By Karen Gleason
The 830 Times
Val Verde County Commissioners on Tuesday will again discuss a proposed target range at the county’s SE Ranch property.
The court will discuss the range during its regular term meeting at 9 a.m. Tuesday. The meeting will be held in the old county court-at-law courtroom, 207B E. Losoya St.
The court had discussed the range during its meeting on Jan. 17 and at that time, three of the five members of the court voted against a motion by County Commissioner Pct. 3 Beau Nettleton to move forward with the project and to pay for a portion of the expected shortfall in construction expenses with hotel occupancy tax (HOT) monies.
During the court’s Jan. 17 meeting, County Judge Lewis G. Owens Jr. told the court current estimates for the construction of the project totaled about $3.6 million. Although a grant will fund a portion of that cost, Owens said, about $1.5 million of the cost would have to be paid from county funds.
Owens also told the court on Jan. 17 County Commissioner Pct. 4 Gustavo “Gus” Flores has raised concerns about potential health issues associated with operation of the range, as well as its location close to Laughlin Air Force Base and the anticipated cost.
Flores then presented the judge with several articles he had printed out regarding lead pollution issues on some gun ranges elsewhere in the country.
“I guess the concern has been what are we going to do with the lead or who’s going to take care of the lead?” Owens said.
“I know we’ve had conversations about who’s going to, once we shoot, once we start to shoot, in this building, if it’s approved, what happens with the lead,” Owens added, saying Flores had also expressed concerns about the county’s liability issues should the range be built.
Owens then asked a question about the existing 4-H range at the county fairgrounds, directing his question to Gary Humphreys, who was in the audience and who has been involved in the county’s 4-H shooting program for decades.
“Who cleans it? And who is going to handle that part of it? In the range that we have now, you all take care of that, right? Do the kids touch it? Do the kids handle those bullets after they’ve been shot?” Owens asked.
“So one of the other questions that was highlighted here, what happens to the lead? What would happen to the lead once it’s fired in the indoor facility?” Owens asked.
“Right now we’re recycling, taking (it) to San Angelo. We buy it from them, and sell it back to them, and it’s recycled,” Humphreys said.
“Who would be touching that? Who would be handling the lead?” Owens asked.
“Usually we have it on a shovel and then a box. With our brass also, we have a five-gallon bucket we fill with brass. We recycle all that. You could actually probably contract it out, have people come in and pick it up. Normally we do that ourselves, so the coaches and us get up there and load it up and haul it off,” Humphreys said.
“Mr. Humphreys, how long have you all been doing that? For years, without the proper gear?” Flores asked.
“We’ve been in that barn since 1963. Our program started in 1946, and we didn’t start shooting in that barn until ’63, and it’s always been recycled out of there. We don’t leave the lead in there. We take it out, sweep the floors, mop the floors periodically, to keep (down) the dust and stuff, also,” Humphreys replied.
The court also spent some time speaking to Sheriff Joe Frank Martinez about the sheriff’s range north of Del Rio.
“And one of the other things . . . one of the other questions, I believe, that you asked, was can people go use it?” Owens asked Flores.
“The other big concern is that we’re going to build it with grant money, at the end of the day, it’s taxpayers’ money. I would love to see a facility, a building for 4-H and a building for the public, but at the end of the day, I’m very concerned with all this health issues involved,” Flores said.
“One of the deals, and, again, we’ve had multiple conversations, about public use, because it is grant money, it would have to be opened up to the public, and that schedule would have to be set up and there’d have to be discussions with TAC (Texas Association of Counties) and our attorneys as to how this would work. I know letting 4-H use this facility, the indoor facility, or the outdoor facility, they have all the insurance and then they cover us also. The outdoor facility, also, we would have to have individuals and set certain parameters as to how that would work. But we would have to open it up to the public,” the county judge added.
Flores then brought up another concern he has regarding the proposed range.
“I think before we put it to a vote, judge, I think we need to consider other things that are (inaudible) that we haven’t talked about much. When we bought the SE Ranch, we bought it with one purpose in mind, and that’s to protect Laughlin from encroachment, zero construction, zero development out there, and I think we’re making a big mistake if we allow this project to take place at the SE Ranch. I think it would be wise if we would look for land outside SE Ranch, for this shooting range, target range or both facilities. I would prefer that we would table this item and maybe iron out some wrinkles that are in this project,” Flores said.
Owens agreed the SE Ranch was purchased to protect Laughlin, but, after consulting with the county engineer, noted that a range would be considered a “compatible use” for the property.
Owens then asked each commissioner if he had any comments to add to the discussion.
“I feel all the commissioners support the project, but this is the first I’ve heard of Commissioner Flores’ concerns and I’d like to ask David, what do you think of what he’s brought up, the concerns he’s brought up?” County Commissioner Pct. 1 Martin Wardlaw asked.
“I think they’ve been discussed rather openly, comments by Mr. Humphreys on how the current gun range addresses some of those issues, and those are some of the issues I’m sure that if the project moves forward, that there will be sufficient planning to minimize the risks that may exist. There’s risks in almost everything you do, so you basically account for those things, if this project moves forward,” County Attorney David Martinez told the court.
“But these are not regular risks. A business transaction, that would be normal risks, these are something else, dealing with health issues,” Flores said.
“There’s health risks dealing with a sports complex, so there’s risks in almost everything that happens out there,” Martinez said.
“Judge, I want to make a motion to move forward with this project and look at paying for the shortfall out of a bond through the hotel occupancy tax,” Nettleton said.
Owens gave the second.
He then called for a roll call vote, with Wardlaw, Flores and County Commissioner Pct. 2 Juan Carlos Vazquez voting against the motion.
After the vote, Nettleton asked Carl Esser, the county’s grants administrator, “What is our liability on this for stopping this project? Are we going to have to pay this back or what?”
“We need to have a conversation with the agency,” Esser replied.
—
Contact the author at delriomagnoliafan@gmail.com
