1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT 9 Regular Session 10 Monday, May 8, 2000 11 9:00 a.m. 12 Commissioners' Courtroom 13 Kerr County Courthouse 14 Kerrville, Texas 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 PRESENT: FREDERICK L. HENNEKE, Kerr County Judge H. A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1 24 WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2 JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3 25 LARRY GRIFFIN, Commissioner Pct. 4 2 1 I N D E X 2 May 8, 2000 PAGE 3 --- Visitors' Input 3 --- Commissioners' Comments 5 4 1.1 Pay Bills 9 5 1.2 Budget Amendments 19 1.3 Late Bills 23 6 1.4 Read and Approve Minutes 24 1.5 Read and Accept Monthly Reports 24 7 8 2.1 Burn Ban 26 9 2.2 Accept gift of Civil War cannon 27 10 2.3 Presentation by Trott Communications 35 11 2.4 Discuss hiring Trott Communications to assist in preparing, circulating and evaluating RFP 67 12 2.5 Authorize RFP's for communications services -- 13 2.7 Proclamation -- May is Community Action Month 70 14 2.15 Recognition of winner, Law Day 2000 Essay 15 Contest 73 16 2.6 Reclassification of positions, Sheriff's Dept. 74 17 2.8 Declare old generator as surplus 103 18 2.9 Final plat, Buckhorn Lake Resort 104 19 2.10 Preliminary plat, Village West Phase 4 115 20 2.11 Variance to lot size, 1813 Harper Road 118 21 2.12 Preliminary conference, Division of 45.94 acres on Dowdy Road --- 22 2.13 Changing names of two roads in North Fork- 23 River Bend Ranch Subdivision 136 24 2.14 Administration of Lake Ingram Estates Road District 140 25 --- Adjourned 180 3 1 On Monday, May 8, 2000, at 9:00 a.m., a regular meeting 2 of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in the 3 Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, and the 4 following proceedings were had in open court: 5 P R O C E E D I N G S 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: Good morning. It's 9 o'clock 7 on Monday, May 8th, Year 2000, and we'll convene this 8 regular session of the Kerr County Commissioners Court. 9 Commissioner Griffin, I believe you have the honors this 10 morning. 11 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes, thank you. 12 Please rise and join in a moment of silence, if you will, 13 for all of us, in our own hearts and our own minds, and 14 seeking wisdom and inspiration and guidance. 15 (Prayer and pledge of allegiance.) 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: At this time, if there's any 17 citizen who wishes to address the Commissioners Court on any 18 item not listed on the regular agenda, you may do so at this 19 time. We have a request from Bruce Baker to address us. 20 Mr. Baker? 21 MR. BAKER: Yes. 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: Come forward, please. 23 MR. BAKER: My name is Bruce Baker and I live 24 at 575 Scenic Valley. Precinct 1, Buster. Property owner 25 since -- 4 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Nice to see you, Mr. 2 Baker. 3 MR. BAKER: -- since 1976. Retired clergy 4 member, Central Texas Conference, United Methodist Church. 5 Let me thank you gentlemen for the work that you do on 6 behalf of the residents of Kerr County, even those who 7 perhaps are what we sometimes call a "real challenge" or 8 "unclaimed blessing." My subject, very briefly, is cedar. 9 Without sounding preacherly, permit me to share with you a 10 little dream. Imagine with me an individual or endowed 11 foundation willing to donate one of those fancy machines 12 that kind of walks up to a cedar tree and, in the blink of 13 an eye, it's gone, thus making it possible to remove many of 14 the existing cedar -- well, not all of it. We have to leave 15 some old trees for bird watchers like myself. 16 Consider, perhaps, this scenario: The Court 17 decides to remove some of the existing cedar in -- in county 18 right-of-ways. I'm aware this is being accomplished to a 19 lesser degree in some areas already. If this were to 20 happen, the Commissioners Court would be setting the tone, 21 the motif, the example for good conservation in Kerr County. 22 Also, perhaps on a yearly basis, some visible form of 23 recognition to -- either monetary or a certificate, plaque 24 of appreciation, presented to those residents of the county 25 who have set the example of removing a great portion of 5 1 their cedar, thereby improving the quality of the aquifer, 2 river flow, creeks, and the -- the springs -- the springs in 3 the county. Last, but not least, if you gentlemen would 4 show me where you keep the coffee pot, I'll come back 5 sometime and pray for you. Thank you. 6 (Laughter.) 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you, Mr. Baker. Is 8 there anyone else who would like to address the Court on an 9 item which is not listed on the regular agenda? 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd like to comment 11 that it's obvious that I have the smartest folks in my 12 precinct. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We didn't invite 14 ours. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I didn't, either. 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: Seeing none, we'll turn to 17 the Commissioners' Comments. Let's start with Commissioner 18 Griffin. 19 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Just one comment. 20 Congratulations to the Ingram Tom Moore High School baseball 21 team for progressing as far as they did. They came up a 22 little short in the last game, but great season for the team 23 and everybody. Very, very proud of them, and they've done a 24 fantastic job. 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: Commissioner Baldwin? 6 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. I would 2 like to congratulate the new City Council folks, 3 Mr. Wampler, Mr. McCrae, and, of course, Mayor Fine for 4 the -- their accomplishments over the weekend in the 5 election. Looking forward to working with those three very 6 fine men. Also, I'd like to announce that the Tivy High 7 School One-Act Play -- I think Friday they became the 8 champions of the state of Texas. And, I watched them 9 through the region -- the district championship, then went 10 to region, and they won second in the region, and they went 11 back to -- went back to school and worked real hard, I mean 12 worked really hard. I have a little friend that is in that 13 play, and they worked real hard and came out and actually 14 won the state championship, so that's a great honor. A 15 state championship, big-time. That's all. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would echo 17 Commissioner Baldwin's sentiments about the election. 18 Congratulations to those who will now be having a major role 19 in running the City of Kerrville. We look forward to 20 opportunities to work with them. There are a lot of 21 opportunities that present themselves to either body from 22 time to time, and I think the more often we can avail 23 ourselves of those opportunities, the better off we are. 24 Also, I'd like to extend my congratulations to those who 25 were successful in the Center Point Independent School 7 1 District election. That -- that governing body has a lot of 2 heavy issues to wrestle with, and I know that when they take 3 office, they will engage themselves in trying to find 4 solutions to that. I wish them well in their endeavors. 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: Jonathan? 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have two comments. 7 First is similar to Buster's, the One-Act Play. Comfort was 8 not quite as fortunate as Kerrville to win state, but they 9 did come in second in the state, which is quite an 10 accomplishment. I think it's pretty remarkable for one area 11 of the state to have two schools at different levels do very 12 well in this competition. And, the other comment is, I 13 wanted to express thanks to a number of organizations. I 14 don't -- most people probably saw it in the paper; there was 15 a -- potentially, a very disastrous accident at Lane Valley 16 and Highway 27 last -- Tuesday? Thursday? Whenever it was, 17 last week, it was a -- a gasoline truck was broadsided, 18 basically, and rolled over, hit by a trailer -- or pickup 19 pulling a trailer. And, you know, there was pretty severe 20 injuries in that as well. But, I'd like -- just like to 21 thank Road and Bridge, Sheriff's Department, D.P.S., Hill 22 Country Telephone Co-op, Bandera Co-op, everyone. There 23 was -- where it happened, there is a lot of potential -- 24 there's power lines, telephone lines. And, due to some very 25 fast actions by a lot of people, power was cut off, 8 1 telephone lines were temporarily taken care of. T.N.R.C.C. 2 is working with the cleanup and, you know, the -- 3 contracting that out. And, most of Highway 27 was closed 4 that day, and -- due to this accident. But, anyway, a lot 5 of quick action by a lot of departments, and a lot of 6 coordination, which should all be commended. 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: All right. I would also 8 offer my thanks to all the people who offered themselves for 9 election in the elections that happened over the past 10 weekend. All of us up here in the Court know that it's not 11 easy to stand before your friends and your neighbors and ask 12 for their support, and to all those who took up the 13 challenge, we sincerely thank them. And to the winners in 14 the various school districts and municipalities around the 15 county, we offer, first of all, our condolences, and 16 secondly our congratulations. We look forward to working 17 closely with all of you. 18 I think it's worth noting that in the past 19 week -- I don't have the name right, but it's close -- the 20 Texas Association of Professional Festival Givers selected 21 our own Annette Butler as the Festival Professional of the 22 Year. And, for all of us who enjoy the Texas Arts and 23 Crafts Fair, we know what a lot of work Annette and other 24 staff do and what a wonderful contribution it is to our 25 community to have that event here every year. So, our -- 9 1 our congratulations and thanks to her and her staff for 2 putting on the outstanding festival. Finally, there was 3 another state champion from Tivy High School over the 4 weekend. A senior at Tivy High School won the state 5 championship in Persuasive Extemporaneous Speaking. So -- 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do we know the name 7 of that individual? 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: We do know the name of that 9 individual. It was my son, Keith Henneke. 10 (Applause.) 11 JUDGE HENNEKE: Congratulations to him and to 12 Bobbie Murray, to the debate coach at Tivy High School, for 13 the continued excellent department she runs and the teams 14 that she produces. It's a fairly unique program in that she 15 truly does turn over the running of the program to the -- to 16 the students, and they support themselves and make it all 17 happen. I want to thank her for all the time she's given to 18 my two oldest children and all of the other children here in 19 our community. Without further ado, let's go to the 20 approval agenda and pay some bills. Mr. Auditor, do we have 21 any bills we need to pay today? 22 MR. TOMLINSON: Oh, yes. 23 JUDGE HENNEKE: Does anyone have any 24 questions or comments regarding the bills as presented? 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Actually, I have a 10 1 question today -- a rare time -- on the bills. 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: It is. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Usually I let Buster 4 handle them all; he was being quiet for a moment. On 5 Page 6, under Sheriff's Department, there are four bills in 6 a row, towards the top, to Sid Peterson Hospital for -- 7 checks to Sid Peterson Hospital. They're all categorized as 8 Investigation Expense. I just have a question as to how can 9 you have a -- I mean, to me, it doesn't make sense, that 10 investigation expense at the hospital like that. I was 11 wondering if you could clarify it, or if Rusty could clarify 12 it. 13 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You want me to clarify? 14 MR. TOMLINSON: Go ahead. 15 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: What that is, 16 Commissioner, is on a lot of these sexual abuse cases of 17 kids, you're talking about the forensic exams of the kids 18 that the kids have to go through, involving doctors and -- 19 and the taking of evidence and going through the actual 20 medical exam. We're required by law to pay for that. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 22 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And so it comes out of 23 investigative expense. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They all jumped out at 25 once; I noticed them this time. 11 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: My question to that, 2 though, is do we not have a medical line to really clarify 3 the -- 4 MR. TOMLINSON: No, we don't. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: If it's investigating a 6 crime, I mean, if it's -- my thought was maybe it was a 7 member of the Sheriff's Department or something like that, 8 and it was -- but if it's doing what Rusty says, I think it 9 would be appropriate as investigation, 'cause it's 10 investigation into that potential crime. That's all I have. 11 JUDGE HENNEKE: Anyone else? 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I just have a 13 question, Tommy. On the Commissioners Court, 401, I.O.S. 14 Capital, the lease copier, it shows a late charge. Page 15 1 -- Page 1, 401, Commissioners Court. 16 MR. TOMLINSON: I still haven't found it. 17 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Last item in 401. Top 18 of Page 1, lease copier. 19 MR. TOMLINSON: There must -- no, I looked at 20 that one. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Y'all, don't get your 22 hopes up, 'cause I've got lots of questions. Y'all thought 23 we was going to just breeze through the bills, didn't you? 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, I see your yellow 25 marks. 12 1 (Discussion off the record.) 2 MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah. There's a late charge. 3 I don't know why, but apparently we didn't get the bill. 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: Anyone else? 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, I have some 6 questions. On Page 1, the Nondepartmental, Boy Scout troop 7 buying the buoys; I remember us doing that, and I think 8 they're for Lake Ingram, trying to control some of that boat 9 traffic up into the river end of it. But, who do we get to 10 actually install those things? 11 MS. SOVIL: They're installed. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They're in the water? 13 Forget that question. Parks and Wildlife do it? Good. 14 Back on Page 6, Sheriff's Department, third from the bottom, 15 Thad Ziegler Glass. A prisoner kicked a window out. Is 16 that prisoner going to be charged for that window? 17 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Prisoner has already 18 been charged for that. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: For the $188 to pay 20 for that window? 21 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: They've been charged 22 with the offense of criminal mischief. It was during an 23 arrest; it was a female inmate kicked the back window out. 24 We have charged her with criminal mischief. Part of the 25 restitution after she goes to court will be the price of 13 1 that window. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Very good. Thank you, 3 Sheriff. Next page, Page 7. Oh, nevermind. Nevermind -- 4 yeah, I do want to go there. Juvenile Probation, the very 5 first item. It's just the verbiage there. We're paying $67 6 for somebody to deliver a newspaper? 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: That's the subscription. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand. I 9 understand, but "newspaper delivery" is what it says. 10 Page 8, D.P.S. License and Weights. Normally I'm not a 11 confused person, but I am a little bit here. In January, I 12 believe it was, we allowed D.P.S. to come -- D.P.S. to come 13 in and to change some of their items in their Capital 14 Outlay. I don't remember what all those things were. I do 15 have that list here, though, that we approved. And these 16 items that are being purchased here, one is a holster. Now, 17 I assume that that is a holster that you put a gun in. 18 Don't -- and that's out -- out of Line Item 330, our budget; 19 he doesn't even have a 330 line. In the Kerr County budget, 20 the budget that we approved, that the public has approved, 21 that we've committed to them is where we're spending their 22 money -- 23 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Where is it, 330? 24 'Cause it says 581. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But it's 330. 14 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 10-581-330. 2 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: See that? The last 4 one is a -- is a -- is a Capital Outlay, 570, and that is on 5 -- that is that item on there, that GPS unit is on this list 6 that we did approve, but these other items are not. 7 MR. TOMLINSON: It doesn't say what -- it 8 doesn't say what that is. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm sure it's a 10 gun-type holster. I don't know what other kind of holster 11 there is. But, I can see us -- you know, when we -- when we 12 do a purchase for D.P.S., we -- historically, we've bought 13 radar units and light bars and those kind of things that, 14 bottom line, create funds for the County. And we hire them 15 a secretary so that they don't have to sit in there doing 16 paperwork; they can be out on the streets and creating money 17 for the County. But I don't know about -- about purchasing 18 clothing; i.e., a belt, holsters, and those kind of things 19 that are for a State employee. I just personally have a 20 hard time with that. The State needs to pick up their own 21 tabs. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Tommy, if there's no -- 23 and I don't have the budget in front of me; I presume Buster 24 can read, so there -- if there's no Item 330, how does it 25 get charged to 330? 15 1 MR. TOMLINSON: We -- we added that item. 2 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: What is 330? I mean, 3 is it -- 4 MR. TOMLINSON: I don't -- I don't have my 5 chart of accounts here, so I don't know what that is. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: How can it be added 7 without a budget amendment? Or did we do a budget amendment 8 to add -- I mean -- 9 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I think I have the 10 authority to add an account any time I want to. 11 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: As long as the dollars 12 are there. 13 MR. TOMLINSON: As long as the dollars are 14 there. My -- you know, my -- part of my job is 15 classification of accounts. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 17 MR. TOMLINSON: So, I think -- I mean, I 18 think that's where it belongs, according to how many -- I 19 mean, I'm sure that we -- that we opened that for good 20 reason. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We probably did it in 22 here, though. I mean, you didn't just go off and do it on 23 your own. We probably did it in here. 24 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, no, I don't think so. 25 I think I probably -- we opened that account because the 16 1 classification of -- of that expenditure closely -- was more 2 closely related to that description of account than -- than 3 any other line item that we -- that we had in his 4 department. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree with that part of 6 it. I mean, I agree that -- I mean, it needs to be 7 classified correctly, and 330 appears to be where it 8 probably should come from. I guess my question is that -- I 9 guess, whether your authority could create that account. I 10 mean, I thought we did the budget, we approve the accounts 11 in those items -- I mean, in those line items, and I thought 12 generally -- I mean, why do we do budget amendments, then? 13 Or why do we always have to go through and switch the money 14 back and forth if have you that authority without coming to 15 the Court? I mean, if -- I don't have any problem with the 16 expenditure. I guess it's just more in the process on it. 17 And -- 'cause once these -- and I go back to the more 18 historical, because we tend to build the next year's budget 19 based on what we do this year. So, you know, in reality, 20 we're increasing the budget for next year, in all reality, 21 because there's going to be, you know, roughly $200 in that 22 line item which didn't exist last year, and now we're going 23 to say, okay, well, we need money that for next year. 24 MR. TOMLINSON: Probably what that is, is I 25 think that that's operating expenses. I don't classify a 17 1 holster as a -- as a Capital Outlay item. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, I agree. 3 MR. TOMLINSON: That's where the money was. 4 So, I mean, that's, I mean, where -- that's where all the 5 money is in that budget. I just -- I just changed the 6 classification of expenditure. 7 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: But you didn't add any 8 dollars. 9 MR. TOMLINSON: Didn't add any dollars. 10 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Didn't add any dollars 11 to the budget, so it's really a reclassification. It's 12 really not a budget amendment, it's -- 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, but it is a budget 14 amendment in the sense that all the departments, if they 15 want to take money out of a line item and use it for another 16 line item, they have to come in for a budget amendment. So, 17 if we have money in this line item, and it really should 18 probably be spent under a line item that wasn't included in 19 the original budget, then my thinking on that is come to 20 court with a budget amendment, set up the new line item, 21 transfer the money into the new item. I mean, it's not a 22 question of do we approve of the new line item or not; it's 23 a question of we bring it in, and just like any other 24 transfer of money between line items, it has to be done 25 pursuant to budget amendment. 18 1 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah. So -- but Tommy 2 can create the classification. We just need to know -- 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: But then we -- 4 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- if we should -- 5 need to approve the money. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And, in my mind, that 7 way, in the -- for next year's budget, we will reduce 8 Capital Outlay by that amount, so we're not, basically, 9 increasing their -- you know, it keeps it where the 10 categories should be. And I think it also -- especially 11 when it comes to Capital Outlay. It's something that we 12 tend to have a little -- keep more control of on the Court. 13 It goes for specific items, and D.P.S. decided to buy 14 operating supplies out of that instead of using it for 15 Capital Outlay, or some of it. 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: Any more, Commissioner? 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Good lord, no. 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Any other questions or 19 comments? Seeing none, I'd entertain a motion to approve 20 the bills as recommended by the Auditor. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move we pay the 22 bills. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner 25 Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz, that we pay the 19 1 bills as presented and recommended by the County Auditor. 2 Any further discussion? If not, all in favor, raise your 3 right hand. 4 (The motion was carried by unanimous vote.) 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 6 (No response.) 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Budget 8 amendments. 9 MR. TOMLINSON: The first one is for a 10 request from maintenance to move $1,200 from his Capital 11 Outlay item to Major Repairs. It's for the replacement of a 12 condensing unit for the air-conditioning in the basement of 13 this building. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there -- I see Glenn 15 back there. Glenn, is there some items that you decided you 16 don't need under Capital Outlay or that we got cheaper than 17 expected? 18 MR. HOLEKAMP: That is correct. That was a 19 replacement item that we chose not to purchase this year. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 21 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz, 23 second by Commissioner Griffin, that we approve Budget 24 Amendment Request Number 1 for the Maintenance Department. 25 Any further discussion? If not, all in favor, raise your 20 1 right hand. 2 (The motion was carried by unanimous vote.) 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 4 (No response.) 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Number 2 6 relates to the County Auditor. 7 MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. I'm requesting a 8 transfer of $175 from Office Supplies to Computer Supplies. 9 I have a bill for $35.76 that needs to be paid, and the -- 10 I'm moving requesting enough to finish the year. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 12 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz, 14 seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that we approve Budget 15 Amendment Request Number 2 for County Auditor's office. Any 16 further discussion? If not all in favor, raise your right 17 hand. 18 (The motion was carried by unanimous vote.) 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 20 Motion carries. Number 3 relates to Constable, Precinct 1. 21 MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. This is a request from 22 Don McClure transfer $25 from postage to Books, 23 Publications, and Dues. It's for a -- his membership in the 24 Justice of the Peace and Constables Association of Texas. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 21 1 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz, 3 second by Commissioner Griffin, that we approve Budget 4 Amendment Request Number 2 for Constable, Precinct 1. Any 5 further discussion? If not, all in favor, raise your right 6 hand. 7 (The motion was carried by unanimous vote.) 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 9 (No response.) 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Number 4 11 relates to Jail Maintenance. 12 MR. TOMLINSON: We currently have $1,181.13 13 in bills. No funds are available in this line item. We've 14 done this once before in court to increase the budget, so 15 I -- this is an open-ended budget amendment for -- for the 16 Court to decide, you know, where we want to take the money 17 from. I think the time before, we actually increased the 18 budget, is what we did. 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: What does our Contingency 20 budget look like? 21 MR. TOMLINSON: I'm afraid that that -- that 22 we may need that for other things. We have -- we have -- we 23 have $25,000 in -- in a line item for replacing computer 24 equipment, and the computer equipment that was purchased in 25 addition to the amount that was purchased for the Sheriff's 22 1 offices and the jail out of the '98-'99 budget. That 2 $25,000 is gone, and I want -- I'd like to reserve what's 3 left in Contingency as a cushion to replace any computer 4 equipment that might go bad between now and -- and the end 5 of the year. 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: So, what's the deficit that 7 we have? About -- $1,000 right now? 8 MR. TOMLINSON: We need $1,200. 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: $1,200. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: How much is in the 11 Contingency right now? 12 MR. TOMLINSON: I think it's about ten -- 13 $9,000 to $10,000. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Nondepartmental? 15 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think my preference 17 would be to use that, and if the computer goes out, increase 18 the budget at that point. I mean, I think either this or 19 that scenario, you know, are legitimate reasons to increase 20 the budget, 'cause both are non-expected expenditures. But, 21 you know, this time I'd rather take it out of the 22 Contingency. I would -- I would not want to go below, like, 23 $5,000 in Contingency, but I think that -- I don't have a 24 problem with going into that level, but I don't have a real 25 strong feeling one way or the other. 23 1 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Would that approach 2 create a particular problem? 3 MR. TOMLINSON: No, I don't have a problem 4 with that. 5 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz, 8 seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, that we transfer $1,200 9 from the Nondepartmental Contingency line item to Jail 10 Maintenance Repairs. Any further discussion? 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I just want to know, 12 is this -- are we going -- we're going to face this every 13 month, right, Tommy? 14 MR. TOMLINSON: Oh, yes. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The next four months. 16 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. 17 JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further discussion? If 18 not, all in favor, raise your right hand. 19 (The motion was carried by unanimous vote.) 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 21 (No response.) 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Do we have 23 any late bills? 24 MR. TOMLINSON: No, not this time. 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: At this time, I would 24 1 entertain a motion to waive reading and approve the minutes 2 of the Monday, April 10th, 2000, and the Monday, April 24th, 3 2000 meetings of the Kerr County Commissioners Court. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner 7 Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz, that we waive 8 reading and approve the minutes of the April 10th and 9 April 24th, Year 2000, meetings of the Kerr County 10 Commissioners Court. Any further discussion? If not, all 11 in favor, raise your right hand. 12 (The motion was carried by unanimous vote.) 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 14 (No response.) 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Next item is 16 to approve and accept the monthly reports. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 18 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz, 20 seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that we approve and accept 21 the monthly reports as presented. Any further discussion? 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a comment. It 23 appears to me that we received a lot more this last two-week 24 period, after we discussed -- I know I've seen quite a few 25 come across my desk. 25 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We did. 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further discussion? If 3 not, all in favor, raise your right hand. 4 (The motion was carried by unanimous vote.) 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 6 (No response.) 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. 8 MS. NEMEC: Judge? 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: We'll now move into the -- 10 MS. NEMEC: May I make a comment on those 11 monthly reports? 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes, you may. 13 MS. NEMEC: I know there was some discussion 14 last Court session, and I'd just like to explain something 15 about them, because y'all might not be aware of that. This 16 last month, the 1st, I believe, was on a Monday, and the 5th 17 was on a Friday. The elected officials are not able to do 18 those monthly reports until they get their bank statements 19 because of the interest that's in those bank statements, so 20 a lot of times it's going to depend on how the days of the 21 month fall. And then, when they do them, they reconcile 22 them, they bring them to my office. And, if they bring 23 those to my office on a Thursday or a Friday and we're doing 24 accounts payable, chances are we're not going to be able to 25 do a receipt for them. So, I just wanted to make y'all 26 1 aware of that, that they do have to wait for the bank 2 statements. And, being that the 1st was on a Monday, we had 3 a little bit more time to get those bank statements and have 4 those ready, but it -- in the future, if you don't get them, 5 that's probably why. 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you. All right, let's 7 go to the consideration agenda. Item 2.1, consider and 8 discuss the burn ban. Commissioner Letz. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we were fairly 10 fortunate, got some general rains, even though it was not 11 enough -- I see Mr. Siemers in the audience -- to break the 12 drought. Certainly, I think we're in fairly good shape for 13 burning at the present time. The new KBDI Index shows Kerr 14 County within the 400 to 500 range for the first time -- 15 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: In over a year. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- in over a year. We 17 have had this soil moisture content to this point. So, I'd 18 like -- I make a motion that we lift the burn ban at this 19 time. 20 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz, 22 seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that we lift the burn ban. 23 Any further discussion or comments? 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is this a two-week 25 period? 27 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is until it's -- 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: Until it's reinstated. 3 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I might just make a 4 comment, too, that of course we're going to be watching it 5 carefully. If we have to put it back on, we'll put it back 6 on. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And it doesn't mean that 8 people should haphazardly burn. If the conditions aren't 9 good to burn, you still don't burn. But, I mean, people 10 need to use some common sense when it comes to that. But -- 11 MR. SIEMERS: Common sense? (laughed) 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further discussion? If 13 not, all in favor, raise your right hand. 14 (The motion was carried by unanimous vote.) 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 16 (No response.) 17 JUDGE HENNEKE: And that's effective 18 immediately. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: All right. Item Number 2, 21 consider and discuss receiving testamentary gift of Civil 22 War cannon from C.W. Bocock, to be dedicated to the men and 23 women of Kerr County that have served to protect and defend 24 the state of Texas and the United States of America 25 throughout the years. I believe y'all have a copy of the 28 1 letter that I received from Mr. Bocock. Commissioner 2 Williams and I went out and visited with Mr. Bocock, who is 3 a retired geologist -- 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: -- in this area. The Civil 6 War cannon he's speaking of is one that he discovered in the 7 Houston area and had restored at his expense. It's a fine 8 piece; it actually is functioning, so we can defend Kerr 9 County against any efforts by Kendall County to reclaim the 10 county seat. His proposal is that he would leave the cannon 11 and sufficient funds in his will to relocate it to a 12 concrete slab over in the general vicinity of the fountain 13 and the -- the war memorial. And, we've discussed it with 14 him, and I believe it's a suitable gift that would enhance 15 the honoring that we pay to the people who have served us 16 throughout the years. Anyone have any questions or 17 comments? 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question. The question 19 is, by reading his letter -- I've not visited with the 20 man -- it appeared that he wanted the cannon dedicated to 21 people that served in the Confederacy, which is different 22 than the item it is right now, and I'm just -- you know, my 23 question really is, is he aware that the -- that that -- the 24 intent from the Court, based on the agenda item, is as 25 written, and not to list the names of people that served in 29 1 the Confederacy? 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: And the answer is yes. 3 Commissioner Williams and I discussed that with him 4 specifically when we were at his home. The letter I wrote 5 to him saying that we would place this on the agenda had 6 this specific language in it. He wrote back and said he 7 would be pleased -- and I expected him to be here today. 8 He's not in very good health, and I would guess that that's 9 the reason he's not here. But I am, in my own mind, very 10 clear that he understands that the gift of the cannon is to 11 honor all of the men and women who have served Kerr County 12 throughout the years in any capacity. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I concur in that. We 14 sat in his living room after inspecting the cannon, and the 15 Judge made it specifically clear that we wished to -- in 16 accepting this gift, we wished to honor all who served in 17 all wars of the United States in defense of their country. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The other question is, I 19 take it it's going out by the memorial area? 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We haven't decided 21 exactly where to place it. That hasn't come up, but I'll 22 certainly entertain all suggestions any Commissioners have 23 as to where to place it and to whom to point it. 24 (Laughter.) 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: In which direction. 30 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Interesting to note, 2 it does fire, 'cause he has fired it. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's what I understand. 4 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Very humorous story 5 about the last time it was fired, by the way. 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further questions or 7 comments? If not, I would entertain a motion to accept the 8 testamentary gift from Mr. Bocock. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, I would move 10 that we accept the gift from Mr. Bocock of the Civil War 11 cannon, under the conditions outlined in the agenda item, 12 2.2. 13 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner 15 Williams, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that we accept 16 -- that we accept the testamentary gift of the Civil War 17 cannon from Mr. C.W. Bocock, to be dedicated to the men and 18 women of Kerr County that have served to protect and defend 19 the state of Texas and the United States of America 20 throughout the years. Any further discussion? 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: One last question. Does 22 he know the history of the cannon? 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He's developing a 24 history. He said he would have it and prepare it for us, 25 yes. 31 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That would be useful to 2 have. 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. If there's no further 4 discussion, all in favor, raise your right hand. 5 (The motion was carried by unanimous vote.) 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 7 (No response.) 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. 9 AUDIENCE: Here he comes. Is that him? 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, that's him. 11 Yes, bless his heart. He has a hard time motoring around. 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, with the permission of 13 the Court, when he gets here, we'll recognize him and allow 14 him to say a few words, and tell him we've already accepted 15 his gift. 16 AUDIENCE: We won't tell; you can just do it 17 again. Everybody back up about three minutes. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: See if we can sell it 19 back to him. 20 (Discussion off the record.) 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: Let's take a short item, if 22 we can, till he gets in here. Let's do -- yes, sir? 23 MR. TOMLINSON: I'd like to clarify the issue 24 of the holster. 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. 32 1 MR. TOMLINSON: I had the opportunity to look 2 at the invoice. The Court approved the purchase of the GPS 3 unit with accessories. That is an accessory. 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: So, this is a holster for a 5 GPS unit. Oh, okay. 6 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Hit them with 7 electrons instead of a bullet. 8 AUDIENCE: He went the wrong way; they went 9 to get him. 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: Good morning, Mr. Bocock. 11 MR. BOCOCK: Good morning. 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: Come forward, if you will, 13 sir. We're a little more efficient than we thought this 14 morning. We have already -- already actually formally 15 accepted your gracious gift. Why don't you take a few 16 minutes and tell everyone a little bit about it, and -- and 17 let us thank you. 18 MR. BOCOCK: Well, I would prefer to answer 19 questions. 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: All right. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do you know -- a question 22 I had was the history of the cannon. 23 MR. BOCOCK: The history I'm not too sure of, 24 other than it was found in Louisiana, right across from the 25 Texas line. If I -- it was found by some of my personnel in 33 1 about -- oh, I would say it would have been about 1950. We 2 were running a seismograph crew in that area, and as they 3 were cutting the right-of-way for surveying, we ran across 4 that -- the barrel and the iron of the cannon. I then 5 purchased it and hauled it back to Houston, and then 6 ultimately to my ranch up here, where I rebuilt the unit. 7 And I used all new wood in the trail and in -- in the wood 8 portions of the cannon, and I used redwood because it would 9 season and last longer than pine or other available woods. 10 And, so, that's about all I know about the cannon. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It does have a 12 foundry marking on it, doesn't it, Mr. Bocock? 13 MR. BOCOCK: No, it does not. It does -- no, 14 it does not. No foundry marking. But I did give -- send 15 the Judge a picture of it at the time. And, anyone that 16 would like -- any of you gentlemen that would like to 17 observe the cannon, it is out on my porch at my house. For 18 years it was at my ranch, which was 20 miles west of Hunt -- 19 no, I beg pardon, 28 miles west of Hunt on 39. But, 20 presently it is over on my porch where I live on 350 Wren 21 Road. 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: And you also had the ordnance 23 crafted for the cannon; is that correct? 24 MR. BOCOCK: Yes. Yes, I had some balls 25 cast, and I shot it many times out at the ranch, across the 34 1 river. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Did you hit anything? 3 MR. BOCOCK: Yes, unfortunately. 4 Unfortunately. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Did you get what you 6 were shooting for? 7 MR. BOCOCK: The third time we shot it -- 8 they wanted to hear a good joke, so I filled two popcorn 9 sacks of powder, and we shot it across the river as normal, 10 and it struck a horizontal rock ledge on the other side and 11 bounced back -- straight back and blew the top off -- hit 12 the door post of a brand-new Ford that had just been driven 13 up to the ranch, and it laid the top back, because it had a 14 top like most of them are built. Hit the door post and blew 15 it -- blew the top back. And the greatest problem was the 16 gentleman that owned the car didn't know what he was going 17 to tell the insurance company. 18 (Laughter.) 19 MR. BOCOCK: He felt that if he complained 20 and filled it out that it was hit by a Civil War cannon, 21 that he'd have a little problem collecting. So, that's 22 about the story. Here's a picture that was taken out at my 23 ranch at the time that the shot went across the river and 24 came back. 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: It is a magnificent piece, it 35 1 certainly is. 2 MR. BOCOCK: It is at that. 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: If we ever get in a dispute 4 with National Car Rental, they could be in trouble. 5 MR. BOCOCK: Yes. 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you, Mr. Bocock. 7 MR. BOCOCK: All right. You're welcome. 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you for your gracious 9 gift and your service to our state and to Kerr County. 10 Thank you very much. 11 MR. BOCOCK: All right, sir. 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: We do appreciate it. At this 13 time, we'll move on and we'll go to Item 2.3, which is to 14 consider and discuss a presentation by Trott Communications 15 Group regarding the upgrading of communications capabilities 16 of Kerr County Sheriff's Department. We have with us 17 Mr. John Stewart in the audience, who is one of the 18 principals of Trott Communications, and we're working 19 closely with the Sheriff's Department, Sheriff Hierholzer 20 and James Schmidt out there. As y'all recall, we engaged 21 Trott Communications back in January to review a draft of 22 Request for Offers and to make some suggestions regarding 23 how we could go about upgrading the communications 24 capability of the Kerr County Sheriff's department. After 25 much diligent effort, Trott is ready to make their 36 1 presentation to us. And, we welcome you. Thank you for 2 being here this morning. 3 MR. STEWART: Thank you very much. My name 4 is John Stewart. I'm president of Trott Communications in 5 Irving, Texas. Good morning, Commissioners, ladies and 6 gentlemen, and Judge Henneke. We were retained to look at 7 some problems that the County had, primarily coverages is 8 where we started on this. And, the County had gotten some 9 information from Motorola and some other potential vendors 10 regarding a system addressing these same coverage issues. 11 The County had put out a Request for Offer that was sent out 12 and looked at, and it sort of got some things coming back to 13 the County. 14 We, in turn, were asked to look at that as 15 well, which we did. That was covered in our report. And 16 then we -- let's see. We had assessment -- we were looking 17 at the system coverage, an assessment of the current and 18 vendor-proposed system coverage and performance, and a 19 review regarding a Request for Offer for a system upgrade. 20 We addressed that. We also looked at some systems that 21 could perhaps work for the County. We came up with one 22 recommendation that we then priced out for you. One of the 23 interests that the County had was having a Project 25 system 24 that was -- was a digital standard that's now used by Public 25 Safety for compatibility and interoperability, so we looked 37 1 at that as well. That's what we ended up pricing on this. 2 And, I'll begin by going through the Request 3 for Offer, but since it was sort of a -- a somewhat long 4 document with very specific things in it, rather than get 5 into line-iteming that, I would just say that, in general, 6 it's not what you would want out to get exactly what you 7 want, a -- a request for an offer. We usually have sent out 8 a Request for Proposal, which means we would outline to each 9 of the vendors on a functional basis what we would expect 10 them to propose back. And, usually, it's -- you define 11 things such as coverage reliability, sort of a summary of 12 the -- of the thing that you would get the signal at any 13 given spot in the county. So, we looked through that and, 14 as I said, there were some inconsistencies in it that would 15 make it somewhat confusing for someone to supply an offer to 16 you, and if they did, with -- with those sort of 17 contradictions in it, we feel that it would lead them either 18 in some sort of confusion, where they might not propose 19 exactly what you wanted, or let's say they might propose 20 things that weren't exactly what you were looking for, not 21 having laid out maybe some of your operational requirements. 22 So, essentially, that was the shortcoming 23 that we found in the offer; that it would leave it, we 24 thought, somewhat open too much to interpretations outside 25 of this. And, when you get into then dealing with a vendor 38 1 once this is out, he might, let's say, confuse some of the 2 issues and perhaps come back and confuse you in the process 3 such that -- because it gets very technical then at that 4 level, that you still might not get what you want, even with 5 ongoing discussions between just you and either one vendor 6 or several vendors. That was essentially the overriding 7 problem that we had with the offer, was that we weren't sure 8 what you would get back, how it would be priced, and what 9 sort of guarantees that you would be getting from any 10 vendors that then responded to it. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mr. Stewart, would you 12 prefer that we hold all our questions to the end, or do you 13 want them as we go along? 14 MR. STEWART: That's up to y'all. It's 15 probably -- I'll probably get through it faster if I go 16 through it, but I can certainly stop if you have something 17 on your mind. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Go ahead. I'd like to 19 come back to the R.F.O., though, at one time. 20 MR. STEWART: Okay. Then we looked at the 21 coverage, and where we started was there was a -- something 22 from Motorola where they were suggesting a 3-site system 23 that would cover the county. So, what we did was in -- we 24 started discussions with them on what was in their 25 underlying assumptions on the coverage, what they were doing 39 1 with sites, whether these were sites that were just proposed 2 in a general location, whether they had found a specific 3 tower that had space available, et cetera. What we found on 4 that was -- is that it was pretty much -- they had sort of 5 gone around and put interspersed sites that they thought 6 would meet the coverage area. Decided that in using some -- 7 and this is some technical stuff, but they were using a 8 different standard than we usually use, somewhat lesser 9 standards than we usually use for digital communications. 10 So, once we got all of their assumptions in line with our 11 assumptions and how we would do it, and we talked back and 12 forth with them about this, we came up with what the digital 13 standards are, what the public safety standards are, put 14 that into current computer into our model, and then we 15 started dealing with sites. 16 And, what -- what we had done, we'd gone -- 17 went through most of the sites in Kerr County to determine 18 the ones that were commercially viable sites rather than 19 where we'll pick a spot out here -- sort of out here where 20 some towers are. We actually went to and we pulled these -- 21 F.C.C. database tells you how high they are, if they're 22 constructed -- and we always, on this, use one that was 23 constructed and the -- the license had been granted. So, we 24 went through this, we came up -- and in doing this, we tried 25 to make a 3-site system work, which the site worked pretty 40 1 well until we wanted to get talk-back from a portable. Not 2 a mobile, but from a portable. And there's some coverage 3 plots in the back of this, and you can see what the 4 difference is on this. But, essentially, the talk-back on 5 three sites wasn't good enough, or we didn't think, 6 particularly in the Ingram-Kerrville area. So, we started 7 trying to do some things with that. We finally found a site 8 that covered that very well. And it -- it goes down the 9 highway that goes west, and I've -- 10 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: 39. 11 MR. STEWART: Pardon me? 12 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think it's 39. 13 MR. STEWART: Yes, 39. So it covers that 14 very well. That was the hard thing that we were trying -- 15 that we were dealing with in trying to find coverage. So, 16 when we did that, it came out with -- it required four sites 17 in order to do that. And, in fact, if you look at one of 18 the things here, you can see a talk-back, even with four 19 sites -- we had contemplated putting in another receive site 20 around Highway 10 out on the northeastern part of the 21 county. We left that out until we were dealing with a more 22 final design to see exactly how that would work before we 23 lumped that in, because there is an associated cost with 24 that for the particular equipment, and then there's tower 25 rent and that sort of thing. So, probably until we -- and I 41 1 have something that I had given the Judge regarding what 2 steps we would take or we would recommend after this in 3 pursuing a system. So, we went through the system coverage, 4 the this and that. 5 We also -- there was also an interference 6 issue, interfering at the site -- the single site that you 7 currently have. And, our -- our assumptions on this, and -- 8 and from what the input that we got from the County is that 9 it was from Mexico, so we looked again into two interference 10 issues from Mexico, essentially. And, these frequencies, 11 there's not much protection we can do regarding that. And, 12 the -- the thing to consider in interference is, when it's 13 in an analog mode, which is how you're operating now, you 14 can actually hear the interference coming in over the 15 microphones, either -- either way, either receiving or 16 talking out. Well, when you go to digital, you don't hear 17 that same thing. It may just go blank, instead of your -- 18 instead of a scratchy noise or something, and you can sort 19 of insert syllables and -- in your mind, and your mind can 20 make the change there. With a digital, it may just go 21 completely blank, such that you're not sure what that word 22 or part of a sentence was. That's one of the -- the things 23 to, I guess, be aware of in going to a digital system with 24 interference from Mexico. And, we're just bringing that up. 25 Hopefully, there's something that can be done about that or 42 1 it alleviates itself. But, again, because it's over a 2 frequency band, there's not much that can be done about it. 3 We also looked at L.C.R.A., the Lower 4 Colorado River Authority, as an alternative system. 5 Currently, they're operating on one site, and so -- and we 6 got some input from them regarding that, and if they had any 7 future plans. We more or less went with what they gave us, 8 which was the 1-site system, with potentially some expansion 9 out in the west. Just as a -- just as a side note here, 10 they're in the 900 Megahertz band, which is -- covers a lot 11 less area than 150 does. That -- that would be the 12 problematic item here for them doing this in four sites, so 13 we just looked at that as a proposal on the 4-site system as 14 well, just to give you sort of a benchmark here. Since they 15 didn't have this proposed, but we did -- did sort of look at 16 it under that perspective. 17 So, in going through what we did go through, 18 we sort of developed some recommendations here, and I'll 19 just sort of read these out. I know that y'all have 20 reviewed these, but just for the audience and for the record 21 here, the first one that we had was to add to the R.F.O. 22 system operational description covering both the dispatch 23 and field user functional perspective. When you do that, 24 then the vendors can give you a lot better functional 25 operational description of what they're going to propose and 43 1 how all of this works. Until that's done, they -- they can 2 tell you how it works, but you don't know if that meets your 3 operations or not. So, it's sort of a -- a phasing-in by 4 the two parties to get mutual agreement along these lines. 5 We also said that a consistent level of technical 6 performance throughout the documents should be used, and 7 we've given these here. Another recommendation was to 8 specify the mode of coverage; in other words, either it's 9 mobile or portable. County-wide, X number of miles outside 10 the county along this road, along that road, or whatever, 11 including what buildings you might need mandatory, including 12 perhaps the courthouse or any -- anything underground, 13 perhaps, that you might have along those lines. We also 14 recommended a more stringent set of contractual terms and 15 conditions that these people could work under, and that way, 16 the -- that we feel that the County would be a lot better 17 protected if that were done. 18 In terms of conditions, sometimes I've seen 19 these in ten pages. I know that one county that we looked 20 at that had something sort of similarly done, had -- hadn't 21 used a consultant. They had dealt with a particular vendor. 22 And, essentially, if -- the comment that I got was, well, 23 they checked things off of a list and ordered them, and they 24 signed a one-page agreement and they got what they wanted, 25 and they never really considered anything else. So, sounds 44 1 like a salesman's dream, if they never consider anything 2 else for, you know, half a million dollars. I, personally, 3 when I'm spending half a million, want to look at another 4 option, perhaps. So, that's sort of the gist of our study. 5 To -- to get into then what we propose further on, I can 6 either do that here or -- in this forum, or however you want 7 to do that. I have given Judge Henneke something to review 8 for that. 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: I've passed that out, and 10 we'll take that up in a moment. John, I think it's -- right 11 now, it's probably appropriate if we stop and take some 12 questions. Also, I want Sheriff Hierholzer to comment on 13 where we are in the process, and, you know, where he'd like 14 to go, but this is for his department, so why don't we have 15 the questions first? Then we'll hear from the Sheriff. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mr. Stewart, you 17 answered my major question, and that had to do with the 18 three tower thing, but I do have one question, just that -- 19 I think if I can understand the definitions of these two 20 words, then I can understand what -- clear up what you're 21 talking about here. 22 MR. STEWART: Okay. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The difference between 24 contour and area. 25 MR. STEWART: A contour is the outside, let's 45 1 say, perimeter of a system coverage. So, the contour is out 2 here right at the edge of the coverage. So, within a mile, 3 you might get a good signal and no signal at all here. So 4 that's the contour. An area reliability is anywhere within 5 a coverage area. So, if you're wanting 98 percent -- the 6 point that's made, if you want 95 percent coverage at the 7 contour, within the area it's going to have to be higher 8 than that. And, when you get to 98 percent -- I've seen 9 these 90 percent. The vendors -- and, in a way, we can't 10 blame them; they want to put a site every 2 miles. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 12 MR. STEWART: When you start saying 98 13 percent, 'cause that's nearly perfect reception both -- both 14 ways, back and forth. And, we're working with someone now 15 that's wanting 95 percent, but it's a -- at a very high 16 penetration level of a building. They're putting 17 transmitters at full power 4 miles apart. If you did that 18 in Kerr County, it -- I want to sell you that job, okay? 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So do I. Okay, thank 20 you. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mr. Stewart, under 22 interference issues, it has been known for some time that we 23 do receive on our communications -- law enforcement 24 communication system interference out of Mexico, which 25 blocks transmission reception of voice communications to and 46 1 from. I see where you -- you have researched that, and I 2 guess, in effect, are saying there is no cure for this, and 3 I wish you would expound on that a little bit, because I 4 think it's something we need to hear more about if we're 5 going to invest the kind of money that we're going to 6 ultimately invest in this communications system, and -- and 7 the first thing that happens is somebody says, we're still 8 getting Mexico loud and clear. I'd like to hear your 9 explanation about this up front. 10 MR. STEWART: Because of this frequency band, 11 there aren't any collateral agreements between the 12 companies -- I mean, excuse me, between the countries. For 13 the 450 and 800, they do have frequency assignments that 14 are -- and this is done in Canada, as well. However, at the 15 150 ones, there aren't those sort of protections and 16 coordinations going on. So, that's why we wanted to bring 17 that to your attention, that there will still be 18 interference. With the digital, as I said earlier, the -- 19 you can tell that you're getting the interference when 20 it's -- when it's analog, because you can hear it over the 21 mic. When it's digital, you can't. And, there's -- as much 22 as I would like to say something, there's not much that can 23 be done about that. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We can't even change 25 the VHF Megahertz band? It's -- 47 1 MR. STEWART: You can. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 170? Can that be 3 changed to avoid that? 4 MR. STEWART: Yes. You can try to get narrow 5 band frequencies in the 450 to 470 range. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that possible? 7 MR. STEWART: It's possible. 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: What does that do to the 9 coverage, though? I mean, is that -- 10 MR. STEWART: It is somewhat similar. It's 11 not quite as good, but it's very similar. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question I have was -- it 13 was on the coverage. I'm looking at the talk-back 4-site 14 and the talk-back 3-site. And, I -- obviously, it's a great 15 improvement to go to the 4-site system. But, even on a 16 4-site, there's a pretty big portion of the northeastern 17 corner of the county, which covers the majority of the area 18 between Comfort and Kerrville, that I-10 -- in that area, 19 which is a pretty heavily populated area. Is this what we 20 would expect the coverage to be under four sites, or would 21 it be modified slightly depending exactly on where the tower 22 ended up being located? To me, that's a problem. 23 MR. STEWART: Are you looking at Figure 6? 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. Figure 6 has -- you 25 know, the area pretty much from Comfort to Kerrville along 48 1 I-10 does not have coverage. 2 MR. STEWART: Yes, and that's -- and I had 3 mentioned that earlier. That was -- and there is talk-back 4 and this is at 95 percent. So, it's not like they won't be 5 getting anything. We didn't make shades of distinction at, 6 say, 85 percent. So, this is a cutoff at 95 percent 7 reliability. However, and I was saying this earlier, that 8 when we got closer to a final design, it could be 9 potentially that a receive site only would be put there, 10 because this is just signals coming back in. So, if there's 11 just a receive site, not a transmit site there, then it will 12 pick up that portable -- excuse me -- relay it back. 13 AUDIENCE: Is your phone ringing in your 14 briefcase? 15 MR. STEWART: It's taking a message. Thank 16 you. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 18 MR. STEWART: So, that was the distinction 19 there, that in a final design, that may be added in, 20 particularly when a vendor starts looking at it. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, this -- I mean, the 22 final -- this isn't the final design? This is -- it will be 23 modified slightly off of this? 24 MR. STEWART: Yes. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is an estimate, 49 1 basically? 2 MR. STEWART: Right. And, if you added that 3 to the cost, it's maybe $30,000. There is a -- there was 4 one other thing that I probably didn't mention, and that was 5 the -- when you go to three sites, then you have to look at 6 either one or two frequencies at each site that simulcast, 7 which is a different technology, or you have a channel at 8 each site that's independent of the others. When you're in 9 that sort of -- and there's an operational dilemma when you 10 get to that point. 11 And, one of the things that the County 12 Sheriff was wanting was the ability to talk throughout the 13 county to anyone that could be available and could work in 14 between these zones or whatever. We -- and we briefly 15 mentioned that as an option as simulcast. We didn't price 16 that out. However, that's -- in this situation, because of 17 the case to be made to acquire any additional frequencies, 18 generally that's made based on, "I have this many units 19 of" -- in other words, portables and mobiles added together. 20 And I need this many frequencies -- it's usually 50 to 70 21 mobiles or radios that they want on a frequency to start out 22 with. When we started adding this up, it wasn't -- the case 23 probably couldn't be made -- a good case made for two 24 frequencies. However, you can make a case on a coverage 25 basis. 50 1 So, let's say -- if we were going into 2 Commissioner Williams' comment, let's say we went to 450 or 3 something, and we're requesting frequencies. We said, hey, 4 we've got -- we need four sites to cover this. Let's 5 request four frequencies. They're going to say, you don't 6 have that many radios. And we're going to say, okay -- as a 7 consultant, we could try to handle this as a third-party for 8 y'all, to say, okay, this is -- this isn't made on number of 9 units required; it's made on covering this thing at a 10 certain level, and that's what we're trying to do here. 11 That, as far as my experience of seeing that done versus 12 just strictly going on loading, I can't say that I've seen 13 -- seen that, as a matter of course. Generally, the case is 14 made based on the number of units that are added on to it. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: How will this system and 16 how would the -- I guess, the coverage be affected by what 17 the surrounding counties do and the type system they have? 18 MR. STEWART: This wouldn't be impacted by 19 that at all. In other words, the interference with them 20 from a co-location standpoint or whatever. Getting the 21 frequencies would be the difficult part. Once we get the 22 frequencies, then you're cleared and they coordinate this -- 23 you're cleared from a certain distance from someone else 24 using it. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, I mean, could -- I 51 1 mean, if Gillespie County used a similar system that would 2 work with this, I mean, we're better to enhance the coverage 3 in our county based on what they did, or vice-versa. 4 MR. STEWART: Yes, if they did something 5 similar to this, essentially, you could roam between the two 6 counties. If they were in the same frequency band, they 7 were in the same kind of a service, that sort of thing. 8 Now, those are a lot of ifs. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Would it be part of your 10 work to discuss with the neighboring counties -- I mean, 11 obviously, if you -- if they're going to all go on different 12 systems, it's not going to work, but if we get everyone on 13 the same system, certainly be preferable, it would seem to 14 me, so there would be, you know, more easy communication 15 between the counties. 16 MR. STEWART: Yes, we can do that. That 17 wasn't -- wasn't part of what I have in the -- 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But you can? 19 MR. STEWART: It could be done, and that's -- 20 in a way, when you start doing a system, they're going to 21 start calling, talking to you about the system, and then 22 they can -- you know, direct them to us where we can talk to 23 them as well. Generally, this is -- this would be a system 24 put in, custom designed for y'all. And then, any inter- 25 operability would be how they may go or where they are right 52 1 now. You know, keeping in mind that once you're at a 2 certain place, they may want interoperability too, so that 3 might somewhat tend -- tend for them to go somewhere. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: To me, that would be 5 somewhat important. I mean, if they all make the -- 6 Gillespie and Kendall and Bandera County all use a similar 7 system, even if it -- you know, within reason, it would be 8 helpful to us to be on the same system, as long as we can 9 get coverage. 10 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: As I understand it, 11 one of the reasons for pushing Project 25 was to get 12 everybody to a similar standard, so that interoperability 13 could be made to work better. Is that not -- 14 MR. STEWART: Yes. 15 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: The law enforcement 16 agencies, I know, in particular have pushed for Project 25 17 on that basis alone; that is, to allow for interoperability. 18 MR. STEWART: Yes. 19 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And a standard that 20 would work. 21 MR. STEWART: Yes, but it won't. It's not 22 interoperable to everybody. 23 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's right, and 24 you've got to work the interoperability issues. But -- 25 MR. STEWART: And there are some in the -- in 53 1 the later phases -- I mean, there are some things to look 2 at. That was why the first thing that we had for that was 3 to resolve some of these issues just like this. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have kind of a 5 follow-up question, Mr. Stewart. You referenced a number of 6 units that would be on this system, and my question is, did 7 your unit count include our Road and Bridge Department, our 8 volunteer fire departments and so forth, other -- other 9 communications needs, or only the law enforcement side? 10 MR. STEWART: This was the law enforcement 11 side. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Can others use it? 13 MR. STEWART: Yes, and they could buy their 14 radios. Now, the radios that -- that we did in this 15 budgetary pricing was pretty much the -- the Project 25 16 radio, which is, oh, say, 30 percent more expensive than a 17 standard one. That's one thing for them to consider, 18 although they don't have to buy that high end of a radio 19 that you would buy for -- for public safety. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think, you know, it 21 goes back to what I was talking about. Our fire departments 22 cross county boundaries pretty much all around the county, 23 and especially in the eastern portion of the county. So, 24 it's -- from a communications standpoint, it would just make 25 a whole lot of sense to me for the Comfort system to be a 54 1 system that can talk to our Sheriff's Department readily. 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: Any other questions or 3 comments? Sheriff, do you have anything you want to add? 4 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes, sir, I do. There's 5 a couple of things. First, this is a copy of the video. I 6 wish each of y'all would take and watch it. It shows about 7 the inoperability and being able to talk with all the 8 different agencies, what it's going to take. In Trott's 9 report, under Operational Concerns, I had some very serious 10 concerns, starting on Page 4, if you each have their report 11 as I do. I hope they're numbered the same, because mine was 12 faxed to us. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've got Page 3, 14 Rusty. 15 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, I'm first on Page 16 4. Okay. Under Operational Concerns -- and it should be 17 starting at the end of the fourth line. It says -- and this 18 is when we're operating under three repeater system or four 19 repeater system. Starts out, "Each repeater site will 20 operate as an independent system and be capable of 21 communicating with the dispatch console and/or other mobile 22 or portable radios within the coverage area of that same 23 repeater. Field radios in areas served by one repeater will 24 not be able to communicate directly with other field units 25 in areas served by the repeaters." The problem I have, that 55 1 means with the number of -- of units we have out on the 2 street, which is normally three or four or somewhere along 3 that area, if you've got one working east and one working 4 west, they will not hear or be able to communicate with each 5 other. In this county, we've got to have that 6 communications throughout the county. 7 In someplace like San Antonio, where you're 8 divided up in sectors, you may have 100 units in this area; 9 they can operate on their own channel. We can't do that 10 feasibly and safely. It would be just -- in my opinion, 11 just impossible. We've got to have something that we can 12 pick up -- a deputy can pick up the radio and talk to 13 another deputy or dispatch without having to manually change 14 the channels on it. He ought to be able to monitor anything 15 that's being said anywhere in the county by -- by another 16 unit or by the dispatcher. The other one is, they're -- 17 they're saying that you could patch the two repeaters, but 18 when you patch them, a noticeable delay will occur. I 19 can't -- we can't have a noticeable delay. The other part 20 is, also in this configuration, when users move from one 21 site service area to another, the unit must manually change 22 the channel on the radio. We can't do that. It's just -- 23 that's not feasible here. And then he gets into, of course, 24 the frequencies, how much units you really need to even get 25 licensed for the frequencies, which would be a concern. 56 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sheriff, may I just 2 ask a question of you? I don't want to interrupt you, but 3 if I'm reading this correctly under Operational Concerns, 4 these were the comments of the -- of the consultant with 5 respect to a proposal we'd already received. Is that 6 correct? 7 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: With respect to if you 8 go -- not just necessarily a proposal we've already 9 received, but if you go with a four repeater site area, 10 which, true, we need more repeaters, okay, but we need to be 11 able to link those repeaters to where you are communicating 12 all on the same channel. One example that was given me was 13 Atascosa County, so I called and talked to Sheriff Williams 14 down there. And, they thoroughly enjoy the system they 15 purchased, which is an excellent system and it does exactly 16 what one of the vendors here is saying to do. But, when I 17 got to talking to him about it, I said, well, how many 18 repeaters do you have? And he says one. It's a flat 19 county; they can communicate with one repeater. If we could 20 communicate with one repeater, we'd only need one channel. 21 But, the problem is, when you go to more repeaters, you're 22 going to have to find a way to link those repeaters together 23 so we can still communicate on the same channel. Otherwise, 24 it's just making our problem, you know a thousand times 25 worse, you know, and it won't really solve it. It gives you 57 1 up-to-date digital stuff, but it just creates a mountain out 2 of a molehill. Okay? So, I have serious concerns in that. 3 The other one that I would have concerns with 4 the -- and this is now talking directly with -- with a 5 vendor, because that's what we've been looking at, is two 6 different type systems. They even mentioned it on the 7 L.C.R.A. one. The problem I have with that is, in the 8 material, I can find out -- some L.C.R.A. representatives 9 are here; maybe they can correct it -- it does not say 10 that -- "prioritizing transmissions for public safety 11 agencies may not necessarily occur." Okay. If you end up 12 with a serious disaster somewhere where they're having all 13 their units out and everything, and we're trying to get our 14 units talking to them, they don't have to prioritize public 15 safety to be able to use that system. And I think we need 16 to be able to prioritize where public safety -- we have to 17 be able to communicate at all times, constantly, just by 18 picking up. See, these are concerns I have with this type 19 report. 20 Now, in talking to Mr. Stewart and 21 Mr. Weimer, their engineer, I know they gave a base line 22 budget deal of about $800,000 in here. If you go with 23 simulcast, they're telling me you're going to have to add 30 24 to 40 percent on to that. And, my question with 25 Commissioners Court, I know we need to do this, we've got -- 58 1 I can get out on Loop 534 right now and not talk to the 2 Sheriff's Office, which is not a mile across, straight -- 3 you know, straight across. I was hoping Chuck Dickerson 4 would be here today, and somebody from the City. I'm really 5 kind of wondering if we aren't at the point, for the safety 6 of the citizens of Kerr County and for the fire department 7 who do operate out in the county off the City's channel, 8 and, you know, if we need to really reconsider and visit 9 either a common dispatch or a common radio system for all 10 agencies, to help us all with this type of expense and -- 11 and funding, and give the citizens the best we need. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, that's a 13 thought. 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: I think I speak for the Court 15 that we would welcome the opportunity to sit down with the 16 City and talk to them about common -- common purchase, 17 common system, common usage. I think that's something that 18 would benefit us all. I think my question to you right now, 19 Sheriff, is, obviously, we still need to move ahead. 20 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Correct. 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: We'd like to bring the City 22 along with us if we can. We're going to be guided by you as 23 to how much delay you can tolerate in trying to bring the 24 City in or revising the system. I know I've talked to 25 Mr. Stewart, as you have, but there are ways to solve the 59 1 repeater problem. They haven't necessarily looked into 2 those at this point, I don't think -- Mr. Stewart? Although 3 that kind of conceptualism -- you haven't actually gone down 4 and explored solutions, but you know that technically, 5 theoretically, that they're possible. 6 MR. STEWART: Yes. And I would say we 7 essentially guarantee -- or agree with him on everything he 8 said. 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: Right. 10 MR. STEWART: That those considerations are 11 the problems we had with pursuing -- even where there's 12 three or four, as well. The problem is, each is sort of 13 stand-alone, except your agencies aren't stand-alone and 14 your coverage requirements aren't just within one certain 15 grid or something. So, we -- we agree with everything he 16 said, and that was why that we -- we brought it up in the 17 operational thing, because generally when we do a study like 18 this, we do investigate all the operational things. We 19 started on this looking at the coverage. However, as you 20 look at the coverage, then the operational things come up. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: True. 22 MR. STEWART: So, we presented it in -- in 23 this form that we did, keeping in mind that we would 24 recommend simulcast on this. The -- the thing where you 25 don't just wholesalely say, yes, simulcast everything like 60 1 this because of the price. This would probably bring it to, 2 like, a $1 million budget on this, to get this sort of 3 requirements. Maybe $1.2 million, if we didn't need another 4 receive site out there, as we were talking about earlier. 5 So, it gets pretty expensive, and just from driving around 6 this county, it's, I would say, somewhat unique in that it 7 has these hills that are interspersed to where you can't 8 just sit somewhere and cover everything from one or two 9 positions. You have to be on this side of one hill and this 10 side of another hill to make this work. And, in fact, 11 our -- the dilemma that we had was making something work out 12 towards 39, and we finally found a site that was actually 13 newly built that did that. So, it -- it was problematic, 14 looking at it from four sites, whether they were 15 simulcast -- or however many sites, whether they were 16 simulcast or not. But, our -- we sort of left it at that, 17 knowing that -- that his input on the operational would then 18 tend to -- to get us to where we would go in the next phase 19 on this. 20 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: My other concern, real 21 quick, is wanting -- and speaking also on the delay, but on 22 another side of it, one of these systems, if we went to one, 23 then what we have to do -- or D.P.S. has to do, is somebody 24 has got to purchase other radios for the D.P.S. cars, okay, 25 so that they can communicate with us, but yet have their 61 1 radio that they're using also, and you end up stacking 2 radios in cars and having to remember which one you're 3 talking on. That's not what the whole idea of this is for, 4 I don't believe. It's for good, solid communications, you 5 know, where we can talk to every agency around here, and -- 6 and in an instant, and be able to solve problems that way. 7 As far as the delay issue, true, you know, I know probably 8 as well as anyone that the problems we've had, being here 20 9 years and working with our system and having to be a field 10 deputy using it, it is a terrible situation. It's a 11 situation that is definitely endangering the lives of 12 deputies. I think we need to move forward as quickly as 13 possible. But, when you're also spending over a million 14 dollars, I think we need to really try and look at and see 15 if us and the City and the fire departments and everybody 16 can't come together and use one system. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I just want to -- I 18 want to commend Sheriff Hierholzer for that thought, because 19 I recall quite vividly very in-depth discussions we had here 20 about three -- not on this court, but in town, about three 21 years ago or more, over whether or not to combine 911 and 22 the Sheriff's Department and City dispatching functions all 23 under one roof and one room, so that we didn't have the 24 delays in the dispatch or the confusion sometimes that we 25 were experiencing at that time. I commend you for that. 62 1 I'd just like to ask Mr. Stewart, if we were to investigate 2 that possibility, and if the City were inclined to consider 3 it with us, what type of delay would we be encountering to 4 get the information back so that an intelligent decision 5 could be made? 6 MR. STEWART: This is the -- from the other 7 participating agencies on what their requirements are and 8 things like that, you mean? 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I guess that's what 10 it entails, yes. 11 MR. STEWART: That might take -- let me see 12 if I can just maybe just somehow work that in. 13 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Real quick, before I sit 14 down, reading their report, I do approve of what Trott's 15 done. They brought out some very good points in the report. 16 And I'm not a radio communications expert and knowing the 17 spectrums and the frequencies, so it is decent to have 18 somebody that can do this for us. 19 MR. STEWART: Thank you. 20 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And get it in plain 21 English where anybody can understand it. 22 MR. STEWART: Thank you very much. It's sort 23 of -- it may be based on their schedule and input, but 24 perhaps during the issue resolution that I have here, we 25 could add to that. I might want to talk with an engineer on 63 1 the elements there, but let's say it might add two or three 2 weeks, perhaps. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. 4 MR. STEWART: And on the money part, I'd have 5 to get with him to look at that. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, it seems to me -- 7 I mean, it clearly makes sense that we, if at all possible, 8 work with, certainly, the City of Kerrville on this. From 9 the budget standpoint -- and I know everyone -- we grimace 10 when we think about 911 and the problems we've had in trying 11 to work with them, but I think that -- and with the time 12 consideration of a budget coming up, I'd recommend that you 13 try to set up a joint meeting, an evening workshop meeting, 14 that we get the new City Council over here, Chuck Dickerson 15 and Sheriff Hierholzer and Mr. Stewart, and kind of say, you 16 know, "Do y'all want to go with this and play this game with 17 the County?" Do it at one time and make -- and get a 18 decision out of them relatively quickly. 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, I will be happy to do 20 that. I will tell you that, as you all know, I wrote to the 21 mayor three weeks ago and told him about this meeting, 22 invited him to have someone here for the meeting. I spoke 23 to the mayor-elect last Thursday and informed him of the 24 meeting. It was Sheriff Hierholzer's understanding, I 25 believe, that there would be a representative from the 64 1 police department here today. Is that not correct? 2 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's correct. 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: We can lead that horse to 4 water, but you can't always make him drink. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree. But, you know, 6 if we can have a joint meeting -- and if they won't do a 7 joint meeting, well, then the City of Kerrville doesn't want 8 to participate in this, obviously. But -- 9 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, the City of 10 Kerrville does have one other thing with the -- they've got 11 11, 15 squire miles or something that their radio 12 communications need to serve right now, compared to our 13 1,100, so they're getting by with one tower and getting, you 14 know, fabulous communications. So, right now, unless they 15 want to update theirs and get into the digital line and all 16 that -- I don't know what the -- 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They may not want to. I 18 think -- I mean, we need to get City Council to decide; tell 19 us yes, they do, or no, they don't. I mean, the only way we 20 can do it is to meet with the full council and the mayor. I 21 mean, where they can put it on one of their agenda items 22 and, you know, do it that way. But, with the new City 23 Council coming on right now, I really think we need to get 24 that council over there to say yes or no, they want to work 25 with us and proceed, or no, they don't. That way, it's 65 1 behind us and we can go forward. 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: Maybe what I should do is go 3 to City Council tomorrow and -- at the beginning, and extend 4 the invitation to all of them at the same time to come, 5 and -- if they have an interest in working with us on common 6 communications capability and policy. And I'll, 7 reluctantly, be happy to do that. But, by the same token, 8 it's not what you're saying, Jonathan, so don't 9 misunderstand me. I do not intend for the process to be 10 held up by the City unnecessarily. I mean, it's 11 something -- something that we've committed to doing for the 12 safety of the citizens in Kerr County, particularly those in 13 the two outermost precincts, for over a year now. And we've 14 made an excellent start, and I really don't want to lose any 15 significant momentum, although I'm -- like I say, I think, 16 between the Sheriff and I, we have done almost all we can to 17 encourage the City to be a part of the -- of the 18 discussions. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I think it's -- the 20 opportune time is now, maybe, with the new City Council. 21 One of the candidates elected was working with the County, 22 so let's see if they want to work with the County or not. 23 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, I will avail myself of 24 the opportunity tomorrow night to go to the City Council and 25 invite them to participate in the process. Just a minute. 66 1 Okay. Mr. Harper, you had a comment? 2 MR. HARPER: Yes, sir, Your Honor. One thing 3 I want to clarify -- I'm Boyd Harper with L.C.R.A., and we 4 have a radio system that's already built out that we 5 perform -- we offer that service to customers of ours, which 6 certainly Kerr County is. But, Mr. Stewart indicated that 7 we only had one site in Kerr County, which is what we do 8 have at this time, but we did make a proposal over here 9 where we would add a site, and we do have coverage plots 10 that indicate that our coverage would be very good coverage, 11 both mobile and pretty good with hand-held. Also, the 12 question was asked about the neighboring counties. Kendall 13 County, Boerne, is on our system, and Gillespie County, City 14 of Fredericksburg, are on our system. And, I just wanted to 15 open the invitation to any one of you from Commissioners 16 Court that want to come over to Fredericksburg -- that's 17 where I live. I'd be glad to show you that, or I can get 18 out of the way. The Sheriff would be glad to show it to 19 you, or the Police Chief in Boerne, because they're handling 20 all the dispatch now for Kendall County. So, in both 21 instances, we have a common dispatch for County and City. 22 It's a good place to look at how this could work. But, I 23 did want to clarify that we did offer a proposed two sites 24 in Kerrville/Kerr County. And also, the City of Kerrville 25 has contracted with us to do data, and so they'll be buying 67 1 radios to do that. Our system is capable right now of doing 2 data. Our system is capable of being able to talk from one 3 entity to the other. In fact, I know that Gillespie and 4 Kendall County, in the instance where they had to work 5 together, they went to a common talk group on the radios. 6 So, a sophisticated system. There will be a lot of things, 7 and I just want an open invitation -- you know, any of you 8 that want to come today and look at that, we'd certainly 9 like to have you. And that we would do our best to offer 10 you as good a coverage as anyone, because you are a customer 11 and you're important to us. So, thank you. 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you. Anyone have any 13 further questions or comments about the report from Trott 14 Communications? 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you. 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: If not, the next item on the 17 agenda is to consider and discuss retaining Trott 18 Communications to assist in preparing, evaluating, and 19 circulating an R.F.P. for communications services. I've 20 distributed to y'all the -- the proposal that they made -- 21 where'd Mr. Stewart go? John? 22 MR. STEWART: Yes. 23 JUDGE HENNEKE: In light of the discussion 24 we've just had, I mean, is this proposal for the continued 25 involvement still good, or do you need to revise it? 68 1 MR. STEWART: The only thing that I would 2 want to review, if I wanted to, let's say, visit with the 3 other agencies, I would probably add that into Issue 4 Resolution, 'cause that's where it ought to go. 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: Would that change the cost 6 any, in your opinion? 7 MR. STEWART: I think it might add two or 8 three days into that. Now, there is -- I mean, for your 9 information, there is some contingency in here, because we 10 find things come up. So, if I could, I could revisit this 11 with our engineer, go over that, because I let him make 12 the -- he's our vice president. I let him determine any of 13 that, and get back with you any adjustment on that. I would 14 hope it would be minimal, really. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Will it be fair to 16 assume, if we were to entertain this, Judge, that you 17 could -- Mr. Stewart could put a "not-to-exceed" number on 18 the bottom which may be a little bit greater than the number 19 that's there now? 20 MR. STEWART: Yes. And at this point, this 21 was a not-to-exceed. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 23 MR. STEWART: So, it wasn't stated that way, 24 but that's how this is being presented. 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: So, if we say not to exceed 69 1 $50,000? 2 MR. STEWART: Okay. 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: It's currently $46,700. 4 Would you be comfortable with that? 5 MR. STEWART: Yes. 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: I, myself, am 1,000 percent 7 convinced that we need to continue professional advice in 8 moving forward with this. If any of the rest of you are so 9 inclined to take the ball and run with it, I'm more than 10 willing to turn it over at this point. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I so move. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll second that. I 13 think we need to move forward with it, with the change that 14 would be a not-to-exceed number of $50,000. 15 MR. STEWART: Okay. 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner 17 Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Williams, that we accept 18 the proposal from Trott Communications for further 19 assistance in the communications upgrade for the 20 not-to-exceed price of $50,000. Any further discussion? 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Refresh my memory, the 22 amount in the budget? 23 JUDGE HENNEKE: We put $150,000 in the 24 current budget for this purpose. We've used -- $18,200? 25 MR. STEWART: Twelve. 70 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: Twelve to date. So, these 2 funds would come out of that budget item. Any further 3 discussion? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. 4 (The motion was carried by unanimous vote.) 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 6 (No response.) 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: At this time, I don't think 8 it's necessary to take up Item 2.4. We're not -- I mean 9 2.5. We're not there yet. So, if -- 10 MR. STEWART: Thank you very much. 11 JUDGE HENNEKE: Mr. Stewart, thank you very 12 much. 13 MR. STEWART: I'll get back with you very 14 soon on scheduling something in here. 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Coordinate with the 16 Sheriff, if you will, please. Continue to work through his 17 office, and we thank you for your efforts and the expertise 18 you bring to us. 19 MR. STEWART: Thank you very much. 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you, sir. 21 (Discussion off the record.) 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: At this time, let's take up 23 Item 2.7, which is consider and discuss a presentation of 24 the Community Council of South Central Texas, and approve a 25 proclamation proclaiming May as Community Action Month. 71 1 Commissioner Baldwin. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes. Comellia? As 3 Mrs. Rue's coming to the stand, I'd just like to explain to 4 you the Community Council of South Central Texas is a 5 quasi-government entity, and they offer many services to our 6 community and to our taxpayers. And, occasionally, Comellia 7 Rue comes over and does a little presentation -- 8 presentation just to let the community know and the 9 Commissioners Court know what they do. So, Comellia, if you 10 would go ahead, please. 11 MS. RUE: Thank you very much. If you have 12 any questions about what our agency does, you have in front 13 of you some information on what we do. 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: Anyone have any questions? A 15 wonderful service you provide to us here in Kerr County, and 16 we appreciate it. 17 MS. RUE: Thank you. Thank you. 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: Anything you'd like to 19 highlight for us, as far as -- 20 MS. RUE: Well, this office serves four 21 counties, but Kerr is our central office, and we do offer 22 all the services that are listed, which here in Kerrville is 23 utility assistance, we offer Section 8 housing, we offer 24 medical transportation. 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: Any questions or comments? 72 1 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Excellent report. 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you very much. At this 3 time, we have a resolution to adopt -- proclamation, 4 actually. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Actually a 6 proclamation. 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: Are you moving that, 8 Commissioner Baldwin? 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I would. I move that 10 we adopt the Community Action Proclamation. And, what it 11 does, it just kind of outlines the services of the Community 12 Council and what they do, and we are declaring that May of 13 2000 is Community Action Month. So, instead of reading the 14 entire proclamation, I'd like to just make a motion that we 15 adopt that and authorize the County Judge to sign it. 16 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. 17 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner 18 Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that we adopt a 19 proclamation declaring May to be Community Action Month in 20 Kerr County. Any further discussion? If not, all in favor, 21 raise your right hand. 22 (The motion was carried by unanimous vote.) 23 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 24 (No response.) 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. 73 1 MS. RUE: Thank you. 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you. If we could real 3 quickly -- we've had a request to take up Item 2.15, which 4 should just take a couple minutes, which is to recognize the 5 winner of the Law Day Essay Contest. Ms. King? 6 MS. KING: Yes, Your Honor. Good morning, 7 Commissioners and Your Honor. My name is Pam King and I'm 8 Vice President of Kerr County Bar Association, and this is 9 Clay Steadman, who is the President this year. 10 MR. STEADMAN: I'm Clay Steadman. I'm the 11 President of the Kerr County Bar Association, and this year 12 we appointed a committee to go out into the community, into 13 the various junior highs and secondary education 14 institutions here in Kerr County, and we sponsored what we 15 were calling a Law Day 2000 theme, which is a nationally 16 sponsored event of the American Bar Association. Our Law 17 Day 2000 theme this year was Democracy and Diversity. And, 18 one of our entries that was a -- our winning entry, as 19 judged by Ilse Bailey, who was the chairman of that 20 committee, was a Brian Wessels. He's a sixth grader at 21 Upper Tivy Elementary School, and today we'd like to 22 recognize Brian as winner of the Law Day 2000 Essay Contest. 23 And we'll be awarding him a $200 savings bond. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yea, Brian. 25 (Applause.) 74 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: Brian, come up here. 2 (Shook hands with Commissioners.) 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: Thanks to Brian and the Kerr 4 County Bar Association for their efforts on behalf of Kerr 5 County Law Day, and keep up the good work. We appreciate 6 it. 7 MR. WESSELS: Thank you for your time. 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: You're welcome. At this 9 time, we'll stand adjourned. Let's reconvene at 10 minutes 10 until 11:00. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Recessed. 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: Recessed. 13 (Recess taken from 10:40 a.m. to 10:50 a.m.) 14 - - - - - - - - - - 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: It's 10 till 11:00 on May the 16 8th. We'll reconvene this session -- quiet. 17 (Discussion off the record.) 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: We'll reconvene the regular 19 session of Kerr County Commissioners Court. Next item for 20 consideration is Item 2.6, which is consider and discuss 21 reclassification of positions to conform to budgeted 22 positions. Sheriff Hierholzer. 23 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: To start this out, once 24 I was appointed to fulfill the rest of this term as Sheriff, 25 one thing I started looking at was our budget and exactly 75 1 what we had, what we had funded, and what is actually coming 2 out of that. One of the things I felt I needed to look at 3 was the employees' positions and the positions that were 4 budgeted for those employees, and I ran across some 5 discrepancies that I want -- my whole goal is to get 6 straightened out so that y'all know that the positions you 7 approve are the positions that are filled, and so that I can 8 go on with next year's budget and determining and planning 9 for a budget for positions, as far as employees. 10 First off, what I'd like to start with is one 11 that in the budget -- and this is how it's broken out under 12 the individual department for -- we had a position that is 13 supposedly called "part-time/full-time deputy." Now, I 14 don't know what a part-time/full-time deputy is. I know 15 what happened, in doing my research to that position, we did 16 have two officers that were considered part-time. Since 17 then, that part-time/full-time deputy position is actually a 18 full-time budgeted position for a deputy in the Sheriff's 19 office. We had two officers that were filling it at the 20 same time, okay, 'cause they were both part-time. Then one 21 of those officers ended up going to work for the Sheriff's 22 Office full-time, and he took another open position for a 23 full-time deputy. What happened after that is the second 24 one, I guess, is supposed to be considered a part-time 25 deputy, but he's paid a flat salary of $9,000 a year out of 76 1 that full-time position. I don't think that was the 2 intention of the Court when that position was granted. 3 What I would like to do with that position, 4 Judge, the remainder amount that we would have in the 5 position would be enough to pay a full-time deputy for the 6 rest of the year. The part-time deputy that's in there 7 should be classified as a part-time deputy and be paid an 8 hourly wage, as other part-time employees. So, I would like 9 to move that person to a part-time deputy position that may 10 or may not exist right now; I couldn't tell you. Okay? I 11 just understand part-time salaries. Move enough salary from 12 that full-time position to pay him the remainder of this 13 fiscal year for the part-time, and be allowed to hire a 14 full-time deputy to take up that full-time position slot, 15 and that doesn't change the bottom line in this budget. 16 Next year, once I get all this straightened out, I couldn't 17 tell you right now if it would change the bottom line of 18 next year's budget. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You've lost me somewhere 20 on that. 21 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It took me quite a while 22 to get this -- we have -- we've had one person in that 23 position, in what's classified as full-time/part-time 24 position. He's making $9,000 a year, flat. Okay? 25 Regardless, I guess, of the hours he's working, that's his 77 1 salary. 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: This is the K-9 officer, 3 correct? 4 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. Okay, which he 5 does put in a whole lot more time than -- than normal. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: If he's working -- can we 7 do that? Can we pay a flat -- can we salary that position 8 and -- regardless of the amount of hours? I mean, if -- I 9 don't -- 10 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's what's being 11 done. I don't know if you can do it or not, but that's what 12 has occurred and that's what I'm trying to correct. 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: I think you have to look at 14 this individual as a contract employee. And since he -- 15 particularly since he has a unique specialty. And, the way 16 I would interpret it is he is contracted to work for the 17 County in this specialty for a certain dollar number. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think you get into the 19 -- I mean, if he's under the correct -- I mean, he can't be 20 classified as a contract employee, I don't think, if he's 21 under the direction of the County. I mean, I don't think 22 that the employment laws allow that. 23 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: In visiting with him -- 24 but in visiting with him, one of his primary goals when it 25 was set up, however long ago or whatever, is that he kept 78 1 his employee benefits, his insurance, and his retirement, 2 things like that, even though he's not working full-time. 3 Now, I don't know how that can be worked out, but that's 4 what his -- his goal is now, is to keep those. And it was 5 juggled around to where he could do that. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't know how you 7 can do that, either. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think you can do 9 that. 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, I think there are ways 11 you can do that, but -- you contract with someone to provide 12 services, and part of the contractual compensation is to 13 give them benefits. But, I'm sure that's not how it's on 14 paper right now. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. We have someone 16 who's not being, probably, paid properly, the way we need to 17 do things. 18 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right. Okay. So what 19 I'd like to do is -- is leave it the remainder of this 20 budget, but starting about July, is move him over to a 21 regular part-time position, paid hourly, the same if you 22 figure up an hourly wage for a deputy, you know, where it 23 would come out that he's paid the same. I don't know what 24 we can do about the benefits package for him. I have no 25 idea. I hope we can keep it some way. But then it will 79 1 leave enough in that, because we don't have that second 2 person that was in there; hasn't been in there all year. 3 So, we've got $12,000 extra in that, so I could go ahead and 4 hire a full-time deputy for the remainder of the year. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: How many hours is this -- 6 does the K-9 officer work? Is it 20 hours a week, over 20 7 hours? 8 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, he's been 9 salaried, so he hasn't had to turn in an actual time card on 10 how many hours he is working. I would assume, just from 11 knowing him and knowing the amount of time he does put in, 12 as far as just in general, he's putting in at least 20 hours 13 a week. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I understand if it's over 15 20 hours, then you get benefits. 16 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right, but can you have 17 a part-time person working over 20 hours a week? 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Doesn't matter. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That isn't why you call 20 it part-time. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Seems like with law 22 enforcement, though, those things change. When you get, you 23 know, a regular employee of the County, when you work over 24 19 hours, you become a full-time employee and you get the 25 benefits. But law enforcement, that 19 thing changes. It's 80 1 a whole different set of numbers that you deal with. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Like -- 3 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Correct. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. I mean, I 5 understand -- 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Rusty, I'm looking on 7 here. I see on the -- in the budget here, in your schedule 8 of employees, a deputy. I see one deputy, full-time/ 9 part-time, and his step grade is 17-3. Is that the one 10 you're referring to? 11 JUDGE HENNEKE: That's the position that he's 12 referring to. 13 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's the position I am 14 referring to. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: It was formerly occupied by 17 two individuals who were -- each worked part-time, and 18 together they pulled down a full-time salary. One of those 19 individuals has now gone to work for the Sheriff's 20 Department full-time; they've been placed into one of the 21 vacant deputy positions. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That was already 23 there. 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: So now we have this animal 25 control -- animal officer, K-9 officer, who is currently 81 1 being paid out of the deputy full-time/part-time position. 2 And what the Sheriff wants to do is to administratively 3 switch that person to a pure part-time position, which would 4 allow him to hire another full-time deputy. 5 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: For that position. 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: For this position. Not 7 creating a new position. 8 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's right. 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: All we're doing is -- what 10 the Sheriff is doing is putting the right names in the right 11 boxes. 12 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And transferring the 13 funds that the part-time guy is getting over to a part-time 14 line, and so he can be paid out of that properly. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. That's cool. 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. 17 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Do we need a motion on 18 that, separate and apart from anything else? 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: I think we've got about three 20 of these. Why don't we take them one at a time? 21 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I'll move that we do 22 what we just said. That is, to get the right people in the 23 right slots and to move the money, in effect, to the bottom 24 line, but I will make that motion that we do that. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 82 1 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Precisely that. 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner 3 Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, that we approve 4 the transfer of the animal -- the K-9 officer, as I call 5 him, from the deputy full-time/part-time position to a pure 6 part-time position, and authorize the Sheriff to hire a 7 full-time deputy to fill the full-time/part-time position 8 within the confines of this year's budget. 9 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes, sir. 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further questions or 11 comments? 12 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: One quick comment. I 13 understand, Sheriff, your goal is to do away with all the 14 mumbo-jumbo about full-time/part-time business, and it will 15 get you to a bottom line where you get some part-time 16 employees and you'll have full-time employees. 17 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes, sir, that's what 18 I'm trying to do. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Halleluiah. 20 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Halleluiah. That's 21 what I said. 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion's been made and 23 seconded. All in favor, raise your right hand. 24 (The motion was carried by unanimous vote.) 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 83 1 (No response.) 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. 3 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay. The second one is 4 a little bit more complicated, if you can believe that. 5 What I have -- we are authorized by this Court in the budget 6 to have seven dispatchers. 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: This is under the Jail 8 budget? 9 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Under the Jail budget. 10 Actually, the dispatchers come under the Jail budget, and I 11 don't know why that is, but they do. The problem I have 12 with that, we actually have six dispatchers, and that has 13 caused us -- I know the last pay period in the 28 days prior 14 to the 28-day pay period we're in right now, dispatchers 15 have 88 hours of overtime. You know, the Commissioners are 16 wondering why we always have so much overtime. Well, I was 17 too, so when I got to looking at that, I find out that the 18 seventh dispatch position is actually being paid to what is 19 called a "warrant clerk." The warrant clerk has nothing to 20 do with dispatch, except that he walks in sometimes when the 21 dispatcher needs a smoke break or just to stretch his legs 22 out from the Dispatch Office, and he dispatches for maybe 23 five or ten minutes. But, his position, what he's actually 24 doing is a warrant clerk job, but he's being paid as a 25 dispatcher. 84 1 Now, we do need a warrant clerk. And, to be 2 perfectly honest, he's got his hands full. But, the only 3 solution -- and I hate to do this. The only solution I can 4 come up with over this is you also have a position that is 5 called "Special Operations Clerk," okay? In the budget that 6 is funded, we have no Special Operations Unit; that 7 dissolved a long time ago. So, that Special Operations 8 Clerk is actually, right now, doing clerk work for Criminal 9 Investigations. We do have another full-time Criminal 10 Investigations clerk, but what I'm proposing to do is put 11 the -- keep the warrant clerk as-is. The position I have 12 for Special Operations Clerk, let him fill half of it. In 13 other words, have him as a records clerk, and he will do 14 half his time in Warrants, half his time in C.I.D. putting 15 in reports. Okay? That's an open position that I have, 16 that I can move him and just -- it adds more workload to 17 him, all right, because -- especially through the remainder 18 of this year, because he's having to do warrants and C.I.D. 19 work. 20 But, then the problem I have with that is his 21 salary. Salary for dispatchers is about $3,000 a year more 22 than for clerks. Okay? If we leave his salary -- which is 23 something I'm going to fight to leave at the level it's at 24 now -- he's getting paid $3,000 more than any other clerk in 25 the department. But, I don't believe it's fair or correct 85 1 to give him more duties and cut his salary by $3,000 a year 2 to get him in line with the rest of the clerks. And, I'm 3 open for suggestions and comments on how we take care of 4 this problem. But, that way, it would free up that dispatch 5 position, it would take him out of there so I could go ahead 6 and hire another full-time dispatcher for that position for 7 the remainder of the year, and hopefully cut down some 8 overtime in Dispatch. 9 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Question. You said 10 the Special -- Special Operations Clerk salary is $3,000 11 less than the dispatcher's? 12 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. 13 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay. What if -- what 14 if we change the classification or the -- and the job title 15 of the Special Operations Clerk to something else for the 16 remainder of this year, at least, that has a higher salary? 17 In other words, don't call him the Special Operations Clerk. 18 Let's call him something else, and we classify the position, 19 is what I'm saying. 20 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: A job title that would 21 probably fit more appropriately, especially if I'm using the 22 warrants guy to do that and do C.I.D., I think would be a 23 Records Clerk. We don't actually have a Records Clerk in 24 the department. 25 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: But then we've got a 86 1 pay problem, if you call him a Records Clerk. I see -- I 2 see your -- 3 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's what I'm getting 4 at. 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: I think it's one of those 6 inequities that I think we -- if this individual goes from a 7 dispatcher's position to a clerk's position and has a higher 8 salary, this individual is going to have to understand that 9 his salary is not going to be increased until such time as 10 it falls in line with the range for that position. 11 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I agree. 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: So, as part of the 13 classification compensation exercise that we've undertaken 14 at this time, if -- if he is classified as a clerk, and all 15 the clerks' salaries are up by $500, he's not going to get 16 that $500 increase. It would just bring him $500 closer to 17 where he should be over time. So -- 18 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And actually, the bottom 19 line -- 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: I agree with the Sheriff that 21 someone shouldn't lose salary and benefits by being -- 22 having their job title changed and still doing the same job. 23 But, by the same token, this individual needs to understand 24 that his ability to receive increases in salary is going to 25 be limited until he falls within the acceptable range for 87 1 that position. 2 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And the bottom line, 3 actually, as close as I can figure right now, without 4 actually sitting down with the County Treasurer and seeing 5 what each individual has been paid out of the total employee 6 salary, what I come up with is we should have close to an 7 excess of $18,000 in employee salaries. Okay? Which would 8 give us $3,000 to keep in there and still pay the -- the 9 dispatcher. You know, because of vacancies that have 10 occurred that weren't filled month-by-month and things like 11 that. That should give us a surplus in the -- in that line 12 item, be able to take that extra $3,000 out to give to that 13 position of Records Clerk for the remainder of this year to 14 keep his salary the same. 15 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think that makes 16 sense, with the proviso that you've outlined. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it makes sense, 18 but it -- this isn't addressing, to me, a problem that I 19 see, which is pretty significant, is that we've had, in -- 20 before Sheriff Hierholzer took over, basically, in my 21 opinion, misappropriation of funds in the Sheriff's 22 Department. I think that's very serious. I mean, you know, 23 I don't know -- I don't want to point fingers at the former 24 Sheriff. I don't see how these things can happen with our 25 system; the Auditor, the Treasurer. I mean, they're aware 88 1 of where these people are paid from, the funds in the 2 budget. I just don't understand how this happened. 3 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: If I may interrupt for 4 just a minute, I would like to go ahead and finish the third 5 one of these problems, and then I think you'll really have 6 the same questions, unfortunately, and we can discuss it at 7 that time. 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, let's take action on 9 this one. So, the proposal is to change the title of the 10 Special Operations Clerk to Records Clerk, and to transfer 11 the individual who's currently operating as a Warrant Clerk, 12 but being paid as a Dispatcher, to the Records Clerk job, 13 which will create a vacancy for to you hire a Dispatcher. 14 Is everyone clear as to what the Sheriff's proposal is? To 15 put the right people in the right boxes -- 16 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. 17 JUDGE HENNEKE: -- in the chart. Okay. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner 21 Williams. 22 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. 23 JUDGE HENNEKE: Second by Commissioner 24 Griffin, that we authorize the Sheriff to create the 25 position of Records Clerk, to utilize in that position the 89 1 individual who's currently serving as the Warrant Clerk, but 2 filling a dispatcher's position, and which will, in essence, 3 free up a dispatcher's position for the Sheriff, all with no 4 impact upon this year's budget. 5 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Correct. 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I've got a problem with 8 this. It's not the employee's fault, I understand, that he 9 got hired under the -- for the wrong position, but I just 10 don't think we can just willy-nilly create a new position at 11 a higher level, just because -- 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: It's -- 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- you want to. 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: It's not -- I would say it's 15 not a position at a higher level. You're creating a 16 position, which is a clerk's position, and under the 17 organization chart, we have the same salary range as any 18 clerk does out at the Sheriff's Jail Department. The 19 problem is, the individual that you placed in that position 20 is already being paid at a higher level, so the position is 21 not classified at a higher level. You're simply recognizing 22 the salary inequity that exists because of the situation 23 that the Sheriff inherited. We're able to do that this year 24 with no impact on the budget for this year. And, the 25 Sheriff will have to address how that's going to impact on 90 1 his budget for next year. But, what he's brought to us is a 2 classification problem that he's discovered in trying to 3 sort through the discrepancies between what we approve and 4 what he is actually dealing with out there. I think that 5 that's -- we need to help him in this situation. I agree 6 with you that it's -- that we're making lemonade out of 7 lemons, but I don't think we have much choice in this 8 situation. 9 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I would add to that, I 10 think we want to solve the immediate problem, is what we're 11 trying to solve here, and there may be a deeper, continuing 12 problem from the past that we need to take a separate look 13 at, but I think what this does is what -- what this is to do 14 is to try to solve the immediate problem and get -- again, 15 try to get the right people in the right squares, and then 16 press on from there. Okay. So, that's the reason I'm in 17 favor of saying yes to this. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I am too, and I 19 want to just ask a question of the Sheriff. I think I know 20 the answer, but I want to ask it anyhow. That when we get 21 into the next budget year, we can, I hope, anticipate a 22 complete, concise, legible, understandable picture of who's 23 doing what and why, and how many. 24 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: If we don't have one, 25 I'm probably going to lose all my hair. I really -- that's 91 1 my whole goal, and that's my goal here today, is to get this 2 straightened out so y'all know and I know exactly what we 3 have in the future. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Sheriff. 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion's been made and 6 seconded. Any further discussion? If not, all in favor, 7 raise your right hand. 8 (The motion was carried by unanimous vote.) 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 10 (No response.) 11 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. 12 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay. The third 13 position considers the nurse and what is called the Med Aide 14 out at the Jail. In this year's budget, overall, it's 15 classified under Line Item 106 -- 512-106, Nurses, with a 16 total salary of $44,305. And, what I have under that 17 position is I have a nurse at $27,142, and I have a Med Aide 18 at $17,163, which, if my math is right, does equal the 19 $44,000. Okay. The problem we have is the nurse and the 20 Med Aide -- who are both nurses, okay? -- are currently 21 being paid $31,200 each. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How much? 23 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: $31,200. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And one is stated as 25 $27,000, one is stated as $17,000? 92 1 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's correct. Where 2 that money came from, if you're going to ask the next 3 question, is one of the full-time jailer positions that we 4 were given, the money from that position has been used to 5 give those people those raises. So, I am short one jailer, 6 compared to the full-time positions that were approved. 7 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Does that come out 8 about even? If you take the amount in -- 9 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: About $100 to $200 10 difference is it. 11 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So you take that 12 jailer's position, throw that over into this pot, and it 13 comes out about $62,400? 14 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. A regular -- a 15 full-time jailer's position is paying $18,956, and if you 16 divide that and then add both those nurses at $31,200, 17 you'll come up pretty close. Now, I'm -- 18 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Now, Jonathan. 19 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Now, my understanding, 20 part of my understanding from what I heard is that the Med 21 Aide was actually supposed to be a Med Aide-slash-jailer, 22 which may have given them the authority or the right to move 23 that money. I don't know, okay? That's not what I'm here 24 for. I'm here to try and solve this problem. Nurses on 25 the -- on the outside world that aren't working with jails 93 1 do come close -- I think this equals to about $15 an hour, 2 they're getting paid. And, as far as I know, that's 3 probably in line with most nurses. I don't know what the 4 solution to this problem is. I will give up the jailer's 5 position so that we can keep, you know, this correct and 6 keep the nurses at what they're making now, because they do 7 have a tremendous duty inside that jail, and there's no 8 telling how much money they actually save the County by 9 being there, providing those services that they're trained 10 to provide. Otherwise, we're going to have to be taking 11 every sick inmate to the E.R., and we're going to go over 12 what their salary is real quick. But, I do need to get the 13 solution straightened out, whether it costs us a jailer's 14 position, and I -- far as I can tell by looking at it, I 15 don't know any other way to do it. 16 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: First question. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question. 18 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I'm sorry, go ahead. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Rusty, with the increased 20 population in jail, I mean, it just seems that if we 21 decrease the jailer's position, you're just going to add 22 overtime. 23 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It's hurting some, but 24 the one thing this Court did before I took office was gave 25 us the other five jailer positions so that we could get up 94 1 to, you know, past 148 population so that we would have 2 the -- the adequate staffing to house the out-of-county 3 prisoners up over that, which is working out real well. And 4 I believe -- and I'd have to go back to the Jail Commission 5 and come back to y'all at another time, but I believe, with 6 those five positions, even losing the one, we would still be 7 in compliance with the amount of inmates we have right now, 8 which is running 150, 160 at times, and not up to 192. 9 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Question. Do you 10 think we need two nurses, ultimately, in the jail? 11 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. 12 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay. So that that 13 would be your request for the next budget year? 14 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. 15 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Would be to have two. 16 I think maybe we're sort of faced with the same thing we 17 were faced with on the last item. We may be able to -- and 18 I'm thinking out loud here. What if we if authorized 19 leaving the -- transferring the monies from the jailer -- 20 that empty jailer's slot officially, to solve the short-term 21 problem, into the salary for the two people that are working 22 now? If -- 23 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Correct. 24 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay. And in the next 25 year's budget cycle, it now becomes a budget issue, or it's 95 1 a budget issue on -- to justify two nurses, to verify that 2 the number of jailers in the budget is adequate, and then 3 look at it strictly as a budget issue. Do you see what I'm 4 getting at there? To solve the short-term problem, and then 5 maybe we've got some other things to do. But does that 6 solve the problem? 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I recognize that as a 8 possible solution, but my question to the Sheriff would be 9 can we -- if we do this, can we do it with reasonable 10 assurance you're not going to need that other jailer between 11 now and the end of the budget year? 12 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: About as much assurance 13 as I can give you. 14 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's -- I have taken 15 that as a given, from what you said. 16 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right. 17 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: At this point. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a related 19 question. I'm not sure you know the answer, Sheriff. How 20 did we get from $27,000 to $31,000 on a nurse category? If 21 you don't know, just say -- 22 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I can't answer that 23 question. 24 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I guess that's part of 25 Jonathan's follow-up. 96 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Wouldn't part of that be 2 to eliminate the med aide and have two nurses, each at 3 $31,200? 4 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's what you're 5 actually -- yeah, what we would actually be doing. 6 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's the -- 7 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And then I need to 8 justify in next year's budget the need for the two nurses, 9 which I feel I can do pretty simply. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Which is where we are 11 today. 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: Again, this is -- this is 13 here to clean up -- recognizing reality and not playing 14 hide-the-ball any more. This is what this whole exercise is 15 about. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We budgeted for one 17 nurse and one med aide, but in reality we have two nurses 18 out there. 19 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: At a higher rate. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: At a higher rate than 21 what was budgeted. 22 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's correct. 23 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's the reality. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. And I 25 understand that we need to correct that so Sheriff 97 1 Hierholzer -- Hierholzer can -- can -- it's easy for you to 2 say -- can run his department. 3 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The way he needs to. 5 However, I think Commissioner Letz, if he goes ahead with 6 his line of questioning, there is some serious, serious 7 problem here. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, allow me to do the 9 first one. 10 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: If we do -- I will 11 make the motion that we that we solve this short-term 12 problem by formally acknowledging that there are two nurses 13 in the jail at $31,200, that the funds from the empty jailer 14 position will officially -- even though, in fact, they've 15 already been -- this has already happened, will be moved to 16 those two positions to cover the cost for the remainder of 17 this budget year, and that as a part of next year's budget 18 exercise, Sheriff Hierholzer will come in with the 19 justification for two nurses at $31,200 and will review 20 whether there is another jailer required. So I don't have 21 to repeat that, I'll just make that as a motion. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I'll second that. 23 And in the budget process, are we going to eliminate the med 24 aide? 25 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes. 98 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: I think what Commissioner 2 Griffin's motion does is, really, it reclassifies the med 3 tech position to a nurse position. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: To the second nurse. 5 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second nurse at -- 6 both will be at $31,200 officially for now. 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: So there would no longer be a 8 med tech position. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 10 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I have a question 11 after you state the question. 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner 13 Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court 14 reclassify the existing med tech position to that of a 15 nurse, pay both nurses at the annual rate of $31,200, and 16 take the funds from the unencumbered jailer's position, 17 transfer them to the nurse's position in order to cover the 18 increased salaries reflected by the reclassification. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Question. Sheriff, 20 to your knowledge, is $31,200 the going rate for a nurse 21 with the proper qualifications? 22 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I haven't personally, 23 you know, gone to different agencies or hospitals that use 24 them and looked at what they are. I understand just 25 verbally that, yes, it is. That's $15 an hour. 99 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you comfortable 2 that the second individual whose salary was considerably 3 below, in the books, $31,000 has those qualifications to 4 warrant that salary? 5 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes, I'm comfortable 6 that they have the qualifications to warrant the salary that 7 the other nurse has, 'cause they are both nurses. 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further discussion? 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: One quick question, 10 Rusty. In this budget, we have a lot of jailers. 11 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's correct. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That have been 13 approved through the year, when y'all started filling up the 14 jail. For the first time, I might add. We -- we gave you 15 five new jailers. 16 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's correct. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So that you can handle 18 this. Where are you in filling all of those? 19 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, in trying to 20 figure out this, that's why I'm trying to get the budget -- 21 budgeted positions correct, to make sure I have the right 22 number. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see. 24 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But we should be within, 25 probably, one of being filled, with the rest of those other 100 1 five. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see. Okay, 3 fantastic. 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further discussion? If 5 not, all in favor, raise your right hand. 6 (The motion was carried by unanimous vote.) 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 8 (No response.) 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I'll just make a 11 comment. After rethinking what I was about to say, looking 12 at the agenda item, I probably shouldn't even go where I was 13 going to go. But, I think what we need to -- and I'll just 14 mention to Sheriff Hierholzer, I think I'll put that on our 15 next agenda. We need to discuss at the next meeting, one, 16 how this happened, an investigation into how it happened, 17 and probably hire, in my opinion, outside staff to look at 18 the jail budget and jail department budget, and basically do 19 it all. This is outlandish, in my mind, that we have 20 positions and individuals hired that are totally not in the 21 current budget. 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: I think that's entirely 23 appropriate. I think that, in my discussions with the 24 Sheriff, that he -- 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I would definitely like 101 1 to see -- I don't want -- 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: -- he tends to do his own 3 investigation, as he's already done, and turn those results 4 over to the County Attorney's office, as far as any 5 violation of laws is concerned. 6 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, my intention -- 7 and next Commissioners Court, y'all get ready, 'cause I've 8 discovered one other one where a receptionist is being paid 9 as a jail secretary, but she's a receptionist for the actual 10 Sheriff's Office. So, this isn't -- isn't completed yet, is 11 what I'm afraid of. I don't know what else -- I've been in 12 office 35 days. So, the main thing that I will agree to do 13 and that I think I need to do is try and gather all the 14 information I can gather, okay? And turn that information 15 over to y'all and to the County Attorney's office. And, at 16 the time that all the information is gathered, where we can 17 really see what was going on. I won't sit here and say 18 there was or wasn't a criminal violation. I don't want to 19 be involved in any part of that investigation, because it 20 concerns the department that I'm a head of at this time, 21 even though we're talking about things in the past. I think 22 it's up to the Commissioners Court and the County Attorney's 23 office at that time to decide what steps need to be taken in 24 the future. As far as having an outside audit, if that's 25 what the Commissioners Court decides, I would very much 102 1 welcome it. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can you have the 3 recommendation and some of this put together by our next 4 meeting, or will it take longer? 5 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: On the 22nd? I probably 6 can't have this recommendation put together by the 22nd. I 7 know y'all have asked for the budget requests and guidelines 8 for the next budget be turned in by June the 5th. If I try 9 and get this done by the 22nd, I hope you can give me a 10 little leniency, a week or so, on the requests for June the 11 5th to get the other turned in. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: At this point, I would 13 almost say the budget, to me, is probably more important to 14 get that next year's budget working properly and timely so 15 we don't get delayed there. This has already happened in 16 the past, and I think we just need to concentrate on the 17 current budget and bring this forward. And, you know, I 18 think we can wait till the proper time to put it on the 19 agenda for further consideration by us. 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: I would agree. I think 21 that's a matter of investigation, that we don't want to put 22 an artificial timeline on it. It should be done thoroughly 23 and correctly. The Sheriff wants to get things straightened 24 out and move forward, and we can count on him to pursue it 25 with all deliberate speed, but recognizing at the same time 103 1 he has a department to run. So, I think, you know, when 2 you're ready, come back to us. And I presume we'll have 3 the -- the other reclassification for next month -- or the 4 22nd? 5 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: All right. Anything else? 7 Thank you, Rusty. 8 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Thank y'all. 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: Next item is Item 2.8, 10 consider and discuss declaring the generator out on the 11 courthouse square as surplus. Mr. Holekamp. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Glenn, I'd be happy to 13 make a motion, save you a bunch of breath. 14 MR. HOLEKAMP: Y'all are aware which 15 generator we're talking about. That's all I'm asking. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Dad-gum-it, I wanted 18 to. 19 (Laughter.) 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz, 22 seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, that we declare the 23 generator on the courthouse square as surplus and authorize 24 the Maintenance Supervisor to advertise for bids for same. 25 Any further discussion? If not, all in favor -- 104 1 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Just a quick point 2 that the -- just for the record, that this is a generator no 3 longer used. It's -- it is surplus to our requirement, 4 period. There is no doubt about it. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The jail that it 6 served is long gone. 7 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Is long gone, so 8 it's -- yeah. 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: All in favor, raise your 10 right hand. 11 (The motion was carried by unanimous vote.) 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 13 (No response.) 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carried. Item 2.9, 15 consider and discuss approval of the final plat of Buckhorn 16 Lake Resort, Precinct 4. Commissioner Griffin. 17 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I'll turn this one 18 over to Franklin. 19 MR. JOHNSTON: You should have the final plat 20 for Buckhorn Park. I think everything was on track until 21 about middle of last week. We got a letter from FEMA that 22 they had a lot of questions about the floodplain in this 23 area, and we have -- Lee Line from Vordenbaum Engineering is 24 here if have you questions about that particular item, that 25 he could explain that if you wish to have a report on that. 105 1 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I -- I'd just say to 2 the Court, this is one of those cases where I -- there may 3 be some legitimate questions to ask, but this is a case 4 where U.G.R.A. Floodplain Administrator signed off on the 5 plat. After that -- based on the engineering study, in 6 part, and all the other things they consider. And now we've 7 gotten an inquiry from FEMA back to U.G.R.A., and to the 8 engineering function with some questions. Now, to me, that 9 amounts to -- a little bit, to moving of the bureaucratic 10 bar. I'm inclined to want to go ahead and approve the final 11 plat; I'll say that up front. Based on that, if nothing 12 else. Because if the citizen -- if the developer goes 13 through what they're supposed to go through, and they get 14 everything signed off, and then, somehow or other, the 15 bureaucracy regurgitates at the last moment, then that 16 upsets me, upsets me at the bureaucracy. So, there may be 17 some legitimate questions here, but I -- I just don't think 18 we ought to kowtow to bureaucracy on that. I think we ought 19 to go ahead and approve it; that's going to be my position. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I would like to hear 21 what FEMA's questions were. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would, too. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just to -- 24 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Did you get a copy? 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, I didn't. 106 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I was just curious 2 about what questions -- 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you have a copy of 4 the questions? 5 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Maybe it would just be 6 quicker to have the engineer just tell us very quickly what 7 the questions were and what the answers are, and if they can 8 be answered quickly to their -- FEMA's -- to FEMA's 9 satisfaction, in particular. 10 MR. LINE: Your Honor, Commissioners, my name 11 is Lee Line. I'm an engineer employed by Vordenbaum 12 Engineering, and I worked on the flood study in question 13 here. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Would you spell your 15 last name, please? 16 MR. LINE: L-i-n-e. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Line. Thank you. 18 MR. LINE: Yes, sir. The letter in question 19 is dated April 25th, received in my office on May 1st. The 20 way the process works is that we send an application to FEMA 21 and then they look over the package and then they respond 22 with a letter, if -- if there are no questions, they'll just 23 respond with a letter saying "We received your package and 24 we're reviewing it." It generally takes a minimum of four 25 to six weeks for FEMA to -- that is, three to four weeks for 107 1 FEMA to do their initial -- their initial reading of the 2 application, and depending on what questions they come up 3 with, it could be a few more weeks after that before they 4 actually approve the project. 5 There are six items in this letter. Item 6 Number 1 refers to the program that we use to calculate our 7 floodplain numbers. We used a program that was produced in 8 April of '96, and it's been superseded since then. They're 9 requesting that we rerun the program using their latest 10 version of the -- it's the same program; they're just asking 11 us to rerun it using the later release of the -- of the 12 floodplain computer program. I don't anticipate that -- 13 using the new program shouldn't give us different results 14 from the program that we've already been using. 15 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: When would you expect 16 to have that done? 17 MR. LINE: In a few days. A person in our 18 office is working on that today, as a matter of fact. 19 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay. 20 MR. LINE: Item Number 2, they're requesting 21 a -- an additional map or an additional drawing showing the 22 existing conditions of the existing topography with the 23 floodplain as it would exist before any development. We 24 have that information in-house. We simply did not submit 25 that as a part of our application, so it's a matter of just 108 1 producing a new drawing from items that we have in-house. 2 They're raising -- in Item Number 3, they're 3 raising a question about the width of the floodplain in 4 certain areas. They are wondering why the width of our 5 floodplain in the map does not exactly match the numerical 6 width that the computer program prints out. And, the reason 7 for that is that there are a couple of areas where we made 8 our best judgment based on the junction of the two streams 9 and the shape of the land. Sometimes we choose to take a 10 look at what the computer program gives us and use our 11 judgment and alter that slightly, based on what we believe 12 is really going to happen with the land. So, that's part of 13 that question there that I intend to discuss with the 14 engineer. 15 Item Number 4, we specify that -- or the rule 16 states that if you have a certain velocity -- in this case, 17 over 35 feet per second -- in the area where you're filling, 18 that you need to provide flood -- you need to provide 19 erosion control or erosion protection for your bank. We 20 specified on our drawing that the owner should place a flood 21 control mat. I chose a mat that was advertised as being 22 able to withstand the velocities in question. And, FEMA 23 responded by saying that we were supposed to provide on our 24 drawing either stone or rock protection or concrete 25 protection. I intend to take this up with the engineer and 109 1 submit reasons why we felt like this synthetic material 2 would be just as good as using stone in this case. The rule 3 just happens to say that there should be adequate 4 protection, either stone or rock. I don't know that they're 5 going to require us to use stone if I can explain to them 6 that we are choosing a material that's just as good, so I'll 7 have to work that out with them. 8 I have another -- Item Number 5, there's a 9 particular cross-section on the Site No. 28 there. Because 10 of the natural stream slope, the computer program gave us a 11 significant drop in energy gradient, which, in -- in 12 English, means that there's a hydraulic jump in the stream 13 channel. They're asking us to revise the hydraulic analysis 14 to eliminate this draw-out on the profile. And, I honestly 15 don't know what they mean by that. I intend to ask them how 16 we can revise that. I don't -- it was my opinion and the 17 opinion of my boss that we had a correct profile in that 18 area, but we did adjust the -- the floodplain in that area 19 to what we thought was a reasonable location. 20 Number 6, no computer disks were provided 21 with the submittal. In fact, the disks were mailed under 22 separate package on April 13th, so that -- that item 23 doesn't -- that's been taken care of. That's the long 24 version. The short version is that we usually have to deal 25 with FEMA on questions like this, and we're confident that 110 1 if there are some changes because of these questions, they 2 should be mild. And, we're working on them. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, again, here's 4 typical federal government sitting in Washington, D.C., 5 telling us what we need to do with our own private property 6 down here, when we have qualified engineers on the ground 7 and knowing what we need and knowing what's best for us. 8 So, I'm in agreement with the Commissioner down there, 9 that -- I don't see why we need to pay any attention to it. 10 But, I -- an issue that, in my mind, is even 11 larger than that, when we do subdivisions, the selling of 12 property, we require the property owner to wait to the final 13 plat before they can sell anything. And I think this is a 14 little different; however, the owner has taken upon himself 15 to -- to open for business before the final plat. And 16 probably legally, he can do that, but I just think it's good 17 business and good common sense to -- in all of these kind of 18 issues, to wait till the final plat for things just like 19 this. Now, we don't know what FEMA's going to do. They're 20 obviously a very powerful agency -- federal agency. They 21 can do the things -- and we see them doing things all over 22 the nation with private -- the actual taking of private 23 property; they have that power. But, I just think it would 24 be good business for all subdivisions, whether it's trailer 25 parks or land for sale, either one, to wait till the final 111 1 plat before they open their doors. That's the only comment 2 I have. I'd certainly second your motion. 3 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I would like to make a 4 motion that we -- if this will work, and we can discuss it, 5 but my motion would be that we approve the final plat, 6 contingent -- and authorize the County Judge to sign same, 7 contingent on the answering of questions, so we don't have 8 to -- so we don't have to wait, we don't have to come back 9 to another session with this, because there's nothing in the 10 plat other than these questions that FEMA raises that -- 11 that would be any reason to hold it up. And I think, to be 12 prudent, again, dealing with a very powerful agency, that 13 perhaps the best thing to do would be to approve the plat 14 contingent upon these questions being answered 15 satisfactorily to FEMA, which I suspect they will be. 16 MR. LINE: Yes, sir. 17 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I have every reason to 18 believe they will be. And then authorize the Judge to sign 19 the plat at that time. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 21 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Does that create any 22 problems if I make that motion? 23 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, what -- what would be 24 the resolution of the questions? You're placing the County 25 Judge in the position where he's authorized to sign the plat 112 1 upon the happening of a certain -- 2 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, would we get 3 another letter? My question would be, would we get a 4 follow-up letter from FEMA once these questions are 5 answered? 6 MR. LINE: Normally, no. But normally, the 7 next step would be -- you would get a letter stating that -- 8 conditional acceptance of the -- of the package, which means 9 they have reviewed my response and everything looks good and 10 they're -- they're issuing what they call a conditional -- 11 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Which they always do; 12 it's always a conditional. That's the point at which I 13 would say that -- so it's an objective point. It's not 14 something that you have to make the judgment on. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But what if -- what 16 if FEMA's responses do not satisfactorily resolve these 17 issues? 18 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: The Judge doesn't sign 19 the -- 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What does that do to 21 the plat approval? 22 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: The plat is still held 23 until it is resolved. For example, if, for some reason, 24 they insist on stone or rock to do the -- to do the erosion 25 control, then if that's the only way they can do it, we have 113 1 to -- we have to put the stone in there, then that has to be 2 done. Then you can get the conditional letter, then you can 3 sign the plat. I notice our clerk fidgeting around over 4 there. I'm -- I don't know whether we're -- whether we're 5 creating a problem in doing that, but couldn't the plat be 6 held in limbo until -- just not signed? Well, I mean, still 7 with the Road and Bridge Department; it's not -- 8 MS. BARBEE: There's no reason for him to sign 9 it, then, because his signature gives me the deal where I 10 put the file number on it and I log it in. 11 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: No, no, no. I'm 12 saying he doesn't sign it at all until those questions are 13 answered. 14 MS. BARBEE: Okay. 15 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Still held where it is 16 right now, but we don't have to come -- if we can get these 17 questions answered quickly, get the conditional letter back, 18 we don't have to come back for another court session to 19 authorize the approval. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, your motion is 21 that the approval be contingent on satisfactory resolution 22 of -- 23 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: Is that a motion? 114 1 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I did make it as a 2 motion, and I -- 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I seconded. 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner 5 Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, that the 6 Commissioners Court approve the final plat of Buckhorn Lake 7 Resort contingent upon receipt by the County from FEMA of a 8 conditional letter of acceptance of the floodplain issues, 9 and authorize the County Judge to sign the plat upon receipt 10 of that conditional letter. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Only additional comment I 12 have is that FEMA can take so long to act sometimes -- I 13 mean, being the bureaucracy they are, you know, we might put 14 a -- within three months, if we don't have this resolved, we 15 need to probably bring it back to the Court to decide what 16 to do at some time certain. I'd just hate for this to be in 17 limbo with property being used indefinitely. 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: I think that will be up to 19 Commissioner Griffin. If we don't have an answer within a 20 reasonable time period, I think it would be up to him and 21 the owners to place this back on the agenda. 22 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes, exactly. I'll 23 take that on. 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further comments or 25 questions? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. 115 1 (The motion was carried by unanimous vote.) 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 3 (No response.) 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. 5 MR. JOHNSTON: One loose end you might want 6 to consider is whether, you know, he can operate during the 7 interim. You brought that up. 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: I don't know that we have any 9 legal ability to prevent him from operating. Next item is 10 Item Number 10, consider the preliminary plat of Village 11 West, Phase 4, Precinct 4. 12 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes. Franklin? 13 MR. JOHNSTON: I'll give you a copy of this. 14 Pass it around. This is -- 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Franklin, where is 16 Highway 27? 17 MR. JOHNSTON: Let's see. Let me get this 18 thing unfolded. At the bottom. At the bottom of the plat. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 20 MR. JOHNSTON: Mill Run will eventually run 21 into Highway 27. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 23 MR. JOHNSTON: This is an area -- area of 24 land just outside the Village West Industrial Park. You can 25 see on that location map where Highway 27 is at Junction 116 1 Highway, it says in the upper left-hand corner. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, yeah. Okay. 3 Okay. 4 MR. JOHNSTON: This area is not part of the 5 subdivision; it's adjacent to it. It consists of 16-plus 6 acres, and the owner proposes to divide it into, actually, 7 four lots. One lot is created by Mill Run. The City had -- 8 had them extend it to the property line, and so there's a 9 1-1/2 acre tract on the left-hand side. The other tracts 10 are all over 5 acres. I notice a letter from the City said 11 that it does not have to go through the City platting 12 process. Even though it's in the E.T.J., it's exempt from 13 their -- so this would strictly be a county subdivision. It 14 has access to paved roads on both sides, so there'll be no 15 additional roads. It has water. You can see where it has a 16 water main shown on the -- on the drawing. Right now 17 there's remnants of an old gravel pit in the back, and so 18 the owner proposes to put a drainage area where it says 19 "drainway" across the property at a boundary line. And he's 20 going to fill in the pit area, which he has an amount of 21 material already stockpiled there for that purpose. I think 22 the owner's here if you have any questions for him. 23 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Do you have any 24 problems? 25 MR. JOHNSTON: No. It's routine. 117 1 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I move that we approve 2 the preliminary. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: Will the small tract -- what 5 kind of sewer service do they have out there, water system? 6 MR. JOHNSTON: Has a private water system. 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: Central water system? 8 MR. JOHNSTON: Part of Aqua Source? Or will 9 it be -- 10 MR. WAHRMUND: It will be. 11 MR. JOHNSTON: Aqua Source is purchasing it. 12 No sewer system, septic tanks. 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: So, that small tract would 14 have a septic tank, but be on a private water system. 15 There'll be no well? 16 MR. JOHNSTON: Right. 17 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. 18 MR. JOHNSTON: Actually, where that Mill Run 19 enters this -- it actually is paved up to that point. 20 Where it indicates a fire hydrant, I think they're going to 21 install a cul-de-sac on that area so they'll have better 22 access to that 1 1/2 acre tract. There's a future -- 23 actually, I think it's a deeded easement to the City through 24 there for future development behind that. But, that way it 25 will give them a paved entrance to that tract. 118 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner 2 Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Williams, that we approve 3 the preliminary plat of Village West Industrial Park, 4 Phase 4. Any further questions or comments? If not, all in 5 favor, raise your right hand. 6 (The motion was carried by unanimous vote.) 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 8 (No response.) 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Next item is 10 Item 11, consider a variance to lot size for tract of land 11 at 1813 Harper Road in Precinct 1. Commissioner Baldwin. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mr. Johnston -- or 13 who's handling this? Hi. 14 MS. GUILLEN: Good morning. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What's your name? 16 MS. GUILLEN: My name is Rose. We're 17 applying for a variance on this lot. Originally, it started 18 at 1.81 acres. Back in '97, the .66 part of it was sold, 19 and that .66 was across the street from Harper Road -- the 20 Old Harper Road. So, we did have a contract with the Humane 21 Society, but they were not allowed a variance, and that's 22 what we're here for, so we won't have any limitations as to 23 who can buy this property. 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: I didn't understand that. 25 You're asking for -- 119 1 MS. GUILLEN: For a variance, yes, for the 2 septic system -- upgrade of septic system, or putting in a 3 new one. 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: Have you been through the 5 U.G.R.A., the O.S.S.F.? 6 MS. GUILLEN: Yes, we have, and they don't 7 have any answers for us. So, Mr. Johnston asked us to come 8 in and talk to you guys about it. 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes? 10 MR. BOWERS: I'm Mark Bowers with U.G.R.A. 11 On this subject, in the original file that we have on this 12 site when it was licensed in 1979, that -- the tract was 13 showing a size of 2.11 acres, and we have no other 14 indications in the file that that was changed. 15 MS. GUILLEN: I have given you a copy of 16 this, on Page 6 of the faxed copy, which is probably the 17 fourth page from the back. It is 2.11, but then when it was 18 sold to Bomar Corporation back in '91, it was 1.81. 19 MR. BOWERS: We do have a transfer -- and I 20 didn't -- don't have that particular packet. We do have a 21 transfer showing in the file on 2-21-91. There was no plat 22 in our particular file showing that the tract size had 23 reduced. And, I guess our concern is -- is we're -- we're 24 in a situation that the current regulations -- and I think 25 they have been since 1988 -- is you had to have a minimum of 120 1 2 1/2 acres for a well and a septic, and now that it has 2 been reduced down to -- is it 1.15 now? 3 MS. GUILLEN: Yes. Okay, so how we are to 4 approach putting an additional septic system or even 5 upgrading the one that's there? 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good question. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The only way that I 8 know you do that is come to the Commissioners Court and get 9 a variance. 10 MS. GUILLEN: Right. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: My question is -- or 12 one of my questions, in '79, when this property went from 13 2.11 down to 1.15 acres, where is the -- where is the 14 platting for the County record of that, the selling of that 15 property? I mean, to -- you subdivided a piece of property 16 and sold it off. Where is that? Where is that document? 17 MS. GUILLEN: I don't have that document. 18 MR. JOHNSTON: None of this property's ever 19 been subdivided. It's not platted. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's never gone 21 through, so they're just -- they've -- 22 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Sold off by metes and 23 bounds in '91. 24 MR. JOHNSTON: Mm-hmm. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, '91. 121 1 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And the question now 2 is to upgrade the septic -- 3 MS. GUILLEN: Upgrade or put a bigger one. I 4 think there's only a 500-gallon septic system here. And the 5 well is -- the well and septic are 150 feet, as required, 6 you know, separated by that much. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The septic, what is it? 8 Is it just -- is it for the -- for animals and things, or is 9 this for what? How is it used? 10 MS. GUILLEN: It's used right now currently 11 by some dentists, and they're -- I think Mr. Lybecher said 12 it's approved for 60 gallons of usage a day. I don't think 13 that they use that much, but the problem is that it's only a 14 500-gallon tank. And if somebody else goes in there and 15 wants to upgrade or put in a new one, they're going to have 16 a hard time. So, that's why we're here to -- 'cause we've 17 already had a contract that fell through because of not 18 being able to get a variance. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, that variance 20 was never asked for during your contract. That wasn't the 21 reason; you never came in and asked for that -- 22 MS. GUILLEN: No. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- variance. 24 MS. GUILLEN: No, sir, we -- I guess I didn't 25 realize that we were going to need a variance for a larger 122 1 septic system. And it was my mistake. 2 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Is there any -- are we 3 talking a possibility of having a second septic system? 4 MR. BOWERS: I think that's what's in 5 question, is that -- 6 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's the question I 7 have. 8 MR. BOWERS: It was subdivided in 1991. Then 9 y'all recently sold a portion of it from the 1.8 acres to 10 the 1.15 that it currently exists. When did that take 11 place? 12 MS. GUILLEN: In '97. 13 MR. BOWERS: Okay. 14 MS. GUILLEN: It was sold 2-25-97. And it's 15 on that -- on that second page of the owner's -- the current 16 owners or the previous owners. 17 MR. BOWERS: The Humane Society had contacted 18 us about expanding that site in order to be able to furnish 19 facilities -- sewage facilities for the Humane Society. And 20 the existing system would not currently allow that to 21 happen. 22 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Let me review this 23 thing one more time. So, we've got a septic system in there 24 that's being used now, but it's not adequate. You're going 25 to have upgrade it or replace it. 123 1 MR. LYBECHER: It wasn't adequate for the 2 Humane Society. 3 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. 4 MR. LYBECHER: That's why the deal fell 5 through. It'd be too costly to put in a system that 6 would -- 7 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay, I understand 8 that, that part. 9 MR. LYBECHER: We now have the property -- 10 we've had it rented to dentists as a dental office for the 11 past three years. Everything works fine. We're 12 anticipating a contract to sell to these dentists, and why 13 we're here is they won't want to buy it if there's going to 14 be a problem with this -- not being able to transfer the 15 license. 16 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Mark, let me ask a 17 question. 18 MR. BOWERS: Yes. 19 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: In a case like this, 20 let's just say that had there been no -- if we had a 1.15- 21 acre site that had a septic system on it, change of 22 ownership, would we allow upgrade to the system? Do the 23 rules allow for upgrade of the system at that change of 24 ownership? I'm not talking about a new system or second 25 system. I'm talking about upgrading what's there. 124 1 MR. BOWERS: Upgrading a system is basically 2 the same thing. Very few of the older systems meet today's 3 standards, so you're basically rebuilding a system. That's 4 a new one. 5 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. Do we allow -- 6 the rules allow for that without a variance? 7 MR. BOWERS: If the tract size was still at 8 2.11 acres -- 9 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I'm talking about at 10 1.15. We have one old one out there which was 1.15, and we 11 sold it -- 12 MR. BOWERS: It was grandfathered in prior to 13 all the subdivision regulations and septic regulations. 14 Yes, sir we would. If all of the setbacks and everything 15 could be met. 16 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: The distance. I see. 17 MR. BOWERS: Yes, sir. 18 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: But all of this 19 subdividing or this selling off of property occurred after 20 -- 1991 and after, so that's a different -- 21 MR. BOWERS: Yeah, it was grandfathered in in 22 the original condition. 23 MR. LYBECHER: It's never been 2 1/2 acres. 24 MR. BOWERS: Well, but it was -- I think the 25 way we interpret it is if things were platted prior to 1988, 125 1 when the 2 1/2 acre rule went into effect, then if it was in 2 existence prior to those days, then there's not any 3 jurisdiction as far as the 2 1/2 acres is concerned. It's 4 grandfathered. But, if that ever changes, then is -- is 5 that grandfathering still in -- you know, in effect? Would 6 it still apply? Because you are -- you have subdivided the 7 property since those regulations went into effect. And 8 that's our question, too, for the Court. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- but the selling 10 didn't require a platting, correct? 11 MR. BOWERS: I can't answer that question, 12 sir. I don't know. 13 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And so -- no, it 14 doesn't, but it -- but that affects the lot size, and that's 15 the point. That affects the lot size, where this -- 16 upgrading of this system, which now requires a variance 17 because the lot size is too small. 18 MS. GUILLEN: When they purchased -- when 19 H.O.L. -- H.O.L. purchased the property, they purchased 1.81 20 acres. That's when they -- how they purchased it. 21 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. Then they sold 22 it. 23 MS. GUILLEN: Then they sold the .66, but 24 which was really across the street from the Old Harper Road. 25 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's not the issue 126 1 here. The issue is the size of the lot as it is today. 2 MS. GUILLEN: Right. 3 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: To upgrade that system 4 would require a variance. 5 MS. GUILLEN: A variance, right. 6 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's -- 7 MR. BOWERS: We have no opposition to the 8 existing system staying on the condition that it's in and 9 under the current license that it is. We have no -- we have 10 no problem with that. But, if it ever does need to be 11 upgraded or if the property is sold and they need more 12 facilities, then that's where it falls into question. 13 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: What if the current 14 owner just wanted to upgrade the system? 15 MR. BOWERS: A variance would need to be 16 required, in our opinion, simply because the tract -- they 17 have minimized the tract size again into 1.15 acres from 18 even what they purchased it at. It's a very difficult site, 19 too. That's one of the problems, is -- is it's a very small 20 site. There's a lot of fill things and things there. It's 21 just a tough one. It's going to be a tough one to do some 22 expansion and stuff on. Not that it can't be done. It very 23 well may -- can be done. It's just going to be a difficult 24 site. 25 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I would -- 127 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: What I'm hearing is that the 2 current septic system is fine. 3 MR. BOWERS: Yes, sir. 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: Not a problem with that. 5 MR. BOWERS: Yes, sir. 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: But these folks are here 7 saying, well, what if we want to expand? Can we get a 8 variance from the -- are you here asking for a variance 9 because you want to expand, or you're asking for a variance 10 in the event somebody might want to expand? 11 MR. LYBECHER: We're wanting to know if we 12 can sell the property. The current -- the people that are 13 looking at buying it right now will not sign a contract if 14 they don't know that the septic system is acceptable. 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, Mark has just told us 16 that the current septic system is acceptable. Correct? 17 MR. BOWERS: Yes, sir. 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: And you all would sign off on 19 the transfer, so long as -- 20 MR. BOWERS: Under the existing license, yes. 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: Under the existing license. 22 You would permit the transfer of the existing license from 23 the current owners to the new owners, assuming that you 24 certify it's still functioning, and I'm assuming that -- 25 MR. BOWERS: There needs to be no upgrading. 128 1 Yes, sir. 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: Right. The problem would 3 come if the new -- if the current system would need to be 4 expanded or if the new owners would want to expand the 5 current system. 6 MR. BOWERS: Yes. 7 MS. GUILLEN: At this point, it makes it 8 really unsalable, because if we have -- well, we have to 9 disclose that there may be a problem with them not being 10 able to get a variance, so that's where it would -- I 11 wouldn't buy a property if I was not going to be able to 12 upgrade my septic system if something does go wrong. I 13 mean, what -- what do -- does a new owner have to do when 14 that time comes? That's what we're trying to avoid. 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: I don't think this Court can 16 give you a blanket variance to upgrade the system. We don't 17 know what you're going to put out there. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: If you decide to come in with 20 a 12-apartment complex, we're not going to grant you a 21 variance today to allow to you but a septic system in that 22 would serve a 12-apartment complex. We can't give you an 23 advisory opinion. Mr. Bowers has said that the current 24 license is sufficient to be transferred. Your owners can 25 buy the property under the current license. If you want a 129 1 variance, I think what you have to do is come in with a 2 specific request for a variance, including the size of the 3 upgraded system and the capacity and all the bells and 4 whistles. 5 MR. LYBECHER: I agree with what you said. 6 The problem that we were led to understand is that a water 7 well and a septic system are on the same property that's 8 less than 2 1/2 acres. Is that a problem? 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, it's a problem if 10 it's -- you can transfer that property if everything is 11 working. But you could not -- you'd have to get a variance 12 if the septic system, you know, is a problem. 13 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: See, it would be 14 appropriate for the new owner, whoever that is, if they 15 decide they want to expand and they need a larger, different 16 septic system, they would have to go through the U.G.R.A. 17 and, in turn, probably come to this Court asking for a 18 variance. 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: We could give a variance for 20 sale of the property in its current configuration, as it 21 relates to water and the septic system. 22 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah. 23 JUDGE HENNEKE: That's assuming that the 24 Headwaters goes along. But I think -- 25 MR. BOWERS: I can't answer that question. 130 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: And we can't speak for them. 2 All we can do is give a variance as to the 2.5 acre size for 3 the current use and configuration of the property. Now, you 4 have to know and believe me, that this does not bind the 5 Headwaters, because they're an independent agency and they 6 have the power, separate and distinct from this Court. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I don't know that 8 we need to give a variance for that. This property can be 9 transferred as long as -- from our standpoint, I mean, 10 there's no plat required. The U.G.R.A. or Mark are willing 11 to sign off on the system if it's properly working right 12 now. That will enable it to be transferred, as I understand 13 it. I mean, the problem comes, again, what if the future 14 owners -- if they decide to they want to put a little 15 apartment complex there, they probably aren't going to get a 16 variance from me. But, if they just want to at some point 17 leave the property used as it is and upgrade the system, 18 yes, I'd be inclined to put it in the same capacity system 19 in the future if they decide to -- 20 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: See, I'd be a little 21 different. If U.G.R.A. right now was saying that the 22 current septic system is failing and is not acceptable, then 23 you would have to come in for a variance, just as you are 24 now, before you could sell it. That's understandable, but 25 they're saying the system's okay. 131 1 MR. LYBECHER: Okay. 2 MR. BOWERS: Well, to our knowledge at this 3 point. We have not done an investigation, but we're not 4 aware through any of the parties that there's any problem. 5 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That there is a 6 problem existing. 7 MR. LYBECHER: The fact that the water and 8 well and septic are on the same 1.15 acres is not a problem? 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: On a new system, it would 10 be, but, you know, it wouldn't -- I mean, it's there. 11 MR. BOWERS: Yeah. That's our -- the 12 question is, is when you've got a tract of land that's been 13 a certain size, now that they have sold part of it off and 14 it does not -- no longer meets the requirements and it's no 15 longer grandfathered. I think that's where we're looking 16 for guidance from y'all, also. 17 JUDGE HENNEKE: That's why the variance has 18 to come to us, because -- 19 MR. BOWERS: Yes, sir. 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: -- the configuration has been 21 changed. So -- 22 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: You're talking about 23 the fact that it's less than 2 1/2 acres? 24 MR. LYBECHER: Well, no, it's less than what 25 it was when it was -- 132 1 MR. BOWERS: When it was originally licensed. 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: -- when it was licensed. If 3 it was the same size it was when it was last licensed, we 4 probably wouldn't even be here, but since it's smaller -- 5 and you say that the piece that was sold off was across Old 6 Harper Road? 7 MS. GUILLEN: Yes, sir. 8 MR. LYBECHER: The Old Harper Road divided 9 this property. 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: Was any of the -- is any of 11 the drain field on that piece that was sold off? 12 MR. LYBECHER: No. 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: So, the whole septic 14 system -- 15 MR. LYBECHER: Between Old Harper Road and 16 Town Creek is a -- is what was sold. 17 JUDGE HENNEKE: But, the -- the whole septic 18 system is contained within -- 19 MR. LYBECHER: Contained within there. 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: -- the 1.15 acres? 21 MR. LYBECHER: Yes. 22 MR. BOWERS: That's our understanding, too. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That makes sense. And 24 that variance would be appropriate; I don't have a problem 25 with that. 133 1 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: No, the variance for 2 the fact that we have a well and a septic on less than 2 1/2 3 acres, I think we can grant that, sure. 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: Someone -- 5 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I'll so move. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner 8 Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Letz, that we grant a 9 variance to the 2.5-acre minimum requirement for lot size 10 for tract of land at 1813 Harper Road in Precinct 1. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Question. 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: Do I need to go further? 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think so. 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: And -- okay, help me out 15 here. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it needs to be 17 specific that the variance is to allow the transfer -- it's 18 to -- 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay, I got you. The 20 variance for purposes of sale of the existing 1.15-acre 21 tract, with the existing septic system license being 22 transferred, assuming it meets the qualifications. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That satisfies my 24 question, as well. 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: All right. 134 1 MS. GUILLEN: One question. What if, as soon 2 as -- we have not had the septic tank inspected. What if it 3 does not pass? Do we have to come back in here and ask for 4 another variance? 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: You'll have to deal with 6 U.G.R.A. people, because I can guarantee you, we're not 7 going to give a variance on a system that doesn't pass 8 U.G.R.A.'s inspection. 9 MS. GUILLEN: Right. 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: So, if it doesn't pass it, 11 you need to work with those people first. 12 MR. BOWERS: Yeah, that would be our 13 question. If it doesn't -- again, if it doesn't meet 14 specifications or it's failing, something has to be done, 15 then you're looking at installing, again, a new system on 16 less than 2 1/2 acres. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why don't we -- we're 18 going in blind. Why don't we know this going in? 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's the reason I'm 20 going to vote against it in my own precinct. We don't know. 21 MR. BOWERS: We've not been requested to go 22 do a site evaluation. 23 JUDGE HENNEKE: Why don't we withdraw this, 24 and at such time as we have all the information we need, 25 then we can address the issue. 135 1 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Trying to get it to 2 the point that we already know that there would be have to 3 be a variance for the -- 4 MS. GUILLEN: We were trying to get answers 5 from U.G.R.A, we were trying to get answers from the County 6 Engineer. Nobody had answers for us, and so they told us we 7 needed to come before the Commissioners Court. That's the 8 reason we're here. 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: Apply for the license 10 transfer, then they'll go out, inspect the system, and then 11 if you get a clean inspection, then you can come back and 12 then we'll take up the issue of the variance. Until we know 13 that there's a clean inspection, I think Commissioner 14 Baldwin's 1,000 percent right; we have no business taking 15 any action on your request. So, if you'll get that 16 inspection done, then come back, and we'll move along. 17 MS. GUILLEN: Okay. 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you. 19 MR. LYBECHER: Thank you. 20 MS. GUILLEN: Thank you. 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: At this point, it would be my 22 suggestion, gentlemen, that we take up 2.12, and we can 23 release Mr. Johnston, come back after lunch and finish up 24 Commissioner Griffin's road district. 25 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: He's going to be here 136 1 for that, too, Franklin is. 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: Oh, is he? Well, what, then, 3 is your -- 4 MR. JOHNSTON: We're going to pass on 2.12, 5 anyway. 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: Oh, okay. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's see if we can 8 get Franklin to take us out to lunch. 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: At this time, we're going to 10 recess for the noon break, and let's return promptly at 11 1:30. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Hear, hear. 13 (Recess taken from 12:10 p.m. to 1:30 p.m.) 14 - - - - - - - - - - 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: It's 1:30 p.m. on Monday, May 16 8th, Year 2000, and we will reconvene this regular session 17 of Kerr County Commissioners Court. I believe the next item 18 on the agenda is Item Number 14, which is consider and 19 discuss changing the name of two private restricted roads in 20 the North Fork-River Bend Ranch Subdivision. Commissioner 21 Griffin. 22 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay. That's Item 23 2.13? 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: Thirteen. I'm sorry, 13. 25 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes. If you'll 137 1 recall -- I don't know whether it was last session or 2 perhaps the one before that, I had -- I put this item on the 3 agenda to sort of bring our attention to it about private 4 restricted roads and changing the names thereof. And, we 5 kicked it around and decided to ask the County Attorney 6 about it, and I did. Ilse has advised me that she can find 7 nothing that says that on private, restricted roads, we have 8 to have a public hearing, but that as long as 911 signs off 9 on it, that this -- we are just acknowledging the right of 10 private ownership to change these names. This happens to 11 be -- these two are by the homeowners' association of North 12 Fork-River Bend Subdivision. So, on that basis, I put it 13 back on. We do have -- I notice I -- on my other side, I 14 didn't put those 911 bio's back into there, but we have 15 those for these two name changes. And, I would move -- and 16 it does remove a confusion that we would have to do for 911 17 purposes, in the naming and naming process, anyway, so this 18 is really one that's a little ahead of the game. 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: Do we know that the 20 homeowners whose properties are on the roads are in favor of 21 the changes? 22 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes. 23 JUDGE HENNEKE: And we have that directive 24 from them, or -- 25 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We got it from the 138 1 homeowners' association. We have it from the homeowners' 2 association. This was voted on at their meeting. 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: All right. 4 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I would make the 5 motion that we approve these name changes as shown; from 6 River Bend North to Blue Sage Trail, and River Bend South to 7 Conestoga Trail. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner 10 Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Letz, that we change the 11 name of River Bend North to Blue Sage Trail, and River Bend 12 South to Conestoga Trail, both being private, restricted 13 roads in the North Fork-River Bend Ranch Subdivision. Any 14 further comments or questions? 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Comment -- or, rather, 16 question. Is this -- I mean, how are we going to handle 17 these in the future? Just bring them out case-by-case, or 18 do we need to come to the court? 19 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Probably so. And -- 20 and these are a little, perhaps, out of sequence, because 21 this was not a 911-initiated change. This was initiated by 22 the homeowners; they found those names confusing, and so 23 they had wanted to get the names changed. They went to 911, 24 911 said yes. And, in fact, having River Bend North and 25 River Bend South -- having those directionals, so-called, as 139 1 we've all learned from Mr. Sandlin, having that directional 2 as part of the name is verboten, anyway, under the 3 guidelines. So, those two were going to have to be changed 4 anyway. So, 911 said, yeah, those are okay. They went 5 ahead and brought it to me. Normally, I think we -- we 6 talked about doing it monthly or quarterly, but under the 7 911 procedure, we'll try to bring all those changes in and 8 do them en masse. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: T. was going give us a 10 calendar or pick some dates or something, as I recall. 11 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes. And I haven't 12 heard what those are yet, but -- 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 14 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: This one is a little 15 out of sequence, 'cause it was initiated by the homeowners 16 rather than 911 people. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Larry, will these 18 names ultimately have to have the geographical suffix on 19 them or not? 20 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes. And that will be 21 done -- those changes will go in, then, when they are doing 22 North Fork-River Bend. Right now they're doing a couple of 23 other areas in the west part of the county, but when this 24 one gets done, it will have the suffix attached on. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. 140 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further discussion? If 2 not, all in favor, raise your right hand. 3 (The motion was carried by unanimous vote.) 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 5 (No response.) 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Now, Item 7 Number 14, consider and discuss administration of the Lake 8 Ingram Estates Road District, to include redefinition of 9 road district boundaries, updated estimate for the amount of 10 the bond issue, and calling a bond election for the road 11 district. Commissioner Griffin. 12 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes. And there are 13 three separate pieces to this, so I think, sort of like we 14 did the thing before, we need to take those in order. And 15 let's talk first about the -- let me give you each a copy of 16 this. You may want to just share one on the far end. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: One will do. 18 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Maybe you two can 19 share one. I've got to give you one other sheet of paper to 20 go with that, and that's a description -- oh, and Mr. Bob 21 Henderson is here. Bob, I'd like to give you a copy of that 22 also, along with a copy of this, which is just, in words, a 23 description of what is included in the road district. 24 You'll notice -- and you'll notice that in the right written 25 portion there, there are four lots that I am recommending 141 1 that we exclude from the road district, because those 2 properties are served -- Lots 1, 2, 3, and 20 of Section 1, 3 which are right up here off of Cade Loop at the very top. 4 Those properties are either serviced by Cade Loop or by the 5 first four-hundredths of a mile of Connie Lane, which is 6 already under County maintenance, which is right here, okay? 7 So, those properties have been served for years by those 8 County-maintained roads, and it makes sense to exclude them. 9 It's only fair. 10 We've also had some -- and there is a 11 procedure where homeowners are -- or landowners or the 12 Commissioners Court may exclude certain properties when it's 13 appropriate, and that's what I'm asking for here. Now, the 14 rest of the description is as you see it; it's all -- 15 everything but those four lots of Lake Ingram Estates, 16 Sections 1 and 2, plus the two in the lower left-hand 17 corner, the two properties that you see down there south of 18 Roble Road. Those are actually not part of the subdivision, 19 but they're added, as we can do under 257 of the 20 Transportation Code. Those two are added within the 21 confines of the -- of the road district. 22 So, I would make the motion -- first step, 23 make the motion that the road district, the Lake Ingram 24 Estates Road District be described as we have it here for 25 purposes of -- of establishing the boundaries of the road 142 1 district. Now, I might ask Mr. Henderson a question. Do we 2 have to define this whole outside boundary by metes and 3 bounds, or can we describe it as I have described it here? 4 MR. HENDERSON: I would suspect we would need 5 to do it by metes and bounds, but I think we can have the 6 attorney draw up those documents. 7 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay. 8 MR. HENDERSON: Based on the metes and bounds 9 as admitted by -- 10 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right, because this -- 11 this tells us what's inside the metes and bounds. 12 MR. HENDERSON: Right. 13 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It can be generated; I 14 just have not done that yet, but I would like to make that 15 motion that this be the road district. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 17 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner 18 Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Letz, that the Lake Ingram 19 Estates Road District be defined as follows: All of the 20 Lake Ingram Estates Subdivision, Section 1 and Section 2, 21 according to plat of record in Volume 4, Pages 182 and 242, 22 save and except Lots 1, 2, 3, and 20 of Section 1, and 5.93 23 acres deeded to Michael Neil Zumwalt, more particularly 24 described in instrument of record in Volume 384, Page 104, 25 Deed Records of Kerr County, Texas, and 14.23 acres deeded 143 1 to Elroy L. and Ellis H. Young, more particularly described 2 in instrument of record in Volume 743, Page 817, Deed 3 Records of Kerr County, Texas. 4 MRS. GUMERT: Question, sir. Perhaps out of 5 order. Shirley Gumert, resident and co-owner of Lot No. 2, 6 Lake Ingram Estates. I believe this has been taken care of, 7 but this is the way we do business. We would like to 8 present a letter asking that we be excluded and asking that 9 Francis Lane be excluded from the district. 10 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Francis Lane is -- 11 that's a separate issue. 12 MRS. GUMERT: That It not be paved, yes. 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: Is this Lot 2, is this -- 14 MRS. GUMERT: Lot 2, which the Commissioner has 15 excluded us, but I would like that as a matter of record. 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: All right. Thank you. Okay. 17 Motion's been made and seconded. Any further discussion? 18 If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. 19 (The motion was carried by unanimous vote.) 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 21 (No response.) 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. 23 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay. Second item is 24 to update the estimate on the amount of the bond issue. And 25 let me also pass along here a package. I'll be referring to 144 1 all of these spreadsheets. I think I may have given you a 2 copy of this, but let me give you another. Oh, excuse me. 3 Okay, if you separate -- there are actually two separate 4 spreadsheets in here. One is called Option 1, and Option 5 1-A. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Two different deals? 7 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah, there's two 8 different spreadsheets there that you can separate. Option 9 1, as you see at the top there, would be if all work is done 10 by contract and all roads except Francis Lane, as we have 11 spoken about previously, will not be a part of the 12 improvement. You'll see that there's 1.85 miles of Connie 13 Lane, which is a local road, that's a -- that's the road 14 that runs down the heart of the subdivision. And then 15 you'll notice, toward the bottom of that first page, the 16 country lanes or the cul-de-sacs that go off of there. And, 17 the reason for having to separate those and cost them 18 separately is that the country lanes can be based with 19 caliche, where the local road has to be based with -- with 20 crushed rock, or it's Type C, Grade 2 base. What you see 21 there is a spreadsheet that lays out the length of Connie 22 Lane as 1.85 miles. They're hard number estimates. These 23 are only estimates in the surveys of the right-of-way. The 24 cost of clearing and grubbing, and the sub-grade 25 preparation. Okay. Then, we go into the sealcoating on 145 1 the -- on the -- actually, the basing material and then the 2 sealcoating. Same thing holds true for the country lanes, 3 except, of course, there is a difference in the price of -- 4 of the base. 5 On Option 1, if you assume a total cost -- 6 total estimated cost for all roads be $227,577. That's on 7 the second page of Option 1. If -- and then if we throw 8 in -- we have a 10 percent contingency reserve in case we 9 run into culverts or something that we haven't thought that 10 we have to put in. We've got to have some contingency in 11 the number. And then the bond issue will be somewhere in 12 the neighborhood -- and this is a conservative estimate; I 13 think we may be able to get this down a little bit -- will 14 be about $12,500. Which gives a total of $262,836, which 15 must be rounded up for bonding purposes to the next $5,000 16 whole increment, which will give us $265,000 as a bonding 17 number. 18 Going with a -- the best estimate available 19 today, the bonds, with the -- place this at about 6.25 20 percent, would be an estimated annual bond payment that you 21 see on the bottom of the second page there of $19,770. 22 That's an average, because we'll actually have a payoff 23 that -- that Mr. Henderson will give us, and that varies a 24 little bit from year to year, but it's essentially for the 25 $19,770; that's amortizing the total cost of the bond issue 146 1 over 30 years. So, it will be somewhere around that. 2 Now -- so, we were looking for ways, because 3 we know that there's probably as many as four of these old 4 subdivisions in the county; that is, pre-1984 -- pre-1984 5 subdivisions when -- before there were any road standards 6 established. And, so, we were looking for ways -- and I 7 asked both Franklin, our County Engineer, and Len Odom, our 8 Road Administrator, to look at ways that we might be able to 9 save some money, looking ahead to some of these other 10 districts as well, or potential districts. So, we came up 11 with possible Option 1-A. 12 And I really wanted to -- I want to give 13 kudos on this to Len Odom, because he was the one that 14 actually had the idea, discussed it with Franklin, and then 15 Len came to me. And I think we've come up with something 16 that we -- we ought to seriously consider, and that is -- 17 notice on Option 1-A, up at the top, that the road basing -- 18 all of the road basing except Francis Lane, of course, would 19 be by contract under that. The surfacing would be by the 20 Road and Bridge Department as part of our maintenance 21 program, and we can discuss a little more of that in a 22 second. But, the driver here is -- is that -- and we've 23 made an assumption here, by the way, too, that the caliche 24 for this -- for those country lanes is not available 25 on-site. And there may very well be some, and if we can -- 147 1 we can save some costs there, because we don't have to haul 2 it as far. Still be a cost to haul it, but if we can get it 3 nearby, we can do that. 4 But -- but logic on something like this, 5 we've got these several old subdivisions, pre-'84 6 subdivisions, and in a very narrow sense, if we have those 7 pre-'84 subdivisions where the owners are willing to form a 8 road district -- number one, where they are willing to go 9 for the bond issue and issue the money, that it makes sense 10 for the County to pick up the relatively small cost, I 11 think, of the sealcoating; that is, the final -- red rock 12 asphalt goes on top of the road to finish off the road, as 13 part of incentivizing these older subdivisions to bring the 14 roads up to standards. It is a small relative cost, but 15 it's -- to small districts like this, it's a substantial 16 savings in tax. 17 And, as long as we're keeping on that narrow 18 definition, pre-1984 subdivisions, willing to form a road 19 district, willing to issue the bonds to fund the basing and 20 all the clearing, all that that goes before, that we, the 21 County, would pick up the surfacing as part of the 22 maintenance program. And we can budget for that. It is not 23 a major cost, percentage-wise, in our overall sealcoating 24 program. As you see there, then, the numbers -- because, 25 essentially, in Option 1-A, the sealcoating numbers have 148 1 come out, that leaves us with a total estimated cost with 2 reserve of $210,339. We add the same factors on it, and the 3 estimated annual bond payment is in the neighborhood of 4 $16,786 on 30-year bonds. 5 I think it's a -- it is -- it is a change in 6 policy. It's a -- it's a waiver, a variance, if you will, 7 on the sealcoating part of it, but I think it's a good 8 precedent, because it's so narrowly defined. We don't have 9 that many of these subdivisions in the county that don't 10 have roads under county -- under the County system now, and 11 it's a good way to incentivise that ownership to step 12 forward and do what the folks in Lake Ingram Estates have 13 done. They've bitten the bullet and said, "Lets go do it," 14 and it's taken a lot of work on their part to make all of 15 this happen, and they've still got a lot more to go. 'Cause 16 we've still got to have -- if we call this bond election, 17 we're going to have to -- they're going to have to do some 18 electioneering. We've already got a place that we can -- we 19 can hold the election in the district. It will be at a 20 residence. There will be early voting. Jannett's been a 21 big help in helping me get all that set up. We have a model 22 court order -- I mean, not a model, but a proposed court 23 order that I'll show you in a minute. But the first thing 24 we need to do is with this cost. I'd like to hear the other 25 Commissioners' thoughts on this as far as the sealcoating 149 1 piece of it, and -- but I think it's a good precedent. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: As long as we can 3 spend County taxpayers' money on what is, I consider, you 4 know, private property, if we can do that legally, I'm all 5 for it. 6 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah. Well, these are 7 public roads. These are public roads. We would take -- we 8 would take the roads into maintenance after the basing. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: After it's all done? 10 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah, and then we'd 11 take it for maintenance in perpetuity after that. In other 12 words, we're doing an early round of maintenance, if you 13 want to look at it that way. We're doing an early round of 14 maintenance as sort of our piece of the -- of the action in 15 pulling this whole thing off, to incentivise the owner to 16 vote in favor of bond election. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think in terms of 18 the -- the savings to folks who live in the road district 19 and the County's participation, I think that if we can 20 incentivise, I think it's good. And, if you or Mr. Odom 21 come up with this way to do it, I think you both should be 22 commended. 23 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: By the way, I don't 24 want to leave Franklin out of that either, because Franklin 25 was -- 150 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Or Franklin. 2 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It was really the two 3 of them that got together first, and then I got involved. 4 And I said, "Hey, that sounds like something that's -- 5 that's doable and reasonable, and if the Court buys it, then 6 that's what we'll do." I would prefer to go with Option 7 1-A, and I'll make a motion to that effect, but I want 8 everybody to -- 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: Franklin, do you have 10 something? 11 MR. JOHNSTON: There's one other item we 12 talked about. I don't know if you changed it, but it -- we 13 had originally talked about. If it's in, for example, 14 Precinct 4, when we need the sealcoating, that doesn't 15 increase our budget; that comes out of what we'd normally do 16 in your precinct. We just wouldn't do some of the other 17 roads. 18 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. And there -- 19 there are ways -- yeah, I think it's a fair way to say 20 that -- that it becomes a scheduling -- it's a scheduling 21 exercise, because sealcoating is done on a scheduled basis 22 on a 5- to 7-year -- correct me if I'm wrong, Len. 23 MR. ODOM: Seven. 24 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Five or seven. And -- 25 but -- so we may -- it may change the phasing, but it's not 151 1 a big budget hit to us, is what -- is the bottom line of 2 that. It's not a -- it's not a big thing that we're just 3 going to dump that money on the budget all at once. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: How many similar 5 subdivisions, pre-'84, do we have in -- 6 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Where there's no 7 county road in them? 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Without county roads. 9 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think we found there 10 was -- obviously, Shadow Ridge. Let's see. There was -- 11 there was one other that I thought was pre-'84. 12 MR. ODOM: I think you told me -- I don't 13 know, but I -- what you told me were three others outside 14 this one. 15 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah. I know Shadow 16 Ridge is one. I think there was one other that I had -- I 17 can't remember the name of it now, pre-'84, and it was the 18 only one I could find. See, some of the -- many of the 19 pre-'84 subdivisions had their roads brought in one way or 20 another by '84. I mean, they were -- some were already 21 there by '84 as part of the system. And, if you go through 22 and check all the court orders, there was a big court order 23 in '59 that took a whole bunch of roads in Precinct 4. 24 And -- in '59. 25 MR. ODOM: And '87. 152 1 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Then again in '88 was 2 the one that Commissioner 4 -- Precinct 4. That was the one 3 Commissioner Baldwin did, and I have referred to that often, 4 you know, 'cause that's part of my bible in the big book 5 there of road districts. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I had something to do 7 with your bible? 8 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Good. 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: Is any of this project 11 eligible for funding under the Schreiner Road Trust? 12 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, I have asked 13 that question of several people. I don't know for sure that 14 it's not. It could be. The only thing -- the only reason I 15 hesitate to say that, yes, it is, is that without 16 researching that area, is that I think the Trust said it 17 would be public roads in -- in Precincts 1 or 4, but it -- 18 it didn't really define much of what a public road is. I 19 mean, what they meant by that. I didn't know whether it had 20 to be something that was a thoroughfare -- that may be in 21 fine print, it may say that. I haven't read that. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Seems like it said 23 something that like, or it related to farm-to-market type 24 things. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Roads leading to the 153 1 courthouse. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, or the mohair 3 house, is what it was. 4 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: But, at any rate, we 5 made -- I have not closed the door on that possibility. I 6 haven't talked about that with either Franklin -- or I have 7 a possibility that that would be a reasonable thing, and if 8 the Trust allows it. I'm just not sure at this point if the 9 Trust does. 10 MR. ODOM: May I -- may I also say that we 11 have some things coming up in this next budget when we get 12 into -- for right-of-way; our High Water Bridge is one of 13 them, and Sheppard Rees will be another one. So, it might 14 be -- it's not that that fund is not capable of taking that 15 additional amount, but I want the Court to understand that 16 there's more coming up in this budget that we'll submit in 17 June on that Schreiner Trust Fund. And I think that you can 18 -- I don't think there's exclusively anything that says you 19 can't, because that's up to the court. And the trustees 20 of -- of the -- of the fund do too, I guess. 21 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We can certainly 22 pursue that -- I mean look at it, because I think it's a 23 reasonable request. 24 MR. ODOM: But that's a viable option, that 25 is. 154 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Did you make a motion? 2 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I haven't yet, but 3 I'm -- 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: I'm still troubled by the 5 fact that we are breaching the policy that we have adhered 6 to strictly in the year and a half I've been on the Court; 7 that in order for a non-county-maintained road to be brought 8 into the County maintenance program, it has to be brought up 9 to the County standards. And, your broad definition of 10 maintenance is almost Clintonian in its application. I 11 still think we need to face the fact that we're going to use 12 County funds to finish bringing what are now private 13 roads -- 14 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: No. 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: -- up to -- well, public, but 16 non-County-maintained -- 17 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Public, but not 18 County-maintained. 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: -- roads up to the standards 20 for inclusion in the County-maintained road system. And, 21 what we're doing is, instead of allowing the homeowners, if 22 we do this, to fund the additional $40,000 over 30 years at 23 a cost of slightly less than $3,000 a year, we're going to 24 ask the taxpayers of Kerr County to fund the $40,000 at 25 once. So, there's no time -- time differential on money 155 1 that we're going to take out of the Road and Bridge budget 2 to place on this particular project. 3 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I wouldn't argue with 4 that analysis, and that's the reason -- the reason I say 5 that I think that is a -- is reasonable to do that is it 6 is -- we're talking about an very narrow definition. If 7 this opened a Pandora's Box of anybody being able to come 8 forward and saying, "You did it for Lake Ingram Estates; 9 therefore, you ought to do it for my roads," that's just not 10 so. That's the reason I foot-stomped this so hard, that 11 this would apply to pre-1984 subdivisions willing to form a 12 road district, willing to issue bonds. That is a very 13 narrow change to our policy, and it is -- I am recommending 14 it as a change to our policy. And I know it would be very 15 important when we get to Shadow Ridge, 'cause I think it 16 will have a bigger effect, because I think you've got 17 more -- you've got fewer -- you've got less -- you've got 18 less valuation than this subdivision, and it's going to be 19 difficult for those people to be able to do the -- to do the 20 job. And, I think that's -- I think we ought to incentivise 21 them to do that. I think this is a small price to pay, and 22 it is a change. I'm not -- I'm not trying to couch it in 23 any other terms. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If I understood 25 correctly, Commissioner, we're not adding to Road and 156 1 Bridge's budget or adding to the County budget as a whole; 2 we're redirecting dollars already committed for -- 3 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- sealcoat and so 5 forth? 6 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Redirecting them, in 8 this case, to this -- this particular project, am I correct? 9 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's right. And, 10 you know, in future years, we may have a budget impact 11 caused by taking more roads into the county. We'll have 12 that anyway, no matter who pays for the initial job. And, 13 so, that's the reason I say it's -- it's a change. It's -- 14 and I didn't want it to be Clintonian. I said up front this 15 is a very narrow -- very narrow change of our policy, only 16 applying to those subdivisions. And, I'll so move. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll second. 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner 19 Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Williams, that we adopt 20 Option 1-A, I presume, as -- 21 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: 1-A as the amount necessary 23 for completion of the roads, which includes surfacing by 24 Road and Bridge Department. I still -- I still have 25 questions about this. I mean, I -- you know, do we have any 157 1 idea what the average tax is going to be on the average -- 2 per hundred or per thousand? 3 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It will be about 1 4 percent in valuation. 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: About 1 percent per thousand? 6 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: 1 percent per 7 thousand -- well, I can give you a better number. 8 MR. ODOM: May I -- may I say something? 9 What may be -- what Bill has said, that we're going to take 10 it out of the Commissioners', understand, if it's 5,000 11 square yards or whatever that is, that's going to come out 12 of Larry's preventive maintenance, or Bill's or Buster's. 13 And, if they understand that, then what I'm going to be 14 spending is going to equate to that. And if -- and if your 15 constituents call me and ask me why it's not being done, 16 I'll tell them why. 17 JUDGE HENNEKE: The guy who -- in whichever 18 Commissioner's precinct it is that anticipated his road to 19 be resurfaced in three years, and he gets pushed back to 20 four and a half because this got -- 21 MR. ODOM: Shoved in. 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: -- shoved in there -- 23 MR. ODOM: But, you know, that is a 24 decision -- that is a management decision, and if the 25 Commissioner's willing to do that, then -- 158 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We've done that in my 2 precinct before. 3 MR. ODOM: And it -- you know, it -- but I 4 just -- you just need to understand that. That's -- that's 5 where we're coming from as a department. It makes no 6 difference if I do another road or I do this road, but it 7 all equates out the same way. 8 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: The total valuation is 9 $1,459,876. And, if you divide that into the $16,786 per 10 year, that will give you an annual rate, and that's about 1 11 percent. 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: What's the difference 13 between -- what I'm trying to get is what is the impact to 14 the taxpayer -- 15 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay, I'll give you -- 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: -- in the road district on 17 Option 1 and Option 1-A? 18 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes. The person that 19 has the highest valuation in the district today, on a single 20 lot, under -- under Option 1, is going to pay $2,102 in 21 taxes per year. That goes to $1,784 if we go with Option 22 1-A. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Pretty significant. 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: That much? 25 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It's -- 159 1 MR. ODOM: By valuation. 2 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It's only by 3 valuation. We've got some unimproved properties -- there's 4 one nine-tenths of an acre property that's going to pay $14 5 in one case and $17 in the other, because it's only valued 6 at 1,260 bucks right now. And, what happens over time is 7 that -- remember that the amount paid off on the bonds is 8 constant from year to year, okay? With the fluctuations 9 given for variances in payment. But, around that $16,000, 10 $17,000 figure; that stays constant. And there's a chicken 11 and egg process here. As the road gets built, the 12 development's finally going to start in this old 13 subdivision, because you'll be able to get into it. And, in 14 fact, there's already "For Sale" signs popping up in there, 15 and people anticipating that there's going to be a road. 16 And it's -- some of that property is absolutely beautiful. 17 So, what's going to happen is -- is that building will 18 start -- and I think in two or three years, we're going to 19 see the valuations coming up, and these highly-taxed people, 20 you know, are going to be paying a little bit less, because 21 others are going to be paying more. So, over time, that 22 tends to -- the water tends to equalize. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- I share the 24 Judge's concern on it, but my -- I'm just thinking through 25 what we're -- the precedent we're, maybe, setting. And 160 1 evidently, there are very few subdivisions that would 2 qualify under the narrow interpretation, but what about 3 roads that weren't platted subdivisions, of which there are 4 many in the county that are private and have never been 5 brought in? I don't see how we can make a distinction 6 there, because it's a platted subdivision, if the road 7 existed prior to 1984. 8 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think -- 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Would we have to give 10 them the same benefits, whether it's platted or unplatted? 11 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, then, are they 12 willing to form a road district? Are they willing to bond 13 out the cost of doing their part? If they are, then I would 14 say that's another consideration we could give it. I don't 15 suspect that there are too many people who -- in that 16 situation who are going to be willing to do either of those 17 first two steps. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think there's a lot 19 more than you think. I mean, I have several people -- there 20 are a lot of non-platted subdivisions that should have been 21 platted. I think there are two in my precinct, that people 22 are -- have asked me about road districts and maybe doing 23 it. And, you know, this is a way the County can be picking 24 up a portion of these old roads. I don't know, they may or 25 may not be pre-'84, but I don't see how you can make a 161 1 distinction, whether it be platted. If the road was in 2 existence prior to '84, it's going to have to almost be the 3 litmus test, it seems to me. And, so, I think it's a bigger 4 problem -- or "problem" may not be the right word, but a 5 bigger exposure for the County going with Option 1-A as a 6 precedent. I'm saying it's going to be -- I think the 7 potential could be worse than the three or four subdivisions 8 that we're aware of. 9 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I don't know. When 10 I've looked at -- and you may be right, but I would say when 11 I have looked at what it's taken on the part of the 12 landowners and on the part of this Commissioner to pull off 13 this road district so far, it is not something you go into 14 unless you are dedicated to spending the time and the money. 15 The landowners are going to pay the money to be able to make 16 this happen. We've still got a bond election and two-thirds 17 of the people still have to vote for it. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 19 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Two thirds of the 20 registered voters have to vote for it or it ain't going to 21 happen. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, then, last comment 23 and I'll be quiet on it, because this is a lot better for 24 the County than the way the County was operating before 25 Larry figured all this out. 162 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's true. And 2 I -- just as a follow-up to what Larry just said in terms of 3 the amount of work goes into it, not only by him, but the 4 level of work that has to take place on the -- on the end of 5 the property owner to get everybody lined up and to get this 6 thing up. That's the problem. 7 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: There were several -- 8 Mr. Gumert is here today, and -- he and his wife, and there 9 were several property owners that were instrumental in 10 making this happen. 11 JUDGE HENNEKE: Do you have a sense, though, 12 the difference in the election passing is a $40,000 13 contribution by the citizens -- the rest of the citizens of 14 Kerr County? 15 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Could be, I don't 16 know. But, I -- I have -- I have a sense that -- I have a 17 sense that the gesture we would be making is enough to put 18 it over the top for sure. And I think they would -- I mean, 19 there's obviously going to be some resistance for these 20 higher-valued properties. And -- as I would. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In my opinion, Judge, 22 it goes to the incentive Larry's outlining here. The 23 County's participation in this very narrow thing goes to 24 help answer -- or cause people to understand why the County 25 has not participated or is unwilling to help them do this. 163 1 And I've had that problem. People just don't understand why 2 the County can't come in and take over roads. Well, this 3 works toward giving -- building some understanding or 4 consensus that the County is willing to do a piece, but not 5 the entire thing. The burden really falls on the property 6 owner. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The small piece is close 8 to 20 percent. 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: Yeah. Small piece, 15 10 percent. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 15 to 20 percent. I 12 mean, it's a sizable contribution. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's down from 90 14 percent on another one you and I know about. 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: Is it just the law, or is it 16 our policy that we don't accept roads in the county until 17 they meet the proper standard? 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's our policy. 19 I can't think of the law. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You certainly can't 21 spend taxpayers' money on private property. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, you could accept 23 Goat Trail into County maintenance and make the County go 24 and fix it. I wouldn't want you to -- 25 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: You may have a tax 164 1 rate problem, even at Option 1-A. Mr. Henderson is trying 2 to chase that down. Again, this is a work in progress for 3 me. There may be a tax rate limitation that we may be up 4 against, even for 1-A. 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: It could be that 25 percent, 6 or -- 7 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: No, no, no. It's not 8 that. We're well within that. It's the rate at which the 9 payback is required, based on total valuation. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is this sinking fund 11 built into this? 12 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes, that's 13 everything. All of the loading, everything. But, the point 14 is, is that we'll -- and we'll probably need to get -- he's 15 trying to get a quick answer on that. There may be a rate 16 limitation. 17 JUDGE HENNEKE: Which you can't charge over a 18 certain -- can't charge one cent per -- well, it's -- it's 19 like a -- what is it? That's come down. A dollar-something 20 for -- a dollar-something a thousand or whatever. I have to 21 divide it out again. But, that can be a showstopper at this 22 point. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is that something we're 24 going to have momentarily or -- 25 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Momentarily. But, I 165 1 mean, we can go ahead with this discussion, I mean, as far 2 as whether or not we go with Option 1 or Option 1-A. 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: We have a motion and second. 4 Any further discussion? Tommy? 5 MR. TOMLINSON: I think -- I think Bob is 6 probably correct. 7 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Would you have any 8 idea what the limit is? 9 MR. TOMLINSON: At first, I -- my reaction to 10 it was 15 cents. 11 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's that -- no, 12 that -- the 15 cents is on the special road tax. 13 MR. JOHNSTON: Correct. 14 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's a different -- 15 that's a different statute. 16 MR. TOMLINSON: So I didn't -- that's just 17 what I -- 18 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's the 15 cents 19 per hundred. That's the 15 cents per hundred for 15 years. 20 That's a special road tax. That's not road district. So, 21 if that's -- if that is, in fact -- if it is a -- if it is 22 a rate limitation, then it's not the Transportation Code; 23 it's got to be somewhere else. It must be in -- perhaps 24 it's the -- 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Property Tax. 166 1 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- Property Tax Code. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just to kind of sum it up 3 here, I mean, I don't -- I have trouble with Option 1-A. At 4 the same time, I think it is in the County's best interests 5 to get these road districts through somehow, because -- of 6 course, the law may be moot at this point on this particular 7 issue, but, I mean, it's -- if I do vote against it, it's 8 because of that issue of the County's contributing funds to 9 the road district. I mean, I certainly appreciate all the 10 work that's been put into it, and hope there's a way we can 11 make them work, but I'm just concerned about where that may 12 take us. And also, I'm concerned, really -- while I hear 13 Leonard and Franklin saying that it's going to come out of 14 your budget in ten years, when Leonard isn't here and 15 Franklin isn't here and you aren't here and I'm not here, I 16 can just see it's going to be all just kind of worked in. 17 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Oh, you have to -- for 18 the sealcoating, anyway, that's an ongoing process. I mean, 19 yeah. Eventually, it would have to be. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's going to get worked 21 in. But enough comments from me. 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: Should we go ahead and vote 23 on this one, or do you want to wait on Mr. Henderson? 24 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I would like to go 25 ahead and vote on this. We can hold the last one, which is 167 1 really where all that comes to, anyway. 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion's been made and 3 seconded. Any further discussion? If not, all in favor, 4 raise your right hand. 5 (Commissioners Baldwin, Williams, and Griffin indicated by raised hand that they were in 6 favor of the motion.) 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 8 (Commissioner Letz indicated by raised hand that he was opposed to the motion.) 9 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries by a vote of 11 three to one. 12 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay. Do we have 13 something else we can go on to? 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: No. 15 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's it? 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, Tommy has something 17 he'd like to revisit with us. 18 (Discussion off the record.) 19 MR. TOMLINSON: I'm back about the holster 20 bill. But I think this -- the confusion -- my confusion 21 about the bill is it has a couple of -- where Trooper Hall's 22 confusion about his -- his ability to spend the capital 23 funds that the Court approved. So I -- also, I think that 24 it's -- that it's -- I don't know how to put this, but it 25 demonstrates the pitfalls of -- of me trying to answer 168 1 questions about bills off-the-cuff. And -- and I would -- I 2 would appreciate, you know, if -- in the future, if 3 there's -- you know, if there's questions about the bills, 4 that -- that the individual members of the Court come to my 5 office prior so I have advance notice. And I -- you know, I 6 really -- I appreciate the Court -- and I'm sure the 7 taxpayers do, too -- questioning any bill that's on -- 8 that's on the -- on the agenda. But, if it kind of 9 really -- I mean, I don't want to give the Court some bad 10 answers. And -- and sometimes it kind of puts me on the 11 spot, not knowing what -- what's behind -- or not having the 12 opportunity to -- to visit with the person involved. 13 Luckily, Trooper Hall came along after lunch, and I said, 14 "You come to the meeting." And so he -- he wants to 15 explain, you know, the situation, what he did. But -- and, 16 at the same time, you know, I want some help from you guys 17 in the future in trying to -- to help -- you know, help you 18 understand and help me give you the better answer, because I 19 didn't give you the better answer this morning, because I 20 didn't -- I didn't -- my clerks didn't understand exactly 21 what went on either. So, rather than err, I would rather 22 have the time to approach the person involved and have -- 23 you know, have at least a day to -- to determine the proper 24 answer. Trooper Hall? 25 MR. HALL: Now you can leave me in the cold 169 1 up here. Gentlemen, I apologize if I caused 2 miscommunication. It's -- that's my fault. That's not 3 Tommy's fault, that's my fault. I was under the impression 4 on that Capital Outlay -- or what I didn't realize is you 5 got to get approval on each item. Is that a correct 6 statement? 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: Over $200, you have to get 8 approval on that. 9 MR. HALL: This was under $200. 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: I think the issue was whether 11 or not this was a Capital Outlay. And -- because -- 12 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, it wasn't -- it wasn't 13 part of the -- of the -- 14 MR. HALL: Of that list that I gave you? 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: Correct. 16 MR. TOMLINSON: That list that he provided 17 originally. 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: We approved -- for every 19 department, we approve each specific item under Capital 20 Outlay. 21 MR. HALL: Okay. 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: So many dollars per whatever. 23 So -- 24 MR. HALL: Okay. 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: To vary from that, you really 170 1 need to come back to Court, as did you at one time, and get 2 a -- change the list, and we'll almost always -- I can't see 3 why we wouldn't go along with you, so long as it's in your 4 budget. 5 MR. HALL: Well, I apologize. That's my fault, 6 because I didn't -- wasn't using my head for a change. But, 7 what this is, it is a -- it's another gun belt, but it's not 8 like this one. It is a cordura belt. It's one that I can 9 wear over my coveralls that I don't have to worry about 10 getting dirty. It gets dirty, it stays dirty. For 11 instance, down there the other day. When I -- after you 12 left, I put my coveralls on. I did not put it on at that 13 time. When I would use this is when I'm working by myself 14 and I'm doing these inspections on these trucks. I put on a 15 set of coveralls to crawl under these trucks and everything. 16 Well, if I don't have somebody watching my back, I sure want 17 to be able to take care of business if I need to take care 18 of business, and that's what it's for. The State doesn't 19 provide it, and that's why I was asking y'all to do that. 20 And if I do I need to give y'all a -- a memo of some type -- 21 is that what -- how that -- is that how it needs to work? 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, it's in the nature of a 23 -- of a budget amendment, in the sense that if you have an 24 approved list of capital items and you want to change 25 that -- for instance, last year Barbara Nemec had money in 171 1 her budget to buy a printer. She didn't need a printer, but 2 she needed chairs. 3 MR. HALL: Yes, sir. 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: For her office. She came in, 5 she said, "Can I use the money you've appropriated for a 6 printer to buy chairs?" 7 MR. HALL: Okay. 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: And we approved that. That's 9 the nature of the change that needs to be made. 10 MR. HALL: Okay. Well, like I said, I 11 apologize, gentlemen, 'cause it's my fault. I just assumed, 12 and you know what happens when you assume. 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: So, I think it would be 14 proper if you would give -- send a letter to either myself 15 or Tommy saying -- 16 MR. HALL: Sure. 17 JUDGE HENNEKE: -- you'd like to use funds to 18 buy this instead of this, or -- 19 MR. HALL: Yes, sir. 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: Or within this. 21 MR. HALL: Okay. 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: And we can either -- we'll 23 bring it to court next time and retroactively -- 24 MR. HALL: Okay. 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: -- take action on it. But 172 1 that's -- I think that's -- 2 MR. HALL: 'Cause, like I say, I sure don't 3 mind paying for it out of my pocket; I'm going to buy it one 4 way or the other. 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: It's an appropriate piece of 6 equipment for you, but we need to make sure that -- one of 7 the things we do is we look back in time and see what was 8 done -- 9 MR. HALL: Sure. 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: -- with the money that was 11 appropriated, which we spend quite a bit of time trying to 12 unravel some cans of worms. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I brought it up this 14 morning, 'cause there's some -- I just simply don't 15 understand -- let me read one of the items that you 16 purchased. 17 MR. HALL: Okay. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Bianca Accumole 16- to 19 23-inch expandable -- what in the world is that? 20 MR. HALL: That right there. (indicating) 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: See, I don't know 22 those things. 23 MR. HALL: Sure. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We don't know these 25 things. What are we spending? 173 1 MR. HALL: And what I -- 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Cuff case. 3 MR. HALL: What I guess it's for is actually to 4 carry the flashlight in. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And the cuff case? 6 MR. HALL: Handcuff case. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Handcuff case, okay. 8 Uncle Mike's nylon belt keeper? 9 MR. HALL: That's these things. (indicating) 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Uncle Mike's? 11 MR. HALL: That's the name-brand. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Slide holster, Glock 13 17. I assume that has something to do with your gun? 14 MR. HALL: That's a holster for the pistol. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Uncle Mike's 16 ultra-duty belt. That's just -- is that another belt? 17 MR. HALL: No, there ought to be just one belt 18 on there. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, there's two. 20 MR. HALL: There was one thing that I took 21 back, 'cause I got the wrong holster, and I exchanged it for 22 the right holster. They gave me -- they sold me the wrong 23 holster. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Ultra-duty belt? 25 Deluxe Duty Belt? 174 1 MR. HALL: Okay. That's the belt, itself. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's the belt. 3 MR. HALL: Okay? 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And, did you return 5 this wrong item? 6 MR. HALL: Yes. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, that was -- 8 MR. HALL: Yeah. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I assume that was 10 marked off, Tommy? 11 MR. TOMLINSON: Oh, yeah. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And by an Accumole DBL 13 mag pouch, did -- do y'all know what we're buying? 14 MR. HALL: Double pouch. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What? 16 MR. HALL: Double pouch. (indicating) 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Put that up. That 18 scares me when you pull that kind of stuff out. But that's 19 what triggered all of it. I like to know what I'm spending 20 the taxpayers' money on. 21 MR. HALL: Not a problem. If I need to 22 explain it, I'll be glad to explain it. 23 JUDGE HENNEKE: Just get us a list. 24 MR. HALL: I just need to write it down, 25 instead of -- 175 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: If it's not what was approved 2 on October the 1st, then you need to come in and -- under 3 Capital items, you need to come in and ask for a change. If 4 it's between line item -- say, between Postage and Office 5 Supplies, you do a budget amendment through -- 6 MR. HALL: Okay. 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: -- Tommy's office. 8 MR. HALL: Okay. 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: That way, it keeps all the 10 numbers in right boxes. 11 MR. HALL: No problem. Like I say, that's my 12 fault. 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: Thanks for coming by. 14 MR. HALL: The other thing I want to tell 15 y'all, everything that you've got I used almost the other 16 day down there. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: All kinds of stuff out 18 there. We had more people out there than -- 19 MR. HALL: Well, I mean, everything that -- 20 everything that I bought so far, I used that one day. And 21 that's unbelievable, to use everything at one time. But, 22 that's the instances that I'm talking about. You don't use 23 them all the time. They may sit there for six months and 24 not be used, but then at one instance -- and that was -- and 25 that's one of them right there. 176 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: This morning we talked 2 about that briefly. Actually, Travis was the one who pretty 3 much coordinated everything, from what I could tell. He was 4 telling me what to do; he told me to get back. 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: Go back home. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the reason I 7 didn't go down the barricade. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, anyway -- 9 MR. HALL: On the instances like that, where 10 it's a Haz-Mat spill, they normally do that. Part of my 11 duties is I am the so-called Haz-Mat expert. I hate to see 12 what -- 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Y'all did a good job. 14 MR. HALL: Well, I appreciate it. But that's 15 what that boils down to, is -- is the majority of this 16 equipment is stuff that the State does not furnish. They 17 ought to. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I say shame on the 19 State of Texas for not providing you with the tools you need 20 to do your job. 21 MR. HALL: Yeah, but then look how much 22 better protected you are. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, I'm not -- I'm not 24 throwing a bunch of rocks, but I'm throwing a few. 25 MR. HALL: Thank y'all. 177 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I pay my taxes for 2 that. 3 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Back to the Item 14 4 now? 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes, Mr. Griffin. Have 6 you -- 7 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: You can see that I'm 8 smiling. The report is that we do not have a problem, that 9 that -- the limitation -- the only limitation, as we have 10 discussed in court previously, is on bond issues and road 11 districts, you are limited for the amount of -- the total 12 amount of bond to 25 percent of the appraised value. And, 13 we're well within that. I mean, by a bunch. We're well 14 within that. So, Item 3 is then -- and here is the last 15 handout I'll give you. This is a copy of the order calling 16 for a bond election. 17 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And this -- there's a 18 quick interesting little story on this. Bob finally got me 19 steered right on how we had to do this order. It runs 20 through seven pages, as I recall. There are several pieces 21 of it that are very important, and Tom Spurgeon, a lawyer 22 who works these issues for Bob down in San Antonio, e-mailed 23 this to me with the fill-in-the-blanks kind of thing. Got 24 the blanks filled in in a hurry, thanks to Jannett and the 25 Clerk's Office coming up with election judges and -- and I 178 1 called Butch Young, who has been one of the instrumental 2 landowners in the district, and he got Mr. Reichert to agree 3 to have the -- the polling place, since Mr. Reichert's 4 property is in the district. That will be the polling place 5 on August the 12th, if we're able to pull all this off. 6 There will be early voting. It will be just like any other 7 election; vote by mail, there will be early voting and so 8 on, and that's what you'll see in this -- in this order. 9 I sent this back to Mr. Spurgeon, the 10 attorney. He in turn blessed it said it looked like we had 11 everything in there, that he was optimistic. I went ahead 12 and put in the amount for Option 1-B. I could have changed 13 that if we -- or 1-A. I could have changed that if we'd had 14 to, but I went ahead and put that in there to see that this 15 is not only the whereas's and all of that, that says we're 16 going to do that; that this is a -- is in the form of a 17 proposition. This is approved by Commissioners Court. 18 There's a signature page for you, Judge, that is on there if 19 we approve this. And then there is an Exhibit A that goes 20 into some other detail, and then a certificate for the 21 order, which also has to be part of the package. And this 22 is -- all this does is just says that there will be an 23 election. There still has to be -- a two-thirds majority of 24 registered voters in the district would have to approve this 25 before the bonds could be issued. And, I would move that we 179 1 approve this order as written. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll second -- 3 MR. HENDERSON: Excuse me, may I make one 4 editorial comment, sir? 5 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Sure. 6 MR. HENDERSON: I don't know if Mr. Spurgeon 7 mentioned this early vote. You are -- you've got 8 a.m. to 8 5 p.m. If anybody plans to take lunch break, we need to put 9 8:00 to 12:00 and 1:00 to 5:00. 10 MS. PIEPER: We've got that covered. It will 11 be 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. 12 MR. HENDERSON: Just double-checking. 13 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Good. 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner 15 Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, that we adopt the 16 order calling a bond election in Lake Ingram Estates Road 17 District. Any further discussion? 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes. On the 19 certificate of order, last page, correct my name. The 20 middle initial is incorrect. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Look at the one right 22 above that. Please spell my name correctly. 23 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Oh. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's where the A -- 25 they switched the A and the H. 180 1 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: This was an old 2 version. Sorry about that. I'll correct that. I've got 3 it -- and I may have a corrected copy, as a matter of fact. 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further discussion? 5 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Sorry about that, 6 gentlemen. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just switch the 8 initials. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mine's right. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: As usual. That's 11 'cause you sit down there. 12 (Discussion off the record.) 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: All in favor, raise your 14 right hand. 15 (The motion was carried by unanimous vote.) 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 17 (No response.) 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I guess I can put all 20 this in my Shadow Ridge file for form. 21 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: You may. 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: If there's no other business 23 to come before this Commissioners Court, we stand adjourned. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Amen. 25 (Commissioners Court adjourned at 2:25 p.m.) 181 1 STATE OF TEXAS | 2 COUNTY OF KERR | 3 The above and foregoing is a true and complete 4 transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as 5 County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County, 6 Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth. 7 DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 17th day of May, 2000. 8 9 10 JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk 11 BY: _________________________________ Kathy Banik, Deputy County Clerk 12 Certified Shorthand Reporter 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25