1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT
Special Session
Monday, September 27, 2004
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

U
c.v
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 27, 2004
--- Visitors' Input
--- Commissioners' Comments
1.2 Report from Bob Henderson, Kerr County Financial
Advisor, regarding Juvenile Detention Facility
1.5 Review Employee Health Benefits procedures and
process for coming year with consultant
1.9 PUBLIC HEARING on proposed salary, expenses, and
other allowances of elected county or precinct
officers for FY 2004-2005
1.11 PUBLIC HEARING on Revision of Plat for Tracts 28A
& 28B of Y.O. Ranchlands
1.13 PUBLIC HEARING for road name changes, regulatory
signs and road abandonment
1.16 PUBLIC HEARING on proposed FY 2004-2005 Kerr
County Budget
1.18 Resolution thanking Colonel Walter B. Harris for
his service to Kerr County 9-1-1 Network
1.19 Appoint Ron Vick as County representative to
Board of Governors of Kerr County 9-1-1 Network
1.20 Discuss agreements/protocols needed to authorize
Kimble County/Junction to assume responsibility
as primary responder for 9-1-1 emergency calls
made from Y.O. Ranchlands Subdivision
1.1 Approval of Kerr County Community plan
1.3 Approve replacement of Judges and/or Alternate
Judges for the 2004 General Election
1.4 Approve the cost for copy of the 2004-05 Budget
1.6 Discuss setting Sheriff's and Constables' Fees
as required under LGC Section 118.131
1.7 Adoption of Resolution proclaiming October as
Czech Heritage Month in Kerr County
1.8 Adoption of Resolution proclaiming September as
Emergency Preparedness Month in Kerr County
1.10 Set salary, expenses, and other allowances of
elected county or precinct officers for FY 04-05
1.12 Revision of Plat for Tracts 28A & 28B of Y.O.
Ranchlands
1.14 Consider road name changes, regulatory signs, and
road abandonment
1.15 Consider budget line item transfer of $2,500 to
Victims' Rights Coordinator account
1.17 Adoption of proposed FY 04-05 Kerr County Budget
1.21 Set public hearing for Revision of Plat for
Tracts 29 and 35 of Kerr Vista Ranch Section Four
PAGE
13
18
85
89
90
91
92
92
98
101
117
119
120
122
134
136
137
137
138
140
141
163
3
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 N D E X (Continued)
September 27, 2004
1.22 Consider advertising for bids on Road & Bridge
capital outlays not available on Government
Purchasing programs
1.23 Set public hearing concerning regulatory signs,
school zone, and road acceptance
1.24 Consider releasing Letter of Credit #2004-02
issued for Hermosa Subdivision
1.25 Set public hearing for Revision of Plat for Lots
21 & 22 into Lot 21A, The Reserve of Falling
Water, and Revision of Plat for Lots 6, 7E & 7W
into Lot 6R, The Reserve of Falling Water
1.26 Consider and discuss process to select individual
to fill unexpired term of Justice of the Peace 3
1.27 Consider appointment or designation of person(s)
to act as temporary Pct. 3 Justice of the Peace
1.28 Approval of grant application for Help America
Vote Act funds, adoption of appropriate and/or
necessary resolution in connection therewith
1.29 Adoption of Resolution declaring September 2004
as Destination Dignity Month
1.30 Set public hearing on September 30, 2004, at
5 p.m., in Kerr County Courthouse to review the
performance and obtain comments on TCDP Program
Year Contract 721075, Kerrville South Wastewater
Project, Phase I
1.31 Consider consolidating voting location for Pct.
320 and 312 at Zion Lutheran Church for the
November 2, 2004 General Election
1.32 Consider retaining Community Resource Group, Inc.,
of Austin to conduct mail survey of Center Point
area to determine 2003 Adjusted Median Household
Income for inclusion with grant application
1.33 Approve changing the voting location for Precinct
320
4.1 Pay Bills
4.2 Budget Amendments
4.3 Late Bills
4.4 Approve and Accept Monthly Reports
5.1 Reports from Commissioners/Liaison Committee
Assignments
--- Adjourned
PAGE
165
166
171
172
176
179
180
186
187
188
190
192
194
204
205
206
212
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,.-.
25
On Monday, September 27, 2004, at 9:00 a.m., a special
meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in the
Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, Kerrville,
Texas, and the following proceedings were had in open court:
P R O C E E D I N G S
JUDGE TINLEY: Good morning. Let me call to
order the meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court
scheduled for this date and time, Monday, September the
27th, 2004, at 9 a.m. Commissioner 4, I believe you have
the honors this morning.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Would you join me in
prayer and the pledge, please?
(Prayer and pledge of allegiance.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. At this time, if
there's any member of the public that wishes to be heard on
a matter that is not ar. agenda item, feel privileged to come
forward at this time. If you have a desire to be heard on a
matter that is a listed agenda item, we would ask that you
fill out a participation form -- they're located at the back
of the room -- so that we'll have the benefit of having that
information up here, and won't miss you when it comes time
for that item. But at this time, if there's any member of
the public that wishes to come forward and be heard on any
matter that is not listed as an agenda item -- first off, we
have Ms. Dot Larimer, who has indicated a desire to be heard
9-27-09
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
... 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
on an item not a current agenda item. Ms. Larimer?
MS. LARIMER: Want me to come up first?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, you may come forward.
Thank you very much. As you come forward, if you'll give
your name and address so that the reporter can have the
benefit of taking that information down? Thank you.
MS. LARIMER: My name is Dorothy Larimer.
Most people call me Dot, and I am the Kerr County Democratic
Party Chair. I don't have a lot of prepared remarks,
because I didn't know exactly what might happen here today,
but considering what was in the transcript of what occurred
at the last Commissioners Court meeting, I thought it
appropriate that I at least be present to address anything
that might be brought up, and to defend our position in
regard to the comments that were made that I read on the
transcript. I am aware that one man's facts might be
another man's mud to sling, and I also recognize that two
persons can witness a single event and see that event quite
differently. I had a number of observations on the morning
in question, September 11th. First of all, one of those
observations was, I wondered why so few people were in
attendance at a 9/11 event. I had not seen it published. I
thought, you know, I'm a pretty busy person; maybe I just
missed it in the paper, but obviously I was not the only
person who had missed it.
9-27-04
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Usually, at an event of this sort, where the
band -- the high school band is present, at least there is a
parent who comes with the band person, and at least a friend
will come with someone in the band, and there was -- the
huge band was there, but I didn't see a crowd. I could have
been mistaken. I felt a little embarrassed for the people
who were actually presenting and participating in that to
have so few people from the community show up. I remarked
to one of the people who was with me at the time, "If the
press is covering this event, they'll get a shot showing
those few people lined up on the sidewalk so they can show a
picture of as many people as they can get in the shot, and
then they'll put that front and center on Page 1 above the
fold." And, sure enough, there it was on Monday morning,
the same shot that I said -- predicted would be there.
There were a lot of people walking around the market during
the ceremony. Some of the people there sat through the
national anthem, but I really had no way of knowing whether
those folks were democrats or republicans. Several people
who were walking around had their dogs with them. I was not
one of those, and no one who came with me was one of those
either.
The thing that I'm more concerned about is
closing down of political activity on the public square.
Sometimes I tell my friends -- they ask me what I'm doing
9-27-04
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
these days, and sometimes I say I'm wearing a purple dress
and a red hat, and I'm dragging my stick along the public
railings. There are a number of democrats who live here in
Kerr County, and I do the best I can to get those people out
to vote, and that's exactly what I'm trying to do during
this election time. I'm not trying to break anybody's
rules. I'm not trying to run off the Market Association,
although I wonder if there are others who are trying to run
off that group. I am hopeful that whatever conflict that
occurred is resolved, but I hope it would not be at the
expense of either the Market Days group or either political
party. If we cannot campaign during campaign time, and we
can't bring any kind of campaign information onto the
courthouse square, then I guess you can't bring bumper
stickers on; you can't have a car that has a bumper sticker
on it. There are a number of things that would have to be
eliminated if we couldn't politic on the courthouse square.
I probably have a lot of other thoughts that I don't need to
address at this moment, and probably there are other people
who could say it better than I did, but I do hope that you
will reconsider your position as far as allowing politicking
on the courthouse square. Thank you, and thank you for all
that you do for the people of Kerr County.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Ms. Larimer.
Christine MacMillan. I might note that Ms. MacMillan is
9-27-04
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
here with some students from Our Lady of the Hills.
MS. MACMILLAN: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Catholic school located here
in Kerrville. And we appreciate you being here. Thank you.
MS. MACMILLAN: Thank you, sir. My name is
Christine MacMillan, and I also come to address the issue
that happened in your last meeting. I am also with the
class of 2005 from O.L.H., and we've just completed our
study of the First Amendment and the right of free speech
and freedom of expression in our government class, and we
believe that the commer_ts made by the Commissioners about
the September 11th, 2004 Market Days events relating to the
motor home booth might be viewed as a challenge of the First
Amendment rights. After reviewing a copy of the contract
between the County and the Market Days Association, we find
no reference to the prohibition of political activities at
Market Days. We understand that the Republican Women of
Kerr County were at Market Days events previously, as well
as other partisan activities, including the soliciting of
signatures in support of the Kerrville Veterans
Administration Hospital and -- and the campaign against the
Upper Guadalupe River Association have also taken place at
previous Market Days.
We believe there is no basis for canceling
Market Days. We urge you to readdress this issue, and the
9-27-04
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
issue -- and in a positive manner, and revise the contract
if needed, but please do not punish those who enjoy the
Market Days and the vendors who abide by the contract rules.
I would also like to mention that my father is the Sheriff
of Bandera County, and he told me this weekend that Bandera
Commissioners Court has made a rule to stop political
campaigning on their courthouse. So, thank you for your
time.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Ms. MacMillan.
MS. MACMILLAN: May I give you a letter that
JUDGE TINLEY: Surely. Surely.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: We appreciate you being here
with us today. Mr. Ron Hatchett.
MR. HATCHETT: Yes. Thank you, Your Honor.
I won't be long here, because it would be redundant, but I
am here to speak on the issue of free speech. My name's Ron
Hatchett. I'm a former Air Force officer, 20 years. I'm
also a former member of the Reagan administration, where I
worked for Secretary Carlucci and Secretary of Defense
Weinberger before that. So, I'm no bleeding-heart liberal,
but I have to say that I was upset by what I read in the
newspapers about the discussion that went on here concerning
the events of 9/11 here on the courthouse square. I
9-27-04
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
happened to be here for that day, and I thought the
veterans -- the ceremony for 9/11, even though it was small,
was very well done, and. a very good commemoration of the
events of that day. I didn't see anything -- I saw the
mobile home; I saw the sign, but I didn't see anything
offensive. I didn't see anything that would have warranted
the words about, "Very offensive. Very offensive. I can't
tell you how angry I was over it. There were veterans
walking around." Well, I'm a veteran of Vietnam too, and I
wasn't offended by what I saw there.
And especially what bothered me was the --
the degree of anger that was evinced in these words that
were in the transcript. And when I read in the paper that
the other -- the other political party had had similar
exhibitions and similar activities at Market Day and there
was no outrage, this is what prompted me to come up and --
and talk today. That, plus the idea that, well, since they
allowed this mobile home in, maybe we ought to cancel Market
Day. I thought that was really beyond the pale of what
would have been a reasonable response to this. As was just
said by my predecessor speaking here, I think that that
would punish a lot of people in this county. I know very
many people, including myself -- that day I was able to buy
a little footstool for my grandson that had a police car on
it. His father's a police officer, and you don't see those
9-2.-04
1
,~... 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
11
things at Schreiner's Department Store and places like that.
So, I think that what we have here with
Market Day is a good thing, and the idea of saying we're
going to close it down because there was an exhibition of a
political discussion here I think is very premature. And
what I would urge the Commissioners simply is this; if it is
in the interests of the people of Kerr County that we not
have political activities on the courthouse square, then it
should apply equally to both parties or to all parties; in
fact, all political organizations. And we should make that
a policy, and it should be a public policy that everyone
should know. And I don't think the people at Market Day and
the people who enjoy Market Day should be the ones that pay
the penalty for views that are -- are disparate here in the
community. So, I just urge the Commissioners to do some
more reflecting upon this, and to make a decision that will
be a decision that will be equitable in the way it treats
all political points of view in this county, and that will
not penalize unjustly the Market Day people. I would ask
one other thing. Do you plan to meet with the Market Day
people to discuss this? Do you plan to have a further
discussion where you will establish a -- a policy, perhaps?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, we're not in a -- we're
not in a position to respond, since this is not an agenda
item, to go into a discussion of those issues.
9-27-09
1
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
MR. HATCHETT: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Only thing I would mention is
that the contract is annually renewable, so, obviously, at
-- at the time that contract comes under consideration,
there will be whatever discussions are appropriate at the
time.
MR. HATCHETT: All right. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Hatchett. We
appreciate you being here. Is there any other member of the
public that wishes to be heard on a matter that's not listed
on the agenda?
MR. MOCK: My name's Tom Mock. I'm the Kerr
County Republican Chair. I'm here just mainly to get a
clarification on what we were told at the onset of the
Judge's term, that politics on the grounds itself would now
be curbed. I was also erroneously informed that this would
be an agenda item. I apologize; I should have checked into
it. But, somewhere along the line, I would like to have an
absolute clarification. I have nothing to do with the --
the peddlers or the peddlers market. Just for my own
edification, and for that of the party. Thank you much,
gentlemen.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Mock. Is there
any other member of the public that wishes to be heard on
this or any other item? For informational purposes, there
9-27-04
13
1
~._. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
is an official policy concerning the use of the courthouse
facilities and grounds. It's part of the official
Commissioners Court records; it's available from the County
Clerk. You're free to examine it or obtain a copy of it
there. Being no other member of the public wishing to be
heard on items not listed on the agenda, Commissioner 4,
what have you got for us this morning?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, first, I'm
going to have to confess that I was ignorant of any policy
that prohibited political activity at the people's
courthouse, and I'm guilty of engaging in political
conversations and campaigning here. I can't think of a more
appropriate place than the people's courthouse to do that.
Moving on to more mundane things, I want to report that
TexDOT has been working out in Precinct 4 and getting a
couple of important things accomplished for us. One, they
have cut back the dangerous intersection there at Rachel
Lane and Highway 27, and significantly improved the safety
there, and I -- I am very grateful for them pushing that
project ahead. They did it on sort of an ad hoc basis
without any budgeted funding for it. And, second,
they're in short order going to be able to install warning
lights at the Hunt Fire Department. That'll be
remote-controlled. Sorr.e of you know that that's on a -- on
a curve, a blind curve, and that's a pretty dangerous
9-27-04
1
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
situation. So, that's going to be a benefit to the people
in Hunt and Hunt Fire Department. That's all I have.
JUDGE TINLEY: One?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Nothing, other than
the -- the contract with Market Days, I think, is -- comes
up December the 13th, if my memory serves me, and we'll
probably address all those issues at that time. The -- as
far as the policy is concerned, it's recently adopted, and I
think it was a 4-0 vote, even though Number 4 has decided
this morning that he's not in favor of it. It's in place
and, you know, if it's -- if it's a bad policy, we need to
go revisit the thing. And, you know, I somewhat agree that
some things should be done here at the courthouse, but,
however, that policy is in place, and if we need to revisit,
it, we will. Tivy fight never dies.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner 2?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think enough's been
said about that issue, so we'll -- we'll let that drift
until December, and it will get picked up at that time. I
think everybody recalls the tragic death of a Center Point
person on the July 4th weekend at the Government Crossing
bridge. It was an accident that almost claimed three lives,
but did, in fact, claim one. Subsequent to that, we did a
little research about what takes place at that Government
Crossing, how frequently there have been accidents, and
9-27-04
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
there have been a number of them. And, in looking into it,
I find there have been a large number. And, as a matter of
fact, within the two-week period before and -- and leading
up to the tragic incident on July 4th weekend, I think there
was something like eight persons who were involved in
accidents at the Government Crossing bridge, which is in
Center Point, for those of you who don't -- do not know.
And, of course, one -- resulted in at least one death. All
of which is to say that I'm going to try to figure out a way
to talk to the Texas Department of Public Safety -- Texas
Department of Transportation people with respect to maybe
putting that crossing into their long-range plan. I believe
that's an off-system bridge, and I think the long-range plan
should include some reworking of that bridge to raise it,
similar to what they're going to do at Hermann Sons, because
that bridge has been destroyed, and similar to what they did
at G Street. So, maybe the end result over time would be
that we would lessen the opportunity for tragic accidents to
occur. Other than that, the Hill Country Junior District
Livestock show fundraiser was last Saturday night, and a fun
time was had by all. It was a good one.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the only comment
I have this morning is going back to a brief comment on the
Market Days, and I guess -- there seems to be a big
misconception of the concern the Court had. One, there is a
9-27-04
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
policy, and we can certainly, as Commissioner 1 said,
readdress that at any time. And -- but the reason for the
policy which prohibits activities on the courthouse square
and in the courthouses more a -- a budget concern. It has
nothing to do with free speech. It's more that there's a
cost to the County, to the taxpayers, if we have rallies and
things on the courthouse square, signs are left and things
of that nature. So, it's really a budgetary consideration
that I'm -- when I voted on that, but that can always be
looked at. The issue with Market Days isn't -- is more an
issue as to what the purpose of Market Days was, what our
discussions have been with the Market Days folks, and that
license agreement that they're -- they basically have use of
that courthouse during those specified dates. So, there's
some legal issues as to what -- you know, as to the
licensing part of it and what they do. There's also
concerns as to what the intent of Market Days is. If we
need -- if we need to have a Market Days open -- I mean, for
political events, that's different than selling fresh
produce. It can do both, but that's not the intent of what
the Court had originally, so I think Commissioner Baldwin's
idea that we discuss that when the lease comes up -- or
license comes up for renewal in December is appropriate.
But I don't think there's any intent by anyone on this Court
to -- certainly by myself -- for any free speech
9-27-04
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
limitations. It's more about what the purpose of Market
Days is.
JUDGE TINLEY: That all? Thank you. Back to
the Youth Exhibit facility, a good time was had by all, as
Commissioner Williams said. A better time was had by some,
particularly Commissioner Williams, but I'll -- I'll let him
tell you that story. On the down side of that function,
there was considerable consternation of the -- of the
climate control out there at that event. The A/C did not
seem to be working too well. I did hear one citizen
comment, "Well, at least it's not raining," or we'd be
receiving leaks from the holes in the roof on the inside.
So I guess, you know, with every bit of salt there's a
little bit of sugar. But I think it merely calls to
attention the -- the need for us to go forward and do
something to put that facility in a more usable situation,
and one that we can comfortably and -- and -- use, and with
some degree of safety, and not be worrying about whether or
not the roof's going tc leak.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, about how many
people did we have out there?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Probably about 400,
probably.
AUDIENCE: Four or five hundred.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, there was quite a number
9-27-09
18
1
..-. 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 folks. They -- I think they sell 330 tickets, and those
are for -- that admits two people. And then, of course, you
had a number -- number of other folks there, so it could
easily have been 400 to 500. But it was a good event,
and -- and would have been a bit more enjoyable if the
climate would have been a little bit better. But hopefully
we'll get there. We need to move right into the agenda. We
have a number of timed items that we're already running
behind. The first item on the agenda concerns a report from
the financial adviser -- Kerr County financial adviser
regarding the Juvenile Detention Facility. But, before --
before we get there, I note that we have some -- some
participation forms that have been filed with us concerning
this matter. The first one filed was Mr. Kaighin Watts,
having an interest in that facility. If -- if you'll give
us whatever comments ycu desire, Mr. Watts?
MR. WATTS: One more document I need to get
up here. My name's Kaighin Watts; I'm from San Antonio.
I'm here representing myself. The purpose of it is, I've
been in the business of selling municipal bonds for 32 years
here in Texas, and I sold some of the Hill Country Juvenile
Facility Corporation bonds. In 1997, Commissioners Court
made a commitment, through the Kerr County Juvenile Board,
which consists of two Cistrict Judges and the County Judge,
to buy the facility. In doing so, you took on a mortgage of
9-27-04
1
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
$2.9 million that had a debt service of $336,000 a year.
Well, in 2002, that Juvenile Board decided to expand the
facility. In order to do that, they created a public
facilities corporation. And I quote from your audited
financial statements, "Due to the restrictions of the State
Constitution relating to the issuance of municipal debt, the
Kerr County Juvenile Board created the public facilities
corporation to finance the acquisition of the Juvenile
Detention Center. This was accomplished by assuming the
existing mortgage on the property. The above service
provided by the public facilities corporation is solely for
the benefit of Kerr County and the Kerr County Juvenile
Board."
The only activity that the Hill Country
Juvenile Facility Corporation has was to accomplish the
purchase of the outstar_ding mortgage, and they did that by
issuing 5.14 million -- $5,140,000 in bonds. At the time
that this was done, the debt on that first mortgage was paid
down to $1,914,000. Ir. addition to that, they wanted to
expand the facility to house 75 residents, so $2,600,000 of
the bond proceeds were used to do that. Now, how did you
get that done? Well, you got that done by, number one,
giving a first lien mortgage to the trustee that represents
the bondholders. The cther thing you did was you entered
into an annual lease agreement with the corporation to make
9-27-04
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
annual debt service payments in the tune of roughly
$412,000, and those debt service payments were to be done by
annual appropriations in the budget process as long as the
bonds were outstanding. That's what this document says in
the first two or three pages. And the balance of the
document goes into all the legalese of why nobody is
responsible for anything; Kerr County, the financial
adviser, the underwriter, even the trustee for the
bondholders.
Now, what happens if you -- by the way, the
bonds got an A-1 rating by Standard and Poor's. Now, what
happens if you don't appropriate this annual debt service?
And so far, from my review, it appears to me that the County
has not had to put up any money at all to run this facility.
If you don't appropriate the money, then I think immediately
what's going to happen, in my opinion -- and this is just my
opinion -- Standard and Poor's is going to rate the bonds
that are outstanding, going to rate them to junk. But, more
important than that, what happens is that I -- and
Mr. Henderson will be able to correct me on this if I'm
wrong. In any future bond sale that the County attempts to
sell, there will be an item in there, a paragraph called
"material events," and it'll fully explain why the County
willingly walked away from an obligation. Now, what that's
going to cost the County down the road, who knows?
a-z~-on
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
There are people in this state, investors
that buy tax-exempt bonds, that will not buy credits where
counties, school districts, cities defaulted in the '30's
'cause of the depression, and those were cases where people
could not pay. They didn't have the resources to pay. As
soon as they had the resources to pay, they paid those
debts. I can't think of a single case in the 32 years I've
been in this business in this state where you have had a
county that has a low tax rate, very little in debt, a large
population, a large land area, that has willingly walked
away from a debt. Just never happens. The whole system
is -- the whole system is built on good faith. Our whole
financial system is. It's kind of like when you cosign a
loan for your son; if they can't pay, you're going to pick
it up.
Now, this deal is about, what, 22 months old.
And, yeah, there's some hard times, but I think there's some
solutions to the problem. Those solutions I don't believe
will cost the taxpayers to suffer through a higher tax rate
at this time, but what it will cost is future opportunity
costs. Right now, the way Kerr County's debt is structured
is that, by 2012, you're out of any bonded indebtedness. As
a matter of fact, in 2006, your bonded indebtedness starts
going down dramatically. So, what it costs you if you can't
get this deal worked out is future opportunity costs. Now,
9-27-04
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
if you appropriate the money, then that gives you an
opportunity to work through -- to work through the problems
with the Juvenile Detention Facility. But fact of the
matter is, the Commissioners Court authorized the Juvenile
Board to do all this. I don't see how -- how you really get
around -- even though, yeah, in the prospectus, you can look
through there and say you do not have to appropriate. Yeah,
that's in there. But the intent of that is not to have you
guys willingly walk away from that debt.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You through?
MR. WATTS: I'm -- just about. I'm looking
to see if I've overlooked anything.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MR. WATTS: Pretty well covered it. Thank
you, gentlemen, for listening to me.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you for being here
today, sir. Mr. Bill Stacy.
MR. STACY: Gentlemen, I'm Bill Stacy. I was
County Judge when all this started, and all I can say is, I
told you so. When we were asked to kiss those bonds, the
problem started. It all came back to having confidence in
Recor, and Recor was the problem. Now, I can tell you why
that didn't work, 'cause I saw it and knew it wasn't going
to work, but I was outvoted. But, you know, I come up with
what will be the solution. This gentleman spoke very
9-27-04
23
1
-- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
eloquently, and we have to protect the tax and the County
integrity of future bond issues. At one time in my life I
was a bond salesman, so I know what he's talking about.
However, my suggestion to the Court -- this should not have
been a separate corporation. That facility should be part
of the assets as well as the liabilities of the County. Do
that.
Secondly, you're going to have to change the
people on that board. With all due respect, lawyers are not
businessmen, and there are three lawyers on that board.
There's only one lawyer on there that has the real
responsibility, and that's the County Judge, and he hears
the probation of the -- of the kids. I have been in those
shoes; I know what he's talking about. The County
Commissioners should put two hard-nosed businessmen instead
of those other two District Judges on there. I had to work
with those District Judges, and I think it would be -- the
County would be better off if there were two businessmen
instead of those two judges. Why those judges got on there,
I don't know, but they shouldn't be there. It's a business
decision. The County Judge should be a more -- more of a
businessman, 'cause he has to deal with the money. And even
if you have that, and you have -- and I know a name of --
several names of some good businessmen, and you know them
too, that should be on that board to help out, because those
9-27-04
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
salaries were out of line. The expenses were out of line.
I had a member of my family who worked out there, so I do
have some insight as to what was going on.
Now, I know that I'm considered a dinosaur in
this community, 'cause I've been around. I've been with
this lady when the democrats controlled this county and they
made the decisions of Commissioners Court. But we didn't,
in those days, incidentally, have any -- any political
campaigning on the courthouse. We did use it for federal
employees, like Senator Benson came here and Senator Graham
came here. So, gentlemen, that's what you can do to solve
this problem. And I hope that you take my advice, 'cause
I've been there; I walked in those moccasins, and that's how
you solve the problem so that the County credit is good down
the road. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir.
Mr. Henderson?
MR. HENDERSON: Thank you, Judge and members
of the Court. For the record, my name's Robert Henderson.
I'm the manager of R.B.C. Dain Rauscher. We have the honor
of being the financial adviser to Kerr County, and as
Mr. Watts pointed out, we were also the financial adviser to
the Hill Country Facilities Development Corporation when the
financing was done in 2002. The agenda calls for me to make
a report on the juvenile facility. I'm not sure exactly
9-27-04
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
what form the Commissioners Court expect that report to
take. It has been my understanding that I was to address
the Court on the issue of what would be the impact or the
consequences of the Court choosing to not appropriate for
the debt, and alternatively, to choose to appropriate for
the debt. Based on some newspaper articles that have come
out, it seemed that there may also be some legal questions
involved in addition to the finance questions relating to
the bond rating of the county, and therefore, I took it upon
myself to ask Mr. Spurgeon of the bond counsel firm, McCall
Parkhurst, and Horton, bond counsel to the Hill Country
Facilities Development Corporation, to also be here in order
that me might address any legal questions.
At the request of the County Judge, I did
write a letter -- I guess it's been about 10 days ago -- to
the Commissioners Court addressing the potential
consequences of a nonappropriation on this lease by the
rating agency, Standard and Poor's, which had rated the
bonds back in 2002 when they were issued. I have had --
gosh, at least three lengthy conversations with Alex Frazier
of Standard and Poor's Dallas office, who is the regional
manager for this several-state area, as well as the
individual who actually rated the bonds. They have made it
very clear that it -- despite the language in the official
statement, they do consider this to be a moral obligation of
9-27-04
26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Kerr County, and that if the County fails to appropriate for
this debt, that they would take action against the County's
tax-secured bond rating, which is currently A. The Hill
Country Facilities Development Corporation bonds were rated
A-minus, based largely on the fact those were lease revenue
bonds, annual appropriation lease revenue bonds. The
County's current underlying tax-secured bond rating is A.
Mr. Frazier has indicated that he would expect that rating
to fall to the minimum investment-grade rating of triple-B.
He also cited a couple of examples that he thought were
similar in circumstances and nature to this; a county out in
Florida, as well as a county in Washington state.
The question has since come up, what would
happen if the County did appropriate for this lease? And I
think that that is -- is really a twofold question. I think
that the appropriation for the lease payments themselves, as
was pointed out earlier, which would be about $412,000 per
year, would have about a 1.7 cent tax rate impact to Kerr
County. And I think that the Commissioners Court could
choose to appropriate for the lease and -- or -- and/or
issue Certificates of Obligation or some other tax-secured
debt in order to -- to acquire the facility and have even a
lower tax rate impact, and that they could do that without
having a negative impact on the County's bond ratings.
However, another aspect of appropriating could be to not
9-27-04
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
only appropriate for this debt, but also -- also to
appropriate to support the -- the negative cash flow
operations of the Juvenile Detention Facility. As you know,
the Juvenile Detention Facility Board -- or the Juvenile
Board has adopted an operating budget that projects a
$173,000 operating deficit.
It is clear, based on the conversations that
I've had with Mr. Tomlinson, the County Auditor, and
conversations I've had with operators of other juvenile
detention facilities across the state, many of which are in
similar financial condition to this one because of the
events surrounding charges in categorizations of ratings by
the State, as well as some actions by a nonprofit
corporation, that even that budget of -- of negative
operating result of $173,000 is most likely optimistic, and
that there will probably be substantially larger losses than
that. If the County were to adopt the posture that it was
going to not only appropriate for the debt, but to also
appropriate or support the operations of the Juvenile
Detention Facility, that would create a -- a new and
uncertain and unexpected strain on the General Fund budget,
and in visiting with representatives of Standard and Poor's,
could likely also result in a downgrading of the County's
bond ratings. It would not fall from an A to -- to the
triple-B rating that Standard and Poor's are currently
9-27-04
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
suggesting.
And I want to use that term carefully, as
Mr. Frazier used the term carefully. The rating committee
has not met at Standard and Poor's to decide how it's going
to handle this issue or the issue of several other entities
in like circumstances, but rather than from A to a triple-B,
possibly see the tax-secured rating fall from an A to maybe
an A-minus or a triple-B-plus, all of which would be the
result of determination of the rating committee of Standard
and Poor's. So, I -- that's what I was asked to discuss.
If there's any other aspect of this -- of this issue anyone
would like me to address, I'll be happy to.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a question,
Mr. Henderson.
MR. HENDERSON: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Gets back to one of
your earlier comments -- I have a couple questions.
MR. HENDERSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Gets back to one of
your earlier comments, and one of the comments that the
gentleman who spoke before with respect to the obligation of
the County. As I read the official statement, early on in
the statement, it warns bond owners by citing that the
purchase of the bonds involves a degree of risk, and -- and
provides language for the bond purchasers to "caveat
9-27-04
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
emptor." Buyer beware, so to speak.
MR. HENDERSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But it goes on to say
in that particular paragraph that the bonds do not
constitute an obligation, either special, general, or moral,
of the County, the State of Texas, or any other political
subdivision or agency thereof. How does that square with
your comments?
MR. HENDERSON: Well, I think that it squares
with my comments in -- in the fact that the Commissioners
Court does have the legal right to decide whether to
appropriate or not to appropriate, and it clearly puts the
bondholders on notice that the Commissioners Court has
reserved that legal right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second part of the
question would be, under bond owner risks, it talks about
under the operating agreement, the Juvenile Board has
undertaken to operate the project to be financed with the
proceeds of the bonds, and has assumed the County's
obligation to make the lease payments. How does that square
with your comments?
MR. HENDERSON: Well, you know, I've got
Mr. Spurgeon here from the law firm, and I think he'd
probably be better suited to address the legal questions.
But -- but, again, Commissioner, I think that it -- it
9-27-04
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
references the County's reservation -- the right to not
appropriate, and put the bondholders on notice that -- that
the revenues to be derived for the payment of this debt and
the operating expenses of the facility are subject to annual
appropriation.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Before we hear from
Mr. Spurgeon, while you still have the podium --
MR. HENDERSON: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- I want to ask
about, if the County were to appropriate and, in effect,
guarantee the -- the '04 -- I guess it's the '04 payment.
Or is it the '05 payment?
MR. HENDERSON: It would be the -- well, the
payments that would fall in the year '04-'05, which would be
the February 15th, '05 and August 15th, '05 payments.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: '04-'05, okay.
MR. HENDERSON: Budget year, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And, in addition to
that -- if we were to appropriate, in addition to that, the
trustee still holds, am I correct, a significant amount of
money which would be equivalent to a bond debt reduction and
interest payment? Is that correct?
MR. HENDERSON: Yes, sir. The bondholders --
the trustee holds one year's annual debt service in reserve.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, the reality is,
9-27-04
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
if Kerr County did not appropriate the dollars right now,
the trustee holds sufficient to make the next interest and
principal payment?
MR. HENDERSON: The next two principal and
interest payments.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. HENDERSON: I should say the next
principal and interest payment, and then the following
interest payment. The next two semiannual payments would be
made.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which suggests to me
that there would be a possibility during that time frame --
this is what I want to you respond to.
MR. HENDERSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That some debt could
be restructured. My question then gets down to whether or
not it is -- would be appropriate for the facilities
corporation, who is the owner of the facility, not Kerr
County, as such, if they were to try to restructure the debt
and use low floaters, and cap those low floaters, cap that
rate by purchasing whatever it is you do to cap a rate, is
that a possibility?
MR. HENDERSON: It is a possibility, yes,
sir. Well, let me think about that for a second. It -- is
it possible the Hill Ccuntry Juvenile Detention Facility
9-27-04
32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
could do it? I think, given the -- the current
circumstances, which is that the primary security of the
Hill Country Juvenile Detention Facilities Corporation has
been this annual appropriation lease from the County, if the
County were to not appropriate, I think that would put
notice to the bondholders that source of revenues is no
longer available. And, therefore, I think the corporation
would find it difficult to do any sort of restructuring.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, let me come at
it from a different angle, then.
MR. HENDERSON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What if the County
were to work it out with the facilities corporation to take
over the ownership of the facility, and given -- and
appropriate the funds, and in the period of time that would
be required from appropriation to the time of actually
making the payment. Could we restructure that debt so as
not to have to use the $412,000 of taxpayer money that was
being appropriated? And unexpectedly, I might add.
MR. HENDERSON: Well, I guess a better way
for me to answer that, Commissioner, would be that -- that
we are not experts in the operations of juvenile detention
facilities.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Neither am I.
25 ~ MR. HENDERSON: And what I think you would --
9-27-04
1
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
you are suggesting, to suggest there would be a way to
restructure this where there would be no taxpayer support
from Kerr County would be to suggest that the operations of
that facility could be effectively turned around from a
budgeted loss of $173,000 to a gain of something in the
neighborhood of $350,000, $400,000, whatever the debt
service would be after a restructuring, and we are not in a
position to opine as to whether or not the -- the financial
operating results of that facility could be turned around to
that degree.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's not exactly
the thrust of my question.
MR. HENDERSON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The thrust of my
question was, if we were to appropriate those dollars in our
budget --
MR. HENDERSON: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- prior to actually
spending those dollars.
MR. HENDERSON: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which is the '04-'05
payments of debt service and interest.
MR. HENDERSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do you believe it
would be possible to restructure the debt in that period of
9-27-04
34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
..-,
25
time so as to bring the debt service payment down to
something more acceptable and more realistic, so that
perhaps we could meet those debt service payments if the
facility comes back? That's the thrust of my question.
MR. HENDERSON: I want to make sure that I'm
clear. Make the debt service payments if the facility comes
back out of the operations of the facility, or out of
taxpayer funds?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, if we were to
take over the corporation, I guess that would be academic.
MR. HENDERSON: Well, let me try and answer
it this way, 'cause I -- I'll have to admit, I'm not a
hundred percent clear on the question. I think that the --
the -- Kerr County certainly has the -- the financial
capacity and the financing latitude to adopt any number of
financing techniques in taking over this facility. It could
issue tax-secured debt, and that debt could be issued on a
floating rate basis or some other mode, and the County would
have the financial ability to do that. I don't believe
that, without County support, the -- the financial condition
of the corporation itself would -- would be such that we
could entice buyers to buy and restructure a debt program.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Unless we
appropriated money up front.
MR. HENDERSON: Well, I think that the
9-27-09
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
problem that we're going to have is that, if we
appropriate -- if we adopt a strategy or a financing
technique that continues to require annual appropriations,
it would be my expectation that we're going to have a very
difficult time getting anyone to buy that. I think -- I
think that for this to -- to get restructured effectively, I
think we would have to convert from an annual appropriation
type financing vehicle to a continuing ad valorem property
tax pledge type vehicle.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
MR. HENDERSON: And let me expound on that to
say, it's not just because of the circumstances here at Kerr
County. There are a number of facilities all across the
state that, for the same reasons that you're having this
occur here in Kerr County, these other facilities across the
state are having that. So, there are -- there are a number
of bondholders of debt related to these other facilities
that are facing the potential of -- of a loss of a portion
of their investment. So, the whole market for lease revenue
bonds secured by the operations of juvenile detention
facilities has virtually gone away.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I didn't think Kerr
County was in this boat by itself.
MR. HENDERSON: It is not in this boat by
itself.
9-27-04
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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Henderson, are you
familiar with other counties that have been in similar
situations, where the facilities corporation which issued
bonds secured by lease revenue bonds from the County that
went into default, as it were, or failed to make annual
appropriation or otherwise pay the operating costs, in which
there was subsequent action taken by -- by the bond rating
agency or agencies, and there were subsequent debt issues
from that county, and the effect on those debt issues?
MR. HENDERSON: Yes, sir. As a matter of
fact, I -- my firm underwrote such a debt for a county in
those set of circumstances. I'm referring specifically to
Hays County, which operates a juvenile detention facility up
in San Marcos, and last year they found themselves in a
situation with the juvenile detention facility corporation
that was there that the operating revenues were insufficient
to meet debt service. The Commissioners Court there chose
to not appropriate. In that instance, it was rather a
curious set of circumstances, in that that particular bond
transaction had two different rating agencies involved,
Standard and Poor's, which is the rating agency involved
with the Hill Country Facilities Corporation, and Moody's.
And when the Commissioners Court chose in Hays County to not
appropriate, Standard and Poor's did lower Hays County's
9-27-04
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
bond rating down to the minimum investment grade rating
immediately. Moody's did not lower their bond rating. And
the difference being that Moody's interpretation of the
documents were to understand that Hays County did not -- not
only -- not only did not have a continuing ad valorem
property tax pledge behind that debt, but did not also have
a moral obligation behind that debt. So, in recognizing
that, Moody's did not lower the bond rating of Hays County.
Standard and Poor's did.
Now, in this particular case, Standard and
Poor's is the only entity that rated these bonds, and
they're threatening to do that; that is, to lower the bond
rating down to low investment grade rating. Subsequent --
subsequent to that event, citizens in Hays County voted some
$30 million in general obligation tax bonds, and the County
undertook this last spring to issue $15 million of those
voted bonds. And in visiting with the rating agencies and
insurance companies about that tax-secured transaction, Hays
County was able to secure municipal bond insurance -- excuse
me -- taking their rating to a full triple-A, and the -- and
the bonds were marketable in the private capital markets. I
will say that the -- the insurance premium, because of the
confusion surrounding the circumstances of the juvenile
facility corporation over there, was higher than normal. As
opposed to paying something in the neighborhood of $75,000
9-27-09
38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to $80,000 for that municipal bond insurance policy, it's my
understanding the Commissioners Court ended up paying
something over $100,000, about $25,000 or $30,000, or, in
other words, about 35 percent more for that insurance
premium than -- than likely would have been the case had it
not been for the difficulties of the corporation. However,
once the insurance premium was paid and a triple-A bond
insurance was put in place, the interest rate penalty by the
County on that -- on that $15 million in tax-secured debt
was -- was non-quantifiable. There was none.
JUDGE TINLEY: So there was no adverse effect
on their -- on their costs, other than the increased bond
insurance?
MR. HENDERSON: There was to adverse -- there
was no adverse effect on the interest rates. I think there
was an adverse effect on the insurance premium they had to
get them to a triple-A bond rating.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mr. Henderson, how
many years have you done business with Kerr County?
MR. HENDERSON: Oh, gosh. I'm not sure if --
if Judge Stacy was -- was on the Court, or was I -- was I
there before you, Judge Stacy?
MR. STACY: We put you there.
MR. HENDERSON: Okay. So I would say that
I've been in San Antonio and working in Kerr County with the
9-27-04
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
City -- see, actually, I think earlier than that, even. I
had been calling on the counties since the mid-1980's. I
think early '90's is when we first actually did a bond
transaction, but I had been working with the County prior to
that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You worked for this
County about 17 years ago when I was on this Commissioners
Court.
MR. HENDERSON: That would be correct.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I remember you well,
and you've done a good job. Actually, I'm not going to --
I'm going to look at you as I talk, but I'm really talking
to the public of Kerr County, 'cause I want them to
understand that in the beginning, when this corporation was
set up and the leadership here approached this Commissioners
Court, we were assured that there was no liability to the
Commissioners Court or the taxpayers of this county on
several occasions. And I can go back and dig the minutes up
to -- to prove that point. So, all these years I've been
thinking, you know, that corporation's out there; they're
running that thing. That's their business. The taxpayers
don't have a hand in this at all. Now, there's -- come this
morning, there's been a couple little jabs here that, "You
Commissioners Court, if you don't pick this thing up, you're
going to..." dah, dah, dah, dah. Well, as the Democratic
9-27-04
40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
..-,
25
party came in this morning, that -- that's a bit offensive
to me.
My point is, I recently read in the -- in the
newspaper about a County official saying that the sinking
ship set sail about September 2003. That's a year ago. And
this Commissioners Court, in the eleventh hour, is hearing
about it, that that is -- there's problems, and suddenly at
the tail end of our budget process this year, I mean, look;
this courtroom is full of people. Full of probably --
there's probably a lawyer or two in here -- it wouldn't
surprise me -- screaming that we've got to do something.
Well, it's not this Commissioners Court. I just wanted the
public to understand, it's not this Commissioners Court
that's brought this problem to this stage. You know, the --
the folks that have been managing it and running that
facility out there, they need to be accountable, not this
Commissioners Court. And thank you.
MR. HENDERSON: Well, I just stood here, but
I'll say you're welcome anyway. Since you -- you've brought
up history, let me kind of recap, if I might, a little bit
of the history here. I have been working with the
Commissioners Court since the mid or early 1980's, when this
transaction was originally done, which, as the County's
financial adviser, I didn't even know it was being done, and
nor did Mr. Spurgeon from -- from the law firm that's
9-27-09
1
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
represented the County for many years as bond counsel. An
outfit called Recor, as Judge Stacy recounted a moment ago,
came in and -- and made certain representations as to the
way that system would work. I did not even hear about it
until the original transaction was already completely done.
That -- I think that was done in '94, was it not, Judge?
MR. STAGY: Somewhere along that --
MR. HENDERSON: Somewhere in 1994. Then in
1997, after Recor ran into some difficulties, the
Commissioners Court then facilitated a -- the creation of a
corporation to take the ownership over from Recor, who was
acting as trustee. Now, in those -- both of those instances
-- and neither my firm nor Mr. Spurgeon's firm was involved
in that, but in both of those situations, the Recor
financing as well as the financing that was done in 1997 had
exactly the same structure that was in place in 2002, when
we were asked to come in and assist the County in raising
additional funds, and that was to say there was no
continuing ad valorem obligation of the County. All that
was involved was a lease from the County to the Juvenile
Facility Corporation. So, when we did the restructuring in
2002, the structure was in no way changed. It was exactly
the same legal structure that had been in place when Recor
did the transaction originally in '94, and then when it was
converted again in 1997. All that was done was to create a
9-27-04
42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
new corporation in order to effect the technicality of a
transfer of ownership from one to the other, but the -- the
financing structure behind it remained the same. A
continuing ad valorem -- I'm sorry, a continuing -- that's
not even -- "continuing" is not even correct. An annual
appropriation lease revenue bond structure. So, the same
structure was used in all of those -- those instances.
Now, with respect to -- to your comments,
Commissioner, about the operators of that facility being
held accountable, that certainly makes sense and is logical
and rational. What I would say is that, as I've explained
to -- to Alex Frazier, that what differentiates this
situation from the Spokane County, Washington example that
Mr. Frazier cited was that this is not a situation where
we've got individual management problems at this facility;
that there's -- there's not been gross mismanagement.
There's not been gross negligence that I'm, at least, aware
of. There's not been any fraud or embezzlement or anything
like that. That what's happened here has been the effect of
two things, that I'm aware of; the -- the changing of the
sentencing patterns of judges handling juvenile detention
cases as a result of some actions by a nonprofit corporation
who -- which portends to -- to champion the legal, civil,
and mental rights of -- of detainees, and also a -- a
recategorization of juvenile detained -- detainees from the
9-27-04
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
43
State, which had the practical effect of lowering the
reimbursement some 20 percent. Those two facts have
negatively impacted the operations of a dozen facilities
across the state, not simply Kerr County.
And my point to -- to Mr. Frazier is, you've
got a situation here where this is not a single county
reacting to local circumstances, choosing to nonappropriate
for an essential governmental function. This is a situation
where -- you know, arguably, at least -- events completely
beyond the County's control and impacting the market on a
statewide basis has impacted negatively the operations of a
dozen facilities, of which Kerr County happens to be only
one. So, while I would, you know, not disagree with you
that we need to look to the operators of the facility for --
for what's -- what's occurring, I think, in all fairness, we
have to recognize that there are some things that were
happening that were outside of the control of the local
operators of the facility at the same time.
And then, finally, I would remark -- I did
read the newspaper article where a county official was cited
this as being a sinking ship. I wasn't in Austin when that
comment was made, and I can't attest to the accuracy of the
-- of the timing set out in the newspaper article. I would
say that it's my understanding that the impact of these two
events we just spoke of really came to bear not starting in
9-27-04
44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
~. 13
14
15
16
17
l8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
September -- I think September was probably the reference to
the current fiscal year -- but rather sometime in April.
March-April is when you really saw your -- your occupancy
levels start to decline and your revenues really start to
decline. So, I think that -- that while I'm sympathetic
with you, as well as myself, 'cause, to be perfectly honest
with you, Mr. Spurgeon and I didn't know about this problem
until very nearly the middle of August, I think the -- the
problem really has not been clear to -- to the managers of
the facility dating way back in September, but I think began
to become clear in March and April of this year. So, much
shorter time frame.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mr. Henderson, I have
a --
MR. HENDERSON: You can't ever ask me a short
question, Buster. You know that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- a couple of questions.
I guess -- and I can understand clearly that we have no
legal obligation to make this payment. What are the ratings
of the bonds for the juvenile facility?
MR. HENDERSON: The bond -- the juvenile
facility bonds are currently rated A-minus.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: A-minus?
MR. HENDERSON: Yes, sir.
9-27-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
45
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Would they have -- I
mean, it seems like a high rating for something that's
extremely high-risk.
MR. HENDERSON: Yes, sir. And I think the
Standard and Poor's, at this juncture, would agree with you.
And I don't say that tongue-in-cheek; please don't
misunderstand me. I think that -- I think that Standard and
Poor's is realizing after the fact that -- that they
probably did not consider as strongly as they should have
the bondholder risks that were enunciated, and -- and the
risk of nonappropriation, and -- and the clearly stated
position that these are neither direct obligations nor moral
obligations of the County. So, again, I don't say it
tongue-in-cheek. I think -- in hindsight, I think if the
Standard and Poor's had to do it over again, I think they
would take a different view of the security behind this
debt.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do you think when they
gave that A-minus rating, that part of the reason was -- did
they look at the County's overall rating, or did they look
at these independently?
MR. HENDERSON: No, they did look at the
County's overall rating, and I think that rating report of
Standard and Poor's indicates that; that they felt like
25 ~ that, because Kerr County was the -- the entity that was
9-27-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
46
executing this lease, and because of the strong financials
of Kerr County and their expectation that if there was any
difficulty, Kerr County would continue to appropriate
anyway, I think was behind their logic in offering that
rating.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: With that being said,
then, how can you also say that we have no moral obligation,
then? If the rating is based, by Standard and Poor's, on
Kerr County's, you know, stature and structure and -- and
financial situation, that -- how can you not say that
they're related?
MR. HENDERSON: Well, I -- I don't suggest
that they're not related. What I suggest is that -- again,
we're getting into legal aspects of this -- is that the
documents clearly stated that there was not going to be a
direct obligation of Kerr County, and that it would not be a
moral obligation of Kerr County, and that this -- the
bondholders were assuming the risk of nonappropriation.
Now, that -- that Standard and Poor's, in their business
judgment -- I hesitate to use the term "knowledge," but --
but they did not -- that they did not give that structural
-- those structural facts as much weight, in hindsight, as
maybe they should have, is --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- if Kerr County was
to appropriate the funds for this year, does that bring any
9-27-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
47
obligation for doing anything in the '05-'06 year? Or is it
just like a one-time obligation, and it wouldn't mean
anything if we decided not to appropriate in the future
year?
MR. HENDERSON: Again, I think you're asking
for a legal opinion. I'll give you a layperson's opinion,
which is annual appropriation means annual appropriation.
And, therefore, I -- my laypersons's interpretation would be
that if you choose to appropriate this year, you still have
the right next budget year not to appropriate then. There
is one point I'd like to make on that issue, but I'll be
happy to answer any questions you might have before I do
that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I guess my -- my
question is -- I go back to something Commissioner 1 said,
is that, you know, I'm really frustrated with the Juvenile
Board in this situation, the fact that they came to the
Commissioners Court as late as they did. The fact that they
didn't -- that you all didn't know till mid-August is, to
me, equally bad. And any -- I guess, you know, I look at
this in very simplistic terms. I'm not a bond person. I'm
not, you know, in banking, in finance, necessarily, all
that. I look at this as, necessarily, such as an individual
going bankrupt. Okay, if I was an individual going -- and I
was going to have to gc bankrupt, I'd go to every creditor I
9-27-04
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
had and try to work something out. I don't think that's
happened. I haven't heard of it happening. No one --
everyone seems to be kept in the dark until the eleventh
hour on this whole situation. So, I guess my question is,
is it customary or is it possible, even, for the Juvenile
Board to go to the holders of the bonds and say, "We're in
trouble; we need help"?
MR. HENDERSON: Well, I'm glad that you asked
that question, because that's exactly the point that I
wanted to get to. Before I can get to that, though, may I
address the issue about bankruptcy and so forth? You know,
I don't know what to say about that, other than continue to
repeat what we've repeated, which is when the bonds were
sold, the bondholders were clearly put on notice they were
subject to annual appropriation; that there was risk there,
and the County was disavowing any direct or moral obligation
with respect to that. So, it -- you know, one could argue
that the bondholders, who did get above-market yields for
this type of debt -- I mean, because of the risk involved,
they got paid a little higher interest rate than they would
have gotten paid had this been a tax-secured transaction
where their risk would have been lesser, so there should
have been an understanding of the business transaction.
That -- that may or may not be the case, based on some
conversations I've had, but -- but that should have been the
9-27-04
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
case.
But, to answer your question, is there a way
to go to the bondholders and negotiate this, I think that
there is. And -- and there are some important reasons why
we should do that, financial reasons why we should do that.
The Hill Country Facilities Development Corporation's bonds
has what we call a 10-year call feature in it, which means
that the bonds cannot be paid off in advance of their stated
maturity for a period of 10 years from -- from the date of
the issue of the bonds, although that's not exactly the --
the thing. I think the first call date would be
February 15th, 2013. Now, what can happen is that, if this
Commissioners Court were to try to work out -- say you go to
another bank and work out a refinance. The financial costs
of doing that is directly impacted by technicalities such as
that call feature.
Another aspect of potentially working the
project out or working this thing out to everybody's benefit
is to convert the use of that facility to something other
than a juvenile detention facility, such as an adult
detention facility. But then you've got the problem of, do
you have the consent of the bondholders to convert the use
of the facility? Do you have the consent of the bondholders
to waive the call feature on the bonds? Which would allow
you to -- to refinance it without an extra penalty. And, in
9-27-09
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
this case, we calculated the negative arbitrage in an escrow
account to be about $400,000 if we couldn't get that -- that
call feature waived.
So, one positive aspect -- and I'm not
encouraging the Commissioners Court one way or the other;
I'm just trying to answer facts. But one positive aspect of
a nonappropriation is that what will -- what will happen is,
that will trigger a series of events whereby the
Commissioners Court gives formal notification to the trustee
of a nonappropriation, and that triggers the trustee to come
in and start acting on behalf of the bondholders. That's
their role as a trustee, to kind of speak with one voice on
behalf of the bondholders. As a practical matter, what the
trustee would do is create some sort of bondholders'
committee made up of, you know, a majority of the owners of
that debt. Once that happens, then you are in a position to
start talking to the bondholders, to say, "Is there a way to
resolve this situation?" Can we get bondholders' consent to
convert the use of this facility from what it is now to
something -- other facility, some other use? Can we get
permission to waive the call feature?
And I suspect that, at this juncture, that
the bondholders would be excited to say, yes, give us 100
percent of our money right away, and we'll waive the call
feature. That would make the potential sale of the facility
9-27-09
1
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
to a third-party much more effective. It would make the
ability of the County to issue a tax-secured debt to acquire
the facility much more effective. So, there are some
solutions to the problem, including a process by which this
Commissioners Court can still decide, as I think
Commissioner Williams was suggesting, six months down the
road or nine months down the road, that there is a way to
salvage, you know, this situation. But for at least a
couple of those options to work, or to work as -- as
efficiently as they could work, it would be easier if we had
a trustee speaking on behalf of all of the bondholders in
that process.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If there's a trustee --
if we do not appropriate, what happens October 1?
MR. HENDERSON: Mr. Spurgeon?
MR. SPURGEON: Okay. Commissioner, the
documents say that if you don't appropriate, literally, the
facility is transferred over to the trustee's control. Now,
the trustee is going to most likely talk with the Juvenile
Board to continue to operate that at some point, but the
documents are going to say if you fail to appropriate,
really the only soluticn for bondholders at that point is to
sell the facility. There's a mortgage on the facility, and
so they would -- as Bob was mentioning earlier, that they
would most likely create the bondholder committee to talk
9-27-04
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
about -- to talk to the bondholders. What's the best
solution for the -- in order to gain as much value back to
the bondholders as they possibly can? If there is a way
where the -- the facility could be sold to somebody at some
cents on the dollar, good. All that becomes kind of part of
the mix, part of the negotiation process involving the
bondholders. But, literally, the documents will say that as
of October 1st, the facility is transferred over to the
trustee.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, at that point, it's
out of the Juvenile Board's control. Well, technically,
MR. SPURGEON: I guess two things could
happen. Literally, the doors could be shut on that day. I
don't think the trustee would do that. I think the trustee
would probably ask the Juvenile Board to continue its
operations for some period of time. I don't think you'd
literally see the doors shutting that day. I can't -- I
can't tell you that for sure, but I -- so I think they'd
either totally shut the door, or they would ask the Juvenile
Board to continue operating for some period of time.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why wouldn't the -- it be
better to try and negotiate before the trustee takes
control? I mean, I don't understand why you wouldn't go to
the bondholders before this happens.
9-27-09
1
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
MR. SPURGEON: Well, I think you have to do
two things -- or one thing. If you're going to attempt to
work out something with the bondholders without the trustee
taking over control, you're going to need to appropriate for
the lease payments. If you appropriate for the lease
payments for this coming year, it -- it stops any sort of
formal action of the trustee. That doesn't mean that you
may not still engage in discussions with the bondholders to
work out a problem, 'cause kind of going back to your
original question, or one of your questions earlier, if we
appropriate this year, do we have to appropriate next year?
The answer to that is no. So, I mean, you -- because it is
an annual appropriation-type situation, so your answer this
year doesn't mean that you're going to do the same thing
next year. It would give yourself some time to begin to --
without having to formally nonappropriate, formally going
into default, would give you some time to look at the
overall operations of the facility, what you want to do with
the facility.
You may consider purchasing the facility,
as -- as Bob had mentioned earlier, as a -- as another
alternative. I mean, there are a number of things that you
could do. I don't think that failure to nonappropriate
would prevent you from talking with the bondholders, because
they -- they know there's a problem. Bondholders are very
9-27-09
1
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
aware that there is a financial problem going on right now
that may or may not get fixed through normal operations very
quickly. So, if -- there may be a situation where they
would step in and say we'd be glad to talk to you, to see
what we can all do to try to work this thing out without
having bonds going in default, without having the County's
debt rating reduced, those kinds of things. So, I mean, I
think that's a possibility. But to avoid the trustee coming
in, you'd have to appropriate.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can you appropriate for
one payment, not two? Or -- aren't there two payments a
year?
MR. SPURGEON: You would -- the documents say
you have to appropriate for the entire fiscal year. Your
large payment's coming up in February. You have about a
total of $412,000, I think, would be roughly due in this
next fiscal year. Most of that, 300-some-odd -- maybe a
little less than that; maybe around $300,000 is due on
February 15th. Then there's simply an interest payment
that's due on August 15th. But, in answer to your question,
no, you really could not do just a partial appropriation.
MR. HENDERSON: One thing that -- that the
County Commissioners cculd potentially do along the lines of
what you're discussing is -- is go ahead and nonappropriate
for the lease payment, but make some commitment to the
9-27-04
1
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
trustee that you would continue to fund at least the
operations of the facility for some -- some period of time.
Now, there's two points to be considered in that. One is,
as Commissioner Williams pointed out, there is a reserve
fund that will make the 2/15/05 payment and the 8/15/05
payment. And, should the 2/15/05 payment be paid from that
reserve fund and that reserve fund drawn down, the
Commissioners Court could pick up later and, under the
documents, simply replenish that reserve fund. I think it
would make sense that the facility -- to work out a solution
for the facility would make more sense if the facility
remained open. And one way to get both the bondholders
speaking with one voice through the trustee, and assure that
the -- that the facility remained open, and we therefore
have the best opportunity to -- to work out a -- a mutually
satisfactory arrangement, for lack of better terminology,
would be to suggest that the Commissioners Court would
continue to at least fund the negative operations of the
facility for some defined period of time. Just as an
option.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: See, to me, that's the
worst of both. We're getting hit on the bond rating, and
we're spending money on top of it. I mean, if we're going
to -- I mean, I guess -- you know, and I've heard several
people saying -- I've heard in the past, "Everything's
9-27-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
56
running fine out there and everything's going good. It's
all the State's fault and it's the nonprofit's fault." I
don't know that to be true. I mean, I would really -- you
know, I'm real uncomfortable making decisions -- we don't
have time, really, at this point to look into it. You know,
I feel a strong obligation for the bondholders. They bought
those bonds, in my opinion, thinking that -- you know,
granted, there's risk, but at the same time, there was a --
Kerr County was kind of standing behind them. But the other
side is, I can't -- I don't want to appropriate funds that
are just being thrown away, and waste taxpayer dollars. So,
this is really -- it's a tough call, to me. And I really --
you know, I'm trying to think it out. Is there any way that
we cannot ding our -- our financial rating, and try to work
something out with the bondholders? And I -- and I'm -- my
preference would be for the County to -- Commissioners Court
not to have to be involved with this, 'cause it's not our
problem, but it's kind of landed on our lap. And I will say
one thing; that if we do start funding things out there, the
Juvenile Board's going to have input from the Court. The
Juvenile Board makeup has got to change. I don't know who
changes that, if they have to change it or we change it.
MR. HENDERSON: My understanding is the
makeup of that board is set out by law.
MR. SPUR.GEON: Really, state statute. You'd
9-27-04
1
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 to go to the Legislature. Almost all juvenile boards
throughout the state are created by individual state
statute, and the statute itself tells -- tells the makeup of
the board.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But -- not the Juvenile
Board makeup, but the -- does the Juvenile Board have to be
the -- operate that facility?
MR. SPURGEON: It does. Under state law, the
Juvenile Board does have to, and it's composed of sitting
District Judges and the County Judge. Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, potentially real
high-risk bonds.
JUDGE TINLEY: Question.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner Letz
helped me when he framed the issue in terms of what do we
do; we compare it to a personal bankruptcy. That -- that
helped me, helped clarify some of the options for me.
Another way to frame it is, look at it in terms of what you
would do if this was an operation that was in the private
sector. What you wouldn't do when you look to an operation
that had no hope of the revenues ever exceeding costs, you
wouldn't go to your stockholders and say, "We want to stay
in this business forever." Now, if that's an accurate
assessment, why would we in government go to our taxpayers
and say, "We have no hope of the revenues ever meeting the
9-27-09
58
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
costs for this facility, but we want you to fund it
forever"?
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Spurgeon, if the Court
appropriates for debt service, what is the obligation of the
Court, if any, to -- to be responsible for funding any
shortfall in operational costs?
MR. SPURGEON: Judge, I don't think there's
any obligation under the documents. The documents are
couched in terms of making lease payments, and those lease
payments are tied to the payment of debt service. I don't
think you have an obligation to be funding a shortfall in
operations. Now, that can become problematic, of course, in
terms of the ability to run the facility, but I don't think
you have an obligation under the documents. Or let me -- in
order to appropriate -- to appropriate -- we've talked
before about whether ycu have an obligation or not to
appropriate, and I think you are clear that you don't have
the obligation to appropriate. But if -- in order to avoid
a nonappropriation situation, I think the general obligation
would be to fund the lease payments, which are for the debt
service.
JUDGE TINLEY: With regard to the official
statement or prospectus which was issued to the prospective
purchaser of these bonds, I believe it's been indicated the
nonappropriation was clearly disclosed as one of the risks
9-27-04
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
for the bonds?
MR. SPURGEON: Yes, sir, it was. There's a
number of places on the cover page, and there's a
bondholder's risk section. There's a number of places where
it's -- it is listed as being a nonappropriation on the part
of the Juvenile Board first, which is -- which operates the
facility under an operating agreement with the County. I
mean, so, number one, there's a nonappropriation risk in
terms of the Juvenile Board actually doing so, and then
there's a -- a further statement regarding the County's --
no obligation to appropriate. And it's in there a number of
times throughout.
JUDGE TINLEY: Was there another risk
mentioned under the potential risk to the purchasers of
those bonds of the sources of revenue for the Juvenile
Board?
MR. SPURGEON: There is a section, Judge,
that does talk about the potential shortfalls that could
happen, and actually mentions two things that have happened.
It said something about that there is no assurance that
you're going to retain the same amount of juveniles. And I
can read part of it to you, Judge, but the other -- it talks
about shortfall in state revenues, that there is no
assurance the State may continue to fund in the manner in
which they've been funding. So -- I mean, and these are twc
9-27-09
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
of the main things that have occurred in this situation, and
those are both disclosed here in the official statement,
yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Somewhat prophetic.
MR. SPURGEON: Somewhat.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
MR. SPURGEON: But they were very --
potential risks. I mean, you had a facility out there that
-- a good deal of your juveniles were non-Kerr County
residents, and you have -- you have no control as to how
those sentencing patterns would continue and those kind of
things. And some facts have occurred -- or circumstances
have occurred after the issuance of the bonds that have
caused a real snowball effect in terms of less juveniles
being there. And others can speak to that far better than I
can, but those are the facts as I understand them. And the
same thing with the State, with all of its budgetary
problems during the last legislative session. They've put
some pressure on, and have reduced the per diems on certain
classes of juvenile detainees, is my understanding also.
JUDGE TINLEY: As well as regulatory
requirements increasing the operational costs.
MR. SPURGEON: Someone else could speak to
that better than I, Judge. I've heard that as a -- as also
a further pressure on the operating side of the equation.
9-27-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
61
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I guess Commissioner
Letz and I were kind of on the same page with respect to
trying to find a solution, and I want to go back to it
again -- or comment to you, Tom, and to Bob. We'll see
where we go.
MR. SPURGEON: That's fine.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If we were to
appropriate the dollars, $412,000, we do so knowing that
this will be paid down. That will take care of the interest
and the payment in '04-'05. That's a correct assumption?
MR. SPURGEON: That's correct. That's right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Then, can we
engage the trustee -- with the assurance that the next
payment is going to be paid and that the trustee doesn't
have to use his funds in trust to do so, can we then engage
the -- a representative of the bondholders to restructure
the debt? Is that the appropriate time, and can that be
done at that time?
MR. SPURGEON: Commissioner, I -- I guess the
question -- the word "can" is fairly important in there. I
don't think you have the legal authority to -- to engage the
bondholders.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We being the
Commissioners Court, or the facility corp.?
9-27-04
62
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. SPURGEON: Actually, you being the
Commissioners Court. You being the lessee under the lease
agreement.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What about the
facility corp.?
MR. SPURGEON: Same thing. I think we're
still dealing with -- what I'm getting to is, there's --
first of all, there's no assurance that the bondholders
would agree to any sort of a restructure. I mean, under the
circumstances, I think that they'd probably be fairly
willing to listen. So, I mean, because there's not been a
formal default, the documents don't require the trustee to
be stepping in and those things. I do think, though, under
the circumstances, that you would have a situation where the
bondholders would be fairly willing to come in and talk to
the Juvenile Board, talk to the County, try to resolve a
problem that's going to be a long-term problem --
potentially could be a long-term problem. Who knows how
these revenues may come back? None of us can predict that.
But -- but I would think that they would be willing to step
in and work with you, and in -- in possible solutions to it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. That's a
maybe. That's a maybe. That's not a given.
MR. SPURGEON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. And the only
9-27-04
63
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
way it becomes a given is that the trustee would engage us
in discussions if we fail to appropriate.
MR. SPURGEON: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. SPURGEON: That's correct. Now, I might
also --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If we fail to
appropriate, that gets his attention really quick.
MR. SPURGEON: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Then he's willing to
sit down and talk about restructuring. Absent that, it's
just kind of a maybe if we haven't gotten his attention,
whoever he is.
MR. HENDERSON: I hate to practice law
without a lawyer -- without a license. You know, I think it
-- it gets -- not only gets us his attention, to use your
vernacular, Commissioner, but it gives him the legal
authority now. The problem, as I see it, is that until
there's a nonappropriation, there's nothing in the documents
that triggers the trustee's legal authority to -- to start
acting on behalf of anybody.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me make one more inquiry,
if I might. Let's assume for the moment there's a failure
to appropriate, and let us further suppose that during the
9-27-04
64
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
course of the coming year, a solution is found to the
satisfaction of all parties in interest. What effect, if
any, does that have on any adverse or downgrading of the --
of the County's bond rating or other credit standing?
MR. SPURGEON: I'm going to pass it back to
Bob.
MR. HENDERSON: Well, based on the
conversations I've had with the regional manager of Standard
and Poor's, if there's a failure to appropriate, Standard
and Poor's is going to take relatively immediate action on
the -- on the bond rate in question. Obviously, we would be
there arguing, you know, the Commissioners Court decided
this whole thing, and continuing to express, as directed --
if it's directed by the Commissioners Court, you know, a
continuing desire to try to resolve this -- these matters.
But the short answer is, they're talking about immediate
action should there be a nonappropriation.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How does that
translate, Bob, into basis points? More basis points we'd
have to pay on bonds -- future bonds?
MR. HENDERSON: Well, again, you know, if --
it's not going to affect you at all unless you try to issue
new debt, and then if you do issue new debt, it's going to
be a function of what is the security behind that debt. I
think there are some examples out in the marketplace that if
9-27-04
65
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the Commissioners Court comes back and tries to issue
tax-secured debt, which is a very different animal than what
we're talking about here, there's a precedent that that
would suggest that, albeit at higher municipal bond
insurance premiums, you could probably continue to access
the capital markets at -- at market levels.
JUDGE TINLEY: My -- my question went a step
further than what the immediate action would be by the bond
rating agencies. If the situation were subsequently
resolved during the coming year by whatever means, some sort
of resolution, would any -- would any downgrading or loss in
credit standing be restored?
MR. HENDERSON: I think that it would. And I
say that based on, again, experiences that S & P's had with
other counties in similar situations. When those issues
have been resolved, the bond credit ratings have been
resolved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have a question I
should know the answer to. The first question is, the
County owns the -- the property out there? What does the
County -- we're the lessee of what? What's the --
MR. SPURGEON: Actually, the lessor. The
actual owner of the property is the Hill Country Juvenile
Facility Corporation. That was the issuer of the bonds. I
don't know if the County actually owns the land.
9-27-04
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
MR. WATTS: It's included.
MR. SPURGEON: That's actually part of the
Juvenile Facility Corporation; they're the owner of the
property.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, the County has no
involvement in any way?
MR. SPURGEON: That's my understanding,
that's correct.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, you said the County
being the lessee. Did you mean the Juvenile --
MR. SPURGEON: No. Actually, the County is
lessee under the documents. The Juvenile Board is the
operator under an operating agreement between the County and
the -- and the Juvenile Board. The reason it was set up
that way, Commissioner, is that from the -- the juvenile
board laws are very -- they're -- archaic is a good word.
There's not much financing ability under the juvenile board
laws, and in order to do this transaction tax-exempt, the
County was involved as the lessee. And there -- and the
Public Facility Corporation Act clearly permitted this type
of a structure, which was -- as Bob mentioned earlier, was
kind of used back in '97 to redo the Recor situation. But
that -- the involvement was the Juvenile Board is operating
it on behalf of the County, if you will, pursuant to an
operating agreement, and that's the agreement that I think
9-27-04
67
1
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 had said something about. Juvenile
Board is responsible for all payments, et cetera. But in
order to, you know, completely close the -- close the loop,
if you will, and to be able to do a financing, the County
would continue to be the lessee, but again, subject to
appropriation. So --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've got a couple
questions to Bob. Clearly, we all understand that if we do
not appropriate, that it'll affect our debt rating in a
negative way. And I think I heard you say earlier that if
we do appropriate, there's a possibility of it affecting our
debt rating in a negative way. Did I not hear that?
MR. HENDERSON: Yes, you did hear that,
Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Would you explain that
one more time?
MR. HENDERSON: Well, I think that -- you
know, based on my conversations with Standard and Poor's,
they recognize that, again, a number of facilities across
the state are incurring significant operating losses with
respect to the operations of juvenile detention facilities.
And I think that if the Commissioners Court were to take on
not only the debt obligation here through an appropriation
of the lease payments, but were also to take on the
obligations of funding the operations of the juvenile
9-27-04
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
facility, that would represent, from the view of the rating
agencies, a significant additional budget burden to Kerr
County. And -- and given the uncertainty of what -- exactly
what that burden is, given that we can't predict, you know,
changes in the legislative position on reimbursements, on --
on liability limitations and other things, that that would
have a negative impact on the County's bond rating. So, to
be clear, I do not think that appropriating simply for the
debt service would have a negative impact on the County's
bond rating, but I think -- but I think that appropriating
for the debt service and assuming obligation -- obligation
of funding the juvenile facility, given the uncertainty
involved, could potentially have a negative funding
operation. And I think, based on my conversations with
Standard and Poor's --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Particularly when
we're asked to come up with 400-something thousand dollars
three days before the budget adoption. That -- I mean, the
time frame is a little strange. But thank you very much.
Judge, you know what I'd like to hear? I'd like to hear --
what if -- what if we did appropriate this money, or if God
dropped this big bundle of money out of the sky today. I'd
like to hear from Mrs. Harris of what the real plan is, or
what -- what she views this thing of getting that system
going, to get it back on its own feet without the
9-27-04
69
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
continuation of taxpayer's money. Would it be appropriate
to hear from Mrs. Harris today?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I don't know why it
wouldn't. But, at this point, I think we need to give our
court reporter a little break here.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That'd be fine.
JUDGE TINLEY: She's been -- she's been
pretty heavily engaged here. Why don't we take a recess
until five or ten till, and we'll come back and resume
discussion of this issue.
(Recess taken from 10:40 a.m, to 10:55 a.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's come back to
order. We went in recess approximately 15 minutes ago, and
we're still on the second item on the agenda. For
informational purposes, Commissioner Nicholson and I have
a -- have a commitment during the lunch hour, actually
beginning prior to that, and so it's my intention to call a
recess at 11:30, to come back at approximately 1:00 this
afternoon and resume wherever we are at that time.
Commissioner Williams indicated he had one more quick
question for Mr. Henderson or Mr. Spurgeon.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Either one. Either
one or both. Just -- Bob, just for some clarification here,
there seems to be some thought running around in the room
9-27-04
70
l
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 intent of my question about either appropriating or
not appropriating was to, in effect, tell the bondholders to
go whistle in the dark and their money was gone away.
That's not my intent at all.
MR. HENDERSON: I didn't take it that way,
sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: My intent would be to
use the window of opportunity in restructuring, if that's an
available option, so as to be able to make the current
bondholders whole. Eliminate the call penalty, make them
whole, and start again on lower-interest bonds, if at all
possible. That's -- that was the intent of my question.
MR. HENDERSON: Yes, sir. And -- and I think
that that, you know, can be done. Now, the question is, is
how do we best go about doing that? One way is to
nonappropriate, get the trustee to determine whether or not
to come in and start speaking with one voice on behalf of
all the bondholders. The other way is to -- is to go ahead
and appropriate, wherein, as a lay person, it's my
understanding that the trustee would not have the legal
authority to act on behalf of the bondholders, and what we
would be left to do is to request a -- which we actually
have already requested, just haven't gotten it yet -- a list
of all the bondholders, and go about trying to create a
bondholder committee without using a trustee, and -- and try
9-27-04
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
to achieve those things. But -- but certainly, you know, I
understand that it was your intent to -- to proceed in a way
that continues to leave the door open for solutions to be
found.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Henderson.
Ms. Harris is with us today, Ms. Becky Harris. She's the
director and administrator of the Kerr County Juvenile
Detention Facility, and I believe Commissioner Baldwin
wanted a -- a synopsis of what her intentions were with
regard to the operation of that facility, and -- and how she
intends to proceed for its best financial interests.
MS. HARRIS: No pressure. When I was hired
by the Juvenile Board in June, I was given a challenge to
turn the facility around. There were several issues at the
facility when I took over as the administrator. When I took
the facility over as the administrator in June, I did
implement a -- a number of changes. I turned the entire
mind-set and philosophy of that facility around 180 degrees,
because the times are no longer purely correctional for the
kids. Those times are no longer viable, because you have
different entities across the state that believe in more
rehabilitative issues to be blended in with corrections.
Having said that, my expertise is the blending of treatment
rehabilitation, if you will, with the correctional modality.
9-27-09
72
1
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 my expertise. That's what I did in San Angelo. That
was my -- that's my intentions to complete that here. My
staff at the facility are -- I will put them up against any
staff in the state. They're extremely good in what they do.
They're like on automatic pilot; I can give a directive, and
they go handle it. And that's the kind of atmosphere that I
build, and that's the atmosphere that I'm building at this
facility. Yes?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask you a
question real quick.
MS. HARRIS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Didn't you bring some
staff folks from your former position in San Angelo?
MS. HARRIS: Yes, I did.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How many of those?
MS. HARRIS: Six.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Six?
MS. HARRIS: I brought six people from San
Angelo that applied for positions that were open. They went
through the interview process. And, naturally, I knew their
expertise.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They moved here?
MS. HARRIS: They moved here. They moved
their families here, yes. They certainly did. They have
been -- those six individuals have been instrumental in --
9-27-04
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
in helping with the changes in the philosophy of the
facility. The Kerr County employees that remained at the
facility after I got there have just been more than
cooperative. They have been open to the change. They have
embraced it, and they have seen the difference in the way
that we handle the kids and the way that we treat the kids,
and just the entire philosophy is different. And I don't
want this to sound how it's probably going to sound, and I'm
going to try to make it where it's not sounding
braggadocious. I do know people across the state, and they
do know the type of facilities that I run and know the type
of program that I have. And since I've been here, we have
brought on some counties that have not placed kids at the
facility for quite some time, or at all, and we now have
those counties on board. And that's an extremely positive
thing.
I get phone calls from chief probation
officers wanting to know how the meeting went on September
the 17th with T J.P.C. Board of Directors. What was the
outcome of that? Very interested in that. They're wanting
to know how things are going at the facility. And I'm in
constant contact with a lot of the chief probation officers
and placement officers across the state, and they're very
positive about sending juveniles to us. Now, granted,
we're -- we are at the end of the fiscal year for the large
9-27-04
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
majority of the counties in the state, and so counties are
hesitant about sending kids starting somewhere around July,
August, September. They're hanging onto their money, if
they've got any money left. Most of the counties don't have
any money left for placement, so they're waiting for their
next fiscal year. So, come October 1, then we'll start
seeing an influx of kids and our population will increase.
That's the normal pattern. It happens for every facility in
the state. So, come October 1 -- we're already starting to
see some kids come in for the month of September, more
than -- more than usual, because some counties' fiscal year
starts September 1.
Not only have I changed the mind-set and the
philosophy of the facility -- and that's an ongoing process,
but we're 90 percent there, which is remarkable in the 90
days that I've been there. And that is a credit to the
staff, not anything I did. That's a credit to the staff
wanting changes to happen, and being on board for those
changes. Adding the substance abuse treatment program is
going to be a big shot in the arm. Just this week, I --
last week I finished -- we had our walk-through monitoring
visit for the physical plant; there were zero deficiencies.
That is a credit to the existing staff out there, the Kerr
County staff. I turned in the application. Policies and
procedures, I edited the policy and procedures in order to
9-27-04
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
incorporate TCADA's standards, so forth and so on. They
sent a letter back to me, and there were a few of the
policies and procedures that they wanted tweaked a little
bit more. I did that, got that sent off, got it overnighted
to them. So, our substance abuse license -- I can almost
hold it in my hand. It's there. It's just almost there.
Once that's in place, then I will be able to
bring in a more specialized treatment program, and which
will allow counties to send us kids that have a substance
abuse diagnosis on their psychologicals, and there is a huge
need for that across the state. Yes, there's some other
facilities out there that offer the same thing. Yes, and
those facilities are also in financial problems. And I hate
to make this sound like I'm a buzzard sitting on a fence,
but that's exactly what I am. I'm the biggest, blackest
buzzard sitting on the fence waiting for other facilities to
close, and then I'll take their population. In the
meantime, we're going to be bringing in kids on our own
volition and our own reputation, which is extremely
well-known across the state, and it's a good reputation.
Before I ever got here -- and I think I shared this with you
before. Before I ever got here, Kerr County was -- was the
foremost facility in the state for substance abuse treatment
a few years ago. Number one. There was a waiting list out
there for counties to send kids. That facility was full.
9-2~-04
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
And I'm not going to promise you pie in the
sky. I'm not going to promise you that I'm going to pull a
rabbit out of a hat. I'm not going to promise anything.
The one thing I will promise is that I will work my hardest,
and so will the staff, to get the population up, maintain
the impeccable reputation that the facility has, keep
employees working. And the one thing that gets lost when
you're talking about money and budgets and bonds and
appropriation and nonappropriation, the one thing that gets
lost is the benefit to the kids, and that's what we're in
the business for. That's what I'm in the business for, is
to make a difference in the kids. And that's what we do,
and that's our job. And we produce a different product, if
you will, if you want to look at it on the business side.
So, my intentions are -- and the answer in response to
Commissioner Baldwin, my intentions are to continue to turn
this facility around. My intentions are to get more kids
in. My intention is to make a difference in those kids'
lives, build our reputation, and have a waiting list.
JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Harris?
MS. HARRIS: Yes, sir?
JUDGE TINLEY: In the course of this past
year, were additional regulatory requirements placed on
juvenile detention facilities, particularly this one?
MS. HARRIS: Yes, sir.
9-27-04
~~
1
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: Which caused your operational
expenses to increase?
MS. HARRIS: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: If so, how much?
MS. HARRIS: Yes, sir. It had to do with the
staffing issues. T.J.P.C. staffing requirements in the past
was one -- one juvenile detention officer to 12 kids, and
now it's 1-to-8 during the waking hours, and 1-to-12 at
night.
JUDGE TINLEY: What --
MS. HARRIS: Second issue --
JUDGE TINLEY: What effect has that had on --
MS. HARRIS: It's practically doubled.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- your operational
employee --
MS. HARRIS: It's practically doubled our
employees' salaries, yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions for
Ms. Harris?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just a general one. And
maybe -- I don't know -- is Tommy -- is he back there?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, he's here.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know if it's
better for you or Tommy, maybe the Judge. What -- I guess
we've heard so much doom and gloom about the long-term
9-27-09
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
prospects financially. What are the prospects of -- based
on the current reimbursement coming from the State and
current expenses out there, what are the prospects of the
facility standing on its own in the next couple of years? I
mean, assuming we get up to, I don't know, 80, 90 percent
occupancy or whatever, you know, is reasonable for a
top-notch facility.
MR. TOMLINSON: The fact that she has
mentioned about the staffing, the -- the salary costs at the
facility today are approximately $900,000 a year. When --
when the change was made in the staffing from 1-to-12 to
1-to-8, that's a -- that's a 50 percent increase. And if
you consider a $900,000 budget, that's a severe loss in --
increase in operating costs. At today's levels, I mean, we
not only have an issue with -- with funding from -- from the
State; we also have a competitive issue. There --
throughout the state, there's a range of -- of per diems
that are being charged by -- by facilities around the state
that are -- that range from $40 a day to $110 a day. The --
the issue is, in the -- from a competitive standpoint, is
that the -- the places that are -- that are charging these
low rates are -- are facilities that were built by state
funds. In 1995, the State of Texas issued $37.5 million in
bonds, and I understand that they -- that when those -- with
those dollars, they built 19 facilities around the state.
9-27-04
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
And, in fact, I read that in -- in -- when -- at the last
board meeting of T.J.P.C.; it was in their -- in the minutes
of their meeting. And also in the minutes of their own
meeting, it referenced the State of Texas subsidizing those
facilities approximately $22 a day per child. So, ever
since 1995, when those facilities were built, the State of
Texas has subsidized the facilities that were built with
state moneys. Well --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's hard to compete
with that.
MR. TOMLINSON: -- you can't compete with
that. So -- so we have -- you know, it's been a conscious
decision to maintain our -- our rates at a -- at an average,
I would say, to be able to compete with -- with those
people. So, until -- you know, until that changes or the
Legislature, you know, makes the decision that they're going
to fund the services that they're requiring, to where, you
know, County-run facilities or even privately-run facilities
can -- can break even, then -- then I don't see that -- that
we can absolutely break even, even if we're full. I mean,
at the current -- at the current levels.
JUDGE TINLEY: When you say "break even," are
you including or not including the debt service on the bond?
MR. TOMLINSON: I'm not including the debt
service. That does not include debt service. There --
9-27-04
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
there's a facility in east Texas that charges $40 a day.
You know, I talked to a County Auditor in -- in a county
adjacent to that county that they -- that planned to close
their -- part of their facility October 1st. So, you know,
there's -- there's a lot of issues from a financial
standpoint other than dust not having kids. I mean, it's
difficult to compete out there. And I look at this as a --
as one of those unfunded mandates by the State of Texas. I
mean, the cost of -- of rehabilitating juvenile offenders is
now on our back, and -- and not the state.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Tommy, how is -- how do
we handle the funds -- or the detainees out there that come
from Kerr County? Do we actually transfer the dollars to
the facility?
MR. TOMLINSON: We -- the contract between
the facility and Kerr County is the same as any other
contract. It's -- I would call it an arm's-length
transaction as to where, you know, Kerr County pays exactly
the same as -- as any other county.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Ms. Harris, just one
quick question.
MS. HARRIS: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Two parts. Will the
reimbursement rate from the State be the same for substance
abuse and alcohol detainees as any other type of detainee?
9-27-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
81
MS. HARRIS: Yes. It -- it won't make any
difference. The state -- T.J.P.C. doesn't care if you offer
a substance abuse treatment program or
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS:
MS. HARRIS: It's going
We're going to have to charge the same
substance abuse resident as we are for
resident. We're going to have to char
for competitive --
not.
Okay.
to be the same.
per diem for a
a non-substance abuse
~e the same per diem
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. The second
part of my question has to do with your most optimistic
projections.
MS. HARRIS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Once you get the
license in-hand --
MS. HARRIS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- what type of
census increase do you see as result of that?
MS. HARRIS: For the post-adjudication side,
of course, we have 42 available beds, because I found out --
remember me telling you about the dorm that we couldn't use
any more? Well, when I was up there on Friday, the 17th, in
talking with T.J.P.C. standards experts, we can use six of
those beds, so that puts the total number of beds available
for post-adjudication to 42, rather than 36. So, with 42
9-27-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
82
beds, I predict that I'll have all my substance abuse
licensed beds full, which I licensed for 18 beds. That will
be just the substance abuse kids. That's not going to be
counting all the other kids that we will get. So, 18 --
42 -- I'm going to predict that we'll be right at in the
mid-30's, quickly.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you very much. We
appreciate that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I have one
more -- one more issue that I'd like to bring up. Talking
about -- we've talked about all of our problems, and
Ms. Harris came along and talked about possible solutions.
There is one option that I'd like to get on the table while
Mr. Henderson and Mr. Spurgeon are here, and I -- I've asked
Sheriff Hierholzer to make a short presentation of a -- of a
short -- I mean, he's short, you know. I call on him 'cause
he's small. And to -- an option that I would like for him
to just throw out at us so we can chew on it, and to see
that possibly there is other avenues.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: He's holding up four;
you're holding up two. Well, it doesn't look good, from
what I've seen. But the only thing that I would say, if
this County were to actually go out and purchase that
facility and decide that it should be run -- I went out
9-27-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
83
there last week and visited with Ms. Harris some. I think
the County has to have a place to house juveniles. There's
no ands, ifs, or buts about that; it would cost us way too
much to transport them. But the only thing that I would
look at seriously doing is turning part of that facility --
those are two separate buildings out there, which would meet
jail standards. Turning part of it -- one of those
buildings into an outside work program trustee for adults,
like the outside program we have now with the
black-and-white striped inmates. I think that's very
beneficial. It would allow to it expand, 'cause it would
allow me a greater number of outside trustees to be able to
house due to classification, due to how you have to keep
them separate inside an adult jail.
The other thing that I would do is leave one
of the other facilities to house juveniles. But we differ
one thing on juvenile housing, and this is mainly because
I'm with Kerr County. I don't believe that we should be
bringing juveniles -- the little gang-bangers from Dallas,
Houston, Fort Worth, everywhere else, and bringing them here
to this community to house them, and put them in with our
kids and make our kids better gang-bangers. I just totally
disagree with that. I think if we want to do it like your
-- you run an adult facility, and housing our own juveniles
that are problems here, house them here and contract with
9-27-04
1
,_ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
84
our immediate surrounding counties, like we do in the adult
facility, just to house those here. On our preadjudication
ones, where it's ones we've -- we pick up, the County
already contracts to house most adjudication ones, I think,
or different places for substance abuse. But I think right
now, my personal opinion, I think we're bringing in kids
from other counties and, you know, we're being asked as
taxpayers to help fund that, and I don't believe in that.
Kerr County needs to take care of their own and deal with
them, and not worry about the other counties. But that's
the way I would see that facility being able to work.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Sheriff.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, just as a wrap-up
comment, I think -- are you done with this, I presume?
JUDGE TINLEY: Thought I was.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Later on the agenda
today, we have a budget item which this will be resolved
once and for all, and, you know, I don't know that everyone
is going to stay around for that. My feeling is that I can
not justify voting to appropriate the funds. Which I'm sure
will, you know, get out to the bondholders pretty quick.
But I hope the people that are here would express a -- you
know, a desire from the -- my standpoint, and the
Commissioners Court, to work with them in -- the bondholders
in some way to solve the problem, whether it's issuing all
9-27-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
85
new debt under some different whole new thing, something
Rusty was talking about, or -- I don't know. I think that
-- I think that probably most of us up here, if not all,
don't like the situation we're in at all. It's a very
difficult decision. I would have to look at the taxpayers
and our responsibility to them first, not the bondholders
first. And -- but that doesn't mean that I'm not interested
in seriously trying to work out some way to make them whole,
and hopefully we can do that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. We've got another
timed item that we're way overdue on. Mr. Gary Looney, with
Catto and Catto, our employee health benefits consultant
that -- that the Court voted to retain for assistance in our
health benefits program, has been very patient, and we're
going to push it over to him. He says five minutes.
MR. LOONEY: Five? Is that okay?
JUDGE TINLEY: Hey, what a guy. Good to have
you with us here today, Mr. Looney.
MR. LOONEY: Thank you. My name is Gary
Looney. Judge Tinley -- thank you, Commissioners. I got to
tell you gentlemen that I -- every time I come to a
Commissioners Court meeting, I get that much more respect
for what you all have to do. And when I start listening to
Mr. Henderson talk, I kind of go into a zone, and,
unfortunately, sometimes when he hears me talk, he goes into
9-27-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
86
a different zone, because we both speak two different
languages. I did hear him say "insurance." I did hear that
twice, which kind of woke me up. So, what I wanted to do is
give you kind of -- one, just let you see who I am, what I
do, and tell you briefly about the calendar of events, and I
have a couple of suggestions and recommendations.
First of all, I've been in the insurance
business for the last 37 years. I was sold into indenture
by my father when I was very young, and have been doing it
ever since. The licensing that I hold, I'm a registered
employee benefits consultant, life and health insurance
counselor, and all those other things. What I intend to
do -- what we want to do is to -- the goal that we have is
to find the very best product for your employees at the very
best price for the people who elected you all. I want to
take care of the taxpayers, take care of the money, and also
want to take care of the employees of the county. Through
the end of September, we are requesting information from
your current carrier that will allow us to put on the
street -- put out into the general public a Request for
Proposal. That Request for Proposal takes on a little bit
different nature than it has in the past, because we had law
changes take place in June of 2002 and December of 2003 that
have given us a huge opportunity for plan design, different
product designs that we never had before, things that we can
9-27-04
1
2
..--
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
87
do for benefits and employees that really open a window of
opportunity for a lot of plan design issues.
We will put that Request for Proposal out the
first week in October -- or the end of the first week in
October. We expect responses back by the beginning of the
first week of November. Then I will make presentations to
you all within 10 to 14 days of receiving those bids. That
time frame -- that calendar of events is somewhat impacted
by the ability of your current provider to be certain that
we get the information through the end of September on a
timely basis. I've already been in touch with the
Treasurer, and will be submitting to her that very formal
request of information that we need from the current
carrier, and I suspect and hope that they will be helpful in
getting that information to us. During this bid process, I
know that there will be a lot of agents involved, and
hopefully, during the bid process, there will not be a lot
of politicking going on for the agent position. But one
thing that we do during the RFP process is we require an
insurance company to name a specific agent to the contract
that they're bidding, which means that there's not going to
be multiple agents named to multiple bids, which puts you
all in the position of having to select an agent. So, you
will not be put into the position of having to select an
agent; the bid process will eliminate that concern.
9-27-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
88
I do speak a different language. I speak
very quickly sometimes, and I use a lot of acronyms. And,
as a result of that, one of the things, because of the law
changes, I would like to very strongly recommend is that we
have a workshop sometime during the month of October where I
can come to you gentlemen and tell you what the law changes
are, give you a demonstration of the information that will
be provided to us prior to the bids actually being
completed, so that when: the time comes for us to discuss in
court the changes and the -- and the opportunities that we
might have, that you'll have a better understanding of what
information I am going to tell the Court. I look forward
very much to working with you. Regardless of all those
things that they've said about the Commissioners Court in
Kerr County and appropriating funds, nonappropriating funds,
I don't believe all that. The one thing I can say, though,
is that when we're dealing with employees' dollars, the
Juvenile Detention Center's going to look very simple,
because that -- that appropriation is going to be a lot more
difficult.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you for that
good news.
MR. LOONEY: Anybody have any questions?
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you very much,
9-27-04
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
MR. LOONEY: I look forward to working with
you gentlemen.
JUDGE TINLEY: We appreciate your patience
today and the delay in getting you on at 9:30, as I promised
you.
MR. LOONEY: That's quite all right. Thank
you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. We appreciate
that. It's almost 11:30, so we'll stand in recess until
1:00 this afternoon.
(Discussion off the record.)
(Recess taken from 11:27 a.m. to 1:03 p.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to
order. We've been in recess for the lunch hour. Let's come
back to order and proceed with our timed items. The next
timed item on the agenda, which has long since been passed,
is a public hearing. Therefore, I will recess the
Commissioners Court meeting and open a public hearing on the
proposed salary expenses and other allowances of elected
county or precinct officers for the Fiscal Year 2004-2005.
(The regular Commissioners Court meeting was
closed at 1:04 p.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 any member of the
9-27-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
90
public present that wishes to be heard with respect to that
item?
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Seeing no one indicating a
desire to speak or coming forward, I will close the public
hearing on the proposed salary expenses and other allowances
of elected county or precinct officers for Fiscal Year
2004-2005.
(The public hearing was concluded at
1:05 p.m., and the regular Commissioners
Court meeting was reopened.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The next item on the agenda is
a timed item. I'm not sure if we're ready to proceed.
Well, we probably can, yes. It's a public hearing. I will
open a public hearing under Item 11 for the revision of a
plat for Tracts 28A and 28B of the Y.O. Ranchlands.
(The regular Commissioners Court meeting was
closed at 1:05 p.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 any member of the
public that wishes to be heard with respect to the revision
of plat for Tracts 28A and 28B of Y.O. Ranchlands?
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Seeing no one giving an
indication of wanting to speak on that item or otherwise
9-27-04
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
coming forward to speak, I will close the public hearing for
the revision of the plat on Tracts 28A and 28B of the Y.O.
Ranchlands.
(The public hearing was concluded at 1:06
p.m., and the regular Commissioners Court
meeting was reopened.)
JUDGE TINLEY: I will now open a public
hearing for road name changes, regulatory signs, and road
abandonment under Item 13 of the agenda.
(The regular Commissioners Court meeting was
closed at 1:06 p.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 any member of the
public that wishes to be heard with respect to the road name
changes, regulatory signs, and road abandonment?
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Seeing no one coming forward
or otherwise indicating a desire to speak on that item, I
will close the public hearing for the road name changes,
regulatory signs, and road abandonment.
(The public hearing was concluded at 1:07
p.m., and the regular Commissioners Court
meeting was reopened.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The next timed item on the
agenda, I will open a public hearing at this time on the
9-27-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
92
proposed 2004-2005 Kerr County budget.
(The regular Commissioners Court meeting was
closed at 1:07 p.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 any member of the
public that wishes to be heard or otherwise inform the Court
in any manner about the proposed 2004-2005 Kerr County
budget? Any member of the public wishing to speak on the
proposed 2004-2005 Kerr County budget?
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Seeing no response from the
audience or the public generally, or no one coming forward,
I will close the public hearing on the proposed Fiscal Year
2004-2005 Kerr County budget.
(The public hearing was concluded at 1:08
p.m., and the regular Commissioners Court
meeting was reopened.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The next item on the agenda
that is a timed item, that was scheduled for a specific
time, is an item at 10:45, being Number 18, and I will now
reconvene the Commissioners Court meeting, and I will call
Item 18 on the agenda, which is discuss and consider a
resolution thanking Colonel Walter B. Harris for his service
to the Kerr County 9-1-1 Network. Commissioner Baldwin.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. Thank you
9-27-04
93
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
very much. I'd like to read the resolution into the record,
please.
"Whereas, for 14 years, Kerr Emergency 9-1-1
has provided emergency notification services for the
citizens of Kerr County; and
"Whereas, oversight for policies and
direction of this vital service through the years has come
from a dedicated Board of Managers representing all
political subdivisions and emergency service providers in
Kerr County; and
"Whereas, Colonel Walter B. Harris, Jr.,
Precinct 2, Kerr County, has provided the Board of Managers
his insight and experience in all aspects of their
deliberations during his years of service; now, therefore
"Be it resolved that the Kerr County
Commissioners Court does hereby extend its thanks and
appreciation to Colonel Walter B. Harris for his willingness
to serve the people of Kerr County and his dedication to the
betterment of Kerr Emergency 9-1-1.
"Adopted this 27th day of September, 2004."
Signed by the Commissioners Court of Kerr County. I move
for approval, Judge.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: With one correction,
9-27-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
94
Judge, before we --
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the resolution as indicated by Precinct 1
Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's one
correction. The word resolved on the "Be it Resolved,"
there's a typographical error in it, if Kathy will correct
that.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Is there any
further questions or discussion with regard to this
particular agenda item and the motion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Good job, Buster, in
writing that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. I've had a
great teacher up at Tivy back many years ago that -- and
she's just sitting down over there, and -- appreciate her.
She's behind this. Actually, Bill Williams wrote it, and I
thank you, Bill. And if you have any problems with the
wording or spelling, be it on yours.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I made the mistake.
Pass it over to Kathy; we'll blame her, though.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I've got some
comments on it, and the comments will somehow also tie in
the next item on the agenda, but they're related
specifically to this one. It's appropriate, in my view, to
9-27-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
95
commend Colonel Harris for his work. He's -- he's one of
those board members that you just get once in a while. He's
a hard worker, spends a lot of time. He's spent a lot of
time working with the director and representing the board in
the community. He's been a strong advocate of fiscal
responsibility for 9-1-1, even taking some difficult
positions in the past, such as opposing budgets that include
extravagant increase -- extravagant increases in salary
costs. He's got the -- in my opinion, the vision that's
needed to move 9-1-1 toward a high-performing emergency
service system. And 9-1-1 is facing some difficult
challenges now and in the near future. There's some
uncertainty as to whether 9-1-1 can fund the needed
equipment upgrades that are -- that are rapidly approaching.
The reliability of emergency dispatch needs improving.
9-1-1 apparently, because of budget difficulties, has
threatened to eliminate funding to the volunteer fire
departments to provide critical paging service. This
decision may result in litigation. I don't know about that,
but I know that's an issue that's on the table.
So, for all of these reasons, and because of
his competence and his leadership and his vision, and
because of the challenges facing 9-1-1, I think it is -- it
would be unwise to take him off that board at this time. I
know that he's not just willing to, but wants to continue
9-27-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
96
his work on the board, and I think that we should continue
to use him as the County's representative. That's all.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions,
comments, statements to be made? I had the -- I had the
privilege of acting as counsel to the 9-1-1 Board of
Managers for many, many years prior to coming onto the
Court, and during a portion of that time, Colonel Harris was
acting as a member of that board. And, based on my personal
experience of observing his activities and -- and his
efforts, I thought he did an excellent job. He was always
prepared. He seemed to be able to see difficulties ahead
before they were really up on the radar screen good, always
approached his duties in a very, very professional manner,
and at -- at times, if he thought there was some issues that
needed to be addressed and corrections made, was quite
steadfast in his resolve to do that. So, I have nothing but
the greatest of admiration for Colonel Harris and -- and his
activities on that board, having personally observed them
for some pretty good period of time. So, I -- I know he was
a valuable asset to that board, and could continue to be so
if the Court decides to go forward on that basis. Maybe
we'll do better, but I know we could sure do a lot worse.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a comment, if I
might. The -- I was probably, more than any other
Commissioner, instrumental in the way of making some changes
9-27-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
97
in board members out there, and also getting Colonel Harris
and some of the -- our other County representatives put on
that board. And, at the time they were put on the board,
the Commissioners Court felt a -- there was a certain type
of individual with certain needs -- certain expectations
needed out there. And I think that the current board -- or
the members of that board have gone a long, long ways in
making 9-1-1 operations, you know, certainly on the road to
improvement and doing a very good job, you know, and
creating addressing projects that could not get done up till
now.
I also think that there is a -- one of the
reasons the old board started having problems is there were
-- there was no changes. There was no new blood, no new
ideas. And I think one of the things I learned from that is
that it is incumbent on the County -- on not just, you know,
renewing people in positions. You know, we're better off
bringing new people in occasionally. And I personally feel
that we've -- well, I don't know about future appointments
out there, but I think there's -- Colonel Harris did a great
job, but I also think that there are other people that can
serve on that board very well, and I think get some new
ideas. There are new challenges, and I think there are --
you know, it's a good time to make a change.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further on this
9-27-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
98
particular item? All in favor of the motion before the
Court, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. The
next item on the agenda that is a timed item is Item Number
19, appoint Ron Vick as County representative to Board of
Governors of Kerr County 9-1-1 Network for two-year term.
Commissioner Baldwin again.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, sir. Yes.
In light of Commissioner Letz' comments about new visions
and new directions and -- and strength and courage and all
that, we have decided to nominate Mr. Vick to -- to that
two-year term out there. And Mr. Vick is -- I've known him
for a long time. He's a man of integrity, very intelligent.
Comes more from the business side of the fence than he does
the military side of the fence, so I think that he -- you
know, there's no doubt in my mind that he's going to be able
to look at the budget issues and those problems that Number
4 brought up that -- and be able to see what needs to be
done, and -- and will represent this Commissioners Court in
a fair and equitable way. So, I move that we appoint Ron
Vick as the County representative to the Board of Governors
of the Kerr County 9-1-1 Network for two years.
9-27-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
99
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item. Any question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd like to -- like to
say that Mr. Vick is in the audience. Mr. Vick, would you
stand up so we can --
MR. VICK: Certainly.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Football player for
Angelo State University.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I've known Ron a long
time, served on a number of boards with him. I think he
will do an outstanding job on that 9-1-1 Board of Governors.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or
comment?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON:
vote against that, and it doesn't have
Mr. Ron Vick. It has to do with the -
discussed a few minutes ago. I'm sure
and qualified citizen and will do a go
volunteer --
I'm -- I'm going to
anything to do with
- with the items I
he's a very capable
od job, as any
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Did you -- did you
just vote to -- the resolution --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: To commend.
25 I COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- to the Colonel?
9-27-04
100
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And you're voting
against replacing -- tell me what reason that is.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I've already
explained that. I think the continuity of having Colonel
Harris on there is more important than new blood.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So you're voting
against --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm willing to
commend Colonel Lewis for his past two years --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Colonel Lewis?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Colonel Harris'
performance, and I'm prepared to -- to appoint him to
another two-year term.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see what you're
saying. And it's -- one of those reasons is that KARFA is
thinking about suing 9-1-1? Is that --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: One of the reasons
is that there's -- 9-1-1 is facing some significant
challenges, and that's one of the challenges they may be
facing. I don't know a whole lot about that. And I think
the institutional memory that Colonel Harris possesses and
the continuity that it would provide is more important than
new blood.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Very good. Thank you.
9-27-04
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
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or
comment? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
{Commissioners Baldwin, Williams, and Letz
voted in favor of the motion.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Nay.
{Commissyoner Nicholson voted against the
motion.)
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would like to make
a comment.
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That Colonel Harris
has -- has indicated to me that he -- while he might be a
little upset about this change, he is perfectly willing to
continue to serve Kerr County on the Senior Advisory Board,
and will do so.
JUDGE TINLEY: The next item on the agenda
that is a timed item -- getting there pretty quick, aren't
we?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're working on it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Item Number 20, consider and
discuss the agreements and/or protocols needed to authorize
Kimble County or Junction to assume responsibility as
primary responder for 9-1-1 emergency calls made from the
Y.O. Ranchlands Subdivision.
9-27-04
102
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't think our
County Attorney's present. Get him up here, if you will.
We've been dealing with this issue. We've wondered what it
takes to make an interlocal agreement between Kerr County
and Kimble County to -- to allow Kimble County to provide
EMS services to the Y.O. Ranchlands estates. We've asked
the County Attorney to report to us on that issue, and I
understand he was out of town last week, and I notice that
his assistant's not here with us either. I think now I
believe -- I now believe it's a moot point. What we've
found is that in 2003, the County Attorney sent an
interlocal agreement to Kimble County, Texas, asking them to
-- and the interlocal agreement was to provide emergency
medical services. And Kimble County officials signed that
agreement and returned it, and they've never received a -- a
copy of the final agreement signed by the County Judge.
And then, also, we have found that on -- in
April of this year, the City of Kerrville sent an
essentially identical agreement to Kimble County to provide
for EMS services, and on the 20th of April, 2004, Kimble
County officials signed that and returned it to Kerr County
for the signatures of the City Manager and others, and the
same thing transpired; they have not, again, received a -- a
copy of the final signed agreement. But the whole point of
this is, I think that we had questions about whether or not
9-27-04
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
we could make a -- an agreement with Kimble County to
provide these services, and I think those questions have
been answered by the fact that we -- that we have previously
delivered to them interlocal agreements for their signature.
Mr. Budow?
MR. BUDOW: I think we're down to that simple
fact. In -- in the 10 days or two weeks since we last
spoke, we've worked through the protocol with Kimble County
and the 9-1-1 people here such that, to your questions at
the time, the protocol will be that when a citizen from our
subdivision places a call to 9-1-1, given the interlocal
agreement approval by -- by the Court, that a telephone
call -- not a radio page, not a throw it out in the air and
see who catches a signal -- a telephone call will be made
directly to the Kimble Sheriff's Office, just like it is
today on our fire side, and then they will dispatch it the
same way that they currently do the EMS. You had also asked
about the response time, and they're committed to four
minutes by contract with -- between the VFD, if you will, or
the employees of the VFD and the -- and their response time
to the EMS center. So, we're continuing to be confident
that this is the right solution. We've worked out with the
Sheriff's Office that they will also call the helicopter
service, so all of that will be coming to us simultaneously.
The only thing that -- that we lack at this time is -- is
9-27-04
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
really the signature on the interlocal agreement from the
County, as -- as I understand it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm not sure I
understand one aspect of this. Is the Kerr County EMS going
to -- Kerrville EMS going to continue to answer the call?
Where will the call come in to?
MR. BUDOW: The call will come to the 9-1-1
network.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Here?
MR. BUDOW: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. BUDOW: 'Cause that's the way the network
is set up.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes.
MR. BUDOW: And then they will pick up the
telephone and call Kimble dispatch.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And not -- and they
will not call Kerrville EMS?
MR. BUDOW: They will not. But they need
your -- they need the interlocal agreement to be approved in
order to do that. Otherwise, they're under the obligation
then to -- to make that call. So, they need you to say,
check, and -- and move on so that they can implement that
program.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: As I --
9-27-04
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
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We earlier had some
discussions about -- we were wanting some assurances that
the capability of that EMS group over there would be as
good, or at least adequate, if not as good as ours. And I
appreciate Rosa Lavender's research and excellent article in
the West Kerr Current on that. One of the things that
Ms. Lavender pointed out is that they have five ambulances
over there serving 4,500 people -- no, three ambulances
serving 4,500 people, and we have five ambulances serving
45,000 people. So, the ratio of ambulances to population is
much higher over there. And then she also in there had a
rundown of the capabilities of the EMT's, and it's pretty
impressive. So, if I lived out at Y.O. Ranchlands, I'd feel
like I was in pretty good -- pretty good shape. And they
can be there probably 30 minutes earlier or -- or faster
than someone coming out of Kerrville.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: As I recall -- go ahead.
JUDGE TINLEY: Help me understand where we
are exactly.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That was my question.
JUDGE TINLEY: We've got two interlocal
agreements, one between the County -- Kerr County, and
Kimble County-slash-Junction. We have another one between
the City of Kerrville EMS provider by contract, and Kimble
County-slash-Junction, both of which have been approved by
9-27-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
106
Kimble County-slash-Junction, but neither of which have been
approved by the City of Kerrville or Kerr County. Is that
where we are?
MR. BUDOW; They were both proposed, provided
by the County Attorney of Kerrville -- excuse me, the County
Attorney of Kerr and the City Attorney of Kerrville. So,
they were provided to Kimble, drafted by, written by,
approved by the Kerr County and the Kerrville people.
Kimble then just merely signed them and returned them, but
never received an executed copy. So, they were -- they were
not drafted or provided by the legal experts from the --
JUDGE TINLEY: Has Kerr County -- has this
Court, in fact, approved that agreement, and as a result,
our County Attorney drafted that?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: In 2003, a -- a
contract between Kerr County and Kimble County was drafted
and sent to Kimble County for signature. They signed it,
sent it back in, and haven't heard any more about it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Was that contract drafted at
the direction of the Court because the Court approved
such -- entering into such an agreement subject to the same
being drafted by the County Attorney?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I can't find a copy
of that in the courthouse.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Wasn't that for fire
9-27-04
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
services?
COMMISSIONER
emergency medical services.
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
probably a standard mutual
COMMISSIONER
NICHOLSON: No, it's for
WILLIAMS: The '03 agreement:
NICHOLSON: (Nodded.) It's
aid agreement.
WILLIAMS: I guess.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, where we're at
is, I'm making a motion that we direct the County Attorney
to -- to draft an interlocal agreement between Kerr County
and Kimble County/Junction for the Kimble County/Junction
EMS services to provide EMS services to the Y.O. Ranchlands
Estates, and that we authorize the County Judge to sign
that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I thought we have that --
I thought you just said we had that contract.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, apparently we can't --
Commissioner Nicholson has not been able to find where, in
fact -- even though the Court apparently directed the County
Attorney to do that, he can't find where the Court, in fact,
approved that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But there`s a signed
copy that exists. Is that what you said?
MR. BUDOW: In prior years.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, now I'm even more
9-27-04
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
confused.
MR. BUDOW: I have a --
JUDGE TINLEY: It was signed by Kerr County
earlier?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: By Kimble County.
MR. BUDOW: By Kimble County. Provided by
Kerr County, signed by Kimble, sent back, but never
countersigned, I think is the proper terminology.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I don't wish to unduly
complicate this, but, number one, I -- I think, as
Commissioner Nicholson is suggesting, we need to get the
Court's approval if that's the action that we're going to
take. But, secondly, I think, because of the existing EMS
contract that we have with the City of Kerrville, I think
our approval should be contingent upon the City, in fact,
consenting to this arrangement, as it were. I think that's
an integral part of it. Because, otherwise, we're bound by
other emergency medical services with the City of Kerrville
here in Kerr County.
MR. BUDOW: Exclusively?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, we excluded the
helicopter question, but I don't think we excluded the
other, is the problem that we have.
MR. BUDOW: What can I do to facilitate
getting an answer to that? 'Cause we --
9-27-04
1
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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's the same question I
had last week, or two weeks ago. The same question, is that
the -- if -- for me to vote for this, the City of Kerrville
has to agree to change -- to sign off on it, I don't care
if they amend the contract or what they do, but we're --
because what will happen now is that they're, by contract,
still the primary responsibility.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Your --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can't change that
unless that contract is changed.
MR. BUDOW: Does this contract not call for
certain standards to be met, response time?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What I would like is
for the County Attorney to tell me whether or not it's
correct.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I can't make the County
Attorney do something. I mean, I've said the same thing for
three weeks, three meetings in a row.
MR. BUDOW: If you were to vote on an
interlocal agreement and approve that, then the onus becomes
on the County Attorney to follow through. If they choose
not to take action on your motion or approval, then I can --
I can address that, But I -- I can't -- I can't tell them
or go after them or pursue them if you're not willing to
take a position, and I haven't heard anything contrary to
9-27-09
110
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
approving it other than you can't get them to take action.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: "Them" being?
MR. BUDOW: The County Attorney.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can't ever make the
County Attorney -- we just don't have that authority. I
mean, we can't direct him to do something.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I can understand
Commissioner 4's frustration.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I apologize for
getting angry, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But the Judge is
right; we've got to get, almost simultaneously, or perhaps
just in advance of -- of the Kimble agreement, we've got to
get the City of Kerrville's consent not to be required to be
the principal response to west -- to far west Kerr. 'Cause,
by contract, they're obligated to be that.
MR. BUDOW: Are they not also obligated to
perform under certain standards, or to a certain standard,
meet a certain time commitment or -- or provide a certain
service within a specified period of time within that
contract?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There are some
response times for fire. I`m not sure for ambulance.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You have a point. But, I
mean, I think to -- to move forward today, which I know
9-27-04
111
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
would make you very happy, I mean, why don't we -- could we
not do a -- a motion for us to approve it, you know, in
concept, contingent on the City of Kerrville signing off on
it, either by amending the interlocal agreement we have
with -- the contract we have with them, and authorize you to
sign it? That way it doesn't have to come to us again. But
you still have to deal with the City of Kerrville and County
Attorney.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's my whole point. I've
got no problem with this Court considering this action, but
I don't want to be left hanging out and having it alleged
that we're in breach of our EMS contract with the City. And
as soon as the City will consent to this proposed agreement
that apparently their own attorney wrote and signed off on,
you know, that'll -- that'll make it go into effect
automatically if this Court approves it here today.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't have any
problem with that -- with that approach. Who wants to frame
the motion?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm not sure I
understand it. How is that different than us just
unilaterally acting and waiting to see if they react to it?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 'Cause we have a
contract. Our action could cause us to have a breach of --
of another agreement we already have if they don't agree.
9-27-04
112
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.--,
25
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay.
MR. BUDOW: Versus them not meeting a
standard that's currently in the contract?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not sure what's in
the current contract.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What is the standard
you refer to?
MR. BUDOW: Well, I'm in the process of
trying to get my hands on that, but I thought all of you
would have had it and looked it at it by the fact that it's
coming up on the budget for review, right? You've been
given notice of cancellation.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, that's a year
out. That's a year out.
MR. BUDOW: So, you -- you'll look at it a
year from now when -- when it comes up. Then -- then I
guess my -- my concern is -- is that there's a standard
that's in that agreement. I can't imagine that they can
take three hours or whatever amount of time they want to
meet your service requirement. So, whatever it is --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm sure it's a
reasonable standard, though.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Mr. Budow, the
standard is, quote, "best effort". Beyond "X" miles --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: For example, if they have
9-27-04
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
three ambulances and all three ambulances are out on calls,
obviously -- well, then it goes to mutual aid agreement;
another county will respond.
MR. BUDOW: But there's no mutual aid
agreement. You haven't provided a backup.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we have a mutual
aid agreement with --
MR. BUDOW: Well, but you didn't if it's
not -- because it's not signed. If you would have a mutual
aid agreement with Kimble, I -- I don't have to call 9-1-1.
I can call Kimble directly. The only thing that I'm trying
to simplify here is by making one 9-1-1 call and having that
call directed to Kimble. If I instruct my subdivision --
our subdivision to call Kimble directly, then we can take
9-1-1 and Kerrville entirely out of the loop without any
additional responsibility on your part. That would be
another alternative, as opposed to just throwing one up and
saying, well, do it. But under a contingency --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I was under the
impression we had a mutual aid agreement. Let's ask the
Sheriff. Don't we have mutual aid agreements with all
surrounding counties?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I believe we do with
fire. I'm not sure with --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: EMS doesn't?
9-27-04
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
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I think a lot of the
fire -- I'm kind of wondering about 2003, if that wasn't
really meant for fire, 'cause that was around the time of
the Sheppard Rees stuff when they started trying to get into
that.
MR. BUDOW: These are copies of the Kerrville
agreement. I don't -- didn't bring copies of the --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
MR. BUDOW: -- Kerr County agreement, but
they're very specific, EMS. They're not about fire; they're
about EMS. And this is the one drafted by the Kerrville --
City of Kerrville, and there's a similar one drafted by the
County of Kerr.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And I know at times out
there in the Y.O. Ranchlands, there have been actual times
in the past where Kerrville EMS has even asked for Kimble
County to respond also, and they get there quicker and that,
so there may be some that's operating under. I don't know,
but I'm --
MR. BUDOW: This particular agreement was
provided by Kyle Young, the Kerrville EMS coordinator. Just
-- the fellow that was in here the last time, Eric Maloney,
he is temporarily filling in since Kyle left. But this was
provided by the Kerrville EMS team. I don`t --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But anyway -- okay, I'll
9-27-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
115
make a stab at a motion. I'll move that we approve an
interlocal mutual aid agreement for emergency medical
services between Kerr County and Kimble County, and
contingent on approval of -- as to form from the County
Attorney, and approval as to -- and approval of the City of
Kerrville to a similar agreement, or -- to a similar
agreement, and authorize the County Judge to sign the same.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That would be an
amendment to the Kerrville agreement.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know how they
want to do it. It's something that would accomplish that in
the City of Kerrville's --
JUDGE TINLEY: Either by amending the
existing EMS agreement that Kerr County has with the -- with
the City of Kerrville, or by --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: A mutual aid agreement.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- a similar mutual aid
agreement which, in essence, consents to this activity.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I second that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Any
further question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What will be the
process coordinating this with the City of Kerrville?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Walk it over to Ron
9-27-04
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
Patterson. I mean, I'm serious; that's how I would get it
done. I think to get --
JUDGE TINLEY: Hand him this and ask him if
he'll sign it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Get it approved by their
counsel.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Get it form-approved by
the County Attorney. That should be done.
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: That motion does carry.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I thank you for your
patience, Mr. Budow.
MR. BUDOW: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I apologize for my
impatience.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, I think that's all of
the timed items that we had, unless I missed something here.
Why don't we go back to the --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Item 1.
9-27-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
117
JUDGE TINLEY: -- beginning of the agenda,
yes. Yes. First item on the agenda is consideration and
approval of the Kerr County Community Plan. Mr. Kevin
Stanton. Mr. Stanton has been the chairman on the Community
Plan that's -- how many meetings have y'all had in the last
several months?
MR. STANTON: Three. We've had three
meetings and a lot of contact by e-mail. But we've been --
we've got a committee of about 22 people that have met and
gone over the needs and concerns and -- and produced the
Community Plan for 2004-2005. It's been submitted to AACOG
for their review, and they've gotten back to us and said
that everything that needs to be there is there, and that I
just need to bring it before the Commissioners Court for
their final approval.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What's the status of
the task force?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't believe he'd
have anything to do with that on that part of it. And we
haven't heard any more than what --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The way -- wait, I'm
fixing to vote on this document, and they are included in
it.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right, as -- as set
priorities. But as far as what the actual status and what
9-27-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
118
the --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are they still around?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: They're still here right
now. Their budget year doesn't start till June.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And they're going to
be here this following year that this plan covers?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't know. Depends
on what the Legislature and State does come June at their
budget time.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I move for
approval, if that's what we're looking for, approval of the
Kerr County plan.
JUDGE TINLEY: Community Plan.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Community Plan.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll second it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item. 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: That motion does carry. Thank
you very much, Mr. Stanton.
MR. STANTON: Just so the -- the
9-27-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
119
Commissioners know, AACOG has already set up the grant
workshops for the grants that are eligible for -- to be
applied for, and if anybody would like to know when those
grant workshops are, I'd be happy to give that information
to them. And all the grants have to be turned in to AACOG
no later than November 19th at 4 o'clock.
JUDGE TINLEY: Short fuse.
MR. STANTON: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Next item on the agenda is to
consider, discuss, and approve the replacement of judges
and/or alternate judges for the 2004 general election.
Ms. Pieper?
MS. PIEPER: Gentlemen, as you`ll recall,
back in July y'all appointed the judges and the alternates,
and since that time we have had a couple that are going to
be out of town or, you know, something came up. Precinct
215, we need to replace the alternate judge, and the
Democratic Chair has submitted the name of Selma Gibson.
Precinct 314 alternate judge, Joseph Arredondo. Precinct
404 alternate judge, Jane Alley. Precinct 416 judge, we
want to change that to James O'Flaherty, and that was
submitted by the Republican Chair. And Precinct 320
alternate judge with Margaret Steele.
9-27-04
120
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, you want a motion
to approve these? So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the replacement or alternate judges as indicated
by the Clerk in her presentation. 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: That motion does carry.
MS. PIEPER: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Next item on the agenda is
consider and approve costs for copy of the 2004-2005 budget.
Ms. Pieper? In years past, that cost has been set by the
Court at what?
MS. PIEPER: Yes. By law, I have to charge a
dollar a page unless I get a court order stating that it's
so much -- a certain price per book. In the past, we've
gone -- we -- it was $12 one year, and I think $25 one year,
$20 one year, so it's just -- there's not ever been a set
pattern.
JUDGE TINLEY: What is a reasonable cost of
copying the number of pages that are included in this year's
9-27-04
121
1 budget?
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. PIEPER: I think $20 would be sufficient.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to
set the cost of copy of the '04-'05 budget at $20.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: How many pages is
it?
JUDGE TINLEY: A hundred and something.
MS. PIEPER: Yeah, I haven't counted it.
It's going to be pretty thick.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: As I understand the
Open Records Act, we can't charge a dollar a page. We can
charge something like --
MS. PIEPER: I don't fall under that, though.
Not on -- not on something like this.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I can't give you a
request for -- Open Records request to see that, and copy of
the budget?
MS. PIEPER: Yeah, you can give it to me.
Then I'm going to send you back a reply that, under Local
Government Code 118, by law, I'm supposed to charge you a
dollar a page unless I get a court order from the
Commissioners.
9-27-04
122
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Thank you.
MS. PIEPER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 126 pages,
Commissioner.
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: That motion does carry. The
next item is consider and discuss setting the Sheriff and
Constable fees as required under Local Government Code
Section 118.131.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Don't everybody move
at once. Sheriff?
MS. UECKER: Judge Tinley -- go ahead.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Go ahead.
MS. UECKER: I'd like to make some comments
on this, if I could, please. And I --
JUDGE TINLEY: You and the Sheriff can fight
to see who goes first.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I ain't getting in front
of her. She'll whoop me.
MS. UECKER: He's probably going to need to
9-27-04
123
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
help me here, and I want to go down from the beginning. And
I've got a couple of questions of the Sheriff and a couple
of comments. First of all, I don't know what a summons is
that you charge $60 for.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: A what?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What page are you on?
MS. UECKER: It's the proposed Sheriff and
Constables' fee.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The order?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: There would be --
MS. UECKER: Yeah, last year's order.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MS. UECKER: I don't know what that summons
is. If that happens to be the summons in a criminal case
for summonsing a witness, that's a $5 fee; that's set by
statute. And let me go through and --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Go ahead.
MS. UECKER: Okay? Going down to writ of
garnishment, I can't see that we can justify charging $200
for that when the Sheriff's Department serves that or
constable serves that. No different than a citation, a
subpoena. They walk into the bank and they say, "Here`s a
writ of garnishment. If you have any questions, call a
lawyer or call the Clerk." That's all they do. As opposed
to a writ of attachment or writ of execution, where there's
9-27-04
124
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
actually some real responsibility that the Sheriff has to
seize property, take possession of, and sell. So, I'd like
to see us reduce that writ of garnishment fee. And lookinq
through the -- the fees of the other counties, some have it
the same. Many of them don't; the larger counties don't.
And I do know that the smaller counties look at what other
counties do and say this is what we're going to do.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What would you
recommend?
MS. DECKER: I would recommend the same as a
subpoena or citation, $60. You have a problem with that?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, my stand on this
whole deal is -- I even met with Jannett last week, had her
come out to the office looking at changing quite a few of
these fees, because there's a lot of these that really do
not pertain to the Sheriff's Office, but yet the Sheriff is
setting them. Records management fee has nothing to do with
my department, and why should I even set it?
MS. DECKER: That's the next thing I was
going to address in here.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But there are a lot of
other ones -- in fact, we came up with a fee scale that
would actually be a little bit better and a little bit more
concise, but I'm not ready at this time, and after looking
at it over the weekend, to actually go into that. I
9-27-04
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
compared the 2003 fee scales of all the other counties
around, looking at them, and a lot of them had fees in there
such as -- and I was thinking about going to a dollar a page
for -- for reports or all other copies. But if I look at
it, and then look under the Open Records Act, I'm only
allowed to charge 10 cents a page, so I don't know what
these other counties are doing. What I would recommend is
-- and I know Commissioner Nicholson brought this up a while
back during -- during budget hearings and that, but there's
some things that probably should be changed. But I would
recommend the Court this year adopt exactly what it had.
The confusion part that we had last year was on the state
Comptroller's office and the way they published our fees.
They had some confusion in there which caused us a little
bit of problem. But right now, I would say it needs to be
adopted just as they were last year until we can actually
get into it and see -- even getting in with the state
Sheriff's Association, see what a good average is all the
way across. Some things I think are higher. There's some
counties that charge more than us; there's some counties
that charge less. On the writ of garnishment this year, I
can't say that we've even had one.
MS. UECKER: You have.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But if they -- it could
also be a writ of garnishment to seize a -- a security
9-27-04
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
lockbox at a bank or anything else.
MS. UECKER: It's not a writ of garnishment.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You have to be careful
with your liabilities part in there.
MS. UECKER: That would be writ of
sequestration or writ of possession.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Hopefully --
MS. UECKER: But if you get $200 for a writ
of garnishment, that only gives notice to the bank to freeze
amounts of money that are in someone's account. I'm --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are we not required
to have this fee schedule in place before -- before we adopt
our budget?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You're required to adopt
the fee schedule. That's why I was saying, leave it as we
did last year.
1.
MS. UECKER: I think it's January 1.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think it's October
MS. UECKER: Is it October 1? Well, and I
don't have a problem with what he's saying with that, except
that now -- although these are Sheriff's fees, and you look
at the top and it says Sheriff's and Constable Fees, the
clerks are the ones that -- anything that originates in Kerr
County, we assess those fees and collect them.
9-27-04
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
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Mm-hmm.
MS. UECKER: But this is called Sheriff's
fees. Now, when you look down at the last paragraph, go
past the Brady Bill and the fingerprints, you'll see
"Executing/Processing Arrest Warrant" of $50. That's set by
the Code of Criminal Procedure 102. It's --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right.
MS. UECKER: -- $50. So why should the Court
have to set that? Records management fee, that's set by the
Government Code and, again, the Code of Criminal Procedure,
Commissioners Court. And that fee isn't even correct. In
-- on the civil side of it, Courthouse Security fee, in
criminal cases, it's $3 on misdemeanors, but it's $5 on
felonies, and it's also set by the statute, so I don't know
where that came from. The rest of it is okay. I mean,
injunctions -- but my question there is, why wouldn't they
be put up there in the list with the other writs and notices
to serve? I mean --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: There's a lot that just
needs to have both clerks, County Clerk, District Clerk, the
constables and myself actually sit down. You're going to
have to look at Local Government Code, Code of Criminal
Procedure to get what we can change, and then the ones we
can't change.
MS. UECKER: I've already got that.
9-27-04
128
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: They still need to be
posted, and they need to be adopted. Just like the warrant
fee; even though it states that's got to be a $50 fee, it
still has to be adopted and done.
MS. UECKER: I don't think so.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: My understanding is it
does. That's why I'm saying leave it like it is this year,
and let us all sit down and have meetings -- I didn't have a
chance to get with constables. I know last year we talked
about some of the forcible detainer fees, you know, for a
person to actually get somebody evicted out of their house
in J.P. court. That costs $200 right now, and it's a little
bit hard on people.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're not ready to go.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I can see that.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I'm not -- I'm not ready
to recommend --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So I'll move that we
adopt the same fee structure as last year, although I
disagree with some of it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I do too, and I'm
wondering why we're having this discussion so late.
MS. UECKER: Well, I did not get the agenda
for this court until this morning, because I was out
Thursday and Friday. You know, had I -- I got it Wednesday.
9-27-04
129
1
.._. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I could have worked on it over the weekend, but I got it
this morning. So, you know, that -- and I didn't know that
this was going to be on the agenda this morning. So --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can we change it during
the year? Or do you have to -- is it a -- once a year only?
MS. UECKER: Once a year it has to be set.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: They publish a book,
and that goes to all the other counties, and they rely on
that when they're sending paperwork.
MS. UECKER: I think we're probably one of
the -- there may be one or two others that -- you know, a
lot of the surrounding counties look at us for what we're
going to publish. But I -- you know, we -- we have to send
this -- not only publish it, but this goes out to all the
other counties, and all of them are going, "Why do you have
Courthouse Security fee? The Commissioners Court doesn't
set that." I know. But, you know, it's in there. And I'd
really like to see it -- clean it up.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask a question.
We're back in here on Thursday. Could you all get a real,
live document for us to adopt by Thursday? Or the Sheriff?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I have no problem
getting a meeting. It's more the research part on each one,
what we can legally adopt.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know if that
9-27-04
130
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
was a yes or no.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We can sure try.
JUDGE TINLEY: We're back in here on
Thursday, but that's not on the agenda for Thursday.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, but we can recess
this agenda item.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: For one day. We're here
tomorrow.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Three days.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Three days? Okay. But
we're here tomorrow, so --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're here tomorrow?
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm going to need something to
show me about that 3-day business.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Two days?
JUDGE TINLEY: Go one.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can do it tomorrow.
MS. UECKER: Well, this gives us till --
well --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How long does the --
MS. UECKER: What Jannett just showed me she
got from the Comptroller's office evidently says it has to
be, what, adopted by 15th of October?
MS. PIEPER: No. It says that, by law, these
fees must be set before October 1 and reported to the
9-27-04
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
Comptroller's no later than October 15th.
MS. UECKER: 15th.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think I'd kind of
like for us to have it right. If we're going to send it all
over the state, I'd sure hate to see us be the laughingstock
with the fee schedule.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Again.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's why I recommend
leaving it as we've had them for this year. Next year we'll
have time to look at them.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They'll only look bad for
one year.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We haven't changed them
in several years. They haven't been changed since I took
office. And they -- some need to go up; some may need to go
down.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What have you been doing?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't know. I haven't
been working, I guess.
MS. UECKER: There's been some changes
recently. I don't know if -- it was probably about the time
you took office, on the execution fees. But any writ of
garnishment the Sheriff brings in, he doesn't even have to
look for the person. That bank is listed on there. He
says, "Here it is. Call the Clerk," you know.
9-27-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
132
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I know there's been
one fee that's always stuck in my mind, and I think we talk
about it every year, is that the constable -- when someone's
removing -- when a property owner's removing a tenant from
their property, the constable does that and charges a lot of
money for --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: $200 for that
eviction-type fee. And that's under the J.P. or the
constable fees. But if I start setting powers out of our
courts a little bit different, then it can really get
confusing. That's why I would recommend the constables, the
clerks and us all sit down so we have one set fee scale for
the county. Until we can do that, leave them as they are.
MS. UECKER: I see that in some of them --
and I don't have last year's; I had 2002's -- that the
execution fees and the order of sale is -- is minimal.
However, the -- evidently, there must be a statute that
gives the Sheriff's Department commission up to a certain
amount of what is --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: If you actually do the
sales, you can collect a percentage, depending on how much
the money is for the sale.
MS. UECKER: Yeah. So --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On these -- on the backup
that I had, it had Forcible Detainer circled; it says "no
9-27-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
133
longer used." So, if it's no longer used, we can at least
delete that. No reasor_ to put one on the schedule that
doesn't exist any more. Also, there was a typo, and that
should be corrected.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I just won't guarantee
that all counties don't use forcible detainer. We serve a
lot of papers from other counties. That's where these fee
scales come from. Our county may not use it, but other
counties --
MS. UECKER: I didn't see that listed on any
of these others.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We are not ready to
go.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Obviously.
JUDGE TINLEY: There's a motion before the
Court to adopt the -- the current fee schedule that was in
effect for this past year. That motion has been seconded.
Any further question or discussion --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- on the motion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are we going to correct
the typo in the last court order? The one that we're
looking at?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What is it?
9-27-04
134
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, it says on my note
that under the "All Other Courts' Citations" should be $45,
not $60.
MS. PIEPER: But it was adopted at 60 last
year. Just a misprint in the book.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The book is wrong?
Our --
MS. PIEPER: The court order was correct.
The book was wrong.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's a mistake the
Comptroller made.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or
discussion on this motion? All in favor of that motion,
signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Let me
go on to the next highly controversial item, consider and
discuss adoption of a resolution proclaiming October as
Czech Heritage Month in Kerr County. All you Czechs please
step forward.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do we have any Czechs in
Kerr County?
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm sure there's some
9-27-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
135
somewhere.
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
Judge, would you entertain
about Czechs and --
COMMISSIONER
drawn-out discussion.
COMMISSIONER
WILLIAMS: There's two.
BALDWIN: You. You're close.
~ motion, or do we want to talk
WILLIAMS: Let's have a long,
BALDWIN: I think
Czechs-slash-balances are a good thing to do.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is that a motion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move that we approve
the resolution adopting -- proclaiming October as Czech
Heritage Month in Kerr County. No?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't -- well, maybe --
I just don't see the point of doing all of these
resolutions. They don't have any impact on the County,
really. All it does is clog up our paperwork.
JUDGE TINLEY: Maybe we'll move it to the
consent agenda.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Maybe that's where
we're headed.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't want it on any
agenda.
JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll second it.
9-2~-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
136
Let's move on.
JUDGE TINLEY: And second for adoption of the
resolution. 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: That motion does carry. The
next item on the agenda is consider and discuss adoption of
resolution proclaiming September as Emergency Preparedness
Month in Kerr County. We're almost through with September,
but we'll get there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Motion made and
seconded for the agenda item.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're okay. I don't
mind this one.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any questions or discussion?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Selective
resolutions.
JUDGE TINLEY: All in favor, signify by
raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
9-27-04
1
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
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. The
next item is Number 10, for those of you trying to keep up,
consider and discuss setting the salary, expenses, and other
allowances of elected County or precinct officers for Fiscal
Year 2004-2005.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move adoption of the
salary schedule as published and presented.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Where are we -- second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
adoption of the proposed salary, expenses, and other
allowances of elected County or precinct officers for Fiscal
Year 2004-2005, as published and presented. Any further
question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify
by raising your right hand.
(Commissioners Baldwin, Williams, and Letz
voted in favor of the motion.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(Commissioner Nicholson voted against the
motion.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Next item
on the agenda, consider revision of a plat for Tracts 28A
and 28B of the Y.O. Ranchlands, Agenda Item Number 12.
MS. HARDIN: Mr. Johnston asked me to be here
this morning to present all his agenda items. If I missed
the public hearing, I'm sorry.
9-27-04
138
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It's been so long
ago, we forgot we had a public hearing.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There were only 120
people who spoke against it.
MS. HARDIN: Okay. It's just removing a lot
line, and he has already signed the final plat -- mylar and
plat. I'll just leave this here.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item. 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: That motion does carry. Next
item on the agenda is Number 14, consider road name changes,
regulatory signs, and road abandonment.
MS. HARDIN: The only road name change on
here is just a name clarification. The portion of Bee Caves
Road that the County maintains was accepted in 1995 under
the name of Bee Caves. However, the plat and 9-1-1 have it
called Upper Bee Caves Road, so we just needed to clarify
our state road list on that name. The regulatory signs are
9-27-04
1
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
a yield on Cedar Springs and stop sign on Acorn to stop at
Skyview, another on Fox Trail that also stops to Skyview,
and then to set a 45 mile-an-hour speed limit on Center
Point River Road.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve.
MS. HARDIN: Wait, there's some more. We
also ask that you remove Lackey Road; it's been gated and is
no longer open to the public. And on the Tegner Creek one,
we publicized, but the homeowners did not get the
documentation back, so we would need to pull that one from
the list.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pulling the last
70 miles?
MS. HARDIN: Right.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item, save and except the last item
on abandoning, discontinuing, and vacating, that being the
portion of Tegner Creek that's listed. 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.)
9-27-09
140
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. The
next item is Number 15, budget line item transfer in the
amount of $2,500 to Victim's Rights Coordinator account to
fund computer, printer, office supplies, and conference.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I suppose this item
assumes that we're going to fund the -- the Victim's Rights
Coordinator's job?
JUDGE TINLEY: That's in the proposed budget?
I would think so, yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a transfer of
$2,500 off of the County Attorney's budget, if I'm reading
it correctly.
JUDGE TINLEY: The current year's budget to
fund those items.
MR. MOTLEY: To buy certain things that we'll
need next year, go ahead and buy them this year. We have a
surplus in the -- I had mentioned to the Court that I
thought that I could contribute funds toward -- you know, to
help -- I don't know, whatever -- match the court funds in
some fashion or some fraction toward the creation of this
office. And it's pretty self-explanatory. The amounts
would be -- it's for a laptop, telephone, general office
supplies, and for the costs of the Victim's Rights
Coordinator to attend required training regarding victims
issues and such as that in Austin.
9-27-04
141
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: That registration would be
accomplished --
	MR. MOTLEY: It's free. It's free. This is
just travel	and one night at a hotel.
	JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
	MR. MOTLEY: And the registration is free.
We went by	the mileage guide to estimate, you know, the
room, meals	, and mileage.
	COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
	COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
	JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of	the agenda item. 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: That motion does carry. Thank
you, Mr. Motley.
MR. MOTLEY: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Next item is consider and
discuss adoption of the proposed Fiscal Year 2004-2005 Kerr
County budget. It's Item 17.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Question.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, sir?
9-27-04
142
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Does the budget that
we're about to act on contain the $412,000 payment, or does
it not? Auditor's shaking his head negatively. I move
adoption of the budget.
JUDGE TINLEY: We a motion for adoption of
the budget as -- as prcposed and presented here today.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I have a
second, but I also have a question.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Any question or
discussion? Mr. Auditor?
MR. TOMLINSON: I have
discovered one -- two omissions. One
but it was from Environmental Health,
council service fee that we have to r
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS:
JUDGE TINLEY: 61.
-- since last week, I
I didn't find myself,
and there's an on-site
emit to the State.
What page are you on?
MR. TOMLINSON: I don't have the page; I just
have the one page that he -- he gave me. It's Line Item
434.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
MR. TOMLINSON: In order for us to make the
payment on that fee, we need a budget amount in that line
item for $3, 500.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How much?
MR. TOMLINSON: $3,500.
9-27-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
143
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's not anything new.
don't have anything in there.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Right, I understand
that, but this is not something that just popped up
recently.
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, we've paid the fee this
year, and -- as you can tell by the amount that we have
currently budgeted in '03-'04.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This is a fee that
goes to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. Another -- another item
is, the County Attorney just reminded me of the fact that --
about -- when he said something about telephone in his --
for this proposed person in his office. Our telephone
system is 100 percent full. The last extension that we had
available was for the Parole office downstairs in the
basement. I -- I have a proposal from -- from Kerrville
Telephone Company to upgrade our system, and it's -- I went
on a lease basis. In fact, they brought it back to me
Friday -- you know, sometime Friday, and the proposal is for
$400 a month to upgrade the system -- our telephone system
to where we can expand our system with new software to be
able to add at least -- I think there's 32 more extensions.
9-27-04
1
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
So, that's the issue that -- that I didn't think about
during the process, and so I -- I hurriedly asked for -- for
an estimate or a proposal from them, and received it Friday.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where would that go?
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, in Nondepartmental. I
mean, it's not an item that we could charge directly to --
JUDGE TINLEY: Just -- I'm sorry.
MR. TOMLINSON: Go ahead.
JUDGE TINLEY: This is in addition to what
we're now paying?
MR. TOMLINSON: In addition to what we're now
paying.
JUDGE TINLEY: What are we now paying?
MR. TOMLINSON: I can't answer that one.
I -- the amount of that bill is -- is within all of the --
all the service -- the rental agreements for_ -- for the
existing system.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you -- are we
talking about telephone?
MR. TOMLINSON: Hmm?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Telephone? This is
telephone expense?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Item 420 in
Nondepartmental? That sound reasonable?
9-27-04
1
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
MR. TOMLINSON: That sounds reasonable to me.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, what we're talking about
doing is -- is doubling that?
MR. TOMLINSON: I don't know the answer to
what -- to what the existing system is. I just know that we
don't have room for expansion, and that's their -- that's
their estimate of the cost of -- of doing that for us.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do we need 32 more lines?
I mean, couldn't we get, like, eight more lines? Ten? You
know, something -- smaller number. I can't imagine we're
going to get 32 more --
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I mean, that's the max.
We -- I think that's the minimum of what we can do, from
what I am reading in the proposal.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: How much is this
costing?
MR. TOMLINSON: $4,800.
JUDGE TINLEY: Additional $5,000 a year, more
than 50 percent over and above. I see a real easy solution,
to get our line back from the Parole people. That's a state
function. That --
MR. TOMLINSON: I can -- I know of two phone
lines that we need today.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Does every employee
need a phone? I don't. I'll share one with you, Bill.
9-27-04
1
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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Want to take messages
for me, or I take them for you?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm not playing in
this game.
MR. TOMLINSON: I mean, we can -- could talk
about it at a later time, with -- and take it from the
Contingency line item, and -- and out of the Commissioners
Court -- or Contingency line item.
JUDGE TINLEY: That may be the appropriate
solution.
MR. TOMI,INSON: I just wanted to bring it to
your attention, that it is an issue.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It seems like that's an
awful lot just for the right to get more phone lines, which
is all that is. I mean --
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is it the right to
get them, or is it an expansion card giving you 32 more
lines?
MR. TOMLINSON: It's actually hardware,
equipment.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. But I think there may
be another solution to this problem.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I do too.
9-27-04
1
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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is it -- I'll go a little
bit on what Dave said. Is it possible with the system now,
like, for David and I to have the same phone number?
MR. TOMLINSON: I can't answer that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that way -- I mean,
or there could be one number for the Commissioners; one
phone number that we currently have, the 2215 number.
Then -- I mean, I don't need a dedicated line in my office.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let's not jump off
the deep end here.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'd consider giving up my line
if I could find anybody to take it. Didn't hear any offers.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's not election time
yet.
MR. TOMLINSON: That's all I have.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me amend my
motion.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Wait, I have a question
still. You want to amend it first?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. I would move
adoption of the budget as -- with the amendment as presented
by the County Auditor for T.C.E.Q. fees.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question I have, Tommy,
without -- I did not have time to go through page-by-page
9-27-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
148
and find out why we're about $100,000 bigger budget than we
were about a week ago. Between these reports that I have --
the one before this was $5,575,000 or so. The new one is
$5,480,000 in reserves. Do you know where that change came?
I don't really recall any court meetings between the last
two runs.
MR. TOMLINSON: We did -- there was some
errors in -- in the position schedules with Road and Bridge
and the Sheriff's Office. I -- I can't be real definitive
as to the exact amount that that caused, but that's a lot of
it. I can't think of anything --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: In the --
MR. TOMLINSON: Commissioner, I'm somewhat
confused, too. I printed this thing, like, six times, and I
don't remember from one time to the next which one's which.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm looking at the
September 8th and the September 21st; those are the two that
I have. I guess I see -- looking at it, I see a change
there in the September 8th; there was a line item for
Juvenile Detention of 171,000, and that is not included in
the 921. But the 171,000, that was not the -- what was
that, operating?
MR. TOMLINSON: That was the cash balance.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh.
25 ~ MR. TOMLINSON: That didn't have anything to
9-27-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
149
do --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's right. I'm sorry.
MR. TOMLINSON: I took -- I took that out
because of the issue of -- that we talked about today.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That would -- taking that
out would adjust that total number. Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Actually, between -- between
your 8th and 15th, General Fund expenditures are down by
about 110 -- $106,000, looks like.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mm-hmm. It's -- that was
the Juvenile Detention.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any further question or
discussion on the motion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. I'd like to
take us to Page 72, and I want you all to refresh my memory
how this thing worked. And this is the volunteer fire
departments and Forest Service grant match. How did we --
how did we do this? I remember when Mr. Feller came in and
asked for a grant match for two towers in the county.
JUDGE TINLEY: Two towers and repeaters, as I
recall, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: The current or the last stated
cost for this year, which has since gone by, was 130. The
estimated cost in the future was an increase of 10 percent,
9-27-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
..--.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
150
a little bit more, so we estimated 150. It was a 10 percent
match. That's how we got to the 15,000.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And in the -- in the
first conversation we had with him, we asked the question --
or Commissioner Letz did, "Would you rather have your annual
funding or the two towers?" And somehow that -- you don't
recall that? Somehow --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I did.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- that dropped
through the cracks, and here we are funding both the Forest
grant match, as well as the annual funding.
JUDGE TINLEY: I understood --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Help me get to that
point.
JUDGE TINLEY: I understood it to be not
totally in lieu of annual funding, but in lieu of, say,
$1,000 to each department increase. Would you rather each
have $1,000, or put it down here in the pool for the grant
match? That's how I understood it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That was my
understanding, too.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. So, it was
13 -- for each department, $13,000, current budget, and
$13,000 recommended in the '04-'05 budget, so that number
didn't change? Or we did -- or we decreased it? Or --
9-27-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
151
COMMISSIONER LETZ: As I understand it, there
was no change from last year's funding. The $15,000 was
there, and if all of the fire departments sign off on
wanting that grant instead of their funding, then we will,
you know, do it on the grant. If they don't all sign off --
we really didn't decide what we were going to do if they
don't all sign off.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. And then Number
4 comes back in and says that they all signed off.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: They told me they
all signed off.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know that all fire
departments were not at the last KARFA meeting. I think we
really need something in writing from each fire department,
what they want. I mean, just to make sure.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Because they're not
all on board here with this.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I -- we built this
thing, I think, because the way I heard it was that they had
all voted and approved the issue, but they -- they have not.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, the grant match would
not be automatic, Commissioner. This Court would have to --
the Court would have to actually make application for the
grant and approve the specific grant, as well as authorize
9-27-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
152
this money that's budgeted for that purpose, so it's not an
automatic. It would have to come here again.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand that.
Now, was there a time frame for them to get the grant issue
going?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It opens up once a
year. They thought it would open up this fall, and I think
I recently heard it won't open up this fall; it'll be next
spring. So, there's some time to go before the -- the
window of opportunity opens.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that the -- just
to piggy-back that discussion a little bit, KARFA needs to
be, you know, told we need to get this in writing, and --
and they need to do whatever they can to get it unanimous,
because it's going to cause a real problem if it's not
unanimous. I don't know how we're going to decide what
we're going to do then.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If it was -- if
there was a vote and it was unanimous, it should be in their
minutes, so one -- one approach is to ask for a copy of
their minutes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But if all the fire
departments weren't present --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
9-2~-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
153
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- that may not -- I
think we really need to get each fire department --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Actually, they didn't
even vote on this issue at all. They did vote, but it was
on a separate issue with 9-1-1, totally separate. So, I
mean, they have not even addressed this.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I wasn't there.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'd like to see it in
writing actually from each volunteer fire department.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, that can be a
requirement that the Court imposes as a condition of going
forward with making application for the grant and
authorizing the expenditure of these funds.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I would think that
would need to be done pretty soon. I mean, the spring is --
springing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And fall is falling.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: God. That's all I
have to say. I just
JUDGE TINLEY: Sheriff had something he
wanted to enlighten you about.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This is good.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Not about that part of
9-27-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
154
it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: About something else.
Just something I need to bring up before y'all actually take
a vote. My understanding is, on the Juvenile Detention
Facility, that if this Court doesn't act -- or doesn't at
least fund the operations part of it, or some part of it,
that facility is very likely going to have to lock their
doors October 1 or October 15th, and that would be
devastating to this county. Because of the operations; they
won't be able to operate. And that just needs to be --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where did you get
your information, Sheriff?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: From our Auditor.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I might -- I just --
I think there are budget implications there, and I really
think the Juvenile Board needs to schedule a meeting with
the Commissioners Court to go over what we're going to do,
if anything. I really think the full Juvenile Board needs
to be present, not just the Judge. I feel sorry for the
Judge; we beat up on him.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I just -- you know, we
talk about a lot of things, but that is one that would have
a serious impact on this county very quickly, if those doors
shut.
9-27-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
155
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mr. Tomlinson, is
that an automatic or is that a probable?
MR. TOMLINSON: I don't -- we don't have the
numbers for the population for September, but my
calculations are that by -- from the funds we have left over
from -- from the payroll for the 15th and the payroll we're
doing today, and the bills that are going to come due on
October the 1st, we might -- if we -- if the funds become
available for the revenues that we receive or earn in
September, we -- there's an outside chance that we can make
the payroll on October the 31st.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: For October 31st?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. And that --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can make October 15th?
MR. TOMLINSON: I'm -- I feel relatively sure
that we can make the 15th, but I won't absolutely say that
we can make -- make the 31st, because if we operate through
the 31st, we will have another $25,000 to $30,000 in
operating costs that we -- that will come due in November,
that we've incurred, that we have to pay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- I
certainly don't want to, you know, spend taxpayer dollars
trying to keep that facility afloat when there's no chance
of any kind of recovery out there, but I also don't think
it's appropriate for us just to -- I mean, to turn our heads
9-27-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
156
the other way, either. I think there are bondholders that
need to be talked to. I think the Juvenile Board needs to
have input. I think Ms. Harris needs to have input. And I
think that -- I mean, not to mention the fact that we have
Kerr County juveniles that need to go somewhere for part of
the time. Even if it's worst-case, I can almost see
shutting down part of the facility, just to keep enough for
the Kerr County kids to go in. But I think that -- I
don't -- I suspect that we're making it very difficult on
Ms. Harris to go out and get business when we're in the
paper that that thing is a day-to-day operation. So, I
think this Court needs to really seriously consider --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And the other problem --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- some amount of time
that we were going to, you know, fund the operation. And
that period is -- in my mind, is pretty short, until
everything's worked out. But also, I think -- I mean --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The other problem she's
facing is, I am even today receiving applications, one after
another, from her current staff members trying to find jobs.
MS. HARRIS: Thank you for telling me that.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Sorry. It's going to
create a very hard problem on that facility if some action
is not taken. And we need that facility.
MS. HARRIS: And I need to know if I need to
9-27-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
157
proceed with hiring that full-time Q.C.C. that's required by
the State for that substance abuse program.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But those things are
in the budget that the Juvenile Detention Board adopted, or
should have been in that budget. They're not in our budget.
MR. TOMLINSON: Never have been.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand. And
the only thing in terms of what's before this Court right
now is whether or not to underwrite the bond, that bond
appropriation. We can't be delving into a budget we've
never seen, heard of, or have any idea what's in it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think you're right.
That -- I mean, I'm not saying we should modify our current
budget today. What I'm saying is that we may have to look
at -- but that doesn't mean that we pass this budget and
then turn our head the other way. I think we need to keep
on looking at it right away, and if we need to do a -- an
amendment to our budget as soon as we adopt it, we need to
consider that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree with that.
JUDGE TINLEY: We've got to look at the
operational requirements and what we want to do on the -- on
a prospective basis. I don't think there's any question
24 about it.
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, back to the
9-27-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
158
Sheriff's point of alarm. Where are we?
MR. TOMLINSON: I just explained that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me see if I can answer
that, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Please do. Please,
Judge, help me out.
JUDGE TINLEY: Under the terms of the lease
agreement, if the Court nonappropriates, it will be
necessary for notification to go to the trustee and
surrender, quote, control to the trustee. Now, the trustee
at that point has a decision to make as to whether or not
the trustee wants to, on behalf of the bondholders, close
the facility, which is one option, or to continue to allow
it to operate. I strongly believe that the trustee will
want to choose the latter course of action. The first
course of action will do nothing except devalue that
facility and the bondholders' position, whereas the latter
course of action will give an opportunity for the matter to
be hopefully resolved in a way that everyone can live with,
and we'll get some solution to this problem. But once a
nonappropriation occurs, the control will be relinquished to
the trustee. And if you think somebody from New York's
going to come down here and operate this facility, you got
another think coming, because they know -- they have done
their homework, and they know that Ms. Harris, more than
9-27-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
159
probably any other person in this state, is the best-suited
person to operate this facility that can be found under any
circumstances, the best of circumstances. We're fortunate
to have her here under the worst of circumstances. It's not
much consolation to her at this point, but there have
already been expressions of confidence in some of the
bondholders in her ability. But I can't tell you what the
trustee's going to do, but I'd be willing to -- to make book
on it, if somebody wants to -- wants to approach it on that
basis, and I'd give them some odds.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think I share your
opinion.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understood
Mr. Henderson to say that nonappropriation is what triggers
negotiations.
JUDGE TINLEY: It will also, because it gives
the trustee the legal authority to act on behalf of the
bondholders.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just don't see how
you can get down the road without that. I just don't see
it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Otherwise, he has no authority
to legally act on behalf of these various bondholders.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: He just has no legal authority
9-27-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
160
under the trust agreement.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's the way I
understood it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Where do they get their
operational costs? It's separate than the appropriations.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The trustee will come to
us and probably ask us. We'll discuss it with the trustee,
I presume.
MR. TOMLINSON: Judge, I'd like to make one
JUDGE TINLEY: Surely.
MR. TOMLINSON: In 1992 -- '93 -- I'm not
exact on the dates, but this Court, they were in the process
of deciding whether or not they wanted to fund operations on
the detention facility. In fact, in '92 or '93, we actually
got drawings from -- from an architect to -- to give us a
rough design of a facility to go over where the recycle
center is, and along about that time came Recor. And that's
-- you know, the Court and the Juvenile Board at that time
saw an opportunity to have a facility without -- with
minimum cost to the County. I don't think that that Court
at that time, or the board, either one, thought that -- that
that arrangement would last forever. I mean, I think they
thought that -- that sometime in the future, Kerr County --
9-27-09
161
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,....
25
that facility would -- would belong to Kerr County. So, you
know, in '94 we built a 192-bed jail, and we had 70, 80, 90
prisoners. So, you know, the Court, you know, took it to
the voters and the voters said, "Okay, let's build it," and
I think it was an investment in the future. I think that
was their thought. And it's my opinion that -- that this
facility is an investment in the future for -- for Kerr
County and the rehabilitation of, you know, juvenile
offenders in this county.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Tommy, what does Kerr
County spend at that facility each year? Just average for
the last couple years.
MR. TOMLINSON: Probably 100,000, 120,000 a
year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do you know, Kevin?
MR. STANTON: I'm sorry, sir?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do you have any idea?
MR. STANTON: It's close between 100 and 125
thousand a year.
JUDGE TTNLEY: That's Kerr County funds.
There's some additional funds that -- that are possibly
spent out of State moneys out here, aren't there?
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I don`t
9-27-04
162
~-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
..-~
25
disagree, Mr. Tomlinson, with your comments about the
future, but I think one of those elements for making it
succeed in the future is to find a way to restructure the
debt. And if we can't restructure the debt, then it's --
then it really doesn't look like it's promising for the
future, in my -- in my mind. So, I'm in favor of trying to
figure out a way to reserve it, restructure the debt and
move forward. And if the only way we can do the restructure
of the debt is to trigger the action of the trustee to sit
down and work out that -- try to work out that
restructuring, then I don't know that there's an alternative
course of action.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Right.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Alternative is that
we don't have to have a Juvenile Detention Center.
Obviously, many counties don't have them. We were banking
on that business to -- to make this one viable.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any -- any other questions or
comments on the motion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What's the motion? To
adopt the budget?
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion is to adopt the
budget as presented, with the exception of the inclusion of
the sum of $3,500 under the Environmental Health budget for
on-site council fees to T.C.E.Q.
9-z~-o9
163
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You have a second and
everything? I seconded it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. I'm ready.
JUDGE TINLEY: All in favor of the motion,
signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Why
don't we take about a 15-minute recess here, and give
Ms. Kathy a break.
(Recess taken from 2:37 p.m. to 2:54 p.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to
order. We were in recess for 15 minutes, and now back.
Let's go to Item 21, set a public hearing for the revision
of plat for Tracts 29 and 35 of Kerr Vista Ranch, Section
Four, located in Precinct 4.
MS. HARDIN: On September the 13th, we were
-- there was a notice published by the Clerk's office, and
we let it slip by and there was no public hearing set, so we
have to start over to set that public hearing for that plat.
JUDGE TINLEY: 30-day notice?
MS. HARDIN: Yes, sir.
9-27-04
164
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. What date do you
suggest?
MS. HARDIN: November the 8th.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: When did you say?
MS. HARDIN: November the 8th. I think I had
it at 10:00 -- I'm sorry. November the 8th.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 10 a.m.?
MS. HARDIN: Kathy, do you have a time
preference?
MS. MITCHELL: No, that's fine.
MS. HARDIN: 10 o'clock? Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: You're suggesting a public
hearing be set November the 8th of '04 at 10 a.m. for the
revision of plat for Tracts 29 and 35 of Kerr Vista Ranch,
Section Four?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I move to set that
hearing.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: At 10 a.m., November
the 8th.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Any
question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify
by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
9-27-04
165
1
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: That motion does carry. Next
item is consider advertising for bids on Road and Bridge
capital outlays that are not available on government
purchasing programs.
MS. HARDIN: We have two items, one being a
truck-mounted water distributor, a used one, and a
truck-mounted asphalt distributor, both being used. And so,
therefore, we could not get those on state purchasing. On
the chip spreader, we're having a little bit of difficulty
finding a chip spreader that falls within the budget, so we
may have to do a used one. And so, at this time, if we
can't get it on state purchasing, we would like permission
to go out for bid on that one, too. And you have two bid
packets for the -- the distributors in here.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Who moved?
JUDGE TINLEY: What motion did you second,
Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just -- I`m looking
for one to pop up just any minute now.
JUDGE TINLEY: I see. Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don`t want him to
hang out there. I'll move it.
JUDGE TINLEY: That was the one you were
9-27-04
166
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
seconding, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's exactly the one
right there.
JUDGE TINLEY:
seconded for approval of the
discussion? All in favor of
your right hand.
(The motion c
JUDGE TINLEY:
I see. Motion made and
agenda item. Any question or
the motion, signify by raising
arried by unanimous vote.)
All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Next
item is consider setting a public hearing concerning
regulatory signs, school zones, and road acceptance. What's
the proposed date and time?
MS. HARDIN: November the 8th at 10:45. And
we would like to reset the school zones at Nimitz, put
no-parking signs on Center Point River Road, and accept
Business Park West. That was a road that was built to
County specifications that should have been accepted
sometime in the past year.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where is Business
Park Drive West?
MS. HARDIN: It's in the Cutoff Business Park
that was built on Goat Creek Cutoff by Mr. Jenschke, and it
was inspected and accepted -- I mean, but there was one --
9-27-04
167
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
there's a bond that goes in for one year, and when that
expires, then the County is asked to take it over. And that
bond has expired.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is there a need for
us to do anything about the item that the Sheriff and you
have been talking about earlier, about the school awareness
sign on Stoneleigh Road in front of the stadium?
MS. HARDIN: No, sir. That is just simply a
warning sign.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Truby, explain
something to me here. On the reset school zone for Nimitz
Elementary, the third little item down, the Loyal
Valley/Valley View deal.
MS. HARDIN: Yes?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Kind of try to make me
understand what you're talking about, 200 feet south of
Ranchero Road.
MS. HARDIN: The school zone runs from
Ranchero Road from the first blinking light to the last
blinking light, and then every intersection coming off of
Ranchero for 200 feet.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MS. HARDIN: So -- and we now have signs
posted that say "school zone," and -- I mean, it's 200 feet,
9-27-04
168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I believe. And then what we will do is just put an "End of
School Zone" sign at the 200 -- once you get off of Ranchero
Road for that -- at that intersection for 200 feet.
COMMISSTONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MS. HARDIN: It's north and south and east
and west, depending on the intersection.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. The number,
480 feet, threw me a little bit.
MS. HARDIN: Four hundred -- okay. That's
the Valley View. When you go up beside the church and go up
the hill, the school zone is set for 480, but there's a
crosswalk there.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see. So, it's a
little bit --
MS. HARDIN: It's a little bit further.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- further. Little
bit further than the regular one.
MS. HARDIN: We'll install those "End of
School Zone" signs at the termination point of each
intersection.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, we're eliminating
that dead zone in the middle.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Are we eliminating that,
too?
MS. HARDIN: Yes. The school zone will --
9-27-04
169
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: From blinking light to
blinking light.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay.
MS. HARDIN: I can give you a copy of this,
if you like.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I'll get it after it's
adopted.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Truby, the question I
have on the no-parking signs -- or, Bill, one of y'all,
where -- can you tell me where this is?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's a new bar on
C.P. River Road -- reasonably new bar, and people are
parking all over the place. There's one particular house
that's impacted badly, 'cause it's across the street. And
C.P. River Road, as you know, is -- is narrow through there;
there's no extra room for people to park on the paved
surface of the easement. And the parking is just getting
out of hand, to the point that one night somebody almost
took his gas meter and lines out. So we really need just to
end it right in that area, right by that bar.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How far --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It would be on
Bowlin, and will be on -- well, west of Bowlin, on the north
side of the road for 666, on the south side of 345. That
kind of -- that kind of flares out.
9-27-04
170
1
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: Just leaving everything
east of Bowlin? People can park there?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: East of Bowlin, yeah.
MS. HARDIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: East of Bowlin, you can
park. You can't park west.
MS. HARDIN: There's driveways and gates and
different things that --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It should be noted,
too, that, you know, the owner and operator of that bar has
-- I guess he's purchased a lot, or at least he's leased a
lot there and has fenced it, and it's open for parking for
patrons to his bar. But, you know, they roll up there in
trucks and hop out, and they don't care where they park.
You know, they're too lazy to go in the parking lot, and
they're creating problems for some of the residents.
MS. HARDIN: And the Sheriff's Department
can't give them a ticket because it's public right-of-way.
So, we will post no-parking signs at each end of that with
the arrow pointing towards the middle, and one in the
middle, so it's very clear as to where the no-parking zone
is.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Move we set a public
hearing to -- concerning regulatory signs, school zone, and
road acceptance for November 8th at 10:45.
9-27-04
171
1
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 for
approval of the agenda item as indicated. Any question or
discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Next
item is consider releasing Letter of Credit Number 2004-02
issued for Hermosa Subdivision.
MS. HARDIN: Mr. Frank Vlasek built the
subdivision off of Lange Ravine Road. He has completed the
road. The County Engineer has inspected it. We have an
engineer from -- an independent engineer who's written a
letter stating that the road meets specifications, and so we
will release his Letter of Credit saying that he has
completed all things that he was asked to do. Except we
want to --
JUDGE TINLEY: Does the letter from the
independent engineer have the engineer's seal on it?
MS. HARDIN: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: And it warrants that the
roads, as put into place, meet the County specifications?
MS. HARDIN: Yes, sir.
9-27-04
172
1
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: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Mr. Vlasek couldn't
have had worse luck on this. He got that -- got that road
mostly in, and one of those 5- or 6-inch rains came along
one night and washed all -- almost all of the work out that
he had done. It's been an uphill battle for him.
MS. HARDIN: After such time, he insured it.
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 carries. Next item,
set a public hearing for the revision of a plat for Lots
Number 21 and 22 into Lot 21A, The Reserve of Falling Water,
and revision of plat for Lots 6, 7E, and 7W into Lot 6R, The
Reserve of Falling Water, all located in Precinct 3.
MS. HARDIN: We're requesting that public
hearing for November the 8th at 10:15.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
9-27-09
173
1
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: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to
set a public hearing for November 8th, '04, at 10:15 a.m.
for the public hearing for the revision of plats as
indicated in the agenda item. 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: That motion does carry.
MS. HARDIN: Have I one question on -- for
future reference, if we have to set three public hearings,
as we did today, is it possible to put that on one agenda
item to set public hearings? Or do we have to do each one
of them individually?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't see anything
wrong with it. I mean, I think it would be fine. I don't
know what difference it makes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Incorporate all of
them in one advertisement, too?
MS. HARDIN: No, they would still have
different advertisements.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think you could do them
at one time; just put different times. As long as you break
9-27-04
174
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,.-.
25
them out. They have to be three different public hearings,
I think.
JUDGE TINLEY: They would have to be three
different public hearings.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the notice could be
-- or the agenda item could be one item, I think.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think you could
incorporate it into one notice, too; just so you have three
different blocks, three different times, three different
items.
MS. HARDIN: I don't know if the Clerk can do
that or not. When you advertise for public hearing, each
one has to have a separate ad?
MS. PIEPER: I think it has to be separate.
MS. HARDIN: Some of them run for different
time periods. Like, if it's a public hearing for a
subdivision, it might be different than a public hearing for
closing a road, whatever.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think from
the -- if we do it under one agenda item, we're still going
to have to have three motions.
MS. HARDIN: Three court orders.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Three court orders.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Doesn't change
anything.
9-27-04
175
1
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: Doesn't change anything.
I'd leave it probably the way it is.
MS. HARDIN: Okay, thank you.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The costs of these
notices is troublesome. I don't know if there's a solution.
You've probably considered solutions, but one thought that
occurred to me is that -- is it possible we could run these
in the West Kerr Current? Would that satisfy the law?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Has to have
county-wide circulation.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think the language in the
statute is a newspaper of general circulation in the county.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is the statutory language.
That brings up another point, however. We had a contract
rate with -- with both the Kerrville Daily Times and the
Kerrville Mountain Sun, and I think the contract rate for
this year for the Mountain Sun was cheaper. And that
publication ceased to be published as a newspaper of general
circulation -- or I'm not sure exactly what -- what they
call it now. But I would like to ask the Clerk to go back
and make sure that any of the advertisements that ran in
excess of the minimum amount, as specified in the Daily
Times contract, that we're paying the Mountain Sun contract
rate, because I think we're entitled to that rate.
9-27-04
176
1
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. PIEPER: They're giving us the -- both --
the low rate on the Daily Times.
JUDGE TINLEY: They're giving us the Mountain
Sun rate?
MS. PIEPER: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I've got no quarrel
with it, then.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Best we can hope
for.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, surely. Okay. Next
item, consider and discuss the process to select the
individual to fill the unexpired term of Justice of the
Peace, Precinct 3. Commissioner Letz.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. I put this on the
agenda. Since last meeting, you recall that Kari O'Dell
resigned, J.P. 3. At that meeting, her effective date was
September 30th, but since then -- and I believe you've
probably all received a copy of her letter -- she wishes to
make that effective date October 21st, which will probably
make things a little bit better from a replacement
standpoint. I put together this handout, a brief outline of
the way I recommend that we fill this position. I think
that we would, you know, make a public announcement of the
vacancy today, which we are doing right now. Also announce
today that any qualified person that would like to be
9-27-04
177
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
considered should submit a letter or resume, any other
pertinent information to the Commissioners Court to my
attention, being as it is my precinct, by October 4, 2004,
at 5 p.m. I would then put this on the next agenda, will
provide the Court and all the -- you know, all the names,
and provide a full packet of the information with Kathy so
each of the Commissioners can look at the full packet if
they choose. I don't think we really need to make a whole
lot of copies of that as long as they're available for
everyone to look at. Then we will discuss the appointment
at the next meeting and make a selection at that time. Or,
if we so choose, at that next meeting we can narrow it down,
ask some of them to come in, and interview them at the later
meeting. But I think the first thing is to find out exactly
who is truly interested. We have -- well, I have received,
I guess, four -- I believe four or five -- I guess four
serious applicants. I've heard of some others that are
going to apply. I don't know if they will or not. But I
think, just so we can get the -- get it filled as quickly as
possible.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All these dates hold,
even with the resignation being the same?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. And I think that --
and I put the last thing on here, the appointment will
become effective November 1st, which I think we can meet
9-27-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,,..,.
25
178
that without any problem. And we can have the first meeting
of October to look at it again, look at the applicants. If
we're ready to make a decision then, we can. If not, we can
postpone it till the second meeting of October. And if we
want to have anybody come in for interview, you know, or
whatever at that time, I, you know, will probably -- you
know, probably look the names, make some comments based on
talking with them. I think I've talked to most of them
already that are applying, that I'm aware of, and would
encourage the rest of the Court to do the same if they so
choose.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I move to approve
the process proposed by Commissioner Letz.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the process as proposed by Commissioner Letz for
the selection of the individual to fill the unexpired term
of J.P. Precinct 3. Any further question or discussion?
All in favor of that motion, signify by raising your right
hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Next item on the agenda is to
consider and discuss the appointment or designation of
9-27-04
179
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
person or persons to act as temporary Precinct 3 Justice of
the Peace pending selection of Precinct 3 Justice of the
Peace to serve until the next general election. By way of
background, the Treasurer called me last week after Judge
O'Dell indicated her desire to serve an additional period of
time, after she had initially indicated to the Court that
she wanted to serve through September 30th, and indicated
that because of the content of her initial resignation, and
a previous case in -- in which there was a resignation, and
some of the legal aspects of it, that she would be unable to
continue to pay -- to pay anybody for that position beyond
September 30th. And so this -- this will bridge the gap.
And if the process that we've just selected is going to be
effective November 1, why, we need to fill that gap.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's better to be lucky
than smart, because this was put on the agenda before we
knew what Ms. O'Dell was going to do, knowing that we had to
do this, so it worked out that way. I'll make a motion that
we appoint Kari O'Dell to fill the -- temporarily fill the
J.P. 3 position until October -- till November 1st. Till
November lst.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
the appointment of Judge Kari O'Dell to act as temporary
J.P., Justice of the Peace, pending -- until November lst,
9-27-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
180
pending selection of Precinct 3 J.P. Any further question
or discussion?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Just one question
for clarification. She had indicated a new effective date
of her resignation of the 21st of October, so is she going
to extend her employment till the end of October? Or is it
just going to be vacant for that nine days?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 21st?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It will be vacant for
that nine days.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's good.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have it available so that
we've got no loss in continuity of that position. She may
decide to stay an additional nine days or 10 days, whatever.
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: The motion does carry. Next
item is consider and discuss approval of a grant application
for Help America Vote Act funds and adoption of the
appropriate and necessary resolution in connection
therewith. This is the voting machines that we had in the
budget that I think we've removed, if I'm not mistaken.
9-27-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
181
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We removed the
funding for that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. These are the grant
funds that we have available. Under Education, $7,000. For
the equipment, we have $51,000 and that was the number that
was earlier furnished. And then, under the various
compliance components, we had almost $45,000; actually,
$44,847.11. Ms. Pieper, where -- where are you with respect
to this?
MS. PIEPER: I haven't studied it a whole
lot, but I do have a question. Back when they were first
talking about the grant funding, if you'll remember, in our
last budget, if we decreased that budget by any amount, that
was going to automatically knock us out of eligibility for
the grant. So now I'm wondering, if we don't fund our
portion of it, is that going to do the same thing?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Whv would it knock us
out of eligibility to apply?
MS. PIEPER: That's what we were told by
Secretary of State's office the last election school I went
to. So --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If there's a
condition of a match, the match would be predicated on the
approval of the grant. Then it becomes a condition of the
match, does it not?
9-27-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
182
MS. PIEPER: I don't know. I don't know how
all that works.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think that --
MR. TOMLINSON: Commissioner, I read the
letter from the Secretary of State. It appears to me that
it's a -- that it's a reimbursable grant, no match. You
have to spend it first and then apply for -- to get
reimbursed for what you spend.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. We have until
'06 to make that happen?
MR. TOMLINSON: I don't -- the letter I read
I don't think speaks to how long you have to get it done.
MS. PIEPER: I think if we wait till '06,
that's not going to give me enough time between January 1
and our first election to do all the training. And --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I thought we
discussed this in the budget meetings, where --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- the budget
process, by including it in the '05-'06 budget, it gives you
ample time.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's correct.
MS. PIEPER: I was talking with -- with Kim
Phillips in the Secretary of State, and she brought up the
question of is that going to be enough time for me on
9-27-04
183
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
training all the other election judges that I have to train?
For me, I don't see a problem with me and my office staff,
but I don't know about the actual judges that will work out
in the different various polling locations.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: When's the first
election after October 1, 2005?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Six.
MS. PIEPER: November. We'll have a general
election.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In '06.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: '06.
MS. PIEPER: We have an election every
November.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The first election
you'll really be concerned with would be the general
election of '06; is that correct? November '06?
MS. PIEPER: No, it will be the primary of
that March.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, March.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, we might budget
some funds to be effective October 1, 2005.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Then we'd have --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Six months.
MS. PIEPER: Yeah, that should work, then.
9-27-04
184
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what we talked
about in budget.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, do we need to do
this -- we're just doing the resolution now, correct?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't see anything that
says -- I mean, I don't know why we can't do a resolution.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't either.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It doesn't say we have --
says we don't -- doesn't say we have to spend the money.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, it's a reimbursement
anyway.
COMMISSIONER LETZ:' Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: We fund -- we spend the money
and then apply for reimbursement.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But we're not obligated
to do that. We're not obligated to spend anything.
JUDGE TINLEY: No.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If we do, then we can get
reimbursed.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It looks like it's
just certifying that we went through the proper process
today.
9-27-04
185
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Kind of a weird
resolution.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That first sentence, Kerr
County Commissioners Court has agreed that the expenditure
of the funds in accordance with any agreement... I'm not
sure I like that.
JUDGE TINLEY: The format that we were
following is -- let me correct that. The format that
Ms. Mitchell was following was under Section 13 of the -- of
the regulatory provisions that -- that are under the
agreement. And we've slightly modified that to include the
enumeration that the Auditor, that is the financial officer
responsible for the grant funds, indicates. I see one minor
typo in there that we can get corrected in the second line
of County Auditor being mentioned, "accurately account for
grant funds awarded to Kerr County." But, other than that,
I think the resolution complies with the requirements of the
grant fund agreement.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It is unusual, and I
think it's more of a certification than resolution. I'll
move to approve.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
9-27-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
186
approval of the resolution. Any question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I've got a question
that's got to do with our ongoing efforts to try to
understand this thing. I've been reading about the D.R.E.
machines, an alternative to D.R.E. machines being adaptation
of the scanner in some way. Do we scan our ballots?
MS. PIEPER: We have what is called a ballot
scanner, yes. We have two of them.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That answers the
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: That motion does carry. Next
item on the agenda, Number 29, is consider and discuss the
adoption of a resolution to declare September 2004 as
Destination Dignity Month. That was provided by the mental
health folks.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think this is an
annual affair.
JUDGE TINLEY: I believe it is.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I move for
9-27-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
187
approval.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item. 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: That motion does carry. Next
item is consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to
set a public hearing on September 30th, 2004, at 5 p.m. in
the Kerr County Courthouse to review the performance and
obtain comments on the Texas Community Development Program
Year Contract 721075, Kerrville South Wastewater Project,
Phase I. Commissioner Williams.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, this is a
requirement of T.C.D.P. as you close out a particular phase
or a particular contract. I will be in attendance; the rest
of the Court does not need to be here. And I will be in
attendance at that public hearing to take any comment and
record them as such.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and sectioned for
9-27-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
188
approval of the agenda item. 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: That motion does carry.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Kathy will post it
this afternoon.
JUDGE TINLEY: Next item, consider and
discuss consolidating the voting location for Precinct 320
and 312 at Zion Lutheran Church for the November 2, 2004
general election.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, we're going to
pass on this. It's going to be addressed in the addendum.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's right?
MS. PIEPER: That's correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Next item is consider,
discuss, and take appropriate action to retain Community
Resource Group, Incorporated, of Austin, Texas, to conduct a
mail survey of the Center Point area to determine the 2003
adjusted median household income, to tabulate those
responses for inclusion with Kerr County grant application
for the Texas Water Development Board funding, the
9-27-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
189
expenditure not to exceed $1,000, to come from Commissioners
Court Professional Services.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, this is the
last element that we need prior to finalizing the
application for submission to the Texas Water Development
Board. The census data that's available to us from the 2000
census is just not sufficient to get the job done, 'cause we
tried to establish a correct median for the area to be
served. So, this is a group out of Austin, as the backup
material shows you, that does these type of things. So,
it's a nonprofit group. They will conduct a survey in
confidence and tabulate the results, give us the information
we need for inclusion in the grant. Move approval of the
item.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item. Any question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question. We don't have
to make these colonias, do we?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pardon?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We don't have to do the
colonias again?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No. No, it's already
gone. No.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just wanted to make sure.
9-27-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
190
Last time we did one of these, we ended up getting a
firestorm.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, no, we're 1,000
miles from that. For the moment.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No, we're only
150 miles from it.
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: That motion does carry.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Excuse me, Judge.
And authorize the County Judge to sign that agreement.
Would that be inclusive --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- with the Court's
approval? Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: The addendum, Item 33,
consider, discuss, and approve changing the voting location
for Precinct 320.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This one, I think, is --
320, as you recall, has been a problem precinct to find a
place to vote in. We've been using Red Rose Ranch, which is
9-27-04
191
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
not a good location, but it's the only one we had. We've
had some recent, I guess, complaints, however you'd put it,
from some of the judges for that election. We have relooked
at the maps very closely, and we now believe that the --
MS. PIEPER: Calvary Temple.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's it called? The
big gym on Calvary Temple -- Fellowship Hall. Fellowship
Hall is in 3. The chur~~h, though -- the church is not.
MS. PIEPER: The church is too.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's questionable. Well,
the church is too?
MS. PIEPER: Yes, the church is behind the
yellow line.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. The parking lot
isn't, but the church is. Okay. So, we can use Calvary
Temple. It's a much better location for Precinct 320, and
I'll move that we change the voting location for Precinct
320 to Fellowship Hall at Calvary Temple Church.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item, to locate that Precinct 320
voting location to Calvary Temple Church Fellowship Hall.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You'll get
complaints about this one, too.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not as much as the other
9-27-04
192
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
one.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I can't imagine
getting complaints on this one. This is perfect.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's a good location. It
was actually what we -- the intent originally was. The maps
were weird.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No good deed goes
unpunished.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Much better than Red
Rose Ranch.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Wherever that is.
That's out in Hunt somewhere, isn't it? No wonder they were
complaining.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's a rifle range.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or
discussion on the motion? 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: That motion does carry. Why
don't we move on to the approval agenda. First item is to
pay the bills.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have one question,
Judge.
9-27-04
193
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Under Commissioners
Court, a Kerrville Daily Times classified ad for employee?
What was that?
MS. LAVENDER: Road and Bridge.
JUDGE TINLEY: I couldn't tell you.
MS. LAVENDER: It's a Road and Bridge.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Road and Bridge? Road
and Bridge.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why wouldn't it be
under Road and Bridge?
JUDGE TINLEY: Nondepartmental comes to
Commissioners Court.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. All of them are
coming through us.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Or out of our budget.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That explains it.
Move we pay the bills.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
payment of the bills as presented. Any further question or
discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
9-27-09
194
1
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: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry.
Budget amendments. Budget Amendment Request Number 1.
MR. TOMLINSON: I have a question about the
budget amendment on -- for Item 15. Did I miss any action
on -- it was about this Victim's Rights Coordinator.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It was approved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It was approved.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. I just didn't catch
that, so I just wanted to make sure. Okay. Number 1 is for
Juvenile Probation. This amendment actually is a request to
increase the budget and to transfer funds from -- I mean, to
increase the budget out of surplus funds, Fund 10, in the
amount of $18,708 for housing for Juvenile Probation. Along
with that, I have late bills I need hand checks for. One is
to Kerr County Juvenile Facility for $7,304. One's to Gulf
Coast Trades Center for $2,480.
JUDGE TINLEY: $2,480?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. One is to Hays County
for $1,869. One to -- well, actually, I have two to Ever
Change, which is a facility in Hondo, $4,960. And the other
one is for -- to the same, Ever Change, for $5,270.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This is for
housing --
9-27-04
195
1
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: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- Kerr County
juveniles?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Help me out here.
Why can't they be housed in our own detention facility?
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me answer that, if I
might.
COMMISSTONER WILLIAMS: Please do.
JUDGE TINLEY: These -- these children are
placed in special programs. Gulf Coast, for example, is a
trade school. The other facilities -- Ever Change, for
example -- are boot camps. We do not operate a boot camp.
Hays County -- is that also a boot camp? I bet it is.
MR. TOMLINSON: Probably is.
JUDGE TINLEY: It's either that or some other
specialized treatment.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that the one that's
closing?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Maybe we should start a
boot camp.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Maybe we should.
9-27-04
196
1
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: All we need is a tent for
that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Got a big park down
there by the river.
JUDGE TINLEY: You gentlemen are -- are
working on my plans for increased capacity out at the Kerr
County Law Enforcement Center.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Do I get to put them in
pink underwear too, like they do in Arizona? No problem.
Get ready for the lawsuit.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Write that down,
p-i-n-k.
MS. LAVENDER: Pink underwear.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah. It is -- if "B.C."
stands for boot camp, that's what it is.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Boot camp, yeah.
That's the only programs that I'm aware that we send them to
over in Hays County. If they're just regular programs,
well, we'll place them here, of course, if we have the
programs in place.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Except for these --
JUDGE TINLEY: Except the trade school and
boot camp, yeah.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This is a related
issue the Sheriff and I were talking about at the break
9-27-04
197
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
time. One of the facets of -- of our having youth ranches
here -- we've got three or four or five of them -- is that
kids come in here from all over Texas, mostly San Antonio
and places close by, but they're not our kids. And while
they're here, they get in trouble, and the Sheriff picks
them up, and they're adjudicated here. And sometimes they
get sent off to Lubbock or Amarillo because of their special
needs, and we pay $2,800 a month for a kid out of San
Antonio. That's not a -- I'm not making that story up. I
just so happened to be involved in it in each step of the
way. It's a fact of life. We're not going to -- I'm not
proposing we ask the 3-H and the Hill Country to move away,
but it does cost us taxpayer dollars to deal with the
juvenile problems.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Not to mention what
public schools --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- deal with them.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And we -- and the
State helps pay for that.
COMMISSIONER
we're being asked here to d~
reserve funds, and increase
wants to make that motion?
COMMISSIONER
BALDWIN: Yeah, right. So,
=_clare an emergency, go into the
the budget by $18,708. Who
Step right up. I'll do it.
WILLIAMS: Has to be done. I'll
9-27-04
198
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
~-.
25
second it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of Budget Amendment Request Number 1, declaring an
emergency and authorizing payment of late bills and hand
checks as indicated by the Auditor to the entities in the
amounts specified.
MR. TOMLINSON: And that won't be the last
one.
JUDGE TINLEY: Pardon?
MR. TOMLINSON: That won't be the last one.
That doesn't include September.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It might be, though.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One final question.
Fund Number 10 is?
MR. TOMLINSON: The General Fund.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The General Fund.
JUDGE TINLEY: The funds come from surplus
reserves in General Fund Number 10. Any further question or
discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just a comment, that
this thing has gotten awfully expensive today.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just this one today,
it's gotten very expensive to the taxpayers of Kerr County.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or
9-27-04
199
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,.-.
25
discussion? All in favor of that motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry.
Budget Amendment Request Number 2.
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 2 is from
Environmental Health. Their request is to transfer $620
from Overtime to the On-Site Council Fees line item.
(Commissioner Letz left the courtroom.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Move for approval.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of Budget Amendment Request Number 2. Any question
or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by
raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.}
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry.
Budget Amendment Request Number 3.
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 3 is for Road and
Bridge. Their request is to transfer $957.16 from their
Contingency line item to Fuel Oils.
9-27-04
200
1
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: So moved.
	COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
	JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval o	f Budget Amendment Request Number 3. I'm
surprised,	with rising costs in that particular kind of
commodity,	they made it this long on what they budgeted.
	COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
	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: The motion does carry. Budget
Amendment	Request 4.
MR. TOMLINSON: Four is from Constable 2, to
transfer $26.99 from Equipment Repairs to Fuel and Oil.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of Budget Amendment Request 4. Any question or
discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
9-27-04
201
1
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: The motion does carry. Budget
Amendment Request Number 5.
(Commissioner Letz returned to courtroom.)
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 5 is from the Sheriff.
The request is to transfer $2,980.78 from Nurse's Salary
line item, $36.48 to Operating Supplies, $2,944.30 to
Utilities. This is for the jail. The Sheriff's Office
request is to transfer $7,334.75 from Group Insurance to Gas
and Oil.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Any question or discussion? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY:
any late bills, except those
MR. TOMLINSON:
JUDGE TINLEY:
Request Number 6.
MR. TOMLINSON:
Treasurer. Her request is to
Motion does carry. Do we have
Lndicated?
I have another amendment.
Oh, okay. Budget Amendment
Number 6 is from the
transfer $1,650 from the Group
9-27-09
202
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Insurance line item to Part-Time Salaries.
JUDGE TINLEY: What's -- what's the balance
in her insurance? Obviously, it's $1,650 or more, isn't it?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: It's that much at least.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I -- see if you can
get a second before I talk.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'll second.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have a question, while
Commissioner 1's thinking. My question is, is there a
reason -- there's a need for part-time help down there? I
mean, part-time is something we kind of budget for. This is
a pretty big amount.
MR. TOMLINSON: I don't have the answer to
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, if there's -- if
someone's sick or someone's going to leave, that's one
thing, but I don't know what -- how we'd need a part-time
person right now.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, it'd be nice if
we had an explanation.
JUDGE TINLEY: I can't give you one.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I withdraw my motion.
9-27-04
203
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We have a built-in
budget item, as Commissioner Letz or somebody said, that
indicates that that's a job and a quarter or something like
that. It also surprises me that we need another $1,650.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I withdraw the
motion. If we can get an explanation, we'll put it on a
subsequent agenda.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are any of the --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do you withdraw your
second?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I didn't make it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's two employees and
the elected official, correct?
MR. TOMLINSON: There's a part-time and a
full-time.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: One employee,
elected official, and one --
JUDGE TINLEY: Part-time.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- part-time.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Permanent part-time
same position, all the time.
MR. TOMLINSON: I might could get an answer
before you adjourn. If you --
JUDGE TINLEY: Going to have to be pretty
9-27-04
204
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
quick.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You can do it by
tomorrow. We meet tomorrow. We can handle something like
this if we recess.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, we can go ahead and
recess. Yeah, that would be okay.
(Discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Some of us may be here.
I'm not sure if I will.
JUDGE TINLEY: You withdrawing your motion,
then?
COMMISSIONER W
some explanation.
JUDGE TINLEY:
bill as presented, do we have
MR. TOMLINSON:
JUDGE TINLEY:
MR. TOMLINSON:
which is included in -- along
requirement report.
JUDGE TINLEY:
and hand check to Kerr County
Is it the same one?
MR. TOMLINSON:
JUDGE TINLEY:
ILLIAMS: Yeah, waiting for
Okay. Other than the late
any late bills?
I have another one.
Okay.
To the Juvenile Facility,
with the -- it's in the fund
We have approved a late bill
Juvenile Facility for $7,304.
No, it's a different one.
Okay.
9-27-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
205
MR. TOMLINSON: But it's included in the --
it's included in the fund requirement report that you
previously approved, but I want to be able to write a hand
check for it. It's for $5,146, for post-adjudication
placements for August.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. $5,146?
MR. TOMLINSON; Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: And at the Kerr County
Juvenile Detention Facility. Okay.
(Low-voice discussion off the record.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The Treasurer has proposed a
late bill and hand check in the amount of $5,146 to Kerr
County Juvenile Detention Facility for post-adjudication
costs for August. Do I hear a motion for approval?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Any question or discussion? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.}
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. We
don't have any transcripts today. I have before me monthly
reports for Justice of the Peace, Precinct number 1, Justice
9-27-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
206
of the Peace, Precinct Number 2, and Constable, Precinct
Number 3. Do I hear a motion to approve these reports as
presented?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the enumerated reports as presented. Any
question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify
by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion also carries.
Okay. Do we have any reports from the Commissioners in
connection with their liaison, EMS, 9-1-1, airport, anything
along those lines?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that the Court is
aware of where we are on the airport.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think so too.
Nothing has changed dramatically, not since we talked about
21 that.
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Other than it's kind of
JUDGE TINLEY: It's on a glide.
going this way.
9-27-04
207
1
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: On a glide.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other reports from elected
officials or department heads?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, do you -- you
know, do you think it's -- we're due a report from our
attorney on our insurance issue?
JUDGE TINLEY: Should be getting about --
about that time. Do you want to go ahead and schedule one
for --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Next meeting.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think that would be
wise. It should be time for something.
JUDGE TINLEY: After we get through the
budget and so forth? Okay. Okay, we'll make arrangements
to get him up here.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. Any other
reports from anybody? Does any member of the Court have any
need to go into executive or closed session for anything?
Hearing none, we'll stand in recess until tomorrow at
10 a.m.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: When do we meet?
JUDGE TINLEY: No, 10:30. Excuse me, it's
10:30 -- no, it's posted for 10:00. It is 10:00, because I
added the budget, if necessary. I backed that up to
9-27-04
208
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10 o'clock, because we had the -- the tax rate on the agenda
for 10:30, so I backed it up to 10:00 on the posting. The
budget is at 10:00; the tax rate at 10:30. Since -- since
we actually -- I suppose we could recess until actually
10:30, since we don't have to address the budget -- I
mean -- yeah, the budget issue. So, we'll stand in recess
until 10:30.
MR. TOMLINSON: September the 28th,
10:30 a.m.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That meeting was posted for
Thursday. I guess the question now is, how do we handle the
one remaining budget amendment that's outstanding from the
Treasurer's office?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Recess till 12:55. I
mean, it can't take long to do this, if she has an answer
today -- or 12:45.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We`ll still be here
at 1:00?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: How about the court
reporter?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, we need her here for
that. The -- the TexDOT meeting starts at 1:00.
MS. MITCHELL: Mm-hmm.
9-27-04
209
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Goes from 1:00 to 4:00.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Will the court reporter
be here for the TexDOT meeting?
JUDGE TINLEY: She's not going to take that,
no.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think that we
should have the court reporter have to come back for a
five-minute --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Shouldn't tie up six
people for this thing.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. But we got one budget
amendment.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What happens if we
don't approve it? It goes another two weeks?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. That's what I
said originally; bring it back at the next court meeting.
COMMISSTONER BALDWIN: Either that or approve
it right this moment.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Either that or what?
COMMISSTONER BALDWIN: Either that or approve
it right now.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's okay, if we
have an explanation.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We're going to wind
up paying it either way. We can approve it now and get her
9-27-09
210
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
explanation later.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's true. That's
true.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Make the motion.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I move to approve.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of Budget Amendment Request Number 6 from the
Treasurer for part-time help. Any question or discussion?
All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right
hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: We stand adjourned.
(Recess taken from 3:50 p.m. to 3:57 p.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me -- let's go back on the
record. Actually, what I meant to do was recess rather than
adjourn. I was hoping we'd find out the circumstances
behind this -- this Budget Amendment Number 6 that was
proposed by the County Treasurer. So, having done so in
error, I will rescind my declaration of adjournment, but
rather recess, and I will now bring us back to order. Do we
have any knowledge about the circumstances of -- of this
9-27-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,-..
25
211
part-time help request?
MR. TOMLINSON: Judge, I -- the information I
have is not direct from the Treasurer. My recommendation
would be to have her personally explain the purpose for
the -- for the amendment.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Before we take any
action?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah, before we take any
action.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with that,
JUDGE TINLEY: Seems reasonable.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion that
we rescind the prior court order, and make a motion that we
take no action on this at this time.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to
rescind the prior court order approving the Budget Amendment
Number 6. 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: That motion does carry. Do we
have any further business to come before the Court today, or
9-27-04
212
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
any anticipation that we'll need to have further business to
come before the Court within the next 24 hours?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Give us a few minutes.
JUDGE TINLEY: In that event, why don't we
just recess, then?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
NUDGE TINLEY: And we'll have it available to
us in the event there is other business to come up. So,
we'll stand in recess. It's 4 o'clock.
(Commissioners Court recessed at 4 p.m.)
STATE OF TEXAS ~
COUNTY OF KERR ~
The above and foregoing is a true and complete
transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as
County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County,
Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth.
DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 4th day of October,
2004.
22
23
24
25
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
.C
B Y : ____ _____ ________
Kathy Ba ik, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
9-27-04
ORDER NO. 28823
COLONEL WALTER B. HARRIS
Came to be heard this the 27th day of September 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, and a Second made by Commissioner Letz, the Court
unanimously approved a vote of 4-0-0 to thank Colonel Walter B. Harris for his service
to Kerr County 9-1-1-network.
ORDER N0.28824
KERB COUNTY 9-1-1 NETWORK
Came to be heard this the 27`'' day of September 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, and a Second made by Commissioner Letz, the Court
unanimously approved a vote of 3-1-0 to appoint Ron Vick as County Representative to
the Board of Governor's of Kerr County 9-1-1 Network for a two year term.
ORDER NO. 28825
9-I-1 RESPONDER
Y.O. RANCHLAND SUBDIVISION
Came to be heard this the 27~' day of September 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, and a Second made by Commissioner Nicholson, the Court
unanimously approved a vote of 4-0-0 an interlocal mutual aid agreement for emergency
medical services between Kerr County and Kimble County, and contingent upon
approval as to form from the County Attorney and approval of the City of Kerrville to a
similar agreement, and authorize the County Judge to sign the same.
ORDER N0.28826
CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND PUBLIC SAFETY NARCOTICS LAW ENFORCEMENT
COMMUNITY PLAN
Came to be heard this the 27`x' day of September 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, and a Second made by Commissioner Williams, the Court
unanimously approved a vote of 4-0-0 to approve the Kerr County Criminal Justice and
Public Safety Narcotics Law Enforcement Community Plan.
ORDER N0.28827
ELECTION JUDGES AND ALTERNATES
Came to be heard this the 27`'' day of September 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, and a Second made by Commissioner Letz, the Court
unanimously approved a vote of 4-0-0 the replacement for the following precincts with
these individuals working as Judge and Alternate Judge.
Pct. 215
Pct 314
Pct 404
Pct 416
Pct 320
Alternate Judge
Alternate Judge
Alternate Judge
Judge
Alternate Judge
Selma Gibson
Joseph Arredondo
Jane Alley
James O'Flaherty
Margaret Steele
ORDER N0.28828
COST FOR COPY OF BUDGET
Came to be heard this the 27~' day of September 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, and a Second made by Commissioner Williams, the Court
unanimously approved a vote of 4-0-0 to authorize the County Clerk to charge $20.00 for
a copy of the 2004/05 Budget.
ORDER N0.28829
SHERIFF AND CONSTABLE FEES
Came to be heard this the 27~` day of September 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, and a Second made by Commissioner Williams, the Court
unanimously approved a vote of 4-0-0 the following fees as required under LGC 118.131.
Notices:	
Subpoenas	$60.00
Summons	$60.00
Writ of Attachment	$200.00
Writ of Garnishment	$200.00
Writ of Sequestration	$200.00
Orders of Sale (Tax Warrants)	$200.00
Writ of Possession	$200.00
Forcible Detainer	$200.00
Service Fees•
Small Claims Citation $45.00
Justice Court Citations $45.00
All other Court Citations $60.00
Other Service Fees:
Brady Bill	$10.00
Fingerprints	$ 5.00
Execution/Processing	
Arrest Warrant	$50.00
Writ of Execution	$200.00
Posting Written Notices	$60.00
Temporary Restraining Orders	$60.00
Injunctions	$60.00
Notices	$60.00
Precepts	$60.00
Writ of Restitution	$200.00
Sheriffls Bailiff Fee	$15.00
ORDER N0.28830
RESOLUTION
Came to be heard this the 27~' day of September 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, and a Second made by Commissioner Williams, the Court
unanimously approved a vote of 4-0-0 to adopt a Resolution proclaiming October as
Czech Heritage Month in Kerr County.
ORDER N0.28831
RESOLUTION
Came to be heard this the 27~' day of September 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, and a Second made by Commissioner Nicholson, the Court
unanimously approved a vote of 4-0-0 to adopt a Resolution proclaiming September as
Emergency Preparedness Month in Kerr County.
ORDER N0.28832
ELECTED OFFICIALS SALARY
Came to be heard this the 27~' day of September 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner, and a Second made by Commissioner, the Court unanimously approved a
vote of 4-0-0 setting the salary, expenses, and other allowances of the elected county and
precinct officers for FY 2004/2005.
OFFICIAL	PRESENT PRESENT PRESENT PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED
OFFICIAL	PRESENT PRESENT PRESENT PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED
	SALARY SU	PPLEMENT TRAVEL S	ALARY SU	PPLEMENT TRAVEL
CONST.#1	$29,429	$0	$0	$31,612	$0	Vehicle
CONST.#2	$29,429	$0	$0	$31,612	$0	Vehicle
CONST.#3	$29,429	$0	$0	$31,612	$0	Vehicle
CONST.#4	$29,429	$0	$0	$31,612	$0	$0
CO. ATTY	$66,996	$33,900	$0	$70,306	$33,900	$0
CO. CLK	$42,249	$0	$0	$44,816	$0	$0
CO. COMM	$37,792	$0	$0	$40,226	$0	$0
CO.JUDGE	$46,381	$15,200	$0	$53,192	$11,200	$0
CO.TREAS	$42,249	$820	$0	$44,816	$1,600	$0
DIST. CLERK	$42,249	$3,000	$0	$44,816	$3,090	$0
J.P. #1	$33,640	$0	$0	$35,949	$0	$0
J.P. #2	$30,378	2,050	$0	$35,949	$0	$0
J.P. #3	$30,378	2,050	$0	$35,949	$0	$0
J.P. #4	$30,378	2,050	$0	$35,949	$0	$0
SHERIFF	$51,735	$0	Vehicle	$58,437	$0	Vehicle
TAX	$42,249	$0	$0	$44,816	$0	$0
ASSICOLL						
ORDER N0.28833
Revision of Plat
Tract 28A & 28B YO Ranchlands
Came to be heard this the 27~' day of September 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, and a Second made by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court
unanimously approved a vote of 4-0-0 the Revision of Plat for Tracts 29A & 28 B of the
YO Ranchlands.
ORDER N0.28834
Road Name Changes, Regulatory Signs and Abandonment
Came to be heard this the 27"' day of September 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner, and a Second made by Commissioner, the Court unanimously approved a
vote of 4-0-0 to change the road names, install regulatory signs, set speed limits, and
abandon, discontinue and vacate roads in various locations as listed below:
OLD NAME
Bee Caves
REGULATORY SIGNS
Yield
Stop
Stop
45 MPH
NEW NAME
Upper Bee Caves
LOCATION
Cedar Springs
Acorn CT to Skyview
Fox Trail to Skyview
Center Point River Road
ABANDON DISCONTINUE AND VACATE FROM KERR COUNTY MAINTENANCE
Lackey Road
ORDER NO.28835
Budget Amendment
County Attorney
Came to be heard this the 27~' day of September 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, and a Second made by Commissioner Williams, the Court
unanimously approved a vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expenses;
Expense Code Description Requested +()
10-475-103 Asst. Salaries ($2,500.00)
10-475-565 Victims Rts. Coord $2,500.00
ORDER NO. 28836
PROPOSED 2004/2005 KERR COUNTY BUDGET
Came to be heard this the 27~` day of September 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, and a Second made by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court
unanimously approved a vote of 4-0-0 to adopt the Proposed 2004/2005 Kerr County
Budget adding $3500.00 to the Environmental Health Department for the purpose of the
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.
ORDER NO. 28837
PUBLIC HEARING
Came to be heard this the 27~' day of September 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Nicholson, and a Second made by Commissioner Williams, the Court
unanimously approved a vote of 4-0-0 to set a Public Hearing for Revision of Plat for
Tracts 29 and 35 of Kerr Vista Ranch Section Four for November 8, 2004 at 10:00 a.m.
ORDER N0.28838
ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS
ROAD & BRIDGE DEPARTMENT
Came to be heard this the 27~' day of September 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, and a Second made by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court
unanimously approved a vote of 4-0-0 to advertise for bids on Road & Bridge Capital
Outlays that are not available on Government Purchasing Programs.
ORDER N0.28839
PUBLIC HEARING
Came to be heard this the 27~' day of September 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, and a Second made by Commissioner Nicholson, the Court
unanimously approved a vote of 4-0-0 to set a public hearing for regulatory signs, school
zones and road acceptance on November 8, 2004 at 10:45 A.M.
ORDER NO. 28840
RELEASING LETTER OF CREDIT # 2004-02
HERMOSA SUBDIVISION
Came to be heard this the 27~' day of September 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Nicholson, and a Second made by Commissioner Letz, the Court
unanimously approved a vote of 4-0-0 to release the Letter of Credit #2004-02.
ORDER N0.28841
PUBLIC HEARING
FALLING WATER
Came to be heard this the 27~' day of September 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, and a Second made by Commissioner Williams, the Court
unanimously approved a vote of 4-0-0 to set a public hearing on November 8, 2004 at
10:15 A.M. for Revision of Plats on Lots No. 21 & 22 into Lot 21A. The Reserve of
Falling Water and Revision of Plat for Lots No. 6, 7E and 7W into Lot 6R.
ORDER N0.28842
Process to Select Unexpired term
Came to be heard this the 27~' day of September 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Nicholson, and a Second made by Commissioner Williams, the Court
unanimously approved a vote of 4-0-0 the process to select individuals to fill the un
expired term of Justice of the Peace #3.
ORDER N0.28843
JUSTICE OF THE PEACE #3
Came to be heard this the 27~' day of September 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, and a Second made by Commissioner Williams, the Court
unanimously approved a vote of 4-0-0 to appoint Kari O'Dell to act as temporary Pct. 3
Justice of the Peace pending selection of Pct 3 Justice of the Peace to serve until
November 1, 2004.
ORDER NO. 28$44
RESOLUTION
HELP AMERICA VOTE ACT FUNDS
Came to be heard this the 27~' day of September 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Nicholson, Seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the court unanimously
approved a vote of 4-0-0 for a grant application for Help America Vote Act Funds and
adoption of appropriate and/or necessary resolution in connection therewith.
ORDER NO. 28845
RESOLUTION
Came to be heard this the 27`~ day of September 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, Seconded by Commissioner Williams, the court unanimously
approved a vote of 4-0-0 adopt a Resolution declaring September 2004 as Destination
Dignity Month.
ORDER NO. 28846
PUBLIC HEARING
TCDP PROGRAM YEAR CONTRACT 721075
Came to be heard this the 27~' day of September 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Nicholson, Seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the court unanimously
approved a vote of 4-0-0 to set a public hearing for September 30, 2004 at 5 p.m. to
review the performance and obtain comments on TCDP Program Year Contract 721075,
Kerrville South Wastewater Project, Phase I.
ORDER NO. 28847
COMMUNITY RESOURCE GROUP, INC.
Came to be heard this the 27~' day of September 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, Seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the court unanimously
approved a vote of 4-0-0 to retain Community Resource Group, Inc. of Austin, TX to
conduct a mail survey of the Center Point area to determine the 2003 Adjusted Median
Household Income with expenditures not to exceed $1000 to come from Commissioner
Court Professional Service line item 10-401-486.
ORDER NO. 28848
Precinct 320 Polling Location Change
Came to be heard this the 27`x' day of September 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, Seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the court unanimously
approved a vote of 4-0-0 to change the polling location for Precinct 320 from the Red
Rose Ranch to Calvary Temple Church located at 3000 Loop 534, Kerrville Texas.
ORDER N0.28849
CLAIMS AND ACCOUNTS
On this the 27th day of September 2004, came to be considered by the Court various
Commissioners Precincts, which said Claims and Accounts are:
Expenses Amount	
10-General	$121,703.86
14-Fire	$14,108.77
15 Road & Bridge	$59,627.94
26-JP Technology	$401.89
28-Records Mgt.	$476.40
50-Indigent Health Care	$729.80
80-Historical Commission	$22.97
Total Cash Required for all Funds $197,071.63
Upon motion made by Commissioner Williams, Seconded by Commissioner Baldwin,
the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to pay said Claims and Accounts.
ORDER N0.28850
BUDGET AMENDMENT
JUVENILE PROBATION
Came to be heard this the 27~' day of September 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, Seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to declare an emergency and to transfer the following
budget amendment;
Expense Code Description Requested +Q
10-507-482 Alternate Housing $18,708.00
10 Surplus Reserves ($18,708.00)
ORDER NO. 28851
BUDGET AMENDMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
Came to be heard this the 27~' day of September 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, Seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 3-0-0, to transfer the following budget amendment;
Expense Code Description Requested +()
10-640-434 On-Site Council Fees $620.00
10-640-112 Overtime ($620.00)
ORDER NO. 28852
BUDGET AMENDMENT
ROAD & BRIDGE UNIT SYSTEM
Came to be heard this the 27th day of September 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, Seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 3-0-0, to transfer the following budget amendment;
Expense Code Description Requested +()
15-611-331 Fuel Oils $957.16
15-611-599 Contingencies ($957.16)
ORDER NO. 28853
BUDGET AMENDMENT
CONSTABLE PCT. #2
Came to be heard this the 27th day of September 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, Seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 3-0-0, to transfer the following budget amendment;
Expense Code Description Requested +()
10-552-331 Fuel 8~ Oil $26.99
10-552-456 Equipment Repair ($26.99)
ORDER NO. 28854
BUDGET AMENDMENT
COUNTY JAIL
SHERIFF' S DEPARTMENT
Came to be heard this the 27~' day of September 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, Seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to transfer the following budget amendment;
Expense Code	Description	Requested +()
10-512-331	Operating Supplies	$36.48
10-512-440	Utilities	$2,944.30
10-512-106	Nurses	($2,980.78)
10-560-331	Vehicle Gas & Oils	$7,334.75
10-560-202	Group Insurance	($7,334.75)
ORDER N0.28855
LATE BILL WITH HAND CHECK
JUVENILE FACILITY
Came to be heard this the 27~' day of September 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Nicholson, Seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to pay the late bill and authorize a hand check in the
amount of $5,146.00 payable to Kerr County Juvenile Facility.
ORDER N0.28856
MONTHLY REPORTS
Came to be heard this the 27~' day of September 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, Seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0, the following monthly reports:
Justice of the Peace #1 and #2
Constable Pct. # 3
ORDER N0.28857
BUDGET AMENDMENT
Came to be heard this the 27~' day of September 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Nicholson, Seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 3-1-0, to transfer the following budget amendment;
Expense Code Description Requested +()
10-497-202 Insurance ($1,650.00)
10-497-108 Part-Time $1,650.00
ORDER NO. 28858
Rescind Court Order No. 28857
Came to be heard this the 27~' day of September 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, Seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to rescind court order no. 28857.