1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT
Special Session
Monday, May 23, 2005
9:00 a.m.
Commissioners' Courtroom
Kerr County Courthouse
Kerrville, Texas
PRESENT: PAT TINLEY, Kerr County Judge
H.A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1
WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2
JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3
DAVE NICHOLSON, Commissioner Pct. 4
~I
2
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
I N D E X
May 23, 2005
--- Visitors' Input
--- Commissioners' Comments
1.1 Consider, discuss and approval of resolutiop
opposing the Trans Texas Corridor ~~/~
1.2 Award Bank Depository Bid ~c~/i/5'
1.3 Consider and discuss approval of resolution
adopting National Incident Management System 29/~O
1.4 Consider and discuss advertising and/or soliciting
proposals or bids for county long distance 2/77
telephone service
1.5 Consider and discuss implementing a moratorium
on new employments to the Kerr County payroll ~9/~8
1.6 Receive and open bids on Kerrville South
Wastewater Project, Phases II and III z 9/79
1.7 Consider and discuss design and construction of
parallel taxiway at City of Kerrville/Kerr ~ ~rTty
Airport /
1.8 Report on Juvenile Detention Facility salaries
1.9 Discuss and consider authorizing the sale of the
Kerr County Juvenile Detention Facility ~,~J/~/
4.1 Pay Bills z9/~z
4.2 Budget Amendments x,`7/6'3- 2>/a'7
4.3 Late Bills ?i9/P8
5.1 Reports from Commissioners/Liaison Committee
Assignments
4.4 Approve and Accept Monthly Reports ,Z 9/c~1
--- Adjourned
PAGE
3
16
19
30
37
38
41
56
58
69
81
101
109
120
120
125
126
.~


u
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
On Monday, May 23, 2005, at 9:00 a.m., a special meeting
of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in the
Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, Kerrville,
Texas, and the following proceedings were had in open court:
P R O C E E D I N G S
DODGE TINLEY: Good morning, ladies and
gentlemen. Let me call to order this regularly scheduled
meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court scheduled for
this date and time, Monday, May 23rd, 2005, at 9 a.m. My
good friend, Reverend Al Shults, is with us this morning,
and I'd ask him to come forward and lead us in a word of
prayer.
(Prayer and pledge of allegiance.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. At this time, if
there's my member of the audience or the public that wishes
to come forward and speak or bring matters to our attention
that do not relate to matters that are listed as agenda
items, you're free do so at this time. If you wish to speak
on an agenda item, we'd ask that you wait until that agenda
item is called, and we would prefer that you fill out a
participation form in the back of the room. It's not
essential, but it helps me to be sure that I don't miss you
when that item does come up. But if there's any member of
the public or the audience that wishes to speak on a matter
that's not a listed agenda item, please come forward at this
s-z3-os
a
i
L
9
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
time. Yes, sir? The Sheriff.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, this is not what I
wanted to bring to the Court at any time during the rest of
my terms in office, but we are at now a critical point in
the jail, and I think it's time -- the Court's going to have
to seriously look at expansion of the jail. We've been
running between 185 and 193 all weekend. The ones that are
in there are	not getting out.	These	are	violation	of
probations --	just the first	three on	our	26-page	list is
immigration violation, aggravated sexual assault; this is
one person with a $250,000 bond. Second one on the list is
violation of probation, aggravated assault with a deadly
weapon, no bond. Third one is violation of probation,
manslaughter, and violation of probation, controlled
substances. These people aren't getting out. It's no
longer our misdemeanors. There is a Grand Jury in session
right now that has between 60 and 70 cases before it today,
and we have an investigation that's probably going to put
another 30 in in the next few months, and it's just
constantly going up. It's violent people. I've got every
separation cell full, and I have no way of classifying.
We've sent back all the out-of-countys, and it's not going
to get any better. I've looked at it all weekend, seeing
what type of charges, whether some of these could get out,
be on bond. They don't need to be on bond. It's just --
5-23-OS
S
7
L
u
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
you know, I'm the last one to say I want a bigger jail or
have to have more employees in the future, but we're at the
point this Court and the County needs to seriously look at
the expansion of the jail.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I'm going to
consider this a report from an elected official so we can
have conversation.
JUDGE TINLEY: You may.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. Rusty, are
any of those people out there -- are they ready to go to
T.D.C.?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: T.D.C. inmates are not
our problem. Once they get sentenced to T.D.C., if they're
paper-ready, T.D.C. has 45 days to accept them. We don't
have any problem getting our inmates in T.D.C.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Are we still
having the same problem that you mentioned a couple of
months ago about getting them through the court system?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that the problem?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That is part of it, but
a lot of these people are no-bonds to begin with. You know,
this one here, the immigration hold and aggravated sexual
assault of a child with $250,000 bond, has been in jail 231
days. He's still waiting to go to court on the aggravated
s-z3-os
ti
L

E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
sexual assault of a child. But then you have another one,
violation of probation, aggravated assault with deadly
weapon, he's only been in jail 13 days. He's going to be
there a long time. The violation of probation,
manslaughter, and violation of probation, possession of
controlled substance -- that's all one person -- only been
in jail 27 days. These people are just starting. We're
just -- I mean, it's really at the point to where I don't
even see the courts being able to speed up much any more to
get a lot of these out. We're just -- we have gone through
most of ours that are misdemeanors that you can actually let
out and can get out on bond or -- or that aren't a danger to
the public, and now we're at the point where the people we
have in jail need to be in jail.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, that's what
they're for.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And need to be locked
up. And it's just constantly going up.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The 195 that you have
in there, how many -- that's -- that's a pretty good bit
over the -- the safety number from the state.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We have 192 beds. For
me to be in -- not necessarily totally in compliance, but in
recommendation of what jail standards says so that you can
appropriately classify, we should not be over 153.
5-23-OS


c
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And you have 195?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, right this
morning, we have 186.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 186. How many of
those are out-of-county?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: None.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Zero? You kicked all
the other counties out?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I've kicked them out.
There may have been one left this morning from Bandera, and
I told them to call them and come get him, but that's it.
These are our folks.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's the breakdown,
Sheriff, between male and female prisoners?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I've got 161 males and
25 females this morning. I'm out of female space. The most
we have is 32, even if you ended all classification and just
filled every bed you've got.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What do you do in a
situation when you are, in effect, over capacity?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We try the best we can
at trying to get them classified in a manner that we don't
have too many fights among inmates. But, yeah, discipline
problems go up, everything goes up, because it does get very
tedious. Stress on jailers go up, everything, 'cause we --
5-23-OS
R

e
E
c
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
we do real well on that. My problem is also -- is that I've
got, like, 18 separation cells, but because of disciplinary
problems or because of classification, every single one of
them are full. I have no place to put --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Sheriff, if this
turns out to be a long-term issue, what's the alternative to
building more jail space?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: There isn't.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, you can house them
in other jails.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That would be the only
alternative. And most of the other jails are anywhere from
at least $37 to $50 a day. And the way this is going, it
would not surprise me one bit if, before the summer's out,
this county is not having to house out of county.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That what?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That we're not having to
house inmates out of county.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Sheriff, a few
months ago, you -- you looked into the feasibility of using
all or part of the Juvenile Detention Facility for -- as a
jail. Is that -- can that be done?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Not without some very
major remodeling right now, the way it is. There is a bill
before the Legislature; I don't know whether it will pass --
5-23-OS
Q
I kind of doubt that it will -- that would cut down on the
F
i
8
c
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
square footage and bed size that has to be in adult jails.
If that passed, then there would be a possibility of being
able to use some of that other facility. You've still got a
problem of keeping, you know, the kids and -- juveniles and
adults separated, and then you got transport, food back and
forth, and all the other costs that would go along with it,
but that's a possibility. The way our jail was built, it
was built so that it could be expanded backwards, out the
back of the jail, without shutting down any part of the
jail. But what I'm bringing to y'all today is --
unfortunately, we've talked about it in the past. We've hit
some close ones. I just don't see this going down, and I
see us staying where we are. And I think it's time this
County's going to have to seriously look at adding beds to
our adult facility.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's the county inmate
population statewide? Are jails all maxing out?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I really couldn't tell
you. 1 don't feel they are, 'cause we haven't been having
to house as many as we normally did for Bandera. But, you
know, I couldn't tell you there; I haven't looked into that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that would be
something to -- that will be -- I don't know if they keep
that type of statistic, but it would be very helpful, I
5-23-05
in
E
c
1C
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
~ think, if we could find out how -- not T.D.C. jails, but
' county jails, what their capacity is statewide. I'd hate to
get in a situation where we end up with a whole lot more
capacity statewide than we need, which is kind of what
happened at the Juvenile Detention Facility. And -- and I
think we should kind of balance, you know, what the county
needs are. But -- you know, for --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: From what I have seen,
Commissioner, if we add on to the facility, I'm not adding
on 200 beds or, you know, double the size, but I think we're
going to have to add on, and at that point, I know
Fredericksburg is still housing a whole bunch out of county.
You know, other ones still are that are close; Kendall
County's doing some. I don't think we'd have the problem of
-- of filling it. But, to be perfectly honest, I'm not
sure, even if we added on 96 beds, okay, that we could house
very many out-of-county inmates any more. I think we're --
this County's at the point -- and the violation of
probations, you know, and a lot of these people that are on
violation of probation, this isn't the first time they've
violated it, so they've already been in there, you know,
three or four times before for violation of probation and
got reinstated, and now it's coming to the point where we're
just in a critical situation.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What does the -- in your
5-23-OS
11
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
opinion, anyway -- the judicial side need to do to get them
through the system quicker? Is it more judges? Or, I mean,
where do we need the -- the help?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, this county has --
and because of the makeup of the districts, okay, we are
overlapping. We actually do get more court days than
Fredericksburg or Boerne or Junction, because we have the
two district courts here. But, personally, you know, Kerr
County needs its own district to where they can run the
court and/or maybe its own criminal district court to where
they can run court three or four, at least, days a week, and
get these people through the court system. But then you
have -- it's a systemic deal. It goes back to we only have
a certain pool of -- of defense attorneys in this county,
okay? And half of them even come from San Antonio, but
they'll all have cases in other counties and other courts,
so the court dates don't work. And we've worked this
problem for forever, and it's just -- how do you get these
people through the system quicker? And I'm not sure there's
any way.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How many court dates do
we average a week for criminal cases in this county?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: One to two.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: One to two per week?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Mm-hmm. Now,
5-23-OS
12
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
misdemeanor court, County Court at Law does have court every
single Tuesday.
COMMISSIONER LETZ:
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER:
courts are the ones, you know, I'm
may be one to two days.
COMMISSIONER LETZ:
we're talking about district court
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER:
Right.
Okay?
really
Almost
corre
Yes.
And your district
looking at, which
all these inmates,
ct?
Most of these are
felony cases.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But there's -- I mean, it
seems that --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I've heard things like,
"Well, let's set them bonds that they can get out," or Let's
do this. But, you know, a lot of these are bond
forfeitures, failure to appears. That's what starts
happening at that point. They're issuing -- you know, some
of the misdemeanors, even a lot of them now, are getting
P.R. bonds, and then they don't show up for court. I think
your County Clerk can attest to that. And it's at the
point -- I keep a little bitty deal underneath my glass on
my table, been there ever since I got in law enforcement,
cut out of the newspaper, and it says, "Criminals deserve to
be looked up in jails. Citizens don't deserve to be locked
up in their homes." And I've always believed in that, and
5-23-OS
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
~19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that's where they need to be. But we're at the point,
gentlemen, where I can't do any more.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It seems to me that
the -- I mean, we may need to add onto the jail either way,
but that the solution is much more on the judicial side,
whether we really get with the judges here and Harvey and
Troy Fraser and try to get something in the Legislature next
time to realign the districts, or -- I guess it would take
legislation -- or whether we need to get another judge here,
something. 'Cause if we can't --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Even if it's on the
judicial side -- you know, it hasn't happened, and they said
it was going to, so we've been keeping our fingers crossed,
where they're at. Right at the first of the year, what we
were being told and told is to get ready, because T.D.C. was
going to have to shut their doors, 'cause they're getting
overcrowded. So they're going up, okay, their populations
are. Which means once they do get to the point that they
have to shut their doors, you know, these county jails,
especially ours, we're going to stack up in a --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But from a funding
standpoint, does the State not, after that 45 days -- last
time it happened, don't they start picking up the cost?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: They start picking up
the cost, but that doesn't help your crowding.
5-23-OS
14
1
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: No, doesn't help your
crowding, but it helps the local taxpayers if we can get
them through the judicial side. I'd rather make it T.D.C.'s
problem than our problem.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: As long as we run the
building, though, we're going to have to look at expanding.
Even if T.D.C. reimburses, which they could and would have
to, we're still going to have to do something with the
building.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I -- yeah, I
don't have any --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: They need the bed space,
and we're out of it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sheriff, do your
average monthly statistics support this overload you're
reporting today? Or --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- what do they show?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Average monthly
statistics, we are booking in -- it's well over 300 a month
going in and out of that jail. They get out all the
misdemeanors that can be gotten out. The ones that can't
end up getting housed. It's gone nothing but up. At one
point, you know, during last year, we were at, I think,
about -- the lowest we've gotten down to is about 135, 138.
5-23-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
15
But it has gradually -- you know, at one point already,
three years ago, two years ago, our jail did hit 208, and
now we're going to hit that again, in my opinion. And after
we start hitting it that many times, the population isn't
going to drop very low after that. We're just at the point
where it's -- it's increased. And it's -- I don't see it --
the Grand Jury lists are getting longer and longer; every
month more and more felony cases are going to Grand Jury.
You know, more and more people getting incarcerated. It's
just -- it's a problem that we're going to have to look at,
and I don't know the solution to it any more. We've
tried -- we've tried to push -- move them out.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think it's up to
you, though, to initiate a plan of some sort. I mean, --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- as you well know,
this is a long, drawn-out process.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Very long. I think, at
this point, I need guidance from the Court whether -- does
the Court want to go ahead and start getting an architecture
or something, and look at -- at getting an idea of how the
expansion would take place and the costs of the expansion?
Is it something the County's going to want to do a bond
issue over, or how much do we want to expand? But I think
we're at the point where some -- some serious legwork and
5-23-OS
16
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
some serious looking --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sounds like a workshop
to me.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: -- need to be done.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Does to me, too.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can we do it without
architects and lawyers?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I would hope so. But I
just -- y'all need to know. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Sheriff. Is there
any member of the public that wishes to be heard on any
matter that is not a listed agenda item? Seeing no one else
to come forward, let's get on with the agenda.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What about Commissioners'
Comments?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, I apologize for that.
Thank you for reminding me, Commissioner. Commissioner 1,
what do you got for us?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have nothing.
JUDGE TINLEY: See? I hope you've got a boat
load over here. Two?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What can you say
after the Sheriff tells us all this? Nothing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I do have two comments.
First, when we were talking about the jail, I thought of
5-23-OS
17
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
another jail-related item. I've been meeting -- or met with
the Sheriff a couple times, and we were talking. One of the
things that's needed out there is fencing around the jail.
going on at the airport. I've talked with the contractor
that's doing the airport job, and the fencing is under -- he
owns it as part of the contract, 'cause we didn't foresee a
need at that time. But I talked with the contractor, and
he, it appears, is going to donate somewhere between 3,500
and 4,500 linear feet of fencing to the County, the old
8-foot fencing that will all be replaced along Highway 27,
and with that will come as many posts as are salvageable
when they take it apart, and that should be coming online
fairly soon.
I think the Sheriff's plan is to use inmates
will	be some expenditures; obviously,	some	parts will	need
to be	purchased, but I think it'll be	a --	certainly,	a huge
cost savings to the County by going this route, by using
that old fencing. And the other reason, one of the
really -- I think really important reasons is -- the
overcrowding even makes it more so, but if you've been out
to the jail recently, there's a lot of development going on
around there. It used to be kind of secluded. And I really
think it's a potential real problem to have open access to
5-23-OS

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
18
that whole property, and I'd like to fence as much of it as
possible. I think the other advantage to that is that it
gives Rusty a way to put inmates out doing some manual labor
at the jail; mowing it, you know, possibly a garden, some
other things possibly, which I think helps with his -- with
the crowding, the population problems that he's having. I
think it helps to get them out doing something, as opposed
to sitting in cells all day. So, anyway, a couple benefits
from that, but I'll report more on that as we get the
fencing.
The other item is, I think everyone probably
received an e-mail or will get a copy of it from Kathy; I
just wanted to put it on everyone's calendar. I scheduled a
floodplain workshop for Tuesday, July 12th, at 1:30 in the
afternoon. I think there's a lot going on with the
floodplain that I certainly don't know really what the rules
are. And I asked Truby to set something up. We looked at
some June dates, but that really -- that's too soon, so I
said mid-July is a good time probably for that, and she has
scheduled Mike Howard with TexDOT to come in and give us a
workshop on floodplain administration. That's it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Commissioner 4?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I have nothing,
Judge.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have one quickie,
5-23-OS

19
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
Judge.
JODGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just -- I want to
give congratulations to Councilman Gene Smith back there on
his selection as mayor pro-tem of the city of Kerrville, and
we look forward to working with you and your colleagues on
City Council.
MR. SMITH: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Now we can get on with
the agenda. First item is consider and discuss approval of
a resolution opposing the Trans Texas Corridor.
Commissioner Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, sir.
Gentlemen, you remember this was before us a couple of
months ago, and we had this huge presentation and lots of
discussion, and we just failed to take care of the
resolution, and I apologize for not getting that done. I
should have recognized it and gotten it done that day, but
things happen, and it just slipped by us. So, I move we
approve this resolution in opposition to the Trans Texas
Corridor program.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item. Any question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have one comment.
5-23-OS
20

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Questions and comments,
both.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Just one minor one.
The last Whereas, it says "...such an immense project could
negatively impact the most precious resource that this state
has." Which is?
JUDGE TINLEY: Water.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Water.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Water.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Water, property, land,
birds, trees.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: My second one is a
little more general -- philosophical. I don't oppose the --
a Trans Texas Corridor. I think our interstate highway
system is overburdened and it needs help. It's dangerous
and crowded. And some of you older people will remember
back in the 50's, when the Eisenhower system was created, we
heard these -- which is the interstate highway system -- we
heard these exact same things. And the benefits of the
interstate highway system are very clear. There's numerous
reasons it's beneficial. My objection to this is the scale
of it, this quarter-mile wide, the -- the what appears to be
selling or giving away commercial opportunities in that
quarter-mile-wide stretch. So, what I'm saying is, I think
we need a Trans Texas Corridor, and this is way beyond the
5-23-OS
21

scope of anything that is needed. So, I oppose it as -- as
proposed, but I don't oppose the concept of needing a Trans
Texas Corridor.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2C
21
2~
2~
z~
2`
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the comment that
I have is very similar, and I've talked to -- actually, I
didn't know Commissioner Baldwin was putting this on the
agenda, 'cause Sharon Spenrath and I were working on a
different resolution that was going to be on the agenda next
time. But, anyway, Sharon may know; that's who brought this
to us originally. My problems are basically the same. I
think parts of the corridor are very much needed. I think
that the -- especially around the San Antonio to the Austin
area; they have a huge transportation problem in that area,
probably going all the way up to Dallas. 95 -- I think
there's some problems on, like, 95 as well. I think there's
a 59 increase, kind of the one that goes -- or 69; I guess
they call it I-69, which goes from Laredo to Houston, kind
of. That's probably needed. I think the scale is -- is
ridiculous. I don't know why they came up with the scale
like they did. I think the other part of this -- I mean,
the rail system, I don't understand the need for four --
three or four rail lines in any transportation system. I
think one freight line, possibly, but I can not envision
transfer -- passenger or rail service ever taking off in
this state.
5-23-OS
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1°
2C
21
2c
2~
2~
2`
The other good part about it is that there's
-- a lot of the presentation was against water. Well,
another good part of this is water. I mean, there are plans
to build desalinization plants along the coast, and there's
no way to get that water inland unless you have a corridor.
So, I mean, there's a lot of good things and bad things that
were proposed in this. And I really don't have any idea
what House Bill 3588 says. I mean, I -- I'll go along with
the resolution, basically, and be done with it, but I
generally don't like passing a resolution against a bill
that I don't know what the bill is. It wasn't attached.
But my main comment would be just to add a few words at the
end of the "Therefore," what it says. Add the words, "as it
is currently proposed."
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That would satisfy
my concerns.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because I think there are
some good points with it. I don't want to totally get
against it, but I think the way it is currently is bad, so I
would just add, "as is currently proposed," and be done with
it.
JUDGE TINLEY: You had some comments,
Commissioner Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, I do, and I
offer -- I would probably offer another correction as well.
5-23-OS
23

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I support the one that you're talking about. I think
Commissioner 4's comments are -- are quite appropriate. It
is an overreach. It is particularly an overreach on the
I-10 corridor -- the improvement of the I-10 corridor. I
was out at the TexDOT regional meeting in which the district
director -- district engineer revealed the initial layout
and plans for the north-south corridor, and that's the one
probably that will contain the water pipelines that would
come up from the Gulf of Mexico. And it is an ambitious --
really an ambitious undertaking, as currently proposed. And
there is a good -- as you can well imagine, there is a good
bit of resistance in some counties; not all, but some
counties, where the proposed north Texas corridor dissects
the state north to south.
So, when they finished with that
presentation, I requested -- asked him to tell me, you know,
about the east-west corridor, and his comment back to me was
that their -- the plans for the east-west corridor, which
would be the improvement of I-10, or something akin to I-10
or adjacent to I-10, are years -- his quote, "years and
years away." And so, you know, that sounds reasonable. It
may assuage some fears, but nonetheless, it probably is
still on the drawing board, but not to the point like the
north-south corridor is at this point. What he didn't tell
me, however, was that there appears to be an alternate
5-23-OS
24
1
i ~.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2?
29
2_`
plan -- and Commissioner Baldwin and I talked to one of your
constituents, Commissioner, who showed us an original
schematic of -- layout of the proposed corridor, and there
is -- there is another corridor which is proposed which
would just about disect Kerr County in half, and it picks up
at the -- somewhere near the Gillespie County line and cuts
straight down through Kerr County, the purpose of which is
to take that flow -- east-west flow that is wanting to go
south or north and take it around San Antonio, and so it
would intersect with I-35 somewhere below San Antonio.
That one is the one that gives me a lot of
pause for concern, because it truly does cut Kerr County in
half, and I don't think that, in this particular plan, a lot
of thought has been given thus far to property rights, the
overreaching of the quarter-mile-wide corridor, all the
things that go with that. So, when I see the district
engineer again this weekend, I'll -- and this week, I'll ask
him where that one stands, because they didn't talk to me
about that one. But I would offer a couple other comments
too, Commissioner. On that last "Whereas," it doesn't have
a subject. We believe that such an immense project could
negatively impact Texas' most precious resource, which is --
such as water, and let's at least put a subject there. And
then I support the -- the one that Commissioner Letz also
brought to the table.
5-23-OS
25
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2C
21
2c
2~
2L
2`
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would rather add "water
and property rights."
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All right, add
property rights. Water and property rights. That's fine.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What about birds and
snails? No, I'm joking.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Water and property
rights. That's fine, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All I know is that we
-- we need to oppose this thing. This is the largest taking
of private property in the history of this state, and it
just smacks of communism and everything. I just can't
believe that people are sitting around watching this thing
go through. It is absolutely incredible. And it's -- and
Bill -- House Bill 3588, if they take city or county
property, there is no compensation. They pay you nothing.
They just take it and go right on through. It is the most
incredible thing I've ever seen.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what 3588
says?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, no compensation
for --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: For government-owned
property.
5-23-OS
rr ~~ _ w ~ ~+ _._.
26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1°.
2C
21
2<'
2~
2~
2`
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What -- I mean, 3588 was
passed. According to the resolution, what is it -- did our
Representative vote for it?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know.
Don't -- that's not my job.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just -- I don't know
what 3588 says, or what else it says.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's huge. Most of it
-- or a lot of it was presented to us in here; that's what
all that presentation was about, was that bill.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I've looked at the --
I've went to their web site, and a lot of what they said
was --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Maybes and ifs and --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, maybe. I would not
say that that was -- it was a -- when I read it, I didn't
come up with the same -- a lot of the same information that
they came up with.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the property
rights issues, the road part, the first part -- I can't
remember which one was the first part. The part about the
roads, the widths and all that, schematics, I saw. I didn't
see a lot of the other information they talked about, but --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I agree.
5-23-OS
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2c
2~
2~
2`
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the other -- well,
actually, I mean, I don't think we need to work -- I had
written another "therefore" clause originally, and I don't
think we need to add it unless there's a lot of agreement by
the other Commissioners to do it, and it was something along
the lines that, "And further, be it resolved that any future
planning for the Trans Texas Corridor be done on a regional
basis with input from local communities and governmental
entities."
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I like that.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I like it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You can add -- you can
add that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They're not going to
read it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're not going to read
it anyway.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We thought of all
those things and all these flowery words and all this, too.
They're not going to read it. And we'll -- I'll be happy to
add that in here; that's fine. All I want Harvey Hilderbran
and TexDOT to see is that this Court opposes this thing.
That's all I care about them seeing. They're not going to
read all this -- these pretty words in here, but we can sure
5-23-OS
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2~
2~
2_
add them.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I just think you
ought to say what you mean.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All right. What do
you want to add?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What I said. I mean, I
said -- I said, "And further, be it resolved that any future
planning for the Trans Texas Corridor be done on a regional
basis with input from local communities and governmental
entities." Now, the reason that I would also caution that
is that it kind of takes away from opposing it, though,
because it's talking about future planning.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, it does.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And, I mean, that's why
I, you know --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. And there's
another move afoot to ask them to do some studies before
they even start, which they're -- I understand their plan,
they've started.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, they've started,
yeah, the first part.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I-35 was started.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We don't have to add
that. I'd just leave it the way it is. I think Buster is
right; they're probably not going to read it to start with.
5-23-OS
29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
2`
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm guessing that
the Legislature, whatever that is, has not handled this very
well. They've created a lot of paranoia that was probably
unnecessary if they had been a little more forthright with
the -- with the citizens.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think it ends up on
the governor's desk, is the -- who we're going to chunk any
rocks at. That's exactly where it goes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's where it
started.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My recommendation is, how
about not adding that last change?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've already X'd it
out.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And then y'all accept the
other two changes?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: "As currently
proposed," and "such as water and property rights."
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's my motion.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any further question or
discussion? All in favor of the motion for the resolution
5-23-US
30
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
as modified, 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 on to Item 2, awarding the bank depository bid. As you
know, we advertised for bids for the County depository for a
four-year term, as required by law, beginning June 1 of this
year. We received one response from Security State Bank and
Trust, which is our current depository, and with whom we've
enjoyed a fairly longstanding relationship. I'm not sure of
the exact total number of years.
MS. NEMEC: I'm going to say probably 13
years.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Good number of years,
to say the least. And they're the only ones that -- that
submitted a bid. The addendum that was attached to the bid,
for some reason, did not end up in the materials which I
have, and it appears that a good -- good portion of that
information is in the addendum. There's continuous
reference to "see addendum, see addendum." Does anybody
have that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I do not have it. I have
the same question. And, really, the only -- I presume the
amendment sets all the fees and basically the fee schedule?
5-23-OS
31
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
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the question I had --
and we only had one bid; I don't know that we have a whole
lot of negotiating room on this, but on -- but on Paragraph
14, when we talk about direct deposit, payroll direct
deposits, it seems to me that that was fairly expensive
under our current contract, and I'm wondering if there's any
relief given, or if it's easier.
MS. NEMEC: I have asked some representatives
from Security State Bank to be here, or they wished to be
here, and so if y'all have any questions for them -- Ava?
Katie? Who wants to --
JUDGE TINLEY: You folks just held an
election to determine who was going to speak, huh? Okay.
MS. JONES: Well, Katie is our cash
management representative, and so she was going to talk a
little bit about the cash management side of it, which would
go into the payroll direct deposit.
MS. DORRIS: The cash management portion of
our Internet banking that we now have is -- the base part of
the fees is $25 a month, and then any transactions that
clear the account will fall under the normal account
analysis that currently you receive on the accounts. Am I
correct? Do they get charged for their analysis? Which is
the per-item items, the per-deposit fees, the per-check
5-23-OS
32
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
fees. But the base part of that fee is just going to be $25
a month.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, on the -- so, for the
employees that choose to use direct deposit, we just pay $25
a month total for that service?
MS. DORRIS: Correct.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We don't pay for each
account -- or each employee, an additional fee?
(MS. Dorris shook her head negatively.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Isn't that better than we
have currently?
MS. NEMEC: I think that's what we had
discussed in the budget workshop. Now, there's another fee
from The Software Group that will be charged, but as far as
the bank, I think we got $25 a month.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Jon, ask them the
question again. They -- they shook their heads. Get them
to say the word "no" for the record. (Laughter.) That's
pretty tricky.
DODGE TINLEY: This would apply only to
employees who are depositors with Security State Bank and
Trust? Is that what I'm hearing?
MS. JONES: No, you can set it up to where it
would be through Wells Fargo, through Bank of America.
5-23-OS
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
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. JONES: Any of those outside of our bank.
JUDGE TINLEY: But you folks have nothing to
do with the software costs that are associated with that?
MS. DORRIS: If you want to continue to use
your current software. Now, I mean, our site is capable of
you being able to set up all of that in our sites, but you
can use the current software that you've got as well.
MS. NEMEC: We're supposed to have a meeting
sometime next week and get together and see how all this
direct deposit will work, and so we'll know more what we're
looking at with the bank. And then I'll get with The
Software Group and see exactly what they provide, and if the
bank provides the same thing for, you know, less, then we
can just do it all through the bank. I'm just not sure at
this point.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Your response would
indicate none of our employees are on direct deposit now.
MS. NEMEC: Not at this time.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it was because it
was expensive. I think we offered it, but I think -- I
mean, it's a direction I would like to see more employees
go.
MS. NEMEC: We approved it during the budget
workshop, and we had just been waiting -- I didn't want to
5-23-OS
34
1

1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
start anything too early, because I knew that we were going
to have to go out for bids, so we were kind of waiting for
this decision to be made and go from there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there a -- a
mechanism -- and you talked about internet commercial
services, which I presume that covers, like, if we wanted to
start getting rid of using so many checks and start doing
just direct transfers?
MS. JONES: Yes.
MS. DORRIS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, like, if we want to,
our Kerrville Telephone bills, we can just set up -- and you
can set it up as bill-pay through the internet?
MS. DORRIS: There is a separate fee for the
bill-pay, and the bill-pay portion is 9.95 a month for up to
20 bills, and then 55 cents per bill over 20.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Original fee schedule
attached. Is somebody in possession of the fee schedule?
MS. PIE PER: I have the original bid.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pardon?
MS. PIEPER: I have the original bid in my
office. Would you like me to go get it?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Really, all I want to
know is, how is it different from what's currently in place?
That's all I want to know.
5-23-OS
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
(Discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tommy -- Tommy?
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Tomlinson? Do you have
any light that you can shed on that for us?
MR. TOMLINSON: I think that the fee schedule
is very much similar to prior years. The -- to be able to
go down the list of fees to compare it, we don't have enough
time, I don't think; there's so many. But --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You answered the
question.
MR. TOMLINSON:
they're much similar in price.
JUDGE TINLEY:
So, in general, they're --
Comparable to what we've had
in the past?
(Mr. Tomlinson nodded.)
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
MS. NEMEC: And I just want to add that we
have had a wonderful working relationship with Security
State Bank. Very personable. And I like it, 'cause you
always see them out at all the community functions, their
employees, and they're just a great bank to be with.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Barbara, at your meeting,
I don't know if you or Tommy -- or could you really look
into just trying to set up more of our payments of our bills
direct? I mean, 'cause 55 cents -- I mean, our -- right now
5-23-OS
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
we're putting a 37-cent stamp on, and that's about to go up,
so it's got to be cheaper for us to do it electronically as
opposed to doing it --
MS. NEMEC: I know. I want to do all our red
checks that we do the 1st of the month -- you know, those
are the same amount, and it's all on the 1st of the month.
And then there's some quarterly payments that come out of my
office that I'd like to set up through them. So --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd like to see us go as
much as we can in that direction, 'cause I think it would be
a big savings over time for the County.
MS. JONES: And in our meeting, we can go
over that as well.
MS. NEMEC: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move approval of the
new depository contract with Security State Bank and Trust.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the award of the depository contract with
Security State Bank and Trust pursuant to the bid submitted
by that institution. 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.
5-23-OS
37
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
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Item
3, consider and discuss approval of resolution adopting
National Incident Management System. I put this on the
agenda. It was forwarded to me by the Emergency Management
people over at the city. Bottom line is, to be eligible for
future federal funding under the Homeland Security
guidelines, this must be adopted.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move approval.
JUDGE TINLEY: Simple enough?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the resolution. Any question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Could we add somewhere
in there that we want to protect birds and water?
JUDGE TINLEY: I think they'd look at that
about like they'd look at it in the corridor.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Only if they're in
highway right-of-way. (Laughter.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or
discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(NO response.)
5-23-US
v
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
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's a good point,
Commissioner Baldwin. And the -- our opposition to Trans
Texas Corridor may be moot, because we'll never get it built
anyhow. Got to protect ruby-throated warbler.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Golden-cheeked --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All you got to do is find
a few salamanders out on Buster's old property out there and
it'll never get built.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's over. We do have
Indian mounds, so it's over.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Only -- the State only
makes the counties worry about Indian mounds; they don't
have to.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move on to Item 4,
consider and discuss advertising and soliciting proposals
for bids for county long distance telephone service. I put
this on the agenda after I received word from the Auditor
that apparently our long distance service has been switched
by our current carrier, something's happened to it that
makes it considerably more onerous. I'll let him give us
the explanation.
MR. TOMLINSON: The primary carrier is still
Valor, but the last -- the last bill that we received,
billing from them was 360-some-odd pages long. And we -- as
5-23-OS
~Q
L

E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
you know, the County has what we call PAC codes for -- for
long distance service to where you have to dial in your
personal code to -- for long distance so that we have a way
to charge each department for their usage. This -- this is
a constant problem with -- with our current carrier. So, I
-- we've been in contact with -- with another carrier, just
to see what is available, and I believe that there's -- that
there's a better mousetrap out there. We -- we just can't
get any satisfaction in trying to deal with -- with them
over this PAC code issue. You can imagine how long it took
one of my clerks to go through a bill of that size. You
know, I mean, it -- I mean, it was just -- it was a mound of
paperwork, and we just can't spend that much time on -- on a
billing from one -- you know, one vendor. So -- and besides
that, they -- for some unknown reason, they changed our
rates from -- I think it was 17 -- from 7 cents a minute to
14, and so far we have not been able to get an answer from
them as to why. I mean, they've promised us that -- that an
answer is forthcoming, so whether that happens or not, we'll
have --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tommy, is it -- we're
talking telephone -- Kerrville Telephone Company?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes -- well, it's Valor.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I understand.
But I just wanted to say that in prior years, when these
s-z3-os
nn
1 kind of issues came up, I -- I've always been protective of
? our local telephone company because it was locally owned,
3 and when we ask questions, we could get answers that day.
E But that is no longer, and I'm no longer here to protect
~ them. I think you need to get the best deal for Kerr
County.
f
c
1C
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, they may resolve the
rate issue; I don't know. I can't tell you that they will.
But the -- the accounting part of the issue is -- is to the
-- at the moment, I don't think it will be resolved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Tommy, when they give you
this on your -- the bill, they don't have it broken out by
department? They can't sort it for you automatically?
MR. TOMLINSON: Half of the -- the PAC codes
are wrong. I mean, they -- there are PAC codes that -- that
they have on their record that we've never even authorized.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move approval of the
request.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to
advertise for proposals for bids for county long distance
telephone service. 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.
5-23-OS
41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
15
2C
27
2L
2;
2~
2`
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Let's
move to Item 5, consider and discuss implementing a
moratorium on new employments to Kerr County payroll.
Commissioner Nicholson?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Judge, we've --
we've seen that in pure comparison studies, that Kerr County
is relatively expensive compared to our peer counties, and
there's a high probability that -- that some of that
expensiveness is due to staffing. Probably the biggest bill
we have in the county budget is -- is personnel costs. We
also see -- at least I think we do -- that this budget's
going to be a very difficult one. It was going to be very
difficult before the Sheriff came in this morning with the
bad news that he brought about -- about the jail, and I
think we're going to have a hard time financing the county
operations we have now. I think it would be prudent that we
impose a hiring ban between now and October the 1st so that
if we determine that we are unable to fund all of the
positions we have in county government now, that -- that the
hiring ban could produce an opportunity to right-size while
avoiding layoffs and the unpleasantness that's connected
with that. So, I want to move that we impose a hiring ban
on all positions except uniformed deputies, jailers, and
positions in the Juvenile Detention Center that are -- that
5-23-OS
42
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
l~
2C
27
2~
2`
2<
2'
are mandated by law.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Commissioner, you
used the word "ban." Do you mean ban, or do you mean
freeze?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Freeze. That
there'll be no hirings between now and October 1. It would
allow internal transfers; if somebody has an open clerical
position and needs to fill it, and can do that by transfer
of a current employee without a new hire, then that would be
acceptable. The idea is to get in a position between now
and October lst that will give us some flexibility in
determining what is the right level of staffing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm going to -- so we can
move on in the discussion, I know there's some elected
officials; I anticipate there may be some comments. I want
to second the motion so someone can start discussing it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I would think that --
I like what you're talking about, but I think there's some,
probably, legal questions there of the budget that we're
under today that we've already approved. I just don't know
that we can go back to an elected official and take that
money back. I mean, I don't know. I think -- I just think
that's a good question.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah, it is.
Certainly, that's a good question, Commissioner. And if --
5-23-"v5
43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
l~
2C
2]
2~
2;
2~
2!
if everybody in Kerr County government, elected officials
and other department heads, are committed to trying to deal
with --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- our cost issues,
then it would be a moot issue.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I promised the
County Attorney I wouldn't practice law, but I have -- I
have looked up and seen whether other counties have done
this, and I think the County Attorney might say that the
Attorney General is okay with it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand where
you're coming from, and I don't disagree with where you're
coming from, 'cause I think we are going to have a difficult
budget, and we need to start working on that aspect of it.
You know, and certainly our employee group is the largest
single element of that budget. I'm wondering, however --
and the County Attorney is sitting back there listening.
I'm wondering whether or not this is -- could be construed
as an infringement on the prerogative of other elected
officials to run their departments as they are
constitutionally required to do, so I'm directing that
question to you, Mr. County Attorney.
MR. EMERSON: I think the answer to that is
5-23-OS
44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1~
2C
27
2~
2;
2~
2'
that the Commissioners are responsible for the physical
assets of the county, and as such, are allowed to dictate
positions, so long as they do not interfere with the elected
official's ability to do their constitutional duties. Prime
example, I would say, of that would be if -- and I don't
mean to pick on Paula; I'm just picking a position, okay?
MS. RECTOR: Go ahead.
MR. EMERSON: If you have four people
dispensing license plates and one person quits, the job
could probably still be done with three. Now, would it be a
little more inconvenient to the public? Yes. But could she
still do her constitutional duty in that? Well, probably,
but you'd have to consult with Paula. Now, you can't -- if
all four people quit, you couldn't say, well, we're just not
going to do license plates any more.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the other -- the
comment that I'd like to make -- and I would like to hear
from some of the elected officials, what their feelings are
on this; I see four of them in here -- five of them with the
County Attorney. But my comment is that -- and I was going
to put it on our next agenda, and still plan to -- is that
we have spent a tremendous amount of money on technology in
the last eight years that I've been a Commissioner, and
the -- the whole concept of doing that was really -- I mean,
the attempt to modernize this county was that it would lead
5-23-OS
45
	1
	2

I	3
1
t	
4
	5
	6
	
	8
1	
9
	10
	
	11
1	
12
~ •--	13
	19
	15
	lE
	1.
	lE
	1~
	2(
	2:
	2:
	2.
'~ 2
2
to savings on the employment side, that there's -- you could
do things more efficiently. I think we now have staff, with
Mr. Trolinger, someone who is capable of talking and meeting
with each department head and seeing if there is a better
way to build that mousetrap for that department, whether
it's in, say, you know, Barbara's office, for example, with
checks and what we're talking about a little bit with our
new banking contract, and having to keep track of employee
hours and things of that nature, things that I don't know
anything about, and I don't think it's my job to -- I don't
want to meddle into their department.
But I think that John Trolinger has such a
great knowledge of technology that he can meet with the
department heads and elected officials and go over and see
if there is isn't something that could really be done to
make some savings. And I -- you know, I don't know that we
have to have a motion and court order to do that, but I am
going to put it on the next agenda so we can discuss that
with Mr. Trolinger, 'cause I think that really goes
hand-in-hand with what Commissioner Nicholson's looking at.
And I think that we also need to -- if -- you know, and
hopefully elected officials will be open to meeting with Mr.
Trolinger about that. And during the budget process, I hope
we have input on that discussion and really look at some of
our personnel issues, because I think that we -- we have
5-23-OS
46
done a lot in recent years to try to improve the salary
level of most of our employees to make this a more
competitive work environment from a salary standpoint.
We've spent a lot on technology, and I just think we need to
look at the other issue, the staffing levels a little more
seriously. I don't think we are necessarily overstaffed
significantly. I think there's a lot of things different in
our county from some of the other counties that Commissioner
Nicholson has compared us to, but I think his numbers
clearly mean that we need to look at that very closely this
year. I think during the budget process, we should really
attempt to do that. So, does --
JUDGE TINLEY: Does any elected official have
any -- yes ma'am?
MS. RECTOR: I have a question and a comment.
With the situation right now, I have just hired another
employee who is not due to start until the 6th. And, as you
all know, I've had a pretty big turnover in my office,
because the workload is tremendous. In 28 years that I've
i been here, I have one additional employee in 28 years, and I
think that says a lot for my office, that we work very
' diligently in trying to keep our staff down, to keep -- keep
3 the customers happy. Because, you know, we deal with the
1 largest amount of the public than any other office in this
~ county, and bring in the largest amount of money. But not
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
1_
1F
1"
1£
1!
2(
2
2.
2
2
2
5-23-OS
47
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
lE
li
lE
l~
2(
2:
2:
2:
2
2
only do I collect for Kerr County, but I collect taxes for
City of Kerrville, City of Ingram, U.G.R.A., Headwaters,
school districts that pay a percentage for me to collect
their taxes, which is way more than what my office costs to
run, as well as the TexDOT side with vehicle title and
registration. My office pretty well pays for itself. But
-- and my question is, since my employee has not started, he
was just hired, is this going to freeze that where I'm not
eligible to hire him, since he has already given his two
weeks notice at his previous job?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My feeling would be that
this person -- you have a commitment to that employee.
MS. RECTOR: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ:
MS. RECTOR: Okay.
staffing will remain the same. Any
that I lose another employee, it's
the employees that I have with the
Or future employee.
And hopefully the -- my
i -- but if it does happen
hard enough to work with
workload that we have.
My Ingram office has just tripled in the amount of traffic
that comes through there. My clerk out there did over a
million dollars in business last year, and that's a lot for
the west end of the county. So --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think a lot of what
you're saying, I think you -- I think it probably goes for,
you know, the District Clerk, County -- every office. We
5-23-OS
48

need to know potentially, you know, more about each office
and the study, and meet with Mr. Trolinger and see if
there's something you can improve on. There may not be any
way; you may be doing the most high-tech office that there
is, efficient. The fact that you collect taxes for all
these other entities may be very different than the survey
that he showed. But, anyway, some of that's information
that we need to get, 'cause I think -- just think that we're
-- we owe the taxpayers a really close look at our staffing
levels.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
1`_
1F
1"
1£
1'
2
2
2
2
2
2
MS. RECTOR: I agree.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Ms. Rector. Do you
have anything, Ms. Uecker?
MS. UECKER: Well --
JUDGE TINLEY: Never at a loss for words.
MS. UECKER: Never at a loss for words.
Well, I think, first of all, that, you know, the data that
technology can produce is only as good as the person that
~ puts it in there. And I think the fact that, for instance,
last year I had a thousand more cases than I did the year
before, which is the biggest -- been the biggest increase in
? I don't know how many years. What you have to look at is,
3 had it not -- was it not for technology, how many additional
9 employees would we have to have? 'Cause the county
5 government is service to the people, and you have to have
5-23-OS
49

people to serve people. Passports. Since we've taken over
the passports, we're getting them from -- from Bexar County,
from Atascosa County, from all of Gillespie County's,
Kendall County's, Bandera, Junction. We're doing up to 15
passports a day, no less than 10. When Thea used to do
them, Thea was doing three a month. We're doing 15 a day,
so that has taken one employee almost all day long just
approving those. And we've been commended by the -- the
federal government for catching potential fraud, so, you
know, we're doing an excellent job, and we're real proud of
that.
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
1~
1~
1`
1F
1"
1~
1
2
2
2
2
2
	The only question I would	have is, you know,
	I've given up an employee and a half in	the last couple of
	years. Still haven't seen those increas	es in the other one
	because of it, but, you know, that -- th	at's another story.
	The only problem that I might see is, I	think there needs to
	be some mechanism whereby -- let's say i	f I had an employee
	die and two quit, you know, we'd be shut down. Just like
3	today, I've got three judges in court.	Three judges in
	court today. So, you know, that takes	-- and on pretrial
L	days, it takes two deputy clerks in the	courtroom for Judge
7	Ables' court because of the way he runs	them through. And
3	-- and I'm training another one to take	over Carrie's
4	position in there, because she's doing	nothing but
5	passports, so I've had to take her out	of that. So, you
5-23-OS
50
r-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1~
2C
27
2~
2;
2~
2'
know, just so that there's some emergency provisions where
we can replace -- emergency, where we can, you know, replace
those that we can't do without.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Sure. We have to do
that. What we're trying to do here, Ms. Uecker, is just
bring some temporary discipline to the process to make sure
that we don't put ourselves in a bind of putting people on,
then come along October 1 saying we've got too many people.
So, I -- we certainly shouldn't do something stupid that
would hamper our ability to accomplish our mission. If that
case happens, you'll -- you'll be able to do -- handle your
constitutional duties.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I this Ms. Uecker
makes a good point. We're two-thirds through the budget
year right now, and I think perhaps we're talking about
freezing or restricting additional hiring so that
departments don't continue to add personnel as opposed to
giving department heads/elected officials unfettered right
to fill the vacancies that need to be filled so that they
can perform the services. I think there is a true
distinction there between the two, and Ms. Uecker makes that
point. I think we have to be pretty careful about how we
approach it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- I think
having these discussions, and we'll have them a little bit
5-23-OS
51
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
more in-depth during the budget process, is very beneficial,
because I think it explains to the public, you know, why our
taxes are high and, you know, what the service -- what we
actually -- you know, in all the different departments,
what's being done. You know, I think the more we can
discuss this in the public, the better it is for all elected
officials, and ourselves included.
MS. UECKER: And I -- you know, and I don't
want to come across as being opposed to it. I just -- you
know, except for I just want there to be some language in it
that will help us to replace vital employees.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There are some
departments that can come nearer absorbing a force reduction
than others. A smaller department with four or five, six or
eight or ten employees may have a more difficult time
absorbing that reduction than a -- than a department such as
Road and Bridge, for example, where there are 25 or 30
employees. They can absorb that reduction and not -- and
not have a great deal of impact. But some smaller
departments have an impact.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Ms. Uecker. Is
there any other elected official or citizen that wishes to
be heard on this?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It did exempt the jail
from filling current positions, correct?
5-23-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
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If you said can the
-- can you continue to hire jailers, the answer is yes, to
fill -- to fill vacancies.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's the staffing
mandated by the State.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, I think that was the
criteria. Yes, ma'am?
MS. HARRIS: I just needed to -- to clarify.
One way that we try to be more efficient and cost-effective
is by hiring a small pool of maybe four or five part-time
employees. Part-time employees do not get benefits, but
they do go through the same training as the full-time
J.D.O.'s. As you know, the turnover at the facility is
quite high. Whenever we have a full-time J.D.O. that
leaves, for whatever reason, due to termination or leaving
of their own free volition, we fill those full-time
positions with the already trained part-time positions,
which is more cost-effective, and it also gets a person in
there that's already certified to fill that State-mandated
position, so I would like to be able to continue to have a
small part-time pool.
JUDGE TINLEY: You're filling these positions
5-23-OS
53
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to comply with state mandates, are you not?
MS. HARRIS: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, under the motion, you're
-- you would be exempt. Any hirings you're required to do
under state mandate, staffing ratios, would not -- it
wouldn't be applicable to you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Anything mandated by the
State in those staffing levels, and the Sheriff's
Department, are exempt. Everything but clerical that are
not required; you know, same as all other departments.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have one more
question. Commissioner, give us your sense of that last
line that talks about department heads would be able to fill
vacancies by transfers. In other words, hiring from within.
How do you see that, as opposed to what Ms. Uecker just -- I
mean, Ms. --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Harris.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The Tax Assessor just
said.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, for -- it ties
into what one of the Commissioners said earlier; that --
that the smaller departments don't have near as much
flexibility as some of the others. If one of our clerks in
the J.P. office quits, we probably -- we can't go on without
filling that job, so if that occurred and that J.P. was able
5-23-OS
54
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
to -- to transfer somebody from the Juvenile Detention
Facility or the clerk's office or something, that would be a
way of filling that without -- while avoiding a new hire.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But what if there
wasn't a transfer available or somebody from another
department to do that? What then?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think we authorize
a new hire.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It comes to the Court,
though.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. I would be
willing to delegate that decision to the County Judge.
Somebody could come to him and say --
(Judge Tinley shook his head negatively.)
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't think the
County Judge wants that.
MS. DECKER: Why wouldn't you just leave that
clause out? Because, I mean, if you're going to put an
emergency provision in there, I mean, that wouldn't be
necessary.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- the way I read
that provision was that if Paula had an employee quit, and
then -- and the person that wanted to fill that spot was out
of your office, that change could take place, but then you'd
be short one and you couldn't fill yours.
5-23-OS
55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. UECKER: Right. Then we're talking
about --
JUDGE TINLEY: And come to the Court.
MS. UECKER: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
MS. UECKER: So why have that in there?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, you'd have to come
to the Court instead of Paula. I don't -- you know, doesn't
make that much difference to me, that provision.
MS. UECKER: Well, because you've already
said that, you know, that it's not -- it's going to be
implied that it's not to add staff, but you're still going
to be able to replace the staff.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The way I understand, you
cannot replace without coming to the Court, but an employee
of yours could transfer to any other department without
coming to the Court. But then if you -- if you wanted to go
outside of the current county pool to fill the slot, you
have to come back to the Court and get that approval.
MS. UECKER: See, and I would be opposed to
that, because what's going to happen is, if I have an
opening, I know that I can fill that position if I can get
someone to transfer, but I can't just hire someone who may
be more qualified off the street, so that's a little bit
prejudicial, I think.
5-23-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
56
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Good point.
MS. UECKER: So if I can talk someone out of
Paula's office into coming to mine, they may not be as
qualified as someone that has come in and applied for the
job, but, hey, I can get past it if I can get somebody to
transfer.
JUDGE TINLEY: Good point. Good point.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have no problems with
taking out that last provision. But --
JUDGE TINLEY: Is that acceptable,
Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Sure.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or
discussion on the motion? All in favor of that motion,
signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. We
have a timed item that was scheduled at 10 o'clock; we're a
bit past that now, to receive and open bids on Kerrville
South Wastewater Project, Phases II and III.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We have one.
JUDGE TINLEY: Appears that we have --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: More than we had last
s-z3-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
57
time.
JUDGE TINLEY: Appears
We have one bid that's been submitted
Construction, Incorporated from Kings
bid is $805,898.65. 270 calendar day
Various unit prices enumerated on the
attached.
that we have one bid.
by Lupe Rubio
Land, Texas. The base
completion date.
bid. Bid bond is
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would move that we
refer the bid to the project engineer, Kamran Kaviani, for
review and recommendation.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
acceptance of the bid and referral to the project engineer
for review and recommendation.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What was it, 805,000?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 805,898.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What was the grant
amount?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That exceeds the
grant amount.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, do you recall what
the grant --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think it was 750.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll double-check it,
5-23-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
but I think that's right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or
discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion,
signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(NO response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Let's
move to Item 7, consider and discuss the design and
construction of a parallel taxiway at City of Kerrville/Kerr
County Airport. Commissioner Letz.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I put this on the agenda.
This is a -- it's a resolution. I'll go over it briefly and
see if Commissioner Williams has any comments, and Dave
Pearce with the airport is here, the Airport Manager. I
think Ilse Bailey's here probably for this item as well.
MS. BAILEY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We've discussed for a
number of years about this project coming about. It's been
on the drawing board, and the time has come for us to make
somewhat of a commitment to it. And the required -- it has
to come to the Court, Airport Board, and the City based on
the resolution that's been requested by TexDOT to approve.
Quickly, what it is is the main runway is -- the taxiway --
existing taxiway is to be relocated out of the grant, and it
5-23-OS
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
currently is in bad shape. It needs to be redone, in any
event. One of the long-term goals has been to get I.L.S. at
our airport. This is a step in getting there. You need to
have the taxiway completely relocated to get the I.L.S.
system. The project is large. It's a $6.6 million project
we've done over three years. The first part of it is in
this year's budget, and it's budgeted dollars of $92,117.
That's for the engineering. Then the balance will be split
between the 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 budget years as
approximately $275,000 each of those years, just slightly
more in the second year, and that is the amount for each the
County and the City. It is a big, big nut, a lot of money
that we're obligating.
The resolution does have an out from the
standpoint of it's -- as to, you know, it's a commitment of
the funds based on us -- our ability to budget for it, so
there is an out there, but I think the intent clearly is
that it's as close as you can get to an obligation in
several future years as you can get. TexDOT needs this
before they can fund it. The fact that they are funding it
says a whole lot about our airport and what they think of
our airport. A lot of people are trying to get this money,
and Dave can probably announce that this is a huge portion
of their annual budget coming into our airport. It's
something that I'm certainly in support of. The Airport
5-23-05
60
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
Board has voted for this and is in support of this as well.
Commissioner Williams, do you have any comments?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just to weigh in on
it and say that I, too, support it, because it is important
and vital to the progress of the airport. And for those who
fail to recognize, this airport truly is an economic
generator for Kerr County and the City of Kerrville, and to
do otherwise in terms of improvements I think would be
neglectful. For many years we've struggled along with the
airport being just a small community airport. The reality
is, it's more than that, and it has great potential to be
even -- even better than what it is currently today. If we
are to have an instrument landing system, which is on the
drawing board and is a necessity, then this is a
prerequisite to getting that done. There's been a lot of --
lot of progress made in terms of leasing airport property.
I want to commend Mr. Pearce for his efforts in that regard.
And not only have we got a lot of it leased, but we have
others that are going to be leasing additional property that
have made inquiries about that.
I think it's -- I think it's also important
is doing much, much, much better than we have ever been able
to report in the past, with their employee -- their work
5-23-OS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
61
force somewhat in the vicinity of 300-plus people working
two shifts and turning out 85 to -- between 85 and 100
aircraft a year. That's a signal improvement over where
it's been in the past, so this is major. I would point out
also that the first part of this obligation on the part of
the City and the County is -- is contained in the current
budget year. The 92,000 is already part of the existing
budget which Commissioners Court funded when we approved the
budget, as did the City of Kerrville Council do the same
thing. So, in discussion about this with the Airport Board
in the past, we've talked about how this could be bifurcated
and legitimately and realistically put into multiple budget
years, and TexDOT has agreed to that, 'cause they understand
how county budgets and city budgets come about. Theirs
comes about the same way as well. So, I heartily support
it; I think it's a plus for Kerr County, and I think we
should move forward on it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: One comment, if I may,
before I turn it over to Mr. Pearce. I think I misspoke
slightly on the dollar amount. It comes out to -- I'll
round it off -- to about $135,000 the next budget year for
the City and the County each, not 276 each. It's 135,000
each.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Then next budget year,
5-23-OS
I
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
62
it's about 145,000 each. So, it's -- basically, we're
trying to split it between those two years fairly closely.
Mr. Pearce, do you have any additional comments, or --
MR. PEARCE: Yes, sir, thank you. Judge
Tinley and Commissioners of the court, Kerrville continues
to be a major player in the airport and the transportation
system. I might call your attention back to an economic
impact study that was done by Wilbur Smith approximately two
years ago where the airport alone generated some $30 million
in economic impact to the community alone. In addition,
there was about 544 jobs that have been generated out of
that. I think we continue to be a major player in the
transportation system. The budget for TexDOT is
approximately $28 million per year. They're looking at
committing over $6 million for this, so that's a quarter of
their budget. I think that says a lot. I think the other
thing, too, that is really nice about this, it is a big
chunk of money, but 90 percent of that is paid by the feds.
Locally, 10 percent is split up between the County and the
City. That's 5 percent each. So, we get a six --
$6.6 million project for 10 cents on the dollar. It is a
lot of money, but it goes into something that will generate
more of an economic impact to the community. With that, if
there's any questions?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just -- only one other
5-23-OS
63
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
comment, Dave. And I can't remember the magazine, but I was
showing hopefully a prospective customer to build a hangar
out there. Dave and I met last Friday -- Thursday, and they
were all abuzz, this person I was showing around and Dave,
about the Kerrville airport being on the front page of a --
of a national airport-type magazine. Could you go over that
briefly?
MR. PEARCE: Airport Business News is a
publication that primarily targets airport management and
also for FBO's. We were fortunate enough that the
individual dropped in, took a look at Kerrville, looking at
some of the things that we were doing, and ended up putting
us on the front page of the magazine, things that were
happening in Kerrville alone. I feel very humbled by the --
the types of folks that are on there. The month before, it
was the airport manager from Dallas. Before that, it was
from LAX, Los Angeles, and here's Kerrville. Rather shocked
when it came out, and very humbled. But it's really nice,
because that is a major publication. It does go throughout
all of the airports in the United States, and here's
Kerrville, and I got a number of calls on that. It's in all
the FBO's and all the various -- where the pilots are
looking at it, and that says a lot for what we're doing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know it was big news to
the gentleman that I was showing around with Mr. Pearce. He
s-z3-os
64
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
was quite impressed that had happened.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, Mayor pro-tem
Smith is back there. He also serves on the Airport Board.
He may have a comment.
JUDGE TINLEY: Gene, would you like to come
forward and tell us your thoughts on this?
MR. SMITH: That's three of us. That doesn't
violate Open Meetings, does it?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Takes one more.
MR. SMITH: It takes one more? Well, I'd be
the last one to violate a law.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But you're in the
public right here; you're in the public eye.
MR. SMITH: You know, the City is in favor of
this project. It will have a great economic impact on this
area, and I would recommend that -- that you approve this.
Our little airport has -- has a potential of growing very
much. Mooney Aviation is -- is a revenue generator for this
area, and gets our city publication all -- publicity all
over the country, and probably all over the world. So, we
would -- I would personally recommend that you approve this,
as I will the other Councilmen. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I've got a couple
questions for my understanding. What we have here is a
5-23-OS
65
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
runway that'	s in disrepair.		
	COMMISSIONER	LETZ:	Taxiway.
	COMMISSIONER	NICHOLS	ON: Taxiway. And that
needs to be	taken care of,	so we're	going to do that by
creating a -	- a better -- a	longer	taxiway?
	COMMISSIONER	LETZ:	What we're doing,
basically, w	e're moving the	taxiway	150 -- 150 feet? How
many feet?			
MR. PEARCE: It's 150 feet
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 150.
MR. PEARCE: -- to the north, which would be
on the parallel side. Either way, Mr. Nicholson, the -- the
condition of the existing taxiway is beyond service, and it
either needed to be totally dug out, new base and new
taxiway, or relocate it. This relocation will accommodate
for future development on approaches and that.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And this is a step
toward qualifying for an I.L.S.?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. The current
taxiway is too close to the runway. It's a dangerous
situation, so the whole taxiway is being moved 150 feet
towards the road that goes around towards Dugosh Aviation.
It will require that road to be relocated in part, and it
will also require that -- I believe, that the T-hangars in
front of Dugosh will come out.
5-23-OS
66
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 WILLIAMS: And some property
acquisition.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And some property
acquisition. That will be handled by TexDOT, not by us.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Does this project
have anything to do with allowing the airport to handle
larger aircraft?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This -- well, the taxiway
right now is a real problem for larger aircraft in the
current condition. I think, in and of itself, it doesn't,
but once you get into the I.L.S., and it's kinds of a step
in getting us to handle more and larger aircraft, and doing
it safer as well.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We don't have any
aspirations for establishing commercial airline service?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think so.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That question was
asked to me yesterday by one of our --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If somebody wanted --
that's not the reason for this at all.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If somebody wanted to
come in and try it, you know, that's free enterprise; let
them try. But it's more a -- I don't think that's on the
horizon. Certainly not a reason for doing this, in my mind.
5-23-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
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Just one other
comment. You know, it's easier for me, you know, to have
confidence in a proposal like this than it was a year or two
ago. I think this new way of managing our airport is -- is
more professional, more confidence-building than -- than in
the past, so thank you for that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with your last
statement. I have more confidence in what's going on. The
only -- my only question is -- and I'm going to vote for
this, but I -- I question us committing future budgets.
We've been told in here numerous times that you simply can't
do that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree with you, and I
think you're right. And I think there is an out clause, and
if we don't budget it, we're under no obligation. I think
the resolution clearly says that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's in the
"Whereas." Commissioner, I agree with you that if something
had to be dealt with -- and we did deal with it by
instructing Mr. Pearce to go back to TexDOT to rework the
resolution, which was done. But it's in the "Whereas" where
it talks about fiscal year '06 and '07, "contingent upon
approval of their respective budgets," both the City and the
County. If it doesn't get approved, it doesn't get funded.
JODGE TINLEY: Also Sections Four and Five in
5-23-OS
68
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
the actual operative language of that resolution. The
language in both of those is, "contingent upon budget
approval in those years."
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, exactly.
JUDGE TINLEY: So it's in all respects
contingent upon --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Rex, I'm going to vote
for this thing, and if I get thrown in jail, I like pecan
pie.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: There won't be room,
Buster.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, there's no room.
That's right. Don't worry about it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll move approval of the
resolution.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the resolution. Any further question or
discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Now
would probably be a good opportunity to take about a
5-23-C5
69

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
15-minute recess.
(Recess taken from 10:22 a.m. to 10:40 a.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's come back to
order, if we might. Let's move to Item 8, report on the
Juvenile Detention Facility salaries. Commissioner Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. You
remember a couple of months ago, you asked Commissioner
Williams and I to take a -- take a peek under the hood and
-- and report back to you, I think at this very meeting that
we're here, and so here we are and we're ready to do that.
Commissioner Williams and I met with Mrs. Harris and
Mrs. Nemec a couple of weeks ago, and it really wasn't as
big a mountain as I thought it was going to be. It was a
fairly -- fairly simple because of the fact, if you remember
in our last budget session, we agreed that the -- there
would be no employees below Grade 12, so that fixed a lot of
things. So, Commissioner Williams, do you have anything to
say at this point?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. If you'll go to
this document right here with us, we're just going to go
through there, go through each one of these at kind of a
quick pace, 'cause there's really nothing to talk about,
except when you get down to the control operators, you see
5-23-OS
70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that they are 10-1's. Well, they need to go to 12-1 because
of a -- by the way, an unwritten policy, which we need to
get written. And the same thing with the cooks. They're at
11's, and they need to go to 12's. Now, before we get on
down into it, Mrs. Harris, I think, has a couple of comments
to make. She's wanting to do some shifting around, and so
I've asked her -- would you like to do that?
MS. HARRIS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've asked her if she
would like to come and tell you all what her plan is there,
and it's just shifting a few people around. I think it's a
pretty good plan, actually.
MS. HARRIS: What -- what I had come up
with -- and, as it's turned out, due to a change in the
clerical arena at the facility, it has given me the
opportunity to do some of the changing, which doesn't affect
the salaries at all, in order to streamline the number of
J.D.O.'s. I don't know if you remember that I mentioned
quite some time ago that I -- the shift supervisors, control
operators, and the male J.D.O.'s are on 12-hour shifts,
because your ratio can be slightly less, the number of
employees that you need. You can still maintain ratio, but
the number of employees you can reduce, but my female
J.D.O.'s were not. Well, starting June 1, my female
J.D.O.'s will be on 12-hour shifts, which reduces that
5-23-OS
~1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2°
2~
2`
number from nine to eight, required number of females that I
As it so happens, one of the clerical positions has
become vacant, and the ninth J.D.O. female that I would no
longer need is going to slide right into that clerical
position, and I won't have to hire anybody any differently.
One -- some of the other changes that I have
proposed is in the kitchen, by changing some of the
personnel in the kitchen to require certification, like food
service manager, because the City does require that we have
to have a certified food service manager on-site at all
times during -- while the food is being prepared. That is
stated -- excuse me, City Health. That person would be
required -- the head cook would be required to have a food
service certification. We talked about the job title.
Rather than Administrative Assistant, the two individuals
that take care of our human resources and our clerical
duties out there, we discovered in our discussions with
Commissioner Williams and Commissioner Baldwin that they do
not really meet the criteria for the job description of
administrative assistant, nor does their salary reflect
that. The duties that they have, to -- to keep the
receptionist, we would reclassify her as receptionist; her
salary would stay the same. The second individual would be
classified as an administrative secretary, and she would
take care of all the human resources, and plus I would also
5-23-05
72

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2~
29
2`
give her the -- the extended job duty of billing. That
person would do all the personnel management, payroll, and
the billing. That person would have to do all of that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Which -- is that that
25-1 slot?
MS. HARRIS: I don't have a copy of what --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Under Support Staff.
MS. HARRIS: No, sir. No, sir. I believe
that's my training officer, if I'm not mistaken.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So this position you're
talking about, then, is a --
MS. HARRIS: That's what they're looking at?
MS. NEMEC: I think.
JUDGE TINLEY: 17, I guess.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The 17-4?
MS. HARRIS: Let me see. 17-4 is my training
officer.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 17-4 is training?
MS. HARRIS: Yes. And she also takes care of
all the N.S.L.P. paperwork, and she is also one of our
certified food service managers.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And then the 25-1 was the
position you were talking about? The human resources and
billing and all that?
MS. HARRIS: Let me -- the 12-2. The 12-2
5-23-OS
73

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1°
2C
21
2~
2~
2L
2`
was her, under Support Staff.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Is that classified
right? I qot a slight head shake, no.
MS. NEMEC: It -- I mean, if she's moving --
if she's thinking of moving them around to where she's going
to be human resources and billing and all that, then I -- at
a 12, I wouldn't think that would be classified right. And
we talked about that also.
MS. HARRIS: Right. We classified --
MS. NEMEC: Of moving them, giving this
position more duties, more responsibilities, but also
compensating them to get someone qualified enough to do
that.
MS. HARRIS: That 12-2 would become a 17-1.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're going to see
this in a more clear way during the budget process.
MS. HARRIS: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're going to lay it
down side by side for you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So I don't need to ask
all these questions right now?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You can go back to
sleep. (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All these steps and
grades are there now, Commissioner? What is in place now,
5-23-OS
74

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1°
2C
21
2~
2~
zL
2`
correct? Commissioner Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm sorry?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All of these -- all
of these that we see on this sheet are what is currently in
place?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And there will be
some changes.
MS. HARRIS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And at budget, there will
be some changes.
MS. HARRIS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We'll be readjusting some
of these.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is to get us through
this year?
MS. HARRIS: Yes.
MS. NEMEC: That information -- Judy provided
that information from our payroll records. That's where
that came from.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This is what we
worked off of out there the other day.
MS. HARRIS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
5-23-OS
~s

COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Ms. Harris, you've
got three classifications -- J.D.O., shift supervisor, and
control operator -- that are working 12-hour shifts?
MS. HARRIS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is that four shifts
one week and then three shifts the next week?
MS. HARRIS: That's, like, working 6 a.- 6 p.
for three days, off three days, coming back and working
6 p. - 6 a. for four days, off two days. It's a rotating
shift like that.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Calendar week. One
week you'll work 36 hours, the next week 48 hours.
MS. HARRIS: That's correct, but it works out
to 160 hours a month.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. How many
J.D.O.'s -- how many are on a shift? How many warm bodies
are on a shift?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1~
2C
2]
2L
2;
2~
2:
MS. HARRIS: There are four J.D.O.'s.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: On each shift?
MS. HARRIS: On each shift. Two males, two
females. 'Cause we have to take care of two separate
populations, the pre's and the posts.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: How many shift
supervisors on a shift?
MS. HARRIS: There are two, which are counted
5-23-OS
76
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
2_
in the ratio. We have to count them in the ratio in order
to maintain ratio.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Thank you.
MS. HARRIS: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, what do we need to do
here?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This is just for
information only, isn't it?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, it is.
MS. HARRIS: Yes. And also, the maintenance
person would no longer be in my budget. That maintenance
personnel would be under Kerr County's Maintenance
Department.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's now, or atterY
MS. HARRIS: Will be.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: In the future.
MS. HARRIS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: October 1.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MS. HARRIS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're deleting
maintenance out of there and putting it where it's really
supposed to be.
MS. HARRIS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's consistent
5-23-OS
~7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2~
29
2`
with what we do for the jail.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MS. HARRIS: Yes, right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, did you get
through all of it?
MS. HARRIS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I did kind of go into
a coma there for a minute.
MS. HARRIS: Yes, sir, I did.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: But J.D.O.'s are
going to be reduced from 17 total to 16 total?
MS. HARRIS: Yes. Yes, sir, which that's
already occurred. We've already done that, or it will
become effective June 1.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Then we get to the --
it's administration salaries, and this is my comment. You
know, it's nothing new. I've met with Ms. Harris and with
Bill and told them how I feel and what I think about it, so
it's -- you know, I'm not blindsiding anybody when I say
that I feel like that both of those salaries are way, way,
way too high. I've added another sheet in here with the
elected officials' salaries, including the County Clerk,
District Clerk, Treasurer, Tax Assessor, the Sheriff, chief
5-23-OS

78
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2c
2.
ZL
2_
deputy, et cetera, and so forth and so on. And you can --
you can see that the administration -- both administration
employees out there are ahead of all the elected officials,
including the Sheriff, including the chief deputy, and it's
my opinion that they should not be. You know, I -- I think
that their salaries could be somewhere in the neighborhood
of the Jail Administrator, somewhere in -- in that range.
But I just don't -- I think we pay them -- the salary there
is too high compared to the rest of our elected officials
and employees.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are we having a
discussion on this now? Or are we going to --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. I've said it;
it's on the table. Y'all get after it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I look at it
as -- you know, I think the -- looking at it as a whole,
both of those spots is too high. I'm not -- I think the
35-5 spot may be slightly too high. I think that position
is higher than a jail administrator, as I understand what
that position entails, but I think -- I think -- you know, I
don't have a real heartburn with the 65,163, which is the --
you know, Becky's salary. I don't have as much problem with
that as I do the 54,000 one, as I understand, the
second-in-charge out there. And I think that that's kind of
-- I need to know more about what the duties are and how
5-23-05
79
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1°
2C
21
2c
2.
2~
2`
they -- what that workload is for those two positions. And
we can discuss it now or during the budget process; doesn't
make that much difference to me, but --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I think it
should be in the budget process. I'm just trying to bring
it in here to get your ears in tune and get you, you know,
to start thinking about it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think, in my -- since
Ms. Harris is here, I guess my question is, why do we need
two administrators? To me -- you know, and that's just --
there may be a reason. But when we get into the budget,
that's going to be what my question is going to be, why we
have two spots out there; why can't we just have one.
But -- and how that is answered would go back as to whether
the levels are too high or not, in my mind.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, this is the
first time we've looked at the operation in the open.
Heretofore, it had been looked at by the Juvenile Board, and
those salaries were set in that -- by that body. There are
disparities; we've noted that. There are things that need
to be corrected, and we've noted that, or will note that in
the budget time. But I also think, while you're looking at
comparisons, you also have to look at educational
qualifications as well, and educational qualifications play
a role in this in terms of what the State requires. Not
5-23-OS
80
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
2_`
what Kerr County Commissioners Court requires or the
Juvenile Board requires, but what the State requires in
terms of the educational requirements for a facility
administrator and so forth. So, you know, the fact that the
number was set by someone else doesn't make it good or bad,
but I think when we start analyzing it, we need to analyze
all the factors, not the least of which is the educational
component.
	COMMISSIONER	BALDWIN: Which the	-- the
position	requires a degree.		
	MS. HARRIS:	Yes, sir.	
	COMMISSIONER	WILLIAMS: College	degree is
required	in the facility adm	inistrator.	
	COMMISSIONER	LETZ: That's part	of what I
think we	need to have presen	ted during the --	
	COMMISSIONER	WILLIAMS: Exactly.	
	COMMISSIONER	LETZ: -- budget pe	riod.
	COMMISSIONER	BALDWIN: So, that'	s it.
	JUDGE TINLEY:	Anything else?	
	COMMISSIONER	BALDWIN: Not from	me. That's
it. Com	missioner Williams?	I didn't --	
	COMMISSIONER	WILLIAMS: No, you	covered it.
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have nothing else.
5-23-OS
81

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
21
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Good. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do we have any -- are we
developing some data concerning comparable positions in
similar type facilities with similar type qualifications?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. Yes, sir,
we're in that process.
JUDGE TINLEY: Type of service and all that?
I think that would be helpful.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, it will be, and
we will present that in the budget process.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Anything further on
this item? Let's move on, then, to Item Number 9, discuss
and consider authorizing the sale of the Kerr County
Juvenile Detention Facility. Commissioner Baldwin.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir, thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Didn't know you had a buyer.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I don't think
that we do yet, but I would certainly hope that we would
take a -- take a look out there and see if there maybe could
be one. We -- up to date, we have spent of the taxpayers'
money close to $3 million to finish out this year. Next
year's budget request is $2.6 million more. And, you know,
I look at that and I look at the number of local youth that
goes through there, and every time I ask the question, "How
many Kerr County kids do we have out there?" and it's
5-23-OS

82

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
2~
usually the number four. And that's a little bit expensive,
I think, for four people, is my opinion. And so, you know,
I understand that patience is a virtue. I understand that.
But I -- I saw Senator Cornyn on TV the other day, and he
says there comes a time when patience is no longer a virtue,
and I think I am rapidly approaching that -- that attitude.
That I know we need to have patience and wait, and that this
thing's going to turn around and do well. This is just a
little bit too expensive for me. And so, with that in mind,
I move that we authorize Commissioner Nicholson and the
County Attorney to advertise and negotiate the sale of the
Juvenile Detention Facility.
(Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: County Attorney just
got re -- I mean, just got elected; he may not mind doing
that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, I didn't realize
he was still in here.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I got some questions
-- well, I'll second that so I can ask some questions. How
much did you say that budget is for next year?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 2.6 and some change.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And that's net of
revenues? That's cost less revenues? Or --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm just looking at
5-23-OS
L
a
83

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2C
21
ZL
2~
2~
2`
the --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's net of
revenues.
COMMISSIONER	BALDWIN: -	- requested	number.
COMMISSIONER	NICHOLSON:	2.6 million	green
dollars.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We don't have the
revenue figure cranked into that.
JUDGE TINLEY: No, that's gross. Gross.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Gross.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Gross expenditure.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Of course --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Gross, not net.
MS. HARRIS: That's for both buildings, by
the way.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Do we have a
forecast of census we expect for next year? My real
question is, when are we going to get to the break-even
point? Never?
AUDIENCE: Not ever.
MS. HARRIS: I've only been able to solicit
new counties to come on board since January, so I've only
been at this, like, for about four months. That population
has steadily increased, even when Level 5 money has been
expended, and that ran out in March. We are still steadily
5-23-OS
~ r___...._. _. L.. _ ~ . ._.
84

getting more kids in. Our population has increased on a
steadily basis since January, and we are steadily increasing
bringing on new counties. We're in the negotiating stages
right now with El Paso. If E1 Paso comes on board, we will
get several kids out of El Paso. Break-even, Commissioner
Nicholson, I wish I could look in my crystal ball and tell
you. At this point in time, I can't. We are in the slump
part of the year, but we're still getting kids, and that
is -- that is a feat in and of itself. Remarkable.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If we were at
capacity, would the revenues equal the costs?
MS. HARRIS: With 76 kids? No sir. You'll
be about a hundred -- 130-some-odd thousand dollars deficit.
And that was a projection that I brought to you back in the
fall in three separate budgets.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My question -- my comment
on this is, you know, I think that I've always been willing
to entertain an offer. And I think we were hoping -- we --
there were some that were floating around about six months
ago that we were hoping would come to fruition and we would
receive a firm offer, which we never did. And I -- you
know, the purpose of the agenda item is to let the public
know that if somebody wants to buy it, we're certainly --
I'm certainly, as a commissioner, willing to listen, and
listen to an offer and look at an offer seriously. I think
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1~
2C
2]
2~
2;
2~
2.
5-23-OS
85
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the way -- I can't support the motion the way it was made,
because I think that's going to do -- go -- have the
opposite effect. I think if we go out and solicit and
publicly say -- you know, and solicit bids, that we're
putting it out for bids, I think that's -- if I was a
county, I would then not want to put my kids over here,
'cause I'd think that it was in jeopardy again. I think
we've done a lot in the past four or five months to try to
stabilize the situation and get the place going, and I think
this motion would do the contrary at this point in time, so
I can't support this motion. I would support a motion, you
know, just to put everyone on the record that, you know, we
would be glad to receive bids; if somebody wants to buy it,
we'd be glad to entertain it. I'd be glad to do that in a
motion. But I can't support a motion where we go out and
advertise for sale, 'cause I don't know how do you that,
'cause you have to declare it surplus to do that, and then I
think you're really under it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I receive your
chastisement with -- with an open heart, and I appreciate
you saying that. But I am really tired of us worrying about
other counties and worrying about banks and worrying about
lawyers in New York and worrying about all that other crap
when we have taxpayers right here in this county that we
are -- are just raping with this issue. So, you know, I
5-23-OS
86
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2C
21
2L
2.
2~
2`
receive your chastisement about what other counties think;
however, I really don't care what other counties thinks.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think it's
chastisement. My point is that we're trying to minimize the
red ink out there, and I think this motion increases the red
ink. It hurts the local taxpayers more, and --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- and so I'm not in
favor of --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm offering a way to
fix the local taxpayers.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let me see if I can
characterize it. If we shut it down and -- and sent our
four or five children out of county, wouldn't our costs go
down?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
You have a whole bunch of employees out there and a lot of
electricity that costs a lot of money. And these other
counties -- yes, they do pay a per diem, but it doesn't come
anywhere near paying for our -- the staff. The Kerr County
taxpayers are subsidizing other counties, is what we're
doing.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Tommy, how much is
our debt service annual cost on that 1.9 or 2 million
5-23-OS
87
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2~
29
2_`
dollars? What's it cost us annually to service that debt?
MR. TOMLINSON: I don't remember what the
amortization is. I'd have to look that up. We haven't made
a payment yet, so I --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You'll know after
the first payment, huh?
MR. TOMLINSON: I have the material. I just
don't know.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me weigh in on
it. I agree with Commissioner Letz that such a motion might
be counterproductive. If we shut it down, you don't have
anything to sell. You got the -- you got buildings
engineered for detention with no particular operation, so I
think it is counterproductive. I don't disagree with
Commissioner Baldwin in an effort to find a way to get the
burden off Kerr County taxpayers. That's fine. I think we
need to address that. But I heard -- listened very
carefully to what the Sheriff had to say this morning. The
Sheriff needs a detention facility and additional detention
capacity. And so here we are sitting with a juvenile
facility that could house up to 76 young folk, and the
Sheriff, who has a jail with overflow, can't -- that's maxed
out. Somewhere between the Sheriff's dilemma and the
juvenile detention dilemma, seems to me there's a solution.
Does Kerr County need a juvenile detention facility for 76
5-23-OS
88
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1°
2C
21
2c
2~
2~
2`
youth? Good question. Needs to be asked. Does the Sheriff
need additional space? Obviously, or he wouldn't have been
making an impassioned plea this morning for that purpose.
So, somewhere between those two opposites, those two poles,
in my view, lies an answer. Shutting it down in the
meantime to get there is not the answer. So --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I didn't say anything
about shutting it down. I said authorize Nicholson and the
County Attorney to advertise and negotiate the sale of it.
And I'm shocked that I got a second, to be --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I know you are.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- to be honest with
you.
	COMMISSIONER	WILLIAMS:	I know you are.
	COMMISSIONER	NICHOLSON:	I didn't second that
last part. I	thought that w	as a joke.	
	COMMISSIONER	BALDWIN:	Yes, it is.
	COMMISSIONER	NICHOLSON:	Okay.
	COMMISSIONER	BALDWIN:	Take a vote, Judge, so
we can go eat	lunch.		
	JUDGE TINLEY:	Maybe I	need to understand
what the motion is, based up	on that last comment. What is
the motion?			
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The motion is to
authorize Commissioner Nicholson and the County Attorney to
5-23-OS
89
f
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
1~
2C
27
2:
2:
2~
2:
advertise and negotiate the sale of the Juvenile Detention
Facility.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't understand
that part, Commissioner.
JUDGE TINLEY: Was that -- excuse me just a
moment, please. And that -- that first motion was seconded
by Commissioner Nicholson?
MS. PIEPER: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Was that the motion you
seconded?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That was the motion
that was made.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I need some clarity.
Just -- Commissioner, why -- why would we do that
advertisement differently -- or assign responsibility
differently than we would disposal of some other asset?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I just can't
imagine us going over to the Kerrville Daily Times and --
and running a little ad in there. Somebody needs -- I'm
sure that there are journals of some sort that juvenile
detention facilities deal in, and somebody needs to seek
that out and find them and make sure our ad is put in there,
and that all the juvenile detention gurus on earth are
notified that there's one for sale.
5-23-OS
90
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
15
2C
27
2~
2;
2~
2'
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay, my second
stands.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. EMERSON: May I make one comment before
y'all vote?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, sir.
MR. EMERSON: I think we probably need to go
through the proper procedures, if you're going to advertise
it for bid, to have it declared surplus first.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That'd be fine. Why
don't you put that together and bring it back? That's what
I'm authorizing you to do.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's not what that
motion authorizes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any further questions
or discussion?
MR. SHULTS: If I may?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, sir. Come forward,
Reverend Shults.
MR. SHULTS: Of course, you know me; I'm Al
Shults, pastor of Motley Hills Baptist Church in Kerrville,
but I'm also -- I've been involved with the Department of
Corrections in the state of Oklahoma for 13 years, and I'm
5-23-OS
91

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1~
2C
21
2L
2;
2~
2`
also involved as a teacher here at the Kerrville Juvenile
Detention Center. And I would just ask you please to go
slow on this, because whether we like to admit it or not,
even in Kerrville, we have some juveniles that at one time
or another need to be locked up, and they need to be locked
up immediately when the deputy sheriffs and the policemen
apprehend them. And there may be -- I'm not trying to
insult your intelligence, but you might think it out very
carefully, that these folks that have to be locked up
immediately, where you're going to take them, what you're
going to do with them, because, of course, we're going to be
dealing with them. And I think Probation here is going to
be tied up in some long transportation runs. I'm just
saying be careful of what you do when it concerns our
juveniles, because we really do have some -- some folks out
there that can get pretty mean, and they have to be taken
care of when the officer apprehends them, immediately. Just
-- I'm just saying, food for thought.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. We appreciate
that. Any further question or comments on that motion?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Only comment I would
like to make is I kind of agree with Buster. If I had -- if
we only had four Kerr County people in our adult jail, I
think I know what this Court's decision would be, is I'd
house those four somewhere else and not worry about having
5-23-05
92
an adult jail. Are we going to take care of our own or
someone else's? I just sent out all the out-of-county ones
we had 'cause the population got too high.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a comment. I
mean, I'm going to vote against this, and the reason is that
I think the motion is -- is unclear. And, one, I'm not
going to ever negotiate -- pass an order to allow an
individual Commissioner and County Attorney to negotiate a
contract and the sale of a huge property. I mean, I'm not
going to go down that road. It's got to come back to the
Court.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1~
2C
27
2L
2~
2~
2.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Why are you so hot
about this? I don't understand. You're not -- we're not
going to get a third vote, so what is the deal?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I just think it's
important.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What are you doing?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 'Cause you put it on the
agenda.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Let's vote.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We don't know that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Anyway, that's my
comment.
DODGE TINLEY: Any further question or
comment? All in favor of the motion as stated, signify by
s-z3-os
93
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
lE
17
1E
1~
2C
2]
2~
2:
2~
2'
raising your right hand.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: One, two.
(Commissioners Baldwin and Nicholson voted in
favor of the motion.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(Commissioners Williams and Letz voted
against the motion.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: One, two, three.
JUDGE TINLEY: I counted one, two the second
time.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. That's the same
thing as three, really.
JUDGE TINLEY: I see. Ms. Harris, we have a
gentleman up here that has a crystal ball. You need to get
together with him to be able to answer Commissioner Letz'
question about when that thing is going to be up to full
capacity.
MS. HARRIS: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: My concern is, by going
forward on the basis indicated in the motion, that it's
going to be, in my belief, counterproductive to the efforts
that Ms. Harris is making out there to try and make that a
viable facility with a future for this county and -- and
this region. Because of that, I'm going to vote against the
motion, so the motion fails.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, thank you,
5-23-OS

94
Judge. Thank you for voting. I appreciate -- I appreciate
it when the County Judge votes. I do.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Wait, before you leave
this item, I will make a motion on this, 'cause I think
it's -- I will make a motion that we -- should we receive an
offer to purchase that facility, this Court -- or this
Commissioner, anyway, would certainly analyze it and review
it for possible sale.
JUDGE TINLEY: And consider it carefully.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Consider it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'd like to -- I'd
like to add to that possible motion, see if we can get a
second, "and/or explore with the Sheriff the utilization of
one of those two facilities for his purposes as well, and
what that cost would be to the County."
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sure, I have no problem
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1~
2C
2]
2L
2`
2'
2.
with that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can I get any
protection for the birds and the water --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- on this deal?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sure.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All right.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think we can plug it in on
5-23-OS

95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2C
21
2~
2;
2~
2`
this one.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I do too. What
was the motion? If somebody drives in here and offers to
buy the thing, we're going to --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We will entertain the
sale of that facility, basically. Or --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And in the meantime,
we'll study the utilization issues with the Sheriff to see
what the potential is.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think there is a
value -- I mean, I'm not making it just to make it. I think
that there is a value that -- you know, that the public is
-- should know that we -- you know, we will sell if the
right offer comes in.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure. I'm for it,
man. Let's do it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Needs a second.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I thought you seconded
it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, I added to it. I
didn't second it. I can. I'll second the whole thing, with
the add-on.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Now we have a motion
and a second. Do we have any discussion or comments on the
motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your
5-23-OS

96
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
l~
2C
27
2~
2;
2~
2'
right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge?
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further on this
particular agenda item?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Not this particular
one, but I do have a thought, going back to Rusty's comments
earlier today. I really think that we should sit down and
set a workshop, and sit down and start working through some
of these problems. If we don't, we're never going to get
there and we're going to get caught.
JUDGE TINLEY: It occurs to me, Commissioner,
that we'll probably need as part of the workshop what
Commissioner Williams was talking about as one of the
potential options that we have.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. That's
exactly right. What -- what date did you want, Bill?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me refer to my
electronic brain; this one's not working.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think we
should -- probably -- well, I believe you're going to be
absent from the second meeting in June.
5-23-CS
97
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2c
2~
2~
2`
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I am.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And so I would say either
the first meeting in June, if we can get it together, or the
first meeting in July.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: First meeting in June
or July, yeah.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Sooner.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: First meeting in June
is what, Commissioner?
JUDGE TINLEY: 13th.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Be the 13th.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. Pretty late.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Afternoon work
session, Sheriff?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah, the sooner the
better.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: June 13th is good
with me.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The Sheriff and I
held a workshop on a coffee table, and I asked him how much
he thought it would cost -- I'm not going to tell -- to
convert that to a female adult prison. And I think, if I
understood him correctly, it would cost less than the annual
deficit for operating, so there may be some economic -- good
economics to converting that to a -- even though it's a
5-23-OS
98

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2C
21
2~
2;
2~
2`
large number.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Needs to be explored.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And I also -- should
also say, for the Sheriff, that's not as easy a solution as
it seems, 'cause it would cause him personnel and
transportation difficulties and other administrative
problems.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is the 13th going to be
adequate time for you, Sheriff?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Probably so, yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Afternoon.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's fine.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 1:30 or something.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Whatever time y'all set.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Depending on the
agenda.
MS. HARRIS: I will be at a conference on the
13th.
JUDGE TINLEY: Also on the 14th?
MS. HARRIS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You'll be gone?
MS. HARRIS: Yes, sir, on June the 13th.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, we're --
actually, the basic meeting is about the adult jail, so
5-23-05
99

can't we just go ahead and move forward with that?
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, yeah. Yeah, your
point's well taken.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. That's one
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
lE
1i
lE
1~
2C
2:
2:
2:
2
2
today.
COMMISSIONER	WILLIAMS:	Oh --	
COMMISSIONER	BALDWIN:	That's	a joke, now,
guys.
JUDGE TINLEY: You got the birds.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I got the birds and
the water.
JUDGE TINLEY: And the trees.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm doing fine.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are they cedar trees or
hackberries? (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Doing fine.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. So, we're looking at
doing an agenda -- excuse me, a workshop the afternoon of
the 13th at 1:30? Is that what I'm hearing?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think that's what
you're hearing.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. That's what
I'm --
~ JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Yes, ma'am?
MS. MITCHELL: If the workshop's going to
s-z3-os
100
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2~
2~
2`
take longer than 30 minutes, then we need to reschedule the
reports from the department heads and elected officials -- I
mean department heads that answer to y'all.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why don't we do the
workshop the next day, the 14th?
DODGE TINLEY: Tuesday afternoon?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 14th is okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: God, that's Flag Day,
guys.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We'll wave the flag.
DODGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 14th. Make it the
14th. 10 o'clock?
DODGE TINLEY: Ten -- well, I've got mental
health. I can probably -- 1:30 I know will work for me.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 1:30 on the 14th.
Are you back in case we need you back? No, you're gone.
MS. HARRIS: I'm gone.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's all I have.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Do we have anything we
need to go into executive or closed session about?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, I have a personnel
item.
5-23-OS
101
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: All-righty. Do you want to
come back to that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why don't we come back
after we finish everything else?
JUDGE TINLEY: We're going to do our
housekeeping first and then we'll come back to that. If you
don't want to stay for housekeeping, that's fine.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE TINLEY: We'll come back to the
executive session items, and we'll go to the approval
agenda. First item is payment of the bills.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move we pay the bills.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: I have a question or two, if I
might. First question deals with Page 8. Did our I.T. man
take a powder on me? At the middle of the page, Sheriff's
Department, Kerrville Telephone, $2,145. Does that include
this one-time charge for switching over a lot of this I.T.
stuff, broadband, redundancy line?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Not that I'm aware of.
MR. TOMLINSON: I don't think so.
JUDGE TINLEY: Seems like a --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Doesn't the -- isn't our
jail system with Kerrville Telephone now?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes, it's all --
5-23-OS
102
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 LETZ: It could be -- there's
probably --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Not the inmate system.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The inmate system's not?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the one we
changed out a few months ago, isn't it?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Why do we have a $2,150 bill
to Kerrville Telephone Company? The wireless bill is
separate; that's $414 just above it.
MR. TOMLINSON: That's all the long distance.
And -- and the lease on the system comes -- the equipment
lease is in there too.
JUDGE TINLEY: Does that sound right to you,
Rusty, $2,150?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's kind of the answer I
was expecting.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I think that's higher
than what it has been in all the months previous. Unless it
-- unless there's -- the equipment lease is due at certain
times. But I don't --
JUDGE TINLEY: No, it's monthly.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But Tommy said there's a
5-23-OS
103
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
discrepancy, 7 cents versus 14 cents, so the phone bill
should be double what it has been.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah, it is. Long distance.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That could be what
happened.
MR. TOMLINSON: This is for the month of --
well, no, that would be April. April's bill. But it -- it
did double, the long distance did.
DODGE TINLEY: Has your long distance bill
been $1,000 a month out there, Rusty? I don't think so.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I would have to go back
and look. We have all those bills, but I'd have to go back.
I don't believe it has been, 'cause normally my highest
one's always been our cell phones.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What does the bill
invoice show?
MR. TOMLINSON: It's 175782, is the one he's
talking about.
DODGE TINLEY: 2,100.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS:
What's the invoice show? 5782.
MR. TOMLINSON: It's i
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMSs
MR. TOMLINSON: 5782.
Yeah, I see it.
n that one.
1757 what?
5782.
Here it is; got to be
5-23-OS
104
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2
2
2
here. Well, the prior month was 1,577.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Say it again?
MR. TOMLINSON: Prior month was $1,577.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is it L.D.? Is that
what it is, long distance?
MR. TOMLINSON: It's all the current charges.
The basic monthly service was $932, and then the optional
local service was $595.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I'm just glad y'all
approved the deal to go out and look at other options.
MR. TOMLINSON: I mean, this is all -- this
is what I was talking about. I mean, there's --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Did you say earlier
that we're getting charged for long distance at 14 or 17
cents a minute?
MR. TOMLINSON: 14 cents was the last -- was
for the last bill.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good heavens, I get
it at home for 6 cents from the same company.
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, they -- they admit that
they made a mistake, but --
JUDGE TINLEY: But they want us to send them
3 a check.
q MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah.
5 JUDGE TINLEY: I see.
5-23-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
2~
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I guess send them the
last check.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's staggering, the
amount we pay a month to them.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. The only other item I
have is on Page 1 under County Clerk, 207, recharged
cartridges. Is -- is that through the centralized
purchasing that we've done through the I.T, department that
he's arranged? Or are these special cartridges that you can
only get from one place?
MS. PIEPER: This is cartridges that, once we
use them in the printer, we send them off to get them
re-inked rather than buying brand new ones.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I do mine that way,
and it's about half the cost.
MS. PIEPER: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Of course, I do it in
Kerrville, though. I don't send them --
MS. PIEPER: No, ours is done local.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, I just never heard
of this company.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Who is it?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Petty Enterprises.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The place by
5-23-OS
106
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Albertsons?
MS. PIE PER: I don't know. My chief deputy
takes care of it, but it is local, because he comes here and
picks them up one day and either brings them back that
afternoon or the next morning.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, my point is, the I.T.
Director has tried to -- to do something on a centralized
basis to negotiate the best price available, and I don't
know whether these particular cartridges could fall under
that program or not. Maybe you found a better deal. If so,
he needs to know about it.
MS. PIEPER: He may have worked that out with
-- I mean, Nadene does my ordering, and I'm sure the two of
them have probably even talked about it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any other questions or
comments?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir, I have one.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Page 18 is -- I love
the Juvenile Detention Facility, guys. I do. These are the
bills for the Juvenile Detention Facility, $11,787. Is this
money that we have appropriated already?
MR. TOMLINSON: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: When we did the lump
sum a couple of months aqo, this -- okay, that's all I
5-23-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
wanted to know. Thank you very much.
DODGE TINLEY: Any other questions or
comments?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: One question on Page
7, just for my education. Top group there, about midway,
PTS of America, LLC, extradition expense, and then the next
line, extradition service. What are they doing for us?
MR. TOMLINSON: Extradition costs.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Oh, I'm sorry, I was
looking at some of these bills. Extradition costs, that's
what it takes to -- and I didn't hear your question, but I'm
assuming that's where we had to hire a company to bring that
person back from another state.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So they don't --
they pick them up for you and deliver them?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: They pick them up.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's more
cost-effective than you doing it?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We like to try and do
all our own, but we're ending up with so many that sometimes
we may have two or three that have to be picked up in
different states on the same time limits, and at times it
can be more cost-effective to go ahead and get a company to
bring them back.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. That's all I
5-23-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
2~
got.
DODGE TINLEY: Any other questions or
comments? I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, it appears that it's
just a typing difference; it's the same service. One's
listed as an "expense" and one as a "service."
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Two different
people, I think.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Probably entered it --
well, it says -- I do have a question on the first page,
Nondepartmental. It's the forensic services, those first
two items, Travis County Medical Examiner. I know John
Grimes at times has said that he has offered to set up a
workshop for our J.P.'s about exactly what needs to be sent
for forensic services, and we may try to get that moving,
because I think we might save some money, anyway. I think
we overuse that service, in my opinion.
JUDGE TINLEY: I have dictated some notes to
our administrative assistant to try and get coordination,
find out what other counties in the area use the Travis
County Medical Examiner's office so we can bring those
counties in with us and try and have it be kind of an
area -- but I'm in the process of trying to get that
Dr. Bayardo here, so hopefully we can reduce that cost in
the future.
5-23-OS
109
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions or
comments? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Budget
amendments. Budget Amendment Request Number 1.
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 1 is for the County
Attorney. He's requesting a transfer of $77.46 from Books,
Publications and Dues to Postage.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of Budget Amendment Request Number 1. Any question
or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by
raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry.
Budget Amendment Request Number 2.
MR. TOMLINSON:- This is from Bill Ragsdale,
J.P. 4. He's requesting a transfer of $97.50 from his
5-23-OS
110
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
Janitorial line item to Miscellaneous.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of Budget Amendment Request Number 2. Any question
or discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Question. So,
10-458-499 is Miscellaneous?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What a strange word.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is that a question?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, just a comment.
It's a strange word for a budget.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or
comment? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
DODGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Budget
Amendment Request Number 3.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. Number 3 is for the
jail, to transfer of $45 into Radio Repairs out of the
Cooks' Salary line item for the jail. Actually, we're
requesting a $55 transfer out to correct a $10 error that we
5-23-OS
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
111
previously made.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of Budget Amendment Request Number 3. Any question
or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by
raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Budget
Amendment Request Number 4.
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 9 is from the District
Clerk. She's requested a transfer of $43.70 from Office
Supplies to Machine Repairs.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of Budget Amendment Request Number 4. Any question
or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by
raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. I've
5-23-OS
I~ J'
1
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
just been handed Budget Amendment Request Number 5.
MS. PIE PER: Tommy, do you have an extra?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. Number 5, I received
this from the Treasurer this morning. Her request is to
transfer $1,420.38 from Deputy Salaries and $681 in Group
Insurance to her Part-Time line item. That total is
$2,101.38. I think she's attached the -- the justification
for -- for this request with this -- with this amendment. I
think it's on the back.
JUDGE TINLEY: This deals with a budget
amendment in the last fiscal year?
MS. NEMEC: That budget -- that explanation
that I attached was the explanation for last year's request,
and on the bottom paragraph -- the second paragraph, I also
noted in there that I would be coming back this year, and
the reason why, and so I just attached that same letter that
was sent to you all last year when I requested a budget
amendment to be done in September of last year. The Auditor
told me that y'all needed an explanation before that was
approved, so that's the letter I sent you all last year,
October of 2004. Which I also stated in that letter that I
would be coming back this year requesting more money, and
why.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You've lost me a
little bit.
5-23-OS
113
r
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. NEMEC: That --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN
painless, okay?
This is going to be
MS. NEMEC: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You had hired somebody
and we refused to pay them? No?
MS. NEMEC: Last year?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes.
MS. NEMEC: Last year, I went over in my
part-time line item.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MS. NEMEC: And that -- that letter there is
an explanation as to why I went over, as requested by the
Auditor, for y'all to be able to pay that. That was last
year.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MS. NEMEC: But in that second to the last
paragraph, I included in last year's letter that I would be
coming back this year, and that's why I attached this
letter, to remind you all that I had already explained to
y'all that this would be happening this year.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is it -- what I want
to know is --
MS. NEMEC: The reasons why?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, just hold it.
5-23-OS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
114
MS. NEMEC: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are we dealing with
something that happened last year?
MS. NEMEC: No.
MR. TOMLINSON: No.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Okay. All
right. All right, I'm kind of clear now. Sort of.
MR. TOMLINSON: We're dealing with this year.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pardon?
MR. TOMLINSON: We're dealing with this year.
MS. NEMEC: And on top of the explanation for
that letter at that time, that I would be needing to come
back, there's also a 2 and a half percent COLA increase that
I had added to my part-time line item that was not put in
during the budget process. There was some overtime that
Jacqui had to work due to my chief deputy taking time off
from October through December, and then she's also had to
work some overtime from January on since we were in training
with the new person. I usually get a student from Tivy from
their work program to come in and help us out when we get
behind, but they were not doing that this year, and so that
also includes some part-time money that I paid for someone
to come in on a part-time basis for some hours during
October through December 15th.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval.
5-23-OS
115
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 WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Any questions or comments?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I just have kind of a
corollary question here, Barbara. You're moving this money
out of two different line items, but the one that I'm
curious about is Group Insurance. And the question is,
you've spent fewer dollars of your budgeted amount for group
insurance at the two-thirds mark of the county budget year
than would be the case if we took that 11,9 and split it in
three parts, and so you've got a surplus there showing that
your cost for group insurance was not as great as you had
anticipated. But I read in the Kerrville Daily Times here
recently where the Sheriff is anticipating insurance costs
to go up 15 to 20 percent, and I'm wondering, where are we
with that?
MS. NEMEC: Okay. The -- what you read in
the Daily Times was an estimate for next year's --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand.
MS. NEMEC: -- increase. The reason that
this increase is in my budget, which is going to be in
everyone's budget, was because when we do our budgets, we
just estimate -- the Auditor and I get together and we
figure out what insurance is doing out there and what kind
of estimate we might be able to expect as far as an
5-23-OS
116
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
increase, and we pass that on to the departments. At this
point, we don't know what our insurance premium is going to
be for next year, so we just estimate, which is what we did
last year. And that gave me $681 extra.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, the -- well, more
than that, actually. But the --
MS. NEMEC: I mean -- yeah, 14. 14.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So it's an
overestimation for the current budget year, and we don't
know the answer for next year.
MS. NEMEC: No, actually, it's 681. I
figured how much it would take for the rest of the year and
how much I was going to have left in that line item.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Barbara, I've got a --
I guess just a comment here on your -- your reasons that
you're moving money around and paying extra money. I'm
going to read two sentences out of here.
MS. NEMEC: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: In the first
paragraph, it says, "My chief deputy took several weeks of
vacation during our busiest time of the year." And then the
second paragraph, "My part-time person also took vacation
time during our busy time of the year." I don't know if I
would tell people that or not.
5-23-05
117
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. NEMEC: That was during last year. This
-- this top two paragraphs are for the --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MS. NEMEC: -- explanation for last year's
budget.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You've blown me away.
I'm through for the day, I can tell you.
JODGE TINLEY: Well, that's what I'm confused
about. We've got a budget amendment May the 23rd of 'O5,
but it has attached to it a memorandum dated October 5,
2004, reference a requested budget amendment dated
September 27th, 2004.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- let me try to
make a stab at this. As I understand -- as I understand
from -- how I understood what Barbara has said is that we
can disregard everything in that memo except the bottom part
that says there's going to be another amendment in
2009-2005.
(Commissioner Baldwin left the courtroom.)
MS. NEMEC: That's just to let you know that
ahead of time, I knew this was going to happen, and back in
October I notified -- I notified y'all with a previous
budget amendment that I would be coming back this year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The first two paragraphs
refer to a budget amendment last year. It's only that
5-23-CS
118
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
little bit of Paragraph 3 that refers to this budget
amendment, and it just says that she's told us a year -- or
last October that she was going to have another budget
amendment.
MS. NEMEC: That's right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's --
MS. NEMEC: You've got it.
JUDGE TINLEY: And you sent this memo
October 4 of last year?
MS. NEMEC: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: I have no recollection of
having received it, but that's neither here nor there, I
don't suppose. Do you remember receiving it?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah, I do.
MS. NEMEC: I put it in everyone's box, and
gave yours to --
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. So, basically,
everything in this memo except the heads-up, I'm going to be
coming to you in the '04-'05 budget year for an amendment
during that budget year, has no application to what you're
requesting here.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You got it.
MS. NEMEC: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, thank you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, you sifted down
5-23-OS
119
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
through it.
MS. NEMEC: I will tell you right now that
the figure that -- that I'm requesting is within my budget.
But I figured how much I'll have with this through the end
of September, and if Jacqui continues -- well, she will have
to work what she is scheduled to work. I'm still going to
be short, but I'm waiting to see where I'm going to have --
'cause, I mean, my budget is pretty skimpy and I didn't want
to take it out of an emergency or anything, so I'll be
coming back again when I see where my other line items are
to move more money up there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You're making it more
confusing.
MS. NEMEC: Excuse me?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Nevermind.
MS. NEMEC: Did you get that, Kathy, so I can
read it later?
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions or
comments on this item? 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. Any
more budget amendments?
5-23-OS
inn
1
L
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. TOMLINSON: That's it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Do we have any late
bills?
MR. TOMLINSON: I have one. It's for $340
payable to the Clerk of the Supreme Court of Texas. It's
for the State Bar dues for the County Attorney.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Need a hand check?
(Mr. Tomlinson nodded.)
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Authorize a hand
check.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the late bill to Supreme Court of Texas, $340,
for Bar dues for the County Attorney, and authorize hand
check. Any questions or comments? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(NO response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Do we
have any reports from any of the Commissioners in connection
with their liaison or Committee assignments?
(Commissioner Baldwin returned to the courtroom.)
5-23-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
121
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What's the score?
JUDGE TINLEY: Three to one.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Spurs win.
JUDGE TINLEY: What's your report?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The coffee's all dried
up out there. Kathy's ready to go have lunch, and so am I.
That's about all I found out out there.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any other reports?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I've got a couple of
reports.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I guess I just
wanted to keep you informed, and maybe get a little
guidance. Two of the joint contracts with the city, Animal
Control and Library, both have a provision in them that --
that says that the budgets for the following year will be
submitted to the respective bodies by July 1. That's one
point. And then the library contract says that the -- that
the Commissioner who has liaison responsibility will meet
with the Library Director to prepare a financial report.
And so a few weeks ago, I sent a memo to the library, with a
copy to the Interim City Manager -- I copied you on it,
Judge -- that said I'm ready to do that and we need to
schedule a meeting and get it done so we can meet our
obligation to have that done by July 1, and I haven't heard
5-23-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
122
from him. This is why I need guidance. I'm assuming when
it says submit a budget by July 1, it's going to be a draft
budget. I'm not going to send anything to the City, or
we're not, that says, "Here's the final deal,' cause we have
-- so it'll be a -- you're nodding your head. It will be a
draft budget?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: More than likely.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. And then, on
Animal Control, January 28th we sent a letter to the City
saying the same thing. We need to renegotiate those
contracts; there are two of them, and we haven't heard from
them since January 28th. It's also got the July 1 date on
it. Now, today I gave Rex a -- he hasn't gotten it yet -- a
marked-up copy of pulling those two contracts together. One
of them's a 10-year-old contract that had something to do
with how we earned ownership of that facility, and then the
other one was our operating agreement. So, I've -- I've
marked those up and given it to Rex to take a look at. It's
probably -- well, I'm sure it won't meet with his -- his
approval, but it's pushing it in that direction.
I've also gotten some information from Jamie
-- Janie about what some -- what four other counties do that
are among the group of 13 that are our size, and it's all
across the board. One of them doesn't have animal control
coordinates or court order, and they don't do anything; the
5-23-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
123
Sheriff's Office looks into bites and whatever else, and
that's about it. And then ours is the -- of the other
counties, is the most elaborate and most cost-effective.
So, I'm just telling you between now and July 1, I'm going
to give you a piece of paper that shows some options that we
might have for a contract and the way we'll go about that,
and it -- for purposes of thinking about it. I'm going to
guess that we're going to probably continue it more or less
the way we've done in the past, but at least you'll know
about the options. So, the purpose to all that long
discussion was to tell you that we got a July 1 deadline on
these two contracts, and we may have to just unilaterally
meet that, 'cause we're not getting any help and input from
the City.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner, I think I can
bring you up to a more current point. I received a response
to your request at the tail end of last week, and over the
weekend I dictated a draft response.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: That I hope circulates --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's on Library or
Animal Control?
JUDGE TINLEY: This is on Library. That I
hope to circulate to the members of the Court maybe sometime
today. It was on some dictation I did this weekend. Our
5-23-OS
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
124
admin has it now. That'll bring us up to date there. Now,
I've not received anything on the Animal Control; this was
specified to the Library.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: For y'all's
information, the simplest issue on Animal Control is that
we've been paying 60 percent of the cost, and we have
40 percent of the activity, and that formula was payback to
them for buying things over a 10-year period.
JUDGE TINLEY: The purchase of the land and
the equipment, the rolling stock that we acquired from them.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. And so the
simple solution to the contract would be to flip-flop that
and go 60/40, but there's some other things we need to
consider.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Under the contract, we
own the land now.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. Yeah, we're through,
at the end of this fiscal year, doing that paying.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Want to sell it?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll entertain an offer.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do you want to sell
that, Buster?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me -- let me go back, if I
s-z3-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
125
might, to monthly reports. I have been submitted monthly
reports by the District Clerk and Justice of the Peace,
Precinct 4. Do I hear a motion that these reports be
approved as submitted?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the monthly reports as submitted. Any question
or comment? A11 in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Do we
have any other reports from elected officials? Department
heads? We've got everything else. Anything else before we
go into executive or closed session? We will go out of open
session at 11:97.
(The open session was closed at 11:47 a.m.,
and an Executive Session was held, the
transcript of which is contained in a
separate document.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. It's 12:07 now, and
we'll come back, reconvene in open session. Does any member
of the Court have anything they wish to offer in connection
with any matter that was discussed in closed or executive
5-23-OS
126
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
session? Hearing nothing, does any member of the Court have
anything further in connection with matters on today's
agenda? Hearing nothing more, we'll stand adjourned.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Hear, hear.
(Commissioners Court adjourned at 12:08 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 27th day of May, 2005.
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
BY: __~ ~ ----
Kathy nik, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
s-z3-os
ORDER N0.29174
Trans Texas Corridor
Resolution
Came to be heazd this the 23rd day of May 2005, with a motion made by Commissioner
Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court unanimously approved by
vote of 4-0-0 the resolution opposing the Trans Texas Corridor.
ORDER NO.29175
BANK DEPOSITORY
Came to be heazd this the 23rd day of May 2005, with a motion made by Commissioner
Letz, seconded by Commissioner Nicholson. The Court unanimously approved by vote
of 4-0-0 the award the bid to Security State Bank and Trust as the County Bank
Depository.
ORDER N0.29176
NATIONAL INCIDENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Came to be heazd this the 23rd day of May 2005, with a motion made by Commissioner
Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court unanimously approved by vote of
4-0-0 the resolution approving the National Incident Management System.
ORDER N0.29177
TELEPHONE SERVICE
Came to be heard this the 23rd 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 to advertise and/or solicit proposals for county long distance telephone service.
ORDER N0.29178
HIRING FREEZE FOR COUNTY EMPLOYEES
Came to be heard this the 23rd 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 implement a hiring freeze for the County except for sheriff deputies, jailers,
and juvenile detention officers.
ORDER N0.29179
KERRVILLE SOUTH WASTEWATER PROJECT, PHASE II, AND III
Came to be heard this the 23rd 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 Lupe Rubio Construction, Inc. to the project engineer
for review and recommendation.
ORDER N0.29180
Kerrville/Ken County Joint Airport
Resolution
Came to be heard this the 23rd day of May 2005, with a motion made by Commissioner
Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court unanimously approved by vote of
4-0-0 the Resolution authorizing expenditures for the Airport Taxi Way.
ORDER NO. 29181
KERB COUNTY JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITY
Came to be heard this the 23rd day of May 2005, with a motion made by Commissioner
Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court unanimously approved by vote of
4-0-0 that should we receive an offer to purchase the Juvenile Facility, the Court would
analyze it and review it for possible sale and/or explore with the Sheriff, the utilization of
one of those two facilities for his purposes and what that cost would be to the County.
ORDER NO.29182
Claims and Accounts
On this the 23`d day of May 2005, came to be considered by the Court various
Commissioners Precincts, which said Claims and Accounts aze:
10- General $110,950.53
15- Road & Bridge $59,144.30
18- Law Library $3,709.00
20- Road District $12,003.74
50-Indigent Health Care $44,088.77
76-Juvenile Detention $11,787.35
Total Cash Required $241,683.69
Upon motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The
Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to pay the claims and accounts.
ORDER NO.29183
BUDGET AMENDMENT
COUNTY ATTORNEY
Came to be heazd this the 23rd 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 to transfer the following expense codes:
Offense Code Description Amendment
Increase/()Decrease
10-475-309 Postage $77.46
10-475-315 Books-publication-dues ($77.46)
ORDER N0.29184
BUDGET AMENDMENT
JUSTICE OF THE PEACE #4
Came to be heard this the 23rd day of May 2005 with a motion made by Commissioner
Nicholson, Seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a
vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense codes:
Offense Code Description Amendment
Increase/() Decrease
10-458-499 Miscellaneous $97.50
10-458-450 Janitorial ($97.50)
ORDER NO. 29185
BUDGET AMENDMENT
COUNTY JAIL
Came to be heard this the 23rd 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:
Offense Code Description Amendment
Increase/() Decrease
10-512-423 Radio Repairs $45.00
10-512-103 Cooks $55.00
Includes $10.00 shortage from budget amendment on 5-9-05 due to addition error
ORDER NO. 29186
BUDGET AMENDMENT
DISTRICT CLERK
Came to be heard this the 23rd 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 to transfer the following expense codes:
Offense Code
10-450-456
10-450-310
Description
Machine Repairs
Office Supplies
Amendment
IncreaselQDecrease
$43.70
($43.70)
ORDER NO. 29187
BUDGET AMENDMENT
COUNTY TREASURER
Came to be heard this the 23rd 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 to transfer the following expense
Offense Code Description
10-497-108 Part-Time Salary
10-497-104 Deputy
10-497-202 Grouplnsurance
codes:
Amendment
Increase/()Decrease
$2,101.38
($1,420.38)
($681.00)
ORDER NO. 29188
LATE BILL
COUNTY ATTORNEY
Came to be heazd this the 23rd 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 pay and cut a hand check payable to the Supreme Court Clerk for membership
required for the State Bar.
ORDER NO. 29189
MONTHLY REPORTS
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 the following monthly reports:
District Clerk
Justice of the Peace #4