU'RE SCREEN

WAS PURPLE. >> IN LOOKING AT THIS, MARCUS, THIS IS ONE OF THE FIRST ONES THAT I'VE HAD WHERE LITERALLY THERE ARE SO MANY CONDITIONS AND I GOT THAT WHEN THE PUBLIC DID ON FRIDAY WHEN IT WAS POSTED. MY QUESTION IS, WHERE IN THAT PROCESS, HOW QUICKLY IN THAT PROCESS DO WE IDENTIFY THOSE AND WHERE CAN THE COMMISSIONERS, MYSELF INCLUDED, BE INCLUDED IN LOOKS AT THOSE CONDITIONS AND WETHER OR NOT IT SHOULD EVEN COME FORWARD YET. BECAUSE, AGAIN, WE'RE WORKING ON A TIMELINE RIGHT NOW THAT WE DON'T HAVE CONTROL OVER AS FAR AS A

[04:05:03]

COUNTY, BUT, I FEEL LIKE WE'RE CERTAINLY IN AN AREA WHERE WE AS A COMMISSIONER DON'T HAVE CONTROL OVER WHAT HE IS NEED IN OUR PRECINCT. BECAUSE, AT THE END OF THE DAY, IT DOES ME NO GOOD, AND I'M NOT SAYING ANYTHING ABOUT YOUR STAFF OR ANYTHING ELSE, BUT, IT DOES ME NO GOOD TO GET THIS ON A FRIDAY AND HAVE TO REVIEW ALL OF THOSE ISSUES AND RECEIVE ALL THE FEEDBACK THAT I'VE HAD FOR MONTHS FROM SURROUNDING CITIZENS AND LOOKING AT THE CONDITIONS THAT WE HAVE WHILE THEY ADDRESS THE FIVE THINGS THAT WE HAVE CONTROL OVER AND, YOU KNOW, WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT, FLOOD PLAIN, YOU KNOW, ON-SITE SEWAGE.

EVERYTHING THAT WE HAVE CONTROL OVER. UM, WHICH IS VERY LITTLE, IT DOESN'T REALLY GIVE ME, AS A COMMISSIONER TIME TO INTERACT WITH THOSE AGENCIES AND OTHER GROUPS OUT THERE THAT HAVE THE ACTUAL CONTROL OVER THE ISSUES THAT THESE CONSTITUENTS AND SURROUNDING CONSTITUENTS HAVE CONCERNS OVER.

>> I UNDERSTAND. >> WE DON'T REALLY HAVE TIME TO ADDRESS THE FACT THAT WE HAVE CONCERNS FOR THE TLAP, WE HAVE NO CONTROL OVER THAT, WE HAVE TWO WEEKS AND ONCE IT GETS THROUGH YOUR PLACE, WE BARELY HAVE A WEEK OR TWO TO LOOK AT IT. SO, MY QUESTION IS, TODAY, ARE WE AT THE POINT WHERE WE HAVE TO HAVE A VOTE ON THIS, OR CAN WE PULL IT AND ADDRESS THE ISSUES AND MOVE FORWARD WITH A BETTER PRODUCT IN THE FUTURE

THAT WE HAVE MORE CERTAINTY ON? >> SO, AND, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, OUR PRACTICE THAT OUR DEPARTMENT THAT WE'VE ADMINISTERED AS FAR AS EVEN PRELIMINARY PLANS, WE'VE TREATED THEM UNDER THE GUISE OF A PLAT PROCESS THAT'S OUTLINED IN 232.

AND IN THAT'S THE DETERMINATION THAT WE'RE MAKING FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAN, THAT DOES NOT NEED TO FOLLOW SUIT, THEN THE COURT CAN MAKE THAT DETERMINATION SHALL IT CHOOSE DEPARTMENT LEVEL, WE HAD WORKED IN THAT PRACTICE, PLAN BECAUSE THAT'S HOW WE INTERPRETED THE STATUTE AS IT WAS WRITTEN. SO, IF IT'S ESTABLISHED THAT THE PRELIMINARY PLAN DOES NOT NEED TO MEET THOSE STANDARDS THEN THE COURT CAN STATE THAT THEY'RE

GOING TO TAKE NO ACTION ON IT. >> MARCUS, I'M GOING TO INTERRUPT YOU, BECAUSE, I THINK LOOKING AT THE DOCUMENT, THEY DON'T MEET THOSE CERTIFICATIONS AT THIS TIME. NOW, THEY COULD BY THE NEXT COURT DATE, BUT, RIGHT NOW, I DON'T THINK THEY

DO. >> COMMISSIONER, CAN WE TABLE

THIS? >> I MEAN, I'M HAPPY TO, BUT, I WANT TO HEAR FROM DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, IF I DO, WHAT HAPPENS? BECAUSE, AGAIN, I DON'T WANT TO TAKE ACTION, EITHER POSITIVE OR YOU KNOW, TO APPROVE, DISAPPROVE OR DO NOTHING, IF I'M GOING THROUGH A PROCESS WHERE I JUST TABLE THIS THING AND IT GETS AUTOMATIC APPROVAL IN TWO WEEKS OR WE HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT MOVING FORWARD WITHOUT HAVING OUR CONDITIONS MET, THEN I HAVE

A PROBLEM WITH THAT. >> LIKE I MENTIONED BEFORE, OUR DEPARTMENT ISSUED A A CONDITIONAL APPROVAL LETTER TO THE APPLICANT APRIL 4TH. UNDER THE PREMISE THAT THE PRELIMINARY PLAN WAS TO BE REVIEWED AND ADMINISTERED AS A PLAT APPLICATION UNDERNEATH THE TERMS UNDER CHAPTER 232. SO, AN APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS LETTER WAS SENT TO THE APPLICANT AND WASN'T BROUGHT TO COURT UNTIL A FEW WEEKS LATER.

>> WE PUT OURSELVES IN THIS BOX, IS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING?

>> POSSIBLY, UNLESS WE'RE MAKING A DETERMINATION THAT, OUR PRELIMINARY PLANS SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS A PLAT.

>> DO WE REQUIRE A PRELIMINARY PLAT?

>> WE REQUIRE A PRELIMINARY PLAN IN OUR REGULATIONS.

>> WE REQUIRE A PRELIMINARY PLAN?

>> YES, SIR. >> THEN, I WOULD SAY THAT WE HAVE TO MEET THE 30-DAYTIME CLOCK.

>> THAT'S HOW WE OPERATD ON THE 285 EXCERPT OVER THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE OR WHERE IT STATES THAT, I GUESS IT WOULD

BE. >> IS THE GENTLEMAN FROM THE

CITY OF HAYS STILL THERE? >> THERE'S A GENTLEMAN WALKING

UP RIGHT NOW. >> THANK YOU. I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION. YOU REFERENCED THE DA THAT Y'ALL WERE NEGOTIATING WITH

HIM? >> NO, SO, THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS, THERE'S AN EXISTING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT HAPPENED 10 YEARS AGO AND THERE'S A CURRENT ONE THEY'RE TRYING TO NEGOTIATION WITH THE CITY OF HAYS BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT THIS PLAT IS SUBMITTED UNDER. THIS IS SUBMITTED UNDER THE OLD DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND IT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THAT AGREEMENT AND IN THE PLAT NOTE IT SAYS THAT IT DOES. THAT'S CONCERNS THAT THE AGREEMENT SAYS

[04:10:02]

IT DOES COMPLY. >> I THOUGHT THERE WAS AN EXISTING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND IF IT DOESN'T MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, WE HAVE NO STATUTORY TO APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE THAT, AND THE CITY HAS TO MOVE IN TO SAY THEY'RE NOT MEETING THE STATUTORY

REGULATIONS. >> YOU COULD FORCE THE CITY

REGULATIONS. >> THAT'S RIGHT.

>> MR. KENNEDY. >> LET MR. KENNEDY CHIME IN,

COMMISSIONER. >> JUDGE: MR. KENNEDY, YOU

WERE GOING TO SAY SOMETHING? >> WELL, WE HAVE A 1445 AGREEMENT, BUT, A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FROM THE CITY IS NOT REGULATIONS OF CITY, IT'S AN AGREEMENT FROM THE CITY AND THE DEVELOPER, AND WE'RE NOT A PARTY TO THAT AGREEMENT. SO, I DON'T THINK WE HAVE STANDING TO ASSERT ANY OF THOSE PROVISIONS. NOW, CERTAINLY DEVELOPERS SHOULD BE CONCERNED THAT THE CITY WILL TAKE ACTION ON IT'S OWN IF WHAT THEY'RE PLANNING AND PROPOSING TO DO IS NOT COMPLIANT, BECAUSE, THEY ARE OBLIGATED CONTRACTUALLY, GRANTED I HAVEN'T READ THE AGREEMENT, I HAVEN'T SEEN IT, BUT, I ASSUME IT'S STILL WITHIN IT'S TERM AND

HASN'T EXPIRED. >> I MOVE THAT WE TABLE THIS,

COMMISSIONER. >> I MEAN, I WOULD RATHER TABLE IT AND GET ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, I JUST DON'T WANT TO TABLE IT IF IT PUTS US IN A BOX WHERE IT GETS APPROVED ANYWAY. WHAT HAPPENS IF WE TABLE THIS AND CONSIDER IT AT OUR NEXT MEETING, DOES THAT GIVE US THE TIME OR IS OUR SHOT CLOCK

RUNNING? >> WELL, THE SHOT CLOCK I WANT TO SAY, THE SHOT CLOCK ASPECT FROM A DEPARTMENT LEVEL IS NOT APPLICABLE AT THIS TIME, BECAUSE, ON THE 4TH OF APRIL, THE PRELIMINARY PLAN WAS GIVEN A CONDITIONAL APPROVAL BASED ON THOSE CONDITIONS. NOW, THERE CAN BE AN ARGUMENT MADE THAT SINCE THE COURT DIDN'T ACT ON IT, EVEN THEN, THE 30-DAYTIMELINE WOULD EXPIRE PRIOR TO THE TIMELINE OF APRIL.

GETTING THE HEADS UP TO LET THEM KNOW THAT YOU ARE NOT APPROVED BUT YOU HAVE ITEMS AND DEFICIENCIES ARE THERE, REGARDLESS OF HOW BIG OR SMALL THEY EXIST, SO, WE CAN AFFORD TO AT LEAST, MITIGATE AND SAY, THESE HAVE TO BE MET, RATHER THAN IT IT GO TO THE WAYSIDE AND NO DEFICIENCIES BE NOTED. AND ONE DEVELOPER MADE THE ASSUMPTION THAT THEY COULD DO

WHATEVER. >> YOU WERE CLEAR ON THAT.

>> SO, THAT WAS ON THE FLOOR? >> JUDGE: MR. KENNEDY'S

TALKING, COMMISSIONER. >> SO, WE'RE SORT OF MAKING THE SAUSAGE NOW IN THE COURTROOM. BUT ARE THEY CONSIDERED ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLETE WITH THE FINAL PLAT?

>> WOULD THE FINAL BE CONSIDERED ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLETE FOR THAT PURPOSE OR NOT.

>> THEY DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO BE THE SAME.

>> IF IT WAS A FINAL PLAT, FOR INSTANCE, IT GETS TRICKY, BECAUSE, UM, THE APPLICATION ITSELF, THE APPLICATION MATERIAL WAS THERE, AND IF I'M DRAGGING ALONG THIS CONVERSATION, I APOLOGIZE. BUT, A SUPPORTING DOCUMENT IS REQUIRED FOR AN APPLICATION TO BE ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLETE.

WITHOUT THE INFORMATION PRESENT, ALL INFORMATION SHOWN IN THE PRELIMINARY PLAN WHETHER IF IT'S THE CONDOMINIUM UNITS OR THE WASTE WATER. WE DON'T KNOW THE FULL STORY OF WHAT'S GOING TO BE DONE ON THE PLAN. SO, IT PUTS US IN A BIND TO EITHER PRIOR TO THE STATUTE CONDENSED FOR APPLICATION, IT'S 10 DAYS FOR JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE WHETHER AN APPLICATION IS COMPLETE. SO, OUR DEPARTMENT HAS TO ACT ON THIS IN WAY MORE ACCELERATED TIMELINE TO SAY THAT IT'S ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLETE.

SUBJECT TO THE REVIEW, COMMENTS THAT YOU SEEN TODAY OF THE UNITS, WATER, WASTE WATER, YOU NAME IT.

>> AND I GUESS, UM, STAFF ISSUED A CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAN ALMOST A MONTH AGO.

>> SO, MY QUESTION, MARCUS? >> WHAT?

>> IT'S A VERY DIRECT QUESTION ABOUT KENNEDY AND MARCUS, I MEAN, DO Y'ALL FEEL LIKE WE NEED TO TAKE ACTION ON THIS TODAY, OR WILL TABLING IT BE PROBLEMATIC WITH THE TIMELINE.

>> BELIEVE IT OR NOT, I'M HEADED SOMEWHERE, I THINK THAT WILL ANSWER THAT QUESTION. IF THEY MET THE CONDITIONAL

[04:15:01]

APPROVAL THE CONDITIONS WITHIN THE CONDITIONAL APPROVAL FOR THE PRELIMINARY PLAN THEN I WOULD PRESUMABLY BE ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLETE AND CONSIDERED FOR FINAL PLAT. THAT LETTER WAS ISSUED ON THE 4TH. IF WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT TIMELINES AND INTERPRETATIONS ON 232, I BELIEVE THIS COURT CAN MOVE THE MAY 9TH DATE TO MAY 2ND AND THE ITEM COULD BE PUT ON THE CALENDAR FOR MAY 2ND AND THAT WOULD BE 30 DAYS FROM STAFF AS LETTER. I'M JUMPING AHEAD ASSUMING THAT YOU ARE GOING

APPROVE THE OTHER. >> MARK, THAT'S THE ANSWER THAT I NEEDED. I MEAN, AT THE END OF THE DAY, I WOULD MUCH RATHER TAKE ADDITIONAL TIME ON THIS. SO, IF WE MOVED OUR COURT DATE UNTIL MAY 2ND, I WOULD LIKE TO TABLE IT.

>> ONE FINAL ITEM, THE APPLICATION WAS CONSIDERED, THE PRELIMINARY APPLICATION AND THE PRELIMINARY PLAN WAS CONSIDERED ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLETE FOR ARE THAT PURPOSE ON THE 4TH.

THE CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF THAT PRELIMINARY PLAN WAS GIVEN ON APRIL 4TH. SO, STAFF COMMENTED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE FOLLOWUP DAY WAS A REVIEW TIME AND IT WASN'T BROUGHT TO COURT.

>> I JUST WANTED TO VOTE NO. BUT, WE'RE GOING TO TABLE IT.

LET'S GO, LET'S TABLE THIS. LET'S MOVE ON. UNFORTUNATELY FOLKS, THERE'S NO ACTION TODAY. EXCEPT, NO ACTION IS GOOD FOR YOU. WE'RE GOING TO BRING IT BACK. AND HERE'S THE FUNNY THING, WE HAVE AN AGENDA ITEM FOR OPEN COURT ON THE 2ND, INSTEAD OF THE 9TH, GO WILLING THAT PASSES THEN IT WILL BE ON THE MAY 2ND AGENDA ITEM FOR US TO DO THE THING THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE ON MAY 2ND. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION.

[K4. Discussion and possible action to adopt an election precinct boundary change.]

>> OKAY. THANK YOU, THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH. NOW, LET'S GET

STRAIGHT TO, K.4. >> K.4, DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE ACTION TO ADOPT AN ELECTION PRECINCT BOUNDARY CHANGE.

>> YES. HELLO, AND JUDGE, THANK YOU.

>> JUDGE: WE NEED A MOTION AND A SECOND.

>> . >> JUDGE: ALL RIGHT WE HAVE A

MOTION AND A SECOND. NOW. >> YES, THANK YOU FOR TRYING TO GET ME UP HERE SOONER, I APPRECIATE THAT. SO, WE DO THIS EVERY OTHER YEAR, THE ODD YEAR, PURSUANT TO ELECTION CODE 42005006, AND 42.031, WHERE THE COMMISSIONER'S COURT IS REQUIRED TO REVIEW PRECINCT TO STAY IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAWS IN AN ELECTION PRECINCT. NOT OVER 5,000 IN ANY BROW THIS IS TO PREPARE US FOR NEXT YEAR'S ELECTIONS. SO, MY OFFICE, SITS DOWN WITH GIS, AND TALK ABOUT AREAS THAT ARE HEAVILY DEVELOPING AND THINGS LIKE THAT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE STAY IN COMPLIANCE FOR THE NEXT YEAR AND-A-HALF BEFORE THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. SO, WE IDENTIFIED AND RECOMMENDED A SPLIT TO PRECINCT 444. CURRENTLY THERE ARE 3,926 VOTERS IN THAT PRECINCT. BECAUSE THERE'S MUCH DEVELOPMENT IT GOING ON IN THE AREA AND POTENTIAL FOR MORE DEVELOPMENT, WE THOUGHT THAT MAY BE WE SHOULD SPLIT THAT. AND THAT'S A TYPICAL PLACE WHERE WE SEE THE SPLITS RIGHT NOW BECAUSE OF THE AREAS. SO, STEVE IS RUNNING OUT OF GEEGRAPHICAL BOUNDARIES TO SPLIT THE JURISDICTIONS, ONE HE DID FIND WAS THE LITTLE IS CREEK. WITH THE SOUTHERN JURISDICTION BEING 452 AND THE NORTHERN PORTION REMAINING 444. AND THEN, THE 452, THE NEW PRECINCT WOULD ENCOMPASS HEAD WATERS, AND, I DON'T REMEMBER THE NAME OF THE OTHER SUBDIVISION THERE. BUT, TWO OF THE HEAVILY POPULATED IT SUBDIVISIONS IN THAT AREA, BIG SKY RANCH, I BELIEVE IT WAS. WITH THESE NEW SPLITS, THAT WOULD GIVE US IN THE NEW JURISDICTION, 444, 700 ADDRESS POINTS CURRENTLY. AND IN THE NEW, 452 THERE WOULD BE 2500

[04:20:07]

ADDRESS POINTS WHICH WE BELIEVE WILL GIVE US ENOUGH CUSHION FOR

NEXT YEAR AND REEVALUATE THESE. >> WERE THESE 3500 AND ABOVE?

>> THEY'RE NOT THE ONLY TWO IN THE 3500 AND ABOVE, BUT, THEY'RE THE ONLY TWO THAT WE CAN IDENTIFY THAT COULD HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO OUTGROW THAT NUMBER BEFORE THE PRESIDENTIAL

ELECTION. >> DO YOU KNOW I'M SURROUNDED

BY PARANOID PEOPLE? >> YES.

>> JUDGE: SO, MY ASK IS TO PURELY SATISFY THE NERVOUSNESS THAT PEOPLE HAVE. AND EVERYTHING IS JUSTIFIED THROUGH EVERY LENS, CAN WE PROVIDE SOME COMFORT AND ASSURANCES THAT WILL REVIEW THE REST OF THEM AND MAY BE CONSIDER SPLITTING THE OTHER ONES THAT ARE SO CLOSE TO THE 3500 PLUS RANGE?

>> SO, WE DID REVIEW ALL OF THEM. AND WE DO THAT EVERY YEAR. AND SO, WE CAN DEFINITELY LOOK AT THAT. WE'VE NEVER GONE OVER THE 500, SO, TYPICALLY, WHAT WE'RE DOING IS WORKING TO GET US THROUGH THE ELECTIONS AND THAT'S WHY WE WORK SO CLOSELY WITH GIS SO THAT WE UNDERSTAND WHAT'S COMING UP DEVELOPMENT WISE, AND WHAT'S BEEN ALREADY INITIATED AND WHAT WAS BEING, I GUESS, TALKED ABOUT SUCH AS WHAT WE JUST DID FOR A LONG TIME.

TALKING ABOUT DEVELOPMENT COMING DOWN THE PIKE. SO, BUT, YEAH, AND IF YOU -- WE HAVE THESE ON OUR WEBSITE. SO, WE HAVE THE PRECINCTS WITH THE NUMBERS OF EACH VOTER IN EACH PRECINCT.

SO, IF YOU'VE IDENTIFIED AN AREA THAT WE NEED TO LOOK AT, I MEAN,

THAT'S PART OF THIS ROLE. >> AND THERE'S NO CUTOFF THAT FOLKS DON'T HAVE TO WORRY THEMSELVES WITH?

>> YES. >> PERFECT.

>> GOOD. >> I'M SURPRISED THERE'S NOT MORE AREAS THAT WE'RE CONCERNED AOUT.

>> REMEMBER, WE DID A LOT OF THEM THE YEAR BEFORE LAST.

>> JUDGE: WE'LL LOOK AGAIN AND BE SURE THAT THOSE CALLING AND ARE CONCERNED HAVE THE COMFORT TO KNOW THAT IF WE SEE AN AREA, WE'LL SHARE IT WITH YOU, AND DISCUSS AND WE HAVE SOMETHING

THAT WE COULD ADD TO ON THE 2ND. >> YES.

>> JUDGE: BEAUTIFUL. THANK YOU. QUESTIONS FOR JENNIFER? COMMISSIONER SMITH, ANY QUESTIONS? YOU LOOKING AT THOSE DEVELOPMENTS OUT THERE? IN THAT EXACT AREA WE HAVE ANOTHER 6,000 HOMES COMING IN. AND AS THOSE HOMES COME IN, WE'RE GOING TO BLOW THREW THESE THINGS ON AN ANNUAL BASIS. SO, I KNOW WHAT Y'ALL DO IS IMPORTANT AND I DO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT YOU DID

THE REVIEW HERE. >> JUDGE: THANK YOU.

>> WELL, THANK YOU, JENNIFER FOR YOUR PATIENCE. IF YOU DON'T

MIND, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. >> COMMISSIONER INGALSBE?

>> YES. >> COMMISSIONER COHEN?

>> YES. >> COMMISSIONER SHELL?

[K9. Discussion and possible action to approve a Resolution of Support for Essential Community Facilities Project for the Dripping Springs Community Library. ]

>> YES. >> COMMISSIONER SMITH?

>> YES. >> AND JUDGE BECERRA?

>> PLEASE OPEN K.9. >> DISCUSSION AND ACTION TO APPROVAL A RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FOR ESSENTIAL COMMUNITY FACILITIES PROJECT FOR THE DRIPPING SPRINGS COMMUNITY

LIBRARY. >> MOTION AND A SECOND?

>> I MOVE. >> SECOND.

>> JUDGE: ALL YOUR'S. >> THANK YOU, JUDGE, THE DRIPPING SPRINGS COMMUNITY LIBRARY, IT'S STRAIGHT FORWARD, THEY'RE APPLYING FOR A GRANT THROUGH THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL FACILITIES GRANT PROGRAM. IT'S NOT REALLY A GRANT, IT'S THE QUALIFICATIONS FOR A COUPLE OF PROGRAMS THEY MAY QUALIFY FOR. ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS IS THE SUPPORT OF LOCAL MUNICIPALITY. SO, THEY WILL BE GETTING A RESOLUTION SIMILAR TO THIS FROM THE CITY OF DRIPPING SPRINGS, AND FROM THE COUNTY. AND THAT'S PART OF THEIR GRANT PACKAGE. THERE'S NO OBLIGATION OF FUNDING OR ANYTHING ELSE FROM THE COUNTY, IT'S JUST THAT THE RESOLUTION WE WOULD SUPPORT THEIR APPLICATION AND THEIR PURPOSE BEHIND ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR THE

COMMUNITY LIBRARY THERE. >> JUDGE: PERFECT. IF THERE ARE NO OTHER QUESTIONS CALL THE ROLL.

>> COMMISSIONER COHEN? >> YES. COMMISSIONER SHEEP

SHELL? >> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER SMITH? >> YES.

[K10. Discussion and possible action to authorize the Mental Health Specialty Court to purchase consumable items for a Specialty Court Symposium to be held on April 28th.]

>> AND JUDGE BECERRA? >> YES.

>> PLEASE OPEN K.10.. >> K.10, DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE ACTION TO AUTHORIZE THE MENTAL HEALTH SPECIAL COURT TO PURCHASE CONSUMABLE ITEMS FOR A SPECIALTY COURT SYMPOSIUM TO BE HELD

[04:25:06]

APRIL 28TH. >> SO MOVED.

>> SECOND. >> JUDGE: OKAY. ARE YOU COMING UP IN PERFECT. IF YOU WILL STATE YOUR NAME AND TITLE

FOR THE VIEWING PUBLIC. >> CAMY MALO, I'M THE MENTAL HEALTH ADMINISTRATOR. HAYS COUNTY WILL BE HOLDING A SPECIALTY COURT SYMPOSIUM LATER THIS WEEK, ON FRIDAY, APRIL 28TH. THE PURPOSE OF THE SYMPOSIUM IS TO BRING TOGETHER THE SURROUNDING COUNTIES TO LEARN FROM SPECIALTY COURTS.

THE DOWNTOWN AUSTIN COMMUNITY COURT AND THE TEXAS COMMISSION ON MENTAL HEALTH WILL BE JOINING US TO SHARE WITH THE ATTENDEES, WE'LL HAVE JUDGES AND COURT ADMINISTRATORS FROM EACH COUNT PRESENT AND SHARE ABOUT THEIR COUNTY'S COURT STRUCTURE. IN THE TEXAS JUDICIAL COMMISSION ON MENTAL HEALTH WILL BE SHARING WITH THE GROUP ABOUT FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES, KEY COMPONENTS OF SUCK SETFUL SPECIALTY COURTS AND THIS WILL BE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE RESOURCES, KNOWLEDGE, AND EXPERTISE FROM SEASONED JUDGES AND COURT ADMINISTRATORS AND THERE'LL BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR ATTENDEES TO ASK QUESTIONS. THIS IS A WONDERFUL OPPORTUNITY TO BRING TOGETHER THE NEAREST COUNTIES AND HAYS COUNTY IN ALIGNMENT FOR MENTAL HEALTH IN THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM. THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONTINUED SUPPORT OF OUR MISSION TO CHAMPION ADDRESSING MENTAL HEALTH IN HAYS COUNTY.

>> JUDGE: THANK YOU. COMMI

COMMISSIONERS? >> JUDGE, I THINK THIS IS A GREAT OPPORTUNITY FOR OUR NEWLY HAYS COUNTY MENTAL HEALTH SPECIALTY COURT TO LEARN FROM OTHER COUNTIES THAT HAVE BEEN DOING THIS FOR A LITTLE WHILE, AND, UM, GLAD THAT THEY'RE GOING TO HOST THAT HERE. AND COMMISSIONER SMITH AND I HAVE AGREED TO SPLIT THE AMOUNT OF 77294, IT AND IT WILL COME FROM OUR COMMUNITY PROGRAM EXPENSE LINE ITEM.

>> JUDGE: SO, WILL THERE BE GOOD SNACKS? OTHERWISE I'M NOT GOING. JUST KIDDING. COMMI COMMISSIONER SMITH, ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU WANT TO

CONTRIBUTE? >> I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THANK YOU FOR ALL THE WORK ON THIS. AND SPECIFICALLY, I WANT TO THANK COMMISSIONER INGALSBE, IT'S SELDOM SINCE WE'VE BEEN ON THE COURT THAT WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO WORK REALLY CLOSELY TOGETHER ON SOMETHING AND THIS IS A GREAT EXAMPLE OF HOW WE CAN DO THAT.

I REALLY APPRECIATE IT. EVEN THE LITTLE THINGS LIKE SPLITTING THE CONSUMABLES FOR THIS, I THINK SHOWS THERE'S BROAD-BASED SUPPORT ON THE COURT FOR WHAT THE SPECIALTY COURTS ARE DOING.

AND I CAN'T BE MORE EXCITED ABOUT THIS AND THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA AS WELL. AND I'M FULLY SUPPORTIVE AND THANK YOU FOR BRINGING IT TO US. WE'RE HAPPY TO HELP WHEN WE KNOW THAT

WE CAN. >> BEAUTIFUL.

>> JUDGE: IF THERE'S NOTHING ELSE, CALL THE ROLL.

>> COMMISSIONER COHEN? >> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER INGALSBE? >> YES. COMMISSIONER SMITH?

[K11. Discussion and possible action to authorize the County Judge to execute mental health service contracts to expand services within the County Court at Law Mental Health Specialty Courts program with Megan Gauwain Counseling Services, PLLC and Hiatus Wellness, LLC.]

>> YES. >> AND JUDGE BECERRA?

>> YES. >> JUDGE: AND YOU'RE CORRECT, COMMISSIONER SMITH, OPEN K HADN'T 11.

>> DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY JUDGE, TO EXECUTE MENTAL HEALTH SERVICE CONTRACTS TO EXPAND SERVICES WITHIN THE COUNTY COURT OF LAW MELT SPECIAL COURTS PROGRAM WITH MEGAN GAUWAIN COUNSELLING SERVICES AND HIGH

YAY! TUSS WELLNESS LLC. >> SO MOVED.

>> REQUIRED MY THE MENTAL HEALTH COURT PROGRAM IN ORDER FOR PARTICIPANTS TO GRADUATE FROM THAT PROGRAM, AND SO, I READ OVER THE AGREEMENT, AND, SOUNDS LIKE WE'VE GOT SOMEBODY THAT CAN PROVIDE SOME REALLY GOOD SERVICES FOR US THAT WILL

REALLY ENHANCE THE PROGRAM. >> SO, THESE TWO CONTRACTS WILL BE IN ADDITION TO THE OTHER ONES THAT WERE APPROVED. AND THE REASON THAT I'M ADVOCATED FOR A VARIETY OF PROVIDERS IS SO THAT WE'LL HAVE THE ABILITY TO OFFER BOTH TELEHEALTH SERVICES AND INPERSON, EACH PROVIDER HAS DIFFERENT SCHEDULES, YOU KNOW,

SO, PEOPLE AUDIO. >> FY 24 PUBLIC HEALTH

[G. CONSENT ITEMS]

[04:33:15]

PREPAREDNESS GRANT PROGRAM IN THE AMOUNT OF 129,000, $339. G 12, APPROVE THE RESCHEDULING OF THE HAYS COUNTY COMMISSIONER COURT FROM MAY 9TH TWO MAY 2ND. G 13 AUTHORIZE THE EXECUTION OF AMENDMENT 5 TO THE FY '23 DEPARTMENT OF STATE HEALTH SERVICES GRANT CONTRACT. G 14 HORIZON PAYMENT TO KARAHRI RESORT FOR EMPLOYEE MANAGEMENT. G 15, AS REQUIRED PER HAYS

COUNTY POLICY. >> G 16 THIRDS THE TRANSFER OF ADDITIONAL FUNDING TO THE COUNTY JUDGE'S CONTINUING EDUCATION BUMTH FOR EXPENSES RELATED TO THE TEXAS EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE, SOUTH TEXAS, JUDGES AND COMMISSIONERS CONFERENCE AND THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES AND AHMED THE BUDGET

ACCORDINGLY. >> G 17, ACCEPT DONATIONS TOTALLING $15,410.73 ON BEHALF OF THE HAYS COUNTY CHILD PROTECTIVE BOARD AND AMEND THE BUDGET ACCORDINGLY.

>> G 18, ACCEPT THE DRIFRRY OF THE COMMUNITY SUPERVISION AND CORRECTIONS DEPARTMENT'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING AUGUST 31ST, 2022, FOR FILING OF THE HAYS COUNTY COMMISSIONER COURT PURSUANT TO TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 140.004 D AND THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF

[04:35:05]

CRIMINAL JUST TWIST, COMMUNITY JUSTICE, ASSISTANCE DIVISIONS FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT MOON YOU'LL. G 19, AUTHORIZE PAYMENT TO ON SITE SERVICES IN THE AMOUNT OF $500 FOR THE TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT RELATED TO THE PURCHASE OF RANDOM DRUG AND ALCOHOL SCREENINGS WHERE NO PURCHASE ORDER WAS ISSUED AS REQUIRED PER HAYS COUNTY PURCHASING POLICY.

G 20, APPROVE THE APPOINTMENT OF TRAVIS BROWN IN THE BOARD OF EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT 4 TO REPLACE JOHN WHITE FOR THE TERM

AND ENDING DECEMBER 31ST, 2024. >> G 21, RECEIVE AND RATIFY THE FINALIZED REAL ESTATE PURCHASE CONTRACT FOR IMPROVED PROPERTY BETWEEN HAYS COUNTY AND WILLIAM M GARY ESTATE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP AND AMEND THE BUDGET ACCORDINGLY.

>> G 22 AMEND THE ACCEPTANCE OF A GRANT AWARD TO THE HAYS COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE FOR THE. G 23 AUTHORIZE THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE TO ACCEPT A PROPOSAL FROM CORNERSTONE INC. RELATED TO THE DETENTION SLIDER UPGRADES PURR SUNDT TO GSA UPGREAT CONTRACT FOR. TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE CHAPTER 2.62.024 A 7 D FOR

ALL OPEN MARKET ITEMS. >> G 24 AUTHORIZE SHERIFF'S OFFICE TO UTILIZE CORNERSTONE DETANG FOR THE REPAIRS TO THE GATE AT THE HAYS COUNTY JAIL PURSUANT TO THE GSA CONTRACT GS-07 F-269 AA AND AMEND THE BUDGET ACCORDINGLY. TASK ORDER NUMBER 4, AS PART OF THE MASTER INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN HAYS COUNTY AND TEXAS STATE UNIVERSITY EXECUTED ON OR ABOUT

APRIL 12TH, 2022. >> G 26, ACCEPT THE FISCAL YEAR 2022 HAYS COUNTY EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT 9 AUDIT REPORT PER TEXAS HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE 775.082.

>> G 27, AUTHORIZE THE REPAIRS FROM CORNERSTONE DETENTION PRODUCTS FOR THE LOBBY DOOR AT THE HAYS COUNTY JAIL AND AUTHORIZE A DISCRETIONARY EX-ACCEPT THEN PURSUANT TO TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE 262.024 A 7 D. G 28, APPROVAL G 29 AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY JUDGE TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN HAYS COUNTY AND RE IN, E BAITS AUCTION NEARS INC. PURSUANT TO BODY BOARD CONTRACT 620-2 OH AUCTION SERVICES FOR THE HAYS

COUNTY FISCAL YEAR 2023 AUCTION. >> G 30, APPROVE UTILITY

PERMIT. >> G 31, AUTHORIZE THE ACCEPTANCE OF A $1,500 DONATION TO THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE COMMUNITY OUTREACH PROGRAM AND AMEND THE BUDGET ACCORDINGLY.

>> G 32, AUTHORIZE THE ACCEPT ANSWER OF A $500 DONATION TO THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE CRIME VICTIM SERVICES PROGRAM AND AMEND THE

BUDGET ACCORDINGLY. >> G 34, AUTHORIZE THE OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES FIRE MARSHAL DIVISION TO UTILIZE DONATED FUNDS TO BUILD OUT OF OFFICE CUBICLES AT THE YARINGTON BUILDING PURCHASE PERSONAL PROTECTIVE UNIFORMS FOR PERSON MEDICAL TO WEAR AT FIRE SCENES AND PURCHASE PROMOTION TALL ITEMS FOR COMMUNITY EDUCATION AND OUTREACH AND AMOUNTEDED

BUDGET ACCORDINGLY. >> G 3 5SHGS AUTHORIZE A WAIVER NOT ID BADGE POLICY FOR NEIGHBORHOOD DEFENDER SERVICES EMPLOYEES HAYS COUNTY CONTRACTED PUBLIC DEFENDERS'S.

>> G 36 AUTHORIZE SECOND ONE TO INSTALL A SELL ULAIR COMMUNICATOR TO THE FIRE ALARM SYSTEM IN THE ELECTIONS IT BUILDING IN THE AMOUNT OF $800 AND EXECUTE THE SYSTEMS MONITORING AGREEMENT OF AMEND THE BUDGET ACCORDINGLY.

>> SO MOVED. SECONDED. >> JUDGE: CAN YOU BELIEVE IT?

>> SO, ON 12TH, WE'RE UNCANCELING THE SEND.

>> WE'RE MOVING FROM THE 9TH TO THE 2ND.

>> CORRECT. IT AND THAT'S FOR STAFFING PURPOSES. IF EVERYONE'S OKAY WITH THAT. THAT'S WHAT THAT WILL TAKE PLACE

AS, YES. >> PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

>> COMMISSIONER COHEN? >> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER SMITH? >> I HAD A COMMENT ON ONE ITEM.

>> JUDGE: OKAY, SURE. >> JUST, ON YOUR EDUCATION ITEM, I THINK IT'S GREAT, I KNOW, WITH ADDITIONAL STAFF YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE ADDITIONAL EDUCATIONAL FUNDING

[04:40:01]

AND I APPRECIATE YOU REPRESENTING THE COUNTY IN THOSE AREAS. WE'VE HAD TO DO THIS TWICE ON THAT BUDGET FOR YOU, JUST, IN THE NEXT BUDGET CYCLE, I WOULD JUST ASK THAT YOU TRY TO INCLUDE THAT IN I DON'T YOU ARE REGULAR BASELINE BUDGET SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO DO IT AGAIN. BUT, I'M FULLY SUPPORTIVE OF IT.

AND I VOTE YES FOR ALL OF THEM. >> THANK YOU.

>> JUDGE: THANK YOU. >> AND COMMISSIONER, YOU DID

VOTE YES? >> AND, UM, JUDGE BECERRA? .

>> OKAY. I WANT TO GO ON THE RECORD VOTING NO FOR 22 BUT YES

FOR EVERYTHING ELSE. >> IT'S WELL-WRITTEN. BUT,

THANK YOU. >> JUDGE: OKAY. WE MADE IT

[I1. Discussion and possible action to authorize the County Judge to execute Contract Amendment No. 1 to amend the Exhibit D - Rate Schedule in the Professional Services Agreement with Freese and Nichols, Inc. (FNI) for the Jacobs Well Road Corridor Project from FM 2325 to RM 12 in Precinct 3.]

THROUGH CONSENT AGENDA. I THINK JERRY'S HERE AND WOULD ROVE LOVE TO KEEP MOVING. LET'S JUMP OVER TO ROADS.

>> OKAY. I.1. DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLY ACTION TO AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY JUDGE TO EXECUTE CONTRACT AMENDMENT NUMBER 1 TO AMENDMENT THE EXHIBIT D-RATE SCHEDULE IN THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH FREESE AND NICOLES INKS FOR JAY COBS WELL ROAD CORRIDOR PROJECT FROM FM 2325 TO RM 12 IN PRECINCT THREE.

>> SO MOVED. SECOND. >> JUDGE: BEAUTIFUL, CALL THE

ROLL. >> COMMISSIONER COHEN?

>> YES. >> COMMISSIONER SHELL?

[I2. Discussion and possible action to authorize the County Judge to execute Contract Amendment No. 4 in the amount of $10,000.00 to the Professional Services Agreement between Hays County and Cobb, Fendley & Associates, Inc. (CFA) for utility design and coordination services on the FM 110 North project in Precinct 1, as part of the TxDOT/Hays County Partnership Program, utilizing a discretionary exemption pursuant to Texas Local Government Code Ch. 262.024(a)(4).]

>> YES. >> COMMISSIONER INGALSBE?

>> YES. >> COMMISSIONER SMITH?

>> YES. AND JUDGE BECERRA? >> YES.

>> JUDGE: I-2, PLEASE. >> I AT ANY TIME 2, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY JUDGE TO EXCUSE CONTRACT AMENDMENT NUMBER 4 IN THE AMOUNT OF $10,000 TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN HAYS COUNTY AND COBB, FENDLY AND ASSOCIATIONS INC. FOR THE UTILITY DESIGN TO COORDINATION SERVICES ON FM 110 NORTH PROJECT.

>> JUDGE: SO WELL WRITTEN, NO MORE REQUIRED.

>> IT'S EFFICIENT. >> PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

>> ASHEN COMPANIER COHEN? >> YES.

[I3. Discussion and possible action to consider the acceptance of road construction & surface drainage improvements, release of the subdivision bond #800132235 in the amount of $3,506,205.95, acceptance of the 2-year maintenance bond #PB03016800706M1 in the amount of $376,152.05, and acceptance of the revegetation bond #PB03016800706M2 in the amount of $288,668.95 for Crosswinds subd., Phase 3A]

>> COMMISSIONER INGALSBE? >> YES. COMMISSIONER SMITH?

>> YES. JUDGE? >> YES.

>> I 3. >> I 3, DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLY ACTION TO ARE CAN THE ACCEPTANCE OF ROAD CONSTRUCTION AND SURFACE DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS, RELEASE OF THE SUBDIVISION BOND 800132235 IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,506,205.95. ACCEPTANCE OF THE TWO-YEAR MAINTENANCE BOND PB 03016800706 M 1 IN THE AMOUNT OF 376,152 DRAWERS AND $0.05 AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE REVEGETATION BOND NUMBER PB 03016800706 M 2 IN THE AMOUNT OF $288668.95 FOR

CROSSWINDS SUBDIVISION PHASE 3A. >> SO MOVED.

>> SECOND. >> JUDGE: MOTION AND A SECOND.

>> WELL WRITTEN AGAIN. >> JERRY, ANYTHING ELSE TO

CONTRIBUTE? >> ALL GOOD.

>> JUDGE: ALL GOOD. >> ALL RIGHT. CALL THE ROLL.

>> COMMISSIONER COHEN? >> YES. COMMISSIONER SMITH?

>> YES. >> AND JUDGE BECERRA?

>> . >> JUDGE: YES. AND IS THERE AN AGENDA ITEM THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO PICK TO COMMISSIONERS TO KEEP US MOVING OR WE'RE GOING TO GO STRAIGHT THROUGH

MISCELLANEOUS? >> CAN WOE DO K 6?

>> JUDGE: K.6. YOU GOT IT. >> THE, K.7.

[K7. Discussion and possible action to authorize the County Clerk to re-grade two Bookkeeper positions; one to an Accountant I grade 119 and one to an Accounting Specialist grade 115 effective May 1, 2023]

>> K.7. OKAY. >> JUDGE: OKAY. OPEN K.7.

>> DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLY ACTION TO AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY CLERK TO RE-GRADE TWO BOOKKEEPER POSITIONS ONE TO AN ACCOUNTANT UN, GRADE 119 AND ONE TO AN ACTING SPECIALIST, GRADE 1 FITCH

EFFECTIVE MAY 1ST. >> SO MOVED.

>> SECOND. >> JUDGE: MOTION AND A SECOND.

DID YOU HAVE A, OKAY. AND ALSO, I DON'T KNOW, BUT, I LOST MY

CHIEF OF STAFF. >> BASICALLY, WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO HIRE ACCOUNTANTS AND BOOKKEEPERS FOR SOME TIME, AS YOU KNOW, WHEN WE'VE COME TO COURT PREVIOUSLY WE'VE REQUESTS AT TIMES, SALARY EXCEPTIONS BECAUSE OF OUR INABILITY TO HIRE AT THE RATE THAT WE HAVE AND THE POSITIONS. AND THEY'RE EXTREMELY DEMANDING JOBS, THESE PEOPLE HANDLE TENS OF MILLIONS

[04:45:02]

OF DOLLARS FOR THE COUNTY AND THERE'S CONSIDERATION LIABILITY ASSOCIATED WITH IT. AND WE NEED, AS YOU CAN UNDERSTAND, THE VERY BEST THAT WE COULD FIND. VICKY DOORSETTE APPROACHED ME AND SAID IT WOULD MAKE SENSE TO RE-GRADE THESE PEOPLE INSTEAD OF GETTING SALARY EXCEPTIONS CONSTANTLY.

>> JUDGE: RE-GRADE? >> YEAH.

>> JUDGE: OKAY. MAKES SENSE. >> SEEING AS WE JUST WENT THROUGH THAT PROCESS, NO OFFENSE, BUT I'M NOT SUPPORTIVE OF ANY RE-GRADES OUTSIDE OF THE BUDGET THIS YEAR. NOT THAT IT'S NOT WARRANTED, I UNDERSTAND YOUR REASONING FOR IT, BUT, I THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE SUBMITTED IN THE BUDGETING PROCESS AND WE SHOULD LOOK AT THAT HOLISTICALLY, WITH ALL THE DEPARTMENTS THAT HAVE THE SAME OR SIMILAR REQUESTS.

>> AND JUDGE, I'M JUST A LITTLE CONCERNED BECAUSE OF THE TIMES, BECAUSE WE JUST APPROVED THE SALARY SURVEY. BUT, I HATE TO PUT THE DOCTOR IN SITUATION IF COME THAT IS QUALIFIED. I KNOW THEY'VE ONE OTHER BOOKKEEPER THAT WE'RE NOT ADDRESSING AND WE

PROBABLY NEED TO TAKE A LOOK AT. >> JUDGE: THERE ARE OTHERS, COMMISSIONERS, AS WE GO THROUGH THE PROCESS, I KNOW THAT WE'RE NOT 100% FINALIZED IN IT. WE HAVE TO FIRM UP THE STAFF AND ALL THE OTHER PIECES AND THEY'RE COMING TO ME, AS WELL AS YOU, I'M SURE, ABOUT, OH, WE'VE LEFT OUT THESE FOLKS AND WE'VE LEFT OUT, UM, MAKE SURE WE DON'T LEAVE OUT THOSE OTHER FOLKS OVER HERE, SO, WE'RE GOING THROUGH A PROCESS AND WE'RE STILL MOVING THROUGH IT. AND I DO HAVE A SENSITIVITY THAT ALTHOUGH WE ARE MOVING SLOWER THAN ANY OF US ON THIS COURT WOULD WANT, THEY'RE STILL TRYING TO RUN A DEPARTMENT AND IF THIS, LIKE YOU'RE STATING, IF THIS HELPS THEM TO STAFF WHILE WE'RE STILL MID-STRIDE, I JUST WANT TO BE AS SUPPORTIVE AS I CAN TO ALL ELECTED OFFICIALS AND DEPARTMENT HEADS TO PROPERLY RUN THEIR

[04:50:03]

DEPARTMENTS. >> VICKY DOORSET. THIS CAME TO MY INBOX AS A SALARY EXCEPTION. I DID REACH OUT TO ELAINE TO TRY AND UNDERSTAND THE COMPLEXITIES OF THE JOB WHICH WAS REQUIRES MULTIPLE SALARY EXCEPTIONS. THEY WERE HAVING A VERY DIFFICULT TIME FILLING THE POSITION AND ONCE FILLED, THESE INDIVIDUALS WERE NOT ABLE TO STAY IN THE POSITIONS FOR LONG.

AS WE WERE DISCUSSING THE ROLES AND THE TWO DIFFERENT TYPES OF BOOKKEEPERS THAT SHE HAS IN HER DEPARTMENT, THE COURT SIDE OF THE DIVISIONS ARE VERY COMPLEX AS I UNDERSTAND. UM, HIGH VOLUME, HIGH RISK, PROBATE, GUARDIANSHIP, AND OTHER TYPES IN THE DOMAIN, PAYING OUT, UM, MILLIONS OF DOLLARS, RECONCILING, DOING, FEDERAL AND STATE REPORTING. AND, MULTIPLE MODULES, STATE AND FEDERAL MODULES. SO, I DID ASK HER TO GET WITH THE HR DIRECTOR AND TALK THROUGH THE POSSIBILITY OF MAY BE RESTRUCTURING SIMILAR TO WHAT THE TAX OFFICE HAS DONE.

>> DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? >> SO, THOSE POSITIONS ARE ALREADY ESTABLISHED. WELL, THE ACCOUNTANT POSITION IS ESTABLISHED IN THE NEW PLAN. THE ACCOUNTING SPECIALIST, WE DO NOT HAVE NOW. BUT, WE, UM, WOULD ALIGN WITH OUR ACCOUNT'S

PAYABLE AND AUDITING SPECIALIST. >> IS THERE SOMETHING MISSING?

>> >> GOOD AFTERNOON, I'M CYNTHIA, THE ASSISTING COUNTY CLERK. LOOK, THE LAST THING WE WANTED TO DO AFTER JUST GETTING THE PAY PLAN APPROVED IS PUT ANOTHER ITEM ON THE AGENDA. BUT, IT WAS DRIVEN OUT OF NECESSITY, OUR CURRENT COURT'S BOOKKEEPER RESIGNED, UNEXPECTENTLY, SO, WE HAD NO LEAD TIME. I HAVE CONCLUDED THE INTERVIEWS AND HAVE A 30-YEAR, QUALIFIED, WORKED IN THE FIELD FOR 30 YEARS OF BOOKKEEPING AND ACCOUNTING, AND WANTED TO BE ABLE TO OFFER THAT POSITION. THE HARD PART ABOUT BEING THE HIRING AUTHORITY AND SITTING AT THE TABLE IS I CAN'T OFFER ANYTHING EXCEPT THE LOW-END WITHOUT COMING IT TOAL PROCESS, SO, I SCRATCHED MY HEAD, WITH A PROCESS DO I USE, A SALARY EXCEPTION WHEN WE KNEW THAT WE WERE GOING TO GO IN AND ASK FOR A RE-GRADE, REINSSTRUCT IN THE BUDGET PLAN. WE HAVE HIGH VOLUME TRANSATIONS WITH THE PIPELINE THAT COME THROUGH. AND WE'RE SITTING WITHOUT AN ACCOUNTANT RIGHT NOW. WE HAVE DONE THE EVALUATION AND WORKING WITH VICKY AND, SHERRY, WE LINED THEM UP AS BEST WE CAN WITH WHAT THE CURRENT STRUCTURE IS PUT THEM IN THE BAND, AND I ACTUALLY, UM, REWROTE THE JOB DESCRIPTIONS TO GIVE US SOMETHING MORE CURRENT AND MORE REFLECTIVE AND IT WOULD COVER THAT ACCOUNTING SPECIALIST. SO, ALTHOUGH WE DIDN'T WANT TO HAVE TO COME ASK FOR A SALARY EXCEPTION, IF WE DON'T RE-GRADE, WE'LL BE BACK NEXT WEEK, WITH A SALARY EXCEPTION, BECAUSE, WE HAVE A PERSON THAT WE WANT TO HIRE THAT'S HIGHLY QUALIFIED.

AND AS THE DISCUSSION WENT ON, JUST TRYING TO KEEP SOMEONE IN THOSE FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING POSITIONS. I ALSO HAD A DISCUSSION WITH THE TREASURER ON THE ACCOUNTANT POSITIONS AND WE FELT LIKE THIS WAS THE BEST SOLUTION. AND.

>> JUDGE: AND THE RE-GRADE WAS SOMETHING YOU WERE GOING TO

BRING FORWARD ANYWAY? >> CORRECT. AND UNFORTUNATELY, WE HAVE THE POSITION OPEN RIGHT NOW. AND, THE OTHER POSITION WE DO HAVE SOME HEAD HE IS UP THAT WE'RE LOSING OUR OTHER BOOKKEEPER. SO, IN PREPARATION, IF WE HAVE THE POSITIONS IN PLACE, WE CAN, ADVERTISE THEM CORRECTLY AND NOT HAVE TO DE A WHOLE BUNCH OF EXCEPTIONS AND MODIFICATIONS WHILE WE TRY AND MAKE IT TO EITHER JULY OR, THE START OF THE NEW BUDGET CYCLE.

[04:55:05]

>> I'LL ADD TO THAT, A COUPLE OF PEOPLE THAT DO THE JOBS DID THEIR VERY BEST HIRED AT THE LOWER LEVELS, BUT, FOUND IT CHALLENGING AND FELT UNABLE TO HANDLE THE WORK BECAUSE IT WAS ABOVE THE LEVEL OF WORK THEY WERE HIRED TO DO. IT'S REALLY A MUCH MORE CHALLENGING AND DIFFICULT JOB THAT PEOPLE

REALIZE. >> JUDGE: AND THE RE-GRADE SEEMS TO BE THE MOST ACCURATE WAY TO MOVE FORWARD TO PREVENT

THE CYCLICAL SHIFT. >> WE FEEL LIKE THE RE-GRADES PUT IT RIGHT IN THE BAND THAT WE NEED TO BE IN. SO, IT SEEMED A VERY REASONABLE SOLUTION THAT YOU KNOW, CAME ABOUT JUST FROM SUBMITTING ONE REQUEST THAT MORPHED WHAT APPEARED ON THE

AGENDA. >> JUDGE: BEAUTIFUL.

COMMISSIONER COHEN? >> IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU DID YOUR DUE DILIGENCE WITH WORKING VICKY AND SHERRY, WHICH, I LIKE TO SEE EVERYBODY WORKING TOGETHER ON A UNDERSTAND IT.

>> JUDGE: COMMISSIONER SHELL, YOU ALREADY SPOKE, COMMISSIONER

SMITH? >> YOU KNOW, I'M ACTUALLY, I'VE SPOKEN TO THE CLERK'S OFFICE, AND I THINK TWICE NOW, CYNTHIA, ABOUT THIS, AN, I'M SUPPORTIVE OF THE REGREAT, I WOULDN'T BE SUPPORTIVE OF THE SALARY EXCEPTION. BUT, IN SAYING THAT, I'M SUPPORTIVE OF THE RE-GRADE IF WE ACTUALLY LOOK LIKE WE'RE SUPPOSED TO ON THE SALARY SURVEY ACROSS THE BOARD. SO, IF WE RE-GRADE THIS POSITION, I JUST WANT AN UNDERSTANDING THAT THOSE OTHER BOOKKEEPER POSITIONS THAT WE HAVE, THAT ARE DOING SIMILAR WORK, SUCH AS TRANSPORTATION, WE'RE GOING TO SEE SOMETHING, HOPEFULLY, WITHIN THE WEEK OR, WITHIN THE NEXT, MEETING OR, DEFINITELY WITHIN THIS BUDGET CYCLE, TO, REESTABLISH THEM IN A SIMILAR CATEGORY. BECAUSE, I KNOW THEY'VE HAD VERY, VERY, SIMILAR REQUESTS IN THE PAST. IT WAS OUTLINED IN THE E-MAIL TO US, BUT, I KNOW OF THREE TIMES THAT THEY'VE COME BACK TO US, SINCE I'VE BEEN ON THE COURT, SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE BOOKKEEPER POSITION. I WANT TO ENSURE THAT IF WE MAKE THIS CHANGE THAT WE DO IT ACROSS THE BOARD AND THAT MAY BE A VICKY AND SHERRY QUESTION, BUT, I DO WANT TO HAVE SOME ASSURANCE

THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN. >> AND I WAS GOING TO, JUST SAY THAT, I MEAN, IF I WENT AHEAD AND SUPPORTED THIS ACTION TODAY, EVEN THOUGH I DON'T LIKE THE TIMING OF IT, I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE IMPORTANT FOR SHERRY AND VICKY TO GET WITH SHERRY'S OFFICE TO GET WITH THEM AND TO GO AHEAD AND ASSESS AND SEE WHERE THAT GRADE COMES OUT. BUT, THEN, JUDGE, HONESTLY, I WANT TO BE HONEST, THAT, IF I SUPPORT THIS TODAY, I REALLY, AM HOPING THAT IT'S UNFAIR, I FEEL, FOR EVERY OTHER DEPARTMENT THAT HAS THESE SAME ISSUES, BUT, WE'VE GOT TO STOP, I FEEL, AND I THINK THAT THIS IS, FOR ME, THIS IS GOING TO BE IT, BECAUSE, WE'VE GOT TO GET THROUGH THE BUDGET PROCESS. WE CAN'T CONTINUE TO DO THIS. I THINK IT'S UNFAIR FOR THE ONLY OTHER

BOOKKEEPER THAT WE HAVE. >> JUDGE: GOOD FOR YOU TO ADDRESS THAT FOR THE UNIFORMITY AND HARMONY. MY HOPE IT IS TO BRING SOMETHING BACK TO FINALIZE THIS BUDGET. I'M GOING TO PUSH IT BACK ON TO THE COURT TO GET DEFINITIVE CONCRETE ROAD MAP FOR WHATEVER IT LEFT AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. CALL THE ROLL.

>> COMMISSIONER COHEN? >> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER SHELL? >> NO.

[K6. Discussion and possible action to authorize the County Judge to execute the Hays County American Rescue Plan Recovery Grant Agreement between Hays County and Gary P. Hale, Quartermaster of Dripping Springs VFW Post 2933 regarding recovery assistance for direct or indirect impacts of COVID-19 and amend the budget accordingly. ]

>> COMMISSIONER SMITH? >> YES.

>> AND JUDGE BECERRA? >> JUDGE: YES. PLEASE OPEN K 6. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLY ACTION TO AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY JUDGE TO EXECUTE THE HAYS COUNTY AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN RECOVERY GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN HAYS COUNTY AND GARY PHALE QUARTERMASTER OF DRIPPING SPRINGS, VFW POST 2933 REGARDING RECOVERY ASSISTANCE FOR DIRECT OR INDIRECT IMPACTS OF COVID-19 AND AMEND THE BUDGET ACCORDINGLY.