1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT
Regular Session
Monday, September 8, 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
L,
~~~
,-~
`J
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
September 8, 2003
PAGE
---	Visitors' Input	3
---	Commissioners' Comments	8
	~~~	~~
1.1	Presentation of all 4 Constables' qualifications	10
1.2	Consider waiving plattin requirements for a	
	revision of plat ~ ~ ~ ~~	14
1.3	Actions and/or remedies to cure the complaints	
	regarding storage behind Kerr County Extension	
	Service Office	20
1.4	Discuss legal procedure for enforcement of	
	repeated OSSF violations when reported to County	
	Attorney's office by the Kerr County D.R.	34
1.7	PUBLIC HEARING - proposed Kerr County O.S.S.F.	
	Rules and Regulations	53
1.8	Adoption of proposed Kerr County O.S.S.F. Rules	
	and Regulations	70
1.5	PUBLIC HEARING - road name changes for County-	
	maintained roads, and regulatory signs
~~~C~7	72
1.6	c
Road name changes for County-maintained roads &	
	regulatory signs as discussed in public hearing	72
1.14	Open proposals for Information Technology	
	maintenance service work	76
1.9	PUBLIC HEARING - proposed Archive Fee for the	
	preservation/restoration service performed by	
	the County Clerk as per SB 1731	76
1.10	Adoption of the proposed Archive Fee for the	
	preservation and restoration service perfor,~ed	
	by the County Clerk as per SB 1731 c~ ~z' ~ ~	77
1.11	Approval of the proposed FY 2003/2004 Public ~ ~~	<<C
	Officials' Salary, set public hearing on same	78, 97
1.12	Approval of the proposed FY 2003/2004 Budget,	
	set public hearing on same •~ ~,~i.' ~	84, 111
1.13	Approval of the proposed FY 2003/2004 Tax Rate,	
	set public hearing on same ~ ~ ?~~j	122
4 . 1	Pay Bills ,~ ,~`3~~2
~
~
~
`	126
4 . 2	3 ~- ,~
°
l
Budget Amendm nts ~ ~3i`	130
4 . 3	Late Bills ,~ ~ J~//
~ ~ J~ ~	137
139
4.4	Read and Approve Minutes
-	
4.5	Approve and Accept Monthly Reports ~ p ~ r3	140
3.1 Action taken on Executive Session matters Q,3/C~ 142
--- Set price for proposed FY '03/'04 budget books 143
--- Adjourned 147
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.~
25
3
On Monday, September 8, 2003, at 9:00 a.m., a regular
meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in
the Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse,
Kerrville, Texas, and the following proceedings were had in
open court:
P R O C E E D I N G S
JUDGE TINLEY: Good morning. It's a minute
or so after 9 o'clock. I'll call to order the regular
Commissioners Court meeting scheduled for this date and
posted accordingly here on September the 8th. I believe
Commissioner Letz will lead us this morning.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Would everyone please
stand and join me in prayer?
(Prayer and pledge of allegiance.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Commissioner Letz.
At this time, if there's anyone here with us this morning
that wants to talk to us about any item that is not on the
agenda -- if you want to speak with us about an item that's
on the agenda, we wo~zld ask that you fill out a public
participation form. They're at the back of the room. If we
run short, why, give us a wave and we'll replenish the
stock. The only reason we ask you to fill these out is so
that we won't miss you and we'll be able to get to you when
that item comes, and it helps us in that planning function.
But, otherwise, if you want to say anything to us about
9-8-03
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
4
anything that is not on the agenda, you should feel
privileged, and we would welcome to you come forward at this
time and give your name to the reporter and tell us what's
on your mind. Is thE~re anyone here in the audience that
wishes to talk to us about any item that is not listed on
the agenda? Yes, sir?
MR. MANN: I don't know what's on the agenda,
but I sure want to talk to you.
JUDGE TINLEY: What does it relate to, sir?
MR. MANN: 911.
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't believe it's on the
agenda this trip, is it? Come forward, sir. Would you give
your name to the reporter, please?
MR. MANN: My name is Linn Mann, L-i-n-n,
M-a-n-n. I live at 101 Pyracantha Lane, Kerrville, Texas.
I've lived there since 1972. This -- a few days ago, I
received a communique from this illustrious body telling me
that after the first of the year, I can no longer live at
101 Pyracantha Lane, Kerrville, Texas; that I must live on a
road that's nonexistent. It says Lynn -- Lynn Drive. Now,
I have searched, and I can't find anywhere in the county a
road or a street by that name. Now, I resent anyone who
takes away some of my freedom, tells me where I can live and
where I can't live. And this is just -- just wrong. I
don't know where -- who brought this idea up. I assume that
9-8-03
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
5
the people running 911 brought it up, so let me say a couple
of words about 911.
Those people need three things to operate.
They need the location of the problem, they need the
characteristics of the problem, and they know who's
calling -- they need to know who's calling. That's all they
need. They don't need any more addresses; they've got them
all, because these things would not have been delivered if
they didn't have them. If they want -- and addresses are
not sufficient to the need. Let's get -- let's take a case.
Old -- old Jake decides to go deer hunting. He's going out
to Y.O. Ranch. We all know where the Y.O. is. He gets in
his jeep and he drives 7 miles or so from the ranch house,
and he rolls the jeep, breaks two legs. He's got his -- his
little cell phone, and he calls 911. "Hey, this is Jake. I
rolled my jeep. I broke two legs. I need help." "Well,
where are you?" "We.1l, I'm out at the Y 0." Got the
address. We11, what good is treat address?
Let me give you an example. A few years ago,
a Jeep station wagon was lost out on the range at the Y.O.
Eight years later, they found that bugger. Now, this is
where old Jake would -- would end up. What we need is to
use a new tool called -- called a GPS, global position
system. Now, throughout the history of mankind, we have
resisted using new technology, things like this. I remember
y-~3-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
6
my dad when I was so, commenting on automobiles. "They'll
never last." This happens all the way down. Now, I don't
know who is holding i:p usi.ng GPS, because it is so -- it is
so simple to use. It's -- it is user-friendly, it is
extremely accurate, and it doesn't cost much. All we need
is -- is, at each residence, attached to their phone, the
coordinates when they pick it up. Susie calls, "Hey, this
is Susie Smith. The old man just fell off of the -- the
roof. Come and help me." "Well, Susie, where do you live?"
All she has to do is give the coordinates. The operations
people down there at 911 gives that -- that coordinates to
the driver of the emergency vehicle, and they poke it in and
they go right to it. No problem.
You know, I don't understand what is holding
up going to GPS. If people don't understand it, if they'll
turn on the TV tomorrow at 8 o'clock, and switch over to the
History Channel, they will educate you, all you need to
know. It's going to be there. The people who came up with
this idea, I don't understand, because all it will add is
confusion. This -- this casts -- for instance, one little
item. This casts a -- a cloud on -- on my title to my
property. Unless I ~1o down over here and pay them $5 to get
that thing changed, I know you -- I know somebody else isn't
going to do it. If I don't do it, someday that house will
be turned over, and -- and the people who lived in there for
9-8-03
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10 years -- they live at 104 Lynn Drive, which is
nonexistent now, and they go down and search the record
before they make the deal. They come back and say, "Why,
you don't own any property down there." Well, I thought I
did. Been living here 10 years.
We got enough confusion in this world without
us manufacturing it, and this is -- and this is
manufacturing a lot of it. I would ask the Court to rescind
this. Rescind this. It will take 10 years to get all of
this stuff changed. In 1972, when old Roger Stone approved
the two roads that I built, I started changing addresses,
and, you know, I haven't got them all changed yet. There's
one person that I correspond with quite often. I got a
letter from her yesterday to my old address, which I lost in
1972. This -- I fail to see anything that this thing will
enhance 911. Now, 9:11 is a good idea, but it's not the most
popular thing in my .Life. There are a lot of other things
that -- that I've got to worry with.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir.
MR. MANN: Thank you for putting up with me.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Appreciate you
coming forward with your comments today. Are there any
other citizens that wish to speak on a matter that is not
listed on the agenda"? If not, we'll move forward.
Commissioner Letz, do you have anything to offer this
9-8-03
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
8
morning?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just congratulations to
the Comfort football team as they continue on their winning
ways. They have another outstanding season, at least the
start of an outstanding season. And a -- a comment, not
really for Mr. Mann, but for anyone who wants to pay
attention, that I would encourage people that have questions
on 911 and the cards to contact 911. There's a number on
the back of the card. They'll be glad to set up a meeting,
and they can explain in pretty much detail to anybody the
reason for the changf~s. You know, exactly -- if there's a
problem on any of those cards, and we know there are some,
they can be corrected. But that is the -- the procedure
that's been set up, is to visit with -- certainly, you're
welcome to visit with your Commissioner as well, but visit
with 911 and they will set up a specific time if it's a
complicated situation, or even if it isn't, to come in and
visit. They encourage everyone -- I'd really encourage
everyone to call 911, because that's part of the process to
get the addressing system finalized and complete throughout
the county. That's «11 I have.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Commissioner
Nicholson?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I pass.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Baldwin?
9-8-03
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. I just want
to echo Commissioner Letz in regards to the 911. We sent
out those cards last -- early last week, and there was
supposed to be a code number on the front of the card that
corresponded with the date that you were to call to work out
your information wit11 911. And the C.D. that we sent to the
printer had that code number on there, but it just failed to
make it on the card, so everyone's calling at one time. I
went out to 911 Thursday morning to help answer the calls,
and spoke with Mr. Mann, actually. And the -- it was a
nightmare. We probably answered close to 1,000 telephone
calls out there in the morning time. It was wild. But --
and I'd gotten some -- Mr. Mann's nice, but I've gotten some
fairly ugly phone calls, and a couple of ugly e-mails. But
what I want to get straight this morning is, this
Commissioners Court flames roads. 911 assigns numbers and
addresses. So, you know, we're -- I'm going -- we're going
to talk about that a little bit later, setting up a meeting
and getting that straight. I guess Mr. Mann's new address
is -- I'll have to confess, I created a fictitious street
name in my precinct trying to get him to live over there so
I could get one more vote, but obviously he's not interested
in that. So, that's all I have to say.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Williams?
COMMISSIONER WII,LIAMS: Of the 20-some-odd
9-8-03
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
people who called me about 911, I told them, "Forget the
code; just pick up the phone and call." Let it go at that.
I just want to advise the Court that Lin Navarro's husband,
Swinford, passed away Saturday morning about -- early
Saturday morning, and the funeral service -- memorial
services are pending. That's it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. On the 911 issue,
it's unfortunate that the code didn't get on there, but I'm
sure the people at 9:11 will augment themselves as necessary
in order to take those calls as they come. And the quicker
they can get through those calls, the quicker we can get on
to the next phase of it. So, everybody, just -- when you
get your card, go ahead and call them, and if you got a
problem you need to try and discuss with them or work out
with them, why, go ahead and do that. If that's all you
have, we'll move to the business at hand. The first item is
consider and discuss the presentation of the four
constables' qualifications in accordance with Section
86.0021 of the Local Government Code. Constable Pickens.
MR. DICKENS: Morning, Judge. Good morning,
Commissioners Court. As per Commissioner Baldwin's request
to reset this for today, I have done that, and the other
constables are present as well. And, for the record, I have
completed all requirements to meet within the 270 days. I
have proof here for the Court.
9-5-03
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
(Discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
MR. PICKENS: I have a letter there from
TCLEOSE saying that I have met requirements. If anybody has
any questions about ghat.?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I do not. Looks good,
Bobby. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Commissioner, do we
accept these? Is that appropriate, just for the record?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're going to.
JUDGE TINLEY: I believe that's the procedure
that the applicable provision in the Local Government Code
describes. Commissioner Baldwin has been the one that was
kind of at the point on that, and I believe that's correct,
isn't it, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir, it is
correct, or at least that's the way I understand it. Of
course, you understand a lawyer wrote that, so sometimes I
grab ahold of it, sometimes I don't. But it looks like it's
all in order, and we -- and that's what I wanted to do, is
officially accept them so they'll go in the record and in
the minutes. You want to -- Judge, but my question to you
is, do you want to do them individually, or are there more
coming forward? Or --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, other
9-8-03
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
12
constables back there.
MR. AYALA: I think we all have them.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Great.
MR. AYALA: Copy of my license and all any
TCLEOSE hours.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Very good, thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: We've got all four constables
on their feet here.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're coming forward.
MR. TERRILL: Your Honor. Excuse me.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Bob.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, sir.
MR. TERRILL: Commissioner.
COMMISSTONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. You only
made one copy, Commissioner -- constable?
MR. AYALA: I just brought one, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's fine. I passed it
on to the clerk.
JUDGE TINLEY: And Constable 3 --
MR. GARZA: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- is waiting for his turn
here.
MR. GARZA: Morning, gentlemen, honorable
Commissioners.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Constable Garza.
9-8-03
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
13
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We'll just pass those
for you.
MR. CARZA: I'll do it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MR. GARZA: There's a copy of my license on
the back page, my appointed peace officer's license issued
in 1993.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do I hear a motion that the
credentials as presented by constables for Precincts 1, 2,
3, and 4 be accepted?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that
the credentials of the constables for Precincts 1, 2, 3, and
4 be accepted by the Court. 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.
COMMI,~SIONER BALDWIN: It is my opinion that
we have four licensed, complete constables in Kerr County.
Thank you very much.
9-8-03
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
14
MR. PICKENS: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Appreciate it, gentlemen. The
next item is the consideration and discussion of waiving a
platting requirement or requirements for a revision of a
plat. Apparently, this is in Precinct 3. Commissioner Letz
asked that that be placed on the agenda.
COMMI:~SIONER LETZ: Yes, I did, and the --
Christina Lovett is in the courtroom to answer questions
about the property we're talking about. This is a -- I
guess, a difficult situation. It's one that I've talked to
Ms. Lovett about; been going on probably the past two months
now, and I'll try to summarize it. And, basically,
Ms. Lovett has a tract of land in my precinct, in a platted
subdivision. Subdivision was platted about 1975, so it was
a -- predated any subdivision rules in the county. The
lot's about 2.4 acres, little bit over that. The rules --
or the -- I guess the Subdivision Rules clearly allow for a
division of a subdivision of a lot in that subdivision down
to a minimum lot size, I think, of .7 acres.
However, when we first instituted our
Subdivision Rules, there had been some updates, and the
update in probably 1987 said -- maybe before '87, said
2.5-acre minimum lot size. And, all of a sudden, situations
like this prevent Ms. Lovett or anybody else from dividing
their -- their lot, if you're -- `cause you have to do a
9-8-03
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
15
revision of plat, and the revision is subject to the new
rules. We don't get many of these before us. On
frequent -- not frequent, but several time since T've been a
Commissioner, we've had older subdivisions where we have
waived this rule, but we've done it in a different
direction. When there has been, for example, three 1-acre
lots and they wanted to combine them into two
acre-and-a-half lots, we have done that. So, we've done --
figuring that was, you know, a betterment, even though it
still didn't meet the Subdivision Rules.
In this situation, there are two houses on
the lot. The -- thc_~ request, if we were to grant a waiver,
would be there would be two wells and two septic systems. I
believe there's enough property to do both of those things.
The -- both houses were built a number of years ago,
certainly eight or nine years ago or older, so this is not
something that was done recently. It was a situation -- and
it's not really real pertinent, but it is something
regarding that Ms. Lovett was divorced, and that's part of
the reason now that she's requested that we -- or that she
be allowed basically to sell one of the houses on her lot.
I've thought about this a lot. You know, clearly, from an
environmental standpoint and any other standpoint, she's
willing to meet the county rules of O.S.S.F. and the
Headwaters and all of that, so that's not really an issue
9-8-03
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
16
here.
I guess it goes down to lot size. And there
is clearly, in my mind, a precedent that is set by doing
this, because it's -- you know, once you kind of open the
door, it's hard to close it. And we have a lot of old
subdivisions in this county; a lot of them have lot sizes
that are currently below our minimum, and it's allowing them
to go kind of in a direction the Court has not been going,
lot size-wise, in the last probably 15, 20 years. However,
I also think this is a unique situation, because there are
two houses, and there really -- I don't see any -- anything
negative that's going to happen by doing this. And that is
because, I mean, basically, there are two houses there.
We're not going to increase septic, we're not going to
increase water, not going to increase really anything. The
situation exists, and it's existed this way for a long time.
So, in this situation, I'm willing to make a motion to grant
a waiver for this instance only, and to allow Ms. Lovett to
subdivide her lot into two lots. That's my motion.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second, with a
comment.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that
the request for waiver on division of a -- of a lot which
would otherwise be in nonconformance of present platting
requirements be approved. Any question or discussion?
9-8-03
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
17
COMMI:~SIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. I just have
a comment. Ms. Lovett?
MS. LOVETT: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are you Ms. Lovett?
MS. LOVETT: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just wanted to say
to you that a couple of weeks ago, your Commissioner came to
me and discussed this issue with me, and I thought at that
time that this would be a bad thing to do because of the
precedent set. But I -- your Commissioner has thought
through it very, very carefully.
MS. LOVETT: I appreciate that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And he's showing great
leadership here, and an interest in you and your -- your
issues out there, so he's come back to me and he's convinced
me that it's the right thing to do, to grant this waiver and
allow you to do it, and I agree.
MS. LOVETT: Thank you, gentlemen.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
MS. LOVETT: I appreciate it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Ms. Lovett, looking
at the plot plan here, I'm getting that you access the large
house from this South Riverpark Road?
MS. LOVETT: Yes, sir.
9-8-03
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
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What will be the
access to the small house should you --
MS. LOVETT: Hermann Sons Road. It's on the
paved road -- county road.
(Discussion off the record.)
MS. LOVETT: This road is Hermann Sons. I'm
not quite sure what we're on.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Hermann Sons.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: A lot of these lots
that access that road have a driveway. Do we know --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Some of them -- I believe
some of them down towards the river, which is kind of to the
north, just looking at the plat, do access off of -- I'm not
sure if they're in that subdivision or not. I know there's
driveways along Hermann Sons in that area.
MS. LOVETT: Right. Thank you, gentlemen.
Appreciate it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: A comment that I'd also
make, I think this is -- you know, and another reason that
I, you know, really appreciate, I guess, Ms. Lovett's
persistence, and also agree to give her -- hopefully her
waiver goes through, is that she tried to do it the right
way. She came to me, and she's been, I think, literally --
I don't know how many times we visited over this issue and I
tried to talk her out of it, but to no avail. She tried to
9-8-03
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
19
do it the right way. There are, in my opinion, many
situations in the county where people are doing this and we
just don't know about it, and it's a problem. And it's a --
you know, and it's something that I -- it's one of the
reasons -- I mean, I know everyone on the Court knows that
I'm going to recommend some changes to our Subdivision Rules
and Regulations, and one of the holdups is the enforcement
issue. Some situations have come up in my precinct where
people are doing thi.iigs that I don't think are technically
right, and they're in violation of one rule or another, but
once you get a second house built out there, I don`t know
that we've ever said, "You've got to tear your house down."
And short of that, what's the enforcement that we can do?
So, I mean, I'm really wrestling with some of
the issues that come by all the rules. And I see a former
Commissioner nodding his head as I'm talking right now,
and -- in the audience, Commissioner Oehler. But it's just
something that we re<~lly need to think about, and I think we
need to probably havf~ a workshop with the County Attorney to
go over enforcement, how we enforce and what the
ramifications of the enforcement of our Subdivision Rules
are, and our related rules. And I would throw in the
O.S.S.F. rules, well requirements, manufactured home, all of
those areas, because, you know, we have some pretty strict
rules in the county. And, you know, most people are
a-a-o3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
20
following those rules, but there are some that are not, and
I don't see that we do anything to those that don't. And I
really think -- and C really have trouble with that. So,
it's something that C just want to bring up, that I think we
need to have a workshop, probably the best date with the
County Attorney, and I'll meet with him in a little bit to
kind of go over it a little, maybe do some research as to
how this is handled in other counties.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree with you.
Two more agenda items are going to give you another
illustration as well.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions or
discussion? All in .Favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. The next
item on the agenda is consider and discuss actions and/or
remedies to cure the complaints regarding storage behind the
Kerr County Extension Service office. Commissioner Baldwin.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. Mr. Miller?
Come up, please, and let. me chew on you just a little bit.
MR. MILLER: Surely.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You were in a month or
9-8-C3
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
,._., 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
so ago, and brought us an outline of what -- what y'all --
your intentions were out there, and -- and I'd like to read
a couple of sentences out of your plan here. It says, "Our
plans for the near future are to move two metal buildings to
the site parallel to Highway 27 that will block the view
from the highway of the yard. The plans are to move the
buildings as soon as possible. Additionally, we have been
offered crepe myrtle trees to plant along the side of the
maintenance yard fence to improve the view."
That's good and all, but let me -- we have
received -- or Judge Tinley has received a letter and I have
had two phone calls that causes concern about the way the --
the yard looks out there. And, I quote in the letter to
Judge Tinley, the "pile of rubbish," and I guess we can
translate that in Kerr County talk, there's a bunch of trash
out there, or trash-looking. But the point is -- and I'm
assuming that I can read this and find out you're going to
fix it, but the point is, is that there's obviously some
public that are offended by the way that looks out there.
And -- and I can only speak for myself; I can't speak for
the rest of the members of this Commissioners Court, but I
don't think that we go and purposely offend the taxpaying
public that owns that property and owns this property and is
our bosses, et cetera.
So -- and I know that you have intentions --
9-8-03
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
I mean, I can read here that you have intentions of fixing
it, but getting down to the bottom line, it has to be fixed.
And I'm not interested in crepe myrtles in September or any
of those kind of things. We need to get that cleaned up
now. To me, we have two options. We either clean it up, or
we need to go back and revisit the contract, one of the two.
So, that's all have I to say. I don't like to get ugly
phone calls. I don't like people calling me and fussing
about county property looking bad, particularly that county
property out there that's -- that is prominent. And that's
all. That's as nice as I can put it.
MR. MCLLER: Wel_1, my first comment is that
one man's rubbish is another person's assets. The pile of
rubbish out there is -- are the assets that the Arts and
Crafts Foundation uses to put on the annual Arts and Crafts
Fair. It consists of -- of ticket booths, it consists of a
front entrance, it consists of tables and chairs and those
sort of things which are in storage. And I hate to say
this, hope it won't offend anybody, but that is the object
of that yard. It is a storage and maintenance yard. That
was the purpose of it= when we placed it there. And let's go
back to square one. We had a t:wo-day design sherette, which
established what was going to go where on that piece of
property. Our park is oriented to the river and to Flat
Rock Lake Park. The -- the place that yard is is really the
9-8-03
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
23
only logical	place	on	that	-- that piece	of property	to	have
a yard and do	the	park	like	we would, you	know, like	to	do
it.
The complaints that I have heard have come
directly from -- all of the complaints I've heard have come
directly from the Ag Extension Agent's office, and I
understand that. I iTiean, all of a sudden, they've got a
yard sitting behind there where they didn't before. But
we're also developing 7-plus acres there, which we have
cleared. You know, the -- Mrs. Osborn's letter mentions the
rodents and the rubbish and whatnot. We've spent quite a
lot of money out there clearing that piece of property. In
doing that, I think we probably eliminated a place where the
rodents and the -- you know, and the wild things go -- go to
hide. We've also eliminated the looting from the Indian
mounds out there. We've eliminated a place for the
transients to sleep and the hunters to hunt on that little
piece of property out there. I feel like, at this point,
that we've really, you know, gone quite a ways.
Our equipment has been out there 90 days;
that's all it's been out there. You know, I'm asking for
some time for us to go forward and complete the building
program. There's going to be a 3- to 5-year building
program. During that period of time, I'm sure there's going
to be times where it's going to look like it's a mess, but
9-8-03
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
,^ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,-._
25
if we get down the road and look at what we're trying to
build out there, I think we'll have a really beautiful asset
for the County. When you say "clean it up," we have -- at
the end of July, we went out there and rearranged everything
and tried to really clean it up and arrange things as nicely
as we could. And that's what's there today, in my opinion,
is a storage yard with things pretty well in there. If
you're offended by anything in particular. I'll be happy to
discuss it with you and talk with folks. Nobody from the Ag
Extension Agent has talked directly to me about what they
would like done. Whet I did hear from one lady was that,
you know, that the cat's out of the bag already, 'cause the
yard is there. But there was an opportunity for everybody
in this city and county to speak to that during that design
sherette. The public was invited. The public spoke, and
their input was listened to very carefully.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, number one, I
haven't -- I haven't had any comments from the Extension
Service.
MR. MILLER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's don't chunk a
rock at them. They haven't said a word to me. It's general
public folks that have made the comments. But if you would
like, I will go out there and put my hands on each
individual piece of rubbish.
9-8-03
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
25
MR. MILLER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: To -- you know, to --
and maybe we can get some of these folks to go and make a
recommendation for you. But what you're saying is you're
happy with it. I'm ~znhappy with it.
MR. MILLER: Well, let nle give you the other
-- you know, I got nothing but bad news, I guess, today.
Our plans were to move those two mobile buildings out -- our
two storage buildings out there as quickly as possible.
After talking to Mike Butler, he told me to go to TexDOT and
get their drainage information for the drainage that ran
through there. Mr. Boyd at TexDOT informed me at that point
that we had a drainage problem from Third Creek coming down
Spur 100 during the July flood. At that point, the
architect and everybody else said we need to wait until our
major engineering study is done to figure out how we're
going to handle that drainage, you know, when it comes
across the road right there, 'cause we're right opposite
that piece of road. So, moving the buildings is put on hold
at this point.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, it seems to me
that -- I mean, I think I understand it's an equipment yard,
but it also -- it can be screened. And I think it can be
screened at a pretty minimal cost for most of it. I mean,
you can get the -- you know, like they use on outfield
9-8-03
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
._-_ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
26
,-~. 24 fence.
25
y-a-os
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Field fence? And that
fences for baseball, little louver things that go in chain
link -- I don't know what you call it, but a screening -- or
you can get, you know, that nylon kind of green stuff that's
like a -- a net, sort of. And that can be put on any kind
of fence. And that's what I would say, and that's not that
expensive. I mean, it seems to me -- and you mentioned --
or the letter mentioned crepe myrtles. That is an excellent
long-term solution, but that's, you know, several years down
the road. You're not going to be able to plant trees,
obviously, that are huge. And there's other things -- and
bushes and things that can be planted, but it seems to me
that -- that because most of the -- whatever you want to
call the stuff, rubbish or assets, are inside a fenced area,
and that fence can be screened pretty easily.
MR. MILLER: We have some shade material
which we tried to use to screen it when we were out there at
the end of July, and we hung it on the fence along the side
of Highway 27 and drove past it, and it absolutely did not
screen. It was shadf~ material, not screen material. We can
sure look at that. I can take that back to my board and see
if we can round up some money to do that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is the chain link --
MR. MILLER: It's not chain link, it's field
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
may be a -- you know, another --
MR. MILLER: One of the problems also is the
road's a little bit higher than the yard. That's what we
noticed when we drove by with the screening. Some of the
things that stick up, that are real visible from the road,
are the ticket booths, and that's not -- there's also ticket
booths that go back to the Hill Country Youth Exhibit
Center, stored alongside of the barn in the back of the
barns also. Those kind of things are going to be there. I
mean, that's long-term. That's where they will be when
there's an event not going on, 'cause the whole idea is to
leave the physical footprint on that park as small as
possible.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But isn't there -- I
mean, isn't your plan -- well, the flood issue may --
drainage issue may change this, but there was a metal
storage shed --
MR. MILLER: Two 24-foot buildings we were
going to put alongside parallel on Highway 27, which we felt
would block that view pretty well. They were big buildings.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know. It just
seems that a -- a lean-to-type, hay barn-type structure, I
mean, for lack of a }getter term -- I mean, just, you know,
some pipes in the ground and -- with a tin facing Highway 27
and, you know, 24 feet out would be a lot cheaper than
9-8-03
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
28
buildings.
MR. MILLER: We already own the buildings.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Even with the building,
it seems it would be a -- a relatively inexpensive -- I
mean, I would think that you could build a small -- I mean,
build a shed that will also get that stuff out of the
weather. I think thE~ stuff being out in the weather is --
MR. MILLER: We]_1, and that's a problem.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The cost -- I know it's
going to cost to build the structure, but at the same time,
you're losing money by not getting that stuff under a
building.
MR. MILLER: The plans were originally to
build a metal building. We just do not have the funds to do
that at this point.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The call I got was
not from the Extension Service either; it was from an irate
resident of Hunt. T}~at's 25 miles away from the rubbish
pile, I guess. I'm surprised that you haven't taken steps
to clean it up or move it, or -- or stop the complaints
about it. And in fact, I've -- my interpretation of the
contract you've got with the County is that you're in
violation of the contract. You're in violation of your
agreement to operate the premises in a reputable manner and
in violation of your agreement not to create a nuisance.
5-a-o}
29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,.-~
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Notwithstanding the
-- the potential sto.rmwater runoff problems from Third Creek
down Spur 100 and ac_~ross Highway 27, isn't it possible to
move your storage buildings out there and jack them up on a
higher level? Temporary, if need be?
MR. MILLER: If I knew how high to jack them
up, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pardon?
MR. MILLER: If I knew how high to jack them
up, but I don't till the engineering study's done.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Who is -- who -- I mean,
I know the water camf~ down Third Creek -- or down Spur 100
during that flood, but that flood was an extremely unusual
event, and it was just -- it was on Third Creek, is where
that rain hit. That and Quinlan Creek; those two creeks are
the ones that got hit so hard. It doesn't seem to me to be
real hard to get those buildings elevated just a little bit.
I don't think the water's going a foot across there.
Probably a couple inches, maybe three.
MR. MILLER: I thought there was water in the
Ag Extension building, 6 or 8 inches. I don't know. I
didn't think --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It flooded our Road
and Bridge yard.
MS. HARDIN: It was high. Buster wanted to
9-5-03
30
1	go	up --
~,.._ 2		
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
..-.
25
scary.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I was there. It was
MR. MILLER: I'll be happy to go back to our
board and try to round some money up and do something. We
want to be good tenants, and it's our -- you know, we want
to do everything we ~~an. And I'll be happy to meet you out
there, Mr. Baldwin, and --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd rather not.
MR. MILLER: -- if you have some particular
thing that you -- you know, that you're displeased with,
we'll see what we can do.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, just -- you
know, just clean the thing up and make it pretty out there.
And --
MR. MILLER: Just build the screening? Will
that satisfy that problem? Or is there something else I'm
not aware of?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If it were me, I'd
move it back on the other road on the back end of the
property, but I don't like screening, myself. But I don't
know. Try it. Spend a little money and try it, and we can
always come back.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would -- screening is
going to be difficult on the type of fence you have without
9-8-G3
31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
..-.
25
building just a -- you know, like, a -- some sort of a --
like pipe fence, basically. Or side of building, basically.
That's the only way you're going to get a true screen. And
that's what we required -- or I guess we didn't require; the
County kind of did it with them, King Salvage down in
Comfort. There was a -- a similar unsightly issue, and --
and right-of-way concerns and consideration, other stuff.
Anyway, they, you know, put tin put up alongside, so it was
just a true screen. You know, I think, to move forward, if
you could go back to your board, and then at our next
meeting, come back w.i_th a plan, and --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That'd be fine.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: At least as to -- you
know, because, clearly, we're not happy, which isn't a good
thing. So, if you can go back to your board and come up
with a -- you know, some options, maybe get some proposals,
different things, and let us help -- you know, I mean, I
don't want you to go out and spend money if it's not going
to solve the problem. From our standpoint, I'd rather have
you come back with some screening options, and/or building a
lean-to or something, and some kind of an estimate.
MR. MILLER: Let me ask a question, then.
Are we concerned with screening Highway 27? Are we
concerned with screening all four sides of that yard? What
-- you know, what are we talking about?
9-8-03
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
32
JUDGE TINLEY: In my opinion, it would be
Highway 27, would be first priority, and then probably the
west end, because of traffic flow coming from the west.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would think short-term,
and I don't know that it -- and just because the visibility
may not be all of the west side. I mean, I think,
ultimately, I'd like all four sides of it screened. I don't
-- I mean, I don't think you want that to be an unsightly
corner. I mean, it's a visible property. I know it makes
sense, from the use of the property, to use that area, but I
think it can be done -- you know, you would have to build a
solid fence around it, which is not really that expensive, I
mean, in the big scheme of things, to build a -- just put
some steel posts up, some pylons or angle iron, and
tight-weld some, you know, metal to it.
MR. MILLER: Corrugated metal would make you
happy? That would be pretty enough?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It would screen it. It
could be painted green. You can get a green enamel.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Paint it blue and
gold.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You can sell advertising
on it.
MR. MILLER: I think our plans are not for
corrugated metal. C think we'c~ like it a little prettier
9-8-03
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
than that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It can be a cedar fence.
There's a lot of different ways to build a fence. I think
it can be screened, and I think I understand -- I think the
Court understands it's going to be -- it's not a real cheap
fix. And you're under budget constraints, but, you know,
it's a priority to get that property looking right to start
with.
MR. MILLER: Okay.
JUDGE 'TINLEY: County Engineer had some
thoughts, I think, he wanted to offer.
MR. JOHNSTON: Well, instead of -- my
comments would be instead of waiting for an extensive
engineering study, the Road and Bridge office did not go
underwater during that flood. Probably a 500-year event, so
you probably have a 500-year base level elevation of the
floor of the Road and Bridge office.
MR. MILLER: Okay. We'll take a look at it.
JUDGE; TINLEY: ;hoot off of that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That would tell you
how high to put your storage buildings.
MR. MILLER: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which might be a
better solution.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just put some base down,
9-8-03
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
34
build up to that height.
MR. MILLER: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Does that -- is that
the end of this issuf~ for now, gentlemen?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think it is. Mr.
Miller, thank you very much.
MR. MILLER: I'll give you a call,
Commissioner Baldwin. We'll go out there and look at
specific --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll pass it along to
Commissioner Letz.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me see if I understand. I
expect -- Mr. Miller? Our expectation at this point is that
Mr. Miller will get with his board and will come back to us
in our next meeting to give us their ideas about thoughts on
how they might proceed.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The 22nd of September.
That is what I understand, as well.
MR. MILLER: Our board meets on the 16th, I
believe.
JUDGE TINLEY: You have time to get back. We
thank you for being here.
MR. MILLER: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: The next item on the agenda is
to consider and discuss legal procedure for the enforcement
9-8-03
35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
of repeated O.S.S.F. violations when reported to County
Attorney's office by the Kerr County D.R. Commissioner
Williams.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Judge.
Last week, Commissioner Baldwin forwarded a telephone call
over to me from a young lady who lives out deep into my
precinct, and she had some pretty serious problems, and so I
placed this agenda -- item on t:he agenda for at least four
different reasons; to allow the Court to learn of the ways
that a property owner can deliberately manipulate or
compromise or, for the most part, ignore our existing system
of O.S.S.F. inspections that lead to issuance of citations
for serious violations. This particular case I want the
Court to learn of this morning has been ongoing since May of
2000. It's a pretty good textbook illustration of how a
property owner has avoided responsibility for a creation of
a serious public health and safety problem, and the owner
has done so with imp«nit.y.
The second purpose has to do with what I
consider to be inordinate delays in the prosecution of
O.S.S.F. violations, and the backup materiat I provided to
all the members of the Court lists at least five enforcement
cases for which there's been no activity from the County
Attorney's office since January or February of this year.
And, thirdly, as a Commissioner, I would not have known
9-8-03
36
1
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 this young woman's problem -- I'm going to ask her to
come forward in just a moment -- if she had not made a
telephone call or coi:tact with me. And, as a result of her
attempts to get some help, I visited her firsthand and saw
the conditions that she and her family were enduring. And I
read the complete file compiled by our Designated
Representative. This led me to inquire of Precinct 2
Justice of the Peace, Dawn Wright, how frequently or
infrequently cases come before her, O.S.S.F. cases.
The bottom line is, I think, in this case
which we're going to be talking about for just a few
moments, is that we need a better line of communications
established between the Designated Representative -- and I
want to point out that I don't think that this case
illustrates any neglect on the part of the Designated
Representative. I think, however, there is some breakdown
in communications, not only there to this Court, but the
County Attorney's office to this Court, so that
Commissioners, when they learn of these things, have a
better opportunity to follow up on them. And if they learn
about them in advance, perhaps we can communicate and get
some things done a little more expeditiously. And the last
reason has to do with violation of Kerr County Subdivision
Rules.
Here's a pretty good illustration of a
9-8-03
37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
property owner who has surreptitiously put four dwellings --
well, he had one there to begin with, but three additional
dwellings on a small piece of property. The first one had
septic. The second one was put in with no septic, and the
occupant went in that particular building, urinated and
defecated outside the back door or in bottles or cans or
whatever he had in his dwelling. The third dwelling has no
septic, and we're going to learn about that in a minute.
And the fourth dwelling, we're not sure, because it's
screened underneath and can't find out what's wrong with it,
but if I were a betting man, I'd bet it probably didn't have
one either. So, I'd like the Court to hear for just a
moment or two from a young lady I spoke with last week about
this particular problem. Her name is Terry Botello, and she
has a pretty interesting story. Terry, will you come
forward, take just a couple minutes, please, and bring the
Court up to date on this particular instance and
illustration of septic violations unattended to?
MS. BOTELLO: Yes, sir. My name is Terry
Botello. I recently moved from Center Point off of
Stoneleigh and McDonald Loop. Where I live -- or I lived;
let me rephrase that. The house that we lived in, my
children were getting sick, and I didn't know why. I took
them to the doctors several times. The smell was
horrendous, so I asked the -- my neighbors, which is the
9-8-03
38
1
~, 2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
property owner's son, what was the smell? And he told me
that his septic was running in a hole in the back yard; that
they hadn't had the money to have it -- to have it put in
yet. Meanwhile, their dogs are running through it
constantly. My kids are playing with their toys outside;
footballs, baseballs. Their dogs are playing with them as
well. Now my son has -- sorry. My son has a parasite
that's eating holes in the lining of his stomach, causing
ulcers. He's 11 years old. He also has ADD/ADHD, which
doesn't help the situation any, and acid reflux. My son
lays in bed at night crying because his stomach hurts, and I
can't do anything about it. The medication he's on, I can't
give him anything to calm his upset stomach, and it bothers
me knowing that these people put other families at risk like
this, knowing the situation that the grounds are in.
The water smells like sewage. I had it
tested. It has hydrogen sulfide in it, which was causing my
kids diarrhea, keeping them dehydrated. Kerrville
Wastewater has the information on it; they're the one that
tested it for me. My kids spent two months helping me make
a garden that they cannot eat out of. They love the little
cherry tomatoes and the cucumbers; they can't eat those.
It's making them sick because of the neighbor's septic
that's running in the hole in the back yard. My kids
couldn't play outside because the smell was making them
9-8-03
39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
sick. So, this weekend, I -- I finally had had enough, and
I had to find a different location for my kids to live in so
that they can be kids and play outside and not be sick. And
my concern is, something needs to be done about the septics.
This has gone on -- I've lived there for eight months. It's
been like this -- my sister lived there before me a year,
which at the time she didn't know what the smell was, and
didn't ask. She lived there a year, and it has been like
this the whole time. And they're constantly renting these
places out to families with children, and it's absurd that
our children are getting sick because these people don't
care. They don't have children; they don't care, and my
kids are having to pay the consequences for it. I just
don't -- I think they need to have something done with it.
COMMISSIONER WII,LIAMS: Thank you, Terry.
MS. BOTELLO: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This -- this is a
pretty good illustration of where we break down in our
enforcement. And this case has been going on, like I
indicated earlier, since May of 2000. What it illustrates
is that once a septic problem is detected and inspected and
deemed to be in need of repair, Designated Representative
writes it up. They'll check or recheck. The property owner
will make a phone call and will say, "Oh, yeah, we're
working on that," anc? the D.R. will give him additional
9-8-03
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
40
time, legitimately. And nothing happens. And they check it
again, and there's still raw sewage, and they give them
another phone call or another letter. The property owner
says, "Yeah, we're going to get that fixed. We're going to
come in and get an application," and they give him
additional time.
And so they come in, they make an
application, and the application is faulty, or the plans
that they put before them are faulty, and they don't --
they're denied a license for construction, and so they've
got additional time. And it goes on and on and on and on
and on, to the point that you have a case that started in
2000, and here we are in 2003, in September, and it's now
being referred to the County Attorney. To me, that's
unacceptable. I think we need a better system that gets it
to the -- gets the job done. I think it's okay to give
license to people for some time, "license" meaning give them
a little time to get their house in order. But, my god, if
you can't get your house in order in three years, you're not
going to get it in order. And I think that's a problem we
have to deal with.
The other part of this issue is -- has to do
with delays. I have a list here of -- one, two, three,
four, five different cases, and have I no idea how many more
there are, but they've been pending since January; no
9-8-03
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
41
activity, no activity since a letter was sent out. We're
looking at January and February. And my question to the
County Attorney is, why? Why can't we pursue these in a
more expeditious fashion? And the third item has to do with
violation of Subdivision Rules. Here's a case where -- and
we wouldn't have known about it had this young woman not
contacted -- I don't go by McDonald Loop and Stoneleigh that
often. But, nonetheless, in the dark of the night, we have
a situation where, on two-plus acres of land, suddenly you
go from one dwelling to four dwellings, one with septic, and
who knows about the other three? One we know now is a
cesspool, and we don't know about -- we know one doesn't
have, and we suspect that the fourth one doesn't have
either. I think we :just have a need of -- a need for better
communication. If these things are brought to light early
on, either by the Designated Representative communicating to
his Commissioners; just say, "Commissioner, you got a
problem in your precinct, and we're working on it." I think
if the County Attorney could say, "Hey, I'm getting ready to
file on so-and-so, and I want you to know about it," I think
we're better served, and that's the reason I brought it to
the Court today.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I -- a comment on --
well, several comments. There are -- as Commissioner
Nicholson is aware, too, there are -- I don't know how many
9-8-03
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
pictures we looked at during the joint committee in working
out the recommended current rules. This is not isolated;
there are quite a few open cesspools in the county, "quite a
few" being probably less than 10, more than 5, somewhere in
that area, you know, if memory serves me. Which is -- one
is too much, because they are such significant health
standards -- health problems. So, I think that -- you know,
and the issue goes i.n as to what do you do? It goes kind of
to the Subdivision Rules. What do you really -- what is
this Court prepared to do to someone who violates those
rules? Do we, you know, throw them out? I don't know what
our -- you know, what the Court can do.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's why I think
we've got to hear from the County Attorney.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's why I want to do
the workshop on Subdivision Rules. This goes right in with
that request with the County Attorney to really look at the
enforcement side of :~ubdivisiori and septic and manufactured
home rules, because I'm not advocating any of those things
if we're not going to enforce them. We need to be able to
enforce them and have -- you know, and we'll we have to do
that, in my mind. The other side of it is, the -- there is
a -- a pretty significant loophole in our Subdivision Rules,
and I don't think -- you know, I don't know that we can do a
whole lot about it unless they're manufactured rental homes
~-a-os
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
43
that are being put in. There is nothing in our Subdivision
Rules. Regardless of acreage size, if you -- if they have a
lot, they can build as many houses as they want on that lot,
and as long as there's only one ownership, they can do what
they want. You know, we cannot prevent people from building
two, three, four, five.
I know of a situation in my precinct where
there's a residence and four other residences that are all
rented, and we can't stop that. We have no provision in our
Subdivision Rules, and state law doesn't give us any
provision. Now, if they're manufactured rental homes, then
we do have some authority there that was granted under, I
guess, the 2001 Legislature, and we have rules to that
effect. And we are addressing some of those in my precinct
where they do happen to be manufactured rental homes that
are -- you know, and they qualify as rental communities.
But if they were to build an actual residence, we can't do
anything. So I really think that, you know, we need to go
back to a -- back to a workshop again and kind of talk with
the County Attorney a little bit about how we can do things.
And I think the other area of this is, we
need to make sure that our -- our septic rules, O.S.S.F.
rules should kind of match our Subdivision Rules a little
bit closer. I think one of the problems that we have right
now is that, you know, under state law, under subdivision,
9-8-03
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
44
you can have, you know, one lot and five houses on it, and
rent the houses. There's nothing that our O.S.S.F. -- that
Stuart, our Designated Representative, can do to stop them
from doing that. And even in a rental community, if it is a
rental community, our rules say that it is illegal for the
utilities to be hooked up. Anyway, we kind of basically
threw the monkey on the utility companies; phone, electric,
septic, and that's illegal for them to do it. They threw it
back and have, to me, verbally said, "By law, we're required
to provide that service." You can't make us -- you can't,
you know, say -- we're going to listen to the State before
we listen to the County. So, we have a conflict there that
we're kind of relying on the utility companies for the
enforcement side, and they're saying, "Huh-uh, king's X.
And the State says we have to provide water, we have to
provide electricity, we have to provide phone, you know, if
someone requests it." So, anyway, we need to really look at
all that and see how it works together, 'cause we have some
problems.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Motley, do you think it
would be appropriate to possibly have your office
participate in a joint workshop with the Commissioners Court
to kind of give us the parameters that we're dealing with,
and maybe what procedures we might put into place to get a
better handle on this problem?
9-8-03
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
MR. MOTLEY: Yeah, that would be a good idea.
I don't have any problem with that. I don't have any
problem with that at all. There are remedies that can be
taken. And on the case that Commissioner Williams, I guess
you'd say, highlighted today, that's like a lot of cases. I
think he makes mention of the fact that there are delays
granted for somebody who is actively -- as long as they're
actively trying to fix their system, leeway is given to
them. And I'm -- my understanding of the particular case
that was mentioned today was that -- by the way, that case
was presented to us on August 29th of this year.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I know.
MR. MOTLEY: And it's been filed last week,
that one and another more serious nuisance case. The five
cases that you made reference to, one of them we thought had
been filed by the previous Assistant County Attorney; it was
not filed. And four of them are just cases that just need
to be filed. They need to be filed. We have sent
compliance letters, but I want to also emphasize that
there's been in excess of 100 cases where compliance --
which is the goal; what we'r_e seeking is compliance -- have
been achieved. And in Precinct 2 and Precinct 4, there have
been many cases where there has been compliance, and nothing
really is mentioned about this. And there -- there are --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's because we don't
9-8-03
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
know.
MR. MOTLEY: Right, I understand that. But
there have been, I'm sure, in excess of 100 cases where
we've accomplished the goal. The five cases you mentioned,
none of them are anywhere near as severe as the case that
you highlighted today. They're not --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I realize that.
MR. MOTLEY: They're not like that. And they
will be -- we've been working on those for about a week, and
they're going to be -- my best knowledge, going to be filed
this week. You know, it just happens, I suppose, sometimes
that certain things may get put on the back burner or
something like that; we send a letter and we -- you know,
maybe we don't follow up. But those five cases are in the
process of being worked up and filed. The other two --
well, the two more serious cases, including the one you
mentioned, have been filed, and we put a priority on those
once we find out about them. But, in any event, you know,
we go to the court, and often the Judge will tell the
defendant in the case to -- you know, 30 days or 60 days,
and get it done and then come back to court. So, there's
always an effort to assure compliance. And that --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand that. I
understand that, Mr. Motley.
MR. MOTLEY: But: this case is a bad case, and
9-8-0~
47
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
I understand that too. And we've -- as I say, we've filed
that case, and within a week of having learned of it, and
there are other cases that have -- you know, have just, for
lack of a better term, have been put on the back burner. We
just haven't -- for some reason or another, it goes out of
somebody's current thought process, and they get left
behind. Those five will be handled. And -- and it's -- you
know, we'll get those cases filed. I'm not -- I'm not -- I
can't make any excuse for those, but again, I wish you would
consider, you know, the other side of the coin, which is
there have been many cases which have been successfully
prosecuted, to the point of having -- and I have a list of
some of those. I mean, I didn't go through and look up all
the cases; that would be virtually impossible to do, but
there have been a lot of cases that have been successfully
prosecuted.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm sure that that's
true; I commend you for that. But you are helping make my
point, that if we don't know the status of a problem, we
can't commend you or criticize you.
MR. MOTLEY: I'm not looking for
commendation.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If the Designated
Representative were not made aware of what the problem is
and where it is and what the status of it is. I think
a-a-o~
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
that's one of the points I'm trying to make.
MR. MOTLEY: Well, I'm going to say that
the -- the communications back and forth between U.G.R.A.
and our office have sometimes been kind of, you know,
confused. But right now, I think that, you know, I have no
complaint with the Designated Representative or U.G.R.A. I
think that, on this issue, we're doing -- you know, we have
a good communication; we're working well together. I don't
have any real problem with that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I didn't bring the
case up this morning to heap criticism on the Upper
Guadalupe River Authority --
MR. MOTLEY: No.
COMMI:~SIONER WILLIAMS: -- for its role as
Designated Representative. As a matter of fact, I think
this highlights the fact that they have been on the job.
But what it illustrates is that an unscrupulous individual
or a person with no -- no desire to correct a problem, for
whatever reasons, can really beat the system. He can beat
it, manipulate it, compromise it, and whip it to death, and
we sit here ignorant, dumb, fat, and happy, and we don't
know about it. That's my point.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think it might be well if we
try and get a workshop scheduled, maybe participation from
your office, as well as the Designated Representative and
9-8-03
49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
any others that need input, possibly a health official,
because some of these issues have some pretty serious health
consequences, and that might be the appropriate thing to do
where we have all the input and we can streamline and -- and
get a little comprehension of these communication issues,
and make sure that everybody's on the same page and getting
all the information.
MR. MOTLEY: That's fine to me. I want to
stress that we do place a priority on the O.S.S.F. cases, on
the nuisance cases, these sorts of cases. They do tend to
get the initial -- you know, the handling a little bit
quicker. And we realize it's an urgent situation, and so we
try to act accordingly.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I think, you
know, on the workshop, I think that's the -- what we need to
do. And I would just, you know, suggest that, maybe on the
afternoon of our next, probably -- I see several workshops,
but for several meetings, have a workshop on this topic to
try to go through it. Because I think if we try to tackle
it all at once, it's going to be almost overwhelming. I
think that the -- I mean, to me, the first step that I'd
like to see is to have the County Attorney present to us,
what are our options? What are his options and his
procedures, and what are the Court's options and procedures
for subdivision and O.S.S.F.? And -- I mean, on the
9-8-03
50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
enforcement side. Just plain and simple, let us understand
and discuss that. And then we can go into the Subdivision
Rules and -- and how the other rules -- how we need to get
things to work, and also how we get the communication
between all the entities worked up a little bit better,
which I know has been one of Commissioner Baldwin's
concerns, is to get everyone on the same page and so we can
all know what other county agencies are doing.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think that's all we
want to talk about today, Judge. I think if we can do that,
we can move it along.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I've got some
comments.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Several. One, I
appreciate Commissioner Williams bringing this issue into
clear focus. It's long since past due that we take action
on this, and the idea about holding workshops and getting
better coordination and improving the communications and
that is needed, and I want to do that. But I also recognize
that we've -- this young woman who was in here, who's --
who's had her children's health impaired by unlawful
activity of her -- apparently, her landlord, that we still
got a problem with this, and we can't -- it can't wait to be
solved until we have some workshops. I'd like to know, from
9-8-03
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
51
the -- from the County Attorney or the Sheriff or the
constable or a J.P. or somebody, what we can do today to
alleviate this unlawful activity.
MR. MOTLEY: Well, there will be a case set
in the J.P. court. Now, that's not going to happen today.
That would be on the criminal enforcement side of it, and
there certainly have been more than enough -- there's been
more than enough latitude given. But, you know, an
injunction could be filed to stop the water from going into
the premises. Civil fines may be assessed, something akin
to a criminal fine. Civil fines can be assessed. So, an
injunction is a possibility in the case, and in any case
where there's noncompliance.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Mr. Motley, I think
we ought to handle this like it's an emergency; that
whatever weight behind the law that we can put, we ought to
take it. The most -- we ought to take whatever action we
can take to abate this as soon as we possibly can.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I want to thank you,
Commissioner. I want to add one more thing into this. I
just learned this morning from Mrs. Botello that -- that in
her effort to move, to get her family out of this condition
into a safer environment, she and her husband, and I guess
family members, moved one truckload of their -- of their --
of their personal belongings and furniture, and when they
9-8-03
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
came back to move the rest of it, the landlord had
confiscated the rest of their stuff. So, if you got a
moment or two, I'd like for you to talk with that young lady
and find out what you can do to help her out in that regard
as well.
MR. MOTLEY: I'll be happy to.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Motley.
Ms. Botello?
MS. BOTELLO: Yes. The -- I don't know if --
did you give them a copy of the medical reports? Or show
the medical --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, I didn't. I've
got it, but I didn't give them -- I knew you would mention
that.
MS. BOTELLO: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If you have it, give
it to the County Attorney.
MS. BOTELLO: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He'll
privately outside here.
MS. BOTELLO: I wanted to let
already been turned in to the Department of
the doctor told me that I had to, because if
the other children were getting sick, that I
meet with you
you know, it's
Health, because
I didn't, and
would have
9-8-03
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
53
C.P.S. come and take my children away because I was
neglecting to do something about it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. Thank
you, Mr. County Attorney.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. That's all we have
on that issue?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's enough.
JUDGE TINLEY: At this point, we will recess
the Commissioners Court meeting, and we will take up -- we
will convene a public hearing concerning proposed Kerr
County On-Site Sewage Facility Rules and Regulations that
was set for this date at 10 a.m.
(The regular Commissioners Court meeting was
closed at 10:10 a.m., and a public hearing
was held in open court, as follows:)
P U B L I C H E A R I N G
JUDGE TINLEY: At the outset, prior to
calling for public comment, I apologize for being somewhat
tardy in getting the information to the members of the
Court, but there were some matters brought to my
attention -- the County Attorney was provided a copy -- from
attorney Vernon Harrison with respect to certain
requirements pursuant to the Texas Administrative Code and
those cases in which a -- a designated representative
proposes to adopt On-Site Sewage Facility rules or
regulations which are more stringent than those specified in
9-8-03
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
54
those -- in the standard ones promulgated by the Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality. I thank Attorney
Harrison for bringing that to our attention. I have
reviewed that information. It appears that his concerns in
this respect are legitimate. That's my personal opinion. I
would defer to the County Attorney on this issue about
whether it's appropriate for us to proceed with a public
hearing at this time, or whether or not we should instead
submit any proposed rules or orders that we want to place
into effect first to the Executive Director of the Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality for that office's review
and/or approval, and only upon receiving that, going forward
with our public hearing here on the county -- on the county
level.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, before you turn it
over to the County Attorney, if I might, I've talked to our
designated representative, and he agrees on the technical
procedure, that now is not correct. I visited with him late
last week, and he -- you know, we probably could have gotten
it to Austin and back, but I was uncomfortable and told him
no, that I would rather -- I recommend canceling the hearing
today. The -- and the reason was that I think the Court
needs to approve the -- the language justifying -- or
basically the language that goes to T.C.E.Q., not the D.R.
And so, for that reason, I said -- you know, I said I would
5-8-03
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
55
rather have it -- you know, and told Stuart just to not
bother with that, and we would just redo it.
I will also note that the procedure we're
using is the same that we used last time. And I guess --
and it's a -- it's not an excuse, but I think T.C.E.Q.
doesn't have a problem with us going with the procedure we
were using unless someone disagrees with it, and then they
agree that, no, we need to go there. We could probably get
it preapproved, bring it back and send it back. Takes a
little bit longer, but, you know, that is the -- I guess the
reason for the oversight. There wasn't any intent to --
it's just a matter of -- I kind of looked at it, and I think
Stuart did what was done last time. And it was the same
basic procedure followed, but since there is -- an issue has
been brought up, I think that we probably need to -- I mean,
we do need to follow the exact procedure. And T.C.E.Q., I
think, you know, acknowledges same.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is that -- Mr. Motley, is that
your opinion, that you concur in the conclusions reached by
Attorney Harrison concerning the issues that are before us
on the public hearing?
MR. MOTLEY: I believe Mr. Harrison is
correct on this. I think 285 requires the procedure that
Jonathan just outlined. And it may -- may take a while
longer, but it would be better to do that. We're talking
9-8-03
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
about -- I think, in particular, he highlights this 10-acre
limitation or restriction, and by eliminating that, he
maintains that that would be making the local rules more
strict, and I believe he's correct in his analysis of the
law.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So I think that -- you
know, I think the appropriate thing to do is to bring it
back. And I know it's going to -- the only negative thing I
can see about this, really, is the fact that it's -- it
delays the process in the middle of budget and trying to
figure out some things, but so be it. We should have done
it right the first time. But we will bring the language to
the Court, 'cause it's not an agenda item, at our next
meeting for the -- to send it to Austin.
JUDGE TINLEY: Submission to the T.C.E.Q.?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: To T.C.E.Q. You know, we
do -- have done that today probably pretty quick. It's not
an agenda item, so the next agenda item will be that long,
and then we'll send it to -- the procedure will then be to
go to Austin. Then it will come back, then we'll set the
public hearing and proceed. And if -- Stuart, do you have
any comments?
MR. BARRON: Since there's lot of the public
here today, I was going to offer -- T.C.E.Q. said we could
9-8-03
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
57
have the public hearing too, since the public was going to
be here today, and have another public hearing after it's
been approved that would comply with their rules also.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's -- I mean, I never
have a problem hearing from the public, but I just don't see
the point of hearing a lot of things until they know what
the hearing's about. But we're willing to listen.
JUDGE TINLEY: I know that there were a
number of individuals who have taken the time to come here
today to speak on this issue, and it being on the agenda --
and, very frankly, the error was one which was our error --
my error. I'll take responsibility for it; I have no
problem with that. We put it on the agenda, and I think if
any member of the public wants to come forward at this time
and talk about the proposed O.S.S.F. rules -- there will be
another opportunity, I can assure you, but certainly, I
don't want to prohibit anybody that may have taken the time
to come down here today. I would hope that we don't get too
repetitive, because we are going to talk about this again,
and you'll have an opportunity at that time to look at the
specific, exact language that the proposed rules will
consist of. But if there are any that wish to come forward
at this time, we'd be happy to hear from them. Ms. Botello?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: She just stepped
outside.
9-8-03
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
58
JUDGE TINLEY: She just left. I think we've
probably heard her concern about the proposed rules.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think so.
JUDGE TINLEY: And that was a very graphic
situation. We also have Mr. Stacy. Judge Stacy, do you
wish to be heard at this time, or do you prefer to wait
until we've got the exact rules before us?
MR. STAGY: Thank you, Judge. I may be able
to speak here. Bill Stacy. In 1991, I guess it was, we
made some rules. A subsequent Court threw those rules out,
and I was never told why they were thrown out, and it would
be interesting. For some reason or another, these rules,
285, were adopted. The County stopped the Environmental
Health Department we had, which, incidentally, gentlemen,
would have stopped a lot of the questions that y'all have
discussed this morning. I rise to the occasion, if it does
any good, to ask you to stand up with a little backbone.
I'm asking you to do two things -- and, as the Commissioner
told me, he knows exactly what I'm going to say. For 40
years, we had three cells and a leach line that worked.
Here comes the State of Texas, and they don't know what they
want. In my little subdivision, we have three or four
different types of so-called "approved" septic systems. Our
designated representative, if he worked for me when I had my
camp, I would have fired him. He doesn't know what a leach
9-8-03
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
line does. He told me if I dug a trench, that the digging
stayed the same. If you dig a trench in this floor,
obviously, you've dug a trench and you've changed it. That
doesn't get into his hair.
And as long as you have these people
interpreting these rules, they're going to interpret them
like they want them. The designated representative told me
in his office I needed an aerobic system. I said, "Wait,
you haven't been there." You need an aerobic system. I had
a state-of-the-art system when it was put in, two cells and
a leach line. Did not exactly adhere to what they wanted to
license. I went to the installer and asked the installer,
if we change it, put in a third tank, put in a leach
line...? No, aerobic system. $6,000 later, I put in an
aerobic system. I got an approved situation. Gentlemen,
out on Flat Rock Lake, my wife told me they're going to
solve so much problem out there for $12,000. It's out of
control. Commissioner Baldwin will tell you, his system is
-- aerobic system has failed. And if you allow one more
going into Kerr County, he should be put in the county jail.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Me?
MR. STAGY: No. Aerobic --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just wanted to check.
MR. STAGY: I think you have. Now, I was
called Saturday morning and couldn't get there, but I
9-8-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
60
understand they're now putting in something called "panels."
They're nothing more than an old-fashioned cesspool. I'm
asking that the Court and Commissioner Nicholson --
Commissioner Williams is on city sewer, so he can probably
recuse himself, but I ask you to look into your rules and
put in three cells and a leach line, and that works. It
worked for 40 years, and it will work tomorrow if you
approve it and get rid of the -- the digging of a line in
the ground, and the ground staying the same. Good luck, and
get a little backbone. And maybe you ought to take over the
Environmental Health like it used to be when the County ran
it and we ran it right. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Judge Stacy. Is
there anyone else that wishes to come forward and be heard
on this issue? If you would, please, come forward and give
your name to the reporter, and we'd be happy to listen.
MR. SYFAN: Gentlemen, Bernard Syfan,
Mountain Home. About a month ago, maybe a little more, I
went before the U.G.R.A. Board and I complimented them on a
change in attitude that I felt. I'm before you today to
rescind that. The -- the present board of the U.G.R.A. is
making an attempt to divide this county. There's no reason
for that. Water is water, and -- in my mind, and I think
eventually it will happen that we're going to have an agency
that takes care of water, whether it's on the surface or
9-8-03
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
61
underground or coming out of the sewer system, being
treated; it will all be under one head. Water is water.
Ought to be one agency, and it should not be this agency.
Should not be this Court. You've got a lot of other things
to do, and they ought to be elected. They ought to be an
elected board, five people, just like you are. If you want
seven, that's not too bad. But I'm encouraging you to stop
and think of this: Water is water.
I would not want to put this authority into
the hands of U.G.R.A. as it's presently constituted. They
were appointed by the State. Appointed by the State. There
are some on that board that misunderstood, I'm sure. They
thought that the governor said "anointed," and they were not
anointed. There are people out here, and they were run
roughshod over for several years, and they pretty well have
made a turnaround. But their attempt to split this county
into two agencies is dead wrong and on the wrong track.
There should not be two agencies in this county. One agency
ought to be taking care of all the water, and that agency
ought to be elected by the people. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Syfan. Is
there anyone else that wishes to come forward and be heard
on this issue? Mr. Vernon Harrison?
MR. HARRISON: Thank you, Judge. I'm Vernon
25 ~ Harrison from Hunt, Texas.
9-8-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
62
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you for providing us
with the information.
MR. HARRISON: Yes, sir. And I appreciate
your consideration of it. My position is that, as long as
there's going to be very technical rules that are applied
very technically -- and that's what most of the complaints
have been when people have come in here, is that the
O.S.S.F. Rules are technical and applied very technically.
As long as that's the case, then I would like to see that we
comply with all of the law, and I would point out a couple
more things. The reason I rise is not to beat the same
horse I beat in that letter, but to point out there are a
few other things. One of the things that I heard discussed
here today was the problems of existing O.S.S.F. systems and
how they shall be prosecuted, and I would point out to you
that in the Health and Safety Code, Section 366.032 --
that's 366.032 of the Health and Safety Code, which is part
of the chapter which provides for local enforcement of
on-site septic systems -- it provides in Section (c) -- I'm
sorry, correction, (a)(3), that the order that you adopt
must -- must include a written enforcement plan.
So that when -- I would point out that part
of the problem being addressed here today, and in talking to
the County Attorney about how are we -- what are we going to
do about enforcement, the law requires that you have a
9-8-03
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
63
written enforcement plan, so I think that it is very good
that you're having that workshop and that that be done. I
would also point out that one of my reasons for wanting to
be sure that all of the requirements were followed, as far
as how the rules were adopted, was the requirement, which
was included in my letter, that any more stringent rules be
justified based on greater public health and safety
protection, and that the justification be submitted in
writing to the Executive Director. And the reason that is
important to me is the next time we have a public hearing,
part of what the public will be able to comment about is
those justifications and whether or not they, in fact,
justify more stringent rules.
And, thirdly, I would point out that I think
there continues to be a problem with the term "designated
representative." I know the County has entered into an
agreement with U.G.R.A. The U.G.R.A. cannot be the
designated representative. The law requires that the
designated representative hold an installer's license.
U.G.R.A. does not hold one. Now, Stuart Barron, who you
kind of refer to as your designated representative, I
understand does hold such a license. If he is, in fact, the
designated representative, then he is the designated
representative, not the U.G.R.A. And if he's the designated
representative, I see serious problems if he works for the
9-8-03
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
64
U.G.R.A. and takes orders from people who are not licensed
on-site inspection installers. So, I see a real problem,
and I'm addressing that as to the relationship of the
designated representative and who exactly it is and how they
serve. So, that's all -- those are my continuing concerns,
and I just want to bring them up today, too. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you very much,
Mr. Harrison. Anyone else? Mr. Eller?
MR. ELLER: My name Charlie Eller. I live in
Greenwood Forest. My address is very much in doubt these
days. I can't figure out what it is. Every time I get a
postcard, I get more confused. I may not be here for the
next public hearing, so I want to get mine in today. First,
I urge you to delete Rule 10, as it is a ridiculous rule.
It makes just exactly as much sense as requiring you to have
your safety inspection done on your automobile only when you
sell it. Okay? Second, this Court is responsible for the
O.S.S.F. rule enforcement. You merely hired a subcontractor
who's a political appointee to do your job, and I urge you
to terminate that contract and actually perform the duties
assigned to you by the State. I believe the taxpayers are
entitled to have their elected representatives and employees
carry out their responsibilities.
Third, I suggest the people are the best
qualified to identify failing septic systems. There's a lot
9-8-G3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
I6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
65
of mystery about inspecting septic systems, and most of it
has to do with fees collected. A failing septic system
produces liquid on the surface and odor in the air, and a
neighbor can sure find it. If my neighbor has a failing
system, I'm going to report it. I just need to know who to
report it to. And, fourth, I suggest the people be
encouraged to report failing systems, that the contact point
be the County Commissioner for that precinct, and then you
can decide who does any required actual on-site inspection
and what action to take, if any, against the owner. Thank
you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you very much, Mr.
Eller. Is there anyone else that wishes to address us?
Yes, Mr. Wheeler?
MR. WHEELER: Good morning. Jerry Wheeler,
Mountain Home. As with Mr. Eller, I may not be here for the
next meeting, so I'd like to address the Court now. I
presently hold a Class D wastewater license. I went to
school; I got that license because I wanted to know more,
and I learned a lot. And I'm going to remind three members
of this Court, and make sure that the other two members who
weren't here for the workshop with the State -- that the
question was asked, question was answered. If we used the
state regulations with no Section 10, is the environment
protected? The answer was yes. So, my question still to
9-8-03
66
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the Court and to U.G.R.A. is, why would we be doing any
more? And I just want you to keep that in mind. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Wheeler.
Anyone else that wishes to come forward? Mr. Taylor?
MR. TAYLOR: Judge, Commissioners, I'm Eddie
Taylor from Center Point. I'm here to express all my
concerns about everything we're hearing here today, and I
heartily agree with a great number of them. One thing is my
attention -- and I am sorry, I don't have pictures. It's a
system that was authorized by T.N.R.C.C. It's an
infiltration system that they're allowing, and I went to
school in '97 and '98 over in New Braunfels for a couple of
days to learn how to put it in. They would put in certain
specifications and type of soil and everything. At that
time, they were trying to really get it effective in Texas.
Since then, they have got it approved by the T.N.R.C.C.
I contend that you -- in the workshop and
discussion, you should check into this system very closely.
It is put in with a panel. It looks like a pipe with about
40 percent sawed off. It's corrugated, sawed off of the
bottom, and you just run your drainfield in there. They
claim that you can go gravel -- it has to be a Type 1, 2,
or, I think, 3 soil, and it has no gravel in it. The
ditches have to be a certain width to fit a certain panel,
and the idea of it is -- let me pass this around and y'all
9-8-03
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
look at it while I'm talking. Appreciate it. I borrowed
that book, 'cause I threw mine when I didn't like the -- the
septic part of it. I contend that if we can have a septic
tank, one-, two-, or three-compartment, and run it out into
a hole, put tin or cedar posts over it, that it's a cesspool
to me. We're going to meet all state specifications, but in
your two and three tanks, whether it's a pressure deal or
what, two tanks are a certain size, two compartments, and
then we run it in this panel. You can run shorter panels,
because they claim the effectiveness is a lot better than
putting it in a drainfield, or you can go ahead and run it
in about a hundred 25 or 30 percent more -- I may be a
little off on those figures -- in a gravel bed.
They like it, and I can see why they like it
and why people go for it around here. It's a much cheaper
installation because you don't have to buy 40 yards of
washed gravel, but the way they're putting them in -- and I
observed two or three in the last month. They're digging a
ditch. If it's a 36-inch panel, should be a 36-inch ditch,
and that's the way they filter. People -- this thing was
designed up in Connecticut and comes from Connecticut, and
the idea of having that ditch is, when you set those panels
in there, then they don't kick out the bottom, because the
ditch is tight. In other words, it's fit in here. You can
run over it with a tractor and all that. But I noticed most
9-8-03
68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
of the boys putting it in are putting it in with Bobcats to
cover it and stuff like that. I'm wondering if maybe the
Commissioners Court should look into that before they let it
get too far in Kerr County. And I certainly appreciate
y'all and appreciate your time you put in.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Taylor.
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Is there anyone
else who wishes to come forward at this time and be heard?
Mr. Oehler?
MS. OEHLER: Well, I'm going to have very
little to say. Judge and Commissioners, Bruce Oehler. I
think my new address is something like 529 Highway 479, but
I'm not sure. Has nothing to do with this, but... You
know, this controversy's been going on for 17 years, and I
think you could end it if you just adopt the state regs.
You wouldn't have to worry about going to court and trying
to justify if you're over and above the regulation that the
State requires. They've done the testing. That's why they
have the rules that are enforceable and defensible, of which
you can do the very same thing. If you do that, the lady
that was here today -- and if you enforced the rules, she
wouldn't have had that problem, nor would anybody else.
Make it simple, but make it defensible and make it right and
fair far everybody.
9-8-03
69
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: Thank you, Mr. Oehler. Anyone
else that wishes to come forward at this time? If not, we
will -- we will close the public hearing.
(The public hearing was concluded at 10:38
a.m., and the regular Commissioners Court
meeting was reopened.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Pretty big public
hearing not to have a public hearing.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We have no topic to
vote on.
JUDGE TINLEY: As we call it public hearing,
with everyone knowing that, of course, we'll have at least
one more on this issue. At this point, I would suggest that
we take our mid-morning recess and reconvene here at
approximately --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Judge, I've got a
couple comments in relation to the public hearing. Can we
not do that? I know we're not going to vote. Can I make
some comments about what we've heard?
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm going to call 1.8 as a
matter of course. So, we'll stand in recess until 10 of or
a little after.
(Recess taken from 10:39 a.m. to 10:55 a.m.)
9-8-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
~o
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's come back to
order. It's about 5 minutes until 11:00. Just in order to
remain consistent, we'll take up Item 1.8, that I know we
cannot take any formal action on. Consider and discuss
adoption of proposed Kerr County On-Site Sewage Facility
Rules and Regulations. I think Commissioner Nicholson had a
statement or comment that he wanted to make.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think just one
thing, really. We've been dealing with the issues of
Section 10 for a long time, and some of you have been
dealing with it for a long time, much longer than I have,
and there's a clear intent to eliminate the real estate
transfer rule. And that's going to -- that's taken a long
time. It's going to take some more time, and so I'm
speaking to our designated representative, Stuart. I'd like
for to you do whatever you can to make sure that the -- keep
that bureaucratic process to -- to a minimum to make sure we
-- we get those things out expeditiously and help people
with the real estate transfer. I'm not talking about
changing the rules. I'm talking about making it as
efficient as you can to -- to keep it from holding up
transactions. That's all.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further on that
agenda item, 1.8?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Only comment I'll make is
9-8-03
71
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that the -- no, I won't make a comment. That's my comment;
no comment.
JUDGE TINLEY: I see. Your comment is no
comment.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That means I have to
put off my 10 pages of prepared comments till next time; is
that right, Judge?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: When was it that you were
going to be out of town, Commissioner? I think maybe we --
we've been talking about having a special meeting.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have yet to set it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll let you know
when I'll be out of town, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. The next item was a
timed item set for 10 o'clock, as was the previous one, and
that is a public hearing concerning road name changes for
Kerr County. So, now that we're back in the meeting, I will
recess the Commissioners Court meeting and convene a public
hearing concerning road name changes for county-maintained
roads in accordance with 911 guidelines, and regulatory
signs.
(The regular Commissioners Court meeting was
closed at 11:00 a.m., and a public hearing
was held in open court, as follows:)
9-8-03
72
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
1
P U B L I C H E A R I N G
JUDGE TINLEY: I would note that Mr. Linn
Mann, who was here previously and addressed the Court under
Visitors' Input, filed a participation form to speak on that
item -- or someone had filled in 1.5 there; maybe he didn't.
I'm not sure whether his particular road falls under the
roads under consideration here today, but --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It does not.
JUDGE TINLEY: It does not, okay. His
comments were generally about 911 and roads and addressing.
Is there anyone here with us today that wishes to have
public input concerning the road name changes for the
County-maintained roads in accordance with the 911
guidelines and regulatory signs that was to be heard today?
There being no one to come forward, I will close the public
hearing.
(The public hearing was concluded at 11:01
a.m., and the regular Commissioners Court
meeting was reopened.)
JUDGE TINLEY: And I will reconvene the
Commissioners Court meeting, and we will take up Item 1.6;
that is to consider road name changes for County-maintained
roads in accordance with 911 guidelines, and regulatory
24 signs.
.~-
25
9-8-03
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, if I could make a
73
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
comment on these, most of these are in my precinct. These
were all names that were approved previously by the Court
and were included in the 911 mailout. And the reason for
the hearing was just a timing issue that we couldn't have
this public hearing prior to that mailout. And the other
comment I have is on the second -- well, the first name,
Hasenwinkel, it's actually a spelling correction, because
that's been back and forth a couple times, which way to
spell it. We decided to put it as it is now, formally; the
new name is the correct spelling of Hasenwinkel. And, there
is a site issue on Cypress Creek Loop North, the first one.
A little portion of the new road is actually called North
Creek in the records, so we will probably have that little
piece, T think, back on the -- for another public hearing at
our next time. I think we can go ahead and change our
records accordingly. No one lives on it. It's -- it may be
100 yards long. No one lives on it; just as to the way it
was mapped at one point. I don't really -- doesn't affect
this, doesn't change this, doesn't make anything inaccurate
that was posted. It's just that we need to add that one,
and it is a County-maintained road, so it does need to have
a public hearing that little piece of North Creek. Other
than that --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have one comment,
Judge. I think some time ago, probably at the request of
a-e-o3
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
the Veterans Administration, because it has a cemetery
located on Spur 100, the name Veteran's Parkway North was
adopted. Whether it was intended to go for the full length
of the road or just to that portion that gets -- gets you to
or past the cemetery, I really don't know, but the majority
of the people live on Spur 100 Road North. They know that,
they understand that, and that's the name they'd like to
have. And so that's the reason for getting it back where it
should be.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other comments?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll move approval of the
road names as -- the new names as presented, and also the
regulatory signs as presented.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and
seconded that the road name changes for the
County-maintained roads as presented and the regulatory sign
changes or additions as presented be approved. Any further
question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I'd like to
just make a comment real quick that's a sideline to this
particular issue, is that we're going to have a -- a
committee meeting -- Commissioner Letz and I are the 911
liaisons, and I'm going to ask a couple of the 911 Board
members to meet with us and start -- start talking about the
9-8-U3
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
sign installations and the cost and all those things that we
had kind of declared a moratorium on. But it's -- it's time
for us to start bringing that back, so I just wanted to
inform y'all that that is -- that we're going to jump back
in that thing here pretty quick.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And on that, to follow up
on Commissioner Baldwin's comments, there are also -- there
are some road names that probably still need to be changed,
and we've kind of put a moratorium on that. I think some
are County-maintained, some are not, and now we need to, you
know, think about those in your precinct. And I think at
this same committee meeting, we're going to discuss a little
bit as to when we want to do that. Do we want to try to
make the changes between now and the end of the year, or
wait until later or -- and/or do them case-by-case? But if
you have any in your precinct, just get with Commissioner
Baldwin or myself and let us know where they are. I know
those in mine. I think he probably knows his, but I'm
clueless what's going on in 2 and 4 when it comes to road
names.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or
comment? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
9-8-03
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
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. The next
item you'll find in the addendum. It was a timed item also
for 10 o'clock. Not bad, I suppose; it's only a bit past
11:00. Mr. Auditor, do we have any sealed proposals for
information technology maintenance service work?
MR. TOMLINSON: No, we don't.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have none?
MR. TOMLINSON: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Well, it was set
for the bids to be -- if any received, to be opened as of
this date. There being none, why, unless someone wants to
have some sort of discussion on that item or 1.15, we will
consider those items eliminated from the agenda at this
time. We'll move on to the next timed item, which was for
10:15, which was a public hearing on proposed archive fee.
So, at this time, I will recess the Commissioners Court
meeting, and I will open the public hearing on Item 1.9,
that being a public hearing on proposed archive fee for
preservation and restoration service performed by the County
Clerk in accordance with Senate Bill 1731.
(The regular Commissioners Court meeting was
closed at 11:06 a.m., and a public hearing
was held in open court, as follows:)
P U B L I C H E A R I N G
JUDGE TINLEY: Is there anyone here that
9-8-03
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
wishes to be heard on the proposed archive fee as set forth
in Senate Bill 1731? Any member of the public wishing to be
heard? There being none, I will close the public hearing.
(The public hearing was concluded at 11:06
a.m., and the regular Commissioners Court
meeting was reopened.)
JUDGE TINLEY: And I will reconvene the
Commissioners Court meeting and take up Item 1.10, that
being the consideration and discussion of the adoption of
the proposed archive fee for the preservation and
restoration service to be performed by the County Clerk in
accordance with Senate Bill 1731. The material, I believe,
is in -- in your package.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not mine.
MS. SOVIL: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: It's not? All right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's privileged
information, but I'm going to vote on it anyway.
JUDGE TINLEY: Obviously, it was.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In the dark.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Vote in the dark.
JUDGE TINLEY: If we can get the County Clerk
to give us just a quick thumbnail of what that consists of,
Ms. Pieper?
MS. PIEPER: If you don't mind me standing
9-8-03
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
here, I think I can speak loud enough that Kathy can hear
me. This is just a new bill that has recently been passed,
and it is an archival fee for the records -- public records
from 1990 back. This is a $5 fee, or can be assessed up to
$5, and this will help to -- help our budget. That way we
can get all of our old records restored. And this fee will
only last for a period of five years. So, after the
five-year period, then it drops off and we go back to our
other filing fees.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd move the Court adopt
a $5 archive fee per SB 1731.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that
Kerr County adopt an archive fee in accordance with Senate
Bill 1731 in the sum of $5. 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
is Item 11, consider and discuss approval
'03-'04 public officials' salary and set
the same. I prematurely placed this item
agenda, and we weren't quite ready for it
carry. Next item
of the proposed
~ public hearing on
on the last
then, but I think
9-8-G3
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
we maybe are now.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, it seems to me
that we would have somewhat of a schedule here, or are we
just talking about all -- all elected officials getting a
$1,000 salary increase, excluding the Commissioners Court
and Rusty? Is that the general thing? Or is there -- is
there a myriad of people that we need to be looking at? Are
there different things throughout the list of elected
officials? Different numbers?
JUDGE TINLEY: The -- as you're aware,
Commissioner, there have been a number of proposals noted in
the budget requests of various elected officials. There
were some requests. There was one proposal that had to do
with the thousand that you've mentioned, with some
exclusions. I've heard other questions raised about, does
the term "elected official" include the -- the District
Judges, the County Court at Law Judge, the public -- the
County Surveyor? So, I think -- frankly, I don't know where
we are.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I would -- I
definitely want a schedule. I want to see the salaries, and
I think it includes everyone that gets a COLA as well.
'Cause I recall the Commissioners, even though they don't
get an increase, per se, from a merit standpoint or whatever
you want to call it, we are subject to the COLA, and the
9-8-03
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
COLA needs to be reflected in there, 'cause it is
technically an increase in our salary. So, I don't think we
can act on this -- I can't act on this until I see a
schedule.
MS. NEMEC: I gave an updated position
schedule to the Auditor, which includes everything that
y'all just talked about. It has all the employees on there
too, though; it's not just elected officials. It's just a
position schedule.
JUDGE TINLEY: I guess the issue at this
point is, number one, if -- does anyone want to offer a
particular motion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, if it's -- if
it's a thousand -- a thousand-dollar raise for all elected
officials, excluding Commissioners Court and the Sheriff,
yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And constables.
Constables, we changed those --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Constables --
excluding Commissioners Court, constables, and Sheriff, yes,
I would offer a motion. But if it's anything different from
that, we've got to see what we're voting on.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's somewhat
different, in that the constables, we -- you may recall, we
later went back and visited that item and put the constables
9-8-03
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
in for the increase, and we took $1,800 out of their budget
for the varying expenses. So, it does include elected
officials, all, with the exception of the Commissioners
Court and the Judge. The COLA applies to everybody, top to
bottom.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But we're changing the
constables' technical salary; therefore, theirs has to be
listed as a new salary. We took $1,800 out of that, so
there's -- it's not just the current salary plus $1,000 plus
a COLA.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're right, yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, I mean, we need to
see a -- I think we need to see a schedule.
MS. NEMEC: Are y'all going to be back this
afternoon? I can go type out a schedule real quick, if you
want.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the answer is
yes, 'cause I think that -- I mean, I'd like a little bit of
time when we get to the next budget item. I don't know how
the Court feels about acting on the full budget, but I would
like a little bit of time to review it, 'cause I have not
had time to do that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Don't we have a
meeting this afternoon?
9-8-03
82

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, we're pretty
much -- we're almost done except for budget issues.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: To meet the new --
JUDGE TINLEY: The applicants for the -- for
the Extension Service.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: 2 o'clock.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 2 o'clock, see? So,
we could -- all we have to do is run this on in the
afternoon.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Which is fine. I'd
rather -- my preference would be to recess now, or maybe go
through anyway and find out if there's any additional
information we'd like to have.
JUDGE TINLEY: Does anyone have a motion that
he wants to offer on Item Number 11?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The Auditor --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Tommy?
MR. TOMLINSON: I think there -- there could
be a -- a technical issue concerning the J.P.'s, concerning
the supplement. If -- if the supplement is left in the
budget, then the amount of their COLA will be different. If
you -- if you reduce their salaries -- what is now their
salary by the amount of the supplement, then the amount of
the COLA that they receive on their current salaries would
9-8-03
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
be different than it would be if -- if the supplement is
left at $6,000.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Could we not adopt a
policy across-the-board that -- supplements, to me, should
be subject to a COLA. I mean, a supplement is a -- to me,
it's an additional salary if you're doing additional
service, and I don't -- and I think the same logic, to me,
applies. You shouldn't get paid less, you know, one -- you
know, from the preceding year. We take into account
inflation, so I think the -- it should be -- basically, COLA
should apply to all supplements.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're right, because
it's a supplement to salary.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's just -- but it's
different than I think we've handled it in the past.
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, that -- I think that
there's some confusion among staff as to whether or not a
COLA applies to supplement.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, that's what I'm
saying. I think we should clarify it. To me, supplements
should get a COLA, always. You know, that's just my
personal feeling on that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Now, that would be a policy
issue, certainly, that probably needs to have a decision
made on it. Does anyone wish to offer a motion in
9-8-03
84
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
connection with Item 11? If not, we'll move on to Item 12.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just a second, Judge,
before you call 12. Are we leaving Item 11 without a
motion, pending a recess, at which time we'll have an
opportunity to examine a -- a printout from the Treasurer?
JUDGE TINLEY: Absolutely. Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So you intend to come
back?
JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, yeah. We can certainly
revisit 11 or any other item, as far as that goes --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- that the Court wishes to
come back to. Item 12 is consider and discuss approval of
proposed '03-'04 budget, set a public hearing on the same.
Commissioner Letz had indicated he had some concerns about
wanting a bit more time to review before we actually approve
the budget.
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
JUDGE TINLEY
that there's no one at this
offer a motion on Item 12?
COMMISSIONER
LETZ: Yes.
WILLIAMS: Yes.
So what I'm hearing, then, is
point that is in a position to
BALDWIN: What is it that we're
going to look at more?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Paper. And I think that
9-8-03
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
the -- I mean, I -- I just -- I was gone -- actually, I was
here Friday, so I don't know when this came out, but I have
not looked at the new run, and I just want to go through to
make sure that the changes that -- that I thought we made at
our last workshop, or recommended -- or last meeting are in
here. And then there's a couple of -- you know, there's one
area that I'd like to look at. I just want to look at it; I
think it needs to be brought up again whether the right
amount's in this budget. I don't think it should take a
great deal of time. I mean, the changes aren't that
significant that I know of.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, do we want to try
to do everything at once, or do you want me to do some of it
now? When are we going to do this visiting?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would say either, you
know, 1:30 or after the reception or tomorrow morning.
Makes no difference to me. I don't think -- I mean, the
changes I have are -- you know, we can go through some of
them right now. You know, we can --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Why couldn't we do
it right now?
JUDGE TINLEY: I suppose we could.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But maybe -- I have
to think. I'm going through it for a while.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let's get on with it.
9-8-03
86
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: While you're digging
around over there, Commissioner, I've been asked to bring up
one issue, and that has to do with our holiday schedule.
The request is that we get -- take Good Friday instead of
July -- somebody help he here -- July 4th?
MS. SOVIL: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: July 5th. We have
previously talked about taking July 5th as a holiday, and we
don't want to do that any more, but we do want to have Good
Friday off before Easter.
MS. NEMEC: No, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I knew it.
MS. NEMEC: This is the schedule that -- that
we discussed and the Court agreed on.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MS. NEMEC: And July 5th is not on there. We
took July 5th to give us an extra day during holidays --
during Christmas. We took July 5th off if we could have the
26th during the Christmas holidays.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So we have already
done that? Is that what you're telling me?
MS. NEMEC: Yeah, we discussed it, and -- and
I -- yeah, y'all -- y'all even made a motion to approve that
schedule.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Thank you. You
9-8-03
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
want this back? It has pretty blue ink on it. Would you
like to have it?
MS. NEMEC: You can keep it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Shucks.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Shucks.
MS. NEMEC: I'll let you have it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're embarrassing
me.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner
Baldwin, I'm going to take July 5th off either way.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I am too. Well,
while Jon's over there shuffling papers, I'd like to ask a
question. What did -- did we do with road -- the Road and
Bridge -- with Truby with Road and Bridge? What did we do
with her salary increase?
MR. TOMLINSON: Remained the same. There
wasn't any change that I know of.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's the way I
remember it as well. But a couple of months ago, we gave
her some kind of stipend that is, --
MS. NEMEC: Merit.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- I'm sure --
MS. NEMEC: Merit increase.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Merit increase. That
it becomes a permanent fixture in the budget. Yes?
9-8-03
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
MS. NEMEC: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But, other than
that -- okay, thank you.
MS. NEMEC: She got longevity and the 2 and a
half percent --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MS. NEMEC: -- added to the merit increase
that she had gotten a few months ago.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's good. Thank
you. While Commissioner Letz is shuffling his paper -- come
on, Jon.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I told you it's going to
take a while. I need to go through these things. I think I
heard an issue that Tommy brought up about COLA. If that's
going to be a policy, that's not in here right now, so
that's a change to the budget. And, I mean, I'm in favor of
that. I think that supplements, you know, should be --
COLA's should be --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We can accept that as
a -- even if we adopted it, we adopt it with that change.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: As long as we don't have
too much changes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Would it be better if we were
to take an early lunch --
9-8-03
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: Probably so.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- and come back? I'm just
trying to -- I know we've got a commitment at -- at 2:00
that I think most of us want to make with regard to the new
Extension applicants. I've got hearings scheduled beginning
at 3:00.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's fine.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a question,
Judge. It's related, but it's the next topic, and it has to
do with the setting of the tax rate. We usually get a
printout that gives us some sense of what the tax rate is,
what the rollback is, and I haven't seen a revised printout
of that.
MR. TOMLINSON; There is not a revised one;
it's exactly like it was from the -- the one I gave you,
like, a week ago. There's been no change to that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: When I look at
constables' salary, estimated actual '02-'03 is identical to
the recommended '03-'04. That's not what I recall.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, what page are
you on?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 47.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What did you say?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 47.
9-8-03
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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 47.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I understand that the net
change was basically an $800 reduction, because we gave them
the $1,000 raise, but we took out the travel allowance,
$1,800 that we had put in there several years back, and it
amounted to an $800 reduction, but that -- it's really not a
true reduction, 'cause that amount was totally put back in
their budget and a bunch more for car expense-related items.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner, in response, the
figure's not the same. It's -- there's some dyslexia
involved here, apparently. It's 492, and it ended up 429.
But I ran that figure.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh.
JUDGE TINLEY: And what I did was, I used the
$29,492 and I -- I added the COLA to it, and then I
subtracted out the $1,800 that was peeled off, and then I
added back the thousand, and it comes up to $29,429, as
stated.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, what it includes was the
adjustment of the $1,800, but it also includes something
that, apparently, from what I understand from discussion a
bit ago, has not been finalized on the $1,000. But I --
that's the rationale of how that figure is where it is.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, it's just a matter of
9-8-03
91
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
coincidence, the numbers are very close and I have dyslexia.
MR. TOMLINSON: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Probably not a coincidence
that you have dyslexia. But --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's it.
MR. TOMLINSON: I had an issue with that too
when I saw it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: I thought I was having
dyslexia.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Before you leave that,
when -- when we send the budget down to the clerk's office
for public viewing, what will -- what will 001 line show?
Will it show $1,800, or is it going to continue to show zero
like today?
MR. TOMLINSON: It will show zero.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And then the one that
Commissioner Letz was talking about, Constable Precinct 3,
as an example, you have -- let's see, we have the gasoline
and vehicle repair and maintenance, and we intended to break
those out in two separate lines?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And insurance.
JUDGE TINLEY: Three categories.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Three -- and
insurance. And they're all that way?
9-8-03
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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And they're all an
equal amount? Okay, thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Under Park Maintenance on
Page 44, this shows nothing under Capital Outlay, but don't
we have Capital Outlay at the parks? Or is it not under
Park Maintenance? Is it under Parks?
MS. SOVIL: Different.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's in the other
Parks budget.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Other Parks?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah, different fund.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: You're talking about the two
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Two items.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- the L.C.R.A. money and the
FEMA money?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's in the other one.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, thank you.
MR. TOMLINSON: That's Fund 31.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The other item -- and I
almost -- no, I won't bring it up. I think it would be an
emergency issue, if it happens. It's going back to O.S.S.F.
9-8-03
93
1
.-. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1 `]
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Really, it's just a -- I see a lot up in the air there
still, and you can't budget for that, so I think we'll just
leave it where it is. But, you know, that number may or may
not be exactly where it needs to be, but we just don't know.
We don't have a better number, so leave that where it is.
JUDGE TINLEY: I had raised a question with
the Treasurer about the Technology Information Specialist on
Page 8, and I've not had an opportunity -- I just raised it
with her this morning. I've not had an opportunity to get
her explanation. My calculation of what that last number
should be is $32,481, and her figure's about $800 higher.
MS. NEMEC: Yours is correct, Judge. What
happened was, I was looking at his in particular, and
noticed that last year when he was supposed to get a step
increase, he was not -- that was when each department was
doing it, and he was -- it wasn't sent to me that he should
have received one, so I added that step to it, making it a
23-3. But I had already done it with a 23-2, so it should
be that amount, $32,481.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. NEMEC: Now, you know, he was shorted
$783 this past year, and I don't know what we want to do
about that, but --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Didn't we correct
some others that had been overlooked as well?
9-8-03
94
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. NEMEC: No, I don't think there were any
that were overlooked.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Really?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I believe there were
some longevities and that in our office; we corrected them
in there.
MS. NEMEC: But are you talking about with
the revised policy, that we're overlooking the revised
policy?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No. There was one or
two that didn't get them after their one year. They're
corrected now, but they weren't then. So --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what I
thought.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah, they're all
corrected now, but they weren't.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So if that one needs
to be corrected, then the number in the budget --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Would be correct. Is
that right?
MS. NEMEC: Well, actually, if we're going to
correct his, then it should be corrected in this budget year
and give him the $783, because then if we move him up
another step, then the following year it's going to impact
the following year's. He's going to stay at that higher
9-8-03
95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
step, which we really shouldn't --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I see. Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: We may go back and -- and
begin his count for the three -- three-year subsequent
longevity increase starting with the last year. That's
probably the only --
MS. NEMEC: I did that.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- adjustment we can make at
this time. But the correct number for this year should be
the $32,481.
MS. NEMEC: That's correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: If I understand correctly.
MS. NEMEC: That's correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: And we don't have any more
like this, Ms. Nemec?
MS. NEMEC: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Where in here do I
find the three-quarters of one percent lateral road tax
increase?
MR. TOMLINSON: It's in -- it's reflected in
the tax rate on the tax schedule.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The 750 -- $750,860
includes that?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, it does.
9-8-03
96
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is that all we have to offer
at this time? We'll come back to this when we -- when we
pick back up, and we'll have an opportunity to raise other
issues. Do we want to go forward now and -- and consider
Item 13, the approval of the proposed tax rate and setting
of a public hearing on that item? Are we ready to do that
yet without the other two items being completed?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'd rather do them
all at one time, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Personally.
JUDGE TINLEY: That being the case, then, T
think probably the best course of action would be for us to
adjourn at this time --
MS. SOVIL: Recess.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- and come back at 1 o'clock.
MS. SOVIL: Recess.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Recess.
JUDGE TINLEY: Recess, excuse me. I
apologize for that poor choice of words. So, we'll stand in
recess until 1 o'clock.
(Recess taken from 11:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, it's 1 o'clock. I'll
9-8-03
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
call us back to order, and we will resume the Commissioners
Court meeting scheduled for this day. We went into recess
at approximately 11:30 a.m., to resume at 1:00. It's now
1 o'clock. It would appear that we need to revisit Item 11,
dealing with consideration and discussion of the approval of
the proposed fiscal '03-'04 public officials' salary and
setting a public hearing on those. I'm -- I'm a little
confused. My -- my impression and understanding was that
Commissioner Letz was looking at this issue in an attempt to
try and figure out what -- what the other half was, as a
result of a commitment that was made by a previous Court
where they voted some increases and then cut them up into
pieces and -- and gave approximately half, or supposedly
that was the plan, or maybe it was some other plan.
But I had received in my budget discussions
with various members of the elected officials and department
heads that they were desirous of having, quote, "the other
half," and Commissioner Letz took on the task to try and
figure out, if that was possible, what that was. My -- my
impression was that what he was able to ascertain was that,
with the exception of, I believe, two of the J.P.'s and the
members of the Court, that all of the other elected
officials had not only received a half, but had received the
whole. And where we've transitioned that from, apparently,
at some point in the middle, there was a request by at least
~-fl-c~
98
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
one for the other half of a figure of $640, if I recall
correctly, which -- I'm not sure it was ever verified, but
we're now -- we've now transitioned all the way to the point
where a suggestion has been offered that we're going to have
something on the table where every elected official in this
county, with the exception of the Court, just be given a
flat $1,000 raise. Is that --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Correct. It seemed
like the personnel officer recommended that to keep
everything in -- in line with the step and grade system, is
the way I -- way that I remember it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- several --
it became very difficult through this whole process to
determine what was -- how the adjustments made in 2000-2001
were done. I think that was the year that we did that
adjustment -- how they were done. I believe the Treasurer
had a different schedule. Auditor came up and did a
different schedule. I guess they had one, the Auditor had
one, and I think -- you know, there's lots of different
numbers, and I don't know that anyone ever agreed as to what
was -- how it was done the first time and if there -- if
there was or was not a second half. And my impression was
that the entire -- that whole discussion was just shelved,
and somehow we came up with a -- what you said was $1,000
for everyone except Commissioners Court. The constables --
9-8-03
99
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
well, the constables got it, but there were some other
adjustments in theirs, and then the Sheriff was taken out.
It was the Court and the Sheriff. And the other -- other
part of that was that a new study would be done this year
for all elected officials county-wide.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's my
recollection. We could put our fingers on what we did two
years ago, 'cause that's obvious; you can see it. But
nobody -- we could not reach an agreement as to what
remained to be done. There was differences of opinion as to
what happened, should have happened, or didn't happen. And
we agreed that every elected official, except Commissioners
Court, would get $1,000, with the exception of the Sheriff,
who would get 10 percent to put him above his deputy --
chief deputy. That's the way we left it, as I recall.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes, that's -- to my
recollection, it was just that. We couldn't -- we agreed
that we owed elected officials the other half, whatever that
was. We couldn't decipher what the other half would be. We
concluded that $1,000 looked about right, and we -- we'd
keep that promise. And we excluded the Commissioners Court
and the Sheriff, and agreed on $1,000, and we -- we voted
and approved that 4-0.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't have a -- I mean,
one thing that -- well, Barbara -- the Treasurer is not
~-e-c~
100
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
here. The question was, approximately what does $1,000
equate to on a -- on the step/grade scale? I mean --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, for most of
them, it would be less than 2 and a half percent. For most
elected officials, they're at $40,000 and change, right?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, we're not dealing with a
step and grade schedule with elected officials, anyway.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know that, but I'm just
wondering -- you know, I don't want to treat elected
officials better than we treat our employees. And a lot of
the employees that have been around awhile have got a
longevity increase, and that's the reason I brought that up.
I know there's no direct relationship, but kind of -- it
just doesn't set well with me when you raise -- you know,
you give a -- a two -- equivalent of a two-step increase to
elected officials and a one-step to the employees. So, it's
kind of -- that's kind of where I was going, is that, you
know, I think you need to do a study and need to do some
adjustments. But I just hate -- I just don't think it's
good -- it's proper or good business just to give the --
the, quote, "bosses" more of a raise than you give the
workers.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what Congress
does.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. And I think --
~-R-03
101
1
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, we've tried -- and generally, I think this Court
has tried to exclude itself. I think one time there have
been some adjustments other than cost-of-living, but -- and
that also has resulted in the -- in this Court getting
further out of balance with other commissioners courts
around the state, but so be it. It just kind of -- you
know, I do agree that the elected officials and department
heads should be paid more than the people that are working
for them, but I don't know that you should, across the
board, necessarily give a raise. I did vote for the $1,000
that day, but I've also thought about it some more since
then.
JUDGE TINLEY: I guess the question at this
point, then, is, does the term "elected official," in fact,
mean every elected official in Kerr County?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Except -- no.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think we need to identify
them, if it's not clear. For example, there was an item on
the agenda relative to a salary supplement for the 216th
District Judge of $1,080. This Court declined to approve
that, and are we now turning around and putting $1,000 back
where there was $1,080 that we declined to approve?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: In my mind, no. That's
why I'd like to see a schedule. And the reason is that --
you know, and I don't know how you develop the schedule,
9-8-03
102
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
because with the District Judges, their pay is set not by
this Court.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Set by the State.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Set by the State. But
that $1,000 portion is set by the County. And, you know, it
certainly was not my intent on that earlier vote -- and that
earlier vote may not even pass muster with me today.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner, I
recall your discussions in 2001. You had survey data that
showed that elected officials need to be paid more in order
to be on par or on average with certain other counties, and
there was a discussion about how should we do this? There
was agreement, I think, that they needed to be paid the
average of those other counties, and you talked about
40 percent now or 60 percent now, and you landed on
50 percent now. And then the -- and you made that decision
and you granted a certain percentage, and then it appears --
and I think there's evidence that, for whatever reasons,
last year, you didn't follow through on the second half of
that. And so here we stand now, and I -- I'm agreeing with
you, with your conclusion that we ought not be treating
elected officials better than everybody else. I'm just
saying we're -- we're keeping the other half of the promise.
We don't really know what the promise was, and $1,000 sounds
about right.
9-8-03
103
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
..-
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- I think if
you look at the data that I was able to develop piecemeal,
what we did in 2000-2001, I think most of the elected
officials received the full adjustment that they requested.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Do you?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think there's -- some
of them did not, but some of them were also -- that just
shows me they weren't entitled to any increase. So, I mean,
you know, unfortunately, my memory doesn't, you know,
enlighten me on how those were done then, so that's why I
think, to me, we ought to drop we what we said in 2001 -- or
2000-2001. And I don't think anybody got more than a $500
increase back then, other than the Court. I think
Commissioners did. Sheriff might -- there were a few
people. But, I mean, the majority of them did not. I think
most of them were, like, a couple hundred dollars, so a
$1,000 increase is a lot more than the -- than they got back
then with that adjustment.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I seem to
remember that there were some pretty decent ones. Maybe the
Treasurer could enlighten --
MS. SOVIL: Constables and J.P.'s got the
most.
MS. NEMEC: This is what everybody got. I
don't have enough copies; I've given y'all a copy already.
a-a-o3
104
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This is what we were
looking at when we said $1,000 looks right?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's -- ten of them
were less than $1,000. So the increase is -- I mean, $1,000
definitely is -- what is it, 18 elected officials? And 10
of them -- if you get rid of the Court, that's five; 10 got
less than $1,000, then. So -- but I think -- I think, to
me, the -- I mean, I think -- I'm favor of us relooking at
elected officials' salary. I think they need to be
competitive with other counties that are comparable. How we
decide what's comparable is -- you know, we can decide on
that during the year. I don't have an extremely strong
feeling one way or the other. I mean, if it's $500, if it's
$1,000, or wait till next year, doesn't make that much
difference. We have told them -- I think most of them think
they're getting $1,000. I don't have a problem with going
along with that, those that were here, 'cause the court was
pretty full at that workshop. That's my recollection. Kind
of where I stand.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, the Treasurer has
provided us with a -- a position schedule on certain elected
officials. It does not include all of them. The best I can
tell, it excludes the District Attorneys, the District
Judges, County Court at Law Judge, and that's about it,
isn't it?
9-8-03
105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. NEMEC: County Court at Law's on here.
JUDGE TINLEY: Pardon?
MS. NEMEC: County Court at Law is on here.
The District Attorneys and the District Judges, we don't pay
them anything. So --
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. NEMEC: I mean, we give them that
Juvenile Board money, $1,200, but that's it. And on -- on
that one, Judge, I just noticed that I didn't add 2 and a
half percent to that $1,200 on yours, and I don't know if
I'm supposed to. I think the consensus was --
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't think so.
MS. NEMEC: Not on that particular one.
JUDGE TINLEY: No, I don't think so, not on
the Juvenile Board.
MS. NEMEC: Okay. That was the only one I
didn't add the -- the 2 and a half percent.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I -- nevermind.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where does that leave
us?
JUDGE TINLEY: Your recollection,
Commissioner Nicholson, is that on the 2nd when we were
here, essentially, what we did was take this very action
that's reflected on this schedule, or that was the -- your
belief of what the Court was intending to do,
9-8-03
106
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
notwithstanding it may have said all elected officials, with
the exception of --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes, sir. I think
this is what we agreed to do. Whether or not we made a good
decision, I can't say on that. But in my mind, we weren't
thinking about judges -- County Court at Law Judge, District
Judges, or those people. We were thinking about people who
are on our payroll who are Kerr County elected officials.
MS. NEMEC: I'd like to explain the
constable, Precinct 4. The reason I put $1,405 on there is
because, when you publish this, you need to show what he was
actually making, and in order to bring him comparable to
what the other constables are making, that is actually the
increase that he is getting.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Under County Court at
Law, Barbara, why was there not that $1,000 increase there?
Is his salary tied straight to the District Judges?
MR. TOMLINSON: It's $1,000 under the
District Judges' salary.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MS. NEMEC: I always leave that the same
unless I'm told otherwise.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think if we were to raise
his salary on this end, they'd deduct it over at the State,
9-8-03
107
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
wouldn't they?
MR. TOMLINSON: They might. I don't know for
sure.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think they probably would.
If he -- if he's -- if he's capped at that level, I think
they'd just reduce their supplement.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Barbara, why don't
you show the state supplement for the County Court at Law
Judge?
MS. NEMEC: Let me look at something real
quick. Of course, I did this really quick right now, so
there could be mistakes on there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, it just doesn't
show it.
MS. NEMEC: It should. I should put it on
there, and I will.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It would be what?
MS. NEMEC: $29,466.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 464? Okay.
MS. NEMEC: $29,466.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 466, thank you.
MS. NEMEC: Did y'all bring me a hamburger
back?
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Baldwin was going
to take care of that, I thought.
9-8-03
108
1
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: You didn't get it?
JUDGE TINLEY: You didn't get it?
MS. NEMEC: Oh, I didn't get it.
JUDGE TINLEY: I saw you carry it down there.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I had Sally take
it down there. You didn't get it? Seriously?
MS. NEMEC: I didn't eat it. That's all
right. I think you were trying to tell me something.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It got down there; she
just didn't eat it. So, what's the problem with all this?
I thought we agreed that we were going do this $1,000 deal,
and let's do it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So did I. It's in
the last printout, is it not, Tommy?
MR. TOMLINSON: The last printout reflects
this schedule you just -- you just received.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MS. NEMEC: Minus the 2 and a half percent on
the mental hearings and supplements? Or --
MR. TOMLINSON: It does not reflect a 2 and a
half percent on any supplement.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Looks like it does.
JUDGE TINLEY: No, on this schedule, he's
talking about.
9-8-03
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
109
MR. TOMLINSON: I'm talking about the
printout.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Now, your printout also showed
the Mental Health line item in the County Court budget to be
$6, 000.
MR. TOMLINSON: That's correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: My understanding of
Commissioner Nicholson's motion was that -- that it was
increased to 16, with the proviso, just like it was on the
other one, that the combined gross of the recipients should
not be higher than their total that they would otherwise
have, and it would not be less than that, was my
understanding on that. Correct, Commissioner Nicholson?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If you said that
they didn't get an increase in their $2,000, yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the way I
remember it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. NEMEC: And, Judge, what I did on your
$4,000, I didn't add the 2 and a half percent in there,
because we added it on the $9,000, so then that one just
shows the four.
JUDGE TINLEY: Shifting.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is what we discussed
5-8-G3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
110
at our last meeting, as I recall it. Whether we're treating
some elected officials, you know, better than appropriate,
you know, who knows? We'll adjust them again at the end of
this year, or hopefully during the year sometime.
JUDGE TINLEY: I guess, at this point, it's
appropriate to have a motion that this is what we publish
and have a public hearing on. Would that not be
appropriate, gentlemen?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I believe so.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think it would be.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Do I hear a motion to
that effect?
23 10 a.m.?
,,..~ 2 4
25
9-8-G3
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Fine with me.
JUDGE TINLEY: Does that conform with what
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that
the proposed '03-'04 public officials' salary, as reflected,
be -- as reflected on the schedule that's provided by the
Treasurer, I suppose, with the addition of the state
supplement for the County Court at Law Judge, and that a
public hearing be set on the same for -- next meeting?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 22nd.
JUDGE TINLEY: September the 22nd. At
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
111
your desired motion was, Commissioner Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. Yes, sir,
that'll be fine.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Any further
questions or discussion? All in favor of the motion,
signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. The next
item that we have is consider and discuss approval of the
proposed '03-'04 budget, setting a public hearing on that
item. Have you found any more items that you want to bring
to our attention, Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, sir. I pretty much
think it reflects the -- our last meeting when we voted on
them item-by-item.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I have an issue
I'd like to bring up. And before I bring it up, though, you
have to promise me y'all are not going to throw rocks at me.
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't have any rocks.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I do.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How about water?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's just -- I can't
-- it's one of Mr. Nicholson's issues; I can't get my mind
9-E-03
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
112
around this, and that's this merit increase thing. I'd like
to have a discussion about it, and to -- I'm not -- I mean,
I don't understand all of it, and I'm not real convinced
that everybody at the table understands all of it, and I'd
like to just kind of clarify what -- what we're doing and
how we'r_e doing it, et cetera. The way I understand it,
tell me again about -- we put "X" amount of dollars in --
out there in a little pot, and the elected officials then
make a decision of who gets the merit increase, and then
they come to the Commissioners Court for -- how did that
work again?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think our
agreed-to principle was that -- that a certain few employees
should be rewarded and recognized for productivity
improvements, outstanding performance, or those kind of
things, and we set aside a -- a pot of money, a fund to do
that. And we would wait -- we would be six months into the
budget year when we would spend that money. In the interim,
we would develop guidelines based on this principle about
how you identify productivity improvements or outstanding
performance. And then, based on those guidelines,
department heads would nominate employees and provide a
justification for that nomination, and then this Court would
decide on that, decide who gets the money based on the
guidelines.
9-8-03
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
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We would possibly be
making a decision that a District Clerk employee would get
it, and a Tax Assessor/Collectors' employee may not get it?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's an example of
the kinds of decisions we'd be making.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How would we evaluate
our own --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: On the same basis, I
would think.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We would also -- we
would judge that ourselves?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. One or more
of us might nominate that person, provide some
justification. That justification would have to meet the
same standards or hurdles as in other departments.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I apologize. I just
see stormy waters. I'm not -- I think it's a great idea,
but I just see -- I just sense that there's major stormy
waters involved with that whole thing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's not in the budget,
is it?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, it is.
JUDGE TTNLEY: $10,000.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It is in the budget?
JUDGE TINLEY: $10,000, Nondepartmental line
9-8-03
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
item.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I must have walked out of
the room for a minute.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You did.
JUDGE TINLEY: Would you like me to tell you
about the other six items while you were out?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. I also want to
talk to you about your medication.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
(Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And not taking it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. I just -- you
know, I've just -- we've done that before, not -- not
exactly your plan. Your plan may work, Commissioner. I
just -- I can't see it real clear. But we have -- we have
done the merit program before, and I don't know if it was
abused or not, but I've heard people talk about that it was
abused. I had no idea that -- I mean, I don't know.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I would expect that
it would upset some employees, and it probably wouldn't be
working very well if it didn't. Those who -- and I'm
guessing we -- there will probably be 10 percent of our
total employment would participate in it. And I would
expect there to be some sour grapes, and I'd expect they'd
be beneficial. If we truly are rewarding good performance,
9-8-03
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
and there's no bias in it, then that will help demonstrate
what good performance is.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think what we
agreed to do was -- because it does raise questions, and I
think we talked about last time it raised questions that we
would support the recommendation of one department head to
the distinction of another department head, who later comes
and says, "But, you know, you didn't think about what my guy
does," and puts us in that position of making those judgment
calls. But I think we agreed to put it in there on kind of
a trial basis this year; it's only in there for this year.
And the rules -- I think the Commissioner's writing the
rules or the parameters for that, and we'll see where it
takes us. And one of those -- one of those parameters was
that in no event could -- could a merit be given before six
months deep into the budget year.
JUDGE TINLEY: They have the first six months
in the budget year to prepare and submit their nominations,
each department would.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I would see us
approving the whole package at one time, not -- not
dribbling these nominations in, so we can compare and make
solid and like decisions about who's deserving and who's
not.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And if the amount of
9-8-03
116
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
those that we're going to make a decision on it exceeds the
amount available, that's -- everybody gets scaled back to
fit the pot.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Or we may not spend
the whole pot. We may decide that we didn't have
10 percent.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So we will -- you know,
I'm still not real wild about it, but we will have --
they'll only come to us one time during the year.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, by your own
admission, there's going to be mad people. Why in the hell
would we want to create something to make people mad? I
don't -- I'm not following that. I mean, I've got septic
tanks to think about.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And mail.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And mail. And
addresses. And I just don't know why I'd want to create
something to make people mad.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: There's different
schemes for compensation. There's a thousand of them,
probably. A very common scheme, and particularly where you
have unions, is to pay everybody the same.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, in my mind,
that's kind of what we just did, you know, to me. I mean,
we're paying people and giving them salary increases, and I
9-R-03
117
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
don't think this is going to make anybody mad.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh, it will.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Giving them $1,000 --
yeah, I understand.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They might not be
glad.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You have it there.
You're right about that. I just struggle with it. I guess
it's just because of my ignorance, and I can't see around
the corner like you can. I just -- I have a hard time --
hard time doing this, but I guess I'm the only one.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I think -- I mean,
my preference is to do it in the budget cycle. The --
really, the only good thing, I think -- you know, and it
could be done in the budget cycle. The only advantage that
I can see -- and, you know, I don't know how big an
advantage it is -- is that during the budget cycle, we get
so busy with other stuff. This kind of frees our time a
little bit right at the budget, so we can actually spend
enough time on this issue. And I -- and I know Dave is --
you know, occasionally has referred to our -- his and my
private work experience as somewhat similar, and it was done
off business cycle in the private sector, and we called it
PDR's, professional development reports, and it's the same
thing. And they're done -- it was incorporated in the
9-8-03
118
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
budget, but it was -- so much time was spent on those that
it needed to be done out of the budget cycle.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If we were giving
merit increases to Commissioners, for example, Commissioner
Baldwin would get one, because he went down and answered the
phones at 911. The other three of us would be angry.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's my next item.
I thought maybe I'd get a little more compensation --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a pretty good
analogy.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- for that. And I
was going to bring that up in just a second.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How much do you think
you're worth?
question.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, that's not a good
JUDGE TINLEY: We do have one correction on
the Information Systems Specialist technology information --
technology specialist, where we made that one correction.
MS. NEMEC: I provided Tommy with that
correction so that he can make the amendment, but there is
the position -- corrected position schedule that needs to be
filed with the budget, without names. I'm sorry.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. This is the whole --
MS. NEMEC: And that reflects what y'all did
9-8-03
119
1 today on this.
2
3 as well?
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
there, Judge?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And all other employees
(Ms. Nemec nodded.
JUDGE TINLEY: Looks like everybody's here.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What have you got
JUDGE TINLEY: It's the whole thing, all the
way across-the-board.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's adopted as part of
the budget, correct?
MS. NEMEC: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do we do it now, or do we
do it at the end of the --
MS. NEMEC: At the end. You just file it
with the budget.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Barbara, will you
provide this copy to all of us in our box later?
MS. NEMEC: I will. And I wanted to do that,
but my printer's -- next year I'm going to have to ask for a
new printer. The Daily Times told me they would provide one
for me, because they sat there while I had to print
something. They were there half the afternoon.
JUDGE TINLEY: And did they -- the Times
indicated they were willing to provide you with a new
9-8-03
120
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
printer?
MS. NEMEC: They would ask if they could.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Did we put money in
to repair your sick printer or get you a new one?
MS. NEMEC: I need a new one. It's just too
slow. It's not sick, it's just slow.
JUDGE TINLEY: Daily Times, is that a
commitment that we heard?
MS. TAYLOR: Before my time, I guess.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, I would move
that we approve the proposed Fiscal Year 2003-'04 budget as
provided, with corrections noted, and set a public hearing
for September 22 at -- what time?
JUDGE TINLEY: 10:30?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 10:30 a.m.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and
seconded that the proposed Fiscal '03-'04 budget be approved
with corrections noted, and that the public hearing on the
same be set for September the 22nd, 2003, at 10:30 a.m. Any
further questions or discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can we be a little bit
more specific about "corrections noted"? As to what -- what
has been noted? I mean --
JUDGE TTNLEY: The one notation that --
9-8-03
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
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Page 80.
JUDGE TINLEY: Pardon?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No, that's wrong.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Page 48 or something.
JUDGE TINLEY: I know on Page 80, the
Information Systems Specialist, there was a correction to
that particular salary, and it was corrected to $32,481.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's the only
change.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Only change?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the only one I
made note of.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just wanted to be real
clear.
MS. NEMEC: And then the 2 and a half percent
on the supplements.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct, the 2 and a half
on the supplements.
JUDGE TINLEY: Two and a half percent
additional to be added for salary supplements, okay. That's
all the corrections/changes as noted that we have. Is
everybody satisfied with that? Any further question or
discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion,
signify by raising your right hand.
9-8-03
122
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Next item
is consider and discuss approval of the proposed '03-'04 tax
rate and setting a public hearing on the same.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move we approve the
'03-'04 tax rate as presented on the sheet from the Auditor,
which shows a total County rate at no change, at .3721.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: .3721?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Does that provide for Road and
Bridge to be increased by .0075?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, it does.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Motion made and
seconded that the '03-'04 County tax rate be set at a total
of .3721, with the County Road and Bridge rate being
increased by three-fourths of a cent, or .0075 from the
previous year, and included within that total rate. Any
question or discussion on that?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, do you think
that it would be appropriate for the press that are -- that
is here to talk about that increase in the Road and Bridge
rate some?
9-8-03
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
123
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Go ahead.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, actually, I think I'm
the one that threw it on the table first. If --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. And I agree
with you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Possibly Commissioner Letz
can --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We need some kind of
explanation, I think. I'd hate to see somebody leave the
room and not understand what had happened there.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, it's merely a -- it's
actually a shifting back of part of the tax rate. Over the
past several years, that tax rate had been shifted away from
Road and Bridge into -- well, what I'm going to call the
general or Maintenance and Operation funds. And, as a
consequence, why, their resources over at Road and Bridge
have gotten a little thin. And because they operate off of
a separate tax rate -- and anybody that gets a tax statement
and looks at it can see that there are actually two
different components to their county tax bill. One is just
their regular tax bill, and then the other one is Road and
Bridge. So, this permits more of the ad valorem tax
resources to be reallocated back to the Road and Bridge, and
that was my rationale, was to start giving it back to them,
because I think they need it to build their reserves over
9-8-03
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
124
there.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I guess the bottom line
is, does this show -- is there a tax increase for the
taxpayers or not?
JUDGE TINLEY: Overall tax increase? No,
sir. Total -- total overall tax rate remains the same at
.3721. It's just merely kind of an internal shifting, but
because of the way that the two components of the tax rates
are set up legally, you've got to state them separately,
because they are different components. Any further question
or discussion or explanation on this?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The -- you know, at
one point last week, we were talking about a possible
10 percent tax increase, or maybe even 12. And we came from
there to zero through hard work, these men sitting at the
table, and the elected officials who are willing to
participate. That's the way -- that's the -- the way things
work, and that's the way we all get along. Done a good job,
and I appreciate everybody. This is a great job.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question, comment,
or discussion on the -- on the matter before us? 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.)
9-8-03
125
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. The public
hearing on that item --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 22nd.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- I have set for 11 a.m. Is
that satisfactory with all of you gentlemen?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Trying to space them out 30
minutes apiece.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is it 9/22 or 9/23?
JUDGE TINLEY: It's 22nd, I believe.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 22.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Do we have any matters
for closed session?
MS. SOVIL: Yes, sir. Mr. Motley wanted --
JUDGE TINLEY: Do you have some matters that
you want to take up in closed session?
(Mr. Motley nodded.)
JUDGE TINLEX: Okay, I see the Auditor
raising his hand.
MR. TOMLINSON: You still haven't approved
the bills.
JUDGE TINLEY: I understand that.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: I understand that. If we
don't do that, can we save some money?
9-8-03
126
1
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 --
JUDGE TINLEY: We'll have some mad creditors,
but we'll save some money.
MS. NEMEC: We already have some irate
vendors in my office.
JUDGE TINLEY: But they're in your office.
MS. NEMEC: Yeah, they're in my office.
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't see them out here, so
I feel okay. Unless -- would the Court like to go ahead and
take care of the approval agenda, and then come back to
the --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Why don't we move on to
the approval agenda, then, and go ahead and deal with the
items that we can go ahead and finish up in open session.
First item is payment of the bills.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move for approval.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move we pay the
bills -- second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Question. Mr. Auditor, Page
1, Commissioners Court. Continental Casualty.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's mine. That's
my question.
JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, excuse me.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Page 1,
9-8-03
127
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
,~._
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Commissioners -- it's a good question, Judge. Thank you.
MR. TOMLINSON: That is a -- that's a law
enforcement issue, I think. Let me look it up, make sure,
but I believe that's right.
(Discussion off the record.)
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. That's a -- a
non-lawsuit suit.
JUDGE TINLEY: A non-lawsuit suit?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, that's a good
explanation.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is this a claim against the
Kerr County Sheriff's Department?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: This was an incident
that occurred in the jail a year and a half ago that they
felt there would be a lawsuit filed over, which there was
never a lawsuit filed over, but we went ahead and forwarded
all the reports over to the insurance people anyhow, so I
guess they billed us for that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Buster? Don't you think we
ought to make the Sheriff pay for it, then?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Take it out of his
budget.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He didn't volunteer?
JUDGE TINLEY: No, he didn't.
MR. TOMLINSON: It's the deductible part of
9-8-03
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
128
our coverage for J.W.M. Specialties Company, which is the
company that represents Continental Casualty.
JUDGE TINLEY: Why didn't it come out of
Nondepartmental?
MR. TOMLINSON: All --
JUDGE TINLEY: Relating to our general
insurance coverages?
MR. TOMLINSON: All the professional fees are
budgeted in that -- in that line item.
JUDGE TINLEY: All insurance?
MR. TOMLINSON: Professional fees. Not
the -- not the coverage. This is -- this is legal -- this
is a bill for legal services, and all -- all of those
professional fees or legal services have been budgeted for
-- for that line item.
JUDGE TINLEY: It related to a claim which,
if they're -- under a policy that we pay for out of
Nondepartmental, but because it was for legal services, you
charged it against that Contingency account in Commissioners
Court; is that what you're telling me?
MR. TOMLINSON: That's correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: I guess it's got to come from
somewhere. The next item -- page --
MS. PIEPER: You need to vote on that -- oh,
I'm sorry. I thought you was going to go on to the next
9-8-03
129
1 I item.
-- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: No -- I am. The next item on
Page 6, at the bottom of the page, under County-Sponsored
Activity. Apparently, that was for some work that was done
out at the Union Church?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. I think that's the
Historical Commission.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's over on Page 11.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Comes out of their
budget, right?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, are those two items
being charged against their budget of $2,500 that was
approved for them last year?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. And the funds were
there?
MR. TOMLINSON: There would be a budget
amendment if there weren't, so yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Then back over on 11,
the balance of those items were taken directly out of an
account that -- a different account that you maintain for
them?
MR. TOMLINSON: That's correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. You've answered my
5-8-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
130
question. Thank you. Any other questions or comments upon
the bills? 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 1.
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 1 is for County Court
at Law, 216th, and 198th District Courts, transferring
$3,545.30 from Court Transcripts from the 216th Court,
$1,424.50 for Court-Appointed Attorneys in County Court at
Law, $372.50 to Court-Appointed Attorneys in the 216th
Court, $1,697.60 to Court-Appointed Attorneys in 198th
Court, and $50.70 into Court Transcripts in the 198th Court.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to
approve Budget Amendment Request Number 1. Any further
question or discussion? All in favor, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion -- all opposed, same
sign.
(No response.)
9-8-03
131
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Budget
amendment request 2.
MR. TOMLINSON: This -- we have a need to
transfer $667.79 in the Indigent Health Care Fund from
Eligible Expenses to the Third-Party Administrator line
item, and it's for the services of our third-party
administrator.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't recall seeing
that before. Is that -- is this the annual payment, or is
this --
MR. TOMLINSON: No, this -- this -- we have a
contract with VeriClaims. They're our third-party
administrator for indigent health care claims, and their
charge is 4 and a half percent of the claims paid. And
we -- we are at the point that our -- our claims are -- our
4 and a half percent is larger than what we budgeted, so we
have a claim -- they have just recently paid claims of
$17,762.35. Four and a half percent of that is $844.31.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tommy, are you still
happy with VeriClaims?
MR. TOMLINSON: I think they've done us a
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I knew you liked them
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
great job.
at first.
9-8-03
132
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to
approve Budget Amendment Request Number 2. Any further
question 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 3.
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 3 is for the jail and
Sheriff's Department, request from the Sheriff to transfer
$821.59 from Software Maintenance in the Sheriff's
Department, $670.57 to Operating Supplies in the jail, and
$43.02 to Investigation Expenses for Sheriff's Office, and
$108 to Vehicle Repairs and Maintenance for the Sheriff's
Office.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to
approve Budget Amendment Request 3. Any further question or
discussion? All in favor, signify by raising your right
hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
9-8-03
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
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Budget
Amendment Request 4.
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 4 is for the
Commissioners Court. The request is to transfer $138.68
from Professional Services into Conferences.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I might clarify,
that's for transportation only to the TAC conference. No
lodging, no food, and for one trip to COG meetings.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that
Budget Amendment Request 4 be approved. Any further
question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just believe I would
hold off on my COG trips till October. Surely they can't do
any damage to us without us being there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Probably not.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: One time.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or
comment? 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 carried. Budget
9-8-03
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
Amendment Request 5.
MR. TOMLINSON: 5 is for the Sheriff's
Department, transferring $678.82 from Capital Outlay to
Operating Equipment for the purchase of some body armor.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It's part of that grant.
Yeah, you, Judge. We're buying you your own set.
(Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded,
Budget Amendment Request Number 5 be approved. Any question
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 6.
MR. TOMLINSON: 6 is for the County
Treasurer. The Treasurer requests a transfer of $296 from
Office Supplies to Postage. We've got to have -- I need a
hand check for that amount to the Kerrville Postmaster.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved, authorize a
hand check.
25 ~ COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
9-8-03
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
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to
approve Budget Amendment Request 6 and authorize hand check
to Kerrville Postmaster for $296. Any further question 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 7.
MR. TOMLINSON: Request Number 7 is from the
County Court at Law Judge. The request is to transfer
$90.83 from Telephone line item, $190 from Books,
Publications, and Dues. Total of that amount transfers into
Conferences in the amount of $130.83, and into Special Court
Reporter for $150.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to
approve Budget Amendment Request Number 7. 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.)
9-5-03
136
1
---, 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,-,
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Budget
Amendment Request 8.
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 8 is for the County
Treasurer. We're transferring $120.80 from Computer
Supplies out of the -- out of Nondepartmental, and $120.80
in Machine Repairs in the Treasurer's budget.
JUDGE TINLEY: That was the printer she was
having problems with?
MR. TOMLINSON: It's a check -- check-signing
machine.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Different one.
MR. TOMLINSON: It was duplicating the
signatures on the -- on the checks, and we had to have it as
emergency repair.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to
approve Budget Amendment Request Number 8. 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. Do we have
any late bills?
9-8-03
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
137
MR. TOMLINSON: I have one, payable to the
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. It's for
$111.25, and it's for the application of a temporary permit
to divert water for one year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: To do what to water?
MR. TOMLINSON: Divert water.
JUDGE TINLEY: That was in connection with
some road projects that Road and Bridge is doing that allows
them to obtain water to use for compacting base material.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that
the Court approve a late bill and authorize hand check to
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality for $111.25. Any
further question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So -- so, T.C.E.Q.
comes along and catches us drawing water out of the creek
and asks us, who do we think we are, and we say we're the
Kerr County Road and Bridge Department, and we really did
not have a permit?
JUDGE TINLEY: No, there -- there's been a
permit applied for for the coming year.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand. But we
got caught the other day; they stopped one of our trucks and
took down the driver's name and all kinds of things.
9-8-03
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
I4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
138
JUDGE TINLEY: I was unaware of that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, you're aware of
it now.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, sure am.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I just was
wondering if that's what triggered -- then we decide to run
out and get a permit, or --
JUDGE TINLEY: Sounds like that might be what
happened.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That might be the
case.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I thought we -- we had
a --
COMMISSIONER
just an annual, automatic -
COMMISSIONER
yeah, we've always had a pe
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
BALDWIN: I thought we did it
LETZ: We've had a permit --
rmit to do that.
BALDWIN: That's what I thought.
WILLIAMS: Just a renewal of the
permit, right?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Maybe it lapsed and we're
renewing.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Maybe we're one week
late.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just like inspection
9-8-03
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
139
on your car.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE TINLEY: 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 have
before me minutes of the emergency session of Kerr County
Commissioners Court held on Friday, August the 29th, 2003,
at 1 p.m., the minutes of the regular Commissioners Court
meeting held on Monday, August the 11th, at 9 a.m., and the
minutes of the special session of the Kerr County
Commissioners Court held on Monday, August 25, 2003, at
9 a.m. Do I hear a motion that the same be approved as
presented?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I would make that
motion, Judge.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that
the designated transcripts and minutes be approved as
submitted. Any further question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question, if I might real
quick. Is this -- is that 25th meeting the one where we had
9-8-03
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
140
the long list of agenda items? Is that that meeting?
JUDGE TINLEY: No, no. That was September
the 2nd.
COMMISSTONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: You're talking about the 30 --
35 to 40 --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Couple of those orders we
need to look at real carefully, I think, just to make sure.
We were jumping around a bit that day.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or
comment? 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 also
have before me a report from the Sheriff and from the
Justice of the Peace, Precinct 3. Do I hear a motion that
those two reports be approved as presented?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSTONER WILLIAMS: So moved -- second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that
the monthly reports from the Sheriff and Justice of the
Peace, Precinct 3 be approved as presented. Any further
question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify
5-d-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
by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Do we have
any items under the information agenda that anybody wishes
to offer at this time? Hearing none, we will come back to
the Executive Session. The County Attorney has asked for
the opportunity to talk with us in closed session. It
appears that we need only the members of the Court, the
reporter, and the County Attorney. We would ask that the
rest of you absent yourself from the room, if you would,
please.
(The open session was closed at 1:59 p.m.,
and an Executive Session was held, the
transcript of which is contained in a
separate document.)
JUDGE TINLEY: We'll now go back into open
session. Our trusty doorman has thrown open the doors.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I didn't see anybody
out there.
MR. MOTLEY: Ran them all off.
JUDGE TINLEY: We'll come back into regular
session -- open session of the Court. Do I hear any motion
to be offered in connection with the matter discussed in
Executive Session?
9-8-03
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
142
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, in conjunction
with Item 1.4 on today's agenda, I would move that we
authorize the County Attorney to take whatever legal
actions, both civil and criminal, that are available to him
to correct or cure the problems as discussed under 1.4 for
violation of septic rules and regulations.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to
authorize the County Attorney to take any necessary civil or
criminal action in connection with the matter discussed
under Agenda Item 1.4. Any question -- any further question
or discussion about that item?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. Commissioner
Williams, do you have an exact address as to where this is,
so that we can -- because of lack of agenda backup in the
formal files as to exactly the location?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, I do -- I do
have, yes. If it's not in the packet I gave you, I'll see
that you get it.
MR. MOTLEY: I don't believe
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's more for the order.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Court order.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, I see. Okay.
The proper site reference is going to be Stoneleigh Road and
McDonald Loop, Center Point, Texas, which has a legal
9-8-03
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
description of R23141, B&R Ranches, Lot 249-A in Precinct 2.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you very much.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or
discussion on that? 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: Let me go back, if I might,
very quickly to Item 1.12.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE TINLEY: When we were dealing with the
proposed budget, setting a public hearing, I know in years
past that -- that we had -- when that budget was adopted and
filed and opened for public inspection and review and public
hearing pending, if I'm not mistaken, we had made copies
available of it to members of the general public for a flat
fee of $10. And there was a question raised earlier about
if we were going to continue to do that, rather than compel
these people, primarily the fourth estate, to pay a dollar a
page for it. Right now, that's what they're faced with if
they want -- if they want a copy of that budget, is to pay a
dollar a page.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: A dollar a page?
That's too much.
a-a-os
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
,.-. 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
144
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It's unlawful, too.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd probably agree.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The Open Records Act
tells you that you can charge a --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Reasonable fee.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 13 cents or 15
cents. It's set by Texas A & M.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, the copy -- copy under
other statutes for records in the County Clerk's office show
-- we can clarify that if we were to adopt this as part of
that, adopting the motion and setting the public hearing on
the budget, authorizing the copies to be had for 10 or 15 or
whatever might be an appropriate sum of money.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I show 120 pages here
of this.
JUDGE TINLEY: At about 10 cents a page, that
would be $12, wouldn't it?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
MR. MOTLEY: Judge Tinley raised a good
point. If there's another section anywhere that provides
for higher copy cost than the 10 cents a page, that would
supersede in case of a District or County Clerk. So, it's a
buck a page. I mean, that's what they -- you can set it, I
think, wherever you want to.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Unless we give the
y-E3-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
145
County Clerk different authorization, they will be compelled
to ask anybody who wants a copy of this budget for a dollar
a page.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, absolutely. We
need to charge $12 for the copy -- for the copy of the whole
budget and go on.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Under budget item 1.12, I
propose or make a motion that we set the copies of the
budget at $12 per copy.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that
any member of the public desiring a copy of the proposed
budget, as filed under Item Number 12 of the agenda, pay --
be required to pay a cost of $12.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And that is 10 cents
a page?
JUDGE TINLEY: Approximately, yeah. 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.
MS. PIEPER: Okay. Judge, just so -- because
I just walked in, that's going to be $12 for the whole
9 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
23
24
25
146
thing?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes.
MS. PIEPER: Or 10 cents a page?
JUDGE TINLEY: No, $12.
MS. PIEPER: Okay.
MS. SOVIL: I called the people out at the
Extension Office. They're on the way down here, so you
don't have to go.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What about the --
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- item where we
authorized the County Attorney -- you have a clerk in here
now that didn't get any of that. And just wait until -- is
there any vodka back there?
MS. SOVIL: Sir?
(Discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For our County
Clerk's benefit, we authorized -- it's in the minutes. We
authorized the County Attorney to proceed, both criminal and
civil procedures, whatever's necessary with relation to 1.4
in the agenda.
MS. PIEPER: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do we have anything further,
9-8-03
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
147
gentlemen? Anything further? If not, I'll declare us
adjourned.
(Commissioners Court adjourned at 2:36 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 15th day of September,
2003.
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
BY. ___ _ _~______________
Kathy Ba 'k, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
9-8-03
ORDER NO. 28295
PROOF OF GOOD STANDINGS FOR ALL
KERR COUNTY CONSTABLES
On this the 8TH day of September 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Baldwin,
Seconded by Commissioner Letz, the court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to
officially accept the qualifications and proof of good standings with the Texas
Commission on Law Enforcement from Kerr County Constables as per section 86.0021
LGC.
ORDER N0.28296
WAIVE THE PLATTING REQUIREMENTS FOR REVISION OF PLAT ON
TRACT 37 RIVERPARK ESTATES
On this the 8th day of September 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Letz,
Seconded by Commissioner Williams, the court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0
waive the platting requirements of revision of plat for Christina Lovett on Tract 37
Riverpark Estates.
ORDER N0.28297
ROAD NAME AND REGULATORY SIGNS
On this the 8th day of September 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Letz,
Seconded by Commissioner Williams, the court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0
To approve the road name changes for County maintained roads in accordance with 9-1-1
Guidelines and regulatory signs in various locations.
Name Changes
Old Name or Number New Name
Hasenwinkle Rd N Hasenwinkel Rd N
Cypress Creek Lp N Cypress Creek Rd N
Cypress Creek Lp N Gaddis Bluff N
Cypress Creek Lp N Bartel Rd N
1491 Reid Graham Rd N
Veteran's Parkway N Spur 100 Rd N
Regulatory Suns Locations
Change Stop to Yield Country Lane to Sleepy Hollow Circle
Change Stop to Yield Sleepy Hollow Circle to Country Lane
ORDER NO. 28298
RECORDS ARCHIVE FEE FOR COUNTY CLERK
On this the 8th day of September 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Letz,
Seconded by Commissioner Williams, the court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0
to adopt the proposed Archive Fee for the preservation and restoration service performed
by the County Clerk as per SB 1731 to chazge additional $5.00 per instrument filed for
the period of 5 years.
ORDER NO. 28299
PROPOSED PUBLIC OFFICIALS SALARY AND SET PUBLIC HEARING
On this the 8th day of September 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Williams,
Seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0
approve the proposed FY2003/04 Public Officials Salary and set a Public Hearing for
September 22, 2003 at 10:00 AM.
NOTICE OF PROPOSED SALARY INCREASES
FOR ELECTED OFFICIALS
OF
KERR COUNTY, TEXAS
FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2003/04
Pursuant to Section 152.013(b), Local Government Code, notice is hereby given that the Commissioners' Court of Kerr County,
Texas has filed the proposed salary increases, expenses and allowances for elected officials of Kerr County, Texas for the Fiscal Year
beginning October 1 °, 2003. The Commissioners' Court shall set the proposed salary increases, expenses, and other allowances at the
regular meeting of the court during the regular budget hearing and adoption proceedings to be held on September 22b, 2003, at 10:00
A.M., in the County Courtroom of the Kerr County Courthouse, Kerrville, Texas. A copy of the proposed increases is available for
inspection at the office of the Kerr County Clerk, at the Kerr County Courthouse during normal business hours. The foregoing notice
is given by Order of the Commissioners' Court of Kerr County, Texas this the 8'" day of September 2003.
OFFICIAL	PRESENT	PRESENT	PRESENT	PROPOSED	PROPOSED	PROPOSED
	SALARY	SUPPLEMENT	TRAVEL	SALARY	SUPPLEMENT	TRAVEL
CONST.#1	$29492		$-0-	$29492		Vehicle
CONST #2	$29492		$-0-	$29492		Vehicle
CONST #3	$29492		$-0-	$29492		Vehicle
CONST #4	$27340		$-0-	$29492		$-0-
CO. ATTY	$64386	$33900	$-0-	$66996	$33900	$-0-
CO. CLERK	$40243		$-0-	$42249		$-0-
CO.COMM	$36870		$-0-	$37792		$-0-
CO. JUDGE	$39673	$20679	$-0-	$40665	$20916	$-0-
CO. TREAS	$40243	$800	$-0-	$42249	$820	$-0-
DIST. CLERK	$40243	$2164	$-0-	$42249	$3000	$-0-
JP#1	$32055	$0	$-0-	$33856	$-0-	$-0-
JP#2	$32055	$2000	$-0-	$33856	$2050	$-0-
JP#3	$32055	$0	$-0-	$33856	$-0-	$-0-
JP#4	$32055	$2000	$-0-	$33856	$2050	$-0-
SHERIFF	$45885		Vehicle	$51735		Vehicle
TAX ASS/COL	$40243		$-0-	$42249		$-0-
ORDER NO. 28300
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED FY 2003/2004 BUDGET AND SET A PUBLIC
HEARING
On this the 8th day of September 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Williams,
Seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to
approve the proposed FY2003/04 Budget and set a Public Hearing for September 22,
2003 at 10:30 AM. It is further Ordered that the cost of the proposed budget will be
$12.00 per book or $1.00 per page.
ORDER NO.28301
TAX RATE FOR FY 2003/2004 AND SET A PUBLIC HEARING
On this the 8th day of September 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Letz,
Seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0
to approve the Tax Rate of .3721 for FY2003/04 and set a Public Hearing for September
22, 2003 at 11:00 AM.
ORDER NO. 28302
CLAIMS AND ACCOUNTS
On this the 8TH day of September 2003 came to be considered by the Court various
Commissioners precincts, which said Claims and Accounts are:
400- County Judge $ 51.00, 104 -Commissioners Court $ 1069.32, 403 County Clerk
$2702.37, 408-Information Technology $9.95, 409-Non Departmental $4826.36, 426-
County Court $1212.50, 427-County Court at Law $4509.49, 434-Jury 562.40, 435-216tH
District Court $1444.50, 436-198th District Court $4232.17, 445-198th District Attorney
$8957.67, 450-District Clerk $455.40, 455-Justice of the Peace #1 $351.97, 456-Justice
of the Peace #2 $80.31, 458-Justice of the Peace #4 $332.86, 475- County Attorney
$1707.27, 495-County Auditor $119.28, 497-County Treasurer $126.10, 499-Tax
Assessor & Collector $14409.40, 510-Courthouse &Related Buildings $7517.15, 511-Jail
Maintenance $750.71, 512-County Jail $17108.93, 513-Park Maintenance $110.43, 553-
Constable #3 $60.08, 560-Sheriffs Department $7690.57, 570-Juvenile Probation
$1456.66, 571-216th Adult Probation $62.00, 580-DPS $126.00, 595-County Operations
$10291.67, 630-Health & Emergency Services $2806.25, 642- Rabies & Animal Control
$456.37, 660-County Sponsored Activities $1398.66, 665-Agriculture Extension Service
$2516.66, 666-HC Youth Exhibition Center $3016.84, 661 Fire Protection $8333.33,
600-Administration-Unit System $709.19, 611-Road & Bridge $34279.00, 659-Public
Library $33098.33, 660-County Sponsored Activity $1198.00,
TOTAL CASH REQUIRED FOR ALL FUNDS: $ 179,596.29
Upon motion made by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Nicholson,
the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to pay said Accounts.
ORDER NO. 28303
BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR
COUNTY COURT AT LAW, 216TH DISTRICT COURT, 198TH DISTRICT COURT
On this the 8th day of September, 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Letz
Seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-
0-0, to Transfer $3,545.30 from Line Item No. 10-435-497 Court Transcripts and put
$50.70 into Line item 10-436-497 Court Transcripts and put $1,697.60 into line item 10-
436-402 for Court Appointed Attorney and put $372.50 into line item 10-435-402 court
appointed attorney and put $1,424.50 into line item 10-427-402 court appointed attorney.
ORDER NO. 28304
BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR
INDIGENT HEALTH CARE
On this the 8th day of September, 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Letz,
Seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of
4-0-0, to Transfer $667.79 from eligible expenses line item 50-641-200 into line item 50-
641-486 for the third party administrator.
ORDER NO. 28305
BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR
COUNTY JAIL SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
On this the 8th day of September, 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Williams,
Seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0,
to Transfer $821.59 from software maintenance line item 10-560-563 and put $108.00
into line item 10-560-454 for vehicle repairs and put $43.02 into line item 10-560-208 for
investigation expense and put $670.57 into line item 10-512-331 for operating supplies.
ORDER N0.28306
BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR
COMMISSIONERS COURT
On this the 8th day of September, 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Letz
Seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-
0-0, to Transfer $138.68 from line item 10-401-486 professional services and put into
line item 10-401-485 for conferences.
ORDER NO. 28307
BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
On this the 8th day of September, 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Nicholson,
Seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-
0-0, to Transfer $678.82 from line item 10-560-570 capital outlay into line item 10-560-
569 for operating equipment.
ORDER N0.28308
BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR
COUNTY TREASURER
On this the 8th day of September, 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Williams
Seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0,
to Transfer $296.00 from line item 10-497-310 office supplies into line item 10-497-309
for postage and issue a hand check payable to the Kerrville Postmaster.
ORDER NO. 28309
BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR
COUNTY COURT AT LAW
On this the 8th day of September, 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Nicholson
Seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-
0-0, to Transfer $190.00 from line item 10;427-315 books-publications-dues and $90.83
from line item 10-427-420 telephone and put $150.00 into line item 10-427-494 for
special court reporter and put $130.83 into line item 10-427-485 for conferences.
ORDER NO.28310
BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR
COUNTY TREASURER
On this the 8th day of September, 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Letz
Seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of
4-0-0, to Transfer $120.80 from line item 10-409-565 computer supplies into line item
10-497-565 for machine repairs.
ORDER NO.28311
LATE BILL
TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
On this the 8th day of September, 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Letz,
Seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-
0-0, to pay the application fee for the temporary permit to Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality from Line Item No. 15-611-553 and issue a hand check.
ORDER NO. 28312
APPROVE AND ACCEPT MINUTES
AND WAIVE READING
On this the 8th day of September, 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Baldwin,
Seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of
4-0-0, to waive reading and approve the minutes of Emergency Session of August 29,
2003, Regular Session on August 11, 2003, and Special Session of August 25, 2003 of
the Kerr County Commissioners' Court.
ORDER NO. 28313
APPROVE MONTHLY REPORTS
On this the 8th day of September, 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Letz,
seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-
0-0, to accept the following reports and direct that they be filed with the County Clerk
for future audit:
W.R. Hierholzer, Sheriff
August 2003
Justice of the Peace #3
August 2003
ORDER NO. 28314
AUTHORIZE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO PURSUE CIVII., ACTION
On this the Sth day of September, 2003 upon motion made by Conunissioner Williams,
Seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-d,
to authorize the County Attorney to pursue civil or criminal actions for enforcement of
OSSF violations .