~-.
ia_
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT
Regular Session
Monday, August 13, 2001
9:00 a.m.
Commissioners' Courtroom
Kerr County Courthouse
Kerrville, Texas
V
O
PRESENT: FREDERICK L. HENNEKE, Kerr County Judge
H.A. "BUSTER"~ BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1
WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2
JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3
LARRY GRIFFIN, Commissioner Pct. 4
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I N D E X
August 13, 2001
PAGE
--- Commissioners Comments 3
1.1 Pay Bills ~7 ls~ 4' 9
1.2 Budget Amendmentso?7/.s.s °Z 7~~o J 10
1.3 Late Bills ~7~(p ~ 27
1.4 Read and Approve Minutes o77~7L(~ 29
1.5 Approve and Accept Monthly Reports/7~ 30
2.1 Variance to platting for family member ~/SCtt SS~6/1
	and/or variance to lot size for commercial use	30
2.2	ring for scanning
Presentation by Voelkel Engin	
	~
county subdivision plat files i ~5C'e~JS: b~	91
2.3	Preliminary Revision of Plat, Lots 176, 177, 178,	
	and 179, Spicer Ranch III, Precinct 1 a'~(7~	46
2.4	Approve name changes, privately maintained roads	49~7/~.3
2.5	Set Public Hearing to eliminate du licate road	
	names for County-maintained roads~iSe~`5~i6'1	50
2.6	Approve cell phone to replace voter telephone line	52
2.7	Approve issuance of Certificates of Approval for
DI	i
SCO SSi~~
	Radio Project, authorize financial adviser to	
	proceed with necessary documentation & approvals	57
2.8	Discuss order creating new public facilities	
	corporation to hold title to Juvenile Detention/	5et~~j~~}/
	Facility, and approve form of Bylaws & Articles	
	of Incorporation	64
2.9	2002 Texas & County Retirement Plan options	68
2.10	Authorize Sheriff to commission peace fficer-	
	certified jailers as deputies a ~l~ ~	88
2.11	Upgrading equipment to maintain TLETS connection	94~'~I/7-
2.8*	Approve order creating new public facilities	
	corporation p~7/7 ~P	98
2.12	Bathroom location for Flat Rock Lake Park,	
	submission of sewer tap request o~7/ 77	100
2.13	Approving WETS water conservation brochures? //i' ~	104
2.14	Authorize signatures for TCDP Colonia Planning	
	Study Grant, Contract No. 720135 0777 9	109
~
2.15	Approve Indigent Health Care Coordinator contract	112p~ '/
2.16	Creation of committee or working group to develop	
	county economic development program ~/~Gc~ sy~k~	115
2.17	Courthouse parking and traffic flow policy	124
2.18	Orde 9, proposed revisions to
Proposed Change	
	~f
scope of work pl7 ~ ~~	132
2.19	Approval of subcontracts for renovation of Annex/	
	Juvenile Probation offices i~ 7/ ~ Z-	135
1.3*	Additional Late Bills ~ / ~ 'J7	137
2.20	nt ttorney
u
Step and grade for new Assistant Co	144
	~
/
U7/~~~	
---	Adjourned	149
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
On Monday, August 13, 2001, at 9:00 a.m., a regular meeting
of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in the
Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, Kerrville,
Texas, and the following proceedings were had in open court:
P R O C E E D I N G S
JUDGE HENNEKE: Good morning, everyone. It's
9 o'clock in the morning on Monday, August 13, Year 2001,
and we will call to order this regular Commissioners Court
meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court. If y'all
will please stand with me, join me a moment of prayer,
followed by the pledge of allegiance.
(Prayer and pledge of allegiance.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you. At this time,
anyone wishing to address the Court on an item not listed on
the regular agenda may come forward and do so. Is there
anyone who would like to address the Court on an item not
listed on Lhe regular agenda? Once again, is there anyone
who'd like to address the Court on an item not listed on the
regular agenda? Seeing none, we'll move directly into the
Commissioners' comments, and we'll start this morning with
Commissioner Baldwin.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. Okay. The
only commenC I have is, guess what time of the year this is?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Football season.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Football season,
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
that's exactly right. We completed one week of two-a-days,
and of course they couldn't have their practice this morning
unless I was there; I ran by this morning. And they're out
there in the hot sun knocking heads like a bunch of crazy
people. But, it looks like a successful season for the
Kerrville Tivy Antlers.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Actually, I think it's
pre-mock trial season, is what it is.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, okay. No, it's
football season.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Anything else?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, that's all, sir.
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm going to pass,
Judge.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What it means is that
football has started; baseball is finally over, so you'll
have to listen to Buster now for the next couple of months
instead of me.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Now we have to listen
to Buster on football.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Only comment I have is
just a little bit of an update on water issues, statewide
and Region J. It's a -- part of this is actually the reason
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
~-.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.-.
25
I missed the meeting last week. The State -- and I bring
this up with a little bit of displeasure in my voice,
hopefully. The way the Water Development Board's decided to
handle the State Water Plan, they -- I don't know if they
liked or didn't like what they got from the various regions
around the state, but they decided to put together another
entity called the stakeholders that is going to be
writing -- or working on about one-third of the -- or one
volume of the State Water Plan. There'll be three volumes
of the State Water Plan; one will be what this new entity is
creating, one is what the regions did, and one is a bunch of
technical data that no one's probably going to look at.
But, the stakeholders -- this is something I
found out about, I guess, late last month, and through a
number of calls and arguments and everything else with the
Water Development Board, I ended up being appointed to this
thing, which doesn't make me happy, 'cause I don't have time
for another committee. But, they're -- in my opinion, what
they've done, they got a bunch of -- I guess there were a
lot of complaints in the regional process about some of the,
I guess, bureaucratic-type groups and organizations of the
state not being involved in that process too much. And by
that, I mean everything from the Farm Bureau and Texas
Cattle Rancher's Association on down to environmental groups
like Sierra Club, National Wildlife Federation, et cetera.
6
1
-- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.-~
25
So, they put together this group of individuals, about 120
people, a bunch of bureaucrats, and they're having a big
impact now the on the State Water Plan. Probably shouldn't
surprise us that Austin is, you know, going to do it this
way, but anyway, it's forcing me to spend a lot of time in
Austin at the moment. I'll be there the next couple of days
again. But, to just kind of update, the regional process
may still be the bottoms-up plan, but it's getting a lot of
direction from the top at the moment.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Do you think the stakeholders
group is a result of the river authorities feeling they
weren't controlling the process?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I will say that river
authorities are -- they have a strong representation on the
stakeholders process. The interesting thing is -- well, and
so do underground water districts. I mean, a lot of the --
I guess there's an organization of river authorities, also
an organization of underground water districts. It's those
types of organizations that have a voice in it now, which to
me are nothing more than lobby groups. This other thing
that they did -- and this is one of the reasons I got really
annoyed with the Water Development Board -- is every region
had a representative or someone at least from their region
except Region J. And I was assured that they weren't
singled out, but when I really got into it -- we were one of
7
1
.-- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
.-.
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the more difficult regions; we disagreed a lot with what
they were doing. I almost feel were we singled out for this
reason. And, the other -- and the other, flip side of that,
the region that had the most representation is Region L,
which is San Antonio. They had every organization you can
imagine related to water and the Edwards Aquifer Authority,
the Trinity, everything down there had members. So, it was
a little bit, you know, I guess, disheartening to have to go
through two to three years of work and then have another
group formed at the last minute by the Water Development
Board. Which is purely administrative; no legislative basis
for this, but it's being done. Maybe it will not be as bad
as I think it's going to be.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let's hope not.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's all.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Larry?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Just a big well-done
to all of the county volunteer fire departments that
responded to the fire last week very effectively and very
quickly. It was a good example of -- of regional support,
and it worked out very well and. got the fire out. It was a
job well done. Also, that applies, by the way, to -- our
Road and Bridge Department was a big part of that same
effort in supporting all of the departments out there with
8
r+.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
their trucks and diesel.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Good. Couple of
administrative things --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Oh, I should mention,
the Sheriff's Department was out there, of course, but
they're always there. So --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They're always in the
way.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Couple of administrative
matters. I'll remind everyone that our next meeting on
August 27th is an evening meeting. It is our regular
scheduled quarterly evening meeting, so keep that in mind as
you make preparations for that meeting. Also, I will tell
the Court that I intend to call a -- a meeting on Tuesday,
August 21st, at -- beginning at 1:30 in the afternoon, to
consider and discuss budget issues. It will not be a
workshop. So that if we care to, we can make decisions, and
it's going to be fairly open-ended so that we can take up
the matters we need to in order to resolve any remaining
budget issues and -- and move forward through the process of
approving and adopting both the budget and the tax rate
prior to the end of September. So, those two things are
coming up. I'll also remind everyone that TexDOT is having
a public hearing. The public hearing actually starts at
7:30 tonight, but there's an open house from 6:30 to 7:30 at
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
9
the Hal Peterson Middle School cafetorium. The topic is the
High Water Bridge. And, I will be there and I will reaffirm
for the n'th time the County's support and need for the High
Water Bridge on an expedited basis. So, please keep those
three things in mind as we move forward over the next couple
of weeks.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, can you believe
they would have a public hearing right in the middle of
football practice? Obviously, they have their priorities
out of line. They can meet at midnight.
(Laughter.)
JODGE HENNEKE: Or in the middle of the
afternoon.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Heat of the day.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. With no further ado,
let's pay some bills. Mr. Auditor? Does anyone have any
questions or comments of Tommy regarding the bills as
presented?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move we pay the
bills.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Third.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner
Baldwin, second by Commissioner Williams, that the Court
authorize payment of the bills as presented and recommended
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
by the Auditor. Any further questions or comments? If not,
all in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(NO response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Budget
amendments. Number 1, J.P. Number 1.
MR. TOMLINSON: This is a request from Judge
Elliott to transfer $262.60 into his Part-Time Salary line
item. $121.34 is from Books, Publications, and Dues, $41.26
from Conferences, and $100 from Miscellaneous.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any questions or comments?
COMMISSIONER BALUWIN: I move for approval.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner
Baldwin, second by Commissioner Letz, that the Court approve
Budget Amendment Request Number 1 for J.P. 1. Any further
questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your
right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Budget
Amendment Request Number 2 comes from County Court at Law.
MR. TOMLINSON: This is a request from Judge
1]
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Brown to transfer $200 from Computer Supplies, $162 to
Office Supplies and $38 to Postage.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner
Williams, second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court
authorize Budget Amendment Number 2 for the County Court at
Law. Any further questions or comments? If not, all in
favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Number 3
comes to us from the County Treasurer.
MR. TOMLINSON: `t'his is a request from the
Treasurer to transfer $467.69 from Lease Copier, $200 to
Office Supplies and $267.69 to Postage. I have a -- a late
bill that I'd like a hand check for to the Kerrville
Postmaster for $272.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Letz,
second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court approve
Budget Amendment Request Number 3 for the County Treasurer
and authorize a hand check in the amount of $267.69 payable
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to the Postmaster. Any further questions or comments?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes. Was -- is -- was
that just an overestimated amount for Lease Copier? And why
was the cost so much less at this point than --
MR. TOMLINSON: Apparently was.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Is this -- we got it
for less than what we thought it would be?
(Mr. Tomlinson nodded.)
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any other questions or
comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(NO response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Number 4 is
from the Sheriff's Department.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. This is a request from
the Sheriff to transfer $7,568.70 from the Sheriff's budget
in the Radio Equipment line item, $6,185.42 to Inmate
Medical in the jail, $1,050 into Uniforms in the jail,
$306.51 into Investigation Expenses in the Sheriff's budget,
and $26.77 to Postage in the Sheriff's budget. Also, a
transfer of $600 from Employee Medical from the Sheriff's
budget to Employee Medical in the jail budget.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1/
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner
Williams, second by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court
authorize Budget Amendment Request Number 4 for the
Sheriff's Department. Any further questions or comments?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I do have one
question of the Sheriff. With regard to this, Rusty --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Fortunately, we've
had that Radio Equipment line item to take care of these,
but are these things going to level out in the next budget
year?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Inmate Medical, I have
no idea. We're in talks right now with Franklin Clinic and
r'amily Practice to see if we can come up with something.
This is a problem y'all know that I've, you know, hated all
year long, but I don't -- at this time, I don't know what
the answer is for inmate medical. I've increased it in this
next year's budget request. We are billing all the counties
that we house for, you know, but we have to pay it up front
and then have to wait for it to get back from those other
counties. But --
MR. LUCAS: Tell them what we've come up
with, too.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And we've also -- I've
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
14
worked with Travis Lucas on trying to get it set up and come
up with different forms so that the hospital will try
everything they can do to collect it from the inmates first,
because it is their responsibility, and then if not, we will
at that time file lawsuits against the inmates to collect it
back from them if we can't. But -- 'cause I just don't
think the County should be paying for all this medical
stuff, but we can't deny it; we have to give it to them.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Sheriff.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any other questions or
comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Number 5 is
for the District Courts.
MR. TOMLINSON: Part of this is to transfer
$315.08 from Special Trials out of the 198th court into
Special Trials in the 216th court. The other part is to
transfer $947.50 from Court-Appointed Attorneys line item in
the 198th court into that line item in the 216th court.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMM1SSi0NER GRIF'F'IN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Letz,
second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court approve
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
l7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Budget Amendment Request Number 5. Any further questions or
comments?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have a question.
Special Trials, Tommy, is that -- what is a special trial?
MR. TOMLINSON: When we try to segregate the
capital murder trials from all others.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And, some -- some of the
trials that we have here that we pay -- that we pay for up
front are the out-of-town --
MR. TOMLINSON: I don't know what this one is
for, but that's -- that's the purpose of it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: When we have an
out-of-town trial like that, are we reimbursed by the county
that it came from?
MR. TOMLINSON: Oh, sure, yeah. If it's not
our case, sure.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Most of those this year
that I've seen are Kerr County cases where there was a
change of venue to Boerne or somewhere and they had to try
them over there. Costs a lot more.
MR. TOMLINSON: The -- even though we're not
eligible, the reason we try to segregate that is -- is in an
effort to be reimbursed by the State, if and when we are
eligible. So, that -- that's the reason we do that.
,ti
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further questions or
comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(NO response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Number 6 is
for County Court at Law.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. This transfer is a
request from Judge Brown to transfer $1,016.18 from
Court-Appointed Attorneys line item out of the 198th court
into -- into that line item in the County Court at Law
budget.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUllGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Letz,
second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court approve
Budget Amendment Request Number 6. Any further questions or
comments?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Dumb question of the
day. Of course, this has been approved by the 198th court?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
MR. TOMLINSON: We try to just make the year.
Turns out that the 198th court had less activity than they
anticipated for this year, and we were fortunate enough to
17
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
have the money there to do it.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further questions or
comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Number 7 for
the county jail.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. This is a request from
the Sheriff to transfer $193.52 from Radio Equipment to
Prisoner Medical --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
MR. TOMLINSON: -- in the jail.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Letz,
second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court approve
Budget Amendment Request Number 7. Any questions or
comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Number 8 is
for the County Clerk's office.
MR. TOMLINSON: This request is from the
County Clerk to transfer $1,034.49 into the Lease Copier
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1S
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
line item in the County Clerk's budget, $292.49 from
Computer Software in the County Clerk's budget, and $742
from Ballot Expense out of the Elections budget.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner
Williams, second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court
approve Budget Amendment Request Number 8 for the County
Clerk's department. Any further questions or comments? If
not, all in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Number 9 is
from the Law Library.
MR. TOMLINSON: This is a request from the
District Clerk to increase the Law Library budget by
$702.50. That will necessitate bringing that amount of
money from the surplus funds in that budget.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are we supposed to
declare an emergency?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Letz,
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court approve the
-- declare a budget emergency and increase the book line
item for the Law Library by the amount of $702.50, with
funds to come from the surplus funds in that dedicated
account.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I have a question,
in view of I made the motion. Does that really qualify to
be an emergency? I know we have a bill and the books are
here, but, I mean, can you -- I mean, I don't know what
you'd do under that scenario, whether you --
JUDGE HENNEKE: My -- my belief is that since
there are funds in the -- since there are dollars in a
dedicated fund for that line item, that you can -- you can
declare an emergency for that.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: You have to declare an
emergency.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yeah, which makes it
different --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Than a normal.
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- than, say, for -- because
the money is sitting in a fund that's dedicated for that
purpose. Mr. Lucas? Do you think that's a fair --
MR. LUCAS: Well, unfortunately, I was
reading when y'all were going through all this stuff, so --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Hearing no dissent from the
20
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Assistant County Attorney --
MR. LUCAS: I'm sorry, guys. I'm getting
ready for another thing I'm going to talk about, actually.
JUDGE HENNEKE: It seems to me like we have
one of these on the Law Library every month. You know, the
thought -- when we went computerized, we were going to get
out of some of these books, but --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I guess these are the
pocket parts. Is it? Wouldn't it be pockets parts? I
mean, we're not actually buying books.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Disks and stuff,
probably.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Disks and stuff.
MR. TOMLINSON: I have -- I have a bill; it's
actually -- it's for -- it's for -- from West Law, and it's
for the charges associated with -- with the --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Computerized.
MR. TOMLINSON: -- the computerization.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Just happens to be in
a line item called Books.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further questions or
comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(NO response.)
21
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Number 10
relates to the County Auditor.
MR. TOMLINSON: This is my request to
transfer $49.78 from our Telephone line item to Conferences.
I have a -- 1 have a bill I need a hand check for, and it's
for $170, and it's to the Texas Association of County
Auditor's Conference Fund.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Where is it, Tommy?
MR. TOMLINSON: E1 Paso.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Oh, boy, you got lucky.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's as good as
Beaumont.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Letz,
second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court approve
Budget Amendment Request Number 10 and authorize a hand
check in the amount of $170 payable to the Texas Association
of County Auditors. Any further questions or comments? If
not, all in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carried. Are you sure
you want us to approve that, Tommy?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
22
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Sure you want to go to
E1 Paso in August?
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, actually, it's in
October, but I have to get my money in before October.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Budget Amendment Request
Number 11 is from Juvenile Probation.
MR. TOMLINSON: This is -- we've had this
amendment last meeting for alternate housing. I left it
open, as last time, to -- for the Court to decide if they
wanted to use -- continue to use moneys from that Radio
Equipment line item for this purpose, or if we want to
increase the budget by this much.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My preference is Radio
Equipment still. So moved.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Letz,
second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court approve
Budget Amendment Request Number 11 from the Juvenile
Probation Department, with the funds to come from the Radio
Equipment line item in the Sheriff's Department. Any
further questions or comments?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Question. Have we
significantly increased this budget for next year?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay.
23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any other questions or
comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(NO response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Number 12 is
from the Maintenance Departrent.
MR. TOMLINSON: This request is from Glenn
Holekamp to transfer $860 from Major Repairs in the -- the
Maintenance Department budget to Trash Service, and to
transfer $275 from Major Repairs at the Ag Barn facility to
the Telephone line item in that facility.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have a question. I see
Brian back here -- I mean, not Brian. Mike. Why do we have
so many little dumpsters there instead of one big dumpster?
MR. SMART: That's the way it's always been.
We've looked into -- occasionally, we get bigger dumpsters
for the larger events.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is it -- cost-wise, it
doesn't cost us more to have all these little ones? I
just -- it seems to me that it may be cheaper to get bigger
dumpsters than having six little dumpsters.
MR. SMART: I'm not sure, but I will check
into it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 1 don't know how B.F.I.
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2s
charges all that stuff, but just a thought.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Is that a motion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's a motion to
approve the amendment.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: SeCOrid.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Letz,
second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court approve
Budget Amendment Request Number 12 for the Maintenance
Department and the Ag Barn. Any further questions or
comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Item Number
13 is for the Sheriff's Department and the jail.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. This is a request from
-- from the Sheriff to transfer $2,517.33 from Radio
Equipment, $350.85 to Lease Copier in the Sheriff's Office,
$1,760.69 to Vehicle Maintenance in the Sheriff's Office,
$15.90 into Jail Uniforms, and $389.89 to Prisoner Medical
in the jail budget.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER W1LLlAMS: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Letz,
second by Commissioner Williams, that the Court approve
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
is
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
zs
budget Amendment Request Number 13. Any questions or
comments?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I've got a question,
just to refresh my memory. On Vehicle Maintenance, is this
one of our leased vehicles or one of our older vehicles?
Or --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: What a lot of this -- of
this maintenance is, is tires, things like that. The first
set of -- of vehicles -- new vehicles we put on the road now
have about 23,000, 24,000 miles on them, and we're replacing
Lires off of those, and that's where a lot of this comes in.
Most of those cars are still covered under warranty as far
as any major work.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: But not this sort of
sluff?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But not for this type of
stuff. And I had cut that budget line in half last year
because of these, but I really didn't take it -- take into
consideration those type of deals are deductible on
insurance when we get year-end things.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any other questions or
comments? If not, all in favor raise your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(NO response.)
26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Item Number
19 is Nondepartmental.
MR. TOMLINSON: This -- this amendment was --
was a result of -- of the court order concerning the -- the
portable toilets at Ingram Lake Park. We -- the Court had
voted to pay that out of Contingency. Subsequent to that,
we used all of the Contingency money, and so we're
transferring $600 from Pauper Burial line item in
Nondepartmental and $200 from Machine Repairs from
Nondepartmental into Contingency to pay this bill.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that will leave a
balance?
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, we still have more
bills coming. We have two more for sure for July and
August.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner
Griffin, second by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court
approve Budget Amendment Request Number 14. Any additional
questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your
right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
27
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Do we have
any more late bills?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, I have two. I have one
for $1,400 from Al Bishop, and it's for construction of
concrete pads for picnic tables, I believe at the Center
Point park.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: That from was from whom? Al
Bishop?
MR. TOMLINSON: Al Bishop.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner
Williams, second by Commissioner Letz, that the Court
authorize a hand check in the amount of $1,400 payable to Al
Bishop for concrete pads at Lions Park in Center Point.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: These were -- these were
out of that budget you had for Center Point Park?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The tables will be
coming in next week.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any other questions or
comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
28
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Number 2?
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. The last one came to
us from the -- via Keith Longnecker. This is a request from
State Aire. They're a subcontractor to Stoddard
Construction. And, we have -- they have presented us a bill
for $9,572.95, and this is a request to pay them directly in
lieu of paying Stoddard the -- the balance owed to them.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Say that last part
again.
MR. TOMLINSON: This is a request to pay --
to pay State Aire directly, rather than pay Stoddard
Construction in the last draw.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I -- I don't want to
entertain this one at this time. We need to work -- that's
a legal issue with Stoddard. The problem is our general
contractor has not paid his sub.
MR. TOMLINSON: That's correct.
JUDGE HENNEKE: And the sub has come to us
and asked us to pay them directly and take that out of funds
which we would otherwise pay Stoddard. And, unless we have
the County Attorney more involved in this, I'm not -- I
would prefer not to address that at this time.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree, Fred. We
have several businesses here in town that have not been
paid.
z9
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: And that's something we're
going to have to take up with the general contractor.
Anything else, sir'?
MR. TOMLINSON: That's all.
JUllGE HENNEKE: Thank you. At this time, I
would entertain a motion to waive reading and approve the
minutes of the July 6th, July 23rd, July 23rd, July 31st,
and July 31st meetings of the Kerr County Commissioners
Court.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, no, let's read
them.
(Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Letz,
second by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court waive reading
and approve the minutes of the July 6th regular session, the
July 23rd special session, the July -- the special
redistricting hearing on July 23rd, the meeting on July 31st
to open bids for the Sheriff's Department radio
communications, and the July 31st meeting to -- for the
joint City/County workshop. Any further questions or
comments'? if not, all in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
30
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carried. I'd also
errtertain a motion to approve and accept the monthly reports
as presented.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner
Baldwin, second by Commissioner Letz, that the Court approve
and accept the monthly reports as presented. Any questions
or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. All right.
Let's move into the consideraCion agenda. The first item is
to consider a variance to platting for family member and/or
a variance to lot size for commercial use from property
located at the corner of Willow Bend and Tallwood, Center
Point, Precinct 2. Commissioner Williams.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Judge.
Julie Smith and her husband are proposing to build a child
care center on a piece of property .owned by her parents, and
what it requires is a couple variances. It's in the -- in
the old unincorporated part of the city of Center Point, and
Julie and her husband acquired a piece of the land that's
31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
owned by her parents, and her mother's here with her today
for this purpose. The property is on a public water supply
system, and Mr. Johnston can tell you all the other things.
The variance request is for a commercial use of the
property, and we would be asking for a variance for platting
because it's a family member, to transfer property from one
member of the family to another and so forth. Frank?
MR. JOHNSTON: Yeah. I've talked to Travis
in the meantime. I think it doesn't really need a variance
for platting. It's covered under the variance statute.
It's in the statute. I think their question was -- they can
correct me if I'm wrong -- that while they don't need a
variance for platting, if they divide off a 1-acre lot and
build the property on it, and then they -- you know,
sometime in the future, if they ever transferred that
property or sold it or -- at that time, would they have to
plat and would -- you know, without a variance out there,
you know, it may not meet the requirements in the future. I
think that's what they're worried about.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Everybody looks at
you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm thinking.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, while you're thinking,
I'll talk. I'll cover you. I think this is a variance
situation, because it's an exception to the platting
32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
requirements for a family member, so I think this is a --
this would be a court action which would take note of that,
which would cover any subsequent owners because it would be
a lawful use of the property.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think -- as I
understand the statute and our rules, which are modeled
after the statute, I don't think they need a variance now,
but they would have to -- they would need a variance to --
for any future -- potential future transfer. And, I think
probably it's cleaner to do it, as the Judge is saying,
right now, which is basically the same thing. I mean,
it's -- it cleans it up for the future.
MR. LUCAS: That's the right analysis, I
think.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That was our original
thought, that we needed it, you know, for future potential,
and also for the variance in terms of the lot size for
commercial use, transfer from the property -- from the
family member. The lot size is less than our current
Subdivision Rules require.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But it's on a water
system, so --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- they can go down to
whatever size they want, as long as they can meet any other
33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
septic requirements, which is -- that has nothing to do with
this, really.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Or setbacks.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Setbacks and so
forth, and that's covered in the letter that's -- that's
attached in our packet with regard to the septic issue.
MR. JOHNSTON: Well, they're on a water
system, but I think the exception is that they have to be on
surface water to get a -- any size that they want.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's true. That's
right. I think it's -- also, it brings out a problem in our
Subdivision Rules, in that we don't really allow for
commercial developments.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And it does not make
sense, and I think it's one of the reasons we can look at
them case-by-case. I think this is probably an appropriate
time to give a variance for that issue. But, I mean,
we've -- we've never really addressed this in our rules,
and it's not reasonable in most instances, in my opinion,
to require a commercial endeavor to have 5 acres in an urban
area. I mean, it doesn't make sense. So, you know, I
think --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Julie, would you like
to tell the Court a little bit about your plans with respect
34
1
,._ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,-~~
25
to the child care center? And you may have read -- all of
the members of the Court may have read recently, Julie and
her husband, who operate this child care center in First
Baptist Church facility of Center Point, and they're busting
out of the seams, I believe, and so they need a bigger
facility. They've also begun their planning for, I think, a
new -- through the P & Z in the city of Kerrville, to do one
over in the Singing Winds area, as well. There's a crying
need for the type of care that they offer. So, tell us
about it, Julie.
MS. SMITH: Well, what we're planning to do
is actually have a larger facility than we have now, just to
accommodate our waiting list that we currently have, and
also to give the church back some of their space that
they -- we have been taking up the last couple of years.
We'll be going into our third year, and we now have 51;
we're at our license capacity, and we're looking to have 80
to 85 kids in -- in care. So, in order to do that, we have
to have a larger facility. And, the property is there
already, but it would, I think, be in our best interests to
have that property titled in our name so that, I think, as
you addressed before, in the future there wouldn't be any
boundaries as far as selling the property or transferring
the property,	anything like	that.	
	COMMISSIONER	WILLIAMS:	It provides services
35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
for low-income families, too, which is a benefit. And, what
percentage of your -- of your clientele is CCMS-managed?
MS. SMITH: About 30 percent right now; 30,
35 percent right now. Currently, we're CCMS, which is a
state organization I'm sure that y'all are familiar with.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're familiar with
it. I would move that the Court grant the variance to
platting for family member, and a variance -- subsequent
variance to lot size for commercial use of property for --
for the Smiths for the corner of Willow Brook and Tallwood
in Center Point, Precinct 2.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll second, but let me
make a friendly -- I mean, be more specific as to exactly --
on that first point, the variance is for future -- for
future transfers.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: To allow future transfer
of the property without platting requirements.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I accept that part of
the motion.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner
Williams, second by Commissioner Letz, that the Court grant
a variance to future platting uses for a 1-acre tract of
land for commercial use at the corner of Willow Brook and
Tallwood.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
11
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
36
MS. SMITH: If I could make one correction,
it's Willow Bend.
JUDGE HENNEKE: It says it right here.
MS. SMITH: Okay, just making sure.
JUDGE HENNEKE: At Center Point, Precinct 2.
MR. SMITH: And also that it has been --
talking to Stuart Barron, we're looking at more; probably
closer to an acre and a half. So that we can keep, because
there is a well on the adjacent corner, from Aqua Source,
and to keep our 150 feet, we were going to move the septic
back some and --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Time out here, now. We need
to know what you're going to do before we do this. So, you
know, if y'all are going to take more, what we need to do
is -- you've heard the discussion. I think you know where
we're going, but you're going to have to bring it back
again, 'cause we have to give a variance to the specific
property for future use. We can't -- for whatever transfer,
we can't do that. So, you know, what's been presented to us
is an acre. If y'all are going to go back and get an acre
and a half or an acre and a quarter, which I think, you
know, looking at your drawing, is -- is probably
justified --
MR. SMITH: I'm sorry I didn't bring the
drawing.
37
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
DODGE HENNEKE: -- then what you need to do
is, when you have your plans set in stone --
MS. SMITH: Okay.
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- then bring them back to us
for purposes of variance for future transfer.
MR. SMITH: Well, the -- I guess my problem
is, I guess, on what's -- the designer, Tom Phillips, he
wrote a letter. He doesn't see a problem. And -- and
Stuart Barron doesn't have a problem with it, either. We
were just thinking if -- if -- and there's nothing saying
it -- that because we didn't know for sure whether we were
going to be able to get the variance, we haven't set in
stone, "Well, we have to have this much," or -- or does that
make sense? And so it's -- it was hard for to us figure out
exactly what we were going to need without knowing if we
were going to be able to get a variance. He thinks -- the
designer thinks that we can get it on an acre.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, why couldn't
we amend it to just an approximate one and a half acres and
cover it that way?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Because it affects the future
use of the property. What if they only take one and a
quarter? Then you've got a court order that says -- we
don't want to deal in approximates. We can't deal in
approximates.
38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. SMITH: So we can say one, and if it's
not enough, we can bring it back.
JUDGE HENNEKE: If that's your desire to do.
I think, from your point of view, you'd be better off to --
when you know what you do want for sure, then you can come
back. I know that's putting it off a little bit, but come
back through the agenda process. But, we can't deal in this
type of thing with anything less than pretty concrete plans.
And we really don't want to -- you know, if we give you one
now and you decide you want one and a quarter, you're going
to have to come back for the other quarter, or you can wait
and decide what it is you really need and want, and then
come back at one time. One way or another, unless you want
to -- unless 1 acre is going to be all you want, you're
going to have to come back at some point.
MR. SMITH: Right. Well, like I said, the
designer seems to think that 1 acre is plenty, so that --
that works for me.
JUDGE HENNEKE: It's up to you all. We're
accommodating, but you have to understand that we have to
accommodate in the specific and not in the generalities.
MR. SMITH: Oh, exactly. I understand that.
And -- and I just -- that's why I brought it up, is that I
didn't -- right. So, that's fine.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The letter, Judge,
39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
from Thomas Phillips, the registered sanitarian, proposes --
or covers in terms of being 1 acre. And he's giving his
qualified opinion on the basis of 1 acre.
MR. SMITH: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I mean, Tom
Phillips doesn't enforce our rules. But, I think that the
Judge is right. Especially for the variance, we need to
have a plat that's attached to the order that shows exactly
what the property is. So --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes, a drawing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The drawing needs to
be --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Attached to the plat.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the drawing should be
acourate as to what the conveyance is going to be.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It would amount to a
two-week delay, so why don't you do it that way? Do the
drawing and -- and put it back on the agenda for the 27th,
evening of the 27th.
MS. SMITH: Okay.
MR. SMITH: So, our best bet -- so, do we
need to get it surveyed and have -- I mean, tell me what I
need to get for you so that we don't have to do this again.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Probably how we can handle
that is, how were you going to -- what are you going to use
90
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
for the property transfer?
MS. SMITH: We were actually going to
purchase the property, roll it into our loan so that --
JUDGE HENNEKE: And when you purchase the
property, how was it going to be transferred? Were you
going to have it surveyed off from your parents?
MS. SMITH: Yes. Yes, it would have to be
surveyed so that it was -- in order for us to get the loan
for the facility, the land would actually have to be in our
name, to keep it separate from my parents.
DODGE HENNEKE: That's what we need.
MS. SMITH: Okay.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Is that -- that survey.
MS. SMITH: Okay.
JUDGE HENNEKE: So, you know, when --
Commissioner Williams is suggesting when you have that, you
know, from the discussion, I think it's fairly safe to say
you're not going to have a problem with the variance.
MS. SMITH: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: All we need is the legal
description of what we're providing a variance for so that
10 years down the road, when you desire to do something
else, there's no question as to what's covered by the
exception.
MS. SMITH: Okay.
D1
1
L
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. SMITH: Great.
MS. SMITH: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll withdraw the
motion, Judge, and we'll come back at a later date.
MR. SMITH: Thank you very much.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Item Number 2 is a
presentation by Voelkel Engineering for scanning county
subdivision plat files. Don, are you and Lee going to do
this?
MR. VOELKEL: I'm Don Voelkel. We just
recently bought a different copy machine that has the
capability of scanning the files. The reason we bought this
machine is because a lot of our plat files -- we've been
doing business for 30 years, and some of our old plats that
aren't on AutoCAD and aren't -- they are getting kind of
brittle and hard to copy, and we're going to scan our plats
to -- the older plats Co file to have them on disk. It
makes a raster image that is capable of plotting through
a -- like AutoCAD, digital format. We're also -- now that
we're doing it for us, we're making it available to -- I've
talked to KCAD and some of the other utilities, like
Kerrville Telephone Company, anything they have in their
file, old drawings that they want to put in a -- in a
a~
L
9
c
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
digital formal, like on a C. D., and store.
The C.D.'s we have now -- not "we" have, but
they're available -- have, like, 700 megabytes. Each
drawing is probably less than a megabyte, so you can
probably put up to 700 of them on a disk. Which would
enable the County, if they chose to, to put each volume -- I
think they have about 300 or more plats in each volume.
Some of the older ones, Volume 1, 2, 3, 4, they are not
digital, and this would enable the County to put them on
a -- a disk to be able to e-mail or sell -- you can sell the
disks to people, if you wanted to. lt's just a way to
archive files that -- that aren't digital, that are -- some
of them are 50 years old. That's what we're doing. That's
what we're doing for other people.
I've talked to Rob at KCAD, and they're
interested in doing some of theirs. It's not something --
we already own the mackiine; it's not like if we don't get
people to use it, we're not going to buy it. We already own
the machine, and it's something that -- and if y'all wanted
to see it, y'all could come by the office. We could show
you how it works, what it does. I've talked to the Clerk
and told her kind of what is going on, and she's -- she said
she'd like to see it sometime. You know, depending on if
y'all were interested in doing something like that. And
it's -- it's just an option that we have, you know,
n~
available for us.
F
8
c
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
We've also done checking, just so we can
price out for other people how people are charging. We're
going to charge, hopefully, about half of what other people
in the big cities charge. For y'all, not for everybody on
the street. But, if it's something y'all would be
interested in, I could get with one of y'all and/or the
Clerk or whoever y'all would be interested in -- Franklin,
and we could come up with a proposal and how many of them
you want to do, if you'd want to do it. But, it's just
something that we have available now; we wanted to make it
available to y'all and some of the other entities.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's, in my
opinion, for Jannett, or Road and Bridge would be the other
department, if they want to use it. I mean, it needs to go
into their budget for this for future years. I mean, it's
something that 1 don't see that we would make that much of a
decision. I think it's a -- it's Jannett's decision. She's
keeping the plats. If she wants it, certainly I'd go along
with it. I mean, it sounds like it's reasonable; I think
it's probably a good idea, but I don't know much about her
plat files. That's why we have Jannett.
MR. VOELKEL: We just wanted to make it, you
I mean, it doesn't matter to
44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
us. We've made it available to other entities in town and
are going to make it available to whoever.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay.
MR. VOELKEL: So, it's -- you know, if --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Don, you said that
you're going to charge about half of what the big city folks
charge. At what point are we going to get down to a real
number?
MR. VOELKEL: Well, I have a real number. I
mean, we've checked in San Antonio and Dallas and Austin
with different reproductions from -- I even have some faxes
from them. Some of them charge a flat fee of 20 bucks a
page. Some of them charge so much a square foot, like one
in San Antonio charges anywhere from $6 to $9 a page,
depending on if you make one or make 100. So, the lowest
price I've found, if you made 100, were, like, $6 a page per
plat, and we're talking probably in the neighborhood of $4
to $5 a plat to get them on a disk. And that's something
that -- if Jannett wanted to talk, we could kind of look in
there and see how many plats she had and how many she
wanted. It's something we could probably, you know, get to
a certain total cost, depending on how many there were and
how many she needed or wanted to put on file.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd think the County
Surveyor would provide this free to the County.
QS

9
s
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. VOELKEL: Well, that's why Lee's here.
We're providing the use of the machine free.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: As a matter of fact,
here you have an elected official fixing to rake off some
taxpayers' money.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, his brother's doing
it.
MR. VOELKEL: I'm not doing it.
(Discussion off the record.)
MR. VOELKEL: We had a real unfortunate thing
happen. We started talking with these people about buying
this machine, and they had some demo units, kind of like
buying a demo car. You get a -- a greatly reduced price.
Well, when they delivered it, it was all brand new.
Unfortunately, they had sold all their demos, so they had to
sell us a brand new unit, so we were real --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We just got a big
price cut there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What a bummer, yeah.
MR. VOELKEL: But, that -- if y'all have any
questions or if y'all -- I mean, and I guess it may be up
to, you know, the Clerk if she wants to or not.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Talk to Jannett. It's her
records management or her preservation budget. Y'all need
to visit with her and let her bring forth --
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
96
MR. VOELKEL: Okay.
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- a proposal.
MR. VOELKEL: Thank you for your time.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Thanks, Don.
COMMISSIONER LE'1'L: Thanks, Don.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Item Number 3,
consider for preliminary approval Revision of Plat for Lots
176, 177, 178, and 179 of Spicer Ranch III in Precinct 1.
Commissioner Baldwin.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir.
Mr. Johnston.
MR. JOHNSTON: This plat is a combining of
lots in a platted subdivision. The way he has it drawn on
the revised portion, he has Lot Number 1, Lot Number 2. I
think it might be better to tie that back into the existing
nomenclature and call it, like, 176-A -- just refer to that
lot being divided. Then, on the other portion, one of the
other numbers, like 177-A, that show that that's a lot in
that subdivision, not a new lot. You also notice that Bruce
Drive is an easement that's shown on the existing plat. The
road was never built; there's nothing there. This -- this
owner owns all the land around that right -- that easement,
or actually owns some land under it, I guess, and he wants
to abandon that easement. So, I guess by him owning
everything that's contiguous to it, and the fact that this
47
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
is combining lots, I think he's exempt from public hearing
on the abandonment and -- and the replatting. The only
other comments I had were -- were feedback from U.G.R.A.,
that they need to locate existing wells and O.S.S.F. systems
on -- on the plat, and locate any improvements. I think 176
has a house and some -- some buildings on it. So --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Bruce Drive was never
dedicated to the County?
MR. JOHNSTON: I think it was one of those
that was dedicated by plat, but it was never built. I know
when we abandon something that's been dedicated, it has to
have 100 percent of the contiguous owners to agree to it.
This is the person essentially doing the replat. I may be
wrong; it may take a -- I just thought it probably wouldn't
in that case.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I think the abandonment may
take -- no, that's not a public hearing, if everybody
agrees. It takes unanimous vote.
MR. LUCAS: For a road?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Abandonment of an
easement.
MR. LUCAS: No, there's no public hearing
upon --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: A hundred percent of
the --
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
48
MR. LUCAS: You just have to have -- y'all
have to vote on it unanimous for abandonment.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Any questions or
comments?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is Mr. Green not here?
MR. JOHNSTON: Those are the only comments I
have. I'd recommend approval.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move that we approve
the preliminary Revision of Plat for Lots 176, 177, 178, 179
-- do we want to put in the -- in the order your
recommendations of 176-A and 176-B? Is that what --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is a preliminary, so
I think -- I mean, I think Franklin can just do that.
MR. JOHNSTON: I'll notify the surveyor that
we think that's --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: You may want to
include in your motion, though, that -- the O.S.S.F. --
MR. JOHNSTON: Recommendations.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- recommendations
also, because that's outside of the Court, because they had
said they needed to locate the structures and all that sort
of thing on the --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. That would
be my motion.
49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: Is that a second'?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's a second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner
Baldwin, second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court
grant preliminary approval for Revision of Plat for Lots
176, 177, 178, 179 of Spicer Ranch III in Precinct 1, with a
requirement that the applicant iderrtify on the plat all the
existing wells and O.S.S.F. systems in the affected
property. Any further questions or comments? If not, all
in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Okay.
Number 4, consider and approve name changes for privately
maintained roads in various locations in accordance with the
911 guidelines. Truby.
MS. HARDIN: We have a total of six privately
maintained roads that need to be changed because of
duplicate names for 911.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Letz,
second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court approve name
changes for privately maintained roads in Precinct 3 and
50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
Precinct 4 in accordance with the 911 guidelines and in the
list provided to the Court. Any other questions or
comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Item Number
5 is consider advertisement for Notice of Public Hearing to
eliminate duplicated names for County-maintained roads in
Precinct 1, 2, and 4, in accordance with the 911 guidelines,
and set public hearing date for the same.
MS. HARDIN: This one will require notice and
public hearing. There's one for Precinct 1, one for
Precinct 2, and 16 for Precinct 4. These are all
County-maintained roads.
JUDGE HENNEKE: When are you proposing the
public hearing on those?
MS. HARDIN: September the 29th. And the
45-day deadline would be November the 8th.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Do we have a -- that's
a regular court meeting?
JUDGE HENNEKE: That's a special court
meeting.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So we can do it at
10 o'clock?
51
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. HARDIN: September the 24th"?
JUDGE HENNEKE: That's a special meeting.
MS. HARDIN: Okay, sorry.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Regular meetings are the
first one of the month. So, if it has to be a regular
meeting, it would have to be the second Monday in October.
MS. HARDIN: Second?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: First Monday.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Second Monday.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second Monday.
MS. IIARDIN: The 8th. October the 8th. That
changes that.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And is that not a --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's a holiday.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So, is it October the
9th? Better get -- so we don't have to do this twice --
this in the notice. And, is it an evening meeting?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Will not be an evening
meeting.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It would not be an
evening meeting, 'cause it's the first one.
MS. HARDIN: If we're not going to have it
till October, then can we maybe add some more names to it?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why don't we bring it
back at the next meeting?
52
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We'll have enough time
to bring it back the next meeting; that would be an idea, if
we wait that long, in case she's got some more ready to go.
MS. HARDIN: Okay, Jonathan.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Probably got a 45-day
deadline to get these done. I'm getting geared up.
MS. HARDIN: So, we'll come back on --
JUDGE HENNEKE: We'll bring it back on the
27th, and with the idea of having a public hearing on
October the 9th.
MS. HARDIN: Thank you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay, good. Item Number 6,
consider and discuss approval of acquiring cell phone
service with Sprint to replace the voter telephone line.
Jannett Pieper.
MS. PIEPER: Gentlemen, I talked to a
representative from the I.B.S. Cellular Sprint, and I can
get a free cell phone to replace my voter line that I
normally have. Considering the Municipal Auditorium will be
under construction, we have no more phone service there.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Franklin, one minute.
I just need to catch you for one quick second.
(Discussion off the record.)
MS. PIEPER: During our last election, I
ended up having to borrow a cell phone. This is used mainly
53
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
for the elections, but it would be much easier if I had a
cell phone that I wouldn't feel guilty about using someone's
minutes when I borrow their cell phone.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: This would just be for
the -- just during the election?
MS. PIEPER: No, I would have it
continuously, so I would have a monthly bill.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why don't we just add
another phone to our regular cell phone -- don't we have a
contract with Five Star that we get "X" number of thousands
of minutes, and we can add phones, like, $5 apiece? We
never --
JUDGE HENNEKE: We don't -- we have that
through the Sheriff's Department, but we don't have it --
MS. PIEPER: Right, but that would eat up his
minutes.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, it's something that's
been talked about, but never brought to fruition.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, that's my
opinion. I don't know how many cell -- excluding the
Sheriff's Department, I mean, I thought there was a way that
we could designate departments and add phones and have one
very --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: One thing we do have out
there, and I don't know if they -- if the County wants to
54
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
consider another one of those contracts with the phone
company where you can have so many phones with "X" number of
minutes. Now, we pretty well use all ours, because we use
cell phones a lot out in the car, but I do have a number of
extra cell phones out there that are not hooked up that the
County owns -- the Sheriff's Office owns. You know, it may
be cheaper just to enter the contract, 'cause I know Tommy
had needed one at one time, and Jannett needs one, you know,
a lot of times. And sometimes we try and get ahold of them
at different times and can't do it. If the County would
just entertain them getting a separate contract with the
add-a-phones on it for the County, itself, for the --
whether the Commissioners need it or not, we can provide
several of those phones, where you won't have the phone
expenses.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Tommy, do you know how
many cell phones, outside of the Sheriff's Department, we
have? How many departments are using them?
MR. TOMLINSON: I'm not sure.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Only thing with
Sprint -- not knocking them, but I looked into it when we
went with Kerrville. The west end of the county, unless
they've upgraded their towers yet, really was not covered
once you get past about Goat Creek Road. There wasn't
service with Sprint at that time. Now, they were expanding;
55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1 don't know if they have yet or not.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: They're beyond that
now, but it's still not all the way west.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah. It was causing
some problems using Sprint for that purpose with us. That's
why we didn't go with them.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: When do you need this by?
November?
MS. PIEPER: Yes. It would be better by
November, 'cause I have the one general election coming up
in November. The end of October starts my early voting.
That's when it would be used most.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Input. I think this
probably falls into the area of information technology, and
it would be a good thing to have our information technology
specialist review and come up with some alternatives, how we
might do this. We can look at the whole thing at once.
What the Sheriff has is working great; we don't have a
problem with that, but if there's a way that we can rewicker
this county-wide -- you know, we had talked about at it one
time some months ago. I think it would be something good
for Shaun to take a look at.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Our cell phone bill,
when we went to this with the add-a-phone and the minutes
and that, it cut our cell phone bill in half from what the
56
~~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
County had been paying prior to that. I think it's very
wise to look at more than one phone.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Is there a reason that
you think that we shouldn't have the county-wide approach?
Is that --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They bill each number.
Number comes out, you have as many numbers as you want.
They're each itemized on the bill.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: What they're using it
for --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If we go that route,
which I -- I like, I think we need to take a close look at
it, but does that answer the question of a November phone
for the County Clerk?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think we can do it
in a matter of -- certainly, before November.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or October.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Or October. We can
probably have it done by September, I would think.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, we'll take care of
Jannett's problem. If we can't do it globally, we'll take
care of it specifically, because she has to have a phone.
We're changing early voting locations; it makes more sense
57
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to have a cell phone rather than a land line.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I'm just saying, it
looks like this issue's been raised again. We've discussed
it before. Maybe this is a good time to look at it and
maybe solve Jannett's problem, and take a county-wide look
at the same time.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I'll get with Shaun and have
him talk to the people at -- the cell phone people, and
also, Tommy, do you have an inventory of the cell phones
that the County has?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah, I have one. I just
don't --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Could you get that -- could
you get that to me in the next day or two?
MR. TOMLINSON: Sure.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay, Jannett?
MS. PIEPER: Okay, that will be fine. Thank
you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Break time?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Not quite. Okay. The next
item is Item Number 7, consider and discuss the approval of
issuance of Certificates of Approval for financing radio
project, and authorize Kerr County financial adviser to
proceed with the necessary documentation and approval. OUr
58
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
financial adviser, Mr. Bob Henderson, is here with us. Bob?
While Bob's coming up, I want to say that no decision has
been made as to how we're going to finance the radio
project. There are some financing options that were
included in the bid proposal; however, if we're going to
have the option of doing Certificates of Obligation, because
of the timetable which I believe I've passed out to each of
you, we have to start now. So, Bob has agreed to come and
talk to us about what we need to do so that if we need to do
it that way, we can. Morning, Bob.
MR. HENDERSON: Good morning. It's a
pleasure to be with y'all again. How are you, Mr. Griffin?
Everything going okay out at the Lake Ingram Estates?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I'll pass some good
words on to you.
MR. HENDERSON: Good. Actually, I think the
Judge pretty well just summarized where we're at right then.
You know, you've got bids in on this radio equipment. There
are a multitude of financing options available for that,
including some that were included in your bid package. We
had talked -- "we" being the Judge and I -- about a couple
of other alternatives, one having to do with a potential
election, and the other one having to do with an issuance of
Certificates of Obligation. We discussed at length the
timing that's required in order to levy a tax for October 1
59
1
.-- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.-.
25
of this year. One of the things that you're all cognizant
substantially less than the sort of thing that's normally
financed with long-term voter bonds, and therefore, you
know, we want to go ahead and -- and utilize a structure
that has us paying this debt off sooner rather than later,
and facilitate that we need to be able to effect a
transaction that would allow us to close or at least sell
the bonds prior to September 30th of this year so that you
can levy a tax on -- on October 1, if that's the option that
the Commissioners Court elects to proceed with.
The tax rate impact of that is going to be
entirely driven by the ultimate amount of money that the
Commissioners Court elects to spend and whatever budget
considerations you may have out of the Sheriff's Department,
that sort of thing. That might be able to be reallocated.
So, we're not in a position this morning, not having those
two pieces of information, to talk about a tax rate impact,
but just really wanted to make ourselves available to answer
any questions you might have concerning the timetable of
events and what the relative costs of this might be in terms
of interest rates relative to financing options that might
be available through the vendors who are selling the radio
equipment. Happy to answer any questions that you might
have.
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Question.
MR. HENDERSON: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: As opposed to other
financing scenarios, what is the relative cost of the
Certificate of Obligation?
MR. HENDERSON: As a matter of fact, just
last Friday I ran some fresh numbers for Victoria County,
who's doing a $5 million project over 15 years. The
interest rates that we got estimated that were projected for
Victoria County for 15 years was 9.45 percent. That's based
on a triple-A insured transaction. If we look at Kerr
County, and assuming we've got enough volume, as I discussed
with the Judge, to make municipal bond insurance
cost-effective, we could do a 10-year financing, I'm sure,
for under 4 and a quarter percent.
JUDGE HENNEKE: What about seven?
MR. HENDERSON: Four percent, I think.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I mean, I think I can speak
for the Court, that we are concerned about the financing
beyond the useful life of the --
MR. HENDERSON: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- the equipment, and I
think -- Sheriff, jump in here if I'm wrong, but seven years
is probably getting pretty close, don't you think? Or --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: As far as useful life,
61
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
depending on what-all it is right now, we're probably going
on 20 to 30 years with what we got.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We're not talking about spit
and baling wire; we're talking about things that work.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: What I'm saying, I
really have -- and until Trott does their total evaluation
on the equipment, itself, that these vendors are proposing,
I really don't know. It's -- a lot of that's going to have
to come through our conference call with Trott and see what
their engineers have come up with.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: When do we expect
something out of Trott on the recommendation for the RFP?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: They're supposed to give
us a recommendation for y'all's court meeting on the 20th.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Supposed to have a
recommendation on the 20th, which is one of the reasons
we've scheduled the next budget hearing on the 21st.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, given the
nature of the equipment, would leasing the equipment not be
a viable option?
MR. HENDERSON: Would leasing it?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: As opposed to
purchase.
MR. HENDERSON: It depends entirely on the
structure of the lease. If you're talking about a capital
1
-- 2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.-.
25
62
acquisition lease, which basically means that -- that you're
paying the full capital value of the product and you're
exercising the purchase option at the end of the lease
for -- for one dollar, or whatever that typical number is, I
would suspect the answer would be no, because you're going
to pay a higher interest rate than -- than you would pay by
using taxes and Certificates of Obligation. Although the
lease could be structured as a tax-exempt lease, as well.
If you're talking about a pure operating lease, where
someone is going to lease you the equipment and agree at the
end of the term of the lease to -- to take that equipment
back for some residual value, such as you're financing just
the value that you utilized, you -- you may be, in fact,
able to do something. I would find it unusual that someone
would be willing to give you a pure operating lease on that
type of equipment, but then that's where the Judge indicates
we need to look and see what financing options the vendors
are offering, and -- and evaluate those. But, a pure
capital acquisition lease is not going to be more
cost-effective than a C.O., I wouldn't believe. Tommy,
would you disagree with that?
MR. TOMLINSON: All depends on the rate --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess, Judge, my
question is, what are we supposed to vote on now? I mean, I
63
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
agree that we need to, I mean, ask Mr. Henderson to proceed
with getting ready in case we take this route, but looking
at the agenda item, the first part of it sort of, to me,
doesn't figure. We don't want to approve any certificates
at this point.
JUDGE HENNEKE: No, we're not.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the second part, the
motion to authorize the financial adviser to proceed with --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Planning.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Planning.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any discussions with
Mr. Henderson? He -- I believe he's told me -- correct me
if I'm wrong -- that he really doesn't need any action by
the Court today.
MR. HENDERSON: Not today. We are -- you
know, if we elect to do the Certificate of Obligation
transaction, we would have to move pretty quickly. What I
would want to do is go ahead and start preparing now the
offering documents. The attorneys would -- not at this
meeting, obviously, but in the next couple of weeks, need to
come back to the Commissioners Court with a Notice of Intent
to Issue, because we've got certain state laws that require
publication of this Notice of Intent, and we would need a
number then. So, no, we don't -- we're not taking any
official action today, other than just saying yes, this is a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
64
viable option. We do plan to go forward with the
acquisition of the radio equipment and we need to be geared
up to either execute this option or another financing option
as may be available.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any other questions or
comments? Bob, I'll share with you the financing options
from the vendors when we take a break.
MR. HENDERSON: Yes, sir.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay, thank you. Appreciate
it. Next item is Item Number 8, which is consider and
discuss the approval of the order creating the new public
facilities corporation to hold title to the Juvenile
Detention Facility, and approving the form of the Bylaws and
Articles of Incorporation of such public facility. Tom
Spurgeon is here from McCall, Horton, and Parkhurst.
Actually, I believe the draft that's in the packet is not
the most recent draft, and I apologize for that, gentlemen.
We're having some trouble in e-mails between my machine and
the Court Assistant's machine. As a matter of fact, she
told me this morning she got the e-mail over the weekend
that was sent on --
MS. SOVIL: 24th of July.
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- July 24th. So, I -- I
e-mailed Ms. Sovil the corrected documents Thursday, and
apparently they haven't --
65
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. SOVIL: They've got them in their
packets.
JUDGE HENNEKE: They're in the packet?
MS. SOVIL: I gave them --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Separate?
MS. SOVIL: -- a separate one.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. All right. So, does
anyone have any questions or comments? Again, this relates
to the refinancing and the expansion of the Juvenile
Detention Facility. We're creating a new vehicle to own the
title to the facility. It'll be exactly identical -- not
exactly identical, but basically the same structure and
configuration as the current financing and current title.
This is just a way for us to refinance the existing
high-interest debt and obtain some money to expand the
facility and end up with the same bottom line as we had
before, as far as the amortization schedule. So --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This will be a new
corporation we're creating'?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And we would be
abandoning the old corporation?
JUDGE HENNEKE: We will dissolve the old
corporation at such time as the title is transferred to this
new corporation, which will not happen until later.
66
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: My only question is,
is our attorney signed off on it?
JUllGE HENNEKE: David Jackson is representing
the Kerr -- the Kerr County Juvenile Board, and he has
talked with Mr. Spurgeon, I know, and I've talked with him,
and he is comfortable with the documentation as presented.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, he doesn't
represent me, though. This guy right here represents me.
And I'm going to vote here, and I want my representative to
sign off on it. I mean, I like Mr. Jackson, don't get me
wrong, but he's not our attorney.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, what we can do is we
can put this off, and Tom and Travis can go sit down, have a
sit-down --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just think it would
be good business to do it that way. Just my opinion.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I don't disagree at all, and
that's a loop that I didn't cover. The Juvenile Board hired
David Jackson to represent the Juvenile Board in the
contracting, and he has talked with Mr. Spurgeon about the
documents, but I failed to get Travis in the loop, and I
apologize for that. So --
MR. SPURGEON: Judge, I don't mean to
interrupt, but secondly, we do represent the Commissioners
Court in this limited capacity as your -- as your bond
67
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
counsel. So, I mean, we are lawyers for you, but I
understand that you also want, on a day-to-day basis,
another attorney, so I'm not trying to push it one way or
another, but I do want to let you know that our
representation is as your -- as your counsel, but in a
limited capacity as bond counsel.
JUDGE HENNEKE: That's what we'll do. Let's
take any questions for Mr. Spurgeon you might have right
now, and then we'll let him go talk -- visit with Travis,
and then we'll bring this back at such time as we're
prepared to move forward. Anyone have any questions or
comments of the documents for Mr. Spurgeon at this time?
COMMi55IONER BALDWIN: I don't.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Anybody? All right,
Tom. So, if you'll go meet with Travis briefly, and then --
MR. SPURGEON: Okay.
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- when y'all are ready, just
bring it back and we'll --
MR. SPURGEON: Very good.
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- recall this item. Okay.
At this time, I'm going to propose --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: A break?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, we have -- Tommy?
MR. TOMLINSON: My assistant has brought me
two late bills that we need to approve.
68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: Why don't we take those up at
the end of the court session? Let's go ahead and take a
break and be back at promptly at 10:30. The first item
we'll take up at 10:30 are the options for the retirement
plan.
(Recess taken from 10:18 a.m. to 10:30 a.m.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All right. Let's reconvene
this regular session of Kerr County Commissioners Court.
The next item for consideration is Item Number 9, consider
and discuss Year 2002 plan options for the retirement
program.
MR. WATERS: Good morning, Judge,
Commissioners. My name is Chuck Waters. I'm the
Communications Director for the County and District
Retirement System. I have a bit of information to provide
you here.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What is your title,
Mr. Waters?
MR. WATERS: Director of Communications, sir.
If you wouldn't mind handing them back to her?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Is this the same that
we have in our packages, or has it been changed?
MR. WATERS: No, sir, it's the same exhibit.
1
~. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
69
The other material you should not have, however. It's a
pleasure to report to you that your plan is in good
condition, and that your employer contribution rate, should
you choose to make no changes for 2002, will decline
slightly for next year, from the current 7.62 percent down
to 7.52 percent. The growth of the payroll was greater than
what was assumed by our actuaries in costing your plan for
last year. The extra growth of the payroll provides extra
dollars that help to pay off the unfunded liability in your
plan, so it sort of accelerates to pay off that liability.
Your plan funding continues to improve.
If you don't mind going over your exhibit,
we'll just quickly look through this sheet right here.
Under the column entitled "Present Plan," it describes your
plan parameters for the current year, 2001. Your employees,
of course, are contributing 7 percent of their salary each
month to finance their benefits. That's on a pre-taxed
basis. At the time of retirement and at that time only,
their accumulated deposits and interest are matched by the
County at the rate of 190 percent, meaning $1.90 in County
money for each $1 the employee deposits in interest.
And, your prior service credit is listed on
Line 3, but I'm not so sure that that's really too much of a
factor anymore. Prior service credit is a method of
awarding more monetary credit to employees for the period of
70
1
.-. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
r-- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
service that they had with the County prior to the time Kerr
County elected to become part of our system, and since you
came in in 1970, we would really be talking only about
employees who had service -- who are still on the payroll
who have -- who have service with the County that predate
1970, and I don't really know whether you have any of those
left or not.
Line 4 shows your retirement eligibility
standards. Employees can receive a lifetime pension if they
have eight years or more of service at age 60 or older, or
if they satisfy the alternate rule of 75, which means that
their age and service added together in whole numbers must
equal 75 or more; i.e., an employee who's 52 who has 23
years of service would be eligible to retire. Also, all
plans in our system have the 30 years and out rule, meaning
that at 30 years of service, regardless of age, you're
eligible to retire.
Lines 5 through 7 break down your employer
to into its two components. Line 5 refers to
future. As an employee makes a deposit and earns credit for
a month of service with the retirement system, then the
County is funding the value of that benefit as it accrues
with its contributions. So, that is 5.77 percent of payroll
71
1 starting January 1st, 2002. Now, the second component of
" 2 your rate is your unfunded actuarial liability rate, and
3 that's 1.75 percent. That's the percentage of the
4 employee's salary that the County contributes to pay the
5 cost of benefits that have already accrued to employees, but
6 have not been funded at this point in time. Unfunded
7 liabilities can arise from several things. Unfavorable
8 planning experience is one of them, but usually they result
9 from benefit increases that have been granted in the past.
10 Most benefit increases that can be granted to
11 your members are retroactive in their effects. For example,
12 if you raise the
percentage at which the County matches
13 employee deposits at retirement, that applies to all of the
14 dollars that an employee has contributed over his or her
15 years of service; therefore, it makes the funding of the
16 benefit in the past for those employees to be absolutely
17 inadequate, so the difference has to be made up with a
18 future contribution. So
, your unfunded liability rate's
19 1.75 percent. You can see it relates to your normal cost
2U rate. It's a very low ratio to that. Generally speaking,
21 in plans that are very healthily funded, the percentage of
22 payroll that goes to fund benefits accumulated in the -- to
23 the future should be far greater than what you're paying to
.-
29 finance benefits that have already been accrued, but not
25 paid for. So, you do have a very healthy relationship
~z
1 between those two numbers.
2 And then you have a
total rate of
3 x•52 percent starting in January 2002. The value of the
4 retiree benefit to these employees represented as a percent
5 of their payroll is 20.30 percent. That's the total cost.
6 The cost to them and the cost to the County in terms of the
~ rate at which it matches at retirement represents
8 20.30 percent. Yes, sir?
9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask you a
10 question here. On Line 7, the 7.52
percent, what number is
11 in there today?
12 MR. WATERS: 7.62. That's what
you're
.- 13 contributing this year.
14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank
you.
15 MR. WATERS: Yes, sir. If you skip down to
16 Lines 11 through 14, you see the full fund balances for the
1~ plan at the end of t2iis year. Your projected retirement
18 liabilities are expected to be a little bit above
19 510.8 million. The actuarial value of the employer deposits
20 available to -
- to pay those liabilities is a little bit
21 over $9.2 million, leaving an unfunded amount of slightly
22 more than $1.5 million. That unfunded liability represents
23 14.6 percent of your total pension obligations. The system
24 average -- in other words, if you take all 496 plans that we
25 have in the system, other county and district plans, lump
73
1 them all together, they are funded at the rate of
2 80 percent, meaning the average unfunded liability is 20
3 percent for the system. Yours is 14.6 percent, so
your
4 position is certainly better than what the system is as a
5 whole. That dollar amount on Line 13 is paid with the rate
6 that you see on Line 6 over a period of 20 years, and that's
7 indicated on Line 14.
8 Lines 15 through 17 show optional benefits
9 that can be granted. You've already approved the eight
10 years vesting and retirement at age 60, as well as the rule
11 of 75. The partial lump sum option shown on Line 17, that's
12 an option that would allow, if you elected -- if your
13 retirees, at the time of their retirement, elected to
14 receive a part of their pension benefits as a cash
15 distribution, and then to receive a reduced pension payment
16 in return for that distribution. The amount of the cash
17 distribution would be their choice, an
y amount up to, but
18 not to exceed, what they had in their
personal account at
19 retirement. So, essentially, they could refund all of their
20 personal dollars, should they wish, and take a reduced
21 pension payment that would be funded with the County's
22 contributions only.
23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And that is available
24 to them today?
25 MR. WATERS: No, sir. That's an option that
74
1 has to be adopted by the Commissioners Court. It's not in
2 effect at this time.
3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Lines 15 and 16 have
4 been adopted?
5 MR. WATERS: Yes, sir, they have.
6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
7 MR. WATERS: The contribution rate of
8 .32 percent shown on Line 17 is what you would have to add
9 to your employer contribution rate for 2002 if you wish to
10 adopt the partial lump sum option. There is, as well, an
11 additional option that was added by the Legislature to our
12 plan very late in the session this year, and that ha
peened
13 after these exhibits had already been prepared and sent out;
14 therefore, it's not on here, and that is a new 20 year and
15 out retirement option allowing people to retire with 20
16 years of service, regardless of their a e.
g That cost is .20
17 percent. Should you wish to add that to your plan for 2002,
18 that would be an additional .20. And, I can tell you that
19 opening the door that wide does definitely have a cost
20 attached to it. If you allow 20 and out, people could
21 literally retire in their 30's. If they came to work here,
22 you know, at 18 years old, at 38 they'd be eligible to walk
23 with full pension.
24 So -- and that wasn't our -
- our idea, by the
25 way. That was added to the plan; it was not proposed by
75
1 T.C.D.R.S. We chose not to fight it and jeopardize our
r-
2 whole bill, since the sponsor of this amendment agreed to
3 make it optional for each county or district to elect this;
4 therefore, you don't have to take that, of course, if you're
5 not interested in it.
6 Lines 18 through 21 show the cost and
7 provisions of the two different methods that are available
8 to fund a cost-of-living adjustment for your retirees.
9 Lines 18 and 19 show how you can do that as a percentage of
10 the measured change in inflation over the course of each
11 retiree's retirement. What we actually do is measure how
12 much the Consumer Price Index has changed for each
13 individual retiree, and then the County would choose what
14 portion of that measured change they would wish to pass
15 along in terms of a benefit increase, ranging from 30 up to
16 80 percent. The additional employer cost rates are shown on
17 Line 19 for each of those options. That is what would be
1B added to your rate for 2002, should you choose to adopt that
19 particular COLA.
20 Now, keep in mind when you adopt a
21 cost-of-living adjustment, it's a one-time increase only.
22 You're not entering into a situation where you have an
23 automatic adjustment in pensions that takes effect. The
-- 24 amount of the increase becomes a permanent part of the
25 retiree's benefit; however, there would be no future
76
1
•--. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
increases in the pension benefits unless the Court or a
future Court voted on a separate occasion to authorize
another cost-of-living adjustment. So, it's not an
automatic annual thing; it's a one-time increase only.
The second way that you can do that is simply an
across-the-board increase in which every retiree and
beneficiary gets exactly the same percentage increase, and
you can choose from 1 percent to 6 percent on those options.
The cost for those are shown on Line 21.
And that, essentially -- the provisions that
you have in effect and the options available to you, the
Plan 1 and Plan 2, as shown on this exhibit, simply
represent all alternate levels of benefits from where you
are now, to show you how the cost compares for that. These
are not by any means all the benefit options available to
you. There are many combinations of employee deposit levels
and matching at retirement that are available. It's just a
matter -- an automatic matter that we provide cost
information for the next highest level and the next lowest
level so that you have something to look at and see how cost
figures compare for different levels of benefits. And, the
only difference between the Plan 1, Plan 2, and the present
plan is that, under Plan 1, you see the matching level at
retirement is 200 percent instead of 190 in the current
25 I plan, and then under Plan 2, it's a reduced percentage of
77
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
~- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
175 percent instead of the current 190. And, that
represents pretty much the availability of retirement
pension-related options for 2002.
The next two pages on here I'm just going to
gloss over very quickly; it's simply information provided to
you for your review. The first page are important plan
factors that the actuaries look at on an annual basis to
determine the cost of your benefits for you. The first
column shows the percentage of the employee deposits that
are withdrawn on an annual basis. That's probably the most
critical factor, because an employee who terminates and
decides to withdraw his or her deposits by law forfeits the
dollars that Kerr County has contributed for him, and those
forfeited dollars remain in your plan and are used then to
fund benefits for the remaining participants, so a large
amount of forfeitures can cause your contribution rate to go
down. The second column is the amount of the payroll of the
participating members in the plan. That did, as I mentioned
earlier, rise more than expected, which was the primary
impetus for the contribution rate dropping by .10 for 2002.
And, the next couple numbers just show the
number of contributing members in your plan as of
12/31/2000, which is now 266. The number of annuitants,
7a
1
~-• 2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
~... 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
~-
25
that's 55 at the end of 2000. The average age and length of
service, 42.86 is the average age of your participants, and
on average they have a little over six and a half years of
credit in the retirement plan.
The final sheet is simply a historical record
dating back to your first year of participation in the
system, showing what your benefit elections have been for
each year of your participation, your employee deposit rate,
employer contribution rate, and the retirement eligibility
standards and so on. So, you can see an idea of how those
have evolved over time since 1970. Gentlemen, do any of you
have any questions about what we've gone over so far?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes. There has been a
decrease in the calculated employer contribution rate, and
it's caused by the annual covered payroll, did you say?
MR. WATERS: Yes, sir. The actuaries every
year, based on the size of the group of participants that
you have and whether or not you are in an urban county or a
rural county and some other factors, will assign an assumed
rate of increase in the payroll for your plan. That -- that
is an inherent part of calculating the rate. The degree to
which the actual change in the payroll differs from the
assumed change will determine, as will other factors,
whether your overall plan experience is positive or
negative. Assuming that the payroll grows a certain
~~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
percentage, it produces, therefore, an assumed level of
dollars to provide funding for benefits that are
accumulating now into the future, but also an assumed level
of dollars to pay off that unfunded liability. Therefore,
when the payroll increases more than expected, the amount of
dollars available to pay off the unfunded liability are
greater than what was anticipated, so your unfunded
liability gets paid down faster. That has a depressing
effect on your rate.
However, there are many factors that affect
your contribution rate, and really, it's how they all add
up. I mean, they're -- it's the percentage of deposits
withdrawn, it's the characteristics of the people that you
hire, the new people coming in, their age and whether or not
they have previous service in the retirement system, so it's
a variety of things. Some of them may have negatives
attached to them, some of them may have positives attached
to them, and after the actuaries have costed each one of
those factors, they simply sum those things together, and
then the overall total's going to represent a positive or
negative number, meaning that your rate will either rise or
fall for the following year.
And you, of course, always have control over
your rate through the benefit elections that you make.
Should your rate rise to a point that, at some point in the
ftn
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.-, 13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
future, you're not comfortable with it, you have the ability
to elect to reduce the levels of benefits or the level at
which the employees deposit to the plan, which would
therefore bring about a decrease in your rate. So, your
benefit elections are a major factor in determining your
cost. But the other thing, of course, is the experience
within the plan from year to year, just the way that health
insurance companies cost your plan on the basis of claims
experience and payments for the previous year. We
essentially do the same kind of thing, but it's based on how
many people retire, the life expectancy experience among
your retirees, how many people have withdrawn their money,
what your payroll's going by, and other factors. So, we're
essentially doing the same thing that your health insurance
company would do.
The Treasurer had also asked me to address
the subject of the Supplemental Death Benefit Fund. That is
an optional term life insurance program that T.C.D.R.S.
makes available to counties and districts across the state.
It has nothing to do with employee pension contributions,
and therefore is not a factor or function of the retirement
plan. It is simply term life insurance. The death benefit
to the beneficiary of an employee who's covered by this
receives a -- a lump sum payment that is tax-free under
federal law, equal to their last 12 months of salary. It's
1
~-. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
,.-, 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
81
not quite the same thing as one times annual salary, but
represents the actual 12 months of compensation that they
received. The premium for covering the employees only under
that plan is .24 percent of payroll. That's in addition to
your employer contribution rate, although it has to be
reported separately, on a separate form each month.
Again, this is an optional plan. T.C.D.R.S.
started providing this as a response to a request from many
small counties and districts in our system. We found that
we were able to provide term life insurance on a group basis
that sometimes was less expensive than what was available to
them to fund through their health insurance plan, so I had
been asked to just mention that to you and how it works.
That -- it's something that can be elected at any time.
Unlike these retirement changes, which can be adopted in the
previous year and have to take effect on the following
January 1st, participation in the Supplemental Death Benefit
Fund can be done during any month of the year. If
Commissioners Court would elect to participate, if we
receive the completed paperwork, the participation of the
employees starts on the first day of the following calendar
month once we've received the completed order form. So,
that's something that you can choose to opt into at any time
during the year, next year or whenever in the future, if
you're interested.
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
82
JUDGE HENNEKE: So, the supplemental death
benefit is not something the employee pays, but the employer
pays, and it applies across-the-board to everyone?
MR. WATERS: That's correct, Judge. To
anyone who's an actual employee. It does not apply to
members of the plan who are no longer employees; i.e.,
former employees who left their retirement money in the
system and have credit with Kerr County, but are no longer
employees of this county. Those people are not covered by
this. It's only actual, contributing members on the payroll
right now. Likewise, it doesn't cover every County
employee. If you've got part-time people or contract
workers or whoever who are not participating in the
retirement system, this would not cover them, as well. Only
the participating members of the plan.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Does anyone have any
questions or comments for Mr. Waters?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good report.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Sheriff?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Just a question I have.
What about employees that left, took their retirement out,
and then came back to work? Is there a way that that
employee can pay back and buy back that retirement?
MR. WATERS: Yes, sir, that's an option
that's available to the County. We have to conduct a
83
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
special study for you, because we have to not only identify
all the employees back on your payroll who may have been
previously refunded employees, but we also have to determine
potential cost impact on the County for allowing them to
order. A buy-back does allow people to put their money back
in. The amount that they have to redeposit is -- is equal
to the amount that they withdraw, plus 5 percent simple
interest per year dating from the date of the withdrawal to
the date of the redeposit.
This, of course, does eventually result in an
increased cost to the County. As we mentioned earlier, when
employees terminate and withdraw their money, those funds
stay in -- the employer funds stay in your County's account.
However, they are -- on an accounting basis, are reassigned
to cover costs for the remaining people. Therefore, if you
let people reestablish their accounts that they refunded,
you are obligated a second time to fund the value of
matching those deposits, should they eventually retire
again. So, essentially, from your point of view, you get to
pay for their benefit twice by letting them redeposit. So,
the actual cost to the County of adopting a buy-back is not
charged to you up front. Unlike these other options that we
talked about, we're not going to add anything to your
84
1
•-~ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
,,.~ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
contribution rate. What we're going to do is adjust your
cost on an annual basis, based on what people actually do
exercise their buy-back option. So, if someone does choose
to buy back, then we'll simply add that into the application
of liabilities for the following plan year, and your
contribution rate will be adjusted accordingly.
Traditionally, what we've seen across the
system, with our experience with buy-backs, is that
typically a low percentage of employees actually exercise
this option, for a variety of reasons. Many of the people
who withdraw in the first place are likely to be lower-paid
employees, and they're people who are less likely to be able
to afford to put the money back in. That's probably the
single biggest reason. But, the percentage of people who
really do this varies, of course, from plan to plan, but in
most cases it doesn't exceed 10 or 20 percent of the people
who are eligible to do it. Now, the potential cost impact
to the County will be outlined to you in a special report
that our actuaries will prepare. What it will do is provide
different scenarios to you, what your costs might be in the
future under the assumptions of different percentages of
these people choosing to exercise this option.
We have no way, of course, of predicting
2S ~ say how much your cost could go up in the future if
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
85
30 percent or 50 percent or 70 percent of these people did
exercise their buy-back option. There's no obligation to
the County to adopt this if we conduct a study for you. In
order to conduct a buy-back study, we simply need a short,
signed letter, either from yourself, Judge, or from Barbara
Nemec, who I believe is your official correspondent. Either
one of you can request the study.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We asked for a study last
spring.
MR. WATERS: You already have?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes. At the request of one
of the elected officials, we asked for a study. I have not
gotten the results.
MR. WATERS: How long ago was that?
JUDGE HENNEKE: May, I believe it was.
MR. WATERS: I haven't received it yet.
That's interesting. Okay. Once you have the results of
that, if you'd like me to come back and discuss it with you,
I'd be happy to. Y'all just give me a call; I'll be happy
to drive back down here. I apologize that you haven't
received it yet. I promise you, when I get back I will
check with the actuaries and see what the progress of that
study is.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you. Any other
questions from for Mr. Waters?
86
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The only question I
have, Mr. Waters, would you be kind enough to visit with one
of our judges that asked me some questions in the hall?
MR. WATERS: Absolutely, be happy to.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: `I'hea, would you take
him to Judge Brown, please?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Before we let him go, does
anyone else have any questions? If not --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The only thing -- and
this may be something you know, Judge. If -- if a person
hits that /5 threshold, you know, they've had their years
and that and they hit that, when they retire -- say they're
not 55 yet -- do they still start collecting that retirement
at 45 or whatever age?
MR. WATERS: Absolutely. There's no
limitation on how low a person's actual age may be to
qualify for benefits. We have some retirees in our system
actually start drawing benefits at age 46 under the
30-and-out rule. We have a few people that actually come
directly from high school, maybe who don't graduate, start
working when they're 16, and at 46 they retire. So -- and,
of course, your benefit is a function of how much you have
in your account and how much is matched by the County, and
that formula is not affected in any way by your age at
retirement, so we don't -- we don't do any kind of
87
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
discounting of the benefit based on retirement at any age.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Getting ready to retire,
Rusty?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, not yet.
JUDGE HENNEKE: You've got to understand the
holdover rule, Rusty.
(Laughter.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Ada, do you have anything you
want to contribute on behalf of Barbara? She's had some
medical tests this morning.
MS. MARTELON: No, I do not. I think it was
explicit.
JUDGE HENNEKE: It's my understanding that
Barbara is not recommending at this time that we change the
basic plan.
MS. MARTELON: That is correct.
JUDGE HENNEKE: However, she has suggested we
may want to take a look at the Supplemental Death Benefit.
So --
MS. MARTELON: This was mainly for
information.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Mr. Waters has explained we
can address the supplemental death benefit at any time.
MR. WATERS: At any time, absolutely.
JUDGE HENNEKE: But at this time, it's not
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
88
her recommendation that we change the basic plan.
MR. WATERS: And, of course, it's your
pleasure; it's when you choose to vote on your plan changes.
You actually have until December to officially communicate
to us any changes you -- or lack of changes you desire to
make for 2002. So, in terms of retirement system, it's not
necessary that you take action at this time.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Anyone have any questions?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Good rundown.
MR. WATERS: Thank you, sir. Appreciate it.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We appreciate you coming
over.
MR. WATERS: Give me a call if you'd like me
to --
JUDGE HENNEKE: If you'd go down and visit
with Judge Brown, we'd appreciate it.
MR. WATERS: I would be happy to.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Next item is Item Number 10,
which is consider and discuss authorizing Sheriff to
commission peace officer-certified jailers as deputies
without pay changes. Sheriff?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We currently have -- and
it's not quite 10, but it's going to be pretty close to it,
1
-' 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
^-.
25
89
especially after this next academy graduates -- certified
peace officers that have passed the state exam and
is -- pay-wise, is based on jailer, 'cause that's their
primary function, but they are sworn officers. Okay?
We can use them serving warrants in the
that's actually got one, for them approving all the bail
bonds. 'Cause, right now, a bond gets made in the jail,
whether it's a P.R. bond or not; there's beaucoups of those
every day. We have to call in or have an investigator go
over there into the jail part to approve those bonds. This
would allow those jailers that are on duty at that time that
are also officers to be able to approve those bonds and do
that, and also help us on escorting inmates to doctor visits
and -- and doctor appointments, things like that.
Now, the drawback -- or not drawback, in my
opinion. The point where I would be going with this
gradually -- I just to be very up-front -- is that a lot of
times when these jailers are off duty, you know, they like
to ride out; they like to be able to do it. We could still
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
,,., 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
90
have them as -- as backup officers, 'cause they are actually
commissioned deputy sheriffs with Kerr County. It would
change their job title to Deputy-slash-Jailer, and then
eventually I'd like to come back to the Court, at the end of
next budget year or something, and start looking at trying
to get those salaries up to a starting deputy's salary.
That would be the drawback for y'all. It -- it's
recommended, even in the jail standards, that deputies and
jailers be paid equal.
At this point, you're also getting to the
deal that you've got a certified jailer and a certified
deputy that are working in the jail, which training -- even
just right now, the academy we're running for those guys
that just want to stay a jailer, but want to have that
deputy -- or want to be a certified deputy, that's 900 hours
of training they're getting on top of everything else. And
I just think it would be very advantageous to swap out -- if
I have a deputy opening, I can pull one from the jail.
'Cause my gradual plan would be to start all new deputy
hires, when we have to, in the jail, as a jailer-assigned-
deputy type deal, where we need to see the work experience
and the work ethics and that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't have any problem
25 ~ part on the salary portion.
1(
1]
lc
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
71
1 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And I'm not asking for a
2 commitment. It's just something that we're working at, and
3 at that point in next years budget -- not this coming one,
4 but the one after -- and if 2 can justify it to the Court,
~ then I'd like to at least be listened to on it, but no
~ commitments. Because their duties are different, and we
~ would have to explain all those duties and their
dangerousness. But, you know, jailers get into probably
~ more fights inside the jail and involve more -- a lot of
safety issues inside the jail than the deputies do out on
the street. Just the unexpected.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Tommy, is there any impact on
insurance, as far as you know?
MR. TOMLINSON: Not that I know.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Just an umbrella peace
officer's policy, basically, anyway.
MR. TOMLINSON: They -- I think the liability
people look at the basic function to determine what the
premium is. So, when we apply for that, we'd -- we have to
count those as jailers for them to be able to determine what
the premium would be.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We would add a few of
those onto the vehicle insurance part of it, and I don't
know if that causes any change.
MR. TOMLINSON: No.
E
c
1C
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
t SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: So that they can operate
? the vehicles, taking them --
3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Would -- what about a
E change in job description? When you add that slash in
there, do you -- would you just bring two parts together?
Or do you have to redraw the whole --
SHERIFF' HIERHOLZER: Well, what I would have
to do is -- is add the slash in there, the Deputy/Jailer,
okay, with all the same jail duties as we have in the job
descriptions now, and then I would be adding the other
duties of bond approval, walk-in warrant service, things
like that, that we would expect them to do. And, that would
be the changes in the job descriptions.
JUDGE HENNEKE: You'll have to get with
Barbara, then, to actually formally change the description
and bring to it Court, and it will have to be tied to
certain positions.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If you know, Sheriff,
what is the difference in the annual salary that you might
be coming back to ask for if this happens?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The current annual
salary, before any of the COLA or anything like that --
right now, what we're operating under, the current salary
for a starting jailer is $19,335. The current salary for a
n~
E
c
1C
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
L starting deputy is $29,750. And, in my estimation and in
trying to work throu h that
9 you know -- true, I d love to
see it the same as a starting deputy's, 'cause I do feel
that they're in just as much danger inside that jail in a
lot of ways, and have a lot more important responsibilities
in that jail than deputies do on their part. In seeing how
it works and seeing where we end up, maybe with something in
between, but at least get those in next year's budget that
are not just a certified jailer. If they're also carrying a
deputy certification, have gone through the training, get
Chem up kind of in between that starting jailer's salary and
that starting patrol deputy's salary. But, you know, a
little bit above the regular jailer. Maybe a little bit
below the starting deputy, but pretty close in there.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Shoot, they're going
to want more than the deputy, because they wear two hats.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: A lot of deputies have
the jailer certification, too, and they wear two hats when
they're called on.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any other questions or
comments? If not, do we have a motion to approve the
Sheriff's request?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner
nn
E
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Baldwin, second by Commissioner Letz, to authorize the
Sheriff to commission 10 jailers as deputies without any
increase in pay for the certified jailers.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Thank you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Questions or comments? If
not, all in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(NO response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Item Number
11, consider and discuss upgrading equipment necessary to
maintain the TLETS connection. Sheriff?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I believe in the pack
you have a copy of the letter the Department of Public
Safety sent us back on July 17th, stating that they're going
to a satellite-type system with TLETS, which is our running
criminal history checks, running license plates,
registration, anything we do, entering wanted people in the
whole, you know, statewide system. That's what this
equipment is for. It's the Texas Law Enforcement
Telecommunications System. In doing that upgrade, what
they're requiring everybody to do is make sure that they
have the equipment that will handle the upgrade.
Unfortunately, Kerr County's equipment is -- as they state,
a few agencies are using very old devices. Well, we're one
1 of those agencies that use very old devices. And --
2 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: What is ours? Telex?
3 Or --
1(
11
lc
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
~ SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Telex. Okay. Which we
~ will not be able to have TLETS if we don't upgrade. We're
> trying to -- instead of just doing it and coming to the
' Commissioners with a large bill, we got estimates on it.
We've got the people that are qualified by and authorized by
D.P.S. to do it, 'cause there are certain vendors you have
to use. By our calculations, the best estimated costs I can
give overall is what they have in this letter that we got
from T.S.M. Consulting, $7,000 for these two stand-alone
computers. We have one TLETS terminal in our dispatch
office which runs everything that the patrol officers need
on the street, and that -- and we also have one inside the
jail which runs wanted checks on anybody before we ever
release them, runs wanted checks on anybody coming in and
things like that.
So, there's two -- two systems that we have
there, and replacing both of those systems, they're saying
$7,000 for the computer equipment and that, $95 per hour for
installation, and then the line that has to be run is about
$35, which I come up with an estimate of $8,185. These are
not your normal computers. As you can tell, these are a
special type oL computers that have to be used with this
96
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1%
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
system.
JUDGE HENNEKE: What is the source of your
funding?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Where do you think,
Judge? Where we've been having to get it, before we get
into the radio system. This deals more with radios and our
communication with our guys than anything else. But, I
don't know of where else to -- to come up with that type of
funding at this time of year. And, they're really wanting
every agency switched over to this by January.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: By January?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So it could be a
budgeted item, actually.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We have the funds this year,
though, so I think that's the reason the Sheriff has hustled
up and got it here this year.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It has to be done.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I would recommend that we --
if the Court is so disposed, that we authorize a
not-to-exceed number, since we don't have firm numbers.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah. The only firm
numbers we don't have is the actual, go out -- well, it's
$95 an hour for installation, and then their travel, and
what they gave us was an estimated 10 hours and $200 in
97
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
travel. That's where it's not firm. Okay. But, the other
price they've given us.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Does -- is there
anyplace that D.P.S. could participate? Like, hooking
things up and pulling wire? I mean, seems like they could
do something.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Shaun's going to help us
with that. In fact, the cable we're getting --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, the State creates
this problem and we fix it?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah. They come in and
hook up the satellite receiver-type stuff that you have to
have and everything.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They do?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: They do that. We don't
install that. We have to have everything operating that is
County-owned, which is what they -- you know, it has always
been that way, but they hook up the lines to it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, I would offer
a motion that the Court approve the Sheriff's request to
upgrade the equipment necessary to maintain the TLETS
connection, for an amount up to $8,500 -- give him a little
slack there -- and to take it from the radio line item --
Radio Communications line item.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I second the motion.
98
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner
Williams, second by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court
authorize the Sheriff to upgrade the equipment necessary to
maintain TLETS connection, with the cost not to exceed
$8,500, with the funds to come from the Radio Communications
line item in the Sheriff's Department. Any other questions
or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(NO response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Thank you, sir.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you, Sheriff. Travis,
are you ready on the --
MR. LUCAS: Right. Y'all have any questions?
I've reviewed the contract. I've reviewed the contract, and
it's textbook. It's quite fine.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Item Number 8. So, you have
no legal objections to us adopting the order?
MR. LUCAS: None whatsoever.
JUDGE HENNEKE: The Bylaws and the Articles
of Incorporation.
MR. LUCAS: It tracks -- as I told Buster, it
tracks the language out of Local Government Cade 303 in
terms of the Articles of Incorporation, the Bylaws, any --
99
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
any other thing that might come up, open meetings. It's all
in there.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I'd entertain a motion to
approve the order creating the new public facilities
corporation and approving the form of the Bylaws and
Articles of Incorporation.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner
Baldwin, second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court
approve the order creating the new public facilities
corporation to hold title to the Juvenile Detention
Facility, and approving the form of the Bylaws and Articles
of Incorporation of such public facility. Any further
questions or comments?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, Travis.
JUDGE HENNEKE: If not, all in favor, raise
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. And we'll
get those signed when we get done with the meeting today.
Okay, Tom?
MR. SPURGEON: Pardon?
100
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: We'll get the signatures on
the order after the meeting.
MR. SPURGEON: That's fine.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. The next item for
consideration is Item Number 12, consider and discuss the
location of the restrooms for Flat Rock Lake Park and the
submission of a sewer tap request to the City of Kerrville.
Jonathan?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Glenn Holekamp and myself
and the City of Kerrville, we met out there, I guess, a week
or so ago, two weeks ago, and tried to pick a location for
these restrooms. And the spot we picked is -- if you can
visualize, if you're coming down Riverside Drive from Loop
534, the first little parking area you get to along 534,
there's a spat there where the access from the park itself
is very gradual. It'll easily make a trail of some sort.
And then you also would have access by parking up off
Riverside Drive, the idea being that that would be -- the
handicapped access would be up there. We'll put a
handicapped parking spot next to the restrooms. The sewer
line and water line both run 10 feet from the location, and
right on the -- on this same side of Riverside Drive.
The only, I guess -- not really holdup; the
point can certainly be resolved, but the location may be in
the floodway. Certainly in the floodplain. Stuart
10]
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
recommended that we have an engineer -- County Engineer go
out there and actually locate the exact spot, 'cause the
flood maps are not that specific. But, even if it is,
the -- some sort of a certification the structure would be
floodproof, from the standpoint that water could get into
and out and wouldn't hurt it; the design would accommodate
that. And, we may have to build it up, you know, a couple
of feet to get it at least up to the same height level as
Riverside Drive, but we would plan to do that anyway. All
these funds are coming out of the -- of course, the L.C.R.A.
grant, and there's ample funds, based on the price proposal
from Freed and Barker, to make a precast building. And the
price for the building is about, plus or minus, $13,000.
Then there will be some plumbing and hookup fees for the
plumbing.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Jon, the location, is
it right there near the new boat ramp area?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's near. It's about
halfway between the boat ramp and where that -- that
circular drive that goes through the old park -- it kind of
dead-ends, so you can't drive all the way through the old
part of the park. About halfway from the boat ramp to where
the dead-end area is. It's the first area that there's
really land available near the river where it's relatively
flat, near the sewer line and near Riverside Drive. We
~n~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
,... 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
wanted to get it as high as possible; didn't want to put
something down -- plus we also wanted to get a location that
you could gravity-feed into the city sewer line. If you go
down here, you could do it from the floodplain variance
standpoint; we could do a forced main and pump it -- or
rather a lift station to pump it up to the sewer line where
you're treating it. But, this way it just gravity-feeds
into the city's line, and it's -- like I say, it's
accessible from the main part of the park pretty easily, and
actually would be accessible from the Ag Barn as well.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Handicapped access?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. And that just the
location of it -- and I think this was probably under the
prior court order, which granted pretty broad -- granted us
pretty broad authority as to how to arrange these things. I
don't know that we need really a motion for that specific
part. We do need a specific motion, though, to request the
City to waive the tap fee. I thought we had covered that.
When we did the restrooms over at Little League, similar
situation, and we tried to do it both at one time, but at
that time Little League agreed to pay the tap fee. All we
requested and got a waiver on was the capital recovery fee
for this -- for the Little League location and their
location. So, the capital recovery fee has already been
waived by the City, but they haven't waived specific request
~n~
L
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to waive the tap fee, which is about $500 or $600. There's
-- Ron Patterson said they didn't have any problem proposing
it to City Council, so -- if we get a letter over to them
requesting that.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Jon, don't sewer fees
to the City -- is that here in the water bill? I believe --
how would that work out?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not sure. I haven't
asked that question; didn't even think to ask that, on the
billing portion of it. The water usage would be pretty
minimal. I mean, the only water usage is going to be for
the toilets themselves. I mean --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would it be in the
Parks budget, ultimately?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. But it's a good
point that we probably need to add a utilities portion to
the Parks budget, if we remember to do that during our final
budget analysis.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. I believe we had a
motion by Commissioner Letz, second by Commissioner Griffin,
to authorize submission of a request to the City of
Kerrville to waive the sewer tap fee for the restrooms to be
located at Flat Rock Lake Park. Any further questions or
comments? If not, all in favor raise your right hand.
104
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(NO response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just a comment that goes
along with that. I would presume that there's a -- it's
proper for me to go ahead and submit the application with
FEMA or with Stuart at U.G.R.A. to get the location set out
and work out those details, as well?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Absolutely. Okay. Next item
is Item Number 13, consider and discuss approval of the WETS
water conservation brochure. Again, Commissioner Letz.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is a committee that
was -- I think I was put on just because I asked someone to
come give a presentation to the Court. But, anyway, it's a
committee regarding water conservation in Kerr County.
Janet Robinson heads it up and got it going. Quite a few
different organizations are participants. And the main
purpose, initially, anyway -- hopefully the main purpose,
period -- is to really develop some literature to hand out
to educate the public and do some more work on education. I
put in the -- as backup, a draft of the document that they
are proposing. I have received in my box late last week a
slight revision to that. When I read through the revision
versus the original, it's very, very little. The comment --
ins
1
L
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
or the changes that I saw were under surface water. They
added a statement that Upper Guadalupe River Authority is
charged with protecting the water quality of the rivers and
creeks of Kerr County. And then --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Here's another copy of
the revised one. You might pass that around.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The other -- and then I
believe the other one that was under -- they spelled out
Aquifer Storage Recovery, or ASR, and they also added some
language there regarding the usage for the City of
Kerrville, and --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: They also -- they also
corrected the Commissioners Court phone number, 'cause I
caught that one. I told them the original had the wrong
Commissioners Court number.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the main reason for
us to bring it to the Court is that all of the organizations
that are participating in this, their name is on the
document, and I wasn't going to take the liberty of saying
that the Commissioners Court name should be on there; I
should bring it back to the Court for specific authority for
that. It's pretty much a somewhat -- a benign document from
the standpoint that it's not trying to gear one thing or
another. It just brings out basically some -- where the
water comes from in Kerr County, and educates a little bit
106
1
~• 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
about that, and then the other part of it is number of
usages; how much water is used if you take a shower and
flush a toilet and things of that nature. And, just trying
to get people thinking a little bit when they are doing
things in the county.
The idea is that this will be available at,
you know, U.G.R.A. and Headwaters, hospital, locations like
the courthouse, City of Kerrville, anyplace where the public
visits frequently. Let them pick it up and hopefully learn
a little bit more about the water in this county.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've got a question
I noticed all the organizations that are
I was wondering why
volved in it. And it
goes -- the document talks about conserving water and things
like turning the shower off while you soak your body up, or
bathe in 9 inches of water or whatever it was, which is
difficult for some of us. But what about -- what about the
serious things, the real things like cedar eradication? Why
is it we don't talk about that, when that, to me, is one of
the keys of saving water?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that this is
talked about, certainly through the agricultural community.
I don't know why Soil Conservation Service was not
specifically asked to be a part of this group. Or maybe
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
107
they were. I do know that I made a comment that there was a
lot of literature available through the Extension office and
Soil Conservation Service about water savings, and I don't
think they've been excluded for any reason. I think a lot
it may have been the fact that Eddie was gone. I think he
was probably asked, as I recall, and just didn't show up.
But, this is really more of a -- a municipal-type usage as
opposed to, you know, more rural-type things as
agricultural, but I think it's a good point, and if any
additional educational brochures are put together, it would
be really good to put one out there or include that type of
information as well.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One of the reasons
why they may not be too involved, Buster, is that George
Holekamp, for example, who is representative of Soil
Conservation, is also involved in R.C.& D., and R.C.& D. is
trying to put out a major publication that deals with this
and a lot of other corollary information. So, that may be
one of the reasons.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But this is intended to
be something that -- an inexpensive, quick thing to put
together, to make available to the hotels and just around
town. One of the big goals is that we found out a pretty
large savings can be made in the city if the hotels would
108
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
start implementing some water-saving strategies and get the
guests to start, you know, using less water. So, that's the
-- that's the reason, I think.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Put 5-inch bathtubs.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Five-inch bathtubs. But
there's things in the nature of towel usage, things of that
nature, but I think it's a good step. I can't -- you know,
I didn't have a great deal -- all I did was attended several
of the meetings and gave some input. And my main, I think,
voice was that it needs to be -- you know, not be
politically slanted one way or the other as to whether we
have water, don't have water. Just put it out there, "It's
good to save water," and I think this brochure did
accomplish that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Do I have a motion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's a motion to
approve the revised draft as submitted.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Letz,
second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court approve the
WETS Water Conservation brochure as revised and as
submitted. Any further questions or comments?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's see. Does it
show on here anywhere, Jon, that -- your committee
109
~~
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
membership?	Did I see that	anywhere?	
	COMMISSIONER	LETZ: It's	got a list of the
organizations.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But not the group?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd like to see that
at some point, see who all of y'all are.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Who's funding the
publication?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Hasn't been asked yet.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We don't know.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Guess what question
two is going to be.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further questions or
comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(NO response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Item Number
14, consider and discuss authorizing signatures for the
T.C.D.P. Colonia Planning Study Grant, Contract Number
720135. T'he very last page is a resolution which authorizes
the County Treasurer, County Auditor, and County Judge to be
authorized signatories for this grant program. Again, this
110
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
is the grant we received to map those areas of the county
which have substandard infrastructure such as waterways,
water, streets.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would move the
approval of the grant application and authorize signature --
authorize the County Judge to sign same.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Is that the
resolution?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yeah, the resolution.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The resolution.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: The resolution, not
the application.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The resolution, as
proposed.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner
Williams, second by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court
adopt the resolution designating the County Judge, County
Treasurer, and County Auditor as authorized signatories for
the Texas Community Development Program Contract Number
720135, and authorizing County Judge to sign the resolution.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have a question.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- is this grant -- I
got confused thinking about grants on this. Is this the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
111
same grant that we started this whole thing with the City of
Center Point?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No. No, no, no.
This is the first one that we started with Grantworks early
on, and it was about the 90,000 -- looks like it's 98,000.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And then this one led to
that second one with Grantworks?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Led to the 250, which
led to the 500,000.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. And then, is --
the other one just disappeared?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Gone.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Never funded or anything?
JUDGE HENNEKE: That was actually --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Never even formally
applied for.
JODGE HENNEKE: That was actually a grant
that the City of Center Point was going to apply for.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, that's what I
remembered. I couldn't remember what happened when I
started looking at that. I remember there was a colonia
regarding that original one way back when. Okay, that's
what got me confused.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This is the first of
three that we've gotten from Grantworks.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
112
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further questions or
comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Next item,
Item Number 15, consider and discuss the approval of the
contract for the Indigent Health Care Coordinator. It was
brought to my attention by the supervisor of the -- of our
Coordinator at Sid Peterson that there's never actually been
a contract for services that the Coordinator provides. They
drafted a contract. They've been in touch with Mr. Lucas,
and I believe the result is what we have before us. Is that
correct?
MR. LUCAS: That's right. Just one comment.
If you look at Page 3 -- and this is really a matter of
form. When I was discussing this contract with them, I
requested that they add some language, and in the Page 3,
Letter D, second sentence, I don't know why they put that in
there, but -- that "Counties can only dedicate funds
annually." I mean, it really shouldn't be in there.
Doesn't affect the contract, but it's a matter of form.
They must have quoted me directly on my comments and
actually put that in there, so -- but it really doesn't
change the contract or anything. I don't know why they did
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
113
that.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Strike or initial the
last sentence of that paragraph?
MR. LUCAS: That's just -- it's Sentence 2.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Counties --
MR. LUCAS: Page 3, D, Sentence 2, "Counties
can only dedicate funds annually." I was just educating her
why we needed this -- the third sentence in there.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Oh.
MR. LUCAS: Which is now going to be our
second sentence. You follow?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes.
JUDGE HENNEKE: So, we're going to strike the
second sentence?
MR. LUCAS: Exactly.
JUDGE HENNEKE: With that amendment, do you
-- are you --
MR. LUCAS: It's fine. Yeah, it's good.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Do I have a motion to approve
the contract as amended?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Letz,
second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court approve the
contract for hospital-based Kerr County Indigent Health Care
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
114
Coordinator, as amended. Any further questions or comments?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have a question.
The way I read it is that we're going to pay 50 percent of
the salary?
JUDGE HENNEKE: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And that's what we've
been doing all along?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I was just a little
bit concerned about this one sentence on Page 2, number --
or Letter H, to bill the County for hours worked. Are we
paying that person by the hour, or are we paying a monthly
salary?
JUDGE HENNEKE: The person gets paid by the
hour. She is an hourly employee of the hospital, and we pay
for half of her salary.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, do we know,
month-to-month, how much we pay that person? Does it
differ?
JUDGE HENNEKE: We have a -- it doesn't
differ. We have a number which is plugged into the
budget -- the proposed budget for next year, just over
$8,000 for the year.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think the real
thrust of that is that they bill us monthly for it.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
115
JUDGE HENNEKE: Right.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think that's the
real thrust of it. It's -- the person is a full-time
employee, right?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Full-time employee of
the hospital.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. And we're
paying half of it, and they just bill us. And what that
really is saying is that they -- they bill us monthly for
it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Half her salary's
$16,000 -- I mean $8,000?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Just over.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Plus benefits, it
says.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further questions or
comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(NO response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Next item is
Item Number 16, consider and discuss creation of a committee
or working group to develop a Kerr County Economic
Development Program for adoption by the Commissioners Court.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
116
This arises out of the legal issue, as presented by the
County Attorney, that the way in which we currently provide
funds to the Kerrville Economic Development Foundation is
not -- probably not legitimate. And, Mr. Lucas has provided
us with a -- a memorandum which shows that if we were to
create an economic development program, that we would then
be able to fund that endeavor and that entity, or through
that mechanism we could, if we so desired, continue to
provide funds to KEDF as our agent for implementing the
County's economic development program. I think the key
here, from my discussions with Travis, is that the program
has to be a County-designed program. And, once we have a
program, then we have the ability to go out and contract for
services to implement that program, but we cannot just
contract with another economic development entity to -- as
part of their program. Travis, am I --
MR. LUCAS: That's right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- walking down the right
path here?
MR. LUCAS: Essentially, what has to happen
is, we have to -- the County has to initiate an economic
development program. That's the buzzword. Initiate,
design, et cetera. Then, under the law, we can contract
with -- what the law says is another entity, which is
defined -- I think I put that in y'all's packet. Another
117
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
entity could be a municipality, federal government even, but
more importantly for us, a charitable or nonprofit
organization, foundation, board, council, commission, or any
other person. So, we could actually have them do, you know,
the day-to-day affairs of the program, but the idea needs to
be birthed from this body here, essentially.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How -- I mean, it seems
like it's a -- I don't know, not just -- splitting hairs
isn't right, but something that's very -- how detailed does
the program have to be? Let me just ask you that. Can our
program just say we're going to have a program for economic
development, and then the KEDF implement it for us? Or
contract --
MR. LUCAS: Well, there's really nothing
specific that specifically talks about how detailed it has
to be. I guess detailed enough to give notice and a purpose
for an outside entity to manage it. So --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, seems to me that
you almost -- rather than, I mean, just have a court order
and make a motion -- but I'm not making a motion, but if we
were to make a motion, just saying that our -- you know,
Commissioners Court feels economic development is important
for Kerr County, and have -- like that, leave it as simple
as possible.
MR. LUCAS: I actually had a conversation
118
1
r 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
_ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.--.
25
with TAC when I discovered this particular statute, 381.004.
section here actually suggests that we can come up with
anything else that's not specifically stated in the statute.
Y'all follow me? And he said, "Well, yeah, you know, that's
right." And I said, "Well, how do we go about doing that?"
And they said, "Well, we really don't know." They're not
aware of -- TAC was not aware -- the general counsel, Rex
Hall, in fact, wasn't even really aware of how we could
implement this. But I started talking with, like, Bexar
County, Travis County, and come to find out they've got all
sort of different, you know, corporations and what-have-you
specific for -- for specific purposes of economic
development. And, so, it's really, I think, quite broad,
whatever we can do, but it needs to be, obviously, specific
enough that we could have some document --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: You have to have a
document this Court approved, that you say --
DODGE HENNEKE: I put this on the agenda this
way for a specific purpose, but I can sit down and write an
economic development program that would be a one-pager. It
119
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
would be constituting broad goals and objectives, if that's
what we want to do. Or, if we want to make it more of a
public exercise, where we get other people involved to
actually try to do an economic development program, that
might have some specifics to it. And, I really don't care.
I mean, quite frankly, it would be easier for me just to sit
down and write something out, present it to the Court, and
we can all tailor it and adopt it, than it is to try to get
other people involved. But, I wanted us to discuss, since
we have to take this step in order to -- to provide any
funding, how do we want to do this? What kind of exercise
do we want this to be?
MR. LUCAS: If I may, look in y'all's packets
at the third page. That's where I cite the statute. I'll
wait till y'all get there. Let's read it together; I've got
it circled, Letter (b) Y'all there? "To stimulate
business and commercial activity in a county, a
Commissioners Court of a county may develop and administer a
program," and then it lists, you know, for what purposes.
That's it. That's really all we have. It's pretty broad.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You could almost cite
that paragraph, to me -- or purpose. I mean, to me, where
we are right now, I mean, if we have to set it up like a
program, to me, just a one-page or less document is the way
to go right now. And if we ever want to -- I mean, 'cause I
120
1
~-. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
don't see us wanting to expand that right now. We can
always go back if we're going to expand something out at the
you know. That would be one thing, but I don't -- I haven't
heard any talk -- on the Court, anyway -- us doing anything
other than KEDF. And if we're not going to do anything
other than KEDF, to me, it should be as simple as possible.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Simple as possible.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The -- I received an
and what she's pointing out in this fax are those other
governmental entities who probably face the same discussion
we're having today as to how -- you may recall, not too many
years ago, the City of Kerrville faced the same discussion.
I think it created kind of a brouhaha, but the necessary
result of it was they entered into a contract with KEDF for
services, and then continued to fund it. Just briefly -- I
won't read all this. Just briefly, she cites McLennan
includes the Chamber, Baylor University, City of Waco, the
County. San Angelo does it in a public/private partnership,
and again, through contract. Midland does the same thing --
no, Midland doesn't do it, but Seguin does. They work
121
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
closely with it and they fund it through contract. And so
forth and so on. So, we're not inventing the wheel. The
wheel's already been invented.
MR. LUCAS: Right.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I can give you a whole
bunch more examples. The question is, though, are we doing
it legally? And we're -- and the answer is, until we have a
program that this Court has approved, we're not doing it
right, so that's all we're fixing. I had the same input.
But that's not the question.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, I know it's not,
but it's part of the question.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: The question is -- is
what does it take, and it takes a minimum document just --
that says this is a program that the Commissioners Court has
approved, and then we can go contract with other people.
MR. LUCAS: Right.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's very
straightforward.
JUDGE HENNEKE: It appears to be the
consensus of the Court -- the consensus of the Court that we
do this the simple way, so what I will do, I'll draft a Kerr
County Economic Development Program which will be based on
the statute, run it by Travis, put it back on the agenda
sometime between now and --
122
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Next budget.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We'll talk it over. Thanks,
Travis.
MR. LUCAS: You bet.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I want to make a
comment about this. It seems like that we have put
considerable amount of effort into doing this particular
program of the Economic Development Foundation, which -- and
I've been here a long time, guys, and I'm still not real
clear what they do. And, to me -- to me, we should put an
equal amount of effort in these other programs that are
dealing with people's lives. And, I just -- I'm not
disturbed by it, and I'm certainly in support of what we're
doing here, but I -- I just think that we're just putting --
seems like to me that we're putting forth a lot of effort in
some kind of economic program, whereas those other
organizations that are floundering around out there that
deal with people's lives should be high priority to us.
I'll just say it; this is not a high priority to me, this
economic development foundation or firm, or whoever they
are.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If I can, just a comment
to kind of answer part of what Commissioner Baldwin said, is
that I would agree that it's very difficult to put the
finger on what KEDF does. But, I served on that board for a
123
1
,_ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
couple of years, and a couple of things that they do do
that -- exactly what Commissioner Baldwin says, is the V.A.
system. They completely took on -- when we were having some
problems out there, they spent a lot of time and energy
working on the V.A. situation. They've worked a lot with
the State Hospital, and kind of behind-the-scenes things on
keeping those things going, and they kind of are almost at
a -- from what I would see, is damage control, when programs
get -- or organizations getting ready to get cut in the
area, they go and mobilize and try to get things done. So,
I think in that area, they do a lot to help citizens and --
of this community. It's kind of a -- it's a very broad
economic development foundation. I don't see that they -- I
mean, they, to my knowledge, haven't gone out and found any
big ticket industry to come here. I don't know whether we
really want them to do that. I mean, but they -- they are a
kind of a good clearinghouse, in my mind, and do a lot of
good, even though it's difficult to put your finger on
exactly what it is they're accomplishing.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I certainly
wasn't speaking negative toward the organization, itself
was just -- to me, these -- these groups that are dealing
with people's lives are just more important to me. That's
my feeling.
I
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just following up on
124
1
~„ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,~
25
what you're saying, Jon, I think the community's probably
better served by having one than by not having one, you
know, the business and economic community. And they're also
well.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: For better or worse.
of courthouse parking and traffic flow policy. I bring this
to the Court since we now have our new parking lot on the
west side of the courthouse, which I'm glad to see has been
discovered	by	many	of the employees.	I	did	a survey	last
week, and	with	this	new parking lot,	we	now	have --	would
have 50 employee's -- 50 parking spaces that would be
dedicated to employees. That's counting what we have on the
surface as well as what is down below by the Annex, and I
think that's adequate -- certainly adequate for all the
employees. And, I would suggest that we adopt this policy
which is designed to have the employees park in one of the
dedicated employees' parking spots, and also to set up
formally that traffic flows from Jefferson Street around the
courthouse and out Earl Garrett. That would seem obvious,
125
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
but I was walking across the driveway early one morning, and
someone zipped in Earl Garrett and went this way, so I
stopped them and said, you know, "Traffic goes this way; you
need to turn around and go the other way." Then, as I was
walking back to go across the street, someone else zipped in
the exit, and that person happened to be an employee, and I
stopped that employee and said, you know, "You need to come
around the other way; you're not supposed to go that way."
And that employee said, "Well, there's no court order saying
it's one-way, so you can't enforce that." I said, "Well,
maybe not, but I can get a court order." So, I bring tkiis
to the Court's attention. Any questions or comments?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Just one comment, and
that is that we probably do need some enforcement of
whatever we do. And we've -- I've never noted much of that,
so we might ask for some help on occasion and, you know,
just spot-check it every now and then to see if we're doing
what we --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Y'all pass an ordinance,
or how does that enforcement work, Judge?
JUDGE HENNEKE: This is a policy, so it would
be like any other policy of the County, personnel policy.
Any employee violating the policy would be subject to
disciplinary action, which could include termination.
COMMISSIONER WILLlAMS: Might we need a
126
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
little signage, Judge?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Might need a little. Not
much, I don't think.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, even after you
pass a policy today, I'm going to continue coming in that
way. You know, what are you going to do to me?
JUDGE HENNEKE: You're an elected official.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I can park anywhere I
want, drive any where I want.
JUDGE HENNEKE: If you want to take that
point of view, you're welcome to.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I'm going to,
but what -- what is it that -- what is it you can do to me?
Sheriff?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I can't do anything.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: If we pass the thing
and say no parking or something, and somebody parks in a
no-parking zone, can they be cited?
JUDGE HENNEKE: We would have to -- in order
for us to have a tow-away policy, which is what you're
talking about, we'd have to go a step further and adopt a
court order authorizing tow-aways, and contract with someone
to come and do the towing away, and put signs up that says
if the car is towed, you can find it at this phone number.
And I have not proposed that -- make sure of that; I have
127
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
not proposed that. You know, and if Commissioner Baldwin
wants to come in the exits and park in the -- in my spot,
well, he and I will have a go-around, but --
(Laughter.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: But I -- you would think that
people would use --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Common sense.
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- common sense.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Was there at one time
a -- and I don't know; I just remember what deputies used to
have to do years ago on marking tires out there and whether
they were legally or illegally parked, you know. Has anyone
done any research to make sure some prior Court didn't
already adopt an ordinance-type deal on parking out there?
MS. PIE PER: 'Phere was a 12-hour parking on
the side, outside of the square.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That was the City.
Those -- ours were -- they were having deputies do it inside
the square.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just don't think the
Commissioners Court has authority to do those kind of
things.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I hope not.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I'm not -- I'm
not -- Fred, I'm not fighting with you. I just think that
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
128
we -- you know, like Larry said, I mean, you can draw up
rules and regulations all day long. If you can't enforce
them, what the hell -- it makes it an exercise in futility.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We can't enforce them against
elected officials; that's the difference. You got to accept
the difference between an employee and an elected official.
I can't -- a department head can't fire an elected official.
Only the voters.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But if you have a
department head --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Just like any personnel
policy. If the elected -- if the people don't turn in their
timesheets, if they don't come to work on time, you know, if
they're operating a personal business on County -- you know,
out of County equipment, that's covered by the personnel
policy, and there are provisions in the personnel policy for
enforcement. This is just adding to the personnel policy.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But is it, in essence,
trying to force, in some ways, the department heads to do
certain things with their employees? With that department
head's employees? Because that's -- you know, the Court
doesn't have the authority to enforce that -- that County
policy. It's the department head that --
JUDGE HENNEKE: The Court has the authority
to adopt personnel policies. That's pretty clear. Correct,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
129
Travis?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My question is -- and you
alluded to it, Judge. I mean, how many employees, A, do we
have working in this -- you know, in the courthouse and the
courthouse annex, and then how many other County employees
come here sometime during the day? I mean, if we don't have
-- what we're saying is -- is that we have to have enough
spots designated for every employee to always have a parking
spot when they come here; otherwise, they're subject to
being in violation of this policy, which, to me, is not
real -- doesn't make a lot of sense. I mean, personally,
I'd just as soon have the signs up that we have right now,
for courtesy, try to get close to the number of spots
allocated to employees, and let people do what they want. I
mean, I don't ever -- only time I'll ever come in the wrong
way is on weekends or at night when I come into the office
real quick, but do I that too. And --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Rusty, get your
handcuffs out.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If we're saying employees
can only park in, you know, reserved parking spaces, but
elected officials can park anywhere they want, that kind
of -- I really don't think that we're on a -- should be --
you know, have a policy that puts us on a different level.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, the policy doesn't put
130
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
us on a different level. Commissioner Baldwin asked about
the practicality of it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I know, but we
currently have two Commissioner's spots designated.
JUDGE HENNEKE: And we have two reserve spots
designated over there, and we have two reserve spots
designated down below.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. I can't put my
truck in those, can't fit my truck down below, so I can only
get into these -- two of those reserved. So, I --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, you --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I'm curious. If one
department head says, "Well, I don't care if my employee
drives in that exit," the only thing I'm curious about at
that time is that, is the Court then going to take action --
personnel action against that employee?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Right.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And go over the -- the
department head's --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, is the answer.
JUDGE HENNEKE: The whole purpose of creating
the extra parking places was to free up the front of the
courthouse for people who are here for jury duty or going to
the Clerk's office, to the Tax Assessor's office.
SHERIF'F' HIERHOLZER: Well --
131
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: Most of the employees who
were parking in the front have now discovered this lot over
here and are using this lot. Not all of them are.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I'm parked out front
right now, Judge, 'cause its real hard to get into my little
spot downstairs.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: The reason -- we're
running the conversation a lot longer than it probably needs
to go. You know, the -- I don't think we really have, you
know, a parking problem near as much as we --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- potentially have
a -- a safety problem. The traffic flow, that's what -- you
know, if -- and on the weekends there's not a problem, and,
of course, everybody can steer clear of Commissioner
Baldwin. But -- but I think the real question is on the
traffic flow, and that's a health, safety, and welfare --
that's a safety issue. And, if we adequately mark that, I
think we could reasonably expect that 99 percent of the
people will probably abide by the traffic flow, and we'll
just add --
JUDGE HENNEKE: But you can't enforce it
without an order.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We could enforce it by
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
132
putting those little spikes that shoot up over there.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah, but are you going
to be able to enforce it with an order?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My preference is --
MR. LONGNECKER: Judge Henneke, there's ten
more people coming over in Juvenile. I notice Maintenance
have signs made up already.
JUDGE HENNEKE: There's not ten coming over,
there's six coming over.
MR. LONGNECKER: Six? I thought --
JUDGE HENNEKE: One of which has a designated
spot.
MR. LONGNECKER: Okay. So those have been
taken into consideration?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes, those have been taken
into consideration. Okay, we'll just move on. I've got my
spot. If I get run over crossing the driveway, I'll just
sue the County.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We could dynamite a
couple of cars.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Number 18, consider
and discuss revisions to the scope of work as reflected in
proposed Change Order Number 9 relating to the renovation of
the courthouse and the annex. Mr. Longnecker.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
133
MR. LONGNECKER: It says Mike Walker here,
but I'll introduce him for you. To date, we've been
considering and discussing the change order and the other
things that are needed to complete the Phase III
construction work by Stoddard Construction Company. We have
a change order, which I believe you folks have copies of,
Change Order Number 9. And, in addition to that, we have
completed as-built drawings, and that's from the architect,
and then we need the O & M manual, which is Operations and
Maintenance manual from the contractor, and then all of the
remaining punch list items that are in the, I believe,
remaining substantial completion report still are -- some of
those need to be finished. And this, then, will conclude
the final part of the contract with Stoddard Construction
Company.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any questions?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I'll move that we
approve it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner
Griffin, second by Commissioner Williams, that the Court
approve the Change Order Number 9 relating to the Phase III
renovations to Kerr County Courthouse and Annex.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there still a -- when
this is final or everything is done, is there, like, a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
134
retainage that he gets that portion?
MR. LONGNECKER: Yes, there is. What this is
for is to finalize the total contract and release
everything. However --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Wait a minute, we're not
releasing everything by this action.
MR. LONGNECKER: No, not releasing
everything, but once these other --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Anything by this action.
MR. LONGNECKER: The other items that I have
on this list are totally complete. For instance, the 0 & M
manual and the other punch list items. Those are still the
responsibility of the contractor, which needs to be
finished.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But this is just -- this
is a change order, only it doesn't affect the retainage,
doesn't affect anything else.
MR. LONGNECKER: That's right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further questions or
comments?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there a second on
that?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes, there was. If not, all
in favor, raise your right hand.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1J
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
•--
25
135
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Next item is
have a request from Mr. Longnecker, in his capacity as
construction manager, to approve the subcontracts outlined
in his memo. Keith, anything else you want to tell us?
MR. LONGNECKER: I gave the Commissioners
copies of the memorandum on August the 8th that asked for
approval for three subcontracts; one to Guadalupe Electric,
the other to State Aire, and the other one to The Home
Center for electrical work, HVAC work, and carpentry and
the work for finishing out the offices of the Juvenile
Probation Department, which came to $9,008.93. According to
Mr. Lucas, that -- my contract with you doesn't authorize me
to go out and approve those contracts directly, so I'm
offering this for approval. These contracts, some of the
work has started, but nothing's been paid on them yet. So,
at this point, I'd like to get approval for these three
contracts. I have the backup work here showing each one of
the actual prices that the contractors turned in to me,
which I have approved as being the best prices the County
136
1
2
3
4
J
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
can get to do this work.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My only comment is
tYiat -- it's pretty much directed probably more at Travis,
is that -- that this expenditure, along the with other
expenditures, are not going to put us at the point we need
to do bidding on this project?
MR. LUCAS: Well, I wish Motley was here
today. He was to address this particular issue. All I can
tell you is I've been told by him that he needs to address
it, the issue. I apologize for that, but we've got some
disagreements downstairs. So, he's -- he's the County
Attorney.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's true. I --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can you see if he's in
his office, please?
MS. SOVIL: He needs to be here for the next
agenda item anyway.
MR. LONGNECKER: There's also the matter of
authorizing purchase of materials from the suppliers; that I
have shopped the three different -- four different
lumberyards and the glass companies that I needed to get the
best possible prices for. And, the only thing I can do now
is offer you where we're at financially is well below the
budget as far as what was first offered to the -- to the
Court originally.
137
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. SOVIL: He'll be just a moment.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Back on this agenda
item, though, these -- didn't this pop up in the bills this
morning?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's the same company,
but it's a different project.
COMMISSIONER BALUWIN: Different project,
okay.
JUDGE HENNEKE: 'That's for the Stoddard
contract.
MR. LUCAS: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, what are we doing?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're waiting on the
County Attorney, I guess.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Tommy has a couple late
bills. Let's --
COMM1SSi0NER BALDWIN: Yeah.
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- take up his late bills
while we're at it. Good idea, Tommy.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. This -- this arrived
this morning from Animal Control. They're -- our department
head's sending one of his people to a conference. We need
to have the money available by the -- we have -- we need to
mail it today, and it's $125 to the Texas Animal Control
Association, and the other one is for $107.56 for two nights
138
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
lodging for this person.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Do we know who the person --
MR. TOMLINSON: Janie Roman.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Who?
MR. 1'OMLINSON: Janie Roman.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Letz,
second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court authorize a
hand check in the amount of 125,000 -- $125, to be paid to
the order of the Texas Animal Control Association for annual
conference, and also to authorize a hand check in the amount
of $107.56 for lodging for Janie Roman to attend the
conference. Any questions or comments?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Where is this
conference?
MR. TOMLINSON: I think it's in Lufkin.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Lufkin, Texas. And so
she'll come back and ask for reimbursement for travel later
on? Or is that included?
MR. TOMLINSON: That will be right, yes.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any other questions or
comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
139
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(NO response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: While you have a minute,
Judge, I want to give y'all an update, 'cause I had a couple
questions posed to me by one or two Commissioners about how
much overtime we've spent in the murder case investigation,
just to give an idea. In that investigation, we had -- and
this is just for information -- we had 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12,
14, 16 officers involved, and out of that, just on overtime
alone was 259 hours. So, really, it came out pretty good, I
think. That's not their regular work hours; that's just
overtime. But I've been posed that question, are we going
to have enough in our overtime budget this year and that to
cover it. We do have enough in there, but it was a lengthy
investigation to this point. I just wanted y'all to know
that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Any update on
extradition?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's -- no. That's
still going to be interesting, 'cause we have to get the
entire case file that pertains to this, and that's where
there will be a cost later, to translate it into Spanish
that will be accepted by those authorities at 23 cents per
word.
JUDGE HENNEKE: All right. David, talk to us
140
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
about the subcontract issue.
MR. MOTLEY: Well, I didn't actually bring
Lhe memo that I had written to Commissioner Letz, but you
want to know about this contract itself. And, I don't
really have the bidding statute in front of me, but my
recollection and what I wrote to Jonathan was that if a
contract provides for expenditures to an individual
exceeding $25,000, then that job should be bid. This
contract, as I recall it, really doesn't -- just a moment
here. Contract really doesn't -- it says, under Part A,
Services to be performed by construction manager are as
follows: Receiving all necessary bids from subcontractors
and materials suppliers.
I don't believe "bids," as used in that
context, is the same context as it's used in the Local
Government Code under the Competitive Bidding statute,
because there was no bidding, per se, that was completed by
Longnecker. No advertising, receiving sealed bids, opening
them at the same time and such. It was a bid in the sense
that he, as I understand it, went out to various providers
of materials and labor and asked them, you know, to give him
an estimate of what it would cost for the specific things
that he wanted. In some cases, I believe he didn't get
responses, but -- from one of those persons. But, in any
event, looking at what was the most reasonable bid for what
141
1
..-, 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
..~
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
he needed, the work commenced -- and this is just the way I
There is a provision -- and, again, i came up
here thinking what you wanted to talk about was these
contracts. There's a provision that says the Commissioners
except where the statute says it's not allowable. There was
no -- I would say competitive bidding in general is
something that Commissioners Court itself should do. I
don't believe there was any competitive bidding. There was
searching out of best price. And the fact that the
contracts have not -- in my understanding, have not until
today been presented for approval, ratificaCion, or payment,
may take this contractual arrangement out of the danger zone
relating to bidding. I think that that's going to be -- can
you point out this one section? Is that the one? Okay.
There is another provision in the competitive
bidding statute that says the -- in applying the competitive
bidding and competitive proposal requirements established in
this subchapter, all separate sequential or component
purchases of items ordered or purchased with the intent of
avoiding the competitive bidding and competitive proposal
requirements from the same supplier are treated as if they
are part of a single purchase and of a single contract. I
don't think there was ever any intent expressed in the
142
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
manner in which this improvement was to be -- any intent to
avoid the bidding laws expressed. I think the overall
intent, from what I can discern, was an effort to save
money, have the job managed by Mr. Longnecker, who is
certainly familiar with the prior phase; to also, where
advisable, use inmate labor. And, all-in-all, I think that
this one would -- would pass scrutiny.
The only possible concern I would have would
be that the work, itself, was part of -- I would say work,
sounding as if it's one job, but the component work, some of
those jobs were commenced before the Commissioners Court
authorized expenditure of the money. But, seeing as how I
don't think the intent was to get around the bidding law, I
think this is one of those sort of authorizations that could
probably be given to Mr. Longnecker, and the Court could
ratify that, which is essentially what I think the Court is
going to do today. I was concerned initially when I got
your request for a memo, because -- well, first of all, as I
wrote you back, it's pretty fact specific, and I didn't know
much about what had actually happened. But, the key
language out of the competitive bidding -- competitive
proposal requirements are in 262.023(a) of the Local
Government Code, and it says before a county may purchase
one or more items under a contract that will require an
expenditure exceeding $25,000, the Court must comply with
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
143
the bidding procedures. And, it seems to me that this --
these -- this job is not truly under one contract. The --
the arrangement between the County and Mr. Longnecker is a
single contract, but this contract does not authorize Mr.
Longnecker to, for example, pay for these expenditures. And
I think by him bringing the component expenses into court
today and the Court looking at these as separate and
individual agreements or contracts with the County, and
also, as I stated before, with there being no evidence of
any intent to get around the competitive bidding law, I
would say that this would probably pass muster.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's all I wanted to
hear.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any other questions regarding
these three specific --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: No.
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- subcontracts? Do I have a
motion to approve -- ratify the subcontracts as presented by
Mr. Longnecker?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner
Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Letz, that the Court
approve the three subcontracts for the Juvenile Probation
space and authorize Mr. Longnecker to proceed with acquiring
144
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
those services.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: One quick -- one quick
point, and that is, are they really subcontracts? I think
they are expenditures being authorized directly by the
Court.
JUDGE HENNEKE: You're right, they're really
not subcontracts; they're contracts.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: They're contracts, and
we are authorizing payment.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Right. We're authorizing the
contract and payment.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right, contract and
the payment.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's exactly what my
motion said.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: In three separate
cases.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any other questions or
comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Next item is
Item Number 20, consider and discuss step and grade for the
145
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
new Assistant County Attorney.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: We'll stand in recess.
(Recess taken from 12:14 p.m. to 12:18 a.m.)
MR. MOTLEY: I'm seeking the Court's approval
for the appointment of -- I guess you could call it a senior
Assistant Kerr County Attorney, at the annual salary of
$38,250. And let me just say, by way of backup, the Nash
study of Kerr County salary plan completed August of 2000
using '99/2000 salary figures had a suggested or a median
salary for entry level in our office at $39,499. That was a
year ago. That's more than what I'm asking for the senior
attorney at this time.
JUDGE HENNEKE: How much are you asking for
the senior attorney? Thirty-five -- $38,607?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Thirty-eight --
MR. MOTLEY: $38,250, I think. Let me be
sure that's right. Thirty-eight -- no, it's $38,607.
You're right, Judge.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay.
MR. MOTLEY: Even at that, it's still two and
a half percent behind the entry level salary recommended by
Nash. I'm trying to, you know, hold the salaries down, but
let me say that last July 14th, at a budget workshop, I
146
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1S
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
appeared before the Court and asked for these two positions
respectively, the junior and senior positions, to be funded
at $40,000 and $50,000. I'm talking about --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay, David. We're not here
to talk about -- you're here to ask for the step and grade
for Mr. Phillips.
MR. MOTLEY: Well, yes.
JUDGE HENNEKE: And the proper step and grade
is a 25-8, which is what Ms. Collier got. Is that what
you're asking for?
MR. MOTLEY: That is essentially what I'm
asking for. I'm trying to give some historical background
to the -- my request or my attempts in the past to raise --
I'm not talking about salaries, but raise the salary for the
position, not the salary for the person, up to a higher
level. By not knowing what the salary's going to be in
advance, it puts me at a disadvantage in trying to compete
and hire persons for this position.
JUDGE HENNEKE: That -- that's a different
topic than we're here for today. What we're here for today
is your request to start Mr. Phillips at something other
than Step 1 of the grade that he's been placed into by the
court order last year.
MR. MOTLEY: What court order are you
referring to?
1(
1:
1~
1.
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
14/
1 JUDGE HENNEKE: When we adopted the budget,
2 we adopted the personnel schedule. The personnel schedule
3 included an Assistant Attorney at a 25-8 and an Assistant
4 Attorney --
5 MR. MOTLEY: Yes, sir.
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- at a 25-5. So, you're
7 here to ask that the Court approve hiring Mr. Phillips at
3 the 25-8 level; is that correct?
3 MR. MOTLEY: 'Phat -- that is correct. The --
~ the agenda request originally had an item in there about
correction of this, changing from an exempt position, which
these positions have always been, to the step and grade that
was done last year. I -- this may not be the place or the
time to do that; however, that is what essentially I am
asking, is to put him in at the same salary that Ms. Collier
was making.
JUDGE HENNEKE: And Mr. Phillips is an
experienced attorney. He comes to us with experience in the
Lubbock County D.A.'s' office; is that correct?
MR. MOTLEY: Yes. And it's very comparable
experience, given the job duties that he's going to be
taking. Ms. Collier had about three years experience, but
very little of it in the criminal area, whereas Jerry has
something between 18 months and two years experience, and a
good portion of that has been as a lead prosecutor in one of
l4R
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the county courts, the criminal County Court at Law in
Lubbock. Additionally, as an intern in that same office, he
worked on some appeals, and as first-chair attorney in that
court, he has tried probably in the neighborhood of 12 cases
first chair, and then prior to assuming first chair, he had
assisted in numerous -- or second chair numerous other
trials of the type we try here, such as D.W.I. and assault
and such. So, he is very qualified for the position, and
although he has less total years experience than did Angela,
the character of his experience is more in line with the job
that we are seeking to place him in, and the job duties.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Do I have a motion to approve
the hiring of Mr. Phillips at a Grade 25, Step 8?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner
Griffin, second by Commissioner Letz, that we authorize the
hiring of -- that we authorize Mr. Phillips to be paid at
the 25-8 level. We'll make it clear that the Court is not
authorizing hiring, because the Court has nothing to do with
Yiiring of people who work for the various departments. All
we're doing is setting the appropriate step and grade for
the position -- for the individual.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And the money's in the
149
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes, the same level Ms.
Collier was being paid at. Any further questions or
comments? If riot, all in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed same sign.
(NO response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Okay. Do we
have anything else?
MR. MOTLEY: Not from me.
JUDGE HENNEKE: If not, we are adjourned.
(Commissioners Court adjourned at 12:25 p.m.)
150
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF KERR
The above and foregoing is a true and complete
transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as
County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County,
Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth.
DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 17th day of August,
2001.
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
BY: __ _ Q/YGC.~C _____ _
Kathy B ik, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
ORDER N0. 27154
CLAIMS AND ACCOUNTS
On this the 13th day of Aug~_~st :'001, came to be considered by
the Co~_tr-t vario~_is Commissioners' precincts, which said Claims
and Accounts are: 10-General for' X104,620.05, 11-Jury for'
X230.50, 13-Road ~ Pridge Additional Registration fee for
$9,008.25, 14-Fir'e Protection for $14,331.60, 15-Road and
Pridge for 8 97,810.76, 18-Co~_tnty Law Library for X6,790.56,
19-Public Libr•ar•y for- $29,246.33, 24-Traffic Safety F~_tnd for
X275.60, 27-J~_tvenile Intensive F'rogr-am-State Rid F~_ind for
X2,886.65, 50-Indigent Health Care for^ ~4, 337.'31, 64- Lake
Ingram Estates Road District Pond proceeds for 39, 021.03,
70-Permanent Improvement for- 'b 23, 271. 69, 81, District
Administration for X358.49, 83-State Fi_inded-216th District
Attorney for X787.05, B6-State Fi_inded-^c 16th District probation
for X5,242.81, 87-State F~_tnded-Community Corrections for'
X5,247.65, T~TRL CASH REQUIRED, RLL FUNDS:~313,466.93.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Paldwin, seconded by
Commissioner- Williams, the Co~..irt unanimously approved by a vote
of 4-0-0, to pay said accounts.
ORDER NO.7155
BUDGET RMENDMENT IN
JUSTICE OF THE F'ERCE #1
On this the 13th day of R~_igust X001, i.ipon motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Letz, the
Co~.ir•t unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to transfer
X100.00 from Line Item No. 10-455-499 Miscellaneo~_is, and to
tr•ansfer• ~41.EE from Line Item No. 10-455-485 Conferences and
to transfer- 'bic1.34 from Line Item No. 10-455-315
Rooks-publir_ations to Line Item No. 10-455-108 Part-Time
Salary in the Justice of the F'eace #1.
ORDER NO. 'c.:7156
BUDGET AMENDMENT IN
COUNTY COURT AT LAW
On this the 13th day of August 2001, upon motion made by
Commissioner^ Williams, seconded by Commissioner Gr^iffin, the
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to transfer
`.600.00 from Line Item No. 10-427-565 Computer Supplies with
X162.00 to tine Item No. 10-427-310 Office Supplies and with
X38.00 to Line Item No. 10-427-309 Postage in County Cour^t at
Law.
ORDER NO.'L7157
BUDGET AMENDMENT IN
THE COUNTY TREASURER
AND LRTE RILL
On this the 1;th day of R~_~g~_ist X001, capon motion made by
Commissioner Lets, seconded by Commissioner 6r•iffin, the
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to tr^ansfer-
$467.69 from Line Item No. iQ~-497-461 Lease Copier^ with
$:'Ch0.00 to Line Item N0. 10-497-31@ and with $`67.69 to Line
Item No. 10-497-3Q~9 Postage in the County Treasurer^. The
Co~_mty Auditor and County Treasur^er are hereby authorize to
wr^ite a hand check in the amount of $~7:'.OP~ payable to the
F'.err•v i 11 a post master #497.
ORDER N0. 27158
PUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE
SHERIFF'S DEF'RRTMENT
On this the 13th day of August 2001, upon motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to tr•ansfer•
$600.00 from Line Item No. 10-560-220 Employee Medicals to
Line Item No. 10-512-220 Employee Medicals and also to
transfer $7,568.70 from Line Item No. 10-560-410 Radio
Equipment with $6,185.42 to Line Item No. 10-512-333 Inmate
Nedical Expense, and with $1,050.00 to Line Item No.10-512--315
Uniforms, and with $?,06.51 to Line Item No. 10-560-208
,-~
Investigation Expense, and with $26.77 to Line Item No.
10-560-309 Postage in the Sheriff's Department.
ORDER N0. 27159
BUDGET RMENDMENT IN THE
216TH DISTRICT COURT AND
IN THE 198TH DISTRICT COURT
On this the 13th day of R~_rgi_ist 2~2~1, capon motion made by
Commissioner Let z, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, the
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-Q-0, to tr^ansfer'
5947.50 from Line Item N0. 10-436-402 Court Rppointed Rttorney
to Line Item N0. 10-435-402 Court Appointed Rttorney and to
tr^ansfer^ 5315.08 fr^om Line Item No. 10-436--417 Special Tr^ials
to Line Item No. IQ~-435-417 Special Tr^ails in the 216th
Distr^ict Co~ar^t and in the 198th Distr^ict Court.
ORDER N0.2716P~

RUD6ET RMENDMENT IN
CDUNTY CDURT RT LAW
AND THE 198TH DISTRICT CDURT
Dn this the 13th day of August ^c~D4i]., ~.tpon motion made by
Commi.ssi.oner Lets, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, the
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to tr•ansfer•
$1, 016.1Ei from Line Item ND. 1D-436-40~ Court Rppointed
Attorney to Line Item No. 10-4~7-40c Co~ar•t Appointed Rttorney
in the Ca~anty Court at Law and the 198th District Court.
ORDER NO. 27iEi
.-~ PUDGET RMF_NDMENT IN THE COUNTY JRIL
RND THE SHERIFF'S DEPRRTMENT
On this the 13th day of R~ag~_ist 2001, i_ipon motion made 6y
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, the
Co~_ir-t unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to transfer
b193.52 from Line Item No. 10-560-41Q Radio Equipment to Line
Item N0. 1Q~-512-333 P'r'isoner Medical in the County Jail and
the Sheriff's Department.
ORDER N0. ^c716c
BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE
COUNTY CLERK.
On this the 13th day of August ~00i, upon motion made by
Commissioner Williams , seconded by Commissioner- Griffin, the
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to transfer
'b~'3c.49 from Line Item N0. 10-453-56E Computer- 5aftwar'e and to
transfer ~74E.00 from Line Item No. 10-40c-~10 Pallot Expense
all to go into Line Item No. 10-403-461 Lease copier- in the
County Clerk.
ORDER NO. ..716
DECLARE AN EMERGENCY IN
LAW LIRRRRY
On this the 13th day of A~ag~.tst
Commissioner Lets, sec::onded by
Coi_irt unanimously approved by
emergency and transfer 87~~?. 50
S~_irpl.~_is F~_mds to Line Item No.
Library.
c001, ~_ipon motion made b•y
Commi.ssi.nner• Griffin, the
a vote of 4-0-0, to declare an
to came from F~.md 4#18
1B-'6~0-59~ Books in Law
ORDER N0. ~71E4
PUDGET AMENDMENT IN
COUNTY RUDITDR
AND A LRTE RILL
On this the 13th day of A~ag~_ist cQ~Q~l, upon motion made 6y
Commissioner- Let z, seconded by Commissioner Griffin,
the Cour^t unanimously approved by a vote of 4-Q~-0, to transfer
549.78 from Line Item Na. 1~-495-4~0 Telephone to Line Item
No. 10-495-485 Conferences in the Co~_~nty R~_~ditor. The Co~_~nty
Tr^eas~_tr^e r^ and Co~_inty R~_tditor^ are her^eby a~_ithorize to write a
hand check in the amo~_~nt of 5170.00 payable to TACA Confer^ence
F~_md.
ORDER N0. X7165
PUDGET AMENDMENT IN
JUVENILE pRDPRTION
0n this the 13th day of Aiagi_tst ^c001, upon motion made by
Commissioner^ Letz, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, the
ORDER N0. c7165
PUDGET AMENDMENT LN
JUVENILE PRORATION
On this the i3th day of August c001, ~_tpon motion made by
Commissioner- Let z, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, the
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to tr'ansfer'
~ 8,936.00 from Line Item No. 10-560-410 Radio Equipment in
the Sheriff°s Department to Line Item No. 10-570-48c Alternate
Housing in the Juvenile probation.
ORDER NO. X7166
RUD~ET AMENDMENT IN
THE MATNTENRNCE DEF~ARTMENT AND
THE A6 PARPI FACILITIES
Dn this the lath day of August cN01, upon motion made by
Cnmmissioner~ Let:, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, the
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-Q~-0, to tr~ansfer•
~c75.00 from Line Item No. 1~-666-550 Major- Repairs to Line
Item N0. 10-666-4c~ Telephone and to transfer ~86a.00 from
Line Item N0. iV~-S10--5~a Major Repair-s to Line Item No.
10-51~-400 Trash Service in the Maintenance Department and the
Ay Parn Facilities.
ORDER N0.~7i67
~-. BUDGET RMENDMENT IN SHERIFF'S DEF'RRTMENT
AND THE COUNTY JAIL
On this the 13th day of R~_tg~_ist ^c001, upon motion made by
Commissioner Let z, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the
Co~_irt unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to transfer
80,517.33 from Line Item No, i0-560-410 Radio Equipment to the
following Line Item Number-s:Line Item No. 10-51~-::,33 Prisoner
Medical for 8389.89, Line Item N0. 10-51c-315 Jail Uniforms
for- 815.90, Line Item No. 10-560-454 Vehicle Maintenance for
81,760.69, Line Item No. 10-560-461 Lease Copier for- 8350.85
in the Sheriff's Department and the County Jail.
."^
~^
ORDER N0. 27168

PUDGET AMENDMENT IN
NON DEGRRTMENTAL
On this the 13th day of A~_ig~_ist 201., upon motion made by
Commissioner Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the
Co~_irt unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to transfer
~'2041.Q0 from Line Item N0. iQ-403--456 Machine Repairs and to
transfer- ~64~Q~.OQ fr-om Line Item No. 10-4Q~9-404 F'a~_iper Burial
to Line Item No. 10-409-571 contingency in Non Departmental
ORDER NO. c716`~
RF'PROVRL OF LATE PILL
TO AL PISHOF'
On this the 13th day of Rug~ast 2001, upon motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Let z, the
Court unanimously appr-owed 6y a vote of 4-0-0, to pay late
bill in 'the amount of $1,400.00 from Line No. 31-8E2-487 on
constr~..iction of two concrete pads for' placement of c picnic
tables in center of park under- large nak tree and issue a hand
check. The County Auditor and County Treasurer are hereby
authorised to make a handcheck in the amount of $1,400.00
payable to R1 Pishop.
ORDER NO. 27170
AP'P'ROVE AND WAIVE RERDING ~F MINUTES
On this the 13th day of A~_igust 2001, ~_ipon motion made by
Commissioner Let z, seconded by Commissioner )3aldwin, the Co~_irt
unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to waive reading of
the min~_ites for the Regi_ilar Commi.ssioners~ Co~_irt Session on
July 6, 2001; Special Commissioners' Coi_ir•t Session on July 23,
2001; Special Commissioners' Court Session - F'~a61ic Hearing
Redistricting Proposals on .July 23, 2001;5pecial
Commissioners' Co~_ir•t Session - Radio Communication
Eq~_iipment on J~_ily 31, 2001; City of F:er•r•ville and N.er•r County
Commissioners' Coi_irt CitylCo~_tnty Joint Pr•ogr•am R~adget
Workshop on Ji_ily 31, c001

ORDER N0, c717i
APPROVE RND RCGEF'T MONTHLY REPORTS
On this the /3 `day of Rugust c001a upon motion made by
Commissioner^ Baldwin, seconded 6y Commissioner^ Letz9 the
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-Q~r to accept the
following repor^ts and direct th.st they be filed with the
County Clerk for future audit:
Vance Elliot - JF' #1
July X001 Report
---~ Robert Tench - JF' #~~
July ~@01 Report
Dawn Wright - JF' #:_
July c~~i Report
William Ragsdale - JP #4
July c001 Repor^t
Jannett Pieper -- County Clerk
July EO4~1 Tr^ust Fund Repor^t
Jannett F'ieper^ - County Cler^k
July c04~1 General F~_md Report
Eddie Holland - County Extension Agent
Ji_tly ~'0~1 Report
ORDER N0. c717~
RF'F'ROVAL OF PRELIMINARY
REVISION OF PLAT FOR
LOTS 17E, 177, 178 8 179
SF'ICER RANCH III
On this the 13th day of Rugust 2401, upon motion made by
Commissioner Haldwin, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, the
Co~_ir•t unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, the
preliminary revision of plat for Lats 7.7E, 177, 178, R 179
Spicer Ranch III in F'r•ecinct i, with a r•egi_iir•ment that th
applicant identify on the plat all the existing wells and
"' O. S. S. F. systems in the affected property.

ORDER N0. .'717
' AG'F'ROVRL OF NAME CHANGES FOR
pRIVRTELY MAINTRINED ROADS IN
VRRIOU5 LOCRTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH
9-1-1 GUIDELINES
On this the 13th day of A~_ig~_ist '~~i, japan motion made by
Commissioner^ Let z, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, the Co~_tr^t
unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, of name changes for
privately maintained roads in vario~_ts location in accordance
with '3-i-1 guidelines as follows:
Existing Road Name	New Road Name
Elisabeth Rd W	Janie Rd W
Ridge Rd W	Rlissa Rd W
p'ar•k Ln W	Hope Ln W
Cedar^ Ln W	Megan Ln W
Nor^th Loop N	Happy Tr^ls N
South Loop N	Wild Cat Lp N
F'rec. 4
F'r^ e c. 4
F'rec. 4
F'r^ec. 4
F'r^ e c. 3
F'rec. 3
ORDER N0. ~7i74
RUTHORIZE SHERIFF TO COMMISSION
F'ERCE OFFICER-CERTIFIED JAILERS RS DEPUTIES
On this the 13th day of R~ag~_ist 2Q~01, ~_ipon motion made
by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Lets, the
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to a~_ithori-<e
the Sheriff to commission 10 certified Jailers as deputies
witho~.tt pay r_hanges.
ORDER N0. X71'75
RF'pROVRL OF UF'6RRDING EG!UIPMENI" NECESSRRY TO
MRINTRIN TLETS CONNECTION
0n this the 13th day of R~_igust c001, upon motion made 6y
Cnmmissioner^ Williams, seconded by Commissioner^ Ralciwin, the
Coi_irt unanimously appr^oved by a vote of 4-Q~-0, a~_~thor•izing
the Sher^iff to i_~pgrade the equipment necessary to maintain
TLETS connection, with the cost not to exceed 88,500, with
f~_inds to come from the Radio Communication Line Item No.
1~-SEO-41~ in the Sheriff°s Department.
ORDER N0. 717E
AF'F'ROVRL OF CRERTING THE NEW F'UPLIC
FRCILITIES CORF'ORRTION TO HOLD TITLE TO THE
JUVENILE DETENTION FRCILITY RND
RPPROVING THE FORM OF THE PYLRWS RND RRTICLES
OF INCORF'ORRTION
On this the 13th day of Rug~ast ::Z~01, upon motion made 6y
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, the
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-Q~-0, of creating the
new public facilities corporation to hold title to the Juvenile
Detention Far.:ility and approving the form of the bylaws and
articles of incorporation of such public facility.
ORDER NO. :'7177
AF'PRDVRL OF SIJRMISSIDN OF SEWER TAG REOIJEST
TO THE CITY OF KERRVILLE
On this the lath day of R~ag~_ist
Commissioner Letz, seconded by
unanimously approved 6y a vote
submission of a req~_~est to the
sewer tap fee for the r•estr•oom
F'ark.
c4~01, upon motion made by
Commissioner Griffin, the Court
of 4-0-0, to authorize
City of I:er•r•ville to waive the
s to located at Flat Rock Lake
DRDER ND. ~717f3
RF'F'ROVAL OF THE WETS
WRTER C~NSERVRTION BROCHURE
Cn this the 13th day of R~agust c04~1, ~_ipon motion made by
Commissioner Let z, seconded by Commissioner Gr-iffin, the Co~_trt
unanimously approved 6y a vote of 4-0-Q~, of the WETS Water
Conservation Br•ach~_ire as r-evised.
ORDER N0. ^c7179
RUTHORIZING SIGNATURE FOR THE
TCDP COLONIR F'L.RNNING STUDY GRRNT
CONTRRCT N0. 70135
On this the 13th day of R~agiast ca~i, upon motion made by
Commissioner Williams , seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the
Co~ar't unanimously approved b a vote of 4-Q~-0, adopt the
resolution designating the County Judge, County Tr~easiar~er•, and
Coi_tnty Ruditor as authorised signatories for the Texas
Comm~_~nity Development Program Contract N~_imber 72Ch135 and
authorise the Co~.inty Ji_iclge to sign the resolution.
ORllER NO. ;'7180
RF'F'ROVRL OF CONTRRCT FOR INDIGENT HERLTH
CRRE CO~RDINRTOR
On this the lath day of A~.tg~_ist 2001, ~_ipon motion made by
Commissioner Lets, seconcled by Commissioner- Griffin, the Co~_ir-t
unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, of contract for'
hospital-based I:er^r• Co~_~nty indigent Health Care Coordinator as
amended.
ORDER N0.~718i.
RF'F'ROVAI_ OF CHRNGE ORDER NO. 9
FOR COURTHOUSE RENOVATION F'HASE III
On this the 13th day of A~ag~_ist SfiOl, ~_~pon motion made 6y
Commissioner Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the
Co~_ir•t unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-Q~, of change
Order No. 9 for F'hase III Renovations to I'~er•r- County
Courtho~..ise and Annex.
~~
ORDER N0. c718E
RF'F'ROVRL OF C01`dTRRCTS FOR RENOVATION
OF CDURTI-IOUSE RNNEX/JUVENILE F'RORRTION DEF'RRTMENT
On this the 1Cth day of A~_ig~_tst 0~2Y1, ~.ipon motion made by
Commissioner Paldwin, seconded by Commissioner Lets, the
Co~ar•t unanimously appr^oved by a vote of 4-0-0, of the three
contract for the renovation of Countho~_isse annex/Juvenile
J~_~venile F'rabation Department and payment of the three
contracts. The three contract are as follows:
C,~_tadalupe Electric -- electric wor4<
State Rire - I-IVRC wor•F<.
The Home Center -- carpet and the work
Total Expendit~.ir•e
~4, D40. 00
'Sc,644.00
~ =•. 3i'4. 4
~9, 00F3. 43
ORDER N0. c:7183
~-.
APPROVAL OF LATE BILL FOR
RNIMAL CONTROL DEPARTMENT
On this the 13th day of August ~@@1, ~_ipon motion made by
Commissioner Let z, seconded by Commissioner Gr^iffin the Coi_~r^t
unanimously approved by a vote of 4-@-@, the late bill for^
lodging for the amo~_int of '61@7.56 from Line Item No.
1@-64~-485 and the late bill in the amo~_int o'F ~1~5.@@ from
Line Item No. 1@-642-405 for• registr^ation for workshop and
a~_ithorize a hand check.
The County A~.tditor• and County Tr•eas~_irer• ar•e hereby ai_ithori~ed
to write a handcheck in the amo~_tnt of ~].@7.56 made payable to
Days Inn for^ lodging and to also write a handcheck in the
~-.
amount of $1c:5.@@ made payable to Texas Animal Control
Association for• r•egistr•ation for• Cer^tified Euthanasia Tech
wor^kshop R~ag~_ist 3@-31, ~@@1 for• J. Roman in the Animal
Control Department.
.-~
ORDER N0. 27184
APPROVAL OF STEP AND GRRDE
FOR NEW RSSISTRNT COUNTY ATTORNEY
On this the lath day of Ai.iy~.ist 2001, ~_ipon motion made by
Commissioner Griffin, seconded 6y Commissioner- Let z, the Court
unanimoi_isly approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to a~_ithori.ze a Step
25 Level 8 for the New Resistant County Attorney, Jerry
Phillips.
,~-
.-~