1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT Regular Session Monday, March 14, 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 I~ O 1 "" 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 '" 2 4 25 z I N D E X March 14, 2005 --- Commissioners' Comments 1.1 Contract for attorney expenses in lieu of full-time employee 1.2 Consider policy related to transfer of Kerr County employees from one job position to another 1.4 Consider whether changing classifications of roads in Big Sky Ranch Subdivision would require replat 1.3 Annual Report of the Kerr County Historical Commission for 2003 and 2004 1.5 Consider Preliminary Plat for Audubon Place 1.8 Presentation of programs to be offered at the Kerr County Juvenile Detention Facility 1.6 Receive and Open Bids for Flat Rock Lake 1.7 Open Annual Bids for road base material, cold mix, black base, trap rock aggregate, asphalt emulsion oil, corrugated metal pipe, & equipment by the hour with operator 1.9 Consider adopting vehicle usage Log for the Juvenile Detention Facility 1.10 Consider contracts between Kerr County Juvenile Detention Facility and outside entities 1.11 Approve for signature contract for services with Hill Country Council on Alcohol & Drug Abuse 1.12 Authorization to use vending machine proceeds to support cost of field trips for residents with staff, resident clothing & hygiene products, and other resident-related items 1.13 Consider hiring juvenile detention officer with 8 years experience at a grade/step of 12-4 rather than entrance level of 12-1 1.19 Consider approving Airport Code, which includes Rules & Regulations, Minimum Operating Standards 4.1 Pay Bills 4.2 Budget Amendments 4.3 Late Bills 4.4 Approve and Accept Monthly Reports 5.1 Reports from Commissioners/Liaison Committee Assignments --- Adjourned PAGE 4 6 9 23 29 40 42 67 68 76 79 85 90 94 109 121 123 133 134 137 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 On Monday, March 14, 2005, at 9:00 a.m., a regular meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in the Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, Kerrville, Texas, and the following proceedings were had in open court: P R O C E E D I N G S JUDGE TINLEY: Let me call to order the meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court scheduled for this time and date, Monday, March the 14th, 2005, at 9 a.m. Appears to be that time now. My good friend, Reverend Ted Campbell, is here with us this morning. I've asked him to be here to say a few words for us. (Prayer and pledge of allegiance.) JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thanks, Ted. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Reverend. Appreciate you being here this morning. 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 listed on the agenda, we'd ask that you come forward at this time. If you want to be heard on a listed agenda item, we'd ask that you fill out a participation form. It's not absolutely essential, but it helps me to keep up with who wants to speak on what item so that I won't miss you. But if there's anyone that wishes to be heard on a -- on an item that's not listed on the agenda, please come forward at this time. Seeing no one moving 3-19-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 4 towards the front, we'll move on. Commissioner Baldwin, what do you have for us this morning? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Zero. JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Williams? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just going to note that -- Commissioner 4, it's only fitting, I guess, that the first Big 12 title that our university won was a Title IX women's team win. Congratulations to them. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: A lot of fun, too. JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Commissioner Letz? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have a few things this morning. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: On Saturday, I participated with a needs assessment program put on by the Comfort Area Foundation, which is part of the Hill Country Foundation, and just kind of an overall needs assessment of Comfort. One of the things that became apparent out of that is the -- the rapid growth of Comfort into Kerr County, and how that is going to have an ongoing -- more and more impact on our government here. Rusty's very much aware of it, I think, already, that the -- there's a number of, you know, 1 4 n 5 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 rodeo arenas and other things going on, and subdivisions in Kerr County. Falling Water Subdivision is primarily in Kerr County; The Reserve right next to it, which has a number of very upper-end homes under construction in Kerr County, so from a law enforcement standpoint, clearly, there's an issue. EMS is an issue, infrastructure. There's probably going to be a request -- I'm not sure how we're going to get involved with it, really, but the Kendall County Water District Number 1 is probably going to want to expand into Kerr County, provide sewer and water service into Kerr County, so I think that that's -- and they have, I believe, the ability to do that. But there's just a lot going on in that part of -- eastern part of the county. Which, you know, we've always had a lot of residents in the eastern part of the county, but all of a sudden, we're starting to have more city-type residents, more urban issues. I think that's going to become something we're going to have to work with and -- you know, not necessarily this year, but probably in the next five to ten years. A lot more of an area where we have to spend money, bottom line. That's it. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Commissioner Nicholson? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Judge, over the east few years, I occasionally have an opportunity to -- to see our EMS in action, and that occurred again Sunday morning in 3-14-OS 6 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Hunt Methodist Church. There was a medical emergency; an elderly woman had a stroke, and our First Responder was there within just -- probably three or four minutes. The Sheriff was there and the Kerrville EMS was there very quickly. It's really good to see that -- that we can get -- get that kind of service out there in the hinterlands pretty quickly. That's all I've got. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. The -- I don't know if any of you have been out by the Youth Exhibit Center, commonly known as the Ag Barn. The new roof is complete, I'm told. The new heat and A/C system for the exhibit center is in place. The facade has been modified to take into account that transition, and it really, really looks nice. I urge you to go out and take a look. It really looks good. Those are -- those are your tax dollars that were spent out there, and I think a good job was done. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And we'll get a good test probably tomorrow when the rains come. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Or all this week. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's move into the agenda. First item on the agenda is contract for attorney expenses in lieu of full-time employee, and the County Attorney asked that this item be placed on the agenda. MR. EMERSON: Morning, gentlemen. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Morning. 3 1 4- U S 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 7 MR. EMERSON: The presentation that I have this morning is pursuant to the report that I submitted for the monthly basis and what was presented to this Court before as far as laying off an Assistant County Attorney. What I would like is authorization from the Court to pursue a contract for a part-time, by-the-hour attorney to cover -- basically cover the state mental health docket, and that's all that I would envision at this time. From talking to John Rowlett out there, even if the facility gears back up to full bed capacity, I do not anticipate more than $1,500 a month maximum, and I would like authorization from this Court to pursue a limited contract on an hourly basis with a local attorney to cover that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval for the County Attorney to pursue a contract on an hourly basis for an attorney to handle the mental health docket. Is that a correct statement of what you're asking for? MR. EMERSON: Yes, Your Honor. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any question or discussion on that? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm, of course, in favor of doing this. It's a good plan, but I'm not sure 3-19-US 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 8 that the attorney requires our approval if he's got budgeted funds. COMMISSIONER LETZ: He doesn't have budgeted funds. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Oh, he'd have to move them from full-time to -- okay. MR. EMERSON: If I may comment, there's actually a budget amendment that's been submitted -- that I believe the Auditor submitted to shift funds from the salary line to contract. JUDGE TINLEY: It's part of our budget amendments in our -- in our agenda today. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Only -- JUDGE TINLEY: Any further -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Only comment I have, I mean, I don't -- the way the motion's worded, it's limited to mental health. I would really -- you know, I'd just as soon let it be "as needed." I mean, I can see some real estate transaction come up that maybe he just needs to hire on outside counsel. Rather than have to come to the court every time if -- if something does come up, you know, give the discretion to the County Attorney up to a dollar amount, would be my preference. But -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that acceptable to you? I'll amend the motion. 3-19-OS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 9 MR. EMERSON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: As needed, as opposed to limiting it to mental health. JUDGE TINLEY: Second? Is that acceptable, Commissioner Baldwin? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any further question or discussion? All in favor of that motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (NO response.) JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Thank you. MR. EMERSON: Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: The next item on the agenda is to consider and discuss policy related to transfer of Kerr County employees from one job position to another. Commissioner Letz? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I put this on the agenda after our discussion last week, and not having a complete meeting of the minds between all elected officials as to what our policy is or should be, I think we kind of set it -- what it is at our last meeting, and I put I back on the agenda, and I believe the Treasurer has looked at it and 3-19-0° 10 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 G1 22 23 kind of has some input as well. MS. NEMEC: If you'll take one and pass it, please? Thank you. I had talked to Kathy last week and told her I would have a couple of options for you all to look at, and so that you would all be able to choose from. But after looking at everything and considering everything, I kind of just felt that this one that I'm offering is the fairest way to do it. So, this is what I'm recommending. If you'll look at the second page, under Pay Scale, Section C, what I am proposing -- and if anyone wants copies, I've got an extra one here -- is to keep C, "When an employee leaves a position, no new hire may be employed at a higher classification than Step 1 of the group to which the position belongs without prior approval of Commissioners Court." Now, then it goes on to say -- and I'm proposing that we delete this language and add the language that I have on the front page. "Transfers, even if within the same department, are new hires for purposes of this requirement. The fact that there may be surplus funds in that salary line item is not authorization to hire at a higher step than authorized by this paragraph." I am proposing that we delete that and insert -- the first sentence is the same that we have on C, and the second sentence starts with, "An 24 employee..." 25 Are y'all there? Can y'all find that? "An 3-19-0` 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 11 employee who transfers to another position within the county shall keep all longevity increases earned. An employee who transfers to another position within the county shall not be allowed to transfer any prior merit increases they may have earned in their current position." And that, to me, is because when they earn a merit increase, they earn it for that position that they're in. When you earn longevity, you've earned it because you've been with the County so many years and so on, and we have that in a policy already stated as to how they earn that. However, when you transfer to another position, I don't feel that you should transfer your merits that you have earned in a current position into that new position. So, what that would mean is that anyone that wanted to transfer, then, would just have to go back and see what -- how many positions -- or steps they've earned in merit and how many were longevity, and they would just be allowed to keep their longevity steps, not their merit. And that's just open for discussion; see whatever y'all think about it. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So that would mean that an employee who may accept another position in another department. who may have earned merit increases over the term of his or her employment for a period of time, if they were to accept the new position, they, in effect, would be taking a cut in pay. 3 19-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 12 MS. NEMEC: Now, if -- if it would mean a cut in pay, then -- then no, I wouldn't think that that would -- usually when they accept another position, they go from a 15 to a 19, so they wouldn't -- they're already going to be higher than that. Now, in cases -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well -- MS. NEMEC: -- where that would happen, then we'd have to -- we'd have to look at that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Looking at your language, there are two elements involved in the transfer. An employee -- assuming -- assuming that the person is qualified. MS. NEMEC: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The longevity that that person had earned up to the point of the transfer and any merits that person may have earned for meritorious service to Kerr County, you're saying that the employee can keep the longevity, but loses the merit. MS. NEMEC: Well, I mean -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That means the employee may take a cut in pay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- but what the Treasurer's policy would say is, in this situation, come back to the Court to make a decision. I mean, that's -- I mean, I personally, you know, agree with the policy as -i9-us 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 presented. I think it is a fair -- it's -- I mean, I think most people, when they take a transfer, are going to a higher level. You know, it's a promotion to them or they're doing something different; it's a choice they're making. And, you know, it's like, why would a merit increase -- I don't see why a merit increase would necessarily go with that. You know, it doesn't make sense to me. I don't see the logic behind it. Longevity makes real good sense to me, because they're -- I mean, they're not starting over in the county, They're still County employees. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The merit -- the merit is related to the prior position. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Fight. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Not to the new position. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. And the longevity is any -- doesn't matter where you are in the county. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You could argue that the merit -- the merit is related to the employee's performance. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And to the old position. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. In whatever position, yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I think the -- 3-19-^5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 14 MS. NEMEC: If an employee -- for instance, if it was my employee, and I had given my employee two step merit increases for a job well done in -- in her position, and then she transfers to another position, if -- if that employee is not losing any money -- and, again that's -- that's when they have to make the decision, do they want to transfer or not? If that employee is not losing any money, then she's earned merit in doing the duties of the County Treasurer's payroll position, not a merit in the District Clerk's Office, for example. It would be up to the District Clerk if -- she would keep her longevity, but it would be up to the District Clerk to give her the merits that she earns in that position. And, you know, this is just something that I came up with. I mean, you know, I think once we all start discussing it, we can come up with something better if -- if need be, but this is just where I thought we'd start. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Barbara, how -- on the longevity side, we've had the policy that we have in place that you get the longevity increases in three years? MS. NEMEC: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Three years. MS. NEMEC: For your first year, and then every three years after that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, I mean, how many -- when we went -- when we started that policy, we went back 3-ia-u~ 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ~4 25 and people that had been here -- did we -- I can't remember. MS. NEMEC: What we did -- what we did there was, when we started the policy, any employee who had been given an adjustment in their pay, that's when we started that employee. Anyone who had been moved up or been reclassified did not get the longevity, because they had already -- we felt at that time that they had already been put where they should be. The people that got longevity were the ones that their pay was not changed at all -- was not affected at all at that time, so they got the one-year. And then after that is when it started, every first year from that time, and I`d have to look up the date on that. And then we went every three years and every one year, and it's just been on like that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But -- so there are no employees that have more than a two-grade longevity increase at this point? MS. NEMEC: No. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because we've only been -- maybe three years at the most with the policy. MS. NEMEC: Right. You know, coming up this next budget year, I think employees are getting their seven-year. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. But, you know, it will -- this policy will work more for the future, really. -i9-os 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 Just a note. I don't -- I mean, if we adopt this, we have to undo what we did last meeting. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm glad you asked that question. I'm getting ready to ask, how does that apply to what we've done in the past? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it needs to be, I think, retroactive to this year. I think you have to treat the year the same. You can't -- you know, 'cause I know we treated one of Paula Rector's employees one way, and we treated one of Judge Ragsdale's employees a different way last week -- at our last meeting, and I don't think that's fair to do -- you know, do that. I think we need to be consistent and just go back to the first of the year and adjust them. I think the only one that is going to be a possibly downward adjustment is the one we did with Judge Ragsdale's employee at our last meeting, 'cause I believe we left that person at a Grade 4, I believe. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm not going to feel very good about -- MS. NEMEC: That's going to -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- approving a certain salary level for that job and then going back two weeks later and say, "Deal's off." COMMISSIONER LETZ: 1 don't think it's fair for us, though, to set a policy that we have Ms. Rector's 3- 1 9- O S 17 1 Z 3 4 5 h 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ~0 21 22 23 24 25 employee and didn't do it, and gave -- I mean, for the same exact argument, and gave an increase that we're not giving one of those employees. So I think you have -- it has to be consistent. And, you know, that's what, you know, was brought up at our last meeting when we made that decision. MS. NEMEC: There have been several employees, I believe, since January -- and maybe from December, from this budget year -- that have been transferred and have kept their longevity and their merit. I only know of one, which was in Ms. Rector's office, that was not given that. And I think if we just know that we have a policy -- we have a policy moving forward. But to be consistent with what we've started doing in October through today -- or through the last court date, it would be fair to move Ms. Rector's employee up that one step that wasn't given to her, and then start fresh from here on. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That makes more sense than trying to bring somebody down. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't have a problem with that, as long as we're consistent. MS. NEMEC: And, you know, we can try this, and when -- when a situation comes up, we'll see where the numbers fall and how it works with what Commissioner Williams is saying. And I understand what he's saying. We just have to work with it and see how it -- how it works. 3-14-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 18 And maybe this is a -- a test, and we can kind of work with this till September, and might have to adjust it for the next budget year, I don't know. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It may never be applicable, but it could. MS. NEMEC: Right. Exactly. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Probably will be. MS. NEMEC: Yeah. Because, like, in these cases, they've jumped from, like, 15's to 19's, and they're not losing any money, but if someone jumps from a 12 to a 15 and they're at a 12-8 and they come back at a 15, and we have to look and take all their merits that they've earned, you know, that might -- that might happen, what you're talking about. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. MS. NEMEC: I can see that happening. And maybe I should add on here, as long as they don't lose -- as long as there's not a reduction in their pay. This policy applies as long as there's not a reduction in their pay. Should a reduction in pay occur, then we'd have to bring it to Commissioners Court for discussion at that time. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that's already pretty much in the language; if the elected official or department head wants to bring it to court, it's brought to the Court, I'll make a motion that we adopt the new 3-19-n5 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 2~ personnel policy as presented, and all employees that have had increases up to this date, this budget year, will receive both a merit and longevity grade increase. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And that last statement, you're just dealing with one employee? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think just one, but if there's another one somewhere -- I don't know what we did with Ms. Decker. I know she had some transfers, and I can't remember what we did exactly with those. Didn't you have one, Linda? MS. DECKER: One of mine went to the County Attorney`s office -- I mean to County Court at Law. MS. NEMEC: I believe when I submitted for my employee, I did not give her her merit increases that she had; I brought her in at a lower step. So, if we're going to go back, then I'd need to adjust hers also one step. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN; When was that? MS. NEMEC: Couple of months ago. In January, 'cause I hired her January 1. COMMISSIONEP, BALDWIN; Well, there's two. Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Any further question or discussion? Ms. Decker, did you have a comment you wish to make? MS. DECKER: Well, I'm just trying to 3-14-US 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 zo understand this. And based on what Commissioner Williams said, a lot of -- a merit is based on performance, so -- and because of performance, like in my employee's case, you know, she was offered a position in another -- in another spot. And, you know, when Judge Brown came in here and said, okay, because of this person's performance, I want to hire her at a -- whatever the step is -- 19, not as a 19-1, but as a 19-3 and -4. And what I fear is that we're going to still continue to make exceptions, which is not fair to the rule. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Perform -- MS. UECKER: In other words -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Performance rule. MS. UECKER: Right. Because if you are going to say, okay, if it -- if it reduces a salary, we're not going to do it, well, that's not fair either. Now, I don't want to see anybody's salary reduced, but if you're going to set a rule, then it's a rule, regardless if the salary goes up or down. 'Cause if you do that, then it's not fair to that person who happened to go into a higher position, but didn't get the same increase because the salary didn't go down. COMMISSIONER LETZ: 7 agree with what Linda's saying. I -- and I like the way it is, and I think that, you know, I'd have to look at the situation whether I'd go 3-19-05 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 a]onq with the -- giving the merit increase, 'cause there could be a reason. I mean, the employee may just not like working for Linda and may want to go work for somebody else and be willing to take a pay cut to go do that. MS. UECKER: Yeah, but based on this, if she doesn't -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know all your employees love working for you MS. UECKER: Like -- well, whoever. It doesn't matter. I mean, if one of my employees doesn't like working for me and decides to qo, you know, over here and work for Rusty -- or, no, he's making more -- Paula. Work for Paula. Then -- but because of that, she may -- she or he may get a decrease, it's not fair because they made that choice. MS. NEMEC: So they should just lose their merit completely? MS. UECKER: They made the choice. MS. NEMEC: That's true. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- MS. NEMEC: That's where I was coming from on this. It's up to them. They'll see what -- the new position that they're applying for, they'll see by the -- by this policy where it's going to put them, and it's their choice. -ia-us 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. DECKER: But you said up there -- you said up there we should not -- you know, we should come back to the Court, and we shouldn't -- no employee should give up any money. MS. NEMEC: Well, based on what Commissioner Williams' concern was. But -- but, really, what you're saying is correct. They -- they know where they're at. They know that the policy states that they keep their longevity increases, so they see what the new position is and what it pays, and if they're going to lose money, then that's their choice to take it or not take it. MS. DECKER: As long as we don't come in here next month again and make an exception for Road and Bridge or the Sheriff's Department. MR. ODOM: Leave Road and Bridge out of this. (Laughter.) COMMISSIONER LETZ: Leonard's sitting over there quiet. MR. ODOM: I haven't said a thing. MS. NEMEC: And I agree with Linda. You know, this is -- if this is the policy, this is the policy. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think this policy is fairer than it was before, and I think it's -- I like it. That's my motion. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion and second. Any 3 19-OS 23 1 G 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 further question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (Commissioners Baldwin, Letz, and Nicholson voted in favor of the motion.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed? (Commissioner Williams voted against the motion.) JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Next item on the agenda, we'll go to Item 4, consider whether changing the classification of roads in Big Sky Ranch Subdivision in Volume 7, Page 281 and 282, would require a replat, located in Precinct 9. MR. ODOM: Good morning. JUDGE TINLEY: Good morning, sir. MR. ODOM: Good morning, Judge. What we have, recently Big Sky Ranch Subdivision final plat was recently approved for the roads to be county-maintained after one year, and that is in Precinct 4 that we're talking about off what they call Lower Reservation; used to be Tatsch Road there. However, the developers have now -- are now interested in making it a gated community, and want to know if they will have to replat, or if they can just make the appropriate notations on the final plat showing the roads will be privately maintained. We'd certainly encourage them to be privately maintained if they wish to do that, but I felt like we needed to go to court. We've -- we 3-14-~~~ 5 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 already have a final plat. What would be that direction? Because I need to give that to them. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No road locations changing? MR. ODOM: Nothing's changed. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just the verbiage? MR. ODOM: Just the verbiage is to be privately maintained. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Have we -- we have approved the final plat? MR. ODOM: We have approved the final plat to be county accepted for maintenance. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do we -- are we required to do another public hearing? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think you almost have to abandon the road. We've accepted them once, and they're currently county roads. I think we'd have to do a public -- abandon them, not do any other road. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I asked the County Clerk's opinion on it, and it was her opinion that we just need a court authorization to change the plat to reflect that they're privately maintained roads. It's not the final say on it, but that's the one opinion I did get. JUDGE TINLEY: I see the County Attorney 3 19-OS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 L1 ~~ 23 24 25 25 making some notes there. That might be an appropriate source for an answer. MR. ODOM: Now, the only thing, if you don't put -- if it's missed when they go into it, someone could buy it under the auspice that the original plat says it's maintained. And I don't know; I don't have the answer right now. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Plats are real bad places to keep notes about roads. I think we need a public hearing. And I don't think it's that big of a deal, I mean, for the developer -- I mean, we can do it when we do our quarterly, you know, public hearing. I don't think we need to run a special one on this one, unless they wanted us to. MR. ODOM: We'll be coming up to this. I guess we could put it in for abandonment and then set a public hearing, but would they go through the preliminary plat again? Or just bring it back after public hearing for a final plat? COMMISSIONER LETZ: The plat stays the way it is, and we just have a court order to abandon the road for county maintenance. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay, I'm going to move that we set a public hearing for 10 a.m, on April 25th to consider approving the change in classification of the roads in Big Sky Ranch Subdivision from county maintained to 3 19-OS 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 privately maintained. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to set a public hearing. Any question or discussion? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I do have a question. Leonard, when's your -- when was the quarterly public hearing going to be held? MR. ODOM: We're going to come to you with that list this month, and then set that date probably for April sometime, so the April 25th sounds like that might -- I think our next meeting is -- JUDGE TINLEY: 28th. MR. ODOM: -- the 28th of this month, so it will be 30 days from that time. So -- I don't know if that 25th -- I don't know how that falls. Is that -- would that be acceptable if it's -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 25th is more than 30 days from now. MR. ODOM: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, my question is, is the developer in a real hurry for this? And if not, if we could wait and do it the first -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The developer's here. MS. KRAUSE: Yeah, we're here. -14-US 27 1 G 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: It saves the County a little bit of money if we don't have to do a separate public hearing, if we can roll it into the standard quarterly public hearing. MR. ODOM: And we are -- that's where we'll be coming with road changes, name signs, stuff like that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that would be -- that's acceptable? So it will be, like, the first meeting, then, of May. MS. KRAUSE: That's fine. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's fine? Save a couple hundred dollars. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think you can -- you can probably be assured, from what you're hearing here, that it will be approved, but -- but it won't be formally done until May. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And just a question. Have any of the lots been sold? MS. KRAUSE: No. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. If -- and the reason is, if lots are sold, they need to get a written notification of public hearing. But if there's none sold -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So we really don't need a motion on this? We're just going to -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we need the 3-19-GS 1 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 motion to include it with the standard -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'll change that motion to include it with the quarterly hearing. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That will be on May 9th? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. JUDGE TINLEY: That's the second Monday in May. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, second Monday? COMMISSIONER LETZ: The first Monday. MR. ODOM: First Monday in May. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: May 9th? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The first meeting in May -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- is May 9th. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. That's the second Monday. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's what we said. JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So I change the motion to hold a public hearing on May 9th at 10 a.m. JUDGE TINLEY: Who offered the second? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I seconded it, and I offer that modification -- or accept that modification. 3-14-05 2g 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 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. We have a timed item at this time, at 9:30, being Item 3 on the agenda, and that is an annual report of Kerr County Historical Commission for the years '03 and '04. General Walter Schellhase. Good morning, sir. MR. SCHELLHASE: Morning, Judge, Commissioners. I come to you this morning to present an annual report for 2003 and 2009. And as I took over the chairmanship this year, I found that these reports had not been filed by the previous chairman, so therefore I incorporated these two reports together, and I can assure you that in December of this year, per our bylaws, I will have the report for 2005 for you. So, this is an update for the two-year period of time, along with the membership, the leadership, and the activities. Our membership at this time is 21, as presented in the report. And the officers for this year are myself, chairman. First vice president was not selected -- I mean first vice president, Haskell Fine. Second vice president was not selected. Ray Haney is the i-;4-OS 30 1 ,w 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2 L 23 ."' 2 4 25 Treasurer, and Lew Williams is the secretary. In the Major activities during this period of time are covered in the report. I'll just hit the highlights. The markers, of course, remains a main activity for the Commission. We now stand with h0 in the county. To support that program, we publish a bror_hure annually or as needed. The brochures, usually we print 5,000 a year. We present it to the Visitor's Bureau and other places in town so that people throughout the county and visitors will know where all these markers are. As you can see from the report, we have quite a few markers in the process. The process has been taking somewhere in the neighborhood of two years to get a marker, from the time that someone submits the application to the Commission, we process the application, get the items printed, get the approval from the State, get the money from the person that's buying the marker -- because they are rather expensive now; they cost about $1,500 -- and then by the time the State awards that program, we're in about a two-year period of time. One of the main activities during the past year, of course, has been the Union Church building. We have spent some money on that building to do the things that -19-ns r ~ ~~ r 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 l °- 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 "` 2 4 25 31 have not been included in the original contract, such as a sound system has been installed. We had a problem on the north side of the building with water on the main door. We built a canopy over the side for the handicapped ramp. Those funds that we did not have were raised by the Friends, so that's been finished. We still have a little bit to do on the sound system, but we'll be finished shortly. Collection -- collector's plates were done for the Union Church building, and those have been selling rather slow. We still have about 50 of them to sell, but that was a fundraising project, and that'll be ongoing. Two main projects that were worked on the past two years and will continue into 2005 are the GPS locations for the markers and for the county cemeteries. That was a state program that was initiated several years back. We're now in the process of finishing that up, and we will finish that in 2005. The majority of that work has been done by John and Rosa Lavender in their spare time. They've been seeking out all of these markers and cemeteries and giving us the GPS location. Several years back, we did prepare a map of all the cemeteries within the county, so those locations will be put on that map and then submitted to the State to meet our part of that requirement. The calendar project has been one that's been ongoing for several years. It was a fundraising project initially. We ~ - 1 9 n 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .a- 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2 2 23 "' 2 4 25 32 found that the calendars have become more and more difficult to sell, so in 2005 there will not be a historical calendar. The competition has been too severe. The newspaper gives them away; the bank gives them away, so it's been rather difficult to carry that program on. Oral history. Big part of the Commission's work. Very, very time-consuming, and not enough people to do it, and not enough money to hire people. But this program is one that the -- the Commissioners ought to have great interest in. During the past two years during the period of this process -- report, we've lost somewhere in the neighborhood of 30 people that were on our list that we hoped to get interviews from, oral history, and record that document. Which they have passed on, so that history's been lost. That program includes the fact that we do an interview with the individual, video and audio. We then have to transcribe that onto a written document, and this is all by state procedures. We then present that back to the individual to proof it and make sure that we have prepared what they said -- they thought they said. We also collect all the photographs that they may have in their collection. We take those photographs and transform them into C.D.'s. The audio is then also put on the C.D., and those C.D,'S and the written documents are put in a ring binder, of which we now have 37 totally complete. We have 10 in the process of ~-i9 ~~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 L 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 33 being done. I think by the time we finish what we now have on the books, interviews done, we'll have about 50 in our collection. The question is, what do we do with all these? And that was addressed two years ago when I made the presentation to you people -- or the Commissioners at that time, that how do -- how do we deal with these now that we have them? We now have them in the building in the back of the history library, the little two-story building which the City -- or the Library Board has allowed us to use. That building is not air-conditioned or heated, It had a severe water damage about a year ago. All the sheetrock has been removed off of those walls that were damaged downstairs, and therefore we do not have the room to do the interviews -- interviews that we were doing and record video tapes. We have a proposal that we would like the Commissioners to consider. It's the use of the second floor of the history building itself. This has not been finished; however, it is air-conditioned and heated, so it would be a -- a good place for us to display these documents, make them available to the public. In addition to that, as y'all know, we still occupy the building in the basement of the courthouse. That building is grossly inadequate. It's more kind of like a morgue, so we say, which we do have all these documents and artifacts buried. It would be an opportunity to move those 3-19 OS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 34 out of that building here in the courthouse and put them in a spot where they could be used and displayed. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN; Walter? Walter, what -- what were you saying about -- the second floor of what? I missed that. MR. SCHELLHASE: The history center. The Kerr History Center, which is the building next door to the library. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The City bought -- or City got it -- JUDGE TINLEY: H.E.B. -- H.E. Butt. MR. SCHELLHASE: The renovation on that did not include anything on the second floor, so it's unfinished on the second floor. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Didn't they put an elevator in that building? MR. SCHELLHASE: Y'es. Yeah, we can get there. You just can't -- it's just not finished. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Once you get there, there's nothing there. MR. SCHELLHASE: It's not being used at this time. Maybe some storage. But, anyway, that's one of the things we're looking at during 2005. We will be carrying on some conversations with the library staff. When we have a 3-19-OS 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 proposal we think is appropriate, we'll bring it back to the Court and to the City to see if that's something that can be worked out. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Walter, on that, I mean, ~t seems that there are probably some grant funds to help finish that out for that use. MR. SCHELLHASE: 7t would appear right now that no one is pursuing those, and so that's one of the reasons. Also, back in the original dedication of that building from the Butt Foundation, there was some discussion of tearing the building down in the back that we're in now, and that gives us some trepidation as to what's going to happen, COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, I mean, it seems -- I mean, it seems like your idea is the logical way to do it. It would be an accessible way to get some of this -- all the work that's been done, these interviews and things, to a place where people can look at them or go through them as they need. So, I mean, I would totally support that concept. I -- and I also support getting grant money to do it. MR. SCHELLHASE: Well, we are probably -- the first place we'd go to is to Friends to -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. MR. SCHELLHASE: -- start some sort of a 3-19-OS 36 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 campaign, and I think also do the -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I'm thinking that -- you know, I don't know how it works; if -- getting access to that space, if the County needs to be involved in an interlocal agreement with the City or what, but anything we need to do, I mean, let me know. I'll be glad to help work on that. MR. SCHELLHASE: Someone -- one of the Commissioners is on the Library Board. Buster? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN; No, I'm not on the Library Board. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Library Board, here. MR. SCHELLHASE: Everybody keeps pointing their fingers in every direction. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I was absent that day. MR. SCHELLHASE: We want to bring it to the Library Board. That will be a topic of discussion. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, typically they do claim not to have a lot of -- of discussion about that. About the only discussion I ever heard maybe exchanged has to do with the genealogy, which I believe occupies -- MR. SCHELLHASE: Genealogy is on the first floor. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: On the first floor. 3-14-OS 37 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 But I never hear anything about the building, outside of the few reports that the Library Director made saying that the building in the ba~~k had been damaged by rain. They never talk much about the building in terms of the library and its -- and its charter. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think part of the reason for that, likely, is that the library is 50/50, and that building's 100 percent City. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: True. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, anyway -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's true in terms of expenses, yeah. MR. SCHELLHASE: That will be one of our projects for 2005. We'll keep the Court posted on that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. MR. SCHELLHASE: In addition, the oral history, as of right now, we're preparing three documents of all of this information. And the reason for three, supposedly there will be one in the library someplace for regular checkout process. We want to maintain one in the history center that -- that will be there for research purposes. And, of course, the Historical Commission itself is keeping a copy so that we can kind of have some insurance that we will have something in the future. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Walter, one more before 3 19-u5 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 38 you leave. That oral history, at some point, can you give us a list of those -- of the 97 -- the 37 that are complete and the 10 other ones? Just an idea as to -- MR. SCHELLHASE: Yes, sure can. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you. MR. SCHELLHASE: The need to convert all of the ones that we have is -- is a -- as I told you, a time-consuming job. To do the interviews for the rest of the people that are on our list, which I think is 92, of people that are in their high 80's or 90's that need to be done, we're going to try to draft up a proposal of some sort that we can address to you -- to the Court as to how this needs to be done. I do not believe that it -- that the Commission -- the Historical Commission has the capability to get these done before these people continue to pass away, so that's going to be a -- a major issue of the 2005 program, is how we address that. The cabinets out here in the courthouse, remember, belong to the courthouse. They were given by the Historical Commission over a 10-year process that it took us to get that done, and the Historical Commission has been puttinq historical stuff in there, but they are for other Commissioners' purpose use also, if they choose to do that. The final request from the Commission is that you approve the membership and the officers, leadership for 3-14-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 2 S 39 the following year, which is the duty of the Court. And we also ask, in the process of doing that, that you consider anyone in your precinct you'd like to see serving on the Historical Commission, 'cause we always have trouble with active membership. Final thing 7'd like to cover is our web site. We developed a web site during X004, which was done by volunteers and is managed by Lloyd Strange. And it's an excellent site with nearly all of our activities that are taking place posted on that site, as well as a link to the C.V.B., the City, and the County, so it makes a good place for people to go find out what's going on in the county. Are there any questions? COMMISSIONER LETZ: We need a motion to accept the membership and a budget? MR. SCHELLHASE: Correct. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion to accept the membership -- COMMISSIONER WILLTAMS: Membership and officers. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All officers and membership. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Officers and membership as presented. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. DODGE TINLEI: Motion made and seconded. Any 3-19-05 40 ' ~. 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 19 20 G1 22 23 24 25 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. General, we thank you for being here. MR. SCHELLHASE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER. NTCHOLSON: Just one comme nt, Judge. That's a -- I looked over that list of members and leaders, and that's a very impressive group of people. I'm reminded there`s a -- there's a lot of talent in Kerr County, and we'll probably have more opportunities to tap into tha t talent than we take advantage of. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I just have one -- followin g up on that, a question in general. Are you -- is there a maximum number of members you can have by the bylaws? MR. SCHELLHASE: A minimum of nine. There's no max, On the board itself, it's nine. There's no max on membership. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: We'll now go to Item 5, consider preliminary plat for Audubon Place, formerly known as Cole Addition, located in Precinct 4. 3-19-OS 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 41 MR. ODOM: Thank you. Two weeks ago we had a concept plan, and at that time the -- I just bring it up to your attention. It is Audubon Place. It was presented to us as Cole Addition, and that was changed, so I asked them to bring a letter to that effect before it went to preliminary plat. You have before you the preliminary plat as well as the drainage on that. It is into four lots with 28.85 acres. The location's in Precinct 4. It is off Goat Creek Road and Wren Road -- actually, off Wren Road, but Wren is off Goat Creek; that is the area we're talking about. The back of the property is the City of Kerrville. It meets all the requirements that we need to, and I -- technically, there's no roads being put in. Just fronting off that property. And I asked them to put that drain in because City of Kerrville's behind it and their ET J, so that we could show what was going there, and in case there were any problems with any people, we basically have it showing where the drainage is going. I have no problems. I ask the Court to accept the preliminary plat of Audubon Place. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I make a motion that the Court accept the preliminary plat of Audubon Place. Need to set a public hearing? COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. MR. ODOM: No. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 3-14-u5 92 1 2 3 4 5 E 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 the preliminary plat. 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. Let's move on to Item 8, if we might; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on programs offered and to be offered at the Kerr County Juvenile Detention Facility. Commissioner Baldwin, you asked that this be placed on the agenda. There's Ms. Harris to make the presentation. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That is correct, sir. And I just want to make a comment, that this item and the next one dealing with the vehicle usage log are a couple of items that I think that needs -- that this Court needs to do. It's -- to me, it's the little things that we need to keep an eye on and keep our finger on the pulse of that creates accountability. If we don't do these things, then we are doing what had been done and caused all the problems. So, I just feel like that these are a couple of items that -- that need to be done as far as this Commissioners Court, to take -- take care of the public's property. MS. HARRIS: Well, I certainly relish the 3-14-OS 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 opportunity to get up and brag on the progress that we've made at the facility, not only in open court, but in a this opportunity to outline the programs that we have out at the facility and the good work that the staff that's out there is doing in making the changes. We still have the behavioral management component, 'cause it is a lock-down secured facility that's registered with Texas Juvenile Probation Commission. The primary focus of that facility and the design of that facility and the concept was for correctional purposes and behavior management, which that still occurs. The correctional component is lined out to -- to incorporate, of course, that there are consequences for actions, both positive and negative, and we do have a level system that is put in place by which residents work through their level program. We have orientation, which is a time period of two weeks, which they do not have contact with outside entities for those two weeks. Then they apply for their freshman level. Their freshman level is for 30 days. Their sophomore level is for 45 days -- excuse me, 35 days. Their junior level is for 45 days, and their senior level, their very last level, is for 56 days. And what we've 5-19-OS 44 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 "' 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 r 24 25 incorporated in this level system is, when they reach their senior -- their final level, as they progress through the level system, of course, there are more behavioral expectations required of them. A shorter amount of tolerance, if you will, for infractions of the rules. In other words, when they're in orientation and freshman, for example, we may give them three or four redirections. As they move through the level system, those number of redirections reduce significantly. We expect their behavior to show more leadership qualities, more positive peer qualities. But they are rewarded in the level system. When they reach their junior level, they're allowed to wear their own clothing. They have to follow our dress code. They have to follow our rules as to the type of clothing; no gang colors, no gang logos, no name-brand clothing, 'cause some name-brand clothing is associated with gang activity, so we do not allow that. And the clothing is screened by ever makes its way to the dorm. And their senior level, Department's permission, they are allowed to go on furloughs with their families. That helps the family and the juvenile to reintegrate together and for the family to understand that the juvenile that was sent there is not behaving in the -i9-os 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 same manner as what they were when they first entered the facility. And there is a psychological and an emotional adjustment that parents and juveniles have to go through in order to, to put it very plainly, get used to one another again, because this juvenile is going to come out with a different behavior in a more positive light. So, we encourage the parents to come. Now, we do have rules. They have to fill out a furlough request, and they have to stay within the city limits of Kerrville. They cannot leave the city limits of Kerrville. We start the -- the furloughs out -- the first one is an 8-hour furlough. The second one is a 12-hour furlough. Then, subsequently, furloughs are 24 hours. The last furlough before they are successfully discharged from the program is a 48-hour furlough. When residents return to the facility, they are drug-screened when they do return. Now, probation officers do have the discretion to deny those juveniles furloughs. If they do not want them to -- to go out on furloughs, we do not allow that. That is a privilege. That's a privilege that we set forth in the facility. Therefore, we can take that away -- that privilege away as we deem fit. Are there any questions about our level system? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You can take away the privilege? Or the probation officer can take away -- 3 i~ os 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 MS. HARRIS: Either one. Either one. Since we establish that privilege, we can take that privilege away if we deem the behavior is not where we think it needs to be. We can -- we can -- in the level system, if a resident petitions and applies for his level, and if his behavior has not depicted that level's expectation of behavior, we can deny that resident his level, which would add time to the end of his placement stay. The same consequence that, if a resident receives his level, if his behavior deteriorates, we can take that level away. We will give him credit for the good days that he earned on that level, but he would have to reapply for that level at a specified time set forth by his counselor, and that extra time adds to the end. So, they know that those levels are not automatic. Staff vote on those levels as well, but the resident does not see that vote. Teachers -- K.I.S.D. teachers vote. Yes? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is the drug screening a urine test? MS. HARRIS: Yes, it is. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: How long does it take to gets the results, and how much does it cost? MS. HARRIS: What we do for the residents, we use those instant results. We know right then and there if -- if the resident used while they were out on furlough. And for -- we order those from Bob Barker. Those are, like, 3 19 OS 47 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 G2 23 24 25 two -- $200, and I cannot remember the number in a case, but it's quite a few number of the little pallets. It's like a litmus test. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. MS. HARRIS: Like a litmus test. And I cannot remember the number that's in the case, but it's a significant number. That lasts us quite a while. We also use that on our preadjudicated residents as well, 'cause it gives us an instant reading whenever the pre's come in. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are you going to go through this? MS. HARRIS: Yes, I am. Yes. That's part of the behavior program that's in here. That's part of the behavior modification program. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just one quick question on the drug test -- the drug screen. MS. HARRIS: Yes? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The method you use, will that tell you what they may have ingested, or just that they have taken a drug? MS. HARRIS: It will identify -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Will it identify what they took? MS. HARRIS: Yes, sir. Yes, sir, it will identify the substance. Our substance abuse program is -- 3 1 ~ 0 5 1 3 9 5 h 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ~~ 23 24 25 48 is designed to address the issues that a resident that comes in diagnosed on their Axis 1 diagnosis in their psychological that they are chemically dependent; they have used drugs in the past and they have a significant substance abuse problem. And our substance abuse counseling, they require one hour of individual substance abuse counseling per week, plus one hour of group per week. This is in addition to their behavior management groups that they receive every day and their behavior counseling that they receive every day, so that's in addition to. The Hill Country Council on Alcohol and Drug Abuse, which will come later in another item, provides the individual counseling, because that has to be done by either a licensed chemical dependency counselor or a licensed professional counselor or an L.C.D.C., if you will, intern. Either one. And the two full-time counselors that we have do not have the proper licensure for the substance abuse counseling and the groups, and so therefore that is what Hill Country Alcohol and Drug Abuse Council would entail. We have also -- I also have included the treatment program for youth with sexual behavior problems. That is our newly created sex offender treatment program. Statistics are showing -- and we did visit with Bexar County -- that they have seen an increase in sexual offender offenses by younger juveniles, and they have seen an 3-19-05 49 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 L2 23 24 25 increase in those cases, as well as substance abuse related cases. And that seems to be what is happening all over the state, is that this is an increasing offense. But it's being done by younger juveniles than what it was in the past; 13, 19-year-olds, sometimes 12-year-olds. This program, we have been very fortunate in that a young lady who has a license for sex offender treatment therapy in North Carolina has gone through her process for the state of Texas to be able to provide sex offender treatment, and she would be able to provide that for us under the supervision of a registered sex offender therapist provider in San Antonio, and she would be under that person's supervision at her cost. And she -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have a question about -- well, my question is -- maybe this is a stupid question, but what is -- what is considered sexual behavior problems? MS. HARRIS: It can be -- it can be a myriad of things, Commissioner. There are times that a juvenile will be adjudicated for a -- a sexual crime. If it's an older teenage boy, he may have had a younger teenage girlfriend. They may have had relations, and the girl's parents objected to that and filed sexual charges -- sexual assault on that young man. And that may be the only ramification of that, and there is no deviant sexual behavior. Now, however, though, there are those sexual 3- 1 9- O S 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 charges -- those sexual cases where it could be a little sister, a little brother, if you will, that this child normally has been sexually abused themselves in the growing-up years, and they are repeating or mimicking or acting out their psychological difficulties. And it may be a neighbor's child; it may be their own sibling, cousin, if you will. And it may be -- I don't want to get too graphic, but it may be showing some signs of some -- of some sexual deviant behavior. It may not actually be the act of sex itself, but other -- other actions. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Any sexual behavior of a minor is kind of what would be -- MS. HARRIS: Yes. Yes. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Pretty broad. Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But all of them have broken the law in one way or another. I mean, we're -- MS. HARRIS: That's true. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're not a La Hacienda type thing. MS. HARRIS: No, no, no, no, no. These things have been through the juvenile justice system, yes. They have committed crimes of one type or another. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Could they -- I mean, would they -- say they were just kind of bad behavior. MS. HARRIS: Yes. 3 19 OS 51 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2L 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And it became apparent that part of that -- that they also had some sexual problems. MS. HARRIS: Yes. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do they get admitted even though -- or can they be admitted into a sexual behavior program -- do they have to be -- the criminal act in sexual behavior, or could it be just, you know, robbery, and then they had this problem come up? MS. HARRIS: How that can occur is, the only way that a kid would qualify to be in -- into the sexual offender treatment program is that they were diagnosed off their psychological evaluation prior to coming to the facility -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. MS. HARRIS: -- as having a sexual acting out diagnosis. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. MS. HARRIS: That would be the only way that they would be put in this program. COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. MS. HARRIS: Otherwise, they would be put into our general corrections program. COMMISSIONER. LETZ: Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But all of that has -14-n5 52 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ]0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 gone before a juvenile judge prior to whoever seeing -- MS. HARRIS: That's correct. That's correct, prior. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's part of the -- MS. HARRIS: Yes. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- adjudication process? MS. HARRIS: That's correct. Because the psychological evaluations have to be done prior to placing the juvenile with us. That is our reviewing instrument by which we look to see if the child is even appropriate for our facility. And -- and we look at that, and then we know what avenue to direct that child Ln. And, yes, the judge will put that in the court order, yes. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: My whole point here today is for this Court to give permission to her to do these programs, even though they're up and running, or goinq to be running soon. I would -- and the substance abuse program, just in the back of my mind, back in December, maybe January, when we were approving some things dealing with the Juvenile Detention Facility, that was kind of included. So, to me, it seems like that we have approved the substance abuse program. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I recall that. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: As far as this Court ~-i9-us 53 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1L 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 approving and giving permission for -- for the program to today? MS. HARRIS: Well, then I might want to bring to the Court's attention that we are starting negotiations or con -- or conversations with the Kerr County Juvenile Probation Department and also the Adult Probation Department about doing a collaborative county probation department community service project by which our kids, the Juvenile Probation Department's kids and the Adult Probation Department probationers, can give back to the community in the form of community service. Consequently, you cannot mix juveniles and adult probationers. They would -- what we're looking at is doing a probation community garden at the facility. We have spoken with some people that are willing to make some donations. We have spoken with some different community entities by which they could use our kids, like cleaning up the park, painting park benches, things of that nature. The adult probationers perhaps would do the heavy work and getting the garden prepared; that would be their portion, and then the juvenile kids working off their 3-14-OS 54 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ~~ 23 24 25 community service would do, you know, the planting and the weeding and the harvesting of the vegetables. And we would donate vegetables to nursing homes and things of that nature. But also, especially in the summertime, that we would take our senior level kids, not anything under a senior level, also under the supervision of our staff, to different community service projects by which they would give back to the community. As a matter of fact, they have a meeting -- if the Court approves me to move forward with that program, I -- I have a meeting with the Juvenile Probation Department tomorrow. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the only -- and I think you were saying this, but to make sure I understand, I would be in support of doing that, but I'm not sure I want -- would be in favor of kids that come in from outside counties mingling with Kerr County kids in Kerr County, you know, probation that aren't in the facility. I'd rather keep -- and the reason is, I think the kids talk, and there's no need to -- in my mind, to expand some of that communication. I mean, are they going -- is the intent to keep kids from the facility in one group, and the other -- you know -- MS. HARRIS: That was the intent, because there is a T.J.P.C. standard by which you cannot mingle probation kids that are not incarcerated -- 3-14 OS 55 1 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: Okay. MS. HARRIS: -- with kids that are serving their probation time in an incarcerated setting. And it would have to be our kids that are placed with us. It would have to be in the court order that they would be allowed to work off any community service that the Judge would impose on that resident. COMMISSIONER LETZ: As long as they're kept -- you know, the facility kids are kept as a unit, I don't have a problem with it. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me ask Commissioner Baldwin a question. Commissioner, is it your intent that the Court approve all of these -- I count some 25 all together -- programs that are -- it's your thought that the Court approve -- give a stamp of approval to all 25 of the programs offered? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I haven't seen 25. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I counted all these, plus these five right here, counted all these on these three pages. And that's auxiliary programs, the individualized programs, and the three major, plus these that are listed on this second sheet. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask you a question. The auxiliary programs, does another county pay Kerr County for that program? ?-ia-n` 56 1 2 3 4 5 F 7 8 9 10 ]1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 MS. HARRIS: I'm sorry, I'm not understanding your question. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You have a brochure here, Auxiliary Program. MS. HARRIS: Yes. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And one of the things here that the Commissioner from Precinct 2 is talking about is auxiliary programs. MS. HARRIS: That's in -- those auxiliary programs are included in our -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What about the individualized programs? Same? MS. HARRIS: Yes. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And -- no. Actually, all -- I'm going to make a motion that we approve the -- the sexual behavior program. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And the rest of them are just kind of every -- day-to-day operations, the way I see it. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. I just wanted to know where you are. JUDGE TINLEY: Community service would be an additional one, too, if I'm hearing what she's saying. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If that's -- I had s-ia-os 57 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 previously - - we had talked about it previously, so I'm kind of up on it. If y'all feel comfortable with doing it -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Pursuing that, yeah. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- it's fine with me. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, do you want to go ahead and do one at a time? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I do. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll second the first motion. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. The -- move for approval for the youth with sexual behavioral problems, as outlined in -- in this treatment program in my hand. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I already seconded that. Okay. DODGE TINLEY: You seconded it? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, twice. JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Motion made and seconded for approval of the sexual offender treatment program. Any further question or discussion on that motion? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. I need some more information about what I'm voting on. MS. HARRIS: Okay. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I've got this one-page document that says Programs. Do I understand that we -- these are three basic programs, and these 3 19-GS 58 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 individualized programs and auxiliary programs are part of these three basic -- MS. HARRIS: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. They support those three major programs, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. Now, on the sexual offender program, we do not currently have such a program? MS. HARRIS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We're proposing to -- MS. HARRIS: That's correct. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: -- to begin that capability? MS. HARRIS: Yes. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And have one. So, do I understand that if, currently, a child that is sent to be incarcerated and they need sexual offender program treatment, and they're a Kerr County child, then they're going to be sent somewhere else? MS. HARRIS: Yes, sir. They would have to be, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, this would give us the capability of providing treatment for our children and other -- MS. HARRIS: Correct. 3-19-GS 59 1 G 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: And others? How much is this going to cost us, adding t his program? MS. HARRIS: Adding this program? That will -- she is going to be charging $45 an hour for this. Right no w, there would be t wo juveniles that would be suited for her program. COMMISSIONER LETZ: $45 for how much time? MS. HARRIS: For one hou r of individual counseling per week. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, per week. So it's $45 per week -- MS. HARRIS: Per hour. COMMISSIONER LETZ: About how much would -- I guess the idea is, how much is it -- well, two questions to follow up on Commissioner Nicholson's. About how many hours a week would the -- if there is such a thing as an average kid require? And, two, is that billed to the county? MS. HARRIS: No, that's our service. That's our counseling service. That's part of our treatment program. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So we'll pay -- we get a kid from Bexar County -- MS. HARRIS: Yes. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- and we're paid "X" dollars, a formula that's partially determined by the 3 19 OS 60 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1L 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 G1 22 23 24 25 State, and we apply off of that. So this is going to be -- the additional cost of this will not -- this will be a direct cost to Kerr County? MS. HARRIS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. MS. HARRIS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And what, typically, we get around $2,500, $3,000 a month, something on that order, to house a child here? MS. HARRIS: Per child? At $83 a day, times 30 -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 2,500. COMMISSIONER LETZ: 2,500. MS. HARRIS: Yes, 2,500. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, any potential savings to us for having this program would result from not having to send one of our children to another facility? MS. HARRIS: That's correct, and plus you're going to get referrals from other counties, since this is an increasing population. And I know -- I know where you're -- what you're thinking, and you're absolutely -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Not spending any more money? MS. HARRIS: We put it in -- I put it in the budget that y'all approved for this treatment program, i9 os 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 61 because I was seeing where we were heading for this, and I could see where this was going to be a viable thing, and I could see where it was going to be feasible to -- to get this individual to do the treatment. Because persons of her licensure and experience are few and far between for sex offender treatment; they're just not out there a lot. JUDGE TINLEY: How many facilities -- juvenile detention facilities presently offer sex offender treatment programs now in the state? MS. HARRIS: I only know of two. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. So there'd be some -- some of the economic betterment would be by virtue of running at higher capacity? MS. HARRIS: Volume, yes. Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So we'll make, potentially, less per kid using this program, but we'll be able to have a lot more kids? MS. HARRIS: That's correct, 'cause you're going to attract another population, if you will, of kids. We're expanding our treatment program to -- to try to be like a one-stop shopping service, if you will. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And you'll be able to track each program individually? MS. HARRIS: Yes. Yes. JUDGE TINLEY: Basically, each child will 3-i9-os 62 1 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 take one hour of individual counseling per week? MS. HARRIS: That's correct, and they will also have to have a group setting. And we wanted to defer some of the cost of that treatment program. Like, there are workbooks that the kids would be going through. I, in a letter -- and I believe I submitted a copy of the cover letter that I wanted to send out to all the counties after the Court's decision today, that we would defer that cost of any curriculum materials for the sex offender treatment program; we would defer that ~~ost to the parent. And that would be in the court order, that the parents would have to buy those materials for that child. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Ms. Harris, the one -- the one-hour counseling per week is a one-on-one session, or is that a group setting? MS. HARRIS: It's a one-on-one, yes. Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: The group would be in addition to the individualized one-on-one? MS. HARRIS: That's correct. That's correct. And she would only do a group with only the sex offender kids. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, after this conversation we just had, which was a good conversation -- I appreciate you bringing that up -- I think that we need to 3- 1 9 U 5 63 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 probably bring this program back in here in six months and do a -- peek under the hood, as our good friend that's all ears would say, and take a real close look at it financially. You know, I don't think any of us can pass judgment on how you treat people, but financially, I think that we need to take a close look at it, and we need somebody to remind us to do that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think during our budget process would be the time to do that, and probably before six months. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, that's probably true. COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER Commissioners okay with the COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: BALDWIN: NICHOLSON direction WILLIAMS: BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. Probably true. You two we're going on this? Yes. I'm a little queasy, but -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You're the closest to it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Little nauseous, but -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: A little nauseous, but other than that, I think we need to move forward. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: When I applied for 3-19-U5 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 69 this job, this wasn't in the job description, so I'm plowing new ground here. JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions or comments 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 LETZ: Judge, I'm not ready to move on yet. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm not either. My question is, are we comfortable with the substance abuse program, and has this Court given permission to do that? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we need to do the same thing for that program as a new motion. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I so move. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of the substance abuse treatment program. Any question or comment on that motion? All in favor of that motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 3-1G-n5 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 (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just a question. I think I know the answer, but one question. Since we've dealt with and approved two of the three that are listed as programs, are we assuming that behavior modification is just inherent to the task, or does that require a court stamp of approval as well? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I personally think that we should approve either the behavior modification or the overall package as the base behavior modification. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's kind of where I was coming from earlier. I would move approval of the behavior modification as incorporated in our basic program offering. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That also includes the individualized -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And individualized. COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- and the auxiliary? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. DODGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of those components. Any question or comment on that motion? All in favor of that motion, signify by raising your right hand. 3-19-OS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ~~ 23 24 25 66 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (NO response.) JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. MS. HARRIS: Did you make a decision on the community service? Is that something that you want to -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm certainly in favor of it. I just -- I didn't know if these guys had heard enough to make a decision or not. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We'd like a little more enlightenment about it. MS. HARRIS: Well, I'm having the meeting tomorrow with the Juvenile Probation Department to line out more details. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, my view is pursue it, and then when you have something in writing, then we can come back and approve it at the next meeting, but I think it's a good idea. MS. HARRIS: Okay, sure. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's fine. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. That's all you got for us for now on this particular agenda item? MS. HARRIS: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We have a couple of 3 19 US 67 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ~~ 23 24 25 timed items that we need to get out of the way before we break. I think we have a timed item for 10 o'clock, and that's receive and open bids for the Flat Rock Lake project. That's Item 6. What do we have? (Discussion off the record.) JUDGE TINLEY: The first one I have is from ERS, Inc., re: cleanout. Quote of $287,667. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That would blow you away. COMMISSIONER LETZ: You'll be happy now, Bill. JUDGE TINLEY: Next one we have is from Excavation Technologies, Inc. The estimated total project on the -- apparently on the conditions as delineated, is $69,200. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's it. JUDGE TINLEY: That's it. Okay. Those are the only two bids that we have. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would move that we receive the bids and -- and I'd like to review them with Mr. Holekamp and report back to the Court at our next meeting. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded, bids be received and referred to Facilities Manager, and with him i ; 4 0 5 1 2 3 9 5 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ~3 29 LJ 68 to report back at the next meeting. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And me. I'll review with him. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, with Commissioner 2 and with the Facilities Director. 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.) JODGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It goes back over here, I think. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. The next item that we have is a timed item for 10:05. That is to open the annual bids for road base material, cold mix, black base, trap rock aggregate, asphalt emulsion oil, corrugated metal pipe, and equipment by the hour with operator. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I have a note from the Clerk's office that one bid came in this morning at 8:30 a.m., and that is after the cutoff date, and we need to make a decision if we're going to accept that bid or not. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How many bids do you have, total? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Probably 10, but they're 3-19-ii5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 69 for different -- this one happens to be for base, and I don't know how many of the other ones are for base material. I mean, I know some are for equipment by the hour. Some are -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think the more the merrier, huh? MR. ODOM: Well, technically, I mean, we probably should change the specs to say before 10 o'clock or 10:05 that meeting. We just did it to make sure they got in, but I'm not opposed to it. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm not either. I think we need to take a look at all of them. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there -- MR. ODOM: Technically -- I wish Rex was in here. COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can hold that one to the end to make sure there's not a problem on accepting that one. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. First bid we have is from Leo R. "Bobby" Jenschke, Jr. That's the hourly equipment. Cat D-6 dozer with ripper or equivalent, a hundred -- with an operator, I assume -- yeah. $128 an hour. Scraper, $125 an hour. Cat 12G motor grader or equivalent, $88 an hour. 930 loader or equivalent is $128 an hour. 1,500-gallon water truck, $65 an hour. i9 us 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 ~o COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It just goes to show you that time is fun when you're having flies. Because it seemed like to me it was a month ago that we did this. Just seems like the other day that we did this. JUDGE TINLEY: The next bid comes from Schwarz Construction Company, equipment and operator bids. Cat D-6 dozer with ripper or equivalent, $70 an hour. Scraper, $80 an hour. Cat 12G motor grader or equivalent, $70 an hour. Cat 930 -- or 930 loader or equivalent, $75 an hour. 12-ton flat wheel roller, $55 an hour. 12-ton pneumatic roller, $55 an hour. 1,500-gallon water truck, $55 per hour. The next one comes from Edmund Jenschke, Incorporated. Cat D-6 dozer with ripper or equivalent, $108 per hour. Scraper, $100 per hour. Cat 12G motor grader or equivalent, $78 an hour. 930 loader, $85 an hour. 12-ton flat wheel roller, $75 an hour. 12-ton pneumatic roller, $60 an hour. 1,500-gallon water truck, $50 an hour. Also, optional bids for asphalt distributor, $130 an hour, and a chip spreader, $130 an hour. Next bid we have from Wilson Culverts, Incorporated. These are corrugated metal pipe bids. 15-inch arch, $6.46 per linear foot. 18-inch arch, $7.69 a linear foot. 24-inch arch, $10.15 a linear foot. 30-inch arch, $12.79 a linear foot. 15-inch coupling band, $9.69 3 19 OS 71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ]3 14 15 16 l7 18 19 20 ~1 22 23 24 25 each. 18-inch coupling band, $11.54 each. 24-inch coupling band, $15.23 each. And 30-inch coupling band, $19.19 each. (Judge sneezed.) COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Bless you. JUDGE TINLEY: The next item we have is from Ergon Asphalt and Emulsions, and we have a number of bids. CRS-2 emulsion oil, 99 cents a gallon, f.o.b. Kerr County. AEP emulsion oil, $1.08 per gallon, f.o.b. Kerr County. Next one we have is from Vulcan Construction Materials, LP. The bid submitted is for paving aggregates. Trap rock, Grade 3, f.o.b. Kerr County, $22.83 a ton. Actually, trap rock, Grade 4 and 5, f.o.b. Kerr County, are all $22.83 per ton, Kerr County being defined as a 25-mile radius of Kerrville. COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's another one. JUDGE TINLEY: Hot mix, cold laid asphalt bid. Black base, Type AA, $27.42 a ton. Cold mix, Type CC, $27.42 a ton. Both of those are delivered within a 25-mile radius of Kerrville. Next one we have is from Koch Materials Company. That's K-o-r_-h. CRS-2, emulsion oil, $1.08 a gallon. AEP nonsoluble emulsion oil, $1.21 a gallon. Additional emulsion oil products, AEP nonsoluble with water, $1.02 a gallon. SS-1, soluble with water, $1.03 per gallon. HFRS-2, $1.03 a gallon. HFRS-2 P, $1.27 a gallon. All of 3-19 OS 72 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 those are f.o.b. Kerr County. That's all they bid. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, that's all the ones that were here on time, and here's the one that came in late. Rex isn't here to ask for his opinion on that. I guess later -- JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I think before I put that one on the record, we probably need to make some decision on whether or not we're going to accept that as a viable bid. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think by looking at wtzat it is, for local -- it's a local contractor on base material. And I suspect that since that's the only one we got, and Leonard's, I think, general policy has been that you go with the cheapest one around, basically, 'cause the freight's so high on that -- in the eastern part of the county, usually use Drymala or Reeh. Then in the western part of the county, you use Masters, someone liY.e that. So, anyway, I think it's kind of -- doesn't make a whole lot of difference really one way or the other if we accept it or not. I really -- my personal feeling is if we put a deadline on it, we ought to give them a deadline. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm with you. JUDGE TINLEY: If we start accepting bids after the -- after the time and date, we're just opening ourselves up for -- 3-i9 u5 73 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. Let's do it, though. I have a question, Leonard. MR. ODOM: Yes, sir? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The trap rock. MR. ODOM: Yes, sir? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that the same grade or quality, or -- I don't know what the word I'm looking for -- as the State uses? MR. ODOM: Yes. But you understand that that's gradation, and there's not a specific spec for trap rock. It will -- it will specify in their handbook to use igneous type rock, and there's a few of them, but when you get into gradation, the answer is yes. When you get into something that says that they have it in their specs, they don't use it, because it's such a heavy material. They use a lightweight material, other than putting it on the highway where the speeds are higher than what we have. COMMISSIONER BALDWTN: I see. MR. ODOM: So -- but it is gradation. 3, 4 and 5 is gradation, the same gradation they have. But to say that they use trap rock, they do not specifically use trap rock. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see. Cool. You answered my question. I was just kind of cur ious about it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question. Leonard, it 3 1 9- O S 74 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 appears to me we have fewer bids this time than we did last year. MR. ODOM: Well, we didn't have anything from Wheatcraft, and the oils were about the same that we had. By-the-hour was there. We -- Contech, I don't know why we didn't get anything from Contech as far as corrugated metal pipe. That's the one that I know we didn't do, or Walters who bids through Contech. And the other one was the base material. There's Wheatcraft, and there was Jimmy Powell at Lucky 3 there at Center Point, and we sent all those out. And why, I don't know. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's interesting that only local contractors -- none of them chose to really bid, other than one in Ingram. MR. ODOM: By-the-hour is normally the same ones that we've been having over a period of years, so I'm down one on -- Contech is the steel people. And at least Wilson committed themselves, because steel is just going out of sight. And maybe they didn't wish to commit themselves for a year; I don't know. But the local people for material, I don't Y.now why they didn't bid. Every one of them had the same -- same went out to everyone that we've had on the bidding list last year, which we had a bunch of people, but local people seem not to bid on material for base material. 3-19-US 7s 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would suspect maybe it's because of the large amount of activity and the fact that if you're in the area where they are, I mean, you're going to give them a -- MR., ODOM: We look at location; has to do with freight cost and running up and down the road, so that's the way we try to split it up, anyway. What's -- maybe a price might be a little bit different, but by the time we get through hauling, and time is money to us in a -- in a government entity, so we look at the most local one based upon our needs. And -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In the case of Wheatcraft, they may be angling to get out of that business. MR. ODOM: Well, I'm sort of getting out of the gravel business. That's one reason we've looked at trap rock. We thought that was a better material over the long-term. We think the oils will try to hold in there. We know the trap rock will, but we got away from the pea gravel. And he -- I heard that he was not -- I won't say that, but -- but there's a possibility he may not be in the base business. I don't know. We'll see. JUDGE TINLEY: Do I hear a motion that the bids be accepted and referred to the Road and Bridge Administrator for review and recommendation? COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. -i9-~s 76 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 l6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second -- whatever. DODGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. 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 WILLIAMS: Break time, Judge? JUDGE TINLE'i: We'll stand in recess for 15 minutes. (Recess taken from 10:32 a.m. to 10:50 a.m.) DODGE TINLEY: order. We were in recess for Next item on the agenda is to discuss, and take appropriate usage log for the Juvenile De Baldwin. Okay, let's come back to 15 minutes, and we'll resume. consider Item 9, consider, action on adopting a vehicle tention Facility. Commissioner COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. How many vehicles does the County own out there? MS. HARRIS: Two. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Two cars? Two -- 3-17-~75 77 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 like, a van and -- MS. HARRIS: One van and one car. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And a golf cart. Don't forget the golf cart. A van and a car. Do you -- do you use a vehicle usage log? Do you have some kind of log there that you log mileage? MS. HARRIS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you? MS. HARRIS: Yes. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Would you include those in our -- whatever -- whenever you report to us? MS. HARRIS: Sure. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: From time to time, so we can see the mileage, just like we do everything else? MS. HARRIS: If you would like, do you want to have a copy of the form? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure. MS. HARRIS: Now, this was something that we attempted to start back in the summer. It fell by the wayside, and we have recently picked it back up. Because during the fall and the winter, it kind of fell by the wayside because we were concentrating on other things. So, anyway, we have picked this back up and we have these on clipboards, one in the car and one in the van. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I like yours more than 3-19-OS 78 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 ~0 21 22 23 24 25 ours. MS. HARRIS: This is just something that -- that I've used in the past in another facility. And I called Mr. Holekamp to see if there was a universal mileage log that the County used. He indicated that there wasn't, and so I just did this one. If you -- if you want me to change it, I can. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Looks good. Any kind of a log works, and yours is fine. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, but we need to have it -- whatever time frame that you report to this Court, and I don't know what -- when that is, but whenever you do that, we'd like a copy of this as well. MS. HARRIS: I'll probably -- if you want me to, I can include it on the end of the month, 'cause then you'd have a full month's if you want it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think in a monthly report would be good. And we -- we haven't discussed a full report, but you know the type of things, the enrollment and any other any comments that are -- you know, you think are important for us to know about. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, Ms. Harris is sort of doing this right now. MS. HARRIS: Yes. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Enrollments, new ~ 1~-as 79 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 contracts, whatever. Whatever. MS. HARRIS: Yes, that was in the report that I sent y'all. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, Judge, there's no action on Item 9. Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Appreciate it. Anybody else have anything on Item 9 to mention? Okay, we'll move on to Item 10, consider and discuss contracts between Kerr County Juvenile Detention Facility and outside entities. Commissioner Letz. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I put this on the agenda based on -- I think it was a comment from two meetings ago, for us to get these -- the form of the contracts before us and let us approve them as we do with the Sheriff's Department, his placement contracts. And Ms. Harris has done that, so I thank her. I also asked her, when I was visiting with her, just to give us a list of the counties that we have contracts with that are pending, and it's an extensive list. Appreciate that as well. Any other comments -- any comments? MS. HARRIS: No, sir. COMMISSIONER LETZ: On any of this? I have a question specifically -- well, the contract for the consulting services contract. MS. HARRIS: Is that Ms. Edwards, the nurse? 3-14-OS 80 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ~~ L [. 23 24 25 I believe that's Ms. Edwards' contract. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. MS. HARRIS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It seemed -- well, it's rather old; I think this probably ought to be done annually, so I think that needs to be updated. And I don't know -- on all of these, I think the County Attorney needs to approve as to form. I don't know if he's done that one. I think on the -- this one, I believe, the residential services contract, I think that's already been approved as to form? MR. EMERSON: The pre and post? Is that what you're talking about? JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, it's the post. MR. EMERSON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the pre; they're both up here. Those two have been approved. The contract for psychological evaluation? Have you looked at this? MS. HARRIS: Mr. Motley constructed that one back in July for the -- the psychological one. I gave -- I don't know if you had time to look at them or not. I forwarded a copy of those two that you have in your hand to him. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, as soon as Rex -- you know, I think we can approve the form of the other two 3 1 9 0 5 81 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 today. On the other two, the health service authority contract and then the contract for psychological evaluation, we get Rex to take a look at those, make sure that those are in -- MS. HARRIS: Sure. COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- order. MS. HARRIS: Do you want us to continue using those two individuals for the services that they provide, or do you want me to -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Continue using the people, or continue using the contract? MS. HARRIS: The people. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's your decision. MS. HARRIS: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think you need to -- you know what you need a lot better than I do, anyway. MS. HARRIS: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: You know, I think the way that I look at it is to get the best service for the least money. If these are the people that can do that, continue, but I think we need to have current contracts on a continual basis on all of them. I would make a motion to approve the form of the residential services contract for postadjudicated juvenile offenders in secure placement, and the contract and agreement for secure preadjudicated 3-14-05 82 1 2 3 9 5 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 residential service of juvenile offenders space-available contract as to form, and allow Ms. Harris to enter into these contracts with other counties. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. COMMISSIONER LETZ: As she sees fit. JUDGE TINLEY: I also sign that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the County Judge also would sign all the contracts. JUDGE TINLEY: All right. We have a motion and a second. Sheriff, you had a comment? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Only comment I have on the independent -- or on the contracts, like, for doctors and that, I know one thing our attorney -- and not Rex. Our civil attorney, because they went through some lawsuits, and I'm fixing to redo ours. He said, like, on medical stuff, our doctor that does the jail inmates, that contract needs to really be rewritten to be an independent contractor to alleviate some of the liability on the County's part. So we're fixing to start doing that, but that may be considered in these contracts. JUDGE TINLEY: Well, that's something that the County Attorney's going to be working on for future court action. Any further questions or comments about the motion? Yes, sir? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Ms. Harris, help 3-14- i5 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 me -- MS. HARRIS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- on my continuing education here. The $83 a day is an amount that is less than the State prescribes for that kind of offender, but it's an amount that's deemed to be competitive? MS. HARRIS: That's correct, yes, sir. The average per diem across the state is $80. That's the average per diem. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's the max the State allows? MS. HARRIS: Depending on the classification of resident, it's $109. COMMISSIONER LETZ: On that topic, on the drug abuse and the sexual behavior -- MS. HARRIS: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- candidates, do those -- do the other facilities that offer that program -- are they in that $80 to $83 range? MS. HARRIS: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: I think it used -- previously, the rate that you could get for specialized programs, the sex offender treatment program, for example, I think at one time got up to $115. MS. HARRIS: $115, yes, sir. iG us 84 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 IL 13 14 15 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE TINLEY: That's as high as it got, and there was some additional that was obtainable for -- for substance abuse programs. And there were one or two other very specialized programs that you could get surcharges on, but the competitive environment has not permitted that in a couple years now. MS. HARRIS: 'Cause there's more beds than there are kids. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Ms. Harris, what -- what's the difference between the -- the status of the children that are -- are placed at the 3H Youth Ranch as opposed to our post-adjudication facility? MS. HARRIS: It has to do with prescribed level of care. The Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services has a list of levels of care. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. MS. HARRIS: And in psychological -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Four. MS. HARRIS: Yes, sir. And in psychological evaluations or psychiatric evaluations, it's determined what level of care is appropriate for that child based on their -- their psychological and emotional, so that's what it's based on. 3 19-US 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 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The type of crime doesn't have anything to do with it? MS. HARRIS: No, sir. And sometimes even kids that are at youth ranches have not committed any crimes. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. MS. HARRIS: It's based on their emotional and their psychological -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. I think the Hill Country Youth Ranch are that kind of children. MS. HARRIS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think 3H have been convicted of a crime. MS. HARRIS: Yes, sir, you're correct. JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Thank you very much, Ms. Harris. The next item is Item 11, approve for signature contract for services with Hill Country Council on Alcohol and Drug Abuse, Incorporated. Ms. Harris again, another item concerning your facility. ~-in-as 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 MS. HARRIS: It's the Kerr County Juvenile Facility Show. So, I believe that you have a copy of the contract that Mr. Emerson constructed and made some amendments to -- I believe that the Bandera County Attorney constructed the original contract; Mr. Emerson made amendments to that contract or changes to the contract. The County Attorney in Bandera approved those changes, and I believe what you have before you is the finished product for your approval. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'd move approval of the contract for services, Hill Country Council on Alcohol and Drug Abuse, Incorporated, authorize the County Judge to sign same. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and second to approve the contract. I have a couple of questions, Ms. Harris. These may be something more appropriate to address to Mr. Emerson. The termination provisions of the contract allow the Hill Country Council on Alcohol and Drug Abuse to terminate for no specified reason, apparently, on 30 days notice, while the contract provides that the County may only terminate upon 30 days notice with cause. And I think mutuality would require that that "with cause" needs to be struck. That's my thinking. Secondly, on Page 3, we've got an indemnification clause from the County running -i4 ns 87 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ~0 21 22 23 24 25 in favor of the Hill Country Council on Alcohol and Drug Abuse. Any time I've seen an indemnification clause, I get a little spooked. MS. HARRIS: I would defer that -- the questions to the County Attorney. He's more knowledgeable. MR. EMERSON: I think the response to that, Judge, on the "with cause" clause, I completely agree with you, but we went back and forth and back and forth and back and forth, and I finally just said fine, that's a decision for Commissioners Court to make as to the mutuality of that. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Strike it. Simple as that. MR. EMERSON: The indemnification that's in there, quite frankly, I don't see that we could ever -- that we would ever be indemnifying them for anything. I may be wrong, but there's no set medical treatment of any kind. It's strictly counseling. JUDGE TINLEY: You think it's a hollow provision? MR. EMERSON: Yes, sir, I really do. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: My motion -- did I make a motion? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I moved it. I'll 3-19-OS 88 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2 2 23 24 25 accept the amendments. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll -- I'll also second the amendments of striking the for clause. JUDGE TINLEY: The "with cause" provision? COMMISSIONER LETZ: With cause. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's not a deal breaker? JUDGE TINLEY: I think we'll find out. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I wouldn't know why it would be. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I do have a question, Judge. We talk about the fee schedule in Exhibit A. I don't see an Exhibit A. JUDGE TINLEY: Me either. I think one had been presented -- MS. HARRIS: Yes. JUDGE TINLEY: -- previously. MS. HARRIS: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: It just didn't end up being attached to this backup material. But one had been presented earlier as a one-page -- MS. HARRIS: Yes, sir. The Hill Country -- JUDGE TINLEY: That had various -- medication management, and there were several other items on there. MS. HARRIS: Yes. 3 19-US 89 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE TINLEY: But the one that sticks in my mind was the medication management. MS. HARRIS: That was with M.H.M.R., Judge. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MS. HARRIS: Yes. JUDGE TINLEY: I stand corrected. Thank you. MS. HARRIS: Yes, that was M.H.M.R. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: These are fees for services for counseling, essentially? MS. HARRIS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Individual and/or group sessions? MS. HARRIS: Yes, sir. It's $45 an hour for individual counseling, and $17.50 per resident in a group setting. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I recall that now. Thank you. MS. HARRIS: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: You okay with that, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, thank you. Any further questions or comments on the motion? All in favor of the motion as amended, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 3- 1 9 U S 90 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. We'll move to the next item, being Item 12, authorization to use vending machine proceeds to support cost of field trips for residents with staff, resident clothing and hygiene products, and other resident-related items. Ms. Harris again. MS. HARRIS: Upon running into Mr. Tomlinson in the hall this morning, Mr. Tomlinson informed me that there is a statute by which all revenues have to be deposited into our account. In other words, this may not be a viable thing, but it might be something that we might want to discuss or talk about during our budget formation processes, that we may want to add a line item for this. What I'm trying to get at is, there are a lot of children who are not going on furloughs. They're senior level, as I had discussed before. Due to either parents don't want to take them out, they don't want to participate in that privilege, or they can't afford to come to Kerrville and do that for their kids, so there are a lot of kids that don't get to go out, and so staff volunteer their time and they take the kids out, like, to bowling or just a walk in the park or just some type of field trip, and if there's any expenses, the staff is paying for that out of their pocket. 3-19-US 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 91 And so I was just trying to -- to formulate some type of a way to kind of defer that cost so staff would not have to pay for that, and that's just maybe something that we want to discuss during budget time. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The Sheriff operates a commissary of some sort out there, don't you, Sheriff? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes, I do. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which is sort of a different concept than what Ms. Harris is talking about. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah, hers is just proceeds off of vending machines themselves, I believe. MS. HARRIS: That's correct. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Commissary would be totally different; it's set out by statute what I can use it for. MS. HARRIS: Right. And -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: County Auditor is looking like he has something to say. MR. TOMLINSON: Well, you know, I mean, I guess there's -- there could be some argument that -- that these funds may not be, quote, county funds. I mean, they're derived from users of vending machines. So, I mean, my -- my statement to Becky was that if they are county funds, they need to be deposited into the County treasury. We ought to do that. I mean, that's what -- that's the J-14-US 92 1 2 3 4 J 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 procedure we're using right now. Those vending machine funds are -- have been and will continue to be deposited in -- in the County treasury as long as we determine that they are county funds. MS. HARRIS: Right. MR. TOMLINSON: And, 1 mean, we already have a line item set up in the budget for -- for the purposes enumerated in this -- in this agenda item, so I don't -- we're into -- those funds are included in the revenues -- MS. HARRIS: Mm-hmm. MR. TOMLINSON: -- today. But they're not specifically enumerated in -- in the revenue line items. COMMISSIONER LETZ: What you're saying is that there is a -- in the current budget, as it was approved by this Court, there's a line item that allows Ms. Harris to reimburse employees that -- MS. HARRIS: Right. COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- spend any personal money on this type of activity? MS. HARRIS: Right. MR. TOMLINSON: That's correct. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So -- DODGE TINLEY: That solves the problem. MS. HARRIS: Right. JUDGE TINLEY: It would seem. 3-19-US 93 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. HARRIS: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, also, I think the extension -- correct me if I'm wrong, but whatever -- whatever goods are vended out of these machines also is purchased by Kerr County; is that correct? MR. TOMLINSON: I don't know. MS. HARRIS: Yes, currently. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If that is the case, then -- then the sales proceeds should go to Kerr County. MR. TOMLINSON: Right. That's correct, yes. MS. HARRIS: The majority of the sales is by Kerr County staff that buy out of those vending machines, yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. MR. TOMLINSON: No, the county -- JUDGE TINLEY: This -- if you have budgeted funds to pay -- or to reimburse your staff for these type of -- of expenditures -- MS. HARRIS: Right. JUDGE TINLEY: -- that solves your problem. MS. HARRIS: Right. JUDGE TINLEY: So we don't need worry about that. MS. HARRIS: Right. Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Leave that alone. 3-i9 os 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 JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move on to Item 13, then, consider and discuss hiring a juvenile detention officer with eight years experience at a grade and step of 12-4 rather than an entrance level, 12-1. Ms. Harris? MS. HARRIS: Yes, sir. This -- this individual came to the facility, filled out an application, and she has family members here in Kerrville, and she's wanting to move to be closer to her family members. As a matter of fact, she moved over the weekend; she's already in Kerrville. And she knows that I was coming to Commissioners Court this morning. She has other family members that are in the process of moving to Kerrville, so they're all going to be here together, so she has applied at the facility because she wants to remain in juvenile corrections. She has experience working with the juveniles in groups. She worked two years on the chemical dependency dorm in the T.Y.C. unit in San Saba. She also worked four years in the orientation dorm, and then she worked two years on a rotating basis in just the regular behavioral dorms at the T.Y.C. unit in San Saba, so she does have extensive experience. She is already certified in Handle With Care, which is the physical restraint technique, and that is the physical restraint technique that we use, that all of our officers are certified in. She's already certified in that, so she will not have to be trained this year, and that -- 3-i9 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 'cause that's an annual recertification. She's already CPR/first-aid certified, and abuse -- she's had training on abuse and neglect. Most of the required training of the 40 hours of training that's required to be a juvenile detention officer, she has had in order to get -- to be a certified juvenile correction correctional officer. It's a matter of transferring some of those training hours to Texas Juvenile Probation Commission for approval to get her juvenile detention officers certification. Now, she will have to have some training that is specific for juvenile detention officer certification, but it's not the full 40 hours, which is going to save some savings on -- on training on her. According to the present grade and step scale, our juvenile detention officers, our beginning salary, they come in as a 12-1, which is $18,959. A person with eight years experience on the present scale would be a 12-4, at $20,417. Your entrance level for jailers is a 14-1. And this was something else that has come up in the court about equalizing pay scales, which comes in our next budget process. So, I -- I broke it down to -- it would be an increase in this salary, $851 over the next seven months. She wouldn't begin her employment till the middle of this month. And I broke down the 16 hours of training. That's, with the Handle With Care and CPR amount, $9.81 an hour for the prospective employees. There is a savings of $157. I'm -ia-us 96 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 L1 22 23 24 L5 proposing that if -- if you approve this, that we transfer the additional $851 from the Contract Services line item to the Detention Officers line item in order to subsidize this increase in salary, the $851 increase. JUDGE TINLEY: 14- for a -- a jailer, what's that entry level dollar amount? MS. HARRIS: $26,035. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: To what? MS. HARRIS: $26,036. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is the Sheriff here? JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, he's here. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I want to follow up on that, and help us out here a little bit. If -- what are the differences in the certification or licensing or training or qualifications of the adult detention officer versus a -- SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, compared to a lot of hers, I'm not sure I know. The adult detention officer has to now have 96 hours of training and actually pass -- take and pass a state certification exam, and then they have to actually work for one year before they get their basic certificate. But in day-to-day job duties, you know, I think even hers probably have to have a little bit more in dealing with some of the counseling issues and some of the kid issues. Personally, I think her staff members dealing -14-OS 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 with juveniles and restrictions put on how she has to deal with those are probably very equal and equivalent to what a jailer does. We may have a little bit more violence to deal with, but they have a lot of other issues that they have to deal with that we don't that I would think would make it pretty equal. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. If -- Sheriff, if you hire a person who's otherwise qualified, but doesn't have the training with certification, whatever, you get -- get that training for them, that education after they're hired? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. You know, everybody we hire starts out as a l; you know, whatever it is, 17-1 or 19-1, and within one year they have to be certified through the State. So, they go through our own -- about a 16-week training period. And currently, right now, we are running a state certification course out there where Bandera County and other -- Gillespie County has sent people to it that need that certification, and they're taking that while they're -- they're working, and then they take the state exam. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Ms. Harris, would a typical juvenile detention facility hire someone who wasn't -- didn't possess the traininq and education, and then develop that after they were hired? 3-19-GS 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 MS. HARRIS: Yes. As a matter of fact, that is -- 99 percent of our staff that's presently out there are individuals that come that have no experience whatsoever, and they have to go through the training process and the certification process. They have absolutely no experience. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. If I -- if I applied for work as a detention officer at the Sheriff's Department and with the -- with your organization -- MS. HARRIS: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- assuming neither one of you practiced age discrimination, would it be more difficult for me to get -- be hired by one organization versus the other? MS. HARRIS: As far as certification and licensing, I would think it would be more difficult through the Sheriff's Department than mine. Juvenile Detention officers require 40 hours of training, and then they're certified as detention officers. That certification is renewed every two years, and within that two years you have to get 80 hours of training. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay, ours require 96 hours within the first year; then they're certified. Noa, they're certified for life, except they also have to have 40 hours every two years of continuing education, and then their mandated cultural diversity courses and that. I think 3-14-n=_ 99 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the biggest difference would probably be in -- in their job duties, how many staff per -- what's a staffjinmate ratio you have? MS. HARRIS: During program hours, it's 1-to-8. During non-program hours, it's 1-to-12. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: See, and ours is 1-to-48, to where ours can be spread a little bit thinner in dealing with more inmates at one time, and sometimes they're more violent. But otherwise -- MS. HARRIS: And his officer has to take a state test. My officers do not. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Thank you. MS. HARRIS: For certification. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Both of you. That's helpful. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This -- as you know, Commissioner Williams and I are working on the -- the salary issue with the juvenile facility, and that's -- that's a big part of it, is comparing the employees with the adult and juvenile facility. And -- and it's going to be difficult, but you can rest assured that Number 2 and I will have -- let's see, how can I put this nice? -- a debate over all those issues. Some people may want to call it a fistfight. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Y'all are going to be experts oii this pretty soon. 3-14-t15 100 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ~, 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, yeah, absolutely. Absolutely. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You and I are going to have a fistfight? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, and I'm going to win, so we might as well just -- (Laughter.) Might as well just move forward here with what I want to do. But I see where your questioning was, and it's a good question. But the more I think about it, the more -- when I first started looking at this thing, I thought, a cook is a cook. A jailer is a jailer. Doesn't matter where. But I don't think that way any more. My mind is moving over to -- to where the juvenile facility is a whole different kind of animal, and they're all -- all alone out there. So -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: The comment about your deliberations and fighting down at that end of the table, if it's -- I like what we did at the Road and Bridge and with the Sheriff's Department. You get a grade increase based on certification. That you get -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Education. COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- education and certification, so the more you're certified to do. So, that kind of eliminates these issues of having to raise people to a -- if you have a certain certification, you come in at a higher level, which I think is a proper way to do it. 3-14-u5 101 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 t3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with you. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Your current JDO's, how many are above the Step 1? MS. HARRIS: I can get that for you. That are above the Step 1? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, ma'am. MS. HARRIS: Including shift supervisors? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sure. MS. HARRIS: 13. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. MS. HARRIS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And it's a reasonable assumption that those 13 possess equal to -- or equal qualifications to this one? Or this person has greater qualifications or what? MS. HARRIS: There is only one individual at the facility that has the same number of years experience -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. MS. HARRIS: -- as this individual. There's only one. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I got you. Thank you. MS. HARRIS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's see. My question is going to be about dollars and cents. I'm sorry, 14-u5 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 I can't remember where I saw that. I saw somewhere Mr. Hyde is leaving. MS. HARRIS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is this the person that -- this is a different issue? MS. HARRIS: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. I haven't brought the other issue before the Court until I had an opportunity to visit with you and Commissioner Williams. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Forgive me for bringing that up JUDGE TINLEY: The one individual that -- that has the degree of experience that this individual has that you're proposing to bring on board, what -- what step and grade is that individual? MS. HARRIS: She is at a 12-6. And the reason for -- and she should -- she should be a 12-4. She is an individual that was there, and her salary at the time that everyone was put on a pay grade and step, her salary at that time put her in that step, that grade. JUDGE TINLEY: She's currently a 12-6? MS. HARRIS: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any other questions for Ms. Harris? COMMISSIONER. LETZ: Waiting for a motion from the -- 3 19-~5 103 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would move that the Court approve the hiring of a juvenile detention officer, as per Ms. Harris' recommendation, with eight years experience, to start at 12-4 equaling $20,417. JUDGE TINLEY: Do 7 hear a second? (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: Hearing no second, motion will die for lack of a second. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the reason I -- JUDGE TINLEY: Do I hear a further motion? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a comment. I think that the 12-4 is too high. I think you need to get credit -- I make a motion to hire the person at a 12-3 -- excuse me. JUDGE TINLEY: Is that a motion? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. Got me all checked up, too. JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion that the individual -- Ms. Harris be authorized to hire the person as a 12-3. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I note that there's an automatic one-year longevity increase, you know, that's automatic for all County employees. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Any 3-19-OS 104 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 Il 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 further question or discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (NO response.) JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Thank you, Ms. Harris MS. HARRIS: Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: The next item is Item 14, to consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to approve the Airport Code, which includes rules and regulations and minimum operating standards. Which one of you gentlemen want to run with the ball at this point? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I'll just get it on the -- get it on the floor here. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- well, I could get it started just real quick. I don't think we need to spend a lot of time on this right now. I think there's a copy we can circulate around, a clean copy I think Commissioner Williams has. I think we should just circulate it through the various Commissioners; we can take action at our next meeting. I don't think we need to take action, certainly, now. It's an important document. It kind of -- it is the governance document for the airport, and a lot of time -- I'd like to, you know, thank Roger Bobertz and 3-14-OS 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 Granger MacDonald for doing, you know, a huge amount of work on this, as well as everyone on the Airport Board, but those two did a -- really went through it with a fine-tooth comb, and started with a document about nine months ago or longer that was several inches thick, and they have reduced it down to a pretty concise, pretty clean document, and just put it out there. Hopefully there's not a whole lot of changes the Court would have. City Council is also going to be looking at trie same document, and I hope -- you know, leave it at that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's fine. JUDGE TINLEY: So, at this point, it's just -- you're not -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We'll put it back on next time. DODGE TINLEY: Okay. I have a -- a kind of a threshold question about it. I note that the document has been adopted by the Airport Board. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct. DODGE TINLEY: My question, I guess, is, as long as it falls within the parameters of that Airport Board's authority under the applicable chapter of the Transportation Code, why does the Court or the Council need to approve it? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because I believe the 3-19 OS 106 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ~~ L L 23 24 25 agreement is the Airport Board -- correct me if I'm wrong. Ilse Bailey is here. The way the agreement is set up, the Airport Board reserved this authority to the two governing bodies, being the County and the City. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's correct. That's my understanding. And any -- well, this just sets it up, gets the operating documents really in place. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So it should be noted that this agreement -- and, again, I'm going off memory, but it's, I'm certain, on there that it never comes back to the City Council and the Commissioners Court again; that the Airport Board can amend it, modify it. JUDGE TINLEY: Well, that -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Isn't that -- JUDGE TINLEY: That's what prompted my question. In Section 5.02, it says except in an emergency, no airport rule, regulation, or airport M.O.S. established by the operator, Airport Board, and approved by the owner... COMMISSIONER LETZ: That -- I don't have my I copy in front of me, but I think -- Ilse, can you comment on that? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 5.02, Judge? JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. Page 47. MS. BAILEY: It's a little difficult to articulate this carefully enough so that it applies to both -ia-os 107 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 l3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 situations. What -- what the board was -- the committee was attempting to do is to put in the rules to articulate it such that the Airport Board has the authority to amend its rules as it goes along for operational purposes. Like -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Lease rates. MS. BAILEY: Lease rates, if we decide to institute parking regulations, that we don't have to come back every time, because the whole purpose of the joint agreement and this code is that now the airport can go and operate without having to come on a detailed basis every time. On the other hand, everyone acknowledges, I think, that major substantive changes in the way things operate really do need to come back to the owners, and so that's -- that's the basis for -- and approved by the owners. If you felt like that needed to be more clearly articulated, we could add some language in there to state that, but that's really the intention, is that it doesn't come back here unless we're doing something really big. DODGE TINLEY: I think my concern is more elementary than that. We established an Airport Board in 1970, to be given the powers of an airport board under the Municipal Airport Act, and at some point along the way, the City and the County deemed that board to be one with advisory status only. Incorrectly, I think. Illegally, I think. When we attempted to correct that problem by handing 3-19-DS 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 back to the Airport Board the authority that it was given under the law for the Municipal Airport Act under the current legal authority, the -- the appropriate chapter of the -- of the Transportation Code, it appears to me that what we're doing is, they're acting in an advisory capacity only again by proposing these rules, but to be effective, the rules must be approved by the owners. Have we not gone back to where -- MS. BAILEY: No. JUDGE TINLEY: -- we shouldn't have been before, but were for 30 years? MS. BAILEY: I'm not sure I completely agree with that. I think -- to really be frank, I think that what's really going on is that the owners and the board members, owner and non-owner board members are all using an abundance of caution to make sure that they're not perceived by anyone at the outset as overstepping the desires of both owners. But I think that that is not the same as making it advisory. I think that it's very clear in the interlocal agreements and the contracts that we've all entered into that the -- the board has authority. But because it's a new board, it's -- I think it's just trying to exercise that authority with caution in order to make sure that it's understanding and following the wishes of the owners, which are the constituent entities. I don't really think it's s-i~-os 109 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 advisory at all, because, for instance, today it could go out and lease every unleased portion of the airport property, whether this body or the City Council likes it or not. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- if -- I mean, what you're saying, or -- well, two things. One, the municipality or the airport Transportation Code provision that we're currently operating under in the state law allowed for -- or required an interlocal agreement to be put together, and that -- that agreement is the one that says this has to come back, as I understand. MS. BAILEY: The Transportation Code does require -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. So, I think, you know, to -- you know, I think it's that interlocal agreement that requires us to come back to these. And certain other things, like the levying of a tax; there are certain things that were reserved to the owners. Everything else was left up to the -- to the Airport Board, and this is one of those things that I thought was reserved for the owners. You know, and I think it's really a -- I think this provision could be modified, in my mind. I think it would be good, probably, to modify this to the effect that this Airport Board runs it now. This is a one-time shop for the entities to get the direction right, since it's in the interlocal -14-OS 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 agreement, but this is worded -- this is in agreement with the interlocal agreement currently. MS. BAILEY: Not only agreement, but the Code. As I recall, looking at this, the Code requires the owners to approve rules of operation like this. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What about -- MS. BAILEY: 'Cause I had that very same question when we started drafting it, and as I recall, I went back and found that section. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What about the example that you gave a few minutes ago about would the Board have authority to rent out all the unused land on the airport, Do they? MS. BAILEY: Yes. We -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do they? MS. BAILEY: The Board ha s the authority to do everything except sell pr operty, cond emn property, -- DODGE TINLEY: Lease more than 40 years. MS. BAILEY: -- lease for more than 40 years. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Levy any kind of a tax. MS. BAILEY: Levy taxes. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: A few months ago, we had talked to -- a few of us had talked about the possibility of doing a progr am with the Air Force or somebody. 7 14-OS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 l~ 18 19 20 L 1 22 23 24 25 111 MS. BAILEY: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And do -- would they have the authority to do that without approval of the Commissioners Court and City Council? COMMISSIONER LETZ: 7f it was a standard form with no other criteria for leasing. If it was in a -- you know, something that was tying some sort of a financial commitment on the County, no. We would have -- MS. BAILEY: That's why that's not a particularly good example, because that involved not only leasing, but part financial participation by entities, and -- and a lot of -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. MS. BAILEY: -- kind of ancillary stuff that would have required participation by the City Council and the Commissioners Court. JUDGE TINLEY: But you see where I'm coming from? MS. BAILEY: Yes. DODGE TINLEY: You indicated that when you started this whole process, you had somewhat of that basic question yourself. Is -- is the agreement which -- the interlocal agreement which requires the approval of the two governing bodies to approve these rules and regulations and minimum operating standards, does that overstep state law? 3 14-n5 112 1 1 2 3 4 5 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2~ ~3 24 25 MS. BAILEY: No, I believe that it -- it follows directly from state law. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the point -- I mean, that provision could be modified to probably give this -- future authority or modifications or changes to the Airport Bard if The Court and the Council so chooses. I think that we could do that. MS. BAILEY: Yes. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that probably, I mean, may or may not be a good idea. MS. BAILEY: It's just trying to -- what we're trying to do is find that appropriate balance, and we`re not going to find that really perfectly until we go along. So, between operating autonomously so that the Council and Commissioners Court don't have to micromanage, and not being so autonomous that the owners are kind of going, "What are they doing out there?" That's the balance that we're trying to find, and I think this document finds it pretty well. But I'm not saying that we won't go along in the future and find some part of it that you might go, well, we might -- we don't like that so much, COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is it -- is it your thought that future amendments to this Code can be enacted by the Airport Board without coming back to the owners? -ie-os 113 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 2_` MS. BAILEY: I think that minor revisions could be, but I think that, just as a policy matter, the -- the owners need to be aware of and bless amendments to rules. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The reason I ask the question is because the language talks about the airport rule and regulation or minimum operating standards established. This is the document that establishes them. MS. BAILEY: Yes. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And so we're taking it to the two owners for ratification, in effect. MS. BAILEY: Essentially, yes. Yes. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So my question, then, again is, in the future, any tweaking that has to come about as a result of operations changes, F.A.A. regulations changing, anything that gets imposed on the Airport Board that they have to deal with, do you believe it has to come back or not? MS. BAILEY: I think anything that's of any substance ought to come back.. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. MS. BAILEY: But minor things don't. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I like the function that we're going through right now. I really like that. is-os 114 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 It's accountability. It doesn't hurt anybody. It's not micromanagement, but it's accountability of the taxpayers. MS. BAILEY: And that's what -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we probably ought to tighten up this language, make it a little bit clearer on this one -- on this provision to say, you know, minor -- clear that minor changes do not come back; substantive changes do. And, you know -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And he used the word "tweaking." Is tweaking -- is that minor or major? JUDGE TINLEY: That's minor. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think I'd ask that you point that -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's minor. A tweak is minor. COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- this issue up to the City Council as well so that, you know, we can try to get this done at one time. MS. BAILEY: Well, and that would be just my preference from a formality point of view, is that since the Board has approved this, in order to get these in effect, my preference would be that when you do consider it for approval, that you approve it as-is, with direction to the Board to make that modification, so that then we can have the code in effect while we're going back and tweaking the 3-19-0_ 115 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 little things so that they can go on about carrying on their business. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So -- so, make this -- this is a minor change? MS. BAILEY: Yes, that would be my preference. And I know that the Airport Manager would prefer that, because he's really concerned about making sure that he has a set of rules so when someone comes to him and says, "How do you do things out here at the airport?" This way he can say, "Well, Rule Number 5.07 says that we do it this way." JUDGE TINLEY: I just want to make sure that -- that we're not overstepping state law requirements and doing something in contravention; that we've got an Airport Board to oversee this thing and to -- and to ramrod it, and to the extent under state law that they have that obligation, that responsibility, I don't think the Council or this Court ought to be -- ought to be managing what they're doing. That's why they're there. MS. BAILEY: One of the things I'll do before the next meeting where you all consider this is provide you with that analysis, because I remember going through it when I was doing some of these revisions. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, I appreciate that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, this will be on our ~-19-OS 116 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2~ L 23 24 25 next agenda for approval? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Put it on the 28th. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Generally, I want to weigh in with some opinions and observations about it. I like what I see in this. It tells me that the Airport Board is -- is assuming the responsibility, accountability, the authority to manage the airport. I particularly like the Section 1.23, the authority to act where it specifically delegates to the -- the Airport Manager the -- the authority to -- under the Board's direction, to run the airport. Can I assume that -- that the Airport Manager then reports to the Board and not to the City Manager? COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's an interesting question. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's a safe assumption. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the way to answer that is that there's the -- and it's a confusing thing. The Airport Board -- we work around this on almost a monthly basis. But the issue really comes in -- the Airport Manager -- the Airport Board contracts with the City, and then the Airport Manager is part of that function, so it's a -- almost a double line. MS. BAILEY: And the City provides many services pursuant to that contract, like my services as the 3-i9 OS 1 '^' 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 •- 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ~3 '^ 24 25 117 attorney, the Street Department, the Airport Manager, so those people all report to the City Manager. But then the City Manager and the City are beholden to the two owners as -- as the contracting entity. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, in reality -- to answer your question, in reality, the way it works -- and, contractually, I think it has to be the way it was done. In reality, the Airport Board is giving direction to the Airport Manager directly, and if the airport -- if the City Manager has a problem with that, then they come to the Airport Board and it gets resolved at that level. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. In my opinion, it's desirable that the services be provided through the City, and it's desirable that the Airport Manager be on the City payroll, 'cause he needs to be paid somewhere. Just seems -- could be on the County payroll, I suppose. But my point is, there isn't any value added by having him report to the City Manager. That -- that reporting relationship is not -- does not add any value to the quality of the decision-making process. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If I understand your point, Commissioner, I'd say no. And I think the reason being that he's going to take his basic direction in terms of how to manage from the Airport Board. They're going to set that policy, and they're going to -- they're going to 3 is 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 25 118 expect that accountability for how that property is managed and operating on a day-to-day basis, Now, if you come crosswise with him about that, then the Airport Board, through its president or delegation of Airport Board members, will sit down with the City Manager and work that out somehow, some way. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the reason there has to be -- you know, I went round and round with this thing when we were doing -- setting a lot of this up, there has to be one person that we contract with who is responsible, and that person has to be the City Manager, really. And the reason is because there's lots of others; there's engineering function out there, there's sewer function, there's airport planning, there's accounting. There's lots of other functions that a little bit of their time gets billed into the overall budget, and it doesn't work real well to have -- you know, for us to have to work with, you know, the City Attorney's office and the City Engineering office and all that, so we just have the City Manager as the lead point person. But, in reality, if we have a problem with any part of that, the Airport Board will talk to the City Manager to resolve it. We don't talk to the Airport Manager to resolve it, but the -- in a working relationship, the Airport Manager works very closely with the Airport Board. I mean, the City Manager never comes to our board 3-19-OS 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 119 meetings -- I won't say never. Rarely. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He's been there once or twice, but on several invitations or unique presentations or something. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But if we have an issue with -- with the Airport Manager not doing his job properly, and then we go to the City Manager and get that problem resolved, and that hasn't happened, Bill would suggest a -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For administrative services. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's administrative service; that's fine, But the decision process about how to administer and implement these rules, there should not be any involvement in. The second one was, I'm glad we're going to have a delay on this. I cannot -- not being an aviator or owner of an aircraft, I can read these and can't make a determination about whether they represent the minimum amount of government necessary to operate a good facility. My -- and I do -- I am aware that we have aviators and plane owners on the board, so I've got some level of confidence that there's a good balance between regulation needed and the flexibility that owners and aviators need. But it does also seem that it would be good that -- to have some opportunity for -- for aircraft owners and pilots to -- to, if there's any objection to anything, -iq-us 1 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 have an opportunity to do that before we -- before we rule on it. MS. BAILEY: Commissioner -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: This process has been very open, and this document has been in front of Kerrville Aviation; is on their counter. I think most people that use the airport on a regular basis are familiar with where this is. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And they, for the most part, were in attendance at all the Airport Board meetings -- most of them. And so what -- what has happened in the formulation of this document was involving aviators, aircraft owners, business operators out there and so forth and so on, keeping this in compliance with TexDOT Aviation, F.A.A. and all those things that -- governance over which we have no control. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You don't really expect a room full of pilots ~n here in about a month -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't think so. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- hollering about -- you can't tell that? COMMISSIONER LETZ; They've already been at the other meetings. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In fact, at our last 3 ie os 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 meeting -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'll take your word for it. MS. BAILEY: There's one major tenant that we spent half the meeting addressing and responding to some of his very good suggestions and concerns, so we've -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's good. MS. BAILEY: -- had this out to the airport community. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Any other discussion on this item? Thank you very much, Ms. Bailey. Are there any items to be covered in closed or executive session? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, we'll move on. The approval agenda. Mr. Auditor, guess we're ready for you. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've got one question on the bills. MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Under Commissioners Court, the insurance consulting fee. Is that paid in full up -- up through today? Or is this -- I can't remember how much. MR. TOMLINSON: That's through March of 'O5. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. So we're paid 3 14 i! 5 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 122 up with that guy. All right, good. COMMISSIONER LETZ: You -- JUDGE TINLEY: For now. I think his contract calls for a total of, I think, 12,5. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Right, I remember that. But I was going to gauge that to see, in fact, if I could tell how much work he had done for us. COMMISSIONER LETZ: You mentioned insurance, and I don't know -- someone told me that we have a problem somewhere. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, don't go there, Jon. This is before lunch. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Don't go there right now, unless you got another hour and a half you want to talk. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. At our next meeting, we can talk about our insurance problem. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, indeed. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Health insurance? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I've run up a big bill lately; that might be a problem. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move we pay the bills. 3-19-OS 123 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for payment of the bills. Any question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (NO response.) JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Budget Amendment Request Number 1. MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. Number 1 is for the County Attorney. Request is to transfer $10,000 from Assistants line item for -- $9,500 to Attorney's Fees and $500 to Conferences. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of Budget Amendment Request Number 1. 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. Budget Amendment Request Number 2. 3-19-US 124 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. TOMLINSON: Number 2 is -- is for the jail. I have -- I have a bill for $4,860 for -- it's for bar code scanners for jail operations. In '02-'03 -- I mean in '03-'04, we received funds called a SCAAP grant, and it's a federal -- federal moneys that reimburse us for -- for housing aliens in our jail. At the end of '03-'04, we had ,474.23 unexpended. However, we did not budget that unexpended amount for '04-'O5. So, my -- my request here is to increase the budget for the amount of the unexpended grant funds, plus transfer $2,386.74 from Jailers Salaries to make this payment. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Those -- the $2,474.23 portion, that -- did it just go back into the General Fund? MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, it did. But we didn't -- we didn't -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Was it designated for one purpose only? MR. TOMLINSON: It was -- it was designated for -- for reimbursement of expenses. It could be anything for -- for operation of the jail. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But -- okay. But, I mean, I guess what I'm asking, if we don't use it on something like this, we have to send it back to the government, whoever gave us the grant, correct? We have to use these grant funds? 3 19 n5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2L 23 24 25 125 MR. TOMLINSON: We need beds for these purposes, so we have to somehow get it out of the -- we need to use it up, and to do it, we need to increase the budget. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For this purpose or something like this? MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move approval -- declare an emergency and move approval of the budget amendment. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to declare an emergency and approve the Budget Amendment Request Number 2. Any question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Budget Amendment Request Number 3. MR. TOMLINSON: Number 3 is for the -- for County Court at Law and 216th District Court. We -- we've depleted the funds in the budget for -- for master court appointments for child protective cases. And I -- I spoke to the District Judge for the 216th, and he agreed to transfer -- let us transfer $5,000 from Special Trials in 3-19-OS 126 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 <24 25 the district -- 216th court to Master Court Appointments for the County Court at Law. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, Special Trials money is money we budgeted for capital murder cases? MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It's probably okay to do this. I don't know, but it -- there's, I think -- MR. TOMLINSON: We11, there's -- we -- the only -- the only thing for sure that we'll see this year is the competency trial for Seard, and the Sheriff tells me that that'll probably be in the next 60 days. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I remember our budget discussions, though, we when we said this is a hard one to swallow, but we're going to have to budget a big amount of money for that, and maybe we'll get it back. And there's probably a tendency to start using that as a slush fund, and we -- we ought to have the discipline to avoid that. I'm preaching to the choir. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with you. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, at the same t5me, there's -- the other option would be to declare an emergency and increase the budget. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I move to approve. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 3-i9 os 127 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2 L 23 24 25 approval of Budget Amendment Request Number 3. Any question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Budget Amendment Request Number 4. MR. TOMLINSON: Number 4 is for Road and Bridge, and they are requesting a transfer of $321 from Contract Fees to Vehicle Insurance, and it's for the addition of the -- the two Gradalls. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of Budget Amendment Request Number 4. Any question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Budget Amendment Request Number 5. MR. TOMLINSON: Number 5 is for Justice of 3-14-u5 128 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2c^ 23 24 25 the Peace, Precinct 3. His request is to transfer $795.68 from Software Maintenance to Conferences. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I see the judge in the audience. Is this because of -- basically to get the initial training to get up as a -- coming in as a new justice? MR. CASTILLO: It's 'cause it took too many school hours for me to go to school. They had budgeted just enough for 20 hours 'cause Kari was here, and I had to go to 80 hours of schooling. We depleted it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. DODGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of Budget Amendment Request Number 5. 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.) COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge Castillo, where are you going to school? MR. CASTILLO: Austin D.P.S. This one is grant writing school, and I thought -- I elected to qo the D.P.S. school, 'cause I think they will understand what -- what we want. 3 14-u5 129 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ]2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMTSSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. MR. CASTILLO: In chasinq our fines that are not paid. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. Be careful in Austin. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. JUDGE TINLEY: Budget Amendment Request Number 6. MR. TOMLINSON: Number 6 is for the Auditor's office. I'm requesting a transfer of $92.50 from Part-Time Salary to Bonds. COMMISSIONER NICHULSON: You can't run your budget any better than that? MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I forgot -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm kidding, Tommy. MR. TOMLINSON: I forgot that my appointment was up this May. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of Budget Amendment Request Number 6. 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. 3 19-05 130 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 (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Budget Amendment Request Number 7. MR. TOMLINSON: Number 7 is for the Commissioners Court. We need to transfer $1,254 from Survey Services to the Copier Lease line item to -- this -- this finishes out '04-'O5. JUDGE TINLEY: Apparently when we -- when I put the budget together, I put together a six-month budget for the copier instead of a 12-month. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So it's your fault, huh? JUDGE TINLEY: I'll take -- you know -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just -- JUDGE TINLEY: -- Lay it right here at my feet. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Glad to hear it's your fault, not Ms. Mitchell's. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move for approval. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of Budget Amendment Number ~. Any question or comments? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Brief comment. There is some survey work that's underway in my precinct, and 3 14-OS 131 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 71 12 l3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 L1 22 23 24 25 hopefully some of that is going to be picked up by some private landowners. Not the Hermann Sons; it's on Lane Valley Road, realignment and all that stuff over there. Anyway, so there may be some -- it'll hopefully be below the amount. We're trying to correct something that wasn't done in 1992. JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions or comments? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Do we have any late bills? MR. TOMLINSON: No. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tommy, don't run off. I got a question for you here. MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And just then you said you'd forgotten your appointment was this year, and I have too. I'm interested in that; I'm just curious about it. Dc the District Judges appoint you as the Auditor, or a District Judge? Who does that? MR. TOMLINSON: Well, the district -- the 216th. 1-14-US 132 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 216th Judge appoints you as the County Auditor. Do they do that in a public forum, or does he just sign some order? MR. TOMLINSON: He signs an order. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. MR. TOMLINSON: They have a public hearing on -- on my salary. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But no public hearing on the appointment? MR. TOMLINSON: No. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Where's the public hearing on your salary going to be? MR. TOMLINSON: Well, he changes it from county to county. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see. MR. TOMLINSON: He does it all at one time for all four counties, so -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see. MR. TOMLINSON: -- wherever he decides. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just remember -- I'm not fussing or anything like that. I just remember reading that one time, and I was curious how it worked. MR. TOMLINSON: That's the way it works. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: He may be thinking 3 19-OS 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 about applying for that job. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. JUDGE TINLEY: I have before me monthly reports submitted by the Sheriff; Justice of the Peace, Precinct 2; County Clerk; Justice of the Peace, Precinct 3; Justice of the Peace, Precinct 4; and Justice -- and District Clerk. Do I hear a motion that these reports be approved as submitted? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The second came out just before the move. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I tell you, you've got to -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They' re both there. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- got to wake up, man. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But there's one missing from -- the Juvenile Detention Facility also submitted one. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: "Yeah, it was in here this morning. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Her report's in, 'r_ause I read it. MR. EMERSON: So's the County Attorney's. 3 19-u5 134 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So is the County Attorney's. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: County Attorney's report is in here. JUDGE TINLEY: You want to add that to the motion? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion to include the Juvenile Detention Facility and County Attorney's office. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And we need to make sure copies of that get into the Clerk's -- cause she's the one that -- and I gave her m5ne -- one of them. JUDGE TINLEY: 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. Don't have any transcripts before me. Do we have any report from any of the Commissioners in connection with their various liaison assignments? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have one. It's sort of a liaison assignment. Anyone that has nothing to do Thursday or wants to learn more about water on Thursday, -i9-os 135 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ~2 23 24 25 Region J is meeting in Bandera at the Flying J -- Flying F. JUDGE TINLEY: Flying F. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Flying F. That's right, the Flying J is a truck stop. Flying F Guest Ranch. Also have a good lunch there, which we will not be paying for unless you're a member, but you're welcome to attend. We're getting near the end of this panning cycle, and I have received word from Austin that there is a Senate Bill 3 in the works, which will be the water bill under this session, and it appears the same process for water planning is going to continue with quite a few changes, adjustments, other things going through the Legislature right now. Some good, some bad. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Have you read the bill? COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, I have not. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What time is that meeting? COMMISSIONER LETZ: 10 o'clock. It'll probably last till about 2:00 or 3 o'clock. J~JDGE TINLEY: Any other reports? Elected officials, any reports? Department heads? Hearing no further business, I'll -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I want to report about Animal Control. 3-19-OS 136 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ' 29 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Real quickly. All of you are aware that back on February the 2nd, there was a case where a Kerrvillian had 12 dogs and 22 cats in his problem, and we got one through all of it. Our Animal Control group brought it to a very successful conclusion, one that pleased everybody, including the pet owner. The end result was that he brought four of his pets up to code and surrendered the rest of them. As of a few days ago, we had 10 of those others adopted, which is a pretty good ratio. I don't know about the rest of them, whether or not they were adopted. We got a lot of good press on that, including San Antonio Fox News; heard it on the TV down there. All of you are aware of what a big issue animal control is down there, so they were sort of seeming to be saying, "Here's the way another county does it better than we do." I'm not goinq to start using this as a mark of success, but PETA, People for Ethical Treatment of Animals, heard that report and sent an e-mail to our shop congratulating our Animal Control group on the way it was handled. And then there was another anonymous report of -- of animal abuse on a grand scale, and -- it was reported to PETA, and PETA sent the information on to our Animal Control group, who did a very thorough investigation. Found no -ie-vs 137 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ~0 21 ~, Gc 23 29 25 abuse, by the way, and, again, we got kudos from PETA for -- for our handling of that situation. So, that -- we hear a lot of grievances, a lot of complaining and gripes, but once in a while, we also hear something good that happens. That's a11. COMMISSIONER LETZ: To have PETA on your side on this issue says a lot. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm not sure how -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: It says a lot. DODGE TINLEY: Anything further? We will stand adjourned. (Commissioners Court adjourned at 12:01 p.m.) 3-lA OS 138 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF KERB 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 21st day of March, 2005. JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk Kathy Ba ik, Deputy County Clerk Certified Shorthand Reporter 3-'_4 OS ORDER N0.29074 COUNTY ATTORNEY Came to be heazd this the 14a' day of Mazch 2005 with a motion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to hire an assistant county attorney on a part time basis as needed. ORDER N0.29075 REVISED PERSONNEL POLICY Came to be heazd this the 14'I' day of March 2005 with a motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court approved by vote of 3-1-0 the policy relating to 7.08 PAY SCALE (c) as presented to read as follows AND all employees that have had increases up to this date, this budget yeaz, will receive both a merit and longevity grade increase. (c) When an employee leaves a position no new hire may be employed at a higher classification than Step 1 of the Group to which the position belongs, without prior approval of the Commissioners' Court. An employee who transfers to another position within the county shall keep all longevity step/grade increases earned. An employee who transfers to another position within the county shall not be allowed to transfer any prior merit increases they have earned in their current position. ORDER NO. 29076 PUBLIC HEARING BIG SKY RANCH SUBDIVISION Came to be heazd this the 14a' day of March 2005 with a motion made by Commissioner Nicholson, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to hold a public hearing for May 9, 2005 at 10:00 am to consider changing the classification of roads in Big Sky Ranch Subdivision. ORDER N0.29077 KERR COUNTY HISTORICAL COMMISSION Came to be heazd this the 14a' day of Mazch 2005 with a motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 the officers, membership and budget for the yeaz 2005-2006. ORDER N0.29078 AUDUBON PLACE (formerly Cole Addition) Came to be heard this the 14~' day of March 2005 with a motion made by Commissioner Nicholson, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 the Preliminary Plat for Audubon Place. ORDER N0.29079 JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITY SEX OFFENDER TREATMENT PROGRAM Came to be heazd this the 14w day of Mazch 2005 with a motion made by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 the Sex Offender Treatment Program that is being proposed at the Juvenile Detention Facility. ORDER NO.29080 NVENILE DETENTION FACILITY SUBSTANCE ABUSE PROGRAM Came to be heard this the 14a' day of March 2005 with a motion made by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 the Substance Abuse Program that is being proposed at the Juvenile Detention Facility. ORDER N0.29081 JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITY BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT Came to be heazd this the 14s' day of Mazch 2005 with a motion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 the Behavior Management Program that is being proposed at the Juvenile Detention Facility. ORDER N0.29082 FLAT ROCK LAKE BIDS Came to be heazd this the 14'" day of Mazch 2005 with a motion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 the bids received and refer them to the Facility Director for review. ORDER N0.29083 ROAD AND BRIDGE BIDS Came to be heard this the 14~' day of Mazch 2005 with a motion made by Commissioner I,etz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 the bids received for road base material, cold mix, black base, trap rock aggregate, asphalt emulsion oil, corrugated metal pipe and equipment by the hour with operator and refer them to the Road and Bridge Administrator for review. ORDER N0.29084 KERR COUNTY JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITY CONTRACTS Came to be heard this the 14'" day of Mazch 2005 with a motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 the contract forms between Kerr County Juvenile Detention Facility and outside entities for psychological evaluations, residential services contract for post-adjudicated juvenile offenders in secure placement and contract and agreement for secure pre- adjudicated residential service of juvenile offenders space available. ORDER N0.29085 JUVENILE DETENTION CENTER HILL COUNTRY COUNCIL ON ALCOHOL & DRUG ABUSE, INC. Came to be heazd this the 14'" day of Mazch 2005 with a motion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 the contract as amended with the Hill Country Council on Alcohol & Drug Abuse, Inc. ORDER N0.29086 JUVENILE DETENTION OFFICER LISA LEBOW Came to be heazd this the 14a' day of March 2005 with a motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 hiring Lisa Lebow as a juvenile detention officer at a step/grade 12/3. ORDER N0.29087 CLAIMS AND ACCOUNTS On this the 14th day of March 2005, came to be considered by the Court vazious Commissioners Precincts, which said Claims and Accounts aze: Expenses Amount 10-General $157,508.28 14-Fire Protection $10,416.67 15-Road & Bridge $22,822.53 18-County Law Library $3,300.02 19- Public Library $26,944.08 26-JP Technology $275.00 28-Records Mgt & Preservation $755.00 50-Indigent Health Caze $20,701.46 70-Permanent Improvements $16,460.00 76-Juvenile Detention Facility $11,737.04 80-Historical Commission $82.54 81-District Administration $300.00 Total Cash Required for all Funds $271,482.60 Upon motion made by Commissioner Baldwin seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to pay the claims and accounts. ORDER N0.29088 BUDGET AMENDMENT COUNTY ATTORNEY Came to be heazd this the 14a' day of Mazch 2005 with a motion made by Commissioner Letz, Seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense codes: Expense Code Description Requested /( ~ 1075-103 Assistant's Salaries ($10,000.00) 10-475-403 Attorney's Fees $9,500.00 10-475-485 Conferences $500.00 ORDER N0.29089 BUDGET AMENDMENT COUNTY JAI[. Came to be heard this the 14~' day of March 2005 with a motion made by Commissioner Letz, Seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to declare an emergency and transfer tho following expense codas: Expense Coda Description 10512-495 SCAPP OreM 10.512-104 Jailers Salaries ReQussted I( ) $4,860.97 (52.388.74) ORDER N0.29090 BUDGET AMENDMENT COUNTY COURT AT LAW Came to be heazd this the 14~' day of March 2005 with a motion made by Commissioner Nicholson, Seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense codes: Expense Code Description Requested /( ) 10-427-403 Master Court Appointments $5,000.00 10-435-417 Special Trials ($5,000.00) ORDER N0.29091 ROAD & BRIDGE DEPARTMENT Came to be heazd this the 14s' day of Mazch 2005 with a motion made by Commissioner Nicholson, Seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense codes: Expense Code Description Amount requested \( ) 15-611-480 insurance-vehicle $321.00 15-611-553 Contract fees ($321.00) ORDER N0.29092 BUDGET ADMENDMENT Came to be heazd this the 14'" day of Mazch 2005 with a motion made by Commissioner Letz, Seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of NSTICE OF THE PEACE, PCT 3 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense codes: Expense Code Description Amount requested \( ) 10-457-485 Conference $795.68 10-457-563 Softwaze Maintenance ($795.68) ORDER N0.29093 BUDGET AMENDMENT COUNTY AUDITOR Came to be heazd this the 14~' day of Mazch 2005 with a motion made by Commissioner Letz, Seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense codes: Expense Code Description Amount requested \( ) 10-495-206 Bonds $92.50 10-495-108 pazt-time salary ($92.50) ORDER NO. 29094 COMMISSIONERS COURT Came to be heard this the 14's day of March 2005 with a motion made by Commissioner Baldwin, Seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense codes: Expense Code Description Amount requested \( ) 10-401-461 Lease copier $1,254.00 10-401-500 survey services ($1,254.00) ORDER N0.29095 MONTHLY REPORTS MONTHLY REPORTS Came to be heard this the 14`s day of Mazch 2005 with a motion made by Commissioner Williams, Seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 the following monthly reports; Sheriff s Department Justice of the Peace 2, 3 & 4 County Clerk District Clerk Juvenile Detention Center County Attorney