1
3
4
5
h
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
-~~ 29
25
KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT
Special Session
Monday, July 25, 2005
9:00 a.m.
Commissioners' Courtroom
Kerr County Courthouse
Kerrville, Texas
PRESENT: PAT TINLEY, Kerr County Judge
WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pr_t. 2
JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3
DAVE NICHOLSON, Commissioner Pct. 4
ABSENT: H. A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1
2
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
I N D E X
July 25, 2005
PAGE
--- Visitors' Input 5
--- Commissioners' Comments 7
1.1 Consider renewing contract between County and ai9~ 59
Kerrville Christmas Lighting Corp. 10
1.2 Proposal that "Hot Check" fund be integrated into ~`~2~~
the County's financial management in total 12
1.3 Discuss Kerr County policy regarding roads that
become impassable for emergency service vehicles 18
1.4 Consider/discuss ratifying Budget Amendment f,,~J.Ll~3
Request No. 6 dated September 27, 2004 27, 33
1.5 Open and accept/reject bid(s) for long distance ~9'2~0~
telephone service 29
1.5 Consider soliciting bid(s) for long distance .'G~'L~O'z'
telephone service 31
1.8 Public Hearing for Revision of Plat of Southern
Hills Phase Two, Lots 36, 37 & 38, Precinct 1 54
1.9 Final Revision of Plat for Southern Hills Phase y9'Z~Oy
Two, Lots 36, 37 & 38, Precinct 1 55
1.7 Set Public Hearing for Revision of Plat of Whiskey.29~lPS
Ridge Ranches, Lot 17 & 18, Vol 6, Page 169, Pct. 3 57
1.10 Consider Preliminary Plat of River Road Ranch '~ 9z ~~
Subdivision, Precinct 4 58
1.11 Consider/discuss repairs and improvements to the
Animal Control Facility 72
1.12 VOCA grant notification for Crime Victims' Rights ~~J.Lw ~
Program and approval of job description of Crime
Victims' Rights Coordinator 76
1.13 Adopt amended budget for Crime Victims' Rights 2~gz~v8
Program for remainder of 2004-2005 budget year
based on VOCA grant approval 79
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
-- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
"' 2 4
25
I N D E X (Continued)
July 25, 2005
PAGE
1.19 Update on HB 1751 related to crime victims' rights
adopted by the Texas Legislature in 2005 and request
for approval of new fees for Crime Victims' Rights
program in Kerr County 84
1.15 Consider declaring 1989 Chevrolet DARE car as ~.4z'~~
as surplus property and granting permission to
accept sealed bids to sell it 90
1.17 Consider and discuss update from 9-1-1 and y ~ z 70
funding for final 9-1-1- mailout 91
1.16 Consider/discuss authorizinq renewal of Kerr ~~ 2 7i
County Teen Curfew law which has expired 102
1.18 Discuss clarification of policy directing
Environmental Health Department Manager and ~9Z 7Z
Floodplain Administrator to deny permits when
there is a violation of Subdivision Rules & Regs 107
1.19 Discuss the way TCDRS handled previous late
filing penalties 108
1.20 Consider waiving or lowering plat review fees ~`~z 7-3
for revision of plat l09
1.21 Consider reappointment of Dr. Sam M. Dunkin to 2i9z 9Y
Hill Country Community M.H.M.R. Center Board of
Trustees for an additional two-year term 114
1.22 Consider/discuss designation of person authorized
	by Kerr County to have access to IRS information	
	or otherwise act on behalf	of County	115
4.1	Pay Bills 2~~z ~3		125
9.2	Budget Amendments ;~i9.Z~~v `.G	~zBla~ R.9.z8S 126,	167
4.3	Late Bills		-'-
4.4	Approve and Accept Monthly	Reports,Z~2~7	142
		yvzs~	
1.23	Consider EMS Contract with	City of Kerrville 143,	172
5.1	Reports from Commissioners/Liaison Committee	
	Assignments		179
--- Adjourned 184
4
1
7
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
On Monday, July 25, 2005, at 9:00 a.m., a special meeting
~f the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in the
Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, Kerrville,
Texas, and the following proceedings were had in open court:
P R O C E E D I N G S
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me call to order the
regularly scheduled meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners
Court scheduled for this date and time, Monday, July the
25th of 2005, at 9 a.m. Our clock on the wall indicates
that it's a couple minutes past that now. Present are
Commissioner, Precinct 2, Williams and Commissioner,
Precinct 4, Nicholson and myself. Commissioner 4? I think
this morning you have the honors.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I want to introduce
the Court to Reverend Sam Hunnicutt, my new friend, and the
new shepherd of the Hunt Methodist Church. He's replaced
our old friend, John Green, as pastor at Hunt Methodist, and
if you'll come up to the podium, pastor, and -- and you
might want to preach to this Court a little bit before you
pray; I don't know. (Laughter.)
MR. HUNNICUTT: I've never preached with a
congregation behind me. It's usually the choir.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That was a good
sermon two weeks ago on unity.
MR. HUNNICUTT: Before we moved to Hunt about
~-zs-us
C
J
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
two months ago, I thought -- always assumed or had believed
that the Garden of Eden was, you know between two rivers and
in a faraway land, and it turns out it's between two rivers
in west Kerr County. And we're blessed to be here. And I
wonder if you would join me as we bow in prayer in our
meeting.
JUDGE TINLEY: Rise, please.
(Prayer and pledge of allegiance.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. At this time, if
there is any member of the audience or the public that
wishes to be heard on a matter that is not a listed agenda
item, they're privileged to come forward at this time, and
we would be happy to hear from them. If -- if you want to
speak on an agenda item that's part of the official agenda,
we would ask that you fill out a participation form. The
forms are at the back of the room. That's primarily so that
I don't miss you when that agenda item comes up. It helps
me to be able to know that someone needs to be recognized.
So, if -- if it's on a listed agenda item, if you'd be kind
enough to fill out a participation form, but at this time,
any persons who want to be heard on matters not listed on
the agenda, feel free to come forward at this time. General
Schellhase, good to see you this morning.
MR. SCHELLHASE: Thank you, Judge,
Commissioners. I'm here for two purposes that are not on
-~.;-US
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the agenda. First, I would like to present to the
Commissioners Court the Historical Commission's
Distinguished Service Award for 2004 work by the Historical
Commission. That deals primarily with the -- with the oral
history work and the location establishment of cemeteries
and markers that are in the process of work. The markers
have been finished. We'll probably get credit for those for
2005, which we have to thank Rosa Lavender a great deal for
doing all of that work. The second item I'm here for is,
I'd like to introduce you to Tom Houck. Tom, come forward.
Tom is a disabled veterans service -- veterans award service
worker. As you know, our position at the V.A. Hospital has
been discontinued, and I wanted to introduce Tom to the
Court. He's handling the claims by veterans now that that
office has been abandoned, although we hope it will be
reestablished for part-time. i'll give Tom a minute to tell
you.
MR. HOOCK: Thank you, sir. Morning. The
reason I wanted to talk to you, I'd like to get on the
agenda something around August 22nd to bring in some real
facts for you. I -- I'm personally representing three
organizations right now. The Veterans of Foreign Wars,
Disabled American Veterans, and America Legion. We need a
county service officer. The V.A.'s funds have cut back so
much that they're not providing any. There's a good chance
~ 2s oa

1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Gc
23
24
25
that T.V.C. is going to pull out of the -- out of the
hospital. I've got a deal with all three of these
organizations right now to even provide some of the funding
for it, so it's just a program I'd like to put together for
you that we could address at a later date.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you.
MR. SCHELLHASE: Thank, you Commissioners.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Is there any
other member of the public that wishes to be heard with
respect to an item or items that are not on the agenda?
Seeing no one else to come forward, we'll move on with our
business. Commissioner 4? What do you have for us this
morning?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We had some more
rain this weekend in west Kerr County. That's the third
week in a row. We've been pretty spotty earlier. A lot of
rain way out west on Highway 41, but not very much around
Hunt, Ingram. Now it's rained enough that I've lifted the
-- I've lifted the burn ban. And that's all I've got,
Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner 2?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I took an act of
faith and lifted it before the raLns came. Thank heavens
they came. Nothing, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else? Commissioner
~-'s-os
8
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
-' 2 4
25
1 I 3?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, eastern Kerr County
missed out on the rains, and parts of it still have not
received any rain. Luckily, most of the eastern area has
received some. I think right around the Comfort area itself
rains, close to an inch, and the burn ban is lifted as well.
Also, the -- we mentioned several meetings ago about the
coming draft of the new regional water plan, which I serve
as chair of Region J, the Plateau Regional Water Plan.
There's a copy in the clerk's office available for the
public, I believe, and there's also one at the library,
though I've heard they've -- the one at the library may be
misplaced; someone went to find it, and they couldn't find
it. Anyway, anyone that wants to read the new water plan,
here it is, in draft form anyway. It's a lot of charts and
tables and things of that nature, but it is pretty
interesting. This region took a much different view of
evaluating groundwater availability than any other area of
the state. The State's applauding us for the way we're
looking at it from the standpoint of we're tying
groundwater, especially in western Kerr County, to the flow
of the river. We feel that's critical, and they are
definitely interrelated. It's also, I think, a good
~-zs-us
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
]6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
9
testament to governmental entities working together.
Frequently I see there's no coordination between the County
and others, and this is an effort in Kerr County of the
City, U.G.R.A., County, and Headwaters all working together.
They all attend all the meetings, and all contribute;
Councilman Smith in the audience is one of our board
members. And also, it's a regional approach. It's a
representatives from Real, Bandera, Edwards, and counties
righr_ around us to the north and to the east. Gillespie
County is in a different region, as is Kendall County, but
there is a lot of collaboration regionally, which I think is
very good for evaluating our water supplies. So, anyway,
it's pretty interesting. It is a big document, but if y'all
are interested, it is available. And there will be a public
hearing August 18th, I believe is the date it's posted, I
think -- pretty sure it's the 18th -- at U.G.R.A. at 6 p.m.,
when we will publicly go over it and accept comments at that
meeting.
MR. PEARSON: Was there any more
consideration for cedar eradication?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Cedar eradication is one
of the strategies -- or brush -- it's actually brush. I
don't think cedar is mentioned specifically, 'cause part of
the region, mesquite's an equally bad problem.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is that all we got?
~-zs-os
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2~
24
~5
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's all.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. I wanted to pass
on some kudos that I received. I had a call from a Mr. Carl
Johnson, who was calling on behalf of himself and a number
of his neighbors out in the Scenic Valley, Scenic Hills Road
area, expressing great happiness about the resurfacing
sealcoating job that our Road and Bridge Department was
doing out there. Mr. Odom, you've got a bunch of happy
folks cut there now, and they're proud of the work that
you're doing, and I think that needs to be passed along to
you, and the public needs to be aware of that. So --
MR. ODOM: I'll pass that on to the men.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- job well done.
MR. ODOM: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. That's all I have.
Let's move on with the agenda items, if we might. First
item on the agenda, consider, discuss, and take appropriate
action to renew contract between Kerr County and R:errville
Christmas Lighting Corporation. Commissioner Williams.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Judge. At
the request of Mr. Jim Murphy of the Christmas Lighting
Corporation, we've put this agenda item on. I think in your
packet also is a copy of a proposed renewal license
agreement. And, Mr. Murphy, iE you'd be so good as to come
talk to us just a second, tell us what, if any, changes
~ _5-os
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
]3
79
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
there are in this, and what, if any, new plans you have for
the Christmas lighting that is so delightful during the
season, and appreciate it.
MR. MURPHY: Well, for the record, I'm Jim
Murphy, president of the Kerrville Christmas Lighting
Corporation, and we thank you, the Commissioners Court, for
what you've done for us for the last 10 or so years. I
believe it's even more than that, but I don't have a record
written down. Anyhow, we than Y, you very much for what you
have done, and hopefully you're satisfied with what we've
accomplished, and we intend to keep going, if this contract
is renewed, and do more things and better things in the
future.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Any changes in the
proposed license agreement?
MR. MURPHY: No, there's no changes, other
than the dates.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, it will be just
renewal of the existing licensing agreement?
MR. MURPHY: That's right, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would move approval
of the licensing agreement for the ensuing year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agreement with the Kerrville Christmas
~-~s-ns
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
l5
lE
17
18
19
20
Z1
22
23
24
25
Lighting Corporation. 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. Thank
you very much.
MR, MURPHY: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you for being here,
Mr. Murphy. The next agenda item is a proposal that the
County Attorney's Hot Check fund be integrated into the
County`s financial management in total, and that related
expenses formerly paid from said fund be incorporated into
the County Attorney budget. Mr. Emerson?
MR. EMERSON: Yes, sir. What I'd like to
propose to the County is based on what I think will be more
efficient for the County. The current system, as it's set
up, is that the County Attorney's office runs its standard
budget through the Commissioners Court. We also have a
budget based off the Hot Check fund. By statute, the Hot
Check fund falls under the County's -- County Attorney's
autonomy. What I would propose to the County is to take the
Hot Check fund itself, integrate it into the County budget,
whereby I will turn over full authority for the Hot Check
fund to the Commissioners Court. I think the end result of
~-25-OS
13
1
"` 2
3
4
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
--- 13
14
l5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that will be that, based on a three-year average, the fees
collected on behalf of the County have averaged about
$61,000 a year. The expenses that I'm asking the County to
assume that have historically been paid out of that budget
are salary adjustments to the employees for 20,894, that I
would propose just be integrated into their current pay
structure, adjust their pay levels or however the County
deems it appropriate. Most of the these employees have been
receiving this pay supplement for an extended period of
time, and I think it would be an injustice to just jerk it
away from them at this point.
There's community development that I would
like proposed of approximately 6,000, or 10 percent of the
fund per year. That would be the money LnaL i woulu
continue to use for community education, working with the
schools, buying the law enforcement materials and performing
the functions that have historically been designated for
that Hot Check fund. There's postage on an average of
$1,151 that's been spent in excess of the budget, based on a
three-year average. There's office supplies on an average
of $739 a year that's been spent in excess of the budget,
and conference expenses for the employees to stay updated on
legal matters to the tune of $595 in excess of the budget.
The bottom line to this is -- is that I think what the
County will benefit from is a net profit, increased use of
~-zs-ns
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
funds for the County, of approximately $32,000 a year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it looks great,
and the bottom three items are very easy to incorporate into
our budget process, so -- as is, really, the community
development. On the salary adjustments, I have two
questions. The -- is it easy to integrate the supplements
that have been paid into our current structure -- step and
grade structure without getting employees way out of -- I
quess --
MR. EMERSON: Well, I think -- I think what
it would require, and this is just off the top of my head,
would be, say, taking an employee that's a 15-1, calculating
what this supplement's going to bring them into, and if it
goes to 15-3 or 15-4, just moving it over.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How would this work with
new -- say you had new employees. Would they come in --
MR. EMERSON: They would come in at a 15-1.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, this salary
supplement really is kind of what the current employees have
been receiving, but it wouldn't really continue for new
employees?
MR. EMERSON: Correct.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. And there would be
-- after this one-time adjustment -- well, I guess after
that, any future adjustments would be built into just the
~ 's-oe
15
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
23
24
~5
salary increases, based on what we do each year based on the
step and grade that that employee's at?
MR. EMERSON: Correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mr. County Attorney,
what would be -- I have a couple questions. What would be
your response if the annual average -- three-year average
were to drop significantly? How -- how would that shape out
if the 61,993, suddenly became 50,000?
MR. EMERSON: Then the County would still net
benefit to the tune of $20,000.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. So, it falls
to the bottom line? That's your answer?
MR. EMERSON: Sure.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The other thing is,
do you propose this to be effective immediately or at the
beginning of the new fiscal year?
MR. EMERSON: New fiscal year.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's a -- I mean,
I'm in favor of doing it. We need to visit with the
Treasurer on how we'd make those adjustments, if that's
possible on the salary supplements. And then let's present
it as part of the budget for next year.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: One question.
Mr. Attorney, it's been -- the last three years, at least,
~-zs-ns
16

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1L
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
it's been averaging a $32,000 surplus. Is there a balance
in that account now?
MR. EMERSON: There is. The County -- well,
let me clarify that by saying that the accounts are in flux
because of catching up on the accounting and the computer
systems.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay.
MR. EMERSON: But there's somewhere between
$10,000 and $20,000 in the account.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: There's not a large
amount of money that would be transferred to the County?
MR. EMERSON: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Is it not true, Mr. Emerson, that you've already
transferred some of these funds over to the County?
MR. EMERSON: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. And prior to that, of
course, the balance was larger?
MR. EMERSON: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any further question or
discussion on the motion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just have a question as
to why we need a motion and order. I mean, if it's
~-zs-cs
17
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
incorporated into the budget, it'll become part of next
year's budget. I mean, I think unless Mr. Emerson just
likes approval of the concept -- I mean, I think the -- I
don't see the reason at this point, 'cause we're not doing
anything right now.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, we're accepting
the concept of abolishing that fund and rolling it into the
County budget.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. That's what the
motion is? To accept the concept and roll it into the
budget for next fiscal year?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
DODGE TINLEY: 1 assume --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the way I see
it.
JUDGE TINLEY: I assume that's what you're
asking?
MR. EMERSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's what I
seconded.
DODGE TINLEY: Okay. Any further question or
discussion? All in favor of that motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
DODGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
~ zs-os
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
G1
22
23
24
25
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Thank
you, Mr. Emerson.
MR. EMERSON: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: The next item on the agenda is
consider and discuss Kerr County policy regarding roads that
become impassable, or nearly so, for emergency service
vehicles. Commissioner Williams.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I put this on 'cause
I've had some calls recently, folks who live in -- in areas
that are platted, but the roads were never built to county
specifications, and therefore are not maintained. And that
is our current policy, I understand, and I'm not proposing
any change to that, but there are some situations where,
over time, the roads become nearly impassable. I believe we
had this discussion several years ago, and I, frankly, don't
recall what our response to it was. And so I -- that's the
reason I put it on there, so we can get a -- hopefully a
clear, concise statement of what we do and what we don't do.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My recollection is that
we've dealt with this several times. First time I remember
was out more in west Kerr County; there was an individual
who had a son who was -- had some, I think, physical
disability-type problem. And, anyway, on that one, the
Court said our hands are tied; we couldn't do anything. I
~ zs-oe
l
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
23
29
25
19
believe several years ago there was -- or maybe two years
ago, there was another instance, and I thought on that one
we directed Road and Bridge to do a certain amount of
limited work to make the road passable for EMS-type
services, and that was it. Is that your recollection?
MR. ODOM: Vaguely that I recall that, and
maybe the Sheriff remembers. But, basically, we've asked --
the policy is the Sheriff's Department go out to take a
look, and if they couldn't get up it -- and normally this
was a condition of flooding and stuff like that; it wasn't
dry weather or anything like that. It's -- which is an
inconvenience. But where Rusty's people went out, looked at
it and said they couldn't get up there just in a car, then
we tried to isolate that one problem and fix that, rectify
the problem.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We may be talking
about the same road. I think it's Primrose Lane.
MR. ODOM: Primrose was one of them.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah, it's one of
them. There's more than one. And that's just a few hundred
yards outside of Precinct 4 in Commissioner Baldwin's area.
But I've been up that road in my four-wheel-drive truck, and
it's not easy to get up and down it. But I thought I
understood that while we were barred from maintaining roads
that are not county roads and are private roads, that the
~-_s-os
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
23
7q
25
20
Sheriff can declare an emergency, and then that allows us to
go ahead and go in there and -- and maintain them.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would it be declaring
an emergency or just establishing that it has -- just
certifying that it is impassable for an emergency vehicle?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Same thing, I think.
He goes out there and says the ambulance would have a hard
time getting up here, so I'm -- I say this road is an
emergency situation.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I guess what
I'm asking is, is that a standard policy of the Court? And
if it is, what is the trigger mechanism? It doesn't need to
come to the Court every time that happens, but there needs
to be a triggering mechanism and it just happens. If it's
going to be rectified, it needs to be rectified. That's
what I'm asking.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: My understanding from
the past was the only time the Sheriff's Office did it, that
we got involved, was mainly right after a bad flood or a lot
of high water. We didn't do it during dry weather just on
rutted out roads and that, but if, because of a flood or
high water, there was -- it was declared impassable, a
deputy couldn't get past it or something, then we would
notify Road and Bridge, and just that particular little area
that could not be passed, they would come through with the
~-25 OS
21


1
Z
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Zl
2~
23
?q
~5
maintainer or whatever and just make it at least passable
for a vehicle. But as far as maintaining the road or trying
to do any major work anywhere else, they didn't. It was
just so we could get a patrol car and ambulance up that road
in an emergency situation. But it was only done after
floods and that. We'd go out -- it wasn't done, like,
during normal time of year.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I guess what I'm
trying to get to is kind of a routine -- if a resident or
residents on a road that is impassable makes a call to Road
and Bridge, would Road and Bridge then routinely dispatch
you or ask you or one of your deputies to go out there and
run the road and certify it was in bad shape and couldn't
handle an emergency vehicle?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: If it was during a flood
time, yes, that's exactly how it was done, Now, just -- you
take where we've had dry weather, and it's just powdered
ruts, and ruts have gotten into it and just from the
collector or whatever, it's just gotten bad, but not due to
an emergency situation. We do not deal with those, okay?
We only did it after there was a flood or something like
that, was the only stipulation.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think, in addition,
it's not just that there was a flood. There was a reason we
needed to get back there. It was that people couldn't get
~-zs u5
22
i
1
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
out briefly, and because I think it's -- it -- we don't want
-- I don't think we want to get us -- I don't want to get in
a situation where we start maintaining any road except in a
true emergency.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't think you could.
Now, like, Primrose --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I didn't bring it up
for that purpose.
SHERIFF HIER.HOLZEP,: Like, Primrose, this
time of year where it hasn't been a flood or emergency
situation, it may be that we have to use our
four-wheel-drive vehicle or pickup to get back in there. We
just do that, you know, if that's the only way we can. But
we don't call Road and Bridge out in this type situation and
tell them to come improve that road.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It sounds like what
I'm hearing, Commissioner, is that Primrose and some others
that are chronically bad are not covered by the -- by the
Sheriff's emergency -- emergency aspect. It has to be for a
specific incident.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand.
MR. ODOM: Yeah. And, you know, when we
looked at the roads and we've accumulated -- we have no idea
on how many are out there, but if you ]ook at -- if you
start setting precedents, we could not get anything done,
-_~-os
23
i
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
because everybody would be calling in.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right.
MR. ODUM: An inconvenience. And there
really needs to be some mechanism which it would be an
emergency, like flooding and isolated -- but, you know,
there's Armadillo Estates, Peek Ranch, I mean, Primrose,
Tierra Grande, which is -- Val Verde South is always
calling. La Hacienda; those little old roads going up the
side of La Hacienda are private roads up there. Midway. We
had one, Commissioner, with a mile and a half, something
like that. It goes on.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm not talking about
private roads at all.
MR. ODOM: Well, T'm just saying -- but
they would be calling. Sanders, Elm Pass I, all that would
be -- you have to consider that. The Court can set that,
but that has been the policy to help people. We thought
that was the most logical way. We're not supposed to go on
private property, but health, safety, and welfare of the
people, and the mechanism would be to Rusty -- and which a
false deaf is something else, is totally different, but
it -- it makes it an emergency situation. Can they get in
and oui_? And it's normally been floods. That's --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZEF.: And, normally, after the
floods and that, we`ll have quite a few calls that the

1
2
3
4
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
24
officer gets out there and says, "No, I can get through
this. It may be a little rough, but Z can get through it."
We don't call Road and Bridge to do it. It's only in those
severe cases.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Washout.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Like a washout.
MR. ODOM: If their cars can get up there and
back, then, by all means, it looks -- it implies that it's
passable. It may be an inconvenience, but that is part of
not having a county-maintained road, It -- there's probably
as many nonmaintained roads as we maintain, which is around
470 miles, is what we guessed at without any knowledge of
that, 'cause we don't have any data on it.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Not one of these
roads, what I'm hearing, is County-maintained. The
residents of that road have to bring that road up to county
standards, and then we'll consider it?
MR. ODOP4: Then we'll consider it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a given, yeah.
That's a given.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What happens, I
think, in some of them is that developers go in and
establish a subdivision, build some roads, sell all the
lots, and they disappear, and then there's no homeowner's
association or some mechanism for collecting funds and
~_,=_os
25
i
t
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
maintaining the roads. So --
COMMISSIONER. WILLIAMS: A lot --
COMMISSIONER. NICHOLSON: -- 20 years later,
you got a road like this.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: A lot of this
happened when subdivisions were platted and before Kerr
County had Subdivision Rules and standards, and they're
still out there, and they don't get any better. Okay,
that's fine. I understand.
MR. ODOM: And may I say that you would even
have -- look at Homestead and Creekwood. And they would --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, yeah.
MR. ODOM: Have to be built to some
standards. If you open that, then you've gotten some of
these that are there just from drainage.
COMMISSIONER. WTLLIAMS: Not looking to open
Pandora's Box. I just want to make sure we have a procedure
that people can access.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do we need a court order
outlining that procedure? I mean, I don't know that we've
ever passed one.
COMMISSIONER. WILLIAMS: That's kind of the
basis of my question. Did we ever pass a policy court order
that details it so that there's -- in place of Road and
Bridge and in place of the Sheriff's Department -- the
~-25-DS
26
I
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
~0
21
22
23
24
25
Sheriff's shaking his head no. I think you're right,
Sheziff.
SHERIFF HIER.HOLZER: No, I have never seen
anything in writing. It was just discussed and agreed to
that way several years ago.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think --
MR. ODOM: Several years ago. I don't know.
We'll look and see if there's something there, but that was
something we brought to the Court and we did.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This is not styled
today to act on; just consider and discuss.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: In one of those agenda
items that came up right after a flood, that was discussed,
how we deal with these washed-out roads.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And you can put it on the
next agenda to develop a policy.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, we'll develop a
policy, get it in the record, and everybody knows what it
is. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further on that
particular agenda item? Thank you.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I just want to say
I -- I'm sympathetic with people who live on these roads. I
wish the County would win the Lotto and have enough money to
~-zs-os
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
cure what's wrong with all of them. Reality is, we can't --
we can`t take them over.
DODGE TINLEY: Anything further? We'll move
on to the next item, which is a timed item for 9:30.
Amazingly, we're on schedule. Item 4, consider and discuss
and ratify Budget Amendment Request Number 6 dated
September 27, 2004. Ms. Nemec.
MS. NEMEC: Good morning. I'm here asking
for authorization to ratify Budget Amendment Number 6 due to
a letter that was received from the County Attorney's
office, which you all have a copy of.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Does anybody have a copy
of that budget amendment? I haven't seen --
MS. NEMEC: I don't have a copy of the budget
amendment. I have the amount that -- that was requested in
that budget amendment, which is $1,477.08.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 1477 --
MS. NEMEC: .08, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What was the date of
that originally? Do you remember?
MS. NEMEC: September 27th, 2004.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: '04.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can we not come up with
that original budget amendment? Isn't it in the backup
somewhere? I just -- I don't mean to be really picky on
~ a5 u;
1
L
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1J
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
28
this. I don't have a real problem with doing this, but if
we're going to ratify the budget amendment, I don't remember
that far back, what we actually did. I'd like to look at
the actual budget amendment so we can say that's what we're
ratifying, as opposed to --
COMMISSIONER WILL7AMS: Can you find it,
Ms. Nemec, or can the Auditor find it and we can incorporate
it in officially?
MS. NEMEC: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. We'll come
back to it, then.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, we can come back
today.
MS. NEMEC:	Okay,	thank	you.	
COMMISSIONER	LETZ:	You	have	a speaker on
this one?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, I do. Mr. Prendergast,
you had filed a participation form with this particular
agenda item.
MR. PRENDERGAST: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Would you like to speak now,
or would you like to defer until the matter is taken up
again by the Court?
MF.. PRENDERGAST: I'd rather let the Court
discuss it first, because I think there's some other issues
~-25-os
29
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
here that stem from some of my Open Records requests. So,
qo ahead and let's see where they want to do this, and we'll
talk about it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, we will come back to
that particular item. Next item on the agenda is Item
Number 5, to open and accept or reject bids for long
distance telephone service. Do we have any -- do we have
any bids that were submitted pursuant to the -- to the
request that was published, the solicitation?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: One, Judge. It was
handed in -- the Clerk handed me a note that Frontera
Communications pulled their bid today.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We only have this one.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm looking at a -- a bid
that's been handed to me. The printed envelope shows to be
K.T.L.D., Kerrville Telephone Long Distance, 955 Water
Street. It is hand-addressed to Buster Baldwin. It is
time-stamped, "07-08-05, 12:38 Rcvd." To me, that indicates
that it was received July the 8th, 2005, at 12:38 p.m.
Would that be correct?
MS. PlEPEP.: That is correct. I believe that
is the auditor's stamp. That's not mine.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Is that the
auditor's stamp? Is Mr. Tomlinson here? Is that correct?
i-'s ns
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. TOMLINSON: That's correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Was that bid received timely
pursuant to the solicitation that was published?
MR. TOMLINSON: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What was the time
that it was supposed to be in, Judge?
JUDGE TINLEY: My recollection was the 27th
of June, but I don't have that in front of me.
MR. TOMLINSON: That's correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is that correct, Mr. Auditor?
June 27th?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ; Judge, I'll just make a
motion that -- just for the record, that we received no bids
timely for long distance telephone service, or that were
pulled -- the one that was mentioned previously from
Frontera Communication was voluntarily pulled by the
company.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What you're saying is
we would reject it because it was not filed in a timely
manner?
	COMMISSIONER LETZ:	Well, we	didn't	-- yes.
I rephrase my	motion; make a notion	that we	reject	all bids,
as there were	no timely-received --	timely-received	bids.
~ - _' S ~ 5
31
1
2
3
4
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: And an explanation of that,
the note is that Frontera Communications, who had apparently
submitted a timely bid, pulled that bid this morning.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I second the motion.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second the motion.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to
reject all bids before the Court as the remaining bids are
not timely submitted, and one which was timely submitted was
previously pulled by the bidder. Any question or
discussion? 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: That motion does carry. The
next item on the agenda is to consider and discuss
soliciting bids for long distance telephone service.
Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not real sure why my
name's on that one, but that's fine.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I'd call on Commissioner
Baldwin, except he's not here.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Based on the previous
motion, and based on our discussions at the last meeting, I
would make a motion that we qo out for bids again for long
~ zs-as
32
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
distance telephone service.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And if I may make an
amendment to that, in that all bids will have bids due
back -- when is our second meeting in August?
MS. PIEPER: I don't have a calendar.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Kathy, do you know when
our second meeting in August is?
JUDGE TINLEY: 22nd.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 22nd. So, the 19th?
Bids due back by August 19th?
JUDGE TINLEY: How about 9 a.m. the 22nd?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Bids due at 9 a.m. on the
22nd of August.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I second that
amendment,
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to
advertise and solicit bids for long distance telephone
service, with bids to be received not later than 9 a.m. on
August 22nd, 2005. Any question or discussion on the
motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your
right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
7 ? 5 - G S
33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. We now
have a copy of Budget Amendment Request Number 6 from the
Treasurer dated 9-24-04. Apparently it was submitted at the
meeting 9-27-04. So, we will return to Item Number 4,
consider and discuss and ratify Budget Amendment Request
Number 6 dated September 27th, 2004. Ms. Nemec?
MS. NEMEC: There's a copy of the budget
amendment. That budget -- that amount was an estimated
amount that I was going to need for that pay period.
However, the amount that was actually needed was 1,477.08.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What was that amount
again? I'm sorry, Barbara.
MS. NEMEC: $1,477.08.
JUDGE TINLEY: 1477.08?
MS. NEMEC: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is the motion for that
amount or the old -- the amount originally?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do you want the
7 25-05
34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
^1
22
23
24
25
amount actually spent?
MS. NEMEC: I would say so. We don't need
that extra 200 in there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: To me, if we're ratifying
it, we've got to do the old one.
MS. NEMEC: That'll work, too, Which the
money is in the insurance -- the 1,600 is in the insurance
-- that amount is in the insurance line item. So --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just creates a
surplus item in that fund. 1650 all right with you,
Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes. I think we're
just cleaning up old business. We're just trying to cure an
issue that happened in last budget period. The employee's
been paid, We're not going to go to him and say, "Give us
our money back," so it's -- it's approval of an accounting
transaction.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's correct.
MS. NEMEC: And, like I said, this amount was
in my insurance line item, so it was in my budget.
JOLGE TINLEY: Do we have a second to that
motion?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I seconded.
DODGE TINLEY: Okay. I have a motion and a
second for approval-slash-ratification, I suppose, of Budget
~ ~ n
35
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
L 1
22
23
24
25
Amendment Request Number 5 dated September 27th, 2004. Any
questions or discussion by any members of the Court?
Mr. Prendergast? If you'd give your name and address to the
reporter as you speak.
MR. PRENDERGAST: My name is George
Prendergast. I live at 120 Peterson Farm Road in Kerrville.
Again, this issue's not as simplistic as it's just been
presented to you, gentlemen, and we all know that. I'd like
to see a copy of the letter from the County Attorney, if I
could, please, sir.
MR. PEARSON: So would i.
(Copy of letter was given to both.)
MR. PEARSON: Who is Mr, Brooks, may I ask?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mr. Brooks?
MR. EMERSON: David Brooks is the -- I guess
you could say the county law er>pert. He writes all the
journals for Westlaw and regularly consults with the
Legislature on --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Isn't he in the Attorney
General's office?
MR. EMERSON: Not any more. He's in private
practice.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: In private practice? But
he previously was in the Attorney General's office, correct?
MR. EMERSON: Yes, sir.
~-zs-n5
36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. PRENDERGAST: I have a question. When
you read this letter, there's really not an opinion actually
given in this letter. And I don't know what kind of fact
situation Mr. Brooks was given. Can you kind of enlighten
us as to the fact situation you gave him before he gave you
whatever it was he told you?
MR. EMERSON: Sure. What I told Mr. Brooks
was that the Commissioners Court was being addressed with an
issue whereby they were requested to ratify a budget
amendment from the previous budget year, transferring line
item -- transferring money between line items within the
same department, and it was my understanding from the audit
at the end of the year that the total budget for that
department did not exceed what was budgeted.
MR. PRENDERGAST: Okay. I'm not sure that
everybody in this room knows what's going on, but this was
money which was spent last year without this Court's
approval by the Treasurer, who is the banker for the County.
I think what you're attempting to do is breathe life into
something that's already dead. Only God can breathe life
back into something -- a contract that's gone. This
contract was gone. She broke the law when she illegally
spent the money. She came and asked you for permission to
spend the money. You did not grant it. You did not give
her forgiveness. That year has expired. That was in a
~ zs-os
37
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
L1
22
23
24
25
previous year. It was money that she spent on an employee
who it was questionable should have been there anyway. And
I think, by ratifying this, you, in effect, are trying to do
something that -- I don't know what Mr. Brooks, in fact,
said, but I know that this is not an opinion. This is
just -- is it an opinion?
MR. EMERSON: It's Mr. Brooks' opinion that
you could do it.
MR. PRENDERGAST: Well, I've got a -- I've
got an A.G.'s opinion that says the County Treasurer cannot
spend money without Commissioners Court approval. And I see
here that you say that you haven't been able to find any
written literature. I found numerous amounts of it; I'll be
glad to furnish it with you -- furnish it to you. But I've
got an A.G.'s opinion that says this is illegal. While
we're on the same subject, I have a letter from the Texas
Retirement System where an additional $2,000 was taken
out --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's not -- that's not
this subject.
MR. PRENDERGAST: Well, I was going to give
it to you, so I'll give it to you again. When you do you
want to do it?
COMMISSIONER	LETZ:	Well,	you can give it to
us, but it's not the agenda	item.	There'	s another agenda
~-zs us
38
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2~
item today, as a matter of fact.
MR. PRENDERGAST: Okay, very good. So I
would say to the Court, by ratifying this, you're telling
the Treasurer that she can run loose and do as she damn well
pleases. If the Commissioners Court does not grant her
approval in the prior fiscal year and now turns about and
ratifies it, what are you going to do when she does it
again? Because she did it in the previous year that nobody
ever brought to the Court's attention.
MS. NEMEC: That's not true.
MR. PRENDERGAST: And it's in the line item
budgets. Now, this is twice, and I'll be glad to prove it.
'Cause I'm going to continue to do a lot more digging,
'cause every time I dig in one area, I find that there's a
lot more rats in that pile.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just as a comment, I
don't see that this does anything other than clean up an
accounting issue. The money, as you said, you know, was
spent improperly. We did not approve it, and we're not
saying that it was or wasn't; we're just saying that from an
accounting standpoint, we're moving money into a line item.
I think the -- the minutes from that meeting indicate that
the employee and the -- which is the expenditure, would have
been made. We had a question on it; we wanted some
information on it. The information was provided, though not
]-;:5 0 S
39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
in the proper way. I think it was the Treasurer's
responsibility to get it on the agenda. She didn't, you
know, but that happened. I don't think that this changes
anything, the way it was done. It's just saying that the --
from a budget standpoint, the money is being put into the
line item where it was. And the employee, whether I or you
or anyone else thinks this employee should have been hired
or not hired, did the work and is entitled to the money.
So, you know --
MR. PRENDERGAST: We don't know what work he
did, because she promised to tell us what work he had done.
Still, let's follow back up with what we say we're going to
do. What did, in fact, he do? This was in a prior fiscal
year. You've already been audited.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This Court --
MR. PRENDERGAST: I would admonish the Court,
it's a -- you become a party to the illegal activity if you
ratify it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't think there's
an illegal activity unless this budget is -- is exceeded,
and the budget was not exceeded.
MR. PRENDERGAST: I'll bring you a copy of
the A.G.'s opinion.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Please, I wish you
would.
~-as-os
40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
L 2
23
24
25
MR. PRENDERGAST: Be more than happy to.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'd like to direct a
question to the County Auditor. Is this an appropriate
thing to do to correct an action -- a budget amendment that
was -- that didn't get done because it fell off -- it kind
of fell through the cracks? It was on the agenda, was
pulled and didn't get put back on. In your opinion, do we
need to do this to correct it?
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I -- I recommended the
budget amendment.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pardon me?
MR. TOMLINSON: I recommended the budget
amendment.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay
MR. TOMLINSON: Personally. And, as I
remember, the Court wanted an explanation, and I wasn't
prepared -- prepared to give that explanation.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I remember.
MR. TOMLINSON: So, I -- I don't have the
legal background, or any -- any kind of A.G. opinion that --
in front of me that would allow me to answer that question.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, I'm not asking
that. I'm just asking, from your perspective as an auditor,
it is an action that should be, in fact, cleaned up?
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I -- I don't see that
~-~_,-os
_~. -
41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~2
23
24
25
there's a purpose. I mean, we didn't increase the budget.
MR. PEARSON: Makes no difference.
MR. TOMLINSON: And so, from that standpoint,
I don't see that it will accomplish anything.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me see if I understand
you. You say you recommended the amendment. Are you
talking about back during last fiscal year when the issue
first arose?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: And that's what you
recommended to the Treasurer?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, that's correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: That if she wanted to expend
these funds, to amend the budget to be able to do that?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I do agree with the
Auditor; I don't think there's any purpose in doing it, nut
I don't have any -- I don't think it -- it may clean up a
little bit in the -- you know, the paper trail, but I don't
think it changes anything. I mean, I think it's somewhat of
a --
MR. PRENDERGAST: It was County funds that
were not line-item approved, and they were spent. And they
were spent before she ever came to you for forgiveness. She
~-~s-~~5
42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1L
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
had already written several checks to this young man out of
that line item. More importantly, in the last meeting, she
offered to pay the money back to the County, and if she's
willing to do that, let her pay the money back. It's in the
minutes.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think this -- this
agenda item deals exclusively with an accounting situation.
The -- we failed to approve a court order that could have
been approved in the last budget year, but it wasn't, and so
we're curing that now. The issue doesn't have anything to
do with the merits of who was hired, why he was hired, what
he did, any of that sort of thing. It's just -- it's just
dealing with an accounting situation.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I might add to that,
and if -- this is a very specific agenda item. If something
was done illegally, which, you know, I wouldn't -- I'm not
going to argue one way or the other, 'cause I haven't looked
at the facts and looked and the law; that's for the County
Attorney to say, but this isn't changing that. I mean, this
is just saying that the budget amendment, you know, was
after-the-fact being done. It's not saying -- there's no --
the legality of it isn't an issue.
MR. PRENDERGAST: Is that what the budget
amendment says?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The budget amendment just
7-25-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
43
says budget amendment from bark then.
COMMISSIONEP. WILLIAMS: Just a transfer of
money from part -- from insurance line item to part-time.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If money was expended
without this Court's approval prior to this budget
amendment, this doesn't fix that. That was still an illegal
act if that was done. So --
MR. PRENDERGAST: I guess this was yours.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
MR. PRENDERGAST: I still think it's an
illegal activity, in my opinion. I'll be glad to bring the
A.G.'s opinion. Or, in the reverse, why don't we ask for an
A.G.'s opinion?
MR. PEARSON: That's the key.
MS. NEMEC: I'd like to remind the Court how
this all happened, and I'd also like to remind the Court
that there are several departments who are in the negative
in their part-time line item. They pay part-time funds, and
at the end of the budget, if they do not have those funds
and that line item is negative, they come to the Court and
request a budget amendment, after the payroll has been done
and the funds have been expended. That is exactly what I
did. When this budget amendment was not approved, the
Auditor came to me and told me to write a letter of
explanation, and that the Court was going to put it back on
~-as-os
44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
L2
23
24
25
the agenda for approval once they received my letter of
explanation, which I provided to each of you on October the
5th, with a copy to the County Auditor. At that time, I
thought I had followed through with whatever was asked of
me. And then the first time I hear about this is last
month, when Zeke from the San Antonio Express News calls me
and tells me that he's doing the dirty work for someone
else, and asked me about the budget amendment that was not
approved. That was the first time I heard that it had not
come back to the Court for approval. Now, why it waited
almost eight months to come out that it was not approved and
paperwork was faxed to Zeke, I'm not sure. But I followed
through with what this Court asked me to do on October 5th
to provide a letter of explanation, which is what I did.
And, as a result of getting a call from Zeke from the San
Antonio Express News, I put this on the agenda two weeks
ago.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- I just
want to clarify one point. I don't really want to spend too
much time -- we've spent more time than we should have
already. It is, unfortunately, somewhat of a common
practice in this county for elected officials, department
heads, whatever, to occasionally obligate the County when
they don't have funds in their budget. That does happen, I
think, pretty much, I mean, if they need to order something
~-zs-os
45
1
_, 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
^-~ 13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~,
23
°' 2 4
25
and there's not money in the budget, but it is not common
practice for the moneys to be spent or the check cut before
this Court approves it. That's where the difference comes.
That's where the budget amendments frequently come to the
Court. The money -- the County's obligated to spend it, in
my opinion; the work may have been done or the equipment may
have been purchased. But I don't know of instances, and I
hope there aren't any, of the checks being written without
money in that line item. And that's what the Auditor, I
think, you know, hopefully takes pretty good -- watches
that. And that's why we get, towards the end of the year,
frequently 10, 15, 20 budget amendments, because line items
start running out, and he won't cut the check unless there's
money moved into that_ line item. And so I agree that it is
-- or does happen occasionally that funds are obligated, but
I don't think the funds are paid. That's the only
difference I have. And I just --
MS. NEMEC: In the case of part-time, it
happens a lot. There are even -- if you go back to the
end-of-the-year financial statements, you'll see where there
are a lot of part-time line items in different departments
that are in the hole, and they never come to court to even
ask for those funds to be moved, because bottom line, the
money is in their budget.
~7pDGE TINLEY: Ms. Nemec, do you believe that
~ 's os
45
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
a department head who's seeking a budget amendment has the
obligation to know whether that budget amendment was
approved by the Court or not?
MS. NEMEC: Well, I do. And I read the
minutes of that meeting, and on there it stated that
Mr. Williams was going to put it back on the agenda. And I
just figured that because it was in the minutes, that that
was going to be done.
JUDGE TINLEY: But you didn't follow up on
it?
MS. NEMEC: No, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, it was
withdrawn pending an explanation, and an explanation was
forthcoming. And I believe the Court took an action, and
then for some reason, which I don't recall, the action then
was rescinded. So, it did get -- it was on, it was
withdrawn, it was put back on, it was an action, and then it
became rescinded pending more -- further explanation, I
guess. And at that point, it dropped off the radar screen
and didn't get put back on.
JUDGE TINLEY: My concern is, when the matter
was directed to the County Attorney, the County Attorney
said he couldn't find anything on it. And it's in those
instances where there's no clear law that I think it is
~-zs-os
97
1
.~ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~^
G
23
29
25
appropriate that we ask for an Attorney General's opinion,
and I have recommended that to the County Attorney. I would
accordance with the law. So, it would appear to me that an
Commissioner Letz said, frequently we have department heads
who are in a bind; something breaks, they need to make a
purchase, and they -- they place something on order, then
come to the Court asking for a budget amendment if they
don't have the funds. And before that item is to be paid
for, they have the budget amendment approved and the funds
in the account. That's not what we had here. There was a
specific request for a budget amendment. The budget
amendment was not approved, and at that point, I think the
burden was on the department head to not do any further
obligation of -- of County funds. Mr. Prendergast mentioned
an Attorney General's opinion. I'm familiar with such an
opinion, and generally it says that -- that a public
official, county official -- and in that particular case, I
believe it was a County Treasurer -- cannot expend funds
that are not authorized by the Commissioners Court, and if
~ zs-us
	1
	2
	3
	4
	
	5
	6
~	7
I	8
	9
	10
1	
	11
	12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
48
that individual does so, that individual is personally
liable unless the action is subsequently ratified by the
Commissioners Court. Now, as to whether or not you
Attorney General's opinion.
MS. NEMEC: So, are you going to go back --
are you going to go back to all the departments that have a
negative in their line item -- in their part-time line item
and do the same thing?
JUDGE TINLEY: If it's brought to my
attention, this very well may be a needed opinion for that
purpose also. The thing that concerns me is if, under the
law, a public official becomes personally liable for an
expenditure, that expenditure becomes one outside of the
law, and I'm not sure I want to get this Court into a
position of condoning or approving actions of that type.
I'm -- I'm a little bit fearful of the precedential value
that that might set. I -- I think we badly need an A.G.
opinion in this case, and I think that's what's appropriate.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, if
Mr. Prendergast has seen an Attorney General's opinion, and
apparently, from your comments, you have read, I assume, the
same Attorney General's opinion, wouldn't it be helpful if
9 - ~ `, - C 5
49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2G
23
24
25
we shared that information with other members of the Court
and the County Attorney so we're all playing on the same
page?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
MR. EMERSON: May I make one comment real
quick?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sure.
MR. EMERSON: The issue that I was asked to
research was about whether or not Commissioners Court could
go back and ratify. I was not asked to research the
legality of the action in the prior year.
MS. NEMEC: I think I can save the Court a
lot of time here. I wish, Judge, that when you had come
across this and saw that this budget amendment hadn't been
taken care of, instead of faxing all this information to
Zeke, I wish you had come to my office and spoken to me
about it so that we could have taken care of this in the
proper way. However, that is not what you did. Therefore,
this has become a personal political agenda, and I would
like the Court to know that today, I will put $1,977.08 into
the general fund to take care of this matter. There's no
sense in wasting any more taxpayers' money, your time, all
these people's time on political agendas. Therefore, I do
not request this budget amendment to be approved. Thank
you.
~-ZS-OS
50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
~5
JUDGE TINLEY: I think that's appropriate
action on your part, Mrs. Nemec. In response to the other
assertions, they're absolutely false.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Two things -- I have two
comments. One is, it was also made an allegation about
other departments, and if that is, in fact, what is done --
which, you know, I don't -- I probably tend to agree that
she's probably correct -- I think they need to all be
treated the same way, and if they're -- and need to be
looked into. And I don't know how far you want to go back.
I mean, I wouldn't go back more than one year, but if it was
done or she has specific information as to when it was done,
give it to the Court as a whole, or to myself or the
Auditor, someone, 'cause I don't think it is right to go
ahead and single out this one time if it's been done other
times. Further, I really -- you know, I still do not have a
problem with ratifying -- as I see it, ratifying it, because
I think the Court would have ratified it -- or would have
approved the budget amendment if it had been put on the next
agenda. That's clearly what the minutes said. I have no
problem with requesting the County Attorney to give us -- or
to request an Attorney General's opinion on this.
Evidently, it's a problem that we need to have a clear
answer to, 'cause -- if it's been done other times. And I
don't see any reason for Ms. Nemec to pay her funds -- out
~ _.,-ns
51
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
]1
12
~-- 13
14
15
t6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
"" 2 4
25
of her own funds unless -- you know, until after the
MS. NEMEC: Commissioner, I appreciate that.
But, really, I'd like to move on to other issues and put
this one to rest, and therefore, there is no need to keep
going further. Like I said, this is a political attack, and
it will keep going on. If you do ratify this budget
amendment, it will keep going on and on and on. And as far
as the other departments, that's up to y'all. I will not go
back and -- and start doing dirty work bringing up things
about them. That's between y'all and them or the Auditor.
But this will -- there's no need to do an order. I
appreciate it, though. Thank you.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I think the only thing
you're going to find in this is that, as far as -- and,
Judge, you may correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't there
still -- for it to be illegal, wouldn't there still be an
intentional or knowingly? And if she felt it was approved
back then, or was going back on, I don't think you have
either of those clauses for her intentionally or knowingly
violating the law and spending County funds. And I don't --
personally, I don't see that that should -- if it was just
by oversight or thinking it was, I don't think any
department official should have to pay that personally back
out of their pocket. There's going to be times, even in
~-~s 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
29
25
your budget, that when we check -- in my budget, and I run
three different budgets, that in the budget printout we get,
it may give us a balance in that budget of one thing, but in
reality the budget runs just about a month behind, and you
may have had other bills go through; that your real balance
in that line item may be a little bit lower than what you
had printed out in front of you. So, I think to make her
personally have to pay it back, I would think they ought to
show that she intentionally and knowingly did it to be in
violation of the law.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think that's a good
point, Sheriff. I think that's the point Commissioner Letz
and others were trying to make. It wasn't an intentional
situation. For whatever the circumstances were, that budget
amendment was on, was withdrawn, was put back on, was
approved, and then was rescinded for more information and
didn't get back -- put back on.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And that`s --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't believe
there's anything intentional about the situation. So, I
think the point is valid, that if -- if this has brought to
our attention that other elected officials are -- are making
these type of transfers prior to court approval, then that
ought to stop.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I agree. I agree.
~-~s os
.~ t .~ _
53
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
L L
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This should be the
catalyst to make that happen, and I don't believe Ms. Nemec
should have to pay this back out of her personal account. I
just don't.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZEP,: I agree with you
100 percent. I don't think any department head should have
the right, especially if you brought in an amendment and it
was just flat denied.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Exactly.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I think that's an open
and shut -- if they spend it after that, it's intentional.
But it seems to me, from what I'm hearing -- and I haven't
read the minutes -- that there's a lot of back and forth in
this amendment where it was put on, taken off, put on, more
explanation. She wrote a letter. I don't know if you have
an intentional or knowingly deceiving this Court or this
County.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, there's a motion
before the Court.
JUDGE TINLEY: In response, Sheriff, the
mens rea or sciens requirement, I'm -- I'm not certain what
that is, the intent. Certainly, as to any criminal
liability, I would agree that it's probably required.
Civilly, I think that may be a whole 'nother issue, but I
can't give you an answer to that question. Maybe
~-zs-os
59
1
7
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Mr. Emerson could. Is there any further question or
discussion on the motion before the Court? All in favor of
the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. We
will move on to a timed item at 10 o'clock. I will now
recess the Commissioners Court meeting and open a public
hearing for the revision of a plat of Southern Hills Phase
Two, Lots 26, 37, and 38.
(The regular Commissioners Court meeting was
closed at 10:05 a.m., and a public hearing
was held in open court, as follows:)
P U B L I C H E A R I N G
JUDGE TINLEY: This matter was scheduled for
public hearing at 10 a.m. this morning, and it is a few
minutes past that time now. I believe the actual agenda
item should be Lots 36, 37, and 3H, should they not,
Mr. Odom?
MR. ODOM: 36, 37, and 38, yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. The print on -- on my
agenda here was --
MR. ODOM: 26, okay. Typo.
JUDGE TINLEY: is there any member of the
public that wishes to be heard with respect to the revision
-zs os
55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
]3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
of a plat of Southern Hills Phase Two, Lots 36, 37, and 38?
Is there any member of the public that wishes to be heard
with respect to that particular plat revision?
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Seeing none, I will close the
public hearing for the revision of p]at of Southern Hills
Phase Two, Lots 36, 37, and 38, and I will reconvene the
Commissioners Court meeting.
The public hearing was concluded at 10:06
a.m., and the regular Commissioners Court
meeting was reopened.)
DODGE TINLEY: And I will now call Item 9,
relative to final revision of plat for Southern Hills Phase
Two, Lots 36, 37, and 38, located in Precinct 1.
MF.. ODOM: Yes. Commissioner Baldwin is not
here today, but this has gone before him. This is a
revision, combining three lots into one. we encourage that.
And what I have before you is acceptable tc Road and Bridge,
and recommend that you accept this revision of plat.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Only problem I have,
there's no such thing as a "replatted."
MR. ODOM: I -- "revised" is. But, you know,
Commissioner, I knew you were going to say that, and I
missed it. And I have one that -- that does this. I looked
it up in our dictionary; there is a word in our vocabulary
~-mss as
56
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that says replatted, and it says, "See revision." So, the
word is there, and it is accepted. And I know you prefer
that, and I missed that, but there is such a word as
replatted.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You can redact the
other "t-e-d" out of there. So moved.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the replat or revision of plat of Southern Hills
Phase Two, Lots 36, 37, and 38, located in Precinct 1. Any
further question or discussion on the motion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My only comment would be
that either the Judge or Mr. Odom just draw through
"replatted" and write "revised," so we're consistent. I
don't think we need to go through the expense of having new
mylars done, but I think a notation can be put on the mylar.
JUDGE TINLEY: It appears that Mr. Odom is
doing something there at the moment.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Got his black pen
out.
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.
-~_ ns
57
1
2
3
4
5
h
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Let's
go back to Item 7, if we might. Set a public hearing for
revision of plat of Whiskey Ridge Ranches, Lots 17 and 18,
platted in Volume 6, Page 169, located in Precinct 3.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. To be in compliance
with the 30-day requirement, the first available date for a
public hearing is September the 12th, 2005. Therefore, we
request the Court to set public hearing for the revision of
plat of Whiskey Ridge Ranches, Lots 17 and 18, Volume 6,
Page 169, Precinct 3, for September the 12th, 2005.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 10 a.m.?
MR. ODOM: Sir?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: At 10 a.m.?
MR. ODOM: At 10 a.m.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to
set public hearing on this matter for September the 12th,
2005, at 10 a.m. Any question or discussion on the motion?
All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right
hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
DODGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
-zs-as
58
1
2
3
4
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. We'll
move to Item 1U, consider preliminary plat of River Road
Ranch Subdivision located in Precinr_t 4.
MR. ODOM: Yes. What I have before you is a
preliminary plat. I -- and the circumstances are such that
it came to our attention that -- and the individual had
given some property to another individual, and it supposedly
was a relative. What we looked at -- and I can't remember
the circumstances, whether it was the individual or
whether it was O.S.S.F. or whether it was the builder that
came to us for a building permit. It was in the floodplain.
As we were investigating this, we found that this individual
was not in the third degree, as required by Subdivision
Rules; she was a -- a godchild, and that individual had
assumed that that was a relative. And this has already been
set out by metes and bounds. There was another tract of
land on this property off River Road that was given to a
relative in the third degree. So, we sat down with all the
parties, Commissioner Nicholson and myself and the people
involved, and told them that first we determine the
floodplain, and then second, to -- to plat this. And that`s
what this is, is a platting of 18 acres.
And I assumed that I had everything, but 1
had a call Friday Yrom an individual -- from Mr. Voelkel,

59
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and saying some questions on this plat. And so I -- I don't
know if he's here or not, but I did ask him to show up if he
had questions. If not, then I would address this. And I --
the questions are legitimate, but I felt like most of them
were answerable. This is a unique situation where we had a
piece of land that was divided up, as you can see, into
1-acre tracts. Question was lot size. And there is a
community water system, so they were designed for 1 acre,
and they were down in the floodplain. The -- and, of
course, the lot size is 1 acre, and that's acceptable,
'cause there's community water there. One individual, the
Stillwell tract here, Lot 9, is 1 acre. There's already a
structure there. That was built when U.G.R.A. was doing
that, so there was a floodplain determined there. We also
determined a floodplain on the detached garage, which is an
accessory building, and did that work on that when I first
took this over as far as floodplain. So, that was already
established there and was built.
Lot 3 was one that was Ms. Denison, and that
-- she is the godchild to Mr. Chapman, is my understanding.
And so this was divided up, those two lots. What we had to
do was plat it. We put the road in. Part of the question
Mr. Voelkel had -- I said lots; we answered that. He wasn't
privy to the concept plan. The right-of-way was another
question. He is saying the right-of-way has to be deeded to
~-'s-os
1
2
3
4
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
60
the County, not a roadway easement. And I told him that,
looking at this, this was not a public road; it is a private
road, and the note up there depicts that. And that the
rules under 7.0~ says that -- well, 1'11 read it. "Any
dedication to the public should be accomplished either by
deed conveying a fee simple interest, by a dedication on the
plat conveying a perpetual right-of-way easement in the
property to the County for public use, or by right-of-way of
easement." And this was by right-of-way of easement, since
it was a private road.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are we -- Mr. Odom,
are we talking about what's designated as Luke Lane? Is
that what you're talking about?
MR. ODOM: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, thank you.
MR. ODOM: And what we had originally was,
this plot of land, there was a party barn already put up
near Zone X. Then you had what we call Lot 4 here, the
Stillwell tract, was already -- was the 1.03.B; it was
exempt because the individual was a relative. So, what we
did was, since this tract, Lot 3, was -- was given to an
individual, it's not under that exemption; it had to be
platted. So we had a unique situation.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't -- Leonard?
MR. ODOM; Yes? Go ahead.
~-'S-OS
51
1
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: The thing I'm confused
about is, there's lots of property that's -- that's just
kind of like in no man's land, looks like to me. I guess
there -- it's very hard for me to read this to look at the
drawing and see what's what. I see Lot 2. I see Lot 1, Lot
3 and 4, but I see lots of other things that appear to be
lots --
MR. ODOM: You see some vacant land.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, vacant land, if
it's all going to be platted, needs to be in lots.
MR. ODOM: Well, that was a question that Lee
had. But I -- he says that here's this -- the gentleman --
this is a unique situation. He doesn't wish to subdivide
anything else. And the way he laid this out was Lot 4 and
Lot 3, and he wanted access to the river, and so that would
be all the rest of the property. He had that barn up there,
which I don't know why they identified it, but they made a
lot out of it just to square off that 1 acre around that
barn.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay, Len, let me
ask the question -- I'm confused also. Is Lot 2 all of this
property excluding 1, 3, and 4?
MP.. ODOM: That's right.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Inr_luding going all
the way down to the river?
r-~ -os
r ~__~_.___. __.. -_i....,~.._. - _ _.._....___._..
62
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. ODOM: That's right.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is it part of the
so-called -- over on the left side of Luke Lane?
MR. ODOM: That is still Lot 2.
COMMISSIONEF. NICHOLSON: That's still Lot 2.
MR. ODOM: Yes.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So everything's
platted?
MR. ODOM: Everything's platted. That was --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Lot 2 looks like a
doughnut with a hockey stick attached. (Laughter.)
MR. ODOM: That's right. And the way it was
laid out when it was presented to us was laid out like that.
It was laid like a hockey stick. And so the question was,
the man still wanted this property between Lot 9 and Lot 3
to get down to the river. He has a home on a different lot.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is this the same
owner that --
MR. ODOM: Same owner.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Everything?
MR. ODOM: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And he's trying to
deed a lot to --
MR. ODOM: To a relative.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: To a relative.
~-s-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
24
25
MR. ODOM: And Sti71we11 was a relative -- am
I correct? The other lady was a godchild, and he assumed
that that was a relative, but it's not in the third degree.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, which one of
the lots was the one he intended to give --
MR. ODOM: Lot 3.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- to the godchild?
MR. ODOM: Pardon me?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The one he intended
to give to the godchild was which one?
MR. ODOM: Lot 3.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Lot 3, thank you.
MR. ODOM: So Lee brought up -- it was a good
question, but like I told him, under E, when you read this,
it -- it says a number or letter to identify each lot or
site in each block. Well, that's been done against the
road. Lot lines should be contiguous with the right-of-way
lines for all roads/streets where applicable. So he did
exactly what's there. Yes, there are some vacant land, put
the point would be that, should he try to sell -- say he
changes his mind -- the land in between those two lots, 3
and 4, he still has to come to get a -- it would be a
revision of plat.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Leonard, I guess the
problem I have is a couple things. One, Lot 9 was done to a
~-~s os
64
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
relative?
MR. ODOM: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That was -- that
exemption was nullified by the fact that they had to get to
that on Luke Lane, so there is no -- I mean, the law says to
a relative, as long as no street or other roads are
accessed.
MR. ODOM: I understand.
	COMMISSIONER LETZ:	So --	
	MR. ODOM: There's	no exemption	on any of
them. And our	-- historically, we	have not --	I mean, if
Mr. Stillwell	or Mr. -- whoever wa	nts to own t	he property,
he can still o	wn all that property	and make --	make the
tracts.			
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Make the -- divide it up
into lots that make more sense. Because we don't
customarily allow lots to be divided by a road, which is
what he's doing. And I don't -- I mean, from his
standpoint, it would make it a whole lot cleaner to have
where you have Lot 2 as a lot --
MR. ODOM: Sure.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- the lot on the other
side of the road is a different lot, and then the lot in the
middle down to the bottom is another lot. And I don't -- it
cleans it up. Otherwise, we're going to have to do
~-~~-o~
65
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
variances and things of that nature. There's no cul-de-sac
on the road.
MR. ODOM: The cul-de-sac was a difficult --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. ODOM: -- thing to look at.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're trying to --
MR. ODOM: And that was -- go ahead.
MR. MOTHERAL: We could add a Lot 5 on either
side of the road.
MR. ODOM: Either side, we could make the
numbers. It's no big deal.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that would -- I mean,
I don't think it should change anything from an ownership
standpoint. It certainly will clean up the plat.
MR. MOTHERAL: That's no biggie.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The road, I presume, is
built already?
MR. ODOM: No.
MR. MOTHERAL: There's a driveway in there.
MR. ODOM: There's a driveway there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is it going to -- is it
going to be upgraded to --
MP.. ODOM: It's going to be upgraded to a
country lane.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: To country lane?
~-a_-os
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
]5
16
17
]8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
66
MR. ODOM: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's not a way to put
in a cul-de-sac?
MR. ODOM: Well, the bad thing is, I don't
know -- the only cul-de-sac you could do is back over here
toward Lot 3, probably. You can't get it in between, and if
you did, you've got a circle -- this is not like laying out
the road and having a 60-foot easement off that radius.
This is trying to touch it up, and you'd only touch on those
tangents on that straight line. So, we looked at this, and
we're worried about -- we had to move this over to catch Lot
4, and then -- then swing it back over to catch Lot 3. So,
since this -- the master plan was not to do any more
division of property, we looked at it and said, well, you
know, we qot a unique situation, trying to make sure we get
the Lot 4 -- that it can get in and out of the driveway.
And there could be maybe something like a half cul-de-sac or
something down there toward Lot 3, but you can't qet it in,
and it doesn't -- wouldn't do any good in between.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That -- that piece of
property which is wedged in between Lots 3 and 4 --
MR. ODOM: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- would you -- did I
understand you correctly to say that that is all part of Lot
2?
~ -ze.-n~
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
67
MR. ODOM: That is all lot -- at this point,
is Lot 2.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And if I'm looking at
this -- am I seeing Luke Road? As I'm looking at it now, do
you see it turning sharply to the right? Is that what I'm
seeing?
MR. MOTHERAL: It goes down to serve both 3
and 4 as it's currently set up.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Could a cul-de-sac be
put in where that -- in that space between Lots 3 and 4?
Would that work?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is this where you're
talking about, Commissioner? Right here, even if it's a
sub -- a smaller than -- I'd rather give a variance on --
MR, ODOM: The cul-de-sac.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- the size rather than
have no cul-de-sac. That's just from an emergency
standpoint.
MR. MOTHERAL: Yeah, that's fine. We can do
that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Fit one somewhere in
there that touches all three of those lots.
MR. ODOM: The only thinq, it might be better
to bring it up here.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Might be the world's
7-25-OS
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
E8
largest cul-de-sac, but that's...
MR. ODOM: Well, we --
MR. MOTHERAL: We could do this.
MR. ODOM: I think it would be better down
here.
MR. MOTHERAL: Yeah.
MR. ODOM: Down at that lot. That would
bring it down.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Conceptually, no problem.
I mean, just figure out how to make it fit.
MR. ODOM: Well, and part of this was trying
to make a bad situation better, and we didn't have a good
situation. And so we can do that, and we'll change that up.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Keep the numbers.
MR. MUTHERAL: Probably ought to have another
one down here.
MR. ODOM: We just want to make sure we got
1 acre. Now, r_he other question was -- cul-de-sac, we got
that. On the easements, we took care of that. The B.F.E.,
the only other thing is that I left -- I have that; the
notes are up here. I left it off to -- we'll note that.
But the finished floor`s there, the B.F.E. is established.
It's marked. It's over in the comments, and the finished
floor is on Lot 3, and which they're building, and I can
pick that up. I did leave off that finished floor. I had
~-ZS-OS
69
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the notes over here.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What about the issue
of a road dividing a lot? Are you going to create a -- a
Lot 5?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Cul-ae-sac woula cure
that, wouldn't it?
MR. ODOM: Cul-de-sac -- we're going to bring
that cul-de-sac down between these --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Both sides. I think he's
going to add a lot -- add a lot or Lot 5 and 6.
MR. ODOM: Yeah, there may be six.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 5 and 6.
MR. ODOM: Probably 6.
MR. MOTHERAL: 'Cause the road cuts off
between 3 and 4; we'll have to to make it 5 and 6.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. And then he can
still do what he wants down the road. If he wants to change
it and revise it, that can easily be done.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let me make sure I
know where this is. Len, looking at the location map,
it's -- it shows River Road. Does River Road turn at the
right and come down this --
MR. MOTHERAL: Yes.
MR. ODOM: Yes, comes across the river there.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay.
~ zs-as
70
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. ODOM: Makes a 90-degree turn by the
substation right there.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's good.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's an elevation
line -- there's two elevation lines on the bottom, 1740 and
1750. Are those -- do either of those relate in any way to
the base flood elevation?
MR. MOTHERAL: Yes, they're right straight
off of what -- actually, it was shot in the field. That's
the elevations, and if you'll go on clear up to the top, the
top corner has got just barely in at 1770, I believe.
MR. ODOM: It's very flat. It just gradually
falls to the river right there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR.. ODOM: So you don't have close contour
lines; you have very wide ones, so it just falls --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is there any action
needed here today? We've got on the agenda, "consider
preliminary plat." Do we need to set a --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just need to approve it
subject to the --
MR. ODOM: Subject to these corrections right
here. I don't see any problem.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I would move to
approve subject to the --
7 ~ 5- U F
71
1
G
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. ODOM: Revisions on these.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- revisions we've
discussed.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to
approve the preliminary plat subject to the discussed
revisions. Any further question or comments?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: A quick comment. I
presume Mr. Motheral is doing this. If -- could you use a
-- around the lots, a thicker line? Because there's so much
-- this is such a cluttered plat, it would make it a lot
easier to identify exactly where the lots are.
MR. ODOM: And also, he wants -- I think he's
got a good point, too. This is -- that size was required by
Pat Dye a long time ago. When we do our upgrades, I would
like to do the whole sheet that you could put it on; it
won't be as crowded. But he put it -- we put a lot of
information in here to make it work, and we had some
questions, and you've clarified that now. I know which way
to go with the other.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
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.)
7 ~5-OS
7z
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Let's
see if we can quickly get Item 11 out of the way. Consider
and discuss repairs and improvements to the Animal Control
facility. Commissioner Nicholson.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We can quickly get
it out of the way. We had very high winds, suspected maybe
tornado warnings out there. It turned over the -- one of
the trailers and blew it, I think, 150 feet or something
like that, tore up the outdoor runs, the pens. Some damage
to the buildings, but not enough to put us out of business,
and as of now, we're not coming to court seeking any funds.
We'll handle that in the normal budgeting process. They put
it back together with bedding wire and overtime and hard
work, and help from some friends. So, that's all I've got
on that subject for now.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do you have anything you wish
to add, Ms. Roman?
MS. ROMAN: I brought some pictures of the
damage, if y'all would like to see those.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I didn't see you
there, Janie.
MS. ROMAN: It didn't do a whole lot of
damage to the building. It basically tore some of the
~ 25-OS
73
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
underpinning off, and the insulation. What I'm more
concerned about at this point are -- are all of my outdoor
kennels. I was under the impression that the insurance
adjuster was going to be there Friday. He didn't make it
Friday. He did call me, and I'm going to meet with him at
10 o'clock tomorrow morning, so at that point we'll know
whether any of that damage is going to be covered or not.
My kennels, they're seven years old now; it's about time to
get new ones anyway. They were still able -- I mean, we
were still able to use them and all. They were rusted
somewhat at the bottom. However, when the high winds came,
it just -- it totally destroyed them, so I had to get my
husband and some of the employees out there and wire
everything together and try to, you know, make them work
until I know something from the -- from the adjusters. So,
we'll just wait until I know what the adjusters are -- you
know, what's going to be covered, and then we'll go from
there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Janie --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Were any animals
injured or escape as a result of the damage?
MS. ROMAN: No, sir, we bring all of the
animals in at night. We check the weather, and if -- if,
you know, there's any rain or anything, we bring them in
every night. So there was -- and the trailer -- the trailer
~ zs-os
74
1
2
3
4
5
F
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
was about 250 yards down the road flipped over, so I had to
get a wrecker to come out and flip the trailer back over.
There wasn't any damage to the trailer, so it -- it wasn't
as bad as it could have been. We had, you know, a couple of
trees below over and stuff. But right now my main concern
is -- is the kennels, because it's very hard to function
without -- without the kennels.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: All that means that
we're probably going to be asking for some money for
kennels.
MS. ROMAN: Which I had put that --
JUDGE TINLEY: In your budget request?
MS. ROMAN: Correct.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- my comment
was that the -- I know you can buy kennels, but my
experience has been that you can probably -- we can probably
make them a lot better. And I'm sure Rusty has some people
that we could use out of his department.
MS. ROMAN: Yeah, we had talked about that.
SHEP.IFF HIERHOLZER: Definitely.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And as a -- it may be a
good idea. I've seen some used recently in some other
facilities, pour a concrete curb to get the metal off of the
ground level so it will dry. I think it will probably last
a little bit longer.
~-zs os
7s
1
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. ROMAN: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that with some
talents of people in the jail, hopefully we can maybe build
quite a few pens for a lot better than you can buy, and --
MS. ROMAN: That's something we can certainly
discuss.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- and possibly start
before the next budget year.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That last big
roundup, did you get any welders?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah, we always get
welders. No problem. We keep a supply.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Probably some masonry
people, too.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZEP.: Sure.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else, Ms. Roman?
MS. ROMAN: No, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, we appreciate your
efforts.
MS. ROMAN: If I can have those pictures
back, I need them for the adjuster.
MS. DECKER: I think you got more cooks than
anything, don't you, Rusty?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I got quite a few.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further on this
~ zs-os
76
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
agenda item, gentlemen? Why don't we take about a 15-minute
recess?
(Recess taken from 10:30 a.m. to 10:47 a.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me call back to order the
Commissioners Court meeting, and we'll move to Item Number
12, VOCA Grant notification for Crime Victims' Rights
Program and approval of job description, Victims' Rights
Coordinator. Ms. Lavender.
MS. LAVENDER: Good morning.
JUDGE TINLEY: Good morning.
MS. LAVENDER: Since we're into pass-outs,
I'll give you my latest pass-out. This is the little
brochure we had printed up. Do what you want to with them.
Just a little refresher course. Last summer, former County
Attorney David Motley came to you with the idea of the
victims program being instituted, and with the support of
the Sheriff and other law enforcement and the D.A.'s and
everybody else, you approved the program on a 19-hour-a-week
basis until June 30th, with the agreement that we would
apply for a Violence Against Women -- no, Victims of Crime
Act grant. Two grants. VOCA Grant, contingent on the
successful application of that. And Mr. Motley advertised
the job and I was hired, and in December and January I wrote
the grant. We did get the grant, where you received
~-ze-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
notification last Monday that it was approved. And so what
I needed to do was notify you the grant was approved, and
ask you if you would please adopt the job description on a
full-time basis beginning July lst. I gave you a draft copy
of it, I think, a couple weeks ago. I did the -- the job
description based on the Nash study format. And, really,
about that's about all there is to that. So, I would ask
that you approve the job description first.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question. Barbara, have
you looked --
MS. NEMEC: Yes, I have.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It fits our format?
MS. NEMEC: Yes. She got a copy of one of
our old job descriptions and went by that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the levels and such
are appropriate?
MS. NEMEC: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval of the job
description as submitted.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the job description as submitted. Any further
question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I just have one
question.
x_,5_04
78
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~2
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: All right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: May not be applicable
here, but County Attorney raised an issue of accountability.
Is that something we deal with here? And this -- or is that
a topic we deal with later? Reporting to? Supervision?
MR. EMERSON: I think that's probably later.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MS. NEMEC: Are you talking about who she
reports to and all that?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, ma'am.
MS. NEMEC: On the job description, it does
have Commissioners Court.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions or
comments? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
~ your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. I
don't think further action is required in connection with
anything else on that agenda item. Is there?
MS. LAVENDER: No, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: We made application for the
grant. We received the grant.
~-~S-OS
~9
1
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. LAVENDER: We got the grant.
JUDGE TINLEY: As applied for. Therefore,
we've accepted the terms of the grant, since it's as we
applied for.
MS. LAVENDER: Correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: One question. Was
there a gap in your employment?
MS. LAVENDER: I was kind of a volunteer for
a little while, but that's okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The answer is yes.
MS. LAVENDER: We had groceries at my house,
so it was okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Actually, I think the actual
beginning time of the grant is July 1.
MS. LAVENDER: July 1.
JUDGE TTNLEY: So we close that up.
MS. LAVENDER: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: The funding begins July 1
under this grant.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Oh, okay. That's
good.
JUDGE TINLEY: So we're all right. Anything
else with respect to Item 12? Let's move to Item 13, adopt
amended budget for Crime Victim's Rights Program for the
~-as-vs
80
1
`"` 2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
-- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
.,° 2 9
25
remainder of '04-'OS budget year based upon the VOCA grant
MS. LAVENDER: And I might note on this, and
I -- I probably should have put it on here, the only part of
the VOCA grant funding that the County is responsible for is
the group health insurance. That made the 20 percent match
for the grant that was required. And -- no, actually,
there's $100 in travel, but because the health insurance
benefits are -- I mean, the health insurance premiums are
likely to go up at least that much, then probably that $100
local travel money will be a moot thing, because I probably
won't need it, number one, and number two, it will raise the
grant match up to the formula that we need in order to
satisfy the governor's office and the federal grant
restrictions.
At the bottom of that page, if you'll notice
on the -- on the pass-out, there was about -- a little over
$1,800 unused in the original money that you set aside last
year in the budget for this that I'm returning to you in
unpaid salary that I didn't collect, so you get $1,800 free
today. Actually, it's your money that you're getting back.
There is a balance, though, in the money that was set aside
in the travel, supplies, so forth. I put in the little memo
to you about 1,800; actually, it's about $2,200 that remains
in that fund. I need to have a far, line run into the
~ ~.~-ns
81
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1L
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
basement to my office and get a fax machine that's
appropriate for the needs that I have to fax stuff to the
Attorney General's office in Austin. Rex and his office
have allowed me to use their fax machine and their fax line
over there, but a lot of times I get in, use it for 50 pages
or 35 pages or whatever when I send an offense report, and
it ties up their fax line. And I get quite a bit of stuff
in from medical providers and stuff like that, that qo with
these claim forms, and so I would like to use some of that
remaining money, since it's actually in the budget till
October 1st, to -- to get a fax line and a proper fax
machine. And, other than that, there's really probably not
anything large that I need to do on it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Two things. On the --
you have a -- a budget under phone, fax, Internet, and then
you have a separate line item for cell phone. Tommy, have
we not combined those through most of those departments so
they don't have so many different line items?
MR. TOMLINSON: We set it up that way because
I thought that was stipulated under the grant.
MS. LAVENDER: It is. It's a separate item.
This is exactly a mirror of the money that we set aside in
the grant --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MS. LAVENDER: -- for it, except for the
~-zs-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
25
group insurance. And, like I said, we didn't -- we put that
in the grant thinking it was going to be the rate at which
it is this year, but I understand that there's a probability
that the group insurance rates will go up a little bit. The
remaining $1,800 in there could -- could be used to pay the
insurance from now until the 1st of October also, which we
didn't put in the budget.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MS. LAVENDER: Technically.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're going to face
this again, though, I take it, because the grant period is
July 1 through 6-30 of '06.
MS. LAVENDER: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, at the end of
June --
MS. LAVENDER: Yeah, however many -- however
many years we do it.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- we're going to
have a shortfall.
MS. LAVENDER: Yes. And the budget -- when I
called the governor's office when we didn't get the
notification before July 1st, one of the governor's people
in the Criminal Justice Division said, "Oh, well, you should
have budgeted a couple of months of contingency." And I
said, "Well, nobody told us that last year when we started
7 2 5- ~ 5
a -
83
1
2
3
4
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
this project." So, what I will do in next year's budget is
go ahead and budget those three months on a contingency
basis, with the understanding that if we don't get the
grant, then June 30th I'll be out of a job. And that way,
we won't have this happen again. We will have corrected it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- are -- is this a
dedicated fund? Tommy, isn't the money that the County puts
in come from court tees or some -- isn't there something
that comes -- I thought there was some.
MS. LAVENDER: Not yet.
MR. TOMLINSON: Not yet.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Our next agenda item.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Hopefully it will. Under
your fax machine, I have no problem with you doing that, but
you probably need a budget amendment to get the money from
the line item where the money is now into --
MS. LAVENDER: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- whatever line item it
needs to be.
MS. LAVENDER: Right. And the telephone
line, too.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, whatever you need
there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
7-fie-n5
89
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- of the amended
budget.
DODGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the amended budget as presented. Any further
question or comment? All in favor of the motion, signify by
raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Let's
move to Item 14, update on House Bill 1751 related to crime
victims' rights adopted by the Texas Legislature in 2005,
and request for approval of new fees for Crime Victims'
Rights program here in Kerr County. Ms. Lavender again.
MS. LAVENDER: In looking over the
legislative update, I came across something that I thought
was kind of interesting. And, "As you take money, you shall
return money," is my policy. So, there's a way that we can
generate some money to offset the matching part of the
grant, and I called the governor's office to be sure this
was legitimate to do this before I proposed it. There are
some new fees that will go into effect, or can go into
effect the 1st of September. There's House Bill 1751 that
was passed by the Legislature this last session, the regular
session that went home in May, and it goes into effect
~-as us
85
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
September 1st. In the cases that you adjudicate, you can
add court fees of $12, six of which go to the Texas Crime
Victims Compensation Fund, and six of which the County can
keep. Which, if we adjudicate the cases where there are
victims, then that $6 can go into a fund to offset this
grant. There's another option in there that we've kind of
been doing on several of these cases, and that is that we
can now order restitution. And the way the law reads, the
Judge does not have to take into account the financial
ability of the defendant at the time they order the
restitution. Now, in reality, you're going to have to make
some judgment calls there. But we're seeing right now some
cases where we've got several thousand, and some of them are
up into the 20's and 30's of thousands of restitution. The
Crime Victims' Compensation Fund is going to pay some of
those, but it's really kind of unfair for someone to --
let's use an assault case as an example. Assault someone,
the person is air-lifted to San Antonio, has extensive
reconstructive surgery on their face or whatever, and the
guy that does it walks away with court costs and no
restitution. And so what we're trying to do is see to it
that as these people go to court and are adjudicated, that
restitution, if applicable, can be added to their judgment,
and they can be made responsible for some of the damage
they're doing when they assault someone. Does that make
7-25-r5
85
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
sense?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
MS. LAVENDER: And because of my efforts of
being able to get together all of these bills in a timely
fashion, we're getting them together, getting them to the
D.A.'s, getting them to Rex in time so that we can do it
before we send them to -- you know, to prison or put them on
probation. Most of the restitutions, obviously, are going
to be people that are put on probation. And --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Does this require
action by the Commissioners Court? Or can the Judge just
begin --
MS. LAVENDER: No, we're going to have to, as
a county, do it. Not today, but, you know, in -- we need to
do it before September 1st, obviously. But I just wanted to
make you aware that we have the option to do that. In cases
where we don't have restitution, you also have the option,
in misdemeanor cases where there are victims and we don't
order restitution, to put in a $50 fee and $100 on a felony.
All of that money goes to the Texas Crime Victims'
Compensation Fund and would go through the Auditor's office.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Does that stay here
or partially go back to the state?
MS. LAVENDER: None of that would stay here;
it would all go to Austin. But the thing about that is, the
~-z5 us
a7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
` 24
25
fund itself is paying out -- last year it paid out
$72.8 million in benefits. And it's money that people have
made restitution for, and money that the State has set aside
as the -- it was like a pot to begin with when they
established this system. In years to come, again, that's
one of those deals of, are we going to make the defendants
or the accused people pay into the fund, or are we going to
allow our tax dollars to continue to go into that fund at
the state level? And I think that's the reason this
legislation was passed, was to try to inspire the courts to
-- if you don't have to make restitution, then you can pay
$100, you can pay $50, if it's a crime where you've got a
victim. And I was just going to update you on that and
recommend that at some future Commissioners Court, that we
pass a resolution. And I think you've got to talk to the
judges and be sure the judges are -- are clear with it, and
the attorneys are clear with it too.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can -- but we could go
ahead and today handle the fee, could we not? The $12 fee,
which half stays locally and half goes -- I take it back.
It just says "update," so -- no, it says, "and request
approval."
MS. LAVENDER: "And request approval," yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think we could adopt all of
it, as far as that goes.
7 ~5-OS
88
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
<3
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean --
JUDGE TINLEY: Based on the agenda item, is
what I'm talking about.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. I mean, I don't
see any reason why we don't deal with the fee. I think it's
-- you know, we should approve the fee. And on the other
part of it, I don't see that we need a resolution from the
Court to go after -- on the restitution side, but if we do
need one, we can certainly do that at a future date. I
think we can get that resolution before us. But I'll make a
motion to --
MS. LAVENDER: Do you want to say something?
MS. UECKER: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You want to say something
first?
MS. UECKER: I just have some observation
comments about this bill. First of all, the trial court is
the one that would make that decision. This Court does not
have to approve anything under this bill. And it -- the fee
only applies to, the way I understand it, an offense where a
defendant is put on probation after September the 1st.
MS. LAVENDER: Yes. It does not --
MS. UECKER: However, of course, the first
thing we need to do is educate the trial courts; go to them
and ask them. But here's the key. Back in the last
~-_'S-OS
89
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
~0
21
22
23
29
25
session, Senate Bill 3~5, as I recall, amended Government
Code 51.607 that, in these words, say any -- any new fee or
fee increase, if that bill that instills that fee becomes
effective before August the 1st, then the fee is effective
September the 1st. If it doesn't, then that fee, because of
the State's fiscal year, does not go into effect until
January the 1st. In this case, that fee would not go into
effect until January the 1st.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You're saying the Court
doesn't have to set this fee to do that?
MS. DECKER: No, it's in here. I mean,
Commissioners Court has nothing to do with it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MS. DECKER: So -- but it doesn't -- so we
don't plan on getting that money until January 1.
MS. LAVENDER: Right.
MS. DECKER: And I have sent this to my
judges, but you might want to make some visits to them.
MS. LAVENDER: I will do that. I just made
-- wanted to make you all aware of it. And we can -- if we
don't have to approve it, then I'm through.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Nothing further on
that? Mr. Pearson? I believe -- no, wait a minute.
MR. PEARSON: No, 1.16.
~ ,5-05
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
90
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Got you lined up on the
wrong one here, but I'm square now. Thank you. We'll move
on to Item 15, consider and discuss declaring a 1989
Chevrolet D.A.R.E. car as surplus property and grant
permission to accept sealed bids to sell it. Sheriff?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's pretty well --
that was the old red Camaro that we had for years. Former
Sheriff purchased it, I believe, back in 1997. It's an '89
car. You have the attachments there, should have a copy of
the title.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move we declare the
1989 Chevrolet D.A.R.E. car as surplus and authorize the
Sheriff to accept sealed bids to sell it.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Would you want to put a
date that those bids have to be in to me by? Or just me
pick one and send it -- advertise that it way?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You pick one.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just follow the law.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second the motion.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item. Any further question or
discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
~ zs-os
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
91
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That will be offset in
your next year's budget, I presume?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, unfortunately, I
got to looking -- if you'll look back at that court order
where it was purchased, it came out of Capital Outlay, so I
guess I have to give it back.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move on to item -- let's
go to a timed item here. I apologize for missing that.
Item 17 was a timed item for 11 o'clock. I apologize,
Mr. Amerine.
MR. AMERINE: No problem.
JUDGE TINLEY: Consider and discuss update
for 9-1-1 funding for final 9-1-1 mailout. Mr. Bill
Amerine.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Before you get started,
Bill, --
MR. AMERINE: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- just a brief
introduction. Commissioner Baldwin and myself, working as
liaisons to 9-1-1, met with Mr. Amerine last week. We
thought it would be a good time to give an update to the
7-25-OS
92
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Court and decide if the Court wants to go through with -- or
ask -- work with Mr. Amerine on one final mailout, try to
get all that addressing behind us.
MR. AMERINE: Thank you, Commissioner Letz.
As y'all know from my previous appearances in the court,
we've been working on this addressing issue since September
of 2003, where the Commissioners Court authorized and mailed
out the 3-by-5 blue cards, 14 and a half thousand of them,
if I recall. In May or June of 2004, we declared the formal
addressing project, as such, completed, because all of our
records were provided to the U.S. Post Office, and we had at
that point in time received all the call-ins that we thought
we were going to from that initial mailout by the County.
Since that time, there have been three subsequent mailouts
by the U.S. Post Office to try to get residences using the
new addresses and to -- to cease using the HCR addresses and
the rural route addresses.
My office did a subsequent mailout in January
of this year to the remaining 3,000 phone lines that we
still didn't have addresses assigned to, and after -- very
shortly before that process was complete, I met with
Commissioner Baldwin and Commissioner Letz and told them
that we were going to "call it a day," to use my exact
phrase; that we felt that we had done due diligence in
trying to reach the citizens of Kerr County for their new
~-^s-us
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
,~
23
24
25
93
addresses, and that the remaining number, whatever that
number was, which I didn't know at the time, phone lines
that were not addressed, that we would pick up by exception.
I think the request that Commissioner Baldwin and Letz asked
of 9-1-1 was reasonable, and the request was -- and the
reason why I'm here today is, let's do one final, last-ditch
letter. Let's put it on the Court's letterhead, and maybe
that will rattle the bushes and get a few more folks out and
get these addresses taken care of. I guess what I'm here to
ask is whether the Court would be willing to provide us with
the materials to do that. We'll be glad to put the text
together for the letter. We'd like the envelopes prepaid,
if that's possible. But we'll, of course, be answering the
phone, responding to the -- the citizen responses to those
letters.
Now, to give you some numbers to work with --
I think these are good numbers. Of course, I'm -- I'm not
100 percent objective on where we're at today. There's
23,224 access lines in the Valor system. Currently, today,
there's less than 20 that are address exceptions, so we're
99.99 percent r_omplete for the Valor phone systems, KTC.
Hill Country Co-op is not quite so good. There's 9,270
access lines, and after our final mailout that started in
January, we	still have 1,241 phone lines -	- not	citizens,
phone lines	-- that don't have addresses.	Many	of these are
~- ~-off
94
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-- are individuals that have multiple phone lines, and the
number's probably something less than 1,000. That overall
puts this county at 96.12 percent compliant on addresses to
phone lines. That's comparable with the counties that
surround Kerr County and the other independent communication
districts in south Texas.
But back to the original request by
Commissioner Baldwin and Letz, they felt one last final
mailout using the Commissioners Court letterhead might
rattle those bushes and get a few more responses.
Personally, I think that's too big a number, and I think
they agree. We were wanting, at that point in time, though,
to refocus our priorities onto new equipment for the PSAP
and making sure that we were Phase 2 compliant, but I think
we have enough energy and time left in 2005 to do that
mailout. So, I guess that's my request to the Court, if you
would be willing to allow us to use your letterhead, your
sealed envelopes and postage to do this final mailout for
those 1,241 phone lines.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And just a little bit of
-- kind of going into what we discussed when Commissioner
Baldwin and myself and Mr. Amerine discussed this. It was
felt that the insert -- 'cause this will be on white paper.
The key is to get people to open up the envelope, and
there's probably a higher likelihood of getting -- opening a
~-zs-r,~,
1
.... 2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
'°' 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
~~ 2 4
25
95
letter if it's coming under the Commissioners Court regular
letterhead. Just as a -- you know, a little bit -- it
doesn't look like junk mail, is the bottom line. And
hopefully get them to open it, hopefully get a little bit
done. The cost, I'm not sure what that -- what our
envelopes cost, but we're looking at about 1,200 plus the
postage for 1,200, basically, little bit over that. So --
and the postage would probably run -- you know, recommend we
run it through one of our departments. 37 cents, 1,200, so
probably around $600, $700, I'm guessing, of material costs
to get this done. We had some money in the budget at one
point for this; I'm not sure if it's -- we added it back in
this year or not, or if we expended all that money on
earlier mahouts. If not, I think we can probably find the
funds in Nondepartmental or Commissioners Court Contingency.
I think there will be probably a little excess in our
Commissioners Court Conference line item, because
Commissioner Baldwin's -- his conferences are picked up by
the state association, primarily. So, I think it's
worthwhile to do this one more time, distribution of these.
The majority of them are out in west Kerr County, the Hunt,
Ingram area, though the numbers are way down from where they
were previously. There's a few in eastern Kerr County and a
few in the Center Point area, a few right around, you know,
Kerrville South. But I think it's worthwhile. I think
~ z5-cs
96
1
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've been very successful so far, and I think we should do
this,
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, what this
communication would say to them is, if you call 9-1-1, your
address doesn't pop up on our screen, and you need to fix
that?
MR. AMERINE:
COMMISSIONER
to do with what is your add
this is not a street naming
MR. AMERINE:
COMMISSIONER
Yes, sir.
NICHOLSON: Hasn't got anything
Bess -- well, it has something --
and addressing project.
No, sir.
NICHOLSON: It's getting it intc
the system.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just saying when you call
9-1-1 currently, your -- no address is coming up on the --
on the monitor, and that's a public safety issue.
MR. AMERINE: I think we're going to use
something a little more powerful than that. This will be
the last proactive -- this is our final attempt on our part
to reach you, and that if you don't respond, this is the --
you know, this is what information will be available to the
dispatcher, which is a name and a phone number only.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is it possible, Bill,
that all the -- excuse me -- that some of these -- the 1,261
are second lines in the residences for which you already
~-~~ as
97
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
~0
21
22
23
29
25
have an address?
MR. AMERINE: Yes, it is. One of the
problems I have, and since my previous experience is with a
large phone company -- and I don't want to be critical of
any one of the phone companies that service Kerr County, but
I can't really get Hill Country Co-op to provide a level of
information as far as what services are provided that would
allow us not to qo after these that are not really 9-1-1
capable. You know, we've had a couple meetings on that.
It's just not -- it doesn't look like it's going to happen,
and I brought that up to Commissioner Letz and Baldwin when
I met with them last. Also, one of the proactive things we
thought about doing was giving each of the Commissioners a
list of names of those people who hadn't responded, so if
they -- if they wished to contact these folks -- but,
unfortunately, there's a --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's not a good
idea. (Laughter.)
MR. AMERINE: There's a protection of
information issue going on with the phone companies, where
they're willing to give us access to that data, but not any
further than that. So --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, you heard that. They
weren't -- he was not allowed -- the phone companies won't
allow that by law.
7 5-OS
98
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
~-- 1 3
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
°' 2 9
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, that's good.
MR.. AMERINE: So -- and, anyway, I think this
is -- I -- you know, when it was brought up, I thought at
the time this is a fair thing to do. Just give one last
chance to round up these remaining 1,241 phone lines. I
think we will find, Commissioner Williams, that some of
these are secondary phone lines, but I'd like to, just as a
matter of public record, caution folks. When they think
that a secondary phone line is not an issue for 9-1-1, it
is. Many of these are dial tone, dial-out capable lines.
Many of these faxes and computers have a phone actually
attached to them, and if they dial 9-1-1 if they're having a
medical crisis while they're on the Internet, for whatever
reason, we're not going to have an address for them. It's
only the security gates, the security monitoring systems,
and the non-dial tone -- when they use the phone number
strictly for billing; they're not 9-1-1 dial-out capable,
that we don't care about. And I do think there is some of
those out there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- we put
this on the agenda, one, to deal with this issue. If the
Court is willing to pay the costs of approximately $'700, I
think I'll put it on the next agenda as a budget amendment
to get where those funds are specifically going to come
from.
~-zs os
99
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
MR. AMERINE: If you need a specific figure,
I can provide that for you. One last thing I'd like to ask
so that when I come back, we can have this. Would the Court
like to review the text that we're going to put in that
letter? It's going to be under your envelope, and certainly
I think you might want to see that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. The answer to that
is yes.
MR. PEARSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know that you'll
need to come back. I think we can handle the budget
amendment and the text. And -- and the timing, I've talked
with you previously. Probably September is when this would
go out?
MR. AMERINE: We'd like to actually get the
mailout sometime in August, actually have the schedule
worked out. So --
MS. MITCHELL: It will not happen, because --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're not mailing them
out.
MS. MITCHELL: -- we have to order the
letterhead and the envelopes, and that takes anywhere from
three weeks to a month to get it.
MP.. AMERINE: We will adjust our -- we would
like to wrap this up in 2005, though. We have a huge
~-,s ns
1
`~ 2
3
4
I
5
6
1
7
~ g
9
` 10
11
12
I3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
100
emphasis on new equipment in Phase 2 at the end of this
year. One last thing. Since it doesn't look like there'll
be a motion or any action on this today, I want to let the
Court know what I've been working with the County Attorney
on. We've had discussions about the fact that 9-1-1 has, as
just a matter of handshake, been doing rural addressing on
behalf of Kerr County. There's not a problem with that, but
there are -- is a Senate and House Bill that occurred back
in 1989 that gave counties, commissioners courts
specifically, through an extension of the Road and Bridge
Act, the actual authority to do road names and house
numbers, and I've provided those records to Mr. Emerson
here. What I've done is I've put together an interlocal
agreement that states the County's responsibilities and
9-1-1's responsibilities for continuing this process into
2006. We're not asking for any compensation in this, 'cause
I don't think the level of effort and addressing going
forward is going to be significant enough for to us worry
about a budget item, but I do think kind of tightening this
up so that the actual authority derived from the county
comes down to us through that kind of document would reduce
some exposure that both of us have by not having that
document. Comments or questions on that?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'd just ask, when
the County Attorney looks at it -- my understanding is that
~-_,-os
101
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
we have the authority to name roads, but we don't have the
responsibility or authority to assign house numbers,
addresses.
MR. EMERSON: I don't know the answer to that
off the top of my head.
MR. AMERINE: I have just a quick summary
from the State Legislature Record that has the -- just a
summary of the text from those two bills. It was Senate
Bill 1091, Legislative Session 71R, that says that, relating
to the authority of Commissioners Court of a county to
establish standards for rural addressing, to assign street
names and numbers. And the accompanying bill for that is
Senate Bill -- I'm sorry, I had it here.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: House Bi11.
MR. AMERINE: It's a House Bill. I can't
find it. I thought I had both of them; I guess I printed
the same page twice.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Either way, doesn't make
any difference. If we need an interlocal agreement, we need
an interlocal agreement.
MR.. AMERINE: It's really -- I'll leave this
to the attorney to look at it, but I really think it's a
no-brainer as far as the detail, what we'll continue to do
and what the County's responsible to do. It gives just, as
we've always had, the Commissioners Court -- it gives you
1-25-__
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
102
guys the complete oversight of what we do with any of your
citizens as it pertains to roads or house numbers. That
doesn't change under this interlocal. But let's look at
that in a future agenda item when you've had a chance, and
the County Attorney's had a chance to review that document
and see if it's adequate for its purpose.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On this item, I'll go
ahead -- I will ma};e a motion that we request 9-1-1 to
assist the County with a final mailout of the non-addressed
phone numbers or -- yeah, non-addressed phone numbers, and
will come back at a future date with a budget amendment for
the funding.
MR. AMERINE: And prior to that, I'll make
sure you have the text of what will be in the letter under
your letterhead.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
stated. Any further question or discussion? All in favor
of that motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
MR. AMERINE: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Thank
you, Mr. Amerine. Let's move back to Item 16, consider and
7-25-OS
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
°~ 13
14
IJ
16
17
18
19
20
L1
22
23
24
25
103
discuss authorizing a renewal of Kerr County Teen Curfew
Law, which expired due to Section 4 of the Sunset Provision
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: First, I have to thank
the County Clerk for bringing this to my attention, 'cause I
didn't realize it had expired. And she did bring it to my
attention, and I want to thank her for doing that so we can
get it back on. As the Court remembers, originally back in
2000, the County did adopt a curfew law for anybody under
the age of 17 from 12:01 a.m. to E a.m., seven days a week.
There were plenty of exceptions and defenses in there. If
it was a schcol, church, civic-related or anything like that
project, on an errand from the parents, with the parents, a
lot of different reasons in there. My opinion of this
ordinance that the County adopted -- now, the City of
Kerrville doesn't have one. Didn't have a chance to check
with Ingram; I think they do still have theirs. But this
ordinance would -- is not something that is used a lot, does
not bring in revenues from the county in fines and citations
being the issue. It's not done that way. I can probably
still count on one hand the number of citations that we have
actually issued under this ordinance over the last several
years, but it is a good ordinance that allows our law
enforcement officers to actually check with kids who you see
that look like maybe lU, 12, 13 years old at 2 o'clock in
~ -as-os
104
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~2
23
24
25
the morning wandering the streets. It does give us the
right to approach these kids, identify them. We find in
some cases that they had snuck out of the house, parents
didn't know they were out, single parents or parents are at
work. Other times we find parents didn't care. But we do
write these -- these kids warning citations and send that
back home, and we mail a copy to the parents, so it gives
parents notification. It's just been an excellent tool to
be able to do law enforcement when you're having more and
more kids wandering around on the streets. I don't think it
-- it's ever been abused. I think it's been a good tool
that we've been able to use, and S would recommend that it
does get renewed, that we continue to be able to have that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there -- the form of
it still meets all the requirements of the Saw and
everything?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Far as I know. It was
all researched back then. I don't believe the law has
changed any in what was done, how it was adopted. I wasn't
even looking at changing anything in the ordinance at all.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And it's a two-year
period?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It's really a one-year
period.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: One year?
~-zs-os
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
L~
23
24
25
105
COMMISSIONER. WILLIAMS: Originally, it was
one year.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah. And it was --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: St was renewed once,
was it not?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Only time I could
find -- I attached it to there -- that it was renewed was
the beginning being effective April lst, 2001.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move renewal for a
period of one year --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- of the ordinance.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
renewal of the teen curfew law for a period of one year.
Any question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just a comment. I'm sure
Rusty's in shock, because I voted -- voted against this
previously two times, and I still don't like the fact that
it's kind of arbitrary and it's not -- seems to be not
enforced universally by the City of Kerrville, which causes
another whole set of problems. But if the Sheriff feels
it's a useful tool --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: 1 feel it's a very
useful tool. Now, if I felt that it was being used to
harass kids, I'd be the first one to stand in here sayinU
-~.-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
106
don't do it again. That is not the intention of the law.
It's not the intent of this -- it's an enforcement.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm going to vote
for it also, but I've got the same concerns you've got.
Plus it's more government, more -- more regulation, and
generally I think we ought to err on the side of less. But
if Rusty says it's a good tool, I'll vote for it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Pearson, you indicated you
wanted to speak on this item?
MR. PEARSON: I support the Sheriff's
request. And in the 'S0's, when we lived in San Antonio, I
worked with Captain Matheny, who was in charge of the
Juvenile Department, City of San Antonio, and on various
occasions I would sign out children that had been picked up
at night for various reasons. Most of the time, they were
from a family -- single parent; it was usually a female head
of the house, no males in the house. So, I -- I took these
children and I put them on strict curfew, and most of the
time I'd give them a paper route to make sure that they had
some working knowledge of how to handle money, how to work
with -- how to get along with people and so forth, and it
worked out real well. And the curfew is a very important
tool that the Sheriff needs. I was very fortunate in one
young man that I worked with, we were able to, with a local
legislator, to get him an appointment to West Point. So, I
~ z5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
]5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
~5
107
highly recommend that you give the Sheriff an extension of
this law.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Anyone else
who wishes to be heard on this item? Any Further discussion
by members of the Court? All in favor of the motion,
signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
{No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. We
will move to Item 18, consider and discuss clarification of
policy directing Environmental Health Manager and Floodplain
Administrator to deny permits when there's a violation of
Kerr County Subdivision Rules and Regulations. Commissioner
Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I put this on the agenda
based on, I guess, a little bit of confusion in the
departments and trying to figure out how to implement what
we directed previously. And I think -- in visiting with
Road and Bridge Department and Miguel's office a little bit,
I think it would be wise to put a cutoff date; that we don't
go back before December 11th, 2000, which is the date of our
basic format of our current rues that are in place, so that
we're not trying to go back and correct illegal subdivisions
20 years ago or 15 years ago, so we have a date specific as
~-zs-n~
1
m 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
'"°' 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
~5
108
to what rules we're trying to follow. I think it would make
their lives a lot easier. And the other part of it is, we
discussed briefly, but the intent of this is to find illegal
subdivisions, not stop O.S.S.F. systems from being
installed. And I added some -- or suggested some language
that, you know, as soon as a determination is made that the
permit requested is in an illegal subdivision, and after the
parties receive written notice of the violation and the
parties acknowledge the situation in writing and advise as
to how they plan to correct the situation, that the permit
be provided if all other requirements are met. I make a
motion that the effective date for this go back to
December 11th, 2000, and then that other language be
included as the policy for this order.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the amendment -- or clarification to the policy.
Any further question or discussion? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. We'll
and District Retirement System handled previous late filing
~ ,-us
109
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
penalties. Commissioner Letz.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I put this on the agenda
based on our last meeting, and it's my understanding that
it'll be at our next meeting when we have a representative
from TCDRS, so we can pass on this item and ask Ms. Mitchell
to put it back on the agenda for our next meeting.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: She's been in contact
with the office and is trying to get someone down here.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Mr. Pearson, you had
filed a participation form?
MR.. PEARSON: Pass at this time, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anyone else wishing to be
heard at this time? With no further action by the Court,
we'll move on to Item 20, consider and discuss waiving or
lowering plat review fees for a revision of plat.
Commissioner Letz.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I put this on the agenda,
and the -- the fee that I'm really looking at is an O.S.S. F.
fee that we adopted in their fee schedule when I believe the
County assumed the Environmental Health Department again
from U.G.R.A. And there's no -- well, the fee is $150, plus
$10 a lot, and I know there have been a number of people
that have, you know, objected to that high a fee, and I
think we've waived it on or_casion. And I just thought we
~-'s-o5
110
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
]5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
really ought to look at that. I don't have a problem, on a
new subdivision, with that fee structure, but on a revision
of plat, which is almost always, you know, taking one or two
lots and usually combining -- dissolving some lots, making a
bigger Lot -- occasionally it goes the other way, but
usually it's making a larger lot. Clearly, if we're taking
multiple lots and combining them into a larger lot, clearly,
if we -- if there was the ability to put an O.S.S.F. system
previously, there clearly is under the new system. And, to
me, there should be virtually no -- or a minimal fee even
charged for that. By law, Environmental Health has to sign
off on the revision of plat, but if we can certainly modify
that fee -- and I would put it as a $25 fee on a revision of
plat where multiple lots are being combined into fewer lots.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How would that apply
to the action we took earlier today where we let -- approved
consolidation of two or three lots into a larger lot?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It would --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would that gentleman
be under the old fee structure, or would he eligible for
what we're doing right now?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would have no problem
making him eligible for the $25 that I'm proposing. I just
think it's -- it's a lot more -- when people are doing
something that we want --
~-Z5-~5
111
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
_^4
~5
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- we shouldn't penalize
them financially
JUDGE TINLEY: Since we're adjusting the fee
downward, there's no necessity for any public hearing?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll ask the County
Attorney that question. I'm not sure. I would -- I would
think not. But, I mean, there may be -- I mean, there may
be a requirement, and I don't know. And we may want to
address it, you know, looking at our other fees as well.
This is limited to the revision of plat, but I'm not so sure
that some of our other fees are high enough on the -- more
on the clerk side, the recording and some of those fees.
Sut if there is a requirement that we do a public hearing, I
think we -- probably need to look at them all at the same
time.
MR. EMERSON: The answer to that -- the
answer to that, as to the specific reduction, I don't know.
In general, it does require a public hearing to establish
fees.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I wouldn't mind
looking at all of them. It's time, and I wouldn't mind
looking at them with an eye toward user-pay. The total fees
collected should be more or less equivalent to what O.S.S.F.
costs us. And I also agree with -- when people are willing
~-z°~ os
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
112
to do what we want them to do, to lower the threshold for
their costs on that.
JUDGE TINLEI: What you're suggesting is just
something to handle the basic administrative costs, but
otherwise give them some incentive to want to do -- reduce
the number of lots?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Lots, correct. County
Attorney -- or, Rex, do you -- off the top of your head, do
you know the time period for a public hearing on fees? Is
it 30 days?
COMMISSIONER WLLLIAMS: 30 days, isn't it7
MR. EMERSON: I think, but I wouldn't swear
to it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why don't we -- I would
recommend that we take no action on this item today, and
then we'll put together a fee structure, put it back on the
agenda next time, and look at all the fees. We'1] set a
public hearinq at that time for the fee structure. I don't
know -- I think we probably, on a temporary basis, probably
could change the revision fee at O.S.S.F. until that public
hearing. Or do you think we cannot do that?
JUDGE TINLEY: Probably can do a waiver.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion that
we pass a temporary waiver of -- reduce the fees for
O.S.S. F. review to $25 in situations where multiple lots are
~ ~.,-os
_.__ ~ _
113
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
ZO
21
22
23
24
25
being combined in to fewer lots.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And make it
retroactive to the issue we --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Effective this day.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- offered earlier
today?
JC7DGE TINLEY: All right. Motion made and
seconded as indicated. Any question or discussion?
Mr. Arreola?
MR. ARREOLA: Just a question. Is there
going to be a charge per lot, like we do on the other ones?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just a flat $25.
MR. ARREOLA: Flat $2S no matter what number
of lots they're going into?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, for right now.
JTJDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We'll retook at that,
Miguel.
JLrDGE TINLEY: Any further question or
discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanLmous vote.)
JODGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
~-ze-os
-- - - ~ -
1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
114
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Let's
move to Item 21, consider and discuss the reappointment of
Dr. Samuel Junkin to the Hill Country Community Mental
Health and Mental Retardation Center Board of Trustees for
an additional two-year term. I paced this on the agenda as
a result of Dr. Junkin's term expiring at, I believe, the
end of August of this year. Dr. Junkin has graciously
consented, if the Court desires to appoint him for another
two-year term, to accept that appointment and serve. He's
-- Dr. Junkin has been a very faithful servant on that
board, has devoted a lot of time, and I'd say if there's
anybody on that board that's ramped up, that knows what the
issues are and what's going on and the economics of it, it
would certainly be him. And he's been a valuable asset to
the board and to the executive director and her staff.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, I'd move the
reappointment of Dr. Sam M. Junkin to the Hill Country
Community Mental Health and Mental Retardation Center Board
of Trustees for a period of two years from -- moving forward
for two years, with our thanks and appreciation for his
years of service.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item, and with thanks to Dr. Junkin
for his many years of service to the board. Any question or
~-z5-c;

115

1


1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~2
23
24
25
discussion'? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.}
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. We'll
move to Item Number 22, consider and discuss designation of
personnel authorized by Kerr County to hate access to Kerr
County I.R,S. information or otherwise act on behalf of Kerr
County in connection with I.R.S. matters. I put this on the
agenda as a result of a recent occurrence that an interested
official of the county was not able to obtain information
from I.R.S. in a matter that affected his office. I
discussed it with the Auditor, and the Auditor had indicated
that persons who might have such a need would include the
County Treasurer, the County Auditor, and members of the
Commissioners Court. And I asked the Auditor how this might
be accomplished. He said there's a form that can be filed
with the I.R.S. designatioq those persons to have access or
otherwise act on behalf of the -- of the County.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Tommy, the -- is the
declaration or the change -- can it be worded such that the
Court as a whole has the abilLty to access it, but not
individual members?
MR. TOMLINSON: I think it has the
~-~s-	os
	
175
1
1
L
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2~
29
2`
individuals' names on the document. 'Cause when you call,
you have to tell them who you are and who you represent and
your authority. So, I would think that you could have
individual names.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My only reason is that,
just by law, individually, none of us have authority to do
anything, as I understand it, other than the Judge in his
judicial responsibilities. So, the way I -- I would be real
leery of members -- even members of the Court having
authority to -- or a list to be able to go in and change
official documents without the Court passing a r_ourt order
to do so. You know, I can't imagine -- I mean, I -- I think
the Auditor should be added. I think it makes sense to have
more than one person in the county, and I don't have a
strong -- I just -- I think that we would -- it is wise to
limit the access, 'cause some things -- if -- once they have
the authority to make some changes, there's some pretty big
things that can be changed. And if people aren't -- you
know, if something's changed and everyone isn't properly
notified, it could cause a bunch of problems.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, there's probably two --
two issues. One is access, and number two, being able to
take any action.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: So you might be able to --
7-15-u5
11~

1
G
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
L 1
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, even --
DODGE TINLEY: -- do it that way. But --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, 7 think action --
I would almost say -- well, I don't mind. I mean, I think
the Court probably should have the ability to do something,
but I just don't want -- individually, S don't know that we
would want to be able to make changes individually.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS; Even the issue of
access, Judge, given the nature of I.R.S., anybody who has
access by designation can take a problem and end up talking
to 16 different people before you even get to the heart of
the matter, you know. So, what is that -- what kind of
problem does that create? In terms of the Court, I don't
have any problem with it being the County Judge acting on
behalf of the Commissioners Court, with a court order
authorizing that or so stating it, however that could
happen. Frankly, I don't want to have any personal dealings
with them. (Laughter.)
MR. PEARSON: Been there, done that.
MS. NEMEC: Judge, may I address the Court,
please?
DODGE TINLEY: Yes, ma'am.
MS. NEMEC: Now, I'm not sure why there would
be anyone else that would need access to the I.R.S. other
than myself or my chief deputy. We're the ones that perform
z-~s-cs
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~2
23
24
25
118
those duties. Those are duties of my office. If we're
going to put the Auditor or members of this Court to have
dealings and have access to I.R.S, information, are we also
going to do that with other departments that have -- that
only the elected official and their chief deputy are able to
have access to certain information? That is a -- a concern
of mine. After this agenda item came out on Thursday, my
office was flooded with phone calls From elected officials
and employees who are very concerned, because not only will
you have access to tax information as far as the county, but
you will also have access to all the information of their
County employees S.R.S. deals with, as far as W-2's and
withholdings on their paychecks. And there were some
employees that were so upset, they were wanting to start a
petition, to petition the Court to only have my department,
since I'm the one that issues -- deals with these sensitive
issues on their paychecks and personnel issues. I asked
them to hold back; that I would present this to the Court,
and then we could go from there. So, if -- 1 understand why
you would want to put someone else on there, and -- you
know, you just never know what can happen. But, again, I
urge you to put my chief deputy on there. If, at any time,
anyone on this Court or the Auditor needs to speak to the
I.R.S. or has questions about them, they're welcome to come
into to my office, and we'll get on the phone and discuss
7-25-n5
119
1
L
3
4
5
6
7
8
Q
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
whatever matters need to be discussed, as was the case when
the Sheriff received the letter from I.R.S. We had a
three-way conversation. They asked me if they could release
information to Clay Barton, I believe is his name. I agreed
right away. I don't have a problem when there is a problem
that needs to be resolved, but just to put someone on there
that can just call I.R.S. at any time and have access to
sensitive information regarding our employees, I urge you to
think about that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are there any
circumstances that you can think of where the Auditor would
likewise have a need to be among those who could make an
official query or address a specific issue with I.R.S.?
MS. NEMEC: Not without going through me
first. It's a function of my office. He's welcome to come
into my office, and we can call I.R.S. together if that be
the case. There's a lot of sensitive information that can
be gotten -- that can be received from an individual that
has access to that. And I don't want -- if that information
is let out on our employees, I don't -- I really don't want
to be a part of that person that has access, and them not
knowing who gave out this information.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Give me an example.
What kind -- what kind of information could you learn about
me if you had access to that?
~- ,-us
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
l7
18
19
20
21
2L
23
24
25
120
MS. NEMEC: Well, what your taxes are. Have
you paid your taxes? Just all the personal information
dealings that you have with I.R.S.
MR. PEARSON: I don't think so.
JODGE TINLEY: No.
MR. FEARSON: Huh-uh. Only county -- only
county information would be available.
MS. NEMEC: That's not true. I can call and
find out anything on our employees when it -- relating to
their paychecks. They'll ask you if you're the employer.
MR. PEARSON: That's all. Just what -- as it
relates to the county, not anything else. If they're giving
out anything else, they've got a problem.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So you could find
out - on me, you could find out what my rate of withholding
is. Could you find out if -- whether or not I'm being
audited'?
MS. NEMEC: Sure. Well, we have -- I submit
those records. I submit W-2's for all our employees, so
therefore I can call and ask anything I want on those
employees that I've submitted the W-2's for.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the issue is -- I
don't -- I would be surprised if you could find out if I'm
being personally audited, whether you could find that out.
MS. NEMEC: 7 don't know about being
~-zs-us
121
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
personally audited, but, you know, the first thing they do
is ask for the employer identification number.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. PEARSON: Okay.
MS. NEMEC: And then, you know, you need to
give the employee's name, and then they ask who you are, and
I'm the only one that can have access to that information at
this point.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I don't -- I
basically agree that I don't -- I mean, I don't see why -- I
don't want access to it, 'cause I can see -- I can see
nothing but bad coming out of a lot of people having access
to this information, and I think a lawsuit possibly to the
County. You know, if the Auditor does -- you know, needs
access, I have no problem with granting theirs. If the
chief deputy needs it, I have no problem there. If there
is -- I would suspect if a situation arose where the Court
needed to get involved, at that point, we could pass a court
order giving us or the County Attorney or somebody else
ability to look at the -- you know, to make the same change
we're doing right now. We can always allow somebody else
access at a future time if there's a need to do that. But,
I mean, that's -- I wouldn't know why you want to do a
blanket one.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm not even sure I'd
~-zs-us
122
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
go quite as far as you indicated, Commissioner. I think
if -- if we're talking about a query or an issue that has to
be dealt with with Internal Revenue Service that involves
Kerr County, in my mind, there are only two people. It
would be the Treasurer, whose constitutional
responsibilities embody that, and secondly, it could -- I
can foresee an issue when the County Auditor might. I don't
see any time or place or need for deputy -- chief deputies
or other designees. I think if you limited it to those two,
that should suffice.
MR. PEARSON: That's your system of checks
and balances.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the way I see
it. And I'm willing to go with two, but not multiples of
two.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My only question -- and
it goes back to the -- how the Treasurer's office works. I
mean, if -- if the Treasurer was on vacation, sick,
whatever, for a two-week period, and a new employee is hired
during that period and that information needs to go to the
I.R.S., I would think the -- you know, someone has to be
authorized to do that. And -- I mean, and I don't know if
the Auditor -- to me, I can see the chief deputy, because I
think you need to have probably multiple people in an
office. Otherwise, I wouldn't foresee a problem.
~-zs-os
123
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. NEMEC: Those are the duties of my
office. And I just -- I don't understand why we would even
need the Auditor on there. If the Auditor had any problems
or questions, he can come to my office and we can work on it
together. Those are the duties of my office. Now, if the
Auditor wants to do all the faxing reports, all the reports
for I.R.S., then he can have access and take me off of it; I
wouldn't need to have access on it. But those are the
functions of my office.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm not seeing him
shaking his head that he wants that added responsibility.
MR. TOMLINSON: I'm just trying to think of
other reasons that there might be a need to talk to I.R.S.,
other than payment. From a county -- as a governmental
entity, I don't know that it would. In a business, you
have -- you have income tax issues. There's all kinds of
business to talk to I.R.S. by the -- you know, by a manager.
So -- so we don't have any federal tax obligation other
than -- other than payroll that I can think of. We pay
sales tax, so that's a state issue. Occasionally, we've
applied for -- for new tax ID numbers for specific
functions, but that's just merely a -- a request, and
they're -- they're always granted. So, I rani think of
anything that -- that's not payroll-related.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, am I
~_,t_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
124
understanding correctly, Mr. Auditor, then, you really
concur with what the Treasurer just said? That if there was
some issue --
MR. TOMLINSON: I don't have any --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- some issue that
came to your attention, that you and she together could work
it out?
MR. TOMLINSON: I don't have any problem with
that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Is that on it that
issue? Next item on the agenda, it's -- that's going to
take a while, isn't it?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Probably.
JUDGE TINLEY: Hmm?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Just thinking, when
Commissioner Baldwin is gone, we get through before noon,
maybe.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Almost.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Maybe not.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the -- I mean, I
think that -- next item is the EMS contract with the City.
I think my preference would be to do it after lunch. We can
deal with a few things -- I believe there is an executive
session regarding litigation that the County Attorney
~-'s-os
~_ . ...___ _ -__a_~_ ~.
125
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
advised me about, so we can do that after lunch as well. We
can handle the bills and all that so that the Auditor can be
done.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Before you pass over,
let me just give out to the Court my -- some of my thoughts
that I put together on this. Then you'll have them in time
for us to --
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, thank you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- mull them around
when we get back.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, I guess the sense of the
Court is we want to go on down to the approval agenda, and
then we'll just have the EMS and executive session when we
come back?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right, Mr. Auditor.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE TINLEY: First item is payment of the
bills.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move we pay the
bills.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
payment of the bills. Any question or comment? All in
favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
~-~s-us
..__i..___. _ ~_ .....~____
126
1
2
3
4
5
h
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Let's go
to budget amendments. Budget Amendment Request Number 1.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. Number 1 was submitted
by Commissioner Baldwin. He's requesting a transfer of $219
from Conferences to Operating Expenses.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of Budget Amendment Request Number 1. Any question
or discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Let it be noted that this
is coming out of his portion of the conferences. (Laughter.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Do we have subaccounts there?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We have subaccounts,
right.
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.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(NO response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry.
~-_.,-os

127
1
L
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Budget Amendment Request Number 2.
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 2 is a request from
the County Clerk to transfer $195.30 from Software
Maintenance to Books, Publications, and Dues.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of Budget Amendment Request Number 2. Any question
or disr_ussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by
raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Budget
Amendment Request Number 3.
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 3 is -- is between the
County Court at Law and the 216th District Court. County
Court at Law has depleted their funds for court-appointed
attorneys. We've anticipated an additional $10,000 for the
remainder of the year. I visited with -- with the District
Court, and they have agreed to let us transfer the
$10,155.13 from Special Trials.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
DODGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for


128
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
approval of Budget Amendment Request Number 3. Any question
or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by
raising your right hand. I'm sorry, did you have a
question?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Running out of money
two and a half months early on court-appointed attorneys.
Has this been a unique year? Or --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Happens every year.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Happens every year?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But not usually down
there. It's a little bit unusual for -- I think the County
Attorney can probably answer more about it, but it seems
that there are more court-appointed attorneys in County
Court at Law than there used to be. There seems to be more
activity in County Court at Law than there used to be, but
it seems that there's a -- I don't recall that line item
being as large in previous years, and it seems to be getting
larger every year. So, I think it's -- the fact is, we
don't have a whole lot of control here. They're running a
whole lot more cases through County Court at Law, which is
causing that --
	JUDGE TINLEY:	Volume of cases.	You get the
same percentage	of indigent	defenses.	
~-^5-OS
129
1
2
3
4
5
h
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what I
thought.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think that's what's driving
it up.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Indigent defense,
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or
comments? A11 in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
MR. TOMLINSON: I would like -- I would like
to make a comment on the total amount of court-appointed
attorneys for the fiscal year. We -- to-date through June,
we -- if you annualize where we are through June, we're
still going to be less than the total amount expended in
2001. We had -- in 2001 was when the Legislature gave us
funds for -- for indigent defense, and at that point in time
we had -- we had to establish what's called -- what they
call a base year, and the amount for all the courts for the
base year was approximately 280,000. So, the way -- if you
annualize where we are today through September the 30th, we
may not reach the base year. So --
JUDGE TINLEY: And what significance does
that have?
MR. TOMLINSON: The significance is that we
won't be able to retrieve any funds from that Indigent
~ 25-~5
130
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Defense Fund. And the -- unless, durinq the year, you
realize that you will exceed the base year, then you can
apply for one-time funding. But I just -- I just received a
document from the Office of Court Administration asking if
we had expended funds beyond base year, and my reply had to
be no, we had not. So, the -- I just -- you know, just for
your information, that even though we see some budget
problems, the total expenditures still have not exceeded the
base year.
JUDGE TINLEY: And the fact that they have
not may jeopardize our future ability to obtain state funds
to participate in what we pay for indigent defense.
MR. TOMLINSON: Riqht.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any opposed to the motion?
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Budget
Amendment Request Number 4.
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 4 is a request from --
from the County Jail to transfer $677.39 from Jailer
Salaries, $475 to Employee Medical Exams, $103.76 to Office
Supplies, and $98.63 to Prisoner Supplies.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of Budget Amendment Request Number 4. Any question
~->_s os
131
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
L L
23
<4
25
or comment? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
fThe motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.}
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Budget
Amendment Request Number 5.
MR. TOML7NSON: Number 5 is -- is for the
198th District Court. The request is to transfer $730 from
Special Trials, transferring $100 to Books, Publications,
and Dues and $630 for the Special Court Reporter line item.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLE`f: Motion made and seconded for
approval of Budget Amendment Request Number 5. Any question
or comment?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question. Going back to
the court reporter -- Commissioner Baldwin isn't here today,
so I thought I'd bring this up. Okay, we're -- we pay
them -- when they have to do appeals, they have to do a
transcript, generally we have to pay them additional above
and beyond their normal county salary -- I lost my train of
thought. (Laughter.)
MR. TOMLINSON: I know what you -- I can
anticipate your question. I can anticipate your question.
~-~.~-os
132
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's my -- gLve me an
answer to my anticipated question, please.
MR. TOMLINSON: Some -- on occasion, when the
-- since we have a -- two judges that are in seven other
counties, sometimes they appoint a substitute judge to hear
a case when they're out of town, and in those cases, there's
not a court reporter available for -- for that trial, so
they have -- they have to appoint a court reporter for that
court.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. That's a good
answer.
MR. TOMLINSON: That's exactly what this is
for.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do I have a motion and second?
MS. PIEPER: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any further question or
comment? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.}
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Budget
Amendment Request Number 6.
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 6 is a request from
Constable, Precinct 1, to move $3.80 from Capital Outlay to
~-zs os
133
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~2
23
<4
L J
Office Supplies.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sc moved.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
DODGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of Budget Amendment Request Number 6. Any 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.)
DODGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Budget
Amendment Request 7.
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 7 is a request from
the District Clerk to transfer $112.10 from Part-Time
Salaries to Miscellaneous.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. What's
miscellaneous?
MR. TOMLINSON: Actually, it's -- this bill
is for the remaining ba]ance of -- of a public notice that
was in the -- that was a publication in the newspaper that
she does not have a line item for.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Do we have a second?
MS. PIEPER: No.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
~-as-vs

134
1
2
3
4
J
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
~0
21
22
23
24
2~
approval of Budget Amendment Request Number 7. Any question
or comment? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Budget
Amendment Request Number 8.
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 8 is a -- is for the
County Treasurer -- between the County Treasurer's office
and Nondepartmental for the replacement of a monitor -- no,
I'm sorry, a typewriter for that office. And the request is
to transfer $314.99 £rom the Computer/Telephone line item in
Nondepartmental to Operating Equipment in the Treasurer's
office.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of Budget Amendment Request Number 8. Any question
or comment? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Budget
~-2s-r,s

135
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2 2
23
24
25
Amendment Request 9.
MR. TOMLINSON: 9 is -- is for the County
Auditor's office. I'm requesting a transfer of $38.99 from
Operating Equipment and $100 from Telephone into Office
Supplies.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of Budget Amendment Request 9. Any question or
comment? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Budget
Amendment Request 10.
MR. TGMLINSON: Number 10 is for Road and
Bridge. The request is to transfer $1,572.29 from their
Contingency line item to their Workers' Comp line item.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What created that
problem?
MR. TGML7NSON: Well, we -- in general, we --
when we budget for worker`s comp, we budget based on our
anticipated payroll. During the following year -- during
the fiscal year, we get -- we actually qet an audit from the
~-zs-n5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1 L
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~2
23
24
25
13E
worker's comp -- from TAC, a worker's comp audit, and
depending on how well we anticipated the prior year's
premiums, then they -- it depends; that determines either if
we get money back or we owe more. So, this year, the way
I'm recalling it is that as a result of our audit, we added
some premium, and also we -- we had a sizable increase in --
in salaries for -- for '04-'O5 over '03-'04,
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: Of course, a lot of that
increase was in tYie high-risk employees, and the high-risk
employees are jai]ers, Sheriff's Office personnel, and Road
and Bridge.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of Budget Amendment Request Number 10. Have we
reviewed the job classification of the employees? Do we use
that to make sure that they're in the proper classification
so that we get the best rate available on each one?
MR. TOMLINSGN: Yes, we do.
JUDGE TINLEY: On each employee?
MR. TOMLINSON: We do. And, as a matter of
Eact, we -- we have found errors that TAC has made before on
that issue.
JUDGE TINLEY: That can make a significant
~-~s-os
137
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
difference if they're not properly classified, can't it?
MR, TOMLINSON: Oh, yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is also -- this is
part of the -- private business will do the same thing with
their payroll every year, and it's part of the zero risk for
insurance companies law.
JUDGE TINLEY: Retro audit, is what it is.
Any further 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. Budget
Amendment Request Number 11.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. 11 is the same issue.
It's for the general fund, and we need to transfer the
$26,405.34 from Special Trials to Worker's Comp.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This is the other
part -- this is the other shoe that's dropping,
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The heavy one.
JUDGE TINLE't: The big shoe.
MR. PEARSON: Yeah, right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval.
MR. TOMLINSON: Just be glad we had funds in
~ zs os
138
1
L
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
Special Trials.
JUDGE TINLEY: I need a second, right?
MS. PIEPER.: There's no motion.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I made a motion.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of Budget Amendment Request Number 11. 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. Budget
Amendment Request Number 12. The Sheriff brings money, but
then he's going to expend it too.
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, it's temporary.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah, always remember
that. Temporary.
MR. TOMLINSON: I'm going to have to pull
this amendment. We got a phone call from TAC this morning,
that the amount of the check that they gave us was wrong,
and so we're going to have to send the check back,
MR. PEAR50N: Dh-oh.
MR. TOMLINSON: And they announced they will
do whatever they need to do and send us another one. In the
~-zs-os
139
1 meantime, I'll ask the Sheriff if he -- he has funds in his
2 seizure account to go ahead and make the payoff on this
3 vehicle. This vehicle is -- is one that was involved in an
4 accident with an insured party that only had $15,000
5 liability coverage. So, there's some -- there's some issues
6 between our carrier and the insured, and there's also some
7 issues about whether or not we wanted to keep the -- the
8 equipment out of the vehicle. So I think we're all on the
9 same page, other than the fact that they gave us the wrong
10 amount. So --
11 JUDGE TINLEY: You anticipate the amount that
12 we're going to get being higher or lower?
13 MR,. TOMLINSON: Less.
14 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: A lot less.
15 MR. TOMLICJSON: A lot less.
16 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: What this is, Judge --
17 and we've been dealing with TAC all last week. This is a
18 car that got hit head-on by an underinsured motorist, and
19 there -- his insurance company was going to pay us what his
20 limit was, which was -- wouldn't even cover anything here.
21 The car was totaled. So, TAC decided that they would take
22 it on; they'd pay it, and let them go after the underinsured
23 motorist, however they want to do it. The County does not
24 have uninsured motorist coverage or anything -- or no
25 coverage, so we're looking at it. But TAC sent us a check,
~-25-05
140
1
2
3
4
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
-°- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
"` 2 4
25
and then we noticed that it was a little bit higher than
what we anticipated. Not much, but when we called them to
try and get an explanation, "Is this because y'all want to
keep the equipment that's in the car, or do we get it back?"
They could not tell us where they got their figure from. A
virus hit their computer and ate it all, so we had to start
all over. We11, this last deal they gave us Friday was
that, as a matter of fact, we're going to deduct all the
equipment off the amount that they're giving us back,
because we can still reuse that equipment. And then the
other thing they said is if we deducted another $800 off of
it, they would give us the car. The car is a 2003 Ford LTD
that, in reality, you can even still start the motor on it.
It -- it is totaled because of some frame damage or whatever
on it, but it's only got 31,000 miles. It's still got good
doors, good fenders, you know, except for the front end part
of it, good motor and good transmission, and I think we can
make that $800 up real quick on being able to use those
parts and salvage out those parts and motor for our other
cars. So, for an $800 cost on that, I told them to send
that back; that we want to keep the car, and we'll keep it
and just use it for parts and everything.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is this one of your
vehicles that's maybe only a year old?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: 2003, okay? It's one of
~-zs-u=~
141
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the two that we totaled this last year. But the problem is,
the payoff on this car is right at 10,000.
MR. TOMLINSON: It's eight -- the payoff is
8,890.65.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And that has to be paid
by the 28th of this month or it goes up because of the way
Ford Motor Credit does. And since we're going to have to
mail back the check we just got, we're not going to have
that there, so I told Tommy we could go ahead and pay that
8,000 out of our seizure account, as long as when the check
did come and we got it back, it will have that amount, and
we get it back in our seizure account.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Trust us, Rusty.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah. That's why I'm
making a statement right here and it's on the court record,
'cause I want that 8,000 back. But I think it will, in the
long run, benefit the County and save us on parts and other
things.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's not to say that you've
instructed your officers to create a situation where they
can use these pieces, is it?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, unfortunately,
Judge, this weekend they did hit one, and it's not going to
meet the deductible. And it took out a fender and that
during the run in to an alarm call, and, unfortunately, a
~-zs-us
142
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
5
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
very large dog stepped out and took out the deer guard and
front lights and everything else of the car, so some of
these parts may have to be used already.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, do we need a budget
amendment of any kind?
MR. TOMLINSON: No.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Just going to pass on it
until we can get everything worked out.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Do you have any other
budget amendments, Mr. Auditor?
MR. TOMLINSON: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do we have any late bills?
MR. TOMLINSON: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: No late bills. With regard to
reports, I have before me monthly reports submitted by
Justice of the Peace, Precinct 3, District Clerk and County
Attorney. Do I hear a motion that these reports be approved
as submitted?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS:
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion r
approval of the designated reports as
question or discussion? All in favor
by raising your right hand.
The motion carried by
So moved -- second.
Wade and seconded for
submitted. Any
of the motion, signify
unanimous vote.)
~-zs os
143
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
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Do we
want to defer on Section 5 of the agenda until after the --
or do we want to go ahead and cover it?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know what Section
5 is, but I want to defer.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's reports. Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The information.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, we will stand in recess
until 1:30.
(Recess taken from 12:13 p.m, to 1:30 p.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's come back to
order for the Commissioners Court meeting that was scheduled
for this date. We recessed shortly after the noon hour to
resume at 1:30. It's a bit past that now. Item 23 on the
agenda, consider and discuss EMS contract with City of
Kerrville. Commissioner Letz, I think you placed this
matter on the agenda.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, sir. Based on our
workshop with the representatives of the City a week or so
ago, I think we left that workshop with the County being
asked to prepare a counterproposal to the City, and I
thought we'd just put on it the agenda, see if we could
~-25-n5

144
1
_' 2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
...., l 3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
-°- 2 4
25
develop that today. And my thought would be -- you know, I
know that I handed out a few thoughts that I had. I
we're not real far apart, really, on how we're thinking.
Which shouldn't be a surprise, because at the workshop we
were all pretty much in agreement there that we needed --
that we disagreed with some of the approach the City was
taking on trying to base the contract on run time. And, you
know, I'll pretty much leave it up to both of my colleagues
to discuss both of their proposals.
My proposal basically is that, I mean, if
there is a budget shortfall, I think it should be based
primarily on usage. Which, based on the number we received
from the City of Kerrville in the May 3rd letter,
26.11 percent of the calls are -- are to the county, and the
balance being to the city or to Ingram, and I think that
should be the basic, 7 guess, network for funding of any
shortfall. Commissioner Williams, I know, has another
number that's lower than that that he received in a
different communication from the City. It's slightly less
than 25 percent, so I kind of rounded up to -- 25 percent
seems to be a good starting point number. And then I think
that there is some sort of an allowance that needs to be
made for the length of -- distance of calls that go into the
~-zs-ns
145
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
county, and I put that as -- somewhat as a surcharge. Maybe
the first year, a flat fee, but then base that on actual
calls in the future. As I understand it, the City did not
have their records broken down in that way, so they couldn't
really tell us how many calls -- or where the calls went in
tYie county. They just gave us a gross number of calls to
the county. So, that's kind of my ideas.
I also want to hand out -- I received this
from a member of the public; he asked me to hand this out,
so I will. It's entitled "Points to Ponder Concerning EMS
Contract." Just some different ideas. I read through them.
They're -- I agree with some, don't agree with some, but
they're on the table as well, I guess. But I just open it
up to the other -- my colleagues and see what their views
are. I know Commissioner Ni~~holson's idea of user-pay, I
really like incorporating that into a counterproposal. And
I think Commissioner Williams had some ideas as well.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'll go ahead and
describe this for the benefit of -- not necessarily the
Court -- others that are listening. I started with the
assumption that when EMS was moved from private service to
the city providing that service, that there was an intent
that user fees would cover the costs of service. I think
subsequent to preparing this, I've learned that was not
exactly correct; that even that first year, there was a
~ 25-05
146
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
l5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
projected shortfall, and the County and the City did pay a
shortfall. And, so, first year and thereafter, the fees
have not covered the costs of services, but the -- the gap
has widened every year for a variety of reasons. One of
them is Medicare not paying -- as our costs go up, Medicare
payments don't go up at the same rate, and uncollectibles
and bad debt has gone up. So, we went from a small
shortfall in '94 to one that they say could be $400,000 this
year.
I think this kind of service is one that's
very amenable to a user-pay concept. And it's different
than some other services in that, one, insurance pays. Some
kind of insurance pays for these kind of calls, and it could
easily attribute the call to a specific user. You couldn't,
for example, establish a user-pay concept for police or fire
protection or something like that, because -- because of
those two factors. So, just to see what it would look like,
I've made some -- used some round numbers and made some
assumptions. And the assumptions were that operating
capital costs would be $2 million, and that billings would
be $2 million. And then bad debt write-off would be
20 percent of billings; that's what it was last year. And
disalloweds are 25 percent of billings. And then if you
went to a user-pay concept, disalloweds would increase from
25 percent to 35 percent of fees, and I pulled that number
~-zs-os
147
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
out of the air. I -- I'm sure that the disalloweds as a
percent of total would go up if fees went up. So, the
break-even point if you have $2 million in costs would be to
charge $3.1 million in revenue. That would take about a
55 percent, I think it is, increase in fees.
And to give you a feel for what that would
do, the basic life support fee would increase from $331 to
$513, and advanced life support would increase from $448 to
$695, and local transport fee would increase from $80 to
$125. The -- I don't see -- if we increased them to these
new amounts, I don't see that there's any way anybody would
think that was exorbitant. Local transport fee, I view it
as a -- a taxi service or limo service with qualified EMS on
board. It's a way -- and members of my family have used it.
It's a way to get from Sid Peterson Hospital to the -- to
the Parsons House. It's transport. And, so, paying $125
for that necessary service instead of $80 would not be a
significant burden, I don't think. What this would do,
increasing the fees by that 55 percent or so, would save the
city and county taxpayers $400,000.
COMMISSIONER. WILLIAMS: I came at it a little
differently, but some of my conclusions are the same as
Commissioner Nicholson's. The Judge asked me a question
this morning, and I had to go back to my pile of stuff here
to ferret out the answer, because there is a disparity in
-zs-us
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
]7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
148
terms of utilization. Before I get into that, let me just
make a comment. I don't know where this "Points to Ponder"
came from, but there are some very good ones here, and some
of them that I think we're going to be talking about today,
and some that we should be talking about if we haven't in
the past. But I had to go back to a couple documents here,
just to kind of see if we can get ourselves on the right
page. And that first document we got from the City was
dated May 3, and it came from then City Manager Ron
Patterson, and he made -- made the case for what revenues
were and what expenditures were and what the County -- what
he believed the County's utilization was and what he
believed the County's financial commitment should be. And
from that, then, we -- we went and we looked at that, and I
think that basically was the document we spoke from when we
had the joint workshop meeting here with the County.
And then Commissioner Baldwin and I were
gumming this issue one day as to what information we would
need in addition to help us work our way through this issue,
and together we put together a list -- compiled a list of
things we wanted from the City, and over a memorandum over
Commissioner Baldwin's signature dated June 2, we listed
several things that we'd like to have provided to us that
weren't provided in the City Manager's material he submitted
to us. Balance sheet, financial statements of October 3,
~-zs-as
1
_.r 2
3
4
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
.~- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
`° 2 4
25
149
2003 to-date, accounts receivable history, cash accounts,
schedule of rates and fees, fixed payroll costs, overtime
And that one's interesting, because the
provided back to us based on that list by Mr. Brooks, who's
the financial director or in the financial department at the
City of Kerrville, and one of his documents that he
submitted doesn't comport to the utilization statistics that
were	provided	to	us	by	the	then	City Manager in	his -- in
his	document	of	May	3,	and	it's	a month later.	And
whereas -- whereas the City Manager had indicated that
utilization showed 69.18 percent attributable to calls
within the city and 26.11 percent attributable to calls in
the county or outside the city limits, however you want to
define that, the second document we got showed inside city
limits calls to be 76 percent -- 76.11 percent, and outside
the city limits, not including Ingram, 20.17. So, there's a
disparity for openers right there. There's a disparity on
the city utilization of almost 7 points, and a reduction on
the City -- on the County utilization of something like 6
percentage points. Okay.
So, you know, we said, "Okay, where's that
going? Where's that leading us?" So I took a look at, over
7_ 5 -u5
1
"°.. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
^- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~2
23
"` 2 4
25
150
the weekend, some more stuff; again, some of the information
that was put together by Mr. Brooks, but this time was in
response to Judge Tinley's letter, and -- and, again, it
just didn't kind of add up. The way I see it, if you -- if
you sort through the revenue and expenses, I find that there
is $1,700,508 in revenue that is available to cover expenses
without the city subsidy, and that's just where we're hung
up here. The City has put in a subsidy and claims a subsidy
of $129,000 and change. By my calculation, there was
$1,700,508 available to pay bills, expenses of the system,
and by my same calculations, I find that there is $1,761,469
in -- in expenses, not the 1.9 million that was given to us
in the printout. So, that only leaves a shortfall of -- of
only $61,000. And, you know, if you take out the City's
subsidy, there's 1,700,000. If you take their subsidy out.
So, if there's only a shortfall of $61,000, and if we go a
little bit further and if we remove the City's 5 percent
fund balance, which is their requirement, of $84,000, and if
we remove Erom this calculation transfers out -- transfers
out of this budget back to the City's general operating fund
of another $70,000, there is an excess of revenue over
expenses of $94,000. That's the way I calculate it.
Now, they have a policy that says they have
to try to retain 5 percent fund balance, and that's okay. I
think that's a good policy for them, and they operate that
'!- 25 0 5
151
1
4-`, 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
Ll
22
23
24
25
way, and that means they're sequestering their own tax
dollars out of their own budget departments or compartments,
and they're holding it over. That's fine and dandy. But if
you apply that same theory to us, they're saying to us,
"That policy applies to you," so that means the County's
putting up part of the money that goes into their own
reserves, and I don't like that idea, even though it might
be a very small amount of money. So, I think -- I think we
have some herking out to do here. The way I see it, I see
that there's enough money -- if you take out those two
items, there's sufficient dollars to cover the expenses of
the system as we know it today without any subsidy. And if
we were to take away a couple other things, for example, the
removal of the -- the removal of capital replacement, those
dollars, build those into the rate structure, spread out
over -- over all of the calls that are made, based on the --
based on the useful life of an ambulance and the -- and the
related equipment, so we know exactly how much it costs to
replace an ambulance and all that equipment, and spread that
over the user base over -- over the useful life of -- of
that piece of equipment, you're going to recover those
dollars and those dollars are going to be available to buy a
new ambulance.
By the same token, if you get into the
disallowables and you spread the disallowables across the
~ ?=_os
152
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2 2
23
24
25
user base, there certainly is no need for a subsidy by
either party, the City or the County. And I don't want to
see the City have to subsidize it and I don't want to see
the County have to subsidize it, so I think, you know, some
tweaking in terms of the system. And if we really get
serious about what the user should or should not pay, I'm on
the same page as Commissioner Nicho]son on this, and
apparently on the same page as Commissioner Letz.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: To me, there's two
issues. There's, one, what portion -- if there's a
shortfall, what portion should the County pay? And then the
other issue is, what can we recommend the City do to improve
their system?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And their -- and their --
you know, the second one has a direct impact on the first
one. You know, I think that, you know, in our proposal back
to the City, we should recommend they adjust their fee
structure upwards to incorporate most of the loss that
they're experiencing, if not all of it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner, you -- you bring
up a good point, and I asked the question during our
workshop about whether they were limited at recovering only
the Medicare allowable charge or whether they could pursue
110 or a hundred -- I think it's 115 percent of the Medicare
~-zs-os
153
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
allowable charge. The information we got was that they were
only pursuing up to the amount of Medicare allowable. I had
not received an answer to that. They, frankly, didn't know
during the course of the workshop. But if we're talking
another 15 percent of the allowable Medicare charges that
they're not even attempting to collect, if they have the
ability to attempt to collect that, we can be talking about
a significant sum of money. Because their tale of woe is
that the disallowables from Medicare are -- are what's
killing them, and it's driving this deficit, so an
additional 15 percent on -- on the Medicare allowables could
be a pretty sizable chunk of money thrown into the equation.
With an increase in rate structure and -- and some other
efficiencies, it could make a significant difference.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, added onto that --
and I'm assuming that these -- the handout we were given is
somewhat correct, and it implies that Medicare/Medicaid
reimburses on loaded mileage, which means that the runs into
the county where there is someone picked up, that Medicare
pays more on those than runs into the city, which also goes
back to that. And it doesn't appear, from what the City
told us at the meeting, that they're doing that. It kind of
-- but I think it still goes bark to the issue that I think
there's two -- I mean, one, we need to figure out a -- a
proposal to give the City if there is a budget shortfall. I
~->s-us
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
154
mean, I think we need to address that, and that may or may
not be. And if there's a surplus, I think this fund would
come back out the same way. I mean, if we're going to enter
into an agreement with them and there's a budget surplus, it
should be shared, I think, proportionately as well, based on
the contract -- interlocal agreement we have with the City.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is the author of
"Points to Ponder" here today, whoever wrote this?
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't know who did it, but I
too am -- I think it's a good document, and I appreciate
having that information.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I just want to go
back to --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: To follow on to what
the Judge said -- and I may be being redundant, maybe. We
said this in our meeting workshop with the City, but we're
providing -- these two governments are providing a medical
service, and they provide the medical service just like my
doctor does, and he deals with Medicare and he deals with
deadbeats that won't pay. And he does get compensated. And
what he does is charge me and others who pay the full --
full ride an amount that's sufficient to cover his operating
costs and provide himself a compensation.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Hospital does the
same thinq.
7-25-US
155
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Hospital does the
same thing, and that seems like a pretty simple formula. It
seems Like it's -- the hospital and the local M.D. are in
the same business as we are.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I got to go back to
what the Judge was saying a little bit about disallowables.
If you look at this revenue analysis that was provided to us
for the fiscal year '04-'O5, total revenues -- which
included the disallowables of $566,000 -- total revenues
were 1.830, or rounded off. So, if you take away the City's
subsidy of 129, the -- without that, there was $1,700,508
available to pay the expenses, which were 1,761,000. So,
you know, the allowables are clearly in there, and they --
they shouldn't be -- they shouldn't be the issue that
separates us. I want to -- I want the record to clearly
reflect that I want us to be able to work out a situation.
I really do. I don't want the County to get into the EMS
service if we can at all avoid doing it. And if we can find
an equitable solution to this, I want us to do that. But I
think some things can be done to do the things that the
Commissioner's talking about -- the Judge and Commissioner
Letz are talking about, and I think we have to suggest that
those things happen.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I still think we need to
address the issue, if there is a shortfall, of what we pay.
~-zs-as
156
1
__. ,
L
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
~ 11
12
°°° 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
"° 24
25
And I think that is primarily based on usage with some sort
I
action in western Kerr County to eliminate those long runs.
They're now being served by Kimble County, and trying to
work out a deal, and verbally have one, with Kendall County
to take some of the load off the far eastern part of the
county. So, the longest runs that they said was costing
them the most money are no longer going to be part of this
-- of the system.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think in order to
to -- there needs to be a new, detailed map of Kerr County,
what the service area is. That would eliminate the far west
Kerr part that we -- we willed over to Kimble County, and
whatever that piece of eastern Kerr is that you believe that
-- that can be served equitably and rapidly out of Comfort,
Kendall County, and that then becomes a map. I think we
also need to define what's a local call. Is it just within
the city limits? Is it within the city limits or the ETJ?
What's the average time and mileage it takes to make a local
call? And whatever that time and mileage is, particularly
the mileage, anything above that, I believe the County has a
responsibility. And if the average call is a 7-mile call or
an 8-mile call or 12 miles round trip, whatever it is,
~-^s-ns
157
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
anything above that, I think we have responsibility for
reimbursing excess mileage and so forth. I believe that's
equitable. I think we -- the County should continue to
subsidize the Medical Director and the First Responders as
we have done. What we need to do -- and I think the rate
structure needs to be recalculated so that neither the City
nor the County has a subsidy.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner,
without wanting to make the formula too complex, I would not
mind if we went to a user-pay -- I would not mind if the
people out in the county paid more than the people in the
city. And I don't want to refine it where Ingram pays more
than Mountain Home and others, but I wouldn't mind people in
the -- outside the city limits paying more, acknowledging
that it costs a little more to get out there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You could have zones.
You could have city limits, Zone 1, which would basically be
the ETJ or close to it. Then you could have a -- you
know --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Any number of ways to
do it, yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, I mean, I would -- I
mean, it seems like we're probably close enough to be able
to come up with a -- a motion to go back to the City on,
which is intended for today. But I also think this is a
~ - _ ~ - U r
158
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
very important issue, and I want -- I hate to leave it open
to a very -- a vague motion, and I recommend that we take a
brief recess and let Commissioner Williams, who's the best
author amongst us, try to put together a -- you know, an
outline of what we are proposing, and then come back in,
like, 15 minutes and see if we can have something that we
can actually vote on. And then send that over to the City,
or authorize -- then give it to the Judge to send it out
with a cover letter. Because I think this is too important
to have vague -- a vague proposal to go to the City. We can
go down through the list, if, you know, Commissioner
Williams wants more direction, or does he think he has
enough?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm seeing six eyes
looking at me here.
JUDGE TINLEY: For those of you in the
audience that are not aware, our resident wordsmith is
seated to my immediate right, and any time there's
wordsmithing to be done, and I -- I fess up to being the
most guilty of all -- I try and task Commissioner Williams.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I get ready to --
JUDGE TINLEY: He comes by this legitimately.
MR. MOORE: Yeah, but is he any good at it?
JUDGE TINLEY: I've found him to be quite
good at it, sir.
~-zs-ns

159
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. MOORE: Or you wouldn't be using him.
JiJDGE TINLEY: Excellent. Yes, I've found
him to be quite good at it. That's why we call him our
resident wordsmith.
MR. MOORE: God love him. He volunteers
wil]ingly, I can tell. Are you gentlemen open to any
questions about this discussion at all?
JUDGE TINLEY: We'll take all the input we
can get. Please come forward and let us know what's on your
mind. And, of course, Mr. Evans wanted to be heard on this
also.
MR. EVANS: Go ahead, I'll follow you.
MR. MOORE: I'm Edward Moore. I live in
Upper Turtle Creek on Molina, and I'm one of the volunteers
at Turtle Creek out there. And because of this, I carry a
radio all the time. Being nice, I turn it off when I'm in
places like this; you don't give me dirty looks. Do any of
you have any idea how many ambulances this city supplies?
Actual ambulances?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, on a --
MR. MOORE: Two? Three? Four?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On calls? Or total in
their inventory?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I always thought
there were three; is that correct?
~ zs ~~s
160
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I thought it was two
actually on call; then they had the other one they were
doing transports with.
JUDGE TINLEY: They then got a transport --
MR. MOORE: You got it right. That's what I
wanted to find out. Because there's a morning check that
the City does, a morning check with the stations and their
on-call ambulances and all personnel, and there's -- I'm of
the opinion that there's four ambulances available at any
time. You said it. I'm of the opinion that two of those
are transports. They do V.A. transports, they do
hospital-to-hospital transport. So, God, 1 would only hope
that they're close to paying for themselves, because that's,
until about three days ago, what their only duty appears to
be. So, we're talking -- my decision is we're talking about
two vehicles that can come out to the county to assist me
and my family or neighbors. So, whenever I hear this thing,
and I hear reports that there's been an accident, unknown
injuries, "Do you think we should send EMS?" The reply
always is, "You really should." No, we don't know what's
going on out there, but that EMS usually goes, I'm telling
you straight out. And i think it's a good thing. But also,
we get refusals from out in the county. "I wrecked my car;
I'm pretty bunged up, but I'm not going with you." So,
there`s a dispatch to the county, which is farther, takes
~= ~,-os
161
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
more time, burns more hours, things of that nature.
So, my concern is that the -- if we're going
to go into a use time on it, keep in mind that the little
old gal three blocks from the hospital called and got her
little grandchild taken to EMS over here because it had a
fever. Who paid for that? Probably nobody, because
that's -- they got that done. So some of these figures
you're looking at on these dispatches and things, I think
you're right, you need to look into them a little better
than what they're representing. I want the service. I want
the county to have it. I don't want a private service. But
I think we should pay for it fairly and justly. And when I
saw those moneys that they just wanted you to arbitrarily
pay -- that's what I assumed from what I read; that's it,
stonewall, 200 grand, and you're not getting... Gentlemen,
work on it. I think you can do it for us. I think you can.
And you -- your numbers are pretty good, if they're right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I just --
MR. MOORE: Thank you, gentlemen.
I'i COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I picked them out of
their numbers.
MR. MOORE: That's what I said; they're
pretty good if they're right.
JODGE TINLEY: Mr. Vaughn Evans.
MR. EVANS: My name is Vaughn Evans. I live
~-~s-os
162
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
23
29
25
up north of the interstate on Vaughn Trail. I'm a proponent
of the EMS. I think that it's certainly essential. I've
never called them; hopefully I never will have to, but I
read the article in the paper where there was a 500,000-plus
shortfall of payment for services rendered. Is that
correct?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What they call
disallowables.
MR. EVANS: Well, that's on the Medicare
disallowables. And then -- and then you've got the -- the
expense of those services not covered, that people just
didn't pay. Well, you know, if you call 9-1-1 and it's just
on a lark, that's a criminal act. You know, it's a
violation of the law. And, certainly, to not pay for
services rendered by the EMS when they come and save your
life, whatever, if you don't pay, that ought to be a
criminal act, absolutely. I mean, it's like writing a hot
check, right? So I think that -- that, you know, there's
such things as credit cards. If they don't have the cash in
the bank, they don't have the money in pocket, by george,
put it on their credit card, but pay it. Because we need
the EMS desperately, okay?
Now, I'd like to say this about the Medicare.
I -- you mentioned your doctor. My son's a doctor.
25 percent of all the work that he does is free, gratis,
~-~s-os
163
1
"' 2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1L
--- 13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
"' 2 4
25
because when somebody shows up at the emergency room, he has
to render service, plus all subsequent service for that call
for services rendered don't even cover his own expenses as a
doctor, so you're right, a lot of the doctors will go ahead
and jack up their prices because you cannot mark that off as
a bad debt. Say, if you were in the hardware business and
somebody gave you a check that didn't go through four or
five times, and you finally say, "Hey, I'll just mark it off
my income tax as a bad debt." Doctor can't do that.
He's -- he's a horse of a different color, okay?
So, one of the things that I think people
should consider, one, people on Medicare have a deductible.
If they haven't met that deductible, by gosh, they ought to
be paying EMS for it, okay? When Medicare says, "Well,
we're going to pay $100 for this," they're only going to pay
80. They pay 80 percent of -- of the fees charged that are
allowable. The patient is responsible for the other
20 percent. And, just as your doctor, my son doesn't get
paid that 20 percent. Now, if he doesn't take
consignment -- in other words, if he doesn't say, "Well,
I'll take what Medicare sends me," they send a check to the
patient and he never sees a dime of it, so it's better to go
ahead and say I'll take consignment and get the 80 percent
~-~s-os
164
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
in-hand, because you're not going to get the other
20 percent from a lot of people. It seems to me that if you
make failure to pay for services rendered a criminal act,
that they can be fined and they can have a lien placed
against property with high interest rates, whatever it takes
to maintain the EMS for the good of everyone, and just --
you know what I'm talking about. Okay, thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Evans.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, if I may make one
other comment, I want to make it real clear, 'cause I do see
several members of the press here. You know, I think -- and
I think the Court has said it numerous times, and everyone
in the public I've talked to, they're -- they're very happy
with the quality of service coming from the City of
Kerrville. They do a great job, their techs and paramedics
and all the EMS, all that. I mean, there's not an issue
with service. It's just a matter of the -- the amount of
any subsidy that's required and the fee structure. One
thing that we didn't mention -- Mr. Evans alluded to it
briefly -- is collections. The County has a very aggressive
Collections Department when it comes to our court cases, and
I think it was Commissioner Williams' handout that
recommended that as soon as they go delinquent, all the
county accounts get turned over to our Collections
Department. And if the City wants us to handle their
7 2 5 U 5
a_
165
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
collections too, we can probably handle them. I mean --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- our Collections
Department does a very good job of collecting funds from
people that frequently say they don't have any, so I think
that collections is another area we can make up a little bit
of shortfall. And I think it's -- we need to use -- or
recommend the City go with -- you know, you work on the
Medicare -- on the collection. If it's 115 percent, well,
we go there. If we can get a little bit more on the
collections, we can go on that side, raise fees. I think we
need to get the system as much a pay-as-you-go system as
possible. And if there is a shortfall, I think the County
should pay its fair share. I think that should be based on
usage.
JODGE TINLEY: I think that
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Just one comment in
regards to just what Mr. Letz was saying about service. You
know, I agree, I don't like paying a 400-something-dollar
ambulance bill for them to run out to the jail, but the
County does, even though we subsidize it. But one thing
they do do that I don't think anybody takes into account,
'cause it is -- fire and EMS does, like, this weekend we
used their dive team. We don't get a bill for any of that
kind of stuff. I know a number of times we'll use the fire
~-z5-os
166
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
trucks themselves to wash down a gas spill when a volunteer
truck isn't available, or their absorption -- sand and that
to absorb, you know, hazardous chemicals, and we never get
billed for that kind of stuff. So, these are things more on
the fire department side than the EMS side, although
normally when they -- like, the dive team, they'll have an
ambulance standing by there with them too, just in case. I
think they do do a lot of good services.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But there is -- there's
another whole set of -- a fire subsidy as well.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We pay --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 125,000.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- 125,000.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But such as the dive
team, they send an ambulance out there. They'll sit there
unless somebody gets injured during that. You're normally
not going to need them. If they're not needed, they come
back in, but they still provide it. You know, hazardous
search warrants we have, they'll always send one out for
standby on those situations. We don't get billed if nothing
happens. So, they do get a lot of other services.
JUDGE TINLEY: My sense of it is that we're
at kind of a -- kind of a break point here; that we need to
try and get some sort of a definitive checklist of bullet
~-25 05
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
167
points, whatever, put together, and I think we need to give
Commissioner Williams, since he's the one who seems to have
been selected unanimously to cover this, the time and
opportunity to do that. So, why don't we stand in recess
for, oh, 15, 20 minutes and let him do his magic. We'll be
in recess.
(Recess taken from 2:06 p.m. to 2:28 p.m.)
(Commissioners Court reconvened without
Commissioner Williams being present.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. In the interests of
time -- let's come back to order, and in the interests of
time, I understand the -- the Auditor has an item that he
failed to present earlier when we were doing budget
amendments, and then we're also going to try and take care
of some other business while Commissioner Williams and the
admin work on the proposal that's being worked up. Do you
want to come on forward, Mr. Auditor?
MR. TOMLINSON: I had this turned upside down
in my folder earlier, and I just totally skipped it. But
part of -- this is really a report -- an analysis of the
cash flow for the Juvenile Detention Facility through
9-30-05. It shows the June 30 cash balance, and in an
average month of revenues, that's -- that average is since
the last three or four months, and then the average monthly
~ zs us
168
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
expenditures, which is 148,000, with average monthly
revenues of 83. So, I -- I projected, then, with the --
with the cash balance, with -- with revenues and
expenditures, an ending cash balance of approximately
$30,000. The problem is that when -- when we budgeted in
January, we budgeted only the -- only an amount for the
following nine months. We didn't budget any revenues for --
for the first quarter. So, I -- I'm -- what we need to do
is increase the expenditure budget by the amount of the cash
balance for June 30th. Right now, we have -- we have
approximately 228 -- 230,000 excess revenues over what we've
budgeted in revenues.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, we're increasing
revenues? Were not increasing --
MR. TOMLINSON: No, we're increasing both,
actually, so I need -- we need to budget both sides of the
equation. I need to budget additional revenues as well as
additional expenditures. And I'm -- I can't guarantee that
this will see us through the end of the year. It's only as
good as my estimate, so I could be back.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, you're saying we
need to increase the revenues for the balance of this year
by 249,000 and increase expend --
MR. TOMLINSON: No, I only want to budget
220,000, the amount of the -- of the fund balance.
~-^5-n5
169
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: June 30.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How much do we envision
on the expenditure side?
MR. TOMLINSON: Same amount.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Same amount?
(Commissioner Williams entered the courtroom.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's no net change?
MR. TOMLINSON: No.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What are we talking
about?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The Juvenile Detention
Facility.
MR. TOMLINSON: I did -- I did -- you know, I
wanted to call your attention to the fact that what -- how
material the difference is in -- in the average revenues and
average expenditures on a monthly basis.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Bill, what we need to do,
we need to increase both the revenue side and the
expenditure side to get us hopefully through the end of this
year. I mean, it's -- it's not a net -- well, it's equal.
I'll make a motion that we increase the revenues $220,022
and expenditures $220,022 for the Kerr County Juvenile
Detention facility.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
~ - ~ 5 - ~ S
170
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to
increase both revenues and expenditures for the Kerr County
Juvenile Detention Facility in the amount of $220,022. Any
question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes. Confirm once
again, this does not include any money for debt service?
MR. TOMLINSON: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There is no debt
service this year, right?
MR. TOMLINSON: No, there's no debt service
till February of '06, I believe.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or
discussion? All in favor of that motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Thank
you very much.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Tommy, when we deal with
the juvenile facility during the budget, just block out that
whole day for us to try to explain all this stuff.
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I could tell you in
advance that there's a -- a deficit budget in that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I've seen all those
~-zs-os
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Zl
22
23
~4
25
171
scenarios. We're going to talk.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. Well, I just -- you
know, I just wanted you to be aware of where we are.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I know we're not into
budget yet, but when we get in that August 3 meeting, I'm
going to suggest that that one be the first order of
business and we devote whatever time we have necessary to
that.
DODGE TINLEY: Okay. That's it for the
Auditor. The -- are we ready yet on the other? Doesn't
appear to be --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I've given it to
Ms. Mitchell, and all of my notes, and she's going through
those hieroglyphics and she's going to give us a document.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Well, why don't we
go ahead and try and take care of the -- the executive
session item. It's my understanding that the Court wants to
qo into executive session for one of the purposes specified
on the agenda; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's undez litigation, I
believe.
MR. EMERSON: Correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, at this time, the Court
will go out of open or public session and we will qo into
executive session. Other than the members of the Court, we
~ 25-OS
172
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
need the reporter and the --
MR. EMERSON: At least for the initial issue,
we would request that the County Clerk remain as an
essential part.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And me?
MR.. EMERSON: And the Sheriff.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sheriff?
JUDGE TINLEY: Also the Sheriff and the
County Clerk to remain.
MR. EMERSON: Yes, sir.
(The open session was closed at 2:37 p.m.,
and an Executive Session was held, the
transcript of which is contained in a
separate document.)
(Recess taken from 2:54 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to order
into public or open session, and we are now still
considering Item 23, EMS contract with the City of
Kerrville. Commissioner Williams, do you want to go over
this?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, we'll go over
this, and then anything we want to make changes to, we can
come up with probably the one that gets conveyed to the
City. And we'll start with the headline up at the top,
-~s-os
173
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Points to be r_onsidered in -- in the County -- in Kerr
County counterproposal re: EMS. That finishes that
statement. We would propose a revised user rate fee
structure, and it would include: A) Capital replacement
costs, B) Administrative overhead, C) Medicare/Medicaid
disallowables, D) Bad debts, E) Operational expenses, and F)
Any other expenses that are not categorical.
2. Tied into the rate structure, dispatch, we
believe, is a fixed cost and should not be included in the
calculations. Likewise, the 5 percent fund balance that the
City requires of its departments should not be -- should be
eliminated from the cost calculations as it would apply to
the County.
3. We need to agree -- we propose to agree on
a new county service area map which will identify primary
and secondary call responses.
4. We would propose developing a formula for
mileage into the county in excess of the average distances
for round-trip city calls, and we would go further to
propose the establishment of -- of zones, if that proves
helpful. If it doesn't complicate it -- if it becomes
helpful, we could go that route, too.
5. Kerr County to continue funding the
Medical Director, First Responder program, and EMS office
space lease.
~ ~,-OS
174
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
G 2
23
24
25
6. Kerr County will be responsible for
collections of delinquent accounts for service provided to
county after 90 days. Kerr County will also entertain doing
collections of joint delinquent accounts attributed to the
city service deliveries if the City would like for us to do
that; and
7. Kerr County will pay up to 25 percent of
any projected systems shortfall based on new revision of
users fees and so forth and so on, and the County would
also -- would also pay excess mileage fees as per -- however
we calculate the mileage.
So, we need to revise that last one, Kathy.
Will pay excess -- "County will pay excess mileage in ETJ or
the zones as calculated."
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Under the Item Number 1,
Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- possibly, "Institute a
revised user rate fee structure to reflect a user-pay
system."
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Structure to
reflect --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This looks good.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- a user-pay system.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Under Number 6, do
~-zs-us
175
1
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 have a feel for whether or not our Collection Department
can do that without adding any collection --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I think there's
some questions, Commissioner. Not so much about whether
they can do it or not, but I guess -- I think the County
Attorney raised with me some questions which needs to be
addressed as to what is the enforcement that they would have
in this matter? Because it differs -- if I'm wrong, Rex,
correct me, please -- because this differs from what they do
normally. They have court orders. That's what backs up
their authority to collect as it is now, and this would not
have that same backup. Am I correct, Rex --
MR. EMERSON: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- in identifying
those? So we'd have to take a look at what might be
necessary to give them the enforcement authority they needed
to go after --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: By "court orders,"
you don't mean this court; you mean one of those courts?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, I mean one of
those courts gives them the authority to do their
collections.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would definitely say
Kerr County will review ability of Kerr County collections
of delinquent accounts.
~-zs-os
176
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: "Will review
ability..."
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Of Kerr County
Collections Department to collect delinquent accounts.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Read the whole
sentence again. "Kerr County will..."
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Will review ability of
Kerr County Collections Department for collection of
delinquent accounts for service. Rather than say we'll be
responsible.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. I made notes,
Kathy.
MS. MITCHELL: Good.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Then I think under 7A,
did you have some additional language there?
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's talk about 6 again.
What about the second sentence in 6?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Probably strike it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: "If requested" should
be added. If requested.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On 7A, Kerr County will
pay 25 percent of any projected system shortfall.
JUDGE TINLEY: On proper accounting?
~ ~s-os
177
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: Based on new fee
structure.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Based on a revised
fee structure.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It actually should
probably be based on incorporation of the above items.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Based on above
to the fee structure.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Also put on 2, 5 -- I
mean, most of those points -- most of the bullets go into
the system shortfall.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm sorry?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 7A, I think it needs to
be based on the whole outlined program.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. We'll pay
25 percent provided you do everything above.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, that's what I'm
saying. Kerr County would pay up to 25 percent of any
projected system shortfall based on incorporation of the
above.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In the fee structure.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's good.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What's 7B going to
read now?
~_s os
178
1
G
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: County will -- County
will -- Kerr County will pay excess mileage as calculated in
the ETJ and/or zones as established.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion we
approve the counterproposal to the City of Kerrville for EMS
service as modified, and authorize the County Judge to
provide proposal -- or provide a cover letter for the
proposal and fax it to the City this afternoon.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
indicated. Any question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just a comment, was that
my intent of getting it there this afternoon is so that they
don't read about it in the paper tomorrow morning without
having received it.
JUDGE TINLEY: I got a better solution than
that. We can just snag -- snag these folks and hide them
out for a day or two.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You've heard that
sermon on unity I was talking about.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other question or
discussion?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Fax it on down this
afternoon?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Any further question or
7-^5-OS
179
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
discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Back to the drawing
board.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Anything
else to come before the Court? We have some information
items under Section 5 of the agenda. Any reports from any
of the Commissioners?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have nothing
further, Judge.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'll briefly -- very
briefly say, on Animal Control and library, we haven't yet
heard from the City on our proposals on those contracts. On
library, a couple of things that I wanted you to know about
have occurred. One, I met with the chair of the Library
Board.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Randy Johnson.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Randy Johnson, yeah.
We had a very productive meeting, and he and I are pretty
much in agreement about the changes in governance that could
be made to improve the effectiveness of the library
management. And then the Library Board had its regular
7-25 ~5
180
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
meeting, and that was a good meeting. When I arrived, I
wasn't the most popular person there because they all read
the newspaper and believed some of the things they read in
the newspaper. Without belaboring it, we got into a very
good discussion, with everybody participating, about the
future of libraries considering the impact of the Internet
and other information age changes, and it's exactly the kind
of discussion that needs to occur with involved people here.
And, you know, in 30 minutes you can't do a lot, but we left
there, I think, with everybody having a little better
understanding that it's not business as usual. No one of us
is probably right about what the future holds, but we need
to look at the future and -- and determine what the
applications of those things are on the library, and start
cranking that into our -- our planning for the library and
our budgets. So I feel pretty good that, in spite of the
obstacles, we've probably started a much needed
discussion --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS:
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON
of the library.
Good.
-- about the future
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Even though the press may
have, for whatever reason, got this stirred up, maybe it's
good that they did, 'cause they certainly got everyone
concerned.
~ zs-us
181
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I agree with you.
We need -- the discussion needs to occur. So, that's all.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The only thing I
would throw out was a -- is a call that I made to AACOG
regarding the VOCA grant, and subsequent calls from AACOG to
the governor's office resulted in the grant coming down a
little more expeditiously, perhaps, and enabling the actions
we took today.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Good.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Only comment I have is
that Commissioner Williams and I met with the -- through the
Airport Board, with City staff a little bit on the budget,
and they're back to the drawing board in the City. They're
kind of relooking at some of the numbers they've presented.
And I'm still committed; I think that process -- the system
it created is going to work, even though there are a few
bumps in the road still.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There is something
that you and I have talked about in that regard that perhaps
we need to place on a future agenda, and that would have to
do with the County being in a position to bid on some of the
work that's done for the airport.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And on that area, I'll
let the whole Court be aware; I think everyone else probably
is already, or many in the city are. I asked Len Odom to go
~-zs-os
182
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
over to the airport and drive around and really look at the
infrastructure over there, roads, mowing, things of that
nature. He hadn't been on the property more than 30 minutes
and I got a call from the City as to why he was there. And
I just basically told them -- I said, "We're looking. If we
can do some of these services more economically than the
City, it should be done by the County." And that was based
on the budget that they presented to the Airport Board. So,
I think they're relooking at some of their numbers, and
we're trying -- and also to provide, I think, backup as to
exactly what went into some of these numbers and what they
were incorporating. There's some huge disparities between
what Leonard thinks it should cost and what's in the budget,
and I don't know if it's a true disparity or not. I hope
that it's more that something is included that I'm not aware
of or he's not aware of. But, anyway, we are looking at it,
and I think that hopefully we'll be able to cut that budget
a little bit from what was proposed.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Got your letter
written, Judge?
JUDGE TINLEY: Pretty much. Do we have any
other reports that we need to have rendered here? Elected
officials? Department heads?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I have one other
real quick one. Hermann Sons Bridge is basically complete,
~-z5-cs
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
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
183
and the road tie-in is being done. At some point in the
future -- I don't think it will be before our next
meeting -- it might be a really good opportunity to do --
have somewhat of a public ribbon-cutting, opening of that
bridge. It's a very nice structure, a lot bigger than I had
envisioned when they first started. When they first
started, in talking to them, they were talking about a
mid-level bridge. Well, it isn't a mid-level; it's a
high-water bridge, and it's pretty interesting.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: When will the rail
cars be released?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: As soon as the bridge is
open, which I would suspect will be in a couple of weeks.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I had a
minute's discussion with Leonard this morning, and as you
and I both know, he's done some -- he's done some site work
on the banks of Town Creek -- not Town Creek, Third Creek,
in anticipation of -- of building bridge abutments for the
rail cars. And so he's now searching for somebody who can
do the concrete work for him.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: For the piers and the
abutments.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
Yes.
We got anything else,
~-25-OS
gentlemen? Hearing nothing further, we will stand
adjourned.
(Commissioners Court adjourned at 3:15 p.m.)
184
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
gentlemen? Hearing nothing further, we will stand
adjourned.
(Commissioners Court adjourned at 3:15 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 30th day of July, 2005.
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
B Y : _ _ ------- -
Kath anik, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
7-25-OS
ORDER NO.29259
KERRVILLE CHRISTMAS LIGHTING CORP. CONTRACT
Came to be heazd this the 25~' day of July 2005, with a motion made by Commissioner
Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court unanimously approved by vote of
3-0-0 the Christmas Lighting Contract.
ORDER NO. 29260
HOT CHECK FUND
COUNTY ATTORNEY
Came to be heazd this the 25~' day of July 2005, with a motion made by Commissioner
Williams, seconded by Commissioner Nicholson. The Court unanimously approved by
vote of 3-0-0 the concept plan of abolishing the Hot Check Fund and rolling it into the
County Budget.
ORDER NO. 29261
LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE SERVICE
Came to be heazd this the 25a' day of July 2005, with a motion made by Commissioner
Nicholson, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court unanimously approved by
vote of 3-0-0 to reject all bids remaining due to not timely submitted.
ORDER NO.29262
LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE SERVICE
Came to be heard this the 25`s day of July 2005, with a motion made by Commissioner
Letz, seconded by Commissioner Nicholson. The Court unanimously approved by vote
of 3-0-0 to advertise and solicit bids for long distance telephone service and have such
bids being returned on August 22, 2005 at 9 am.
ORDER NO.29263
BUDGET AMENDMENT
COUNTY TREASURER
Came to be heazd this the 25`s day of July 2005, with a motion made by Commissioner
Nicholson, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court unanimously approved by
vote of 3-0-0 ratifies the budget amendment dated September 27, 2004.
ORDER NO.29264
SOUTHERN HILLS PHASE TWO, LOTS 36, 37, & 38
Came to be heazd this the 25s' day of July 2005, with a motion made by Commissioner
Williams, seconded by Commissioner Nicholson. The Court unanimously approved by
vote of 3-0-0 the revised Plat for Southern Hills Phase Two, Lots 36, 37 & 38.
ORDER N0.29265
PUBLIC HEARING
WHISKEY RIDGE RANCHES, LOT 17 & 18
Came to be heard this the 25`s day of July 2005, with a motion made by Commissioner
Letz, seconded by Commissioner Nicholson. The Court unanimously approved by vote
of 3-0-0 to set a Public Hearing on September 12, 2005 at 10 am. For the Revision of Plat
of Whiskey Ridge Ranches, Lot 17 & 18, Vol 6 Page 169.
ORDER NO.29266
PRELIMINARY PLAT
RIVER ROAD RANCH SUBDIVISION
Came to be heard this the 25~' day of July 2005, with a motion made by Commissioner
Nicholson, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court unanimously approved by vote
of 3-0-0 the preliminary plat of River Road Ranch Subdivision with the revisions as
discussed.
ORDER N0.29267
JOB DESCRIPTION OF CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS COORDINATOR
Came to be heard this the 25`" day of July 2005, with a motion made by Commissioner
Letz, seconded by Commissioner Nicholson. The Court unanimously approved by vote
of 3-0-0 the job description of the Crime Victims' Rights Coordinator.
ORDER NO.29268
CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS PROGRAM BUDGET AMENDMENT
Came to be heard this the 25a' day of July 2005, with a motion made by Commissioner
Williams, seconded by Commissioner Nicholson. The Court unanimously approved by
vote of 3-0-0 the amended budget for Crime Victims' Rights Program for the remainder
of 2004-OS budget yeaz.
ORDER NO.29269
SURPLUS PROPERTY
KERB COUNTY SHERIFF
Came to be heazd this the 25~' day of July 2005, with a motion made by Commissioner
Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court unanimously approved by vote of
3-0-0 to declare the 1989 Chevrolet DARE caz as surplus property and grant permission
to accept sealed bids to sell it.
ORDER NO.29270
911 MAIL OUTS
Came to be heard this the 25`s day of July 2005, with a motion made by Commissioner
Letz, seconded by Commissioner Nicholson. The Court unanimously approved by vote
of 3-0-0 to request 9-1-1 to assist the County with a final mahout of the non-addressed
phone numbers and to come back at a future date with a budget amendment for the
funding.
ORDER NO. 29271
TEEN CURFEW
Came to be heazd this the 25a' day of July 2005, with a motion made by Commissioner
Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court unanimously approved by vote of
3-0-0 to extend the Teen Curfew for another yeaz.
ORDER N0.29272
POLICY
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT AND FLOODPLAIN
ADMINISTRATOR
Came to be heard this the 25`" day of July 2005, with a motion made by Commissioner
Letz, seconded by Commissioner Nicholson. The Court unanimously approved by vote
of 3-0-0 allowing the Environmental Health Department and Floodplain Administrator to
deny permits when there is a violation of Kerr County Subdivision Rules and
Regulations.
These Orders would apply to Kerr County Subdivision Ruses and Regulations violations
since December 11, 2000. (This is the date of the major re-write of the rules)
The intent of the court orders is to find illegal subdivisions not to deny development.
Therefore, as soon as a determination is made that the permit request is in an illegal
subdivision and after the parties receive written notice of this violation and after the
parties acknowledge the situation in writing and advise of a plan to correct the violation;
then the permit should be issued.
ORDER NO.29273
WAIVE PLAT REVIEW FEES
Came to be heard this the 25`s day of July 2005, with a motion made by Commissioner
Letz, seconded by Commissioner Nicholson. The Court unanimously approved by vote
of 3-0-0 to pass a temporary waiver of reduced fees for O.S.S.F. review to $25.00 in
situations where multiple lots are being combined into fewer lots.
ORDER NO. 29274
HILL COUNTRY COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH AND MENTAL
RETARDATION CENTER BOARD OF TRUSTEE
Came to be heazd this the 25~' day of July 2005, with a motion made by Commissioner
Williams, seconded by Commissioner Nicholson. The Court unanimously approved by
vote of 3-0-0 to re appoint Dr. Sam Junkin to the Boazd of Trustee and additional two-
year term and with Thanks to Dr. Junkin for his many years of service to the board.
ORDER N0.29275
CLAIMS AND ACCOUNTS
On this the 25~' day of July 2005, came to be considered by the Court various
Commissioners Precincts, which said Claims and Accounts are:
Accounts		Expense
10-General	$	105,561.74
1-Road & Bridge	$	26,721.33
20-Road District	$	646.02
21-Title IV-E (AACOG Grant) $	9,033.18
26- JP Technology	$	250.00
28- RECM	$	123.79
31-Parks	$	1,450.00
62-1994 Jail Bond	$	375.00
76-Juvenile Center	$	31,011.09
TOTAL Cash Required	$	175,772.15
Upon motion made by Commissioner Nicholson, seconded by Commissioner Williams.
The Court unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to pay the claims and accounts.
ORDER N0.29276
BUDGET AMENDMENT
COMMISSIONERS' COURT
Came to be heard this the 25`s day of July 2005 with a motion made by Commissioner
Letz, Seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously approved by a vote
of 3-0-0 to transfer the following expense codes:
Expense Code Description Amendment
10-401-569 Operating expense + $219.00
10-401-485 Conference - ($219.00)
ORDER NO. 29277
BUDGET AMENDMENT
COUNTY CLERK
Came to be heard this the 25`s day of July 2005 with a motion made by Commissioner
Nicholson, Seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously approved by a
vote of 3-0-0 to transfer the following expense codes:
Expense Code Description Amendment
10-403-315 Books/publications/dues + $195.30
10-403-563 Software maintenance - ($195.30)
ORDER NO. 29278
BUDGET AMENDMENT
COUNTY COURT AT LAW AND 216 DISTRICT COURT
Came to be heazd this the 25~' day of July 2005 with a motion made by Commissioner
Letz, Seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously approved by a vote
of 3-0-0 to transfer the following expense codes:
Expense Code Description Amendment
10-427-494 Special court reporter + $165.13
10-427-402 Court appointed attorney + $10,000.00
10-435-417 Special trials - ($10,165.13)
COURT ORDER NO.29279
BUDGET AMENDMENT
COUNTY JAIL
Came to be heazd this the 25s' day of July 2005 with a motion made by Commissioner
Williams, Seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously approved by a vote
of 3-0-0 to transfer the following expense codes:
Expense Code	Description	Amendment
10-512-220	Employee medical exams +	$475.00
10-512-310	Office supplies +	$103.76
10-512-334	Prisoner supplies +	98.63
10-512-104	Jailer salaries -	($677.39)
ORDER NO.29280
BUDGET AMENDMENT
198T" DISTRICT COURT
Came to be heard this the 25`s day of July 2005 with a motion made by Commissioner
Letz, Seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Court unanimously approved by a vote
of 3-0-0 to transfer the following expense codes:
Expense Code	Description	Amendment
10-036-315	Books/publications/dues +	$100.00
10-436-494	Special court reporter +	$630.00
10-436-417	Special trials -	($730.00)
ORDER NO.29281
BUDGET AMENDMENT
CONSTABLE PRECINCT #1
Came to be heazd this the 25`s day of July 2005 with a motion made by Commissioner
Williams, Seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Court unanimously approved by a
vote of 3-0-0 to transfer the following expense codes:
Expense Code Description Amendment
10-551310 Office supplies + $3.80
10-221-570 Capital outlay - ($3.80)
ORDER NO. 29282
BUDGET AMENDMENT
DISTRICT CLERK
Came to be heazd this the 25~' day of July 2005 with a motion made by Commissioner
Letz, Seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Court unanimously approved by a vote
of 3-0-0 to transfer the following expense codes:
Expense Code Description Amendment
10-450-499 Miscellaneous + $112.10
10-450-108 Part-time salary - ($112.10)
ORDER NO. 29283
BUDGET AMENDMENT
COUNTY TREASURER
NON-DEPARTMENTAL
Came to be heazd this the 25u' day of July 2005 with a motion made by Commissioner
Williams, Seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously approved by a vote
of 3-0-0 to transfer the following expense codes:
Expense Code Description Amendment
10-497-569 Operating equipment + $314.99
10-409-420 Telephone/computer - ($314.99)
ORDER NO. 29284
BUDGET AMENDMENT
COUNTY AUDITOR
Came to be heazd this the 25s' day of July 2005 with a motion made by Commissioner
Letz, Seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Court unanimously approved by a vote
of 3-0-0 to transfer the following expense codes:
Expense Code	Description	Amendment
10-495-310	Office Supplies	+ $138.99
10-495-420	Telephone	- ($100.00)
10-495-569	Operating Equipment	- ($38.99)
ORDER N0.29285
BUDGET AMENDMENT
ROAD & BRIDGE
Came to be heazd this the 25`s day of July 2005 with a motion made by Commissioner
Williazns, Seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously approved by a vote
of 3-0-0 to transfer the following expense codes:
Expense Code Description
15-611-204 Insurance-Workers Comp +
15-611-599 Contingencies -
Amendment
$1,572.29
($1,572.29)
ORDER NO.29286
BUDGET AMENDMENT
NON DEPARTMENTAL
198TH DISTRICT COURT
Came to be heard this the 25s' day of July 2005 with a motion made by Commissioner
Letz, Seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Court unanimously approved by a vote
of 3-0-0 to transfer the following expense codes:
Expense Code Description Amendment
10-409-204 Workers Compensation + $26,405.34
10-436-417 Special Trials - ($26,405.34)
ORDER NO.29287
MONTHLY REPORTS
Came to be heazd this the 25a' day of July 2005, with a motion made by Commissioner
Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court unanimously approved by vote of
3-0-0 the following monthly reports:
Justice of the Peace #3
District Clerk
County Attorney
ORDER NO.29288
BUDGET AMENDMENT
KERB COUNTY JUVENII,E DETENTION FACILITY
Came to be heard this the 25`" day of July 2005 with a motion made by Commissioner
Letz, Seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Court unanimously approved by a vote
of 3-0-0 to increase the revenues and expenditures in the amount of $220,022 to be taken
from Surplus Funds.
ORDER NO.29289
EMS CONTRACT
CITY OF KERRVILLE
Came to be heard this the 25s' day of July 2005 with a motion made by Commissioner
Letz, Seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Cour[ unanimously approved by a vote
of 3-0-0 to approve the counterproposal to the City of Kerrville for EMS service as
modified, and authorize the County Judge to provide a cover letter for the proposal and
fax to the City this afternoon.