1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT
Special Session
Monday, May 22, 2006
9:00 a.m.
Commissioners' Courtroom
Kerr County Courthouse
Kerrville, Texas
PRESENT: PAT TINLEY, Kerr County Judge
H A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1
WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2
JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3
ABSENT: DAVE NICHOLSON, Commissioner Pct. 4
1~
1
Q
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
z
I N D E X
May 22, 2006
--- Commissioners' Comments
1.1 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for
preliminary plat of Live Springs Ranch, Pct. 4
1.2 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
request of Texas Cooperative Extension Service
to fill County Extension Agent FCS position with
appointment of Jody Osteen
1.3 Consideration and approval to request annexation
of identified airport property into city limits
1.4 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on the
modified OS-06 KCJF County Budget
1.5 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
extend KCJF Comp Time Policy
1.6 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on the
Texas VINE annual maintenance grant contract
1.9 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for
purchase of laptop computer with wireless
capabilities for field work
1.10 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
correct Court Order 29671 to Creekwood V instead
of Creekwood II, Pct. 2
1.11 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for
preliminary plat of Ranger Park, Precinct 2
1.12 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for
preliminary plat of Lasso Ranch, Precinct 3
1.13 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to set
a public hearing for revision of plat of Lots 13
& 14 of Cypress Springs, Phase I, Precinct 4
1.7 Public Hearing for Revision of Lot 60 of Wood
Trails Ranch, Precinct 4
1.8 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to award
bid for Town Creek Improvements, Precinct 1 & 3
PAGE
5
9
11
15
18
34
36
37
40
41
49
51
53
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
3
I N D E X (Continued)
May 22, 2006
PAGE
1.14	Considerjdiscuss, take appropriate action to	
	approve final plat of 707 Ranch, Precinct 4	65
1.15	Considerldiscuss, take appropriate action to	
	review preparation of payroll and other personnel)	
	human resources functions for Kerr County	67
4.1	Pay Bills	73
4.2	Budget Amendments	7g
4.3	Late Bi11s	--
4,4	Approve and Accept Monthly Reports	98
5.1	Reports from Commissioners/Liaison Committee	
	Assignments	99
---	Adjourned	105
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
4
On Monday, May 22, 2006, at 9:00 a.m., a special meeting
of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in the
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me call to order this regularly
scheduled meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court
posted for this date and time, Monday, May the 22nd, 2006, at
9 a.m. We're privileged to have with us this morning one of
our county designees to the Library Advisory Board, and my
good friend, Pastor Al Schultz, and I'd ask him to please come
forward and give us our opening prayer.
MR. SCHULTZ: Thank you for the privilege.
(Prayer and pledge of allegiance.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. At this time, if there's
any member of the public or the audience that wishes to be
heard on any matter that is not a listed agenda item, you're
free to come forward at this time and tell us what's on your
mind. If you wish to be heard on what's a listed agenda item,
we'd ask that you fill out a participation form. They can be
found at the back of the room. It's not absolutely essential,
but it helps me to hopefully not miss you when we get to that
item. But if -- if you wish to be heard on anything that is
not a listed agenda item, come forward at this time; we'll be
happy to entertain you. Seeing no one coming forward, we'll
5-21-06
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
move on. Commissioner 1, what do you have for us today?
COMMISSIONER BAZBWIN: Well, thank you, Judge. As
we move through the day, I will say some nice things and some
positive things as we go along, but I'm going to start with a
couple of negatives that I'm a little bit angry about. Number
one, I've had -- I've had numerous phone calls and several
people visit me in my office in regards to this Commissioners
I Court not doing their job as far as elected officials in the
courthouse. They want us to fire the County Treasurer. And
I've talked till I'm blue in the face about it, that we do not
have	that authority.	I just wish	there was	some way	that we
could	convince folks	that what our	authority	-- where	our
authority starts and where it ends, by law. I'm not sure
that's going to get done, unless I put on it the agenda for
next time and ask the County Attorney to make a presentation
on it, which is a total waste of time. But I'm just -- you
know, we, as a body, are kind of getting beat up out there
over this thing, and it's just lack of knowledge on their
part. I started to say total ignorance, but I don't talk that
I way. But it just is -- just angers me that we can't -- that
people can't think for themselves and look into issues. And,
no, we don't have -- the people -- that's the good thing about
county government, is that the people make the decisions who
serves here and who doesn't. That's the beauty of county
government.
s-zz-oh
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
And I'm off that one; now I'm on my next one. I
have -- I heard on the news this morning that our good local
friends, the Dixie Chicks, are at it again. They are -- let's
see. The original statement was they were ashamed that the
president was from Texas, and this morning, he really needs to
be removed and run off. Well, I'm calling for a boycott of
the Dixie Chicks. I ask everybody not to buy one more piece
of their maggot-infested junk they call music. And I
understand a couple of them live in the beautiful Texas hill
country; they're our neighbors. And I -- I would rather not
see them driving on the streets of Kerr County. So, that's
it. That's all.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody out there want to fess up to
winding him up like an eight-day clock this morning?
(Laughter.)
MR. HARVEY: I'll just throw an "amen" on it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, Les. Thank you
~ very much.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Williams, what do you
have for us?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I just want to -- if you'd
like to organize a picket, we'll just picket their ranch. I
just want to remind everybody that, believe it or not, we're
coming up on the end of May, and the end of May means Texas
State Arts and Crafts Fair for four days over the Memorial Day
s-zz-oh
1
'° 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
~°- 13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
""` 2 4
25
7
you haven't attended that fair, you need to, for a lot of
reasons. First of all, it brings the finest artists in the
state of Texas together at one time for the entire Memorial
Day weekend, with their goods and their crafts and their art,
and it's a really, really fine exposition of Texas art. Plus
the fact you get to see the arts and crafts park, which is
River Star Park. It's county property which has been
and the foundation, and those people have worked very hard now
for three or four years to get that property to the state that
it is right now, and when all those tents qo up this week and
all the flags start flying, it really takes on a -- a
tremendous atmosphere. So, I invite y'all to participate.
The economics of it are also extra for Kerr County and the
City of Kerrville, as every hotel in this town will be booked
and people spend the weekend here and spend their money here,
both at the fair and they spend it in town. So, do your piece
and support it. Go out, take a look at it. It's on county
property, and we're proud of it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't have a whole lot, but,
you know, I'll follow up on both of these two briefly before I
get to what my one comment was going to be. Related to that,
I think it's just -- to add one more thing on the Arts and
s-zz-oa
1
""° 2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1G
-- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
'"` 2 4
25
8
Crafts Fair, it shows -- it's probably one of the best, if not
the best, example of a three-way partnership on that. The
City of Kerrville has participated and helped fund some of
that and been, you know, very positive in that. Obviously,
it's a county property, and then it's a private entity that
put it ali together, so it's -- it just shows when the City,
the County, and then a private enterprise get together, really
good things can happen. I think it's a model of what we can
do with ideas.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We need to note that your -- the
Dixie Chicks, the ones that do live nearby, they're in Bandera
County. Xou all might want to know, they're not in Kerr
County. (Laughter.) Just past the -- before you aet to
Medina, between the boy's home and the -- and town of Medina,
so right where -- I think it's 337 that turns off is where
their -- their property is, if y'all want to take a look at
it. And I think, on a good note, I had -- aside from being a
little bit under the weather for the last week, but I'm
i finally over that, I believe. Sam turned two Saturday, and we
had a little family get-together and had a great time out at
the ranch, and I think he's beginning to understand material
possessions, 'cause he has a whole bunch of them now, and was
very protective of them from his friends. That's it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Let's get on with the
5- 2 2 U b
9
1
"' 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
-w- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
•" 2 9
25
business at hand. First item on the agenda is to consider,
discuss, and take appropriate action for the preliminary plat
of Live Springs Ranch located in Precinct 4.
MR. ODOM: Good morning.
JUDGE TINLEY: Morning, sir.
MR. ODOM: What you have before you is what was
~ presented before for the concept plan. You have a portion of
Live Springs is in our county, about 19 lots, and that the
remainder of the 60 lots, so about 60 percent, is in Gillespie
County, and probably 40 percent is probably in our county.
But 19 lots. They're larger lots, above 20 acres, and that's
a good project, and I present it to you. And I'm open for any
questions, but I recommend that the Court accept the
preliminary plat.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a comment.
Commissioner Nicholson is out of town today, and I did meet
with the developer and Len a little bit about this. I just
want to go over it on a little bit of the mindset of our new
rules. There's a little bit more subjectivity being built
into the rules as to road standards, as to what type of road.
And the roads here, I would recommend, as they have on the
plat, to do them as local roads. There are other subdivisions
that will be similar in size that I may recommend get
collector roads, and there's some reasoning as to long-term
future development and use of the road. Based on interstate
s-zz-o6
1
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
]8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to
location, lack of access, and large property owners, it's
very, very unlikely that anyone would ever come back to the
Court -- or, actually, I think it's private roads -- would
come back to the developer or subdivision and try to add more
lots to any of these roads. For that reason, I think local
roads are adequate. I might say that if there was a piece of
property beyond this that had a good likelihood of being
developed, I probably would not have that opinion. I think
our new rules have -- I just wanted to bring that up,
because -- so people begin to understand that we're looking
not just at what the subdivision traffic is going to be; it's
what the area's traffic is going to be and what may happen
down the road. Little bit, you know, different way of looking
at things.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: "Down the road." Did you
hear that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You heard that? So, anyway, I
think it looks like a really good development.
MR. ODOM: Good development. And it is private
roads; it won't be County-maintained. You have a gated
community, and as the Commissioner says, they don't have
access to I-10, and it's a private road, and that would be
between the owners to allow anything to come in there.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
s-zz-o~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
11
COMMISSIONER. WILLIAMS: Whoever moved it -- I'll
move it. Whatever.
JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion to approve the
preliminary plat of Live Springs Ranch located in Precinct 4.
Any question or discussion on the motion? All in favor of
that motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Let's move to
Item 2, if we might. Consider, discuss, and take appropriate
action on the request of the Texas Cooperative Extension
Service to fill the County Extension Agent, Family and
Consumer Sciences position for Kerr County with the
appointment of Jody Osteen. We have Cheryl Mapston with us
today. She is -- I believe her title is District Director or
District Manager, or --
MS. MAPSTON: Administrator.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- Administrator of the Texas
Cooperative Extension Service out of Uvalde that serves this
area, and I believe she has Ms. Osteen with her, and I'll turn
it over to you.
MS. MAPSTON: Yes. Thank you, Judge, Commissioners.
It's a pleasure to be here this morning, and to introduce to
you our applicant for the position of County Extension Agent
-<<-06
1
G
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
12
for Family and Consumer Sciences, and I'd like to tell you a
little bit about her at this time. This is Ms. Jody Osteen,
and Jody -- her educational background includes a Bachelor's
degree in home economics from the University of Nebraska at
Lincoln. And she is also currently working on -- or she
already has some hours towards her Master's degree in Family
and Consumer Sciences, and she will be able to finish that
online --
MS. OSTEEN: Yes.
MS. MAPSTON: -- at the University of Nebraska in
Lincoln. And, so, we're really pleased that she's well on her
way to her Master's degree. She has 13 years of teaching
experience. She taught in San Felipe Consolidated Independent
School District for 13 and a half years, where she taught high
school home economics classes, which included family and
consumer science. She was the FCCLA, which is the Family
Career Community Leadership of America program, which was
formerly FHA, and she also was the coordinator of a teen
parenting program, which included education to teen parents,
as well as their parents at home. So, that was a very
intensive program that takes lots of time and lots of energy
working with new teen parents. She is a former 4-H member in
Nebraska; a truly corn club member, I guess, when you talk
about the state of Nebraska. And then, here in Texas,
she's -- she served as 4-H volunteer leader in Val Verde
s-zz-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
13
County, where she worked with the Food and Nutrition project,
and then did some things with the County Extension Agent there
in Val Verde.
She'11 be joining Roy and Laurinda as an integral
part of the Kerr County team, where she'll be -- her -- one of
her main focuses will be diet, nutrition, and health, which
will include diabetes education. We plan to look at doing the
"Do well, Be Well with Diabetes" plan -- program, which is a
12-part series that Jody will go and be trained in and then
come back and coordinate that for the county. And she'll also
be working in the youth program with the 4-H Food, Nutrition,
Clothing and Textiles and Consumer Education program, plus
supporting the EEA groups and other groups within the
community. So, she'll be planning and implementing,
evaluating, and interpreting Extension programs here in the
county. And so, this morning, I would like to recommend to
the Court the appointment of Jody Osteen as County Extension
Agent for Family and Consumer Sciences at the currently
budgeted salary level, effective July 15th of 2006.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Jody, we're fixing to vote to
approve or disapprove you, and I have one question.
MS. OSTEEN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are you a Dixie Chicks fan?
(Laughter.)
MS. OSTEEN: I am not. I know the answer to that
s zz oe
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
14
one. I am not.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move that we approve this
agenda request.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll second that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of the appointment of Jody Osteen as the County Extension
Agent-Family/Consumer Science position. Any question or
discussion?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Effective what date again?
JUDGE TINLEY: July 15.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: July 15.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Only question is, I'm a little
uneasy as to how you're going to get along with a bunch of
Aggies, coming from the University of Nebraska, but you'll
have to deal with that yourself. (Laughter.)
MS. OSTEEN: I think I can handle it, thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: I indicated to Ms. Osteen that we had
two major demographic segments that it looked like she was
going to be concentrating on. One dealt with the youth, the
4-Hers, as you and I have talked about considerably,
Commissioner Letz, and the other end of the spectrum is the
seniors, and I was particularly pleased to hear about the
wellness and diabetes and nutritional-type programs that are
going to be put in place, 'cause I think those are two very,
very important areas of effort that need to be -- need to be
s-z~-o6
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
G 2
23
24
25
pushed in that position. Any other questions or comments?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You don't have one of those
corncob hats you wear, do you?
MS. OSTEEN: No.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good.
MS. OSTEEN: I don't, thank you, no.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any --
MS. OSTEEN: If I go to a Husker game, I might wear
one; I don't know.
JUDGE TINLEY: If you were in a large crowd of them
and they were looking very menacing at you, you might wear it?
MS. OSTEEN: I would slip it on, yes.
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: Motion does carry. Thank you very
much.
MS. OSTEEN: Thank you.
MS. MAPSTON: Thank you, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's get on to the next item,
Item Number 3, consideration/approval to request the
annexation of identified airport property into the Kerrville
city limits. We have Mr. Dave Pearce, Airport Manager, City
s-zz-oe
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
of Kerrville, here with us today. Good morning, sir.
MR. PEARCE: Good morning, Judge Tinley and members
of the Court. What you have before you, and I think what best
depicts it, is we did a JPEG photo there with some outlines to
show the areas that are not annexed into the city that are
airport -- jointly airport County/City owned. What this is,
is kind of some housecleaning. We have had a number of land
purchases over the last three years, starting in 2003, and up
to most recently to the west, and right now this will just
annex those properties that are jointly owned into the city
limits.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Approval to do what, though?
I'm not sure what we're --
MR. PEARCE: We --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- what we're voting on.
MR. PEARCE: Mr. Baldwin, what we need to do is, the
owners need to petition for the annexation into the city
limits. So, both the Commissioners Court and the City Council
members need to petition to have that annexed in, as owners.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: As owners of the property.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And it's only the --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, it's already owned by us.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see what you're saying.
s-zz oh
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And it's -- it's specifically
the three properties -- the three tracts, I should say, that
are on here.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll second the motion. I
have -- I do have a question, though. On this Exhibit A,
Dave, those two properties that are identified right at the --
at the curve of Highway 27, those are -- those are properties
that we own, but they're -- they're in the flight path; is
that right?
MR. PEARCE: Yes, sir. We -- we actually purchased
some properties, and other properties were -- we had avigation
easements, which are just buying air, basically. And the
avigation easements we could not annex in without the
individual properties making that request. But those are --
those are ones that were in the flight path, and that was a
90/10 purchase.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And for the benefit of the
Court, the other one up at the top, at the north side, is the
property that -- that's the piece -- the parcel that was part
of the property swap with KEDF; is that correct?
MR. PEARCE: No, sir. No, sir, that property was
purchased outright at 90/10 for the expansion -- or the
relocation of the road and expansion in that area.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I got you. Okay, thank you.
s-z~-on
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and a second. 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
very much, Mr. Pearce.
MR. PEARCE: Thank you, i
JUDGE TINLEY: The next item on the agenda is to
consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on the modified ~
~ 'O5-'06 Kerr County Juvenile Facility county budget.
Mr. Stanton?
I
i MR. STANTON: Yes, sir. Good morning.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Morning.
MR. STANTON: You should have in your packets a copy
of the -- the proposed budget -- or the proposed outline of
the budget that I was asked to put together a few weeks ago.
If you have any questions about it, I'll be happy to try to
answer it for you. The first -- the first column, the current
budget as of 4-28-06 is what the -- what was in the budget as
of that date. The next column over is what was in the budget
added to what we're going to need to make it through, and the
next -- the gray column is what is the surplus in that item.
The ones in the parentheses, such as the -- the Food line item
~c-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
19
and down, that is what we're going to need to make it through
rest of the year. That's what we've had to add into the
budget. So, coming out, we should have a surplus/deficit of
about $257,000.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Against what was originally
budgeted for the juvenile facility?
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir, the original budget.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which means we budgeted
about a $288,000 deficit. That means we have reduced that
deficit by a significant amount.
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, let's examine if we, in fact,
reduced that deficit. The $288,000 deficit was a projected
deficit for an entire year's operation.
~ COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Correct?
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: The deficit that you are presenting
today ~s for approximately a six-month period; is that
correct?
MR. STANTON: No, sir. The deficit in the gray
I
column in the middle is for the total budget year.
~I JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
5-22-06
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
20
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, the difference between
257 and 288 -- or you're reducing the 288 by 257; is that
correct?
i MR. STANTON: Well, the 288 -- from what I
i understand, the 288 figure was a negative 288,000.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Exactly.
MR. STANTON: There is a positive 200 --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I know, so you're reducing
the negative by 257.
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- let me make sure I
understand your columns. The first column is the current
budget --
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- that was approved. The
second column is how you want the budget line item to be out
there?
MR. STANTON: Well, what the second column is, is if
you take what was spent up through the beginning of the budget
cycle through May 1st --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Riqht.
MR. STANTON: -- then you add in what we're going to
need to make it through the rest of the year, yes, sir.
-a2_oc
1
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
21
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Then you give the deficit.
Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Several weeY,s ago, you presented us
with a 12-bed preadjudicated budget for the remainder of the
2006 budget year. Do you recall that?
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: And in that -- in that budget, which
was actually for the remainder of this year, you indicated
that estimated revenues were $169,190. Do you recall that?
MR. STANTON: I don't -- T didn't bring a copy of
that with me, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Well, I'm looking at one, and
you indicated that the total expenditures for the remaining
budget were $383,587.
~ MR. STANTON: Yes, sir. If you -- yes, sir.
I
JUDGE TINLEY: From an operational standpoint, would
you agree with me that for the remaining period indicated on
that budget, that during that remaining approximately
six-month period, there would be a loss generated of something
over $219,000?
MR. STANTON: I wouldn't know the -- I don't know,
I sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, if expenses are 383,587, and
revenues for that same period are 164,190, whatever the
difference is would be the amount of loss, correct?
s-~z-ob
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Now, the new budget which you have
presented to us shows that for the same period, you made some
adjustments, and the estimated total expenditures are down ~
~ slightly to 369,663 for the remaining approximately six
months; is that correct?
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: For that same period of time, you're
showing estimated revenues of $102,256; is that correct?
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Which is almost $62,000 less than the
estimated revenue which you gave us a few weeks ago; is that
correct? 164,190?
MR. STANTON: If -- yes, sir, if you -- yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: The difference between this new one
that you've presented to us, between actual revenue and -- and
expenditures for the indicated period, shows a negative of
267,4, roughly.
MR. STANTON: Okay. Are the accounts receivables
the same in both budgets?
JUDGE TINLEY: No, the accounts receivables, of
course, don't enter into operations for the indicated period.
I'm looking at income and expenditures.
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I don't have the -- I
5-22-06
23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
didn't bring that. I'm trying to follow, and I'm not sure
what you're saying. I mean, what --
JUDGE TINLEY: I think what I'm saying is that it
looks to me like that the -- the increase of deficit
operations is about approximately $48,000 more than what we
were given a few weeks ago, when you strictly look at -- at
income and expenditures.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would that be because one is
predicated on 12 beds and the estimate is predicated on 16?
JUDGE TINLEY: Actually, the 12-bed shows a greater
degree of income than the 16, and you would think that the
income would be higher on the 16 than on the 12. But the
12-bed income was 164; the 16-bed was 102.
MR. STANTON: Well, I know that that's the
difference of how y'all are looking at the two different
budgets. They're both 16 beds. They're both based on 16
beds. It was just a grammatical error on the 12 and 16.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MR. STANTON: The estimated revenue for -- from 4/06
to 9/06 was based on the income that we've received from the
counties based on -- for the rest of -- remainder of the
budget cycle. Ms. Williams and I sat down and tried to
calculate the best we could a projected revenue for the
remainder of the budget year.
JUDGE TINLEY: Bottom line is that apparently the
5-22-06
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
24
revenue estimates that were initially given several weeks ago
I
I appear to be significantly higher than what they should have
~ been.
MR. TOMLINSON: Kevin --
MR. STANTON: I'm trying to remember what --
MR. EMERSON: I don't have the old budget.
MR. STANTON: You don't have the old budget? Can I
look at that one, sir?
JUDGE TINLEY: Sure.
MR. STANTON: Thank you very much.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's the earlier estimate upon
which the transition was made several weeks ago, correct?
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: And that shows revenues of 164,000
during the remaining six-month period.
MR. STANTON: And I -- Ms. Williams helped me do
I this.
JUDGE TINLEY: Now, down towards the bottom, iP
I you'll just look at estimated revenue --
I
it MR. STANTON: Yes, sir, I see what you mean.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 164.
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: That was the initial estimate, and
now that's down to 102,250, roughly.
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir.
5-_~-U6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2L
23
24
~5
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. That seems to be the major
difference of about $62,000 in the going-south direction.
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Tommy had his hand up,
Judge.
MR. TOMLINSON: I don't know what's in the first --
first number, but part of it could be the -- that in the first
number, you estimated some revenue from the school lunch
program, and since then, that has changed and you're not --
the school has taken that over. We're not -- in the last
estimate, we knew that we weren't going to get that any more,
and that could amount to 2,000 or 3,000 a month.
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir.
MR. TOMLINSON: So, that could be part of it, the
difference.
JUDGE TINLEY: What's the school lunch program
revenue item?
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I thought -- I'm just -- I'm
guessing right now.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: That in the first estimate, that the
school lunch program revenue could have been in that first
number.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Do we know how much that was?
5-2_'-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
26
MR. TOMLINSON: It's been approximately, what,
$2,500, 53,000 a month?
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah. So, for six months --
JUDGE TIN LEY: Okay.
MR. TOMLIN5ON: That's part of it -- could be part
of the difference.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: A large part.
MR. TOMLINSON: I don't know that for sure.
JUDGE TINLEY: Could be $15,000, then. Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The number -- how many beds are
occupied right now?
MR. STANTON: Nine -- eight, I'm sorry. We lost one
this morning. Eight.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the projected was running,
like -- wasn't it, like, seven? It was seven to nine, eight
that --
MR. STANTON: Yes, the average is seven to eight,
eight to nine kids.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the billing rates haven't
changed?
MR. STANTON: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, is the revenue number
based totally on occupancy?
MR. STANTON: The revenue numbers -- the projected
s-~t-oe
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
27
revenue numbers are based totally on taking the average that
we've gotten each month from the County previous to this,
and -- and expanding it out over the rest of the budget cycle.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Seems that the -- but we bill
at -- you're billing at eighty --
MR. STANTON: Three dollars a day.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: $83 a day?
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If you take $83 times 180 days,
plus or minus a few days, times seven or eight, --
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- what does that give us? I
mean, I think it's a -- it's a better way to look at the
revenue, is to estimate our occupancy, the daily income or
loss.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right. Do we still have
some accounts receivable coming in from other counties?
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The accounts receivable, I'm
like the Judge; that will balance itself out during the course
of the budget. The Auditor will carry, you know, the account
for that.
JUDGE TINLEY: The 102 is based, apparently, pretty
close to about seven.
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir. Should be somewhere --
5-2?-Ob
28
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Best I can figure, I show seven at
180 days at 104,5.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, that could be -- the
difference could be -- I mean, you know, I don't know how they
were calculated, whether they're going by occupancy or the
revenue coming in, but to me, I mean, a better way to do it on
this one, or future ones for that matter, is based on our
occupancy of seven or eight, whatever it's going to be, times
the number of days. As opposed to looking at our --
MR. TOMLINSON: You got to remember, in this
analysis, that -- that the $288,000 in taxes is in that total
revenue. That's part of the total revenue. So -- so, if you
eliminate the tax out of that total revenue, then you're still
short on an annual basis of approximately the 288,000.
JUDGE TINLEY: It's going to be at least that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah. So, I was hearing a while ago
that -- that the loss was down to 37,000 or 97,000.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 288 plus 37.
MR. TOMLINSON: So, that's what I'm hearing, so,
okay, I just wanted to make that clear.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, the new numbers as I've
calculated them here on the new modified budget as presented,
the difference between estimated expenditures and estimated
operational revenues show to be, for that six-month period,
s_„_oF
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
29
267,400, roughly. That's the operating loss, as I've
calculated it, in rough figures.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 267?
JUDGE TINLEY: 267,4 for the indicated six-month
period. Any other questions or comments?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I've got one. Out of
the eight kids we have out there -- clients that we have out
there today, how many of them are Kerr County?
MR. STANTON: All eight.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All of them? So, when we're
talking about an income of $102,000, in reality, to me, the
reality is -- is that this money moves from one area of the
courthouse out to your place, back to another area of the
courthouse.
MR. STANTON: Probably about 85 percent of it, yes,
sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just an old boy that grew up
out in Hunt, not real smart, but I just don't see how you can
figure that as income.
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's all I have to say.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval of the revised
budget as presented.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
5-22 06
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
of the revised budget as presented. Any questions or
discussion? A11 in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign,
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Thank you,
Mr. Stanton.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I guess a final comment. I
mean, and I don't know; it seems that the big change here was
on the revenue side.
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think we need to amend
the budget as we're going on the revenue side. If
expenditures vary, which they haven't substantially varied, I
think we need to -- obviously, that needs to be brought back
to us. Revenue is -- is dependent more on the judges than
anything you do.
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or -- and the youth, actually.
You know, what's happening in the community, since they're
Kerr County kids out there now. So, if the expenditure side
starts varying beyond these numbers, I think we need to have a
budget amendment, but from the revenue side, I think that can
-- really gets caught up at the end.
s-~z-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
~5
31
MR, STANTON: Well, I know that later in the
afternoon, they're going to -- or later this morning, they've
got some budget requests that they're going to be presenting,
and they're having to move some of the excess funds out of
572-104 down to some maintenance line items and things like
that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I did have one question
about that, but I can save that question till later, or just
direct it to you now. I think there was a large medical
expense, I believe, in one of them?
MR, STANTON: Yes, sir. It was an out-of-county
kid, I believe.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what I wanted to
know. An out-of-county kid, that's reimbursable to the
County?
MR, STANTON: Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: In response to your concern,
Commissioner Letz, the -- the modified budget has expenditures
reduced from the earlier estimate by almost $14,000, so the
estimates of expenditures on the modified budget are down by
about $14,000 from the original budget presented a few weeks
ago.
MR. STANTON: The budget that was presented a few
weeks ago -- just to clarify, the budget that was -- we now
have some solid salary figures that we can go by. Before, we
s-zz-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
32
were projecting; we didn't know who was going to be staying
and who was going to be going, so that had a lot to -- being
able to pinpoint it. One other thing, before we leave this
and go on with the budget, is that we've been -- and this
could affect the budget down the road, is that we've been
receiving requests from some of our -- some of the counties
down on the coast, wanting to know if we're still going to be
able to assist them in hurricane evacuation type situations.
And one of the counties, Nueces County, we currently have a
contract with for short-term detention.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: At $83 a day?
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We need to amend that
contract. They need to pay full price.
MR. STANTON: And they -- I just received a phone
call, I guess last -- last Thursday or Friday, and they're
wanting to know if we're still going to be able to do that.
So, I guess that's something that we need to put on the agenda
to discuss at a later time, but that could have an effect on
the budget.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess -- you know, and just --
I think we do need to put it on the agenda to discuss, but I
think we end up in a situation -- I don't see how we -- we're
certainly not going to increase our staffing just because of a
hurricane evacuation, so --
s-zz-o~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
33
MR. STANTON: Well, both counties that I've talked
to have -- they're bringing their own staff.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We need to -- yeah. I think,
i when you put it back on the agenda, let us look at what --
we're also not going to lose any money.
MR. STANTON: No, I agree. And they -- and I
explained to them that we were running a 24-bed facility now,
but that we still had the other building that could be made
available if -- if they brought their own staff to staff that
with, possible. But I told them that was something that we
would need to discuss with the Commissioners Court.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think we need to take a
look at what to recommend as a per diem rate, too.
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir. Well, they're contracted
with us at $83 a day.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The contract's going to have to
be changed. We're not going to lose money.
MR, STANTON: No, I understand. But if we're not
having to pay for the staff, I don't believe we'd be losing
money.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, there would be a material
difference if they're providing staffing for their own
residents.
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir,
JUDGE TINLEY: That's an interesting concept.
_-__-o~
34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It sure is.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's a good concept.
JUDGE TINLEY: Talking about payroll just getting
stabilized, I think that brings us right down to the next
item. Consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to
extend the Kerr County Juvenile Facility comp time policy.
MR. STANTON: I`d like to present y'all with -- this
is a new updated version of what y'all have. There was one
error in the original one that we corrected. There was one
person that their comp time had got left off.
JUDGE TINLEY: As I recall, the previous action by
the Court extended the comp time rollover through the end of
June, if I'm not mistaken. Through June?
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I'
MR. STANTON: That's my understanding.
JUDGE TINLEY: And --
MR. STANTON: We're coming up on that date, and I
was just wondering how you want -- or how the Commissioners
Court wanted to go about extending it or -- or paying it off.
Those are the numbers that we're looking at, the ones you have
in your hand is approximately what it would cost to -- to pay
it off.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do you think, if we gave you one
more month, is there a -- can you substantially reduce these,
s-z2-oc
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
35
do you think?
MR. STANTON: I doubt we'd be able to substantially
reduce it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why not till the end of the
budget year? Would that help?
MR. STANTON: I believe it would help. I mean, I've
got people scheduled to take off as much as I can. When our
numbers go down, we've been letting people go, just as long as
we stay in ratio. We're doing everything we can as far as
cutting the numbers down. The one thing we have to keep in
mind -- or that I have to keep in mind is that every time I
let somebody take vacation or comp time off, I have to -- for
staffing ratios, I have to pull in a part-timer, and that --
that brings that line item up and this one down.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, the number's been
reduced a lot from where it was originally. It was around
28,000, I believe, originally, down to 11. I'd like to try
and reduce it. I'd rather try to get -- if we have to write
some checks towards the end of the year and be done with it,
rather than rushing at the very end, so I don't mind extending
it maybe to August 31st. I'd hate to go to September 30th,
because we have so much going on that last month trying to do
comp time and budgets and all that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, August 31st is good.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion that we
s-~z-oF
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
extend the comp time -- what's the -- we extend the time to
allow the comp time to be taken care of or reduced out of the
Kerr County Juvenile Detention Facility until -- till
August 31st, --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll second.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- 2006.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
indicated. Any question or discussion on the motion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just one quick question.
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: These 19 folks here on this
list are presently employed?
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or discussion on
the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry.
MR. STANTON: Thank you very much.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Let's go to Item 6;
consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on the Texas
VINE annual maintenance grant contract for Fiscal Year 2006.
s-zz-oe
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
37
Sheriff Hierholzer?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: This is just a renewal. This
contract hasn't, and I don't expect that it ever costs us
anything. The Attorney General's office pays for it. What it
is, is victim notification, where people can sign up on the
I
computer and get notified instantly of any act or change in
status, court date, get released on bond. And, in fact, we
just had their computer go down, and they replaced it Friday.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No cost to the County?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No cost to the County.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval to extend the VINE
grant application.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of the agenda item. Any question or discussion? All in favor
of that motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Here's the one that -- two or
three copies.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's go to Item 9, if we might.
Consider, discuss, and take appropriate action for the
purchase of a laptop computer with wireless capability for
s-zz-o6
38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
field work. Mr. Odom?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. Thank you, Judge. We would
like to use the remainder of our budgeted funds in Capital
Outlays to purchase a laptop computer with wireless
capabilities to use in the field. I see a head shaking over
there. We have 1327, and we would like to use that for the
capability, when we go out on complaints, to be able to
identify property, find out who the owner is, or if there is a
maintenance deal, maybe to contact those people. It's
difficult to come back in and start talking about which piece
of property again. So, sometimes we have addresses; we can do
that. Also, with floodplain, to identify on the floodplain
map if there's a complaint, that we can identify property
owners and try to get hold of them.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My head shake is not against
getting it; my head shake is against getting it now. If it's
something you need, I think you should put it in next year's
budget. And the reason, Leonard, is that most departments
underspend a little bit on their capital outlay, and my
feeling is that we should -- is we're approving items as much
as -- probably more than money. The item, we may save a
little bit there, but if we allow you to spend yours to zero,
we're going to get every other department coming in here
wanting to spend theirs to zero buying something. I think
it's a bad precedent, so I think put it on next year's budget;
_,-22-06
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
39
I'll support it.
MR. ODOM: I would have to modify that. I did -- we
tried to pick up two; one for next budget year, and we thought
we might be able to do this one. So, I guess when I talk to
the Judge and the Court, we'll see where I can come up with
money. Money for next time is pretty tight, trying to make it
work. It was --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where would you put this
computer, anyhow? Which --
MR. ODOM: I would have it in my truck. Or if I
send --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You'd have it in your truck?
MR. ODOM: Basically, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The -- I'm with Commissioner
Letz, only I'm going to add to it that the words, "we have
some money left over; let's run out there and spend it," is --
let's don't say that in public.
MR. ODOM: Well, if I said that, I apologize. Wrong
use of the English language. I have excess money that I have
had savings in capital outlays, that I was very expedient and
very professional where I saved money.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that close?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He went into his typical
Aggie defensive mode.
JODGE TINLEY: Mr. Odom's trying to tell you,
5-22-U6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
40
Commissioner Baldwin, that he's been very, very frugal in his
scheduled --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- capital outlay items, and he's
been able to achieve significant savings; he wants to continue
to do that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think we understand him.
MR. ODOM: And it means 99 percent was right on, so
you've got about 1 percent of my Capital Outlay budget. Very
frugal. We squeezed dimes out of dollars.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Congratulations on your
I frugality.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, congratulations.
MR. ODOM: Seems like --
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Odom, I think that's all you're
going to get out of this item today. Congratulations.
MR. ODOM: I think -- next item, yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move, if we might, to Item 10;
consider, discuss and take appropriate action to correct Court
Order Number 29671 to Creekwood, Roman numeral V, instead of
Creekwood, Roman numeral II, located in Precinct 2.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. Last time, Lot 25 of Twin
Springs II is adjacent to both Creekwood II and Creekwood V.
On May the 8th, we thought it was being added to Creekwood II;
however, it's to be added to Creekwood V. This error was
s-zz-oe
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
found before the publications for the public hearing;
therefore, we ask that you amend Court Order Number 29671 to
read Creekwood V, Volume 7, Page 160.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This does not affect the
notifications that we -- the Court asked to you send out?
MR. ODOM: No.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Correct?
MR. ODOM: Correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll so move.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of the agenda item as indicated. Any question or discussion?
All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right
hand.
I (The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(NO response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Let's move to
Item 11; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action for
the preliminary plat of Ranger Park, located in Precinct 2.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. This was before you once
before as a concept plan. This was the business park in
Center Point. What you have before you looks fine, and I
would ask the Court that they would accept it as the
preliminary plat.
s-zz-oe
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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This -- this memorializes
all of the points that the Court made with respect to the
division of the property and the road and the cul-de-sac and
the setbacks and so forth; is that correct?
MR. ODOM: That's correct, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would move approval.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of the agenda item.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mr. Voelkel had his hand up.
MR. VOELKEL: Before y'all vote on that,
Ms. Cunningham is here with us today. Can we get some
direction as to the preliminary plat approval before we move
on with the final plat and construction of the road? Could
you just go over it one more time? I was not here for that
concept plan. The requirements for the road, itself. You'll
notice on there that we've got a 50-foot right-of-way, and I
understand that was one of the considerations, and a 10-foot
setback as opposed to a 20 just was another consideration. As
far as the construction of the road, country lane, local road,
whatever y'all discussed. If we could just go over that one
more time?
MR. ODOM: That was 20-foot pavement.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
MR. ODOM: And 8 inches of base.
s-zz o6
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
43
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
MR. ODOM: We upgraded it because it was a
commercial.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, it was upgraded because
of commercial.
MR. ODOM: That's right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Because of traffic.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I was also -- I was not present
at that concept plan, and I think, Ms. Cunningham, my
preference would be to do a 60-foot right-of-way, zero
setback. Just because I think the setback is not -- I'm much
more inclined to give up on the setback rather than the
right-of-way. The net effect doesn't change anything, but I
believe that this is how the concept plan was approved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It is. It's consistent with
the concept plan.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just my comment.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I might ask the question, is
there any problem with going to the 60-foot and eliminating a
i setback?
MS. CUNNINGHAM: I don't know. I just have to go
back and Look at it, I guess. I thought that we had, you
know, discussed that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We had. And what -- the
motion was consistent with what we had talked about approving
5-22-Oh
44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
L1
22
23
24
25
the concept plan, but we're just raising the question.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know how it would change
anything, other than it changes -- what it does, it reduces
the lot sizes to slightly less than an acre, but I don't -- in
a commercial development, from our standpoint, it doesn't make
any difference. I mean, I don't know that 1 acre is a magic
number. There's no meaning from an industrial development
standpoint, according to our rules. Going with a -- a 50-foot
right-of-way is a departure from our rules, and I think it's a
bad precedent. You know, I will say, at the same time, I've
said that commercial developments are different, and, you
know, I don't think it's a precedent necessarily for our
residential.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think that was the whole
key to it, Commissioner, that it was not precedent-setting for
residential, and that our experience in the commercial
development area is modest at best.
MR. ODOM: Yes, this is only the second development.
So, we got the cul-de-sac with a turn-around down there. We
felt like the truck traffic wouldn't be that much up in there,
and that was discussed, and so that was the reason we did it.
We felt like we could turn around and we would not have --
it's not a through situation, and it's a private road, I
believe.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll go along with it. Just --
s-zz-os
45
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
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't want to tell the lady
one thing and then come along later and tell her something
else. That's ridiculous to do that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't either.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But I don't recall -- I
recall talking about the base, the thickness of the base and
the width of the driving surface and those kinds of things,
but I don't remember what the numbers were. Are they --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What Leonard represented is
correct.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that what it is?
MR, ODOM: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And it's heavier because of i
the truck traffic.
MR. ODOM: Truck traffic. Instead of 6 inches, we
went to 8 inches of base, and the cul-de-sac at the end. We
had a 20-foot pavement, so we wouldn't have edging on the
thing. We modified the 60 to a 50 because we had the 10-foot
setback. It just squeezed her -- the acreage she's got is --
it squeezes the business park. But, then again, the rules say
this is -- when we go to a business park, it's at y'all's
discretion.
JUDGE TINLEY: And that's the consensus that you
just -- what you just mentioned was the consensus that we
indicated to her in the previous meeting.
s-„ of
46
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. ODOM: That's correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think that's what we need to go
with. That's what we told her.
MR. ODOM: 1 would recommend that you accept what we
have.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What else, Voelkel?
MR. VOELKEL: One other question. With our new
rules now, the road needs to be engineered plan profile. I'm
making sure -- that's what y'all would like for this road?
MR. ODOM: The rules say if it's less than 3, or 20
acres or greater. But this is a business park. You know, we
were talking about this. It's sort of flat, and we talked
about it last week, whether we would go with the detailed
study or not. So, we felt like that was probably --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm sorry. I missed your
question, Lee.
MR. VOELKEL: My understanding with the new rules,
Commissioner, is that the road has to be engineered, and it
has to do what the engineers call plan profiles, which is a
design for the road.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh.
MR. VOELKEL: My question was, is that what we need
to do to get this road approved?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, again, was the
engineering design planning issue on the table when we
5-22-06
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1S
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
47
approved it the first time?
MR. ODOM: This came under the old rules, is what we
were looking at.
I
II COMMISSIONER SALDWIN: That's where I'm at, then.
!! Whatever we approved the Eirst time.
MR. ODOM: And I would say that that's flat. I do
believe that you need the 2- and 5-year, if there's any cross
on that, but as far as the major drainage plan, I think we
decided that we were not going to do that. It was small and
it was isolated there, but we do need to look at the 2- and
5-year if have you cross.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's my recollection.
MR. ODOM: And we were doing it under the old rules,
because we hadn't had anything affirmative as far as the Court
accepting the new rules at that time.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Two -- two comments on that. On
Lee's question, I think because of the -- I mean, I think
it's -- plan profiles, being an industrial park, it's kind of
exempted from -- our standard rules just don't apply. But
probably, based on the terrain here and the way it's been laid
out, I don't have a problem with not having engineered roads.
Other side of that, though, is, as Commissioner Baldwin
commented, the fact that concept plans are not intended to set
out all of our exact requirements, and should never do so.
Concept plans are to give us an idea of what a developer is
s ~2 06
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
ZO
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
L1
22
23
24
25
48
trying to do. And because a comment is made at a concept
plan, I don't think the Court is bound by it. And I wasn't
here at that meeting; I don't know how it was said, if it was
said that way. Concept plans are not -- usually, we don't
even vote on concept plans.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with you 100 percent.
I just -- you know, I just think when we -- when they left
here the last time, it was kind of a -- it was kind of, "This
is what you need to do, and we'll see you when you" --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- "come back." Of course,
ttie real question is about this Dixie Chick thing. Are any of
y'all involved in this subdivision Dixie Chick buyers?
MR. ODOM: I heard Mr. Voelkel was datinq one of
them. (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MR. ODOM: That's just rumor.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This subdivision is over.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. What action do we need to
take, gentlemen?
COMMISSIONER WTLLTAMS: Ready for a vote.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do we have a motion and a second?
Okay. Any further question or discussion on the motion?
COMMISSIONER WTLLIAMS: Do we have a motion?
MS. THOMPSON: We have a motion and second.
s-z2-oF
49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2 S
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions on the motion?
All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right
I
I
i hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Thank you.
Let's move to Item 12; consider, discuss, and take appropriate
action for the preliminary plat of Lasso Ranch located in
Precinct 3.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll just make a brief comment.
This is up in the far --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm the Commissioner of Precinct
13.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, is this the one that's up
in your neighborhood?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
~ COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's in my precinct, but no,
this is up in -- this is in the far -- far, far northeastern
corner of the county, kind of real near Gillespie County, and
this is the --
MR. ODOM: Off Hasenwinkel -- or Bear Creek.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And it is -- even though it
5-22-06
50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
refers to the owner as 210 Blanco Ranch L.P., that is actually
Mr. Dale Crenwelge at Crenwelge Development. As I understand,
it's going to be -- looks like a good development, from what I
can see. Large tracts. I believe it's going to be a county
road. Correct, Len? Or is it private road?
MR. ODOM: Private.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How do you get there?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Go up Hasenwinkel Road, which
comes off Cypress Creek Road. It con -- Hasenwinkel continues
all the way up to Highway 16.
MR. ODOM: Yeah. This is exempt from a drainage
plan, because you're over 20 acres; however, it still will
need the 2- and 5-year there. And it's a good project, large
acreage, and Hasenwinkel's a developing area.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
MR. ODOM: A lot of raw land out that way.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The only real, I guess, comment
that I have -- and I presume that name went through --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 9-1-1.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- 9-1-1? To me, if you're i
going to call it a loop, it should be a loop, and I don't see
this road as being anything but a dead-end.
MR. VOELKEL: We talked to Mr. Crenwelge; he's going
to get the name -- the word "Loop" removed; it's just going to
be Dally Road.
s-za-oe
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
~l
22
23
24
25
51
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Da11y Road, okay. And it's just
going to be -- is this going to be private roads?
MR. ODOM: Yes, private roads. In Note Number 5, it
says it right there at the bottom, the road will be a private
road, not maintained by Kerr County.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm just picking up on the
language here. This is pretty cool. Lasso. Dally. Need to
have a "Pigging String." This is pretty cool.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move approval.
COMMISSIONER WILLlAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of the agenda item, preliminary plat. Any question or
discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify
by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY": All opposed, same sign.
(NO response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Let's move
quickly to Item 13. Consider, discuss, and take appropriate
action to set a public hearing for revision of plat of Lots 13
and 14 of Cypress Springs, Phase I, as set forth in Volume 7,
Page 12, Plat Records, and located in Precinct 4.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The request is, Judge, for
June 26th at 10 a.m. in the backup here.
-zz-uH
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
52
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. This is moving a lot line, and
it involves 19 and 13, and it's .08 acres. By moving that
line, it is decreasing 19 and increasing 13 by
eight-hundredths of an acre. That's all it is, and I ask that
the Court go ahead --
MR. VOELKEL: Just another comment, just for
information. Both of those lots already have residences on
them. Both of those lots have already been permitted with
septics. There is a water system. Both of them are served by
that water system. These two individuals that own the lots
just basically want to square it up, and that's the reason for
changing the line. And they will both participate on the plat
as owners and agreeing to do so.
JUDGE TINLEY: And you're asking for a public
hearing on this matter for June the 26th this year at 10 a.m.?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to set a
public hearing for June the 26th, 2006, at 10 a.m. for
revision of plat of Lots 13 and 14 of Cypress Springs, Phase
I, as set forth in Volume 7, Page 12, Plat Records. Any
question or discussion on the motion? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
5-22-06
53

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(NO response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. At this time,
I will recess the Commissioners Court meeting, and I will open
a public hearing for the revision of Lot 60 of Wood Trails
Ranch, as set forth in Volume 4, Page 98, Plat Records of Kerr
County, and located in Precinct 4.
{The regular Commissioners Court meeting was closed
at 10:03 a.m., and a public hearing was held in open
court, as follows:)
P U B L I C H E A R I N G
JUDGE TINLEY: Is there any member of the public
that wishes to be heard with regard to the revision of Lot 60
of Wood Trails Ranch, as set forth in Volume 4, Page 98, Plat
Records, located in Precinct 4? Yes, ma'am?
MS. SUMMERLIN: Mary Ellen Summerlin.
JUDGE TINLEY: Come forward, please. We'll be happy I
to hear what you have to say.
MS. SUMMERLIN: Three of us are here from
Headwaters, and I'd like you to hear from Gene first. Would
that be all right?
JUDGE TINLEY: That'd be fine.
MS. SUMMERLIN: Gene Williams.
MR. WILLIAMS: I'm Gene Williams, General Manager of
Headwaters Groundwater ConservatLon District. I spoke to the
Court previously on this matter, and to Mr. Voelkel. I would
s-za-oE
1
"" 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
-- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
"'"' 2 4
25
59
like to point out, I sent Commissioner Letz an e-mail this
last week on a situation the same as what we're dealing with
here, which is after the fact. It's after a property has been
split. The realtor says the new prospective buyer wants to
buy the property, but yet doesn't want to share the well along
with a neighbor, so he chooses to want to drill his own well
on 2.12 acres, and then in the future, split that lot off and
put an office on the 2.12 acres and sell the house, which
would require another well. So, the main issue that I would
II like to point out to the Commissioners is to urge you to
I
consider replatting the same as new plats in respect to water
availability, the water availability issue of 5 acres per
well.
I understand you intend to put the language on the
plat to prohibit the drilling of individual wells on lots that
are split off, On this property in question, I don't believe
that would be enforceab]e. Once the property exchanges hands
down the road and owners come to Headwaters, and that would be
their only source of water for their house, would be to drill
a well, I don't believe we could deny that. Aiso, our current
Headwaters rules state that no well may be drilled on a tract
of land less than 5 acres that was divided and/or platted
after June 10th of 2002. And I would also like to point out
that a shared well is not a community well. I think Chapter
5-'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
29
25
55
require that to be a community well if it serves more than one
lot, which would go through T.C.E.Q. and become a public water
supply well, because it would be required to come up to public
drinking water standards. So, that would be the position of
Headwaters, that we issue permits to drill wells on 5 acres or
more. We can't control what happens after the fact on the
property.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me make sure I heard what
you said. We have -- we were going -- we were requesting to
be put on the plat that you cannot drill a well on this lot in
the future.
MR. WILLIAMS: Correct.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And then that property
changes hands to a new owner, and then they come to you and
say, "We want a well," regardless of what Commissioners Court
says. And you -- you cannot deny them a well at that point?
MR. WILLIAMS: If -- if the existing owner that owns
the well on the property that was sharing a well cuts their
water off, for whatever reason --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm.
MR. WILLIAMS: -- no, sir, I don't believe we can.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, how can we?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I -- I'd like to refer this --
and I think it really -- it's a public hearing. Before we qet
into a dialogue, I think it needs to be referred to the County
5-2^-06
56
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Attorney, because I disagree that you can't deny it. I think
you have to enforce the rule, the laws of the state and the
county. And if we put it on a plat, by god, that's the law,
the way I look at it. Maybe I've always looked at these plats
wrong, but I think you're enforcing the law of the county.
MR. VOELKEL: Just like anything on a plat; unless
you revise that plat, it's still enforceable.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So I think -- I mean, but the --
to answer, I think the County Attorney needs to give me some
guidance on that as to is it a flat law of the state of Texas?
Or is -- bottom line, I mean, is it enforceable by other
entities? And that's, I think, what you need to find out.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I wasn't jumping on you; I
was just trying to clarify.
MR. WILLIAMS: The scenario I'm making is the owner
of the well cuts the other lots off. They have a home on the
lot with no other source of water than to drill a well.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: It's your understanding of the law
that is applicable to Headwaters, if a homeowner who's living
there, domestic use, is in that position, that you cannot deny
them the right to drill a well? That's what you're telling
us?
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir.
s-'z-oE
1
°"` 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
-- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
"' 2 4
25
57
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I'm not going to try to get
into it with Headwaters, but to the County Attorney, though,
there was an issue that was brought up there about community
wells, shared wells. And I really don't know that, but I'd
like the County Attorney to look at it from our standpoint,
water availability, what our ability and authority is in that
area, because it's -- evidently, I didn't know there was ever
a difference. I thought it was the same if it was less than
15 connections.
JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Summerlin, Dr. Morgan, do either
of you desire to be heard further on this issue?
MS. SUMMERLIN: Just briefly, sir.
MR. MORGAN: Gordon Morgan, member of Headwaters
Board. I think we're probably dealing more with a concept
than, you know, with an individual situation just here, I
think the concept being that we want to have availability of
water. We feel confident that we can if we have 5 acres of
households closer than -- within the 5 acres, then we're
beginning to encroach upon the availability in the future of
water for their usage. If -- and that is kind of the concept
that we're operating on, which, you know, we worked together
to have the 5 acres, to come up with that as a guideline that
we can all go by that will protect the future availability as
well as service and provide water for the people that need it
5_^^-oF
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
58
at this point in time. So, along with the idea of the
concept, if at all possible, we at Headwaters can feel
I
confident we can freely allow people to have wells on 5 acres
I
II of land, as long as they use it for the purposes they desire.
II On the other hand, if we start making smaller
~~ subdivisions of land than 5 acres, then we're going to get
into more rules, more regulations, more individual permitting
rather than across-the-board, always fair, always equitab]e,
and try to keep it that way. That is really our desire. And,
as you all had stated in 2002, you all wanted 5 acres, we want
5 acres. And that is where I, as an individual board member,
would like to lake a stand. It's not going to please
everyone. But also, if we break it down and make it in
smaller acreages, it's certainly not going to please everyone,
because everyone will be coming in and asking for an
exception, asking for their own particular problems to be
solved, and that makes it hard on everyone. So, we would
prefer going by the rules, as we have. Our new rules state --
and are designed to go along with the County's rules, that
there will not be a lot size less than 5 acres. We consider
replats -- as the manager, Gene, said, we consider replats as
platting. And, therefore, since 2002, we would prefer to keep
all of them at 5 acres. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Ms. Summerlin?
MS. SUMMERLIN: My name is Mary Ellen Summerlin.
-2^_-06
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
59
I'm the President of the Headwaters Board, and I'm just here
to reunderline what Gordon said, and to confirm that although
the Headwaters Board has not taken formal action on this
position in an open meeting, I know from our rules workshop,
and I have doublechecked with all the members over the weekend
i that this is our unanimous consensus position, and that we
really recommend and urge you to take it very seriously; that
if we'll stick to the 5-acre rule, we can all feel pretty
safe. But if we start cutting down to smaller and smaller
size lots, and then people have a fight and the shared well is
no longer shared, and they come to us with a house and a
family and a lot that's got no water, we're going to be -- our
concern is that we're going to be caught between what the plat
says and what Chapter 36 says, which is that if somebody's got
the necessity for domestic use, we're pretty much stuck. And
then we end up with all these little wells all over the
county, and pretty soon maybe they are interfering with each
other. We want to avoid getting into a situation where one
neighbor's well makes the other one have to be lowered or
drilled deeper. It's just too expensive. Let's just -- let's
just be tight from the start, instead of having to scramble at
the end and try to come up with something that's fair and
equitable for everybody. That`s just what we urge you to
consider. Thank you very much.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, ma'am. Is there any other
s ~z-o6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2G
23
24
25
60
member of the public that wishes to be heard with respect to
the revision of Lot 60 of Wood Trails Ranch, as indicated in
Volume 4, Page 98, Plat Records, and located in Precinct 4?
Seeing no one else seeking to be recognized, I will close the
public hearing, and I will reconvene the Commissioners Court
meeting.
(The public hearing was concluded at 10:14 a.m., and
the regular Commissioners Court meeting was
reopened.)
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a timed item for 10 o'clock,
being Item 8.
MR. VOELKEL: Excuse me, Judge. I'm sorry. I
thought we were going to discuss this after the public
hearing. Can we discuss it some more after the public
hearing?
JUDGE TINLEY: It's not shown as an agenda item,
so --
MR. VOELKEL: As far -- I guess as far as some
direction on what -- what we need to do, can this be approved
or can this not be approved? Or what -- where do we go from
here?
JUDGE TINLEY: We're going to have to get it back
before us as an agenda item. And I -- the only -- the only
indication I can give you, Mr. Voelkel, is that it appears
that, from the Court's standpoint, we've kind of laid it off
5 22-06
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
61
into the County Attorney's lap at this point, and I suspect
we're going to -- we're going to defer doing anything
definitive until such time as we get some response from him.
And then, based on what we get from him, we'll go forward on
that basis. But we don't have an agenda item that we can go
forward on at this point. Okay, sir?
MR. VOELKEL: Okay.
~~ JUDGE TINLEY: The timed item for 10 o'clock, an
additional timed item, Item 8, is to consider, discuss, and
take appropriate action to award a bid for the Town Creek
Improvements in Precinct 1 and Precinct 3.
MS. SUMMERLIN: Judge Tinley?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, ma'am?
MS. SUMMERLIN: May I be recognized for just a
minute? I'm afraid I may have misspoken when I was talking to
y'all. I think the fact that I said I "polled" the members of
the board would put me in violation of the Open Meetings Act.
I think that it is legal for me to have visited with --
individually with members of the board. I did not -- I spoke
to another board member, who had spoken to another board
member. In no way did we vote on any kind of thing over the
phone over the weekend. That's -- I just want to make that
clear.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Whew.
5 22-06
62
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. What do you have for us,
I Mr. Odom?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. I would like for the Court to
consider awarding our Town Creek project in Precinct 1 and
3 -- basically, the splitting line's right along in there --
to Allen Keller and Company, and to authorize the Judge to
sign the notice of award.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move for approval.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second, with the direction that
most of the money get spent in Precinct 3.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Nay, can't be done. It just
cannot be done.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of the awarding of bid to -- on the Town Creek Improvements to
Allen Keller Company in accordance with the recommendation of
the consulting engineer and Mr. Odom. Any question or
discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question. What's the timeline
for the project, Leonard?
MR. ODOM: It is 90 days. We think that it will
start by 60 days, construction, so that's calendar days, so
we're hoping if we start sometime in August, maybe before
school hits, we'll have it opened by September 1st, we ought
to have it, if not sooner.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This is work that's required
-~~-06
63
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
because of the Holdsworth Drive cut-across; is that right?
MR. ODOM: That is the concept, is to use that. But
what it was, was an offset from the Highway Department at
Hermann Sons.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand that, but the
necessity to do it --
MR. ODOM: The necessity is to do that for that
Holdsworth right there, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's really more the development
coming into the Holdsworth area, anticipated by Holdsworth.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He said it really more
correctly. It's not because that road is coming through
there; that didn't affect us. We've been talking about this
long before that road --
MR. ODOM: Long before. There's a lot of raw land.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're upgrading County-owned
~ property.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Before the development hits.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Before the development hits.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think that's a great idea.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. And you won't find
many commissioners courts that get out in front of the game.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Absolutely.
MR. ODOM: Oh, well, y'all are out in front of it.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Is that why most of it's in 3?
5-2"~-Ov
64
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
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, most of it is not in 3;
just a tiny part of it is in 3.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: None goes to 2, right?
JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody have any other discussion
that's germane to the motion? Any other questions or comments
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. Let's move,
if we might, to Item --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I have a quick question
that I neglected to ask on that. Leonard, as I recall, it
was, like, 100 something --
MR. ODOM: 110,000.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- on Hermann Sons there,
something -- 81,000.
MR. ODOM: This is 81 plus the engineering that
we've done, and what I'm going to be doing is presenting to
the Court for y'all's review the engineering hydrology to be
done on the other end down there by Old Harper Road, and we'll
see where that takes us. And then the next budget year, we'll
see if we hit it. But we ought to hit the 110 pretty close by
the time we get the hydrology done on the next structure down
5-^^<2-G6
65
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We just need -- I just want to
make sure that we track it closely to make sure that we don't
end up in violation of the --
MR. ODOM: No, sir. I had three years from the time
that that was complete, so we're -- we were a year ahead
before it was complete. Last year we looked at hydrology on
it; now we're out for bid. We'll look at hydrology on the
other portion down by Old Harper Road, and then we'll see
where we're at. We ought to hit the 110 and hit the agreement
we made with the State, and then we'll look at next budget
year to complete that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. I just want to make
sure -- we don't want to get in violation of the State, and
all of a sudden get a million-dollar bridge from Hermann
Sons --
MR. ODOM: Not interested in that. I think y'all
would ask me to leave to go to retirement, I think.
JUDGE TINLEY: You're very perceptive. Okay. Let's
move to Item 14. Consider, discuss, and take appropriate
action to approve the final plat of 707 Ranch located in
Precinct 4.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. We had this before at concept,
and then it was an alternate plat; it was raw land. What
we're doing is dividing this up, and I ask the Court to accept
5-22-06
66
1
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 as a final in Precinct 4.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tell me again -- oh, it's out
there off of Goat Creek?
MR. ODOM: It is off Shalako, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Shalako.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir, up there at High Point.
JUDGE TINLEY: High Point.
MR. ODOM: By High Point right there.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I remember it now.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. Remember, we were
talking about horse trailers going up and down the road.
MR. ODOM: It was a private road; still be a private
road. We were talking about a cul-de-sac, whether we needed
it or not. There's a turnaround down below down there, but
we're hitting the 200-foot frontage up here in front, so it
works. Lot 2 has no intentions to be built on, other than no
obstruction.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion and second to approve the
final plat of 707 Ranch located in Precinct 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.
5 2 2- 0 6
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
67
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Why don't we take this opportunity to
take our mid-morning break. We'll come back in about 15, 20
minutes.
(Recess taken from 10:21 a.m, to 10:43 a.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's come back to order. We were in
recess for 15, 20 minutes, and we'll move now to Item 15;
consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to review
preparation of payroll and other personnel-slash-human
resources functions for Kerr County. Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. I put this on the agenda
based on our last meeting. We -- there was some discussion at
that meeting about contacting the private sector and seeing if
there are firms that can do this, and if they would give us a
proposal. And during that discussion, the question came up,
can we legally do that? Can we outsource this portion of it?
I asked the County Attorney to look into it. I know I, and I
believe everyone on the Court, received comments, and I'll
turn it over to the County Attorney to summarize it, but as I
read it, yes, we can do that, in his opinion. And, so, Rex,
is that --
MR. EMERSON: That's an excellent summary.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Excellent summary, yes. That
being said, I'd like to do it; I'd like to go out and just see
5-22-06
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
68
what is available. I'm not saying we're definitely -- this is
to -- it's kind of the first step, in my opinion.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What you're talking about is
soliciting requests for proposals to prepare a payroll,
county-wide -- not just department-wide, county-wide
payroll -- up to the point of turning it over for the
Treasurer and the Auditor to confirm accuracy and disbursement
of payment; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's correct. But I would
also expand it to other human resources functions while we're
doing it. I think the thing that really is -- the payroll
function is one of the -- you know, I think is the first thing
that I'd like to do; I think it's probably the most
reasonable. But I'd also like to see what the private sector
can do for some human resources -- some of the insurance
stuff, possibly. I don't know what's out there. I hear
advertisements on the radio frequently about companies that do
this type of thing, and I'd like to see what they really have
to offer.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I was in visits with a
couple of people over the weekend in regard to this, and a
fellow that knows about this kind of stuff highly
recommended -- recommended that we do it. It seemed to me
5-Z2 06
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
69
that the law says that the County, or particularly the County
Treasurer, is responsible for disbursement of checks, and that
the private sector can do everything else, prepare everything,
get the check back in here for the Treasurer's signature, and
the Treasurer disburses it and everybody's needs are met, and
can be done a lot -- very quickly and cheaply.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I'll just make a comment; I
see the Treasurer here. The Treasurer called me, I guess,
Friday -- you called me Friday? -- and said she supports us
doing this. I mean, this is not -- just so the public's
aware, we're not in a fight with the Treasurer's office. She
thinks it's a good idea to go out and find out what's out
there in the private sector. If it's a better way to do it,
let's do it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We11, that's good. And I -- '
as you know, I noted the last time that I thought that we II
should take a look at the whole human resources package.
There's a lot that takes place within the realm of human
resources. The question in my mind is, is our employee group
large enough to sustain that as a separate entity? And what
would we -- what would be embodied in that in a new job? So,
I'd like to take a look at all of it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I -- you know, I guess the
biggest question I have on this is -- is, you know, how we go
about soliciting --
s-zz-o6
~o
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
L G
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Have to develop an RFP.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- the proposals. I mean, I
think this is also -- I would think this qualifies as
professional services. Does it? I mean, we're talking about
an accounting-type function, which would be a professional
type service, and I think human resources in general could be
professional services. That being -- and assuming that, I'm
looking for a nod or a shake of the head of the County
Attorney. If it -- if it is a professional service, then I
think we need to probably go out and solicit from as many i
companies as we can. And the reason I think that way is
better, I think we can look locally and look in the San
Antonio area as well. I hate to just do a -- put it out to
the public to find it, because the public may not find it. I
just want to make sure that we do get some feedback, and the
feedback may be that none of them want to do it, which would
tell us something.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We've got to identify the
scope of services we're lookinq for.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct. Correct. I think we
need to identify the scope of services, and then I think
probably have the court coordinator contact the -- do a little
bit of research and find the number of people and get that
scope of services to them.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, the fellow I was
5- L ~- O h
71
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
dealing with is a C.P.A. guy, and he was -- seemed to be very
well-versed in this thing and understood it, and rattled off,
like, five or six different companies that, you know, just --
I you know, it's just like it wasn't a big deal. You go out
there and show -- so I think all that stuff's going to be easy
to do. We probably need to -- maybe we can use him to ask
him, you know, who these companies are to get the information
to. But --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Who's "him"?
JUDGE TINLEY: Sounds like we've identified our lead
member of the Court here.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That did it. They've really
made me mad now.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is that what you heard?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sure. I have no problems at all
with that approach.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, I'll get him in touch
with you today. Today. That's how fast --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, that's a slick move
there, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we probably need to get
a little bit of -- our court coordinator needs -- not court
coordinator; our member of the Court needs to also get with
the Treasurer's office as well, 'cause I think there's, you
s-~_-oh
72
1
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, information there as to what specifically they -- I
mean, how things are coming in right now, which are going to
be part of the question.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I think if we're
looking, we also have to look -- we have to look in terms of
payroll-slash-and/or human resources as a whole package. They
have to identify the scope of their services in that case.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, I think we need to -- I
would agree, we need to identify the scope of services, which
is payroll, state filings, federal filings, you know. I mean,
you can -- you know, the personnel function, the insurance
function. I mean, there's a whole list. I don't know where
you draw that line. But I think you try and get as much
information up front as you can on the scope of services.
Then you -- once we select a company, if we get to that point,
then we try to narrow it down on some of, you know, the
things, how we do it with our internal organization.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm sure glad Commissioner
Baldwin volunteered to do that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I did not, but I'll volunteer
you to do that. I'll work with you, Bill. I'll help you all
I can.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I appreciate it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, at our next meeting, we'll
5-_'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
73
have it back on the agenda, hopefully, or maybe the meeting
after that, probably.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further on that particular
agenda item? We got some general direction there. Does any
member of the Court have anything to offer that needs to be
considered in executive or closed session? Okay, we will move
on from there. Let's move on to our approval agenda. Payment
of the bills.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I'd like to make a
motion that we pay our bills.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll second the motion.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to pay the
bills. Any question or discussion? Mr. Auditor, I've got
some questions here.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Under Commissioners Court, tell me a
little bit more about this $10,000 payment, Columbia Casualty.
Is that our deductible?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Okay, I thought that's what
that was.
MR. TOMLINSON: That was the -- that's actually --
do you remember last meeting, we had a -- a budget amendment?
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
MR. TOMLINSON: That amendment was to handle this
5 <<-or,
74
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
payment.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Okay, let's go to Page 7, if
you wouldn't mind. There's a payment there showing to Grimes
for an obvious transport of a -- of a deceased. Looks like
it's being charged to a copier lease.
MR. TOMLINSON: That's -- we'll research that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Misspelled Letz, too.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But they did not misspell the
deceased's name; that's how you spell his name.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think Loetz is spelled
probably correctly, differently.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Lease copier.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Page 23, the V.A.W.A.
prosecutor. Is that individual prohibited from any outside
practice?
MR. EMERSON: You mean civil practice on the side?
JUDGE TINLEY: Any kind of practice other than the
V.A.W.A, duties.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What is V.A.W.A.?
JUDGE TINLEY: Violence against women.
MR. EMERSON: I don't recall seeing that in the
grant. Now, the V.A.W.A. grant's obviously written as a
full-time position, but I don't recall seeing anything in the
grant prohibiting them from performing some other function. I
5-'2-06
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2L
23
24
25
~s
just have to look at the grant.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. well, I note there that
there's -- the Supreme Court dues for the V.A.W.A. prosecutor
are included here, so the obvious reason for my question is,
if there's a requirement that that individual be licensed, and
if there's a further requirement that that individual's only
job performance in a legal nature can be performed as that
prosecutor, it certainly would be appropriate. If there's
anything to be done outside, maybe not.
MR. EMERSON: All I can say is, I don't know of --
of her doing anything outside.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. EMERSON: I don't know what the restriction in
the actual grant wording is.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: These amounts to the -- to the
prosecutor's office --
JUDGE TINLEY: Hmm?
~ MR. TOMLINSON: These amounts payable to the
I
prosecutor's office are as our cash -- part of our cash match
for that.
JUDGE TINLEY: The payment of the State Bar dues
payable to the Supreme Court is part of our cash match?
MR. TOMLINSON: No. No, the $3,666.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's not what I'm talking about.
_~-22-u~
76
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
]4
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
I'm talking about the next entry.
MR. TOMLINSON: Just for information, that's what --
that's what that's for, is for the cash match for this grant.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You know, let's stay on that
just for a second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: For the last 180 years that I
know of, we've argued this point of the public paying our --
our memberships and our dues to be a part of the -- like our
association. But you, as an attorney, I've always felt like
that the public shouldn't be paying any of your dues to -- to
keep your memberships going, your license going, you know,
those kinds of things. I can -- you know, to me -- to me,
that's a little bit different. And we --
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I agree. I agree.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We've argued that a hundred
times here.
JUDGE TINLEY: Where -- Commissioner, where I see
it, if -- if the position requires one to be a licensed
attorney, and the position prohibits any activity in the legal
sense outside of the elected or appointed position held, I --
I can see where it would be appropriate for the dues in this
instance to be paid. If, however, number one, the position is
not required to be a licensed attorney, or there's an
opportunity for that individual who is licensed to have some
s-??-o6
77
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
outside pursuit, then I don't think it should.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: In my case, for instance, I -- my
position does not require me to be a licensed attorney, so
that -- that answers the question right there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What about the situation,
Judge, where the Bar Association dues are paid, and it falls
in the category you're talking about where it's -- it's an
elected judicial position?
JUDGE TINLEY: If it's a full-time and there's a
requirement of -- of -- that the individual be licensed, and
there's no outside ability -- ability to do any outside work,
I'd say it's appropriate. For example, the District Judges,
Judge Brown, the County Attorney. He's under a position which
prohibits outside practice, and he's required to be a licensed
attorney, so it's appropriate under those circumstances; as I
see it, on all of those circumstances. In mine, it's not. I
pay my own.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I can't even go quite that
far, actually. If you want to be an attorney, be an attorney.
If you don't want to be a District Judge, don't be a District
Judge. Don't expect -- it's like, you know, if there was some
kind of licensing for -- and there kind of ~s, and the public
pays for it -- for Commissioners, if there was a Licensing
type thing, I choose to be a Commissioner and I need to pay
s-zz-oe
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
78
for my own license. I shouldn't expect the taxpayers to pay
for my license, It's just -- it's just the way I see it.
It's not -- I'm tired of arguing the thing. It's just --
'cause I've never won it. (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Doesn't look like you're
going to today.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, I'm not going to today.
Didn't expect to. I just -- you know, it's just a hell of a
good fight. If you want to get into one, there's a good one.
JUDGE TINLEY: Had a few extra minutes, so you
thought you'd throw it out again, huh? Okay. Anything else?
All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right
hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Let's go to
Budget Amendment Request Number 1.
MR. TOMLINSON: Budget Amendment 1 was approved by
the County Clerk to transfer $98.29 in the Elections
Department from Ballot Expense to Election Supplies.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of Budget Amendment Request Number 1. Any question or
5-2'-06
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
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 2.
MR. TOMLINSON: I'm requesting a transfer of $115
from the Telephone Access Fees in Nondepartmental to Liability
Insurance. It's for coverage for the new D.P. equipment in
relation to the new software.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved,
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I move it.
JUDGE TINLEY: One of you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I did.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of Budget Amendment Request Number 2. 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
-~_-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
80
Amendment Request Number 3.
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 3 is for Indigent Health
Care. I have late bills attached to this. We need to
transfer $618.75 from Eligible Expenses to Third-Party
Administration line item. I have a bill -- the hand checks
that I need are actually two to VeriClaims, Inc.; one for
5499.60, and the other one is for $119.15.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What is the time frame -- I
mean, what -- maybe I can -- if I can think just a second,
I'll get to my real question. We did this just a month or so
ago, VeriClaims. You know, is this -- is this a regular
thing? Why don't we know how much they're going to charge us?
MR. TOMLINSON: It's based on the eligible expenses
that we pay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So we're spending more on
indigent health than we budgeted; therefore, we're going to be
spending more on VeriClaims.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN; So -- well, when we set the
budget on what we think we're going to spend on indigent
II health care, we set the budget on what VeriClaims is going to
I
i get?
MR. TOMLINSON: That's right. It's 4 and a half
percent.
JUDGE TINLEY: Four and a half.
5-_'2-06
81
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. TOMLINSON: Four and a half percent of eligible
~ expenses.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This is one of those areas
that we contract out or send out --
MR. TOMLINSON: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- for third party. Is this
a good thing?
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, we're currently looking at
other ways to do it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: We're --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Cost less?
MR. TOMLINSON: I think that, you know, we're --
we've seen evidence that there's -- there's a better way, and
so we're exploring that --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: -- possibility.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I want to ask a question,
though, Tommy. If I'm looking at the budget and the budget
balances, I'm seeing that we've already spent through May, or
almost through May, $601,000. Is that correct?
MR. TOMLINSON: That's right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, my question is, is the
134 going to carry us for the next -- June, July, August,
September -- four months?
s-za-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
82
MR. TOMLINSON: Probably not.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Probably not.
MR. TUMLINSON: How -- it's the 8 percent rule.
Actually, it ends in August, because of the State's -- the
State's fiscal year ends in August. So, we -- the 8 percent
rule, we -- well, we anticipate that we will not be beyond the
8 percent in August, so we think that the 134 will last us
through that period. It'll be really close, but -- but I
don't -- the person at VeriClaims -- the principals at
VeriClaims, they were here about two weeks ago, and we -- we
projected what we thought our -- our claims would be through
August, and we don't feel like that we'll be there. So, as
far as trying to obtain any -- any help from the State, I
don't think that's in the forecast.
JUDGE TINLEX: What is the 8 percent? What is that
-- how much?
MR. TOMLINSON: It's approximately --
JUDGE TINLEY: As against us?
MR. TOMLINSON: It's approximately 800,000.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. So --
MR. TOMLINSON: Actually, it's 8 percent of your
general tax levy, and that -- that tax levy is not only the ad
valorem tax, but it's the sales tax that we -- we collect for
the previous year. And, so, when you attach the 8 percent to
the ad valorem tax plus the sales tax, it's a substantial
s-zz-oc
83
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
amount.
JUDGE TINLEY: And your -- your ballpark calculation
is approximately 800,000? That's in eligible claims?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But we have to spend that
before we go to the State fox any reimbursement?
MR. TOMLINSON: That's right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And their budget year ends
at the end of August, so that means school's out, doesn't it?
MR. TOMLINSON: That's right. And you also have to
wonder if the State has any money at that time, too.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's a pro rata fund that you're
sharing in, if I'm not mistaken.
MR. TOMLINSON: That's correct, yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval,
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of Budget Amendment Request Number 3, and issuance of hand
checks -- approval of late bills and issuance of hand checks
to VeriClaims for $499.60, and $119.15. Any question or
discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify
by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(NO response.)
5- „_n5
84
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Let's move tc
Budget Amendment Request Number 4.
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 4 is for County Court at Law,
approved by Judge Brown to transfer $5,074.05 from
Court-Appointed Attorney line item to the Master Court
Appointment line item.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. But what does that
mean?
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded.
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, the Master Court Appointment
line item is -- is there for the purpose of -- of paying
attorneys to represent juveniles in the -- no. No, it's --
JUDGE TINLEY: Parents.
MR. TOMLINSON: -- parents in C.P.S. cases.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is that new unfunded
mandate.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And --
MR. TOMLINSON: We established this Master Court
Appointment line item to try to address that for this budget
year. So, it's turned out to be as bad as we anticipated.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Actually worse.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
s ~-05
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
85
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, yeah, our new unfunded
mandate from our State Legislature so far has cost the
taxpayers $40,000 this year.
JUDGE TINLEY: Judge Brown had --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just one.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, this is one unfunded
I mandate.
JUDGE TINLEY: Judge Brown had indicated a concern
that maybe there were a disproportionate number of cases or
dollar volume of attorney's fees that were being charged to
his Master Court Appointments-slash-civil budget. Is -- tell
me if that's a valid concern, or whether or not all these
cases are just being dropped in his lap.
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, my -- I understand that when
those cases are filed, they're -- they're allocated by the
District Clerk's office.
JUDGE TINLEY: Random filing?
MR. TOMLINSON: At random filing. And, so, it just
depends on who's next, I think, in line. And I'm assuming
that they share equally. That's really a District Clerk
question.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, the County Judge -- County
Court at Law Judge needs to visit with the District Clerk.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, he may just be getting a bad
luck draw here, is what it looks like.
s-zz-oF
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
]5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
86
MR. TOMLINSON: That's what I --
Ili JUDGE TINLEY: 'Cause their accounts are still
III pretty -- pretty flush, and his is down the tubes.
I
MR. TOMLINSON: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. All in -- any other question
or comments upon that 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: Motion does carry. Budget Amendment
Request Number 5.
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 5 is for 216th District
Court, and we're requesting a transfer of $10,200.88 from the
Civil Court-Appointed Attorney line item, the one we just
talked about, and $1,053.40 from Special Trials, with
11,179.28 to the Court-Appointed Attorney line item and $75
for Special Court Reporter. This -- and this amendment
represents, I think, 71 different -- different invoices.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 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.
s-2z-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
87
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Budget Amendment
Request Number 6.
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 6 is for the 198th District
Court. We have a need to transfer 13,449.95 out of Special
Trials, with 5,637.14 to Court-Appointed Services and 7,812.81
into Court-Appointed Attorney line item. Actually, this
represents only one case.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
JUDGE TINLEY: One of you second.
MS. THOMPSON: We just have a motion.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I moved.
JUDGE TINLEY: Second?
(Commissioner Williams raised his hand.}
JUDGE TINLEY: Any question or discussion on the
motion?
i COMMISSIONER LETZ: On your education platform,
I! Commissioner Baldwin, we need to educate the public how much
i the judicial system of indigents cost this county as well.
~I JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, those special trial line items
I
II that weren't utilized are fast being eaten up.
I
I COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sounds that way.
5-zz-o6
88
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: And the Court-appointed attorneys,
Court-appointed services, they've long since been eaten up.
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 7.
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 7 is for the County Jail.
This is approved by the Sheriff to transfer $730.11 from
Software Maintenance to Vehicle Maintenance.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of Budget Amendment Request Number ~. Any question or
discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just a quick question, Tommy.
Software maintenance is going to be low throughout the county
because of the new program, correct?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. They -- we've actually paid
only for approximately half a year, so the -- for the rest of
the year, we will not be paying any more software maintenance.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mentioned last time, I mean,
that's quickly being used as the slush fund for 2005-2006.
s-2z o6
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
What's the chance -- what's the thought of the Court of moving
all that money out of there, if we're not going to pay it,
into one line item so it's not used as much, maybe? I guess
you have to -- I mean, if people have to use it, they have to
use it. But it just seems that as soon as we end up with a
line item that has money in it, we start using it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, if you got money left
over at the end of the year, you need to spend it so it
doesn't affect your next year's budget.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That seems to be the
prevailing mentality.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just an observation.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I agree with you.
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, it is an item that we need to
remember when we do budget, but for, I think, some of the
software, we -- we don't have any maintenance for a year, so
we need to look at --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You need to look pretty
carefully at that.
MR. TOMLINSON: -- carefully at our maintenance
budget.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mr. Trolinger, are you hearing
that?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: He left.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh, he left.
s-.'z 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
90
MR. TOMLINSON: John, he's well aware of --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON; -- which ones we have to deal with.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Baldwin, there's always
the question, what would the Dixie Chicks do?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What would the Dixie Chicks
do at a time like this?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Spend it, probably.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, they'd spend ~t.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other question or comments? All
in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
~ (The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Budget
I
Amendment Request Number 8.
I
i MR. TOMLINSON; Okay. Number 8 is -- was approved
by the Chief to transfer $203.90 from Attorney Ad Litem Fees
to Transportation of Juveniles.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This -- this wasn't done -- oh,
this is Juvenile Probation, nevermind. I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. But my question is,
whose signature is that?
MR. TOMLINSON; Jesse's.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Jesse Herrera? Okay.
-_~-oE
91
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of Budget Amendment Request Number 8. Any question or
discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: A11 opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Budget
Amendment Request Number 9.
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 9 is for Juvenile Detention.
We have a need to transfer $311.08 from Detention Officers'
Salaries to Residential Medical Expenses.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This -- would this be one
that would be reimbursable back to the County? Or is it for
one of our own kids?
JUDGE TINLEY: It's reimbursable either way. It's
just a question of whether it's a fresh pot or not a fresh
pot.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. So moved.
MR. TOMLINSON: I don't -- I can't tell by the name.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of Budget Amendment Request Number 9. Any question or
s-z' oh
92
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2Z
23
24
25
discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. Question is, how does this
go with the -- the big blanket change we made this morning for
Juvenile Detention Facility? I mean, we changed all these
line items today, correct?
I
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Under this?
MR. TOMLINSON: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, are we amending this, or is
I this --
	MR. TOMLINSON: This is separate from that.	
	COMMISSIONER	LETZ: It's under here, though.	
Resident	Medical is on	-- on this one, isn't it?	
	MR. TOMLINSON	: It should be.	
	COMMISSIONER	LETZ: I see Resident Medical, 572	-333.
572-333.	Yeah, I mean,	Resident Medical is on here.	
	COMMISSIONER	WILLIAMS: How much is in the pot?	
	COMMISSIONER	LETZ: The revised should be 25,1.	I
guess I'	m looking at --	we just revised it down this morn	ing
so we ca	n amend it this	afternoon.	
	COMMISSIONER	WILLIAMS: Is there enough in the	pot
to avoid	this?		
	COMMISSIONER	LETZ: Before we changed it this	
morning,	there was 22,547 in that line item.	
	COMMISSIONER	WILLIAMS: What's left?	
5-'2-06
1
G
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
93
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Now there's 25,183.
MR. TOMLINSON: The budget balance, though, is zero.
I mean, the original budget, what's left is zero.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh, I see that. There was a
negative balance on that one, okay.
JUDGE TTNLEY: 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 10.
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 10 is for Detention
Maintenance. We need to transfer $1,341.98 from the Detention
Facility budget out of Detention Officer line item, with
$651.19 to Maintenance and Custodial, and $690.79 in Detention
Repairs.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: On the Maintenance and
Custodial, was that just to take us up to now? Or does that
carry us through in that particular line item? Just current
expense?
MR. TOMLINSON: That's just current expenses.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
5-22-06
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
94
of Budget Amendment Request Number 10. 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 11.
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 11 is for Aq Extension. They
have requested transfers of $2,000 from the Extension Agents'
Salaries and $600 from Operating Equipment, to move 51,000 of
that into the Agents' Travel line item, $1,000 into Reimbursed
Travel, and $600 into Repairs and Maintenance.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Repairs and Maintenance, I
was told, has to do with the splash area behind the sinks.
MR. TOMLINSON: That's right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS; Of the public room. Is that
right?
i MR. TOMLINSON: That's correct.
i COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. And the other part of
I
II that, if I understood correctly, has to do with the fact that
fuel expenses have eaten them alive.
MR. TOMLINSON: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Unanticipated fuel expenses.
MR. TOMLINSON: That's right.
s-za-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
L 5
95
JUDGE TINLEY: Is that also in part as kind of a
setup for the new F.C.S. agent coming on board, to make some
allowance for' her expenses, maybe?
MR. TOMLINSON: I didn't -- I don't think so.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That wasn't represented
~ by --
MR. TOMLINSON: I don't think so. I think it's just
for additional fuel costs.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, basically for himself
and for Laurinda Boyd.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, you're talking about --
you're talking about $1,000 for them to travel on in the
future.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And, obviously, another
$1,000 that they've already -- what -- where are they
traveling? This is non-stock show time.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I can't answer specifically.
i He just said there are several things that are still left on
their calendar to go to and participate in which involve not
I
only transportation, but overnight expenses as well. So, I
didn't press him for what they were.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The travel -- I mean, the travel
-- I mean, overnight kind of throws me, unless there's some
5-22-06
96
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
kind of -- some of the 4-H competitions could still be going
on, but I think most of it --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, all that's --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- is over at the end of the
school year.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We`ve already done the state
championship stuff.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The travel, I can see that,
'cause, I mean, I -- we don't have extension vehicles, do we?
COMM7SSIONER WILLIAMS: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: No.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So the travel around the county
~ would be --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Reimbursable.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just wondered. If you
don't have a motion, I'd like to make one.
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't think I have one.
MS. THOMPSON: You don't have one.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move that we pay our bills.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Does that include Budget Amendment
Request Number 11, bills that might be due under that?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I have a motion for approval
of Budget Amendment Request Number 11. Any question or
s z.-oe
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
97
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 12.
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 12 is for Road and Bridge.
They requested a transfer of $372.20 from -- from Right-of-Way
Surveying into Notices.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of Budget Amendment Request Number 12. Any question or
discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.) I
~ JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Budget
Amendment Request Number 13.
MR. TOMLINSON: 13 is a request from the District
Clerk to transfer 2,273.64 from the Deputy Clerk Salary line
item into Overtime.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
s >?-oE
98
1
L
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there a reason?
MR. TOMLINSON: She lost her chief deputy, and there
was also that the -- they were -- the conversion of the new
software. So, between those situations --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But it was a -- there was an
opening that necessitated the overtime? Okay, second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of Budget Amendment Request Number 13. 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.)
DODGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Do we have
any more budget amendments?
MR. TOMLINSON: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do we have any late bills, other than
as indicated?
MR. TOMLINSON: No.
DODGE TINLEY: There is not. I have -- I've been
presented with monthly reports from the Justice of the Peace,
Precinct 3; County Clerk, General Fund; Justice of the Peace,
Precinct 1; Justice of the Peace Court, Precinct 2 for
April 2006; County Clerk, Trust Fund; and Road and Bridge
Department. Do I hear a motion that these reports be approved
5-22-06
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
99
II as presented?
I COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
III COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
III DODGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
II of the indicated reports as presented. Any question or
II discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
i 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 anything to offer in connection with their
committee or liaison assignments or otherwise with regard to
matters that need to come to the Court's attention?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I want to ask Commissioner
Williams if he would like to report to the Court about the --
the function that he's performing for the County in regards to
those duties out of the Treasurer's office, maybe getting them
outside --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You haven't even given me
the number of the guy to call.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Damn, it's hard to get good
help these days. I was just wondering maybe if you had
something to tell us. We had a break.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. I will tell you, I'm
s-z^_-o6
1
r
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
"` 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
A.. 2 4
25
100
still waiting on the number. I would like to just bring the
Court up to date for just a second on the contract -- the
Court's approved the draft contract for engineering services
recommendation to approve the scope of work, and all that
stuff was taken to the board meeting on Tuesday, So, I'm
waiting for a final document for the County Judge to sign, in
which case we'll release the scope of work for publication,
solicit proposals.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Somewhat related to that, the
Court -- unfortunately, one of my days of not feeling well
last week, I was unable to go to Austin, but the Region J plan
was presented to the Water Development Board. And normally, I
would have presented that plan to the Water Development Board
for final approval, and I sent a written comment to them, and
the board -- the plan was approved. But the interesting part
of that was that the -- several -- one thing they were
interested in are the complaints that I've had all along about
the population projections, which go into the demand side, and
there was some discussion on the board about that. But the
other item was from staff; there was a very positive feedback
to me about the Center Point Wastewater Project going forward,
and the Water Development Board is -- is truly behind that,
and I think that's very good news for the county. That's the
~_„_oy
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
101
type of project they really are looking at. It fits in with
the regional water plan; very important to them for funding,
so I think that was all good news, that they're -- that seems
to be working.
The other item I had was -- I don't know if I need
to put it on the agenda, or if we can just discuss it, but I'm
bringing it up here. Budget's right around the corner, and I
would like to look a little bit -- you know, I don't want to
step on the Judge's toes. Traditionally, when the budget's
been presented, we've had -- this has been this way ever since
I've been a Commissioner; salaries are taken off the table.
We kind of do all this figuring out until -- and at the last
minute, salaries are brought in, and I think that's one of the
reasons we've had a lot of problems, and I'd like the salaries
brought in right at the beginning. I see no point in keeping
salaries -- we have somewhat of a formula as to how we're
going to do cost-of-living adjustments, COLA's. When I first
got on the Court, it was a little bit arbitrary. Now we're
tying it to an index. That index is available.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Published just a couple days
ago.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, I'd like to see the budget
presented as a -- as a formal -- as a final budget.
Obviously, we're not going to know the revenue picture maybe
till after the budget's presented, but the proposal -- anyway,
5-~~-06
1
L
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
I9
20
21
22
23
24
25
102
item in our budget until after sometime -- we get into August.
So, I don't know if we need to put it on the agenda, or if we
need to have a workshop. It's just kind of an idea on how
to -- you know, budget's right around the corner. We need to
start looking at schedules and all that stuff.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't disagree with what
you're saying, because we do, in fact, put a king's "X" on a
huge item. But are you suggesting that elected
officials/department heads crank in a COLA adjustment for the
max of what may have been published by U.S. Department of
Labor and Statistics, which right now is published at about
3.5 percent? Or something less, or what?
COMMISSIONER LET2: I think we need to have it on
our next agenda.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think you're right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Figure out how to do this.
Also, I think we need to set the budget workshop -- the
workshops and get an idea as to where we are. And I think we
need to bring up a feedback from the library and the airport.
The airport is -- will be challenging, I think, this year for
the Airport Board, and I think that -- you know, we'll discuss
that a little bit more. But the preference is to do it as a
5-22-05
]03
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1H
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
workshop item in the afternoon, or as an agenda item? Or does
it make any difference?
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't suppose it makes any
difference.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Up front, it's not gong to be --
it's not going to be finalized, so I would think a workshop
would be adequate.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think some -- let's get
some guidance from a discussion.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Have a discussion a little bit.
We do that pretty much this time of year, discuss kind of
where we're going with the budget, how the process goes for
the year. Okay, that's all I had.
JUDGE TINLEY: Kind oĢ following up on what you
mentioned, Commissioner, with regard to the library, I -- I
received, end of last week, a notification that the -- the
Library Advisory Board had, quote, unanimously approved by
those present the draft budget as submitted by the Library
Director. I received that notification, but the budget itse]f
was not attached. I don't presume either one of -- any of
y'all got a copy of that? I'm thinking that you probably
didn't. I've passed along a note to our admin to ask that we
get a copy of that, so we might take a look at it and see
where we are there. I think I'd be interested in seeing it
5--`-„G
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
104
before that train gets too far down the track.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think the same applies,
Judge, to emergency -- EMS. Are we going to be confronted
with another major increase in that service line item? Do you
know yet?
~ COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm not willing to talk about
it in here, but pretty soon, you will start hearing about it.
Speaking of that, I wanted to let everybody who may have seen
I
it in the newspaper about KPUB donating the defibrillators to
the -- basically, to the First Responders group, and I can't
remember how many there were; 8 or 10 or something.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 11 or 12.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 11 or 12, something like
that. And those things -- they're making them so simple now
that one of those may end up in the courthouse, by the way.
They'd like to see one come into the courthouse and be
stationed somewhere.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Be for us, if we had a heart
attack.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: During budget time.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: For the budget process. We
could probably hang it from the lamp or up on the wall here
somewhere. But I thought that was just kind of neat. This --
I think this is the third year in a row KPUB has made that
s-zz-o6
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
105
donation, and that is a neat, neat donation.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is that a cooperative project between
KPUB and L.C.R.A.? Or ~s it KPUB only?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, I think it's KPUB.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think it is, too, KPUB.
COMMISSIONER $ALDWIN: Pretty neat. Pretty neat
deal.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other member of the Court have
anything to offer? Any elected officials have anything they
II wish to offer this morning? Anything else? Going once,
twice. We stand adjourned.
I
(Commissioners Court adjourned at 11:31 a.m.)
s-zz-oe
106
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
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 25th day of
May, 2006.
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
BY: __ __ y ____ ____ _
Kathy B nik, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
5-2^-06
ORDER NO.29691
PRELIMINARY PLAT OF LIVE SPRINGS RANCH, PCT. 4
Came to be heard this the 22nd day of May, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to:
Approve the Preliminary Plat of Live Springs Ranch, Pct. 4
ORDER NO.29692
TEXAS COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE TO FILL COUNTY
EXTENSION AGENT-FAMILY & CONSUMER SCIENCES POSITION
FOR KERR COUNTY WITH APPOINTMENT OF JODY OSTEEN
Came to be heard this the 22nd day of May, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to:
Approve the appointment of Jody Osteen as the County Extension Agent-
Family & Consumer Sciences position effective July 15, 2006.
ORDER NO. 29693
REQUEST ANNEXATION OF IDENTIFIED AIRPORT PROPERTY
INTO KERRVILLE CITY LIMITS
Came to be heard this the 22nd day of May, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioners Williams. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to:
Approve the request of annexation of identified airport property into the
Kerrville City Limits.
ORDER NO. 29694
DISCUSS MODIFIED OS-06 KCJF COUNTY BUDGET
Came to be heard this the 22nd day of May, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to:
Approve revised budget as presented.
ORDER NO. 29695
EXTEND KCJF COMP TIME POLICY
Came to be heard this the 22nd day of May, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to:
Extend the time to allow the comp time to be taken care of, or reduced, out
of the Kerr County Juvenile Detention Facility until August 31, 2006.
ORDER NO.29696
DISCUSS TEXAS VINE ANNUAL MAINTENANCE GRANT
CONTRACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006
Came to be heard this the 22nd day of May, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to:
Approve the extension of the VINE Grant application.
ORDER NO. 29697
CORRECT COURT ORDER #29671 TO CREEKWOOD V, INSTEAD OF
CREEKWOOD II, PCT 2
Came to be heard this the 22nd day of May, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to:
Approve the amendment of Court Order #29671 to read Creekwood V, Vol
7, Page 160.
ORDER NO. 29698
PRELIMINARY PLAT OF RANGER PARK, PCT. 2
Came to be heard this the 22nd day of May, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to:
Approve the Preliminary Plat of Ranger Park, located in Pct. 2.
ORDER NO. 29699
PRELIMINARY PLAT OF LASSO RANCH, PCT. 3
Came to be heard this the 22nd day of May, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to:
Approve the Preliminary Plat of Lasso Ranch, located in Pct. 3.
ORDER NO. 29700
SET PUBLIC HEARING FOR REVISION OF PLAT OF LOTS 13 & 14
OF CYPRESS SPRINGS, PHASE I, VOL 7, PAGE 12, PCT. 4
Came to be heard this the 22nd day of May, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to:
Set a Public Hearing for June 26, 2006 at 10:00 a.m. for the Revision of Plat
of Lots 13 & 14 of Cypress Springs, Phase I, Vol 7, Page 12, located in Pct.
4.
ORDER NO.29701
AWARD BID FOR TOWN CREEK IMPROVEMENTS, PCT 1 & 3
Came to be heard this the 22nd day of May, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to:
Award bid on the Town Creek Improvements to Allen Keller & Company in
accordance with the recommendation of the Consulting Engineer and Mr.
Odom, and authorize County Judge to sign the Notice of Award.
ORDER NO. 29702
FINAL PLAT OF 707 RANCH, PCT. 4
Came to be heard this the 22nd day of May, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to:
Approve the Final Plat of 707 Ranch, Pct. 4.
ORDER NO. 29703
CLAIMS AND ACCOUNTS
Came to be heard this the 22nd day of May, 2006, came to be considered by
the Court various Commissioners Precincts, which said Claims and
Accounts are:
Accounts Expense
10-General	$	143,653.05
15-Road & Bridge	$	32,184.36
18-County Law Library	$	3,206.99
26-JP Technology	$	158.00
50-Indigent Health Care	$	13,750.25
76-Juv Detention Facility	$	9,714.21
TOTAL
$ 202,666.86
Upon motion made by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner
Williams, the Court unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to pay the
claims and accounts.
ORDER NO. 29704
BUDGET AMENDMENT
ELECTION SERVICES
Came to be heard this the 22nd day of May, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to transfer the following expense
codes:
Expense Code Description
Amendment
Increase/QDecrease
10-402-330 Election Supplies + $98.29
10-402-210 Ballot Expense - ($98.29)
ORDER NO.29705
BUDGET AMENDMENT
NON-DEPARTMENTAL
Came to be heard this the 22nd day of May, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioners Williams, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to transfer the following expense
codes:
Expense Code Description
10-409-205 Insurance Liability
Amendment
Increase/()Decrease
+ $115.00
10-409-421 Telephone Access Fees - ($115.00)
ORDER NO.29706
BUDGET AMENDMENT
LATE BILL
INDIGENT HEALTH CARE
Came to be heard this the 22nd day of May, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to transfer the following expense
codes and issue hand checks in the amounts of $$499.60 & $119.15 to
Vericlaims, Inc. for May 10, 2006 and May 11, 2006 Fee on Paid Claims.
Expense Code Description
50-641-486 Third Party Administration
Amendment
Increase/QDecrease
+ $618.75
50-641-200 Eligible Expense - ($618.75)
ORDER NO.29707
BUDGET AMENDMENT
COUNTY COURT @ LAW
Came to be heard this the 22nd day of May, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioners Baldwin, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to transfer the following expense
codes:
Expense Code Description
10-427-403 Master Court Appointment
Amendment
Increase/()Decrease
+ $5,074.05
10-427-402 Court Appointed Attorney - ($5,074.05)
ORDER NO. 29708
BUDGET AMENDMENT
216TH DISTRICT COURT
Came to be heard this the 22nd day of May, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioners Williams, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to transfer the following expense
codes:
Amendment
Expense Code Description Increase/()Decrease
._ 10--435-402 Court Appointed Attorney + $11,179.28
10-435-494 Special Court Reporter + $75.00
10-435-417 Special Trials - ($1,053.40)
10-435-403 Civil Court Appointed Atty - ($10,200.88)
ORDER NO. 29709
BUDGET AMENDMENT
198TH DISTRICT COURT
Came to be heard this the 22nd day of May, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioners Williams, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to transfer the following expense
codes:
Expense Code Description
10-436-401 Court Appt'd Services
10-436-402 Court Appointed Attorney
10-436-417 Special Trials
Amendment
Increase/QDecrease
+ $5,637.14
+ $7,812.81
- ($13,449.95)
ORDER NO.29710
BUDGET AMENDMENT
COUNTY JAIL
Came to be heard this the 22nd day of May, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioners Baldwin, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to transfer the following expense
codes:
Expense Code Description
10-512-454 Vehicle Maintenance
10-512-563 Software Maintenance
Amendment
Increase/QDecrease
+ $730.11
- ($730.11)
ORDER NO. 29711
BUDGET AMENDMENT
JUVENILE PROBATION
Came to be heard this the 22nd day of May, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioners Williams, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to transfer the following expense
codes:
Expense Code Description
10-570-335 Transportation of Juveniles
Amendment
Increase/()Decrease
+ $203.90
10-570-402 Attorney Ad Litem Fees - ($203.90)
ORDER NO.29712
BUDGET AMENDMENT
JUVENILE DETENTION
Came to be heard this the 22nd day of May, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioners Baldwin, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to transfer the following expense
codes:
Expense Code Description
76-572-333 Resident Medical
76-572-104 Detention Officers
Amendment
Increase/QDecrease
+ $311.08
- ($311.08)
ORDER NO.29713
BUDGET AMENDMENT
DETENTION MAINTENANCE
Came to be heard this the 22nd day of May, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioners Letz, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to transfer the following expense
codes:
Expense Code Description
10-515-350 maintenance 8 Custodial
10-515-451 Detention Repairs
76-572-104 Detention Officers
Amendment
Increase/QDecrease
+ $651.19
+ $690.79
- ($1,341.98)
ORDER NO. 29714
BUDGET AMENDMENT
AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICE
Came to be heard this the 22nd day of May, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioners Letz, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to transfer the following expense
codes:
Expense Code Description
10-665-426 Agent Travel
10-665-428 Reimbursed Travel
*10-665-450 Repairs & Maintenance
10-665-102 Extension Agent Salaries
10-665-569 Operating Equipment
Amendment
Increase/QDecrease
+ $1,000.00
+ $1,000.00
+ $600.00
- ($2,000.00)
- ($600.00)
*-ESTABLISH NEW EXPENDITURE LINE ITEM.
ORDER NO.29715
BUDGET AMENDMENT
R&B ADMINISTRATION
R&B
Came to be heard this the 22nd day of May, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioners Williams, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to transfer the following expense
codes:
Expense Code Description
15-600-430 Notices +
15-611-557 ROW Survey & Engineering -
Amendment
Increase/QDecrease
$372.20
($372.20)
ORDER NO. 29716
BUDGET AMENDMENT
DISTRICT CLERK
Came to be heard this the 22nd day of May, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioners Letz, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to transfer the following expense
codes:
Expense Code Description
10-450-112 Overtime
10-450-104 Deputy Clerk Salary
Amendment
Increase/()Decrease
+ $2,273.64
- ($2,273.64)
ORDER NO. 29717
MONTHLY REPORTS
Came to be heard this the 22nd day of May, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 the following monthly reports:
JP #3
County Clerk -General Fund
JP # 1
Justice of the Peace Court -Pct 2 for April, 2006
County Clerk -Trust
Road & Bridge Department