1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
	l~
	11
	12
--	13
	14
	15
	16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT
Regular Session
Monday, July 14, 2003
9:00 a.m.
Commissioners' Courtroom
Kerr County Courthouse
Kerrville, Texas
PRESENT: PAT TINLEY, Kerr County Judge
H.A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1
WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2
JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3
DAVE NICHOLSON, Commissioner Pct. 4
~;
,J
~`1
-~
C~
--~
~. }
2
1
^ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
--- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
	I N D E X	
	July 14, 2003	PAGE
---	Visitor's Input	3
---	Commissioners Comments	7
1.19	Discuss contracts with VFD's effective Oct. 1	10
1.7	PUBLIC HEARING-Kerr County Parks Long-Range Plan	48
1.8	Approve Kerr County Parks Long-Range Plan	49
1.30	Review changes to Animal Control rules & fees	54
1.1	Approve Farmer's market at courthouse square on ~	~Jlu
	lst, 3rd, & 5th Saturdays of 2003 growing season	79
1.2	Change County rules regarding rabies vaccinations	89
1.3	Consider merit increases, Road & Bridge Dept ~ ~J.S~ 90
1.4	Consider releasing Letter of Credit for	
	Stablewood Springs Ranch Condominium project	96
1 . 5	Preliminary plat, The Horizon, Section Two ;2'~' l~~ ~	103
1.18	Accept petition to create an emergency service ~
~~jS,	
~
•	district in Mountain Home, set public hearing	l6
1.6	Road name changes, privately-maintained roads~~!•5~128
1.9	Approve recent contract award under TCDP for	
	some of 25o matching grants from FEMA & NRCSr~~/'S`~
~	133
4 . 1	Pay Bills .~~y) ~ ~ ~	136
1 .10	Appointment of election judges & alternated-.~ ~'/S,~	140
1.11	Appointment of central counting station manager/	
	judge, and tabulating supervisor ~ ~/~ ~ -.,	142
1.12	Discuss consolidation of polling placesL~?;~ i ~ ~~	143
1.13	Approve job descriptions for Sheriff's Dept~b~~~145
1.14	Resolution to appoint signatory for TCDP con-	
	tract, Kerrville South Wastewater, Phase 3 v~ ~~ ~' ~	149
1.15	Review of 2003/04 budget schedule, set workshops	153-'z~~~~
1.16	Approval to negotiate new contract with UGRA	~}
	concerning administration of OSSF rules & regs	162
1.17	Discuss proposed new OSSF Rules & Regulations as	
	recommended, set public hearing on same	175
1.20	Approve proposed Community Plan for Kerr County	206:~gI~'
1.21	Approve Kerr Central Appraisal's 2004 budget	213 ~j4
1.22	Consider Terrorism Risk endorsement to existing	
~1~,
	law enforcement insurance coverage	219 ~
1.23	RFQ for Architectural/Engineering services	238
1.24	RFP for Plumbing, Electrical & HVAC service	246 ~l~~l
1.25	RFP for insurance coverage	248,jZ~1~'1
1.26	RFP for employee benefits (health coverage)	261
1.27	RFP for information technology maintenance	277
1.28	Burn Ban status	295 „
1.29	Approve inclusion of CRNA services as optional ~	.y~~,~,
	service under Indigent Health Care program	296
4 . 2	Budget Amendments ~ ~~(~(~~_ ~ ~'~ 1 ~' l	300
4 . 3	Late Bills ~. ~ ~ ~ 1- _~ ~~ a' L	320
4 . 4	Read and Approve Minutes ~ ~`~J~
1
t	326
4 . 5	,
Approve and Accept Monthly Reports ;~ ~
1 c7 ~	327
---	Ad'ourned	329
,,,^ 2 4
25
i-14-03
3
1
^-~- 2
3
4
5
6
7
` 8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
On Monday, July 14, 2003, 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 TINLEY: Thank you for being here.
I'll call to order the meeting of the regular Commissioners
Court scheduled for Monday, July 14th, at 9 a.m. It's a
couple minutes after 9:00, and Precinct 2 Commissioner, I
believe it's your honors this morning.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would you please join
me in a word of prayer, followed by the pledge of allegiance
to our flaq?
(Prayer and pledge of allegiance.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you very much. At this
time, if there's anyone present here today that wishes to be
heard about any matter that is not on the agenda, this is
the time for you to be heard. If you have an interest and
want to address the Court on a matter that is on the agenda,
we have some public participation forms at the back of the
room, and we would ask that you fill those out. It's not
essential, but it helps us when we get to that particular
agenda item to be sure and not miss you and fail to
recognize you, and at that point in time, you'll speak on a
matter that's on the agenda. However, if there's anyone
~ - 1 4 C 3
4
1
-- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
l5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
present that wishes to speak on a matter that is not on the
agenda, they're privileged to come forward at this time, and
we'd be happy to hear them.
MS. BOCOCK: May I --
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, ma'am, please come
forward and please give your name so --
MS. BOCOCK: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- the reporter might take it
down.
MS. BOCOCK: I'm Martha Bocock, and how are
all of you all?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mrs. Bocock.
MS. BOCOCK: Nice to see all of you. Nice to
see all of you. I tell you what I'm here for. I'm here
representing the people -- property owners; there are 12 of
us that live on Wren Road just off Goat Creek. And before
Bill died a year ago, for about four years, we had been
working with the then-Commissioner trying to get our road
repaved. Not paved, just topped. And so far, we have not
had that happen. They come out and they throw that little
black stuff in those holes, and it comes right out. And so
I've come before you today to kind of plead with you, ask
if -- because that property has become rather expensive, and
I have 60 acres that face that. And there are 12 -- there
are 12 of us, 12 owners; Barbara Cole, Martha Bocock, Mike
~-1~-0~
1
^ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
,_,,, 2 4
25
5
Wren, Brady Wren, Mrs. Mike Wren, Sr., Ralph and Joanne
Faust, Frank Williams, Dr. Fred Speck, Peter and Mary
Mitchell, Elmer Williams, David Huff, and another gentleman
whom I have not met. And so I plead with -- I have talked
to Mr. Odom, and he promises me maybe -- we've gone through
all of these years during the topping season, saying, well,
it might be July, it might be August, it might be September.
And then we've had all these floods, and I understand that
perfectly, but we still need some help. And so I plead
before you to give us some attention, and to convince
Mr. Odom that he really does want to top our road in -- now
he said July, but now he says August. But then they said
June. And so I realize that we're getting to the end of the
topping season, and so if -- Judge, if you have any
influence, please --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He doesn't. (Pointed
to Commissioner Nicholson.)
MS. BOCOCK: -- would you -- he's through.
He's the -- he's the guy.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Ms. Bocock.
MS. BOCOCK: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: We appreciate you being here.
MS. BGCOCK: All-righty.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For the benefit of
the Court -- the Court knows, but for the benefit of those
~-1~-0~
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
in the audience who may not know, it was Mrs. Bocock's late
husband and she who donated the civil war cannon to the
County and placed it on the courthouse lawn with the pad and
the benches and the -- everything that's out there. So, we
give them thanks for helping us beautify the courthouse
lawn. If it's any consolation, Mrs. Bocock, I've been
trying to get the inner courthouse driveway paved for two
years, and I haven`t got anywhere. (Laughter.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Is there anyone else who
wishes to be heard? Yes, sir?
MR. SCHELLHASE: Walter Schellhase, 529 Water
Street. I'm here representing the Kerr County Historical
Commission. As past chairman, Joe Herring, the current
chairman, asked me to make this presentation. The Kerr
County Historical Commission was selected for the
distinguished service award from the Texas Historical
Commission for the Year 2002, and I'd like to make that
presentation.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Photo op.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Very nice. Very nice.
JUDGE TINLEY: Where do we safe-keep this?
I'm going to give this to the clerk for right now, but -- I
thought about handing it to you, Buster, but then I had
-14-~3
1
~--~, 2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

second thoughts.
MR. SCHELI,HASE: Judge, the last time we won
the award, it's posted up here.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Anyone else that
has wonderful news like that for us? Anyone else that has
any other news, good or bad? If not, then we will move on
to the next item. Commissioner Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, the little town
of Center Point made the front page of the paper today; in
fact, it took just about all of the front page of the paper,
with a lot of good things happening there this past weekend.
They had their down-home parade, which is a fun parade for a
small town, and it's a large one and a lot of people
participate. What's always so interesting is the number of
different things that come out in the parade, not the least
of which was somebody dressed up as a Bedouin shooting water
at the crowd. But the town spruces up for it, and it's
really great. Those of you who were there probably noticed
that the first major step for the Center Point Historical
Preservation Group took p7_ace this weekend in which they had
erected the framework of what will become their gate and
entrance to the new Center Point Historical Park.
If you recGll, about five years ago, or four
years ago perhaps, you remember that the piece of property
that will now become the park was absolutely dismal; it was
i-14-03
8
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
just a terrible piece of property, rundown, trash had been
there for eons. And some local citizens got ahold of that
piece of property, not -- not the least of which was former
Commissioner Lackey. He and Junior Fritz of the Mini-Marts
and Delmas Hesseltine and some others, and they bought the
piece of property and eventually turned it over to the
Historical Preservation Association, and good things are
beginning t~ happen there. Raising funds there; they intend
to have a museum, pavilion for civic events, and things are
good. So, I just wanted to let you -- the Court know that
not everything is bad in the eastern part of the county.
Things are pretty good.
JUDGE TINL~Y: Thank you. Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSION]~R LETZ: I have a few things.
Over the 4th of July, Comfort had its annual 4th of July
parade and pageant, and that all went very well. I think we
had -- there was 96 entriE~s in the parade. Theirs was also
very well-attended, and dE~spite a bit of rain early in the
morning, there was a huge turnout for the parade. Also, for
those that follow Little League baseball, the Kerrville H-
and 12-year-old All-Star group won district, and they will
be playing in the section~il tournament starting tonight in
Frederir_ksburg. And then another item that just slipped
right out of my memory bank, but -- so I guess that will be
the only twc things I'll mention, those two.
~-14-~3
9
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
Congratulations to the All-Stars.
JUDGE TINL~EY: Commissioner Nicholson?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I see we've got a
number of volunteer firefighters here with us today, and
we're going to be talking about a couple-three issues
involving volunteer fire departments. You all have heard me
say before how much I appreciate our volunteer fire
departments. They're very well equipped, they do a good
job, and they come at a good price. We're very fortunate to
have them. The item that is scheduled is scheduled later on
in the meeting, and I'd like to move it up toward the front,
with your consent, Judge, so that these men and women that
have jobs can get back to work. That's all I have.
JUDGE TINL~Y: Commissioner Baldwin?
COMMISSIONI~R BALDWIN: I have nothing, sir.
Thank you.
JUDGE TINLI;Y: I -- I would like to encourage
all of you here, and ask ~~ou to encourage your neighbors and
friends and other citizen: to go see what I think is a very,
very beautiful display th~it we have out at the local V.A.
Medical Center. The loca}_ chapter of the Vietnam Veterans,
on faith, committed and bz~ought that Vietnam Memorial Moving
Wall here, and it's on di~:play through next Thursday
afternoon. It's on the V.A. Hospital grounds. It is open
24 hours a day, for those of you that would like to visit it
-~~~-o~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
I2
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
,^ 2 4
25
10
at a time when you might Yiave some more private moments.
There will be volunteers there to assist you. I think we're
very, very fortunate to have that memorial here in
Kerrville, and I think it's a fitting tribute to our sons
and daughters that were ~_ost in that conflict. I would ask
all of to you consider going. It's quite a nice memorial.
That's all I have. Let's get down to business; we got a
pretty good agenda here. As requested by Commissioner
Nicholson, if no one has an objection, we will move to --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 19, Judge. 1.19.
JUDGE TINLF~Y: -- Item 19 on the agenda,
which is the consideratioiz and discussion and action on the
form of contracts between Kerr County and volunteer fire
departments, to become effective this coming fiscal year,
October 1, 2003, and approve contracting with Tierra Linda
and/or Junction departmen~~s to provide services to Kerr
County. Commissioner Nicholson.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Mr. Edwards, would
you help us with this, please? Everybody knows Danny
Edwards, former judge, attorney of the City of Kerrville,
author, probably got some more talents that I'm not aware
of. One of the things that we've done here is that
consulting with the Kerr Area firefighters -- Rural
Firefighters Association and with the fire departments,
Mr. Edwards has helped us draft this contract that we're
~-i~-o~
11
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
proposing today. And I'd like for him to present it, if you
will, Mr. Edwards, and explain the changes that we're
proposing.
MR. EDWARDS: Thank you, Commissioner. The
changes that we've submitted to the County Attorney's office
back in May I don't think make any substantial substantive
changes in the way that either the volunteer fire
departments or the County operates. In essence, what we
have tried to do is to bring the contract in line with the
way they are operating, from all practical aspects, both
administratively and operational. The primary focus is on
the fact that the current contract attempts to provide -- or
to contract with each individual volunteer fire department
to serve in its area. As a matter of reality, that's not
possible. By virtue of mutual aid agreements that they're
required to sign with the Texas Forest Service, they are
required to serve where they are needed. And even if they
weren't required, I think all of you would agree that that's
the way it ought to be.
And, as a result, we've just simply changed
some of the wording to show that Kerr County is contracting
with ear_h volunteer fire department to serve both inside and
outside what has been -- someone dreamed up the term
"primary fire response area," which explains what it is, I
think. It's not an official term. And -- but these fire
'_4-u3
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
departments, as all of you know, go outside their, quote,
unquote, primary fire area all the time. And if they
didn't, and if I were sitting on the bench, I would probably
jerk their funds if they refused to do so. So, that's just
the way, in reality, ~t. operates. And most of the changes
have gone to make that clear, that they are still under the
contract, even if they work outside of their primary area.
Probably the biggest change in it is to
provide for reimbursement for catastrophic losses when they
go outside of their own area. If they're working inside
their own preferred area, then it's not applicable, but if
they're providing services in Kerr County outside of the
department's primary assigned area and they have a
catastrophic loss, such as happened when we had the big
fire, some of these departments took losses of $7,000,
$8,000, $10,000 in equipment, tires, et cetera, et cetera.
And some of that money could have been refunded through
FEMA, but I don't think it ever was, and it would have been
the County's responsibility to seek that. So, we've tried
to include in here a provision that if there's a
catastrophic loss while they're operating outside of their
assigned area, and that loss exceeds or requires damage --
repairs or replacements in the -- in an amount exceeding
$500, which is sort of a deductible, I guess you might say,
then the County will assist in reimbursing those funds in
-19-03
13
8
9
10
11
12
--- 13
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
addition to the contracted amount, the $11,000 that's
provided for in the contract.
The rest of the language goes to -- as I say,
reflects that this is a reimbursement rather than a
prepayment. And it is, in fact, a reimbursement, because
they have to submit an invoice for each and every dollar
that they request under the contract. So you're, in effect,
not making a prepayment. You're -- you're reimbursing the
funds on a -- on an as-needed or as-required basis. And
you've got provisions in there that they have to be audited
and they have to show the records and this sort that are
administrative, which we feel can be taken out in light of
the fact that each and every invoice, before they receive
any money, has to be approved by the Auditor and by the
Court. So, once you've done that, you've, in effect,
audited every payment to come about, and to require
examination of their books or cause them to provide
additional financial information subsequent to that would
seem a little bit redundant, one way or the other.
And, finally, we've changed the limits of
relationship. There's concern -- there was an Attorney
General opinion this -- 2002 concerning whether or not the
County had liability in the event that something happened
through one of the volunteer fire departments. The past
Legislature passed a bill which has gone to the governor,
24
25
--i9-o3
14
1
--- 2
3
4
5
6
8
9
to
11
12
13
14
15
16
1~
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
but I can't tell you that it's been signed, that speaks to
that very issue one way or the other. Pardon me. What
we've done in Paragraph 14 is to try to exemplify the fact
that this is not an agency relationship, which would --
would possibly create some liability on the part of the
County, and to try to separate the County and the volunteer
fire departments' operation so that there will be no
liability back on the County, and being that there's cause
for liability by virtue of an act under the volunteer fire
department.
I think those are the major points, quite
honestly. Final one is that you have requested that --
pardon me -- each volunteer fire department provide you full
copies of all their insurance policies, et cetera, et
cetera, et cetera. And we've simply substituted that they
will provide for you a certificate of insurance to show that
they are properly insured in the proper amounts, and that
they make that primary contract available in the event of
litigation or any actual need for it. But we think it
serves the purpose for you simply to have a certificate of
insurance, rather than try to provide you all of the
multiple copies of insurance policies they might have. Some
of the fire departments carry insurance in different forms.
And I came through -- into this through Hunt
Volunteer Fire Department, for instance, which carries its
-_.-03
15
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
own workers comp insurance. Your contract provides that you
will provide us with workers comp insurance, but Hunt
carries their own because they get it cheaper, and it gives
them a discount on other insurance that they have. So,
you're really not providing them their workers comp
insurance. And I think those are the major -- major changes
we're requesting. I don't see anything -- there's anything
that's substantive of a~iy magnitude, other than the possible
reimbursement for catas=rophic losses if they're serving
outside the area. Ever~~thing else seems to be housecleaning
and administrative clay=_fications, as far as we're
concerned.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge Edwards, this
catastrophic issue, wha'_ would be wrong -- it seems to me
that it would be simplez~ if this Court simply increased each
fire department's budget by "X" amount of dollars, 500 or
whatever it is, and ther -- and then, if there is some kind
of problem in some other -- if they use equipment or
equipment's broken in scme other precinct, simply fix it, as
opposed to creating a nEw line item. And I would assume
that each volunteer firE department would get the $500 for
reimbursement. It just -- what goes through my mind is, if
Turtle Creek -- my precinct -- if Turtle Creek turns in a
bill for tires, and it's $500 tires, and Mrs. Bocock from
Precinct 4 comes along and says, "Commissioner Baldwin, I
- 1 4 - r 3
16
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
want you to prove to me that these tires were blown up in
some other precinct," then I'm going to ask for proof. And
how do we prove that?
MR. EDWARDS: To speak to your general
question, I think it would be -- could be inequitable to
just give everybody the same amount, because one fire
department might suffer $8,000 and every other department
suffer nothing.
COMMISSIOIER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm.
MR. EDWARDS: As an example. Secondly, the
invoice, itself, could be ~:equired to show that it took
place on a particular fire at a particular time. But I'd
have to let the fire chiefs speak to the equity or inequity
of just getting a flat $500. It doesn't seem equitable to
me from a practical standpoint, because everybody's not
going to suffer the same catastrophic loss, and some of them
may not suffer any catastrophic loss. Because they're
getting the money, anyone that does suffer the catastrophic
loss is not getting sufficient moneys. And --
COMMISSIONER BAZDWIN: So, what you're
saying, then, is just put it in one big pot, and then if
Turtle Creek comes along and uses all -- needs all $2,000 or
whatever the pot may be, then they get it all, and then
everybody else is out of ~.he picture?
MR. EDWARDS: Well, I'm sure not going to
1~-c~
17
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
tell you how to structurE~ your budget, but I'm sure you have
a rainy-day fund existing somewhere in the budget.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No.
MR. EDWARDS: No?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Danny, you were the
judge here.
MR. EDWARDS: I bet I can find one, Buster.
That -- that's a budget process you'll have to speak to, and
I certainly wouldn't pretend to tell you how to do that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a question,
Judge. Danny, the word "catastrophic" conveys to me
something really, really, really major.
MR. EDWARDS: It's intended to, actually.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But $500 or greater
doesn't seem to fit the catastrophic definition, in my mind.
I'm wondering if we're talking about reimbursement for
losses of equipment. I understand what took place up in the
fire at Kerrville South, and a lot of fire departments did
suffer losses, for which FEMA has not yet reimbursed the
County, even though the County did, in fact, try to get that
money.
MR. EDWARDS: Good.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And still trying to
get that money. I'm wondering whether or not we're really
talking about reimbursement for equipment losses, as opposed
-14-G3
18
1
-- 2
3
4
5
6
i
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
to catastrophic losses.
MR. EDWARI)S: We've defined it, and it's just
loose wording, as "any equipment damage requiring repairs or
replacement in an amount" -- so it speaks to equipment
specifically, CommissionF~r. And equipment, of course, is a
broad word when you're Milking about firefighting equipment.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, if equipment
becomes redundant becausE~ it appears elsewhere, then I would
prefer seeing the word "catastrophic" eliminated.
MR. EDWARL~S: Well, like I say, we're not
married to the language, as long as we effect the desired
needs of the -- of the departments.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: While we're on that same
-- over in that paragraph, deleting workers compensationz --
MR. EDWARD3: Absolutely. Just let them opt
24 out of it.
25
14-03
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But -- I mean, but I'm --
and Hunt doesn't do it, but I believe other fire
departments, we do cover them, because I remember on our
last bill we had several bills that I noticed, and I think
one that they were out of Center Point Volunteer Fire
Department. I think that if we're -- you know, we need to
have this language so that can be -- workers compensation,
to me, is included in that paragraph, and if the fire
departments choose not to --
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
19
you really need to try i.o keep the exact same contract, I
think, for every fire dE~partment. I think there's a
likelihood of us adding three new fire departments, so we're
just getting to be more --
MR. EDWARDS: That was discussed among the
group, and we agreed that it should be left in, and those
who don't choose to take it can just opt out of it or
scratch that part out of their contract.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. EDWARDS: And initial it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the other, on the
catastrophic loss, I kind of -- I guess I have the same or
similar problems that the other two Commissioners mentioned.
And that comes back to -- you mentioned blown out tires. I
don't consider that ca~astrophic. I mean, I understand what
y'all are trying to do, and I don't see a problem with the
County trying to really help out the fire departments,
'cause we're getting a great deal in the county, I think,
with the coverage we get from our volunteer fire
departments. But if it's -- you know, I would -- I can see
almost every fire department having damage to equipment
every year under this ~:~ragraph, and what comes to my mind
there is how we budget for that. I mean, this could be
easily -- you know, I could easily see this, you know, going
$10,000, $20,000 potentially. And if you have a big fire,
i-19-U3
20
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
something major gets lost:, it's just -- so I have -- I'm not
sure how we handle that ~~art of it. And my other -- I guess
that leads me to the next. question, is the -- and either you
or some of the other members of the fire departments here
can answer this. The insurance that they cover -- I presume
they have insurance on their equipment, and -- you know,
like trucks and all that, anyway. Is that covered if
they're fighting a fire a_~ywhere in the county, or only in
their area?
MR. EDWARDS: It's my understanding they'd be
covered anywhere, but the fire departments could speak to
both the catastrophic loss feature and that better than I.
I just tried to take their suggestions and put on it paper.
COMMISSIONl;R LETZ: I'm trying to figure out
what the exposure is on catastrophic loss compared to what
your insurance covers if you have those same losses.
MR. EDWARDS: Any chiefs? Dutch?
MR. TRAVIS HALL: Because basically, what the
insurance does that we've got is just the liability
insurance. We don't carr~~ comp on them. Like -- excuse me.
I don't think comp is -- ire do carry comp, and -- but I
don't think it covers something like that when you're
fighting fire. It's going to be other instances, my
understanding. Is that right or not?
MR. HINTZE: It -- the comprehensive coverage
~-14-'~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
21
covers the loss of the vehicle. In other words, if you roll
a vehicle or it's burned or something of that nature. But,
for instance, if you blow a transfer case or 13 tires, that
gets to be exceptionally expensive for a fire department
that's working at a very limited budget, and it basically
puts the trucks out of commission. So, the whole thrust of
this is to try to get the trucks back in operation as
quickly as possible.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think the
rationale here is that the citizens of a certain community,
whether it's Ingram or Hunt or Mountain Home, are supporting
and paying for that fire department. And if they're -- if
the Mountain Home Fire Department is fighting fire out there
at Mountain Home and has damage to its equipment, then
they're going to pay for that some sort of way, through a
fundraiser, through contributions or something. But if
Mountain Home is out in Kerrville South helping fight a fire
and they have damage to their equipment, then the -- the
people in the Mountain Home community shouldn't be required
to pay for that. So, we're asking the Court to say that if
we have large losses, which, by definition, exceed $500,
when fighting a fire outside their primary area, then we're
asking the Court to -- to reimburse the fire department
going outside of their primary area for those losses.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I understand
~~-o~
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
that, and I've -- I've been one of the huge proponents of it
on the Court, of increasing the funding to fire departments.
But -- and the logic of -- of what you just said,
Commissioner, is that if Center Point is out in Mountain
Home fighting, it's -- you know, it helps -- it works botYi
ways. And the fire departments work very closely with each
other and, you know, fighting in other areas to help. So, I
don't have a problem really with trying to figure out a way
to increase funding to the fire departments. I'm just
trying to wrestle that concept with how to budget for
something that we have absolutely no idea what it's going to
be each year, and -- and I just don't see how we can get a
handle. I mean, from what some of the chiefs just
mentioned, you know, say they're in a truck over in, you
know, Comfort area, and a transmission goes out. Well,
okay. I presume the transmission in one of their newer
trucks -- or older trucks; any of the trucks, for that
matter -- we're talking $5,000, $6,000 to repair, based on
what it costs to get my truck repaired when something like
that happens. So, I think there's a -- I mean, I don't
think this -- if we go with this language, I think we're
going to use a fair amount of money. I think there has to
be some sort of a --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Ceiling.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- a ceiling, or
-14-03
1
~- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2 J
23
increased funding across the board to the fire departments
by a little bit larger amount, some way for us to be able to
budget for it, because I can just see a big unknown. And
when it's unknown, we have to budget really, in all
likelihood, a higher amount to try to cover it. And then
you -- it just ends up eating up funds that we can't use on
other things that we may end up doing as well.
MR. EDWARDS: Sheppard Rees fire -- pardon
me.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I was going to
respond to Commissioner Letz. The illustration you gave us,
Commissioner Baldwin and I had a conversation about how this
might be limited, because I can see -- I can see an
unlimited amount of money being expended. And one way to do
that would be to -- to cap it. Replacement in an amount
requiring repairs or -- or replacement in an amount over
$500, but not to exceed $1,000. That would take care of
tires and things of that nature, but it wouldn't take care
of transmissions or, God forbid, if they had an accident
going from one end of the county to the other and destroyed
a truck, and perhaps took out a car and just destroyed
something else. That would leave the County wide-open in
terms of liability.
MR. HINTZE: Commissioner Williams? Your
question, liability insurance that the fire departments are
-19-03
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
,,-.. 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
required to carry in Texas state law would cover that
eventuality of having an accident. But the budgeting
problem is not any dissimilar for the fire departments than
the problem that you gen~lemen are -- are facing here. Our
expenses are dependent u~~on the amount of activity that we
have, and we can't program that. And throwing more money at
the fire departments is riot really the answer. It's the
problem of having the money available when it's needed.
And, quite honestly, the need is a rarity. Hopefully, we're
not going to have another Sheppard Rees fire in a hurry, so
the incidence of having to call upon the County for
reimbursement of those ccsts would be a rare instance
indeed.
MR. EDWARDS: Sheppard Rees is probably as
good an example as you're going to have, as far as
anticipating budgetary needs, I would imagine. I don't know
what the demands were at that time; I only know what Hunt
had.
COMMISSIONI~R LETZ: I guess I'm confused,
then, based on -- on the comment as to what catastrophic is,
because I would think that: you're going to have repairs, or
-- I guess, how would you -- what's the difference between
"maintenance" and -- and "catastrophic"? Because tires
being blown out on -- you know, on someone's ranch, wherever
it is in the county, I would think is a pretty likely
-i~-o3
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
25
occurrence. Or somethinc happening -- I mean, to me,
catastrophic is rare, but what I'm hearing of blown-out
tires, transmissions, things of that nature, are not rare.
Maybe I just don't under;~tand what you all are trying to
say.
MR. HINTZE;: Commissioner, for instance, on
the Sheppard Rees fire, on our two trucks, we blew a total
of 13 tires. Those tires can cost as much as $500 apiece.
We really have to shop for them. But that really puts a
dent in our operating expenses and the very limited budget
that we -- that we have. Blowing tires on a ranch is a
relatively frequent occurrence for any of the fire
departments, when you get out in that flintrock.
JUDGE TINLF.Y: I think the term
"catastrophic" may be a misnomer. What we might be looking
at for more certainty to resolve this thing would be to,
number one, have it, as I believe it is, to equipment losses
which occur outside the p~~rticular department's primary
firefighting --
MR. EDWARDS: That's correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- responsibility area, number
one. And, number two, to the extent it exceeds, and only
that amount which does exceed $500. And then, thirdly,
because of the uncertain aspect of the economics and the
budgeting, we may want to put a cap of whatever number of
~-i~-o~
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
dollars on a -- on a particular occurrence basis. You know,
whether you've got one piece of equipment there or four
pieces of equipment there, that particular occurrence would
put a ceiling on loss to all equipment to that department,
only to the extent that it exceeds the -- whatever the floor
is, $500 or whatever amount. That would seem to be a way to
approach it and to have it more clearly defined, is what I'm
hearing.
MR. EDWARDS: Obviously, the wear and tear on
fighting a two-week fire, however long Sheppard Rees was, is
-- puts more strain on equipment than going out and fighting
a brush fire for three hours. So, it's obviously -- it's
obvious, or it would seem obvious to me, that you're going
to have more, quote, ur:quote, major losses during a two-week
fire or a three-week fire than you are fighting a three-hour
brush fire out in west Kerr County or anywhere else, for
that matter.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think there's any
question that Sheppard gees was -- I mean, was an
extraordinary fire, and -- and took a toll on, I think,
every fire department that probably fought out there. But
this paragraph is going to be -- is not limited to Sheppard
Rees-type fires; it's any time they're outside their area.
MR. EDWARDS: What's the chances of -- if we
come up with some kind of language to make the Court and the
-1~-n~
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1Q
11
12
r-- 13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
fire chiefs happy, what': the chances that when, for
instance, the FEMA money that Commissioner Williams
mentioned -- is there any chance that the County could go
ahead and advance that, in advance of receiving
reimbursement from FEMA: Because these fire departments are
not in quite as good a position to operate for a year, year
and a half, without the money as the County is. And if you
could -- if you could advance the funds prior to receiving
the FEMA money, that would certainly be assistance, I would
think, also.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What would we be
advancing?
MR. EDWARDS: I'm sorry?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How much would we be
advancing?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: In the case of --
Dutch Hintze was talking about the Sheppard Rees fire
blowing out 13 tires. With a $500 deductible, the tires
probably cost $9,000. We would have been, for example,
advancing $8,500.
MR. EDWARDS: To answer your question,
Commissioner, I would asslzme what these fire departments
would have to do would to be submit their invoice request,
just like any other, and ycu would know what those requests
were when you made your FEMA request for reimbursement. So,
-'~~-03
28
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
that would be the limit, I would think, that you would put
on it, however much money FEMA returns to you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I thought in this
particular case we'd already done that.
MR. EDWARDS: I'm sorry?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We had received from
the fire departments an e:~timate of their damages, and that
was included in the County's request to FEMA, was my
understanding.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Ts it possible that
we might trigger this pro~Tision only when it's -- a disaster
is declared? That if we have another Sheppard Rees-type
fire, the Court declares that it's a disaster, and then this
extraordinary loss provision would kick in?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I --
COMMISSIONE:~ NICHOLSON: That takes it away
from your three-hour brush fire.
COMMISSIONEF: LETZ: But I don't see that as
meeting their needs. Because, I mean, I think we've had one
fire that's been a disaster', which is Sheppard Rees. You
know, granted, they go out for other disasters as well, and
whenever we have a flood, a lot of times fire departments
are out and -- you know, at the same time. I mean, I don't
have a problem at all with -- if we can figure out a way --
if there's some sort of a cap and, you know, trying to
- 1 4 - r
29
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
define what the loss is. Like the Judge said, I -- I don't
have a problem with doing it, 'cause I'm -- you know, we --
you know, I -- anyway, arld I'm sure all the citizens of the
county are very appreciative that the fire departments do go
outside their areas. I mean, and I think that -- you know,
I don't have a problem with using tax dollars to assist the
fire departments in that way, as long as we can get a handle
that we can budget for. ~~nd I don't have a problem -- to
me, the easier way is to go ahead and increase the annual
amount for all the fire departments and let them set aside a
rainy-day fund internally. In the budget request that I
submitted to the Judge, I show an increase to all the fire
departments, and we'll get to that during the budget
hearing. But if they wou7_d rather have it done the other
way, I don't mind, as long as I can get a handle on what it
is and we can budget for i~ realistically.
COMMISSIONED BALDWIN: But you have to put a
cap on it; there's got to lie a cap somewhere. You can't
just leave an open-ended --- I mean, a fire truck burn up in
a fire this week and another one burn up next week, and
we're going to -- and the County taxpayers pick up the tab
on it. It's got to stop. You got to put a -- put a
roadblock on it somewhere.
MR. IIINTZE: Gentlemen --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think -- excuse me.
i-14-03
30
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
And I think that you just -- something similar to what
Mr. Williams has said, up to $1,000 or $2,000 or whatever
the number might be, add that verbiage in there, and that's
it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I made a couple
changes. I don't know if they're acceptable, but changing
"catastrophic" to "equipment." On the last line, changing
the amount exceeding -- changing exceeding to over -- an
amount over $500, comma, lout not to exceed $1,000 in any one
incident.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What about the next
incident?
COMMISSIONI~R WILLIAMS: Well, limit them to
one incident a year?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I mean, that --
COMMISSIONE',R WILLIAMS: Opens it up.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If you don't, it just
opens up the -- I mean the County -- forget this budget.
Forget the budget and --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: $1,000, period? Okay
with me.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- wasting the next
three or four months.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just put $1,000 in
and let it go at that?
-14-03
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
31
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know what that
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't either.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: To me, that's only giving
each fire department $500 a year. I'd rather increase their
overall budgets by -- I mean --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, it may not give
them any if they didn't go outside their area, under this.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sure, I understand that.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: In my view, giving
them $500 or $1,000 a year of coverage doesn't provide any
incentive or -- or safety net for them to go outside their
primary area.
MR. EDWARDS: Aside from that one issue, do
the Commissioners have any difficulties with the other
requested changes?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think there's an additional
item in here that has not been addressed in the agenda item.
We've got two departments that are actually outside of Kerr
County, but which provide firefighting services to property
and citizens inside Kerr County. And I noted that as being
part of this agenda item. I don't know what the other --
Court's feelings is. We've got Tierra Linda department,
which is located just to the north of the county line off
=~-o~
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
32
Harper Road, and responds, according to my understanding, in
the area of Kamira, Northwest Hi11s, all of that area down
to I-10, I believe; probably includes Kerrville High Country
Estates. Pretty significant area where there's a pretty
significant number of structures. And then, secondly, we've
got the Junction Department, which responds to the
northwestern areas of the county adjacent to U.S. Highway 83
out by the Y.O. Ranch, and -- and significant number of
structures out in that area. Have I -- have I correctly
stated the areas that -- that you -- you gentlemen serve in
your departments?
MR. LEE HALL: Yes, sir. We will come in a
little bit off of I-10 to assist with Mountain Home type of
calls, but majority of what we're looking at right now is
that northwest part off of 83.
JUDGE TINLEY: And that would essentially be
a primary area of responsibility for you, would it not?
MR. LEE HALL: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. But as a secondary --
I'm not sure there's a definitive line. You would come all
the way on down to Mountain Home and areas?
MR. LEE HALL: That would be more secondary
off of 10 than primary on 83, yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, on that topic --
i4-03
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
and as I discussed with you and you're aware, I'm requesting
an additional fire department in the southeastern part --
well, northern Bandera County also be included or added,
Castle Lakes, which serves part of far sol~theastern Kerr
County. Now, I -- just because these gentlemen are here,
certainly, I support including all three of those fire
departments, and I think -- but, to me, it's more of a
budget issue as to how much we budget for it. But since
y'all are here, I would certainly support -- probably even
we can vote. It would be fine to include them, but to me,
any fire department that, you know, provides service to Kerr
County, we should support financially.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I -- as you and I have
discussed, I see it as a budget issue also. But the
citizens here may not be aware of -- of the interaction of
these out-of-county departments that protect property and
citizens here inside the county, so I wanted to bring that
point out. But you're right, I believe it's a budget issue.
We put it on the table and we make that decision then.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I'd like to add
right quick, though, that from Junction, there's former Tivy
Antler great Lee Hall, is who that is.
JUDGE TINLEY: Colonel Hintze?
MR. HINTZE: Sir, I'd like to address
Commissioner Baldwin's concern, and I think it's valid.
?-14-03
1
2
3
4
5
h
7
8
9
10
11
12
34
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's good.
MR. HINTZE: The word "catastrophic" may be
causing a problem, but I ask the Commissioners to keep in
mind that a catastrophic loss; for instance, the loss of a
truck, that's covered under our comprehensive coverage. The
County would not be asked to cover that. What we're
talking --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
MR. HINTZE: -- talking about is an equipment
failure that would immobilize a truck, put it out of
commission for a prolonged period.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Thank you very
,~ 13 I much .
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We've also got Danny
here, that's president of the KARFA.
MR. FELLER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If we were -- if we
were going to stick with the $500 deductible minimum and set
a cap on losses, what would be a reasonable cap for the --
in the view of KARFA members?
MR. FELLER: I tell you, I can't estimate a
real -- you know, a cap on it, because you have no way of
knowing what your loss might be. It may be -- like, we had
13 tires in Sheppard Rees, or you may be 50 tires, depending
on the terrain and the area you're at. I understand that
-14-03
35
1
--- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
'' 1
L
22
23
24
25
when Kerrville took their brush truck out, they jerked the
rear end out of the truck. There's -- there's not any way
to really set a cap. I think that's something you just have
to use some common sense on and go by way of saying, you
know, "You've had this happen, and so we can afford to do
this percentage out of a contingency fund, and we'll help
you this much on it." As far as -- you were talking about
raising the whole reimbursement to the fire departments
$500. Well, we figured that in our department, the amount
that's set forth last year covers about 12 percent of -- of
what it takes to operate our fire department, so adding $500
to an annual fund is -- is basically not -- not helping
anything at all when you -- when yogi get outside of your
primary areas and that sort of thing.
JUDGE TINLEY: Gentlemen, let me see where we
are. Are we in a position to offer a definitive motion at
this time? Or are we back to the drawing board to see if we
can come up with something more definitive and consider it
later? What's your pleasure?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think it's a
budget-type issue that we would address Pven the specifics,
although I -- I assume that we're talking contract here.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, we are.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But I can't agree to
this contract until we get those numbers crunched down and
-l~ o~
1
.-- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
,-. 2 4
25
36
what's going to be in a,1 actual budget line item.
MR. EDWARDS: What portion of the --
Mr. Baldwin, do you not agree with? Just that one on
catastrophic?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir.
MR. EDWA;:DS: Okay. The rest of these I can
tell Mr. Motley -- or, k>asically, y'all have no problem
with?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: In my opinion.
COMMISSICNER LETZ: The only one I have a
question on -- and if it's up to the -- there he is.
MR. EDWARDS: Lost so much weight I didn't
recognize you.
COMMISSIOIER LETZ: On the audit question, as
long as we're not required to have that in there -- I
thought there was some l~.nguage before that if we were going
to give money, we had to have the right to audit the funds.
And if the County Attorney says we don't need that there, I
don't have any problem with it. But if we need to have an
audit provision in there if County funds are used, then we
do need it in there, and that's up to the County Attorney,
and not for me. And my last thing I really have to say is,
you know, while we're talking about -- we have a lot of
representatives from the i_ire departments here. I would
like -- prior to our fina-_ budget, I would like some input
-~~-o~
37
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
from the various departmt~nts if they like the change we made
last year where we give <~11 volunteer fire departments the
same amount, or if they liked it better prior to that when
we gave different amount:, but kind of -- you know, I
wouldn't say at random, but it was kind of based on the size
of the departments. You mentioned that, you know, 12 and a
half percent of the fire departments. I presume that was
the Hunt Fire Department's budget, but if you go to some of
the smaller departments, like Elm Pass, you know, it may be
25, 30 percent of their :budgets. I mean, so I would just be
interested to hear from all the chiefs, and maybe at y'all's
next meeting, what you think is the most equitable way. Is
it better for us to give everyone the same? Or is it better
for us to kind of look at the size of the area and kind of
the population and number of -- and the size of y'all's
departments and figure out if it's -- try to divvy up the
pie that way, if that's fair. I probably am opening up a
hornet's nest, as I see two Commissioners looking down at
me, but anyway, I think it would be -- it would be helpful
to me. I think -- remember, the total size probably is
going to be roughly the same.
MR. FELLER: I think I can address that
issue. And I hope I don'. -- I'm not stepping on anybody's
toes, but I think the way that it's done now is -- is a
comfortable way to do it. It keeps everything even across
7 _ _ 4 _ u ~
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
the board, and I think it -- it kind of eliminates any
misunderstandings or disagreements between the departments
themselves, as they've all got to work together on the whole
thing. Everybody's getting the same piece of the pie,
and -- and you've got that to work with. Back on the -- on
the contingency issue or the catastrophic issue, I just had
one more thing to add to it. When you're considering that
issue, you're locking at -- you're asking about a cap.
Well, one thing you need to consider is, a department like
Hunt is -- we're a rather strong department and we've got
quite a few resources. A~~d if we lose a truck, it goes down
or something, we've got s~~mething that we can step in and --
and back it up with. In the case of some of the smaller
departments; Eim Pass, C liter Point, Mountain Home, these
guys, if they lose a truck or something or have an event
that puts them out of action, you may be -- by putting the
cap on it, you may be presenting them from providing any
fire protection at all in that area by not being able to
step up and say, hey, we -- we've got to do this.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let me see if I can
move us along. I would be prepared to make a motion that
would say -- won't say this, but this contract issue has
been going on a couple years that I know of; I'd like to put
it to bed as much as we can. I'd like to make a motion that
says that we approve the form of this contract, and the
-19-G3
_ - ~
39
1
-~ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
~4
^~ L
25
annual amount will be blank, whether it will be $11,000 or
be something else, but it won't be in there. And that this
equipment loss thing would be to say that we -- for purposes
hereof, an equipment loss is any equipment damage requiring
repairs or replacement in an amount exceeding blank dollars,
but limited to blank dollars. We could get the form of the
contract approved today, and as two of the other
Commissioners said, in the budgeting process we could decide
what those -- fill in those blanks.
JUDGE T_NLEY: I have a motion on the floor.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I need to find out --
I need to clarify something. You're talking about the
elimination of two references to "catastrophic"?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes. "Equipment"
would be substituted for the "catastrophic" in both places.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And you're talking
about a form that would establish a floor as well as a
ceiling?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But with the amounts
to be determined?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But you also
mentioned something else. You mentioned a blank in terms of
the amount -- the dollar amount that we currently give to
-1?-03
40
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
all volunteer fire depar~ments.
COMMISSIOt~1ER NICHOLSON: Yes. The form of
the contract would reference compensation in three places.
It would be the annual budget that we give them for their
operating expenses, whicr~ is currently $11,000. That's
blank, 'cause that will -- could change in the budgeting
process.
JUDGE TINLEY: May be the same, but could.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And then the minimum
and maximum for equipment losses would be blank. And we
could determine that in the budgeting process.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I'll second
that motion, and -- but I --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Can I add -- could I
add onto it just a little bit?
COMMISSIONE'.R BALDWIN: I'll take my second
back, then.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Also, part of that
motion is to -- to provide contracts to Tierra Linda,
Junction, and --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can't put the other
one on it, I don't believe.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Tierra Linda and
Junction. And, again, the compensation will be blank. In
-~u-03
41
1
,--- 2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
,,.., 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
my view, it will be a minimal amount of compensation.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, what if we have
to do a different kind of contract with Tierra Linda and
Junction? As an example, that we would compensate them on a
per-run basis. See, the verbiage would be different than
this contract.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let me make that
motion too, that we'll -- we will develop and negotiate a
contract with Tierra Linda and Junction.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We going to have to
hire a lawyer to do all this?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I do have one
additional question. It has to do with the workmen's
compensation. Are we going to --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We've --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are we going to
provide a contract -- a standard contract that includes
workmen's comp, that a fire department must opt out, take
it -- take it out and initial it as having taken it out?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: As an aside, I would
encourage the other fire departments to take a look at that
and see if they can get better coverage at a lower price,
and get the County out of the worker's compensation
business. But, yes -- to answer your question, yes,
-L~-o3
42
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
~~
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Commissioner, did you
second that? Did you second that already? 'Cause I have a
couple of comments if you hadn't. Or if you have, I'll make
comments anyway.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I have some
comments too.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's first find out if you
seconded it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I'm thinking.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. All right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm thinking. Several
things have actually popped up. Yes, I'll second it, so we
can have this conversation. Shouldn't be having this
conversation without a second.
JUDGE TINLEY: There you go. All right.
Now, what are your thoughts?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Number one, I didn't
follow all of Commissioner Letz' comments a while ago about
us having the ability to audit, but there's no question in
my mind that we should have that ability to audit at any
point we want tc. County funds, audit any time. I can't
remember what it was.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But I'm going to come
-_~-o~
_.
43
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
back to it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My comments are, now that
the motion has been made, that I think it's being overly
complicated by having the issue of the other fire
departments in the contract. I think it should be two
separate motions.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I do too.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And also, I have a
question, after Commissioner Baldwin's last statement, as to
whether the audit provision is deleted in the motion that
Commissioner Nicholson made. And you've -- you said you
didn't want that. But, anyway --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's my point.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But he's -- anyway, my
final point is, though, I agree with what Commissioner
Nicholson is saying on the language. As long -- and the
audit provision, I'll leave that to the County Attorney.
But I would prefer that we bring the contract back after I
can look at the contract, because there's a lot of changes
floating around, and I can't vote for a contract that I
can't see. And we've talked about -- you know, I don't mind
a motion as to what the contract's going to contain, but as
to voting on the contract, I need to see it before I can
vote for it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Maybe the motion
?-1~-03
_ i ~
f
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
should be amended to bring back a new draft.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's up -- not up to
me.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me make one more
comment, then I'll withdraw my second; we won't have any
choice.
MR. EDWARDS: Which you can't do
procedurally, but that's okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: See what I'm telling
you? We do not need lawyers. (Laughter.)
MR. EDWARDS: That's Roberts Rules of Order.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: But -- yeah, but
procedure says there shouldn't be any discussion after you
made the motion.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So the whole thing's
moot. But the comments -- the comments from Hunt about them
not being able to provide numbers because they don't know
what's going to happen out there; well, neither do we. So
when we start building numbers for the budget, they need to
recommend to us what numbers that they want plugged in
there, and then we'll take it from there. But it's not
something that we should figure out, well, we're going to --
they're going to blow out six tires this year. That
shouldn't happen. They should be coming with a request of a
number to be plugged into the budget. I'm pretty firm on
-14-C3
- - f +
45
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,---
25
that. And I withdraw my second.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Before we pass on,
gentlemen, at the rate we're going today, we have 30 items;
we're going to be here 30 hours.
AUDIENCE: Not me.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Can we ask the
Commissioner to bring back another draft? I don't think it
requires a motion.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We probably ought to vote
on the first one.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We don't have a
second.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, okay, that's true.
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't know if we need any
further discussion. Colonel Hintze, have you got some sort
of comment?
MR. HINTZE: Yes, sir. We most sincerely
appreciate the budgeting problem that you gentlemen have.
And I think that the fire departments that you're dealing
with do a commendable job of operating within the $11,000.
We're not coming in and asking for an increase of that. And
I invite your attention to the article that was in the San
Antonio paper yesterday of the problem they're having in
Boerne. In Boerne, with six volunteer fire departments,
-~4-03
~-
46
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
they're coming in and asking for $338,000 to operate their
departments. We're not asking for that at all. So, I ask
you please to keep that in mind; we're not blanketly asking
for an increase. We're willing to do the job in the amount
of money that you gentlemen stipulate. But what we're
asking for is consideration for this outlandish catastrophic
or unusual loss that we might sustain, which would be a rare
occurrence. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: I appreciate that point. Mr.
Hall?
MR. LEE HALL: I just want to make some
sense -- I want to let y'all understand that as Junction --
even though we want to protect the department, we're not
askinq for a similar type budget. As Mr. Baldwin --
Commissioner Baldwin said, look at either a per-run basis or
a small flat amount. We're very flexible on all that.
We're not asking anywhere close to what you're doing with
the Kerr County departments. I just want to let y'all
understand that right up front.
JUDGE TINLEY: I appreciate that. And -- and
I know all of you gentlemen that give your time to these
departments, the small amount that you receive from Kerr
County is woefully inadequate in order to be able to operate
your department, and a lot of you -- a lot of you folks dig
in your own pocket and pay your own expenses and kick into
-l~-o~
47
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 kitty, and -- and we appreciate that. And it appears
that we've got something that we need to do some refining
on, and we got some budgetary issues that we need to
address. And -- and hopefully we can try and get those
plugged into this upcoming year's budget. That seems to be
the -- the direction that we're going. I think it follows
two tracks, the contract format track and the budgetary
track. And my sense of it is -- is that we need to get the
contract more tightly defined in a more complete form, and
then look at the budgetary aspects of it also.
MR. FELLER: Could I add one more thing?
JUDGE TINLEY: Are we going to get through
here pretty quick?
MR. BIGH<'~M: I just want to throw this out at
you. Everybody sitting here pays county taxes, whether you
live in the city or whether you live in the county. If the
fire departments go under, I think the law reads that the
County has got to provide fire protection for the county.
So, keep that in mind. If it's $10,000 for -- if
catastrophic -- if Commissioner Letz is hung up on
"catastrophic," let's throw catastrophic out and use another
word.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think we already have, Fred.
MR. BIGHAM: Have we already?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, I think we're already
7-14-03

48
1
~" 2
3
4
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,-,
25
there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're beyond that.
MR. BIGHAM: And I'm not sure what
Commissioner -- Buster is hung up on. But -- (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Watermelon.
MR. BIGHAM: You know, we organized our fire
department as the first line of defense because the closest
fire department to us was Center Point, and that was a
30-minute run. We have a very small department, but we're a
first line of defense, and if we go down, I don't know
what -- just keep that in mind. I don't think the County
could afford to pony up enough money if the volunteer fire
departments go under.
JUDGE TINLEY: We appreciate that, Fred.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't think that's
where we are, Fred, in this discussion.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move on. We've got us a
timed item, public hearing item. So, I will recess the
regular Commissioners Court meeting scheduled for this date,
and I will open a public hearing at this time, that public
hearing being the Kerr County Parks Long-Range Plan, noted
as Item 7 on the agenda.
(The regular Commissioners Court meeting was
closed at 10:06 a.m., and a public hearing
was held in open court, as follows:)
P U B L I C H E A R I N G
-14-u3

49
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 TINLEY:
public who wishes to be heard
County Parks Long-Range Plan?
to be heard on that? I'm loo
that maybe he has some things
MR. MILLER: I
JUDGE TINLEY:
Is there -- any member of the
with respect to the Kerr
Anyone here today that wishes
king at Bob Miller, thinking
to say.
came to listen.
I see.
MR. MILLER: Full support.
JUDGE TINLEY: We appreciate you being here.
Any member of the public that wishes to be heard on the Kerr
County Parks Long-Range Plan? Hearing none and seeing none,
I will declare the public hearing for consideration of the
Kerr County Parks Long-Range Plan is closed.
(The public hearing was concluded at 10:07
a.m., and the regular Commissioners Court
meeting was reopened.)
JUDGE TINLEY: I will reconvene the regular
Commissioners Court meeting scheduled for this date, and we
will go to Item 1.8, consideration and discussion and
appropriate action on Kerr County Parks Long-Range Plan,
since it is a companion item.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Judge.
What the Commissioners have before them is the plan as we
presented it in workshop form with the corrections and
additions that were suggested by the Commissioners and
~-14-03
50
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
others at the -- at the workshop. In addition to that, you
will find on Page 21a, for about several pages, the results
of a citizens` survey that was conducted. I would note,
just for information purposes -- this all takes us to 21a
through j. The last time the County did this, there was
something like 70 or 75 or 80 responses to the survey. This
time the solicitations resulted in 279 responses, all of
which have been noted and scored. And, for your
information, there are a lot of interesting comments that
people made on the surveys. And some of them are good, some
of them are bad. But if you take a look at it as a whole,
people are saying we like our parks and we'd like for you to
improve them. If you have the money, we want you to do so.
It also calls attention to the need for a festival grounds,
which I think Mr. Miller is keenly interested in. And that
likely will take place on land leased by the Texas State
Arts and Crafts Fair, leased from the County. So, unless
Commissioners have some questions about the survey or other
things in there, I think we're probably ready to take action
on it and close out this item.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've got a question.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Page 12, Goals and
Objectives.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Number 12, okay.
7-14-03
51
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: This festival grounds
facility.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Remind me again what
that consists of, and who's paying for it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, we're not. It
will be money coming from -- raised by the Texas Arts and
Crafts Fair folks. But I would defer the bulk of your
question to Mr. Miller, let him explain to you just exactly
what they hope to include in that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that the
amphitheater?
MR. MILLER: It's the presentation that I
made to you last time.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Very good. That's
fine. And then the very next item, dredge out the silt from
behind the dam at Center Point River Park.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's one of my
favorites. I've been wanting to try to accomplish it, too.
It will take grant money; it won't take money out of the
County treasury.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, my question is,
though, through the years, occasionally we've done that with
Ingram Lake as well. And I'm wondering, is -- I can't
remember when the last time we've done that. Is it time to
~-14-03
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
look at Ingram Lake again? Should it be added into --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We plan to ask for
it to be drained and rehabilitated winter after this winter.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, include it in
here, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: By winter, if that's
included -- yeah.
COMMISSIOT~ER BALDWIN: It sounds like to me
that's the kind of thing: that need to be put into --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let's add it. Center
Point Park and Ingram Park. Fine.
COMMISSIOP~ER BALDWIN: And then I'm
wondering, aren't you going to expand the top of Flat Rock
Dam for fireworks displa}~s? (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see. That was the
only questions I had. I'm a little leery of national --
National Recreation Park Association reports and guidelines
and standards, us trying to adopt them. As an example, to
provide one acre of park for each 100 population.
COMMISSIOIER WILLIAMS: That was suggested
standards, and they were contained in the earlier -- in the
existing Long-Range Plan. They're just revised --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's cool. I'm
simply leery of those kinds of things, of bringing in
7-~4-D3
53
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
national standards and guidelines and applying them to Kerr
County. But, anyway, ju:~t a concern. That's all I had.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Commissioner Baldwin
answered -- I had the exact same questions about Page 12,
basically.
COMMISSIOTER WILLIAMS: Judge, I would move
the adoption of the Kerr County Parks and Recreation
Long-Range Plan.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Am I to understand that that
includes -- where the second item under 12, to include so
that it would read "and Ingram Lake"?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir, that's
as -- as amended.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Include Ingram Dam
Park.
JUDGE TINL'~Y: Motion's been made and
seconded to approve the Master Plan as amended to include
Ingram Lake Park. Any further questions or discussion? If
not, all in favor of the motion, signify by raising your
right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
- 1 4 - 0 3
54
1
~-- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
,-.. 2 4
25
JUDGE TINI,EY: Motion does carry. We'll now
go back to --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Item Number 1?
JUDGE TIT'LEY: No. Actually, I'm going to go
to the addendum item, if I might, because of some of the
public participation that we have here, and I think it may
be helpful to us in facilitating the movement of another
item on the agenda. The addenda Item Number 30, consider
and discuss review of proposed changes to Kerr County Animal
Control rules and fees. Commissioner Nicholson.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. Over the last
couple of months, I guess;, we've met with -- Kerr County
Animal -- Rabies and Animal Control, with, I believe, all
the vets in the county. Might have missed one or two, I'm
not sure, but all of them have been involved with it whether
they met with us or not; and Humane Society and City of
Kerrville participation, and we bring -- we're bringing to
you some recommendations on essentially two things. One,
recommendation is that wE -- we revise our code on -- on
rabies vaccination to allow rabies vaccinations on a
three-year cycle instead of one-year cycle. The change in
state law permits this. Doesn't require it, but it permits
it. And we've had lengtr.y discussions with the vets over
this issue, and it's not as clear-cut as it appears to be.
Our conclusion is that, for most animals, it's okay to be on
-19-03
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
a three-year cycle. For some more at-risk animals with
higher exposure, the vets will recommend to their owners
that they be vaccinated on a more frequent basis than every
three years.
Another ccncern we had about it was that our
percent of compliance with the rabies vaccination code will
slip because it's on a tr.ree-year instead of a one-year
cycle. It's just easier for people to forget or lose track
of whether or not they'rE~ up-to-date on that, so it's going
to take some work on the part of the vets and the public and
Animal Control to make sure that this doesn't happen. We're
also proposing to change our current fee schedule. And I've
given you a document there that -- that increases certain
fees to be more in line kith today's costs, and that we make
a significant effort to -- to convince the public that --
the pet owners that they need to register their animals.
It's the law, and there': a good reason for it. And we
currently have a very lour rate of compliance. It's not
getting better. So, we're suggesting a campaign -- that we
embark on a campaign to cause more public awareness of
animal control, and to -- and of our registration laws to
enhance compliance. I'd like to ask Marc Allen to come up
and comment on these changes.
MR. ALLEN: Well, our registration program is
very weak. We've got about 600 people registered in this
-19-03
56
1
~-- 2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
county, and I know just about everybody here has a dog.
I'll bet hardly any of you are on my list. The way the
registration is done now, most of the registrations are done
by the vets, probably 95 percent. We're wanting to take the
registrations away from the vets and do all the
registrations out of the Animal Shelter. We want to issue a
separate tag, and make s~;re everybody's wearing that tag.
The vets don't have any enforcement ability as it is right
now, so they're dealing with their client, and then they're
going to ask them for money to register their animal on top
of that. Well, that's almost a conflict, a little bit. But
we need to either have a very strong registration program or
just drop it altogether. And the registration program is to
help support the Animal Control program through the year
anyway, so we need to go one way or the other. We're
proposing to raise the altered fee up to $10 from $5, and --
or unaltered, and altered fee would go from $2 to $5. We've
got 600 registrations rig'Zt now. The first year, I'd be
shooting for 2,500. If I could get 2,500 animals registered
a year, that's a lot of income. That's going to help us
out.
That's pretty much all I got to say on the
registration. As far as the rabies -- the rabies law going
from one year to three years, I don't think it's going to
make any difference. It's going to be the responsibility of
?-19-G3
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
57
the pet owner to show us proof anyways, so they're -- it has
to be up to them to show us the proof. We go out
door-to-door, you know, the animals get impounded. They've
got to provide us with proof. We don't have to go asking
for it, so it's not going to matter whether it's one year or
three years. We haven't had a confirmed case of rabies in a
domestic animal in, I know, the eight years since I've been
here. So --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: One other point. In
addition to updating the gee schedule for neutered animals
or non-neutered animals, we're also proposing to offer a
lifetime registration, and it would be $25 for neutered and
$50 for non-neutered. And so if you had a puppy, you could
register for that price, and it doesn't have to be
reregistered. Reviewing she fees, like other fees, you have
to pay to register your a~~tomobile, and that -- those funds
that go to support things that are needed because people
have automobiles. And we think that pet owners ought to pay
fees that help support the services that are provided
because -- because they have pets.
MR. ALLEN: If your animal's registered
wearing a tag, we're going to give you a ride home,
basically, is what it is. But if it comes into the shelter,
we don't know who it belongs to. That dog can't tell us,
you know, so we hold that dog however long we hold it, and
-1~-n3
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
then it either goes up for adoption or it's euthanized. Our
euthanasia, we're still doing over 2,000 animals a year,
dogs and cats. That's not counting the wildlife, but we
probably averages about 2,400 animals a year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess my question is --
goes back to the registration. First of all, I don't like
the difference between neutered and non-neutered, because I
think that -- I just -- I know why you're doing it, 'cause
you want to encourage animals to be neutered, but at the
same time, I don't know why you should penalize someone that
wants to breed -- you know, they have a dog they want to use
to breed. So, anyway -- out even though the bigger picture,
registration -- you know, if there's a realistic expectation
that we can register even the majority of the animals in the
county, it's probably a good idea. And I'm one of those not
in compliance right now. I didn't know until a couple weeks
ago, we were talking about it, there was really even -- the
County had a rule to regi:~ter them and pay a fee. And I'm
just wondering, is it rea=~istic to register animals? That's
one part. The other part is, in the City of Kerrville, do
they register? And do we have authority to set fees for
them?
MR. ALLEN: We do, but the City Council has
to pass it. And right nok~, the City Council or the Health
Department for the City is in the process of rewriting all
-14-03
59
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
'' 4
L
25
of their ordinances, and we've had meetings with them, and
they're looking at the fee schedule just like we are. We --
in fact, it was the City and -- and Dave that we sat down
and discussed this, this fee schedule and the registration
and the rabies law, 'cause that was our three main topics we
had to cover at the time. And -- and they look like they're
going to pass -- they said it's probably going to be around
October 1st, but they're really looking to pass the same
thing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I guess the other --
my final comment is, I can see the argument for taking it
away from vets and doir_g it internally, but I can also see a
great argument to doing it with the vets, because most dogs
-- I mean, anyone who's going to register their pet is going
to get a rabies shot. There's probably a whole bunch that
don't register -- I mean, don't get rabies, but those
people, I can almost assure you, aren't going to register
them.
MR. ALLEN: What we're proposing is we're
going to leave an application for registration at the vet's
office. They take it, mail it in to us. This way, it
changes hands twice before I get it. And I know several
people who have registered dogs -- their dogs, you know,
with the vet, and I ask them, "Where's your proof?" Well,
they don't have any proof. The vet's supposed to write on
;~-1~-03
_ , _ -
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the rabies certificate, "Licensed." That changes hands
twice. I'm not saying that the vets are doing anything
wrong, but what if they forget to write it on there? If
they say, "I paid it," how do I enforce that? I have to be
fair to everybody.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Likewise, the Humane
Society facilitates registration.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. All right. I --
if we stay with the registration, I like that idea. That
works. I would be inclined more to go the other direction.
I mean, I know that one of the purposes is to try to
generate revenue by fees, but I just think that you're going
to not get -- by $10 an animal for a non-neutered, that's a
lot of money. And a lot of people have several pets, and
you're talking, you know, $30 a year or more. And some
people, that -- you know, I just think that's a lot. I
would go the other direction, go to $2 an animal. Unless --
unless the purpose is really trying to fund the Animal
Control Department, you know.
MR. ALLEN: Well, it's also promoting spaying
or neutering. You know, I mean, if you're going to have a
dog that's not neutered, which I know you do, which you have
nir_e hunting dogs and probably want to breed, but there's a
whole lot of people that have nice Rottweilers and Pit Bulls
that they want to breed too. If we do get them spayed or
~-14-03
~ ~ r
i 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
61
neutered instead of backyard breeding -- I'm not saying
you're irresponsible, but there is a lot of irresponsible
people out there, and that's contributing to our pet
overpopulation.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Maybe $5 and $2. $5 for
-- you know, I just think that $10 is a lot to ask to
register an animal. Just my opinion.
MR. ALLEN: That's comparable to other cities
of our size, too.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We did a survey, and
that would be sort of mid-range of what other small towns
are charging.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have two questions,
one of Marc and one of Commissioner Nicholson. If you were
to achieve 2,500 animal registrations a year, what type of
increase to your manpower to handle this volume would you
need?
MR. ALLEN: I don't need any. I can do it
with what I've got.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, that's one
question. Second, Commissioner, help me understand.
Lifetime registration, I was always of the impression that
registration was predicated on vaccination for rabies and
other things. How do we accomplish a lifetime registration
if it's predicated on the vaccination and/or update to --
~-14-03
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
62
periodic updates of that rabies shot or whatever? How --
help me understand that.
MR. ALLEN: It's just a proposal as of right
now. I've never worked with a lifetime license yet, so --
every registration program I've ever worked with was annual,
but it was -- some people were talking that that might be a
way to go also.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's an
unanticipated consequence, Commissioner. I didn't think of
that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I don't think the
registration is a consequence in connection with the rabies
vaccination. That's a totally independent --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Two different
things.
JUDGE TINLEY: Totally independent. We
presently have a requirement on the books that people who
are residents of Kerr County that have domestic animals must
register those animals.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, let's see if I
understand, Judge. You're confusing me. So, I can register
my dog, if I had a dog, but I could say to him at the time
of registration, I don't want him to be vaccinated?
MR. ALLEN: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: You don't tell him one way or
7-19-03
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
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The loophole, if
there is one is currently, it's an annual registration and
an annual rabies shot, and we won't register a dog unless
it's got its rabies shot.
MR. ALLEN: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So if you wanted to
avoid giving your dogs rabies shots in the future and take a
chance it gets picked up without one, then you could get the
rabies shot once, get a lifetime registration, and not get
any more rabies shots. You would still be taking the chance
that your dog's going to get -- or cat's going to get picked
up and not have its rabies tag on it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, they're not
mutually exclusive.
JUDGE TINLEY: No, not if there's a
requirement for a current -- there is a requirement for -- I
didn't see this here -- for the registration, for there to
be a current rabies vaccination.
MR. ALLEN: That's correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. ALLEN: It has to be, or you don't get
your registration.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And the same problem
?-14-03
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
exists with -- if we stuc}: with our current one-year rabies
vaccination, we wouldn't ,snow --
JUDGE TINLEY: One-year rabies.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- the second year
whether or not the -- so --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question. How do you --
well, do you have -- do the animals have to come in to be
registered? I guess not.
MR. ALLEN: No.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just come by your office
and pick up a sheet -- I mean, the little form?
MR. ALLEN: Currently, yeah, you can come in,
pay your $2 or $5, whatever; we'll write you a receipt. But
we're -- we're putting together an application and we're
really wanting to get a little more strict and make it to
where we can enforce it, you know. It's not fair that, you
know, the responsible people do it, and then the
irresponsible people don't. But how do I prove it? You
know, they tell me the v=t did it. Well, the vet should
have wrote it on there. How do I know?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How many animals -- dogs?
Are we talking about dog:>, or are we talking about all
animals?
MR. ALLEN: Dogs and cats.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How many dogs and cats do
7-14-G3
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
you estimate are in the c~~unty?
MR. ALLEN: In the county?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That are owned by people,
not wild.
MR. ALLEN: Well, I'd say every other person
has a dog or a cat, or two. And there's 40,000 people in
Kerr County.
COMMISSIOER LETZ: Okay. So, we're looking
at -- okay, say there's 100,000 pets, then, in the county,
which is probably conservative, because a lot of people --
I'm just thinking -- I mean, I didn't then even think about
cats until you mentioned cats. Then, all of a sudden I
remembered the four or five cats that my wife has in barns
and other things, too, Her cats, not mine. (Laughter.) All
of a sudden, I'm thinking that it's a lot of animals. I'm
just -- I mean, I'm going back to my original thing as to
how do you do it? I mean, it's -- aside from being
expensive, you're talking about someone who has a ranch, and
most of them have multiple -- I mean, 'cause ranches
probably have more animals than others. You're talking $60,
$70, $80 a year, which maybe that's what the County should
do. I'm not -- I'm not -- sure seems like a lot of money to
me.
MR. ALLEN; You could also have a kennel, and
under Establishment Fees, a kennel with less than six
7-19-U3
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
animals, you could pay a $20 yearly fee, and it registers
all your animals. But you have to provide proof of a rabies
vaccination for all those animals, and I think we even have
to come out and take a look and see your facilities and
check your animals.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I understand that.
MR. ALLEN: Which you could get by. I mean,
a kennel with 7 to 49 animals, you're looking at $30 a year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not -- I'm just
trying to figure out the -- I guess the wisdom of having any
law on the books that we don't get compliance with and that
we really don't have a lot of way to enforce it.
MR. ALLEN: Well, that's why we're wanting to
change it, so we can enforce it. Because it's hard to
enforce now. That's why we don't have very many people
registered.
COMMISSIOIER LETZ: Right.
MR. ALLEN: We tell people about it, but is
it fair for me to write this guy up and not write this guy
up?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I understand your dilemma
totally.
MR. ALLEr1: So that's why I want to get a
little more stringent.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, $10 a piece,
-14-03
67
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
I4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
100,000 animals, that's a :pillion dollars.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll give you another
one here. There's a dangerous dog category. What, besides
a Pit Bu11, qualifies as a dangerous dog?
MR. ALLEN: Well, you can't discriminate
against any particular breed. The animal has to be declared
dangerous for an incident that happened, an unprovoked
attack.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. ALLEN: Off of its property. It can be
declared dangerous. Right now, currently, we have one
animal that is registered as a dangerous animal, and it's in
the city limits. And he pays his fee every year. He's got
his good cage, the whole works.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, my pit Chihuahua
could be a dangerous dog, right?
MR. ALLEN: Yes, it could.
JUDGE TINLEY: Sure could.
MR. ALLEN: That's correct. Most -- most
people don't want to do '_t. They don't want to come up with
or they can't come up wit=h $100,000 worth of liability
insurance, the secure en~~losure and the whole works.
COMMISSICiVER LETZ: I think -- I mean, I --
I'm not real overly incJ_ined to vote for this whole thing
anyway, but is there a way to put in there a multiple
7-19-~3
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
animal -- like, for individuals, not kennels. Kennels
are -- to me, that should be a kennel. I don't want to try
to figure out a loopho7F there. You know, like, $25 if you
have multiple -- like, three to eight animals, for $25 you
can do all your animals at one time. I just think that I
would --
MR. ALLEN: Well, that would be the same way
as -- as an establishment fee.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON; Registration -- I
think it's a good idea.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just think -- I mean,
but not -- have a new category. Just have neutered,
non-neutered, or just another category across the paper;
just say all your animals, however many you have, flat fee.
I think that would be a lot easier for me to palate than the
way it is right now.
MR. ALLEN: That would fall under, like, an
establishment fee where you have a ranch or -- you know,
you -- it falls under Flying A Ranch or something. And --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMTSSIC~IER NICHOLSON: All animals of an
individual owner, $25.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, he says that's
included under the ocher animal establishments.
COMMISSTONER NICHOLSON: Oh, you can do that
~-i4-U3
69
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
there? Oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it should be
promoted. That should be -- you know, I'd pull that line
out and put it up with rec;istration, because it's not a
kennel, and it's -- it's multi -- you know, however it
works.
MR. ALLEN: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Multiple animals, per owner.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
MR. ALLEN: But it would still have to be an
establishment of some kind, instead of just a homeowner.
COMMISSIOI~fER LETZ: I would let it be a
homeowner to try to encourage it, 'cause I think what we
want to try to do is encourage it and not --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The financial
consequences of this are not insignificant. This first
year, stepping up from l~~ss than 1,000 to 2,500 is fairly
ambitious. But if we could get -- we wouldn`t even have to
get a majority of the animals; maybe 30, 35 percent
registered, and that would be paying the costs of our Animal
Control. I think that's good government.
MR. ALLED(: The way the city ordinance reads
right now, it says that the animals in the city limits must
be done by a veterinarian or the local health department,
and they're changing -- tying to change that. Ours doesn't
?-19-G3
~o
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
say that, so, I mean --
JUDGE TINLEY: Must be registered?
MR. ALLEN: Or -- yes, registered. That's
JUDGE TINLF;Y: The registration.
MR. ALLEN: The registration.
JUDGE TINL~Y: City ordinance must occur
through a veterinarian?
MR. ALLEN: That's correct. That's what's it
reads right now. They're changing that.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: City has agreed to
bring these changes and cther changes in their code to the
City Council soon.
COMMISSIONER WILI,IAMS: What does our current
court order say? Registration is a must?
MR. ALLEN: Yes.
COMMISSIO?'JER NICHOLSON: Yes.
JUDGE TIN~EY: Mm-hmm.
MR. ALLEN: It doesn't specify -- specify
where; it just says it must be done.
COMMISSICNER WILLIAMS: I agree it must be
done, and I'd like to see us strengthen it.
(Discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, we're proposing
to add, under Registration Fees, multiple animals?
~-iq-os
71
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 TINLEY: Single owner.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Single owner, $25
annual or $100 lifetime. I'll make the motion that we -- we
move from the -- requiring rabies vaccination on a one-year
cycle to three-year cycle, with the aside that -- that
veterinarians are going to recommend that some at-risk
animals be vaccinated annually, and I move that we adopt the
fee schedule with the one change that -- of the $25 per year
and $100 per lifetime recistration fee .for all animals owned
by an individual.
MR. ALLEN: Are we adopting this now? Is
that what you're telling me?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I made a motion we
have.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's what the motion is.
MR. ALLEPI: We probably should add livestock.
Remember, I was -- live:~tock and boarding for livestock;
that just came up.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is that already in
our current --
MR. ALLEN: No, it's not. I called you
Friday about it. And it -- when you -- when you estray an
animal, the estray fee:> -- that's a little bit different,
but there has been an .instance where we had to impound a
horse through the city, and I think that's something we're
_4-U3
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
72
going to have to put on there.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, those words --
MR. ALLEN: Livestock impound. That's not
something we do a whole lot, but it does come up.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: How much?
MR. ALLEN: $50. That was the old fee.
Boarding is $10 a day; it hasn't changed.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I heard those as two
motions. I'll second your first motion.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: First motion is on
one- to three-year?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's easier to deal with
one at a time, I think.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That motion is
changed to a motion that we adopt the three-year cycle on
rabies vaccinations, instead of the one-year cycle we
currently have.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's take them one at a time,
with your permission, Commissioner Nicholson. We'll come
back and give you the full -- with respect to the motion to
adopt the three-year rabies vaccination cycle, as opposed to
the one-year, is there any question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. I have a
note here that says, "It is advisable that a public hearing
-14-03
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
73
be held to adopt any new local rabies regulations. Kerr
County Attorney." Public hearing. I would think maybe even
on that fee schedule as well.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I was going to make that
comment on the fee structure. I think we need to do a
public hearing on the --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Public hearing on it.
And you don't have the verbiage couched here to even have a
public hearing.
JUDGE TINLEY: I would tend to agree with
you. Mr. Motley, I appreciate you bringing that to our
attention, and your assistance.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: While the County
Attorney's here and this is before us -- question, David.
David? Question. I want you to listen to my question I'm
getting ready to ask the Judge. Many times we have --
because of not having it on the agenda to set a public
hearing, we haven't done it. And my question is to the
County Attorney, does it have to be on the agenda for the --
to call for a public hearing on an item?
MR. MOTLEY: Do you have to have on it the
agenda previous to calling for it?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. Do you have to
have an agenda item to call the public hearing, or can we
just set a public hearing and give the proper notice?
7-14-03
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
74
MR. MOTLEY: You know, I think the latter
sounds reasonable to me. I really -- to tell you the truth,
I've never researched 'chat, but it sounds -- as long as
proper notice is givers to people who would be concerned and
you posted it, it would, in effect, be the same thing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree with that. And
we've gotten hung up on this several times in the past year.
While you were sitting here and it came up, I thought we
could get that clarification.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Makes sense.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So we don't have to
always have an agenda item just to set a hearing.
Certainly, we have to have an agenda item to take --
JUDGE TINLEY: I think the question in this
case was the agenda item called for the discussion of the --
the change in the rabies frequency and the new schedule of
fees, but the agenda item did not specifically mention
setting a public hearing. You're of the belief as you sit
there now, without having dug into it, that we could go
ahead and -- with tha~ agenda item as it is, and by -- by
motion passed, set a ~,ablic hearing on that matter today; is
that correct?
MR. MOTLEY: Well, I think -- and the posting
is "consider and disc~~~s." I believe it would be, you know,
fair under Open Meetings to go ahead and just set -- set the
-~~-o,
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
75
public hearing on it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. MOTLFY: I don't think that that -- I
think any possible error under Open Meetings would be cured
by the fact that you're giving public notice. And I have
not researched that, and I actually tried and didn't find
anything specific on tha'~ point.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I would think any one
of us could basically ca.11 a meeting of some sort, a public
hearing, a workshop. I mean, I think we ought to do one,
and just do it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You set up a meeting
with the City of Kerrvil~_e without asking me. Same thing.
JUDGE TIN-BEY: I did? (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure did. And I --
that wasn't anger -- yet. Yeah, it's the same thing. You
just called a meeting, ar.d in my opinion, the same thing.
Call -- call a meeting, ~~ublic hearing. I dare you, do it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, what
distinguishes is, of course, you're going to advertise it as
a public hearing; the public's going to know. And that
seems to me to be a big, giant step forward in satisfying
the law.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right.
-i9-u j
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
76
JUDGE TINI,EY: We have a motion and second on
the table, but I think tree question here is, do we move
forward in light of the --- in light of the County Attorney's
opinion? Since we're bound by those opinions, my belief is
we can't move forward on the motion at this point.
COMMISSIOI\~ER WILLIAMS: How about amending
the motion to include and set a date for public hearing?
COMMISSIOI`IER LETZ: In other words, a new
motion to set a public hearing.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. I'll move
that we set a public hearing for --
MS. SOVIL: August 11.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- 10 a.m.,
August 11th, for the purposes of discussing changes to the
county Animal Control fee schedule and altering the County
Code to provide for a three-year cycle on rabies
vaccination.
COMMISSIOI`IER BALDWIN: Is that a regular
Commissioners Court meeting?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, it would again
have the partner item on the agenda to --
COMMISSIOIER LETZ: For action.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What was the date
again?
i-~4-03
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
77
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
COMMISSION?ER BALDWIN: Eleven. August 11.
JUDGE TINI~EY: Are we -- is that requiring --
do we require 30 days novice? If we do, that's not going to
make it.
MS. SOVTL: That is not 30 days.
JUDGE TINLEY: I know it is not. Are we
required to give 30 days notice, is my question, for a
public hearing? Or are we talking about some shorter period
of time, such as 10 or 14?
MR. MOTLD,Y: Beats me. I think 14 sounds
good. (Laughter.) I really don't -- you know, I -- I can
tell you about my research on it if you want to really be
bored. I would -- you know, I think as long as you give an
appropriate notice, you know, properly published and posted,
I think it's okay. Sholrld be like any other meeting, I
think. As Commissioner Baldwin suggested, he wants to call
a meeting.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I want to have a
meeting.
JUDGE TIP?LEY: As he indicated, he's probably
privileged to do so.
MR. MOTLF~Y: And it does make it -- I mean,
it is something different in that we're talking about county
regulations and such, sc~ there needs to be plenty of notice.
-14-03
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
78
So --
JUDGE TINLEY: So it's your opinion that
adequate notice, rather than mandatory 30 days --
MR. MOTLEY: Well, I --
JUDGE TINLEY: Off the top of your head.
MR. MOTLEY: Yeah. Just off the top of my
head, 'cause -- because I have not researched it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do I hear a second to the
motion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and
seconded to set a public hearing for August the 11th at
10 a.m., public hearing k~eing for the purpose of
consideration of the changing of the rabies vaccination
schedule from one year to three years, and adopting a new
animal fee schedule for :err County. Any further questions
or discussion? All in f~:vor of the motion, signify by
raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Okay,
gentlemen. It's time to take a break. We'll come back here
at --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 4 a.m. I'm revising
-i9-ors
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
79
my time.
reconvene.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Five to 10:00, we'll
(Recess taken from 10:43 a.m. to 10:58 a.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, I'll call the meeting
back to order, if I can have a word, please. The -- we'll
reconvene the regular Commissioners Court meeting scheduled
for this date. The next item on the agenda is -- we're
going to go back to the beginning, by golly. It's consider
and discuss request for approval for the farmer's market at
courthouse square on the first, third, and fifth Saturdays
of each month for the remainder of the 2003 growing season.
Ms. Anderson.
MS. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. Good morning.
JUDGE TINLEY: Good morning.
MS. ANDERSON: My name's LuAnn Anderson. I
reside at 4190 Fredericksburg Road in Precinct 1. I'm here
today representing the Kerr County Market Association.
You've had already a very busy morning, so I'll try to be
very brief. This past Saturday we did celebrate the first
birthday of Kerr County Market Days, and so perhaps the
timing is appropriate that we're back here once more to ask
for your permission for another proposal, but I did want to
-l~-os
1
^ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
,-.. 2 4
25
80
mention that as part of our first birthday celebration, we
said a special thank you to Commissioner Baldwin. He was
the first one who listened to our idea and had the faith and
trust to bring it before the entire Court, and say thank you
to the Commissioners Court for giving us a chance to have
Market Days for this past year. One of the things that we
originally wanted and what we originally had as a concept
was a farmer's market, and that's what we thought we were
going to be doing. It turned into something far different,
so our proposal today is really to take us back to that
original concept and work to bring more in the way of fresh
produce to the marketplace here at the courthouse.
What we're proposing here for the first,
third, and fifth Saturdays would be in addition to the
existing Market Days held on the second and fourth
Saturdays. `I'he proposal for the new farmer's market, just
to hit a few high points, it would be for a half-day only.
We would limit it to produce and plants only. So, second
and fourth Saturdays, we'd still have the big Market Days;
produce, plants, arts and crafts. First, third, and, when
there is one, a fifth Saturday, we'll do produce and plants
only. We'd like to begin this next Saturday, with your
permission, and we would expect to end probably early
November, depending cn Mother Nature. This would be
determined by the growing season. My Texas Almanac tells me
7 14 G3
~ ~ ~
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
that the average day of the first killing frost in this area
varies between November 6th in Kerr and Gillespie Counties
and November 17th if you get down into Real County. So,
we're saying we'd probably end in early November.
And, although my track record for predicting
growth of the market is riot very good, I do think that this
would always be a rather small market, and that it would be
possible to keep it cont~~ined within the current employee
parking lot closest to JE~fferson and Sidney Baker. The
advantage here would also be that our customers would have
close-by parking, very e~~sy access in and out to the market.
Vendors who would participate in the first, third, and the
fifth Saturday's market with their plants and produce would
automatically be admitted the second and fourth market days.
This -- this, as I said, is an effort to come back to our
original concept. Trie one real disappointment that we have
had with Market Days has been the limited amount of fresh
produce. And we try, and we've gone out all over many
counties in this area trying to recruit growers, and the
thing I've learned from the growers is that they need a
regular and frequent place to make their sales. They need
to be able to sell at least once a week or their produce is
not fresh, and they need to be able to sell it in the same
place each week so they can build up a customer base. So,
hopefully by -- by this ~.ddition, we will be able to
- 1 9 - 0 3
~ ~ 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
82
accomplish that.
The market would be open to farmers, as well
as home gardeners, and fees would be minimal; $5 a Saturday
far up to an 8-foot table, $8 a Saturday for up to 16 feet
of table. We would allow any locally-grown plants and
produce. We would also allow homemade food products, like
jams and jellies, as long as the seller met the City of
Kerrville health regulations. And everything that's sold
would have to be labeled as to -- or specified in some type
of poster as to where it was grown and how it was grown.
One, that it was locally grown, and two is whether
pesticides were used or whether it's organic, whether it's
not organic, all of those considerations. We would apply
all of our current Market Day rules; respect for the
courthouse property, proper cleanup, sales tax. Anything
that would require sales tax to be collected, the person
selling would have to have a sales tax permit. We'd also
certainly continue to work with our community organizations,
civic groups, the schools to support their fundraisers and
any events they might like to plan in conjunction with the
market.
Catch my breath, and I'll close. We think
this will really be an enhancement to the current Market
Days events. We think it will be a further positive step
for our downtown area and for our local businesses. And,
?-1~-03
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
83
most of all, we think it will help us address the one thing
which we've had most requested by attendees of the Kerr
Market Days, and that is they want more fresh veggies, and
that's what we're trying to do. With that, I thank you for
your time. That concludes my presentation. I'll try to
answer any questions.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any questions for
Ms. Anderson?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So if, on a Saturday
afternoon, I have relatives pop in from out of town and I
want to buy a couple of pounds of squash, yellow squash, to
make my favorite dish that mother used to make me, I can
just run down and buy three pounds of squash, couldn't I?
MS. ANDERSON: I would suggest that you come
early.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Morning.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: In the morning. Yeah,
in the morning. Everybody just parses on words here today.
MS. ANDERSON: Yes, to the extent that we
have it available and Mother Nature lets us have a good crop
and we can get it here.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, my question was,
I could just buy a handful of squash, though?
MS. ANDERSON: That's right. If you want to
come in -- we have people that come up and say, "Can I just
7-4-03
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
84
buy one tomato?" And we say yes, absolutely. I'll sell you
one tomato or I'll tell you a half a bushel of tomatoes,
just any way you want to go.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's neat.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How many vendors do
you think you -- growers do you think you're going to
attract?
MS. ANDERSON: Right now, I've got four that
told me that they -- if they have the product, they will be
there. And, with your approval to go forward with this,
we'll certainly go out and be trying to recruit some more.
We're optimistic about, by being once a week at a regular
location, we'll be able to get a few more in. Hopefully,
I'd like to have six or eight.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You've asked for the
parking lot area for these extra dates. Are you intending
that they would, likewise, be in the parking lot area on
your regular Market Days?
MS. ANDERSON: On regular Market Days, we
will probably mix them in with our other vendors, because we
try to keep -- because it's so busy, we have so many people,
we try to keep that as a handicapped parking area for our
customers.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MS. ANDERSON: And so we would continue to
~-i~-o~
85
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
keep that as the handicapped parking area on the second and
fourth Saturdays for the big market. Handicapped parking
would be available first, third, and fifth in your regular
designated sites, so we'd just kind of switch them a little
bit on the second and fourth Saturdays.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On the -- on that, I had
the same -- I was going to have the same question, but it
makes sense that you're going to set up for handicapped on
the bigger days. But I would recommend that -- seems to
make sense to move them right next to that spot so that
they're -- I mean, people that are coming to shop for
vegetables, they're coming back on a weekly basis, I think
want to kind of be in and out. They don't want to really
mess with the rest of the -- the crowd. And, to me, this --
they would be right, basically, at the exact same location.
Plus, if you're shopping for vegetables, you kind of want to
shop for vegetables. You --
MS. ANDERSON: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: As opposed to -- okay,
they had squash over there, and they had this over here,
having to walk the whole square one time to see what's even
here. If they're all kind of together, to me, it would make
more sense. But, anyway, I'm not -- I'll turn over the
running of it to you. You've done a fantastic job so far.
~-1.-03
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
MS. ANDEF:SON: Thank you. Well, I think
that's certainly a consideration. We do have some people
who permanently reserve some spots, particular spots, so
we'd kind of have to work around that. But --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MS. ANDER;~ON: -- with the flexibility we
still have, we'll certainly look into that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I believe --
JUDGE TINI,EY: Ms. Uecker?
MS. UECKER.: Something just dawned on me, and
fortunately this hasn't happened within the last year.
It -- and it's not going to happen very often, and I'm
certainly, you know, glad that we're -- we've got this.
What I need to know is what the procedure might be if this
happens. Sometimes we have big cases and we have a judge
from out of town coming in here, and he wants to finish a
case, and there's been many times when we've had court and a
lot of people here on Saturday mornings. So, you know, I'm
not saying -- fortunately, that hasn't happened in the last
year, and I hope it doesn't, but I need to know what the
procedure might be in that= instance.
JUDGE TINLI~Y: I'm not sure we have any
procedure. Certainly, Mr;;. Anderson and her people have
always been very accommod~.ting if there were any other
users. I think the key his been communication about these
~-14-~3
87
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
other needs and other users, and it's always been able to be
worked out before. We've got a good deal of parking that's
still available down below.
MS. UECKEI2: Yeah, maybe. I just --
JUDGE TIN]~EY: In designated spots.
MS. UECKEFt: Just make sure that that is
roped off. And maybe I need to get Ms. Anderson's phone
number so, you know, we can communicate should that happen.
MS. ANDER,30N: Absolutely.
JUDGE TIN~EY: There have been a number of
instances over the past gear where there have been other
activities going on out 'zere. The Tivy Golden Girls, I
think, had an activity. The Board of Realtors had --
several of them. And there was always an ability to work
that out, just as long as there was advance communication.
That seems to be the key.
MS. UECKER: Okay. Yeah, I'll get your
number later, and --
MS. ANDERSON: We can work it out.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any more questions for
Ms. Anderson? I -- I want to personally thank Ms. Anderson
and Ms. Kayne for their efforts of putting on this Market
Days. I think it's been tremendously successful. It's --
I've never seen a single scrap of paper coming back here
after their event that has been left. The only down side
-19-u3
88
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,-,
25
I've heard is they want more fruits and vegetables, and
that's what she's trying to accomplish. I think she's --
she's established her track record with this Court and --
and with the citizens of this county, and I think -- I think
she's got a gold star sitting there.
MS. ANDERSON: Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIOrlER BALDWIN: I got a motion.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's hear it.
COMMISSIOI~;ER BALDWIN: Judge, I move that the
Kerr County Commissioners Court grant permission to Kerr
County Market Association to conduct Kerr County Farmer's
Market on the first, thir~~, and fifth Saturdays on the
courthouse square during :he remainder of the 2003 growing
season.
COMMISSION:~R WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and
seconded. Is there any further questions or discussion? If
not, all in favor of the motion, signify by raising your
right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLI.Y: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Thank you,
Ms. Anderson. We appreciate it.
MS. ANDERSON: Thank you.
-1~-03
89
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 TINLEY: The next item, and this may be
a moot item at this point:, is consideration and discussion
of changing the county rules and regulations to conform to
state law, shown here as 169.29 -- I guess that's Health and
Safety Code -- regarding rabies vaccination. Ms. Mayo. Is
she here, present with us today?
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: I believe, Commissioner
Baldwin, she had mentionE~d that item to you, if my
recollection --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- serves me. It may be, if
she was here earlier, that she heard the result of the
addenda item, and that effectively answers the questions and
concerns that she has here. Is that your understanding?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. She was not
here. This is the second round that she hasn't made an
appearance here, so I assume that she's lost interest in it
or whatever.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But I think Number 4's
issues are going to cover exactly the same things.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Is there any member of
the Court that wishes to offer a motion on Item 1.2 on the
agenda?
?-~~-o~
90
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1U
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
~--
25
(No response.)
JUDGE TINI~EY: If not, we'll move on to 1.3,
consider merit increases. This was put on at the request of
Mr. Odom, our Road and Bridge administrator. Good morning
to you.
MR. ODOM: Good morning, sir. May I start to
say that this morning -- my request doesn't relate to this,
but in regard to Mrs. Bocock and the courthouse, we will --
we've been trying -- I've explained to everybody --
Mrs. Bocock who spoke, we will try to work everything in
within the budget, and ::?'l1 see what happens this week with
the hurricane coming into Corpus Christi. We hope it stays
down there and not up here, but we'll see.
COMMISSIONF;R BALDWIN: We want some of it.
MR. ODOM: Well, I don't mind some of it. I
don't want a repeat of July of last year. Last -- at the
last court, I brought this to you, and what I present to you
now is more of substantiating information to you as far as
merit increases. I understand the Court and your position
there. I wanted to reiterate what I had. There was a
question as far as being able to do this in next year's
budget, so basically what I've presented here is showing
exactly, if I presented this to you and you enacted that
during this budget year, t~1at the increase would be 5712.50.
Now, I know that that's -- and it is -- well, it can be
~-14-03
91
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
done. However, I unders~~and the Court's -- the objections I
had before. What I would like to assure the Court is that
we were presented a flat budget, that Road and Bridge had
attained a flat budget. As far as that's concerned, we're a
dollar under this year's budget. So, what I'm showing you
here is that it is very ~ittainable; that I can do it during
this budget year as well as next budget year, and follow all
the criteria that's giver to Road and Bridge. I -- being --
being realistic, I understand; I leave it to the Court to
decide. What I would ask the Court to do is to allow us to
at least give these individuals, the four individuals, this
merit increase in the next budget year, if it's not to be
this year. But I'm ready for discussion, if there's any
questions about the money or anything like that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, did I hear you say
that you're taking the original issue off the table, and now
you're proposing that we do it in next year's budget?
MR. ODOM: That's -- that's a practical way
to approach it. I -- from what I heard last year -- I mean
last meeting, it was not acceptable to you for this budget
year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I kind of -- I have a
different idea. And I -- L thought a lot about this, and
I'm -- and someone tell me if there's a problem with my
thinking on this. Is it possible to approve it for the
i-14-03
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
92
remainder of this year, and then with a subject -- a
possibility for next year, but until we look at next year's
budget a little bit closer, look at next year's -- and I
would even -- because we've drug this on, I would make -- be
willing to make this retroactive to June 1st.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I support that.
Principle of compensation is that merit increases reinforce
and encourage that exceptional performance, and part of that
principle is that the increase should closely follow the --
the performance that you're trying to reinforce and reward.
So, on the basis of that and the basis of the way it's been
presented, that the money is available for other reasons, I
would support doing it now or doing it retroactive.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I wasn't here for the
last discussion when the Court took this topic up to begin
with, but I do agree. I agree with Commissioner Nicholson's
thoughts on this. If we depend on these people to do the
work under normal circumstances, and they do extraordinary
work under extraordinary circumstances, the very least we
can do is to recognize their efforts. So, I do support it.
You have shown to me that you can handle it in your current
budget.
MR. ODOM: In the current budget.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And I guess what
you're trying to do with this presentation is to advise the
-14-73
93
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
Court, when it gets into budget discussions, that it can
also be handled within the framework of your proposed budget
for next year.
MR. ODOM: That's right, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that correct?
MR. ODOM: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I support that. All
right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We have a motion?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'll move that we
grant the increases effective June 30, 2003.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll second it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Is
there any further discussions? Any questions?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have a -- I mean, I see
a question in the audience from the Treasurer, but I -- the
comment that I have is that I support doing this as a merit
increase, but that it is not -- I'm not voting to increase
it for next year. In my mind, they're back down to their
current grade, you know. It's not automatic in the budget.
It may be it will happen in the budget process next year,
but it's not automatic that this is where they are for next
year. This is just for the remainder of -- or June -- for
part of this year.
JUDGE TINLEY: That was my understanding,
~-ia-o3
94
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
that the motion covered the -- from June 1st through the
remainder of the current year -- budget year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Everything's up for
renegotiation next year.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Be up to Leonard to
present it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm, yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Next year.
JUDGE TINLEY: You had a question?
MS. NEMEC: I was just wondering if the Court
would object to the effective date being July 16th, or do
you want me to go back and figure nut the difference and go
retroactive and pay them what they should have gotten?
Paychecks are already done for tomorrow, today.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess my point was -- I
mean, I don't have a problem with doing it, I mean,
starting --
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion was June 1, is what I
heard. Whatever adjustments need to be made, let's make it
right.
MS. NEMEC: June 1st or June 30th?
MR. ODOM: June 30th.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If we can't do it in
this payroll, we --
~-14-U3
95
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. NEMEC: Which means July 1st, then,
because that -- then that would be just one day in that pay
period.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes, July 1st.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: July 1 should be the
day.
MS. NEMEC: Just so the Court knows, it will
not be reflected on this paycheck. We'll have to make up
for it on the next pay period.
MR. ODOM: But the money is there to cover
anything like that.
JUDGE TINLEY: If it -- if it`s going to be
the June 30th payrol], that will cover mid-June through the
end of June.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right. That's why it
needs to be July 1, right?
MR. ODOM: Mm-hmm. This would be --
basically, what I was trying to do was pick up 1 July. I
think that pay period was -- was 30, but I would certainly
-- I have the money to do that too for the people.
JUDGE TINLEY: The original request to be
paid on the June 30 payroll would include the second pay
period in the month of June.
MR. ODOM: That`s right.
MS. NEMEC: Starting June 16th, then.
-1~-03
1
-- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
,.~ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
'' 1
22
23
24
25
96
JUDGE TINLEY: That's right?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is that where we are? Is that
the motion?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah, to be paid on
the June 30, 2003 payroll, which means go back and make it
retroactive.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any further questions
or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by
raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.}
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry.
MR. ODOM: Thank you, Judge. Thank you -- I
thank the Court.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you.
MR. ODOM: The men thank you, and the lady.
JUDGE TINLEY: The next item is consider
releasing Letter of Credit Number 7037450, Stablewood
Springs Ranch Condominium. Are you here to present that
item, Mr. Odom?
MR. ODOM: I'll answer the questions, but I'm
not that well-briefed on it. I believe that Mr. Nicholson
has been briefed by Franklin. Going back by his agenda item
i-14-G3
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
97
here, he is saying that -- well, before I make any comment,
I think I should turn it over to Commissioner Nicholson.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, I think what I
understand is that what's being asked for here is to be --
for the release of one of two remaining Letters of Credit,
and that that release of this Letter of Credit be
conditioned upon the follow-up to finish certain screen and
drainage pipe and silt flowage issues. However, the -- the
secondary issue here is that -- that Stablewood Springs has
been asked to denote the existence of certain easements on
the plat plan, and that leas not happened as of the end of
last week. So, I -- I will -- I am not going to support the
release of this Letter of Credit until those -- such time as
those two easements are noted on the plat plan.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Until everything's
been done that are supposed to be done?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with you.
COMMISSICNER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: We had two members of the
public who asked to be heard on this matter, Ms. Frost?
MS. FROST: I just got on the agenda in case
I needed to speak, but Catherine has something.
JUDGE T ITILEY : Ms . Fox?
MS. FOX: Yes. My name is Catherine Fox, and
l~-U3
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
concerning the Letter of Credit, I'm here this morning to
concur with my Commissioner, Mr. Nicholson, and also to ask
the Court as a total entity to not release the Letter of
Credit, as recommended by the County Engineer. The project
is not complete. In the letter to you dated July 1, 2003,
from Mr. Johnston, he states that he has inspected the
drainage structures on Stablewood property. He writes,
quote, "They" -- and here I assume he is referring to the
structures, "appear to bF, constructed in accordance with the
plans submitted with the final plat," unquote.
This concerns me a great deal, because the
structures "appear to be constructed" properly? Does this
mean that Mr. Johnston simply looked at the structures and
is now recommending that the Letter of Credit be released?
Either the County Enginef~r -- and I mean this respectfully,
with no disrespect -- knows that the structures are built
properly, or he does not. And I would hope that this would
involve more than a visual tour of the structures, commonly
referred to as the detention ponds. He then states, quote,
"ThP only items not installed was the screen at inlet of
drainage pipes and silt fences to control silt collection
and buildup until vegetation is established," unquote. This
statement confirms that the project is not complete in its
entirety, as was agreed upon in our last meeting before this
Court on April 14th of this year.
~'-14-G3
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
Mr. Johnston's assurance that, quote, "I will
verify the above items whEn I make the final road
inspection," unquote, doe;; not put my mind at ease. In
fact, this statement creates more concern. Why not simply
wait until the structures are 100 percent complete before
releasing the Letter of Credit? Is there some urgent reason
why this Letter of Credit needs to be released today? As
the drainage structures fall under a separate Letter of
Credit, amounting to a slim under $50,000, which is a small
amount in a grand-scale project such as Stablewood, what is
a little more time versus the assurance that the project is
built properly and is fo1_lowed through to completion, as was
agreed upon? Debris scrE~ens and silt fences are not minor
technicalities when the ~~etention ponds they are to be on
are extremely close to neighboring properties.
And, on behalf of my father, George Vlasek,
who cannot be here today, and Mr. and Mrs. Andrew Bachofen,
who could not be here today, those silt screens and silt
fences are imperative and extremely important. That is on
their behalf. With their permission, I give you that
information. On behalf of all concerned, I therefore ask
the Court to not release this Letter of Credit until the
project is 100 percent completed and a qualified individual
has inspected the ponds in such a way that that individual
can appear before this Court confidently vouching in an
?-14-03
100
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
exclamatory fashion for tr.e proper construction of the
structures. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you very much, Ms. Fox.
Any other questions or di:>cussions?
COMMISSIONr~R WILLIAMS: Judge?
MR. ODOM: No, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Yes, ma'am?
MS. RAMSEY: I'm Judy Ramsey with Stablewood
Springs.
JUDGE TINLEY: Please come forward, if you
would, please. I'm sorry, Leonard.
MS. RAMSE~~: Hi. I`m Judy Ramsey with
Stablewood Springs. The pictures were sent to Franklin
probably two weeks ago. The cages have been put on, the
silt fencing has been put; on to where he requested me to put
the silt fencing on. And I just wanted to let the Court
know that we have abided by -- and as far as the easements,
I'm not -- I don't know what that's about, and -- maybe
David does. But the cages and the silt fencing has been put
up. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Ms. Ramsey.
Mr. Odom?
MR. ODOR;: No, sir, I'm just going to stand
back up here and just tell you that I'm not -- I'm not
familiar with that projF>ct. I don't know what all was said.
-~~-03
lU1
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
That's the reason I told you, yes, I'm here, but I would
turn it over to the Commissioner. I'm -- I don't -- some of
the questions, I don't have the answers, and I don't want to
lie to you. I -- I really don't know, other than what`s --
what Franklin's presented you, which you have in front of
you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, I appreciate it.
Does --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I mean, if
everything has been done, then Franklin can release the
Letter of Credit. I don't think it needs to come to the
Court to release it.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It hasn't all been
done. The plat plan has not
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think -- I
believe that's subject -- I don't think we can withhold a
Letter of Credit for something else. I mean, we could check
with the County Attorney, but I think the Letter of Credit
is for one specific act, and once the act's done, I don't
think we can not release it because something else wasn't
done.
MR. MOTLEY: Are you saying easements weren't
in the Letter of Credit? Is that what you're saying? I
think the Letter of Credit is for a specified act.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, I mean, you know,
i-19-03
- ~ 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
102
there's other action we can do to make sure that the plat is
done -- updated the way it was agreed to, but that doesn't
affect the letter -- nothing to do with the Letter of
Credit, I don't believe.
JUDGE TINLEY: Does any member of the Court
have a motion with regard to this item?
MS. FOX: Has Mr. Johnston, Judy, been out to
see that personally?
MS. RAMSEY: He was leaving -- he was leaving
town and told me to send pictures.
MS. FCX: And did you send the pictures?
MS. RAMSEY: Yes, ma'am.
MS. FOX: Well, I would like to please ask
the Court not to approve the Letter of Credit until Mr.
Johnston can be here and tell me, so that I can relay this
to everyone else to my own personal satisfaction, that
they've been done or that he can show you the pictures and
verify that everything has been completed. And that is not
to imply that Ms. Ramsey's not telling the truth. She and I
communicate frequently, and I know she's telling yo~~:what
~~ ~-. ,
she knows to be true, but I just would like it verified.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The Court's not -- we're
not going to do anything.
JUDGE TINLEY: The sense I get is that no
action is going to be taken at this time, Ms. Fox, unless
7-14-03
103
1
°^ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
-- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
r-. 2 4
25
someone speaks rather quickly. We're going to move on to
the next item. We'll move on to the next item, to consider
the preliminary plat for The Horizon, Section Two.
Mr. Domingues?
MR. DOMINGUES: I'm Charles Domingues,
Domingues and Associates. You should have in your packet a
copy of the preliminary plat. This development -- excuse
me -- is a development which is in both the county and the
city ETJ jurisdiction, and it will be on the city Planning
and Zoning Commission meeting this coming Thursday. The
only comment that I've gotten so far from the City is the
length of the cul-de-sacs on the plat does not comply with
city regulations. And we've submitted -- and they pretty
much assured us that we will get a variance to their city
subdivision regulations for a cul-de-sac, maximum length of
600 feet. The reason is -- is because of the fact that the
very long one up on top of the hill has an easement where it
could be extended into the adjacent property to the east.
And the lower one really only has three building sites that
r_onnect it. The one up on top only has 10 building sites.
And there's subdivisions like The Summit up here that has
hundreds of lots in the city that is on a cul-de-sac.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are they eliminating that
provision, I hope? Just a comment.
MR. DOMINGUES: And I've talked to the fire
-14-u3
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
104
department and the police department about it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, it is -- there's
no telling how cumbersome this has become, dealing with the
City and the County, and just in the fees that they have to
pay. Just --
MR. DOMINGUES: Well there's a $1,500 fee to
the City to review this.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand. I
understand, to do absolutely nothing. The -- the only
question I have, Charles, is I notice the note on here about
the easement coming out to the property line. Do this.
(Mr. Domingues nodded.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, thank you. On
Lot 10.
easement.
MR. DOMINGUES: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, 60-foot
MR. DOMINGUES: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Am I reading this
correctly, that this is the berm and easement -- is that one
and the same that the note is referring to?
MR. DOMINGUES: There is a -- a berm that we
are putting across there to divert the -- the water that
would possibly -- the additional water that would accumulate
on that Lot 10, to kind of divert it to the south, rather
~-14-03
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
105
than going down that draw into the detention areas. That
will be in the lower valley down at Lot 17. This valley
would eventually have -- I think three is what we've
planned, detention areas in it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm.
MR. DOMINGUES: To detain the
post-construction runoff.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Does that answer your
question?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Not really.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I didn't think so.
MR. DOMINGUES: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This note on here, Lot
IO is subject to a 60-foot easement out to the future road
connection to the next property.
MR. DOMINGUES: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that note --
(Sheriff's cell phone rang.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There's a $200 fine.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Not yet.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That note is referring
to this berm and easement, I guess my point is.
MR. DOMINGUES: Yes, sir. Yes, sir, that
note is referring to that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
-14-03
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
106
MR. DOMINGUES: There is a -- a berm right
there, but that berm is going to be outside of the area
where a road would be built.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You keep bringing up
this berm, and I'm going to address that, then.
MR. DOMINGUES: Sure.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I wasn't concerned
about that until this point. Now, 30 years down the road,
when -- after this property has changed hands 12, 15 times,
and the property next door develops and we see a way to
connect some roads in there, is that berm going to be in the
way at that point?
MR. DOMINGUES: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Good.
MR. DOMINGUES: In the -- in the construction
of the road in which -- you know, that can be handled to
where it should not create a problem.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Commissioner Letz, do
you see any -- is this a -- is this the way that we address
this, by putting this note and drawing an arrow, and then
with the word "easement" across there? I can't tell that
there's -- I can't tell that there's a little -- wait a
minute, I can too. Those large, dark dots? Is that what
that is?
MR. DOMINGUES: Yes, sir, that's what that
~-14-03
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
i9
20
21
22
23
24
~-.
25
107
is.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All right. I didn`t
see them till just this moment. I'm -- I want you to know,
I pored over this thing for hours and hours all weekend.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, the dotted line is
the 60-foot easement, aid I think from a preliminary
standpoint, it's fine. I think we need to be a little bit
clearer on the final plat as to where that easement is.
MR. DOMIN:~UES: As you recall --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Wait, I'm not finished on
that point, though. The question I have, it seems odd to me
to have an easement cutting in -- that may be a future road
bisecting Lot 10, and yc-u end up with a corner of it that's
not usable for anything, doesn`t appear to me.
MR. DOMIPIGUES: When I originally designed
this, I had the road ea:~ement kind of the -- the center of
the road easement or something like that. And I got to
thinking about it, and it would be a whole lot easier to
work with one property owner rather than two property
owners, 'cause I think in -- in the original section of The
Horizon, we did the samE~ thing, where we put a road easement
and we had it to where the easement was 30 feet on one lot
and 30 feet on the next lot. And I got to thinking about
that and looking at it. You know, dealing with one property
owner would be a whole lot easier than two, and that's the
i-i~-o~
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
108
reason why I have the easement on one lot. Now, the corner
that is -- it cuts off .down there, that's totally unusable
land, but it's on the side of a steep hill, so it's really
unusable for them.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't see a problem
with doing it this way, except that -- we71, I do see a
problem, 'cause it's not contiguous then, and by our rules
the lots have to be contiguous, with that road in the
middle. So, that corner needs to be put over with Lot 12.
MR. DOMTNGUES: Yeah, we can change that. I
have no problem with that. I was just trying to make it
easier in the future to --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think you still can put
the easement totally on Lot 10, but just the little corner
needs to be switched over, and it's not going to change it.
MR. DOMINGUES: That won`t be any problem.
MR. ODOM: How would that change the
description we have in the country lane, if you're going to
have an extension? Then changing the definition of 16-foot
pavement is not sufficient, when that becomes a collector
or --
MR. DOMINGUES: Well, this --
MR. ODOM: Another 15 or 20 more lots.
MR. DOMINGUES: This property is a closed
subdivision, and really the only development that can happen
- 1 4 - ~ 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
109
within that is really ~~~ allow access through the closed
development. In other words, there would have to be a deed,
like the rest of it, bec,~use the property is high-fenced and
gated.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But. the answer to the
question is, if that road -- after the -- you expand the
subdivision and that road goes to a higher classification,
the builder will then -- or the developer will then have to
upgrade that entire road.
MR. ODOM: That's right.
MR. DOMINGUES: Yeah, if it does.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, if they expand it.
But I don't -- I think we can leave it the way it is right
now, but I think that if it ever is, that road -- the entire
road has to be brought up. I think maybe put a plat note on
that or something to t}iat effect.
MR. DOMTNGUES: Between you and me, I don't
think it will be extended due to the fact that just outside
of the contour of this property, there's a humongous house
on that hill.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. I'm just
saying -- but -- so, from a -- I know the City wants you to
be able to connect, and that's probably -- so does the
County. That's the reason it's on there. But I think all
you have to do now is build it to a country lane standpoint,
7-14-G3
1
2
3
4
5
6
.~
8
9
10
11
12
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
110
but a plat note should probably be on there that if this
road's extended, it needs to be built to the specifications
of whatever that feed-through road would be classified as.
MR. ODOM: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: One question. I
assume that the -- The Horizon, Section Two, was covered by
the concept plan that wa:; filed before The Horizon, Section
One was approved by the Court?
COMMISSIOIER LETZ: I know we had a concept
plan --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Everybody's looking
down here. Ask it again, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Was there a concept
plan filed prior to apprcval of Section One that also
covered Section Two?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes. My memory says
that, yes, the whole -- it was the plan for the whole thing
to happen, but it definit=ely was not detailed like this.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: But there was --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Charles, don't you
agree with that?
MR. DOMINGUES: Yeah, we had a kind of a
concept idea. Excuse me. The problem that we had in the
concept plan at that time -- excuse me -- was dealing with
the City. We were trying to deal with the City and the
- _ q - ~ i
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
County, so we kind of separated them out into two different
things so that the County -- you know, the City wouldn't
start looking at County s~.uff -- development. But that
mostly was kind of to work within the guidelines at that
time of the City's requirement of 5-acre minimum and the
County's requirement for these lots of 1-acre minimum.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: All right. That's
good.
COMMISSIONI~R BALDWIN: We've got to
consolidate this platting process between the City and
County. Got to be done.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes.
COMMISSIOI\?ER BALDWIN: I move we approve the
preliminary plat for Horizon, Section Two.
COMMISSIOIER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINi,EY: Motion's made and seconded
that the preliminary plat. for The Horizon, Section Two, be
approved. Any further quF~stions or discussion?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I just have one
question. Mr. Domingues, can we assume that the -- the --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Drainage study.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, the drainage
study will be prepared dnd ready prior to coming in here for
final?
MR. DOMINGUES: Yes, sir.
~-~4-03
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
112
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If not, we don't
approve it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions?
MR. DOMINGUES: We've got two people -- two
entities looking at it now. Four city engineers. Four --
JUDGE TINLEY: All in favor of the motion,
signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, if I may make a
brief comment related to the -- the City, or combining the
platting, I have met several times with some representatives
of the City and met one time with the counsel, and that is
moving forward based on their timeline and our timeline
both, redoing some -- making some minor changes to our
rules, and then making the major change in their rules. It
looks like September is a fair time to get something,
hopefully, approved with one set of rules for the public to
use in the ETJ.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Just to follow on to
those comments, I read that letter to the editor about the
difficulty that one person had with that, and was pleased to
see that at least Commissioner Baldwin was trying to help
out with that, and I would like to help however I can to
?-19-03
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
113
resolve that issue so it doesn't happen in the future.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. Our -- I mean,
the -- the City has given me copies of their draft language,
and I am currently trying to figure out if there's any big
mines that we're going to really have a problem with. I
think, on the conceptual issue of it -- I don't know if I
mentioned this to the Judge or not, but we can certainly
discuss that at the joint City/County meeting if it's
appropriate. I think it's -- it is, in my mind, very
important that the County be the driver in the ETJ,
especially the way the ETJ has been formed recently, and
with the tentacles going out to City of Kerrville. I think
if you don't have the County doing it, you can end up with
some real problems for the public. So, anyway, I think it's
a good time to talk about the conceptual directions in our
meeting coming up, but the details are -- probably look like
September.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Your point's
well-taken, and particularly as the City gets closer to
extending its ETJ by reason of population.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. So, anyway, so
it's -- it's slowly working.
JUDGE TINLEY: Did we ever get an answer to
the question whether we're bound by the official census by
the U.S. Department of Commerce at the beginning of each
~-i4-o~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
,_, 1 3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
..-.. 2 4
25
114
decade, and determining the population for this ETJ
distance, or whether we can go on each year's individual
estimated population? Did we ever get a question --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't believe we have
an answer to that.
MR. MOTLEY: We had something come up in that
-- I'm trying to think in what context that issue arose. I
believe it was something related to some septic rules, and
in that context, population was generally defined as being
the decennial -- the official decennial census figures. I
don't know if it was limited to that particular thing. I
think it might have come out of Code Construction Act; said
population is defined by the 10-year census.
JUDGE TINLEY: As opposed to a -- in a
specific application?
MR. MOTLEY: I'm thinking this is
generally -- population generally means the census
population, because I suppose the estimates are subject to
error. But the official census is -- I remember that we
were waiting to reach, I think, 40,000 population or 45,000,
and we went over, like 43,000-something, and tripped a
provision we hadn't had before on some septic rules.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I think -- and I know --
I know I've seen them, and I suspect you have too, in a
number of statutory contexts. They'll say population of
-14 03
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
,,_., 2 4
25
115
whatever according to the last official United States
census, or words to that effect. And that clearly indicates
the -- the census by the Commerce Department at the
beginning of each decade. But where it doesn't say that,
really, is where my question is. So --
MR. MOTLEY: I just think population
generally means that, but again, I haven't been requested to
do that except in the context of that septic question.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I think it would
be a good idea to get that answered. That certainly is not
of earth-shattering importance, but --
MR. ODOM: Would that not also -- within the
city limits, in their statute, that requires a municipality
to expand --
talking about.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, that's what's we're
MR. ODOM: -- the ETJ. By this population,
it wouldn't have to be on the census.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's what we're trying
to figure out, which number census dates, or whether it
even --
JUDGE TINLEY: If we're using the official
2000 census, or whether or not the 25,000 is what we're
talking about, where the limit jumps to probably 2 miles.
MR. ODOM: `To 2 miles.
7-~4-03
~. 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
116
JUDGE TIT?LEY: And -- and I suspect it's in
the -- what is that, Article 671, or what used to be Article
671, I think. If you'd look into that for us, Mr. Motley,
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Excuse me, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Mr. Bernard Syfan is
here for Item 1.18. I wonder -- that's a long time from
now. I wonder if it would be possible to move that up in
the schedule so Mr. Syfan can get on about his business?
This is the --
JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, 18. I thought you said --
I was looking at 1.8.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- emergency service
district for Mountain Home.
JUDGE TINLEY: Does any member of the Court
have any objection to taking that out of order? If not,
we'll move forward with 1.18, consider and discuss accepting
a petition to create an emergency service district in the
Mountain Home area, and set a public hearing on that matter.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: For those of you
that may not be aware, Bernard's brother Tom had triple
bypass surgery following a heart attack last week, and he's,
you know, I expect hurting, but he's recovering. So --
Tom's a very active, important member of our community, so
7- 1 4- G 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
117
our prayers are with him. Bernard, do you want to talk
about emergency services?
MR. SYFAN: I'll correct him; it was a
quadruple, and he's doing all right, I think.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This is Bernard
Syfan that lives on Byas Springs Road.
MR. SYFAN: Hmm?
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm acquainted with one that
lives on Beach Road.
MR. SYFAN: How do you spell that?
(Laughter.) The fire department started out -- Travis Hall
came up with the idea. They just needed to get a little bit
more credit where they can borrow and get a better truck,
and that's what kicked this off, and I was asked by Dave
to -- to investigate it and see if we couldn't do something
about it. And we have contacted the State and had the State
people out here. Very, very cooperative and very helpful.
We've gotten the necessary form of petition, have completed
the petition. The County has checked the names on the
petition and verified, I guess was the word, or at least
acknowledged that we have the necessary 100 signatures, and
we are now petitioning the Court through the Judge to set a
public hearing. I think that's all we need. Any questions?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So -- so, in order to
create -- let's see, what was the language? Emergency
7- 1 4- G 3
118
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
service district, which is new words for fire district --
MR. SYFAN: Fire district had a -- a specific
use, apparently.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Correct.
MR. SYFAN: And they're doing away with fire
districts. We originally were applying for the fire
district, but they said no, you can't do that, because as of
September you're going to -- all fire districts are going to
be requested to convert into emergency service districts.
And so we're an emergency service district, but we'll be --
we intend at this time only to run a fire operation out of
it. But --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, the State -- if I
remember right, they -- they outline it pretty specific in
order to create one of these things. And, you know, your
100 names was obviously a -- probably 10 percent of the last
election that voted for the governor, some weird thing like
that.
MR. SYFAN: I think it was arbitrary. I can
find out. It doesn't tie up --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, you get a
petition, you present it to the Commissioners Court, and
then the Commissioners Court sets up a public hearing?
MR. SYFAN: That's right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And then how many more
-iq-o~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
,- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2.2
23
24
25
119
steps are there after that?
MR. SYFAN: Once the public hearing is set,
then January of the following year, the Judge appoints a
Board of Directors, I guess it's called, of five people to
We have to have an
election at some point.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm, yeah.
MR. SYFAN: They have an election, yeah,
JUDGE TINLEY: To confirm the confirmation --
to confirm the establishment of the district.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MR. SYFAN: You're right.
JUDGE TINLEY: At the next uniform election
date after -- that's after you hold the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: After the public
hearing, then you have the election, and then you appoint
the board of directors. How do you go about actually
designating the area?
MR. SYFAN: Well, we went to the fire
department -- the volunteer fire department, and they went
about it by looking at the access. It's on -- if you'll
look at the map -- I didn't bring it along, but I can. And
the roads that are served best from Hunt are left to Hunt.
~-"~~-03
120
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
And the roads -- the district -- the volunteer fire
department that has a district, the only one in the county
now is Ingram, and we abut it for a short distance. And we
don't leave anything out or include them. It's all -- we
don't overlap or underlap them; we touch them. And any
future fire districts will abut us. But it's established by
access, how we can best serve the area, and we left that to
the fire departments to determine.
JUDGE TINLEY: I can probably answer
Commissioner Baldwin's question. I have here a copy of what
was presented to me as required by that particular chapter,
and which has now been filed with the County Clerk, and
there are two different identifying measures. One is --
this is a -- a map by abstract surveys that was included,
and then also attached is a metes and bounds description of
the -- of the district itself. So, both of these are
attached to the petition, along with the petition containing
over 100 names that have been checked and verified by the
Tax Assessor.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, you don't
necessarily just go out and pick a -- a highway or a road
which is --
MR. SYFAN: You could.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, but seems like
to me you would -- there would be some no-man's land --
-14-03
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
121
possibility of some no-man's land in between your district
and the -- let's say Ingram's district.
MR. SYFAN: There is a possibility, but we've
avoided that. We actually touch. We've investigated it,
and I've got the maps.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I knew you
would, but I was just kind of wondering how that worked.
MR. SYFAN: And there actually is a portion
of Gillespie County that is on our side of I-10.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, no.
MR. SYFAN: And they said don't touch that
until we do get this district in hand. Do it one step at a
time. We can serve that better than Harper can. And so we
have an agreement now to service it on call, but I am
assured by the people inside that little triangle that
they're going to be wanting my help to help them come in and
annex that. But we were cautioned by the State, do it one
step at a time.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mr. Syfan, is it
proposed that this -- this district would have taxing
authority as well?
MR. SYFAN: Yes, it does have -- it's just a
state thing.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Does that, likewise,
convey bonding authority, or is that separate?
7-14-03
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
MR. SYFAN: I don't know anything about any
bonding authority.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think -- I think that would
have to be a separate -- separate election item by the
voters to come, if I'm not mistaken.
MR. SYFAN: It's a limited taxing authority.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What is a limited taxing
authority?
MR. SYFAN: Well, the old fire district was 3
cents per $100, and the new one, the one we're in, is 10
cents.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Ten?
JUDGE TINLEY: Up to.
MR. SYFAN: Up to 10. But the -- what we're
going to do, as soon as I can find our needs, and also get
an assessed valuation on the district, which I don't have
yet, I got to guess at it, and I know pretty well what it
is, but as soon as we get that, we're going to set one at
below 3. And the law is that after you set one, you can't
raise it more than -- I think it's 8 percent in any one
year. 7 percent?
(Discussion off the record.)
MR. SYFAN: 8.7. You can't do that, so you
can't just explode. And the district is really just a sugar
daddy for the fire department, and they're completely
-14-03
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
separate. And the district would be handled by a board
that's appointed by you people once a year. Every year, you
would either change it, extend it, or it comes up for
reappointment every dang year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd like to -- I mean, I
appreciate all the information. I think it may be
worthwhile to have a workshop. I've never -- we've never
done one since I've been on the Court. I'm kind of
intrigued by it. It seems a lot easier than I thought it
would be to form a fire district, or a --
MR. SYFAN: I'll assure you, it's not real
easy. I mean, I've been working -- but we've pretty well
got the ducks in a row, and I volunteer to come give you all
the information I can. We've got --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just need to sit down
with you over lunch and you explain it all to me.
MR. SYFAN: Good steaks.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We can get the
O.R.C.A. guy down here. Extremely helpful.
MR. SYFAN: He's great.
JUDGE TINLEY: Tremendously helpful. He --
he came down on -- it was a Friday evening, came from --
from the offices in Austin and met with a pretty good-sized
group from out in that area.
MR. SYFAN: We had 24 people that were
~-~4-U3
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
interested.
JUDGE TINLEY: And was there for two, two and
a half hours, as I recall.
MR. SYFAN: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Answered every question,
brought a tremendous amount of printed materials. Really,
really did a fantastic job.
MR. SYFAN: But it's -- the ducks are in a
row.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It seems to me that
this -- I mean, I can see that it would be beneficial to
much of the county to go this route, and it would address a
whole lot of what we're talking about this morning. And, I
mean, I think it's a -- you know, and doing it by volunteer
fire department makes -- you know, makes sense.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just take a look at
what Ingram's done with it. Extremely successful.
MR. SYFAN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's very
important. I think it's got applications elsewhere. It
might be a good reason --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we could
invite -- maybe have a workshop and invite the fire chiefs.
MR. SYFAN: I'll agree to have lunch with you
any time.
-i4-03
125
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Better establish who's
buying.
MR. SYFAN: I do what I can with this.
There's a learning curve, but it can be done.
(Discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'll make a motion
that we accept the petition to create emergency service
district in the Mountain Home area and set a public hearing
on the same. For?
MS. SOVIL: How many times does have it to
run?
JUDGE TINLEY: Twice. But the first notice
must be not later than 21 days before the date prior to the
hearing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not later?
MS. SOVIL: Does it say 30 days?
JUDGE TINLEY: It does not say 30 days, but
it does say not later than the 21st day before the date the
hearing is held. There's a posting and there's also
publication in a newspaper for two consecutive weeks, the
first of which shall occur not later than the 21st day
before the date on which the hearing is held. So --
MS. PIEPER: There's also preclearance --
JUDGE TINLEY: I understood that. I realize
maybe the rest of you didn't.
-14-03
126
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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which I didn't.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Jannett had an important
point.
MS. PIEPER: There's also preclearance to
Washington, that the dead]_ine has already passed. I can
request expedient consideration as long as we get all of
this done as soon as possible.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, for the election
day?
MS. PIEPER:
September's ballot.
COMMISSIONER
the hearing date, just thf~
on the election.
MS. PIEPER:
COMMISSIONER
set the hearing date, and w
MS. PIEPER:
In order to get it on
NICHOLSON: That won't impact
-- whether or not we can get it
Right.
NICHOLSON: We can go ahead and
can work on that.
But we need the hearing as soon
as possible.
MS. SOVIL: The 11th is exactly 21 days.
JUDGE TINL~EY: Can't happen then.
MS. SOVIL: The 25th is the next one.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's where we are.
MS. SOVIL: Next meeting.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
-i~-o3
127
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 TINLEY: Your motion would include --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 10 a.m. on the 25th
of August.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Do you have any
problems with that, Mr. Syfan?
MR. SYFAN: No. No,
JUDGE
that the Court set a
10 a.m. for a public
service -- Kerr Coun
in the Mountain Home
discussion?
TINLEY: Motion's made and seconded
public hearing for August the 25th at
hearing on the creation of emergency
ty EmE~rgency Service District Number 1
area. Any further questions or
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have a comment.
Judge, it's the same commE~nt I made when we put the Ingram
Fire District in years ag~~, and that is that the County
should continue its funding to them for three years as
start-up costs, and it needs to be cut off; they need to
stand on their own two legs from that point on. I know that
this is not going to happen, but I -- I thought I'd throw
that out. That's the way I think.
MR, SYFAN: I believe, right now, the Ingram
district is still on your --
COMMISSIOi`1ER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. Not by my
wishes.
~-14-03
128
1
'' 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
~. 2 4
25
	COMMISSIONE'~ LETZ: That's why he said that.
	MR. SYFAN: All right.
	COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Not by my wishes.
	MR. SYFAN: I'll -- no comment.
	JUDGE TINLEY: We're a long ways away from
that point	in time. No sense beating on that horse.
	COMMISSIONFR NICHOLSON: We can probably beat
that horse	some more in tYie budget process.
	COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
	JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions or
discussion?	If not, all in favor of the motion, signify by
raising you	r right hand.
	(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
	JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
	(No response.)
	JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Thank you
very much,	Mr. Syfan.
	MR. SYFAN: You bet.
JUDGE TINLEY: We'll go now to
COMMISSIO'.JER LETZ: 1.6, then lunch.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- 1.6, consideration of road
name changes for privately maintained roads in various
locations in Kerr County, in accordance with 911 guidelines.
MR. MOTLEY: Just -- I did some checking real
quick on the break therF. All codes are -- definitions are
-L~-o3
129
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
controlled by the Code Construction Act, and population is
defined as the most recent decennial census in all codes.
JUDGE TINLF;Y: Thank you. I appreciate that.
COMMISSION?ER BALDWIN: You're going to find
it interesting that -- the numbers they use in that bill,
though. As -- thank you -- it talks about a county with
1.9 million population or within 50 miles of the
international border, or --
MR. MOTLEY: Part of the --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- or contiguous to a
county with 40 gazillion --
MR. MOTLEY: 700,000.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Something like that.
And I couldn't find -- I sent you a note Friday. I know it
hasn't arrived -- you ha~Te it in your hand. And -- that's
all.
JUDGE TIN=FEY: My intention is to try and get
through this particular item and 1.9 so that our Road and
Bridge people can get oi; about their business; we'll be
through with them. So --
COMMISSIO?~IER BALDWIN: I apologize. Just
trying to show you how smart I was.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We got to get out to
Wren Road.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. My only
7-14-G3
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
question is, the Louis Reel Road on Upper Turtle Creek.
MS. HARDIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So that's beyond
Precinct 1 and has gone into Precinct 4?
MS. HARDIN: Correct.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, thank you.
JUDGE TINL'~Y: Any further questions for
Truby here?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The question I have,
Truby, are those at Peek Ranch?
MS. HARDIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are they -- are the roads
more, I guess, identifia~~le on-site than they are on the
map? I mean, it appears like all of a sudden we're just
changing names in the micTdle of the road by the maps that
are attached, and I was _~ust wondering. Does it look that
way, or do you have any idea?
MS. HARDIN: I have no idea. I'm not even
sure I could find Peek Read.
MR. ODOM: That's back there at Hermann Sons.
COMMISSIO'~ER LETZ: At Hermann Sons, where
the bridge goes through to Kendall County. I was just -- my
question, I presume a lct of these -- these all came out of
911?
MS . HARD_.N : Correct .
-_4-03
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
131
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So I presume they have
them done the way they want them.
MS. HARDIN: On the first form I sent you,
there were 28. They sent me three more after the agenda
item was submitted. All those are in Commissioner
Nicholson's area. But they're kind of on a deadline, I
think.
JUDGE TINLE',Y: Any further questions?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes. Truby, Como se
dice en Ingles, Los Sobrinos?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Cousins?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Cousins? Thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that
we approve the road name changes for privately maintained
roads in various locations in Kerr County, in accordance
with 911 guidelines as p~=esented. Any further questions or
discussion? All in favo=~ of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge?
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries.
~-14-03
132
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
.,,_ 2 4
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If I may make one comment
to Road and Bridge and to the Commissioners -- I think
Commissioner Baldwin already knows this -- at our next
meeting will be an item on the agenda to put a moratorium on
any more road changes for the rest of this year, so if you
have any in your precinct, get them on the next agenda.
After that, nothing else can be done. And that will -- any
county roads that need to be changed will be on that, or
they -- and the public hearing will, obviously, be held
later; they will be included. I know there's three in my
precinct to be on that list. But --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What's the need for
that moratorium?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 911 has to -- basically,
we're sending the letters out with new addresses in early
September, and we have to have a --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're getting too far
ahead of them?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. We just need to have
a stop date so they can all of a sudden start running
numbers and printing and everything else, and we can't keep
changing. They're just going to go out with numbers on
them. And we can keep on doing the changes, but nothing's
going to be effective until after January 1.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Next item, 1.9,
7-i4-03
133
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 and discuss approval of the recent contract award
under the Texas Community Development Program between Kerr
County and O.R.C.A. for some of the 25 percent matching
grants from FEMA and NRCS, and authorize County Judge to
sign same. Mr. Odom?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. I believe that you have
that. Were there any questions about that form? Or I'm
open to any questions about O.R.C.A. and funding that they
propose to do for us.
JUDGE TINLEY: Basically, my understanding
is -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- that this contract
authorizes you to do certain work on certain projects that
you've identified within a specific time frame, beginning
last May up through --
MR. ODOM: May the lst this year.
JUDGE TINLEY: Up through what date?
MR. ODOM: 1 May, '03.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. That --
MS. HARDIN: That's the beginning date.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, right. That would
authorize you to, in essence, earn the 25 percent matching
grant funds.
MR. ODOM: That's right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Due from FEMA and NRCS.
MR. ODOM: Right, sir.
~-14-03

134
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 WILLIAMS: Not to exceed 83
thousand -- $83,766; is that correct?
MR. ODOM: Is that the amount?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's my question.
MS. SOVIL: Not to exceed.
MR. ODOM: Not to exceed that, yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. ODOM: But it will be -- everything that
will be finished from that point may -- anything prior to
that's not -- not counting from after --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So these moneys
spent on -- as a result of the damage that was done because
of floods.
MR. ODOM: That's correct, sir. Anything
from FEMA or NRCS, and then they were to participate with
25 percent. We had 25 percent matching, with the 75 from
FEMA and NRCS, and then they would propose to pick up that
25 percent slack, but the way this has rolled, it's going to
be the starting date 1 May. Any projects completed after
that date, then we will get funded for.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Off the top of your
head, do you know about how much total money we received
from FEMA or -- or any other agencies?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir -- well, I had a note. I
can tell you that what I received from them -- I show
~-lei-n-~

135
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
261,000 that we spent, 104, and I believe there's 10,000 --
what is that, 365? So, we probably received $255,000 from
them, so I'm about 10,000 in surplus. And which this --
O.R.C.A. would help me -- I don't have that exact number,
but O.R.C.A. should help me clear everything. In other
words, we won't be in reserves. We should be able to -- to
come out maybe a little bit ahead.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions of Mr.
Odom?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that
the Court approve the recent contract award under the Texas
Commuziity Development Program between Kerr County and
O.R.C.A. for some of the 25 percent matching grants from
FEMA and NRCS, and authorize County Judge to sign same. Any
further questions or discussion? If not, all in favor,
signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. We'll
stand in recess until 1:30.
(Recess taken from 12:10 p.m. to 1:33 p.m.)
"i4-03
136
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 TINLEY: I'll call the meeting back to
order. We recessed shortly after lunch to reconvene again
after -- at 1:30. It's a few minutes after 1:30. Prior
to -- prior to reconvening, it was suggested to me that,
because of logistical requirements, we need to go ahead and
consider the bills so that some of the staff can move
forward making arrangements to get those paid in a timely
manner, rather than wait until probably sometime after
dark-thirty this evening. So --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I move we pay
the bills.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and
seconded that we pay the bills. Any questions or comments?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have questions, but
they'll wait till next month. They'll be there again.
JUDGE TINLEY: I see. Page 6, Mr. Auditor.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I just have an
observation, and it won't require any discussion. This
Software Group, Inc., lots of invoices and lots of money
being paid to that. So, in the budgeting process, I'd like
to learn a lot more about that, how we go about supporting
our systems and computers. That's all.
MR. TOMLINSON: Come by this evening.
7-14-03
i
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
JUDGE TIT'LEY: Pardon?
MR. TOMLINSON: Come by this evening.
JUDGE TINLEY: I see.
COMMISSIOP~ER BALDWIN: That's been going on
for about 14 years like this.
JUDGE TINLEY: Once they get you in the trap,
they just keep turning t}le screws on you, I think is the
name of the game.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE TINLEY: For informational purposes, I
have been assured by some that are knowledgeable, in my
belief, in information technology, and what I hear from them
is there are some other alternatives, but they're in a
developmental stage now. They won't be fully developed for
probably three to five years. Page 6, two payments to
Software Group charged to the Tax Assessor's budget. They
are in like amounts. I assume those are quarterly or
semiannual payments?
MR. TOMLINSON: They're quarterly. I'll have
to get the bills and see if it's for -- for two quarters.
But --
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, there's an invoice dated
September 10, one of them, and -- two of them, actually, and
then in like amounts for June. We left out -- I guess we
did January somewhere. Did we -- did we just miss the
-14-C3
138
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
June -- September ones la"t year for some reason?
MR. TOMLINSON: I'd have to look at it and
see.
JUDGE TINLF;Y: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You have the same
anomaly for Voter Registration, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
MR. TOMLINti'~ON: We do pay the same amount
quarterly, so my -- let's see.
JUDGE TINLF~Y: You got three of them for
9/1/02, and then you got :six of them for 6/5/03, and they're
for like amounts.
MR. TOMLINSON: 151586?
COMMISSION'~R BALDWIN: Mm-hmm.
(Discussion off the record.)
MR. TOMLINSON: I think it's right here.
JUDGE TINLl~Y: While you're looking at that,
Mr. Sheriff, how big of a hot water heater do we have out
there at that jail?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We've got big ones,
actually.
JUDGE TINLEY: $8,000 worth, huh?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Minimum. There's three
of them. They actually consider them boilers at that size,
but yeah, they take up ar. entire room by themselves and they
-14-03
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
furnish 40 cells altogether. So, yes, they're very large.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah, that is for the first
quarter.
year?
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: First quarter of last
MR. TOMLIi~SON: This fiscal year.
JUDGE TINLEY: September `02. If they'll
stand still that long, wriy don't we just stack them for a
while longer?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Okay. That's all the
questions I have. Motion's been made and seconded that we
pay the bills. Any furt~zer questions or discussion? All in
favor, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
MR. TOMLI:NSON: Thank you. Our creditors
will appreciate it.
amendments?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How about the budget
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, he's going to come back
for the budget amendments, I assume.
i-14-03
140
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
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah.
JUDGE TIN-~EY: We'll get those later. This
is so that the people downstairs can get rolling on getting
these bills paid before -- before sundown today. The next
item we have is to consider and discuss the appointment of
election judges and alternates for the term of one year
beginning August 1, 'C3; in accordance with Texas Election
Code. County Clerk.
MS. PIEPER: This is just a formality that we
have to do every July. And the list is submitted by the
Republican County Chair and the Democrat County Chair as to
their selections for judges, and then any elections that
come up between then, this is our judges that we use, that
we pick from.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move we accept the list
as presented.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and
seconded that we accept the list as presented. Any
questions or comments?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Comment. The -- the
polling place of -- of Precinct 410 is -- is very
inconvenient for a large number of voters, and it's the high
school, and it displaced the traditional place that many of
those voters went to; that was the Sunset -- or Sunrise
7-14-C3
141
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
,^ 2 4
25
Baptist Church. And we'd like to move it back there, but we
can't, 'cause it's not ir. our precinct, so we've got a real
dilemma there. I just warted to let you know that we --
we're losing some voters out there. We've got some unhappy
people because of the inconvenience of that polling place.
That's all.
JUDGE TINLFY: I note in one of these lists
there's a -- there's a -- there's an asterisk by some of the
names denoting bilingual] Spanish/English, with a reference,
"satisfying the law's requirement for bilingual election
workers." The other list contains no such annotation. Is
there something there that's missing? Or --
MS. PIEPER: No, sir. It's -- it's just an
added benefit that the Democratic County Chair let us know
that those people with th-e asterisks are bilingual.
JUDGE TINLFY: Is there any requirement in
the law that you have --
MS. PIEPER: The requirement in the law is if
we can find, you know, either a judge, an alternate, or
clerks that are bilingual, that we use them, and we've
always tried to do that anyway.
JUDGE TINI~EY: Okay. So there's no
requirement that you must: have someone that's bilingual?
MS. PIEPER: No, but we do have to make -- if
we do not have a polling location that does have somebody
-14-03
142
1
-^ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
bilingual, then I have to have staff on standby.
JUDGE TITiLEY: Okay. And -- and you satisfy
our requirement, of course.
MS. PIEPER: Yes.
JUDGE TI~?LEY: Okay. Any further questions
or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by
raising your right har ~.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
24
25
-~4-U3
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Next item is
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Number 11,
consider and discuss the appointment of central counting
station manager, judge, and tabulating supervisor as per
Chapter 127 of the Texas Election Code.
MS. PIEPER: This is just more formalities we
have to go through.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSTONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's made and seconded.
Any discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by
raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
143
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
,,.._ 2 4
25
consider and discuss consolidation of polling locations for
the September 13th constitutional amendment election.
MS. PIEPF,R: I am requesting that we
consolidate into four p<~lling locations, if it's approved by
y'all. This is going to save on my budget tremendously.
So, what I've done is I attached a sheet that shows each of
the polling locations t}iat we've used in the past, and if
you want to just go dow7 and each Commissioner pick out one
location, or two if you desire, that's strictly up to y'all.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Before you get into that,
I mean, there is one -- I've thought a little bit about
this. I know -- and i~ was a bigger election, granted, but
several years ago we c~.nsolidated these, and I had a lot of
very unhappy constituezits. And you get into a dilemma where
you -- for all the -- Vou know, for Dave and I, you kind of
-- those that have the far reaches of the county, if I
consolidated the rural areas, people in the city are mad.
If I consolidate in the city, the rural people are mad, so
I'm really -- you know, I heard you say two, so two -- I can
probably go with two.
MS. PIEPER.: You can go as many as you want,
Commissioner. That's just my suggestion.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know. But, I mean, I
think the -- if you allow, you know, two -- or not allow.
If you -- if that's acceptable, that would probably work
--14-03
144
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 my standpoint, but I'm opposed to one. But since I'm
talking on it, I'll say ~~ypress Creek Community Center and
the courthouse.
COMMISSIO'.VER WILLIAMS: I'll take the
American Legion and Extension Office. Center Point American
Legion.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: First Presbyterian
Church in Ingram and Western Hills Baptist Church.
MS. PIEPER: Precinct 1? Commissioner
Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 107 and 119.
MS. PIEPER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That needs a court
order?
MS. PIEPER: Voting on the lower level of the
courthouse.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Need a motion?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll move the locations
as noted.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that
the voting locations -- polling locations for September 13th
Constitutional Amendment election be at the -- at the two
locations designated by each County Commissioner in their
7-19-03
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
respective precincts. Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: As per the request of
the County Clerk? I'm joking with that. We can always
blame her.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further? All in
favor, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Next item,
consider and discuss approval of job descriptions for
Sheriff's Office and police.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: First off, I would like
to mainly address Commissioner Baldwin and the rest of the
Court, because I do apologize for my phone going off
earlier. And I normally come in and set it on vibrate, and
I did not. So, I agree with Judge Ables' ruling that cell
phones should not be in, and I do apologize, although I have
to keep one with me, but it shouldn't be -- should have been
on vibrate. Secondly, these job descriptions, Nash group
study is the one that actually set the job descriptions. We
are not changing the exempt status or any of the legal
requirements that he had set out in any of the job
descriptions with the Sheriff's Office. All we've been
trying to do is clean them up. For a long time -- the last
-14-U3
146
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
job description, to give you an example of how we're trying
to clean them up, it had the Chief Criminal Investigator was
responsible for scheduling all patrol deputies' work
schedules and traffic control, and that has nothing at all
to do with Chief Criminal Investigator's job duties. So,
his job description did not fit that, all right, and so all
we've been doing for the last number of months is going back
through -- going back thYOUgh everybody's deal and setting
job descriptions according to what their duties actually
are, trying to clean thi~~ up so we can actually issue them
to every employee we have.
And the only other thing that we changed on
any of them -- and this is -- that changed mainly due to the
County starting to award officers for their education and --
and longevity, but mainly to do with education. In the
original job description, it had chief deputy could be just
a basic certified peace officer. I've changed that to an
advanced certified peace officer, because I think if they're
going to get education, we need the more experience -- the
more advancement in these placements and who's eligible for
that job, and that's all ae've done. And they need to be
approved by the Commissioners Court so I can give Barbara
Nemec and the clerk a copy. We need to make copies for
everybody. I have visited with Barbara about this. I
visited with her this morning -- she was out a lot last
?-14-03
147
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
week -- and showed her a lot of these, and she had no
problem with them.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Am I missing something?
Or -- I don't have them,.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't have them
either.
MS. SOVIL: They were circulated.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Real big, thick
package.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:
so if you had it, you would know it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS:
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:
that on purpose so you don't read all
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: N
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:
hidden.
It's about this size,
I don't have it.
Of course, he does
of it.
o.
All the stuff's
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Nothing changes -- these
are mine, but we -- there were so many in different ones.
You may look at them, but they're set out exactly how Nash
had them set out after the study.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Sheriff, as I
understand this, you're simply updating those so they're
useful to the job incumbents and their supervisors? It
doesn't have anything to do with job capacities or
i-l9-fi3
j
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
148
exempt/nonexempt, what-have-you?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's correct. Nothing
to do with step and grade pay or anything else. It's just
upgrading them so that they're real.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't have --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I move that we
approve the job descriptions as presented by the Sheriff for
his office employees.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that
the job descriptions, as prepared by the Sheriff, for the
Sheriff's Office employees be approved. Any further
questions or discussions?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If the Commissioner
of Precinct 1, who's the liaison of the Court to the
Sheriff's Office, says they're okay --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They're okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let's vote.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Except we didn't give
him a job description.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Doesn't cost anything.
That's the deal.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Next meeting.
JUDGE TINLEY: Would you be kind enough to
give us his job description?
-1~-03
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
-- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
149
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Oh, sure. I'll fix one
up real quick, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions or
discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
{The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Next item
is --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think he wants that
back, Judge. You're not going to be able to read it.
What's wrong with you?
JUDGE TINLEY: Consider and discuss and take
appropriate action on the resolution to appoint designated
signators for Texas Community Development Program Contract
723095 for continuation of the Kerrville South Wastewater
Project, Phase 3, covering West Loyal Valley, George Muck,
and Shannon Drive.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Judge.
This is a requirement of the Texas Community Development
Program that we have in place a resolution designating
signators. This is the new contract. We have done nothing
under this contract yet, and will not until we have this in
place and the contract is signed by the Judge. So, I offer
i-14-03
150
1
^ 2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
~l
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
,_,_ 2 4
25
the resolution for approval as presented.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll second that
motion.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any questions? Discussion?
What we're approving here is only the designation of the
signatory on this order of business; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which has, in the
past, Judge, been the County Judge, this Commissioner, and
the County Treasurer.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I got some
questions. Is it -- is it usual for a County Commissioner
to be a signator to a contract?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm told so. But the
County Judge is the important one.
(Discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I guess probably,
Commissioner, because I'm supposed to have some feel for
what the project's all about.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No, my reason for my
question is, I wouldn't want that responsibility. But --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I was going to give
it to you if you wanted it.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Then my second
question goes back tc discussions we've had earlier. I
-14-~73
151
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
still don't know how Groves and Associates got a contract
with the County, and what that contract is that we -- how
did we select Groves and Associates?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We selected -- it was
selected early on by the river authority who put up the
matching funds for engineering purposes.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't have a -- I
don't have a warm feeling about that. I don't -- I don't
have a good feeling that -- that, with all the engineering
service firms that can provide this kind of work, that
Groves and Associates is the right one to do it, and the
proper processes and procedures have been followed to select
them. I know they worked for U.G.R.A. a long time, and --
and U.G.R.A. spent a lot of money with them. And I don't
have a good feel for how they selected Groves and
Associates, either. This doesn't feel right to me.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I seem to recall they
went through the proper processes for the selection of them
in the original development of their long-range master plan
for water and wastewater, and that goes back several years.
And I believe their board approved the expenditure of the
matching funds and selected Groves for this project.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. In earlier
discussions, we were told that Groves and Associates had
sold to Tetra Tech. Is Groves and Associates a subsidiary
?-14-C3
152
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 Tetra Tech? Is that deal off, or was that bad
information or what?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Far as I know, Groves
is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Tetra Tech.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's all I've got.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- Groves probably --
I mean, I presume that Groves can sign on the -- the name is
still in existence and the entity still exists; it just is a
subsidiary of a different company.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And Brad Groves, I
think, is the executive vice president for this area, and he
executes the contracts.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there additional
engineering work under this contract?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There will be
additional engineering work. There's additional engineering
work that's got to be done for the phase we're about to
enter into, and this is for the subsequent phase that's
coming up later.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why is everybody looking
at me?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Huh?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I said why are they
looking at me?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't know.
~-14-C3
153
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 TINLEY: I wasn't. Do I need to? Any
further questions or discussion? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(Commissioners Baldwin, Williams, and Letz
voted in favor of the motion.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(Commissioner Nicholson voted against the
motion.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. The next
item of business is consider and discuss review of 2003-'04
budget schedule and consider setting workshops concerning
the '03-'04 budget.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Calendar.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I was waiting for the
Judge to say -- he started -- he said he'd turn it over to
me.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, sure. I'm sorry,
Commissioner Letz.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just waiting. Judge, may
I ask -- the reason I put this on the agenda was so we can
set up some budget workshops, because my schedule for July
and August is getting very full. And I thought that it made
sense to me to wait until after we received the recommended
budget from the Judge. So, my first question would be,
Judge, when do you think we will get the recommended budget?
And then -- well --
7-14-G3
154
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 TINLEY: I can't give you a definitive
date at this point in time. I'm holding my one-on-ones with
the various elected officials and department heads.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What is the --
JUDGE TINLE": I can assure you that if
there's a deadline under the law that I've got to lay it on
the table by, I'll make th~~t deadline.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, my concern is that
there's ample time for -- ~~ou know, for me and for, I
presume, the rest of the Commissioners, if they want to, to
go through the budget with the elected officials. And it
doesn't make a whole lot -- and any changes that will be
made to your recommended budgets, I think, will be done, in
my mind, at that time. And the criticism that we've had in
the past is that they weren't aware of -- of any changes.
And I like the fact that we're doing these workshops later
in the process so they would be aware and have input into
any changes that the Court makes, but we need something to
start off -- I mean, to work off of to make a worthwhile
exercise. Just my viewpoint. I don't know how the rest of
the Commissioners feel abcut it. But, I mean, it's -- you
know, we're looking at 1st of August, do you think? Or
middle of August? Or --
JUDGE TINLE;Y: I'd say somewhere between
those two dates.
i-14-03
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
155
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I mean, then I
would say, from a planning standpoint, starting around the
15th of August, try to black out four days between then to
do a -- I think, Commissioner Baldwin and Williams, is it
about four days to go through -- three or four days, it
usually takes, to go through all the budget workshops?
COMMISSIONi~R WILLIAMS: I seem to recall
that, yeah. At least three.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thea, what is the -- I
was looking for Paula, but you probably know the answer.
What are the date deadlir_es as -- I know we start getting
close to a hearing and start backing up as to when things
need to be --
MS. SOVIL: It's according to -- it's
dependent upon whether you're going to raise taxes or not.
There's -- there's -- if you keep the same tax rate, then
it's one set of rules. If you raise the taxes, it's another
set of rules.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON:
raise taxes, you have to begin the proc
MS. SOVIL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON:
probably -- probably ought to be on the
it the earlier time, so in case we -- a
If you're going to
ass earlier?
I'm thinking we
safe side and start
tax raise was
25 ~ necessary, we could make that deadline.
i-14-03
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
156
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It would be helpful
in this discussion to hear what the Judge has in mind. He's
talked about one-on-ones. Are you going to do all the
one-on-ones, Judge, and teen give us a package with your
recommendation? Or --
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- or what? Okay.
Having heard the Judge's plan, so then if we did a series of
budget meetings, and we beard from a particular department
head, something that you didn't hear -- or didn't agree
with, where does that leave us?
COMMISSIONER LETZ:
that I'm trying to figure out how
budget one time where the elected
heads know their budget. I mean,
that we're making. I'm guessing
am guessing that there will be so'
My mind
we can go
officials
that's --
-- I`m not
ne changes
- my mind-set is
through the
and department
know the changes
positive, but I
between what was
submitted and what the Judge recommends, so there's going to
be a difference there. And I would like to have the
opportunity for all the elected officials and department
heads to come to the Cotzrt and say -- to the Court as a body
and say, "We don't like the Judge's recommendation," or, "We
do like the Judge's recommendation for this reason," and
give us a little bit of guidance as we're doing the final
tweaking. And that's kind of my mind-set, the way hopefully
7-19-03
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
157
it will work this year once we get the recommended budget
from the Judge. So, I -- you know, based on what he said,
I'd say we just pick out four dates towards the -- towards
the end of August that we can block out as budget workshop
dates.
MS. SOVIL: That's awful close.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I don`t know that
we have a lot of choices. If we're not going to get the
budget until close to the 15th, the recommended budget, we
can't -- I mean, I think a workshop's pointless if we don't
have a recommended budget to work off of.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: When do we learn
what our tax revenue's going to be?
JUDGE TINLEY: Generally, it's the tail end
of July, first part of August.
MS. SOVIL: Law says they have to have it
certified by the 24th of Juiy.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, the law saying that and
getting it that way may be two totally different things.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're usually pretty
close.
MS. DECKER: Are we going to know what the
Judge's recommendations are prior to what you're requesting?
JUDGE TINLEY: Are you going to know what my
recommendations are?
;'-1~-0 ~
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
158
MS. UECKER: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Sure. Once I prepare the
initial proposed budget that the law requires me to do, I'm
going to throw it on the table, and it's wide-open at that
point. I say it's wide-open. I presume it is.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm very supportive
of what Congressman Letz --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Congressman?
(Laughter.;
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I appreciate that.
COMMISSIONF~R NICHOLSON: There's something I
want to tell you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Can we get this done
before he leaves for Washington?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah.
(Discussicn off the record.)
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We need a lot of
time with the -- with the department heads and elected
officials, and if you sav four days is a lot of time, you've
got that experience. I want to go over it with them and ask
questions, and I expect that changes would be made.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. August 19,
20, 21, and 22?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Four days right in a row
are bad for me.
~-14-C3
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
159
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: August 19, 20?
are those?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What days of the week
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tuesday and Wednesday.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The following
Tuesday-Wednesday?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, hold on. Yes.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What are those
dates?
27th.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That would be 26th and
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'll be here.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thea, are those too far
back? I think it's okay still.
MS. SOVIL: It's -- a lot has to do with when
the Judge gets his presented and we get it disseminated
through the department heads so that they have an
opportunity to look at it before the budget workshop. I'd
hate to see them get it the day they're supposed to come in.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Could we move the
26th and 27th back tc the week before the 19th? The 22nd
and 23rd?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You mean the --
MS. SOVIL: You might start on a Friday. The
.-14-G3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
I9
20
21
22
23
24
25
160
15th?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How about Friday, the
15th? How about the --
MS. SOVIL: And then Friday the 22nd. That
would give you four days.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 15th, 22nd --
MS. SOVIL: No, 15th, 19th, 20th, and 22nd.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 15, 19 -- what?
MS. SOVIL: 20 and 22.
COMMISSIONI~R LETZ: How does -- I mean, in
the past, we've -- this u;~ually conflicts with judicial
responsibilities for the Judge.
JUDGE TINI,EY: The only one I got a problem
with there is on Tuesday, the 19th, in the morning.
MS. SOVIL: We could start them, like, at
1:30 in the afternoon, or~ 10:30, 11:00.
JUDGE TINI~EY: Start them at some -- just on
Tuesday at 10:30, that would be all right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why don't we start them
all at 10 o'clock?
JUDGE TINI~EY: What you got to understand is
my -- my -- at that poin+., I'll be a lot like the fifth
wheel, except for any questions y'all may have of me of how
I arrived at what I arrived at. And --
~-14-03
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
161
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, yeah. I anticipate
that, though. I mean, I would like -- I mean, I view that
as the opportunity to hear your -- I mean, if there's a
difference, I mean, I would think that if you're in
agreement and elected officials are in agreement at that
point, it's pretty much everyone -- I mean, pretty good
agreement. But it's the differences where, you know, I
think discussion is going to be helpful, to me.
MR. TOMLIN3ON: Judge, there is one thing we
don't want to forget, thaw we -- we do have a 15-day
notification period from the time that the budget is
actually proposed; we havE to file it for 15 days for public
view before -- before it's finalized. So the sooner, in my
mind, the better. As -- from a tax hearing standpoint, from
what I cars see right now, the -- the preliminary numbers
look like that we're going to have, like, a 2 and a half
percent increase in value, 2 and a half to 3 percent, so
that probably will not require us to have what's called a
notice of a hearing for the tax rate. So that hearing,
unless you -- unless you increase taxes, probably would not
have to have a hearing for that purpose. Because the thing
that's -- with that small an increase in value, the -- the
effective rate probably won't go beyond the 3 percent. In
other words, if you go beyond 3 percent effective rate, then
you have to have a notice of hearing about the change in
~-14-03
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
162
effective rate. But, from what I see so far, we're not
going to have enough change.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. I'll make a
motion that we set budget workshops for August 15th, 19th,
20th, 22nd, each day starting at 10 a.m.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What was that, the 19th?
MS. SOVIL: Starting at what?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 10:00.
JUDGE TINLEY: It's okay -- 10:00's okay. I
may be 30 minutes late. Any further questions or
discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Next item,
consider and discuss approval to negotiate new contract with
U.G.R.A. concerning the administration of Kerr County
O.S.S.F. Rules and regulations. I'll turn this over to
Commissioners in Precinct 3 and 4.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I was the author of it.
I'll start out with this. This is the -- I guess, in a
nutshell, what the joint committee agreed upon as a starting
point. And that doesn't say that we're going to have a
~-19-G3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
I4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
163
contract with U.G.R.A. definitely, but if we can work out
the terms subject to the recommendations set forth, we would
have a contract at that point. And I'll just read through
it. The basic parameters that we -- that we set early on in
the committee was that both Kerr County and U.G.R.A. desire
to maintain the authorized agent status. That being said,
there should be one set of O.S.S.F. rules for all of Kerr
County, and there should be one administrator of O.S.S.F.
rules for all of Kerr County. Based on some changes that
have been made at U.G.R.A., and also some -- I guess the
result of the committee work, the recommendation is that we
attempt to enter into a contract for U.G.R.A. to administer
the O.S.S.F. program for one year. The first -- we're
actually hoping it will be more than one year, but it's kind
of a trial one year, with a 120-day out clause.
The basic things that need to be ironed out
and the details, the cost of the administration of the
O.S.S.F. program will be proportionately shared based on the
actual workload, which means inspections, permits, et
cetera. And these will be tracked by using R numbers
supplied by the Appraisal District. So, basically, if
80 percent of the work is done in the county, then if
there's a -- if they have a budget loss or shortfall, we pay
80 percent of whatever that shortfall is. If there's a
surplus, we'd get 80 percent of the surplus. Each party
I-19-U3
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
164
will bear their proport=ovate costs. Pretty simple. This,
you know, may or may not be a substantial change in the
program analysis. We'rE trying to figure out the budget
impact of this, if this is approved by the Court.
Second point is that U.G.R.A. and the County
will develop a new fee structure, and also expenditure
structure, and expenditure structure is aimed at really
trying to see if we can c:ut back on some of the
expenditures, cut back and reduce the cost of administering
the program, something bcth parties would have to agree to.
Next point is the O.S.S.F. program enforcement will be
enhanced, and this will be enhanced using data from the
Appraisal District relatE~d to new construction, to make sure
they're in compliance. F:err County and U.G.R.A. will
develop an informational, educational pamphlet to be
available to the public. And I probably should have said
emphasis to public, to rE~altors, and people that are --
Chamber of Commerce, peo~~le that are buying property. And
in that, it will be state, period -- it will be recommended
that there is a real -- an inspection upon real estate
transfers.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Say that again,
please?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: There will be, in the
pamphlet, a recommendation that anyone buying property get
~-14-03
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
165
the O.S.S.F. inspected at that time, but it will be
voluntary. Kerr County and U.G.R.A. will look into
developing an assistance program to clean up failing
systems, which I think is -- I think I mentioned this once
before, that there is some sort of a grant or guaranteed
loan or something. I don't think we'll probably have that
in place immediately, but I think this is something we would
like to strive to get to. We also feel that if we can come
up with some money, there's probably some grant funds
available to help with that. The initial agreement will be
for a one-year trial basis. Either party may opt out of the
agreement with 120 days notice.
Kerr County Commissioners Court will be more
directly involved in the appeal process. Based on our last
committee meeting, if there is an appeal from what the
Designated Representative, whatever his determination is, we
will probably let the -- Greg Edder, the General Manager at
U.G.R.A., try to resolve it in about a two-week period, and
at that point it comes straight to the Commissioners Court.
It will not go through the U.G.R.A. board or anything like
that, but there would be a period so that the U.G.R.A. is
aware of it before it comes to us. All correspondence and
literature will be on Kerr County Commissioners Court
letterhead. And U.G.R.A. will present, on a regular basis,
status reports to the Commissioners Court. So, those are
-19-G3
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
166
the basic points. Stuart's in the room -- Barron's in the
room. I believe I have captured everything that we had
discussed at our final meeting? He's nodding.
MR. BARRON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSION~'R LETZ: And, Commissioner
Nicholson? Do you have al7ything else to add?
COMMISSIONF~R NICHOLSON: Let's see. The --
I'm looking at our agenda. The -- the discussion of the
rules changes is a separate item.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, separate item.
This is just -- this is just the contract, who's going to
administer the program, whatever the rules end up being.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Just a couple of
comments. First, I want to say that Commissioner Letz
has -- has taken the lead on this and done a whole lot of
the work, and I feel pretr_y good about the recommendations
we're making here today. I don't like all of them. When
you're working in a four-member committee, you're not going
to like everything that comes out of it. I'm sure that the
other three members would like to change one or two things
on here, and I would also. I -- I continue to believe that
Kerr County can administeY this O.S.S.F. and floodplain
program, and do it at a lower cost and do a good job of it
than can U.G.R.A. HoweveY, that's a compromise that I'm
willing to wait -- to make, particularly with this -- with
-i4-G3
167
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
this provision that if it mires down again and it's not
working again, we have --- we have an out from the contract,
120 days notice or something like that. So, that -- all
that is to say that and one of us would have probably
written a different set of recommendations, slightly
different, but triese are -- these are good, and they're
workable. And the changes that I've seen in the way the
U.G.R.A.'s doing business give me some confidence that we
can iron out the problems we've had in the past. That's my
view of it.
JUDGE T':NLEY: Let me see if I understand
correctly. Basically, on the -- on the allocation of the
costs, U.G.R.A. will be charged for any costs associated
with any system that i= within 1,500 feet of the river or
its major tributaries, as they defined them, and -- and if a
system is in that location, the costs associated with that
particular system will he charged to them.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE TZNLEY: Correct? Now, what about the
revenues generated? Likewise, it will be offset --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- to that? Okay.
COMMISSCOivER NICHOLSON: Just one minor
correction, Judge. The rivers and tributaries is determined
by the U.S.G.S., which is essentially very -- very much the
~-14-03
168
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
same as it has been in thF~ past, but it's not an arbitrary
determination by the U.G.FZ.A. It's determined by the
U.S.G.S. map.
JUDGE TINLEY: How does that differ from the
U.G.R.A. map that identifies the river and, I believe --
what is it, 39 major tributaries?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Hardly any
difference, if any.
JUDGE TINLEY: In terms of the named -- the
named or designated tributaries and their length or --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And their length.
The dotted line that the U.S.G.S. puts on the map indicates
the flowing stream is the criteria that's used. Only reason
I'm making -- have anything to say about this is I want
people who live out there on those tributaries to know that
it's not an arbitrary decision; it's a U.S.G.S. map.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMI
dotted blue line for
using the solid blue
means that it's a --
flowing stream, even
permanent-flowing.
JUDGE
intermittent stream?
3SIONER LETZ:
a spring and
line. Where
according to
though in ma
TINLEY: And
It's -- the maps show a
a solid blue line. We're
the -- where the -- which
that map, it's a permanent
~y cases they're not
the dotted blue is an
-14-03
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
169
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. So we're using the
permanent blue line on thE~ maps.
COMMISSION'~R WILLIAMS: As opposed to dotted?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: As opposed to dotted.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How does that -- does
that match up with the -- the streams that are identified in
their authorized agent documents?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, we're using the
streams set forth, and then using the blue line.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: All those same
streams will be in there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So we're not going to
have to argue later on about a stream?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Length of them may
vary a little bit.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I want to
commend you both for taki~.~g the time and doing the work, and
I am pleased to see that we're going to continue to attempt
to make our program operable and administering it through
the river authority and the designated representative of our
choice. So, I appreciate that very much. I have some
comments which I think I ~.aill reserve until we get into the
next agenda item, but it does -- it does tie -- my comments
do tie in with what I will submit to the Court in a few
-1~-0~
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
170
minutes; probably ties into your anticipated form -- one,
two, three -- bullet number four. But I'll reserve comments
for later.
COMMISSION}~R BALDWIN: In the contract, do
you -- present contract, it shows that the County sends
$30,000 over to U.G.R.A. Do you see that that will continue
with that particular numbE:r?
COMMISSION}~R NICHOLSON: Go up.
COMMISSIONI~R LETZ: It'll probably go up.
But that -- but there won't be a flat -- the contract we
worded now is saying we w=~11 pay our proportionate cost; it
is estimated to be this amount. So, really, the payment --
you know, it will be quar~erly or monthly payments, whatever
the two financial people chink is easier to work out and
balance. And then -- and we'll start out with an estimated
number the first quarter, and then it will go up or down
based on reality. And it's -- which is going to make it
difficult to budget for.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do we have a
worst-case/best-case scenario?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The simple formula
for it is just -- for example, these numbers aren't real --
give you some round numbers. Say it costs $300,000 to
operate. Say fees bring in $200,000, and say 80 percent of
the -- the activity is ir. the County's area. That means we
-i~-o~
171
1
,,.._ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
I5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
would owe $80,000 of the $100,000 shortfall. I don't
think -- I don't think we're going to owe 80 percent of the
shortfall, but I think we'll owe more than the $30,000 that
we've been -- I'm guessing we'll owe $60,000 to $70,000 a
year.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But you got to take a
look at the fee structure.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. We're looking at
the fee structure. ThE difficulty comes in the next agenda
item. When we change he O.S.S.F. rules, then we really
throw out a whole lot cf -- we'll throw out all the
historical data on fee:, so the revenue side becomes very
questionable, so you just have to make a best guess. And
the same -- yeah, we1'~, and the fee structure, you know, was
set up. If the Court agrees, you know, to proceed, I think
the timeline would be ~ae want to have this in place,
certainly, by next -- Beginning of -- or by September 30th.
I think there would be periods of coming back to the Court
for small approvals, such as the fee structure, once we get
a -- we just didn't feel it made any sense for us to really
delve into and try to come up with budget numbers and fee
structures if the Court didn't agree with the basic concept.
So all we're looking at, really, here is the basic concept.
And, you know, if the Curt doesn't agree, that's fine. We
can try to find some ^ther way to do it.
-i4 0~
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
172
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One bullet here says
Kerr County Commissioners Court will be more directly
involved in the appeals process. What I heard you identify
as -- as a general outline of the appeals process was very
little different than exists now.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's really -- the
difference is there will be a little bit more of a time
period -- I'm not sure what the exact process was before; I
don't recall it, but there'll be a -- up to a two-week
period that a person is going to have to wait if they don't
agree with the D.R.'s position. There's, like, a two-week
period till it gets to us, and it comes straight to the
Commissioners Court as a whole. Before, I believe it went
to the U.G.R.A. board at one point, and it doesn't do that
any more.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't think it ever
went to the board. It went to the G.M.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: G.M.?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, so it may not be
that much of a change. But it's going to be -- I think a
lot of it is awareness to the public that -- you know, that
this is -- they're administering it, but it's our program.
And if it's appealed, it's appealed to us. I think a lot of
people felt that it was -- the County was out of the loop,
7- 1 4- 0 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
173
and that's why we're switching letterhead and just trying to
make it much more clear to the public that this is the
County's O.S.S.F. program.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't have any
problem with that.
COMMISSIONER
me understand this. Before
have that discussion and do
this document as well, how
going to put together a con
this Court wants to do?
COMMISSIONER
BALDWIN: I am not sure -- help
we do the next agenda item and
those things, which are part of
-- how do you -- how are you
tract without knowing really what
LETZ: Well, I look at these as
totally separate issues.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Judge, I move
that we approve for Commissioners 3 and 4 to negotiate a new
contract with U.G.R.A. concerning the administration of Kerr
County O.S.S.F. Rules and Regulations.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Floodplain? Is that
part of it?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Didn't say.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Doesn't say that here.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: All right.
JUDGE TINLEY: You never know where
negotiations might lead. It may include that by the time
7-19-03
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
174
you get into the negotiations. Motion's been made and
seconded. I want to command both of you gentlemen for what
I know has been a lot of hours and a lot of work that you've
put in on this thing. And I realize you've got it boiled it
down to a pretty concise few points, but I don't think
that's representative of the amount of work and time that
you put into this thing, which I know this has been a
contentious issue ever since I knew what a septic tank was
in Kerr County, and that goes back a year or two at least.
And I think you deserve to be commended for that effort, and
I appreciate it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you. And also, I'd
like to give credit to three other people; one, Stuart
Barron, who is our currer:t Designated Representative. He
got any information we asked for. I'm certain he, I think,
rolled his eyes a lot of times; we'd say, "Well, how about
giving us rules for all the surrounding counties?" But he
did anything we asked, and I appreciate that. And then also
the two U.G.R.A. board members, Ronnie Pace and Jerry
Ahrens. They put in a lot of hours, likewise.
JUDGE TINLEY: My thanks go out to them also,
and thank you very much, Stuart. I appreciate your work.
MR. BARRON: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions or
discussion? All in favoY of the motion, signify by raising
7-19-G3
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
your right hand.
(The motio_z carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Next item
of business is to consider and discuss proposed new O.S.S.F.
Rules and Regulations for Kerr County, as recommended by the
joint committee, and setting a public hearing on the same.
Commissioners 3 and 4 again.
COMMISSION'~R LETZ: I'll take the lead on
this one. And this is a -- the -- I guess everyone working
together gets a little bit; further apart when it gets to
this item; we're not quit,=_ in as much agreement. What I
have done was taken, I guess, the overall consensus of the
committee and put it into a new order form so we can see
what we're really talking about. And my recommendation
would be, even if there's -- you know, unless there's
just -- everyone thinks we're -- I'm an idiot for putting it
together this way, in whi~;h case we can start over, but to
go to a public hearing. I think we're at a point we really
need to get public input. And the way this is drafted is to
guarantee the maximum public input, for two reasons.
Section 10 currently has a mandatory real estate transfer.
That entire verbiage that's in there has been deleted, and
real estate transfers or requirement for an inspection at
-14-03
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
176
real estate transfer is completely deleted.
Section 10, though, is not blank. You will
notice that there's a reference to Subchapter A, a
general -- general provisions, Section 285.3. And this is
the paragraph in Section 285 that grants the 10-acre
exemption. Now, I took _t out exactly as it's written. The
way it's worded right nova, we are eliminating the 10-acre
exemption, so that all nE~w systems would be required to be
licensed systems, and any major repairs to a system or, you
know, anything that would trigger a -- not really major
repair. Major repairs could, but also if you add on to a
house, anything that no•a requires a licensed system, you
know, on a small tract -_s required on a large tract of land.
The reason this -- my -- two reasons; then
I'll turn it over to Dave. One, for getting rid of the real
estate transfer. Based on my time and studying this for the
past couple of months, I do not believe there is any way to
do a real estate -- or inspection of any septic system
without doing -- or making it very intrusive and costly to
the person doing the -- having the inspection done. You
cannot inspect a septic system by a surface -- by walking
over the surface. You may find a nuisance system by doing
that, but you can't -- you're really not doing anything.
You don't know if the system's working or not, and I don't
see that there's any way -- from talking with Stuart and
~-i9-os
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
r	..
177
others, that there's any way really to do a viable
inspection upon real estate transfer without doing an
intrusive, very expensive inspection.
And the other side of it is, if you go to
10-acre exemption, if you look at the -- what's spelled out
on the -- in the Section 10 presented, A, B, C, and D, I
suspect that the majority of the properties probably don't
qualify for all of those. Especially -- and it's the last
one -- the single-family dwelling is the only dwelling
located on the tract of land. Most of the large tracts have
multiple septic systems on them, and for that reason -- and
I don't think the installers are being real up-front with
people, and I think they're going out there from a -- trying
to get the work or whatever. And we got this from meeting
with the installers, that they're not telling the public
what Section 10 really says, and they're going out there and
saying, "Oh, you're over 10 acres; you're exempt." So, I
think there's a lot of things being done improperly, not
because people are trying to circumvent the system; they
don't know what the rules are. So, I thought it would be
best to eliminate that exemption.
I think that by doing the public hearing
based on what is presented, we will hear from the real
estate community, if they are unhappy, and I think we'll
hear from the large landcwner communities, if they're
-i~-o3
.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
178
unhappy, and I suspect we'll hear from both. But I --
that's just kind of where I came down. Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I agree with
Commissioner Letz that thF> current Section 10, the real
estate transfer inspection, is not effective in protecting
the environment, and it i:~ expensive, and potentially will
be a lot more expensive if we attempted to make it an
effective inspection. ThE~ second part of it is the -- the
eliminating the 10-acre e.~emption. I've had quite a bit of
trouble with doing that, and it begins with the premise
that -- that these large tracts are not damaging the
environment. They could Yiave a problem out there in the
middle of a 10-acre tract, and it would not impact our
groundwater or the neighbors', most likely. It's another
one of those compromises _hat are necessary to make progress
and move forward on this. I'm willing to support the
elimination of the 10-acrE~ exception, and I understand that
this is not going to impact the current large landowners.
We're not going to be goi:~g out there and digging up their
septic systems. It's just from here on out, we're putting
everybody -- whether you got 5 acres or you got 5,000 acres,
you're going to meet the same requirements for septic
systems.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's -- and I
failed to mention the grandfather provision of this. If you
7- 1 4- C 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
179
are -- if you have one -- you know, 100 acres and you have
10 septic systems on it right now, and even though it was
all done not appropriately, you're grandfathered. But if
you go out there and upgrade one of those, that one system,
you know, has to be -- or if you go out there and do the
house where that one system is, and you double the size of
that house, then that one system has to be upgraded, but the
rest of them do not.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How are you going to
know that happened?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How are you going to know
that they upgraded? That's just -- hopefully through the
appraisal records. I mean, that's the --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good question.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the installers -- I
mean, if you upgrade it, the installers are going to be
doing it, and they're goi~Zg to -- they're going to be, I
guess, in jeopardy with tizeir license if they're doing
things illegally.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Yeah, big deal.
The -- I love the idea of putting arms around the Appraisal
District and start using that as one of the tools. It just
-- I can't get it out of my mind, though, that somehow we
need to -- we need to inspect -- you know, I know -- I know
once -- I mean, I know this as well as anybody in this room.
7-14-03
180
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
Once you start inspecting, it's a slippery slope, quote,
unquote, and it never ends. I mean, you tear up people's
yards, you dig up their entire lines. Do you pull up the
tank and inspect the underr:eath, make sure it's not broken
under there? I don't knew how far you'd go. I don't know,
but it seems like to me that they're -- I don't know. It
just seems like to me that we need to have some kind of
inspection that says, yep, this is a good system. No, this
is not a good system.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If we can find a way to
do it, that's the issue. That's the question I have.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, you know, we've
been doing it, kind of. You know, to what extent do you --
what extent is the inspection? Do you pull off the top and
just stick your head down in the tank and look around?
Or -- or is it those other things that I just listed? I
mean, how far do you go urith it? I don't know. It just --
it just seems to me we need to do something.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Stuart provided to
us a procedure that will result in an effective inspection,
and on the -- Stuart can talk to this better -- a whole lot
better than I can, of course. On the septic system that I
have at my house, that I built in 1997, if I were to sell my
house and a full, complete inspection is required, they
would dig somewhere between 9 and 14 holes and tear up a
-19-03
181
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
whole lot of landscaping, ruin my lawn, just generally make
a mess of things, and I'm guessing it would cost me a couple
-- or the buyer, whichever; a couple thousand dollars. It's
unnecessary.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What if -- well, let
me go one more --
CGMMISSIGi~1ER WILLIAMS: I'm sorry.
COMMISSION~;R BALDWIN: What if -- what if
it's -- it is truly failed? Whatever "failure" means. What
if it's truly failed and we don`t catch it, and, I mean,
it's really damaging the environment? Your 2,000 bucks, you
know, is not as important= as the -- I mean, as the --
flooding the river with effluent.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I agree. I think
the -- there's two things that I see we have going forward
to getting inspections done with us out of the loop, the
main one being with current real estate contracts and
disclosure information, If you have realtors involved,
there's a certain amount of disclosure that has to come out,
and sign off things are corking to the best of your
knowledge. So there's a little bit there, you know, on the
-- that side with the re~ltors. You also have lending
institutions that are getting more and more involved in it
because of an issue, so t=hey're kind of encouraging it too.
And I think that if we encourage people to do it, they'll at
? - 1 4 - 0 3
182
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
least know to ask the question. And then as soon as, you
know, someone has -- you know, first -- as soon as they ask
a question, if they get lied to, well, then there's other
recourse they have against whoever they bought the property
from. If -- if you don't have realtors involved, I think
it's a little bit more difficult. But the other -- the
other thing -- the problem I have with the inspections, say
you do a -- you don't do -- you don't tear up the whole
yard; you just go out there, kind of walk around, say it's
okay. Well, then all of a sudden -- we've had this happen,
too -- all of a sudden, you have an individual relying on
the County that's saying this system is good, and then the
system fails.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And all of a sudden,
they're relying on -- you know, on an inadequate inspection
and they're saying, well -- come to us and say, "Well, you
said it was good last year." And I think that's -- you
know, that's almost -- that's another situation I'm trying
to avoid.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That happened.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know.
MR. BARRON: Maybe I can address some of
those questions.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me just -- just a
_4-03
183
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, Stuart. Let me get my two cent's worth in here.
Comes as no surprise to any of you, I happen to agree with
Commissioner Baldwin about the value of real estate
inspections. I understand the arguments that you've put up
about the fact that they may not be the most effective way
and that we may have unnecessary -- may be unnecessarily
putting somebody to some level of expense. But I don't
think, over the long haul, that the elimination of it has
any great relative value to Kerr County.
However, having said all that, mama didn't
raise a total idiot; I see the train leaving the station on
Section 10. But I think we're missing something here, and
if we're going to abandon -- if this Court's going to
abandon inspections at the tinge a piece of property changes
hands, one of the things that we're losing in that whole
equation is that we're failing to gather up and catalog
information about septic systems in Kerr County; where they
are, how many are there, and everything else that's relevant
to them. You make some -- you make some reference about
obtaining information from the Appraisal District. Well,
that's fine. That's new construction, and then you catalog
all the new ones. But you haven't done -- we haven't done
anything in this process that I'm hearing so far in being
able to determine how many others are out there and what is
their relative -- relative condition.
7-14-03
184
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've spoken long and loud about Kerr County
becoming a buyer-beware county, and I really feel strongly
about that, but I'm willing to -- to back away from it to
the extent that we do something that makes a buyer be aware.
And, in that context, I'm going to propose some language for
you -- for your consideration, for the Court's
consideration, that would set up a basis for the buyer
learning about the septic system that he or she is going to
acquire without having an inspection, and it would be
that -- what this document sets out is that there be no
transfer rule or inspection or permitting required at the
transfer of property, but we would ask a policy to get
information regarding septic to -- and notice to buyers, but
call it a "buyer be aware" as opposed to "buyer beware."
And in that process, all existing septics which have not
been permitted or registered would be required to report at
the time of transfer and register, without inspection, at
any time the owner -- desired by the owner, but required at
any transfer of ownership. And the owner could, if he
desired to do so, permit the septic, but he would not be
required to permit the septic.
The advantage of that permit is to -- is to
confirm compliance with septic rules. If a septic is
permitted, report on transfer of ownership will be required.
A report would include the names of the seller, the buyer, a
~-14-03
185
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
legal description of the property, permit registration
number, and any other pertinent information that's relative
to it, but you're still not having to have it inspected
prior to certifying that. The notice would be provided by
the seller of the property to the buyer of the property,
with the buyer being required to sign the notice, similar to
a notice which is required in the utility districts. The
notice would state that the buyer is responsible for the
O.S.S.F. rules of Kerr County. I understand that the buyer
is assuming the responsibility of the septic system and its
compliance with Kerr County rules. The seller would affirm
that the seller's knowledge -- to the seller's knowledge,
that the septic is not malfunctioning, and the buyer would
agree to report any subsequent malfunctioning if he
discovered same. The notice will be filed with the County
Clerk or -- and the Designated Representative.
Those are kind of the -- that's kind of a
broad brush of it, and I've attempted to put in some
language because I think it's important that we find a way
to catalog all systems and know what we've got out there so
that we can begin the process of dealing with them when it
comes time to deal with them. So, I'll offer it to you for
your consideration.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just as you're going
through it, when you say "permitted," you mean licensed,
-19-0~
186
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
correct?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes. If I misspoke,
that's what -- licensed.
COMMISSION?~R LETZ: Well, this -- licensed.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Stuart, want to see a
copy of it?
MR. BARRON: Sure. Please, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- your thought on
this would be that -- I guess, where would it be? Where
would this be?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: At the title company.
I guess, when you're signing the documents and changing
property, be a couple documents that would be executed at
the time of transfer. Notice to the seller and notice to
the buyer.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess my -- I don't
have a -- a problem with it, but I'm probably looking to the
Judge for -- from a legal guidance standpoint. I mean, we
can ask them to hand it out; we can make them aware and
available to the public, but I don't know that we -- could
we require, under our powers?
JUDGE TIrdLEY: Given the authority by the
State Legislature, we could, but I'm not aware of any
specific authority. Yotz mentioned a while ago the seller's
disclosure notice, ar~d what we're talking about in large
i^-o3
187
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
measure is residential properties. There's a provision of
the Property Code, I belie~re it's 5.081, thereabouts -- it`s
either Chapter 3 or Chapter 5; I believe it's in 5 -- which
requires a seller of the p~~operty to give a disclosure
concerning his knowledge about the property, and also any
knowledge of any defects or malfunctioning or anything
that's not working, and there is an inquiry about sewer
systems. And, you know, that is a state law requirement on
transactions that that a~~plies to, and basically it applies
to residential property. There are some exceptions where
it's not required, that -- for example, if a -- if a
property is being sold by a mortgagee who's foreclosed, if
it's being sold by a tr~.istee in bankruptcy, if it's being
sold by an executor/administrator of an estate, instances
where -- where the one selling the property, it's pretty
well-known they don't have knowledge. They`re in there
'cause they didn't -- you know, they were forced to be
there. But there's a requirement under that particular
seller's disclosure requirement. Whether or not we would
have the authority to mandate to licensed realtors or to
title insurance companies, escrow closing agents to utilize
this, I have serious, serious reservations if we would. But
I -- but I think -- I trunk this issue that you're going to
is, in large measure, a,_ready addressed under state law
under that particular p.~ovision of the Property Code.
';-1~-03
188
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: Well, I think you
could -- through a pamphlet, you could stress this, which
was, I think, the intent of the committee, was that you try
to get a -- an official-looking, you know, pamphlet; not
something Xeroxed and folded together, something that's
printed. And get it to the title companies, get it to the
Chamber of Commerce, get it to the realtors, and -- you
know, and ask if they will hand this out and, you know, make
something like this -- either include it in it or part of
it. I mean, tell them if -- if you're a septic system, we
really recommend you get it inspected. But I think it
should still be, you know, voluntary.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If I understand,
this satisfies part of w}Zat Commissioner Williams is after,
but it doesn't build -- it doesn't continue to build a
database.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And how is the
database useful to us? In protecting the environment?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I would defer
to Stuart on the answer to that question, because I think --
I think -- I personally think it's important to know where
every septic is and, to the extent possible, that you can
determine its condition.
i-14-03
189
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 NICHOLSON: I'd like to know
that.
COMMISSION'LR WILLIAMS: Can you throw a
little more light on it, Stuart? This is new to him. He's
not seen this. Okay?
MR. BARRON: First of all, I'd like to thank
y'all for being at the committee and -- and looking at a
bunch of different ideas that we have. And this is not the
first draft of something like this that we -- that I propose
that we get the buyer to sign, or -- and the seller to sign.
However, we didn't feel that we -- that we could force any
real estate entity to make a buyer or a seller sign any
document. So, the next best step was to make a -- a flyer,
like Commissioner Letz was saying, that just notified
everybody. And we would have it on -- on all the -- just
everywhere; at the Chamber of Commerce, at all the title
companies, all the real estate companies, telling the buyers
-- just ask the question, "What about the septic system?"
We would still have a fee structure where we
could go out and inspect all the septic systems. If a buyer
wanted to get them inspected, they can do it through us or
they can hire an indivic.ual from out of the county to do
this inspection. If they wanted your Designated
Representative to do it, the only inspection that we would
do -- we would not go otzt there and tell them if it was
- i 4 - 0 3
190
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
working. We'd go out there and tell them if it met state
standards. The definition of "working" is not defined in
any of our -- in any of our documents. We do, however, have
the definition of does it meet state standards? Does it
have Schedule 40 pipe? Is the drainfield long enough? Is
it deep enough`? Too deep? Is it in solid rock? Most
septic -- well, almost all septic systems, about one-third
of treatment happens in tYie tank and two-thirds of it
happens out in the drainf'eld. And if we don't get to
digging the drainfield and we just walk over the surface,
the surface of the drainfield, that's where it's somewhat of
a disservice, just by looking in the tank and seeing is the
tank holding water or not, 'cause we're really not being
able to -- to say yes, this is a working septic system.
As far as making a database of all the septic
systems, it's a good idea to have that. We did, at one
time -- when they had the 25-acre exemption, it did get
people to come in and apply for an exemption. It really
didn't do anything. It -- you came and you applied for
exemption. You got the F~xemption, you could go do what you
wanted to do. We don't have anything in those files. They
came in, they got an exemption number, they wrote down why
they were exempt, we gave them the exemption. We didn't
track what they put in there. We really don't -- we don't
want to track a lot of what goes in there, 'cause there's no
-1~-c3
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.~-.
25
191
inspection done. Somebody sends us the paperwork, you go up
there and you pull one of cur files, and it's got the design
in it, the design criteria. You assume that that was put in
the ground. We don't -- wE> can't certify any of those on
any of the exempt properties. So, unless an inspector goes
out there and verifies what-. we have in our files, it is not
valuable to us.
COMMISSIONED WILLIAMS: It's not valuable?
MR. BARRON: No, sir, 'cause anybody can
falsify or just not represent it properly.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, the way you're
talking about, I agree wit.' that. It's probably true; it
probably does -- some of the information is probably
suspect. But if, at the t=ime of transfer, you require the
buyer and the seller to e:~ecute a document, the buyer
identifying -- the seller identifying the system and
certifying in writing, to the best of his knowledge, this
system is functioning --
MR. BARRON: I agree with that
wholeheartedly, but we do.z't have a vehicle to make the
buyer or the seller do that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I'm wondering
out loud -- County Attornay's not here. I'm wondering out
loud if we can put into the Section 10 O.S.S.F. Regulations
a requirement, which is in there right now to have it
~ - '~ 4 - 0 3
192
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
inspected -- I don't know why we can't put in, as a
substitute for that, that they have to sign a document
certifying that they have a system, and what it says is
they're certifying it as a functioning system. That's kind
of a question mark.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We have a problem with
that.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You have to certify
a lot of things; have to certify that your equipment works
right and your foundation's okay. This is a more important
item.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One more step.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. If we can do
that, I'd -- I'd sure support that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, the thing is,
you go back to -- I mean, he just got through saying to us
that there is no definition for "working."
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I didn't say
"working" in there.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There's no definition
for "failure," you know. I mean, what would you be
certifying it to do, then?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Notice of the
transfer will state the buyer is responsible. The buyer
would be responsible for compliance with the O.S.S.F. rules
-i~-o~
193
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 Kerr County. That's pretty straightforward. I'm buying
a property and I'm saying by my signature here, yeah, I
understand what they are, and I am in compliance with them.
And he further assumes responsibility for the septic system
and its compliance with the rules. And the seller is
affirming, to the sellers' knowledge, the O.S.S.F. is not
malfunctioning. Doesn't say that it was -- that didn't say
that it is in compliance. He's saying, I'm selling you this
piece of property, and I'm telling you that as I sign this
document today here, or whatever it is, it has not
malfunctioned. It's working at the time of the transfer.
And the buyer would agree to report any subsequent
malfunction to Kerr County or the Designated Representative
when they discover the malfunction.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, any malfunction, I
think, would -- you'd get from an installer fixing it. A
major malfunction would have to be brought up to license.
That part -- I think it maybe has been done.
MR. BARRON: How are we going to make the
buyer -- excuse me.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This is not written
in stone. If anybody wants to tool it, make it better, fine
and dandy. It's an idea I'm kicking around for discussion.
MR. BARRON: The only problem I see is
getting the -- the seller -- who's going to get the seller,
~-1~-u3
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
194
when they've signed that document and they live in Oklahoma
and when they're outside of our jurisdiction, of getting
them to honor this agreement?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Who gets them to sign
the papers now?
MR. BARRON: No, I mean if they're -- if it's
legal; that they know there was a malfunctioning septic
system there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: To the best of his
knowledge, it's functioning.
MR. BARRON: But he lied about it, and say,
you know, he said, "I'm going to California anyway."
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Question is, how are
we going to enforce it?
MR. BARRON: Yes, sir, exactly.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I think the intent is
not for us to enforce it. It's to make the public be aware
of it. And if there's an enforcement action, it gives the
buyer a little bit better case for civil action against the
seller.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think that's
correct.
COMMISSIONER LETZ:	We're not	involved	in
that. All we're doing is saying -	- requiring	them to	sign
-14-03
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
195
basically a disclosure statement.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think that's
exactly right. It would give a buyer a leg up to civil
action, saying, "You told me it was not malfunctioning."
That's my compromise offer, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: What effect would that have on
the -- say you got a system that's grandfathered. Any time
it's transferred, you would put the onus on both the seller
and the buyer to sign such a document?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. Yes, sir,
that's what it would do.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The Judge looks perplexed
now. I mean, I think the -- related to the agenda item, you
know, two things can happen now. We can either go forward
with the public hearing the way it's written, or if we want
to try to come up with some language for that part of
Section 10, and then bring it back to the Court.
JUDGE TINLEY: Are you telling me that if we
don't have that as alternative language in what we're
looking at today, it can't be even considered in the public
hearing? Wouldn't that be the purpose of a public hearing,
to air this thing out?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, yes, but I think
that	you	need to	get that on the	table	so people	understand
what	we'	re even	contemplating.	We need	to put it	of record
14-„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
196
for people to look at the language we're talking about. I
mean, I don't have a problem with, you know, taking
something out after a public hearing, but I do have a
problem with listening to -- having a public hearing and
talking about a bunch of things, and not have this even in
the document; then, all of a sudden, add this after the
public hearing. I don't think that's right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, this relates to
Section 10.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And what you're
proposing for Section 10, if the Court were to go along with
this suggestion. It would be included in the language as
published in the paper, the notice of public hearing.
That's what we're talking about.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, but I think we
need to get. the exact language put in the document that we
put with the County Clerk. I don't think we can do -- just,
"Hey, we're thinking of doing something like this," and
expect public comment off that. I think we need to have the
exact language and put it in the form of -- you know,
similar to this, under Section 10, so people can look and
say, okay, this is what the Commissioners Court is thinking
of doing, and then commenting on it. I mean, it can be done
by our next meeting if someone would come up with the
-i4-C3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
l~
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
..-..
25
197
language.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, it could be.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, I mean, I think you
ought to have -- I think whatever we put for the public
hearing ought to be what we are pretty certain we want --
you know, that we're at least --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You don't want to have
a public hearing on a haphazard document. I mean, you want
something out there hard and firm for people to look at and
advise us, as their representatives, to vote on. Let me
change horses just a little bit. I couldn't find it
anywhere in there. Did y'all talk about variances and how
they come into the picture and how they're used, and -- how
they would be used? And --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We -- no.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Or would they be used?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess there's always a
-- I mean, a chance for a variance, but it's not addressed
as to -- you know.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I -- I can tell
you, some of the public out there already -- and I'm going
to give you a heads-up -- that, by taking Section 10 out and
doing tweaking here and there, feel like that that opens the
door for more variances, and there's -- there's a large
contingent of anti-variance people out there. They want a
-19-vs
198
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
firm set of rules, and we'll live by those rules exactly the
way they're written, and --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm one of them.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I am too.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that there's --
and I think the -- the variance issue --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Bring me some
handcuffs over here. Going to end this thing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that -- I think
there is more likelihood of variance-type issues with the
real estate transfer, because it's so ambiguous. I think
we're making the rules very clear. If you have a new
system, or -- in Kerr County, or a major upgrade to this
system, it's licensed, period. There is no variance, the
way I look at it. And -- you know, so --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's the way I look
at it too.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But -- so I wouldn't -- I
don't think, I mean, we're doing anything related to
variance one way or the other, really.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We have had a real
estate person in this room before tell us that -- that they
-- when they sell a piece of land, they get the buyer and
seller to sign a document. They do. And I don't -- I don't
?-14-03
199
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
know if that was universal in Kerr County or just that one
real estate person or not.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'd like to see it be
universal.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I would too, and I
think that is one of the answers. I don't know how you do
it legally, but maybe not -- you know, it's a strong
suggestion, kind of.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me offer a --
just a suggestion here, so you don't end up down a dead
alley. If the Court will defer action on the rules until
next meeting, I'll get with you two gentlemen and we'll
tweak this thing so that everybody can understand what we're
trying to talk about, and bring it back.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is there any way
to --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I got to get with one
of you, rather. Can't get with both of you. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is there any way --
JUDGE TINLEY: We nearly caught a --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We had them up against
the wall fir a minute.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Dangerously close.
-14-03
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
200
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Commissioner Williams and
Nicholson can work out this language.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is there any way to
word a motion now that would allow us to -- in the public
hearing, to deal with the -- the proposed abolishment of the
current Section 10, changing Section 10 to deal with the
10-acre exemption and deal with this -- this process? Can
we -- can we tack this on to what we're already doing and go
ahead and have our public hearing as soon as the law allows?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We11, I think --
JUDGE TINLEY: I was asking the County
Attorney previously about these timetables.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where is he?
MS. SOVIL: He`s at the State Hospital at
hearings.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: He's at the State
Hospital?
MS. SOVIL: He's doing hearings at the State
Hospital.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- by
delayinq this until our -- currently, if we set a public
hearing today, the date has to be August 25th. If we delay
our action until July 28th, we'll be the first meeting in
September, which is -- I can't figure out that -- when's the
first meeting in September?
-~4-03
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
201
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Calendar-man?
MS. SOVIL: 8th.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: About the 8th or 15th.
Don't take our word for it. The 8th.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Less than two weeks, the
public hearing, I mean, just because of the way the
calendar falls.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Could we now -- to
have a -- have a motion and a court order that said we're
going to have a public hearing August whatever, and the
purpose of the hearing is the abolishment of the current
Section 10 requirement for real estate transfer inspection,
the abolishment of the --
JUDGE TINLEY: 10-acre exemption.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- 10-acre
exemption, and the establishment of a process for seller and
buyer notification at the time of transfer? Some
language --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Make that a motion
and I'll second it.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I just did.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I second it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Somebody tell me what
the motion is, then, 'cause I got lost.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Motion is to hold a
-14-03
202
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
public hearing to -- to -- on the subject of abolishing the
real estate transfer inspection requirement, of abolishing
the exemption -- 10-acre exemption, and establishing a
process for seller and buyer notification upon sale of a
property.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: When is that public
hearing? 25th at lU o'clock?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's in September.
MS. SOVIL: 25th at 10:30.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: August 25th?
the motion.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: At 10:30. I'll third
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there discussion now?
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded.
Comments? Questions?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: To have a public hearing,
we have to be able to present the public with a document to
review as to what the language is.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's true.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We don't have any
language.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, you do. You do
have language. It could always be tweaked after the public
hearing.
~-"_4-03
203
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: So you're saying just add
this --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For discussion
purposes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Add this into Section 10?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You could always
tweak it, do whatever you want to do with it later, but
there you have a basic --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that's -- that
makes us look foolish, if we put something in there that we
know is not going to be the language we use. I don't see
the harm in waiting two weeks and deferring until the --
setting the -- I don't mind setting the public hearing so
the public's aware for September 8th, and then at our next
court meeting, we could finalize the language, and then make
it aware to the public; we have 30 days. I don't mind doing
that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Can we do that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Fine with me. But, I
mean, I just want to have -- I want us -- the public has to
have time to look at the document that we're going to have a
hearing on.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand that.
But if we're going to set a public hearing today, we're
doing what you said we can't -- we shouldn't do. We're
~-14-03
204
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
offering up a public hearing on a document that's not yet
completed.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because we have -- we
won't -- we're setting the date, but we'll have two weeks to
get the document put together. We don't have the time if we
don't do it that way.
MR. BARRC)N: On this particular one, we only
need 72 hours to have a public -- to have a public hearing.
It has to be published ;2 hours in advance, so -- I'm sure
of that.
(Discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, either way, I still
want to have the docurrEnt -- I won't vote for it unless we
have a document that we can vote on.
COMMISSI~~NER WILLIAMS: All right. If we can
do it at the next Commissioners Court meeting, firm up our
thought structure here, the document --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- for inclusion in
the -- into the O.S.S.. Rules as part of septic, I have no
problem.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Based on 72 hours, we can
do it our first meetin~ in August, and move our schedule up.
COMMISS=ONER NICHOLSON: I'll withdraw my
motion. Do you want t~ make another one?
~-i=~ o~
205
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.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll withdraw the
JUDGE TI~?LEY: Okay. Anybody have anything
further to offer on this subject?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Good god, no.
(Laughter.)
MR. PLANCMAN: Judge, can I say one thing?
JUDGE TI^~LEY: Mr. Plangman? Now that all
the smoke is cleared anc. all the blood has been let, you
want to come in?
MR. PLANG`~AN: No, I just want to say one
thing.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right, sir.
MR. PLANG:`~AN: The -- I was on the ad hoc
committee that drew up tizese rules. Our main concern was
the environment of Kerr ~~ounty. That's all. We weren't
trying to penalize anybody. That -- the 10 acres were
given -- if somebody owned 10 acres and had one residence on
it, they were exempt. New, if you put two or three on
there, then it wouldn't .~e exempt. But I just want to pass
that on; our concern was the environment.
JUDGE TINLEY: I appreciate that, Mr.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's the right
Plangman.
target.
~-1~-03
206
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: That's right. I agree.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Can I make one -- one
second. Which one of you two gentlemen wants to get with me
to refine the rule?
(Commissioner Nicholson raised his hand.)
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Dave, you and I will
meet on that. Okay, Thea? You cool with that, sir?
COMMISSIOT~ER BALDWIN: Oh, I am. I am very,
very cool.
JUDGE TINLEY: We've done Items 18 and 19.
Consider and discuss approval of the proposed Community Plan
for Kerr County. I put phis on here because if we're going
to go forward with AACOG and get some more money, we're
going to have to -- we're going to have to approve a
Community Plan. And Dia:ze Oehler, thank goodness, has
worked very, very hard on this, and has done so in past
years, working very, ver~~ hard on it, in conjunction with --
I don't know whether it':~ the Sheriff or some of his people;
probably some of his people out there, but in large measure,
she's obtained other inp~zt. But that is the proposed
Community Plan which she has presented to me. And --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is it subject to some
additions or corrections''
MS. SOVIL: That is the result of a committee
--i~-~~
207
1
~... 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
of all the organizations that -- the support organizations
here in this community. They identified the needs which
AACOG requires. They hive identified what they -- what
their goals are, and th«t represents many, many hours of
input from all the different service organizations in town.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand that,
and I commend them for their efforts. That's good. I just
noticed that in some of the -- that some of the
identifications, by category, there are some -- there are
some employers missing, and there are some -- I don't know.
A couple things that come to mind. On the newspapers,
there's one newspaper missing. Employers that are under
banks, there are some basks missing.
MS. SOVIL: I know Diane would appreciate any
-- if you want to make notations, and I'll see that she gets
it. I'm sure she'll appreciate it.
COMMISSIOIER WILLIAMS: Okay. Restaurants --
there are restaurants th~~t hire significant numbers of
people missing. I'm not being critical. I'm just saying
that the --
MS. SOVIL: No, I'm sure she'll appreciate
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's some things
24 that ne
..-.
25
-~a-~~
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would agree on the --
it.
__- _~_ ~
208
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
in the categories, they :should be as inclusive as possible.
COMMISSIOT_~ER BALDWIN: I didn't hear y'all
saying things like this last year. It's almost the same
deal.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Under utilities,
Bandera Electric serves Derr County. They're not
identified.
MS. SOVIL: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I mean, Judge,
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't think there's any
critical time fuse on this.
MS. SOVIL: Yes, there is. We need to get it
approved as quickly as possible and get to it AACOG.
They're waiting on it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. Can't we
approve it subject to some -- the additions to make the
various categories as corr,plete as we possibly can?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I make a motion and
appoint Commissioner Williams to do that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TI~ILEY: Motion made and seconded that
we approve the Community Plan subject to -- subject to
making the major employers as inclusive as possible to be
current, with Commissioner Williams to do the update.
-`_4-03
209
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
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE TINI~EY: Sheriff, what do you have to
offer?
SHERIFF F~IERHOLZER: Normally, we get to see
one of those. I haven't seen it yet this year at all. And
there is one dire need iri the county, which AACOG does fund
and have grants for, and I don't know whether it's in there
or not. I just want to make this comment, and that is on a
crime victim assistance liaison coordinator that helps with
victims of crime, this county's never had one, and it is a
-- a need that has definitely come up strong, and can be
funded. A lot of your counties do have them. And I didn't
know if that's in some o~- their needs stuff, or if it can be
incorporated.
JUDGE TINL,EY: Page 12, Victim Services.
"Services to victims of ~_elony crime, of child abuse, of
domestic violence, and sexual abuse."
SHERIFF H-~ERHOLZER: It's for any victim --
actually, they're for an_~ victims of crime. The way this
county's operated all these years is each prosecutor's
office and both D.A.'s, t:he County Attorneys, and each law
enforcement agency has a~_ways had somebody that's just kind
of helped volunteer to hF~lp process that paperwork and get
these victims -- especia,_ly if there's hospital bills and
you're at the hospital, ~iou go through three or four
-l~-o?
210
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
l~
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
different people, and no}~ody really knows. Our last double
homicide we had, it's actually being helped -- being
coordinated by Crime Vict=im Assistance out of Kendall
County, because they had funded a full-time person and
they're not getting shift=ed around, and it's a lot more
organized. It's something we have been looking at, and
which would free up a lot of time for the prosecutors and
that. And there is a grant specifically for that through
AACOG, which I think thi:~ County should look at strongly,
and I didn't know if tha~~ was there. That was one of the
things we were hoping to get in there, but I haven't been
consulted on it yet this year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Would -- Judge, on Page
10, the paragraph you just read, would that include that, or
do we need to expand that slightly? Under services to
victims of felony crimes, do you want to say -- you could
say misdemeanor and felony crimes. And that these programs
should provide -- maybe have the word "aid" in there.
Probably be better on Page 14.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's what I'm thinking.
That's where the major problem is.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Expand that Victim
Services paragraph. Or ---
JUDGE TINLEY: If you'll look on the -- the
top of Page 13, goal is to provide full spectrum of victim
7-14-~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
211
service programs; would assist each victim of a crime --
that doesn't distinguish between felony and misdemeanor --
with direct services such as benefit application,
counseling, advocacy, provide education to whole community.
If there's something in here that the Sheriff has any
particular heartburn about, I'd --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I'm looking at it right
now for the first time. Again, I'm getting my first look at
this, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Just from what I'm
looking at, on Page 10 under Victim Services, and 11, and
then what you were just stating about 13 may cover a lot.
It's just I don't want to knock us out of the possibility of
getting help for these victims through some of this grant,
and we didn't specify that we would even need it in this
county. And we do need it. As long as this is written well
enough that it will pass AACOG's deal, that yes, this is one
of the priorities.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I think
Commissioner Williams is going to get with Ms. Oehler. So
you've got -- isn't that -- so I think you've got time to
get with Mr. Williams and work that out.
JUDGE TINLEY: On Victim Services also.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
-1z-03
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
212
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think the list of
major employers is not as incomplete as it appears to be.
They're only listing those with 30 or more employees. So,
for example, I assume that Mountain Sun has fewer than 30
employees.
MS. VAN WINKLE: Well, depends on whether you
consider it as a group or only one.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Just using that as
an example. Hotels, I'm assuming they're not in there
because they have few --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That may be the case,
but there are some other things that need to be addressed.
For example, City of Ingram is not there. It's government.
One of the school systems, I think -- does Mountain Home
have a school system, or is it Divide?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Divide.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's not there.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: About 35 employees.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Several banks are not
there. We'll work on it.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: T think on Page 14, the
Victim Services may be written enough in there to take care
of that -- 14, number 2, programs that provide services for
victims. I think that would probably -- and it's listed as
a priority, that that can probably suffice in getting
i-14-03
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
213
eligibility for that grant.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Pretty broad.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah, it's pretty broad.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE TINLEY: We got a motion. You made the
motion. Commissioner Baldwin seconded it. Any further
discussion or comments? All in favor of the motion, signify
by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion carries. Okay.
It's a bit after 3:00, so we'll take a mid-afternoon break,
and everybody go gather up their sleeping bag, and we'll
come on back here at about -- about 3:25.
(Recess taken from 3:14 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I'll call the meeting
back to order. The next item on the agenda is to consider
and discuss the approval of the Kerr County Central
Appraisal District's operating budget for 2004. I think
we're ahead of the curve, as it were, according to the
timetable about approval or disapproval. I think, under the
scheme of things, that after they formally adopt it -- it's
all set out in here, but after they formally adopt it, then
~-~4-(i3
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
214
we have a specific period of time in which to approve or
disapprove. If not, we're deemed to have approved it and so
forth. But I wanted to go ahead and get this before you as
quickly as possible in order that you might begin
considering it. They've set August 5 of this year for a
public hearing, and we have 30 days after they adopt the
budget, which apparently could not occur before August 5, to
pass a resolution that we disapprove it. But I think the
quicker we take a look at it and -- and give them our
thoughts on it, maybe it might be appropriate.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can I make a motion to
not approve the budget based on salary increases stipulated
in the proposed budget?
JUDGE TINLEY: Is that a motion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's a motion.
JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion that we
disapprove the Kerr County Central Appraisal District's
proposed operating budget for 2004 based on salary increases
as set forth therein. Is that correct?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I second the motion.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and
seconded. Do we have any discussion or questions?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I do have a
question. The Appraisal Board -- and I ask this question
~-14-03
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
215
every year. The Appraisal Board voted on this budget and
then sent it over here.
MS. SOVIL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The Board of
Appraisers, whatever they call them.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Board of Directors, board
members, whatever.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How did our board
member vote?
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't have a clue.
MS. SOVIL: Do you want me to call her and
ask her to come down?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd like to have --
I'd like to know how -- how our representative that we --
that we appointed to that board, how that person -- and it's
obviously a she --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner Letz,
could you elaborate on -- is it because 6 percent's too
high?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. I think that these
budgets should be in line with the County increases, and
County increases will not be 6 percent, unfortunately.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, they've got
some in here, 5, 12, 7.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But they're -- it's the
~-1!-03
216
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 one that --
JUDGE TINLEY: Overall increases,
across-the-board, it amounts to 6 percent overall increase.
Ms. Sovil, do we have our representative en route?
MS. SOVIL: She's on her way.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Nobody got less than a
5 percent.
JUDGE TINLEY: For my edification, Ms. Sovil,
who is our representative?
MS. SOVIL: Paula Rector.
JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Rector, thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: She's actually
co-chair.
recall --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Co-chair. And also, as I
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Vice chair.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Vice chair. The reality
is that -- I think the director can verify this. The
reality is, we have no say because we don't have enough
clout or voter strength.
JUDGE TINLEY: In response to Commissioner
Baldwin's concern, I think this is a -- a budget which they
have preliminarily adopted, and for which, according to the
transmittal, they've set a public hearing for August 5 to
consider it. And, if approved at that hearing, it will take
-l~-o?
217
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
effect immediately for the tax year unless the participating
agencies, within 30 days thereafter, disapprove it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, we -- we come
along and approve or disapprove, and then the Appraisal
District Board approves after? Is that what you're saying?
JUDGE TINLEY: No. I -- I think, besides
today, we have another shot, is what I'm telling you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, I see. Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: But this is the budget. They
have issued notice of public hearing for August the 5th to
consider.
MS. RECTOR: The only time it can be vetoed
is if all the entities turn it down. If the County says no
and the school districts say yes, it's a go.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: For your information, I
made a motion and it was seconded to deny approval based on
the salary increases.
MS. RECTOR: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And my question was
how our representative voted, as a member of the --
MS. RECTOR: I did not vote on that. They
know how I feel about that. But I think the consensus of
the other board members is, if you want good people, you
have to pay them. And they've got a real good group of
people out there, and I think y'all have the same feeling
.-i4-03
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
218
about the County employees.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure. We have a great
group of people too, and. we want to pay them as much as we
can, but -- and I don't -- I haven't talked to Commissioner
Letz about it, but I'm willing to bet that his thinking and
certainly mine is -- is that if we can't afford to pay our
employees -- give our employees a salary increase like that,
why would we vote to approve some other board to do that?
MS. RECTOR: Well, and I agree with you,
Commissioner Baldwin. T'ut's the feeling that I projected
to them in our last meeting, and they know every year I have
a problem with this.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We went through the
same thing last year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Last year. And it's
just -- I mean, I just do it as a statement, because it
doesn't do any good. Because the school districts, in the
past, anyway, have always gone along with the increases
recommended. But it's not only that they're getting a
higher increase. Indirectly, it's hurting the County
employees for them to get a higher amount, because we're
having to use tax dollars, you know, for that purpose, which
depletes even more as we go into more of a deficit every
year, or deficit-type situation. Then it hurts our
employees more. It's not just that it's -- they're getting
--14-U3
219
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
something that we're not.. They're hurting ours.
MS. RECTOR: Well, I think the other board
members feel like the bottom line is just a 3 percent
increase overall, and they're okay with that. Their total
budget is just a 3 percent increase over last year's.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions or
discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. The next
item is consider and discuss the acceptance or rejection of
Terrorism Risk endorsement to existing law enforcement
insurance coverage. I put this on the agenda. Our Auditor
brought me a terrorism risk endorsement, received, I assume,
from the -- from the agent who writes our law enforcement
insurance coverage. And I didn't feel like I had the
authority to unilaterally approve it or disapprove it; kind
of a separate, mini-policy, and I thought it was a
prerogative of this Court. Mr. Furman, I believe you're the
agent for our terrorism risk -- I mean our law enforcement
insurance coverage; is that correct?
MR. FURMAN: I'm not sure I'm the agent for
the terrorism --
--14-03
220
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 TINLEY: Well, I misstated that. Law
enforcement insurance coverage.
MR. FURMAN: Yes, sir, that's correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. FURMA~f: That's correct. I don't know
what you would like for me to address. After 9/11, the
insurance industry got hit with things that they never
thought could happen. Arid, as a result, they lobbied and
the federal government 'ryas passed this Terrorism Act, and
the federal government will subsidize an act of terrorism.
I can't tell you the ins and outs of the law, because it's
quite voluminous and I haven't read it, but the law defines
terrorism -- if there is a terroristic loss in excess of
$5 million, the act comes into play. Presently, terrorism
-- terrorism has been excluded heretofore. Because of this
act, terrorism as defined by the act can be covered. There
is an additional charge for doing so. The additional
charge, in the case of the Sheriff's policy, is $303. In
the case of the juvenile facility, $59. So, the decision
for you all is, do you want to include the federal
government terrorism coverage or do you want to reject it?
JUDGE TINLEY: Are you saying that if we have
terrorism -- or, number one, is there a specific exclusion
from coverage in our existing law enforcement liability
policies from any loss as a result of terrorism or terrorist
i-14-03
1
2
3
4
5
h
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
221
activities?
MR. FURMAN: Judge, I have not -- this is
sort of short notice for me, although it's been a number of
days, but I have not read this recently; it's been a while.
And I would like to tell you my memory is good enough to
remember all those details, but it's not. Going from what
is in the letter -- have you seen the letter that came from
C.N.A.?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, uh-huh.
MR. FURMAN: Okay. Judging from within the
letter, it's talking about part of the exclusion is
temporarily void and without effect subject to your
decision. So, that indicates to me that there is a pretty
much absolute terrorism exclusion, but, because of this act,
that exclusion is basica]_ly illegal. You need to make a
decision, either we want the coverage or we don't want the
coverage, as far as it's defined in the act, the federal
act.
JUDGE TINLEY: It only applies if you have a
single occurrence which results in $5 million or more in
loss or damage?
MR. FURMAN: Yes. Now, that doesn't mean to
any one individual. That doesn't mean to any one piece of
property. That means whatever is involved in that terrorism
act, as I understand.
-i4-o~
222
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: Judge, I don't understand
how this falls under the Sheriff's policy. Seems to me this
is a -- I mean, unless -- I mean, it's something -- to me,
this is more of our general property coverage.
JUDGE TINLEY: Physical loss.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, physical loss
coverage. I don't see --
MR. FURMAN: I think that the -- maybe the
greater loss, Commissioner, in 9/11 was not the buildings
coming down. I can't imagine what the workers comp loss was
to New York and the Port Authority of New York and New
Jersey, who lost so many employees. Plus employees that
were lost in the -- as the Trade Centers went down. Workers
comp losses must have been fantastic.
COMMISSIONER LETZ:
basically injury or death of Sher
Juvenile Detention Department?
MR. FURMAN: Well,
policy, so if it's not -- but, as
$5 million takes in all losses as
terroristic act.
So this is related to
iff's Department or
this is a liability
I understand it, the
a result of the
MR. TOMLINSON: It could be an inmate. I
mean, if -- there could be -- I mean, there could be a
hundred and some-odd inmates that might be subject to that
act also, I would think. That -- that -- to me, that's
-14-~3
223
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
where our liability is.
COMMISSIONE'~R NICHOLSON: I've got some
questions and observations. On one hand, the premium is not
very great. On another hand, I don't know if we'd exceed
$5 million. Assuming we {ill all of -- everybody out there,
I guess we -- and the $5 million-dollar formula includes
people, I guess that could happen, but maybe it's all a moot
point. We didn't -- we did not respond no later than
March 17th, 2003.
MR. FURMAN: Well, we didn't get it by then.
This -- this came to us in June.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Are we still
eligible?
MR. FURMAN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess I'm -- I'm still
not sure exactly what -- I mean, you're right, it's not a
lot of money. And that':> probably because there's not a lot
of chance of ever being --- occurring. But the occurrence,
if you do have it -- can you imagine what we talked about
this morning, about a catastrophic -- I'm just trying to
figure out what this covF~rage -- if we went with this, what
are we -- what coverage are we increasing? I mean, if it's
not the personnel --
MR. FURMAII: You're removing part of an
exclusion, to the extent that if there is a terroristic act,
-14-03
224
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
as defined by the federal government --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. FURMAN: -- Secretary of the Treasury
certifies it so, and that means it's in excess of
$5 million.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. FURMAN: Then that would trigger the
coverage. And what it amounts to is, the company would be
involved if you had a loss under -- bearing in mind this is
a liability policy. If you had a loss under the liability
portion of this policy, that the company would be reimbursed
80 percent of what they paid out.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But aren't --
MR. FURMADi: Over -- over -- and I don't know
how in the world they decide who bears the $5 million.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But you're -- but this
coverage, the liability coverage we're talking about, is --
the law says -- maybe the Sheriff's Department or the Jail's
dealing with third parties, and having some -- you know,
whether someone gets killed who's an inmate or they make a
false arrest or somethin~X like that. And I'm trying to
figure out how -- I gues:> the inmates -- okay, the bomb goes
off out there or something happens, and the inmates get
killed. Okay, there's a liability there. But, other than
something that happened '~o the inmates, I don't see how a
-14-03
225
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
terrorist act is something that needs to be insured,
because, like -- I mean, maybe I'm missing something.
Rusty's jumping up.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, I think, you know,
looking -- and none of us understand this terrorist act part
of this, and I don't know exactly how to answer it. But
some -- one of the main s~~enarios that I would be very
concerned about with a terrorist act in this county is one
of our officers stopping somebody on the interstate
transporting a type of terrorist bomb, whether it be
biological, chemical, or just damage; not finding that bomb
in that vehicle, arresting the subject for something, that
vehicle getting towed somewhere, put in impound, put in
storage, then going off. There's a liability I would
imagine going to be associated with that, okay? That --
that, to me, would be more realistic. The other part of it
that I think we would all see is a terrorist act -- actual
terrorism act in Bexar County, in the San Antonio area, us
sending personnel and officers there to help with that,
okay, and something happen to that -- to those people or
something they do while t'~ey're there in an official
capacity as belonging to -- being loaned to that agency.
How would that affect our liability on that? So, at that
point, the $300 isn't that big of a deal to make sure we're
covered under that. I don't know, because I don't know what
-14-U3
226
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 government -- governnent's decided is an act of
terrorism and what all their little stuff is in there. But,
without seeing it or kno~ing about it till today, that would
be my --
MR. FURMAD.: Congressman Letz may have been
involved.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Congressman Letz may be
involved in it. Those are -- you know, just trying to think
off-the-cuff, Jonathan. That's the only thing I can think
of.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's -- I hadn't
thought of that angle, anc~ that makes sense. And, I mean, I
think the -- the premium': low, the risk is low, but the
flip side is, if something does happen, it's major. So --
MR. FURMAN: I have difficulty envisioning
something, quite frankly, where you could be involved in it.
On the other hand, I have seen things happen that I had a
lot of difficulty envisioning before they happened.
JUDGE TINL~Y: In light of Commissioner
Nicholson's statement that the premium is due March 17th,
the premium quoted, obviously, is for a year; it shows
effective date, 1/1. Are we going to prorate that, if we
decide to --
MR. FURMAN: I presume it would be prorated,
but I don't know that.
-~4-03
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
227
JUDGE TINLEY: We're more than half into the
year, of course.
MR. FURMAN: I think, basically, it`s a
retroactive thing, but I':n -- we received this on June the
16th, incidentally, when we received it, and it`s dated June
the 11th.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, I can see on the
statement, as of 6/11.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The bad experience
we've had last year and continuing into this year with our
employee health insurance has given me a -- as I was talking
earlier, I didn't have a warm feeling about professional
service contracts for engineering services. I sure don't
have a warm feeling about the way we're managing our
insurance programs. Y'all have been dealing with it for a
long time. I may be wrong on that, but it just doesn't --
doesn't -- the errors I've seen don't inspire confidence.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The errors?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Errors -- well,
yeah. I'd say it was a mistake to -- to take on that
$400,000 liability, in rE~trospect.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's health care.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I personally would be
reluctant to recommend to the Court, if they -- if the
-14-03
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
228
Court's decision were to not desire the -- the
endorsement -- terrorism F~ndorsement, that they specifically
opt out of it. And the rF~ason would be because if they say,
"I specifically reject it," there may be some scenario under
the existing policy under which there would be coverage. As
you said, there have been a lot of things that you didn't
anticipate that you've sef~n happen before your eyes during
your lifetime, and there might be some scenario by which
there might be some coverage that could have some degree of
relationship to terrorism. If we specifically decline to
have any coverage for terrorism activities, if one of those
events were to occur where we otherwise may be in a position
to try and point to coverage under our existing policy, I
would fully anticipate trtat the -- the carrier would say,
well, even if it was, you've negated that coverage by virtue
of the rejection here.
MR. FURMAN: I think that`s absolutely
correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Maybe I'm suspicious, but
that's just my nature.
MR. FURMAN: No, I think you're absolutely
correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, I -- even if they -- if
the Court says, you know, I don`t think we need this
terrorism endorsement, I would not recommend, then -- you
~-~4-U3
229
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
know, if the Court votes to tell me to sign a rejection of
it, I'll do that, but I certainly wouldn't recommend it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, don't they call
that extortion?
Mr. Baldwin.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, insurance.
MR. FURMAN: It's called premiums,
JUDGE TINLEY: I think
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS:
JUDGE TINLEY: Well --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS:
the thought that, for a modest amount
want to take the risk of them pulling
underneath us on the other coverage i
unforeseen.
everybody's right.
Been a long day.
Well, I'd like to put
of money, I wouldn't
the rug out from
f something happened,
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I move we authorize
the County Judge to acce~~t the terrorism risk endorsement to
existing law enforcement insurance coverage and sign the
agreement to do that,
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS:
JUDGE TIN"LEY: Motion's
seconded to accept the terrorism cover
and authorize County Judge to sign the
Any further questions or_ discussion?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS:
Second.
been made and
age risk endorsement
acceptance of same.
Yeah. Can we get -
-14-03
230
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
can we ask our agent to gE~t proration based on the fact that
they didn't get the notice to us till mid-year?
JUDGE TINL~Y: I don't think -- if that's an
annual premium, I don't think we ought to pay more than half
of it.
MR. FURMAN: I'll ask that question. I don't
know the answer. I can find that out tomorrow, but I don't
know the answer.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm on to the next item.
JUDGE TINLEY: You're going to have a
condition, satisfactory ~~roration of premium?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Want to condition it
on that, or just you wane to --
COMMISSIOI~IER WILLIAMS: No, that wasn't a
condition of it. I was just asking him.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. I think
just --
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. A11 in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TITILEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TIr1LEY: Motion does carry. Thank you,
Mr. Furman.
MR. FURMt~N: Thank you.
7-14-03
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
231
JUDGE TINLEY: The next item, consider and
discuss authorizing Request for Qualifications for
architectural -- I'm sorry?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Can we go back to
another item real quick, Your Honor? On --
JUDGE TINI,EY: Did you take a long lunch?
SHERIFF HCERHOLZER: I haven't had lunch yet
today.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Go back to another
item?
SHERIFF ~IERHOLZER: To a different item. On
your workshop dates for the budget, on Item 15, I visited
with Paula on that to see, if there is a possibility that
there would be have to ~~e a tax increase, if those dates are
going to allow enough time to get all that done and still
have a tax increase or not, based on what Thea had said,
that there's different timetables. And with Paula here now,
I think Paula can addrESS that, that with this schedule,
there would not be enough time. That may affect that
greatly.
MS. REC`POR: I just have some concerns that
we're -- we're not giving ourselves enough time. 'Cause we
know -- I know some of you that have been through the budget
process several years, it's a long process, and it takes a
lot of work. And it'; always go back to the drawing board,
-14-03
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
,^ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2 Cl
21
22
23
24
25
232
go back to the drawing board. The tax rate has to be
adopted by September the 30th. That is done to allow me the
time I need to get my work done and get those tax statements
ready to be put in the mail in October. So, my concern is
that we're pushing it a little too far into August to
accomplish everything we need to accomplish, and in the end,
if we find that there absolutely has to be some type of a
tax increase, we're not going to allow ourselves enough time
to get that done in my time frame, because the publications
that I have to do in the newspaper that are required by law
have to be done at certain times.
JUDGE TINLEY: What -- what publication
requirements are you faced with?
MS. RECTOR: Okay. My first publication will
be the publication of the effective tax rate. As soon as I
get the certified values from the Appraisal District, which
should be the early part of next week, I start my process of
calculating effective tax rates for all the jurisdictions
that I collect for and publishing those in the newspaper.
And then the budget process is going -- you have a -- a
benchmark of what kind of tax rate you're looking at to
generate the revenue that we need for this year. And you
really don't know until I get that published. And with the
values like they are this year, I just think we're running
ourselves out of time to get everything I need to get done.
-19-G3
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
233
JUDGE TINLEY: What is the publication for
the -- for an increase in the tax rate, for example, for a
tax rate that must be finalized by September 30th?
MS. RECTOR: Well, right -- those timeframes,
if there's an agreement that there's going to be an
increase, then I have to publish a quarter-page ad, and it's
no less than 3, no more than 14 days from the date of the
public hearing after that takes place. And we set another
date for the -- the next public hearing, which is the same
type of thing. So, I've got time frames that I have to meet
according to law.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, what -- to answer the
void, what date does the Court need to agree upon a budget?
What's our last date that we can agree on so that you can
go -- have time to go through your calculations?
MS. RECTOR: Well, the tax rate has to be
adopted by September 30th.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, we're talking
about six weeks here.
MS. SOVIL: How much publication time do you
need?
MS. RECTOR: Depends on the newspaper. I
have to call and set aside quarter-page notices for them,
and if I know what direction we're going, I can plan that
ahead, to know how many ads I'm going to have to publish.
-14-03
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
234
MS. SOVIL: You need 14 days? 21 days?
MS. RECTOR:
MS. SOVIL:
MS. RECTOR:
and if there's a tax incre
frame of publication.
MS. SOVIL:
Mm-hmm.
14 or 21?
Well, 14. 14 for the first one,
ase, then there's another time
Is that another 14 days?
MS. RECTOR: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: First 14 is for your
calculation of the effective tax rate?
MS. RECTOR: No, no, no, no. That is my
first publication, is the effective tax rate. The second
one will start the public hearing process on the budget, and
the tax rate. If there's going to be a tax increase, then
there has to be another publication that goes in with all of
that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: At the same time?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So we have one public
hearing for a budget, and then if -- if budget's adopted and
there's a tax increase, then you have another public
hearing.
MS. SOVIL: We've always done them on the
same day.
MS. RECTOR: On the budget and adopting the
tax rate.
-i~-~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
235
MS. SOVIL: Right.
MS. RECTOR: Yeah. Yeah, we have done the
budget and the tax rate on the same day, but then we also
have to have time after that budget's adopted for it to be
open to the public for their inspection.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let me try. If
we're going to have a tax increase, what's the latest date
that we can decide we're going to do that?
MS. RECTOR: The latest date?
MS. SOVIL: 14th of September.
MS. RECTOR: Yeah.
(Discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that the process
this year is very different than in the past. I think
there's not going to be -- I mean, I think once the
workshops are gone through, we're -- that's being done
almost at the end of the process. I think we`ll be -- by
the end of the workshops, pretty much the budget will be
fixed.
MS. RECTOR: I was kind of basing it on what
we went through last year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MS. RECTOR: The time it took for us to
accomplish that whole budget process was -- it took quite a
while.
-14-03
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
,-. 1 3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
236
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. Well, the -- the
Judge's approach, as I understand -- I've been -- it's been
a learning curve to figure out the process, but I think I've
got it, that we're -- he's waiting -- or he's meeting with
everyone and coming up with a recommended budget. We used
to do the workshops first and then do the -- the Judge did
the -- the budget. This time he's kind of doing a whole lot
of work ahead of time, coming up with the recommended
budget, and then the workshops is really just for us to go
over with elected officials any changes. Any -- you know,
if you submitted one budget and he's talked or will talk to
you.
MS. RECTOR: We're not going to go through
the process of coming in before the Court and us going over
those? That will be done prior to this?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we'll go through
it, but I think when you leave that meeting, you're going to
pretty much know your budget. It's going to be done. I
mean, t~lere's not going to be a -- a void, like we have in
the past, of no communication. I mean, you're going to --
if there's a big change, you're going to know at the end of
that worksYiop.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And unlikely a major
change.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And unlikely minor
1-19-~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
237
change. So, I mean, I think that the -- the workshops are
much later. It's a big concern of mine also, but I think
they're at the end of the process; a lot more work's being
done earlier.
MS. RECTOR: Before --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Say that August 22nd
workshop is your last one, and there are some changes. Is
the Auditor and Paula and them going to have enough time
between it, August 22nd and September 30th, or whatever that
date is, to make sure the budget is actually printed out for
the public inspection in time to have all the public
hearings and all that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think so. I mean, I
think -- I think so.
MS. SOVIL: Our first meeting in September is
the 8th. You can set a public hearing at that time for the
22nd -- that's 14 days -- and adopt a budget on the 22nd.
You're still in the time frame.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: With the tax increase at
that same public hearing, if there happens to be one.
MS. SOVIL: Well, we'll know by the 8th if
there's going to be a proposed tax increase. And you have
to set a hearing -- public hearing on a proposed tax
increase.
MS. RECTOR: Right.
%-'_4-03
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
238
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I think it
will work.
MS. RECTOR: Okay. I just -- when I saw
those dates, I was a little concerned that we were pushing
ourselves into a corner.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: For your
information, this article in the County Progress outlines
a -- what somebody thinks is a good calendar for this
process, and they recommend August 1 through 16,
Commissioners Court budget workshops. So, we're just a
little -- our proposed plan is just a little late on that
schedule. A week.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, next item. Unless the
Sheriff wants to go b~:~k and visit some more.
SHERIFF, HIERHOLZER: I don't think so, Judge.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Not yet. Let's go on
down through it; we'll find something.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Consider and discuss
authorizing Request for Qualifications for architectural
and/or engineering services for Kerr County Youth Exhibit
Center. This is an item that's been lingering for a while.
And there's a number of RFP's or RFQ's that are before us
today; that's just one of them. I guess the next question,
~ - 14 -;; 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
239
obviously, is, so what if we like an architect? How in the
world are we going to pa~~ him?
COMMISSIO'.JER WILLIAMS: By the time we get
there, it will be another budget year.
JUDGE TINLEY: Maybe. Could be.
COMMISSICNER LETZ: I think my question is,
same reason I voted for going out for even getting this far,
is that I haven't -- I don't know what we're trying to do
yet.
JUDGE TINLEY: Your -- your point is
well-taken, insofar as trying to, quote, identify the
project. Actually, what we're wanting to do is obtain these
architectural or engineering services to help us identify
the project.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's been my
JUDGE TIP;LEY: That's really what I see,
where we're going.
COMMISSIONER LETZ:
the criteria that we're going to
are we going to -- we`rF~ going to
the form specified here?
JUDGE TINLEY: The
course, you can put any point val
COMMISSIONER LETZ:
But what -- then what's
-- I mean, by reading this,
enter into a contract in
-- the point system, of
ues you want to.
That's another whole
~-1~-0~
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
240
issue about affirmative action point system.
JUDGE TIN~~EY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But my -- I mean, my
question on this is, I -- okay, we go out for RFQ`s and we
get back all this information, we meet with these people.
What are we basing -- what's the criteria going to be for
the selection? I mean, is it going to be hourly? 'Cause we
don't have any -- is it going to be hourly rate, or a flat
fee? Or what are we aaTing them to -- I mean, I don't know.
I'm trying to figure our what we're asking.
JUDGE TITILEY: Here again, all I can say is
that's an excellent que:~tion.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, it is.
JUDGE TI~TLEY: Because we're asking them to
help us identify what she project is, or what the possible
projects are. And the -- the costs affiliated with each
alternative, an estimate of those costs.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't mind going
through the process -- the whole process, as long as I know
where we're -- how we`re going to make our decision.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let me make this
inquiry of you. Have you ever had a customer say, "Come
look at my lawn or my landscape out here at my house that
I'm building, and I re~illy don't know what I want to do, and
I want you to develop ~ plan of some alternatives for me to
- . 4 - 0 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
241
landscape my property." Igo you do that?
COMMISSION'r;R LETZ: Well, yeah. But you can
do it in lots of different ways. I can say I'll do a flat
design fee. If I get the job, I'm going to charge this
much; I'll give you credit back. I mean, there's lots of
ways. And if I'm bidding against somebody, I think you need
to know what -- the ways you're bidding. I mean, if I'm
going on an hourly rate to do it, or if I'm going -- I'm
going to spend all my tine doing all this design work; if I
get the job, I get paid, and if I don't get the job, I don't
get paid. I mean, it's ~~oing to vary, how I'm going to --
whether or not I'm going to even, you know, respond is based
on how the compensation 'is going to be. Because, I mean, I
would not -- if I thought there was a -- a very small
likelihood of me getting that contract, it would be a very
small likelihood of me giving them a proposal.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think you're going to have
that same kind of reception and the same kind of responses
on -- on the various compensation methods, whether you end
up doing the job, don't end up doing the job. Here's your
design work. You paid for it; you own it. I think you have
all those options open to you. But I think we've come
around the circle again. And if you're going to go forward
out there at that facility, I think we got two things to do.
We either, number one, need to get us some professional help
- 1 4 - ~ 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
242
that tells us what our options are and what the costs are so
that we might then try and reach some consensus of what we
can afford and/or what we want, maybe in reverse order or
maybe in tandem, or maybe we need another RFQ drafted by
someone that is better able to identify what the project is
in order that you're comfortable with it. Or we do nothing.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, there's another
option. We can do bids on a metal building and tear down
that old goat barn and put up a metal building and go on.
There's another option.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Third option --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The Judge stated it
right.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Third option would
be to get bids to fix the roof, get bids to fix the
air-conditioning, get bids to fix the electrical.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Put it back in the shape
that it was 20 years ago, and we don't need any professional
advice on it. Wouldn't include knocking out any walls or
building anything new.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That is an option.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think, at that point, I --
and I very well could stand corrected -- if you're going to
do any major repairs out there, I think you're going to have
to make that thing ADA-compliant, and I think you're --
-l~-o~
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
243
you'll then be faced with -- with having to get some expert
engineering/architectural services. The reason I don't know
the answer to that question is because the engineers and the
architects are the ones treat know that.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think you would
have to do that. The lawyers know that also. And that
would be a fourth bid -- bid to figure -- make this
ADA-compliant. My -- my thinking is the same as it was the
last time. I'd like to -- the lowest cost approach to
putting that facility back into the shape that it was a few
years ago.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I'm somewhere
between one and four.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're --
JUDGE TINLEY: Three's between one and four.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's why the RFP
makes sense. So --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I just -- my
problem with the RFP is I see us doing a whole lot more
study. We studied this -- we've studied this thing probably
as much as any project in the history of Kerr County, and I
don't know that we need to study any more. I think we --
you know, we may need to hire, because the law requires it,
an architect or an engineer, but I don't know that we need
any more studies out therE~. And the only reason I want an
?-19-G3
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
244
architect or engineer is because they say we have to. So, I
mean, if that's the intent of the RFQ, I don't have a
problem with it. But if we're going out there, I mean,
we've already -- just more and more studies. I mean --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Doesn't say anything
about studies in here. The word's not used.
JUDGE TINLEY: 1 think probably most of the
responders to this -- most of them would respond that if
there's -- if they're selE~cted and end up supervising the
work, a lot of their compensation would be rolled into
supervising the work, whi~~h we're going to have to have then
anyway, or signing off on it, whatever. I don't know that,
but that seems to be a rather common approach for it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But on this, as I recall,
design-build.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I thought with any
professional services, yotz can't discuss -- you pick the
company, then try to work out a price arrangement. I didn't
think you could negotiate -- have pricing as a consideration
in RFQ. Or --
JUDGE TINLF~Y: No. They got a pretty good
lobby, but I think if you"re looking at hiring an architect
or engineer to guide you, I think you -- insofar as their
-19-U3
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
245
costs to develop the information, unless I've missed the
boat here somewhere. If_ that's the case, I don't want to
talk to them either, if they can just strap any price on us
they want to when they get through.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But -- I mean, but the
selection's made on who we want to use. Then we try to work
out a contract with then. And if we don't -- and in the
contract, we specify hcw they're going to be compensated.
COMMISSIOER WILLIAMS: How they're going to
charge us, what they're going to charge.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And on the -- and why do
we have affirmative action getting any points?
JUDGE TTNLEY: You can rate that any way you
want to. You can pull the whole thing out.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't mind the other
ones. I'd get rid of affirmative action, put that 5 points
up to experience.
JUDGE TINLEY: You may want to look more on
just a generalized statement, that the best overall -- the
best overall proposal in the interests of Kerr County, and
not necessarily related to costs. Or you may want to leave
it --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's fine.
-_~-03
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
246
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move we adopt the
Request for Proposals as presented on the agenda.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do I hear a second?
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion dies for lack of a
second. Let's move on to the next item, 1.24, consider and
discuss authorizing Request for Proposals for plumbing,
electrical, HVAC service for Fiscal Year 2003/2004. Here,
again, there's a sample in there for various services. Got
one for plumber, electrician. I don't think we have one
specifically for the HVAC. The only thing different will be
the --
COMMISSIGi~ER BALDWIN: Judge, the --
insurance numbers, are those fairly accurate?
JUDGE TINLEY: Far as I know, these are
current legal requirements.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: They were represented to me as
being current legal requirements.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If one of you can
help me out a little big here, how is this different than
the approach we've taken before to plumbing, electrical, and
HVAC?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We've only went out for
bids one other time, anr. the difference is this is a lot
~-.4 03
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
247
simpler format. It was -- I don't remember the exact
details, but it was a length -- much more lengthy than this.
I think the basic content wasn't -- isn't that much
different.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, whoever's got --
doing this work now got that job by competitive bid?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, we threw them all
out.
JUDGE TINLEY: No.
COMMISSIO~~ER LETZ: We threw them all out
because we didn't get -- we got very limited response. And
that's why I -- you know, I'm very happy with these.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And I appreciate the
competitive bidding procESS and support this too.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll move acceptance of
the RFQ -- RFP's -- are these P's or Q's? -- RFP's for
plumbing, electrical, and HVAC services, as presented.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that
24
25 meeting.
-14-03
MS. SOVIL: That would be before our budget
the Reglzest for Proposals are approved and authorized. I
assume you're authorizing that they be advertised?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Be advertised, with the
proposals due back -- I don't know. August 25th?
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
248
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How about August 11th?
MS. SOVIL: That's not enough time.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's got to be the 25th.
August 25th.
MS. SOVIL: The 18th is our meeting -- no,
25th, I'm sorry.
JUDGE TINL'~Y: With -- with response to the
Request for Proposals by 9 a.m. on August 25th. Bids for
all those will be opened at that time.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions?
Comments? Discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify
by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I voted for it, I'm
sorry.
JUDGE TINLEY: Consider and discuss
authorizing Request for Proposals for Kerr County insurance
coverage and the policy period of same. This was another
RFP that was discussed, what, a month ago? And I think one
of the additional factors that we've got here that doesn't
exist in the electrical/plumbing/HVAC is there's a lot of
-14-0~
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
249
information that has to be added to it. I don't think it's
that complicated. It's a matter of gathering up from
different sources about less histories, inventories of
equipment, and I suspect that our existing policies have
that, or they should have it adequately inventoried. And
as, fir example, old equipment is deleted and new equipment
is added, there should be appropriate endorsements on those
policies, but there will be some significant additional
detail to be added to the proposal. To the degree that that
affects the -- the timing of the proposal, I doubt seriously
whether we can -- we're iri a position to insist that that be
back in order to consider it for the beginning of this
coming fiscal year. However, personal preference is that we
get this back on a fiscal year basis for budget planning
purposes. 'The -- the exi:~ting policy runs through
December 31. I certainly think we ought to have it in
advance of that, and maybF~ with the understanding that we
want the initial policy pE>riod to run for a period of nine
months, ending September 30, and then annually thereafter,
but that's personal preference. You can call it like you
see it.
COMMISSION,~R NICHOLSON: Just help me out
again here, Judge. When we talk about the employee health,
which is next item on the agenda, is the timing issue going
to be similar there?
-l~-o~
250
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 TINLF;Y: You got the same problem
there, yeah.
COMMISSIONF;R NICHOLSON: Okay, that helps me.
JUDGE TINLF:Y: You got the same problem on
both of those big insurance issues.
COMMISSIONF;R NICHOLSON: It would be
desirable to have our insurance coverage the same as our
fiscal year period.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's my thinking.
Apparently, there was some effort made a few years ago to
have it be on a calendar year basis, and for budgetary
planning purposes, that doesn't make complete sense to me.
But for -- from the standpoint of work flow, where a lot of
this -- a lot of this burden fell mainly in the Auditor's
lap, I can understand why he didn't want the whole world
crashing down on him at cne time. And that probably had
some effect there, so that he had a little bit of respite.
MR. TOMLITISON: I was going to make a comment
about what you said about: timing. In my experience of
trying to gather this information -- this information
together and getting it t:o an underwriter and having them
have the time to get it knack, I think it's a minimum of 90
days. So, I -- I think ~ae'd be putting pressure on
ourselves, as well as prospective bidders, to -- to ask them
to get it back any soone~~ than that. So, I -- to get a good
~-14-03
251
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
bid, I think we need to give them as much time as we can
afford to give them.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, if we chose to
go that route -- and I th__nk I'm paraphrasing what you
said -- this first time we'd ask for the -- the data back --
proposal back maybe Octob~=r, November, something like that,
and then it would be for a nine-month policy. And from
there on --
JUDGE TINL~Y: Beginning January 1.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. There on out,
we would be on a fiscal basis.
JUDGE TINLEY: Annual, yeah. Probably at
this point, you'd probably be looking at probably November
at the earliest, if you got the other -- the other
attachment data gathered up, the -- the loss histories,
the -- the equipment, the vehicle inventories, schedules of
buildings and so forth. '~7e -- most of that we can get from
existing policies and just update it, except for the -- for
the loss histories on some of the -- the law enforcement
liability. For example, the -- the health coverage. We're
not there yet, but you got that same issue there.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, again, for this
transition period for this first year, we -- for budgeting
purposes, we know our insurance costs through the end of
this calendar year, but we wouldn't know our -- our
']-14-C3
252
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
insurance costs for the next time.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Isn't that the way it
is now?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's not different
than the way it is now.
JUDGE TINLEY: No.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: How do you deal with
that uncertainty?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We don't, 'cause
you're going pay more for a short-term contract.
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, as far as for budget
purposes for -- for liability and health insurance -- I
mean, not health insurance, but property coverage, I have
visited with our underwriter -- I mean, Texas Association of
Counties, and specifically asked questions about what --
what changes they made in their base rate, both in liability
and -- and property coverage, and the -- and property
coverage, they had not made any change. The only -- the
only difference we're going to see is -- is for new
property. For example, we have $900,000 in radio equipment
that we're going to have to cover once -- once the vendor's
coverage leaves. So, you know, that we can plan for. They
-- TAC does not -- does not see any base rate change in --
in liability as well. And liability premiums are based
on -- on gross expenditures. I know the -- the general
~-14-0~
253
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
liability coverage and t'_ne public official's coverages for
next year will be based on -- on expenditures for this year,
so whatever that amount changed from the prior year will be
the amount of change that will be in our premium. So, I --
so I have -- or I think -- I feel like I do have a handle on
what property and liability coverage will be, and I can't
answer that for -- for workers comp or health insurance, but
I -- I do know that I have a good -- good feeling to where
we're going to be as far as those coverages.
JUDGE TINLEY: And workers comp and the
health coverage are the real killers.
MR. TOMI~INSON: Right. You know, that
workers comp is just solely based on experience. So --
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, loss experience rating.
And classification of employees, sometimes, if --
MR. TOMLINSON: We're -- we've gained some
ground on there.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, that's good. You know,
sometimes you got a little wiggle room. Even -- even if
you're already right, sometimes you can be a little bit
righter.
MR. TOMLINSON: That's right.
JUDGE TINLEY: You're being ingenious, and
we'll just put some thought into it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me see if I
7-14-G3
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
254
understand this. We're ~~sking for bids for a term -- for
insurance coverage for a term of October 1 through October 1
of the ensuing year; is that correct?
JUDGE TI'JLEY: No, we would not be.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what it says.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: January 1 through
September 30, isn't it?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. I apologize if --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Page 6.
JUDGE TIN?~EY: Okay, let me look.
MR. TOMLINSON: January 1.
JUDGE TINLEY: I didn't catch that. I didn't
-- eventually, that's whet we'll do, is actually say October
1 through September -- through September 30th. That's set
up for a fiscal year basis. The first -- first one out,
we'll be asking for January 1 through September 30, and, the
initial one, we'll have some language -- two additional --
instead of additional being there, the two 12-month periods
at the discretion of the Court.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: January 1 through
September 30. So, for tris current budget year that we're
working on, the new budget year --
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- what numbers are
we going to plug in for October 1 through December 31?
-14-03
255
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
MR. TOMLIPJSON: They've already been paid.
JUDGE TIN:~EY: We've already got them.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's all done?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes.
MR. TOMLIIJSON: They're already paid.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I move that we
authorize a Request for Proposals for Kerr County insurance
coverage for a policy period January 1, 2004, through
September 30, 2004, for the coverages listed on Page 7 of
the -- of the document we were provided.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that
the Court authorize issuance of Request for Proposals for
Kerr County insurance for the coverages listed on Page 7,
policy period January 1, 2004, through September 30, 2004.
What about -- what about return of and opening of bids?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Does that need to be
in the motion?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: If we're going to get it on
out, we need to -- we need to give enough time for them to
bid it, but we need to gizre enough time ahead of that to
gather up all this inform<~tion that ends up being an
-1~-n~
256
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
attachment to this thing upon which they can base their bid.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'd say early to
mid-November?
JUDGE TTNLEY: How does that sound?
MR. TOMLIIJSON: I think November will be
fine. We have to have enough time to review them, too.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. Do you have
an early November date, Thea?
MS. SOVIL: I'm not sure that November 10th
isn't a holiday.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It is, I believe.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, that's --
MS. SOVIL: Veterans Day. The official
Veteran's Day is the 11th.
JUDGE T IN=FEY : Yeah .
MS. SOVIL: But I think we've got the 10th
off.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MS. UECKER: No, I think the 11th off.
COMMISSION~'R NICHOLSON: Is it possible to
say just the first Commis:~ioners Court meeting -- court
meeting in November, 9 a.m.?
MS. SOVIL: Do what?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The first Commissioners
Court meeting of November.
7 - 1 ~ - 0 3
257
1
2
~.
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. SOVIL: Would be the 11th, as far as I
can tell. That's a Tue~:day.
COMMISSIOP~ER BALDWIN: That's -- that's the
official holiday.
(Discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The question was,
instead of saying date-specific, can the motion just say at
9 a.m. on the first meeting of the Commissioners Court in
November?
JUDGE TINLF;Y: Well, you're going to have to
put a date certain in the RFP when it goes out and when you
advertise.
SHERIFF HIE;RHOLZER: Have them due back here
by that Friday before. It doesn't mean -- you don't have to
open them until the first meeting.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's too logical.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, we won't --
MS. SOVIL: Well, I didn't do myself any
favors.
(Discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONE.~ BALDWIN: Holiday's on Tuesday,
isn't it?
MS. SOVIL: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLES': Holiday is on Tuesday, the
~-1~-0~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
,^, 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
258
official Kerr County holiday?
MS. SOVIL: Well, when I looked it up on the
Internet, I wrote down Monday, but I wrote down the 11th,
and the 11th is on Tuesday, so I'm not sure.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How about the Friday
before?
JUDGE TINLEY: Isn't there a designation --
no, we haven't --
,--
25 that.
-19-G3
MS. SOVIL: We haven't -- we have not.
JUDGE TINLEY: We haven't done holidays?
MS. SOVIL: Not for that year, sir. That's
JUDGE TINLEY: Fiscal basis?
MS. SOVIL: Na, sir, that's in our new
budgets. The holidays are in your general provisions at the
back of your budget book.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, that's one thing I --
MS. UECKER: And Veteran's Day --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What did you say?
MS. UECKER: And Veteran's Day has always
been taken on the holiday itself, rather than the Monday.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I agree with
259
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
COMMISSIOIER NICHOLSON: So, we have will
have a Commissioners Cour.~t meeting --
MS. SOVIL: On the 10th.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So the motion is to
open those bids --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: State the dates
again, please? The term dates.
JUDGE TINLEY: Term dates, January 1, 2004,
through September 30, 2004.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Bid opening, 9 a.m. November
10, 2004 (sic). Is that where we are, gentlemen? Any
further questions or discussion? Alt in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The mot_on carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE T-NLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TIivLEY: Motion does carry.
MS. SOVIL: I'm sorry, what time?
JUDGE TIi'LEY: 9 a.m., we're going to have a
bid opening.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask a question
about this Tuesday thing. Thea, November 11th, 2004, is on
a --
MS. SOVIL: Three.
i-14-C3
260
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He said four.
JUDGE TINLEY: No, that's policy period.
(Discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, it's three on
November 10?
JUDGE TINLEY: For bid opening, yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. 2003.
JUDGE TINLEY: If I said 2004, I misspoke. I
should have said 2003.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's one of your
jobs. Throw something at. him when he does things like that.
MS. SOVIL: We're getting stir-crazy.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Next item, consider and
discuss authorizing RFP's for Kerr County employee benefits,
health insurance --
MS. SOVIL: Did y'all vote on that? You
didn't vote on it.
JUDGE TINLf;Y: Yeah, we just voted on it.
COMMISSIONI';R NICHOLSON: Yeah.
MS. SOVIL: I got the motion and second, but
no vote.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We voted, yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me defer to the reporter
here. Did we vote?
(Court reporter nodded.)
~-14-r.~_s
,,---
1
2
3
4
5
6

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
261
JUDGE TINLEY: It was unanimous, wasn't it?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm with Thea; I don't
remember.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't either.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: A little late.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I had your proxy.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, thank you.
JUDGE TINLE`~': RFP's for employee benefits,
health insurance. And, here again, we got the policy period
consideration, same -- same set of circumstances. We've got
all that data; just a matter of attaching it, and they're
going to want to ride it: just as long as they can. Just as
long as they can, won't they? To see what develops?
MR. TOMLIi4SON: Oh, yeah, that's the worst
part of it.
JUDGE T1i1LEY : Yeah .
MR. TOMLrNSON: They want to -- they want to
see what happens.
JUDGE TINLEY: But if we -- if we put a bid
opening time and date, S a.m. on November the 10th, if
they're going to be in '.he game, why, they got to be here by
then.
MS. SOVIL: 9:30?
MR. TOMLINSON: I haven't seen the proposal.
Are -- are we -- we goinq to ask for -- for two types of
-~4-03
262
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
bids for --
JUDGE TINLEY: Self-insured and
partially-insured -- and partially --
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Yeah, the option's
there.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are we getting to health
insurance? Are we going to have -- when we get into
language that I'm not real comfortable with understanding,
are we going to have any consultant, adviser, somebody help
us look at it? I mean, the forms you put together are real
simple, but somehow I don't think they're going to come back
quite in that form. And someone needs to be looking at the
details. That I'm not qualified to do, I don't think. And
I'm not sure we have anyone on the County staff that is an
insurance expert.
JUDGE TINLEY: Maybe you can do an RFP for
expert services, Commissioner Letz.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Possible.
JUDGE TINLEY: We'll let you work on that.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Maybe we can get a
retired insurance executive to do it pro bono.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. And I think we can
go ahead and continue on setting this time schedule, but I
7-19-03
263
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
think at some point, we need to bring someone on board who
can help us in this area.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I've got a concern
about this, that I don't really have any answers to. I know
you all have talked about it in the past. I'm concerned
about the cost of it, but I'm equally concerned about the
provisions of it. Is it the right price and have we got the
right stuff in there, the right coverage? And maybe the
indicators I'm looking ~t are not good indicators, but the
low level of participation tells me something's wrong. We
don't -- not enough employees involved in this, as you would
expect to see. It may lie the cost of it, maybe coverage is
not good enough, may be that they're not paid enough to be
able to afford it. Could be probably a half a dozen
factors, but is there sorle way to not only get some
competition going on price, but get some input or advice or
competition going on -- c>n coverage?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think one of the -- and
it kind of doesn't really answer that, but kind of is right
next to it. I think that one of the problems we have is
that we're a small pool, and we just get hammered from year
to year if we have a few major health problems. And I think
we really need to figure out a way to get included into a
larger pool, whether lt.'s using TAC or -- or, you know,
school district or other, you know, political entities in
i-19-03
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
264
the area or what. But it seems to me that it would be to
our benefit if we could be included in a larger pool.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think that's
important, and that's why we get -- we get hit so hard on
experience. But I think the Commissioner makes a good
point. Are the coverages we're offering, have offered, are
they what our people need and what they can afford? Because
if we don't have the participation, we're going on a
slippery slope down. We coo higher for fewer people.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. And I think the
other thing is that I have not seen a real -- or our current
coverage, to me, does not provide a lot of incentive for
preventive --
COMMISSIONF~R WILLIAMS: Medicine.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- medicine. I think
that's real important. I'd like to see more in that area.
MS. PIEPER: I can tell you, it's not what we
can afford at all.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Say that again?
MS. PIEPER: It's not what we can afford.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Too expensive.
JUDGE TIi~LEY: You're talking about the
spouseldependent coverage?
MS. PIEPER: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, I could have told you
-19-0~
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
265
that. That's the reason that you got -- you got
participation by the emp=_oyees, because it's provided, but
beyond that, I'd be surprised if we had more than 10 percent
of the -- of spouses or other dependents covered.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You got real dis -- you
got real dissatisfaction with the employee with the way the
insurance company trea+.s them and pays.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Are any of you here
-- I'm not sure this is good protocol, but I'll do it
anyhow. Any of you here, is the county insurance your
primary insurance?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It's not for me;
it's hard to for me to evaluate. Tell me how you feel about
the coverage.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: They don't pay on half
of what you try and get done. That's the whole thing.
They'll reject it for s~~mething.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Sheriff, do they not
pay because it's not covered, or because they're arbitrary?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, when you go to
have some normal -- and most of my employees -- one showed
me her deal this morning. She was ill, went to the doctor,
okay, ended up at t7ie E.R. They did lab work, and the
insurance didn't cover any of the lab work.
~-i~-03
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
266
MS. UECKER: Probably hadn't hit her
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It's not the deductible
part; she had met it before. They just excluded lab work.
Well, now she's having to go back and argue with them about
it. They've already turned it over, and it's that kind of
stuff that they're getting tired of.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I use our insurance
virtually none. You know, I use it maybe every -- every
other year for a physical, lab work that goes with it. And
I've had a headache every time on the lab part of it.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It's terrible.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Which is supposed to be
covered, but if the do~~tor doesn't go -- it's got to be some
sort of preventive annlaal -- you know.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, and you're
supposed to have the physical, but there's so little that
they allow on the physical part, 'cause I do have a yearly
physical. It does for cholesterol, you know, the stress
test, and it doesn't p~~y for half of what that physical is.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So --
MS. UECKER: I'd like to see more of the
wellness put into it. And my husband works for Avery's,
and, you know, our insurance does not even compare close to
what Avery's can offer. Of course, that's an independent
7-19-03
267
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
business, too, but they require their employees -- their
insurance requires the employees to get an annual physical,
and they pay for it. An~~ what it does, it eliminates these
huge, catastrophic -- you know, cancer and heart attack and
things like that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Diabetes.
MS. UECKER: They have very few large claims,
because they're caught in the annual physical. They're
required to get a -- an eye exam every year, but it's paid
for. Same way with the tooth exam on your teeth -- dental
exam; it's paid for. So many things are caught -- the
catastrophic things are caught like that, that it's -- you
know, it's paid over and over again for itself. The
wellness --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I wish we could
go a step further and get more in the preventive end of it,
to where we do --
MS. UECKER: That's what this is.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- take care of
part -- I mean, even a step further, and take care of part
of a health club thing, where you have to go and work out.
MS. UECKEF.: Yeah. I know -- I think
Williamson County has that.
SHERIFF HiERHOLZER: City of Kerrville has --
it's not Ultra Fit, but they have at the other one the same
7-19 03
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
268
thing. And I visited with them, and they visited with us,
and what they do is, this membership costs, like, you know,
$50 or $40, whatever it is, and the City of Kerrville, for
their guys -- and, you know, their fire department, all of
them do it. If the person attends it, the employee, so many
times a week, because it's a monthly amount, then the
City -- they can get reimk~ursed by the City for that monthly
premium. If they do not attend it that certain number of
times a week -- if they only go once or twice when the
City's requiring three or four times, then the City will not
reimburse them the monthly fees. So, it encourages them to
do it, you know, three or four times a week, and -- and stay
in physical fitness. And we're doing -- you know, we've
been encouraging our guys to try and be a member of that
forever.
MS. DECKER: I've had two people recently,
just in the last couple weeks, that joined Ultra Fit, and I
asked what the membership fee was, and they said -- they
both told me that they got= it for half price because they
were County employees.
SHERIFF HIE;RHOLZER: We've worked with them
and they've tried to help v.s on a lot of that. They're
doing all our new employees' physicals now, including
cardiac stress tests and everything. But Ultra Fit's tried.
I'm not saying other ones won't.
7-14-03
1
~, 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
,.,, 13
14
15
16
I7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
..--.
25
269
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: To get back to my
regular question, is the ;proposal to get bids for premium
costs for our current coverage, or are we considering
reexamining our current coverage?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you for asking
that question.
JUDGE TINLEY: Everything's on the table.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Reexamining, in my
opinion.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So we need to know
how to get some help doing that reexamination.
JUDGE TINLEY: Now, if -- as a matter of
information, apparently the City of Kerrville just revamped
their program. The City Msnager told me that prior to doing
so, they engaged the services of an insurance specialist/
consultant. I believe the figure he told me was it cost
them $30,000, but the savings that he obtained for them was
many, many times that, and in his opinion, the coverage was
better. So, that's another option that we could be looking
at. But I would imagine treat if you -- if you get an
insurance consultant, you };now, we probably need to hide
behind that, because we got= coverage coming up again
starting January 1, and tide's a-wasting. The other thing
is that I don't know what their feeling's going to be about
-14-03
270
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
shortening the policy period. I don't know that it will be
a great impediment, because customarily in the industry, I
don't think it's expecte~~ that you RFP those every year.
Isn't that correct, Tommy? For the -- for the health
coverage?
MR. TOMLIIISON: As a general rule, no. I
don't -- I don't think you do it every year. I -- you were
talking about a consultant. If the Court decides to have
someone look at our coverage in the health field, I would --
I would personally like t.o see us do that for -- for
everything; for our workE~rs comp, property, liability. I
think if we had -- if wF have -- if we think we're going to
have someone to revisit our -- our coverage for the health
insurance, I think it mi~~ht be worth our time to -- to have
someone do -- available ~~t the same time, since we're doing
it at the same time, to Have that person available for
our -- for other advice as well as health care.
COMMISSION?ER NICHOLSON: I'll tell you about
an experience I had a cot~.ple-three years ago. I do know a
little bit about employee health insurance, but not enough
to -- that I could advisF~ you. For example, I saw some
studies and had some studies done that showed the wellness
programs. Physicals didn't have an impact on medical costs,
so the expert told me. he said the physical examination
doesn't keep you from dying, just tells you when you're
i-1~-G3
271
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
going to die. That coulci be wrong, too. I don't know. At
the youth ranch -- Hill Country Youth Ranch, we got a local
insurance provider, a local executive who was a member of
our board, to look at our coverage and give us some good
employee coverage, and give us some good advice about how we
can stretch our dollars and provide better coverage, and --
and I think save money. So, that -- that's a possibility.
I don't know how -- how you go about getting services for --
from him or somebody like him. In an organization like the
youth ranch, it's easy; you just do it. But the government,
I don't know how you go about doing, it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I -- I don't -- the fact
that we're a government el7tity I don't think prevents us
from listening to anybody that we feel like has something
worthwhile to say.
COMMISSIONtR NICHOLSON: And the idea that a
300, 400, whatever it is, pool of employees, potentially,
quite a bit more than that., the idea that that's not an
attractive client of an insurance company -- no, we're not.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: They'll jump through
hoops to get that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, the other one was
talking about pooling up with someone else.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's better. Any
-19-G3
272
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
time you get bigger is better.
JUDGE TINL~EY: The bigger the pool -- the
bigger the pool, the more stable the risk. But some of
these -- I think, for Pxample, TAC, I think they let you in
even if you've got a horrendous experience rate. If you
want to go join up with four or five other counties or
municipalities or water districts or whatever they may be, I
think you can voluntarily pool those together. But I think
the key there is voluntary. And if -- if we got a
horrendous experience rating and we go over to the
tri-county insurance pool, say, as Bandera, Medina, Real,
and Edwards Counties, and say, "Let us in," they'll say,
"Thanks, but no thanks," you know, if our experience rating
is -- is that poor.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, I mean, the --
JUDGE TINLEY: But that just forecloses an
option. But getting back to what you were talking about,
the -- I think we need to rattle the bushes and see if we
can get somebody that has some knowledge about the industry.
The question I have -- what you're talking about, Tommy,
looking at the whole program, a lot of times people that are
specialists in the employee benefits health field, they
don't mess with liability and casualty, for example, and
vice-versa. Occasionally you'll find some -- because some
of the -- each of those areas has gotten so compound and so
-14-03
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
,^ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
23
24
25
273
complex that -- that they just don't really feel comfortable
getting into -- into both of those areas and -- and being an
expert, as it were, on both. So, you know, if we can find
one person, hopefully someone that's recently retired,
that's been through the entire game and is at the top of his
game, who'd be willing to step forward on -- be nice if it
were pro bono; beyond th~.t, a nominal basis, I'd say we'd be
real, real fortunate to take advantage of that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would prefer going
that route before we let this go, 'cause we're -- we're not
identifying in the detail I think necessary for these people
to give us a bid.
JUDGE TINLEY: On the health coverage?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, I was thinking
of health.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Well, there's a lot of
different options in there --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is there any --
JUDGE TINLEY: -- to plug in, and it's hard
to look at, say, apples to apples. Very seldom can you do
21 that.
22
COMMISSIONI~R NICHOLSON: Do we have enough
time to do both things? 'Co first try to get some advice
about what should be incllzded in the coverage and
alternative approaches, and then do the RFP approach?
~-14-03
274
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: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just got to extend
our current coverage.
MR. TOMLINSON: We could -- I mean, we could
ask TAC to help us. I maan, I know they're a bidder, but I
-- that is one of their services. And they --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's true.
MR. TOMLINSON: They have people that work in
each field, and they're, quote, experts in each -- each
field. I mean, I know that the last -- the last time that
we looked at health insurance, their -- TAC's person -- his
name is Norwood, I believe -- came down and visited with us.
And -- and what we did was based on what his recommendations
were after -- after we had a chance to look at it. And at
that -- at that time, what I'm remembering is that -- well,
his recommendations wera, because of our experience, was --
was to wait. I tell you, it was like two years until
some -- some of our bad experience rolled off before --
before we went into a pool. In other words, he -- they kind
of shied off themselves. I mean, they were -- they were
like the Judge just ex~.lained. They didn't -- you know,
they weren't real anxious for us to be a part of the pool.
But, you know, that may change. But I do think that they
would get us some -- some guidance.
MS. UECKER: What about NACo? Would they
-19-u3
275
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
I5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,--
25
have anything to offer?
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIOT-~ER
base reluctance to engage a
consult up front. I think
your best answers that way.
independent consultant.
BALDWIN: We're not members.
WILLIAMS: I personally have a
potential bidder to give us
that -- I don't think you get
I'd rather see us go to an
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, you know, TAC -- we are
basically self-insured with TAC, really. I mean, they --
they do sell part of their -- of their coverage --
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, they buy reinsurance.
MR. TOMLINSON: They buy reinsurance. But, I
mean, they are just our representative. And -- I mean, so I
don't know why they wouldn't give us a straight answer.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think you're right.
I don't know in what departments and how far in-depth that
they'll go.
MR. TOMLIN3ON: Well --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But I think you're
exactly right in your -- i.n all your comments. That's what
they do.
SHERIFF HIE~RHOLZER: We're members of them,
and that's what we're paying for.
COMMISSIC:vER BALDWIN: That's exactly right.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Might as well use it.
?-14-G3
276
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 TINLEY: Well, they have always been,
in my experience, limited though it may be, very, very
responsive to any request we've made for any kind of
assistance out of them. In the area of this worker's comp,
their rep was over here a few weeks ago. Their -- their
safety rep was over here a couple of weeks ago. You call
them, they come. They're --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand that.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- pretty responsive. Now,
you know, whether or nit, in addition to that, you want to
talk to somebody that is totally independent and doesn't
have even the potential of having a dog in the fight, you
know, that sure wouldn't hurt either. The difficulty we
have right now on that is identifying this individual and --
and getting him on board, or her, as the case may be. But
we can sure -- sure start with our TAC people, and if we`re
able to ascertain -- you know, this fellow that Commissioner
Nicholson mentioned, is he recently retired?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No, he's -- he's in
the investment banking business also, and he handles
insurance. So, he would meet that criteria that could be a
concern; he would tailor his advice to what he has to sell.
MS. DECKER: What type of --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: A lot of retirees, a
lot of talent in this town.
~-14-03
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
277
JUDGE TINLF~Y: Now that we need the media to
put the word out for us, I notice we've got a large raft of
them present. We need to construct a separate press
gallery, don't we, Commissioner Baldwin? They seem to be so
interested in the business we're conducting here.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner
Williams could tell you about that a lot.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They have to meet a
deadline, and have supper before they do it.
COMMISSION'~R NICHOLSON: Where do we want to
go with this?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree with Commissioner
Williams; I don't think we ought to go out with the RFP
right now.
JUDGE TINL~Y: On the health?
COMMISSION'.~R LETZ: On the health. I think
it's premature, and I thi~~k we need to put it back on the
agenda to figure out -- t:ry to figure out, you know, who to
hire.
COMMISSIONF~R WILLIAMS: I do too.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Nobody has anything
they want to offer in the way of a motion on that one?
Okay. Let's move on, gent=lemen. Consider and discuss
authorizing Request for Proposals for information technology
maintenance services, Fiscal Year 2003 and '04.
~-19-G3
278
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: This is basically the
same format as the plumbing, electrical, HVAC.
JUDGE TINLEY: Pretty close, yeah. Pretty
close to that. Some of the criteria are a little bit
different, but then we're asking for response time rates and
so forth. But, yeah, it's fairly similar.
COMMISSIOI`JER LETZ: Is there -- is there a --
I guess I don't see in hE:re kind of a -- a question fee. Or
I envision -- I've needed to call and get advice, and not
necessarily a repair job or something like that. I'm
thinking of a consultat;on, or a certain hour -- number of
hours a week or something? along that line. That if -- for
example, if Linda has a ~~roblem on her computer, she can
call up and give -- it will give her some advice on, you
know, something --
MS. UECKEF:: Yeah. Probably -- maybe a
hundred bucks an hour. A hundred bucks a phone call.
COMMISSIOI~~ER
that's why it needs to bF: -
COMM I S S I OPdER
would be useful, that type
MS. UECKER:
COMMISSIONER
different than that systEms
LETZ: Right. But, I mean,
- I mean, I think that --
WILLIAMS: I would think that
~f --
Yeah, it would be useful.
NICHOLSON: This is entirely
support services that I
mentioned earlier.
7-19-03
279
1
,_-. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
I5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
._..
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The computer
group -- whatever, Software Group.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. This is more --
MS. PIEPER: Is this more in line of
Shaun's --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, this is in line of
Shaun's.
MS. PIEPER: His job? Or --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLF;Y: This is in lieu of Shaun.
MS. UECKER: The only real concern I have --
and, you know, I understand where you're coming from about
the contract with a service company, but probably having
more sealed records than maybe anybody else here, I really
have a concern letting sealed records and court records out
to someone that I can't rE~commend to fire or get rid of or
whatever, because of them. And, I mean, right now there's
so many counties out there that are having problems; they're
finding their own records for sale out on the Internet.
Happened in Fort Bend County just recently. Fort Bend? No,
that's close to Houston. Anyway, there are several counties
out there that have really had some problems. And -- you
know, and I may be all wet. I don't know, but I can't -- I
really feel uncomfortable nutting my records into the hands
--l~-o~
280
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 someone that I don't kr:ow isn't going to sell them or
distribute the information or whatever.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The same concern
should register for the Srleriff as well.
SHERIFF HII~RHOLZER: And --
MS. DECKER: Absolutely.
SHERIFF HII;RHOLZER: -- it does, greatly,
because you talk about juvenile records and all that.
Personally, what I think riere, the County at one time had an
outside company doing a lot of our stuff, and it was a total
disaster.
MS. DECKER: That was mainly hardware.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, it was hardware,
coming out, fixing things, sending computers over to him to
get it fixed, but it was a total disaster. Personally, I
see this as -- as, one, being an employee evaluation
problem. If there's no employee evaluation process to take
care of an employee, that's not being beneficial and not
fulfilling the needs. Or else that part of the county is a
department that is too smell and needs more employees to
help take care of the needs of our computer services, the
way they are. I don't know that it's actually -- we want to
release this out or give this out to a -- to a company. I
think it needs to stay in-county, where we can call our own
employee; you're not having -- having to worry about going
r-19-03
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
281
out to other -- other places. But there's a problem.
COMMISSIONF~R WILLIAMS: I think you hit the
nail right on the head, Sheriff.
SHERIFF HII~RHOLZER: Hmm?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think you hit the
nail right on the head.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, and the
private sector -- I do acknowledge they're different in the
private sector than government. It's very common and
increasingly more common for companies to outsource this
kind of work, to get outside the company and find that they
can get it done better and cheaper. And the same kinds of
confidentiality issues exist there, more as -- Jonathan's
been there. If I'm doincJ your seismic data storage, I can
sell those seismic for a million dollars on the black
market. And there are ways to -- to avoid those -- avoid
those risks. I think same thing exists here. I -- I've had
experience with a local contractor who is -- is more
valuable than -- than an}~ of the big companies I know of,
solving my software and i~ardware problems on the computer,
and he can usually do it on the telephone in about five
minutes.
JUDGE TINLEY: The security issue, I think,
is which is more dangerous? Someone who has access to your
data while you're there or someone who has access to your
7-14-03
282
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
data when you're not there? Simple question. Obviously,
the latter.
MS. UECKER: Either way, I base my opinion on
the fact that there are criminal penalties for the release
of this information. And only to me, nobody else.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What's different
between having an employee that's on our payroll causing
that exposure or a contractor who's not on our payroll
causing that exposure? The result is going to be the same
either way.
MR. TOMLINSON: I think you have more control
over a person that you have under your employment.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Your security's going to
be a little bit more with your employment -- you know, the
person. One of the main things, what you're talking about,
a lot -- a lot of it, I don't think there would be a
difference in your answer, whether it's when you're there or
when you're not there, you know, depending on who it is. I
think if it's another County employee that intentionally
does it, that's hired by the County, then there are a lot
more recourse the County has with that one, but we'll get
into that a little bit different. What my concern is, like
Dave's saying, well, you can call a lot of these places and
they can get you fixed up over the phone. What we're
finding in this county -- and Tommy may or may not agree
~-19-03
283
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
with me -- I see it a whole lot in my office, is we're
operating off a lot of old equipment and a lot of equipment
that's not even used by people any more. The over-the-phone
doesn't work for us with all the different things that are
tied in. You're going to have to have somebody come out
tYiere acid actually physically work it. We're having a
serious problem with getting our current one out there to do
this. I don't know if it's time management. I got my
opinions.
MS. UECKER: He says he's always over at your
office.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right. I have a -- I
have a serious deal with the current employee. But I think
if you look at the number of computers and the number of
computer-related systems that this county has with the
number of employees -- you know, I've got fingerprint
equipment, I've got TLETS, I've got just -- you name it;
we've got it out there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We know. We paid for it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Huh? We didn't have to
pay for it.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's why nobody else has
anything, 'cause you got it all.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah, but most of my --
?-14-G3
284
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 my computer equipment is real outdated. And there's a
lot of -- like the virus protection system the County has
here doesn't work on ours out there because of the distance
between, so we're constantly fighting different viruses.
But I think you're looking at something that would be more
beneficial. If you can handle it over the phone, that'd be
great, but 90 percent of the Sheriff's Office problems
cannot be handled over the phone.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Rusty?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Have to have somebody
come out.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I was using the
over-the-phone as an example, just to say --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I understand.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This guy drives
25 miles out to my house and sits down, fixes the problem
for me.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But I don't know what
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: At a reasonable
rate.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't know what
Shaun's salary is; I don't care to know, but I know what the
company that -- before was getting for just coming out there
and picking up a computer was $75. And with the amount of
7-14-03
285
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
_.. 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
work we have to have done, you -- with what the County was
looking at paying that company, we could probably pay for
four or five Shauns.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We might get these
bids back in and they say no, we can't do this.
MS. UECKEF: Well, and the other concern I
have is, you know, we're all using Ableterm. And I don't
care which company we go with, whether it's Landata, whether
it's Ableterm, whether it's ImageTek, I don't care who.
They're all, you know, sEparate programs, and I think if you
contract that, Dave, I think that's going to have to be
someone that's really going to have to be familiar with
Ableterm. Because you got the court's package, the jury,
you've got the Sheriff's package, we've got the Tax
Assessor, two or three p~~ckages. You know, I've got four --
four right now.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is our present
employee familiar with t:zose programs?
MR. TOMLI:QSON: Yes, he is.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. The whole problem
right now is we cannot get: people to fix it when we need it
22 fixed.
23
24 to --
25
MR. TOMLITISON: That's something I'd like
(Discussion off the record.)
14-03
286
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. UECKER: It's not that he doesn't know;
he just won't do it.
JUDGE TINLEY: What difference does it make,
then?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's exactly it.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's my point.
MS. PIEPER: I feel very uncomfortable having
somebody having access to my office 24/7 when I'm not there.
That really bothers me.
MR. TOMLINSON: Jannett, I had -- I have -- I
had it when I was doing it. I had --
MS. UECKER: I don't have a problem with
that.
MR. TOMLINSON: I had a passkey for every
office in this building.
MS. PIEPER: But you're licensed and bonded.
MR. TOMLIN:~ON: He is too.
SHERIFF HIE;RHOLZER: I think the whole
difference is, I think thF~re's a certain employee in this
position right now that nobody -- at least I know nobody in
my area, and I think I may speak for --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Be careful we don't go
into a personnel issue.
SHERIFF HIF~RHOLZER: Right.
COMMISSIONF~R WILLIAMS: We're dangerously
-~4-03
287
1
2
3
4
5
6
_~
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
close.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I think you need to look
at personnel issues more than anything else, to put it
mildly.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think you have to
look at something else as well, because if you send this out
the way it is, you're asking for response times and rates
and so forth and so forth and so forth and so forth. At
some point in time, we're going to have to lay these rates
against experience. What have we done over the last two
years? How many calls? How many services? How much of
this and that and the othF~r thing? And we haven't done that
yet.
MS. PIEPER: I think one thing that would
help and that would ease r1y mind is when I put in the work
orders -- I'm not sure that's what they're called. If I'm
having a problem with a c~~mputer and I, you know, put -- I
fill out that form and go put on it his door, once he gets
that completed, if he will, you know, write on the bottom,
"I've completed this," an~~ give it back to me, then I think
that would help as well.
COMMISSIOt\?ER LETZ: That's --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: So, an employee issue.
MR. TOMLINSON: I'd like to -- judging on my
-- on my knowledge of what I've had to do in the past, we're
/-14-U3
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
288
going to spend tons more money on -- on this process than we
are right now. Just this month, Microsoft came out with an
update on their operating software. Shaun has 100 to 150
hours in installing or reinstalling that update. I did the
math on it; that's, like, $13,000 to $15,000 worth of time.
And what our problem is -~- I mean, 80 percent of our service
calls is directly related to internet.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: To what?
MR. TOMLINSON: To internet problems. The
State of Texas and LIRA, which is -- which is a Texas
Association of Counties -- it's called the County
Information Resources Agency.
MS. UECKER: Stan Reid's --
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah. They -- the State of
Texas Yeas a policy for the use of internet and -- and
personal computers, and it's -- I mean, it's very
restrictive. And I -- I think that if the County could
adopt a policy for the use of -- of computers, we would
cut -- I think we would cut our -- our need for hours of
service in half. I mean, you -- I'm not going to tell you
what I've seen on computers in this courthouse, but I
have -- I have pictures that I personally have taken off of
computers in this courthouse that I would not show in mixed
public.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, go get them.
-14-03
289
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
We're going to go in executive session.
MR. TOMLINSON: I mean -- so, I mean, they're
-- I mean, I've -- I have witnessed total abuse of the
internet.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree with that. And I
see no reason for employees to be using the internet, other
than data going from us to other state agencies, really.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
MR. TOMLINti~ON: If you give me a chance, I
would like to explain why I think that, is that in '96,
before the -- the Court decided to give everybody internet,
to use our -- our system, the tax system, the courts,
Sheriff's package, we didn't need a computer. Today we
don't need a computer. We can -- you know, we can access
our computer system with ~i $200 dumb terminal. In fact,
there's a piece of softwa;~e that goes on a computer -- Linda
talked about it a while ac~o -- called Ableterm. Ableterm
tells the computer that it:'s not a computer. In fact, our
system will not talk to a computer. It will only talk to it
unless it thinks it's not a computer. So, we have -- we
have a big system that everybody talks to to get their basic
information out of; the courts, financials, Sheriff's
Office. Okay, that -- th~~t communication goes to, I would
say, half of the computer:. The other half of the computer
use is for internet, Microsoft Office products, you know,
~ 14 03
290
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
those -- those kinds of -- of things that we use to run our
office. Those two pieces have nothing to do with the other.
All of our problems lie in the half that has to do with the
Internet, not -- not the side that goes to our -- to our
system.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The Software Group's
package, the whole county system that runs Sheriff's Office,
Linda's, mine, you know, his, everybody, what he's saying is
that system that the County has is not what we have the
problems with at all.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So you want us to
eliminate Internet access:'
MS. UECKER: No.
MR. TOMLINSON: No, I want to control it.
COMMISSIONF;R LETZ: I don't mean eliminate
it, but control it substantially.
MS. UECKER:. Yeah. And, just recently, I
have implemented a policy in my office, and I had a meeting
two weeks ago that you will communicate via the Internet
with other agencies and o1=fices as much as you can, because
it saves so much more timE~. I mean, if -- if one of my
staff ca11s out to the ShE~riff's Office, it ends up -- you
have to go through the, ":how are you's?" "What you doing?"
And it ends up being a 20-minute personal phone call. The
Internet, they can go on and say, you know, "What's this?"
7-19-03
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
291
You know, "Send it back to me when you can." It's much more
efficient, as far as I'm concerned, than making those --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: There's a lot of
personal business on it teat doesn't need to be.
MS. DECKER: That's why I'm saying control.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It needs to be
controlled. The County just needs to get good personnel in
that department, division, or whatever, and come up with
some good policies on the part of the computer usage; that
is the Microsoft Office, N~icrosoft Word. That -- because
that doesn't have anything to do with the County's computer
system.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If there`s going to be
Internet access to all thE~ computers, it`s the department
heads and elected officia~_s that are going to be
responsible. That's the only way it can be.
MS. DECKER: Right. And I'm taking that full
responsibility.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All the -- I mean, and I
don't know how -- and when we first hired a -- a computer
consultant, the issue was, oh, you don't want -- or no one
wanted him spying on what we were doing. The only way we're
going to be able to control it is --
MS. DECKER: He's going to have to at least
look and see where they're going on the Internet. And if
7-14-03
292
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
they're going -- there's going to have to be repercussions
to these employees.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's where we need the
person -- the employee with the County that's in charge of
the computer technology. For me to go in and find out who
might have -- I don't know how to do that. I don't try
and -- you know, how do you do that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No one wanted that to
happen.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The thing about the
County -- when he's coming out, fixing problems, he can give
me a deal saying, "This is coming off of this computer. You
got an employee that's doing something they shouldn't be
doing." Then I'll take action immediately. That's what's
we need.
MR. TOMLINSON: The reason -- when we hired
the current person, we interviewed, like, 20 people for --
18, 20 people for that job. That person was the only one
that knew anything about the Unix operating system. Unix --
Unix operatinq system is an IBM product. That operating
system is what drives our software. In order -- in order to
successfully install a computer in any -- in any location,
you have to know something about Unix operating system. I
mean, and one -- one person out of -- out of 18 to 20 knew
anything about that operating system.
L^-03
293
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 NICHOLSON: Are you saying Unix,
U-n-i-x?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. It's an IBM product
that -- that drives our software.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's the operating
system?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah, it's the guts of our
system.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Moving along, it seems
that we are not going to go out for RFP's on this item at
this time.
JUDGE TINLEY: Are you convinced of that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm convinced.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We're not doing it
today.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Not today.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not that we're not doing
it, but not today.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: But this has been
worthwhile.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Enlightening.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Only thing I want to
say about it is, I'm not -- I'm not sure that this body
needs to make some kind of policy. We can, but it's --
~-14-03
294
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
there's not anything wrong with it, but I'm with Jon about
it, that the department head/elected official needs to
handle those things in their own office.
MS. UECKER: I'd like -- you know, if -- I'd
like for the computer person to let me know, you know,
what's going on so I can take that action. The other thing
is -- and I ask Tommy about it every year. Is there a way
that Ableterm can use Word -- is that right? Windows?
Windows.
MR. TOMLINSON: Ableterm --
MS. UECKER: But it's going to cost the
12 ~ County.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. TOMLINSON: -- can use Word if everybody
uses it. That's the key.
MS. UECKER: I've been saying, okay, I'm
everybody, you're everybody, you're everybody.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We've all said yes; it
just hasn't been budgeted yet.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me ask Tommy one
question. Tommy, do we have DSL throughout the entire
system? Sheriff, courthouse, everywhere, all the computers?
MR. TOMLINSON: For the most part.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is there any way of
metering the utilization by computer on DSL?
MR. TOMLINSON: I don't know. I think the
~-i~-os
295
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
phone company probably could -- could do that for us. I
said I think the phone company -- there might be a way for
them to do that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That might be
something we need to do.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Only other thing we've
done with some of our computers, especially in the jail area
and that, is we took off Internet Explorer. You take that
program off, it doesn't matter if you have DSL or not; they
can't get out --
MS. UECKER: Somebody that knows how can go
back up. I think the biggest problem we've had is in the --
the Law Library, there's been some kids up there that have
been pulling up stuff.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We've wrung out Item
27, looks like.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: For now.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, for the immediate time
being. Let's move on to Item Number 28, consider and
discuss burn ban status for Kerr County.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I recommend no action at
this time.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Ten-four.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just about hit the
bottom of the pile.
-1~-C3
296
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 TINLEY: Boy, that was significant,
wasn't it? Anybody have anything further on 28? Next item,
consider and discuss approval of the inclusion of CRNA
services as an optional service under the Indigent Health
Care Program, and authorize County Judge to request approval
of such inclusion by Texas Department of Health. Let me go
straight to the bottom line, gentlemen. Under our Indigent
Health Care Program right now, we have not included a nurse
anesthetist as an optional service, so anytime there's any
sort of surgical procedure where anesthesia is required, a
physician anesthetist is used in our Indigent Health Care
Program. If we adopt if CRNA services as an optional
service and report it as such t~ the Texas Department of
Health, we can use nurse anesthetists where cheaper than
physician anesthetists.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That cut to the
bottom line, too. Judge, I move that we approve the
inclusion of CRNA services as an optional service under the
Indigent Health Care Program and authorize the County Judge
to sign the same.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Any
further discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:	Yes,	sir.	Is this --
is this recognized by the State as a	-- is	this	nurse
-~4-03
297
1
-- 2
3
4
5
E
8
9
10
li
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
position on the state list there? I mean, are they eligible
for reimbursement?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Yeah, but only if the
Commissioners Court in the county approves it as an optional
service and requests the approval of that inclusion by the
Texas Department of Health.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All right. Now, who`s
next in line to get in on the deal? If we approve this one,
who's the next?
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't have a clue. I just
know we save money by using the nurse anesthetist, rather
than -- if we don't approve it as optional service, they`ll
use a physician anesthesiologist, and we'll get to pay
whatever the allowable rate is for him, which is --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Substantially more.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm not convinced that
it's reimbursable. Are you going by this list in this
letter from Mr. Massey?
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm going by some discussion
that I had with -- what's Judy's last name?
MS. SOVIL: I don't know.
JUDGE TINLEY: Who is our Indigent Health
Care qualifying representative at Sid Peterson Hospital?
MR. TOMLINSON: Bledsoe.
JUDGE TINLEY: Bledsoe, yeah.
-14-~3
298
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
MR. TOMLINSON: I thought -- I thought there
was a master list of procedures that -- that the State would
reimburse you for if you ever went over the limit. And I
always was of the impression that -- that optional services
weren't included in that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, here's the problem. If
-- if you have someone that qualifies under the Indigent
Health Care -- this is reported to me by Ms. Bledsoe, and
there's a procedure which involves the administration of
anesthesia. If they're qualified under the Indigent Health
Care Program, we're on the hook for it. Now, if we don't
adopt the CRNA as an optional service, where it can be
performed by a nurse anesthetist, then -- and it has been
heretofore performed by a physician anesthesiologist. And
the rate is higher for the physician than it is for the
nurse anesthetist, and so they -- they will not use a nurse
anesthetist on those patients because they can't get paid
for it. And so they've used the physician, and we're paying
the higher rate. That's the bottom line.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, they are on the
list? The nurse is on the list for reimbursement?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, you use the term
"reimbursement." I'm talking about what we pay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, they're saying,
though, if we go over the 6 percent or whatever it is, will
~-14-03
299
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 State reimburse us if we're not using a doctor?
JUDGE TINLEY: That's -- I didn't get into
the excess, over 8 percent issue. Right now what's
happening is, if there's anesthesia administration required,
because -- because we haven't adopted as an optional
service, and therefore it's not a qualified expenditure
under our Indigent Health Care Program, they're using a
physician anesthesiologist, and we pay for that. If we
adopt it as an optional service and certify it as such, and
request the inclusion with Texas Department of Health, they
can then use, instead of the physician anesthesiologist, the
nurse anesthetist. And we'll pay the nurse anesthetist, but
it will be a lesser sum than the physician. We're going to
pay either way. We just pay less with the nurse
anesthetist.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Who makes the -- who
makes the call at the hospital as to whether we have a --
the doctor or a nurse anesthetist? Somebody has to make
that judgment call.
JUDGE TINLEY: Right now, if it`s an Indigent
Health Care, the nurse anesthetist won't show up, 'cause
they can't get paid.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, I understand
that, Judge. I'm just talking about in terms of the
procedure, the severity of what's taking place in the O.R.
-i4-~~
300
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
or whatever.
JUDGE TINLEY: Treating physician obviously
would make that --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the question.
Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. And in most cases, you
can use a nurse anesthetist.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Say it three times fast.
Isn't there a motion?
MS. PIEPER: You have a motion and second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is there a motion and a
second? Any further discussion? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Okay. We're
next going to consider items that we very seldom hear about,
budget matters.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There's only 10.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is that all?
MR. TOMLINSON: No, there's not. There's 12.
(Laughter.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Turn that air down.
-14-03
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
I7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
301
MS. SOVIL: Buster, our record is 32.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Pardon? Pardon?
MS. SOVIL: Our record is 32.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Nevermind, it just
went off.
JUDGE TINLEY: A few carryover items; we may
make that here pretty quick.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: While he's getting those
out, in case you didn't get the message from the attorney
for Frigerio, Judge, on the final lawsuit that was
pending --
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Did you get a 12? I didn't
get an 11.
copy.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I got a 12 and 11.
JUDGE TINLEY: No moving on 11 till I get a
MR. TOMLINSON: Here, I've got it.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right. You got two of
them? Well, no, you got one. Okay.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Judge, the final
lawsuit, at least the Sheriff's Office had pending, it's a
1999 lawsuit, I think. The one -- you may know the one;
original figures asked were, like, $5 million over an
investigation indictment. I got a call last Friday --
7-14-U3
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
302
Thursday from Mr. Frigerio. That lawsuit -- and the
training issue was a big issue in that thing -- has also
been thrown out. There was a summary judgment issued by a
federal judge last week.
JUDGE TINLEY: Summary judgement, federal
court?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: So they can appeal it,
but that's still -- should have taken care of that. And
that was the final one we had.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Budget Amendment
Request Number 1.
MR. TOMLINSON: From the County Treasurer, to
transfer $33 from Office Supplies to Postage.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to
approve Budget Amendment Request Number 1. Any discussion?
All in favor, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Budget
Amendment Request Number 2.
MR. TOMLINSON: This is for Nondepartmental
and Commissioners Court, to transfer $1,603 from Capital
7- i 4- 0 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
303
Outlay in Nondepartmental to Commissioners Court Capital
Outlay for the replacement of a computer.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is this to replace the
one that Thea broke?
MR. TOMLINSON: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded,
Budget Amendment Request Number 2 be approved. Any further
discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Question.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What are we doing with
$4,000 left in our Capital Outlay?
MR. TOMLINSON: That -- that Capital Outlay
line item is -- oh, for -- for 409, for Nondepartmental?
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
MR. TOMLINSON: Be for Nondepartmental.
MS. SOVIL: We didn't have any in ours,
Buster.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, I see. So, it's
going dawn this time.
JUDGE TINLEY: Nondepartmental to
Commissioners Court Capital Outlay.
?-.4-03
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
304
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Usually you have them
moving up. Sorry, you're right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further discussion or
questions? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Budget
MR. TOMLINSON: This is for County Court at
Law, 198th District Court, and the 216th District Court.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This one's large.
MR. TOMLINSON: Request is to transfer
$1,122.81 from Court-Appointed Attorney line item in the
198th Court, $41 from Court-Appointed Attorneys line item in
the 216th Court. $332.81 goes to Court-Appointed Attorney
line item in County Court at Law, $41 in the Books,
Publications, and Dues in the 216th Court. $25 goes to
Books, Publications, and Dues in the 198th Court. $665
transfers to Court-Appointed Services in the 216th -- 198th
Court, and $100 into Special Court Reporter for 198th Court.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that
7- 1 4- G 3
305
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
Budget Amendment Request Number 3 be approved. Any
discussion or questions? All in favor of the motion,
signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Budget
Amendment Request Number 4.
MR. TOMLINSON: This is for the Sheriff's
office, to transfer $1,059.57 from Software Maintenance, and
$925.75 to Investigation Expenses and $133.82 to Radio
Repairs. I have a late bill attached to this to H.E.B.
Grocery for $229.89.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Doughnuts?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I was hungry. It's film
development for photos.
MR. TOMLINSON: H.E.B. does charges late
charges if we don't get bills paid.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What was the H.E.B.
number?
JUDGE TINLEY: $229.89.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that
7 14 03
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
306
Budget Amendment Request Number 4 be approved. Any
questions or comments? All in favor of the motion, signify
by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Auditor, let me ask you,
should that motion have included a hand check to H.E.B.?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's back up on that one.
Did, in fact, the motion that you made include the hand
check? Wasn't it you, Commissioner Nicholson?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, it did.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a question,
Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The $1,059.57 does
not include $229.89, so that number has to change, right?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, it does; it includes it.
It's for Investigation Expenses.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, no, I'm talking
about the total, $1,059. That's coming out of Software
Maintenance to cover the first two items. It does not
include the $229 for H.E.B.
MR. TOMLINSON: Well --
7-14-03
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
307
JUDGE TINLEY: It's in the $925.75.
MR. TOMLINSON: It's in the $925.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, got you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Budget Amendment
Request Number 5.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. This is for Judge
O'Dell, J.P. 3. Her request is to transfer $400 from
Part-Time Salaries to Office Supplies.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's an awful lot of
office supplies. Truck load of pencils.
MR. TOMLINSON: I do have a bill for $256.40.
JUDGE TINLEY: Who's it to?
MR. TOMLINSON: Bear Graphics.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and
seconded that Budget Amendment Request Number 5 be approved,
and authorize hand check to Bear Graphics for $256.40. Any
further questions or discussion? All in favor, signify by
raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
~-14-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
308
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Budget
Amendment Request Number 6.
MR. TOMLINSON: This request is from Glenn
Holekamp for the Ag Barn, to transfer $2,508.78 from Major
Repairs to Equipment Repairs.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's he fixing?
MR. TOMLINSON: Hmm?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What is he fixing?
MR. TOMLINSON: He fixed a vehicle. It went
to Krauss Garage. There's three invoices; one for $508.79,
one for $1,200, one for $800.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Three different vehicles?
MR. TOMLINSON: This invoice does not have
the vehicle ID's on them, so I -- I don't -- I don't know
for sure which one it is -- which one it was.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just seems like that's a
lot of repairs for one time at the Ag Barn. There's not
that many vehicles.
MR. TOMLINSON: There are three different
dates; one is June 1, June 17, and June 30th. But I don't
-- I don't have the individual tickets for those, so I don't
know. We haven't paid the bill, so -- I mean, that's the
reason I have it here, is they don't have the money.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I get the impression
that the Major Repairs category is sort of a fund to --
~-i4-G3
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
309
funded within --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's a fund that's been
in there -- it's been a point of contention while it's in
there. It's been used recently if something major happens
that has to be fixed, not something that needs to be fixed.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Sort of an emergency
fund, not a planned spending fund. I move we approve.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that
Budget Amendment Request Number 6 be approved. Any further
questions or discussion? All in favor of the motion,
signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
Number 7.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Budget Amendment Request
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. This request -- this
request is to transfer $12,136.02 from Nondepartmental
Contingency to County-Sponsored department for the Kerr
County Appraisal District contract payment.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What happened? We
didn't budget enough --
MR. TOMLINSON: Didn't budget enough.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- at the beginning
-'4-U3
310
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 the year?
MR. TOMLINSON: We have one quarter payment
to make for $27,320.84, and we have $15,184.82 balance in
that -- in that line item.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tommy, the budget
balance for the contingency, is that after this number comes
out, or is that before this number comes out?
MR. TOMLINSON: That -- what it is, the
$12,161.42 is what it is before it comes out.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, there's 30 bucks
left in the contingency line?
MR. TOMLINSON: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's a good piece of
information.
JUDGE TINLEY: $25.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: $25.
JUDGE TINLEY: When is the KCAD -- KCAD
budget was known in advance of the adoption of this
current-year budget, wasn't it?
MR. TOMLINSON: I'm sure it was.
JUDGE TINLEY: So our obligation -- it was a
fixed obligation, wasn't it?
MR. TOMLINSON: It's no different than -- you
know, than it is this year.
JUDGE TINLEY: I guess the only -- only
7-14-03
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
311
response to it is that we just missed it.
MR. TOMLINSON: That's right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It happens.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Obviously, it did.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that
Budget Amendment Request Number 7 be approved. Any further
questions or discussion? All in favor, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Budget
Amendment Request Number 8.
23
,~ 2 4
25
7-14-03
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Notary?
MR. TOMLINSON: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
MR. TOMLINSON: This is from Justice of the
Peace, Precinct 2. Her request is to transfer $26.78 from
Miscellaneous, $186.78 from Lease Copier, $115.06 goes to
Conferences, $98.50 goes to Bonds. And I have a late bill
attached that I need a hand check for to First Insurance
Agency for $71 for renewal of a notary bond.
312
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
,,,,,, 2 4
25
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that
Budget Amendment Request Number 8 be approved, and authorize
issuance of a hand check for $71 to First Insurance Agency.
Any further questions or discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, we can see here
that her Conference line should be at least $1,115 now in
the next budget year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's -- nevermind, I
won't even comment.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just making a point,
that it's going over what it was budgeted last year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's a lot budgeted, I
think.
JUDGE TINLEY:
comments, or discussion? All
signify by raising your right
(The motion ca
JUDGE TINLEY:
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY:
Amendment Request Number 9.
Any further questions,
in favor of the motion,
hand.
rried by unanimous vote.)
All opposed, same sign.
Motion does carry. Budget
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 9 is for the District
Clerk. Her request is to transfer $552 from her Lease
Copier line item, $6,885 from Deputy Salary line item, the
-14-03
313
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
$6,885 transfer to Part-Time Salary and $552 transfer to
Software Maintenance.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there a deputy clerk
out for an extended period of time?
JUDGE TINLEY: It's a slot that's not filled.
MR. TOMLINSON: She has a place that's not
filled that she uses part-time.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that
Budget Amendment Request Number 9 be approved. Any
questions or discussion? All in favor of the motion,
signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
MS. ALFORD: Judge, who seconded the -- who
made the second on that motion?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I seconded it.
Jonathan made the motion.
MS. ALFORD: Okay. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm getting weak
over here; can't hear me.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Okay, are we through
there? Budget Amendment Request Number 10.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. Number 10 is for
County Court at Law. Judge Brown requests a transfer of
~-i~-c3
314
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
$155 from Telephone line item to his Insurance line item.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So moved.
MR. TOMLINSON: I do have a late bill that I
need a hand check for to First Insurance Agency for $177.50.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve it
and approve the hand check.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that
Budget Amendment Request Number 10 be approved and authorize
issuance of a hand check to First Insurance for $177.50.
Any further discussion or questions? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Budget
Amendment Request Number 11.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This is going to be a
good one.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. This is a one-sided
budget amendment, but I have an invoice from Voelkel
Engineering for $5,877.50, and it's for the surveying for
the right-of-way for Hermann Sons Bridge.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tommy, would you read
that handwritten note on there, please, into the record?
~-14-G3
315
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: This is -- I'll say this
is a -- the budget amendment is per my request. Last
year --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I can't wait to hear
this.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Last year we were in the
middle of the k~udget process when the flood came and took
out the temporary bridge at Hermann Sons, and it was
discussed, as I recall, that -- not to make any adjustments
to the budget, because we didn't know what we were going to
be faced with. Last year's -- in last year's budget, we had
money set aside for the right-of-way, but did not put any
money back into it, because we were not sure of what
TexDOT's position was going to be. Now we are aware of what
TexDOT's position is, and not only do we have this facing
us, we also have probably a similar bill coming from the
appraiser who appraised the property, and we have about --
in the neighborhood of $30,000 of right-of-way acquisition
costs facing us, and they will probably be in this budget
year. These funds -- they're not budgeted, so we're going
to have to -- and I don't think there's any funds anywhere
in the budget where we could find the amount we're talking
about.
MR. TOMLINSON: No, sir. I visited with
Leonard about it, and he just thinks that that's a little
~-~i4-03
316
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
z2
23
a,.., 2 4
25
much for him to find a place.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, yeah. The -- the
funds originally, I believe, came out of special -- out of
the reserves in Special Projects, is where the money was
budgeted two years ago, and I would recommend that we
declare an emergency and go into that fund, the reserves in
Special Projects. I believe it's a separate fund for that.
(Mr. Tomlinson shook his head.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I didn't think so either.
Truby swore there was.
MR. TOMLINSON: No, there's not.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The other option would be
Flood Control. I mean, I don't know which fund we want to
go into, but it takes an emergency, I think, to go into --
to get these funds, and it will be --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's back up here.
What do you mean, there's not a fund for special projects?
MR. TOMLINSON: The Court voted to
consolidate those Road and Bridge funds about a year and a
half ago.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And there's a license
plate fee, $10 license plate fee, that was designed to go
into a special -- what did we do with it? Where does it go
into?
MR. TOMLINSON: We -- all the road -- all the
?-14-03
317
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
Road and Bridge funds, except for the Schreiner Road Trust,
was consolidated into one operating fund for Road and
Bridge.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But we need to -- I will
make a motion that we declare an emergency and take these
funds out ~f that Road and Bridge fund.
MS. SOVIL: Flood Control? There's money in
Flood Control.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can do it either way.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is there money in Flood
Control? I thought --
MS. SOVIL: In reserves.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: In the reserves.
JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah, there is.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I don't know which is
better. I mean, you know --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: More accurate to come
out of Flood Control.
JUDGE TINLEY: I would think so.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, take it out of
Flood Control.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I agree with the
Flood Control, but you were fixing to say out of the --
what?
~-14-~3
318
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: I was going to say, if not Flood
Control, the Road and Bridge reserve fund.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So there is a Road and
Bridge reserve fund.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's a fund.
MR. TOMLINSON: There's a fund, but it's --
all the funds are consolidated. You're thinking about 8 or
10 years ago, when we first started talking about the High
Water Bridge project.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
MR. TOMLINSON: We established a fund at that
time, because we thought the -- you know, the Court thought
that we -- that the County would be obligated for half a
million dollars for -- for the High Water Bridge project for
the County's portion.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm.
MR. TOMLINSON: So we started setting aside
funds for that purpose out of -- out of that $10 fee. Then
it came about that we didn't need the money; that all we
were going to have to do is purchase the right-of-way, so we
consolidated those funds back into the regular Road and
Bridge operating account.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, like I say, there
are -- there's another bill which will be coming soon from
7-14-03
319
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 appraiser, and then the right-of-way acquisition costs
also, but most of that's going to hit this budget year.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Did you make the
motion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I made that motion to
take this out of Flood Control.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This next bill,
we'll probably do the same thing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions or
discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I made the second.
JUDGE TINLEY: All in favor of the motion,
signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Number 12.
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 12 is for the 198th
District Court. This was a last-minute bill that we -- that
we -- that came in for 6 -- I need to transfer $630 from
Court-Appointed Attorneys out of the 198th District Court
into Court-Appointed Services.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
JUDGE TINLEY: Hand check?
-i4-03
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
--- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
,., 2 4
25
320
MR. TOMLINSON: No.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that
Budget Amendment Request Number 12 be approved. Any further
questions or discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Court-Appointed
Services? Psychiatric evaluations and those kinds of
things?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, it's for evaluation.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All in favor of the motion,
signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Okay,
we've handled all of the late bills and the budget
amendments? Or --
MR. TOMLINSON: I have two more.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: I have a request for
reimbursement from Commissioner Precinct 2 for his travels
to AACOG, and there's no funds left in -- in Commissioners
Court budget for conferences, so I'm asking for guidance.
?-14-03
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
~.. 2 4
25
321
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How much is it?
MR. TOMLINSON: It's $91.76.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, he spills that
much on Saturday night.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I thought it was going to
be $25; I knew where $25 was.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We can take up a
collection.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, Pass the hat.
JUDGE TINLEY: Want to get the audience
included in this?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, big time.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Where can we find
the funds to pay that?
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, there's $5,600 in
Professional Services in the Commissioners Court budget, but
I don't know what's out there that would be paid out of
that, that would be coming in, so I wouldn't know how to
advise on that one.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think we have
anything.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I wouldn't --
now that we've stumbled through the Ag Barn thing today, I
don't think there's anything out there coming in, unless
there's a -- some of Mr. Pollard's lawsuit stuff still
r-14-03
322
1 needing --
2
3 talking about.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
~., 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
MS. SOVIL: Insurance adviser, you were
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We're not going to
stop doing anything less than that for less than $100 travel
expenses. I'd suggest we take it out of that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And when we're
building the budget, I really think that -- that our -- our
travel line that we have in -- or our Conference line that
we take -- that he takes his COG travel out of, I think --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's where it's
coming now.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Needs to be
separated out, in my opinion. I think our Conference lines
are for those issues that the State requires us to do, and
that's going to conferences and getting those hours. And
his COG travel, it needs to be separated out.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think that's what he's
proposed, out-of-county travel line.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I put in one to that
23 I effect.
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, then. Fine.
I'm just trying to be helpful here.
7-14-03
323
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 TINLEY: We're a little ahead of that
curve.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm on a short fuse
this afternoon. Happy hour.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good idea.
MR. TOMLINSON: I have one more late bill.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That wasn't approved,
was it?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, let's get this nailed
down.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I move that we take
it out of the Professional Services line.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Why are you watching
that so close?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I got to pay my gas
bill.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that
the Budget Amendment Request Number 12 -- or, no, that's the
late bill to reimburse Commissioner Precinct 2 for AACOG
travel, in the sum of $91 and 70 --
MS. PIEPER: Six.
MR. TOMLINSON: 76 cents.
JUDGE TINLEY: 76 cents. All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
-i~-o~
324
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 TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. You got
another late bill?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. I have one payable to
the Department of Information Resources for $195.74. This
is a state agency for -- it's called the Tex-An III services
that the Sheriff's Department uses for -- for your CJIS
communications.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tex-An's an old state
telephone system.
MR. TOMLINSON: That's it.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's right. That's
the phone line.
MR. TOMLINSON: That's it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What do you do with
it?
MR. TOMLINSON: They --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Several different parts
that use that. The CJIS system, the Criminal Justice
information reporting, part of that fingerprint stuff, but
where it gets reported directly from the County, okay, to
even all the clerk's offices and all of us using it. That's
how it goes into their --
-i4-03
325
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
IO
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. TOMLINSON: Since we -- since we're
reporting to a state agency, we're going through their
telephone system.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see.
MR. TOMLINSON: So we're paying for access to
Tex-An, is what we're doing.
JUDGE TINLEY: Kind of like your -- kind of
like your cell phone line; you pay it whether you're calling
or receiving.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You got it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you -- how much was
it?
JUDGE TINLEY: $195.74.
MR. TOMLINSON: $195.74.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And where's the money
come from?
MR. TOMLINSON: We have -- out of his
Telephone line item. We have the money. We just --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, it's a late bill,
sorry.
MR. TOMLINSON: We need to pay it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Forgive me, I'm sorry.
Second.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I did it after the
second.
7-19-03
326
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
JUDGE TINLEY: Old, weak guy over here.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: First motion I've seen
him make after a second. That's good.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're getting giddy.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that
late bill to Department of Information Resources for $195.74
be approved. All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.}
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Any more late bills?
MR. TOMLINSON: That's it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's talk about the
minutes, then.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: I have before me the minutes
of the transcript of the regular Commissioners Court meeting
of Monday, June 9, 2003, verbatim transcript of the Kerr
County Commissioners Curt workshop, Monday, June 16, 2003,
dealing with O.S.S.F. Committee Status Report and
Subdivision Rules Update, and transcript of special
Commissioners Court meeting, Monday, June 23, 2003. Do I
hear a motion that the minutes are approved?
-19-C3
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
327
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
MS. SOVIL: You already have a motion.
Williams and Nicholson.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and
seconded for approval of the designated transcripts. All in
favor, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Reports. I have presented to
me the following reports: Justice of the Peace Precinct 4,
County Clerk, Sheriff, Justice of the Peace Precinct 3,
Justice of the Peace Precinct 2, and Justice of the Peace
Precinct 1. Do I hear a motion that these reports be
approved as presented?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Motion to approve as
presented.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Don't we accept them?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, we accept them.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Approve or --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Accept.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: I've got them. I've accepted
them. I got them in my hot little hand. Do you want to
?-14-~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
328
accept them?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I've already looked at
them.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Tt will be approved and
accepted, accepted and approved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Fine. Either way, as
long as there's an "accepted" in there.
JUDGE TINLEY: All those in favor, signify by
raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Do we have
any reports from any of the Commissioners?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have an hour of
reports, Judge, on my trip to Pittsburgh for AACOG, but I`m
going to defer it to another day. (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're right.
JUDGE TINLEY: I was hoping you would give us
the report while the matters were fresh on your mind.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'll stick around
and listen to it, Bill, after the meeting.
7-14-G3
329
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 TINLEY: Do we have any reports from
elected officials or department heads? Any reports from
boards, commissions, committees, Road and Bridge, or
Maintenance? Being no other reports, I'll declare the
meeting adjourned.
(Commissioners Court adjourned at 5:56 p.m.)
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF KERR I
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 25th day of July, 2003.
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
BY: `
Kathy Ba ik, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
-1~-u~
Order No. 28147
KERR COUNTY PARKS LONG RANGE PLAN
On this the 14th day of July, 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Williams and
seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a vote 4-0-0
to approve the Kerr County Parks Long Range Plan as amended to include Ingram Lake
Park.
Order No. 28148
APPROVAL KERR COUNTY ANIMAL CONTROL RULES
AND FEES AND SET PUBLIC HEARING
On this the 14th day of July, 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Nicholson and
seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously approved by a vote 4-0-0 to
set a public hearing on August 11, 2003 at 10 A.M. being for the purpose of
consideration of the changing of the rabies vaccination schedule from one year to three
years, and adopting a new animal fee schedule for Kerr County.
Order No. 28149
APPROVED THE FARMER'S MARKET FOR THE FIRST, THIRD AND FIFTH
SATURDAYS OF EACH MONTH
On this the 14th day of July, 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Baldwin,
seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously approved by a vote 4-0-
0 for approval for the Farmer's Market at the Courthouse Square on the first, third and
fifth Saturdays of each month for the remainder of the 2003 growing season.
Order No. 28150
APPROVAL OF FOUR MERIT INCREASES FOR THE KERR COUNTY
ROAD AND BRIDGE DEPARTMENT
On this the 14th day of July, 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Nicholson and
seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously approved by a vote 4-0-0
to approve merit increases for Douglas Koennecke, Deter Guerin, Steve Kraft and Truby
Hardin effective June 16, 2003 in the Road and Bridge Department.
Order No. 28151
APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR
THE HORIZON, SECTION 2 SUBDIVISION
On this the 14th day of July, 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Baldwin and
seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Court unanimously approved by a vote 4-0-
0 to approve the preliminary plat for The Horizon, Section 2 subdivision.
Order No. 28152
APPROVAL OF PETITION AND SET A PUBLIC HEARING FOR
THE CREATION OF EMERGENCY SERVICE DISTRICT IN THE
MOUNTAIN HOME AREA
On this the 14th day of July, 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Nicholson and
seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a vote 4-0-0
to accept the petition as presented and set a public hearing for August 25, 2003 at 10:00
A.M. for the Creation of an Emergency Service District in Mountain Home area.
Order No. 28153
APPROVAL OF ROAD NAME CHANGES FOR
PRIVATELY MAINTAINED ROADS
IN KERB COUNTY
On this the 14th day of July, 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Letz and
seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Court unanimously approved by a vote 4-0-
0 of the road name changes for privately maintained roads in various location in Kerr
County in accordance with 9-1-1 Guidelines. The following road names changes:
Existing Road Name Name Change
3067	Legacy Ln N
1087	Madrone Rdg E
1123	Fleming Dr E
1608	Nuernberge Ln N
3055	Mica Ln N
3062	La Reata Rd S
3073	Lorna Cove N
3070	Hidden Pond Rd N
2921	Stapp Ln N
1386	Ray Dr. N
2202	Jazz Ln W
3078	Chiquito Ln W
1671	Anrod Rd NW
3033	Dee Trl W
3077	Merrill Ln W
2011	Bunny Ln Sw
3080	Louis Real Rd S
2196	Pfiester Ln W
1942	Max Rd S
2933	Eickenroht Rd W
3076	Road Less Traveled Ln W
2452	Parker Rd NW
S Mill	Wild Turkey Rd NW
3074	Plummer Ranch Rd W
3081	McCraw Rd S
3063	Hawks Nest Dr S
3045	Lost Dog Bluff S
Existing Road Name
Shady Crcek Trl SW
Allisa Rd W
3083
2045
Name Change
Neuhaus Rd SW
Scenic Ridge W
Los Sobrinos Rd S
Enlightening Rd SW
Order No. 28154
APPROVAL OF CONTRACT AWARD UNDER
THE TEXAS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BETWEEN
KERR COUNTY AND THE OFFICE OF RURAL COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
On this the 14th day of July, 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Williams and
seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Court unanimously approved by a vote 4-0-
0 of the contract award under the Texas Community Development between Kerr County
and the Office of Rural Community Affairs for some of the 25% matching grants from
FEMA and NRCS and authorize County Judge to sign same.
.--.
Order 28155
CLAIMS AND ACCOUNTS
On this the 14th day of July, 2003, came to be considered by the Court various
Commissioners precincts, which said Claims and Accounts are:
10-General for $1478,213.12, 14-Fire Protection for $8,732.33, 15-Road and Bridge for
$37,632.35, 18-County Law Library for $2,450.10, 19-Public Library for $33,098.33,
31-Parks for $22.50, 50-Indigent Health Care for $22,735.92, 59-General Contractual
Obligation for $13,565.00, 61-1998 Tax Anticipation Note for $768.50, 63-Lake Ingram
Estate Road District'Ol Bonds for $10,035.00, 81-District Administration for $189.92.
TOTAL CASH REQUIRED FOR ALL FUNDS: $277,462.16
Upon motion made by Commissioner Baldwin and seconded by Commissioner Williams,
the Court unanimously approved by a vote 4-0-0 to pay said Accounts.
Order 28156
APPROVAL OF ELECTION JUDGES AND ALTERNATES JUDGES
FOR THE TERM OF ONE YEAR
On this the 14th day of July, 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Letz and
seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a vote 4-0-0
to appoint the Election Judges and Alternates Judges for the Term of One Year
beginning August 1, 2003 in Accordance with the Texas Election Code, Chapter 32 as
recommended by the County Chairs as follows:
Kerr County Republican Party
Pct. 101 Hazelle Calcote
Pct. 107 Jack Parker
Pct. 109 Clayson Lambert
Pct. 113 Jennie Motheral
Pct. 118 Rose Sturges
Pct. 119 Jerry Dalla
Pct. 202 Margaret Higgins
Pct. 211 Inky Smith
Pct. 215 Linda Bowman
Pct. 303 Nancy Lich Jones
Pct. 308 Frank Manitzas
Pct. 312 Ardell Bratland
Pct 314 Scott Tibbs
Pct. 320 James Higgins, Jr
Pct. 404 Robert Qualls
Pct. 405 Lucy Dubisson
Pct. 406 Jim Ownby
Pct. 410 Tern Budow
Pct. 416 Mike Clark
Pct. 417 Ed Nemec
Kerr County Democratic Party
Pct. 101 John Moorman
Pct. 202 Nell Sevey
Pct. 303 Wanda Holekamp
Pct. 404 Jane Alley
Pct. 405 Louise Taylor
Pct. 406 Richard Gore
Pct. 107 Pat King
Pct. 308 Diana Cushman
Pct. 109 Cindy Dix
Pct. 410 Sandra Parkhurst
Pct. 211 Virginia Joyce Woods
Pct. 312 Stan Foskett
Pct. 113 David Shaw
Pct. 314 Vi Arredondo
Pct. 215 Adolph Castillo
Pct. 416 Martha Wallen
Pct. 417 Ann Amsbury
Pct. 118 Marilyn Carmarca
Pct. 119 Salvador Garza
Pct. 320 Steven Clack
Order No. 28157
APPROVAL OF THE CENTRAL COUNTING STATION STAFF
On this the 14th day of July, 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Baldwin and
seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Court unanimously approved by a vote 4-0-
0 to Appoint the Central Counting Station staff as follows:
Presiding Judge/Manager Jannett Pieper
Tabulating Supervisor Nadene Alford
Assist. Supervisor Cheryl Thompson and Mindy Williams
Order No. 28158
APPROVAL OF CONSOLIDATING THE POLLING LOCATIONS
FOR SEPTEMBER 13TH ELECTION
On this the 14th day of July, 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Letz and
seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously approved by a vote 4-0-
0 to consolidate the polling locations for the Constitutional Amendment Election for
September 13, 2003 election as follows:
Precinct One- Heart of the Hills Fellowship and Trinity Baptist Church
Precinct Two -American Legion in Center Point and County Extension Office
Precinct Three -Cypress Creek Community Center and the Courthouse
Precinct Four -First Presbyterian Church and Western Hills Baptist Church
Early Voting: Kerr County Courthouse
Order No. 28159
APPROVAL OF JOB DESCRIPTIONS FOR THE
KERR COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
On this the 14th day of July, 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Baldwin and
seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Court unanimously approved by a vote 4-0-
0 to approve the job descriptions for the Sheriffs Office Employees as submitted by
Sheriff Hierholzer.
Order No. 21860
APPROVAL OF THE TEXAS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR
THE KERRVILLE SOUTH WASTEWATER PROJECT
On this the 14th day of July, 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Williams and
seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court approved by a vote 4-0-1
with Nicholson voting Nay to approve the Texas Community Development Program
Contract # 723095 for the Kerrville South Wastewater Project, Phase 3.
Order No. 28161
APPROVAL OF BUDGET WORKSHOPS
On this the 14th day of July, 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Letz and
seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously approved by a vote 4-0-0
to set budget workshops for August 15, 19, 20, and 22 at 10:00 A.M.
Order No. 28162
APPROVAL TO NEGOTIATE
NEW CONTRACT WITH UGRA
ON KERR COUNTY OSSF RULES AND REGULATIONS
On this the 14th day of July, 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Baldwin and
seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously approved by a vote 4-0-
0 for Commissioners 3 & 4 to negotiate a new contract with U.G.R.A. concerning the
administration of Kerr County O.S.S.F. Rules and Regulations.
Order No. 28163
APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED
COMMUNITY PLAN FOR KERB COUNTY
On this the 14th day of July, 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Letz and
seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a vote 4-0-0
the Community plan subject to making the major employers as inclusive as possible to
be current, with Commissioner Williams to do the update.
Order No. 28164
DIS-APPROVED THE KERB CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICTS BUDGET FOR
THE YEAR 2004
On this the 14th day of July, 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Letz and
seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously by a vote 4-0-0
disapproved the Kerr Central Appraisal District operating budget for the year 2004
based on salary increases as set forth therein.
Order No. 28165
APPROVAL OF ACCEPTING THE TERRORISM RISK ENDORSEMENT TO THE
EXISTING LAW ENFORCEMENT INSURANCE COVERAGE
On this the 14th day of July, 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Nicholson and
seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously approved by a vote 4-0-0
to accept the Terrorism Risk endorsement to existing Law Enforcement Insurance
Coverage and authorize the County Judge to sign same.
Order No. 28166
APPROVAL TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR PLUMBING, ELECTRICAL,
AND HVAC
On this the 14th day of July, 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Letz and
seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Court unanimously approved by a vote 4-0-
0 to advertise for Request for Proposals for plumbing, electrical, and HVAC service for
the year 2003-2004 to be returned back at 9 A.M. on August 25, 2003 and bids to be
open at that time.
Order No. 28167
APPROVAL TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR KERR COUNTY INSURANCE
COVERAGE
On this the 14th day of July, 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Nicholson and
seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a vote 4-0-0
to advertise for Request for Proposals for Kerr County Insurance Coverage with the
policy period beginning January 1, 2004 thru September 30, 2004 with said proposals
being returned by November 10th, 2003 at 9:00 A.M. and bids to be open at that time.
Order No. 28168
APPROVAL TO INCLUDE CRNA SERVICE AS AN OPTIONAL SERVICE UNDER
THE INDIGENT HEALTH CARE PROGRAM
On this the 14th day of July, 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Williams and
seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Court unanimously approved by a vote 4-0-
0 to include CRNA services as an Optional Service under the Indigent Health Care
Program, and authorize County Judge to sign the same.
Order No. 28169
BUDGET AMENDMENT IN
THE COUNTY TREASURER'S OFFICE
On this the 14th day of July, 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded
by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to
transfer $33.00 from Line Item No. 10-497-310 Office Supplies to Line Item No.
10-497-309 Postage in the County Treasurer's Office.
ORDER NO.28170
BUDGET AMENDEMENT IN
NON-DEPARTMENTAL AND
COMMISSIONERS COURT
On this the 14th day of July, 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded
by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to
transfer $1,603.00 from Line Item No. 10-409-570 Capital Outlay to Line Item No.
10-401-570 Capital Outlay in Non-Departmental and Commissioners Court.
ORDER NO. 28171
BUDGET AMENDMENT
IN COUNTY COURT AT LAW,
198TH DISTRICT COURT,
216TH DISTRICT COURT
On this the 14th day of July, 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Letz,
seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of
4-0-0, to transfer $1,122.81 from Line Item No. 10-436-402 Court Appointed Attorney
and to transfer $41.00 from Line Item No. 10-435-402 Court Appointed Attorney with
$322.81 to Line Item No. 10-427-402 Court Appointed Attorney; with $41.00 to Line
Item No. 10-435-315 Book-publications-dues; with $25.00 to Line Item No. 10-436-315
Book-publications-dues; with $665.00 to Line Item No. 10-436-401 Court Appointed
Services; with $100.00 to Line Item No. 10-436-494 Special Court Reporter in County
Court at Law, 198th District Court, and the 216th District Court.
ORDER NO.28172
BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
On this the 14th day of July, 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Letz,
seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Court unanimously approved by a
vote of 4-0-0, to transfer $1,059.57 from Line Item No. 10-560-563 Software
Maintenance with $133.82 to Line Item No. 10-560-453 Radio Repairs; with $925.75
to Line Item No. 10-560-208 Investigation Expense and to pay late bill.
The County Treasurer and County Auditor are hereby authorized to write a
hand check in the amount of $229.89 to HEB Grocery for investigation expenses.
ORDER NO. 28173
BUDGET AMENDMENT IN
JUSTICE OF THE PEACE #3
On this the 14th day of July, 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Williams,
seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Court unanimously approved by a vote
of 4-0-0, to transfer $400.00 from Line Item No. 10-457-108 Part-Time Salary to Line
Item No. 10-457-310 Office Supplies in Justice of the Peace #3.
ORDER NO. 28174
BUDGET AMENDEMNT IN
AG BARN FACILITIES
On this the 14th day of July, 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Nicholson,
seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of
4-0-0, to transfer $2,508.79 from Line Item No. 10-666-550 Major Repairs to Line Item
No. 10-66-456 Equipment Repairs in Ag Barn Facilities.
ORDER NO. 28175
BUDGET AMENDMENT
IN COUNTY SPONSORED
NON DEPARTMENTAL
On this the 14th day of July, 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Williams
seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Court unanimously approved by a vote
of 4-0-0, to transfer $12,161.42 from Line Item No. 10-409-571 Contingency to Line
Item No. 10-660-471 KCAD Contract in County Sponsored and Non-Departmental.
ORDER NO. 28176
BUDGET AMENDMENT
IN
JUSTICE OF THE PEACE #2
On this the 14th day of July, 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Williams
seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Court unanimously approved by a
vote of 4-0-0, to transfer $26.78 from Line Item No. 10-456-499 Miscellaneous and
to transfer $186-78 from Line Item No. 10-456-461 Lease Copier with $98.50 to Line
Item No. 10-456-461 Bonds and with $115.06 to Line Item No. 10-456-485 Conferences
in Justice of the Peace #2 and to pay late bill. The County Treasurer and County Auditor
are here by authorized to write a hand check in the amount of $71.00 made payable to
,_.. First Insurance Agency.
ORDER NO. 28177
BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE DISTRICT CLERK'S OFFICE
On this the 14th day of July, 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Letz,
seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Court unanimously approved by a
vote of 4-0-0, to transfer $552.00 from Line Item No. 10-450-461 Lease Copier to
Line Item No. 10-450-563 Software Maintenance and to transfer $6,885.00 from
Line Item No. 10-450-104 Deputy Clerk Salary to Line Item No. 10-450-108
Part-time Salary in the District Clerk's Office.
Order No. 28178
BUDGET AMENDMENT
1N
COUNTY COURT AT LAW
On this the 14th day of July, 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Nicholson
seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously approved by a vote
of 4-0-0, to transfer $155.00 from Line Item No. 10-427-420 Telephone to Line Item No.
10-427-206 Insurance-Liability in County Court at Law and to pay late bill. The County
Auditor and the County Treasurer are here by authorized to write a hand check in the
amount of $177.50 to First Insurance Agency.
ORDER NO. 28179
BUDGET AMENDMENT
IN ROAD AND BRIDGE DEPARTMENT
On this the 14th day of July, 2003, upon motion made by Commissioner Letz,
seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a vote
of 4-0-0, to transfer $5,877.50 from Fund 22 Surplus to Line Item No. 22-670-450
Repair on Dams in the Road and Bridge Department.
ORDER NO. 28180
BUDGET AMENDEMNT
IN THE 198TH DISTRICT COURT
On this the 14th day of July, 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Nicholson,
seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of
4-0-0, to transfer $630.00 from Line Item No. 10-436-402 Court Appointed Attorney to
Line Item No. 10-436-401 Court Appointed Services in the 198th District Court.
ORDER NO. 28181
APPROVAL OF BUDGET AMENDMENT
AND LATE BILL
TO COMMISSIONER PCT. #2
On this the 14th day of July, 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Nicholson,
seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously approved by vote of
4-0-0, to transfer $91.76 from Line Item No. 10-401-486 Professional Services to Line
Item No. 10-401-485 Conferences. The County Treasurer and County Auditor are here by
authorized to write a hand check in the amount of $91.76 to Commissioner Precinct #2
William H. Williams.
ORDER NO. 28182
APPROVAL OF LATE BILL
TO DEPT. OF INFORMATION RESOURCES
On this the 14th day of July, 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Nicholson,
seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a vote
of 4-0-0, to pay late bill for $195.74 from Line Item No. 10-512-331. The County
Treasurer and County Auditor are here by authorized to write a hand check in the amount
of $195.74 made payable to Dept. of Information Resources.
ORDER NO. 28183
APPROVE AND ACCEPT MINUTES
AND WAIVE READEVG
On this the 14th day of July, 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Williams
seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Court unanimously approved by a vote
of 4-0-0, to waive reading and approve the minutes of Regular Session of June 9, 2003,
Workshop Session on June 16, 2003, and Special Session of June 23, 2003 of the Kerr
County Commissioners' Court.
-- ORDER NO. 28184
APPROVE AND ACCEPT
MONTHLY REPORTS
On this the 14th day of July, 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Nicholson,
seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of
4-0-0, to accept the following reports and direct that they be filed with the County Clerk
for future audit:
William Ragsdale, J.P. #4
June 2003
Jannett Pieper, County Clerk
June 2003
Vance Elliott, J.P. #1
June, 2003
Dawn Wright, J.P. #2
June 2003
Kari O'Dell, J.P. #3
..._. June 2003
W.R. Hierholzer, Sheriff
June 2003
.- ORDER NO.28185
APPROVE OF CONSOLIDATING THE POLLING
LOCATIONS FOR SEPTEMBER 13TH ELECTION
On this the 16th day of July, 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Baldwin,
seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of
4-0-0, the polling locations for the September 13th Constitutional Amendment Election as
presented by the County Clerk.
Precinct Location Address
101 & 107 Heart of the Hills Fellowship Hwy 16 South Camino Real Kerrville
109, 113 Trinity Baptist Church 880Jackson Rd./615 Bluebell, Kerrville
118, 119
202 American Legion Center Point
211 & 215 County Extension Office Hwy 27 Kerrville
303 & 308 Cypress Creek Comm. Center Stoneleigh Road, Comfort
..-,
312,314 Courthouse (Lower Level) 700 Main St. Kerrville
320
404, 405 First Presbyterian Church Hwy 39 W., Ingram
406, 410
416 & 417 Western Hills Baptist Church 2010 Goat Creek Rd., Kerrville
Early Voting: Kerr County Courthouse (Lower Level)
ORDER NO. 28186
AMENDING COURT ORDER NUMBER 28156
APPOINTMENT OF ELECTION JUDGES
AND ALTERNATES FOR THE
TERM OF ONE YEAR
On this the 16th day of July, 2003, upon motion made by Commissioner Williams
seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Court unanimously approved by a vote
of 4-0-0, to amend Court Order Number 28156 to appoint Election Judges and Alternates
Judges for the Term of One Year beginning August 1, 2003 in Accordance with the Texas
Election Code, Chapter 32 as recommended by the County Chair to change the following:
Kerr County Democratic Party
Pct. 202 Nell Sevey to Pct.202 Adolph Castillo
Pct. 215 Adolph Castillo to Pct. 215 Joyce Woods