_~*:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT
Special Session
Monday, July 24, 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

.9
r
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
-- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
'"` 2 4
25

I N D E X
July 24, 2006
--- Commissioners' Comments
1.1 Consider/discuss, approve appointment of
election judges and alternates for term of one
year in accordance with Texas Election Code
1.2 Consider/discuss approving polling locations in
accordance with Chapter 43, Texas Election Code
1.11 Public Hearing for revision of plat for Tracts
9-B, 9-A, and 10-A of NF-RB Ranch, Section 4
1.6 Consider/discuss proposal from Ever Change Youth
and Family Services to manage Kerr County Juvenile
Detention Center
1.3 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to renew
annual contract with Department of State Health
Services, authorize the County Judge to sign same
1.4 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
membership with National Association of Counties
1.5 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
renewing Kerr County Teen Curfew which is due to
expire at the end of July 2006
1.7 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action regarding
proposal for new wireless telephone contract with
Five Star Wireless
PAGE
5
7
8
14
42
42
51
52
56
58
1.8 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action regarding
updating telephone system and renewing contract for
five years with Kerrville Telephone Business Systems 63
1.12 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for
revision of plat for Tracts 9-B, 9-A, and 10-A
of NF-RB Ranch, Section 4 75
1.9 Consider/discuss, approve payment of engineering
review fees and final plat approval as it relates
to inspections and engineer review fees 76
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
3
I N D E X (Continued)
July 24, 2006
1.13 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
consider concept plan and set public hearing
for the revision of Lots 79, 80, 81, 82 & 83
of The Woods, Section Two
1.14 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
consider final plat for Vistas Escondidas de
Cypress Springs Estates, and possibility of
reducing letter of credit
1.16 Approve the construction of a sidewalk at the
Animal Control Facility
1.17 Select and appoint a member to Library Board
to replace Reverend Al Schultz who resigned
1.18 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
Landscape Construction & Maintenance Agreement
between State of Texas, acting by and through
TexDOT, and County of Kerr
1.19 Discuss and approve Adopt-a-Highway for
Landscaping Program for Saddlewood Estates
1.20 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
solicit applications for Kerr County Human
Resource Director, Human Resource administrative
assistant or clerk, and authorize expenditure of
funds to advertise for same
1.15 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
proposed employee grade/step schedule
4.1 Pay Bills
4.2 Budget Amendments
9.3 Late Bills
4.9 Approve and Accept Monthly Reports
5.1 Reports from Commissioners/Liaison Committee
Assignments
--- Adjourned
PAGE
84
92
98
100
101
104
108
111
119
121
135
135
136
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
4
On Monday, July 24, 2006, at 9:00 a.m., a special
meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in the
Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, Kerrville,
Texas, and the following proceedings were had in open court:
P R O C E E D I N G S
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me call to order this regularly
scheduled meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court
scheduled for the date and time, Monday, July 24th, 2006, at
9 a.m. It's that time now. Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. Please join me in a moment
of prayer, followed by the pledge.
(Prayer and pledge of allegiance.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. At this time, if there's
any member of the audience or the public that wishes to be
heard on any matter that is not a listed agenda item, you're
free to come forward at this time and tell us what's on your
mind. If you have something in connection with an agenda
item, we'd ask that you wait until that item is called. And I
would prefer, so that I don't miss you when we get to that
item, that you fill out a participation form at the back of
the room and get it up here. But if you don't, that's fine;
when we get to an agenda item, if you want to be heard, get my
attention some way, shape, form, or fashion, and I'll see that
you have the opportunity. But at this time, if there's any
member of the public or the audience that wishes to be heard
~-aa-oF
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
L1
22
23
24
25
5
on any matter that is not a listed agenda item, come forward
at this time, if you will. Seeing no one coming forward,
we'll move on. Commissioner Letz, what do you have for us
this -- this morning?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not a whole lot. I mean, I
was -- I know some of y'all went to the services Saturday. I
opted to go to visitation and spent quite a bit of time with
Glenn's brothers and wife and son. A lot of people. I think
the turnout was phenomenal; it shows how well he was respected
in the area. On the rain front, I know some people got it,
but we sure didn't in the eastern part of the county. I just
saw a lot of thunderheads and it got cool for a few minutes,
and then we got one or two drops and then it was sunny again.
So, hopefully we'll get some rain this week. We're very, very
dry. I think that's it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Nicholson?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Generally, across the
western part of the county west of Ingram, from 41 to 39, we
got an inch to an inch and a half Saturday afternoon. It was
great to get it. We -- it helped out a little bit, but as you
know, we're still way, way behind on rainfall. I did lift the
burn ban, and I'm hoping we get some more rain from these
fronts that are coming through. And if we don't, I'll have to
put it back on, 'cause we still got a lot of fuel out there.
There was a pretty good-sized fire in the southern part of the
~->9-u6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
~5
6
county last weekend, I understand. So, anybody that burns
needs to be really careful. That's all.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I don't have anything
this morning. I see -- except I see some gentlemen here in
regards to the resolution -- L.C.R.A. resolution, and
hopefully that we can -- they're hardworking people, and I
hope we get to them pretty quick so they can get back out
there and serve the community. That's all.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Good.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Rained like crazy in the
Temple/Belton area where I was this weekend, but it sure
didn't do much down here. I came home and it was pretty dry.
I don't have anything else, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: I was fortunate enough, a portion of
the time, at least, to be in west Kerr County when -- when
they got their rain out there Saturday evening, so I didn't
forget what rain looks like. But when I got back home just
south of town, I noticed that we hadn't gotten much at all
there. I would urge all of us to -- in the coming days, to
remember Glenn Holekamp's family. I know there was a lot of
support immediately following his passing, and that's to be
expected, but that family's going to need support on an
ongoing basis to help them cope with that loss, and I would
urge all of us to continue doing that and check on them, see
~ ze o~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
7
that they're okay. Let's get on with the agenda that we got.
The first item on the agenda is to consider, discuss, and
approve the appointment of election judges and alternates for
a term of one year in accordance with Texas Election Code
Section 32.
MS. PIE PER: Gentlemen, the list that you have has
came from both party chairs, and this is who they are
recommending. However, due to a public participation form,
there may be a change in the democratic side, I'm thinking.
No? But he does have a -- he does want to speak on this.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further?
MS. PIEPER: Nothing further from me.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Evans, you filed a --
MR. EVANS: I may want to comment in case there's
some problem. If there's no problem with it, I don't need to
speak.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of the agenda item. Any question or discussion? All in favor
of that motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(NO response.)
7-?9-OH
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
~0
21
22
23
24
25
s
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Let's go to
Item 2, consider and discuss approving of polling locations in
accordance with Chapter 43 of the Texas Election Code.
MS. PIEPER: This is just basically the polling
places that we've been using. I have sent out letters to
remind the entities that we will be holding the elections, and
I've heard back from most of them, but not all of them yet.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Any question or discussion?
MS. PIEPER: I do have -- oh, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Go ahead. I'll go after
you.
MS. PIEPER: I do want to let you know that I did --
I was in Austin last week at an election conference, and I
have been informed that most of our polling places, because of
their parking area, which is either grass or caliche or pea
gravel, is no longer A.D.A. compliant, and because these are
not owned buildings, I don't know how we're going to rectify
that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What buildings -- what --
which ones are you talking about?
MS. PIEPER: Let's see.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Union Church?
~-z4-o~,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
9
MS. PIE PER: No, the Union Church, I believe --
isn't that cement? Or not -- yeah, that's cement parking.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They have cement parking
there, and it's also pretty hardpan, but they're getting ready
to submit a landscaping plan which will even improve what's
there. What you're telling us now is pea gravel is not
acceptable?
MS. PIE PER: Right, pea gravel or caliche. Because
if it rains, then it can get muddy. So --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Getting some more input
from the People's Republic of Austin.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: caliche is older than Texas.
MS. PIEPER: I'm thinking the Crosswalk Baptist
Church, which is on Camino Real, Hosanna Lutheran Church that
is on Camp Meeting, Cypress Creek Community Center at the end
of Stoneleigh, Calvary Temple Church on Highway 27 east of
Center Point, Mountain Home Volunteer Fire Department, and the
First Presbyterian Church out at Divide. That's just right
off the top of my head that --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What does that mean? I mean,
from a practical standpoint, I mean, we can go back to Lane
Valley Community Center.
JUDGE TINLEY: If somebody has a walker or a
wheelchair --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know that. What is the legal
7 2 4 U n
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
10
implication to the County by --
JUDGE TINLEY: We can be sued.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: By the --
MS. PIEPER: By D.O.J.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there a waiver process?
MS. PIEPER: I don't know. This was just kind of
thrown at me, so I have to do some more searching on it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: In some of my precincts, there
-- other than a personal home, there is no location.
MS. PIEPER: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You know. So, I mean, I think
that if you can inquire about waivers and tell them the
situation, that we can either do it in a personal residence or
we can do it in a community building --
JUDGE TINLEY: I have a couple of names that I talk
to every year, because every year D.O.J. calls me with
different questions, and so I will see what I can find out.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MS. PIEPER: And also, the -- and from what I
understand, the Department of Justice picks out about two to
three counties every year to sue, for whatever reason they caii
find.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: When's our turn?
MS. PIEPER: I'm scared our turn is coming very
quickly. The -- one of the main reasons is because of
7-29-06
11
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
bilingual. Now, I have tried my best to have at least one
bilingual person in every polling location, along with the
help of the county chairs, plus I have bilingual people -- in
case for some reason we can't have a person on election day in
a particular precinct, I also have a backup in my office that
the judge can call and ask for my bilingual person and get
whatever resolved. Now, that's never happened; we've never
gotten a call. But I need to call out a cry for help for more
bilingual persons, because according to the state, there are
some precincts that we are required to have four bilingual
people in a particular polling location. So, if y'all know of
anybody that's bilingual, have them call me.
JUDGE TINLEY: We don't have the ability to
conscript poll workers, do we?
MS. PIEPER: Our --
JUDGE TINLEY: To force them to work at the polls?
MS. PIEPER: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is there a feasible, practical
solution to any of these problems?
MS. PIEPER: Just to make it known to our election
judges that they are required by law to appoint bilingual
people. And if they don't do it, and I can't help them find
bilingual people, it falls back on the County.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I'm sure that these election
judges are doing whatever effort they have available to
~-29-06
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
them --
MS. PIEPER: They are.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- to try and get those right kind of
people, but if they -- if they cannot get those people, get
them to volunteer by hiring them, by doing whatever --
MS. PIEPER: We just have trouble finding judges and
alternates sometimes, much less poll workers, and the fact
that they need to be bilingual. Anyway, I just wanted to let
you know.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or discussion?
Mr. Evans?
MR. EVANS: Maury Evans here in Kerrville. Isn't
there a feel down there where, if you have one person at a
central location like you're talking about, that covers you at
all --
MS. PIEPER: No, not -- it helps, but it doesn't
i cover us.
MR. EVANS: But isn't there another deal that you
have to make a good-faith effort to do this?
MS. PIEPER: They're not looking at that either,
from what I'm understanding from the other counties that have
been --
MR. EVANS: The law says so.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do you have money in your
budget to pay for these people that can be found?
7 ~9-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
13
MS. PIEPER: Yes,
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: There may be some questions
about the willingness of Mountain Home Fire Department --
their willingness to host a polling place, but I'm going to
check with the president today, probably, and get some
clarification on that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: When's the deadline on
completing this?
MS. PIEPER: I have to have -- if there's any kind
of a change, I have to submit that in August to the Department
of Justice, the preclearance.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You have to submit it in
August? I don't -- it doesn't appear that we're ready to
adopt this thing yet, but, I mean, 1 guess we could and
then --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, it's just the polling
places.
DODGE TINLEY: Yeah, it's just the polling
I locations.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah,
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Fine. I mean, I hear some --
I hear Mountain Home may not be ready to go. Commissioner
i Letz doesn't have available space.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't have available space
that doesn't have a caliche or grass parking lot.
-zs oe
14
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I move we adopt it.
How's that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We've already got a motion.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, there was already a motion and
I a second.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, golly.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or discussion?
All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right
hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Why don't we
move now to -- seems like we've got everybody here -- to Item
10; discuss, consider, and take appropriate action on
resolution opposing L.C.R.A. Rim Rock-to-Goat Creek project.
Commissioner Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. Thank you very
much. We put this on the agenda because the natives are
restless. The general public that are affected by this
particular transmission line has the belief -- or a lot of
them have the belief that the Commissioners Court has some
kind of authority in this thing, and I have talked to a lot of
them till I'm blue in the face, and I can't convince everyone
that we do not have authority. So -- and they continue to
~-Z9-~fi

15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
come and call and -- and now the rumor mills are blowing and
calls, and I know you have and you have, and I know Number 4
has, so I thought this would be a good tool and a good way to
get -- it has never crossed my mind that it will stop the
project in any way. My whole move here is to get the
Commissioners Court out of it, and to let the public know that
we're doing what they ask us to do. So, at this time, Judge,
I think it would be wise to take those folks that would like
to speak about it, and when they're completed, then I'll read
the resolution and we'll vote up or down.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other member of the Court have
any comments they'd like to offer at this time? I've not had
any participation forms filed with me with regard to this
particular agenda item. However, as you've indicated,
Commissioner Baldwin, it's an item that does have some
lightning rod effects attached to it. That being the case, is
there any member of the public or the audience here present
today that wishes to be heard with regard to this particular
agenda item? Yes, sir? Come forward, please, and give your
name and address, and -- and we'll be happy to listen to what
you have to say.
MR. TURNER: My name's Jeff Turner. I live at 1242
Bear Creek Road. The L.C.R.A. line actually -- one of their
~-a9-r~F
~- - ~ _--
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
16
First
of all, can I perhaps say to Mr. Baldwin that the -- what he
says is not entirely correct with regard to the opinion of the
from the County Judge, is heard with a great deal of sympathy
by the L.C.R.A., and an opinion given by this Court would not
be disregarded in the ultimate considerations that the
L.C.R.A. take. And so I think it is very important that this
Court actually get themselves to some extent involved,
particularly as here we have the representatives, in
Mr. Nicholson and Mr. Baldwin, of many of the residents that
are affected by this proposal.
The next point that I'd like to make is that the
L.C.R.A., I understand, informed members of this Court way
back in October of this proposed project, and yet the general
public were not made aware of this until May of this year. To
my mind, this is a pretty disgusting situation, and should --
should have been -- well, should not have happened. This is
something that affects people that are landowners, that have
homes in the area, and also at the time affected a lot of
people who are on the verge of moving into the area, and at
the time bought properties for very high prices, and have seen
those prices at least eroded, and in some cases, I understand
7 29-06

17
1
-~ L
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
-- 1 3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
"" 2 4
25
that sales have fallen through because of this proposal from
the L.C.R.A. which blights an entire area from the Guadalupe
project prior to actually releasing that to the Court here and
to the general public, simply because what they have caused is
a high degree of panic, and yet they still cannot define as to
whether the lines that they put on their map are within 100
feet of where they finally would propose that they might be.
The L.C.R.A. made one fundamental mistake, and they took
aerial photographs and assumed that the area that they were
looking at was largely unoccupied. This was rather foolish.
Aerial photographs don't show you what is really down on the
ground. They have never done the research on the ground, and
in fact, I have found many people that are affected by the
routes or sectors that the L.C.R.A. are proposing that have
never been informed, either of the open house that was held,
nor -- or alternately, could not attend the open house, which
was a short event held on one particular day. So, I would
certainly like the Court to at least make some comment to the
L.C.R.A. in that respect.
I'd like to also point out to the Court that this
project has a number of different sectors that make up
7-29-uF
~. ~ __.._ + ~w _.
18
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
different routes that go through the area that I previously
mentioned. The longest route that they have chosen, which
takes them right 'round the periphery of the area, actually
passes over, as far as I can see, some 107 platted lots, most
of which are occupied within that area. The shortest route
that they have specified crosses some 52 platted lots; 16 of
those are on an existing easement that the L.C.R.A. actually
have, and of the remainder, the majority, apart from a number
of lots that surround the Saddlewood area, are unoccupied. I
think that the other thing that, really, I would like to say
before I sit down is that this is not just a matter of the
routes that they've chosen. There are also issues of safety
involved here. The lines that they've shown cross ridges.
They also cross some very undulating land, some steep
escarpments, in fact, and would require that they use 100-foot
towers in order to cross those areas.
I should mention that if they follow flatter land,
then it is possible for them to cross -- sorry, use towers
that are 40 or 50 foot in height. Those tall towers that they
propose will necessitate possibly lights, where they're on
ridges, to be put on the towers. In addition, they will put
those round, red balls on the wire because of the dangers, and
this area is actually on one of the main approaches to
Kerrville airport. In addition to that, there is a question
of safety for the residents in that area, because the Air
7-29-06
r
19
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
Rescue that operates out of our local hospital also has cause
to traverse that area on a regular basis, and therefore will
not be able to operate programs in cases of poor visibility,
and where there may be conditions that cause them to have a
potential to collide with the lines which otherwise would not
have been there. I thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: One moment, please. Does any member
of the Court have any questions for Mr. Turner?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't have a question. I
just -- observation. The issue of L.C.R.A. and others meeting
with Commissioner Baldwin and I, I don't find anything
sinister about that. That's what I would expect them to do to
let us know what they're about before they hold public
hearings.
MR. TURNER: Neither do I, sir. I think the main
point that I'm making is that the period between that meeting
with you and actually releasing their plans to the general
public was extraordinarily long, and really should not have
been that -- of that nature. Either they had, at the time
that they talked to you, formulated those plans and were in a
position to release them, or they should have been, or they
were not prepared, and therefore should not have spoken to you
and should have waited until it was a time that was
approaching the period of the open house. I quite understand
the reasoning for giving a heads-up to you as public
7-24-06

20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
representatives, but I think that the time that was involved
in that is excessive.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions for Mr. Turner?
Thank you, sir.
MR. TURNER: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is there any other member of the
audience who wishes to be heard with regard to this particular
agenda item? Yes, ma'am. Come forward, please, and give your
name and address.
MS. BIDELL: Morning. My name is Cherie Bidell, and
I live at 215 Ruhm. That would be in Highland Ranch. And our
new home -- we just moved in about seven months ago -- will be
impacted if this long route that we're talking about, the B
route, would be proposed. I'd just like to let the Court know
that it would be great jeopardy to us personally, my husband
and myself, but it certainly would make a difference in the
appearance of that -- the hill country and looking up toward
the hills from Kerrville. There are many other reasons why we
feel that this is -- would not be a good idea. As Mr. Turner
said, there is a short route, and L.C.R.A. -- when they throw
this out to the public, they give you many, many different
routes. I don't know how many alternative routes there are,
but they come in and certainly have panicked the community by
their open house and giving a chart with these different
routes on it, so everybody -- you don't know whether it's
~-z9-oG
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
21
going to be in your back yard, or if it's not going to be in
your back yard, where it's going to be.
Already -- as Mr. Turner has said, in my
neighborhood, the Highland Ranch, already property is really
being watched. There are people who want to buy, people who
already have picked out their lots, but they're not buying
because this will be highly impacted, that particular
neighborhood. Bear Paw is also another neighborhood that will
be highly impacted. We think that if the Commissioners would
send a letter -- the resolution, like you're going to be
looking at today, to L.C.R.A., we think it would make a
difference. We think the difference would be that they would
at least look at it. We, the people, of course, are very
concerned and -- and nervous, but they don't think -- they
don't think we're too terribly important, but I think that if
a force of your nature would say, you know, "Let's take a look
at this," I think it would make a difference. So, my hope
would be for you to vote for this resolution that Mr. Baldwin
has put together, and I'd appreciate it if you would. Thank
you.
JUDGE TINLEY: One moment. Does any member of the
Court have any questions for Ms. Bidell? Thank you, ma'am.
We appreciate --
MS. BIDELL: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- your comments. Is there any other
7-_'4 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
22
member of the public or the audience here today that wishes to
else? Yes, sir? Come forward and give us your name and
address, please, Mr. Pena.
MR. PENA: My name is Roland Pena. and r l;~>e
I am with L.C.R.A. Public
Affairs, and I felt like I needed to speak on this item. Not
-- not to get into a -- a discussion with Mr. Turner, the
gentleman that spoke, I can't explain the delay between
October and early spring. I know that we had a project
manager that began -- initiated this project, and she was
killed in a traffic accident, and I know that there was time
to be able to reassign the project, and that may be the lapse.
I will differ with his comment with regard to notification --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Move back a little bit.
MR. PENA: Am I too close? Okay, good. I will
differ with his comment with regard to notification to the
Commissioners Court. It's standard procedure for us to notify
the affected Commissioners who are involved within a precinct
where the project is at. We do that as a normal, standard
procedure to provide a heads-up. Normally, we provide the --
we meet with the Commissioners, City Council, affected elected
officials right about the time we're going to mail the letter
to the affected residents, so it's very close in terms of the
7-29-Oo
~ _ ~ ___
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
23
timing when we meet with those Commissioners, just as a
courtesy, to provide them a heads-up, what the project
entails. We did not identify the routes, just so that we're
clear. We provided a map of the study area. The routes were
only disclosed at the open house, just for clarification
purposes. We do have a third-party consultant that we're
utilizing to conduct studies. If you were at the open house,
and with regard to the information that you received in the
mail, as well as the affected landowners, there is a criteria
that we use to identify those routes. It is very early on
right now, and we do have the project manager and those
consultants, who are in the field almost weekly meeting with
those residents who call for those -- for the meetings, doing
the field studies to determine the routes that -- the route
that will be submitted to the Public Utility Commission. That
will not happen until later on in the year, so -- because it
involves that amount of study. What is not clear, perhaps,
and what I have not heard is the need for the project, and I
felt that perhaps as -- as a nontechnical person, KPUB and
CTEC can confirm and validate the need of the project. I
think that's very important for you to know. Would you like
to --
MR. TAYLOR: Judge, I didn't come to speak to y'all.
Having just got back from the coast about five days ago, I
really wasn't prepared to come make a speech.
~-ze oe

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
JUDGE TINLEY: Give your name and address, please.
MR. TAYLOR: My name's Bill Taylor. I live in Kerr
County at 150 Roundabout Lane. The line that is being
discussed this morning is something that's necessary for us
~.,r ~a,,a~; r~, an~3 ral i abi 1 itv. We have needed this line
this process, and the process began with meeting with County
and City officials, and -- and also establishing some routes
for the Public Utility Commission. The second process is that
this will be filed with the Public Utility Commission sometime
December, January, around the end of the year, first of next
year. That process will probably last another 12 to 18 months
before it establishes a specific route, and -- and a
transmission line can then be designed and -- and materials
ordered, and start to be constructed. So, we're still a long
ways away from -- from getting to the point that we'll be
putting some steel on the ground and -- and wire in the air.
The safety concerns, the line will be built in
accordance with the National Electric Safety standards that we
have to comply with building facilities. It's not really a
process where the -- the City or the County has authority to
approve or not approve. It's really up to the Public Utility
Commission of Texas to do this, and that's where the process
is. KPUB and Central Texas both support the project. We need
-r-?4_aF
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the project for existing State Hospital, Riverhill area, our
mall, new hospital that's going in, and for the rest of our
20,000 customers for reliability. It will bring facilities
that we can back-feed and for any kind of an outage or problem
with our system, we can serve all of our customers with
additional facilities. So, we support the -- the line, and
the Kerrville Public Utility Board of Trustees support the
line, and that's basically what I have to say. Be glad to
answer any questions.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can I ask a question? One of
the -- and I'll preface this by saying that I did not follow
this as closely as I think Commissioner Baldwin and Nicholson,
because it doesn't go through my precinct, though I have
received a lot of calls against it, the line. As you're
probably aware, there have been a large amount of L.C.R.A.
upgrades in the eastern part of the county. All those
upgrades were done on existing right-of-ways. Is it not
possible to do this upgrade using existing right-of-ways?
MR. TAYLOR: No. We've got -- with the Rim Rock
substation, it's really hung out there on a -- a radio line
and is served from Turtle Creek substation from L.C.R.A., and
it's just radio -- radio-fed from there, just one line. And
that line was built to current standards and is great, but
it's just -- it's hanging out there. And, actually, our
customers are kind of hanging out there too, because we have
~-z4-ne
26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
circuits that come out of that that are not really back-fed
from everywhere else, so if you have an outage, unless you can
get it fixed very quickly, there -- there's going to be
considerable time they're going to be out. If you're able to
back-feed things and loop-feed things, then you have the
ability to operate the system differently. And as we -- as we
grow -- and, of course, y'all know that KPUB's been in
existence since 1987, and this is the only substation that has
really been added, only capacity, other than we've increased
our Hunt substation, just the transformer. We've increased
Harper Road, but we really haven't added new transmission
facilities. And our real problem is, as our system grows --
and it's just not for one small section. We need to loop that
and make the whole system stronger so that we can continue to
add capacity to our substations. This will do that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions for Mr. Taylor?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is the need -- Mr. Taylor,
is the need because we've experienced too much growth for the
existing system, or we're experiencing power drops and
brownouts or failures? Or all of the above?
MR. TAYLOR: You haven't seen any power drops or
We'	ve been very	fortunate	in	-- in	being	able
he	customers.	But what y	ou'd	have	when	you
-- just like Rim Rock substation, it's in -- the substation
capacity is 20 megawatts, and that 20 megawatts, we're hitting
~-zn-aF
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
in there; we're going to need additional capacity there. You
get to the point where, you know, the buckets -- the buckets
ail get full, and you got to have more buckets. You got to
bring it in here so you can -- so you can serve folks. And
you don't wait till the lights go out. We need to do this
ahead of time. We need -- it's a planning thing.
We project the load -- as you know, Commissioner,
you came here about the same time I did. We've grown from,
like -- when I came here in 1987, we had 12,000 customers.
Today we got 21,000 customers, and adding those customers to
our base, and Central Taxes has the same thing with Horizon
out there and Bear Paw, and they -- their system actually is
I served off of our system, because most of theirs is to the
back -- to the east. And we actually had them on the end of a
couple of our circuits at one time. This Rim Rock substation
brought a lot of those folks service from the Rim Rock, so
we're -- both of us are depending on that one substation.
But the whole system -- the whole hill country has grown, as
you know, over the last 19, 20 years, and we -- we just got to
have some more capacity to make sure that our reliability, and
make sure that we have the capacity to serve new customers.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're familiar with the
demographics of the county, as we are.
MR. TAYLOR: Yes, sir.
~-z9 oc
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
"' 2 4
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And you know the amount of
growth we've had over the last 10, 12 years, 14 years. What
is your projection for that continued growth for the next 10?
MR. TAYLOR: We expect it to increase. Right now,
and as people want to move here from -- from wherever,
California and Florida -- everybody likes the hill country,
and it's -- we think we're probably going to get up into the 4
and 5 percent growth range. We're not where Boerne is today,
or not where San Antonio -- the San Antonio area is, but we're
growing very fast. It's just pockets, is our problem.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What -- this is probably for
Mr. Pena. Or you, Mr. Taylor.
MR. TAYLOR: I'll be glad to leave and go back --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I gave you an out. From the
out in the -- that are more affected, there seems to be a lot
of either misinformation or lack of information that's been
presented up till now. I mean, and because of that, what I'm
being told, I would be in favor of the resolution, because I
don't think L.C.R.A. has done a good job of identifying what
their plans are. That's just feedback I'm getting. I've not
talked to L.C.R.A. people; I really don't know what their
7-24-06
29
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
~5
process is. I mean, what, I guess, has L.C.R.A. done, and
what do they plan to do to get public input? And what -- and
i who -- how does the public know what criteria is used? And
so many different options on that map, I think that it was --
it was almost impossible to come up with anything meaningful.
And I understand what -- you know, y'all have to put something
out, but it seemed that what went out is very preliminary, and
until it gets narrowed down somewhat, there needs to be some
sort of a, really, mechanism for the public to have what
criteria is used and -- or at least to know what the criteria
is, and to get a better handle onto what the line --
MR. TAYLOR: I agree totally. And normally I don't
speak in public for L.C.R.A., but -- and I will say, from my
perspective, I think they've done a good job. The problem is,
they've actually been doing things they're not required to do
in the first place, okay? So, first of all, they don't know
where -- sure, they've come up with some routes, and they --
you know, they've sent out some notices to people within 300
feet of those routes. The real -- the real process starts
later on at the Public Utility Commission, and -- and it comes
together a whole lot better and more formalized, more defined.
They've actually been trying to do some things ahead of
themselves, and, you know, when you do that, sure, you don't
7-29 O6
30
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
talk to everybody and there's some confusion and people don't
know where it's going to be or anything else. Now, I don't
really want to speak -- speak for them, but I -- they're out
there doing something for us which we've got to have, so it is
the Public Utility Commission. They've got all this criteria
where they've got to meet aLl these different things, and
they're trying to do that, but they're also trying to come
meet with y'all, come meet with the KPUB Board, the City
Council, and all the residents out there, too, that they're
close to. So, I think they're getting there. Sut -- Roland?
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Pena, let me -- you had mentioned
a moment ago that what's been done up to this point is
preliminary in nature, and I believe you said your field
people are here in the field talking with residents. Any
potentially affected resident, landowner, citizen out there
that has thoughts or concerns they want to talk to your --
your representatives about, the L.C.R.A. people that are
involved in this project, or any information they want to
bring to their attention about topography, situations with
regard to any one or more legs of possible routes. I
understood from you, and I want you to correct me if I'm
wrong, that your field people are available to see that those
people get that opportunity to talk with them. Is that
~-'9-oe
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
correct?
MR. PENA: That is correct. I believe that every
request that we've had for a meeting, and we've had many
one-on-ones, two on -- one-on-twos, one-on-sixes, and maybe
even larger groups that we've met with to discuss their
concerns, whatever issues they may have. One of the best
things I like about the process is that L.C.R.A. listens. We
take their input, and we take it very seriously, and sometimes
we find out things that we didn't know. We find out
something's wrong with this route, perhaps, or -- or there's a
new route that they've introduced that, for whatever reason,
we've missed. So, you know, I believe that, you know, the
dialogue has been healthy. I believe we've met all the
requests, via U.S. mail, via e-mail, via phone calls, and via
person-to-person. So...
DODGE TINLEY: Have you made efforts to publicize
ways that you can be contacted? Mailing address, phone
numbers, e-mail addresses, ways that they can meet with
representatives when they're in the area if they have specific
schedules?
MR. PENA: Early on, with regard to the affected
landowners, we provided all that information. I believe we
continuously provide that information with everybody that we
talk to. We ask them to monitor the web site as well. That
information for the project manager and his phone number is
~-24-06
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
I want
to ask Mr. Turner a question in just a moment, but I want to
say that I appreciate Mr. Taylor's comments, particularly the
part about these things have to be planned, and long-term
planned, and, you know, at some point they have to start the
planning process for projects like this. And I appreciate
LCRA's comments, and I appreciate them meeting with the folks.
However, I don't represent a state agency, and I don't
represent KPUB, being a city agency. I represent the people
that pay taxes in this county. And I wanted to ask Mr. Turner
one more question. If you would repeat your comment about the
number of lots and how many homes are on those lots that
possibly this line would go right through?
MR. TURNER: Sure. Let me come up there, I suppose.
The point that I was making -- I mean, this has already been
said. There are a myriad of sectors that make up these routes
that -- well, potential routes. But just simply by taking the
short -- the longest route, from Rim Rock around these -- on
these routes to the Guadalupe River there is where my line was
drawn, because once you get into Kerrville, it gets extremely
~-za-oo
33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
complicated, or in -- let's say they're actually avoiding
Kerrville, but that's another issue. The -- there are 100 --
number are occupied. In fact, probably a much larger number
than the L.C.R.A. were aware of, because I found many people
that live along that route that were not aware of this
project. And along the shortest route, which is the one that
was referred to by -- by Cherie back there, this one is -- has
got a hundred -- sorry, has got 52 platted lots along it, and
of those, 16 are located on an existing L.C.R.A. easement, and
the remaining 36 pass through areas or land which is largely
unoccupied, other than in the vicinity of the entrance to the
Saddlewood subdivision. But the remainder is open land, which
I believe is open for development currently. Perhaps whilst
you've given me the microphone, I might make a couple more
comments. First of all, the comment --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We want to break at noon.
MR. TURNER: That's all right, I'll be out of here
quick; I promise. I could talk all day.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No.
MR. TURNER: The reason is, I'm well practiced,
because I've been doing the job for the L.C.R.A. with the
~-z9-o6
34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
people that don't know about this project and making sure,
with the help of their maps, that those people are aware of
the situation. But I do have here -- which I believe some of
surround the Kerrville area. And I would never criticize them
in wanting to link the Rim Rock substation up to another line,
because, basically, there has been some total oversight put in
and an absolute lack of planning, and it appears now, from the
admission of KPUB, that has been for some 14 years, but a
total lack of planning in putting together the power lines
that surround this area.
And I think one of the things that this county --
this Commissioners Court can do and should be doing is
insuring that the planning that goes on within the county and
within Kerrville itself is far more integrated in its nature,
because we have a number of authorities that deal with roads,
that deal with power, that deal with other utilities, and it
seems to me -- and I'm just a simple layman -- that they are
totally uncoordinated. This Rim Rock substation sticks out on
a limb. It's like putting the lights on in your living room
and then going nearer to the circuits in your circuit breaker
at home and switching another light on, and wondering why the
living room light dips in light. They have got a serious
~-^4-U6
35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
problem there, because it's out on a limb, and that's why I
would never criticize their need for putting in that line.
One of the things I would like to do is -- or to hear the
Commissioners Court push for is the pursuit of the aesthetic
principles that the P.U.C. have got actually within their
documentation, and -- and their advice to the L.C.R.A..
I'd make one other comment. It was suggested that
of a lot of people that don't have access to the web, just as
I don't bother having access to the local newspaper, because I
don't consider it to be something I want to read. But the web
site has not changed. There has been no significant change;
let me put it that way, in the information that's on the web
site since May, despite the fact the that there have been
considerable discussions with the project manager. And I
would also tell Mr. Pena that I -- I agree with him. His
people have been very proactive with those that have had the
opportunity to speak to them. The problem is that there are
many people who either are unaware of the project or who have
a severe difficulty in understanding the implications of that
project and where it will run.
The aerial photograph map that I have here is not
easy to read. It does not relate itself clearly to the roads
which traverse the area, and does not relate very easily and
readily to the ability of people to read the geography that's
~-z4-o6
36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Turner.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I've got some comments,
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Go ahead.
MS. BIDELL: Mr. Nichols, one thing I want to point
out to you, because this is in your district, something that
has not been said. Now, with power lines, there's going to
have to be a new substation. And at the open house, we saw
where their proposed -- or where they're thinking about
putting a substation. And, remember, this project is called
Rim Rock-to-Goat Creek, so we know where Rim Rock is, and we
know where that substation is there. And Goat Creek means
maybe that the substation is going to be somewhere near --
around Goat Creek. Now, nothing much has been said about
substations, and to me, that's just as important. A
substation would not impact myself or my husband or my
neighborhood, but a substation certainly is really going to
impact Kerr County. And when L.C.R.A. starts their project,
they tell you nothing but that they're going to have a
~-z9 0~
37
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
large piece of equipment. And I think we all know -- just
drive down Harper Road and take a look at that substation.
You know, people who are going to be impacted by the
substation around Goat Creek could be Ingram or the far west
side of Kerrville. I think that's a very important issue
also, and to -- to let the county of Kerr to hang out there --
and I do feel they let us hang, not only with the power lines,
but they're letting us hang with the substation. And I just
wanted to bring that point up. The substation is very, very
important; very, very unsightly, and to some degree, sometimes
more unsightly than power lines. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, ma'am. Mr. Nicholson?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. I just wanted to
share my thinking on the issue with you. One, it's certain
that anytime that there's a -- a taking of public property for
-- for general public use, whether it's a road or utility
easement or whatever, there is going to be objections to it,
and the objections are going to be strongest by those who are
most closely impacted by it. So, that's no surprise. I've
got a -- KPUB's got an easement across my front yard, and I
wish they'd move across the road, put it in somebody's else's
front yard, but they're probably not going to do that. The
second observation is, I think the opinion of this Court
~-zn o6
3s
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
doesn't carry much weight on whether or not the issue is
approved. We can act if we choose to, but let's not pretend
that we've got very much influence on the -- on the final
outcome of it. And the third, maybe the most important
observation I've got to make, is I think the concerns of my
constituents are exacerbated because they don't believe
there's a need for this project. They don't appreciate the
need. They -- they tell me they're told the need for the
project is things like in case a tornado or an airplane hits
the current line, we'd be out of power for a few days. That's
a pretty weak argument for a need for a project of this scope.
And then I look at the question and answer sheet, and it asks
the question, why is the Rim Rock-to-Goat Creek project
needed? And the answer is pretty weak. It doesn't -- it
doesn't tell me that we're out of capacity and if we don't do
this project, then we won't be able to meet the electrical
needs of west Kerr County in the future, so if that's the
case, that needs to be said. People need to know that this
isn't a convenience deal. It's not a backup. It's not just
in case. It's needed to supply current and future growth.
We're at capacity, and we need to build this -- we need more
capacity. If that's the case, we need to say it. That's it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Turner, you had an additional
~ comment?
MR. TURNER: Can I just make one comment in -- in
~-24-U6
39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
correcting Mr. Nicholson? First of all, this project is to
deal with high tension power lines. It's not like the KPUB
lines you're talking about. This is a whole different ball
game. Secondarily, I think that the point that you make is
very valid. We do need the -- the power supply, and I would
never go against that need. I'm not -- I mean, I'm not one of
the guys that would say we don't need it. The principles by
which the project is applied are the most important issue
that's at stake here, and I -- I would like the Court to know
that it is certainly -- I have heard an opinion from a guy who
was an attorney within the L.C.R.A. system that says that this
Court's opinion does hold weight within their consideration.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, may I offer the
resolution, please?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. I want to read
the resolution for the record, please. "Whereas the Lower
Colorado River Authority, through its Transmission Services
Corporation, is proposing a major transmission line project in
Kerr County, known as the Rim Rock-to-Goat Creek project, for
the construction and operation of a new 138-kilovolt
transmission line; and Whereas this new transmission line is
proposed to be built from the existing Rim Rock substation
located south of Kerrville to a new substation to be built on
or near the existing Ingram-to-Harper Road transmission line
~-z9-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
40
west of Kerrville; and Whereas the Public Utility Commission
of Texas decides if and where new lines are needed to supply
transmission line at the open-house meeting at which the
public was invited, nor was there comprehensive information
presented as to the demonstrated need for the new transmission
line; and Whereas L.C.R.A. failed to present detailed
information regarding public health and safety issues,
environmental issues, land use constraints, and/or
human/natural/cultural resources impacts and the devaluing of
private property; Now, therefore, be it resolved that Kerr
County Commissioners Court does hereby register its opposition
to the Rim Rock-to-Goat Creek project as proposed by
L.C.R.A./T.S.C. and urges the Public Utility Commission of
Texas to deny the L.C.R.A. application to amend its CCN for
this purpose; and be it further resolved that copies of this
resolution be forwarded to the Public Utility Commission of
Texas, the Lower Colorado River Authority, Kerrville Public
[7tility Board, the Central Texas Electric Cooperative, State
Representative Harvey Hilderbran, and State Senator Troy
Fraser."
Before I offer this as a motion, I wanted to thank
7-29 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
24
25
my good friend from Precinct 2. He's the -- he's the official
pen for the Commissioners Court. And, of course, he has a
hard time spelling some things here, but we'll change that as
we go along.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Did I misspell your name?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, you misspelled your State
Representative's name.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Which I'm not going to bring
up in a public forum, of course. So, Judge, I offer this
resolution as a motion.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion. Do I hear a
second? Do I hear a second to the motion?
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion dies for lack of a second.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Good.
JUDGE TINLEY: I assume there's nothing further on
that particular agenda item?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's quickly move to -- let's
go to Item 11. We have a 10 o'clock public hearing, so I'm
going to recess the Commissioners Court meeting at this time,
and I will open a public hearing for revision of plat for
Tracts 9B, 9A, and l0A of NF-RB Ranch, Section 4, as set forth
in Volume 6, Page 148, Plat Records.
~-z9-o6
42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(The regular Commissioners Court meeting was closed
at 10:01 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 the to be heard with respect to the revision of
plat for Tracts 9B, 9A, and 10A of NF-RB Ranch, Section 4, as
set forth in Volume 6, Page 148? If so, please come forward
at this time.
MR. ANDREWS: Judge Tinley, I'm Frank Andrews, and
it's my revision that's being requested, and I'm just here to
answer any questions, and otherwise not take up any of the
Court's time.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right, sir. Thank you. Any --
any other member of the public that wishes to be heard with
regard to the revision of plat for Tracts 9B, 9A, and l0A of
NF-RB Ranch, Section 4? Seeing no one else coming forward, I
will close the public hearing.
(The public hearing was concluded at 10:01 a.m., and
the regular Commissioners Court meeting was
reopened.)
JUDGE TINLEY: And I will reconvene the
Commissioners Court meeting. We will move to Item 6, which
was a timed item at 9:30. I'm sorry we're a little bit late
getting to that. That item is to consider and discuss a
proposal from Ever Change Youth and Family Services to manage
7-^_9-06
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
the Kerr County Juvenile Detention Center. Commissioner
Mr. Beams
has been in touch with me with regarding his company's
interest in managing the Kerr County Juvenile Detention
Facility, and I invited him to come to Commissioners Court for
two purposes. First of all, to tell us about his company that
I understand operates a facility in Hondo Texas, and to tell
us exactly what it is that he would propose. So, I, like you,
am ready to hear what Mr. Beams has to say. Mr. Beams?
MR. BEAMS: Good morning. I am Lynn Beams, Chief
Financial Officer for Ever Change Youth and Family Services.
We do oversee and manage a long-term detention --
postadjudicated detention facility in Hondo, Texas called Ever
Change. And we have a love for children, and we'd like to see
their lives changed. We took our direction from what's taken
place -- I don't know if y'all are familiar with Teen
Challenge in San Antonio; that when Governor Bush -- George
Bush saw what was taking place there, initiated the
faith-based initiatives, and that's what we are. We're a
faith-based program. And we've seen great success, and we
feel like that we can maybe expand or help some other kids in
this area, and so we offered the proposal that I've given to
Mr. Williams. And let me say also, in sitting down and what
7-29-06
44
1
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've heard so far, I appreciate Commissioners Court a whole
lot more than I ever did before. Any questions for me?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I -- I have a hard time
understanding why we would consider doing this. I mean, as I
calculate it, we're getting -- we're spending $880,000 to have
you manage a facility, and we receive $5 per Kerr County --
Kerr County kid out there per day. I mean, our goal is to get
this to not lose money with that facility, and this is
increasing the loss.
MR. BEAMS: Is that so? Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're certainly not decreasing
it. I think it's increasing, based on where we are currently
operating it now, which is why we've opted to basically -- I
mean, 'cause on top of the 880,000, we have a debt service out
there as well. So, this is a lot of money. Unless I'm
missing something, it seems to me this is a proposal that
costs the County money.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Beams, how long has Ever Change
Youth and Family Services been in existence?
MR. BEAMS: We began in 2001, the month of May.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. And have you been continuously
involved --
MR. BEAMS: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- since that time?
MR. BEAMS: From the beginning, yes, sir.
7-'4-06
45
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JDDGE TINLEY: All right.
MR. BEAMS: Mr. Still, Mr. Irvin Still --
MR. STILL: I'm right here.
MR. BEAMS: Here he comes. He actually had, in the
beginning -- I'm a pastor of a church in Lytle, Texas, and
this gentleman here was leading our worship for us. He had
worked for several detention or long-term detention facilities
for a number of years, and saw a vision for what we
essentially began in 2001. And I'll let him share a little
bit.
MR. STILL: My name's Trvin Still. I'm President
and C.E.O. of Ever Change. I think one of the things,
Commissioner, that I don't know if it's clarified in there,
but the $5 a day is for non-county residents. You know,
detainees that are there that would be, you know, passed on to
Kerr County. So, it's not something y'al1 would pay; it's
something we would -- would pay to Kerr County for, you know,
having housed out-of-county residents. So, it puts it on us
to be able to try to, you know, fill the facility with, you
know, the surrounding counties and encourage them to detain
their kids in that facility. I
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This is interesting. I
kind of get a feel that you all probably do a good job working
with the children. I can tell you got a passion for it. I
just want to ask the Judge a question, 'cause I had not
~ za-oo
1
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
understood this in all of our many discussions. The
postadjudication incarceration. Is an objective of that
incarceration to rehabilitate children?
JUDGE TINLEY: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What do we do for them?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well there's a number of different
programs, depending upon the -- the particular need of the
child. There are general behavior programs, behavior
modification, anger management. You have specialized
programs, substance abuse programs, sex offender treatment
programs. Those are the major components, but within the
behavior modification modules, there are all sorts of -- of
particular units or blocks of treatment or -- or instruction
that -- depending upon what the assessment of each child
indicates a need for. There may be psychological issues,
self-esteem issues. It runs the whole gamut, and they try to
tailor the -- the rehabilitating program for each particular
child so that it fits the needs of that child.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Mr. Beams, if you made this
contract with Kerr County, would that be the first time you
made such a contract with a county?
MR. BEAMS: We've had -- we've had contracts with
Medina County before.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Would you explain how --
what that --
~-^4-06
47
1
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. STILL: Well, we managed and operated the
detention center there in Medina County. After a while, they
decided it was just more cost-effective to detain their youth
They changed chiefs. The chief at that time
was Bob Kelly. He passed away. The new chief came in with
just a different philosophy on detention, and doing some other
things in the community rather than detaining, so their
detention	population dropped	by half,	and	they	just	-- you
know, when	they crunched the	numbers,	they	said	it	would be
easier, cheaper, more cost-effective for the county to detain
out of county. So, from that point, then, that facility that
was their detention center is now where we operate our
residential program.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How much -- are you
finished, Dave?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Just -- it's interesting,
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm, frankly, not either,
but I wanted to ask a question, because I think the proposal
that was put to us is -- although I think I understand it, I
think it eliminates -- does not deal with the revenue aspects
of it appropriately. What you're really saying is that if you
operated a facility on a 24/7 basis, 52 weeks a year, seven
7-_'9-n6
48
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
days a week, and you had it full -- let's assume it was full.
That revenue coming in at our current per diem rate is
something like almost three-quarters of a million dollars if
it were full every single day of the year. Now, that revenue
would go to you, and then on top of that, we would pay you
another 870,000 a year? Is that -- is that correct?
MR. BEAMS: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Explain where I'm wrong.
MR. BEAMS: You would pay us -- according to our
proposal, the way that I've structured it was you would pay us
a monthly management oversight fee, no matter how many kids
you had. If you had 25 kids -- correct me if I'm wrong. If
you had 25 kids from Kerr County, then they would all be Kerr
County children. If -- if you had 20, it would still be the
70 -- the proposal that we put there. Does that make sense?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But where does the per diem
revenue go? To you, or to us?
MR. BEAMS: To you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Goes to us.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, we charge $83 a day or $85 a
day that -- per detainee --
MR. BEAMS: Am I saying that correctly?
MR. STILL: No.
MR. BEAMS: Correct me.
MR. STILL: We would -- we would bill out for the --
~ z9-a~
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
for the residents, okay. And --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: At some per diem, correct?
MR. STILL: Yes, but we're only going to be billing
out for the out-of-county residents, because your --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Which is going to be all you're
going to have, primarily. I mean, our -- our experience has
shown that we have very few Kerr County postadjudicated
residents in the facility.
MR. STILL: Well, those are -- yeah, those are
preadjudicated detainees. This is just for the detention
center operation.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would you operate pre and
post, or just pre?
MR. STILL: Well, right now, it's just the pre.
That's what we're proposing right now, is just for what's
operating out there at this time, the preadjudication
detention center.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh.
MR. STILL: See, and you could detain -- if your
county had to detain 10 kids, your detainee would, of course,
never be turned away. If we had youth from other counties
detained there and it was at capacity, and Kerr County needed
a bed, then one of those -- that youth would certainly be
accepted, and one of the other counties would be contacted,
and that youth would have to be moved to another facility.
~-'d9-06
50
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. BEAMS: Our expertise and experience has been
over the years to be -- to do the long-term, to do the
postadjudicated kids. And we certainly -- that's still our
heart, because that's when we have the opportunity,
Commissioner Nicholson, to help with the rehabilitation. And
in so doing that, y'all have the facility that -- you know,
one day we may -- we may want to do something there, you know,
and this would just be a good thing to get started with, we
thought.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I appreciate what
you're saying, and I'm a huge fan of faith-based
organizations. And I would be willing to bet a bowl of ice
cream that they're much more effective than the things that
the Judge outlined, the State-run functions. Although I'm not
knocking them; I'm just saying this is by far better. They
probably deal with sin in people's lives.
MR. BEAMS: That's it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And -- but, however, too
expensive. Sorry. See y'all.
MR. BEAMS: Okay.
MR. STILL: Thank you for your time.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions or comments?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We love you. However...
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I do thank you for coming
forward. I appreciate Mr. Beams contacting and expressing
7 ^_ 4 06
~ - - _. _.
51
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
interest. Based on what I know about the potential of the
next year's budget, I think this would be excessive by
comparison. So --
MR. BEAMS: We appreciate your time.
MR. STILL: Thank you very much.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Thank you for the work you
do.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Have a safe trip.
JUDGE TINLEY: I assume there's nothing further on
that agenda item?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't think so.
JUDGE TINLEY: If not, we'll move to Item 3;
consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to renew the
annual contract between Kerr County and the Department of
State Health Services, and authorize the County Judge to sign
same.
MS. PIEPER: Judge, I'm behind you, if you don't
mind me standing here. This is just our basic contract that
we have with Texas Department of Health to do the birth
certificates online for any child born in the state of Texas.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Same form of contract we've
previously --
MS. PIEPER: Same one. I called it a renewal;
however, in their contract, they don't state "renewal," but I
~-za-o6
SL
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
don't believe there's anything in here that's changed.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Has the County Attorney looked
at it, or does he need to?
MS. PIEPER: I did present him a copy of it.
MR. EMERSON: I don't see anything any different
than last year's contract, and it does have the termination
clause.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of the agenda item. Any question or discussion? All in favor
of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. We'll move to
Item 4; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on
membership with the National Association of Counties.
Ms. Nemec?
MS. NEMEC: Okay. This item is on the agenda.
We've had several Treasurers around the state taking advantage
of the programs that NACO offers by becoming a member. Phe
invoice is attached for a one-year membership, and the date
that they have on there is from January. I'm not sure why
they put that on there. I do have a call in to them at -- to
~-24-06
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
53
through -- through July, so they'll be getting back to me on
that. But they offer some discount programs if you're a
member. One of them is up to 71 percent discount at Office
Depot. The other most interesting thing that they offer that
prescriptions for any county resident. They would send me
some discount prescription cards, and anyone in the county
could just come and pick one up at my office, and the average
savings is 20 percent on that. And those are for county
residents who don't have insurance -- prescription insurance.
And most pharmacies are participating; H.E.B., Walgreen's,
Walmart, and so we would be able to just give them a card. It
would be no cost to the County other than the membership.
And along with that membership, they just offer a
lot of things. I was reading about it, and they say they're
working with the Sheriff's Association on some methamphetamine
problems that they're researching, and they're really big on
that and things like that. We would get discounts to
different conferences. I'm always getting brochures on the
conferences that they offer, but if you're a nonmember,
they're pretty expensive, just almost too expensive for us to
even go to them, so we would get savings on that also. I know
Bandera is participating. Comal County has just recently
started participating. This is what Commissioner Williams had
7 29-06
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
asked me a couple of months ago about. And the only way to
get that savings is to become a member of the National
Association of Counties.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If any Kerr County resident,
however, participates in any other prescription drug program,
for example, they would not be eligible; is that correct?
MS. NEMEC: That's correct. This is only for people
who do not have insurance or a prescription card. And I was
also reading, and it says that if your pet is prescribed a
medication, that this is also -- that card can also be used
for their medication. So --
JUDGE TINLEY: Did you miss it?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. My dog's already been
taken care of.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are we --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We are members of Texas
Association of Counties, and have not -- we've always said no
to this, and I will continue to say no to this. I'm not a fan
of NACO. I -- from TAC, we get lots of stuff. We get our
money's worth, and from these folks, I just have never seen --
I mean, I appreciate those insurance offers, but I see that as
more of a storm than I do a solution to anything.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, unless I'm missing what
you're saying, Kerr County employees wouldn't qualify, because
we get prescription -- we have prescription drugs on our
7 29-Oti
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
insurance plan.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:
so forth.
Any citizen.
Any citizen.
Illegal aliens, et cetera and
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Any resident in Kerr County
that does not have a prescription dug plan.
MS. NEMEC: That's correct. And there were several
residents that brought it to my attention after they read in
the paper that the surrounding counties were doing it, and
that's when I found out that -- it's through Care -- Caremark,
I think. But that's when I found out that the only way to get
it is to become a member of NACO.
JUDGE TINLEY: Two questions. Number one, other
than the information that we have here, is there more detailed
information available that we might review? And, secondly,
you had mentioned that you had a call in, I believe, or were
going to inquire about the term of the agreement that you've
not gotten a response to yet.
MS. NEMEC: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: With that still outstanding, maybe
there is or is not some urgency about this. I'd personally
like to see some more information about all of the specifics.
MS. NEMEC: I'll leave this folder with you. This
is what they sent me. They only sent me one, but there is a
7-24-06
1
G
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
56
lot of information in here on what different programs they
offer that we can take advantage of --
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. NEMEC: -- if we're members.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why don't we defer it?
MS. NEMEC: If you're interested in it, then you can
just let me know. I'll put it back on the agenda, and by that
time I'll have an answer on the membership. And if I don't
hear from you, that means you're not interested.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. NEMEC: Okay? Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any member of the Court have anything
further to offer on that particular agenda item?
COMMISSIONER SALDWIN: Yes, sir. For those folks
out in the public that are wondering, the annual dues is $776
a year, for I don't know what. That's all.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else? Let's move on to Item
5, if we might. Consider, discuss, and take appropriate
action on renewing the Kerr County Teen Curfew which is due to
expire at the end of July 2006. Mr. Sheriff?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We've renewed this and had this
in place for a number of years now. It's a very effective
tool. We do not write very many curfew violations, but it
does give us the opportunity to visit with kids that are out
past. those hours, and it also gives their parents a little
~ ae-o6
57
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
control. I would just recommend its renewal. I don't have
any -- any complaints or anything else. But it's up --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Does the City have a teen
I curfew?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: City of Ingram does. The City
of Kerrville does not.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Have you issued any
citations for violations?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We issue probably five to six a
year on definite repeat offenders that we can't get parents or
anybody else to assist with. And once in a while, we issue
them to the parent. But it's very few, and it's more of a
tool than anything else.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I see that this Court voted
to extend it a year on the 25th of July last year by 3-to-0 --
a 3-to-0 vote. I think that must mean I was absent. I'm
not -- I'm not in favor of a teen -- teen curfew. It's not
necessary; treading on civil liberties.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Possibly, but I think it
chases them back into the city, where there is no curfew. I
move for approval.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of the agenda item. Any question or discussion? All in favor
of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
~-za-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
(Commissioners Baldwin and Williams voted in favor
of the motion.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(Commissioners Letz and Nicholson voted against the
motion.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Chair votes to approve.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Thank you, gentlemen.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's go to Item 7.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Don't look so shocked.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move to Item 7. Consider,
discuss, and take appropriate action regarding proposal for a
new wireless telephone contract with Five Star Wireless. Mr.
Sheriff again.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I think the backup to this that
y'all have and the letter from Five Star Wireless pretty well
explains it. I think it would be a great savings to the
County. It's been -- been offered to us. Mr. Stacy's here; I
think that he can also attest to that. But we talked about it
a little bit last week, and I just think that we definitely
need to go with this type of contract for the Sheriff's
Office.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I had a question posed to
me, and I don't know the answer to it. I'll pose it to you,
Sheriff, and if you don't know the answer, the guy with the
white hair and the glasses probably does. In light of all the
corporate changeover taking place with respect to our
7-'4-06
59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
communications entities in Kerr County, what happens if we
sign this agreement for the prescribed dollars, which I
understand are good and a savings, and along comes corporate
who says, "Well, you know, we can do better for you; we can --
we can make a better deal under a new manner." Do we get the
better deal under the new manner, or are we locked into this
one?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: My understanding with our other
phone contract that you will be dealing with in a minute is,
yes, it would upgrade to the better deal.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll ask the same question
under that one, too.
MR. STACY: Commissioner, Five Star is -- while it
is an affiliate of our new corporate company, Windstream
Communications, it's still a separate entity. And it's a
partnership of five telephone companies; Windstream
Communications now, Guadalupe Valley Communications, Central
Texas Telephone Co-Op, Hill Country Telephone Co-Op, and
Southwestern Bell, now Cingular. So, there would be no change
in the contract, and we would honor -- you know, if at some
point in time it got severed, all of the existing contracts
would be honored. I believe we normally enter into a two-year
agreement for these -- for these phones, so we would honor
that for an additional -- whatever the term of the contract
is. And if you -- if there were a better arrangement, we have
7-_'9-06
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
60
always been -- would bring that to your attention at this
point.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That really is the thrust of
MR. STAGY
better rate, you can change plans within our system anytime to
a different plan, so we would certainly allow you to do that.
JUDGE TINLEY: And you -- they would be agreeable to
insert a provision in the contractual agreement that in the
event Five Star, for example, in this case, offered a better
plan or more reasonable plan cost-wise, that we can upgrade?
MR, STAGY: I think it's actually in there already
that you can change plans at no -- no cost.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And we have upgraded our prior
ones at different times during the contract, because they
would call and say, "Look, if you'll go to this, we can
upgrade this per the contract, and it's going to cost you less
money." Without changing the contract, just upgrading. And
that has been done and has worked real well.
COMMISSIONER	WILLIAMS:	I have	a second	question,
The second question is	-- has to	do with	the cell	phones in
use for the balance of	-- of the	county,	outside	the Sheriff's
Department. We've sort of suggested to Mr. Trolinger that he
get a handle on that and see what's out there, how many are in
use and so forth. Can we benefit from the volume of this
7-29-06
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
contract with respect to a rate to be charged for the others?
MR. STACY: Yes. Blanket yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
MR. STACY: We'll -- we'll sit down and work either
a contract that works the same as the Sheriff or a separate
one, or however you'd like to do it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is a two-year --
MR. STACY: Two-year agreement.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the money's in your budget
for this year, and is proposed for next year already?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It's proposed for next year.
It's there this year.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And the bottom line is, it
saves us $150 a month and we get better service.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You're right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of the agenda item. Any question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: A quick question. And I don't
know if the Sheriff knows or Mr. Stacy knows. I think the
Sheriff made a comment earlier that he wanted to continue to
use Five Star because it has better coverage than other
companies such as Sprint -- I don't know if you named Sprint.
7-29-06
62
1
` 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
•- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It's throughout -- by using --
I have 31 cell phones. A lot of my patrol sergeants and
everybody else have cell phones, and when they're traveling
throughout the county, you get on the west end, you get some
areas just before Center Point, some areas, you know, out on
the west, and I have those people that -- also the same people
that have personal contracts with, like, Sprint or the other
ones. My parents even have it, okay? And they don't have the
coverage inside Kerr County, especially when you get out west
and you get in the hilly areas, that it's not the -- the
ability that Five Star has. It gives us just a lot better
coverage.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It just seemed -- when I made
the change, I was hoping to get rid of the holes, and they're
in the exact same spot they were before.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: They don't -- don't expect
anything better if you're out in my neighborhood, 'cause it's
hit or miss when you can use your cell phone.
MR. STACY: We have the only cell site in Hunt.
There is nobody else that has one, and the other companies use
~-24-U6
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
our cell sites.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We get better coverage with
Five Star.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Spoken like a county judge's
i son.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions? Comments? All
in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion carries. Let's see if we
can go ahead and take care of Item 8, telephone-related items.
Consider and discuss and take appropriate action regardina
updating telephone system and renewing contract for five years
with Kerrville Telephone Business Systems.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: This is still the exact same
thing we brought in March. It's the exact same contract. I
just -- I'm at a point I need to do something. I need
capability of adding new lines into our department. Y'all
know what the problems have been. This will upgrade the
equipment, and as the equipment -- it will upgrade the
equipment initially to get us the capability of adding the new
lines. Now, it does not upgrade all the individual telephones
with the newest telephone, but as those phones go out, they
will be replaced. So, we're using a lot of our existing
7 29-06
1
„` 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
I2
"°' 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
64
equipment too, but it was the least expensive way. Now, if
the Court decides to approve this, Rex had looked at it one
would ask that we go back to the phone company, and Curtis has
said that they wouldn't have any problem, but it just needs to
state in there about -- to the amount allowed by law, so that
we can	fix	that	indemnity	clause that	any county	government
has.	But	I've	also talked	to Curtis	because of	the corporate
changeover, and that is coming, and from everything I hear
from a lot of the employees at the phone company, different
people, this is going to be a fabulous thing for Kerr County
and for the phone company, and there will be a lot more
upgrades and -- and additional things hopefully coming out in
the near future. But if we enter into this, all that will be
applicable to this and we'll be able to be upgraded with this
at the same type deal.
MR. THOMPSON: That is correct. I'm Curtis with
our customers in the county is pricing; Windstream buys a
large amount of equipment, so we'll be extending that to this
project. And the other is maintenance agreements. There's a
wide -- several different options for maintenance that we'll
be extending to the County. Over the next four weeks, we'll
-z9-o6
65
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
be going through training and learning about these, so I'd
like to -- after I go through training on these and find out
what these maintenance contracts offer, I would like to extend
those to this project.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Those would become an
addendum to this contract or what?
MR. THOMPSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If they're better?
MR. THOMPSON: That's correct. The pricing is going
to be significant.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I like that.
MR. THOMPSON: It's far better than what we've been
able to offer in the past.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The pricing on the
maintenance contracts?
MR. THOMPSON: On the maintenance contracts, there
is several options that -- and I'm learning about this as we
speak. Some of these would be 24/7, around the clock
maintenance with no -- no hourly overtime charge. And, also,
we would have quarterly traffic reports on some of these that
we would offer, critical alarm reports, software release
updates, and there's three tiers that we can offer that --
that we do not have in place right now with Kerr -- in the
past with Kerrville Telephone Company.
JUDGE TINLEY: You mentioned that the new corporate
~-z9-o6
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
owner, because of size, is able, by virtue of acquiring large
-- a large amount of equipment, that they can do so at a more
attractive rate. Are we looking at the lease cost coming down
because of amortizing the cost of equipment under a new
purchase formula?
MR. THOMPSON: That is correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: And are you telling me that -- how --
how are we going to determine this?
MR. THOMPSON: Well, it's just -- from what I've
been told, I know the -- I do know that their pricing is much
better than ours, so we'll be glad to extend those to all of
our customers, of course.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Can we get the Sheriff's
project underway, and --
MR. THOMPSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- and revisit the rate
structure section of the contract at a later date when you
have more information?
MR. THOMPSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, what you're saying is that
the $618 a month fee is likely going to be less? Is that -- I
mean --
MR. THOMPSON: Could very well, yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Or may be less.
MR. THOMPSON: Yes. But what we can do is revisit
7-29-06
67
1
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 and look at that -- look at the county as a whole, all
the systems together. I've got everything in place right now,
other than pricing and the maintenance contracts, so I'd like
to apply that to these contracts.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, that's another point
to consider, that there is -- there is reason to believe we
need to upgrade the entire system, not just the Sheriff's.
And how does that fit into this mix as far as you're
concerned? A separate contract consolidating all the services
in one contract, or what do you see?
MR. THOMPSON: Just like the two proposals for the
Sheriff's Office, upgrading the system to allow the newest
software, using existing equipment, just going -- upgrading it
to the latest software.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
MR. THOMPSON: And also adding modules for stations
so we can add extensions, and adding trunk cards and modules
for telephone lines. I gave that proposal, and then another
one with all new equipment, so I can do the same on all of
these, and then we can tie them in as one contract.
They're -- the contracts are in various stages, as you well
know, within the different facilities, so maybe we can line
all those up in one.
JUDGE TINLEY: We've got Road and Bridge, we've got
the Extension Service, we've got the courthouse main here, and
7-'4 O6
.. ~__i - _.._..~..._..
68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
they're all on separate contracts.
MR. THOMPSON: The juvenile facility.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, that's right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How about the --
MR. TROLINGER: And the courthouse does not have a
contract currently.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. So, as -- as these cost
numbers come in on the discounted costs for equipment because
of this large volume by -- by the new corporate owner, you're
telling me that we can restructure these contracts based upon
amortizing those costs under a lease agreement, particularly
bring them all together, or possibly bringing them all
together under one master contract?
MR. THOMPSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I like the potential of
I that.
MR. EMERSON: My only comment would be, if we're
going to put -- if that's going to be part of the agreement,
it needs to be in writing, included in the contract.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We have to get the indemnity
part taken care of before I want the Judge's signature anyhow,
and Curtis may say that we can put that in writing as part of
this contract. I just need to get my equipment upgraded.
JUDGE TINLEY: If there are decreased costs based
upon the volume purchase of equipment by the lessor, and that
7-29-06
69
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
cost is reamortized and offered to volume contract users, then
we should get the benefit of that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Or through con -- or through
the consolidation of existing -- other agreements.
JUDGE TINLEY: It's all based on volume.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sure.
MR. STACY: Let me stick my two cents back in here.
I think what we're saying is that Curtis is going to get all
this new pricing in the next four weeks or so, and then once
we have it, we can apply it to this, obviously before you
purchase the stuff. After you purchase the stuff, then if you
were to buy those -- those particular things, then whatever
the existing price was at that time. We can't go back and
say, you know, we bought it for $50, and now -- now we can buy
it for $40, but when we bought it for you, we had to pay $50
for it, so we would have that. So, we can't go back. But if
he can get it done prior to the -- which he's committing to
do, before we install it, then you'll get the benefit of
the --
JUDGE TINLEY: I appreciate that. But, for example,
in this case, we're going to be rolling out equipment over a
period of time. And, certainly, if there's a change in cost
for the equipment on a future rollout --
MR. STACY: Correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- of equipment, we want the benefit
~-24-06
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
of that.
MR. STACY: You will always get the lowest price at
the time that we buy.
JUDGE TINLEY: But what you're saying is we should
know these initial numbers, at least the ones for right now,
under the new volume purchase within the next four weeks or
so?
	MR. STACY: Right.		
	JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.		
	COMMISSIONER LETZ: Rusty, is	this money budgeted
for --	do you have money in your budget	for th	is year?
	SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: For this	year?	Yes.
	COMMISSIONER LETZ: And this	isn't i	n your next
year's	budget?		
	SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, we	didn't	get that --
it's n	ot much change from what we're cu	rrently	paying. I
forget	what it is on the basic stuff no	w, but	it's not --
	MR. THOMPSON: It was, like,	$10, I	think,
difference.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: $10 or $12 a month difference
is what we're looking at, so it will be covered automatically.
JUDGE TINLEY: I probably gave you that much float,
I didn't I?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, you actually rounded it off
a couple of -- down a couple dollars from what I have, but
~-z9-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
71
we'll have that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, do we need a motion
today to -- or should we bring it back after the final form is
-- I mean, I think we're going to -- what I'm sensing is we're
going to go with a new system, but there's information that
needs to come back from the phone company related to price.
MR. THOMPSON: We'll honor the past proposals that
we have presented, the two different options that we presented
for the Sheriff's Department. So, if -- we don't want to hold
him up on capacity.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, my only thing --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You can move forward on the
Sheriff's --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I can afford this under the
budget now, and I do also understand what the Court's looking
at, though. I don't know -- you know, we've had several
instances where we can't make outgoing or have incoming calls
'cause our capacity is past the point. But I also
understand -- and I'll ask Curtis directly. On this list of
equipment that is on this proposed budget -- I mean proposed
contract, after -- let's see if I have mine. There is a --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Exhibit A.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah, it's Exhibit A. I've got
them out of order now that we've pulled out the indemnity.
And since it -- in this actual purchase of this equipment,
~-z9-o5
72
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
okay, if we purchase this now, to get into this contract and
get it installed as quickly as we can, are we going to be
paying more for this and stuck into that pricing than if we
wait and purchase it three weeks or four weeks from now?
MR. STACY: I don't think there's any situation
where you'd pay more for it.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I mean right now.
MR. STACY: You would only pay less if we -- if we
get a better price on it --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Because even if you purchase
~ it --
MR. STACY: -- before we install it.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah. If we order it, and the
Court approves this, you know, pending these couple of minor
changes, and y'all go out and purchase the equipment right
now, you're going to get it under the new Windstar prices, and
not under the -- what this would have been. So, the only
thing it would do is -- the purchase price is already going to
be going down if we get it installed now. If it goes down.
MR. STACY: If it goes down, we'll give you the
benefit of that. You have the amortization schedule and --
MR. TROLINGER: The monthly cost.
MR. THOMPSON: It's just right at this time, I don't
know what that exact --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: What the exact rate is going to
7-24-06
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
73
be.
MR. THOMPSON: That's being --
JUDGE TINLEY: I think the contract is going to
change, and I feel more comfortable looking at the contract.
I don't know how the County Attorney feels about this, but --
MR. EMERSON: I would have to agree with that,
because Page 8 of the contract, on y'all's standard terms,
states that whatever's in the written contract overrides any
oral agreement.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Then we'll go to using more
cell phones in the office, 'cause I can understand not -- not
spending more money in getting into it until we know exactly
what the new contract would be once Windstar kicks off. So,
to get me a new contract ASAP that would be under the Windstar
name instead of the Kerrville Telephone Company name, and what
that would be, I would recommend we bring it back.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Sheriff, I'm looking at
Exhibit A. The term of the lease is 60 months, and there's a
place for beginning and ending. If it were approved today,
when would it begin?
MR. THOMPSON: The day that it's implemented.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And that's sometime weeks
from now?
MR. THOMPSON: When it's installed.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But the problem is, you're
7-29 U6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
74
approving what's written in here, not then, so I would
recommend let's wait until either the next Commissioners Court
or the -- or the following one. Let's get a contract with new
pricing.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: So --
MR. THOMPSON: What I will do, I will communicate
this to the Court, where we stand on it. As soon as I get the
information, I will get it to you.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: 'Cause I am in a predicament.
I need it as soon as possible. I also need the best deal we
can get for five years.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The only thing -- excuse me,
Judge. The only thing in question is the rate structure,
right?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the -- some other
provisions. Indemnification.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, indemnification.
MR. STACY: We've had the discussion about the
indemnification, and it's okay. Rex and I have talked.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The indemnification is no
problem. It's just the rate structure, and what Rex says, it
says you're bound to what's in writing.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think at this point, whatever you
can do to put your people in a semi-stealth mode so that
7-24-06
~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
they're not keeping those phone lines tied up, that's maybe
the program you need to go to temporarily.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, I won't go for that, but
we just may use a lot more cell phones for a little bit, since
we are right at a changeover period with the phone company.
MR. TROLINGER: Sheriff, is the non-emergency number
impacted, the calls coming in, by the trunks being tied up
right now?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes, and everything is impacted
in my office except 9-1-1. 9-1-1 is the only thing that's
not, but our emergency number, the 1133 and all the rest of
that, is all impacted by it.
MR. TROLINGER: It's at overload right now.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It's an overloaded system, so
all I can do is ask Curtis and the phone company to get me
something ASAP, and we'll get it back on the agenda on that
item.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further on that particular
agenda item?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Judge, we -- we had the
public hearing on the NF-RB Ranch. Could we go ahead and
finish that up? Item 12.
JUDGE TINLEY: It'll take just a moment or two.
Let's quickly do Item 12; consider, discuss, and take
appropriate action for revision of plat for Tracts 9B, 9A, and
~-za-o6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
76
l0A of	NF-RB Ranch,	Section 4,	as set forth in Volume 6,	Page
148.				
MR. ODOM: Morning. This revision was done under
the alternate plat process, because these two landowners are
purchasing 9A, 19.6 acres, and each is adding one-half to
their existing lots. This revision will establish a Tract 9C,
with 44.12 acres, and a Tract lOC, with 34.18 acres.
Therefore, we recommend you accept this revision as presented.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve revision of
plat for Tracts 9B, 9A, and l0A of NF-RB Ranch.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of the agenda item. Any question or discussion? All in favor
of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's take about a 15-minute recess.
(Recess taken from 10:46 a.m. to 11:02 a.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to order, if we
might. Item 9; consider, discuss, and approve payment of
engineering review fee to Kerr County and final plat approval
~-'4-06
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
77
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I put this on the agenda, 'cause
Morrow's -- actually, he's not -- it's Live Springs, I think,
is where this is going to come into play. Generally, under
our rules for final plat approval, you have to pay all your
fees, and in a situation, however, where they're putting up a
letter of credit for the construction of roads or drainage
facilities, those fees won't be able to be determined until
after that is done, because the -- the developer's required to
pay all those fees. I've talked with Leonard a little bit
about this. I think this is more of a policy we need to
He thinks the best way to handle this is to roll
letter of credit guarantees that they're going to pay our
engineer review fees, as opposed to holding up final plat
approval. Holding up final plat approval is really
unworkable, because some plats can take years to get final, I
mean, approval. So, I think Leonard's way of handling it by
putting those inspection fees and engineer review fees into
the -- rolling them into the letter of credit is the way to do
~ z9 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
78
it. And -- but I think that's a little bit different than we
have currently -- or we've done it before. I wanted to bring
it before the Court and make sure everyone was in agreement on
that. And I'll make a motion to that effect if --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The letter of credit is to
assure that the road is going to be built.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: To the proper standards. Or
drainage facility; it can be either one or both, built to
proper standards.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And it says that in the
letter of credit. Are you -- are you going to add verbiage to
the letter of credit that says "and other fees," or other --
something like that? Or --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that's the way, Leonard,
you planned to do it?
MR. ODOM: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So --
MR. EMERSON: My only question would be, what do you
do on the subdivisions that don't have any roads?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well --
MR. EMERSON: Where the engineer is only reviewing
the drainage requirements and so forth?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If they're not -- if there's a
subdivision -- and, you know, I've thought through this, and I
think Leonard has. In any subdivision where it's relatively
~-za-o6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
79
-- the road is going to be built ahead of time -- most of the
real small ones, they're all built ahead of time. Or if the
developer wants to get a final plat approval, he's got to have
everything done first and all fees have to be paid, and our
rules allow for that. If they're constructing anything --
only time you have a letter of credit is if they're
constructing something after final plat approval, and that's
to insure -- that way, whatever that is, it's constructed.
So, if you add those fees to basically assure that the
construction is done properly into the letter of credit, I
can't conceive of a situation where it wouldn't -- you know,
you wouldn't be covered. Because if there's something
drainage-wise that has to be built or constructed, they have
to do a letter of credit to make sure that that's done, unless
it's done prior to final plat approval. So, anyway -- so, I
will make a motion to instruct Road and Bridge Department to
include inspection fees and engineering review fees into
the -- and roll those costs into the letter of credit or
include them into the letter of credit when this work is to be
done after the final plat has been approved.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion and a second. Do we
have any discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I see the Auditor has a
question.
~-29-06
80
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
MR. TOMLINSON: I don't know if you can add this to
this agenda item or not, but when -- when the fees are paid to
-- for the engineering services, we'd like -- we'd like to be
able to do a hand check to the engineer without bringing it to
the Court. Is that -- is that an issue?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's not an issue to me. I
mean, I think it's --
MR. TOMLINSON: Because, I mean, we're just a
conduit, really, for -- for the payment to the engineer,
because the developer's not paying the engineer directly.
They're -- the fee is coming through the County and directly
to the -- to the engineer. I don't see a point in having --
having -- or for him having to wait to get his fee when we
already have the money.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm not sure, legally, we -- we can
do that without getting it included in some sort of a court
approval. Because the money comes into our hands, and it's
got to be received forward, then it's got to be disbursed back
out. Unless there's something I'm missing, the Subdivision
Rules require that, you know, we're going to have to vote to
pay the engineer. It's our obligation under the rules. But
there's a reimbursement that we receive from the -- from the
developer, but it's our obligation under the rules to pay the
engineer. We're contracting with the engineer. So, that's my
thinking on it, for whatever it's worth.
~-z9-o6
81
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. TOMLINSON: I didn't --
JUDGE TINLEY: Going to have to have Court approval
in some way, shape, form, or fashion.
MR. TOMLINSON: I didn't understand it that way. I
thought that we were just an agent -- in an agent capacity to
be -- to reimburse the engineer. That the --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, no, 'cause the engineer
works for us as a -- as a contractor under the County. So --
but if it -- I mean, if there's a -- I'm all for paying people
as quickly as possible, as soon as we get the money in.
And -- and, Leonard?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. I was thinking that in our
discussions, we were saying that we would pay him out of our
line item. We could pay him out of our line item. That way,
that's -- that's what it's for. Deposit the money with Tommy,
and then why couldn't it go back, like pipe -- like our pipe
fee when we put it in for people, that we could be reimbursed
to that line item?
MR. TOMLINSON: We're going to do that. I just
didn't -- I didn't understand the contract.
MR. ODOM: That way, I keep -- I don't get in a
deficit anywhere. I just get reimbursed back with that money
I spent out of that line item.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why do we have to wait until
-- or include it in a letter of credit? Why can't a developer
7-29-06
82
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.~ 13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
^~^ 2 4
25
be billed upon receipt of the bill that we're going to pay
immediately? Why can't he be immediately billed?
MR. ODOM: If it was a final, he would be going to
the County clerk and he'd pay all the fees. But in this
what we've done here is just wrap it all into one thing, to
say the infrastructure as well as any engineering fees will be
covered by this letter of credit. That way, we can make sure
that the funds -- that it gets done, that the engineering gets
paid.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The intent is -- from my
done the work, and the developer -- he has no incentive at
that point. I mean, he's got final plat approval. He has a
letter of credit to build the road. Who's to say he's going
to? He might just walk on without paying the engineering fee,
and all we would have is a -- I guess a civil action,
possibly, against him. I'm trying to eliminate us having that
fight. We just roll it into the letter of credit, so our
money's there. Our money is pretty much taken -- is set aside
up front. And if he doesn't pay the --
MR. ODOM: Engineering fees.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- the engineer for the work --
7-24-06
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
or our engineer for the work done, or doesn't pay us for that
work, we just go to the bank.
MR. ODOM: It's a safety mechanism, is what it is,
to make sure that we get the final, and part of that is those
engineering fees being paid. But in the cases where there's
just a normal -- this is a little bit different. If it was
normal, it would go to the County clerk, and he will present
that bill from the engineer, and all those -- she'll sign --
she won't sign off until those fees are paid.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That is the next part of this
agenda item. First part is including it in the letter of
credit.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other 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: Motion does carry. You have some
additional items?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Additional item on this is -- is
how to handle who gets the payment, whether it goes -- all of
the standard fees go in to the County Clerk, and the County
Clerk checks it off that they're paid. This is a fee that
really is coordinated through Road and Bridge Department.
7-29-06
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
Unlike the normal inspection fees that are set up, these
invoices have to come in from -- just to monitor them, to me,
it makes more sense for the Road and Bridge Department to
handle the bills and getting the checks -- through the
Auditor's office, for the Auditor to get the checks paid,
rather than use the County Clerk, 'cause the County Clerk's
really out of this loop, and it makes more sense to me to work
it through Road and Bridge, working with the Auditor's
department on receiving and disbursing those funds. And I
don't know that a motion is needed on that one. I just think
it's a matter of, you know --
JUDGE TINLEY: Administrative procedure.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- administrative procedure as
to how it should be done. I think that makes sense.
MS. PIEPER: It does.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right, that's all. Thank
I You.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Is that it there? Let's move
to Item 13; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to
consider concept plan and set a public hearing for the
revision of Lots 79, 80, 81, 82, and 83 of The Woods Section
Two, as set forth in Volume 9, Page 176, Plat Records, and
located in Precinct 2.
MR. ODOM: Mr. and Mrs. Kilgore are here, and will
probably answer any questions, and I believe that they have a
~-^n-oe
85
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
question of the Court also. There's a change in what I've
presented, it seems like, but the current owner of all lots
wishes to revise five lots into three lots. The lots now
range in size from .84 to 1.46 acres. The new lots would be
approximately .84, 1.8, and 2.65. Instead of five possible
homes with septic, there would be no more than three.
(Commissioner Baldwin left the courtroom.)
MR. ODOM: There's an existing county-maintained
road that goes up to the house that varies from the plat, but
no cul-de-sac. The plat revision will move the lot line
40 feet from the existing house instead of the current 12
foot, and preserve the trees and the landscape. And that's
one reason -- they have a house there, and I believe that
they're trying -- under consideration of selling that to a
prospective buyer. We recommend the Court approve this
concept. The exact size of Lot 79 cannot be determined until
the survey -- surveyor returns on July 26, but the landowners
have assured us that they will make no lot smaller than the
smallest existing lot. Now, I believe Mr. Kilgore may address
that. They were asking that the prospective buyer wishes to
change something there; would make one lot a little bit
smaller than .84, and I'll let him address that. We recommend
the Court approve this concept to be done under the alternate
plat process, and set a public hearing for 10:15 a.m. August
the 28th, 2006, with the stipulation the owners build the
7 24-U6
86
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
cul-de-sac to county specifications. Mr. Kilgore, would you
like to address the Court -- or Mrs. Kilgore -- on this lot?
MR. KILGORE: Yeah. The only question -- what we're
trying to accomplish here is -- is really not to subdivide,
which would be --
JUDGE TINLEY: Excuse me, we need to get your name
and address in the record, if you don't mind.
MR. KILGORE: My name is Wynn Kilgore, 115 Woodland
Road, Kerr -- Kerrville, Texas, Kerr County.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you.
MR. KILGORE: The -- the approach here is, rather
than subdivide, we're trying to do the inverse of that. We're
creating fewer lots out of what were five lots. We're
creating three lots. The nature of the current improvements
makes Lot -- I believe it would be 79, a little bit of a --
somewhat of an odd configuration. That's fine. Our question
is, would -- and we -- we are approaching the new plat as to i
say that, yes, the smallest lot that we're going to create is
not smaller than what already exists within this -- within
this little cul-de-sac area. The question that we have is,
what -- what is it about the lot -- the .84 acres? Is that an
arbitrary number? Is it based on the fact that that's what
exists now, or is there some rationale for some minimum lot
size out there in The Woods that -- that we may not be aware
of at this time? So that we'd have some ability to negotiate
~-'9-aE
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
with the new owners of these various lots as to where those
lines would be.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I was going to ask you the
same question. Is it a typical lot size out there, .84?
Larger or smaller?
MR. KILGORE: They're all over the map. And I think
there may be one or two that are less than .84, but -- but
it
again, I'm not -- I have not reviewed every lot out there, and
in Woods 1, 2 and 3, so I really don't know.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I can probably answer your
question. The rationale in our current rules is, 1 acre is
the minimum, so that the -- you know, in our -- obviously,
there are lots out there that are smaller than 1 acre now, and
our -- I guess historically, the Court has not gone lower than
the minimum out there. It's just -- it's not a particular
rule; just trying to -- you know, that's the -- that's the
direction we've taken. More importantly, I think the lot
sizes are driven by the ability to put a septic tank on that
facility along with a residence.
MR. KILGORE: I understand.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: With a community water system
out there, so that's more critical, I think. And the -- you
know, whether it's a slightly different -- I don't think -- I
mean, personally, I don't have any real strong desire one way
or the other, but make sure that you can locate a residence
7-29-06
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
88
and a drainfield and meet those requirements. And the more
odd the shape of the lot gets, the harder that gets, when you
have that long thing coming in the middle.
MR. KILGORE: Long way out there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, that's really -- the
requirement's going to be more getting Environmental Health to
sign off on the configuration.
MR. KILGORE: Sure, understood.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Have you checked with
Environmental Health with respect to their requirements?
MR. KILGORF,: No. We're on our way downstairs to do
that very thing as soon as we leave here.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The concept plan I was looking
at -- concept plan-wise, I have no problem. This is the
direction we like to go in the county, is five lots --
MR. KILGORE: Fewer septic systems.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- five lots to three, which is
a good thing.
MR. KILGORE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And lot size in this instance is
driven by the O.S.S.F. department. So --
MR. ODOM: So, in other words, if O.S.S.F. would
have no problems, they could reduce that size at that .84?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would think so. I mean, I
don't think we want to go down to a quarter acre, but I don't
~ 24-06
89
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
think you can put a quarter acre lot out there. But I think
that's --
MR. KILGORE: That's key.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's the key, and the reason
for our rule of 1 acre.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I believe you had another
question or two, Karen?
MS. KILGORE: No, sir. I'll take those to the
Environmental Health. I'm Karen Kilgore, 115 Woodland Road.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You have a question about
the cul-de-sac?
MS. KILGORE: Well, the paving of the cul-de-sac
apparently is a -- a requirement, even if there's just one
additional home built out there. The person with whom we're
in conversation right now about buying what we call the "home
place," the -- our home, is very interested in those creekside
lots too. So, if that person buys everything except Lot 79,
and we were to build a smaller home on Lot 79, would you still
require the paving of the cul-de-sac for one short driveway
back up by Lot 78?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the reason -- I'd say
the answer would be yes, and the reason is, the cul-de-sac is
for emergency services, primarily is the reason to have the
cul-de-sac, 'cause people -- so a fire truck, for example,
doesn't get down there and can't turn around.
~-29-06
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
MR. KILGORE: Got you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, it's --
MS. KILGORE: We accept that. We're very pleased
you're dealing with this for us.
MR. ODOM: So, you have direction with the surveyor,
what you need to do, and then O.S.S.F.
MR. KILGORE: That's correct.
MR. ODOM: Then you'll get back with us; we'll come
back to the Court.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Even with the O.S.S.F.
question, can we go ahead and set a public hearing?
MR. ODOM: Set a public hearing one way or another.
We'll have a design.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would move that we set a
public hearing -- recommend approval of the concept under the
alternate plat process, and set a public hearing for 10 a.m.
on August 28th. And in the meantime, the Kilgores will
address the septic issues with Environmental Health
Department.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
MS. KILGORE: Thank you very much.
MR. KILGORE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The date's got to change; it's
not a long enough period.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pardon?
~-z9-o6
91
1
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: We need 30 days.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 28th?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 28th of August.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh, that's right. I was
thinking --
MR. ODOM: August 28th.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You're right. I thought I was
already in August. I thought I was --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: A month and four days.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I thought I was two weeks ahead
of y'all.
MR. ODOM: May I bring up to the Court -- I'm not --
we had 10:15 originally. I'm not for sure -- you said
10 o'clock. It makes no difference to us, but normally we --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Try for 10:00 and see what
happens.
MR. ODOM: All right, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion and second to approve
the concept plan, set a public hearing on the revision of Lots
79, 80, 81, 82, and 83 of The Woods Section Two for August the
28th of this year at 10 a.m. Any question or discussion on
the motion? All in favor, indicate by raising your right
hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
7-24-06
92
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry.
MR. ODOM: A lady gave me that back there.
MS. KILGORE: Thank you.
MR. ODOM: Yes, ma'am.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's go to Item 14; consider,
discuss, and take appropriate action to consider final plat
for Vistas Escondidas de Cypress Springs Estates and
possibility of reducing letter of credit located in
Precinct 4.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. The preliminary plat of this
subdivision was approved under the name of Cypress Springs
Section 2. At the last meeting, you approved the name change
for Vistas Escondidas de Cypress Springs Estates. Mr. Wells'
letter and bill is enclosed in your packet. He reviewed the
drainage study and plat and found everything to be acceptable.
The new rules require the letter of credit to be for two
years. The letter of credit covers the roads and any further
expenses for engineering. The owner has asked for a reducing
letter of credit. In the past, the letter of credit was for
one year, and at the end of that one year, if the project was
not complete, we required a reduced letter of credit to cover
the remainder of the project, so we don't see a problem with
that.
Since we now have a two-year requirement for the
7 29 06
93
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
letter of credit, I suggest that we might do a reducing letter
of credit, with the Court appointing someone, either me or
Mr. Wells, to make the decision as to when it should be
reduced depending on an inspection of the construction and the
amount it would take to finish the roads. With a letter from
the appointee, we would exchange the old letter of credit for
a new one at a lower amount. At the time this memo was
written, we still needed the letters from T.C.E.Q. and the
letter of credit. With those -- with those, I'd recommend
that you accept the plat as presented. Since that time,
before court this week, we did receive a faxed copy from
T.C.E.Q. and from the contractors drilling the water, so
that's acceptable. The only -- and we do have a copy of his
letter of credit. But the actual letter of credit was
supposed to have been overnighted to us, and at this point we
just called; that it's not -- not here. So, I would assume --
would recommend that we give a final, with the contingency
that I receive the actual letter of credit from the bank.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This request that we do --
we do reduce the letter of credit, appointing you or Mr. Wells
to make the decision, is this a new process within -- is this
going to -- is this a one-off deal for this situation only, or
are we changing the process?
MR. ODOM: No, I would say it's for this process
right here. Normally, we would go through and they would have
7-29-06
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
two years under -- under this. They're going to give me a
performance bond.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay.
MR. ODOM: And then they would build it. And then,
if it doesn't get built, then we would execute on the
performance bond. But in this case, he's wanting a final to
complete it all before it's done, so we want to make sure that
we have the letter of credit so that I can build a road if
it's not completed.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I got my expert witness on
these matters right here, Mr. Letz. Are you okay with this,
Mr. Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not sure. I mean, I don't
know -- reducing letter of credit seems like an odd term. I
mean, why couldn't you just go with a letter of credit? If
the roads get -- if he wants to build the roads, once the
roads are built and the letter of credit's not needed any
longer, that part of it -- that part of it can be released and
get a new letter of credit for whatever. I mean, it seems
that that can be done without doing any kind of extension or
something new here.
MR. ODOM: If subgrade was through, then that
portion is out of it. The base is there -- that's true. I'm
telling you what the contract -- what the developer -- I mean,
Kash, if you want to address that? To me, you're going to go
~-z4-o6
95
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
from one year, and you're going to either have the road
completed or not. You're going to have to come back, 'cause
we did it under the old rules, and that was for one year. So,
all he was asking -- the question to us was, can they have a
reducing letter of credit?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: By "reducing," you mean one that
reduces automatically?
MR. ODOM: Automatically, if he wishes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I don't see what
precludes us from doing -- once the road gets built, doing a
new letter of credit for the part that's not completed.
MR. ODOM: Not completed at the end of one year. If
it's not completed, it would be a new one. But, Kash, if you
want to --
MR. MORROW: Kash Morrow, 1140 Warbler. I'm fine
with that. The main thing is, my lender was urging me to do
that, 'cause what he was saying was I've got 250,000 in this
particular case tied up until everything's complete. Versus
we could get halfway through the project and I would drop
100,000 off, something like that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think our current rules
allow -- don't prohibit that. They're silent on that issue,
so I wouldn't know why you can't do a new letter of credit at
some time during the process for what's left to be done.
MR. MORROW: That's kind of how I understood it,
7 ~ 4 0 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
96
too. But what will this do -- if you don't approve a reducing
letter of credit, what is this going to do for my -- for what
I'm asking y'all for today?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we can -- I mean, I
~ think the recommendation that I heard from Len Odom was that
we approve this contingent upon receiving the original letter
of credit.
MR. MORROW: But you don't want the reducing letter
of credit; you want a regular letter of credit, which will
hold me off -- what?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Till you get a letter of credit.
MR. MORROW: Okay. All right, thanks.
(Commissioner Baldwin returned to the courtroom.)
MR. ODOM: Does that answer your question, Kash?
MR. MORROW: I think so.
MR. ODOM: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What do you want, Mr. Odom?
You want a motion to approve the final plat for Vistas
Escondidas de Cypress Springs Estates?
MR. ODOM: On stipulation -- yes, sir -- that I get
the letter of credit.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Stipulation --
MR. ODOM: Not a reducing letter of credit, but a
letter of credit.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's the motion I make.
~-29-06
97
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. ODOM: For $250,000.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of the final plat of Vistas Escondidas de Cypress Springs
Estates upon presentation of the original letter of credit for
$250,000.
MR. ODOM: That is correct, plus the engineering
fees.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, plus the engineering fees. All
right. Any question or discussion on that motion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I'm going to vote for
it, even though I wasn't in the room during the explanation,
but Mr. Odom explained it to me earlier, so I'm well aware of
what this is about.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any other question, comment,
or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry.
MR. ODOM: Sir?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Brief comment.
MR. MORROW: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mr. Morrow, I hope you don't
~ z9-ob
98
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
follow your predecessor's habit of revising final plats on an
ongoing basis. (Laughter.)
MR. MORROW: I won't. Thank y'all very much.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: He doesn't want to do that
I either.
MR. ODOM: And may I -- before I sit down, there was
a lady back there -- did you receive that?
JUDGE TINLEY: I did.
MR. ODOM: And I wanted to pass that on to you.
JUDGE TINLEY: I appreciate that. I'd point out to
any member of the audience, the public input section is at the
beginning of the agenda that's posted, the Visitors' Input
section, and there's no provision for any additional visitors'
input. It was called for at the beginning of the meeting. If
it relates to any particular agenda item, if the individual
who desires to be heard will get my attention when that item
is called, I'll be happy to permit input at that time. Let's
go to Item 16. Approve the construction of a sidewalk at the
Animal Control Facility.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We've got some good news
and some bad news about sidewalks. The good news is that
we've received a $5,000 donation toward the cost of a sidewalk
to nowhere, and the bad news is it costs more than $5,000.
We've got two proposals, one from Cypress Creek Construction
for $7,068, and one from Thomas Mall Concrete for $7,600. So,
~ z9-oh
99
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I make a motion that we contract with Cypress Creek
Construction for the construction of the sidewalk at the
Animal Control Facility.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Any
question or discussion? The -- the proposal which was
submitted by Cypress, does that include the specs?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It -- the specs are
identical. 304 feet -- you need to know about that. We're
building a sidewalk that meets commercial standards,
nonresidential. It's 304 feet long. It's 5 feet wide,
5 inches deep, and one-half inch rebar on 12-inch centers.
It's a whole lot better piece of concrete than my driveway.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That is overkill if I've
ever heard it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are there funds in the budget to
pick up the $2,068 in excess of the donated funds?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't think we can
squeeze it out of the -- the Animal Control budget. We'll
have to find it somewhere else. There is a possibility that
between now and the time we have to pay the bill, we'll get
more donations.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, bring it back at that point?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If we need to go into Rusty's
~-z4-oe
. .
100
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
budget --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Not for a sidewalk. Not yet.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If we do that, he's going to
want to extend the sidewalk over at the Law Enforcement
Center.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other question or comment? All
in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion carries. Let's go to Item
17, if we might. Select and appoint a member to the Library
Board to replace Reverend Al Schultz, who resigned that
position.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I want to introduce to the
Commissioners Court Reverend Bruce Baker of 625 Scenic Valley
Road in Kerr County. That's outside Kerrville city limits.
Bruce Baker is a retired United Methodist pastor. He's a
graduate of Perkins School up at S.M.U., and he pastored for
quite a while in the central Texas area around Waco right
there, Jerusalem on the Brazos. And we're -- we're
essentially proposing to exchange a member of the board that
~ z9-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
101
was a Baptist pastor for one that's a retired Methodist
pastor. Reverend Baker's got a lot of experience in community
service, right? And a long experience, and I think he's going
to be a good addition to the board. Would you say hello to
us, Reverend Baker? No sermons.
MR. BAKER: I'll do my best.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, I move that we -- that
we select Reverend Bruce Baker as one of the County's members
on the Library Board.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
selection of Reverend Bruce Baker as a County-designated
member of the Library Board. 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.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Thank you for your service,
Mr. Baker.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Let's move to Item
18; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on
Landscape Construction and Maintenance Agreement between the
State of Texas, acting by and through the Texas Department of
Transportation, and the County of Kerr. Commissioner Baldwin?
~ z9 oe
1
L
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
102
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, sir. We're
finally getting down to this thing. As you know, at the
entrance of Saddlewood Estates, there are the -- the beautiful
entrance of the flower beds and trees and pretty things there,
and they would like to keep that, and it's in the state
right-of-way. The State says -- the way I understand it, the
State says that they do not have authority to make an
agreement with a homeowners association; that the local
government has to do that. So, what we're doing on this
agenda item is making our agreement -- the agreement with the
TexDOT and Kerr County, and then the next agenda item will be
the agreement between Kerr County and the homeowners
association. We are virtually out nothing; the homeowners
association takes care of everything. The State provides the
signage -- I take it back. I think that we do -- for the
litter program part of it, we do provide vests and trash bags,
like we do all over the county. And -- but that is our only
investment in any way. We're talk -- we're talking about --
this has come up a couple of times through the years, and we
need a model. I think that this particular agreement between
TexDOT and the County is a perfect model. The County Attcr:~ey
has looked it over and agrees that it's a good document, and
-- what, Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So negative.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I wasn't negative.
7-29-06
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
103
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think I answered my question
as I read more of this. This is specifically for the entrance
at Saddlewood, and we have to do a different agreement for
everyone that's in a state right-of-way?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This particular issue that
we're dealing with right now, the contract or agreement
between the County and TexDOT, we can take this agreement and
file it away and use it any time we go with one of these kinds
of issues.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The next one, you know, we'll
have to change some words around to make it fit.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But this -- this one refers to a
specific location. The reason I'm saying --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. You have to change
those kinds of things, of course.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, are we approving the form of
this one, or are we approving this -- I mean --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're approving the
agreement.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. So, each time we do one,
it will have to come back before us?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes. Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We'll use the same form.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, and use the same form.
~-^_a-o6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
104
That's what I was trying to say.
JUDGE TINLEY: Essentially, this program is because
TexDOT cannot contract with a private entity or homeowners
association. TexDOT contracts -- they put in the landscaping;
TexDOT contracts with the county to maintain the landscaping.
County then turns around and contracts with the homeowners
association to fulfill our obligations under the contract with
the State.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Pass-through.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Seems like a lot of work.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It is. It's goofy, but --
state agency.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, I move for approval of --
of Item 18.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of the agenda item. Any question or discussion? All in favor
of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Needless to
say, that brings us to Item 19; discuss and approve
7-29-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
105
Adopt-a-Highway for landscaping program for Saddlewood
Estates.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This is the one now -- it's
an agreement between the County and the homeowners
association, and it is very basic. It says that -- that the
County Road Administrator approves the plans -- I do not have
the plans in our book here, but I do have them in my office --
a set of plans for the construction and maintenance of their
pretty flower beds. The County Road Administrator will
approve of those or disapprove of them. And as we go along,
there's something that -- that this contract -- if the issues
in this contract are not being met, he has authority to shut
it down, change it, et cetera and so forth. The homeowners
association does all the maintenance, so it's just -- again,
like the Judge said, it's just a pass-through deal, and it's a
formal way of doing it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This is between us and the
homeowners association?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That is correct, yes, sir. i
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On Page 4, it says, Paragraph 2,
"Saddlewood Estates Owners Association may not subcontract or
assign its project responsibilities to any other group..." I
just have a hard time figuring out why that's even in there.
Is --
MR. EMERSON: Would you like me to answer that for
~-'n-oh
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
you? The reason that's in there is because a lot of
organizations will go to the local Boy Scout troop or Cub
Scout troop or whatever and say, "We'll give you $100 a
quarter if you go out and take care of this for us." And
it -- it limits their ability to do that without our approval.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. But, I mean, can they
hire -- I mean, they can't -- I just have a hard time
envisioning the residents of Saddlewood going out there and
doing this work themselves. It seems like they would want to
contract it out with a company to do it for them.
JUDGE TINLEY: They can hire it done, sure. They
can employ a landscape service.
MR. EMERSON: The information that was communicated
to us at that time of the joint meeting was that their
internal maintenance people were going to take care of it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I knew they weren't going out
there themselves.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm not going to comment on
that, but I felt like they were.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Doesn't make any difference,
but -- but just -- it's a matter -- so they have to let us
know if they're going to subcontract it out.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, let Leonard know.
Leonard's in charge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Did you offer a motion, Commissioner?
~-za-o6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
107
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sir?
JUDGE TINLEY: Did you offer a motion?
~, COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: As soon as Mr. Letz gets
through, be happy to. Yes, sir, I move that we approve Item
19.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion and second for
approval of the agenda item. Any question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Rex has looked at this and
agrees with all that stuff?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir.
MR. EMERSON: I might also point out to y'all that
they are specifically stated to be independent contractors to
reduce our liability.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions or comments? All
in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I thank you, gentlemen. This
has been on my desk for about -- what, six months?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Finally got rid of it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Finally kicking it out here
in -- well, anyway, glad to get it done.
7-29-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
108
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's go to Item 20; consider,
that we needed to get moving on this particular matter.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm going to make a motion
that we authorize the expenditure of $500 for advertising for
candidates for the Human Resources Director position, and that
we seek applications from current employees for the Human
Resources Administrative Assistant position, and that we
endeavor to fill both positions by no later than
September 15th.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Question. I'm not in
disagreement; I'm just wondering whether or not, on the second
position, after posting within our internal system, if that
doesn't yield candidates that meet the criteria we're looking
at, if we should not also include that for advertising as
well.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think you're right. And
you and I talked about the advertising budget. We might spend
a little money on Internet advertising; that might be $50 to
$200. But we run an ad in the local daily and one in San
Antonio newspaper. All this is for the H.R. Director. I
7-24-06
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
l09
think there'll probably be enough money to cover an ad in the
local paper for the -- for the administrative assistant
position.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Either/or?
', COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If needed.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second the motion.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Question. May I ask my
question now?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, certainly.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It sounded like to me -- and
I'm sure you didn't say this, but it sounded like to me that
there is no -- either there is no present employees that are
capable of being the number-one person, or that we're not
allowing any employees to apply for the number-one slot.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner, we're asking
for a -- we'll term this as "desirable qualifications," would
be a Bachelor's degree from a college and five years
experience in human resources and/or payroll field. We
believe we don't have anybody on our payroll that meets that
criteria, but certainly, if we do, we'd sure like to talk to
them -- talk with them.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, they're not excluded;
they're just included in the overall -- okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: The sense that I'm getting is that,
7-29-06
110
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
in accordance with a general policy that we have, for either
of these positions, if we have qualified personnel in the
selection process in-house, we're -- we're going to give them
priority.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We prefer to promote from
~ within.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, good. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions? Comments? All
in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. I
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Does any
member of the Court have anything to offer in executive or
closed session?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You skipped one, Judge, 15.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Item 15.
JUDGE TINLEY: I had it checked off here.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I thought maybe you were mad at
me.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It's a done deal.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I thought we put it off
until after lunch.
JUDGE TINLEY: I am mad at you, so you --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay.
~-24-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
111
JUDGE TINLEY: -- you can rest assured you're
correct there. I had it checked off for some reason, and I
don't know why I did. Let's go to Item 15; consider, discuss,
and take appropriate action on proposed employee grade/step
schedule. I put this on the agenda at the Sheriff's request,
and this is the -- that is the proposed schedule that he
tendered to us previously that has the half steps in it, but
otherwise it's basically formatted on the existing schedule
that applies to all employees except Sheriff's deputies,
jailers, dispatchers, and nurses. Correct?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Sheriff's jailers, dispatch --
I Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: But otherwise, it's the same one
we've been using for several years now. It just incorporates
a half step, a 2 and a half -- excuse me, half grade, as
opposed to a full grade, and that is 2 and a half percent
between half grades, as opposed to 5 percent between full
grades.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What would the effective
date of the new step and grade schedule be?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I would recommend that it be
effective in this next payroll, because it would address --
there's two advantages. Number one, it puts every county
employee back on one step and grade, okay, which I think
solves a lot of problems that we've had for several years.
7-?9-UE
_~ r .~ 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
112
Number two, it addresses the inadvertent errors in the
previous step and grades that have -- that caused problems
inside my department. It will take several years for those
errors to be made up, okay, because it does not pay a lump sum
to any of them, but it does address it all.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let me ask, do you -- does
your office have the ability to get the paperwork done between
now and the next payroll?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. It's already --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think what I understand
about this is that it does not impact employees' salaries,
except for those three classifications.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And the total monthly cost
of the changes there is?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The total yearly cost would be
almost $38,000 a year, okay? Total. And so that's per year.
I do -- to make up the difference for the rest of -- the
remainder of this budget year, okay, which is -- what do
you get?
JODGE TINLEY: Less than 1,600 per payroll.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And I have that amount in my
budget at this time because we had, like, a nurse's opening
for several months.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What's the effective date
7-~9-06
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
113
you're proposing?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I propose that it be effective
in the next payroll. That it be --
JUDGE TINLEY: When you say "next," are you talking
about August 1 to August 15, or are you talking about --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: In the August --
JUDGE TINLEY: -- the payroll period that we're in?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I think it should be reflected
in the August 1st payroll.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Paychecks?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Paychecks.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's the period we're
currently in.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The August 1st paycheck.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And you're confident the
Treasurer --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes, because we --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- can do this?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: -- already have -- the changes
that would have to be plugged in are right there, what the
step and grades --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I guess my only
hesitation -- have you talked with the Treasurer? I mean,
'cause this -- her payroll date is probably today or tomorrow.
Today?
7-24-06
~ ~ L . a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
114
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's not for the August.
That's for this --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's the August -- that's the
August 1 paycheck.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We're at the August 15th.
JUDGE TINLEY: First pay period in the month of
I August?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. Do it August 15th, not
this one coming up. I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I move we approve the
employee grade and step schedule as proposed by the Sheriff,
and that it will be implemented effective August 1, 2006.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For the first -- for the
August 15 payroll.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: For the August 15 --
first salary action vaill be seen on the August 15th payroll
checks.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Now, may I ask -- 'cause this
does affect one. We talked about going no farther than Step
12. And I know that may be something you want to address in
the budget, but since this is a step and grade, I was talking
about, you know, people that can get a -- get an educational.;
they don't get merit, but any other employees of the county
can get four merit, 'cause that way, in a 22-year career,
everybody can end at that Step 12. It gives the rest of the
~-za-oh
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
115
employees --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's all the schedule has,
is 12 steps.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: This also adopts that after --
there's never been a formal policy, 'cause I had one person
that was over a Step 12 before, and he ended up just being
manually figured in, the two and a half, to a Step 13. And I
think there needs to be a definite policy that says that's as
far as you can go in the county step and grade.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If this motion's approved
to accept your recommendation, then this ends at Step 12.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: My only -- I love the plan.
I don't love it; I like it a whole lot. My only concern
was -- is that we fix that problem that created this whole
thing, and that's a shortage of salary in your department.
And you've assured me that it does, and so I'm -- I'm willing
to vote in the affirmative.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I'll reassure you, this does
fix the problem that we had with the prior --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I'll second that motion,
if there's not one.
JUDGE TINLEY: There is not one as yet.
MS. PIEPER: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and second. Any
~-za-o6
~.- -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
116
further question or comment on the motion?
MS. UECKER: I do. Does that mean that if you have
a longtime employee now that's getting close to Step 12,
that -- you know, and probably they're going to be there a
long time, that when they get to a 12, they're just going to
have to sit there?
JUDGE TINLEY: That's where it is right now.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Unless they get promoted to
another job.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Different grade.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Higher classified job.
MS. UECKER: Okay. Then I'm not sure what that's --
what that's telling our people if they're with us a real long
time.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It does not exclude
cost-of-living adjustments that may come down the line.
MS. UECKER: Right, I understand that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But you'd have to be
reclassified something -- in something else, or a higher
position, new job description.
MS. UECKER: What if it's at the highest position?
JUDGE TINLEY: Do you have a -- do you have someone
that is at the threshold of that door?
MS. UECKER: Not really at the threshold, but
they're walking up the sidewalk.
~-z9-o6
_._.__ ~ u
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
117
DODGE TINLEY: Okay.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I have some 10's, and I do have
at least one 12 that this would affect. I've talked to them.
Most of your state agencies have this to where it hits an
ending, and then after that it's just cost-of-living.
Otherwise, it can just go on forever and ever. It does -- and
it will take you -- in reality, as long as you didn't get two
or three merit increases each year, it would take you 22 years
to even get to this point.
MS. UECKER: Well, and I -- I'm not sure that Road
and Bridge doesn't have someone on that threshold.
MR. ODOM: I'm sorry, I was outside with the lady,
so I didn't hear everything. But I don't have 12's any more;
I have 14's.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, not grade. Steps.
MR. ODOM: Oh, steps.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Across the scale.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You probably do.
MR. ODOM: A through H? A through H. I think it's
something like that.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 through 12.
MS. PIEPER: 12, yeah.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: To the extent our salary
grades have got good logic to them, they're properly assigned,
what we're really saying is, Step 12 is all that job's worth.
7-29-06
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
118
And it sounds kind of trite, but I've heard it said that the
only thing worse than being topped out is not being topped
out, so that's -- so it means you're being paid -- that
individual is being paid all that that job is worth.
MR. ODOM: Unless you reclassify them -- look at
reclassifying them up to a 14.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: My wife's the same way with the
school teachers. She's maxed out on her salary scale. Unless
there's cost of living or something like that for school
teachers, they won't get any more. That's 20 years.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It always can be looked at
again.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Special cases can be -- we
can make exceptions.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Like a half step.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other question or comment? All
in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Now I'll ask if any member of the
Court has any item that they wish to go into executive session
7-24-06
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
119
about. Hearing none, we'll move on to the approval agenda.
We have the Auditor with us.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge? Commissioner Williams
and I have a luncheon meeting, and I'm sure you can go through
these without us being here, but I don't see that we're going
to be done with everything by 1:30 -- or by -- I mean, before
lunch, before we have our luncheon meeting.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We can do this without you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Go a lot faster, too.
JUDGE TINLEY: We're at the very tail end of it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We'll be out of here before
dinner.
JUDGE TINLEY: Y'all try not to make so much noise
so we can go ahead and attend to our meeting.
(Commissioners Williams and Letz left the room.)
JUDGE TINLEY: We're down to the approval agenda.
Item Number 4.1, payment of bills.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move we pay the bills.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to pay the
bills. Any question or discussion? I have one question.
We've got a -- we've got a bill of $136 and change, and of
that, $96 is late fees?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What page are you on?
~ z9 06
120
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Page 23. I appreciate you breaking
it out so that it shows. I'm sure it's probably due, but I'm
just distressed that it is due.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 96 -- what am I reading?
$96 in late fees?
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And the original bill was
$40?
MR. TOMLINSON: Right.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Sounds like usury.
MR. TOMLINSON: Sometimes we're victims of -- of not
so expedient delivery by the U.S. Postal Service. Some
vendors have -- have put a less-than-30-day due date on -- on
their invoices, and that's from the date that they were sent
out. So, sometimes, depending on -- on when -- when we
receive it, it really puts us in a bind to get -- sometimes
get payments made on a timely basis. So, there -- it is an
issue sometimes with -- with the fact that we can only approve
payments twice a month. So --
JUDGE TINLEY: You know, I can understand why there
might be, in some cases, because of this hiatus and the fact
that we've got to approve all those bills, that occasionally
there's going to be a late fee imposed. But it occurs to me
that if the late fee, first rattle out of the box, is more
than double the amount of the actual amount due, that -- that
7-29-06
1
.". z
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
"` 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
121
we've got somebody violating the laws -- as Commissioner
Nicholson said, maybe violating the usury laws or something
else of that sort. Or maybe it's not a one-time late charge.
It may be several late charges that have accumulated. That's
my point. You know, I can understand occasionally we'll have
a late charge because of this hiatus in approving the bills,
but good gracious alive, when it's more than double the amount
of the actual base bill, that -- that's distressing to me.
It's wasted money, in my opinion. We have a motion and a
second. 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. Budget
Amendment Request Number 1.
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 1 is for Environmental
Health. They're requesting a transfer of funds of $1,000 from
Operating Expenses, with $400 going to Postage and $600 going
to Operating Equipment.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Whose signature is
this?
MR. TOMLINSON
JUDGE TINLEY:
MR. TOMLINSON
That's --
Miguel's.
-- Miguel's.
~-29-06
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
122
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's just pretty.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of Budget Amendment Request Number 1. 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 2.
MR. TOMLINSON: Request 2 is for the County Clerk --
for the County Clerk's Department and Election Services.
She's requested an $85 transfer from the Election Services
budget for Election Notices, going to the Clerk's budget for
Books, Publications, and Dues.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of Budget Amendment Request 2. Any question or discussion?
All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right
hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
-z4-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
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Budget
Amendment Request 3.
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 3 is between Election
Services and Commissioners Court. We're transferring -- or
need to transfer $3,160 from the HAVA Compliance Expense line
item to Professional Services in Commissioners Court budget.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This 298,000, that's the
money that we received for HAVA compliance from Washington via
Austin?
MR, TOMLINSON: That's what we budgeted. We -- we
only expended 270-plus.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of Budget Amendment Request 3. Any question or discussion?
Question.
MR. TOMLINSON: Mm-hmm?
JUDGE TINLEY: Can we use HAVA money --
MR, TOMLINSON: Not --
JUDGE TINLEY: -- for that purpose?
MR, TOMLINSON: We're not using the money. We've
already expended all the moneys that we received. We happened
to budget more in our budget than we actually received.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
~-z~ an
124
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: So we spent all the HAVA
money? All the federal money?
MR. TOMLINSON: For all intents and purposes.
JUDGE TINLEY: This just happened to be additional
money -- budgeted money that was our -- in a general kitty.
MR. TOMLINSON: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Local moneys.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Green dollars.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Real money.
MR. TOMLINSON: I did talk to the Clerk about that
issue, so --
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Okay. 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 4.
MR. TOMLINSON: Four is for Indigent Health. We're
requesting a transfer of $2,127.54 from Eligible Expenses to
the Third-Party Administrator line item. I do have two late
bills attached. One is to VeriClaims, Inc., for $338.01, and
the other one is also to VeriClaims for $1,789.53.
~-24-06
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
125
i COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is this our final payment to
~ VeriClaims?
I
MR. TOMLINSON: Probably not. We probably have one
~ more.
' JUDGE TINLEY: Was that 238 or 338?
MR. TOMLINSON: 338.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of Budget Amendment Request Number 9 and issuance of hand
checks to VeriClaims for 338.01, and 1,789.53. Any question
or discussion? A11 in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(NO response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Budget
Amendment Request Number 5.
MR. TOMLINSON: Five is for the Treasurer. She's
requested a transfer of $1,275 from Group Insurance, and $500
to Postage, $700 to Office Supplies, and $75 to Machine
Repairs.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This is my boy-dummy question
of the year. How in the hell can you spend $700 on office
supplies at this time of the year?
~-za-oe
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
126
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, we -- we had -- we did -- this
is for some envelopes, $252.18. Part of this is.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Where`s the other 450?
MR. TOMLINSON: We did change accounting systems,
and there were, you know, additional supplies to -- to
purchase in conjunction with that issue. So, I --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm hearing you say that
you're happy with this?
MR, TOMLINSON: Well, I mean, the bill's here.
And -- and we got a $269 bill.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
MR, TOMLINSON: And part of this -- part of office
supplies in that office is for checks and deposits. We don't
get checks and deposits free any more.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 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 carried. Budget Amendment
Request Number 6.
7-^9-U6

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2 2
23
24
25
127
MR. TOMLINSON: Six is from -- for the District
Clerk. She's requesting a $600 transfer from her Deputy
Salaries line item to Overtime.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of Budget Amendment Request 6. Any question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I just -- if I had a
question, it would be something like, is this due to some
court case going on that people have to stay there late?
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, she's had -- she's been
short-handed, I mean, her chief deputy resigned a few months
ago, and she's been --
MS. PIEPER: They've been having jury trials.
MR, TOMLINSON: So she's been -- she's been running
short -- short-staffed.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see. Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: If you had any other questions, what
would they be?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That would be all at this
I time.
MR. TOMLINSON: It so happened that this happened
right at the time of the conversion to -- to the new software,
so she had two whammies.
~ JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions or comments?
~-zn-o~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
128
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think --
JUDGE TINLEY: 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 7.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. Number 7 is for Detention
Maintenance, and we -- we're requesting that we transfer
$2,281.28 from the Independent Audit line item in
~ Nondepartmental, with $185.58 into Maintenance and Custodial
for Detention, and $2,095.70 to Repairs.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of Budget Amendment Request Number 8. Any question or
discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's see. Was that 8?
MR, TOMLINSON: Yes -- no, that's 7,
JUDGE TINLEY: Excuse me. Thank you, Commissioner.
Seven.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Old hawk-eye here.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's right. If you had a question
to ask, it was, "Are we on the right one?" Right?
~ za-o6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
129
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Budget Amendment Request 7. 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. Now to Budget
Amendment Request 8.
MR. TOMLINSON: Eight is for the 216th District
Court. We need a transfer of $1,086 from Court Transcripts,
$231 to Court-Appointed Attorneys and $855 to Special Court
Reporter.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tommy, what -- I know I've
asked you -- through the years, I've asked you this five or
six hundred times, but one more time, please. Why do we pay a
special court reporter when we have a court reporter on staff?
MR. TOMLINSON: I can't answer you specifically on
this one, but in general, it's -- if the court reporter that
we hire is -- that's on our staff is, you know, on vacation or
sick or -- or for some reason -- or if there was two trials
going, you know, if Judge -- if one -- if one of the judges
has a case in one of the other counties and we have a
substitute judge sitting here, then we'd have to have a
substitute.
~-z9-oF
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
~5
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, thank you.
MR. TOMLINSON: This was -- this has not been such
an issue since the Legislature took away our -- the funding
for -- for substitute judges.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Visiting judges.
MR, TOMLINSON: Right. But occasionally we -- there
have been more than one trial going on.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 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 rLght 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. TOMLZNSON: Number 9 is -- is for the 198th
I
District Court. We'd like to transfer $1,845 from the Special
District Judge line item, $45 to Books, Publications, and
Dues, and $1,800 to Court-Appointed Attorneys.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
~-z9-n6
131
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 Budget Amendment Request 9. Any question or discussion?
All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right
hand.
(Commissioner Baldwin raised his hand.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed -- are you in favor of
that, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Budget
Amendment Request 10.
MR. TOMLINSON: Ten is for County Court at Law, for
$1,055.83 from the Court-Appointed Attorney line item to
Master Court Appointments. It's for C.P.S. cases.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
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
~-z9-o6
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
Amendment Request 11.
MR. TOMLINSON: Eleven is for the County Jail.
We're asking to transfer $120 from Jailer Salaries, $35 to
Vehicle Maintenance, and $85 to Machine Repairs.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of Budget Amendment Request 11. Any question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: $35 for vehicle maintenance?
Has he got rubber bands out there now? It's ridiculous.
JUDGE TINLEY: Probably an oil change.
MR. TOMLINSON: That's probably what it is.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: All in favor of the motion --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If you -- if you get the
maintenance moved into the Road and Bridge Department, you
wouldn't have these things.
JUDGE TINLEY: I noticed you waited until Leonard
was gone before you mentioned that. Well, we have a pretty
nice shop facility out there, don't we?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Need to build one more
bay and hire one more mechanic, and you got the county
covered. Very smart.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions or comments? All
~-z9 06
133
1
L
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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 12.
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 12 is for Maintenance for the
Courthouse and Parks. We're transferring -- asking to
transfer $1,200 from Equipment Repairs and $1,200 from Fuel,
Oil, and Maintenance, and $607.73 from Part-Time Salaries,
with $1,224.15 for Supplies for the courthouse for
maintenance, and $761.85 for Utilities, $804.23 to Repairs and
Maintenance, and $217.50 to Major Repairs.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of Budget Amendment Request Number 12. any question or
discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Budget
Amendment Request Number 13.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. It's for Rabies and Animal
~-z4-oF
134
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Control, request from the director to transfer $81.11 from
Retirement to Uniforms and Boots.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of Budget Amendment Request 13. Any question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: As an aside, when we're
talking about we might need more money for sidewalks, we've
probably got some money out there because we were short two
people for a period of time, so we may have enough money out
there to pay for it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions or comments? All
in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Budget Amendment
Request 14.
MR. TOMLINSON: Fourteen is for the Juvenile
Detention Facility -- excuse me. I have a request from Kevin
Stanton to transfer $696.19 from Professional Services, with
$200 to Resident Medical and $496.19 to Telephone line item.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
7-29-06
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
of Budget Amendment Request 14. 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. Do we have
any other budget amendments?
MR. TOMLINSON: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any late bills, other than those
presented?
MR. TOMLINSON: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: I have been presented and I have
before me monthly reports from Justice of the Peace, Precinct
3, Justice of the Peace, Precinct 2 for June '06, Justice of
the Peace, Precinct 4, and Justice of the Peace, Precinct 1,
and County Clerk. Do I hear a motion that these monthly
reports be approved as presented?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of the reports as presented. Any question or discussion? All
in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
~-24-06
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
136
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Does any
member of the Court have anything to present in connection
with their committee or liaison assignments?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Ms. -- Ms. Roman had
donated to the Animal Control Facility two mosaic murals that
have to do with animals and/or critters. Very attractive, and
12 and a half by 5 feet, I think. I've got -- I saw a picture
of them; I haven't been out there to see them yet, but I bring
that up because it reminds me that Ms. Roman does a very good
job of public relations and working with the public and our
constituents who have an interest in animals, their
well-being. And she's good with the public, and I think it
makes a difference in a lot of ways.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, it does. She has a lot
more patience than I would have.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. That's all.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else to come before the
Court at this time? If not, we'll stand adjourned.
(Commissioners Court adjourned at 12:17 p.m.)
~-29-06
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
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF KERR
The above and foregoing is a true and complete
transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my
capacity as County Clerk of the Commissioners Court
of Kerr County, Texas, at the time and place
heretofore set forth.
DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 28th day of
July, 2006.
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
BY: __ N~ ____ _____ _
Ka by nik, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
7-24-06
ORDER NO. 29790
ELECTION JUDGES AND ALTERNATES
Came to be heazd this the 24t~ day of July 2006 with a motion made by Commissioner Nicholson, Seconded by
Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 the appointment of Election Judges
and Alternates as presented for the term of one (1) year in accordance with the Texas Election Code Section 32.
ORDER NO. 29791
KERR COUNTY POLLING LOCATIONS
Came to be heard this the 24`h day of July 2006 with a motion made by Commissioner Williams, Seconded by
Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 the polling locations as presented
in accordance with Chapter 43 of the Texas Election Code.
PCT	VOTING SITE
101	Southeran Oaks Baptist Church
107	Cross Walk Baptist Church
109	Northwest Hills Com. Center
113	St. Pauls' Methodist Church
118	River Hills Mall
119	Trinity Baptist Church
202	American Legion Hall
211	Union Church Building
215	Hosanna Lutheran Church
- 303	Cypress Creek Comm. Center
308	Calvary Temple Church
312	Zion Lutheran Church
314	Courthouse
320	Calvary Temple Church
404	Mt. Home Fire Dept
405	Hunt School
406	Ingram Presbyterian Church
410	First Presbyterian Church
416	Kerrville KOA Com. Center
417	Western Hill Baptist Church
LOCATION
112 Valley View Krvl
111 Camino Real, Krvl
200 Northwest Hills Dr.
135 Methodist Encampment
200 Sidney Baker South
800 Jackson/Bluebell, Kerrville
300 FM 48, Center Point
Memorial Blvd., Kerrville
134 Camp Meeting Rd.
1530 Stoneleigh Road, Comfort
12995 Hwy 27, Center Point
624 Barnett St. Krvl
700 Main St. Krvl
3000 Loop 534
Hwy 27 Mt. Home
#1 Hunt School Rd.
101 Web Avenue, Ingram TX
TX 41 - 1 mi West of YO gate
2400 Goat Creek Rd.
2010 Goat Creek Road
.r ORDER NO. 29792
CONTRACT AND AGREEMENT BETWEEN
DEPARTMENT OF STATE HEALTH SERVICES, BUREAU OF VITAL STATISTICS
AND
KERR COUNTY
Came to be heard this the 24`h day of July 2006 with a motion made by Commissioner Letz, Seconded by
Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 the contract and agreement
between the Department of State Health Services, Bureau of Vital Statistics and Kerr County.
ORDER NO. 29793
TEEN CURFEW
Came to be heard this the 24`" day of .July 2006 with a motion made b,y- Commissiomer Baldwin, S~:;ci~nded by
Commissioner Williams, with Commissioner Nicholson and Commissioner I,etz voting "NAY" and ,fudge
Tinley break the tie voting "AYE" the Court approved by a vote of 3-2-0 the Teen Curfew for another ~-ear.
ORDER NO. 29794
TELEPHONE CONTRACT BETWEEN
FIVE STAR WIRLESS AND KERR COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
Came to be heard this the 24`h day of July 2006 with a motion made by Commissioner Williams, Seconded by
Commissioner Nicholson, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 the proposal for a new wireless
telephone contract with Five Star Wireless for the Sheriffls Department.
ORDER NO. 29795
REVISION OF PLAT
NF-RB RANCH, TRACTS 9-B, 9-A AND 10-A, SECTION 4
Came to be heard this the 24`h day of July 2006 with a motion made by Commissioner Nicholson, Seconded by
Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 the revision of plat for NF-RB Ranch,
Tract 9B, 9A and 10A, Section 4 recorded in Volume 6 page 148.
ORDER NO. 29796
ENGINEERING REVIEW FEES FOR FINAL PLAT APPROVAL
Came to be heard this the 24`h day of July 2006 with a motion made by Commissioner Letz, Seconded by
Commissioner Nicholson, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 the payment of Engineering
review fees to Kerr County and final plat approval as it relates to the inspections fees and engineering review
fees to be included or rolled into the letter of credit.
ORDER NO. 29797
PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE ALTERNATE PLAT PROCESS
THE WOODS SECTION TWO
LOTS 79, 80. 81.82, & 83
Came to be heard this the 24`h day of July 2006 with a motion made by Commissioner Williams, Seconded by
Commissioner Nicholson, with Commissioner Baldwin absent from the room, the Court unanimously approved
by a vote of 3-0-0 the Public Hearing for August 28`h, 2006 at 10:00 A.M, for The Woods Section Two, Lots
79, 80. 81.82, & 83, Vol. 4 Page 1761ocated in Precinct 2.
ORDER NO. 29798
VISTAS ESCONDIDAS DE CYPRESS SPRINGS ESTATES
FINAL PLAT APPROVAL
Came to be heazd this the 24`h day of July 2006 with a motion made by Commissioner Williams, Seconded by
Commissioner Nicholson, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 the approval Plat for Vistas
Escondidas de Cypress Springs Estates contingent upon receiving the original letter of credit for $250,000 plus
the engineering fees.
ORDER NO. 29799
ANIMAL CONTROL FACILITY
SIDEWALK
Came to be heazd this the 24`h day of July 2006 with a motion made by Commissioner Nicholson, Seconded by
Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 the construction bid from Cypress
Creek Construction to construct a sidewalk at the Animal Control Facility in the amount of $7,068.00
ORDER NO. 29800
LIBRARY BOARD MEMBER
Came to be heard this the 24~h day of July 2006 with a motion made by Commissioner Nicholson, Seconded by
Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 the appointment of Reverend
Bruce Baker to the Library Board.
ORDER NO. 29801
SPUR 98 LANDSCAPE CONSTRUCITON
AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
Came to be heard this the 24`h day of July 2006 with a motion made by Commissioner Baldwin, Seconded by
Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 the landscape construction and
maintenance agreement between the State of Texas, acting by and through the Texas Department of
Transportation and Kerr County for Spur 98.
ORDER NO. 29802
ADOPT A HIGHWAY
SADDLEWOOD ESTATES
Came to be heard this the 24`h day of July 2006 with a motion made by Commissioner Baldwin, Seconded by
Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 the Adopt-a-Highway for Landscaping
Program for Saddlewood Estates to be preformed by the Saddlewood Estates homeowners Association.
ORDER NO. 29803
HUMAN RESOURCE DIRECTOR
HUMAN RESOURCE ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT OR CLERK
Came to be heard this the 24`x' day of July 2006 with a motion made by Commissioner Nicholson, Seconded by
Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to authorize $500 for advertising
for a Human Resource Director and Seek a Resource Administrative Assistant or Clerk from within and to have
the positions filled by September 15, 2006.
ORDER NO. 29804
EMPLOYEE GRADE/STEP SCHEDULE
Came to be heard this the 24~' day of July 2006 with a motion made by Commissioner Nicholson, Seconded by
Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 the Employee Grade/Step
Scheduled as presented to be effective August 1, 2006 to reflect in the paychecks of August 15, 2006.
ORDER NO. 29805
CLAIMS AND ACCOUNTS
On this the 24`" day of July 2006, came to be considered by the Court various Commissioners Precincts, which
said Claims and Accounts are:
10-General $132,582.48
15-Road and Bridge $60,131.58
18-Law Librazy $47.00
50-Indigent Health Caze $47,672.82
62-Jail Bond $375.00
76 Juv. Detention Facility $8,079.91
Total Cash Required for all Funds $248,888.79
Upon motion made by Commissioner Nicholson, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, (Commissioner
Williams and Letz left the room) The Court unanimously approved by vote of 2-0-0 to pay the claims and
accounts.
ORDER NO. 29806
BUDGET AMENTMENT
ENVIRONMENT HEALTH
On this the 24`h day of July, 2006 came to be considered and upon motion made by Commissioner Nicholson,
seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, (Commissioner Williams and Letz left the room) The Court unanimously
approved by vote of 2-0-0 to transfer the following items:
	LINE ITEM
EXPENSE CODE	DESCRIPTION
10-640-309	Postage
	Operating
10-640-569	Equipment
	Operating
,.,, 10-640-330	Expense
CURRENT
BUDGET
$1,200.00
$300.00
UNEXPENDED
CURRENT BUDGET
EXPENSE BALANCE
$109.43 +
$89.07 +
REQUESTED
AMENDMENT
INCREASE/QDECREASE
$400.00
$600.00
$1, 500.00
$1,437.99
{$1,000.00)
ORDER NO. 29807
BUDGET AMENDMENT
COUNTY CLERK ELECTION SERVICES
On this the 24`h day of July, 2006 came to be considered and upon motion made by Commissioner Baldwin,
seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, (Commissioner Williams and Letz left the room) The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 2-0-0 to transfer the following items:
EXPENSE	LINE ITEM
CODE	DESCRIPTION
	Books, Publications,
10-403-430	Dues
10-402-430	Election Notices
		UNEXPENDED
CURRENT	CURRENT	BUDGET
BUDGET	EXPENSE	BALANCE
$1,542.83	$85.00	$0.00 +
$507.17	$0.00	$333.73
REQUESTED
AMENDMENT
INCREASE/()DECREASE
$85.00
($85.00)
ORDER NO. 29808
BUDGET AMENDMENT
COMMISSIONERS COURT
ELECTION SERVICES
On this the 24`h day of July, 2006 came to be considered and upon motion made by Commissioner Nicholson,
seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, (Commissioner Williams and Letz left the room) The Court unanimously
approved by vote of 2-0-0 to transfer the following items:
EXPENSE
CODE
10-401-486
10-402370
		UNEXPENDED	REQUESTED
LINE ITEM	CURRENT	CURRENT BUDGET	AMENDMENT
DESCRIPTION	BUDGET	EXPENSE BALANCE	INCREASE/()DECREASE
Professional Services	$18,870.00	$3,160.00 $0.00	+ $3,160.00
H.A.V.A. Compliance			
Exp.	$298,226.00	$25,644.81	($3,160.00)
ORDER NO. 29809
BUDGET AMENDMENT
INDIGENT HEALTH CARE
On this the 24`h day of July, 2006 came to be considered and upon motion made by Commissioner Baldwin,
seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, (Commissioner Williams and Letz left the room) The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 2-0-0 to transfer the following items:
EXPENSE
CODE
50-641-486
50-641-200
				REQUESTED
			UNEXPENDE	AMENDMENT
LINE ITEM	CURRENT	CURRENT	D BUDGET	INCREASE/QDECREAS
DESCRIPTION	BUDGET	EXPENSE	BALANCE	E
Third Party				
Administrator	$29,048.96	$2,127.54	$0.00	+ $2,127.54
	$731,951.0	$47,672.8		
Eligible Expense	4	2	$58,066.23	($2,127.54)
With a hand check to VeriClaims, Inc for $338.01 an	d $1,789.53	
ORDER NO. 29810
BUDGET AMENDMENT
COUNTY TREASURER
On this the 24~h day of July, 2006 came to be considered and upon motion made by Commissioner Baldwin,
seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, (Commissioner Williams and Letz left the room) The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 2-0-0 to transfer the following items:
EXPENSE CODE
10-497-309
10-497-310
10-497-456
10-497-202
LINE ITEM
DESCRIPTION
postage
office supplies
machine repairs
group insurance
CURRENT
BUDGET
$3,000.00
$3,600.00
$13,464.00
	UNEXPENDED
CURRENT	BUDGET
EXPENSE	BALANCE
	$889.24 +
$269.77	$0.46 +
$75.00	+
	$7,825.50 -
REQUESTED
AMENDMENT
INCREASE/QDECREASE
$500.00
$700.00
$75.00
($1,275.00)
ORDER NO. 29811
BUDGET AMENDMENT
DISTRICT CLERK
On this the 24a' day of July, 2006 came to be considered and upon motion made by Commissioner Nicholson,
seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, (Commissioner Williams and Letz left the room) The Court unanimously
approved by vote of 2-0-0 to transfer the following items:
		UNEXPENDED	REQUESTED
LINE ITEM	CURRENT	CURRENT BUDGET	AMENDMENT
EXPENSE CODE DESCRIPTION	BUDGET	EXPENSE BALANCE	INCREASE/QDECREASE
10-450-112 overtime	$2,773.64	($319.94)	+ $600.00
10-450-104 deputy clerk salary	$179,434.36	$42,987.68	- ($600.00)
ORDER NO. 29812
BUDGET AMENDMENT
NON-DEPARTMENTAL
On this the 24`h day of July, 2006 came to be considered and upon motion made by Commissioner Nicholson,
seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, (Commissioner Williams and Letz left the room) The Court unanimously
approved by vote of 2-0-0 to transfer the following items:
EXPENSE CODE
10-515-350
10-515-451
10-409-400
LINE ITEM
DESCRIPTION
maintenance &
custodial
detention repairs
independent audit
UNEXPENDED
CURRENT CURRENT BUDGET
BUDGET EXPENSE BALANCE
$15,118.34 $185.58 +
$37,716.89 $2,095.70 -
$25,000.00 $2,600.00 -
REQUESTED
AMENDMENT
INCREASE/()DECREASE
$185.58
$2,095.70
($2,281.28)
ORDER NO. 29813
BUDGET AMENDMENT
216TH DISTRICT COURT
On this the 24`h day of July, 2006 came to be considered and upon motion made by Commissioner Nicholson,
seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, (Commissioner Williams and Letz left the room) The Court unanimously
approved by vote of 2-0-0 to transfer the following items:
				UNEXPENDED	REQUESTED
EXPENSE	LINE ITEM	CURRENT	CURRENT	BUDGET	AMENDMENT
CODE	DESCRIPTION	BUDGET	EXPENSE	BALANCE	INCREASE/()DECREASE
10-435-402	court appointed attorney	$134,243.25	$231.00		+ $231.00
10-435-494	special court reporter	$4,351.39	$855.00		+ $855.00
10-435-497	court transcripts	$5,000.00		$3,432.65	- ($1,086.00)
ORDER NO. 29814
BUDGET AMENDMENT
198TH DISTRICT COURT
On this the 24`h day of July, 2006 came to be considered and upon motion made by Commissioner Nicholson,
seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, (Commissioner Williams and Letz left the room) The Court unanimously
approved by vote of 2-0-0 to transfer the following items:
EXPENSE
CODE
10-436-315
10-436-401
,,,_ 10-436-415
LINE ITEM
DESCRIPTION
books, publications,
dues
court appointed
attorney
special district judge
UNEXPENDED
CURRENT CURRENT BUDGET
BUDGET EXPENSE BALANCE
$600.00 $150.00 $105.00 +
$28,880.03 $1,800.00 +
$4,000.00 $4,000.00 -
REQUESTED
AMENDMENT
INCREASE/()DECREAS E
$45.00
$1,800.00
($1,845.00)
ORDER NO. 29815
COUNTY COURT AT LAW
On this the 24`h day of July, 2006 came to be considered and upon motion made by Commissioner Baldwin,
seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, (Commissioner Williams and Letz left the room) The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 2-0-0 to transfer the following items:
			UNEXPENDED	REQUESTED
EXPENSE	LINE ITEM	CURRENT	CURRENT BUDGET	AMENDMENT
CODE	DESCRIPTION	BUDGET	EXPENSE BALANCE	INCREASE/()DECREASE
	master court			
10-427-403	appointments	$42,151.55	$1,055.83	+ $1,055.83
	court appointed			
10-427-402	attorney	$35,848.45	$6,371.96	- ($1,055.83)
ORDER NO. 29816
BUDGET AMENDMENT
COUNTY JAIL
On this the 24`h day of July, 2006 came to be considered and upon motion made by Commissioner Nicholson,
seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, (Commissioner Williams and Letz left the room) The Court unanimously
approved by vote of 2-0-0 to transfer the following items:
EXPENSE CODE
10-512-454
10-512-456
10-512-104
LINE ITEM
DESCRIPTION
vehicle
maintenance
machine repair
jailers salaries
UNEXPENDED
CURRENT CURRENT BUDGET
BUDGET EXPENSE BALANCE
$1,981.75 $35.00 +
$85.00 +
$787,956.00 $194,449.69 -
REQUESTED
AMENDMENT
INCREASE/()DECREASE
$35.00
$85.00
($120.00)
ORDER NO. 29817
BUDGET AMENDMENT
COURTHOUSE & RELATED BUILDINGS
PARKS MAINTENANCE
On this the 24`h day of July, 2006 came to be considered and upon motion made by Commissioner Baldwin,
seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, (Commissioner Williams and Letz left the room) The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 2-0-0 to transfer the following items:
EXPENSE CODE
10-510-350
10-510-440
10-510-450
..-. 10-510-550
10-510-108
10-513-331
10-513-456
			UNEXPENDED	REQUESTED
LINE ITEM	CURRENT	CURRENT	BUDGET	AMENDMENT
DESCRIPTION	BUDGET	EXPENSE	BALANCE	INCREASE/()DECREASE
supplies	$22,200.38	$1,224.15		$1,224.15
utilities	$43,208.55		($761.85)	$761.85
repair &				
maintenance	$33,698.29	$804.23		$804.00
major rpairs	$15,997.03	$217.50		$217.50
part-time salary	$6,500.00		$5,811.00	($607.73)
fuel, oil &				
maintenance	$2,500.00		$1,833.96	($1,200.00)
equipment repairs	$1,750.00		$1,636.31	($1,200.00)
ORDER NO. 29818
BUDGET AMENDMENT
RABIES & ANIMAL CONTROL
On this the 24`h day of July, 2006 came to be considered and upon motion made by Commissioner Nicholson,
seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, (Commissioner Williams and Letz left the room) The Court unanimously
approved by vote of 2-0-0 to transfer the following items:
		UNEXPENDED	REQUESTED
LINE ITEM	CURRENT	CURRENT BUDGET	AMENDMENT
EXPENSE CODE DESCRIPTION	BUDGET	EXPENSE BALANCE	INCREASE/()DECREASE
10-642-316 uniforms, boots	$2,000.00	$153.32 $72.21	$81.11
10-642-203 retirement	$9,699.00	$2,994.89	($81.11)
ORDER NO. 29819
BUDGET AMENDMENT
JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITY
On this the 24`~ day of July, 2006 came to be considered and upon motion made by Commissioner Baldwin,
seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, (Commissioner Williams and Letz left the room) The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 2-0-0 to transfer the following items:
	LINE ITEM	CURRENT
EXPENSE CODE	DESCRIPTION	BUDGET
76-572-333	resident medical	$26,292.74
76-572-420	telephone	$9,000.00
	professional	
76-572-486	services	$7,906.98
UNEXPENDED
CURRENT BUDGET
EXPENSE BALANCE
$200.00
$674.02 $177.83
$7,784.48
REQUESTED
AMENDMENT
INCREASE/QDECREASE
$200.00
$496.19
($696.19)
ORDER NO. 29820
MONTHLY REPORTS
On this the 24"' day of July, 2006 came to be considered and upon motion made by Commissioner Baldwin,
seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, (Commissioner Williams and Letz left the room) The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 2-0-0 the following monthly reports.
Justice of the Peace 1, 2, 3, & 4 and County Clerk