~a ., 1 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 Regular Session Monday, June 12, 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 DAVE NICHOLSON, Commissioner Pct. 4 ~_ v 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I N D E X June 12, 2006 Commissioners' Comments 1.1 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on License Agreement with Kerrville Christmas Lighting Corporation 1.2 Receive and take appropriate action on report of the audit of Sheriff's Office payroll 1.23 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on adoption and implementation of county-wide grade and step scale and reclassification of grades for any employee whose current salary does not fit the adopted grade/step 1.7 Public Hearing concerning revision of plat of Lots 19 & 20, Hidden Hills 1.8 Public Hearing concerning revision of plat of Lot 25, Twin Springs 1.9 Public Hearing concerning revision of plat for Lot 1-A, Creekwood V 1.10 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for revision of plat for Hidden Hills, Lots 19 & 20 1.11 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for revision of plat for part of Lot 25, Twin Springs Ranch II 7.12 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for revision of plat for Creekwood V 1.3 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to approve Lexis-Nexis contract to replace Westlaw as online legal research provider for County Attorney's office 1.4 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to reclassify current employee from step/grade position of 22-2 to a 17-5 1.5 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action regarding agreement between Cameron County Juvenile Probation and the KCJF to house juveniles in the event of emergency situation 1.16 Consider/discuss being fired arbitrarily by Rabies and Animal Control 1.6 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for variance to road specifications for proposed manufactured home rental community at 150 Lydick 1.13 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for revision of plat for Lot 60, Wood Trails Ranch 1.21 Consider/discuss Butt-Holdsworth Memorial Library budget recommended by the Library Board z PAGE 5 14 15 29 46 46 49 51 52 53 72 73 75 78 79 88 98 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 °- 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ""' 2 4 25 I N D E X June 12, 2006 PAGE 1.15 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to accept TXDOT valuation on Spur 98 tract, authorize conveyance of tract to TXDOT in consideration of cancellation of County's outstanding R.O.W. acquisition obligation to TXDOT, and authorize County Judge to sign deed of conveyance to TXDOT 126 1.14 Set public hearing concerning revision of plat of Tracts 9-B, 9-A, and 10-A of NF-RB Ranch 130 1.17 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to authorize GrantWOrks to advertise and conduct public hearing on July 11, 2006, at 5:30 p.m. in Kerr County Commissioners' Courtroom on proposed grant application for Phase 4 of Kerrville South Wastewater Project 131 1.18 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to request Texas Comptroller to allocate a portion of unclaimed capital credits received from electric cooperatives within cooperative service area, authorize County Judge to request for same 134 1.19 Consider/discuss organization development opportunities for Kerr County government 135 1.20 Consider/discuss opportunities for applying "user-pay" concept to certain services provided by local government 161 1.22 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on approval of interlocal contract between County of Blanco and Kerr County to house prisoners at Law Enforcement Center, authorize County Judge to sign same 169 1.24 Retirement of Tax Assessor-Collector effective August 31, 2006 (Executive Session) --- 1.25 Reports from the following departments: Animal Control 172 Extension Office 176 Environmental Health --- 4.1 Pay Bills 181 4.2 Budget Amendments 182 4.3 Late Bills --- 4.4 Approve and Accept Monthly Reports 196 5.1 Reports from Commissioners/Liaison Committee Assignments 197 --- Adjourned 201 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 On Monday, June 12, 2006, at 9:00 a.m., a regular meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in the Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, Kerrville, Texas, and the following proceedings were had in open court: P R O C E E D I N G S JUDGE TINLEY: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Let me call to order this regularly scheduled meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court posted for this date and time, Monday, June the 12th, 2006, at 9 a.m. It is that time now. Commissioner Nicholson? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Will you all please stand and join me in prayer and pledge to the flag? (Prayer and pledge of allegiance.) JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. At this time, if there's a member of the audience or the public that wishes to be heard on any matter that is not a listed agenda item, feel free to come forward at this time and tell us what's on your mind. If you wish to be heard on a listed agenda item, we'd ask that you wait until that item is called, and in that event, 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 that you do that; it helps me, when we come to that item, not to overlook you, however. But if you wish to be heard on any agenda item, when that item is called, get my attention in some way or manner, and -- and I'll see that you're recognized 6-12-OF 5 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 so that you can be heard on that issue, But right now, if there's any member of the public that wishes to be heard on any matter that is not a listed agenda item, I'd ask that you j come forward now and be heard. I see no one coming forward or otherwise indicating a desire to be heard, so we'll move on. Commissioner Nicholson, what do you have for us this morning? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Judge and Commissioners, I've been out and about Precinct 4 quite a bit the last few days, and -- and people are talking a lot about things affecting their lives. One of them, of course, is the drought. And I've -- I think the dry conditions may be worse in west Kerr County than anywhere else I go. I went to San Antonio on Saturday, and when I get on the other side of Kerrville down toward Kendall County, it looks a lot greener than it does out in west Kerr County. I think we've probably been fortunate that we haven't had any bad fires recently, and I did put the ban -- burn ban back on in Precinct 4 this morning. So, I'm encouraged that people must be being very careful, or we'd have more difficulty than we've had. Talking about motorcycles -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do you have one? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Who is? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Motorcycles. And Saturday, I attended a motorcycle rally sponsored by the West Kerr County Chamber of Commerce. A lot of good people. Had some 6-z~-oE 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 good food, fried catfish, provided by Commissioner Oehler and his brother. Had church services yesterday morning. All this was -- and they camped out, spent the night there, had some i good music on the banks of the North Fork, So, at least that I bunch of motorcyclists were well-behaved. Might have been a I]ittle noisy. L.C.R.A. transmission routing lines are getting a lot of discussion. Not all over the -- not all over Precinct 4, just among those whose back yards are on the proposed route. And I think probably there may be citizens in Precinct 1 that are more concerned about the routing than those in Precinct 9, but -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: "Concern" is a mild word. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. Yeah. That was not unanticipated, Commissioner. You and I talked about that. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's correct. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON; Another thing people are talking about, of course, is appraisal and property value appraisals. And some of us are beginning to understand that even though we don't have a mortgage on our house, we're really just renting it from the government. we pay an amount that's equivalent to rent every year in property taxes, so it's -- I'm mindful again that when we make spending decisions, we have to know that that money's coming out of somebody's pocket, and not everybody can afford it. That's all I got. s-i~-oh 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Commissioner Baldwin? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. We have -- most of us have seen the TV commercial of the UPS truck that pulls into Florida in the bright sunshine and all that snow on it, ' and he stops and the snow falls off. That might not be as I true as it seems, that speed, because I've ordered a parrot for your shoulder, and it didn't show up. And -- but it will appear real soon, and I expect you to come to Commissioners Court with that parrot on your shoulder. (Laughter.) Burn ban is also on in Precinct 1, and it is extremely dry. I went to a fire out in the Kerrville South area, and what started the fire -- I mean, it burned, like, 8 or 10 acres real quick, and what started it, a guy was -- had a motorized ditch-digging machine, and I guess he hit a piece of flint, maybe, but it started a huge fire and burnt right around the I two homes, and he finally qot out, you know, and beat it out with a tow sack and that kind of thing. But it got off in the neighbors and burned down a lot of pasture and trees. But just a spark from a rock can start a fire. It is really, really dry out there. And I was walking through and you could hear that grass crunching under your feet, and it's pretty bad. That's all. I'm excited about today. JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Williams? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Was the parrot going to go on his left shoulder so he wouldn't see it, or on his right 6-1~-On 8 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 shoulder so he can see it? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know. I don't know what the legal way to do that is. Rex? MR. EMERSON: I'll defer to the Sheriff. ~ COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Ask the Sheriff? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I ain't getting into that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I, too, am going to reestablish the burn ban in Precinct 2. I think it's getting pretty dry out there. A lot of things happening. As a matter of fact, while this is something this Court has not willingly taken up in the past, I really think we probably ought to have some discussion about a fireworks ban. If we're going to do it, we need to have it before the 15th of June. I'm getting a lot of calls from folks who are concerned about that, so I just throw that little topic out there for what it's worth, see where it takes us. I also note with interest, and it was published in the paper, the economic good news that resulted from the 2006 shotgun World Cup. The story in the paper was good. It -- it depicted accurately the number of people who visited our community and the amount of dollars that were spent, and the rollover effect of that, or the multiplier, if you will, economic multiplier, all of which is good. And, so, credit needs to be given for those who put that show on and who will put on future shows, and the benefit to Kerr County is august -- robust. 6-1~-06 9 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: Is that it? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's it. JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Letz? COMMISSIONER LETZ: On the fireworks issue, I believe we have missed the deadline. I don't think that would qualify as an emergency, and it's too late to post a meeting prior to the 15th, so we're not banning fireworks in this county. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't know if we're too late. This is the 12th. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's too late. It's not posted ~ anywhere. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 15th. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It could get posted this afternoon. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Does that make court -- anyway, we may be able to do it; we have 72 hours. I don't think we can do that, though. Anyway, Subdivision Rules and Regulations, I met with -- after our last meeting, I met with Wayne Wells, our consulting engineer, at length. We've gone through them. He's done a very good job; I'm very happy with the selection of using him. He's very detailed, read the whole thing. He found typos and had a lot of very good comments that I've incorporated, I think all of them, just about, into the rules. Nothing major. They're little -- 6 12-06 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 little things, everything from there's a -- a hyphen in subgrade to things about vertical K-values on the sag of a road. So, his comments were very -- very good. Anyway, the -- everything has been incorporated into a version. Truby has a final version and Kathy has a final version. There is some -- we need to go through it one more time on the page and formatting issue, make sure that the pages line up in the table of contents to pages in the document, because a lot of changes were made. And my formatting skills are not the greatest, so I'm quite pleased I was able to figure out how to do a table. But, anyway, they're done. And Mr. Wells is also actually doing a little bit of work already on one subdivision. He's -- from the preliminary comments that Len just told me, Len's very happy, and they're having a good working relationship. Developers are going to have to understand it's going to take longer to get subdivisions through in this county. Anyway, and a final note on Subdivision Rules; I will put this back on the agenda for the final version to be reaffirmed by the Court. I know it's been approved and I was given authority to do it, but I think from a legal standpoint, the Court probably should actually approve -- reapprove the final version so there's no issues there. That's it. I will be putting the burn ban on in my precinct as well. It is dry. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Following up a bit on e-2z-oh 11 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 Commissioner Williams' comments, for those of you that didn't happen to know, the economic impact of that World Cup shoot -- that was a 10-day shoot that occurred, and using an indirect economic multiplier of only three, not six or seven that most economists would suggest that you use, the total economic economy of this community. I think we need to -- I think we need to encourage economic development of any type that doesn't impact our infrastructure. That one didn't impact our infrastructure at all. It -- it filled up our hotels, it gave a lot of business to our retail businesses and restaurants, things of that nature. It was just a truly win-win situation for everybody involved. And I -- I hope the community will take a look at the type of economic impact that Hill Country Shooting Sports Center is generating for this community, and any other type of economic impact -- any economic development project that might impact our community in a similar way at the least possible cost, such as this one. The -- the schedule indicates that there are three or four more events yet to be held this year. There are, I think, at least six events -- five or six events to be held next year. They increase the following year to seven or eight. These are significant events that impact our community, and I hope that we'd all become familiar with what they do. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge? E-i2-o6 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I wasn't going to make a comment, but I have to. I agree with you; think I that center's a good facility. It's certainly a big economic impact, but not without a cost, and there is infrastructure cost. Traffic on Cypress Creek Road has increased substantially on that road. It's a state highway, but there is some cost involved with that, you know, to the taxpayers of this -- even TexDOT. And also, I think everyone's aware the people that live in that area are not real happy with it, and there's -- there's a cost to the residents near that facility. And, you know, it's a private facility; they're able to do what they want. But anything we do on economic development, whether it's that, whether we -- the thing we looked at with the Air Force meeting at the airport, using it as a training facility, there is a -- a trade-off. And I think, generally, the job for the County and the City is to look at that trade-off. I think the benefit of this outweighs the negatives, but it's not all roses. There are some negative impacts to almost any economic development that we do in this county, and it's -- from a quality of life standpoint, it brings more people in here. That's a negative to many people. So, I think that while it is a good facility, it is in my precinct, and because it's in my precinct, I also hear the negatives probably more than anybody else on the Court. 6-12-06 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, obviously, everything's got naysayers. The -- the issue about the parrot, the good news is, I look forward to receiving a parrot. The bad news is, I have a temporary condition known as Bell's Palsy. The good news is, the symptoms being similar to those that you get when you have a stroke, I did not have a stroke. So, that's the good news and the bad news. But how big is this parrot that you've ordered for me? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Pretty good size. JODGE TINLEY: Good. The bigger, the better. I noted with some interest that there was a -- a rather large macaw down in San Antonio that was someone's pet that was taken from the pet store, and I hope -- you had indicated that you were going to be trying to get me a parrot, and I was i hopeful that you hadn't been involved in that activity. But I see where they've recovered that macaw; it's been returned to its owner, so I'm glad to know that. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: On what shoulder would be appropriate, seems to me like Judge Tinley's kind of a right-wing guy, and -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Right wing? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Right wing. JUDGE TINLEY: If the parrot's big enough, I suspect we're going to let the parrot go on whichever shoulder the parrot wants to go. 6-12-0 n' 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ~~ L L 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And do anything else the parrot wants to do. JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I'm going to see if I can't institute some reasonable controls there. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This is government at its best. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Don't try this at home. JUDGE TINLEY: Let's get on with our agenda, if we might. First item on the agenda is to consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on a license agreement between Kerr County and Kerrville Christmas Lighting Corporation. I placed this on the agenda at the suggestion of those involved with the lighting corporation, and I believe my review of it indicates that, other than the dates being changed, it -- it reads exactly like the prior -- prior occasion. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, can I make a suggestion? JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Right after the whereas's, the "All communication" sentence, at the end of that sentence, wouldn't it be wise to add -- it says "Kerr County Facilities Manager, currently Mr. Glenn Holekamp," to add the words, "or his designee" like they did down below? JUDGE TINLEY: I think that's probably the intent. I see no harm in doing that. 6-1_-06 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 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And then in the last sentence, second line from the bottom, County Facilities Manager "of" his designee? JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, should be "or." COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Or. I move for approval. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: With those changes? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Motion made and seconded for approval of the license agreement with the indicated changes. 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. Let's move to Item 2, if we might. It's a timed item of 9:15, and it's that time now. Receive and take appropriate action on a report of the audit of the Sheriff's Office payroll. Commissioner Nicholson, let me first interject that I had some communication from the auditor that was designated by the Court, Mr. Beltrone, relative to his engagement letter which had been submitted to the County Attorney, and Mr. Beltrone indicated that without the Court taking action and approving and actually signing that engagement letter, he will be unable o-i_-oF I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 16 to discuss this matter today. And the County Attorney has reviewed it, and I think he had a problem or two with it, so we do not have a signed engagement letter, and I wanted you to be aware of that, but I'll leave it with you. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, I think all I can tell you is that Commissioner Williams and I met with Mr. Beltrone and heard his report, and it's time for the full court to hear that report. But since we can't proceed, I think we ought to pass on the issue and reschedule it for next ', meeting. MR. BELTRONE: I am prepared to present the report. JUDGE TINLEY: I' m sorry? MR. BELTRONE: I am prepared to present the report, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: All right. But you don't want to do that without the engagement letter being formally approved by the Court? MR. BELTRONE: I can do it, and I'll explain that as soon as I get a chance. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Mr. Beltrone? JUDGE TINLEY: Well, come forward, let us hear what you have to say. Thank you, sir. MR. BELTRONE: Okay. First of all, with respect to the engagement letter, it's more of a formality. The engagement itself was already agreed to, in essence, when the 6-iz-o6 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 17 Court approved me as the -- as the auditor, so I'd like to go ahead and issue the report -- or provide the report to y'all. I'm not sure y'all want to read it right away, but -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just give me all of them. MR. BELTRONE: I did prepare some extra reports for Thank you. Now, this morning, I decided that I do not want to read this report, and the reason why is because I feel like it would be beneficial for the Court to have me speak freely and answer any questions. The report itself is based on the procedures applied. Those procedures were to review the schedules, determine any deficiencies in the payroll or errors in the payroll. By not reading the report in the record -- obviously, it will go in the record here, but not at this time -- it allows me to speak freely. So, basically, the procedures applied were to initially determine the accuracy of the schedules that were provided to us. The Sheriff presented ~ us some information. We obtained information from various County personnel, and I did my own research on the Internet by researching minutes, court orders, et cetera. What we did was, we compared those schedules that we found to existing schedules and we recalculated -- first, we recalculated schedules based on court orders and minutes and other information that we received. So, irreaardless ~f rhP schedules that were used, we recalculated based on information 6-i^-oF 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 18 that we believed to be entirely representative of what was Court actually provided three orders, the first being a COLA or cost-of-living allowance, the second and the third being flat dollar-amount raises that were provided to deputies, recalculation of schedules was done for deputies, dispatchers, jailers, and nurses for 2003-2009. The result of our recalculation, when compared to the budget that was provided to us by the County Auditor, was that those schedules agreed with each other. We did the same thing for deputies and jailers. We recalculated the schedules for 2003 -- or 2004-2005, and we compared those schedules to the budget provided by the Auditor. Those schedules also agreed. Now, some background on these schedules and the way they initially came about was found back in 1985, when the Commissioners adopted a study -- schedules that were provided in a study by Ray and Associates. Those schedules had a 2.5 percent increase from one step to another step. I'll refer to those as the step and grade schedules. That 2 1/2 percent step was never -- at least from information provided to me or found by us, was never spelled out. It was never written that the steps had to be 2 1/2 percent. It was just built into the schedules that were adopted for the 1985-1986 budget. Up until 2003-2004 budget, those schedules remained 6 1^_-06 1 2 3 4 5 h 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 19 in effect for the step increase from 2 1/2 percent from one step to the next remained in effect, because COLAs were applied each year. Regardless of the percentage of the COLA that was applied each year, the step increase remained at 2 1/2 percent. So, that's where the history of this step increase comes from. Now, in 2003-2004, the Commissioners ordered a $3,000 flat increase per employee in the dispatchers and jailers department, and a $1,500 flat increase for the deputies in addition to the COLA. Now, by applying the flat dollar-amount increase to each base salary, to each step -- and this was according to court orders, now -- the increase from step to step changed percentage-wise. So, I'm prepared to go over an example if we want to get into the detail at this time. Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Give me those years again that the Court did that? MR. BELTRONE: In 2003-2004, the court orders were adopted on September 2nd, 2003, for the 2003-2004 budget. For '04-'O5, I believe the flat increases that were applied then were $1,500 for dispatchers and jailers and $1,000 for deputies. Now, back to this 2 1/2 percent. At that point in time, when those budgets were adopted, according to court orders, the percentage from step to step changed. There is nothing in writing that says we intend to change this step r,-iz-o~, 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 20 percentage increase. There's nothing in writing that says we can't do it. So, going forward after applying these raises, some individuals at the lowest grades and the lowest steps got raises probably in the neighborhood of around 16 percent, just in '03-'04. The ultimate effect of that was when a step from Grade 14, Step 1 to Grade 14, Step 2 occurred after the raises had been implemented, it was a 2.194 percent increase from the first step to the second step. So, ultimately, the raises that went into effect and the schedules that went into effect were correctly implemented. There were no payroll errors or deficiencies based on those schedules. Now, at this point, I'm prepared to address any questions. I'm not sure I really left anything out of what I was going to present to y'all this morning. My complete -- the complete procedures applied, my reports, my findings, and some additional supplemental schedules are provided to y'all in that report. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let me just say that I -- I understand this. We set about in those two years to improve the competitiveness of compensation we paid to these four classifications of employees, and we did that. An unintended consequence of doing that was that we adversely impacted the internal integrity of the step/grade -- the logic of it. We didn't -- I don't think we expected to do that. We didn't anticipate doing it, but we didn't think through the arithmetic well enough. I believe that the Sheriff, later on F-iz-oti z1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -~ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 in Item 1.23 today, will propose a -- a method of correcting And, again, it was an unintended consequence, I believe, and we have an opportunity to decide whether or not we want to remedy that unintended consequence. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: As Commissioner Nicholson noted, I was in that meeting with him in which Mr. Beltrone presented his initial findings on this issue, as well as present were the County Attorney, the County Treasurer, and the County Auditor, I believe, and one of Mr. Beltrone's colleagues. And I thought the -- the work that you did was very good, and I applaud you for that. I applaud you for your promptness in getting it back to us. And, as Commissioner Nicholson said, it was the Court's intent to rectify a situation that the Sheriff had brought to us with respect to disparity of pay in these various categories, and after applying the COLA that year to all employees across the board, we then went back and we applied increases that we thought were beneficial for these categories in the law enforcement department. The unintended consequence of that was the 2 1/2 percent, which to my view has never been memorialized by the Court formally, was skewed to some extent -- modestly, I might add -- the 2.5 going down to 2.198 or something like that, and there was some -- some result of that. But I think it's 6-1_-06 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 important to point out that it was not an error, intentional or otherwise. It was the -- or it was the fallout, if you will, from what the Court did to rectify a situation brought to us by the Sheriff. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The question I have, Mr. Beltrone, is that -- and I understand your report totally, but to keep the integrity of the step and grade schedule that was in place, the way to do a raise like that would be to -- say it's $1,000; you add $1,000 to the 25-1 or whatever, and then you add 2 1/2 percent all the way up, so that, basically, if you're, like, a 25-10, you're going to get -- whatever the math would be, increase? MR. BELTRONE: Yeah. The -- now, initially, at 2 1/2 percent, if you had not applied the flat increases, the actual dollar amount of raises up to this point would be less than what had been implemented. Okay? In order to reestablish the 2 1/2 percent based on existing schedules, you would actually have to -- let's go back to '03-'04. Once the COLA and the flat increase was applied, each individual was at a step that, in order to apply an additional 2 1/2 percent upon the next merit increase or longevity increase when they went up a step, you would have had to create a brand-new schedule for that one individual. So, each step and each grade would have required a brand-new schedule at that point. In order to reestablish it today, the Sheriff has come up with t-12-06 23 1 "~ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 a possible solution, and that would be to plug everybody into an existing schedule that is currently set up on the 2 1/2 Now, my office ran some numbers just -- this was not the audit. This was why I wanted to speak freely today, because I did not -- I was not engaged to apply these procedures, okay? I just ran the numbers, and I calculated a couple of employees. Had they been done according to these new schedules that would have been implemented at that point in time, and after the initial raises were done, to keep them at 2 1/2 percent through the 2003-2004 budget, and then moving on, applying the COLA and flat increase to the '04-'05 budget, and once again applying the 2 1/2 percent, the average that was applied or that came up was somewhere in the neighborhood of $12,000 of a deficiency. Okay? Now, based on the amount of testing that I did, the error range was anywhere from $6,000 shy to somewhere in the neighborhood of -- I want to say $20,000. Okay? So, if you were to retroactively apply that and to go back and recalculate everybody's schedules correctly, I'm estimating that that difference would be somewhere in the neighborhood of $6,000 to $20,000. Now, that would be a very painstaking task, and you definitely don't want to farm that out to anybody. So, the proposal that the Sheriff has is probably the best way to bring it back into line with the 2 1/2 percent step increase. o-i^_-o6 24 1 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 if I make a mistake here, please correct me, okay? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He will. He will. MR. BELTRONE: The -- the schedules that are in exist today and plugging them into the next higher step on that one schedule, that would make all County employees subject to the step and grade schedules subject to that one ~ schedule. Now, in doing so, the ultimate result of that -- you could either go down or up. I'd recommend going up, of course. In doing that, you're ultimately giving raises to those individuals who were on these schedules, the dispatchers, jailers, and deputies for '03-'04 and '04-'O5, and '05-'06, for that matter. The ultimate -- Sheriff, did you -- did your office come up with a dollar amount? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. On -- depending on the classification of the officer, if you were a sergeant, which about 17 fall in that classification, it would mean about a $40-a-year increase, okay? That's $40 per year. Now, on the very beginning, the low entry-level officer, it means about 1,100. But that's entry level, and I don't have anybody at entry level at this time, okay? Everybody's already moved up past that, but that's your entry level. But it would put them all in between there, the -- the remainder. 6-1^_-06 zs 1 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: Why don't we -- why don't we wait till we get to your agenda item? Either that, or we can roll it in with this one. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why don't we roll it in? JUDGE TINLEY: What's the Court's pleasure? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I've got a question -- or I've got some comments, actually. I'm going to put a new wrinkle in your thinking. MR. BELTRONE: Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: In '03-'04, you -- you read the court orders. MR. BELTRONE: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And it was definitely decided that the flat increase goes in of $1,000, or whatever the number was, and then the COLA on top of that? MR. BELTRONE: No, sir, it's the opposite. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The other way around? MR. BELTRONE: Yes. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The COLA and then the flat increase. What about the next budget year, where there was another -- almost the exact issue? Same thing? MR. BELTRONE: The same thing applies. Different dollar amounts, different COLA increase percentage-wise. That information was obtained from the minutes, both provided by the Sheriff and those that I found on the Internet transcripts 6 iz-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 26 of the meetings. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: See, I believe -- I believe that this flat increase of 1,000 or 1,500, whatever it might be, was a one-time gift to the employees. It wasn't any -- it should not affect the step and grade program from that point forward. It was just -- it was like -- it was a gift, for being good people and working hard and -- and representing the County well. That's what I believe that I voted for. MR. BELTRONE: Okay. A study was done -- I believe it was called the Nash study -- back in '02 or '03, and that's where this whole thing came about. I think it was an equality thing, trying to get everybody back up to a comparable scale to some other counties. And that is the way that I interpret it as well. The consequence, of course, is one of, in order to apply both concepts, to go back to the original -- or to start a new schedule at 2 I/2, to keep it at 2 1/2 percent, that's where you would have to create a brand-new schedule for each step. So, you know -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm just trying to get us to a point where Rusty owes us money. MR. BELTRONE: Well, I will say this, okay? Based on the way -- based on what was implemented, court orders, minutes, et cetera, I would say that there is no obligation by the County to provide any additional compensation. Okay? Now, I can't go as far as saying they owe you money, unless b-iz-n6 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 they want to give up those flat increases and go back to the 2 1/2 step schedule. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I -- from talking with Rusty, what you've said, that is correct. I mean, there's no definite obligation to give them an increase. But if we don't do something to fix the schedule, we're going to get further and further off the step and grade concept. MR. BELTRONE: That is correct. Now -- I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's just -- I mean as we go forward. MR. BELTRONE: Sure. Now, I will say that as they go up on the grade and step schedule, the percentage variance from one step to the next actually goes up, so those individuals, as they're -- as they were going up the ladder, did get closer to the 2 1/2 percent. They're still not quite there. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think we're all viewing this the same way. I just see it a little bit differently. In 2002-2003, the -- is that right? What was the first year we gave the -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: '03-'04. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: '03-'04. We could see that there was an inequity between what we were paying law enforcement officers and what other law enforcement agencies were paying. And one of the ones that you look at the closest F-i?-o6 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 is -- is the police department, but you also look at other counties and other opportunities they have. So, we -- in my view, we set about to cure that inequity, and I -- I think we did not fully understand the consequences of it, that we were upsetting that 2 1/2 percent balance. So, I agree with you. We don't have any obligation to correct that -- to revise that step/grade chart to reestablish the 2 1/2 percent. Certainly, our officers and jailers and nurses and dispatchers are not overpaid compared to their -- the local labor market conditions, so we might want to choose to spend some more money to reestablish that 2 1/2 percent. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the other comment I have on it is that I kind of look at it as a -- a long-term situation. We -- we're going to, I think, continue to look and adjust salaries in this county of different employees, and, you know, we've already discussed that. We've eliminated some of the low-end grades earlier in probably the past couple years, and I think we need to continue to look at that and make other adjustments. And if we don't get it on a level playing field, we're going to end up with basically every position and every employee being on a different pay scale, and that's the reason I think we need to go back and -- and put it -- you know, use the step and grade system and make it work. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. 5-12-06 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 29 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So we have a -- a way to go into the future. JUDGE TINLEY: I think the issue here is, do we want to pull that into the discussion now, along with this particular discussion? Or do we want to wait until it's posted, till we call it later on? Whatever the Court's pleasure. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd rather deal with it now. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would too. I think it's appropriate. JUDGE TINLEY: Let me go ahead and call Item -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 23. JUDGE TINLEY: Item 23. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can't keep him quiet any more. JUDGE TINLEY: Consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on adoption and implementation of county-wide grade and step scale and reclassification of grades for any employees whose current salary does not fit the adopted grade or step. This will at least keep us on the -- on the right path for purposes of the agenda and -- and discussion purposes. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I've got a quick comment. JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, sir? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If I don't get it in, I'll F-iz-oH 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 30 never get it in now that Rusty's up at the microphone. I wanted to clarify that I -- I wasn't -- I didn't mean that the money was a -- a gift or a bonus of any sort. It was simply, you know, as a competitive adjustment, trying to get the salaries up to -- in a competitive way. I didn't mean that it was just a gift. Which I did say that, but it's not what I meant, so I wanted to clarify that. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Sheriff, we -- we've got your Item 23 before us. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The proposal that's kind of already been talked about is exactly what Mr. Beltrone said; put everybody in the entire county, all county employees, back under the same step and grade as it had been before, and it keeps it to a 2 1/2 percent. I don't have a bunch of copies of this. I gave y'all one that expands it all the way out to 25 steps and 35 positions. I think that the end time is whatever y'all should decide on how far an employee can go, and that's the 12, and then I have a proposal of 15. And what we're talking about, the 12, 15, and 25 is steps itself. Steps are how -- I only had three that are printed. I have it on disk. JUDGE TINLEY: You just carried this to Step 12? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The 25 one you have, just look at it as the 12, and you'll have it. The reason I'm saying -- and I think Barbara may be able to verify this, where it was s-i2-oh 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -~- 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 12 -- was originally set up as 12, 12 steps through a person's career. With the longevity and educational they have in it, This is anybody with the County. This is longevity. And then you get one step every three years after that. So, if you go through 19 years of employment, that's a total of seven step increases you could move, okay? If you -- if all you got was longevity. Deputies, jailers, and dispatchers, because of educational, can move a total of another four additional steps, which would put them at 11. You know, and that's why I think 12 would cover any 20-year period. I don't give merit increases in the department; I fair to all the courthouse employees, okay, where you have clerks and administrative people that don't get education, then I think the County should come up with a way of giving those people merit increases, depending on what that department head wants to do, and there's kind of one of those in there. It would allow them to give them five merit increases over a 19- or 20-year period, which would put everybody back at the end of their service being able to end up at the same step in those step and grades, which would make it fair to every employee, is what the deal is. And all you're doing now is doing away with the three bad schedules, I might call it -- you know, inadvertent bad schedules that the E-12-06 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Sheriff's Office has been using since these raises, and putting everybody under the one. Now, in those line items, like I said a while ago, under the sergeants and people like that, it's about a $40-a-year increase, moving them to a step where they would fit. Deputies, it's a -- street deputies, it's about 1,100, but I don't have any Step 1's any more. I might have one. And dispatchers fall and jail fall under their respective ones. Where you would be going is, if you look at that or the current step and grade, and this would have to be what's on the current step and grade, patrol is on the -- on the Sheriff's Office, an appropriate step and grade, patrols are 19's. Under that proposed step and grade, it would move them to a 22, because it moves it back the other way. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: To be clear about that, they're currently a 19 on the -- a salary structure that's higher than the other 19? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, to fit them into a salary structure, one-size-fits-all, you find the salary grade that's got the next highest number on it, and in this case, that turns out to be a 22. It's not the same as a four-grade promotion. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay. Sergeants were a 23; they'd go on that one to a 25. Lieutenants were a 25; I v-iz-o6 ~ ~. 33 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 believe they'd go on that one to a 27 -- yes. (Sheriff's cell phone rang.) Excuse me. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I'm trying. Everybody hollered at me about keeping it on page, because I never got my phone calls; I didn't hear it, so I apologize to the Court for that. It hasn't been on page the last week. JUDGE TINLEY: $25 fine. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: $25 fine? Okay. Corrections officers, on the old one, were 14. (Another cell phone rang.) SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't think that was mine. I've never heard that noise before. (Discussion off the record.) SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: They would be a 19. Sergeants are a 17. This is jail sergeants. And they would move to -- to a 21. That's the next place to fit. JUDGE TINLEY: Sheriff? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes? JUDGE TINLEY: Did you happen to prepare a schedule of old versus new and dollar difference? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. JUDGE TINLEY: Between those here on paper? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I did. It's sitting at my -- on my desk. I did not do it as part of this presentation. 6-1'_-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 34 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We don't have that? JUDGE TINLEY: No. ', SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I can give you that, okay? And ~i what I'm showing you is -- or I can give you the salaries, and I you can write them down from the old to the new right now. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Sheriff, how much would it cost per month or per year, whichever you choose? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, for the remaining -- what I'm looking at, because of the shortage, because there is -- and I don't want to rehash what Mr. Beltrone said. If y'all will remember, the longevity and educational was all based on steps. It does not give percentage. And the steps all the way back to 1985 were 2 1/2 percent. So, when you've never changed what was adopted in '85, I think it does say it should all be those steps, and that's where it comes from. If we were to adopt this -- adopt this schedule effective now, okay, for the next four months of the court to be able to repay -- or next four months of this budget to be able to make up some of that -- and, like I said, sergeants don't move up much in it. It would take several years on down to make up all the differences, but I think it's an equitable deal. The solution would end up, with FICA and everything, at $32,570. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: For what period of time? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The next four months, starting 6-12-06 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 35 ', June lst, actually going back to June 1st, is what it would cost. That's FICA and retirement and all included. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, you're saying we can -- if we choose to, we can reestablish the 2 1/2 percent differentials that we may not have intended to reduce. We could reestablish that, and that'll cost us 34,000? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: 32,570. ~ COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Something more than $32,000 for the next four months? COMMISSIONER LETZ: But -- SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And where that would come from, okay -- and I even have some budget amendments, if the Court decided to. That 32,570 is also coming straight out of my budget. We have funds called SCAAP funds where we get kind of rewards, revenue, whatever, from the federal government on housing different classes of people. A lot of it comes out of that. That is a revenue line item. And operating equipment; there's about four different lines where I can make budget amendments and supply that for the -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What we have to be mindful of is that that pushes the Sheriff's Department's payroll costs up to a higher level that will be built on in the future. So, it's not -- it's not a one-time $32,500 cost. JUDGE TINLEY: Just under 100,000. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right at 100,000 annually. 6-12-06 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 36 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't have any trouble supporting it, 'cause that's what I think I intended to do three years ago. But it will -- it will be an additional payroll cost that we have to deal with. We already have pretty high payroll costs throughout the county. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Rusty, explain to me -- and there could possibly be someone in the audience that is kind of where I'm at. '03-'04, we gave your employees a 2 1/2 percent salary increase plus an adjustment. The next year, we gave 2 1/2, or whatever the number was, plus an adjustment, and now we're behind $32,000 today? Tell me how that happened. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: What you did, the court order -- the motion that was made in '03-'09, just as to the deputies -- this is the actual minutes where the order was passed, and it states that they're giving them $1,500 each. Judge Tinley says, "Motion's been made and seconded for the increase of deputies 1,500. Any further discussion?" And then it talks about -- Buster Baldwin said, "And there is no language in this order about doing it -- doing another half that next year." You didn't want to tie yourself down to having to do it the next year. Commissioner Nicholson says, "Is this in addition to the 2 1/2 percent COLA?" Commissioner Williams says, "Yes." Judge Tinley says, "Yes, it would be." So, what you did was just give raises, and it wouldn't have 6-1G-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 37 messed up the 2 1/2. But, inadvertently - - okay? Not -- and the jail's the same way. And then 2004-5 is the exact same type deal. It's all in addition. The way they figured it then is correct. The step and grade's a separate issue, okay? If you ever figured it, they figure it by the way the Court said it, but when they kept the step and grade, it skewed it all out. And, as Mr. Beltrone said, the only way you can keep that step and grade which went back to 1985 being adopted by the Court was to do individual step and grades for every employee. And without doing that, the actual steps vary anywhere from 1.9 to the 2.19 to -- but they never remade that 2.5 any more. And that's where it got messed up for three -- 13 ~ years. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 G2 23 "' 2 4 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Rusty, you're probably not going to like what I'm getting ready to say, but that's -- you know, that happens frequently. I understand what we did, and I don't like what we did and the consequences of it on step and grade. I think we need to fix that. But I also think what we did is exactly what we intended to do. Because I remember, in my mind, anyway -- I have not read the minutes, but my memory tells me that we discussed this, and it was a -- and, you know, we were going to give a flat raise and we knew it was going to mess up the schedules, and which -- and we knew that, because it created a new schedule for deputies and all your other employees. H-iz-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 38 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Let me finish. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I am. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So I think, you know, I have a problem mid-budget making this correction. However, I also think that this needs to be corrected in next budget year. And I also think that we need to look at the employees as a whole, that step and grade schedule as a whole and how it affects other employees this year, as well during the budget process. And my preference is to hold off and make this correction during the budget for next year, and look at not just your department, but all departments, and look at how we -- I mean, we've looked at various departments, and I'm not going to -- as an example, a lot of the clerical-type staff, you know, is one that we have discussed that needs to be probably looked at. I think that does need to be looked at. And I think that by going in -- I think we do need to assure you and your employees that we're going to fix the problem. I'd just rather wait and do it during the budget process. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay, let me read you one excerpt from that court meeting. Commissioner Baldwin says, "Are the things that he's talking about, these 1,500's and 1,000's and all that, in this program?" Ms. Nemec says, "I think the way we could do it is we could just add the 1,000 to the beginning salary, and it would adjust it all the way 6-12-06 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 39 across so we would stay within the same step and grade." That's what was done, okay? That's what was said to be done. That's not what was done. What was done was the other. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The reality, however, of giving a bulk increase, 1,000 or 1,500 or 3,000, as the ease may be, at the -- at the base step, that automatically changes the percentage going forward, and it reduces it because you bumped up the base salary. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What Commissioner Letz observed about this process is also my thinking. I don't -- I think I don't want to try to act to solve the problem today. I think we need some time to study it and look at the consequences across our organization. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. I want to hear from -- ~ Rex? MR. EMERSON: Sir? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I want to hear from -- you almost got out. I want to hear from the County Attorney at some point about this, you know, the legal ins and outs of it, and I want to hear from the County Auditor as well to make sure. It just -- I just feel like that we're rushing into something here that we don't need to be rushing into. We need to be real careful. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I want to ask a question also of this -- this new matrix that you gave the Court this 6-12-06 1 _. ~ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ~0 21 22 23 °- 2 4 25 40 morning, which is a 12-step matrix. Is it your -- is it your opinion that this new matrix replaces any and all other SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That new matrix, the 12-step, COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We would then, in the SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's correct. Okay? Now, of this, is -- let me explain. Some people were given raises -- other ones, okay, and two steps and three steps, and they did that. And it was unfortunate, and the Court couldn't see it, I couldn't see it, Barbara couldn't see it, nobody could, that -- what the flat raises did. But you talk about some in here, and this one was minutes of that same day when everything was adopted, and involving a different person, and it says, "Is that 3 percent plus 2,000?" Commissioner Williams says, "Right." And it goes on; Ms. Nemec says, "Okay, 28,009 would be the 19-4." So, what they're doing is, in that step and grade, to give that person their -- that ~, 2,000, instead of giving it flat, they moved them up steps, which kept everything in sequence and kept it compounding up. What they -- and it's the same percentage of raise, except now that person, when they've got a year's employment or four years employment, their next step is 2 1/2 percent. And F-12-06 41 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 that's what this Court did with numerous employees back during that time. Unfortunately, what happened with the flat with the deputies and jailers and dispatchers, instead of doing the 2 1/2, or moving them up steps, they gave them flat, and so now that employee, regardless of how long they work here, when they go up, it cuts it to a 2, to a 1.98, 2.1. They no longer got the longevity that all the rest of the employees did, and that's where we fell behind. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think we all understand unintentionally, we impacted the 2 1/2 percent grade structure, and now we just have to decide if we want to make a ~ decision to restore that. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I think 2 1/2 percent was adopted -- and Rex can verify this, yes or no -- from the time of the Ray and Associates, when it was first presented to the Court, and then it was adopted by them, and every court meeting, every agenda after that, they refer to it as 2 1/2 percent that was adopted. When the Nash study came in, they referred to the steps as the Ray and Associates steps. When we got to talking about the budget processes, all the court minutes, and I have hundreds of them, show -- and it was even asked by some Commissioners and Judges at the time, is a step 2 1/2 percent? And they say yes. So, I think it was well 6-12-06 42 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 documented that it was. Now, what happened was the Court never ordered at all that 2 1/2 to be changed. They ordered this to be implemented, and the only way that it could have j been implemented without changing that was what Beltrone said, But the Court never, So, my problem with adopting it now, Jonathan, is that today, okay, by what the documentation in the court is, today we're still not following and not paying the officers, okay, what they were supposed to have been paid through the longevity and the step and grade. And why the last three years was so important is, when the Court adopted the educational along with this longevity, deputies at that time -- before then, education didn't mean that much, so at that time, a lot of them went on their own time at night, everywhere else, getting their schooling, 'cause a lot of them had the years, 'cause it does take years to get to that next step. So, most of the steps that have been given throughout the department that kept people here and kept us in equity with other departments were during the last three years, which is what caused the deficit so bad with the department with those employees . And that's why I'm suggesting if I come up with it, let's make it even now instead of keep going wrong for the next four months. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The problem isn't fixing this ti 12-06 43 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 year. The problem is next budget year where we have a $100,000 hit, which is a large amount for us to figure out how to pay for, and will probably impact other employees. And that's my -- you know, I understand and I applaud you for coming up with the funds in your current budget, or through some of the other funds that you have access to. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: When it was adopted, you made the exact same comments in the Commissioners Court about the long-term that was adopted that way. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I just think -- I mean, I agree with Commissioner Baldwin; I'd like for Rex to take a look at from it a legal standpoint. And a determination if -- you know, from what I'm hearing from you and Mr. Beltrone, is that we -- the raise was done according to what the Court ordered. And if that is true, I don't think the Court is obligated for an adjustment. I think we need to do an adjustment, because I think we're going to get things so far out of kilter, we'll never know what anyone's getting paid. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The base salary was done as to what the Court ordered. That's why I keep trying to stress this is two separate issues, okay? The base salary is what the Court ordered then, and whether you put the COLA on top or the -- or the raise and then the COLA. But the court orders that had not been followed, okay, and were not then, is the longevity and educational that was approved, even going back E-12-06 94 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 to educational, not longevity, back to 1985, and adopted in policy. And I can even give you quotes in the minutes, okay, where you state that we adopted this policy, talking about it, okay? At that point, you have one-half of the court order that was followed. You have another half of the court order that second half was to do individual step and grades for every officer. So, it's not that it was followed, okay? Part of it was, but part of it, just as binding, was not. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I understand that. And -- but I also -- I'm not -- my final comment on this, I'm going to defer it to Rex. I don't want to really vote on it today, but I think we have to rely on court orders. During the -- the way this Court has worked since I've been on it as a Commissioner is that we discuss a lot, and I frequently change my mind 180 degrees during the minutes discussion phase. So, the fact that I said one thing during the discussion doesn't mean that I didn't change my mind by the time the vote came, and I think you have to look at the actual court orders as to what the Court decided to do, because we do freely and openly discuss things in this body. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: If you remember back when Judge Tinley took office and all the budget stuff, the budget is adopted after all the discussions and everything. You will not find court orders on any of those things there that are 6-iz-oe 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -- 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ^^ 2 4 25 discussed in it, so what you're looking for as a direct written court order, okay, is an overall issue of adopting the budget, and not an individual piece after that 2003-4, And it appears to me the consensus is that we want to take a look at this, study it, look at the legalities, get some input from the Auditor, possibly. Does any member of the Court have any -- anything further, motion or otherwise, to offer on Item Number 27 -- or Item Number 23 on the agenda? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Judge, I don't have a motion. I -- you asked the Sheriff if he'd done any calculations about the impact, officer by officer, on this. I'd suggest that that would be something very valuable for the Court to see. So, if he could show us what would be the impact by each officer if we restored the 2 1/2 percent effective the last day of September? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Anything further from anybody on the Court? Let's move on, if we might. We have some timed items, and at this time I will recess the Commissioners Court meeting, and I will convene a public hearing concerning the revision of plat of Lots 19 and 20 of Hidden Hills, as set forth in Volume 6, Page 362 of the Plat Records, and located 6-iz-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 46 in Precinct 2. (The regular Commissioners Court meeting was closed at 10:09 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 plat of Lots 19 and 20 of Hidden Hills, that plat being set forth in Volume 6, Page 362? Hearing or seeing no one coming forward, or -- or asking to be recognized, the Court will close the public hearing concerning the revision of a plat of Lots 19 and 20 of Hidden Hills, as set forth in Volume 6, Page 362 of the Plat Records. (The public hearing was concluded at 10:09 a.m., and another public hearing was held in open court, as follows:) P U B L I C H E A R I N G i JUDGE TINLEY: And the Court will now convene a public hearing concerning the revision of plat of Lot 25, Twin Springs, as set forth in Volume 7, Page 167 of the Kerr County Plat Records. Is there any member of the public that wishes to be heard concerning the revision of plat of Lot 25, Twin Springs, as set forth in Volume 7, Page 167 of the Plat Records? Yes, sir? Please come forward. Give your name and address, please. MR. KING: Judge, Commissioners, my name is Steven King. I currently reside at 311 Ridge Road, Kerrville, Texas. e-iz-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 47 I own property in Creekwood, am currently building a home in Creekwood. I come before the Court on this -- on this matter, the division of the lots in -- in Twin Springs, Number 25. I have no objection to the -- I don't have a dog -- I don't own any property in Twin Springs, so I don't have -- actually have an issue with the division of the property in Twin Springs into four separate lots. And in the plat, I believe that's how it's done. My problem will be -- is more concerned with what is -- what's going to be done with the 25 acres that's not left in Twin Springs. There's four lots that are divided out of a 128-acre tract. Three of them are dedicated for -- for Twin Springs, to be left in Twin Springs. The other lot is -- will be handled in a matter in a hearing after that. So, I -- my objection is to the remaining acreage. JUDGE TINLEY: If you'll just remain close by, we're going to be calling that other one shortly. Is there any other member of the public that wishes to be heard concerning the revision of plat of Lot 25, Twin Springs, as set forth in Volume 7, Page I67, Plat Records? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's another gentleman back there that raised his hand. DODGE TINLEY: Well, I saw a gentleman raise his hand, but then he exited. MR. NELSON: I'm -- JUDGE TINLEY: Please come forward and give us your E-12-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 48 name and address, please, sir. MP,. NELSON; My name is Mark Nelson. I live in Creekwood also, live at 890 Twin Springs Road. And my concern also is concerning the additional land that may be platted into Creekwood from Twin Springs. You know, I'll follow Steve on that. JUDGE TINLEY: Very well. I'll call that one shortly. Any other member of the public that wishes to be heard concerning the revision of plat of Lot 25, Twin Springs, as set forth in Volume 7, Page 167, Plat Records? Seeing no one else coming forward or -- yes, sir? MR. RENO: Yeah, I want to say something. JUDGE TINLEY: I'm like an auctioneer here, "Going once, going twice, going three times." MR. RENO: My name is Jimmy Reno. I'm an agent with Sherron Properties in Kerrville. It's my understanding, and I think Lee will verify that later on, that the 25 acres that the two gentlemen are in question, that property is already in Creekwood. It was double-platted. It was in Twin Springs and Creekwood; there was a mistake made, And, so, what we're trying to do is take that tract out, not out of -- we're not trying to add it into Creekwood. I just want to make that clear. It was already in there, and we're just trying to put it in one or the other, and so that's -- that's what that's about. E-ia-oh 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 25 JUDGE TINLEY: All right, sir. Thank you. Any other member of the public that wishes to be heard concerning the revision of plat of Lot 25, Twin Springs, as set forth in Volume 7, Page 167, Plat Records? Seeing no one else asking to be recognized, I will close the public hearing on the revision of plat of Lot 25 in Twin Springs as set forth in Volume 7, Page 167, Plat Records. (The public hearing was concluded at 10:13 a.m., and another public hearing was held in open court, as follows:) P U B L I C H E A R I N G JUDGE TINLEY: I will now convene a public hearing which was scheduled for 10:10 a.m.; it's past that time now, concerning the revision of plat for Lot 1-A, Creekwood Section V, Roman numeral 5, as set forth in Volume 7, Page 160 of the Plat Records. Is there any member of the public that wishes to be heard concerning the revision of plat for Lot 1-A, Creekwood Section V, Roman numeral 5, as set forth in Volume 7, Page 160, Plat Records? Mr. King? MR. KING: Yes. Judge, if Lee would clarify this for us, maybe we can stop a lot of yapping here. I mean, can he just -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That'd be helpful. MR. KING: Can we ask him to do that? If not, we're going to -- we're going to bring forth the subject. JUDGE TINLEY: Let me clarify, if I might, Mr. King. 6-1_'-06 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 1 22 23 24 25 50 At a public hearing, we can take comment, -- MR. KING: Right. JUDGE TINLEY: -- but insofar as being able to debate the issue -- MR. KING: I understand. JUDGE TINLEY: -- back and forth, we're not able to do that. That, obviously, would come up under Items 11 and 12, it appears. MR. KING: Sure. JUDGE TINLEY: If you'd like to tell us your position with regard to -- conditionally or otherwise with regard to whether or not it falls one way or the other, that's what we need to listen to now. MR. KING: Will we have an opportunity -- will the public have an opportunity in the discussion stage of -- of Item -- JUDGE TINLEY: Yes. MR. KING: -- 12? JUDGE TINLEY: Yes. MR. KING: We will? JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, sir, absolutely. MR. KING: Okay. Then it'd probably be better if we waited and let's let Lee voice his opinion, and we'll -- we can make the same presentation. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 6-iz-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 51 MR. KING: Thank you. Save some time. DODGE TINLEY: We hold the public hearings; we've advertised them. We're obliged by law to do that. And -- MR. KING: Sure. JUDGE TINLEY: -- I know you understand that. MR. KING: I understand that. Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Is there any member of the public -- any other member of the public who would like to be heard concerning the revision of plat for Lot 1-A in Creekwood Section V, Roman numeral 5, as set forth in Volume 7, Page 160 of the Plat Records? Seeing no one else seeking to be recognized, T will close the public hearing for the revision of plat for Lot 1-A, Creekwood Section V in Volume 7, Page 160. Let's reconvene the Commissioners Court meeting, if we might, please. (The public hearing was concluded at 10:15 a.m., and the regular Commissioners Court meeting was reopened.) JUDGE TINLEY: And we will go first to Item 10; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action for revision of plat for Hidden Hi11s, Lots 19 and 20, as set forth in Volume 6, Page 362 and 363 of the Plat Records, and located in Precinct 2. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, do you think now would be a good time to tell Steve about the one-minute limit? 6-iz-o6 52 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (Laughter.) Probably not a good time. So, his time's kind of I up, huh? JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Odom? MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. This plat was done in the ~ alternate plat process. It's combining two lots, Lots 20 and I 19, into one that will be 80 acres, which is 19-A, as you see Ian the revision. At this time, I ask that you approve the revision of plat of Lots 19 and 20 of Hidden Hills. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Making larger lots? MR. ODOM: Taking two and making into one larger I Jot. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval. COMMISSIONER SALDWIN: Second. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second -- third. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of the -- approval of the agenda item. Any question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. We'll move to Item 11; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action for revision of plat for part of Lot 25, Twin Springs Ranch, Section II, Roman numeral 2, as set forth in Volume 7, Page E-iz-nn 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 25 116'7, and located in Precinct 2. Mr. Odom? MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. This is a revision of Lot 25, which is one big lot, Twin Springs. It's dealing with a portion of three lots being carved out of this one lot, and one lot abandoned back to 25 -- back into Creekwood V, which is another agenda item. Each lot is over 29 acres and meets all Kerr County regulations. Therefore, I ask you to approve the plat as presented, and I'll turn the time over to Lee, if -- also, may I also say that the City needs to sign this. And i so -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: ETJ. MR. ODOM: And he will be taking that to the City for their approval to sign this, and then present it back to the Court. JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Odom, let me ask you, if I might. Would it be appropriate, do you think, for me to call the next agenda item so that -- these seem to have some pretty good overlap. MR. ODOM: They have some overlap. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let me go ahead and call I Agenda Item Number 12, then, to consider along with 11; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action for revision of plat for Creekwood, Section V, Roman numeral 5, as set forth in Volume 7, Page 160 of the Plat Records. This will keep us clean for discussion purposes. 5-iz-o6 .. 54 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I just have one question before Mr, Odom or Mr. Voelkel launch into the explanation here. A question was raised as to whether or not adjacent property owners were properly noticed. Is it correct that the only notifications that needed to go forward were for those who own property in Twin Springs? MR. ODOM: That's correct. And Creekwood V -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not necessary to notice anybody in Creekwood V, because there's only one owner, and i that is the owner who is petitioning the Court; is that correct? MR. ODOM: For this -- that's correct. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. Okay. MR. ODOM: This agenda item deals with the 25-acre portion of Lot 25 in Twin Springs Ranch as being added to Lot 1-A of Creekwood V, making a 380.19-acre lot. Also, this also would be contingent on the City. This has to go before the City Council to sign off on it, and I would recommend approval for that, and turn the time over for discussion to Lee. MR. VOELKEL: Thank you, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Voelkel, let me ask you a question, if I might. MR. VOELKEL: Yes, sir, JUDGE TINLEY: The 25 acres that is going to go from Twin Springs to Creekwood V -- 5 - 1 % - ~ b 55 1 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. VOELKEL: Yes, sir? JUDGE TINLEY: -- is that 25 acres already in Creekwood V? Has it been overlap-platted? MR. VOELKEL: No, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MR. VOELKEL: Now, let me back up a little bit there, 'cause I think there's some confusion. There was -- ~ the original Creekwood V there is -- when Creekwood V was platted as two lots, this 25 acres was a part of one of those original Lots of Creekwood V. The owner of the property, who owned Creekwood V and some lots in Twin Springs, replatted both subdivisions and put this 25 acres out of Creekwood V into Twin Spring Ranches, Section II, which was the replat that he did. At that time, again, we replatted the lots in Twin Springs and recorded that plat. We replatted Creekwood V at that time and recorded that plat. The desire now is for the owner of both properties -- again, Creekwood V and the Twin Springs Ranch II properties -- to replat the one lot in Twin Springs Ranch II, which is the large one, cutting it into four pieces, leaving three of those lots in Twin Springs Ranch I II and taking that 25-acre tract that was originally in Creekwood V and now putting it back into Creekwood V. JUDGE TINLEY: As a separate lot, or incorporating it with another lot? MR. VOELKEL: Incorporating into a larger lot, so 6-12-06 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 that there's still only one lot, and it's a large lot. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In Creekwood V? MR. VOELKEL: In Creekwood V, that`s correct. Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One owner? MR. VOELKEL: One owner. And I will also add to just what Mr. Odom said, 'cause there's some confusion over the ETJ, probably, still. The reason that we're going also to ~ the City for review and approval, the ETJ traverses the I property. If it would have been completely in the ETJ, my understanding is the City would have handled that, but because there are parts in and out, we're going to both governments for approval. JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. King, I think the answer to my question was yes and no. MR. KING: Yeah. JUDGE TINLEY: It wasn't already there, but it's coming there as part of an existing lot, just to make it larger. MR. KING: Right. Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: Is that your understanding? MR. KING: That's our understanding. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MR. KING: Our opposition to this, Judge, is severalfold. There's -- there's one -- in Creekwood, there's ti-12-06 57 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 Subdivision I, II, III, IV and V. There's two homeowners' the middle of this property. Not -- actually, it goes through the lot below, the 350 acres, Lot 1-A of Creekwood V. We -- we have two separate ownership -- two separate homeowner groups, and we have one road entering Creekwood, which is maintained by Creekwood I. Our opposition is to adding any more acreage into Creekwood. I mean, Creekwood -- it may have been moved out of Creekwood, but we really don't want it back. We'd just as soon leave it in Twin Springs. If I bought that lot yesterday from Mr. Burgess -- if I would have bought that lot yesterday, my access would have been through Twin Springs. It would have been an 8-mile -- almost an 8-mile trek down Spur 100 all the way back around through Twin Springs, all the way back through to get to this lot -- to get to access to this lot. If you take action on this today and approve it to move it into Creekwood, access to that lot will be about a mile and three-quarters through Creekwood, through our road - through the road that Creekwood I maintains. This lot here will not have any ownership, any maintain -- they will not maintain that road in any way. It will be maintained by Creekwood I. We pay all the bills on that road. They drive on it. It's through an easement, an easement that was given a F-iz-o6 58 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 long time ago. It's a screwed up matter, but we are trying to work through it. And we really just don't need any more acreage back there, to be honest with you. If it is one lot, I will agree with you, it would be a 380-acre lot. Today it would be a 380-acre lot. It has been surveyed by Lee; it has been surveyed for division into eight lots. There is a -- there's a certain -- there's a map out on it. In fact, property has been shown, and -- and prices have been quoted on the property as individual lots, not as one piece. It hasn't been quoted as one piece, but it has been quoted in individual properties. So, it is my anticipation that this -- this property will be back before the Court in -- in the near future as a subdivision, and that is the reason it is -- it was -- it was platted as Subdivision V. So -- so, our opposition is -- is mainly the access, is access back through our road, this property. You're allowing -- we have a 25-acre restriction in our -- in Creekwood. These are two separate subdivisions completely, and there's two separate values of property, I feel. I looked in Twin Springs to buy before I bought my land, and the 8-mile drive didn't really appeal to my wife. The access through Peterson Farm Road, or Creekwood Drive now, is much simpler and much easier. Upon subdivision of this property, the access will be through that road again, and we will already -- then we'll be adding eight more families to that road. 6-12-06 59 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Approximately 140 acres of that land will still be in Creekwood II, as will this property here. The rest of it is in Creekwood I already currently. So, it's -- there's a little bit more to it than just moving property back and forth. We were not natified, as we were not required to be notified, Commissioner Williams said, because Gene owns 100 percent of Creekwood v. But there are two separate subdivisions, two separate homeowners' associations there, and I think in the future, courtesy would -- would prove prudent to notify -- notify us so we can have representation, and so I don't find out about these things at 3 o'clock on Friday afternoon. I know he's not required to do that, and I guess that legally he doesn't have to, but we already have a lot of hard feelings back in that subdivision already because we have a I and a II, and I think one of the few things we've been able to agree on this thing is the fact that we don`t want this 25 acres brought back into our subdivision. Questions? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, but I have a comment, Steve. It sounds like, you know, it's a civil issue between the neighbors out there and how many homeowners' associations you have and all that. Doesn't have anything to do with this Court, in my opinion. And we -- we can't -- we've talked about this many times. This Court can't make decisions on what might happen or what could happen or maybe going to E 1'-06 60 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 happen. MR. KING: Sure. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That kind of thing. We make decisions on the information that's before us. MR. KING: I understand. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You know, and I -- MR. KING: I will say that -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- I don't see what's wrong I here. MR. KING: You're adding -- you're changing the -- you're changing the ownership in our subdivision, is what you're doing. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand your argument and your concern. But I'm wondering, however, if those concerns are not better expressed if, as, and when the owner comes back in here for a plat revision of Creekwood V. MR. KING: According to our bylaws, he can divide it into 25-acre tracts; we'll have no standing in that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But he still has to come back to the Court. MR. KING: He still has to come back to the Court, but he'll meet the -- he'll meet all the rules of the county, and he'll also meet the rules of our subdivision -- of our subdivision, so we'll have no standing there. I think -- I think the access issue is a question, to me. You guys, by 6-1^_-0~ 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 approving this, you're -- you're changing the ownership and the percentage of voting rights of our subdivision. He will own a different percentage in Creekwood II over what he owns now. And it's not saying that's a bad thing, but you are now -- you're saying you have no impact, Buster. You do have an impact on the subdivision. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How? How does this affect Creekwood II? MR. KING: You're adding acreage into Creekwood II. You've added 25 -- you're adding 25 acres into the Creekwood II homeowners' association. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, association. MR. KING: You're -- the subdivision was all one chunk, and it was metes and bounds on the whole -- on the whole subdivision. They divided into two different homeowners' associations. You are changing the ownership in that subdivision -- in that particular part of the subdivision, by adding it to it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I mean, I -- I understand your concern. And my question, really, is probably to Rex. I don't see that the County has any -- I mean, a dog in the fight, really. I mean, it's an issue between homeowners' associations and how they were done. MR. KING: Sure. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't -- I understand that we 6-1^_-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 62 have -- that we do impact homeowners' associations, but I don't know if that -- we just don't really get involved with homeowners' associations. Access, we clearly do have an issue with. And as long as Creekwood V has access to the road, you know, I think they're -- you know, we almost have to approve it. MR. KING: Sure, and I understand. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, now, that being said, you know, there may be an issue on the access. I don't know. You ~ know, I don't know that we would get involved with that homeowners' association. There may be a civil action to prevent them from dividing it and adding more people to it, but I don't know that it's a Court decision. MR. KING: So, you have no -- so, if I understand it, the Court has no control over additions to subdivisions? In other words, if I bought 1,000 acres adjoining this subdivision and I came to you to plat that 1,000 into Saddlewood -- plat that 1,000 acres into Saddlewood and make it a part of Saddlewood, that's not an issue with the Court? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we do have the ability to on the size of the subdivision acreage being added to the subdivision. But the basis of it being a homeowners' association, I don't think that -- that is not the reason, I think. MR. KING: I understand. Well, if you take the b-12-06 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 homeowners' association out of the -- out of the argument, you are adding -- you are adding acreage from Twin Springs into Creekwood -- into Creekwood. And there -- you're influencing the value of that land. That 25 acres of land is worth more when you -- today, voting to put it into Creekwood, than it is voting to leave it in Twin Springs. JUDGE TINLEY: The current owner of Creekwood V -- MR. KING: Yes. II JUDGE TINLEY: -- Section V, is there one owner? MR. KING: There's one owner. JUDGE TINLEY: Of all that property? MR. KING: Yes. JUDGE TINLEY: And that's the same owner that owns I this 25? MR. KING: He does own the 25, yes. JUDGE TINLEY: So, we're not dealing with someone putting acreage into -- MR. KING: No. JUDGE TINLEY: -- somebody else's subdivision. MR. KING: No. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- and this may have a -- you know, I'd really probably refer this to Rex. Once this revision is done, it's under our new rules. If they come back to do another revision, it's going to be under our new 6 12-06 64 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 rules. I don't know the nature of how Creekwood -- how the road that accesses any of these lots was made, but our rules have changed substantially. There is a very high likelihood we're going to require a major upgrade of that road. I don't know how -- I mean, I don't know Creekwood V. I don't know -- MR. KING: There's no road. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But there will be a requirement, if this lot is divided on the access side, to prove that this road is -- I'm suspecting either a local road or collector road. MR. KING: There's actually no road currently into Creekwood V. JUDGE TINLEY: Well, any road that's done, they're going to have to provide access to this. MR. KING: Sure. COMMISSIONER LETZ: At some point, they're going to have to go back all the way to the beginning, probably, and upgrade for that. I don't know how it was built, so there's a road issue. I mean, from a quality standpoint, I think the County does have -- MR. KING: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- an issue, you know, how far -- what's done at Creekwood V does, because you're adding lots. MR. KING: Sure. 6-12-06 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 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And our new rules, which have been approved, clearly say that that's a direct issue. MR. KING: As I understand it, on that point, Jonathan, I believe that this association has been before -- and I'm not representing the association in any way. This association has been before the Court on that road, I know, i i Bill, at least two times. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: At least two times. MR. KING; L believe the -- one of the conversations, the Court did say that if there was increased density -- increased density in the subdivision, that that would call for a reevaluation of the road coming into Creekwood. In other words, if you added another five families out there, would that change the issue at all? COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that does, but they're not doing that here. MR. KING: No, they're not doing it here. No, I agree. I agree, Jonathan. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not yet. MR. KING: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Next time. MR. KING: See you later, guys. JUDGE TINLEY: Anyone else have anything to offer with regard to Agenda Item Number 12 -- 11 or 12, revision of the Twin Springs or Creekwood V? Yes, sir? Please come 5-12-06 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 forward; tell us what's on your mind. MR. NELSON: My name is Mark Nelson, 890 Twin Springs. Steve said it. I'm here representing Creekwood II along with some other people, and I think he represented our case as well as his. I'm just very concerned, as a homeowner in Creekwood II, that this is setting a precedent about allowing other homeowners or other property owners to bring more property in, and therefore, increasing the load on our roads. You know, we have spent tens of thousands, if not more than 100,000 on improvement of these roads, because they are private roads, and we don't really want any more traffic on them. Now, whether that's something that you decide or -- or what, I really am not -- I'm not really aware, or, you know, I don't really know. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think we'd have more opportunity to discuss it in detail if, as, and when the owner comes back for a plat revision of Creekwood V. And that, then, tells us what the road's going to be, where it's going to be, and how it's going to tie in. We don't know that today. MR. NELSON: Right, but there's no -- again, the way I understood it, there's no way he -- he doesn't have to notify us. We just have to kind of watch the minutes -- or watch the agendas. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He has to notify us, though. 6-12-06 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 67 MR. NELSON: Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And he has to publish it in the paper. MR. NELSON: Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And it was published in the newspaper also, so -- JUDGE TINLEY: Let me see if I see where you're coming from. MR. NELSON: Sure. JUDGE TINLEY: You're under not the Creekwood I homeowners, but Creekwood II? MR. NELSON: I'm the Treasurer of Creekwood II, yes, ~ sir. JUDGE TINLEY: So, unlike Mr. King in Creekwood I homeowners that stands the expense of improving the road, am I correct in my understanding that Creekwood II does not have an ongoing obligation to maintain those roads -- homeowners' II? MR. KING: No, they have an easement. MR. NELSON: Is that question directed to me? Oh, it's directed to me. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. ~~ MR. NELSON: We don't have an obligation. We have a moral obligation, and we're reviewing that. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MR. NELSON: But we don't have a legal obligation. ~-iz-oF 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 68 JUDGE TINLEY: Notwithstanding the fact that you don't have a legal obligation for the financial responsibility for maintenance of those roads, it might serve you -- your concern is future density. MR. NELSON: Right. I mean, among other things, I yes, sir. Yeah, among other things, JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, thank you. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And increased traffic volume on the road. MR. KING: Right. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let me see -- JUDGE TINLEY: All the density brings. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- see if I'm understanding the issue. Is the motivation of the owner of this lot to have it moved into Creekwood a shorter route of access to this lot? MR. KING: It will be -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is that the whole issue? MR. KING: Well, I don't know his motivation. I was not privy to that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We can't look into his -- in terms of motivation, but he's got hundreds of acres of property out there he's been trying to sell for some time, and so this is an opportunity to -- to perhaps move some of that property. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Currently, he's got a long 6-12-OH 69 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 access route, and this will provide a shorter access route. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The long access route is to Twin Springs right now, which is out Spur 100 and into Twin Springs. And if you're splitting off this piece of property from Twin Springs, you're adding it to Creekwood, the contention is that, ultimately -- not necessarily today, because the owner hasn't -- isn't before the Court with a plat revision for Creekwood V in detail, but the contention is that ultimately, that enables a shorter access to Creekwood V. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- you know, listening to Commissioner Nir_holson made me think of something, and I'm -- again, I probably have to look to Rex on this, is the precedent that this does a little bit. And it -- to pick on another subdivision, let's take Stablewood. Relatively small lots. Let's assume there's 1,000 acres that one of those lots spend any money on roads, so he buys a lot bordering it and in Stablewood, and then goes in and does a -- comes to us and says, "We want to do a revision of plat and include that whole 1,000 acres into Stablewood." That's the same thing that we're doing here, really. And, you know, if it's just one lot still, I see it's not an issue, but as soon as that lot gets divided, it has a huge impact on -- on the whole Stablewood and those private roads. So, I -- I stand by -- I think I have no problem with it; I don't think we have any reason to e-iz-o6 70 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 do it, but as soon as this lot gets divided, I think it's a big issue for this Court. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: To be taken up when he comes back for a revision of plat. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, at that point. So, anyway -- MR. KING: I agree. That's the issue we were trying to get forward, was that -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are we on 11, Judge, or 12? JUDGE TINLEY: We're actually on both. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would move approval of the revision of plat for part of Lot 25, Twin Springs Ranch II, Volume 7, Page 167, in Precinct 2. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion and second for approval of Agenda Item Number 11. Any question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (Commissioners Baldwin, Williams, and Letz voted in favor of the motion.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I didn't vote. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. With regard to agenda Item Number 12, does any member of the Court have anything they 6 12-Oti ~1 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 wish to offer? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would move approval of a revision of plat for Creekwood V, Volume 7, Page 160, in Precinct 2, as presented to the Court. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of Agenda Item Number 12. Any question or discussion? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I do have one comment. JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, sir? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And I think what Commissioner Letz said is quite appropriate, and that those who are working with the ownership of Creekwood V should be aware that when an ultimate plat revision comes before this Court, the issue of density and the road and where that road ties in will become fair game for discussion next time. JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or comment? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (Commissioners Baldwin, Williams, and Letz voted in favor of the motion.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Nicholson abstains again. Why don't we take about a 15-minute recess here? (Recess taken from 10:39 a.m. to 10:55 a.m.) 6-iz-o6 __~ ... 72 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: Okay. Let's come back to order, if we might and we'll get back to our agenda. Item 3; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to approve Lexis-Nexis contract to replace Westlaw as the provider for online legal research in the County Attorney's office. Mr. Emerson? MR. EMERSON: Thank you, Judge. As presented in the backup material, what we're requesting the Court to do is, Westlaw has served us with an amendment for notice of price increase, and I believe based on that amendment, that we have a right to terminate their service with 30 days notice, and I would like to do that with the County Attorney's office. Westlaw has been averaging us $561 a month. With Lexis, I can reduce the cost to $225 a month with an expanded database and no additional charges, and subsequently save the County about $4,000 a year. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I move to approve. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of the agenda item any question or discussion on the motion? Ms. Uecker, who's the provider upstairs in our Law Library? MS. UECKER: West. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We may want to take a look at -- MS. UECKER: We're locked in right now, so they can't do anything right now. It'll take five years. E-i^_-oe - ~ ~. r __ ~- ... 73 1 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: Yours is a different situation than the County Attorney's office is? MS. DECKER: Yeah. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Does that motion need an authorization for someone to sign? MR. EMERSON: The Judge, please. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve and authorize County Judge to sign. JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions 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. Let's move to Item 4; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to reclassify a current employee from step/grade position of 22-2 to a 17, Step 5. Yes, sir, Mr. Stanton? MR. STANTON: As in the backup documentation that was provided to the Commissioners Court, this was part of the original program or the original design when we set up the program to change over the facility. We had a person that was a case manager out there who agreed to reduce her salary to stay on in the facility and work as a shift supervisor. The H-12-06 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 74 current shift supervisors that were hired out there -- that are currently out there that had been out there were hired in at a step -- or, from what I understand, in July of '04, at a Step 17-5. And what I would like to do is reduce the person that was the case manager down to the same pay scale as the other shift supervisors. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This person's filling a slot that we had agreed -- agreed upon? MR. STANTON: Yes, sir. It's not a new hire; it's a person that's been there, and they've agreed to take the reduction in pay so they can stay on out there as a shift supervisor. JUDGE TINLEY: But they're moving into a different slot with a different job description and different job responsibilities, and what you're asking pay-wise, the step and grade that they'll be moved into is a step and grade for that new job slot, new job description, new job responsibilities? MR. STANTON; Yes, sir. DODGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. I COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval i of the agenda item, Any question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. 6 12-06 .___._._..~,,.. ~ _r ~ ~ ~ a ,._~._.r~__ ~ ~ -_- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ~s (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 5, if we might. Consider, discuss, and take appropriate action regarding an agreement between Cameron County Juvenile Probation Department and the Kerr County Juvenile Detention Facility to house juveniles in the event of an emergency situation when and if Cameron County is ordered to evacuate. MR. STANTON: I received a letter from David County -- or I guess the Hester Juvenile Detention Facility. And what they are requesting is a continuation of a program I guess that they've had with Kerr County for an extended period I of time; that if, for some reason, the Cameron County Juvenile Detention Facility has to be evacuated due to hurricanes or other emergencies, that we provide bed space for their kids here in Kerr County. From my understanding talking to Mr. Tumlinson, this agreement has been in place for a few years, and I think they've used it one time, and I'm not sure if it was last year or year before last, and they brought kids down here and they stayed a day or two, and Kerr County did not charge them for that stay. And he's wanting to continue that agreement. e-iz-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 ~6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Didn't we do something like this with some county that brought their own employees? MR. STANTON: Well, probably Cameron County and Nueces County. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Nueces, we did. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Was it Nueces? MR. STANTON: And Cameron County is saying they'll bring -- they're going to bus them. If they have to bring kids up here, they would bus them up here and bring employees to supervise their juveniles while they're here in the facility. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, the only cost to us would be food? MR. STANTON: Food, electricity, those types of things. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I don't see any language, "at no cost to Kerr County" in here, and I don't think that's in here. MR. STANTON: No, sir, it's not, From talking to Mr. Tumlinson, he just said that last time they did it, they were here for a few days, and they didn't receive a bill. We do not currently have a contract with Cameron County to house their juveniles. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we need a -- I'm looking to Rex, as I frequently have today. We need a contract so -- 6-12-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 77 I mean, there's issues that come up while they're here as to how legally we handle it, and I think it needs to be clear that Kerr County taxpayers don t pay. I m glad to help our neighbors to the south. I understand we have other issues like this, but it needs to be paid for by the taxpayers of I Cameron County. i COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That ought to take care of the liability issue, whatever they may -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Whatever we have in our standard agreement, they need to sign that and agree to -- you know, kind of the same thing we did with Nueces -- I think it was Nueces we did recently. That seems like a -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do we have a sample of a contract for Nueces? Is there one? MR. STANTON: We have a standard contract, a normal contract with Nueces County, housing their kids for $83 a day. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. So it's a little different, then, in terms of this. This is an emergency situation where they're asking us to take them in. MR. STANTON: Yes, sir, COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They weren't planning to pay the per diem, or they were? MR. STANTON: Doesn't sound like, to me, they were, from the phone conversation. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Maybe it wasn't Nueces County, 6 -12-OE .. ____..~ r ~ ~... ~ _... i ~... ~s 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 but I agree with Commissioner Baldwin. MR. STANTON: We had -- Nueces County brought in their boot camp kids. From what I understand, they were I housed in the gym area for a few days. And I'm not sure if Nueces County was billed for those services or not. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, Kevin, why don't you get with Rex and come up with an emergency-type contract that takes care of this. If we can get a standard form that goes with all counties, I'm glad to help all of them if we have the space available, but I just want to make sure it's not at our taxpayers' expense. And we need -- and any of them, I think we probably need our standard contract with as well. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Cover the bases. MR. STANTON: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody else have anything further to offer on that particular agenda item? Let's move forward, if we might, to Item 6; consider, discuss, and -- I thought I saw 11:00. There's an 11 o'clock item. I apologize, we missed that 11 o'clock item. Tt was a timed item. Let me go to that, if we might, to Item 16, a timed item for 11 o'clock. The agenda item is being fired arbitrarily by Kerr County ~ Rabies and Animal Control. The request to go on the agenda was made by Kim Evans and Rhonda Sanchez. Are either of those individuals here present today? (No response.) 5-iz-oe 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 JUDGE TINLEY: Apparently, they've elected not to pursue that at this time, so we'll pass that item and take no action on it. Let's go back, then, to Item 6; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action for variance to road specifications for proposed manufactured home rental community at 150 Lydick located in Precinct 1. MR. ODOM: Yes, sir, thank you. Thursday we had a ~ meeting -- Commissioner Baldwin, myself, and Steve Howard -- I about a lot that he had off Ranchero. The road is Lydick that we maintain. It's about 2 acres of land. And discussing about asking for variances, one of the variances was the fact that the road is very narrow; the location -- a drainage plan and a location of septic systems and all. We had -- Tish was there from O.S.S.F. to talk about this, and I really, at this point, would like the -- Commissioner Baldwin had some questions that he wanted, and I went out and took a look at some things, but I -- if Buster wants to ask me some questions, I guess I could -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What do the rules say about the right-of-way width? MR. ODOM: 30 foot. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Zt's 30 foot. And that would be fairly impossible for this guy to do. MR. ODOM: That is correct. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And so what -- what would you E-i2-oF s. s _ _ ~ 1 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 recommend would be a footage? MR. ODOM: What I measured was this -- let me get this. As you can see by the drawing, this detail, there is a house up front and a fence. I would say 20 foot, Buster. I measured that 17 foot to the fence up front, and 19 feet to the back. I see no reason why he cannot remove that section of fence back to get us 20 foot. The other thing is -- is that he has -- as he discussed with us, he has that telephone pole at the end. It is the acre. He's got a down wire, and that is the acre leading down Lydick to Ranchero. I believe that he can put a pole as a dead-man and put that -- the guy down on that dead-man pole right there and qet up above, because of the angle -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. MR. ODOM: -- right there. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: My whole deal in this thing is that the road part of this whole issue is not a big deal. It's on private property, and we're talking about granting a variance of a few feet for this guy. Now, he -- he clearly understands -- he's already hired an engineer to do the drainage study and those other things that he has to do for a manufactured home deal. But the road thing, I thought, is not that big of a deal. It's just private land. It's not going to be service trucks in and out for us to require big -- MR. ODOM: Cul-de-sacs. E-1?-06 a . ~ ~ -'-~--_. ~ 81 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- big paved highway or a cul-de-sac, that's right. And so I wanted to grant him a variance on the road, and the road only. COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's the acreage? What are we talking -- MR. ODOM: Acreage is around 2 acres. It is in the ETJ of the City of Kerrville. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It is? MR. ODOM: It is. And it -- but they do not have any manufactured home rules. So, for him to subdivide it, he could not subdivide it if it was less than 5 acres. And if they have a centralized water -- I mean a sewer system, then they have no rules whatsoever. So, here's a situation where an individual has a home which is made his office; I mean, that's clearly the headquarters for his water company. He has one mobile home here, and he has another back up against the K.I.S.D. school grounds. Right now, the road is not any -- there's no way to get ditches. Our Subdivision Rules say that if you go over 99 feet, you're to have a cul-de-sac, so that would have to have a variance. The other says it's 30 foot; we're talking about 20 foot being realistic to get down it. I have some roads that are 20 foot. This is only one mobile home back here. And that is not paved; it's a pea gravel road, and the other variance would be from the paving aspect. COMMISSIONER LETZ: If you pave it, that has to be G-12-06 ~ ~ ~ _~.~~ 82 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 brought to standards, doesn't it? MR. ODOM: Well, then you're going to have profiles as far as, you know -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not for this size. MR. ODOM: Huh? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not for this -- if it's -- this would be a country lane. MR. ODOM: Be a country lane, but even at that, the pavement would be 18 foot. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, but we don't have plan and profiles for country lane. I know you haven't looked at the final version. MR. ODOM: Okay. I don't need them -- you know, I think some type of drainage coming down off of it. What I would be concerned about is, look at the mobile home park down from it going back towards Ranchero. K.I.S.D. has got open land, a playground back there. I don't see just a great deal of runoff, but there'll be road runoff, the fact that you have a trailer up there. COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's it -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This -- this owner of this 2 acres or so currently resides on the 2 acres? MR. ODOM: That is his office right there. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And he wants to put one mobile home on it? b-iz-oE 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 MR. ODOM: Weil, who's to say that this is home of record. This is his office for the water supply company. He already has an existing mobile home on it that was present when he bought it. Now he's wanting to put a third one, which would -- which strikes the manufactured home rules. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. Go ahead. MR. ODOM: And, Jonathan, I don't know if you want it paved or not. I think you're better off, as far as drainage is, not to have impervious cover on that right there, the way that -- the way that is. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm just saying under the rules, it's up to him. It's a country lane, you know. MR. ODOM: Otherwise, he can't do it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The City has no say on -- MR. ODOM: The City, if he was trying to subdivide this, do an alternate plat on this right here, and he would have the high-density rule. He could do that, if the Court so chose, 'cause it's centralized water. He has a water system. They say that they don't have mobile home rules, but if he was to subdivide it, he couldn't do it if it was less than 5 acres. Could be only one mobile home on it. You'd have to have a centralized sewer system before they would allow you to do what he's planning to do right here. COMMISSIONER LETZ: How many septic fields does it have right now? 6-12-06 _ ~ 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 MR. ODOM: Oh, it has to be two. There's a house there, and then another one for that mobile home. MS. HARDIN: He has two existing, and he's asked for a third one. MR. ODOM: He's asked for a third one. I COMMISSIONER LETZ: He can get three legally? MR. ODOM: To my understanding, Tish -- we had O.S.S. there, and they said yes. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, the fact that the City may not have a separate set of manufactured home rules is one thing, but are they not obligated to follow ours under the interlocal agreement, Commissioner? We have them. MS. HARDIN: I think the City just says platting a subdivision. MR. ODOM: Platting a subdivision, not manufactured homes. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because the -- the statute that makes us get together on this only addresses subdivisions, and it didn't address O.S.S.F.; didn't address, evidently, manufactured homes, didn't address a lot of things, which is why people still have to go to both entities to do -- basically, to do a subdivision. In other words, the law was rather faulty. I'm not real inclined to go along with it. I mean, I'm not real sure -- seems like we're granting a lot of variances; I'm not sure what they are. I certainly would want 6-12-Oo 85 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 them written -- listed, be very specific to as what we're granting variances to. Road width, road type. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Cul-de-sac. MR. ODOM: Cul-de-sac. i COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Width, pavinq, and cul-de-sac. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Width, paving. And I know that the City's -- well, the reason -- one of the major reasons for the manufactured home rules is fire, and cul-de-sacs and having access to them. That was the -- MR. ODOM: This is 276 feet, is what I got this morning. That's over 99 feet, so part of that would go into the septic system, is the way it looks like. The cul-de-sac would hit into the drainfield. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Leonard, this is Kerrville South Water Company that's -- that provides the water? Or this is for Kerrville South Water Company? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They own it. MR. ODOM: They own it. He told me that he owned the water system. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. MR. ODOM: O.S.S.F. is -- there's four things to look at. One is roads, one is drainage, one is O.S.S.F., and the other one was -- I just had it in the back of my mind. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Drainage. ~ iz-o6 86 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: Drainage. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Lots of variances. MR. ODOM: A lot of variances. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, he's not going to -- he's not going to get a variance on anything but the road. Everything else, I want -- I wouldn't even do this unless he totally agreed with me that he's going to do everything. He's already hired an engineer and is moving forward with it. MR. ODOM: Moving forward to do it for the drainage I and all. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, I'm going to make a motion that we grant a variance on the road issue for -- at 150 Lydick Road, the road specifications for a manufactured home rental community at 150 Lydick Road in Precinct 1. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The variance would be for the road only from our Subdivision Rules, and that variance would allow him to do what? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: To get in and out of his ~ property. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: country lane under our specs? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON cul-de-sac. MR. ODOM But not have to build a Correct. Not have to build a 20 foot wide instead of 30, non-paved, 6-12-06 a _. 87 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 private road. They maintain it. No cul-de-sac. That's the variances. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What does that do for us in the future, Leonard? MR. ODOM: Setting precedents. And I would say that we'd have to have an agreement that we'd have no more mobile homes put in there. That would change the drainage and everything. You've got a bad situation up there with two places on two acres. If it wasn't to be rented out, it could be storage or something like that; wouldn't be that big of a deal. His intent is to rent it out, so now you have two or more rental units on the property. JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion. Do I have a second? (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: Hearing no second, the motion dies for lack of a second. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Very good. Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Any further -- any further discussion or matters to be considered in connection with that, with Item Number 6? Let's move on, if we might, gentlemen. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Judge, if I could comment on the agenda in general, I see that we have a number of citizens here who I believe have an interest in Item 1.21. If we could fit that in before lunch, that's the library budget issue. 6 12-06 a 88 1 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: On an empty stomach? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If we could, it would be a convenience to them, but go ahead. JUDGE TINLEY: Well, we've had some gentlemen here since the beginning this morning also on Item 13, so I think in fairness to them, why, it's proper that we go forward there. Let's take up Item 13; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action for revision of plat for Lot 60, Wood Trails Ranch, as set forth in Volume 9, Page 98, Plat Records of Kerr County. Mr. Odom? MR. ODOM: Yes, sir, thank you. This was -- we had a public hearing on this revision on May the 27th of 2006. Before us now is a preliminary for dividing this one 5-acre lot into three lots. There's a community water system that serves the subdivision. With division, Wood Trails -- with this division, Wood Trails will have an average of 3.98 acres average. Our rules call for -- if it's centralized water and O.S.S.F., you have an average of 3 acres, so it's -- like before, we're -- we're above that average. There's 125 lots. They're going to add two to it, so it's 127 lots. Late on Friday, Commissioner Letz requested that we place this on the agenda, so I -- I think it would be more appropriate if Mr. Voelkel or Mr. Letz or Mr. Siff would address this issue as far as water is concerned and legal opinions. Rex was gone last week, so I wasn't able to discuss it with him, but I 6-iz-oH 89 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 understand that he had talked to Jonathan, as well as Lee, and had an opinion that we should go ahead and approve the preliminary plat, is my understanding. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Let me make a brief comment about why I got involved with this late Friday. Mr. Siff has been before us on this matter several times, and at the last meeting, I think we pretty much said we'll bring it back after talking to Rex, and it kind of was a -- it was last-minute to get it through Road and Bridge on the agenda, so I did ask they put it on there, 'cause I think if we told them we're going to deal with it, we need to deal with it. I've talked to Rex at length. I've talked to members of Headwaters' board. I talked -- I think I've talked to Gene. Maybe I've talked to Gene about the water issue on this, and it gets down to a -- as to who can enforce what, is the bottom line. We -- we can require a plat note -- Rex, please correct me if I'm wrong; I'll try to summarize this. We can require a plat note that says no individual well, but we can't enforce that plat note. We are -- the law doesn't give us the ability to say, you know, you can't drill wells. It just doesn't say on that issue. When it comes to water availability, it doesn't give us any additional enforcement ability. Headwaters has to look at their own rules as to whether they can enforce, they feel, a county rule or county law, and that's something that Headwaters has to answer internally. 6-12-06 __ 90 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Since this came up, we've looked at the rules a little bit, and the final revision over the weekend and last week, and I've tightened up the language a little bit so that I think it makes it a little bit clearer. But I don't really think it's fair for Mr. Siff to -- you know, I think we need to do kind of whatever was before him at the time when he presented this. And the rules are -- there isn't a substantial change, but we added language, no individual wells, as well as there will be a note on the plat that was not a requirement prior to the newest revision over the weekend. It's kind of a loophole that we had in the rules. I tightened it up some after talking with Rex. I don't know that it solves the problem, that if someone has a water system, and somehow they get cut off of that water system, they may be able to drill individual wells. And I don't know how you get around that. I mean, I don't know. We can -- the alternative for the County is to not allow a smaller acreage for water systems, and I think that's counterproductive to the County. So, I think you just have to have a little bit of good faith with people. Headwaters has their rules; they try and enforce them. I think they -- I think they have a pretty good shot at enforcing a rule that we have on the plat, but that's something that Headwaters has to answer themselves. Is that kind of a fair summary, Rex? MR. EMERSON: That's pretty close. The one E-iz-o6 91 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 additional thing the Court can do is require the seller to place a note in his sales contract stating where the water's going to come from for these additional lots. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that's under Chapter 232. MR. EMERSON: Right. And that creates, obviously, an enforceable action by the purchasers of those lots. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What if you don't have a buyer and a seller, you have a daddy and kids? MR. EMERSON: However they're going to deed -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That is the issue here. MR. EMERSON: However they're going to deed those lots, you can require that water note to be in there. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: In the deed? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Help me get up to speed on this. At one time, there was a possibility that these three lots were going to be able to be included on the -- a public water system. Is that -- MR. ODOM: A community -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Has that possibility been exhausted by the owner? Somebody is nodding back there. MR. SIFF: Well, that was the first thing you asked me to do, and the day you asked me to do it, I wrote the check and had it sent over. And the man that received it at Headwaters wouldn't take it, literally. I did exactly what 6-12-06 92 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 you asked me to do. I'm sorry, I apologize. If I'm understanding you, Commissioner Nicholson, correctly, the first time we made -- please correct me if I make a mistake here. I was asked to go back to Headwaters and apply for a nonexempt well, which costs an additional $1,200. I had to pay $300 and they needed $1,500. I wrote the check and applied for that, and I thought we were going straight forward. And the man who received the check, whose name I can't remember right now -- MR. VOELKEL: Headwaters? MR. SIFF: Headwaters. But the man at Headwaters who received it called me -- I was back in Houston -- and said, "I've got this check, but you don't really need this nonexempt well. You can do what you want to do with an exempt well that you already have an application for, so I'll just put your check in my drawer." COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, your plan as of today is to have one well, private well that serves these three properties? MR. SIFF: I think it's -- is that correct? MR. VOELKEL: The plan for today, and we've got the -- Dave, just to bring you up to where we are, there's a new note on the plan that now says that this subdivision is serviced by a community water system. It's the Wood Trails property owner's water system. In talking with Headwaters and 6-iz-oe r - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1L 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 93 the people that -- that deal with that, the obligation of that water company, if he requests for taps, is to provide the taps. Now, the cost of that may be something that Mr. Siff will have to deal with, but that's the understanding that we're getting now on water systems, and that's the reason we I have gone back to putting a note, I think, that this is serviced by a community water system, to eliminate the shared well concept. In other words, the best thing for Mr. Siff to do if and when this plat is approved is to go back to the water company and ask for those taps. JUDGE TINLEY: Let me -- before we were talking about a shared well, neighbor well, whatever. But in Wood Trails Ranch, there ~s a -- a regulated water system that has a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity. MR. VGELKEL: Correct. JUDGE TINLEY: And serves that system, so they're obligated to provide water to everybody within that subdivision on demand. Is that not correct? MR. VOELKEL: That's my understanding. MR. SIFF: My understanding as well. JUDGE TINLEY: And that being the case, there would never be any need for anybody to make application for any water well, exempt or otherwise, would there? MR. SIFF: Well, unless they -- JUDGE TINLEY: You got water. F 12-C5 - _ ~ ~_ 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 94 MR. SIFF: Well, yeah, that's correct. JUDGE TINLEY: So we've taken out the issue of their ability -- if they have water otherwise available to them, about the need for a well. I think that was the concern Headwaters voiced previously. That if -- when it was a neighbor-to-neighbor thing, across lot lines, if there was some sort of a family feud or some difficulty, the water got shut off, and one of those owners went before Headwaters and says, "I don't have any water from any other source; therefore, I want a well." Headwaters says, "We think we have to give him the ability to drill a well to get water," We don't have that now. MR. SIFF: Right. MR. VOELKEL: Correct. MR. SIFF: Community system, yeah. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What we have here, if I were the owner of this, I'd be looking at this as a pretty convoluted bureaucratic process that's disallowing me the opportunity to use my property in a profitable way. So, from my point of view, it doesn't make any difference to me whether he drills a well or he compels the system supplier to provide him water. If he can't compel the system supplier to provide him water, then he has to drill a well to use his property. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, he has -- I think he has a civil action against the provider. 6-1? OF 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 29 20 21 22 23 24 25 95 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What possible reason would the provider have to not provide the hookups and water? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think they're at capacity. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pardon? COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're at capacity. They'd have to drill another well. I'm not sure if -- that would be i a reason. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do we know that to be the I fact? MR. SIFF: We know that's what they say. And we -- I'm sorry. They have been telling me for the entire time I've owned the property that they're at capacity. And they've also simultaneously been telling me that they've applied for an increase of capacity, and anticipate at any moment to receive approval to increase that capacity. That's been going on for about a year and a month. So, my position is, I'd like the -- well, I continue to ask them for taps, but when I'm ready to build on these other two lots, I'd like to be able to drill a well if I have not been successful with them. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: To your knowledge, are all of these other lots in Wood Trails Ranch -- are they all sold? MR. SIFF: They are not sold. And there are many that don't have taps, and there are many that are for sale where the realtor says, "Let me tell you before we go any s iz-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 96 further, there isn't water availability; you'll have to drill your own well." COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And so the water purveyor is not putting water out to all these lots at the moment. MR. SIFF: Not since July lst of last year. I'm -- that's the extent of my knowledge. It may go way back before that. I COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, all of that really is -- I mean, with the -- I think there's some civil action against the water company, but that doesn't make any difference to us. The current -- I mean, our -- our rules that Mr. Siff was going by when we said that did not have a requirement that the plat have a note that no individual wells be put on there. State law gives us the ability to put that -- the deed restriction type note on there, so I think we can do that. I would prefer Mr. Siff agree and we look at the situation here that these three lots may only have one well, and that the other two lots, you know, are not -- you know, to kind of force a -- a community system within a community system. MR. SIFF: That was my assumption when I walked through the door today. That's what I thought would -- I mean, that's my -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON; Can you turn that into a motion? MR. VOELKEL: Before you do, sir, would that be s-1,-oE 97 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 something you'd like added to the -- as a plat note? Just to make people aware of that? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, and I think also the language that Rex referred to; it's in Chapter 232, about it being a deed restriction as well. Is it -- is that what you would determine a deed restriction? MR. SIFF: Where any transactions require the seller to add that? MR. EMERSON: Correct. MR. SIFF: I have no problem with any of that. I'm -- you know -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion that we approve the revision of plat, with the condition that an additional plat note be added that Lot 60-A, 60-B, and 60-C shall be served by a shared -- a single shared well, and whichever lot that well is located on, the other two lots have deed restrictions preventing future wells to be drilled. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as indicated. 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 carries. 6-12-06 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 I9 20 21 22 23 24 25 98 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, did we take care of Number 10 after the public hearing? JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We did? JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I forgot to mark it off. MR. SIFF: Thank you very much. I appreciate your help. JUDGE TINLEY: Let's go to Item 21, if we might. Consider and discuss the Butt-Holdsworth Memorial Library budget recommended by the Library Board. Commissioner Nicholson? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What you have in your package is some documentation that's required by the City budgeting process. That's the last part of it, a number of pages. It's their -- what they call a base budget. And I think a good definition of a base budget would be, how much would it cost to continue operations for next year as you have this year? The -- the one thing that it does not -- well, it may not include several things. It certainly doesn't include any pay increases for the employees, so what you have is documents that were submitted to the City Manager and to the County Judge that describes the cost of the library exclusive of pay increases. This -- this document was reviewed in some detail by the Library Board, and it was a unanimous vote to 6-12-06 99 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 report this out to the City Council and the Commissioners Court as what it would take for -- to provide the same services for next year as we've provided for this year, exclusive of pay increases. They don't total the divisions. I add them up to $942,239, and I think you see that note on -- on one of the worksheet pages. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How much is that, Commissioner, over this year's total? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Over what? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The 942, how much greater is that than this year's total? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This year's total is 822,913, so it's approximately -- JUDGE TINLEY: I calculated 14.5 percent. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: $120,000 more. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You'll see where my -- my thoughts and my interests lie here pretty quick, but -- and this is part of it. In the Library Board meeting, was there any discussion or any questions about it going up 14 percent? Or -- or just, "This looks good," and get on down the road? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No. No, that's a pretty -- pretty diligent board. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: They went over most 6-12-06 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 100 everything item-by-item. How much does coffee cost? How much do we spend for books? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Every item. COMMTSSIONER BALDWIN: Good. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Didn't find any easy opportunity -- easy-to-achieve opportunities to hold down or cut costs. And you'll remember a discussion we had earlier ~ where we saw that 80 percent of the costs of the library are payroll and payroll-related costs, and then another 12 percent are materials that are needed to -- to continue a functioning library, and then that leaves only 8 percent of electricity, repairs, coffee and -- and that sort of thing. So, the big -- the big opportunities are not in the details. The big opportunities are in the staffing levels. Let me go on. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Some time ago, probably about ten months ago, this Court asked me to present to the Library Board -- S think it was five questions, and they did answer those questions, except -- except the last one, which was what changes -- what changes in the library operations and staffing would be indicated in order to meet a next year's budget of $620,000? Which is approximately something over $13.50 per capita. That question wasn't answered at the time, but, you know, if we move forward to the next document that's 6-12-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 25 101 headed "Memorandum," dated May 16, '06, is an answer to that question. And that answer essentially says we'd have to cut library hours of operation back to something on the order of 43 or 44 hours a week from the current 10 or 12 hours a week by doing that, you could -- you could reduce the number of -- you could reduce the number of librarians by two, and reduce a full-time clerk and two part-time employees. It goes on to say that also required to meet that reduction level would be a reduction in spending for books and other materials, subscriptions and annuals, lease book program, supplies, training, et cetera. Okay. With all that in mind, Commissioner, I think Let me say, I'm not going to ask or propose that we make any decisions on these options today. This is trying to get ahead a little bit of the budget creation process curve, give us time to debate and consider and think about these options before we get down toward the end of the budget period. I I think the three options would be to accept the proposed -- the business-as-usual proposal, and to pay 50 percent of the costs of the library as proposed for next year. Second alternative would be to pursue some user-pay scheme that would say people who use the library who do not live in the city limits of b-1~-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 25 102 Kerrville have to pay a fee that would be significant, a fee that would be sufficient to fund the cost of the library by the non-city users, And the third option would be to recommend all or part of this proposal that would reduce the cost of the library to the $13.50 per capita level, And -- and I'll say one more thing, and then I'll quit and listen to you. I'm -- I'm not persuaded that reducing the amount spent on books and other materials and subscriptions and annuals and lease book program is a good idea. That's kind of a going-out-of-business case, in my mind. If you're going to have a public library, you need to equip it with the most up-to-date and correct number of publications and books and other materials. I'll go ahead and say that it's my opinion that reducing the library hours to 43 or 44 per week is not much of a sacrifice. I think if you ~ have an interest and a need to use the library, that you -- that that large a window each week should bring you -- provide you with an opportunity to use it. That's my thinking. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have a -- a general question, since 1 don't understand. If -- how does a base-line budget build in a 14 percent increase? And that's before you get salary increases, which is going to be the larger part of it. I just don't understand how you -- how you get there and have it base-line. I mean, I'll add one more statement; I see Commissioner Nicholson's thinking on that one. I would think 6-12 06 103 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 -- I mean, say the -- I mean, the cost-of-living index, whatever it is, is going to be, say 3, 4 percent, somewhere in there. We should take the current budget and add 3, 4, 5 percent. That should be the base-line budget, and that ~ should already include salary increases. That should be built up into the whole system. I mean -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I think there's a real distinction here. You -- we're talking about base-line versus zero-based. If you're talking zero-based, you would be right on target of what you're talking about. It would be last year plus whatever the agreed upon increase for personnel costs would be, and some finite items, as opposed to base-line. I think there's two different models. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can someone explain to me base-line versus zero-base? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think Commissioner Williams just did. Zero-based means that your budget next year will be exactly the same as it was this year. That -- well, no, that's not what it means. I'm way off base. Zero-based means you start with nothing; start with a blank sheet of paper, and you build up what kind of a budget you want. Base-line, by the City's definition, is what will it cost you, excluding pay, for instance, to provide the same services next year as it does this year? And the details of how it got larger, I can't explain. It's cost of electricity 6-12-06 104 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 -- not counting salaries, it costs 14 percent more to stay where we currently are. And if you add salaries on top of that, assuming the City gives a 3 percent increase or something like that, the impact that will have on the budget is almost a 20 percent increase -- between a 15 or 17 and 20 percent increase, just keeping things equal, and I don't -- just don't see how that makes sense to me. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's just to turn key in the lock next year, having -- turning key in the lock this I time. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The chairman of the Library Can you provide any better MR. LIPSCOMB: I can certainly try. For the record, ~Tn }in nav; r] T,i nscomb. I reside at 909 Lake Drive here at Kerrville. I have before me the definition of base budget; that might be a good place to start. Let me just read, if I might. Base budget is the amount in the upcoming budget year necessary to conduct the same programs and to deliver the same level of service as in the current year. Normally -- excuse me. Normally, the only differences between the current year budget and the new base budget are costs that cannot be avoided or that are non-reoccurring. Base 6-iz-oh _._. .~ .- - .._._ ..__ r 105 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 adjustments or changes made to the level of funding in the current year in order to bring the same level of programs and services in the new budget year. That's the end of the definition. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, I -- okay, I accept the definition. Did the City -- or has it been easy to determine from the City's budget where the major changes are -- the increases are? MR. LIPSCOMB: I think it's related to personnel services. And I'm not certainly an expert on the City's budget and their -- and their associated problems, but I believe they've had a large increase in insurance-related costs, and so that's a factor that kicks up, as well as some, probably, merit raises. I'm not sure. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Probably, this -- the reason to have this discussion today instead of in August or so, we need to be more -- need more help with the definition. I'm now wondering if the last -- this year's current budget was artificially low because of the issue of bringing money -- spending money out of the surplus, or whatever that was called. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Could be. That's a good point. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That may be a big part of the answer. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you know what would be n'-12-06 106 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 kind of an interesting thing, I think, is to apply a base-line budget to some of our people, like the Sheriff's Office, Road and Bridge. Maintenance, maybe. And see -- and apply the same theories as we did with the City on this issue, and see if they're still -- see, I'm with you, you know. How -- how did it rise to the 13 percent? Probably 20 percent, once you put -- install the salaries. How does that -- how does that happen when you're really dealing with a base-line? So, to apply the same thinking to the Sheriff's Office, to see, are they going to rise to 20 percent? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we've done that. I mean, I can't remember every year, but there have been years, I know -- I believe -- well, Judge Tinley's been here, I believe when Judge Henneke was here as well, where the direction was no budget -- zero budget increases, the bottom line, except for salaries and capital items that we approved item-by-item. I think we've done that several times. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's right, we have. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And would you -- by looking at that, would you think that one of our departments would grow 20 percent? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I wouldn't think so, not in a ~ year. COMMISSTONER BALDWIN: No, I could pretty much guarantee you it won't. 6-12-06 107 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess -- you know, and I think I would be very interested if either Commissioner Nicholson or Mr. Lipscomb could come up -- if the reason for the increase is spending down the reserve sum, that is the only explanation that makes sense to me that I've heard so far, and not saying that there aren't others possible. I'd be interested to find out. Has the -- I don't know if I want to even ask this question. I agree with you on the books and publications and that stuff. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I want to -- to get clear information on the rationale for this. I suggest that, soon, that I meet with the City Manager and/or City financial guy, and Mr. Lipscomb and I probably participate in that and get a good answer to your question of why is this base budget so much larger than what -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Commissioner Williams, is the lady we met the other day at the Airport Board, was she new to the City? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes. COMMISSIONER LETZ: They have a new budget -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: New finance director. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Finance director who is very, very good at answering these types of questions, from my experience. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think she's taken over for 6-1_'-(16 +.. ~. r - ~ - .. ~. 108 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Brian Brooks. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So I think that's -- I was very, very pleased with her analysis of the airport budget at our meeting last week. The other questions I'd have, and I'd like to refer them -- I don't know if the Airport Board has looked at or addressed these or -- one, what is the feeling of the Board about charging non-city residents a fee? Have they made a -- a statement on that? And, two, have they made a statement on any kind of reduction in hours? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's an interesting question. And I don't mean to preempt Commissioner 4 from responding, but I took the -- a look at the Division Performance Measures matrix in here, which gives you the -- essentially gives you the breakdown of who uses the library. A couple things pop into my head about that issue. And some of the responses, I'll get to those responses in a minute. COMMISSIONER LETZ: What page are you on? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, it's in this section -- it's in the section entitled Library Patron Services, on the right-hand side. You'll see a little title over there, Library Patron Services. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And it's several pages deep into that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, here it is. 6-12-OH 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 25 109 COMMISSIONER WILLIAM5: Division Performance Measures. I guess I'm wondering how that concept would work if we're seeking to suggest fees for people other than -- or people who live in the county, given that, by my calculation, 80 percent of the utilization of the facility are from residences -- residents in two or three categories who reside in the city, leaving the 20 percent factor for whose those who live outside the city limits; 38,449 total versus 9,600 or 9,700 in the county. So, there's a big disparity there; you i know, 80/20. And if you're going to impose a structure of fees, you're not going to gain a heck of a lot off of the 20 percent to help absorb some of the increases that are enjoyed by the 80 percent. One observation. I guess I get a little -- I get a little disturbed at the memorandum and what it purports to tell us, and how we came about getting it. You and I just had a minute's discussion about that. We -- the Court posed the questions, and you delivered the questions and framed the questions, which I thought were very good, and the Library Director responded to II the questions, and he did so in a memorandum to Mr. Hofmann ~ and to the City staff. And then I qet a phone call from the newspaper, and I think you probably got one too, wanting us to comment on the answers that we had never seen. So, that gives me some pause for concern as to why, if we ask the questions, they don't take you into consideration and deliver the answers 6-12-Oh 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 110 to you at the same time they give them to the news media. That gives me a little concern. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I think he gave -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Also, some of the answers that were given seem to show to me an unwillingness to examine alternatives, that we can't do it. It just -- it's just a negative approach in terms of trying to find solutions and -- and try to provide the same level of services while keeping a capital expenditure. So, I'm a little bit disturbed by all that. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner, to answer -- to comment on what you just said, and going back to your question about responses, the responses were prepared by a ~, subcommittee of the Library Board, and Mr. Lipscomb was part ~ of that, I believe. And they answered -- in this document i that you have here, they answered four of the five I questions -- or five of the six, including what would be the ~ impact of establishing a fee-based user -- a user fee for those who are not residents. And they brought up some good points, and points that, on the surface, are not really visible, like it's going to cost money to implement that program, have a collection process and all that. Supposedly should be considered. I think there was a reluctance on the part of the Library Director to -- to answer the last question, what does the 13.50 library look like? I think he b-12-06 111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 was finally persuaded that the question needed to be answered, and that was the result of the -- that resulted in that memorandum. MR. LIPSCOMB: And if I might make a comment relative to the press getting that, too, I was also contacted. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm sorry? MR, LIPSCOMB: On the press release on that memo, I was also contacted, and tried to discourage them from printing anything because we were very premature in this, and pointed out that at that point in time, the Commissioners Court had not received our answer yet. It wasn't until the 30th that I was able to hand the Judge the material, and I'm very sorry all that happened. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I appreciate your comments, David, because that was the second part of what disturbed me, was that having not received the answers back, then we're confronted with an editorial chastising us for whatever we hadn't yet done, or heard about. MR. LIPSCOMB: Yeah, it was unfair, in my opinion. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Doesn't solve anything. MR. BENHAM: The news media -- may I address that specific point? JUDGE TINLEY: I'm going to -- soon. I`m going to see if we're through with Mr. Lipscomb here. I'm going to come back to you, Mr, Benham. 6-12-06 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 25 112 MR. BENHAM: All right. JUDGE TINLEY: Any more questions for Mr. Lipscomb COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think I'll just make a little we've ever had before, it appears to me. I'm still a little bit frustrated trying to get numbers from the City. I don't know if you all share that frustration, or really trying to understand it or not, but I've -- you know, I still have a hard time understanding where some of these numbers come from. i Sut I do appreciate the work y'all have done, and certainly the persistence y'all have had in working with the City and trying to help. I would encourage you to continue working with their Finance Department and trying to help me, anyway, understand where the funding is going and why the increases are needed. And my questions are not that I don't want to fund the library. Certainly, I do. I just think it needs to be funded at about the same growth level as other county departments, and that's why -- the reason I really wanted that first question. And I also believe Lhat you all, as an advisory board, are truly looking at ways to do things better with the library, which I appreciate, I'm not so sure I get that same feeling from the Library Manager. F-iz-oE 113 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Z5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. You summed up my thoughts beautifully. JUDGE TINLEY: Any more questions for Mr. Lipscomb? Mr. Benham has filed a participation form, and he wants to be heard on this issue. And -- no, don't run off, Mr, Lipscomb. We may have some more for you. I'm sure you're not going to, anyway. MR. LIPSCOMB: No, I'm here. MR, BENHAM: Thank you, Your Honor. For the record, I'm Joseph Benham. I am a Harris -- a Kerr County taxpayer, live at 522 Rolling Green. I want to say some things that I hope would help answer some of the other questions, and I'll try to be brief, 'cause I know it's getting late, but I want to address the specific question of the news media. I want to take the Library Board off the hook, The reason the news media, or at least the Daily Times, got the information is, they commented on -- and I'm not about to get caught in the crossfire as to whether the wording of their editorial was appropriate. That's their problem. The reason they got it was 'cause I gave it to them. I was asking what -- where do we stand on this budget thing? Where -- you know, what can the Friends of the Library do? I'm sorry. For the record, I'm immediate past president of the Friends of the Library, and I'm their representative to government entities, including this one. I 6-12-06 114 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 wanted to know where we stood on this, and I didn't want to where we stand on this, and the response I got was, "Well, the County has asked that an analysis be prepared of the impact of reducing the library budget to $620,000 a year." Which I think, by any standard, you'll agree would be a very significant cut. All right. I happened to be going to the Daily Times office on -- to deliver some copy on something totally different, and I said, "By the way, I suggest you keep an eye on what's happening on the library, because there is some -- there's some numbers being prepared, or I think have been prepared that would -- would give the City and County the option, or would tell them what the impact would be of cutting that budget to $620,000." Now, I don't -- I have to say, gentlemen, I don't d anything wrong. I think it was a legitimate exercise of my role as a newspaperman, which I've been doing for just over 56 years now. I think I know a little bit about it. If my doing that puts you gentlemen in an awkward position, I will be the first to apologize. That was not my intention. I wanted to give them a heads-up on what I thought would be a story that, certainly, the library users and the taxpayers in general would be interested in. That was my only intention. I sure don't want to get caught in the crossfire s-i2-o6 -_._...._._.~_r. _ - -.._____.---_ _ - _ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -- 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 115 between -- between the County and the City. I have been shot at on occasions, and it wasn't much fun, and I could run get caught in that. But I don't want you to be unhappy with the people at the Advisory Board, because they didn't do this. I did it. I mean, I'm the one that planted the seed, at any rate. And if it has -- if it has resulted in something that you feel was inappropriate, well, I'll be the first one to apologize, but I want to tell you, it's not anybody's fault I but mine. i Now, I'd like -- and Z know it's late, I'll be as ~ fast as I can, but I'd be very remiss if I didn't take one sentence to acknowledge the help of County employees on our Memorial Day ceremonies. Judge Tinley and the Road and Bridge folks cleaned up the areas nicely around both the national cemetery and the war memorial outside this building. The Judge even helped carry the podium down to the parking lot for me to use in making the speech, and we are very grateful for the assistance we got on the Memorial Day things. Any of the rest of you who were involved in that that I'm not aware of, I thank you as well. Now, on some of the specific questions, I can -- I can address a couple of them. I'm nether an accountant nor a financial planner, and I have managed to avoid the bankruptcy court, but I don't claim any expertise much beyond that. 6-12-06 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 25 116 On the question of the costs of the library, the two areas that I think have to be understood, one of them is that the costs of printed materials go up and up and up. When I started doing book reviews for the Associated Press, the typical hardback book was in the 6.95 to 8.95 category, and very occasionally what they called a blockbuster would go for 9.95. Even if you go to Amazon.com or one of the other discounters, you're not going to find a good hardback book these days for under $20. One of the most heavily used used sections in our library is the medical section. It reflects the demographics of your constituents; as we get j older, we're more concerned about health. The Harvard Business -- Harvard Medical School tome and the Mayo Clinic book of illnesses and medications and so forth that's intended to make those things clear to -- to laypeople, those are 39.95 and up. I checked earlier this week to reconfirm that. Books have become extremely -- even a paperback; quarter. Some of you may remember that. You don't even find a paperback worthy of the name today for under $10 or $12, and i a lot of the paperback versions of -- of reference books and so forth are up around 20. So, even a paperback has gotten to b-12-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 25 117 be expensive. And the -- the large-print books cost more than the standard version, but large-print books, folks, are what your constituents need and use. Again, it reflects demographics. An awful lot of people in this county can't see the standard print well enough to read it any more, and they year towards the cost of those large-print books and the books on tape, which, again, provide a service that a standard book does not. But we can't pay it all. We do what we can, but we I can't underwrite the entire cost of the books on tape and the large-print books. One other thing. Now, I'm grateful for your patience. On the question of salaries and personnel costs, the reference was already made to insurance costs going up. I'm self-employed, my wife's self-employed, and we can sure -- we can sure attest to the fact that insurance rates are going up, as I'm sure you can. Another area, though, that I don't know has been explained adequately to you, is the fact the that our librarians, in order to keep their certification and in order for this library to keep its certification, have to go back periodically for what's known as continued education. Those of you who are attorneys or accountants are very familiar with that process. You have to get -- have to satisfy the accreditation bodies that you are keeping your E-iz-oh 1 '°" 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 118 expertise up to date, Those continuing education programs cost money, of all, you have to pay to get that certification -- continued certification. And secondly, understandably enough, when people get it, they expect to be paid a little more, because they're -- in theory, at least -- better qualified. It's like I j your doctor; if he or she is a surgeon and has put in it residency and kept that residency up to date, they expect to get paid more than the -- you just go in and they tell you to take two aspirin and call me tomorrow. So, there are personnel costs there that are unavoidable. Now, one last thing. The hours. A lot of the people who use our library cannot use them -- use it during what are normally considered working hours. They, themselves, work for a living. If you cut the hours of the library significantly, particularly Saturdays, Sundays, and evenings, you're going to put that library out of reach, not only for a lot of the adults in this community, but for their kids. If I get off at 5 o'clock in the afternoon and go home -- I'll back up. If I were a working person with kids in the nest, which I haven't been for a long time, but I know people who are. If I E-iz-o6 I '"' 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ~°- 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 "`" 2 4 25 119 were a working person with kids still in the nest, I get off at 5 o'clock, I go home and I discover that my child needs to go to the library, I can't get that kid back down to the library and have them do everything they need to do in the reference section, where you can't check things out, and be out of there at five minutes of 6;00, when they start shooing people towards the front door. Those evening and weekend hours are vital. If you 12:45 on Sunday afternoon, you will see people lined up, waiting to get into the library. Those people -- and you'll find them there in the evenings until five minutes of 8:00, when they start shooing them towards the door. The library is heavily used at nights and on weekends, and I would plead with you to find a way to avoid any significant cuts in the hours, because you'll be putting that library off-limits to some of the very people who need it the most. I know I've kept you here past 12:00. I didn't intend to do that, but if I can MR. BENHAM: Sure. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You're off the hook on the -- the disclosing the interest in what it would take to create a $13.50 per capita library. In an April Commissioners Court meeting, on the record, I was instructed to ask that question 6-iz-oH 120 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 of the Library Board, so -- MR. BENHAM: Okay. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- it was out there a long time before you knew about it. MR. BENHAM: I just didn't want anybody to be misled. Yes, sir? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just a general comment -- and I i think you understand it, but sometimes I wonder a little II bit -- is that a lot of our questions are so we get information as to when we start making overall budget decisions. At the time of these requests, there were very real proposals before the governor -- or before the I Legislature to put caps on county spending. To do our jobs, i we have got to look all possibilities. The fact that we look ~, at -- I asked Rusty a question as to how he's going to handle his personnel costs. That doesn't mean I want to cut deputies. It means I need to have an idea of these overall things. What bothers me is, every time we look at the library and other things, of cutting it, it's, "The County's going to cut this." We're trying to find out information. When we start really looking at the budget, I get quite offended, 'cause people caution us to cut the budget somewhere else. I think we are not doing our jobs if we blindly go in and don't ask questions from our own department heads and our other entities as to, if we have a budget shortfall, what F-iz-o6 121 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ^° 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 do we do? Because if we don't ask these questions ahead of time, our answer is, we do not have a plan. And I think we know, based on the hurricanes, what happens if you don't have a plan. We have to have a plan on how we're going to react to a high level, but I'm sure you also hear -- or I hope you hear ~ what I hear from all our constituents about the tax rates and taxes in this county. Be mindful of that when we start looking at these things. And we may have to go to the library and other departments and other entities and say, "We have got to do something. We cannot afford it." And if we don't handle it locally, I think we'll be handled by the Legislature, and then we will have them patronize us. MR. BENHAM: If I could just respond in one sentence to that, first of all, I commend you for getting a head start on this and doing your research ahead of time. I was delighted to hear that you were proceeding on this and not waiting until the last minute and say, "Oh, my god, we got to pass something." We have enough of that done in Austin; we don't need it at the local level. The other thing is, regarding the governor, I got a long, very angry phone call chewing me out recently from the governor's executive assistant, because I had been critical of the mishandling, as I see it, of our state finances by Governor Perry. I would be 6-iz-o6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2Z 23 24 25 122 the last one in the world to support the governor and the Legislature trying to run the county from the state capitol. So, for whatever it's worth, you certainly have my support in trying to keep local control of the county government. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Be sure and tell Representative Hilderbran that, and Senator Fraser when it it comes back up in the regular session. i MR. BENHAM: I told Harvey that, and he's mad at me too. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'll arrange to have Kinky i Friedman's chief of staff, Willie Nelson, give you a call. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I know my colleague to my right is hungry; his stomach is growling, 'cause I can hear it it. I do have one additional question of Mr. Lipscomb. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have a comment to make, too. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. On your documents that you proposed answering the questions -- MR. LIPSCOMB: Yes? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This -- I was going to ask this a minute ago, and it slipped my mind. I got it now. The question in the back as to how many library cards are currently in use and what would be the benefits of reissuing all library cards and reregistering all library users, the answer is, by category, active patrons are 16,339. Expired s-iz-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 25 123 patrons -- I don't know if that means that they're dead or if they're just gone away, but whatever it is, they're not using the library, apparently, and they are 29,620. And you take the total of the 29 and the 16 and you get 45, almost 46,000 patrons. Now, ~f the larger block of them are not using it or gone away or have died, why do we add those, and then why do we come back and say there is no benefit to the library to perform any reissuing of cards and knowing exactly who and what our patron -- or our user patron structure is? MR. LIPSCOMB: I -- I'd hesitate to give an answer. I'm not sure how accurate my answer is. I believe, on the expired patrons, if you don't use your library card over some interval of time, then you fall into that category. So, if it's a relatively short period of time, three months, you know, it may be someone out in the county that doesn't come in very often, get a book. If it's a year, you know, then yeah, maybe they've moved away. I really -- I'm sorry, I can't really answer that. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: My recollection is it's a and so there's a way of keeping track of those things. I can't swear it`s a year, but that rings a bell with me. MR. LIPSCOMB: Okay. Could be. And the act reissuing of cards would be an expense, because I believe the director told me that -- h-ia-oh 124 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Excuse me. (Swatted at a bug on the desk.) It won't die. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Don't say that again, COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He's still kicking. JUDGE TINLEY: My pet cricket. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Here's your parrot, Judge. MR. L7PSCOMB: Got a little critter there? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There's really nothing there. (Laughter.) COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's just black; he couldn't see it. MR. LIPSCOMB: I believe the director told us that they can't identify the residency just from the card; that they -- in order to distinguish between, for instance, a Kerrville resident and someone who doesn't live in Kerrville would require additional work. That's my recollection. And, so, it would be an expense to go back and reissue cards to get that kind of information, where it could be easily obtained. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand that. But I think the only point I want to make about it is, if we're talking about the number of patrons, it's a skewed number if you got 29,000 who are expired or not active. MR. LIPSCOMB: Yeah. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They should not be lumped up with the active patrons, because that's a skewed number. E-iz-o6 125 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 MR. LIPSCOMB: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Baldwin, you had a third second comment you wanted to make? i COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir, I do. Thank you. As an elected official, sometimes the -- one of the criteria I i use to make a decision is the -- the input I get from my constituents, the taxpayers of this county, whether they call me on the phone, they appear in here, letters to the editor or i whatever it might be. The only people that we have heard from on this issue are these folks here, are the only ones. And now they want to -- don't -- I don't know if I want to say increase the library budget, but certainly are not bending over backwards to look for ways to cut it in any way. So, you know, as an elected official, do we have -- do we have any other choice other than business as usual? You know, we don't hear from folks that say, "Let's figure out a way to use our money a little more wisely. I don't use the library, so cut me out of the picture." Somehow, I like that -- you know, if I take my elected official's hat off, as a taxpayer, I really like user-pay issues. I just think that that is -- I just can't believe that we can't get our arms around that theory and apply it in more ways than one. I'm going to eat. Bye. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: One last thing. I was in San Antonio; I went to the bookstore, and I was -- Mr. Benham, I was delighted to find Ann Coulter's new book was already 6-1~-D6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 126 there. It's paperback. It's $38. I don't own it. MR. BENHAM: Thank you for your confirmation. JUDGE TINLEY: Any member of the Court have anything further to offer in connection with Agenda Item 21? We'll be in recess ti]1 1:30. (Recess taken from 12:15 p.m. to 1:30 p.m.) JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to order. We were in recess until 1:30; it's a bit past that now. The next item on the agenda is Item 14, to set a public hearing -- where's our Road and Bridge guy? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Out building roads. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, we'll come back to that. We'll go to Item 15. Next item is 15, consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to accept TexDOT valuation on Spur 98 tract I and authorize conveyance of such tract to TexDOT, and in consideration of cancellation of Kerr County's outstanding right-of-way acquisition obligation to TexDOT, authorize County Judge to sign deed of conveyance to TexDOT. I put this on the agenda in consultation with the County Attorney. II Essentially, what we're dealing with is the Spur 98 property, where they extended that roadway up to the -- the bridge on the south side of the river. As I'm sure most of the Court members recall, the arrangement there is that we share in the right-of-way costs; I believe it's 90/10, and there are a F-iz-oE 127 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 have appraised this property at $38,000 to $40,000. Our -- of course, it's where their roadway lays. Our portion of that value, contribution-wise, would be 10 percent, which is approximately $4,000. They say there's a residual right-of-way acquisition cost that has accrued over the years for that project; I believe $17,000, $18,000, as I -- as I recall. And what they want to do is, number one, get us to accept their in-house appraisal at $38,000 to $40,000 that their roadway -- dirt that their roadway is built on, and number two, just wipe the slate clean by us conveying that to them. They'll cancel our obligation that's accumulated for right-of-way acquisition costs. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've got one question, Judge. JUDGE TINLEY: Yes? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: In this letter -- I guess this is a letter. Yeah, In the letter, at the very top, when it's describing the location, it's from James Road, which is correct, to Goat Creek Road. I don't know that we're involved in anything other than up to the bridge. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would the bridge not be called an extension of Goat Creek? 6-iz-ne 128 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, it's to Farm-to-Market 1338, which -- JUDGE TINLEY: Well, that's the project Limits. That's not what they're conveying. What they're conveying is in -- I've got a whole bunch of material here that I did not I include. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can you see how I would think I that? JUDGE TINLEY: Sure, yeah. Yeah, it indicates it goes to -- it indicates -- I'll show you here. Here, of course, is the river and the bridge, and it's this tract, and then it extends from this match line on further to -- here's James Road right here, so that's where it begins, and it does, in fact, just go to the bridge. And, in fact, 'cause you can see here it doesn't include -- there's another piece here that is actually on the approach, but it apparently doesn't include that. But -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Goes up to the approach. JUDGE TINLEY: Not on Goat Creek, no. It -- the project is defined as going to Goat Creek, but this particular conveyance does not. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. COMMISSTONER LETZ: Not only that, I was thinking -- I thought we acquired that right-of-way -- I guess we acquired the right-of-way; we just didn't settle on a value back, like, s-iz-oe 129 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 10 years ago? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Actually, it started a lot longer than that ago. JUDGE TINLEY: Way back. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Long time. JUDGE TINLEY: They weren't real tight on what they said was the outstanding obligation from Kerr County that they apparently advanced for right-of-way acquisition, which included some of our 10 percent. They said, I believe, 17 to -- 17 to 18 thousand as part of our 10 percent right-of-way acquisition cost, so that thing went back so far that their numbers weren't real tight. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval of the agenda item. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of the agenda item. Any question or discussion? COMMISSIONER LETZ: This includes an authorization for the County Judge to sign. JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 6-iz-o~ 130 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 i JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (NO response.) JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, also, on Item 14, I'm not sure that Road and Bridge needs to be present for that. We're just setting a public hearing for that item. I mean, I'm not sure -- JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: - - if they plan on coming back for that. JUDGE TINLEY: I shouldn't wait on them, is what you're saying. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I wouldn't. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's go ahead and take up Item 14, then. Set a public hearing concerning revision of plat of Tracts 9-B, 9-A, and 10-A of the NF-RB Ranch, Section TV, as set forth in Volume 6, Page 148, Plat Records. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move we set the public hearing for our second meeting in July, which is -- where's my calendar at? JUDGE TINLEY: 24th. COMMISSIONER LETZ: July 24th at 10 a.m. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll second that emotion. JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and a second. Any question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify h-12-06 1 _~ Z 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -.. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 °^ 2 4 25 131 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 quickly to Item 17; consider, discuss, and take appropriate ~ action to authorize Grantworks to advertise and conduct a public hearing on July 11, 2006, at 5:30 p.m. in the Kerr County Commissioners Courtroom on the proposed grant application for Phase 4 of the Kerrville South Wastewater Project in accordance with the guidelines of the Texas Community Development Program. Commissioner Williams? I COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Judge. This would be our opportunity to go back to T.C.D.P. for part of a million-dollar grant for Phase 4, which was always part of the plan. And the Court will remember that in order to accomplish Phases 2 and 3, because of escalating costs, we had to move the dollars allocated out of Phase 4 for construction of Phases 2 and 3. The window of opportunity to do this is August 31st, and that would get us -- get our application in line for consideration for the next funding cycle. This is all predicated on the contractor being wrapped up at that time, because we have to certify that all the funds that they have heretofore given us have been obligated and used. So, we met with him the other day, and we're putting a rocket under 6-iz-oe 132 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 his bulldozer to get him to move on forward and get this done. So, Grantworks, as it has done in the past, advertises and I conducts the public hearing, and that would be for anybody interested in the general public who wants to come out and I speak for, against, or indifferently about the continuation of that project. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Does Phase 4 include the mobile home park on the west side of Ranchero? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, Phase 4 should include that. The engineer's going to have to take another look at extending the line down far enough to get to that mobile home park, but that would be part of this, yes, Phase 4. JUDGE TINLEY: That's the Lydick Lane or Lydick -- whatever it is. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Correct. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's correct. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is 5:30 the best time for the public hearing, or would it be better to do it more in conjunction with a Commissioners Court meeting? And the reason is, this is something -- T mean, Commissioners Court meetings are generally fairly well attended. At 5:30, I'm wondering if anyone will show up. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't know. That's kind of the time that Grantworks folks typically set them. 6-12-06 133 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Doesn't make any difference. I'm just trying to figure out -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It'll be advertised, as it has been in the past. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I like the idea of doing it at 5:30 so people, when they get off of work -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: They can get here and have time -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's really the whole point. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, okay. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Do you anticipate controversy about this? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pardon? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Do you anticipate controversy about this? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not really. They've done all these in the past, and -- and very seldom do many folks turn out for them. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Made a motion yet? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would move approval of the agenda item as styled. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval the agenda item. Any question or discussion? All in favor of 6-12-06 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 134 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 go of unclaimed capital credits received from electric cooperatives within Kerr County cooperative service area, authorize County Judge to request for same. I put this on the agenda. There was recent legislation about which we were notified from the Comptroller's office saying that for these capital credits that accrue for co-ops -- in this case, electrical co-ops; they also accrue for telephone co-ops, but this is electric -- that we at least have an opportunity, if we will ask for it, and agree to use it for the purposes that the statute authorizes you to use it for, we got a shot at getting a piece of that money, and that's just one more little bit that we can chase. And I'm willing to prepare the necessary paperwork and request it if the Court authorizes me. COMMISSIONER LET2: And the funds have to be used for economic development, as 2 understand? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That, plus it says that the i Court could support Children's Advocacy Center with those dollars as well, providing services to abused children. 6-12-06 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 135 That's on the last page of the backup material. JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But, essentially, it's for economic development. COMMISSIONER LET2: I move approval of the agenda item and authorize the County General to -- County Judge; I called you County General -- County Judge to contact the Comptroller's office and request for our portion of electric co-ops considered capital credits. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Appreciate the promotion to general officer; I never got above company grade, you know. 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. Let's move to Item 19; consider and discuss organization development opportunities for Kerr County government. Commissioner Nicholson? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes. This is the second time we've looked at the alignment -- or organization of Kerr County. You asked me to bring it back again. And I view this as -- again, as part of the budgeting process. It's letting 6-12-06 1 ,_.. 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 '"' 2 4 25 136 us get an early start at the strategic level so we can get some definition about what direction we want to go on these "straw model," one that is not a proposal. It's something that begins to take shape, and it's easily knocked down if it doesn't work. So, I'm not going to give you a proposal, and I think it would be premature to have one, but I think we can move it down the road quite a bit with some discussion. A couple of preliminary comments. One of the difficult things to do when you're thinking about making organization changes, particularly if you're combining functions, a difficult thing to overcome is -- is putting names in the boxes prematurely, thinking about -- you might say, "Yeah, combining those two things would be a good idea, but what are we going to do about so-and-so?" There's a tendency to put the cart before the horse. Be better to begin by saying, "What's the best and most efficient organization?" and then agree on that, and then say, "Okay, how do we staff this organization?" I think I'd like to start with the two organizations shown there on the left-hand side under Commissioners Court, Code Enforcement and Infrastructure. 6-12-06 137 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Isn't infrastructure spelled wrong? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. Make an A out of that U. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What you see here is a grouping of some sub-functions that have some commonality under Code Enforcement. There`s probably a better name for it than that. It's -- it's five different functions that are involved in enforcement and administration of court orders. Solid Waste, Floodplain, Septic, Subdivision, and Animal Control. Those -- those functions are currently managed by two supervisors. They could be managed by one, and there will probably be some opportunities for synergy or efficiencies that we can't realize under our current -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Isn't it three? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Three. Animal Control, Floodplain, and Subdivision and Septic and Solid Waste, three different groupings right now. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's -- they're currently under three different departments. I don't know that Floodplain has a specific individual that that's the entire duty. COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. Right, it does not. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: He's -- it's a piece of Len ~ Odom's job, right? 6-12-06 138 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, it's 2.3 something. I i COMMISSIONER LETZ: 2.3 something. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Then, if you move over to the right, Infrastructure with an A, these activities seem to have some commonality, and that is maintaining, keeping up with, repairing infrastructure; buildings, roads, bridges, parks. I think that currently has two supervisors, and it could be easily supervised by one, in my opinion. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- and I'm asking -- probably leaning towards Commissioner Baldwin or the County Attorney on this, just 'cause of their years of -- or Commissioner Baldwin's years of service. Isn't there some requirements on funding, because the Road and Bridge is funded by a separate tax, that that function has to be used for that purpose? I mean, there's some -- isn't there -- I mean, is ~ there a problem with combining Road and Bridge functions too much with other departments? I was led to believe that somewhere along the line. Whether it's accurate or not, I'm not sure. And because it's -- because of where the tax is coming from to do that. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Other than the funds, I don't -- I don't see that it is. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, you can -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I can see how you keep it 6-12-06 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 25 139 separated out. COMMISSIONER LET2: Just have to -- the funds have view, there isn't any advantage to be gained by trying to pull that together under one supervisor. I could be wrong about that, but there seems to be such a diverse group of activities that that option's not completely available. I would like to move toward doing quite a bit of that work differently. Before get into that, let me say, I think, for purposes of clarity, you need to add three more functions there. I don't know if I left them out because I forgot them or because I assumed that they were -- they were clear. One of them's payroll, and I'm leaning toward contracting that, but that's still an open issue. Another one's safety; I just forgot that one. And the third one is a -- is a function that's needed here, and it's reception. Some -- traffic cop, somebody walking up and down the halls, wind up doing that, and if we had somebody out there doing reception, it would be a benefit to the -- to the users of the courthouse, but it wouldn't -- 6-12-06 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 140 it wouldn't be somebody sitting there filing their nails waiting for the next customer to come up. I would propose -- and I've talked a little bit about this to Commissioner Baldwin, that we add the -- some significant duties besides reception to it. So, what I'm getting at here is a suggestion -- not a proposal, a suggestion -- that we add an additional employee that reports to Commissioners Court. In addition to the current duties of the Commissioners Court Coordinator, that we add to these functions personnel management, which includes personnel files, reservations, passports, benefits administration, dealing with contractors and answering questions, benefits enrollment. Payroll, being the contact for the -- if we decide to outsource payroll, being the liaison or contact with that organization. Safety and reception. COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's RSVS? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Reservations. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Reservations? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah, reservations. That's scheduling the Ag Barn and the -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, okay. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- other facilities. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Other facilities. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Other county facilities. COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're not offering a travel 6-12-06 141 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 --- 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 '°" 2 4 25 1 service. 2 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I wondered. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, the next time we have an opportunity, whether it's in a Commissioners Court meeting or a budget meeting, I'd like to move that one along after you all have had some time to think about what fits and what doesn't fit, with an eye toward making that move. I would see it as not a -- an additional cost to Kerr County. I think that an addition of one person in this group would be offset by the reduction of the jobs in other places. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In light of the memorandum that we got, a lot of this makes sense, and you and I have talked about it in the past, particularly in terms of personnel management, the benefits administration, to see if we could figure out a way to roll that in here and restructure the Court Coordinator's job description to accommodate these things. And as I see that happening, we take away the clerical stuff from her, and that becomes the person out here directing traffic with clerical, answering the telephones, i directing the telephone messages all over the courthouse, i things of that nature. That's a clerical function, and it frees up this position to do higher and better tasks. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We've got the advantage in our studies here of having a lame duck Commissioners Court Coordinator. She's going to be in a different job come 6-12-06 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 142 January 1, so she can be completely objective about what will work and what won't work. And I've asked her the question, if we -- if we took these answering the phone and handling the burn ban, directing traffic, all that off of you, how much would that free her up, and she said 50 percent. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I've asked the same question, and asked her to think about how a new structure would be in terms of -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: She can be a lot of help to us. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: She really could. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Without having any biases or prejudices. COMMISSIONER LET2: The other thing that I don't know that is included here, but I think we would get it from Kathy, but there's -- the way we've been structured, there's a judicial function for the County Judge. That needs to be addressed as well, and I think it almost needs to be a separate thing so we don't forget it on here. I mean, 'cause that's got to be taken care of, and that's really a -- it's a very different type function, almost more on the legal side, as opposed to a lot of this other stuff, I would think. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that something greater than just keeping the docket for the Judge? COMMISSIONER LETZ: 1 -- I don't know. I'm not 6-12-06 143 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 aware of what -- I've got -- for example, Cheryl does the -- the T.A.B.C. applications; she handles that. What I do judicially is, I've I got another gal there that handles the mental health. We've I got another one that handles the probate, another one that I handles the juvenile. So, other than -- other than what I do ~ in the way of things that I draft that have to be committed to the proper format in writing, and coordination of -- working with these deputies in the County Clerk's office, there's -- T don't see there being that much judicial function that she's performing. Now, there is some, granted, but it`s not something that -- I don't think it overwhelms her. You know, she's -- she's a whole lot busier doing all this administrative stuff that I get involved with that's outside of the judicial area. That's a lot more. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The items that you mentioned just now that are handled by the County Clerk, is that the way this county is set up, or is that the way it has to be by law, by Constitution, court statute? JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, I -- I don't think there's any legal department that would be that -- I mean, I could have -- I could have one court administrator that handles all of those dockets, but it would still necessarily have to involve these 6-12-06 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 144 I people in the County Clerk's office, because they maintain the ~ records that they deal with on a daily basis, and work with I the County Attorney's office on scheduling those cases. I -- I think the way we're working it now seems to work okay. And over and above that which is required to maintain the records I and keep the dockets moving, there's a minimal amount of effort that has to go into it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: It seems to work okay. There are a number of counties where -- where the County Judge will have a -- a court administrator that that's all he or she does, is handle the court administration functions. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: On the payroll matter, I've i been provided with the names and telephone numbers of two or three firms that do that, and it's -- now that we've got the Sheriff's issues reasonably behind us, it's probably time to examine those. We do have them reasonably behind us, don't we, Sheriff? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Same ones as before. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Since we have the Sheriff's items reasonably behind us, I'll now pursue that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: In the -- and in that area, 6-12-06 145 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 which I think this is related to this, the -- I would ~ encourage, in your contacts, to bring both small and large firms. Because I hear, from talking with my wife, there's a i very big difference as to how you get treated, and more the customer service side of that, which I think is -- you know, may be a real big issue. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Could very well be. And some of the information I've got provides me with cell phone numbers of larger ones like ADP, and some locally who could do it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. And I think -- local, I would think, has a lot of pluses. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I would -- you know, and local may even be San Antonio, I mean. Okay. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON; Okay. Moving along, the next category there is Elected Officials. And, of course, we have a lot less flexibility trying to find efficiencies in those organizations than we have in the others. Basically, our flexibility there is to -- to encourage productivity improvements through budgeting. If we think we're spending too much, then we need to tighten the screws on the budgets. I am reminded that -- that we have looked at data that says we're a relatively expensive county, and the reason that we're expensive is 'cause we have more people, more employees than 6-1<^-Q6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 146 other counties our size. And I have to believe that some of these elected officials' departments, that that issue hasn't been properly dealt with, hasn't been taken seriously, and that constitutes a large number of our employees. The only other one that's got a significant number is Road and Bridge. i Judicial, same issues as we've -- most of our involvement there is funding it. I think we need to resurrect the issue of why we have a Juvenile Probation Supervisor and a Juvenile Facility Supervisor, when 50 other counties do that with one. I That's such an obvious opportunity for improvement, we need to not just let it go. On joint ventures, I think the next -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Wait, wait, let's stay with judicial. I want to ask a question. Because we're looking at it from a budget standpoint, would you not put the County Judge under there because of his other functions? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It wouldn't be -- it's outside of Commissioners Court. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah, that's a good point. JUDGE TINLEY: It's there under County Court. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: County Court. COMMISSIONER NICHOL50N: Oh, yeah. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, I missed it. I'm sorry. I saw County Court at Law. JUDGE TINLEY: I didn't see it at first either. 6-iz-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 25 147 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think, but I don't know, that there's some opportunities for improvement between the District Clerk and the two district courts. I think there's redundancy in court coordination that's being done in three different places, and I would encourage the District Clerk and either of the two clerk -- District Court Coordinators or the Judges, if they have any interest, take a look at that and see if there's not something we can do. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that's a good point there, 'cause I really -- T got a jury summons, and both courts happened to have dockets that day, and I called Linda -- there was two on there, and I kind of got lost; I told one I wasn't going to be there, and I ended up -- or ~ found out that the District -- or Becky's group keeps track of the same thing that Linda keeps track of. They both have the jury rolls; they keep lists and check everybody off. I was checked off of Becky's list as an excused absence, but I got an e-mail from Linda saying there was an arrest warrant out for me. (Laughter.) SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Darn, I didn't see that one. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Darn. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Wow. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, you know, Linda was just, maybe -- I mean, you know, she was obviously joking, but 6-12-06 ~ +.. 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 148 making the point that both of them were keeping track of the same information right now, which -- and I think she has some frustration in that as well. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON; There's some redundancy for ' sure. I don't know if it's significant, if there's any savings involved, but it needs to be looked at. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's exactly the kind of area I see the new computer system being able to help, being -- you know, the network and all that. I just -- that's where I see the computer programs helping us with your deal. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Joint Ventures are these three areas where we fund jointly with the City of Kerrville, and probably the opportunities for improvement here may be more obvious under our discussions about user-pay theory. ~ COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would recommend that Joint Ventures be added as a leg under the Commissioners Court, because I think -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Under where? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Under the Commissioners Court. I think it's a separate item, but they're all three things that we deal with directly. They're not stand-alone. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. Well, the same with Ancillary; got the same point. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's probably -- it's -- yeah, it's kind of a dotted line to those, too. Joint Ventures, we 6-12-06 __.._____~_ ~ ~... r. ~ .~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 I6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 149 clearly spend a lot of time. Probably, we spend as much time on those joint ventures as a lot of other areas. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm sure I missed something. Some things under Ancillary, I just -- I wanted to list all the things that we either contribute to or that we receive services from that are not part of local government, to speak of. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, social services is pretty broad -- I COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- words. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's useful to Look at. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's go back to having a traffic controller out in the hall. I can see that person answering the county telephone, like Kathy does and probably other folks, and I can see that person directing traffic. And I am the hall monitor here, and I'm fixing to lose my job; I can see that. But you wouldn't -- you don't foresee that person sitting there with a phone, two or three lines ringing, and 12 people coming into the courthouse, and that person trying to take care of passports at the same time, do you? That kind of -- I can't picture that in my mind. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think I don't know enough about it to have an opinion. I don't know -- I needed a new 6-12-Ob 150 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 passport because mine was expired, and I went up to the -- had my old one there in my hand, and all I got was an envelope that says, "Here's everything you need to know about this," and you send it off to Pennsylvania. So, if it's more than that, it would be difficult. I think it would be done in there, but if it's no more than that, it could be done. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's both. I think the function that you talk about could be done down here, but if you want to do the full work locally, it needs to go to someone, I think, who's bonded and some other things. And -- but I think -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's part of it, 'cause there's money that changes hands in that regard. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I think there's -- there's a -- you know, definitely a need to direct people. There are a lot of lost people, people who come in this courthouse and just don't know where to go. You can walk out there almost any time, and there's someone with a lost look on their face, having no clue what department they should go to. And -- and they probably go to Tommy's office or ours, because we're the first ones as they come in that door. But I think it would be a big help just to be able to direct people a little bit. I mean, it's not real easy to find some of these offices. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: One thing I have seen at several courthouses, just -- is not a reception, but it's one 6-12-06 i__ ~ ~ .. _._~ 1 "_. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 "^ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 "~ 2 9 25 151 of your courthouse security people that actually have a booth downstairs to direct people and stay in one position. COMMISSIONER LETZ: See, there he is. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They don't field telephone calls, and this job -- this job needs to handle the telephone traffic, needs to direct people, and as I see it, do some clerical as well. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, like put the agenda package together, something that takes a lot of time. But you can -- you know, that type of thing. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The telephone traffic alone eats Kathy up. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Answer employees' questions about benefits enrollment, routine pattern kinds of things that can be -- could be done there instead of being done here. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think probably it would save time. I suspect that the Clerk's office, probably more than any other office, people go in 'cause they don't know where else to go; they couldn't find an open door, someone open, and they go in there. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's where I send everybody. You know, you get a lot of people that have traffic tickets that are trying to find the right courtroom. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And you can't figure it out, 6-12-06 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 152 because law enforcement -- you know, all that scribbling and all that stuff. JUDGE TINLEY: But you've always been very accommodating in taking their money and say, "I'll take care of that for you." COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely. I do everything I can to help, being the servant. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It is on the record, right, Rex? COMMISSIONER LETZ: A big help. You know, you see stuff affecting the productivity in a lot of the other offices as well. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: One other possibility has to do with Adult Probation. At one of our previous meetings, somebody threw out a number of how much the rent was costing over there. Was it $25,000 or $30,000 or something like that? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Adult Probation? Yeah, that number was -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: probably tell us. MR. TOMLINSON: 28. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: is that shared by other counties? MR. TOMLINSON: Ours. Is that -- Tommy could 28,000 a year. Is that for our county, or 6-12-06 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 153 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How about for the 198th? They rent out there too, right? MR. TOMLINSON: They're paying their own. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm sorry? MR. TOMLINSON: They're paying their own. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The Treasurer's asked us to remove any duties that are not constitutional from her, and it sounds like that that -- when that's done, that that will cut that back to a one-person office and we won't need all that space down there, so there's a possibility we can get one of those Adult Probation offices in there and save a lot of money. That needs more thought, too. It's still, I think, a possibility that we can utilize the excess space in the Juvenile Detention Facility for something and save some -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's a bunch of storage down there that can go; you can make that into office space downstairs, and put the storage out somewhere else. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, that's all I've got on it. Do you want to -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: A lot of food for thought. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Do you want to just think about it now, and we'll get back into the details later? Or do you want to give anybody an assignment? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we have a good opportunity, as you mentioned earlier, to do a lot of the h-iz-oh 1 --- 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ~. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 154 administrative reshuffling, rethinking, because we are going to have a vacancy and we can plan on it, which is a rare luxury you have in our organization -- business. So, I think it's time that -- I think, probably, we -- I would like to definitely proceed on looking at that reorganization, if nothing else. Some of the others on the Code Enforcement column, the Infrastructure column, I have a hard time envisioning how some of that reshuffling would work and save personnel, just because of the -- but not to say that you can't do it, I mean, 'cause they're very different functions. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Another option -- and I'm not proposing this, but it is another option -- is to hire the County Judge a personal secretary, and that cuts probably more than 50 percent from the Commissioners Court secretary. Just a thought. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: To answer telephone? When COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The work that he does outside COMMISSIONER LETZ: See, I don't -- I mean, I don't -^ 2 4 25 pretty 6-12-06 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think the four of us are know how much paper or typing-type functions you all give Kathy. I give virtually none, because I do it all myself. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I do all mine. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 155 personnel to have a more administrative -- true administrative assistant, as opposed to a clerical person. Any time we do that, we'd probably go to a receptionist. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's why I see -- I see a natural synergy with integrating personnel and benefits administration into this role out here. JUDGE TINLEY: Tommy, do you have a -- MR. TOMLINSON: Well, while you're kicking these ideas around, one thing I'd like for you to add, and we've talked about it many times, and I think -- I think if you have a -- if you have a separate Personnel Department, might be the time to think about this, and I think this county needs a purchasing agent. And -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's on here. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. MR. TOMLINSON: I would like to -- I mean, this is kind of a personal issue, but -- but I would like to see the County hire an accounting -- another accounting-type person to deal with -- to deal with purchasing and -- and payroll issues, because it integrates those two functions with the accounting system. And, from a personal standpoint, I'm not going to be here forever, and I -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You told us that last time. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Come on, Tommy, we've heard that. 6 iz oa -~ ~ - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 156 MR. TOMLINSON: I would like to be able to have somebody that I could mentor to go into my position sometime, and so I -- I really think that -- that if those two functions fit into the overall accounting picture, I would -- I think purchase orders. It will have to be somebody that knows And I just -- I just think that if we have a purchasing agent, we would have a lot more control over budgets, have a lot more control over physical assets, and so I just -- I just think that's something you need to think about. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I also think you're onto something there, Tommy. Let me ask you this, for clarity. You specify a purchasing agent. You don't intend that they be buying gravel and tar and stuff for Road and Bridge? MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I think they could do -- I think they could do the deed, because they're -- you know, the laws for purchasing for counties are very specific and detailed. And -- and I think if you have someone that -- that knows those laws backwards and forwards, then you have a lot -- you don't have -- you're not -- you don't have the liability that you might already have. I mean, that takes the responsibility away from -- from Road and Bridge. I mean, it 6 12 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 25 157 takes a lot of time to -- to write specs and send out bids. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Who does that now? MR. TOMLINSON: All of us individually do. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: For Road and Bridge? MR. TOMLINSON: They do it themselves. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Truby does. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But when you -- when you create a real, live purchasing agent, isn't there a lot of hoops you jump through? I mean, isn't there some specific things you have to do? I'm just kind of working off memory here. We've talked about this numerous times. MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I think there's probably two ways to have one, and I don't know the specifics about it. But there -- there's one way that they can be appointed, just like I am, and then there is another -- there's another way to do it. I can't -- right now, I can't tell you how. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We can get a real -- we could get a real expert on that topic to come talk to us, and that's a lady out of Ector County. JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Narita Holmes. She's probably the State's leading expert on purchasing departments, formation of them and the function of them. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think an interesting part of that number -- I agree with -- support having her come down; I 6 1^_-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 25 158 think it would be very interesting. But, also, trying -- I've never really fully understood the purchasing versus audit versus treasurer, trying to figure out who has to do what. And my recollection is that if you get purchasing, it affects the Auditor's office some, I think, as I recall. MR. TOMLINSON: Oh, yes. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, it affects it -- as far as statutorily-wise, I think it changes things around a little bit. Seems like I heard that somewhere. But -- anyway, but it would be interesting to see how we -- MR. TOMLINSON: Well, actually, it's become a part of the Auditor's office, because they -- they have to have access to the -- to the county records on a daily basis. And if they approve a purchase, then we have to approve it before it's -- before it's -- a purchase order is actually issued. So, we -- it's a partnership, really, in that process. JUDGE TINLEY: Tommy, do you have -- let's assume for the moment that we want purchasing to be handled out of your office. Do you have an estimate as to what portion of an individual's time, acting as a purchasing agent for the County, would be required? Half-time? Three-fourths? Two-thirds? One-third, whatever? MR. TOMLINSON: I wouldn't think it would be over half-time. Fifty percent, I'd say. JUDGE TINLEY: At most? 6-12 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 25 159 MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. So we could look at a blended employee in your office, then, which essentially, they're going to be dealing with your records and the county financial records anyway. MR. TOMLINSON: Right. JUDGE TINLEY: In performing that function. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And you also have this voter registrar that raises its ugly head every two, three years. Everybody on that end of the courthouse always wants -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Election administration. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I mean election administrator, I'm sorry. That's another -- I still think the purchasing could be done in a consolidated type effort with Peterson Hospital, K.I.S.D. and those agencies. I don't know why we can't piggy-back with them somehow, somewhere. When you're talking about dollars and cents, it seems like to me that -- and if you have one employee handling two or three different agencies, it just makes sense to me. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the hardest thing on going with purchasing, whether you go that route or some other route, the hardest thing is going to be to get -- I guess you just have to do it, but to get the purchasing truly turned over to purchasing. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 6-1^_-06 160 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: That's going to be the hardest part of it. And it's much like, you know -- oh, well, I'll just leave it at that. That's where the hard part comes, because I think almost every department right now -- just look at timesheets. Every department keeps track of their own functions to do the same thing. And I can see us doing ` purchasing and having it become the same way, unless we very carefully figure out how to implement it to make it not optional. It has to be mandatory. And the same thing with the payroll officer; we`ve got to change how we're doing it. I mean, it does not make sense for Rusty to have Nancy keeping track of payroll records and someone in another office doing it. Makes no sense to do that. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: One advantage also on purchasing that the County's doing in a small way, but it's showing a big benefit, is in y'all's office, Tommy, that orders paper now on the statewide bid. Paper. Their office orders it for the entire county. And when I need more paper for copy machines and that, or the jail or dispatch, we send the deal over, "We need this many more cases," and they send it out to us, and then they bill us in our budget, I mean, for it. But the overall cost that that paper's costing the County is so much cheaper, because it's not like we used to do with o iz-ob 161 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 individual departments -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: -- buying their own out of their budgets. That's just one example of how that purchasing agent -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sounds like a natural purchasing agent to me. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I didn't mean to drop you in the grease, Tommy. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But doesn't the new software module on purchasing -- does it -- there's a direct correlation in your office, and particularly accounts payable, but doesn't the new module also give the purchasing person the ability to know that those moneys are in that particular line item and that they are not overencumbered or whatever, that there's still funds left to do what they want to do? MR. TOMLINSON: That's exactly right. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I thought so. JUDGE TINLEY: And when the purchase is made, even though it's not yet paid for, it encumbers that account. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's go to the next item. I'm excited about this. JUDGE TINLEY: Do you have anything further to offer on Item 19? Let's go to Item 20, consider and discuss 6-1^-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 25 162 opportunities for applying user-pay concept to certain services provided by local government. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This is an effort to just I just tried user-pay concept. And while I was doing that, I saw this article in the San Antonio newspaper that's about Amtrack. And there's some -- some people are outraged that President Bush is -- is suggesting that taxpayers fund that -- these passenger trains that are used by very, very few people, and he -- we cut that funding to $900 million a year from the current 1.3 billion that we're -- all taxpayers are paying for a few passengers who couldn't and wouldn't pay the full cost to buy a ticket that pays the full cost of that service. And it's been -- the need for it's been -- was eliminated about 150 years ago by the Eisenhower interstate highway system and reasonable-cost air flight. So, with that sermon in mind, I think we ought to look at services that are paid for by county taxpayers that are used by a small part of the population. I also think about the many trips that the EMS service has made out into west Kerr County over the last few weeks to pick up victims of motorcycle accidents. It's not just one or two; it's probably h-12-06 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 163 a dozen or more. I don't know how many of those there've of them -- not only are there just a few, a very small percentage of the population of Kerr County that use that service, but there's a very large percentage of people who are not from Kerr County that use the service. And, again, we're asking them or their insurance company to only pay half the cost of it. So, that's what led me to think about whether or not user-pay has a good application with EMS and some other services, and I came up with a criteria that says, first, you got to be able to identify who uses it, and then second, the number of users is significantly less than the total taxpayer population. And some users are not local taxpayers; that's three. You got to be able to measure costs of the service, 'cause if you can't do that, you don't know what to bill them. And that it is possible -- feasible to collect for the service. The candidates that I can see that are eligible for the Ag Barn, EMS. Animal Control is -- identifying the users is -- it doesn't meet that criteria. It would be difficult to to a level that offsets more of the cost than it is now. 6-iz-o6 164 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 O.S.S.F. is very clear who uses that. In my view, the -- the e program. We've already talked I'm not sure that it is feasible fund the library. Subdivision administration, I think, is another example. Those people who want to subdivide and create subdivisions, I think we should charge them a fee that covers the full cost of providing that service. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's pretty much done now. In fact, the new rules -- and this is -- or the engineers added the language that the developers pay 100 percent of his actual costs for developing -- I mean, all his review. He keeps track per subdivision of all of his engineering review time, and that full amount is billed back to that subdivision. They don't get the final plat approved until they pay it. And it also adds an incentive, built in, that if they use good engineering people that do good work and do it correct, his review time is a lot less. If they use sloppy work or people that are a little bit questionable, and it takes a lot more of his time, they pay a whole lot more. So, I think we're getting real close on subdivisions to having it user-pay, but it's also one of the easier ones to do that with, 'cause they've got money and they're making a bunch of money by doing 6-1^_-06 165 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -- 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ^ 24 25 what they're doing. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Next one I've got listed is the airport, and I know just barely enough about that to know that it's a pretty complex issue. The airport does have value to Kerr County and Kerrville, and does create some revenue. And we do -- I don't know whether we want to take any action I don't have any use for it. And that taxpayers in general are asked to underwrite the costs of it, and the costs are substantial. So, we've got a couple of experts here on airport. Would you know whether or not it's feasible to or citizens or residents of Kerr County who have aircraft house them there. They house them -- hangar them, I should say. They hangar them in either a County- and City-owned facility, or they hangar them with the F.B.O. operator who leases the land from the County and the City. So, there is some -- there is some payback in terms of that. One of the !i largest users of the airport in terms of take-offs and landings and so forth is Mooney Aircraft. And, certainly, you know, there's great economic value in the 900 jobs that are currently there at Mooney Aircraft. The only other thing I see in terms of user-pay -- I'll say it before Jon gets out F-12-06 166 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 the door -- the take-off and landing fees, I'm not sure that a facility our size, with the number that we have each year, (Commissioner Letz left the courtroom.) COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm not sure there's -- attitude amongst some of my constituents that, "You're paying a lot of money for that airport out of our taxes," and they'll say, "I know two or three old rich guys that use it." That -- it may be a matter of educating the general public about the value and how things are paid for. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, every building out there is under a land lease, Mr. Brinkman's land lease. His big hand has been there a long time. All the rest of them are under land leases, so that comes back to us. We collect -- we collect -- when I say "we," I mean the airport. The City and the County collect -- we collect a fee for every gallon of aviation fuel that's purchased out there, and a lot of that is purchased by local users, and a lot of it's purchased by fly-ins, people who fly in there. So, that's one of the things to examine, because I think our goal comes -- Commissioner Letz and I have said it over and over again. Our goal is to get that airport up to a point where there is no more subsidy from the two owners. That's the goal. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's a good goal. 6-12 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 25 167 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And that's exactly where we and above operational subsidies, goes for the 10 percent match for capital improvements, and that's -- that's really a great investment. We put up 10 cents, and TexDOT Aviation puts up a dollar. So, for every one-tenth we put in, we get back -- we're going to get $6 million worth of runway improvements out there in terms of new taxiways, and it's going to cost the City and the County $300,000 apiece to get $6 million worth of improvements. So, that's the kind of thing that we need to keep moving. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Items 8, 9, 10, and 11, I just at that point in time ran out of the ability to think. I put some things down, and probably don't have any -- there's no application at all, but it helps us think about is there anything else we -- under this criteria, anything else we can and should be charging a user for instead of the general taxpaying population? That's all I've got. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's a good exercise. Thank JUDGE TINLEY: Anyone else have anything additional to offer on that particular item? Mr. Lipscomb, you had filed a participation form, and if you have any input on this issue, we'd be tickled to death to listen to what you have to say. 6-12-06 168 1 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. LIPSCOMB: Okay. Again, for the record, my name is John David Lipscomb. I reside at 909 Lake Drive here in Kerrville, and the only thing I wanted to point out was, currently at the library, of course, non-Kerr County residents pay a $25 fee to get a library card. The rest of the services are available to them for free. And so, in a similar manner, I want to throw out, on a user-pay system -- and please do the research and check on this, but I believe if the County pays zero towards the library operation, then and only then can the library assess a fee towards Kerr County residents who are not within Kerrville city limits. JUDGE TINLEY: Do you have -- do you have some data or authority to demonstrate that? I'd be real interested in seeing it. MR. LIPSCOMB: No, I don't have anything. What I'm basing it on is talking to the director. He indicated that there's a Texas statute that governs how libraries operate, and alluded to -- that was the basis for it. JUDGE TINLEY: Would you be kind enough to follow up on that and get that -- MR. LIPSCOMB: I could. JUDGE TINLEY: -- get that information, or at least ~' a cite to a statute from him? I'd be real interested in seeing it, because I think, looking at the numbers, especially those that you mentioned about percentage-wise in-city, 6-1~-06 169 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 out-of-city, but within the county, that utilize that operation -- and I think Commissioner Nicholson makes a good point; the amount of revenue to be generated by -- by, for example, the $25 individual fee may not be adequate to get you there. So, you'd be looking at maybe two methods of contribution, one of which would be a user-pay fee, one of which would be a supplement, maybe. But I'd be real interested in seeing that, if you'd be kind enough to get I that. MR. LIPSCOMB: I'd be glad to research and let you know. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Anything else, sir? MR. LIPSCOMB: No, sir, that's it. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Anybody else on the Court have anything further on Item 20? Let's move to Item 22; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on approval of interlocal contract between the County of Blanco and Kerr County to house prisoners at the Law Enforcement Center, and authorize County Judge to sign same. This was put on the agenda at the request of the Sheriff. I'm given to understand that this is the same agreement that we have with other counties where we house out-of-county prisoners. I think we got Bandera County, for example. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, we do have contracts with all the surrounding counties. We have not been housing any b-iz-oh 170 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 surrounding counties' inmates, just due to our in-house population, but about three weeks ago, Blanco County did call me. They are experiencing some severe overcrowding, and they weren't needing beds except for about two to three inmates normally, and their only choice besides trying to contract with us was to take them all the way up to Comanche. And, so, right now our population has been at the level where I could take his two to three, so we did agree to take those. The contract itself is $37 a day, plus all reimbursement of any and all medical expenses. And plus, in the contract, under Item D, which would be, I guess, Page 2 in there, it does give me the -- the ability to refuse any inmate that we deem necessary to refuse due to too violent, too hard to handle, I just don't want to -- JUDGE TINLEY: Any reason. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: -- to handle that inmate or something like that. So, it gives us that. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I move that we approve an interlocal contract between the County of Blanco and Kerr County to house prisoners at the Law Enforcement Center and authorize County Judge to sign same. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of the agenda item. Any question or discussion? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, one question. 6-12-06 ~___ - .. r 171 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Sheriff, in Paragraph 14, you're quoting a per diem rate of $37 a day, and I know that's consistent with where we've been. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: My question is, is that going to hold in the new budget year? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No. What I will probably do, since all our contracts are exactly the same with every county that we have, and I've intentionally kept them that way, including this one, but I very well may come back during the new budget year, and if those counties still want to redo their contract, I think at that time we need to look at going up to at least about $40 a day. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which prompts me to ask, is there a reopener clause in here, or can we -- if a rate increase goes on -- goes in, if this is for a year from whenever the Judge signs it, and the Court determines that the per diem rate goes up in the new budget year, do we have an opener in here? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: There is -- under Paragraph 16, this agreement may be terminated at any time by either party given 30 days. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Works for me. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Who is -- my question is, who's the County Judge over there? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Billy Guthrie. 6-1^_-05 172 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Billy Guthrie. See, there's hope, Commissioner. He used to be the Commissioner in that chair. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I could get promoted. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You could go to Blanco and be the County Judge. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No thanks. JUDGE TINLEY: Billy told me to be on the lookout for somebody that would be willing to -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Ready to move over there. JUDGE TINLEY: -- be hornswoggled into that. Any further question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Brings to us Item 24. The Tax Assessor was unable to be with us today, and asked me to pass that item. It will be a matter for consideration on a later agenda. Is there any member of the Court that has anything to take up in closed or executive session? If not, we'll -- well, let's go to 25 now, reports. Animal Control. I think there was a written report rendered, if I'm not mistaken. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm going to speak for 6 12-OF 173 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Janie. She couldn't be with us; I'll tell you why. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This is a report going back to 2003 on activity. First page is 2003. You can hardly see it up here. I'll give it to you for your review and understanding. In a nutshell, adoptions are up, euthanizations are down, and reclaimed animals are up. So, we're steadily making progress to -- to improve animal control in Kerr County. We get some credit for it -- Janie does, but a lot of the credit goes to -- in my opinion, goes to the fact that pet owners are being a little more responsible all the time. Got a long ways to go, a lot more education is needed, but I think we're finally getting the community to understand that if you raise a couple of crops of kittens every year and bring them to us, we're not going to be able to adopt them. Euthanizations will be up, and costs to that facility. Janie couldn't be here because she went to two rodeos in the last few days, and in one of them was a bull that was running loose and jumped two police cars and damaged one of her -- pulled her over a fence, beat her up pretty bad. Then she went out -- had to go out at night to try to lasso a llama, and the llama got -- jerked her shoulder completely out of its socket. She had to go to the emergency room, and -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: She deserves combat pay. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- get that fixed, then go 6-12-06 174 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 out there and find that llama. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are you making this up? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No, sir. That's a hard job, kind of underappreciated. A lot of people yell at them. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We get a lot of complaints, and some of them are warranted and some of them aren't, but I appreciate Janie's work that she does. JUDGE TINLEY: Is that all you've got for us? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's all I got on ~ reports. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any questions? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Could I ask you a question, Commissioner? How's she doing now that she reduced staff? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: She's -- she's limping -- her and her four -- three employees are limping along. It's been a pretty good exercise in teamwork. It's kind of like we're going to start working together and everybody doing whatever they can to get the job done. We lost two employees. She has replaced one of them, and they're still limping along, and I expect that her budget will say she has to have a replacement for the other employee. And I -- you know how tough I am on staffing; I tend to believe she probably does need somebody. F-iz-o6 175 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The building is about through. We need to do the finish up painting and stuff like that. It'll be ready; I'm hoping to get a quote on the sidewalk. Did you happen to get one, Judge? JUDGE TINLEY: I was told that it was -- I was due to get it. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: And as soon as we get through here today, I'll follow up on it, because it was in the process of being worked up to be submitted. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I saw one to be submitted ~ today. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. You've seen it before I did, then. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Today I did ask Janie if she had anybody in mind to pay for that sidewalk, and the answer is maybe. So, we're still not sure whether or not Kerr -- Kerr County taxpayers are going to pay for it. JUDGE TINLEY: I think the benefactor has been pretty steady about being available -- there have been some additional costs incurred, some additional sidewalks right around that facility that they decided to add and some other things, and I think he's stepped up and covered those extras so far. So far, so good. 6 12-06 176 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Judge, I have a very brief report about supervisor retraining. Is this the time for that, or do you want to go through the liaison responsibilities first? DODGE TINLEY: Why don't we wait till we get to that. Let me go ahead and finish these reports up right quick. Extension. Have you got a quick report for us? You liked that word "quick," didn't you? MR. WALSTON: Yeah, quick. I'll make it quick. I appreciate hearing Janie can rope a llama; she's a better roper than I am if she can. I'll tell you what, a llama's got to be the hardest thing in the world. Appreciate y'all taking the time to listen to me. I've got a report here. It's actually -- when I went to print it off, I only got the front page, so I'm going to have to send you the entire copy when I get back to the office. As far as ag natural resources, in May, since our last meeting with y'all, we held a multi-county hair sheep field day, and in cooperation with Gillespie, Bandera, and Kendall Counties, and had about 100 participants at that in Fredericksburg. Had an excellent turnout, and the speakers discussed everything from the various breeds of -- of hair sheep and fitting it in small -- small-acreage landowner situations, as well as marketing and comparison of hair sheep and wool breeds as to how effective the marketing aspect of it is. Really a good program. 6-iz oa 177 1 L 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -- 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 °"~ 2 4 25 And on May 30th and 31st, we had our Hill Country Living 101 series, and we had 30 small-acreage landowners from not only Kerr, but as well as Bandera and Comfort -- and Kendall County. They -- they were able to -- it was about a 14-hour program for the two days. They had an opportunity to listen to speakers from the Extension -- Texas Cooperative Extension, the Texas Forest Service, Natural Resource Conservation Service, as well as the Texas Wildlife Service. We also, that evening, on Wednesday evening, we took them out and we did some plant identification. They always enjoy getting out and learning new plants, and we took advantage of that and had a lot of good, positive comments from those participants for that two-day program. Our Hill Country masters -- excuse me, Hill Country Master Gardeners are busily planning for their state meeting, as I mentioned earlier, coming up April 12th through the 14th of 2007. In May, they made 343 contacts relative to horticulture via telephone calls into the Extension Office, or educational programs through various groups, civic groups in the community. And they're also busily putting together their -- establishing a demonstration garden where we -- we will be displaying nine different turf varieties, as well as some different bedding plants that are native and suitable to the Hill Country. We're trying to get that established, and trying to put in the irrigation to where we can have that 6-i_ 06 178 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 well-taken care of. As far as our 4-H and youth area goes, we recently, Dart of Mav, had our Aa Awareness Day. We had 303 through a series of -- of about seven different stops that they are able to learn about all the different ag commodities that are grown here in Kerr County and how it affects them and their personal lives, and maybe in ways that they don't realize otherwise. It also gives us an opportunity to use our 4-H council members, and which we had 27 council members that led these groups, as well as some of our volunteer leaders. ~ We had 46 volunteers that assisted with the program and the educational stops. As far as our district 4-H Roundup, which is where we have our -- our judging teams and, you know, our educational presentations, we had our district contest the first part of May in Fredericksburg. This year, we qualified a total of five judging teams, and two method demonstrations for state roundup. Now, we didn't actually end up taking that many, but that's how many we could have taken if we had our -- if we could have filled all the slots. Those teams that we qualified them in, we actually had 40 4-H members participating at the District 10 contest. The teams that ~-lz-aE 179 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 qualified on our seniors included the livestock judging team, a wool team -- wool judging, mohair judging, soils judging, This past week, we participated at Texas State 9-H College Station. We went down on Tuesday and came back on Friday. It was really -- it's always an eye-opening experience for these kids to go down to College Station and -- and go onto Texas A & M university campus and get to see all the sights of the campus. We had 14 4-H county senior 4-H members that participated at Roundup. These were in wool judging contest, the mohair judging, range and pasture grass identification and our two method demonstrations. This year, the mohair judging team won third place, with Katie Muehlstein winning fourth-high individual. The grass range and pasture grass identification team won first place, with Lance Bauer being high-point individual. And our two method ~ demonstrations with Caitlyn Talarico and Chase Lantz presenting won in sheep and goat; they won first place. And also, in the area of farm and ranch ag economics, we had Lance Bauer and Brian Weaver that won second place. And Laurinda ~ has told me it's been at least 15 years since we've had method ~ demonstrations that have placed in state roundup, so we're pleased to hear that. Along with that, Kerr County 4-H, we had two 4-H'ers 6-12-Oti 180 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 that received a total of $13,000 in scholarships through our 4-H Foundation. They'll be able to use that towards their college education. Dub Walston and Craig Leonard were recipients of those. Our livestock projects are busy in the process of getting started again for this next year. Our beef cattle numbers, as far as steers and heifers, are up this year. We've got 36 steers that we'll be validating on the 26th of June, and our heifer numbers are continuing to grow. So, we're also in the time frame right now of purchasing -- helping 4-H'ers purchase lambs and goats for their projects, so we're busy. And as of tomorrow, we'll be going to Sonora for the -- through Thursday of this week for our wool and mohair judging teams that will be competing at the Sonora Open Invitational contest, which is also the national contest. JUDGE TINLEY: Any questions for Mr. Walston? One question. All those kiddoes that you took down to A & M, are you going to take those same kids over to Austin so that they can have a -- a good tour of the U.T. campus? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They're imbalanced. MR. WALSTON: Some of them may end up there. Some of them may end up there. If A & M doesn't quit charging us so much to use their facilities, I'm not opposed to moving it somewhere else. JUDGE TINLEY: I see. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Like Angelo State. E-1,-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 25 181 MR. WALSTON: Like anywhere. Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Roy. JUDGE TINLEY: Environmental Health. Miguel Arreola is on vacation. He has submitted a written report. Every Commissioner should have received it. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. JUDGE TINLEY: That should take care of that. That brings us down to Section 4. Let's talk about the economics, folks. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have one question. In the -- Juvenile Detention, we're paying cell phones. How many cell phones do we have out there? Did we decrease that number recently in our change? I don't guess it matters. MR. TOMLINSON: I can't answer that without some research. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll ask him. I thought he was going to be here. The reason I was planning on asking him. That's the only question I have. So, I move we pay the bills. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to pay the bills. Any question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 6 12 06 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 182 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. let's go to our budget amendment requests. Budget Amendment Request Number 1. MR. TOMLINSON: Number 1 is -- is for Indigent Health Care. We need to transfer $1,053.75 from Eligible Expenses to Administration line item. I have associated with this a late bill, which I need a hand check for, to VeriClaims for $281.91. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of Budget Amendment Request Number 1, approval of late bill and hand check to VeriClaims for $281.91. Any question or discussion? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I assume that since we're out of money for that line item in June, that we'll be seeing it again. MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, we sure will. 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.) 6-iz-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 25 183 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Budget Amendment Request Number 2. MR. TOMLINSON: Number 2 is from the County Attorney's office, a request from the County Attorney to move $2,000 from Computer Software to Books, Publications, and Dues. With that, I have a late bill. I'm requesting a hand check payable to West Payment Center, which is -- is for Westlaw service, $534.09. JUDGE TINLEY: What was the cents? MR. TOMLINSON: Nine. I mean -- yes, 9 cents. JUDGE TINLEY: .09? MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that the last payment we'll have to Westlaw, I guess? MR. TOMLINSON: For his -- for his, it probably will be. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: After today, yeah. What is this 2,000 for? I mean, this word "dues" always scares me a little bit. MR. TOMLINSON: There's a bill with -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's not membership to the country club or anything like that? MR. TOMLINSON: No. No. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve. 6-1^-06 184 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of Budget Amendment Request Number 1. Any question or discussion? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Should be Number 2. JUDGE TINLEY: Excuse me, Request Number 2. Any question or discussion? All in favor, 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 3. MR. TOMLINSON: Number 3 is for Court-Appointed Attorneys. This is a request approved by Judge Brown to transfer $2,915.50 from Court-Appointed Attorneys to Master Court Appointment line item. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of Budget Amendment Request Number 3. Any question or discussion? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What is Master Court Appointment? JUDGE TINLEY: Those are those C.P.S. cases that we 6-iz-o~ 185 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 created separate civil appointed attorney line items for, and by way of information, Judge Brown has requested that I consider creating a separate budget for that master -- for the master that hears those cases. He said it's wrecking his budget. You can see why he's saying that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Another state unfunded mandate. JUDGE TINLEY: Yes. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And, so, who -- is that like a visiting judge? JUDGE TINLEY: Well, there's a -- there's an associate judge that serves this area for Uvalde, and she hears these C.P.S. cases. And since the changes -- legislative changes, any time there is even a request for a temporary removal of -- of the child from the home, there's an appointment of an attorney for the -- any -- any of the parents that are there, and -- and even those that aren't there, as far as that goes, if they still have legal rights. And that -- that's where all this money's going, to pay all these lawyers. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, it's not necessarily a judge that comes in and hears it. Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: No, that's -- these are for the lawyers that are appointed by the associate judge -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Surprise, surprise. 6-12-06 186 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE TINLEY: -- that hears these cases. That's what that's for. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. MR. EMERSON: Let me give you a very realistic situation, just so you get a feel for it. JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. MR. EMERSON: A mother's children get taken way, and in the process of the interviewing her, they ask her who the dad is. And it's not uncommon in one of these cases to have the lady spit out four or five names, okay? Because she's not sure. So, that means you have -- your judge has to appoint four or five different attorneys to all these guys until they can do -- the phlebotomist can do blood tests to determine who the real father is. So, you have a tremendous amount of court costs associated with representing individuals that really don't have much interest in the case. JUDGE TINLEY: Or it may be that there's a removal of four children from a home; they all have different fathers. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. MR. EMERSON: Yeah. JUDGE TINLEY: And it's not unusual for there to be three or four, five lawyers in the same case up there. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not pretty, is it? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Notice the Commissioners 6 12 06 187 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 are shaking their heads in unison. Is this a great country or what? Let's go. JUDGE TINLEY: Do I have a motion? THE CLERK: We have a motion and a second. JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Any further question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Budget Amendment Request Number 4. MR. TOMLINSON: Number 4 is for the 216th District Court, transferring $5,872.50 from the Civil Court-Appointed Attorney line item, $300 to Special Court Reporter, $5,572.50 to Court-Appointed Attorneys. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of Budget Amendment Request Number 4. Any question or discussion? This is another one of those we're going to see every month. All in favor, signify by raising your right I hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. E-iz-oe 188 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 (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Budget Amendment Request Number 5. MR. TOMLINSON: Number 5 is for the 198th District Court. We're transferring $3,391.50 from Civil Court-Appointed Attorney line item to Court-Appointed Attorney line item. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of Budget Amendment Request Number 5. Any question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Budget Amendment Request Number 6. MR. TOMLINSON: Number 6 is for the Justice of the Peace, Precinct 2, signed by Judge Wright, to transfer $171 from Group Insurance to Bonds. It's for a new employee. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This was a case of the young lady who had the job got a new bond -- new bond and then left, so we have a new person coming in who has to be bonded, and 6-12-06 189 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the funds had already been expended. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Where did the -- the employee that's leaving go, do you know? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pardon? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The employee that's leaving, do you know where she's going? j JUDGE TINLEY: San Antonio. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Uh-huh. Somebody move -- did you move it? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I tried to. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: You tried and did. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I did. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 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: The motion does carry. Budget Amendment Request Number 7. MR. TOMLINSON: Number 7 is for -- between Detention -- Juvenile Detention and Maintenance. The request from Kevin Stanton is to transfer $217.71 from Detention Officers Salary line item to -- to Maintenance and Custodial 6-12-06 190 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 of the same amount. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of Budget Amendment Request 7. Any question or discussion? All in favor -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It's just difficult, Judge, to comprehend that we've got a scaled-down facility, and we still don't have enough money budgeted for maintenance and custodial, but we'll sort a]1 that out in next budget period. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, we will. JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions or comments? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (NO response.) JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Budget Amendment Request Number 8. MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. Number 8 is for Environmental Health. It's from Miguel. His request is to transfer $157 from Public Education to On-Site Council Fees. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't know what happened here. Apparently we didn't budget enough, and maybe it was because of an unexpected increase in fees. I think we ought E-iz-aE 191 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to find out before next budget. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. And this is -- this is a perfect place where a user fee should pay for itself. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I move to approve. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 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: All opposed, same sign. (NO response.) JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Budget Amendment Request Number 9. MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. Number 9 is for -- also for Juvenile Detention. This is signed by -- approved by Kevin Stanton to transfer $700 from Detention Officers line item to Residential Medical. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would these be for services that we can expect reimbursement of these for Kerr County kids? JUDGE TINLEY: I'll bet you they're Kerr. MR. TOMLINSON: Well, the names are on here. I can't -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Probably Kerr County kids. 6-12-06 192 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 That's okay. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Same comment, Judge. We have a scaled-down facility; I would expect that medical would be reduced, and so we need to do a better job of budgeting out of that. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tommy, what kind of medical stuff is that? MR. TOMLINSON: Could be prescriptions. JUDGE TINLEY: Doctor visits. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: E.R. visit or something like I that. JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. MR. TOMLINSON: These are actually -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval. MR. TOMLINSON: Well, it's for -- it's for mental health and dependency assessments. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We got to have evaluations on all the kids, too. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, on all of them? Or a new I one? MR. TOMLINSON: I think every one of them. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, it's -- $700 covers the whole thing. MR. TOMLINSON: I have two more. 6-12 06 193 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, just a minute. Let me get this one out of the way. You can go ahead and hand those out. I have a motion. That's all I got at this point. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Got a motion and a second. 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. We have two I more? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's 10; 11's on its way. JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Budget Amendment Request I Number 10. MR. TOMLINSON: Number 10 is for a federal grant called a SCAAP grant that the Sheriff referred to this morning. We -- we did receive those funds, and this is to increase the budget by the amount of that -- those funds, and offset it with an increase in the expenditure line item by $11,376. That -- this allows the Sheriff to use those funds. JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This is one of those that you were willing to come up with some money out of to pay the deputies' salaries. I move for approval. 6 12-06 194 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval 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: Okay. Number 11 is for Road and Bridge, and it's to increase the budget for un -- for unbudgeted revenues, $895 for culvert pipe that they sold, $772.20 of asphalt, and $187.17 in signs. And we've offset that with -- with an increase in their budget for each one of those line items. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If I were going to ask a question -- which I'm not going to, but if I were, it would be street sign proceeds? MR. TOMLINSON: They apparently sold some signs -- sign stock or something. I don't know what. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: To who? MR. TOMLINSON: I don't know. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That may be those 9-1-1 house signs they were making. Remember, you could purchase them. E-iz-aE 195 1 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: You may have made those signs. Didn't you take some training on sign making out there? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's why he just made the motion. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move that we pay the bill. JUDGE TINLEY: How about approve the budget amendment? You going to move that, too? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The budget amendment. JUDGE TINLEY: All right, I've got a motion. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: And a second. 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. That's the end of the budget amendments? MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, it is. JUDGE TINLEY: Got any late bills? MR. TOMLINSON: No. JUDGE TINLEY: Somebody just snuck in some reports on me. I've been presented with monthly reports from the District Clerk for April 2006, Justice of the Peace Precinct 2, Justice of the Peace Precinct 3, County Clerk General Fund, 6-1^_-06 196 1 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 the Sheriff's Department. Do I hear a motion that these reports be approved as submitted? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So moved. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll second that, but I got a question. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Any question or comment? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Didn't we receive a report from J.P. 1 just a couple of days ago? No? I did. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Privileged information, I guess. As presented, though. I love those words; those are good words. JUDGE TINLEY: Magic words. Words of art -- terms I of art. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. I move for ~ approval. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Motion made and seconded for approval of the motion. Any question or discussion? All in favor, 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. Reports fron 6-12-06 197 1 ° 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 --, 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Commissioners. Commissioner Nicholson has been itching to COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm going to be really I've got two observations about what organizations do when they appoint a new supervisor. I'd probably make the same observation if I was talking about General Electric or a big company like them, or a small organization like Kerr County government, and that is, we don't equip them with the skills they need to perform their new jobs. It's not natural -- it's not necessarily a natural ability. There are some skills and abilities that can be learned that are helpful to a supervisor. The other -- the second observation is that there's a huge difference in supervisory development programs. Some of them sound really good, and you can send a supervisor to it and he or she comes back and they don't have any more ability or skill than they did when they left. The wrong things are taught, or taught the wrong way. Others can be very effective; you can really see and measure a difference, the results they get. So, I'm going to ask that, in the budget process, we spend a little time thinking about whether or not we want to hire Blinn College to perform some leadership development 6-12-06 198 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 w_ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 training. I have learned that they have two rates, an not-for-profits, and we're included in there. The other thing that impresses me is that they have experience in dealing with counties and cities and developing their people. And I can't remember the names of the counties and cities that they've dealt with, but they're small like us, and I would guess that they have the same development needs that we might. Just one other observation; it might be something that we want to partner with, say, the City of Kerrville if we decide it would be money well spent. And then I'll let you know that the -- that the director of the facility, Dr. Larry Pitcaithly, is somebody I've known for 25 years or so, and I can certainly vouch for his effectiveness in training supervisors to improve organization and conquer -- try and make more money for us in Kerr County. I think it would be -- it would be providing a better service, and probably controlling the costs. So, I'll give you these, and I'll be talking about it some more. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I like it. JUDGE TINLEY: Appreciate that. Any other I duties? 24 but I w 25 speak t 6-12-06 Planning meetings for the COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Not necessarily liaison duty, 199 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 West Texas County Judges and Commissioners Association is underway. We had our first meeting last week, and we will have three more through the year, and then in March of '07 -- our association is 118 counties, so your -- it's possible to have at least 118 commissioners courts in this community at one time. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That ought to be illegal. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It is illegal. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So -- plus I've had several counties down south of here, Fredericksburg, Bandera, and another one down south -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Atascosa. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Atascosa comment that they were interested in coming here for our conference. So, this town will be full of people, and be some great education and -- and some catfish eating. That's about it. But it's going well. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: With that many people, it'd be a good opportunity to march on Austin and try to overthrow the government. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It will -- well, we kind of do that at these meetings. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Good work, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Two quickies, Judge. First 6-12-06 zoo 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 of all, I'm going to put in a request for a special meeting of the court on Thursday; I guess we'll say 4 p.m., for the purpose of the Court discussing a ban on aerial fireworks. Did you provide me with information I needed on that, Mr. County Attorney? I think you've done it once. MR. EMERSON: A while back, but I can get you another copy. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Could you resurrect it for me for backup material? MR. EMERSON: Sure will. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Secondly, I had a walk over the Kerrville South project with the engineer, the contractor, Grantworks, U.G.R.A., Road and Bridge, and yours truly, trying to figure out a way the contractor could get the dust under control down there and get the job finished. For the most part, all the pipes are in the ground. The lift station is constructed and in the electrical phase hookup right now. The forced main is in place going back to the trunk, and the lateral hookups should begin, if not this week -- if not this week, next week. So, the project's coming along. The goal is to have it completed by August 31st. JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else? Any elected officials have any reports? Thank you. We'll move on. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Do we schedule a meeting for 4 o'clock Thursday? E-i,-o6 zol 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think we can get it posted on time for 4 o'clock on Thursday. JUDGE TINLEY: Any other reports? We stand adjourned. (Commissioners Court adjourned at 3:19 p.m.) STATE OF TEXAS I COUNTY OF KERR The above and foregoing is a true and complete transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County, Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth. DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 20th day of June, 2006. JANNETT PIE PER, Kerr County Clerk SY: _ ~ ____ __ _ Kat y Ba ik, Deputy County Clerk Certified Shorthand Reporter 6-1Z-06 ORDER NO. 29718 LICENSE AGREEMENT BETWEEN KERR COUNTY AND KERRVILLE CHRISTMAS LIGHTING CORPORATION Came to be heard this the 12th day of June, 2006, with a motion made by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to: Approve License Agreement between Kerr County and Kerrville Christmas Lighting Corporation, with the indicated changes. ORDER NO. 29719 REVISION OF PLAT FOR HIDDEN HILLS, LOTS 19 & 20, VOL 6, PAGE 362 & 363, PRECINCT 2 Came to be heard this the 12th day of June, 2006, with a motion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, secondedlthird by Commissioner Letz. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to: Approve the revision of Plat for Hidden Hills, Lots 19 & 20, Vol 6, Page 362 & 363, of the Plat Records and located in Precinct 2. ORDER NO.29720 REVISION OF PLAT FOR PART OF LOT 25, TWIN SPRINGS RANCH II, VOL 7, PAGE 167, PRECINCT 2 Came to be heard this the 12th day of June, 2006, with a motion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioners Letz. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-1 to: Approve the revision of Plat for part of Lot 25, Twin Springs Ranch II, Vol 7, Page 167, located in Precinct 2. ORDER NO.29721 REVISION OF PLAT FOR CREEKWOOD V, VOL 7, PAGE 160, PRECINCT 2 Came to be heard this the 12th day of June, 2006, with a motion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-1 to: Approve the revision of Plat for Creekwood V, Vol 7, Page 160, in Precinct 2. ORDER NO. 29722 LEXIS-NEXIS CONTRACT TO REPLACE WESTLAW FOR COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Came to be heard this the 12th day of June, 2006, with a motion made by Commissioner Nicholson, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to: Approve the Lexis-Nexis contract to replace Westlaw as the provider for on- line legal research in the County Attorney's office, and authorize County Judge to sign same. ORDER NO. 29723 RECLASSIFY A CURRENT EMPLOYEE IN JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITY Came to be heard this the 12th day of June, 2006, with a motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to: Approve the reclassification of a current employee from step/grade position of ZZ-2 to a 17-5. -- ORDER NO. 29724 REVISION OF PLAT FOR LOT 60, WOOD TRAILS RANCH, VOL 4, PAGE 98, PRECINCT 4 Came to be heard this the 12th day of June, 2006, with a motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Nicholson. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to: Approve the revision of Plat for Lot 60, Wood Trails Ranch, Vo14, Page 98, Precinct 4, with the condition that an additional Plat Note be added that Lot 60A, 60-B & 60-C shall be served by a single shared well, and whichever lot that well is located on, the other two (2) lots will have Deed Restrictions .._ preventing future wells to be drilled. -- ORDER NO. 29725 ACCEPT TXDOT VALUATION ON SPUR 98 TRACT AND AUTHORIZE CONVEYANCE OF SUCH TRACT TO TXDOT IN CONSIDERATION OF CANCELLATION OF KERB COUNTY'S OUTSTANDING ROW ACQUISITION OBLIGATION TO TXDOT Came to be heard this the 12th day of June, 2006, with a motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Nicholson. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to: Approve the acceptance of the TXDOT valuation on authorize conveyance of such tract to TXDOT it cancellation of Kerr County's outstanding Right O obligation to TXDOT, and authorize County Judge Conveyance to TXDOT. Spur 98 tract and consideration of Way acquisition to sign Deed of ORDER NO. 29726 SET PUBLIC HEARING FOR REVISION OF PLAT OF TRACTS 9-B, 9- A, AND 10-A OF NF-RB RANCH, SECTION IV, VOL 6, PAGE 148, PRECINCT 4 Came to be heard this the 12th day of June, 2006, with a motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to: Set a Public Hearing for July 24, 2006 at 10:00 a.m. for the revision of Plat of Tracts 9-B, 9-A, and 10-A of NF-RB Ranch, Section IV, Vo16, Page 148, Precinct 4, Plat Records. ORDER NO. 29727 AUTHORIZE GRANTWORKS TO ADVERTISE AND CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING, JULY 11, 2006, AT 5:30 P.M. KER KERB COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' COURTROOM, ON PROPOSED GRANT APPLICATION FOR PHASE IV OF KERRVILLE SOUTH WASTEWATER PROJECT Came to be heard this the 12th day of June, 2006, with a motion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to: Authorize GrantWorks to advertise and conduct a Public Hearing, July 11, ,... 2006, at 5:30 p.m. in the Kerr County Commissioners' Courtroom, on the proposed grant application for Phase IV of the Kerrville South Wastewater Project in accordance with the guidelines of the Texas Community Development Program. ORDER NO. 29728 REQUEST TEXAS COMPTROLLER TO ALLOCATE A PORTION OF UNCLAIMED CAPITAL CREDITS RECEIVED FROM ELECTRIC COOPERATIVES WITHIN KERR COUNTY COOPERATIVE SERVICE AREA Came to be heard this the 12th day of June, 2006, with a motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to: Approve the request to the Texas Comptroller to allocate a portion of unclaimed capital credits received from electric cooperatives within Kerr ._. County cooperative service area, and authorize the County Judge to contact the Comptroller's office and request for our portion of electric co-ops considered capital credits. ORDER NO.29729 APPROVE INTERLOCAL CONTRACT BETWEEN COUNTY OF BLANCO AND KERB COUNTY TO HOUSE PRISONERS AT LAW ENFORCENLENT CENTER Came to be heard this the 12th day of June, 2006, with a motion made by Commissioner Nicholson, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to: Approve an Interlocal Contract between the County of Blanco and Kerr County to house prisoners at the Law Enforcement Center, and authorize the County Judge to sign same. ORDER NO. 29730 CLAIMS AND ACCOUNTS Came to be heard this the 12th day of June, 2006, came to be considered by the Court various Commissioners Precincts, which said Claims and Accounts are: Accounts Expense 10-General $ 156,155.00 14-Fire Protection $ 10,416.67 15-Road & Bridge $ 19,006.78 19-Public Library $ 25,000.00 31-Parks $ 56.88 50-Indigent Health Care $ 24,126.72 76-Juv Detention Facility $ 2,536.04 81-District Administration $ 600.00 TOTAL $ 237,898.09 Upon motion made by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Court unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to pay the claims and accounts. ORDER NO.29731 BUDGET AMENDMENT LATE BILL INDIGENT HEALTH CARE Came to be heard this the 12th day of June, 2006, with a motion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to transfer the following expense codes and issue hand check in the amount of $281.91 to Vericlaims, Inc. for June 5, 2006 Fee on Paid Claims: Expense Code Description 50-641-486 Third Party Administration 50-641-200 Eligible Expenses Amendment Increase/()Decrease + $1,053.75 - ($1,053.75) ORDER NO.29732 BUDGET AMENDMENT LATE BILL COUNTY ATTORNEY Came to be heard this the 12th day of June, 2006, with a motion made by Commissioner Nicholson, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to transfer the following expense codes and issue a hand check in the amount of $534.09 to West Payment Center for WEST/4'06 Westlaw charges: Expense Code Description 10-475-315 Books, Publications & Dues + 10-475-562 Computer Software Amendment Increase/QDecrease $2,000.00 ($2,000.00) ORDER NO. 29733 BUDGET AMENDMENT COUNTY COURT @ LAW Came to be heard this the 12th day of June, 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 10-427-403 Master Court Appointment Amendment Increase/ODecrease + $2,915.50 10-427-402 Caurt Appointed Attorney - ($2,915.50) ORDER NO. 29734 BUDGET AMENDMENT 216TH DISTRICT COURT Came to be heard this the 12th day of June, 2006, with a motion made by Commissioner Nicholson, seconded by Commissioners Williams, the Court unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to transfer the following expense codes: Expense Code Description 10-435-402 Court Appointed Attorney 10-435-494 Special Court Reporter 10-435-403 Civil Court Appointed Atty Amendment Increase/()Decrease + $5,572.50 + $300.00 - ($5,872.50) ORDER NO. 29735 BUDGET AMENDMENT 198TH DISTRICT COURT Came to be heard this the 12th day of June, 2006, with a motion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioners Nicholson, the Court unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to transfer the following expense codes: Expense Code Description 10-436-402 Court Appointed Attorney 10-436-403 Civil Court Appt'd Attorney Amendment Increase/QDecrease + $3,391.50 - ($3,391.50) ORDER NO. 29736 BUDGET AMENDMENT JUSTICE OF PEACE #2 Came to be heard this the 12th day of June, 2006, with a motion made by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioners Williams, the Court unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to transfer the following expense codes: Expense Code Description ~- 10-456-206 Bonds Amendment Increase/()Decrease + $171.00 10-456-202 Group Insurance - ($171.00) ORDER NO. 29737 BUDGET AMENDMENT JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITY Came to be heard this the 12th day of June, 2006, with a motion made by Commissioner Nicholson, seconded by Commissioners Williams, the Court unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to transfer the following expense codes: Expense Code Description 10-515-350 Maintenance & Custodial Amendment Increase/()Decrease + $217.71 76-572-104 Detention Officers - ($217.71) ORDER NO. 29738 BUDGET AMENDMENT ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH Came to be heard this the 12th day of June, 2006, with a motion made by Commissioner Nicholson, seconded by Commissioners Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to transfer the following expense codes: Expense Code Description Amendment Increase/()Decrease 10-640-434 Onsite Council Fee (State) + $157.00 10-640-435 Public Education - ($157.00) ORDER NO. 29739 BUDGET AMENDMENT JUVENILE DETENTION Came to be heard this the 12th day of June, 2006, with a motion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioners Nicholson, 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/()Decrease + $700.00 - ($700.00) ORDER NO.29740 BUDGET AMENDMENT SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT GENERAL REVENUES Came to be heard this the 12th day of June, 2006, with a motion made by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioners Nicholson, the Court unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to transfer the following expense codes: Expense Code Description 10-512-495 S.C.A.A.P. Grant Expenses 10-334-620 S.C.A.A.P. Grant Proceeds Amendment Increase/()Decrease + $11,376.00 - ($11,376.00) ORDER NO.29741 BUDGET AMENDMENT ROAD & BRIDGE Came to be heard this the 12th day of June, 2006, with a motion made by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioners Williams, the Court unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to transfer the following expense codes: Expense Code Description 15-350-540 Street Sign Proceeds 15-350-500 Surplus Sales 15-350-520 Culvert Pipe Proceeds 15-611-457 Signs/Traffic Control 15-611-552 Asphalts, Oils, Emulsion 15-611-554 Culvert Pipe & Bridges Amendment Increase/()Decrease - ($772.20)' - ($895.00)' + $187.17 + $772.20 + $895.00 *-Unbudgeted Road & Bridge revenues received for period: 3/1/06-5/31/06 ORDER NO.29742 MONTHLY REPORTS Came to be heard this the 12th day of June, 2006, with a motion made by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 the following monthly reports: District Clerk -April, 2006 JP #2 JP #3 County Clerk -General Fund Sheriff s Department