~~
~~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
it
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT
Special Session
Monday, August 22, 2005
9:00 a.m.
Commissioners' Courtroom
Kerr County Courthouse
Kerrville, Texas
~~
v
PRESENT: PAT TINLEY, Kerr County Judge
H.A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1
WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2
JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3
ABSENT: DAVE NICHOLSON, Commissioner Pct. 4
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I N D E X
August 22, 2005
--- Commissioners' Comments
1.1 Receive and open sealed bids for long distance
service. Consider approval of long distance
telephone service provider
1.2 Consider approving or consolidating polling
locations in accordance with Chapter 43 of the
Texas Election Code
1.3 Information and discussion of Revision of Plat
for Mosty Pecan Grove, Vol. 7, Page 295
1.4 Approval to issue purchase order for 480 HD
Asphalt Zipper
1.5 Approval of purchase of multi-function fax machine
and installation of fax line
1.6 Consider/disuuss Kerr County Veterans Service
Officer proposal
1.7 Discuss upgrade of civil and criminal case
management to Odyssey by TSG
1.8 Consider and discuss the report "Kerr County
Information Technology System Efficiency."
1.9 Update the court on SB-6 relating to protective
services, that requires Commissioners' Court to
establish "Family Protection Fee"
1.10 Implement an increase in Alternative Dispute
Resolution fee from $10 to $15, as provided by
HB-282
1.11 Update the Court on SB-1709 relating to jury
service and set new juror reimbursement
1.12 Consider/discuss approval of Tom Green County
contract for placement of juveniles at KCJF,
authorize County Judge to sign same
1.13 Consider rescinding offer to contract with
Excavation Technologies, Inc., for debris cleanup
of Flat Rock Lake
PAGE
5
7, 160
8
13
16
20
22
35
45
62
68
70
77
79
3

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
	I N D E X	
	August 22, 2005	
		PAGE
1.14	Consider/discuss draft of Kerr County Facilities	
	Booking & Rental Policy	82
1.15	Discuss procedures for paying and reporting of	
	expenditures involving penalties, fees, interest,	
	or other costs associated with late payment or	
	other administrative system failures	111
1.16	Consider/discuss clarification of policy regarding	
	Kerr County employees payroll/paycheck direct	
	deposit program	112
1.17	Consider/discuss approval of Kerr Central Appraisal	
	District Budget	118
1.18	Consider modifying proposed Animal Control Contract	
	with City of Kerrville	121
1.19	Consider/discuss EMS Contract and take appropriate	
	action thereon	124
1.20	Consider authorizing Sheriff to apply for a grant	
	for a courthouse security system from a local	
	foundation	151
4.1 Pay Bills 172
4.2 Budget Amendments 180
4.3 Late Bills 187
4.4 Approve and Accept Monthly Reports 190
5.1 Reports from Commissioners/Liaison Committee
Assignments 191
Adjourned 200
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
On Monday, August 22, 2005, at 9:00 a.m., a special
meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in the
Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, Kerrville,
Texas, and the following proceedings were had in open court:
P R O C E E D I N G S
JUDGE TINLEY: Good morning, ladies and
gentlemen. Let me call to order this regularly scheduled
meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court posted for
this time and date, Monday, August 12th (sic), 2005, at
9 a.m. It is that time now. I've been informed that
Commissioner Nicholson is ill this morning and will be
unable to be with us. Commissioner Baldwin, I believe
it's --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It is, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- your privilege this
morning.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If you'll stand and
join me in a word of prayer, and then we'll do the pledge of
allegiance.
(Prayer and pledge of allegiance.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
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, we're happy for you to come forward at this time. If
a-~_-OS
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
you want to speak on an agenda item, we would ask that you
fill out a participation form. There should be some at the
back of the room. If there are not, if you let Ms. Mitchell
know, she'll get some rounded up, hopefully. But if there's
-- we don't insist that you do that, but it's helpful for me
so that I don't miss you when that agenda item comes up.
But if there's anyone who wishes to speak on an agenda
item -- or an item that is not listed on the agenda, excuse
me, please feel free to come forward at this time and tell
us what's on your mind. Seeing no one to come forward,
we'll move on. Commissioner Baldwin, what do you have for
us this morning?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I have nothing.
Thank you for the offer.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Representative
Hilderbran and Mr. Tom Mock, the Kerr County Republican
Chair, and yours truly were the judges at the third annual
Guadalupe River Cleanup Float Parade -- I think I said that
right -- and it was fun. And the winner was a young --
little young man from west Kerr County who built a great big
P-51 type airplane out of Styrofoam with a little cockpit
and a little -- and he was inside that cockpit just pedaling
as hard as his little legs could go, and he ended up being
the first-place winner, and it was great. The effort was --
e-'?-os
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
needed a little bit more support. The folks who worked on
it did a good job, but we didn't get a lot -- didn't get a
lot of public turnout. And, of course, what they're doing
was raising money for river cleanup in various locations
where it's necessary. But those good folks are to be
commended for their efforts, and a fun time was had by all.
JUDGE TINLEY: That it?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner 3?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: After spending the
weekend in Houston, I'm glad I live in Kerr County.
(Laughter.) And I understand why so many Houstonians are
moving here. That's all I have.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. I appreciate the
efforts of the folks and the leadership that participated in
that river cleanup effort. The thing I would remind you of
is that I think everyone's aware that school is back in
session and the little ones are back in school, and they may
not be in tune to the traffic just yet. And we probably
aren't either, because we've been going all summer without
having to worry about looking out for them, but it may take
them a little longer time to ramp up to watch out for us
than it does for us to watch out for them. So, drive
carefully, especially in the school zones. That's all I
got. Let's move on with our agenda, if we might.
e-zz-os

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The first item on the agenda is to receive
and open sealed bids for long distance telephone service.
Consider, discuss, and approval of a long distance telephone
service provider. You got the bids? Okay. Looks like we
have two bids that were delivered. One is K.T.L.D. The --
the title is a 5-Cent Saver Plan. I'm not sure that I need
to go beyond that, depending upon what action the Court
decides to take. That was submitted on behalf of Kerrville
Telephone Long Distance. The second proposal is a
considerably more voluminous proposal, it appears, presented
on behalf of Frontera Telecommunications, Inc. There is
a -- quite a large volume of material here, including a -- a
disk as part of it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I make a motion we
accept both bids and refer them to Mr. Trolinger for review
and report back to the Court --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- with a recommendation.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
acceptance of both bids and referral to our I.T. Manager for
review and recommendation -- evaluation and recommendation
back to the Court. Any -- any further discussion on the
motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your
right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
8-22-OS
8
1
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: The motion does carry. The
next item on the agenda is to consider and discuss approving
or consolidating of the polling locations in accordance with
Chapter 43 of the Texas Election Code. This matter was
submitted, I believe, on behalf of the County Treasurer --
or Clerk, excuse me.
MS. PIE PER: Gentlemen, if y'all don't mind,
I'm going to stand here; I think I'm loud enough that
everybody can hear me. We have the option of opening up all
20 precincts for the election in November, or we have the
option of consolidating them. This will be a constitutional
amendment election, so it's whatever your pleasure is.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Can you open up all
of them -- I mean, can you consolidate some and leave one
precinct with three boxes open?
MS. PIE PER: Yes, we can.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You can do it that
way?
MS. PIE PER: We can do it. It's however you
want.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: When do you need to
know this?
MS. PIEPER: Today.
8-~~-OS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
9
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Today?
MS. PIEPER: Because I have to put a
preclearance in.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 'Cause we're
not certain about the precinct by election in terms of local
option, whether or not that will be --
MS. PIEPER: I talked to the Secretary of
State on that to find out if we needed all of the polling
locations in that precinct opened, and they said it's
strictly up to Commissioners Court.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Strictly our call.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would think that in
your precinct, you certainly would want more than one open.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I would think
so too.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Probably -- the last time
we had the constitutional amendment -- similar election, we
just had one open, as I recall.
MS. PIEPER: That is correct, yes. One in
each precinct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We couldn't do it
conditionally, could we, in terms of the three in Precinct
2? And if it turns out within two weeks that -- that there
will not be a local option election -- you can't do it that
way?
a-az-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
10
MS. PIEPER: No, I can't.
COMMISSIONER WZLLIAMS: Got to know for sure
today. Well, I'd like to keep all three in Precinct 2 open,
then.
MS. PIEPER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What was the total
turnout in the last --
MS. PIEPER: Seems like it was somewhere in
the neighborhood of 5,000, but I'm not for sure, for the
last constitutional amendment election,
COMMISSIONER LETZ: One of the other reasons
I was wrestling with this, we need to make voting as easy as
possible, but at the same time, it doesn't make a lot of
sense to open up --
MS. PIEPER: Seems like most of it was early
voting.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. And if we just go
with one location, we just need to designate which one for
each one of our precincts?
MS. PIEPER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm ready. Are you
ready?
MS. PIEPER: I'm ready, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: In Precinct 1, which
goes from Bandera County line to Gillespie County line, I'm
8-2%-05
11
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
going to choose three that will cover that entire area. One
is 107, Heart of the Hills Fellowship on Camino Real; 113,
St. Paul's Methodist on Methodist Encampment, and 119,
Trinity Baptist on Jackson Road.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 202, 211, and 215.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll stay with the trend
and do 303, 319, and 320.
MS. PIEPER: And considering Commissioner
Nicholson is not here, what are we going to do on his?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We can choose them for
him.
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
ones, is it not?
COMMISSIONER
Well, the -- which one is n
416? Used to be. Okay.
MS. PIEPER:
LETZ: Right.
LETZ: 417 is one of his larger
BALDWIN: 916 -- oh, let's see.
~w Greenwood Forest? Is that
Right off, I couldn't tell you
that.
COMMISSIONER
Mountain Home for the far w.
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
BALDWIN: I would go with
=st.
LETZ: 404 and 916?
BALDWIN: I'm sorry?
LETZ: 404 and 416 or 917?
BALDWIN: Well, we haven't
8-22-OS
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
figured out 416, where it --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would think that 416
and 417 are geographically pretty close to each other.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, they are.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 406?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think 417 is closer to
the people that live in west Kerrville.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think 406 probably
covers the City of Ingram and Greenwood Forest.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would think so.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, that's huge.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And 417, then, would
be --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And 417 will be fine.
MS. PIEPER: 404, 406, and 417?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, what about you?
MS. PIEPER: Early voting.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Early voting will be
in the basement here?
MS. PIEPER: Yes, it will.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move we adopt these
voting places.
a-zz n5
13
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
the November election to be held, in addition to early
voting in the basement of the courthouse, at various
locations as designated for 107, 113, 119, 202, 211, 215,
303, 314, 320, 404, 406, and 417. Got that right?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any further question or
discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion,
signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Thank
you, gentlemen. The next item on the agenda is information
and discussion of revision of plat for Mosty Pecan Grove as
shown in Volume 7, Page 295, Plat Records, located in
Precinct 2. Mr. Odom?
MR. ODOM: Good morning, Judge. This agenda
item is for information and discussion prior to the final.
Mr. Mosty has agreed to reserve an additional 10 feet of
right-of-way. The last discussion we had about this, the
gentleman was not wanting to do that. I -- Mr. Voelkel was
contacted that there's an additional 10-foot of right-of-way
included on J.J. Lane. We have a proposed change in the
~ <<-05
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
plat from 1^ acres to 9, and 1.77 to 5. And I would like a
direction of the Court, because we had a lively discussion
last time about it, so time and money would not be wasted on
Mr. Voelkel's part or the client, and we could have a
direction for a final. The 10 foot brings it to 90-foot
right-of-way from a 30. We have a -- that is a compromise.
We also have a turn lane at the bottom for emergency
equipment, so I think that that would probably -- my opinion
is -- that's my opinion, that that's acceptable to me. It's
better, wider, and all the parties involved with that
right-of-way and that 30-foot road are enhanced. They're
improved from 30 to a 40, and should there be any commercial
development -- it's not anticipated to be that, but should
-- we never know what the future is. That access would
probably come off 27, anyway, so I -- I think it's
acceptable. I'd ask Mr. Williams if he has a comment, or
Mr. Letz.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I've had a lot
of discussions with -- not with Mr. Mosty, who's the current
owner of the property, but with the gentleman that -- excuse
me -- who is anticipating the purchase of the property. And
as the members of the Court will remember, he was -- he was
a tad upset last time when he thought he was going to have
to give up all that right-of-way. So, the bottom line was,
I asked him one day in an off-the-cuff discussion if he felt
a-'z os
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2L
23
29
ZS
that there was any avenue for compromise between the maximum
that our Subdivision Rules would require and where that road
is now, and I think he thought about it. He probably
conveyed his thoughts back to Mr, Voelkel, and Mr. Voelkel,
in turn, I believe, probably talked to Mr. Mosty, and what
we have is -- is a compromise suggestion, which I think is
satisfactory, frankly. And given the nature of that road
and the number of residents going down it, I think that's
probably a satisfactory solution.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN; Would this require any
kind of variance from the Subdivision Rules?
MR. ODOM: 60-foot right-of-way is what we
have, but last time we accepted at 30 with the entrance to
Lot 1 to Highway 27 if it was ever subdivided. So, I think
that variance was given when we originally set up the
original plat.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And the cul-de-sac is
still protected down there for emergency vehicles to turn
around?
MR. ODOM: That's right. That's right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Does the -- is that whole
right-of-way an easement, or is it deeded?
MR. ODOM: It is an easement, I believe.
MR. VOELKEL: Easement, correct.
MR. ODOM: An easement.
a-22-os
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have no problem with
this.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I move -- we'll just
discuss it and take final action on it when it comes up
for --
MR. ODOM: That's correct, sir. This is not
for action, just for discussion. That way --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You have a sense
that --
MR. ODOM: I have a sense of direction of the
Court, which is good. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any member of the Court have
anything further on that?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't think so,
Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move on to Item 4,
approval of -- to issue purchase orders for 980 HD asphalt
zipper. Mr. Odom again.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, before we go to --
one thing on that before Mr. Voelkel leaves.
MR. VOELKEL: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Only other thing is, you
might -- in talking to Mr. Mosty, the other -- where J.J.
g_ „-05
1
n
G
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
17
Lane hits 27, that angle, if anything can be done -- we're
talking probably minimal footage to make that -- so that can
at some point become a 90-degree entrance as opposed to that
angle.
MR. VOELKEL: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's a minimal amount, I
think. It's a safety issue there. Sorry, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Item 4 on the zipper.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. It -- during budget
hearings we discussed this, and I was -- asked the Court if
7 could come bark and present it. We had an opportunity to
purchase a zipper, which is a reclaimer, for a lease -- a
lease-purchase, but it's basically a purchase, five-year
amortization, which was exactly what I'm doing -- I'm
spending $17,000 for 17,000 square feet. In talking to my
supervisors, we feel that this is a productivity
enhancement, that we can finish things a whole lot quicker,
take care of problems without a lot of -- a lot of time
being tied up on base failures, and that we feel like it
will pay for itself in a very short period of time. I can
purchase this, but what I'm asking the Court is permission
to give a P.O. for after the lst of October for delivery
after 1st of October. The payment would not be until
October of '06; would not affect this budget, and that I
would have the money in the next budget to pick up that
a-z~ ns
18
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
payment over five years, and within three years I would pay
for my chip spreader and distributor, and we would pay the
note off ahead of time, probably within three years.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is there an interest
factor for that five-year purchase?
MR. ODOM: It is a municipal loan. Right
now, that I can't say exactly, but it was less than
5 percent.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And it's built into
the $18,000 or $19,000 price range?
MR. ODOM: That's right, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Leonard, what is this
zipper? What function will it have outside the paving
season?
MR. ODOM: It will have all times, any base
failure that's there. Yes, sir, like the wheel wells and
where you have this sinking/subsiding or a particular base
failure due to water.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Bunking/subsiding. I
experienced one of those the other day.
MR. ODOM: And we -- as a matter of fact, we
did it on Lakeway over there and cement-stabilized it. It
has just set up perfectly. It takes material and comingles
it, either good or bad. You can add it; you don't have to
a-^_~-us
19
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
do anything. You can lay it right on top of the surface,
and it will pulverize it to three-quarters dust and
cement-stabilize it. You can stabilize on top of asphalt;
it will cement-stabilize it right there. It took us 10
minutes to do a half a road, maybe 75 feet long, and that
was just amazing. All we did was water it and roll it, and
done. That was a demonstration. We've had several of them
come up here to demonstrate.
JUDGE TINLEY: You mentioned that you are
leasing one of those machines, or have been leasing one of
those?
MR. ODOM: I'm contracting with an individual
that has a machine like this, and I'm paying a year's rental
just for 17,000 square feet. I say again; not yards, not
square miles, just square feet. It's costing me a dollar a
square foot to have someone do this.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move approval.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item. Any question or discussion?
All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right
hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.}
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
a-zz os
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry.
MR. ODOM: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: We'll move to Item 5, approval
of purchase of multi-function fax machine and installation
of fax line. Ms. Lavender.
MS. LAVENDER: Good morning.
JUDGE TINLEY: Morning.
MS. LAVENDER: This is just one last thing to
tidy up getting the program set up. When we started, I've
been dependent on using other people's fax machines because
there was no fax line in the basement, and now that I've
kind of made a nest down there to stay, I do need to go
ahead and get a fax machine and fax line run down there in
order to do it. Some of the faxes that I'm sending to the
Attorney General's office are 35, sometimes 40 pages long,
and it takes a little larger fax machine than -- than normal
to do those, because you have to send them all in one
setting. By faxing the claims in for the Crime Victims
Compensation Fund, it facilitates the process about probably
three weeks, makes it quicker to do it, because I send in a
presumptive eligibility form saying that I've reviewed the
claim and believe that it's a worthwhile claim, and that's
what this is all about. And Mr. Trolinger helped me select
a machine that would be a -- a machine that would adequately
do what I need to do.
h-2? n5
L1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Question. Budget line
10-475-555?
MS. LAVENDER: Yes, that's the money that was
left over from what you allotted last August in the budget
for the program through June 30th.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 475 is the County
Attorney's budget, and then 565 is the money that we
allotted to your --
MS. LAVENDER: Correct.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- office. Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Ms. Lavender, how does this -- the installation
of this -- of this line coincide with your proposed
relocation?
MS. LAVENDER: Well, we're working on a
relocation to move to a little bit larger office down there.
The Historical Commission has agreed to -- I believe General
Schellhase is here -- to work on a way that we can switch
rooms. It will give me a little bit more room. When I have
-- I'm going to wait until I get the office done to be able
to install the fax machine, if I can. We're working on a
time level. We got to put the ceiling back in that room and
reconnect the air-conditioner duct, and then we're going to
R-22-OS
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
start working in there. Hopefully, we're going to get it
done in the next month or so.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. LAVENDER: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: I guess you understand that
it'd be nice if we can just put in that line once rather
than twice.
MS. LAVENDER: That's my intention, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Okay. Any further
question or discussion on the motion? All in favor of that
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry.
MS. LAVENDER: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do we have everybody here on
the Veteran's Service Officer proposal? We're a little bit
ahead of that particular item. I'd like to go ahead and
start that one now, if we could. Let me call it. Consider
and discuss Kerr County Veteran's Service Officer. And if
there's anybody else that needs to participate, hopefully
they'll be here by 9:30, and it certainly looks like that'll
take at least that long. Mr. Prout, if you'll come forward?
Give us your name and address.
a-z2 os
23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. PROUT: Tom Prout, 1980 -- I forgot where
I live. 1989 Bear Creek Road.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir.
MR. PROUT: Well, I've turned over about
everything there is. There are some new things that have
come up that I'd like to verbally give you, which is good in
some aspects and bad in some others. The Veteran's
Administration is going to open an online program there
where a veteran can go in and actually monitor his own
medical records. This is going to be good for him, and it's
going to be good for the service officers. Instead of us
hearing the third or fourth interpretation of what the
veteran thinks is the matter, we can ask him to go into it
and allow us to see it. That's going to work. However,
it's also going to cause a tremendous amount of questions.
And the situation we're in right -- right now, with only one
person up to her ears in service work, I don't know how
she's going to possibly have the time to do that. The
doctors' time -- y'all know the budget at the V.A. is very
bad, and because it is, they just don't have time over there
to do anything other than what has to be done, to the point
that even lesser examinations and so forth are being
canceled right now because of the lack of funds, so they're
not going to have time to answer any questions.
I think I've outlined everything. I've
e ~~-os
24
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
showed you the revenue that the stable veterans bring into
the state of Texas. I can't give it to you for Kerr County,
because since we've never had a service officer, it hasn't
been done that way. I don't think you'll ever get a better
deal with the backing of the veterans' organizations who are
willing to pick up a lot of costs on this, and the
individuals that are dedicated enough to donate their time
to fill jobs that in most places are paid positions. So,
the only thing I can ask for is what I've got in there; if I
can get help with a small office, utilities and a telephone,
the rest of it the veterans' service officers are going to
take care of.
JUDGE TINLEY: Tell us, if you would, what
your present situation is with regard to veterans' services.
MR. PROUT: Are you talking about me and the
people that are with me?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, the veterans' service
officers that assist veterans now. What -- what is your
current arrangement for offering these services? What
facilities do you have?
MR. PROUT: Well, we have the one facility at
the Veterans Administration being done by Texas Veterans
Commission. She works an eight-hour day; however, only five
hours are -- are for veterans, 'cause she has no
administrative staff. Therefore, she has to lose three
a <<-os
25
1
". 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
•-- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
"" 2 4
25
hours a day in order to get this done. As indicated in the
proposal I gave you, she's going to retire shortly. There
is no confirmation somebody's going to come in here. Hoping
there is, but there's no confirmation. And, again, because
of budget restraints, whoever comes in is not going to get
any administrative/clerical help either, so it's going to be
the same thing over again. Right now, the veterans that are
doing this stuff -- I carry a laptop and a cell phone. I
can be any place in the county helping the veterans. All of
the service organizations have opened their doors to us.
However, some of the people don't like coming to a place
where there's smoke, or the people who are engaging in the
canteen or things like this, so it's really made it
difficult. I miss a lot of veterans 'cause they're -- they
don't know where to find me.
The V.A. itself recommends that they call the
-- one of the places and ask for me, but it's difficult,
when you're trying to work with a veteran and he has
problems that he doesn't want spread around, when you're
sitting in a bingo hall or a canteen and you're discussing,
you know, difficult problems. You surely don't want anybody
to overhear. We have to keep all our records and all that
completely locked, and can't keep medical records on him
just for safety's sake. That's why we need a place where we
can put our own file cabinets under lock and key and lock
s zz-ns
26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the door when we walk out at night. Will we be there eight
hours a day? I doubt if it will take it to start that. I
can foresee in the near future it will turn into that. What
I've got scheduled right now is a school for six other
individuals who haven't done this before to learn the
basics. As I put it in the proposal, there's a school being
put on by the Texas Veterans Commission in October. I'm
scheduled to go to it. Larry Vetter's scheduled to go to
it. The veterans' organizations are paying the expenses on
it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Has the V.A. indicated they're
going to continue to allow you to use the facilities out at
the V.A. Hospital?
MR. PROUT: No, they haven't indicated that.
As a matter of fact, I've talked to the Veterans
Administration, and they said right now they couldn't --
because of budgets, they couldn't do anything to help us.
They thought it was a great idea, this, that, and the other
thing, but said we can't give you a room. We can't give you
a phone. We can't give you anything.
JUDGE TINLEY: So you're losing your home.
MR. PROUT: Basically.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Okay, that's the point
I was getting to. And you've been located out at the V.A.?
MR. PROUT: Well, the Texas Veterans
a-zz-os
27
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
Commission's been out there. Bear in mind, what we're
talking about here is a county service officer, which has
never been out there, 'cause we've never had one. But the
number of people are increasing tremendously. They never
took into consideration when they started these budgets
about Afghanistan and Iraq. Now we got all these young kids
coming back; they're not getting the help they need.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there -- well, do you
have a preference as to location?
MR. PROUT: No.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It seems -- is there -- I
don't know if you know the answer; maybe the Judge may. It
seems that the V.A. will be a good location to me. I mean,
'cause I think they have space. Is there a way, under any
sort of interlocal with them, that if we help fund the
telephone line -- I mean, clearly, I would think they have
space out there.
MR. PROUT: To be very honest with you, they
do have space out there. The Disabled American Veterans had
a national service officer out there. He left probably a
year ago, maybe a little bit more. To the best of my
knowledge, that space is not being utilized. And that's --
when I talked to Robin Gutierrez, I pinpointed that exact
thing, and she basically told me, "Forget it; they're not
letting anybody in for anything."
8-22-05
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: That's where I was going with
my -- with my discussion with Mr. Prout, is while they may
have the space out there, they've effectively told him
you're out.
MR. PROUT: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: So the V.A. service officer is
gone, and the state officer that we've not had previously,
they are hoping to consolidate together in one location.
And that makes sense, certainly.
MR. PROUT: Well, now, actually, Kerrville
comes under Audie Murphy; it would not surprise me in the
near future that any service officer is going to be located
in San Antonio, not here.
MR. PROUT: I see General Schellhase in the
audience out there. Is there any way we can exert some
leverage with or through you to find the right person to --
to acquire some space out there where it would be the most
logical?
MR. SCHELLHASE: Well, there's plenty of
space out there; it's just a matter of budget. They're not
going to fill any of those offices with additional people.
The state office -- they're talking about, you know, perhaps
a part-time person. They're not going to put someone in
part-time. The VFW office out there or Legion office that
had a service officer out there, that'll be up to them to
a zz-os
29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
fill. I'm not for sure, you know, if they want to put
another service officer out there or not. Now, don't
misunderstand the V.A. They don't want to qualify any more
veterans. They've got their hands full now. Budget is
short, so the less veterans that are qualified, the less
service they have to provide. There's not any question
about it. It's a -- there's not any cooperative issue from
the standpoint of V.A., you know, to do that. Robin could
make space available if she wanted to.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, in the absence of
space at the V.A., I mean, the -- some of the limited unused
space we have in this building or over in the annex. I
mean, there's nothing built out right now, and it would take
a while to probably get anything done, if we can find the
funding. But there's, you know, what Glenn uses as storage
back in that big area, and then there's the lobby area where
we hold functions. I mean --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that office space
that was set up for booking of the exhibit hall, is that
being used? Is that a possibility?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not sure.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Anybody here from
Facilities and Maintenance that could answer that question?
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm not sure which -- where
that was.
a-zz-os
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, it -- it's that
office space, and there's a door -- double door and the
sidewalk going right to it. It's that space between the
exhibit hall and the arena, and the facilities booking folks
were there for a long time. And then, of course, when we
had the rain damage, it kind of had some damage, but the
space is still there. My question is, is anybody using it?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh, I see what you're
talking about. I thought you were talking about downstairs.
You mean out there at the Ag --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think there's
certainly space there, but I think it's a -- it would not be
a logical place, in my mind, to put a veterans office at the
Ag Barn. I mean, I think the --
MR. PROUT: The other unlogical place is the
County Sheriff's Department.
JUDGE TINLEY: The only other place that I
can consider would be downstairs in the older part of the
courthouse. But those spaces are currently being utilized,
I believe, by the District Clerk and the Auditor, if I'm not
mistaken.
MS. UECKER: There's also an office down
there that I think Parole uses.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes.
8 <<-US
31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
MS. UECKER: I don't know how often they're
down there. Now, yeah, I do have a room that has some -- a
bunch of stuff in it. Given some time, I can, you know, do
something with the stuff. Which is files, you know.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mainly records that you're
required to keep --
MS. UECKER: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- under the law?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Could your stuff go in
that other storage file room down at -- in the annex that --
I don't know, Glenn has -- there's two areas; one, there's
furniture, and there's another area that's more secure.
MS. UECKER: Yeah, and I do have a lot of
records in the secure area. It's just -- last time I was
down there, it's pretty packed, but, you know, we can pack
some more stuff in there, I guess. Eventually, some of that
will be gotten rid of, but I just don't have, you know, the
manpower right now to dedicate someone to that project.
MR. PROUT: The other thing that's important
to know, too, on this, if a space the big enough, we'll even
close an office off. But I can't have just a one-room thing
where I've got somebody sitting there listening to what
we're talking to the other veteran about. And I'm not
asking the County do do it. You'll -- I'll get it done.
JUDGE TINLEY: This particular space that
a-z_ us
32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
we're talking about, Mr. Prout, has kind of a little
reception or lobby area. If you're talking about if
someone's waiting to talk to the veterans service officer
and that's why you would need separate space, this would be
conducive to that.
MR. PROUT: Oh, that would be great.
JUDGE TINLEY: And then this one particular
location that we're talking about could be utilized. But it
appears that we need to take a look and see what we might be
able to provide to you. I'm not sure we're in a position to
make any commitments today. Let me ask you, sir, how many
counties in this state presently have veterans service
officers?
MR. PROUT: Now, I knew you were going to ask
me that, and I didn't count them, but if you'll look in the
back of the presentation, it's got them all listed, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: 220, I believe, isn't it?
MR. PROUT: Somewhere in that neighborhood.
JUDGE TINLEY: Primarily for the benefit of
those here that may not understand what a county --
MR. PROUT: It's behind where you -- there it
is, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Looking at the list,
we're one of the few that does not have one.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
e-n-os
33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: My only question, in
your presentation you had asked for a minimum of two rooms.
Does the scenario that the Judge just laid out with a
reception area and --
MR. PROUT: Yes, sir, that would work fine.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: More of a private --
MR. PROUT: Yes, sir, as long as I have a
place where somebody can wait while we're taking care of
somebody else. I can have two or three service officers in
the back room, but I can't have two or three veterans there
at the same time.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. I like the
idea.
MS. UECKER: Those waiting -- those waiting
may have to wait with some parolees as well.
MR. PROUT: They're probably used to it;
don't worry about it. (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Could be the same
folks, come in -- come in at the same time. I think it's a
great idea. I think it's a great idea, and it's a service
that the county should offer to our veterans. Even though
the Veterans Administration itself is not taking care of
their own folks, we -- it's the least we can do.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd recommend -- I mean,
I think it -- concept-wise, I agree. I think, you know, I'm
a-za-os
34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
in favor of it. We just need to figure out where. And
probably the best thing would be for you to get with Glenn
Holekamp, our Maintenance --
MR. PROUT: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- Manager, and look at
the options. He may have some options that we haven't
thought of. And I would say somewhere in either the
downstairs of this building or the downstairs in the annex
is where we have limited space available that we have. Get
with him, talk about location, and then either he or you
could bring it back to us to approve that location.
MR. PROUT: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think we need to provide a
service to our veterans that we're not providing.
MR. PROUT: I appreciate your thought on
that. A quick example, when I put in my first claim on the
Veteran's Administration -- I have three Purple Hearts. The
first claim I got came back, "Shell fragments, wounds
non-service connected." You know, that's what you run into.
JUDGE TINLEY: You need to quit hanging out
in those bad neighborhoods, I guess, don't you? (Laughter.)
MR. PROUT: I went to a military academy; I
didn't know it was that bad.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I favor the concept.
We just need to find the right place to put it.
a-z^_ os
35
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
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Yeah, we need -- we
need to take care of our own veterans.
MR. PROUT: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't think there's any
question about it. We'll see what we can do for you.
MR. PROUT: Thank you very much.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you.
MS. DECKER: The only problem I might see
with that downstairs, Judge, is the fact that it's not
totally handicapped-accessible.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, that is a
problem. That's a consideration.
MS. DECKER: I mean, the elevator goes down
there, but then you have to come back up some stairs to get
to that area.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think we had an issue with
that before, and there was a concern about needing to build
a ramp right there where those stairs are, and that might be
something that could be accomplished with relative ease, I
think, all things considered. Anything more on that
particular item from any member of the Court? Let's move on
to Item 7, if we might. Discuss upgrade of civil and
criminal case management to Odyssey by The Software Group.
Ms. Decker?
MS. DECKER: This is a subject that we
e-zz-os
36
1
- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.-. 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
'"' 2 4
25
discussed, I think, at great length last Wednesday during a
budget workshop, so I'm not going to attempt to duplicate,
you know, everything we talked about there. For me,
overall, what this is going to do, it's going to free up
some staff time, because it will basically allow users to
actually use the system. In other words, if I so desire,
which, you know, at some point I hope to, it will allow
folks to get on -- either on the Internet, because it is a
web-based program, and look up a document, either get the
index, pay for it, and then it'll either send us a message
that says, you know, "This document's been paid for; copy it
and send it to them." It -- depending on to what extent,
you know, I want to go paperless.
The other option would be for those folks
that are not -- don't have Internet access, if they come in
the office, they can go to the public monitor or the public
computer, look up their document, print it, pay for it and
walk out, and they don't even have to say a word to us.
It's going to eliminate a lot of staff time for us in that
we get many, many phone calls, "Do you have this case on
file?" You know, "Would you look this up see how many pages
it is? I need a copy of that, but before I do, you know,
how much is it going to cost me?" All of these things would
be available without using staff time. And, you know, as
we've talked about before, the state and the nation is
a-zz os
37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
moving paperless, and this will put us one step ahead of --
of getting there, to the extent that we wish to qet there.
I've already talked about looking up --
constituents looking up documents, but it will allow -- like
right now, you either have to know an exact case number or
an exact name to be able to look up a document. And I think
this will apply for my office as well as Jannett's, but
it'll be easier to look up a document, because you can use
part of a name or, you know, some key words, so I think
that's going to be a big saving for us as well. Training's
going to be much easier. It's going to allow us to work on
a civil case management and criminal case management at the
same time, because right now, if we get phone calls
inquiring about civil and someone's on criminal, they have
to log completely off -- you know, either finish what
they're doing or lose it, log completely off of civil, then
relog on back to criminal and answer the question or
whatever the person on the phone or that comes in wants.
This will allow us to do both at the same time without
losing what we'	ve already	put in -	- data into civil, which
will also save	some staff	time.	
It will allow the elected official to limit
what is seen on the screen, and in my case that's very
important because of the adoptions and expunctions and, you
know nondisclosures. The part I like is, it will allow us
a-^_z os
38
1
. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to have attorneys being able to access the cases either from
calling us and saying, you know, "I need to know if the
Judge has signed my order setting, and I need to know when
the setting is," they can look it up and see that the Judge
has signed the order and that the trial date is
such-and-such a day. On the other hand, it will allow us to
-- and this is the part that I talk about in my budget, is
allowing jurors access to go ahead and fill in their
information or return their jury notice saying, "Yes, I'm
qualified; I'll be there," or, "No, I'm over 65," and it can
then produce a list of who's over 65, who has children under
10, who's going to be there, who did not reply at all. So,
that -- that, again, is going to save us a lot of time in
the courtroom. And I think Jannett may have some comments
that she wants to add, and having said all of this and
allowing her, I -- at that point, I think Dawson Tyler from
The Software Group would like to say a few things or be
available for any questions that you might have.
MS. PIEPER: Gentlemen, also a lot of the DWI
cases that come into our court get enhanced, and before they
can get enhanced, the D.A. has to look at it to make sure,
and then we certify them and we can send them upstairs. And
this would	also	give our	D.A.	the opportunity	to go into	the
computer.	Our	report --	all	of our different	reportings	for
e-zz-os
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
39
not only the state, but also the court, would be enhanced.
We have criminal court every Tuesday. The Friday before, we
start pulling the docket, and on the docket we're very
limited as to the information that we can pull out of the
computer. The Judge requires us to have the court costs,
should the defendant be found guilty. If the defendant was
in jail for more than one day, then they want that on the
docket. There's numerous things that he wants on the docket
that right now we are pulling by hand, and we start it on
Friday mornings, and hopefully by Monday evening we're
through so we can give it to the Judge and the County
Attorney at court Tuesday morning. So, with the
enhancement, that will allow us to put all that information
out with the push of a button.
We can also go in, and there's a calendar
system, If we know the date that the Judge is going to be
gone or the County Attorney's office is going to be out for
a conference or whatever, we can go in months ahead of time
and put that date in the computer, and then a couple of
months later, when we start sending our hearing notices, if
we happen to plug in those dates, it's going to beep and
say, oh, County Attorney's out in a conference, or the Judge
is out. So that -- and then we can also do it with any
attorney, defendant's attorney; if they're going on vacation
during the summer, we can plug that in. And the calendar
8-2^-05
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
40
system can be used all different types of ways. So, I mean,
there's -- this enhancement, there's going to be so many
different ways that it could help us. I mean, we'll still
have to key in all that information, but it -- we can key it
in and get it out quicker.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Before Mr. Tyler
speaks, I have a question 7'd like to direct to both the
District Clerk and the County Clerk. If you acquire this
software package, will this allow you to have personnel
savings now? Or, in the alternative, will it position you
better to handle the increased demand on your department in
the future? Which or both?
MS. PIEPER: Both,
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: A both there.
MS. UECKER: Both, And, you know, I've told
y'all what case load increase we've had just in the last
year, and I think that it is going to eliminate adding any
additional staff. And I -- and I can see some freeing up of
some staff time now to do things, like go through those
files that are down there in storage that need to be gone
through. Also, there's so many more reports that we're
required to make. Right now, I make 37 different reports a
month to 37 different agencies -- well, not 37 different
agencies; different reports to -- some of them are the same
agencies. But this will make that much easier, 'cause I've
e--z-os
41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
got one person that, you know, spends three days making
reports -- just that one report to the state, and to the
county as well. So, the answer to your question is yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What -- are y'all
trying to talk us into buying this thing? Is that --
MS. DECKER: Yes, sir, absolutely.
MS. PIEPER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the picture
I'm getting.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And now we got a
salesman fixing -- this is a budget issue, guys, and we went
through this last week. And we got a whole budget thing in
front of us, so don't spend all day with us.
MR. TYLER: I won't. I'll make it very, very
brief.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
MR. TYLER: Actually, y'all have seen both of
these, but if you want to go back through it, it will be
right there. So, just real quickly -- and I'll follow
Buster's order there and keep it real brief. Hope
everybody's doing well this morning. But, basically, this
whole thing, since John started it out, was to find areas in
the county, as it's being run, that can be run more
efficiently. Linda's hit on a couple, as did Jannett. I
think the -- just to boil it down into a two-minute blurb,
a-zz-vs
92
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
what we've done with the new system is we've tried to
the jail, somebody looking for a specific document, with a
way that they can get at that specific information without
tying up county employee time. And I believe that's what
these guys have pointed out. On top of that, one of the big
things is -- is the product itself. Not just providing the
public, but giving a system that's truly integrated amongst
all the county's offices, that's easy to use, and most
importantly, is a lot easier for people to be trained upon,
and as new people come in, to bring those people up to speed
so that they're efficiently using the system. And that's
really -- and that's it in a nutshell. If you got any
questions, I'd love to take those, or --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The -- something that
Linda said that caught my ear, that it would free up
employees to do other things, like clean out that room. Is
that -- where'd the County Clerk go?
MS. PIEPER: I'm right here, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You see it the same
way? I mean, it will free up employees to do other things?
And --
MS. PIEPER: It will free up my employees so
they can start on records management that has not been --
B-'2 OS
43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
we've not been able to do, hardly.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you ever see that
it'll free up employees permanently?
MS. PIEPER: That --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That you would
eliminate positions?
MS. PIEPER: No. Because the crime rate
still goes up.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand; I'm just
asking how you see it.
MS. PIEPER: No.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Will it keep you from
adding employees in the future?
MS. PIEPER: It's possible.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- I mean,
and I know Mr. Tyler's aware of my comment, and
Mr. Trolinger. This is an extremely expensive system, and I
don't see that we have the budget to do it unless we're
getting some cost savings on employees. I mean, I know
everybody wants it. I want it. But it's expensive. And we
really need to come up with a -- looking at each of your
offices that are going to be using it and seeing if there's
a way we can cut back on manpower a little bit. That's what
we're being sold as the reason we're doing this. And, you
know, I really would like to get something a little bit
e-zz-os
44
1
-~ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
..-. 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
L1
22
23
'"~ 2 4
25
firmer in that area before we make a decision on -- on this,
which is not going to be today. So, I mean, we have budget
workshops for a couple more weeks, but I really think that
-- you know, I just have a real hard time doing this unless
we can figure out a way to save some manpower in bodies.
And I hate to be so blunt about it, but we have got to
control our, you know, growth in that area. A lot of study
shows that we're fairly heavy, as a county, in number of
employees, and -- and not any specific department, just in
general. Just general overall number of employees.
MS. UECKER: I think you'll also see that on
that report that shows us as heavy, that my office is not --
is pretty much in line. I can see where it will keep me
from adding employees, most definitely.
MS. PIEPER: Well, gentlemen, I have one
criminal deputy, one civil deputy, one juvenile deputy, so
it's hard to cut employees in that area.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further from anybody
on the Court?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No. I think we'll
pick up some of the other questions in budget.
JUDGE TINLEY: It's a budget matter, and
we're going to wrassle with it. But I think we need to --
as Commissioner Letz said, we need to be able to look at
something that we can, as Buster would say, wrap our arms
A-22-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
around in terms of specific efficiencies that will hopefully
be more convincing about the utility and efficiency of this
system.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, beyond that, it's
not just that we -- you know, this is something that we
want. We can't afford it. I mean, we're looking at a
choice between a cost-of-living increase or a new computer
system. You know, that's a pretty tough call.
MS. UECKER: Well, I think -- I think the
Auditor had -- you know, had some -- John might be able to
help -- John Trolinger. I think the Auditor had some
solutions.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Finance plan.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Finance plan helps.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He has some ideas,
but he hasn't presented them yet.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think we're generally aware
of those, and those have been discussed in a general sense,
but we'll talk more about those in budget. Anything else
from anybody on the Court? We'll move on to Item 8,
consider and discuss a report on Kerr County Information
Technology System Efficiency. Commissioner Letz, you asked
that this be placed on the agenda in conjunction with
Mr. Trolinger.
8-~'-05
1
L
3
4
G
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
46
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. This was a report
that we asked Mr. Trolinger to put together several months
ago to look at each department and kind of assess the status
of technology in each department. And I thought it would be
useful maybe for him to go over this in front of the full
Court. I appreciate it. I think it's some good
information, so I'll turn it over to John to go over it in
whatever departments he wants in the next five minutes.
MR. TROLINGER: Okay, thank you. I
highlighted the -- with an executive summary what I've
broken down by department, or by sometimes a general group
of users. The first example of general users is what's been
called Nondepartmental in the past, and that's on Page 2.
Nondepartmental are the telephone systems, computer room --
the network, everything that binds the systems, the
computers, the printers together. I spoke a little bit
about e-mail; that's a nearly completed project. And
training. The highlight on training is that it's been
nearly nonexistent in the past for our computer users. That
includes even basic training on, you know, how to turn it on
and log in and password, user name, security, some basic
things like that. And I identified those as key areas that,
with a little bit of user training, that user can be much
more efficient in their daily tasks.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: John, will you go back to
a-zz-os
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
47
j your first item under telephone systems?
MR. TROLINGFR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Your statement is that
this should be put under I.T. Department. And I guess the
phone audit would cost $3,500, according to you. Is that
what you're saying?
MR. TROLINGER: Yes. We've got a quote for a
phone audit, basically, to look at each one of the lines.
It's a day or two at each phone switch for the courthouse,
the Sheriff's Office, Road and Bridge, Juvenile Detention
Facility, to examine the lines and the services that we're
paying for now, and find any excess or any improvement
long-term. Now, by rolling the phone system into the I.T.
Department, that gives us the -- the possibility of going
forward to integrate the telephone system using our computer
network instead of using plain old telephone lines,
telephone lines that cost anywhere from $30 to $45 -- $40 a
month right now, using the existing lines that we've got in
place for the computers instead of using separate lines for
the telephones.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, you're saying right
now we have computer lines that we don't use, instead of --
we're using telephone lines?
MR. TROLINGER: Basically, we've got the
capacity -- or the ability to increase the capacity on the
8-22-US
98
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
computer network, and we can take advantage of that and
use -- and bring the telephone calls over the -- what's
called voice-over IP, which is basically voice over the
network, versus using telephone lines that we've purchased
for a monthly cost.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You see some savings
there?
MR. TROLINGER: I do, The initial portion
was the long-distance bid. I see that we can reduce in the
courthouse for outgoing telephone lines about $1,400 per
year savings by changing to -- from plain old telephone
lines to voice-over IP.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: $1,400 a year, or
$1,400 a month?
MR. TROLINGER: Per year.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Per year.
MR. TROLINGER: Relatively small, but it's an
initial start. It pushes -- it starts pushing that traffic
from the conventional telephone lines over to the network,
so it can get a grasp on going forward, you know, how -- how
efficient it's going to be, how much it's going to save us.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do you have the ability to --
the capability to do this audit in-house, or some semblance
of it?
MR. TROLINGER: Fortunately, one of our
8-22-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
49
vendors -- one of the -- one of the vendors that's bid on
the long-distance service has come in and volunteered their
time and logged in the phone switch and looked at a few
things for me. But the capability to actually delve into
the telephone switch and examine it, I don't have that --
that training or that -- really, it's a long process. It's
sort of like being a -- a mechanic on a specific vendor's
vehicle. It's a one-shot thing, and you don't use it again.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do I understand you
correctly in this paragraph, John, that essentially we have
two, three, maybe four separate systems; courthouse, jail,
juvenile, and Road and Bridge?
MR. TROLINGER: Yes, we do.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And there certainly
should be some economy of scale if we were able to pull that
together; is that correct?
MR. TROLINGER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that a logical
assumption?
MR. TROLINGER: It is. And, long-term, it is
possib]e to pull them together. There's a couple of
contract issues, and it is a long-term, you know, multi-year
effort to gain some efficiency with the phone system. The
rest of the report I broke down by department, what I saw
was -- was needed for next year, what's been done the past
8-22-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
50
five years, give you an outlook of the big picture. For
instance, the Commissioners Court, I can see that there
wasn't any -- any money allocated for computers or
networking. That -- we can put a network -- a computer
network here in the courtroom and start the ball rolling on
getting y'all integrated on the -- on the level that the
City Hall or somebody like that's doing now. Get some
computers in front of you and reduce some of this paper, and
then be able to distribute and -- and reduce the load that
the court coordinator currently has, especially, on a weekly
basis of dealing with the nine copies of the agenda. The --
for the Judge's court, the calendaring, the Benchview --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What page are you on?
MR. TROLINGER: On Page Number 5, excuse me.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can you go through each
department briefly and kind of give us just the status of
where they are?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That would be good.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Kind of what you found?
MR. TROLINGER: It'll be more than --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Gkay.
MR. TROLINGER: -- the allotted time. Okay.
Adult Probation, even though they're not part of the county
budget, I included them because they do use our courts
package, the Odyssey system that we've discussed in the
a-zz-os
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
51
previous item. This rolls them in. They're planning for
it. We're moving their network in the direction they need
to go. County Attorney, Hot Checks. Significantly, the H
and that -- although it's very good support, very good
program, I still recommend long-term that The Software
Group, which will provide the courts package -- that the
County Attorney move away from that -- that proprietary to
that in-house system and integrate it with the courts.
There's also a great need with the County Attorney's office
to get the paper files scanned or -- or get them originated
electronically, and I think it would be very important for
the whole court system that if all these were attached to
the case electronically, it would -- it would streamline
incredibly the paper handling that's going on now, the
chasing down files especially. I understand they still need
paper, but this is going to make everything available to
everybody in the court system.
County Clerk, you've heard from her. She's
using existing budgeted funds. But, to get the rest of her
computers and her network up to speed significantly, I've
recommended that she -- she budget next year for additional.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Additional computers?
8-22-OS
52
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
MR. TROLINGER: Additional computers.
Networking and printers are one of the larger items. The
printers that they use now just aren't modern and won't work
with the new system. They need a little conversion, where
-- in order to start using plain paper, we need to stop
using a particular type of printer, and that's a big cost.
If you look at how much is being spent on receipts and
special paper, for instance, it adds up to a large number,
and I thought it would be significant if we could
standardize 8 and a half by 11 paper, that type of thing,
for receipts.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. TROLINGER: On Page 9 is Justices of the
Peace. Significantly, J.P. 9's now coming into the existing
system that we have here. J.P.'s 1 through 4 will be
operating basically the same software, and there's a big
efficiency there. A piece that's missing that I have not
written in the report is the constables. The constables
need to be rolled into the courts package. The significant
software outlay we're talking about takes care of that.
District Clerk, Linda's more than well explained what I've
written here, and I'll go by that. Juvenile Detention is
probably the largest user of minutes for long distance. I
wanted to bring them in initially as part of the first long
distance voice-over IP. Unfortunately, because of their
a __-os
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
53
Internet connection, that's not going to happen this year.
They have a slower speed DSL line versus a broadband
connection. I'd like to see it move that way. I understand
that the Juvenile Detention -- they've removed all the
recommended line items that I've given them from their
budget, so we're stagnant, basically.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What will it take to
get them up to speed?
MR. TROLINGER: As I wrote, the -- the
voice-over IP, the -- to get the long distance telephone
service reduced requires getting a cable modem or better
service, maybe even fiberoptic line in the future. That's
the second paragraph. The -- in order to integrate the
detention facility operations, the -- the way that they
handle people, the way that they document people, Software
Group's offered to develop that just for our detention
facility.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: At no cost?
MR. TROLINGER: At no cost. Free with a
capital F. And those are the two major items that I saw for
detention. Page 5, I've discussed the first item. The
County Jail and the Sheriff's Office, you've heard from the
Sheriff specifically on all of these bullet points, except
for the last paragraph -- or second to the last paragraph,
which is the access from the vehicles and the -- and
s-^^-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
54
requesting it in his budget. It's a significant cost to put
laptops in the vehicles and to have, most importantly, that
wireless access to the County network. And I thought I'd
highlight that for y'all. Page 6 is the County Tax
Assessor/Collector. You have heard from Paula. She needs
to -- she needs a new system. She needs something to reduce
the paper and the ledger books that she has now. She did
not budget for computers next year, and that's why I
specifically broke out the new computer and equipment, and
that includes printers also.
Environmental Health, the -- the key piece
there is going to be the mobile capability. It's exactly
the same system that the Sheriff would have for his patrol
vehicles, laptop wireless access and the equipment that's
needed to mount it and secure it in place. It will give
them access to their network back at the courthouse. They
can have online maps in the future, and certainly, their
existing data, you know, and being able to trade e-mails and
whatnot makes them more efficient today. They did not
budget for that, and that's why I specifically put that in
-- in this report. County Treasurer -- Commissioner Letz,
you asked me to look at a county-wide time reporting system.
I looked into that. I found there are several methods being
used to report time to the Treasurer's office. None of them
are efficient. Generally, in the best case, someone is
R_^_^_-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
55
typing into the computer the time records and then printing
that out, and then presenting that to Barbara's office in
paper form.
MS. NEMEC: Right.
MR. TROLINGER: Which they're taking and
retyping into the computer. The -- the financial package
that's part of the software outlay takes care of that. It
makes the time cards electronic. It makes the supervisor or
even the -- all the way down to the individual, if they have
a computer, able to do their own data entry where it's
approved by managers and then finally transferred
electronically to Barbara's office, and significantly,
available for y'all to review if you decided to take a look
at it; for some reason, you need numbers on it. That's
probably the largest piece I saw for the Treasurer's office.
The Auditor takes -- takes part in that same system. It
basically reautomates them and streamlines how they do
business, integrates them with the Treasurer's office
completely, whereas now there's -- I see a little bit of
back and forth, not too much, up -- and up and down steps
trying to move paper.
Road and Bridge, I wasn't able -- I didn't
have a whole lot of luck getting -- getting a big picture of
what they do. I'd like to bring them in. They have a phone
switch. They have computer systems. They have a large
8_^^-os
56
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
L G
23
24
25
database of every road that's in the county, and I think
going forward -- not this next year, maybe the next year or
the year after -- we should integrate the process with
Central Appraisal District, 9-1-1 Commission, and Road and
Bridge in the process of keeping up this database of all our
roads and bridges, especially for the Sheriff's Office.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's -- I wanted to
make sure Leonard was back there. Leonard? I want him to
hear the comment that was in there that this department
actively refused to cooperate in the efficiency study.
That's something Mr. Trolinger said. Is -- is there a
reason for the statement in here?
MR. ODOM: Is Leonard Odom's name on that,
sir?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, sir. But I have the
person that's in charge of I.T. saying that your department
did not participate with him, in his mind.
MR. TROLINGER: We had a sit-down with Truby
and the -- a couple of Commissioners, and basically she said
no, she didn't want to change and wasn't going to.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. TROLINGER: I made an attempt to work
over several months with her, but that's the bottom line.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's kind of
distracting that that would happen, 'cause this was a
8-^_2-OS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
57
Court-ordered study, and for one department to refuse to
participate in the study -- e-mail conversion is kind of
a --
MR. ODOM: I think that's --
MR. TROLINGER: And, to Truby's credit, she
runs a very good operation with the -- with the computers
and the phone switch and how she does everything. It's just
the portion where -- integrating in with the county e-mail
and integrating the phone system and Internet connection
was -- the answer was no when I asked.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think you need to go
out there again; I think you'll get a different answer.
MR. TROLINGER: Yes, sir. And that's why I
brought to it your attention. That's what I needed; I need
your assistance with it. City of Kerrville, Ingram City
Marshal, I'd like to see them integrate, and we're on the
path to doing that. Couple of small steps. Ingram City
Marshal now has a computer. The Sheriff's patrol officers
and also the Ingram City Marshal use that system. They're
looking at using our database to do look-ups. The Ingram
City Marshal reported that they've had some hits or they've
found some things that they wouldn't have otherwise. The
City has a computer, and we're attempting to move that
computer into their dispatch so they can access the county
database, probably not this next year, but the year after.
e-2z-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
58
We'll see.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question. There's
someone in the audience -- I'm trying to figure out, is this
why Lieutenant McCutcheon's here? No, it's not? Why's he
here today?
MR. TROLINGER: I've just spoken with the
Police Chief and with -- and with his lieutenant, I believe
it is.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- so, this -- the
Odyssey system will enable better communication from the
Sheriff's Department into the City's computer system and
Ingram's? Is that --
MR. TROLINGER: The idea for the City and
Ingram City Marshal is not only the database access, but
also at the jail for bookings. Currently, there's --
there's a process that goes on that makes paper -- that uses
computers and makes paper, which then goes into a file,
which then is typed into the computer again. This
integrates -- by bringing the City onto the system, that
eliminates that issue.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The Sheriff has a
question.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The only thing this
would do -- system would do right now, Jonathan, is give the
City of Ingram and the public ten times greater access into
R __-os
59
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
our information that they could use. It does not give us
any access into their information.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But it's probably -- the
City needing access to yours is probably --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's the --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- a greater need than
you needing access the other direction.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: By far. And they
could -- and it could help drastically.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So they can keep track of
what's going on with, you know, inmates and things of that
nature.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Cases.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, just one quick
question to Mr. Trolinger.
JUDGE TINLEY: Sure.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Going back to the
telephone issue at Juvenile Detention, would you work with
Ms. Harris and see if you can determine maybe what the
average telephone usage cost is for -- per year -- per annum
for maybe the last couple years so we can get a fix on what
we're spending there, so we can compare it to what the cost
would be to fix it?
e-zz-os
60
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
MR. TROLINGER: Yes, sir. I did that with
her, and in a sit-down meeting, we pulled those files and --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And share that with
us at budget time. Okay, thank you.
MR. TROLINGER: You're welcome.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mr. Trolinger, if we
were to purchase and put the Odyssey program in place, do
you see any reduction in your staff? (Laughter.)
MR. TROLINGER: No, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner, that was the
reason for my question about if he had the capability to do
the phone audit, if we could squeeze that out of him too.
But -- I was going to ask him if he could do that in his
spare time, but I thought better before I asked the
question.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Maybe one minus one
puts us back to where we used to be?
MR. TROLINGER: I would like to spend a lot
more time working on the county web site, providing more
public information. I think we've got a lot of niches that
need to be filled, a lot of cracks that need to be filled,
that are missing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: John, on that --
MR. TROLINGER: Existing today.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On the web site, are all
e-zz os
1
,~ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
'~ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
61
departments using the county web site, or do all departments
MR. TROLINGER: The majority have the -- have
their web pages, which is just one single page with a brief
explanation of the department and personnel on the county
server. The Sheriff's Office and, you know, Jannett's --
the County Clerk's have separate off-site providers. The
Sheriff's is free, so it's simple to justify. Jannett is
making an attempt to do some land records -- to make it
publicly available, but at a fee, to increase her -- her
flow with the land records consumers that she has.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It seems inefficient to
me to have multiple -- and confusing to have multiple web
sites, but I understand how it got started, is because the
County didn't have a web site that was being maintained
properly previously. I don't -- anyway, that's an area that
it would make a lot of sense to me to try to get everybody
on the same web site. And possibly the Sheriff do something
a little bit different, 'cause he's a bit different.
MR. TROLINGER: I've had a lot of requests to
enhance the web pages. I could take a week's vacation and
work on it and -- and revamp it to the point where I was
ready to be able to customize and provide full information
that the -- that my customers want. Linda, for instance,
she wants quite a few little pieces to -- to bring the
a-az-vs
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
62
public in and --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It seems that we're --
MR. TROLINGER: -- give some of the data
input.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If we do figure out a way
to pay for the new computer system, the idea is to get the
public involved where we have to have a web site updated and
coordinated with each department to be able to do that.
MR. TROLINGER: The majority of the new
system is actually web access, is the basis of it.
Providing -- exposing the public to whatever the officials
-- Linda, Jannett -- decide they want to expose to the
public, Tf they want to expose their cases, they're --
MS. UECKER: Are you talking about Odyssey?
MR. TROLINGER: Yes.
MR. TYLER: There's a lot of design work that
we'll do. Basically, you'd start out at kerrcounty.com and
then you'd have all your links to all your separate
departments, and all that information wou]d be there.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other question for
Mr. Trolinger? We thank you for your report, and we
appreciate your work, Mr. Trolinger. Thank you,
MR. TROLINGER: Thank you, Judge,
JUDGE TINLEY: We'll move to Item 9, update
the Court on Senate Bill 6 relating to protective services
e-zz-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
that requires Commissioners Court to establish a family
protection fee. Ms. Uecker?
MS. UECKER: For your information, my office
will stop using expensive receipts -- paper receipts on
September 1st. We're just going to use plain paper and do
the rest electronically, so it's a big expense. Senate Bill
6, previous statutes made it permissible for counties to
establish child or family protection programs, or the fee.
Senate Bi11 6 now requires the county to establish a family
protection fee. It changes the ]anguage to allow the
Commissioners Court to set a family protection fee not to
exceed $30, and it's to be charged on all divorces and
annulments. Half of the fee remains with the county and is
to be used only to fund a service provider located in the
county or an adjacent county.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Help me understand
that particular sentence, please.
JUDGE TINLEY: Why adjacent?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Why adjacent?
MS. UECKER: I don't know; that's what the
bill says, And I think the reason for that is -- and I can
give you a good example. Bandera County, probably they're
not going to have the need for a family protection plan, but
they can establish a fee to maybe send to Kerrville, because
we provide services for Bandera County as well as some of
a-zz-os
64
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the other smaller counties. And I think that is probably
the reason for that statement, is so that they can help fund
another county with the services that they provide to their
home. The other half of the fee goes to the Comptroller.
It also adds $100 to a conviction on a sexual offense of a
child. The money is to be -- that money stays with the
county and is to be used only to fund child abuse prevention
programs in the county.
COMMISSIONER WILL7AMS: Who -- who puts those
programs on right now? Who administers those programs?
MS. DECKER: Well, I think there's a few, and
I'll give you some options here in just a --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MS. UECKER: -- just a second. The big
problem is -- I mean, it's not a problem, but it's just the
Treasurer and/or the Auditor, whoever does that, is going to
have to establish two additional dedicated funds just
because of this bill. The bill's effective September I, but
the fee goes into effect -- because of the State's fiscal
year, it starts January 1. The fee starts January 1.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: '06?
MS. UECKER: Mm-hmm. Yeah, of '06. I have
'O5 on there. Some of the agencies here in the county that
provide those services are -- you know, my recommendation
would be for this money to go to the Hill Country Crisis
8 ~~-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
65
Council, which is probably the biggest provider of family
protection services, including child -- or CASA, or the
other one would be the Court-Appointed Special Advocate that
Rosa Lavender funds. Some of that money could go to her, I
would think.
JUDGE TINLEY: You mentioned that it would
require two dedicated funds. Is not the purpose of both of
those charges a single purpose?
MS. UECKER: I -- well, one is for family
protection; the other one is for child abuse.
JUDGE TINLEY: Children only? Okay.
MS. UECKER: Child -- just children only.
The $100 on the conviction of sexual assault cases would go
to the -- you know, I handed to Mr. Letz a request for an
A.G.'s opinion that just came out that questions the
constitutionality of the funds being used to support
agencies that do not directly support the judiciary. So,
pending the outcome of that request, I -- I think our only
option is to proceed. And, of course, my -- my
recommendation would be, you know, the $30, which is the
maximum.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the $100 conviction
fees, that's mandatory?
MS. UECKER: That's -- mm-hmm,
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We don't need to act on
e-zz-os
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
66
that?
MS. UECKER: No, you don't act on that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move we --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Who -- excuse me. I
don't think it's styled for a move.
MS. UECKER: I'm sorry?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is it styled for
action, the agenda item?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think you're right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mr. County Attorney?
MR. EMERSON: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: He's shaking his head no.
JUDGE TINLEY: Merely for information
purposes.
MR. EMERSON: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's the way I see it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But --
JUDGE TINLEY: If what I'm hearing from you
is correct, Ms. Uecker, with regard to the $100 on a
conviction, that's -- that's put in place by the statute
that imposes the fee.
MS. UECKER: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: With regard to the family
protection fee, that's something that Court action is
required on?
a-z'-us
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
67
MS. UECKER: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And required before 9/1?
MS. UECKER: Well, I guess I didn't word my
request right, but I did put in there in the last sentence,
"require the Commissioners Court to establish the family
protection fee." I think the intent is there.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN; The bill -- I mean, it
doesn't go into effect till September 1?
MS. UECKER: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN; The fee's not
collected till January 1, so we could do it any time before
September 1.
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
other between now and then.
I mean, with the fee especi
just --
WILLIAMS: Before January 1.
LETZ: September 1.
BALDWIN; September 1?
LETZ: Well, we'll see each
I think it's -- to clear it up,
illy, I think it's -- we need to
MS. UECKER: You mean my requirement to the
Commissioners Court to establish the fee is not clear
enough?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's the word
"update."
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
8-2?-OS
68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. UECKER: Well, it's a two-part --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's up to the County
Attorney, to me.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If he says we can do
it, we can do it.
MS. UECKER: I think it's a two-part
statement.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We can bring it back
next week. It's not that big a deal.
MS. UECKER: Okay, that's fine.
COMMISSIGNER BALDWIN: We'll bring it back.
MR. EMERSON: Bring it back.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Bring it back.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think that's the safe
approach. Thank you. Anything further on that particular
agenda item? Let's move to Item 10, implement the increase
in the Alternative Dispute Resolution fee from $10 to $15 as
provided by House Bill 282.
MS. UECKER: All this bill does is it raises
the A D.R. fee, the Alternative Dispute Resolution fee, from
$10 to $15. I don't -- and we have already established this
fund. This is just an increase that has to be approved by
the Court. And I don't know if Ilse Bailey here, the
president of the Board of Directors of the A D.R. Board,
wants to say something, or --
8-22-?5
69
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. BAILEY: I'd just like to say a couple of
things.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Where do these fees
come from? They come out of the courtroom?
MS. BAILEY: They're filing fees, court
costs.
MS. DECKER: On every civil case.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN; On every civil action?
It doesn't have to do with a divorce or annulments or --
MS. DECKER: That's right.
MS. BAILEY: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. And --
MS. BAILEY: And that goes into a fund that
is limited to payment only for mediation-type services. The
Court has been generous enough to fund this Hill Country
A.D.R. Center with those funds for the past three years now,
and I'd just like to report to the Court that the center has
been very, very successful, where we're just growing by
leaps and bounds. I think we're resolving a lot of cases,
and thereby saving the taxpayers a lot of money on the back
end, because people are not having to pick juries and go to
trial and use court -- the services, So, I think that it's
been a very successful operation, and I think that it's
clear that mediation is a growing area of -- of part of
legal services that we find in the community, and we really
e-zz-os
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
encourage you to continue to support the center and to
increase this fee as allowed by the legislation so that our
increased operations can continue to be funded on an
expanded basis in coming years. We thank you so much for
the support you've shown in the past.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move we increase the
fee for alternative dispute resolution from $10 to $15, as
provided by HB-282.
COMMISSIONER wILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item. Any question or discussion?
All in favor of that motion, signify by raising your right
hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry.
Before we break, let's go ahead and try and take care of
Item 11. Update the Court on Senate Bill 1704 relating to
jury service, and set new juror reimbursement. We may have
an agenda wording issue here; I'm just giving the County
Attorney a heads-up. Ms. Decker?
MS. UECKER: This bill now provides that for
the first day of service, the Commissioners Court to set a
fee not less than $6 for the first day of service. Now,
8-[2 OS
71
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
~`~ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
_; 2 4
25
that would include jurors that are actually selected, like
in County Court or J.P. or County Court at Law. Most of
those trials don't last more than one day, so they would
still get that -- that first-day fee. After that, it will
be required that the Court set a fee not less than $40 for
reimbursement to jurors, and that would probably -- you
know, that would just apply to those either 12 or the six
that are seated and serve. The good news is, is this money
will go to the Comptroller, and the County may then file a
claim for reimbursement for $34 per day after the first day
of service. Now, that means $34 regardless of what the
Court sets that reimbursement at. In other words, if you
would set that fee at $50 rather than the $40, we could
still ask for reimbursement of $34.
Let's see. It says that the Commissioners
Court shall apply for the reimbursement, but I would suggest
that that would be something that the Treasurer would need
to do. The Comptroller will pay the claims that we request
orderly, and only if those funds are available. If they're
not, they will prorate it out, you know, to the counties
that have requested that reimbursement. To offset the
increase, $4 is to be added to every conviction of an
offense that was committed after September the 1st of 2005.
It also -- this is exempt under the Government Code, Chapter
51, so although the -- the fee increase will -- for the
B-22 OS
~z
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
jurors takes place January the lst, but we will start
collecting that $4 on September the 1st, so we will have
some money coming in to pay those jurors.
Now, the suggestion that comes from the
District Courts, and I would concur, is to set that
first-day fee at $15, and the second day or from thereafter
at $40, is what the minimum is.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are we currently at $15?
MS. UECKER: We're currently at $6 to report,
$15 to serve. So, in other words, if you -- if you report
today and you're picked today and you serve today, it's $15.
If you report today and you're not selected, it's $6. Now,
the reason I -- I think it would not be fair to leave it at
$6 for the first day is because what would happen is, on all
of these cases where the jurors come in, say, to -- and the
County Attorney has a one-day DWI trial, if we left it at
$6, those jurors that actually sat there all day long would
just get the $6. So --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do they still have the
option of donating to another cause? I can't remember.
MS. UECKER: They have the option of donating
to the county's child welfare or the state's crime victim.
Of course, we -- we encourage -- where's Rosa? We encourage
them to donate it to the local -- the money that stays with
the county rather than that that goes to the state. So, you
8-22-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
73
know, to -- well, we'll --
JUDGE TINLEY: There'll be no differentiation
between those that reported and those that served the first
day, though?
MS. UECKER: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. UECKER: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ:
it --
l thought if we change
JUDGE TINLEY: If we change it, there
wouldn't be any differentiation either, would there?
MS. UECKER: You mean the $15?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes.
MS. UECKER: From $6 to $15? Right. Right
now, there is -- you do differentiate. If you report and
don't serve, you get $6. If you report on the same day and
you do serve, you get $15. You don't get $6 and $15, but
you get $15.
JUDGE TINLEY: Your proposal for the first
day, however, is that all persons who report or serve are to
receive $15 for that day?
MS. UECKER: That's the only choice you have.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. UECKER: I --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Does that apply to
B-22-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
74
grand juries as well as --
MS. UECKER:
juries.
This applies to also grand
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, do we have to take
action, or is this -- since we don't have a choice?
MS. UECKER: You have to take action. And my
request says to set a new jury reimbursement fee. The other
thing I think we need to do that came up later was, since
Kerr County saves a lot of money by paying their jurors in
cash, because of the increased fee, we need to increase the
petty cash funds, and I don't know if that is going to
require Court action or not, if -- if it does. In other
words, right now I'm holding $2,700 in cash at all times to
pay the jurors. We can replenish that by requesting money
-- you know, a check from the Treasurer. I think the County
Clerk is holding $1,000 and the J.P.'s are holding $400.
I'm requesting to go to $6,000, and Jannett to $2,500, and
the J.P.'s to $500. I'm not sure that that's going to
require -- Barbara, would that --
MS. NEMEC: A court order? (Nodded.)
MS. UECKER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How did you establish
the present-day numbers?
MS. UECKER: The present-day? Just from
using the money. I mean, that was kind of what I based on
s-%-os
75
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
how much jurors and what it costs is -- you know, the
average length of a trial.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN; So, you think you need
a court order now to change that number?
MS. UECKER: Well, the amount that it is
currently was set as a part of the plan to pay jurors in
cash. When I came years ago to do that, that amount was
set.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That was prior to
computers, I might add.
MS. UECKER: Yeah, it was.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think you still had
the pigeons communicating.
MS. UECKER: Pigeons going around.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Linda, I'm a little
confused as -- just on one point, The -- why can't we leave
it $6 to report, $15 if they serve, and then $40 for the
second day? As opposed to going $15 if they report or
serve?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what I thought
she said at first.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's why I asked the
question.
MS. DECKER: Well --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because it -- 'cause
e-zz-os
~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
that's what I would be in favor of doing; $6 to show up, $15
if you serve, and $40 for the second or any subsequent days.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN; Mm-hmm. That's the
way I read this.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a question.
MS. UECKER: That's fine with me. I --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That was a motion.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, let me ask a
question. If a juror -- if a juror gets $6 just for being
in the jury call, right?
MS. UECKER: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And if that juror,
during the course of that day, is selected, then that $6
automatically goes to $15?
JUDGE TINLEY: If you vote for Letz's motion,
it would.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Then -- then a
second day would be $40. I second your motion.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
said jury pay at $6 for the first day if they report but
they're not selected, $15 for the first day if they report
and are selected, and $90 for second and subsequent days.
Any question or discussion? We have a gentleman in the
audience. If you would identify yourself, please?
MR. MOORE: Morning, I'm Ed Moore. The
a-zz-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
77
second day, say the jury has not been selected. All people
that appeared the first day that weren't selected are still
there to be selected. Are they getting $40 a day?
MS. UECKER: Yes, sir.
MR. MOORS: Thank you.
MS. UECKER: And that would -- that would
only more than likely happen ~n high-profile cases, like a
capital murder or the Cailloux. That's going to be not that
often.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or
discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: A1] opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. We'll
be in recess for 15 minutes.
(Recess taken from 10:37 a.m. to 10:55 a.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. If we could, please,
let's come back to order. We were in recess for 15 minutes.
We'71 resume and go to Item 12, consider and discuss the
approval of the Tom Green County contract approved by the
Kerr County Attorney for placement of juveniles at the Kerr
County Juvenile Facility, and authorize the County Judge to
sign same, Yes, ma'am?
s-zz-os
78
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
MS. HARRIS: This is a placement contract
with Tom Green County for the next -- next fiscal year for
Tom Green County to place kids with us. County Attorney has
looked at the contract and has approved the contract with no
changes, and so I'm just asking for the Court's approval for
Judge Tinley to sign the contract with Tom Green County.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Question, Ms. Harris.
On Page 1 under Article 2, where it talks about level of
care, state price per level and type of facility and all
that good stuff, there's an "X" under state price per level.
What does that mean?
MS. HARRIS: That means -- see, the facility
takes Level 4 and 5 kids. We are classified as a
specialized treatment facility.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. And -- and the
per diem rate would be one of those two rates that's stated
there, or would it be a lesser rate?
MS. HARRIS: It would be a lesser rate. The
$83 a day is what we charge.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. That's all
subject to -- that, too, is subject to discussion at budget
time, correct? The level of our rates, that's a budget
consideration, but for now it would be --
MS. HARRIS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what they
s-zz-os
79
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
would expect to pay.
MS. HARRIS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And if the rate
changed, any and all of these contracts, --
MS. HARRIS: That's --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- those counties
would be notified as such?
MS. HARRIS: Yes. As a matter of fact, a lot
of the counties -- remember, the Court approved an automatic
renewal every year, and so some of those contracts have
already been automatically renewed because they came up in
July or August, and if you change the per diem -- if the
Court chooses to change the per diem, then we're going to
have to send addendums to every one of those contracts.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That is a
possibility. So moved, approval.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Any question 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. Thank
you, Ms. Harris. Let's move to Item 13; consider, discuss,
e-zz-as
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
80
and take appropriate action to rescind offer to contract
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, Commissioners,
the Court approved a revamping of the amount of money we
wished to expend for that project back on May 9th. After
that, I communicated -- subsequent to that, I communicated
with Mr. Caudill of the Excavation Technology folks down in
Alvin and restructured for him the amount of money the Court
was -- advised him the amount of money the Court was willing
to spend and number of hours we thought we were willing to
pay for, and asked him to forward the contract back to us
and to indicate that he was ready to start work in
September. I've never heard back from him on the May 11
contract, which sort of suggests he doesn't like the reduced
amount of fee that we're going to get. So, I'm asking the
Court to officially rescind that.
There are some other things that are going to
be happening that perhaps I'm going to address the Court at
a later date about. One of them is the bridge that links
the two ser_tions of Flat Rock Lake Park and the work that's
ongoing with Mr. Odom. There's some funding that might be
required for the piers and pier abutments and so forth, and
I have a need for some of those funds perhaps in another
direction, which would go toward an infrastructure need --
a-zz-os
81
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
infrastructure need in the Center Point community, but I'll
leave that for another date. Right now, all I want to do is
rescind the order and clear out the dollars. So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
DODGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item and rescission of the
outstanding offer. Any question or comments?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Question. Are you
giving up all hope of removing those gigantic pipes from out
of the middle of the river that we put in there?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For this budget year,
yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And all the stumps and
trees which --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Giving up hope for
this budget year.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And you're going to
take the 44 or whatever the amount was and build a bridge
and other things?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That would be -- that
would be sort of a semi-plan forming in the back of my mind.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Which is probably --
you're not going to tell us?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, I will tell you,
but not today. (Laughter.)
8-2Z-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
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I listened real
carefully. We're just getting the money back today; we're
not giving him any money.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand, but I
want to prepare him to tell me about it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, I'm going to tell
you, in spades and in detail.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. I'll third that
emotion.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question 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.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, I will
communicate to the gentleman in Alvin, Texas the Court's
action.
JUDGE TINLEY: I appreciate that,
Commissioner. The next item, Item 14, is to consider and
discuss draft of Kerr County Facilities Booking and Rental
Policy. Who wants to take the lead on this?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, let me start
H-~~-GS
83
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
it. The long-awaited draft of the Kerr County Facilities
Booking and Rental Policy is in front of the Court. I think
it would be appropriate to explain, for the benefit of those
who are in the audience who have some interest in this, that
the process, while taking some time, was deliberate in that
we drafted the policy; we had Commissioner Letz and
Mr. Walston of the Extension Service and Mr. Holekamp of the
Facilities and I, and we worked through the first draft,
made the changes that were suggested by those gentlemen to
-- in the first draft, cleaned it back up, and now it's in
front of the Court for the Court's review and comment. Any
suggestions that are forthcoming today from members of the
Court for this draft will also be incorporated, and it will
be at that point that we will circulate it out to people who
have evidenced interest in knowing what the policy's all
about and who have been before us before speaking. We will
see that you get a copy of it and solicit your input, and
then we'll try to -- try to reconcile all of that input and
come up with a facilities policy that hopefully will take us
down the road a piece for the rental of the Ag Barn. That's
kind of the process. With that, I introduce the first
draft, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Commissioner
Letz, do you have anything you want to weigh in on?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. I just -- I
a zz-os
84
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
appreciate Roy Walston and Glenn Holekamp's input on this;
they spent quite a bit of time going through it. And I also
appreciate, really, members of the community. Quite a few
of them have talked to me about it and provided input of one
type or another, and all that was kind of taken into
consideration to get to this point. And I think we're -- I
wish it hadn't taken so long; a lot of that was my fault,
and some significant illness situations with other people.
So, anyway -- but it's here. I guess it's a good step in
the right direction, and see what the rest of the Court
thinks about it, and then -- I wish Commissioner Nicholson
was able to be here today. I'd like to get his input on it
as well, 'cause a lot of his constituents are the ones that
use the facility. But --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I will solicit his
input, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But that's kind of where
I think we are today.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have a couple of
questions real quick. If you will define for me the words
"first request basis"?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, it's kind of
like -- I guess I can simplify it by saying first come,
first served.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. No
a ~ as
85
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
I3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
contract will be validated by the Facility Manager without
proper deposit or payment in full. The deposit -- did I
read somewhere in here that it would be at 50 percent?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I believe that's
correct. At least half of the base rental for the piece of
the facility you're trying to use, or the whole facility, if
that's the case.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And if -- if I -- if I
want to reserve the facility multiple times in a year --
say, three, as an example -- I need to pay 50 percent or
half of the use for all three of those?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, I don't think so,
Commissioner. I think what we envision is that you put up a
deposit. You might want a multiple date or two. I think we
limited it to two, didn't we?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we -- no, we went
to every -- it's -- for every two dates, you have to put up
half of one rental.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And if you --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Say it again?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: For every -- I think --
is that right, Roy? For every two dates that you want to
book it, you have to put up half of one rental.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, okay. Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And then --
s-z~-os
86
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: When you go four times,
it's one full --
COMMISSIONER	BALDWIN:	Okay.	
COMMISSIONER	LETZ: --	day's	rental, and six
would be 1.5.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But when you complete
that rental date, the first initial rental date, that
deposit rolls --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- to the next one.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, the more you book it,
the more deposit you have to -- the more multiple dates you
commit at one time or want at one time, to hold those dates,
you have to put up more money. That's what the -- that's
what we tried to say.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: One of the things that
makes it difficult on the deposits is because every building
has a different rate, and if you get everything it costs one
amount, so we went through a percentage as opposed to trying
to say it's $100 or $150. So, the more you're renting or
committing, the more your deposit's going to be. And that
was kind of -- which is not the way we're doing it right
now. Now it's a flat fee.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Paragraph 4 says it,
e z~ os
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
L1
22
23
24
25
87
really. A lessee utilizing the facility for more than two
events per year may be issued a multiple-date contract which
allows the lessee to hold two dates with a single deposit.
The deposit rolls over after each event and is applied to
the next date of the calendar year that has been reserved by
whomever.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Go ahead and do the
next sentence while you're there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, okay. However --
is that what you're talking about?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: However, if the
lessee drops one of the dates, Kerr County may apply, at its
discretion, the deposit to the canceled date and request
other deposits for any and all future dates.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Deposits are due at
the time the contract is signed, and the balance is due not
10 days -- not less than 10 days before the event.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Commissioner, we may want
to add another sentence in this paragraph to -- that
addresses more than two events.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you talking about
Paragraph 4?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. If you read that
R ~_-OS
88
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
second -- the sentence that says -- which allows them to
hold two dates with a single deposit, it's -- it's multiple,
so if you go to three dates, it's two deposits. If it's
four dates, it's -- you know, it's half of -- or --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do you want to change
from more than two events to say up to three events?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it -- we need to
make it clear that if they hold, like, eight events -- they
can hold as many as they want. If it's eight events,
it's --
COMMISSIONER	WILLIAMS:	Four	deposits.
COMMISSIONER	LETZ: --	four	deposits.
COMMISSIONER	WILLIAMS:	It's	half of whatever
you're booking.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Half of whatever you're
booking.
JUDGE TINLEY: One deposit for each two
events.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think that's what
we're trying to convey. Let me take a look at it, see if we
can clean it up a little bit.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, if I -- if I'm the
first guy --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: First in line.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- first in line, and
8-2^_-05
89
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I want to book the facility for 10 events through the year,
I'm required at that point to pay in full for five of those
events?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, you're going to
deposit equal to 50 percent of the base rental, so you'd put
up five times 50 percent of the rental, whatever that is.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Well, actually,
that's what I was saying. But -- and there is no cap on how
many times a year that I can rent the place?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I can rent it 20 times
if I want to, or I can -- if I have the money, I can rent it
every weekend.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, there's some
blackout dates.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If you got enough
money, we'll sell it to you. (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Would you kick in the
Juvenile Detention Facility? That was good. I still want
those pipes out of that river, though, Bill.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I do, too.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. What do we do?
I like what I'm seeing so far.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we'll bring it
back at our next meeting after we've looked at it. After
a << os
90
1
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 point, we'll give a final approval on it, then send it
out to the community at large, and specifically to anyone
who's given us their name that they'd like to get a copy of
it, get their input. I think we'll have it in place by
October 1.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If you got any other
comments or sections that you want us to take a serious look
at -- I see the Judge has got a lot of notes there. Where
are we, Judge?
JUDGE TINLEY: I've got one or two. Sure do,
Commissioner. If I'm reading this correctly, the -- this
booking policy gives no priority to historical users up to
this date; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, it does. It
talks about tenured events.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Number 3.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. The tenured events with
regard to that paragraph, I think there may be a language
change there in the last sentence. "Mitigate" should
probably be "mediate," but that's a language change.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mediate?
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. With regard to
Paragraph 2 --
COMMISSIONER	WILLIAMS:	Mm-hmm?	
JUDGE TINLEY:	-- the	three years	in advance,
g_~~_o5
91
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
~5
that is only applicable to multiple-day events which are
consecutive, and those which are sanctioned by a national
organization, the way I read that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: My thought is that that may be
too restrictive.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, the idea was --
and we're not locked in stone here; we're trying to figure
out what's best. The idea was that, for planning purposes,
the types of events that Sudie Burditt of C.V.B. typically
engages in, a lot of those need to nail their dates down
well in advance. If we were to have -- if our facility
would enable us to have -- what is it, P.R.C.A. rodeo?
That, too, would have to be pretty well confirmed sometime
in advance, because those schedules fill up and they want to
know where they're going to go. But if you see some need
for a language change, tell me what it is.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I think one of the
things that caused me to believe that it may be too
restrictive is there appears to be a requirement that the
event, in addition to being a consecutive multiple-day
event, also must be sanctioned by a national organization,
and I'm --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let's examine the
word "sanctioned," see where that takes us.
e-zz-as
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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It could be -- like, the
Texas Brangus Association is not a national --
JUDGE TINLEY: Or the local home builders,
far as that goes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or local home builders.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Only one I know about
that falls into this category is -- is this dog --
JUDGE TINLEY: Agility?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, the dog agility
show. That is state, I think. Maybe national; I don't
know.
JUDGE TINLEY: I guess my question is, are we
being too restrictive with the sanctioned by a national
organization language?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I see your point.
JUDGE TINLEY: And, secondly, requiring it --
that it be a multiple-day event, as opposed to a single-day
event.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, we talked about
the multiple-day events, and remember what our discussion
was there, Jon? Because we added consecutive multiple-day
events to -- Roy, do you want to come up here and help us
out?
MR. WALSTON: I think what we were talking
about on the multiple-day events was getting us into --
e-^_z-os
93
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
getting us away from these every weekend -- weekend
programs, to where if somebody was coming in that was
working with C.V.B., it was usually a three-day program. So
that we didn't -- it wasn't -- if somebody came in for a
one-day event, they could -- they didn't book it three years
in advance, if I remember that right, if that's --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. It was because
the big -- the events we're really trying to address here
tend to want -- we want them to be there for more than one
day.
JUDGE TINLEY: Surely.
MR. WALSTON: We want to encourage those
multiple-day events, the bigger events that's going to be
here for more than just a weekend or a day or two.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Would it help any to
add the word "state" there? State or national organization?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Local home builders
wouldn't qualify, then. I think you'd probably almost
delete "sanctioned by" anything. I think it's conventions,
horse and cattle shows -- "such as conventions, horse and
cattle shows." Or --
MR. WALSTON: I think we had in mind -- the
national, we had those in mind, but I don't know that we
really wanted to eliminate the -- the local ones either, you
know.
a-zz-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
94
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, we don't want to
eliminate them. We just want to make certain that an
organization that needs -- has a need -- an organization
outside of Kerr County --
MR. WALSTON: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- or outside the
hill country that has a need to establish dates, far --
far-reaching dates going way out -- two, three years out,
multiple dates -- isn't blocked out. If "sanctioned" is a
problematic word, let's find another one.
COMMISSIONER LETZ; How about if you say,
"such as conventions, livestock shows, trade shows"?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Conventions,
livestock shows --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And trade shows. And
delete the "national organizations." That kind of --
JUDGE TINLEY: Something to toy with there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sure.
JUDGE TINLEY: It's just a -- I guess that
the issue is, how restrictive do we want to be?
MR. WALSTON: Well, one of the things that I
thought, the three years in advance would give these people
that use it yearly on the same weekends or during the same
time frame, they are -- they're able to see three years from
now -- you know, they may have to move their weekend one way
8-~_-0;
95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
IO
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
~0
21
22
23
24
25
or another, so that gives them the ability to do some
schedule changes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. In Paragraph 5, I'm not
sure whether there is not sufficient explanatory language or
whether we got a conflict or both. It talks about, at the
beginning of the bottom of the page, "The balance due for
rental is payable not less than 10 days before the event."
Then there's a sentence dealing with governmental entities.
Then it says, "All other organizations must pay fees due by
the conclusion of their event or as otherwise specified in
the contract.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: Just an issue of if there's a
conflict, we need to --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you pay 10 days
prior or do you pay at the end?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Ten days prior.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Ten days prior. I'm
drawing a blank. Do you remember that, Roy?
MR. WALSTON: Put the deposits up, and then
the 10 days prior, you pay the remaining of it -- the
remainder of the events, what I was under --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The Judge's question,
though, is it appears that we have kind of a conflict in
that we're requiring not less than 10 days up, and we're
e-zz-os
96
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
exempting governmental entities who pay by purchase order,
and then we're saying "all other organizations must pay fees
due by the conclusion" -- oh, that's fees, other fees.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. I think it's,
like, use fees, like if they're there an extra hour or
something, or one of the --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why don't we just add
"other"? That's what that is, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Other fees.
JUDGE TINLEY: I didn't know whether it
pertained to that, or possibly pertained to nongovernmental,
but nonprofit, for example. Maybe that --
MR. WALSTON: Setup fees. This refers to
setup fees, take-down.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Setup fees and using a
number of chairs and some of that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So if we add "other,"
that takes care of that, would it not?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It might be clearer,
though, if we added that as a new paragraph, the fee
section -- the fee payment in a separate paragraph, so we
don't confuse it when deposits are due.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I thought I saw a
8 22-US
97
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
tear-down fee somewhere else in here somewhere.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, setup and take-down fee
is in Paragraph 16.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me see where it
might fit better; I'll make a note of that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is there always going to be a
requirement for any setup or take down?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not always.
Sometimes events will come into the arena for which a setup
took place, and a subsequent event either uses that setup or
doesn't -- whatever. And so not always is there a necessity
for setup and take-down fees. Take-down and re-setup.
MR. WALSTON: If we're able to use it the way
it's set up.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, in that case, there is no
setup/take-down fee.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There would not be.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. A little language
change on Paragraph 6, first sentence. Six months or more
prior to the event, rather than outside, I think.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Six months or prior.
JUDGE TINLEY: Or more prior. And then, of
course, you've got the "within six months" in the following
8-2J-OS
98
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
sentence. With regard to Paragraph 13 -- excuse me, 11 --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Paragraph which,
Judge?
JUDGE TINLEY: 11, where it talks about free
use.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: In the last bullet under that,
other events held by county elected officials or
departments. Is that too restrictive? Could there not be
other requests for free use?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Such as?
JUDGE TINLEY: Nonprofits asking for a waiver
under certain circumstances, coming before the Court.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, this is for
events by -- held by county elected officials and department
heads, not nonprofits, which is a different category.
Sheriff's Department -- he does a Christmas party or
something like that. And -- don't you?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes, we do that once in
a while. The one other thing that Judge Tinley may be
considering is the -- the Mounted Peace Officers put on an
educational deal each year where we have the fire
departments, KPUB, everybody out there with different
things, sometimes even the safety --
MR. WALSTON: Safety Awareness Day.
e-zz 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
24
25
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay, Safety Awareness
Day. That's not technically a --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: -- you know, county
elected official or department, but that is a definite
educational deal put on by us and everybody else to educate
kids.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that would
qualify. I mean, your department could come and request it.
I mean, I think what we're trying to say --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Which I think is what we
did last year, if I'm not mistaken, is my department
requested it. But it's -- it's us and Kerrville P.D.;
everybody's out there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Kind of trying to say
that if some elected official/department head has some use
that they want it to be exempt from, they can come to the
Court and ask for it to be -- fees to be waived.
JUDGE TINLEY: I guess there's a general
exception that anyone can --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- request the Court to waive
fees or reduce fees or --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sure.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- deviate generally.
a-zz-os
100
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think they can, but I
think the intent of these rules are, we don't. I mean, if
you're a nonprofit, you need to pay it. The County should
not subsidize all nonprofits. That's where we're going with
this. It's a -- it's -- there's a cost to the taxpayers,
and -- you know, to operate that facility, and we should not
ask all taxpayers to subsidize certain nonprofits.
JUDGE TINLEY: With regard to Paragraph 18,
available hours --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm?
JUDGE TINLEY: -- it has Sunday through
Thursday, 7 a.m. to 11 p.m., Friday and Saturday, 7 a.m. to
midnight. I notice there was another hourly charge for
holding over --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- somewhere here.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. It's in that
same paragraph, last bullet there.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Is that first bullet
meant to state that as of midnight on Saturday -- Friday and
Saturday, for example, that there can be no further use of
the facility?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, it just means
you're going to pay for it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Okay.
e-2z-os
101
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What is that rate?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It would be the -- it
would be the base rental divided by the number of hours that
you'd use the facility. Establish an hourly rate.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We probably ought to put
that rate here.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Somebody needs to come
up with that number to make it clear up front.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Define the charge,
okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I
entire rate schedule for --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS:
JUDGE TINLEY: The use
other things, such as tables, chairs,
that was going to be on a separate ex
believe.
think it's part of the
It will be.
schedule, the -- the
all that other stuff,
hibit to be attached, I
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right, and there will
be an hourly rate established there.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've got another
question, Judge, if you're through.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, go ahead. I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: First-come,
first-served basis.
8-22-OS
102
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Which we're finding
that that's really the only way you can do this thing
properly. Now, let's say that I go to the -- whoever's
going to do the booking, and I go there and I set up my tent
at 3:00 in the morning so I have first shot at this thing.
Doors open at 8 o'clock, and I'm first. And I walk in and I
plop down my money, so I've booked my little thing. Is it
going to be available for a company out of Dallas to make a
phone call and book it? And if the answer is yes, over the
phone, if they say, "I want to book it for 'X' amount of
days," and you say, "Okay, it's going to be 'X' amount of
dollars, and you're not booked until we receive that money,"
in the meantime, if somebody else walks in and reserves
those same days with cash on the spot, how -- how is that
picture worked out?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Did you put your
money up when you had your requested -- or you just made the
request for the date?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I put my money up, so
mine's booked. I understand that. But I'm really working
off this phone call thing.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What did we talk
about?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- I mean, in
8-'2-OS
103
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
reality, there -- it's a rolling process. So, you know,
today's the 22nd. The 22nd next year, you know, is open
after today. And it's not like it's the -- we start the lst
of the year; then all of them have to be done that date.
So, it changes throughout. And I think that the -- you
know, there's -- with a tenured event, if you're doing it
ongoing, you have a little slight edge to get that same date
again the next year.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, a phone call would
do that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Phone call could -- well,
you have to get the money in. I mean, just calling the date
isn't -- you better have your thing mailed so it's here.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. So, in the
meantime, so when this check is in the mail and I come in,
or Joe Blow off the street comes in before the check arrives
and I want that same date, what happens?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know. We ask
Glenn or whoever's doing the booking.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's always been a
major sticking problem.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In Number 3, I think
we tried to address it, Commissioner. I'm not sure we did
it adequately, but we tried to, when we say that no date may
be held without a contract and deposit. Tenured events are
a-za-o5
104
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
those events that have used the facility for two or more
years, and they're allowed to have first option on the same
dates for the next year. Any conflict of dates caused by a
request of the lessee or by calendar, the Facilities Use
Manager will mediate variations, and that decision will be
final. We left it in his hands. I don't think we want to
be here, you know, arbitrating -- or mediating date disputes
constantly. Somebody has to do it, but we don't want to do
it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't want to.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- I don't know how you
really get around the issue that Commissioner Baldwin's
talking about. I mean, down the road, we're going to have
online booking, I think, so then you're going to have, you
know, online bookings and telephone bookings and people
coming in, and -- you know, so it's got to get worked out.
We don't have -- there's not a contract; you don't have it
reserved until we have the money.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And how we get, you know,
that other part of it, I would say you have to start going
through, and if we start having a lot of problems in that
area, maybe we can figure out, you know, some way to do them
all online. That way it's sorted out by the computer or
a-zz-os
los
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
something.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I guess my next
question is, can I set my tent up on county property?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We won't tell the
Sheriff.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Did we sufficiently massage
that one?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Got any others,
Judge?
JUDGE TINLEY: No, I'm good for now.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. I will get
comments from Commissioner 4, and we will try to come up
with another draft after that. I won't bring it back to the
Court at that point, but we'll distribute it among those
folks who have requested to have input or be heard on this
issue. I think I have most of their names in the file that
I have on this. And if there -- and we'll have other copies
available for folks who show up and want a copy and want to
read it. And I think we'll try to -- I'd say we probably
ought to set a date when we want to try to get this
concluded.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I think it may be
nice to have it, as a lot of things, October 1. We should
be able to get it back by our next meeting, and --
8-2'_-OS
106
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Provide it at our
next meeting?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or at the next meeting,
so we can approve it at the next meeting and then send it
out for pub -- for comment during the month of -- basically,
month of September. Or, say, half of September, anyway.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, I can get -- I
can get these changes made. You want the Court to approve
this before we send it out for discussion purposes?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think so. Judge is
saying no.
JUDGE TINLEY: I just think that once we get
our comments rolled into it, we ought to give the public a
shot at it. And I think it would be understood that we've
got our comments in it. I don't know that there's any
requirement that we formally approve it in a draft form.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So we can go ahead and
really approve it today to be sent out to the public after
Commissioner Williams makes the few changes that we
discussed today?
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't see any reason why we
couldn't.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree, we could.
Except for Number 4's comments.
JUDGE TINLEY: I -- well, he's going to --
s-zz-os
107
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
he's going to get his incorporated.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I didn't style the
agenda item for -- for action. I said, you know,
consider -- consider it and discuss it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Consider it is consider
action.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that action, as
far as you're concerned?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: "Consider" is.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Consider and discuss?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Consider approving. I
mean, most of ours are styled consider and discuss.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Fine with me. If
everybody's happy, I'm fine.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: See, if you got those
pipes out of the river, you wouldn't be having these
problems.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anyone have any other
questions about this? Mr. Moore?
MR. MOORE: Ed Moore again. You're concerned
about someone being at the door versus someone on the
telephone?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir.
MR. MOORE: At the door, they're going --
they should pay cash, check, or something in the way for the
a-__-os
108
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
rental. If I make a telephone call, it would be simple
enough to put in there that in the case of an absentee
person telephone call, moneys must be received no later than
five days or the date will be left open.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's a good option.
MR. MOORE: It will work. You give a
reasonable amount of time for the system to work, but you
have to put a "no less," I think. So --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Within that five days,
there's a possibility of losing some contracts.
MR. MOORE: But he -- that's life. You have
a reserve on it that way, anyway. That's the way I feel.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, we appreciate your
comments.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Good suggestion.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But no action is
required; we're just going to just send it out and --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll try and get it
completed and then back to the Court for final approval
within a month.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And sent out for --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll get it sent out
before that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that we probably
8-^_^_-OS
109
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ought to approve it subject to you making your modifications
and getting input from Number 4, and then set a date that we
get -- we'll receive comments, and set the time that we're
going to have a meeting on it or a hearing on it, so to
speak.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not do it all today.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Make a motion.
JUDGE TINLEY: Are you suggesting that maybe
we actually set a public hearing on it, even though we're
not required to do it?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sure. We've had lots of
input on this one. You know, you want to make sure that --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Lots of interest.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I make a motion that we
approve the draft of the booking policies -- Kerr County
Facilities Booking and Rental Policy, ask Commissioner
Williams to incorporate the comments today and also the
comments from Commissioner Nicholson, and then make the --
that revised draft available for anyone to pick up at our
offices and mail the draft to anyone who has requested it,
and set a hearing or that policy for the second -- our
second meeting in September. Which is what date, Kathy?
JUDGE TINLEY: 26th.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Got it.
a zz 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
110
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Set a public
hearing --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or a public meeting.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. And final
approval?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: For final approval.
Well, I think we actually probably do the hearing
September 26th, and depending on the comments we receive, we
may do it and we may approve it, or we may want to revise
it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, we can put it
on both ways and see what happens.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any particular time on that
public hearing?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 10 a.m.
JUDGE TINLEY: 10 a.m. Motion made and
seconded. Any further question or discussion on the
agenda -- on the motion as made? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. The
a zz-us
111
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
next item on the agenda is to consider and discuss
procedures for the paying and reporting of expenditures
involving penalties, fees, interest or other costs
associated with late payment or or administrative system
failures. Commissioner 4 asked that this be placed on the
agenda. I don't know what the Court's pleasure is with
regard to proceeding forward or waiting till Commissioner 4
can be with us to discuss this item. What's the Court's
pleasure?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm reading his last
sentence here. It says, "I propose a court order requiring
such expenditures to be reported to the Commissioners
Court." Now, is that reported by the County Treasurer to
the Commissioners Court? Or is this one of those things
that the County Judge is notified in the mail by letter, and
the County Judge reports to the Commissioners Court? I
think you need to get more specific if you want a court
order.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree. It raises a
question when you're talking about notification of
expenditures, notification of -- of late penalty.
JUDGE TINLEY: Or even the imposition of the
fee, or the application of the fee. So, I -- I gather that
we want to wait on that?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd have a hard time
B 22-OS
112
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
voting today on it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's pass on that one,
then, and we'll take that up again at the request of
Commissioner 4 or any other member of i_he Court. The next
item on the agenda, Number 16, consider and discuss
establishment or clarification of policy regarding Kerr
County employees payroll/paycheck direct deposit program. I
put this on the agenda. I was pleased to see that the
Treasurer is wanting to get a direct deposit program. My
concern is that if we're going to have such a program and be
able to obtain the -- the efficiencies that are available
from a direct deposit program, that it needs to be one that
is mandatory as opposed to voluntary, where we're not, in
essence, running what we were running before -- or the
Treasurer isn't running what she's been running before, and
in addition, running something else. I realize that may --
may require some action on the part of some of our
employees. I think anybody who's been involved with any
sort of receipt of government entitlement, Social Security
or things of that nature, have pretty well accepted the fact
that they're going to insist on direct deposit, and I think
the efficiency to be gained is -- is gained as a result of
having it applicable across the board.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess my only question
I have is, can we do that? Can we make it mandatory? And I
s-?z-os
113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
have no idea. I wouldn't know where you look. I see two
people raising their hands.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: My only comment right
off the bat would be, I probably have some employees,
especially jail employees or clerks, that don't even believe
in checking accounts or bank accounts at all, that would not
have a direct deposit. And I don't blame them for that.
Some people are going to want it; some aren't. I don't
think you should make it mandatory for everybody to have to
do it and they have to go out and get one.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I think that's
a valid point, Sheriff. Also, I was curious -- I'll ask
Ms. Nemec, is there any -- any difference in the fee the
bank will charge us if all of the employees don't exercise
this option? The fee -- the fee is the fee, right?
MS. NEMEC: There is a set feet no matter how
many employees are on direct deposit or not.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Three or 300; doesn't
make any difference?
MS. NEMEC: That's right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: One thing, I think -- I
mean, I agree with the -- the Judge, I guess, you know, the
thought process to -- let's do this and make it, you know,
as county-wide as possible. But I think that we need to
leave an out for those that don't want it. And I would make
8 2~-OS
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
114
it mandatory, unless -- rather than you make it proactive
that they have to sign the forms to get it -- well, I guess
MS. NEMEC: We've had a lot of feedback from
employees. You know, the ones that have been wanting this
for a long time are really glad that we're implementing
this. There has been a question of other employees, whether
it is going to be mandatory at some point or not. Right
now, I have the legal department at TAC checking into that,
and I'm waiting for a phone call from them. The problem
that -- some employees have banking accounts and they just
want their check; they don't want it going into their bank
account. Other employees do not have a checking account or
savings account, and I have a problem in that if we make
this mandatory, we're asking them to go open up a checking
account, and there's fees involved in that. I just don't
know that we can make them pay those monthly fees to open up
a checking account to go on direct deposit. I mean, for my
office, it would be much more efficient to do that. It
really would. But we're still going to have to print out a
backup -- the backup stuff for them anyway. So, you know, I
just don't see how we can make it mandatory.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I kind of like the
8-22-OS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
I8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
115
book-of-the-month club method of operation. Make it
automatic, It's going to be automatic as of a certain date
unless you opt out, and then let those who don't want to do
it opt out.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It sounds good, except
they still have to fill out the form; otherwise, they won't
know the bank account number.
MS. NEMEC: Right. They have --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Only thing I know is
my only personal experience. I enjoy coming in here and
seeing Kathy and her handing me my paycheck, and me doing my
little checking book thing and filling out the deposit slip,
and then going to my bank and visiting with those -- I mean,
that's part of my life, and I don't want the government to
mandate to me that I can't do that any more.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Buster doesn't want
Debbie to know how much he's actually making.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I was just going to
say, he doesn't want Debbie to know how much he's hiding out
of that check.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I got a feeling
Debbie's going to find out now, thanks to my friends.
(Laughter,)
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You're welcome, Buster.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But that's the redneck
8-22-OS
116
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
in me, I guess, but I like it. I'm proud to be a redneck,
if that's the case.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd be interested to find
out legally what the answer is to that question, 'cause I --
that certainly has -- I think it's probably better to leave
it the way it is; let's see what the usage is in the next
couple of months.
MS. NEMEC: So far, we have 103 employees who
have signed up. So far.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's a third, huh?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's the deadline?
MS. NEMEC: Excuse me?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's the deadline?
JUDGE TINLEY: Last Wednesday.
MS. NEMEC: Yeah, last Wednesday was the
deadline. Of course, we've been talking to the bank, and
the bank's been coming over and visiting since January.
Last year was their fourth time -- last week was the fourth
time that they've been here, and we're still working out
some stuff with The Software Group and things that need to
be implemented. And so it looks like it's going to -- you
know, we were hoping to have it all done for the next
payroll, but it doesn't look that way, so that date's going
to be extended to still give employees the opportunity to
sign up. And, of course, that -- you know, we can set a
a-z'-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
117
deadline, but any time an employee wishes to come in and
say, "Okay, now I want direct deposit," we'll do it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are all banks and
credit unions set up for --
MS. NEMEC: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- direct deposit?
Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're setup is with
Security State; is that correct?
MS. NEMEC: Security State and The Software
Group we need to implement it.
COMMISSIONER WTLLIAM5: So, what an employee
does with you is identify his or her bank account, account
number and routing number, and then --
MS. NEMEC: Correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- Security State
takes care of that; is that correct?
MS. NEMEC: Correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: One suggestion -- and
that does happen; I know K.I.S.D. does the same thing. And
what -- how theirs works -- and I don't know if Barbara has
this capability. How they encouraged their employees to
actually sign up for it without making it mandatory was, if
they signed up for it, their check -- I know this 'cause of
B-~_-OS
118
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
my wife's -- their check actually goes in two days earlier
than if they wait and get their check in their hand, okay?
So it actually allows it two days --
MS. NEMEC: No, it wouldn't.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Wouldn't work with that?
I don't know; that's just what the -- the way the school
district works to encourage it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, they pay different
anyway at the school; they average out your salary over --
MS. NEMEC: This wouldn't work with us,
because on the 15th, we're paying through 5 o'clock on the
15th, and so for them to get their check two days early,
that means we're paying them for two days that they haven't
actually -- I mean, as it is, we're paying for a whole day
when they receive their check that morning, so --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Your -- your
authorization date for payment will be consistent with what
you do now?
MS. NEMEC: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: And you have a request
outstanding with TAC to see about the -- the propriety of
being able to require it or not?
MS. NEMEC: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Anybody have anything
further to offer on that? Okay. Next item, Number 17, to
a-z2-os
119
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
ZZ
23
24
25
consider and discuss approval of Kerr Central Appraisal
District budget. I put this on the agenda. We have been
furnished with a copy of the Appraisal District budget. I
believe we have a period of -- I believe it's 30 days from
the date of its formal adoption, which was, I believe, last
week, to either -- we can reject it during that period. If
we don't do anything within the 30 days, we're deemed to
have approved it, and so it's before you as to whether you
-- whether you want to do anything or whether you want to
approve it or reject it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN; Judge, do we have any
history, like the last three years or so, of what kind of
increases that they've had? I -- I can`t -- by looking at
all these numbers, I don't see anything like that here, but
there sure could be.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My recollection is that
we have voted against this budget for the last several years
because of the cost-of-living increases were higher than the
County's. Not substantially higher, but, I mean, that's
neither here nor there. It appears to me that their COLA is
2.7 percent this year, which seems very reasonable. But
we -- usually Ms. Rector has made a comment on this, or
we've had -- you know, I'd really like to pass on this and
see if we can get --
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
&-^2-ny
120
1
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: -- our representative to
come in here and go over it, or Fourth Coates to come or
Paula Rector, one of them come and give us a little bit of
input. But it looks, you know, closer to something I would
like than I've seen in previous years.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Am I seeing -- am I
seeing a 5 percent increase? Is that what I'm seeing?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what you're
seeing on the bottom, Commissioner, 5 percent of the whole.
But there are a couple items that caught your eye and caught
mine. Salary, 7 percent, which is what Commissioner Letz is
referencing, and the employer portion of retirement,
22 percent, which suggests to me that they are going up on
their contribution on retirement considerably above where
they were before. I don't know -- yeah, they are. They're
going up to 8 percent. I don't know where they were before,
but they're at 8 percent.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: County's at what?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What is ours,
Barbara?
MS. NEMEC: 7.9.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 7.9?
MS. NEMEC: It went down.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Maybe they're
catching up to us.
8-22-05
121
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: In order to approve or
veto the budget, it has to be approved or vetoed by the
majority of the government entities; county, city, school
district, I don't know who else. I think that's it, isn't
it?
JUDGE TINLEY: Headwaters, U.G.R.A. probably,
whoever uses their valuations.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: And it's a weighted -- it's a
weighted vote, depending upon -- I believe it's depending
upon the actual tax imposed. I think the bottom line is,
the school district approves it. We're all --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's done.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There are about 19 --
19 taxing entities listed in there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd like to have -- still
have a representative come and kind of go over the
highlights, where they're going directionally. So, we can
put it back on our next agenda.
JUDGE TINLEY: The next item, consider and
discuss modifying proposed Animal Control contract with the
City of Kerrville. This was placed on by Commissioner 3 and
4. Do you want to run with that one, Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, I can. I've talked
B-2~-OS
122
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to Dave a little bit about this, and the reason was, after
the EMS contract discussions, but really more how the City
bills for the airport management, I noticed some things that
I didn't think we were doing in calculating the reverse-type
contract, which is Animal Control for us, especially on the
administration side. For example, under the airport
management contract, which is -- the Airport Board or
airport gets billed for a portion of human resources from
the City budget and a portion for things of that nature.
So -- and we've never, to my knowledge, broken or added that
administration cost to our contracts above kind of what the
single page was. And if we're going to -- I think they
should treat us the same as we treat them and vice-versa.
So, in my mind, if we have -- I think there's
seven employees out there, so seven out of 300, whatever the
total employees is, that portion of Barbara's budget and the
Auditor's budget should be attributed as an overall
administration and added into administration in that
contract. I also think that they bill a portion of the City
Manager's salary and their upper administration, which we
don't have, but that is the equivalent of our salaries, the
Commissioners Court and administrative assistant. So, I
think a portion of that should get allocated as, you know,
administration of that. Dollars, I don't think we're
talking about much money. I mean, I'd guess a couple
fl-22-05
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
thousand dollars, maybe. I mean, I don't think we're --
it's not a huge number, but I just think that it's a way --
something we haven't done. I mentioned this to Dave. He
concurred, and we're going to make just a slight change on
that. I thought we'd probably need to rescind the current
offer, make the adjustment, and send it back over to the
City.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, there's no action
to be taken today?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I think we need to
withdraw the current offer that's -- current contract -- we
sent a contract over, I believe.
JUDGE TINLEY: I sent some information over,
but --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We didn't?
JUDGE TINLEY: -- that was just the
information on the operational expenses of the facility.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: There was no -- to my way of
thinking, there wasn't any offer extended to them.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. I wasn't sure
where we were on that part of it, because it was -- Dave is
the liaison; he's more aware. So, if that's the case, we
don't need to rescind anything, but I think we need to
advise them that there'll be a -- we're looking at the
S-_' U5
124
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
administration portion of the contract.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And no action will be
necessary.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's move to Item 19
if no one has anything further on that. Consider and
discuss EMS contract and take appropriate action thereon.
Commissioner Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sir, thank you very
much. I move we approve the '05-'06 EMS contract with the
City, and authorize the County Judge to sign that same
contract.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would that be without
any conditions established, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The contract.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: As presented by the City?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do you want to take
first crack at it? I'll take second crack at it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't get a second?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not yet.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not even to clean this --
I mean, the motion's there.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Kathy, do you want to
second it?
s-zz os
125
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
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion on the floor.
Any questions? Comments? Amendments?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I've got comments.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Lots of comments.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Pile on the comments. I
think everyone received a copy of the draft of the EMS Study
Committee that was discussed at our joint meeting with the
City last Friday. Commissioner Baldwin, I believe, got with
the administrative assistant; we have a draft of the -- you
know, the function of that committee, and then I made some
modifications to it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: My plan was that's
going to be a separate motion totally from the contract.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, okay, that's fine.
That being said, I guess my view is -- and there's a -- the
bottom portion of that memorandum or draft asked the City to
join in that study. I don't know that they are required to
join in the study. I would like to have an approved
contract for the year. The funding for the first six months
is as they -- as the City has requested in their proposal to
us, but after six months, I would like to look at what we're
asking the committee to look at, and then meet with the City
at that point.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think you and I are
probably on the same wavelength. It appeared we weren't the
8-^_2-OS
126
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
other day, and I think those are just semantics in terms of
think we have to budget that amount of money, if that's what
we're going to do. That's the amount we agree upon, and we
have to budget it for an entire year. And that's why I'm
wondering whether or not that's where you're coming from,
Commissioner, is that we include in our budget an amount
equal to the amount requested; because -- and I'll let that
sit right there with a semicolon, because there are things
that we'd like --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me answer that.
The answer is yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Okay. 'Cause
there are things that we -- I think we really would like --
sincerely like to convey to the City with respect to the
issues that we brought to their attention. And, again, I'll
say it, and Commissioner Letz and I and Commissioner
Baldwin, we've all said it repeatedly. We have no problem
with the service from the time the dispatch orders a box to
leave the garage to the time the box returns to the garage.
It is those other things attendant to that; the
administrative side, the coding, the claims, the follow-up,
et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, and
we've said it over and over again. So, you know, if we're
a-zz-os
127
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
able to convey back, as Commissioner Letz has outlined in
his draft here, the things we'd like to see accomplished
with this, and the -- within the framework of six months?
Is that what you're saying? Within the first six months of
the new budget year, then I'm on board. I really am. We'd
be budgeted for a year, but we want to see the study
committee agreed to and put in place, and we want the study
committee to have the various charges that go with a study
commission and so forth and so on.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm real close to that.
I mean, I'll phrase it slightly differently. I have no
problem budgeting $200,000 or whatever the exact amount in
the City's offer was. What I want from the City is a
commitment to open up their records and work with our
committee. They have not been willing to do that with me,
as an individual Commissioner, to go over and discuss how
they're doing -- how they do their billing, and that's what
I want. And their view has been that we're -- you know,
it's just a contractor/vendor relationship, and --
contractee, I guess, vendor relationship, and that we
shouldn't be concerned with that, and I disagree with that.
I think that the County should have input on the billing
structure and rate charges that are billed to county
residents if we're being asked to pay the subsidy for those
-- you know, for that portion of the service.
a-zz os
128
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
So, what I'm saying is I have no problem with
what -- the motion Commissioner Baldwin put forward, but I
want it tied to the formation of the committee, and at least
them explaining or discussing with the County what their --
what their rate structure is, which to-date, I haven't been
able to get out of them, and -- and, you know, in good
faith, negotiate. And also, in concept, agree with the --
our premise that this should be, as much as possible, a
user-pay service, and that we should ascribe to get there.
That doesn't mean that we're ever -- that we're ever going
to ever get there; it means that we strive to get there. We
may always have a subsidy, but if we can lessen that
subsidy, I'm in favor of it. I think that's a -- you know,
we've talked as a Court a lot about that, and the City, to
my knowledge, has not acknowledged that that is the
direction they want the EMS program to go.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Nor have they
acknowledged that there may be deficiencies on the
administrative side.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. And there may not
be. I'm not accusing the City of --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I said "may be." May
be.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, I don't -- I mean, I
have no problem with approving the contract as presented,
8-22-OS
129
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
but there is a -- a second part that they, in good faith,
disr_uss the issues that we've outlined to the charge of the
EMS Study Committee.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me see if I can light in
the middle of this thing somewhere. Am I hearing that there
is consensus that the Court approve the contract for the
coming year, subject to any mutually agreed upon changes
that may be made by the parties to that agreement during the
second half of the coming fiscal year as a result of the
work of this committee that we wish to have come in and
assist us and -- and accept the charge that -- that had been
suggested? Is that what I'm hearing? We're actually
talking about approving the contract for the year, but
leaving the door open for the -- after the six months for
the committee to work, that -- to try and forge any what
would seem to be appropriate changes after the committee
does its work for the second half of the year?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, and a commitment
from the City to work with -- commitment with the City to
work with our committee. I mean, it's kind of -- they have
all the information. If the City's not willing to work with
our committee, our committee can't do much.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, is there any
reason why -- we're talking about approving a contract, and
we've all seen that draft contract, and the draft contract
8-22-05
130
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
is -- is exactly the way City of Kerrville wants the draft
contract to read, not necessarily the way Commissioners
Court might want to amend that draft contract. Which leads
me to ask you the question, is there any -- is there any
particular reason why we couldn't suggest or offer, or --
well, suggest or request that some of things we want to see
happen -- formation of a committee, examine these certain
issues -- any reason why that could not be included in a
paragraph in that contract, and set the time frame for which
this has to happen? That way we've got an agreement.
JUDGE TINLEY: No, no reason. But I think
the issue is, are you approving a contract for six months,
or are you approving a contract for 12 months, but with the
condition that during the first six months, the City will --
will, in good faith, operate under these conditions with
this committee that we want?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's the latter.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, that's what we'd
all hope to happen, but I don't -- how can you -- how can
you put that in a contract? That if --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Rex is raising his hand.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The committee could
come back with recommendations, and the City's going to
adopt whatever they said? I just don't --
s-r 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
131
JUDGE TINLEY: No.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, no, no.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Doesn't say that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's not my
suggestion, but we could put in the contract that within the
first six months of the year, a committee will be
established and they will examine the following questions
and report back their findings.
JUDGE TINLEY: We can put in the contract
that they cooperate with the committee during the first six
months of that contract, and upon that committee reporting
its findings, recommendations, whatever, in good faith
consider and negotiate with us with respect to those
recommendations or suggestions.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I like that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Rex?
MR. EMERSON: The only thing I want to point
out to y'all is that the City's given you a drop-dead date
of tomorrow.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
MR. EMERSON: To approve their contract,
period. And sending back an approval of their contract is
different than sending back an approval of their contract
with contingent actions on it. That's basically a
counteroffer; it's not an approval. So you may find
B-22 OS
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
132
yourselves in somewhat of an awkward position tomorrow night
if City Council says we're not going to accept your modified
contract.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's true.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, that's true. But I
-- you know --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just think these
requests of, "Please work with our committee, and at the end
of six months when the committee reports to us, please sit
down and visit with us," that should be under a separate
letter of some sort. I just -- I'm real uncomfortable about
trying to incorporate all that into the contract itself.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess I'm just -- the
reason I would -- and I understand what Rex is saying. They
could say no, and -- you know, which would be the --
probably the worst of all worlds from -- just to stay no,
we're not going to do it. But I think it would also show
the public something about the City's decision-making. I
mean, I -- I think that we could not get two councilmen that
attended a joint meeting to even agree to discuss any of
this stuff, and that's a pretty big problem in my mind. And
I really think I want to make it part of the contract,
personally. I'm willing to -- I guess, you know, if they
come back and say no, then I will have learned a whole lot
about the City's management, and then we can -- hopefully
a-a2-ns
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
133
they'll give us, you know, time to, you know, leave the door
open.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It would be in the
form of an addendum, would it not, Mr. County Attorney? A
proposed addendum to the contract --
MR. EMERSON: Basically.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- you're talking
about?
MR. EMERSON: Sure, but the City's going to
look at it as a counter -- or not an approval.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't mind that. I
mean, if they -- like I say, if they choose to reject it,
they're going to have -- I mean, the other side of that is,
I mean, I can not help but think that the City wants us to
be in this contract with them as well. They have to -- they
have to cut staff if they don't, bottom line.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We can't go that
route, Jon, I'm sorry. We cannot take the chance of our
citizens being uncovered with EMS service. I mean, I know
where you're coming from, but we've negotiated this thing
down hard -- I mean, you guys have worked very, very hard on
this thing, and we're down to drop-dead date and we cannot
-- I just don't think -- I'm not going to take that chance.
I think we've got to sign the contract and let's move
a-zz-os
134
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
forward, and hope that they will -- and as far as this
committee's concerned, it's going to be -- it's going to be
our committee. I don't care if they work with it or not.
It's going to be our committee that's going to advise the
Commissioners Court on -- on their findings. Now, at that
point, if the City doesn't want to sit down with us, then
that's when the public sees them for what they really are.
I just don't -- I think we're playing with something here
that we shouldn't be playing with. Much too dangerous.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I don't
disagree with you in terms of -- of taking a risk for
services. I don't want there to be a risk in terms of the
continuation of services. I really don't; I've said it
before. But I'm kind of -- I'm kind of with Commissioner
Letz; I really would like to have somebody acknowledge that
these are issues we need to address, and -- and a
willingness to do so.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, we tried sitting
here at the table the other day to do that face-to-face like
grown men, and you got absolutely zero response.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I got a no, is
what I got. (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't even recall
that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess Commissioner
8-^^-OS
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
135
Baldwin's point --	I guess -	- you know,	I think the service
is critical, and I	think if	we take this	recommendation and
just approve it and they say no, well, I guess we know where
we stand also in that -- in that regard, and I think the
public will know where the City, you know, stands in that.
My -- what I would truly fear is going to happen is we're
going to be back here exactly a year from now, because
they're not going to have any -- without tying in a
commitment by the City, they're going to do like they did
last time. They canceled the contract last September, and
they didn't get a revised -- a proposed contract to us until
May 3rd. You know, it took them nine months to do it, and I
don't see why they're going to do anything different this
time, especially now that they don't have to. And -- but I
guess all we can do is air that in the -- put it on our
agenda every -- every two weeks and put it before the public
until the City's willing to explain to the County how
they're doing their billing and the rate structure and the
collections and some of their administration costs.
JUDGE TINLEY: I understand your concerns
about some of the administrative costs, Commissioner, but --
and they're legitimate concerns. And I think, certainly, as
a user of that service -- or any citizen, as far as that
goes, has a right to that information just by requesting it,
and I'm -- I'm somewhat dismayed why the information hasn't
8-22-OS
136
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
been offered up to you. But, as I said the other day,
I'm -- I'm concerned about the priorities that we have in
place at the time we have them in place. I think our number
one priority now ought to be the quality of service, and we
know what that is. Number two is the reliability and
continuity of service. We have a pretty good handle on
that. I think that's what the citizens of this county would
want us to look at, is priorities. Now, granted, you know,
there may be some efficiencies to be gained, but we don't
have the luxury of being able to have enough time to sort
those out at this point, so I tend to concur with
Commissioner Baldwin that --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that a second?
JUDGE TINLEY: No, I didn't say that was a
second.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: That we have the -- we have
the -- we're in a position now, in order to guarantee the
type of service and the reliability of service to our
citizens that I think they want, to approve this matter.
And we can certainly request the City to join with us in
looking at this issue. I think we ought to form a committee
anyway, as you've said. And I've said that before, that we
need to -- to take advantage of this wealth of experience
that was made available to us the other day to look at all
8-22-OS
137
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
these various issues involved in -- in emergency services,
and -- and hopefully we'll be able to get some good
recommendations and information presented to us, and the
City will see the benefit of that and want to work with us
on trying to implement some of those efficiencies and
improvements, assuming that there are some, and I think
there is some to be gained. But I think that's where we --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, I have a
question of the County Attorney. What kind of cancellation
clause is in the draft that they sent over?
MR. EMERSON: I haven't seen the draft.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's a bit of a
problem right there.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, it is.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Little bit of a
problem right there. Does anybody know?
JUDGE TINLEY: There's a --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I've got a copy of it in
my office.
JUDGE TINLEY: Would you get the file on that
big table?
MS. MITCHELL:	Mm-	hmm.		
JUDGE TINLEY:	If	you could	get	that, I'd
appreciate it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll second Commissioner
s-zz-vs
138
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Baldwin's earlier motion.
JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion -- your motion
was to approve the contract?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY; As submitted?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And --
JUDGE TINLEY: I have a second?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second, and a possible
amendment.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We still need the
County Attorney to sign off.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I was going to say,
subject to the County Attorney reviewing the contract.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: My question has to do
with what happens if what we'd like to see happen doesn't
happen?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we can approve it
subject to his review, as we frequently do. And I think --
I mean, we're back -- if there's a change, it's back to a
counteroffer; I understand that, but I just cannot
imagine -- because of a legal issue from the County's
standpoint. Is that acceptable, subject to the County
Attorney --
a-zz es
139
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, absolutely.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Yeah, okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The Sheriff's got --
JUDGE TINLEY: I've got a motion and second.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The only comment I would
have, and it seems kind of obvious to me, that as y'all have
gone round and round with the City and they have not been
willing to disclose anything or change anything and said
that it's a take-it-or-leave-it deal, I think the
committee's a good idea, but why don't you do the -- the
committee to research and see if the County -- and forget
the City, you know. You've got to sign a contract; you got
to approve it. We're on too short of notice. But see if
the County can take this six months to see if they can come
up with a better option for next year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's part of this --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Not worry what the
City's doing. They've already closed --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is nothing to do
with the City. The proposed committee --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm not concerned with
what the City thinks about this committee at all. I just --
I want them to research all of the issues, which I will read
here in just a moment and advise the Commissioners Court.
And if the City doesn't -- I cannot imagine the City of
8-2L OS
140
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
Kerrville not allowing these geezers in there to look at
anything. I don't recommend them closing the doors on these
guys.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, they've closed it
on y'all. I mean, go ahead and start researching to see
what better deal the County can get.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, we're just
elected officials here. These are geezers. (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, before you
call the vote, I would like to ask the County Attorney if he
can tell us what the cancellation clause is.
MR. EMERSON: I'll read you the whole
paragraph. How about that?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just give me a
summary.
MR. MOORE: How about a paragraph?
MR. EMERSON: Appears to be 90 days minimum,
written, but it's -- the termination paragraph is written
such that, without reading it probably another half dozen
times, I'm not sure if you have to have cause or not, or if
you can just terminate it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 90 days? Is that
what you said?
MR. EMERSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
8-'_'_-OS
141
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My other question is also
to the County Attorney, but it doesn't relate to that
contract. Based on the styling of the agenda item, we can
go ahead and appoint the committee?
MR. EMERSON: I think you're better off
doing --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, not -- I mean, under
our agenda, can we talk about a committee as well?
MR. EMERSON: I think you can talk about a
committee, but I don't think -- you're probably better off
with another agenda item to appoint the committee.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's what I was
worried -- that's what I thought.
JUDGE TINLEY: You don't think the
appointment of the committee would be --
MR. EMERSON: I think the problem -- I think
the problem you're going to run into is that the case law
and A.G. opinions state that the more important an issue is
to the community, the more specific the agenda item has to
be. And I think that there's no doubt you can act on the
contract, but if you want to appoint a committee, I would
recommend that you have another agenda item.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can we -- but we could
8-^^-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
142
probably -- we can't even do that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Talk about it? He just said
we can talk about it. We can't take action on it. I mean,
we've already talked about a committee significantly here
today, I think.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Unless you're talking about
some other committee.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's probably
broad enough, personally, to take action on the committee,
but I'm not the County Attorney.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or
discussion on the motion that's on the floor? All in favor
of that motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sign that thing, so in
case I need it tonight, that they'll come get me.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're not going to --
we're under our contract now.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: October 1.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: October 1.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're okay.
8-22-OS
143
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
DODGE TINLEY: Did you have some things you
wanted -- is anybody here about the committee that I've
heard about? Want to talk about that?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What committee?
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Between Commissioner
Letz and I, he has written a draft of a statement by the
Commissioners Court that I really want to wait until we -- I
want to read this into the record of the things that we want
our committee to take a look at and report back to us on.
But -- it's certainly open for discussion if you want to,
but I want to reserve this draft to actually read into the
record when we appoint -- actually appoint the committee.
DODGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that -- I mean,
the -- it may be slightly broad to say it's included in the
agenda item, but this -- you know, this is part of the
contract, to me. I mean, from the standpoint -- not the
contract, but part of the -- the contract process. And --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I agree with
you. Let's wait and put it up for an agenda item next time,
and then this with it. Who knows? We may even have a
couple other items you want to add to it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask a question.
e-zz-as

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
144
I'd like to get the committee rocking and rolling. Is there
any way that we could slip in here Friday morning and do
that?
JUDGE TINLEY: I think I have an answer
coming on that. It may not be Friday; it may be next
Monday.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You have an answer to
that coming?
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Next Monday's a bank
holiday. No --
JUDGE TINLEY: Didn't know you owned one.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't. That's what
it says here.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do we have something
else going on on Monday, the 29th?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, we may have something
else going on, and we've got this other item that we've got
to be sure and consider before the 1st of September, if
you'll recall, that --
MS. MITCHELL: Linda.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- we didn't act on from the
District Clerk on imposition of a fee. And -- and our
insurance consultant wants to do a workshop, if you'll
B-22-US
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
145
remember, and I've got a couple of dates from him. And --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Will we be in here
Monday, the 29th?
JUDGE TINLEY: There's a possibility of that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Commissioner, how about
this? Why don't you announce the formation of the
committee? We'll just not vote.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Be happy to do that.
Proposed members of the EMS Study Committee would be James
A. Murphy; Joe Herring, Jr. -- both of those are former City
Councilmen -- Walter Schellhase, retired general; Gordon
Morgan, and Ray Lehmann, former County Commissioners,
Precinct 1. Do you want me to go -- no, that's all I'm
going to do. But that's the gentlemen that are going to
serve as the committee, and I can see that when we appoint
them, while they're -- Miguel, I'm glad you're in the
room -- while they're getting their feet on the ground and
getting to know each other a little bit, the first -- first
thing I want to do is do our presentation on our ESD to that
particular group, just to get them up to speed on what an
ESD is and how it works and how it functions, so that they
can just -- 'cause part -- part of the charge that we're
going to give them is to take a look at that, at an ESD --
MR. DERRICK: Can I add something, Buster?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me finish my
8-22-OS
146
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
sentence.
MR. DERRICK: I'm sorry, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We want them to look
at an ESD county-wide that includes the City of Kerrville,
and we want them to look at an ESD county-wide excluding the
City of Kerrville. So, I just think it would be wise to
get -- get them -- they're not as up on the issues as we
are, and I think that would be a good thing to do, get them
going until they can kick the doors down over at the City
Hall -- I mean, get into the City Hall and start looking at
the numbers.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Commissioner, I would
read the statement, if I were you, and then we can go over
the rest of it later.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you want me to read
the whole thing?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, so long as --
we can add things to it, right, for the final draft?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Statement from the
Kerr County Commissioners r_ourt. Kerr County Commissioners
Court desires to maintain a very high standard of medical
care and service in Kerr County. The Commissioners Court
further believes, to the extent possible and practical, that
a-zz-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
the EMS service provided in Kerr County should strive to be
financially self-sustaining, with these goals in mind. An
One, assess function and viability of an
emergency service district, (A), county-wide ESD including
the city; (B), county-wide ESD excluding the city. Note the
two current ESD's in the county may be excluded under either
scenario. Number 2, review and make recommendations on the
billing system and rate structure under the current EMS
contract with the City of Kerrville. Number 3, review and
make recommendations on collection system under the current
EMS contract with the City of Kerrville. Number 4, review
and make recommendations on an equitable funding formula
between the City of Kerrville and Kerr County for funding
any financial shortfall under the current EMS contract.
Number 5, review and make recommendations on other EMS
issues that affect quality of service, cost-effectiveness,
or other matters that may improve EMS service in Kerr
County. And then I wrote, "not limited to these issues."
Committee to report back to the Commissioners Court not
later than March 1, 2006, with its findings. Kerr County
hopes the City of Kerrville will join in approval of this
committee to help develop a long-range plan for the
a-?z-vs
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
148
continuing high quality of EMS service throughout Kerr
County. That's it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's not a final
draft, though; that's just today's version.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That is today's
version. If it were on the agenda, I would make a motion to
adopt this particular one.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If you were, I'd
offer two amendments, but I'll wait till next meeting.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Next week, actually.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Whenever we're going
to do it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Ron has a question.
JUDGE TINLEY: Ron Derrick.
MR. DERRICK: I just have a comment. On --
and please don't take this as disrespectful to any of the
members that you said at all. You named some very specific
matters on there that are very -- you have to be very up on
Medicare, Medicaid and things like that. I'm not sure that
the gentlemen specifically have that kind of knowledge. You
might keep that in mind if you're going to assign people to
this committee, that you might get a smattering of also some
people that -- whether that's somebody from the hospital
that knows how Medicare is going and Medicaid, 'cause this
has a lot to do with the billing that you're talking about
8-22-OS
149
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and other specific issues that you're speaking of. There
might be also some other people, and those -- these might be
invited guests, however you want to do that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's the way I want
to do that.
MR. DERRICK: I just want to throw that out
there to keep that in mind, that you've charged these
geezers, as you call it -- no disrespect at all, but there's
some very specific items that you have on there that I think
you're going to need to draw from some expertise.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's up to them, and
they're more connected in the community than we are.
MR. DERRICK: Right. That's it.
JUDGE TINLEY: So they --
MR. DERRICK: That was just a comment I
wanted to make.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
JUDGE TINLEY: They ought to be able to draw
on any resource that they may find --
MR. DERRICK: Absolutely.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- appropriate for whatever
they're considering.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I mean, Ron, these are
geezers. Do you not understand "geezers"?
MR. DERRICK: Yes, sir.
e-zz-ns
lso
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MR. MOORE: Is that old geezers or just
geezers?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I'm not going
that far.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Anything further on
that agenda item? Do we want to continue forging forward?
Let's finish up.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We'll be back after lunch
anyway.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, when can we get
together and approve the committee? Monday?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I'm going to give you
something on that in a minute. We can do a workshop and --
and --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And that may be an
agenda item on the same day as the workshop, that we can
actually officially approve it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Sure, we can be in session.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Cut it up in two pieces.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: One item left. We can
deal with that last item, but we still have to come back
after lunch.
8-22-OS
151
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What are we coming
back for?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Budget amendments, bills,
reports, other stuff.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And a full stomach.
JUDGE TINLEY: I gather that you want to
break for lunch?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can deal with the
Sheriff while he's here. Other than that --
JUDGE TINLEY: All right, Sheriff. Item 20,
consider and discuss authorizing the Sheriff to apply for a
grant for courthouse security system from a local
foundation.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's the only reason
I'm here. I'd like to apply for one under a local
foundation, one of the ones that normally we get an answer
back quicker and everything, so that we're still within our
budget process, depending on the options that y`all want to
take on what I presented with the budget process already as
far as physical courthouse security improvements. I'd like
to apply for the whole amount, being both those scenarios I
presented to you, but it would not cover any personnel
costs, just the equipment itself, cameras and panic system.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, Scenario 2 or
1, whichever you -- you pitch them, the larger of the two
8-22-OS
152
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
requires personnel. Why would we want to install $100,000
worth of equipment if we were weren't going to staff it?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's why I'm here.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I'm not committing to
staffing it. It would -- you know, if the -- the whole
budget amount would be -- it is about $130,000, okay? The
amount for all the equipment, not personnel. I'd like
permission to apply for a grant to see if we're even going
to have an opportunity to get that, and then at that point
we'd discuss personnel. If the personnel issue wasn't
possible, then part of that grant funds would just have to
be returned, because we couldn't do the whole thing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm -- I'm not in favor
of the $100,000 expenditure, period. I just -- I think that
the --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And the second option
was the $31,000 -- round it off to $32,000 option, and I'd
ask to at least be able to apply for a grant on that amount.
Y'all can determine the rest of it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All I can say on that one
is that, I mean, I'm strongly leaning towards that, which
also requires additional staffing, And I think I have no
problem with talking to a local foundation, but I'm just
wondering if it's not a little bit premature. I don't think
8-22-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
29
25
you can get an answer back --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Rusty, when you first
started bringing this courthouse security issue up, I
thought you were a little bit goofy, which I'm not over that
quite yet. (Laughter.)
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You always thought I was
a little goofy. It's a mutual agreement; don't worry about
it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But as I -- you know,
I serve as an officer in our -- our judges and commissioners
association, and I visit with a lot of commissioners courts
and travel around the state, and this is really becoming a
hot topic. Now, I don't know -- I don't know what's going
on in the law enforcement business or the bad people
business, but everybody is -- there seems, like, to be a
fear that's rising up that something bad's going to happen
in courthouses, and -- and I was real hesitant at first, but
the more I visit, I've kind of taken on that thing a little
bit, and I'm feeling a little bit funny about us not having
the security that we need --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- for the citizens.
I'm not scared for us here, but for our citizens that use
s-2z-vs
154
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 courthouse, and our employees that -- it's scary.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Courthouses are, by far,
a place where you have all facets of society come -- you
have the good, the bad, the disputed, everything else comes
into a courthouse. And -- and, yes, the potential with,
unfortunately, the way society's going a lot, is we're
seeing every week, every day, more and more violence inside
a courthouse, and I think we do have to do everything we can
do to protect public and protect our own employees. A lot
of that violence is -- is directed towards an employee of
either the court, being a judge or even a clerk that, you
know, didn't get their payment out on time on a child
support case, or there's just so many things, but it all
kind of comes together in your courthouse, and I think you
do have to look at that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You could add in there
just lawyers in general.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah, lawyers in general
is always bad news, you know. But, anyhow, the -- the thing
is, and -- and we're ending up, with the way the criminal
justice system is growing, especially inside Kerr County --
a very close example -- I've given y'all examples all
throughout the year about courthouse security concerns.
Last week alone, we had to transport 50 inmates over here,
and there were death contracts on six of them, so 1 had
8-22-GS
155
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
71
12
.... 13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
"` 2 4
25
about eight officers that had to spend the entire day,
including myself, in this courthouse. We don't know that
any of that`s going to happen, but one of my duties as the
Sheriff is to safely guard anybody committed to my custody,
okay, and courthouse security. And I have to do those
duties and fulfill them, so I pull in people, even off-duty,
to make sure that we can fulfill those duties. At least one
of these systems, part of this security proposal I've given
you to get -- get estimates or at least see if we can get
funding on that, 'cause it is a tight budget year for the
county, and if I can go out for a grant and try and assist
in that, I think it does nothing but help all of us. But I
just think that I would be negligent if I didn't try and do
everything that I could do, because I think Jonathan brought
up a good point a while ago. To me, you know, with
everything going the way it is, I think cost-of-living
increases for all our employees is extremely important this
year, with gas prices the way they are. And I've already
cut two people out of my budget -- both budgets over that.
And I'm not Mr. Goody Two-Shoes, either;
more I could possibly do, but I'm trying
some grant money to improve the security
without upping my budget any more than I
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It
made a commitment to the Sheriff today o
there's probably
some way to find
of this courthouse
have to.
seems to me if we
which program,
8-22-DS
156
1
°' 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
l2
--- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
°°' 2 4
25
then we're making a commitment to the budget, are we not?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think you're right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know that we
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER; Okay, I'm not saying --
on the smaller of the two, the $32,000, okay? That is a
system -- that is a panic alarm system, that your current
courthouse security officer will be having a separate radio
on him with -- with buttons that he can come down here and
see what the original alarm went off about, and then if he
wants to push a button, he can push it, and everybody comes.
That does not necessarily require additional personnel,
okay? That can be done by him, and probably more
efficiently than the phone calls he gets and running down.
Now, for future growth, for the system to work in the best
way that -- that it possibly could, we'd be able to have
another person up there so that when that alarm -- panic
alarm goes off, they can actually look at a camera and see
where it is before we bring that person down to see if we
can get assistance down sooner. But I think that the panic
system itself can be done by oiir current personnel.
Although I think, just in general, we have one guy guarding
every courtroom in this courthouse in every part of this
courthouse. That's a separate issue. But I --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, you don't think
fl-22-~5
157
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
that that program would impact the overall county budget in
any way?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The program would not,
that one program. Now, if we did the camera system, yes,
you'd need somebody to monitor the camera. The panic alarm
system by itself would not necessarily impact the overall
budget. I've had $1,000 -- or, actually, we spent $700 in
the last three years on improving actual physical security
at the courthouse, and it's time that we improved it a lot
better, and I'm asking for permission --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sheriff, I thought
there were some presentations to the Court in the budget
hearing when you made this presentation that we would
seriously consider additional personnel in the courthouse
with this panic system, because you made a strong case that
you tie up people as bailiffs in the courts and so forth and
so on, and I thought you made a pretty compelling case for
another person in the courthouse.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That issue on tying up
personnel, we're still doinq it. The panic system allows,
on days that court is not in sessLon or -- or that I don't
already have other people over here having to watch
different courtrooms -- like, juvenile court, A.G. court,
you know, the two district courts and that, I always have to
have more personnel. You could give me 20 people for the
Q_~~_as
158
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
courthouse on some of those court days, and we wouldn't have
enough personnel over here; I have to call people. For a
general consensus, I think the courthouse needs a minimum --
and T stated this during the budget process -- of two
full-time people, preferably three, okay, in the courthouse.
But two for sure, just as a personnel issue. As security
improvements in the courthouse, we need at least the panic
system, and I would prefer the camera system also, but at a
minimum, the panic system. And those are two separate
issues. Personnel's one, panic system's another. But if
you do the camera, you've got to add an additional personnel
for the camera.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I look at it as a -- you
know, we need to do something with the courthouse security
this year, and I make a motion to authorize the Sheriff to
go out for this grant for the -- the panic system --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- at this time, and
hopefully we can do more this year. If not, we may have to,
you know, next year address these issues again.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I second that motion.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and second.
Any discussion or questions on the motion? All in favor of
the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
a-zz-os
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
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Do we want to come back after
lunch? Is that the --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- Court's pleasure?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right. We'll be in recess
until 2 o'clock.
(Recess taken from 12:35 p.m. to 2 p.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to
order, if we might, and resume our regularly scheduled
Commissioners Court meeting of this date. We went into
recess for lunch until 2:00; it's a bit after that now. I
received a note from the I.T. Manager that he is ready to
make a recommendation on the first item on the agenda, on
the long distance bids that were received and opened and
referred to him. The agenda item includes "consider,
discuss, and approval of a long distance telephone service
provider," which indicates to me that we can go forward if
he's ready to go forward. He tells me he is.
MR. TROLINGER: I am ready.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right. So, we'll come
e-2z-~a
160
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
back to Item Number 1 on the agenda, and I will recall that.
Receive and open sealed bids for long distance service,
which has occurred. Consider, discuss, and approval of a
long distance telephone service provider. Mr. Trolinger,
have you had an opportunity to review those bids?
MR. TROLINGER: I have, in detail. The
proposal -- the one-page proposal from Kerrville Telephone
Long Distance proposes at the per cent -- five cents per
cent -- per minute for long distance direct-dial calls. The
proposal from Frontera Telecommunications, Inc., proposes at
.045 cents per minute. Now, that's an insignificant number
to me, just that half a cent difference, but there is a
significant savings with Frontera in the use of voice-over
IP that is using our existing cable modems at the Sheriff's
Office and here at the courthouse to make these calls. And
in doing so, we can reduce up to six of our existing
outgoing lines, and I have the excerpt here from Option A
from Frontera for you, four copies. And we have tested
this; it's been in test for about two months, and it reduces
our cost by six lines -- up to six lines. I've estimated
between four and six lines. The annual savings is between
$1,490 per year and $2,131 per year.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Say it again?
MR. TROLINGER: By changing to the service
provided by Frontera, we can save up to 2,131 per year,
e-zz-as
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
161
$2,131 per year, by eliminating outgoing lines. And what
sweetens the deal is -- is that, although we had spoken of
using tie lines to connect the courthouse and the Sheriff's
Office, I did not think it was possible to do it with our
existing equipment without having a capital outlay, and what
I'm seeing here in this proposal is that we can have those
tie lines where we can dial direct between the Sheriff's
Office and the courthouse without additional equipment, with
just a reprogramming of the telephone system. So, I
recommend Frontera.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can you explain all that
you just said in English now?
MR, TROLINGER: Basically, we're going to use
the cable modems instead of the fixed copper land lines that
are provided by the telephone company. And by reducing
those six lines, that's where the -- the large amount of
savings is. That's where the large difference is between
the two bids.
JODGE TINLEY: Let me interject, if I might.
I notice in the last paragraph, "About Us," it refers to the
bidder having -- currently working in conjunction with a
sister company, TRC Telecom, to provide switched access, I
need to disclose that my son is General Manager of TRC
Telecom. I don't think he has -- to my knowledge, he has
absolutely no affiliation or employment status with
e-zz-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
162
Frontera, the bidder in this case, but just the fact that it
is mentioned here, and apparently there's some sort of a
business arrangement between Frontera and TRC. I don't know
whether it's a -- a customer customer -- a vendor/customer
relationship or what it is, but in any respect, TRC Telecom
does employ my son, Patrick, Jr., so I need to get that out
on the table. He's got no affiliation, to my knowledge,
with Frontera, but there's a mention, so I'm throwing it
out.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, first of all, I
appreciate you doing that. I think it's very -- very wise
business. And I'd like to make a motion that, upon the
recommendation of the I.T. Manager, John Trolinger, that we
contract with Frontera Telecommunications, Inc., and
authorize the County Judge to sign the same contract. I
don't know -- are you going to feel comfortable about
signing the contract?
JUDGE TINLEY: I got no problem with that if
the Court directs that to occur.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a question.
if you know, to whom else does Frontera provide service
locally? Do you know?
MR. TROLINGER: No, I do not have their
customer list.
COMMISSIONER LETZ; Sheriff, do you have a
8 22-OS
163
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
question?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes, because it's using
the Internet access. If -- and Bill Williams knows some
about this. The -- the visual learning, to be able to --
for AACOG to be able to put on classes here, that's -- I've
even got a rough draft of the agreement at the office, and I
wanted the County Attorney to look at that, where it doesn't
cost us, but we stated in that we were providing a T-1 or
equivalent type connection between us and AACOG, which is
now going to be on a modem. If we now switch over all the
phone system to that too, are we going to have to upgrade,
then, that modem because of the speed that we've stated in
that possible agreement to be able to continue with that
agreement with AACOG?
COMMISSIONER WTLLIAMS: Well, you need that
broadband -- you need that broadband service.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right. So if -- if
we've got to upgrade that now, what is that upgrade going to
cost us a month compared to what we're saving on the long
distance service?
MR. TROLINGER: Okay. For the initial
project, what we're looking at right here, it will not
impact that line at the Sheriff's Office more than a
fraction. I've actually get a meter -- a bandwidth meter,
and we installed the -- one of the ATA's to test the
8 2_-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
service, and that's one of the things I looked at to make
sure it wasn't a bandwidth hog. And it's relatively small
to the -- the other services, the general ebb and flow of
the -- of the usage of the --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay. My concern was if
they have to widen this broadband, that's about another
300-something dollars a month that we have to pay, and that
then you're talking over $3,000, which the $2,000 or $1,500
you're going to save there I think would be negated.
MR. TROLINGER: Now, depending on the tie
lines going on with this project, there may be an impact,
and at that point, then we'll have to make another decision.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sheriff, do you
currently have a T-1 line?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We had -- it's not a
T-1. What we had originally for the AFIS fingerprint
machine -- I forget what John called it.
MR. TROLINGER: ISDN.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It's an ISDN line, not
quite as fast as a T-1 line. AACOG wanted a T-1 or
equivalent type service, and that's what we changed in
there, because we went to that broadband, which gave them
actually even a little faster speed than the T-1, okay,
would. But now, if you add the long distance service on
there too, I'm afraid it's going to put our usage up to
a-zz-os
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
where, to continue with that deal with AACOG, I'd have to
upgrade our broadband service, which would cost me out of
our budget an extra $350 a month, which would drastically
kind of make this proposal not as --
MR. TROLINGER: Exactly. And I did look at
that, and no, I'm not going to change the -- this won't
impact the quality of the line that the AACOG distance
learning requires.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What about the
capacity of the line?
MR. TROLINGER: The capacity of the line that
we have now? We --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, you say it
wouldn't impact the quality. I'm asking what about the
capacity?
MR. TROLINGER: When someone picks up -- and
it looks like we'll just have one single line that's
possible to use for outgoing for long distance at the
Sheriff's Office to begin with. There will still be a
requirement to use K.T.L.D., I believe, initially. But the
one line that this setup -- you know, the usage -- the
capacity reduction is on the order of a 16th --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. TROLINGER: -- of the existing service.
And with the natural ebb and flow of traffic, it really just
a-za-os
166
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
falls in there. It's very -- it was very hard for me to
measure by picking up the phone and looking at my bandwidth
meter to determine what the change was, even after hours
when it was very low activity.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Are you saying that
there will be only one long distance line, to where only one
person can be on a long distance call at a time?
MR. TROLINGER: From the service initially at
the Sheriff's Office.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I can't -- you know, we
may have 8 or 10 long distance phone calls going on all at
one time.
MR. TROLINGER: Right, but the existing
service -- we're not -- we're not eliminating the K.T.L.D.
initially. What we're doing is -- what I'm proposing is
that -- as part of this long distance bid is that we
contract with Frontera to switch the courthouse in its
entirety, but do the Sheriff's Office in a stepped approach,
since it's a complex telephone system. The six lines would
be eliminated here, not at the Sheriff's Office.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: To give our office the
equivalent of what we have now and still be able to do the
distance learning stuff, what kind of cost effect would that
have, where I don't lose any long distance service over this
other possibility? If we switched over to your long
B 2~-OS
167
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 service and did it equal, what we have now, what
kind of prices are they pulling for that type of service?
MR. TROLINGER: The price from Frontera
doesn't change regardless. It's the -- this percent rate is
what they're charging us for their service.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: So then we'd still have
to upgrade to broadband?
MR. TROLINGER: Eventually, if we did tie
lines, we would have to do some more on the telephone switch
and make some changes -- significant changes to your
telephone switch, and I'm not prepared to make those kind of
changes.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: If we need to make long
distance calls from each phone that we have --
MR. TROLINGER: Uh-huh.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: -- okay, and there may
be six or eight of them going at one time, what kind of
impact -- and we weren't on K.T. -- we didn't keep the
contract with Kerrville phone company, you went totally with
Frontera, what's going to happen? Do you have to do that
$350-a-month upgrade at a minimum, or is it even going to be
more than that?
MR. TROLINGER: No, it would be exactly that.
We'd have to change to the next higher speed on the cable
modem or add a second cable modem.
R-2? OS
168
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Second cable modem would
cost me what for out there?
MR. TROLINGER: $4,400 per year. But that --
that's where we get into the tie lines and the integration,
and I'm looking at that. Not this year, but --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: My phone service budget
request may have to drastically change, depending on what
y'all do.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sheriff, with regard
to the distance learning, is that -- is that projected to be
something that's just within certain time slots, or all the
time?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It depends on what
courses they're running at the Alamo Area Law Enforcement
Academy. Like I said, I have a rough draft. Any of those
courses that they're running, anybody from this entire area,
especially my department, instead of driving down there, can
go into that training room, sit down, log on; they furnish
all the equipment and everything, and actually take that
course without having to go to San Antonio for the week.
And that's open to all the surrounding agencies, too. We
become the first one in the state, and it's all been totally
approved and selected; it's just getting a rough draft of
the agreement.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: John, what -- I just know
a <<-os
169
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-- granted, I live out in the middle of nowhere, and I end
up with more utilities disruption than probably happens in
the city of Kerrville, but I know that our power goes off;
we have power surges and all that on a very regular basis.
Every time it does that, my computer gets knocked off, but I
can still use my phone, as long as I don't use one of the
ones that need electricity to run. But if we're switching
-- it seems that going -- relying on computers is higher
risk than relying on the phone lines.
MR. TROLINGER: It is. And I've studied that
infrastructure that Time-Warner provides us, and I've also
secured written agreement annotations on our accounts that
our service is life safety. And one of the reasons I got
that was because the Sheriff's Office relies on the
connection between here and the courthouse, so we do have
top priority service and billing with Time-Warner. But,
yes, if the connection to the Internet fails, we will not
have these six outgoing lines at the courthouse. Instead,
we will have remaining nine outgoing lines that are the
dial-9 service that everyone's accustomed to using now, and
those will be fully functional. So, it doesn't -- it
doesn't take us off-line if --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're not getting rid of
phone lines; we're just reducing the number of phone lines?
MR. TROLINGER: We're transitioning -- I see
a-za-os
170
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
it as a first step to transitioning to voice-over IP, but
this is the first step.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We're going to have two
long distance companies?
MR. TROLINGER: We'll have one for the
courthouse and one for the Sheriff's Office. I'm not
proposing a change in the -- in this service.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Down at the courthouse,
we're back -- even at the courthouse, you're back to the
dial-9, which is the Kerrville, so you're still keeping two
long distance phone companies.
MR. TROLINGER: No, the Sheriff's Office is
independent. If -- if we had long distance from Frontera at
the Sheriff's Office and the courthouse went down, then your
service would not be affected.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But what would the
courthouse do?
MR. TROLINGER: The courthouse would have to
dial 9 to use --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Would it go back into
Kerrville phone company's contract from the courthouse?
MR. TROLINGER: And for whatever -- whatever
rate that they would charge at that point, yes. It's a
little bit complex. I've tried to break it down into --
into two simple pieces. We're going to reduce six lines,
8-22-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
171
six of the outgoing -- six of the 15 outgoing lines here at
the courthouse. With this new service, we're going to
use -- the cable modem which is here at the courthouse has
plenty of capacity to make long distance calls. We're going
to establish tie lines initially as a test to the Sheriff's
Office so that we can dial three digits to call over to the
Sheriff's Office, and likewise from the Sheriff's Office to
the courthouse, and that will save approximately $3,000 a
year as a result here at the courthouse.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Commissioner, did you
make a motion a long time ago?
MS. PIEPER: Yes, he did.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: God, I don't have any
idea; it's been a day and a half. Yes, I did.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll second it.
JUDGE TINLEY: That was on the recommendation
of Mr. Trolinger. I have a motion and a second. Any
question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Only discussion is, I'm
looking at really -- we need to track this, make sure this
is -- I'm a little uncomfortable with -- you know, I would
like to hear from the departments, the Sheriff, if we're
having any trouble with this type of change. You know,
technology's going this way, so...
JODGE TINLEY: Any further question or
8-^_2-OS
172
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
discussion? 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.
MR. TROLINGER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: When does that go into
effect?
MR. TROLINGER: I'll have to look at the
billing cycle for -- from K.T.L.D. to give you the answer.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Pretty soon.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. If my record of keeping
score here is correct, we've got a couple items passed, but
we're now down to the approval agenda, unless anybody has
something to go in executive session. Do we have anything?
Hearing none -- well, that's okay. We're down to the
approval agenda. Let's pay the bills.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move we pay the
bills.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to
pay the bills. Any question or comment?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Question. Page 1 --
where'd he go? Where'd our I.T. guy go?
8-~2-05
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
173
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: He just stepped out.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Throw a rope at him.
Pull your pistol. On Page 1, under Information Technology,
we have a bill from Gazelle Computers for the service
agreement, and then Nondepartmental, we also have a bill
from Gazelle Computers. Why are they broken out into two
different departments?
(Discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Guess I need to ask
Tommy.
MR. TOMLINSON: It's just a
MR. TROLINGER: You want the background?
Paula Rector had -- because this is part of the Voter
Registration and is a separate budget, she had to -- had
specifically asked to break out the cabling cost of running
cable from the -- and Navin- ~'_ _ _ m ., _._ _ _~_. _ _ ~ ,_ _ .. __ _,_ _
to the -- to that line item, and break out the equipment
cost separately.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So the cable is
something that could come under Nondepartmental, not under
your department?
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, that's essentially the
way it was budgeted. We --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: We budget for these kind of
e-z?-os
174
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
23
24
25
things.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what I'm
asking.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't have a
question; I just have an observation. Under Information
Technology, Kerrville Telephone Long Distance sends us a
bill for 12 cents. It costs 37 cents to send a bill, and 37
cents for us to send a damn check back for 12 cents. Whoo,
efficiency at its best.
MR. TOMLINSON: That may not be exactly the
case.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How
MR. TOMLINSON: We probably got a stack of
bills about that tall, and we -- my office has one person
that does nothing for two days but separate them.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm not being
critical; I just think it's funny.
MR. TOMLINSON: So we're not writing a check
for 12 cents, is my point.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think it's
hilarious.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Page 2, County Court
at Law. And I guess this is just an observation, as well.
The first item there, steno machine repair. And then the
second item is steno machine repair. About three-quarters
e-z_--os
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
of the way down, you have one for steno machine repair. And
then the third from the bottom, you have one for steno
machine repair, which totals up to $373.63. How much do
those things cost? Is that a steno machine?
JUDGE TINLEY: They cost way, way more than
that, Commissioner, I can assure you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, that's goofy.
But why are they broken out in four different places? Why
don't we just lump them in one? I guess they're
reimbursements.
MR. TOMLINSON: There must be -- apparently,
she paid the bills herself.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, that's what it
looks like.
MR. TOMLINSON: We just reimbursed her, so
apparently there's more than -- than --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that county
equipment? Is that county equipment?
MR. TOMLINSON: No, I think it's probably
hers.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Go ahead and ask the
next question. Go ahead, Bill. Go get 'em.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why are we paying for
steno --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Go for it, man.
a-zz-as
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
176
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He just did.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: See if you can get an
answer. I've been trying for years.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm waiting.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner, I would remind
you that you are within arm's reach of Ms. Banik.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Ms. Banik's not in
question here.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's her equipment that she
utilizes, and --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- we keep that equipment up,
because it's to our benefit to have that equipment in top
operating condition, and the supplies she needs.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I guess that answers
the question.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The question I have is
the -- of fixing their own machine. I mean, I can see we --
you know, I've gotten over the point that we pay these extra
steno -- stenographers or court reporters, I guess, for
their work, and I understand that. But if they own the
machine, how do we figure -- how can we fix their machine, I
guess is really the question. I didn't know that we could
spend county funds on private property.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's like Road and
s-za-os
177
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Bridge working on a private road, kind of.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It seems to me it's the
same, but I don't understand how -- I mean --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, good luck.
MS. PIEPER: And that was only in district
court, I believe, that that happens.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What was?
MS. PIEPER: Only the district court.
Because I don't ever think that Kelly in County Court at Law
has charged the County for doing the extra transcription,
has she?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, she has.
MS. PIEPER:
COMMISSIONER
MR. TOMLINSO
COMMISSIONER
problem there? I mean --
MR. EMERSON:
I guess I'm wrong, sir.
LETZ: They're all her machines:
4: She has one machine.
LETZ: But -- Rex, is there a
I think you hit the nail on the
head.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean I -- you know, if
we had a -- it just seems odd to me. I can see paying for
the services when -- you know, and things like that, but
fixing the machine seems -- it goes along the same thing
with -- I have a problem with my home computer right now,
and I use it for work, and John says I can -- "Bring it in;
8-'_'-OS
178
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
I can fix it." I says, "No, I don't think so. It's not the
County's computer."
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think the County
ought to buy the equipment. How do you like that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My computer?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, steno machines.
When they're being used exclusively for county business, we
ought to own the equipment.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't have a problem
with that. I'd rather buy that instead of fix their
equipment.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Be careful.
MR. EMERSON: Let me complicate this for you,
please.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Please do.
MR. EMERSON: Say the County pays for a
stenographer -- a machine, and Kelly takes her testimony in
a hearing for the county, and then, based on your premise of
using it for the County's benefit, how does she then turn
around and bill for her services to copy transcripts on a
County-owned property?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, that's a really
good question, Mr. County Attorney. What's the answer?
MR. EMERSON: I haven't yet figured out how
the stenographers --
e-a2-os
179
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR.	TOMLINSON:	How the	lobby works.
MR.	EMERSON: -	- lobby	that well, yeah. No
offense, Kathy.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't know.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any more observations?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely none from
me.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I want to get out of
this.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: If an officer is
furnishing his own weapon and it breaks -- which is normal,
okay? -- then they spend $200 or $300 firming that weapon,
but they're carrying that weapon on duty. Is there any
difference?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, I don't think so. I
mean, I --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's no difference
in us buying the ambulance for the City. (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's not that bad.
JUDGE TINLEY: I thought we were going to
stop observations.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But you couldn't
resist.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions or
a-_z-os
180
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
comments? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion carries. Budget
amendments. Number 1?
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 1 is 198th District
Court, transferring $925 from Special Trials, $200 to
Special Court Reporter line item and $295 to Books,
Publications, and Dues.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What do you mean,
"Special Court Reporter"? That's a joke.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Boy, I sure hope we
don't have a special trial before the end of the budget
year. That's going down fast.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of Budget Amendment Request Number 1. Any
questions or comments? All in favor of the motion, signify
by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: A11 opposed, same sign.
(NO response.)
fl-2^ GS
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
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Budget
Amendment Request Number 2.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. Number 2 is for the
216th court. We have Court-appointed attorneys' bills
totaling 6,345.50, so we're transferring 6,345.50 from
Special Trials to Court-Appointed Attorneys.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Any
question or comment?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just -- this could
happen again next month.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah, it most assuredly will.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or
comment, or observations?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: None.
JUDGE TINLEY: All in favor of the motion,
signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Budget
Amendment Request Number 3.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. Number 3 is for the
a-zz 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
County Attorney. His request is to transfer 2,500 from
Attorney Fees, 1,000 going into Conferences and 1,500 to
Books, Publications, and Dues.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Any question or comment?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is this a conference
for you personally, or staff?
MR. EMERSON: Both.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Good.
JUDGE TINLEY: This is the September Texas --
MR. EMERSON: Correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- District and County?
MR. EMERSON: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: South Padre?
MR. EMERSON: It's in Corpus.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: There was one in Hawaii
one year, Buster, remember?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I remember Judge
Ables going to -- somewhere up in Utah or someplace to a
meeting.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Coeur d' Alene.
Right next to a beautiful golf course.
8 22-OS
183
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Sutton's staff has gone
to Hawaii the last two years in a row.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what I heard.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or
comments? Or observations? 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 9.
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 4 is -- is actually an
increase in the budget --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
MR. TOMLINSON: -- for 7,747.35. I have -- I
need a hand check to go with that to Comtex Communications.
It's for Phase II of the Homeland Security expense that came
to us in the form of a grant from the TEEX Homeland Security
proceeds.
JUDGE TINLEY: For that amount, 7,747.35?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Who made the motion?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I did. Just kidding
B-22-US
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
around, but that's okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Before we ever called
the item. Motion made and seconded. Any question or
comment or observation? All in favor of the motion, signify
by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Budget
Amendment Request Number 5.
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 5 is for Indigent
Health. This also increased the budget that we have to
declare an emergency on for -- we have Indigent Health Care
bills totaling 43,913.21, and expenditures to our
third-party administrator for 1,976.09.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do we ever get to the
point to where the State reimburses? Tell me about that one
more time.
MR. TOMLINSON: It's 8 percent of the general
tax levy, which is the ad valorem tax and sales tax, so it's
8 percent of approximately 8 and a half million, 9 million.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're close.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is what we budget for
the 665,000?
MR. TOMLINSON: We budgeted 664,914.
a-zz-os
185
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're getting close.
MR. TOMLINSON: We're close. But next --
next Wednesday is the last day of the State's year.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh. I move we declare
an emergency and approve Budget Amendment Number 5.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to
declare an emergency and approve Budget Amendment Request
Number 5. My 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: Okay. Number 6 is for Road
and Bridge, and it is also an increase in budget, to budget
for expenditures associated with O.R.C.A. moneys that were
received back from the flood for $445.27.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Any question or comment? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
8-22-OS
186
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
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Do we
have any late bills?
MR. TOMLINSON: I have one more amendment.
JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, one more amendment?
Budget Amendment Request Number 7.
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 7 is for the District
Clerk. She's requesting a transfer of $400.66 from
Part-Time Salaries to Microfilm Expense.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Move for approval.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Any question or comment? Do we need a hand check
for that?
MR. TOMLINSON: No.
MS. PIEPER: Mine's got a hand check attached
to it for The Software Group.
MR. TOMLINSON: No, that's different.
MS. PIEPER: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: All in favor of the motion,
signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
e-zz os
187
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Any
further budget amendments?
MR. TOMLINSON: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do we have any late bills?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, I do. One is to The
Software Group for $12,246, and it's for payment of the --
of J.P. 4's software license and the on-site training for --
for his upgrade on his system. This is -- this is actually
paid for by a grant from --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: D.P.S.
MR. TOMLINSON: -- D.P.S. We got a $15,000
grant from D.P.S.
JUDGE TINLEY: And the amount of this one is
$20,296?
MR. TOMLINSON: No, it's $12,246 even.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is this the -- the
program that all the other J.P.'s went with, and he didn't
want to and all that?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And how much did it
cost back then?
MR. TOMLINSON: Approximately the same
amount. I think the basic licenses were around $13,000.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Any communications
8-_~-OS
188
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
expenses associated with this, or --
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There are?
MR. TOMLINSON: There are a year of operating
expenses that it paid for through this grant.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Was there a motion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Hasn't been yet.
I'll move it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of a late bill and hand check to The Software Group
for $12,296. 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. Any
more late bills?
MR. TOMLINSON: I have another one. This one
is payable to the Mason County District/County Clerk's
Office for $25; it's for the recording fee for a Deed of
Trust.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What was the amount
8 <<-OS
189
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
again, Tommy?
MR. EMERSON: Do you want an explanation?
MR. TOMLINSON: $25.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I remember what it is.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of late bill and hand check to Mason County
District Clerk for $25. 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. Any
more late bills?
MR. TOMLINSON: The last one is to Ford Motor
Credit for 7,422.48, and it's for the lease payment on an
'OS Ford F-250 pickup.
JUDGE TINLEY: What's the amount again?
MR. TOMLINSON: 7,422.48.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sheriff's Department?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes -- actually, for the
jail.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
s zz-o5
190
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
approval of late bill and hand check to Ford Motor Credit
for $7,422.98. 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. I do
not see any reports.
MS. PIEPER: There's some.
JUDGE TINLEY: I do see some reports. Vision
was temporarily incapacitated. I have reports from Justice
of the Peace, Precinct 1, Justice of the Peace, Precinct 2,
Justice of the Peace, Precinct 4, District Clerk, and the
County Attorney. Do I hear a motion that these reports be
approved as submitted?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved -- second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the reports designated as submitted. 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. Okay.
a-zz-os
191
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
G2
23
24
25
Any reports from any of the Commissioners on their
designated liaison committee assignments?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I want to let y'all
know that the City wants to talk about EMS negotiation. No,
that was a joke. I got a -- I got a message from Rex
dealing with 9-1-1 -- what was the issue?
MR. EMERSON: Bill Amerine said that they
need an interlocal agreement to continue to provide
addressing to the County.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
MR. EMERSON: And he provided me with a copy
from some other county that had a lot of information on it
that, you know, to my knowledge, was not relevant to Kerr
County, so I basically inputted it, deleted it out, tweaked
it a little bit, and sent it back, and now he's got
negotiation issues, and so I referred him to the honorable
commissioner to work out those issues, and we will tweak it
some more.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. So, the -- an
interlocal agreement with 9-1-1 so they can continue
addressing for us is coming forth.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Anything else?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The Sheriff touched
on it. I had a phone call from AACOG indicating that if
they hadn't already sent you this agreement, which needs to
e-^^-us
192
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
be approved by the Court for -- for distance learning --
have you got it already?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: They came down a week
ago last Thursday -- or last Thursday, and handed me a rough
draft. I made some initial changes to it. Al Zotson --
Notzon, or however you pronounce it, had not seen it at all
yet, and I told them -- they agreed just verbally to the
changes we made. I told them I'd get that rough draft to
our County Attorney, and they were going to get theirs to
the Executive Director up there, and then we'd see.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I guess that's what
the call was all about that I got. The changes or the rough
draft of the -- suggested draft of the agreement --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- then goes before
the AACOG Board tomorrow for approval, after which it will
be forwarded to us for -- for review and action by
Commissioners Court.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's correct. But the
only main change that I had made in it, in the written part
they had still stated a T-1 line, and since we had gone to
the Roadrunner, we don't have that, so we changed that to a
"T-1 or equivalent speed line," is why that went through
that way.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
fl-<<-OS
193
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Then the only other
thing I'd like to comment on is we have -- Buster was out
there; we had been getting some architects to come take a
tour of the facility. I know we have until -- all we put in
the letter was September 1st, so I'm going to put in 5 p.m.
September 1st for any possible architects to return their
qualifications, and at which time I'll present all those to
the Commissioners Court, you know, and decide what you want
to do. But as of right now, we have received one. We have
the rest of this month.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Rusty, have you
decided -- or have we decided how we go about deciding
whether they're qualified or not?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: My understanding -- and
I'm not an expert on this, and Rex can probably do more. My
understanding is, it's on a kind of a case-by-case scenario
and what this Court wants to do, what the project
encompasses, and if the Court feels that this is the most
qualified by -- by what they presented, and then you have to
rank them one, two, three, four, without ever looking at
costs. And then, after the costs go -- or after the
ranking's done, then you pick one. Then you can start
negotiating with that one, and if you don't like that one,
you throw that one out and you go to ranking number two, and
that is the way that works, before you ever consider hiring
8 22 OS
194
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
an architect for -- for any additions or anything out there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you talking about
design and build?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I'm talking about as far
as doing anything, when you first get started on picking an
architect, is what I was --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's long before you
get to design and build.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah, this is the first
step. But that's the way it works, as far as deciding what
architect you're going to end up going with to do anything,
if you choose to. And one thing I would suggest, because
looking at that and looking at the jail space, I think we're
going to have to, you know, give it very serious
consideration on some of that. I don't know, gentlemen,
if -- it's just in my little brain. If the Odyssey computer
software package -- if we had to go out to a bond election
for an addition to the jail, if the computer upgrades and --
because of the high cost of that, can be part of that bond
issue or not. I don't know how that would work.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Financing, I think, would
be paying for something which in five years is going to be
obsolete, and we're paying for it in 20 years.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Very well may be.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. I don't think
B- "-U5
195
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
I want to mix those two.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I just didn't know if --
that was a thought.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Anything further?
You got anything for us?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: A couple. This is just a
nod or a "Don't care," whatever. Hermann Sons Bridge is
nearing completion. At some point, there will be some sort
of an opening for that bridge. I pass it on as to what, if
any, involvement members of the Court want to have with that
opening.
JUDGE TINLEY: Are you planning on being
there?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm planning on being
there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, we wouldn't
want you to miss all those kudos you're going to get there
when you open that bridge.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They might throw things.
People are pretty strange over there. But, anyway, it's
not -- I think we have a little bit of time, but it's
something to maybe plan. Another thing, and I don't know if
everyone on the Court received it, but Austin Cullins died
over the weekend -- passed away, just so everyone is aware
of that. He has been in poor health for some time. Just
a-2a-os
196
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
pass that on.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you know when --
have they already had the funeral?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I believe the funeral was
today at 10 o'clock.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think it was, too.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Might send a note or
something.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. The County Attorney has
something for us.
MR. EMERSON: Just one quick comment,
gentlemen. When y'all eventually get around to appointing
your committee for your EMS, given the time frame for the
emergency services district and all the things that have to
occur before that can happen, I would highly recommend that
you have them work on two parallel tracks, so that if the
time rolls around and you think that's what you're going to
have to do, all the groundwork's laid. Because if they --
if they investigate for six months and then make a decision,
it's going to be too late at that point.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, that's an item that we
need to get the Court to act on pretty quickly. And in that
a-zz-os
197
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
respect, we have a -- we had mentioned having a workshop
with our health benefits consultant, and he has given me two
dates next week; the afternoon of Monday, the 29th, or
either morning or afternoon on Wednesday, the 31st. Based
upon some comments that I've heard in the last short period
of time, we're probably going to need another budget
workshop after this one coming up Monday -- Wednesday. Our
health benefits consultant says he needs approximately one
and a half, maybe a bit longer -- one and a half hours or a
tad longer. My thinking was, on these items that we needed
to take formal action on, we've got the time to post. We
could post a short agenda for maybe 30 minutes ahead of that
time, and then have the workshop afterwards. Or in reverse,
depending on what the Court's pleasure is. But either way,
you know if we're going to have the workshop, we can tandem
it up with these items that are on a short fuse for us.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think I would rather
have maybe Monday dealing with this and the agenda items,
and then next Wednesday, do another budget workshop. Maybe
a half-day workshop.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Part of what we're
going to hear from the insurance consultant is going to
affect the budget more than likely, right?
JUDGE TINLEY: I -- I've got to assume it's
probably going to have -- he's going to have some
8 ~~-US
198
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
enlightening information in that respect.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Bet he does.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I mean,
we're -- I'm really -- I'd rather get those things out of
the way Monday afternoon. I mean, get the committee
appointed and any other agenda items, tidy up items, get
that done, and -- and then -- I mean, I see definitely one
more budget workshop, and I would -- you know, maybe two. I
mean, we haven't even -- we're going to spend this next
whole time, and I don't even know if we can get through all
that stuff with the -- when the agenda's posted for this
Wednesday's workshop. Then we have to talk about salaries,
cost-of-living, any merit increases, looking at personnel,
looking at -- we have -- after we get all the information
presented, we still have a lot of ciphering to do before
we're done with budget workshops, so I would say it's going
to take two more after Wednesday.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Ciphering?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Ciphering.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Count me in.
JUDGE TINLEY: What's your feeling as to the
few items that we need to consider, such as the appointment
of a committee and this thing that must be done by
September 1 on this new fee, about putting that in tandem
with a health benefits workshop with our consultant in the
a-zz os
199
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
afternoon?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sure, post that agenda at
1:30 and the workshop at 2:00, something like that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Monday?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, 29th.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 29th, yeah. Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And bear in mind that
after next Wednesday, dove season begins.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So we need to be careful
about any more scheduled workshops.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And where are you
going to be?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I will be here on
Thursday, but I will probably be going to Abilene on Friday.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Wait a minute. With
1:30 court and 2 o'clock insurance? Or budget?
JUDGE TINLEY: No, insurance. That's next
Monday, the 29th. And if we have a budget workshop, we may
be looking at the 31st.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Wednesday at what
time?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Don't you think we're
going to need a budget workshop? Why don't we just go ahead
8-22-OS
200
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and set it?
JUDGE TINLEY: 9 o'clock, I would imagine,
Wednesday, the 31st.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are we going to be here
all day?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I hope not.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do you want to set it at 4:30
in the hopes we can be through in 30 minutes?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd rather do 1:30,
personally, but 9 o'clock's fine. Either 9:00 or 1:30.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 9 o'clock.
JUDGE TINLEY: With regard to the agenda for
next Monday afternoon, we've identified two issues that we
know have to be there. If anybody's got any more that are
going to need to make this Monday meeting that have a short
fuse on them, the sooner we know about them, the better, so
we can get the agenda prepared and get it posted, okay?
Anything else, gentlemen? No other elected officials or
department heads want to issue any reports? Hearing nothing
more, we will stand adjourned.
(Commissioners Court adjourned at 2:53 p.m.)
8-22-05
201
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF KERR
The above and foregoing is a true and complete
transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as
County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County,
Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth.
DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 30th day of August,
2005.
JANNETT PIE PER, Kerr County Clerk
BY: ~- __ ~---- -
Kathy Ba 'k, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
e-zz-os
ORDER NO.29321
RECEIVE AND OPEN BIDS FOR LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE
SERVICE
Came to be heard this the 22nd day of August, 2005, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to:
Accept and refer the 2 long distance telephone service bids to the IT
Manager for review and recommendation to bring back to the Court.
ORDER NO.29322
CONSOLIDATION OF POLLING LOCATIONS
Came to be heazd this the 22nd day of August, 2005, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to:
Use the following Polling Locations for the November, 2005,
election:
Precinct 1 - #107, #113, #119
Precinct 2 - #202, #211, #215
Precinct 3 - #303, #314, #320
Precinct 4 - #404, #406, #417
.... Eazly Voting will be held in the Courthouse, Lower Level.
ORDER N0.29323
PURCHASE OF 480 HD ASPHALT ZIPPER
Came to be heard this the 22nd day of August, 2005, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to:
Issue a purchase order for a 480 HD Asphalt Zipper.
ORDER N0.29324
PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF MULTI-FUNCTION FAX
MACHINE AND FAX LINE
Came to be heard this the 22nd day of August, 2005, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to:
Purchase amulti-function fax machine and the installation of fax line
for Crime Victim Coordinator.
ORDER N0.29325
IMPLEMENT INCREASE IN ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION
FEE
Came to be heard this the 22nd day of August, 2005, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to:
Increase the Alternative Dispute Resolution Fee from $10 to $15, as
provided by HB 282.
ORDER NO.29326
SET NEW JUROR REIMBURSEMENT FOR JURY SERVICE
Came to be heard this the 22nd day of August, 2005, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to:
Set the juror service fees as follows:
$6 to report, even if not selected to serve on jury
$15 to report, and is selected to serve on jury
$40 for second and subsequent days if selected to serve on jury
ORDER NO.29327
TOM GREEN COUNTY CONTRACT FOR PLACEMENT OF
JUVENILES AT KCJF
Came to be heard this the 22nd day of August, 2005, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to:
Accept Contract from Tom Green County for placement of juveniles
at Kerr County Juvenile Facility.
ORDER NO.29328
RESCIND CONTRACT WITH EXCAVATION TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
Came to be heazd this the 22nd day of August, 2005, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to:
Rescind offer to contract with Excavation Technologies, Inc., for
debris cleanup of Flat Rock Lake, and request monies returned.
ORDER NO.29329
KERR COUNTY FACILITIES BOOKING & RENTAL POLICY
Came to be heard this the 22nd day of August, 2005, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to:
Approve the draft of the Booking and Rental Policies and incorporate
changes thereto. Make Revised Draft available to public at the
Commissioners' Court Office. Set Public Hearing for September 26 at
10:00 a.m.
ORDER N0.29330
APPROVAL OF EMS CONTRACT
Came to be heard this the 22nd day of August, 2005, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to:
Accept and approve the Contract as presented, subject to the review of
the County Attorney.
ORDER N0.29331
AUTHORIZE SHERIFF TO APPLY FOR GRANT FOR COURTHOUSE
SECURITY SYSTEM
Came to be heard this the 22nd day of August, 2005, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to:
Authorize Sheriff Hierholzer to apply for a grant for a courthouse
security system from a local foundation.
ORDER NO.29332
LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE SERVICE PROVIDER
Came to be heard this the 22nd day of August, 2005, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to:
Accept recommendation from IT Manager John Trolinger that we
contract with Fontera Telecommunications, Inc., and authorize Judge Tinley
to sign the Contract.
ORDER NO. 29333
CLAIMS AND ACCOUNTS
Came to be heard this the 22nd day of August, 2005, came to be considered
by the Court various Commissioners Precincts, which said Claims and
Accounts are:
Accounts Expense
10-General	$	102,874.40
15-Road & Bridge	$	22,714.27
20-Road Districts	$	8,012.52
21-Title IV-E (AACOG Grant)	$	2,658.82
31-Parks	$	1,322.00
50-Indigent Health Care	$	45,889.30
76-Juvenile Detention Facility	$	16,333.66
TOTAL CASH REQUIRED $ 199,804.97
Upon motion made by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner
Williams, the Court unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to pay the
claims and accounts.
ORDER N0.29334
BUDGET AMENDMENT
198' DISTRICT COURT
Came to be heard this the 22nd day of August, 2005, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to transfer the following expense
codes:
Expense Code Description
10-436-315 Books-Publications-Due
10-436-494 Special Court Reporters
10-436-417 Special Trials
Amendment
Increase/ODecrease
$225.00
$200.00
($425.00)
ORDER NO.29335
BUDGET AMENDMENT
216`t' DISTRICT COURT
Came to be heard this the 22nd day of August, 2005, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to transfer the following expense
codes:
Amendment
Expense Code Description Increase/QDecrease
10-435-402 Court Appointed Attorneys + $6,345.50
10-435-417 Special Trials - ($6,345.50)
ORDER N0.29336
BUDGET AMENDMENT
COUNTY ATTORNEY
Came to be heard this the 22nd day of August, 2005, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to transfer the following expense
codes:
Expense Code Description
Amendment
Increase/QDecrease
10-436-315 Books-Publications-Due
10-475-485 Conferences
10-475-403 Attorneys Fees
+ $1,500.00
+ $1,000.00
- ($2,500.00)
ORDER NO. 29337
BUDGET AMENDMENT
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT (General Revenues)
Came to be heard this the 22nd day of August, 2005, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to increase expenditure and revenue
budgets for funds received from TEEX Homeland Security and issue hand
check in the amount of $7,747.35 payable to Comtex Communications.
Expense Code Description
10-560-491 Homeland Security Expense
10-370-640 TEEX Homeland Security
Amendment
Increase/QDecrease
+ $7,747.35
+ $7,747.35
Expenses and Revenues for Domestic Preparedness Program (Homeland
Security)
ORDER NO. 29338
BUDGET AMENDMENT
INDIGENT HEALTH CARE
Came to be heard this the 22nd day of August, 2005, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 declare an Emergency and move
fixnds from Fund #50 Surplus Reserves to the following:
Amendment
Expense Code Description Increase/QDecrease
50-641-200 Eligible Expenses + $43,913.21
50-641-486 Third Party Administrator + $1,976.09
ORDER NO.29339
BUDGET AMENDMENT
ROAD & BRIDGE
Came to be heard this the 22nd day of August, 2005, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to increase the budget from the
balance of ORCA proceeds for General Administration (Funds received
09/07/04):
Amendment
Expense Code Description Increase/QDecrease
15-611-663 O.C. R.A. Expense + $445.27
ORDER NO.29340
BUDGET AMENDMENT
DISTRICT CLERK
Came to be heard this the 22nd day of August, 2005, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to transfer the following expense
codes:
Amendment
Expense Code Description Increase/QDecrease
10-450-412 Microfilm Expense + $400.66
10-450-108 Part-time Salary - ($400.66)
ORDER NO.29341
LATE BILL
COUNTY AUDITOR
Came to be heard this the 22nd day of August, 2005, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 issue a hand check in the amount of
$12,246.00 to The Software Group, Inc. for JP #4's software license and the
on-site training to upgrade his system.
ORDER NO. 29342
LATE BILL
COUNTY ATTORNEY
Came to be heard this the 22nd day of August, 2005, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to issue a hand check in the amount
of $25.00 to Mason District/County Clerk for recording fees.
ORDER NO.29343
LATE BILL
COUNTY AUDITOR
Came to be heard this the 22nd day of August, 2005, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to issue a hand check in the amount
of $7,422.48 to Ford Motor Credit Company for Lease Payment #2 on the
2005 Ford F250 Pickup.
ORDER NO. 29344
MONTHLY REPORTS
Came to be heard this the 22nd day of August, 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:
J.P. #1
J.P. #2
J.P. #4
District Clerk
County Attorney