,...- ~
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
s
9
10
11
1Z
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT
Special Session
Monday, March 27, 2006
9:00 a.m.
Commissioners' Courtroom
Kerr County Courthouse
Kerrville, Texas
M
PRESENT: PAT TiNLEY, Kerr County Judge
H A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1
WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2
JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3
DAVE NICHOLSON, Commissioner Pct. 4

1
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
March 27, 2006
PAGE
--- Visitors' Comments 5
--- Commissioners' Comments 6
Consider, discuss and proclaim April 2006
Child Abuse Prevention Month 15
1.2 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
implementing the Burn Ban 16
1.9 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action regarding
updating telephone system and renewing contract for
5 years with Kerrville Telephone Business Systems 17
1.3 Consider/approve bylaws of Advisory Board of the
Butt-Holdsworth Memorial Library, consider and take
action on recommendation by Board that 2005-2006
agreement between County and City be amended 36
1.5 Consider/discuss concept plan for subdivision of
property owned by Julie Mosty & Bo Leonard, off Elm
Pass Road, Precinct 2 48
1.6 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to extend
preliminary plat of property owned by Center Point
Independent School District 59
1.7 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
agreement between Texas Water Development Board
and Y:err County for grant funding for preliminary
planning & engineering for Center Point Wastewater
Collection System 61
1.8 Consider/discuss, authorize Commissioners Letz and
Williams to pursue grant availability for the Hill
Country Youth Exhibit Center 65
1.9 Consider/discuss appointment to fill county
representative vacancy on Airport Board 67
1.11 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for
preliminary revision of plat for Lot 7 & Privilege
Creek Road right-of-way, Privilege Creek Ranches,
set public hearing for same 73
1.10 Open Annual Bids for road materials; consider,
discuss and take appropriate action to award same 85
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
I N D E X
March 27, 2006
PAGE
1.12	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to accept	
	lease agreement for two Caterpillar backhoes, have	
	Judge sign same	87
1.13	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on Kerr	
	County Subdivision Rules and Regulations	90
1.14	Consider/discuss take appropriate action on Kerr	
	County Water Availability Requirements	132
1.15	Mid-Year review of Kerr County FY 05-06 Budget and	
	review/consider elected official/department surveys	137
1.16	EMS Ad-Hoc Committee final report	171
1.17	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on	
	personnel matter (Executive Session)	220
1.18	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on	
	personnel matter at Kerr County Juvenile Detention	
	Facility (Executive Session)	---
4.1	Pay Bills	220
4.2	Budget Amendments	229
4.3	Late Bills	---
4.4	Approve and Accept Monthly Reports	237
5.1	Reports from Commissioners/Liaison Committee	
	Assignments	238
---	Adjourned	240
	1
..~	2
	3
	4
	5
	6
	7
	8
	9
	10
	11
	12
~-- 13
14
15
16
17
1S
19
20
21
22
23
"` 29
25
4
On Monday, March 27, 2006, at 9:00 a.m., a special
meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in the
Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, Kerrville,
Texas, and the following proceedings were had in open court:
P R O C E E D I N G S
DODGE TINLEY: Let me call to order this meeting of
the Kerr County Commissioners Court regularly scheduled for
this date and time, Monday, March 27th, 2006, at 9 a.m. It's
that time now. Commissioner Nicholson?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Will you please stand and
join me in prayer and the pledge to the flag.
(Prayer and pledge of allegiance.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. At this time, if there's
any member of the public or audience that wishes to be heard
on a matter that is not listed on the agenda, please feel free
to come forward at this time and tell us what's on your mind.
If you desire to be heard on an agenda item, we would ask that
you fill out a participation form. They should be located at
the back of the room. If you don't see them back there, why,
give us a high sign and we'll try and get some to you. It's
note essential that you do that. It helps me not miss you
when we get to that item. If you wish to be heard on an item
and you don't have a participation form that's filled out, get
my attention some way, shape, form, or fashion when that item
is called, and we'll see that you get your input. But right
s ~ i a h
5
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
now, if there's anyone that wishes to be heard on an item that
and tell us what's on your mind. Yes, sir? If you'd give
your name and address to the reporter, please.
MR. PALMER: Yes. I'm Robert Palmer; I live at 410
Josephine in Kerrville, and I'm here as a private citizen
today, even though I have some other interests that involve
the -- the parks in the county. But I've lived here for 15
years, and -- and in the last three or four months, I've --
I've discovered a park that was -- Flat Rock -- I call it Flat
Rock Park; everybody I know does, but I found out that it's
Flat Rock Lake Park. So, what I am here asking is that it be
put on the agenda and the Commissioners consider putting
actually a park sign designating that as Flat Rock Lake Park.
It's -- I think it's one of the most beautiful parks in
Kerrville and in Kerr County, and people have talked to me and
said, when they've discovered the park, that they didn't know
it was there or they didn't know that was Flat Rock Lake Park
or Flat Rock Park. So, that is what -- some of you already
know my interest in dogs, and we've been allowed -- or given
the privilege of walking our dogs there leash-free, and so we
are helping take care of that park and making sure that
everything goes all right with that. So, that is my request,
that the Commissioners put on the agenda that we actually put
up a nice park sign there signifying Flat Rock Lake Park.
3-27 06
6
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
?~
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. We appreciate you
being here. Is there any other member of the public or the
audience that wishes to be heard on any matter which is not a
listed agenda item? If so, please come forward. Seeing no
one else coming forward, Commissioner Nicholson, what do you
have for us this morning?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm praying for rain, and
hope I can believe the forecast that we are going to get some.
We can -- so we can lift the burn ban. I started to say we've
been really lucky about not having any real serious fires.
And part of it probably is luck, but I think maybe it -- also
what's happening is that residents of the county are being
extraordinarily careful and using good judgment, and not --
not doing any illegal burning or taking any -- any risks that
they shouldn't. So, that -- if that's what's happening,
that's good. That's working. Our deputy constable in
Precinct 4, T.D. Hall, is ill. He's getting some medical
attention, and some of it's being done here and some of it in
San Antonio, so we need to keep T.D. in our prayers. He's, as
you know, a fixture here in Kerr County. That's all I have.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Commissioner
Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. Just wanted to
carry on about the fire issue. A couple of you members of
-z~-ue
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
this Court were out in Wichita Falls with me the other day;
county, and his descriptions of towns and people and animals
and how the fire jumped the road and trapped firefighters and
all those ugly, ugly things. It just makes me want to say
please don't burn anything. You know, just be absolutely
careful out there. If something like that was to happen in
this	county,	it would	be --	there is	no way	you	could	catch
some	of these	with all	the	-- catch a	fire	like	that	in these
canyons, and it was just absolutely devastating out there.
I notice we have the light -- the light is amongst
us. For the audience's information, this lamp was taken out
of, I think, the 1927 Kerr County Courthouse, and a lady, the
wife of a former Commissioner of many years ago, had kept it
in her garage, and she gave it to us a couple of months ago,
and the Maintenance Department has restored it. And -- and I
don't know if we're going to leave that hole up there or not.
It wouldn't surprise me if we didn't. But I think it's -- I
think it's a very nice fixture, and she's having a small
plaque put on the wall, and that lamp is in memory of all
former elected officials in Kerr County. That's all I had to
say.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Commissioner
3-_~ n6
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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: First, I want to extend our
congratulations to my colleague, Commissioner Baldwin, on his
ascension to the throne of the West Texas Commissioners and
Judges Association. Buster holds a unique distin~~tion of
being the only member of this Court that has ever been the
president of the South Texas Association and now the West
Texas Association, and with any kind of luck, we can move to
north and east Texas, and you can rise to the top of that heap
as well.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's go get them.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: After a year.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Secondly, I want to offer
congratulations to three individuals who I understand have
been appointed to the Upper Guadalupe River Authority. Carol
Schreiner, Lana Edwards, and Mr. Mike McKenzie. I understand
all three have been appointed to the U.G.R.A. Board of
Directors, and they -- a Board of Directors orientation
session will be underway sometime today. And, lastly, when
last we left it, we had the Sheriff riding in a 1922 T-model
paddy wagon in the parade.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: With all the commissioners in
black and white stripes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: With somebody in the back in
black and white suits, but not necessarily Commissioners. And
a-z~-nF
9
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
we have had others of us undetermined, because the Judge said
he knew some other different things he wanted to talk about,
and I hope he's going to talk about them this morning. We've
got to firm this up pretty quick. I'm passing it to you.
That's a nice segue for you, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me respond to that first. I
talked with an individual that -- that is involved with a
local antique and classic car organization, and he was to get
back with me the tail end of last week. He got back with me
briefly and left a message. I was unable to talk to him, but
he did leave a message that he had polled informally some of
the members of that group, and there were a number of them
that had graciously consented to allow the use of their -- of
their antique automobiles. Some of them were open roadsters,
some of them were touring cars, but my indication to him was
that if we're going to go in individual cars, that -- that we
were going to need at least five, and he said that he didn't
perceive that as being a problem, based on his informal poll.
Because of his wife's health, he was not able to spend a lot
of time on it, but that was his initial report to me. I
intend to follow up with him later on today, time permitting,
but I don't see that as a problem. And -- and the -- of
course, the drivers of those vehicles will be the owners, as
it should be, I think. And -- but that's kind of the
direction I was going, and that's where I am on it. With
=~-n~
10
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
regard to the hole in the ceiling, that just got hung there
Friday, I think, so I think it's in the cards to go ahead and
fill that hole.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, wow.
JUDGE TINLEY: And the plaque is in process, I am
told. And it was necessary to find some screws there to hold
that globe on because of the erosion that had occurred to that
brass piece at the top of -- just at the top of the globe, and
they finally found that and got it filled. I, too, would like
to extend any congratulations to Commissioner Baldwin on his
active status and presidency of the West Texas County Judge
and Commissioners Association, and I am -- I'm convinced that,
at least in part, that was responsible for us being able to
secure the convention here in Kerrville this next year. So,
we will have that whole association down here. The
individuals I talked to up in -- up at the convention in
Wichita Falls seemed to be thoroughly elated that they would
be coming to Kerrville. I think something had -- some of it
had to do with the weather that we encountered up there. It
was a little chilly and a little windy, and they thought
Kerrville would be much -- much warmer and more pleasant, and
I assured them that it probably would be. So, we look forward
to them coming down here. I -- I suggested to them to bring
their wives and bring their wallets.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, especially their
s-?~_~~;
11
1 wallets.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
~1
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. And they said if they brought
their wives, they'd bring their wallets, is what most of them
told me. I'd also like to point out, I'm sure you remember
the blood drive that we had here on the courthouse square in
order to provide assistance to one of our employees' spouses
out at Road and Bridge who was having some medical
difficulties and was going to be in need of -- of some blood.
And we -- according to the note, we had 31 units that were
banked for Ms. Guerrin, and I think that's a -- a job well
done to the employees here in Kerr County for stepping up to
do that. The folks with the blood bank told me that they
would consider it a success had they gotten 10 units, and
my -- my suggestion to them was that I thought we were capable
of much more than that, and sure enough, we more than tripled
that. So, we have a nice note from Ms. Guerrin, and I'll pass
that around, and we appreciate the opportunity to be helpful
to her. That's all I've got.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, can we go back to the
sesquicentennial for just a second?
JUDGE TINLEY: Sure.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Ms. Steele at the bank at
this point is of the understanding that Kerr County's going to
have two units in, and when we last left it with the Court as
a whole, we talked about having a unit that would have
3->~-Oh
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
L 2
23
24
25
everybody on it. Now, I'm not making a case for that, but
that's where the plan lays. And I've spoken with Glenn
Holekamp, and he and his staff were talking about renting a
trailer. It came to my attention Saturday, during the
Republican County Convention, that through Marvin Neunhoffer,
that there is also available a 1922 Ford truck, flatbed
truck -- old flatbed truck that he was pretty sure could be
made available if we were of a mind to want to use it and be
-- as a court, or many of us as a court being on it together.
So, the only point I'm making is, we've got to get it together
here pretty quick, because the parade people at this point
only know of two units. If we're talkinq about six or seven,
they need to know that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The more I listen, the more
comments I have. I'll start off with congratulations to
Commissioner Baldwin for becoming president of the -- of our
association, and I hope I don't have to go to Wichita Falls
ever again.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Me too.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But it was a good convention.
The -- on the --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: First place is a week in
Wichita Falls, and second place is two weeks.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Buster won second prize.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Related to the -- the parade,
3-'~-U c'
13
1
2
3
4
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2 2
23
24
25
you know, I just think it would be nice if we were as a body
in the parade. I really don't care how we do that, but I -- I
just think that's the preference, in my opinion. That's just
my personal vote, to be -- I don't care if it's a flatbed
trailer or the back of an old truck or what, but I just think
it's -- we're a court as a whole, and I think it would be nice
for us to be as a unit. But that's just my personal view on
that. And I think we need to figure this out pretty quick.
In the -- I think most of y'all are aware that Comfort had a
huge loss about almost two weeks ago, the Ingenhuett Store,
which was founded by my great, great-grandfather, which it was
the longest operating single-family general store in the state
of Texas. It burned literally to the ground, very sad event.
I have not talked with the Kauter family, which operates the
store presently, recently, but I think they were going to try
to rebuild, and I hope they are able to accomplish that.
Burn ban. I will say that the -- the presentation
and in talking to some of the other judges and commissioners
at Wichita Falls gets your attention about the devastation of
fires. I think we need to be -- you know, need to be careful.
I have, however, lifted my burn ban indefinitely. I think
that the amount of green grass growing, even with the -- in
the eastern part of the county; I'm not sure -- we've had
pretty much close to 2 inches last week in most of the eastern
part of the county. I think that -- and my logic is that I
s-av-oe
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
14
would rather that people will hopefully use a little common
sense and burn on days where there's not wind. I know last
Monday, immediately after we lifted it, everyone was going to
burn. I was afraid they were burning in 20-, 30 mile-an-hour
winds, which is also against state law. The fact that the
burn ban is -- is off in my precinct, anyway, it does not
alleviate people from following state law, and there are very
specific conditions where you have to burn, and if not, you
are liable for those fires. So, I -- you know, it is lifted
in my precinct, and will be indefinitely.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Precinct 2 as well.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But it is -- people still need
to pay attention, look at the weather forecast and follow the
law. That's all I have.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Judge, on the parade, that
-- a couple of my parishioners have offered me a ride and a
driver. One of them was a new convertible, and the other one
was a 1917 antique car, and I have acceptad the offer of the
1917 car and driver for my use in the parade. So, we --
that's my input. We can -- I can change that. We can work it
out, whatever best suits the Court.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think Commissioner Williams and I
will qet high and behind and get that solidified in the next ~
few days as to what we're going to do.
3 z~-ua
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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We need to do that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On that comment, if we're going
to individual cars, I'd like to know as soon as possible,
'cause I don't have an individual car and, you know, I'd like
to have some input into that process.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. But I get first
choice, 'cause I'm number one.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I still think the black and
white stripes would solve that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, no, no. I will not ride
with the Sheriff.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In the back.
JUDGE TINLEY: Objection is noted. Let's get on
with the business at hand. The first item on the agenda is to
consider, discuss, and proclaim April 2006 Child Abuse
Prevention Month. Commissioner Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. This is an annual
event. As you know, child abuse is one of the large, ugly
issues that is dealt with in our community, and this
particular group that heads this up at Child Welfare Board,
group of volunteers that put their effort and money into it,
and to keep it going and trying to make everybody aware of --
of the program itself. So, you see on the second page,
there's a proclamation from the Commissioners Court declaring
z~-r~o
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
that April 2006 is Child Prevention -- Abuse Prevention Month.
And I think, also, that -- although they didn't tell me, but I
think that they would like to put the yellow ribbons around
the trees out on the front lawn, so with your permission, I
will tell them that they can do that. But at this moment, I'd
like to move that we approve April 2006 as Child Abuse
Prevention Month in Kerr County.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of the agenda item and the resolution. Any question or
discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. The next item
on the agenda is to consider, discuss, and take appropriate
action on implementing the burn ban.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. As you know, every
90 days, in order for us to individually lift or put in place
the burn ban, the County as a whole needs to pass this order,
so I move that we do so.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of the agenda item and implementation of the order restricting
3 _,-~,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
17
outdoor burning as presented. Any question or discussion?
All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right
hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Let's move
to Item 4, if we might. Consider, discuss, and take
appropriate action regarding updating the telephone system and
renewing contract for five years with Kerrville Telephone
Business Systems. Mr. Sheriff? ~
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, it's time to renew our
contract. I think the old one expires next month, and the
problems that we're having, such as with the narcotics unit
coming in and that, we have no capability of adding more
phones to our system, plus we're at the point of having to
seriously look at expanding incoming phone lines. There's
nothing worse in the world than to call the Sheriff's Office
and get a busy signal, and unfortunately, we're at that. And
that same thing we went through when we upgraded this one;
we're at that point again where we'll have to be able to add.
And with the system we have, they cannot add to it without
changing out all the equipment there to let that expand. So,
with this new contract, it ups the monthly payments by, oh,
S20 or $30 a month, and it does -- it's the lease deal where
3-z~-oe
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
18
we replace any equipment that breaks and anything. You have a
contract in front of you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sheriff, are we re-leasing,
just upgrading equipment, or replacing a set number of
commercial lines, or do you have a toll-free number?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't have a toll-free
number.
I COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Have you investigated the
I cost of a toll-free number, as opposed to what you're paying
for commercial lines per-line?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I have not.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do you think maybe that --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Not the toll-free, because the
toll-free is one line, one line coming in.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, it can be more than one
line. It can be one number with a lot of lines.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We have 12 right now, and it's
all in a rotating system to where if you call 896-1133, it
will actually -- it may come in on 1216. It may come in on --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the way toll-frees
run. You know, you've got marketinq companies that run
hundreds and hundreds of lines off of one single number, so
toll-frees operate the same way. You have a number --
establish a number and you establish how many lines you want
that to rotate -- rotary down to. I just wonder if you've
?-~~-uc
19
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
examined the cost between commercial lines, multiple, and
No, I have not.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have a -- by reading through
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: With technology being what it is
with phones -- and maybe, you know, Kerr County's going to
stay in the -- way in the past compared to the rest of the
world, certainly the rest of the country. Everything I see
and read says that we are switching away from these hard lines
rapidly, and that this is going to -- this is potentially a
huge over-expenditure.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, this converts everything
and all the equipment to the -- to the updated digital
equipment, 'cause a lot of ours is not that right now. Now,
the -- the getting away from the hard lines, I know when
Trolinqer had come in last year, I guess, and started doing
some of that, it did not work with our office at all, okay?
You couldn't qet out. The quality of the calls were terrible.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But that's not -- that's not the
standard in the rest of the United States. So, it could be
that Kerr County's going to take a little bit longer than
everybody else to get up there, but within five years, I just
think that -- I hate to see us entering into a -- a contract
z~-o~
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
for five years at this time on any kind of phone service. I
think it's a mistake.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, I --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, there's a K.T.C. rep in
the room. You might be able to get some information.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Do you want to stand up and
explain some of this?
MR. THOMPSON: Sure.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: On what it does?
MR. THOMPSON: Sure. What we're -- what we're
looking at doing is just getting the telephone system --
JUDGE TINLEY: We need to get your name and address
on the record, if you don't mind, please.
MR. THOMPSON: Okay, I'm sorry. I'm with Kerrville
Telephone Company, and I'm with the business systems. And
right now, like the Sheriff was saying, the lease is up, and
so is the maintenance agreement. So, having said that, that
after next month, you're not going to have any maintenance on
the telephone system, so that might be one item you want to
look at, is if something fails today, we go in and we just
replace it. And, so, we're looking at that, getting --
getting the phone system to the latest, greatest software, and
adding trunk modules and station modules so you can add lines
and stations, because right now we're maned out. So those are
the big issues that we're trying to overcome. Getting the
3-z~-~~~
21
1
2
3
9
5
b
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
maintenance agreement on it as well.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is the Sheriff's equipment
the same equipment we have in the courthouse?
MR. THOMPSON: It is the same manufacturer. It's
just --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Northern Telecom?
MR. THOMPSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's more than five years
old, is it not?
MR. THOMPSON: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And so with this new
maintenance agreement, you're going to be replacing more than
five-year-old equipment with more than five-year-old
equipment?
MR. THOMFSON: What we were -- will do is get it to
where you'll have the latest software that'll allow you to get
to the latest equipment, like phones. Right now, the phones
are manufacturer discontinued, so if -- if it will be very
soon that if we go in to replace these phones, we may not be
able to get them. Right now, we can get them refurbished, and
it's just on a case-per-case situation. If r_hey -- if our
manufacturer has them in place, we will do that. But if -- in
the future, if we don't upgrade the software, we won't be able
to do that. So, right now, if we go with this plan that we've
talked about, we can put in brand-new telephones when they go
-:.~-~F
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2q
25
22
out. We can come in and replace them with phones that we can
get brand new all day long.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If we were a brand new
customer and you were standing here before us today, what
would you be proposing?
MR. THOMPSON: This -- this is what I would be
proposing, is for -- for the dollar, I think this is your best
bet.
JUDGE TINLEY: Are we talking about a new lease on
existing equipment, essentially?
MR. THOMPSON: Correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, this --
MR. THOMPSON: And with the upgrade -- because what
we're doing is we're financing -- basically, what we're going
to do is finance the software and some hardware for adding
trunks, stations, and -- and at the same time, it makes us
replace the voicemail, 'cause the software that they have
right now will not support a new soft -- voicemail system.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And as one of our actual desk
phones go out now, under this lease, it will be replaced with
the new desk phones.
MR. THOMPSON: That -- in addition to that, also,
we're adding a five-year maintenance agreement on the system.
DODGE TINLEY: The -- we're talking about -- this
lease is for equipment only, is it not?
3-27-06
i
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
~~
GJ
23
MR. THOMPSON: And maintenance, yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. But it's not service?
MR. THOMPSON: Pardon me?
JUDGE TINLEY: It's not telephone service?
MR. THOMPSON: Correct. That is correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, when you mention trunk lines,
that falls under the service end of it, --
MR. THOMPSON: That is correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- does it not? Okay. So,
essentially, if -- and correct me if this is not accurate.
We've had equipment that is presently in place under a lease,
that we've been leasing, and that lease is about to expire,
and what you're proposing is a new lease on that same
equipment, with upgrades as it becomes nonfunctional, each
piece, and maintenance during the term of the lease. Is
that --
MR. THOMPSON: True.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is that essentially what we're
looking at?
MR. THOMPSON: We are -- we are -- this lease is
going to cover new software, 'cause they have an old software.
Because of the new software, we're having to replace the
voicemail, okay? So, it's going to be a brand-new voicemail
with the latest software that will allow us to go in with the
newest phones, the newest technology on telephones. Right
3-2~ 06
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
~~
GJ
29
now, like I was saying, the phones are old, and we're having a
hard time getting these phones replaced, and so that will
allow us to go forward with new phones and leave the ones --
save a lot of money, leave all the sets that are in place that
are functioning properly alone.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What was -- I think, following
on what the Judge was saying, it appears to me that we're
starting a new agreement with old equipment, when where we ~
should be if we're going to do this -- which I would be
opposed to probably doing the five-year term period, but if we
were, we should at least get new equipment under a -- I mean,
the stuff's all old. And if we're going -- entering into an
agreement, we ought to be getting the state of the art for
today, not leasing old equipment that we've already
essentially paid for. Is that kind of where you were going,
Judge?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, that's part of where I was
coming from. And I know we've -- we've kind of visited this
issue before, and what we heard was that the -- the lease cost
is as much towards the maintenance factor as it is towards
anything else. Right now, under the existing lease that we're
under now, does that have a purchase option with it?
MR. THOMPSON: It sure does. Yes, it does.
JUDGE TINLEY: So we can pay you one dollar and
we're the owners of everything that's in place right now?
3 L 7 n F,
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
25
MR. THOMPSON: Next month, that is correct. That's
correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Then, if we wanted to upgrade
that equipment to serve the needs of the Sheriff, as he's
communicated them, we could enter into a separate agreement
for the acquisition of that equipment, software, whatever, new
voicemail modules, and the only thing that we would not have
in place would be the maintenance factor that would be in
place under this lease agreement; is that correct?
MR. THOMPSON: We can do that, yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Probably have a new
equipment warranty went with it, too?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: My only -- my only concern, and
what Curtis and I talked about and why we set it up this way,
if we go in right now and actually replace -- you know, this
is replacing most of the equipment that's in our telephone
room, where -- so you can expand and add more lines in, 'cause
I can't do that. So, all those -- call them kind of
mother-board deals are replaced to the newest, along with the
maintenance. Problem is, with these -- if we go in and do
another -- or a new lease, replacing all the equipment, okay?
I can't do it in any way, shape, or form for a $30-a-month
increase in our phone deal. You're talking $1,000 increase in
our -- in our monthly stuff because of the new equipment.
-z~-a~
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
~0
21
,~
23
29
25
26
This will gradually replace that under this price, as that
equipment needs to be replaced. As a phone goes out, it
replaces it with the newest phone, without having to go in and
enter into a lease that replaces all that equipment right now
when it's working. That's -- that's my theory behind this. I
don't want to enter into a five-year lease or anything that's
going to up us by 1,000 a month or anything like that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sounds like to me that we
need to upgrade the whole system, and we do that through the
budget process. Therefore, we don't need a five-year
agreement; we need a one-year agreement on what we've got
right now, and then replace it through the budget process.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't know if they would do a
one-year lease under this.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know if they would
either, but you can ask him; he's standing right there.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's what I'm looking at him
for.
MR. THOMPSON: We can, but just like the Sheriff was
saying, you know, we -- the standard is a five-year, but we
can -- we can work you up for a one-year lease if you would
like.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If we're going to spend some
more money to buy new equipment, we can.
MR. THOMPSON: That's right. It's just the pricing
3 7-n6
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
z~
will significantly increase, because what we're trying to do
on this one, we were just looking at it as trying to save some
dollars by using the phones that are working very well there
right now, and then as they quit, we replace them if they give
us difficulty. Some of them may ride for a long time, but --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Rusty, didn't we do an
upgrade there a year or two years ago, added some lines?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We had to add four more lines.
It's been a couple -- three years ago.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And you're up to 12 now?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Oh, I -- Curtis may know
exactly where we're up to, 12 or 15.
MR. THOMPSON: That's exactly right, 12 -- let's
see, 12, 13 --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So we went from 8 to 12?
MR. THOMPSON: Actually, I think we have about 18
telephone lines there now.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Total.
MR. THOMPSON: Total.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And this upgrade of seven or
eight new lines lasted three years?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It's call ratio; I can't -- you
know, I mean, the last thing I want to do is -- and that's why
I came to y'all when I did last time. I don't like picking up
the phone or hearing somebody say they called the Sheriff's
3_~ 9- g i b
1
G
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
28
Office and got a busy signal, and that's the point we're at.
That's starting to happen, and that does cause us serious
problems. And the only way that I could look at upgrading it
with the lease is upgrade it in a reasonable way where I can
still stay within the budget this year, my other budgets for
-- for the --
MR. THOMPSON: In this proposal, I added a trunk
module with a trunk card. The trunk module will take three
trunk cards of four ports each. So, I've added a trunk
module, since we're maxed out right now, with a card in it,
and then we can add more cards in the future, but that will
allow us to go up to four more lines immediately. Then I
added a station module of 16 ports; that allows us to go 16
more digital sets. That will take care of the narcotics
division. Right now, we're maxed on that.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think we're gettinq apples and
oranges here. We're talking about lines, and that's a service
issue, and now we're -- this is for equipment.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But the problem is, unless we
upgrade this, we can't add the new lines. You know, I just
can't do it. I mean, we're full. Can't have any more lines
coming in.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You can by going to new
equipment and a new contract.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But I wasn't ready to come to
i-S7-Ob
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
23
24
25
z9
y'all with something that says 1,000 --
COMMISSIONER. WILLIAMS: We don't know what the cost
of that is, do we?
MR. THOMPSON: I can certainly run them on it. It's
just -- it's going to increase a bunch.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess I'm going back to -- and
I know we tried the other phone system and it didn't work.
Why didn't it work?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You do not -- could not
understand the phone calls. You were being cut off
constantly, and in and out.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Where did that happen? Because
it doesn't happen when I call people all over the country. I
mean, is it the equipment we're using? Is it the computers
we're using? Is it the vendor we're -- I just -- I think
that's a really important issue, because the potential savings
to the County and the taxpayers is huge if we can get off of
this standard land line system. We may need to keep some as a
backup forever, but, you know, again, everything I'm reading
nationwide says that's a direction that many businesses, and
I'm sure governments, are going to as well. I want to know
why it didn't work for us. I mean, just because it didn't
work for us the first time doesn't mean it's never going to
work.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And that may be, Jonathan. My
?-~~-US
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
problem is, Sheriff's Office has to have it. I have to have
something we can rely on. I could not rely on that other one,
and I just said that's it, it's over. We can't do it. We had
one line out there -- in fact, it may still be out there --
that Trolinger was trying, and -- but we had to go totally
away from it, 'cause it was totally undependable for what we
needed, what I have.
MR. THOMPSON: Now, that has nothing to do with the
equipment, and that is not our service.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right.
MR. THOMPSON: That is a voice over IP trunk.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's what it was.
JUDGE TINLEY: Did -- did you solicit proposals for
equipment from any other vendors concerning your equipment out
there at the Sheriff's Office?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I have not. This is a contract
we've had and been in, and I asked them what it would take to
get us back to where we don't have busy signals.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd like to see you come back
with a one-year proposal and relook at this whole process.
Because, potentially, county-wide, as to why the other --
whatever that -- IP over -- whatever you just said, didn't
work, because it works elsewhere. And there's -- you know, I
i - - ~ h
31
1
L
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
l9
20
21
L c
23
24
~5
don't -- I need to find out why things are working across the
nation and don't work in Kerr County. And hopefully we can
find that out in the next year, but I -- you know, like I say,
for a year, I agree, Rusty, you need phone service. I just
think the taxpayers need to look at -- or from a taxpayer
standpoint, we need to look at the most economical way to get
that phone service to you.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I agree.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The lease for what we have
in the courthouse and other locations, when does that expire?
Do you know?
MR. THOMPSON: At the other locations, I will have
to pull them up individually. They came in at different
times. I would just have to pull them.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, we're really under two
contracts, a contract for service we have here in the
courthouse and separately for the Sheriff's Department. And
do you also entertain month-to-month extensions? 'Cause we're
halfway through budget year, as Commissioner Baldwin noted.
You know, we can take a look at this at budget time. Do you
do month-to-month extensions?
MR. THOMPSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If so, what would the rate
of that be?
MR. THOMPSON: It will stay the same. What we can
-2~-oH
32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
do is, if a decision is not made, we can go month-to-month
until a decision is made.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That would be my preference.
MR. THOMPSON: We can leave everything just like it
is right now. You will stay under a maintenance agreement; if
something happens, we'll cover it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Take a look at all the other
options, then.
JUDGE TINLEY: We've also got separate contracts for
the Road and Bridge and for Extension Service, and if you will
recall, last year or year before last, we extended those
contracts, but only for a three-year term, is my recollection.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I've never understood the
logic of why we have all separate agreements when we are one
county. Kerr County has telephone service --
THE WITNESS: They went in at different times.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We can consolidate them.
I
MR. THOMPSON: If you would like, we can. lt's just
that -- it's just a timing -- II
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What are you going to come
back with, Curtis?
MR. THOMPSON: I -- if you would like me to, sounds
like what you guys would like me to do is give you a price on
a brand-new telephone system, and then give you -- find
3-17-06
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
different financial options, like a purchase. We have a
five-year lease like what is the standard, or we can go with a
three-year lease, one-year lease. It's just the terms will be
higher.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 1 -- just a little bit -- just
so you don't get the wrong -- go out in the wrong direction, I
don't think we need to do a whole new system right now. I
think we need to do a month-to-month or a one-year right now,
and I think during the budget process, we can look at this
whole phone system.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we probably will ask you
during the budget process to give us a consolidation,
county-wide program, and look at, you know, probably a larger
scale than you looked at right now. So, I don't think you
need to look at this, you know, aLl new.
MR. THOMPSON: I think the main thing is him being
able to add stuff to the current telephone system. That
changes things, if we add anything to it.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't have a problem with the
month-to-month, Jonathan. The only thing that does bother me
and does scare me is if we don't do something quickly, it is
not out of the realm for somebody to be calling and getting
busy signals, and I think that's totally wrong.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Not everybody dials
3-~~-oe
34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
l0
11
1L
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
9-1-1 in an emergency situation.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: A lot of people don't.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You get a lot of calls -- he
gets a lot of calls that are emergency issues.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Actually, they're issues with
the 9-1-1, with all the new equipment they're trying to do
right now anyhow. But I don't like busy signals coming into
the Sheriff's Office.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I understand that. Can we not
just add another line out there without changing the system?
Can't add a line?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No.
MR. THOMPSON: Equipment won't allow it right now
without adding --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: A trunk card?
MR. THOMPSON: Yeah. Then we run into the next --
the nest hurdle we have is adding the narcotics division. We
looked at getting refurbished phones, the kind that they have
right now, and they're getting very scarce. So, we're looking
at adding a trunk module and add new digital phones with a new
software on the phone system that will allow us to go with new
telephones and allow us to use all functions of the new
telephones.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: See, it's those comments
that kind of scare me, Curtis.
?-a~ oe
35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
15
17
18
19
<0
21
22
23
24
25
MR. THOMPSON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That the refurbished ones
are running scarce, hard to find and so forth. We're talking
about a five-year extension of old equipment. I'd rather take
another -- I'd rather look at another option, even including
figuring out a way to add another trunk card to your existing
core equipment out there as a temporary measure to give the
Sheriff some expansion room if necessary.
MR. THOMPSON: Yeah. It just -- the phones that we
have in place right now, that the Sheriff has, we can send
them off, get them refurbished and brought back. Problem is,
is when we add a group of, you know, say five, ten of those,
there's times that the manufacturer does not have those, so
that's -- that's what we're running into.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And my only thought,
Commissioner, on the -- on the equipment -- on the obsolete
and extending this is, if something does go wrong with the
equipment, it is replaced with a new one in this lease.
MR. THOMPSON: Correct.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: With the new equipment. It's
not that we're doing obsolete stuff, because once this goes
wrong, the new lease pays for the new equipment.
COMMISSIONER WSLLIAMS: He's extending the
maintenance agreement on a month-to-month basis. Still
replaceable, right?
3-2~-06
36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. THOMPSON: Yes.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't know.
MR. THOMPSON: Yes. But there's going to come a
time to where we're going to need to get to your latest
software to support it. It's just -- it's an old software.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We got six months left in
the budget year. It's going to take you a while to figure
this out, so I think we can make it come together.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're back in here April the
10th.
MR. THOMPSON: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Bring us as many options as you might
conceive any one of the five of us may dream up.
MR. THOMPSON: Okay, thank you. j
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
DODGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Squirrel cage.
JUDGE TINLEY: Tin cans and wax string. Let's move
to Item 3. That was the timed Item for 9:30. It's past that
time now. Consider and approve the bylaws of the Advisory
Board of the Butt-Holdsworth Memorial Library, and consider
and take action on a recommendation by the Board that the
'OS-`06 agreement between Kerr County and Kerrville be
amended.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let me see if I can help
,~-oH
37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
~0
21
22
23
<4
25
with this. Subsequent to your last meeting that I didn't
attend, a couple things have happened. I've read the minutes
of the meeting, and I understand and appreciate the concerns
about the -- the bylaws of the -- of the Library Advisory
Board and the proposed changes in the interlocal agreement
with the City of Kerrville. The other thing that's occurred
is that following your meeting, on the following day, that
Tuesday, the City Council met and they followed your -- they
dealt with your concerns about the redundant language in the
bylaws and removed that redundant language. They also
approved a change, which essentially would mean approving
offering a change in the contract between the City and the
County on the operation of the library that would deal with
the issue of capital expenses.
Let me see if I can frame that issue. If we can
first agree that we're all seeing these in same way, well,
then I think we can determine what our position is on it.
When we wrote the contract, the new contract with the City, we
learned that under the accounting standards that are -- that
cover libraries, that books and other associated materials are
considered capital. That's kind of contrary to, you know,
what you intuitively think when you think about businesses.
And certain -- we agreed that, certainly, we did not want
to -- to exclude the purchase of books -- library books for
our library from the agreement, the cost-share agreement
3-%~ n6
38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
l4
t5
16
17
l8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
between the City and the County. That's the essence of a
library, is books and associated materials. And we wrote a
contract that -- that excluded capital -- quote, capital
improvement costs, which we understood to mean everythinq
except books and associated materials, including capital.
Apparently, that -- that's not quite clear enough
language, so that's one facet of the issue. The other facet
is that the Library Board, apparently City of Kerrville also,
is asking you to amend the agreement so that their
administrative process of not -- of including in the operating
budget capital items that are less than $5,000 is followed.
What this means to you is that you would be agreeing that the
capital items of less than $5,000 would be in the budget for
your consideration on a cost-sharing basis. So, the whole
issue in my mind is, for administrative convenience, do you
want to receive a budget -- proposed budget from the Library
Board that includes capital items of less than $5,000?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that what you recommend?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No, I don't.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's what the Library
Board recommends. And I recommended bringing the issue to you
and to see --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Let me -- and I think I agree
with you. And the reason is -- let's see if this is a correct
3-z~-oh
39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
]1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
assumption -- the type of thing that goes in that category
would be, like, computers, and individual computers cost
$2,000, say. But if you -- if you replace ten of them, all of
a sudden, you're at 20,000, but that would be -- just goes
through the process, because each individual one was less than
You're nodding.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's an example.
JODGE TINLEY: I think I voiced my thinking, I
think, reasonably clearly when we considered that issue
before. From an accounting standpoint, capital and expense,
or operational, as they call it in the contract, are fairly
well-defined. Any -- any of the bean counters and people in
the accounting business, there's certain rules that they
follow. And I understand the anomaly in books and other
educational materials. Normally, those are purchased on an
ongoing basis, just as you would office supplies, for example,
in an office environment. So, I can understand why we may
want to exclude those from being capital items or otherwise
include them as operational or expense items, notwithstanding
the other accounting standards. Sut when it comes to
including an operational expense, including other capita]
_,-uti
40
1
-^ 2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
,..~ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2U
21
22
23
^° 2 4
25
items, I think you meet yourself coming back. I don't care
what the amount is, whether it's 1,000, whether it's 5,000.
Otherwise, if we're going to solve this problem with the books
and educational materials, my preference would be to say we
don't share in capital items, but for purposes of this
agreement, books and other educational materials,
notwithstanding other accounting standards, are included as
operational or expense items, and that solves the problem.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, I think your point's
valid, and I think we've had two circumstances over the past
several years that validate what you're talking about. We
were called upon to fund 50 percent of replacement of
air-conditioners, and those are big air-conditioners and those
are big expenses. We were called upon to fund 50 percent of
the replacement of an elevator. Major expense. So, my
question would be, where do these items fall under this new
language?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: In the current contract,
you would not be presented a budget that would cover those
items. The only capital item that would be in the budget that
you're presented for your consideration on cost-sharing would
be books and associated materials, in the current contract.
Now, the city is proposing to change that, and that's what you
see there in the package. Could we -- could we hear --
Antonio Martinez, the Library Director, and John David
d - ' ~ - 0 0
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
Lipscomb, the Chair of the Library Advisory Board, are here.
Do you -- do y'a11 have anything you want to say to add to
this discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Commissioner, before they do, I
want to go back to the air-conditioners and elevators, because
I think that's a real important thing. I don't think the
County was ever obligated to pay those expenses, say, under
the new agreement. We did because we thought -- you know, we
just thought it -- yes, we agreed to participate in it. It
was a volunteer thing at the time, but that was never
contemplated under any agreement I've ever seen that the
County was obligated to pay for those, and I think it needs to
be real clear.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think that's right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we chose to, but there
was certainly no obligation to.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Martinez?
MR. MARTINEZ: Judge, Commissioners. Commissioner
Letz, you're absolutely correct. You had no obligation on
that air conditioning and elevator. It was individual issues
brought to the Commissioners Court, and you decided to
participate on that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. MARTINEZ: And that's still the case under the
current contract. Just a little bit of history on this whole
3-27 OF
42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
]1
12
13
14
l5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
process. The Board is the group that proposed these changes
and voted them unanimously. You know, all I can say is, the
intent is to be as clear as possible. That was their only
intent, for both sides of the issue, for both organizations.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My -- I'm trying to figure out
what we're looking at. In our backup, we have the bylaws of
the Advisory Board with some handwritten notes on it. Is that
what we're trying to -- what the rer_ommendation is that we
amend today?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No.
MR. MARTINEZ: We have submitted a marked.-up copy of
the bylaws, excluding the language that you wanted excluded at
your last meeting.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Look at the fax from Che
City, the letter from Paul Hofmann to Judge Tinley, and then
the next page is a fax page.
MR. MARTINEZ: Is that the follow-up? 'Cause I
believe the first fax submitted is an incorrect copy. What we
gave to Commissioner Nicholson at the board meeting is the
correct copy. That's the only one I can really vouch for.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm looking at one that's
marked up. Looks like the Judge's writing.
JODGE TINLEY: It is my writing. That was what we
had last time.
3-z,-uE
43
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1L
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: He's back further.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Go back a Little further.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Back towards the end of the --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You're going to find a page
entitled First Amendment to the Library Agreement.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Okay, I got it.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And this is what the
Kerrville City Council approved to offer to us as a first
amendment to the library agreement. Now, I think it's not
necessary to point out that the contract is not open. The
contract runs until the end of September. We can -- if we
want to make changes to it, if -- that are recommended by the
City of Kerrville, we can choose to open it, but it's not open
for negotiation unless both parties agree to do that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, what we -- what you're
being asked to act on today is this proposal from the City of
Kerrville to modify the agreement that would effectively
result in capital costs of less than $5,000 being included in
the budget that you're going to be presented.
MR. MARTINEZ: Well, may I say one thing about that?
You mention computers, and I just want to clarity that I have
created a scheduled replacement program to where we're not
buying more than three computers a year. That would -- you
know, it would have to be a catastrophic event, you know, fire
3-~~ oe
1
.® ~
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
--- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
~5
44
or whatever, that would put us in a situation of replacing 20
computers.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess my question is, why --
why -- what's the reason for the request? I mean, there are
very few capital items less than 5,000. A capital item, as
the Judge said, is a capital item, I think, from the County's
standpoint. I mean, it's -- I wouldn't think there'd be very
many items that would go under this category that are not
actually --
MR. MARTINEZ: It's going to be equipment that will
be over your $1,000 threshold. That'll be the only items that
would ever fall into that category that I can think of.
Computers, servers, fax machines, that type of equipment.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My preference would be to leave
the contract as-is right now, and if this is a -- as we go
through the first budget, if this is an obvious area, that's
something we can certainly look at when we go for renewal of
the contract.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What did the City Council
Amendment to the Library Agreement, the one bearing signatures
from the mayor and the City Attorney.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which says, "Shared
operational expenses exclude any capital expense in excess of
3-27-u6
45
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2"
L
23
24
25
5,000," --
MR. MARTINEZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- "with the exception of
expenses for the purchase of library materials..."
MR. MARTINEZ: Correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: If we're going to take option on what
the City has proposed to us in this first amendment, my
preference would be to modify that language just quoted by
Commissioner Williams, and have it read, "Shared operational
expenses include..." and then delete all the way down to
"expenses" in the next sentence, so that it reads, "Shared
operational expenses include expenses for the purchase of
library materials and any other projects City and County may
individually negotiate." Of course, that's a given. You
can -- the parties to an agreement can modify, add, do
whatever they want to, but that would -- that would exclude
the capital under the 5,000 or under aspect.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think the Judge is on the
right track.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. I do too.
COMMISSIONER NiCHOLSON: Don't you do the same thing
by doing nothing?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Isn't that what we say right
now?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Almost.
3-~~-oF
96
1
2
3
4
5
F
7
8
9
10
11
1 L
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I'm not sure if the existing
agreement clearly includes --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Books?
JUDGE TINLEY: -- library materials, books and other
educational materials, or whatever that language was.
Because --
MR. MARTINEZ: It does not.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- it currently states that, "Neither
capital improvement expenses for the library nor operating or
capital improvement expenses for the History Center or any
other ancillary facilities shall be included in the budget,"
and it's referring to the budget that's submitted to us. So,
looking at it from their accounting standpoint, if the books
are required to be carried as capital items, they can't put it
in the budget to send it forward to us. So if we need any
clarification that deals with the books and -- and similar
type materials, and what I mentioned, if -- if it is our
intention to have that included as a part of the budget that
we're going to share in the funding of, then this would -- the
language I suggested would solve that, I think.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It would.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I want to try to make that
into -- into a motion, see if that'll fly. I move that we
propose to the City to alter their first amendment, to where
the last sentence reads, "Shared operational expenses include
-.~-oc
47
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
expenses for the purchase of library materials and any other
projects City and County may individually negotiate." I said
the last sentence; it's the next to last sentence.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll second that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Third.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as indicated
on the record with the modified language. Is there any
question or discussion concerning 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: Thank you, Mr. Martinez. We
appreciate you being here today. Thank you, Mr. Lipscomb.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We also, sometime, need to
act on the bylaws -- proposed bylaws. I have one copy of the
-- the response to your concerns about the redundant language,
and it's taking that language out of it. Frankly, I thought
the City had faced over a copy of this change, but they had
not. Do you want to act on it now? Take a look at the
changes? Or do you want to defer this until later, and I'll
get you some copies that you can --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Let's defer it till our next
meeting.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Till next meeting? Okay,
~-z~ u~
48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else on that particular
agenda Item? Okay. Let's move to Item 5, if we might.
Consider/discuss concept plan for subdivision of property
owned by Julie Mosty and Bo Leonard off Elm Pass Road located
in Precinct 2. Commissioner Williams.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Judge. I'll
defer to Mr. Odom and Mr. Voelkel. And the Leonards are here
for any questions, and they're going to tell the Court what it
is that they were proposing. We have reviewed this. There
are some questions, and Mr. Odom will reveal those questions.
COMMISSIONER LETZ; Judge, before we start, kind of
a procedural question for today. Do we want to act on
Subdivision Rules before we act on all these plats and concept
plans, so that everyone knows which rules we're under? 'Cause
we're -- if we act now, we're currently under our existing
rules, where if we switch them around, then we act under our
i new rules.
JUDGE TINLEY: Wi11 it make a difference in this
particular case?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think so, but I haven't
looked at it that -- you know.
MR. ODOM: Well, I -- let me present what I
remember. I believe that I met sometime in late January with
3-'~-Oo
49
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 concept plan with Mr. Williams, or the first of February,
and with Lee and Bo and his wife.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. ODOM: What they have is a piece of property
that goes through a private easement, and they wanted to
divide this up into, I believe, four or five lots. Am I
correct, Lee?
MR. VOELKEL: Four 5-acre tracts.
MF,. ODOM: And I apologize because I don't have the
supporting -- Commissioner Williams put this on, and Lee, so
this is from recollection. And, basically, the question
was -- is where we go. As far as a platting procedure, would
they use a private, country lane --
COMMISSIONER W7LLIAMS: Everything that we had
discussed is there.
MR. ODOM: All right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If you'll hand it back to
me.
MR. ODOM: Thank you. Okay. And had to go through
-- this was a division of property, I believe, under 1.03, was
family members. And this portion that is in the back side of
this from this aerial photograph is showing that basically
they were wanting to build a road, but the question was, do
they have to continue to build the road all the way out to Elm
Pass? Which was around appror.imately 3,000 feet, something
3-G7-Uh
50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
l0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2 2
23
24
25
like that.
MR. VOELKEL: Correct.
MR. ODOM: And my answer was -- was yes. And that
one is the master plan, even on top of that, of this other
property that's in front of it. So, at this point, I'll turn
it over to Lee and let him give his thoughts.
MR. VOELKEL: I think Len has explained it pretty
well. Let me just show you this drawing, which I think you
have. I've colored here what the Leopards, who are here, own,
a 40-acre tract here that I've outlined in orange. And they
want to divide half of that, and that's kind of where I've
drawn a line here with these four tracts, which will be
5 acres plus. And this will be establishing a new road in
that section of their property, which they understand is a
60-foot right-of-way and built to county standards. That's
not really an issue that we came across. The concept plan was
from Elm Pass Road, which is down here in the lower section,
which is a public road. There is a private easement 40 feet
wide, and that's represented here in pink, that accesses this
property across adjoining properties. The question was, can
they develop this and put in their road here without doing any
development to this existing road? Again, there's a
40-foot-wide existing easement. There's an existing road in
that easement. To my knowledge, there are no restrictions on
that easement as far as when this was -- family partition was
3-L7-Oh
51
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
established. I do understand that there's -- that the
easement is shared by some communication company that has a
tower on the adjoining property, so they use the easement for
accessing their tower. The easement is also used to access
the Leonards' property.
JUDGE TINLEY: What's the width of this easement?
MR. pOELKEL: 40 feet wide.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. ODOM: The other situation is, if you apply the
new rules, that it would be less than 10 acres; therefore, it
would not be a country lane, it would be a local road. Built
to a higher standard, therefore. And then, if you look at the
adjacent property, what would happen? The probability is it
would be subdivided in some way.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, you can't look at it. I
understand what you're saying.
MR. ODOM: I understand.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You can't -- if it goes any
further, then the road would have to be raised to a higher
level by the person doing that development. I think that the
-- this is a problem with the state law, the way it's worded,
and I think the -- and the intent is for family members' use.
I think what happens here is a situation where, clearly, this
road needs to be upgraded. Because of the right-of-way width,
you know, I don't know -- I think, it's very difficult. You
-2~ oh
52
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
know, you can't make the adjoining property owner add to that
right-of-way very easily, so I'd be more inclined to give a
variance on possibly the width of the right-of-way. I'd like
to see them try to get it up to 60 feet, but I'd be inclined
to give a variance there. But I think the road needs to be
brought to our minimum standards.
MR. ODOM: Which rule would we use?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, you got back to his
original question.
MR. ODOM: That's right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The existing rules, or the
ones that are going to be...
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think this is a concept plan;
I think it's going to have to come under our new rules.
MR. ODOM: I think so too.
MR. VOELKEL: We've kind of been going along those
premises, yes.
MR. ODOM: On that premise.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, because I think it's a --
you know, and Rex -- I'm kind of looking to him for guidance.
I mean, the clear intent in my mind of the exemption for that
partition which created that road in the manner it is, it was
to be used by family members only, and it was to try to, you
know, not add expense to a family partition. But as soon as
other people start using it, I think that that road has to be
i- Z ~- U b
53
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
]0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
upgraded.
MR. VOELKEL: And the question would be, to what
degree or what type of road improvement?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's going to be --
MR. VOELKEL: Country lane or local road?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Under our revised -- our
proposed rules, it's local road, 'cause it's more than four
lots. If it's four lots or --
MR. ODOM: Three.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- or less -- or less than four.
If it's three lots or less, it's a local road.
MR. VOELKEL: I was going through the new rules this
morning. This is, again, from what y'all are going to adopt
this afternoon, I think -- and I had not noticed this until
this morning, but under the country lane definition for a
road, it talks about the one that -- it says no more than
eight tracts, and all lots must be a minimum of 10-acre, which
doesn't qualify us, but it continues on and says, "This type
of road shall be approved by the Commissioners Court in those
cases where a right-of-way exists and minimal access is
desired." I'm a little confused on what that means, but I'm
wonderinq if this may fall under that section.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It could.
MR. VOELKEL: And, again, that's under the country
lane specifications.
3-_~-oF
1
2
3
4
5
H
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
54
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Should have read that sooner and
brought it to our attention.
MR. VOELKEL: I know. I didn't realize --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's confusing in the sense it
doesn't add anything to that definition. Personally, I think
we should delete it. Does that answer that question for you?
MR. VOELKEL: Probably a good idea. Probably a good
idea.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What you're saying, though,
is a variance would be required for a 40-foot easement to the
other -- to the adjoining properties, but the upgrade of the
road would have to be more than the county lane; it would have
to be to local road standards.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
MR. ODOM: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: On 40-foot right-of-way.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I mean, I think we
have done -- I mean, I would like to see the right-of-way
brought up, but I think that you get into an issue of having
to work with what you have. I mean, I think we could --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Riqht.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Instead of saying you have to
figure out how to get that 60 foot. But I think on past
precedent, we have varied width in situations of this nature.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't see us -- I don't
3-'~-06
55
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
see any ability to get the right-of-way increased until or
unless the other owners come in and ask for a partition of
their property.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. And I think at that
time, we would require it. At that point, I think I'd request
their right-of-way get widened, but, you know, it's a real
difficult situation.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just as we did for J.J.
Lane.
	COMMISSIONER	LETZ: Right.
	COMMISSIONER	WILLIAMS: Similar.
	COMMISSIONER	LETZ: Similar thing.
	MR. ODOM: B	ut the question would be -- what was the
total	acreage on this?	20-acre?
	MR. VOELKEL:	Yes -- 21.
	MR. ODOM: 2	1, and we're still going with individual
wells,	so it would be	a 5-acre average. But this would
still	-- on a country	lane, it would not work, because it's
less t	han 10 acres per	lot, so local road would be it. It
could	-- we don't have	anything -- could it still be a private
road?		
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. I mean, it's private or
county.
MR. ODOM: Would it be paved or unpaved?
COMMISSIONER. LETZ: It'd be local road.
i-Z7-06
56
1
L
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
23
24
25
MR. VOELKEL: Local road has to be paved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Loral roads have to be
paved, right?
MR. ODOM: (Nodded.) Okay.
MR. VOELKEL: So, in summary, we get a variance, or
could possibly get that for the 40-foot right-of-way. As far
as the specifications, the road all the way from Elm Pass up
to the subdivision and into the new will be to local road
standards.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: With 60-foot right-of-way.
MR. VOELKEL: On the new part, yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Inside the subdivided
property.
MR. ODOM: Local road would still be at the paving,
20-foot pavement. Okay.
MR. VOELKEL: Bo, would you like to speak or have
any questions?
MR. LEONARD: Yeah. I -- just a couple of
questions. If -- if we didn't subdivide, we were just going
to build a house up there, these rules are not applicable? Is
that --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's correct.
MR. LEONARD: What if, at some future date, we had
relatives -- children, grandchildren or such -- that wanted to
3-~~-06
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
57
build homes up on this deal? Did that become Subdivision
Rules? What I'm getting into --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Probably not.
MR. ODOM: Probably not.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But it depends on how you do it.
MR. VOELKEL: Because of a family partition? Is
that --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because of family -- because of
the state law exemption that exists currently.
MR. LEONARD: And the family, I guess, is --
MR. ODOM: Third-degree.
MR. LEONARD: Does that go down to --
MR. ODOM: We have a chart. It will show -- it will
show the family circle within the third-degree. And
grandchildren should be there, but some people take in
godchildren or being a godfather or something, and construe
that to third-degree.
MRS. LEONARD: I'm Julie Leonard. What if these --
what if the kids sell -- build their house there and then they
sell?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Has to get platted.
MRS. LEONARD: So they can't do anything --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: At that point, it has to be
platted, yeah.
MR. LEONARD: Huh?
3-~'~-0;
58
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: At that point, it would have
to be platted.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Would anyone -- the first person
that sells it to outside a family member, that will trigger
platting, which the road will have to be brought up to I
specification at that time.
MR. LEONARD: Would that -- in other words, when
you -- if -- let's say we build a house up there and then we
decide we want to sell the 90 acres. Now, then, the
purchaser's going to have to build a road from Elm Pass back
to this home?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's a 40-acre tract?
MR. LEONARD: Right, that begins about a mile from
Elm Pass. So, let's say we -- let's say we don't improve the
road; we go back there and we build a 3,000 square foot house
out there, and 10 years from now we decide we want to sell the
whole 40 acres, including the house. Does the buyer then have
to go back to Elm Pass and build a 60-foot-wide paved road
back there?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mr. County Attorney?
MR. EMERSON: You're not subdividing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
MR. EMERSON: That's the key.
MR. ODOM: I think there's an exemption, as long as
it's not subdivided, 'cause we had something similar down
3-_'~-06
59
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
towards Comfort, other side of Center Point over here a year
aqo, and I think that you can probably not.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If you sold the whole tract
with a house on it.
MR. ODOM: If you sold the whole tract.
MR. LEONARD: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: As soon as you divide it, then
it would have to be --
MR. ODOM: If you divide it in two or more parts,
then you violate 1.02.
MR. LEONARD: Okay. Any questions? Thank you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me have my sheets back,
Len.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further on this particular
agenda item?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Only getting Leonard's
attention to get my material back.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. I wouldn't want to keep it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's move to Item 6, if we
might. Consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to
extend preliminary plat of property owned by Center Point
s-z~-o;
60
1
2
3
4
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Independent School District. Commissioner Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I put this on because I
noticed in the last Road and Bridge report where they -- the
preliminary plat which Court approved for Center Point
Independent School District was -- had it expired or was it
about to expire?
MR. ODOM: I think it was right at the point to be
expired, sir. I can't remember.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And our extensions are
typically for six. months or a year?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Year.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: A year.
MR. ODOM: Year. Out to another year.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'd move an extension to
Center Point Independent School District of one year for the
preliminary plat that they filed for that portion of their
property upon which they're building individual homes.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of the extension of the preliminary plat of the Center Point
Independent School District property. Any question or
discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just wanted to make a
comment, that I don't know that I would vote for a second
extension, though. They need to get -- get going on this
3 _'7 U ti
61
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
thing.
MR. ODOM: Or come back, redo everything.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions? Comments? All
in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, can we get the
Maintenance folks to turn the air conditioning on, so -- just
fans or something?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Fans will circulate some air.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Getting a little stuffy.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Fits our personality, stuffy.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move to Item 7, if we might.
Consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on agreement
between the Texas Water Development Board and Kerr County for
grant funding to be used for the preliminary planning and
engineering for the Center Point wastewater collection system.
Commissioner Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have on the agenda the
draft agreement which was forwarded to us by the Texas Water
Development Board. I've asked the County Attorney to review
it. He has done so, and his letter at the front is
3 z~-ah
62
1
2
3
4
5
h
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
incorporated in the backup material. What is not in the
backup material, which needs to be part of the contract, is
the task of work that comes out of the actual application for
the funding. I have that; I just didn't put it in front of
you, but I have it, and it would be incorporated as one of the
exhibits in the -- in the contract. T.W.D.B. has made a
couple suggestions, modest changes to the scope of work which
is part of the application, which becomes part of the
contract. I've also been in touch with U.G.R.A. with respect
to its participation as the grant match provider, and just
received this morning a draft of what can be a -- an
interlocal agreement between us and U.G.R.A. which will
memorialize that understanding as well. And when that's in
place -- I'm hopeful I'll have that on the Court's agenda next
time. When that's in place, then this whole thing will be
ready to send as a package up to T.W.D.B.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are they -- are they
participating on a 50 percent --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir, equal amount.
$60,800, I believe, is the amount of -- and T.W.D.B.'s amount
is the same. And the total amount of the -- of the project
will be 121,000 and change.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're really getting good at
this.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm trying.
3-27-Oh
63
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And, you know, there may be
life after county government after all for you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're kidding.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You can be a grant writer.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He can be a grant writer for
septic tanks.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you serious?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Bill, do we need to act on this,
or do we need to wait until we get all the other pieces
together and act on it all at once?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think they're each
independent, Commissioner. I'd like for the Court -- I'll
make a motion for approval of the agreement with Texas Water
Development Board, and then I'll also bring back separately
the O.G.R.A. --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the scope of work, or the --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This is already -- the
application we'd already accepted, and that's what they
accepted. We approved it to send, so we're already on record
as having approved that, and it's just an exhibit in this
agreement. Am I correct, Mr. County Attorney?
MR. EMERSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second the motion.
JODGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to approve
the agreement between the Texas Water Development Board and
~ z~-u6
64
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
Kerr County for grant funding to be used for preliminary
planning and engineering for the Center Point wastewater
correction system. Any question or discussion on the motion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge's signature?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And the County Judge's
signature, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Just one comment, Judge,
following up on Commissioner Baldwin's comment. It --
Commissioner Williams is good at this, and he's provided a
really valuable service to us --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- and his constituents,
and the county in general by moving these wastewater projects
along.
JUDGE TINLEY: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, sir. Appreciate
it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You hook up with former Judge
Edwards and you ought to start a company.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Now, there's a suggestion.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Who's the C.E.O.? That's the
part I want to watch.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions or comments on
the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
=,-o~
55
i
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
L Z
23
24
25
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Next Item,
consider, discuss, and authorize Commissioners Letz and
Williams to pursue grant availability for the Hill Country
Youth Exhibit Center. Here come those grants funds again.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Here we go again.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move for approval.
(Laughter.) I'm serious.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
i JODGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of the agenda Item.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Could you tell me a little
more about this?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What -- I put this on there, and
I think there actually may be a court order that kind of says
the same thing. I'm just -- I think we need to start looking
at this again. I'm kind of getting my energy back after the
bond issue failed three years ago, and I think the first step
is to kind of do a little bit of homework to see exactly
what's out there or what grants. I know Parks and Wildlife
has grants. Soil Conservation through the U.S.D.A, has
grants. I see Mr. Pena in the audience. L.C.R.A., I know,
has a couple million for us. (Laughter.) So, you know,
3-~_0
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
66
there's things that -- we need to kind of make a list of that,
maybe make some preliminary contact with some of our local
foundations, and kind of just see what's out there. Because I
think that anything done out there is going to have to have a
-- a large grant component to it, and I just think we need to
start Looking at what is available and exactly what the
criteria are, and I think that may help mold a little bit as
to what we do.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Good work.
JDDGE TINLEY: I'd surely thought that Mr. Pena's
presence here today and the timing of it was for the purpose
of making a major announcement.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He came in with his
briefcase, and one arm was longer than the other. Maybe he's
got money there.
JDDGE TINLEY: Wrong guess, huh?
MR. PENA: No major announcement, but -- although,
if the Court doesn't know, the Board of Directors did approve
a resolution in honor of your sesquicentennial celebration
last week, and so that will be in the works to present to the
community next week -- or during sesquicentennial celebration
weekend.
JDDGE TINLEY: We appreciate your efforts, Mr. Pena.
Thank you for riding herd on that for us.
-?v uH
67
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: We want cash.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 10,000 for each year of
existence would be nice.
JUDGE TINLEY: Ungrateful. Just ungrateful.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Cash.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions 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.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, you guys will kind of
keep us updated?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We'll come back with kind of
what's out there.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Next Item is to consider/discuss
appointment to fill the county representative vacancy on the
Airport Board. Who's going to run with that one?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll start with that. I think I
announced last meeting that Granger MacDonald resigned from
that. And since I put this on the agenda, we have looked, and
Bill and I have looked more closely at the actual language of
what needs to be done. I think we can act, clearly, today.
zv-o~~
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
68
The way the process works, the Commissioners Court nominates
somebody, and the City Council can either give a thumbs-up or
a thumbs-down. Actually, they don't -- one doesn't
nominate -- both are eligible to nominate. The other can give
a thumbs-up or thumbs-down to the candidate. So, we're here
to nominate -- recommend nominations. So, anyway, Bill and I
have talked with several individuals, and we have settled on
nominating Steve King, who I think everyone -- he's in the
audience.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Steve who?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Steve, that guy. Steve's been
involved with the airport for quite a while. He's been very
involved with Commissioners Court, being kind of one of the
people we have always relied on for information on things
related to the airport. And, you know, Commissioner Williams
and I wholeheartedly recommend Steve, and I think he will be a
great addition to the board, and hope the City Council
likewise gives a thumbs-up to that nomination.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask you a question;
then I got a comment about him. The --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Be nice.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He is in the room, isn't he?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We recommend, and then the
City says thumbs-up, and that means a done deal?
3-"-06
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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It doesn't go before the
Airport Board or any other board at all?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The action really is between
the --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The governing --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- constituent agencies,
which is the County and the City.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And it should be.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's language in the
governance agreement that covers how this happens. And I
think -- and that's a good question, and that's the way it's
supposed to be. Commissioner Letz and I will take that
nomination -- once the Court approves the nomination, we'll
take it and we'll discuss it with Mayor Smith and Councilman
Chuck Coleman, who are the City's two reps, and see if there's
concurrence, and then the City Council signs off, just like on
the City -- on the Commissioners Court. But I think it's
important to note, too, that when we wrote this language in
this governance agreement, we tried to keep in mind that, for
the most part, the representatives that come off of
Commissioners Court and the representatives that come off of
City Council are more than likely not going to have a lot of
aviation experience. They're going to be just average folks,
just like the rest of us. And it's said that it is deemed
3-^_~-n6
1
L
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
~4
25
~o
desirable that three -- that the three at-large positions be
filled by persons who possess and contribute a balance of
expertise in business, financial or management training and
experience. Nominees with experience and/or expertise in the
aviation industry, including aircraft owners, may be given
preference over nominees with no such experience. Point being
that we do need persons with aviation experience on that
board.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's exactly --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Steve King possesses that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Exactly my comment. I don't
know anybody in this community that fits this board better
than Steve does. Aircraft owner, knows small airports as well
as anybody in this country. I mean, he goes in and out of the
smaller airports in his business more than anybody I know, and
he's a perfect fit and friend of the community, and he's been
at this thing for a long time, longer than we have been
dealing with this airport. And I just think he's a perfect
fit. All for him. He's a little goofy.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll second the nomination.
DODGE TINLEY: So, we have a motion and second for
approval of the nomination of Steve King to the Kerrville/Kerr
County Joint Airport Board. For submission to the City
Council?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: To the two representatives,
_ -ue
71
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
which will be the mayor and Mr. -- Councilman Coleman. They,
in turn, will take it to City Council for the same type of
ratification, as would be the case if it were coming back the
other way.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. The -- the nomination of
Mr. King is for one of the at-large positions?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, it is -- it is at this
time -- it's an at-large, Judge, but it is at this time for
the unexpired term of Granger MacDonald.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask you a question.
Now, I'm a little bit unclear about this. Is the City Council
out doing the same thing, looking for someone to --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They can.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They could, but I don't
think they are.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And when we set the original
at-large members, it was kind of -- you know, it was
unofficial; it was not really in our rules. Wasn't meant to
set a precedent, but Granger was kind of the existing board
member that the County recommended, and Roger Bobertz was the
existing representative that the City recommended.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And then Dr. Davis, who was
chair at the time, thought it would be very good from a
s-~~-n t,
~z
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
]7
18
19
20
21
cG
23
24
25
consistency standpoint to have him continue as chair, so it
Y,ind of was worked out, you know, between four
representatives, two from the City, two from the County. So,
I mean, I don't --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Super.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Hopefully, there's no -- and one
of the reasons we're doing it quickly is so that they also
know who we're supporting. I suspect, hopefully, they'll
support the same.
JUDGE TINLEY: Somehow, I was under the impression
that for the at-large members of the board, the City and
County reps on the board itself collectively made a nomination
for an at-large position, and then that nomination was taken
to the two governing bodies of the owners.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I thought that too, and
I think that basically that's what they're doing.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It could. It could. If I
they wanted to put a name in the hopper, they could put a name
in the hopper. But, by the same token, the four of us can sit
down and say, "This is the name coming off the County side
that we wish to put forward and have the City Council's
concurrence there." But if that happens twice and there's
rejection, then we have the right to appoint.
JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's a -- it's not the most
-:.~ of
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
cG
23
24
25
73
clearly worded provision, in my mind, but we may look at that
at some point in the future.
JUDGE TINLEY: I said understanding.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, it could stand a
little dressing up.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any other question or comment
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. I
(NO response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Break?
JUDGE TINLEY: Why don't we take about a 15-minute
recess.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Works for me.
(Recess taken from 10:31 a.m. to 10:48 a.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to order, if we
might. Let's move to Item 11; consider, discuss, and take
appropriate action for preliminary revision of plat for Lot 7
and Privilege Creek Road right-of-way, Privilege Creek
Ranches. And --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Precinct 3.
JUDGE TINLEY: Located in Precinct 3. And set a
_, of
1
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
public hearing for same. We don't have the volume; we have
the pages. I don't suppose it makes that much difference.
COMMISSIONEP. LETZ: Judge, I'll make a preliminary
comment on this. I don't want to say too much, but I just
want it to be on the record. I will not be voting on this and
some other subdivision plats and concept plans that probably
will be coming in in the next couple of months, maybe
six-month period. This property adjoins my ranch, and I
visited with the County Attorney about it. In fact, he's been
at some of the meetings with me at my request. And, you know,
I just want to make it real clear that I'm -- because some of
this down the road -- this particular one has really no impact
whatsoever on me one way or the other, but development in this
area could have some impact and, obviously, affect the value
of my property, and I don't want any concern from my
standpoint. And with that being said, I have a question for
Rex. Should I -- well, I tend -- I tend to get relied on on
subdivision rules interpretations. Should I be quiet on that,
or should I make any comments, or should I try to -- because
some of these, I think it's easier for me to explain some of
these things.
MR. EMERSON: If you think you're going to have a
conflict of interest, I'd steer clear of all of it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He still has to advise us.
3-2~ U6
~s
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I would go more -- this one
really is not an issue on this, 'cause this has nothing to do
with anything. I don't even know why --
MR. ODOM: If he recused himself, he could still
give an open opinion on something without voting. Am I right
on that?
MR. EMERSON: You can give an open opinion without
voting. But the flip side of the coin, looking at that, is
that your open opinion, depending on how it's worded, can
influence the voting.
JODGE TINLEY: If a member of the Court has a
question for Mr. Letz, would not that be appropriate?
MR. EMERSON: Sure.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I'll just put everyone -- I
mean, just let everyone know, I'll have to weigh it. I mean,
I think if it's a factual-type question related to
interpretation of our rules, I'll probably be more than happy
to help. If it's related to a specific subdivision and
things -- I will not in this case, because, like I say, this
particular one does not have -- is not really an issue, but
down the road there are some others that are in the works. I
will --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Where is this located on
this location map?
MR. ODOM: This is -- do you know where the ball
3-~7-U6
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
76
fields are at in Boerne?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No.
MR. ODOM: Going to San Antonio?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It's not marked on here
where it's located.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The ball fields that you see
from I-10?
MR. ODOM: That's right, sir. That is Ranger Road.
Prior to that is Ranger Road. You turn there and go
11.3 miles before you get to this piece of property. It's a
privately maintained subdivision that was done several years
ago before I came aboard.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's a -- where it is, there's a
large development years ago called Champee Springs. It was
a -- developers bought about 11,000 acres in Kendall County,
and it was subdivided. And this -- it goes into far eastern
Kerr County, and that's where this is.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is there any access to this
site off Highway 27?
MR. ODOM: No.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, good. I didn't see 27
mentioned anywhere.
MR. ODOM: This is probably, from my office, around
44 miles to get to that. So, there's only one way right now.
This shows right here, this is Ranger Creek. And I was trying
-~~-r
~~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
to give you a point of reference. Those ball fields, you've
gone a little bit too far. Johns Road's past that, but Ranger
Creek is -- is down -- you go 11 miles approximately, and you
hit the county line, and Turkey Knob runs into this.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, for you -- for you to
get to this, you would have to go --
MR. ODOM: Approximately 50 miles.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- all the way into --
almost to Boerne and pick up Ranger Creek Road and then come
back west?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that correct? There is
no direct Kerr County access?
MR. ODOM: At this --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Or --
MR. ODOM: At this point, there is not.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is a privately maintained
road?
MR. ODOM: This is privately maintained.
DODGE TINLEY: Okay. Then it's not the one that --
that was funded by a developer at large expense that we heard
about down in Kendall County?
MR. ODOM: I'm sorry? I didn't hear.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, Ranger Creek Road was --
-z~-oE
78
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
was developed at that time when Champee Springs was developed,
and the developer was asked by the Court or told by the Court
to help upgrade Ranger Creek Road to Kendall County, but that
was in Champee Springs development. Yeah, it's -- that's how
you get there.
JUDGE TINLEY: And that was an approximate cost of a
million dollars to the developer?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Yeah, that's the one I was
thinking about.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What are you asking us
to --
MR. ODOM: Well, what they're wanting to do is to
change -- when you look at Lot 7, if you look at the second
page, the left-hand corner, upper left-hand corner, you would
see that Lot 7 -- you see this neck comes down to a
cul-de-sac. What they're wanting to do is to revise Lot 7.
As you look to the right there, you can see that they've
eliminated the rul-de-sac and extended the right-of-way
approximately 900 feet up to the property line, and cut off
Lot 7 adjacent to that. In other words, they did not -- they
want to stop Lot 7 right there at that right-of-way.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And no cul-de-sac, then, is
required?
MR. ODOM: Well, that would be -- this is a master
_~ ue
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
plan. Yeah, you know, that could be. It's over 100 feet
wide. This right-of-way, when you see this neck --
originally, my understanding is that this was going to be a
landing strip and never was built into one. And this neck
comes down to 100 foot wide, and they were carrying that neck
down to 100 foot. So, if you look at the radius of the
50-foot radius, you actually have 100 foot in there already.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay.
MR. ODOM: So, to build a cul-de-sac, just -- you
know, you have the room right there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I still think you need to build
it.
MR. ODOM: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, the rules require a
cul-de-sac, so a cul-de-sac needs to be built.
MR. ODOM: Cul-de-sac in the end, within that
100-foot radius.
MR. KOLACNY: Right.
MR. ODOM: And doing away with the existing
cul-de-sac, and we'll bring it down to the end. You can pull
it into the Lot 7 neck right there.
MR. KOLACNY: Correct.
(Discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Cul-de-sac specs is a
50-foot radius?
3-~'.~-~_~c
80
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. ODOM: Yes, it's a 100-foot diameter.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You got a 100-foot road.
How are you going to know it's a cul-de-sac?
MR. ODOM: Well, you won't. That's the reason I
hadn't -- I didn't push the issue. I had 100 foot.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Lot 7 is depicted on this
piece of paper as this long strip; is that correct?
MR. ODOM: Correct. Lot 7 is right here. This was
supposedly to be an airstrip --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. So --
MR. ODOM: -- attached to this at one time, and that
lot came all the way down to a cul-de-sac, which is right
here.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Got you. Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's a baby flag lot.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Supposed to be an airstrip,
but is not -- but is no longer --
MR. ODOM: It was never used as an airstrip.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And is not intended to be?
MR. ODOM: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All right. My question is --
let's see. I see Lot 7, 151 acres, and it looks like the rest
of them are kind of the same size.
MR. ODOM: Hasn't changed a bit from what was
originally platted.
3-~'7-06
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
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I don't remember what
was originally platted. That's what I'm saying.
MR. ODOM: Well, let's see.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But they're all really large.
MR. ODOM: They're all large lots. Eleven lots, I
believe.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MR. ODOM: And, really, Lot 7 has come down a few
acres, because they took that neck off of it.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let me ask again about the
cul-de-sac. Privilege Lane East is proposed to be a
100-foot-wide pavement?
MR. ODOM: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay.
MR. ODOM: It would still be a country lane. That's
what the Court had given them before, was a country lane.
So --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON:
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 60.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON:
MR. ODOM: 60-foot right
JUDGE TINLEY: What size
MR. ODOM: Sir?
JUDGE TINLEY: What's th
MR. ODOM: 18 feet, with
At 40 feet?
60.
of-way.
road?
width of the roadway?
the new subdivision rules.
?~ o~
82
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
s
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The existing up in front is 16. It's still privately
maintained; we're not going to maintain it.
JUDGE TINLEY: With the cul-de-sac, what's the paved
area?
MR. ODOM: Paved area is 40. 80 foot.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, 80-foot paved area?
MR. ODOM: That's right. 50 foot -- 50 foot for the
layout of it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
MR. ODOM: Which is 100 feet. And then the pavement
would have to be at 80 foot for the pavement.
JUDGE TINLEY: 40-foot radius on the pavement?
MR. ODOM: That's right.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, are we going to have a
90-foot radius at the end of this?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir, they'll have to pave it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: When's the -- when is the
public hearing?
MR. ODOM: The public hearing is set for May the
8th, 2006, at 10 a.m.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move for approval.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of the -- I guess just for the setting of a public hearing on
May 8th.
i 2 % U h
83
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
~5
MR. ODOM: May 8th public hearing.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's all at this point.
MR. ODOM: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any further question or
discussion? Let me ask you, if I might, is it your
understanding that the developer's intention is to carry that
Privilege Lane East road on further to the --
MR. ODOM: North.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- northwest?
MR. ODOM: I have the engineer right here. It is my
understanding that it is.
JUDGE TINLEY: And subsequent development?
MR. KOLACNY: Good morning. Ken Kolacny from
Matkin-Hoover Engineering. Like I say, I'm the engineer
representing the developer. Their immediate intentions are
just to extend that right-of-way to where you see it there.
And -- but they -- they do have -- or they are looking at
property to the other side to possibly extend it and connect
it to Lane Valley Road.
JUDGE TINLEY: They don't currently own the property
immediately northwest of Privilege Lane East?
MR. KOLACNY: Correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any further questions or
comments?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I just think between now
-z~-uh
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
and May 8th, Mr. Baldwin ought to get to be an expert on -- on
subdivision rules.
MR. ODOM: And I would say any further -- anything
on a master plan will have an effect on this subdivision and
that road and the size of it. So, when I have a better idea,
we'll address that. At this point, this is acceptable to us,
and if they put the cul-de-sac down at the end, it should
work.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make one comment. My
understanding of -- I think Len's understanding as well, is
that the developer plans to put -- bring a concept plan to the
Court in the reasonably near future to lay out the entire
plan. And Len's not trying to be evasive; the engineer's not
trying to be evasive. It's just that there's some real estate
deals, I think, that are pending.
MR. ODOM: Yes. I don't have any secrets, other
than just...
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or comment? All
in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(Commissioners Baldwin, Williams, and Nicholson
voted in favor of the motion.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Note that Commissioner Letz
-z~-oe
85
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
abstained. Let's move on to Item 12; consider, discuss, and
take appropriate action -- oops. Let's back up to Item 10,
open the annual bids for road base, cold mix, aggregate,
emulsion oil, corrugated metal pipe, and equipment
by-the-hour, and consider and discuss, take appropriate action
on the award of those bids. That was a matter set for
11 o'clock; it's shortly past that now, so we'll proceed with
the opening of those bids. My able assistant.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If I can prevent from cutting
myself.
JUDGE TINLEY: First bid is from Schwarz
Construction Company, and it is for equipment by-the-hour with
operator. Second bid is from Lucky 3 Materials, and that bid
is submitted for base material. Next bid is from Rocky
Hawkins Construction for equipment by-the-hour with operator.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: New roping arena.
JUDGE TINLEY: Next one is from Leo R. Jenschke,
equipment by-the-hour with operator. Next bid is from Walters
Building and Supply for corrugated metal pipe. Next bid is
from Edmund Jenschke, Incorporated, for equipment by-the-hour
with operator. Next one is from Ergon Asphalt and Emulsions,
Incorporated, for emulsion oils. The next one is from Vulcan
Construction Materials, and it is on paving aggregates and hot
mix, cold laid asphalt, concrete pavement spec. Next one is
from -- I presume this is S.E.M. Materials for emulsion --
3-27-05
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
nope, scratch that little bit on emulsion. I'm trying to
figure out what they're bidding on.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I thought it was the emulsion
page. Oh, no bid. No bid.
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't find that they bid on
anything.
MR. ODOM: Who is it again?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: S.E.M.
JUDGE TINLEY: S.E.M.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Get a nice letter from them
or anything?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, on emulsion oils, it merely
says "no bid," and where it says blank dollars per gallon.
And then on the other -- other types of materials, they've
just drawn a diagonal line through the entire bidding form for
paving aggregates, corrugated metal pipe, base material, and
hot mix, cold laid asphalt and concrete pavement spec.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a sayonara line, huh?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, only thing I can figure is they
don't want to be dropped off the bid list.
MR. ODOM: Off the bid list.
JUDGE TINLEY: We did get their attention, though,
apparently. Next bid is from Wilson Culverts, Incorporated,
with respect to corrugated metal pipe. Next one is from
Martin Marietta Materials as to paving aggregates and hot mix,
j ? 7 - ~ h
87
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
cold mix asphalt and concrete pavement specs. Next one is
from Contech Construction Products, Incorporated, for
corrugated metal pipe.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Last one.
JUDGE TINLEY: And the last one is from M.P.B.,
Incorporated, for equipment by-the-hour with operator.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I move we accept all bids
and refer them to Road and Bridge for recommendation.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to accept
bids and refer them to Road and Bridge for evaluation and
recommendation. Any question or discussion? All in favor of
the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(NO response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry.
MR. ODOM: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's now move to Item 12, consider,
discuss, and take appropriate action to accept lease agreement
for two Caterpillar backhoes approved by Court Order Number
29524, and have the Judge sign the same.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. I'm asking the Court to
authorize the Judge to sign it. These are the two lease
backhoes that we ordered probably back the first of the year,
~ z~-oti
88
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and we're finally getting those two machines back, and we
think they'll work for us.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are they here?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir, I've got them, and they're
sitting. We won't use them until we have the Judge sign and I
get insurance on them.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move for approval.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Did you second?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion and second to approve the --
and accept the lease agreement for two Caterpillar backhoes as
approved by Court Order Number 29524 and authorize the Judge
to sign the same. Any question or discussion?
MR. ODOM: I believe that Mindy has the original, so
I'll go to her after -- after this to present those papers to
you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Is there a purchase option in
these lease agreements?
MR. ODOM: I believe that -- I believe that this is.
I believe it is.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All of them do, right?
MR. ODOM: Well, not every -- not all the time do
they put it that way. But this -- they -- we bid this as a
lease, and they gave us an option, if we wish to do it, to
3-27-OF
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
pick that up residual amount should we want to in five years.
I believe that's the way it was worded. We have five years to
look at it and to see.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. It's not one of those $1
deals, unfortunately.
MR. ODOM: No, sir, it's residual value. I think
it's around 25,000, 27,000 at the end of five years, probably
an $80,000 machine.
JUDGE TINLEY: They have a pretty good way of
evaluating that residual, if I recall it.
MR. ODOM: Cat Financial has a -- yes, sir, they
have a value that they determine out three, five, whatever
we're doing. And we're fortunate, we have five years. They
normally go three, and it's been a real good -- good thing for
us.
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,
Mr. Odom.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's go to Item 13; consider,
3-?~-06
90
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
discuss, and take appropriate action on Kerr County
Subdivision Rules and Regulations. Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How many changes since the
last time?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We have marked versions this
time.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We have marked versions.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He's got a new computer and
he's learned how to use it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If I can just find my...
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: His marked version.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My marked version. Want a copy,
Mr. County Attorney?
MR. EMERSON: Sure.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Press?
MR. ODOM: How about Road and Bridge?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Road and Bridge.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Gordon Morgan?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Gordon Morgan.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Hey, look at that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. All right. Probably
the easiest thing to do is to go through page-by-page. I can
hopefully be able to remember what all the changes were.
There was not a whole lot, and most of them, for the most
part, are not real significant.
-~~~-o~
91
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
~3
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Page 10.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Page 10 is the first one? Page
10. There was a bunch of other language under the definition
related to the number of lots and all this other stuff, and
I -- it's really addressed later in the agreement -- in the --
arterial road, collector road and local roads. I did not
check that same language, so I just deleted it out of the
definition. And then under road, I modified that definition
slightly and added -- it was talking about right-of-way
easement. I added language about being a fee simple title as
well. Next change --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you agree with that,
Judge? Adding the verbiage, simple -- "fee simple title"?
DODGE TINLEY: Well, it says or a right-of-way or
easement.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, it -- you can do it either way.
There -- there are a lot of folks that -- that traditional
thinking from a land title standpoint is, a right-of-way is
generally considered to be a deed to the property for a
specific purpose, but it actually conveys title of the
property. That's a common -- common belief among --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The reason I made the change
is -- I think it was covered before, but a lot of times under
our -- especially if it's going to be a county road, we want
3 z~ o~
92
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
it deeded to the county, and I added that just to make it
clear. I think you can still call it right-of-way, but I just
tried to make it a little bit clearer by adding that.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Just for my education, is
that different from an easement? That the County has an
easement; we also expect a title?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, some of it -- some of our
county roads, we have right-of-ways, and some of them we
don't. I mean, it varies. Some of them are prescriptive
easements. We do not own that property, but we have -- we
have an easement to it and there's something that we -- where
we have an actual written easement to the property.
MR. ODOM: But we do own it through adverse
possession.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We own -- we --
MR. ODOM: Prescriptive easement.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We own the road. We do not own
the property.
MR. ODOM: If we have 10 years maintenance in it,
adverse possession; belongs to the County.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They own the property. We have
an easement to the --
MR. ODOM: But we have the --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Leonard, we don't own it. They
pay taxes on it.
-z~-a r,
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
MR. ODOM: They pay taxes at a reduced -- they
actually don't, but --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Don't get into it.
JUDGE TINLEY: A lot of your roads in some of these
rural subdivisions -- Kerrville South, notably -- you will
have the -- the plat will be filed, and it'll show the
property line going to the middle of the road, but burdened --
on either side of that middle by 20 feet or whatever it may
be, 30 feet, it's burdened by an easement.
MR. ODOM: That's right.
JUDGE TINLEY: But the property owner owns to the
middle of the road.
MR. ODOM: That's correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: It's just reserved for the purpose of
that roadway.
MR. ODOM: Of vehicular traffic.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We have an easement, the
County does, along Lake Ingram, the banks of it, to be used
for purposes of maintenance. We don't own that, right? And
the tax -- the owner does pay taxes on it, right?
JUDGE TINLEY: Presumably.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Probably.
MR. ODOM: Probably.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know about Lake Ingram.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay.
3-27-0 n'
94
1
L
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
~L
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We have a lot of situations
like the Judge depicts off of Elm Pass Road, way back in there
along --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd say the majority of the
county roads are by prescriptive easement.
MR. ODOM: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, anyway, that was -- it's to
clarify that, the fee simple title. Next is on Page 16 at the
bottom. There was a conflict that said one-half and
one-quarter previously, and I went to one-quarter for -- this
is a minimum lot size.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Served by public water and
community system.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: While we're there, are we
going to address the issue that Mr. Voelkel brought up?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which was?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I can't remember.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Country lane.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I can't remember. It was
somewhere in here.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It was on country lane. I made
a note of that. Then on the next page, I just highlighted it
3-~7-06
95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
23
24
25
'cause we've changed C. On S.O1.E, we changed -- we deleted
the two ETJ areas, so it's now handled by agreement with the
various -- with the cities. And then we changed the center of
the circle for Center Point to Farm-to-Market 480 and
Farm-to-Market 1350, which is China Street, and we extended
the radius of the circle at Center Point to one and a half
miles to pick up some areas that are likely to be included in
a sewage or water -- potable water project.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Then, in the Comfort area, I
left that radius at 1 mile, but I moved the intersection to
State Highway 27 and Hermann Sons Road. Before, we had it
listed at a -- at a road the other side of the bridge that was
in Kendall County. It was a little bit confusing why we were
using a Kendall County point of reference, so I just moved it
into Kerr County.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner, I've been
involved in all discussions about this except the last
meeting. I didn't read those minutes, and I'm still not sure
I understand the one-quarter acre for lots. What -- what's
our rationale for reducing lot sizes?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If you're under a central water
system and a central sewer system, I think a quarter acre is
kind of a traditional town lot size. And that, also, there's
other language that can be, you know, looked at on a
->~-ui
96
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
case-by-r_ase situation, if somebody wants to do a townhome or
something like that. But, really, what we're talking about
here, where you're going to have that is next to a city,
whether it be somewhere around Kerrville, which is, you know,
probably handled by the ETJ agreement, or around Comfort or
Center Point, possibly, right around there somewhere. But I
don't know that there's any plan for a central sewer system in
the Hunt area.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, we're relaxing the
minimum acreage and minimum lot size requirements in these
specific high-density areas.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're actually -- in our
previous rules, we had no minimum here, and we've gone back to
a quarter. We used to have no minimum in this situation.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This, however, can encourage
a developer to do both centralized water and centralized sewer
if he wants to maximize his development of a particular piece
of land.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Would you expect that it
would, sometime in the future, 10 or 20 years, have the result
of a higher population in Kerr County, as compared to if we
did nothing?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that the -- I think you
would -- it'll change the way the growth comes. I think this
allows for some little bit higher density development in areas
3-27-06
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
where -- my personal opinion is that we probably will need it
on the eastern part of the county. As an example, inside --
right around Comfort. Comfort's not incorporated, so, you
know, it's not -- they go under county rules, but they are
served by a water district that provides wastewater and
drinking water. They had a subdivision recently denied by
Kendall County because they didn't have a 4-acre average.
Well, you can't -- they're -- basically, what Kendall County
has done on the Kendall County side of Comfort is say, "You
will no longer develop here," because you can't develop at the
cost per-acre on a 4-acre average. So I think that, you know,
what we're doing, we're allowing -- I looked at that
situation, and that doesn't make sense to me. I think we need
to allow for communities to develop, and this is a way to
encourage them to do that, and also encourages central
wastewater and central water systems, which I think in areas
are good.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm sure -- in fact, I know
there are those who would say this relaxing of the acreage I'
requirements is going to put more pressure on the aquifers.
What do we say to that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that, long-term, I can
also -- I won't disagree. It may. I can't look in that
crystal ball. But I think it also provides a -- a way where
surface water options and central wastewater systems become
-~~-05
98
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
more economic. And I think that central water systems and
water and wastewater, certainly, right along the river
corridor are a big plus. So, I think it encourages -- you
know, by having a higher density, it encourages -- it's a way
to get other projects off high center.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're right, though.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, it does. Okay. Next
change is on Page 20. On 5.05, concrete monuments, I
highlighted this, 'cause Leonard had a comment to me on a fax,
and I couldn't understand his comment, so I highlighted this.
So, maybe you can look through there and get back, you know,
before we're done as to what his comment was. Under drainage,
a couple of general changes that I made that just -- what I
was trying to do here, one, I added some language in the last
sentence. It says -- under that first paragraph, it says,
"and should be prepared to use professional standards of the
engineering practice and industry." That was a note I had
from Rex, that looking at our drainage -- he had some people
look at what we were doing with our new approach to drainage,
and felt that was probably a needed improvement.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Wait a minute. Is that a --
let me read -- that didn't look like a real sentence to me.
"And should prepared"?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh.
3- 2 7- O 6
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
JUDGE TINLEY: Be prepared.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Be prepared. There was bad
lighting in Wichita Falls in my room; I couldn't read.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And you never know if that's
a real sentence or not. Sometimes we leave "be" out and
sometimes we don't.
MR. ODOM: Wasn't that question from Rex in
reference -- is that the standard that we're using?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, it's that we can't -- it's
that on any engineering, they need to use a standard -- I
mean, engineering standard. I think -- and I looked at a lot
of other rules, too. I think we get into real shaky ground if
we tell engineers that are certified by the state what their
engineering standard will be in Kerr County.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think they can tell us to
go hang it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, exactly. I think they're
the paid professional; they're licensed by the state, not by
Kerr County. And I think that's what the attempt here is
saying, that -- and it goes further on on the next page.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Actually, I see this as a
sentence -- I mean as a suggestion.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, it is a suggestion. But
it goes on to -- let me jump to 5.06.C. I added, "Criteria
set forth under this section are intended to provide
?-?~-u~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
23
24
25
100
guidelines for drainage calculations." I think that the
previous way I had this worded was that -- and I've also
changed all -- or many of the "shalls" in the document to
"should," and Rex said maybe we should even go to "may." The
idea is that I think it's -- we -- there is some arbitrary
nature of the figures we use. I got them from talking with an
engineer, but, I mean, I don't think there was a -- he didn't
open up an engineering manual and we came up with these magic
numbers. I think what we're trying to say is that under --
our intent is that we think that it is acceptable engineering
practice for Kerr County subdivisions to have tolerances on
drainage issues, and these tolerances that we're listing are,
you know, kind of rule-of-thumbs that we think are
appropriate. However, if an engineer says otherwise, if they
want to use a little bit different standards, I don't think we
have the ability to say otherwise unless we want to challenge
them with another engineer. And also, I think engineers are
obligated to use the state law, so I think we're trying to
say, hey, we're trying to take a little bit different approach
in Kerr County, but we're not telling you how to do your job,
because I don't think we have that authority, directly. And
I -- there's an instance -- and I think Buster will be my
witness on this. I went through this whole discussion -- I
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Jim.
3- 2 7- U 6
101
1
2
3
4
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: With Jim Allison in Wichita
Falls, and asked if we were going in the right direction. He
said yes, this is exactly the direction that he feels counties
should be going. So, once again, Buster's leading our
association to the -- to the cutting edge, or leading the
county. But Jim -- yeah, I think Jim understood what I asked
him. Buster said he wasn't positive, but --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think he did.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, anyway, that's kind of what
I was doing with that. That's why those changes are listed
there.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Could we go back to 5.05?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sure.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Concrete monuments.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: An old subdivision, would
they be required to establish one of the concrete monuments,
or are those for new --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If they revise that subdivision,
they might. It would depend, I think, how they do it. But
this is what the new subdivisions --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What's the purpose of a
monument?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So that -- for floodplain
purposes, so there is a point where we know what the
3- 2 7- G b
102
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
floodplain elevation is. It's a one-time certified, so it's
basically done for all lots one time, rather than every lot
having to figure out what the floodplain is. It's kind of --
once you get the monument, you know the point.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So you can go in there with
your instrument and you can --
MR. ODOM: Sit on that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sit on that monument, and you
know every lot.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Oka v. So. it rlnas haves a
practical reason.
MR. ODOM: Has a practical reason.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Back on Page 20, under 5.06.A
again, second paragraph.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 20?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Page 20, that last paragraph.
It starts with, "A registered professional engineer..."
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I modified this. We previously
said that the engineer had to certify that the drainage work
was done according to the design. Several engineers contacted
me and said that they think the developer needs to do it,
because they really don't have the ability, in practice, to
know that, because a developer does the construction, and
sometimes the engineer's involved, sometimes different
3-'~-ot,
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
engineers. They thought it was a good idea to have the
developer responsible. They said that they just -- for the
most part, they couldn't physically do that. They -- 'cause
they don't know all the time for that certification. So,
anyway, I think it's important to have the developer --
someone needs to certify it was done, and that's why I said
the engineer or the developer can certify it. Under the top
of Page 21, subdivisions with minimum lot size of 20 acres or
total number of lots of less than five shall be exempt from
this section. I believe that used to say --
MR. ODOM: 15.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It was a different number.
MR. ODOM: 15.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It was 15 -- what --
MR. ODOM: The old one said 15. If it was 15 or
more, then you didn't need a drainage study.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, anyway, I can't remember
what it -- 15.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that still part of 5.06.A?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. I thought it changed --
I'm hesitant right here. I thought I changed it to something
different. I'm wondering if -- you know, some counties I
looked at use a lot smaller standard than that, or larger. I
think 20 acres and five -- or less than five lots is pretty
small. I think we clearly wanted to exempt out these real
-^~-06
104
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
small subdivisions. I don't think they need to go to the
expense of --
MR. ODOM: Drainage studies.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- drainage studies. I'm
probably comfortable with 20 acres. As I said, I think some
of the counties around us are using 10 or 15 acres. So,
anyway, that's just kind of -- I don't have a real strong
opinion on it. I think we need to exempt the -- you know,
make a point where if there's larger tracts or a small number
of lots, they should be exempt, but we can leave it at that.
That's fine. Evidently, they -- this is what I thought when I
wrote that paragraph. I went through on the rest of Page 21
and changed those "shalls" to "should." Is there an opinion,
should we go to "may"? Should I leave it "should"? Does
"should" have a legal meaning?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Frankly, "may" is better.
If it's -- if it's not required, it's permissible, I think
"may" would be a better choice of words.
JUDGE TINLEY: If you want to strongly encourage it,
however, I think "should" is a better term.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd rather strongly encourage
it, but not say that they have to.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Fine, if that's your intent.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's my intent, anyway.
That's it on that.
3-27-Ob
105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: As distinguished from
"shall."
JUDGE TINLEY: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On Page 23 --
JUDGE TINLEY: Or "must."
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- the first one, it used to say
"retention." Needs to say "detention." Then another
should/shall change, or "shall" to "should."
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 22? Page 22?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Page 23 on mine.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. '.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Page 24, under Concept Plan -- I
don't know. You'll have to bear with me a minute.
JUDGE TINLEY: Figure out which draft you're looking
for?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm trying to figure out what
the change was that I made.
MR. ODOM: The change you said before, I think it
was 10 or less; if it was 10 or less, we didn't have to have a
concept. And this one here doesn't have that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I thought I brought that copy
with me. Too many stacks of paper. I've got a feeling the
one I'm looking for is on my desk. I cannot remember what the
change was. I think the last sentence was what I deleted. I
can't remember what it says. I thought I brought it, but I
3-'7-06
106
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
~0
21
22
23
24
25
didn't.
MR. ODOM: Do you want to --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think what it was -- I think
Leonard's right; I think I eliminated the requirement, if you
were a small lot, that you didn't have to bring -- do the
concept plan. I think it's just at the discretion of the --
gave the discretion totally to Road and Bridge or the
Commissioner.
MR. ODOM: Or the Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It used to be a certain
criteria; only a certain number of lots had to have a concept
plan, but we were getting a lot of concept plans like the one
this morning, which didn't meet the minimum requirements, so I
just eliminated that minimum requirement and said it's at the
discretion of the Road and Bridge Administrator or the
Commissioner.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's not a particularly burdensome
requirement. You're just talking about a rough sketch. It's
an idea that's being floated.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct. It's just -- and it's
really just if it's a little bit of an unusual development.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And in many cases, it's for
the owners, to give the owner some idea as to what direction
they may have to go.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. Page 26, 6.02.D.9.
-27-06
107
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 26?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is just changing it that we
had -- at one point, we had the drainage plan had to be at
preliminary plat. This is the preliminary drainage plan has
to be at the preliminary plat.
MR. ODOM: Before, it was with the final.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. I~,
MR. ODOM: And now it's with the preliminary.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You got to have something at the
preliminary, but the final drainage plans come in with the
final. You just have to have a preliminary drainage plan at
the time of preliminary plat, if one is required.
JUDGE TINLEY: Are you speaking only to preliminary
in 6.02.D.4? Only preliminary?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. It's addressed later under
final as well.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. The language there is a little
stilted.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If drainage plan is required,
the preliminary drainage plan shall be submitted with
accompanying data with -- or should be "for" the preliminary
plat.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, you could say preliminary
drainage plans, if a drainage plan is required, shall be
submitted. Your -- your additional referencing makes it
3 2 7 0 6
108
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
difficult --
MR. ODOM: Reference goes back to that change that
he had of 20 acres or more, would be the only exception out of
5.06.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You can change that to
preliminary drainage plan.
JUDGE TINLEY: And then, where you refer to the
preliminary drainage plan in the second sentence, just draw a
line through --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We got "preliminary" in
there twice. You do not need it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Take the first one out.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. So, just leave it as-is,
but just delete -- put the period after "accompanying data"?
JUDGE TINLEY: No.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No. Take out the first --
the "preliminary." If it's required by Section 5.06, a
drainage plan shall be submitted with accompanying data.
JUDGE TINLEY: You can do it that way.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just take out the first
"preliminary.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. But the preliminary -- we
don't want the drainage plan at the preliminary; we want the
preliminary drainage plan at the preliminary.
3-27-Oti
109
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
JUDGE TINLEY: You can either say "preliminary" as
the first word in that sentence, "drainage plans, if
required," and then go straight to "shall be submitted." Or
you can start with, "If a drainage plan is required, the
preliminary drainage plan shall be submitted with accompanying
data." Either way.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Which way do you want to do it?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The second. So --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Start with "I-f." Start the
sentence with "If."
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: "Preliminary drainage plans. If
a drainage plan is required by Section 5.06, preliminary
drainage plan shall be submitted with accompanying data."
JUDGE TINLEY: With the preliminary plat. Go ahead
and --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Put it back in?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right, I think I got it.
All right. Under -- on Page 27, 6.03.C, I just added the word
"final." Form and Content of Final Plat -- not there. Page
28 -- I believe we had a typo in there. I changed 6.03.C.3.c,
Certification by County Subdivision Administrator. I think
there was a word in there. And then under the next one,
3-^7-Ou
110
1
2
3
4
5
F
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
L G
23
24
2J
6.03.C -- 6.03.C.3.g, that's where we had talked about at our
last meeting the statement that goes on the final plat as to
the total number of lots permitted in a subdivision, which is
based on total acreage divided by five, so that we can go
through replats; we don't all of a sudden start creeping up
and getting more than we're supposed to.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think that's wise.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Put that in as an example,
total acreage divided by five. Use it that way. "Example,"
colon.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. ODOM: But this will be on the boilerplate for
final.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. This is the standard
plat note.
JUDGE TINLEY: You're using gross subdivision
acreage as opposed to net?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. So, if it's a 600-acre
tract, it's 600 divided by 5; 30, so you have --
MR. ODOM: 120.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. So, 30's the number -- 30
is not right. Math isn't right. Whatever it is. 100 -- 100
acres, you get 20 lots.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's the number that 100 acres
- ~ ~ - ~ E
111
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
can get with individuals wells.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's why the example is
helpful.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. On the next page,
6.03.D.10 --
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me go back.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: I -- I think -- I think that one's
going to be battered around a time or two on figuring the
average, and I think you need to clearly state that you're
dealing with the gross total acreage within the subdivision.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I added that on my note here in
the example, to make it gross total acreage divided by...
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On the next page, 6.03.D.10,
previously we had a note about certifying topography that
Mr. Voelkel brought to our attention, so I just deleted that
part off the certification of the land surveyor. It's still
applicable.
JUDGE TINLEY: Which is what they do anyway.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Which is what they do.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Next -- I don't have any
changes until Page 37, so I just want to make sure we're all
in agreement.
3-~~-OE
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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 37?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Page 37 under 7.06.8. Under
Country Lane, and for that matter, Local Road, we say Type A
is crushed base, correct?
MR. ODOM: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's what we're saying you
have to use. Type C --
MR. ODOM: Is select fill; gravel, pit run.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is pit run.
MR. ODOM: It's pit run, but it's screened.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, what we're saying here is
that we are no longer to allow on-site material to be used for
road base.
MR. ODOM: For Grade 3 caliche, correct.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But if they get -- I mean, is
there any -- and I still have a little problem with this; we
go round and round on this, Leonard.
MR. ODOM: Sure.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the --
MR. ODOM: If -- if a testing lab found that the
material was as good and could certify that that material was
as good as Type C, I would accept it. If I have a letter from
a testing lab to go out there and say I got this right here
and it basically meets these specs, it's better material than
a Type C. I personally, you know, before -- I would like it
3_?a-06
113
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
~0
21
22
23
24
25
all to be limestone, with the exception of the unpaved roads.
Anything paved ought to have crushed limestone; that's my
personal belief. Now, a private road over there could be --
you could have it paved, or could you have it unpaved, and it
could be Type C. It might even be Grade 3. The catch-all
would be that if they came back to the County to take it, we
would say you've got to upgrade that into a base material, or
cement-stabilized or something to get something better so that
we don't have the Grade 3 caliche there. I don't have a
problem with country lane if we're not maintaining it. But if
we have a country lane and we maintain it, I believe that it
should at least -- well, it should be Type A.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're in agreement. Clearly, we
want roads that stand up. And I just -- you know, I just -- I
don't want to overly burden the developers having to keep our
gravel pits along the river in business when there is material
that will work on-site. That's my concern.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's my question. Are
we -- are we making a change that's going to drive up costs
and require us to --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Definitely costs more.
MR. ODOM: Yes.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Do the benefits justify
the -- the costs?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You have to ask him that
-z, us
114
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
question. He's the --
MR. ODOM: I have to maintain it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- the road builder.
MR. ODOM: If they come and they do everything
that's there and it's acceptable, we would have to accept it.
And if it's not the higher quality, I just think the taxpayers
would be getting cheated some. What is the ultimate cost is
us to maintain it. If the citizens kept it, the ones that own
it, who cares?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, let me use a
practical example.
MR. ODOM: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If the owners out there on
Cherry Springs Road decide they want to bring that road up to
standards so that the County can take over maintenance of it,
does that mean they're not going to be able to use that
abundant caliche that they have out there?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Probably not.
MR. ODOM: That abundant caliche may not meet Grade
3 specs, so therefore, I would say no. But if they had it
tested and they had enough material there and it tested out to
be a Grade 3, if that's what the rules say, then of course
they could.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You know, I think -- and one
thing I want to make, you know, everyone aware of, I think --
3-~7-06
115
1
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 have a slight modification to this that I'd recommend, but
they can use the on-site fill for fill.
MR. ODOM: Sure.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They just have to bring in
8 inches of --
MR. ODOM: Well, 6 inches.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- 6 inches of base material for
the actual roadway. So, I mean, it's not an exorbitant amount
of material. They can still use a lot of base material
on-site and they don't have to haul in everything.
MR. ODOM: And let's say that they do have caliche,
and I've seen some that has -- and the test results are such
that it would meet or exceed select fill. And if it does,
then to me, then it would be acceptable. If that testing lab
signs off and says it meets the specs and it even exceeds
that, then I would say you could do that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, absolutely. Of course.
That's not -- I mean, that that's not even a question.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, we -- what we should add,
though, maybe on, say, Type C, "Grade 2 or equivalent as
approved by testing lab."
MR. ODOM: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But what about -- you know,
what were y'all saying about reference to Number 4's question
about on-site mill run -- what if the lab comes along and does
z~-r~r,
116
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
not say that it matches or exceeds? That it's a sub-par
caliche?
MR. ODOM: Then they would have to go to the Type C
or limestone.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You got to haul it from
Kerrville.
MR. ODOM: Or you may --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Which is a 25-mile one-way
trip.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, I mean, that's --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Gets really expensive.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But that's for the 6 inches in
the road itself.
MR. ODOM: In the road itself. They can still use
all the on-site material for fill and -- and make subgrade.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All the subgrade is just the
actual -- you know, it's just tougher than we currently have.
MR. ODOM: Right. And if you looked at the
different quarries that we have, you have Walter Masters on
479, and I-10, you have a lot of areas there. You've got the
Red Rose off 1341. You have Comfort that's got a pit. The
Lucky 3 is right outside Center Point, so there's a lot of
availability. Mr. Keller's got one on Harper Road, just the
other side of the county line, so there's material there. And
trucking is always a cost. It's a cost to me to use it.
~-z~ u5
117
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
But --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that the best reason to
do this -- and I'm not a real big fan, but the best reason to
do it, if the road's going to come into the county system,
it's done right to start with. Otherwise, we have a real
issue of having to go back and having it redone.
MR. ODOM: Redone.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't know that there's
any other issue.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that's --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That really is the issue.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. So, anyway, I just wanted
to -- I'll add that, if it's okay, that "or equivalent"
language, but that's why. Okay. Now, if we go --
JUDGE TINLEY: Leonard was talking about Type 3?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mm-hmm.
MR. ODOM: Grade 3.
JUDGE TINLEY: Grade 3?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I don't see Grade 3 anywhere
here.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And it's not.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. ODOM: We've eliminated -- we used to have a
Type C or a Grade 3 caliche, and he eliminated that wording
3 0 9 g i g
118
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
for the caliche.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. ODOM: We went to a little bit better select
fill material to build the road with. And now he's saying "or
equivalent" to that Type C specification.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Leonard, make sure that we look
at the -- you look at the newest TexDOT guide that we referred
to to make sure that this is what -- our numbers are all
right. Some -- one of the local engineers gave me a page,
what they said was TexDOT manual; they had different numbers.
I think -- you know, I think theirs was old.
MR. ODOM: I think metric, I think. And the '04 --
I looked at an '04 manual, but Truby and I talked about it. I
had an '04 manual, which goes back to the standards TexDOT did
metric, and then they did away with it, 'cause even their own
people couldn't get it right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. But I think what we need
to do on this, like, if you tell me what manual you're looking
at so we can reference that exact manual in here.
MR. ODOM: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So there's no question.
MR. ODOM: I'll see if there's a new one updated. I
looked at it the other day, '04.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. Next page, 40, the
first change on Page 40 is a cul-de-sac. We had this, and it
,~ oe
119
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
~0
21
~~
L L
23
24
25
still is listed elsewhere, but we didn't have them in the road
section for some reason, so I just added it here as well. And
then you will note on the next couple of pages, everything's
highlighted. What I asked Truby to do -- I'm going to hand it
out now. You have to go to the -- go to the second page in
this attachment. Here's some others for y'all so y'all can be
able to follow.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second page in this?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's a big chart -- big table.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, sure enough.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm critical of Kendall County
frequently, so I got to give them an attaboy here. They had
this same information in a chart format. I really thought it
was easy to follow, a lot easier than pages of writing, so I
asked Truby to take our information and put it in a table.
And I have not gone through it; there may be a couple of
modifications to make sure that, you know we're all --
everything is accurate on it. I personally would rather use
this table and delete all the highlighted gray area from Page
40 to 43.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's an improvement.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's a lot cleaner.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This is replaced, then, from
Page 40 through 43?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. Same information, but it's
3-27-06
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
just on one chart format, which I think is a little bit
cleaner. And also, going back to the lot size format, or we
go to -- where we've had so much confusion over the years over
minimum lot size and averaging and all that, I would like to
have the authority to try to put that in a table format as
well. I think it would be cleaner also. That's also
something Kendall County does, and if I can do that, I was
going to bring it -- have the authority to make that switch as
well. The information doesn't change, but it's a little bit
cleaner way to present it.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I can see that.
MR. ODOM: You did receive that, right? Truby sent
that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, I got it. I couldn't --
it's in a format I couldn't unlock, but I got it, so I printed
it. If I can figure out how --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, the road chart is
going in now.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, road chart will go in, and
the lot size chart as well, if I can make it, you know, clear.
Actually, I believe that's the last change.
MR. ODOM: What about the performance bond that --
checking that? Was that in the appendix.?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: In the appendix.
MR. ODOM: Okay.
~~ ut
121
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That was the last change in the
rules. The appendices, Truby sent me a copy of them, but
they're in a format that I really -- I couldn't get it back
into Word. But it really doesn't change anything, all the
appendices referred to. Leonard and I went through and made a
few changes. That being said, if we look at the first page I
just handed out, which is a fee schedule, this is a big
change. Leonard, do you have a copy of it?
MR. ODOM: No, I don't.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Did y'all get one? Our current
rules have a flat charge of $150 plus $10 a lot. I think it's
$10. And we've received a lot of complaints, and I think
justifiably so, from people that were doing a revision or, you
know, doing a two-lot subdivision and -- you know, and I think
there was one of Buster's constituents came in here quite a
while ago; it was costing him -- just to try to do something
that we wanted him to do, it was going to cost him, like, $300
or $400. So, I tried to go back more to a -- I think a more
user-friendly, but also help the County on some of the larger
subdivisions. So, we have a preliminary plat fee, if it's
less than four lots, of $20; four to ten lots, $50; and more
than ten, 100. That's for preliminary.
JUDGE TINLEY: Jon, on both of those, you're going
to have to do something with four and ten. You're going less
than four, more than four, so that leaves four out.
3-2~ 06
122
1
2
3
9
5
h
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
L2
23
24
25
	COMMISSIONER	LETZ: Oh, okay.
	JUDGE TINLEY:	Same thing with ten.
	COMMISSIONER	LETZ: Four or more.
	JUDGE TINLEY:	Four or more, less than four.
	COMMISSIONER	LETZ: Right. Less than ten. So, it's
less	than four, four or	more.
	JUDGE TINLEY:	Four -- subdivisions with four and
less	than ten.	
	COMMISSIONER	LETZ: Right.
	JUDGE TINLEY:	And then subdivisions with --
	COMMISSIONER	LETZ: More than ten.
	JUDGE TINLEY:	With ten or more.
	COMMISSIONER	LETZ: Ten or more.
	COMMISSIONER	BALDWIN: Ten or more.
	COMMISSIONER	LETZ: Okay. The same changes you have
down	below on the final	.
	JUDGE TINLEY:	Sure.
	COMMISSIONER	LETZ: Then under the final plat fee,
ther	e's a -- make sure	we have a record fee, certified copy
fee,	and a courthouse s	ecurity fee. Those came from the
Cler	k's office; I think	those are still correct. And then we
did	a final plat fee of	--
	MR. ODOM: $1	0 or $5?
	COMMISSIONER	LETZ: For what?
	MR. ODOM: Th	e wording there says $10, yet you have
3-27-n,
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
"five" printed there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: $10 where?
MR. ODOM: Right up underneath your final plat fee.
In addition to the base final fee, there is an additional $10,
which you've got five.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh, I changed it. I thought
$10; I think I went to $5.
MR. ODOM: Should be $5?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. I shouldn't work early in
the morning on these. Then there's -- right here.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Before you take off, Jon, I
want -- where's -- where does the courthouse security fee go
in the budget?
DODGE TINLEY: It's a dedicated fee, and that's what
we use to pay Chuck Brecher with.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There's an actual line in
there?
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. And the fee structure
that's -- there's two sentences or two other provisions in
addition to the base final plat fee. There is an additional
$5 per-lot subdivision review fee, and then the next -- in
addition to the base final plat fee, there's an additional $10
3-2~-nb
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
per-lot engineerinq review fee to review engineering --
drainage engineering and road engineering.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Commissioner, you're going
to have to make the same changes on the --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- ten or more or four or
more on the second --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- category.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's -- that was all -- I just
copied it, so I copied it once wrong, so it's twice wrong.
And this engineering review fee is something that, looking
through some rules, talking with the County Attorney, looking
at engineering, state licensing, we have a problem having
Leonard review engineering drawings. We require an engineer
to do road drawings or engineering plans. We have got to have
an engineer do that review. I think that we're in
violation -- opening ourselves up and in violation. So -- but
we can pass that cost on to the developer. So, that second
bit of language here, the intent of that is to provide revenue
that we then go out -- and this will be on our next agenda, to
', go out for a consulting engineer that will do this review for
us. That's why I put an engineering review fee.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think that obligation is rightfully
an obligation of the developer, and I think that should be
3-z~-o~
lzs
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
is
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
passed on.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: As a separate cost. I'm not
sure if that's -- you know, I have no idea what that's going i
to cost. We do have an engineer in the audience. He probably
is not going to want to give me an idea of what they're going
to charge for that. That may not be enough; that may need to
be $2s.
MR. ODOM: It may be higher than that, from the --
what I've heard.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Maybe $2s. But whatever it is,
the Subdivision Rules or Chapter 232 clearly gives us the
authority to pass that on. And I think it's just the way -- I
mean, we -- under our current system, we don't have a county
engineer. I don't see that we're going to have one anytime
real soon.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How do you find out -- how do
you find out how much they charge? I mean, would this young
man charge more than Joe Blow off the street?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's going to be on our next
agenda to go out for -- for bid for a consulting engineer that
will -- so Leonard has someone he -- we can work with.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. And, so --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And multiple, probably.
Hopefully we'll get a few -- a few come in so that if we --
3 - 2 ~ - u ti
126
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
one of them's, you know, like if Les Harvey submits a bid and
he's doing the engineering, well, then we have a -- you know,
another one to go to.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And if necessary, we'll
amend these fees.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Amend the fees, what it will
take.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And you can -- so you can
accept all of them.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Accept them all, and then
Leonard picks the one that we need, and we go the with low bid
unless there's a conflict.
MR. ODOM: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Then, under the Environmental
Health Department, the current fee structure is $150 and $10 a
lot. It's just a flat -- I think we need to kind of do what
we did in the other one; break it down. Subdivision review
fee of $50. That's in addition to the base O.S.S.F.
Subdivision review fee there is an additional $5 a lot. And
then the next one, if the lot -- minimum lot size is less than
5 acres, there's an additional $10 fee, and the reason for
that is, if they're going with on-site septic and you start
getting small lot sizes, my understanding is that Miguel and
his folks have to go out and spend more time on-site to
actually look at every lot to see if they can put an O.S.S. F.
-z~-i~ti
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
system in. If there's -- it's 20-acre tracts, I don't think
it's any -- I mean, that's a minimal review.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In your first paragraph
here, you've got both figures; you've got $10 and $5. Which
did you intend it to be?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Five. Computers are great, but
once you make a mistake, you just perpetuate it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Then it becomes $10 if
there's more work involved?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And this may be a little bit of
a reduction -- probably will be a reduction in revenue to that
department, because we have been charging 150, period. But I
think we were a little bit heavy-handed on those charges. I
have not talked with Miguel about those changes. They were
made this morning, so I'd like to visit with him a little bit
before --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're going down from 150
for a subdivision review down to 50?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No matter the size of the
subdivision review?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, but the larger ones,
you're going to start having -- you have a per-lot fee, and
-?~ ~~n
128
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
then if it's a -- somewhat a high density, you're going to
have an additional per-lot fee. So --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just a little bit different way
of looking at it. I just think that we were really onerous
for real small subdivisions previously.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I test-drove this to see if
I -- if I was a developer, would I know what to do, and I --
it's really good if I, you know, pay attention. One thing I
didn't find is the requirement for public hearing. Does that
not belong in here? Or --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Should be under Revision of
Plat.
MR. ODOM: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Revision of Plat, Page 30.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Paqe 30. It's under 6 --
6.09.B.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. I don't know how I
missed that. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we're far enough along
to adopt these today. We certainly have gone through them
enough times. I would appreciate the fler.ibility to correct a
few of the typos and make the changes we talked about today.
I don't -- I mean, we haven't changed substance in three or
s-z~-or
129
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2q
25
four meetings now, really. We're going more over, you know,
some minor things, so I think they're far enough along we can
approve these, get them in place. And if, for some reason,
something does come up, you know, we can do an amendment to
the rules.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: With thanks to Commissioner
Letz for his hard work.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Don't start that; get
him a big head.
DODGE TINLEY: We have a motion and a second to
adopt the Subdivision Rules as presented, with language
corrections and other corrections as noted here today, but
without material change in substance or content. Any question
or discussion on the motion?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Just a comment, Judge.
I -- from the first time I reviewed this until now, I've
really struggled with the quarter-acre lot size change, and
I'm still not sure it's the right thing to do. But I'm -- all
in all, I'm going to trust that it is and go ahead and support
it. It's got some rationale to it. I'm just -- I'm uneasy
about it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I don't like -- I'll
just say it; I don't like growth either, and -- in my home
county. I've watched this place turn into a -- a
3-z~-nb
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
maniac-ville, and with some people -- I promised myself I
wouldn't get into this, but this smoking ordinance thing,
that's the most insane thing I have ever seen in my entire
life, telling property owners what to do with their own
property, and people can't make decisions about themselves and
those kind of things. That just makes me want to throw up.
So, I don't -- I don't like it either. You know, I've watched
my hometown turn into that. But, you know, if you look --
look at this quarter-acre thing, when you're talking about
central water and central sewer, I mean, I don't see any way
around it, to be honest with you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And to comfort you some, if it
is, I'll be surprised in the next five years if we have one
development that does it.
JUDGE TINLEY: The cost of sewer collection systems
is -- is such that it's going to take -- it's going to take a
tremendous size development in order to generate something
like that, Commissioner. And, like Commissioner Letz said, if
we see a development coming in that size, we're exploding,
kind of like they're doing down the road in Kendall County
now.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think it gives us a plan
to manage growth. None of us like it. We don't like it when
it's just kind of like topsy-turvy, but it does give us a good
plan to manage it.
-z~-oe
131
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I was ready to close the
gate behind me.
JUDGE TINLEY: As were a lot of other folks.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Listen, I've been -- I've
been petitioning the State for years to put one-way signs all
pointing out. If you leave, you can't come back in.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Shut the door after you
leave.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, shut the lights out on
your way out. But I never have gotten to first base with
that. Maybe a resolution from the Court will do it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions or comments? All
in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Does this include lunch?
JUDGE TINLEY: We'll get to that after this one.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Looks like
we're a bit past the noon hour. We're due to be back here at
1:30.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can get through the next one
real fast.
JUDGE TINLEY: Can we get through that one? Let's
j-'7-OE
132
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
go ahead and do Item 14; consider, discuss, and take
appropriate action on Kerr County Water Availability
Requirements. I'm taking you at your word, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You wouldn't want to
disappoint Dr. Morgan, who's sitting back there waiting on
that.
JUDGE TINLEY: I figure he'll be back anyway.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: For a hamburger, I'll
disappoint him all day.
JUDGE TINLEY: I figured he was going to be back
here anyway.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The main comments we received on
water availability came from Mr. Wiedenfeld at the last
meeting. I read through his lengthy comments, and actually
adopted quite a few of them. Page 1, we just added the word
"final" instead of just "plat." Page 2, the first change, I
just changed the word -- I forgot -- I think it said "do not
reflect" previously, and he thought we ought to use a
different word, so I said, "do not include other
requirements." Third one -- or second change on that page,
surface water or other sources other than groundwater.
JUDGE TINLEY: We need to insert an "other" there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Surface water or other sources
of water than groundwater. I think that's okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Or -- well, or sources of
-~~-oh
1
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
water other than groundwater.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move the "other" over.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Other sources of water.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Other than groundwater, okay.
And I think what he was talking about was reuse or rainwater
collection and -- you know, so next -- under Monitor Well
Requirements, I increased it. We had -- I think it was 20
acres for -- where a monitor well -- a developer would be
required to have a monitor well. I changed that to 75 acres,
and then we added some language that I'm sure Mr. Morgan and
Headwaters will be happy about. The well location will be
adjacent to the right-of-way, as opposed to putting it in the
middle of the road, as Mr. Wiedenfeld pointed out before.
Then I said that the -- the location shall be deeded in fee
ownership to Headwaters. Headwaters shall drill the monitor
well within two years of date of final plat approval, and
shall be responsible for the maintenance of such monitor well
location lot. And then Headwaters may waive this requirement
by letter to the developer. So, it's a --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Question.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I tried to make it more clear as
to how this would work, and also, I raised the requirement to
75-acre subdivisions.
?-~~ 06
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1~
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
L S
134
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This -- this says Headwaters
"shall" drill.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's they shall drill it, but
they may waive it. In the last sentence, it says they can
waive that requirement. If they choose -- if they want that
we1L location, they shall drill that well.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If they don't want that
location, they waive it. It's to keep them from banking --
getting a whole lot of locations and not doing anything with
them.
COMMISSIONER	WILLIAMS: How about a "however"?	How
about a little transiti	onal verb there, a little "however,	
Headwaters may waive...	"	
COMMISSIONER	LETZ: Okay, fine. However. Put a	
semicolon and then "however." Okay.	
COMMISSIONER	NICHOLSON: I'd like to hear from	
Dr. Morgan on that one.	Is that language consistent with	what
Headwaters would like t	o see in here?	
MR. MORGAN:	Almost lunchtime. In -- in one sen	se,
it's kind of -- excuse	me, I guess I better come up there.	
COMMISSIONER	LETZ: Oh, god.	
COMMISSIONER	WILLIAMS: In one sense it's what?	
MR, MORGAN:	In one sense, there's a question as	to
the benefit of having t	he monitor well there, If -- if it	is
3-27-05
135
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
concluded that this is of benefit to have that, it should be
such that the well will be drilled, Headwaters will take care
of it, and if they're not willing to do that, then that land
should go back to the developer. So, I don't have a problem
with agreeing to the way it's handled.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Good.
JUDGE TINLEY: What about the 75 acres, as opposed
to the 20 acres? Does that give you a problem?
MR. MORGAN: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Must be all right, then.
MR. ODOM: Grammatically, there's a correction on
that "adjacent to the... That "a" should be marked out.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, right. Thank you. On
Page 3, the two highlighted changes are just making clear that
it's when groundwater is the source of potable water. It
wasn't clear before. Both of those are changes that
Mr. Wiedenfeld noted. And then one that is not noted and
still has not been made under Item 3, it says "one-half" and
then it has 1/4 acre. It needs to be one-quarter acre.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Item 3?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: B.3.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, B.3.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It says "one-half."
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, yeah.
-2~-oE
136
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1~
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Should say "one-quarter" there.
DODGE TINLEY: Let me go back one -- the language
correction, back to Page 2.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Where it says Headwaters "shall be
deeded in fee simple ownership," we need to take the "in" out.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Okay. Top of Page 4,
that change is just to make it consistent with our rules we
changed earlier about the high density area. And then the
bottom of Page 4 is just the number of -- total number of lots
need to be added, and we'll add the same language here as to
an example to clarify exactly how that's calculated.
MR. ODOM: I have a question. B.3, did you change
that one-half to one-quarter?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion and a second to --
for adoption of the Kerr County Water Availability
Requirements as presented, but amended by the discussion here
today. Any question or discussion? All in favor of the
motion signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. We'll be in
s-z~-oh
137
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
recess until 1:30.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank y'all.
(Recess taken from 12:12 p.m. to 1:30 p.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to order. We
were in recess for the lunch period until 1:30. It's a bit
past that now. We have a timed Item at 1:30, Item 15,
mid-year review of the Kerr County Fiscal 'OS-'06 budget, and
review and consider elected official/department surveys as
appropriate. I think everyone has received copies of the
surveys that have been provided to us.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are the two that we got this
morning -- those are not in here, are they? The two we were
handed this morning?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where'd you leave yours?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think you got four more
today.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Did you leave yours out here
someplace? I got to get mine, too.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's on my desk.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: After lunch I got one from
I.T. and Treasurer.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Did you get one from the
Treasurer?
3 _' ~ - u ti
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
138
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, moments ago -- or I say moments
ago.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Was it in your box or on the
computer?
JUDGE TINLEY: I think it was handed to me.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE TINLEY: With respect to the budget, we've
just received -- I say "just" -- earlier today, I believe,
some printouts from the Auditor's office stated to be as of
March 31st, 2006. I guess there was some --
MS. WILLIAMS: It's actually up through today. It
has both accounts payable periods in them.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. WILLIAMS: And payrol] up through the 15th. The
new system just throws it to the end of the month.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I -- I was looking at the run
-- the print as of 1 March. We generally get that on the 1st
of every month, and you go back, and the way I've interpolated
that is to -- if you received it at five months, it's actually
for four months, because it gives you a 30-day lag in there
for bills that have not yet been presented and charged up
against it. But there are a few areas of concern that I'd
like to -- to mention. In the Nondepartmental budget, our
contingency is --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do we -- since you're going off
3 z~ ot;
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
139
a different form than I'm going off of, give me a little bit
of time to find where we are.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You're on Nondepartmental?
JUDGE TINLEY: Nondepartmental, which is 10-409.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 10-409. How'd you find
that, Jonathan?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I was lucky; I opened it to the
page, and it was there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is there a departmental
number on this one that you prepared, Mindy?
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. It's actually Page 7.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Page 7?
MS. WILLIAMS: Up at the top, it says General Fund,
and then it will say Nondepartmental.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Got you,
JUDGE TINLEY: The Contingency appears to be at
about 30 percent, which is below that which is -- it's out
around for the -- which would be for the first four months,
actually, allowing a 30-day lag.
MS. WILLIAMS: Right. Well, there was a budget
amendment done out of the Nondepartmental Contingency money
where we moved $7,000 to another line item. I believe that
was done -- might have been first part of -- first meeting in
s z~-oF;
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
140
March. And it may be that is why that printout as of
February 28th is giving you a different reading, because the
current budget right now for Nondepartmental Contingency is
$3,000, or right at $3,000.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, 29. That's what I'm looking at
here.
MS. HARRIS: Right.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Could we stop a minute and
get an understanding of what we've got here? I was expecting
to look at something that, for each feature, it would tell me
how we're spending compared to what we budgeted. Does this do
it?
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Where is it?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The last column.
JUDGE TINLEY: Percent remaining.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah, I know what that
means, but the percentage of the amount that was under the
line -- second budget column, saying current budget, that
still remains to be spent; is that correct, Mindy?
MS. WILLIAMS: No, the current budget is the -- the
budget that was approved with budget amendments that have been
made in line items. I think, Commissioner Nicholson, the
column that you would want to be looking at is the fourth
column over that says year-to-date, encumbrance plus expenses.
3-z,-o F.
141
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
That will give you everything since October 1st up through and
to today, especially the accounts payables portion. Now, the
payroll --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Help me out again.
MS. WILLIAMS: Pardon?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 7t says we have a budget of
408,000, and through March we've spent 212,000. How are we
doing?
MS. WILLIAMS: We're about halfway.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We have 47 -- we have 97 or
46 percent remaining, so we've spent 52 percent in six months?
MS. WILLIAMS: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, we're okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So if you assume that
spending is even throughout the year, then this -- this
account's okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. The closer we are to
50 percent, the better; the more accurate we are.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If it were back-end loaded,
there's some big expenses coming up in the last half, then you
might not be okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Now, Judge, not to get out of
order, but on the first page, there's a department by
department. To me, it shows you by department, right in this
column --
3 27 nh
1
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
I COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON; Mm-hmm.
~ COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- the percent remaining, so it
says that the County Judge's -- he's got almost 58 percent
remaining, so he's a little under budget right now, assuming
we're going through six months of the year.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And so -- and if you're -- and
the one that -- 216th District Court has 31 percent remaining,
which means we're in trouble.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 216th is going to be a problem.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, what you're generally
looking at is the deviation from 50 percent?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm, at this point.
MS. WILLIAMS: Now, these figures are actually not a
true full six months, because we're always, like, 30 days
behind what the accounts payable -- the non-payroll line
items, I should say. So, what we're looking at really is
October through February.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, every -- so every column
that we have -- if we're at 50 percent, we're already
approaching a danger area.
MS. WILLIAMS: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And these numbers include
salaries, FICA, insurance, and everything?
3-L7-Oh
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
143
MS. WILLIAMS: The salary figures are actually for
five and a half months, because we haven't had the last
i payroll for March. March will be our sixth month.
I COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see.
MS. WILLIAMS: So, salaries represent actually five
and a half months. The accounts payable, you can say five --
I would say four and a half to five months, because we are
still getting some February items in to be paid, and they
won't be paid now until April.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If -- for example, Mindy,
looking at the County Clerk's line, and on the following -- on
the last column, showing 56.90 percent un -- unencumbered
still remaining, given what you just said, that would put her
pretty close to the 50 percent mark; is that correct?
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir, right. I would say that
any of the departments that have 50 percent on up remaining
are probably okay. It's the ones that are going to be below
that that we're going to have problems with.
JUDGE TINLEY: Not a true five-twelfths; you're
talking about 58 and a third percent.
MS, WILLIAMS: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, both District Courts,
the budgets are problematic.
JLiDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. And in looking at the one
~-z~-na
194
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
L 1
22
23
24
25
that I looked at initially on the district court, the big Item
seems to be Court-Appointed Attorneys in 216th.
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: And then in 198th, Court-Appointed
Services. Court-Appointed Attorneys in the 198th is -- is
lower than it should be for this time of the year, but
services is really down.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mindy?
MS. WILLIAMS: Sir?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're making great progress with
this report. We -- could I ask one more thing? Can we get an
index? Is it hard to put an index, automatic -- I mean, to
print one automatically? Based on the changes here, is there
a feature that we can do this?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: On this new system, I don't
know. I really haven't played with it that much.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If there --
MS. WILLIAMS: We're still learning it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If there's a way to do it, that
it would be just helpful.
MS. WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: When we're going back and forth
and discussing different ones.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where do we find the -- the
entirety for the detention center?
3-27-06
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
145
MS. WILLIAMS: I'm sorry, sir?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The detention center. Where
do we find that?
MS. WILLIAMS: It will be closer to the back of the
book. That will be -- let me find the page. Actually, it's
I
really towards the back of the book, It's Fund 76. Actually,
last two pages, maybe last three pages.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. The areas that I've
identified in that budget, telephone is a little bit below.
Utilities is a little bit below where it should be. Resident
medical is way below where it should be, even though that is a
reimbursed -- that's a reimbursable expense when they're
expended. The constituent counties are -- are billed for
that. And then, of course, the food. And there's something
in the works about that, it's my understanding. Is that
correct, Ms. Williams?
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir, mm-hmm,
JUDGE TINLEY: The other item that jumps out is the
part-time staff, which is down. And that may possibly be
because of the early utilization of those people in connection
with the T.Y.C. individuals; is that correct Ms. Harris?
MS. HARRIS: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. That's why that one got hit so
hard up front.
MS, HARRIS: Yes, sir.
s z~-ah
146
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can you explain on the
janitorial/custodial, is that carried under another budget?
MR. HOLEKAMP: It's 515.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's under your --
MS. WILLIAMS: In the general fund.
MR. HOLEKAMP: In General Fund, 515.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the prior year column is
kept here because that's what it was when it was --
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- part of that budget?
MR. HOLEKAMP: Prior to October.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. So, total on the juvenile
facility, we're a little bit further than we should be, but
we're not in a crisis stage, and we're about 8 -- we said
6 percent more than we should have to be where we should be,
but it's not -- could be worse. Okay. What's the prognosis
look like for the 216th and the 198th? Do we have any idea as
to where those two budgets are going, those both being pretty
large budgets?
MS. WILLIAMS: I would say probably that we are
going to have to be looking at doing budget amendments before
too long for those. We've already done a couple of budget
amendments for the Court-Appointed Attorney line items, and I
foresee that we will continue to do that. There's really no
3-2~-Oh
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
way of projecting what we're going to have sent down from
upstairs to pay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Rusty, does -- I know we have a
trial -- rather large trial starting. Is that 216th?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: 198th.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 198th. Well, it's local?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I'm sure --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: In the 216th, I know we'll
probably still have a -- at least one murder trial come up
during this budget year. And then the other trend, the way
things are going, it's -- like the 198th, this last Grand Jury
had about 60 indictments. The 216th Grand Jury are running an
average of about that many every court, so it's just -- it's
really going up right now the remainder of the year. So, I'd
say, hey, y'all are going to face some serious situations in
those budget reports.
JUDGE TINLEY: You say they're running about 60
indictments a month?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Per quarter, a month.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So far, we've gone through
$170,000 in Court-appointed attorneys between those two
courts, and we're down to a few pennies right now in both.
combined, so we're looking at probably close to another
$200,000 shortfall.
3 '~-Oe
148
1
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. WILLIAMS: At least.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: At least.
MS. WILLIAMS: At least.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that doesn't even account
for some of the ancillary things that you toss into that mix
usually.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What accounts for that?
That we -- was the budgeting system off? Or --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, you may recall we
tightened up the budget on both courts down to the bone,
which -- so any excess of activity that they've had over and
above what minimal we anticipated is going to give us a
problem.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But where we tightened was
Special Trials primarily, I recall.
DODGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm, yeah. On the Court-Appointed
Attorneys, we went from a little over 60 to 90, and in the
216th and in the 198th -- well, that was actually
expenditures, 25 to 80.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, to answer your question,
it's just -- it's driven so much by the legal process. I
mean, it depends on how fast cases move through. I guess the
good thing is that the cases -- we're moving through a lot of
cases, possibly -- hopefully. But, you know, some of these
trials, these large trials that really cost us a great deal,
3-27-0~"s
149
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
it depends a lot on when they go to trial and when we get the
bills. If we get a murder trial thrown in the mix, that's
even worse.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: These are costs that are
difficult to forecast.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Difficult to forecast, and we
have no control over down here, certainly.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mindy, I have a question
with respect to election services.
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: On the expenditure sid°, we
budgeted 336. Apparently, year-to-date we've spent 297 --
that's in the thousands -- leaving residual of about 11 and a
half percent. And unless my calendar is really off, we still
have a major election to go through in November.
JUDGE TINLEY: The big number was HAVA, all that
equipment.
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes. That new election equipment,
that was a large -- largest line item in that budget.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Does that mean we still have
enough left to conduct the election in November that she
needs, by your estimate?
MS. WILLIAMS: Hard to say right now. I -- looking
at the judges and clerks, I would say no. No, because the
November election will have early voting. We have election
3-a~-o6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
150
day. During early voting, those people are here from 8:00 to
5:00 for roughly 10 days; it's two weeks. And then you have
the precincts on election day; they're there from 7:00 to
7:00. So, I'm looking at the unencumbered balance right now
of $3,700, and I can tell you I don't think that's going to
cover it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 38,000?
MS. WILLIAMS: Actually, I'm looking at the Judges
and Clerks line item.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, I got you.
MS. WILLIAMS: So, no, that line item will have to
be amended. I don't really know if the ballot expense is
going to be enough. I'm -- well, actually, iet me take that
back. The general election is November. That's next year's
budget.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's correct. We still
have some expenses coming up for a runoff, right?
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's going to be minimal.
MS. WILLIAMS: We have a week of early voting, I
believe, and then election day.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: General elections is next
year.
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes
real sure; it's hard to say.
3,700 may cover it. I'm not
~_„_oe
151
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I want to go back to the
District Courts right quick. There's something I'm -- I don't
know that I'm seeing correctly here. These salaries, the
court coordinator and reporter --
MS. WILLIAMS: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- are those salaries spread
throughout the district, and this is just our share?
MS. WILLIAMS: This -- this is just our portion --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
MS. WILLIAMS: -- of the court reporter, the
administrator, District Court Administrator upstairs. The
other counties kick in their portion. These moneys that are
budgeted here are actually transferred over to Fund 81, and
that is where all the other counties' moneys come in also, and
they are actually paid out of that budget.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see. So, that's the reason
it's zeroed out, is 'cause it's all been transferred over to
another fund?
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If we could go back quickly to
the detention maintenance, Glenn?
MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The expenditures to-date, was
that 34,800, is that fixing some of the problems?
i z~-nd
152
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
L2
23
24
25
MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That were --
MR. HOLEKAMP: Big-ticket items that were right at
October 1st.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Condensation and the handicapped
access and all that?
MR. HOLEKAMP: No, no, no. We had an
air-conditioner that was right at 6,000, 7,000 that we waited
to pay for until the lst of October; came out of there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And there was a freezer repair
recently or something?
MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes. We've had -- and I'm glad you
asked, because it gives me an opportunity -- I don't know what
we're going to do as far as money's concerned in this -- in
this area. We -- we had no history to speak of on what we
were up against. It's been very expensive. And I'm not
blaming management; I want you to -- I don't think there's
blame here. I think there's a -- a lot of things that have
taken place over the last three, four, five, maybe ten years;
I don't know, but a lot of the equipment is not compatible
with one another, and it's been piecemealed. A lot of it
is -- is we have not had a consistency of repair personnel.
If you have the same service people all the time, they start
knowing the equipment and they're able to fix it a lot
quicker. When you -- you start using different vendors or --
3 2~-06
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
153
or service personnel, they want to use their own equipment
when something goes out. A lot of times it's not compatible,
and we need to get somewhere -- somewhere as to, "This is what
we're going to do." And I -- there were a lot of unknowns,
and as Commissioner Letz said, we had some expenses, some
large ones, just coming into compliance with smoke, water, I
mean, all of those life safety issues. I imagine we've spent
almost $10,000 on bringing it up to a standard that the fire
department -- their criteria.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is it -- we're talking about, I
mean, since we're not using the new building much --
MR. HOLEKAMP: Much, okay. But it's still -- as
long as you have a facility, it has to be certified.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 7 guess my question
is -- let me rephrase it. Are we spending this money on the
new or the old primarily, or is it a combination?
MR, HOLEKAMP: Primarily, I'd say the old. But
we've run into a lot of issues there that things wore out.
They wore out, and -- is that -- is that accurate?
MS, HARRIS: Yes, very.
MR. HOLEKAMP: And we've had a few issues with the
new one, but nothing that we can't normally handle. But,
like, that certification of the fire and stuff, that -- that
just baffled me, knowing how much we had to do to bring it to
-- they call it green-tag certified system.
3 - ? 7 0 6
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
154
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm confused a little bit on
that.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Okay. Well -- go ahead.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How were we able -- or why did
we operate a building, the detention facility, that wasn't
fire-compliant? I mean, it's not like this is a new building,
so we were acting under -- or operating under noncompliance
for a while?
MR. HOLEKAMP: I'm not going to answer that. We had
some issues with some of the -- some of the alarm devices,
that sort of thing. We were -- go ahead.
MR. WILBANKS: One of the things that we had was,
when they came out to do the annual inspection -- we've not
been out of compliance. We were out of compliance when they
came to do the annual inspection because the -- like,
the audio alarm would go off; the visuals would not. That
ended up being a complete new control panel in the system
itself.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because we've been inspecting
every year?
MR, WILBANKS: Yes, sir.
MR, HOLEKAMP: Yeah. But we were having trouble,
and it got to be very expensive to get a tech -- see, one of
-- one of the things that -- when they built the facility --
the new facility, they had one particular person that put in
~ G ~ U O
155
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
2F
the alarm system, whether it be sprinkler, smoke, or whatever.
But they're -- they're no longer doing that sort of thing, so
we have to contract with somebody else to do it, and that
costs you money, because they have to bring in their
equipment. So, it's a combination of a lot of things that had
created these problems.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What do you see us -- we've gone
through 30 -- almost 35,000 this year, I think. What do you
see it for the rest of the year? And maybe you don't know.
MR. HOLEKAMP: I don't know if I can --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, more of the same? Or
are -- have we fixed everything?
MS. HARRIS: The plumbing is always --
MR. HOLEKAMP: That's a tough question to answer. I
don't know. I know we've got a big air-conditioner situation
right now that we're faced with; that's about $3,500.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In the old building?
MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, it's in the old building.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, we need to plan on probably
more expenditures in that line item?
MR. HOLEKAMP: Oh, yes, sir. I'm sorry, I didn't --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. HOLEKAMP: That wasn't a simplified answer.
Yes, sir, be considerably more, but how much I don't know.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sure.
3-!7 n E,
1
3
4
5
h
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
L2
23
24
25
156
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Question as to utilities,
also. Somebody -- Glenn?
MR. HOLEKAMP: No, utilities is... (Pointed to Ms.
Harris.)
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You got 33 percent of your
funds left for utilities, and we're at the 50 percent mark.
What's driving that up?
MS. HARRIS: I would -- my first guess is going to
be the inefficiency of the air-conditioners that have gone
out, probably have got a lot to do with it,
JUDGE TINLEY: Second one might be the -- that jump
in the energy costs that occurred during the course of the
year, that --
MS. HARRIS: True.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- fuel surcharge that they added.
MS. HARRIS: I think it`s a combination of those.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Glenn or Rusty, the jail
maintenance is also running a little bit ahead. Is that
expected to continue, do you think? You or Rusty, whoever.
MR. HOLEKAMP: No, I think we should be okay,
Commissioner.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I only have one concern that
could force it ahead, and that is one of the walk-in coolers
has had to be worked on twice in the last two weeks. Now,
hopefully they've got it fixed, but --
3 ~, oa
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1~
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
157
MR. HOLEKAMP: We're going to be faced with a
compressor for in here pretty quick. But, I mean, in the
scope of this budget, according to my papers, Commissioner,
I'm at 60 percent on jail repairs. What do you have?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I show percent remaining is 52.
MR. HOLEKAMP: 52?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's not -- I mean, it's just --
MR. HOLEKAMP: I think I'll be okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Bad news is, I see very few line
items where we have an excess of funds, where there's any
substantial amount of money, so it ]ooks like we're going to
have to be going into reserves for most of these issues this
year.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think the key was any items with an
excess that have any appreciable amount of balance. That's
the -- you got a lot of small ones, but hopefully there are
enough small ones that will add up. Let's see what else I've
got marked here.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mindy?
MS. WILLIAMS: Sir?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sorry. I like the new report.
A while back, we used to get these monthly or quarterly. I
think the Court told the Auditor's office we didn't want
them.
MS. WILLIAMS: Monthly.
j_,~_OE
158
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd like to go back and get a
copy monthly, please.
MS. WILLIAMS: Okay, we can do that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's kind of like what the
Judge has now?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's what we used to get.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is a new one.
JUDGE TINLEY: New format. On -- on Juvenile
Probation, on the alternate housing, Kevin, that's not a true
reflection of funds that we have available for alternate
housing, is it?
MR. STANTON: Just in Fund 10, sir. We have quite a
few different funds we use. We have money in Fund 10. We
also have money in Fund 23 that'll be used for housing. We
also have funding in 27 that we use for alternate housing, and
then we also have funding in Fund 35.
JUDGE TINLEY: And that's nonsecure in 35?
MR. STANTON: Yes, 35 is nonsecure.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. STANTON: And then we also have the ability
to -- for certain kids, to get money reimbursed from the State
for Level 5 and Small County Diversionary funds.
JUDGE TINLEY: My question to you is, when you lump
all of those together for all alternate housing, are we at
3-z-r-oh
159
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
L S
least where we should be, if not better?
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir. And so far this year,
we've been able to access a lot more Level 5 funding than we
have in the previous years, so we're actually ahead of
schedule.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, even though this particular one
in Fund 10 shows to be down below 50 percent, because of the
other funds that are available to us, we're -- we're in
reasonably good shape for our alternate housing expense
overall.
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Did he we talk about 216th
District Attorney? Budgeted 89,000, and have already spent
that much.
MS. WILLIAMS: Is that in the general fund,
Commissioner? Is it 10-490?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm looking at Page 1,
the --
MS. WILLIAMS: Oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- expenditures by
department or function.
MS. WILLIAMS: That money was transferred over to
Fund 83, which is the 216th D.A.'s budget. That -- this
amount in the general fund is just Kerr County's portion of
-~7 nft
160
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
his total budget.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay.
MS. WILLIAMS: It's kind of like the -- the 216th
and 198th District court reporters' salaries and stuff. They
go to a different budget to be paid from.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And Kerr County pays a
percentage, and Bandera and et cetera --
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- and so forth?
MS. WILLIAMS: Gillespie, Kendall.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We pay the lion's share,
because we're a larger county?
MS. WILLIAMS: Right. It's by population.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If you look --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, for this report, you
just zero it out?
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. We transfer the funds over
there so that they can pay the bills out of that. Actually,
we pay the bills.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Looking at the overall
situation on costs, I think you could say that we're in
trouble on the two District Courts, and everythinq else is
pretty much in line.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me ask about Road and Bridge, if
I might. Signs and traffic control is down. Equipment rental
~-z~ u~
161
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
is down, and paving aggregate is down considerably. And we
haven't hit the summer -- the spring and summer sealcoating.
Is Leonard here? I don't see him.
MS. WILLIAMS: No, I don't think he's here today.
DODGE TINLEY: All of those -- a lot of those Road
and Bridge items, at least on materials, any of them that --
well, paving aggregate is not -- petroleum base.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. But I -- I don't know,
but I just know the way Leonard operates. We're getting ready
to get into a period where he's probably already bought a lot
of that material.
JUDGE TINLEY: Probably stockpiled it under the old
contracts.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not under the old contracts, but
-- well, under the old contracts, but, like, the aggregate, he
tends to stockpile that around the county, and whatever
projects he's going to be doing the sealcoats, and I suspect
that's already been stockpiled. I've seen some piles in my
precinct.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And he's had more warm
weather than a normal year, so he's been able to --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The oil and emulsions, I don't
think he orders that ahead of time, to speak of.
JUDGE TINLEY: No, he's in good shape on that. He's
up 90 percent on what I'm looking at here, so he's in good
3-z,-oH
162
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
shape there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The aggregate, I think he tends
to get that in place so that when he gets the weather, he can
go ahead and get going.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're struggling to find
Road and Bridge on this end of the dais. Somebody want to
tell us where it is?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Towards --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: In the red book.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's in the red book.
MS. WILLIAMS: It's a little more than halfway
through the book.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Halfway through the book?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Little more than halfway.
MS. WILLIAMS: I apologize, I didn't have time to
get indexes in here.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's right after fire
protection.
JUDGE TINLEY: It's Page 2 -- well --
MS. WILLIAMS: That doesn't help.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm on Page 2.
JUDGE TINLEY: No, it's Page 2 in the second half of
the book, it looks like. I'm looking at it here. That's how
far it is.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What's the fund number?
3-a~-o~
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
MS. WILLIAMS: 15. Fund 15.
JUDGE TINLEY: 15-611.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 15-611, okay. Well, we'll
get there.
	JUDGE TINLEY:	I'm still operating out of the other
one here,	so I'm playin	g both books here. Okay, let me see.
	COMMISSIONER	WILLIAMS: I still haven't found the
damn thin	g. There we g	o, we got it.
	JUDGE TINLEY:	Okay. Indigent Health Care.
	MS. WILLIAMS:	Oh, boy.
	JUDGE TINLEY:	You were wondering when I was going
to raise	that flag.	
	COMMISSIONER	BALDWIN: Let's all go there together.
	JUDGE TINLEY:	Okay. Let me see if I can find it in
the red book.	
	MS. WILLIAMS:	Fund 50.
	COMMISSIONER	BALDWIN: Fund 50, bingo.
	COMMISSIONER	WILLIAMS: Hey.
	COMMISSIONER	BALDWIN: Look at us. We're working
together	here. This is	so cool.
	JUDGE TINLEY:	Eligible expense, 41 and a half
percent.	Administratio	n, a little over 11 percent remaining.
	COMMISSIONER	BALDWIN: Third-party administrator.
	JUDGE TINLEY:	Does this one include what is on our
bills to	be approved th	is time? 'Cause that's about --
~- ~ 9- U 6
164
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- $125,000.
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. These figures include the
bills that are to be paid today. We've had some rather large
expenditures. The current person that is at the hospital now
is doing a really good job. We're very well pleased with her.
Her predecessor kind of left us in the lurch. She'd gotten
some applications in that she did not process, and because
they were so far out of date range, a lot of those people were
automatically approved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Our_h.
MS. WILLIAMS: And a couple of them had some large
expenses. The thing is, there's a $30,000 cap per year, per
individual, so once they hit 30,000, that's it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is it still -- I remember a
long time ago, you could -- if we ran out of money, we could
-- ran out of our budgeted money for indigent health care, we
can apply to the State to tap into -- I mean, of course,
there's none ever there by the time we get through, but --
MS. WILLIAMS: I believe the way the system works
is, we've never had to go to the State for assistance, but I
think once we hit 5 percent --
JUDGE TINLEY: Eight.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Eight.
MS. WILLIAMS: Well, at 6 percent, I think we have
3-~-06
165
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to notify the State. When we hit 8 percent, they come down
and do an actual audit and go through everything that we've
paid for the budget year. And it's 8 percent of the general
revenue tax levy, which is not really high.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Are persons who are not
U.S. citizens eligible for coverage under this?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What did you say?
MS. WILLIAMS: They have to be county residents in
order to be eligible.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: But that's different than
whether or not they're U.S. citizens.
MS. WILLIAMS: I guess if they can prove residency,
they're eligible for it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's just -- for everyone in the
audience to know what number we're talking about, we've spent
$433,000 this year already on indigent health.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mindy, what happened to our
idea to bring the administration in-house?
MS. WILLIAMS: We're still looking at that. The
problem we ran into is the contract we have with our
third-party administrator was for two years, and I don't
believe it runs out until August 31st of this year. So, we're
-- we're still looking at that, possibly next budget year,
bringing it in-house where we don't have to send everything to
our third-party person in Houston. Give us a little bit
3 - '_ ~ U b
166
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
better turn-around and give us a little more control.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What does that contract -- what
does that -- that individual receive, or that company receive?
MS. WILLIAMS: Four and a half percent of all
eligible expenses.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, four and a half percent of
about 800,000.
MS. WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And they manage the
eligibility benchmarks; is that correct? They manage whether
or not you're eligible, or whether a -- a person is eligible
to receive --
MS. WILLIAMS: Whether a person is eligible to be on
indigent health care? No, sir, that is what our coordinator
over at the hospital does.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what I'm asking.
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, she does that. But our
third-party person basically gets the bills from the lady at
the hospital, she processes them according to what the State
allows for procedures, prescriptions, et cetera, then returns
that stuff to the hospital. They go over it -- or Beth goes
over it and then brings it to us for payment.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I want to go back to
Commissioner Nicholson's question about American citizenship.
3-Z7-Ob
167
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
To tap in -- to tap into public money, don't you need to be --
don't you have to be a citizen of the United States?
MS. WILLIAMS: I'm not sure what the State's
requirements are on indigent health care.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think so. The schools,
I know you don't. That's public money.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'll bet you the people in California
would love to buy that argument, Buster. I bet quite a few of
those folks out there.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Of course, we all know the
answer to that question. We just -- you know that needs to
get out on the table and we all need to say it out loud. It's
not right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's another discussion. But
that would solve a whole lot of our immigration issue if we
could --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- stop providing services for
those that aren't citizens.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the hot topic of
discussion in Washington right now.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, it needs to be in Kerr
County. But I'm not going to do it.
JUDGE TINLEY: You won't bring that up, will you?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, I'm not going to bring
~ ~~-06
168
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
that up at all.
JUDGE TINLEY: I see.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If you can solve that,
Commissioner, we got a job for you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: A handsome retirement immediately
after you solve that problem. I think that's most of them
that I have marked here, that -- like I say, I'm working out
of the last month's book.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I want to take this
opportunity, Judge, to thank Mindy for preparing this. She
and I have had this discussion on a couple of occasions as to
how best to attack this monster, and I want to thank you for
doing it this way.
MS. WILLIAMS: I apologize, I didn't get them to you
until this morning, but we had a couple of issues that we had
to have Incode handle before I could print these, so it put me
a little bit behind.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, now we can move that forward on a
regular basis?
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I appreciate it. I think we're
going to have a very long and possibly difficult budget
process this year, and I think -- I'm -- I appreciate
Commissioner Williams putting this on the agenda and getting
+-z~-o6
169
1
3
4
J
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
this -- this gets me in a budget frame of mind now, and it
JUDGE TINLEY: Any member of the Court have anything
surveys.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On that, I'll make just kind of
a brief comment. Unfortunately, I, like most of the Court,
was gone all last week, and the only one that I received prior
to today was the one from Ms. Uecker; I got it by e-mail. And
I know everyone spent a lot of time on this, and I really
appreciate it. I haven't -- like I say, I have not looked at
all of them except hers. Hers is very informative. I think
it's going to be helpful. I really think we probably need to
come back at another workshop, maybe put this again on the
next agenda. But I know there's been some consternation about
why -- one of the reasons I wanted this. Commissioner
Nicholson and I were kind of the driving force behind it. My
main reason is, I just wanted to put it on the table. I think
we're up for an extremely difficult budget year, and I think
that we're going to take a real hard look at personnel, how
we're organized and that whole area. And I think that this is
a -- I was hoping, and I think we've received input from all
3-z~-oe
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
170
the department heads and elected officials as to how their
departments are running, what the personnel are doing, and
we'll need to -- the next phase of really looking at personne]
issues, I think we need to have that all worked out before we
get into mid-budget. Personnel costs are such a huge part of
our budget that we really need to be aware of it. So, I just
want to thank everyone that has completed the surveys. I know
they were time-consuming, but I do appreciate it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anyone else have any comments?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not today.
JUDGE TINLEY: I appreciate everyone's taking the
time and putting forth the effort for these, and I've reviewed
some of them in a cursory basis, but I want to take more time
to review them. Like Commissioner Letz, we will probably need
to maybe look at some specific areas of -- of -- to look at
very, very closely in the area of personnel or -- or
efficiencies or equipment or training or things of that
nature, and that's going to be something for a future --
future agenda, I would think. Okay. Okay, let's -- it's not
quite 2:30. I tell you, why don't we go ahead and take about
a 10-minute recess. We'll give Kathy a little break here, and
then we can get on with our 2:30 Item.
(Recess taken from 2:20 p.m. to 2:35 p.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to order, if we
- ~ 'v - D E
171
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
might. We'll go to Item Number 16, a timed Item for 2:30.
It's a bit past that now. The final report from the EMS
Ad-Hoc Committee, commonly known as the "Old Geezers."
Buster?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This is the geezer group.
JUDGE TINLEY: I see.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And Geezer Number 1 is --
JUDGE TINLEY: The Chief Geezer.
MR. SCHELLHASE: I'm Number 5.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Chief Geezer is here, and I'd
like to just turn it over to General Schellhase and let him
launch right into it.
MR. SCHELLHASE: Walter Schellhase, 529 Water
Street. Well, we brought you up to date as to where we were
about a month ago to give you the background of what we were
doing, what we were proceeding with, and how we planned on
getting there. Today, we'll close out this report with
following the outline as provided to us by Commissioner
Baldwin initially, which is Appendix A in your portfolio. The
-- we've done exactly as we were requested to do. We went
down that list item for item, covered the items. We told you
how we got there. Now we'll tell you what we found out. You
asked us to review these with regards to the operation of EMS
with the city, the billing, the collections, and funding for
them.
3-~,-oE
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
The billing, we found to be handled in a very
professional and complete manner. We did not find anything
that gave us any concern whatsoever. The fact is, we've got a
lot of noncollectables that are being billed because of the
procedure with which Medicare pays, so it's not a simple
process. The City has a system set up of how they go about
this task. The billing sheet that comes from the drivers
after a call is made, that input is put into the system, and
the billing goes out to Medicare, in the case of the elderly,
and to the carriers in the event it's private care. Those
that are not collected, which they call -- carry this as a bad
debt, are in two categories. Noncollectables, as I look at it
as a business person, is a bad debt as well. It's an item
that's billed; it's the 20 percent that's above what Medicare
approves, but does not pay. And if the individual does not
have a secondary insurance, then that's another 20 percent
that is not paid. To me, that's a bad debt.
On Page 6, you'll notice -- by the way, this
report's much better than your financial report. We do have
it numbered, so we'll go page by page. By the way, on a
lighter note, Ray wants to know when he gets his check for
doing this. So --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: As soon as we get through
here today.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Tell him the check's in the
s-~-oe
173
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1G
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
mail. (Laughter.)
MR. SCHELLHASE: The private pay is somewhat
governed also by the maximums that Medicare pays. In many 'I
cases, they don't pay any more than what Medicare pays, even
though it may be private care. And they have an override,
which would be greater than Medicare. However, the secondary
part of private care is the same way as with Medicare.
Somebody's got to pay that additional 20 percent. Those
people that don't pay that, that again becomes a bad debt.
The other item we found in the billing process was that the --
there are many calls that are not billed at all. If an
individual goes to a -- or an EMS goes to an individual's home
and that individual refuses service, that's a nonbillable
call.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Whether it's a 1-mile run or
10-mile run.
MR. SCHELLHASE: Correct. Now, the City did
implement this year a fixed fee that they charge for going.
We did not determine exactly how much of that's collected, but
it's -- technically, it's just a fee they put on, and
hopefully they'll collect. They bill for it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: General, how much is that fee?
I mean, is it a nominal amount or a real amount as to what it
costs them?
MR. SCHELLHASE: $100, I believe, wasn't it? $100?
s-z~-a~,
174
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
~5
DODGE TINLEY: Probably not properly billable to an
insurance company if no service is rendered.
MR. SCHELLHASE: No, correct. It's strictly, you
know, if they can collect. Collectables --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Go back on that. I mean, as
a -- do you want us to hold questions or kind of interrupt as
we go?
MR. SCHELLHASE: You're going to have a lot of
questions before we finish, so go with it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's not very important,
what he just said, this 100 bucks.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You say, General -- or the Judge
said that, you know, no one would go after to collect it, yet
I see more and more in San Antonio and other areas, that when
an individual does something that causes law enforcement or
fire to do something, that they can get billed for that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Like rescue efforts.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Recuse, the runaway bride thing,
that girl that's been lost; you know, thinking of filing some
civil actions there. I mean, I don't know that I go along
with we can't recover that. To me, if someone calls for an
ambulance --
MR. SCHELLHASE: That's collectables. We'll get to
that next.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
3-~~-06
175
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. SCHELLHASE: In collectables. The current
probably better than what the surrounding counties are doing.
We went one step further in the process of this whole review,
which y'all did not ask for, but in your appendix, on page --
or Appendix G, we went to the surrounding counties also to
determine what EMS was doing in these surrounding counties,
and we give you some collection rates there. What you have to
be concerned about with the numbers that are thrown out by the
City is that they indicate a 77.7 percent collection rate,
which is extremely high compared to the 95 to 50 average. The
reason that is, is because they consider the noncollectables
as collectable.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do that again?
MR. SCHELLHASE: They consider noncollectables as
part of their collected amount of money, because that's a
nonallowable by EMS -- I mean by Medicare. So, when you see
their figures for revenues collected -- and we also gave you
an attachment to show that revenues collected, that figure
that they say they collected includes the noncollectables. We
questioned that and said that's kind of a misleading figure,
and it should not be indicated as revenues collected. And
it's interesting because we spent some time on this trying to
3-_'7-Oc
176
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
make the numbers work, and we couldn't make them work. And I
was on the phone with Gordon one day, and he said, "Well,
heck, they're including the noncollectables." And, sure
enough, when we run the figures back using noncollectables,
that's in there. But, anyway, so you have to beware of those
figures, the way they calculate what they collect. So, when
you see the revenues collected, that the City says they
collect, you have to look at what in there was
noncollectables. In the previous years, that's about a
$500,000 item, so it's pretty good size.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How much?
MR. SCHELLHASE: About 500,000.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 500,000. I mean, the -- the
noncollectables was not 500,000?
MR. SCHELLHASE: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm, right here, 511,000
disallowed.
MR. SCHELLHASE: Yeah, they call it disallowed.
JUDGE TINLEY: You cannot legally collect those.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I understand that. I
understand, but I'm just trying to still wrap my brain around
their nomenclature in the City.
MR. SCHELLHASE: The third item you asked us to look
at was funding for them, what we could do to -- recommend to
the City or to the County as to what would be an accurate
3 2 7 - 0 t~
177
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1L
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2 L
23
24
25
method of going about funding. Of course, the current budget
year is based on a fifty-fifty split of what we consider at
this time deficit and shortfall. There's two items that they
There's still
a shortfall. All the deficit, in essence. So, if you were to
look at the total amount this year, you're splitting with the
City $189,000 in the current formula, and they are -- you're
putting out another $10,000 for First Responders, which you've
always paid for. So, you have a $201,000 bill that you're
splitting this year with the City. That's not a formula. In
the process of looking at this, we found out it's never been a
fifty-fifty split, as such. This came about this year kind of
as a result of what was done at the library, as we were told.
In previous years, if you look on Page 8, you will see the
split, if you want to call it a split, for '03-'04, and
'04-'O5, and then the current year we're in. So, in '03-'04,
the County's participation was $29,000. In '04-'O5, it was
$25,000. And, of course, this year it's $200,000. The actual
amounts paid by the County are somewhat different from that.
I'm not for sure, but those are the figures that we received
from the Treasurer's office as to what was actually paid. The
City's participation, if you'll look on Page 9, in the same
period is considerably more.
3 - ' ) - U b
178
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Page 9?
MR. SCHELLHASE: Page 8.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Halfway through the page.
MR. SCHELLHASE: When you look at that graph and you
go down and look at who's paying for what, you can see that
the City's paying the lion's share of the costs of EMS.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Until this year.
MR. SCHELLHASE: Until this year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This year it's more equitable.
MR. SCHELLHASE: Last item we were asked to look for
on the list was recommendations.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Before you go back to that, the
last set of numbers you have showed the annual deficit for the
same period was -- is that deficit in addition to the subsidy?
MR. SCHELLHASE: Yes, that's a deficit in addition
to what the budget was called for, and whoever participated in
whatever amount.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, if you add -- like, for
2003-2004, if you add the 60,000 from the City and the 29,000
from the County, the 147,000 was in --
MR. SCHELLHASE: In addition to that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- in addition to that.
MR. SCHELLHASE: Now, there's been a question with
regards to how the City does that, and there's always been
that concern by the County as to, you know, is the City using
?-z~-oe
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
some of this to offset other costs or something? We found out
it's not the case. That in 2003 and '4, the $197,000 deficit
goes right back up to the top of their budget process, and so
they started out the year 2004 and 'S with that $147,000
deficit.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Was that after the 5 percent
setback that they typically do?
MR. SCHELLHASE: That was not included in the
'03-'04, '04-'OS budget. That came about in the 'OS-'06
budget.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 5 percent return for them?
MR. SCHELLHASE: Yes. Yes -- no, the 5 percent -- ~..
I'll get to that in a minute. In the year '04-'O5, as you can
see, they ended with a deficit of 146,000, which means, in
essence, that with the participation that was done by the
County and the City, they actually operated at about a $1,000
profit, because they carried back $147,000; they ended up with
$146,000. That $146,000 went into this year's budget up at
the top, starting out with a negative, and then they went down
and ran their budget down the line to come up with the
participation that they have. And they're expecting a
$130,000 deficit.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, there's --
MR. SCHELLHASE: Obviously, with the large amount
that the County's putting in this year, you should expect it
-z~-n6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
23
29
25
180
to -- the deficit to go down.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, they're slowly payinq down
on the deficit, or it's like a fund balance.
MR. SCHELLHASE: You're paying that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're paying it down.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We helped pay it down.
JUDGE TINLEY: To the tune of 16,000, or at least
that's what is projected.
MR. SCHELLHASE: Projected, correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where's the 5 percent
reserve on their part come in?
MR. SCHELLHASE: The 5 percent reserve -- I think I
gave you a budget page. Let's see if I can find it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Walter, are you going to talk
about that later on? Or --
MR. SCHELLHASE: Yeah. The attachments, I --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just continue on with what
you're doing. He can wait until you get to it.
MR. SCHELLHASE: If you look at Attachment I, from
this year, you can see the fund balance replacement -- the
$87,000 is tacked on there at the bottom.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm.
MR. SCHELLHASE: And is included in that $130,000
deficit. Now, we question that. You know, does this go back
into the budget where it is? You know, what do we do with it?
3-2~-0~
181
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
Because as we met with the Fire Chief, you know, his -- his
statement was that this is used for the intent of, you know,
an emergency-buy piece of equipment or something like the
equipment that was burned during the fires, when we had them
here and they had to replace something right away. So, that
was the intent for it. However, in this budget, you must look
at the items on I, about mid-page, you'll see -- you'll see
where the County is participating to the tune of $37,500, as
is the City, which is -- is a total of $75,000 that was in the
budget the first time this year for equipment replacement.
So, there is equipment replacement in the budget this year in
addition to the 5 percent retainage.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Then I would argue that the
5 percent retainage of 87,000 inflates the deficit balance on
the bottom line, on the bottom --
JUDGE TINLEY: Sure it does.
MR. SCHELLHASE: It does. But keep in mind, that's
going to come back up to the top next year.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And create a negative start.
MR. SCHELLHASE: Hopefully, it will create -- you
know, maybe a plus somewhere down the line.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Hope springs eternal.
MR. SCHELLHASE: Okay. Recommendations. In the
billing department, we could not find anything that you could
make any recommendation on significantly other than what
3-29-U6
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
they're doing right now. The -- everyone seems to be doing an
exceptionally good job. They seem to be following through.
They seem to have a good process which they're going by.
Collections.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On the billing, did you get a
MR. SCHELLHASE: Well, they have one person. Cindy
Zachary does all the billing, so it wouldn't be any more than
her time, plus she does some other administrative things, so
it's less than one person full-time.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Less than one person?
MR. SCHELLHASE: We also talked with them about the
If
there's some concern about billing, then let the County do it.
Well, we looked at that and said, "Well, let's see. Who at
the County here would do that? What department would that
fall in?" And then that would mean another employee to do it;
probably not one, but probably two, and then we looked at the
cost involved in that. It didn't -- it just didn't pan out.
That wasn't a reasonable thing to do, but we did look at that.
We did discuss it with both the financial person at the City
and with the EMS. If you wanted to do that, just tell us;
we'll send them over tomorrow. So, it is doable.
3 27 a~~
183
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
On the collections standpoint, the -- we have no
recommendation for increasing collections whatsoever. The
City has made a recent change in the way they collect the bad
debts, the 20 percent on private care, where that person is,
in fact, obligated to pay that money. And it is a bad debt, a
debt against that individual. They recently went to a new
collection agency that's charging a lesser fee than they were,
and based on the first four or five months that they've had
them, is doing a better job than the previous one had, so it
would appear that there may be better collections along the
way.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me ask you, if I might. In
looking at your discussion about billing, I'm not sure if the
City -- if there's not a secondary carrier that makes an
effort to collect on its own that 20 percent, and the same
would be true of the private pay.
MR. SCHELLHASE: Where are you reading?
JUDGE TINLEY: It just says -- Page 6.
MR. SCHELLHASE: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: If the patient does not carry
secondary insurance and does not pay the 20 percent, it
becomes a bad debt. And then further down in the private pay,
if it is not paid, it becomes a bad debt, if there's not
secondary insurance. Does the City make an effort on its own
to collect those 20 percent amounts of the excess over
_~ of~.
184
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
Medicaid/Medicare allowables and private pay?
MR. SCHELLHASE: Yes, they bill the individual
direct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. SCHELLHASE: And they hold that -- 90?
MR. MORGAN: 90 to 120 days.
MR. SCHELLHASE: 90 to 120 days before they turn it
over to the collection agency.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, they do make the effort to
collect the 20?
MR. SCHELLHASE: Oh, yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What really throws this out
of whack, though, Walter, is it not, is that -- is that they
include the bad debt number of 26.4 in noncollectables, what
is categorized as noncollectable.
MR. SCHELLHASE: No.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And that boosts it up to
29.3 percent, but bad debts is only 8.9?
MR. SCHELLHASE: No.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Isn't that what I'm reading?
MR. SCHELLHASE: No. Bad debts is -- I mean,
noncollectables is not included in bad debts.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's not what I'm reading
in your B.2.b. Net collection rate of 56.2; 26.4 of that is
noncollectables, and 24.3 percent is bad debt.
~-z~-oh
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
MR. SCHELLHASE: Noncollectables are 26 percent, and
the non -- and the bad debt is 24 percent. Now, what is your
question again?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I guess my question was that
they're throwing in noncollectables, which inflates the bad
debt rate; is that correct? Must be something along that
line, because take a look at Kendall County in your own
chart -- your own graph.
MR. MORGAN: That is correct. Look at your D --
look at your example of D in the back.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: D as in dog?
MR. MORGAN: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. That's what --
MR. MORGAN: That's what Walter was talking about.
Look at your percentages. Now, I went to a color system. It
got so confused, I only could do it with color. But if you --
if you relate -- for instance, if you relate the different
items, 77.7 percent, the bottom line item is related to total
cash revenue and net service charges. Those two numbers give
you 77 percent.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
MR. MORGAN: 57.2 percent is made up of the total
cash revenue and the gross service charges.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
MR. MORGAN: And then, if you look at the
3- 7-G6
186
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
25.4 percent back up towards the top, that is in relation, of
course, just to the 511,115. That is 24 percent, which are
the charges that are disallowed by Medicare.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which they have no hope to
collect, or think they have no hope to collect.
MR. MORGAN: Yes, that's correct.
MR. SCHELLHASE: You cannot collect them by law;
it's not any hope involved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which prompts me to ask,
then --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. The next one is
29.3 percent. That is related between the relationship of --
of the net service charge, which is 1,428,410, and then the
347,728. The 347,728 is 24.3 percent of the 1,428,410. And
the revenue from collections, the 8.4 percent, is based upon
the -- of course, what they get back, which is 29,090, but it
is also of only 347,728, so the 8 percent might be off.
DODGE TINLEY: That's where I was going a while ago.
On the -- on the 20 percent, or roughly 20 percent that you're
going to have as the deductible, a noncovered expense, it
appears to me that the City, before it is sent to outside
collection, is collecting very, very, very little of that.
MR. SCHELLHASE: Well, $29,000 -- which, keep in
mind, they just went to this system this year. This is with
their old collection agency. That's 29 percent of the
~_.,~ ah
187
1
2
3
4
5
G
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
374,000. And you're right, that's -- you know, it's 8 percent
of what they gave them, and that's one of the reasons they
changed to the current collection agency. They thought it was
running about 30 percent; they really didn't have a picture --
you know, a good handle on what it was going to run.
upon that percentage, that 24.3 percent that's going to
collection, it appears that very little of that bad debt that
exists in-house is being collected in-house. And I guess my
question relates to what effort is being made by the City to
pursue that collection before it's sent out to bad debts?
Instead of billing and sitting on it for 120 days.
MR. SCHELLHASE: I think nothing but invoicing.
They do not have an individual that goes out and knocks on
doors. But after that 120 days, they give it to the
collection agency. And, like I say, they think it's going to
be around 30 percent, or the first two or three months they
had it, it kind of reflected that. This year -- well, you
know, when we get this sheet for 2005-'6, we'll have some idea
what that's going to be.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. I think the Judge and
I are on the same page in terms of this, and thank you,
Dr. Morgan, for what you said. Which prompts me to ask,
Walter, what other distinctions or the differences between
3-2~-06
188
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
L1
22
23
29
25
Kerr County and Kendall County that allows them to collect --
or reduce their bad debts down to 12 percent, and ours remain
so high?
MR. SCHELLHASE: Well, it's interesting. Some of
them don't consider them bad debts at all. It's a courtesy.
If they don't pay the bill, they just drop it, forget about
it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. I have no comments;
just asking a question.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We kind of had the same
reaction, but they felt like that the amount that they're
going after is -- does not justify the time it takes, the
people it takes to try to go after it, and the community
disruption that it causes with citizens. They just drop it
and forget about it, and write it off.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
JODGE TINLEY: It occurs to me, in the current
environment with insurance, where -- where bills are sent out
shortly after service is rendered, anyone with insurance of
any kind knows that it hasn't been processed through
insurance, and if they don't send out that first billing -- it
occurs to me, most folks don't get their explanation of
benefits until 45 days into the -- after the service is
rendered. If they don't get a billing 60, 90 days out
indicating there's a balance due, a lot of folks --
~~-n~
189
1
2
3
4
J
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. SCHELLHASE: Forget it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. I mean it's -- they don't
realize they owe it. And I don't know -- I don't know the
timetable on which they're operating.
MR. SCHELLHASE: Keep in mind, probably -- we don't
have an exact figure, but probably 95 percent of all the
billings goes to an insurance company. Not to an individual;
goes to an insurance company. And that insurance company pays
the primary and then sends a secondary bill for it. City's
job is to follow up on those and see which ones are paid in
full, which ones are not, and which of the 20 percent is left
to be paid by someone else.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can you -- in your communication
with the City and the other surrounding counties, was there a
reason that the City of Kerrville chose to do the billing
in-house for everybody, where everybody else chose to farm it
out or contract it out?
MR. SCHELLHASE: We didn't ask that question.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right.
MR. SCHELLHASE: They do have billing companies --
Bandera uses a billing company in San Antonio.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So's Kendall, and so --
MR. SCHELLHASE: I believe Kendall uses a billing
company --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They use --
3 '~-u6
190
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. MORGAN: Kendall uses one out of Houston, and
it's a flat fee. They just charge them, I think -- I'm not
looking at the chart. It's there, but a flat fee, and they do
everything. You know, they do the billing and the collections
and everything. They just get the report at the end of the
day, and it all goes into the computer, and the next morning
it's looked over by one person that criticizes it, so to
speak, in a positive manner, and if it's okay, then they just
let it go and it's into the system. So, within a day or two,
it's into the system, processing out of Houston.
MR. SCHELLHASE: See, Bandera pays a flat fee of
17.73 per invoice that they send them, so every invoice they
send them, they pay the billing agent 17.73, and they're
through with it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Earlier in your report, you
said that if an ambulance is dispatched to answer a particular
call, and they get there and whoever would have been the
patient refuses service and they return empty, there's no
bill?
MR. SCHELLHASE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. SCHELLHASE: Except for the flat fee.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This is partially a
public-funded service. My question is, if that were a private
ambulance, would that still be the case, or would there be a
3-27-06
191
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2q
25
bill?
MR. SCHELLHASE: I have no idea. No idea.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Good question.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I bet you there's a bill.
MR. SCHELLHASE: Biggest cases of that are probably
on the highway.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Years ago, it would not be a
bill. I had some dealings with the private one when Kerr
County had a private one.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think, like the General just
said, the problem comes in at a wreck on the highway when it's
not -- no one -- no participant in the wreck usually even
calls 9-1-1; usually it's some other passer-by.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Highway patrolman or someone
else will call the EMS out, and now you've got an EMS and you
have a fire truck that go to the site because of -- because of
gasoline, so you have two pieces of equipment out there. And
no one's hurt bad enough to go to the hospital, and refuse
service. They sign a form, and that's it; they're on their
way.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that the only time that
this circumstance arises? What if it's a call by the Sheriff
or D.P.S. trooper or something like that?
MR. SCHELLHASE: Next-door neighbor. Anybody could
call.
3-27 ~~6
192
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
L2
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's my point.
MR. SCHELLHASE: Your next-door neighbor could call,
and when they get there, the patient says I -- you know, I'm
okay. No charge.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It can be your neighbor calling.
They see you walking out in your yard; you fall down, they
call 9-1-1, and you just saw something you wanted to look at
on the ground.
MR. SCHELLHASE: Although -- except for the flat
fee, that $100 fee.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Probably call La Hacienda.
MR. SCHELLHASE: Anyway, you can see from that chart
that the fifty-fifty split we talk about is not history.
That's something that was new this year as far as EMS is
concerned.
JUDGE TINLEY: You did discover that in previous
years, there was a contractual agreement that had us paying
for certain items at fixed rates?
MR. SCHELLHASE: Yes, correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. SCHELLHASE: But it -- but it's all part of the
deficit, whether you pay the -- whether you pay half of the
EMS Director's salary or you pay half of this or half of this,
whatever it is, it's still part of the overall package, and
when you get to the bottom, you have a deficit.
3 %~-n~
193
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
L2
23
29
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Well, let's talk about --
MR. SCHELLHASE: In addition to the amount that
you're paying in.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's talk about that deficit.
Looking at Appendix I, we start off with $146,000 deficit, and
we end up with a $42,000 dollar deficit. This, of course, is
projected.
MR. SCHELLHASE: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Which means you made $104,000 worth
of progress on that.
MR. SCHELLHASE: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Then you roll back in the 5 percent
fund balance, and that runs it back up to 130.
MR. SCHELLHASE: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: So the actual cost is going to be
$100,000 less.
MR. SCHELLHASE: Less.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
MR. SCHELLHASE: But keep in mind, it's not because
the City's doing any better job. It's because you're putting
in more money.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's my point.
MR. SCHELLHASE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Now, an interesting point -- I
don't really want to get real crosswise with the City again on
3-z~-oF
194
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
this, but it's interesting that we, under a contract, were
asked to pay a certain amount. The City continued to run a
deficit, and then when we renegotiated, they brought all that
money forward and said, okay, we're starting out $130,000 in
the hole, when we were living up to a contract that they
signed.
JUDGE TINLEY: Actually, they started out at 146 in
the hole.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 146 in the hole. But, anyway,
you know, it's just -- we tend to --
MR. SCHELLHASE: Well, the --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We -- basically, we've ignored
the prior contract, which is what the City wanted us to do two
years ago.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'd like to talk about
user-pay.
MR. SCHELLHASE: I don't think you're participating
any more this year than your contract calls for.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, we're exactly under our
contract this year, but -- yeah. It's -- that's nothing to do
with the committee, really. Just the way --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Judge, I want to talk about
user-pay for a minute. By the way, this is really an
excellent study and a good report.
MR. SCHELLHASE: Thank you.
-_~ uF
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
195
COMMISSIONER PdICHOLSON: I agree with all your
conclusions, and I'm -- I'm happy that we've got a quality EMS
service here in Kerr County. It occurs to me that some
services provided by governments are conducive to a user-pay
concept. At least two of the elements I can think of that
would go into that kind of assessment would be, can you
identify the users? And, certainly, in this case, the
answer's yes; you know who uses the service. And then second
question is, do a majority of the population use the services?
And the answer in this case is no, it's a small percentage of
the population. So, based on those two assessments, EMS
services, ambulance services are a good candidate for a
user-pay concept. And I think that must have been recognized
when the City and the County went into the EMS business,
because I believe it's true that in year one, usage rates were
established and tended to pay the cost of the services. And
they have been adjusted upwards a little bit over the years,
but not very often and not very much, to where those fees have
fallen far behind; specifically, about $400,000 a year, two
and two total cost.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It's not rocket science to
determine what kind of fees you have to charge to have a
self-sustaining service. You start with knowing what the
costs are, and you know about what percent of the runs are
-%~-06
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
L2
23
24
25
796
going to be Medicare-capped and you got a good idea of what
percent of that balance is going to be uncollectable. And
then you back into it and you set the rates at an amount that
would generate sufficient revenue to pay the costs of the
service. I think the costs now are pretty nominal. Looks
like there's $300 for a basic run, basic life support, on up
to 600-some dollars.
MR. SCHELLHASE: Problem is, though, Commissioner,
you can set the rates at whatever you want to --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah.
MR. SCHELLHASE: -- but you rani collect any more
than Medicare approves.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You can from somebody
that's not on Medicare.
MR. SCHELLHASE: Well, but most times, that approval
rate for private care is also guidelined by Medicare, and
that's where the hurt comes.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, I'm --
MR. SCHELLHASE: Big difference is, you can collect
that 20 percent for the self --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: General, other Medicare
providers or other medical service providers are under the
same rule as we are, and I guarantee you, my G.P. is not
losinq money. He's charging a high enough fee from me and
from others that he more than offsets the Medicare
-^~-ub
197
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
disallowables. I'm saying you can set these rates at a high
enough rate that it -- we'll collect enough money to make it
cost-neutral. It might be $1,000 instead of $331. I don't
know what it would be, but it wouldn't take me very long to
figure out.
MR. SCHELLHASE: Keep in mind that the number of
Medicare compared to private insurance is very small. And we
did look at, you know, how much you would have to increase the
rates to make up a deficit, acid it would be so far out of
range that, you know, nobody would pay them anyway.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't know. When I'm --
when I was laying out there on the Shoemaker Crossing bridge
bleeding, I didn't call 9-1-1 and say, "How much does an
ambulance cost?" And when my -- my private insurance carrier
didn't pay all of it and I got a bill from the City, I paid
it.
MR. SCHELLHASE: That's right, on private pay. But
the -- the differential of Medicare and private insurance --
did we get an exact figure, what that percentage was?
MR. MORGAN: No.
MR. SCHELLHASE: But it's small, And it's because
of Kerrville, you know --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Can we agree that it could
be done?
MR. SCHELLHASE: Yeah.
-<<7 OF,
198
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 NICHOLSON: It's just a matter of
whether or not --
MR. SCHELLHASE: It's practical.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- the government wants to
do it. Okay. Well, I understand that.
MR. SCHELLHASE: And we looked at that and said,
"How much would it have to be?" So, from the collections
standpoint, we feel right now that the City is doing an
adequate job. We -- we only noticed one thing in surveying
the other counties, is that in some counties, they have one
individual that tracks all of the billing all the way through
to doublecheck, recheck, and make sure everything has been
coded right. That's the biggest problem in the whole system
and the billing process and the collection process, is the
code that they put on it. If Cindy puts a single code in
wrong, then they don't get paid for it. And in our case, in
Kerrville, Cindy does all of the billing and does all of the
input from the information provided by the EMS driver, but
other than that, everything is -- seems to be e:ctremely
well-handled.
From the standpoint of the equitable funding
formula, we're making some recommendations. One -- and it's
currently supported by the City -- is that the County, City,
and Ingram form a committee -- a three-person committee to do
the budget. It's important that the -- there is a budget
3- 2 7- U 5
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
prepared for EMS that everybody signs off on and agrees with
all the items, period. We don't think that's being done right
now; however, the City agrees that it's acceptable to have
someone from the County sit down with them at budget time and
work up an EMS budget so that everybody agrees with the
numbers that are on it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Your communication was with
staff, I presume, not counsel?
MR. SCHELLHASE: No, not with counsel. With staff,
yes. Our second rer_ommendation is that the City -- the County
should give consideration to paying all of the debts and
shortfall for the EMS. The same county taxes are collected
across the city that's collected in the county. The total
deficit and total operating costs from -- on the negative side
this year, including the deficit, is $508,000. That's what
EMS is costing above and beyond what's being collected through
the normal channels, as estimated for this year.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is that --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where is that?
MR. SCHELLHASE: It's on Page 10, third paragraph
down.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't have Page 10.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't either.
MR. SCHELLHASE: This committee is not recommending
that the County pick up the $508,000 --
4-^_~-Vo
zoo
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1~
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you have one?
MR. SCHELLHASE: -- this year.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: General, would you -- time
out. Technical foul. Some of us don't have Page 10's.
JUDGE TINLEY: I had a Page 10 because I went back
to another report and got one. And what --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I got my original report.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's an old political
trick. I don't know if you pulled it or our secretary did.
MR. SCHELLHASE: While he's running a copy, I'll --
we're not recommending that the County jump off tomorrow and
pay the total EMS deficit shortfall, but we are suggesting,
and have discussed this with City staff, that the City sit
down with the County and start figuring out a way to do this,
how they can back into it, how they can come up with a formula
to negate the difficulty of one big chunk at one time. The
City staff, and especially the City Manager, agreed that the
charge of the $200,000 this year, as opposed to the $29,000
last year, was not the proper way to handle it -- that
process, and he's sorry for the fact that they didn't sit down
and come up with some equitable arrangement before budget
time. Unfortunately, he was not here, and he has said that it
will be corrected this year. So, y'all -- I think the City --
the County can expect a little bit better working relationship
budget-wise, based on information we were provided by the
s-z~-oh
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
City. We also looked at the possibility of a funding
agreement with regard to runs, how many runs we're making.
Well, when you really look at it, it's not even relevant. It
doesn't pay a significant part. The runs are pretty close to
fifty-fifty in the county and the city -- or in the city and
outside of the city limits. Mileage is about the same. So,
that -- you know, it's something that could be used if it was
decided that there ought to be a fifty-fifty or some sort of a
split in the mileage.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: General, is this -- is the runs
the same as patient count?
MR. SCHELLHASE: What are you looking at?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: E. Attachment E.
MR. SCHELLHASE: No, those are -- E is -- E is runs.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: To me, it looks like the County
has --
JUDGE TINLEY: Less than 30 percent.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- 30 percent, and the City
65 percent.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, you got to add Ingram's
6 percent in. We're picking up Ingram's tab as of right now,
right?
MR. SCHELLHASE: Well, the City thinks they're
picking it up, but -- you know.
JUDGE TINLEY: They can do that.
3-~~-06
202
1
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. SCHELLHASE: It's a combination of the City --
combination of the City and County picking it up, because
y'all are the only two putting into the pot now, so to speak.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Ingram is not
putting --
MR. SCHELLHASE: Putting anything in.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- putting anything in.
MR. SCHELLHASE: And that's one of the reasons --
and I recommend our recommendation that we said three-person
committee. Ingram needs to step up to the plate somewhere
along the line so the County is not taking the total blunt of
the burden. We also looked at population. We said, well,
let's look at the population inside the city and the county as
a whole to see what the results would be there. And, as you
can see, the -- there could be a percentage worked out, so
that's another possibility.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Back -- let me look at
Attachment F real quick.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mileage.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mileage, okay. All right, it's
here.
MR. SCHELLHASE: We'd like to point out that the
quality of service has never been questioned by anyone from
the County that we know of, anyone from the City that we know
of, nor from any citizens. We could not turn up any questions
-?~_ar,
203
1
2
3
4
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
with regard to quality of service. So, I think we have that
on our side from the standpoint of a system that is working
and working good. And, of course, as I told you, we looked at
the adjacent counties. Under the EMS and ESD, we do feel like
that the -- a county-wide ESD is the answer. We don't think
it's possible right now. There are too many hoops to jump
through and too many hurdles to cross in any short period of
time. The City is not inclined to consider an ESD at all at
this time, and the main reason, Mr. Hofmann says, is because
he's new and hasn't had a chance to look at it. You know,
he's not saying no, but it's something he just doesn't want to
look at at this time. But it's certainly on the table. We
talked about the possibility of forming a group to do a study,
to get into it a little bit deeper and get the participation
of those people and some agreement by all the other ESD's in
the county, Ingram as well as the City, and he's amenable to
that. So, I think to say that a county-wide ESD including the
City of Kerrville is out totally, I don't think you could say
no to that.
As an ESD county-wide, without the City, you could
jump on that baby tomorrow and start work. There's nothing to
keep you from doing it right now. We did give you a
breakdown, though, to give you some idea of how much money you
have to look at, to see what would be involved, and that's
Appendix B. And what we did is we broke out the county
s-~-vu
204
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
taxable value, the city, Ingram, ESD-1, ESD-2, and made a
comparison as to what it would take to come up with the
500-plus thousand dollars that you need to offset an ESD, just
to operate it based on the way the City's operating now. As
you can see, you're talking about a 1 and a half to 2 percent
board, so it gives you an idea of what you would have to do.
The small number at the bottom is to indicate you're now
putting in $200,000. To come up with that $200,000, it's
.00675 cents of valuation in the county. So, that's just a
little bit of extra information we're providing so you can
look and see what would really have to be done ESD-wise, and
whether or not you include all these other entities and where
you would come up with the money to buy vehicles and build
stations and all those things that would require to run a
county-wide ESD.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: General, I still think,
though, that if you had a county-wide ESD, and that board of
directors is set up and they collect the fees, I mean, the
funds would come in; they'd simply turn around and contract
with the City of Kerrville for the service.
MR. SCHELLHASE: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So I don't --
MR. SCHELLHASE: You could do that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't see where -- they
s-z~-oE
205
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
lose nothing. And, I mean, nobody's hurting.
MR. SCHELLHASE: All you would have to do would be
to adjust the tax revenue, offset whatever that contract would
be on an annual basis.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And drop out all this funding
out of each of our budgets.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sounds so simple, doesn't
it?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, it's -- it's not
simple, but it's not as painful as --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree, --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- some things we do.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- that's the way to go.
MR. SCHELLHASE: You would have to work around the
issue of the existing ESD's.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Right. I don't know about
that.
MR. SCHELLHASE: You'd have to figure out how to
address those. Either dissolve them, or you could incorporate
them into it or, you know, participate with them, or just tax
around them. When you get to Ingram, Ingram has got a huge
taxing district in their ESD, and when you look at those
dollars that are involved in Ingram and the ESD there, you can
see that it's -- it sucks away a lot of the dollars right
away. So --
s-z~-nn
206
1
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: So, Ingram's ESD, even though it
could help fund EMS, it only funds fire?
JUDGE TINLEY: Correct.
MR. SCHELLHASE: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Now, they could -- they could, in
turn, contract with the City to provide within their ESD
emergency medical services, and set the tax rate accordingly,
so you accomplish the same results. You just --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
MR. SCHELLHASE: And same thing with ESD-2; you'd
just be doing it in three different pieces that way.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: As opposed to dissolving the first
two and then forming one.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The other thing you could
do if you had a -- either a county-wide ESD or a Kerr County
ESD, excluding Kerrville, either one, the ESD could contract
with volunteer fire departments, whether First Responders or
-- they've got fairly wide latitude in who they contract with
to provide any kind of emergency services. That's not to say
that I'm supporting an ESD, for reasons we've talked about
before. I don't see government entities ever lowering taxes,
so we get ESD tares and Kerrville, and Kerr County would not
lower their taxes.
MR. SCHELLHASE: There's not a question in our mind
3-27-Oti
zo7
1
2
3
4
5
h
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
L2
23
24
25
as a committee that the County is getting the benefit of the
City's ability to work jointly with the fire department in the
personnel. We looked at all the personnel in both ESDS and
the fire department, and Chief Holloway's ability to swap
firemen that are qualified paramedics and EMS with EMS
paramedics that are working for EMS at times of emergency or
leave or vacation, things of that nature, to move these people
back and forth in what he says is an equitable basis, and we
would have to take his word for it. I don't think there's any
advantage taken there. The only subject that keeps bringing
everybody's attention to the $72,000 this time, which is
called a transfer out in the budget, and I suggested they
change the name of the transfer out. And if you'll look at
that on -- on the budget sheet, --
JUDGE TINLEY: I.
MR. SCHELLHASE: -- on I, the $72,436 marked
Transfer Out is to pay for two -- two dispatchers that work
for the police department or Sheriff's Department; I'm not for
sure where the dispatchers are. But EMS does not have a
dispatcher on payroll, so that that $72,000 is transferred
into the police department to pay for those dispatchers that
handle EMS. Whether or not that's right or wrong, whether or
not it's adequate, whether or not it's too much, should be one
s-~~-o6
208
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
person, we can't answer that. We think the County should
have -- or we draw the conclusion the County should have
someone in this building or some other building that's
responsible for obtaining, receiving the EMS reports that are
done on a monthly basis of where they stand and what they're
doing. Someone that can review these, audit them against the
budget, and come to some conclusions, whether or not right or
wrong, whether they end up being done right, and be able to
report back to the Court so that before an issue becomes an
issue, it can be resolved. Our recommendation is that be the
auditing department.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've spoken with the Auditor,
and she's agreed to peek under the hood at it for us and kind
of get us going.
MR. SCHELLHASE: The other conclusion we drew is
that there should be more liaison between County staff and
City staff. The fact that the mayor and the City staff that
does the billing for EMS and does not know where the invoice
goes, when it gets here, who handles it, how it's done, have
no knowledge of it; we think it would be good if those people
talked a little bit between each other and kept track of
what's going on from time to time. With that said, we think
you have several options that you can look at, and Gordon is
going to cover the options.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Before we get to the options, I
~ z~-ue
209
1
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 a general question.
MR. SCHELLHASE: A General question?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: A general question. A general
question to the General. Did you all -- or were you able to
look at -- go into their budget and figure out how -- on the
administrative side, how much they bill for administrative
services into the EMS contract? For example, Cindy, and --
MR. SCHELLHASE: None.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They don't bill any?
MR. SCHELLHASE: None. There's no City
administrative cost in the EMS budget.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So it's just whatever --
MR. SCHELLHASE: It's the employees. There are --
19?
MR. MORGAN: I think 19.
MR. SCHELLHASE: 19 employees in EMS. And those are
the employees that are charged to it, and nothing else.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. SCHELLHASE: So, there's no assistant manager
portion, there's no financial person charged whatsoever.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Dispatchers line?
MR. MORGAN: You participate in the line item that
has -- for administrator or whatever it is. It's a line item
that y'all participate in the salary.
JUDGE TINLEY: On Medical Director.
s z~ n,,
zlo
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
MR. SCHELLHASE: Medical Director.
DODGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Interesting.
MR. SCHELLHASE: Gordon?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, sir.
MR. MORGAN: I'm Gordon Morgan, Scenic valley. I
don't know why Walter had me to do it; maybe he thought I'd
have to provide CPR or something for the Court after what he
told you. But, basically, the options is sort of the thing
brought down to a nutshell. If you look at the options, you
can establish the county-wide situation. You -- with ESD.
You can do the partial. These are, of course, the options
that he's gone over. You can agree to joint -- or a joint
funding of the city services on a cost percentage basis. Let
me refer to you K; we didn't talk about K. But look in your
-- some of these printouts in the back have a lot of
information in them.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We didn't get a K.
JUDGE TINLEY: No K?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No K.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I got a K.
MR. MORGAN: You got a K? Well, I guess it's --
this is being discriminatory. Y'all don't have a K,
seriously?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We don't have a K, seriously.
3-?~-oe
211
1
7
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
MR. SCHELLHASE: Tell Kathy to get in here.
MR. MORGAN: Give me your K. What you will see on
K --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You left out Page 9 and 10.
MR. MORGAN: Well, it's not -- no, it's not my fault
at all. It's Walter's, and he immediately left town when he
gave me these.
MR. SCHELLHASE: Kathy ran the reports for us.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Euster is sitting here, "How
did I get all this stuff that everybody else has?" It's the
one he gave me originally.
MR. MORGAN: Oh, gosh.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. MORGAN: Anyway, what you will find on K is a
rundown on some of the questions that Walter was -- was
addressing earlier. The transport percentage on the payee
type -- I'm going to give Walter's back; he may be wrong on
something else. K has a breakdown on the transport
percentage. There's Medicare at 60 percent, Medicaid at 7,
V.A. at 9, total of 77. There you have your other insurance
at 10.5 percent and private pay at 12.3 percent, so those are
the percentages on those. Here's an analysis -- the one below
that is an analysis on the physical year's location of where
they made their runs to, where their pickups were, and you'll
see that the city had 2,560 patients, or 4.8 percent of the
z~-oh
zl2
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
calls that they made were in the city, and they produced --
you see the revenue there, and it comes out to being
63 percent of the revenue and 60 percent of the calls, so that
might be something to work with on percentages if you were
going to look towards percentages to fund with the City the
services.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Just a curiosity. Gordon,
something like half of our population is in Kerrville, but
they're using 65 percent of the services? On average, people
in Kerrville have a need for ambulance service more than
people outside of Kerrville?
MR. MORGAN: Could well be. You know, I don't know
if it's an age -- if you look at the average age, for
instance -- I don't have any idea what it is. If you look at
the average age of the citizens within Kerrville city limits
compared to those in the county --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: May have something to do with
the -- on fires, they send ambulances.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: A lot of it's going to do with
your nursing homes. Most of those are inside the city of
Kerrville, and that's where a big majority of their calls go.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That would make a
difference.
MR. MORGAN: And it's just -- it's more readily
available, too. I mean, and if you charge by mileage or you
?-z~-or
213
1
L
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2 L
23
24
25
do anything like that, of course, you're not going to -- oddly
enough, you won't get the revenue for it, other than the main
call. But, anyway, those are percentages that I think are
important for y'all to look at. And the other thing was to
establish a separate fund for the revenue and expenditures to
finance the total EMS subsidy and deficit of operation.
That's if you were going to pick up that responsibility
yourselves. And even if you don't, that might be well to
break it apart, and if it's necessary to put a tax on it, it
would be stand-alone, and -- you know, for the funding, so
that it wouldn't -- that people could realize what you were
doing relative to providing the EMS service for the people.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Could we go back over that
one more time?
MR. MORGAN: I talked to her about it, and she
thought that was a good idea too.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: About what?
MR. MORGAN: Setting up a fund.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. In Walter's
presentation part of it, one of the recommendations was to --
is your D.4, to finance the total EMS subsidy and deficit.
Let's talk about that one more time, what the recommendation
1 S .
MR. MORGAN:	Well, that -	- that is one of	the
recommendations that	you could do.	The remark that	was in
-z~-oo
214
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
~4
25
the -- the handout, you know, is the one that you all are
really familiar with, and that is that everybody pays the same
point is that that's the only real substance or strata in
which you could, across the board, do your taxing or your
raising of your revenues, because it affects everybody with
the same revenue, and not be picking on any group outside the
city or inside the -- or leaving them out inside the city, if
they don't want to be a participant. So, basically, it's the
one tax that's spread across.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Following up on that a
little bit, Gordon, if you follow that --
MR. MORGAN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- that thinking, that
because everybody in the county uses the service, then it
might be right for the county government to pay for the cost
of service, wouldn't that be the same thinking that you'd use
in connection with funding the library? Or Animal Control or
some other things?
MR. MORGAN: Well, I think it's -- it is a funding
mechanism, and I think all mechanisms, regardless of how you
go, has certainly things that one would have to be very
cautious about, whether you want to get down to the point of
-- of identifying the individuals that are using it and trying
to put it back on the basis of those that use it, or whether
3-G7 U6
215
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
it's going to be a county-wide thing. And it certainly -- I
don't know how it works with the numbers that you use at the
library, for instance.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I mean, I --
MR. MORGAN: But --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think what you're saying, I
hear. But the other side of that, in my opinion, is the City
would not even consider turning this over to the County, from
my communication with them. And part of the issue that I have
with -- you know, with that is, the City provides a great
service, but the service to the city of Kerrville residents is
a whole lot better than my -- most of my constituents in the
eastern part of the county, because they're 10 minutes away
versus 30 minutes away, and the City makes -- has no plans or
desire to improve the time, which would be opening substations
in Center Point or Hunt, someplace like that.
MR. MORGAN: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So I think, yes, it's a fairer
tax, but it's going to decrease, possibly, some of the -- the
service and more equalize it county-wide, which I think it
should be if it was run by the County. And the City doesn't
want to.
MR. MORGAN: There's a drawback also when you agree
to provide the revenue to subsidize a deficit. When you do
that, it puts greater responsibility on someone to oversee how
~-z~-va
216
1
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 being run to see how that deficit is occurring, number
one, and number two, if anyone who runs a deficit is
automatically going to get reimbursed, there's nothing there
as an incentive to decrease the deficit.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's where I'm coming from. It
doesn't -- it doesn't strike as good, efficient management
practice to me to have the County funding an entire deficit
when the -- all of the control of costs of operation,
efficiency of operation, the degree to which collections are
going to be pursued, anything to bring those costs and
deficits down, in -- in the operator, and a nonoperator who
has no control over those being responsible for any of the
shortfall. I mean --
MR. MORGAN: You have -- true.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- there's no incentive on the
operator in that event.
MR. MORGAN: And this is why that you have to look
at the whole package. Y'all have to be involved in -- in the
budget to start with. You have to look at the numbers and see
where those deficits are occurring. You know, that's just
part. If you're going to be funding, you have to have
knowledge of what you're funding. But --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think if -- to follow up on
that a little bit, in Commissioner Nicholson's far west areas
and some of my precinct, we've had to go to alternative
3-~~-n6
217
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
sources to help get EMS service, because the quality may be
good, but the time it takes to get there isn't good. And the
residents of have opted, basically, out of the system for the
-- you know.
MR. MORGAN: Which the problem -- you know, we
started looking at areas. We drew circles around the
different stations to see how far that would take you, which,
you know, 10 minutes is usually -- used to be 8 to 10 minutes.
I guess it is still, unless they've got some new devices that
makes it longer, but 8 to 10 minutes is really your time frame
that you have to make a call, a real emergency call. After
that, it's not going to do a lot of good.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think one of the things I
look to -- or hope to explore with the ESD is because I think
it gives more -- gives a board more emphasis, because I think
we're going to have more and more issues in the far eastern
part of the county, and the quality of the Kerrville EMS being
able to serve that under their current framework is going to
get less and less and less, because they can't get there.
MR. MORGAN: The ESD will give you that opportunity
to have maybe some -- a station in Hunt and a station down at
Center Point, something like that, so that's an advantage.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Thank y'all very much.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
DODGE TINLEY: We appreciate your effort, gentlemen.
s-z~-oti
zla
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 NICHOLSON: That's outstanding. Good
-- good work. Good report. We couldn't afford to hire a
consultant to do that. Thank you.
MR. SCHELLHASE: That's why Ray wants his check.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Murphy?
MR. MURPHY: Yes, I'd like to say a couple of words.
First, let me say that -- Jim Murphy, 3117 Mulligan Way.
First, Walter -- the General and the doctor did the greater
portion of this. Ray and I were there, but I -- you'll have
to admit, you've heard the two outstanding performers here
today. There's a couple of things I'd like to say. First,
ESD. To me, that's the actual way to go. It takes the thing
out of you having to budget for it every year, the City having
to budget for it every year. You have a contract with the
City. The things can be worked out as far as Raymond and his
fire department and his -- that can be worked out. Just like
Gordon mentioned, you could base ambulances at Hunt and/or
Center Point or some area out there in the county where they'd
get quicker service. And one of the main points is, I live in
the city; a couple of others that live in the city. The city
taxpayers are paying twice for the present system that we
have, and I think the only fair way to go is the ESD, where
they only get taxed one time.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's true. Thank you.
MR. MURPHY: Any questions?
3-~~-OF
219
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, sir. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Murphy. We appreciate
your being here and your work on the committee.
MR. SCHELLHASE: I'd like to close out by telling
you that we think the County is getting an extremely good deal
at this time. What kind of a deal you cut after that might be
different, might be even better, but they're doing an
extremely good job right now county-wide, and y'all are
getting a good deal with what's being done right now. Thank
you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank y'all very, very much.
Appreciate you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Check's in the mail, Ray.
Check's in the mail.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, Gordon. You're
right, you couldn't hire somebody to do that.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Wouldn't have been that
good and would cost you $100,000. Don't forget Option D.5.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: D.5?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: User-pay. It's easy to
design and implement, and it solves the problem. That's all.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Okay, we'll go to Item 17;
consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on personnel
3-^7-05
220
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
matter. This was placed on the agenda at the request of the
County Treasurer. It's denoted as being an executive session
Item, so at this time, 3:43, the Court will go out of open
session.
(Discussion off the record.)
(The open session was closed at 3:43 p.m., and an
executive session was held, the transcript of which
is contained in a separate document.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, we'll come back into open
session at 9:33. And first off, let me ask if there's any
member of the Court that wishes to offer any action with
respect to the items which were taken up in closed or
executive session? Hearing none, we'll move on, and we will
go to the approval agenda. Payment of the bills.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to pay the bills.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to pay the
bills. Any question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a couple. I'll make
them quick. Page 29, Mindy, I'm curious as to what supplies
under Courthouse and Related would come from Adco Advertising.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Magnetic signs.
MS. WILLIAMS: I believe those are probably --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Campaign signs?
JUDGE TINLEY: No, I didn't buy mine there.
3-t7 OE
221
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. WILLIAMS: I think they were signs that go on a
vehicle.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Maintenance?
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. WILLIAMS: I'd have to actually pull the invoice
to look at it, but, I mean, we went -- we had so many bills
this time. As you gentlemen noticed, we had almost three full
boxes, and --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I noticed.
MS. WILLIAMS: -- there were a lot of them there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just in general, under the
Sheriff's and under County Jail, there are a lot of medical
bills, prisoner medical.
MS. WILLIAMS: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I know we had talked at one
time about some of these qualifying under Indigent Health
Care, as opposed to being line items in the Sheriff's budget.
MS. WILLIAMS: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that routinely looked at?
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, I think that the Sheriff's
Department keeps a really good watch on that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MS. WILLIAMS: Anytime an inmate comes in, they
-a~ u6
222
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
don't automatically have them apply to Indigent Health Care
until the need comes up, and then Beth usually works those
through really quick. If they're eligible for indigent health
care, then the bills are paid out of that instead of out of
the Sheriff's budget.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Done?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Indigent Health Care, Page 64.
That's a killer.
MS. WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any particular reason that we've got
almost $110,000 to the hospital in this one billing period
alone?
MS. WILLIAMS: There were a bunch of claims. As I
-- you know, I'd said earlier, the previous person before Beth
had kind of left us in the lurch by sitting on some
applications and not approving them or disapproving them
timely, which kind of automatically makes those people
eligible.
JUDGE TINLEY: Those were some of those
left-laying-around claims, maybe?
MS. WILLIAMS: I believe they were. Beth did tell
me when she brought these batches over that it looks like it's
slowing down a little bit, so I'm hoping.
s ~~-nE
223
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
I5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Beth is an employee of Sid
Peterson?
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What department would she
work in?
MS. WILLIAMS: Social Services.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I share your concern,
Judge. Indigent health care is killing us taxpayers.
JUDGE TINLEY: What would be the down side to, like
we customarily do in the legal field, of just deny everything,
and then start sorting it out from there? I mean, you
wouldn't miss a time deadline, would you?
MS. WILLIAMS: I don't really know if I understand
your question. You mean if an applicant comes in?
JUDGE TINLEY: Rather than sit around and study on
one or go on vacation or something, when a claim comes in,
initially deny it, and then look at it.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Sounds like my insurance
company.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's exactly what they do. That's
why they got money and we don't.
MS. WILLIAMS: Well, normally what she does, an
individual comes in; they have to fill out an application,
they have to be interviewed by her. If there are any criteria
that would exclude them from the program, she will deny them
3-~~-pig
224
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
eligibility. If they qualify, by state guidelines, we cannot
deny them. We cannot disqualify them.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, it's not a matter of denying the
billing for the service. It's the individual.
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: And once you -- once you cannot deny
the individual for service, whatever they go rack up --
MS. WILLIAMS: For six months.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- we're liable for.
MS. WILLIAMS: For six months. They -- they're only
eligible for six months. At the end of that time, they would
have to come back in and reapply and be requalified.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Wonderful system.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think CHIPS is tougher to get into
than that, sounds to me like.
MS. WILLIAMS: It's not a good -- to me, it's not a
really good system. It's not perfect.
JUDGE TINLEY: Reminds me of the guys that get in
jail; they suddenly have all these dental problems that
they've had for 15 years, and they now want it all corrected.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Here's a good one on Page 66,
under Indigent Health Care, third from the bottom.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah.
MS. WILLIAMS: Gillespie Emergency Medical
Associates?
-z~-oE
225
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
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. I'm sure there's a
reasonable explanation, but I -- it's a good question.
MS. WILLIAMS: A very good question.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Answer it.
MS. WILLIAMS: I'm not sure that I can. It's very
possible that this individual is a Kerr County resident, but
that a particular service may not be available here, may be
available in a neighboring county. If so, if a physician
refers them, they still fall under that umbrella.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Same thing on Page 65; there's a
bill to Fredericksburg clinic.
DODGE TINLEY: May be closer that Fredericksburg
wanted to get rid of that one, so the doctor referred -- after
seeing that it's a Kerr County resident, "We're going to send
them to Kerrville, and since they're on their last breath,
they got to go by ambulance, so we're going to do that too."
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a distinct
possibility.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This total of $130,000,
that's what Kerr County paid for indigent health care. Are
payments made by anybody else other than Kerr County for this?
DODGE TINLEY: No.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We're footing the bill for
indigent health care.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's right. But you have
3-2~-05
226
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to remember, Peterson Hospital, even though this is large,
they give us discount numbers. They really do; they discount
it way down.
JUDGE TINLEY: This is probably 35, 40 percent of
what --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Probably.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- full billing was, somewhere in
that range.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Then, again, you see
Dr. Allen up there for $22.60. I have had a lot of dealings
with him recently. It costs more than that to speak to him on
the street.
JUDGE TINLEY: Can't read one of his magazines in
his office for that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely not. You know,
this whole thing's kind of goofy.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any other questions about the
bills?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I just have one.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And it's probably a function
of the new system, where we're getting definitions that we've
not seen before. And, Sheriff, you'd asked me earlier if I
had some questions. The ones I asked Mindy earlier had to do
with medical expenses and whether or not they'd been explored
3-27-on
227
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
through Indigent Health Care, which has gone through the roof,
and the answer was yes. I do have one here that has to do
with --
(Buzzing noise sounded in the courtroom.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Hello. That really is my
phone.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- what is identified as a
donation --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Hold on.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- expense.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sorry, guys.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What is identified as a
donation expense? I don't understand that.
(Commissioner Baldwin left the courtroom.)
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We have a general account
that's donations; people just want to donate to the
department, and that's what that is. It's no tax money.
That's just donations, and they keep track of it. That way it
could be totally audited.
DODGE TINLEY: When you pay something out of that
for whatever that account's for, that's a donation expense?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And while I have you and
Kevin both here and Mindy at the same time, Kevin had a --
washing a vehicle and for a particular price. And my question
3- ~ ~- O h
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
?~
~3
24
25
228
has to do -- do we have a contract to wash all of our
vehicles? How do you handle yours?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Inmates.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Inmates. Good answer.
JUDGE TINLEY: You have an opening for in the
morning?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Sorry, no personal vehicles,
only County-owned vehicles. And my outside trustee program is
shut down now for at least about eight weeks. Officer's had a
total shoulder replacement, rotator cuff. I don't have the
ability, so we don't have any more outside...
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I can't believe people give you
money.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Some people like me, Jonathan,
unlike you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That`s what I can't figure out.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We had one of these gangs
here a couple years ago that wanted to make a contribution to
him. It's true.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions about the bills?
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.)
3_,~ oe
229
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
~5
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Budget
Amendment Request Number 1.
MS. WILLIAMS: This is for a -- it's a bill for the
198th District Court. Actually, it's not a bill. I need to
explain what happened. At the beginning of the budget year,
we were unaware that there was a line item for -- well, we
knew the line item for Court-Appointed Services was there, but
what happened is, there were a number of invoices that we
processed through as Court-appointed attorneys. One happened
to be an investigator. One happened to be -- there was one
other one. I need to do a journal entry and move those
expenses into the Court-Appointed Services line item, but at
this point in time, there are no funds available. Those
invoices that I need to reclassify come to a total of
$1,233,14. So, what I would like to do is move the money out
of Court-Appointed Attorneys up to Court-Appointed Services so
that I can do the journal entry adjustment and get them in the
right place for the budget year.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved -- second.
JUDGE TINLEY: They've already been paid?
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second,
~- ,-i~6
230
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
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: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion carries. Budqet Amendment
Request Number 2.
I
MS. WILLIAMS: Okay. This one is for the Suvenile
Detention Facility, and we have two bills present right now.
Sysco Foods, and Oak Farms for February food services. Total
for the two bills is $4,766.17. We have no moneys left in the
Food line item. I spoke with Becky Harris, and she said we
could go ahead and take the money out of Marketing and move it
up to Food to pay these bills. I also need authorization to
get hand checks issued so we can get these paid on a timely
basis.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of Budget Amendment Request Number 2, and issuance of hand
checks in the amounts and to the payees as indicated on the
request. Any question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One question. This
3-~~-oti
231
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
obviously -- we're going to have to come back again and again
and again and again.
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What contingencies do we
have to cover this? We're going to need those.
MS. WILLIAMS: Becky and I went over that, I think,
a couple -- last week one day. I can't remember exactly when
it was. She gave me a couple of line items that we could move
moneys out of. I have that information back in the office.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Marketing being one of them?
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, Marketing being one. There are
a couple of other line items. Right off the top of my head, I
can't remember what they are, but I have basically a sheet
worked up like this. I just did not bring it to Court today.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MS. WILLIAMS: But it would be a good idea,
probably, for us to look at that, and since she's agreeable to
the amounts and the line items we discussed, what it would do
is put money in the Food budget line item; it will put money
in the Medical line item. There's one other, I believe. The
Lease Copier line item. We've got a couple of bills that are
coming up that need to be paid, and there's not enough money
there to cover those. If the Court, when we get through with
this -- if you don't have a problem with it, I'll go back and
get it and I will gladly bring it in so we can discuss it and
~ 2v ati
232
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
consider it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why don't we just do it at our
next meeting? Just prepare one and get enough money in Food
for at least a couple of months.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, that's fine. Next --
JUDGE TINLEY: You'll have an opportunity to -- to
converse with her about it some more. But you're working on
the problem, is the important thing.
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes -- yeah. We touched base, and I
-- I told her, I said, "We need to look at these line items,
'cause we have to have money here to pay medical." We've got,
like, $1,900 in medical bills outstanding that are probably a
month, maybe two months old.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All I wanted to know is we
have a contingency plan in the making.
MS. WILLIAMS: We're trying.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions or comments? All
in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Budget
Amendment Request Number 3.
MS. WILLIAMS: Okay. This one is for County Court
3-2~-06
233
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
at Law. We are needing to move some money into the Master
Court Appointments line Item. We have basically depleted the
$25,000 that was budgeted there. We have a current expense of
$490 which we need to pay, and only have $129 left. I spoke
with Kathy Gaulden and with Judge Brown, and they agreed that
we could move $8,000 out of their Court-Appointed Attorneys
line item up to the Master Court Appointments to take care of
not only the current expense we have, but any others that are
coming up.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of Budget Amendment Request Number 3. Any question or
discussion? Its occurs to me, in looking at the Civil
Attorneys line items in both the 198th and 216th, that those
items were placed there primarily to handle these C.P.S. type
cases like we're dealing with here.
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: And you may want to try and effect
some sort of resolution by looking at those also. On the
other hand, it looks like we're going to need that C.P.S.
civil attorney money to cover the criminal --
MS. WILLIAMS: Oh, yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- attorneys. So, I --
MS. WILLIAMS: It's like robbing Peter to pay Paul.
3-~~-Oti
234
1
2
3
4
5
H
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Then you're going to have rob somebody else to pay Peter back.
JUDGE TINLEY: Gee, you sound like the Auditor.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Auditing 101.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Any other questions or
comments? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your
right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Budget
Amendment Request Number 4.
(Commissioner Baldwin returned to the courtroom.)
MS. WILLIAMS: Okay. This involves the -- actually,
the Juvenile Detention Maintenance budget. We have bills for
custodial supplies, and also detention repairs that are
pending payment. We're holding them in the office, because
basically we don't have enough money in those line items. I
spoke with Mr. Holekamp about looking at his departments.
There is not any moneys available in any of his other
departments in order to fund the -- what we need here, so I've
left it open-ended for the Court's discretion as to whether we
want to look -- and I have looked in the other departments'
budgets. I don't see much surplus anywhere else that we could
take from. I am of the opinion right now that we're probably
going to have to declare it an emergency and take it out of
3 z~-n t,
235
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
Surplus.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why don't we take it out of
Marketing out there? I know it will reduce that, but it'll
buy us a couple weeks to look at your overall fix for out
there.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd rather -- my personal
feeling is that -- hold off.
MS. WILLIAMS: Take it out of Fund 76 and transfer
it -- I mean, basically, it will be a transfer from one fund
to another. We don't have to worry about the cash accounts
and checking accounts any more.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MS. WILLIAMS: Since we're all in a group.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Fund transfer.
MS. WILLIAMS: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I would -- you know, it's
going to be a last resort to -- to go into emergency for the
juvenile facility, to me.
MS. WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, I make a motion to approve
Budget Amendment 4, with the funds to come from the Marketing
line item at the Juvenile Detention Facility.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as indicated
3-27-06
236
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
to approve Budget Amendment Request Number 4. Any question or
discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Budget
Amendment Request Number 5.
MS. WILLIAMS: Okay. This is actually -- this is
some moneys that we received for the U.I.N.E. program. We
received the money from the State. We did not budget any
proceeds. We did not budget any expenditures. Basically,
it's a wash. We get the money in, we pay the bill, it zeros
out. But we need to recognize the funds that we've received
from the State. We also need to be able to have the funds
available on the expenditure side so that we can pay the bill.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of Budget Amendment Request Number 5. 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.)
3 27-06
237
1
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. Do we have
any further budget amendments?
MS. WILLIAMS: No, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do we have any late bills?
MS. WILLIAMS: No, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: I've been furnished monthly reports
from the District Clerk, County Clerk, both General and Trust
Funds, Justice of the Peace, Precinct 1, Crime Victims Rights
Coordinator, and the Kerr County Emergency Services District
Number 1. Do I hear a motion that these reports be approved
as presented?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of the reports designated as presented. Any question or
discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Any member of
the Court have any reports in connection with their committee
or liaison assignments?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm going to be very brief.
First, I'll just sort of put this in your in-bor,. Didn't know
3-2~-u6
238
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
it was going to be 5 o'clock and we'd still be here. This is
a letter from D & D K-9 Concepts bragging about the progress
we made on Animal Control, and I just wanted to leave it for
your review. We'll make a -- a more complete report on that
before or during the budget process.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: About the good work that's
being done out there. Going on to the library, I'm just -- I
didn't put this in your in-basket because I needed to say a
little bit about what it is. We -- "we" being the Library
Advisory Board -- asked Antonio Martinez to give us a laundry
list of his wish list on capital items. If he could get
things repaired and improved out there, what would they be?
And we said, "Put your rough estimate of the cost of it," and
I want to emphasize, these are rough estimates. They're just
guessed at what it would cost. And what you see here is,
without expanding or doing anything different out there, he's
saying that he needs somewhere around $300,000 or $400,000
worth of capital. I'll leave that with you for your
information. You may hear more about something like that
someday.
And then the next one I'm going to pass out is
something I got from the Library Advisory Board, and it's a
document from the City of Kerrville, and it's a calendar of
their '06-'07 budget process, and I've highlighted there in
3-2~-06
239
1
_. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
,_ 2 9
25
yellow three or four items that are of particular interest to
us. For example, you'll see down there that August 14th,
they're planning a joint budget workshop between the City
Council and Kerr County Commissioners. Also, we were a little
bit surprised on the Library Board to learn that the so-called
base budgets were going to be submitted April 3rd. That's
next week. And, of course, we take very seriously our new
duty to develop and propose library budgets to y'all, so when
we learned of this, we scheduled a meeting on the next day,
April 4th, to review what they submitted to the City Council.
I'm just telling you about this to let you know that we are
trying to stay on top of the library budgeting process.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Appreciate it. And, so, I take
it that the City will propose the airport budget on that same
date? Which the Airport Board has no knowledge of.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: They will receive a base
budget for the airport.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And we've had no discussions
as to what will be in that base.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's all I've got, I
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's a lot.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, a lot to digest at
Good luck.
3-'_~ u6
240
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
L 1
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other reports from any of the
Commissioners in connection with their assignments or
otherwise?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other reports to be rendered by
any other individuals? Department heads? Elected officials?
Citizens? Hearing nothing further, we will stand adjourned.
(Commissioners Court adjourned at 4:58 p.m.)
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF KERR
The above and foregoing is a true and complete
transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my
capacity as County Clerk of the Commissioners Court
of Kerr County, Texas, at the time and place
heretofore set forth.
DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 3rd day of
April, 2006.
JANNETT PIEPER,,/Kerr County Clerk
Kathy ik, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
3-27-06
ORDER NO.29604
PROCLAIM APRIL 2006 CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION MONTH
Came to be heard this the 27th day of March, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Proclaim Apri12006 Child Abuse Prevention Month.
ORDER NO. 29605
IMPLEMENT OR LIFT BURN BAN
Came to be heard this the 27th day of March, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Lift the burn ban and implement the Order Restricting outdoor burning as
presented.
-- ORDER NO.29606
APPROVE BYLAWS OF ADVISORY BOARD OF BUTT-
HOLDSWORTH MEMORIAL LIBRARY AND AMEND 2005-2006
AGREEMENT BETWEEN KERB COUNTY AND KERRVILLE
Came to be heard this the 27th day of March, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Nicholson, seconded by Commissioner Letz/Baldwin. The
Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Propose to the City to alter the First Amendment to the Library Agreement,
to where the next to the last sentence reads "shared operational expenses
include expenses for the purchase of library materials, and any other projects
-- the City and County may individually negotiate".
ORDER NO. 29607
EXTEND PRELIMINARY PLAT OF PROPERTY OWNED BY CENTER
POINT INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT
Came to be heard this the 27th day of March, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Nicholson. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Grant an extension to Center Point Independent School District of one (1)
year for the Preliminary Plat that they filed for that portion of their property
upon which they are building individual homes.
~-- ORDER NO. 29608
DISCUSS AGREEMENT BETWEEN TEXAS WATER DEVELOPMENT
BOARD AND KERB COUNTY FOR GRANT FUNDING TO BE USED
FOR PRELIMINARY PLANNING AND ENGINEERING FOR CENTER
POINT WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM
Came to be heard this the 27th day of March, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the Agreement between the Texas Water Development Board and
Kerr County for grant funding to be used for Preliminary Planning and
--- Engineering for Center Point Wastewater Collection System, and authorize
County Judge to sign same.
ORDER NO. 29609
AUTHORIZE COMMISSIONERS LETZ AND WILLIAMS TO PURSUE
GRANT AVAILABILITY FOR HILL COUNTRY YOUTH EXHIBIT
CENTER
Came to be heard this the 27th day of March, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Authorize Commissioners Letz and Williams to pursue grant availability for
the Hill Country Youth Exhibit Center.
ORDER NO.29610
FILL COUNTY REPRESENTATIVE VACANCY ON AIRPORT BOARD
Came to be heard this the 27th day of March, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the nomination of Steve King to the Kerrville/Kerr County Joint
Airport Board for submission to the 2 representatives of City Countil (the
Mayor and Councilman Coleman) who will take it to City Council for the
same type of ratification.
ORDER NO. 29611
PRELIMINARY REVISION OF PLAT FOR LOT 7 AND PRIVILEGE
CREEK ROAD RIGHT OF WAY, PRIVILEGE CREEK RANCHES,
VOL., PAGE 136 & 137, AND SET PUBLIC HEARING FOR SAME
Came to be heard this the 27th day of March, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Nicholson. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-1 (Commissioner Letz abstaining) to:
Approve setting a public hearing for May 8, 2006 at 10:00 a.m. for the
Preliminary Revision of Plat for Lot 7 and Privilege Creek Road Right of
Way, Privilege Creek Ranches, Vol., Page 136 & 137.
ORDER NO. 29612
OPEN ANNUAL BIDS FOR ROAD BASE, COLD MIX, AGGREGATE,
EMULSION OIL, CORRUGATED METAL PIPE AND EQUIPMENT BY
THE HOUR
Came to be heard this the 27th day of March, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Nicholson. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Accept all bids and refer them to Road and Bridge for evaluation and
recommendation:
Schwarz Construction Company for equipment by the hour with operator
Lucky 3 Materials for base material
--- Rocky Hawkins Construction for equipment by the hour with operator
Leo R. Jenschke for equipment by the hour with operator
Walter's Building & Supply for corrugated metal pipe
Edmund Jenschke, Inc. for equipment by the hour with operator
Ergon Asphalt & Emulsions, Inc. for emulsion oils
Vulcan Construction Materials, LP for paving aggregates, hot mix-cold laid
asphaltic concrete pavement specifications
SEM Materials, LP - no bid
Wilson Culverts, Inc. for corrugated metal pipe
Martin Marietta Materials for paving aggregates and hot mix-cold laid
asphaltic concrete pavement specifications
Contech Construction Products, Inc. for corrugated metal pipe
MPB, Inc. for equipment by the hour with operator
ORDER NO. 29613
ACCEPT LEASE AGREEMENT FOR TWO CATERPILLAR
BACKHOES APPROVED BY COURT ORDER #29524
Came to be heard this the 27th day of March, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve and accept the lease for two Caterpillar Backhoes, as approved by
Court Order #29524, and authorize County Judge to sign same.
ORDER NO. 29614
DISCUSS KERR COUNTY SUBDIVISION RULES AND
REGULATIONS
Came to be heard this the 27th day of March, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Adopt the Subdivision Rules and Regulations as presented, with language
corrections and other corrections as noted today, but without material change
in substance or content.
ORDER NO. 29615
KERR COUNTY WATER AVAILABILITY REQUIREMENTS
Came to be heard this the 27th day of March, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Adopt the Kerr County Water Availability Requirements as presented, but
amended by the discussion today.
ORDER NO. 29616
CLAIMS AND ACCOUNTS
Came to be heard this the 27th day of March, 2006, came to be considered
by the Court various Commissioners Precincts, which said Claims and
Accounts are:
Accounts		Expense
10-General	$	199,146	.37
14-Fire Protection	$	32,638	.51
15-Road & Bridge	$	43,989	.41
18-County Law Library	$	377	.00
28-Records Manage & Preserv	$	3,000	.00
50-Indigent Health Care	$	129,530	.76
58-Cert of Obligation S 2005	$	431	.00
71-Schreiner Road Trust	$	2,500	.00
76-Juvenile Detention Facility	$	8,519	.49
81-District Administration	$	79	.87
TOTAL	$	420,212	.41
Upon motion made by Commissioner Nicholson, seconded by
Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0
to pay the claims and accounts.
ORDER NO.29617
BUDGET AMENDMENT
198TH DISTRICT COURT
Came to be heard this the 27th day of March, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz/Nicholson, the
Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following
expense codes:
Expense Code Description
10-436-401 Court Appointed Services
10-436-402 Court Appointed Attorneys
Amendment
Increase/ODecrease
+ $1,233.14
- ($1,233.14)
ORDER NO. 29618
BUDGET AMENDMENT
LATE BILL
JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITY
Came to be heard this the 27th day of March, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense
codes and issue a hand check in the amount of $3,748.14 to Sysco Food
Services of S.A., and issue a hand check in the amount of $1,018.03 to Oak
Farms Dairy for the Juvenile Detention Facility February 2006 food charges.
Expense Code Description
76-572-332 Food
76-572-480 Marketing
Amendment
Increase/()Decrease
+ $4,766.17
- ($4,766.17)
ORDER NO. 29619
BUDGET AMENDMENT
COUNTY COURT AT LAW
Came to be heard this the 27th day of March, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioners Nicholson, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense
codes:
Expense Code Description
10-427-403 Master Court Appointments
10-427-402 Court Appointed Attorneys
Amendment
Increase/QDecrease
- ($8,000.00)
*-For pending and anticipated Master Court Appointments yet to be paid.
ORDER NO. 29620
BUDGET AMENDMENT
DETENTION MAINTENANCE
Came to be heard this the 27th day of March, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioners Baldwin, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 approve Budget Amendment No. 4
with the funds to come from Marketing line item at Kerr County Juvenile
Detention Facility, and to transfer the following expense codes:
Expense Code Description
10-515-350 Maint. & Custodial Sup
10-515-451 Detention Repairs
Amendment
Increase/QDecrease

*-Amount needed for invoices held in Auditor's office pending payment as
of 3/21/06.
ORDER NO. 29621
BUDGET AMENDMENT
GENERAL FUND
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
Came to be heard this the 27th day of March, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioners Nicholson, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense
codes:
Expense Code Description
10-370-200 V.I.N.E. Program Proceeds +
10-560-427 V.I.N.E. Program Expenses +
Amendment
Increase/pDecrease
$7,548.00*
$7,548.00
*-To recognize funds received from State for payment of V.I.N.E. Program
maintenance invoice.
**-To amend expenditure line item for payment of V.I.N.E. Program
maintenance invoice.
ORDER NO. 29622
MONTHLY REPORTS
Came to be heard this the 27th day of March, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 the following monthly reports:
District Clerk
County Clerk -General and Trust Fund
JP # 1
Crime Victims Rights Coordinator
Kerr County ESD No. 1