1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT
Budget Workshop
Friday, August 25, 2006
1:30 p.m.
Commissioners' Courtroom
Kerr County Courthouse
Kerrville, Texas
PRESENT: PAT TINLEY, Kerr County Judge
H. A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1
DAVE NICHOLSON, Commissioner Pct. 4
ABSENT: WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2
JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3
3
v
O
d0
O
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 25, 2006
--- Workshop to consider and review FY 2006-07 budget,
budget priorities and policies; review of department
budgets, consideration of matters having budgetary
impact and other matters relating to FY 2006-2007
budget
--- Adjourned
PAGE
3
22
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
On Friday, August 25, 2006, at 1:30 p.m., a budget
workshop 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: Okay, let me call to order the Kerr
County Commissioners Court budget workshop scheduled for this
date and time, Friday, August 25, 2006, at 1:30 p.m. It is
that time now. The item on the agenda is a workshop to
consider and review FY 2006-07 budgets, budget priorities and
policies, review of department budgets, consideration of
matters having budgetary impact, and other matters related to
FY 2006-2007 budget. Anything that costs money, I think we've
got included here.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That sounds like it.
JUDGE TINLEY: After we had our -- our meeting
Monday a week ago, I prepared a status report of where we were
with the budget and my work with the Auditor, and provided
each one of y'all with a copy of that. You got yours, Buster?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, we need that?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've got mine, thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: The first thing that I needed to know
was, is there anything on that report -- and I furnished a
8-25-06 wk
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
copy to the Auditor to make sure that was factually correct
based upon the discussions he and I had had. Is there
anything there that you got any question about, need
explanation on, or -- we can address those issues first, I
suppose.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I do have an
announcement to make on the City/County operations.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The fire contract, the City
has agreed to leave it at the 125.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Well, that's what we've
~ budgeted.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: In the current run.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. The other thing I may want you
to take a look at, Commissioner Baldwin, would be the Health
and Emergency Services. That's on Page --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- 6 of that summary. They show a
total figure of 260, y'all recall, and what they presented and
indicated in our meeting was that it included everything.
When I totaled what we've got plugged in, and I think is
included in what they think is 260, I only get just under 244.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. Well, I haven't done
8-25-06 wk
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
your math, but let's see. Responder expenses. Is that --
does that include -- let's see. That's for supplies only?
JUDGE TINLEY: That's my understanding. They had
furnished us with a -- with a sheet, and it was up
considerably from 4,000 to 5,000 up to 10,000, as I recall.
I've got it here somewhere.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I hear as much from
people talking about First Responders as I do anything, and
that's true of -- we need to make sure we provide them with
equipment and tools to save people's lives. So --
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, they do a good job.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I didn't even blink when it
~ went up a little bit.
JUDGE TINLEY: No, that's a good investment.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But that does not include --
does the 10,400, does that include the First Responder
Coordinator's salary? That's built into some other --
JUDGE TINLEY: That may be where -- where the number
is off between what I'm showing you as 244 and their -- and
the City says is 260 for turnkey for all the emergency health
services.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I remember there was a --
there was some salary for him in there somewhere, and the
Medical Director. There was some salary in there. But it
seemed like to me that was lumped into -- well, you remember,
8-25-06 wk
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
you know, first -- I think that's two separate deals. The
only thing that we're completely responsible for is the -- is
the equipment, you know, the bandaids and whatever all that
stuff is.
JUDGE TINLEY: Supplies.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Supplies. And then the
salary issues I'm talking about is lumped into some other
area.
JUDGE TINLEY: I made some notes when we were having
our discussion about that 260 figure, when I made inquiry of
the Fire Chief. It says, "Includes First Responder program
and Medical Director and EMS rent."
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what you had written
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. But I don't have anything
for --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's see.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- the coordinator.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. I think his salary's
folded into that. It's like we send -- we send a certain
amount over to the City. That doesn't mean that they
automatically route to it his salary. We just send it to
them, and then they figure out -- but it's just our -- our
part of it. I don't know how to make that any clearer. I
think it's lumped in there. I think his salary is, because I
8-25-06 wk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
7
that already.
JUDGE TINLEY: The First Responder budget that I
have now got my hands on has the 10,397 plus. Does not
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's right, yeah. That's
-- that's what I'm saying.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This is the County's part, a
separate budget item. And then we send money to the City to
pay part of this guy's salary.
~ JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And it's rolled into the big
EMS contract. And I see you have Medical Director broken out
I here.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
another budget, I think.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:
JUDGE TINLEY: But it
line is, I don't have a firm ha
between 244 and 260. We've got
I picked that up out of
Mm-hmm.
was a separate entry. Bottom
ndle on what the difference is
$16,000 difference there that
I don't -- I don't have a handle on.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, if we want to take a
8-25-06 wk
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: I don't think we want to do that.
Have we got any other questions about that analysis?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. I want to talk a
little more about EMS.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You may have noticed that
I've got an agenda item on Monday's meeting where we propose
increasing the EMS fees -- rates.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And I've given you a copy
of a survey that shows the rates of five close-by EMS
services, and what it shows is that we charge a little more
than half as much as the others in our neighborhood, which for
base rates, we charge 427, and Kendall charges 787. For
A.L.S., we charge 525, and Kendall charges 900. Community EMS
charges 1,050. We're just -- we're pricing ourselves way, way
under what the market -- market is for that. And they're
asking us to share, what, 400 and -- our half of a $433,000
deficit. So, I'm going to propose that we increase the rates,.
at least of the users that are outside the city limits in Kerr
County, to match the Kendall County rates, and propose that we
recommend to the City that they do likewise. I don't have
enough data, can't get enough data to know if that'll
8-25-06 wk
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
eliminate the shortfall, but it'll come real close to it if it
doesn't. What I don't know enough about is how much of a lag
there is between the time you bill for the service and the
time you put the money in the bank. So, I'm guessing it
would -- it would probably eliminate ten-twelfths of the
shortfall in the first year. At the end of the first year, if
it hasn't eliminated the shortfall, then we ought to raise the
rates again.
JUDGE TINLEY: Y'all recall when we had our joint
meeting, the EMS people acknowledged that their actual cost of
service was -- I don't have the specific figure, but they were
billing for the base cost 331, I believe it was, and -- and
they estimated their actual costs at over 500. Five to 550.
And it's beyond me why you would even bill at anything less
than base cost to a user.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Judge, all four of these
other suppliers -- small county suppliers are charging more
than 550, so I know Bandera is recovering their costs. And I.
don't know, but I'm guessing, that the other ones are
recovering them.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's going to make a great
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And it's a lot of money,
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure.
8-25-06 wk
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other items on that budget status
analysis?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think we mean the same
'~, thing on the first page, personnel generally.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It says eliminates 12 and
13. Actually, it moves up to -- 12's up to --
JUDGE TINLEY: Up to 13, and 13 to 14.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah, we're both saying the
same thing.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. Now, to give you an idea
of -- of where we are currently, since this was prepared, the
Auditor has done another run in which there were certain
modifications made, and we added to that, and I gave each of
you a copy in your box. Two items. One is the -- we did an
estimated Human Resource budget, which came out at something
just under 125. And then we did the budget summary sheet,
which brings us to -- this is as of yesterday. I gave you a
copy of that. I have calculated that end reserve, based on
those numbers, at 24.5 percent. And if you'll recall, this
time last year, we were looking at something under 20.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: It was, like, 19.4 or 19.6.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, with those figures as they stand,
8-25-06 wk
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
factor, the new retirement factor. Some of the figures that .
were in the old run-ups were -- were different from that, so
we've plugged it in at 8.12. What is not included is options.
that we might select that we're going to be considering on
Monday. The -- the partial lump sum distribution figure I
have calculated, and I'll be happy to give it to you, if you'd
like. My calculation for that figure is that's going to cost
$20,300, roughly. The reducing the total years of service
retirement from 30 to 20 is going to cost 11,375. I do not
have calculations for the buy-back provision. If you'll
recall, they said they were going to have to do some
particularized calculations.
I talked with them earlier today. They're going to
make an effort to try and give me at least a range of
percentage so that, for planning purposes, we'll have that
available to us. Their understanding was that we wanted it
not later than September 15. Actually, what they're shooting
for is next Friday, so -- to have it to us. The other thing
is the -- the COLA. There's a COLA plug-in for the retirees,
and they're in the process of e-mailing me those costs.
They've already been sent, but we haven't gotten them yet.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Will that be a large number?
8-25-06 wk
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
JUDGE TINLEY: No, I don't think so. Because, for
example, the -- the partial lump sum distribution costs is
20,300. (Ms. Mitchell delivered a message to Judge Tinley.)
I may have something here. The folks that do the buy-back are
reluctant to give me a "ballpark" figure because of a lot of
different variables that go into it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me get those other
numbers from you. You have the partial lump sum at 20,300,
and there was another --
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, that's the years of service,
reducing it from 30 to 20. That's 11,375, is what I've
calculated. Those numbers are not included in this latest
run-up.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Do you want to talk today
about the merits of that proposal, or do you want to save that
till Monday?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, it's an agenda item; I suppose
it has budgetary impact. We can talk about it. We can't make
any decisions on it, of course, but we can certainly talk
about it, 'cause it's got budgetary impact.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, I'll just go ahead
and offer my opinion.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
8-25-06 wk
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think if we studied in
money on that are more important, including base salaries.
And the other thing is, I think it's going in the wrong
direction. Those changes would encourage people to leave
early -- leave their employment early, and benefits should be
designed to keep people on the payroll -- experienced,
talented, knowledgeable people -- for as long as we can.
JUDGE TINLEY: Are you talking about the 30 to 20
reduction?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. So I'm not going to.
be in favor of spending money to make those benefit changes.
If there's something else that's important in the employee
compensation benefit package, I'd sure be willing to listen to
that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I'm in agreement with
you. I'm a little bit -- I can't make a -- I'm having a hard
time making a decision on the partial lump sum issue. Seems
to me -- I didn't realize it was going to cost so much money,
but seems to me that folks -- you know, it's their money
sitting there, and they should be able to go with it. But why
is it -- why does it cost the taxpayers?
JUDGE TINLEY: I think the reason, Commissioner, why
8-25-06 wk
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
it -- why it ends up costing is because there are some
instances in which some of the employees' contributions, under
certain actuarial circumstances, end up -- some of their money
ends up being left in the pool, and so it's -- it can then be
spread among the other pool participants. But if they take
out what was theirs that they put in, just that portion that's
theirs, the possibility that -- that some excess money will go
into the pool because of early deaths, early circumstances,
survivor annuitants, early demise, stuff like that, it
doesn't -- it doesn't remain in the pool. That's my
understanding for the reason for that cost. But what I have a
hard time coming to grips with is, it's their money. It's
money they put in there.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: And to tell them they can't take it
out is -- I have some problem with that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I do too. Actually, I
think it's a foolish thing to take that money out, 'cause
you're penalized so heavily with taxes. But --
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I think there's a way they can
roll it over if they're very careful about it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Still their -- still their
money.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, is that 20,300 -- is
8-25-06 wk
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
it's based upon next year's payroll.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd probably like to see what
the buy-back numbers are going to be before we get -- will we
know that by Monday?
JUDGE TINLEY: No, we will not know by Monday. We
may know it by next Friday, but the only numbers I can give
you now are on the partial lump sum and the decreased years of
service from 30 to 20.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I can tell you right now, I
don't like the decrease in years.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Anything else?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: On the 198th -- I don't
know if we're going there or not. 198th, 216th -- no, it
doesn't go in there. There's nothing in here that addresses
combining the Chief Juvenile Probation Officer's job with the
Juvenile Detention Facility Director's job.
JUDGE TINLEY: No.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's still on the table.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He's a bulldog. Not going to
8-25-06 wk
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
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. There's -- Tommy, did I hit
all of the additions that we made from this status report up
MR. TOMLINSON: I think so.
JUDGE TINLEY: As recently as this morning, I had a
discussion with Tommy, and he said he thinks, for all
practical intents and purposes, we're basically there. We've
got these few little wrinkles, I think, in the retirement
system issues. I wanted to -- to have a workshop today,
because in order to start the meter running for the
advertisements for proposed tax rate and those sorts of
things, we've got to establish a proposed tax rate, and that
is on the agenda for Monday. And so I -- I figured you
gentlemen would need this information as a springboard to
being able to do that proposed tax rate.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, we need to look at -- we
need to look at how much money we got coming in. We need to
look at our wish list. And if our reserves have gone to
24 percent, what -- where's -- what's our safe number? 20?
MR. TOMLINSON: That's as good a number as 24.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 24 is a good number?
MR. TOMLINSON: I'm okay with that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So we're not going to tinker
with that. All right. So, how much do -- do we want, and how
8-25-06 wk
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
much do we have? That's the only thing I need to know.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Do we have a good feel now
for where we stand? We've got some $923,000 extra revenue due
to appreciation on property prices. Do we have a feel for how
many dollars we attach to our wish list?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, those dollars are -- are
plugged in at the current tax rate, based on certified values.
And with those plugged in, and what we've got on this status
analysis, leaving out only the retirement options that we're
looking at, we are at the 24.5 percent reserves. That's
current, at the current tax rate.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Does that mean we're not
spending -- increasing spending by more than 923,000?
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm going to let the Auditor take a
shot at that one.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Are we looking at the same
thing, Judge?
MR. TOMLINSON: I don't know that.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's not what you had.
JUDGE TINLEY: No.
MR. TOMLINSON: Not off-the-cuff.
JUDGE TINLEY: No, it should say at the top of it,
"As of 8-24."
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE TINLEY: I thought I put one in your box. I'm
8-25-06 wk
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
sorry if you didn't get	it.		
COMMISSIONER	NICHOLSON:	Probably did.	
COMMISSIONER	BALDWIN:	How much revenue do we have?
JUDGE TINLEY:	General	fund?	
COMMISSIONER	BALDWIN:	Yes, sir.	
JUDGE TINLEY:	Looks li	ke 12,885 roughly.	
COMMISSIONER	BALDWIN:	Are the expenditures	-- the
budget wish list there	somewhere?		
JUDGE TINLEY:	Are the	expenditures itemized	here
greater than that? Yea	h. 13,561	-- 562.	
COMMISSIONER	NICHOLSON:	Okay. Give me thos	e two
numbers again, please,	Judge. Expenditures, I've got	13,561.
JUDGE TINLEY:	What's t	he number I just gave	you?
COMMISSIONER	BALDWIN:	13,562, and then the	revenue
is 12,885.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Zero that one out.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So that's 600.
JUDGE TINLEY: 670.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 600-some thousand dollar
deficit spending.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Million here, a million
there; pretty soon it runs into real money.
JUDGE TINLEY: The good news is that the reserve --
the reserve percentage is coming up with that. Part of that
8-25-06 wk
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
is because the ending balances going into this fiscal year are
higher than what they were originally pegged to be. Revenues
were probably higher. The Auditor is very conservative when
he plugs in revenues, but he tries to be very realistic when
he talks about expenditures.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's true.
JUDGE TINLEY: What else? Have you got what you
need in order to think about what you want to propose on the
tax rate come Monday? Or got the information where you can
get there?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know. $600,000
deficit.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 677 is what I calculate.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Probably needs to be some
kind of exercise to reduce the -- reduce that number. And, to
me, there's two ways to do it, and that's go back and cut
things, or raise taxes. And the second one is not a very good
option.
JUDGE TINLEY: I would agree.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, I know that deficit
spending is kind of a popular thing, but it's still not, in my
opinion, a good way to do business with other people's money.
So, to answer your question, I don't think that I could,
Monday, adopt a tax rate.
JUDGE TINLEY: We wouldn't be adopting one.
8-25-06 wk
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Setting one.
JUDGE TINLEY: I get in trouble every time I use the
term "adopt" with the Tax Assessor there.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I know. I know. Setting
one. "Set" is the correct word?
MS. RECTOR: Discuss the proposed rate, which is
pretty much the rate that you're counting on adopting.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. .
MS. RECTOR: That has to be done by Monday in order
to keep the calendar straight to adopt the rate by the 20th of
September.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, do we know right now if
we -- we're willing to assume the $677 deficit, how much of a
tax increase that would be?
JUDGE TINLEY: To cover that?
MR. TOMLINSON: I --
JUDGE TINLEY: If you wanted it -- if you wanted
the -- if you wanted the thing to balance, it would probably
be 2.6, thereabouts.
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I don't -- I don't think -- I
don't think it's a good decision to make to levy a tax to
maintain a fund balance over what we -- what our policy is.
And so I think, as long as, in my mind, the -- the adequate
fund balances is what we're -- the direction we need to be.
So, whether or not we use a new tax rate to get there or lower
8-25-06 wk
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
expenditures to get there or use our fund balance to get
there, as long as we're -- we get to a point that we're going
to be, I think it's okay. So, I think to use -- to use the
fund balance is -- is, I think, the fiscal thing to do.
Because if you -- if you raise -- if you tax enough to
maintain the same fund balance, then all you're doing is -- is
levying a tax to do that, and I don't think that's what you
want to do. I mean, I think you'd really get beaten up for
that.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So -- I only do this once a
year, so I forget get from year to year what I learned last
year. So we can spend the $677,000 and not raise the tax
rate, and still have a fund balance that's satisfactory?
MR. TOMLINSON: That's exactly right. I -- I've
heard some criticism, actually, from -- actually from City
people that -- that have a problem with us keeping that large
a fund balance.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah.
MR. TOMLINSON: And they -- they don't live in the
same world that we do, but -- so I think that we have reason
to -- I mean, good justification --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Sure.
MR. TOMLINSON: -- to keep our fund balance there.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We just don't need to take
any money away from taxpayers and put it in our bank account
8-25-06 wk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
8-25-06 wk
22
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
STATE OF TEXAS I
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 4th day of
October, 2006.
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
BY: __ ___ _ ---
Kathy nik, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
8-25-06 wk