1
..-. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
	9
	10
	11
	12
,.^,	13
	
	14
	15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT
Regular Session
Monday, December 13, 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
N`I
\I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
I N D E X
December 13, 2004
--- Commissioners' Comments
1.1 Consider Regional Mitigation Action Plan and
adoption of Resolution approving same
1.2 Consider variance for road right-of-way width for
"Unpaved Country Lane"
1.3 Discuss request from landowner to accept Scenic
Ridge Road for Kerr County Maintenance
1.4 Consider settlement agreement with bonding
companies
1.8 PUBLIC HEARING for revision of plat for Tracts
15 & 16 of Bluff Creek Ranch
1.9 Consider final revision of plat for Tracts 15 &
16 of Bluff Creek Ranch
1.10 PUBLIC HEARING for cancellation of Spring Hollow
Estates
1.11 Consider cancellation of Spring Hollow Estates
1.5 Adoption of Statement of Support for the Guard
and Reserve
1.6 Consider applications for stop loss and life
insurance, requesting payment for binder(s),
authorizing County Judge to execute applications
1.7 Consider minor amendments to 2 recent agreements
concerning EMS service to northwest Kerr County
1.12 Consider allowing Treasurer to hire a chief
deputy at a 19.3
1.13 Nomination of Mr. Johnnie L. Hawkins to board of
Kerr County Emergency Services District No. 1
1.14 Consider payment of 2005 dues to AACOG
1.15 Consider having first Commissioners Court meeting
of 2005 at Union Church building
1.16 Consider extension of temporary lease & operating
agreement at Juvenile Detention Facility
1.17 Consider acquisition of Kerr County Juvenile
Detention Facility
1.18 Approval of operational funding for Kerr County
Juvenile Detention Facility
4.1 Pay Bills
4.2 Budget Amendments
4.3 Late Bills
4.4 Read and Approve Minutes
4.5 Approve and Accept Monthly Reports
5.1 Reports from Commissioners/Liaison Committee
Assignments
--- Adjourned
PAGE
9
11
25
44
60
61
65
66
67
69
81
100
104
106
107
111
115
131
137
141
144
145
146
147
154
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
3
On Monday, December 13, 2004, at 9:00 a.m., a regular
meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in the
Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, Kerrville,
Texas, and the following proceedings were had in open court:
P R O C E E D I N G S
JUDGE TINLEY: Good morning, ladies and
gentlemen. Let me call to order the meeting of the
Commissioners Court posted for this time and date, Monday,
December 13th, 2004, at 9 a.m. It is just a smidgen,
Commissioner Baldwin, past that time now.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir, it is. It's
a smidgen.
JUDGE TINLEY: Just a smidgen. Yes, it is.
Commissioner 4, I believe you have the honors this morning.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Please join me in
prayer and the pledge of allegiance, please.
(Prayer and pledge of allegiance.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. At this time, if
there's any member of the public or the audience that
desires to address the Court on any item on the agenda -- or
excuse me, any item that is not listed on the agenda, you're
free to come forward at this time. If it is your desire to
address the Court or speak with respect to any matter that
is a listed item on the agenda, we ask that you fill out a
participation form. There's a form at the back of the room.
12-13-04
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
4
It's not absolutely required, but it helps me to keep up
with those that want to speak and hopefully not miss you.
But, at this point, if there's anyone who wants to speak
about any matter that's not listed on the agenda, feel free
to come forward at this time and tell us what's on your
mind. Seeing no one making that move, so we'll -- we'll
move forward. Commissioner Nicholson, do you have anything
for us this morning?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes, Judge. I think
all of you are probably aware of the tragic circumstances
surrounding the Julie Mogenis being injured in a hunting
accident -- actually, they weren't hunting; they were
putting a firearm in the back of a pickup trick. She was
shot through the pelvis. Ms. Mogenis is very well-known in
the sporting world, holds a number of records in hunting.
She's very active in civic life in west Kerr County and, in
fact, is a volunteer firefighter. She's going to survive
and going to be in the hospital a long time, and I was
hearing this morning on the radio that they're expecting her
medical expenses to be about a million dollars. There's a
-- we're not going to be able to cover a million dollars,
but there's an account at the Bank of the Hills if anybody
wants to make contributions there, and the Hunt Volunteer
Fire Department will be arranging a fundraiser sometime in
the near future. That's all I've got.
1~-13-09
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
5
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Commissioner 1?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, sir, I don't have
anything, except it's good to see Mr. Emerson, our new
County Attorney -- well, County Attorney coming January 1.
Good to see you with us, sir. Thank you --
MR. EMERSON: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- for being here.
That's all.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner 2?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I often hear
Commissioner Letz talk about the small-town Christmases,
particularly Comfort and its fun. Well, it was fun in
Center Point Sunday night when the community gets together,
and they have a little candlelight parade and the small band
plays Christmas carols, they gather in the park and Santa
Claus comes, and all the kids line up to -- to give Santa
Claus their wish list. So, it's always fun. Small towns do
it right, and I -- you know, I just -- just a note, that the
big city of Kerrville has absolutely zero Christmas
decorations anywhere that are put up by the City or
sponsored by the City's Parks Department. Little town of
Center Point is all lit up. Every little light post is lit
up and different things, and different shapes, candy canes
and bells and santas and so forth. I wonder why that has to
happen only in a little town; can't happen in a big town,
12-13-04
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
6
Judge.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If I might make a
comment, that Center Point and Comfort are unincorporated.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good point.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is that it?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Commissioner 3?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Hermann Sons Bridge, the
preconstruction meeting is set for --
MR. ODOM: 17th.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 17th? At -- so, Leonard
and I will be there and get the final go-ahead. Because of
a few delays they had, I think it should be after the first
of the year when they actually start construction. They
don't want to start it until right after the holidays, from
talking with them. Anyway, it's right around the corner; it
looks good. Also, they're trying to work on somewhere to
store some equipment. Some of the landowners require
right-of-way, things of that nature, working right now.
But, anyway, with that meeting coming on, that should happen
pretty quickly now.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which reminds me,
there's a fellow over in Center Point who's willing to take
those trees down for you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: He needs to contact Dean
12-13-04
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
Word Construction.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, I'll pass that
on.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's now their domain.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, I'll pass that
on.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And on a personal note,
I'm very happy to announce that as of a week ago today was
the final adoption decree order passed by the court in San
Antonio, Bexar County, for -- Sam's officially Karen and I's
forever.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Great.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The attorney that was
representing us asked us the question before the judge; he
said, You understand when he comes in drunk, 18 years old,
and -- or 16 years old, drunk, and totals a car in your
front yard, he's still your son? And we said, Yeah, we
understand that. (Laughter.) But, anyway, it was a fun day
for us.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Congratulations.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And it is absolutely
astounding how hard they make it to adopt. It amazes me;
there's so many kids out there that need adoption. And I
guess there's -- I can understand a lot of the rationale in
12-13-04
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
8
trying to make sure it's a good match, but it is a long
process and lots of time, but worth it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're to be
commended for doing it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Amen.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. That is a rather
sobering question to be asked of a prospective new parent in
adoption. I can -- I'm not sure that's one I'd ask.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, yeah. I'll also
say that it certainly helps in your -- in Bexar County
courthouse to have an attorney that knows some judges,
because we were able to kind of get through that process,
which could be very lengthy, I think very quickly.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, as you say, there are
quite a few hoops to jump through, and there's a lot of
minefields in the Family Code relative to termination of
adoption.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd like it noted that I
had a positive comment about an attorney.
JUDGE TINLEY: Good.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I heard that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Baldwin may not
appreciate that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's in the record
12-13-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
r 24
25
9
now, too .
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, no, I appreciate
it. Just don't want to hear it again.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's get on with the
agenda. The first item under the agenda is to consider and
discuss Regional Mitigation Action Plan, adoption of a
resolution approving the same. We have -- we've got it here
somewhere. It's a small document; they actually sent it up
on a disk. That's it. If anybody's interested in taking a
look, why, be my guest. (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just so the Sheriff
knows it by heart, that's all.
JUDGE TINLEY: He assured me already that
he's got it committed to memory and is ready for any changes
that might be incorporated to it. There was a question
whether or not it was essential that we specifically adopt
the plan as it finally became published, question about
whether or not, as a policy matter, we adopted the -- the
plan previously. My philosophy is, if there's a question,
let's resolve the question and get it before us, and then
handle the final adoption and resolution, which they
forwarded to us, and it's part of your materials there for
-- to adopt the plan.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you asking for
questions, or are you suggesting there might be questions?
12-13-04
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
10
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm suggesting that -- that
there was questions whether or not it was necessary that we
adopt this resolution, because there's a suggestion that
maybe we had already previously adopted this plan by prior
action of the court. Because there is an outstanding
question, I -- my philosophy is, let's take a look at it and
make a decision accordingly.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What did he say?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I'm just going
to ask another question. Today or another day?
JUDGE TINLEY: I would suspect it would be
today. Because --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I move the adoption
of the plan and the resolution that supports the plan --
Regional Mitigation Action Plan, as presented.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're welcome.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
adoption of the agenda item and the resolution in support of
the plan. Any questions or discussion? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
12-13-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
11
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Thank
you. The next item on the agenda is to consider a variance
for a road right-of-way width for unpaved country lane for
property to be divided off Wilson Creek Road in Precinct 3.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Leonard, do you want to
start? You want to make some comments?
MR. ODOM: Well, I -- I'm open for questions,
but I think there's a letter there that y'all received from
Jeff Wentworth. I think that's what I saw this morning.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- I'll make a few
comments on this. Now, I don't know -- I was not privy to
the conversation between Mr. Hailey and Mr. Wentworth, so I
don't know exactly what he was told. The situation is, as I
understand it -- and I can be corrected if someone in the
audience knows more than I do about this -- that an easement
to get to the back piece of property that's going to be sold
was created under a -- a divorce decree by Judge Ables. Not
that that makes any difference, but it was created, a
12-foot easement. And it is a rather lengthy easement, and
in my opinion, that is not a sufficient easement to get to
that back property. I guess -- and I don't know if Jeff
looked at it and knows the whole thing. I've never seen the
actual decree, which I think is also a factor in this, to
see how it's worded, who has access, how it's -- you know,
25 I how it was created.
12-13-04
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
12
There is an argument -- I would agree with
Jeff that, you know, if that is the access to that property,
it would not require platting. If that access is allowed
just as it is, and it's a 12-foot easement, it can never --
it's not going to be brought -- you know, I think that if it
-- the title company and the realtor, real estate people,
all the people really need to be on notice if this goes
through that process without being platted, because there is
no way people that buy that property could ever really --
well, they can never sell that property, never divide it.
They could sell it as a whole, as it was, but they could
never divide it -- one tract out of it, because that would
trigger platting, and they could not get enough property to
get access to that second piece.
So they're really, to me, putting an
encumbrance on the back piece of the property, and
considering it's done knowingly with the current rules -- if
this was done, you know, a hundred years ago, I think we'd
possibly consider a variance and things of that nature, but
being done under our current set of rules and knowingly, you
know, I would never grant a variance to that. So, I think
it's on notice. I have a question -- I looked at the state
law, and I'm quite familiar with it, that it's a -- you
know, I look at it as certainly reasonable if they're -- I
don't know how you maintain a 12-foot easement. If that's
12-13-04
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
13
all you have, there may be a way, you know, through --
currently, of people getting along and, yeah, you can -- if
your maintainer gets, you know, a foot off here, a foot off
there, who cares? But, you know, you have to look down the
road. If someone puts a fence on that property, on that
easement line on both sides, I don't know how do you
anything on that 12 foot.
So, anyway, I think that, in my mind, it's
not a reasonable easement to get to that property, and
therefore you need get more, and then that requires
platting. I guess it can be referred to the County Attorney
if a 12-foot easement is sufficient and that's all you get,
and if they -- you know, 'cause that's clearly the issue, is
whether that easement is big enough or not. That's in Jeff
Wentworth's letter. The other issue which was on the agenda
originally, when the -- it was contemplated that platting
was required, that Mr. Hailey cannot get a 60-foot easement,
and it's very difficult to get to a 40-foot easement in
areas because of the corner where a barn's in the easement
in the right-of-way, or would be in the right-of-way. I
think they're going to move some structures to make that a
little bit -- you know, to help that situation.
But this is an area, clearly, where you
have -- we have to give a variance to get to a 40-foot -- go
down to a 40-foot. And that's why it was on the agenda, was
12-13-04
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
14
to get it before the Court, on the -- if we would grant a
variance for that 40-foot easement. Well, I would certainly
support that, because I think that's -- it's reasonable, and
I don't think it is reasonable to require someone to move a
building when they can get a 40-foot variance. Now, the
rest of the easement I think should probably be 60 foot
where it can be, which is what our minimum requirements are.
Anyway, that's just kind of where it is. So, I think the --
you know, the item on the agenda is solely related to the
variance issue, and I'll make a motion to approve a 40-foot
variance where needed, but 60-foot the balance of the
easement where needed, and that would be if platting is --
is done.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll second that. I
have a question.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of a variance for a 40-foot easement --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Where you cannot get --
do a 60-foot easement.
JUDGE TINLEY: With the balance being 60
foot. Otherwise, the imposition of a requirement of
platting. Is that what I'm hearing?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I'm not -- that's
not the issue. I think that's an issue that the buyers and
sellers need to determine, you know, whether it needs to be
12-13-04
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
15
platted or not. I mean, I think there's an argument both
ways.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It can be referred to the
County Attorney's office for that resolution.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Questions or
comments?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir, I have two
questions. The court order from 216th District, that
doesn't bind us in any way, this decision today? That
doesn't bind us in any way, does it?
JUDGE TINLEY: I wouldn't think so. It just
specifies what the relative rights of the two -- of whoever
the parties were to that lawsuit.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: It certainly binds whoever --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- whoever was before the
Court and the Court had jurisdiction of in that case.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I really would like to
see a crystal ball and see how the judge arrived at 12 feet,
though. That would be something really interesting to know.
Number two, the letter from Senator Wentworth, which it
looks as though that he actually wrote some of the law
here -- I'm not familiar with 232.0015(c) Are you?
12-13-09
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
16
MR. ODOM: I'll read it for you, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All right.
MR. ODOM: 232.001(a) and (3), "The owner of
a tract of land located outside the limits of a municipality
must have a plat of the subdivision prepared if the owner
divides a tract into two or more parts to lay out: Streets,
alleys, squares, parks, or other parts of the tract intended
to be dedicated to the public use or for the use of the
purchasers or owners of lots fronting on or adjacent to the
streets, alleys, squares, parks, or other part." So,
therefore, even if it's -- in my understanding, what was
presented to us, where this road goes in is through 14 acres
that his ex-spouse has, and that this other 50 acres is back
behind that, which does not have any frontage whatsoever.
So, if you give an easement, even if it's not built, just
that easement, metes and bounds, then you have to meet
subdivision requirements of 232.001(a)(3). That's laying
out a street.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. The exemption he's
-- as I understand it, you know, I think we're talking with
Mr. Motley at length, and others. There's an exemption for
agricultural use. If the property's going to be for
agricultural use and it's over 10 acres, it's exempt from
platting, as long as you don't have to lay out a road. I
mean, you can just sell it, basically. It means if you
12-13-04
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
17
go --
MR. ODOM: It's --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- on 27 or any other
public or private, you know, road, then you don't have to.
The issue would be, then, is that 12-foot easement
sufficient access that's already in place to get to that
50 acres?
MR. ODOM: Get to that 50 acres.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And, you know, Senator
Wentworth, by his letter -- and I have two calls in to him.
He's out of town today. He was out of town Friday, and he's
out of town today. I was going to visit with him to just
see, you know -- you know, basically just discuss with him
what his thought was when he -- 'cause he wrote the law. I
mean, one, he wrote the law, and two, he's obviously
reviewed the situation. Does anyone else -- do you want to
speak?
MR. HAILEY: I'd love to. You know, I've got
pictures. I've got pictures here, and I'll -- I gave
Mr. Odom that --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Go ahead and give your
name, please.
MR. HAILEY: Tom Hailey. I gave him the copy
of the Senate Bill. If I may have that back?
MR. ODOM: Yes, you certainly may.
12-13-09
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
18
MR. HAILEY: This, I have pictures that --
that we took. This is my road with two full-size
automobiles side-by-side. This is Wilson Creek Road, the
county road in front of my place. Wilson Creek Road is
15 feet wide. Between the fences, it's 28 feet wide.
MR. ODOM: 30 feet.
MR. HAILEY: 28. I'm sorry, but I measured
it. And the 12-foot easement was established in 1994,
October 1994. I have the -- the special warranty deed on
this granting this to my -- my spouse -- my ex-spouse, okay?
It was set up that way. Between my fences on my road here
is 37 feet between the fences. I have a drainage ditch
on -- on this side of the road, the east side of the road
where the water doesn't -- doesn't stand on my road. On
Wilson Creek Road, there is a curve down here that the water
stands 4 to 6 inches deep. There's no drainage on that one.
So, my road is actually -- the standards of my road, barring
the paving, my road is -- is just every bit as good.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How wide is the easement?
MR. HAILEY: Mine?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
MR. HAILEY: Well, it's a 12-foot-wide
easement.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, the 27 to the --
MR. HAILEY: I understand that, but I am -- I
12-13-04
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
am really okay with granting an easement on my property.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That --
MR. HAILEY: I don't mind that going back.
But, yes, in the new property, the 50 acres does, but
against the end of that, that easement, it comes right up
against to the end of it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What I'm saying, though,
if you grant an additional acre footage to that existing
easement, that triggers platting by law.
MR. HAILEY: But, Commissioner Letz, it's
going to be an agriculture --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Doesn't make any
difference. You have to read the law.
MR. HAILEY: And --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's an exception to
any one of the exceptions. I mean, if -- if it's
agricultural use, if it's -- a whole list, like eight
different exceptions.
MR. HAILEY: That's why I went to Senator
Wentworth, because a man at -- man named Rothermel that's a
counselor for Stewart Title Company got ahold of our title
company, and he suggested that we look at this, this law.
And which we did, and we visited with Senator Wentworth, and
Senator Wentworth told me -- he said, "That wasn't my
intention when I authored this bill." You know, to -- to
12-13-04
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
20
state -- you know, I read all through all this and
everything, but I failed to see the citizens' rights here.
I see everything that the -- that the County and the State
can do, but I don't see anything that I can do. You -- the
only thing I can do is just, you know, tuck my tail between
my legs and go. I can't afford to build a road. I'm
retired, on a fixed income. I can't afford to -- it would
cost me $30,000 to put a road in to the standards.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I understand that. First
of all, this isn't on the agenda. I really shouldn't -- I
mean, the agenda issue is the variance that you requested
originally, and we're -- and I'm willing to support that.
The issue of whether or not this requires platting, we'll
refer it to the County Attorney's office. Because
Mr. Wentworth -- you know, I cannot -- I don't understand
how he -- he did all the law, and I don't understand how he
would say if you're going to create an easement to get to
the property, how that doesn't trigger platting. It clearly
says it does.
MR. HAILEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But -- you know, and
we're -- you know, I'm trying to accommodate you any way we
can.
MR. HAILEY: I understand that. And I'm not
here to circumvent the law, you know. I --
12-13-09
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
21
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My concern is that if
this 12-foot easement is the access to that property, and
those people then decide they want to sell half of it --
MR. HAILEY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- they're not going to
be able to.
MR. HAILEY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This Court will not allow
that.
MR. HAILEY: I understand.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That is a -- a problem.
Now, on the type of road, I mean, Mr. Odom is pretty
flexible usually on whether it meets the standards.
MR. HAILEY: I understand what you're saying.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And we understand that
you can't get to a 60-foot easement. We know -- we're
flexible there. But, to me, 12 foot is just -- 'cause
that's all the legal rights those people are going to have
the right to use.
MR. HAILEY: I understand, and I'm -- I'm
happy with -- with going -- the thing about with a -- with a
40-foot easement, if -- if that's where we're going to
discuss, okay? My fence, I have 1,000 feet of fence on the
west side of this -- that 37 feet wide. The border fence is
the east fence, okay? Then the west fence covers a --
12-13-04
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
22
fences off my front field. It's 37 feet between it. So,
for -- for 3 feet, I'd have to change -- move 1,000 feet of
fence out into the field.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You don't have to move
any of the fence. We're not saying -- as long as this
easement is --
MR. HAILEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- designated, the
building can stay in the easement. The fences can stay in
the easement. That doesn't make any difference to me.
MR. HAILEY: I need -- I really need
clarification. I have a picture of my barn. There's a shed
roof right here. It's a feeder off the side of the barn.
That goes between the post and the -- and the fence. The
south fence is 33 feet. And, there again, I'd have to --
I'd have to move my barn, you know.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that's what I'm
saying; we don't want to you move the barn.
MR. HAILEY: Well, I appreciate that. I
appreciate that, really. And I don't want to move that
barn. It was suggested that I take that feed -- that shed
roof off and put it on the other side of the barn one time,
and I don't -- that's just out of the question, I think, to
me.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think maybe I -- so you
12-13-09
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
23
don't have 40 foot? You have 33 feet?
MR. HAILEY: I got 33 feet right there on
that one -- that part right there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I thought you'd
already -- I thought that had been moved.
MR. HAILEY: The rest of it, when we -- we
get by the 1,000-foot fence on the front part there, when we
get to the corner of that, it's all open. It's open, you
know. But -- and, like I say, I'm not trying to circumvent
any laws here. I -- I try to -- try to deal as I should
with the laws.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the other, I mean,
issue, we can do a -- a 60-foot easement and leave the -- I
mean, I don't care if you have fences and barns in the
easement. It's just that at some point, you know, the
owners of the easement may have an issue with it, 'cause
it's private. This is going to be a private easement; not
going to be a county road. So, you could leave the fences
there; you can leave everything there, as long as the -- you
know, the legal --
MR. HAILEY: I understand.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- requirement is met for
the width. That's what's critical.
MR. HAILEY: I understand. The prospective
buyer is okay with everything. He -- he has no problem.
12-13-04
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
24
They -- this is a retirement place for them. They're
friends. It's a retirement place for them. They're both
dentists at the Health Science Center in San Antonio looking
for a place in four or five years to retire to. He has a
little farm -- 13 and a half acre farm in Boerne in the
middle -- right by the Cibolo Creek. His is a fence that
washes out every time it rains. Big iron fence, goats and
everything. He wants to move that up to Comfort.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. Okay.
MR. HAILEY: Okay. He wants 50 acres. But I
would rather go back to the 40-foot easement issue you
suggested to begin with.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. HAILEY: And I have no problem with that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Well, then, we can
go forward on that motion.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anyone else --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That variance.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- have a need to address this
issue? Any further question or comment from the Court? 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
12-13-04
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
25
you, Mr. Hailey.
MR. HAILEY: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you.
MR. HAILEY: Sorry to be so long-winded
there.
JUDGE TINLEY: The next item on the agenda is
consider request from landowner to accept Scenic Ridge,
formerly known as Ridge Road, for Kerr County maintenance.
That's located in Precinct 4.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let me introduce
this subject. I'm not sure we got this subject accurately
stated. It's -- it's not exactly a request from landowner
to accept Kerr County maintenance. It's the landowner
having done some research, and found that Kerr County should
have been doing maintenance on Scenic Ridge right along.
Also, the landowner's name is A-1-f-o-r-d, not 0-1-f-o-r-d.
Mr. James Alford. Mr. Alford -- well, first let me say
Scenic Ridge is a bad road. And it's not the surface of it
so much that's bad. The surface is not very good either,
but it's been neglected, and there are rock and brush and
creek encroachments on it, and, in fact, at the end of
Scenic Ridge Road is a cul-de-sac. You almost can't tell
there's a cul-de-sac there. I don't think an emergency
service vehicle could get in there to service the residences
on that cul-de-sac, and there's some indication that
12-13-04
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
landowners there are claiming that cul-de-sac is private
property. In fact, there are signs there that says it's
private property. Mr. Alford's research revealed that on
June 2, 1970, the Commissioners Court approved the plat of
Hills and Dales Subdivision, and that Ridge Road was paved
by the developer sometime between 1973 and 1978. On October
24, 1979, the Commissioners Court assumed responsibility for
roads in Hills and Dales Subdivision, which had been paved.
And there's no -- no question that it has not been
maintained by the County. I think the landowners, as well
as the Road and Bridge Department, agree that it's not been
maintained. But Mr. Alford's findings suggest that it
should have been maintained, so I think I'll stop that
description right there and see if there's anybody -- either
the residents or anybody else that wants to talk about the
issue.
JUDGE TINLEY: We've had a number of
individuals submit participation forms, and I'd like to
recognize them now. Mr. Ray Furr. Yes, sir. Please come
forward, sir.
MR. FURR: Well, again, my name is Ray, last
name is Furr, F-u-r-r. And we've only been there two or
three years, and when we moved in, we were under the
impression that it was a private road and not a
County-maintained road. But then, after talking to Jim and
12-13-04
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
27
reading some of this other stuff, my -- I guess my only
comment would be, everything I read indicates that the
County should be maintaining it. And if that's the case, I
don't see why they're not. You know, I don't have any
arguments with anyone about it. It's just that, you know,
it should be maintained. I think they should be maintaining
it. That's -- that's it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Ms. Judy
Kinsman?
MS. KINSMAN: Hi.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, ma'am.
MS. KINSMAN: I apologize; I've never done
anything like this, so I'm pretty shaky. So, I live on the
cul-de-sac. It's four lots that were later subdivided.
It's not a part of the county platted records. It was -- it
was a 10-acre tract in the subdivision on the county records
when it -- when that -- when the subdivision was platted,
and -- on the county records. The -- Mr. -- the Dole
brothers, Frank and William Dole, split the four -- the 10
acres into four tracts, Bill Dole and his wife keeping two
tracts, and Frank keeping two. I purchased Bill Dole's two
tracts, and then Frank sold his to the Gambrells, who just
recently sold their two -- the two tracts to George and
Carol Green. They have not moved in yet; they're in the
process of moving in right now.
1~-13-04
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
28
When the Gambrells owned it, they put a road
from the house on the -- the 2-acre tract -- their 2-acre
tract, down to Roddy Tree, which they owned. So, there is a
road that cuts through those two tracts, making it basically
very difficult to ever subdivide. And the Greens are -- my
indications are that they do not want to sell off. And I've
set my house in the middle of my two tracts, so I can't sub
-- you know, sell off one. My side of the ridge -- we are
at the end of the ridge, and my side of the ridge, from the
little cul-de-sac, which is about 25, maybe 30 feet radius
from the center, goes -- starts down right from the road. I
had to put a berm -- an asphalt berm to keep the road from
washing away, 'cause it does go -- the property goes
completely down. If y'all come in and make it a full
50 feet, you're going to put that road about 4 to 5 feet
from my front door, and it's down about 6 feet from the
existing road, so you're going to have to do a lot of fill
on that whole side in order to do a -- a cul-de-sac like
you're talking about.
Now, regarding the emergency vehicles, KPUB's
huge trucks have come in there, because we do have big power
boxes at the back of -- you know, next to both of the homes.
The center of the cul-de-sac has no trees on it. That's --
KPUB did that so that they could, you know, get through.
There's a huge construction truck in there now that came
12-13-09
29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
e,^ 2 4
25
across the center of the cul-de-sac rather than coming on
the road portion, which is narrow, and we've got trees on
it, you know, for aesthetics, which I again will lose
everything if y'all do this. Carol Green called me on
Saturday, having heard that this was coming up. And, as I
say, we are not a part of the county records as these --
these four tracts. It's a single tract on y'all's records.
And she expressed the desire not to be maintained by the
County. So, we're the four -- four -- you know, four lots
at the end of -- you know, at the end of what the County --
I have the -- I have the plats here if y'all would like to
look at -- if you don't know what I'm talking about.
I'm also here representing Hugh Palmer. He's
on the other part of Scenic Ridge, and he is very, very much
against this also. So that's, you know just one -- you
know, when I moved in -- or when I bought the lots and had a
water connection, when Frank had owned his two -- two lots
over there, Mr. Wiedenfeld, who has the water company,
brought the water all the way down. It's on the easement,
but it's on the cul-de-sac easement in front of Frank's
house, which was Frank's house -- Frank Dole's house, which
is now -- Mr. Wiedenfeld would not bring my water down to my
house, my water connection. I don't think he wanted to
blast through all that rock up there; he wanted me to have
to do it. So, he put my water -- he put my water meter at
12-13-09
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
30
the -- right at the beginning of my property. It is on this
easement.
So, I -- you know, I'm going to have to sell
out, you know, 'cause I can't -- I can't afford to replace
the -- the berm -- the rock berm I've put up to keep, you
know, that -- that road from coming down to my front door.
I'll lose all my trees. I've planted -- I mean, it's just
going to destroy my property, and I'm -- I'm going to have
to sell out. So, you know, I just want you to consider
those things. I have the county records where it shows that
those four -- those four lots are not a part of the county
record, and I have pictures of my property so you can see
what it's going to do if do you this on the cul-de-sac. And
if you -- if you -- I just at least would appreciate your
leaving the cul-de-sac alone, okay?
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mrs. Kinsman, you did
great.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, she did.
MS. KINSMAN: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You did terrific.
Come back next week.
MS. KINSMAN: No thanks.
JUDGE TINLEY: Marsha Mefford? Did I
pronounce that correctly?
12-13-09
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
MS. MEFFORD: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you.
MS. MEFFORD: Jim Alford is my partner, and
we live at 104 Scenic Ridge Road. Basically, I guess now
I'm going to have to address some of the issues that Judy
brought up, because it's a very emotional issue for her. My
primary purpose was to show you photographs of what the
condition of the roadway is right now, and how it's
deteriorated over all these years. And I also have pictures
of the cul-de-sac showing how the center is really overgrown
with trees, and there is really very little passage, either
left or right. But the -- the main issue is that across the
street from us where the Palmers live, the road is so
blocked by the rock walls that they have built and the trees
that they have allowed to grow into the easement that even
when they had -- let me find the right picture. When they
had a party, all of the people that came to their party
parked in our front yard, basically, along the street. So,
it's really a problem with the width of the area that cars
can drive, and with being able to access, like when UPS
trucks or whatever -- whatever kind of large vehicles comes,
they end up turning around in our driveway because of the
large rock retaining wall and the "Private Property" sign
that Ms. Kinsman has put up on the public cul-de-sac. And I
guess that's basically the issue. The road is public, and
12-13-04
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
25
hasn't been maintained. The cul-de-sac is public, and needs
to be cleared so that vehicles can turn around, rather than
in our driveway, in the cul-de-sac. Jim's done a lot of
research and has all the facts, and I'm not good at facts,
and I'm nervous also right now. So, that, I guess, is
basically what I wanted to say, is that I feel like the road
really does need to be cleared off and -- and paved so that
our guests and other people's guests can come and have a
place to park and be able to have access to a cul-de-sac
where delivery vehicles or emergency vehicles have room to
turn around. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you very much. Is there
anyone else that wishes to be heard on this particular
issue? Mr. Odom, what are your thoughts?
MR. ODOM: I'll give this to the Court, if
you'll pass this. It's pictures. Hopefully you can tell.
If not, then, by all means, we can start here; it's in
color. My budget's so tight that I couldn't afford color.
JUDGE TINLEY: I knew we were going to get to
that.
MS. MEFFORD: Hey, I did mine in black and
white also.
MR. ODOM: I believe that -- and I appreciate
everybody's opinions. I believe that we sent that packet
that you can -- that outlines a lot of things that we've had
12-13-04
33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
in that subdivision. Also in that packet that I gave you is
the existing plat for that subdivision, and in reference to
the cul-de-sac and all like that, you can see that
Mrs. Kinsman, I believe, was correct, in our opinion. But
there's some factors, I guess -- I won't beat this dog to
death, but let me go over the things that I think this Court
should consider and some of the information that was
presented to us, because I've talked to Mr. Palmer. We've
surveyed the people -- I had Truby talk to them, but I
talked to Mr. Palmer, who is the owner; he was living there,
came in around 1987 or later. But let me go through these
comments or thoughts that I have that the Court should
consider.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Leonard, before you get
there, can you reference -- get me located from this drawing
to this plat, as to where -- this has R numbers, and this
has lot numbers, so I can make sure I'm --
MR. ODOM: All right. This comes in -- this
is east -- East Hightop, I think, but this is the road right
here.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right here?
MR. ODOM: And there it ends into --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The cul-de-sac should --
MR. ODOM: Wait, let's see.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This is it here.
12-13-04
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
MR. ODOM: This is it here, I'm sorry. And
the cul-de-sac's on Lot 6.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. And Lot 6 is the
lot that was divided into four lots?
MR. ODOM: That was divided into four
different lots.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you.
MR. ODOM: My thoughts are, is something said
35 years ago still binding on the present Court when that
road is not built or paved until 1987 or later? I talked to
Mr. Palmer. He was the oldest individual up there, and I
don't mean that in age, but as far as longevity on that
road. And he said in 1987, when he lived up there, that
road was dirt, and that he and Mr. Gold, and I don't know
who else was up there at the time, gave $300 apiece to
sealcoat that. So, it means it's later than when the
unitized road system was created. Mr. Baldwin was
Commissioner then, and that was dirt up there. And this
agreement that was talking about Looker in 1970 was the only
road. Apparently East Hi-Top, West Hi-Top, and East Hi-Line
were paved, and they were accepted into the unit road system
when that was created in 1986, I believe, and everybody
certified what they were -- what they were doing at that
time. But, by Mr. Palmer's explanation, that was all dirt.
He said it was so dusty that they all went in -- and they
12-13-04
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
wanted it private. They wanted to maintain the privacy up
there. It is narrow. It's a 30-foot right-of-way.
As Kerr County has never maintained this
road, it was not listed with the other roads in Hills and
Dales as part of the '87 list for the unit road system to
maintain 18 years ago. The roads that were on the list is
what I said; Looker, East Hi-Top, West Hi-Top, and East
Hi-Line. Not all homeowners on Scenic Ridge want the road
to be County-maintained at the present time. They want it
to remain private. In the past, we have required 100
percent approval of the landowners. Local Government Code
232.003.2 says no road shall be less than 40 foot wide and
no more than 70. A 30-foot road is a Class 3. There's no
such thing in state statutes as a Class 3 road now, so
that's 40 foot or less. So, we have already set precedents
up in there in Hills and Dales Subdivision by making West
Hi-Line do exactly what we're saying now. Existing was 30
foot, and it was to get 40 foot of right-of-way, and I
believe that you have that in your documentation that I gave
you, what we did in Hills and Dales. Bruce Oehler was
Commissioner of Precinct 4 then.
If additional right-of-way is given, the
people realize the area needs to be cleared, so you're going
to lose the vegetation up there. The existing cul-de-sac is
on Lot 6, and was built in 1987 or later -- we know that
12-13-04
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
Mr. Palmer was there and Mr. Gold was down there -- for the
use of two landowners. And what Mr. Palmer told me is that
Mr. Gold was going to subdivide that, because his brother
was going to live next door to him, and apparently that fell
through. I don't know if health or whatever reason that
that didn't come about, and then it changed hands. I
believe Mrs. Kinsman bought one part of it, and now some
other people own the other part there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Two landowners?
MR. ODOM: Two landowners on four lots.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What -- I mean -- well,
go ahead and finish. Then I'll get back to those four lots.
MR. ODOM: Okay. And those four lots were
sold by metes and bounds.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I can tell.
MR. ODOM: Yes. Any problem with the
cul-de-sac is civil and at the discretion of those two
homeowners who can use it. That's my opinion.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My question is, to you or
to whoever could answer it, no revision of plat was done on
Lot 6, ever?
MR. ODOM: No.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: First of all, that needs
to be done. But the fact that there are four lots, if it's
only two landowners and they don't intend to divide any
12-13-04
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
further, it ought to be -- I'd revise it to the way -- you
know, to the two -- to two lots. I mean, no reason to do
four and do it as a minor revision. But that -- you know,
the landowners of -- you know, you and your neighbors need
to really do a revision there. The cul-de-sac issue, as I
see it, is -- doesn't exist. The cul-de-sac's on private
property, you know. And there should have been a
cul-de-sac, in my opinion, and under our current rules there
would have been one put in there. But that cul-de-sac is on
Lot 6 and not part of the easement, not part of the
subdivision. And on the other issue on the paving, I mean,
to me, that is -- as you stated, I mean, it's a -- you know,
if it wasn't -- our policy has been if they weren't accepted
in '87, they're not County-maintained.
MR. ODOM: Not to --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They may be public, but
they're not County-maintained.
MR. ODOM: Can be public. That's what it is,
because it doesn't have a gate up, but it's not
County-maintained.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think, also -- perhaps
Hi-Line was the other one, similar situation. That was
accepted in the county fairly recently. Lot 6 really needs
to get -- that revision of plat needs to be done so it's
the -- it's important that the county records reflect
12-13-04
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
what --
MR. ODOM: What's there. The other notes --
if you'll bear with me, I'll just finish up my thoughts.
The platted road has no turn-around; it dead-ends into Lot
6. So, would the person who's requested maintenance need to
build a cul-de-sac on his property at the Court's request on
Dickey and Riojas? If so, is he willing to guild a 50-foot
radius and seal it? Drainage is a problem. You'll see --
in these pictures, you'll see two berms up there. They go
back out at an angle, like a 30- or 35-degree angle there,
and that's to divert water from going into those homes right
there at that cul-de-sac. I talked to Mr. Palmer. He says
when he gets a real heavy rain, and 5 to 8 inches is not
unusual up there and in that area, he says the water almost
comes in his door, which is adjacent or right across the
street from the Affords. So -- and that has nothing to do
with where the water goes down off that cliff.
Now that there are berms in the road to
divert water from the houses, we, the taxpayers, will pick
up the problems and costs to fix it there. That is always a
problem when you take in things, is the drainage. And it's
real hard to do anything up there, 'cause the point's been
brought out, it's solid rock up there. Where's the money to
come from to fix this road, the drainage problems? General
revenue? We did not allocate money our budget to do this
12-13-09
39
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
road. Should you decide to do this, should we drop special
projects on Beach Road? I've got some money in that, and
use it to work on the road that we do not maintain? Now,
you know, I don't mean to alienate anybody or this Court.
It's just my thoughts, and I feel like it never was ours.
That's the reason we did not maintain it. I don't know if
you can tell; we've got it marked up there by our standards
that that road's got a red strip on top of it. It tells our
people we do not maintain. Do not go down it.
MS. KINSMAN: And we paid for that. All the
landowners together chipped in and bought that -- that
street sign.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Did I hear you
correctly? You said this road was never accepted
originally?
MR. ODOM: That's right, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Whenever we created
the unit road system?
MR. ODOM: That's right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What, then, caused
this 1998 court order? How did that come about?
MR. ODOM: I am lost on that. Let's see.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's in the backup.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Hi-Line -- the Hi-Line
issue.
12-13-04
40
1
2
3 road?
4
5 road.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Different road.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a different
MR. ODOM: West Hi-Line? That's a different
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That was one -- I think
Leonard put it in there as an example as to what has
recently happened.
MR. ODOM: What has recently happened. We've
set precedents in there. That's what I was -- and then, if
we're going to do it for one, should we not do it for the
others? That would give us 40 foot, which would be 5 foot
on each side, give or take. I don't know where this road's
laid out, as I've told the Commissioner. I don't know if
the road leans to one side. Mr. Palmer asked me that
question, and I said, you know, "That road could be over on
your side." If I cleared the right-of-way there, and I
don't clear it on the other side 'cause it's not necessary,
then we're the bad guys, because why are we clearing
everything there? When I clear in that cul-de-sac, I can't
say whether EMS or something can't get down. My old pickup
got down there, and I turned around when I took the pictures
down there. But I think that part of the problem is the
perception that that is public. And, you know, I'm not a
lawyer, so I don't have -- I just take it that that is Lot 6
12-13-04
41
1
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 that's private property there.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me say this. I
came in as a Precinct 4 commissioner on January 1, 1987, and
the unit road system came in at exactly the same time. And
I distinctly remember putting together a master road list
that were County-maintained roads, and I distinctly remember
working with Mr. Palmer and Frank Dole both, that were
residents in there at that time, and the only road that we
put on the '87 approved County-maintained list was the main
road coming off of Highway 39 that goes back in there.
There wasn't any other roads at that time. The only thing
that's been added in my -- in my memory is the Hi-Line East
and Hi-Line West, maybe. The Hi-Line roads. That's the
only changes, is just -- the main road was the only thing on
the '87 list. This road is not -- was not on the approved
list. Now, I -- and going through here, I appreciate
everybody's research, but I don't see anywhere here any kind
of proof that it is, that it's a -- that it's a
County-maintained road in any way. Now, the statement that
Commissioners Court assumed responsibility for roads in that
subdivision, that doesn't mean that this road became a
County-maintained road. We have -- I personally have
subdivisions all over my precinct that, when they platted
them, it clearly says on there, "We dedicate these roads to
the county." Well, that -- that's one issue, but the County
12-13-04
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
accepting them is a whole different issue.
JUDGE TINLEY: For maintenance.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, for maintenance.
And so, you know, I'm not saying that this falls under that
-- that theory, but it's similar. It is not a
County-maintained road.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It does fall under
that theory, I agree with you, because I have several
situations very similar to that where they have been platted
and the right-of-ways dedicated for public use, and the road
is atrocious and never was accepted in the county
maintenance program. So, there are a lot of them around the
county. I've got some in my precinct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me see if I understand
your position, Mr. Odom. Because of the platting, the
30-foot-wide roadway for that road, up to --
MR. ODOM: The cul-de-sac.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- up to Lot 6, as shown on
the plat --
MR. ODOM: That's right.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- which does not include the
cul-de-sac as a public roadway.
MR. ODOM: Up to that point.
JUDGE TINLEY: That never was assumed, or
should have been assumed by Kerr County for maintenance.
12-13-04
43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
,_._ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
With respect to maintaining the 30-foot width, certainly,
any member of the public or a person who's materially
affected by that has the ability to assert those rights to
maintain the integrity of that width is -- is assured.
MR. ODOM: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: One other comment, if I
might. This is, you know, kind of to everyone, all the
neighbors. The -- I mean, I think the County -- as I said,
they need to have a revision of plat to set out what's
happened on Lot 6, and I think that the County would like to
see a cul-de-sac there. I mean, it's a -- under our current
rules, we would not allow a road to be built without a
cul-de-sac.
MR. ODOM: Without a cul-de-sac.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You know, but -- and then
during these -- trying to fix problems like this is when we
tend to get into the variance mode. And I think it is a
safety issue; it is better to have one. But also, I don't
think it's right to destroy someone's home to get that
cul-de-sac there. I mean, that's unreasonable, as it was
unreasonable in the previous gentleman to tear down his barn
for the right-of-way. But it would be nice if the owners of
Lots 2A, 3B, and 6 could figure out a way together to put
enough property together to get at least something to turn
12-13-04
44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
around at the end. As -- and I'm not sure if there's a
problem on the rest of Ridge Road going back to wherever the
road ties into, but I don't know what kind of a homeowners'
association, if any, there is in Hills and Dales, but the
homeowners' association, or certainly you can create one,
can help clear that road. I mean -- and, clearly, the
neighborly thing is for all the neighbors to get along and,
within that right-of-way, get it cleared. If there are --
it looked like, in some of the pictures, there's trees
hanging over. And that, you know, certainly wouldn't solve
all the problems. It would help some of the problems.
MR. ODOM: Help some of them.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And there is a mechanism
that I think, Leonard, if you want that road to become a
county road, there's certainly a mechanism to do that, and
how that's done is -- there's various different ways.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think you have
your answer, Mr. Alford. You're going to have to look to
your homeowners' association. The County's not responsible
for maintaining the road.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further to be offered
on that particular agenda item? Let's move to the next
item, consider and discuss settlement agreement with bonding
companies. Sheriff?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I think you have in your
12-13-09
45
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
packet what the agreements are. This has been brought to
the Court one time before. We're trying to get things
cleared up prior to the end of the year, and we have a
change of County Attorneys, and what could end up being
perceived as a possible conflict of interest at that time.
As y'all remember, there is no precedent for this. These --
there's two bonding companies licensed to operate in Kerr
County to bond inmates out of the jail. Both of these
bonding companies have some old, old judgments against them.
Some of them date as far back as 1995, going all the way up
to 2004, when the law changed. When the law changed in 2004
or 2003, you know, they only have 30 days to pay those
judgments. If there's a judgment issued in them in a bond
forfeiture, they have 30 days to pay it, and that's the end
of the story, or else I have to -- the Bail Bond Board which
Kerr County has now would have to suspend their license or
collect it off collateral they have.
But, for many, many years, even prior to my
taking office, a lot of old judgments weren't collected.
One bonding company had been trying to make payments on it
at the time, and had worked some -- some sort of agreement
in making those payments, but when we really got to looking
at it, there was a lot of money owed to the County by
bonding companies, and another one wasn't making any
payments at all. So, through the Bail Bond Board and County
12-13-04
46
1
.-. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
,_.,, 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Attorney David Motley, we came up with a compromised
settlement agreement, which, as I said, there's no precedent
set for it anywhere that we can find. And I just spent a
week in Austin talking to Bail Bond Board instructors up
there, and people with the A.G.'s office and the Sheriff's
Association. There is no precedent. I don't know where we
go.
But, in due diligence, in trying to at least
collect some of this past-due money, the compromised
settlement agreement was everything that was added together
that the two bonding companies owed. It was taken at 90
percent, part of that, and then a 4 percent interest onto
that 90 percent for an agreed settlement agreement that they
would pay. The reason the board and everybody looked at the
90 percent, because there's other laws in there that if they
paid this judgment and then, within so long, a person comes
back or they get it taken care of, they could actually get
money back, and there's a lot of these old judgments. So,
to keep all that from -- from occurring, the two bonding
companies verbally agreed that they would just take the 90
percent, call it -- that's what they owe, with the 4 percent
interest on part of it, and start making those payments.
One bonding company has taken on it their
own -- as y'all know, what came up to the Court a while back
was one bonding company has taken on it their own to sign
12-13-04
47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the agreement already and started making payments, even
though it wasn't ever finalized. The other bonding company
has not done anything on it yet. In talking with the County
Court at Law Judge, Spencer Brown, his whole deal was these
were judgments that they entered, so they needed to be
collected. And he just -- if there was going to be an
agreement on how they got collected, he didn't feel the
County Attorney had the right to do that. But he felt that
if the Commissioners Court approved these settlements, he
had no problem with them. And I'm just trying to get some
past debt owed this county straightened up. It's in the
way -- in excess of $100,000 all totaled, and I think we
need to get some things taken care of.
JUDGE TINLEY: This -- this matter's been a
work in progress for -- what would you say, the better part
of two -- two years or more?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: But more recently, probably,
for the past year or a little bit less, it's really been
pushed to get refined, to get nailed down to where it is
today, and everybody's pretty much on the same page at this
time?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right. Because a lot of
these are real old ones. You know, I'm -- a lot of them,
we're just trying to work out something that the bonding
12-13-04
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
companies would -- would agree with, and that -- that the
County could agree with to collect this past debt owed to
the County. It's owed; it needs to be paid. The problem I
face as Sheriff is, if I just shut them down because they
have not paid it, they're -- these are the only two licensed
bail bond companies that can write bonds at this time in
Kerr County, so if we close them down, no matter what, I
have nobody, unless it's the -- the inmate's attorney that
wants to bring his own bond for his client. But I have
nobody that is licensed to be able to write bonds in the
county, and the jail population would go up drastically in a
hurry on -- on cases that should be able to make bond,
'cause the bond's only meant to show their appearance.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: These agreements
would clean up, I guess, what's happened in the past. Is
there anything different going to happen to -- to prevent us
from being in the same place again two years from now?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The law changed. When
the law changed in June 2003 or 2004, now it's written in
the law that if there is a final judgment against a bonding
company, that bonding company only has 30 days to pay that
judgment in full, or else the bond -- Bail Bond Board can
suspend their license to operate and the Sheriff can collect
on the collateral that they have up to make the bonds.
Okay? Now, we -- Kerr County is not -- if your county's
12-13-04
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
over 100,000 in population, you're required to have a -- a
bail bond board. Kerr County is not that large, of course,
and it's optional for us. I started the Bail Bond Board, or
asked for one a couple years ago -- little over a year ago,
because of the number of just people wanting to all of a
sudden start writing bonds, and the problems that was
causing. So this way, at least, there was a set mechanism
to where they had to be licensed to be able to do it. But,
you know, it's also -- if I just close these two bonding
companies down, I have nobody that can write bonds.
JUDGE TINLEY: You feel it's in the best
interests of everybody concerned to go ahead and get this
thing resolved and get it behind us and move forward?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I definitely do. And
there is one of the bonding companies here that may, you
know, want to make their own statements about it as to how
they feel. I just think we need to do something. We need
to move --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Rusty, I have a question.
And my issue has been all along that I don't mind trying to
work out an agreement, but I was always concerned about
basically the County financing a private business if we
weren't charging interest.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I agree.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And, as I read this,
12-13-04
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
50
under -- on the first page, under Item 5 -- Roman numeral V,
b, the 4 percent interest is assessed, but the way -- it
looks like it's just assessed one time; it's not based on
future payments. I mean, so it's -- they're paying a
one-time -- is that based on the whole payout of the loan?
Is that 4 percent -- it's like a car loan? Or is it like
we're charging a one-time --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: There's a certain amount
that is owed that interest can be charged, okay? Not every
bit of this interest can even legally be charged on it.
There's a certain amount that's owed that interest could be
charged on, and that lump sum, they put 4 percent on that.
And that's the --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But it's a one-time
charge, then, so we're financing -- they're not paying any
interest for the next -- this company, for the next 12
years?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Only other thing that --
you know, I want -- this needs to be resolved. Should have
been resolved eight years ago, but --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The biggest thing I
have -- it's either we do something like this, or we require
the bonding companies to go borrow the money, lump sum, and
pay the County 90 percent of everything that's owed all up
12-13-04
51
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
front, or I try and collect their collateral, which I may or
may not be able to do, 'cause a lot of that collateral was
put up that was owed, and it really wouldn't pertain to
this. I think there could be all kinds of --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have no problem in --
clearly, I understand that there's certain parts of it --
the court costs part, we can't charge interest on. And I
think 4 percent is acceptable, though low, compared to the
current market for businesses, considering the circumstances
and the benefit to us. But I do think that 4 percent should
continue to be charged on the ongoing balance, like any
other loan would.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I think a lot of your
problem with that, Commissioner, and where you get into --
actually, all these are individual cases, and it's -- as the
County Clerk can attest to, and what they have to do is
create a civil cause number that takes care of all these old
cases. As you can see on your spreadsheet, it's under one
cause number, okay? Otherwise -- and if you can't do that
with a set figure -- and Jannett, the County Clerk, can
correct me if I'm wrong. If you can't do that with a set
figure, you have to keep all these separated, and then you
have to figure out what payment and what amount of that
payment and what amount of that 4 percent you're going to
apply to each one.
12-13-09
52
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not -- all you do is
just look at that time code to -- like buying a truck; you
put the interest in, you figure out how long.
MS. PIEPER: Commissioner, I don't have a
bookkeeping system that would allow me to do that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The Auditor can easily go
and put it in their computer and tell you, at 4 percent paid
out over 12 years, what the total amount you owe is, and
then you back it -- you know, do that it way. I mean, it's
not a hard process to do. And the Auditor can, I mean,
easily do that. I just don't think we should -- I don't
think it's -- I question whether we have the ability to
basically give interest-free loans. I don't think we can do
that. I mean, I question -- little bit of a question
whether we can do any kind of a loan, but -- you know, which
is what this is. We're lending them money.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: My question is -- I
don't know if I agree with everything Commissioner Letz just
said, but most of it I do. My question is, what authority
do you have as a board that, two years down the road, you
know, we get back in this same -- same situation. What --
then you're going to come along and say again, well, there's
only two bonding companies here; we better not do anything
to them? Is that --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No. What you have,
12-13-04
53
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
number one, is the -- the Bail Bond Board actually does not
have any authority over any of these.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Who does?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Me, the Sheriff.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, god. We're in
trouble.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah, you're right. The
Bail Bond Board had -- because these were all debts created
before the Bail Bond Board, and judgments created.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And so what do you do,
Rusty, two years down the road and we're back in the same
situation that we're in today?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, you can't -- you
may -- you know, if they default on this, then, of course,
this explains out the procedure on that, that it can all be
collected at that time. Now, future bonds that they write,
bonds since 2003 -- June, I believe -- was it June 2003?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's covered under
new law?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's all covered under
new law. If there's a judgment entered in court against
that bond, they have 30 days to pay it, period. No ifs,
ands, or buts.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What if they don't pay
that in 30 days? Who has the authority to do something?
12-13-09
54
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
..-.
25
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Number one, since we're
a bail bond board county now, the Bail Bond Board has the
authority to suspend their license at that time, or the
Sheriff has the authority to collect that out of their
collateral that they have put up, okay? So, you won't have
this problem again, thank goodness, 'cause the Legislature
finally changed some of the laws. I honestly don't see it.
It's just how do we get past all the --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- the prior, old stuff? I
don't know. And I don't know what the best way to do it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think that -- you
know, I've been hearing about this for a long time too, and,
frankly, I'm tired of it. And I -- I see a vehicle here to
get us on down the road, so I -- I think I would approve --
approve of this here, although Commissioner Letz is correct
about the interest and going on down the road. But, to get
us somewhere that we have never been before --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's true.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- I would approve
this document.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, and I can agree
with Commissioner Letz' deal, but then when you look at the
old law and you look at that they can go back and they're
waiving this part of it, they can go back and any of those
12-13-04
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
that the person did end up being caught years later or
whatever, they can actually go back, petition the court for
that money back. Okay? I think you're going to actually
be -- be collecting more money than you could, and not have
all the problems of them going back to the courts and
collecting back what they had already paid.
JUDGE TINLEY: This is a compromised
settlement.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: This is a compromised
settlement.
JUDGE TINLEY: It takes into account a lot of
the variables, the remittitur that the County would be
entitled to --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- when the principal was
subsequently surrendered or the case disposed of, and all
the other variables, whether or not there was collateral at
the time of the particular judgment. And this agreement
specifically, by contract, makes that collateral subject to
the payout under this agreement.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. It does not -- you
know, collateral -- and especially under Bail Bond Board,
you know, they have to have so much collateral up to
actually write so much in bonds.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
12-13-04
56
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: This doesn't affect that
limit, okay? But it
these payments, they
attach and have that
JUDGE
SHERI
JUDGE
prior circumstances.
does affect that if they do not make
default on this, the County then can
collateral.
TINLEY: Irrespective --
EF HIERHOLZER: Irrespective.
TINLEY: -- of whether it was under the
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner, with regard to
the ongoing interest, I -- it's a point very well-made. We
-- we frequently do interest-free financing over in our
Collections Department, where there are fines, costs, those
kinds of things. There -- those are paid out through our
Collections Department, and we don't collect any interest on
that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're not collecting
interest on about half of this, either.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You can't.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know, but we could
require payment --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But you can't collect
interest on the part you're not -- 'cause it's --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can require payment
anyway, in which case they'd have to go borrow the money at
12-13-04
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
about 8 percent.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, let me try to
make a motion. I sense that Commissioner Letz is about on
number two on his stroke level here. If we can avoid a
German stroke this morning, it would be great. So, I move
that we approve the settlement agreement with the bonding
companies.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I think Jackie may have
also wanted to say something, if you --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I thought you gave her
an opportunity and she didn't.
MS. DAMS: I can wait.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's -- y'all give her
the opportunity.
MS. DAMS: It's just a comment, not
necessarily -- just that ever since I've been in business,
which has been over 10 years, every agreement I've ever had
with the County, I've done. At this point -- I think
Jannett can verify -- I've paid between 50,000 and 60,000,
although I owe a lot. You know, I'm real grateful for my
business, and I've tried to pay as best I can, and I
appreciate -- you know, I'll do this. And -- and he was
saying, two years down the road, what if this happens again?
If I follow the law, which we always have, it won't happen
again, because we're paying the debt timely as it comes in.
12-13-09
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
This has been as hard on us -- on me, my business, as it is
on y'all trying to figure out the right way and the legal
way to do it. That's really just a comment I had. But --
but I have paid a lot to the County, over 50,000. I've paid
15,000 in three months this last -- within the last six
months. And everything I get, I put -- and the debt will be
paid as long as I'm in business, and it's done timely.
That's just a comment that I had.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Ms. Davis.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second the motion.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the compromised settlement agreement. Any
further questions or comments?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: One more question to
the Sheriff. I'm very comfortable in Mrs. Davis doing what
she says she will do and signing this agreement. What about
that other company?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Both companies had
agreed to this when it was first proposed, and it was -- the
compromised agreement was worked out.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What if the other
company does not sign this agreement? What do you do then?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Then most likely what
will happen with the other company is, we will all end up in
litigation, because I'm going to have to collect on their
12-13-09
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
59
collateral.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Very good. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And you're -- you're
telling the Court that everything is current from '04 on,
for the year '04 to --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The other company has
about $1,000, $1,200 that they owe right now that's at the
30-day limit; it's just a little over, that I'm going to
have to collect.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In Mrs. Davis' case,
everything is current?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Everything is current.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions or
comments? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(Commissioners Baldwin, Williams, and
Nicholson voted in favor of the motion.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(Commissioner Letz voted against the motion.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Thank
you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Take a break, Judge?
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me go ahead and get this
public hearing out of the way, if I might. We have a public
1~-13-09
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
hearing scheduled for 10:00, so I will recess the
Commissioners Court meeting and convene a public hearing for
a revision of a plat for Tracts 15 and 16 of Bluff Creek
Ranch in Precinct 3.
(The regular Commissioners Court meeting was
closed at 10:12 a.m., and a public hearing
was held in open court, as follows:)
P U B L I C H E A R I N G
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Wrong. Precinct 2.
MR. ODOM: Two.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thought I got a new
subdivision.
MR. ODOM: I apologize, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You got the creek, I
got the subdivision.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Is there any
member of the public that wishes to be heard with regard to
the matter of the revision of the plat for Tracts 15 and 16
of Bluff Creek Ranch? Any member of the public wishing to
be heard on that? Seeing no one coming forward or hearing
no one speaking, I will close the public hearing for the
revision of a plat for Tracts 15 and 16 of Bluff Creek
Ranch.
(The public hearing was concluded at 10:13
a.m., and the regular Commissioners Court
meeting was reopened.)
12-13-04
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: We're going to be back here on
the other item anyway, so, I will reconvene the
Commissioners Court meeting for this date, and let's go to
Item 9, consider final revision of plat for Tracts 15 and 16
of Bluff Creek Ranch.
MR. ODOM: I recommend to the Court that we
accept this final plat for Bluff Creek.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why don't you tell
the Court the sense of the discussions we had with respect
to this and so forth so that everybody ends up up-to-speed
on it.
MR. ODOM: Basically, what we had was removal
of a lot line to -- that was all. And that -- it was -- it
meets the criteria as far as the platting is concerned. And
I had a concern on Area A, which is unshaded, where there's
not a study there. But, basically, it was agreed that since
this is a -- my understanding, an alternate platting -- I
guess that's what we call it, just moving a lot line, that I
did have this comment put down here on this plat that before
any new construction on revised lots, a floodplain
determination must be made and a development permit issued
for these two lots which are in --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And the reason we did
that is because there is no B.F.E. established?
MR. ODOM: There's no B.F.E., an unstudied
12-13-04
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
62
area. I'm sorry, Area A is an unstudied area. Nothing was
done when this was formally platted, and I put this in here
to make sure whoever buys this lot or these two lots would
be -- come to floodplain administration for --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mr. Sherron, are
these two lots still in the hands of the developer?
MR. SHERRON: No, sir.
MR. ODOM: One individual is my
understanding. Am I correct on that?
MR. SHERRON: That's correct. Andrew and
Betty Moreland.
MR. ODOM: The same owner. It's already been
sold, and it's there and -- and this individual's wanted
that lot line moved for a well.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I thought you said
removal of lot line. I don't see a lot line being removed.
MR. ODOM: Well, it is if you look at --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I see it being changed.
MR. ODOM: As platted, it was moved. Moved
down.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No -- yeah, okay. It was
-- it was moved. It wasn't removed. I thought you said
"removed."
MR. ODOM: No, just changed.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. The -- now, I
12-13-09
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
63
do have a -- this has nothing to do with a Voelkel
Engineering issue. I don't -- to me, "platted" is -- I
guess it looks like a verb. I don't think that's in the
dictionary as platted and replatted. I think that should be
"current plat" and "revised plat."
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're correct.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: "Plat" is not a term that
we accept in this court.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's not a
past-tense.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think it's a
verb.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Because it's always a
state of currency.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we should have
"current plat" and "revised plat."
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Get Rusty back in
here.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS:
final consideration of final revision
and 16, Bluff Creek Ranch in Precinct
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:
MR. ODOM: Precinct 2.
that you would accept this as the ver
I'm --
So moved. I move the
of plat for Tracts 15
2.
Second.
And are we saying
biage is right now?
12-13-04
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
64
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
MR. ODOM: I graduated from A & M, so English
was a foreign -- it was like a foreign language to speak.
Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: As presented.
MR. ODOM: As presented.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And in future, you
can correct the grammar.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or we can just draw a
line through it. I think they get the message.
JUDGE TINLEY: Henceforth, with this -- with
this modicum of education in the English language, you can
put others on notice. And if you -- if you need some
clarification, a former schoolmarm, Ms. Harris, is here.
I'm sure she can help you out.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I didn't see her
raise her hand to say we were wrong.
MS. HARRIS: No, sir, I would never do that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: She rides for the
brand.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the final revision of plat for Tracts 15 and 16
of Bluff Creek Ranch in Precinct 2. Any further question or
comment? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
12-13-04
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
65
(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?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a good idea.
(Recess taken from 10:18 a.m. to 10:33 a.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's come back to
order. The Commissioners Court meeting will reconvene. We
went into recess approximately 15 minutes ago. At this
time, we will recess the Commissioners Court meeting and I
will convene a public hearing for the cancellation of Spring
Hollow Estates in Volume 4, Page 174 of the Kerr County
Subdivision or Plat Records.
(The regular Commissioners Court meeting was
closed at 10:34 a.m., and a public hearing
was held in open court, as follows:)
P U B L I C H E A R I N G
JUDGE TINLEY: Is there any members of the
public that wishes to be heard with respect to the
cancellation of the Spring Hollow Estates Subdivision as
evidenced in Volume 4, Page 174 of the Plat or Subdivision
Records? Seeing no one moving towards the podium or
otherwise speaking, I will close the public hearing for the
cancellation of Spring Hollow Estates, and I will reconvene
12-13-04
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
66
the Commissioners Court meeting.
(The public hearing was concluded at 10:34
a.m., and the regular Commissioners Court
meeting was reopened.)
JUDGE TINLEY: And I will call the next item
on the agenda, Number 11, to consider the cancellation of
Spring Hollow Estates Subdivision, as evidenced in Volume 4,
Page 174 of the Plat or Subdivision Records.
MR. ODOM: I move that -- the taxes have been
paid, they've followed Subdivision Rules, and it's in the
best interests of the County. I think the supporting
documents shows you how big on that -- how many small lots
there were, and I think just eliminating that will eliminate
a lot of problems up on Sheppard Rees. And, far as Road and
Bridge is concerned, I recommend that you accept -- that we
abandon and vacate and cancel the subdivision.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
the cancellation of Spring Hollow States Subdivision, as
evidenced in Volume 4, Page 174 of the Plat or Subdivision
Records. Any questions or discussion? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
12-13-09
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
67
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Let's
go back to Item 5, if we might, consider and discuss an
optional Statement of Support for the Guard and Reserve.
Several members of the Court participated in what is called
Operation Boss Lift, which was an exercise that was put on
jointly in San Antonio and Houston in support of employers
for the Guard and Reserve. And, at that particular meeting,
the -- the persons in charge of that program solicited the
support of all the employers there to support the other
employers who are signing the statement of support and
adopting it.
I think at the time that they were mentioning
what's required in order to include in that statement of
support that employment will not be denied because of
service in the Guard or Reserve, that employee job and
career opportunities will not be limited or reduced because
of service in the Guard or Reserve, that employees will be
granted leaves of absence for military service in the Guard
or Reserve consistent with existing laws, without sacrifice
of vacation, and that our adoption of any statement of
support in the policies will be made known throughout our
county employment organization. Those are merely what the
law presently requires now. All of those are required under
federal law for members of Guard and Reserve, and this would
12-13-04
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
68
be nothing more, as I see it, than adoption of agreeing to
follow federal law in this respect.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move approval.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
adoption of the statement of support for the Guard and
Reserve. Any -- any questions? Comments?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Only comment I'd make was
that I thought it was a very good event. I learned a great
deal. I was not really that familiar with how the Guard
worked, and I have a -- probably a lot higher respect than I
did before, which was already high, for the people in the
Guard. They do a -- a lot more active -- I guess a lot more
true military work than I really realized they do.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I agree with
that 100 percent, and then I -- I'm taking another step and
focusing on the Iraq war and how many of these people are
actually on the front lines over there. It is incredible.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Even -- and, as an
example, those that are in the Airlift Wing, on their two
days, they may be in Iraq those two days. They may fly from
here to Iraq, take something, and come back. And, I mean,
just the fact that they're on that two days -- my thought
was always that, oh, they're just doing paperwork somewhere.
But, no, they're actually -- I mean, they're -- they're --
12-13-04
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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's true. That
air wing moves a lot of stuff from the stateside to the war
zone or to Europe. That particular wing flies all the time.
It was really interesting; I agree with you. It was really
interesting also to find out what all goes on down in the
different branches of service, what takes place in Ellington
Air Force Base -- or Ellington Field. I had no idea.
JUDGE TINLEY: Very educational, to say the
least. And I -- I think it was helpful for those that have
employees who are members of the Reserve components to have
a better understanding of what the requirements are that are
placed upon their employees who are members of those units.
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. The
next item on the agenda is to consider and discuss
applications for stop loss and life insurance for employee
health benefits program, requesting and authorizing payment
for binders on same, and authorizing Judge to execute those
applications. The new insurance program, the administrator
of that program has furnished us with the applications for
that coverage, and the -- the initial payment needed to bind
12-13-04
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
~o
coverage under the program, according to the information
forwarded to me by the administrator, is just under $21,500.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This would be the --
in effect, as the binder that this new program is underway;
is that correct, Judge?
JUDGE TINLEY: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sheriff has his hand
up.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sheriff has a question.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, sir?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I have a -- more of a
comment about the insurance, and it pertains to this, but
yet is not exactly on-point. As we all know, last week the
new insurance company came out and signed up all the
employees. We have some issues that I wish the Court would
address with the insurance company, see if we can get some
resolutions done. I've already received a resignation from
one employee due to the insurance change, and I have about
three other employees that very well may resign due to the
insurance change. And what the major issue is, is we have
an employee, for example -- I have three of them that have
been employed with the County for about a year. They have
coverage through the current policy, and about two months
ago, their wife or their spouse, or in a couple cases the
12-13-04
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
employee, became pregnant, and they were told by the new
insurance company that that is now a preexisting condition
and the new insurance will not cover that pregnancy starting
January 1st. That they're covered right now, but come
January 1st, they will not be covered, because it's a
preexisting condition. I don't know where we go, but
there's some loopholes and some problems in there that are
going to cause us all a great deal of problem.
The other issue that has come up is, I have
employees that are retired from another place and have their
primary insurance with that retirement, whether it be Blue
Cross/Blue Shield from the State, or whether it be -- school
districts is a good example. The school district, the
employee's retirement insurance is their primary insurance,
and has to be carried as such with the way their coverage is
and the way it's spelled out in that insurance plan. And
under the new plan that the County has, it is stated and
being told to them that this new insurance, whether they
take Option 1 or 2, it doesn't matter, will be their primary
insurance, period. And which a lot of them are very, very
concerned that it's going to cost them their other
insurance, which is what really covers them. And then what
some of those were doing was, on the amount that the County
allotted for insurance under the old insurance plan,
those -- especially the one with the school district did not
12-13-04
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
72
take any of the actual E.B.A. insurance that we had, but
they used that allotment, 'cause the County allowed them to
use it for supplemental like the AFLAC. And now they're --
they're not given a choice; they have to take that.
And they were even told, and I was present,
that if they did not sign that application, that somebody
would sign it for them, period. That they were taking that
insurance no matter what, which ended their AFLAC or their
other supplements that they were using that allotment to buy
them, because now they're -- the County's paying for that
insurance. We're going to have some serious problems. I
already have them -- like I said, I've already lost one
employee, and I don't know what to tell these people, 'cause
I'm not an insurance person. And the insurance people that
were out at ours, including Mr. Wallace, could not answer
the questions, especially to their satisfaction, and flat
out just told them, "No, this is the way it is. This is
your primary insurance," period. We got some problems.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't -- you know, I
guess this is a little bit related because of the -- not
really quite on the agenda, but I think the insurance
issue's on the table. I think we probably need to get
Mr. Looney back here with Mr. Wallace, because I've had
several complaints about Mr. Wallace's group, and that -- I
mean, I don't think I can say it much clearer. The Court
12-13-04
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
told them that we awarded them that policy by customer
service, and they're already failing, in my mind, on that
note. The other issue -- and I'm -- the other reason I said
Mr. Looney is I'm confused on the primary care issue. I
thought that those AFLAC things were still there for them to
be able to put money into if they wanted it.
MS. PIEPER: Only if you take Option 2, I
believe.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, anyway, I think that
needs to be clarified, and so that that's understood by the
employees and myself.
JUDGE TINLEY: The -- the issue did come up
early on in the enrollment period -- and, in fact, I had
thought and, in fact, had indicated that -- that there was
the so-called third option. And the question was posed to
Mr. Looney in that regard, and he responded in writing that
-- that there was no third option. It's one or two, and
because that's the way the plan's designed. That if -- if
individuals are given the option to -- to opt out of the
plan, even though initially it may appear that there were
only possibly a half a dozen affected that had principal
coverage already in place through third -- third-party
sources, myself included -- I fall in that group -- that
that same option would have to be offered to every other
employee. And, given that same option and that being the
12-13-04
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
74
case, we may not have -- have a viable plan when we get to
the end of the road. What -- what it would amount to is the
possibility of -- of making an allocation of approximately
$6,000 a year available to employees to purchase voluntary
insurance products outside the plan.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, what's different
about going forward than what we've done in the past in that
regard?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: What you did in the
past is, the employees that had the retirement and other
coverage --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, I'm directing the
question -- I understand. I'm trying to -- I'm asking a
rhetorical question. So, what would be different about
continuing the practice in effect that has existed? I
can't -- I can't -- I can't imagine why there would be a
resistance on the part of the underwriter, the carrier, to
resist that. And, secondly, I can't imagine why the carrier
would not welcome an opportunity to be secondary to claims,
as opposed to primary.
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't know what the issue is
on primary and secondary; I -- I can't speak to that issue.
The -- the issue raised by the Sheriff with regard to the
continuity of coverage and preexisting, I got the very clear
understanding from -- from the orientation session that I
12-13-04
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
75
attended that discussed that issue, if you were under the
current plan with Kerr County for this current year, even
though the plan administrator had changed, and you went into
the county plan for the ensuing year, there was no
preexisting issue.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Now --
JUDGE TINLEY: That does not carry forward?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: What they explained to
me was that if they didn't have 18 months of service, okay?
And 18 months under that current plan. Even though our
current plan was covering it, that was a mistake on the
current plan, and they were not going to -- they would not
be --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That had to do with
new employees, or an employee adding a beneficiary that
hadn't been on there before, another member of the family?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: This came out directly
from an employee I have that's been an employee for a year
and is pregnant.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We're not --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can't resolve it.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We need to get to
the bottom of all these issues, and we're not going to be
able to do that here. I really think we ought to do it as a
full court.
12-13-04
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
76
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Get the supervisor
in here and find out what all the issues are, and not let it
fester any longer.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Hear, hear.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would suggest we
hold up the binder till we get them resolved.
MS. NEMEC: We're partially self-insured.
The plan document is a plan document that this Court can
change at any time. And this Court agreed, when we went
with the other insurance, to allow them to coordinate the
health benefits with the AFLAC, and that's exactly what I
was trying to come across the last time, that you have two
different providers now. This provider is not going to want
to coordinate those benefits and allow the employee to take
that deduction and buy products from another agent, and
that's exactly what's happening. And if that was going to
be the case, then it should have been disclosed to us, and
it wasn't.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why would that be the
insurance carrier's call? You know, I --
MS. NEMEC: It's not. It's your call.
They're trying to make it seem like it's their call. It's
our plan document. You can change that at any time. Y'all
12-13-04
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
77
did not know that that had been put in place. Everybody was
surprised by it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, that's true.
But if we allow a diversion of the basic amount of dollars
that everybody else receives to X, Y, and Z, employees could
purchase another plan.
MS. NEMEC: That we have been allowing for
the past three years. It should be no different.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're telling me,
then, that's not what -- the insurance carrier doesn't care
about that?
MS. NEMEC: He evidently doesn't want to do
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Who doesn't?
MS. NEMEC: Mr. Looney is suggesting that it
not be done that way.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think there's a
couple of different issues here. The primary -- I think,
you know, at least I was aware that we were getting rid of
that Option 3, or C.
MS. NEMEC: This was -- that was Plan C.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Plan C. Because I think
there was a desire from the Court to simplify and better
position the County's insurance in a long -- going forward.
And Mr. Looney's comments were that we had an overly complex
12-13-09
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
78
plan for our employee group. Now, that doesn't mean -- but
I don't know that I understood at the time, and I agree with
that concept, but I'm un -- I wasn't sure or did not
understand exactly how it was going to work with a couple of
employees. It's not that many employees; about 3 percent --
2 to 3 percent that that's really even an issue, because
what some employees have told me -- and I don't think -- you
know, I told an employee, and I'll say it publicly. I don't
think that we can design an insurance program for 2 to
3 percent of the employees. I mean, if we do that -- I
mean, but I also think there should be a way to accommodate
what they're trying to do, which is basically not have this
as their primary insurance, and be able to purchase
additional insurance or get additional insurance.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: What I was told by them
is that, because it's a group plan -- and I don't know what
the difference would be in what we currently have and the
new one. But what the new ones are saying is, because it's
a group plan, every employee had to be part of it. Where,
before, if you didn't make them part of it, then the
allotment was given to them so they could purchase the
other, and now they're required to be part of it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- time out. We
need to get a scheduled meeting.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: When can we do it?
12-13-04
79
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
...._ 2 4
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm hearing one thing
I'm seeing a head nod the other way.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's why we need a
meeting.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: When can we do it?
When can we get the San Antonio people up here?
MS. NEMEC: And I've got payroll that I'm
working on, and, you know, I'm at a loss as to what to
deduct, because I have a feeling some things are going to
change. And so I'm thinking I'm just not going to make any
deductions on the insurance this payroll, and try and catch
up at the end of the month, 'cause I'm looking at -- things
might change. I mean, I'm at a loss.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would think we wouldn't
change until the first of the year anyway, would we?
MS. NEMEC: No, we deduct a month in advance.
I have to -- all that has to go into effect.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: We got Friday, gentlemen.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'll be here.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's the date?
JUDGE TINLEY: 17th.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I've got a 9:30 meeting
that won't last but probably 30 minutes. 10 o'clock?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Far as I know, I can
12-13-04
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
80
do it.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Baby-sitting?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Got to baby-sit, too, but
I have -- might have Sam in here with us.
JUDGE TINLEY: Got a ready surrogate handy,
it appears.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Friday's good for
me.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Friday?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Friday at 10:00?
MS. NEMEC: And I can tell you what the
problem is with this preexisting illness. The County opted
several years ago to go under the HIPAA plan. What that is,
is that it allows the County -- that any new employee is --
and if they -- a new employee or a new dependent for 18
months, they do have a -- if they have an illness, it is a
preexisting illness for the first 18 months. So, that has
been in place with the old insurance also. Now, from what I
understand, the Sheriff is saying that it was in place, but
they could have still been paying benefits. That's another
thing. But that, again, is a County policy. That is up to
you. We can change that any time we want.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that's totally
unreasonable to have an employee who gets pregnant during
their first year of employment, and say we're not going to
12-13-04
81
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
cover. It is absurd to me.
MS. NEMEC: You can change that with a
signature. That can be changed with no problem.
JUDGE TINLEY: We're going to -- the proposal
is we're going to set a meeting for 10 o'clock Friday.
We'll need to try and get ahold of the plan administrator
and also Mr. Looney, and if there's a need to reshuffle
that -- I don't know what their commitments are. We may
have to roll it to the afternoon. We'll work around that.
But I'll check on it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If it goes to the
afternoon, the earlier the better for me.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What about Jeff
Wentworth? I'll --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 10 o'clock.
JUDGE TINLEY: We need to get him here.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What time?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 10:00, if it works.
JUDGE TINLEY: It's my sense of it that no
one's in a position to take any action on Item 6, then.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Very good. Let's
go to Item 7, then, ratification of minor amendments to two
recent agreements concerning EMS service to a designated
area of northwest Kerr County.
12-13-04
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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I thought we were
done with this issue.
MR. MOTLEY: Really not a lot to say about
this. It's almost just really a housekeeping item. The --
the original agreement between the City of Kerrville --
well, let me say the original amendment to the agreement --
existing agreement between City of Kerrville, City of
Ingram, and Kerr County, there was a proposed amendment to
that, and originally it just described the area where this
ambulance coverage was going to be changed by, I guess you'd
say, a legal description, being the Y.O. Ranchlands
Subdivision. After that -- and at the same time, we had
done a separate agreement between Kerr County and Kimble
County EMS to -- for them to provide this ambulance service,
and it also made similar reference just to the Y.O.
Ranchlands Subdivision. Okay. And then subsequent to it --
and I really don't know if it was the City Attorney's idea,
the City Manager, Ms. Bailey; I'm not really sure who came
up with it, but they had a really excellent suggestion, and
they also had the capability to produce maps, visuals to
attach to show -- originally, the original proposal was to
just outline on a map the area of Y.O. Ranchlands
Subdivision. Y'all have -- and, you know, there's a bunch
of documents, but y'all have a copy of that.
Well, at some point in time, the City had
12-13-04
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
83
thought about it and decided if they were going to -- make a
long story short, I guess, sort of be in the area, then
maybe that they -- you know, that Kimble County EMS was
going to cover the Ranchlands, that maybe they ought to just
kind of cover that whole block, and they basically made that
thing into a rectangle. They squared it off, and that was
another amendment to the area covered. And that was, I
believe, the document that was originally passed by our --
by our court. And, if I'm not mistaken, that was a document
passed, and then afterwards, before the City of Kerrville
acted on that, they actually found a technical error that
resulted in this final map you have there, which was
basically a rectangle with sort of a notch in the southern
boundary of it, and that's the final version.
That was done after we had acted on it as a
Court -- y'all had acted on it as a Court, and I felt like
we were probably safe to even not come back and worry about
it, because it's such a minor change; you know, certainly
not a change intended to fool anybody or do anything. It
was just to be more accurate, provide more accurate
information for all the parties involved, and was a good
idea. So, that's why I'm seeking to have the Court today
ratify that minor change, that that final document, you
know, be put onto the -- the agreement the Court had
previously signed. And let me also mention that the
12-13-04
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
agreement -- we had sent an agreement over to Kimble County
for them to sign, and likewise, it needed to be changed from
the first version they had, which was Y.O. Ranchlands
Subdivision, to be described as attached property
description, which was that final version; again, the
rectangle with the notch at the bottom, so they're both the
same area described.
And, oh, let me also just mention, there were
a couple of -- actually, I think three changes in the text
of the agreement between Kerr County and Kimble County EMS,
so there was some changes actually to the agreement.
Specifically, in the original agreement, the -- the City of
-- or Kimble County EMS was designated as the primary
provider, and City of Kerrville was designated as secondary
provider. That has been changed, and Kimble County is just
called "the provider." There is no reference to City of
Kerrville relative to secondary, tertiary, or any other
provider. It specifically just says that they're out of the
providing of medical services -- emergency medical services
to that area in the attachment, you know, except for should
the need arise under interlocal agreements that Kimble
County might have with City of Kerrville, and they would
contact them through those interlocal agreements, and then
the City would respond under that. But there's no
responsibility under this contract, and, specifically, it
12-13-09
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
85
really takes them out of the -- the emergency medical
services business.
And there was also some -- some language in
the request for assistance -- and, actually, it may be kind
of a draft, but the language said that -- originally, that
upon request to a representative of Kimble County EMS from
Kerr County 9-1-1, that Kimble County would -- personnel and
equipment should be dispatched to the location within the
subdivision. That, again -- and it was really -- this was
at the suggestion of the City that it be changed, and what
it says now is, upon Kimble County EMS' receipt of a call
for emergency medical services which is in the area of Kerr
County depicted in Exhibit A, Kimble County EMS emergency
medical services personnel and equipment shall be dispatched
to the indicated location. It -- it changed around the
responsibility just a little bit and, you know, made it a
little bit clearer about how they would be dispatched.
There's also to be some agreements that
are -- some protocols that have been worked on, and some, I
guess, that are sort of in the final stages of getting
polished and entered that are going to be very specific as
to how these people -- the First Responders in this area are
going to be contacted when it's an emergency need in this --
you know, this subdivision and this area. And these people
are also responsible for the area outside the subdivision,
12-13-04
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
86
so how they're going to be toned in for calls that they're
responsible to for Kimble County ambulance services, et
cetera. There's a -- there's a clear agreement, if
they're -- it's like if the Sheriff's Department should get
a call, our Sheriff's Department, what they would do -- in
other words, they won't be going through our 9-1-1; they're
going to call straight over to Kimble County, I believe is
the way it's worked out in the protocol, and skip that step.
So, there's a couple of things that cleared up, but the main
thing was the property description change, and clearing up
the role, really, of the City of Kerrville as being
responsible to provide services only in the area pursuant to
the interlocal agreements, and not under -- as a secondary
provider.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: David, just a dumb --
this is my dumb-boy question for the year. Don't -- I see
the protocol issue as just as important as this agreement
here.
MR. MOTLEY: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How the thing actually
works. You know, who calls who and all that. That, to me,
is kind of important. Wouldn't that be -- go hand-in-hand
with the -- with adopting --
MR. MOTLEY: Well --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do we adopt the
12-13-09
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
87
protocol? Is that -- that's a 9-1-1 issue?
MR. MOTLEY: Well, the way I understand it
right now is that, actually -- and Ilse is here. I don't
mean to put her on the spot; I don't know if she knew this
was -- this item was up. She may have some more or
different information than I have on protocol. But Bill
Price, the Communications Director for the City, and
Mr. Amerine have been working, I believe with Mr. Budow from
the Ranchlands Subdivision, and additionally, I believe have
been talking with the Sheriff over in Kimble County, with
Marlene Jones, who is Emergency Medical District
Administrator and Ambulance Administrator. They've been
working on some very specific -- I think the thing about it
is -- I'll just tell you right now, I'm interested in it,
but when they start talking about some of this stuff, you
know, I kind of -- my eyes kind of glaze over a little bit.
Some of the technical aspects of it really may not belong in
a contract. But --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If the Court doesn't
have anything to do with the protocol, I don't even want to
bring it up, then.
MR. MOTLEY: Well --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No sense getting us
involved in something we don't have any business in.
MR. MOTLEY: I think we need to all --
12-13-04
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
everybody -- and it may really more involve Rusty, per se,
than the Court, but I think we need to all be absolutely
sure that we're on the same page as to this -- any specific
scenario. And I think that's pretty much in the final
stages of being agreed to.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just think the
protocol issue is just as important as anything that we're
doing here.
MR. MOTLEY: I think so.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's got to be
perfectly clear. You know, the -- the thought of us
calling -- or whoever calls, calling Junction Volunteer Fire
Department and not calling the Divide Volunteer Fire
Department, that's just the craziest thing I've ever heard
of in my life.
MR. MOTLEY: You're talking about in the
event of a fire?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
MR. MOTLEY: Okay, I understand. No, we're
not doing anything to change any fire protection.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm just saying
it's -- the protocol side of it is just really --
MR. MOTLEY: Well, I hear you. And maybe
that needs to be clear, that we're not really -- we're not
working on -- the fire protection all stays the same. It's
1~-13-04
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
89
strictly emergency medical services.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand. My
point is that the protocol part of it is very, very
important.
MR. MOTLEY: Sure.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's -- I think
Commissioner Baldwin's point -- I mean, one, it's -- it's
not our responsibility from the standpoint of we've pretty
much gotten out of this. That area is not our -- not going
to be handled by us for EMS. But I think with the protocol,
it's very important, and we have created a situation where
there's a more likely -- greater likelihood of a problem out
there because of -- because, you know, you're going to have
EMS in some areas -- I guess this all goes through 9-1-1 --
I mean Kerr 9-1-1 still. Or City's dispatch goes -- I mean,
through the hardware.
MR. MOTLEY: It's pretty seamless.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, it isn't simple.
MR. MOTLEY: "Seamless," I said.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Seamless. Well, except
that we have similar situations in eastern Kerr County,
because Comfort's in Kendall County. The fire department's
in Kendall County, and we have had times when they've --
EMS-wise, they've always served Hermann Sons area when the
bridge has been out because of access issues. And there
12-13-04
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
have been a lot of times -- I'd say, easily, in the last --
since I've been a Commissioner, 10 times when the wrong
ambulance out of the wrong city, or wrong emergency service
was dispatched out of the wrong city, and they -- it got
screwed up, and it was -- every time it has been a dispatch
problem. And the problem comes that it's confusing when
they're not doing the same thing every day, and they get one
call --
MR. MOTLEY: I hear you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- a year. Okay, fire
comes out of Divide. EMS comes out of Kimble County. I
mean, you're making them think under an emergency situation,
and that's when problems develop.
MR. MOTLEY: Yeah, I hear you. What -- what
-- as I understand the way it's supposed to work, I thought
actually that the phone calls from these specific
households, that they were going to be programmed to the
9-1-1 system. What I thought was going to happen was that
the calls going to 9-1-1 would just automatically bounce and
go over to Kimble County. That's not going to happen,
because they need to know what kind of emergency.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You don't want that to
happen. The Sheriff's calls and fire calls also would go to
Kimble.
MR. MOTLEY: What's supposed to happen is,
12-13-04
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
the 9-1-1 people say, "What's the emergency?" And they're
going to say, "Somebody needs an ambulance," and then
they're actually supposed to call -- at that point in time,
to call Kimble County and dispatch it that way. But Ilse
may have some more up-to-date answers to Buster's question.
MS. BAILEY: Just one quick question.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The protocols, as
agreed upon, whatever they are, by those who determine these
things, will it be attached to the contract?
MR. MOTLEY: It wasn't envisioned to be.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why shouldn't it be?
MS. BAILEY: 'Cause it's an operational
matter. If I could just address that, when we were
discussing the contract that is before you, in my
discussions with Bill Amerine and Bill Price, their concern
was, "Sure, you guys can write all the contracts you want.
How is it going to work on the ground?" And they make up
protocols all the time, and a lot of times they're not even
written down; they just say, "Here's how we're going to do
things." But this was so important that Bill Amerine says,
"Here's what I'm going to do, put it down and make everybody
sign it that's involved so that we can be absolutely sure
that we're going to have a seamless operation."
And, certainly, that's an important document
and you all need to -- to have that. I don't know that it
12-13-04
92
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
._.. 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
necessarily needs to be part of the contract, because it's
really not related to the contract. It says we're out of it
and Kimble County's doing it for you. You might want to
make it part of your interlocal agreement with Kimble
County. But, nevertheless, it's going to be signed by, if I
can recall, the Kerr County Sheriff, the Kimble County
Emergency Services providers, Bill Price with Kerrville
Dispatch, Bill Amerine with 9-1-1 --
MR. MOTLEY: Marlene Jones.
MS. BAILEY: Marlene Jones over at Kimble
County, and their Sheriff. So, everybody who would have any
kind of connection with this, Bill Amerine just drafted this
up, wanted to make sure everybody had to sign it. Also,
the -- the -- I guess it would be Harry Budow, whoever's in
charge of the subdivision -- homeowners' association for
Y.O. Ranchlands, which is the group that originally asked
that this be done, so that they also -- their homeowners
would be aware of how this is going to work.
MR. MOTLEY: He's the president of that
association, so that would probably be appropriate for him
to do that. He's been talking to -- there's been some
meetings scheduled. I don't know; Harry and I haven't
actually talked to see if those meetings have happened, but
there have been meetings here and there, and partial
meetings between different. components of that total group.
1~-13-04
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
MS. BAILEY: And let me say that it's not
really an agreement, so it's not like any of those
signatories have the option to say, "No, I think you ought
to do it differently," 'cause in the last analysis, 9-1-1 is
in charge of how they do their own dispatch. It's more of
a, "Hey, guys, here's how we're going to do it, so make sure
you understand."
MR. MOTLEY: And there's a lot of -- there's
been a lot of information requested and input as far as, you
know, better ways to do things and -- and, you know,
everybody's kind of had a say in suggestions, and I think
everybody's -- there's been a real effort, I think, to
accommodate everybody's wishes on the deal. I will tell you
what I'll be happy to do is -- I have a tentative copy of
that agreement that they're working on now. I don't want to
represent any -- say it's anything other than a working
copy, but I'll be happy to circulate that to the Court.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the protocol is a
separate issue. I don't think it should be attached at all.
They may decide -- they might change it, and then you have
to change the contract.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. I agree with
that. I'm not trying to do that. I'm just trying to make
the point that, to me, this agreement is just worth the
paper it's written on unless the damn thing works. You
12-13-04
94
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
know, if you don't have correct protocol, if -- if the 9-1-1
call comes in to Rusty and he doesn't pick up the phone,
and -- you know, it just drives me nuts. I can see him out
there picking up a phone and calling Junction; "Hey, there's
a guy down with a heart attack out there in your
neighborhood." If that all doesn't work, this -- why would
you want to do this?
MR.
important that all
all protocols are
you're saying is t
unusual, there's a
MOTLEY: Well, I mean, you know, it's
the protocols work. I mean, you know,
-- are critical, and I think the thing
he fact this is a little bit novel, little
risk that --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm scared to death.
I think -- I think we're getting into dangerous, dangerous
territory here. I -- that's just my opinion, and I'm just
scared to death of this thing.
MR. MOTLEY: Well, the whole -- the whole
deal is an effort to provide more timely ambulance service.
I mean, that's the goal of the whole thing. And I think all
the signatories to the -- to the protocol are all of one
mind, saying there's going to be a way we will do this, and
we'll all agree to it, and we're all wanting a certain
outcome. And so I don't think there's going to be competing
interests once they sign the protocol, so hopefully that
would be -- you know, bode well for the situation out there.
12-13-04
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
95
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think Buster's comment
is very accurate, because the current agreement also says
that Kendall County is going to service parts of Kerr
County, and there's no protocol; they don't do anything.
So, the part -- you know, that language doesn't exist until
we get a new protocol worked out.
MS. BAILEY: That was certainly in my mind
when we started working on protocols here. I want to make
sure that we don't, by doing something we think is going to
be beneficial to the public, cause more problems than we've
got already.
MR. MOTLEY: That's part of the reason I
think that the City of Kerrville has said that they feel --
felt it would be wise, if you're going to service this
subdivision, to just go ahead and just take in the area
north of it up to the county line. And -- you know, and
that was -- part of it was a practical suggestion of how
these services could be better rendered, and -- and up to
the people out there, and I think it was well-taken. I
think everybody's agreed with that. So --
JUDGE TINLEY: That was -- are you through on
that point?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Protocol.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, yeah.
12-13-04
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
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I'll make one comment on
it. I have signed the protocol, because, just as Elsa has
said, it's not a choice deal that we have. It's more of an
informative piece of paper that this is the way it's going
to happen. I agree with Buster and I agree with Jonathan; I
think this thing's a mistake. I think we're asking our
dispatchers to figure out exactly where these lines are.
And in the protocol, it does say even the fire protection
and the volunteer fire departments, you're going to have a
fire close to the Divide fire department and you're going to
be calling Kimble County, because that's the way the
protocol says and what you're required to do. And I think
when you start dividing up special things for different
parts of the county, we're all asking for a train wreck
where something bad is going to happen. And, unfortunately,
we -- because it is 9-1-1 and it is the protocol, we don't
have a choice in it with what's adopted.
MR. MOTLEY: Got any more questions about it?
Again, we probably didn't even have to do this. These
property descriptions, I just wanted to ratify it to make
sure everybody was on the same page and know that the change
was there. And we -- I don't like ratifying documents,
generally speaking; I'd rather do it right from the get-go,
but this was a very minor thing and not intended to fool
anybody. So --
12-13-04
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
97
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
MR. MOTLEY: -- I thought we'd go ahead and
do it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I was under the
impression that the area you described was in what we
approved. I thought we --
MR. MOTLEY: Well, Jonathan, let me show you.
Well, actually, what we've described -- and you have a
better copy of the deal in y'all's handout than I got. It
is technically within it, okay. This was the original in
pink.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. We approved the
brown.
MR. MOTLEY: That was the new one -- hold on.
That's what we did. But this is what we want to do now. So
it's a combination of the two. You see what I'm saying? It
has that notch out of the bottom. See, it's this, but for
that little notch.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. MOTLEY: That's something --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. I move we approve
the ratification.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
ratification of the previous agreements in the particulars
12-13-04
98
1
,.~ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
as indicated. Any questions or discussion?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What -- where are we
in the signature process, David? We're starting over again?
MR. MOTLEY: No. The City has signed. The
agreement has -- the agreement that the County has done with
the City of Kerrville, the amendment to the agreement, City
of Kerrville, City of Ingram is done. What we did today, we
passed it first with basically the wrong property
description. We've now corrected that. City of Kerrville
has passed on it with the proper property description, as
well as has City of Ingram. That's a done deal. And I have
executed copies of that. I think they sent one to Pat. The
agreement with the City of -- I mean, Kerr County and Kimble
County EMS, a corrected set of documents was mailed on
Wednesday, the day before Thanksgiving, out to Ms. Jones.
We haven't gotten them back. We had already sent one out
there, and they had it on the treadmill to get signed out
there. We said, "Hold up. We're going to send you one with
the corrected property description, those two or three
little textual differences," and so that's on her desk. I'm
going to call her -- and I don't want to be pushy with her,
'cause, you know, they're being very nice with what they're
doing for us.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We're not going to
throw the lever and put this into operation until we have
12-13-09
99
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
~-.
25
everything signed up?
MR. MOTLEY: Well, I thought that there had
been some changes affected as of the time, I guess, City of
Kerrville -- I think there's been some changes in operation.
I'm not --
January 1.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I thought it was
MS. BAILEY: No, it went into effect. It
went into effect when it was approved by all the parties,
except that there is an interlocal mutual aid agreement
between Kimble County and Kerrville, such that in this
interim period before Kimble County signs the agreement with
Kerr County, if there should be an emergency in that area,
the dispatch call would go to Kimble County, and they either
would show up anyway and service the area, or they would
call Kerrville through our interlocal mutual aid agreement
and say, "Kerrville, we're not on the tag yet. Y'all go out
there and do it." So, there is coverage, but it would be
more seamless when your agreement is completed with Kimble
County.
JUDGE TINLEY: All in favor the motion,
signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
12-13-09
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
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. The
next item is Item Number 12. Consider and discuss hiring a
chief deputy at 19-3.
MS. NEMEC: Well, my chief deputy position
became available December the 3rd, and I received several
applications, a few from within the courthouse, and we have
some really qualified employees doing other -- other duties.
I was kind of surprised to see that, but there was one that
just really stood out, and she has 35-plus years of
experience in the field that I'm looking for, with what the
job description calls for. So, for that reason, I'm asking
that she be employed at a 19-3 rather than an entry level.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What is the level of
the person that is leaving?
MS. NEMEC: 19-4.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And entry is 19-1?
MS. NEMEC: 19-1.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 35-plus years
experience, huh?
MS. NEMEC: 35-plus years.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What is the level of
this employee currently in their other department?
MS. NEMEC: She is at a 15-6 in the other
department. And, like I said, she won't start till January
the 3rd, 'cause they really needed her there, so I'm kind of
12-13-04
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
working with them on that. And I would like to hire her
effective January lst.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can you -- I guess,
what's the pay differential from where she is now to -- to a
19-1 and to a 19-3?
MS. NEMEC: A 19-1 to a 19-3?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: From where --
MS. NEMEC: Entry level to what I'm asking
for?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. Well, from
what -- what the current -- 15-6? Is that what you said?
MS. NEMEC: She's at a 15-6 right now, and
I'm asking her to come into my office as a 19-3, which is
$3,269 more than the position that she's now in.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How much?
MS. NEMEC: $3,269.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's a 15-6?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 15-6 to a 19-3?
MS. NEMEC: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's 15-6 to a 19-1?
MS. NEMEC: A 19 -- and, really, this is a
whole totally different job description that we're looking
at, so I don't really think that has anything to do with
what I'm asking.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well --
12-13-04
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
MS. NEMEC: At all.
JUDGE TINLEY: What was your question,
Jonathan?
MS. NEMEC: What if I had hired someone that
wasn't in the courthouse that had 35 years experience? We
wouldn't be able to be comparing this right now.
JUDGE TINLEY: What is a 19-3? What is a
19-3?
MS. NEMEC: A 19-3 is $28,146.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. What is a 19-1?
MS. NEMEC: A 19-1 is $26,789.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 789?
MS. NEMEC: $26,789.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And what's a 15-6?
MS. NEMEC: $24,877.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All right, you got
them all there.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Current, Option 1,
Option 2.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Would -- this person
would not be eligible or would be eligible for the one-step
increase after a year? That's a question.
MS. NEMEC: Would they be eligible for it?
This is -- I don't -- I don't really know. I'd have to
really look to see how the policy is written, but I believe
12-13-09
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
that there have been some employees that have been hired at
entry -- at higher than entry level, and I'd have to go back
and see what we did on those, if they were eligible for a
one, 'cause it's not really a merit. This is not a merit.
This is just coming in at --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's a current employee,
though.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: She's a current
employee. She's already gotten her one-year.
MS. NEMEC: Oh. Well, if that's the case,
then yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Wasn't that your
question?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. My question is,
would you get a one-year
MS. NEMEC: Okay. She got it this year. She
got her one-year longevity this year, so she would not be
eligible for two years as far as longevity.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Don't you also have one
after your first year of employment, you get a bump?
MS. NEMEC: Yes, for longevity.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's longevity? Okay.
MS. NEMEC: And one every three years after
that. So, for longevity, she would not be eligible again
until two years from now.
12-13-04
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
104
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Actually, I think
that, you know, she has the money in the budget, so it's not
a budget increase. And with this person's experience, 35
years of experience, I personally don't see anything wrong
with it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item. Any further question, comment,
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, ma'am.
MS. NEMEC: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: The next item on the agenda is
to consider and discuss the nomination of Mr. Johnnie L.
Hawkins to the board of Kerr County Emergency Services
District Number 1, effective January 1, 2005.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
12-13-04
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
approval of the agenda item. Any question, comment, or
discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Question.
Commissioner, is -- is someone's term up?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Someone resign?
Somebody die? What?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Elaine Castillo is
retiring from -- from the board.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh my gosh.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's a loss.
She --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: She's the founder of
that thing.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Styled her carreer
to start up the station, and she's done a terrific job. I
don't think you could have asked anybody to do better.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: She's incredible.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The good news is
Johnnie Hawkins is a civic-minded guy, smart businessman.
He'll be an asset to the board, too.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Johnnie will be great.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Fantastic.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions,
comments, or discussion? All in favor of the motion,
12-13-04
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
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 and discuss payment of the 2005 dues to the
Alamo Area Council of Governments. I put this on the agenda
when I received their request, and Commissioner Williams has
been riding herd on the --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just a couple of --
JUDGE TINLEY: -- AACOG functions, and he's
passed out some material here.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just a couple
comments, Judge. I want members of the Court to have the
current budget, which you'll see is about a $25 million
budget -- 25,770,000. Local dues for AACOG for member
organizations, I believe, have not gone up for three
years -- at least 3 years. And, as you can see, the amount
of local dues paid, 210,000 with all the members, equates to
about a .0081 of the entire budget, so it's an infinitesimal
amount of the entire budget of $25 million. I'd move
approval of the dues.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item as presented. Any question or
12-13-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
107
discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Commissioner, do you have
an approximate figure as to how much money has flowed back
into Kerr County through AACOG?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, we get -- no, I
don't have the total, but it comes back in several different
forms. Comes back through Criminal Justice initiatives,
comes back for the senior programs, comes back through child
care, comes back through transportation. There's just any
number of ways that it flows back into Kerr County, and it
far exceeds $2,800, I can tell you that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. That's what I
wanted to hear.
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.
24 Baldwin.
25
12-13-04
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. This is
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Next
item on the agenda, consider and discuss having the first
Commissioners Court meeting of 2005 be held on January the
10th, 2005, at the Union Church building. Commissioner
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
something that I want to do.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Been talking about it
now for two years.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Been talking about it
a long time. Previously we tried it, and the young County
Attorney, fine young man that he was, was wrong in how he
read the law. And we can do this, 'cause we have meetings
all over -- we can have meetings all over this community, as
long as they're posted, and I want to do this. I want to
bring a little bit of -- I think it would bring a little
focus to that facility that we own out there, and it would
just be a fun thing to do.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that a motion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It is.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll second that
motion.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to
have the first Commissioners Court meeting of 2005 be held
on January 10th, 2005, at the Union Church building. Any
question, comment, or discussion?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm going to be in
an investment seminar on January the 10th out of state, so I
won't be here to break the law with you, Commissioner, but
I'm going to vote for you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That may not be the
12-13-04
109
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
actual date. I just -- you know, it's the second -- second
Monday.
MS. MITCHELL: It is.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Whatever. I'm not
going to be here.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Commissioner, did you --
I'm certainly --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The question I had was,
wasn't there something about special versus regular
meetings, as to which one was -- and all that kind of stuff?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, there was.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You know, that's it.
That was the fine little attorney, good little guy, but
that's why he was wrong, is in that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But isn't it the regular
has to be here, but the special can be wherever we want? Is
that our interpretation?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're exactly right,
and I appreciate you bringing that up.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think the statute calls it a
special term of court.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That is correct. That
is exactly right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's the term we can
12-13-04
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
110
meet elsewhere. But which one -- I can't ever remember
which is our regular.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It would be the second
meeting.
MS. MITCHELL: Would be the second.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Would be the second
meeting of the month that we're down there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And then we can
pretend it's our first meeting of the year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. It's our first
special term meeting.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It is the first
special term meeting. What's the date of that one?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 24th.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Will you be back,
Number 4?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah, unless I can
think of something else, I'll be back.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They make leg irons
for all sizes now. So, that's my motion.
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion is amended to read
January 24th, 2005?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any further question or
12-13-04
111
1 discussion?
2
3 there?
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Wait. Can we be sworn in
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We've already got it
set up up here. Don't be trying to change things like that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions or
discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I like that idea, Jon.
Let's change it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You already got
somebody programmed to let you raise your right hand. How
are you going to get all that changed?
JUDGE TINLEY: The next three items on the
agenda relate to the detention facility. First item is to
consider and discuss extension of the temporary lease and
operating agreement at the Juvenile Detention Facility. To
refresh everyone's recollection, the -- the notice period
for extending the temporary lease and operating agreement
was reduced from 30 days to 15 days in order to continue it
12-13-04
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
on a month-to-month basis. So, we can continue it into
January with the pending purchase by giving notice on or
before, I believe, the 16th of December.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We have to do this,
and then determine the length of time we want to extend this
to coincide with the refinancing and all this kind of stuff?
JUDGE TINLEY: We can do it a month at a
time. And that's probably the conservative way to do it, is
just do it one month at a time, and then we'll see where we
are about this time next month. We'll actually have to do
it probably on the 10th, but we -- we're required to give 15
days notice. I, frankly, don't think it's that big of an
issue right now because of the pending arrangement that we
have to finalize the purchase, but we -- we need to keep
ourselves in compliance so that we don't have that
difficulty.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And would the
amendment that we approved the other day that had to do with
shortening the notification period, is that embodied as part
of this?
JUDGE TINLEY: That's already part of the
temporary lease and operating agreements. That -- that was
an amendment to those agreements, so it merely provides that
we just give 15 days prior notice of our desire to extend it
for an additional one-month period.
12-13-09
113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess -- it seems like
this is kind of like the burn ban. We have to keep on
coming back.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's an analogy I
hadn't thought of.
JUDGE TINLEY: You know, you could -- you
could notice that, that we continue it indefinitely, unless
notified that we're --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, isn't there a way
that we can tie it -- the extension to a purchase -- the
purchase of it?
JUDGE TINLEY: Sure.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And make it so that --
you know, maybe put a time on there so this thing doesn't
drag on forever, but I don't see any point in every 15 days
or every meeting, or even once a month coming here, raising
our hand saying we're going to extend this temporary lease.
Waste of time.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: To me,
styled somehow to tie it to what we think
going to be, or tied to the actual -- you
don't have a clear picture. Maybe I will
we know what's ahead now. 'Cause I don't
doing this on a piecemeal basis.
it needs to be
the closing's
know, I have -- I
after 17 and 18 as
see any point in
12-13-09
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
JUDGE TINLEY: You want to just give them
notice to extend those agreements until the purchase is
completed?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. And maybe not to
go beyond March lst or something like that, you know.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Long as we have a
cancellation clause.
JUDGE TINLEY: You got a 30-day cancellation
period in there now. That's part of the temporary.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Why don't you just do
this this time, and then next time be prepared --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- to address dates
and terms.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm easy to get along
with. I'll go along with that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I move the extension
of the temporary lease and operating agreement at the
Juvenile Detention Facility for 30 days.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
extension of the temporary agreement through the end of
January '05.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other any question or
12-13-09
115
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
,._ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(Commissioners Williams, Letz, and Nicholson
voted in favor of the motion.}
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(Commissioner Baldwin voted against the
motion.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Next item,
consider and discuss and take appropriate action with
respect to acquisition of the Kerr County Juvenile Detention
Facility. I put this on as a matter of caution. I am
personally not aware of any specific action we need to take
at this particular meeting to move forward on that. The
financial adviser and the bond attorneys are working up some
of the documentation that we'll need to eventually adopt as
we go forward, but at this particular meeting, I'm not aware
of any particular action we need to take.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think there's some
comments that need to be made, though, Judge. Maybe not any
particular action, 'cause I don't think we're ready for
action, but I think this Court has said repeatedly that if
we're going to own it, we're going to operate it and it's
going to be treated as a department with respect to how we
have the oversight and the operation. I've asked
Ms. Mitchell to do some research in terms of existing law to
determine that there are no impediments to that, and if it
12-13-04
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
turns out there are impediments to that, then I -- I just
put the Court on notice right now, we need to address those
impediments through legislative action, if that's what's
required. So, you know, I just want to bring that up to the
front so everybody sees it and hears it. And we -- we're
doing our homework now. If we turn up an impediment, we're
going to have to address it, and address it quickly.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Weren't we told in
this courtroom that the law says that the Juvenile Board
shall be in charge?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I think we've
heard something very similar to that, yeah, and that's
really what caused me to say to Ms. Mitchell -- or she to
say to me, "I'm looking for the law so that we can determine
what needs to be done, if anything." Because you and I and
everybody agrees, we're going to be the operators of it. If
we're going to own it, we're going to operate it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I mean, I've
talked to Commissioner Williams a little bit about this, and
maybe legislative things can be done. But there's another
simpler thing that can -- I would think could be done, is
that the Juvenile Board, knowing that they don't get any
money unless they do this, can enter into an interlocal
agreement for us to operate it for them. I mean, I think if
they -- I wouldn't know why they're still in charge, then
12-13-04
117
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
they can then enter an interlocal agreement with the
Commissioners Court to be an operator of the facility, and
if they don't do it, they don't get any money.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I think right
now we're shooting -- we're shooting in the dark, not
knowing --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- what the law says.
And by next time, I guess we'll have our answers. Won't we,
Ms. Mitchell?
MS. MITCHELL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's the type of
thing -- I would rather not go through the legislative
process if there's a way for us to do it through interlocal
agreements.
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
rather than tie up the Legi;
COMMISSIONER
takes time and -- whatever.
COMMISSIONER
you're not going to get any
likely.
WILLIAMS: I agree.
LETZ: I would much prefer to
slature.
WILLIAMS: I agree, because it
I agree with that.
BALDWIN: It's very likely
legislation anyway. Very
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Local bill?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
12-13-04
118
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You never know. I
think --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Believe me.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me digress for
just a second. I have to tell you something that I think is
important in this whole thing. Only take a minute. It was
last Wednesday when we signed up for our insurance? You and
I went down there for the 1 o'clock session.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And that was just two
hours before we were going to meet to determine the fate of
the juvenile center. And who's sitting next to me signing
her insurance papers in good faith, looking to the future?
Ms. Harris. If that's not an act of faith -- a real act of
faith. And I commend her for all of that, and having the
faith to go forward and knowing that things are going to
work.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Did you hear about her
walking on water? Heard about that yet?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, she
demonstrated it for me.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I wasn't supposed to
tell.
MS. HARRIS: That's for later.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the other thing, I
12-13-04
119
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
guess -- you know, I don't know if this is -- this seems
like kind of a general item. Either -- if not now, then
surely by our next meeting, kind of a timetable as to what
-- what has to be done. I mean, it seems to me there are
lots of things that have to happen for all this to -- you
know, us to buy the bonds or certificates of obligation.
Just kind of what -- a timetable of the whole picture laid
out before me, be very helpful.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: When will we actually
vote on a C.O.?
JUDGE TINLEY: I -- I had thought we might
put that on this particular agenda, and the bond attorney
and the financial adviser said not this particular meeting.
The impression I got -- and I think Ms. Mitchell may have
been listening to him at the time -- was very possibly the
next meeting, that -- that that's where the authorization
might come.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Will we have -- will
our financial adviser and financial attorney, if necessary,
at that time be in a position to tell us how Kerr County
will be rated for our debt? 'Cause that's integral to this
whole matter.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm frankly not sure.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- well, there's
also -- I mean, wasn't there -- and I know I had to leave
12-13-04
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
right -- maybe you had some conversation after I left the
last meeting, but wasn't there discussion that the banks
would be able -- or possibly be able do this kind of -- I
guess, not going through the regular market system; they
would just -- they would buy these --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Substitute issue.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, substitute them.
JUDGE TINLEY: It was left open as an option
that the existing bondholders might engage in a swap of the
new debt on a pro rata part, or some arrangement that might
be derived amongst all of them collectively, at a negotiated
rate.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: And that is an option. The
specifics were not nailed down, so that, you know, they
didn't obligate themselves in any specific amount at any
specific rate. But that -- that was an option that they
posed to us, and it's still an option as far as I know.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. But I think if we
just get, at our next meeting, a good idea as to what's
ahead of us. And my last comment is really more to the
County Attorney-elect, since a lot of this is going to come
together, I think, after the first of the year. I would
strongly recommend you visit with Tom Spurgeon, who has been
our bond advice, and Kathy has a phone number. He's our
1~-13-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
121
attorney that has dealt with all this stuff, and is very
much aware of just the -- kind of where we're going.
Because, in addition to him having to sign off and approve a
lot of documents, I want to be looking to the County
Attorney's office to likewise be signing off on these same
documents.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Can I get just some
advice? You know, we talked during the last several
months --
give advice to?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not an attorney.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Who do you want to
23
,._ 2 4
25
12-13-09
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Later.
JUDGE TINLEY: Later.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: -- analysis or what?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I need some advice from
y'all on what I should do. As several of y'all know, with
our current situation in the adult jail, especially with the
females, as they're overcrowded. Several of y'all had
advised that I was going to come back after the first of the
year to seriously start looking at an expansion. And I know
there were some comments made about C.O.'s and doing
different things at different times. I'm just wondering,
would y'all want me to start looking into that sooner or
later? Or --
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
Just asking.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Later.
JUDGE TINLEY: Later.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But I seem to recall
the financial adviser commenting that if we know certain
things are in the offing, and within a reasonable period of
time, we need to be thinking ahead, not to the specific
dollars, but as to how the new debt is structured in terms
of its payback. And so, you know, it's not too soon to
think about whether the Court will take a positive action in
the future about it. We just need to keep it in the back of
our -- front lobe, probably.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 'Cause what Vou're
talking about is going to go to the voters.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't know how y'all
want to do it. 'Cause if it's going to do that, I'd like to
get the Jail Commission to do an analysis first.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think all that -- if
you think it's time, you know, that that needs to start
being looked at seriously, 'cause that -- the new jail
addition, I think, has to be -- to go to the voters.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't want to have --
as long as I'm Sheriff, I don't want that much headache, but
we have bumped -- we have gone over our maximum amount. We
have -- the female situation has gotten critical at times,
12-13-04
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
and I just am wanting advice from the Court on which way to
go.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I mean, my
advice is that if you need -- if it's at a point you need
the start planning for it, do what you need to do to start
planning. But this is the type of thing that I think needs
to go to the voters. That's one person's opinion.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Fine.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Tommy? Tommy had a
question.
MR. TOMLINSON:
developing a budget for the -
County will be the operator o
begin development of a budget
than piecemeal transfers from
to the --
Just a thought about
- it's fairly sure that the
E the facility. Go ahead and
for us to work off of, rather
-- from the General Fund over
JUDGE TINLEY: I think that process is
underway now, and has been for -- for a short period of
time, since probably last Wednesday?
MS. HARRIS: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. That's what I thought.
MR. TOMLINSON: I just think we need -- I
just think we need that budget on the accounting system.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree.
12-13-09
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
124
MR. TOMLINSON: Another issue that I thought
about, too, is we have -- there's -- Becky will tell you,
there's maintenance issues over at the facility.
MS. HARRIS: The new building.
MR. TOMLINSON: I think it's time that -- you
know, that the Court give direction to the maintenance
people as to whether -- whether they are involved in the
maintenance of that facility, because we do -- the County
does have agreements with contractors out there that -- that
provide electrical, air conditioning services under the
County umbrella. So, I had a question about that from
Mr. Holekamp, and --
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, I talked to Mr. Holekamp
about that this morning. My suggestion to him was that he
and Ms. Harris try and formulate what -- what those things
entail, and to see if they could come up with something that
was acceptable to the both of them, but we would still be
able to allocate the costs so that we could keep an accurate
tab on -- on what it's costing for that facility. And he
indicated that -- that he would do that; that he'll get with
Ms. Harris, and they -- see what they could come up with
first, and then to the degree it needed to involve us, they
could come --
MR. TOMLINSON: I just recall that we had bid
some of that work for the county, and we need to use the
12-13-04
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
same vendors for that facility, as well as --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Others.
MR. TOMLINSON: -- as other county
properties.
	JUDGE TINLEY:	Mm-hmm.	
	COMMISSIONER	LETZ: Tommy, on the	-- going
back	to the budget, so we al	l -- well, is there	a way that
the -	- the revenue that the	facility generates,	can that go
into	-- or does it go into a	designated fund, or	can it go
into	a designated fund so it	doesn't get in the	General
Fund?			
MR. TOMLINSON: It always has been.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, it's kept in a
separate fund?
MR. TOMLINSON: Oh, yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, we'll have another --
a whole line in our budget summary sheet, then.
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, there -- we've had a --
we've had a fund set up in our accounting system ever since
the beginning for -- for the facility, and it records the
revenues from -- from different sources in the accounting
system, and we have accounts for all different -- you know,
for payroll, all kinds of operating expenses set up in
the -- in the accounting system that -- that are -- give you
the history of -- of what's been expended over the last --
12-13-04
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
ever since 1997.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It would be very --
because of this situation, probably more so than any other
county department, we could try to track the revenue next to
the expenses. I mean, I know we don't do it on the same
page, but if we can -- if it's accounted for in a
separate -- and you said it is, so it's easy to do.
MR. TOMLINSON: Already is.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So we can
revenue sheet, we can look at an expenditure
how we're -- you know, if we're meeting prof
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tommy,
be able to classify the employees to be like
employees?
look at a
sheet and know
actions.
are we going to
county
MR. TOMLINSON: They virtually are already.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, let me get down
to the bottom line, then.
MR. TOMLINSON: The only difference that I
know of is that the -- that maybe the job descriptions
are -- are maybe some different than some of the job
descriptions in -- at the county. For instance, you know,
clerical people.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, that's what I'm
asking.
MR. TOMLINSON: Now, maintenance people, I --
12-13-04
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
I don't know if -- if they're in line with the type of job
descriptions that we've -- that the County's developed
for -- for all the other departments or not. I don't know
that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, that was
actually my question. And along with that, then, is
salaries, amount of salaries and that kind of thing. So, at
some point, we got to look at that. That's my --
MR. TOMLINSON: I think you're on the
right -- on a good track there. I think -- I think that job
descriptions should dictate what the salary levels are.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Correct.
MR. TOMLINSON: And so, for that reason, I
think we need to have, you know, job descriptions available
-- developed that are -- that are in line with what -- what
we do as a county, overall.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you saying we
need to do that? Or it has already been done?
MR. TOMLINSON: There are job descriptions,
but I don't know if they're in line with -- with what we do
as a county as a whole.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That fall within the
existing matrix structure of what we have now.
MR. TOMLINSON: Right. Right. And I don't
-- I think that would have to be examined by -- by the
12-13-04
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
administrator and the personnel people.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. Of course,
you're not going to find that it's a perfect fit.
MR. TOMLINSON: No.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's just like the
adult thing.
MR. TOMLINSON: I mean, the -- you know, the
analysis would be with the -- a detention officer with a
jailer. They're similar. But not --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And a secretary --
well, you can't use that term any more, can you?
MS. HARRIS: Administrative assistant.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Administrative
assistants or --
MR. TOMLINSON: And they have -- and they
have people out there that -- that don't follow the job
description that anybody in the county would fall into.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Like the counselor.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah.
MS. HARRIS: I do have job descriptions for
every position at the facility. I developed a large
majority of the job descriptions. And what I can do is I
can take the job descriptions that I developed when I got
there, and take them to the Personnel department and let
them look at them, and see what revisions need to be made.
12-13-09
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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, in the last year
I've seen a couple employees -- the paperwork on a couple
employees out there before you arrived, that I -- I'd -- I
really don't know what their duties were, but they were
making a lot more money than most people in this courthouse.
And that -- to me, that has to be addressed.
MS. HARRIS: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're not going to
have a secretary out there making twice the amount as a
secretary in this courthouse. That just doesn't work.
Won't work.
MS. HARRIS: And I did place all of the
juvenile detention officers -- they were not in a pay group
step increase. I put all of the -- the detention officers
in a pay group step increase, and I did that when I first
got here. I did not do that with the rest of the employees,
'cause about that time things kind of went up into the air,
and I wasn't quite sure what was going to be happening. I
tentatively have everyone placed in a group step increase
pay scale, but not officially. Just only -- the official
ones are only the detention officers. And that's because
that's state law; they have to be in a pay group step
increase system. The others I know where to -- you know, I
know where they are right now. I know what pay group that
12-13-04
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
they're in right now.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Will you have that
done in conjunction with the new -- working out a budget
that Mr. --
MS. HARRIS: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think --
MS. HARRIS: I did that in that budget that I
created in that proposal that I gave y'all. That was -- I
had that in mind, and I did it that way.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Once you get with the
personnel Office and see our current step and grade matrix,
there may be some salary adjustments needed, and it's time
to do that immediately.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I agree.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So that we get the
adjustments -- we get them in line going in. And, you know,
I -- hopefully there's not a -- you know, any kind of a
significant downward for anybody, but if there is, they need
to have the opportunity to leave if they want, or -- or make
a decision to stay. We just need to get that -- this needs
to be done pretty quickly so we don't get down the road, you
know, treat -- doing something to the employees that isn't
fair out there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a question for
Ms. Harris, though. Has the word gone out statewide that
12-13-04
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
131
our facility is staying open for business?
MS. HARRIS: Yes, it has.
JUDGE TINLEY: I believe it went out late --
late Wednesday and early Thursday, didn't it?
MS. HARRIS: Early Thursday. Yes, it did.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Probably a bus load
of criminals on their way right now.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Driving.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Driving themselves
down here, yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: If we don't have anything
further for that item, we'll go on to Item 18. Pending a
fully developed budget, consider, discuss, and approval of
operational funding for detention facility. Where do we
stand on it, Mr. Auditor?
MR. TOMLINSON: I don't have anything to do
with it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Huh? You're out of the
picture now?
MR. TOMLINSON: I'm out of the picture.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Who does?
MR. TOMLINSON: I mean, I'll -- actually,
I've never been totally responsible for the budget, anyway.
The director has always been the -- the person there that's
12-13-09
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
132
been the budget -- the person that develops the budget.
I've assisted, but --
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, we don't have a budget
at this point, and I -- I guess the need -- we may not have
a need to address it. Have we got enough to operate through
the end of the month, two weeks hence?
MR. TOMLINSON: I know how much cash we have,
but I thought you meant the budget to go forward.
JUDGE TINLEY : No, no, no, no, no .
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay, I misunderstood what
you said. We -- we do -- I think we need probably $20,000
to make payroll for -- for Wednesday.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: For Wednesday?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
MR. TOMLINSON: No, I didn't write -- no.
No, not officially.
JUDGE TINLEY: We don't have a budget, so we
can't do a budget amendment.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What do we need to
do to get the money to them?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would that be in
addition to the 21,470 that's in the --
MR. TOMLINSON: No, that includes the 21.
12-13-04
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
133
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, we do have it in
front of us, then.
MR. TOMLINSON: What? We have -- we have
funds there, but there's not enough to cover the payroll
coming forward.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So that's in addition
to the 21,470 that's in the book, right?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah. Well, that -- the
20,000 I'm asking for pays for -- will accommodate these
bills plus the salaries -- plus the payroll on the 15th.
JUDGE TINLEY: Take care of the mid-month
payroll?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So it's added in the
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, it has to be in
addition to that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Payroll.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Payroll.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So we need a motion?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, could we take
it up -- you need a motion now? Or take it up with the
bills?
12-13-04
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
134
JUDGE TINLEY: Well I -- since we don't have
a budget, we don't do it as a budget amendment, so I think
we just need to authorize the operational funding, an
additional amount of $20,000. The Auditor says he's got
enough money in-hand in the facility account to take care of
the bills that are listed here, plus a portion of the
payroll. He needs some more to make up the balance of the
payroll.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I will move that we
cover the payroll with the transfer of funds, an additional
$20,000, but what I would like to see in addition -- and
having said that, I'd like to see some kind of a statement
that indicates what the accounts receivable -- the status of
accounts receivable. What's out there, and what's the
currency of it, and how much is the whole magilla. I think
that -- is that possible?
MR. TOMLINSON: I know what receivables were
outstanding at the end of -- of 9/30, the end of the fiscal
year. I know -- I know where we are in the collections for
October. We -- I've only received three payments that I
know of for November. I have not -- I don't have a -- a
billing. I have not been furnished a billing for -- for the
month of November.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The billings don't go
out of your office; they go out of the Juvenile Detention
12-13-04
135
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Center?
MS. HARRIS: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: She sends them out.
MS. HARRIS: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We need to get all this
adjusted.
MR. TOMLINSON: I don't have anything to do
with it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: A lot of things we
need to pull together here.
MS. HARRIS: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think, you know -- I'll
second the motion. And I guess I'm thinking we need to
declare an emergency to do that transfer, but it's not a
budgeted item. I mean, it's increasing the budget, though.
So --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We've been doing that
all along.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. So your motion
includes declaring an emergency to do that?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If that's what's
required. Is that what's required?
MR. TOMLINSON: I think so.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. I'll second the
12-13-04
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
motion. Then I have a comment.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Motion made and
seconded to declare an emergency and authorize additional
funding in the amount of $20,000 to the Juvenile Detention
Facility to cover payroll. Questions or comments?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Comment, I guess, to
follow up on Commissioner William's comment. I think at our
next meeting, I'd really like to see a spreadsheet at least
of, you know, kind of the receivable information you're
talking about, where we were up to the 1st of December -- or
November 30th, I'm sure; get the monthly billings, you know,
and also a tally of how much we have put -- you know, by
declaring an emergency, transferred into that. Just kind of
a balance as to where we are now. And in terms of
Ms. Harris to start working with the various offices in the
courthouse, whether it would be the Auditor's office or the
Personnel office or Maintenance, just to start getting that
facility assimilated into the county system as quickly as
possible.
MS. HARRIS: So, you would like Tommy and I
to collaborate on -- on a budget.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On a budget and on
receivables.
MS. HARRIS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And where we are.
12-13-04
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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And the amount of
expense we've already covered.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, expenses we've --
JUDGE TINLEY: Tommy has that.
MS. HARRIS: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions?
Comments? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(Commissioners Williams, Letz, and Nicholson
voted in favor of the motion.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(Commissioner Baldwin voted against the
motion.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Do we --
any member of the Court have anything to go into executive
or closed session concerning?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're not being sued
this week for anything?
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's early.
JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's just Monday.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's only Monday.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, that was last week.
Let's go to the approval agenda. Payment of the bills.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move we pay the
12-13-04
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
138
bills. And I've got some questions.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second, and I've got
two.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
payment of the bills. Questions?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This is just
probably a little bit of education process for me. Maybe
others, too. I'm looking at 570, Juvenile Probation, and
that's our Juvenile Probation Department here.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What page are you on?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Page -- excuse me --
9, but mostly on Page 10. So, this -- these are expenses
against a budget for our county Juvenile Probation
Department. I haven't looked at it very carefully in the
past, and I see medical expenses here, and then I see
medical expenses over -- over in Juvenile Detention, a
different, you know, county department. What kind of
medical expenses do we have in Juvenile Probation?
What's --
MR. TOMLINSON: I think they're psychological
evaluations.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This is for purposes
of placement and things like that?
MR. TOMLINSON: I suppose so.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And they've got --
12-13-04
139
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. TOMLINSON: Probably drug testing also.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: They've got
attorneys expenses -- oh, yeah. Back to Page 10, last three
items.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Kerr County Juvenile
Facility. This is what Kerr County is paying to house our
preadjudicated children?
MR. TOMLINSON: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 19,000-something.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And then Hays
County, a couple items. We apparently have a couple
children placed at Hays County, and this is what we're
paying them?
MR. TOMLINSON: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Those are
postadjudicated.
MS. HARRIS: Mm-hmm, yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm learning the
terminology.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: To what?
JUDGE TINLEY: Getting ramped up, huh?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Postadjudicated, as
opposed to preadjudicated we talked about.
12-13-04
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
140
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're going to learn
a lot of things here.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Of course, this is
paying bills; this is not a P and L statement, but somewhere
else someday, I'll see revenues. Here I'm -- on Page 19
here, I'm seeing costs of the Juvenile Detention Facility.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah. They're -- you know,
if the Court wishes, I can give you a -- a copy of revenues,
you know, anytime.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think that's what
Jonathan and the others were asking about, that someday soon
we're going to see a P and L statement of some kind, or
forecast of revenues and costs. That's all I got -- all I
have.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do you have a question --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- Commissioner Letz?
Commissioner Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. On Page 1,
Commissioners Court. The bottom one, Davidson & Moore
Court, court reporting services. What might that be?
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Motley? There's a billing
that's charged to Commissioners Court.
MR. MOTLEY: That was one I believe I forward
on. That is costs of taking -- I want to say it was --
12-13-04
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
141
JUDGE TINLEY: Deposition?
MR. MOTLEY: -- two depositions. I don't
know if it was two or three. Two or three depositions in
the E.B.A. litigation.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh. Das gut, as they
would say in Comfort. Now, Page 20, we just authorized a
certain amount of money for salaries, I think. What is this
one here? Juvenile Detention Facility, 21,000.
JUDGE TINLEY: Previous page.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Previous page. All
that's --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, that's the tail
end of all of that. I see what you're saying. Okay. I see
that the -- the dentist is being paid. Hallelujah. Okay,
that's the end of my questions.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have none.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions or
comments? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. We
have Budget Amendment Request Number 1.
MR. TOMLINSON: Number -- this budget
12-13-04
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
142
amendment is for the 216th District Court. We're asking for
a transfer of $3,775.01 from Court-Appointed Attorneys to
Court Transcripts. I have a bill for a transcript of
$4,216.95. The balance in that account is only $441 at the
present time.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve.
MR. TOMLINSON: I do have a late bill
attached to --
JUDGE TINLEY: Late bill attached to that?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Need a hand check?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Tommy, is there -- we
only budgeted, I think, $1,500 for that. Is this a line
item that we don't use very often, evidently?
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, it's a line item much
like Court-Appointed Attorneys line item. It's hard -- it's
hard to put a number on -- on what that's going to be,
because you never know when there's going to be an appeal,
and that's generally what these court transcripts are for.
And --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, my question
was -- I mean, while we're doing it, should we put more
money in there to cover for the year? Or do we just not
know?
12-13-04
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
MR. TOMLINSON: I just don't know.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just don't know?
MR. TOMLINSON: No.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Hand check for $4,216.95?
MR. TOMLINSON: That's correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: To whom?
MR. TOMLINSON: Cindy Snider.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That person is an
employee of the County.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, that's right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So you pay that person
a salary, and then you turn around and pay this person again
for doing the work.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why is that?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know. We've
always done it. But -- please let me vote.
JUDGE TINLEY: Before you get to Level 3.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I'm reaching
Level 3 here.
MS. PIEPER: Judge, was there a second? I
didn't hear it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What was the comment?
MS. PIEPER: Was there a second on that? I
12-13-04
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
didn't hear it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move that we approve
Budget Amendment Number 1.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Does that include a hand
check?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: For $4,216.95.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any further question or
comments? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Do we
have any late bills, Mr. Auditor?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, I have one. It's
payable to Susan Edwards, the nurse out at the detention
facility, for $350.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: For?
MR. TOMLINSON: For her services.
MS. HARRIS: That's the contract.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, for November.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
12-13-09
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
,._ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
145
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of late bill, issuance of hand check to Susan
Edwards for $350 for services at detention facility --
Juvenile Detention Facility. Any question or comments? All
in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Is that
all you had, Mr. Auditor?
MR. TOMLINSON: That's all I got.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you very much. I have
before me the transcript of the Kerr County Commissioners
Court special session of Wednesday, December 8; transcript
of the Kerr County Commissioners Court special session
Thursday, December 9, which was reconvened from Wednesday,
December 8; the regular session of the Kerr County
Commissioners Court for Monday, November 8, 2004; special
session of the Kerr County Commissioners Court Friday,
November 12; insurance workshop transcript, Kerr County
Commissioners Court, Monday, November 15, 2004; and
transcript of special session, Kerr County Commissioners
Court, Monday, November 22, 2004. Do I hear a motion that
12-13-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
146
those transcripts be approved as presented?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of transcripts 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: I've also been presented with
monthly reports from the following: Kerr County Sheriff's
Office, Justice of the Peace, Precinct 2, Justice of the
Peace, Precinct 3, Justice of the Peace, Precinct 4, County
Clerk, District Clerk, and Constable, Precinct 3. Do I hear
a motion that those reports be approved as presented?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I have a report
here from Constable, Precinct 2.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He distributed his
also.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do you want to include it in
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I think it would
24 be wise,
25
12-13-09
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
these reports?
1
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 BALDWIN: -- I haven't seen a
report from Precinct 1 in quite some time. I know it's not
required, but I highly recommend it. And I don't know about
4; I don't keep an eye on him. But --
JUDGE TINLEY: I'll include within the
reports the report from Constable, Precinct 2 for the month
of November --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move acceptance.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- of this year.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move acceptance.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the designated 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 does carry. Do we
have any reports from any of the Commissioners in connection
with their liaison assignments?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. Let me give
you a little update on the last Airport Board meeting.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which we're reading a
12-13-04
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
148
little bit about in the paper, and having to do with the
issue of where to locate the new terminal building. One of
the board members, Mr. MacDonald, questioned the -- the
existing site for -- indicating that it is really a very
constricted site that had been previously approved to -- to
locate the terminal building, and suggesting at the same
time that there is at least one other alternate site out
there that would be a lot less restricted -- constricted,
and provide for a great deal more parking than -- than the
current site allows. So, the board approved taking a look
at the site one more time, and we meet out there a week from
tomorrow afternoon to do just that, and look at the two
sites, the one that's selected as opposed to the one that
could be selected if the board chooses to do that.
Secondly, Commissioner Letz put together the agenda for a
day-long retreat for the Airport Board to study itself and
its issues and its future, and that was approved, and the
date set for that, I believe, was January 18th.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Birthday cake. Remember
that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's right,
birthday cake. So, other than that, we're humming.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. I think I'll add
to that a little bit. I think the -- the board is going
through a few growing pains, trying to figure out really as
12-13-09
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
149
to -- well, I guess how to operate out there. And I don't
think it's a problem; I think it's a very good thing, and I
think it's really more of -- the growing pains are probably
more on the City staff side, as they are not used to having
a board that's going to operate the airport, as opposed to a
staff that's been operating the airport. And that's -- you
know, there's been a lot of -- you know, we spend a lot of
time on procedural things, it seems, these days. I did miss
the last meeting, but there was a lot of procedure talk
going on, which is -- which is very good and very healthy.
I think they are really growing pains, no problems. I think
the direction -- we're clear as to where the board and the
City and the County want the airport to go, so I just --
it's an interesting evolution. But I think the board is --
is truly working as anticipated.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That retreat will
probably help a lot to move those things along.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. We talked about it
early on, and it took a little bit of time to get it
scheduled, and actually it turned out to be a good thing,
because we kind of know where the problems are developing,
and some of the communication and some of the things.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Where's the retreat?
Las Vegas? Or --
12-13-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
150
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I wish. We're trying to
get one of these people to fly us somewhere, but they wanted
to meet at the airport, of all places.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Good lord.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, it's probably
going to be in that new G-3 Gulf Stream yet that's parked
out there; have it inside that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Fly around in circles.
It's actually going to be at the Cailloux Center at
Schreiner University. And --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No. No, the theater,
isn't it? Upstairs?
Arts Center.
at Schreiner.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Theater? What theater?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Cailloux Performing
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh, I thought it was over
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let's double-check.
I thought I heard him say that there's a room upstairs, up
the staircase.
23 that.
24
25
12-13-04
JUDGE TINLEY: Houston, we have a problem.
(Discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. We're going to
have to turn this over to Rusty to get it done; I can see
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
151
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And, actually, I do have
a -- since the Sheriff walked back in, I asked Kathy a --
oh, a couple weeks ago to research what kind of interlocal
agreements we have with the surrounding counties regarding
fire and Sheriff and all that stuff, and she said she
couldn't really find any. I think she talked to someone at
your office. I think that's something that, you know, don't
we -- isn't -- wouldn't it be a good idea for us to enter
into an emergency services interlocal agreement with all our
surrounding counties?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well there's some --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mutual aid.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Some you can and some
you cannot, by law, as far as law enforcement and going into
other counties and that and how that works. There's some
A.G.'s opinions on how we do that. We have one -- of
course, you have the 216th Narcotics Task Force. We'll see
what its future holds hopefully in the next few months. But
then we do have the interlocal agreement with the Special
Operations Unit, which is kind of the quasi-SWAT team, or
any, you know, even suicidal people. It's just -- and that
is between us, the City of Kerrville, and Fredericksburg.
That agreement, we do -- we do things jointly. I have two
people assigned to it.
25 ~ COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, I mean, I know -- in
12-13-09
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
152
fact, you even told me not long ago there was a situation in
far east Kerr County when your -- where your deputies were
backed up by Kendall County deputies. I mean -- and,
clearly, there's not a problem that I'm trying to solve.
It's just, I think it would be -- to me, it would be healthy
to have interlocal agreements just kind of memorializing
that these -- you know, kind of that they exist. And I
think it's also good; it shows communication, cooperation
amongst the counties, and I think it shows the taxpayers
that -- because we have more and more, as we grow, residents
that are on one side or the other side of the county line,
and I think it's just good for them to understand that there
is coordination between your office and other sheriff's
departments and the volunteer fire departments, which those
were already really covered under those agreements. But --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, under ours, it's a
little bit different, 'cause peace officers are peace
officers across the state, period. They're actually
commissioned. And we do have our jurisdictional boundaries,
unless requested to assist, okay? And that's where that
comes in. All it takes is a radio call. You know, "Officer
needs assistance," or we -- "Will you help us?" And -- and
there's no actual written agreements.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh, okay.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay? So, law
12-13-09
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
153
enforcement-wise, we're covered. Now, fire departments,
that could be a whole different deal. I heard what you were
talking about earlier with fire departments. When I checked
out here, they were calling for EMS for -- on Hermann Sons
Road, and Kerrville was responding to that, and they were
still trying to get ahold of Comfort. But those -- you
know, there are agreements.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He had to do it,
didn't he?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, okay. Law
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah, under law.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: A lot of ours is.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do we have any other reports?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Just a quick
statement. I keep reading about the difficulties down in
Bexar County they're having with Animal Control, and looking
over my shoulder a little bit, and the good news is, we're
really in good shape compared to San Antonio. One of the
things they've got a problem with is that they're gassing
kittens and puppies under the age of six or eight weeks,
whatever it is, and that's out of compliance with state law.
I just wanted to let y'all know we're not doing that. We're
in compliance with state law. That's all.
12-13-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
154
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's good news.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other reports? Any of you
gentlemen? Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm hungry.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do we have any other reports
from elected officials? I'm not going to call on the
Sheriff, but if there are any other elected officials, why,
all right. Anything else to come before the Court this
morning?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Nay.
JUDGE TINLEY: We stand adjourned.
(Commissioners Court adjourned at 12:17 p.m.)
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
12-13-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
155
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 20th day of December,
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
BY: ___ ____________
Kathy Ba Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2004.
24
25
12-13-04
ORDER N0.28930
RESOLUTION-AACOG
Came to be heard this the 13th day of December 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously
approved by vote of 4-0-0 to adopt Alamo Area Council of Governments Regional
Mitigation Action Plan.
ORDER N0.28931
VARIANCE FOR TOM HAILEY PROPERTY OFF OF WILSON CREEK.
Came to be heard this the 13th day of December 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously
approved by vote of 4-0-0 a variance from 60' to 40', where a 60' easement cannot be
obtained for the property to be platted as a subdivision.
ORDER N0.28932
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH BONDING COMPANIES
Came to be heard this the 13th day of December 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court approved by
vote of 3-1-0 to adopt settlement agreement with Jackie Davis, dba Davis Bonding
Company and Emily S Behrens dba Associated Bonding Company.
ORDER N0.28933
REVISION OF PLAT FOR TRACTS 15 AND 16 SLUFF CREEK RANCH.
Came to be heard this the 13th day December 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to finalize the revision of Tracts 15 and 16 Bluff Creek
Ranch.
ORDER N0.28934
SPRING HOLLOW ESTATES
Came to be heard this the 13th day of December 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court unanimously
approved by vote of 4-0-0 to vacate/abandon/discontinue Spring Hollow Estates
Subdivision platted in Volume 4, Page 174.
ORDER N0.28935
STATEMENT OF SUPPORT FOR THE GUARD AND RESERVE.
Came to be heard this the 13th day of December 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court unanimously
approved by vote of 4-0-0 to adopt all requirements under Federal Law.
ORDER N0.28936
AMENDMENT OF EMS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT.
Came to be heard this the 13th day of December 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court approved by vote of
3-1-0 to ratify and amend EMS Interlocal agreement between Kerrville/Kerr
County/Ingram/Kimble in reference to service in northwest Kerr County.
ORDER N0.28937
COUNTY TREASURER'S OFFICE HIRING A CHIEF DEPUTY.
Came to be heard this the 13th day of December 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to hire a Chief Deputy at the rate of 19.3.
ORDER N0.28938
BOARD OF KERR COUNTY EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT NO. 1
Came to be heard this the 13th day of December 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Nicholson seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously
approved by vote of 4-0-0 the nomination of Mr. Johnnie L. Hawkins effective January 1,
2005.
ORDER N0.28939
ALAMO AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS.
Came to be hear this the 13th day of December 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to pay the 2005 dues.
ORDER N0.28940
2ND COMMISSIONER'S COURT MEETING OF 2005.
Came to be heard this the 13th day of December 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to have the 2nd Commissioner's Court meeting at the Union
Church building, January 24, 2005.
ORDER N0.28941
JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITY.
Came to be heard this the 13th day of December 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court approved by a vote
of 3-1-0 to extend the temporary lease and operating agreement for another 30 days for
the Juvenile Detention Facility.
ORDER N0.28942
OPERATIONAL FUNDING FOR THE JUVENILE DETENTION FACLITY.
Came to be heard this the 13th day of December 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams seconded by Commissioner Letz.. The Court approved by a
vote of 3-1-0 to declare an emergency and authorize additional funding of $20,000.00 for
payroll.
ORDER N0.28943
CLAIMS AND ACCOUNTS
On this the 13th day of December 2004, came to be considered by the Court various
Commissioners Precincts, which said Claims and Accounts are:
Expenses Amount
10-General $157,608.61
14-Fire 10,416.66
15-Road & Bridge 17,139.24
18-County Law Library 6,698.25
26-JP Technology 3,172.41
50-Indigent Health Care 53,981.19
76-Juvenile Detention Facility 21,470.73
80-Historical Commission 49.43
TOTAL Cash Required $266,536.52
Upon motion made by Commissioner Baldwin seconded by Commissioner Nicholson.
The Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to pay said Claims and Accounts.
ORDER N0.28944
BUDGET AMENDMENT
216TH DISTRICT COURT
Came to be heard this the 13th day of December 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 funds.
Expense Code Description Requested +()
10-435-497 Court transcripts $3,775.01
10-435-402 Court appointed attorney (3,775.01)
ORDER N0.28945
PAYMENT OF LATE BILLS
KERR COUNTY JUVENILE FACILITY
Came to be heard this the 13th day of December 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to pay the late bill in the amount of $350.00 to Suzanne
Edwards from Line 76-572-333 and authorize the County Treasurer and County Auditor
to issue a hand check..
ORDER N0.28946
PAYMENT OF LATE BILLS
216TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Came to be heard this the 13th day of December 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court unanimously
~' approved by a vote if 4-0-0 to pay the late bill in the amount of $4,216.95 to Cindy
Snider from Line 10-435-497 and authorize the County Treasurer and County Auditor to
issue a hand check.
ORDER N0.28947
READ AND APPROVE MINUTES.
Came to be heard this the 13th day of December 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams seconded by Commissioner Nicholson. The Court unanimously
approved by vote of 4-0-0 the Minutes from:
November 8
November 9
November 12
November 22
December 8
December 9
ORDER N0.28948
APPROVE AND ACCEPT MONTHLY REPORTS.
Came to be heard this the 13th day of December 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz seconded by Commissioner Nicholson. The Court unanimously
approved by vote of 4-0-0 the following Monthly Reports.
Sheriff s
County Clerk's
District Clerk's
J.P. # 2,3,4
Constable 2
Constable 3 October & November