~.,~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT
Regular Session
Monday, May 9, 2005
9:00 a.m.
Commissioners' Courtroom
Kerr County Courthouse
Kerrville, Texas
vl
v_~
1.`-'
~i
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

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I N D E X
May 9, 2005
	PAGE
---	Commissioners' Comments .............................	5
1.1	Kerr Economic Development Foundation (KEDF)	
	second quarter update ...............................	9
1.2	Consider current coverage of County's automobile	
	liability insurance, how to best cover employees	
	using their personal vehicles .......................	24
3
1	Consider authorizing Sheriff to initiate reserve	
.	~ ~/Jr3	37
	deputy program ...............................	
1.4	Discuss expenditure of surplus capital outlay	
	funds in the jail budget .....................~/.2415~.	44
1.5	Consider approval of broadband services for court-	
	house in conjunction with Law Enforcement Center:~`1/S5	97
1.9	Public Hearing on road changes in various locations	
	in Kerr County ......................................	63
1.10	Accept Bids for county depository contract and refer	
	same to County Treasurer and County Auditor.~~~.~s~.	64
1.6	Consider awarding bid for cleanup of Flat Rock Lake	
	to Excavation Technologies, Inc...........~.4~5 r/. ...	65
1.7	Consider authorizing Road and Bridge to improve/	
	construct separate roadway to facility at Kerrvil~9~~
	State Hospital for acute/civil commitment patients..	73
1.8	Discuss County's responsibility for maintenance of	
	Clark Ranch Road in Precinct 4 ......................	88
1.11	Consider reclassification of roads in Big Sky Ranch	
	from public to private ......................~g~:5.~..	98
1.12	Consider (a) name changes on County-maintained	
	roads; (b) abandoning, discontinuing, and vacating	
	1445 ft. of Ox Hollow and all of Hurt-Priour;	
	(c) speed limits on Bear Creek and Peterson Farm	
	Road; and (d) no parking on Hunt River Road.a~~~~OU..	99
1.13	Consider road name changes for privately maintained	
	roads in accordance with 9-1-1 guidelines...~9~~f..	109
1.14	Preliminary Plat of Mosty Pecan Grove, Pct. 2.~~~~z-.	109
1.15	Concept plan for Lot 91 of Clear Springs Ranches #2	
	to allow for rental of manufactured homes, Pct. 2...	119
1.16	Consider approval of contract with Kerrville ISD	
	and Kerr County Juvenile Facility regarding the	
	educating of KISD-expelled students at KCJF; have	
	~9~~~	
	.
County Judge sign same ......................	130
1.17	Consider Butt-HOldsworth Memorial Library contract	
	between City of Kerrville and Kerr County........	---
1.18	Discuss a peer comparison survey that ana]yzes cost	
	of Kerr County government compared to 12 other Texas	
	Counties with populations of 40,000 to 50,000.......	137
1.19	Consider Resolution declaring May 10, 2005, as
`
~
a?9~~	
143
	.
..
G
Kerr County Law Day ........................	

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
3
I N D E X (Continued)
May 9, 2005
PAGE
1.20 Consider approval of Administrative Services
	Agreement with United Of Omaha Life Insurance	
	Company and Health Reimbursement Account	
	Administration in connection with Employee	
	Benefits Program ...........................'?Zg~jFS..	144
	,	
1.21	Approve appointment of Roger Bobertz for at-large	
	position on Kerrville/Kerr County Airport Board:~~1~~~166
1.22	Consider the "Kerr County Management's Discussion	
	and Analysis" for the 2003-2004 audit ...............	172
1.23	Reports from the following departments:	
	Information Technology ..........................	195
	Road and Bridge .................................	206
	Facilities and Maintenance ......................	228
	Collections .....................................	237
9.1	Pay Bills ..................................'i'~.?~~!l...	240
4.2	Budget Amendments ....................~9«D~.::'~2.~~7~i..	241
4.3	Late Bills ..........................................	---
4.4	Approve and Accept Monthly Reports.........:'~9~~3...	244
5.2 Reports from Elected Officials/Department Heads 245
--- Adjourned ........................................... 251
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
4
On Monday, May 9, 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: Good morning, ladies and
gentlemen. Let me call to order this regularly scheduled
meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court scheduled and
posted for this date and time, Monday, May 9th, 2005, at
9 a.m. It is just a bit past that time now, so we'll get
started. Commissioner Nicholson, I believe you have the
honors.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Will y'all join me
in a word of prayer and the pledge to the flag?
(Prayer and pledge of allegiance.)
DODGE TINLEY: Thank you. At this time, if
there is any member of the public or the audience that
wishes to be heard on any matter that is not a listed agenda
item, we're happy for to you come forward at this time and
tell us what's on your mind. If you wish to speak on a
listed agenda item, we'd ask that you fill out a
participation form. The forms are in the back of the room.
It's not essential that you do that, but it does help me to
be sure that I don't miss you when that agenda item does
come up, so we would ask that you do that. But right now,
s-A-n~,
5
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
23
24
25
if there's any member of the audience or the public who
wishes to be heard on any item that is not a listed agenda
item, please come forward at this time to be heard. Seeing
no one coming forward, I assume there's no one wishing to be
heard on nonagenda items. Commissioner Nicholson, what do
you have for us this morning?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Good rain and a lot
of it, and it's very timely. We had three or four brush
fires over the last two weeks in -- in west Kerr County.
Also, I wanted to say something again about our volunteer
fire departments. They -- they do a terrific job for us and
save us a lot of money, and several of them I've talked to
all have a common problem, that -- it may be all of them,
and that's recruitment. Some of the men and women are
getting a little bit older, and we need replacements, so if
any of you know of anybody that's interested in serving the
community in a volunteer firefighter capacity, it's a lot of
fun, a lot of work, and it's good community service. That's
all.
DODGE TINLEY: Commissioner 1?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Not a thing, sir.
Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner 2?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I want to extend my
congratulations to Mr. Todd Bock and Mr. Carl Meek on their
s n us
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
victory in the recent city elections. I am tickled to death
that they attended our meeting on Friday so that they --
before they get sworn in and sit down, they have a little
sense of what the issues are that they're going to be
confronted with as they embark on their career of service
for the City of Kerrville. I hope that this is the
beginning of a new chapter. I'm confident that both
gentlemen are capable and have the desire to serve the
citizens of Kerr County and the City of Kerrville in
particular well, and I look forward to opportunities to
serve together.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Commissioner
3?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just one comment. I'm
debating whether I should bring it up or not, 'cause I think
it's not confirmed yet, but a pretty good likelihood. A
body was found just south of Comfort on the Guadalupe River
late last week, and the feeling -- and the gut feeling is
that it may be -- Rusty's shaking his head. It's not?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't feel it will be,
but we'll wait and see.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Some feeling that it may
be the missing child that was killed in the flood in 1987.
5 9-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

That's one of the bodies that was not ever recovered, and
some feel that it's a likelihood -- it's in an area where --
under a bunch of debris that's been there for many, many
years. Lots of big floods have come through there, but no
one knows for sure. But if that is the case, that would be
a blessing to have that chapter in a lot of people's lives
put to bed and behind us forever.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: As Commissioner Nicholson
mentioned, oftentimes we need people to assist us in various
functions that assist our citizens here in Kerr County. I
-- I failed to mention at the last meeting until after the
media had concluded their work here about a vacancy that we
have with the Alamo Senior Advisory Committee, which is an
advisory committee to the Alamo Area Agency on Aging. If
you can say that real fast three times, you're much better
than I. It's a component of AACOG that -- that's an
integral part of a lot of our governmental functions. It
deals with senior issues there at AACOG. We have two
representatives, and we recently had a vacancy occur. We
are seriously looking for -- to fill that post so that we
have both of those representatives on board with that
advisory committee. If -- if you're aware of anyone that --
that may have an interest in that, we have a very high
5 9 0 S
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
8
number of seniors in this area, and I think we need to be
well represented. If -- if you're aware of anyone that may
have an interest in that, I would encourage you to encourage
them to contact us so that we might put them in touch with
the appropriate individuals at AACOG. Also, hopefully the
media will give some attention to our need for this
individual and this post to be filled, and maybe we can get
some interest created there. Along with Commissioner
Williams, I want to congratulate the incoming members of the
Kerrville City Council. As all of you are aware, we had a
joint meeting with the City Council last Friday, and
initiated the discussions that must necessarily take place
in order that some of these joint functions and -- and joint
facilities that we have are funded and operated each year.
Hopefully, now, with the -- with the distraction that the
city members had concerning the upcoming election, with that
being over and they know where they are and who's going to
be on board, we can move forward on a -- on a real
meaningful basis to the ultimate benefit of all of the
citizens of Kerr County, which, of course, includes all the
citizens of Kerrville. So, that's the ultimate goal, and
hopefully we can move on with that, and I think everybody on
this Court is definitely committed to that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, one thing I
forgot, Region J. We will have -- Region J will be having a
s G 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
9
meetinq in Kerrville, which will be the final meeting before
we adopt the current water plan, and it'll be on the 19th of
this month at U.G.R.A. at 10 o'clock in the morning. It
will be several hours. It -- we'll be going over chapters
of the plan, final review of those chapters. There will be
a public hearing after that, but this will basically be a
final review of the regional water plan, and it should be an
interesting meeting, for those that are interested in water
issues. A lot of changes in our regional plan. For those
that follow such things, Senate Bill 3 is the water bill
this session. Depending on how many amendments have been
attached, taken away, whatever, it's currently 65 pages
long. It talks about a lot of things other than water, in
my opinion. But, anyway, it's -- and it's going to have an
impact, it looks like, on Kerr County and all -- every
county, probably, in the state. It's probably more akin to
Senate Bill 1; that and Senate Bill 2 was the two previous
water bills.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Let's get into our
agenda. The first item on the agenda -- we're running a bit
behind -- but is Kerr Economic Development Foundation second
quarter update. Mr. Overby is here with -- he's the -- is
your title "Executive Director" or "President" or both of
the KEDF?
MR. OVERBY: Well, they gave me the title of
5-9-05
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
President of KEDF. So, I mean, that's -- I guess, whatever
that comes with. So, anyway, that's the title; that is
President of KEDF.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Well, we appreciate you
being here today.
MR. OVERBY: Thank you, County Judge and
Commissioners. Thank you for the opportunity to appear
before you today and give you our second quarter report.
Again, the Kerr Economic Development Foundation year runs
from October lst through September 30th of each year, and
it's a privilege to be before you today. In your contents
there that is before you, we want to go ahead and give you,
of course, the minutes of the executive and last full board
meetings of our organization. Also included in there is a
comparison report of the budget of our KEDF for the first
six months, and I would like to thank the County for your
support to the Kerr Economic Development Foundation this
year, the check of $15,000. And our organizations has taken
that money this year and been very responsible, and we
wanted to assure the Kerr County taxpayers that that money
is well-spent for economic development efforts, and I can
assure you that we are doing that this year, and reporting
back to you.
Again, the Kerr Economic Development
Foundation has made some -- quite a -- quite a bit of
5-9-n5
	1
	2
	3
	4
	
	5
	6
	7
	8
	9
	10
	11
	12
-- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
"` 2 4
25
11
contributions and accomplishments this year. One thing on
our accomplishments from our last quarter that we want to
report to you, in February -- we are continuing to update
our web site. Our web site is being used to -- it's a
little over a year old, but it's being used as an example
for many other communities like ours to have. In Austin,
they're using it to help them develop economic development
information for business attraction and -- and retention
programs. Our web site is also currently, right now in
KEDF, being used for all of the TexDOT projects that are
going on in Kerr County right now. The $38 million highway
improvements that are going on, we are updating folks on our
web site continually with updates. You can go there -- for
example, you know the new high-rise bridge on Spur 39; you
can see those updates weekly, basically, as to how that's
going.
Another thing that we've done recently is
this -- of course, gentlemen, recently in March, the Kerr
Economic Development Foundation, if you remember, had
22 acres of land out at the airport that's been there for --
oh, for about 40 years, and just recently the KEDF, kind of
in a land swap -- basically, we donated 3.025 acres to Kerr
County and City of Kerrville and to the Airport Board out
there in order to help Mooney Aircraft company to -- to seek
a $750,000 Texas Enterprise loan. They're still in that
5-9-OS
	1
,_	2
	3
	9
	
	5
	6
	7
	8
	9
	10
	11
	12
.» 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
-,
G J
12
process, but that -- that land donation over there made it
eligible or made it available to them, the possibility of
receiving that loan, so we were glad to do that. The land
that was there was mainly that parking lot area over there
that -- that Mooney was at, and so we were glad to do that.
Also, the value of that was around $45,000, so we were glad
to make that happen. And I want to talk about the land
transfer that we received from Mooney later on here in our
report to you.
Also, I'm glad to announce to you the -- the
business park that is right across the street from the
airport -- as you know, we spent a lot of money on
infrastructure, getting utilities out that way about three
years ago, and we were all kind of frustrated not having
anything happening out there. We are trying to help market
that area, but I will be glad to tell you that KEDF was
very --	very	-- very	big	part	in helping the first sale of
12 acres	out	there,	the	TexDOT	development out there.
TexDOT contacted us last summer, and they really asked for
what KEDF's -- as far as our opinion, where we thought the
best place that they could locate, and we were very helpful
in helping them in that direction. So, we're glad to say
that there's been some property purchased out there. There
are several other people looking at across the business park
over there. Again, the airport, as we've talked about, and
5 - 9 - 0 5

1

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
-- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
"" 2 4
25
13
the commerce park, really, those are prime areas in our
county that we've got to really seek for some type of
development to help on our tax base in our communities. So
we're very pleased about that.
One thing that we're very glad to give to you
today was just recently passed last Wednesday, the Kerr
Economic Development Strategic Plan. And this is something
that -	- our	organization	has not	had a strategic plan in
place	since	1993, so we -	- just	recently, our board
unanimously -- full board passed our strategic plan. This
is our strategic plan through X005-2010, and we're very
excited about that. This has gone into about six months of
a lot of research and a lot of meetings, and -- and really
trying to come up with a strategic plan that would work for
our communities and what goals that we can do, and have a
document that will be -- will be -- that we can have -- have
some latitude and make changes as we need to go. It's not a
perfect document, but it gives us some good direction where
we need to go for the next five years, so we're very pleased
with that. Our board has worked extremely hard with that.
As far as the development of the strategic
plan, just a few things I want to highlight on that. Just
quickly, the strategic focus of KEDF over for the next five
years can be expressed in three -- and this is on Page 4 of
our strategic plan. It is to strengthen communication and
5 g O S


1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
14
cooperation with our economic development partners. And I
think that's one thing that we are really, really working
on, and it's been very beneficial. Over the last year, I
think that we made a lot of strides in that, and as we make
our economic development efforts and develop and implement
exceptional retention and business expansion programming,
and I do believe that we are on track in doing those type of
things. And, of course, achieve and maintain a stable
financial condition for KEDF. And I think there are some
things that we're looking at that -- over the next few years
that we could develop as far as some income coming in for
this organization for years to come. That might be very
helpful in that organization as we go.
But we divided it into five different types
of -- and I'm not going to go into all of this, but you can
look at this study. Five different sets or -- or action
plans or components that we divided into. They are divided
into business retention and expansion of our businesses that
are here. Of course, they're our primary folks that we want
to make sure that they are expanding, and how we could help
them. Business attraction or recruitment, marketing
incentives, and financing and fundraising. Those are some
of those things that we've addressed. We've had some tine
frames. We look at who's responsible and how we're going to
develop this, our goals as we go through, our different
s-9-us
f

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
15
goals over the next five years with our strategic plan.
As we march on, I do want to talk about the
-- the next thing is our incentive committee. Of course,
the County Commissioners and our County Court, on the 26th
of April, '09, charged our organization with the opportunity
of looking at business incentives development, to look at
government incentives as far as what we can do as our
organization to -- for our county and our communities to
look at. I'm pleased to tell you that -- and this is not in
your packet; if I can approach the Commissioners here. I do
want to give you -- this is just very -- sorry they're not
all in color for you there right now. There's one there
also for your records.
Our organization, as we divided up into
around our area do other communities have in -- in
attracting different businesses or attraction for companies
to our area. And, again, this is very -- very early in its
development here, and this is not anything that's completed,
but by the end of -- we're hoping for November, October,
that we will be able to come to the Commissioners Court and
show you what our research has found out. It will be very
-- we'll have some type of Power Point presentation set up
for you that you can look at it. But as we're looking at
development and programs -- and incentive programs around
5-9-os
1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
L S
16
our area, we're finding out that, you know, even though
we're frustrated sometimes with where we are here, we're
ahead of a lot of certain other areas in our -- in or around
us. And, really, we are regional leaders in our area. And
we have a long ways to go; we know that, but as we come
back, we're going to be able to look at different things.
We're going to look at other finance incentives that -- how
we can develop and -- and strengthen our incentives that we
can have.
We have a lot of things in place that we can
use. We will look at some of the non-taxes -- non-tax
incentives that are in place also, and also some tax
incentives that we will be able to look at. And, again,
we've kind of given you the research that we're doing around
several communities of our size and in our state. And,
again, this is just very preliminary. You can look at it
when you have a chance, but it'll be very -- more -- a lot
more in detail as we're coming down. All right. We'll say
that our committees are doing the research in the time, and
I think that's why we've been frustrated over the years, is
that we just -- it takes time to look at what we can offer
as far as business attraction to help attract what our
community really could use that would be beneficial; I mean,
better paying jobs and those type of attractions to our
area.
5-9-0_
17
1

1
2
3
4
5
H
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
So, we're putting in the time, and I think
it's going to be very exciting what our report will come to
you. And, again, we're hoping around September, October,
our KEDF incentive chairman, Roland Pena -- we're very
blessed in our community to have him lead our -- our
committee, and I've gotten a chance to sit down with him.
Roland says, "God, there's tons of research that we're doing
here, and it just takes time." And -- but it's going to be
very exciting when we bring that to you, and we would
encourage our county and our city and our other economic
partners to look at it and how we can set our best step
forward.
Some other things we want to look at, airport
property. There is a page there right after the strategic
plan. KEDF also -- after the 3.025 acres was donated to our
economic partners, KEDF, in exchange, received a 5.60-acre
tract of land that's adjacent to our remainder of our
property. What we are doing -- that land right now is
currently not inside the city limits, but we are looking to
get that annexed at this time. That should be in the next
60 days. But what we are doing is, we have kind of went
ahead and had surveyed about 10 acres off that land that
would be the best suitable land that we could use for
attracting a company or a manufacture -- light manufacturing
company to our community that would be a very nice incentive
5-9-0.5
1

1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
18
to get something started out there, and this is a very
strong possibility that we're looking at.
What might be very exciting about it is that
it's something that may be a lease or something that we
could look at that maybe for 20 years or something. That
would be some ongoing money that would be received by our
organization that would help it out. And, again, for land
that's been sitting for a long time with no development,
this is exciting. The good thing about this land that you
see up at the front, it's the nearest to where all the
utilities are in place. It wouldn't take a lot of utility
hookup costs right there to get this land really working and
getting it going. So, we're really excited about this
tract. We -- we've targeted that area. We have had some
companies who've expressed some interest in wanting to come
to Kerr County, and this is some of the land that we're
going to be looking at to be -- that could be very
attractive. It's kind of bushy, kind of overgrown. We are
going to be looking at what alternatives, probably coming
back to have your ideas on how we can get that cleared off,
and if we have some programs or whatever you can help us
with, that will be very nice. But we have looked at those
areas that could be very worthwhile.
Quickly, also, our community is going to be
doing a business partner survey. We have not had another --
s-~-us

19


1
2
3
4
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
74
25
we have not done a survey in about three and a half years,
as far as really looking at the details, the main questions
that are asked in our community about jobs, challenges such
as day care, different -- different things that we need to
look at as far as what feedback our businesses can give us
in our community. I'm pleased to say to you that to make
our advertising -- not our advertising, but our marketing
dollars work the best that we can, we are teaming up with
Alamo WorkSource, the City of Kerrville, the Chamber of
Commerce, and the Convention and Visitor's Bureau to put
this survey on. It's -- and to do our homework again.
We'll be able to come back to you and give you those survey
results here on the next report. But, again, something
that's very important that we find out what challenges there
are for our -- our community as we face the next couple of
years, and especially this next year, that we need to
address other things.
Quickly, just a quick update on the U.S.D.A.
laboratory. Basically, this has been going on for about a
year. There there's been a lot of interest in the
possibility of -- of relocating the U.S.D.A. facility on
Highway 16 to another part in our county. I will tell you,
at this time right now, we have had several conversations
with Congressman Bonilla's representative, and -- and
talking with also Daniel Meza, who is Senator Cornyn's
5-e-os



1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
20
representative, and they are asking us to proceed forward in
if we can have this happen in our area. In fact, this
month, Commissioner -- I mean Congressman Bonilla will be
introducing into session the feasibility study request in
looking at this, and moving this laboratory in our area, so
we're real excited about the possibility. And -- and I
definitely would like to have any feedback later from you if
you have area or two that you think in our county that would
be a great place to locate. We are trying to target some
areas. We've had one or two areas that we're looking at.
you going to be soliciting, like, resolutions from the Court
supporting something like this to --
MR. OVERBY: We've already gotten it. And
thank you again for -- Commissioner Letz, the County did
give us a resolution in support that came in from all of our
communities to this request, and so we're moving forward
with that, so we're hoping for some -- some exciting news
with that. Feasibility study -- you know how the government
process operates. I think that we're moving really quick.
Congressman Bonilla really wants to make something happen in
our -- in our area right now. And he is, of course, the
s ~ os


1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
zl
chairman of the Appropriations Committee of Agriculture, so
we're excited about -- right now to do that.
Also, quickly, the Hill Country Shooting
Sports Complex -- Center, of course, that is meeting right
now with Jack Burch about that. Of course, they have an
agreement with the U.S.A. Shooting Group for about $250,000.
We are helping him look at other areas of -- of funding also
to help him. That is a -- a big, big win for our community.
I don't think we really have got the grasp of having our
arms around how big this really could go as far as an
economic development -- just ongoing money that would be
spent in our community. But we're real excited about that
and the tournaments that it can bring and money that can be
generated in our hotels and people spending money in our
county, which will be fantastic. So, those are ongoing.
Other ongoing projects, of course, to just
kind of update you quickly, of course, we're still wanting
to look down the road eventually to look at getting some
type of infrastructure out at James Avery. They're still
requesting, you know, to look at help down there to get
infrastructure needs, and they're wanting to expand and do a
lot of things out that way. So, we're still leading that
effort and trying to help in those things. There's a lot of
big things out there; we all know that's goinq on right now
in all of our communities. But there's areas out there
5-9-05
zz


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
right now for economic development and helping with our
businesses and helping them to grow, and to look at new
attractions coming in. I'm sorry that -- I'm trying to get
you back on schedule. I know I'm going real quickly, but
things are happening. The first half of the year, KEDF has
had a very busy year. I think we're making a lot of steps,
and in the right direction, where we're going. And I'm
pleased to be here today. If there's any questions?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Couple comments.
MR. OVERBY: Sure.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I want to thank Guy
for his report, and I think it's fair to extend our thanks
also to Bob Waller for his leadership.
MR. OVERBY: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I can remember when
KEDF used to come in here and report once a year, and they
didn't have a lot to report, but you've had a good bit to
report today. Just a couple things about some of the things
that Guy said. I was in attendance on behalf of Kerr County
last week at the -- at a regional rural county meeting with
TexDOT with the District Engineer in San Antonio, and we
were talking about the -- the items that we have placed on
the long-range TexDOT agenda, which goes to the Highway
Commission for its -- its blessing. And Highway 39, the
section south of the river that we talked about, was placed
s-a-os

23


1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
23
29
25
on there. That extension of Spur 100 -- not Spur 100, the
Spur 98 coming across to G Street is also on there. But I
think of current importance, there were some rumors floating
around with respect to the bids on Sidney Baker being kind
of high, and that that might impact the project. They may
have been high; they will not impact the project. Project
is on schedule and will -- will be let or started --
MR. OVERBY: Hopefully July.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- along the same
time frame that had earlier been projected by -- by TexDOT.
Secondly, with respect to the airport and Highway 27, the
District Engineer seems to think that we should not worry
too much about that issue; that when we really get down to
the crunch, if TexDOT Roads has to sit down with TexDOT
Aviation to resolve the issue, it will be resolved, because
moving that highway is a very, very expensive project for
all concerned, and they have higher things on their plate to
deal with. With respect to the U.S.D.A., talk to me
sometime this week. I have a couple things I want to share
with you about that.
MR. OVERBY: Great.
JODGE TINLEY: Any other questions for
Mr. Overby? We thank you for being here. We appreciate the
information.
MR. OVERBY: Thank you, Judge. Thank you,
5-9-OS
.~ ~
„_.___~_.~..___.___ .a-. _.~____..a.. ~.
24


1
2
3
4
5
F
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Good presentation.
JUDGE TINLEY: The next item on the agenda is
consider and discuss the current coverage of County's
automobile liability insurance and how to best cover
employees using their personal vehicles. Commissioner Letz
asked that this be placed on the agenda. We also have with
us a Mr. Chris Faught, who is with Texas Association of
Counties as a field representative on insurance matters.
I'll turn it over to Commissioner Letz.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the agenda item
is pretty self-explanatory. We just had some questions
about what the County's, you know, coverage actually is, and
then how our employees are covered in using personal
vehicles and things of that nature, and I'll turn it over to
you, and probably have some questions along the way.
MR. FAUGHT: Excellent question, and thank
y'all for asking that. When you get this deep into your
insurance program, we have to put you at a notch above
anybody else, because most people hit insurance and don't
want to ask questions or get answers about it. This is kind
of a knotty problem, so let me start by telling you what is
in place for the County at this time, and some of the
ramifications of people using their vehicles -- or our
vehicles, county vehicles, on their own time. You currently
5-9-OS
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
~5
have a business auto policy naming the County as the
insured, and it provides tort limits of 100, 300, 100. And
that means that if the County is involved in an automobile
really messed up, really banged up, the most that the
plaintiff can get is $300,000; not more than $100,000 per
person. The second $100,000 is property damage, and you can
hit a -- gosh, you can hit a Mercedes out here now that's
worth more than $100,000, but that's the most that that
person can collect in the county, is 100, 300, 100. That's
tort limits.
It comes from the state Constitution. In
been tried -- it gets tried daily. It may or may not make
sense to you why a county has limited liability like that,
but it goes back to the old rule that you learned in high
school that you can't sue the king. You nowadays can sue
the king -- the government, in other words -- but you can't
collect more than 100, 300, 100. That covers the County.
This policy, in its wording and who is insured, names the
employee as an insured, so if an employee driving a county
vehicle on county time is involved in a major accident,
we're going to provide -- that policy is going to provide
s-~-us
r
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
26
protection for the County and that employee up to those tort
limits.
Now, you can see the problem coming. That
employee may be more negligent than we are, and they may
have a bigger judgment against that employee than the tort
limits would apply. For instance, put that employee in
their own vehicle doing something for us, going to the post
office or going to a seminar or making a run across town in
their own vehicle. The County still has coverage under a
thing called hired and non-owned coverage. We're still
covered up to 100, 300, 100, but in this case the employee
in their own vehicle is not covered under the business auto
policy at all. At all. So, this does happen. It takes a
-- you've got to thread the needle to get coverage to
trigger for the County, because the plaintiff is going to
have to show that the County was negligent in some way in
the operation of that vehicle.
The most bizarre case I can think of happened
where we had a -- it was a private industry, so it was the
operator of a company car who had a -- you know, he had a
drinking problem. He was known to be juiced most of the
time. He's involved in a fatal accident. During the
discovery process, it was brought out that the employer knew
this fellow had a drinking problem, and was adjudged
negligent in letting him operate that company vehicle on
s-y-us
__ ~ ~ _~_
27
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
company time. So, in a county, it rarely gets triggered,
going to get some for themselves, so they will name the
County in the lawsuit. So, what you're really buying here
is defense coverage, we hope. Defense coverage in case of
the County -- or when the County is sued for that employee
operating their vehicle on county time and involved in an
accident. So, you have that coverage also.
But let me discuss something that might be --
that might change all this. Your -- your county policy in
use of county property clearly says that no personal use of
any county property, including vehicles, is permitted. Cf
course, it says that. This is -- this is not the employee's
vehicle; this is our vehicle. It's the County -- it's a
taxpayer vehicle, so, of course, you have that in there.
So, if you have county employees who take their county
vehicles home with them, and probably some do, the -- the
ideal case is that that vehicle goes home and gets parked
and does not get used on the weekends unless there's some
call for them to do so on the County's behalf. Because if
they do that, then according to your written policy, that
auto liability policy will consider that vehicle stolen, and
it will not trigger coverage. You're not negligent; you
would not be liable in a case like that. If somebody steals
s-y-us
28
1
"' 2
1 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
~._ 13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
your car and is involved in an accident, you're not
But in this case, you have a written policy
about that, which is a good policy. I'm not advocating
changing that. But you have a situation where a county
employee could be going to H.E.B., involved in a bad
accident, and the County has no coverage for that because
you have no liability for that. Now, far out case, maybe,
in using a pickup truck, but how about your Sheriff's
Office? And I'm pretty sure we -- that you allow them to
take those vehicles with them, and want them to take those
vehicles with them, because cops work 24/7. If there's a --
whether you agree to that or not, if there's a disaster of
some type, and a taxpayer sees a Sheriff's Office vehicle
parked there who can respond, we want them to respond.
That's just normal thinking. We want that Sheriff's Officer
responding down the street and stop that or start that. So,
we cut a little wider swath on that one; we allow Sheriff's
vehicles to be called just 24/7, even if you have a policy
about this. Now, then, is that confusing enough?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Going back to the other
county vehicles, other than the Sheriff. And, you know,
they're on their way home, and then they stop at H.E.B.
MR. FAUGHT: Okay, good question. And
that's, of course, what happens. That is no longer on
5-9-US
29

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
L 1
22
23
24
25
county business. In fact, worker's compensation will not
trigger, because that doesn't cover you until you're on the
job. Getting to and from the job is not considered
compensable, because that's not on the job. And this auto
policy, you know, is that personal, just to and from work?
Worker's comp says it is. The law says it is. And, of
course, we would defend you on that, but more than likely
that employee's not going to have any coverage for that.
You might, because you might be negligent in that. How many
employees operate county vehicles on other -- I mean, on a
take-it-home basis? Are we talking about a lot of them or
just a few of them?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Leonard, what do you
have?
MR. ODOM: Five, and myself.
MR. FAUGHT: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Six.
MR. ODOM: For emergencies.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The six that go home,
and --
JUDGE TINLEY: Be a couple in Maintenance.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, a couple in
Maintenance, so maybe -- less than 10.
MR. FAUGHT: Okay. A handful, then.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: About 10, probably.
5-9-OS
30
^

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 10 or 11.
MR. FAUGHT: There is a way to get this
problem fairly seamless, at least in your -- in your case,
and that is to go to the personal auto policy, the one you
have at home, and tell them that you're operating a county
vehicle, and ask them to take out an exclusion called --
there's an exclusion in there called use of other autos.
It's called the company car endorsement. It's very
inexpensive, as long as it's not the Sheriff's vehicle doing
this, or the Sheriff's personal auto policy. The
underwriter will, more often than not, allow that
endorsement for a couple -- $25, $35 a year, and what that
does is, in this portal-to-portal coverage, when you're
going from work to home or from home to work in a county
vehicle, and involved in an accident, if the county policy
won't respond, your personal auto policy would. It takes
out an exclusion in the personal auto policy. If y'all get
interested in that, you can call us, and I'll give you the
endorsement number to ask for.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I need to go back to
one of the points you made, a little clarification. I'm not
sure I understood what you said. I and other Commissioners
use our vehicles considerably; I use my -- one of my
vehicles extensively in pursuit of my responsibilities as a
County Commissioner. What is the limit of my exposure --
s-5-os
31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
what exposure do I have if there's an accident while I'm
conducting county business using my vehicle?
MR. FAUGHT: Okay. Sky's the limit. How
bad's the accident?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sky's the limit on
me?
MR. FAUGHT: On you, the employee, or you,
the county official.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
MR. FAUGHT: The sky's the limit on that.
How bad's the ac~~ident? How much money do you have? What
can they get out of you, in other words.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: As an individual?
MR. FAUGHT: As an individual.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Wonderful.
MR. FAUGHT: How much coverage can you buy,
in other words.
little problem
the situation.
COMMISSIONER
MR. FAUGHT:
COMMISSIONER
(Laughter)
MR. FAUGHT:
COMMISSIONER
MR. FAUGHT:
WILLIAMS:
The County
WILLIAMS:
The County
WILLIAMS:
You may or
Wonderful.
You crystallized that
has tort protection.
Yeah.
may not, depending on
s-9-o5
32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I probably have
the required insurance -- insurance required by state law.
MR. FAUGHT: Yes. Even if you had a million
dollars, is that enough? You just don't know till you get
to the scene of the accident and discover all the things
that went on in that accident. And it's how much money they
can get out of you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Most -- to kind of follow
up on that a little bit, I think probably we all have -- or
supposed to have, anyway -- auto insurance, and I would
suspect that just about everyone in this room has listed
that their vehicle is for personal use. But -- okay. Do
we -- is it advisable for everyone who is an elected
official, 'cause every one of them other than the Sheriff
uses their -- well, and I guess Leonard -- use their
personal cars. Should those all be converted to business?
MR. FAUGHT: Yes, they should. Here's what
you run by not doing that. On an application for auto
coverage, you answer the questions and sign the application.
If you -- if you -- if the question says, "How many miles a
day do you drive your vehicle," if it's to and from work, or
"Do you use it in business, or is it just a family-use
automobile," you check a box and sign that. That is
discoverable also. And what an insurance company can do is
to -- there is a thing called fraud in the inducement, which
5-9-u5
33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
means you signed an application saying you only use the ;ar
on Sundays to go to and from church, and what you really do
is you answer fire calls as a volunteer fireman in that
vehicle, and so the insurance company can, in the extreme
case, come back -- and they have to prove fraud, but they
can come back and show fraud in the inducement of writing
that policy,	and deny	coverage.	
	That is	a real extreme example.	What they
normally will do is they'll say, "You were involved in
rush-hour traffic, and what were you doing there when you
were supposed to be using your car only on Sunday or to and
from the grocery store?" You say, "Well, I do that all the
time," so they say, "Well, then, we've got you misrated and
we're going to give you the business use, and you need to
pay the additional premium. And, by the way, when the
policy comes up for renewal, we're not going to renew it."
So they're not going to -- they wouldn't cancel and deny
coverage unless they can prove fraud in the inducement, and
that it was material. So, yes, you should -- you should
tell them how you're using it. And you should take the --
like, your question there, Commissioner, about how much can
you be liable for. It's whatever the attorney can prove the
degree of your -- your negligence is. Limits are not
admissible. Limits are not admissible in the case, so it
doesn't matter how much insurance you have. It's how much
5-9-05
...~ __ __..-..re_........a._..i+~
34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
they can get out of you. Insurance is going to pay some of
it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Certainly glad you
came down and talked to us this morning.
MR. FAUGHT: And I wish there were some good
news here.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Leonard had a question.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: He's with our Road and
Bridge Department.
MR. FAUGHT: Yes, sir.
MR. ODOM: With Road and Bridge. We have a
policy that's -- written policy that our people are to take
these vehicles home; they are to be left there, not to be
used for private use, and only if we're called out in an
emergency, when there's a flood, normally, or tree blown
down or something like that. So, would -- I mean, under
that, would we be -- would it behoove us to still have that
rider policy, I mean, on our own personal insurance? If we
have a policy -- a county policy that's been approved by the
Court before we ever -- ever gave everybody -- supervisors
the right to do that? I mean, is that still mandatory, or
should -- should we do that?
MR. FAUGHT: Okay. "Mandatory" is not the
right answer. It's just good business sense to do that,
5-9-US

35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
because things do happen. Your employee may be unavailable
when somebody needs to get wheels to drive up to see
somebody who just got admitted to the hospital, or an
emergency situation. And it's the county truck that's out
there, and -- "They never said I shouldn't drive it," so
17-year-old son gets in it and takes off to the hospital and
is involved in an accident. That would clearly be not
covered by the -- by your county policy, because --
insurance policy because of the county policy. So, I
would -- for that kind of money, I would much rather have
that endorsement on my personal policy to let that coverage
i trigger in that situation. It's not expensive, and it's
just good business sense to do that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Another question. And
you may not be able to answer this, but say an employee's
going to the bank to make a deposit for some department
using their personal vehicle; they have an accident. Okay,
their vehicle's under their own insurance. They're covered.
Does the employee have any recourse against the County?
MR. FAUGHT: Commissioner, I can't think of
any. That person they injured could have recourse against
the County if they can prove we're -- the County's negligent
in some way.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That -- but that would be
subject to the limits?
5-9-US
36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. FAUGHT: Subject to the court limits.
And if the employee brought suit against the County, trying
to prove --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess what I'm thinking
is that the County's requiring them to use their personal
vehicle.
MR. FAUGHT: Yes. All right. And all the
cases I can think of are too bizarre to mention, but if that
county -- if that employee did bring suit against the
County, do you have the higher non-ownership coverage which
would allow defense coverage? Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY; But, basically, the employee
would be relying upon their own personal automobile coverage
to protect themselves.
MR. FAUGHT: That's right. Pretty much
bottom line here is the County stays protected through all
of these situations. If the County's sued for an automobile
liability loss, more than likely we've got coverage in
there.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any more questions for this
gentleman? Don't want to know any more bad news?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think he's cast a
large enough pall on the situation.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Faught, we appreciate you
being here.
5-9-OS
37
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
MR. FAUGHT: Thank y'all very much.
JUDGE TINLEY: 7'm not sure what this is
going to trigger, but it's certainly been enlightening to a
lot of us, and I'm sure there's some thought that's going to
be triggered by this. We do appreciate you being here.
MR. FAUGHT: Y'all are doing well in the
management of your risk, and I know our underwriters like
you; our claims department likes you, so that's -- that
means you're doing something right, so we appreciate you
doing that.
JUDGE TINLEY: We're glad to hear that.
Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you.
MR. FAUGHT: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move on to the next
agenda item, consider and discuss authorizing the Sheriff to
initiate a reserve deputy program.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's pretty well what
it is, Judge, unless you have questions. Local Government
Code says the permission to do that has to be granted by the
Court, and I'm asking for, to start out with, about 10
positions. Attached to those are the requirement that they
also have to have -- or have to be bonded like elected
officials in a certain amount. We hate that in the budget
that I think the -- the County should pay that bonding
5-9 OS
38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
license and that. And there's no benefits. The
requirements are they're still going to be certified peace
officers. Not just John Q. Citizen can do it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me ask about benefits,
especially since we've got Mr. Faught here. Worker's
compensation coverage. Are we excluded from providing them
with worker's compensation coverage under this language that
they're not eligible for participation in a program provided
by the County that's normally considered a financial benefit
of full-time employment?
MR. FAUGHT: Are they to be on the payroll?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: They would not be on the
payroll. They're volunteers.
MR. FAUGHT: Volunteers, okay. They're not
automatically covered, but they can be by endorsement. And
this would apply to volunteer 5.0., volunteer fire
department people, any other -- election people, anybody
else that's volunteer. You can add those by endorsement for
~ worker's comp.
JUDGE TINLEY: And by adding them to coverage
for worker's comp, it doesn't violate this eligibility for
participation of -- of what would otherwise be considered a
financial benefit? That's really my question.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Eligibility --
JUDGE TINLEY: Subsection (b)(1).
s-y-~~s
39
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
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It just says that --
MR. FAUGHT: Not really, because the worker's
comp is written to provide coverage for the employer for
employee injury, so the employee's not going to benefit.
They'll get their medical bills paid, but they wouldn't
benefit. There's no gain, so probably -- that's probably
considered retirement and pension fund.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right. And I believe
the County already has an endorsement on the volunteer fire
departments.
JUDGE TINLEY; Volunteer fire departments.
We -- yes, we do.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: So I would ask that
there be an endorsement of these people that are doing that;
they would be covered by worker's comp.
JUDGE TINLEY: When they're in a duty status?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: When they're in a duty
status.
JUDGE TINLEY: Sure.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's the estimated
annual bonding cost?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: If you were looking at
some of the ones last year, a $2,000 bond is normally about
20 bucks a year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Couple hundred dollars --
s-9-os
40
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
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- we're talking about.
JUDGE TINLEY: Sheriff, the general order
that you attached to our materials, is that general order
presently in effect?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That was -- is the
current policy that the Sheriff's Office had when we adopted
our policy manual three years -- four years ago now. It's
in the middle of being revised where we're going to upgrade
and do all that. Our entire policy manual is going through
a revision, but right this minute, that is what's in effect,
and it's just the guidelines. However, the reserve programs
have worked. The only other thing is, years ago the
Sheriff's office did have a reserve program. Okay, I can
not find where there was any court order that gave authority
for it or how many people were on it, so the only thing I
would also add is that in this order, if you approved the
reserve program up to, you know, 10 reserves, that it null
and void any previous ones so we don't get into anything
else that it -- you know.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, the Court has the
authority to impose a limit.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: But not a minimum number; just
a maximum number.
~ - l - 1 5
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
41
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER:
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER:
Right.
And I would just ask
that that change.
JUDGE TINLEY: The general order that you've
got in place and that you're in the process of revising, is
it your intention to carry forward in the new order that all
of the -- all of the members of the reserve force must be
TCLEOSE-qualified?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes.
JODGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move approval.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. I have a
question. How many -- how many -- are there a lot of people
out there that are TCLEOSE-certified, that can volunteer for
something like this?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: There are. But this is
going to be a very select deal; they're going to go through
the same application process, same everything that we do for
all our current full-time deputies. We do have several
retired officers, and more that are retiring through this
county, whether it be police department, D.P.S., or our own
department that are interested in doing reserve program.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sheriff, I'm not
opposed to it; I just want to ask a question and see if
s-y-a,
42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
somebody can shed some light on it, by asking you about
whether these folks will be TCLEOSE-qualified. My question
is, at whose expense will they gain the necessary requisite
training to become TCLEOSE-qualified?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, most of the time
in, like, a hire now -- all the ones I hire now, full-time
deputies are already TCLEOSE-qualified at this time. Their
continuing education hours we provide, and I can still
provide that through our training courses and curriculum at
no expense.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I take it you're looking
at mostly retired -- local retired law enforcement people.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And the main goal of
this is also to help enhance the courthouse security issues
that we have.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What's the potential
for this to either reduce costs in the Sheriff's Department
or contain costs?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It would depend on how
many reserves we can actually get and how qualified they
are, okay? Retaining costs may be a better -- better
scenario right now than reducing any type of costs, because
in the next year's budget, I was going to make our uniform
allowance a little bit more normally, but I still think the
County, since these people are volunteers, should be, you
5-9-ns
43
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
know, fitted with the uniform and all the other
qualifications, and we just absorb that in our training and
full-time compensated manpower requirements, will it not,
Sheriff?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Only for courthouse
security. For patrol, I would say no. For patrol, I would
say it may add us, you know, much needed -- just that we'd
like to have two-man units at times, okay? Or if we did
have somebody, where we were running short due to a vacation
or school, I could possibly call in, the -- the main thing
that's going to do is, most people are going to either be
fully retired or have other jobs somewhere, and they would
still required by TCLEOSE to put in 20 hours a month into
the reserve program, and so it's going to be more of a
scheduling deal. And they are volunteers, so what 20 hours
is going to be hard to schedule.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner, does your motion
include worker's comp coverage, and does it place any limit
on the number of officers to participate?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, it will be a maximum
of 10 at this time, and it would add the worker's comp for
volunteers.
5-9-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
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, we have a motion and
second with those stipulations. 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: The motion does carry. Thank
you very much, Sheriff.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's come to Item 4, consider
and discuss the expenditure of surplus Capital Outlay funds
in the jail budget.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Trying to take care of
some things now that maybe we won't have to take care of in
the next budget year. It would help. And y'all saw our
radio -- portable radio issues in the jail with those older
radios going out. I have $6,500 left in the Capital Outlay
that was not spent on the camera system and camera upgrades
in the jail, and I would like to use that $6,500, reallocate
it to replace 10 portable radios with batteries in the jail,
to also replace two computer monitors that we have. And the
T.S.G., Software Group, has come out with a new visitation
processing part, whir_h is in your attachment. It's for a
s-y-us
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
driver's license scanner for when visitors for inmates come
up to visit. Instead of having to hand-enter all the
information and run the checks on them locally in-house,
with the driver's license scanner, you just scan their
driver's license into the system; it automatically puts them
in the system visiting that inmate, and it automatically
runs in-house warrant checks on them, and is just a large
time-consuming deal for the jail staff. The other issue --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Rusty, let me ask you
a question. You said it automatically runs an in-house
check --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: In-house.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Huh?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: In-house.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: In-house warrant
checks?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Riqht.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: "In-house" meaning
county warrants or --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER:
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN
N.C.I.C. or any of that?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER:
that, which we do now. But it will
our system against all our warrant
County.
It doesn't run the
We still have to do
run it automatically in
databases.
_~-~-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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I talked with the Sheriff
a little bit about this the other day, and I have no problem
with this, with the understanding that when his budget comes
up, these things -- I mean, there's going to be very
little capital expenditures in there. You know, he and I
are -- I think have a meeting of the minds at this time.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The way I have my budget
preparations right now, just to give you a little
forewarning, there is no Capital Outlay expenses in either
the Sheriff's Office or the jail for next year.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're getting to where
we like this guy a little bit. (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll move approval --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- of the budget request.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The last part of that,
you may want to talk to our I.T. guy, which is the contract
for the redundant connectivity services, broadband that
enhances our -- our --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's the next -- we
have another agenda item.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Is there? I think
that's on his, but it's -- our cost would also come out of
that line item this year.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and second
s-3-os
47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
for approval of the agenda item as presented. Any question
or discussion? All in favor of that motion, signify by
raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Let's
move to Item 5, consider, discuss, and approve the broadband
services for the courthouse in conjunction with the Law
Enforcement Center. Mr. Trolinger?
MR. TROLINGER: Good morning. I see a need
exists for broadband -- additional broadband. With the
connectivity that we have now with DSL, it's just not
available. It's not enough. There's not enough space for
all the users. I can see future and current needs. Looking
at the overall big picture for the County, I see that we can
save, in the long-term, quite a bit by changing to
Time-Warner Cable, and that's what I'm recommending to do.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can you explain what
you're talking about? (Laughter.)
MR. TROLINGER: Basically, if you want to
have high-speed Internet at home, you have choices. You
have -- if you live in town, you have DSL, you have Road
Runner, or you can get satellite. Overall, each has its
strength and weakness, but for the County, Time-Warner gives
5 9 ~ 5
48
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
us the best coverage and the best cost benefit.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What's the
"broadband" mean?
MR. TROLINGER: Broadband -- a dial-up modem
is a slow, narrow-band connection. And broadband is -- what
is it, 1.5?
AUDIENCE: 1.5.
MR. TROLINGER: Okay, it's a 1.5 KBS or
larger -- MBS or larger connectivity.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Does it solve the
problem of accidental or routine disconnects? You don't get
disconnected as you do with dial-up?
MR. TROLINGER: Well, it eliminates that,
yes, sir.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The two advantages for
the Sheriff's Office on this, and why we're needing it, one
is we've had -- we've got a T-1 line running now from here
to the Sheriff's Office and jail that connects us. We've
already had problems with it going down. When it does, we
are totally out of service at the jail; everything goes back
to handwriting on -- written on paper. We lose our entire
mainframe. This would give the -- the capability that
they'll both be there, and we wouldn't lose that. The other
thing is, our AFIS machine, our automated fingerprint
machine that goes to Austin to send in fingerprints, this --
s-a os
49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
right now, we're paying -- what the monthly fee is currently
is $194.61 a month for that phone line connection, and this
would do away with that connection.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's the D.P.S.
connection?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's the D.P.S.
connection to Austin. It would do away with that on the
CJIS and AFIS fingerprints. So we would -- you know, true,
it's going to cost us a little bit more monthly, but it does
away with that $194 a month, too.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How much greater is
bandwidth-capability cable versus DSL through K.T.C.?
MR. TROLINGER: About twice as fast.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How much?
MR. TROLINGER: About twice as fast.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Twice as fast,
meaning it's about twice as wide?
MR. TROLINGER: Yes, sir. And the capability
of expanding, again, beyond the plan that I've chosen with a
phone call, I believe. Is that right?
AUDIENCE: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Does this change the
basic address for Kerr County?
MR. TROLINGER: It will. It will. There
will be a transition period through -- through June. I
5-5-OS
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
expect by July to have the government addressing. Our
domain will change to kerr.co.tx.us. And what that does is,
instead of being a post office -- say the post office
recognizes us as Kerrville Telephone Company dot com right
now, which is what our address is now. We'd have a
government domain and e-mail addressing.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And this sets a basic
foundation for the future growth, such as if we do put
cameras in the courthouse through courthouse security and
that, it gives a bandwidth that we can pull those up at the
-- at the office to be able to tell what's going on. If we
ever go to computers in the vehicles, it gives a bandwidth
needed for that, for downloading photographs and enhancing
all that. It gives your foundation to grow more. Right
now, we don't have that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Explain a little
bit -- one of you or the other, explain a little bit about
the M.H.M.R. connectivity and line that you're proposing
here.
MR. TROLINGER: Yes, sir. M.H.M.R. has
provided the County -- or the jail, excuse me -- a video
teleconferencing computer. Basically, it's a camera and a
microphone, and it's set up in the jail's inmate law
library, where that camera sits on the desk with the
-9-~5
51
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
computer, and that inmate's able to video conference -- or
would be able to video teleconference to the M.H.M.R.
without a representative having to come out, go through the
visitation process, and then be exposed to the inmate. That
equipment's in place now.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: To do the evaluations on
inmates and that, and the M.H.M.R. service that they're
providing.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Privacy factor is to
your satisfaction?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes.
MR. TROLINGER: And it's a secure VPN, or a
virtual private network connection. It is encrypted.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So -- this is probably a
really stupid question. This means it's a cable system
versus a phone line system?
MR. TROLINGER: Well, in this case, the jail
has no -- no kind of broadband at all right now. They just
rely on one dedicated line between here and the jail.
There's one dedicated line. Then that dedicated line is
used to provide the connection out to the internet, and in
order to get this camera -- this video teleconference camera
working, we need to assign it its own address -- its own
internet address. And to do that, we basically need --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess what I'm saying
s-9-os
52
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
is -- or asking, so every place -- I mean, it seems to me
that this is a change that's going to cost somebody
something to connect. Instead of having a phone line out
here, we need to have a cable line everywhere.
MR. TROLINGER: Yes, sir. And on Page 2 of
my -- after my cover letter there on Page 2, I've broken out
the -- the savings and the costs county-wide. There --
there are some more that are future; I didn't feel they
deserved to be on here, but these are the basic costs that
we pay today; the dial-up modems, the K.T.C. DSL, the Adult
Probation connection, which is another dedicated line. And
that, in itself -- this Adult Probation T-1 line, which is
$63 per month, we would eliminate. And, in addition, right
now on that line, they do not have access to what are called
images; mug shots, pictures of the -- that are available on
our system, and they'll gain that benefit, and also benefit
in speed. So, there's a -- there's a laundry list of items
there, and they all bottom out for the courthouse at about
$1,000 per year in savings over the existing --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, the courthouse will
save $1,000 a year, and the jail will cost -- what's the
second thing over --
MR. TROLINGER: The $2,104.68 per month for
the jail. After reduce -- after eliminating the separate
dedicated line that we're paying $2,300 for right now per
s-a-~s
53
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
2Q
21
22
23
24
25
year that does nothing more than communicates with D.P.S.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, the bottom figure
there, county-wide change, $1,110?
MR. TROLINGER: Correct. That's the total
impact to the County budget annually.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Annually. "Annual" is --
MR. TROLINGER: Through the end of October --
through the end of September, excuse me.
JUDGE TINLEY: And that gives us a much
broader foundation to work from?
MR. TROLINGER: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is that going to permit us at
some point in the future to possibly reconfigure other
telecommunication functions that might reduce some costs
there?
MR. TROLINGER: It gives you
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Video conferencing with
inmates and pretrial hearings and things like that, yes.
With that technology, it would give you that, broadband.
MR. TROLINGER: There's a whole list of items
that I didn't bother with, but the -- having the bandwidth
is the foundation for all the technology.
JUDGE TINLEY: It opens up the possibility
of -- of a lot of other things that --
MR. TROLINGER: Yes, sir.
-9-as
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
54
JUDGE TINLEY: -- we don't yet have in place,
but we could very well be looking at.
MR. TROLINGER: That we could not use today.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Ms. Werlein? She
indicated she may have had a question with regard to the
M.H.M.R.
MS. WERLEIN: It wasn't a question. It
was -- you asked about privacy. And, actually, this
improves privacy, because at this point, some of the
consumers in the jail have to go to the center. They're
brought to the center, and they're often brought in
handcuffs, and so it allows these opportunities to occur
through teleconferencing with the psychiatrist, plus if our
person on call for that day is out on another call, the jail
may be waiting, and so this facilitates and expedites things
that are going on. So, I actually -- I think it will
probably add to the reduction in costs, because you wouldn't
be transporting people back and forth and having a jailer
tied up and officer tied up.
MR. TROLINGER: That's correct. And that's
one of the unrealized benefits that I just don't have a
number to list for you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's -- on an
annualized basis, the cost will be about probably $2,500
additional in future budgets? This is -- this $1,100 is --
5 9 - 0 5
55
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
MR. TROLINGER: For next year. The -- for
next year. The difference between the -- I believe the
annual cost will be about $1,000 annually.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: $1,000 annually?
JUDGE TINLEY: Additional.
MR. TROLINGER: Additional.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: County-wide?
MR. TROLINGER: County-wide, yes, sir. And
that's not taking into consideration any of the benefits
like M.H.M.R. that are just --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Any long-term commitments
when we make the change? Or is it like a -- I mean, do we
have to sign a contract?
MR. TROLINGER: Yes, sir. It's a three-year
contract, and Time-Warner's here to answer questions on the
contract if you do have any.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can you basically go
over -- can they go over the basic terms? I mean, what
we're contracting?
MR. TROLINGER: Okay. Let me introduce
Crystal Bledsoe with Time-Warner Cable.
MS. BLEDSOE: Good morning. Thanks for
having me. Basically, what this outlines is, we'll be
connecting three megabits per second on the download, and
s ~-as
56
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1.5 megabits per second on the upload. Basically --
MR. TROLINGER: I was speaking English,
right? (Laughter.)
MS. BLEDSOE: Sorry. Can I ask Ryan to come
up here and help me as well? He's our technical guru, and I
am -- okay, what questions did you have?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What are the terms of the
contract?
MS. BLEDSOE: It's a three-year term, 36
months.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are there any outs? I
mean, if we're not happy with the service, is there --
MS. BLEDSOE: Absolutely. Now, there is a
$250 cancellation fee, but ideally -- particularly if, for
any reason, you are unhappy, Mr. Trolinger or any one of you
would be welcome to give us a call; I would do everything I
could to work that out.
JUDGE TINLEY: So we do have the right to
cancel the contract upon payment, worst case scenario, of a
$250 cancellation fee?
MS. BLEDSOE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are the fees
guaranteed -- the rates guaranteed for 36 months?
MS. BLEDSOE: Yes, sir, they are.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions?
s-G-os
57
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
~5
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. I -- I pay my
Time-Warner bill at the drive-through window. Would you
eliminate that one -- stupid one-dollar deal? (Laughter.)
MS. BLEDSOE: If I could, I would.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Well, we're
going downhill here.
MS. BLEDSOE: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Hey, that is the --
that's the craziest thing I've ever seen in my entire life,
and I have seen some -- I mean, look who I work with. I
have seen some crazy things. That's goofy. Y'all need to
do away with that.
MS. BLEDSOE: It will certainly be addressed
with management, I promise.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
MS. BLEDSOE: Absolutely.
MR. TROLINGER: Thanks, Crystal.
MS. BLEDSOE: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, I would move
that the Court authorize Mr. Trolinger to contract with --
on behalf of Kerr County, contract with Time-Warner Cable
for connectivity services that links the Sheriff and the
courthouse and district attorneys and all these good things,
I guess on Road Runner, as opposed to whatever road we're
s-9-os
58
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
running on right now. Is that correct?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And authorize him to sign
the contract?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And authorize the
County Judge to sign the contract, which will contain
guaranteed rates for three years.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And, Commissioner, I'd
be delighted to second that if, in your motion, you
outline -- get that dollar out of there. (Laughter.) No,
outline where the $1,110.48 is going to come from.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a really good
point, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I assumed it was
coming out of the Sheriff's budget.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Sheriff's portion's
coming out of the Sheriff's budget.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. That portion
that you mentioned earlier, is that included in this 1,110?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 900.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I haven't seen his. I
know what ours for the Sheriff's office to the courthouse,
what that cost was going to be.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It was 900.
s-a-us
_ ...__~..~_.~e~_._. .. ®.._____._____ _.__
59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 992.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 992.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's a savings on
the courthouse side.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And that's what I had
set to come out of our budget. That's coming out of that
unexpended Capital Outlay, to pay that right off.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So we don't know the
answer?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: So I don't know where
John has that 992 plugged in, but that was going to be the
cost for us.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, can we -- can
we just table this for a little while until we get some good
numbers put together, and come back with it?
JUDGE TINLEY: Once we determine where it's
going to come from?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Here's the man that's going to
tell us right here.
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, this -- I feel like
that the -- you know, the $1,100 will be spread through 12
months for '05-'06, so we -- I anticipate budgeting pro rata
portions of that to -- to the end users, which will be the
Sheriff and the Probation, Road and Bridge.
5-9-n5

60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: District Attorneys?
MR. TOMLINSON: Anybody that uses the -- the
broadband. So, it would be a matter of -- of those
departments budgeting -- or us helping them budget for the
$1,100.
JUDGE TINLEY: What about the pro rata cost
for the remainder of this year, if we're going to initiate
that service right away? Are there adequate funds in the --
in these various departments' budgets in order to absorb the
cost for this particular year, the pro rata --
MR. TOMLINSON: I don't see a problem with
that for remainder of the year.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, the worksheet
that Mr. Trolinger provided shows a savings, June through
October, of $231 on the County side of the equation, and
expenditures of $996 for the jail in the time frame June
through October. So, was my assumption right that that $996
comes out of the Sheriff's budget someplace?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's my question.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Say what?
COMMISSIONER. LETZ: Well, $992 is in here.
There's $4.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's out of his capital
expenditure that we approved under Item Number 4.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
5-9-OS
61
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
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Does it come off of
this $1,110.48? Do you reduce the $1,110.48 by $996?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's next year's
budget.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's next year's budget.
MR. TOMLINSON: $1,100 is relative to 'OS-'06
budget.
COMMISSIONER LETZ:
MR. TOMLINSON: Not
COMMISSIONER LETZ:
there's no additional cost for the
Sheriff is going to cost $996.17,
already come up with $992 of that,
to come out.
Yeah.
this year's.
If I understand this,
courthouse, and the
and he would -- he's
so it's $4.17 that needs
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: 929 was the figure I
had. If you need to change that 929 to the 996, there's
still a few dollars left in that Capital Outlay that would
absorb that for the remainder of the year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That answered the
question.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I thought Mr.
Trolinger said that this was from -- for the remainder of
the year through September.
MR. TROLINGER: Yes, sir. These numbers that
I've -- that I've put on this chart are June through
s-Q-os
62
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
October.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm confused now.
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I understood that this
was an annual savings -- or annual additional cost.
JUDGE TINLEY: Right-hand column, I think, is
annualized.
MR. TOMLINSON: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's the 1,100 that he was
speaking of. That'll be in the next budget year. The June
through October is the next-to-the-last column from the
right, and shows the courthouse savings of 230 this year,
990 additional cost to the Sheriff's Office, and that's what
he's already agreed to absorb out of his existing Capital
Outlay.
COMMISSIONER
court order, the County --
money? What's the --
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
Sheriff has already said he
earlier --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER:
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:
BALDWIN: So -- so, in this
you're going to expend how much
LETZ: Additional?
BALDWIN: Yeah. How much money?
WILLIAMS: $996.17, of which the
agreed to pick it up in an
Right.
-- earlier Stem.
Second. Thank you.
-e-..s
63
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Now we have a motion and a
second. Any other 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: The motion does carry. Thank
you, Mr. Trolinger
MR. TROLINGER: You're welcome.
JUDGE TINLEY: We've now got to move to a
timed item at 10:00. I will recess the Commissioners Court
meeting at this time, and I will convene and open a public
hearing on road changes in various locations in Kerr County,
which was scheduled for 10 a.m.
(The regular Commissioners Court meeting was
closed at 10:13 a.m., and a public hearing
was held in open court, as follows:)
P U B L I C H E A R I N G
JUDGE TINLEY: Is there any member of the
public that wishes to be heard with respect to road name
changes in various locations in Kerr County, as public
notice was previously given? If there's any member of the
public wishing to be heard on that, please come forward at
this time.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Seeing no one coming forward
s-9-os
64
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
or otherwise trying to gain my attention on this matter, I
will close the public hearing.
(The public hearing was concluded at 10:14
a.m., and the regular Commissioners Court
meeting was reopened.)
JUDGE TINLEY: And I will reconvene the
Commissioners Court meeting and go to the next timed item,
which is Item 10, to accept bids for the County depository
contract and refer same to the County Treasurer and/or
County Auditor. There was only one bid submitted with
respect to the County depository contract. That was
submitted by Security State Bank and Trust. It's quite
voluminous.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Did you read all
that, Judge?
JUDGE TINLEY: No, I just now opened it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move we accept all bids
and refer them to the Treasurer for review and
recommendation, and Auditor.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN; I second that emotion.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
receipt and acceptance of the bid submitted for the County
depository contract, and reference the same to the County
Treasurer and Auditor. Any question or discussion? All in
favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
s-9-os
65
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
(The motion r_arried by unanimous vote.)
DODGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(NO response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Let's
come back up to Item Number E, if we might; consider,
discuss, and take appropriate action with reference to
awarding a bid for the cleanup of Flat Rock Lake to
Excavation Technologies, Incorporated, in an amount not to
exceed $44,000. Commissioner Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Judge.
This is a follow up on our requesting bids, and bids were
received for the cleanup of Flat Rock Lake, the debris out
at the lake. We had two bids. One was for $287,000; the
other was -- from an outfit in Jackson, Mississippi, and the
other one was from Excavation Technologies in Alvin, Texas,
for $69,200. Since we received that bid, I've taken a look
at the scope of the project, and I've had discussions,
particularly with Commissioner Letz, about other things that
we have long-range planned for the park and the lake, and
what I'm asking the Court to do is agree to reduce the scope
of the cleanup of the lake, which essentially would get out
of the water submerged -- some of the submerged -- most
dangerous submerged logs and stumps and overhanging limbs
that break off and fall in the water. But of equal, if not
greater, importance would be to remove the big, huge conduit
5-9-OS
66
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1 2
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
pipes that were in Third Creek and were washed away in the
2002 flood and have resided in the middle of the lake ever
This
scope of the project, we would reduce it down from the bid
that Excavation Technologies people provided us, which I
think was $69,200, down to $44,000, and we would reduce the
time frame for the projects from nine weeks down to four --
about five weeks, taking about a month off the project. We
would be bringing that material to shore; the pipes,
particularly, and if they are in reasonable condition, at
least one of them, Mr. Odom believes that he may have some
future use for that pipe. If not, they'll be cut up and
disposed of. Any wood that's brought to shore -- logs,
limbs, stumps and so forth -- after a period of drying out,
they would either be burned or chipped up for future use.
Now, by reducing the scope of the project
down from $69,000 originally to $44,000, this gives us some
extra room -- some extra dollar room to consider how we're
going to bridge Third Creek in the future and tie our two
pieces of property together. We had planned to use the rail
cars that are in use on a temporary bridge in Hermann Sons,
s-5-os
67
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and Commissioner Letz had negotiated with TexDOT their
willingness to give us those rail cars at the completion of
the new bridge and to move them someplace, some location of
our designation. That would either be the park or Road and
Bridge yard or whatever. And whenever I discussed it with
the regional engineer last week and asked him to consider,
if we were to build the piers necessary to span Third Creek,
could we impose on TexDOT to spot those rail cars on the new
piers, he didn't commit, but he said, "We'll think about it
and see what the costs are," and so forth and so on. So, by
reducing the scope of the project, this gives us some extra
room to either proceed with this project, which -- with the
span of the two pieces of land, Flat Rock Lake Park land,
use the FEMA money that we already have in place for that --
for the replacement of that bridge, take care of the lake
problems -- immediate and worst of the lake problems, and
give us a leg up on the future. That's what I'm proposing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just might add one
thing to this. I believe Commissioner Williams and I talked
about all this. It just seemed to me that -- as I
understand it, 7 think everyone has agreed now that TexDOT
is moving -- will move the railroad cars to Kerrville. If
they have to move them here, it sure seems to me, with the
difficulty in moving those things and lifting them, if we
could get them -- just move them one time, I mean, get them
5-9-OS
68
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2J
and put them in place, as opposed to moving them and then
have to move them again and get them in place, it would
probably be a savings of -- what's that big crane cost,
Leonard, whenever we bring it out of San Antonio?
MR. ODOM: $3,000 just to move it, and $300
or $900 an hour.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. So, I mean -- you
know, and we can get TexDOT to get with -- tell TexDOT,
"Well, you'll have to bring the crane up here to lift it
where we want it. While the crane's here, we might be able
to just put them in place and, you know, save, you know,
four, five, $6,000 if we can get it all done at one time.
And I think, between -- I think Commissioner Williams has a
way to come up with the money to do that, along with the
FEMA money, so I'm in favor of this change. Only thing I
would add is that when Road and Bridge is retrieving the --
the big culverts out of Flat Rock Park, if he could also
pick up the one on County property, Third Creek just north
of -- of Highway 27 that I look at every time I come to
town?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The one that's over
there by the Little League field?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, it's kind of down
on the corner of that property -- County property over
there.
9 0 5
69
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. ODOM: We thought that was an exercise
yard for the Little League field. Laughter.) Now I know
it's not.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: With respect to --
with respect to the spotting of the rail cars, if we get did
piers built, maybe -- it might boil down to the State having
paid the activation fee to get the crane down to Hermann
Sons to pick them up and load them, and we may only have,
then, to bear the hourly cost from that point forward, which
would be a pretty good savings on our part.
JUDGE TINLEY: If they're going to have to
move them to Kerrville, aren't they going to be responsible
for offloading them when they bring them here?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's -- yes, sir.
That's what I'm saying. We might only have to be engaged in
the extra hours it takes and time involved to --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So set them.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Setting them on the
piers.
JUDGE TINLEY: Spot them.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I -- yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just have a quick
question. After -- after we went through the -- the bids
and sent them out, and people bid and came back in, can we
change the scope of the project?
s-v os
~o
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would ask the
County Attorney to confirm that. I've talked with -- I've
talked with the folks who gave us the bid, and indicated to
them that, more than likely, if we awarded the bid, we would
reduce the number of hours. And that's really what it is;
it's reducing the number of hours they're going to be
engaged on our behalf from almost nine weeks down to about
five weeks. Mr. County Attorney, do you have any heartburn
over that?
MR. EMERSON: I think if you change anything
beyond the basic terms of the contract, then you'd have to
put it out for rebid.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We don't have a contract.
MR. EMERSON: Well, beyond the initial
advertisement for bids. Now, I don't know what the initial
advertisement was, whether it was a total -- total job
inclusive, or it was per-hour or how it was worded. But --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, let's see what
the ad says. The ad said, "Debris removal, Flat Rock Lake.
Specifications may be picked up..." And it has to do with
-- has to do with the cleanup, period. Debris removal, Flat
Rock Lake. That's what it said.
JUDGE TINLEY: The bid from Excavation was
bid on basically an hourly basis, after some initial setup
and take-down charges. It was bid on an hourly basis, and I
s y-~s
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
71
think what the Commissioner's proposing is that we just
shrink the number of hours that are going to be allocated to
the project from their bid, for whatever --
MR. EMERSON: I don't know that that's a
material change, then.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The mobilization
charge, which there would be, and demobilization charges are
in there. As the Judge noted, all this is under our County
supervision and is bid on an hourly basis. And they have
bid approximately 350; we're going to change that to 200.
You comfortable?
MR. EMERSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess my question would
be, how did the other person bid? Was it per-hour?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He bid -- he just bid
total job, $275,000.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there a problem on
rebidding it?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, probably, in
that this guy's workload is filling up, and if we're to get
it done in this budget year -- it's now pushed off to -- in
his scheme of things, to September, and if we delay it any
further, it will be out of this budget year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess I would let you
s a-us
. a.__._ - - -., .. - -_ -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
~5
72
get with the County Attorney, make sure we're doing this
properly.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What triggers my
question in my mind is the difference in the bids that came
in. One is 287,000; one is 69,000. I'm just not convinced
that those two companies are on the same page, or --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They weren't. They
weren't.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I mean, that
makes me think that we have to be real careful with our
bidding, then, or this -- I don't know. I just -- I'm a
little uncomfortable with it, but if the great legal mind
said it's cool, it's cool. That's fine with me.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The other -- and I don't
know if this solves the problem. We could award the bid to
the low bidder and then negotiate a change. I don't know if
that makes -- if you can do that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm still hung up
riding in my own private car. I haven't gotten past the
insurance thing yet. Sorry, guys.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I thought you were
still hung up on paying Time-Warner a dollar.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, I am very much
hung up on that deal. That's serious business.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Commissioner, you made a
5 9-05
73
1
L
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
motion?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I will make a motion
that we award a bid to Excavation Technologies, Inc., for
the cleanup of Flat Rock Lake Park, and I would say that we
negotiate the hours originally planned from 250 -- 200 --
400 down to 250 for the purpose of cleaning up the lake.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll second, as long as
it's subject to the County Attorney's approval of the
modification to the bid.
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: Let's take up one more item
before we take our morning recess. Item 7, consider and
discuss authorizinq Road and Bridge to improve and/or
construct a separate roadway to a facility at Kerrville
State Hospital for utilization for acute civil commitment
patients from Kerr and other counties, contingent upon
approval by the State for utilization of Building 626 of the
Kerrville State Hospital for such patients. I think that I
mentioned to you gentlemen sometime back that we were
working on a plan to try and maintain our ability to handle
5-9-a5
74
1
2
i 3
4
5
6
I 7
8
~ 9
10
11
12
""' 13
~ 14
15
i
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
acute civil commitment patients here in Kerr County as we've
done for many, many years, not only for Kerr County, but for
other counties within our so-called cachement area, for
those patients to be treated here at Kerrville State
Hospital and for the legal processes to occur here as we've
done for many, many years.
I had the County Attorney look at this issue
about using County resources to construct a road on state
property, and in his review of it -- I'll try and
paraphrase -- basically, if there is a benefit to be derived
by Kerr County by putting in this additional roadway and
using County resources to do that, if there's a reasonable
benefit to be derived from doing that, we can do so. For
that reason, I included in the backup materials the court
cost information just for '04. The savings to court costs
at our rates for '04 were almost $51,000. The actual --
actual revenue that we generated last year was almost
$183,000. Now, based upon what we are paying at the rate of
$916 per hearing going out of county, that same $51,000
would have translated to $68,000. So, in effect, the
economic benefit derived by Kerr County, had we had to go
elsewhere and not gotten the benefit of the revenue from
these other counties, would have amounted to over $250,000.
I think the County Attorney concedes that's a significant
benefit that we derive.
5-9-OS
75
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I talked with Mr. Odom, and he did a cursory
roadway to a separate entrance back to the back side of
Kerrville State Hospital. His preliminary information was
approximately $10,000 for materials. He may have better
information than that right now, but -- also, as another
point, this proposal would be contingent upon the state
Legislature authorizing and -- and putting up the necessary
portion of the funding by -- by rider -- budget rider
appropriation for the use o£ this particular building at
Kerrville State Hospital for that purpose, and this would be
for the coming budget year beginning September 1, 'O5.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I've got to ask
a question before Leonard gets too far in it. What? I
mean, is there a building that's not -- we can't access
today, and we're having to build a road around to access
this building, or -- I'm not following.
JUDGE TINLEY: Because of the new
configuration of the treatment scheme out at Kerrville State
Hospital -- and I'll let Ms. Werlein address this a little
bit more in-depth, or correct me if I`m wrong, which I very
well could be -- they're wanting to segregate these two
functions, the -- the forensic patients, which is now the
dedicated function of Kerrville State Hospital, and the
acute civil commitment patients, which are going to take
5 9 U S
76
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
place on the very back side of the facility.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: In a building which is
currently utilized, I think, for training. It's a -- it's
one of the newer buildings that's being utilized. They
would have to relocate out of there, but that building could
be reconfigured for use for acute civil commitment patients
for -- for their treatment. And they would require a
separate roadway entrance to that building, which will skirt
around the east boundary of the fence going in off of Texas
Drive, where the light is. Are you with me, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. It would skirt around
the outside of the fence on the east side and come back in
at the very back portion.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, the requirement is
from the hospital, that they -- that a separate entrance
needs to be built?
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, are there any
other costs associated with this? I mean, the -- like, for
example, rehabilitation of a building or changing a building
to do this? And, if so, who bears that expense?
JUDGE TINLEY: No, Kerr County -- the only
additional cost would be the labor costs associated with the
5-9-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
construction or improvement of -- there's a roadway there
now. It's not an adequate road. It's basically a -- kind
of a country lane, wouldn't you say? Unimproved country
lane?
MR. ODOM: Unimproved, just caliche. Poured
caliche with base failure. I mean, just bad caliche. And
the question would be, Judge -- and as we talked, 14 foot is
what_ we thought for that road. But I -- we were talking
about $10,000 at that time based upon current prices that I
had, and since then, we've had those bids, so you're
probably looking at an increase on that, probably close to
$12,000. But the question would be, when I was out this
last week asking what did the State expect from us? Was
this a wider road? Could we get away with 14 or 16? And
where do we come in at that building? And I didn't have an
answer from them. They're indicating some type of parking
lot. So, you know, I think -- and this was one gentleman
that took me back there, and so I'm not quite sure what all
we need to do, but I can put something in. You can figure
the material costs in there. There's no cost as far as
labor and machinery. We -- this is a county property, and
at the direction of the Court to build it, it would just be
the material costs. So, we got to put some pipes in there
where there's some poor drainage. I can't get much more
than six -- 16 is putting it right at the edge of the water.
s-q-os
78
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
How much -- how much traffic's going in there, I don't know.
They couldn't tell me. So --
JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. WerleLn? Maybe you can
fill some of these gaps in here.
MS. WERLEIN: I'll try. I'll try. The
traffic that would be going in there, we're going to
contract with the hospital when that facility is completed.
We're contracting with them. There -- to answer whose ever
question it was about the building itself, the hospital and
State will be doing the renovations, because we will be
renting from them at that facility. That's the first thing.
The second thing is, the traffic in and out would be
patients that -- and police cars, that kind of thing, that
would be coming in. Any kind of heavy trucks or food
service, laundry would be going into the hospital itself,
not within the gated area that would be around the building
that we're talking about. That concept is part of what the
hospital and Hill Country came together to talk about, so
that it was separated from the hospital, and that the people
who were concerned about mixing acute and forensic
populations could have that satisfied.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is there not a -- an existing
separate parking area for this building, 626?
MS. WERLEIN: Yes, there is.
CGMMISSIONER LETZ: But all this is --
5-9-US
~9
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
MS. WERLEIN: And a parking lot -- I don't
know with whom you spoke, but a parking lot has not been
mentioned to us.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is all contingent,
though, on an appropriations bill, having funding?
MS. WERLEIN: That's Correct, the rider being
funded.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there a reason we're
doing this before that appropriation bill gets passed?
MS. WERLEIN: Yes, there is. The State
Department and the people within the Legislature that are
assisting us in this process feel that some good faith
effort on the part of the County that was tangible, that
said that they were going to work with this -- because, if
you will remember, a large part of the reason that this was
even being considered was the concern within Kerr County
that they had to go outside of the county for this service.
So, that -- that possibility always -- if this does not
happen, then, of course, people will be sent to Austin State
Hospital and San Antonio State Hospital, so that really is
why.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is the -- the road
itself, if it's 14 foot, there's obviously no center stripe
on it; then it'Ll just be -- just a --
MR. ODOM: Approximately 2,200 linear feet
s 5-ns
80
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
long.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is the road on state
property or County property? Whose property --
MR. ODOM: State.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So trie road is on -- so
we can put a sign on state property as soon as you get into
that, which -- so it will be basically the same as the roads
in the State Hospital.
MS. WERLEIN: Private.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 'Cause they're mostly, I
guess, 14-foot too, for the most part.
MR. ODOM: Some of them are just -- utility
service is around 10 to 14 foot, something like that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And then what about
maintenance? Who -- are we supposed to maintain it for 100
years or --
MS. WERLEIN: I don't think we will be in
that property, Commissioner, for 100 years.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Are we expected
to maintain it one day?
MS. WERLEIN: 'Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. How long are we
expected to maintain it?
MS. WERLEIPd: I would assume as long as we
are there.
5 - 9 - G 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
81
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Not good enough. I --
I'm not sure what we're doing here. I'm not convinced -- is
this one of those buildings that was deemed not good enough
to house patients --
MS. WERLEIN: No, sir, it was not.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- years ago? Excuse
me?
MS. WERLEIN: No, sir, it was not.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, the buildings that
you're referring to are the ones with asbestos concerns, I
believe.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: This is at the very back of
the entire campus. It was built in the early '80's, I
believe, and its initial purpose for being built was for the
substance abuse programs.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I remember.
JUDGE TINLEY: It does not have -- it does
not have any of the asbestos problems. There are a few
modifications that would have to be made; I think A.D.A.,
there may be some modifications, and some other interior
modifications to accommodate the type of patients. But
that's -- that's the building that we're talking about.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Leonard, what's -- how
much money are we talking about?
5-9-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
82
MR. ODOM: Approximately $12,000.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: $12,000.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let's go back to the
maintenance issue, Ms. Werlein.
MS. WERLEIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The State maintains
whatever road system on their campus that exists today,
right?
MS. WERLEIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This is on their
campus.
MS. WERLEIN: Yes, sir, but they operate
state programs within that. We are contracting with them.
Hill Country M.H.M.R. Center will be contracting with them.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which I understand.
But this is still a road on state property going to a
State-owned building, correct?
MS. WERLEIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And I'm wondering why
the State wouldn't assume -- since this road, once
constructed, will be on their property --
MS. WERLEIN: And that may --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- would not assume
the maintenance of it.
MS. WERLEIN: That may be something that we
5-9-OS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
83
can take a look at. They have not rated that at this point.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think it's
something we ought to take a look at.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Actually, I think we
need to be clear about that before we take any steps.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess I'm -- I mean,
I'm not opposed to spending the money, 'cause I think -- I
mean, the acute care and all that is something we've -- we
want at the hospital. But -- and I understand the need to
segregate acute care from the forensic care, but why do you
need a separate road? Why can't you go in the driveway -- I
mean, the road be the same, and just fence the --
MS. WERLEIN: Actually, it's the hospital's
request that there be a separate road. They do not want --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Police cars driving
through?
MS. WERLEIN: Well, no, they have police cars
coming now. But it's just -- it's very -- it's on the very
edge of the campus, and they just don't want the traffic
coming through, so they have requested -- it was their
request that we have a separate road.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And this is the only --
this is the only viable -- there's not an easier way or a
less expensive way to --
MS. WERLEIN: No, this is the less expensive
5-5-OS
84
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
way. There were two ways that -- you could come all the way
around the grounds, and then there's this one that you go in
by Texas Drive, and it's much shorter, the amount that would
be necessary to build and retain.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see.
JUDGE TINLEY: The request to support the
funding, the appropriations rider to do the necessary
modifications and upgrades to the building from State
Commission -- the State Commission is now the one that's
wanting this commitment from the Court, if I understand.
MS. WERLEIN: Yes, sir. They need to know
that this is a -- partially because a large part of the
reason that we're looking at even having an acute care
facility here is because of the concern of Kerr County and
the fact that there would be no acute care admissions here
in Kerrville. And Representative Hilderbran, Representative
Davis, and Representative Gattis have spent a great deal of
time -- as you might know, it's quite unusual to ask for
this kind of thing. There are a lot of community M.H.M.R.
centers that are saying, "If you give it to Hill Country, we
want it too." There are 41 community M.H.M.R. centers in
the state of Texas, so I might add it's not a popular
request. So, the commitment from them is -- is taken with
some heat to push this forward, and at this point, I think
they're looking at local commitments. We're also looking at
s-a-os
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
85
local foundations for support as well, and all of these
pieces put together make for a prettier picture when you go
forward to foundations.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, basically, I
support it, and I think the maintenance issue over the long
haul is probably a minor -- minor issue, particularly if
Mr. Odom builds the road like I know he can. It probably
won't be an issue for some time.
MS. WERLEIN: And you're not talking about
heavy traffic. You're talking about automobiles, for the
most part. You're not talking about big trucks coming in.
As I said, we will be contracting with the hospital for
things like food service, laundry. That will be in their
existing roads.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions of
Ms. Werlein?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sheriff?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The one thing I'd like
to say, I think it would be a great benefit, and if we could
help in some way, because right now we're transporting, you
know, anywhere up to four people to these other state
hospitals a week, and that's to -- that's other ones all
around the state, and it's getting very hard for us to do.
And I think the City of Kerrville has the same -- of course,
they're doing the same thing we're doing. We're doing it
5-9-OS
86
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
kind of jointly, and it may be something that, later on, if
the whole thing were approved, the City would also pitch in
a little bit to help, because this is needed for this
county.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The City's here.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Judge, I move to
authorize Road and Bridge to approve or construct a separate
roadway to a facility of Kerrville State Hospital for --
utilized for acute civil commitment patients from Kerr and
other counties, and authorize Road and Bridge to spend up to
$12,000 doing it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Any
question or discussion? All in favor of the motion -- you
had a --
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir, I had a question. When
is this to be done? Immediately? Or --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not unless the
appropriation bill --
MR. ODOM: But in this budget year or next
budget year?
JODGE TINLEY: We're probably going to know
by the end of this month whether or not this is -- this is a
doable thing. You're obviously wondering where that money's
going to come from if it comes out of this budget year.
-~-os
87
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. ODOM: But it's really -- the time factor
is when you want it to be done, because I'm in -- in the
process of beginning the sealcoat program. You know, do I
have -- what length of time do I have before next budget?
If I get it in this fiscal year, is that acceptable to the
Court?
JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, very much so, because
they -- they will not commence the construction, I don't
think, until after the 1st of September under the new state
budget. Is that what I'm hearing, Ms. Werlein?
MS. WERLEIN: No, sir, they'll -- the
construction on the building, the -- the remodeling of the
building, they'll start that, and they're doing some of that
currently. We've already had the architects come out and
look at it and do -- redo a plan. We've already had some
other people from the State come down, so the work is
beginning on that. But that road will not be needed until,
I would say, September. But we won't even know if all of
this is a reality for another month, till the gavel falls on
the 31st.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, it will be this
budget year.
MR. ODOM: Toward the end of the budget year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, towards the end of
the budget year.
5-9 OS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
88
DODGE TINLEY: Are you comfortable with that?
MR. ODOM: I think so.
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: The motion does carry. Thank
you for being here, Ms. Werlein.
MS. WERLEIN: Thank you, gentlemen.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's take about a 10- to
15-minute recess. We'll convene at 11 o'clock or shortly
thereafter.
(Recess taken from 10:46 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to
order. We were in recess for approximately 15 minutes.
We'll move on with the agenda now. Item 8, consider and
discuss the County's responsibility for maintenance of Clark
Ranch Road located in Precinct 4. Commissioner Nicholson.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, I've given you
an account of what appears to have happened going back more
than 30 years with Clark Ranch Road, and the basic
question -- the bottom line is, do we maintain 2.4 miles of
-9 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
89
it or 1.6 miles of it? And if we changed it from 2.4 miles
to 1.6 miles, did we get a court order to do that? So, I'm
proposing that we either resume maintenance of it or go
through the process of abandoning it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Question. What does
the 1997 list sayeth? Oh, here you go.
MR. ODOM: '97?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Wasn't that the old --
the latest list of county roads and their distance?
MS. HARDIN: In 1996, which you gave -- he
just handed you the county --
MR. ODOM: I have a list, if you'll take a
look at that. That is where the State ran that, and we have
1.623 miles. That was to Ron Gray's gate. If you'll look
at this map, basically, we went back to the 'S9 map; shows
nine-tenths of a mile. That's to Tiny Clark's house. And
that the Schumachers went -- if you looked at this, that
front map shows you it comes back over there by Priours.
I've been here 14 years. Also, on the back of that -- I'll
try to address the letter on each one, but I have two
statements, and one, if you go to the back page on May 22nd
of 'O5, I asked Ray Lynch -- and I know when I started that.
I had Ray to go over a lot of this with Ted Lackey to make
sure where our maintenance stopped and started on Clark
Road.
s-3-,,~
90
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
It says, "I, Ray Lynch, was hired by Kerr
County Precinct 4 Commissioner Bill Guthrie, Jr., in March,
of 1980. At this time, Guthrie's foreman, Jake Crenshaw,
had taken me over all the roads in Precinct 4. Jake
Crenshaw had been with Kerr County since 1970. When Jake
showed me Clark Road, we stopped at Ron Gray's gate. Jake
explained to me that the county maintenance stopped at this
gate and did not go into Ron Gray's ranch." I also have the
same -- another statement from Aaron Wheeler, which is in
charge -- and Aaron's here if there's any questions. But it
says, "The first time I worked on Clark Road was in the
mid-'80's under Ted Lackey, and was told that County
Maintenance ended at Gray's gate. There was one time we got
water from Gray's tank in front of his house, and we put
base on some washouts. At that time was the only time we
went past the gate."
And I've gone back and tried to reconstruct
everything, but basically, that's what I was told, and when
the State went out in -- to do this road by GPS, we didn't
go with them. They took our roads and they went there. And
normally that gate is closed or locked, and probably had "No
Trespassing" up on it. So, you know, the State that -- they
ended at our maintenance. That's where we've always turned
around, according to Ray Lynch and everybody. And you were
here in the 80's; like I say, the '59 showed nine-tenths of
s-a-os
91
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
a mile to Tiny Clark's, and then apparently it subdivided or
sold at that point.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What did -- what did I
have -- I did a master list as well. What was my distance?
MS. HARDIN: There's no distance on your
list, there's just names.
MR. ODOM: Just names.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. So that meant
it -- what that meant was that it remained the same under --
MR. ODOM: '59.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- Mr. -- not Oehler.
MR. ODOM: Guthrie.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, the '59.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- is there a gate
there?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, if there's -- seems
to me that if there's a gate, our maintenance stops at the
gate.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: At one time, there
were gates between all of these properties, and the County
went in and put cattle guards in them. There's been no
cattle guard put into the -- to the property line of the
Gray property.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: When was all that -- I
s y-n5
92
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
l4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
mean, I guess -- I don't know.
MR. ODOM: As long as I've been here,
Commissioner, those cattle guards are -- they're so small;
they're about 10 foot. They have been taken out, 'cause we
just rebuilt Clark Road, and we ended at Ron Gray's gate.
We pulled the asphalt right up to the gate.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Mr. Gray makes a
claim that in the 90's, we resurfaced Clark Ranch Road, and
we used caliche from his ranch.
MR. ODOM: In the 90's, the only --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Ran it up to --
about 100 yards short of the residence. And it was told at
that time that the reason we're stopping here instead of
going as far as we used to is something about water lines.
So, are we denying that that happened?
MR. ODOM: I'm denying that as far as us
maintaining. What happened in the 90's was floods,
Commissioner. And the -- and Bruce Oehler was Commissioner
at that time. What we had was no policy, and what we
started was a policy, if people got rained out -- when I
first came here in '90 -- '91, '92 was a big flood. I think
'95, '96. And so when people called in, of course, they
would call their Commissioner, and we just said, well, if
you construe that as an emergency, then we would go out. We
found that we were getting phone calls throughout. I mean,
s-Q-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
everybody had an emergency. And we said, "This is not
working,' cause we had people to take care of it. What
happened there, sometime in the '90's, I remember probably
we were working Clark Road at different places and probably
had that request, and probably Bruce requested that. What
we've done since then is change that to that the Sheriff's
Department would take a look at it, and since that time, we
don't have the problems. We don't have the calls, because
they have to declare an emergency, and we ask the Sheriff's
Department to go out and use their cars. Because if they
can't get in and out with the car, well, certainly, you
know, we take a look at it. And that's the only way that I
would know during the '90's. And he was -- he's been there
with that crew, so --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I'll just make a
comment. I have no idea about this situation, but I do know
that on several roads that were -- that I have been involved
with -- Lazy Valley has been one, and recently out off Lane
Valley, when the County worked out an arrangement to get
that material off somebody's property, which they do pretty
regularly on things if it makes economic sense. It's very
common to -- you certainly want to leave the road in better
shape than you found it. So, I mean, roads may be improved
while we're -- kind of as a -- as a thank-you for using the
road, but that never -- I kind of -- what I'm thinking of is
S-9-OS
94
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
l4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
DeeDee Faltin. There was never any idea that we were going
to -- because we improved part of his road to get materials,
we were going -- ever going to take over maintenance of the
road.
MR. ODOM: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I don't know the
situation here. But, I mean, there are situations where we
improve a road because we're getting material.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do we have any evidence that
the segment of the road in question -- about eight-tenths of
a mile, apparently -- was ever accepted or under the
County's maintenance program, irrespective of when that may
have been?
MR.. ODOM: I don't have any -- anything in
'87. Commissioner Baldwin was there. I don't know -- I
didn't come till '91, and I can tell you, we did not
maintain it. Ray Lynch took it right there and said, "Len,
this was it. I started in 1980, so I can tell you from that
point." And this gentleman's been here for -- how many
years have you been with the County?
MR. WHEELER: 21.
MR. ODOM: 21.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So we're saying
that -- that Mr. Gray is wrong; that we have not maintained
that road for 21 years?
s-e us
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
MR. ODOM: No, sir. I have been here 19. I
have not maintained that.
MR. WHEELER: We went in there that one time
and we got water from him. We may have gotten material from
him up there; I'm not real sure. But we based out the rough
spots on his road.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The Schumachers
would be wrong if they asserted that at one time we
maintained that Clark Ranch Road all the way to their
residence?
MR. WHEELER: If it was, it was years ago.
MR. ODOM: Years ago.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I think that the
County used to maintain the road from 1340 into the
Schumacher house, but a totally separate road.
MR. ODOM: Separate road. It was by the
wildlife refuge. It was a -- wildlife refuge is the way
they went, through Fosslers.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Fosslers, mm-hmm.
MR. ODOM: Yes.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: At one time, we
maintained Clark Ranch Road all the way to the Schumacher's
property. And --
MS. HARDIN: There's two highlighted roads on
there. One of them's --
s-9-o5
96
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
]0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
L L
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I believe '87 is the
critical date. If it wasn't on the '87 list, it isn't
maintained. It wasn't a county road.
MR. ODOM: Now, you --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's lots of things
done before that, that who knows -- you know, in '87 is when
we --
MR. ODOM: That's when the unitized system
came in, and Ray is saying not -- you know, he came in 1980
and they turned around there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If it wasn't on the list
in '87, it's just not on the list. There's lots of roads
around the county -- in my precinct, every one of them may
have had some work done to them prior to that, but, you
know, that list is the list.
MR. ODOM: Sometimes if we do work, sometimes
people construe us maintaining it. And with all due
respect, I -- you know, we're not being argumentative,
calling anybody that's doing -- some people remember what
they wish to remember. But I -- I'm going from people that
have been here since 1980. I'm here since '91; that's over
14 years.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Didn't the -- the '87
list didn't have distances on them; it was just names?
MR. ODOM: It's just names.
5 9-OS
97
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Which meant that --
that it didn't change from this document here, is what that
meant.
MR. ODOM: And you have -- I think the ones
that -- even if this would -- before Gerald Menafee was
here, I would imagine it was either Danny from Center Point
that did know that area that may have done that, or Raymond
Barrons. I don't know; one or -- one or both of them. At
one time Raymond was here when we came back, so a lot of
people -- you have to know the west end.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, this document
that Truby just gave us seems to --
MR. ODOM: Well, it stopped at Tiny Clark's.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- take us back to
1959, and the then-Commissioner established that that was
the .9 distance.
MR. ODOM: That was Tiny Clark's. And we've
gone past that to even pick up the other people there right
up to Ron Gray's -- or to the Stone Foundation. I don't
know if Mr. Gray owns that or not. But I think there's --
it lists Diamond J or the Stone Foundation, something like
that, that owns that.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, our response to
those two landowners who -- who assert that the road was
once maintained by the County is that we have not maintained
5-9-05
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
98
that road for at least 21 years?
MR. ODOM: I can say for 14. It indicates
it's 21.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. I don't have
anything else to offer on it, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody else have any more on
that particular item?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. I want to point
out something on this list here. North Fork, 14 miles.
That's State Highway 1340. I just think that's so neat,
back then.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are you related to Cecil?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's my daddy.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else on that item?
Let's move on to Item 11, consider the reclassification of
roads in Big Sky Ranch in Volume 7, Page 280, from public to
private. Mr. Odom?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. We separated this item
from others listed in the public hearing so it might be
attached to the subdivision plat records. Big Sky Ranch was
platted earlier this year, with the roads being built to
Kerr County specifications in preparation for them to be
County-maintained after the one-year waiting period. The
developers have since decided that they want to make the
5-9 OS
99
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
roads private. I recommend the Court make the roads
private. That's -- they were listed on that public hearing,
and we wanted to be able to identify that and put it on the
plat, and that was the direction we had from the Court for
the best suggestion we had previously.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I move that we
reclassify the roads in Big Sky Ranch Subdivision from
public to private.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item. Any question or discussion?
All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right
hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(NO response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Item
12, consider name changes on County-maintained roads,
abandonment, discontinuance, and vacation -- vacating
1445 feet of Ox Hollow and all of Hurt-Priour on Henry
Priour Ranch, and speed limits on Bear Creek and Peterson
Farm Road, no parking on Hunt River Road.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. The regulatory signs
there are self-explanatory. I do have -- the Ox Hollow is
1,995 linear feet of roadway; it's in a creek. I think it
5-~-as
100
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
went back to the -- your relatives, I think, back there
originally had that. It is totally back in the creek.
Buster knows what I'm talking about. We have done
previously -- I've talked to the property owner. He was
willing, I would say that, to this abandonment. It would be
contingent on a cul-de-sac that they would build at the end,
because there's absolutely no way to turn around down there.
And if he's in agreement, and he indicated that was so, I
think that I would bring it to the Court there after it was
built -- not the taxpayers, but for him to build it; that we
would abandon that road.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, that abandonment is
subject to the cul-de-sac?
MR. ODOM: Subject to the cul-de-sac being
built. And we've done that in the past with others, so I
think --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is just a public
hearing, and the abandonment would come with a later court
order.
MR. ODOM: The abandonment would be later,
contingent upon him building that; that we'd bring it to the
Court for abandonment. And the other is the abandonment of
the Hurt-Priour Ranch Road, which has to do with two people,
and three -- well, I think --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There are actually
5-9-OS
107
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
three owners there. They're all members of the same family.
MR. ODOM: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But there are three
owners. And I got a call this morning from one of those
members, and he said that he hadn't been contacted, or --
and please don't start throwing rocks at me; I'm just
telling you what the guy said.
MR. ODOM: I'm sorry. We -- we do have a
letter. We sent it to --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. I'm just
telling you what the guy said.
MR. ODOM: Here it is here. We sent a letter
April 25th, 2005, to Rob Hurt. This is the one that brought
it up before, and I think was in here at one time about
this. And, "Dear Mr. Hurt, there is a public hearing set
for May the 9th, 2005, at 10 a.m. in Commissioners Court to
abandon, vacate, and discontinue the road through your ranch
known as Henry Priour or Hurt-Priour Road for county -- Kerr
County maintenance. If you would like to be heard on this
matter, we invite you to attend." And I signed it. I have
a memo that was sent from Truby to David Motley February --
September the 10th, 1999, 8:16 a.m. It had two subjects.
One paragraph here says, "I will check my files and get back
to you on the Hurt-Priour history later today. Robby" --
and gave his phone number -- "and Lewis Hurt called Buster
5 v 0 5
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
telling him they were the only two that used the road, and
requesting that the road be abandoned." Now, we had -- I
think Robby Hurt was in, and we had discussed the reason he
wanted us to take it back was that -- I have some pictures,
and the -- the comment was, Robby Hurt came in 12-19-04,
discussed road with Leonard. He suggested we read the
letter he sent to David. When I asked him what his
objections was, he responded that he wanted Kerr County to
resume maintenance, and said it needed patching. Well, it
does need patching after this many years. And then the
comment was, with the Commissioner and I when we were in --
in our office there, that after we patch it, would we have a
problem of abandoning it back to -- to those two. We only
see two property owners. The road goes all the way through.
Used to have his mother living there, and I think she's
deceased now.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Great-grandmother.
MR. ODOM: And that goes into his brother's
place, and that road goes right to the house. And so, to
me, they asked in '99 to abandon it, and we obliged. And I
just -- I just do not see where the public is being
benefited for us to maintain this road.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess the only issue --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If Buster said -- or they
5 9 O S
103
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
told Buster that there's three property owners; you're
saying there's two. I think we're required to notify all
property owners. We need to figure out if there's two or
three. I guess that's law. We have to notify them, and if
there's a -- as I understand it. And so, once we figure out
who owns the property, if there's two and we've done two,
then we can abandon it, but if there's three, we need to
notify the third person.
MR. ODOM: Well, I guess that --
MS. HARDIN: Public hearing is not
notification?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think you have to do
it -- I believe you have to do it -- I'll defer to Rex, but
I think you have to do it individually to the affected
people.
MR. EMERSON: That's my understanding.
MR. ODOM: Well, I apologize to the Court.
We'll come back at it another -- another time, then.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If we can find out. If
there's only two, I guess this would suffice as the public
hearing, but if there is a third, we'll have to do it again.
MR. ODOM: To my knowledge, there's two.
That's what the -- that's what we showed.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm just telling you
what the guy told me.
5-9-OS
f
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
104
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know. I know
that there's three members of the family, and he said,
"There's three of us." That would be a mama and a baby and
a -- next to a baby. Yeah, you add -- you add these two
guys' mother in the picture.
MR. ODOM: The mother is --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: According to them.
MR. ODOM: According to Robby Hurt, the
mother's deceased.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Grandmother is.
MR. ODOM: Grandmother, okay. I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's the old Priour
bunch, and she was Mrs. Henry Priour. And Mrs. Priour had a
little girl named Mrs. Hurt, which -- well, let's don't -- I
mean --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is this a public
hearing, or can we take action?
JUDGE TINLEY: We already had the public
hearing.
MR. ODOM: We had the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We can take action
on those of these items we choose to.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Actually, I think you
5-9-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
can probably take action on any of them, because they've had
the opportunity to come in here and speak.
MR. ODOM: I mean, we've met with everybody.
I've met with the Commissioner, with that individual that
requested it -- was requesting us to take it back in.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not arguing. I just,
you know --
MR. ODOM: I'm just saying --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't disagree. It's
just about whether we've given proper notice to the people
doing it, and that's -- I think you have to give it
individually. If it's their road or goes to their property,
they're using it, I think you have to do more than just
public hearing, but I'm not -- I'll defer to Rex.
MR. ODOM: We'll check with legal and we'll
make sure; we'll do it again. And I would ask the Court to
disregard this on Hurt-Priour Road, then, for abandonment
and discontinuing.
JUDGE TINLEY: At this time.
MR. ODOM: At this time.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And bring it back.
MR. ODOM: I'll bring it back.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If it met the
requirements.
MR. ODOM: That's right, sir. I apologize to
s-5-os
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
106
the Court. We thought we met the requirements.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. I'm going to
make a motion that --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Whoa, I got some
questions on Peterson Farm Road.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's okay, you can make a
motion.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Go ahead and make a
motion.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Go ahead and make a
motion. I still have a question.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'll make a motion
that we approve the regulatory signs as listed in the notice
of public hearing, and that we abandon, vacate, discontinue
1,995 feet of Ox Hollow Road South, contingent upon the
cul-de-sac being built, and that we make the road name
changes as listed in the notice of public hearing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Motion made and
seconded as stated. Questions or comments?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a question.
Does the motion include the speed limits on Bear Creek and
Peterson Farm?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Question.
5-9-US
107
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Leonard, with regard to Peterson Farm Road, did I initiate
this change, or how was that initiated, and what is the
current posted limit?
MR. ODOM: Did you initiate -- what was the
last question?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Did I initiate this
change for speed limit on Peterson Farm Road? That's
question one. Secondly, what is the current posted speed
limit?
MS. HARDIN: It is currently posted at 45
coming from Mooney. There is no posting from Highway 27
towards Mooney.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So that's the purpose
of this, is just to post --
MS. HARDIN: And a law enforcement officer
asked us to do it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: On 27, as you're
going eastbound on Peterson Farm Road --
MS. HARDIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- to put a sign up?
MS. HARDIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And it is currently
established as 45 coming out of Mooney complex westbound?
MS. HARDIN: Yeah, within the city limits.
MR. ODOM: Within the city limits.
s-Q-os
108
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, fine. Thank
you.
MR. ODOM: But this request was from the
Sheriff's Department.
MS. HARDIN: No, D.P.S.
MR. ODOM: D.P.S.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I don't have a real
strong opinion on it, but on the Or. Hollow Road, wouldn't it
be better to pull that from this order and -- and do that
when the cul-de-sac's built? 1 just hate having contingent
things floating around out there, 'cause then they tend to
get kind of lost.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So my preference would be
probably to --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay, let's amend
that proposal to exclude the abandonment and vacating of
1,445 feet of Ox Hollow Road.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I concur.
JODGE TINLEY: Okay, as amended and restated.
Any further 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.)
5-9 US
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
109
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Thank
you. Let's go to Item 13, consider road name changes for
privately maintained roads in accordance with 9-1-1
guidelines.
MS. HARDIN: The list keeps getting shorter
and shorter. We only have three today.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item. Any question or discussion?
All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right
hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Next
item is Item 14, preliminary plat of Mosty Pecan Grove
located in Precinct 2.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mr. Odom, tell them
where we are today. We've been all over this plat.
MR. ODOM: We've been all over, but I think
that we have an agreement. Lot 1 is to be renamed a pump
tract, and down at the end we have a cul-de-sac. That is
not a full cul-de-sac, but it is a pretty good turnaround,
50-foot radius. On Lot 2, if you will look at Note Number
s 9 05
110
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
5, 1.82 acres, it says, "NO habitable structure will be
allowed on Lot 2 unless the lot is serviced by a community
water system, shared well, or permitted well." So,
basically, at this time, it is until those criteria are met,
or a community water system or something, that it's a little
bit over 1 acre that's acceptable. On Lot 1, if you will
look at Note Number 8, "Any resubdivision of Lot 1 will be
restricted to access from State Highway 27 only because of
its inadequate width. No access will be permitted from J.J.
Lane to future lots." So, I have no problems, since there
is a 15-foot easement on Lot 1 right now; the individual has
that. He would still have that access. However, if it's
split up in two or more parts and has to be replatted, which
it would have to be, that entrance would come out on Highway
27. I think that's acceptable.
I kept the proprietary rights of the
landowners; it must be 18 to 20 some-odd lots over there.
We'd keep that at 30 foot. We've enhanced that 30-foot
easement with that cul-de-sac down at the bottom. We've
added this third tract up in here, which was separate from
the original, but I think we've done that. And by the
information that Rer, has given you, that gives us some
guidelines, what we can do, and that we do have the right if
it's necessary, but I don't think it's necessary. I think
if we keep it a private road at 30 foot, I think it's been
5-9 OS
111
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
addressed. I think this is the way it should -- should have
been from the first.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We did --
MR. ODOM: I'd recommend acceptance.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We did restrict both
lots, the no habitable dwelling unless the water issues were
resolved at some future date, meaning community water
system, or some shared -- shared water. And -- but my
question is, I thought we were going to put a restriction on
the pump tract as well. Did we not agree to that,
Mr. Voelkel?
MR. VOELKEL: That's correct, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pardon?
MR. VOELKEL: I think the owner, in his
letter or response, agreed to that, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So there should be a
-- either a change on Note 5 to identify lots -- the pump
tract and Lot 2, or an additional plat note.
MR. ODOM: I don't think it could ever be
built on anyway.
JUDGE TINLEY: Because of the community water
system language as to Lot 2.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Then let's add
another note.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No habitable structure,
s-Q-as
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
112
period.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No habitable
structure would be allowed on what is designated as the pump
tract. I think that was the basis of our agreement --
understanding.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. With that, I
think all of the issues that we had talked about in the past
have been reasonably resolved. County Attorney's been
involved in this, and he -- he proffered a list of seven or
eight questions to the owner, to which the owner has
responded. To your satisfaction, Mr. County Attorney? The
answers, are they to your satisfaction?
MR. EMERSON: Well, I think the proper answer
to that is, it's not my decision, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, but he did answer
your questions?
MR. EMERSON: He did answer the questions,
yes, but the information is for y'all to disseminate and
make a decision on.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: With all that in
place, then, and adding a Number 9 plat note, I would move
approval of -- of the preliminary plat of Mosty Pecan Grove,
Precinct 2, as detailed before the Court today.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
5-9-u5
113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
DODGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval as conditioned. Any question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question I have is on the
Note 8. Any resubdivision, is that -- well, I'll let Rex
look at it. Is that appropriate? Can we do that? Do we
say at this point that no sub -- that any subdivision of Lot
1 has to be off the state highway, and deny access to J.J.
Lane?
MR. EMERSON: well, I think what you're
creating with an agreement of the property owner -- it was
my understanding he's agreed to it -- is that if there's any
further subdivisions and they want the access off J.J. Lane,
you're increasing the burden on J.J. Lane, and it's going to
be subject to paying the expenses to widen it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess my view is, you
have a road there. Part of that easement is in Lot 1. How
are you going to control access on J.J. Lane? I see no
possible way to do it. And I don't think -- I really doubt
-- I don't think -- I question whether you can do that. I
mean, unless -- if you had one lot that was that whole
length, maybe that one lot --
MR. ODOM: Are you saying that we need to go
to 60 foot, then? Or 40 foot? Minimum's 40.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just -- I just
question -- I just don't know, you know, that you can do
S-a-US
114
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
that. And I don't know how you do it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, my
understanding is Lot 2, as identified on this plat, is
purr_hased by the owner of -- Mr. Trice; is that correct?
MR. VOELKEL: I'm sorry?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Who's purchasing
Lot 2?
MR. VOELKEL: It's called the Pam White
Family Trust. It's a family trust that's buying Lot 2, the
12-acre tract.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And they are the
owners of the tract across; is that correct?
MR. VOELKEL: That's not correct, no, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That is not correct?
MR. VOELKEL: Different owner.
MR. ODOM: Different owner.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the -- I mean, Lot --
MR. VOELKEL: Mr. Letz, I think the reason
that's on there -- and let me explain what my understanding
of it was. Say a person bought Lot 2 and they wanted to
resubdivide it. They bring to you a subdivision plat, and
they have access off of J.J. Lane, which is a 30-foot
private road, to put in new roads on Lot 1. You have the
right to deny that. And I think this plat note says up
front, it probably will be denied by Commissioners Court if
s-y o5
115
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
you choose to do that. I don't know that you can limit, as
you say, the access to somebody that might be down on that
road, but you can sure limit an approval of another plat
that comes forward using J.J. Lane as their main entrance
into that subdivision. Is that --
MR. ODOM: That's essentially it, right. And
since either we have to do it now to widen it all the way
up, since one individual owns it, because Lot 2 -- I don't
know how you force Lot 2 to give any wider easement.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, that's what I'm
saying. So, I think you're creating a future problem,
because once this -- once we allow this, you cannot widen
J.J. Lane in the future without getting two people -- you
know, I mean, this Lot 2, obviously --
MR. VOELKEL: You have to get Lot 2 to
participate also
MR. ODOM: Also.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. Well, but that's,
I mean, I would think unlikely.
MR. VOELKEL: Very unlikely.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You couldn't widen
J.J. Lane under any circumstances if any one of these
property owners objected.
MR. ODOM: I think -- I don't know if we have
the proprietary right to grant an easement or -- to private
-9-os
116
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-- to a private road.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mr. Mosty owns part of
that easement, and Mr. Mosty clearly has a right to that
road.
MR. ODOM: I agree with you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If he sells it to 10
people, those people have a right to that road.
MR. ODOM: At 15 foot, that's correct.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. And so we're
allowing -- in my mind, I look at this as a precedent, that
we're going to be saying that you don't -- that developers
do not have to improve private roads that access their
developments, 'cause I don't think that note makes any sense
or works. Because someone -- if you look at the shape of
that lot, there's going to be multiple property owners, if
that's ever subdivided, fronting J.J. Lane, and there's no
way that we're going to make those people not be able to use
J.J. Lane. I just don't see how you can legally do that.
MR. VOELKEL: Except for your plat approval.
In other words, they're going -- if they do resubdivide that
lot, they're going to have to come before you, the Court,
for approval of their plat, and at that time, I would assume
that the plat would not be approved because J.J. Lane is not
an adequate road for accessing a subdivision of that tract.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We don't know that
5-9 OS
117
1
L
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
subsequent development or subdivisions of Lot Number 1 will
result in property owners having only access -- or having
access, period, to J.J. Lane. What we're saying is that
if that is subdivided in the future for purposes of
development, everything has to come and go out of
Highway 27.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think you can do
that. I think the people that own -- end up owning the
piece that fronts J.J. Lane have a legal right to use that
road. But if, by buying that property, they have the
easement on their property, clearly they have the right to
use it, and I don't see how we can stop that.
MR. ODOM: Well, the question would be, is 30
foot enough, if it's subdivided into 1-acre lots, in the
road that's there, or do we got to widen it? The minimum
width is 40. Do we go to 60? Before, we were saying that I
didn't have the right to give -- to get 60 foot.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, we said we needed a
legal opinion, and Rex says yes, we have the right; we can
require it as a matter of -- the weight of the value issue,
basically, as I read in his memo. And so it's a gray area.
And, you know, I -- my preference would be to widen it. Not
to 60 feet; to go something like 45 feet. I think that's a
better situation, rather than a platting note. But, you
know, I'm just one person.
5 9-OS
118
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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do you have any more
thoughts, Mr. County Attorney?
MR. EMERSON: Not beyond the memo,
Commissioner. Now, the problem is that there is no clear
mathematical formula, and it's a proportional test. And
because of -- the actual burden that's on the initial
subdivision is not much of an increase on J.J. Lane. You're
still stuck in the middle of a gray cloud. You know, if
this thing went to litigation, I would give you fifty-fifty;
it could go either direction. There's no telling.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or
discussion on the motion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Was there an actual
motion?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I moved to approve it
based on the preliminary plat.
JUDGE TINLEY: With the addition of that one
plat note with regard to Lot 2.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And --
JUDGE TINLEY: Or, excuse me, as to the pump
tract. Excuse me.
MR. ODOM: Pump tract. No habitable
structure on the pump tract.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or
s-9-os
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
119
discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(Commissioners Ba]dwin, Williams, and
Nicholson voted in favor of the motion.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed?
(Commissioner Letz voted against the motion.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Let's go
to Item 15, consider the concept plan for Lot 91 of Clear
Springs Ranches #2 to allow for rental of manufactured
homes. This is located in Precinct 2.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. The owner of Lot 91 in
Clear Springs Ranches #2 was sent to our office from
Environmental Health. He has a homestead on a lot that he
has access off of Katy Lane, Lot 91A. He has added another
manufactured home to rent with access off of Hidden Acres,
Lot 918, and he wishes to place yet another on Lot 91C to
rent. He plans to rent them to family members. This
property has a public water system. He plans to have 91B
and C on the same septic. If the Court allows an alternate
plat, he will need a variance from -- for lot frontage off
of Hidden Acres. I had talked to the Commissioner; we had
gone over this, and then since three -- after talking about
subdividing this and alternate platting process, the
individual was wanting to go to three. A discussion came up
with Mr. Letz in reference to this when he was over for a
5-9-US

i
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
120
concept meeting also, and Commissioner Letz asked us to
revisit this to the Court because of the interpretation of
manufacturing lots -- rental home lots. And the -- our
subdivision rules say two or more, but we've gone back and
I've asked Truby, what was the standard that Franklin had?
Is this where we had it? And back in 2001, the Court --
Judge Henneke and Commissioner Letz -- there was an
exception made, and Franklin followed that exception. In
other words, basically, what this man has shown on one lot
was acceptable. That Judge Henneke -- and correct me if I'm
wrong, Truby, but I believe that tha Judge said that it had
to be more than two rentals; that an individual could live
in one and could rent two out, and that was the way Road and
Bridge had gone. Frank had used that for years. But we're
coming to the Court and asking for direction. What -- what
~s -- Commissioner Letz says no, but precedence has been
yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Let me clear it up.
There was -- and I don't remember the exact situation; I
think it was out in Precinct 9, and the Court, by court
order, gave a vote for it at the time, but said that the
manufactured rental home rules don't give an allowance for
multiple mobile homes. I mean, if you have one rental, it
qualifies, Well, we decided at that time that that was
maybe too strict, and we allowed -- two? Two rentals?
5-9 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
29
25
MR. ODOM: Two rentals.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Two rentals before -- so
it would be the third rental was when you triggered the
rule. That was just a court order; it wasn't a -- you know,
it was, I guess, a precedent that we set at that time, but
that's not what our rules say. So, I thought it was a good
opportunity to bring this back to the Court and say, does
the Court want to continue to follow that precedent, or
follow our rules, which say if you rent one, it's a rental
home community? Now, there is the issue of family members,
and I could have sworn that there was that exemption in the
manufactured rental home community rules. I couldn't find
that the other day, that exemption in there, so that may or
may not be. If we're going to make it two -- that you can
rent the first two, you know, without having to go under our
rules, I think we need to change our rules, and that's kind
of why I brought it to court.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What does the rules
say, two or three?
MR. ODOM: Two or more.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Two or more.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I'm troubled by
dividing it into just two pieces or three pieces, as he's
talking about, because I think that's asking for some
problems downstream with respect to two of them on the same
5-9-ns
1
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
122
septic, and later somebody deciding to sell off one or the
other of them on metes and bounds, and I think that that
opens up a potential for another problem. My preference in
this thing -- and Mr. Odom and I have discussed it at great
length, and I've kind of come full circle on it, but my
preference is that it be only -- only divided into two
parcels, and that the two rental units fall under the
provisions of the mobile -- of the mobile sections of our
subdivision -- mobile rental sections.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, let me -- let me
just read what the rules say right now, and it's definition
of a manufactured home rental community. It means a plot or
tract of land that is separated into two or more spaces or
lots that are rented, leased, or offered for rent or lease
for a term of less than 60 months without purchase option.
So, it's two or more. And I would say that can mean you can
have your residence, --
MR. ODOM: Have one.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- have one free. anH
then the second one you rent.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Two or more.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
MR. ODOM: But the Court has done just the
opposite, you know.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The Court said you had
5-9-~s
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
123
two, and then the third one --
MR. ODOM: Third one was the -- was the
kicker. It was two or more.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I see in my precinct this
is becoming more and more of a problem, and I would prefer
to go back to the rule.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I prefer to go back to
the rules.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't have any
problem with it; I prefer it as well. My -- my option would
be for the owner to divide it into two pieces, and that the
two mobile units fall under the mobile manufactured home
rental rules of the subdivision currently in place. Now, is
that before us to do it that way, or is this -- are we
looking at an option there?
MR. ODOM: Well, I -- when we talked, this is
the way we thought we were going, and then after I came back
from you, then this individual came in with this. We were
also talking about a variance, because we only have
180 feet, not 200 feet up there, so we would need a variance
on the frontage off Hidden Acres Road.
JUDGE TINLEY: This is a concept plan?
MR. ODOM: This is a concept plan.
JUDGE TINLEY: No action taken?
MR. ODOM: There's no action needed, other
5-9-05
124
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
than a direction of the Court, and that's what this
individual wanted before he --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: According to your
drawing here -- somebody's drawing, we wouldn't -- if we go
with only dividing this into two pieces, there isn't a
frontage problem on Hidden Acres Road, because the piece
that will contain the two rental units is -- according to
this drawing, is larger than 180 feet. Longer than
180 feet.
MS. HARDIN: The Subdivision Rules say
200 feet.
MR. ODOM: 200 feet.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: My point is, it's
longer than 180, so it's -- if you look at it, it's 200 or
more.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're saying the total
distance is 180 now.
MR. ODOM: That's right. The total distance
right now is --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the total?
Not just with the --
MR. ODOM: No, sir. No, sir.
MS. HARDIN: That's the whole thing.
MR. ODOM: That's what I was saying before.
If we do the other one, you'd have the variance on both
5 - 9 - 0 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
125
lots, at least 90 foot or whatever it came to, and this is
better at 180. Now, my understanding is that this -- we
don't have topo on this, just a piece of drawing, but I
believe that this is elevated. And, really, I don't know if
there's any more that can be built on this property or not.
MR. ARREOLA: It slopes on that property.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Say it again?
MR. ARREOLA: A lot of slope on the property.
JUDGE TINLEY: My concern is when you're
going to join two habitation units on the same septic
system, necessarily, you're going to have to put it on one
tract or another tract, or split it down the middle. And
down the road, it's going to happen at some point in time,
whether it's going to have to be a conveyance out, and --
and you got the problem.
MR. ARREOLA: State law doesn't allow you to
have -- to cross property lines, so we won't allow septics
in there. So, it's -- they have to have their own septic in
their own lot.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's my concern,
Judge, the same.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, the concept plan, as I
understand it, was that 91B and 91C are on the Same septic.
MR. ARREOLA: Yeah. We will not approve it
that way.
5-9-n5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
126
MS. HARDIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You won't approve
that?
MR. ARREOLA: Not that way, not with two lots
on one septic. They have to have one lot for that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, okay. So, if
we end up with one lot with two units, and you say one
septic can be approved, it still doesn't satisfy, in my
mind, what happens downstream someplace when he decides he
wants to sell off.
MR. ARREOLA: Have to build a second septic.
MR. ODOM: Have to separate a second -- if we
divide it into three, then he would have to do that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. But -- my mind was
off somewhere when y'all first got on this concept plan
thing again after we talked about rules. He wants to have
two lots and rent two mobile homes on one of the lots?
MR. ODOM: That's right.
MS. HARDIN: He doesn't really care how you
divide the land up. He doesn't plan on selling the land.
He just -- he has the homestead. He has one mobile home in
place, which is the B. He wants to put the third one in.
Is there any way he can do that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, if he plats it or
does it, he's got to follow our rules.
s-9-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
127
MR. ODOM: If he puts the third mobile home?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The third one's going to
have to -- he just wants to put the third one in, so why
plat it? He just comes under our rental home community
rules.
MS. HARDIN: He can do the whole lot as a --
as a manufactured home community? Is that what you're
saying?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Could be.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, he's going to have
to follow those rules either way. He's going to have -- you
know, if he's going to have a lot and rent two on it, he's
still triggered our rules. Unless he's going to live in
one, which he's not; can't live in two residences. So, he's
going to be under our rental community rules, period, the
way I look at it, unless I don't understand.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think you're
correct. The -- the frontage variance issue, I -- I would
like to apply some common sense to this thing. What is the
site distance like? I mean, is that a safe area, far as
you're concerned? Or --
MS. HARDIN: It's not a County-maintained
road.
MR. ODOM: I don't know that much about it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If we leave it at one
5-9-05
128
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
lot, it all becomes academic, right?
MS. HARDIN: In order to add one more trailer
and get a septic, then he would have to do the rental
community, correct?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. Just follow the
rules, which is --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Either that, or he
has to leave it as it is?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's a different set of
rules.
MR. ODOM: That, or he leaves that one
trailer there. If he went with that one trailer, he doesn't
need to do anything, right?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. He can keep his
one rental and not do anything, or he can follow the rental
community rules.
MR. ODOM: But we're looking at if there's
two or more trailers on a lot, then the manufactured rental
rules apply?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct.
MR. ODOM: All that's been done before.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I had a question, and
y'all went right back to what you was talking about before
my question. I want my question answered. Not talking
s-9-as
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
129
about rental community; I'm not interested in that. I want
to know -- Hidden Acres is a private road?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Does our regulations
not address that? I mean, are they not required to have 200
foot frontage on a private road?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir.
MS. HARDIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We can deal with that.
MS. HARDIN: We are not aware of the line of
sight, because we don't maintain the road.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Well, I can't
-- I can't vote for a variance, then, without that. I
won't.
MR. ODOM: All right. Well, this is just a
concept now, so I -- we'll get back with the individual and
we'll get back with Commissioner Williams.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: He's going to have to
come -- I think, develop a development plan as we have
required.
MR. ODOM: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further on that
agenda item?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, that's simple
stuff there.
5-9-OS
130
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
L2
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move on to Item 16,
consider and discuss the approval of a contract with KISD
and Kerr County Juvenile Facility regarding the educating of
KISD-expelled students at the juvenile facility and have
authorize County Judge to sign same.
MS. HARRIS: This is the proposal that came
up back in the early fall when Dr. Troxel, the
Superintendent of Kerrville ISD, approached me. If I would
provide the space by which court-ordered expelled students
would attend school, they would be educated by Kerrville ISD
teachers. They would be transported by Kerrville ISD
transportation. The only thing that we would be providing
is the instructional space, and for this, they would pay us
$19.77 per day, per student.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How much?
MS. HARRIS: $19.77.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Couldn't you get the
other 23 cents? (Laughter.)
MS. HARRIS: I'll see what I can do. That
was a flat fee that they prorated out on a per-diem basis.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think that equates to, if I
understand, the State --
MS. HARRIS: A.D.A. money that they get.
JUDGE TINLEY: A.D.A.?
MS. HARRIS: Yes, sir.
5-9-OS
131
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: And they are retaining the
local funds for the purpose of hiring the teachers?
MS. HARRIS: And the transportation.
JUDGE TINLEY: And the transportation.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What kind of
student -- or what kind of -- yeah, student -- what kind of
student is this? Is this a student that has been through
your system?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes. It -- that's the only
way that the student can get there, is through court order
of the juvenile court.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. Now, I know I
was in your meeting the other day; we've talked about this a
couple times, but I can't remember -- in my mind, I picture
this classroom there, and if that -- if this student gets
out of line or hits a teacher or cusses the neighbor or
whatever they do, can you simply pick them up by the ear and
move -- we don't pick them up by the ear, I'm sorry. Pick
them up, move them across the hall, and lock them up?
MS. HARRIS: Only under court order that we
would be allowed to do that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can you pick them up
and hold them till the Judge says you're court-ordered to
cross the hall, locked up? Can you do that?
JUDGE TINLEY: The Juvenile --
s-9-os
132
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: For acting up in
class?
JUDGE TINLEY: The Juvenile Probation
Department --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- having that child under its
jurisdiction, whether it's under an order of release or --
or terms of probation order, would have some ongoing
jurisdiction of that child, and if the child's violating the
conditions of that release or -- or probation order, the
Juvenile Probation order can direct the -- the facility to
take that child into detention.
MS. HARRIS: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: And that's how it's effected.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MS. HARRIS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Typically, these are
truancy-type students?
MS. HARRIS: These are students that
Kerrville ISD has expelled for whatever reasons they deem to
expel that child, and the reasons can be extremely varied as
to why they would want to expel that child from their
campus.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Well, I think,
basically, the establishment of this program is good.
5-9-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
MS. HARRIS: It certainly keeps those
expelled students in school, which is what they need, and
they are not at home watching TV.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Or getting into more
trouble.
MS. HARRIS: Or getting into more trouble.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What's the potential
for this program having some adverse impact on your primary
mission? Is this going to be a distraction to you, or are
you going to consume resources to do it?
MS. HARRIS: No, sir, because my -- my
juvenile detention officers would not intervene unless that
expelled student presented a physical threat to our
adjudicated kids. Then that would be the only reason why
one of my officers might have to step in. Otherwise, it is
the responsibility of Kerrville ISD personnel to notify the
Juvenile Probation Department that this child is being
unruly in class.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They send a school bus
after them, they provide the teachers. All we're doing is
providing a space for a whopping $19.77.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What kind of -- how
many such students might we expect?
MS. HARRIS: Dr. Troxel indicated to me for
this summer, there would be two.
-9-OS
134
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
~0
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question I have is under
the scope. It's for only -- refers only to expelled
students referred to juvenile facility by KISD or other
school districts, so the Judge is not involved. The school
district is.
JUDGE TINLEY: I have to be involved.
MS. HARRIS: The Judge has to be.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's what I thought.
Shouldn't it say here, under the scope, and approved or sent
or something by a court order?
JUDGE TINLEY: They -- it goes through the
Juvenile Probation Department. When the expulsion occurs,
oftentimes I'll already have jurisdiction. Probably in
nine-plus out of ten cases, I'll already have jurisdiction
of them. In the others, the conduct is such that they're
subject to jurisdiction. But the only way they can be
court-ordered to participate in that program is through the
juvenile court.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: They must be --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I understand that, but
I'm just saying, the way I read this, it's -- KISD does the
referral, and it seems to me there's a referral by the
juvenile justice system and KISD.
MS. HARRIS: They contact -- KISD would
5-9-05
135
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
contact Kevin's department for the expulsion hearing at
campus. And KISD --
MR. STANTON: Being expelled from school is a
criminal offense. Doesn't matter what you're expelled for.
Being expelled from school is a Class C misdemeanor, and
once that child is expelled by the school district, it
becomes a criminal offense with our department -- or
delinquency before our department. And at that time, we
then take it into our possession and we refer it to the
County Attorney's office and to the County Court, at which
time the Judge would then place that child in -- in the
detention program.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Glad those rules
weren't in effect when I was young. I'd be a repeat
offender.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Me too.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, y'all are all happy
with the language?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a question,
however. Under scope, where Commissioner Letz made note of,
it talked about KISD or by other school districts. KISD may
only have a limited number of students or individuals, but
this would be open to Ingram ISD or --
MS. HARRIS: Yes.
5 9-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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- any other ISD?
MS. HARRIS: Center Point.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Gillespie County or
anywhere else; is that correct?
MS. HARRIS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And the amount that
would be charged per day for any student sent by any school
district would be $19.77?
MS. HARRIS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Even Center Point.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Even Center Point.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I know y'all have a
hard time admitting that, but Center Point --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm sorry, I failed
to note that they might also participate. Even Center
Point.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move approval of the
contract between KISD -- Kerrville ISD and Kerr County
Juvenile Facility regarding educating --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- KISD or other expelled
students.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
s-s-os
137
1
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
approval. 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: The motion does carry. Let's
move to Item 17, consider and discuss the Butt-HOldsworth
Memorial Library contract between the City of Kerrville and
Kerr County. Commissioner Nicholson, you placed this item
on the agenda. I'll turn it over to you.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Judge, I have
nothing to offer on that subject at this time.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Anyone else want to
come with anything there? If not, we'll move on to Item 18,
consider and discuss a peer comparison survey that analyzes
the cost of Kerr County government compared to 12 other
Texas counties with populations of 40,000 to 50,000.
Commissioner Nicholson?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This is the third
chapter in some studies that began back in 2003. In 2003,
the County Judge did a survey of five counties, including
Kerr County, that -- that had similar characteristics in
terms of population and other -- other characteristics, and
he pulled together some data that had to do with salaries
and organization and number of employees and activity. And
-v os
138
1
2
I
3
~ 4
~ 5
6
` 7
8
9
~ 10
11
12
--- 13
' 14
15
16
I
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
then in the last budget year, 2004, I used the data to
calculate some metrics to help measure the efficacy of
very close look at our costs and productivity and our -- and
our budgets, I was able to get some data from Texas
Association of Counties that showed information on every
county in Texas with a population of between 40,000 and
50,000, and that turned out to be 14 counties. Well,
actually, I got information on 14 counties, but incomplete
information on one county.
So, following the same process I used on the
government per population, and then the number of employees
per population, calling one of them Efficiency of Government
Comparison and the other one the Employee Productivity
Comparison. And what I found was that Kerr County was the
most costly of those peer comparisons, and that Kerr County
used more employees than the -- than the other counties.
So, essentially, I find that Kerr is an expensive
government, and -- and a major reason that we're expensive
is we have a relatively comparatively large staff.
-a-r~s
139
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
After I ran those numbers, I wondered if -- I
did notice that some of those counties did not have
significant city populations, so I wondered if there was
some correlation between being expensive and having a large
municipal population. And what I -- so I looked at -- I
found that five of those counties, including Kerr, had a
municipality with a population of more than 20,000, that
being Maverick, Navarro, Kerr, Lamar, and Val Verde. And
when I look at the productivity and the cost efficiency of
those other four counties, I see that three of them --
Maverick, Lamar, and Val Verde -- are cost-efficient and --
and are relatively productive, and that one of them,
Navarro, was about average, maybe a little higher than
average. I tried to get information on budgets and
population of those cities, which are Eagle Pass, Corsicana,
Kerrville, Paris, and Del Rio, and I was only able to get
information on three of them. And what I found was that --
that the counties that are expensive tend to have cities in
them that are expensive. So, I found no correlation between
municipal population and county efficiency and productivity.
What I see here is an opportunity to do a
better job of controlling our costs. I have experienced
that a typical reaction to this kind of comparison is one of
two things; that -- that organizations will spend their
energy trying to rationalize the results of trying to find
s-Q-os
140
1
2
3
I 4
~ 5
6
8
7
9
~ 10
11
I 12
13
I 14
15
16
I
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
some reason why they don't -- the indicators are wrong,
or -- and another typical reaction is that -- or situation
is try to find out how those other organizations achieved a
better cost-effectiveness and better productivity, and then
emulate those methods. So, what I'm suggesting is that all
of our departments, whether they're headed by an appointed
or elected official, ought to take a hard look at the
organization in -- in these other counties and see if
there's ways that we can reduce costs, and particularly look
at systems and methods and approaches to getting more work
done with fewer people. That's all.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I -- I appreciate the
work you've done, though I'm not sure I understand
everything that you said and all your comparisons. But I
think your conclusion I do agree with, though it doesn't
serve a great deal of value for us to look at Val Verde's
tax department versus our tax department or something like
that necessarily, but other -- but there is a value in all
department heads,	either	elected	or not, to	look	at	their
organization and	contact	others -	- I think	most	of	ours do
have contact with others within their associations -- to see
if there's a better way to do things. We all know that
there's certain -- every county has unique characteristics,
so you can't compare apples to apples all the time. But
there's a big indicator that -- you know, I think there is a
5-9-OS
141
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
message that Kerr County is a pretty expensive county, and
anything that we can do to curb that is a plus to the
taxpayers. So I think, you know, I would encourage everyone
to do what you've asked.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Commissioner, I
appreciate your efforts. This does indicate -- sort of
supports	my contention that	there -- there	is room for
improvement in this regard,	and in our -- i	n our county
system.	And I think it's im	portant not to	-- at this
juncture,	not to single out	departments and	say these are
the ones that need to perhaps reduce the workforce or
increase their productivity. But I think it is -- suffice
it to say it's well at this point to challenge, as I think
you've done, all of the elected officials and department
heads to find ways to trim it down. If, within our
system -- I think I noted this earlier. If, within our
system, we were to find a way to reduce our -- our employee
count by eight to ten, we would go a long way toward taking
care of those increases that we are going to face with
respect to health insurance and other matters that confront
us each year in significant amounts, plus taking care of
the -- of the employee group. So, I appreciate the efforts
you did. Looks like we're going to have an interesting
budget session this year.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I had a visit with him
-4 05
142
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
in the men's room about it. (Laughter.)
JUDGE TINLEY: So you're in on this?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm good.
JUDGE TINLEY: The -- of course, the budget
requests are out and due to be in shortly, and after I get
those, I'm going to be working with the various elected
officials and department heads, and 1 look forward to
working with them and listening to their ideas, how they can
do things more efficiently. And it may be that some
technology answers are out there; it may be that some
training answers are out there. It might be a lot of
answers that are out there. And I -- I look forward to
working with all of them, because I think they're going to
make the effort to try and make things as efficient as they
can in each of their respective departments. But we'll
get --
MS. UECKER: You're just looking for dark
chocolate.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm sorry?
MS. UECKER: You're just looking for dark
chocolate.
JUDGE TINLEY: We always look for that, of
course. But I'm confident that we'll get the cooperation we
need to try and make things as efficient as possible.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: One question, and just
s-9-os
143
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
looking at one county particularly that I'm somewhat
familiar with, and I just don't understand the number. It's
about the total budget number for Val Verde County. Is
there -- this shows a total budget of $4.5 million. There
is no way. I mean, there's something wrong with that
number. They have a lot of government, and they have a lot
of employees in that county, and I'm wondering if there's --
this -- not that it makes that much difference really, but
it seems that there's something missing there. I don't
know. Maybe it's because of the air base there; they get a
huge pile from the federal government. I don't know what it
is, but something looks real odd in Val Verde County.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: There's another
anomaly that I noticed. Rusk County and Kerr County have
about the same total market value of the tax base, and Kerr
County's budget is twice what Rusk's is. Does that mean
their taxes are half what ours are?
JUDGE TINLEY: Interesting question. I think
it behooves all of us to take a look at that. Anything else
from anybody on the Court on that particular item? I'd like
to kind of charge forward, if we might. Item 19, consider,
discuss, and take appropriate action on a resolution
declaring May 10, 2005 as Kerr County Law Day. That is
tomorrow.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, I don't know
s-9-os
149

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
why I was selected to put this in. This should have been
something that you did. But what we're -- what we're doing
is resolving to declare May 10th as Kerr County Law Day. I
move the resolution.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the resolution. Any question or discussion?
All in favor, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Next
item is consider and discuss approval of Administrative
Services Agreement between Kerr County and United of Omaha
Life Insurance Company and Health Reimbursement Account
Administration in connection with the employee benefits
program. And I put this on the agenda after our consultant
said he had reviewed this thing in-depth and had coordinated
and had the appropriate changes that he thought necessary
made to it, and presented it back to us for approval.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have some questions.
Is somebody going to make a presentation or something?
JUDGE TINLEY: We have Mr. Wallace here.
We -- we have Mr. Malek here. If there are any questions
for them, they're available.
s-o-os
145
1
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: I do have questions.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me begin with
Exhibit 7 of -- let's see, what is this thing, an agreement?
The COBRA Billing and Collection Services. And my question
is, of all -- all of the duties, if you look at Exhibit 7 --
I'm sorry, 7-1 at the bottom.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It outlines here what
the company shall do and the contract holder shall do and
all those kinds of things, and there's some questions about
all of that.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This exhibit is
entitled "COBRA Billing and Collection Services"?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. Mm-hmm, it
sure enough is. And I'll try to get through all of this and
have us at lunch by about 2:00 or 2:30 if I can. I am --
what I'm seeing here is -- who's going to do this? Which
one of you guys do this?
MR. MALEK: You -- you pick.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: One of you come up
here. Let's get going here.
MR. MALEK: Carey Malek with Mutual of Omaha.
It's my contract, so I'll address it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That would be very
s-9-os
146

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
wise, Carey. What -- your company shall do all of these
things that are outlined here; is that correct?
MR. MALEK: That's right.
JUDGE TINLEY: And Kerr County -- in the bid
spreadsheet, Kerr County pays you all to do that; is that
correct?
MR. MALEK: Right. That's 50 cents a head
P.E.M. -- per employee, per month.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. For the
COBRA?
MR. MALEK: Correct.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN
HIPAA?
And 30 cents for the
MR. MALEK: For HIPAA notifications, correct.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And the annual cost
for administration is $64,000 to take care of all these
things?
MR. MALEK: For all of the admin, not for
just the COBRA portion of it?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, it says here --
it says here administration for COBRA and HIPAA. It just
lists those two things, and that's one of my questions,
actually.
MR. MALEK: Well, if you want to assume 300
employees, that's $2,800, almost $2,900 for the annual cost
5-9-OS
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
147
for that portion of it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm just reading off
this.
MR. MALEK: Okay. I don't have that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What page are you reading
that number on, Buster?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's off of this --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Off the bids.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sorry, I don't think
that you all have that. Treasurer?
MS. NEMEC: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Help me understand
what I'm trying to read here, please.
MS. NEMEC: Well, it looks like, from the
exhibit, that company shall -- I guess that would be Mutual
of Omaha -- provide those services, and from what I
understand, the only time they would be providing those
services is if an employee or dependent of an employee chose
to go on COBRA benefits. Under "Contract holder shall," I
believe that is my office, shall do all those things.
However, that is on every employee that terminates and every
dependent of an employee who terminates. I have had a
s-a-os


1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
L2
23
24
25
148
discussion with Mr. Wallace, because I was very surprised
when I saw this, because we have never, ever had to
administer these COBRA benefits to our employees before.
Our third-party administrator has always done that for us.
So when I talked to Mr. Looney at the very beginning of the
process, I explained to him, and so when I saw this come
across my desk, I was real surprised that that duty was
being put on the County to do, and yet their bid came in --
for COBRA and HIPAA came in higher than all the others.
Regardless, just to let the Court know that this will take
special training for me and my employees, because we have
not been to any type of training on COBRA and HIPAA laws
before. So, I'm -- we'll be coming in for a budget
amendment in the next couple of agenda items to get more
money for employee training.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Here's my question on
all that. Thank you for that. Is that -- this is the first
time that you -- that you've been required to do exactly
what? To maintain the files?
MS. NEMEC: And to notify -- and to know the
laws governing COBRA and HIPAA, and to notify all the
terminated employees and their dependents.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. When she says
that, then I look -- then I look on the -- on the bid sheet
here, to where we are -- in my mind, we are paying you to do
s-~-os
149
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
those things.
MR.. MALEK: Well, you can interpret it many
different ways. There's a lot of different services under
COBRA that you can provide. The portion that we're asking
you to do is only to provide a form to the employee when
they terminate. That's it. We do everything else.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's all you're
asking the County Treasurer to do, is to provide -- say it
again?
MR. MALEK: You -- we provide the form.
That, upon termination, and when you normally do an exit
interview, you have the form and you give that to that
employee, and then you're done. That is the only --
MS. NEMEC: No.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That sounds like a
fair thing.
MS. NEMEC: No, the law requires you to send
notification by mail to the employee, and -- and I believe I
shared with you a conference that we'll have to be going to,
and if you look inside there, we will have to be trained on
all that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Have to be trained on
all of these things?
MR. MALEK: You would have had to do this
irrespective of whether your prior carrier or anybody else
5 - 9 - 0 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
150
is doing that. It's an employer liability, meaning that
if -- even if the -- if your administrator screws it up,
you, the employer, are liable for it. And -- and a
third-party administrator cannot assume that liability,
because it is an employer liability.
MS. NEMEC: But we can't do it on the exit
interview. You're saying we do it on the exit interview,
Mr. Malek. That's not the law.
MR. MALEK: You guys have to do the COBRA
notification. That's the only part that I can add to that.
However you do it is -- is you comply with the COBRA laws.
MS. NEMEC: And it's not through the exit
interview; it's by mail.
MR. MALEK: Well, that's your concern, and
how you do it is the way -- Kerr County has to establish
some kind of procedure for that. Once that election is
made, then we do everything from that. We do the billing.
We send out the -- we actually send them a coupon booklet,
and then we're the -- Kerr County does not do anything.
JUDGE TINLEY: What triggers this whole
process, Mr. Malek?
MR. MALEK: Well, they call it a COBRA
termination of employment, a -- what's the term we use for
it? A status change.
MR. WALLACE: Life change.
5 9 os
151
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
MR. MALEK: It's called a COBRA status
change, and what triggers it typically is a termination of
employment, a divorce, a marriage, things of that nature.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. And that's something
that's going to be known to whom initially?
MR. MALEK: When -- most of the time, it's
going to be when somebody terminates their employment.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. MALEK: That's going to be --
JUDGE TINLEY: Going to be known to the
employer?
MR. MALEK: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. MALEK: Right. Because, again, it is an
employer liability; it's not a liability of the insurance
company, and we can't assume that liability for you. So if
the -- a failure of notification is made, they come after
the County; they don't come after the insurance company.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let me ask this
question. One of those events occurs, and if I understood
what you said a little bit ago, then the obligation of the
County is to notify you of this event occurring?
MR. MALEK: Notify the employee of that
event.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
s-y os
~ _~
152
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. MALEK: It's an employee notification
requirement, not a -- not notifying Mutual of Omaha. Once
that employee is notified, then it -- then it is the
responsibility of the employee to send in the form to Mutual
of Omaha. Once you -- once Kerr County has made the
notification to the employee, your liability ends at that
point in time, and then we pick up the administration
portion of that from there. We do the termination, you
know. We -- if there's any extension from that period, it's
Mutual of Omaha that does that, and there is a -- a cost for
us to assume that liability.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, once one of these things
occurs, Kerr County's responsibility as an employer is
they're obligated to notify the employee that is having this
occur, whatever it may be; a divorce, a marriage, or a
termination, and then if the employer wants to go forward
with coverage or terminate coverage or wants to talk to you
about it or whatever they want to do, then at that point,
it's the employee's responsibility to contact you?
MR. MALEK: That's correct.
JODGE TINLEY: And whatever the employee
wants to do is arranged through you?
MR. MALEK: Correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: And -- and the County's out of
it once they've given the notice to the employee?
5-9-OS

153
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. MALEK: That's right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I just wanted to make
sure I knew how it worked.
MR. MALEK: I might add, we standardly do
this on every account that we -- there's very few that the
employer actually takes the whole process of COBRA in-house,
but they are all responsible for the initial notification.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's different
about the process you outline and what we did before,
Ms. Nemec?
MS. NEMEC: Well, for the past 14 years,
since we've been partially self-insured -- since we became
partially self-insured, our third-party administrator, we
would notify them of any terminations, any cases where
there's been a divorce or whatever the situation may be, and
they would actually go through all the steps of sending them
the information and notifying them of their rights under the
COBRA plan. All we would do is fax over the terminations to
the third-party administrator, and from there they would
take care of all the paperwork for us.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This isn't going to
be a lot of work. It's a few times a year --
MS. NEMEC: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- we send a letter
out.
5-9-US
159
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. NEMEC: Eleven times a month, we have
employees -- every termination, every change of family
status has to be done with these employees. And we're
having up to 11 terminations per month.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Eleven times a
month, we're going to have to drop a standard form letter in
the mail to an employee that's had a change in status and
say, "Here's your COBRA rights. If you want to exercise
them, contact Mutual of Omaha."
MR. MALEK: That's right. That's exactly
what happens.
MS. NEMEC: And we will have to go to this
school here.
MR. MALEK: I can't speak for the consultant
on this, but we did have the conversation. And, of course,
he has a -- a -- he has the County's interest at -- I guess,
in -- best interests at heart, I guess. Because he has an
E & 0 issue that he has to say, "Hey, I can't recommend that
you do it this way, because you've let somebody assume a
liability that they cannot assume." And that was the
reasoning for structuring the COBRA this way, and it's the
way that's standard in the industry. The way we do it is a
very standard way; it's been done in the industry.
JUDGE TINLEY: This standard notification
that must be given to the employee who's terminating,
s 9 ns
155
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
getting divorced or whatever's happened to them, do you
provide the form that complies with current law to Kerr
County so that they can furnish that particular form to the
employee?
MR. MALEK: Right. We give them a standard
form. It's a part of our package. It's a very simple
one-page letter.
MS. NEMEC: We don't have that.
MS. MAGENHEIMER: We don't have the form.
MS. NEMEC: My staff is here if you have any
questions of them, but we don't have that form, and every
employee has to receive a letter, and each dependent has to
receive a separate letter.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why do we not have
the forms?
MR. MALEK: I can't answer that. It's on our
web site. It was provided in our administrative service
agreement package that I assume was delivered, so I can't
say -- I can't answer that question. I'm not involved in
the day-to-day service part of this, so there's a service
rep --
MS. NEMEC: What do we --
MR. MALEK: -- that provides that.
(Low-voice discussion off the record.)
MS. CARR: We need to make up the letter. We
5-9 a5
156
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
needed to create it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is it something we're
supposed to pull down off the web site?
MR. MALEK: Yeah, it's on the web site. It's
just a form letter. A form -- it's just a form that says
here's your COBRA --
JUDGE TINLEY: No problem with you forwarding
us several copies?
MR. MALEK: Be more than happy to send you a
copy of it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I tell you what, we're
in the wrong business here. This school is a one-day
school, 340 bucks per person.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Have to give a test
at the end.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, you get your
handbook. Your handbook is free.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Do you get a
certificate suitable for framing?
JUDGE TINLEY: You had a question, ma'am?
MS. MAGENHEIMER: Yes. I work at Barbara's
office. I have been down there for six and a half years,
and the only thing we've ever had to do was, when the
employee was exiting, give him the form that gives him the
s-9-ns
157
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
option to apply -- to take COBRA. That's the only thing
we've ever had to do. And I -- I don't know if you
gentlemen realize, we are a small office, and to place this
burden on us is unfair.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't understand what
the difference is in what you just said and what Jacqui --
MS. NEMEC: What they're saying is that we
need to create a separate letter and send to each person in
that family offering them COBRA, when before, we have never
done this. It's always been taken care of by the
third-party administrator.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Almost everyone in our --
I mean, very few families are even in there, so pretty much
almost -- almost everyone is just one person, not families.
We don't have a lot of family coverage.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't understand
the difference in terms of work for sending out the letter
to the employee, whose name and address you know, as opposed
to sending that information to Mutual of Omaha to send out
the letter to a person they don't know. I don't understand
the distinction here in terms of workload.
MS. NEMEC: Well, it's just another added
duty that we've taken on since Mutual of Omaha came on
board, and we wanted to just make you aware of that. That
they're charging a pretty penny for that, and we've always
5-9-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
158
paid that, but all the benefits have always been
administered by the third-party administrator. We're going
to do it. We have to do it; we have no choice. We're
already in May. But just be aware that there are going to
be budget amendments. We're going to have to go to school.
And, again, you start adding all these little workloads on
this office because all these different things that Mutual
of Omaha does not provide, and it adds up, Commissioner.
That's all we're trying to say.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 7 don't understand how --
I -- I mean, I'm not understanding what you're saying. You
had to get the same information and -- and provide a letter
to the employee; that's what was just said. And now you're
going to make the letter --
MS. NEMEC: No, it was just a form that said
you are -- it was just a form that was provided by a
third-party administrator that said if you want -- these are
your rights. You have -- if you want to elect COBRA, you
send this to the insurance person. Now, if you'll look at
this seminar, we have to know all those procedures right
there. It's a iot different than just te]ling them, "Here,
fill this out."
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The seminar --
MS. NEMEC: You have to look at --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The seminar doesn't do
s-9 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
159
Mutual of Omaha --
MS. NEMEC: No, it doesn't, but we need to go
to these. If you'll look at that pamphlet, that's why we
will have to be --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, if you drop it in the
mail, you have to go to a seminar; if you want to hand it to
them in person, you don't?
MS. NEMEC: There are a lot of laws, a lot of
guidelines. It's not just a matter of mailing it, then they
mail it back to you and say they want it. There's a lot of
deadlines. You need to look at that brochure to know what
we're going to have to --
MR. MALEK: Once it's mailed and it's
received by the employee, that's it. Then it's our
responsibility from that point.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If there's a seminar and
your office needs to be trained on COBRA, I don't see the
difference in writing a letter and giving a form. That's
what I don't understand, why one --
MR. MALEK: It's an employer liability, so
training your employees on COBRA is -- is a really wise
idea, whether we're doing the administration or someone else
is doing that administration. 'Cause it is --
JUDGE TINLEY: Or somebody else is doing it
for you?
5-9-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
160
MR. MALEK: It's still an employer liability,
so if you cede that to somebody else, you're still liable
for it. They cannot assume that liability, so you'd still
be responsible for it whether somebody does it or not. So,
those are still good training sessions to have.
MS. NEMEC: They're different qualifying
events, and all different qualifyinq events have different
time frames when they have to be notified or -- or how, and
then you have to know if it's a divorce, then you can stay
on the plan for a certain amount of months, and if it's a
termination of employment, then it's another certain amount
of months. So, they -- they have to be knowledgeable in all
that. That's all I'm saying.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But what Mr. Malek is
saying is that you're -- we're sending them a -- a form, and
they're taking over after that; that we're not administering
it. We have one contact, is what I'm hearing.
MS. NEMEC: If you'll look at Exhibit C, this
is -- this is what the company shall do and this is what --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, I looked at it.
MS. NEMEC: -- the contract holder shall do.
The contract holder shall do all of these. That's not just
sending a form.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Seems it can be done.
MR. MALEK: Well, I mean, basically what it
5 - 9 - 0 5
161
1
L
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
outlines is your responsibilities under COBRA, under the
law, as an employer. It outlines your responsibilities, and
basically all we're doing is restating that you have certain
obligations as an employer, and you're responsible for
these, whether its Mutual of Omaha or E.B.A. or whoever is
your administrator. So, a lot of that --
MS. NEMEC: That's not correct.
MR. MALEK: -- is --
MS. NEMEC: With E.B.A., this was not our
responsibility. So, that's Mutual of Omaha, not just with
any administrator.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, what Mr. Malek is
saying is that the County's liable, whether it's E.B.A. or
anybody else. E.B.A. may have been doing it, but we were
still liable.
MR. MALEK: That's correct. They were
probably doing that, but they could not accept the liability
for what an employer -- what is an employer liability.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which is a failure to
notify.
MR. MALEK: That's correct.
MS. NEMEC: And we knew that all along.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So -- but, I mean, I
would --
MR. MALEK: See, if your prior administrator
s-Q-os
162
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
failed to notify any of your employees, and they came back
and sued, they're not suing your administrator; they're
suing the employer, which is Kerr County. So, you
ultimately are responsible for that, which is the
conversation I had -- I wish the consultant was here. He
might be able to clear that up a little bit in terms of
whose liability is what, and why he would recommend that it
be administered this way. Because he would be remiss to not
tell you that this is your liability.
MS. NEMEC: And I called the consultant, and
he's no longer with Catto and Catto, so I don't know where
we stand on all that.
JUDGE TINLEY: 1 know exactly where we stand.
I contacted him, and -- and he has a cooperative agreement
with Catto and Catto on things that he was doing there, and
he's handling --
MS. NEMEC: I was not told that when I
called.
JUDGE TINLEY: No, we've got no problem with
that. We've got communication with him.
MR. MALEK: You might ask him to address this
for you. But --
JUDGE TINLEY:	I	think	he	did.	
MR. MALEK: --	I	think	you	got	a good handle
on it.
s-o-os
163
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: He stood up here and said he's
made any necessary changes that he thought were appropriate.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Got any more
questions, Mr. Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I got one. Did you
say earlier you have 11 folks a month leave the employment
of this County?
MS. NEMEC: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Eleven people a month?
MS. NEMEC: Yes, sir. Last month --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Rusty, is that all
your doing?
MS. NEMEC: Last month it was -- it was 6.
The month before that, it was 11. The month before that, it
was 11. The month before that, it was 9.
JUDGE TINLEY: Fifty percent turnover in one
year.
MS. NEMEC: And so when -- when these people
leave, of course, new people get hired, and we have to go
through the enrollment process. So all I'm trying to tell
y'all to do -- I mean, all I'm trying to tell you all is
that this is just another little added duty, and they all
pile up, and just understand that that's what my office is
going through. That's all.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're --
5-9-OS
164
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. NEMEC: It's out in the open.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Why did 11 people
leave? Why? I cannot imagine --
MS. NEMEC: I don't know. Just very --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are these 11 people
leaving our employ, or changes in status?
MS. NEMEC: No, leaving. These are
terminations.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Doesn't that -- Bill,
that's 50 percent turnover in our workforce.
MS. NEMEC: That's what we deal with. For
everyone that leaves, one gets hired.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm -- Judge, I'm
going to make a motion that we approve the Administrative
Services Agreement between Kerr County and United of Omaha
Life Insurance Company and Health Reimbursement Account
Administration in connection with the employee benefits
program.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And authorize County
Judge to sign same?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll second it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item, and authorize County Judge to
sign same. Any questions -- further questions or discussion
s-y-~s
165
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2 L
23
24
25
on the agenda item?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question -- or comment.
On the insurance things in general, it seems that
Mr. Looney, if we're paying him, ought to give a formal
recommendation on all these, yes or no. And I don't -- I'm
not sure -- I don't see one on this one. I see an e-mail,
but I don't see that it's really a recommendation; yes, no,
or indifferent. And I say that because -- I mean, in lieu
of having the County Attorney look at it, 'cause these
things are so complicated. I don't understand insurance;
I've said that many times, and most of these contracts are
very, in my mind, cumbersome. So, I just -- I would prefer
to have Mr. Looney -- I'll go ahead and vote on this, but I
I
think he really needs to --
JUDGE TINLEY: The reference in this
statement from the consultant, "I reviewed both contracts
and had MOO -- I guess that's Mutual of Omaha -- change them
to meet our specs." Kerr County specs.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. I guess that's --
JUDGE TINLEY: That's approval, the way I see
it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions or
discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion,
signify by raising your right hand.
s-q-os
166


1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(NO response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. You
want to go ahead and knock these last few items out right
quick, gentlemen?
MR. MALEK: Can I add something real quickly?
We'll be back in July, probably the second week in July, to
give you kind of a midterm update. We should have enough
claims information by then to kind of tell you where this
thing is going, just kind of how things are going.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Appreciate that.
MR. MALEK: So keep that in mind.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We can knock out 21,
too.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's take Item 21 up right
quick. Consider and discuss approving appointment of Roger
Bobertz for an at-large position on the Kerrville/Kerr
County Airport Board.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is -- under this
agreement from the City and the County on how the airport is
governed, both the City and County have to approve at-large
members. Roger Bobertz is a member; he's done an
outstanding job, in my opinion, and recommend his
reappointment.
5 9 O S
167
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
l4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would second the
nomination for his reappointment, and second what
Commissioner Letz said. He has been an outstanding member,
works hard, and contributes a lot.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Lucky to have him.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Any
question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify
by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Why
don't we stand in recess until 2 o'clock.
(Recess taken from 12:35 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY; Okay, let's come back to
order. We were in recess for lunch until 2:00, It's a
couple minutes after that now. Before we get started back
on the agenda, Commissioner Williams, I think, wants to
update the Court on what our Legislature in Austin is doing.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I will do that,
Judge. First I want to extend an invitation on behalf of
all the lawyers in Kerr County to Commissioners Court. If
they'd like to join in the luncheon on -- Law Day luncheon
tomorrow at the Inn of the Hills, you're welcome to do so.
5-9-OS
168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Cost is $10 a person.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: God, y'all are so good
to us.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah, taking all
those lawyers out of circulation for a £ew hours.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: A couple things moved
on the wire here about what's going on in the Legislature,
and it's the latest alert out of James Allison's office
regarding House Bill 3. Amended to include a revenue cap.
House Bill 3, public school tax bill, has been revised by
the Senate Finance Committee. Amendment by Sandra Williams
added truth in taxation language, and reduced the rollback
petition requirement to 7 percent of registered voters.
Taxing entities that collect more than $5 million in M & 0
property taxes. Amendment was presented as, quote, Texas
Municipal League compromise, unquote. Only 20 percent of
the cities in Texas collect more than $5 million annually.
Approximately 50 percent of the counties will be affected by
this change. County Judges/Commissioners' Association of
Texas did not agree to this amendment. Most problematic is
the fact that this is not the final version. House Bill 3
can be further amended on the Senate floor or in conference
committee to impose further revenue caps, including the
3 percent revenue limit currently in H.B. 1006, and they're
urging us to contact our senators.
5 9-OS
169
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
But here's another one that's really kind of
troubling, and I think everybody needs to know about. The
memo -- e-mail I got from Roland Pena says, "Bill, the two
bills in question are Senate Bill 1232, filed by Senator
Fraser, and Senate Bill 1648, filed by Barrientos." And I'd
asked him Eor the equation or value of the sources of the
community service programs. This would limit L.C.R.A. from
giving grants for various and sundry things that they
currently do. The sources of service programs comes from
transmission generation water services. 3 percent of the
these revenues are used to fund various services. A typical
residential customer who uses 1,000 kilowatt hours of
electricity a month pays a monthly bill of about $86. If
Senator Fraser's bill were to be enacted and they were
denied the right to go ahead and fund projects, only about
$1.24 of this goes toward L.C.R.A.'s community service
programs, and that, in effect, would be what -- what a
consumer would -- electric customer would gain back.
The information on Senate Bill 1232 and
county grants is as follows: Senate Bill 1232 relating to
certain powers for river authorities, including L.C.R.A.
What it would do is introduce a bill that broadly limits
L.C.R.A.'s ability to provide affordable electricity, parks,
economic and community development. The author has said --
and author being Senator Fraser -- that they would rewrite
5-9-OS
170
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
the bill to eliminate L.C.R.A.'s economic development
services, and also to eliminate L.C.R.A.'s community
development services, but probably not to prevent the
development of new parks, and perhaps further developing of
existing parks.
Now, here's what L.C.R.A, has done in Kerr
County recently. Hunt Volunteer Fire Department
construction, 25,000 for a new firehouse. Hill Country Arts
Foundation, reservation of -- of a pavilion and improvements
to theater, 190,000. Tivy Ath]etic Booster Club,
construction of new concession boots, press box, so forth,
12,5. Schreiner University, equipment for video
conferencing, 17,9. Kerr County 9-H, skeet and trap,
15,000. American Legion Post, renovate the American Legion
Community Hall, 25. Ingram Volunteer Fire Department,
purchase fire suppression rescue equipment, 5,000. Elm
Pass, 18,9 for a brush truck. Schreiner University, lights
for the tennis court 15,2. Hunt Volunteer Fire Department,
23,4 to complete retrofitting and equipment for replacement
fire trucks. Ingram ISD, installation of lighting, crushed
marble walking track, $9,872. Elm Pass, another truck,
23,156. American Legion Post 583, completing renovations,
3,200. Mountain Home Volunteer Fire Department, purchase a
new building, firefighting truck, and brush, 24,5. Kerr
County, finish restoration of the project Union Church,
s-Q-as
171
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
23
24
25
15,000. Ingram Volunteer Fire Department, equipment, 3,171.
Schreiner University, power heart automatic defibrillator,
2,000 and change. Kerrville City -- City of Kerrville,
safety equipment for fire department, 19,000. Texas Arts
and Crafts Fair, purchase benches and so forth that are in
their facility, 24,8. Kerr County Flat Rock Lake Park, as
mentioned earlier, $200,000. These are things that would be
eliminated if Senator Fraser's bill gets enacted, so maybe
we would like to talk to Senator Fraser.
JUDGE TINLEY: I wrote last week and --
before it went to committee, and voiced objection to
their -- having their community development, economic
development, and parks programs. But they've -- they've
done well by us.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, they have.
JUDGE TINLEY: All across this county. The
cities, counties, volunteer fire departments, school
functions, the whole nine yards. So, we've -- I think we've
gotten more than our fair share, if the truth were known.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't think there's
any question about that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anyone else have any update on
the legislative activity?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess just a question,
probably to Buster more than -- 'cause he's probably worked
s-~-os
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
25
172
with more legislation, I think, than anyone else on the
Court. How much impact does individual contact from
citizens or commissioners make at this point in the
Legislature?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It depends. I've had
a legislator -- had that discussion with a legislator not
too long ago, and his statement to me was -- I said
something like, "Well, if you get a resolution from a
Commissioners Court, doesn't that kind of set you up for
your decision-making process?" And he said no. But most of
them -- most of them pay -- the old rule of thumb is if you
get one notice, yeah, maybe. You get two notices, you start
paying attention. If you get three, then something's up.
The legislator pays attention to the issue that comes before
you -- before him or her.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, several or multiple
contacts --
COMMISSIONER	BALDWIN:	Yes.		
COMMISSIONER	LETZ: --	has an	impact	probably
more than just one --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- coming from the Court.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's move on with our
agenda, see if we can get these last two items. Item 22,
consider and discuss Kerr County Management Discussion and
s-9-os
173
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
Analysis for the '03/'04 audit. Commissioner Letz.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Last year about this
time, or shortly after, I think, I made a comment when Tommy
was around that I thought Commissioners Court should write
this thing where he -- the prior year. And he, to and
behold, handed it to me to write this year.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Be careful what you
ask for.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, before I spend a
whole lot more time on it, I thought I ought to get it
before the Court to look at.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This is a GASB issue.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is GASB. GASB
requires us to write a management discussion, which is kind
of a verbal summary, just kind of our feelings. Not a whole
lot of guidance, as I understand what goes in this. I
looked at what Tommy did last year; he was kind enough to
give me the same tables and charts and copies of --
preliminary copy of the budget and what -- you know, and I
kind of kept a lot of what he had in there verbatim, a lot
of the definitions of funds and things of that nature. I
made some changes, took some things out, added some things,
and I really thought my purpose today is to -- hopefully,
y'all looked through it, and to give a little bit more
guidance as to how much detail we want, where we want
5-9-CS
174
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
detail, what we want to talk about, and things of that
nature.
We can go through it pretty quickly, I
believe. The first page is an area that -- financial
highlights. There's bullets of various points, most of them
financial, but there are a few things that I added this
year, one being the March 27th Commissioners Court vote to
pass the property tax freeze. That's a pretty significant
highlight, in my mind, for the last budget year. Also got
to remember we're talking about 2004 budget year -- or
2003/2004, which is very -- it gets me really screwed up
when I'm trying to figure out this stuff. I've got to go
back two years and then try to compare budgets back then as
to what we were doing. Also added toward the bottom of that
a couple of events related to Kerr County Juvenile Facility.
Not a whole lot happened really -- well, a whole lot
happened that was real important, but all the details
happened after that budget year was over, so I just pretty
much put down here the two big events; the date that -- one,
that the Court was notified by the Juvenile Board, and when
the Court voted to not appropriate funds.
The rest of that page is kind of what Tommy
wrote, just kind of explaining the audit and GASB a little
bit. The next page, most of -- let me put my glasses on.
Most of this is really -- is, again, what Tommy had written
5-9-~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
175
explaining the funds a little bit. Proprietary fund.
Basically, that just applies to the juvenile facility last
year. And, Tommy, I take it that that will not -- in the
2005 audit, that will not be a proprietary fund any more; is
that correct?
MR. TOMLINSON: That's right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So this will be the last
year it will be treated as a separate fund, or as a
proprietary fund, which is a -- for businesslike activity.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, why wouldn't the
adult jail be a proprietary fund?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Once we took over
operation of it. That's why this year it's going to be --
it's not going to be proprietary. Proprietary is things
that we really don't control.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see. I see, okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Since it was under the
Facilities Corporation in 2003/2009, it's kind of an arm's
length, the way it was accounted for -- or not accounted
for. The way -- it really wasn't part of our budget.
That's not really exactly right either, but I think you know
what I'm trying to say. Anyway, so I just kind of -- most
of that is, again, just general statements. The top of the
third page, I took Tommy's language, pulled out the numbers
on some of these. I need to go back into the numbers and
s-9-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
176
audit, and I'll fill in those if it's -- if everyone thinks
that's even worthwhile to do that. It is not easy to come
up with these numbers; let me explain that. And if we don't
think that it's really worthwhile to keep track and tell the
public what our total land and improvements value is net of
accumulated depreciation, we can just delete this section.
I'm not sure what real value it has for everyone to know how
much our roads are worth. I mean, granted, we depreciate --
or appreciate the value of our roads. I think, on
equipment, there is a value -- I think Tommy noted it -- in
that it shows if all -- if you depreciated all your
equipment, that means the useful life of what you have is
about -- is gone on that equipment, so you're going to
probably have to make some expenditures down the road, so I
think that number has a little bit more, you know, as I
understand it, importance. But, you know, we can pull these
numbers out, so I just left those there. The tables --
these are the current tables for the audit period.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I thought that we were
required to list the -- like, the land and improved -- the
roads and --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's in the audit.
Just -- it's just whether we want to put it in the verbiage.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see what you're
saying, okay. Okay.
s-9-os
177
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Really, this is a matter
of how much is important for us to -- you know, for our -- I
guess I look at this as kind of the -- in any business'
annual report, there's a one- to two-page --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Like an explanation.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- explanation of what we
did for the year. Next page is more tables. I kept a lot
of numbers. I've now gone through and recalculated, kind of
explaining the tables here. That first table is changes in
assets. The third table is governmental activities and
source of revenues. What Tommy did and what I'm trying to
do is kind of, where there is a change in numbers, a pretty
significant change, try to highlight those changes. That's
about it. Kind of the standard operations, you know, I
didn't really highlight that. The next two pages are
probably really where I have the most questions and
discussion, on outstanding debt. That I've pretty much
taken care of, I think. Table 5 is a table of debt. When
we get into the -- the area of governmental funds, there's a
whole lot of X's. I guess, how much description do we want
to -- do you want me to go through looking at our funds and
describing what we did?
Everything up till now is -- is a lot more --
is kind of standard boilerplate, pulling numbers out. Here
we start, you know, highlighting what was important on those
5-9 OS
178
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
funds for the year. And the next section below that is
that quite a bit. This is all new language. And the reason
I did that was because I knew what was getting ready to
happen in the next budget year, and I attempted to -- I hope
I did it correctly -- spell out the ownership and who was
operating what, and what was going on a little bit at the
detention facility. Because in the prior year, it really
was just kind of -- it wasn't -- didn't have as much of an
impact. I won't say it wasn't as important, but it starts
becoming a lot more critical as to that, and I think it is a
real budget highlight that needs to have some time spent on
it, probably in this year and the next year's discussion.
Because we really can't go into, at this point, what we did
under this budget year, but how we got there I think is an
issue.
In how much detail do we want to try to
explain that? You know, that's a question for the Court,
because we've talked a lot about doing audits out there.
we've talked about doing different things that caused a
problem; it was state funding cuts or changes, you know. My
personal feeling is, the taxpayers deserve an explanation by
this Court as to what happened, but I'm not real sure how to
do that, because we haven't done a whole lot of
5 9 O S
179
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
investigation, and what we have are discrepancies,
basically. We have the State saying the funding wasn't cut.
We have the Juvenile Facilities Corporation -- Juvenile
Board saying that things were done -- changed, and I don't
know how we reduce all that to, you know, the -- the summary
format that is factual, which is what I think our obligation
is under that. So, I'm going to toss that one out.
And then -- well, the next one, budgetary
highlights, I'll write that. I'll probably go through our
budget and look where we had to make changes and things.
I'm thinking of adding it this year. It was -- I believe
that that was the end of kind of our salary adjustments that
happened in 2004. Might be a little bit -- yeah, I believe
it was done that year. Might have been a little bit this
year with the Sheriff's Department again. But I think that
last year and this year kind of finished up really looking
at all of our salary schedules and making a lot of
adjustments on salaries, and I think that's a pretty
significant impact on our budget. Those are the main -- the
last category is just a summary of the budget that we
adopted at the end of the year.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Commissioner, what is
the purpose -- maybe I'll direct this either to you or to
Tommy. What is the purpose of this letter?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The purpose of this, as I
s-e-us
180
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
~5
understand it -- one, it's a requirement of GASB that we put
something in the annual audit. This is the first thing --
when you open our annual audit by Pressler Thompson, this
will be the first thing you look at. I looked at it as a --
an attempt, anyway, for the Court to summarize to the public
and the taxpayers as to what we did in that budget year.
And, you know, I think it's more than just a -- a piece of
paper we stick in the audit. We can meet the requirements
of the law by putting a one-page summary, "Everything looks
good in Kerr County," pass an order and adopt it. But I
think that we -- I think we owe the public more of an
obligation to try to really look at it and see where we're
going, the direction on the financial side.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: With respect, then,
you're saying correctly, and correct me if I don't, in
trying to put together these budgetary highlights as it
applies to that facility and our acquisition of that
facility, aside from the fact that we did it and it is now
our facility, there remain more questions unanswered than
there are thus far affirmative answers to put in here, or
statements to put in here. So, would it be your sense that
with respect to the Juvenile Detention Facility, that we
highlight certain questions that, in our minds, still -- or
maybe even in the minds of taxpayers, still have not --
s-9-os
181
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
there still hasn't been satisfactory or sufficient light
other than -- well, it says funding -- I guess for a reason,
in September we received a notice from the Hill Country
Facilities Corporation that they weren't going to make bond
payments, and then shortly after that we took action and
said we're not either. Well, I think -- I don't think
that's enough of an explanation as to what was about to
happen out there that ended up costing, the next budget
year, the taxpayers a whole bunch of money.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I don't think -- I
don't want to go into -- I mean, I think it's next year's
discussion that gets into a lot of, you know, hurting our
bond rating and all that type of stuff, 'cause that was -- a
lot of that really happened after this budget year was over.
I think, at this point, it -- maybe questions is the way to
go, and then try to answer them in our next one, 'cause
we're still looking at it. You know, if I was -- I look at
this as being akin to a business, and if a business or any
corporation, in their annual report, says, "Oh, by the way,
s-9-os
182
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
we decided not to pay our debt," you know, and then left the
discussion, I think the shareholders, which in our case are
the tax holders, would be irate. I think that we have an
obligation to explain why that -- why we didn't do this, and
I don't know that I have the information to explain it. And
I don't need -- we don't need to go into great detail on
this. I mean, I'm not talking about pages; I'm talking --
this whole discussion, to me, should be half a page long at
most. But I think that something needs to be said as to
what happened, and I -- and I'm at a loss to know how to say
that. Tommy?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's a hand waving
back there.
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I would just like to
add a little bit to your first question, Commissioner, about
why this is in the report. Well, GASB originated from the
Securities Exchange Commission, and their thought was that
they -- they wanted statements or -- financial statements or
audited financial statements of municipalities to look just
like the private sector. So, for that reason, they -- in
the private sector, they have the board of directors of a
corporation write an analysis of -- of the numbers just like
this. And the idea behind it is that, from a reader's
standpoint of -- of -- or, say, an investor's standpoint of
-- of someone investing in the corporation that looks at
s-9-vs
183
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
this statement, they want to -- they want to feel that --
that the board of directors or, in our case, the
Commissioners Court understands the numbers well enough to
write an analysis of what happened. So, it's assurance to
the reader that -- that management really does understand
what went on, and so -- and which makes sense. I mean, it
makes sense to me as -- or it would as an investor. So,
that's the history of why, you know, this is a requirement
of GASB.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, let's follow up
on what you just said, and focus -- focus that on the
Juvenile Detention Facility. I'm not to my question yet.
And, in light of what Commissioner Letz is trying to
accomplish here with this letter, the facts, as
Commissioners Court knows them, are sparse. What we know is
we got a letter from the Juvenile Probation Board with some
declaration of nonappropriation in terms of meeting its
debt. We know that that resulted in some actions that the
Court subsequently took that resulted -- end result being
that we purchased the facility at a discounted amount from
the bondholders, and we know that we issued debt to cover
that purchase. Okay. There are three -- those are three
things we know. What we don't know definitively is, how did
we get in that pickle? Now, if that -- if that's a
reasonable statement, that there's more about it that we
s-y-os
184
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
don't know than there is that we do know, how do we address
that?
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I don't --
JUDGE TINLEY: Do we not know what the
revenues were?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah, that's in the numbers.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's in there.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do we not know what the
expenses were?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah, we know. I mean --
JUDGE TINLEY: Month-by-month?
MR. TOMLINSON: There's -- the audit work --
field work was done on the facility.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
MR. TOMLINSON: So -- so the numbers are in
the body --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're in here.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
MR. TOMLINSON: -- of the report. I don't
think we -- I don't think, as -- as you could use the
crystal ball approach in that you -- you shouldn't put
anything in there that you're not absolutely certain of,
because that's after the fact, and what -- what you may
think is reality today may not be, in fact, reality
tomorrow. And --
5 9-OS
185
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand that.
Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Let me read what was
written in last year's that we voted on and approved. The
language is, "Because of the increase in demand for
services, the Kerr County Juvenile Board approved an
addition to the facility to increase capacity to 75 beds."
And then, "Funding for this project was sale of
$5.19 million in lease revenue bonds." That's all it says.
So, I read this as saying in 2004, okay, we expanded the
facility because the demand was up, and we went from that to
going bankrupt. So, I mean, I think that there is more of
an explanation -- somehow, we need to say something.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let me be the
devil's advocate for a minute. In referring back to
comments about the private sector, a corporation has to
write a report like this; it's an S.E.C. requirement. And I
think the attitude about it is, "There's nobody going to
read this, so let's not spend a lot of effort and money
putting it together," and I -- I'm sure that's wrong. I'm
sure that analysts -- stock analysts and others do read it.
Who's our -- it's kind of following on to what Bill asked.
Who's our audience on this? Who are we -- who are we
expecting is going to read it? And then what message -- do
we want to try to give them confidence in the numbers? Do
5-9-05
186
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
we want to -- what's our objective here?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think there's one
basic --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Aside from just
meeting the requirements.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's one basic
difference, Commissioner. First of all, you know,
corporations -- the management letter regarding the
corporate -- a corporation's operations and its profit or
loss and so forth, that deals with -- that deals with
bondholders' expectations or stockholders' expectations and
what they might get at the end of the year in dividends and
so forth. The difference, as I see it, of course, is that,
first of all, these were revenue bonds that were not met,
and secondly, not the taxpayers' money, and there's a
different obligation in terms of -- of reporting that out
and trying to -- trying to make some sense of it. And I
guess where I'm coming down asking questions and looking for
guidance, because Jon and I have talked about this and how
it applies, how do we, as Commissioners Court, putting a
management letter together that goes in the audit, permanent
public record, how do we -- or do we advise what took place
in that year from the time that revenue bonds of $5 million
were floated because business was really good, and between
that time and the next time when the County Judge, on behalf
5-9-US
187
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
of the Juvenile Board, said, "We can't make our debt
service." That's a big question mark. What happened in a
12- or 14-month span? Now, the question is, how is that
addressed? I don't know the answer, but what I do know is
that there are innumerable questions regarding the efficacy
of management and its neglect, denial, or otherwise with
respect to this facility. And those things could have been
-- might have been or may yet be ferreted out if we were to
go to an independent audit. I also know that the audit firm
that does the County's annual audit didn't take any great
pleasure in wanting to pick up this tar baby. The question
is, how do you want to address it?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, Commissioner, I think
the numbers are there as to what happened.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I know. No --
JUDGE TINLEY: The numbers are there that
revenues in "X" month of the previous year were
such-and-such, and the current month were whatever lesser
sum they are. And the numbers are certainly there to speak
for themselves, and you can track those numbers so as to
clearly indicate the basis for the nonappropriation. Now --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. Things went
south, Judge.
JODGE TINLEY: Yeah, sure. Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But doesn't that pose
5 - q - ~ 5
188
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
a question mark in your mind, why?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I suppose there's any
sort of questions that can be raised about any particular
number that's in there. Why isn't it more? Why isn't it
less? Or how could it have been more? How could it have
been less? But I think what the Auditor is telling us is,
what we're -- what we're putting forth here is an abstractly
correct statement. And I suppose if you want to get into a
whole bunch of what-ifs, you can do that, but that's not
generally how auditors and other bean-counters work. They
-- they work in black and white.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I think --
JUDGE TINLEY: Not in the gray.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But -- okay. And I
agree, and I think that's why I said it needs to be facts in
here. And the numbers do speak for -- but why did revenues
drop so much? That's the question. I mean, and it was
because -- and I've heard lots of different answers, and I
think that that -- I mean, I don't -- like I say, I don't
want to spend a whole lot of time on this, but who the
audience is, I think this is our opportunity to explain to
the public, which to me is the taxpayers, and also to the
bond rating companies and all the other stuff as to this is
what happened out there. This is what we think happened.
'Cause we took a hit on this, too, financially in our
5-9-OS
189
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ratings. You know, not as bad as we thought it was going to
be initially, but this is the people -- that type of people
will read this, and I think we need to have -- I don't think
we can just gloss over it. I think that's a disservice. I
think it needs to be addressed in minimum detail.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think I partially
answered my question. The representative from Taxpayers'
Watch was with us this morning, and at the break she asked
me, did I think that she'd learn anything if she came back
for this discussion? And I apparently erroneously told her,
"No, it's just boilerplate stuff." So, in answer to my
question, who's going to read this? Everyone. There's one
or two dozen, however many of them there are.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not sure this helped
me a whole lot. It gave me another week to bide time to
think about what I'm going to write. Let me make a stab at
it. I will write a very -- I say that -- no more than half
a page on this as to -- from talking probably with the three
over here that were more involved than I was in the details,
'cause they've done -- Commissioners 1 and 2 both went to
Austin and visited with the -- whoever y'all visited with,
whatever the state agency is, and being on the board, and
see if we can put down something that, you know, answers
some of the questions, even vague as it may be. And -- and
maybe that's the best way to handle it, is pretty vague.
5-9-OS
190
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
And maybe point out to Pressler Thompson that, you know,
we're not real sure what happened, and we're not -- you
know, toss it back in their lap.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think that's the bottom line
right now. You know, I don't know whether somebody forgot
to pay their bill, didn't pay their bill, whether their bill
was sent out as too low, whether it was because the
reimbursement rates were -- were lower, increased, whether
they were reclassified. There's all sorts of myriad of
things that -- and if we get into stating things as facts, I
think you're opening Pandora's box where you got to state
every single variable that may have come into play.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think -- I -- you
know, I'll go back to a business thing. You have to -- if a
major portion of a business -- if, you know, Exxon Refinery
goes belly-up, I think Exxon has an obligation to the
shareholders to explain why Exxon Refinery went belly-up
this year.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think they're obligated to
say revenues went south and expenses went north, and as a
result, we closed this refinery. And that's the bottom line
result.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JODGE TINLEY: You're talking about
significant financial events during the '03/'04. I did not
s 9-os
191
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
note in here any revenues to the initiation of an attempt to
recover --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: $400,000.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- $400,000.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I thought of that while
we were in here. Yeah, that needs to be added.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Back to your juvenile
thing, I don't see it any other way, Jon, than to -- Bill
made a little outline early in his talk about, you know, at
such-and-such point, the corporation decided they couldn't
pay their bills and passed it on to the County, and the
County said no. I mean, that's the only thing you can say,
because there is no definitive statements to make in
between. There is no reasons. We've fired some pretty good
shots across the bow trying to get those answers, and
they're not forthcoming. I don't know if there is such a
thing, to be honest with you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, we've got the numbers.
You can track the numbers, and when you get to the point in
-- in late August, early September where the
nonappropriation occurred, we know what the numbers were
then. They were available to the Juvenile Board. Based on
that, they gave notice of nonappropriation, and -- and the
dominoes started falling. Tommy?
MR. TOMLINSON: I might give you one
s-9-as
192
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
suggestion, Commissioner. On -- on the T.J.P.'s web site,
after you get into it, there -- it lists all the juvenile
facilities in the state, and it tells you what -- what the
capacity is for each one for a given period. And along with
it, it tells you how -- what percent of that capacity they
use.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What percent of what?
MR. TOMLINSON: It'll tell -- on their web
site, it gives you a -- a detailed breakdown of each
facility in the state, every one of them, and -- and it
tells you when the facility was built, what kind of money
they used, if it was state money or -- or bond money. It
will tell you how many beds are available, and it will tell
you how many -- how many --
JUDGE TINLEY: Occupancy rate.
MR. TOMLINSON: How many residents were there
for the year. And I did a cursory review of that
information about, oh, probably six or eight months ago, and
I think if you'll get into the detail, it will show you that
state average that the -- that the percentage of
occupancy-to-capacity statewide in the -- for '03/'04 was
about 45 percent. There -- there are some facilities in the
state, according to T.J.P.'s web site -- I mean, it's on
their web site -- that had less than 90 percent occupancy.
And it tells you what -- it tells you what each facility
5 9-OS
193
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
L1
22
23
24
25
charges per day, the minimum and the maximum. And, so, I
mean, there's a lot of information about -- about all the
facilities in the state, whether it be a -- a secure
facility or -- or a boot camp or whatever it is. It'll tell
you all that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:
average was about 45 percent?
MR. TOMLINSON: That's
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:
feel good about owning that thing out
That's really exciting.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS:
are.
Did you say the
what I remember.
That really makes me
there, I can tell you.
That's not where we
MR. TOMLINSON: And, I mean, that -- and
about -- and that's about what our average was in -- during
that time period. And so that -- I'm just suggesting that
that might be a place to get some general information --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: General trends.
MR. TOMLINSON: -- of trends about -- about
juvenile facilities in the state of Texas for that year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. Well, this
will be back at our next meeting to hopefully approve.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Anyone that has any
comments or anything, like the insurance lawsuit litigation
5-9-U5
194
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
that's pending, anything, you know, to be highlighted, just
pass it on. 'Cause I -- you know --
JUDGE TINLEY: The only general guidance I
would suggest is, if something was out of trend, either up
or down, significantly -- you know, I can't tell you.
There's the man who can tell you better than I could what's
out of trend.
	COMMISSIONER LETZ: We don't have much	-- it
was a -	- you know, somewhat of a boring year,	it looks	like.
I mean,	other than this one incident, we were	kind of	-- it
was an	in-between year. We've done a lot of	things on	
the --	the communications stuff was done and	the renov	ations
to the	buildings was done, and bonds failed,	and, you	know,
we just	kind of went through last year.		
	COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Jon, I'	m really	
impressed.
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
old farm boy from Comfort.
COMMISSIONER
willing to do it.
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
put a little something extr
COMMISSIONER
NICHOLSON: I am too.
BALDWIN: This is good for an
NICHOLSON: I'm amazed he's
BALDWIN: Me too.
NICHOLSON: I think we ought tc
~ in his paycheck this month.
BALDWIN: I do too.
5 9-OS
195
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. TOMLINSON: I have --
JUDGE TINLEY: We can honor him with a
permanent appointment for the management analysis of the
audit for every year.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think he got it by
default.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll keep my mouth shut
in future years.
MR. TOMLINSON: He has it because I have a
good memory.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's go on to our
2 o'clock reports from department heads. Information
Technology. We'll start with you, Mr. Trolinger.
MR. TROLINGER: Good afternoon. I have a
rehash of my April report, since I figured that's about as
up-to-date, seeing as we're only in the -- sorry -- we're
only in the first week of the month. And to summarize what
we've done Information Technology-wise, I want to rehash the
first paragraph; I'm going to read that one and let the rest
stand. The Sheriff saved us $33,100 this past month by --
by providing us with computers that were seized during a
raid on the Joker's Wild. He agreed to remove those
computers and have them -- have me reuse them out of game
consoles, and still got $200, I believe it was, for game
5-9 OS
196
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
consoles from a reseller. So, I wanted to rehash that. I
thought that was worth repeating.
My second sheet is a breakdown of the budget
items for the Information Technology Department, both the
I.T. and the Nondepartmental budget, and also a section with
the conversion coming up for J.P. 4. Justice of the Peace 4
has received a grant from the D.P.S. to convert and come
onto Software Group for no cost to the County for the first
year. And the box at the bottom right of each one of those
numbers is the total remaining unspent money as of today's
date from those particular items. And my last page, I
thought you'd be interested in a typical Monday for me, how
my time's spent. Trying to -- trying to give you an idea
how the -- what the load is, what the real burden is for
Information Technology, and point you in the direction where
I want to go for next year, to convert the part-time
contractor to a full-time, possibly as a heads-up.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What is this very
first issue, the TLETS issue? What -- what did you have to
do there? That was in --
MR. TROLINGER: I had to log into Dispatch's
computer and make some changes to it. Their text was
scrambled up. There had been a log-in problem with logging
in one of the dispatchers.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Your place?
5 9 O S
197
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. TROLINGER: Called me directly.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Not 9-1-1, but Rusty?
MR. TROLINGER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, thank you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I notice you've got
your work day going from 12:09 to 1 a.m. to 11 p.m. That's
almost 23 hours a day. What is your typical work day?
MR. TROLINGER: I sleep -- I sleep in between
the calls and hitting the buttons to do the database
maintenance.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How many hours of the
month are you putting in?
MR. TROLINGER: My wife has been keeping
track of it. 290 hours, including home and --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I guess we're paying
you for 160, right?
JUDGE TINLEY: 175, roughly.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 175.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, that makes it all
right, then.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's okay. Then
you got that other 15 hours.
MR. TROLINGER: And it seems to be holding
true. The basic maintenance, the basic -- how many
emergency calls we get per day, just what has to be done,
s-9-us
198

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
it's just -- it's not going to level out. It's not going to
change. It's the way it is, and in order to provide y'all
with a technology that can provide cost savings, I want to
be able to do all those things right now. And you can --
you can petty much see that that's just my work ethic; that
I just work to get everything done that needs to be done.
But the County does need some help, information
technology-wise.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm not going to ask
you, John, based on what you say and what you know today, if
you knew when you took the job what you know today, would
you have taken the job. I'm not going to ask you that
question. What I am going to ask you is, how many more
people do we need like you to get this job done so that you
don't have to work around the clock?
MR. TROLINGER: For next year, we need an
additional full-time, I believe.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What is -- how is it
working out with Gazelle?
MR. TROLINGER: It's good. It's taken the
desktop, the little computers, where they've got a technical
problem that could take me hours, he's got an expert over
there that can fix that problem for us very quickly, in a
few minutes typically. It's worked out really well. It's
where I've got an expert across the river there that can
s 9-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
199
come in and fix a particular problem, instead of me trying
to research and dig through it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How many times a week are
you -- do you have to call Gazelle to come down?
MR. TROLINGER: On-site?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On-site or over there,
either way. If we take something there.
MR. TROLINGER: I've been measuring it by
hours, but 14 hours of their time total last month, April.
But I'd have to say I have contact with them every other
day, three times a week average.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. TROLINGER: But the advantage of the
contractor right now is that they're part-time. I can call
them any time I need them, so it's worked out really well in
that respect.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: With the -- the budget
coming up, do you see any huge expenditures coming up in the
technology area, other than needing another person? I mean,
are we --
MR. TROLINGER: Well, as a heads-up, I do
have some contingency numbers if -- if our server, which the
Sheriff's Office -- the whole county basically runs off of
one computer, or a high-end computer, and if it fails, at
this point, we basically have to replace it, and it is a --
5-9-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
200
it's a fairly big number. For me -- relative to me, it's
$52,000, I believe, for the hardware and software if we have
to replace that one box, versus if we went to a newer, more
modern system with Software Group, where there are many
small boxes. That's what I'm looking at right now. So I
can't give you a solid projection or a recommendation right
now, but the -- probably, the -- The Software Group is going
to be the number one -- the number one as far as --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are they going to --
MR. TROLINGER: -- expenditure.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are they going to get
more and more expensive every year? I mean, I know it seems
like every year they add something which makes -- oh, yeah,
this is another bell and whistle that makes things
wonderful.
JUDGE TINLEY: John, I promise you, I haven't
been talking to these guys. I promise, I haven't.
MR. TROLINGER: Software does -- and I
believe every three to five -- three to four years, that
they increase their -- their maintenance cost about
10 percent, and I believe that's coming up this next year.
And I've given the department heads a -- a sheet, basically
a one-page sheet that estimates that cost. And the Sheriff
is laughing at me, because his -- he had some unexpected
numbers. Unfortunately, they hadn't -- hadn't been taken
5-9-OS

201
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
care of in the past, maintenance-wise.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: He told me.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: What about the Odyssey?
MR. TROLINGER: The Odyssey package replaces
the one single server with many little boxes, and one box
doesn't cost $50,000 to replace; it costs $3,000 if it
breaks. Or if we need to expand, it costs $3,000, $4,000
for another box. It's more economical in the long run, and
it's new technology. It makes everything, instead of
looking like a text screen, into a web page, is the
difference. User-friendliness. And so far, the courts, at
least everybody that's reviewed it, and tax, which is Orion,
like it a lot.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The average cost --
MR. TROLINGER: In fact, they say they need
it.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: What's the estimated
cost?
MR. TROLINGER: Of -- to do the --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: To convert over to
Odyssey for the county.
MR. TROLINGER: It's a very big number.
It's, um --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: $800,000.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Littles and great ;Digs
5 ~ os

202
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
and --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And really bigs.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And really bigs.
MR. TROLINGER: That's the big number. And
I'm still -- I'm not at the point where I can say this is
the way to go. We're still in the -- can we get the
department heads excited about it? This is -- do they need
this? Does it improve productivity? Does it replace the
hardware and reduce our vulnerability to having a work
stoppage county-wide? You know, I'm still looking at that
to give you a recommendation. I don't have that yet.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How long before we will
likely need to make that decision?
MR. TROLINGER: June 1st, I'm hoping to have
the -- (Laughter.) June 1st, I'm hoping to have the
recommendation for you. That's my target.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I was looking for 2007,
2008. I wasn't expecting next month.
MR. TROLINGER: No grass growing under my
feet. I want to be able to give you that recommendation by
June 1st. I'll know -- I'll know whether or not that --
that it's doable or usable this next year.
JUDGE TINLEY: We told him to go to work. He
believed us.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Does The Software Group
5-9-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
203
do lease packages?
MR. TROLINGER: No, they do not. But I've
talked to Tommy, and he's explained lease-purchase -- is
that correct? A lease-purchase agreement that would spread
that out over five years.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: As high as -- you know,
it almost seems that, with the technology, a lease situation
may just become, you know, good for the county, rather than
buying the stuff as we -- things change. Technology
changes.
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, the -- what he's
talking about is -- would qualify for the lease-purchase
arrangement, and we could sell to any leasing -- leasing
company, just like -- we just finished doing that for Road
and Bridge, and we could do the same thing for -- for what
-- for what John's talking about. And -- and for a big
price tag, that makes sense, because one of the side effects
of what he's looking at is -- is the user out there in the
community, talking about the taxpayer, being able to have
more online access to -- to records in the county, and --
you know, like taxes. We're talking about real estate
people, the banks, attorneys, anybody that has anything to
do with a real estate transaction.
MR. TROLINGER: Title companies.
MR. TOMLINSON: Title companies. So, by
5 9-OS
1
m' 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
204
doing what he's looking into, we -- we can really, really do
something good for -- for the community. And so, in my
mind, spreading out the cost over, you know, five or six
years, what we're doing actually is -- is pushing the cost
of -- of the use of that product to -- to new taxpayers, you
know, five years in the future. So, the tax -- the current
taxpayers aren't actually footing the burden for the whole
project. So, for that reason, it makes sense to me to do a
lease-purchase.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess I'll wait till
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
MR. TROLINGER: It's really the public -- and
Tommy's absolutely right; it's really the public's benefit
that I was relying heavily on, whether or not this project's
needed this year, whether or not it's good for the taxpayers
to be able to get that data out there. Because it takes
quite a while to gear that up and go through the process of
-- you know, if we elected to do this in June, it would
probably be next June before it really happened. The --
Gillespie County's doing exactly this right now, where
they're in -- they've purchased last budget year this --
this package, and, you know, it's just now being installed
this month. I'm watching that very closely also.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Jon, I'm very
5-9-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
205
impressed with the amount of accomplishments you've had
since you've been here. It's kind of one of those deals
where you don't know what you're missing until you see the
change that can happen. And I'm impressed at the cost
savings that you've been able to achieve, too. I think the
next big breakthrough is helping us improve productivity,
getting machines to do work that people do. I know you know
how to do that, and hope you can find time in your
23-hour-a-day work schedule. But, thanks.
MR. TROLINGER: You're welcome. I enjoy
doing it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've got a question.
I'd like to go back to this morning's conversation, if I
could, about the broadband and all. I want to know -- don't
tell me how much Rusty's saving us or what he's doing or
what Road and Bridge is doing. I want to know how much does
it cost? A dollar and cent figure is all I'm looking for.
How much is it going to cost the County to go from Point A
to Point B?
MR. TROLINGER: Okay. For the courthouse, it
will be break-even for this year, through this budget year.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MR. TROLINGER: For the jail, it will cost
$996.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, thank you.
5 9-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
206
Don't say any more. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Trolinger. We
-- we appreciate your efforts.
MR. TROLINGER: You're welcome.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move on to Road and
Bridge.
(Discussion off the record.)
MR. ODOM: We put down what we thought the
Court may wish to know. This is our first time. I wrote
this down into four items. First one was road projects.
Sealcoat is underway now. Our objective was to do dirt
roads or the gravel roads first with our new equipment, so
everyone would be comfortable and get used to it, get our
heels down, get the bugs out of this equipment, and made
sense before we get to more populated areas until we get
into our Sealcoat program, preventive maintenance. So far,
we've completed Clark. We've completed the portions of Fall
Creek that were reconstructed. Our intent is to finish that
up either -- maybe Friday, so -- it depends. If not, it
will be next week; we'll complete that single seal on that
sealcoated part -- portion, and we'll be through with Fall
Creek. And Lane has been completed out there. We've had a
variety of roads, the width, different problems to look at,
trying to get our yields down. It looks promising that this
equipment has given us pretty good yields, and I'm -- I'm
-9-OS
207
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
encouraged as I get into this year here, and then we'll have
a little bit more data. May not help so much into the
budget I've got; we've got it figured in there, but I think
our yields are going to be really good and be cost-effective
over the long run.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Quick comment, just to
the rest of the Court, and it's on Lane, which is a road out
off Lane Valley. It's quite amazing what Leonard's people
did there. They took -- and it's all due to their --
basically, their new equipment that we have -- that we got
them the past few years. They went in, took creek gravel --
hauled in a bunch of creek gravel, put it on the road, took
a vibrating roller and made it into base in the road, and
bladed -- bladed it back and forth until they made it into
base material, and they've gone over it, sealcoated it.
It's the darndest thing you you've ever seen, one of the
nicest roads probably in the county, just using creek
gravel, and it's because of the equipment that we bought
that enabled them to turn creek gravel into good roads.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That thing is probably
stable, stable, stable.
MR. ODOM: It is very, very stable. It was
wet, and when it sets up, it sets up like concrete. And
with that vibratory that we got last year, it just helps,
and that big Cat roller. It really -- it sets up. It's a
s-y-us
zoa
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
good roller. I just went over it before I came here; that's
where I came from, to look at it, and -- and the yields --
the mat looks good. Our yields are really -- you know,
we're talking about 16.5. We're talking about 17.2 yields.
And --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know what that
means.
MR.. ODOM; Well, it just -- it's good. It's
really good. And -- and the oil and everything. So, you
know, it's very encouraging. We still have some more to
complete, and we'll be working -- Indian Creek is one that
we'll try to knock out over the space of the next few weeks,
and some others. We're at Eugene tomorrow over there, and
then go to Wiedenfeld, and -- and then to Mosty. Over there
in that portion haven't been done.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'd like to also
thank Leonard and express some compliments about the work
they did on Fall Creek. When we originally talked about the
reconstruction of the area of Fali Creek where they're
working now, I think Leonard put into Special Projects the
amount of money that was going to be necessary to --
essentially to do that project, because we had a lot of
roller-coaster effect to take out, and some real bad curves.
His people did that, and didn't have to spend that money
on -- on contract hire, for the most part, and I appreciate
5-9-n5
209
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
L L
23
24
25
the work you've done.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. Well, thank y'all, and
I'll pass that on to the men. I told them, and I've had
some compliments, and --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Absolutely.
MR. ODOM: -- and I don't take it. It's the
men; they did the work, and I pass it on to them.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Please pass it on.
MR. ODOM: I will. On the budget, our
budget's looking pretty good, with the exception of fuel.
We increased this line item this last budget year. It was a
guess. I guessed that fuel would come back down into the
$35, $37 range. My guess was not good. I wish the
President -- well, I hope they -- I think over time he'll
stabilize things, but it was not enough. We estimate we
will need at least $3 ,000. We're running every 10 days,
about $5,000 worth of fuel. That's double our amount. It's
just the cost of it. It's not that it's there; it's just
the cost of it's doubled. And we have had meetings that we
have weekly; every Monday we go over this again, and I've
reiterated the fact as to hold this down. We've stabilized.
We're not -- we're still holding at the $5,000, and there's
not a whole lot I can do, other than to take money out of
Contract Fees or Contingencies, which I had increases in
petroleum. Sealcoat went from .84 to .94, and $1.60 a ton
S 5 ~ 5
1
-° 2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
..-, 13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2 G
23
'°^ 2 4
25
210
for material, which covered the transportation costs for the
materials, so we've taken some hits, something that I could
not estimate.
I mean, I've looked at -- over the last 19
years, we've been pretty good. We're still right on -- what
we got from Tommy was at 42 percent overall, so we're --
we're still hanging in there. Of course, it's kiltered a
little bit, because we've got our rock already stockpiled
and delivered, and then we'll start shooting this out as we
go along. Probably the middle of June, we'll pick up for
preventive maintenance and start shooting again, and use
money up. But we think, budget-wise, we're in pretty good
shape. Just fuel, and we will add that into the next --
this budget coming up; we're adding that now to that price,
the cost of -- increase in aggregate and emulsion. I'm
adding that. But it looks like our budget will be about
$100,000 more than last year, what we talked about, and that
has to do with fuel and material, basically. We -- you
know, we didn't have that money last year; we said we could
do it in capital outlays and make it work, so we've
basically got a flat budget, is what I'm looking at right
now. We're not increasing any more, other than that
80-some-odd thousand for that equipment that Tommy was
talking about, for when we took the municipal loan.
Personnel. All our employees just completed the advanced
s a cs
211
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
Road Scholar Program. We're the only department in the
state of Texas that have done so.
JODGE TINLEY: Congratulations.
MR. ODOM: Thank you. All our positions are
filled, and everyone is well and working at this time. We
did have another workman claim -- workmen's comp claim this
past month. I would like to ask the Court to consider
addressing the issue of worker's comp claims, and what
number of claims they might consider an excessive number for
a single employee. I -- but that is something I -- I sure
think the Court should consider, and the personnel could
give me some direction there. Office projects, even though
we have daily inquiries about floodplain and subdivision
regulations, we currently only have a few that have actually
made applications, and I've listed those on the second page
there. Commissioner Letz requested that we keep a file on
inquiries through the office on subdivision and floodplain,
with the volume of calls that we do get on a daily basis.
It is difficult to make notes and then to transfer them to a
computer file, but we will attempt to do so. The attached
list is the recent contacts we've compiled.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Let me -- Len, before you
leave that, let me just -- the Court may think it's a stupid
idea for all I know, but I thought it would be helpful, for
me anyway, and maybe for the Court to keep track of where
-~-05
212
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
these are going; one, for hopefully tracking illegal
subdivisions, because if they kind of call, you have an idea
that something's probably -- or will be happening in this
area, and most of those familiar with our precincts know
where these are. Another thing is to kind of look at
trends, where activities are going on, what's happened
where, things of that nature. And, granted, the majority of
them may not develop into a full permit or subdivision plat,
but I thought it would be, you know, interesting to track
those just to see really what's going on in those two areas,
which is different than the rest of the -- I guess the
traditional Road and Bridge function, but it does take time
to keep track of.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I got to tell you, I
don't see the interest in doing that. I just -- you know,
it's not information that I need, I don't think. And I
think that I could probably call Truby up and say, "Hey,
Truby, what's the hot topic this week?" And she could
probably tell me, without documenting phone calls and that
kind of thing. It's just -- it just doesn't interest me. I
mean, I see what you're saying.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It's the first time
I've seen it, and it got my curiosity up on two or three
things that are going on in Precinct 4 that are a little bit
suspicious, so at least for now, it's -- it might be
s-5 os
213
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
helpful.
MR. ODOM: Well, I -- you know, we will
attempt as we go along. I'm sure where we find it, maybe we
can get some data out of this and notify -- right now, we're
just starting. So, with this direction of the Court, that's
what we'll do. We have no --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can try it for a
little bit and see if it's -- if not, we can certainly
discontinue it.
MR. ODOM: Right now, we don't have enough
data to go back and to say, you know, here it is. You could
see on the second page the subdivision plats and the
floodplain construction permits. Most of these have been
addressed or are going on subdivision plats. The others are
working. And then, on the following pages, we had 14
inquiries on -- subdivision inquiries, and 10 floodplain.
And also, we have a list -- I don't know whether you're
interested in this, but this is the leave taken, you know,
from sick time, worker's comp, vacation, jury, and funeral.
I don't know.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Leonard, I'm not sure --
the floodplain inquiries are not, in my mind, as important
as the subdivision inquiries.
MR. ODOM: Okay. That would save a little
bit of --
s-3-os
214
1
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: Because on floodplain,
people just have questions, whereas if they're going to call
about platting, they probably have some kind of development,
whether it's a personal residence or selling a piece of land
or something going on. But on floodplain, at some point, is
there anyone that could come to the Court and give us, like,
a -- a half-day course on floodplains? As to what -- I
mean, I know we're responsible for it. And I know y'all are
doing it, and I know it's kind of shuffled around, but I
just don't know that much about what the rules are. I can
ask questions about what you can and can't do, and I just
don't know.
MR. ODOM: It depends upon the situation and
where they -- what they're doing. And certain things can be
done in floodplain. We could maybe contact someone with
L.C.R.A., the gentleman there. I don't know if FEMA might
have a representative that would come down.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It just -- and I don't --
it may not be of interest to the rest of the Court; I don't
know, but I just thought -- I hear, you know, all these
things that are permits, and then I'm driving out on
Junction Highway and I see all these things being built
right along the river and all of this huge amount of fill
being put in there, and then I'm -- I thought we couldn't do
that. And, I mean, we did that on Bumblebee Creek; we added
s-a-os
215
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
a foot, and we spent weeks talking about that foot. So --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I went to a -- part
of a seminar here that was over at the Guadalupe Ranch
Hotel. It was two days for floodplain administrators, but
half of one of those days was for county commissioners or
judges that wanted to know more about it. It was really
helpful. I think L.C.R.A. was the sponsor of it, if I
remember. Did you go to that thing?
MR. ODOM: I went to -- well, I was
certified. I went to Lufkin for four and a half or five
days, and then I've got that. We did go to one. There is
one that would be coming in October here at the Inn of the
Hills, and I think it's going to be again this -- this next
October, and they go over a lot of things. It's very
informative. But you can build with our '92 rules; there
are exceptions to that fact if you have a no-rise
certificate and some engineering is done. So --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I don't want to go
into the details
MR. ODOM: Yeah. It depends upon the
circumstances and some questions on big subdivisions or
something like that, but most of the cases we have are
individuals.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If there's a -- you know,
if something comes up or if you can contact L.C.R.A. or
-9-OS
z16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
FEMA, I think it would be helpful, because I get people who
call -- well, one person. I mean, it's not like it happens
daily, but down in the floodplain, and get all upset because
there's no permits. I think maybe it's appropriate for
somebody -- you know, they get mad about it, and someone --
you know, just -- I don't know enough to be able to even
tell someone to respond. I don't want to get into permits;
I just want to know agricultural exemption, what that means,
or if there is such a thing. There used to be one.
MR. ODOM: Not that I know of.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: A seminar might do
it, or we might just identify an expert and invite him or
her to come in here and talk to us.
MS. HARDIN: I think at their annual
conference he was talking about, they have a half-day
workshop strictly for commissioners courts --
MR. EMERSON: Commissioners Court.
MS. HARDIN: -- on what's expected in
floodplain.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's in October?
MR. EMERSON: It's in October.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where?
MS. HARDIN: It was in November last year.
I'm not sure.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where?
s-9-vs
217
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. ODOM: Here.
MS. HARDIN: It was at the Inn of the Hills
last year.
MR. ODOM: Inn of the Hills last year. And
I -- we get the impression that they want to come back.
They like Kerrville, and they like to have that, and it's
centrally located for a lot of people around the area to
come.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, that might be good
if you'll keep us advised of that; remind us.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I wanted to ask you
about personnel. I have a lot of occasion to see your
three-person crews out there working.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And it looks to me
like they're highly productive. Unlike some other outfits,
there's nobody standing around and watching the rest of them
work. If there's three pieces of equipment up there,
they're all three being operated, so I've got a positive
view of the productivity for Road and Bridge crews. Tell me
about how they go to work. Do they show up at the work
site, or do they come to your office? What do they do about
lunch? Just what's the -- out of eight hours paid, --
MR. ODOM: Eight hours paid.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- how do they spend
5 9-OS
218
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
it?
MR. ODOM: We start at 7:30 in the morning
and report there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: "There" being where?
JUDGE TINLEY: Road and Bridge.
MR. ODOM: The main office. At -- at our
office down there. And from there, they're disbursed out to
the different things, and they have a plan. We normally go
in and have a calendar, and they have -- that the
supervisors worked out, and so we sort of have a plan of
where they're going on a monthly deal. That changes
depending upon the circumstances, what we need to get done,
or weather. They come in, they go out there, they have
their trucks there. Maybe some trucks are already in Center
Point or there in the Ingram yard, but traveling -- they
report there, they spread out, they go to work. Noon is
normally lunch, but they will work until they -- the
supervisor gets to a point that it -- it may be 12:30; it
may be 12:45. They may take a 30-minute lunch break, and
then they go back to work. And then we get off at
4 o'clock. So --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, for example, if
somebody's working out there -- a crew's working out there
in Guadalupe Ranch Estates, which is 90 minutes from here or
so, and they shut down this evening -- and maybe they live
s-Q-os
219
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
in Ingram; I don't know -- wouldn't it be more effective for
them just to report back to that work site the next day?
MR. ODOM: Are you talking about the men?
Well, not everybody -- just the supervisors have a vehicle.
And in your case out there, we have that blue truck for Ed
and them to use to go out to the field sometimes, or maybe
report to -- to get hold of a contractor that's dumping,
like Vulcan or something like that, or to meet somebody.
But other than that, I -- it might be. The Court has
directed us that -- years ago, that everybody was to go to
one place. They used to report to Ingram, and then they had
to work -- pick up equipment there, and to Center Point, but
we no longer use that one. And -- and it's -- I've got two
crews, for the west end, anyway. And so, basically, we just
sort of divide up.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: There might be some
productivity in doing it differently.
MR. ODOM: I don't know if it would
accomplish anything, because that supervisor's still got to
drive down to get back to the -- to that point. And at
7:30, those men are there, and -- and we're out pretty
quick; 15, 20 minutes. They do shut down -- if they're way
out there at the Y.O. or something, they probably need to --
to leave by 3:00, 3:15, just to get the 8-cubic-yard dump
truck back into the yard. We try to keep equipment -- maybe
S-J-OS
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
220
there's someplace that we can leave equipment, and then
sometimes we think that we'd be better off -- maybe we'll
just take it in, particularly dump trucks.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: My way of thinking
is, unless -- that there's no reason that they -- they have
to go to your office every morning if there's a better way
to do it.
MR. ODOM: If there's a better way to do it,
and the Court gives me a direction to do that. I'm just
doing what the Court directed me many years ago.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm not trying to
run your business for you. I'm just --
MR. ODOM: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Maybe there's a way
to keep people on the job and --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I can see there's
probably pros and cons to doing it both ways. I mean,
there's -- your way, they're -- one way they're taking
personal vehicles out to job sites, and we've heard that's a
bad thing already this morning. And your way, coming into
the office, they all go out with the supervisor, so they all
go there in a County vehicle. And I guess the other thing
would be, you know, if the guy from Ingram -- it may be
easier for him to go straight out there, but the guy that --
maybe it's someone from Center Point that's working out
5-9 OS
zzl


1

1

1
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
west.
MR. ODOM: He's going to be sitting there
waiting on that individual to get there for that amount of
time, to work from this side to the other side.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But --
MR. ODOM: But it's -- you know, it has
worked. It's not maybe the best way, but that's the way we
were directed, and that's the way we've been doing it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I used to hang
around the TeaDOT crowd a little bit, and they do it like
you do. And I think that that briefing that they do first
thing in the morning may be the most important thing they do
all day. Everybody knows what everybody's doing, and they
know what they're to do for the day.
MR. ODOM: For the day. And sometimes -- I'm
sorry. Go ahead, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's important.
MR. ODOM: Sometimes we have people that
don't show up, and in that case, it would make it more
difficult out there if they reported than it does right
there at the office, 'cause then I can swing people around
because I sort of know where everybody's going and what
their needs are. So, as far as personnel, it really helps
me when I'm at one area, but if they were out at Center
Point and someone called in, they're not going to know that.
5 9 0 5
zz2
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
We're going to know in the office when they call in or leave
a message for us, and then it -- it is just worked out that
it -- it helps us managerially to make the system work.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've got one more
quick question. This worker's claim -- worker's comp issue
that you said that you might consider excessive, and wanted
to know if the Court would address the issue. What -- like,
address what?
MR. ODOM: Address how many -- we have
nothing in -- we used to have in our personnel rules a
number of accidents that would be excessive, and I was --
when I've gone to some personnel things, they said unless we
have -- I can't just arbitrarily do it. It needs to be a
policy of -- of the county. And, so, what is excessive? I
don't know. It doesn't necessarily have to be workmen's
comp, but in this one particular case, there is -- that's
expensive, 'cause every form costs me $300. So -- I mean,
whether they go to the doctor or not, it costs us $300. And
we may get it back, but if there's a doctor's -- if they
don't go to the doctor, you get it back. But if they have
to go to the doctor or something, that's $300. It's --
everything adds up. And what is excessive? Is it six?
Seven? Eight? Ninety-six hours a year in medical?
JUDGE TINLEY: County Attorney has something.
MR. EMERSON: I just want to make one brief
5-5-r.s
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
223
point. If I'm not mistaken -- well, let me start out by
saying we need to be very, very careful with worker's comp.
MR. ODOM: Very careful.
MR. EMERSON: And, if nothing else, I should
make that point that I think Lowe's just paid $4.3 million
because they terminated somebody after a worker's comp
injury. So --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We can't do that.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think it's the term
"retaliation."
MR. EMERSON: I believe so.
JUDGE TINLEY: The term that they use in the
statute.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: But there's
something going on in government on worker's comp. It's
different than -- than industry. Jonathan was talking
about -- he said something about Exxon Refinery today. The
Exxon Refinery may have 4,000, 5,000 people there; I don't
know. They may go a year without a worker's comp claim.
None.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Biggest problem we're
seeing right now is finding any doctor that will take
worker's comp claims.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's been a --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It's getting to be a
5 9 05
' ...

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
224
nightmare.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's been a problem for a
number of years, since they changed the system over and
they've beaten them down.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think there's
something different about our culture and our mentality,
though, that maybe encourages making worker's comp claims.
I don't know that. I just --
MR. ODOM: Even --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: When I see our data
on a poll, I know of industrial organizations that go years
without a lost-time accident, literally.
MR. ODOM: I presented to the Court several
years back a concept -- I say that. Maybe I gave to it
Judge Henneke; I don't remember, but sometimes using sick
leave excessively. We only have three-man crews, so I've
got it down to the bare bones, so when I've got someone
gone, it really affects the -- the over -- you know, the
work, and I don't have that spare person to fit in. I've
sort of got it right now, but, I mean, if -- if it's
excessive. And we -- I had read different things that --
sometimes I've got some men that have 1,000 hours, 900
hours, 800 hours. They're not sick; they've saved it. And
I have some that have none. So, I was thinking maybe
there's an incentive -- an incentive where you would buy 15
.-~-os
225
..~

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
days of sick leave for five, something that some people
would have an incentive to save sick leave.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: A lot of your big
corporations, you may know, have gone and done away with
sick, vacation, everything, and all they're doing is giving,
like, five personal days a year, period. The employee can
take those for whatever reason, and that's it. There's
nothing else. Which is bad, but that's the way a lot of
them are having to go because of sick leave abuse. I have
it in our department too, and there's no doubt. And every
time we have it, it's -- somebody's in on overtime.
DODGE TINLEY: Yeah. Well, it's -- it's
definitely a personnel management issue, and the more -- the
more -- the greater number of personnel, the more of those
problems you're going to have.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's right. Exactly
right.
DODGE TINLEY: So, you know, the ideal thing
is to operate with the fewest number of people that you've
got to have to do the job. You've got to take a look at
those one by one. And there's -- there's some -- there's
some pretty sticky wickets from a legal standpoint if you're
not careful.
MR. ODOM: On worker's comp, there certainly
are. And -- well, on any one of them, when you try to pull
5-9-u5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
226
someone --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just can't imagine
this Court setting a policy, though, that if -- if you get
hurt five times, you're gone.
MR. ODOM: No. No, it may be a letter or
something like that, or warning or something like that. But
where -- where's the line over a couple of years?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think you've got to
grin and bear it. Following up on the Commissioner, say the
guy uses up his five times, if that's the policy, and the
sixth time he absolutely destroys his back. You know,
hello, lawsuit.
MR. ODOM: But, probably, between Solid Waste
and Road and Bridge, that's two of the -- and maybe law
enforcement is in there too, but I -- Solid Waste used to be
the worst in San Antonio, because we never knew what the
hazards were in there. And, of course, we're out there
lifting, and some of us are not 21 any more, and it -- it
makes it difficult when we're only --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Safety pack, for what it
is -- what it does cost overall, is the only thing you can
do.
MR. ODOM: It is not a horrendous thing, but
it is a problem.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's another reason that the
5-9-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
z2~
safety program is so, so important.
MR. ODOM: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: That we put a lot of emphasis
on it. We give it all the support that we can, and we make
sure that it works and it's worked continuously.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. That's all I have. Is
that --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER LET2: That's what we were
looking for, just a discussion on your department.
MR. ODOM: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Facilities and Maintenance.
Mr. Holekamp.
MR. HOLEKAMP: First of all, I wasn't quite
sure what y'all were wanting, so I just was going to try to
give you a summary of what we did. I don't know -- didn't
think you wanted a blow-by-blow account of every commode we
fixed and --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We want a summary.
MR. HOLEKAMP: -- every door we've had to
repair at the Sheriff's Department due to poor driving.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That wasn't my fault.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Oh, no, it wasn't his guy,
s-~-vs
228
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
L 5
but -- it was a food service truck. But what I'm saying
is -- is I -- since this is our first month, I would really
like for y'all to tell me really what -- what you want in a
report.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I can tell you how
to start out.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because I was the one
that put it on the agenda, got the whole thing started.
JUDGE TINLEY: It was in the memo also as a
suggested minimum.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just kind of --
MR. HOLEKAMP: I didn't --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, like, for you, kind
of a -- you know, employees, what they're doing. Staffing
levels, just to, you know, reiterate that. Budget, where
we're going with budget. And the maintenance thing is --
you know, what's down the horizon long-term? What are we
going to do today? What kind of maintenance schedule are
you working on?
MR. HOLEKAMP: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The general department
things, so we can be hopefully better at understanding what
all our departments and few hundred employees are --
MR. HOLEKAMP: I can do that. We keep
5-9-05
229
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
calendars. And, like, in May, for example, we had -- we're
going to have four weddings at the Union Church. And I will
tell y'all, it makes money, the Union Church does.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Hooray.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The only department in
the system that makes any money is Union Church.
MR. ALFORD: Excuse me?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And are you part of
Maintenance?
MR. ALFORD: Oh, no.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN; Hold it down back
there, then.
MR. HOLEKAMP: But, no, the Union Church is
being used quite frequently now as a little chapel. They --
they're -- Alyce does an excellent job of making sure those
people leave it in the condition that they use it. We
have -- we are doing the cleaning on it. But, I mean, we --
we discourage rowdy behavior in that particular facility.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're not going.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Yeah. The -- the Ag Barn,
rental on it, that is -- I'm looking forward to some po li cy.
I think it's going to help us. And that goes right -- I'm
going to just kind of go off of what Jon said --
Commissioner Letz, I'm sorry -- that the policy that we
develop can really make a difference in that budget. And, I
5-9-OS
230
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
mean, from the top to the bottom. We can maybe make some
adjustments and changes that would be positive, both for the
public and for the County. So --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm working on it.
I've gotten all the information I asked for, and if my phone
will stop ringing and people bursting into my office -- like
the County Judge; he talked for a half hour -- I'll get that
thing done.
JUDGE TINLEY: My fault?
MR. HOLEKAMP: But this is a -- I think this
is a good start. We've heard some -- some very positive
things from our first session that we had. I think there's
some things that we can carry on a little bit more, and --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: How many employees
work -- how many employees does the Ag Barn consume?
MR. HOLEKAMP: Consume?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good choice of words.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Two full-time employees.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Two full-time
employees?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How many?
MR. HOLEKAMP: Two full-time employees.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And they work out
there? That's where they qo to work every morning?
MR. HOLEKAMP: No. No, sir.
s-9-os
231
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: Charged to their budget.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Charged to the budget, I'm
sorry. What -- what I do is -- is I have the parks -- parks
maintenance man, he shows up out there every morning and he
goes and does his mowing, watering, or whatever. One of the
maintenance people at the barn shows up there every morning
at 8 o'clock and does his thing. The other one that I
normally use right now is working here at the courthouse on
a construction project with my regular maintenance man, who
also has to go to the jail to do repair work. So, I
dispatch, on an as-needed basis, all of my men except for
one, basically.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: How about clerical
people?
MR. HOLEKAMP: I only have one, and that
clerical person does the booking of the Ag Barn, the church,
shows those facilities, does clerical work not only for
that, and for me also, and the maintenance ordering and
telephone communication.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Does anybody at the
Extension Office do work for the Ag Barn?
MR. HOLEKAMP: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How many -- what's your
maintenance staff right now?
5-5-ns
232
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
MR. HOLEKAMP: Eight.
MS. DAVIDSON: What were you saying?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Number in Maintenance.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Eight full-time. Then I have
some contract laborers.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Plus you?
MR. HOLEKAMP: Nine with me, I think.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, does that include
Alyce?
MR. HOLEKAMP: That includes Alyce, yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So there's seven -- I
mean, she's more like you to -- there's seven people doing
the maintenance?
MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, and Alyce. She does
custodial work also.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I was going to ask
the breakdown between maintenance and custodial.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Okay. I have -- I have three
full-time custodial people. They are -- they're sent to the
jail for half a day, one of them, and another one works here
about 80 percent of the time, but also does Road and Bridge
and does some other work here, custodial. Then the one
that's at the jail that does the Sheriff's Office in the
mornings, she's here in the afternoons cleaning here. And
s 5-us
233


1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
then I have two contract people that come in after 5:00 for
approximately two hours each per day, three days a week, so
they're not getting that many hours; they're getting about
six hours each a week, but that's enough time to get these
offices that are occupied with patrons -- taxpayers, that we
can get in after 5 o'clock and clean them.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. HOLEKAMP: The maintenance staff -- and
it -- we're on a project right now, and the County Attorney
is sitting in here, and I -- he has noticed we've been
trying real hard. We started out like a house afire on the
project, and it's kind of fizzled a little bit. We ran into
some issues with some taping and float people that wear
stripes, and they were not available to us with any
expertise other than pushing a lawnmower. So, we're --
we're kind of retooling right now to try to --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Recruit.
MR. HOLEKAMP: -- recruit some -- some taping
and floating guys, and so I can -- because I know Rex is
having to step over us, and we're trying to get that
finished. Just with my guys, I can only keep one in there
full-time. The other one, he's being called to the jail to
fix stuff, so it really becomes a problem. We do a lot of
shuffling of people, and Alyce does a lot of that, I mean,
keeping these people going in the right directions.
-y-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
234
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And then you have three
custodial and you have four maintenance?
MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is that right?
MR. HOLEKAMP: And the four maintenance, one
of them is parks, primarily, and one of them comes out of
the parks budget. One comes out of the jail budget, and two
out of the Ag Barn budget.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do you have contract
labor as well?
MR. HOLEKAMP: Yeah. I have very little out
there. I use some part-timers on weekends and that sort of
thing, part-time people. We've had a real tough time
finding contract people that -- that you can call up at the
last minute and ask if you're willing to work on Saturday
night. They normally don't like to do that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Glenn, do you have a -- I
guess, a plan for, like, more big maintenance projects? Or
a schedule for, like, painting, you know, all the
facilities? I mean, pretty much everything got painted
within -- not too long ago, 'cause most of them are new or
renovated.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, I do. I've got the --
the Tax Office; I need to repaint it, and I need to recarpet
that. Their carpet is in horrible shape, no different than
s y vs
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
235
the County Attorney's. And -- you just keep quiet. He
seems to think his carpet needs to be replaced too, and it
probably does, because they hang around there a lot and
walk. But --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The hangout place.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Hang around the Sheriff's
Office.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just sit around in the
Sheriff's Office.
MR. HOLEKAMP: But -- I guess you'll get
even, huh?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah. You don't have
any more workers, Glenn.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Oh. But, no, the -- but,
there again, the Tax Office needs -- has some -- some needs.
We've repainted Jannett's, what, three years ago, I guess it
was. Finally got hers repainted. And we got this project
with the community service worker of getting the outside of
the building here pressure-washed and treated, tried to get
rid of the mildew.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Might be -- and I don't
want to go into all of it right now, but sometime during the
budget process, it might be good just to get a --
MR. HOLEKAMP: Be glad to.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- a long-range plan,
s a 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
236
'cause all our facilities seem to have built or renovated in
about a five-year period, and if we wait to get them all
done at once --
MR. HOLEKAMP: I think the Court -- I would
really like to see some decisions made on -- on this carpet
thing. Carpet's got a real short life, working in public
areas. So, I'd really like some thought put into that, some
input from the Court as to -- I'm not a big carpet fan.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's what we were
looking for.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Is that what y'all wanted?
JUDGE TINLEY: Any questions?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Thanks.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Oh, and -- oh, for a sideline,
I don't know if everybody knew it; we got a bunch of trees
from U.G.R.A. We got a bunch of trees from L.C.R.A. last
year, and I guess we've added about 140 trees and shrubs to
our parks, and -- and that takes a little time watering
them, especially when it doesn't rain. We're trying to get
some cypress trees started, and it takes water, and so we're
developing -- we spend a lot of time on that, but I don't
want to lose them. So --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Glenn, would you
order the port-a-pottys for Ingram Dam?
MS. DAVIDSON: I can't hear you.
s-9-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
237
MR. HOLEKAMP: Got it written down right now
as we speak.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Thank you.
MR. HOLEKAMP: That's for Memorial Day.
MS. DAVIDSON: Yeah, to go do.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: As soon as possible.
MS. DAVIDSON: I'm calling them right now.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Thank you.
MS. DAVIDSON: Welcome.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It's safe for me to
go home now.
JUDGE TINLEY: Collections.
MR. ALFORD: My carpet's fine. I don't have
any carpet. Real quick, I'm assuming the main thing y'all
are -- would like to know about is my bottom line. First
quarter of this budget, we're at 75 percent collection,
County Court at Law, $123,000. We're still having
tremendous amounts of trouble collecting our felony money.
Linda Uecker went to Austin and testified, I believe, for
the House -- I don't remember who she testified for. She
didn't get a good feeling out of that, so we've gotten with
probation. We're going to try some new avenues on different
hearings on the felons. The 198th District Judge is going
to try to look at some law and see what we can do. He's
trying to help us, so we have some stuff working on the
S-J-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
238
felony side right now. Collections is about 9 percent over
last year at the same -- first quarter.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Dollars?
MR. ALFORD: 123 --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, 90 percent dollars?
Or --
MR. ALFORD: Last year, first quarter was
96,000 and change. This year is 123,000 and change. We're
trying anything we can.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is the increase due to
number of convictions or cases? Are fines higher?
MR. ALFORD: Well, I think it's probably an
increase of cases being filed. But, again, if we take --
that's why I tried to work more with the percentages of what
we collect, just to show that -- show that we're still
hustling. But y'all are getting more money, so to speak.
And I'd like -- I'm assuming that means that you are leaving
the Sheriff's Office a little bit more often and Rex is
filing the cases.
(Discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Just one question
from me.
MR. ALFORD: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The Kerrville EMS
has a 54 percent collection rate.
5-9-OS
239
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
MR. ALFORD: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If you've got some
ideas about how they can improve that, would you give them
to Commissioner Baldwin?
MR. ALFORD: We've talked a little bit about
that the other day, but my biggest benefit on County Court
at Law -- see, EMS sends out a bill -- is the media gone?
Yeah. EMS sends out a bill, and what happens? They throw
it in the trash can or they submit it to insurance. That's
the end of it. Me, if you don't pay me, I send him. And
that's -- that's why our collection rate is where it is.
But, yes. And I have an idea that a lot of times these
people move. That's one of our biggest deals, is locating
people. We constantly help the Sheriff's Office locate
people. That's one of our second biggest things we do.
Well, it's right along with J.P.'s. One thing, the J.P.'s,
when we took them on, we really have no way of tracking how
much money we're making for them, but we know we are making
money. They -- the J.P.'s tell us, "We got checks; we got
money orders." Some of them end up in our office; we'll
take them down. So I can't give you a dollar amount, but I
can tell you we -- it is helping some.
JUDGE TINLEY: Your efforts are effective for
them?
MR. ALFORD: Yes, sir.
s-9-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
240
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Does the City -- they
don't have -- the City does not have a collections group?
MR. ALFORD: No, sir. You don't see --
JUDGE TINLEY: City Marshal.
MR. ALFORD: City Marshal does. He's been
over -- I forgot his name. He's come over with us. You
don't see a lot of city collections departments throughout
the state. I think they're coming now, but you don't see a
lot of them.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else for Mr. Alford?
Thank you, sir.
MR. ALFORD: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Keep raking in the dough.
MR. ALFORD: We understand our goals.
JUDGE TINLEY: Does any member of the Court
have anything that we need to go into closed or executive
session on? Hearing none, we'll move on. Mr. Auditor? I
think we're ready for you, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move we pay the bills.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to
pay the bills. Any question or discussion? All in favor,
signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
5-9-OS
241
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion carries. Budget
Amendments. Budget Amendment Request Number 1.
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 1 is for
Nondepartmental, to transfer $579 in Autopsy and Inquest to
Pauper Burials.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And that covers one --
MR. TOMLINSON: That's one.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- that's pending or
something out there. I move that we pay Budget Amendment
Number 1.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Any question or discussion? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Budget
Amendment Request Number 2.
MR. TOMLINSON: Is for the Ag Barn, a request
from Mr. Holekamp to transfer $50 from Office Supplies to
Postage.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
s-a-us
242
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: Motion made and seconded. Any
question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify
by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Budget
Amendment Request Number 3.
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 3 is for the jail.
The Sheriff requested to transfer $487.10 from Jailer
Salaries, $62.87 to Radio Repairs and $434.23 to Office
Supplies.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Any
question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify
by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Budget
Amendment Request Number 4.
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 4 is for the
Treasurer, to transfer $50 from Employee Training to Bonds
s-9-os
243
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
and Insurance for new Deputy Treasurer.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Any
question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify
by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Budget
Amendment Request Number 5.
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 5 is a request from
the County Clerk to replace a reader-printer machine for her
microfilm. Actually, the payment of this, we plan to come
out of two budgets, one out of Elections -- I mean from
Records Management, I'm sorry. 52,700 from Maintenance
Contracts to Operating Equipment, and then $2,000 from
Microfilm Expense to Operating Equipment out of the Records
Management budget.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
DODGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Any question or discussion? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
5-9 05
244
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Do we
have any more budget amendments?
MR. TOMLINSON: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any late bills?
MR. TOMLINSON: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: I have here before me monthly
reports from the Sheriff's Department, County Clerk, March
Amended Report, and then the County Clerk, I assume for
April?
MS. PIEPER: That is correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Constable, Precinct 1, and
Justice of the Peace, Precincts 1, 2, and 3. Do I hear a
motion that these reports be approved as submitted?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Any question or discussion? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Do we
5 - 9 - U 5
245
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
have any reports from any of the Commissioners in their
liaison/committee assignments?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No.
DODGE TINLEY: Any reports from elected
officials?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: One question.
Guidance -- no, this is a guidance.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm sorry.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And I need kind of a
direction, because it will impact my budget preparations.
Number one, I'll tell you like I told you before; Capital
Outlay items for both jail and Sheriff's Office, we're going
to submit zero for both of those. That includes four cars.
I'll pay them out of a seizure account. The second thing
is, I am cutting two personnel positions at the Sheriff's
Office, one in the Sheriff's Office, one in the jail. But
we are getting a lot of -- and I think we are very weak in
this, in courthouse security, and because of what's happened
over the past number of months across the nation, I have
been looking at courthouse security strongly.
We had Guardian -- the people that redid all
the camera system and that in the jail over here last week.
They are submitting me a bid for a camera system --
monitored system that's reported, and for a panic system
5-9-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
246
that we give pretty well all department heads and a number
of people in each department a capability of pushing a
button, and it will either go to our dispatch immediately,
or go across a radio system immediately, or it will go to a
courthouse security officer, where that tells him that they
need help in this department. And if he gets there and sees
they need help, he pushes a button that's on his radio, and
it will go across our entire radio frequency saying that
there is an emergency at the courthouse, and then it's --
all cars are red lights and sirens to the courthouse. But
that button will be controlled by the courthouse security
personnel, except for J.P. 9, 'cause this will cover all the
J.P.'s and satellite offices, the same system will. J.P. 4
will have to go directly to our cars because of the way it
works, and no security officer up there all the time.
I would expect that bid's going to come in --
and this is a total guess at this point right now, just by
what the camera system cost us in the jail and what the --
the panic system was costing -- is going to cost us last
year, but I would guess it's going to be in excess of
$100,000 to do these upgrades. What I am asking is
guidance, and will this Court allow me to apply to the
Peterson Foundation for a grant to cover the cost of these
upgrades? I think that it is a high topic and a hot topic
right now. I think that upgrades are definitely needed, and
5-9-ns
247
1
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 think it would be something that Peterson Foundation, in
the past, would look at, because it does serve all the
citizens that use this courthouse, and the security
capacity. So, I would like -- you know, we've always talked
about -- I don't want to just go out for a local foundation
grant without y'all's approval.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I personally
think it's a good approach. And I think that the other part
of that is that, even with -- and, you know, I've told Rusty
this; is he's aware that I think we probably need to add
personnel as well to courthouse security, which is part
of -- his reserve program may help that. But that's
somewhat iffy, but I don't have any problem with it.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I'll have figured in
this budget two additional courthouse security personnel
that would go along with that, and I'm hoping to get by with
one if the reserve program kicks off well enough between now
and October. Okay. I just don't know exactly how many
reserves I'm going to be able to have, but my plan is one
would be to monitor the camera system. That doesn't have to
necessarily be an officer; it needs to be somebody trained
and has capabilities, so we can work on that part of it.
But one is -- Chuck's position upstairs stays there, and one
more for downstairs that we could --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think --
s-9-as
248
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: -- control this and
respond quickly to any of those panic systems.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's -- an
important component of the grant is that we're not just
asking the Foundation to fix the courthouse security
problem. We're asking for the hardware; we're adding
personnel. And I think, the way they work, they would like
that.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Personnel would not be
part of the grant. It's just the --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's just the equipment.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: -- the equipment. And
we've had -- as Juvenile Probation can tell you, we've had
cases of criminal mischief around the courthouse at night.
The camera system that would be on the outside is a
zoom-type camera system that would record all this digitally
so that we would have a lot better capabilities, and it goes
from -- from every office downstairs all the way through the
top and around the outside of the courthouse, where -- a
camera system that would be monitored from here, the -- the
broadband, where that came into effect. That will also
allow us at the jail to take a certain select few of those
cameras that we want to monitor 24 hours a day. 'Cause here
they're mainly going to get monitored during the -- during
the business hours. You know, they're recorded. Any time
s-y-o5
249
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
there's any movement in the camera, it's like we have at the
jail; it automatically records so the next day we could
review those. But there's some cameras we might want to
monitor 24 hours a day around the courthouse.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't have a
problem with it.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I have to wait till I
see what the bid -- what the figures come in at, but I'm
guessing it's going to be at least that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, of course, we need to be
mindful that right now we're gathering specs more than
anything else.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Because, in all probability,
we're going to have to advertise for bids. But we need to
figure out what type of security system we need before we
can even --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah. It's going to
equal out to about 120 panic buttons and 54 cameras, so it's
been figured right now.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I think once you get
the bids in --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Then we'll --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- you'll probably have
another meeting. I don't know if this is something that --
5-5-OS
250
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But in my budget
preparation, to be able to get it turned in, I need to know
the personnel, looking at courthouse security. Our
courthouse security budget has not changed except for
Chuck's, you know, longevity and cost in five years.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We have a separate
fund for courthouse security?
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: There is some funds that
are -- but I don't know; I think Tommy and I looked at it.
I think our courthouse security budget right now, total is
about -- 'cause all it is is his salary and benefits and
that, and it's about 44,000. But I think the funds
generated -- and I think there is a bill that would up those
fees that defendants would have to pay before the
Legislature right now. But I think last year, the funds
generated, what I was told, was somewhere around 35,000.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where would you put
all this equipment, monitors and so forth?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: When you step off the
elevator upstairs, what we have allowed the 198th District
Attorney's office to use while they're here, whenever
they're up here, that one glass little cubbyhole there.
That's what that was originally designed for when y'all
changed that. And we looked at it, and it would be a
s-a-os
251
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
perfect place to do all the monitoring of the cameras and
everything.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think once you get the
proposals back, put it on our agenda.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay. Well, I just
needed some kind of guidance to know about manpower in the
budget. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. We appreciate
it. Any other reports to be rendered to the Court? Any
further business? We will stand adjourned.
(Commissioners Court adjourned at 3:51 p.m.)
STATE OF TEXAS ~
COUNTY OF KERR
The above and foregoing is a true and complete
transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as
County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County,
Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth.
DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 18th day of May, 2005.
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
BY : ~~~~&2 ---- -
Kathy B ik, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
5-9-US
ORDER N0.29153
Kerr County Sheriff
Reserve Deputy Program
Came to be heard this the 9`h day of May 2005, with a motion made by Commissioner
Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously approved by vote of
4-0-0 authorizing the Sheriff to initiate a reserve deputy sheriff program up to 10 deputies
and include workers comp for volunteers.
ORDER NO. 29154
Kerr County Jail
Capital Outlay Funds
Came to be heard this the 9a' day of May 2005, with a motion made by Commissioner
Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously approved by vote of
4-0-0 authorize the Sheriff to use the expenditures of surplus capital outlay funds in the
jail budget to replace 10 jail radios, 2 flat screen monitors, TSG Driver's license scanner
and contract for redundant connectivity service.
ORDER NO. 29155
BROADBAND SERVICE
TIME WARNER COMPANY
Came to be heard this the 9`h day of May 2005, with a motion made by Commissioner
Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously approved by
vote of 4-0-0 to contract with Time Warner for Broadband Services for the Courthouse in
conjunction with the Law Enforcement Center and authorizes the Judge to sign.
ORDER NO. 29156
ACCEPT BIDS FOR COUNTY DEPOSITORY
Came to be heazd this the 9a' day of May 2005, with a motion made by Commissioner
Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously approved by
vote of 4-0-0 to accept the bid from Security State Bank and Trust and refer them to the
County Auditor and County Treasurer.
ORDER N0.29157
FLAT ROCK LAKE
Came to be heard this the 9`h day of May 2005, with a motion made by Commissioner
Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court unanimously approved by vote of
4-0-0 to award the Bid to Excavation Technologies, Inc for the cleanup of Flat Rock Lake
and to negotiate the hours down to 200 for the purpose of cleaning up the lake, subject to
the approval of the County Attorney's approval of the modification to the bid.
ORDER NO. 29158
ROAD AND BRIDGE DEPARTMENT
KERRVILLE STATE HOSPITAL
Came to be heazd this the 9th day of May 2005, with a motion made by Commissioner
Nicholson, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court unanimously approved by
vote of 4-0-0 to authorize the Road and Bridge Department to improve/construct a
sepazate roadway to facility at Kerrville State Hospital to be utilized for acute/civil
commitment patients from Kerr and other counties, contingent upon approval be the State
and approve up to $12,000.00.
ORDER NO.29159
Big Sky Ranch Subdivision
Came to be heard this the 9`h day of May 2005, with a motion made by Commissioner
Nicholson, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court unanimously approved by
vote of 4-0-0 reclassify the Roads in Big Sky Ranch, Vol. 7 Page 280 - 282 from public
to private.
ORDER N0.29160
ROAD NAME CHANGES AND REGULATORY SIGNS
Came to be heard this the 9~' day of May 2005, with a motion made by Commissioner
Nicholson, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court unanimously approved by vote
of 4-0-0 to approve the following name changes on County maintained roads and the
speed limits and No Parking as listed below:
Existing Name	New Name Subdivision
Mountain Dr. So.	Jack Dr. So.
Cedar Dr. W.	East Cedar Dr. W. Bivouac
Cedar Dr. W	West Cedaz Dr. W Bivouac
East Ridgeway S.	High Dr. S.
... Regulatory Signs
Hunt River Road - No Pazking
Beaz Creek Rd. S - 35 MPH
Peterson Farm Rd. - 45 MPH
ORDER NO. 29161
ROAD NAME CHANGES
Came to be heard this the 9`h day of May 2005, with a motion made by Commissioner
Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously approved by vote of
4-0-0 the road name changes for privately maintained road in accordance with 911
guidelines.
Existing Road New Name Location
None Celia Circle N. off Jonas Dr.
None Cloud 9 Lane E. off Elm Pass, past Elm Pass 1 Sub
on left
None Judy's Place N. off Fredericksbwg Road, just
before Whiskey Canyon on left
ORDER N0.29162
MOSTY PECAN GROVE
PREMLININARY PLAT
Came to be heard this the 9`h day of May 2005, with a motion made by Commissioner
Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court unanimously approved by vote of
3-1-0 the preliminary play of Mosty Pecan Grove with restrictions to no habitable
structure on the pump tract and any re-subdivision of Lot 1 will be restricted to access
from State Highway 27, no access will be permitted from J.J. Lane to future lots. No
habitable structure on Lot 2 unless Lot 2 is serviced by a community water system,
shared well, or permitted well.
ORDER NO. 29163
Kerr County Juvenile Facility
Kerrville ISD Expelled Students
Came to be heard this the 9~' day of May 2005, with a motion made by Commissioner
Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously approved by a vote
of 4-0-0 the contract with Kenville ISD and Ken• County Juvenile Facility regarding the
educating of KISD expelled students at KCJF and authorizes the County Judge to sign it.
ORDER NO. 29164
Kerr County Law Day
Came to be heard this the 9`h day of May 2005, with a motion made by Commissioner
Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously approved by a
vote of 4-0-0 the resolution declaring May 10, 2005 as Kerr County Law Day.
ORDER NO. 29165
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE AGREEMENT
UNITED OF OMAHA LIFE INSUCANCE COMPANY
Came to be heard this the 9`h day of May 2005, with a motion made by Commissioner
Nicholson, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court unanimously approved by a
vote of 4-0-0 the contract of Administrative Service Agreement between Kerr County and
United of Omaha Life Insurance Company and Health Reimbarsement Account
Administration in connection with Employee Benefits Program.
ORDER N0.29166
AIRPORT BOARD
Came to be heard this the 9~' day of May 2005, with a motion made by Commissioner
Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court unanimously approved by a vote
of 4-0-0 to appoint Roger Bobertz for an at-large position on the Kerrville/Ken• County
Airport Board.
ORDER N0.29167
Claims and Accounts
On this the 9th day of May 2005, came to be considered by the Court various
Commissioners Precincts, which said Claims and Accounts aze:
10- General	$99,281.67
14- Fire Protection	$10,416.67
15-Road & Bridge	$68,932.90
19- City Library	$26,944.08
60-Indigent health care	$29,931.68
76-Juvenile Detention	$4,283.68
Total of all Accounts $239,790.68
Upon motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Nicholson. The
Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to pay the claims and accounts.
ORDER NO. 29168
BUDGET AMENDMENT
Non-Departmental
Came to be heard this the 9c' day of May 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
Increase/QDecrease
10-409-404 Pauper Burial $579.00
10-409-401 Autopsy & Inquest ($579.00)
ORDER NO. 29169
BUDGET AMENDMENT
AG BARN FACILITIES
Came to be heard this the 9`h day of May 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
Increase/QDecrease
10-666-309 Postage $50.00
10-666-310 Office Supplies ($50.00)
ORDER NO. 29170
BUDGET AMENDMENT
COUNTY JAIL
Came to be heard this the 9`" day of May 2005 with a motion made by Commissioner
Williams, 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
Increase/()Decrease
10-512-310 Office Supplies $434.23
10-512-453 radio repairs $62.87
10-512-104 jailer salaries ($487.10)
ORDER NO. 29171
BUDGET AMENDMENT
COUNTY TREASURER
Came to be heard this the 9~' day of May 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
Increase/()Decrease
10-497-206 Bonds & Insurance $50.00
10-497-216 Employee Training ($50.00)
ORDER N0.29172
BUDGET AMENDMENT
RECORDS MANAGEMENT
Came to be heard this the 9~' day of May 2005 with a motion made by Commissioner
Williams, 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
Increase/()Decrease
10-404-569 Operating Equipment $2,700.00
10-404-457 Maintenance Contracts ($2,700.00)
28-635-469 Operating Equipment $2,000.00
28-635-412 Microfilm Expense ($2,000.00)
ORDER NO. 29173
MONTHLY REPORTS
Came to be heard this the 9`h day of May 2005 with a motion made by Commissioner
Letz, Seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously approved by a vote
of 4-0-0 the following monthly reports:
Sheriff s Department
County Clerk March Amended Report
County Clerk
Constable, Precinct 1
Justice of the Peace #1, 2, & 3