1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
z2
23
29
25
KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT
Special Session
Monday, August 28, 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. 9
v
0
a0
2

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
L 1
22
23
24
25
I N D E X
August 28, 2006
PAGE
5
Commissioners' Comments
1.1 Receive report from Mr. Mel Ferguson,
District Coordinator for Senator Troy Fraser
1.2 Presentation-LCRA Rim Rock to Goat Creek Project
1.3 Report from Kerr Economic Development Foundation
1.5 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on pro-
posed Memorandum of Understanding with Continuum
Healthcare for use of Juvenile Detention Center
facility due to mandatory evacuation of Harris
County in the event of a natural disaster
1.4 Consider/discuss ordering the General Election
1.10 Public Hearing for revision of plat for Lots 79
80, 81, 82 & 83 of The Woods Section Two
1.11 Public Hearing for revision of plat for Lots 7A &
8, Treasure Hills Ranch
1.6 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
proposed plan provision changes for TCDRS 2007
Plan Year to include COLA, 20-year service
retirement, and partial lump sum
1.7 ConsiderJauthorize buy-back into the TCDRS for
employees who are rehired or re-elected after a
break in service
1.8 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on ASO
Appeal Review Request, have County Judge sign same
(Executive Session)
1.12 Considerldiscuss, take appropriate action to
approve revision of plat for Lots 7A & 8, Treasure
Hills Ranch
1.13 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
consider closing ORCA Contract #781257
1.9 Approval of Cooperative Agreement regarding child
support cases with Office of the Attorney General
1.14 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
rental rates of Union Church being raised
1.15 Considerldiscuss, take appropriate action on
approving Kerr County Juvenile Detention Facility
Policy and Procedures manual for '06-'07
1.16 Consider/discuss and take appropriate action to
establish procedure for soliciting and screening
applicants for Maintenance Dept. Manager, and such
other matters related to departmental organization
that may be required
1.17 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
approve contract with TetraTech Engineering for
professional services for Center Point Wastewater
Project
10
10
26
38
55
56
56
57
70
74
79
82
88
88
91

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
I N D E X (Continued)
August 28, 2006
PAGE
1.18	Consider/discuss, approve by record vote the	
	proposed Kerr County 200'7 Tax Rate and set date,	
	time and place of first and second public hearings	
	on such tax rate 95,	109
1.19	Consider and select fee schedule for EMS that will	
	close the shortfall between expenses and revenues	102
1.20	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to confirm	
	Kerr County members and composition of City/County	
	Joint Economic Development Strategy Committee	111
1.21	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on hiring	
	of Secretary/Administrative Assistant at Department	
	of Public Safety at Grade 17, Step 1	113
1.23	Select and assign a county commissioner to be the	
	Commissioners' Court Liaison with the Human	
	Resources Department	117
1.24	Interview candidates and select a Human Resources	
	Director ~ Human Resources Administrative Assistant	
	and authorize offers of employment (Exec. Session)	---
1.25	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to approve	
	bonds as required by Texas Tax Code 6.28 (a) and	
	TLGC 88.01 for Tax Assessor-Collector	119
1.26	Swearing in of Diane Bolin as Tax Assessor/Collector	---
1.2'7	Considerldiscuss, take appropriate action to approve	
	appointment of deputies of Tax Assessor/Collector	---
4.1 Pay Bills
4.2 Budget Amendments
9.3 Late Bills
4.4 Approve and Accept Monthly Reports
1.22 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on the
"Kerr County Management's Discussion and Analysis"
for 2004-2005 audit
Action as may be required on matters discussed in
executive session
--- Adjourned
121
121
139
141
145
146
4
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
On Monday, August 28, 2006, at 9:00 a.m., a special
meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in the
this date and time, Monday, August 28, 2006, at 9 a.m. It is
that time now. If you would, if you'd please stand and join
me in a moment of prayer.
(Prayer and pledge of allegiance.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Please be seated. At
is not on the agenda, excuse me, you're privileged to come
forward at this time. If you wish to be heard on an agenda
item, a regularly posted agenda item, we'd ask that you wait
until that item is called, and we'd prefer that you fill out a
participation form. They're found at the back of the room.
It's not essential that you do that, but it helps me to be
aware that you want to be heard on that item, so that I don't
overlook you. Even if you don't file one of those
participation forms, if we qet to an item that you have an
interest in, want to be heard on, get my attention some way,
shape, form, or fashion, and I'll see that you have an
a-aa-oe
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
opportunity to be heard. But at this point, 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, please feel
free to come forward at this time. Seeing no one coming
forward, we'll move forward. Commissioner Baldwin, what do
you have for us this morning?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I just want to report
Saturday afternoon, I went to the Upper Turtle Creek Volunteer
Fire Department change of guard ceremony and ate some Big
Earl's barbecue, and then hopped in my truck and drove real
fast to the 4-H Awards Banquet, which I feel like that you'll
probably make some comments about, and ate some barbecue.
(Laughter.) Yesterday I spent the day waddling. So -- and
today, too. It's a beautiful day, and I'm excited about this
agenda, and hope we get through it today. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Commissioner Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, it's good to be back
in the hill country. I see while I was gone, we didn't have
much rain, if any, to speak of. Spent about seven days in
lovely southern California. I'll take their weather, which is
about 20 degrees cooler than here, but I won't take all that
traffic and all those people and all that other nonsense. So,
it's good to be back. Every now and then, we get a letter or
get some comment about the things that we do, and I have a
letter here. I've showed it to Leonard. It's from a little
E-28-06
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
lady and her husband who live way out on Elm Pass Road, and
he's a retired fire chief out there. And he says, "First, let
me comment on what a good job the road people did on Elm Pass
Road." For those of you who don't know, Elm Pass Road's been
a work in progress for about three years, but we're finally
getting toward the end. So, it says, "...what a good job the
road people did on Elm Pass Road. Except for one or two scary
places, it's beautiful. Of course, it's not the road that's
scary. For the most part, it's the scary people that drive on
it." (Laughter.) So, three cheers for the road folks.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's probably those darn
scary natives that live out there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Wouldn't be surprised.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, that's what it is.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll talk a little bit about
water; been dealing a lot with water lately. Region J is in
full gear getting the next planning cycle put together. Had a
meeting here -- I think it was last week; my days are
getting -- all running together. With all the interest from
Kerr County, not a whole -- well, several members of the
public were there. The press, unfortunately, didn't show up,
but we talked a lot about the strategies for Kerr County,
what's going on, what studies need to be done to look at the
aquifer, surface water options and a lot of things like that,
9-28-06
1
z
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

some of their problems. Their problem is too much water in
many regards, and trying to sell it. And, so, I'm not --
wanting to sell it is a different problem than we have, but it
is interesting. And Kinney County, as many of y'all know, is
probably the first state that's -- not first state, first
county that is really addressing water marketing, and it has
state-wide consequences. We're devoting a lot of our time to
it. There are contracts pending on the table right now with
Kinney County furnishing 40,000 acre feet of water to Laredo;
also furnishing water back to San Antonio through the Edwards
Aquifer Authority, which is -- Edwards Aquifer is trying to
get control of more groundwater in Kinney County. So, lots of
things. Pretty interesting, but not directly related to Kerr
County, but it's taking some of my time.
This Thursday -- is that Thursday? The 30th? Yeah,
Thursday, the 30th, there's a public hearing over at U.G.R.A.
on the scope of work for Region J. It'Ll be going over kind
of some of -- receiving public comment as to what the public
thinks we need to be focusing on. It will be at 5 p.m. at
8-28-06
8
1
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
°"` 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
~' 2 4
25
the -- probably at the Lecture Hall or the classroom; not sure
which one they booked, but it will be -- hopefully the public
will attend, turn out, make sure we don't miss anything. We
wells going dry, it's usually high on their list. I know
they've been doing -- I've talked to Greg Howard quite a bit
at Kerr Country Pump. He has been running strong, lowering
wells, or pumps in wells in the past week, especially in east
Kerr County. Center Point area seems to be the hardest hit
right now, and I think we all are aware there are more
problems in that area than most of the county. So, that's
kind of what I've been working on. Water.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Judge, the prime season for
the summer camps and tourism is winding down. And that, of
course, has a huge economic impact on the county, particularly
west Kerr County, where a lot of those camps are. Probably
nobody understands that better than Guy Overby. They bring in
a lot of tourism dollars, and it's not just those dollars paid
to the camps. It's inns and motels and restaurants, and just
about any retail business in town benefits from that. If we
didn't have those -- that source of revenues -- business
revenues in the county, we'd be a different county. In fact,
if we didn't have the summer camps, a whole lot of businesses
B-28 OF
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
would shut down, wouldn't be able to make it. Some businesses
make half or more of their annual revenues in something less
than three months. The editorial is that if they didn't have
to shut down so early, if schools were out from before
Memorial Day till after Labor Day, there would be a
significant increase in the tourism activity, the revenues
that we derive from it. So, that's something I -- in my
opinion, we shouldn't give up on. Everybody has an interest
in that. We ought to continue to encourage the Legislature to
-- to enact that beneficial legislation. That's all I have.
JODGE TINLEY: Thank you. As Commissioner Baldwin
indicated, he and I were fortunate enough to be at the annual
4-H Awards Banquet, and among the many numerous awards that
are awarded out there each year, the Commissioners Court gives
a volunteer award. And the award this year was presented
posthumously to our former county commissioner and director of
Maintenance and Facilities, Mr. Glenn Holekamp. I think it
was well, well deserved, without any question. And -- and we
were privileged to have with us Mr. Holekamp's widow, Edith
Holekamp, and his son Wesley and his wife Brandy, and they
accepted the award on his behalf, and it was a privilege and
an honor for Commissioners Baldwin and I to be there to do
that for them. Let's get on with the business at hand. We've
got a lot to do. The first item that we have is a timed item
set for 9 o'clock. We've run a little past that now. We have
8-2tl-06
10
1
'" 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
°' 13
19
15
16
17
18
19
~0
21
22
23
"~" 2 4
25
a report from Mr. Mel Ferguson, the District Coordinator for
Senator Troy Fraser.
MR. FERGUSON: Judge, good morning.
JUDGE TINLEY: Come on forward and tell us what you
MR. FERGUSON: Judge, good morning. Good morning,
Commissioners. Thank you so much for allowing me to introduce
myself as the new staff member for Senator Troy Fraser. I'm
officed in the district office of Marble Falls. Lovely
commute this morning to get here, and if I may approach the
bench, I'd like to just shamelessly peddle my business card,
and -- and just very briefly tell you that I'm returning to
the great state of Texas after 30 years in the military. The
last seven years I spent at the Pentagon working for the
Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and
so I'm glad to be back in the great, beautiful, but dry, hill
country. And if there's anything that we can do on behalf
of -- Senator Troy Fraser on behalf of your county, please let
us know. And thank you again for allowing me to come this
morning.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. We appreciate you
being here. The next item on the agenda is a presentation on
the L.C.R.A. Rim Rock-to-Goat Creek project. Mr. Roy Kilgore.
Mr. Kilgore, if you'd give your address so that the reporter
8-^8-0 F.
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
would have that, I'd appreciate it.
MR. KILGORE: My name is Roy Kilgore. I live at 118
Canter Lane. Judge, Commissioners, I was here two weeks ago,
wanted to make a pitch on this. Couldn't find one of these
little devices right here, so I now have one courtesy of
K.A.C.C. across the street. It has one good bulb; if it craps
out, I'm in a bit of trouble. (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mr. Kilgore?
MR. KILGORE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I noticed on your request
here it says you're going to be 15 minutes, barring
interruptions. May I interrupt you with one question?
MR. KILGORE: Certainly, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Please? I -- I'm curious,
and 1 think everybody here is curious. What -- what do you
wish to accomplish with your presentation?
MR. KILGORE: I wish to encourage and, in fact,
cajole or in any other way manipulate the Court so that you'd
take a position on the L.C.R.A, And I believe I have the
methodology that might be politically palatable for you to do
that, and that's what I'm here for.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. I doubt that, if it's
palatable, but --
MR. KILGORE: 1 understand.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've been down that road
a 'a-on
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
before.
MR. KILGORE: Yes, I heard that last week. I don't
know if y'all can see that. That's as high as we can get this
thing. First off, I'm a NIMB; you've heard the acronym
before, Not In My Backyard. I've learned what I know now
because I'm a NIMB; I Look out after my own self-interests. I
think it's really important for you to realize -- and that
pretty much answers Mr. Baldwin's question again, that only
NIMB's understand this very well. And I'd like to point that
out by telling you about our good friend and neighbor, Mr. Jim
Mortenson here, who has a residence here and in Houston and
gets back and forth. His lot -- closest point is probably 100
feet from mine. He first heard about this when I talked to
him yesterday when he got back in town.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh.
MR. KILGORE: All right. L.C.R.A.'s notification
criteria, as we discussed last time, I believe, is they send
notification out to land owners -- property owners whose
property is within 300 feet of a proposed right-of-way center
line. The vast majority of your constituents are not aware of
where some of these routes could go. That's why, if you take
a position on it, even though it's politically unpalatable,
you'll get the word out. Folks will have a chance -- people
like Mr. Mortenson will have a chance to weigh-in on the
matter, probably through y'all, and that's what the bottom
g-gig-n6
1
°' 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
-- 13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
"' 2 9
25
13
When I was here last without the projector, you
folks made it pretty clear that you don't have any statutory
say in how this thing happens, and that you didn't want to
take a position. I understand that taking a side on a matter
that has no possibility of pleasing everyone is a tough
political thing to do, You know, and I know that if you want
I to be heard, you can be, even though you don't have statutory
authority. You do it all the time; resolutions, opinions,
publicity. However, you can be an influence in this project
if you choose to be. As you already know, and Commissioner
Baldwin in particular, this thing is going to be around a long
time. I do not have a life span for this from L.C.R.A., but
my supposition is that it's in the -- in the decades, at
least; if not, perhaps a century. It's going to be here a
long time. This Court is the only broadly charged body that
can represent the collective citizenry, people like
Mr. Mortenson who don't have the direct notification from
L.C.R.A., and they're not NIMB's like me.
The problem is, how do you, as a body politic,
choose a route that's in the best interests of the County of
B 28-06
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Kerr? This -- I'm going to have to read a little bit. This
thing is distorted because I've stretched it out, and I put
the red lines on it, so let me help you a little bit here with
reading some of the text. Now, this one -- this is L.C.R.A.'s
criteria, as you can see from the slide, and this one right
here says additional parks and/or recreational areas within
1,000 feet of the right-of-way center line. This one says,
estimated length of right-of-way within foreground visual zone
of U.S. and state highways and farm roads -- farm-to-market
roads, and parks and recreational areas. I wrote to
Mr. Palafox, whom you've all met. He -- for those of you who
don't know Mr. Palafox, he is the case manager for L.C.R.A.
for this project. And I asked him, among other things, what
did he mean by "foreground visual zone"? And let me -- let me
find his answer here. Sorry, I should have marked it. The
fore -- I'm quoting from his reply. "The foreground visual
zone is defined as a one-half mile unobstructed view from U.S.
and state highways and farm-to-market roads." Note that it
doesn't say anything about county roads. I believe Spur 98 is
a county road. Am I correct?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: State.
JUDGE TINLEY: State.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: State.
MR. ODOM: State.
g %g-n6
15
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's a partial county road,
yes, sir.
MR. KILGORE: So, it does fall within this
definition of that -- Spur 98 falls within the definition of
state highways, U.S, highways, and farm-to-market roads?
Okay. Then I asked him about parks or recreational areas, and
I was specifically asking about the Guadalupe River. And his
reply was, "The definition of parks or recreational areas does
not usually include rivers with public access." I think it's
worthwhile to look at L.C.R.A.'s mission statement. I put
this underlining on. Bear in mind that I just told you that
he said that public access rivers weren't part of his
criteria. I find that contradictory to the underlined portion
of their mission statement. This is the question that we
mentioned about it already. What can you do that is
politically and emotional -- the matter politically and
emotionally contentious? You never please all of the
constituents. You know that. I know that. Public knows
that, that segment of the public that's informed at all.
L.C.R.A.'s environmental criteria, some of which we looked. aT_,
are subjective, and therefore you can't codify them. It's
going to be up to people in that loop to make that call.
I suggest that the Court start with a constituent's
criteria in an attempt to find a palatable approach that the
Court could take. I submit that these are the criteria that
5-28-06
1
._ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
-~ 1 3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
16
the constituents have, if they're informed at all. The first
one is, can I see the thing? It's visually unattractive,
unless it's buried. One of my questions to Mr. Palafox was,
how many miles of line does L.C.R.A. have, and how much of it
is underground? His answer was about 3,900 miles of line, of
which six-tenths of a mile runs under the ship channel in
Corpus Christi. They did not install that; they bought it
from a previous owner. They have no experience in putting the
line underground. Notice that this criteria applies to all
citizens of the county. People won't like the way it looks.
You know that. I know that. But it's a broadly applicable
criteria. Can I see the blasted thing?
Secondly, will the right-of-way infringe on my
property? That's that NIMB issue, and some folks in the paper
and elsewhere have asked the question, what about
electromagnetic field effects? That's a NIMB-only question,
because the field effects only apply to people really close to
the line. I assert that a fair, objective criterion, a single
criterion that you could use is, choose the route that's
visible to the fewest people in the county. How to do that.
Pardon the technical approach here, but I think it's valid and
doable. You got to somehow measure how much people can see.
"How much of this line can I see?"
B-ZB 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
17
And I got a graph and a chart that makes it a little
bit easier for you to do it. The measure of merit that you're
or range. The closer you are, the more -- the bigger the
'cause they're closer. It can be done. Many of you are
familiar with the city and the county GIS system that has
greatly detailed information provided by a cartographic
company. That has topographic information. They can overlay
demographic information, the 9-1-1 data. It could be done
quite precisely. All the Court would have to do, then, once
you got that answer, is either choose the route with the
lowest aggregate sum; that is, the route that's viewed visible
to fewest people.
Perhaps this chart will help a little bit here.
This guy over here can only see this tiny angle, 'cause he's
blocked by this terrain, and he's quite a ways off. So,
there's five people in his household. They get five people
times this arc angle and degrees, and that goes into judging
this portion of the line segment. This guy here at B is
closer. He's not blocked by the terrain, so he's got a big
angle here, bigger than 90 degrees, let's say. This guy can
8-^_8-06
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
see exactly the same stretch of wire, but he gets less weight
because he's further away, and consequently, the angle is
smaller. In summary, you can have influence when you want to.
The project is going to be around a long time, and it's going
to have a huge impact on the Guadalupe River Valley, of which
the attractiveness for the campers is a significant part. And
there is at least one fair and objective way to do this.
Thanks for your time.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: I thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Very interesting.
MR. KILGORE: Would you like me to get this out of
your way, Judge?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes.
MR. KILGORE: Okay, I'll do that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I thought maybe we
could ask Mr. Palafox if he'd like to respond to some of that.
Only if you want to. This could be good.
MR. KILGORE: Do you need my charts, Dennis?
MR. PALAFOX: That's fine, yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you want some popcorn?
MR. PALAFOX: Judge, Commissioners, I'm Dennis
Palafox with L.C.R.A., Post Office Box 220 in Austin. I don't
necessarily want to respond directly to what Mr. Kilgore has
said, other than the fact that he's correct in stating that
&-25-OF
1
~,., 2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
°° 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
`~ 2 4
25
19
the notification, particularly for the open house, and then
went out, published for two times in the two weeks prior to
our open house, and then will also be published again when we
submit our application in December. So, those folks outside
of that category, that -- that notification corridor, would be
notified in that manner.
Again, we're in the process of identifying routes.
And, of course, we have proposed a segment along a portion of
Thompson Drive. We have other segments, and most certainly
will develop other potential routes that are farther south and
not along Thompson Drive. Those segments, again, as I
mentioned last time I talked to you, will be linked to form
routes. We'll be studying an environmental assessment and
decision, one, whether we can build the route, and two, where
the route's going to go. Part of that process, most likely,
because of the types of comments we've received, we'll have a
hearing -- legal hearing in front of the State Administrative
Law Judge in Austin, where landowners and anybody else that is
approved by the State Administrative Law Judge to be an
a-ze-oH
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
23
24
25
intervenor, they can provide the type of testimony and
cross-examine L.C.R.A. witnesses for the project in that
forum.
Regarding the issue of aesthetics, Mr. Kilgore has
showed you some of those criteria that we use for aesthetics,
and he's correct in his information that I provided to him how
we measure that. And our consultants, when they do this
environmental assessment, will -- will do somewhat of what he
described, visually looking at the line from certain aspects,
from those state highways, U.S. highways, and farm-to-market
roads to come up with a measure of the line that would be
viewed from any particular location. That information, along
with this 40-some other criteria that we look at, will be
considered to -- to rank those lines. And, of course,
L.C.R.A, then will come up with a preferred route and
alternate routes to present to the Commission as we submit our
application. So, there's still the -- the forum for input,
not only now, to us, as has been done up to this point, but
also to the Commissioners -- P.U.C. Commissioners who make
that decision. Still, we would welcome any resolution, any
input that the Commissioners Court would have on this project,
and certainly will consider that as we move forward with it.
So, with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions you might
have.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Palafox, are you continuing to --
s-za-oh
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to hear from residents and citizens about factual aspects,
concerns that they have concerning this project?
MR. PALAFOX: Yes, sir. Judge, we're still
continuing to hear from landowners. We're taking that input
still, but we're very quickly moving in the process where we
really need to consolidate that, study it, develop routes.
But we still are open to input from the public.
JUDGE TINLEY: The point is, you have continuously
been receiving that input, so people are finding you?
MR. PALAFOX: People are finding me.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. PALAFOX: And I'm telling them, you know,
anybody that comes forward, I'd be happy to talk with -- talk
with them and receive their input.
JUDGE TINLEY: You just got a little more input
~ today.
MR. PALAFOX: I sure did.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Appreciate it. Gentlemen,
would y'all like for me to put this on the next agenda? We
could do it again.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Your call.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Palafox.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It was a joke.
JUDGE TINLEY: Appreciate it.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I've got a comment about
B-LA-06
z2

1
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 Commissioners Court taking a stand on it. I -- as you
have, I've gotten letters and e-mails and read letters to the
editors, and heard from people in this court that there seems
to be some thinking out there that the Commissioners Court
won't take a position. I think we have. We first got a
resolution that says, if we sign this, we don't want this
Rim Rock-to-Goat Creek project. We refused to act on that.
That's taking a position. Then we got a -- were able to
partially consider another position that says we want you to
select Route A-C. We declined to act on that. So, if we come
up with a position that I'm comfortable with, I'm going to
endorse that position. I haven't seen it yet.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd like to make a comment, too.
Just as I've said before, this might not go through my
precinct; I have not received as much of the possible comments
as others have, but I think this Court has done exactly what
Mr. Kilgore has asked, to make the public aware. Commissioner
Baldwin has put this now on three agendas. We've spent a
great deal of time, and each time the press has written
stories about it. So, I think the Commissioners Court has
done what you were asking, which was to make this a very
visible project, far beyond who the people that received the
actual notification within a 300-foot line. So, I think we
have done the first part. I looked at the criteria that you
A-~'R-06
23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
put up here from L.C.R.A. I think those are reasonable
criteria. The part that I have a problem taking a stand on, I
don't understand the technical aspects of it and the cost
aspects of it. I think those have to be weighed by L.C.R.A.,
and that goes into the mix.
And I think, you know, we have been asked to take
stands on lots of things, and many times we don't. I think
one recently was Wheatcraft. They wanted us to -- you know,
Commissioner Williams brought it to the court because some
Center Point residents had a concern about it. We treated
that the same as we treated this one, is that we made it
public, discussed it publicly, got it out to the public. But
that's a private property rights issue, at least the way I
look at it. I want to support -- I think people have a right
to do what they want with their private property. I think
people also need to follow the law. So, I think that we're
consistent in what we've done with this. I think Commissioner
Baldwin has, you know, certainly brought this forward and made
it as public as he could, and the fact of us voting on a
resolution isn't going to make it more public. It may make a
statement to L.C.R.A., but I don't -- at this point, I don't
have enough information to be able to make that decision. I
don't understand the technical aspects of it. I don't know
that I'll ever get to that point.
The aesthetic standpoint, their criteria, what
e ze-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
24
they're considering to me makes sense. And it's basically
what you said; you had some disagreements between whether a
river should be considered a park or not -- or recreational
area. But, you know -- but generally, I think that their
criteria is looking at the aesthetics; is looking at, you
know, most of the things that you were talking about. You
know, I'm sure everyone will certainly not agree with whatever
they choose to submit to P.O.C., but I think that, you know,
the criteria is legitimate.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm kind of like
Commissioner Letz, in that the project that's before the Court
today, or before the public, hasn't affected the residents of
Precinct 2 all that much, just as it hasn't affected people in
Precinct 3 all that much. So, I look at it from the
something that concerns the Court, and something of concern to
the City and the City Council. From my experience of L.C.R.A.
in Precinct 2, they do try to accommodate the requests of the
I public. They've done a lot of work, both in Precinct 2 and in
Precinct 3, and I've not had anybody in my precinct complain
about the type of the work or their ability to respond -- or
L.C.R.A.'s ability to respond and take into consideration
those things that are problematic. So, I think the
information you presented is very, very interesting. You
e-ze-ob

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
]8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
25
must -- you must be a mathematical -- must have a mathematical
background. If you do, I commend you for that. I don't. But
I hope that L.C.R.A. takes into consideration the points that
you made. I think they're valid points. I think they can go
a long way toward choosing the less invasive route that best
serves the needs oŁ Kerr County.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'd like to address the issue of
underground construction, My best understanding -- we've
heard a lot of suggestions of, "Why not put the line
underground?" That way we don't have all these concerns. My
understanding of what the P, U.C. will allow, insofar as cost
recovery is concerned when that line is put in, is the least I
expensive construction method. And that being the case, if
the line is put in underground, which has a multiple
construction cost to that of going overhead, it just won't fit
the economic model for L.C.R.A, Now, if we're willing to pay
for the rates that it will cost to recover that underground
cost, that may be a whole different ball game. But the
problem is, my understanding is that P.U.C. will only allow
cost recovery for the least expensive construction method.
Isn't that correct, Mr. Palafox?
MR. PALAFOX: Judge, it's true that -- that cost and
the length of the route, in some of the most recent decisions
that we've heard from the P.U.C., are very important. For --
and when they consider that, the reason they consider that is
e-as-ne
1
,-° 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.-~. 13
14
]5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
26
because the ratepayers in Texas would bear -- all the rate
base for any particular line is borne by all ratepayers, so
that's why they're concerned about that. And if they tell us
line underground. If they say you can't recover your rates
for that, or you can't recover the cost of that through rates,
then that's what they tell us. So -- but in the end, we have
to do what the Public Utility Commission tells us to do. And
it's correct that the cost of burying a line is approximately
five times more than it is to put a line above ground. And,
certainly, they will make that determination as to whether --
if that is something that the ratepayers of Texas and this
line, being the ratepayers in the Electrical Reliability
Council of Texas, which is at least two-thirds of the state,
would have to bear the cost of -- of burying the line, if
that's what the court determines -- I mean the commissioners
determine.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Anything else? Let's
We have a report from Mr. Guy
Mr.
Overby, thank you for being here.
MR. OVERBY: Good to see the Commissioners, and glad
to be with you again. Guy Overby, president of the Kerr
Economic Development Foundation, ]700 Sidney Baker. And I did
get in last week to see the Judge, and Commissioner Baldwin
8-28-06
1
~.-"
L
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
°^^ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
""~ 2 4
25
27
and I were, last -- this time last week, at the
I week. Great to see you, and I think everybody's already
excited about having the new bridge here and in Kerrville and
Kerr County. Just thank you again for the opportunity to come
update you, and I'm going to try to cover as much as I can
here in about the eight minutes that I'm allotted. And I want
to go over a few things with you. Basically, I did want to
give to you -- of course, you have a copy of the financials of
the Kerr Economic Development Foundation through July 31st,
just for your information and update. There are several key
things that are coming up and that I'd like to take the
opportunity to come visit with you about.
i Kerrville and Kerr County is going to be taking a
business delegation -- economic delegation to Washington, D.C.
September 20th through the 22nd. Our purpose, again, of our
meeting is to -- one of several objectives on it, but the
major objective on it, obviously, is to be discussing our
U.S.D.A. laboratory, the Knipling-Bushland Laboratory here in
Kerrville. As you're all aware, in 2005-2006, the feasibility
study was completed for the laboratory as far as it being
relocated to another spot in Kerr County. Obviously, this is
a retention and an expansion project for us, and one of the
things that we want to, of course, accomplish out of our trip
to Washington, D.C. is to help in the transition process. As
a-ze-oa
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
28
you know, with Congressman Bonilla -- the realignment of his
you had some meetings with him at a lunch meeting here not too
long ago, and -- and visiting with him. It's been very
~ positive already, but again, we want to help in that
transition period as we go.
I do want you to also know that, again, the 2006-07
year, the budgeting was approved for the design and
engineering of this new laboratory in Kerr County, and so that
-- that was about two and a half million dollars, so that's
already been approved. Actually, we are on track for '07-'08
to be approved for about 36 and a half million dollars for the
new, actually, construction of that laboratory. So, again, we
have a lot at stake. We just want to make sure that those
communications are kept open. We do have tentatively -- and I
would say that we have meetings already set Thursday, the
21st, with Senator Hutchison and Senator Cornyn, and we do
have confirmed times of visiting on Thursday afternoon with
Bonilla -- Congressman Bonilla. I'm asking also the
Commissioners here today to also, if you would have a
representative, obviously, from the County Commissioners to go
with us -- County Judge -- to have a representative go with
B-'8-06
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
"' 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
29
our business delegation and to support and to be there with us
There is something about
about that trip. You remember back in 2004, Kerrville/Kerr
County sent a delegation on behalf of the Kerrville V.A.
Hospital, on supporting those and retaining some of those
services, and that was very effective with some of those
efforts, and it's important that we do that.
I'm here also to quickly give you a brief update.
As you know, the Kerr Economic Development Foundation has -- a
And we're also really glad to have L.C.R.A., who helps us with
those resources, to help us, provide those studies to us, to
give us when we need to analyze an economic project in our
community. They've helped us with the V.A., the Kerrville
State Hospital, U.S.D.A. facilities, and many more type of
other projects. What they've helped us -- this report here
that I'm about to go over with you is on the existing hospital
downtown. As you know, I wanted to show something about some
of the impact that might -- it actually has quite a
significant impact in Kerr County. This economic impact study
is about the development -- redevelopment of the existing
hospital downtown.
The Kerr Economic Development Foundation, again, on
A-28-06
30
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
August 9th, at the executive meeting, and also in a report to
the City Council last Tuesday, August 22nd, has strongly
encouraged the Council to go ahead and to discuss the possible
option of moving the city -- City Hall down to the Guy Griggs
Professional Building. Again, in looking at it as an option.
We know that the City has several options to act on behalf,
but one of the things that -- obviously, if they went to the
Guy Griggs Building, they could actually help with the efforts
of redeveloping our downtown. And in this study, basically,
what we looked at -- it's not looking at the Guy Griggs
Building or the other properties on Main Street or Clay
Street. It's strictly to look at the development of the
existing hospital, and what tax benefits would be to Kerrville
and Kerr County and to the school district, on behalf of the
school.
The existing hospital, if it was to be purchased for
the reported price that we've seen in the paper of
$13 million, and the remediation and the rehabilitation of the
existing hospital for 11.145 million, there is quite a benefit
during the construction and after completion of the project.
One of the things, in talking with the developer, that is
going to be happening with the project downtown is the first
floor would be developed into 23,500 square feet of retail
development. This would be retail development. It would be
restaurants; it would be stores, different type of things that
8-_'8-06
31
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
obviously, would be some type of apartments, condos, those
type of developments. I will tell you that I've been very
surprised at the amount of people and interest who are looking
at wanting to acquire property in those type of developments
downtown. I've had at least a half dozen calls where people
have been very much interested in acquiring even up to 3,000
square feet, as far as being in one of those condos or
apartments down there. So, there is quite a lot of interest
in that, and how that impacts us.
Quickly through the summary, we do want to show you,
as far as part of the retail sales development, if -- with the
first floor of 23,000 square feet being redeveloped into
retail sales, there would be a direct economic impact of --
estimation of about $3.8 million, with a direct and indirect
of 5.35 million. One thing that we would also -- with that
same type of square footage and also maintenance for that type
of building, we would estimate about 108 jobs would be created
out of the development of that existing hospital downtown,
with about 19 more jobs actually indirectly out in the county,
so there's about 127 jobs with that, as far as being there.
The tax benefits, basically, getting to that last page there,
with the 24.15 -- 15 million dollars coming on the tax books
of property now that is not on the tax books, but added to it,
actually to the City of Kerrville, would benefit about
B 2R-Oo
32
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
$178,000 annually. The County would have about $118,000
annually, which -- well, you do not have right now. And then,
of course, the Kerrville Independent School District would
Again, this is only an option
nr;l rn look at. We understand
they have several options to look at. But, again, this is one
that KEDF has encouraged them to look at, and from their
meeting on the 22nd, they did vote unanimously to -- to have
City staff and the mayor to actually enter -- to discuss that
as an option, one of the options to look at. So, we were glad
to see that move forward that way.
Then I want to give you, just quickly, and go real
quick down our E.I.C. report committee last week. Couple of
significant things that happened last week. The award funding
agreements were approved last week for the Dietert Center and
Sid Peterson Memorial Hospital of about a half million dollars
apiece. Those were completed, and, of course, they were
approved by City Council on the 22nd. There were some
presentations that were made. Two of them I'm going to just
briefly mention to you briefly this -- this morning. As you
know, the James Avery presentation was last Monday from Chris
Avery. His brother Paul was there, and they made a
presentation on behalf of James Avery, which is our sixth
largest employer in our community, on the request of looking
8 28-06
33
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
Again, this is a project that has been talked
about -- I know as a young boy, being here since '69, every 10
years you hear, "When's that going to happen? When's that
going to happen? When's that going to happen?" Well, we're
at that point. I think that what we're seeing now, with the
Holdsworth project coming in and with the lift station that
are being put in place, this is now something that could not
have happened before; now it can actually start being
discussed about how that's going to happen. If we remember
that the Harper Road development is not just strictly for
James Avery, the infrastructure out there is going to help
open up a corridor out there of business development that is
going to be quite needed out in that area. But there is a lot
of interest that's coming down, and so the Averys, of course,
had made that presentation. E.I.C. did approve to have that
brought before a public hearing on September 18th, with a
couple of other items that were approved also.
I did also want to mention briefly the Hill Country
Shooting Sports Center. Mr. Jack Burch did come make a
presentation. He is requesting funding, obviously, for the
air hall development. And the air hall development is a
building of about 36,000 square feet. Mr. Burch has been here
before, and you've seen in the newspaper the success of the
e-?a 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
29
25
shooting facility out there. And, obviously, you know, it
being a U.S.A. shooting facility and an Olympic training site,
he is requesting additional funds to help him with the air
hall, which is something that's very much needed. And his
I did also want to mention to you on behalf of
course, towards projects that would be beneficial to Kerrville
and Kerr County. You know, before then, it was very difficult
to have funds that were set aside, that if we needed to make a
trip to follow up with a project or a prospect in our area, we
had to go through several presentations to be able to get some
of those -- access those funds when we needed to make an
immediate decision on something or to follow up with. They
did allocate about $60,000 that can help towards some of those
projects. Those are funds that could help towards immediate
action as far as those type of things. Our trip to
Washington, D.C., actually, they will be helping with some of
the -- the transportation and the lodging for some of that
going up there, which are very beneficial to help our
delegation to -- as a group to go. So, we're looking forward
to that.
I -- just quickly, a couple of other things quickly
8-28-06
35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.0 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
at the Airport Commerce Park, information here probably within
the next 45 days. Look for some activity out there to be
going. And also, I see on your item today, Item 1.20 today,
you'll be talking about the economic development strategy that
you're talking about with City Council. I can tell you that
KEDF is excited about this strategy. That's been much needed
for a long time to give us a game plan, and we encourage you
to -- everything that you're doing, appreciate you doing that,
and move forward with that.
One other thing I would like to say in conclusion.
meeting, September 14th. That's a Thursday. That's our
annual meeting with the County Commissioners and City Council.
This will be over at KPUB. We'll have a very brief business
meeting, but the last part of our meeting is going to be
targeting in on talking issues, talking points, economic
issues in Kerrville and Kerr County, and we would encourage
you to be there. And if you have some talking points -- and
we'll -- we'll get more back to you about that agenda, about
economic efforts in Kerrville and Kerr County. We'd like to
have you there to be part of our guests and our presentation.
Thank you, Judge.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Guy, quick question.
R-28-06
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
36
JUDGE TINLEY: Sure.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do you have any idea what the --
the City Council's time frame is on a decision if they are
going to ever -- or relocate? Do they have any -- are they to
that point? Or are they just --
MR. OVERBY: I do not think -- again, I'm not going
to answer on behalf of the City. I do --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh, come on.
MR. OVERBY: I'm not going -- oh, no, I don't want
to do that, but I do know that at the -- they made a
significant point Tuesday night last week to go ahead and to
start discussing that as an option. Now, I think -- you know,
it's huge. I mean, we have a lot of huge things that are
happening right now. You know, Sid Peterson is building our
largest economic development project with a new hospital
across the river, and, obviously, what happens downtown is
going to significantly impact all of us in our county. And,
so, you know, I'm hoping, through those discussions with the
-- the developer and the City, that it might be something that
they're -- that might be very interesting for both parties.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAM5: Guy, I want to commend
you -- I'm sorry, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Go ahead, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAM5: I want to commend you for
doing this study on -- particularly on the economic impact of
e-za-oe

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
37
the revitalization of the hospital project. It's a good
project, whomever does it.
MR. OVERBY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The down side of that is,
it's a hole in the middle of town if it doesn't happen.
MR. OVERBY: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And so I sincere]y hope it
does happen, and that these numbers can ultimately come to
fruition. I commend you for doing it.
MR. OVERBY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Guy? A minor detail, I
suppose. If the City should relocate there and these condos
get built out, it's got quite a few residents and quite a
large number of employees of retail operations on the floors.
Do we know that the parking garage is adequate to handle all
that?
MR. OVERBY: You know, and again -- I've heard the
same question as far as parking is concerned, and again, those
will be questions I really feel like the developer should be
the one that addresses. There's been talk about, of course,
some of the benefits of the City actually moving downtown.
They would be, obviously, you know, across the street,
neighbors down here across the central location where you're
at. It would be great for access for, you know, community
folks. But, obviously, the parking lot over there that's in
8-28-06
38
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
the emergency parking lot could be parking there. And then,
of course, we have the great benefit of the parking garage
downtown. I think that the -- you know, there's -- there's an
issue right there that can be discussed. Now, I -- you know,
I have seen reports -- not reports, long-term reports talking
about parking in our downtown area as being a concern for many
years. We've -- we've -- we have a lot of -- we do have a lot
more parking than you think downtown. And I think that,
again, those are something that can be really looked at to
help address that, possibly.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: My understanding of that is,
Commissioner and Guy, that -- that when that parking garage
was constructed, it was constructed with foundations and piers
sufficient to take another floor.
MR. OVERBY: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions for Mr. Overby?
Thank you, sir.
MR. OVERBY: Thank you, Judge. Appreciate it.
Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Appreciate you being here. Let's
move to our 9:30 timed item. We're a bit past that now.
Consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on proposed
Memorandum of Understanding between Continuum Health Care,
L.L.C., and Kerr County for use of the Kerr County Juvenile
Detention facility due to a mandatory evacuation of Harris
e-za-n5

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
39
County in the event of natural disaster. Commissioner
Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Judge. I put
this on the agenda after having had the opportunity to meet
Mr. Parsons and one other of his colleagues, who had expressed
some interest in the Kerr County Juvenile Detention Facility.
On two occasions, I escorted folks from Continuum Health Care
to look at the facility and to see whether or not it fit their
needs. One of the things that Mr. Parsons brought to my
attention was a need that they have in the event of a natural
disaster, such as Hurricane Rita that devastated the Gulf
Coast last year, and would we be amenable to some sort of an
arrangement that would enable them to utilize the Kerr County
Juvenile Detention Facility if they were faced with a
I
mandatory evacuation. So, I invited him to submit to us his
thoughts on the matter, and to come before Commissioners
i Court, tell us about his company and tell us what's on his
mind. Mr. Parsons?
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Judge, Commissioners. Jeff
Parsons, 267 Mink, San Antonio, Texas. I thank you so much
for allowing me to come here this morning. Just very briefly,
I guess as brief as my South Texas roots will allow, my
background is, I was Chief Juvenile Probation Officer years
ago in Medina and Bandera Counties, spent a lot of time with
some of your County employees -- constituents up here, some of
8-28-06
1
".,.. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I1
12
`"° 13
14
15
16
17
]8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
40
the past sheriffs, chiefs, that kind of thing. So, I know
Since that time, I developed a company called Community
Corrections, Incorporated back in the mid-'80's. We grew to
the largest juvenile corrections company in the state, similar
project to your secure residential facility out here. Sold
that in the mid-90's to a company called Youth Services
International, and was their C.E.O. for a brief period of
time. We were in 27 states and had 48 projects, and l care
not to go back to that level of intensity in my life again.
It was crazy, crazy days.
I took a sabbatical a year ago -- in fact, it's my
anniversary this last Saturday of returning from Iraq for a
year. At 48 years old, I took a sabbatical and went over as
an adviser to the Army. And I would like to just digress for
about 30 seconds, especially in light of the opening prayer
and the pledge of allegiance, to give you two quick points
that are nonpolitical. One is, the finest young men and women
I ever had an occasion to work with. The young folks that are
saw. I came out of the Vietnam era; a lot of good people iii
I proud as an American to -- to observe that
And besides just the
8-28-uG
41
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
girlfriends and it's hot, they do a wonderful job over there,
so we should all be very proud of them.
The other thing is, the violence that was over there
during that first election period was unlike anything anybody
could possibly imagine. The press, while they may try to show
the drama of that environment, can only capture a very small
portion of that. The violence, in particular, on Iraqi
against Iraqi citizen, and the events leading up to that first
election -- I was, bright and early, at 6 o'clock in the
morning, with a platoon at one of the polling places downtown,
and as the sun came up and the curfew lifted, as far as you
could see, the Iraqi people lined up to vote. And as'
politicians here, you know, we worry about if it's going to
rain, because there's going to be a poor voter turnout. So,
do they want change in their life? I think so. 82 percent of
the population voted under extreme conditions. Enough on
that.
Why am I here? I am vice president currently of
operations for a company called Continuum Health Care. I
believe all of you probably have that sample MOU, so I don't
need to pass that out. It's really two agendas. Most
pressing that we have right now is the need, in case of
mandatory evacuation in Harris County, to evacuate about 200
mentally-impaired individuals. These individuals come --
they're currently living in care homes. These are the small
d 28 06
42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
mom-and-pop organizations, five or six at a time in little
homes across Houston. We actually bus them into our day
program every day, where they receive a host of different
services; medical, mental health services, social services of
one form or fashion. As a courtesy, we have committed to
evacuate these individuals in case we need to from that
Houston area. We're a little behind the curve, as you can
tell. We're well into hurricane season. I watch it every
day, 'cause I don't have a place for them.
And, so, we initially came up -- and I'll brief the
Court on our thoughts and impressions on your residential
facilities here as well, but initially came up to look at that
as a potential project for us. And the initial thing, being
the operations guy, is, boy, this would be a great place to
bring all those folks in case we needed to get out of town.
So, you can kind of see how that's spelled out. I mean,
basically, you know, we're -- and you can tweak that, add to
that, delete from it, whatever. I just tried to put down some
thoughts and ideas. But, obviously, we'd need to have the
facility available in case we did reach mandatory evacuation;
we would need to utilize the entire facility. We would
provide everything that's needed; staff, supplies, food,
operational supplies, whatever is needed. That would be
certainly on our nickel. We'd reimburse the County, and
however we could do that, that would be up to you guys. But
8-2b-Oti
43
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
associated with us actually occupying the site, we would
certainly indemnify you and provide whatever form of insurance
requirements that the County would need. And then, obviously,
I would say, as we found it.
I guess just another quick thing is, we would also
bring -- as short-lived as it may be, there would be some form
of economic -- positive economic impact to the county and the
city in light of the fact that we would be bringing probably
about 60 or 70 of our employees along with their families to
service those individuals that we have. So, we'd have
housing, of course, food, all the other, you know, things
associated with operations, supplies that we'd end up having
to buy, those types of things. We've done some, I guess,
preliminary legwork as far as looking and at least targeting
the areas that -- should the Court allow us to do that, we're
going to work with your, you know, hospital district to make
sure that we cover our bases there in case our folks need
medical care. We actually are looking at some mass transit to
the Houston area and pick up our folks and bring them in and
house them.
So, with that, I guess -- I don't know how you want
to do that, but if we want to act or not act on that
a-'s-o6
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
Memorandum of Understanding, and then I'd like to brief the
Court on our thoughts and impressions on just acquiring that
site for some future use as well.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I've got a couple of
questions, Judge, for you. You said these are mentally
impaired children?
MR. PARSONS: Actually adults, sir.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Adults.
MR. PARSONS: Yes, this project is adults.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, same questions. Are
they -- one question is, are they wards of the state? And
two, are they involved in the criminal justice system?
MR. PARSONS: They are not involved in the criminal
justice system whatsoever. They're not wards of the state.
These are typically individuals -- in fact, a lot of these
are, believe it or not, a lot of individuals out of New
Orleans after the first hurricane, so they're a little
shell-shocked as well when that wind starts blowing out there.
But these are folks that normally are on some form of, you
know, disability, S.S.I. checks, that sort of a thing. They
turn those checks over to these individual care home owners
for room and board, and basically are wards of the state as in
indigent care. We receive our funding through Medicare, so
they receive Medicare benefits. But they -- you know, they --
I guess, historically, if you can see kind of how a continuum
H-^8-OH
45
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
'"` 2 4
25
facility every day for group therapy, for recreation, for med
management, those kind of issues. Very few -- very few issues
at all. We have probably, on any given day, anywhere between
200 to 250 on site at our project in Harris County.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let me just follow on your
answer. You -- and you probably got good qualifications to
answer it, having been involved in juvenile probation. What
are the issues of having these adults in close proximity to
our incarcerated juveniles?
MR. PARSONS: Right. Yeah, it is -- there has to
be, as you well know, sight and sound separation. These folks
would not wander around; they would be within the facility
itself. Probably out in the exercise area as well, but they
would not be allowed to wander the grounds. They would not be
locked in their rooms, because they're not -- you know, it's
not a secure type, you know, environment for them. But all of
our staff would be there. And, you know, as -- I'm just
thinking in my -- thinking in my head as you pose those
questions. You know, if it would please the Court, if it
would give you comfort, you know, we'd go to the extent of
B-28-06
96
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
maybe contracting with a local, you know, security agency or
possibly even the Sheriff's Department to do some, you know,
night watch kind of stuff around there. If that gave the
Court a comfort level, we'd be fine with doing that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mr. Parsons, looking at
your -- your information here, number one, minimum notice
requirement. Why would there be a minimum notice requirement?
You're not like those folks down in New Orleans that doesn't
know the storm's coming, are you?
MR. PARSONS: Right. I guess we can define that.
My -- my thoughts are, I mean, from a logistics perspective
from us is that a hurricane is kind of heading for Florida
right now. We're watching it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
MR. PARSONS: If it got into the gulf, what we would
probably do, knowing the requirements of the County, we'd go
ahead and probably send an advance team up here just to stay,
put up an advance team of staff, and we would have all systems
ready to go.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I was amazed to see on the
news this morning that New Orleans is saying, "Here comes a
storm. What is the president going to do for us this time?"
MR. PARSONS: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You know. Get the hell out
of there. I mean, how dumb can you be?
8-28-06
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. PARSONS: Wouldn't you think?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Number 2, utilize the
entire facility?
MR. PARSONS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What do you recommend that we
do with our children?
MR. PARSONS: I'm talking about the -- let me
clarify that. Just the empty space right now, the residential
portion of that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. And then Number 6,
return the facility in the same condition. That indicates to
me that you may change our facility in some way.
MR. PARSONS: No, none whatsoever. I mean, it would
mainly mean that -- what that indicates is in what I would say
the unlikely event, obviously, but if there's any scratches,
damages, any kind of -- you know, any kind of damage, which,
again, I think would be minimum at best, but we would return
it in the same condition we found it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This seems like fair things
to request. But my question is, what are you going to do for
I us?
MR. PARSONS: Yeah. You know, that's a good
question, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That is a good question.
MR. PARSONS: So -- you know, and I think that's
fl-28 Oh
48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
open for debate. I mean, you know, we'd certainly put forth
some form of consideration, monetary consideration, you know,
should we occupy. It's not listed there, 'cause I really
don't have a clue. This is not a Kerr County issue or
problem, but just so you can kind of know, from our
perspective, we do this as a community service for our folks
out of Houston. About a third of those are indigent, that we
don't get paid for. So, while we understand that -- that the
County would -- would request and require, as you should, some
form of consideration, we ask that it be cheap, to be honest
with you. And what that is, I don't know.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's under Number 4, "plus an
agreed upon daily usage fee," --
MR. PARSONS: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- I presume? Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My -- I don't think we can act
on this today. I mean, I think conceptually, I don't have a
problem with this at all. The one thing that comes to mind is
that we have had several of these types of backup uses for --
in times of evacuation come before us, and we've approved
some. I think we need to be real careful we don't overbook
the facility in a disaster, and I'm not sure -- you know, I
guess we need to really have Kevin look at that to see
exactly -- I think we have one with Nueces County, don't we?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, but those are for
B-28-U6
49
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
hit around Victoria, I -- it's conceivable they're going to
want to evacuate Nueces County and Harris County, and in which
case, we would have -- I mean, I think it's a disservice to
some of these facilities. We need to make sure we don't
overbook it, is all I'm saying. If a storm does come, it hits
the Texas coast -- major storm, and people are relying on the
use of that facility, we need to make sure it will be
available.
MR. PARSONS: That's a good point, sir. And I guess
just a suggestion, 'cause I -- quite frankly, I didn't think
the Commissioners could actually act on that today. I've had
plenty of experience with commissioners courts. What may --
if you -- if you want to at least go forward, which we hope
that you would, perhaps a point person that I could work with
in the way of even negotiating a daily fee, whatever other
concerns that the Court may have. And then, if we
conceptually can work out those details, then I can come back
to the Court again, and then hopefully get some resolution on
that and get some action on it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll -- go ahead.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just want to -- I want to
piggyback a question on Commissioner Letz' thought about
fl-_'fl-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
50
overbookinq, and -- who was it that we dealt with last year?
Wasn't there --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It was Jefferson County.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Jefferson County juveniles?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right, T.Y.C, youth.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I -- personally, I'd like
to know what the County Attorney thinks about -- you know,
would we -- is one route better than another? I mean, is a
mental health program better than a juvenile group? Or -- I'm
a litt]e bit hesitant about jumping in this thing now, with
the comments that Letz was making about overbooking. I
don't -- you know, are we doing the right thing by going one
way or the other? I just think we need to give this some
thought.
MR, PARSONS: And if I can comment on that, just
from my perspective, my thoughts, you know, certainly, you
know, I think the Court would be indemnified regardless of
which route that you did go. I mean, obviously, your County
Attorney wou]d assure that. I think the difference between
the two, 'cause I'm qualified to say that since I've worked
both, is that one is you're actually working with a higher
degree of liability with kids, especially incarcerated kids,
and so they are in custody. They are offenders. They are
either under state or local jurisdictions. Our folks are
basically free citizens that have some mental health issues,
P-28-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
51
so -- and adults, so that would be your difference.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: A couple unknowns come to
mind, and -- a lot of unknowns, but a couple to focus on. How
many -- what would be the maximum number of people that you
would seek to evacuate in an emergency situation?
MR. PARSONS: I think 200. I think about 200.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 200. So, you obviously are
going to --
MR. PARSONS: We'd utilize your gymnasium. We'd
utilize your gym with some cots and those kind of things as
well.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. And length of stay,
of course, is something that even you wouldn't know about, but
our experience with Jefferson County was that, although these
were kids in detention and we were dealing with T.Y.C., their
facility was devastated, and so they became long-term
residents up here, as opposed to short-term, because the storm
came and went. So, yeah, we -- a couple issues we'd have to
work out.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think, to answer your
question, the point person, Commissioner Williams is our
liaison to work with -- Commissioner Williams and Kevin
Stanton, to, you know, look at the feasibility of pursuing it.
That's kind of the first step, and then if it's -- if that --
if the answer to that is yes, or comes back recommended yes,
e-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
52
then the next step is to get the County Attorney and -- and
figure out exactly what kind of document we need to have.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We could examine it. I
think the point you made about overbooking or cross-booking is
one that we need to take a look at, so I'd be happy to do that
if that's what the Court wants to do.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner, I would be
inclined to be good-neighborly and support this if we can be
assured that -- of the security of our incarcerated juveniles,
and that there would be no burden on the taxpayers.
JUDGE TINLEY: Couple questions. Continuum is a
private organization?
MR. PARSONS: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: But, by contract through the
government, you obtain Medicare funds for the services you
provide to --
MR. PARSONS: That's correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- the individuals --
MR. PARSONS: That's correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- who have some sort of
classification under federal law of being disabled because of
some degree or another of mental health conditions?
MR. PARSONS: That's exactly right.
JUDGE TINLEY: My concern would be a shade of the
old booking-type situation. If we were to decide to use that
R 28-06
53
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
facility for some other purpose, I'd want the ability to
terminate any outstanding agreements that we may have for
possible use, even, so that we might put that facility to our
own use, whatever that may be. And I would assume the thing
you'd be concerned about there is as much notice as you could
get so that you could attempt to secure other arrangements?
MR. PARSONS: Right. That would be good, yeah.
Like I said, I'm usually a little quicker on the trigger, but
we're a little behind the curve this year, so I'm praying for
some grace that we don't get any hurricanes in here this year.
So --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, don't rule out just
rain, though.
MR. PARSONS: Well, down -- but, Commissioner, if
you know your weather, we need one just right there in north
Mexico to blow it up this way, is what we need.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Right.
MR. PARSONS: Just not Houston.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Not Houston.
MR. PARSONS: Just not Houston.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If it's the Court's desire,
I'll schedule another meeting with Mr. Parsons.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I want to hear the second part
about him wanting to buy the facility.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I do too.
8-29-06
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
54
MR. PARSONS: That's going --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's what I'm interested in.
MR. PARSONS: We are very interested in doing --
some form or fashion, looking at the residential facility that
you have. Couple of quick thoughts that came into our minds
is, you know, possible purchase, possible lease option, lease
with an option for purchase, some form or fashion. What we're
at --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The County Attorney's waving his
hands; we're beyond the agenda item.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Can't get into many
specifics here.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Can we listen?
MR. EMERSON: You're outside the agenda item
completely if you change gears like that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You need to get with
Commissioner Williams and come back.
MR. PARSONS: We'll do that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you for the
expression. You and I will talk.
MR. PARSONS: Yes, sir, got you. Thank you very
much. Thank you for your time. And, Commissioner, I look
forward to talking to you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I will give you a call.
MR. PARSONS: All right.
8-28 06
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
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move we have an election.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's quickly do Item 4.
Consider/discuss ordering a general election.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion continued past the calling
of the agenda item; is that correct, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, good.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move we order a general
election.
JUDGE TINLEY: And we have a second. Any question
or comment on the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify
by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Let's move
to the first of our two 10 o'clock scheduled items. It's a
little past that now. I will recess the Commissioners Court
meeting, and I will call a public hearing for the revision of
plat for Lots 79, 80, 81, 82, and 83 of The Woods, Section Two
as set forth in Volume 4, Page 176 of the Plat Records of Kerr
County, and located in Precinct 2.
B-28 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
56
(The regular Commissioners Court meeting was closed
at 10:14 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
I JUDGE TINLEY: Is there any member of the public
that wishes to be heard on the revision of the plat for Lots
79, 80, 81, 82, and 83 of The Woods, Section Two, as set forth
in Volume 4, Page 176, Plat Records?
(NO response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Seeing no member of the public coming
forward wishing to be heard on that item, I will close the
public hearing as to Item 10.
(The public hearing was concluded at 10:14 a.m.,
and the regular Commissioners Court meeting was
reopened.)
JUDGE TINLEY: And I will open a public hearing on
Item 11, and call for a public hearing for the revision of
plats for Lots 7A and 8 of Treasure Hills Ranch, as set forth
in Volume 5, Page 50 of the Plat Records, as well as Volume 5,
Page 397 of the Plat Records, and located in Precinct 1.
(The regular Commissioners Court meeting was closed
at 10:14 a.m., and a public hearing was held in open
court, as follows:)
P U B L I C H E A R I N G
JUDGE TINLEY: Is there any member of the public
that wishes to be heard with respect to the revision of a plat
for Lots 7A and 8 in Treasure Hills Ranch, as set forth in
8 ^_8 06
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
Volume 5, Page 50, Plat Records, and Volume 5, Page 397, Plat
Records?
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Seeing no one coming forward or
asking to be recognized to be heard, I will close the public
hearing on Item 11, and I will reconvene the Commissioners
Court meeting.
(The public hearing was concluded at 10:15 a.m., and
the regular Commissioners Court meeting was
reopened.)
JUDGE TINLEY: And we will go to Item 6; consider,
discuss, and take appropriate action on proposed plan
provision changes for T.C.D.R.S. 2007 plan year, to include
COLA, 20-year service retirement, and partial lump sum.
Ms. Nemec?
MS. NEMEC: Yes, good morning. I received some
information on the rates after I put this on the agenda, so
I'd just like to pass that out. There's one there for the
clerk. Are you one short, or do you have enough? Got enough?
Okay. This was put back on the agenda as a result of the
August 14th meeting, where a representative from the
retirement system was here and talked to you all about the
20-year service retirement, partial lump sum, and the
buy-back. On the buy-back, they requested a letter in writing
so that they could go ahead and begin that process, which I
e-^s-oe
58
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
did send them. I asked them to let me know how soon they
could get that information to us, but I have not heard back
from them. So, that's what it is on that.
The other -- under our current plan, if we leave
everything the same, the rate will be 8.12, up from 7.87,
which is for this current year. If we include the partial
lump sum and the 20-year service, and also a 4 percent
cost-of-living for the retirees, then it goes up to 8.70.
Unfortunately, they didn't send me the breakdown to where you
just go with one or the other, so we could know that. They
just put it all in one. I was just noticing that. So, that's
up .58 percent if you approve it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask you a question
about that. I mean, there's three issues that we're dealing
with, and we should be able to approve one and not approve the
other two, or vice-versa.
MS. NEMEC: Right. But --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How in the world can we make
the decision without knowing what the rate's going to?
MS. NEMEC: I don't have that information. They
just sent it all lump-sum.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just say no to all of it,
then.
MS. NEMEC: I don't know -- I don't know if they
gave you that rate at the last meeting.
R-28-Oh
59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Some of it.
MS. NEMEC: They might have. I think he might have.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Some of it.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What are the three issues,
Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Buy-back, 20-year service --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: COLA. 20 years and COLA.
JUDGE TINLEY: Partial lump sum.
MS. NEMEC: The buy-back is not included in this,
because they have to do a study, and it takes them quite a
while to do that study. I don't know that we'll get it back
before this budget is -- next year's budget is approved.
JUDGE TINLEY: As of last Friday, if the members of
the Court will recall, we had communication from the people at
T.C.D.R.S. indicating they were shooting to have the buy-back
information that they were having to do some actuarial study
on by this coming Friday. They -- that was their target.
They mentioned that -- I believe it was Commissioner Letz who
said, "I'd like to have the information by September 15."
They said they were shooting for this Friday, September the
lst. I do have some information -- they're looking for it
now -- as to the particularized cost between these different
other elements, the partial lump sum distribution and the --
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE TINLEY: I'll find it in just a second. Thank
8-'8-06
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
you. I do have a breakout, and it's -- I've got the
information on the COLA here in front of me. And it depends
upon whether you've got a CPI-based COLA or a flat
percentage-based COLA. For example, the 4 percent flat
increase COLA would add .16 percent. A 3 percent would add
.12. 2 percent, .08. 1 percent, .04. A percentage, which is
what we did previously -- previous occasion, three years ago,
I believe it was, maybe two years ago, we did a 50 percent
CPI-based, and I've got a sliding scale on those. They run
all the way from 30 percent at .03 to 100 percent at .57.
The --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I would be interested
in knowing how much the bottom line cost is to the County if
you -- like, if we stayed with a 50 percent like we did
previously.
JUDGE TINLEY: You just keep talking, Commissioner,
and I'll have that for you in about 30 seconds.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You want me to continue
talking to you?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, that's fine. (Laughter.)
(Judge Tinley left the courtroom.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And people say that I'm a
little strange. Okay.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: A little?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I mean, you saw the
8-28 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
request.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Keep talking.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree. I mean, without the
budget impact, it's all meaningless.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, we can talk about
percentages all day long, Judge, and if you don't...
(Judge Tinley returned to the courtroom.)
MS. NEMEC: The figure here is based on a 4 percent
cost-of-living for retirees.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh.
MS. NEMEC: 4 percent.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That equates to 1.6 percent;
that would be total payroll, so we need to extrapolate that
out, see what that number is.
MS. NEMEC: And then also, I've included in the
agenda item each retiree and what their amounts would be
affected by.
JUDGE TINLEY: Are you ready for those figures,
Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, and I want to do that,
go through this exercise on each one of those items.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And this becomes effective,
like, January 1?
B-2n-p6
62
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
MS. NEMEC: Correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, we're talking about the
budget issues here. Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: I can give you an annual cost. I
can't -- well, yeah, I can give you a -- a budget cost. Sure
can. On your partial lump sum distribution, that rate is
.25 percent. An annual cost is 20,308, and the budget cost
for this year would be $15,231.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Why do you say "this year"?
JUDGE TINLEY: Because it starts in January running
through September, three-fourths of a year.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh.
JUDGE TINLEY: On the reducing the number of years
of service, total years of service, retire at any age, from 30
years to 20 years, annual cost is 11,373.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Which one is that?
JUDGE TINLEY: That's the reducing 30 to 20. The
budget cost for this year would be 8,530. On the 4 percent
COLA --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: COLA for retirees?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. The annual cost would be
$1,055 -- that's incorrect. That's got to be incorrect.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Too small. 10,000, maybe.
JUDGE TINLEY: Annual cost is 12,997, and budget
8 28-06
63
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
cost is 9,748.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Don't have the buy-back. Actually,
in the information furnished to me by the T.C.D.R.S. people --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is that COLA the same as we did
I last time?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, he asked that question.
We did 50 percent last time, so 50 percent, if we did that --
that would be correct, Judge? We'd be looking at 2 percent,
so the annual would be about 6,500, and the budget amount
would be, what, 4,500, 4,600?
JUDGE TINLEY: If do you a CPI -- a CPI-based COLA
at 50 percent, it would be .14, which would be 11,373 annual,
or 8,530 for three-fourths of the budget year. It's a sliding
scale.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Of a percentage of CPI-based.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What benefits does the
changing from the 30-year retirement to a 20-year retirement?
MS. NEMEC: What benefits?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. I mean --
MS. NEMEC: For the County, you mean?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How does it benefit anybody?
MS. NEMEC: Well, for the employees, they can retire
at an earlier age. For the County, I guess you could have
8-'_ft-Oh
64
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
benefit -- it could benefit the County, and then there could
be, you know, a cost to the County. One of the benefits would
be that the employee would retire earlier, and you could bring
in someone at an entry level position, so the salary that
you're going to be paying that person is going to be less than
what the person that's been here.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Perhaps, depending on --
MS. NEMEC: Right, just depending.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Really.
MS. NEMEC: Also, you know, the longer they're here,
the more that goes into the retirement fund, the more that the
County has to contribute. Again, if the salary is lower, then
that's less of a contribution. So, there's a lot of different
ways to look at it.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I tell you how I look at
it. We talked about this a little bit last Friday. The good
compensation and benefits systems are designed to encourage
longevity. They're designed to maintain and retain the skill
and experience and know-how that you've got. And I don't
think it's good policy to encourage people to leave when
they're 40, 45 years old.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't see it either.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I want them to stay another
10 years.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with you.
8-28-06
65
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would agree.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're encouraging people to
I leave.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That doesn't make sense to
i me.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm not sympathetic toward
that. I am sympathetic toward the COLA for retirees. I'm not
too sympathetic about reducing the 30 to 20.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me give the Court the best
information I've got on the one item that we can't get
quantified, and that's the buy-back. The communication as of
last Friday is that they're going to have to figure the
likelihood or probability of employees buying back, and the
statement is made in that communication that there may not
even be additional cost, such as we're looking at for these
other changes, the partial lump sum and so forth.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What -- if we know, what has
been our experience over the last 10 or more years in terms of
people trying to buy back into our system?
MS. NEMEC: I probably have had two inquiries.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Two inquiries?
MS. NEMEC: Two inquiries. And then, when they look
at how much they're going to get at retirement and how much
they have to put in to buy back, it's not even a question of
8-2fl-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
66
whether they want to go with it or not. 'Cause we're already
entitled to buy back the number -- the years of service. The
buy-back would just be monetary. But when you look at what
you need to put into the system, you know, it -- for every
$5,000, you might get $10 more a month. It's just not worth
it to the employee to come up with that kind of money.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, the reality is, what
we're talking about here is the County's piece of the
buy-back. The employee still has to put up his or her piece
of it.
MS. NEMEC: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS
The reality it is, it
doesn't happen.
MS. NEMEC: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think it's an academic
issue.
MS. NEMEC: Especially when we approve the years of
service. That's what they're looking at, is years of service
more than anything.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The Sheriff disagrees.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, I know several people,
myself included, that have bought back. We bought back after
the Court approved it several years ago. It is a -- I think a
larger impact on retirement if you plan on staying around a
lot longer. It is a big benefit to the employees to have that
a-za-o5
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
option. It is a -- a high cost to the employee, 'cause not
only does the employee have to buy back what all they took
out, plus a -- a percentage interest rate on that, they also
have to pay a penalty for that. And at that -- when I bought
it back a few years ago, it was, like, a 5 percent penalty.
Now, that's doubled after this last year, so I think now it's
even a 10 percent penalty, so you're not going to have very
many people do it any more. Plus the ones that could, the
Court took care of that three years ago, so now you're only
dealing with that time period in between.
JUDGE TINLEY: But you mentioned that it is a
benefit to an employee coming back into service, an
experienced employee coming back into service?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It's a definite benefit to an
experienced employee coming back into service, if that
employee can afford to do it. Because it's kind of like that
7 and a half percent interest the County pays on retirement or
what you're going to earn, like the guy said. You're going to
start getting that again. And there's no other savings
account normally that you can get that kind of -- so it is a
benefit to the employee if they want to do it.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We have an individual who's
a candidate for -- in the general election in November for
re-election to county office after an eight-year break in
service, I think. And he understands the requirements for the
8-^_B-Oh
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
buy-back, and he expresses an interest in being able to buy
back -- buy back in. So, I think if we do this, we will have
at least one -- one buy-back.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But there's -- you know, there's
not a -- well, the Judge said there's not much, if any, of a
I cost to --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- budgetary cost to do it, so I
wouldn't know why you wouldn't do it. Leave it up to the
employees to decide what they'd like to do. I also like the
option -- out of the list of them, I probably would rank the
partial lump sum distribution and the COLA for retirees, or
the 50 percent like we did last time as the two that I would
be inclined to do. The buy-back doesn't have much of a
consequence. I think the partial lump sum distribution is a
benefit, because I think it's -- to the employees, it gives
them an option based on their personal situation. And some of
them that, you know, have been in the county a long time and
retire at a little bit earlier age, possibly, than, you know,
the -- before they're 65 or so. You know, that gives them
some options what to do with that money, and so I'm in favor
of those two.
JUDGE TINLEY: Hard to argue with the fact that
that's their money, too.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's right. They ought to be
R-28-06
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
able to do what they want to with it, and hopefully they'll do
-- you know, not waste it or be -- you know, that's their
option. That's --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, that's only point --
25.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The budgetary impact on that
this year is 15,231, and then the -- on the COLA, I don't have
a real strong opinion one way or the other if we do the same
as we did last time, or -- or the 4 percent. I mean, probably
just 50 percent CPI, 'cause that's what we did last time, to
be consistent.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 50 percent of CPI. What are
they basing it on? Basing it at 4, or are they basing it at 4
point --
MS. NEMEC: This one here, what you have in front of
you is 4 percent.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MS. NEMEC: That's the rate for 4 percent.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MS. NEMEC: And whatever you all approve, then
they'll send the proper documents to include those individual
items to be signed at a later time. We just need to let them
know.
JUDGE TINLEY: Maybe it would be appropriate if I go
ahead and call the next agenda item, since -- let me go ahead
8-28-06
70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
and call Item Number 7; consider and authorize a buy-back in
the Texas County and District Retirement System for employees
who are rehired or re-elected after a break in service. Since
we've been working on that subject, it's probably a good idea
to get it in the mix here formally.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Have I heard that we need
to wait till September 15th to hear from the retirement system
before we take any action on this issue? Or can we go ahead?
JUDGE TINLEY: We can go ahead and -- but we do not
know what additional cost, if any, to the County will be
involved. But based upon this communication as of last
Friday, the communication from the gentleman, John Jagou, who
was here giving us the presentation, who talked to his
colleague, Mr. Howard Miller concerning that issue -- I had
asked him for a ballpark figure so that we could have
something to -- a benchmark to work from, and he said he
wasn't able to do that, because it was based upon probability
of employees buying back. And he concluded, so there may not
be additional cost to the benefit changes that the -- that
Kerr County is looking at, per se.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'd be willing to go ahead
and act on it based on that feedback.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I think that we need to
do it. But that brings up a question in my mind, though.
When somebody comes back from previous employment and buys
8-_'fl-OE
71
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
into it, that means that their moneys are reinstated, the
County's part of it is reinstated. Where is this bucket of
money? I mean, does it just come out of thin air all of a
sudden? And --
MS. NEMEC: It's in Kerr County's fund.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is it?
MS. NEMEC: Once they put this --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sitting out there? That's
been growing all these years?
MS. NEMEC: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And we're sure of that, that
it hasn't been --
MS. NEMEC: And that's how they base how much it's
going to cost us, because they look at it and see how much our
balance is in that fund, and based on that and based on what
the probability is of the employees buying back, then they
come up with a figure as to if there is going to be any cost
or not.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This fund is held by the
retirement system?
MS. NEMEC: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, Judge, in my opinion, it
sounds like that -- well, in my opinion, I think that we need
to agree to everything except the years of service issue.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion that we
8-28-06
?2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
approve the plan -- the retirement plan changes to allow a
partial lump sum distribution and a COLA -- see what
terminology we use on that -- 50 percent CPI-based COLA for
retirees. And the -- that's the only two we can do on this
i one.
JUDGE TINLEY: No, we've got both of them -- both
agenda items were called.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But don't we need -- wouldn't it
be better to have separate motions for two different agenda
items?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, the -- no, I think you
can put them --
JUDGE TINLEY: I do, too. We got both agenda items.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And approve the buy-back option.
That's it.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I second the motion.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
as indicated. 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: Motion does carry. Why don't we take
us about a 15-minute recess?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Why don't we?
a-ze oh
73
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(Recess taken from 10:37 a.m. to 10:55 a.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's go ahead and come back to
order, if we might. Item 8, consider, discuss, and take
appropriate action on ASO appeal review request and have
County Judge sign same. That is a matter that indicates it's
appropriate for executive session; is that correct?
MS. NEMEC: I can leave names out of it if y'all
would like to just take it up. It's pretty cut and dry,
really.
JUDGE TINLEY: I --
MS. NEMEC: It's up to y'all.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm concerned of maybe stepping on
somebody that maybe we shouldn't, and I'd really rather take
it up in executive session.
MS. NEMEC: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: And we can take official action in
the blind.
MS. NEMEC: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: We'll go ahead and defer on that for
now. Item 9, approval of cooperative agreement regarding
child support cases between Office of the Attorney General of
Texas and Kerr County. Mrs. Uecker was with us here a bit
ago.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There's -- I see a
B-'8-06
74
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
handwritten note on here from Rex. Of course, you can't read
it, but --
MS. PIEPER: Do you want me to go up and see if
she's up there?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Item 12 -- let's move to that.
We'll defer on Item 9 for a moment. Item 12. Mr. Odom has
indicated that because of some administrative requirements not
being complete, the item to consider, discuss, and take
appropriate action to approve the revision of plat for Lots 7A
and 8 in Treasure Hills Ranch, that this should be passed at
this time. Is that correct?
MR. ODOM: That's correct, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's move to Item 13 quickly.
Consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to consider
closing O.R.C.A. Contract Number 781257.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. I -- Commissioner Williams, I
can defer to him, or I may read my memo and then defer any --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Read your memo, and then
we'll go from there.
MR. ODOM: Sir?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Go ahead with your memo and
then we'll go from there.
MR. ODOM: June 13th, 2005, the Court authorized us
to request an extension of Contract Number 781257, which was a
grant for the 2002 flood. That extension was granted, but
8-28-06
7s
1
2
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
expired the 31st of July of '06. Road and Bridge completed
all of its projects in a timely manner and received the
funding in 2004. However, the walk bridge at Flat Rock Park
is still to be completed. O.R.C.A. funds available for the
project are only $2,308. August 22nd of '06, Kelly Odom with
O.R.C.A. called to tell us we need to close out this account
or it would jeopardize grants that Kerr County might have in
the works or apply for in the future. At this time, we ask
the Court that you allow us to close out Contract 781257, so
the County will be able to use O.R.C.A. funds.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Does that mean that we lose
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That means we would lose the
the damage from the bridge over Town Creek -- Third Creek.
Yes, that would be gone. Now, of course, the issue -- if we
asked for the extension and protect these funds for future use
for that bridge purpose, we are foreclosing any options we
might have to go back to O.R.C.A. for additional funding until
that -- those funds are obligated and taken care of. So, the
only other thing that might -- you know, we might be going
back to O.R.C.A. for additional funding for Phase 4 of the
Kerrville South wastewater project. That's the Ranchero P.oad
portion, original Ranchero Road portion. But we've got to get
the contractor off of -- finished with what he's doing now
8-%8 06
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
before we can do that, so I'm not so certain that we're really
disenfranchising ourselves, 'cause I don't think he's going to
wind it up in the next 30 days or so. Whatever the Court
thinks they'd like to do.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Bill, would you go back two
and a half sentences and say the part about Kerrville South
again?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If we -- if we close out the
account and lose the $2,308, we would then be eligible, by
reason of closing out this contract, for any future
applications that we might want, one of which could be Phase 4
of Kerrville South. But the other part of that equation is
that the contractor is not yet to the point where he's ready
to wrap it up and clear the way for us to go back to O.R.C.A.
for additional funding. So, I'm -- whatever the Court wants
to do with this. We're going to lose 2,308 if we close it
out. Or if we protect the 2,308 and add it to the bridge
funds we need, we foreclose going back to O.R.C.A. for this
next funding cycle.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Where is this contractor
working?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He's on -- he's in the
hook-up stages on Frederick -- Frederick, George Muck.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Kerrville South?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Loyal Valley, Shannon, all
8-_'?-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
~~
in there, hooking up the latter.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All right. What about --
actually, I was going to ask this question in a future -- on
your Center Point issue, but I want to ask it right now. No,
I'll wait till the Center Point issue.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Question. If -- can we even extend
that contract now that our extension has expired?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This one here?
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We can ask for one more
extension. Correct, Mr. Odom?
MR. ODOM: I don't believe so.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I believe we can,
MR. ODOM: You're the expert. I'm not, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, the Grantworks folks
I told me we could ask for one more extension and receive it --
more than likely receive it. Nothing's guaranteed with these
people.
JUDGE TINLEY: Your understanding is, however, if we
receive an additional extension and gain the availability of
that $2,300, we would not be able to seek funding for other
future projects, possibly Stage 4 Kerrville South, Center
Point, wherever, until that contract is actually closed out?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Exactly. Or expired, one or
B-~8-06
78
1
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 other. Closed out one way or the other, that's correct.
So, you know, it's kind of a catch-22. We get the 2,300 --
JUDGE TINLEY: You may miss a bunch more.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We might miss more. And the
2,300 is really -- when you get down to it, is only a piece of
change of what we need to do the bridge.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, your recommendation is
we forego the 2,300?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's okay with me.
Foreclose and make certain then that we have no impediments to
going back for larger sums.
MR. ODOM: That's right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And that's okay with me. I
would move we close --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That we do not ask for an
extension for Contract 781257.
JUDGE TINLEY: And close it?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pardon?
JUDGE TINLEY: And close it and authorize me to sign
that?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. And close and
authorize the County Judge to sign same.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Your second holds?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir.
8-'8-06
79
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Motion made and seconded.
Any question or discussion on the motion? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Let's go
back to Item 9 that we temporarily passed on. Approval of
cooperative agreement regarding child support cases between
the Office of the Attorney General of Texas and Kerr County.
Ms. Uecker?
MS. UECKER: Hello.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Hello.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Morning.
MS. UECKER: Morning. This is just the annual
renewal of the entire contract. A couple of months ago, we
did an extension of the existing contract, because we were in
negotiations on state case registry entry amounts, and updates
to the state case registry and customer service. We've now
come to an agreement, and the new -- that is the new contract.
It does include -- I think the only substantive change is an
increase of 6 cents per new case entry, and a 9.5-cent
increase in customer service and updates to existing cases. I
think that's the only difference in the contract. The County
Attorney has gone over it. He labeled some changes, and I've
e-ze-ob
80
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
looked at all of them, and I think we both agree that's okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There's an increase in the --
in a user fee?
MS. DECKER: No, that's -- that's what the federal
government pays us to, you know, input those new cases, called
Title IV-D cases.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're telling me the federal
government is going to pay us more?
MS. DECKER: They're going to pay us 6 cents a case
I more.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This is a great moment.
MS. DECKER: And it actually goes -- they pay --
this is all part of the federal -- the Welfare Reform Act that
was imposed under President Clinton's -- you know, now there's
this giant computer in the sky that tracks all children, the
money that's owed them and who owes it to them, and who's
paying and who's not and where they are. This is all part of
a big program. Eventually we'll be out of the child support
business, as far as being the local registry, because of those
-- when those children that -- pre-'94 cases, when they reach
18, then we'll no longer take any child support at all. And
we can see those amounts dwindling annually.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Does that affect the court
system that's here?
MS. DECKER: No. No.
8-29 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
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That still keeps running?
MS. UECKER: The cases still go through the courts.
It's just that now, any money that's paid goes directly to the
State Disbursement Unit in San Antonio, and the federal
government pays Texas 66 percent of that money, and that --
and after the 66 percent is calculated, that means a
6 percent -- a 6-cent increase to us, and a 9.5 on customer
service.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move for approval.
MS. UECKER: In other words, what that means,
Commissioner, is we get $7.85 for every new case we enter. We
get $2.04 for any updating. That could be an address change,
that could be an age, that could be anything. Or every time
we take a call that requires some customer service from either
a managing conservator, possessory conservator on what's going
on with the case, we get another $2.04.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion and second for
approval. Any question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: When your office is no
longer involved in the child support business, does that mean
you'll be able to reduce your staff?
MS. UECKER: No. (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I knew that was coming.
MS. UECKER: We are -- right now, we are down to --
8-_8 06
82
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and that's probably one of the reasons that I have already
reduced the staff. We're down to -- from over 100 child
support checks a day to about three or four a day. Which
is --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I was being facetious.
MS. UECKER: I know you were.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think your office is very
productive.
MS. UECKER: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions or comments? All
in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that included authorizing
you to sign that, correct?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move to Item 14. Consider,
discuss, and take appropriate action on rental rates of the
Union Church being raised.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What are they today?
MS. DAVIDSON: You have a sheet -- you should have a
sheet with you. I gave to it everybody. And it's -- half a
day rental is $60; that's a four-hour maximum. And they have
8-28-06
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
a daily rate of 8:00 to 5:00; it's $100. And an all-day, 8:00
to 10:00, is $200. And I don't know why I never use that
evening hours only. I don't ever have anybody that really
does an evening from 5:00 to 10:00 for $100. They stay in
that other area.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The -- you're proposing to go
to the half-day rental of $60?
MS. DAVIDSON: No, this is what has been already in
play. I'm moving up, more than $60 for --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What is the proposed number?
MS. DAVIDSON: The proposed numbers, I was thinking
~ $50 more.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I misread this. I thought it
~ was --
MS. DAVIDSON: Up to a daily rental of $150, instead
of $100. I'm sorry, I didn't put that in there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's not in here. It says
proposed.
MS. DAVIDSON: My fault. This is when Jamie and
Glenn had this. This is a paper that I've used ever since --
this is what I was given.
JUDGE TINLEY: Proposed half-day is how much?
MS. DAVIDSON: $60.
JUDGE TINLEY: What do you propose it being?
MS. DAVIDSON: I'm sorry, $110.
8 28-U6
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
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, now we're moving.
MS. DAVIDSON: All right.
JUDGE TINLEY: All day?
MS. DAVIDSON: I would like to go to $250, and then
drop the evening hour rate. I would do that as -- it's either
morning or evening. I don't -- I don't ever use that evening
hours.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, we do.
MS. DAVIDSON: Do we?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, we do.
MS. DAVIDSON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: My homeowners' association
has had suppers there on several occasions.
MS. DAVIDSON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They come in at 5 o'clock or
4 o'clock or whatever, set up, have a supper there, clean up
and leave.
MS. DAVIDSON: I did a rental -- or I did the same
thing, but I used it under a daily rental as $100, same
amount.
JUDGE TINLEY: Would evening be cheaper than dail}~
rental, say $125, or at $100, or what?
MS. DAVIDSON: It's the same right now, daily rental
and evening.
JUDGE TINLEY: I understand. What are you proposing
8 2fl-06
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
that it be?
MS. DAVIDSON: $125. Because it's not that --
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, but I tend to -- it
makes sense to me to eliminate one of the categories.
MS. DAVIDSON: I feel that the bottom one -- I don't
~ ever --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why not do a half day for $125
and all-day for -- or a -- or do a half-day for $100 and then
a daily for $150, and all-day for $250, something like that?
MS. DAVIDSON: That sounds good as well.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's all right, as long as
you got it covered.
MS. DAVIDSON: Correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, a half-day rental would
be a four-hour maximum?
MS. DAVIDSON: Correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And what we're proposing is
~ what?
MS. DAVIDSON: $100.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: $100. And a daily rental is
all day, 8:00 to 5:00?
MS. DAVIDSON: 8:00 to 5:00, mm-hmm, would be $150.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Wait a minute.
MS. DAVIDSON: And then your all-day is 8 a.m. to
e-za-oe
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
10 p.m. for $250.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it makes -- I would
change the wording.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would too.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Get rid of -- where it says "all
day," I'd say, "half-day rental, daily rental, daily rental
extended," or something like that. So it --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Go 4, 8, and 12 hours.
MS. DAVIDSON: There you go.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Say it again?
MS. DAVIDSON: 4, 8, and 12 hours.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Four-hour rental, 8-hour rental,
12-hour rental. That's good. Thank you, Sheriff.
JUDGE TINLEY: It's going to be nine hours, 8:00 to
5:00, though. Here I am messing things up.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Don't take a lunch break.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Four, 9, and 12.
MS. DAVIDSON: Four, 9, and 12.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 100, 150, 200.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: 8:00 to 10:00 would be 14.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And you may -- but you may want
to put a category that no rentals past 10 p.m.
MS. DAVIDSON: Correct.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or before 8 a.m. A lot of
people will be there at 6:00 in the morning.
e-za-o6
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
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Or parties that run past
10 o'clock need to move to General Schellhase's house.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Something like that.
JUDGE TINLEY: We'll need to put in the address so
that they'll know where to go.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Or the Ag Barn.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Not the Ag Barn.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sounds good.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move to approve the new rental
schedule for the Union Church as discussed.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: As discussed.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: At -- okay. Four-hour rental is
$100; nine hours, $150; 12 hours, $250. Cannot start before
8 a.m., and have to be done by 10 p.m.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Nine hours instead of eight?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of the motion as indicated. Any 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.)
8-28-06
88
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Let's move to
Item 15. Consider and discuss --
MS. DAVIDSON: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- and take appropriate action on
approving the Kerr County Juvenile Detention Facility policy
and procedures manual for 2006-07. I have them here,
gentlemen. Everybody's on board, it appears.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of the Kerr County Juvenile Detention Facility policies and
procedures for '06-'07, as -- as signed off on. Any question
or discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion,
signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. This needs
to go to Mr. Stanton, I think. Let's move to Item 16 quickly;
consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to establish a
procedure for soliciting and screening applicants for
Maintenance Department Manager and such other matters related
to departmental organization that may be required.
Commissioner Williams.
8-28-06
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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I put this on the agenda,
gentlemen, essentially because we did, in fact, establish a
procedure for Human Resources, and we have a vacancy in a
major department -- department head, and we need to have a
clear-cut policy as to -- or a procedure as to how we're going
to proceed to acquire and screen candidates for that position.
So, open for discussion.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the process that you
used last time worked great. Use the same one.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: "Last time" meaning the
H.R.?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: H.R.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which was we advertised --
the two of us did it, and we advertised and we posted it. I
understand where you're going, Commissioner. That's okay.
But are we going to advertise? I think we should.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We have to.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And post it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We need to advertise, post it
internally.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And set a date for -- for
resumes or applications to be filed. Screen them, select
three or four for Court interview.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But because this -- I think it`s
a different -- I don't think we need to go as broad as before.
8-28 Ob
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
90
I don't think -- I think it's really local.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, I agree.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think you advertise locally
for this and post it internally, and I think we have
September 15th as a cutoff date.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That works.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Jonathan, one comment on these,
If they're going to be given access to that facility out
there, I'm also going to have to be able to do a background
check -- criminal background check.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think in the notice, we need
to say that all applicants have to have a criminal
background -- yeah, all applicants have to, 'cause I don't
want to -- as soon as we get them in, you can start running
those.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Take applications up until
September 15th?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do we have a motion on that?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's Commissioner Letz.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I was -- what I said was the
8-28-06
~_ ~
91
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
process, use the same form as was used already. I'll put it
in the form of a motion.
I COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: With the same two members of
I the Court.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: As long as they agree. If they
don't want to, I mean, I don't mind working on this one.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, I have a motion. Any question
or comments on the motion? Any further question or comments?
All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right
hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Stem 17; I
consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to approve
contract with Tetra Tech Engineering for professional services
for the Center Point wastewater project,
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Before you is a draft of
what will be hopefully a contract with -- if the Court
approves it, to provide preliminary engineering and consulting
services for the design of a wastewater collection system for
Center Point. This is with Tetra Tech. They were the company
that scored first in our scoring process. Submitted this to
both the County Attorney and to Texas Water Development Board
for scrutiny. Water Development Board came back with some
H-28-o6
92
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
recommendations of a few paragraphs that they believe are
mandatory by their definition, and those would be Paragraphs
19, 20, 21, 22, and 23. Those are mandatory T.W.D.B.
paragraphs that they want included in all contracts. i
received back -- Ms. Mitchell did on my behalf -- a memorandum
from -- or an e-mail from Mr. Kluge of the Texas Water
Development Board, and he said he looked over the draft.
Looks good, incorporates the suggestions of the subcontractor.
He can't speak for the legal department, but he believes
everything is going to be all right, and he has no problems
with it. County Attorney has reviewed it as well. We made
some language changes, nothing substantial. Am I correct,
Rex?
MR. EMERSON: You're correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Everything that's before us
has met with his approval. So, I would offer the contract for
approval, and County Judge to sign the same.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of the agenda item and the -- the proffered contract, with the
County Judge authorized to sign same. Any question or
discussion on the motion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have a question here, and I
need an answer before I can vote. The status of Phase 4 in
Kerrville South.
a-za-oe
93
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Status of Phase 4 is that we
have to go back by application for funding for Phase 4,
because the Court will remember that the bids to do Phases 2
and 3 were only one bidder, and the cost was so high that we
had to shift the funding that was approved from Phase 4 to --
to do Phases 2 and 3 to accomplish what's under construction
now. But the next thing I would bring back before the Court
would be an application for funding for Phase 4. The
engineering in that case is already done. It's a matter of
going back to O.R.C.A. for funding so that we can wrap that
project up.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, you're not -- but by
taking action on this issue in Center Point today, we're not
setting aside something that we had already started?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And starting a brand new one?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Absolutely not.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's different funding.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I will bring it back for us
to -- now that we cleared out that other little impediment for
us earlier, for us to go back as quickly as we can. We got to
get the contractor off the job as quickly as we can, and we'll
go back for funding for Phase 4.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: These are different funding
8-?fl-06
94
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
sources, correct?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes. Yes. You may recall
that Kerrville South is a combination of two funding sources,
Colonias money and the T.C.D.P, money, all of which comes
through O.R.C.A., but they're two different pots.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And so whatever pot's
available to us, as soon as the contractor has got finished up
out there on what he's doing, we'll go back with an
application, hopefully through Grantworks, to get funding for
Phase 4.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But this is under T.W. D.B. This
~ is different than the --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This is -- Water Development
Board's a whole different animal.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. This -- the other
question, the -- I'm trying to figure out haw to ask the
question without -- is there an opportunity in your mind to
expand this to a surface water study if funding is coming from
Region J? I mean, based on --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I know where you're going,
Commissioner, 'cause I participated with you in some of those
discussions. And I think -- I think there's always that
possibility, and I think it would behoove us to examine it.
And if it were a possibility to do what you are noodling in
8 ^8-06

95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
your head, then we'd go back to T.W.D.B. and ask for that
funding, and ask for it to be tacked on as an addendum to
this, or an added -- added scope of service.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll try to clear this up.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, you do that,
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Region J has some money from
another pot coming in, and it makes sense; may be some
economies of scale to having the engineering Łor the surface
water or for drinking water and sewer done at the same time,
as opposed to have two completely different studies done,
because they run hand-in-hand frequently.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think it's a great idea,
and if we can expand the scope of services and use those
dollars, that would be great.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But it probably might be easier
to just do a separate -- probably would have to be a separate
contract.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or discussion on
the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Let's move to
Item 18; consider, discuss, and approve by record vote the
e-za-o6

96
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
proposed Kerr County 2007 tax rate and set date, time, and
place of first and second public hearings on such tax rate.
Mr. Auditor?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: We've got some -- last Friday, I gave
everyone the summary sheet from the most recent run. There's
been some -- some modifications to that. The Auditor said he
would be happy to explain those as to where we are right now.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge --
JUDGE TINLEY: I had each one of you get a run -- he
gave each one of you a run this morning with a new summary
sheet.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That would be this?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Could -- is there any reason
that we can't do this after the workshop? Or during the
workshop or at the time of the workshop when I'm -- because, I
mean, there's a -- I mean, I think -- I really don't see the
tax rate changing, but there might be some adjustments to the
budget. But I guess we can go ahead and -- I mean, we can go
ahead and do this now. I'll retract that objection. Because,
I mean, it's not going to change the tax rate, but there may
be some -- it may affect the end reserve balance, the final
tweaking we make of the budget.
JUDGE TINLEY: There have already been some since
a-2e-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
97
Friday, and -- and based upon some action we took here earlier
today, there's going to be a minor adjustment made. But --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just affects the -- it just
affects the fund balances. Doesn't affect the --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. So, I have no problem.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Tommy, do you want to tell us
', what we've got here?
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, the current rate is .3896
total rate.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: .3896?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. .0309 is for Road and Bridge,
and .3578 is M & 0.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What was the last one?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: M & O.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What are those two numbers
again, Tommy?
MR. TOMLINSON: .3578 is the Maintenance/Operation
rate, and .0309 is the Lateral Road. Is that correct?
MS. RECTOR: Our current rate? Mm-hmm.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's the rollback rate?
JUDGE TINLEY: 4325. Way off that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. I'm glad.
JUDGE TINLEY: I believe that --
MR. TOMLINSON: That's right.
8-28-n6
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
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm speaking from recollection, but I
think it's accurate.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the budget numbers are --
that we've discussed heretofore are based on maintaining the
current tax rate, correct?
MR. TOMLINSON: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion that we -- we
need to break it out separate. Is the breakout going to be
the same between the M & O and Road and Bridge?
MR. TOMLINSON: It can be. Doesn't have to be.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well --
MR. TOMLINSON: I mean, it works as the same rate.
I mean, the road -- if you have this worksheet --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't have it, I mean, with
me. It's in my office.
MR. TOMLINSON: With that -- with the lateral road
rate at last year's rate, it generates fund balances of almost
25 percent. The M & 0 rate for the general fund is .23 --
236, with a total of .217. And overall, the ratio is .255 for
total -- total funds.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I make a motion that we set the
tax rate for 2006-2007 at point -- total tax rate at .3896,
being divided as .0309 for Road and Bridge and .3578 as M & 0.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's a proposed tax rate.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Proposed.
A-8-06
99
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. RECTOR: Not setting the rate. You're only
proposing the rate.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm proposing the tax rate,
sorry.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And we need to have --
MS. RECTOR: You need to set --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We need to decide on two
~ hearings.
MS. RECTOR: Yes, two public hearings; date, time,
place. We need a record vote on the proposed rate today.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: When should we set those
~ hearings?
MS. RECTOR: First hearing would be September the
8th. Second hearing will be September the 15th.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the date for public hearings
will be September 8th, and the second public hearing will be
September 15th at -- what time are we doing them?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 10:00.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 10 a.m.? At 10 a.m.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as indicated
for the proposed tax rate and public hearings. Any further
question or comment?
MS. RECTOR: I need a record vote of the -- you're
going there? Okay.
8-28 06
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
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
MS. RECTOR: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other question or comment?
Record vote now. Commissioner Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Aye.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Aye.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Aye.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Nicholson?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Aye.
JUDGE TINLEY: And I vote aye also. Does that solve
your problem for today, Ms. Rector?
MS. RECTOR: Yeah. We need to name the place of
these public hearings.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Here.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I think that was assumed,
probably, in the motion. Was it?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, it was.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's move to Item 19;
consider and select a fee schedule from EMS that -- that will
close the shortfall between expenses and revenues.
Commissioner Nicholson.
MR. EMERSON: Can I ask one quick question, Judge?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes.
P-2P-06
101
1
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. EMERSON: And pardon my ignorance, 'cause I'm
new to all this, but are the two rates, the Road and Bridge
and the Maintenance and Operations, supposed to add up to that
final number? Because if they are, they don't.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let's ask the Auditor.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, they do -- they should.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Mr. Auditor?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Tommy?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Tommy? The numbers don't add up
to the total. .3578 plus .0309 don't equal .3896.
MR. TOMLINSON: .3896 -- I wrote it down wrong.
JUDGE TINLEY: One of three numbers is wrong.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's not 97, either. 87.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm, that's right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: .3887.
MR. TOMLINSON: I didn't read my last year's. I had
it out to bring, and I don't have --
JUDGE TINLEY: We'll come back to that shortly when
we get our numbers sY.raight, folks.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Let me -- before we leave that,
then, let me make a motion to rescind our previous vote.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I second that motion.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Of the proposed tax rate.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I second the motion.
8-^_8-06
102
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: All in favor of that motion, signify
by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Previous action is rescinded.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You got a calculator with a
fresh battery?
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move on to the EMS schedule
that I called. Commissioner Nicholson?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes, Judge. I provided you
and the Commissioners with several documents relating to the
fees charged by Kerrville EMS, comparing them to other
benchmarks. A copy of the 2006 Kerrville EMS fee schedule.
You got a copy of a price comparison, a survey of five hill
country EMS fee schedules that was provided to me by Bandera
County EMS, and those five departments are Canyon Lake, Medina
Valley, Community, Kendall, and Bandera County. I had a
breakout of the Bandera County EMS rates in some detail. And
the one final thing you have is a -- some data on EMS rates
for Williamson County that I was able to pick off the
Internet. What -- what we see here is that the fees charged
by Kerrville EMS are too low. They're slightly more than --
roughly more than -- slightly more than half of what some
benchmark EMS services charge.
Without belaboring it, for example, the basic life
support rates for EMS in Kerr County is $331.22. I don't know
R-28-06
103
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
how we came up with 22 cents, but it's $331.22. And that same
rate for these five others is a high of $787; again, compared
to $322, three counties that are -- or three services at $600,
and then Bandera County at $425. Now, what we know about
Bandera County is that it's staffed, I think, entirely by
volunteers, but if not entirely, largely. And here we have an
EMS system that's staffed by volunteers. They don't have
payroll costs, and they still charge a good bit more for their
services than does Kerrville. I can -- I can only conclude
that our -- our rates for EMS services are far too low. And
that's the major contributor to our large shortfall and having
to provide taxpayer funds to make up the shortfall.
The other contributor is a -- is not -- is poor
collection experience. We don't have very good experience in
collecting the amounts that we do bill. That should improve
also. What I'm recommending is that Kerr County adopt a
user-pay strategy for 2006-2007, and that we adopt fees that
are equal to the Kendall County structure. And, specifically,
that would mean that our base -- base rate would increase --
by the way, I'm proposing that we do this for services that
initiate outside of Kerrville city limits, in the county. And
then we additionally recommend to Kerrville that they also
adopt these rates. So, for example, that would mean that a
basic life support fee would be revised from $331.22 to $787.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I totally support this concept.
5-28-06
104
1
"., 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
"^ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I have a little question about us unilaterally doing this
Kendall County is a very good benchmark to use in this regard.
They're very similar. Even though they're half the size
generally, it's a similar situation where they have a -- a
city in the middle, and the rest of the county's rural. They
also have a large part of the interstate or the highway, you
know, as we do. It is a -- a smaller picture of Kerr County
in many ways. And they provide -- you know, they have a --
the main difference is their system is run by the County, as
opposed to our system is run by the City of Kerrville. But
they are staffed, they are paid, they have a coordinator. So,
I think it's a good approach. My question is -- like I said
when I first started, is how we do it. I think my
recollection of our joint meeting with the City and County was
that they agreed to look at this, but they didn't agree to
adopt our fee schedule. And so --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You know, and I agree with
what you're saying, but I also -- I see this motion as an
encouragement to the City of that -- saying this is what the
County wants to do. Let's do it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. And if it's -- if it's
I
8-28-06
105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
think it has to be, "This is what we want." You know, "You
come back to us and tell us how we get there."
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree, it has to be that
way.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is it your understanding,
Commissioner, that the copy of this fee schedule that's --
this 2006 approved fee schedule for the City is one that they
have adopted to go forward for '06-'07?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't know that,
Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Or in place for 'O5-'06?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It's in place for the
current fiscal year. I have not -- I don't have any
information about their intention to change it for next year.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. I think that's
probably a fair assumption, that this is what's in place for
the budget year 'OS-'06. And I think if we were to take the
-- adopt a strategy of encouraging them to look at the
comparative rates being charged, with a view toward
eliminating taxpayer subsidy, we could encourage them to take
a look at it and take a similar action. I think that's a good
strategy. We ought to go for something along that line.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We should -- that's a good
plan, and that should be very timely. We need to do it so
that when we reach agreement and we reduce the shortfall, we
8-28-06
lOF
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
can run that into our budget. I think that reducing -- or
adopting Kendall County rates, for example, would not
eliminate the shortfall, but it would -- it would reduce it a
whole lot. And one reason it won't eliminate it is, there's a
lapse between the time the service is provided and the time
you collect. So, if we adopted this, for example, October 1,
I'm guessing that the next couple months or so, we would still
be -- our revenues would still be at the old rates before
we're collecting it -- full impact of it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Actually longer than that,
probably.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: But I think we could
forecast what the impact would be.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, what we really would be
doing would be to -- this would become a suggested fee
schedule that this Court is recommending the City put in place
for EMS services for the '06-'07 budget year; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would make that as a
motion.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Wait, hold on.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: He already made a motion.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I withdraw that. That was
a-za-oE
107
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to act unilaterally.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I want to add something, too.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sure, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: To this discussion. This
Internet information that you got from Williamson County, I
see this as a policy statement, and I would like to read it
and encourage us to adopt something very similar. It says,
"Emergency medical services are clearly a necessity for people
in the county, but only one out of ten people actually use
these services in a year. Rather than burden all taxpayers
with the cost of these services, the County Commissioners have
agreed to bill only those people who use them. Fees are
intended to be high enough to offset the actual cost of the
services, but no higher." I mean, that is really close to
what we've been talking about. Don't know that it hits the
nail exactly on the head, but that -- I think that's an
interesting statement.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That is a good statement,
and it really frames -- it really does frame the sense of this
discussion we're having this morning.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm, sure does.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think you could almost -- only
thing I think you would take off, on the third line from the
bottom, after the word "bill" -- it says, "...bill only those
people who use them." I think I'd take out the word "only"
a-ze-o6
108
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
because I don't think --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's still a subsidy.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This is true.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree with that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Basically, it's our
intention, those people that use the service pay for it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which is what you've been
saying for a long time.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, you want to adopt this
policy statement?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, yeah. I would amend my
own motion to add the policy statement, as revised, as the
basis for the Court's action.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I second that motion.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's a question from the
County Attorney, I think, as to whether we can do policy
statements under the -- as posted.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Picky, picky, picky.
JUDGE TINLEY: A fee schedule in accordance with
that policy schedule -- policy statement.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think that would make the
County Attorney a little happier.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I second that motion also.
8-28-G6
109
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: All right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any question or discussion on
the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the County Judge will relay
this court order with the fee schedule to the City?
JUDGE TINLEY: That's my intention. Let's move to
Item 20 -- or let's come back to Item 18. Maybe we can come
back -- are ready to come back to Item 18?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me call Item 18.
MR. TOMLINSON: I had a little case of dyslexia.
JUDGE TINLEY: Consider, discuss, and approve by
record vote the proposed Kerr County 2007 tax rate; set date,
time, and place of first and second public hearings.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And the rates are?
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, the total rate is correct at
.3896. I transposed the last two numbers on the M & O --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I can't hear you, Tommy.
MR. TOMLINSON: I transposed the last two numbers on
8 ~8-06
110
1
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 M & 0 rate. It should be .3587 instead of 78.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. I make a motion that
we set the proposed tax rate for total tax rate of .3896, to
be broken up as follows: M & 0, proposed tax rate at .3587,
and proposed Road and Bridge tax rate at .0309, and set public
hearings at 10 a.m. in this courtroom for September 8th and
September 15th.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: At 10 a.m.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll second that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
I indicated.
MS. RECTOR: Well done.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any question or discussion? We have
a gold star from the Tax Assessor at this point.
MS. RECTOR: You got it.
JUDGE TINLEY: All in favor of the motion -- let me
get a record vote.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Aye.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Baldwin votes?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Aye.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Williams votes?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Aye.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Letz votes?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Aye.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Nicholson votes?
a-za-o~
111
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Aye.
JUDGE TINLEY: County Judge Tinley votes aye.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We'll get this right by the
JUDGE TINLEY: Before noon. Let's go to Item 20, if
we might. Consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to
confirm Kerr County members and composition of the City of
Kerrville-slash-Kerr County Joint Economic Development
Strategy Committee. As members of the Court will recall,
we -- I raised this issue at the beginning of our joint
City/County meeting, essentially with a suggestion that there
were two members of this Court, two members of the City
Council who were more focused on economic development members
-- matters than other members of those bodies, and suggested
that those four individuals be the nucleus of the committee,
who would then comprise the balance of the committee and go to
work. Last City Council meeting, the City Council approved
Councilman Chuck Coleman and Todd Bock as the two city members
of that committee to join with the two to be appointed by this
body, and that those four collectively approve the other
members of the committee and go forward. My suggestion at the
joint meeting with the City was that Commissioner Williams and
I be put on that committee as the County reps.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move for approval.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
8-28-05
112
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. 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.)
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I just hope you all will
bring some more good jobs to Kerr County.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have every intention of doing
everything we can, increasing those that are already here.
Let's move to Item 21.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Before you go off that, I had --
that's a really big point. That's one of the points that I
get hammered on occasionally by some of our business people,
is that we neglect our local businesses in an effort to go out
and search for new ones. And I really hope that this
committee looks at ways of assisting James Avery and his
business, which continues to grow and be a huge part -- and
development of the hospital, whatever it is. I think these
are very important, critical elements of our community. F.nd
-- and a year or so ago, we came very close to losing B.A.
Products. We just need to make sure we take care of what's
here before we really go out and start searching for others.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Point well made. Extension
and retention are two vital parts of it.
8-28-06
113
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And it's a lot easier to keep
them rather than go out and bring new ones in.
JUDGE TINLEY: You're exactly right. We've already
got the one bird in hand; it's helping it multiply. I think
what we fail to do is to give as much notice to expansion of
existing business activity that we have. The -- the emphasis
on expansion is just as great or greater than it is on
attraction of new -- in fact, I think the ratio I commonly
hear is 80 percent expansion, 20 percent new. You just don't
talk about it enough, but that emphasis is there, and we're
mindful of it. Let's move, if we could, to Item 21; consider,
discuss, and take appropriate action on hiring a
secretary-slash-administrative assistant at Department of
Public Safety at Grade 17, Step 1. Do we have the --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tommie's here. Sergeant
Tommie.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: More like captain over there.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Colonel?
JUDGE TINLEY: I think you've got a specific
individual for us to approve in that position?
MS. DAMRON: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: At Grade 17, Step 1?
MS. DAMRON: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: That has been screened and reviewed
B-'B-06
114
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
by your people over at D.P.S., and they're recommending to the
Court; is that correct?
MS. DAMRON: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: And who is that, please?
MS. DAMRON: Her name is Barbara Charles.
JUDGE TINLEY: Barbara -- spell the last name?
MS. DAMRON: C-h-a-r-l-e-s.
JUDGE TINLEY: Charles, okay.
MS. DAMRON: Charles.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll move that we accept' the
recommendation of the Department of Public Safety, and
authorize the hiring of Barbara Charles at Step 17-1 for the
secretary/administrative position.
JUDGE TINLEY: To begin?
MS. DAMRON: September the 7th.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: To begin September 7th.
MS. DAMRON: The Auditor has a budget amendment to
present later on.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Funding?
MS. DAMRON: Funding.
JUDGE TINLEY: For this year, and we've got the
funding plugged in for next year in the budget as -- as
already laid out.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Ma'am, would you stand up?
a-za-oH
115
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. DAMRON: No, I like to sit down.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and second. Any
question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify
by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Quick question, Tommie. Do
you think it would be inappropriate for this Commissioners
Court to meet our new employee?
MS. DAMRON: Sure. I can --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just thought it would be
kind of neat to --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It took some thought, Buster.
MS. DAMRON: Well, she's presently working. She
works for the city of -- Gillespie County right now. And --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: City of Gillespie?
MS. DAMRON: She's given notice to them.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Good thing we approved it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, really.
MS. DAMRON: I'm really glad you did.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, yeah, it would be great
to --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Bring her by sometime.
B-28-Oti
116
1
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: Bring her by.
MS. DAMRON: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you for all your work, Tommie.
We appreciate it.
MS. DAMRON: You're very welcome. I've enjoyed it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I tell you, y'all missed --
y'all missed a retirement party. I don't know what that food
was, and they wouldn't tell me, but boy, it was good. I don't
know -- what were those little things wrapped in bacon?
MS. DAMRON: Axis.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Dove? Axis.
MS. DAMRON: Axis.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Man, good stuff.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well you found two barbecues on
Saturday.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: When was this one?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: When was that, Friday?
MS. DAMRON: Thursday.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What other feedbags did you
put on lately?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Should have seen him waddling
in H.E.B. yesterday.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pardon?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: At least I had clothes on.
B-2n-Oti
117
1
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: That's true. I did too.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You get food at H.E.B.?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just wander around. I
I don't --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: He can eat there; he picks up
the samples.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's go to Item 22. Consider,
discuss, and take appropriate action on the Kerr County
Management Discussion and Analysis for the 2004-2005 audit.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I forgot -- I have a --
can we defer on this? I want to read it more one time. I've
read through it, found a couple of mistakes, and I'd like to
read through it one more time.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do you want to pass that for this
~ meeting?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, not this meeting. We'll
do it after -- we'll be here after lunch, do it at 1:30. I
just want to read it one more time, make sure we get all the
typos out of it. It'll be done today, though, Tommy.
MR. TOMLINSON: Thanks.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move to Item 23. Select and
assign a County Commissioner to be the Commissioners Court
liaison with the County Human Resources Department.
Commissioner Nicholson?
8-28-06
118
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Later today, we're going to
be asked to staff the County's new Human Resources Department,
and I think that -- that person, whoever it is, is going to
need pretty good guidance for some period of time from
Commissioners Court, a go-to person, someone they can ask for
help or ask for advice. And, so, like we do with every other
department, I think we need to establish a liaison, and it
should be one of you Commissioners. Shouldn't be me. We need
the continuity of somebody starting out with a brand -- from
day one, and -- being available for some period of time. So,
I would recommend Commissioner Williams. He's intimately
involved in the process of selection -- selecting the
candidates for the department.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is that a motion?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's a motion.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
selection of Commissioner Williams to act as Commissioners
Court liaison with county Human Resources Department. Any
question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's either Commissioner
Williams or Commissioner Oehler.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's right.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, Oehler's going to
write the -- the summary for the budget next fiscal year.
8-28-06
119
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Keep it up, this is going to
become a full-time job.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It isn't already?
JUDGE TINLEY: Any -- any other questions or
comments? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your
right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(NO response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Let's move
to Item 25. Consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to
approve the bonds as required by Texas Tax Code, Section
6.28(a) and Texas Local Government Code 88.01 for the Tax
Assessor/Collector. The bonds are as, I think, indicated.
Two different bonds? Is that correct?
MS. RECTOR: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: One is to the state. I believe the
other's to Kerr County, isn't it?
MS. RECTOR: That's right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Those are $500 apiece?
JUDGE TINLEY: Premium, yeah.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Premium.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I make a motion we approve the
B-28-06

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
120
bonds as submitted.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of the bonds as submitted. Any question or discussion? All
in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. We'll defer
on Item 26, pursuant to the suggestion of the Secretary of
State's office, and that matter will be taken up on
September 1, which is Friday this week. Let's move to Item
27; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to approve
the appointment of deputies of the Tax Assessor/Collector's i
office.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Wouldn't you do that on
Friday as well?
JUDGE TINLEY: We -- we could follow up with that on
Friday also. May be more appropriate to do it then.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Probably move it to Friday.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, we'll defer on that until
Friday. Okay. What's the Court's pleasure? It's almost
noon. Do you want to go ahead and take care of the approval
agenda on payment of the bills and whatnot?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes. i
a-za os
121
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We'll move to Section 4 of the
agenda. First item is pay the bills.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move we pay the bills.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for payment
of the bills. Any question or discussion? All in favor of
the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Let's go to
budget amendments. Budget Amendment Number 1.
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 1 is for the County Clerk and
Elections Department. The request from the County Clerk is to
transfer $1,583 from Ballot Expense to Election Supplies.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. 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 2.
8-28-06
122
1
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: Number 2 is to -- actually to
increase the budget by the amount of a FEMA grant that we
received for each of the fire departments. The total is
$7,552.82, and that -- that's allocated to -- for $653.89 to
Center Point, $79.50 to Comfort, $765.19 to Mountain Home,
$3,060.75 to Ingram, $1,272 to Tierra Linda, and $1,431 to the
various other departments.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Various others? How do you
I do that?
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, they're out of the county.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What -- what is this for?
MR. TOMLINSON: It's for --
JUDGE TINLEY: Reimbursement for wildfire
assistance.
MR. TOMLINSON: For wildfires that -- whatever year
it was.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Sheppard Rees fire.
JUDGE TINLEY: No, no, no, no. This was just
recently on some of these wildfires during that drought
disaster period.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's right. You had one at
Ingram back behind the Hill Country Youth Ranch, and then one
out above Hunt.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, yeah.
8-28-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
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And then we had one actually
over here off Cypress Creek Road.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You had two out there.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Two separate ones.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Turtle Creek wasn't involved
in any of that, huh?
MR. TOMLINSON: Apparently not. They weren't named
in the -- in the grant application.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Second.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Hunt wasn't named in the
i grant?
(Mr. Tomlinson shook his head negatively.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: See, that's what I question.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Who filed the application?
JUDGE TINLEY: I put out an inquiry to all of the
fire departments, and FEMA had from the U.S. Forest Service
who had participated, and it was only a particular time frame
that these wildfire incidents were approved for. And we filed
it, and this -- this is what we got. That's all they --
that's all in the green books.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner Baldwin, I
guess we'll just have to have another barbecue.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I guess so.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: See if we can pick up a few
dollars.
8-28-Ob
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
124
COMMISSIONER LETZ: These funds go to volunteer fire
departments, passed through us, in additional funds?
JUDGE TINLEY: We were required to be the grant
applicant. They are subcontractors under that grant, and
these funds are channeled back to them. lt's based upon what
they expended in the way of supplies and equipment at these
fires.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess Comfort and Center Point
are much better at keeping -- of --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Holding down their costs.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- increasing -- keeping their
costs. Filing for money.
MR. TOMLINSON: The two others was Fredericksburg
Volunteer Fire Department and Harper Volunteer Fire
Department.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, there's a possibility
that Hunt and Upper Turtle -- or Turtle Creek just simply
I
didn't respond back to your inquiry?
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't think they were covered,
because I specified in my letter the time frames that they
were eligible to recover these things from. And I suppose
it's possible that they didn't respond administratively, but
we made a specific attempt to contact all of the departments.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I don't question that.
It's just -- I cannot imagine those two fires in Hunt, and
s-ze-oE
~~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
24
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
125
Hunt not being there.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just cannot imagine it.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: They were there.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Got water at their fire
station. Now, Turtle Creek, at either one of those fires or
all three, I'm not positive Turtle Creek ever was at any of
those fires.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, they were probably
taking care of the other part of the county.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right. The other ones were,
but Hunt was big in that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure.
JUDGE TINLEY: That was the major one,
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah, that was the main fire.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Maybe it's something that it was
in Hunt's primary area, whereas it was outside the primary
i area for the other fire departments.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But Ingram was there; Ingram's
~ the primary --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: These are not just one fire;
these are several different fires.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, any of them that fell within
the disaster wildfire declaration, counties within specific
8-^_8-OH
~ r ~_ ~ -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
126
time frames -- that occurred within specific time frames.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, I'm wondering if we
should defer spending these moneys until we determine whether
or not Hunt had an opportunity to participate.
~ JUDGE TINLEY: Any funds they would be due would be
in addition to these.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, to follow it up.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They'd have to submit
I their --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I see.
MR. TOMLINSON: I have a letter here from FEMA.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: From who?
MR. TOMLINSON: From FEMA.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What does it say?
MR. TOMLINSON: It just names those departments that
I have on my list. Hunt is not included.
I SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Does it give the time span?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Maybe Hunt --
(Low-voice discussion off the record.)
MR. TOMLINSON: It says December the 27th through
April the 30th.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That may have -- April may have
been before those Hunt fires, Buster.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, the Hunt fire and
Ingram fire was on the very same day. i
e-ze-ob

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
127
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But it could be a different
fire than even those three we're thinking about.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I'm just not positive.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And FEMA could have said,
"Please send Hunt's share to Ray Nagin in New Orleans.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right, to open his new office
in Houston.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further discussion on the motion?
All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right
hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(no response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Budget
Amendment Request 3.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. Three is for Rabies and
Animal Control. The request from the director is to transfer
$2,200 from Vehicle Gas and Oil; $300 to Uniforms, $1,000 to
Operating Expenses, and $900 to Utilities.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Any
question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify
8-^_fl-OH
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
128
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 the County Jail. We
need to transfer $18,481.34 from Nurses Salaries; $10,052.41
to Overtime, $255 to Employee Medical Exams, $244.39 to
Operating Supplies, $7,849.85 to Prisoner Medical, and $80.69
to Utilities.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Any
question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Question. Employee Medical
Exams. That indicates to me you're having a turnover.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We had -- unfortunately, there
was a law enforcement academy that graduated several months
ago that some of mine went through in San Antonio, and --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Good.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: -- I ended up with a turnover
on that. Then we had the changes in Jail Administrator and
that, and there were some there. They kind of didn't like the
s-za-o6

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
129
way we were going, and for whatever purpose. And I had a
~ couple left because of family health problems with relatives.
So, yes, there was --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, everything's hunky-dory
and rosy and lovely?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I wish. It's never that way,
but we are doing good.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other question? Comments? All
i 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: Budget Amendment Request 5.
MR, TOMLINSON: Okay. Five is for the Juvenile
Detention Facility. We need to move $135 from Professional
Services to Residential Medical.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
I, approval. Any 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. Budget
8-28-OE
130
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Amendment Request 6.
MR. TOMLINSON: Six is for Nondepartmental. We have
a need to move $165 from Pauper Burial into Autopsies and
Inquests.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Any question or comment?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You're going to have two more.
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: Motion does carry. Budget Amendment
7.
MR. TOMLINSON: Seven is for Ag Extension. Let's
see. Part of this is for -- for the month of September, and
what we were anticipating is a need for an additional $1,000
for utilities, so we're requesting a transfer of $7.34 in
Operating Equipment, $1,000 from Extension Agents Salaries,
with $7.39 going to Repairs and Maintenance and $1,000 into
Utilities.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
8 28-06
131
1
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: Motion made and seconded for
approval. 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: Budget Amendment Request Number 8.
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 8 is for the 216th Adult
Probation Department. This amendment is in anticipation of
additional funds needed for utilities, so we're asking for a
transfer of $1,500 from the DOEP Instructor's line item to add
to the Utilities and Maintenance.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Why do we have money left
over in DOEP Instructor?
MR. TOMLINSON: We -- we budget whatever is budgeted
from the State. We -- Kerr County has an agreement with the
C.S.C.D. to pay that instructor, and we budget it in that
department. The funds actually come from the State, and
they -- they reimburse us for -- for those expenditures. He
can't -- the C.S.C.D. Department cannot pay him directly for
that. It's a drug education program, and we're -- we're --
the County has an agreement to pay that instructor.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, if you do not have a
motion, I'd love to make one.
JUDGE TINLEY: Try it.
8-'L8-06
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
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move we pay that bill.
JUDGE TINLEY: Pay the bill? Or make the budget
amendment?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The budget amendment.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Forgive me.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. 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: Budget Amendment Request 9.
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 9 is for County Court at Law.
We need to have $1,965.83 in Master Court Appointment line
item, and $1,043.18 into Special Court Reporter's line item.
We have bills currently for that amount -- for those amounts.
We have really no place to take money from in that department,
so I'm recommending that we take this from surplus to pay
that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move we declare an emergency
and take the required funding from surplus, Fund Number 10,
for $1,965.83, Master Court Appointments, and $1,043.18 for
Special Court Reporter.
8-28-n6
133
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to declare
an emergency and approve the budget amendment. Any question
or discussion? All in favor, signify by raising your right
hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Budget
Amendment Request 10.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. Ten is for the 198th District
Court and the Commissioners Court. The request is to transfer
$1,678.30 from Special District Judge line item, and $5 from
Books, Publications, and Dues from Commissioners Court budget,
with $5 going to the Books, Publications, and Dues line item
in the 198th Court, $333.30 to Court-Appointed Services, and
$1,345 to Court-Appointed Attorneys.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What part of this is
Commissioners Court?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Five bucks.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: $5?
MR. TOMLINSON: $5.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Wonderful.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're propping the district
courts up now.
8-28 06
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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Any 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: Motion does carry. Budget amendment
request 11.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. Eleven is for 216th District
Court. We have current bills for Court-Appointed Services for
$1,040.90, and Court-Appointed Attorneys for $4,498.90. We
need to declare an emergency and take funds from surplus to
pay those bills.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to declare
an emergency and approval of Budget Amendment Request 11. 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: Motion does carry. Budget Amendment
8-28-06
135
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Request 12.
MR. TOMLINSON: Twelve is for the Courthouse and
Related Buildings and Jail Maintenance. We have repairs and
maintenance for the courthouse for 7,500 -- $756.98. We're
requesting a transfer of $1,522.21 from Maintenance and
Custodial in Jail Maintenance, with $765.23 to Utilities for
Courthouse and Related Buildings and $756.98 to Repairs and
Maintenance.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. 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: Motion does carry. Budget Amendment
Request 13.
MR. TOMLINSON: Thirteen is for the County
Treasurer. The request from the Treasurer is to transfer $300
from Employee Training and move that into Office Supplies.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Any
question or discussion? All in favor, signify by raising your
8-28-06
136
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
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 14.
MR. TOMLINSON: Fourteen actually is a request to
transfer funds from the General Fund into the Indigent Health
Care fund for the amount of $47,898.14.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's the amount of current
~ payables?
MR. TOMLINSON: Right. These -- these bills we'll
approve today, and we don't have the cash in the Indigent
Health Care fund to pay those, so we're asking for --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
MR. TOMLINSON: -- a transfer of funds.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. 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: Motion does carry. Now, the Budget
Amendment Request 15 is the same item?
B-28 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
MR. TOMLINSON: Fifteen is for Indigent Health Care.
We need to declare an emergency and pay the Eligible Expenses,
$45,872.65, and Third-Party Administration for $2,025.49.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tommy, remind me. What is
I Fund 50?
MR. TOMLINSON: That's Indigent Health Care.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Indigent Health Care.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is because of the previous
one, correct?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The reason we need to pay this
is administration of the other one. So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Does this move us up against
our 8 percent?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Getting close.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Should be.
MR. TOMLINSON: It's -- it's within about 50,000,
60,000.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Within 50 to 60?
MR. TOMLINSON: This is the end. This is the end of
the State's year, so --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I second that. It's the
end.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Any question or discussion? All in favor of the
8-'8-06
r. ~~_
138
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. We're
getting Budget Amendment Request Number 16.
MR. TOMLINSON: This is for the D.P.S. secretary.
(Discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Holy smokes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh my goodness. This is to
facilitate the training, right? The transfer?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah, that's correct. To have -- to
have those two people in the office at the same time. For, I
think, eight days, I believe it is.
JUDGE TINLEY: As well as the secretary's salary for
the remainder of this fiscal year.
MR. TOMLINSON: That's right, yes. So, we -- we
found -- we tried to find every place we can to handle this,
and we found it within the two departments, the D.P.S.
department and the D.P.S. License and Weights department. So,
we're asking to move $150 from Operating Equipment and
$1,977.15 from License and Weights Communications, and $555.80
from Operating Expense. All this comes out of the K.D.P.S.
License and Weights Department. And then $191.67 from Group
Insurance and $288 from Telephone out of the D.P.S.
8-28 U6
139
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
Department, $2,304.89 for the Salary line item and $176.33 to
FICA and $181.40 to Retirement.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Any 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. Do we have
any other budget amendments?
MR. TOMLINSON: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do we have any late bills?
MR. TOMLINSON: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: I have before me monthly reports for
Justice of the Peace, Precinct 4; County Clerk, General and
Trust Funds; and the District Clerk. Do I hear a motion that
these reports be approved as submitted?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of the designated reports as submitted. Any question or
comment? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your
right hand.
8 28-06
140
1
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 motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Why don't we
be in recess until about 1:30.
(Discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just a word about the
process at 2 o'clock, Judge. Commissioner Nicholson and I
talked about it. We have three interviews. We'll conduct
them in executive session. They're scheduled 15 to 20 minutes
apart -- apiece, and we thought we would recess, let our
applicants have a chance to move out, and we'll go back in
exec and talk.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm trying to figure out, what do we
have between 1:30 and 2:00? We got one executive session
item?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We have one.
JUDGE TINLEY: Which is very short. Why don't we
come back at 1:45?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The management discussion, I
just have to -- that won't take that long. We got to approve
that, but I got to check with Tommy --
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- about some of those numbers.
(Recess taken from 12:19 p.m. to 1:45 p.m.)
8-28-06
141
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's come back to order, if
we might. We were in recess for lunch. And I think we're
back to Item --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 22.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, Item 22. Consider, discuss, and
take appropriate action on the Kerr County Management
Discussion and Analysis for the '04-'O5 audit. Commissioner
Letz wanted to bring this back up this afternoon.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. The -- I met with the
Auditor during the break, and we've gone through and
reconciled a few other issues. Only problem now is that I
have the only computer file of this, so we have to go through
it, note the changes. Then we can adopt it. Then I'll have
to reprint it and send it back to the Auditor.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That will work.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the changes are not too
significant. On Page 2, the last bullet at the top of the
page, it says all current long-term -- you can insert the word
"debt" -- will be required.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The year is good, though?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. Page 3, about -- about
midway down, there's a paragraph titled "Proprietary Funds."
That entire paragraph can be deleted. We don't have those any
more. That was when we had the Juvenile Detention Facility in
e-ze o6
142
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
prior years. On Page 5, the first paragraph, the second
sentence needs to read, "The combined property tax rate for
general and non-major funds changed from 2004-2005" --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Take out "remained"?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: "Remained unchanged." It didn't
remain unchanged. It changed.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Take that out, okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: From 2004-2005 at 24 -- or,
excuse me, .3412 to -- add the word "to" -- .3587.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: .3587?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: To what?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 3587.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 3587, okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The rest of that states the Road
and Bridge tax did not change from '04-'O5. It was the same
as -- same as it currently is. Actually, the first sentence
also needs to change. Where we say "For the 2005...," it
should say, "From the 2005-06 fiscal year" instead of -- it
says 2005-'05 fiscal year -- "the County adopted a property
tax rate of .3896.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What page are you on there?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Same page.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Same page?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Up at the top.
8-2R-06
143
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I see it. 'OS -- should be
'06.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What's the new rate?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: .3896.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: .3896.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Got you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that's it. Those are the
only changes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are you moving for adoption
or approval or --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move for approval.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll second that emotion.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. 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 LETZ: I'm sure you'll read this in
great depth. It really is pretty interesting.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It is. It is interesting
I stuff.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good reading. I did read
it.
8-~8-06
144
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
JUDGE TINLEY: Unless I missed something, gentlemen,
the only item that we have remaining on the agenda -- the
regular agenda is Item 8, which the Treasurer placed on here.
That's an executive session item. Do we have anything else we
need to do right now in public or open session?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just to be sure, we have
a -- a budget discussion coming up later, correct?
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm, yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What -- isn't there another
-- isn't there another agenda -- executive session agenda item
as well?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, the -- the Human Resources --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: H.R.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- item is in executive session.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that all?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's all we got left, I think.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Ten-four.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What is the budget session?
JUDGE TINLEY: Budget session is at 3:00.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Somehow, I didn't pick up
my e-mail on that one, so I missed it.
JUDGE TINLEY: I posted it just so that -- you know,
I've got another one posted for Friday, if need be, so that
8-28-06
145
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
any items that we can continue to discuss.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: At 3 o'clock, is it just
open to whatever we want to talk about?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, it's going to be wide-open.
Okay. Nothing else on the -- okay. At this time, it's 10
minutes till 2:00. We will go out of open or public session,
and we will go into to closed or executive session.
(The open session was closed at 1:50 p.m., and an
executive session was held, the transcript of which
is contained in a separate document.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, we're back in open or public
session. It's 4 minutes until 2:00. Does any member of the
Court have anything to offer in the way of action based on
matters discussed in closed or executive session?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I make a motion that we uphold
the original determination made by Mutual of Omaha regarding
the appeal.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
indicated. Any question or discussion? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Anyone else
A-28-06
146
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
have anything to offer before we go into executive session
with regard to the 2 o'clock item on personnel, interviewing
candidates for Human Resources Director and Administrative
Assistant? If not, we will go out of open or public session
at 3 minutes until 2:00.
(The open session was closed at 1:57 p.m., and an
Executive Session was held, the transcript of which
is contained in a separate document.)
(Judge Tinley was not present when court resumed.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. We're going to
reopen our Commissioners Court meeting, and we're going to
adjourn the Commissioners Court meeting if there's no other
action.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Very good.
(Commissioners Court adjourned at 3:50 p.m.)
8-^_R 06
14i
1
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 1st day of
September, 2006.
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
BY: ___ _ ___ ___ _
Kathy anik,,Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
B 28-06
ORDER NO.29863
ORDER GENERAL ELECTION
Came to be heard this the 28th day of August, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Move to order the General Election.
ORDER NO. 29864
TCDRS 2007 PLAN PROVISION CHANGES
Came to be heard this the 28th day of August, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Nicholson. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the Retirement Plan changes to allow a Partial Lump Sum
Distribution, 50% CPI based COLA for retirees, and approve the Buy-Back
Option.
ORDER NO.29865
CLOSE ORCA CONTRACT #781257
Came to be heard this the 28th day of August, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioners Baldwin. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Move that the Court not ask for an extension on Contract #781527, that we
close the Contract, and authorize County Judge to sign same.
ORDER NO. 29866
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT REGARDING CHILD SUPPORT
Came to be heard this the 28th day of August, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-1 to:
Approve the Cooperative Agreement regarding child support cases between
the Office of the Attorney General of Texas and Kerr County, and authorize
County Judge to sign same.
ORDER NO. 29867
RENTAL RATES FOR THE UNION CHURCH
Came to be heard this the 28th day of August, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the new rental schedule for the Union Church as discussed:
$100.00 4 hour rental
$150.00 9 hour rental
$250.00 12 hour rental
With rentals starting no earlier than 8:00 a.m., and ending no later
than 10:00 p.m.
ORDER NO. 29868
KERR COUNTY JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITY POLICY AND
PROCEDURES MANUAL FOR 2006-07
Came to be heard this the 28th day of August, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner WilliamsBaldwin. The
Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the Kerr County Juvenile Detention Facility Policy and Procedures
Manual for 2006-07, as signed off on.
ORDER NO. 29869
PROCEDURE FOR SOLICITING AND SCREENING APPLICANTS FOR
MAINTENANCE DEPT. MANAGER
Came to be heard this the 28th day of August, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the process to advertise locally, post it internally, and set the
deadline for receiving applications for September 15, 2006, Commissioners
Williams and Nicholson to screen all applicants and recommend 3 to the
.,._ Commissioners' Court, with all applicants being subject to having a criminal
background check completed.
ORDER NO.29870
APPROVE CONTRACT WITH TETRATECH ENGINEERING FOR
CENTER POINT WASTEWATER PROJECT
Came to be heard this the 28th day of August, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve Contract with Tetra Tech for professional services for Center Point
Wastewater Project, as proffered, and authorize County Judge to sign same.
ORDER NO. 29871
KERR COUNTY 2007 TAX RATE
Came to be heard this the 28th day of August, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court
unanimously approved by Record vote of 5-0-0 to:
Accept the proposed Tax Rate for 2006-07 at a total of .3896, divided as
.0309 for Road & Bridge and .3578 for Maintenance and Operations, and set
2 public hearings, the first being September 8, 2006 at 10:00 a.m. and the
second being September 15, 2006 at 10:00 a.m., in the Commissioners'
Courtroom; approved by a Record Vote as follows:
Commissioners Baldwin Aye
Commissioner Williams Aye
Commissioner Letz Aye
Commissioner Nicholson Aye
Judge Tinley Aye
ORDER NO.29872
KERR COUNTY 2007 TAX RATE
Came to be heard this the 28th day of August, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Rescind Court Order No. 29871 regarding adoption of the proposed Tax
Rate for 2006-07.
~~. ORDER NO. 29873
FEE SCHEDULE FOR EMS
Came to be heard this the 28th day of August, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Nicholson. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Move to adopt aUser-Pay strategy for 2006-07, that we adopt fees that are
equal to the Kendall County structure for services that initiate outside of
Kerrville City limits (in the County); additionally, recommend to Kerrville
that they also adopt these rates, i.e. a basic life support fee would be revised
~. from $331.22 to $787.00; to become a suggested fee schedule that this Court
is recommending the City put in place for EMS services for the 2006-07
budget year; add the policy statement, as revised, as the basis for the Court's
action, and the County Judge will relay this Court Order with the Fee
Schedule to the City.
..~- ORDER NO. 29874
KERR COUNTY 2007 TAX RATE
Came to be heard this the 28th day of August, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court
unanimously approved by Record vote of 5-0-0 to:
Set the proposed Tax Rate for a total tax rate of .3896 broken up as follows:
Maintenance & Operations .3587 and proposed Road & Bridge .0309, and
set Public Hearings at 10:00 a.m. in the Commissioners' Courtroom for
September 8, 2006 and September 15, 2006, approved by a Record Vote 5-
,,... 0-0 as follows:
Commissioner Baldwin Aye
Commissioner Williams Aye
Commissioner Letz Aye
Commissioner Nicholson Aye
Judge Tinley Aye
ORDER NO. 29875
CONFIRM MEMBERS/COMPOSITION OF CITY OF
KERRVILLE/KERR COUNTY JOINT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
STRATEGY COMMITTEE
Came to be heard this the 28th day of August, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Nicholson. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Appoint Commissioner Williams and Judge Tinley as the Kerr County
representatives, and confirm the composition of the City of Kerrville/Kerr
County Joint Economic Development Strategy Committee to also include
Councilman Chuck Coleman and Todd Bock as the City of Kerrville
representatives; and that these four members collectively approve the other
members of the committee.
ORDER NO. 29876
HIRING OF SECRETARY/ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT AT
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
Came to be heard this the 28th day of August, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Accept the recommendation of the Department of Public Safety, and
authorize the hiring of Barbara Charles at a Step 17/1, for the Secretary/
,_ Administrative Assistant position to begin September 7, 2006.
ORDER NO. 29877
COMMISSIONERS' COURT LIAISON WITH COUNTY HUMAN
RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
Came to be heard this the 28th day of August, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Nicholson, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Select Commissioner Williams to act as the Commissioners' Court Liaison
with the County Human Resources Department.
ORDER NO.29878
APPROVE BONDS AS REQUIRED BY TEX. TAX CODE 6.28(a) AND
TLGC 88.01 FOR TAX ASSESSOR-COLLECTOR
Came to be heard this the 28th day of August, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Nicholson. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the Bonds as submitted.
ORDER NO. 29879
CLAIMS AND ACCOUNTS
Came to be heard this the 28th day of August, 2006, came to be considered
by the Court various Commissioners Precincts, which said Claims and
Accounts are:
Accounts Expense
10-General	$	107,632.41
15-Road & Bridge	$	73,868.81
18-County Law Library	$	1,161.05
50-Indigent Health Care	$	48,678 18
71-Schreiner Road Trust	$	7,957.00
76-Juv Detention Facility	$	1,026.96
TOTAL
$ 240,324.41
Upon motion made by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner
Nicholson, the Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to pay the
claims and accounts.
ORDER NO. 29880
BUDGET AMENDMENT # 1
COUNTY CLERK
ELECTIONS
Came to be heard this the 28th day of August, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioners Nicholson, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense
codes:
Expense Code Description
10-402-330 Election Supplies
10-402-210 Ballot Expense
Amendment
lncreaselQDecrease
+ $1,583.00
- ($1,583.00)
ORDER NO.29881
BUDGET AMENDMENT #2
FIRE PROTECTION
Came to be heard this the 28th day of August, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioners Baldwin, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense
codes:
Expense Code Description
Amendment
Increase/QDecrease
14-661-603	Center Point VFD	+	$653.89
14-661-605	Comfort VFD	+	$79.50
14-661-606	Mt. Home VFD	+	$765.19
14-661-608	Ingram VFD	+	$3,060.75
14-661-609	Tierra Linda VFD	+	$1,272.00
14-661-610	Other VFD's	+	$1,431 00
14-333-100	FEMA Grant Funds	+	$7,552.82'
*-Establish new Revenue line item to recognize funds received from State
Comptroller.
ORDER NO. 29882
BUDGET AMENDMENT #3
RABIES & ANIMAL CONTROL
Came to be heard this the 28th day of August, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioners Nicholson, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense
codes:
Amendment
Expense Code Description Increase/QDecrease
10-642-316	Uniforms, Boots +	$300.00*
10-642-330	Operating Expense +	$1,000.00*
10-642-440	Utilities +	$900.00*
10-642-331	Vehicle Gas, Oil & Maint. -	($2,200.00)
*-Anticipated funding needed to carry through until 9/30/06.
ORDER NO.29883
BUDGET AMENDMENT #4
COUNTY JAIL
Came to be heard this the 28th day of August, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioners WilliamslLetz, the
Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following
expense codes:
Amendment
Expense Code Description Increase/QDecrease
10-512-112	Overtime +	$10,052.41
10-512-220	Employee Medical Exams +	$255 00
10-512-331	Operating Supplies +	$244 39
10-513-333	Prisoner Medical +	$7,848.85
10-512-440	Utilities +	$80 69
10-512-106	Nurses -	($18,481.34)
ORDER NO.29884
BUDGET AMENDMENT #5
JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITY
Came to be heard this the 28th day of August, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Nicholson, seconded by Commissioners Baldwin, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense
codes:
Expense Code Description
76-572-333 Resident Medical
76-572-486 Professional Services
Amendment
Increase/Q Decrease
+ $135.00
- ($135.00)
ORDER NO. 29885
BUDGET AMENDMENT #6
NON-DEPARTMENTAL
Came to be heard this the 28th day of August, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Nicholson, seconded by Commissioners Williams, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense
codes:
Expense Code Description
10-409-401 Autopsy & Inquest
10-409-404 Pauper Burial
Amendment
Increase/QDecrease
+ $16500
- ($165 00)
ORDER NO.29886
BUDGET AMENDMENT #7
AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICE
Came to be heard this the 28th day of August, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioners Nicholson, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense
codes:
Expense Code Description
10-665-440	Utilities
10-665-450	Repairs & Maintenance
10-665-102	Extension Agents Salaries
10-665-569	Operating Equipment
Amendment
Increase/()Decrease
+ $7.34
- ($1,000.00)
- ($7 34)
*NOTE: Anticipated funding needed to carry through 9/30/06.
ORDER NO.29887
BUDGET AMENDMENT #8
216TH ADULT PROBATION
Came to be heard this the 28th day of August, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioners Williams, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense
codes:
Expense Code Description
10-571-440 Utilities & Maintenance
10-571-103 DOEP Instructor
Amendment
Increase/()Decrease
- ($1,500.00)
*-NOTE: Anticipated funding needed to carry through 9/30/06.
ORDER NO. 29888
BUDGET AMENDMENT #9
COUNTY COURT @ LAW
Came to be heard this the 28th day of August, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by C
Nicholson, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense
codes:
Expense Code Description
10-427-403 Master Court Appointments +
10-427-494 Special Court Reporter +
Amendment
Increase/()Decrease
$1, 965.83
$1,043.18
NOTE: Declare an emergency and take funds from # 10 Surplus Funds.
ORDER NO. 29889
BUDGET AMENDMENT # 10
198TH DISTRICT COURT
COMMISSIONERS' COURT
Came to be heard this the 28th day of August, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioners Nicholson, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense
codes:
Expense Code Description
10-436-315	Books, Publications, Dues
10-436-401	Court Appointed Services
10-436-402	Court Appointed Attorney
10-401-315	Books, Publications, Dues
10-436-415	Special District Judge
Amendment
Increase/()Decrease
+ $5.00
+ $333.30
+ $1,345.00
- ($5.00)
- ($1,678.30)
ORDER NO.29890
BUDGET AMENDMENT # 11
216TH DISTRICT COURT
Came to be heard this the 28th day of August, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioners Letz, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense
codes:
Expense Code Description
10-435-401 Court Appointed Services
10-435-402 Court Appointed Attorney
Amendment
Increase/()Decrease
+ $1,040.90
+ $4,498.90
NOTE: Declare emergency and take funds from # 10 Surplus Funds.
ORDER NO. 29891
BUDGET AMENDMENT #12
COURTHOUSE & RELATED BUILDINGS
JAIL MAINTENANCE
Came to be heard this the 28th day of August, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioners Nicholson, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense
codes:
Expense Code Description
10-510-440 Utilities
10-510-450 Repairs & Maintenance
10-511-350 Maintenance & Custodial
Amendment
Increase/()Decrease
+ $765.23
+ $756.98
- ($1,522.21)
ORDER NO. 29892
BUDGET AMENDMENT # 13
COUNTY TREASURER
Came to be heard this the 28th day of August, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Nicholson, seconded by Commissioners Baldwin, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense
codes:
Expense Code Description
10-497-310 Office Supplies
10-497-216 Employee Training
Amendment
Increase/()Decrease
+ $300.00
- ($300.00)
ORDER NO. 29893
BUDGET AMENDMENT # 14
GENERAL FUND
INDIGENT HEALTH CARE
Came to be heard this the 28th day of August, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioners Letz, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense
codes:
"" Expense Code Description
Amendment
Increase/QDecrease
10-700-015 Transfer Out + $47,898.14
50-390-015 Transfer In + $47,898.14'
*-To cover IHC bills being paid on 8/28/06.
ORDER NO. 29894
BUDGET AMENDMENT #15
INDIGENT HEALTH CARE
Came to be heard this the 28th day of August, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioners Williams, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense
codes:
Expense Code Description
50-641-200 Eligible Expenses
50-641-486 Third Party Administration
Amendment
Increase/QDecrease

*-Declare emergency and take funds from Fund #50 Surplus Funds.
ORDER NO. 29895
BUDGET AMENDMENT
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
DPS-LICENSE & WEIGHTS
Came to be heard this the 28th day of August, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioners Nicholson, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense
codes:
Amendment
~.. Expense Code Description Increase/()Decrease
10-580-105	Secretary Salary +	$2,304.89*
10-580-201	FICA Expense +	$176.33*
10-580-203	Retirement +	$18140*
10-580-420	Telephone -	($288.00)
10-580-202	Group Insurance -	($191.67)
10-581-330	Operating Expense -	($555.80)
10-581-419	Communications LW -	($1,477.15)
10-581-569	Operating Equipment -	($150.000
*-Payroll expense to cover replacement secretary from 9/7-30/06 & 1 week
unused paid vacation for Tommie Damron (see note). (Because new
secretary will not be able to come in until 9/7 Mrs. Damron will stay one
week extra for training.)
ORDER NO. 29896
MONTHLY REPORTS
Came to be heard this the 28th day of August, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 the following monthly reports:
JP #4
County Clerk -General & Trust Fund
District Clerk
ORDER NO. 29897
"KERB COUNTY MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS"
FOR 2004-2005 AUDIT
Came to be heard this the 28th day of August, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve Kerr County Management's Discussion and Analysis for 2004-OS
Audit, as corrected.
ORDER NO. 29898
ASO APPEAL REVIEW REQUEST
Came to be heard this the 28th day of August, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Nicholson. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Uphold the original determination made by Mutual of Omaha regarding the
appeal.