1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT
Special Session
Monday, July 28, 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
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I N D E X
July 28, 20-03
--- Commissioners Comments
1.1 Road name changes for County-maintained roads,
~b~~~ regulatory signs, set public hearing for same
/~~Road name changes for privately-maintained roads
1.3 Contract with Kerrville Daily Times for
-- advertising space to publish public notices
1.4 Funding September 13, 2003 Constitutional
-- Amendment Election
1.5 Approval of agreement with Texas Engineering
~~/J~ Extension Service concerning State Homeland
Ibb Security grant, authorize County Judge to sign
1.6 Request to transfer funds for Constable,
Precinct 1, to purchase portable radio
1.13 Proposed rate change for Medical Examiner
services
_---
1.8 Security fence around Exhibit Center
~~~ C.%
1.7 Update on High-Water Bridge
.r---
1.9 Approve card to be mailed to county citizens
~1~1~ for 911 address change, funding of same
~ X11 g 2-
1.10 Discuss proposed new OSSF Rules and Regulations,
.~ set public hearing on same
1.11 Approve revisions to form contract between Kerr
J/~~~ounty and volunteer fire departments
1.012 Authorize RFP's for Information Technology
/~Y maintenance service for FY 2003-04
1.14 Burn Ban
4.1 Pay Bills ~ ~/'~~!
4 . 2 Budget Amendments ~/ ~(~^ - ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~~?~
4 . 3 Late Bills a ~ `C~
4 . 5 Approve and Accept Monthly Reports p~ ~ ~ C,'?~
5.1 Reports from Commissioners
--- Adjourned
PAGE
4
5
8
11
14
16
17
25
39
53
63
85
106
131
142
143
144
160
161
162
173
3
1
,...~ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
	11
	12
	13
~._	
	14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
~-.
25
On Monday, July 28, 2003, at 9:00 a.m., a special 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: Let me call to order the
meeting of the special Commissioners Court meeting scheduled
for this date, Monday, July the 28th, posted for 9 a.m. It
is now just a bit after 9 a.m. I believe Commissioner
Precinct 4 has the honors this morning.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Join me in prayer,
please.
(Prayer and pledge of allegiance.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Good morning. This is the
portion of the agenda in which any citizen or member of the
public who wishes to be heard on an item which is not listed
on the agenda is -- is privileged to come forward and tell
us what's on their mind. If you want to speak on an item
that's listed on the agenda, we would ask you to fill out a
participation form. They're located at the back of the
room, and hopefully we've got a pen or a pencil back there
now to assist in doing that. But we'd ask that you fill
that out. It's not absolutely essential, but so that we
won't miss you when it comes to that item, why, we'd prefer
that you do that. If there is anybody that has anything
-~8-C3
4
1
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 want to say on a -- on anything that is not listed as
an item on the agenda, why, feel privileged to come forward
at this time. Any member of the public.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: There being none, why, we'll
go on with the agenda. Commissioner 4, have you got
anything for us this morning?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Nothing this
morning, thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: One?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir, I have one
item I've been kind of following. I noticed it in the
Kerrville Daily Times this morning, the son of Judge O'Dell
playing golf. He is -- I think he's 12 years old, maybe 13,
but he's the son of J.P. 3, and he is qualified for the
South Texas PGA area championship tournament. That's golf,
Bill.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm listening.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. And -- young
kid. And I was visiting with the O'Dells recently about it,
and they said, "I don't know where it came from." It's just
one day he walks out there and starts hitting the ball, and
hits it very, very well. So, congratulations to him and his
family. That's all.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, aside from the
-~8-U3
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
fact that his mother is a sterling individual, he's on the
right track if he's chasing that little white ball.
(Laughter.}
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Those things are hard
to cook up, though, I'm telling you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have nothing,
Judge.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Nothing, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, it's a clean sweep.
Let's get on with the business at hand. First item on the
agenda is to consider road name changes for
County-maintained roads in accordance with 911 guidelines,
as well as regulatory signs, and set a public hearing for
the same.
JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Hardin?
MS. HARDIN: Hello. We have -- one, two,
three, four -- six road name changes that need to be
advertised. Those would be Hasenwinkel, just the spelling
of it, from "el" to -- "le" to "el," right? Okay. And then
Cypress Creek Loop to Cypress Creek Road, Cypress Creek Loop
to Caddis Bluff North, Cypress Creek Loop to Bartel Road
North. There's a state right-of-way that's numbered as 1491
to be Ried Graham Road North, and then Veterans Parkway
North changed back to Spur 100 North. And then we have two
regulatory signs that are now stop signs that we'd like to
7 - ~ 8 - 0 3
6
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
change to yield in Sleepy Hollow Circle and Country Lane.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do we approve these at
this particular time, or set a public hearing?
MS. HARDIN: We need to set a public hearing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move we set a public
hearing for September 8th at 10 a.m.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and
seconded that we set a public hearing for September 8th at
10 a.m. on the road name changes and regulatory signs as
indicated. Any further questions or discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have a -- a comment or
question. It's kind of related to the eyes opening up by
the two gentlemen in the back from 911. I guess we need to
go through the public hearing because these are
County-maintained roads, and we have to have public
hearings, but I think at some point we need to look at if
we're going to assume these names are going to go through
prior to that, 'cause -- is there a problem with doing that?
And the reason I'm saying that is, if we're getting ready to
do the mailouts on these changes, we really want the changes
to go out with these names on them. I -- these are -- and
the first four are in my precinct, and they have been worked
and reworked and reworked and reworked. And there's going
to have to be an enormous, compelling reason for me not to
%-28-03

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
go with these names. That I don't envision. And this is a
-- it's been an area that we've really, you know, been -- I
guess we could wait until right after the public hearing
until we mail the notices out, but I just want to bring that
up, that that's a little bit of an issue because of our
schedule with 911. And it -- I'm looking at Commissioner
Baldwin. What date do we --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: September 1.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We going to mail them
out?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: September 1 mailouts.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there a problem if we
delay until after the public hearing? Is there an issue on
it?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I would look at it a
little differently. What I would do is go ahead and mail
them out -- go ahead and mail them out, and then if that is
a mistake -- which it won't be, but if that is a mistake,
that's one of those mistakes that we've made, and we kick
over into the maintenance program.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I mean, that's what I
would do.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That sounds fine with me.
I was -- if you want to keep us on schedule, we need to get
7-~8-G3
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
these changes part of this change right now.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: These changes will be
a part of that right now?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. It'll be a good way
to get a good turnout to the public hearing if they don't
like it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You've got a lawyer
sitting at the table that may not like that, but -- actually
send a document out before you have a public hearing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're just -- the public
notice, though, would be looking at more information for
them to have for the public hearing. Okay.
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 to consider road name changes for privately maintained
roads in various locations in Kerr County in accordance with
911 guidelines.
MS. HARDIN: You had five. I have three more
that came in this morning that they would like to get in
there before the deadline, and these are all privately
-28-G3
9
1
,--~. 2
3
4
5
h
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2G
21
22
23
24
25
maintained roads.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is -- if I might ask
Bill -- Bill, do you know the status of -- I can't remember
which name we ended up with -- on Adolph Stieler Road?
MR. AMERINE: Do not.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You do not?
MR. AMERINE: No.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's Stieler Ranch Road
goes to Becky Patterson's house, the old Stieler Ranch.
We've talked several times, and we were hoping to get that
on this list as well. I believe we have settled on Adolph
Stieler Road for that, but it can just go later.
MR. AMERINE: Well, if I ran make a comment,
we'll go ahead and address using the number of roads, and if
it's a private road, its no problem. We can change that
while we're in the process.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. I'll just tell her
when she -- you know, that it's not on the list. Okay.
MS. HARDIN: Do you know what the proposed
name is?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Going to be -- I'm pretty
sure it's Adolph Stieler Road.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You should be.
MS. HARDIN: Can we not just add it now? And
I'll get the number to the -- to the clerk?
-~a-o3
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. AMERINE: We can verify that that's not a
duplicate.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's -- yeah. It's --
I'm sure it's not.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's not.
MR. AMERINE: You'd be surprised.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I move that we
approve the road name changes for privately maintained
roads, the nine roads that've been submitted by the Road and
Bridge Department.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that
the named roads, as submitted by Road and Bridge, privately
maintained roads, be changed.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: For the record, that nine
includes Adolph Stieler Road.
MR. AMERINE: Does not or does?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Does.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Does.
MR. AMERINE: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions or
discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would say -- I
probably -- this isn't real relevant. The name Adolph
Stieler was a bit controversial because there are some
-^_8-G3
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
Stieler Roads already, but a secondary option there we
looked at was Goat King, which was Adolph Stieler's
nickname, and he has raised over a million goats out in
central Texas. But, anyway, Goat King was already taken or
was too confusing, so we went back to Adolph Stieler.
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,
consider and discuss a contract with Kerrville Daily Times
to publish not less than 100 column inches of advertising
within the period beginning July 1, 2003, and ending
June 30, 2004, to receive better rates for public notices,
and authorize County Judge to sign the same.
MS. PIEPER: Judge, I think I may need to
pull this, 'cause I feel like I'm going to do more research
on it. Friday afternoon the Mountain Sun approached me;
they would like us to do a contract with them, and then that
-- we'd get a better rate, but I just kind of feel like I
need to do a little bit more research.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm glad you did
that, 'cause I was going to ask you about that.
-~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
12
MS. PIEPER: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: The more the merrier.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You may have to
bring in three different. contracts.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's right.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We've got a new west
Kerr County newspaper.
MS. PIEPER: Is this something we could go
out for bids on? Do y'all know?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's not -- is that
a newspaper in general circulation throughout the county?
MS. ALFORD: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Its mission is west
Kerr County; Ingram, Hunt, Mountain Home, Divide.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think that would be
one criteria.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I see, yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If it's general
throughout the county.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think you have to
go out for bids on this. I wouldn't see why.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Go out for bids on
advertising. I mean, I think -- what type of advertising
are you -- are these our public notices?
-~~-~.~ ~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
13
MS. PIEPER: Just our public notices, yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The Court needs to
have a policy. I believe we've rotated back and forth
between newspapers.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The contract for 100
column incYies or whatever, it's a good idea, because the
difference in prices is significant.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: A minimum contract.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. Yeah, Bill
knows that better than anybody else.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We used to rotate
them back and forth, and doing a contract is fine because
you can get a little better line price.
MS. PIEPER: Each newspaper is quoting us a
different price, so I don't know how -- how we want to
handle that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Find out --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Whichever is easier. I
think it's a good idea to go out and say we're only going to
select one. I think you get the best price if we say we're
only going to select one; that one gets it.
MS. PIEPER: And the only concern I have, the
Mountain Sun, they come out once a week. The Daily Times is
daily, so if we have a public hearing, we put it in the
Mountain Sun, because the Court meets on Monday, there's no
~-~5-03
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
14
way we can probably get that notice in the newspaper, you
know, for them to publish it that following Wednesday.
Therefore, it knocks it. up a week.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, that's what we
need to know.
MS. PIEPER: So, I just kind of feel like I
need to do a little bit more research on this.
JUDGE TINLEY: I gather no one wishes to
offer a motion at this time. If not, we'll move on to the
next item, consider and discuss funding the September 13th,
2003 constitutional amendment election. Ms. Pieper.
MS. PIEPER: Okay. I gave you a printout of
my election budget, of what I have left in there and what I
feel I'm going to need. And, basically, I just want to ask
if I can utilize the money that we have in the election
expense that was left over from the Ag Barn, and then that
way I won't break my budget.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which is $7,700?
MS. PIEPER: Yes. And I've got the line
items -- you know, like, I'll need $5,739.05 for my judges
and clerks, and what my ballot expense is going to cost, and
I think these are pretty accurate figures.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On the -- where it shows
a negative $525 under Rental --
MS. PIEPER: That's positive. I have $600 in
~-~8-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
15
that line item, and I'm only going to need maybe $75 for
rental. Therefore, I do have an excess in that line item.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh, okay. So, what do
you need us to do?
MS. PIEPER: Basically, what I'm asking is,
when I run out of money in one line item, can I just code it
to my election expense, the 402-569 code?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think you need to -- I
think we need to have a budget amendment to get them into
the right categories.
MS. PIEPER: Okay, let's do that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or you can do it before
or after.
JUDGE TINLEY: Come in after the fact.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Come in after the fact.
I think that we would -- I'd be in favor of using that
$7,760 to cover all these expenses, but just do a -- you
know, after the election, do a one-time budget amendment and
transfer all the funds into the right categories.
MS. PIEPER: Okay, I'll do that.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, it's the logical thing to
do, obviously.
MS. PIEPER: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Next item,
consider and discuss approval of agreement between Kerr
~-28-U3
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
County, as a sub-recipient of the State Homeland Security
Grant Program, and Texas Engineering Extension Service and
authorize County Judge to sign the same. Mr. Sheriff?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You've all been given a
copy of this agreement. It has been reviewed by the County
Attorney's office. They didn't have a problem with it.
This is all in conjunction with AACOG and our $180,000 grant
deal for the communications trailer and other equipment that
we were selected to house here. Other than that, there's
not much to it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'd move approval of
the agreement between Kerr County and the Texas Engineering
Extension Service, and authorize the County Judge to sign
the same.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that
the agreement between Kerr County and the Texas Engineering
Extension Service be approved, and the County Judge be
authorized to sign the same. Any questions or discussion?
I have one question, Sheriff. If you'll recall, one of the
considerations that was raised was our utilization of this
communications trailer within Kerr County for situations
that may not fall under the contract that is otherwise
presented to us under the Homeland Security, and you
verified that, as the owner of that equipment, so long as it
--~8-C3
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
17
doesn't interfere with their need or priority use of it,
that we can do that?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, actually, they
don't even have any priority use of it. There's going to be
three of those trailers throughout the COG region. If we
have something going here already, then we don't have to
send it down there on that time. It's only if it's
available. It's posted -- you know, we need to try and make
it available, but say we have a large manhunt or whatever
going on here and we're using that communications trailer;
then they will get one from one of the other areas within
the COG. But we can use it for anything that we have going
on. We are the owners of it. The County is owner of it,
and anything the County has going, it's available.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, thank you. 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
on the agenda is to consider and discuss request to transfer
funds from a salary line item, being 10-551-101, to
Miscellaneous line item 10-551-499, to purchase two-way
portable radio. Constable Pickens.
-~8-03
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
18
MR. PICKENS: Good morning, Judge. Good
morning, Commissioners. Thank you for your time to come
before y'all today. I'd like to ask the Commissioners Court
to -- and County Judge to consider and approve transferring
funds from my Salary line item to the Miscellaneous item in
order to purchase a two-way -- two-way portable radio. This
would be to use for the performance of my duties while I'm
out serving papers, if I need to call in for assistance or
warrant service or something from the Sheriff's Office or
from the police department. Fact is that I do carry a cell
phone, but I was in a situation the other evening up on
Upper Turtle Creek where I couldn't reach out -- I couldn't
get hold of the Sheriff's Office. And, in discussing it
with the Sheriff on the portable radio, there is full
coverage out there -- 98 percent, Sheriff?
(Sheriff Hierholzer nodded.)
MR. PICKENS: Where I could utilize that and
have contact with the Sheriff`s Office or the police
department. I checked with the County Treasurer. I do have
the funds; that is from the salary line item that was not
used when there was nobody in the office for the month of
September and October. And I have approximately about --
almost $1,300 still left over to purchase this.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That it?
MR. PICKENS: Yes, sir.
-~a-u3
1
-- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I1
12
.~-. 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
~-.
25
19
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't see anywhere
or note or anything -- I don't see the County Auditor in the
room. Has he looked at this, and --
MR. PICKENS: I talked to Tommy the other
day, and he told me to go ahead and put in for it, and see
if y'ail --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, do you -- is
Tommy coming in?
JUDGE TINLEY: Today?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: I have no idea.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Want me to go check,
Buster?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, please. 'Cause,
I mean, I don't think we can approve something like this
without his approval.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I've got a question
that -- maybe more than one question on it. It doesn't have
to do with this item in particular, but the whole matter in
general of how we treat these offices. It appears to me
that we're not consistent about what we pay for and what we
reimburse between the different offices. If we -- have we
purchased radios far -- I know we haven't purchased one for
Precinct 4.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And 2.
i-ze-~~
1
-- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
20
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Are we inconsistent
also in fuel costs and all? Auto repairs and things like
that?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I believe so.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We've been through
this before?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, we -- I think, just
to give a little history, we tried to get them all the same.
And somehow, over the last four years, from needs, from, you
know, tires or -- and it was difficult to get them the same,
because, like, Precinct 4's constable has a -- a deputy.
Precinct 1 didn't- want a car. I mean, it's just -- they
didn't -- they didn't want different things, so they put
money in different funds, and all of a sudden these new line
items have appeared and grown.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just like this right
here.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. To me, I would
rather look at this during the budget process and look at
the constables' budgets again, 'cause I think they need to
be treated the same. I'm not opposed to giving them radios
if they need radios, but I think the -- I know there`s an
issue during our budget on cars for the constables, and I
think this goes in line with that. I think there's a --
i-~~'-G3
21
1
.-. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2?_
23
24
25
priorities need to be set as to -- and get feedback from all
four constables as to, you know, what's most important for
them. I mean, a little bit -- you know, exactly what they
need. 'Cause right now, we're reimbursing for -- we have
car allowances for some of them; we've picked up tires for
one of them the other day. I just think we need to be more
consistent. I'd like to do that during the budget process,
try to get them all treated the same.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay, let's do that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Talking about the
categories?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tommy, thanks for
coming in.
MR. PICKENS: Also, this is the request on
this portable radio, same type that the Sheriff has for his
deputies.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That was going to be
my next question, if the Sheriff authorizes usage of his
radio system.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: For a nominal fee.
JUDGE TINLEY: Another question, constable.
Have you addressed this item in your budget, or were you
hoping to get it resolved ahead of the budget, and therefore
you didn't put it in your budget request?
MR. PICKENS: Yes, sir, I was hoping to get
~-28-03
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
it resolved today.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. PICKENS: I did not address it in the
budget issue.
JUDGE TINLEY: What you may want to do is --
it appears that there's not going to be any affirmative
action taken on that item today -- is to possibly annotate
your budget request so that it would include that item, at
least so it's available for consideration.
MR. PICKENS: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Does anybody have a motion
that they wish to offer at this time on this item?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, sir, but I have a
comment.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I have a comment.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: One more comment to
make. And if you -- if you address it in the budget system,
like it -- the Judge is recommending, and I agree 100
percent, the line item that you were going to take that from
disappears September 30.
MR. PICKENS: I understand that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The comment that I have
-- Bobby, if you would either, you know, submit the
paperwork to the Judge requesting that, but during the
-~8-L3
23
1
~- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
workshop period, I really recommend the constables come
together as a group and explain what they want. And -- you
know, and let us try to work through this. 'Cause, I mean,
that's -- that, to me, I mean, working with -- one-on-one
with the constables or any other -- you know, where we have
J.P.'s, the same thing; there's four of them. I mean, it
makes it a lot easier for me if we're kind of trying to
treat everyone the same.
JUDGE TINLEY: An excellent suggestion.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree with that.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Excellent.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Just one other
observation. And, again, this has not got to do with this
particularly, but just as a general policy. When -- when,
in a department, a job is vacant for some period of time, I
think that should not be viewed as a windfall we can use for
unbudgeted items. I think that's -- that should be viewed
as money that goes back into the General Fund.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That would apply to
all departments.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Rusty.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 'Cause they're all --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: What do you mean,
-~~-03
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
"Rusty"? I have one question that I can -- Bobby, do you
have a radio of any kind at this time?
MR. PICKENS: No, not at all.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Car or anything?
MR. PICKENS: No. This is the cheapest route
to go.
SHERIFF HIERH~
-- and I agree with Bobby on
problems with coverage -- is
Bobby being able to get help
needing something and has no
this time.
JLZER: My only concern would be
cell phones, 'cause we do have
between now and October lst,
if he's serving papers or
radio. I have no spares at
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I recognize that.
And -- but, I mean, all the constables are in that same
situation. I don't think --
16
17 radios.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Most of them have
MR. PICKENS: They all have radios. Precinct
3 has a portable.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Precinct 4 has got
not only a radio, but phone and a radar unit he purchased
with his own funds.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That would be my only
concern, is leaving an officer out there without any kind of
radio communication.
7-~8 G3
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
does, yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: 2 has a radio?
MR. PICKENS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which I guess he
NUDGE TINLEY: Anything further on this item,
gentlemen? Thank you, Constable Pickens. Next item, I'm
going to take an item out of order as an accommodation to
someone who's here. Item 13, if there's no objection,
consider and discuss seeking proposed rate change for
medical examiner service. We received notification from the
Travis County Medical Examiner's office, and it's included
within your materials, that they are increasing the cost of
their postmortem services, as well as in-court testimony in
connection with any of those services. I had asked Mr. John
Grimes with Grimes Funeral Chapels to -- who does a good bit
of our transporting back and forth to Austin, to be here
today so that we might get the benefit of the good news/bad
news in this particular situation, and I think what he has
to say may be enlightening. Mr. Grimes? If you'd be kind
enough to tell us your thoughts generally about operating
with Travis County or with Bexar County?
MR. GRIMES: Okay. Just that issue itself?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I think those are our
only two options, so that's --
MR. GRIMES: Gentlemen, if you will check
-~8-G3
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
with all four J.P.'s here -- and all four are doing an
excellent job; let me say that to start with. The -- the
problem comes every year, just like your budgets here go up,
and every year the Medical Examiner's fees go up and so
forth. The biggest problem is some of these bodies are sent
for autopsies, that a person, 85 years old and is found
dead, and a lot of times when we take it over, they tell us
before they start, you know, there's no need to really do
this. They enjoy taking your money; let me say this. But I
think that if a little more effort is put forth with the
J.P.'s and trying to contact an attending physician who
attended this individual prior to their death and find out
what they were treating them for, we'll eliminate some of
these bodies going to Austin. Now, I have no problem with
taking bodies to Austin. Let me say that my concern, as a
taxpayer and so forth, is that I'm paying part of that, just
like y'all are.
As far as working with Travis County Medical
Examiner as opposed to Bexar County Medical Examiner, let me
tell you these things. Number one, when the J.P. calls
Travis County Medical Examiner, they give us a time of when
to be there. They tell us 9:00, 9:30, and we're there --
normally they get us either right away, or we're the next
one in line. We -- if you'll look back, we have charged the
County the same all the way through, through the years, as
-2a-o~
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
._-.
25
far as the mileage situation and so forth, other than when
gasoline and so forth went up. You go to San Antonio, the
Medical Examiner there's office will not help you unload a
human remains, will not help you place it on one of their
examining tables. When you go back to get it, they will not
help you at that time. They won't even give you a pair of
gloves or -- if, by chance, you go off and forget your
gloves. So, they -- they don't really want to work with --
and I say "us." I'm sure it's everybody, because their
attitude is a little bit different than Travis County.
Travis County will help you unload, they'll help you load
your stretcher or the cot back. They will take and wrap the
human remains in plastic, to where you don't have blood
seepage in your vehicle on your way back.
I don't know exactly what the fee increase is
as apposed to what San Antonio or whatever. If we take one
to San Antonio for some reason, you will not stay and wait
for it and bring it back, so then there's going to be a
second charge for the County to adhere, because it's not
a -- a family member's fault that the J.P. ordered an
autopsy. So, it's -- be kind of hard for you to tell a
family, well, Kerr County sent it to San Antonio, but
they're not going to pay for you to bring it back. And
Travis County is much better to work with. You can also
verify this with the J.P.'s. They will call the J.P. that
~-28-03
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
afternoon and tell them normally what their findings are.
If it happens to be one that is toxicology pending, then
they'll tell them right off the bat, "Well, we didn't find
anything that we can say that so-and-so expired from." But,
in my opinion, you're better off with -- with Travis County.
In Bandera County -- and you can check with
Tommy, 'cause he's the money man over there -- those J.P.'s
-- and they're closer to San Antonio, but San Antonio, it
may be, you know, a month or longer before you get a reply,
so a family is waiting for certified copies to where they
can collect on the insurance and start paying some of their
bills, and an insurance company will not pay on a death
certificate that's signed "toxicology pending." But my
opinion is you would be much better off, 'cause if not --
another thing, where we send one man now, if we have to do
business with San Antonio or Bexar County, we're going to
have to send two men, because they won't help us. And let
me say this; there's a lot of us that's a little bit on the
overweight side, and one person can't -- can't handle a
human remains professionally and dignified by themselves.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you -- John, do you
-- if you were going -- I know you haven't used San Antonio
in a long time, but what about the length of time of
actually getting the body back in your possession and
returning to Kerrville? Is there a difference in the two?
7-8-03
29
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
'' 0
L
21
22
23
24
25
MR. GRIMES: Yes. Because, see, we wait in
San -- in Austin. They'll tell us to be there a certain
time, and we wait for it, and normally we're back on the
road within a couple of hours. Occasionally we have had
some problems on weekends in Austin, but you got to realize
that their people are also going out into the field for
inquests, so they may not be there then.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And then how long does
it take them?
MR. GRIMES: Well, if I took to it San
Antonio today, you probably will maybe get it back tomorrow,
and maybe not. I mean, their attitude is kind of like,
well, we're doing this as a favor for you. Well, I mean,
yeah, they are. But, I mean, they're getting paid for it.
We're not asking them to do it for free. But it's just, I
think that you'll have a lot of excessive charges. Instead
of trying to reduce charges, you're adding to it, because if
I have to send an extra man down with them, I'm going to
have to pass that charge on, and it's not 'cause I want to.
It's because of strictly doing the business.
As I have suggested before when Judge Henneke
was judge, you know, I had said what you need to do -- and I
talked to Dr. Bayardo, and he was willing to come over here
and talk to the J.P.'s, the police department, the Sheriff's
Department, and also, like, Bandera and Gillespie and
~-~~-r,~
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
Kendall and Kimble Counties, and tell them, you know, what
to look for. If you find these things, yes, send for an
autopsy. If you find these things, there's no need for an
autopsy. Because we do a tremendous amount of autopsies
that neighboring counties our size don't do. Now, I can't
tell you why. I do know this, 'cause I've asked; that when
they go to -- the J.P.'s go to school, the person teaching
that class says if you are not satisfied or feel that you're
not qualified to say what somebody died for, send them for
an autopsy. Fine. That's fine if you're in a metropolitan
area, but where you're in a small county -- and I don't have
the figures, but I'm sure Tommy can give you -- or you may
have them in front of you there, as to what you spent last
year in autopsies. And I --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's a bunch.
MR. GRIMES: -- even suggested that, you
know, if you had somebody that you could subcontract, you
know, they don't have to be a licensed funeral home or a
licensed funeral director to carry a body from, say, our
funeral home to Austin and bring it back to our funeral
home, or from Kerrville Funeral Home or Wright's, you know.
So that if you happen to have somebody on the staff that you
could use, whether it be a deputy sheriff, whether it be a
constable, or even if one of you gentlemen wanted to be so
kind as to say, well, we'll rotate ourselves and --
~ ze 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
31
(Laughter) -- and in one month, say it's on a weekly deal or
on a monthly deal; it's just like the J.P.'s on their
rotation. I think we took probably -- maybe 20 bodies last
year, maybe a little bit more, so it's not a thing that
you're going to be going every week. But, I mean, to cut a
corner, you got to have a means to cut it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, about 20 trips at
around $2,000, or a little more than $2,000 per trip?
MR. GRIMES: When you count what the J.P. --
what the medical examiner charges and us -- I think our bill
is around $240, is it not, Tommy?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah.
MR. GRIMES: So, if we made 20 trips at $240
a piece, that would almost, you know, pay for something
else. Now, not -- we're not going to totally wipe out
autopsies; let me make that clear.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Right, I understand.
MR. GRIMES: But there are some that -- that
I just feel that are useless trips. And, of course, the --
Travis County enjoys taking your money. They may send you a
thank-you card or a Christmas card at the end of the year, I
don't know. But that's my opinion, and I think I speak for
the other firms here also.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question. I mean, I
guess the two options, or the two reasonably close areas
-~~-.,?
1
~'- 2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
32
that have medical examiners are San Antonio and Austin, and
MR. GRIMES: That is correct. And, see, San
Angelo brings some of theirs to Austin -- I mean San
Antonio, 'cause they have a contract, and evidently it's
cheaper. But they have a deputy sheriff that, you know --
let's just say this -- this month it's your duty, if you
make a trip to San Antonio or not, and then they pay for
them to say overnight and then bring it back.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do you know what the
charge is in San Antonio compared to Austin?
MR. GRIMES: No, sir, I don't. I imagine
y'all have --
little less.
little bit --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's always been a
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Always been just a
MR. GRIMES: But if your J.P.'s are unhappy
and so forth, and then people start coming to you saying,
"My father died and we can't get a death certificate because
the medical examiner in San Antonio hasn't done his work,"
well, then, you know, it just dribbles on down. I mean,
whoever y'all tell us take them to, we will do that. But, I
mean, I can tell you we got an excellent relationship with
.-?8-03
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
33
Travis County.
JUDGE TINLEY: What we may save in going to
San Antonio could very easily be eaten up by the extra man
that it --
MR. GRIMES: And the extra trip.
JUDGE TINLEY: May have to make two trips.
MR. GRIMES: Yeah. We'll -- you're going to
have to send two men twice, once to take it down there, once
to bring it back. Because in San Antonio, the individual
that's there in their command center will tell you go put it
on an empty table, and we will not help you. If something
happened and your cot broke and you fell in there, well,
then it's up to you, because they'll tell you -- or they'll
send you to go get some gloves from a neighboring funeral
home or whatever. They make no effort to try to work with
you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any more questions of
Mr. Grimes? Thank you for being here, Mr. Grimes.
MR. GRIMES: Well, thank you. And I
appreciate it. And all we ask is just tell us where, and --
but do bear that in mind, because the charge is going to go
up if we have to make two trips and send two men.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sure.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you. Any other questions?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I've learned more
~-28-Q3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
34
today about this topic than I really wanted to know.
MR. GRIMES: Well, I mean, I left a bunch
out. I mean, I just thought -- I was anxious to see who was
going to jump up and say, well, I'll take a month, you know,
or a week, and, you know, show how dedicated you are.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Look right behind you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He's got an Explorer.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I'm glad, on some of the
ones he's transported, he's transporting; we ain't. It does
-- but the one comment I'd like to make is I agree, you
know, Travis County is a lot easier to work with, even with
us. But Bexar County has some expertise in certain areas,
and Vincent DiMaio is a world-renowned expert in gunshot
wounds. Some of those may be sent down there, where other
ones will be sent to Bayardo. And our -- normally, the
officer or the investigator at the scene and the J.P. do
work together. Sometimes the J.P.'s going to order an
autopsy if it's unattended, and there's nothing we can do
about it, where we think it may not need to be. But other
times, if we have any question about the -- the cause of
death, we're going to ask the J.P. to order an autopsy
because of evidentiary values and things that we have to
have, and you only get one shot at it, and it's a whole lot
cheaper than exhuming the body. You're always going to have
people wonder -- especially if it's unattended, the family
7-~3 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
35
will always wonder.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mr. Grimes, you
mentioned -- when was the last time Dr. Bayardo came and
talked to the J.P.'s?
MR. GRIMES: He's never been here.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: He told me he's going to
retire and come up here and live and do it part-time for us.
MR. GRIMES: I offered -- this was, I want to
say, three years ago, but about basically this same type
deal, and we had a trip down there, and he happened to be
the one doing the autopsy. And we mentioned it to him; he
said he'd be happy to. I even offered to pick up the tab
and let it -- have it like a dinner deal and let him talk,
and he said no. He didn't want any funeral home involvement
in it to where it looked like he was being -- playing
favorites. But he was willing to come three years ago, and
I feel like he would be now, because -- and he'd probably
bring one of his investigators, because for the police to
find out what they're to look for and all of this, they need
that investigator.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That would be -- I think
it would be very, probably, helpful to -- you know, I
don't -- I mean, I'm not asking you to set it up; I think
that could be a perceived conflict. But either through the
Sheriff or just getting with the J.P.'s --
.-~8-03
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
36
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I think we can probably
set up a one-day seminar. Dr. Bayardo is one of the most
fabulous people there is to set up, and we can have the
J.P.'s and him in on it. I think it would be a good idea.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We might invite other
counties.
MR. GRIMES: Yeats, invite other counties. We
had a situation here -- what, two years ago? -- where Kerr
County ended up paying for an autopsy because Real County
was broke. I mean, maybe not in everything, but they were
broke in what they had set aside for autopsies.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That was a little bit of
ours, one of our murder victims that got dumped in Real
County. So, Real County couldn't pay for the autopsy, and
there had to be one, so we had to pay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think, Rusty, that
would be very worthwhile to get Dr. Bayardo.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I think it would be
fabulous, and I will get our people to set one up.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you for bringing
that up.
MR. GRIMES: Like I say, it's -- let me say
this. If any of you are kind of queasy, I would either say
eat real early before you go, or wait and eat afterwards.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: He doesn't show pictures
-23-03
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
37
and stuff, does he?
MR. GRIMES: Well, he's liable to. I mean,
if you want an education, how are you going to get it? You
can't --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You'll get more of an
education than you want if you come.
MR. GRIMES: I can tell you that, but great
people to work with.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, gentlemen.
JUDGE TINLEY: Appreciate it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have one more
comment on the thing, and it's really not a question, but I
want to you to hear this, John. I would think -- and no
one's eve r_ told me this, but I would think the reason that
the J.P.'s order so many autopsies is because of some kind
of liability factor, or a fear of liability. So, in our
workshop, it seems like -- David, you help me here -- that
that issue should be addressed as much as anything. You
know, from the legal side.
MR. MOTLEY: That would be okay to address
it, but they do have quite a bit of immunity. I think a lot
of times what ,john's talking about is right. I think if
they have any doubt about it, they just ought to order an
autopsy. And I -- I mean, I'm in no way critical. I think
-?~-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
38
when there's some question about it, obviously, they're not
doctors, and there's some times that they -- they don't
know. I'm sure that's what the problem is.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We send a lot of
autopsies out there, though. I mean, a lot.
MR. GRIMES: Let me just say this. If --
when you call a doctor's office, 90 percent of the time he's
busy. You leave word for him to call. If he hasn't called
you back in 30 minutes or an hour, call him again. You
know, and then that -- then he says, "Yes, I've been busy,
but I've been treating so-and-so for such-and-such." Then
they can -- you know, 'cause you take somebody 80 or 90
years old; more than likely, they're going to have died from
a heart condition, unless they already were being treated
for cancer or something of that nature. So, that's my
criticisrti or whatever is, if you're trying to cut a corner,
that's a good avenue to cut it. And then the others, like I
say -- and I said that with tongue-in-cheek about y'all
carrying them over there, because we have some we'd be glad
to swap with you. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, John. We
appreciate it.
MR. MOTLEY: Buster, I know a fellow here in
town whose father died out-ot-county; they had a contract
with Bexar County. He waited over a year to get the
~-~8-03
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
39
toxicology report, what John's talking about. He couldn't
get his insurance claims filed, get his death certificate,
and everything was pending, and he waited over a year.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, history -- go
back in history. We used to use San Antonio, and this is
exactly the reason that John and them moved to Austin.
They're very --
MR. GRIMES: Well, John didn't move it to
Austin.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, no, that you
started hauling -- that we said please go to Austin.
MR. GRIMES: That's correct, yes, sir. I
don't know whether San Antonio is overloaded or what, but
that -- that's the thing. And for your dollars paying and
all, I think you're much better off with Austin, Texas.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's a good area
of, I mean, service to the community too. I mean, it's a
difficult time for families when, you know, they have a
death. We want to make it as smooth as possible.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, gentlemen. Have a
good day.
JUDGE TINLEY: Appreciate you helping us.
Thank you. We'll move back up to 1.8. Is Glenn here?
Yeah, there he is. Consider and discuss security fence
--~8-03
40
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
around Exhibit Center. Mr. Holekamp?
MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes. I put this on the
agenda, and there was a memo dated July 16th, kind of just a
brief explanation of my reasoning behind getting a fence.
We have two options. One option is to close off the whole
grounds, excluding the Extension Office, so the public can
go to meetings at night and all, and then closing off the --
the remaining property with a locking gate of some sort.
Main reason is -- well, there are two reasons, basically.
One is security. Weekends and nights when there are no
events, we have -- we have had three trailers stolen in the
last two years, and our Sheriff's Department has found every
one of them, but that's not -- one of these days we're not
going to get them back. Chains have been cut. These
trailers have been secured; they're chained and locked, and
they've been cut with bolt cutters and that nature.
My -- my request is to either secure the
grounds to where we can open the gates when events take
place, or -- or secure a yard; maybe you wish to call it an
area, whether it be 100-by-100, with a fence, to put
trailers, the dumpsters. Dumpsters, there's an abuse with
dumpsters that people drive on the property and they fill
the dumpsters up over the weekend, when there wasn't even an
event going. So, we need to -- and I was going to leave it
to the Court to really decide which direction they wish to
~-2a-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
41
choose, you know. Because people come in at night
unannounced, put horses in stalls and then leave early in
the morning with their horse, and we're unable to police
that. There's a certain amount of liability, I'm sure, on
the County's part by letting people do it. We don't know
that they're doing it until we get there in the morning and
find a horse and don't know who it belongs to, but they
eventually come and get it. I guess we could lock the stall
up while the horse is in there, but I don't know how smart
that would be either. So, I'm asking direction from the
Court.
Fencing that, what I wish to use is not chain
link; it is not a high-security, razor wire-type fence. It
is a 48-inch pipe top rail with a non-climbable -- people
can jump over it, but I'm not trying to make it
people-proof. I'm trying to make it automobile-proof to
deter trespassing, basically, of people driving around and
vandalizing the property. So, there will be numerous gates
that would be locked that, when they're opened, the flow of
-- for events really should not be inhibited too much.
There'll be somewhat of a different way of doing things, but
the cost of the fence is somewhere between $10 and $11 a
foot, and that's based on gates and everything included. I
-- we could probably save money by buying the material
ourselves and paying any one of the two people that bid this
?-~8-03
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
42
project by the hour.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Glenn, can you verbally
say where --
MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How do you plan on doing
this?
MR. HOLEKAMP: First option would be the --
the beginning -- the front of the building, the entrance
that's closest to the Exhibit Center. If you're familiar
when you drive through, there's that rock sign. About
halfway between the rock sign and that gate, there'll be
a -- a fence that will go towards the Exhibit Center. And
before it gets to the Exhibit Center, it will take an
immediate right, and it will cut over there and meet that
new fence that the Arts and Crafts people put in. That's
basically that one. That will secure the Exhibit Center,
horse stalls, the indoor arena, and the polo fields. The
other option would be, say, an 80-by-100 secure fence that
would enclose all the horse stalls and that little grassy
area back there where we could put dumpsters, we could put
trailers and that sort of thing in there. It's in the very
back. It probably wouldn't be as secure, you know, but with
some lighting, night lighting -- more night lighting, it may
help us a little. Those are my two options. I really -- I
personally like the one up front, but I can understand that
-_8-03
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
43
it may make -- create some problems for when there are two
events going.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess -- I mean, I -- I
like the option -- I think we need to do something, and I
think we need to really secure the whole facility. I don't
think -- building a little yard doesn't really accomplish
much. But I'm also trying to figure -- I don't know that we
would need a fence as much as -- you mentioned, you know,
trying to keep vehicles out. We could use, like, the -- the
post and cables, something like Road and Bridge used along
River Road and some other roads. That -- you know, I don't
know if it's any -- it may be more expensive; I don't know
what the cost of that is. But -- or just use pipe; you
know, go up 4 foot, do the pipe rail on it, no wire at all.
Something like that would work, but I'm just trying to
figure out a way to do it so you really don't cause a
problem. And what about if you came out from where the Arts
and Crafts gate is, on the side of the Extension Office --
MR. HOLEKAMP: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- and went straight out
towards the Exhibit Hall and then came straight up and made
kind of, like, a driveway out of that entrance, so you can
get to those -- you could get, you know, to the Arts and
Crafts or you could get to the Extension Office.
MR. HOLEKAMP: That's pretty much what I
7-~8-03
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
44
meant, but I moved it a little further over for -- just for
illustration purposes. It is actually -- there is a power
line pole that sits about halfway between, and I think that
would probably be used as one of the lines, because people
can't park around it anyway. And your -- your
recommendation about the -- you know, we could very easily
put a two-rail pipe fence and would accomplish the same
thing, where if somebody was parking, they could physically
get over the fence or under the fence. And that's not what
we're trying to keep out, is people.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. HOLEKAMP: I think we need to keep the
automobiles out, the ones that are messing around over there
stealing trailers and looking for something else to
vandalize. And it may stop some of the breaking of the
windows in the -- in the hog barn part. They throw beer
bottles through those things; they just drive around at
night and throw stuff through the windows. So this would
stop that, possibly.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How would we -- how would
you have it open, or -- like, a swing gate or something?
MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes. Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Into this part, something
like that?
MR. HOLEKAMP: There would be probably three
-~8-03
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
45
or four, depending on the configuration that they were
needing to -- for that event.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm just trying to figure
out, because so much traffic cuts in front of the Exhibit
Hall and goes from gate to gate.
MR. HOLEKAMP: There would be a gate there,
yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Probably maybe a double
with a temporary post?
MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, it would be. And with
the two -- two-rail
and I really didn't
thought, but it may
your gates with the
would look about th
them open.
pipe -- your suggestion is well-taken,
-- didn't give that a whole lot of
work, because then you can incorporate
same configuration as the fence, and it
same. Just lay them back open, chain
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, and you don't have
to look at the pricing cost between pipe versus getting that
half-inch cable. This is just put the pipes in the ground,
drill the holes, concrete --
MR. HOLEKAMP: These were just prices from
some guys that -- I had gotten some prices just to -- to
kind of give us an idea what we were up against. And I do
know I can probably buy pipe in -- the County could buy the
pipe and pay someone to weld and set posts probably cheaper
7-~8-03
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
than this price here, 'cause they mark up the -- the cost of
the pipe also.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think cable would be a
lot.
MR. HOLEKAMP: And the cable is a great idea.
I'll be glad to look into that. Two-strand cable or just
one?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: (Shrugged.) I think -- I
mean, you talk to -- I mean, I'm sure --
MS. HARDIN: Those are really expensive.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The cable is?
MS. HARDIN: The posts and the cables, 'cause
you have to have -- if you do two wires, then you have to
have the post drilled two places.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Oh, is that right? One might
be enough. But --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or one rail maybe could
be enough, to just put a solid rail on top.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Right, yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You give us the
linear foot cost.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What would the total
cost be?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You could get somebody
7 ~ 8 0 3
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
to do the welding and we could have inmate labor do the --
the painting on the pipe or drilling or whatever it needed
to be, as far as that labor goes.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Oh, yeah.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Just the welding part.
But it does need to be secured, that whole area.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Asia both numbers that I used
was approximately 400 to 450 feet.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Times 11 bucks.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Yeah, it's approximately
$5,000, somewhere between $4,500 and $5,000. Now, that is
if someone does -- brings everything in and does everything
based on what that wire -- that 48-inch. Now, what -- what
Commissioner Letz is talking about, I can do it cheaper.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You would need two
sets of gates? One set?
MR. HOLEKAMP: Oh, golly. I think they're --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One set of gates to
get you into the Exhibit Center and one to get you behind?
MR. HOLEKAMP: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 'Cause the stock show
people use that all the time.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, sir.
~-~8 ~3
48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
prices I've got recently for some other projects I'm working
on.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I just think it's
more security. I think if we put wire on these, it's going
to get torn, and if you put in, like, 3-inch pipe and do
2-inch rail, something like that, you could probably get
a --
MR. HOLEKAMP: But, basically, what I did in
bringing this to you was -- is to try to get, you know,
approval, basically. The need of doing something out there,
I guess, is where -- and I can't -- I don't think it would
really work with closing the gates in the front currently
where they go to the Exhibit Center -- I mean to the
Extension Office, because they have different functions at
different times, and I'd be willing to venture to say they
won't open a gate.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You do have money in
Permanent Improvements out there, don't you?
MR. HOLEKAMP: I've got some in my -- yes,
sir, in my Major Repairs.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Major Repairs.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, sir, I do.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Mr. Holekamp, I
recall that many years ago, that facility was more or less
%-^_8-03
49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
--1 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
,~-- 2 4
25
built by donations, private funds, community labor and all
that. Are there any organizations left today that perhaps
involve the junior livestock affairs that would help with
the -- the cost and/or construction of something like this?
MR. HOLEKAMP: I don't know. I can't answer
that definitively, but I would say probably not. Since the
County took over the -- the maintenance of that facility
back in '94, '95, whatever it was --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The recent --
MR. HOLEKAMP: -- they've chosen not to
really help.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On the facility, you
know, on the interior -- on the grounds-type work,
Commissioner -- former Commissioner Oehler --
MR. HOLEKAMP: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- built a lot of
fencing. I loaned one our bobcats for him to use -- or,
actually, he drilled all the holes for the fence at one
time. So, Commissioners have donated some time out there.
Post holes.
MR. HOLEKAMP: But a lot of this is -- these
are -- these are numbers, and I know I won't exceed it,
because there's a good possibility, as the Sheriff says, we
can utilize trustees, we can utilize community service and a
lot of this stuff. So, I would probably choose the hourly
-' 8 -., 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
50
thing, so we would maybe just be faced with someone to do
the welding itself. But, there again, when I come in with a
proposal, you know, I can't -- it's pretty hard to put a
number on for sure what it's going to cost. I just have to
cap them. I won't go over, basically. But I feel like we
can do it quite a bit cheaper.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Glenn, I just find
this whole conversation funny, I mean humorous, because here
we're talking about securing a facility that I've heard many
times in this room that's not worth having, and we're
leaving out a brand-new Extension Office building that's
very expensive and very nice, and it's just typical
government. That's all right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It is incongruous,
isn't it?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, that's easy for
you to say.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But you don't need a
motion? Or do you want a motion?
MR. HOLEKAMP: That's up to y'all. The
money's in the budget. It's not like I'm asking -- I'm just
asking kind of for approval to proceed.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I have a
question, Mr. Holekamp, on a related matter, before he gets
away, if you don't mind. I note with interest that the
7 2 8 0 3
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
County made an application to the City --
MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- for some hotel and
MR. HOLEKAMP: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: --
purpose? And when did we approve applyin
MR. HOLEKAMP: I turned it
for an icemaker and some other stuff, and
Judge Tinley, that I was going to ask for
didn't bring it to the Court. And -- but
on it.
money. For what
g for that money?
in to -- I applied
I had run it by
these things. I
I had briefed him
JUDGE TINLEY: He apprised me that he was
MR. HOLEKAMP: I was late getting everything
together. And, in fact, I was -- I was with an electrician
the other night at the Probation Office, and I did not make
it to the -- to the City Council that evening at a
presentation. We had some light problems over there and we
couldn't work on it because of computers during the day. So
-- but, there again, it was -- it was to improve some of
the -- I guess the bleachers and some things that -- if
there is ever some major repairs to the facility, it's stuff
that can be moved; it's not fixed.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess, Tommy, would
-28-03
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
this be considered a capital improvement? Or would it be
considered repair?
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I think -- I think it
would be an improvement to the facility, and it's attached
to the property, so I think it's an improvement.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Then I think it needs a
motion, because we generally specifically approve capital
improvement -- capital expenditures. Wouldn't you agree?
JUDGE TINLEY: Certainly wouldn't hurt to
have a motion to authorize Mr. Holekamp to proceed.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion to
authorize the Maintenance Director to put up appropriate
fencing to secure the Hill Country Youth Exhibit Center, in
an amount not to exceed $5,000.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll second that
motion.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that
the Maintenance Director be authorized to cause to be
erected a fence or other security to secure the Hill Country
Youth Exhibit Center at a cost not to exceed $5,000. 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.)
7-28-U3
53
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 TINLEY: Motion does carry. Thank you
very much, Mr. Holekamp. We appreciate that.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: It's a few minutes after
10:00. We have a timed item on the agenda, and that's an
update on the High Water Bridge. Commissioner Baldwin.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. Thank you
very much. A couple -- a couple of reasons I've -- I've put
this on the agenda. One is it's just that time for us to --
to get an update on the High Water bridge. And, two, to
make sure that, you know, if there -- if there is something
that we need to discuss in our budgetary system, then now's
the time to come forward. But -- and I've asked our
resident engineer, Mr. Tucker, and his sidekick in crime,
Mike Coward, to come and -- and just kind of give us a brief
update on the High Water Bridge that we've been talking
about a long time. Mr. Tucker.
MR. TUCKER: Morning. Thank you, Mr.
Baldwin. Well, as far as the update goes, we're pretty much
on schedule as far as the latest schedule that we've been
on. We're there. We're -- how's that for government talk?
(Laughter.) Latest schedule is we expect to let the project
in mid-'04. I think it's targeted right now for September.
If we can get the project ready earlier than that, we'll let
it earlier than that, but we're in the process of acquiring
7-~8-03
54
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
right-of-way right now. We are moving along. I understand
we've acquired at least one parcel that I know of, and we're
in negotiation stages with other property owners. It's
probably going to start construction in late '04. And Mike
has -- has brought, just to kind of refresh your memory,
kind of an artist's rendering our Bridge Division in Austin
gave us. This is not exactly the way the bridge will look,
but it's pretty close. There's some -- I think the lighting
may change a little bit from that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Where does my name go?
MR. TUCKER: We're going to -- that was one
of the things that will change. We were --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see.
AUDIENCE: 50 foot underwater.
MR. TUCKER: Well, we were going to call it
the Buster Baldwin Memorial Bridge.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Memorial?
MR. TUCKER: We've --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So it's going on
later, I hope.
MR. TUCKER: We've got -- well, as long as
it's been delayed, you know --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Not going to happen in
my lifetime.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Be about six feet
-~8-03
55
1
^ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
._._ 2 4
25
under.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Does it have bike lanes?
MR. COWARD: It has bike accommodation lanes,
which means they're wider outside lanes. Yes, it does. Has
sidewalks, too.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Wow.
MR. TUCKER: You'll have an alcove --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The City will be
happy about that.
MR. TUCKER: There will be some utilities
accommodated on the bridge. There will -- the City -- we're
working with the City to look at bringing utilities across
the river in the bridge construction, so that should help
with planning and development on the south side of the
river. Is there anything --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And, so, how far along
are we with the engineering? And the engineering's done in
San Antonio? Or is it being done in Austin?
MR. TUCKER: Actually, we're supervising the
engineering out of our office here in Kerrville. We have a
consulting firm that is doing plans, and they're doing
the -- let's say the roadway plans. The actual bridge
structure is being designed by our Bridge Division in
Austin. And the plans are what make --
MR. COWARD: It's 95 percent complete, which
7-28-C3
56
1
-- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
is essentially complete. We just have one last review to do
before the plans will be ready for letting.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Great. That's great
news.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If we hold to the
current schedule --
MR. TUCKER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- and let bids in
mid-'04, when would the bridge be completed?
MR. TUCKER: When would it be completed?
MR. COWARD: It's about probably a 15- to
18-month project, and we'd probably -- I mean, the bridge
can kind of go on by itself, but we would look to go over
there between Goat Creek Road and 27, and get that piece
done early on, because of some issues with circulation with
the elementary school. So we'll be able to, you know, try
to get over there and get that one little piece of road
done, open to traffic, and get the signal in at 27 early on
in the project.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That kind of answered the
question. So, the plan is just going to come from the -- on
the outside of Thompson Drive, but it's going to go all the
way across the open field?
MR. COWARD: Yes, it is.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Tie straight into Goat
-28-03
57
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
Creek?
MR. COWARD: It actually lines up, and -- and
was planned to line up with the entrance of the elementary
school.
MR. TUCKER: One of the things that we
would -- I think we've been in discussions with -- with the
Commissioners Court and individual Commissioners over the
last two or three years, and I just thought we'd bring this
up as a reminder, that there is a demand for connecting this
new road, this Spur 98 extension, we call it, on the south
side of the river, connecting that with Bear Creek Road so
that people that use Bear Creek Road now to -- to come into
town would have access to the High Water Bridge. There's a
fairly short distance that would need to be traversed over
what's now not highly developed land, and that we see is a
crucial link to further develop a system of roads that could
-- could bring people on the outside of the river into town
with this High Water Bridge without forcing them to go
Sheppard Rees Road and ultimately to the Sidney Baker
Bridge. 'Cause, if you've noticed, whenever we have floods,
the Sidney Baker Bridge is pretty much the only way to
handle traffic across the river, except for the bridge there
on Loop 534.
So, we -- we feel like that's a crucial link,
and we would urge the County to be looking ahead to talk
7-~8-~3
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
about a right-of-way corridor. This could possibly be --
have state participation, state funding in the future, but
we don't believe that -- looking at the cash flow picture,
that it's going to happen with state funds any time soon.
In the next five years, anyway. But we're concerned that
the development out there, spurred by this new bridge, might
close that corridor up to where the right-of-way that we
would need, or y'all would need, whoever, might close up and
become unavailable, which would be, I think, a real shame.
We don't have the ability to go out in front -- let's say in
front of the project and get that right-of-way in the near
term, and so it would be our suggestion that the County
would consider building a connecting road from Bear Creek
Road to this -- this Spur 98 in the near future so that
that -- that road corridor can be established.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'd like to take
that a step further. We've had some conversations about
this, and begun to think about -- it's been discussed in the
past, but to move that along, connecting all that up with
the south side of the river road that would come back across
the river at Hunt. So, extending that south side concept
all the way to Hunt. And it's kind of like the -- the
Commissioner Baldwin Memorial Bridge; it's going to --
probably not going to happen in any of our lifetimes, but if
it's ever going to happen, we need to start moving it along
7-28-G3
59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
now, probably.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What would be the
distance of the extension that Bill's making reference to,
to connect Spur 98?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Half a mile.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Half mile?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Half mile.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Right through a very,
very nice horse ranch. Very nice horse ranch.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: But this -- the
south side of Hunt, of course, would be another 12,
14 miles.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Years ago, we built --
the Court built a road from Indian Creek over to Goat Creek,
a spur of that, and -- and if my memory serves me, we built
it with 120-foot right-of-ways, et cetera, for future
purposes. Way, way, way ahead of our -- ahead of the game.
But at least there is a leg already done sitting out there,
waiting on this long-term plan. And we're intending on
doing that; we're going to get to it in mid-'04. (Laughter.)
MR. TUCKER: Good. We'll call it -- whose
memorial name are we going to use?
(Discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know if
everybody's aware of it or not, but this is probably the
~-28-03
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
60
last time Mr. Tucker will appear before the Commissioners
Court as a state employee. He's fixing to depart as a young
man, going to refire.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Wow.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Young man.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I was not aware of that.
MR. TUCKER: Yeah. State Legislature passed
a law giving an early retirement incentive, and it was just
too good to pass up.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just for you, personally.
MR. TUCKER: And a few thousand of my good
friends. But I'll -- I will remain in Kerrville, and
probably do something else. I'm too young to retire, like
Mr. Baldwin said. But I won't be the TexDOT area engineer
any longer as of August 31st of this year. Mike Coward, who
is my assistant and pretty much runs the operation now, will
at least be acting area engineer until they replace me --
until they find a permanent area engineer, which may or may
not be Mike. But Mike will be available to you in the
interim, and so I don't think there will be any -- any gap
in operations.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Bill, I don't think
you're replaceable.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He's not.
MR. TUCKER: That's probably a good thing.
7-~8-03
61
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
~3
L
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I didn't say good or bad;
I just said you're not replaceable.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tucker and I were good
friends the day he went to work for the Highway Department.
33 years ago?
MR. TUCKER: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Something like that.
And we've been very fortunate in Kerr County for him to come
over here from Austin to be with us all these years.
MR. TUCKER: I just feel like both of us are
fortunate to have survived those 30 years.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I agree. Okay,
that's all the nice things I'm going to say about you,
'cause you are one of my voters. Now, get out of here;
we're in business.
JUDGE TINLEY: I have a question for
Mr. Tucker, if I might. What is the likelihood that this
letting and construction schedule that you've just given us,
that it's going to hold?
MR. TUCKER: I feel it's very likely. Of
course, I don't have a crystal ball that's very accurate, as
my history will testify, but I don't see anything that would
prevent us from having that project ready for letting in the
time we've talked about, and I don't -- I don't see anything
keeping it from being let once we hand it over to Austin to
-28-03
62
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
let. We never -- never know for sure if there will be a
cash flow problem or -- or something will -- will jump up,
but I can't foresee it right now.
JUDGE TINLEY: You're very confident that
it's good to go this time?
MR. TUCKER: Yes.
MR. COWARD: There should not be any issues,
but one of the things we've been cautioned about by our
right-of-way folks, it just takes one bankruptcy, one
divorce, one circumstance like that, and then the property
acquisition kind of grinds to a halt; we have to go back and
refigure out the title issues and all that other kind of
stuff. And we have to have the properties to build the
project, so -- but we are out actively pursuing right-of-way
right now.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you very much. Any
other questions?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: One. Mike, there is
an ugly rumor out floating around, and simply a rumor, that
-- that all that property on the south side of the river has
just recently been sold to a church. I don't know what you
want to do with that, but I would track it down if I were
you.
MR. COWARD: I'll check on it. I guess we're
negotiating with Lewis -- Dr. Lewis right now, who is the --
~-28-03
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
63
apparently owns it right now.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Good. Very good.
MR. TUCKER: Thank y'all.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
MR. TUCKER: And I've enjoyed working with
the Court over these years. I appreciate the courtesies
you've given me. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Tucker. The
best to you. Next item, consider and discuss approval of
card to be mailed to county citizens for purpose of 911
address change, and the funding for the same. The 911 folks
are here, it appears.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mr. Bullock is here to
present the card, and I'm just going to turn it over to him,
let him explain what we're doing here. It's been a long
process, and we're excited that we're to a point where we're
fixing to do -- I do want to make one comment. There's what
we're -- basically, what we're doing. If you remember,
historically with 911, we have been going around the county
and piecemealing, basically, just putting pieces together to
try to get everybody addressed. And within the last year,
we have decided -- Commissioner Letz and I are the liaisons
to the 911, and with Mr. Bullock's help, we've been meeting
regularly with the 911 staff, and we've decided -- if you
-~a-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
64
remember, it's been in this court -- we've decided that
we're going to address the entire county in one fell swoop,
and that's what this is about. We're going to do a mass
mailing September 1, and it is time to make those final
decisions of adopting this card that we have chosen to mail
out, and then our magician, Tommy, is going to help us
figure out a way to pay for it, I hope. So, anyway --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Wait -- wait, I have a
comment before you go, Jim. And while this looks like a
very simple little card here, this card is the result of, I
think, at least three, four, five meetings of -- large
meetings. We're talking about meetings of four or five
people to create this card, and numerous small meetings.
Thanks go out to the Judge, Jim Bullock, and 911. The
system, while it seems very simple, and it is a simple
process, this card is very important. The verbiage is
important; what's on it is important. Because one thing we
don't want to do -- and this is what Commissioner Baldwin
and I have been really striving for, is we want it to be
right. We got to make sure that we don't make a mistake on
this, and -- and you have to mesh all that to inform the
public and be able to pull the information from the
computers to print the card, and then get it printed. So, I
mean -- and I'm saying all that just to say that everyone
needs to, on the Court, really look at this and make sure,
7-25-03
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
65
you know, they understand this, because this will be going
out within a month. And the card idea, I think credit goes
to Jim and to Buster for getting away from the letter and
saving us a whole lot of money by using the card, which is
probably going to -- I think it was their idea, anyway. I
know it wasn't mine.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We'll take it. We'll
take it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. But, anyway, Jim,
explain to us what we have.
MR. BULLOCK: Okay. The process of this
would be that we would accept a file from 911, and along
with a form that would be preprinted. It would be taken
over to San Antonio to a printer that's available that could
print all the variable information on the front. There's
not any companies in Kerrville that will accept the -- the
charge of printing all these variable lines on the front of
it that are not -- they don't have the machinery capable of
that. One company here in Kerrville -- I can't remember the
name of it, but it was -- has called a couple of different
printers, and they cannot handle the number of variable
fields that we have. The code on the front, we -- that has
been split up into four codes. That has been by geo-region,
so that we can try to help or aid 911 in all these calls,
and the calls coming in and the various times as set down,
~-~R-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
66
and they would be in a general area of the county, and
people out there could be better acquainted with that area
of the county without having to jump all over the county
answering questions from each geo-region. And the Code 1
would be the geo-region southwest and south, which would be
in Precincts 4, 1, and 2. Code 2 would be geo-region east,
which would be affecting 2, 3, and 1. And then Code 3 would
be the north, and that's affecting Precincts 3, 2, and 1.
And then Code 4 is just northwest and west, and that's all
Precinct 4.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If I might make a
comment, the reason we went with the code -- or came up with
the code, it was felt that it was too much of a possible
bottleneck to have everybody calling 911 at the same time,
and we need to break up the county. They didn't have a way
to break it up. They first did it by precinct, and they
didn't have a way to do it by precinct. Geo-region, Buster
and I thought would confuse everyone when you start talking
about geo-regions; no one knows what they are. So, they
created the code system based on geo-regions. So, you know,
all you see on the card is just Code 1, 2, 3, or 4. And,
you know, this is what makes up that code.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I know this is all
well thought out, so -- but I ask the question so that you
can help me answer it when I get it. What's the purpose in
~-~8-03
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
67
calling 911 to confirm the receipt?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll defer to 911.
MR. AMERINE: I'll address that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This is Bill Amerine,
director of 911.
MR. AMERINE: Thank you. We thought about
not having people respond, and what that would mean as far
as liability of having these new addresses going to our
emergency database without any kind of confirmation. And
there's two purposes for having them call us. One is to
verify that the information that we have identified for the
new address is correct and makes sense. We have multiple
sources, as I've told the Commissioners Court before, that
we use to come up with these addresses; U.S. Post Office
information, phone information, and KCAD information. A lot
of that source is old. And, you know, we've done the best
we can to come up with these addresses based upon what we've
seen, but we want to make sure it's correct. And having
them call us -- we figure these calls would take anywhere
from 1 to 5 minutes -- would help us verify the information
is correct, and also it gives us an opportunity to let them
know certain key things, like when this will become
effective, what they can expect from the Post Office in
January, and also gives us -- the second purpose of this
call is to give us a chance to try to sell to them a 911
7-~8-03
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
68
sign that they can put at the entrance of their property,
because all this addressing, even though it's helpful, is
somewhat meaningless without that property sign. So, that
was the reason why we wanted them to call us. Now, we did
put a provision in this card that you're looking at that if
they don't call, that we're going to go ahead and put that
address in the emergency database on 1 January. Not
responding to this card is the same thing as agreeing to
what we've done to it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And let me expand on one
thing that I think Bill mentioned. Really, one of the
really big draws for us is the liability issue, the
liability that goes to the telephone companies. They're --
the telephone companies are uncomfortable with changing
records without getting feedback from the people that are
changing. And the system has to use the phones, so we're
kind of -- you know, they really wanted something in here on
getting feedback from them, and this is the way to do it.
But, you know, it's kind of a compromise, basically, you
know. We're telling people to call, but we didn't want to
be in a situation of not changinq them if they didn't call.
So we said if you don't call, you know, we're going to
change you anyway. But it's -- that was largely the phone
company.
25 ~ MR. ANiERINE: They're absolutely concerned
~-~a-c_s
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
~-
25
69
about the liability changing with what -- what they consider
their record, just from 911, electronic feeds without having
customer input to that. It would be the same thing if I
called your electric utility as 911 and told them to change
physical address. They wouldn't like that without some sort
of customer input. That was another primary reason for the
calling.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Mr. Amerine, how --
how confident are we that the emergency service providers --
law enforcement, fire, those -- are plugged into this to the
extent that it won't be confusing when names and addresses
have changed?
MR. AMERINE: I don't know how to answer that
question, as far as how well they're plugged into it. We
publicized when the effective dates are going to be for
these, what the citizen input period is going to be, a big
public service announcement to all the media here right
prior to the card being mailed out, with instructions on how
citizens should respond to the card, and also giving those
critical dates that between September and the end of the
year will be their opportunity to provide us feedback and
pick up their sign; that in January, that information will
be fed from the phone companies to our database. And then,
shortly after that, the U.S. Post Office -- Postmasters will
be sending out their confirmation saying that the citizens
i-28-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
70
now have from January 2004 to the end of the year to convert
their mailing addresses to the new physical 911 address.
So, I don't know how to answer your question, sir. I
haven't had any meetings with First Responders, law
enforcement folks, volunteer fire departments about these
dates, other than showing them the same plan I showed the
Court some time ago. Hopefully, these public service
announcements will hit everyone who needs to know. But I
will -- I think it's a good suggestion to go back and think
about having kind of a meeting of minds, perhaps, prior to
getting down the road too far.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Probably want to
meet again with KARFA before -- well, before January 1.
MR. AMERINE: Certainly.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a question.
Is this a blanket mailing, or is it just going to be a
four-stage mailing of that correspondence with these dates?
MR. AMERINE: We thought about that. And we
did a mailing for unmapped and unnamed roads -- this is --
we'll get back to your question, sir -- a couple months ago,
and we were actually pleased, but also shocked and surprised
how quickly people responded. That's why we wanted to do
this staged feedback. But we're still having people from
over a month ago respond to that card. They -- you know,
they set it aside, they discover it in the glove box, then
-~'8-03
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
71
they get around to responding. We're hoping by having this
staged response, that we could get people to respond in that
time frame and give us an opportunity to have staff
available to respond to that. You know, if we did a staged
mahout, I'm concerned -- for instance, if I did the last
Code 4 area, the last geo-region, let's say the middle of
November, I'm worried that people wouldn't be calling me
until the end of December, which would be essentially too
late to make any change in the databases. So, by getting
the cards out in September, everybody will have a chance to
see the card and respond in that time frame, before we hit
the middle of December.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But you also have the
potential that those who you would like to respond between
November 10th and 28th will respond between September 9th
and 26th.
MR. AMERINE: When they do, we're going to go
ahead and take those calls. We don't want to say call back
during your code period, because if we do that, we might not
hear back from them. We hope that most people will read
this and pay attention to it and then respond, and that at
least segregates those calls to some degree.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The other issue that
we -- on this is that we're afraid if we don't do them all
at once, a bunch of people would be calling, saying, "Well,
~-~8-~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
72
I didn't get my card,' cause they -- 'cause the geo -- the
code system is not logical in anyone's mind to where the
geo-regions are set up. You couldn't say, "Well, you're not
in the right precinct," try to explain geo-regions to the
public, and --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I know.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And, you know,
there -- it could -- there could be a miracle come out of
this thing, where we're actually doing it right, and there
wouldn't be that many phone calls. That's what I think is
going to happen. There's not going to be that many phone
calls, because we're doing it right the first time. And
people -- people are smart, and they're going to understand
it.
MR. AMERINE: And a point, just for the -- it
really isn't germane to the discussion, but just for the
court record, something that our local media brought up
prior to the Commissioners Court. We're offering a 911 sign
for a nominal fee, but all we're really pushing as a 911
entity is that people sign their property. If they want to
make their own sign, if they want to do one of these
high-dollar, expensive, custom signs for their curb, that's
fine. We're making it available at a nominal fee, just like
the other counties. They can have a reflective sign for
their property for $5.
-^8-03
73
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 BALDWIN: But we would like to
have all of them look alike, if we could.
MR. AMERINE: Certainly. My goal is to try
to get people to sign their property, because if they don't,
having them addressed is almost a meaningless exercise.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, Judge, this part
of the -- let me just say this and then get back to you.
This part of this agenda item, we simply want to adopt this
card, the Commissioners Court to vote to approve this
particular card.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mailout notice.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: I've got a question.
Mr. Bullock, you indicated that you had made arrangements
with a printing firm in San Antonio, I believe?
MR. BULLOCK: The printing company here made
that arrangement.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right. 'Cause I noticed
there was a -- a quote from a local printing establishment,
and --
MR. BULLOCK: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: But the -- the printing matter
is being arranged through the local; is that correct?
MR. BULLOCK: Yes, sure is.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
7-Z8-03
74
1
^ 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: They were nice enough
to seek this company out in San Antonio and make all the
arrangements and everything.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Very, very easy to
work with.
JUDGE TINLEY: That answers my question.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just one other comment,
just kind of also to give Dave another thing he can tell
people when they call, is that -- is that one of the reasons
when they call is they find out where to put their address
sign. There's -- I mean, it's exactly where to put it, how
to put it. And when you get out into your area and my area,
you have a lot of ranches. Does it go with the house or go
with the gate? I'm asking. That's the kind of thing that
they'll be able to answer, tell them what to do, and I think
it will be helpful to the public. Buster, did you make a
motion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm going to right
now. I move that we approve this particular card that's on
file here; that would be our mailing to the citizens of Kerr
County for the purpose of_ 911 address changing.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and
seconded that the Court approve the notification card that's
7-~8-03
75
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
been presented to the Court as the notification to county
citizens for the purpose of 911 address change, and for --
you're going to include the funding?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's going to be a
separate -- we're going to do a separate issue.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right. For the purpose of
notification. Is there any further questions or discussion?
Sheriff had a question, I believe.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The only comment I
had -- and I agree with Bill. I'm glad to see this coming,
but the -- the public education and that is going to be the
most important part, I think, to it. And I didn't know if
there's something stronger that the Court or 911 can do to
try and insure that the people do put the same type of
address sign up in the same type of location, because that's
our -- that's our most important part, you know, as far as
the EMS or even us, especially in the county, which is where
most of this is going to be, is being able to know
immediately where that place is when you drive up. And if
you give them a whole lot of choice on where they're going
to put the sign, or if they're even going to put a sign up,
it becomes like we're not doing much at all. We really need
to be able to find a lot of these places a whole lot
quicker. I don't know if there's a little bit stronger deal
in there to really get them to use the same type of signs,
7-~8-03
76
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
whether it's one that they furnish or how they put them, and
trying to encourage that a lot more than just volunteering
to do it.
MR. AMERINE: What -- we're going to do a
couple things. When folks call or come in, we're going to
provide them guidelines, but we're also going to publish
service announcements in all the media during this time
frame on exactly how the sign should appear and the size of
the lettering, reflective, where it should be posted based
upon your property layout, all those things. So, between
the information we'll provide personally when folks call or
come in, there will also be multiple opportunities for folks
to see things in the local media. So, beyond that, you
know -- you know, when folks come in to pick up their sign,
we're going give them specific instructions in writing on
how to do that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And, again, I think --
I think the majority -- 99 percent of the people in the
county are going to go for this $5 deal.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Sure hope so.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I really feel like
they will. But you -- I see what your concern is, Sheriff.
But you have to remember, we're many, many miles down the
road compared to where we've been.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Oh, there's no doubt. I
~-28-03
77
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
think it's the best improvement we've ever had, and I'm glad
to see it going forward. It's just I'd hate to see a lot of
people not take advantage of it. And I'd be willing to help
with any of the media stuff on it, because it's just -- it's
going to be so important to law enforcement that it's
unreal.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, with your
comments today, probably the press is going to pick up on
it. He's going to continue hammering it almost every week,
and then I think they're -- we're planning a -- a press
conference with all the players with -- with this thing, so
we're going to -- which includes us. And we keep hammering
it; that's all we can do. We can't -- of course, we can't
force them, but I think all of them will.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think they will.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions or
comments?
MR. PICKENS: Judge, as for Constable,
Precinct 1 -- and I've already talked to Bill about this,
and I'm agreeing with the Sheriff and with what Buster
Baldwin's saying about their being uniform, as far as the
signs. About two months ago, I had to go over to Gillespie
County to serve a paper, look for a guy. I had no idea
where I was going to go, called the Sheriff's Office over
there, gave them the person's name. They told me, "You go
7-28-G3
78
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
8 miles out of 290 West, you'll see the road sign. You'll
see a blue sign with the lettering on it and the number." I
went straight to the house within 30 minutes. And I've
already talked to Bill about this, and I'm in agreement with
Rusty; I'll be willing to help with the media on that as
well. I'd have gone over there, been driving around, you
know, for hours. So, I mean, Gillespie County is really
just -- they've got theirs dawn pat.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Any further
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.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And the other half of
this agenda item is the cost of doing all of this. And, as
you see in your notes that I put in the -- put in the
packet, the printing of the card is $1,200. The postage is
$3,200, which brings a total of $4,400 that we have not
budgeted, because we didn't know that we were going to do
this when we completed last year's budget. Now -- what?
So, I have some thoughts that I've -- that I've written down
here for y'all to consider, and I really think that getting
this thing printed -- I would think that we could go to the
printing company and say, "Please hold our bill until
~-~8-03
79
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
October l," and so that we can put it in next year's budget
and pay for the printing of this card in next year's budget
without having to go into any kind of reserve or moving
money around in this year's budget.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is that what you call Austin
accounting?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think that's what
they call it. And I don't -- you know, we can break the
budget and all that this year if we wanted to, but I'd
rather not. I'd rather attempt that. And then, as far as
the postage is concerned, I mean, we're talking about
$3,200 -- coming up with $3,200 somewhere, and I don't know
where we come up with that. But we do have -- in the county
system, we have a postage meter that is large enough to
handle a mailing like this. I have not spoken with that
department -- that elected official, but if y'all felt like
that may be a better route for us to go, as opposed to going
into the budget and seeking out funds, we can certainly
attempt that. But other than that -- other than getting the
company to hold off the billing until October 1, and going
inside our system for mailing, we would have -- we'd have to
ask the County Auditor to find $4,400 to get- this project
done that we've -- that we have committed to, and it needs
to be done. So, Tommy, what do you think? You didn't hear
any of that, did you?
-~8-03
80
1
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: Well --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I was trying to be
gentle for you.
MR. TOMLINSON: There's -- I know there's a
line item available for transfer out of Nondepartmental.
Last September, we prepaid a contract for maintenance for
some equipment, so we do have at least that -- at least the
$4,400 in that -- that account currently. And we will not
have any more bills to go into that account for the
remainder of the year. So, it's up to the court. I -- I
have a -- a budget amendment that's not for today's court,
but before the end of the year, we have a -- we do have a
shortfall in almost every department for health insurance
for -- for this year's budget. Last -- last year, when the
budget was finalized, we did not budget sufficient funds
for -- for this year. I think -- I think we already
probably know that because of working on next year's budget,
but my estimation is that, county-wide, this -- this
amendment will -- it's probably in the neighborhood of
$140,000.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 140?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Wait a minute, don't
do that to him. Let me get through my issue. I'm -- you
may have just sunk my whole deal here.
7-~8 03
81
1
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: But I -- I've worked up the
estimates on what I -- what I think this -- this amendment
will be. I just have not brought it to the Court before
now, but it will probably be necessary for next court. So,
I will be bringing that to the Court next meeting.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tommy, let me ask you
a question. Let's say that we transferred this -- this
$4,400 out of the Nondepartmental.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you think that it
would be wise to create a new line in the Commissioners
Court, a new 911 postage line? Or -- because I really see
this as just really a one-time shot. I don't --
MR. TOMLINSON: I don't see a need to do
that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We'll just transfer it
into the Commissioners Court postage?
MR. TOMLINSON: There is a postage line item
in -- in Commissioners Court budget. I don't -- I don't see
that that's -- that will be necessary to establish --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If it were an annual
deal, I could see where we would, but I -- this is a
one-time deal.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Commissioner, it seems
that we should do a -- I mean, the postage in the postage
?-_^8-03
82
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
line items, and do the other into office supplies. I mean,
those -- I mean, I don't think it all should go into
postage.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's correct.
That's correct.
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, we -- because it's --
because it's toward the end of the year, even though -- even
though we might not receive an invoice for -- for those
cards until the prior year, from -- from generally accepted
County principles, for audit purposes, we would accrue that
bill back to this year anyway.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Commissioner --
MR. TOMLINSON: Simply because we did order
that -- the invoice in the current year -- I mean, for
supplies the current year.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Commissioner, is the
20 cents per card postage, is that a discounted rate for
bulk, or is that the standard postcard rate?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think it's a
discounted rate for bulk, because these are the only folks
that came up with that actual -- that actual --
MR. MOTLEY: 23 cents is the current.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Current is 23. And
the other folks -- other companies that we talked with was
-~a-o~
83
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
23 cents. These guys say they can do it for 20; we have it
in writing. And that's the figure that I worked with.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: There's no possibility we
could get that pre -- those cards with the postage already
printed on them, as you very often see? It may be that,
using a discounted rate, you can't do that, but --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, actually, I
think the -- I think the folks that actually print the card
are going to -- is that not right?
MR. BULLOCK: I think the company -- the
printing company in San Antonio would be putting the postage
on it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Be putting the postage
on it, but they're going to charge us the 20 cents instead
of the 23 cents that you normally pay.
JUDGE TINLEY: I was just concerned about the
labor costs of running it through a postage meter here
locally, or somebody actually putting some sort of a stamp
on there. You've answered my question.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do we need - my last
question; you can make a motion. The postage number is a
little bit variable, because on the size of the mailing, do
we know exactly what that's going to be yet? Or are we
7-~tS-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
estimating it to be about $3,200, based on --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's fairly
accurate. It's fairly accurate. The number -- the 20 cents
per card postage, and how many cards?
MR. BULLOCK: 16,000.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 16,000 cards.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess my question is,
what if we only mail out 15,5? Do we pay -- are we paying
postage on those -- on the full 16? Even if we don't use
some of them?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know.
MR. BULLOCK: That would probably -- it could
be a little less than 16,000, so therefore it would be less
total as far as dollar amount.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So it would be the exact
number of cards we print?
MR. BULLOCK: Yeah, it would be the exact
number.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. So, you make a
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm going to try here.
To transfer $3,200 from Nondepartmental line -- do you
happen to have the line number?
MR. TOMLINSON: I don't have a line item.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Nondepartmental is
-~8-C3
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
close enough for you? To the Postage line in Commissioners
Court, and transfer $1,200 from Nondepartmental into Office
Supplies in the Commissioners Court. And I apologize, I
don't have those numbers. Didn't know this was going to
happen.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that
we make the transfers from Nondepartmental to the
Commissioners Court line items as indicated in the motion.
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: At this point, we're going to
take a break. A little late doing that; I apologize to the
court reporter for that. But we'll reconvene at
approximately 11 a.m.
(Recess taken from 10:48 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's come back to order.
We'll resume the Commissioners Court meeting scheduled for
this date. Next item is Item 10, consider and discuss
proposed new O.S.S.F. Rules and Regulations and set a public
hearing on same. Commissioner Letz, Commissioner Nicholson.
-~s-os
86
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: We discussed this at our
last meeting, and we're trying to basically finalize the
verbiage in the new -- under our new -- or what will be new
order for O.S.S.F. in Kerr County. And the verbiage we're
trying to work out is that in Section 10. You might recall
at our last meeting I had some language that -- basically,
that referred to 285, Section 285 -- Chapter 285, and
deleted the language related to the 10-acre exemption, which
was kind of the intent of the committee recommendation. The
problem is, T.C.E.Q. didn't like that approach. They didn't
like us deleting something that they felt that we had no
authority to delete something from 285. I mean, to me,
we're in a semantics period here. If we take it out, we
take it out. How we do it shouldn't make that much
difference. But, anyway, we're easy to get along with. If
they don't want us to do it that way, we'll do it a
different way.
And the language that is in the backup, you
know -- well, I understand -- well, Dave and I discussed it.
We did not like that language, because we thought it was a
little bit vague. The part that was vague refers to
repairs, alterations, or new installation. That "repairs,
alteration..." we thought was vague. Since then, we -- I
have talked with Stuart, and Dave may have too, and we have
some new language in place of that which would read -- 10(A)
7-2b'-03
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
in the backup would read, "Regardless of acreage involved,
any new construction, repairs, or extension of an O.S.S.F.
located within Kerr County, Texas, are required to be
permitted and licensed. The reason -- and that is the
recommended language from T.C.E.Q. And the reason is, new
construction, repair, and extension -- Stuart, is there
another one?
MR. BARRON: Alteration.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh, and alterations.
Those are all defined terms in Chapter 285. And that way,
it was -- that was the reason for them wanting to use those
words, "new construction, repair, alteration, or extension."
Not that I don't trust Stuart and T.C.E.Q.; I haven't
referred back to Chapter 285, and those are defined terms.
To me, I guess it doesn't totally ease my concern about what
is a repair. Is it -- you know, and the definition of --
I'll just read the definition of repair. It says, "To
replace any component of an O.S.S.F. in situations not
included under emergency repairs, according to Chapter
285.35 of this title, relating to emergency repairs,
excluding maintenance. The replacement of tanks or
drainfields is considered a repair and requires a permit for
the entire O.S.S.F. system." And I'm -- you know, but it
still refers to -- in my mind, a little repair could trigger
this, and I don't think that's the intent of the -- at least
7-~8-03
88
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
,.-, 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.~.
25
my intent. If someone has something minor to do, I don't
think that should trigger having to license the entire
system. So, that's kind of where we are.
And I might -- because there are two
entities, being -- Kerr County being one, and U.G.R.A. being
the other, that have authority over septic in Kerr County,
and I think it is very important that our language under our
-- each of our orders be identical, I don't know if we want
to try to work out language right now or postpone this and
do it at our next meeting. U.G.R.A., I believe, set a
public hearing on some language -- other language other than
this for August 20th, and my recommendation would be to
U.G.R.A. to reset a new public hearing in September so we do
have the exact same language, and take no action on
August 20th. I mentioned this to Jerry a few minutes ago --
Jerry Ahrens, U.G.R.A. Board member. He thinks that's not a
bad idea.
MR. AHRENS: Not a bad idea.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not a bad idea. So,
that's kind of where we are. I mean, we're moving forward.
We're at the point of just, really, you know, making sure
everyone's comfortable with the exact language. And because
this is an important issue, I think it's real important that
we have the exact language that we're talking about at the
time we do the public hearing.
-~8-03
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
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask you a
question. Now, the way I understand it is that any time
that you change the rules, like what you're talking about
changing, I mean, you have to get T.C.E.Q, to approve it.
So, do you -- do you have the -- your public hearing first
in the local -- in the county of the changes, and then --
then send to it Austin for their approval? Or how, you
know, does that work?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, that's the
formal -- in reality, that is the way it has to work. You
have to have a public hearing; then we, at the public
hearing, adopt, approve. We're trying to get them to
basically preapprove the language, I mean, 'cause I don't
see a whole lot of point in having a public hearing and us
adopting something, them saying no, we can't do it. So,
through Stuart, we're trying to get T.C.E.Q. to preapprove
the language that we're now trying to get into Section 10,
and that's kind of where we are right now. I mean, Dave and
I discussed it -- don't like it, and discussed it with
Stuart.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think you may have a
hard time getting that done. But -- and then --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Excuse me, getting
what done?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Getting them to
7-_8-03
90
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
preapprove something.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We -- they're not going
to say it's preapproved. They're saying this is our
preferred language. That's what they've said. They said,
"We like this."
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They're happy to do
that, I bet you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, they're really
happy to say what they want. But --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And then the 10-acre
exemption, I -- I understand that clearly, how they would
balk at that, because that's state law. That's law, and we
certainly can't come along, and neither can they come along
and change anything that's in the state law.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, but --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And that's a question
mark at the end of that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think you're right.
But, in -- in effect, we're changing Chapter 285 here by
making a modification to Section 10.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Maybe.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, that --
CUMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner, I'm --
I think that Section 10 allows us to be more stringent.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: With their approval.
~-z~-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
91
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: With their approval.
Now, that's not to say that I'm in favor of -- of abolishing
the 10-acre -- the exemption. I'm not. But I think we can
do it if that's what we decide to do.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're not in favor of
abolishing the 10-acre rule?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Oh, I think it's --
you don't have -- there's little or no impact on protecting
our environment. If we need to -- if we need to abolish it
for reasons of getting agreement and -- and moving on down
the road with administration of O.S.S.F., that may be
another thing. It's unnecessary to abolish it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I agree with
you. Seems like maybe we better find something else, find
some other way to come together, 'cause that -- I'm -- I'm
certainly not in favor of abolishing or disallowing the
10-acre exemption.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: My turn?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sure.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: At the risk of being
considered obstreperous or adversarial, which is not my
intention at all, I have grave concerns about -- about the
route that we're going. And where we have stated that we're
trying to make Section 10 more stringent than state
requirements, I have great doubts that we're doing that.
-2~-03
92
1
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 way we seem to be headed is that we've eliminated --
we're proposing to eliminate inspections prior to real
estate transfer. And Commissioner Letz may be happy to know
that you have convinced me that they are invasive the way
they are, but I think there's some room for finding an
avenue of approach that perhaps is equal to or maybe even
better than. We have no responsible method for knowing the
condition of O.S.S.F.'s that change hands outside of real
estate title company office purview.
We have not, to my knowledge, asserted any
water quality or other health and safety standards or
regulations that might be periodically examined. We have no
database that I'm aware of that catalogs existing O.S.S.F.
conditions and locations. We have access t~ data from KCAD,
but only months after O.S.S.F. may have been altered due to
additional construction or for other reasons. And we have
only the word of a property owner who, for whatever his or
her reasons, has transferred property to a new owner, and
from these transactions that they place in the title
company, we have no sustaining record. And those things
trouble me. They truly trouble me.
Last time we talked about this, I unveiled
a -- a structure of how we might at least correct the
ability to garner information and, if you will, build a
database. There seems to be some hesitation about using
7-?8-G3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
93
that, because it is asserted that real estate companies make
a seller sign some kind of paperwork that says that things
are in good standing, whether it's the septic tank or the
plumbing or electrical or whatever. But the record goes
nowhere. It goes into the portfolio of the buyer, the
seller, and it dies there. We don't have any record that
goes into -- into the health records as to -- as to the
condition of a septic system. You may be surprised --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Speak a little bit
10 louder.
11
12 me?
.~- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. You can't hear
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I can barely hear you
sitting next to you.
CUMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, this stupid
thing in my ear makes me sound like I'm screaming. Thank
you. It may be surprising to you to know that people have
called me about it as well, and want to know why would we do
away with the real estate transfer section. And my answer
is that, despite my protestations, the train seems to be
leaving the station nn that particular -- on that particular
thing. A couple folks have suggested to me certain ways
that we might want to deal with this topic, and my response
to them has been, "Put it down. If it makes some sense, I
will bring it to the Court for the Court's consideration."
-~8-C3
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
94
I'm going to do that today. I'm going to give you two
scenarios that have been advanced to me about Section 10,
and one of them has to do with water quality, how you judge
the function of a system or the malfunction of a system
based on water quality. And the other has to do with
allowing the -- or requiring those who do the installation
and repairs to accept responsibility for what they've done,
and certify to the buyer and the seller that they've done it
correctly.
Does everybody have a copy? I have other
copies here if people want to see them. And what I would
like to ask our two representatives, who I again say thank
you for your efforts to-date, but I'd like to ask you to go
back to the drawing board, with the two representatives from
the Upper Guadalupe River Authority, and take a look at
these two different models. One is based on water quality,
and the other is based on a responsibility to the seller or
the -- or the buyer, whomever, in terms of taking care of
septic systems. I think there's too much to digest here
today, but I would ask you to take it back and take a look
at it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You made a comment
earlier today about herding cats? I think that's very
accurate with this suggestion.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Probably right. I
~-~8-03
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
95
agree. Probably --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Anyway, I was not
prepared to set a public hearing day. I don't think
Commissioner Nicholson was either, even before we received
this, and visiting with U.G.R.A.'s representative, I mean,
they acknowledge that we need a little more work. I
think -- I guess the question I have for the Court is that,
at what point, I guess, do we stop looking at it and have a
public hearing and, you know, move forward one way or the
other? I mean, you know, it's kind of -- we kind of get
together, and then all of a sudden we scatter again. And --
and I -- I'm going to do a couple more meetings with the
committee, but not much more beyond that, because I -- I
mean, I think the committee's met as much as we can.
The committee is pretty much in agreement as
to a recommended O.S.S.F. plan, and the committee -- I mean,
each individual member of that committee is -- I can assure
you, is not 100 percent happy with that recommendation.
It's a compromise from many different groups, and some of
that -- everyone is agreeing that we have to have a
compromise to get something through that everyone can live
with and that, you know, there are the votes on both boards
to get through those bodies and proceed. So, I don't mind,
you know, going back, have one more meeting with the
committee, look at this information provided by Commissioner
7-23-03
1
'" 2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
'' 4
.~~ G
25
96
Williams, and try to come up with that by our next meeting,
a draft language for Section 10 that both -- you know, that
both entities -- hopefully we can move forward with.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's all I'm
asking, to take a look at it.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: One of the questions
we have to address, and one of the reasons we began this
process in the first place was making a decision about
whether we were going to continue to have a Designated
Representative, or if Kerr County was going to take over the
-- the administration of O.S.S.F. There's, I think, general
agreement -- just my sense of it -- that we would continue
to have a designated agent, but we have to make that
decision at a certain time frame. Are we running out of
time on that?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I thought we did that
last time, authorized the negotiations to take place on that
topic, as to an agreement between Kerr County and the River
Authority for Designated Representative.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And those -- those
negotiations, I -- I expect would likely succeed. But the
-- in the event they didn't, we have a contract expiration,
don't we?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- basically, I
mean, I agree with Commissioner Nicholson on this point,
.-28-03
97
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that that topic of a contract and this topic on the rules
are very much intertwined.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And if we can't -- you
know, all of -- I guess, the recommendation of having -- the
County having a Designated Representative, being U.G.R.A.,
to me presumes that we have the same set of rules. And if
we can't get to the same set of rules, all bets are off on
who's going to -- and, you know, I can see us quickly
spiraling in opposite directions, and U.G.R.A. doing rules
within 1,500 feet and the County doing rules in our area,
which I think would be a mistake for the citizens of Kerr
County.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree with you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, I mean, that's --
you know, they are related because of that one topic. And I
think that the Court, you know, as a whole needs to
understand that we don't control the entire county on this.
U.G.R.A. has their rules, and if we're going to do what I
think is best for the citizens, we have to come to an
agreement with U.G.R.A. as well on, you know --
(Sheriff's cell phone rang.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's twice.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I know.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Anyway, just -- so, no
7-28 C3
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
98
action today, at least no motion from me. And then we'll be
back on the next agenda, hopefully, for the last time to set
the public hearing. Anyone from U.G.R.A. -- I see we have
Scott Loveland, Stuart Barron, and Jerry Ahrens here.
Anyone want to make a comment? I believe you had a comment
from Mr. Evans, also.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, Mr. Evans filled out a
participation form. Feel free to come up and be heard,
Mr. Evans. This is Von Evans.
MR. EVANS: My name is Von Evans. About
eight years ago, I had my home built out here north of the
interstate in Kerrville Country Estates. And at that time,
of course, the variation septic system was put in and it was
examined to see that it met all of the criteria as required.
And then, of course, now I have a contract with Benny
Harvill, who is a state certified inspector of septic
systems, and of course I pay him, like, $260 a year; he does
an excellent job. And, therefore, I'm opposed to having --
to have it again inspected if I decided to resell. If I
have a quarterly report showing that it's being properly
maintained, why does it have to be inspected again? So I'm
opposed to the inspection prior to resale.
One other comment. Now, I -- I think all of
you are aware that I just recently bought a piece of
property adjacent to the one that I presently own, and I
-_8-~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
99
paid $180 for a replat review by the Upper Guadalupe River
Authority, and that was in regard to the -- whether I was in
the floodplain or not. I'm at 1,400 feet. As well as
the permissibility of a septic system on that new property
if I ever decided to put one there, which, of course, I
don't intend to do. I said okay, is -- if I did this and
you did charge me $180 for this replat review, does this
constitute a permit for a septic system if I did want to put
one on there? No, you have to come back and apply and then
show what kind of septic system you're going to put in, and
then, of course, you're going to have to pay some more fees
to put in a septic system that has already been initially
reviewed at the point of purchase.
I -- I'm not saying I want my money back,
because I know that's not going to happen. I'm saying that
I think that at the time that -- that I was in the process
of buying the property, which Buster knows took about two
years, that the replat review could have simply said
elevation, location as to some zone in Kerr County, and do
you want a septic system? Yes or no. And if it was no, and
I'm at 1,400 feet, it would have taken about 10 minutes or
less to review that replat, and would probably cost me about
$10 or $20 rather than $180. So, I think that some
accommodation should be made there. And that's the comments
that I have. And anybody have any questions of me?
i-28-03
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
l4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
100
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I just have a
comment. I think the -- I appreciate your remarks here, and
I think that you've identified what this -- this process is
all about. It's about whether or not we're going to have
more government and more bureaucracy. And, if so, is there
a good, sufficient purpose for doing it?
MR. EVANS: Yes, sir. I'd like to interject
one humorous point. The City of Kerrville has a rule and
regulation that says if you buy less than 5.00 acres in a
subdivision within Kerrville, then you have to have it
replatted, and therefore they charge you $181 for a replat
review. They don't file it, but they replat review it, and
that costs you $181. So, the County says 10 acres or less,
you don't have to have a -- I mean, or -- anyway, I paid you
guys, too. But, anyway, the City said, "You don't have to
have a replat review because you're buying 5.06 acres, which
is in excess of 5.0 acres, but since the County's going to
require a replat, then we're going to review your replat for
$181." I said, "So, what you're saying is that you charge
me $181 to review a replat that wasn't required?" Yeah. I
said, "I want a refund," and got it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You got it?
MR. EVANS: I did.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Where's my half?
MR. EVANS: Huh?
~-28-03
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
101
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Where's my half?
MR. EVANS: I'll talk to you about that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Persistence pays, doesn't it,
Mr. Evans?
MR. EVANS: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Did they make you put
in a sidewalk as a quid pro quo? (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: One comment -- I
appreciate Mr. -- the good attitude that Mr. Evans has been
able to maintain for the last two years trying to get this
done, and also -- and I appreciate, 'cause it has -- you've
been, in a very nice way, critical of our process, and I
think some good will come out of that. Appreciate it.
MR. EVANS: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: I apologize for cutting off
you gentlemen from U.G.R.A. That was the only participation
form that I have. So --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Anybody else?
MR. BARRON: I'd like to make a comment, if I
could. I'm Stuart with U.G.R.A. And only comment I have
today is that, you know, the Court has five members on it;
all the members have a different opinion about it. There's
about 43,000 people in Kerr County, and they all have a
different opinion about it, too. If we can get with some
rules that everybody -- everybody may not agree perfectly on
?-~H 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
102
them, but where they're acceptable to us and we can educate
the people in the county, I think that will go a long way to
making this -- not necessarily go away, but be acceptable to
everybody.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's called the
wisdom of Solomon.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Barron. I -- I
see a very meek hand going up back there. Is that a sign of
meekness?
MR. STAGY: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Judge Stacy?
MR. STAGY: Gentlemen, I want to remind you
about the 10-acre rule and the camps. Keep that -- because
of the septic systems that they have out there. And when
I -- I know that you folks didn't care about some of us
dinosaurs, reviewing the rules that we made, 'cause they got
thrown out the window, and we were never consulted by the
new committee. But the -- you have to remember this. Those
leach lines, that water evaporates up. It does not go down.
And that's why you have a -- a leach line. And, thirdly, we
got to have, from U.G.R.A. -- as you know, they took a
system that wasn't broke, and said it's not broke, but we
want you to fix it. Well, it was $6,000 worth of fixing on
my part that was not necessary. And the sad part was, they
told me about that in their office and never went out in the
i-?8-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
103
field. So, you have to have some flexibility in the leach
line, the 10 acres, and have somebody who approves these
changes that is flexible. Flexible. And my wife reminded
me this morning that, as of today, there's only one person
that can sign off on these rules, and she was bothered about
what happens when that one person goes on vacation. Thank
you, gentlemen.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Judge Stacy.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I have a
comment. I was just thinking about Commissioner Williams'
comments and presentation this morning. There's -- I
understand there's two issues here, one that has to do with
the water quality -- and I gleaned some out of here, and
would have to look at that closer -- but this other one
having to do with the installers being accountable. And,
ariyways, I would ask the committee to take a close look at
that, because we're talking about accountability, not only
to the taxpayers, but to the governing bodies that are --
that are held responsible. And, you know, any time you can
get an installer to put -- and we've talked about it many,
many times in this room -- get them to piit their license on
the line; did they do a good job? And their licenses are on
the line to -- to do that, we call that accountability out
in the western end of the county. I just think that we need
to really address that. If we have an opportunity now to
7-?8-03
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
104
get people to be accountable, then we need to do it. But I
haven't led the whole thing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know. But let me ask
a -- a question. That is, of what -- what you're saying
basically is you're saying that, is there a way for us to
have additional authority over the installers beyond what
T.C.E.Q. currently has? Is that -- is that the question?
And I don't know the answer to that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I didn't read
the whole thing, but what I think he's saying here is that
at the -- at a time of maybe even transfer, that the
installer says that -- are these the things? -- says that he
meets all of the O.S.S.F. Rules, that he meets Chapter 30 --
I mean 285, and Chapter 366; that he commits that he has met
all the rules and regulations in a signed document.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess my --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I like that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I like that in a way, but
I don't like it in a way. And only reason -- I haven't read
it either; it's just off-the-cuff comments -- is that what
we're doing, in my mind, is giving the installers who are
licensed in the county another way to get into the
pocketbook of the taxpayers, because we're saying -- they're
going to go to the public and say, "The County says you have
to -- I have to do this, and to do this it's going to cost
7-~8-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
105
$5,000." And I'm just -- you know, I need to think through
it a little bit more. And I -- you know, I wish there was a
way that we could really have a little bit more control over
the license of the installers, those that don't do a good
job, but I'm not sure that we have that authority. But,
anyway, we can look into that a little bit.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: I suspect, Commissioner
Baldwin, for a licensed installer to conscientiously comply
with what you're talking about and to actually sign off on a
strict accountability basis, that the invasive aspect of
that inspection will be greater than what occurs right now
under the existing real estate transfer rule.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Could be.
JUDGE TINLEY: I cannot see a conscientious
inspector or installer making such an inspection without
just literally tearing that thing completely apart before he
signs his name on it. I could be wrong, but that's just how
I see it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, it's happened,
Judge, believe me.
(Discussion off tree record.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody wish to offer a motion
in connection with this particular item?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Not I.
-28-03
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
JUDGE TINLEY: If not, we'll move on to the
next item, consider and discuss approving revisions of the
form contract between Kerr County and volunteer fire
departments located in Kerr County, and Tierra Linda and
Junction Volunteer Fire Departments. This would also
include, I think, probably as a model for Spring Lake, would
it not?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well,
at this, I mean, I think we need to have
all fire departments -- all volunteer fi
think, you know, I look at this as we're
contract, and during the budget process,
fire departments that we need.
I mean, as I look
one contract for
re departments. I
working on a model
we add the various
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Commissioner Nicholson?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, what we have
here, based on agreement the last time we met, was -- is a
model contract, a fill-in-the-blanks contract, and it will
be used for all of our volunteer fire departments located in
the county, or those located outside the county who are
going to perform services in the county. And it's offered
with the understanding that any volunteer fire department
who had an issue with some language that was not applicable
to it, that department could strike that language. And,
particularly, what would happen here specifically is the
fire departments, including Hunt and perhaps others who --
?-~8-~3
1
'~ 2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
,.., 2 4
25
107
who have -- who provide their own workers compensation
insurance because they get their total insurance package at
less cost by doing that, would strike the language that has
to deal with requiring volunteer fire departments to provide
certain information to the County about workers
compensation. We have here with us a member of KARFA and
the president of the Hunt Volunteer Fire Department, Colonel
Dutch Hintze, and he may want to -- to comment or add to
this.
MR. HINTZE: I have no comments, sir. It
seems to be, you know, straightforward and fair, and resolve
a lot of the problems that we had with the previous
contract.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: One
MR. HINTZE: But the one thing -- let me just
address Commissioner Letz' comment. And I -- I really
appreciate your concern about having a single contract with
all of the departments. The only thing that I ask you to
appreciate is that the conditions in each of the departments
vary and are different, and the more restrictive you make a
contract, then the more impact it has on the various
departments. The more general a contract can be and the
broader the contract -- the aspects of the contract are,
then the more applicable they are to the individual
departments.
~-~8-03
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
108
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: One -- one change to
the contract from the last meeting, the last one you saw, is
I put in some specific numbers for reimbursement of losses
due to equipment damage. I can't remember the term we used
last time, but it was objectionable, and I put in specific
amounts of $500 deductible and a $5,000 maximum during the
term of the contract. I can tell you that the members of
KARFA won't be satisfied with that -- that limitation, but I
feel like we had to have some limitation. I may have the
wrong limitation there; perhaps it should be $10,000 or some
other number, but I thought we needed to get that -- that
part of the contract nailed down, even though we're not
presently able to say what the -- what the budgeted receipts
for the general service would be at this time.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- probably
should keep my mouth shut, but I think the problem that I
have with that provision is that I don't see how you can not
budget the $5,000 for every fire department, and it's going
to have a pretty big budget impact. We have, like, 10, 11,
12 fire departments?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I just finished
making that note right here, that our maximum unfunded
liability would be $55,000.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think you have to
7-~8-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
109
budget for the maximum, 'cause otherwise -- you know, I
guess you could not do it and declare an emergency, but
it's -- I don't know. You know, it's just a -- a concern I
have.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Isn't that what the
rainy day fund's for? For unplanned, unprogrammed losses?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I might go around a
little bit to answer your question, maybe, but I'm wondering
if -- if the Court's intent, going way back when we
established a subsidy to the volunteer fire departments --
which goes back before my time. Increases have occurred
during my time, but I'm wonderinq if the original intent of
the subsidy wasn't just this, to take care of those
unexpected things that happen, a blown tire or this or that.
And, therefore, we subsidized them, and since have increased
that subsidy up to $11,000. Now, if my assumption is
incorrect -- Buster, you would know or Jonathan might know
if that assumption is correct or incorrect.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know that it's
correct. I mean, I -- I don't -- I think the intent has
always been for the County to help fund fire service. And,
I mean -- and I think my recollection is that as much -- we
tried to give as much discretion as possible to the various
volunteer fire departments to use the funds where they felt
they needed it, because they are all unique fire
7-~8-03
1
'' 2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
,.-. 2 4
25
llo
departments. So, I mean, I don't -- you know, I think if
they wanted to use it for emergency -- or I think the old
word was "catastrophic" losses or equipment failures, they
certainly could, but as long as it was being used for
firefighting in Kerr County, I don't think we really care
where the money goes in their internal budgets. So, I mean,
it's -- my only concern is just how you budget for this.
And maybe you could do it like Dave said; just -- you know,
either rainy-day fund or put a contingency item of, you
know, $25,000. If you exceed it, declare an emergency.
Because, you know -- and I think it would qualify as an
emergency, based on some of the exposure that we are putting
out there that we currently don't have. The only other --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Excuse me. I don't
know how far back, you know, the original contracts would go
to fund -- to fund the departments. I imagine a long time,
maybe 30, 40 years. But a more recent one -- and we'll
probably have an opportunity to talk about this tomorrow
evening -- is -- and I've spoken with a couple of you, but a
few years ago, when the Kerrville South Volunteer Fire
Department went belly-up, and suddenly we were faced with
not having a volunteer fire department provide services
there, we -- we made a contract with the City of Kerrville
to do that, and part of Harper Road and a little bit more.
Now the City of Kerrville is asking that we increase those
r-~a-c~
111
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
costs from the current $100,000 a year to $125,000 a year.
And you might say -- it would not be untrue -- that we would
-- paying $100,000 maybe $125,000 soon, for the coverage
that is provided for one-eighth of the county area, and
we're paying currPnt.ly $77,000 for the other seven-eighths
of the county, I don't know if we made a bad deal with --
with City of Kerrville or if we made an awfully good deal
with the -- with the other seven volunteer fire departments.
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't know what the original
intent was as to whether or not the amount paid to the
volunteers was intended to be for operational expenses or --
or -- or whether it was to be for extraordinary items,
losses that they incur in fighting fires. But in view of --
of the comment you just made, Commissioner Nicholson, I
think we must view it as an operational item, because to do
otherwise would have the taxpayers funding the operational
aspect of a smaller -- of an area outside the city limits to
the tune of 100,000 or possibly more dollars, and asking for
operational funds that -- that these volunteer departments
go find their funds elsewhere. And that's very
discriminatory, and I don't think it's appropriate at all.
So, irrespective of what the original intent may have been,
I think we should look at the -- the specific amount of
stipend that they're receiving for operational purposes.
And, in response to your question if -- if we made a bad
-~8-03
112
1
^' 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
deal on the one end or a good deal on the other, my thinking
is, I think some of both.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- just a
comment. As I recall, the city contract gives them primary
coverage in Kerrville South, but secondary coverage
throughout the county, and they provide service --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- throughout. I mean, I
don't know. The further you get to the extremes, the less I
think they go, but they certainly go around, you know, in
all of our precincts near the city of Kerrville on a pretty
regular basis.
JUDGE TINLEY: In the event they don't have
something that they deem to have a higher priority within
the city of Kerrville.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, but I don't think
that -- I mean, I don't think it's ever been an issue. I
think they've always sent --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The other seven
departments do the same thing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: In fact, the
Sheppard Rees fire started in the city of Kerrville and
spread to the county.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. I'm not saying
-~8-03
113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
one --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: They're not equipped
to handle something like that very well; that their
equipment has to stay on the pavement., and they don't draw
water. They have very limited capacity to get water to it.
So, when it comes to a fire like that, without the volunteer
fire departments, it would still be burning today, I guess.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not -- I'm just
saying that the city contract's as important to the County
as the volunteer fire departments are. I think any funding
we do for the fire -- I'm not saying I agree with the
$125,000 the City's requesting, but I'm just saying that
it's not just a -- one-eighth of the county where the City
of Kerrville goes and they don't go anywhere else, 'cause
they do go other places.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I agree with
you, Commissioner. Dave and I talked earlier. The two
important factors, one has to do with the funds; the other
has to do with density of the area, and the areas that they
probably have primary responsibility for under our contract
have a lot of density. Response time has to be as short as
we could possibly get it. However, I agree, it's two years
in a row now we've been asked to upgrade that contract by a
sizable amount of cash, and my question to them -- whether
it's posed here today or tomorrow, I don't care -- is give
-~~-o~
114
,---..
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
us some statistics to justify that increase. How many times
have you gone out more this year than you went out last
year? Give us some justification.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're having tomorrow
night's conversation here.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I know.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But my -- my only
comment about this particular contract before us, putting
that number in there today is -- is not a smart thing. I
mean, this needs to be addressed in the budget, just like
Rusty's issues, to come before us and leave that -- leave
that figure out. I think it's way out of hand here. I can
see -- I could see us possibly putting $5,000 in for the
entire county, but asking us to come today and approve this
with those numbers in there is just totally out of the
question.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner, I
propose, like we've done on the other numbers, we leave that
blank.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Exceeding --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- we said all this
last time, and here we are again. I mean, we're here two
meetings in a row doing the same thing.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes, sir. You've
?-28-G3
115
1
'" 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
--~ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
been negotiating this contract for about three years that I
know of, time and time and time again, and we haven't
brought -- hasn't been brought to a conclusion.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, you're not going
to get my vote on these numbers, and that's the only change
I see between last meeting and this meeting.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm proposing to
strike those numbers, the $500 minimum, $5,000 maximum, and
make a motion that -- I make the motion that we approve this
contract -- the form of this contract, with the -- with the
amount of payment for equipment damage left blank.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just don't see how
you -- just don't know that that's smart business to do it
that way until we get the budget complete. There may -- we
may come to a point where Tommy says, "Y'all only have $25
to deal with," and here we -- all of a sudden, we have this
line, this sentence in our contract to fill in something.
You know, I j ust --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We could put a $5
minimum, a $20 maximum.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Why don't we leave
that sentence out and just deal with it at the end of the
budget process, and then amend this contract at the end of
the budget process?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a couple other
- ~ 8 - 0 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
~3
24
25
116
ideas I'd like -- I'm sorry if you're not finished.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't guess I'll
ever get an answer, but it's okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a couple other
points I'd like for Commissioner 4 to consider, and it has
to do with -- with the subsidy we give. And I'm -- I'm
suggesting that this extra -- these extra dollars for
unforeseen problems that occur when they're fighting
outside -- fighting fires outside their district, that we
only -- only consider reimbursement of that if we -- if the
company has exceeded the amount of dollars that we
subsidize. After that, we would consider reimbursement.
I'd like for you to consider that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It says $500 on here.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I know.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Exceed $500. That
comes out of each individual -- isn't that what it says?
Each individual fire department will go up to the $500, then
after the $500 is where we start kicking in.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes, but --
JUDGE TINLEY: During the term of the
contract.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. I think
Commissioner Williams is forgetting that the -- what is now
$11,000, that if these -- the equipment damage can be
7-~8-~3
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
covered within that $11,000, they don't exceed it for the
other things, then they wouldn't be eligible under this
part. I think that's what he said.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the point,
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We had people come
in here, fire chiefs, tell us that $11,000 doesn't cover
20 percent of their operating budget, so there's not any one
of them that's going to spend less than $11,000.
JUDGE TINLEY: Colonel Hintze, what's your
normal operating budget for a year out at Hunt?
MR. HINTZE: I wish I could tell you that
realistically.
JUDGE TINLEY: Can you give us a ballpark?
MR. HINTZE: Our figure would be unrealistic
because of what we've just gone through in the last three
years building up those trucks; we've spent over $700,000.
I think the important thing for the Commissioners to keep in
mind is, number one, the departments are not coming in and
asking for more money beyond the $11,000. We're able to do
the job at this point with current expenses. The other
aspect is, this is not a subsidy or a payment; it's a
reimbursement that the departments have incurred for
expenses the department has already paid. So, we're coming
back to the County under the contract and requesting
reimbursement for those expenses. And those expenses are
-_ 8-Ci 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
118
expressly spelled out in the contract; training,
maintenance, parts, fuel, things of that -- and insurance,
things of that nature. And it expressly says, in accordance
with Texas state law, that none of the funds can be used to
pay wages or salaries.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Tommy, you
have something?
MR. TOMLINSON: I just have a question. I
haven't seen the contract, but does the contract address
the -- the department's furnishing invoices upon payment?
MR. HINTZE: Yes.
MR. TOMLINSON: I just wanted to make sure
that that was -- that was in there.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You pay off of
receipts.
MR. TOMLINSON: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion on the floor.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, I do. Commissioner
Nicholson made the motion to approve the contract form or
format as presented, with the exception that in Paragraph 3,
the $500 and the $5,000 be deleted, and those just merely be
in the form of blanks. Is that your understanding of the
motion, Commissioner Nicholson?
(Commissioner Nicholson nodded.)
~ ?e-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
119
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Do I have a second to
the motion?
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Being no second, that will die
for lack of a second.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have a question. I
really didn't ask this, 'cause you were asking for a motion
at the time. I guess I -- going back, I would like to try
to get this contract put to bed today, and I know
Commissioner Nicholson would. I don't understand why -- or
I guess I do, 'cause I understand what Colonel Hintze has
gone over about the equipment damages and it may not he
used. But why -- and my preference would be -- 'cause it's
simpler for the County to increase the subsidy through the
budget process, and that's really what I would rather do,
because that way we don't have to wait -- I understand the
argument that what y'a11 are saying is that, you know, you
get a -- if you're fighting a fire in eastern Kerr County
and you have damage, that it's kind of an extraordinary
event, and I hope that this court and future courts would
have enough consideration that if something -- you know, for
us to help reimburse those without being in the contract.
And that's just my -- you know, the reason I didn't second
it, is because I would think that I would probably prefer to
leave both zeros in both those blanks, as Commissioner
~-~a-u~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
120
Nicholson's motion said, and increase the amount to let it
be for what it is. And -- you know, and which I don't have
a real problem with leaving zeros in there, but I just -- I
think there's an implication that if we have the blanks in
there, that we're going to fill them in, and I'm just
opposed to doing that. I would rather give the subsidy,
whether it's, you know, increasing -- if we do have the
funds, if we have to budget $25,000 or $50,000 for that
item, I'd rather go ahead and budget it and give them the
money, 'cause they need it. And I think it's one of the
best things we do in the county, is to fund the volunteer
fire departments. I think we're getting a heck of a bargain
for what we're spending right now.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Frankly, that's where
I'm coming from. I would prefer that method; take up the
amount that the County -- up the amount that the County
provides for subsidy sufficient enough to cover these
contingencies. And I would support that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: In other words, strike
that last sentence?
JUDGE TINLEY: We've got lots of -- lots of
desire to contribute on a dead issue at this point, it
appears. Or at least, for now, a dead issue.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I mean, the item
is still open; just that motion didn't pass. I don't see it
~-28-G3
121
1
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 a dead issue.
MR. HINTZE: Sir, one of the things -- and I
appreciate the comments that Commissioner Letz has offered.
One of the thought processes behind this is that, number
one, the incidents which the department would come to the
County and request reimbursement would hopefully be a
rarity. In other words, a large-scale event like the
Sheppard Rees fire. But if the County retained that money
in a separate line item in the budget and it was not used,
that would also give you the opportunity to reprogram at the
end of the fiscal year and use it as -- as you might see
otherwise fit to do.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Sheriff?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Only comment I would
have -- and I think everybody's in agreement that the -- the
volunteer fire departments we rely on a lot. They help us
out in a lot of cases that aren't just fires, you know,
where they may suffer equipment damage. And what I'd hate
is -- there was an incident that involved a constable about
15 years ago in which a constable assisted our department
greatly in a stolen vehicle pursuit, and shots were even
fired, and the constable ended up blowing a motor out of a
personal pickup, okay, trying to help the Sheriff's
Department. The Court at that time refused to help the
constable pay for the damage to his motor. And I hate to
-~e-os
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
see that, because that's a -- they're doing a definite
service to us. Now, there are times -- and I don't think
Dutch's applies to this -- where we've had cases where we
blocked off roads because of flooding and we told a fire
department, "Don't cross that," and they did anyhow and did
damage to their own vehicle in doing that. Depending on the
volunteer they have -- and which I don't think this County
should help them in that type of equipment where they were
warned not to. So, I think it's got to be looked at on a
case-by-case basis and come back for reimbursement and go
into the emergency funding or what -- I don't know if you
can put a limit on it, but I think they need our help.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I agree they
need our help, and I agree with Commissioner Letz that
increasing the subsidy is a -- in my view, a prudent way to
go. Since you haven't called the next agenda item, Judge,
this one's still open, I believe, under -- under Roberts
Rules of Order, and so I would offer a motion, and see where
this will go, that the -- that we establish a standard
volunteer fire department contract, we leave open the dates
and the dollar amounts for subsidy, to be talked about at
budget time when it makes sense to do that, and that under
Paragraph 3, Consideration, that we -- that we eliminate the
second sentence that begins, "Reimbursement for losses..."
and the third sentence that says, "Pursuant to Paragraph
7-~8-C3
123
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
74
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,-
25
5..." that has the $500/$5,000 limitation. With those two
sentences out, consideration in Paragraph Number 3 would be
acceptable to me. I offer that as a motion.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and
seconded that the contract format as presented, with the
following modifications: The dates be left open -- I assume
you're going to use October 1 and September 30th?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's fine.
JUDGE TINLEY: Just change the year?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: And the second and third
sentence in Paragraph 3 be deleted. Is there any further
discussion or questions?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question, and I'll call
the question. Question. Has the County Attorney looked at
it? That's Part A of the question. And Part B, to be more
specific, there used to be a provision that was contentious
so some fire departments related to audit that is no longer
in here. Is that acceptable to both the Auditor and the
County Attorney, to not have an audit provision in the
contract?
MR. MOTLEY: I think there needs to be -- in
order to contract with the volunteer fire departments, there
needs to be provision -- there needs to be provisions in the
-28-G3
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
contract which allow the County to assure itself that the
funds allocated are being spent for the purposes allocated,
and one common way that's been done before is by having an
audit provision. I don't know how often any audit has ever
occurred, and -- but there have been -- well, there have
been cases in the past -- we had a department in the past
that there was a suspicion that they were using some of the
fire department resources for personal use. And I don't
know that the Auditor ever audited them, but, I mean, I
think the numbers were looked over probably by a state
inspector of some sort.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I think our department
did part of an audit with that one. I think there needs to
be one. We did.
MR. MOTLEY: I've not looked over this -- the
final version of this. I've been talking with Danny Edwards
quite a bit, and I think that Colonel Hintze is really -- I
know he was at one of the KARFA meetings that I had
attended. I think they raised some real valid points, and T
think they -- basically, the concern that -- the issue of
equipment that was damaged, and specifically that Sheppard
Rees fire, I know there was a substantial waiting time
period, maybe two to three years, in which they would have
to wait to be reimbursed by FEMA. I thought the idea was to
maybe have Kerr County supply -- reimburse those funds for
-za-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
125
tires and whatnot at a -- on a quicker basis, and then get
the money back from FEMA; you know, recover that money
later.
original idea.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's not --
MR. MOTLEY: That -- I think that was the
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Don't you think,
David, that any time that we're spending county tax -- the
taxpayers' money, that we should have a right to audit any
time, and all we want?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let me provide a
different perspective.
about that?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What do you think
MR. MOTLEY: Well, I think if there's another
way to assure -- I mean, I think it's part of the
consideration that we have to have in spending county money,
is that we can assure the funds are being -- it's not that
anybody, I think, distrusts the departments, that they're
spending it on something else.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's not the point.
MR. MOTLEY: Ultimately, there has to be some
assurance in the contract, in order to expend public funds,
that the funds are being expended for the purposes
allocated.
-~'8-03
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
126
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've heard you say
that before. That's the reason I'm asking you that
question.
MR. MOTLEY: I believe so.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We're essentially
purchasing a service from the volunteer fire department.
They bring in receipts for insurance, for whatever, give
them to the County Auditor. He looks at the receipt, he
pays that amount of money, and cuts them off when it gets to
$11,000. When we purchase services from someone else and
they -- they go the contract amount, are providing receipts,
we don't go out there and audit them. We don't have a need
to audit them. Volunteer fire departments --
MR. MOTLEY: Well, in other words, you're
sort of saying that the audit occurs at the time that the
receipts are --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes, sir.
MR. MOTLEY: -- are brought in. And -- and
that may be the -- the Court might deem that to be adequate
assurance. All I'm saying -- I mean, there needs to be some
practical way -- and, ultimately, if something were to come
up where there was some, you know, problem with the numbers,
I think to reserve the right to audit, you know, is -- is
allowed. I know our department's audited by the County
Auditor's office every year, and I think all the county
~-28-03
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
127
departments are, internally.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: But he's -- but the
VFW -- VFD is not an agent of the County.
MR. MOTLEY: Well --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You're an agent of
the County.
MR. MOTLEY: I understand. I mean, I think
that the County Commissioners have a duty to supply, in some
form or fashion, under some percentage of rural fire
protection and coverage. I mean, I think that's part of the
duties of the Commissioners Court. And, so, I think that we
heard at the last meeting that some of the counties provide
a higher percentage of that, and depending on the
circumstances. But I hear what you're saying. I mean, it
may be that that's deemed to be adequate. But I think,
ultimately, if something had to be looked into, you know, to
reserve that right. Now, Tommy might have some comments on
this from a county perspective, but --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: He has comments; he's
nodding his head.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah. When we first entered
into contracts with the fire departments, which was probably
8 or 10 years ago, when Stan Reid was the Assistant County
Attorney, this -- this issue came up about -- about the
audit, and at that time, that's when I asked for -- for the
7-~8-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
128
fire departments to furnish my office with invoices, because
that's my means of auditing the expenditure of County funds.
I have -- I had a problem with going out to -- and the fire
departments did, too -- a problem with me going to their
facility, auditing their set of records, when 90 percent of
their funding is private. So, I mean, I don't see that I
have a -- any business auditing something that's not County
funds, and that -- and that's -- I think that's what I'd be
doing. And the fire departments sure had a problem with
that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So --
MR. TOMLINSON: And so that is the reason I
asked that question a while ago. I wanted to make sure
that -- that I had the chance to see the invoices as part of
my audit of what -- what the fire departments are actually
spending money for.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, providing -- in your
opinion, providing the invoices is sufficient audit?
MR. TOMLINSON: That's my opinion, yes.
MR. MOTLEY: If Tommy's happy with that, I'm
happy with that. I think the reason that the provision
regarding the audit was added is because we have a similar
provision in our contract with outside agencies. You know,
the different agencies --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: CASA and all those.
~-~~-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
129
MR. MOTLEY: Right. Right. And that's --
maybe that -- and that's probably because we're not looking
at their expenditures and paying them on a monthly basis or
whatever.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You're paying a flat
amount.
MR. MOTLEY: That's right. So, I can see
that in this situation, especially if Tommy's doing an
audit -- basically an ongoing audit every month. So, I
mean, he's checking expenses. And I think Dutch has said
over here that they're restricted on the expenditure of
funds.
MR. HINTZE: Yes, sir, it's expressly
specified in the contract what we can request reimbursement
for.
MR. MOTLEY: And I also know one of the other
issues that Dutch had raised in the past, and I really agree
with, is that a lot of people give money anonymously -- or I
say anonymously; they don't want the fact it's published
revealed to the public in general, funding for these
purposes. And I think, you know, that's always been an
issue of concern on their part, and I can understand that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I was almost ready to
vote for it until you said -- the very first comment was you
haven't looked at this contract.
1-28-03
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
130
MR. MOTLEY: We'll, I've seen, I think, a
draft of it. I think I've seen a draft of it. I haven't
reviewed that one. I don't know that --
JUDGE TINLEY: Only difference in the draft,
if my recollection is correct, is this catastrophic
language. Isn't it, Commissioner Nicholson?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I want to vote for this
motion. I just --
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions or
discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just want -- I want
to comment to Tommy and -- and the County Attorney. I think
any time -- just my opinion. I don't know; I'm not a
lawyer, and don't want to be. But any time that you expend
public money, you should have the right to look at it. And
if somebody doesn't want their private donations put in
there, don't put it in. The government has the right and
the authority to take a look at the books. That's all. And
I believe that. And you've got to agree with that, Judge.
You just have to.
JUDGE TINLEY: You want me to make a comment
on your desire to he a lawyer or not to be one? (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Commissioner --
%-28-03
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
131
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions or
discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Quick question. Is there
any provision in your motion to make sure the County
Attorney approves the form?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: As approved -- as
approved to form by the County Attorney.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's my last question.
JUDGE TINLEY: And you seconded the motion?
Buster seconded? All right. Okay. 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.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This has taken so
long that Colonel Hintze was a lieutenant when we started.
(Laughter.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Next item, consider and
discuss authorizing RFP for information technology
maintenance. You've seen this before; presumably, your
memory is not that short. In conformity with the discussion
that was had last meeting, there was a -- the specs were
modified or additions made requiring quotes on telephone
consult, and secondly, requiring bonding -- that personnel
-_8-G3
132
1
."' 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
--- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
be bonded or insured. Other than that, there's not a lot of
difference in the -- in the RFP. Also attached -- I
requested a response to what the activity level was, and so
I requested from our existing information technician that he
provide us with his log from January 1 of this year, and it
appears that he has done a log of that down through the 21st
of this month, almost seven months. The only other comment
I would make is, in any RFP, hopefully, the County would
reserve the right to reject any and all bids. So, merely
putting the matter out for RFP does not mean that -- that
there's any definitive action that must be taken by the
County. Certainly, once those responses are in, why, they
can be considered and appropriate action then taken.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Question, Judge. On
this page entitled "Bid on Information Technology" and so
forth, where we set out the parameters, are we dealing with
response time only in terms of an 8-hour work shift, or the
next day? Or are we dealing with response time a lot
quicker than that? Because, if that's the case, if it's
only within the same work day or business day, you can have
people sitting on a computer that may be down for an entire
work shift and waiting until the next day. So, that's my
question. What are we asking for?
JUDGE TINLEY: "Emergency" is defined as one
hour or less. You know, those -- those other items, same
7-~8-03
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
business day, next business day, I suppose you could put in
any number of categories that you want; 2-hour, 3-hour,
4-hour, break it down to a half hour, do it any way you want
to. I'm not particularly married to any of -- any of the
specifics that I have there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: I just -- I just think we
ought to -- we ought to throw it out there in the
marketplace and see what kind of response we get on some
sort of a basis. I don't know what accepted response times
are in the industry, if there are any.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't know.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I have a question.
I guess -- I-certainly like the concept, and I think I'm in
favor of sending it out really just the way you have it, but
the question I have is, how much leeway are we going to have
to negotiate the actual deal with someone? I mean, say we
get, you know, hopefully five offers and we look at the best
one. I can see this being a situation, because of the --
the technical aspect of it, that you really almost need to
meet with the people and kind of have some negotiations
beyond this one page, after you select the person, but then
I'm not sure if you can do that under a competitive bidding
situation. That's kind of my question. I mean, are we --
if we, you know, get the responses, are we married to -- is
7-28-03
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
this going to be it? Or is there some other latitude and
negotiations going in? Or can we --
JUDGE TINLEY: You don't have to accept
anything. You may want to pitch this in the can and start
over and go out for an RFQ. I'm not sure RFQ is the right
way to do it. You're quoting on an hourly basis. There are
certain requirements insofar as experience and technical
knowledge that are plugged in there. If those need to be
enlarged or enhanced or more specific, certainly, you can do
that. But --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it probably would
work. I mean, I'm in favor of it, I think, and I think it'd
be interesting to see what we get back. Like you say, we
don't have to accept them. I think it's a good exercise to
go through and see what the marketplace has.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Question for
clarification. Do I understand that we would only have --
if we got five bids, we only have two choices; either to
accept the lowest one, or reject them all?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not lowest. We accept
the one we want. Doesn't have to be lowest.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, we do have some
flexibility in determining professional qualifications?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The one we think most
~-~8-u^3
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
closely meets the specs.
JUDGE TINLEY: Needs of Kerr County.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we can look at
their -- you know, their --
JUDGE TINLEY: You can look at the -- the
experience level, background, technical expertise, all of
those factors that go into it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a question,
Judge, of the Sheriff. Are you there, Sheriff?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How often, in your
recollection, do you have computers that go down after the
standard business day ends? That need attention?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, we probably have
computers go down after standard business day eight or ten
times a month. Whether those are computers that we have to
have until the next business day, very, very seldom, 'cause
normally we can move people around and let them use a
different one or something. And our other computers that we
absolutely have to have during any time of day are TLETS and
our State computers. There is a separate maintenance deal
on those; they're not in your county system. We can go back
to using, you know, pen and paper for a while. We've had to
do that in the jail at times at night until we can get
somebody in 8:00 to 5:00 during the next day.
-~a-o~
136
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 WILLIAMS: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Auditor?
MR. TOMLINSON: In somewhat of answer to
Commissioner Williams' question about the time, there --
there's a lot -- there's quite a bit of maintenance that we
do after hours, because we want to -- we prefer to do it
when everybody -- when the County's not using their system.
In other words, if we -- there's some maintenance
applications that when you -- when you do it, it slows down
the system, and so the -- the least users you have on the
system when you're working on it, the better off you are.
So, a lot of the maintenance we choose to do after 5 o'clock
or on the weekends. So -- I mean, and we do it as a
convenience to the -- to the users. Not -- not to us, but
to the people that are using it. So, if you -- for
instance, if you try to do a backup of a system between the
hours of 8:00 and 5:00, you're going to run into some
problems, because, you know, that -- that backup procedure
will slow the system down to where you're -- you're at a
crawl at some point. So -- and so it's just -- it's just
practical to do some of those things, you know, at night and
on the weekends.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, then, if I
understand what you're saying correctly, because we do do
maintenance of whatever magnitude after hours, after the
7-28-03
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
standard business day closes, under this bid for services,
that would be at the emergency rate; would that be correct?
MR. TOMLINSON: Well -- well, it depends on
the bid. I mean, depends on how the bidder looks at it.
But just for you to be aware that we do do that, and -- at
nights. And --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: And, I mean, as -- I mean,
once a month, we -- we do a complete system overhaul, or we
go through the system and -- and delete all the people that
have been -- you know, have not used the system in, like, 30
days. Or we -- we do a -- a backup that will allow us to
reproduce the system. And, I mean, that's a 5- or 6-hour
project. And there are also times that -- that I -- I can
remember times when the power's gone off, or somebody's run
into a transformer here at the courthouse. I mean, Rusty
called me one time in Lampasas, Texas, on a Saturday night;
I was playing in a golf tournament.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Had to go wake his wife
up.
MR. TOMLINSON: And, I mean -- so, I mean --
so I had to -- you know, I had to deal with it from there.
And there have been many times that the dispatcher's called
me at 2 o'clock in the morning, and, I mean, it's been a
situation that -- that we've had to take care of right then.
7-~~-G3
138
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
--- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
JUDGE TINLEY: Are you indicating that it
might be well to insert a category for after-hours, normal
maintenance, and system backup, to add that as a category?
Certainly, I don't think we can anticipate somebody running
into a utility pole or blowing a transformer.
MR. TOMLINSON: It does happen, and so there
would have to be -- I mean, the bidder would have to know
that that's a possibility.
MR. ALEORD: Normal may not be 8:00 to 5:00.
MR. TOMLINSON: There has to be something in
there that -- that would give him a chance to say, well,
we'll do it at this price for those times.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's a -- it's
almost there. I mean, it says nights after 6 p.m. You have
emergencies, one category; then have you nights, weekends,
Yiolidays. And maybe just put a sentence in there, you know,
normal scheduled work. I mean, it's --
JUDGE TINLEY: Normal maintenance and system
backup after hours.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Normal maintenance and system
~,,, 2 4 w o r k.
25
~-2a-~~~
MR. MOTLEY: Judge, there is a reference on
backup, and put in another category.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That will probably
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
^ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
139
the first page of this to a master service agreement, which
seems like almost anybody you have, there may be times when
they need to -- I don't know what we do; have an emergency
generator they use to test that thing after hours, or
certain things on electrical that I think you might have to
do after hours. And it might be that that could be inserted
in any sort of agreement that would require that sort of
nighttime work. Which we would never have that in our body
shop or auto repair or anything like that, I wouldn't think.
But, I mean, it may just be, if that's part of the job,
that's part of what they're expected to do, be put in the
master service agreement. Or -- you know, and I think, as
Jonathan just said, you could also add it right on that
second page.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm ready to vote. Is
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would move it with
that correction the Judge is making right there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll second that motion.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and
seconded to approve the RFP as presented, with the addition
of another category of response times and hourly rates,
after -- after-hours routine maintenance and system backup,
hourly rate under that. Any further question or comment?
All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right
7-~8-G3
140
1 hand.
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.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, before you move on
to the next item on this topic, I would like -- I want to
thank -- I presume you're the one that asked -- or whoever
asked for the backup material. I appreciate whoever asked
for it, and I appreciate Shaun providing it. But I think
it -- those that read through it very carefully, we have a
real problem in this county with our employees, and we need
to address that in a pretty strong way, because almost all
of the workload that Shaun is doing is because of employees
downloading programs. And I can't think of, really, other
than possibly elected officials, any employees needing to
download anything, period. And I think we need to figure
out a way -- and there may be a way for us to do it
system-wide, where you just can't download without a special
password from Tommy or Shaun or somebody. Because, I mean,
we're just spending way too much money on fixing problems
that we shouldn't have to be fixing.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. Either do a
blanket policy, or the -- the elected official themselves be
held accountable in some way. They're really the ones that
7-~~-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
141
are in charge of that office.
JUDGE TINLEY: The charge for any service
work of that type be charged against the elected official's
budget, rather than out of the --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, that's right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I don't see that
solves it -- well, I think that helps, but where are you
going to take it out of their budgets? They don't have any
excess funds.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Salary. (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I like that approach, but
I'm just not sure we can legally do it that way. And --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If we have a blanket
policy, we do.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If we can't get -- I
think they should do it individually, but if they can't, we
need to put a very strong blanket policy in place in the
county. Just my opinion.
JUDGE TINLEY: Our Auditor is seeking
recognition.
MR. TOMLINSON: I would -- I know where I can
obtain a sample usage policy. I know the State has one. So
does Texas Association of Counties. CIRA organization
almost mirrored the State's policy, and it's very general,
but -- but it -- I think that everybody ought to read it;
~-~~-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
142
give everybody the opportunity to know what the policy is.
And -- and I think that the only -- I think the individuals
have to control this.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree. If you'll get
something like that, I'll certainly get it on the agenda,
'cause I'm alarmed at what I read, the amount of tax dollars
wasted on things that should not have been done.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. We'll look forward
to receiving that. Next item, consider and discuss the
status of the Kerr County burn ban.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't --
JUDGE TINLEY: Routine item, isn't it?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Routine item. I
recommend no action.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. We don't
have to -- no, we don't have to do anything, do we?
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Can we move on? I'm
not aware of any matters that need to go into the Executive
Session.
MR. MOTLEY: I have one.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. MOTLEY: I think it's on there; I'm not
sure. It's a litigation issue.
7-~8-03
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
143
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's on there.
MR. MOTLEY: Should be on there.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
MR. MOTLEY: Supposed to be on from last
time, and I think we passed or something. I was out last
time.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, apparently they're all
paying attention to you; they're leaving the room.
MR. MOTLEY: It's a two-minute deal, tops.
JUDGE TINLEY: At this time, the Court will
go into executive, closed session to meet with the County
Attorney to discuss pending and possible litigation, as
provided by the applicable section of the Government Code.
(The open session was closed at 12:23 p.m.,
and an Executive Session was held, the
transcript of which is contained in a
separate document.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Does anybody wish
to offer a motion with respect to anything that occurred
during the closed, executive session?
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Being no motion offered, we'll
move on to the approval agenda. First matter is to pay the
bills.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move we pay the bills.
7-~8-03
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
144
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that
we pay the bills as presented by the Auditor. Any question
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. Budget
amendments. Budget Amendment Number 1.
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 1 is for the District
Clerk. Her request is to transfer $185.95 from Lease Copier
line item to Microfilm Records, and then to transfer $100
from Employee Training, $300 from Retirement, $300 from
Reimbursement Travel, $100 from Miscellaneous to her
Conference line item.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How would you -- how
would you transfer retirement?
MR. TOMLINSON: There's --
JUDGE TINLEY: Employee that went from
full-time, and she's --
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah, she has plenty of funds
there.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. So, the
original budget was $1,000 for -- for conferences. Is that
7 - 8 - 0 3
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
what you have?
think, $1,200.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, that's right.
MS. PIEPER: No, mine -- mine went up to, I
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Twelve? And how much
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Probably got minus,
but we'll talk about that in a minute.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We had $900.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We had nine each.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Nine each, and so this
particular one is talking about $1,800 here this year.
So -- I mean, I'm just bringing it up. We've had -- it has
to be addressed. Is $1,000 enough? Is $1,200 enough? Or
are we now talking about $1,800 for the elected official?
MR. MOTLEY: $1,000 was a result of last
year's -- the budget, where it was just cut. Everybody's
got cut to 1,000 bucks, and those who went back and, I
guess, justified it got some of their moneys back. But
we -- we suffered a $2,000 reduction of that line item.
We've run out a long time ago. We have no money in that
item.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Same thing with this
group here, and not a person sitting at this table is
certified.
.-Z8-03
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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can't go.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And thanks for
bringing that up, Commissioner, because the Post-Legislative
Conference in Austin, which is forthcoming, offers
Commissioners an opportunity for 10 hours so we can complete
our work. So, this -- this is for this fiscal year, this
calendar year. And I, for one, will be putting in for
registration. So --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What happens if you
don't meet your hours requirements? Will they cut your head
off in public?
JUDGE TINLEY: Or they start elsewhere first,
but --
MR. MOTLEY: Can't make a motion or second or
anything.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You don't get a little --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Suitable for
framing?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, suitable for
framing.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: All I want to know
is they don't put the handcuffs on.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I know the answer to
all that, the hidden stories to it, and it's a great story.
-~a-o3
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
Great story. You're going to love this thing, but I'm not
going to take up the time here. But a lawyer's in charge; I
can tell you that much.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: There is one -- I mean,
and I'm tempted to vote against this, but I also feel that
the law says elected officials need to get their education,
and we should do what the law says. But I think it gets --
and some have higher requirements than others, and we really
need to look at that in the budget process. But I think you
can go to the post-legislative conference for less than
$800. I mean --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER
don't think it's necessary.
-- and I frequently, you kn~
MS. PIEPER:
registration, the hotel and
MR. MOTLEY:
COMMISSIONER
LETZ: -- bottom line, I just
You can go up there. You can
~w --
Does that include the
the meals, mileage?
Is it just one person, also?
LETZ: Well --
MR. MOTLEY: More than one person needs to
go.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, this is two
separate conferences you're looking at here.
(Discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Texas District Court
%-28-G3
148
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Alliance Workshop.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do I have a motion on Budget
Amendment Request Number 1?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to
approve Budget Amendment Request Number 1. Any further
questions or discussion? All in favor, signify by raising
your right hand.
(Commissioners Baldwin, Williams, and
Nicholson voted in favor of the motion.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(Commissioner Letz voted against the motion.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Did you vote against
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Good boy. I like you,
Jon.
JUDGE TINLEY: Budget Amendment Number 2.
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 2 is for Justice of
the Peace, Precinct 4. This request is to transfer $21 from
Operating Equipment, $72.50 from Miscellaneous, $87.35 from
Janitorial, $150 from Books, Publications, and Dues,
totaling $330.85 to go to Office Supplies.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tommy, I would -- I
7-28-U3
149
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
want to ask a question, but of course I won't, but if I were
going to, it would be something like this. Isn't a
janitorial number set for an annual -- I mean --
MR. TOMLINSON: For him, I don't think so. I
think he uses one
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Pay you $100 a month
to come clean my office once a month?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I recall that was in
-- that's -- (coughing.)
MR. TOMLINSON: I think his is as-needed. I
don't think he contracts with --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Don't let it choke you
up, Bill.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I move to approve.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to
approve Budget Amendment Request Number 2. 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 does carry. Budget
Amendment Request Number 3.
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 3 is for the Sheriff's
-_8-0_
150
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Department. Request is to transfer $223.20 from Software
Maintenance to Investigation Expenses.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I move it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to
approve Budget Amendment Request Number 3. 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 4.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. Number 4 includes the
County Court at Law and 198th District Court. We're
transferring $2,557.68 from Court-Appointed Attorney line
item in -- in 198th Court, transferring $100 to Special
Court Reporter line item for the 198th court, and $150 to
Books, Publications, and Dues for the 198th Court.
$1,827.70 goes to the Court-Appointed Attorney line item for
County Court at Law, $479.98 to Court-Appointed Services for
County Court at Law.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I`ve got a comment. And
I had -- I know we have gone over this, I know, many times.
A lot of budget amendments I go along with, but Books,
7-28-03
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
151
Publications, 'and Dues is something that is not a necessity,
I mean, in most instances, and I don't understand why our
department heads and elected officials cannot budget for
that line item. That's my comment.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. Or brinq it
up this time of year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, what is -- what
kind of book or publication are we talking about?
JUDGE TINLEY: Session laws, probably.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Pocket parts and
things like that?
JUDGE TINLEY: Probably session laws, since
it's a legislative year, is what would immediately come to
my mind. I don't know that that's the case here, but --
MR. MOTLEY: I've got a comment on that. I
mean, they are essential for -- I mean, at least in our
office, and I'm sure Judge Brown -- they're essential to
him. But a lot of times, you really don't know what they're
going to be. We had a -- a dispute, I guess you'd say, with
West Law, and all our research is done online now, but -- we
have some desk books, but most of it's done on West Law, and
they changed our dues. It went up. I mean, our -- whatever
it was, they changed our costs. And then, plus, there are
times when you get books made available to you that you
didn't have the year before, or something -- you get a new
~-^8-03
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
152
offer for some sort of book you want to include in your
library, and you want to add it. That's not usually a huge
amount, but -- and it -- the like cost of everything else,
it's all going up. Nothing goes down.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I understand that
you want to have it, but do you need to have it, based on
the budget is, I guess, my question.
MR. MOTLEY: I mean, like, Penal Codes are
kind of a handy thing in our office. (Laughter.) That's
something we need to be able to put our hand on.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. But needs and
wants, that's one -- it just concerns me that these are --
and maybe it's just -- you know, obviously, Buster and I
aren't attorneys, but we can't get a handle on what they're
going to be charging for these.
MS. PIEPER: I have -- before, when we were
doing our last budget, I think it was mentioned that instead
of raising everybody's Books, Publications, and Dues up,
there was something said about if we needed something, maybe
we could code it to the Law Library fund. Just something --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree. And that
goes -- the other comment is, when we went and set up this
high-tech law library online, we were supposed to get rid of
these -- a whole lot of these books, publications, and dues
for law -- for the legal departments in the county, and I
-28-03
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
153
don't see that we've done that. And it's just -- you know,
if we're not going to -- if we -- there's a limit.
MR. MOTLEY: That was for public access, was
my understanding of the reason for all that online business.
That's a public access law library.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But -- so we don't have
to have all the books for the public.
MR. MOTLEY: Isn't there a cost, though,
associated with that for West Law to put that online?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sure. We're paying both
now. That's my problem. I mean, --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Jonathan, I agree with
what you and Jannett are referring to, because, like, in my
department with the legislative deal, you know, we're fixing
to have to order all the officers new codes and Code of
Criminal Procedures, which we do after each budget, and I
have not budgeted for that at all, because I'm going back to
the deal last year, that it's supposed to come out of the
Law Library. So I don't have any money in my budget for
that, but we're fixing to have to add it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Clearly, we need to have
the up-to-date version of the Penal Code, things of that
nature. I'm not saying that, but I'm just saying that there
-- you know, I don't know that we need to spend as much
county-wide for every department necessarily to have their
~-~8-03
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
own set. Seems to me we could use more of a joint set.
Maybe I'm unrealistic.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Have the books been
purchased and delivered?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sure.
JUDGE TINLEY: I suspect so.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I move the budget
amendment.
MR. TOMLINSON: I'm not paying the bill till
we've got the amendment.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I see another workshop
item.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Probably.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I want to second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and
seconded to approve Budget Amendment Request Number 4. Any
further questions or discussion?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Question, yes. I
see Line Item 402 on here twice, Court-Appointed Attorneys.
JUDGE TINLEY: One's 198th Court and the
other's County Court at Law.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And my second
question, have those costs been accelerating the last few
years?
~-?a-o~
155
1
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: Yes.
MS. PIEPER: Yes, they have.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Senate Bill 3 or
Senate Bill 7.
MR. TOMLINSON: Seven.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We blame it on
something.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'd like to learn
more about that in our workshop.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, we're going to have to
comment on lawyer versus non-lawyer. You may not be
eligible to know about that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll talk to you about
it.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I know, the secret
code.
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. Budget
Amendment Request Number 5.
7-~8-03
156
1
'" 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: Number 5 is from Justice of
the Peace, Precinct 3. Her request is to transfer $200 from
Software Maintenance to Postage.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or
discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Seems like somebody in
Precinct 3 would get it right the first time, doesn't it?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's 'cause our new
judge down there is sending out -- raising so much more
money for the county, it's increased her postage.
JUDGE TINLEY: 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. Budget
Amendment Request Number 6.
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 6 is for another bill
from -- concerning the Hermann Sons Bridge project. I have
a total of $7,500. I put this as a one-sided amendment to
Flood Control, remembering that we paid the previous bills
from this fund. Is that -- I'm just bringing this to the
Court for approval.
7-''8-03
157
1
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: I mean, yes. We -- but
my question is, this says repairs to dams.
MR. TOMLINSON: That's the line item that
they used to code that to. So --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, I mean --
MR. TOMLINSON: Just a misnomer. The name of
that account is that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh. Says repairs to
dams?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. We -- we use that fund
so rarely that -- that we -- we haven't changed the name.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do you know what the --
what the exact expenditure is related to?
MR. TOMLINSON: It says that -- the first one
is to appraisal company.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: So, you -- it's $4,500 for
appraisals.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: And then $1,500 -- well,
pardon me, they're all for that purpose.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. And the total
amount of the appraisals?
MR. TOMLINSON: $7,000.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Move approval.
-_'8-03
1
^ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.-- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
158
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to
approve Budget Amendment Request Number 6. 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.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can I make a brief
comment?
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. That one, we
did -- related to a conversation I had with the County
Attorney earlier, the -- we used our appraiser in Comfort,
Lonnie Marquardt, who -- who did the work, and did a
fantastic job. Very good appraisals. And they're
expensive, but they're well done, proper for what we need,
if we have to go down the condemnation road, which I hope we
don't.
MR. MOTLEY: That's what we thought, the cost
we'll need for purchase of -- regardless of condemnation, we
got to give them fair market value.
JUDGE TINLEY: Budget Amendment Request
24 Number 7.
25
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 7 is for -- from
-28-U3
159
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
D.P.S., transfer $71 from Telephone line item to
Miscellaneous for the purchase of a notary bond.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't -- I'm
reading this wrong, apparently. It looks to me like he's
got an unexpended balance of 250 bucks, and expense is $71.
Why does he need a budget amendment?
MR. TOMLINSON: Apparently, there's --
there's -- maybe they anticipate another bill. I --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, when he gets
the next bill, he can come back.
MR. TOMLINSON: I didn't actually talk to
Tommy about this, Mindy did, so I don't know exactly the
reason. I can't answer it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Whose signature is that?
John Syfert's signature?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. I wrote a note
under it, "What the hell is that?" and I'm going to mail it
to him. I don't know what to do, Tommy, but from the
appearance of this sheet here, I mean, there's plenty of
money there for him to spend. It does -- there's not an
amendment required, unless you say that -- that there is.
And I'm like number two here, you know. If he -- if he's
looking for a bill down the road, well, he needs to come
then.
MR. TOMLINSON: That's fine.
?-28-03
160
1
"~ 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: I bet you there's an
explanation.
MR. TOMLINSON: I'm sure there is. I just
personally don't know what it is.
JUDGE TINLEY: I suspect we'll find out if we
take no action on it, won't we?
MR. TOMLINSON: Right, yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody have a motion to
offer? Being none, we'll move on to the next item. Any
late bills, Mr. Auditor?
MR. TOMLINSON: Just one -- one near and dear
to my heart, to me for $79 for -- I mean $69 for a workshop
that I attended in Austin, the Texas Juvenile Probation
Commission on the 10th.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Looks pretty
suspicious.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's money in your
budget for it?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion and second to approve
late bill and hand check to the Auditor for $69,
reimbursement for workshop. Any further questions or
discussion? All in favor, signify by raising your right
7-28-G3
161
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge?
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm not sure you can lawfully
vote from that position.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I can. I've
done it before.
MR. MOTLEY: He was tagging the top of the
desk.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I had my hand on the
book.
JUDGE TINLEY: I see.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: See? But would you
give me one minute, let me go make a phone call about this
thing here? If that's something that they need in their
function over there, I'd hate to put them off. I mean,
we're talking about D.P.S. here. I'm asking a question;
y'all just sit there looking at me.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I thought you had to go
to the bathroom.
JUDGE TINLEY: I have couple of monthly
reports before me. Let the record reflect first that
Mr. Baldwin has absented himself from the meeting,
indicating he will return shortly. I have here a couple
reports before me, one from the County Clerk and one from
-28-03
162
1
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 District Clerk. Do I hear a motion to approve these two
reports as presented?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that
the reports as presented by the District Clerk and the
County Clerk be approved. Any further question 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. I do not
have any minutes before me. Do we have any reports from the
Commissioners, elected officials, department heads, or
others?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Report. Report.
JUDGE TINLEY: Jonathan Letz, Commissioner
Precinct 3, has a report to render.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Actually, I have a
question. The workshop schedule that we have set up for
later this month, who -- or next month, rather, in August,
who is going to be designated to set up the schedule for
those workshops, or how are we going to come to that? Do we
need to --
7-28-03
163
1
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 pointed to the Judge.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would kind of point
that way, too. But, anyway, I just want to make sure that
we have a schedule. And do we need to put it on the agenda
to figure out, or just let the Judge put it together or how
are we going to accomplish that task? Any thoughts, Judge?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, who requested the
workshops?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, the Court voted on
it unanimously.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Who requested it?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Who made the motion? Is
that what -- I made the motion.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Originally, I believe.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We've been talking
about it for a couple months.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We've all requested
it.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We're in agreement
JUDGE TINLEY: I've not been through this
drill before, so really, I'll be happy to put out the
schedule, but I think -- I think that I'm going to need some
help from some of you guys that have been there, because,
7 -_ 8 -., 3
164
1
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 know, I don't know about the time frame that these
things normally require, or -- you know.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I'll be glad to
sit down with you, go over the -- you know, a recommended
schedule that I think works. And then, you know --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In doing that, will
you keep in mind something we talked about earlier, which is
kind of grouping some things -- like group the J.P.'s, group
the --
JUDGE TINLEY: Constables.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sure. But timing, I
think we may actually have a little bit -- you know, we
should try to get most of the workshops in -- we have four
days allocated for them.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Three.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: In two or three days, and
leave one to come back and -- on specific usage.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I had suggested to
the Judge earlier, I thought it would be a good idea, and I
would like about five minutes each at the beginning of it
for us to say what our individual concerns and expectations
were for the process and for the budget. I would like to
talk a little bit in advance about some things that I'd like
to spend some money on and some of the things I'd like to
save some money on, so that you'll be able to see that be a
-~8-03
165
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
common thread there. I'd like to hear from each of you on
the same issue.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So our first workshop,
there'll be, like, a 30-minute period for to us kind of
discuss general budget items?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And then dig into
the individual groups.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. All right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, you know, I'd be tickled
to death if Commissioner Letz would provide me with a --
kind of a draft schedule, and then we'll sit down and talk
about it a bit and see if we can't get us a -- a proposed
schedule ready to go.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would you like to
have it in three days? Two?
COMMISSIONER LETZ:
think a lot's being done ahead of
days -- either three half days or
like that. It's sometimes easier
get kind of brain-dead after --
COMMISSIONER NICHO
start at 10:00.
Based on the process, I
time, so really two
two full days, something
to do half days; you can
LSON: I think we voted to
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, unless it's a half
24 day.
~---
25
7-"8-03
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Could we schedule
166
1
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 face time with the various elected officials, department
heads -- maybe you can do that in two days, and then just --
at the end of the second day or the end of the third day,
whatever -- however long it takes, we could decide then if
we need to come back.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Do some negotiating.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have one item,
Judge, real quick. It has to do with the Regional
Transportation Board. I'm not going to bore you with
details. Dietert Senior people have opted out of regional
transportation, which is an AACOG function, and they're
going to end their -- their involvement in regional
transportation by the end of August, I guess, or whenever.
So, AACOG has taken over that function, and it's going to
consolidate regional transportation to the best it possibly
can, if not completely, of 11 counties surrounding Bexar
County. And the rural -- by resolution at the past meeting,
the rural county judges are now identified, and whoever
represents are identified as the board of directors for
rural transportation issues and the operation thereof. We
will be soon seeing a resolution for Kerr County to opt into
rural transportation. We've never, to my knowledge,
exercised a resolution similar to that, because Dietert has
7-2~-03
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
done it in the past, and it wasn't up to us. However, the
other part of this equation deals with budget. We have
given Dietert something like $15,000 under a support program
for various agencies and for various purposes, and those
dollars were allocated, I'm pretty sure, for regional
transportation purposes, underwriting our obligation through
them for regional transportation. So, we're going to have
to look at that in terms of budget, because the counties
that are going to participate in the rural transportation
are going to be asked to participate for some underwriting
for that purpose. So, as we get a little closer to the
resolution, which will be pretty soon, and when we get into
the budget, we'll take a look at it.
JUDGE TINLEY: For informational purposes, my
recollection of the budget is that there's two items on the
county-sponsored activities. One is -- these are what have
been funded in the past. Dietert, 15, and then there's a
separate transportation item for five. Now, I assume that
that five goes to Dietert, because they're the only one
providing public transportation in Kerr County, to my
knowledge.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If that's the case,
Judge, that's really the only one we've got to look at. We
can look at the other one if we wish, but that's the one
that --
7-~8-G3
168
1
2
3
4
5
6

8
9
10
11
12
^.. 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: For whatever it's worth, also,
Commissioner, you said end of August. One of Commissioner
Letz' constituents called me this morning -- I've not had
the opportunity to get with him on it -- that her bus
service -- her transportation service is going to end this
Thursday. That's the Pnd of July. I -- I don't know
whether she's mistaken.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'd be interested in
knowing more about that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Must be the Alpine --
JUDGE TINLEY: You got it.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I got one call on
this issue a couple three weeks ago. It was protesting the
transfer of service from one end to the other one and laying
off the Dietert Claim employees.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It is the intent for
them to maintain that same level of service with the vans.
They're going to have to deal with purchasing the vans or
whatever from Dietert, and they're going to go through the
exercise of seeing if they want to hire the Dietert drivers
or not, but it is their anticipation to take care of the
seniors as they have, and take care of other rural
transportation needs and try to take care of Medicaid needs
as well.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: There's always some
i-_8-G3
169
,.-.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
pain when we're making progress, and apparently there's a
little bit of pain out there somewhere.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Anyone have any other
reports or motion that needs to be brought forward? Yes?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We want to go back and
revisit this.
MR. TOMLINSON: I have an answer on the
budget amendment.
JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, we're back on Budget
Amendment Number 7?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. We do have a bill
pending for the -- D.P.S. has a -- a device they call a tint
meter; it registers degree of tint on windows on vehicles.
They have to have that certified, and they had budgeted the
whole amount in that line item for that, for that
certification. So they added $71 to pay for the notary.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to
approve Budget Amendment Request Number 7. Any further
question 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.)
7 - , ~ - 0 3
170
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
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge -- and this is -- I
will make it very brief; I know everyone's hungry. Back on
Commissioners' comments, if I may make one more comment?
JUDGE TINLEY: You've already been there,
Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll wait till next
meeting.
JUDGE TINLEY: No, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll wait till next
meeting. I'll talk next meeting about it. You want to hear
it? It's about the -- I'll bring it up next time, too.
The -- it's locally referred to in east Kerr County as the
Mexican rodeo, which is a -- there's two arenas down there,
one which has caused a little bit of problems, music being
played late at night. But, anyway, aside from that, they're
pretty interesting. A guy by the name of Alfredo Avalos
opened a larger one on Hermann Sons Road also, and I have
not been to -- I plan to attend. It is a pretty amazing
thing that they're doing, and it's a -- I guess they have a
lot of -- in Mexico, they have rodeos that are bull riding
and bareback riding and different kinds of pageantry and
things, and it's -- I mean, other events. And it's a Mexico
City-type caliber that they're trying to attract, and are
attracting them. Anyway, I'm just bringing it up because it
-za-n~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
171
would be something pretty interesting to attend if you have
time.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you inviting us
to be your guest?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sure, we can do that. We
can do that. We can have a Commissioners meeting down
there; it is in Kerr County. But -- (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You got some
Coronas, I'll be there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, anyway, some pretty
neat things to do if you go down Highway 27. If you haven't
seen it, it is pretty good. They're trying to run --
Alfredo's running -- trying to run a first-class operation.
The other one, they're doing very well also, little bit
smaller size. Both of them are doing very well, but the one
on Hermann Sons, they're also trying to expand into some --
I guess some female bareback riding or sidesaddle riding, I
guess it is as well, and they are having a -- it's either
national or international competition where there will be
over 2,000 riders there next year. I mean, the economic
impact to the area, what they're trying to do, is pretty
amazing, and it kind of -- it's what private, you know --
amazing what the private sector can do in things similar to
what we try to do at the Ag Barn when they want to, and how
things can work. But private industry is doing it. And
-_~-~~
1
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
maybe there may be an avenue for us to try to get some
things done out there, try to approach the private sector,
turn more of that facility over to the private sector, and
at the same time, protect the County interests.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You know, it's just
another picture, too -- it is truly amazing how
agriculture -- and I consider that a part of the
agricultural scene in Kerr County -- how important and how
big it truly is. If you was to go out and start searching
the byways and pathways and alleyways, you would find more
and more ag-related -- I'm just opening the door for you,
Letz. You want to jump on that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree. I'd love -- we
need to do more to emphasize the importance of agriculture
in other county-wide entities, such as the camps, to Kerr
County and City of Kerrville as a whole. Maybe we can bring
that up tomorrow night.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You can see
Commissioner Letz and I talk about this almost every meeting
now for --
JUDGE TINLEY: If we're going to talk about a
meeting place, we need to get the lawyers involved, right?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know if I'd go
that far.
JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, okay.
-~e-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
24
25
173
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, we can just -- we
can all show up one night. And maybe --
JUDGE TINLEY: De facto.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: De facto. But, anyway,
pretty interesting. I think they are trying to really do a
good job, and Alfredo's a fine man.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Anything further,
gentlemen? If not, I'll declare the meeting adjourned.
(Commissioners Court adjourned at l:ll p.m.)
STATE OF TEXAS ~
COUNTY OF KERR ~
The above and foregoing is a true and complete
transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as
County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County,
Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth.
DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 4th day of August,
2003.
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
BY
-- ---- ~~~w~~- --------------
Kathy B ik, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
7-28-03
ORDER NO.28187
APPROVAL OF ROAD NAME CHANGES AND REGULATORY SIGNS
AND SET PUBLIC HEARING
On this the 28th 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, the road name changes for County maintained roads in accordance
with 9-1-1 Guidelines as well as regulatory signs and set public hearing for
September 8, 2003 at 10 A.M. on the following roads and signs:
Name Changes
Old Name or Number
Hasenwinkle Rd N
Cypress Creek Lp N
Cypress Creek Lp N
Cypress Creek Lp N
1491
Veteran's Parkway N
Regulatory Signs
Change Stop to Yield
Change Stop to Yield
New Name
Hasenwinkel Rd N
Cypress Creek Rd N
Gaddis Bluff N
Bartel Rd N
Reid Graham Rd n
Spur 100 Rd N
Location
Country Lane to Sleepy Hollow Circle
Sleepy Hollow Circle to Country Lane
ORDER NO. 28188
APPROVAL OF ROAD NAME CHANGES
FOR PRIVATELY MAINTAINED ROADS
IN KERR COUNTY
On this the 28th 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, of road name changes for privately maintained
roads in Kerr county in accordance with 9-1-1 Guidelines as follows:
Name changes
Old Name or Number
1233 E
4404 W
2454 NW
3018 NW
1616 NW
4005
2169
4006
1420 N
New Name
Redemption Rd E
Kyle Rd W
5 Ranch Rd NW
Gage Ln Nw
Rotge Ranch Rd NW
Youngblood Trl W
Leona Ln W
Priddy Rd Sw
Adolf Stieler
ORDER NO.28189
APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN
KERB COUNTY AND TEXAS ENGINEERING EXTENSION SERVICE
On this the 28th day of July, 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Williams,
seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a
vote of 4-0-0, of agreement between Kerr County and Texas Engineering
Extension Service and authorize the County Judge to sign same dealing with
subrecipient of State Homeland Security Grant Program.
ORDER NO. 28190
APPROVAL TO INSTALL
SECURITY FENCE AROUND EXHIBIT CENTER
On this the 28th 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, for the Maintenance Department to install a security fence around
the Hill Country Youth Exhibit Center at a cost not to exceed $5,000.00.
ORDER NO. 28191
APPROVAL OF CARD TO
BE MAILED TO COUNTY CITIZENS
On this the 28th day of July, 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Baldwin,
seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of
4-0-0, the notification card as presented as the notification to county citizens for
the purpose of 911 address change.
ORDER NO. 28192
APPROVAL OF FUNDING THE
9-1-1 ADDRESS CHANGE MAIL OUT
On this the 28th day of July 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Baldwin,
seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of
4-0-0, to transfer $3,200. from Line Item No. 10-409-564 Mainframe in Non-
Departmental to Line Item No. 10-401-309 Postage and to transfer $1,200.00
from Line Item NO. 10-409-564 Mainframe in Non-Departmental to Line Item
No. 10-401-310 Office Supplies in the Commissioners' Court.
ORDER NO. 28193
APPROVAL OF REVISIONS TO THE FORM CONTRACT
BETWEEN KERB COUNTY & THE VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENTS
On this the 28th day of July 2003, upon motion made by Commissioner Williams,
seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a
vote of 4-0-0, of revisions to the form contract between Kerr County and the
Volunteer Fire Department as approved to form by the County Attorney.
ORDER NO.28194
APPROVAL OF REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY MAINTENANCE SERVICE
FOR FY 2003-2004
On this the 28th day of July 2003, upon motion made by Commissioner Williams,
seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of
4-0-0, for request for proposals for Information Technology Maintenance Service
for FY 2003-2004 as presented, with the addition of another category of respose
times and hourly rates, after hours, routine maintenance and system backup
hourly rate under that.
ORDER NO.28195
CLAIMS AND ACCOUNTS
On this the 28th day of July 2003 came to be considered by the Court various
Commissioners precincts, which said Claims and Accounts are:
10-General for $79,758.22, 15-Road and Bridge for $27,939.78, 18-County Law
Library for $1,568.01, 22-Flood Control for $5,877.50, 28-Records Management
& Preservation for $4,500.00, 31-Parks for $170.00, 50-Indigent Health Care for
$17,309.11, 62-1994 -Jail Bond for $375.00, 80-Historical Commission for
$103.24.
TOTAL CASH REQUIRED FOR ALL FUNDS: $137,600.86
Upon motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin,
the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to pay said Accounts.
ORDER NO.28196
BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE DISTRICT CLERK
On this the 28th day of July 2003, upon motion made by Commissioner Baldwin,
seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court approved by a vote of 3-0-1
with Commissioner Letz opposing, to transfer $185.95 from Line Item No. 10-
450-461 Lease Copier to Line Item No. 10-450-412 Micro Film Records and to
transfer $100.00 from Line Item No. 10-450-216 Employee Training, $300.00
from Line Item No. 10-450-203 Retirement, $300.00 from Line Item No. 10-450-
428 Reimbursement Travel, $100.00 from Line item No. 10-450-499
Miscellaneous with all to go to Line Item No. 10-450-485 Conference Expense in
the District Clerk's Office.
ORDER NO. 28197
BUDGET AMENDMENT
1N JUSTICE OF THE PEACE PCT. #4
On this the 28th 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 transfer $150.00 from Line Item No. 10-458-315
Books-Publications-dues, $87.35 from Line Item No. 10-458-450 Janitorial,
$72.50 from Line Item No. 10-458-499 Miscellaneous, $21.00 from Line Item
No. 10-458-569 Operating Equipment to Line Item No. 10-458-310 Office
Supplies in Justice of the Peace Pct. #4.
ORDER NO. 28198
BUDGET AMENDMENT
IN SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
On this the 28th 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 $233.20 from Line Item No. 10-560-563
Software Maintenance to Line Item No. 10-560-208 Investigation Expense in the
Sheriff s Department.
ORDER NO. 28199
BUDGET AMENDMENT IN
COUNTY COURT AT LAW
198TH DISTRICT COURT
On this the 28th 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 $2,557.66 from Line Item No. 10-436-402 Court
Appointed Attorney with $479.98 to Line Item No. 10-427-401, with $1,827.70 to
Line Item No. 10-427-402 Court Appointed Attorney, with $150.00 to Line Item
No. 10-436-315 Books-Publications-Dues, with $100.00 to Line Item No. 10-436-
494 Special Court Reporter in County Court at Law and 198th District Court.
ORDER NO.28200
BUDGET AMENDMENT IN
JUSTICE OF THE PEACE PCT. #3
On this the 28th 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 $200.00 from Line Item No. 10-457-563 Software
Maintenance to Line Item No. 10-457-309 Postage in Justice of the Peace Pct. #3.
ORDER NO. 28201
BUDGET AMENDMENT
IN FLOOD CONTROL
On this the 28th 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 $7,500.00 from Fund 22 Flood Control to Line Item No.
22-670-450 Repair to Dams in Flood Control.
ORDER NO. 28202
APPROVAL OF LATE BILL
TO AUDITOR
On this the 28th 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 pay $69.00 from Line Item No. 10-495-485. The County
Treasurer and County Auditor are here by authorized to write a hand check in the
amount of $69.00 payable to Tommy Tomlinson for a workshop at TJPC in
Austin.
ORDER NO. 28203
APPROVAL OF MONTHLY REPORTS
On this the 28th day of July 2003, upon motion made by Commissioner
Nicholson, seconded by Commissioner Williamson, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 3-0-0, to accept the following report and direct that they
be filed with the County Clerk for future audit:
Linda Uecker, District Clerk
June 2003
ORDER NO 28204
BUDGET AMENDMENT IN
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
On this the 28th day of July 2003, upon motion made by Commissioner Baldwin,
seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of
4-0-0, to transfer $71.00 from Line Item No. 10-580-420 Telephone to Line Item
No. 10-580-499 Telephone in the Department of Public Safety.