1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT Special Session Monday, February 28, 2005 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 C~I QI ~` ~~ ~ .. 1 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 February 28, 2005 --- Commissioners' Comments 1.1 Presentation concerning Trans Texas Corridor 1.14 Consider nomination of Chuck Lewis to fill vacancy on Kerr Central Appraisal District Board of Directors 1.2 Discuss IT staffing, consider bids opened on February 14, and award contract for services, consider budget amendment 1.3 Consider abandoning, discontinuing, and vacating 380 feet of Riojas Road, Pct. 3 1.4 Consider Preliminary Revision of Plat for Lot 4 of Live Springs Ranch, Pct. 4 1.6 Public Hearing concerning Revision of Plat for Lot 9 & 10, Rio Retiro, Pct. 4 1.7 Consider Revision of Plat for Lot 9 & 10 of Rio Retiro, Pct. 4 1.8 Public Hearing concerning Revision of Plat for Lot 4 of Live Springs Ranch, Pct. 4 1.5 Consider Preliminary Plat for Live Springs Ranch, Section 2, Pct. 4 1.9 Consider Preliminary Plat for Center Point Independent School District, Pct. 2 1.10 Public Hearing concerning Revision of Plat for Holcomb Ranch to include vacating, discontinuing, and abandoning the road shown as Hacienda Trail 1.11 Consider Revision of Plat for Holcomb Ranch to include vacating, discontinuing, and abandoning the road shown as Hacienda Trail 1.12 Consider authorizing Road and Bridge to repair the service drive at the Juvenile Detention Facility 1.13 Discuss possibility of a grant to support Substance Abuse Treatment Program 1.15 Consider approval of redesignation of the Child Welfare Board of Directors, approve terms of each director 1.16 Consider approval of agreement with VeriClaims, Inc. for administrative services for indigent health care claims, approval of Business Associate Agreement 1.17 Consider adopting a resolution inviting the West Texas Judges and Commissioners Association annual conference to Kerrville in 2007 1.18 Consider accepting resignation of Walter Harris from Alamo Area Council on Aging PAGE 5 8 26 29 37 39 46 47 54 56 60 65 66 68 70 74 77 78 79 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I N D E X (Continued) February 28, 2005 PAGE 1.19 Consider accepting Kerr County Attorney's office agreed-upon procedures report for the period January 2002 through December 2004 81 1.20 Consider conducting workshop and/or public hearing on proposed Kerr County Nuisance Abatement Program 91 1.21 Consider request for designation of City of Ingram as a "Colonia" for eligibility for grant funding for wastewater gathering system 97 1.22 Consider lease purchase of chip spreader and asphalt distributor, approve lease document with Security State Bank & Trust, and authorize County Judge to sign same 107 1.23 Reassessment of new employee of J.P. 4 from 17-1 to proper step/grade 109 1.24 Request emergency Funds for purchase of computer for District Clerk's office 125 4.1 Pay Bills 129 4.2 Budget Amendments 134 4.3 Late Bills 144 5.1 Reports from Commissioners/Liaison Committee Assignments 146 5.2 Reports from Elected Officials/Department Heads 153 --- Adjourned 165 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 .~ 24 25 4 On Monday, February 28, 2005, at 9:00 a.m., a special meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in the Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, Kerrville, Texas, and the following proceedings were had in open court: P R O C E E D I N G S JUDGE TINLEY: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Let me call to order this meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court regularly scheduled for this time and date, Monday, February 28th, 2005, at 9 a.m. Commissioner Nicholson, I think you have the honors this morning. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Will you join me in prayer, please? (Prayer and pledge of allegiance.) JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. At this time, if there's any member of the audience or the public that wishes to be heard on a matter that is not a listed agenda item, we would ask that you come forward at this time. If you want to be heard on a -- a specified listed agenda item, we'd ask that you fill out a participation form. The forms are in the back of the room. It's not absolutely essential, but it helps me to not pass over you when we get to that item. So, if you do that, it would be helpful to me. But if there's any member of the public or the audience that wishes to come forward and be heard on any matter that is not a listed -28-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 5 agenda item, feel free to come forward at this time. I see no one moving this direction, so we'll move on. Commissioner Nicholson, do you have anything for us this morning? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Couple things. One, just an update on burning. The last couple weeks have been a good time to burn, and there have been more controlled burns going on in the last few weeks than I have seen previously. And, as far as I know, none of them got out of hand, so that's good news. The other one was that one of our west Kerr citizens was honored by being named Citizen of the Year by the West Kerr Chamber of Commerce. It's Clint Shrader, who's the -- Schroeder, who's the editor, publisher -- I really don't know all the rest of the words -- of the West Kerr Current. It was kind of interesting; Clint was there to cover the banquet and the awards, had no idea that he was going to be named Citizen of the Year. And as they started -- the moderator started talking about all the accomplishments of this person, he °~ 24 Baldwin? 25 -28-05 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir, thank you. became aware of it, so he had to get from behind the camera and get in front of the camera for some of it. So, it was a good story. That's all I've got. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Commissioner 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ^ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 6 I spent Thursday and part of Friday out in Odessa preparing for our meeting next month, the West Texas Judges and Commissioners Association, and Friday I left the meeting early and drove like hell to Brownwood to a track meet, believe it or not. My favorite time of the year. And my little boy won second in the high jump, and was in second by a fraction in the 400 hurdles, and fell for the first time in his life, and he splattered out there on the track. I went over to him, asked him how that felt, and he says, "The tracks taste funny up here." (Laughter.) So, he got up and finished and placed fifth, and -- in the hurdles, so he did well. He's got a lot of heart. That's all. All I know is track now. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Commissioner Williams? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, Judge, we got a -- as we typically have lately, we've got an agenda book here that would pretty well choke an average cow, so I'm hopeful we can get it done before dinnertime tonight, because I promised to take my wife to dinner to commemorate our 46th wedding anniversary today, this day. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Fantastic, 46 years with you. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And she deserves it, let me tell you. -2s-os 1 ""' 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ` 24 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Congratulations. JUDGE TINLEY: Is that all you got for us? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's all I got. JUDGE TINLEY: That's plenty. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't have anything. Let's just get on with the agenda. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. As most of you know, here approximately a month and a half ago, a decision was made at the state level with regard to our local State Hospital, and which our acute civil commitment beds were to be converted over to forensic patient beds. It kind of threw Kerr County in a dither, as well as our other 18 to 20 counties in our cachement area, and it really sent us scrambling. We didn't have much in the way of prior notice. But, as I'm sure some of you may have noted in the past few days, we've found at least a temporary, partial solution. The State has allowed, to begin with temporarily, 10 beds out here at Kerrville State Hospital for acute civil commitment patients, and we're working on a more permanent plan to begin next fiscal year, which will begin September 1st, the State's fiscal year. But I -- my purpose in mentioning that to you this morning is to ask you to thank the people that I think are primarily responsible for getting this back where we've got something to work with out 2-28-05 1 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 there for our acute civil commitment patients. Dr. Olson and her staff, of course, were very instrumental. Representative Hilderbran worked very hard at the state level in Austin. But Linda Werlein, our local Community Mental Health Director here -- I call her that; that may not be her title, but she did yeoman's work in hurriedly putting together this plan and utilizing some of her funding of the community Mental Health Authority for the purpose of making this happen. So, when you see these people, thank them for their work, because they -- they did a wonderful thing, and it's hopefully goinq to get us kind of back to where we were on our civil commitment beds. And also, this every-two-year or so "sky is falling" routine about they're going to close Kerrville State Hospital, I think by converting a lot of those forensic -- a lot of those patient beds to forensic beds will help solidify our future. And then if we can just get our acute civil commitment beds on top of that, I think we'll really, really be in good shape out there. So, thank these people when you see them or you have occasion to be in touch with them, and -- because they're doing those things. That's all I have, thank you. Let's move on with the agenda items. The first item on the agenda is presentation concerning the Trans Texas Corridor. Commissioner Letz? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I put this on the agenda at the request of one of my constituents, Sharon Spenrath, 2-28-05 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 9 who's sitting up here. Sharon is a good friend of mine in the county for a long, long time, good friend of the Court, probably one of the strongest advocates of property rights in the state of Texas. She has many, many accolades; among them, past president of the, I guess -- make sure I get it right -- Texas Cattlewomen's -- national president as well? MS. SPENRATH: No, I'm National Legislative Chair. COMMISSIONER LETZ: National Legislative Chair. So, you know, very involved in property rights, very involved in a lot of political circles. She's done an outstanding job representing Central Texas on many, many boards nationally. She had called and asked if she could get on the agenda to update the Court and the public about the Trans Texas Corridor, and I'll turn it over to her. I think it's a very important issue. Thank you for coming, Sharon. Thank you for your interest. MS. SPENRATH: Appreciate y'all giving us some time. With me I have Mr. Bill Reese and Susan Heffington. Mr. Reese has been very active in developing our program for this morning, and I'm -- he's going to take over the first segment of it. So, Mr. Reese? MR. REESE: Well, good morning. I was figuring up the other day that it's been about two years since I last addressed y'all, and, oh, in the fall of 2003, z-2e-o5 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I spent three months in the hospital, and they tell me I died twice, so I have a report to make from my trip to the hereafter, and so I'll give my scouting report. Most importantly, to my supreme Commissioner, Buster, contrary to some religious beliefs, the ratio of young ladies to dirty old men is not nearly as high as -- as claimed. And -- MS. SPENRATH: He promised me he'd be nice. (Laughter.) MR. REESE: And the best thing, Buster, is I did not detect any heat or flames licking my backside, so you can relax. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. MR. REESE: With that said, let's get going. This is a pretty serious topic. I've titled it "The New Spanish Trail." The biggest question I hear is, why haven't I heard anything about it? This perhaps is the most asked question about the Trans Texas Corridor. The ballot read: "The constitutional amendment creating the Texas Mobility Fund and authorizing grants and loans of money and issuance of obligations for financing the construction, reconstruction, acquisition, operation, and expansion of state highways, turnpikes, toll roads, toll bridges, and other mobility projects." Passed, 67.3 percent voting yes. This was in 2002. That constitutional amendment enabled the 2-28-05 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 11 passage of HB-3588 that became law on September 1, 2003. And little did we know that this -- that tiny little amendment would become this 4,000 miles of quarter-mile corridors of six passenger lanes for passenger cars, toll roads, four passenger lane -- I mean truck lanes, oil pipelines, gas pipelines, water pipelines, utility lines snaking across the state. I want to point out that one year ago in February, the first public hearings were held on the Trans Texas Corridor 35 route from San Antone to Dallas. In December, 10 months later, the deal was done. The project was awarded to Cintra, a firm from Spain, and H.B. Zachry. Well, we know H.B. Zachry is from San Antone; they own 15 percent of the project. Cintra is one of the world's largest private sector developers of toll roads and airports. It's owned by a Spanish outfit, and Macquerie Investment Group from Australia. Macquerie Investment Holdings is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Macquerie Bank Limited, the largest investment banking group in Australia. Touted as a 50-year project of the future, Governor Perry says the Trans Texas Corridor will be the interstate system of the 21st century. The question before us today is, is this quarter of a mile corridor Criss-crossing the state the answer? Currently, there are three identified priority corridors; the Trans Texas 35 corridor, which has been initiated from San Antone to 2-28-C5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1U 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 12 Dallas, TTC-69 from Texarcana to some point on the Mexican border, and TTC-10 from Orange to E1 Paso. We know that I-35 is a traffic nightmare. Most of us have heard that the TTC-69 is part of a 1,600-mile national project, and that I-10 from Houston to San Antone is a NAFTA-rich corridor route. But wait a minute. What do we need a six-lane toll road in Medina for? David Stall of Corridor Watch, an opponent advocate of the Corridors, asked TexDOT that very question, "What do we need to extend I-10 for?" And he was given a very simple but honest answer. Water. So, this is the topic that we're going to discuss today, water and the Texas Corridor. What we have here is a map of the Edwards Aquifer that supplies San Antone, and the Edwards Trinity Aquifer that supplies us for the most part with water here in Kerr County. If you'll back up just one second please, the Edwards Trinity stretches from here in Kerr County all the way back 400 miles west of the Davis Mountains. Let me point out something real quick now. Remember the 400 miles; I'll bring it up later. Okay, go ahead. Thank you. This is very difficult to read. It's a very light map, and -- even in its original state. These are the 2000 population densities. This was provided by the Trans Texas Corridor. Here's the Edwards Trinity Aquifer in here. Very little population in 2000, and very little population in 2060. In 2-28-05 1 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 other words, Edwards Trinity is not threatened by population growth on the whole. It's threatened on the eastern fringes, as it is today, and it's further threatened on the eastern fringes by growth, but it's not threatened as a whole over the entirety of its -- of its acreage. Next slide, please. If we -- well, this is -- what you see here are the aquifers in the far west Texas region. The Edwards Aquifer comes right in here, and is going back to the east, so it's the very light green you see here. These red -- aquifers in red here are igneous aquifers. They're termed the igneous aquifers. These aquifers right here are the West Bolsons. Next slide, please. And crossing these aquifers are the quarter-mile-wide corridors of the Trans Texas Corridor, which, by law, under HB-3588, those -- those -- the land under those corridors will belong to the State of Texas, and under the law of capture, so will the water. An awful lot of water. Next slide. All right. Here's this TTC-10. It started in Orange. Here's El Paso here. Now, if Interstate 10 was about transportation, Interstate 10 could be expanded to its full 400-foot width (sic) very easily. But this 400-mile route here would not belong to the State of Texas, but TTC -- TTC-10 does. That's 100 square miles of state land that can now be used to drill for -- for water. 2-~8-C5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ^ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 '~ 24 25 14 This is a corridor that curves back down through far west Texas. Right here is the Edwards Trinity Aquifer. I've been in contact with Jeff Davis County Commissioners, Tom Beard, the chair of the Far West Texas Water Planning Group, who was appointed by Governor Perry. They jumped on this corridor -- this auxiliary corridor right away. They proposed two separate alternative routes that were less difficult to build, and to no avail. If you'll notice, this corridor curves back through -- you'll see on your handout, curves back through the Edwards Trinity Aquifer, comes down through the igneous aquifer around Marfa, and comes down through the West Texas Bolsons around Presidio. Next slide, please. Now, what I want to point out here is that these are the Davis Mountains just north of Ft. Davis. This is Olympia Canyon. This is a long serpentine route through a precipitous canyon of some 20 miles in length. This is con -- this is totally contrary to all of the design criteria of the Trans Texas Corridor, which is supposed to be straight, no grades. This route crosses the creek in 11 spots. MS. SPENRATH: Ready? MR. REESE: Yeah. Right up here is Marfa. It's difficult to see in this -- this is the route of the -- of the corridor. This is extremely rugged terrain, but this is all aquifer of that igneous strata that you saw on the -28-OS 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ^ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 previous map. Now, the question before, is the routing for this corridor for traffic or scenery at old Ft. Davis, or does it have to do with passing over three aquifers? Quoting HB-3588, the property -- "Property may be leased or a franchise or license granted for any purpose, including use as a facility or use for unrelated commercial, industrial, or agricultural purposes." Now, when they say "franchise," you know, it doesn't mean Ozarka Burger Barns. Rather, it's granting rights to drill water wells on state property and utilize the pipelines along the corridor to distribute water as the State wishes. Now, who's going to be getting these franchises? There's as many as a dozen active groups of water marketers that are generally dominated by oil men. They have a wildcatter's flare to them. They've tied up millions of gallons of water rights. Right now they haven't sold hardly any water at all. Now, the Trans Texas Corridor reflects the convergence of two ideas; the unparalleled use of eminent domain to centralize water issues at the state level, and to provide an in-place infrastructure to concessionaires for water distribution via a statewide pipeline network that the concessionaires -- oh my god. MS. SPENRATH: Doesn't show up any better; 24 it's too light. 25 MR. REESE: No. Okay. Don't have to invest 2-28-05 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .-, 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 in. Well, here comes the power of the word. What does all this mean for Kerr County? This is the corridor, the Trans Texas 10 corridor. Here is Comfort. Here's Highway 87 and Steeler Hill. Trans Texas Corridor 10 will enter the Hill Country between Blanco and Sisterdale and Kendalia, and will take a northwest turn and cross Highway 87 just between -- just north of Steeler Hill. At this point in time, it's 11 miles north of Comfort approximately, and it's also 11 miles south of Fredericksburg. Now, let me bring up some economic issues at this time, because by the time it gets to Highway 16, it's going to be 13 miles south of Fredericksburg and 11 miles north of Kerrville. So, from the standpoint of economic considerations, that's what any off ramps at those two highways -- the roadsides are going to be virtually equidistant from exiting travelers to make a choice of whether they go to Kerr County or whether they go to Gillespie County. Now, the points as far as the corridor itself, number one, there's no readily available access to private property. Number two, there are no frontage roads. And, number three, services are available only at concessionaire-operated oases within the corridors, and this is specifically to discourage the need to exit from these -- these toll roads. Okay. If you want to visualize where the -- the corridor would conceivably cross Highway 16, it would 2-28-OS 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 be in the area of Alfred Henke and Pressler-Henke Roads just south of Henke's fence and gas station. Okay, next slide. Okay. AUDIENCE: Doesn't the Lieutenant Governor own some property right there? MR. REESE: I don't have access to that, but -- AUDIENCE: I believe he does. MR. REESE: -- that would be very interesting to know. AUDIENCE: He does. MR. REESE: All right. The -- I want to point out here that this is this corridor coming north and south just west of San Antone; I'll get to it in just a minute. Here we have Kerrville. We have this corridor coming up this -- that -- go to the next slide, please. We can come back. We have a corridor that starts southeast of San Antone around Karnes City, takes off, goes just north of Pleasanton, goes northwest, crosses 290 between D'Hanis and Hondo, takes a route over -- what is it, 362? -- 462. Goes about two and a half miles west of Medina there on Highway 337, picks up Wallace Creek at Highway 16. Here's Medina Children's Home. It's just to the west of Medina Children's Home. Picks up Wallace Canyon, jumps up on top of the ridge and kisses the land owned by Cool Water, which is owned by 2-28-05 18 1 ~' 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ^ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lee Bass. Goes through -- now go back to the previous slide, please. Goes across Highway 39 in the area of Waltonia Crossing, Junction Crossing at Fall Branch, goes to Austex Properties, which is owned by Stephen R. Bass -- Stephen R. Smith, excuse me, not Stephen R. Bass -- and exits Kerr County, and then it converges in a massive intersection here. These are fully integrated corridors, by the way. There would be a massive intersection here in the area of Klein Branch Road. Now, let me say right now, the neighborhoods threatened in the area of Highway 39 and Waltonia would be Sherman Hill Subdivision, Bumblebee Subdivision, River Oaks, Camp Rio Vista, and Cypress Creek Estates. Those in the area of Junction Highway and Fall Creek would be Bluff Trails, Fall Branch Road, David Paul, and Camp Scenic. In Gillespie County, those homes on the following roads in this area -- these areas: Fallen Oaks, Saddlebrook, Spring Valley Ranch, Duderstadt, Friederich, White Oak, Pressler-Henke Crossing, Klein Branch -- Klein Branch, Lange Road, Fiedler, Windy Ridge, and Alfred Henke. In Bandera County, Highway 337 and Elm Creek Road area, Mesa Verde, Wallace Creek Road, Greene Road, and Echo Hill Road. Now, if we'll go back -- go back to the -- MS. SPENRATH: Go backwards? MR. REESE: Backwards, please. I believe 2-28-05 19 1 "~ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ^' 24 25 backwards. No, go forward. Okay. Let me point out here, you remember I made the comment about the canyon -- the Olympia Canyon just north of -- in the Davis Mountains just north of Ft. Davis. That was a 20-mile mountain canyon. We have Wallace Canyon. These are -- these are canyons that are -- that are pretty dear to some of us that live up here. Last I heard, there were nesting eagles up there. These are rough, beautiful canyons. This is about a -- an 8-mile stretch. TexDOT is talking about just a 20-mile stretch north of Ft. Davis, even with -- presented with alternate routes, for whatever reasons. That's what I'm told. Okay, we can keep going. Now, the point I'm making, like the situation in far west Texas, where a 125-mile-long corridor was created under the auspices of aiding transportation, when in fact it appears more about the gathering and distribution of water, so now it appears the case that this time a 155-mile corridor conveniently kisses the property of two property owners with a known history of water marketing. Now, it's very important that we point out at this time these -- these corridors are not engineered at this time. They're termed conceptual, yet they're extremely accurate when it comes down to water-specific situations. And I want to make this very clear at this time. To our knowledge and to my knowledge, no laws have been broken, and we're making no implication that laws have been broken or -28-05 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 planning to be broken or any such thing in this presentation. This is not a matter of whether there's marketable water in Kerr County, that the water marketers are right or wrong, there will be four traffic lanes or six traffic lanes, the concrete is poured first or the pipeline is. It's all about a taking of such proportions that most of us really can't comprehend the scope. A vision conceived only with an eye towards an artist's rendition, the Trans Texas Corridor is incubating a beast that will make the alien look plumb loveable. I think that's the way this county should look. That's just my opinion. Thank you. MS. SPENRATH: I'll do the balance of the presentation. It's kind of an overview and review. Approximately 580,000 acres, 908 square miles, of private land will be taken by the State through eminent domain for superhighway; four sets of vehicle lanes, two sets of rails, plus both underground and above-ground utilities. Any access to vehicle lanes will require expensive flyover separations. Emergency access alone will be difficult. By design, it will draw traffic away from the existing highway systems. It will encourage motorists to remain on the corridor while passing thousands of Texas communities. The State is ready to start taking land for the Trans Texas Corridor, not in the future, but right now. As per the Trans Texas Plan, Right-of-Way Overview, it quotes, "To 2-28-05 21 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 preserve the corridor for future generations, acquiring property for all components must begin as soon as possible." The Transportation Code, as amended -- and here I'm just trying to specifically point out that law does not keep them from doing these particular things that we're discussing today. The Transportation Code, as amended in 2003 by House Bill 3588, provides that the Trans Texas Corridor property may be leased, franchised, or licensed for any purpose, including use for unrelated commercial, industrial, and agricultural purposes. And you'll note that this is all in the Transportation Code, and I've quoted the sections below. You have that in your notes. Another new authority permits TexDOT to acquire land for ancillary facilities that generate revenue for use in the construction, maintenance, or operation of a turnpike project. Taken together, these provisions grant permission for an unlimited taking of land by the State for development by it or its private concessionaire partners on and along the Trans Texas Corridor. And to facilitate unimpeded takings, the power of condemnation was also expanded by House Bill 3588 to include facilities of the Trans Texas Corridor. New authority granted to TexDOT allows the taking of city or county-owned real property, parkways, streets, highways, alleys, reservations, and prohibits -28-05 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ^ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 TexDOT from paying any compensation for that land. You'll find it in the Transportation Code, Section 370.169(a). The land replacement costs will then be paid by our local taxpaying citizens. The RMA is also exempt from payment of development fees, utility connection fees, assessments, and service fees imposed or assessed by any governmental entity or any property owner or homeowners' association. Property values will decline and taxable land will be removed. So noted down south; they're already purchasing land, and they're not wanting to pay full market price. It is equally important to point out if the corridors come to the hill country, Kerr County will lose 2,300 to 3,500 acres. Almost 16,000 acres will be lost in Kerr, Bandera, Gillespie, Kendall, and Kimble counties. As many as 300 families will lose their homes. Kerr County will lose real dollars from reduced traffic from I-10. Kerr County will lose control of its underground water. Kerr County will lose its water to out-of-county users. Local water is a major concern. The State will have the right to drill, pump, and transport groundwater located on all right-of-ways under the rule of capture, with the possible outcome being depletion of aquifers or lowering of aquifers and the transporting of water out of counties, states, or possibly to Mexico. Mexico being farfetched until you read this -- wait, I've 2-28-05 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 got one more slide after this. I'll -- it will clarify that. A Senate subcommittee has recently concluded that the law is not clear that lessees of state land such as the Trans Texas Corridor are bound by the rules of a groundwater conservation district. The report says such exemptions could easily undermine a district's ability to manage the aquifer or portion of an aquifer for which it is responsible. The subcommittee is also recommending to the Legislature that groundwater produced from state-owned lands should be reserved for in-state use. In making this recommendation, we have to conclude that the subcommittee could not find a current prohibition of exporting Texas water to another state, or even Mexico. So documented on Senate committee down below, 78th Interim, on November 3rd, '04. Now, these are excerpts from Governor Perry's press release. The Regional Partnership for Progress MOU was signed by Governor Perry, Governor Yarrington from -- I'll have to -- forgive my language -- my Spanish here, but Tamaulipas, Governor Martinez of Coahuila, and Governor Gonzales of Nuevo Leon. The agreement calls for an integrated approach to regional economic development, public safety, energy, telecommunications, healthy infrastructure, and education. Now, Perry has said, "Through my proposal to" -- this is a quote. "Through my proposal to build the 2-28-C5 1 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 Trans Texas Corridor, a 4,000-mile network of roads and rail lines, oil and gas pipelines, and electric transmission lines, we are making stronger energy connection to Mexico a top priority." Now, with the Trans Texas Corridor utility zone reaching Mexico for oil and gas pipelines, there is no apparent and no law barrier preventing water marketers from selling Texas water to Mexico customers. The State of Texas will compete in the free marketplace. The State of Texas, due to ownership of all properties, the State will have exclusive rights to all income generated from concessions such as gas stations, garages, stores, hotels, restaurants, and other unrelated commercial and industrial purposes. The State of Texas will be direct -- in direct competition with our businesses located in communities, such as ours here in Kerr County, along the Trans Texas Corridor. All Texans will pay for the Trans Texas Corridor. This will not be a superhighway where those who use it pay for it. The Trans Texas Corridor will be paid for by tolls, fees, leases, taxes, lost private property, lost taxable property, lost economies, and lost natural resources. Now, we're asking, as residents of Kerr County, that the Commissioners Court develop and sign a resolution opposing the Trans Texas Corridor, and let our state officials know. I've put in your booklets in front of you a 2-~8-05 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 sample from McLennan County, which is Waco. I did that -- if you'll note that there -- we have neighboring counties that have already done this, and that is Kimble, Menard, Real, Edwards, Mason, and Gillespie. Those commissioners courts have already signed resolutions opposing. We're asking that -- that you do the same. The document -- the resolution in your booklet from McLennan County just seemed to be more precise and to-the-point, well-developed, so I included that in your booklet to refer to in writing one. Now, since I'm so wonderfully endowed with a liking for quotes, "A wise and frugal government...shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government." - Thomas Jefferson. Thank you. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Ms. Spenrath. MS. HEFFINGTON: I have copies here, if anybody would like to have a copy, and anybody in the audience. I'll pass out a copy to you. MS. SPENRATH: I don't know your -- your tolerance of us moving our equipment out of here right quick, but you might instruct me as to how you prefer we do that. 2-28-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 JUDGE TINLEY: Just do it as orderly as you can. Unless you'd like to stay with us for a while. You're welcome to stay. MS. SPENRATH: We could stay a little while. COMMISSIONER LETZ: We'll take a break in probably 30 minutes. MS. SPENRATH: Then we'll do it then. We'll do it at break time. JUDGE TINLEY: We'd be tickled to death to have you stay with us. MS. SPENRATH: Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you very much. Let's move to Item 14. Mr. Chuck Lewis is with us, and I understand he's got some commitments that he's got to scurry to later this morning, so let's go to Item 14, consider and discuss nomination of Chuck Lewis to fill a vacancy on the Kerr Central Appraisal District Board of Directors. Commissioner Letz. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I put this on the agenda in relation to Paula Rector resigning her position several -- I guess at the last meeting or two meetings ago; I can't remember which one. And she's going to continue her slot on the Appraisal Board of Directors as a nonvoting member. The way the process, as I understand it, works with the Appraisal Board when this type of a vacancy takes place is 2-28-05 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that the -- each of the entities that appoint members have the right to nominate a person to fill this vacancy. For that reason, I'd like to, you know, make our nomination. My feeling is -- and I hope -- I see one Appraisal Board member in the audience, Mr. Dozier. But I -- hopefully they will appoint the representative that the County nominates. I think it's important that we keep representation on there, and I think that would, you know, certainly be to my liking that way. The person that I'm recommending, Chuck Lewis, I think we're familiar with. He has served on the 9-1-1 Board for some time. He did, in my mind, an outstanding job on that board. And I think -- I visited with him. His term currently is up, I believe, in September of this year on the 9-1-1 Board, and I think our policy recently has been we kind of make a change on boards occasionally. That will be his second term. I asked if he was interested to serve on this board, which I think is also one of the most important boards that we make appointments to; certainly, it directly affects our taxes, appraisals and things of that nature. He said he would be willing to serve on the Kendall Central Appraisal District Board of Directors -- I'm sorry, Kerr, not Kendall. Though he pays taxes, and I do also, to Kendall for schools. He also has made a request that he not resign immediately from 9-1-1 Board. Some things are going -28-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ^ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 28 on with some bidding progressing, and I see no problem with that at all. It is, you know, his choice pretty much on that board, either when we have an apening, you know, someone to fill that opening, or at the end of his term. Doesn't make that much difference to me. We certainly have no prohibition from serving on two boards at one time. But, anyway, with that being said, I'd like to nominate Chuck Lewis to fill that vacancy on the Kerr Central Appraisal District Board of Directors. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of the agenda item. Any question or discussion? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Chuck, do you have any comments? Questions? MR. LEWIS: If y'all have any questions, I'll answer them. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: No questions of yourself? MR. LEWIS: No, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, that's good. Any -- all in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Your -28-05 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 29 name will be submitted as the county's nominee. Thank you for being here. MR. LEWIS: Thank you, Judge. Thank you, Jon. JUDGE TINLEY: Let's go back to Item 2, if we might, for a report and discussion of Information Technology staffing, consideration of bids opened on February 14th, 2005, and awarding contract for services, and consider a possible budget amendment. Mr. Trolinger. MR. TROLINGER: Good morning. JUDGE TINLEY: Morning, sir. MR. TROLINGER: Okay. Well, as requested from the last meeting, the two bids were received and opened. I've reviewed both, and have also reviewed two additional contractors that have done business within the county. My evaluation is that we're heavily automated. There's a lot of equipment here, and right away we do have the need, not for a part-time, which has been budgeted this year, but for a contractor that has as many capabilities that we can use in the interim from now through October. The contractor that I'm recommending is Gazelle PC. They fit these needs. They come in below the budgeted part-time salary, and I'd like to ask you to review and consider for approval the Gazelle PC contract. COMMISSIONER LETZ: What do you envision -- 2-28-G5 1 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 or I guess how do you envision Gazelle and yourself interacting, and who's going to do what? MR. TROLINGER: Well, I'll receive the work request, and as I deem it's a computer emergency that can be handled by Gazelle, then I'll send them to -- dispatch them. So, for instance, if I'm in the middle of a situation already, I can -- I can dispatch them. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So pretty much, you'll -- so that all county employees will contact you, and then you'll make the determination how best to get the -- MR. TROLINGER: Yes, sir. I would be managing Gazelle, yes. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Did they agree -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Did they agree in any way of -- of the time frame of when your call goes in, how long is it going to take them to get to the facility? MR. TROLINGER: That's a good question. There he is. What kind of response time are we looking at? MR. OTCU: My name is Turk from Gazelle PC, and we're really close to the courthouse. We're right across from Albertsons. And by coming to this time, I think John was testing us, so we were -- we got few important works done in here. And it's -- since he's already managing the -- the calls when it needs to be done, what's the time 2-28-05 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 frame, it's being real easy for us to come here. I mean, the last time we were here in 15 minutes. We had -- it was in the lunch break, so we were able to come in real quick. And then the other one networking job we done for Miguel -- Mr. Miguel, and it was -- he just managed real good. He said, I mean, it needs to be done this week, so we were able to manage the second week. And we have four people working for Gazelle Computers, plus we have a secretary. And if -- even if you are not there by the moment, our secretary is taking the notes; with the next service call, we can be here. MR. TROLINGER: Basic answer is, if we need them here right now, they'll -- they've shown that they can and will respond. And if I need to schedule them, they can -- they can do that very nicely. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, John, essentially what we're talking about is Gazelle would be doing -- putting out the brush fires for you, answering the calls to go to certain -- certain departments and take care of a computer that may be malfunctioning and so forth? MR. TROLINGER: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're not asking them to get involved in mainframe or the servers, -- MR. TROLINGER: That's correct. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- things of that z-za-os 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 32 nature; is that correct? MR. TROLINGER: That is correct. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Will there be any need for Gazelle to be either bonded or go through any background check because of some of the proprietary nature of some of our data? MR. TROLINGER: Yes. And the County Attorney reviewed the proposed contract, and we've made a couple of changes that will be reflected in the -- in the contract we have for the Judge, and it's here today, to require background checks. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This question may be a bit nitpicky, but under costs, it talks about a service time calculated at minute-by-minute, limited to Kerrville city limits. I don't know what computers we have out of Kerrville; I know we got some in the West Kerr Annex. MR. TROLINGER: Yes. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That doesn't mean they're not going to be served by this service, does it? MR. TROLINGER: Kerrville city limits, is that a hard number? MR. OTCU: Actually, we put the Kerrville city limits to this contract, but if you would like to service all Kerr County, we may make some change. I mean, for example, if John needs to go somewhere that he cannot -za-cs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 33 leave here to service over there, then we can definitely do our best to satisfy that need. We may add traveling time, and we can -- we can do that. We hate to say, "No, we don't do it; it's not in our contract." So, we will -- MR. TROLINGER: So, it sounds like you'll do the work within the city limits, and there may be some travel time if it goes outside? MR. OTCU: Yeah. Yeah. I think we added -- MR. TROLINGER: Okay. MR. OTCU: -- added the background check. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Currently, the only location outside of the city limits is the Ingram office? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think that's right. Is Animal Control in the city limits? JUDGE TINLEY: Yes. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The Ag Barn, I don't know what -- JUDGE TINLEY: Yes. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, it's not, but it's next to. JUDGE TINLEY: Surrounded by. COMMISSIONER LETZ: We consider it close to. MR. TROLINGER: Right now -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Close. And that would also apply to the Juvenile Detention Center. 2-28-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ^ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 °~ 24 25 34 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This is not a deal-breaker. MR. TROLINGER: Okay. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: West Kerr Annex has had its share of unresolved problems with their computers, so I don't want to neglect them. MR. TROLINGER: I have been out there, and understand the needs. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that it might be easier to put a -- because a lot of the county properties are not technically in the city limits, to modify that language and put a -- a distance from the courthouse. And if there needs to be a different rate for the City of Ingram, I would understand that travel time is a little bit different, but Road and Bridge is technically not in the city limits. It's -- MR. ODOM: Yes, they are. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The Ag Barn is not. The Animal Control is. The Juvenile Detention Facility is not, I don't believe. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't believe so. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, you know -- MR. TROLINGER: Okay, change that. MR. OTCU: Sure, I will add that to the contract immediately. 2-za-o5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 35 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You want distance from the courthouse? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Distance from the courthouse, as long as we pick up the airport and that loop. MR. TROLINGER: Will that do? We'll do distance from the courthouse instead of city limits. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That will work. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just do a radius distance from the courthouse. MR. TROLINGER: Okay, we'll do that. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'll move to approve it. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll second. JUDGE TINLEY: Your request for Gazelle? Okay. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Gazelle. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll second it. I'd like some explanation of how we're going to pay for it. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of entering into contractual agreement with Gazelle Computer Services as a contractual provider of I.T. services, subject to a few modifications that we've heard here in the last few minutes. You had a question, Commissioner Williams? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. I'd just like 2-28-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 --- 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 36 for you to step us through these budget amendments with a little explanation. MR. TROLINGER: Yes, sir. The Auditor's going to present the budget amendments, but contingent on the approval of the contract, right now a part-time Information Technology Specialist has been approved and budgeted, and I would like to move that unused money to the -- to the Contract Services line. And that's going to more than cover the contract and give us a little buffer if we go into overtime, and likely we'll have money left over at the end of the year. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How about the second budget amendment in here? MR. TROLINGER: The second one that -- the second one, the County Auditor's not going to present that. He's decided to go ahead and leave that budget the way it is with the Nondepartmental money. That's the way he needs to account for it. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So that's a non-starter? MR. TROLINGER: Correct. COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're going to deal with the budget amendment later, though? MR. TROLINGER: Yes. Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions concerning -28-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 37 the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Thank you. MR. TROLINGER: Thank you. You're welcome. JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Trolinger, we appreciate your work. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes, we do. I think he's gotten off to a hit-the-ground-running fast start, and I've got some confidence that we're going to do a better job of information service technology in the future. JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move to Item 3, consider abandoning, discontinuing, and vacating 380 feet of Riojas Road located in Precinct 3. Commissioner Letz? COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is -- well, I'll turn it over to Leonard Odom. This is Hill Country Ranch Estates, where there was a -- that area, anyway, that a gentleman wanted to abandon part of the road that goes through his property. MR. ODOM: Right. JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Odom? MR. ODOM: Thank you, Judge. I believe in 2-28-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ^ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 38 November, this came before the Court. Mrs. Hardin had presented something, what we normally do for name changes and abandonment and speed limits, and it was asked at that point to defer decision on this, and as well as another item that Commissioner Letz had. And so, going back to those minutes, it's -- Mrs. Hardin had asked him at that point whether or not she would work with that gentleman to resolve this issue as far as a turnaround. This was a road that just dead-ends, and I -- what we have done in the past is where we've asked people to have a cul-de-sac. And these pictures are not that -- they're black and white, but basically, the gentleman's put that together, and that when it gets springtime, when the sealcoats go in, that will be taken care of. So, we would ask the Court to abandon that. That gives us a better facility down there to turn around. The rest of the property is on his property, and as far as we're concerned, we think it's a better situation as it is right -- the way it's proposed than it is presently. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The cul-de-sac is located on -- came out of his property? MR. ODOM: On his property. COMMISSIONER LETZ: On his property. MR. ODOM: On his property. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move approval. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 2-28-CS 39 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of abandoning, discontinuing, and vacating that portion of Riojas Road as indicated. Any question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same Sian. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. The next item on the agenda is consider preliminary revision of plat for Lot 4 of Live Springs Ranch in Precinct 4. MR. ODOM: This -- what I've handed you is a -- should be a master plan. I believe I've probably given mine away now. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Here. JUDGE TINLEY: Here you go, Leonard. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is this different than the one on the agenda? MR. ODOM: It -- it is -- the agenda item is for Lot 4 in Live Springs; however, what we wanted to do was to show you the overall plan. And this is a little bit complicated, and I hope I do a good job of explaining everything. May I read my notes so you'll have a little bit better understanding? It says the developers purchased Live Springs Ranch, which was done probably a year ago, in Live 2-28-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 40 Springs, Section 1. And a large ranch that lies behind the subdivision, the majority of the large ranch lies in Gillespie County. Today we need to discuss several items; the concept drawing of all the property, and that's what you have before you. The Commissioner and I have met with Ron Imel and Eric Ashley to go over this, and looking at the overall concept, what he was trying to do, since Gillespie County -- we have no authority up in Gillespie County, we wanted the Court to be able to understand the impact of what was transpiring. The preliminary for the revision of Lot 4 in Live Springs Ranch, which will extend the existing subdivision roads through Lot 4 to access the large ranch. Previously, you would see on off to the right there, replat of Lot 4. Down there it says Live Springs Ranch. That line that goes back to the left was the access that they had originally had, and apparently he was trying to work something out that he would run -- as you can see, that road up there, he was going to -- thought he could work with the -- with the owner, a Mr. Stauble, and apparently that did not work out. And so he had to come back to replat Lot 4, which we don't have a problem with. It would match the existing -- existing road. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Len, I have a question at this point. Why would he not use -- instead of building an all new -- whole new right-of-way for a new road, use the 2-28-05 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 41 road as far as it gets to Mr. Stauble's property line and come straight up there, as opposed to splitting a lot and creating a lot that's 2.77 acres? MR. and, Eric, Mr. Sta MR. there. It's -- it development, and - to the north. ODOM: Because my understanding is -- uble owns that right-of-way, doesn't he? ASHLEY: Yes, sir. There's no road was right-of-way left for future - and did not provide access to the ranch MR. ODOM: To the north. And he thought he could work with the gentleman, but apparently that did not work out. He doesn't own that. The other gentleman had that easement right there. COMMISSIONER LETZ: What do you do with the -- I guess my problem is ending up with a 2.77-acre lot. MR. ODOM: Okay. And what he explained to me -- Mr. Imel is not here today. I wish he was, but he had the flu and he said he didn't want to give flu to everybody else, and I thought that was a good idea. He had mentioned to us that he thought he would make -- either sell it to that gentleman, to let him have that, or make a greenbelt out of that. Am I correct in that assumption? MR. ASHLEY: Yes, sir. It's however the Court deems appropriate. It's useless land, essentially. It's not intended to be built upon. It's just kind of 2-28-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 42 residual, and it was left between the two roads, and so it could be greenbelt or however y'all felt was appropriate. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it needs to be just on the plat that that is not a -- no building shall be permitted on that lot. What they do with it is their choice, but it is -- (Discussion off the record.) COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, they can probably get -- they may be able to get an exemption to that, but I think the thing -- we've done this before. You just have a -- that lot cannot be built upon, you know. If somebody wants to drill a well there, that's up to Headwaters, but they can't build a structure on it. MR. ODOM: No structure on it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. And no mobile home. I mean, you can't -- it's a -- you can probably get the language from Rex as to what it needs to say, but no one can live on that piece of land. MR. ODOM: What about if it just be dedicated to the homeowners' association as far as a greenbelt? COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's even better. MR. ODOM: You agree with that? MR. ASHLEY: I hear what you're saying, and I agree with it, but on the other hand, it does meet the requirements that it could be built upon, I believe. 2-28-05 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 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why? It's smaller than COMMISSIONER MR. ASHLEY: COMMISSIONER is greater than 5 acres. COMMISSIONER MR. ASHLEY: NICHOLSON: Average lot NICHOLSON: LETZ: Only It's irrele That's my question. size. Average lot size with a water system. vant, really. It really doesn't matter. MR. ODOM: Mr. Imel implied to me that he preferred to probably make it -- either try to sell it to the gentleman so that he would have the whole thing, or to make it a greenbelt. And we -- you know, I would prefer the greenbelt, myself. Just in case he couldn't sell it to the gentleman. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It doesn't make any difference to me. It's just -- it's not a buildable lot under our current rules. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Procedurally, what are we doing here today? This is a preliminary revision. MR. ODOM: This is -- you're right. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What's the next step? MR. ODOM: Next step will be to have a -- a But I will take no action at this time, -28-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 44 because what we're trying to do is, we will go into Live Springs, Section 2, which is two lots into the county. Up above that goes into Gillespie County, as you can see right there. And so what we were trying to do is have a final together. We thought this would be an alternate plat, and it was fluid. It changed. And when we first set this up, it was going to be alternate platting; we wouldn't even need a public hearing, but then it changed on us, and we decided we'd come and allow him the opportunity to develop this other part, and particularly in Gillespie County, which he's met up there with -- with those commissioners up in Gillespie County. So, what I would like to do is to have a preliminary -- this preliminary with this note that Lot 4B would not be buildable, and then later -- I don't know; 10:10, I believe -- we'll have a public hearing. There will be no action taken other than just a public hearing on this preliminary. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And, so I understand, so what we're going to do is basically a -- is he going to put that acreage to the north into this subdivision? MR. ODOM: That's my understanding, yes. Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes? So it's a -- we're expanding the subdivision? MR. ODOM: We're expanding the subdivision. 2-28-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 45 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I see a "no" back there and a "yes" here. MS. HARDIN: Section 2. MR. ODOM: Section 2 will be -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just a second. So there's a -- we're going to have a revision -- MR. ODOM: On Lot 4. COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- on Live Springs, and that would mean, then, we're going to have a new subdivision. MR. ODOM: That's right. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. MR. ODOM: Does that -- am I confusing? It is a -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, but we'll go on. MR. ODOM: That's the reason I wrote my notes, to try to COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No action is needed on this agenda item; is that right? MR. ODOM: Well, this is a preliminary, so we need action on this one, on the preliminary. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we need an action on this one to -- a motion to approve the preliminary plat with the revisions noted. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 2-28-C5 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 JUDGE TINLEY: That was a motion? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sure. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Motion made and seconded for approval of the preliminary revision of plat with the revision as noted. Any further questions, discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Let's go to our timed 10 o'clock item, and I will recess the Commissioners Court meeting, and I will open a public hearing concerning revision of plat for Lot 9 and 10 of Rio Retiro in Precinct 4. (The regular Commissioners Court meeting was closed at 10:01 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 member of the public that wishes to be heard concerning the revision of a plat for Lots 9 and 10 of Rio Retiro located in Precinct 4? (No response.} JUDGE TINLEY: Hearing none and seeing none, I will close the public hearing, and I will reconvene the Commissioners Court meeting. z-2s-os 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 public hearing was concluded at 10:02 a.m., and the regular Commissioners Court meeting was reopened.) JUDGE TINLEY: And we will go to Item 7, that beinq consider a revision of plat for Lots 9 and 10 of Rio Retiro in Precinct 4. MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. You have before you -- we presented this before in a preliminary. Now it's for a final. The question that was presented before was in reference to O.S.S.F. That has been taken care of. We've had the Commissioner and communicated with him that -- and you can see that Miguel has signed off on it, and that this is changing -- meets all the restrictions and covenants that was there; that 10 has been shortened and 9 has been enlarged, and meets all the requirements. It should be acceptable. So, I ask the Court to accept this replat or revision of plat for Lot 9 and 10 of Rio Retiro. COMMISSIONER LETZ: How big is Lot 10 after this is done? question? MR. ODOM: After this is done -- is Lee here? MR. VOELKEL: I'm sorry, what was the MR. ODOM: What's the size of Lot 10? We changed 60 feet -- I'm sorry. It's still going to be a small lot no matter what. I mean -- 2-zs-os 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 MS. HARDIN: It says right here .72 -- no, that's 9. MR. ODOM: What was the size of Lot 10 prior to? Do you -- MR. VOELKEL: Half acre prior to. It's a half-acre lot. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It seems to that the revised plat should show all of Lot 10 on it, to me. MR. VOELKEL: We11, Lot 10 no longer is all of Lot 10, because we're revising part of Lot 10 into Lot 9. MR. ODOM: 9. MR. VOELKEL: And putting those together, so what you have is the remainder of Lot 10. MR. ODOM: 10. MR. VOELKEL: And that's kind of noted there on the south side or the bottom part of the drawing. And then it gives you volume and pages of where these have been sold off by metes and bounds. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, but we're still -- I mean, we're revising two lots, Lot 9 and Lot 10, so we ought to -- the revision should show both revised lots, it seems to me. MR. VOELKEL: Are you asking me to make the remainder of Lot 10 into Lot 10R? Is that what you're saying? And show it on the plat? 2-28-G5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .-.. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ^~ 24 25 49 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. MR. VOELKEL: Well, you know, that's owned by somebody else. I'm not sure if we can even get their permission to be a part of the plat. It's another owner. Again, those -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: You're revising that lot line. I don't see how you MR. VOELKEL: That lot has been revised when those were sold by metes and bounds without the benefit of a replat, prior to -- gosh, probably 10 or 15 years ago. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: There are residential dwellings on both of these lots, 10 and 9, currently; is that correct? MR. ODOM: 10 is -- MR. VOELKEL: Lot 10, where you see Tract 1 there on my drawing, which is the remainder of Lot 10, there is a townhouse existing on that tract, and it goes into Lot 11, which is even further south. Tract Number 3 is a greenbelt area that's reserved for their water system for those townhouses. Now, Lot Number 9R, as we have revised it, has a new residence built on it, one house. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, maybe I'm confused. We're going from two lots to two lots. There's Lot 9 and there's Lot 10, and now we're going to Lot 9R and Lot 10. But Lot 10 is also changed, so why wouldn't you 2-28-05 50 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 show that new lot configuration on the plat? Am I missing something? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The boundaries of Lot 10 -- tell me if I'm wrong -- have already been altered by metes and bounds. MR. VOELKEL: That's correct. MR. ODOM: That's correct. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But aren't we trying to make -- I mean, we're trying to get the plat to reflect what's out there. MR. ODOM: But it does now. It does now. JUDGE TINLEY: I think the Commissioner's point is that, actually, the balance of 10 that's not included in this replat becomes actually a part of Lot 11. It was previously conveyed by metes and bounds, but in order to do that and reflect it on this plat, you've got to pull in the owner -- current owner of Lot 11. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Where's Lot 11? JUDGE TINLEY: Well below here. This portion has been combined with Lot 11. MR. ODOM: Let's see if I've got it right. This is - - Lot 10 was sold by metes and bounds, but yet it showed it shorter. And what we had was a plat that was revealing "as platted," and it was actually the revision. What we w ere trying to do is clear it up on the revised 2-28-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 51 plat, what is actually on the ground by metes and bounds. So, years ago, this was sold by metes and bounds. It was -- that's what it actually -- 9 and 10. The 9 was part of 10. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think what I'm also hearing, though, from the comments that Lee made, that the -- Lot 10 needs to be revised also, but this current project's been undertaken by the owner of Lot 9. MR. VOELKEL: Correct, who owned the north half of Lot 10 also. He owned half of Lot 10. The remainder of Lot 10 is owned by other property owners. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And lot -- you know, I think correctly so, I mean, you're billing the owner of Lot 9, and he doesn't want to pay to redo Lot 10, even though Lot 10 needs to be done. MR. VOELKEL: And we don't have their permission, really, to participate. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And all of this was initiated by a desire to expand the size of Lot 9 so that a septic system could be built for the house that's already been built? JUDGE TINLEY: And the septic system that's already been built. MR. ARREOLA: No, there's not a septic system in there yet. JUDGE TINLEY: Not one there yet? This would 2-28-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 52 be accommodating their -- MR. ODOM: This will accomplish it. JUDGE TINLEY: That's how the problem arose. MR. ARREOLA: My understanding of Lot 10, and if I'm correct there, it's -- the remainder of Lot 10 is included in Lot 11. There's a note on the bottom there now. So there's no Lot 10 any more. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Commissioner Letz, you're going to lose this argument. MR. ODOM: It needs to be revised to get the septic system -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Needs to be revised, but this isn't the time we're going to do it. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're right, but it ain't going to happen. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can we put that note in bolder print? MR. VOELKEL: COMMISSIONER color? Sticks out. COMMISSIONER the revision of plat for Lo Subdivision in Precinct 4. COMMISSIONER Sure. WILLIAMS: How about put it in NICHOLSON: I move to approve t 9 and 10 of Rio Retiro WILLIAMS: Second. 2-28-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 53 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of the agenda item. Any question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. We'll move on to our next timed item at 10:10, and -- MR. ODOM: Can we -- JUDGE TINLEY: -- I'll recess the Commissioner Court meeting -- MR. ODOM: What I would like to do, though, before we have that public hearing, I need to have the preliminary, right? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Preliminary is done. MR. ODOM: Huh? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh, this is a different -- MS. HARDIN: Should have two preliminaries. MR. ODOM: I should have two preliminaries, and then -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What are we speaking to, Number 8? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Let's go back to Number 5 -28-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 54 before we do it, or we can do the public hearing. We can do this first -- still do it, and then do the public hearing, and then do the preliminary. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, we can come back to that. MR. ODOM: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: I will recess the Commissioners Court meeting at this time and convene a public hearing concerning the revision of a plat for Lot 4 of Live Springs Ranch located in Precinct 4. (The regular Commissioners Court meeting was closed at 10:10 a.m., and a public hearing was held in open court, as follows:) P U B L I C H E A R I N G JUDGE TINLEY: Is there any member of the public or the audience that wishes to be heard with respect to the revision of a plat for Lot 4 of Live Springs Ranch located in Precinct 4? (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: Seeing no one indicating a desire to be heard, I will close the public hearing concerning a revision of plat for Lot 4 of Live Springs Ranch located in Precinct 4. (The public hearing was concluded at 10:11 a.m., and the regular Commissioners Court meeting was reopened.) 2-28-05 1 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 JUDGE TINLEY: I suppose at this point, we would come back to Item Number 4. MR. ODOM: Right. JUDGE TINLEY: And recall Item 4, consider the preliminary revision of plat for Lot 4 of Live Springs Ranch located in Precinct 4. MR. ODOM: What you have before you is that portion of two lots in our county, before you go into Gillespie County. That is what they call Live Springs, Section 2. (Discussion off the record.) JUDGE TINLEY: Section 2. Public hearing was on Lot 4. COMMISSIONER LETZ: You're right. Sorry. MS. HARDIN: You took action on 1.4. You need to go to 1.5. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Confusing. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MR. ODOM: Yes, it is. But we -- JUDGE TINLEY: Already taken action on that. We subsequently called a public hearing on that. Doesn't seem hardly cricket to me. MS. HARDIN: Yes, sir, I know. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the public hearing is 2-Za-os 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 regarding the final approval, which we're not doing today. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MR. ODOM: We're not doing any final approval on Section 1. JUDGE TINLEY: Let's come back to Item 5, consider the preliminary plat for Live Springs Ranch, Section 2. MR. ODOM: Two. (Discussion off the record.) JUDGE TINLEY: That big tract up there. COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're on the new subdivision? MR. ODOM: It's a new subdivision. When I gave you the master plan where they were going, we had the Section 1 where we tried to change the road. What we just had was the final -- I mean a public hearing for that. No action, okay, on this one. It's a preliminary, is what we need right now. And this is for those two lots, 153 acres and 220 acres, coming off Section 1 where that road goes up and meets it, runs all the way up and goes into Gillespie County, and it meets all the criteria we have. It's -- I would -- Mr. Imel's not here right now, but we did discuss this, as you can see, that these roads -- this could be subdivided up. And I'm concerned that what's up there -- what we have is a country lane all the way through, which 2-2a-o5 1 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 meets the criteria in Kerr County. However, Mr. Imel -- we were talking to change this to a local road later on, to upgrade the road, because I have -- we have no control in Gillespie County. Actually, we have no control on 10 acres there. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, but it's got to be platted, 'cause the road's going into the 10 acres. Doesn't make any difference. MR. ODOM: Right. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I think the -- I don't -- I'm not looking at our -- well, I've got the rules here, but I'm not going to go through them. I don't know that -- it says the standard between a local road and a country lane is the number of lots that it serves. It doesn't specify those lots have to be in Kerr County, I don't believe. So, if there's additional lots that are in Kerr County -- I mean, if it's serving additional lots, it has to be built to the local roads, I would think. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Isn't this all in Kerr County? COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. MR. ODOM: These two lots are. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Our subdivision is. Our road extends on into -- (Cell phone playing "Eyes of Texas" song.) -28-OS 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 (Laughter.) MR. ODOM: That's -- you know, this is hard enough, trying to put this Live Springs Ranch together, without that going on. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, anyway, I mean, I think it's probably -- if it serves additional lots, I think we're -- MR. ODOM: He would have to upgrade to a local road. JUDGE TINLEY: What do we got going back there? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Somebody isn't here. MS. DECKER: Something's getting ready to explode. JUDGE TINLEY: Let's get us a bucket of water. Find out whose it is. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Only other comment I had is that first left-hand corner looks pretty sharp, but that's something for you and the surveyor to look at to make sure. MR. ODOM: I have been out there and drove it. The question -- I didn't know where the line was, but I -- I've got this now, but it was drivable. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, that's fine. MR. ODOM: I drove the whole thing prior to 2-28-05 59 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 coming to court and all awhile back. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we can approve the preliminary at this point, but I think that note has to be made on the -- the road needs to be looked into a little bit more as to how our Subdivision Rules actually read, whether the lots have to be in Kerr County that the road serves. If it needs to be a local road, it needs to be a local road. MR. ODOM: Well, the way I take it is that Gillespie County is part of it, but since we don't have jurisdiction in Gillespie, that's one point that I wanted to make to the Court, that I -- I feel like the master plan says that it needs to be upgraded to a local road. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would agree, but I think you have to look at our rules. MR. ODOM: Our rules say that they could have a country lane, so I -- remember, we haven't got a final yet, so I think it -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd read our rules real carefully. I don't think it says anything about that lots have to be in Kerr County. MR. ODOM: No, it doesn't. It does not say that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, anyway -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve the 2-~a-os 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 60 preliminary plat for Live Springs Ranch, Section 2, Precinct 4, and with an expectation that the questions about the road will be answered when we look at the final plat. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of the agenda item. Any question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion Carrie JUDGE TINLEY: All (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: The not quite 10:20; we'll go to Item plat for Center Point Independent Precinct 2. ~ by unanimous vote.) opposed, same sign. motion does carry. It's 9, consider preliminary School District located in MR. ODOM: This is the preliminary for the school. I think that everything that was discussed, if you will take a note on General Notes up there, Lot 6 -- I mean Number 6, we do have that -- Lots 1 and 6 will be serviced by a community water system, and individual on-site sewage facilities. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Lots 1 and 6, or 1 through 6? MR. ODOM: 1 through 6. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 2-zs-os 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .._„ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 61 MR. ODOM: And then my understanding is probably if the school went up here and developed that, they would probably have a separate well to do that. But there was some problems before about wordage on community water system that I had before us, so I wanted to clarify that; that, to my understanding -- I talked to the school when they were there -- that this would serve -- primarily, that well would serve these six lots. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. MR. ODOM: I would assume that they would not want to jeopardize that. They would probably drill their own well for the school system up there. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would think so. Whatever they plan in the future with respect to the development of a school facility, that'll be wholly and separately apart from this. We'll hear about it later. MR. ODOM: And also, the road is out front. There was a discussion there, so they have checked with TexDOT. You have some general notes up here with TexDOT, and basically when they start to build that road and get that in, that there will be a permit. That permit will probably show that location of the egress/ingress in there between Lots 1 and 2 and 4 and 5, and that will control the access on there. And that's agreeable to the State. But as far as individual driveways accessing 27, that will not be 2-28-05 1 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 done. TexDOT's got their notes up there, that they feel they can control access off there, and that will just service those six lots right there. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think it's between 1 and 2 and 5 and 6, I believe, but that's correct. MR. ODOM: That's correct, somewhere in there. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval of the preliminary plat for Center Point Independent School District. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of the agenda item. Any question or discussion? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I want to go back to the access off 27 right quick. MR. ODOM: All right, sir. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are you saying that they -- that they have access between 1 and 2 and 4 and 5 off of Highway 27? MR. ODOM: That's correct. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: In the notes up here, it says no lots will have direct access to state highway. MR. ODOM: I understand. And I asked Mr. Voelkel to clarify that, and to -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I knew the Voelkels 2-28-05 63 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 were involved in this. MR. ODOM: Yes. But, however, they say that this is a standard notation that they have now, that they control. And, remember, what I was saying is when they go to have the permit and they have to have a permit, that location will be cited at that point for the driveways or for the access. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The driveway's a permanent easement to the Center Point Independent School District; is that correct? MR. VOELKEL: Correct. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And the driveway itself is what has access to the highway, not the individual lots? MR. ODOM: That's right. MR. VOELKEL: Correct. And let me clear that up for Commissioner Baldwin, just -- if I might. The actual -- if you can imagine, what this will be is a loop road that comes off of 27 in front of Lot 2, and then it goes into the private road, and then it comes out back onto 27 at the end of Lot 5. Lot Number 1 there -- when Mr. Odom said between Lot 2 and Lot 1, it's actually not going to come between Lot 2 and 1. It'll actually go in front of Lot 2 there on the private road and go out in front of Lot 5 there, again, at the private road easement. Lot 1 will not have access 2-28-05 64 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 directly to the highway, and Lot 6 will not have access directly to the highway. When we come to final plat, hopefully we can make that a little more clear. It was the same question Mr. Odom had. It may read a little confusing, but that's kind of the way TexDOT wanted to handle it. MR. ODOM: Yeah. I asked for a note to clarify it a little bit, and they said that this is the notation that they use, and that this will be clarified at the point when the permit is asked for, and they will clarify that location at that point. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Cool. MR. ODOM: I didn't -- this is confusing up here, and it confused me. And I asked Lee, and he went back to Mike Coward, and Mike said, "I don't want to change anything other than what District 15 has given me. This is our general notation." They will have access, but it will be a controlled access. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand. I remember the conversation. But today it says you cannot have access, but you can have access. MR. ODOM: Yeah. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just -- that's fine. We'll clear it up later. MR. ODOM: I'm sorry. This is -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Anything to do with 2-~8-05 65 1 " 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 this corridor stuff? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, sort of. MR. ODOM: This has been interesting agenda items for me. JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions or comments or discussion on the agenda -- on the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. I will now recess the Commissioners Court meeting and open a public hearing, as specified in Item 10, that public hearing concerning revision of plat for Holcomb Ranch, to include vacating, discontinuing, and abandoning the road shown as Hacienda Trail. (The regular Commissioners Court meeting was closed at 10:21 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 member of the public that wishes to be heard concerning the revision of a plat for Holcomb Ranch, to include vacating, discontinuing, and abandoning the road shown as Hacienda Trail? (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: Seeing or hearing no one 2-28-05 66 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 desiring to be heard, I will close the public hearing concerning revision of plat for Holcomb Ranch, to include vacating, discontinuing, and abandoning the road shown as Hacienda Trail. (The public hearing was concluded at 10:22 a.m., and the regular Commissioners Court meeting was reopened.) JUDGE TINLEY: I'll reconvene the Commissioners Court meeting and call the next item, and that is consideration of revision of a plat for Holcomb Ranch, to include vacating, discontinuing, and abandoning the road shown as Hacienda Trail. MR. ODOM: What we have before us is five lots combining back into one lot. And all of -- we have abandoned the road that was in there last time. It meets all the criteria, and I think it's a good thing to reduce the size of the lots. Gentleman owns all the property, and I think it's a good deal. It's to the benefit of the county, I think. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'll move to approve, but I got a question. MR. ODOM: All right, sir. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I second that. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 2-28-05 67 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 approval of the agenda item. Any questions or comments? Commissioner Nicholson, you had a question? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is there an issue here about the size of the cul-de-sac? There is -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: What road? On -- MR. ODOM: On the existing one, or the one that we abandoned? We abandoned -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We abandoned -- doesn't make any difference. MR. ODOM: We abandoned that one, Hacienda Trail. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't need an answer to that question. COMMISSIONER LETZ: What about the cul-de-sac on Edelpas? MR. ODOM: Sir, that was -- seems like it was in good shape. It's still -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: It looks, the way it's drawn, that it's an odd shape. MR. ODOM: Odd shape, but it's not -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions or comments concerning the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 2-~8-05 68 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -- 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: In order to complete Road and Bridge items, let's go to Item 12 quickly, consider and discuss and take appropriate action to authorize the Road and Bridge Department to repair the service drive at the Juvenile Detention Facility. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, there's -- I put this on because there's a need for some minor improvement. There's a small -- small in terms of length -- service drive that comes off of the parking area on the original facility that goes up to a side service door. Isn't that correct, Becky? MS. HARRIS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Side door. It's all gravel, and the folks who work in and about the original building, in the kitchen particularly, who have to move foodstuffs and packages, all sorts of stuff up that driveway from a Sysco truck or some other truck like that are struggling on loose gravel to get their truck dollies and trucks up there. I think the total length of it's probably not more than 20 feet, and the width of it's 8 to 10 feet wide. And what I'm asking the Court is to give a direction to Road and Bridge to stabilize that so as to facilitate the movement of goods and materials from trucks unloaded into 2-28-05 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 the facility. JUDGE TINLEY: You've looked at it? MR. ODOM: Yes, sir, I've looked at it, and I just -- since that is a general revenue, I just need permission to -- authorization to go do it. Health, safety, and welfare. I don't know how they're pushing it up there now, anyway, with that pea gravel. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Very -- with a lot of difficulty. MR. ODOM: A lot of difficulty, I'm sure. And I don't think it would be that -- that difficult for us to get in there. I will certainly coordinate with the people, what they need exactly, but -- what they think they need. But I think we can do it. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'd move authority -- approval of authority to give Road and Bridge authority to make that repair. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of the agenda item. 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.) 2-28-05 70 1 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. Before Mr. Odom leaves, do we have anybody that's able to play the Aggie War Hymn to give him equal time here? MR. ODOM: Yes, it would make me feel better, since this has been -- and I want to thank the Court for putting up the -- Live Springs was difficult, trying to get it all together. And maybe four years at A & M probably didn't help. (Laughter.) But, anyway, I appreciate the Court bearing with me, and I think we got it done. JUDGE TINLEY: My recommendation to you, Mr. Odom, is that maybe the next time you bring the Aggie War Hymn rendition with you. MR. ODOM: Yes, sir, I think I will. JUDGE TINLEY: At this time, we'll stand -- MR. ODOM: Somebody did that on purpose, I think, back there. JUDGE TINLEY: We'll stand in recess for 15 minutes. (Recess taken from 10:27 a.m. to 10:43 a.m.) JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's come back to order. We've been in recess for approximately 15 minutes. We're back in session now. Let's go to Item 13, discuss the possibility of a grant to support the Substance Abuse Treatment Program. Ms. Harris. Sorry to have awakened you. -28-05 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 MS. HARRIS: I was enjoying my nap. Well, I need to apologize to the Court for one thing, for putting this on the agenda and sort of, kind of wasting a minute or two. In more researching and a telephone conversation I had with Karla Sartin -- she is a grant writer; she's written all the grants here lately for K.I.S.D. that they've been awarded, plus she has written several grants for the Hill Country Council on Alcohol and Drug Abuse also. In researching the grant offer some more, speaking with her and reading it more, and I've been trying to make phone calls to the federal government, which is not the easiest thing to do, for this division that is distributing this grant, it seems that in order to qualify for this grant, you have to have a juvenile drug court in place. My question was, since, Judge Tinley, you hear all the detention cases, that -- if that would suffice. That's the question that seems to be up in the air that I cannot get an answer to at this point in time. The likelihood of that sufficing is probably not very good; that you would have to have an already established drug court. Well, Kerr County is not large enough to justify having a juvenile drug court. The larger metroplexes, of course, would be the ones that would -- that would suffice for that. So I'm not seeing at this point in time -- unless something reveals itself, I'm not seeing at this point in time that this is a viable grant to 2-28-05 1 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 go after, because I don't think we're going to be able to COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's typical. MS. HARRIS: We're not large enough. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's typical. A lot of these things are designed for Dallas and Houston. MS. HARRIS: You're absolutely right, and that's where most of the moneys go. So I'm back searching again for something else. So I apologize, 'cause I put this on the agenda on Tuesday, and this didn't come about until Friday. So -- JUDGE TINLEY: Well, keep up the hunt. MS. HARRIS: I'm looking. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, just a related thing. We are always talking about finding somebody to help us write grants. Sometimes we're able to do that, sometimes not, but I just want to bring to the Court's attention, and anybody else who's interested, there's a five-day grantsmanship training program hosted by AACOG, presented by the Grantsmanship Center, free of charge, available to anybody who wishes to participate. It's a five-day class program, and it's hosted by AACOG. It begins Monday, March 28th, and lasts through Friday, April 1. And when you come out of there, you should know how to write a grant. -28-05 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 MS. HARRIS: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: 40-hour deal, huh? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think one -- just briefly on that topic, a lot of grants -- and I think the seminar will teach this -- there are very -- certain boilerplate information that needs to go on all of them, and if the County would just develop that one time, it could be used probably in almost every grant. And then you -- then you take the -- narrow the specifics to it. And that's the hard part for something like county governments, is to create that first one with all the information that's needed for a lot of these federal and nonlocal grants. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I think that's a valid point. That's one of the reasons why I wanted to bring it up. If we had one person trained who could step through all these little hoops and bells and whistles, it might be beneficial downstream. MS. HARRIS: 'Cause this is the grant. This is it. And it's tremendous to wade through. JUDGE TINLEY: Well, we -- I guess we can individually consider who we might feel most appropriate on behalf of the County would be the person that we'd like to push into doing that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Commissioner Williams, 2-~8-05 1 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 probably. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, I don't think so. But thank you for that vote of confidence. Appreciate it. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I agree with Commissioner Letz. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm glad -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's two. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Only takes one more. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm glad you both JUDGE TINLEY: Let me -- if there's nothing further on that item, let's go to Item 15, discuss, consider, and consider approval of redesignation of Child Welfare Board of Directors and approve the terms of each director. Commissioner Baldwin. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. Thank you very much. You remember last meeting we approved a slate of members, and where we got that slate was from the previous board. So, there was a couple of little mistakes made. If y'all will go to this sheet here, we'll -- I probably -- I'm going to make three different motions here. One is the names that need to be removed from the official list, and that is Louise Blalock -- Blalack, Pam Traver, and Sandra Yarbrough, for, as you see there, three different 2-28-05 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 75 reasons. So, I move that we remove those names from the Child Welfare Board. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for removal of the named individuals from the Child Welfare Board. Any question or discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Secondly, I'd like to propose Glenda Taylor to fill one of those slots as a new board member, and I so move for approval. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of Glenda Taylor as a newly designated director for that board. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question. Is that our Glenda Taylor? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That is that Glenda Taylor sitting right there. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Then I think we need to note, I think he her name's spelled wrong on here. How do you spell your name? Isn't it G-1-y-n-d-a? 2-28-OS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 76 MS. TAYLOR: No. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm sorry. I've spelled it wrong all this time. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Don't you read -- JUDGE TINLEY: Having stepped in the bucket, is there anything else you'd like to say, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Don't you read the byline? You just go through straight to your quotes? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, that's it. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Typical politician. JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Letz? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: A bad politician. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any further question or discussion on the motion? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Keep my mouth shut. JUDGE TINLEY: All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Third motion would be the terms of office as outlined on the -- outlined on this schedule before us. As you can see, Laura Singletary, one year; Daletta Andreas, three-year term; Alice McDaniel, 2-28-05 1 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 one-year term; Debbie Baldwin, two-year term; Kathy Mitchell, a two-year term; Thea Sovil, two-year term; Lynn Meng, a three-year term; and Glenda Taylor, a one-year term. That's a motion. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for the designation of the terms as indicated. Any question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I'd like to also tell you that the new names on here are -- they're doing background checks, et cetera, on everybody -- C.P.S. rules -- and we're doing that. And it may be next meeting, we may come forward with a few more names as well. So, this thing is -- it's filling up the way it should. And thanks to the County Attorney and some other folks, we're going to -- this thing is going to be up and running and functioning like it's -- like the law says it should. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. If there's nothing further on that item, we'll move to the next item, consider, discuss, and approval of the agreements with VeriClaims, 2-28-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 78 Inc. for administrative services for Indigent Health Care claims, and approval of the Business Associate Agreement. I put this on the agenda. It's essentially the same agreement that we had with the administrator of our indigent health care claims in the past. The Business Associate Agreement is a HIPAA requirement. I've been advised by the Auditor that the matter's already been reviewed by the County Attorney, and the Auditor also advises me that it's essentially the same agreement that we've had in the past. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move for approval. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of the agenda item. Any question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. We'll move to the next item, Number 17, consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to adopt a resolution inviting the West Texas Judges and Commissioners Association annual conference to Kerrville in 2007. Gentlemen, I'll leave it to y'all, whoever wants to go first. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I spoke with 2-za-os 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 Baldwin about this -- this resolution. This is a necessary item if we are to, in fact, invite the conference to Kerr County and Kerrville in '07. Our colleague, Commissioner Baldwin, will be going into the presidency that year, and I think it would be very appropriate for us to make every effort to try to host it, and host it if we're awarded that opportunity. So, the resolution's very simple. We kind of tweaked it and cleaned it up a little bit from the last time we approved one of these, and it's before you for your approval. I move approval. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of the agenda item. Any question or discussion? All in favor of that motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.} JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Next item on the agenda is to consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to accept the resignation of Walter Harris from the Alamo Area Council on Aging. Commissioner Williams? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: As per the 2-28-05 1 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 attachment, Mr. Harris submitted his resignation for personal reasons from the Alamo Area Council on Aging, and so it's appropriate for us to accept his resignation. I'd like to say, by accepting it, we do so with thanks and appreciation for his service, not only on the Alamo Area Council on Aging, but his prior service on the 9-1-1 Board. I would move approval of the resolution -- of the action to accept his resignation. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of the agenda item, and expression of thanks for his service in that capacity, as well as on the 9-1-1 Board as a County representative. Any question or discussion on the motion? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Commissioner Williams, will you, in the "thank you" portion of that, draft a letter for us to sign, or for the County Judge to sign? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Will do. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that would be a nice thing to do, 'cause he's done a lot of work for us. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He has. Will do. JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 2-28-05 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 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. The next item on the agenda, Number 19, consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to accept the Kerr County's office agreed-upon procedures report for the period January 2002 through December 2004, as prepared by the C.P.A. firm of Davidson, Freedle, Espenhover and Overby. Do you want to run with this, or do you want County Attorney to run with it, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think the County Attorney can run with that. And if you note, there's a letter from the County Attorney in which he's made the submission, and he indicated that there might be some questions of the Court and there might be some explanations, and so I think it's up to the County Attorney to take the lead. MR. EMERSON: Basically, gentlemen, we received a report back. The accounting firm, after reviewing all of the documentation, presented it in the format that I presented the same to you. As you go through there, there's a couple of questions that come out, and I'm attempting to follow up on those at this time. If you look under Appendix D of the report, there's a summary of the general expenses from the Hot Check Fund for January 2002 2-28-05 1 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 through December 2004. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: D? MR. EMERSON: Yes, sir. The unaccounted for expense that jumps out is the credit card payments with no receipts to the tune of $3,070 and one penny. We're currently trying to find documentation on that within the office. Thus far, I've not been able to, but we're continuing to dig. The accounting firm examined seven boxes worth of documents, and there wasn't anything in them to that effect. There's some more questions that pop up under Exhibit E. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Before you go off of D, Mr. County Attorney MR. EMERSON: Yes, sir? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- what would "contract labor" mean in your domain? MR. EMERSON: Contract labor that's in here, that's indicated was primarily to Brett Ferguson and Kelly Cataldo. Brett Ferguson was a legal intern going to St. Mary's University and providing support work for the County Attorney's office. Kelly Cataldo was also a college student, and my understanding is she was providing support in the County Court at Law, and she was with intakes. Currently, we don't have anybody in that position. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Another question -- I 2-28-05 83 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 think I have two remaining on that page. Computer equipment, computer maintenance. Although paid out of that fund, which kept us from paying it out of the General Fund, for a small department, is that kind of an abnormal amount of money being spent on computer equipment and maintenance? MR. EMERSON: I can't say it it's abnormal or not. It's an awful lot of money. I'm attempting right now to locate the computer equipment. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What would that mean? MR. EMERSON: $27,000 is quite a bit, and I'm trying to find the documentation to back that up. I've requested -- I sent a note to -- or sent a letter to Adam Adray, who seems to be the primary recipient of the funds out of those two accounts for equipment and maintenance, asking for documentation, model numbers, serial numbers, dates of sale, trade-ins and so forth, and thus far have not received a response back. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You may have to turn this over to the County Attorney. MR. EMERSON: The County Attorney's office has seven systems with a server, and that's all we have. JUDGE TINLEY: Y'all have a separate server down there, don't you? MR. EMERSON: Correct. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. z-za-os 84 1 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. EMERSON: And we'll still have that server. I don't know if we'll maintain that after we hook into the county system or not, but right now there is a separate server. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. MR. EMERSON: If you look at Exhibit E, there's some copies of unclassified checks and withdrawals. I'm sure the Court knows that a number of those are for, quote, cash. Check Number 2336 I was able to account for, to the 216th Narcotics Task Force. They used it for seed money, and they subsequently returned $270 to the County on August 12th of '03. Check Number 2494 was seed money to the Department of Public Safety for the 8-liner investigation, and most of it was subsequently deposited back on November 1st. The -- I guess Check Number 2171 for cash, I have no documentation that I've been able to locate so far. Check Number 2340 to cashier for 195.60, I can't make heads or tails of that notation and trace it down. I have no reason to believe it's not validated; I just can't find anything to back it up. Considering I write pretty poorly, I can't necessarily criticize somebody for the notations. Check Number 2240 -- I think it's 2245, for $5,758.50, the notation, to the best of my ability, says payment on judgment for Jerry Phillips. Jerry Phillips is an Assistant County Attorney in the office. According to z-za-o5 85 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Mr. Phillips, he's not had a judgment against him, and I don't know why that's written on there. I talked to David Motley on the telephone, and subsequently went back and talked to Jerry Phillips, and there seems to be some question as to whether that was a -- basically a rather large incentive payment made to Mr. -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Large what? MR. EMERSON: "Incentive payment" was the words that were used, to Mr. Phillips. So, other than that, I don't know what to tell the Court. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That it? MR. EMERSON: That's it. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Rex, I -- MR. EMERSON: It -- I'm waiting on documentation from Mr. Motley and Mr. Gray. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know if you're going to make it as a politician. You're a little bit too honest. I've just -- this is so new to me, I -- could you come back next month and give the report again? It was very -- that's good. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess the question I have is, where do you go from here? Or where do we go from here, or where do you think we should go from here? I mean, at some point, you know, clearly -- I mean, I guess a little more research to try to find out where some of the computers 2-ze-os 86 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 are and trying to -- what an incentive is, maybe, try to -- MR. EMERSON: That's -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: But there's a point that you can't do any more, other than -- MR. EMERSON: Correct. COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- here it is. At what point do you think -- or how long before you get to the point that you say you've, you know, exhausted your resources and files that you have access to? And then what would you do with the -- because, I mean, the total is significant that's in question. MR. EMERSON: Yes, sir. I would say, realistically, probably 60 days. I've talked to Mr. Motley, and he's picked up copies of the checks that are in question, as well as he's been given a total for the unaccounted for credit card charges, and he's going to attempt to locate records and see if he can find anything. I had a follow-up letter that will be going out to Adam Adray on the computer equipment. I already know from talking to the Sheriff's Department and the Auditor's Department that there's no paper trial going either direction on there on any systems that were turned over to the County for refurbishing, I guess is the proper word. I don't -- I also do not think there were any that were sold on the County's bulk sale, which, from what I understand -28-05 87 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 from Mr. Holekamp, was three or four years ago, last time that was done. This audit only goes back to January of '02, so at this point, I don't know what to do except keep looking for documents. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, you would anticipate in 60 days, maybe, coming back to the Court and saying yes or no? I mean, you found these items -- MR. EMERSON: I can tell the Court either I found it or I didn't, and the explanation for it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. MR. EMERSON: And then at that point, if it's unaccounted for, I think the ball is in the Court's hands as far as if they want to designate further investigation or not. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, that's what I was looking for. And I appreciate your diligence in going through this and sorting this out, and we'll -- I'll wait, I guess, for 60 days and see you here again on this topic. MR. EMERSON: Thank you. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just one quick question, Mr. County Attorney, in terms of how the Hot Check account operates. If a person is charged with a hot check offense and has to make restitution, that individual makes a payment to your office. Is that just for your -- the fees associated with the administration? Or what happens to the 2-28-OS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 88 remuneration to the -- to the business or service provider? Is that a separate check? How does it work? MR. EMERSON: What happens is, theoretically, if Mr. Baldwin wrote a hot check -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, I like that hypothesis. JUDGE TINLEY: Again. MR. EMERSON: -- he would be contacted by our office, where he would come in. Theoretically, he'd walk in, pay the full amount. What would happen is, that goes into a trust fund. Once a month, at the end of the month, the trust fund distributes the money to the merchant, which includes their bank charge fee, which they're allowed to collect. So, it would be the original remuneration plus their bank charge fee, and then if we collected enough to also cover the statutory hot check collection fee, that would go into the Hot Check account. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I guess I asked because I didn't see any -- any distribution to merchants or anything like that, any check -- MR. EMERSON: This is -- the report that you saw is after the money's already been distributed to the merchants. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: Only the County's portion? 2-28-05 1 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 MR. EMERSON: Correct. The original distribution comes out of the trust fund -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That explains it, thank you. MR. EMERSON: -- to the merchant. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Emerson. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have one more question on that. It seems it's a huge amount of money that goes into that account. I mean, to me, it was a bunch of money over that period, 183,000 or something like that? MR. EMERSON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's just the County's portion? MR. EMERSON: Correct. COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's that many -- I mean, is -- is the amount that -- the fees that statutorily the County Attorney can collect are real high? Or do we have that many hot checks? MR. EMERSON: We have a large volume of hot checks. Very large volume. The statutory fees are -- most of them collected are in the $5 to $10 range. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: My gosh. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What range? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Five to ten. MR. EMERSON: $5 to $10. If we get a large 2-28-05 1 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 number of checks, the fee goes up accordingly, but most of them are pretty small. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: By law, can we charge more? MR. EMERSON: No, sir. But I think you'll see -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Just looking for something to tax. MR. EMERSON: You'll see a little different distribution of the money this time around. The County will get a little more benefit out of it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, annually, are we looking at -- I mean, historically, on the historical data annually of 60,000 coming in? MR. EMERSON: I'd say 50 to 60 thousand. COMMISSIONER LETZ: 50, 60 thousand. MR. EMERSON: The trend statewide is an actual decrease, because more and more people are using debit cards. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: As a merchant who's received hot checks, I can tell you, it's a very valuable service to the business community. Because if they didn't collect them, they'd go uncollected. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm just astounded that there's -- on a $5 and $10 fee, there's enough to generate 2-28-05 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 50, 60 thousand in this county. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It is. MR. EMERSON: Historically, the Court will also -- you'll also notice an increase in your fines, because what had happened in the past is, people that wouldn't initially pay it would be filed on criminally as a theft by check. And then once they -- with the theory being that that -- that hammer over their head would force them to pay the restitution to the merchant. And what's happened now is, if they force us to go to that point, we're not dismissing the cases any more. They will have to pay the court costs and fine together with it. So -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you very much. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: The next item, consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to conduct a workshop andlor public hearing on proposed Kerr County Nuisance Abatement Program. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judqe, my backup statement kind of summarizes where we are. This goes all the way back to September of '02, when Commissioner Baldwin first made a presentation on this topic to help strengthen our hand in terms of cleaning up solid waste problems. It wasn't until this year when I resubmitted it to the new 2-28-05 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 County Attorney that he had his staff take a look at the issue and rework the potential plan. I'm not going to go through all of the details of it today. I really think that it deserves a workshop where we talk about it in-depth. I'm not sure if it requires a public hearing, but it certainly deserves a workshop which everybody has input, and the do's and don'ts and the good and the bad about it, and so that's really what I'm asking today, is that we assign a date for a workshop and begin the discussion. In the packet there are also a couple memorandums from Miguel Arreola with respect to the issue. If I'm not mistaken, Miguel, you now have staff equivalent to full-time; is that correct? MR. ARREOLA: Yes, sir. We have two part-time people. It's a full week of work, basically. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We have a full week of work divided between two individuals? MR. ARREOLA: Correct. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. So, rather than get into all the -- any of the comments today, I'd just like to set a time for a -- a workshop to discuss it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: They -- I guess my question is, I'm wondering if a public hearing at the time of a workshop, maybe, or public notice or something, really to get -- to hear what the public thinks about this at the time of workshop might be beneficial. Which -- 2-28-05 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 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Might be. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think one of the -- on something like this, which is akin to ordinance authority, essentially, I'd really like to hear from the public. I think there's certainly -- I mean, I like a lot of what I read, but just as an example, I saw, from Center Point to the Ag Barn, four violations along Highway 27 today, and that's not -- and that's a pretty nice area for the most part. So, I mean, I'm wondering -- I mean, if you go by strict interpretation -- I think not even strict; I'll say real interpretation of this, we're going to have a huge number of people in violation, and I'm not much in favor of doing something unless we're going to really do it. JUDGE TINLEY: Enforce it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Enforce it. So, I'd really like to hear from the public on some of these things. I think it is a very useful tool to us. I think it would help clean up some real problem areas. But the one item I was looking for was tires laying around on people's yards where mosquitoes and things -- so I think that it's just a -- you know, we need to pursue it, but we need to pursue it very consciously, from what the impact to the public is and what it would really mean for law enforcement, not enforcement standpoint in Miguel's shop. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm amenable to that. 2-28-05 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 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Have a public hearing at the same time? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We need input, 'cause it's an issue that a lot of people care about, one way or the other. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Also, we need participation, I think, from -- from the various people involved in law enforcement, including our constables and J.P.'s and Sheriff and folks. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. It's one of those areas that, on the surface, people are very much in favor of it, as long as they're pointing at someone else, not themselves. And it's a -- it can't be done that way. It's got to be, you know, uniformly applied, and all parts of it. Whatever we decide to pass, if anything. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, you got some suggested dates there, Judge? JUDGE TINLEY: Do I? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. You're looking at your -- JUDGE TINLEY: No, I was just seeing whatever date you propose, to see how it -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, we almost need 2-28-OS 95 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to go -- we need to advertise. JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Kathy, can we go a month away, second meeting in March, and advertise there will be a public hearing on nuisance abatement? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Commissioner, how about -- the second meeting in March is a day before we leave for Odessa. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, it's not -- oh, are we moving it forward? Second meeting in March is the 28th. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I thought it was the 21st. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second meeting in March is the day after Easter, if we stick with our schedule. MS. MITCHELL: 28th. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Nevermind, then. JUDGE TINLEY: I won't -- that's not going to be 30 days notice. If you were hoping for 30 days notice, that won't get you there. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: First meeting in April. Let's go. I move that we conduct a public hearing-slash-workshop meeting on nuisance abatement for -- JUDGE TINLEY: 11th. 2-28-05 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 96 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- April 11, 2005, at 1:30 p.m. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Would we make available just this document for the public to get an idea what we're talking about? 'Cause we tend to get more input if we have something -- I don't know where this came from. Is this -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It came from the County Attorney's office. COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is a -- okay. I think we should make this Kerr County, Texas Nuisance Abatement Program document available to the public, so people can look at what we're really looking at. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And copies can be available at both Commissioners Court and Environmental Health Department. That would be the sense of the motion. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And on the web site. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And on the web site. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And on the radio. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for a public hearing and a workshop? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Public hearing to be set for 1:30 p.m. on April 11th, 2005. Any question or discussion 2-28-05 97 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 on the motion? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes, sir. This Kerr County, Texas Nuisance Abatement Program, that's not a program that's in place? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This is a revise of a program that originated in Cooke County, Texas. And our County Attorney has signed it out, and it's a rework of that -- of that plan, so -- program. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't know how we do that. We might mark it "Draft," or -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, biq letters. Real big letters. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. So people don't get unnecessarily excited. JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or discussion on the motion? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It says "Draft" on the one I'm looking at. JUDGE TINLEY: All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Next item on the agenda is Number 21, consider and discuss a z-2s-os 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 request for designation of the City of Ingram as a colonia for eligibility for grant funding for the wastewater gathering system. Judge Edwards, good morning. MR. EDWARDS: How are you, Judge? Commissioners? I assume that all of you have received a packet that was filed, and I won't belabor it. This has been a joint effort of actually four governmental entities trying to work together to get this grant application. It started out, of course, with the school laying a line to the elementary school property, city of -- city of Kerrville. We entered into a preliminary agreement with the City of Kerrville to accept and treat the effluent. U.G.R.A. gave us a grant to fund the preliminary engineering report. In the process of the application, they changed the rules on us and increased the quality and extent of the engineering report that we needed, so the engineering firm put in another $15,000 worth of work at no charge to us. Then they changed the rules and said they weren't going to do their in-house environmental assessments any more, and so we had to do that. And we went out for proposals and got a $22,000 bid, which we couldn't quite afford, but I went back to U.G.R.A., and again they were very nice and agreed to pay me $3,000 or $4,000 to do an environmental assessment, which I did, and the engineering and the environmental assessment has all been approved by the U.S.D.A. 2-28-OS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .~. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 99 I'm encouraged by the fact that I'm asking for this colonia, because this request came from the main office of U.S.D.A. They suggested that we get this designation, which tells me that -- it's an assumption on my part, but three things. Number one, they're obviously now looking very closely at our application, because they've requested some additional paperwork in addition to this. Number two, it -- I think they wouldn't have asked us to do this if they weren't considering our application actively. And, number three, if we get this colonia designation, there's a chance that we can get a 100 percent grant instead of a maximum of 75 or even less under the program that we're in. So, I'm encouraged by this. And I've tried to give you the data to meet the standards for eligibility for obtaining this designation as a colonia, and that's the first time I've ever had to do anything like this, so it's kind of shooting from the hip, but I think the documentation is there to reflect the demographics of the city of Ingram from the -- from the standpoint of salary, the standard of housing that we have, et cetera, et cetera. So, we're requesting the County to give us this designation, and be the fifth county government to join in trying to get this application approved. So, I'll be asking -- happy to answer any questions that you have. I don't want to belabor the whole application, although we can. 2-28-05 100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Danny, I have two questions. I don't know -- I can't -- there's a lot of information here, and I can't tell exactly where -- what area is in -- would be designated colonia. MR. EDWARDS: The entire city of Ingram. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Which brings -- but not Greenwood Forest? MR. EDWARDS: No. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Which brings me to my second question. What authority does this Commissioners Court have in designating an incorporated city as a colonia? MR. EDWARDS: The -- the qualifications are set out on the first page of the request. It says, by U.S.D.A. definition, a colonia is any identifiable community designated by the state or county in which it is located, determined to be a colonia on the basis of objective criteria, and sets out the objective criteria there. And, of course, it goes on in the next paragraph to show what the eligibility requirements are. In talking to the U.S.D.A. Rural Development, they actually -- all they asked for was a letter or an authority from the County Judge evidencing the designation of the city as a colonia. After speaking with the Judge, he felt like that it would be proper for the Commissioners Court to be involved in making this designation, and I concur with that. But it just -- z-~a-o5 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 U.S.D.A. regs say you have to be designated by the state or county, and you are the county. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm glad the commissioner asked that question, 'cause I was going to do the same thing. Our only other experience in this was with Center Point. MR. EDWARDS: Right. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The area of Center Point that would be served by a centralized system, and the reason we did it -- we did it is because the City of Center Point had disbanded and there was no -- was no local authority there. So, that -- I'm glad you asked the question; it popped up in my head. What if we designate you as -- Ingram as a colonia, and the City Council says -- due to public pressure or other reasons, says, "No, we don't want to do that"? MR. EDWARDS: City Council, I assure you, has already considered this. In fact, the City Council approved the application -- the filing of the application, and it's shown on the final signature page. It was approved pursuant to the authority of Ingram City Council. It's been signed off by a committee designated by the City Council to approve this application. And, that's -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. MR. EDWARDS: And the mayor is present if you 2-28-05 102 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 have any questions about the interest of the City of Ingram being involved in this. But it had 100 percent approval by the City Council. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And they've already made that designation? MR. EDWARDS: Yes. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For purposes of this purpose? MR. EDWARDS: Yes. They authorized me to file this -- to file this application and to go forth with it. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm cool with it. If you're cool with it, I'm cool with it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Has the -- the City of Kerrville, obviously, is behind this, 'cause they're the ones that are the ultimate recipient of the waste. MR. EDWARDS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Have they -- are they actively assisting with the grant application in any way? Or -- MR. EDWARDS: No, they haven't acted -- assisted in the application, except to the extent that, as part of the application process, we had to provide U.S.D.A. with a preliminary agreement between the City of Ingram and the City of Kerrville to reflect their -- not only their 2-28-05 103 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 willingness, but their commitment to accepting this effluent and treating it properly. So, we have an extensive preliminary contract of about that many pages already with the City of Kerrville. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The reason I asked that is just that, I mean, the City is -- I guess the residents of the city is a beneficiary, 'cause they're the ones that get the fee for doing this -- the service, and I was hoping they were fully on board. I visited with some of the members of the city staff and counsel, and, certainly, this project is, I think, of great importance to the whole county, I think, to get wastewater, I think is what it does. And the unincorporated area between Ingram and Kerrville hopefully will be allowed to tap into this line for a fee. MR. EDWARDS: We've already had a number of requests, because the line actually already runs in front of Greenwood Forest. And I've had numerous phone calls, and some angry requests, "Why can't I get on it now?" Well, the simple answer is that the -- the line at this point is owned by the school district, and the school district is not authorized to get the sewer service, so they can't allow other people to connect onto the line, even though it's right -- goes right down Highway 27 in front of their property. So, our agreement, of course, with the City of Ingram is that once we get the grant and the wastewater 2-28-05 104 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 program is instigated, then we will take over the operation of that line. And then we will be a city -- we will be a governmental body which is in the sewer business, and therefore, those people that are on the line to get it at that time have the opportunity to -- to come onto the system. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So -- I'm getting out of my business area, but I frequently do that. So, I don't understand why the school and the City can't work something out to let people that want to get into that line now, that -- it seems that we're just wasting money by people not being allowed to get onto that line when it exists. And it seems some sort of -- I can understand the school's point, but why couldn't they do some sort of interlocal agreement with the City to get at least something going so people aren't -- people that want to get off of septic, and in an area that we need to get people off septic, can't get onto a line that currently exists? That agreement would have to be between the Ingram school district and City of Kerrville. We're not in the picture yet, until such time as -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Once we get in the picture, though -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- then they can do that. 2-28-05 105 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 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. MR. EDWARDS: We will actually take over operation of the line. It' a two-part line. Starting at the city limits of the city of Kerrville, it goes for a distance as a gravity line, and then it becomes a pressure line, forced main. In the original agreement between the city of -- City of Kerrville and the Independent School District, the Independent School District maintained responsibility for the forced main portion of it, and gave control of the gravity portion of it to the City of Kerrville. But most of these people of which you speak, Commissioner, are on the forced main portion of it; they're not on the gravity portion of it. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Danny, I have two quick questions. Municipal Code permits the City to mandate hookups within its jurisdiction; is that correct? MR. EDWARDS: Do what, now? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mandate hookups. MR. EDWARDS: Who? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: City. By Municipal Code, City of Ingram. MR. EDWARDS: Yes, we will mandate. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And, secondly, will this grant pay for hookups for people who are lower to moderate income? 2-28-05 106 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 I4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. EDWARDS: We have included in the grant application half a million dollars to try to absorb the cost of going from the house to the lateral. Of course, as you well know, that means all of their septic tank systems have to be decommissioned, and -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right. MR. EDWARDS: -- it's an expensive process. So, we did include a half a million dollars in the grant application to cover that. If we don't get the colonia designation, we're not going to get a 100 percent grant. And, of course, one of the first things that we'd probably have to forego would be that portion of the -- of the expenses. Our primary concern is to get the laterals in, so that's another good reason why the colonia designation will assist us, because if we get the 100 percent grant, it does include money to connect the house to the lateral. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. Judge, would you accept a modification on the styling of the agenda item, to read, "Designation of City of Ingram as a colonia for purposes of establishing eligibility"? JUDGE TINLEY: I think, in the broad sense, that's implied. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is that your motion? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, that's his motion. Say yes. 2-28-05 107 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: Yeah, it is. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to designate the City of Ingram as a colonia for purposes of establishing eligibility for grant funding for wastewater gathering system. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm happy. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any question or discussion on that motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. MR. EDWARDS: Thank you very much. We JUDGE TINLEY: Appreciate you being here. The next item on the agenda is consider and discuss a lease purchase of a chip spreader and asphalt distributor, and approve lease documents with Security State Bank and Trust, and authorize the County Judge to sign the same. Mr. Tomlinson. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tommy, are you out building roads now? Or -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Spreading chips. 2-28-05 108 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Spreading chips. MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah, this is two pieces of equipment that -- that was approved in the budget process. It's an asphalt distributor for $49,500 and a chip spreader for $182,398. What I did, I made arrangements through Security State Bank and Trust to supply the funding under a lease-purchase arrangement, through them. I have the original here for the Judge to sign. The one you have is a copy. They -- the interest rate is 4 point -- 4.3 percent for a three-year period. There's three installments. JUDGE TINLEY: Essentially, what we have here is, instead of a lease-purchase from the vendor that we customarily deal -- for example, dealing with Holt Equipment or somebody like that, the vendor in this case is not in the business of carrying paper, so -- MR. TOMLINSON: That's exactly right. JUDGE TINLEY: -- you just pulled the bank in and did the same thing. MR. TOMLINSON: Exactly. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Which is probably a better deal, anyway. MR. TOMLINSON: I think, from an interest rate standpoint, it is better. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I move for approval. 2-28-05 109 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: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of the agenda item. Any question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. The next item on the agenda is reassessment of a new employee for the J.P. 4 office from 17-1 to proper step and grade. JUDGE RAGSDALE: Hello. JUDGE TINLEY: Hello, Judge Ragsdale. JUDGE RAGSDALE: I sure am proud that y'all did that chipper truck. I saw it the other day going down the road. The chipper was hanging off the back; the truck looked like it had been on fire two or three times. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This is the new one? JUDGE RAGSDALE: I hope not. 'Cause it was going "boom-boom-pow-pow-pow" down the road, and I'm thinking, Oh, my gosh, it's got a Kerr County sticker on the side of it. (Laughter.) It looked bad. Well, anyway, the reason I came to you is -- is I hired -- Michael, my clerk for six years, went to work for the Sheriff's Office as a deputy sheriff, in realization of something that he really 2-28-05 110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 wanted to do. He's nuts; I wouldn't work for Rusty. But -- SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I wouldn't have you. (Laughter.) JUDGE RAGSDALE: I was going to say, we do this by mutual consent. But, at any rate, I hired Christine Martinez from the Clerk's office, who is -- boy, she has caught on very, very well. She's -- her experience at the Sheriff's Office and at the Clerk's office even dovetailed into my office much better, brighter than I thought it was going to be. She has really acclimated well. She has been an employee of the county -- you have before you the various -- whatever you call it -- discussion of why I made that. She's been an employee of the County, I believe, for six years. Her experience, as I stated there, has dovetailed into my office very, very well. In keeping up with the Nash thing of not keeping people down at the bottom of the pay scale, she's deserving of her longevity. Anyway, so I just recommend to you and request that you go ahead and allow -- allow her to be paid in accordance with her experience. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What would that be? You say from 17-1, but you didn't say to what. COMMISSIONER LETZ: 17-3. JUDGE RAGSDALE: Yeah, should be 3. COMMTSSIONER LETZ: It says in the backup three -- three pay grades. 2-28-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 111 JUDGE RAGSDALE: Isn't that -- wouldn't -- I think that that's correct. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's in the fifth line. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, I see. COMMISSIONER LETZ: He hid it. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He hid it. JUDGE RAGSDALE: Yeah, right there in front of you. Worse place to do it. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Bill, how long has she been -- tell me, how long has she been with the County? JUDGE RAGSDALE: Six. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Six years. And has she been getting the -- did she get the annual first-year salary increase, and all those things have been coming? JUDGE RAGSDALE: Yes. So what I'm asking is that she just -- yeah, she got those as a longevity, I think, whatever the years you do that, move up a grade or step or whatever it is. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. JUDGE RAGSDALE: So I'm just asking that that part be transferred over. COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's her -- where -- what was her step and grade at the -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Clerk's office. COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- Clerk's office? 2-28-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 112 JUDGE RAGSDALE: Much lower. Twelve, maybe. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What was the number? JUDGE RAGSDALE: I think a 12. COMMISSIONER LETZ: 12-3? Or -- MS. ALFORD: Probably a 12-something. I'm not sure. JUDGE RAGSDALE: I think it's 12-3. I think. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think what we did with the most recent one that was real similar, I think, was -- I believe it was in the Tax Assessor's office, and we went to a 12-2. Because, I mean, we felt that -- or not a 12-2; to a pay grade 12. That the longevity increase, you shouldn't be penalized there possibly, but you shouldn't necessarily be -- when there is an increase in responsibility and in the step as well, that you wouldn't necessarily have to go the full grade that they're at in the previous job. I believe that's what we did the last time, which was kind of a -- midway between what was asked and, you know, what the rules actually said. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you talking about the Tax Assessor's -- that one that came in? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What -- your previous employee left at a what? Not that it means anything. I'm going to try to figure out -- obviously, nobody's going to provide us with enough numbers for us to make an intelligent 2-28-05 113 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 decision here. So, if you could tell me what -- where he was at -- JUDGE RAGSDALE: I think he was also a 3. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 17-3? JUDGE RAGSDALE: Yes. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So there wouldn't be any extra money coming in or money turned back; it would be a wash? JUDGE RAGSDALE: Correct. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And he'd been there how long? JUDGE RAGSDALE: Six years. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Six years. JUDGE RAGSDALE: That's what I -- that's what I was looking at. I mean, she's been with the County for six years. He was with the County for six years. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I think, Buster, by the longevity deal, his starting entrance would be the one. And then the longevity was one, four, seven, ten, is the way that works. So she would have gone up to a 17 -- starting at his 17, but with her longevity. It would have been a 2 after one year, and then after four years it would have been a 3, and then after seven years it would go to a 4, is the way the longevity works. So she would have -- should be a 17-3 just by longevity. . 2-28-OS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 114 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think you're right. You could be the Treasurer of this county. JUDGE RAGSDALE: Well, he does a whole lot more of it than I do, thank goodness. Every six years, maybe. That's all I want. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- JUDGE TINLEY: Is that a motion? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, not quite. Not yet. I want Letz to get his German stuff out here on the table. JUDGE RAGSDALE: I hear the squeak right now. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, yeah. (Laughter.) The blockhead is amongst us. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I don't think Rusty -- what Rusty said is the way we've handled these in the past, 'cause I -- we didn't with the Tax Assessor recently. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We did not. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Did not. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The Tax Assessor was the reason y'all actually went one extra bump as far as longevity. You went by her experience. But on this one, it's just total longevity, by the longevity scale that -- that the County has. Just on the tenure of her being a county employee, not on experience at all, would put her at a 17. 2-28-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 115 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He could be the Treasurer, I'm telling you. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think our policy says that, though. I don't think that you -- I mean, you transfer that longevity when you go to a new job. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: All it says is as a county employee, and she would still be a county -- she's never left Kerr County employment. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, but that longevity was accorded to her in a previous job. JUDGE RAGSDALE: So -- but it was still with the county as a county employee. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand that. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It was -- Commissioner Williams, it probably was, and she was a 3 in her -- in her previous job. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Starting this job, it should go in as a 3, not as a 1. JUDGE RAGSDALE: Right. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Because of just the longevity. The way it's set up, it doesn't say anything about if you change departments in the county. The longevity plan is just strictly a Kerr County employee. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I mean, I -- I 2-28-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 116 think that's an interpretation of our policy. And I think if we're going to go with that interpretation -- and there's validity to it. I think you have to go back and look at -- another one would be the Tax Assessor, 'cause there we did not do that. I think Linda had one that we readjusted that same way, that we didn't go up. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That was a re-employ, one that had left and come back. What did we do there? MS. UECKER: Well, she went -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Keep her previous seniority? MS. UECKER: No. JUDGE TINLEY: No. MS. UECKER: No, she gave up that position altogether. I filled it and she took the new one, at much less. COMMISSIONER LETZ: At a lower grade too. JUDGE RAGSDALE: So that's different. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: She didn't go to a l; she was a 2 or a 3. MS. UECKER: Well, I came back and asked for her to be at a 3 based on experience only, not longevity or anything. JUDGE RAGSDALE: But to this girl's credit, 2-28-05 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 25 117 it's not just -- I'm not just asking on the basis of the fact that she's been an uninterrupted employee for six years, but also her experience. She is -- she has, man, just set right in there within three weeks; she has been able to nearly run without much supervision at all. COMMISSIONER LETZ: My concern really, but it's not on this particular situation, is consistency. And I think that there's a good argument, like I said, to do -- you know, to do it this way, but I think we need to be consistent, and we need to go back and relook at the -- the previous one that we didn't take this approach. And, you know, I don't have a problem doing this, but I think that they all need to be looked at the same, and it needs to be clarified in our personnel policy. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The way I'm looking at this thing, I'm agreeing with the Judge so far, which is kind of a rare occasion in itself, but this person is a lateral transfer. There is no cost -- there's no additional -- JUDGE RAGSDALE: It's not totally lateral. I mean, it is -- she is -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: A 17-3 is a 17-3. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: She's been -- JUDGE RAGSDALE: But she was not a 17-3 at the Clerk's office. 2-28-05 118 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 BALDWIN: What was she at the Clerk's office? JUDGE RAGSDALE: I think 12. COMMISSIONER LETZ: 12-3. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What did she come to you as? JUDGE RAGSDALE: 17-1. COMMISSIONER LETZ: 17-1. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 17-1, so it wasn't lateral. JUDGE RAGSDALE: No. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm sorry. JUDGE RAGSDALE: It is -- it is in the respect that she is a Kerr County employee. To that degree, it is just a transfer. Now, as far -- you know, granted, she's making a considerable increase in pay by moving from 12 to 17, but by the same token, she ought not to be penalized for maintaining her consistent employment, and very good employment. She worked with the Sheriff's Office; she was a supervisor in the jail, at the Clerk's office. She was a good self-starter in her work with the County Court at Law, and that -- all those experiences should amount to a justification for this, as well as the fact that she's an uninterrupted employee. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In my mind -- you -28-05 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 25 119 know, I understand what all you're saying, and that's not an issue. If you say she's excellent, then I'll take your word for it, 'cause you supervise her. You understand that. I just want to be sure we're not setting a precedent that's going to come back to haunt us. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, we will be. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Or something where we need to rectify others because of what we're doing. JUDGE RAGSDALE: It shouldn't haunt you. I think it's the right thing to do, so it shouldn't be a h'aint. But -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm talking about the precedent, not the -- not the individual. JUDGE RAGSDALE: Well, but even so, the precedent is not an evil one. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it may be the right thing to do. These are good employees that have been in the county a long time, and it's good to encourage that. It's just -- I really would like to hear from the -- the Treasurer on our personnel policy, exactly what it says on this, because it is something that needs to be clarified, because it's come up two or three times now as to what you do with a longevity when you change positions. MS. UECKER: I don't think the personnel policy addresses it at all. 2-28-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 120 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It just says employment as Kerr County, and then your -- then your application part. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But you're the Sheriff; you're not the personnel person. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But your application part, even in the county's policy manual, says consideration for employment should already be given to a Kerr County employee, so him moving her over there would be that. If he hired John Q. Citizen off the street, that citizen would start in a 17-1. And this person's already got six years, which would go along with the longevity, moving them to a 17-3. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Had that same individual terminated county employment after six or seven years with another office, and then 30 days later decided to come back on board with all that experience -- SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I believe your county policy says they get their seniority back if they come back within a year. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's what we did in the District Clerk's Office. COMMISSIONER LETZ: We didn't give seniority back in the District Clerk's -- JUDGE TINLEY: No. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But that's -- 2-28-05 121 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. UECKER: She lost it completely. COMMISSIONER LETZ: She came back -- MS. UECKER: She retired. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: She retired. MS. UECKER: Then came back. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm supportive of going with 17-3, and I'm also willing to defer a decision pending advice from the personnel officer, whichever you're most comfortable with. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll second that, if that's a motion. JUDGE TINLEY: What, the deferral or the 17-3? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The first one. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. I move that we approve the request to assign a salary grade and step level 17-3 to this Christine Martinez. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Now I'll second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of the agenda item, with the employee to come on as a 17-3. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What was the rest of your -- JUDGE TINLEY: Any discussion? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. What was the z-2a-cs 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 rest of your motion? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No, I -- I was prepared to make one -- either one of two motions. I made the first one. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. All right. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Rule of thumb out there in Precinct 4 is, everything's better in Precinct 4. We've got the best constable, best J.P., best clerk, and best commissioner. So -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I withdraw my second. (Laughter.) COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let's move on. Next agenda item. COMMISSIONER LETZ: What does it say in the personnel policy? JUDGE TINLEY: I'm not sure; haven't got there. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Y'all are not going to sit there and read the personnel policy, are you? I hear an axis burger calling. JUDGE TINLEY: Seem to be -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are you buying? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm buying mine. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. (Discussion off the record.) -28-05 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 25 123 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't have a problem with going ahead and doing this now, and coming back and looking at the personnel policy at our next meeting and making any adjustments. There haven't been that many. I know there was one. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: At least one. COMMISSIONER LETZ: At least one. JUDGE TINLEY: Well, are we talking about making adjustments to include this particular employee? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think we can do -- all we can do today on the agenda item I think is act on this one, and then at our next meeting, we'd have an agenda item to clarify the personnel policy. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Well, an alternative would be to defer on this one till we clarify the personnel policy. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let's go ahead and act on this one. JUDGE TINLEY: Whatever. I have a motion and a second in front of me to -- to bring this employee on as a 17-3. That's what's before us today now. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're not bringing her on. She's already there. JUDGE TINLEY: In this -- in this z-za-o5 1 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 particular -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: She's a 17-1 at the moment. We'd change her to a 17-3. JUDGE RAGSDALE: Now, would this go backwards to the 1st of the month? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Don't -- JUDGE RAGSDALE: I just need to know, 'cause she's going to ask. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Don't sell beyond the close. JUDGE RAGSDALE: Why don't we put an effective date of the 1st? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Next pay period. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: March 1. JUDGE TINLEY: Will be March 1. JUDGE RAGSDALE: It would be this pay period. Today's payday. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Whenever the change takes place. 'Cause I think this is more -- we need to get our policy in line with doing this, if this is what we're doing. JUDGE RAGSDALE: I just want to -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: My reading of the policy is that you can -- you can argue it either way, whichever way you support. So, Judge, you've got a motion and a second. 2-28-05 1 • 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ..-.. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ^ 24 25 125 JUDGE TINLEY: That's right. Any further questions or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. JUDGE RAGSDALE: Thank you, gentlemen. Appreciate it. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Kathy, make a note to get this on our next agenda. MS. MITCHELL: Got it. JUDGE TINLEY: Next item, request emergency funds for the purchase of a high-volume-use computer that fried completely and unexpectedly. Very imaginative agenda item there. MS. UECKER: Well, what do you say? I mean, you walk in, it smells like bacon and you're going, "What is the matter?" One of them says, "My computer's not working; it stinks real bad over here." It really did fry. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You know the difference between a computer and microwave, don't you? MS. UECKER: That might be it, yeah. This is -- this is actually the oldest computer in the office, 2-28-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 126 and it was on my list to ask for replacement at the next budget. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In your capital request line? MS. UECKER: COMMISSIONER MS. UECKER: COMMISSIONER MS. UECKER: COMMISSIONER ahead. JUD MR. amendment in mind? MS. MR. amendment in mind? MS. MR. account. For next time. WILLIAMS: I'll move approval. I got -- NICHOLSON: Second. Okay. WILLIAMS: Quit while you're SE TINLEY: There's a motion and a second. TOMLINSON: Do you have a budget UECKER: I'm sorry, what? TOMLINSON: Do you have a budget UECKER: No. I'm asking for -- TOMLINSON: There's no money in that COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Uh-oh. Out jumped a rattlesnake. MR. TOMLINSON: We used it all on that -- on that -- the last purchase we made for the -- what's called the DAS net, the $16,000 piece of equipment that's going to 2-28-05 127 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 be installed. JUDGE TINLEY: For the scanners. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How about the Law Library fund? Anything there? MS. DECKER: There's plenty there. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But we can't have it. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Doesn't qualify? MR. EMERSON: May I ask a question? How much is the computer we're looking at? MS. DECKER: 1,300 and -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Look, he's going to dig -- MR. EMERSON: I have a solution for you. JUDGE TINLEY: What a guy. MS. DECKER: 13. MR. EMERSON: Expenses from the Hot Check Fund designate -- I'm allowed to spend it for anything associated with law enforcement, and I don't know why that computer associated with judicial management of crime couldn't qualify. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What an offer. MS. DECKER: What a deal. I love this guy. JUDGE TINLEY: You owe him a big hug. MS. DECKER: I do. And he's getting it, too. JUDGE TINLEY: I'm sorry, Rex; I got you into 2-28-05 128 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 this trap. (Laughter.) COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I amend my motion and move approval for the funds to come from the County Attorney's Hot Check Fund. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of the agenda item, the funds to come out of the Hot Check Fund. Any further question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. COMMISSIONER LETZ: You may be interested; we just changed our policy drastically. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Did we? 17 18 not the 19 20 21 says -- 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: This clearly says it's COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where's the Sheriff? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sheriff was wrong. He JUDGE TINLEY: Personnel expert is gone. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I guess he ought to stick to law enforcement and leave personnel alone. JUDGE TINLEY: Isn't that the way -- new 2-za-o5 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 hires, even within the same department? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Even within the same department, transfers start at Level 1. It says you consider them as new hire. Any transfers are considered new hires. JUDGE TINLEY: Even somebody moving over in the same department. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There he is. Tell him. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Wrong, Rusty. Totally wrong. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, I can show it to you. JUDGE TINLEY: We're going to schedule a barbecue next month, Sheriff. You're the main course; we want you to be there. Do we have any items to take up in closed or executive session? Okay. Let's move to the approval agenda. The bills. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval of the bills. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of the bills. Question. Page 6, bottom of the page, Emergency Management expense. Is that derived from that complicated contract that we've got? 2-2~-05 130 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 MR. TOMLINSON: What -- what -- JUDGE TINLEY: Page 6. COMMISSIONER LETZ: City of Kerrville, second from the bottom. MR. TOMLINSON: Oh, okay. I don't know. I'll look it up. JUDGE TINLEY: 2729, last four. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I got a question on the next one. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, those words, "emergency management," whittles it down pretty specifically. JUDGE TINLEY: Well, if it's under that emergency medical services where we pay the director and we pay some other stuff -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. JUDGE TINLEY: I'm thinking that may be it. But when it said management, that's what keyed me. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. That -- the word "management" doesn't fit what you're talking about. (Discussion off the record.) MR. TOMLINSON: I think these are expenses for this quarter. (The Sheriff placed a document on the bench.) COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's why the 2-28-05 131 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Sheriff is not the personnel officer. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank heavens. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I'll show it to you. MR. TOMLINSON: Well, we're paying the telephone service, is what it's for. And they're allocating -- they're allocating this like -- I'm reading from the bill. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MR. TOMLINSON: From City of Kerrville. It's in a county report; I don't actually have a bill. So it's -- there's a $265.50 bill from -- for the monthly telephone service. It doesn't say who it's to. That's for November of '04, and then for December of '04, there's another $265.22 monthly telephone service. JUDGE TINLEY: Have we ever paid this before? MR. TOMLINSON: We -- we pay it quarterly. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: A telephone bill for who? MR. TOMLINSON: Whatever -- I don't -- I can't -- I don't know; it doesn't say on here who it's to. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is this something maybe your -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: First Responders? I mean, is this part of the First Responder thing? Or -- 2-28-G5 132 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. TOMLINSON: Doesn't say that. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It could be that, or it could be the -- the EMS part of it, where we pay part of the salary of the medical -- JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- director. And we pay part of the salary for the First Responder instructor and those kind of things, but I don't know anything about a telephone. JUDGE TINLEY: That First Responder instructor is billed separately. It comes separately. MR. TOMLINSON: That comes separately. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with that. MR. TOMLINSON: I'll find out. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're going to hold that one? COMMISSIONER LETZ: They don't need the money anyway. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: While we're there, look up the next one. I'm just curious as to the County-sponsored, what would we be paying for there? JUDGE TINLEY: 638 -- 2638 is the -- is the invoice. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's pretty cheap, actually. 2-28-05 133 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's not the amount. I'm just curious as to what we're doing. JUDGE TINLEY: Sheriff left. Maybe it has something to do with him. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sheriff? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Long as his hat's here, I believe we're in pretty good shape. MR. EMERSON: I believe he went through that door. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Lock it. (Discussion off the record.) MR. TOMLINSON: Historical Commission, 250 brochures. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Historical -- MR. TOMLINSON: Historical Commission. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, good. Thank you. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Same page, under Juvenile Probation, Hays County Treasurer, $1,780 for alternate housing. I'm assuming that that's a juvenile that needed treatment that we couldn't provide? JUDGE TINLEY: Correct. Boot camp. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I have a motion and a second to pay the bills. Are we -- are we carving out this 2-28-05 134 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 City of Kerrville Emergency Management? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. JUDGE TINLEY: For now? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're the one that asked about it. I would like to hold it out to find out what it's about. Yes, sir, I would. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any further question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Budget amendments. MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. I have -- first one is for Road and Bridge for $383. It's for the addition of this water -- this asphalt distributor truck that we just purchased. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved. MR. TOMLINSON: $383. Transfer is to Group Insurance to -- I mean, from -- yeah, Group Insurance to Vehicle Insurance. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of Budget Amendment Request Number 1. Any question 2-28-05 135 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 or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. You have another budget amendment? MR. TOMLINSON: I have another one. It's -- it's in conjunction with the agenda item for the I.T. Department, for -- for the contractual service. And the request is to transfer $8,320 from the Part-Time Salary line item into Contract -- $7,688.53 into Contract Services, to add $109.97 to Retirement line item, and $1,530.79 to the I.T. System Specialist line item. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of Budget Amendment Request Number 2. Any question or discussion? COMMISSIONER LETZ: The first -- the first item and the second item on that list, that's because we hired at a higher -- MR. TOMLINSON: That's exactly right. COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- higher amount than the previous one? 2-28-05 136 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or discussion? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. This contract that we're -- that we have with the new company -- I don't remember; is there a specific time beginning today and ending January 30th, or what? MR. TOMLINSON: I think it's through -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: September 30th. MR. TOMLINSON: That's right. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, it's our fiscal year? MR. TOMLINSON: Right. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And our new computer guru understands that we don't spend money we don't have? I mean, I know that's a foolish question. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: He does. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We've seen it here many, many times. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: He understands that the reason he got that approved is 'cause there was money for it to be transferred, and that he's got to come back -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- and get money for next year. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which, the reality is 2-28-05 137 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 --- 1 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 he's not going to hire a part-time person. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's it. MR. TOMLINSON: For now. JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. I assume this is a budget amendment that you're proposing? MR. TOMLINSON: This is a -- a budget amendment I actually received from -- from the Juvenile Detention Administrator, Ms. Harris. I think at the last meeting you approved the expenditure budget, but as I'm remembering, that there was direction to have a similar revenue budget for the same period of time. The top part of this, the -- for the -- for the operating expenditures from February through September '05 is the 1,294,725 which you approved at the last meeting. And then what's been added is the revenue, the projected revenue totaling $506,032 for the same time period. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's as we know it today on the revenue side? MR. TOMLINSON: That's what her projection 2-28-G5 138 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 is, correct. JUDGE TINLEY: Your -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Based on -- based on contracts in place? MS. HARRIS: Yes, that's based on contracts in place, and it's also based on -- I put down there the average placement of 23 residents per month. That's what the average has been for January -- for December and January. And the month of February, we increased our average to 26, so we are gradually coming, but I -- I didn't feel comfortable in making a projection of kids that we don't have and that I don't have a history for right now. JUDGE TINLEY: So, you're doing that on the soft side? MS. HARRIS: I was very -- yes. Yes. Anything else will be a placement surprise. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, Tommy, if I took the total revenue number, 506, and subtracted it from the total operating expense of 1.2, I'm going to come up with this bottom expenditure? MS. HARRIS: Yes. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So the county taxpayers are going to pay $788,000 to pick up the tab for the remainder of the year? Just -- just as of today. I mean -- z-2a-os 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: Yes. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- before we get into any money with Bexar County and all that kind of thing. MR. TOMLINSON: That's exactly right. COMMISSIONER LETZ: What this means in my mind is that Ms. Harris has got to fill that place up. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, it's beyond that in my mind. This is pretty damned expensive, fellas. MR. TOMLINSON: So, with this -- you know, with this budget, I need some direction as to how much to transfer in cash to make this budget balance. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Couldn't you do that monthly? MR. TOMLINSON: It doesn't have to balance, but -- but rather than come to court every -- every court day and ask to transfer cash to handle payroll and expenses, I would like to -- you know, for the Court to give me some direction as to how much to transfer all at one time to be able to -- to have cash to make -- to pay expenses. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What do you suggest? MR. TOMLINSON: I would suggest a minimum of -- of 500,000. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's probably a good number, just looking at it. What -- what I'd like to know is -- and you're talking about going into reserves to get 2-28-OS 140 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the 500,000. MR. TOMLINSON: Exactly, yes. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd like to know, when we first started, how much was in reserves September 1, and where we are today. I mean, how much money do we have? Do we have any money? MR. TOMLINSON: Oh, yes. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But not near as much as we did September 1. MR. TOMLINSON: Well, we -- we have substantially more than -- than the 25 -- the policy is 25 percent reserve for -- JUDGE TINLEY: Minimum. MR. TOMLINSON: Minimum. We -- for the General Fund, that's about $3,500,000. So, we have -- I don't have the auditing statements in-hand, but I think -- I feel sure that we have in excess of 500 -- 500,000 in excess of the -- of our minimum requirement. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Which was -- tell me again, was it 2.8 or 3.2 or something? MR. TOMLINSON: I'm telling you this from memory right now, but I recall that the General Fund fund balance at the end of the year was -- was 4 million 3, 4 million 5. And so -- and we've already transferred around probably 280,000. 2-28-05 141 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. MR. TOMLINSON: So we have 500 to go. So that -- that would -- I think we'd still be within the limits of our 25 percent. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with you. And -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In excess of our -- we'll be in excess of our -- of the policy limits? MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. With the $500,000, yes. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I mean, I concur with Number 1 that 500,000 seems like a good number in your recommendation, but in the future ones -- or I'd like to keep -- actually, if you can go back and just add on this same sheet how much we've transferred exactly to-date, so we can look at a real picture from the annual -- I know you said it's about 280,000. That's real close, but we can just add that to this. Then we can -- doesn't have to come back to court; we can get it to Kathy and get it distributed to us, add that line. I think it would be a good item for us to be aware of. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But I still want to see an accounting of where that 500,000 has gone. MR. TOMLINSON: Well, it'll be -- it's going in this 1,294,000 expenses. 2-28-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 142 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand. I want to know if it's for somebody getting their nails done, or if we're buying new light bulbs. We're going to micromanage this thing for a while, Tommy. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's going to be just like all the rest of our -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It will be included in our little report that we get. MR. TOMLINSON: Oh, yeah. You have been getting that all along. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand. I understand. I'm saying I want to make sure that that is -- MR. TOMLINSON: Oh, yeah. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- forthcoming. MR. TOMLINSON: It won't be any different than the Sheriff's budget. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Tommy, maybe you answered this question while I was playing personnel manager. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There you go making Rusty mad. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: At the end of September, are we going to have less than our 25 percent policy? MR. TOMLINSON: No, I don't think -- no, I 2-28-05 1 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 don't think so. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's comforting. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, it is comforting. But we're going to find out for sure. He's going to come back and let us know exactly where we are and all that. MR. TOMLINSON: I just -- I just -- I don't want to give you a number without it being in-hand to know exactly, but I'm -- I'm remembering that it was around 4.4 million, was our reserve. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what I remember, somewhere in that range. MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, what do you need here? MR. TOMLINSON: I just need approval to transfer the 500,000 from -- from the General Fund over to Fund 76, which is the Juvenile Detention Facility. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Fund 76? MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move the Court declare an emergency and authorize transfer of $500,000 from reserves to Fund 76. MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 2-28-05 1 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 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Any further question or discussion on that motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It was close. JUDGE TINLEY: Do you have any more budget amendments? MR. TOMLINSON: No, that's all I got. MS. ALFORD: What happened to Number 3? MR. TOMLINSON: We pulled that one. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Do we have any late bills? MR. TOMLINSON: I have three. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MR. TOMLINSON: One is for the Kerrville Postmaster for $990 for postage for the County Attorney's office. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: And you're wanting hand checks also? MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. 2-28-05 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 25 145 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Any question or discussion on that motion? All in favor of the motion for late bill to Kerrville Postmaster for $990 and issuance of hand check, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. The next two are really to the same vendor. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MR. TOMLINSON: But it's to Cooper Equipment Company; it's for $49,500 for the asphalt distributor, and $182,398 for the chip spreader. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of late bills to Cooper Equipment for $49,500 and $182,398, and issuance of hand checks. Any question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. 2-28-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 146 MR. TOMLINSON: That's all. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure nice seeing you, Tommy. MR. TOMLINSON: Thank you. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tommy's an old bricklayer, you know? Got to understand bricklayers. JUDGE TINLEY: Do you have any reports from Commissioners in connection with their liaison or committee assignments? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This is sort of related to that. Excuse me, did I interrupt? COMMISSIONER LETZ: You go ahead. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We -- we contacted the City of Kerrville to tell them that we wanted to serve notice that the Animal Control contract needs to be renegotiated. It's going to expire, and we haven't heard back from them on that. MS. MITCHELL: No. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And so I've got some concerns about that. I'd like that to start moving along, but it's an even broader concern than that. I think we have other contracts that -- with the City of Kerrville that may be needing renegotiated, or you need to -- we need to make a decision about whether or not we're going to let them automatically re-up and that sort of thing. I just -- just 2-28-G5 1 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 bring that up because over the last two years, I've -- I've seen that period of time between March and September moves awfully quickly. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I mean, I share that concern. I think we have a -- a number of things on the table with the City of Kerrville right now, and -- and it's been a one-way conduit for about the last six months of us saying that we want to do these things. And -- and one of them that's been on the table is the ETJ table. Commissioner Baldwin and I were trying to work, and we heard that they appointed someone, but that was the last we heard. So, my recommendation would be that we try and hold a workshop with the City of Kerrville. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's do it. I think that's a great idea. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we should ask them to at least participate, and in the workshop set up a series of committees that both concur with, and set some timelines up, and then -- doesn't have to be real lengthy. I just think -- what I think I'd like, and I, you know, ask the Judge to do that, is send a letter over there and just ask that we have a workshop to set up all the various contracts, and not try to iron them all out at this point. Just figure out who's going to do what and when so we have a plan, because Commissioner 4 is correct; we've got about z-za-o5 1 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 three months to get this stuff worked out. We have an awful COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I agree with you, and I can't imagine them not doing it. I mean, two government entities that own properties together and represent taxpayers. I'm sure they'd be willing to sit down with us. I think it would be great. COMMISSIONER LETZ: We've tried twice. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I know. JUDGE TINLEY: Any other reports from Commissioners on their committee/liaison assignments? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely not. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One other quickie. This involves free lunch, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Go ahead, Bill. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You may want to listen up. The Alamo Area Aging group is conducting an Alzheimer's Association seminar here at First Presbyterian Church, where you can learn all you need to learn about Alzheimer's and related disorders. Maybe that's beneficial for all of us; I'm not sure. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What's your name again? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's going to be on Tuesday, March 15th, in First Presbyterian Church, and lunch 2-28-05 149 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 is served free. JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Only comment I have is -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If they remember to prepare it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: If -- if anybody cares to see a bridge under construction, go by Hermann Sons. They've got - - the pillars are being poured and they're working on it and all that stuff. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The High Water Bridge, as well. It' s not -- it doesn't look like a bridge, but you can see a lot of dirt work going on. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Lot of dirt work. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Pretty darned exiting. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What about the trees? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I told you that last week. The tr ees are the responsibility of the contractor. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are they down and moved away? That's all I want to know. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think some of them are still standing. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Still standing, okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I'm not sure if they're coming down or not coming down. I mean, I'm not -- I didn't -- I was down there a couple days ago, but I didn't 2-28-05 150 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 walk to see which trees were gone and which ones -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I only ask because I'll see Charlie tomorrow, and he's going to ask me. He does every week. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just, you know, tell him that he should go down and find the supervisor from Dean Word Construction and ask if there's any trees left. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And bring his chainsaw and truck. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just give him Letz' home phone number. That will straighten it out. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a good idea. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Immediately. JUDGE TINLEY: Any other reports? Any reports from elected officials? Boards? Commissions? Committees? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What did -- what did the lieutenant personnel officer come in and lay on that end of the desk earlier? What was that? COMMISSIONER LETZ: It was a nonrelevant piece of material. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Nonrelevant. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It was a very relevant piece of literature. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You don't want to 2-~8-05 151 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 know. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's a "got ya" deal, huh? MS. MITCHELL: No, it can be interpreted many different ways. JUDGE TINLEY: I think the statement in the personnel policy, the general statement, probably takes precedence over that, because it addresses it specifically. But that issue, of course, is going to now have to be considered another day; that an inappropriate precedent has been set. But, be that as it may -- you had something for us, Mr. Auditor? MR. TOMLINSON: I found out about the bill. You had a question about it. JUDGE TINLEY: Yes. MR. TOMLINSON: And we -- the County apparently has an agreement with the City to pay half of the -- the salary and expenses for the Emergency Management Coordinator, which is Mr. Holloway, and that -- and we're paying half of whatever that budget is. And so, whether it be long distance or office supplies or his salary, we have been paying that on a quarterly basis, based on -- based on their billing to us. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And -- okay. I'm there. How much was the bill? 2-28-05 152 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 950. MR. TOMLINSON: 950. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: $950 phone bill? MR. TOMLINSON: No, there's more to it than that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Salary and phone bill. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh. MR. TOMLINSON: It's -- salary's in there too. It's 965.72. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: For something that doesn't even function. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, they do. JUDGE TINLEY: No, it functioned. We had a workshop -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Uh-huh. JUDGE TINLEY: -- last week, I think. Full day, tabletop. The Sheriff was even there. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're kidding. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, he was there. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Which one? JUDGE TINLEY: You don't remember? Give him that Alzheimer's day. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That free lunch. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Alzheimer's seminar. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Are you talking about on z-za-os 153 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the jail stuff? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. MR. TOMLINSON: So -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are we going to pay that bill? I think we should pay the bill. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move we pay the bill. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. MR. TOMLINSON: That's what I want to know. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Any question or discussion? All in favor? (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed? (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carried. Anything else? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Ms. Harris had her hand up. MS. HARRIS: Department head reports? JUDGE TINLEY: I called for those, but I did it very quickly. I was hoping to pass over the Sheriff. (Laughter.) Do you have something? MS. HARRIS: Yes, sir. 2-28-OS 154 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 '""' 2 4 25 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. MS. HARRIS: Just very quickly. JUDGE TINLEY: Come forward. MS. HARRIS: Sorry. I wanted you to know that the Bexar County contracts are in. I believe Judge Tinley has them for signature. And Rex has looked them over and didn't find any problems with the Bexar County contracts. Spoke with the placement officer on Thursday. He is sending a packet of several psychologicals for us to review. Should be here Wednesday, he said. I explained to him about the pending contract with Hill Country Council on Alcohol and Drug Abuse and M.H.M.R. He reiterated -- he said, "So, does that mean that you will have licensed chemical dependency counselors that will provide the treatment?" I said yes. So he is sending two additional psychologicals on two boys that would be substance abuse eligible for treatment at the facility. Rex has looked over the contract with Hill Country Alcohol and Drug Abuse Council, made a couple little minor changes, sent it back to the Council. That was on Friday. They're closed on Fridays, so when I get back to the office, I'll follow up on that to see where that contract is. If -- from the indications that I'm getting from M.H.M.R., an MOU or a contract is not required for them to furnish the free service that they would come out to the 2-28-05 155 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 "'~ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 facility to do a suicide assessment on a kid that has attempted suicide. On a child that scores high on the intake MALI for suicidal ideation, there probably would be a charge. He is trying to get an answer from his higher-ups, and at this point in time, as of late Friday afternoon, he had not received an answer. In the past, whenever a kid scores high on that -- on that instrument, that suicidal ideation instrument, and we have to have a contract psychologist come in to do the assessment within 48 hours, that's our -- part of our service. JUDGE TINLEY: That's not -- it's not a MS. HARRIS: Not a reimbursed medical, no, sir. No, sir. So I'm still trying to find out what M.H.M.R. would charge for that service, if anything at all. That's what he's looking for, the answer for that. Right now, we have seven kids that are diagnosed for substance abuse treatment. We have five kids coming in within the next 10 days to two weeks. This is going to really crowd the number of beds that I already have licensed. I have 18 beds licensed, 12 for boys and 6 for girls. Now, this is a bittersweet dilemma that we're in; we're getting more kids, and they're substance abuse kids, and that was the objective to begin with, but if we exceed the number of licensed beds that I presently have licensed, I would have to turn 2-28-05 156 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 substance abuse diagnosed children away. I don't think we want that. So, I just need you to be aware of the fact that in two weeks, I may have to come before this Court and ask you permission to license additional substance abuse beds. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Which means more staff? MS. HARRIS: No, it means more money. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But not much money? MS. HARRIS: It means a $100 application fee plus $30 per extra bed. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: After the half a million we just dumped in there, that's -- we spilled that much at lunch. MS. HARRIS: So I just need for y'all to be aware of that. I will be graduating three kids this month of March, which will kind of offset the kids that we're getting in in regards to increasing the number of treatment beds, but it's going to be the timing. Now, there may be a period of time in there that I will have to exceed that 18 bed number, so I just want you to be aware of that. One of my counselors is going -- has verbally resigned. He will turn in his -- his written resignation effective April the 15th. The reason why I'm bringing this up now is for you to also be aware of the fact that, number one, I will lose a full-time counselor. This also provides an opportunity for me to search for a licensed professional counselor to take 2-28-05 157 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 this person's place. That person would be able to do these suicide assessments, plus fill the vacancy that this is going to create, plus provide full-time mental health services to a point. Once it reaches beyond that person's licensure, then it would go to a psychiatrist or a Ph.D. psychologist. But, anyway, that's extremely important to a lot of the counties that are sending us kids, so I need you to also consider that. We can put a flyer up. University of Texas, San Antonio, is having a job fair the latter part of March. We can put a flyer up advertising for that position if you wish us to do that. JUDGE TINLEY: Does that require also an LCDC? MS. HARRIS: No, sir. An LPC is a Master's degree psychologist or sociologist that's taken the Licensed Professional Counseling test and passed it. The ideal person would be an LPC-slash-LCDC, but those are scarce as hen's teeth. You can't hardly find those people. So, on another note, Hill Country Alcohol and Drug Abuse, you can only -- and this is for any LCDC; you're only allowed 10 individuals on your individual counseling load. Once TCADA starts doing the individual counseling, they're already -- their one person is already going to exceed that 10. So, what we've come up with is that my remaining counselor, she's going to go ahead and apply for her LCDC internship. 2-28-05 158 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 I2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I, in turn, applied to make the facility a counseling internship training site. Doesn't cost anything. I just fill out an application and send in some documentation. Once that's done, then my remaining counselor will become an intern, and she can have a counseling load of 10, so that's going to save some money in there. We have a boy coming from Upshur County tomorrow. We've got a Midland County kid that's going to court on the 4th. A Williamson County juvenile was supposed to be here last week, but there was a snafu in the hearing and they had to reschedule the hearing for the 10th. We will get that child. Brewster County -- we will have a Brewster County child. We've never had a kid at the facility from Brewster County; this is a brand-new contract. That child will be here on Friday, and a Guadalupe resident will be here Wednesday. And so we're getting -- we're getting kids in. Last week there wasn't anybody from DRG or STR showed up at the facility. And I know that the County Attorney has written letter after letter after letter, and so they're -- nobody showed up last week to do anything. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Have any of the problems been fixed? MS. HARRIS: No, sir. The only thing that's been fixed has been the interior structures for the A.D.A. complaints; toilet paper dispensers, paper towel dispensers. 2-28-05 159 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 Those have been rectified, but the A.D.A. handicap ramps have not. There's a disagreement between the engineer and DRG as to what to do. The sewer has not been taken care of. The drainage has not been taken care of, and the generator has not been addressed. So -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Rex, on that, I think it was -- you sent the memo up, of response, to the contractor saying that it was -- it's an engineering design problem, not an installation problem. Who do we look to for that, if that's, in fact, true? Do we have any resource against the engineer or engineering firm, which I guess is DRG? MR. EMERSON: I would think so, and I sent out a letter last week to DRG specifically telling them, you know, that the top three issues had not been addressed, and emphasizing the lift station in particular, and told them my understanding was that it was a matter of changing out the motors and reworking the breakers to meet the specs. And if that's accurate, then it needs to be done as soon as possible. So -- JUDGE TINLEY: A thought occurs to me; the bond that the contractor put up with -- both the payment and performance bond, I assume. MR. EMERSON: Well, the issue -- I don't know, Judge. I haven't reviewed it, but the issue that's popping up is, if you talk to the contractor, the contractor 2-28-05 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 25 160 says, "I built everything exactly according to specs." Including the parking lot, the ramps and everything else, and the lift station. JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I'm just thinking, if we put the bonding company on notice, that might build more of a fire under everybody involved that may have had up a bond. And -- because they may be looking at going back to that bonding company for ongoing product checks, and they may want to make sure their skirt's clean. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, even if they go to other bonding companies, I would imagine it's going to hurt their ability to get bonds no matter who they use. That's a good idea. JUDGE TINLEY: If that's P and P Bond, you know, may not be -- just as a -- as a matter of courtesy notification, they probably need to be aware of it so that we don't waive any rights. MR. EMERSON: I have not seen a copy of the bond in all the documents that I found. I know there's a bond there. There's references to it, but I've not actually seen a bond. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One comment and one question, Judge. Ms. Harris last week made an appearance before the rural judges at the AACOG meeting and made a great appearance and a presentation, and about four or five 2-28-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -- 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 161 of those judges afterwards come up and tell me what a good presentation it was. What was kind of interesting, however, was one judge of a neighboring county contiguous to Kerr County was totally unaware that we took postadjudicated kids. He thought all we took was preadjudicated kids, and -- "Well, I'll be darned. I didn't know you took postadjudicated kids." So, what do we do, Judge? That was a comment. The question is, where are we in our discussions with K.I.S.D. with respect to all your schooling? MS. HARRIS: They are -- the contract, the County Attorney made adjustments on the Kerr County side, sent it -- forwarded it to Kerrville ISD, and it is sitting at their attorney's desk. MR. EMERSON: I have a meeting with Dan Troxel this afternoon. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Very good. COMMISSIONER LETZ: One other -- on the -- you mentioned the job fair issue. Ms. Harris, I don't know if she's planning -- you may want to go out to west Texas -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: She's going. 21 22 23 "'~ 2 4 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Going? MS. HARRIS: Going. COMMISSIONER LETZ: She has a booth? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's a done deal. MS. HARRIS: I'm going. And also, I have 2-28-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 162 been asked before -- there is going to be a -- this is the very first conference for Brewster, Jeff Davis, and Presidio Counties and other surrounding counties, that they are having their first annual area judges and attorney conference March the 16th and 17th. We were asked to come out there to participate as vendors, and I got a phone call Thursday, and I have been asked to participate in an afternoon session, a question and answer panel session for the judges and the attorneys, so I will be doing that as well. And we have 27 kids today. We have exceeded 30 for the month of February. We had -- one day we had 32 kids. And our monthly average for February is 26 total, 16 post and 10 pre's, and that is up from the previous month. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How many Kerr County? MS. HARRIS: Four. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, ma'am. MR. EMERSON: Since you're already late for lunch anyway, I'm going to throw my two cents in on the County Attorney's part. I think y'all are all aware of this, and I informed the Court that I had some intention to do this awhile back unless something changed. But as of this morning, I provided Beverly Harris, Assistant County Attorney, with 30 days notice. And basically, it's based on the restructuring of the office, as well as the -- having a 2-28-05 163 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 limited number of beds at the State Hospital. We don't need the position at this time. I can take that money and what was costing the county approximately $5,400 a month, and for $1,000 a month professional contract fees, I can cover what might fall through the cracks. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You experienced Commissioners have probably seen something like this before, but this is the first time I've heard an elected official/ department head come and say, "I need fewer people." You ever heard that before? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've been an elected official in this county for over 20 years -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Enough said. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- and I've never seen it. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This is just blowing me away. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Maybe he can be a beacon to the others. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Just imagine what could happen. JUDGE TINLEY: Lest you think about having a big celebration out in Odessa -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Uh-huh. 2-28-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 164 JUDGE TINLEY: -- while you're away from home, Ms. Harris is going to be there, so she's going to be looking after you, so you can't get too wild. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, she's having a hard time -- I checked on her while I was out there last week. JUDGE TINLEY: I see. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And she's having -- they told me she's having a hard time getting a check from the county to pay her fee out there. And -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That should have been taken care of today. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I said -- I didn't know what to say. My jaw dropped open a little bit, embarrassed here in front of all my little friends. And -- but they're holding -- they're holding the slot for you, so if you ever get around to paying them, I'm sure they'd like to have the money. MS. HARRIS: As soon as our request that we turned in over 10 days ago is answered, which I believe it was this morning. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: She turned it in to the Sheriff. Or who did you turn it in to? MS. HARRIS: I thought that's who I was supposed to turn it in to. (Laughter.) 2-28-05 165 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Oh. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Your own fault. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, he's doubling as the County Treasurer. Why not? (Discussion off the record.) JUDGE TINLEY: Hold it. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Do you have -- in the big celebration in 2007 -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- all the food and all the good times and everything, do we have a designation of Commissioner emeritus? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, absolutely. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So I could attend? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, absolutely. For the food only, though, not the entertainment. JUDGE TINLEY: Do we have anything else to come before the Court this morning -- this afternoon? We stand adjourned. (Commissioners Court adjourned at 12:27 p.m.) 2-28-05 166 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 STATE OF TEXAS ~ COUNTY OF KERR ~ The above and foregoing is a true and complete transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County, Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth. DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 4th day of March, 2005. JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk BY• ~~~/' Kathy Ban k, Deputy County Clerk Certified Shorthand Reporter 2-28-OS ORDER N0.29047 APPROVAL OF NOMINATION TO FILL VACANCY ON KERR CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT On this the 28'h day of February 2005, upon motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, the nomination of Chuck Lewis to fill vacancy on the Kerr Central Appraisal District Board of Directors. ORDER NO 29048 AWARD CONTRACT FOR COMPUTER SERVICES On this the 28`h day of February 2005, upon motion made by Commissioner Nicholson, seconded by Commissioner Williams. the Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0, to award contract services to Gazelle PC. ORDER N0.29049 APPROVAL OF ABANDONING 380 FEET OF RIOJAS ROAD On this the 28th day of February 2005, upon motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, The abandoning, discontinuing, and vacating 380 feet of Riojas Road in Precinct #3. ORDER N0.29050 APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY REVISION OF PLAT LOT 4 LIVE SPRINGS RANCH On this the 28th day of February 2005, upon motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0- 0, the preliminary revision of plat of Lot 4 Live Springs Ranch in Precinct #4 with the revisions noted. ORDER N0.29051 FINAL REVISION PLAT OF LOTS 9 & 10 RIO RETIRO On this the 28`h day of February 2005, upon motion made by Commissioner Nicholson, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0, the final revision plat of Lots 9 & 10 Rio Retiro in Precinct #4. ORDER N0.29052 APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT OF LIVE SPRINGS RANCH SECTION 2 On this the 28th day of February 2005, upon motion made by Commissioner Nicholson, seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, the preliminary plat of Live Springs Ranch, Section 2 in Precinct #4, and with an expectation that the questions about the road will be answered when we look at the final plat. ORDER N0.29053 APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CENTER POINT INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT On this the 28th day of February 2005, upon motion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0- 0, the preliminary plat for Center Point Independent School District in Precinct #2. ORDER N0.29054 REVISION PLAT OF HOLCOMB RANCH AND VACATING HACIENDA TRL On this the 28"' day of February 2005, upon motion made by Commissioner Nicholson, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, the revision plat of Holcomb Ranch to include vacating, discontinuing and abandoning the road shown as Hacienda Trl in Precinct #4. ORDER N0.29055 AUTHORIZE THE ROAD AND BRIDGE DEPARTMENT TO REPAIR SERVICE ROAD AT JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITY On this the 28t'' day of February 2005, upon motion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to authorize the Road and Bridge Department to repair the service drive at the Juvenile Detention Facility. ORDER N0.29056 REMOVAL OF NAMES FROM CHILD WELFARE BOARD On this the 28`" day of February 2005, upon motion made by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to remove the following names from the Child Welfare Board: Louise Blalack Pam Traver Sandra Yarbrough ORDER N0.29057 APPOINTMENT TO CHILD WELFARE BOARD On this the 28t'' day of February 2005, upon motion mad by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0- 0, the appointment of Glenda Taylor to the Child Welfare Board. _. ORDER N0.29058 APPROVAL OF TERMS FOR THE CHILD WELFARE BOARD MEMBERS On this the 28th day of February 2005, upon motion made by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, the terms for the Child Welfare Board Members as follows: Laura Singlertary 1 year Term 2/14/05- 2/14/06 Daletta Andreas 3 year Term 2/14/05-2!14/08 Alice McDaniel 1 year Term 2/14/05-2/14!06 Debbie Baldwin 2 year Term 2/14/05-2(14/07 Kathy Mitchell 2 year Term 2/14/05-2/14/07 ~. Thea Sovil 2 year Term 2/14/05-2/14/07 Lynn Meng 3 year Term 2/14/-5-2/14/08 Glenda Taylor 1 year Term 2/28/05-2/28/06 ORDER N0.29059 AGREEMENT WITH VERICLAIMS INC On this the 28th day of February 2005, upon motion made by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0- 0, the Agreement with VeriClaims, Inc. for Administrative Services for Indigent Health Care Claims and approval of Business Associate Agreement. ORDER N0.29060 RESOLUTION WEST TEXAS JUDGES AND COMMISSIONERS ASSOCIATION ANNUAL CONFERENCE On this the 28'" day of February 2005, upon motion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to adopt a Resolution inviting the West Texas Judges and Commissioners Association Annual Conference to Kerrville in 2007. ORDER N0.29061 ACCEPT RESIGNATION OF WALTER HARRIS FROM ALAMO AREA COUNCIL OF AGING On this the 28th day of February 2005, upon motion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to accept the resignation of Walter Harris from Alamo Area Council of Aging. ORDER N0.29062 SET PUBLIC HEARING AND WORKSHOP ON PROPOSED KERB COUNTY NUISANCE ABATEMENT PROGRAM On this the 28th day of February 2005, upon motion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously by a vote of 4-0-0, to set a public hearing and workshop on the proposed Kerr County Nuisance Abatement Program on April 11, 2005 at 1:30 P.M. ORDER N0.29063 DESIGNATION OF CITY OF INGRAM AS A COLONIA On this the 28th day of February 2005, upon motion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, the designation of City of Ingram as a "Colonia" for eligibility for grant funding for wastewater gathering system. ORDER N0.29064 LEASE PURCHASE OF CHIPSPREADER AND ASPHALT DISTRIBUTOR WITH SECURITY STATE BANK AND TRUST On this the 28`h day of February 2005, upon motion made by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0- 0, the lease purchase of chip spreader and asphalt distributor and lease document with Security State Bank and Trust and authorize the County Judge to sign same. ORDER N0.29065 RECLASSIFICATION OF EMPLOYEE IN JUSTICE OF THE PEACE PCT. #4 On this the 28th day of February 2005, upon motion made by Commissioner Nicholson, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, the reclassification of Christine Martinez as a salary grade and step level 17/3 in Justice of the Peace Precinct #4. ORDER N0.29066 REQUEST TO PURCHASE OF COMPUTER FOR DISTRICT CLERK'S OFFICE On this the 28th day of February 2005, upon motion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0- 0, the request to purchase a computer for the District Clerk's office with the money to come from the Kerr County Attorney's office Hot check fund. ,_., ORDER N0.29067 CLAIMS AND ACCOUNT On this the 28t" day of February 2005, came to be considered by the Court the various Commissioners precincts, which said Claims and Accounts are: 10-General: $41,669.50 14-Fire Protection: $1,000.00 15-Road & Bridge: $120,138.86 50-Indigent Health Care: $87,904.22 70-Permanent Improvement: $8,957.30 76-Juvenile Detention Facility: $2,107.28 TOTAL CASH REQUIRED FOR ALL FUNDS: $261,777.16 Upon motion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Court approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to pay said Claims and Accounts and to hold out Invoice Number 172729 for further information. ORDER N0.29068 BUDGET AMENDMENT IN ROAD AND BRIDGE On this the 28th day of February 2005, upon motion made by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Court unanimously approved by a vote 4-0-0, to transfer $383.00 from Line Item No. 15-611-202 Group Insurance to Line Item No. 15-611-480Insurance -Vehicles in Road and Bridge Department. ORDER N0.29069 BUDGET AMENDMENT IN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY On this the 28`h day of February 2005, upon motion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to transfer $8,320.00 from Line Item No. 10-408-108 Part-time Salary; to transfer $519.17 from Line Item No. 10-408-201 FICA Expense; to transfer $490.12 from Line Item No. 10-408-202 Group Insurance to the following:$1,530.79 to Line Item No. 10-408-110 Information System Specialist; $109.97 to Line Item No. 10-408-203 Retirement; $7,688.53 to Line Item No. 10-408-553 Contract Services in Information Technology. ORDER N0.29070 BUDGET AMENDMENT IN KERR COUNTY JUVENILE FACILITY On this the 28~' day of February 2005, upon motion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to declare an emergency to transfer $500,000.00 from Fund 10 Reserve to Fund 76 Juvenile Detention Facility. ORDER N0.29071 LATE BILL TO KERRVILLE POSTMASTER #475 On this the 28th day of February 2005, upon motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0- 0, to pay and issue a hand check in the amount of $990.00 made payable to Kerrville Postmaster #475 for the Kerr County Attorney's office. ORDER N0.29072 LATE BILL TO COOPER EQUIPMENT CO. On this the 28th day of February 2005, upon motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to pay and issue a hand check in the amount of $49,500.00 made payable to Cooper Equipment Co for the 1996 ETNYRE S-2000 Asphalt Distributor and in the amount of $182,398.00 made payable to Cooper Equipment Co. for the 2005 ETNYRE Chipspreader for the Road and Bridge Department. ORDER N0.29073 TO PAY INVOICE # 172729 IN CLAIMS AND ACCOUNTS On this the 28th day of February 2005, upon motion made by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to pay Invoice #172729 in the Claims and Accounts for February 28, 2005.