1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2q
25
KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT
Regular Session
Monday, September 11, 2006
9:00 a.m.
Commissioners' Courtroom
Kerr County Courthouse
Kerrville, Texas
PRESENT: PAT TINLEY, Kerr County Judge
H A."BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1
WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2
JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3
DAVE NICHOLSON, Commissioner Pct. 4
U
~9
~,
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
"' 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I N D E X
September 11, 2006
--- Visitors' Input
--- Commissioners' Comments
1.1 Presentation of plaque honoring all Kerr County
elected officials in memory of the late Roger Stone
1.2 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for
setting purchase price for copy of 2006-07 budget
1.3 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to con-
tract with Texas State Arts and Crafts Educational
Foundation to manage bookings/rentals of Kerr County
HCYEC and Union Church
1.4 Consider/discuss, reappoint Mr. Ron Vick to a
two-year term to 9-1-1 Board of Managers
1.5 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
payment of vacation balance for Diane Bolin
1.7 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to set
proposed salary increases, expenses and allowances
for elected officials of Kerr County
1.6 Update on ongoing problems with IRS
1.8 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
satisfy IRS Notice of Levy served on depository
bank of Kerr County funds
1.9 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
assert claim on Treasurer's official bond for
losses incurred/to be incurred resulting from
County Treasurer's failure to timely file and/or
pay sums due to IRS and/or TCDRS as required
1.10 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
provide temporary and permanent relocation for
Kerr County Collections Department
1.11 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
approve revision of plat for Lots 7A & 8,
Treausre Hills Ranch, Precinct 1
1.12 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to set
public hearing for revision of plat for Lots 13-A
& 13-B of Riverside Park, Precinct 4
PAGE
4
10
15
19
19
39
40
47
50
68
78
93
105
106
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I N D E X
September 11, 2006
1.13 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
amend Kerr County Subdivision Regulations to
include additional exemption to platting process
1.14 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
abandon, vacate & discontinue plat of Live
Springs Ranch, Precinct 4
1.15 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for
the revision of plat for Lots 79, 80, 81, 82,
& 83 of The Woods, Section Two, Precinct 2
1.16 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for
concept plan to revise Lot 5 of Creekwood IV,
and set public hearing for same
1.17 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
rescind Court Order #29827 to abandon, vacate
& discontinue Privilege Creek, Precinct 3
1.18 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
amend start date for HR Director Eva Hyde from
October 2, 2006 to October 1, 2006
1.19 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on audit
engagement for Kerr County for FY ending 9/30/06
1.20 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to amend
Court Order #29831 to allow The Blue Knights to use
Flat Rock Lake Park October 27-29, 2006
1.21 Reports from the following Departments:
Information Technology
Road and Bridge
Facilities and Maintenance
Collections
4.1 Pay Bills
4.2 Budget Amendments
4.3 Late Bills
4.4 Approve and Accept Monthly Reports
5.1 Reports from Commissioners/Liaison Committee
Assignments
--- Adjourned
PAGE
109
112
123
125
127
128
129
135
136
150
153
159
190
195
219
218
229
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
On Monday, September 11, 2006, at 9:00 a.m., a regular
meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in the
Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, Kerrville,
Texas, and the following proceedings were had in open court:
P R O C E E D I N G S
JUDGE TINLEY: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
Let me call to order this regular meeting of the Kerr County
Commissioners Court scheduled and posted for this time and
date, Monday, September the 11th, 2006, at 9 a.m. It is that
time now. Commissioner Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. Would y'all all
please stand, and in memory of 9/11, I want to take a moment
of silence, and you pray in your own heart the way you feel
led to do, and just lift up those families that are left from
that horrible tragedy.
(Moment of silence, followed by a prayer and the
pledge of allegiance.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: At this time, if there's any member
of the public that wishes to be heard on any matter that is
not listed as an agenda item, feel free to come forward at
this time. If you wish to be heard on an agenda item, we
would ask that you fill out a participation form. They can be
found at the rear of the room. It's not absolutely essential
that you do so, but it helps me not to overlook you when we
y-ii-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
24
25
get to that agenda item. If -- if you haven't filled out a
participation form and wish to be heard on an item, when we
get to that particular item, I'm not going to deny you the
privilege to be heard. If you'll just get my attention some
way, shape, form, or fashion, I'll give you that opportunity,
because this is your business we're conducting. Sut right
now, if there's any member of the public that wishes to be
heard, please come forward give us your name and address, and
tell us what's on your mind as to matters not on the agenda.
Yes, sir?
MR. CALHOUN: Thank you, sir. My name is Kent
Calhoun. I'm a Vietnam-era veteran, have four children in
school in Kerr County, and a property owner and a businessman.
I'd like to discuss what I think could possibly be a win-win
situation concerning the L.C.R.A. placement of power towers.
First of all, I'm not a specialist, but I think I do have a
lot of common sense, and I think that underground is actually
cheaper than above ground, and we've been told just the
opposite. The material costs for underground is cheaper. If
you look at a ditch with an empty space in it, it's got to
cost less than a tower 80 to 120 feet high in the air
comprised of steel and concrete. Steel and concrete prices
have hit their all-time highest prices of this year in 2006,
and an empty ditch has got to cost less.
Second of all, labor costs. It costs less to dig a
9-ii-oF
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
ditch than it does to construct a tower 80 to 120 feet tall in
the air. You need less skilled labor. Also, the power cables
that are going to go above ground or underground, the earth
insulates that, so you would actually need less cable
underground as well. Number three, legal fees. Your local
defend their property and get these things pushed as far away
as they can. Also, L.C.R A. has legal fees. When you put
these things underground, there's no legal fees; they're all
eliminated. Millions of dollars are saved by taxpayers and by
L.C.R.A. Number four, L.C.R.A, has to purchase less ground.
Instead of 80 to 120 feet above ground, if they put this
underground, they can get by with about maybe 40 feet or
60 feet, so they're going to save money for the land that they
would have to spend to put these things above ground.
Number five, the county. All -- all the taxpayers
and this constituency would save the current tax base. Over
in Horizon, property values have lost up to 50 percent, and
they still can't sell the lots. Construction has stopped.
And each house that stops construction costs this court money
in tax revenue. It costs our county money. It costs less
money for teachers, policemen, firemen. So, by having those
utilities above ground, it's a blight, and the construction is
going to stop; it's going to cost taxes. Number six,
underground utilities insure the county and -- and city of
a-i2-oh
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
future higher taxes. If you're a developer and you're
thinking about building a subdivision, you're not going to
want those towers in a place where people can see them, and
you're not going to build a new house right next to them.
Number seven, underground protects the natural
beauty of the hill country, and particularly the Thompson
Drive Bridge thoroughfare. Those towers -- and I don't know
if you've driven on the new Thompson Drive Bridge
thoroughfare, but it's fantastic; it really looks like
Kerrville could become a model city of the future. I think
whoever was responsible for that -- if y'all were, you did a
great job. I want to thank you, 'cause it looks beautiful.
I'd like to see it look that way 20 years from now, and nct
have towers up there. Number eight, this controversy about
EMS, which I don't know anything about, is completely
eliminated underground. All I know is 138 kilovolts of power
running 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, might have some bad
effect upon children, and I've got four children that would be
pretty -- pretty much could be affected by this.
And to summarize, the last thing -- I'm a little bit
nervous; you have to excuse me. I think government has one
legitimate function, and that is to protect against
destruction of personal rights, liberties, and property. It's
guaranteed in the United States Constitution. I think most of
our local leaders, including yourselves, are well-intentioned.
a-ii-oH
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
You're honest, and you're intelligent citizens. What I have
presented here today I think is a win-win-win situation. It
wins for the county because it maintains taxes and insures
future taxes are going to be at a higher level. It wins for
the citizens; the citizens don't have to spend millions of
dollars to go -- to defend themselves in court to try to get
these towers moved away. And it wins for L.C.R.A; They have
to spend less money; they have to buy less property. They --
and they're not going to have any damages. All the damage of
the blight of these things is totally eliminated.
And, lastly, I'd like to say that failing to plan
where L.C.R.A. towers are going to be placed today, either
above ground or underground, or what route they choose,
L.C.R.A. will determine how this city and county looks
tomorrow. We live here. Why should outsiders determine
Kerrville's future city limits, the future economic
development of this county, the present and future tax
destiny? Do we have the responsible leaders to tell L.C.R.A.
what to do, or are we going to let them tell us what to do?
They're outsiders. We live here. I've said my piece. Thank
you very much.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Is there any other
member of the public that wishes to be heard with respect to
any matter that is not a listed agenda item? Anyone else?
y-ii-oe
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
Yes, sir. Please come forward, give your name and address,
and tell us what's on your mind.
MR. BITNER: My name is Jimmy Bitner. I've been a
property owner in Kerr -- taxpayer in Kerr County for 25
years. This is my first trip, but I've got an item that's
been bothering me for many years, and I want to bring it to
the attention of some others that I haven't been able to get
i elected officials interested or that would address it. This
is my background and my documentation to it. This great
nation was founded on a rule of law in that all men are held
equally accountable. All elected officials take an oath to
uphold the law. And you have ended your pledge of allegiance
with "liberty and justice for all." I expect accountability,
fairness, honesty, and integrity from elected officials.
There is no excuse for someone in a position of power taking
advantage of a person in an inferior position.
Please note the indictment and sentencing of Teddy
Morris for misapplication of fiduciary funds. My fiduciary
funds were misapplied, Cause Number 91-513-C attached. Items
totaling $71,575 awarded to me have never been received, nor
have they been accounted for. In addition, without a hearing,
$6,235.67 was awarded to Chris Wallendorf which he wasn't
entitled to, nor, to my knowledge, bill was ever presented to
the court. Total misapplication of funds, $77,810.67. This
is a blatant violation of the 14th amendment. Regarding the
9-11-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
10
misapplication of fiduciary funds, you will see letters to
District Attorney Bruce Curry, Judge Steve Ables, Spencer
Brown, Court of Criminal Appeals, Sandra Mara, and others,
which were ignored. I've included some newspaper articles.
Please note
the voluntary filing of bankruptcy 92-50685-C, Chapter 7, a
Mr. Emil Karl Prohl, now District Judge. Also note the
multiple arrests for affray, public intoxication, disorderly
I conduct of Spencer Brown, now County Court at Law Judge. Past
behavior is the best indicator of future behavior. Would you
be comfortable in trusting your life to one of these judges?
I'm appalled and disgusted at the arrogance and the disrespect
that I've received from my elected officials. There is no
terrorist as detrimental to our government, our freedom, as
elected officials violating their oath of office, abusing
their power, refusing to be accountable to citizens of Kerr
County or responsible for the actions of the elected
officials. It's time for some accountability. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Bitner. Is there any
matter that is not a listed agenda item? Not a listed agenda
item? I see no one else seeking recognition or moving
forward, so we'll move on with our agenda. Commissioner
Baldwin, what do you have for us this morning?
9-11-n6
11
1
L
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, Judge. I'm
definitely not going to talk about football. (Laughter.) Not
one of my teams came anywhere near, so we're going to just
skip over that. But I understand volleyba ll's a lot of fun.
I wanted to address Mr. Calhoun a little bit. I received his
e-mail, and I think you all have received the e-mail and
looked at it very, very carefully, and I think it's some great
questions that you have -- that you have asked L.C.R.A. I'm
in total agreement with you that they at least need to look
into burying those lines and let us know the cost of them.
The only other comment I want to make is, we have talked about
many times in this court that this body has no authority in --
in those decisions. However, KPUB is a partner in the -- in
the program. City of Kerrville-owned KPUB is a partner in
that. And on the L.C.R.A. side of this is a local resident
that represents L.C.R.A., as well as a board member that lives
in this community.
I mean, I'm happy to receive the phone calls and
e-mails, because I care. Been here a long time and I care
more than you do. However, I think they're misdirected. I
think you need to -- no, I think you need to contact the
L.C.R.A. and the City of Kerrville with those issues. I feel
like you probably have, if that's what you was going to say.
But, then again, this Court has no authority. I have -- I
have brought the issue before the Court twice, and they have
9 ii-oe
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
chosen not to get involved. And I understand that. However,
I'm going on record as agreeing with you that the lines need
to be buried, and I really don't care what the cost is.
Looking -- crossing that new bridge and cutting the ribbon the
other day, and looking over at the hillside over there and
thinking that those towers would be on that thing, that was
just an ugly, ugly thought. So, that's all I want to say
about that. Mr. Bitner, I wanted to address him. I have no
idea what you're talking about. If there's something that
your comments are -- that this Court can do, I think you need
to meet with the County Judge and see what we need to do, We
want to take care of that, but I personally don't see it. But
it sure could be. That's all.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Commissioner
Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I wanted to thank
Commissioner Baldwin for his thoughtful opening this morning
in terms of 9111 and what it is we should be called upon to
remember, particularly those who lost their lives in the
defense of freedom and lost their lives as a result of the
terrorist acts on America. I think it`s important, too, for
us to reflect quietly and continuously on the changes that
have taken place in our lives as citizens of this great nation
as a result of the terrorist acts. And while we're doing
that, then, too, breathe a little prayer for all of our armed
9-11-Ob
13
1
L
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
service men and women who fight for the cause of freedom all
over this world. Thank you, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree with everything I've
heard so far; they've done such a great job. But on the
L.C.R.A. issue, I agree with what Commissioner Baldwin said.
I think that burying them seems like a win-win, and I agree
with you on that. And, you know, from that standpoint, that's
the only proposal I've heard presented to us that I would be
willing to say I think does. I think any other option we've
been presented with in picking overhead lines, one versus the
other, we're just pitting citizen against citizen, and I don't
think the Court should do that. But the underground seems
like at least it should be looked into. And if the cost is
accurate that you're -- that you have with you, I'd say it
does make common sense, so I think that is something that I
agree with.
Other than that, I guess on a water note, for better
or worse, I was reappointed last week as chair of Region J
for, I guess, forever. But, anyway, we're working on that,
working on water issues. A lot of progress has been made.
When I look back at where our knowledge of water was almost 10
years ago, when I was first named as chair, versus where we
are now, we've come a long, long way. A lot of funds from the
Water Development Board, tax dollars have gone into it,
a-li-oe
14
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
helping Kerr County and other counties in Region J. And I
also really want to note, Headwaters -- Headwaters has gone
further down the road, probably, almost than any other water
district, certainly in central Texas, on trying to truly
understand the aquifer where we get our water. I don't
totally agree with everything they do, but they are -- they're
working towards better science, and that's something that they
should really be complimented for. I think they've really
done a good job there. I think we know a lot more than we
used to. That's it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Nicholson?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'll speak a second about
L.C.R.A. also, and I agree with what I've heard here and --
and the good thinking that we heard earlier. I'd like to see
some cost data on -- on underground versus overhead, and that
would be very helpful. I'd sort of taken it for granted that
underground is more expensive, but I'd like to know the real
numbers on that. Also, I'm a little defensive about the
accusations that -- that Commissioners Court won't take a
stand on the issue. I think it is probably correct that we
might have a little influence in Austin; certainly no
authority, but we might have some influence. They might like
to know what we think about it. But we have taken a stand.
We were asked to oppose the project, and we declined to do
that. And then we were asked to take a stand on the A to C
9-11-U6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
15
route, and we declined to take that. That's two stands right
there. We've also been asked to -- to select another line
route other than A-C, and we have not weighed in on that
either, so that's three times I can think of that we've taken
a stand on the issue. And when I know enough about it, the
whole project, and have more data, I'd probably be willing to
take a stand in the future. That's all.
DODGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. I'd ask that we all
try and keep in our thoughts as we go about this day the
tragic events of five years ago, but on an ongoing basis, in
particular, keeping your thoughts and prayers on our service
members who are serving us all over the world today, putting
themselves in harm's way. Irrespective of the merit or lack
of merit of their mission as may be thought by others, they're
committed to their mission, as are their commanders. And also
think of their families that are without them as they serve to
protect the rest of us. Let's get on about our business. The
first item is a presentation of a plaque honoring all Kerr
County elected officials in memory of the late Roger Stone,
former Precinct 1 Commissioner. We are privileged to have
with us today Royce Stone, the widow of Roger Stone, who
served for many, many years as commissioner on this Court from
Precinct 1.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge?
DODGE TINLEY: And --
9-ii-o~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
16
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Precinct 4.
JUDGE TINLEY: Excuse me, Precinct 4.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's written 1, but he was in
Precinct 4.
JUDGE TINLEY: How in the world did I do that?
Grievous error.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Surely you didn't type this
~ out.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Typographical error, Judge.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Surely you didn't.
MS. STONE: You know this, Commissioner of Precinct
1, don't you?
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Baldwin was formerly in
Precinct 4, and he used to talk about Commissioner Stone being
his mentor. And if you'll note, we have a -- the old light
fixture hanging up here that was salvaged from the old
courtroom, and this presentation that Ms. Stone has to make
today references that old light fixture as symbolic of prior
courts and prior officials. So, I'll now turn it over to
Ms. Royce Stone.
MS. STONE: Honorable gentlemen of the Court, I'm
here to officially present to you the plaque, and all of us
have had a chance to work on the format and the script of
this. And I am bringing it to you to be hung here in the
courtroom to substantiate the history and the background of
9-11-06
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
that old light fixture that all of you people see hanging at
the front. It was one of the original light fixtures in this
courthouse when it was built in 1926. I want to thank you
gentlemen for permitting me to return that light fixture to
the courthouse, back home where it belonged, and also to hang
it here in the area where my husband, Roger Stone, spent 20
years as a county commissioner representing Precinct 4. And
I'm especially grateful to you that you accepted my suggestion
that we hang the light and that we have wording in the plaque
that brings recognition and appreciation to every elected
county official in Kerr County, and to all the people who have
been served by those commissioners and other officials since
the county was organized in 1856. And so, it's with great
pleasure, a lot of pride, and a lot of privilege that I
present this plaque to you today.
(The plaque was hung on the courtroom wall.)
JUDGE TINLEY: You like that?
MS. STONE: I like that.
(Applause.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you.
MS. STONE: I thought --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, read the plaque.
MS. STONE: I thought they did well in choosing that
spot to hang it. It's high enough that people can read it
without bending over. It's near enough to the light that
y-11-06
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
18
you're not going to doubt what it is representing. It's been
my pleasure to be with you this morning. Been my pleasure to
be with y'all.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Ms. Stone. Let me read
the inscription on the plaque. It's headed The County Court
of Kerr County, Texas, and the text reads, The old hanging
light fixture was one of the original lights in the Kerr
County Courthouse when built in 1926. The original lights
were removed and replaced in 1975, and --
MS. STONE: '78.
JUDGE TINLEY: '78, excuse me. And Kerr County
Commissioner Roger Stone obtained this light at that time.
Appropriately, during the Kerr County Sesquicentennial in
2006, this old light fixture was returned to the courthouse in
Stone's honor and memory by his wife, Royce Stone. This light
hangs in the Kerr County Commissioners Courtroom where Roger
Stone served for 20 years, January the 1st, 'S9 through
December 31, '78, as Commissioner from Precinct 4. This light
fixture is also dedicated to all Kerr County elected officials
who have served the people of Kerr County since its
organization in 1856. Thank you, ma'am.
MS. STONE: Thank you. Thank you, gentlemen.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's get on with the next
9-11-06
19
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
i order of business, if we might. Consider and discuss and take
appropriate action for setting the purchase price for a copy
of the 2006-'07 budget. Ms. Pieper?
MS. PIEPER: Judge, I am requesting that we set a
flat fee of $20 for the '06-'07 budget.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to set a
flat fee of $20 for the '06-'07 budget. 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. Item 3 is a
timed item for 9:15. We're a bit past that, but we'll move to I
it now. Consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to
contract with the Texas State Arts and Crafts Educational
Foundation to manage the bookings and rentals of Kerr County
Hill Country Youth Exhibit Center and the Union Church.
Commissioner Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: As the backup memorandum
states, Judge, we've had discussions with -- Commissioner Letz
and I both have had discussions with the folks at the Texas
State Arts and Crafts Fair, who operate the River Star Park
9-ii-oh
zo
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
and who've done such a magnificent job of -- of developing
that park with a view toward the possibility of their handling
the rentals -- booking and rentals of the Hill Country Youth
Exhibit Center and Union Church. And I've asked Mr. Miller,
who is the Executive Director of the Arts park, to come and
talk to us about the possibility and to raise the questions
that are of necessity to be raised and answered with respect
to whether or not it is the wishes of the Court to do that.
So, without any further ado, Mr. Miller? Did you get a copy,
Judge?
JUDGE TINLEY: Got one right here.
I'm Bob Miller, Director
And Mr.
Williams and Mr. Letz had come to my office many months ago
and said would we -- would we consider being the booking agent
for the Youth Exhibit Center, and we -- we have ended up doing
a lot of things together. We got some joint usage and parking
and that sort of thing. Now that we have the pavilion, we
think that down the road we'll have some more joint usage of
people using Youth Exhibit Center and our park, so there's --
there's some common ground there, and we could use the money,
pure and simple.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Bob, you prepared an
analysis of revenue and expenses, and I've distributed it to
the Court along with the copy of the application for rental
y-ii-n6
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Ia
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that River Star Arts Park uses.
MR. MILLER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would you be so good as to
step us through this cost -- revenue and cost analysis,
I
please?
MR. MILLER: Okay. The -- the first page of that
just lists the revenue and disbursements from '94 through,
really, the first 10 months of 2006. And I estimated the last
two months at of 2006, just to kind of see where you all were
on revenue versus disbursements. Not terribly profitable at
this point in time. I then went and looked at the breakout of
expenses, kind of to see where -- where the money was being
spent, and I looked at the revenue stream over the last two
months, tried to break it out into gross versus net, 'cause I
didn't know where the money was coming from, who was being
paid out of it, that sort of thing. Out of the gross
revenues, some of the money's being paid to the Hill Country
District Junior Livestock Show for the rental of the indoor
arena. There's money being paid out to the insurance company
for insurance that people are paying -- paying for and you're
being reimbursed for, and I think adding them to your
insurance, as I understand it.
I'm not 100 percent positive on that, but that's
what my understanding was, that if I come and rent, let's say,
the arena, and 1 do not have insurance, that I can be added to
9 11-06
22
1
W 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 insurance for a fee, and then your insurance company
bills us -- bills the County and the County bills the user,
and that appears to be what's happening on the books when you
look at the billings that Alyce keeps also. When 1 went
biggest portion of that. Right behind that is utilrties a
building and grounds maintenance. I can't speak to -- the
labor has in there, first off, maintenance salaries,
supervision, group insurance, the facility manager retirement,
all the taxes and stuff. I can't speak to how much of that
labor is actually directly associated with rental versus how
much is maintenance of the facility, versus even labor that
might be used off-site for people there.
I
And then you've got labor being used to oversee your
community service workers there daily, so your labor's being
allocated in lots of different ways, but it's being grouped
really under one account in the county budget, in the same way
that revenue was grouped. Alyce keeps a pretty detailed
record of the different things she is renting to people who
come and rent the center, but they get aggregated under one
number in your -- in your accounting at the county level, and
so you kind of lose the detail there. I think that you can
manage that better, a little closer. That probably needs to
be detailed out on a monthly and yearly basis so you can see
which part of the arena is being rented, what things like
9-11-0F
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
tables and chairs and stage and bleachers and all those --
pens and those kind of things are being rented, and then you
can tell a little better where you're making money and where
you're losing money than you can at just looking at an
aggregate number.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Mr. Miller, the gap -- the
shortfall between revenue and disbursements is around
$160,000, Do you think -- any ideas about how we could close
that gap?
MR. MILLER: Two. One is -- like I said, one of
your biggest expenses is utilities. I think that I'd
seriously consider doing a formal utility review out there and
seeing if there's not fixtures that could be changed out, or
just management of when things are turned on and turned off,
see if you couldn't get that down. Look at leasing the
concession stand; I think you're passing up a revenue flow
there from that concession stand. But before you get a decent
rental from the concession stand, you're going to have to be
able to tell bidders what kind of traffic flow you have out
there so they can kind of determine, you know, what kind of
volume of business they can determine. When you do that,
you'll get your best dollars out of that concession stand.
Those are the only two that just, you know, leaped right out
at me. If I -- I would run it like a business, you know.
That just -- that's kind of the way I would look at it, and to
9-11-06
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
'~ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
~0
21
22
23
"~' 2 9
25
where your labor's going, where your expenses are going
directly, you know. And you're giving a lot of money away to
the nonprofits, and that's a -- that's your decision as to how
much of that the County wants to do and how much they don't
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Are our rental prices high
MR. MILLER: You're asking me as somebody who rents
your tables and chairs, and they're way too high. (Laughter.)
No. And I get it for free. I'm one of those that qualifies
for free. To be honest with you, your tables and chairs are
things that we rent, and our complaint is, I'd rather pay you
for them and have them in better shape than what we get. They
I
get used extensively by everybody in this county, and they're
moved probably every other day. They're beat to hell. And,
you know, I don't know whether any money is ever put back in
it. I know that the community service crews build tables for
you. I think you might have a little better luck with these
new plastic tables that everybody's buying in terms of
maintaining them and finding a different way to haul them than
picking them up with a skid steer every time you got to move
them. The other thing I noticed is that there's no -- I don't
think there's been any consideration of how much equipment
time is being used now in association with your rentals. For
u ii of
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
instance, every time somebody rents tables and chairs or you
set up the arena or you set up the exhibit hall, somebody
fires up a skid steer, you know, and in the arena they're
firing up tractors, and I don't think any of those dollar
costs are cranked into your rental rates.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In that context, take us
through this analysis you did of cash flow from rental
activities, about the third or fourth page, in which you break
down some of the issues regarding rental and expense involved.
MR. MILLER: The first one I looked at was the
indoor arena. You've got five rental rates for the -- that
anybody who comes to you and rents out there can have. I
looked at the labor, and I talked to Shel out there, and he
said one staff person can set up in -- I think it's three
hours. No, I'm sorry, we're on the indoor arena. Thirteen
hours to set up and tear down the -- the indoor arena, and
that's using eight community service workers, one staff, one
Bobcat operator, and one tractor. And I don't have any
numbers on the tractor; I forgot to ask him. I was just
playing with the numbers. I -- I took the overhead and the
management overhead, which would be the -- your labor
overhead, your supervision overhead, and 13 hours, and I
looked at all of these in terms of you renting 2,OS0 hours a
year, which would be 40 hours a week. I don't know whether
you do that or not.
9 11-06
26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
And in that, your cost run is like $1,600 to rent
that indoor arena, and that was set up -- that particular one
Junior Livestock group, and you'd have netted $667 on a gross
of $1,610. And it gets worse as you go -- if you had rented
it to local nonprofits -- or local commercials or local
nonprofits at heavier discounts. The other thing I looked at
was exhibit hall; went through the same kind of exercise as to
how much time it takes to set it up or tear it down. You got
one hour Bobcat time, you've got -- depending on how many
people you're using, you are -- you've got anywhere from three
to five hours of labor in setting it up and tearing it down,
and you got your management hours also, so you got $442 in
costs for a 250-person event. And you've got $697.50 cents as
a maximum revenue down to being free for a Category 4
nonprofit, so you make a little bit of money from the
commercial people, and not any from the nonprofits in that
exercise.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What would be the basis that
the River Star -- or the educational foundation would
undertake to manage this or book it and rent it for us?
MR. MILLER: Let's be clear about two things.
9-11 06
27
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
~`° 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Manager versus booking agent, I don't think we're in a
position to be a manager, and don't want to do that. I think
booking it would be, you know, something that we could handle
and would be, you know, parallel to the things we do booking
our part. I don't -- I think we'd like to do it for a flat
the end of the year and we can kind of negotiate something out
there that makes -- you know, tied to something that makes
i more sense.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I got a couple questions and
a couple of comments on the thing. Before I get into it, I'm
going to let you know right now that I -- I oppose this, just
like I did a few years ago when you had the Visitor's Bureau
talking this same talk. But I haven't heard anything that
benefits the County in any way. When you -- when you're
talking about labor of setting up and tearing down, it doesn't
matter who books it or who manages it; you'll still have to
set up and tear down. And are we going to -- is your proposal
that we continue the same way we're going now, the County
provide for setup and tear-down and maintenance and -- and the
County pay for the utilities and all that stuff, and they
simply deal with the person that wants to rent the thing? Is
that all we're talking about? We're -- I don't get it. We're
talking about privatizing a piece of government property that
I don't see where the benefit to the County is.
a-li-o6
28
1
.. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
'"' 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
~` 2 9
25
booked all but one weekend. And the month of August, every
weekend was booked. So, again, I don't -- I don't see the
benefit of doing this at all. If there is -- if we're not
charging enough, we need to charge enough. If we are not
charging enough for chairs and tables, we need to charge
enough for chairs and tables. Our own employees can do that
as well as anybody else. I prefer to have this facility and
all of its operations under the control of this Commissioners
Court. And if we're not doing a good job, then -- or if the
booking person is not doing a good job, we need to let that
person know so that they can do a good job. I'm not real
clear -- I just remember a few years ago, you -- you were
wanting to give it to the Visitor's Bureau to book and manage,
and I just -- I'm not sure I'm following what we're talking
about doing here at all.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Let me see if I can qo into it a
little bit. I think the premise came -- that was involved
with the first conversation was, it does not belong to
Maintenance. I mean, I think it's a clear thing in my mind
that booking a facility has nothing to do with maintenance of
any of our facilities, and it was stuck there 'cause we didn't
have anywhere else to stick it. This is an option -- I don't
q-li of
29
1
_. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
l1
12
" 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
look at this thing as any different than what we've done right
now. We've stuck it in Maintenance; here, we're sticking it
with an outside individual or entity, so I don't see it's any
different than what we're doing.
Over the weekend, I talked with Roy Walston, and I
think he had -- I had assumed that they didn't have an
interest in doing the booking part of it. And I've talked
with Roy; they would be interested in at least discussing it,
and with an addition of a part-time person, probably, 'cause
it's not a full -- one of the problems is, it's not a
full-time job, so you got to have a part-time deal. And
that's why I think Bob thought they could -- you know, it fits
with him because it's kind of -- he can do it with his staff.
I think it's more work, but it's -- I don't think he's going
to hire people to do this. And the benefit to the County
undergoing the proposal that Bob put out saves us $15,000 a
year. Instead of having a full-time person kind of doing --
granted, that person's off doing some other maintenance
functions. It's -- you know, you're saving -- it's less
dollars than just that full-time. So, the --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can I jump in here just a
second? I don't mean to interrupt you, but looking at
Commissioner Williams' notes here, it says here that current
cost to do booking -- the current cost to do booking is
22,000. Proposed cost to do business is 27,000. So, I mean,
5-ii-ah
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I'm not a mathematician, but if we go the proposed route, it
costs us more.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Where'd you read that? That's
not what I read, not what I saw. I thought that the cost was
15,000.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: i just read it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's taking the high -- I
had several different percentages; that would be taking the
high one. But go ahead and finish.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's negotiable. I think
it's -- I would not go with that rate. So, I think that
the -- the -- I think the analysis that Bob did is excellent,
and it really shows us some problems. I think what the -- the
other part of it that I think that does come to the table
with the River Star doing it, they're knowledgeable. They
kind of -- this is their business already, so it's kind of --
what the rental rates for chairs and some of these things,
some ideas as to how to improve the revenue, I think they're
in probably a better -- or business-wise, better spot to give
us that information. Not that we can't get it elsewhere. I
don't want to take any action today one way or the other. I'd
really like to talk with the Extension Office and Roy Walston,
see kind of what they look at.
The -- you know, I guess the negative I see with
going to River Star is, like you said, we lose a little bit of
9-11-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
31
some things that -- two things that jump out right away. One
is 4-H, the biggest user of that facility, and that they're
priority users for any -- and that needs to be protected. And
the other thing is the stock show usage has to be protected.
And I think he understands that, but it's -- it's -- you know,
when there's a push to make it act more like a business, those
things may get jeopardized a little bit, so it has to be
I really clear in the contract that those two entities do get
I priority. And because of the -- I think we've heard in the
past, the double booking that happens occasionally with the
outdoor rodeo arena and the indoor arena because of rain-outs,
rain days, all that. I think we've improved that, but still,
it kind of ties the hands of whoever's renting it of really
trying to make money out there. So, that's kind of where I
am. I'm not really making a decision. I think this is a good
starting point. We need to do something with it. I think
Maintenance is not the right spot for it, and the only
other -- I think Extension Office, I'd really like to explore
that a little bit more with Roy Walston and see how it may fit
into their scheme, because I -- I think that in many ways, it
is a -- in some ways, they're better, I think, in doing it
than River Star is. In other ways, River Star does bring more
of a business model to it that I think helps the profitability
9-11-06
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
32
This is a really helpful
analysis. I appreciate it. It's the best -- best
understanding I've had of that -- the economics of the
situation out there. I hear what you're saying about
Maintenance being perhaps not the right place to manage
something like this, and you may be right about that. It does
occur to me that sometime soon, we're going to be employing a
new Facilities and Maintenance manager, and it might be
appropriate to wait and get he or she involved in -- in
exploring all alternatives and considering this proposal.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't think we want to
take action today, but I had it on the agenda for the purpose
of enlightening the Court and bringing the issue up on the
table and examining alternatives. A couple points in response
to Commissioner Baldwin. When we talked about the C.V.B.
several years ago, we talked about it in the context of a
whole new facility, and how they brought to the table the
ability to know what's out there in terms of business and how
to interact and hopefully obtain that business. But I think
the bottom line here is -- and brought succinctly to our
attention by Mr. Miller's revenue and expense analysis, is the
fact that it costs us money to put on events. It shouldn't
cost us money to put on events. It should cost the people who
want to put on the events in our facility the proper amount of
9-11-06
33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
money to put the -- the event in the facility. We shouldn't
be financing every event that goes on out there because we
don't charge enough or we don't recover enough for expenses
and other things. You know, utilities particularly. So, the
analysis is good, and I thank you for it. I think we should
take a look at all the options. And, certainly, River Star
is, in my mind, an option.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: One other comment on the
analysis. I think this should have been, sometime in the Last i
year, put together internally and presented to us. And that's
the problem I have of having a non-business person running it.
There's -- I mean, there's no incentive to make money out
there. That's not their charge, really. And I think that --
you know, I don't know that -- we probably didn't ask for this
analysis, but we have asked many times in the past couple of
years, you know, to look at the rates and make sure we're not
losing money. And, obviously, we're still losing money. So,
I mean, something needs to be done out there on the booking
and the rate fee structure. I think that this is a -- I think
the -- this type of analysis is what you get when you get
someone from the outside looking at it, and I don't think we
get that internally.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: One more question. When we
talk about losing money, are you saying that -- well, let's
q-ii-o6
34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
'"' 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
stock show, as an example, that's an expensive -- that's an
expensive endeavor, the stock show is. So, is that -- are
you -- are you taking the stock show numbers and spreading
them across the year and saying that it costs us to have the
antique show? Or is the actual antique show costing us money?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think it's a little bit of
both, Commissioner. I think what Mr. Miller has done is taken
10 months of expenses, and a good example is he's drawn down
the gross revenue, which for 10 months, is $35,959, almost
$36,000 for 10 months of operation, where the expenses for the
same amount, I believe labor and everything else, is about
$162,000. Now, certainly, the stock show, by reason of the
nature of the show, the use of the entire facility for four
days, heat and air -- electricity, meters are just spinning
out there, that's part of it in this spread across the whole
here. But we understand the stock show, and we understand the
4-H events, and we know we're going to subsidize those and
they're going to continue. So, I have no quarrel with any of
that, but the reality of it is, anything else that books in
there should pay what it costs to use the facility, period.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I couldn't argue with that a
~-ii-oe
35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
moment. Are we not charging enough?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, that's what this analysis
shows.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I haven't looked at it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It shows that we're losing, on
the big arena, $660 every -- every time we rent it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That should not be.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It just depends a little bit on
the facilities. If they're just renting it, not using any
setup or anything like that, I mean, obviously, you may not
lose that much. But you -- under some scenario -- and with
nonprofits, we lose every time.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. And we made that
decision, this body did. Of course, another way to fix it is
to shut down the stock show.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And that's not going to
~ happen.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's not -- that doesn't fix
it, though. That's just --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think this data says
we're not covering our variable costs; that when the knife
show goes out there -- gun and knife show, that the amount of
rental paid doesn't cover the variable costs.
3-11-06
36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, that's probably true.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And we've asked several times
that that be corrected, and it hasn't been corrected yet, it
appears.
MR. MILLER: Can I make one more comment about the
labor? It speaks to your point, that you do a lot of things
out there besides rent that facility, you know. And one of
them is supervision of your community service workers that
show up every day, whether you need them or not. Your staff
is out there supervising and doing that. So, I mean, there's
-- there's another component there that really has nothing to
do with renting that facility, as such. So, I think that's
where you need to look in a little bit more detail of where
your labor's being spent. It may make that number not look
near as bad as you think it does.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And that's my question.
Don't you think that would continue? Or maintenance of the
facility would continue?
MR. MILLER: Sure. I just think --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Regardless of who's running
it?
MR. MILLER: I think in order for you to manage that
facility, you need to take labor that's being spent outside,
let's say in support of the community service workers' hours,
away from the rental, and so that you really see exactly what
5 ii-oF
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
37
you are doing.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see,
MR. MILLER: And then, when you say you're going to
subsidize your nonprofits, at some point you can tie it down
and you'll know exactly what that subsidy's costing you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Better accounting.
MR. MILLER: You don't know right now.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do a better job at
accountinq, yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Miller, I didn't hear a
percentage figure that you would be proposing for your group's
handling the renting or booking of that facility. What -- is
there a specific percentage?
MR, MILLER: No, I would -- what I proposed was that
we do it on a flat fee basis Tor the first year, let us see
what that involved, see how that works for you all.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's the fee?
MR, MILLER: See what kind of relationship --
~ 15,000.
I JUDGE TINLEY: Let me -- let me make some other
observations. I -- I don't know of any particular problems --
at least they've not been brought to my attention -- that
we've had with the current booking arrangement. Now, maybe it
doesn't belong ~n Maintenance. Maybe it belongs somewhere
else, but currently, that's what's being done. And it seems
9-11-n6
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
38
as though, particularly on the weekends, that thing seems to
be booked up nearly all the time. Now, you know, it would be
But I'm not
booking. I -- with regard to what Commissioner Letz mentioned
about the kind of analysis that we've got here, as simply a
booking or rental agent, the -- would they -- would there be a
continuing administrative function to ana]yze these costs and
do studies and provide all this stuff? That's not been
provided, hasn't been asked for out of our Maintenance people
that do the booking now. Maybe yes, maybe no. I don't know.
MR, MILLER: I have not --
JUDGE TINLEY: The other questions that I have that
I think are more pertinent, certainly, as you've indicated,
all that labor cost cannot be directly allocated to the
booking. But by turning this function over to some outside
agency, are we either going to, one, be able to reduce the
salary that we have to pay to our people that do that
function, either by elimination of a position or -- or
spreading them somewhere else, or are we going to be able to
avoid having to bring someone else on that we would otherwise
have to bring on by virtue of continuing to do this function?
I think those are pertinent questions when you look at the
-li-oe
39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
cost factors. Those are my observations.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, thank you.
MR. MILLER: Thank you. Appreciate your time.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further on that particular
item? Let's move, then, to Item Number 4; consider, discuss,
and reappoint Mr. Ron Vick to a two-year term to the 9-1-1
Board of Managers. Commissioner Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Gentlemen, thank you. Now,
Mr. Vick has served one term. His term is coming to a close
at the end of this year. I have spoken with him, and he has
agreed to serve one more term. And, historically, we have
asked people to serve one to two terms, and then we rotate
them out to keep fresh minds over there. So, anyway, Mr.
Vick, the father of two Tivy Antlers, has agreed -- has agreed
to serve another term, and so I move that we appoint Ron Vick
to a two-year term to the 9-1-1 Board of Managers.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of the reappointment of Mr. Ron Vick to a two-year term of the
9-1-1 Board of Managers. Any question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It should be noted he has two
current members of the Tivy Antlers. There have been previous
in there.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's true. Two current
members. And I want -- this is the cutest story. Last week,
9-11-Oh
40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
zo
21
2L
23
24
25
against San Marcos, one of Ron's sons is the extra point
kicker, and he missed an extra point. So, normally, the coach
would get mad and replace him, but he would be replaced by his
sister. (Laughter.) And I just think -- you know, how would
he tell his family, "Well, I got beat out by my sister," you
know. How would he do that? I just thought that was cute.
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: That motion does carry. Let's move
to Item 5; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on
payment of vacation balance for Diane Bolin. Ms. Nemec?
MS. NEMEC: Good morning. I had received a request
from Diane Bolin to pay her her remaining vacation pay that
was due to her before she became an elected official. I
looked at the policy. The policy states that upon termination
of an employee, the vacation balance gets paid to them. So,
it really didn't specify if you move from an employee to an
elected official, whether that can be done or not, so I put it
on the Court's agenda for discussion.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can you tell me which one of
these numbers down here that the -- the final amount?
?-ii-o~
41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. NEMEC: 160 hours.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 160 hours.
MS. NEMEC: Actually, she --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd like a dollar figure, if
I could.
MS. NEMEC: I don't have that dollar figure. It's
-- what was your hourly rate? Do you know?
MS. BOLIN: I really don't.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, if we were going to
approve payment, how would we know how much we're going to
pay?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Four weeks pay at her last
rate as chief deputy, I guess, would be the rate. Is that
correct?
MS. NEMEC: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm interested in the
memorandum sent by the County Attorney on this topic, in which
he refers us to Policy and Personnel section from the Brooks
Texas Practice County and District Law Volume 35. How does
that apply? And his covering memorandum indicates that --
that we need to be cognizant of this before we make a policy
decision in this regard. Somebody needs to talk to this.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is it regarding the -- the
issue of the person coming out of -- going in to be an elected
official?
9 11 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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I guess. I'd like a little
MR. EMERSON: The question, gentlemen, was whether
moving from an employee -- an employee position as chief
deputy to an elected official met the grounds, pursuant to our
personnel code, for termination or separation from county
employment, and therefore, was she eligible to receive her
vacation pay, or was she still just an employee of the County?
And, Page 7.1 that's attached from Mr. Brooks' book on Texas
and County Government states, There are material distinctions
between one occupying an official situation and another who
performs duties purely by virtue of employment. An official
may and often is directed by the resident -- excuse me --
electors. He subscribes the oath of office and entrusts it
with the performance of some of the sovereign functions of
government, is subject to removal for failure to so perform
the duty or from misconduct or malfeasance in office. His
election or appointment is for a definite period of time, and
his services thereby become continuing and permanent rather
than temporary and transitory, as is the case of an employee
under a time contract such as the one in the instant case.
Thus, unlike employees or agents who have contractual rights
for continuing employment with the county, a public official
has no such property or contractual rights of office.
And then it goes on -- there's another page
9 11-06
43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
attached; it talks about several different instances, but the
point of it is, is that once somebody is moved into an elected
official position, they are not any further technically
employees of the county; they are elected officials. They may
receive some of the benefits and perform functions for the
county, but they are not an employee of the county.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Rex, we have precedent for
this. In this room, we have several people who have moved
from being an employee of the county to being an elected
official. Did we pay their vacation?
MS. NEMEC: Yes, we did. On some, we did. J.P 1's
clerk was a -- was an employee in there; she was a clerk. She
was allowed to take her vacation time before she became an
elected official. Ms. Bolin has advised me that she was not
able to take her vacation time; therefore, she wants to get
paid for it. I believe that --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's not exactly a
precedent. The first case was allowed to take vacation and be
paid for that time off, and this was requesting a lump-sum
payment. But is there any precedent of any others who have
been elected to office and said --
MS. NEMEC: No, I don't believe -- there might be an
employee in your office that will be taking her vacation time
before she becomes an elected official. And the problem in
the Tax Office was the scheduling problem, that she was not
9-11-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
44
allowed to take it off.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Based on what the County
Attorney just said in his analysis of this matter, would it be
your opinion that if -- if compensation was given to Ms. Bolin
for the four weeks accrued, thus ending her term as an
employee, would she then start all over at the bottom of the
accrual ladder once --
MS. NEMEC: No.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Now that she's an elected
~ official?
MS. NEMEC: No. As an elected official, you don't
earn time; you just take it off as you need it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MS. NEMEC: So she wouldn't be earning any more
I time.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval.
I COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Approval of what?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Four weeks pay at her salary
as chief deputy.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, get your calculator out
and tell me. I got to know how much it is.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we can approve the
concept to do it, but I think we have to do a budget amendment
or have something -- I mean, maybe not a budget amendment, but
a --
9-11-Oh
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
45
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Should be in the budget.
Should it not be in the budget?
MS. NEMEC: It should be, because she's no longer --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In the '06 budget?
MS. NEMEC: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of payment of vacation time to Diane Bolin for four weeks at
her rate of pay as Chief Deputy Tax Assessor/Collector. Any
further question or discussion on the motion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. I'm going to vote
against it, only because I want -- this place is packed with
taxpayers, and they have the right to know how much it is.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do you -- Diane, do you know
what your gross pay was?
MS. BOLIN: 32,062 was gross.
MR. ODOM: 32,062?
MS. BOLIN: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do that real quick.
MS. NEMEC: Divided by 28.
MS. BOLIN: Just so y'all know, even at four weeks,
I'm giving back 65 hours to the County. I had 225 hours of
vacation time. And I know we can only carry 164, but --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's the amount, Judge?
I
JUDGE TINLEY: Based on the annual that Ms. Bolin
y-ii-o6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
46
gave me, and dividing that by 2,080 as to the annual hours
that I think is a -- is generally recognized, and then
multiplying that result by 160, I get 2,466.31.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, about -- almost 2,470.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm going to vote for it;
of course, I seconded it, but I'm also acknowledging that it's
setting a precedent, that the next employee who's elected to
office will be able to cite this precedent as a reason for
them to be paid for their earned, but not taken, vacation.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think, generally, most elected
officials start their term, you know, the 1st of January, I
think the end of the cycle. But if we -- you know, we may
want to look at our policy about carrying -- can we carry
vacation time from year to year?
i MS. NEMEC: 160 hours.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 160 hours forward?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That would be under the
policy/procedures manual. It's going to be reviewed and
renewed and be reworked. That would be a good one to make
sure it gets incorporated.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or discussion on
the pending motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by
raising your right hand.
9-11-06
4i
1
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: The motion does carry. We have a
timed item for Number 7 at 10 o'clock. It's a bit past that
now. That item is to consider, discuss, and take appropriate
action to set the proposed salary increases, expenses, and
allowances for elected officials of Kerr County, Texas, in
accordance with the public notice published in the Kerrville
Daily Times August 31, 2006. I apologize, I did not include
the copy of the notices as published. I have copies here that
-- so that each of the members of the Court can have them.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We have them.
JUDGE TINLEY: You have them there? Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: So it didn't get included in mine;
that's the reason.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, you got to know
somebody around here.
JUDGE TINLEY: Huh?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You have to know somebody
around here.
JUDGE TINLEY: I see. Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What do you want, a motion to
approve this? Or are we going to -- somebody going to give
A-11-06
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
98
speeches or what happens here?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No speech. Motion to
approve.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion to approve and
second to approve the agenda item. Any question or discussion
by members of the Court?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a note, just for the
members of the public here, since we have a huge crowd today,
that all of the salaries are the same as they were last year,
with the COLA that was given to all employees, a 4.2 percent
COLA. There's no additional increases to any elected
official. And it also should be noted that I don't believe
the Treasurer is on here, on this schedule.
JUDGE TINLEY: Nor is the County Court at Law Judge.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or the County Court at Law. Why
is that one -- why is -- well, I know why the Treasurer is
not, because when you did this, that was not resolved yet, and
I don't know if it's resolved still. Why the is the County
Court at Law not on here?
JUDGE TINLEY: Because his salary is frozen and
remains level.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: And there is no increase.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
v-ii-o6
49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay? Any other member of the Court
have any questions? Comments?
I
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm going to oppose it for
the same reasons I have the last three years, and I'm not
going to elaborate a whole lot more on that, except to say
that I think that the compensation of the County Commissioners
and County Judge is higher than it should be.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Bruce, you want to weigh in
I on that?
JUDGE TINLEY: I have a participation form by
Mr. Cox. Do you wish to be heard, Mr. Cox, on this particular
item?
MR. COX: No, I marked the wrong place.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right, I'm sorry. Which one
would you want me to mark?
MR. COX: I can't find it on here.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. All right. Well, when we get
to there, if you'll get my attention, whatever it is you want
to speak to, well, we'll give you that opportunity, sir.
MR. COX: Thank you, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Any further question or
comment? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your
right hand.
(Commissioners Baldwin, Williams, and Letz voted in
favor of the motion,)
y-ii-oe
50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(Commissioner Nicholson voted against the motion.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Let's move now to
Item 6, update ongoing problems with I.R.S. Ms. Nemec?
MS. NEMEC: I'd like to pass out a schedule that I
did, and on this schedule it shows our payroll date, the date
the liability was paid -- the tax liability was paid, and the
date that is to -- according to the I.R.S. Circular E, and
then it shows the I.R.S. due date that I.R.S. is showing. And
also attached to it, it has where I'm getting those dates
from, from the I.R.S. Circular E, so that y'all could follow
along with me as I explain this. There's three for each of
y'all, and one for the clerk, and probably an extra one.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that one page?
JUDGE TINLEY: I think that's just one packet.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, that's one packet. More
coming, I believe.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You don't get one.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Can I look over your
I shoulder?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely not. You have to
have your own.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: See there? The Judge took
care of me.
(Discussion off the record.)
9-11-U6
51
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. NEMEC: Did y'all end up with any extra copies?
Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I think everybody's up to
speed here.
MS. NEMEC: I'll make -- I'll get extra copies for
Zeke and Gerard. Okay. First of all, I'd like to go into the
problem that we had in 2003. This was the exact same problem
where they -- on our fourth quarter 941 taxes, they more or
less applied or gave us a due date of -- of the tax liability
being due on a date that we had not even done a payroll yet,
and so I had to write them a letter and explain to them, and
when I did that, they corrected that. This is the same thing.
If you'll go along with me on the schedule that I've done, and
I'll explain to you. The first one is the payroll date of
October the 14th. That's actually the date that we paid our
employees. The date that I paid the tax liability was 10/14,
which was the same day. The date that I had to pay it was
October the 19th, according to the I.R.S. Circular E, which
you have attached there. Now the I.R.S. is telling me that
those taxes should have been paid by October the 13th. On
October the 13th, there's no way to know what our tax
liability is.
The next one, our payroll date was 10/31. The date
the liability was paid was 10/31. The date, according to
Circular E, is November the 4th; I had until November the 4th
9-11-OG
1
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
to pay it, but I paid it on 10/31. They're showing -- the
I.R.S. is showing a due date of 10/26. Again, that's days
before our payroll is even done. Next one, 11/15 was our
payroll date. I paid the taxes on 11/15. They were due
11/16, and the reason those were due a day -- a day later than
what the others are is because the taxes were over $100,000.
However, the I.R.S. shows that those tax -- tax liabilities
should have been paid on November the 9th, again, way before
our payroll was even done.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Barbara, can I ask you --
this is my boy-dummy question of the day. What is the
difference in the -- the Circular E and I.R.S. due date?
What's Circular E?
MS. NEMEC: Circular E is a publication published by
the I.R.S.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, it's the same.
MS. NEMEC: Well --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I.R.S. has two different
dates that they're --
MS. NEMEC: Well, last time when this happened, they
said it was a clerical error on their part. So, I don't know
what's happened this time, but that was the excuse they gave
me last time. And they --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MS. NEMEC: -- went ahead and did away with the --
9-11-U6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
53
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's in these copies of
Circular E that you've given us?
MS. NEMEC: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. 12/15 payroll
date, the date the taxes were paid was 12/15. I had until
12/21 to pay them. I.R.S. is showing that I should have paid
them by 12/14. The last one is 12/30. Payroll date was
12/30. I paid them on 12/30. I had until January 4th.
I.R.S. is showing that I should have paid them on 12/29. I
have been in contact with I.R.S. I'm a little disturbed by
what they told me, 'cause I had been talking to a Ms. Malby,
and I have here -- I have her number -- confirmation number
that she gave me, and we had been talking about this quite
some time. And on August the 16th, I was told the result
was -- well, I was supposed to call her back on August the
16th. I spoke to her June the 17th, and I was told to call
her back on August 16th, once I reviewed my records, and let
her know what I had found. I called her back. She said to
have it back by September the 16th, which I sent.
I called back on September the 16th, when I
overnighted the information that I had sent it by regular mail
by August the 23rd. And when I called, they said they didn't
have any record of receiving it. Then I called on September
the 16th, and they said it would take 45 days for them to even
update their system. And they also explained that the levy
that was put on the bank for $6,000 would be refunded to us
9 11-Oo
54
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1 L
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
once they reviewed the records that I sent in. And I
explained to them that this was the same ongoing deal. I have
notes to all that. The Judge came in my office and saw all
those notes where my phone calls were made. My problem that I
have is that when I called the other day just to get more
information, they have me as calling on July the 14th. And
they said that I had said that I would fax them the
information. I have nowhere in my records -- and I gave the
Judge copies of my records and my notes where I called them.
If so, I don't know how they got that information. Probably
another mistake, another clerical error that they put, or
someone is calling on my behalf, and that needs to be
straightened out. When you call, all they ask you is for your
name, your position, and your tax ID number, and then you can
qet any information you want.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Barbara, can I go back to my
question, please?
MS. NEMEC: Sure.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Circular E -- and this is
Circular E?
MS. NEMEC: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Show me on here where it
gives you -- how did you figure out what date that Circular E
required?
M5. NEMEC: Okay. On Page 19 --
9-11-06
55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MS. NEMEC: -- right towards the bottom on the
right-hand side.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MS. NEMEC: It says if the payday falls on a
Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday, it's due on the following
Wednesday. If it falls on a Saturday, Sunday, Monday, or
Tuesday, it's due on the following Friday. So, I went and
checked when these pay dates fell on to determine what date
they were due. But, like I said, I always do them the same
day I do my payroll; I never wait.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This is a semiweekly deposit
schedule, and we are a semiweekly deposit government?
MS. NEMEC: Well, we're semimonthly, but they have
us down as semiweekly because of the large tax liability that
we have. They -- there is no semimonthly deposit schedules,
so we're considered a semiweekly.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And "semiweekly" means every
two weeks?
MS. NEMEC: Mm-hmm.
weeks, so -- we have to qo by
COMMISSIONER LETZ:
JUDGE TINLEY: This
indicated to us, I think, app
MS. NEMEC: Riqht.
But we don't pay every two
the dates here,
But --
was the same problem you
roximately two years ago?
9-ii-oE
56
1
2
3
9
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: That the I.R.S. had shown your
payroll as being every two weeks, as opposed to twice a month,
and that's what had fouled things up the last time. Is my
understanding correct?
MS. NEMEC: That's correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: And that threw off what -- how they
were calculating things, and they've done the same thing this
time, because we continue to be a twice-monthly payroll
employer as opposed to every two weeks.
MS. NEMEC: Right. That's what they told me when I
talked to Ms. Malby. Now, when I called last week, they told
me that it was because they couldn't read my Schedule B. So
every time you call, you get a different answer. I looked at
my Schedule B; there was no reason why they couldn't read it,
but again, I've submitted it again. So --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the problem is that
we're not semiweekly, and then it's going to be perpetuated
forever as long as we're classified as a semiweekly, because
once you get off, you're going to be off forever, 'cause every
two weeks, they're going to calculate when they're due.
MS. NEMEC: I was in contact with the regional
I.R.S. representative that lives here in Kerrville, and she
gave me the number to the -- she said that I need to talk to
the I.R.S. tax advocate group and have them come down and look
at my records. And I said, you know, if there's something
s-ii of
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
57
that I'm doing wrong -- which I don't think so, because I'm
going strictly by what the Circular E says. And she said it's
probably just a clerical error on their part; it happens all
the time. But to get a tax advocate up here, so that I can be
reassured and so the Court can be reassured that things are
happening right on our end.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, we need to -- I'm
sorry, Judge. Were you going to --
JUDGE TINLEY: The -- the 991 that you've attached
to what you furnished us, I guess, for the fourth quarter of
2005, on the second page up towards the top, I note that you
have -- you've written in next to where you check the
semiweekly schedule depositor, you wrote in there,
"semimonthly." That was to indicate to the I.R.S. that you
pay your payroll twice a month; is that the reason for tnat?
MS. NEMEC: That was to alert them, right, 'cause
there's no place for that.
JUDGE TINLEY: And that -- I'm sorry?
MS. NEMEC: That was to alert them that we are
semimonthly, 'cause there's not a place to mark that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. And that's what you furnished
to them to indicate how our payroll is paid?
MS. NEMEC: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: With your report?
MS. NEMEC: Right.
9-11-06
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
DODGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm going to tell you more
than I know about monthly payrolls. But your main -- the
resolution of the issue, some organizations that pay twice a
month are on a monthly payroll, and the first -- the middle of
the month payment is an advance on the monthly payment
payroll. If we could get some advice, that may be the
resolution of the issue.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think that's important, to
get the advice. I think it's also important to be in touch
with somebody who can change our official designation from
semiweekly to twice monthly. But I'm curious about something,
li Ms. Nemec. Help me understand your letter of August 23, which
refers to a notice of levy of $527.01, where the notice of
levy that I have a copy of dated October -- August 30 from the
I.R.S. to Security State Bank talks about a total amount due
to them, they say, of $6,572.84. Help me connect those two
numbers, please.
MS. NEMEC: Okay. What happened was, when I
received that $527 levy, they explained that, see, a lot of
times we do our payroll, and then after the fact, there's
employees who -- or departments who have not turned in time
for the employees, and legally, I have to pay them. I can't
wait till the next payroll. I can if they agree to it, but if
they don't, I have to pay them. In the old system, it would
9-11-06
59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
adjust those amounts so when they receive the reports, they
found that that was off, so that was paid. And when I called
that day, they said that there was also this other problem,
and that's when I started investigating this other $6,000
problem, and I asked them why, and that's when they explained
to me that they gave me all these dates when they should have
been paid. And I said, there's no way we could have paid them
on that date, and on and on and on. So, last week when I
talked to them, and I said, have y'all received -- I sent a
letter of explanation along with a -- a spreadsheet showing
the pay dates, the date it was paid in the Circular E. That's
when they told me, that it would take 45 -- 30 to 45 days
before they could even review it, at which time they said that
they would probably take the $6,000 out of our account, and
then turn around and refund it once they got this settled.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The letter of August 23
refers to a May 1 notice of levy of 527. Has that been
rectified by I.R.S.?
MS. NEMEC: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Four months have elapsed.
It has been?
MS. NEMEC: Yes, that's been taken care of.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Eliminated?
MS. NEMEC: That's right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Or refunded the 527,
9-11 C6
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
whichever they did?
MS. NEMEC: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, the only outstanding one
is this one of August 30; is that correct?
MS. NEMEC: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And that has to do with
their not understanding when we pay our employees?
MS. NEMEC: Either that or a clerical error, 'cause
that's what they sent last time, a letter that it was a
clerical error on their part, the way they input it, the
dates.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What must be done for us to
rectify this matter?
MS. NEMEC: Well, that's why I'm getting together
with a tax advocate to come down and make some suggestions on
what to do, and I'd like the County Auditor to be in on that
meeting.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Ms. Nemec, you may know the
answer to the question, or I may need help from the County
Auditor. These series of errors, have these errors cost the
employees of Kerr County or Kerr County government?
MS. NEMEC: No. No, because each time that there's
an error, they correct them.
JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Nemec, I note in your August 23rd
letter, you indicated to Ms. Malby, who you indicated you were
y ii-o6
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
talking to, that you would send in Schedule B.
MS. NEMEC: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's an additional form that they
ask to you file?
MS. NEMEC: That's the same form I filed on
December 31st, 2005.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. NEMEC: And the last time that this happened, I
had filed that form and I just had to resend it. And, see,
that form -- I don't know if I have that form attached, but
there's dates on there, and it's very easy -- and I think
that's what happened, was that they picked up the wrong dates
when they were inputting their information, therefore showing
that it should have been paid prior to when it should have
been paid.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It seems to me that the whole
problem is that they have us coded as semiweekly. We need to
send a letter to them, get them to change to it semimonthly.
Certainly, we're not the only entity around that pays
semimonthly. Tommy?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, I was going to ask the Auditor
if he had some input on this particular situation.
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I think the -- the I.R.S.
definition of -- of a deposit -- deposit date really has
nothing to do with -- with when you pay. If you -- if your
9-ii-oF
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
62
liability is between 50,000 and 100,000 per pay period, you
are -- you become a semiweekly depositor. So, you could pay
every day; you can have a payroll every day, and if you -- and
if your payroll generated liabilities of more than $50,000,
So,
that really has nothing to do with when we pay. If we -- if
we pay on the 5th, 10th, and 20th, if the liability is more
than $50,000, then on -- if we pay on the 5th and it happened
to be on the Friday, then we have to follow Schedule E, and
that	deposit has	to be	made	three	days -	- or three	business
days	after that	payday.	So	-- so	this -	- and the	key is the
liability. That keys -- there is a $50,000 amount, and then
there's a $100,000 amount, and the Treasurer referred to that
a while ago. If you -- if you reach $100,000 liability, then
your -- your deposit date is the next business day. As a
matter of fact, you have -- if it's 100,000 or more, you have
to initiate the deposit the day before it's due. I mean,
because if you -- if you initiate a deposit on the 15th, and
it's due the 15th, I.R.S. does not get -- the Treasurer
doesn't get the money until the 16th. So, if you're -- if
you're 30 minutes late on the day prior to the day it's due,
then you get a penalty. That's all there is to it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do you have any specific information
as to the -- the filings or the payrolls in question that
we've been talking about here this morning?
9-11-06
63
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. TOMLINSON: I have -- I have questioned the
I.R.S. myself on this issue. I get a different answer.
They -- they -- the person I talked to, I asked them to give
me a copy of Schedule B, and they said they had no record of
Schedule B. And so I said, "Well, how did you determine --
without Schedule B, how do you determine when our liability
is?" And they said, Well, we -- since we didn't -- since we
don't have Schedule B in our file, we average the total -- we
took the total payments for that quarter and averaged them to
be a week -- I think it's actually a weekly payroll, is what
the average is. So, they just arbitrarily set us as a -- as a
weekly depositor. And so, I mean, that was foreign to me; I
never heard of that before, but that's essentially what they
said they did.
MS. NEMEC: See, and they told me they couldn't read
my Schedule B.
MR. TOMLINSON: So, Schedule B is -- is the issue, I
think.
MS. NEMEC: And that Schedule B is attached to the
941 that spells out all our taxes. I mean, I never sent one
without the other. It's -- it's one form that needs to be
filled out together. And it's like Tommy was saying, that the
due dates are three days after the payroll, but I never wait
that long. I do them, as you can see on your schedule, the
same day as the payroll. So --
9-11-06
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
JUDGE TINLEY: But, Mr. Tomlinson, you indicate the
I.R.S.'s response to you is they did not have any record of
having received Schedule B to form 941 payroll tax return for
those periods?
MR. TOMLINSON: I asked them to read me the dates
of -- of the -- or to read me the due dates. And they --
or -- well, I asked them also to read me the payroll dates on
the schedule, on Schedule B, and they said we cannot read -- I
cannot give you that information because we don't have it
available. Exactly what he said.
MS. NEMEC: And those were copies of files that you
received from my office that had Schedule B attached to it, so
why they don't have it, I don't know.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mr. Tomlinson, doesn't the
bank have a record of when the funds were transmitted to
I.R.S.?
MR. TOMLINSON: Sure.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And what does that reveal?
MR. TOMLINSON: It's exactly what she said. The
payment dates are exactly what she read off in her -- on
her --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Does the I.R.S. impose a penalty for
failure to file a Schedule B if you're required to do so with
your 941?
9-11-06
65
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
MR. TOMLINSON: I don't know that. I can't answer
that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, Barbara, if I were king
for the day, which I am not, or queen for the day, I -- I'm
not sure about advocacy groups. I mean, I have -- that's kind
of a feel-good thing to me. If -- if I were a king for a day,
I would -- I'd call Senator Cornyn's office and ask him to
trot somebody down here that can make decisions.
MS. NEMEC: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And get to the bottom of it,
and let's get on down the road.
MS. NEMEC: Okay. 'Cause here we are in the last
quarter again, and if this happens again, we're going to be
facing this next year again.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, it's going to get
uglier and uglier, I can tell you, if it keeps happening.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Got to resolve it before the
end of this fourth quarter.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely. Need to resolve
this thing.
MS. NEMEC: And it happens in the fourth quarter all
the time. All the other quarters are fine; then we get to the
fourth quarter, and for some reason --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Are we different than other
I counties?
y-ii-o5
66
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. NEMEC: No.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Are they having this same
problem?
MS. NEMEC: I haven't checked. I've got to call,
make some inquiries on that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Nemec, let me refer you to
Circular E, as published by the Internal Revenue Service. I'm
actually looking at the 2005 model, which would be applicable,
in which it speaks of the Application of Monthly and
Semiweekly Schedules. It states under that heading that the
terms "monthly schedule depositor" and "semiweekly schedule
depositor" do not refer to how often your business pays its
employees or even how often you are required to make deposits.
The terms identify which set of deposit rules that you must
follow when an employment tax liability arises. Further, in
that same circular, dealing with deposit penalties, there's a
section entitled, quote, Averaged, unquote, failure-to-deposit
penalty, and it reads, in part, I.R.S. may also assess this
penalty of 2 percent to 10 percent if you are a semiweekly
schedule depositor and your tax liability shown on Form 941
was $2,500 or more, and you did any of the following. One of
those included is fail to attach a properly completed Schedule
B to the 941.
I.R.S. figures the penalty by allocating your total
tax liability equally throughout the tax period. Your
9-11-05
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
67
You can avoid the penalty by reviewing your return before
filing it. Follow these steps before filing your form 1041,
one of which is if you are a semiweekly schedule depositor,
report your tax liabilities, pren, not your deposits, pren
closed, on Schedule B, in the lines that represent the dates
you paid your employees. It occurs to me, based on the
information from the Auditor, that we've had a penalty imposed
because the I.R.S. didn't know when we paid, and therefore
imposed that penalty in accordance with that section as set
forth in Circular E.
MS. NEMEC: Well, I --
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't know that for certain.
That's just a surmise that I'm making at this point.
MS. NEMEC: All I can say is that in order for me to
do the 941's that's due every quarter, I have to first do the
Schedule B to get my figures from that, and I take those
figures and I put them on the 941 and send it together. And
I've got copies of everything. And, you know, first when I
called, they said that -- they gave me dates of when the
Schedule B -- I had paid them at certain dates, and to me,
that told me they had a Schedule B. They told me, "You paid
on such-and-such date. It should have been paid on
such-and-such date." How did they know if they didn't have a
9-11-06
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
68
Schedule B? I called later; I talked to somebody else, and
they said, "We couldn't read your Schedule B." The Auditor
calls; they said they don't have a Schedule B. So, you know,
with all the mistakes that I.R.S. makes, I'm not surprised
that we're getting different answers. But I will call Senator
Cornyn's office and see what can be done, if that's --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's the way I'd do it if
it were me.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further?
MS. NEMEC: No, I'm done.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you.
MS. NEMEC: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: I have one -- at least one
participation form that could relate to this item from
Ms. Olden. Do you wish to be heard now, or wait until --
MS. OLDEN: Wait until.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. That being the case, is there
anything any member of the Court wishes to offer with regard
to this? Any member of the public wish to be heard on this
particular agenda item? We'll be in recess for 15 minutes.
(Recess taken from 10:40 a.m. to 10:56 a.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to order, if we
might, and move to Item Number 8; consider, discuss, and take
appropriate action to satisfy I.R.S. Notice of Levy served on
9-ll 06
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
69
depository bank of Kerr County funds. I put this item on the
agenda. The -- the levy that I'm referring to is not the
notice of levy dated May 8, 2006, which I discovered on the
20th day of July of this year in obtaining an Open Records
response to the Treasurer's office, but rather one dated
August 23rd letter that was referred to in the preceding item.
That is an I.R.S. levy for $6,572.84 for the fourth quarter of
2005, as opposed to fourth quarter of '04 and third quarter of
'OS on the previous one. This was served on Security State
Bank and Trust, our depository bank, which required that bank,
if they weren't released from that levy within 21 days, to
send that money in. My best information is that that levy hit
Security State Bank, I believe, on the 1st day of September,
which means if we're going to act on it, we need to do so
today.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I have -- I have two
re. One is for 527, the other one for 6,500. And
Well, 527, the Treasurer addressed
that in an earlier agenda item, if you'll recall. She
referred to it in her correspondence to the I.R.S. three and a
half months later concerning that particular levy. And this
is just the one that was received less than two weeks ago, and
we've got a limited time to respond if we desire to respond.
9 11 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
They'll get a response from our depository bank if we don't do
something else.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let me see if I understand
the notice of levy. Tax period ended 12/31/2005. That's a
payroll date, I presume.
JUDGE TINLEY: It's a quarter.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Quarter. Unpaid balance of
assessment, 6,304.25. Is that tax withholding money that we
owe the I.R.S.?
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't know for certain, but I don't
think so. I think it relates to a penalty imposed, as I
indicated in the last agenda item, because of apparent failure
to -- for I.R.S. to receive Schedule B, for which they impose
a failure-to-deposit penalty per regulation -- or per Circular
E, I guess.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let me follow through.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We're looking at a notice
of levy dated the last day of August this year, and it says
we've got an unpaid balance of 6,304.25, and it's been unpaid
since -- for nine months. And then there are statutory
additions. Is this additional penalty, 289.59?
JUDGE TINLEY: I assume that's penalty and interest,
yeah. And/or interest.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, this total of 6,572.84,
9-11-06
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
is penalty and/or interest being paid for -- being paid by
who? Kerr County?
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
II COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Not employees?
JUDGE TINLEY: No.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Taxpayers. The question I have
is on the -- under the box, there's a sentence that says,
"Although we have told you to pay the amount you owe, it is
still not paid." Barbara -- is Barbara here?
MS. NEMEC: I'm here.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, have we not been in
communication with the I.R.S.? Or has your office not been in
communication with the I.R.S. since you were told there was --
MS. NEMEC: Constantly. I have notes where I'm
constantly in communication with them.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But they have told you that
~ you owe -- or that the County owes $6,304, and you -- I mean,
and -- and you've been in communication with them, and they --
MS. NEMEC: And when I --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess my question is -- make
sure that -- you know, it seems that there's -- I don't know
what the time period is, but evidently some time period to try
to work this out before the levy gets issued, and why wasn't
it worked out prior to the levy being issued?
MS. NEMEC: Well, I'm in constant communication with
y-ii-oh
72
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
them, and each time I talk to them, there's a next step to do
and a next step to do. When the Judge came and viewed my
records, he had copies of each time I talked to them and what
procedures were to be taken next. The problem that I'm
having, and that I touched on earlier, is that that notice was
issued July the 12th. I called them on July 17th, and I've
been calling them ever since and saying, Okay, this is what I
found, and they tell me, "Okay, send it to us," and on and on
and on. But this last week when I called was the first time
that I was told that they have on record where I called and I
said I was going to fax them that information on July 14th. I
don't have a fax number. I didn't call on July 14th; I called
on July 17th. They stated that I spoke to a Ms. Moore. I've
been speaking to Ms. Malby and then Mr. Benjamin or something
like that, last week. So, that's where my concern is, is that
either they have something wrong there, that someone is
calling, using my name -- or, you know, it could have been
July 17th and they put July 14th. But never did I say I would
fax anything to them.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there --
MS. NEMEC: And he said that that was the result of
the levy.
i COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is the -- there's not an office
in Kerrville, correct?
MS. NEMEC: No.
9-ii-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
73
COMMISSIONER LETZ: San Antonio is the nearest
I office?
(Ms. Nemec nodded.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or Austin, obviously, the state
I office.
MS. NEMEC: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is this -- I mean, to me, the
course of action would be for you to go to San Antonio or
Austin, whichever office it needs to be, and resolve it. I
mean, and take all the backup and all the files you have, and
-- because, you know, I've never dealt with them on this
particular issue, but I have dealt with I,R.S. on the state
issues a lot, and they will sit down there and do the
correction in their office, and they'll do it. I mean, you
just take your -- as long as you have documentation, they'll
change it.
MS. NEMEC: I called the San Antonio office all day
Friday. They kept saying that their voicemail was full and
couldn't take any messages. And then when I called in the
afternoon, it would ring, ring, ring and then hang up, and
then that's when I called the local agent that I know of, and
she referred me to another number.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MS, NEMEC: But I'm sure that if Z just go down
there without an appointment and sit there, that they'll have
q-ii-o6
1
G
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
74
to see me.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Doesn't take that long, usually.
I mean -- I mean, that's what I would -- I mean, that's the
way I think it needs to be addressed, you know. Obviously,
before the 5th of May -- or 5th of October.
MS. NEMEC: They also told me that on the 22nd, the
bank depository is required to send them the 6,000, but when
they reviewed what I've sent in, then they will refund that
money back.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But if you can get it worked out
prior to the 22nd, they won't levy the funds. I mean, is that
your understanding?
MS. NEMEC: He said it can't be done prior to the
22nd; that it's going to take 45 days.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you dealing with people
by phone that are in Bensalem, Pennsylvania, or San Antonio?
i MS. NEMEC: No, Pennsylvania.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That may be part of the
problem, too.
MS. NEMEC: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I really think that if you go to
San Antonio and sit down with them, that they'll be able to
resolve it on the spot. I mean, I -- that's --
MS. NEMEC: I'll be glad to go tomorrow.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I would try that. I
9 11 06
75
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
mean, I don't know what else -- at this point, what else can
be done, but I think that's the first step, is to go to the
San Antonio district office and -- and take all the
documentation. Say, "Here is the issue," and take all your
notes, "and how do we get this resolved?' Cause, you know, we
clearly don't want a levy on the -- well, the 22nd, you're
saying is the date that we --
MS. NEMEC: I'll head up there first thing tomorrow
morning.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Barbara, they're wanting us
to send them a check for $6,572 and all that. What -- why not
send them a check for the additional 527?
MS. NEMEC: 'Cause we've already taken care of that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We've paid it?
MS. NEMEC: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And we have a receipt?
MS. NEMEC: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Nemec, in follow-up review under
Open Records last week, you provided me with a copy of final
notice of intent to levy and notice of your right to a hearing
from I.R.S. That was dated July the 12th of this year.
What -- what response did you do in response to that final
notice of intent to levy?
MS. NEMEC: I called them on the 17th and discussed
5-11-06
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
76
the situation. That's when they gave me the due dates that
they have shown as the dates the payroll -- the liability
should have been paid. And that's when I explained to them --
no, first of all, I wrote down the due dates on July 17th, and
then I told them that I would check my Schedule B and call
them back. But I already knew, just the dates that they were
giving me, that we had not had a payroll on those dates, and I
explained that to them. There was no way we could have paid
those payroll -- those tax liabilities, because we had no idea
what the tax liability was going to be yet. So she said,
"Research your records and call me back." I called her back.
I told her I had looked at my Schedule B and that, in fact,
you know, I had paid them the date of the payroll. And that's
when I told her that I would send her a copy of the Schedule B
with a spreadsheet showing the payroll date, the date that it
was paid, the date that Circular E says it's due, and the date
that they're showing due.
I
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Attached to that final notice
of intent to levy was an account summary which you provided to
I me which showed the $6,304.25, I guess. Do you recall that
item?
MS. NEMEC: I believe so, yeah. There was a --
JUDGE TINLEY: You had noted, I assume in your
handwriting, with an arrow pointed to that 6,304.25, of
assessed penalty. Apparently, that was some information you
y-ii-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
77
received from the I.R.S. with regard to what that figure
consisted of, what it was for?
MS. NEMEC: I believe so.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. NEMEC: Then, again, 7 talked to them last week
and they said once they reviewed what I have sent in, it will
take 30 to 45 days. They should be refunding us that amount.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Another question. In
response to Commissioner Baldwin`s question about the
disposition of this May 8, 2006 levy of 527.01, you said it
been taken care of. It's been paid?
MS. NEMEC: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, we have paid penalty
and interest? For not -- because we didn't make payments on
time?
MS. NEMEC: Most of it was for tax payments. I
think it was a dollar something for the penalty and interest,
or two -- I -- $24. I don't remember.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Do you have this?
MS. NEMEC: I don't have that in front of me.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Did we use tax dollars to
pay penalty and interest?
MS. NEMEC: 31 -- $32, yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anythinq else, gentlemen?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I mean, as a -- as a
9-11-06
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
resolution of this agenda item, Ms. Nemec said she's going --
will go visit with the I.R.S. tomorrow, I'd like to hear a,
you know, response back, see if it's resolved. Because if
not, if it isn't resolved, we may have to have another
meeting, 'cause I think we need to get it resolved. And I
would be surprised if it can't be done with documentation, at
least, you know, one way or the other by tomorrow. It may
take a while, but --
MS. NEMEC: So, do you want me to respond on the
next agenda, or call a special meeting? Or --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Memorandum is fine with me, the
results of the meeting.
I MS. NEMEC: Okay.
I COMMISSIONER LETZ: If we need to meet, we can.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other member of the Court have
II anything further to offer on this item?
i COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move, then -- thank you,
Ms. Nemec.
MS. NEMEC: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move, then, to Item 9;
consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to assert claim
on Treasurer's official bond for losses incurred or to be
incurred resulting from County Treasurer's failure to timely
file and/or pay sums due to Interna] Revenue Service and/or
9-11-Oh
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
Texas County and District Retirement System as required by
applicable statutes, regulations, or rules. I put this matter
on the agenda to give the Court the opportunity to take
whatever action it thought was appropriate to recoup any
taxpayer funds that may have been paid as a result of -- of
sums that shouldn't have had to be paid in the first place. I
would note that -- it's probably not common knowledge to
everybody in the room, but members of this Court have some
knowledge that there was some difficulty earlier this year up
in Hill County with -- with their elected official, County
Treasurer, and some of the problems were IRS-related problems,
and others were things were not done in a timely manner. And
those Commissioners actually, last month, proceeded to
consider before their Commissioners Court the proceeding to
assert a claim on their official's bond.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What is the amount that has
been, I guess, paid and not refunded? I guess what's the
amount of tax dollars that we're talking about, total? I
mean, what -- whoever may know.
MS. NEMEC: For I.R.S., -- for I.R.S. is the $41,
because the five-something was actual taxes that we owed.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What about on the previous --
wasn't there a previous levy we dealt with earlier in the
year?
MS. NEMEC: Those were all cleared up. Those were
9-ii oc
80
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
~1
22
23
24
25
all I.R.S. clerical errors.
JUDGE TINLEY: Sheriff, did you get your money back
from I.R.S.?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Not that I've ever heard of.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Not saying I didn't, but I
never saw it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I notice you included
T.C.D.R.S. in this, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's the -- what are the
issues with T.C. D.R.S.?
JUDGE TINLEY: There are, I believe, a total of four
instances where retirement payments were made late, and on
each occasion there was a $500 -- I don't think they called it
a penalty. They called it administrative late fee or
something. Plus there was a daily rate of interest. I think,
the total out-of-pocket actually charged against the
employees' pool over there was something like -- ballpark,
$2,500 is the figure that I have.
MS. NEMEC: What were the dates on that?
JUDGE TINLEY: Pardon?
MS. NEMEC: What were the dates on that?
JUDGE TINLEY: The dates that those costs were
incurred?
~ - 1 1 - 0 b
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
MS. NEMEC: Mm-hmm.
DODGE TINLEY: There were three of them in 2002 and
one of them 2005.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That became an assessment
against the accrued benefit pool?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, that's my understanding. Unless
it was paid separately, and I -- I don't have any information
to indicate that it, in fact, was -- was actually paid over
and above a charge against the pool -- Kerr County employees'
pool.
	COMMISSIONER	WILLIAMS:	It wasn't satisfied out of
county	tax dollars?		
	JUDGE TINLEY:	Well --	
	COMMISSIONER	WILLIAMS:	Not directly satisfied.
	JUDGE TINLEY:	At least	indirectly, it was. But --
	COMMISSIONER	LETZ: Cou	nts against -- I mean, that
balance	is what's used	to determi	ne our contribution.
	JUDGE TINLEY:	Mm-hmm.	
	COMMISSIONER	LETZ: So,	yes.
	JUDGE TINLEY:	Mm-hmm.	
	COMMISSIONER	WILLIAMS:	Right.
	COMMISSIONER	BALDWIN:	Well, I don't -- I don't know
how you	-- I don't know to assert	a claim on an official bond.
I know	nothing about th	at. Never	been through that before. I
need to	know -- before	I can vote	on something like that, I
9-11-Ov
82
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
lz
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
need to know about it.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If we were making a claim
on costs that were incurred because of late payments in 2002,
we'd have claimed it timely. If we have a -- have a
legitimate claim.
JUDGE TINLEY: Don't know, without -- I suspect if
you assert a claim, if -- if the surety on that bond wants to
raise a defense, they're certainly big boys and they're
capable of doing that. And my experience with bonding
companies is that sometimes they assert defenses that maybe
aren't even valid defenses. But I guess the point is, if you
don't assert a claim, you're sure as the dickens not going to
have any hope of recovering any taxpayer funds.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What would be -- what would
we be asserting a claim for, $41?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 2,541, I think.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 2,541?
JUDGE TINLEY: Whatever those amounts are, yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 1 think you need to have a
specific -- I mean, I don't have any, really, problem with
asserting the claim. I think you need to be able to have the
specific instances. We have the I.R.S. one here, but on the
retirement system, we need to have the exact -- I'm sure we
can come up with it, so we're just saying some amount. We're
saying, here's the -- here's the backup of what we had to pay,
9-11-06
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
and you assert off of that. I mean, I don't want to just say
that let's just start asserting claims without having specific
backup.
JUDGE TINLEY: No, it's easy enough to determine the
aggregate amounts of each of those. And -- and the -- on the
I.R.S. situation, my thinking would be that you assert the
claim for the entire amount up to the limit of the bond.
Which, by the way, is only $15,000. And if it's something
they have a defense to; i.e., this was tax liability that you
owed anyway, let them assert that as -- as a defense to their
liability, as opposed to say a penalty or -- or interest
accrued.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But that would not -- doing
that as outlined would not take into account the most recent
August 30 notice of levy directed to Security State Bank in
the amount of 6,572. Is 6,300 of that amount taxes that have
not been paid?
JUDGE TINLEY: Only thing --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which would have been
withheld from our employees?
JUDGE TINLEY: The only thing I have to go on,
Commissioner, is Ms. Nemec's notes that says "assessed
penalty" with an arrow pointing to that amount.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The statutory additions that
are listed in this notice of levy, 268.59, that would be P and
5-11-Db
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
I, more than likely.
DODGE TINLEY: And it could be pena]ty and interest
on penalty also, because of the time frame and failure to pay
timely.
MS. NEMEC: Let me remind --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where I'm going with the
question, Judge, is that if -- is that if Ms. Nemec is unable,
in a timely fashion, to resolve this issue with I.R.S. with
respect to when our payments are due, based on semiweekly and
whatever, then this dollar amount is still hanging out there.
If we're going to assert a claim, should this not also be
included?
JUDGE TINLEY: I think it should. And then if it --
if it includes something -- if it includes some pure tax
liability, for example, that we`re legitimately liable for,
the surety on the bond, the bonding company, can assert as a
defense, "You would have had to pay that anyway, so for that
portion of it, whatever that may be, we're not liable." But
it would then be incumbent upon them, when you assert the
claim for the entire amount that you actually paid, and we're
going to end up paying that one way or the other. If we don't
send them a check, they're going to levy -- they're going to
suck that out of our depository bank.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand.
JUDGE TINLEY: And at that point, we've incurred it,
9-11-U6
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
85
so we can then assert a claim for it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What I'm still unclear on is
the six -- is the 6,572. How much of that amount is tax
dollars that have been withheld from employees that they may
be asserting we haven't paid?
MS. NEMEC: None of them. None of it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: None of it?
MS. NEMEC: None of it. The way they came up with
that figure is, they're showing tax liabilities -- for
instance, November 9th, they're showing that we were supposed
to pay our tax liability on November 9th. We paid it on
November 11 -- November 15th, so they've taken November 9th to
November 15th and figured out a penalty and interest for that
amount. That's how they came up with each -- with that
$6,000. So, once they get and research everything, they said
they would be refunding us that money back, so I don't feel at
this point there has to be a claim on that part of it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My preference would be to bring
it back at the next meeting with the exact amount. And -- and
copies of it would have to be submitted to the company anyway,
you know. i
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Of what we're going to do, and
by that time, this $6,500 will -- we'll know more than we know
today, based on if Ms. Nemec goes to I.R.S. tomorrow.
9-11 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
86
JUDGE TINLEY: Possibly. Possibly.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that's the approach, to
have the exact documents. 'Cause, I mean, it's worth filing
the claim on.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I just want to ask one
more question. I'm assuming that it's legal and right to
assert a claim as we're talking about. How -- how would that
affect the future bond? Is that going to cause the bond to
go -- the cost of the bond to go up? Or does it affect the
bonding in any way? Or --
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm not in the bond underwriting
business; I couldn't tell you that, Commissioner, but I think
that may be a consideration.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It probably works kind of
like car insurance. Have a wreck, your insurance goes up.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, that's what I'm
wondering about.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it probably would affect
it. I'm not a bonder either. And the other thing I think
that needs to be looked at on this before we assert the bond
is that I think it's a bad precedent for a -- you know, a
mistake, I should say. I mean, every time an elected official !,
makes a mistake and it may cost money, I think you need to -- I
this is a precedent that we're going to -- from then on, if i
9 11-OF
1
.... 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
'"" 2 4
25
87
you -- from now on, every time there's a financial mistake by
an elected official, is that going to be a bond assertion?
Versus repeated incidents like this, which I think is a little
bit different. I mean, a one-time event, I think, is
different than an ongoing problem. And I think we just need
to be thinking of that as to long-term implications. The
Sheriff has a comment.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The only comment I have, as the
I.R.S. or making a sit-down with them and get this figured
out, we all know I've had a lot of problems with the
employees' stuff through my office, is I would like to make a
suggestion that a neutral party -- and we all understand
there's problems between, to be blunt about it, the County
Judge and Barbara, but I'd like to see another Commissioner go
to I.R.S. with them and get the straight deal on this one way
or another. Because it could end up involving future
investigations my office may or may not have to make. But I
would like to see something come back that doesn't continue
this one explanation against the other, and a neutral party
being somebody else on that Court to go down there and hear
what the truth is about this explanation.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move Bill Williams goes.
y-ii-o6
88
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No. You can have the Ag
Barn back. Oh, no, no, no, no, no.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I get the Ag Barn back.
it COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think you ought to hold a
meeting in January and send the Precinct 4 Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, there you go.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's not a bad suggestion,
Sheriff, but it probably should be somebody with an accounting
background who knows and can help decipher this and work it
out, somebody like the gentleman that we retained to sort out
this step and grade business for the Sheriff's Department.
Somebody like that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think your point's well-taken,
that it would be, you know, good to have another person there.
JUDGE TINLEY: We've got an Auditor that's on the
payroll.
variations
got.
you?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, we do.
JUDGE TINLEY: Intimately familiar with these
So --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And San Antonio.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We can use the one we've
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That would be fine.
JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Olden, are we finally ready for
5-ii-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
89
MS. OLDEN: I think.
JUDGE TINLEY: If you'd give us your name and
address and tell us what's on your mind on this issue, I'd
appreciate it.
MS. OLDEN: Well, what's on my mind has changed
considerably after all of this intercourse, but my name is
Mary Olden. I live at 2016 Easy Street here in Kerrville;
have for the last 36 years. Never thought I'd ever get
involved in all of this. All of a sudden, I am. I wrote a
little speech, put some words together yesterday after I read
the Express News. I guess a lot of you may have read the
article in the Express News about our Treasurer and the
ongoing disagreements she's having with --
AUDIENCE: Can't hear you.
MS. OLDEN: I'm sorry. But in listening to
everything that's going on here this morning, I'm pleased to
hear what I'm hearing from the Commissioners, their input, the
suggestions that are being made. I like the idea that there
should be someone else go with the County Treasurer to see the
I.R.S. and talk to the I.R.S. I worked in business; I've had
problems with the I.R.S. They're not infallible. They can
make mistakes. I can't believe they make them every few
months to the same entity. Probably others. I -- you know,
that can happen. I was concerned, and I asked Mr. Tomlinson,
since this is such a big employer, you do have some form of a
9-11-OE
90
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
payroll program -- this is not working. You're not hearing
me; I can tell. Do you not -- I guess this isn't working,
'cause I don't hear myself.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm not sure it's on,
Ms. Olden.
MS. OLDEN: And I don't speak loudly, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Get you a megaphone like
Rudee Vallee.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Give us a second, see if we
can turn it on.
MS. PIEPER: You just need to get closer to it.
MS. OLDEN: Am I on it? Okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: There we go.
MS. OLDEN: Thank you. I asked Mr. Tomlinson about
their payroll program, because I have one and I have a much
smaller business than you all do. I worked for a group here
for many years, and they had a payroll program, and we never
had these problems. The programs themselves prepare the
reports, the quarterly reports that have to be filed. Your
Circular E, as you see, tells you when your deposits are due,
depending upon the amount of money that you have to deposit,
as Mr. Tomlinson already has told you. My question is, are
your quarterly reports filed electronically? And if not, why
not? I would think the I.R.S. would require it. I got up
this morning and rewrote what I had written yesterday, 'cause
9-11-U6
91
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
LI
22
23
24
25
I said I wanted to probably express my opinions a little
differently, and perhaps a little less harshly. But,
nonetheless, I still wanted to be plain.
There have been so many mistakes. I wonder why you
part, as well. She's only one person, and she's having to
face the five of you and she's having to face all the
taxpayers, and the -- the writings in the newspapers don't
help anything. It doesn't help the County; it doesn't help
her. It all comes down to the fact that you have the
authority -- you don't have any authority to remove her from
office. She wants a pay increase, yet we're still seeing
these levies being filed. We don't know, as a group, as
taxpayers, how many more levies are coming down the road and
what for and why. I'm not at this moment anxious to see her
get a pay increase, since she has abdicated her human
resources duties to	another lady,	who is going	to	be for	
another department	that's had to	be established	by	this -	- by
this body at an additional expense to our taxpayers. So, I'm
not looking to see her getting more money. I think she should
get less money for the duties that are left to her to perform.
Hopefully, if the duties that are left to her to perform are
the employee payroll and the quarterly returns, and these
errors keep coming up, you'll think twice, again, about not
9-ii-n5
92
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
giving her a reduction in salary.
I've heard that some of the Commissioners feel that
you might reduce the salary to what -- your amount; I think
that's just a slap on the wrist. What the Judge suggested, to
me, at the moment is very generous. However, with what I've
heard this morning, I've heard you all making -- giving input
to this problem, and I can see that you're all interested and
concerned, and I suggest that you just keep on investigating
it before you make any final decision. Someone suggested to
me that perhaps you could have a line item for the Treasurer's
salary that was set aside for this new budget period, that
once all of the problems are settled -- I'm sorry, there's
someone talking behind me, so I'm listening to that as well.
Once all the problems are settled, then you could make a final
determination as to whether or not she is due a salary better
than what has been suggested by the Judge.
AUDIENCE: It's not on the agenda.
JUDGE TINLEY: Sorry?
MS. OLDEN: I'm sorry, they're claiming I'm not --
MS. NEMEC: The County Attorney -- I'd like the
County Attorney to explain if she is on the agenda item or
not, please.
JUDGE TINLEY: She actually filed a --
MS. NEMEC: My pay is not on the agenda item.
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't have the -- I'm sorry, 1
9-11-n6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
93
misplaced the -- here it is. Here it is, the participation
form. 1.6 through 1.8. Mr. County Attorney?
MR, EMERSON: I think what she's addressing right
now is not within the agenda item, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: If you'd --
MS. OLDEN: I'm sorry.
JUDGE TINLEY: If you have comments relating to --
MS. OLDEN: But I did have comments.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think this particular item relates
to claims against the County Treasurer that might be asserted.
MS. OLDEN: Uh-huh. Well --
JUDGE TINLEY: Against her official bond. And I
apologize. You had filed to speak also with regard to the
I.R.S. problems and the levy also.
MS. OLDEN: That's fine. I apologize for that also.
~ Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anyone else wish to be heard on this
particular item? Any member of the Court have anything -- any
formal action they want to offer at this time? Or are we
going to go with the suggestion, bring it back when we've got
the specific numbers?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Bring it back.
JUDGE TINLEX: Okay. Let's go to Item 10, if we
might. Consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to
provide a temporary and permanent relocation for Kerr County
9-11-OH
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
Collections Department. Commissioner Williams, I believe
you put this on.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Judge. I did put
that on the agenda. We've had some informal discussions about
where to locate the Human Resources Department. Some will
believe we'd like to have it in close proximity to
Commissioners Court operation on the first floor, and there
may be some other thoughts as to where it should be. All I
did was bring it up here so we can see and get the show on the
road as to where we're going to house the Human Resources
Department. The County Clerk has offered some temporary space
if the Collections Department is to be moved, and the District
Clerk has offered a permanent solution which would require a
bit of -- modest bit of remodeling. So, I just throw it on
the agenda for the Court to make a decision.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can either you or Jannett go
over the temporary space? Is it to move Collections into your
area?
MS. PIE PER: Yes. I have a spot at the front
counter that I can put one of the employees, and then right as
you walk in on the left, where we used to have our probate, we
could clean out that little cubbyhole and put the other one.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That would be temporary.
Ms. Uecker has offered space which is currently a men's and a
women's restroom facility upstairs in this building, which she
a-ii-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
95
indicates is no longer utilized, or very little. Used very --
MS. UECKER: Well, it is. It's just --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And what would be required
there would be to remove the fixtures, put a door through a
dry wall.
MS. UECKER: Well, and I thought of another place,
too. I have a storage -- one of the offices down in the
basement that I use for storage that I could clean out if --
if the Court wanted me to do that.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Who would be inconvenienced
if you converted that restroom area into an office?
MS. UECKER: Well, I don't sit there and watch, see
who all goes in there.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is it employees or jurors?
MS. UECKER: Some of both. The only reason -- I
know that it's utilized. The only reason I said that is
because there -- there are restrooms around the corner.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The new rest -- the
restrooms are new in the annex area.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I --
MS, UECKER: But the office -- I'm sorry. The
office that 7 have downstairs is -- you know, it's fairly --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: See, that makes more sense to
me. That's a real office down there. I have officed down
there many years ago. Actually, it was under the men's room.
9-11-06
96

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
We used to bet to see if we could tell who it was that was
flushing right over our head.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Too much information.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, I'm sorry. I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But I'm not -- I'm not -- I
I can't -- my mind can't get to where you have already jumped ~
out here of moving the Collections. It appears to me that
Collections needs to be near the court that it serves. And
Human Resources -- of course, we're just talking about
Collections today, but -- and the reason I think you're
talking about moving Collections is so we'll have that space
for Human Resources.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Someplace, yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're not just talking about
moving Collections just for fun.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Hmm-mm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Moving Collections
somewhere to put Human Resources in there. It just seems to
me that the Collections Department needs to be next to the
court that it serves. I heard recently that Judge Brown even
suggested that we paint on the floor little arrows, you know,
for those folks to get from his office over to the Collections
so they don't get lost. I'd love to see those yellow feet
about this long painted there so they can get there. And if
y-ii-o6
97

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
we move it to a restroom -- (Laughter.) I mean, I --
seriously, I'm not getting it. I can see -- I can see
Collections staying where it is and -- and Human Resource
office downstairs in one of those beautiful, beautiful little
complex of offices down there.
MR. TOMLINSON: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Huh? That's the way I see
it. I don't see moving Collections. For -- for what reason?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't -- I mean, I agree. I
don't think it should go up where the restrooms are. Doesn't
make sense to renovate the restrooms. You know, I --
MS. DECKER: I was thinking more of moving the
Treasurer downstairs.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: A good reason for -- and it
may not be the prevailing reason, but a good reason for having
the H.R. department here is that I'm expecting that between
the Commissioners Court coordinator and the H.R. department,
there'll -- there may be opportunities for sharing duties and
synergy and things like that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, now, there's a reason.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That wouldn't exist if it
was a long ways away. Not -- may not be a good enough reason
to have it up here, but it's a reason.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We]1, that's a reason.
JUDGE TINLEY: There's also a discussion of a shared
9 11-06
1
., ~
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
'"° 1 3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
~` 24
25
98
employee between Collections and the County Clerk's office.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which is another reason.
JUDGE TINLEY: Which would, I think, validate
keeping Collections where it is. Commissioner Baldwin, I
think, has a very valid point. Approximately 80 percent of
the revenue that Collections generates is through the County
Court at Law, and we've got kind of a triangle, as it were,
like the women like to have in their kitchen, We've got the
court, we've got the clerk, and we've got the collections just
right there in one little module. And the suggestion I've
heard is also to cut a doorway -- passageway directly through
from the clerk's office into the Collections office to further
facilitate that occurring, and so there are a lot of good
reasons not to move the Collections Department from where it
is.
In my eye, unfortunately -- maybe it's because I let
my opinion in that regard be known. You know, we have these
liaison assignments, and I believe Commissioner Letz and
Commissioner Williams are the liaison with the airport, and
Commissioner Nicholson has the library and you've got EMS, and
that's where these -- those particular ideas are originally
staffed. I don't recall anybody coming to me, being the
courthouse Facilities and Maintenance liaison, as to what my
overall thoughts for a plan were. Maybe I didn't pay my
membership dues here.
9-ii-o6
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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What are your thoughts,
Judge?
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm going to give them to you,
Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On maintenance?
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm going to give them to you,
Commissioner. I've also -- I've given you part of them with
regard to relocating Collections upstairs, or anybody upstairs
in those restrooms. I think you`ve got a significant cost
factor. You're going to be decommissioning plumbing. You're
going to have to put in electrical and otherwise make it
suitable. I don't think you're going to have nearly as much
space as you thought you were. The other thing that occurs i
about those restrooms upstairs, I don't think Ms. Uecker has a
head count of the number of folks that march in and out of
there. That space previously was part of the District Clerk's
office, and when this total renovation occurred upstairs in
the courthouse and there was an expansion of the courtroom and
other facilities up there, a decision was made to put those
restrooms in as part of that overall plan. And that being the
case, I can only assume that it was done to create some sort
of facilities plan to have available adequate and appropriate
restroom facilities. Another issue that comes to mind is
A.D.A. compliance. Those are A.D.A. compliant, again, at
considerable expense. And, you know, it's a shame to draw a
9-11-06
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
line through two restrooms only to discover that you don't
have adequate facilities in your building that you've put in
at considerable expense, and then later, at considerable
expense, decommission and maybe find yourself out of A.D.A.
compliance. We don't know what the cost figures are.
The proximity issue of why we need Human Resources
in close proximity to the Commissioners Court, our Human
Resources function has been, relative to the Collections
Department, not in close proximity for probably five years or
more. Seems to have worked okay there. The people that are
looking for Human Resources seems to be the employees, former
employees, retirees, and prospective employees, primarily, as
well as maybe vendors doing business, insurance, people of
~ that nature. I don't think it would be a -- a real burden on
them to learn where that is. It would occur to me that the
H.R, function could very well be performed where -- exactly
where it's being performed now, where there is adequate secure
record storage as is required for confidential or personal
medical records, HIPAA regulations, things of that nature.
There's a private office there that -- to have discussions of
a confidential nature, personal information, medical
information. All the records are there; just leave them
there. You could accomplish this whole fruit basket turnover,
5-11-06
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
101
occupied by the County Attorney. That's what seems to make
more sense to me.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Where's that?
JUDGE TINLEY: Downstairs.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh.
JUDGE TINLEY: Probably just right below where
Miguel is sitting right now. It's space that the District
Clerk indicates she's got some records stored in there. She
can remove those records, and you're done. It's already -- it
was wired up for telephone and those sorts of things when the
County Attorney was down there. Don't worry about that. You
don't lose two restrooms. You don't have a bunch of
decommissioning and construction costs.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think anyone -- I mean,
he's against restrooms, I'm against restrooms, you're
against -- I think that's a dead issue.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I just want to thank
Ms. Uecker for the suggestion, but that's not going anywhere.
MS. UECKER: I'm just trying to help.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we're done with
I restrooms.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's what you call a
"beeno." There'll be no office in the restrooms.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, where we are going to
put H.R., gentlemen? We've decided we're not putting it in
5-11-06
102
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the restroom space upstairs.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there a -- is there not a
vault of sorts in the Treasurer's current office?
JUDGE TINLEY: There's a safe that can be moved,
i yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It can be moved?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, it's movable.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I wasn't sure if it was movable.
JUDGE TINLEY: Sure.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You know, my -- I don't have a I
problem with the Judge's offer on moving the Treasurer. I
think that the problem I have with putting H.R. in this
building downstairs or below us is that it's hard to find. I
mean, you know, and I think you -- with new employees, there
needs to be some ease to get to it. I mean, I prefer it to be
close to Commissioners Court, but it appears there's a very
strong sentiment against moving Collections, so, I mean, it's
not that important to me. So -- but I think you need to have
it somewhat accessible. And the basement is not, in my mind,
extremely accessible. Either that, or we need to redo the
signage down there so you can figure out how to get there.
JUDGE TINLEY: Now, that may be an issue, but it's
worked for the last five-plus years. That's where H.R. has
been.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, I'm talking about moving
9-11-Oo
103
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
H.R, to the basement.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'd rethink that.
JUDGE TINLEY: No, not below this -- where we are
sitting here, no.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Our H.R. Director needs a
good office. We've got -- after remodeling, we have good
offices around here. The closest thing that comes to mind
right now that's available without major changes and i
remodeling is where the Treasurer is.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If that's the pleasure of
the Court, we need to make it as a court order and get on with
it.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Needs to be available by
October 1.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Does the agenda item provide
language for us to do all the above?
JUDGE TINLEY: I think it does not, not do all of
I the above.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, there's actually no
action.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. We'll take it, bring
it back, unless we need a court order. Okay.
MS. UECKER: Could I -- could I insert one other
little thing? As far as those offices downstairs, I do know
that where Parole meets is actually bigger than the office
9-11 06
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
y
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
104
that I have, because Collections was down there with two and
maybe three desks at one time in that -- at that one side
office there, and it's actually better situated right now for
an office. I need -- I know where I am, there's some plumbing
pipes showing and there -- there's going to take some work.
But, you know, I'm -- just wanted to let y'all know, in case
you haven't been down there, where Parole is is a little --
not quite twice as large as the one -- the room I have, but
you might want to put Parole where I am, and --
JUDGE TINLEY: I would -- one or the other. It's
not going to necessitate the fruit basket turnover of county
offices. May require Parole to make one move, but I think
they could do that easily if that's -- if that's the
preference.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm not even sure you need
a court order. Just exercise your discretion as the liaison.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's right. He's got the
i power.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Somebody passed --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But that's all you get.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Somebody over here passed up
that note to us, Judge. Not my scribbling.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think you need to start
exercising your power, but I think you should get a court
order.
9-ii o~
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
105
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Both.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If it can be done without a
court order, fine. If it needs to have a court order, I'll
bring it back next time. You tell me.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Anything further on that one,
gentlemen?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What are we going to do?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can't act today.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But, I mean --
JUDGE TINLEY: Not for the whole plan.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are you going to use your
authority to make this big switch on your own? Or do you want
Bill to bring it back for a court order?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The Judge is liaison on the
Maintenance; he can take care of it.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm going to move forward on it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Good.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further on that item,
gentlemen? Let's move to Item 11, if we might. Consider,
discuss, and take appropriate action to approve revision of
plat for Lots 7A and 8, Treasure Hills Ranch, as set forth in
Volume 5, Page 50, Plat Records, and Volume 5, Page 397, Plat
9-ii-oh
106
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Records.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. This -- this revision of plat
was done under the alternate plat process, and a public
hearing was done August the 28th of 2006. There are only
three lots involved, and all lots are over 5 acres. Mr. and
Mrs. Huie have furnished us with a letter stating there are no
liens on the property. Therefore, I recommend that you accept
this plat as requested.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We've had the public hearing?
MR. ODOM: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This is really the final
step.
MR. ODOM: This is the final step, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move for approval.
COMMISSIONER LET2: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of the agenda item. Any question or discussion? All in favor
of that motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Let's move I
to Item 12; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to
set a public hearing for the revision of plat of Lots 13-A and
13-B of Riverside Park, as set forth in Volume 7, Page 251,
9-11-G6
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
Plat Records, located in Precinct 9.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. This revision of plat is being
done under the alternate plat process. It is currently two
lots and will become three lots, and all lots are over
5 acres. At this time, we ask the Court to set a public
hearing for 10 a.m. October the 10th, 2006.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I move to approve and set a
public hearing for 10 a.m. on October 6th -- did you say 6th?
MR. ODOM: October the 10th.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: October 10th, 2006, on
revision of plat for Lots 13-A and 13-B of Riverside Park.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of the agenda item to set a public hearing on the revision of
plat for Lots 13A and 13B of Riverside Park for 10 a.m. on
October the 10th, 2006. Any question or discussion on the
motion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question on the road.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. I knew you would ask me that.
That's a good question, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can you explain that little road
situation?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. In 2004, Franklin submitted --
if you received that first page, as platted, 13-A and 13-B,
there was -- the Court allowed a 20-foot private road or an
9-11 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
108
easement to 13-B. And now, coming back -- that was already
established in 2004, and what they're trying do is clean this
up. 13-A is actually buying 13-C, and the individual -- that
20-foot easement stays exactly where it's at; it hasn't been
moved whatsoever.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, really, what's changing
I doesn't --
MR. ODOM: It is a private easement. Pardon me.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The road's not impacted. We're
~ just --
MR. ODOM: No.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Not impacted at all.
MR. ODOM: It was a unique situation, and we did
meet and go over with the Commissioner, and this has been
changed a little, what they were doing, but this is the
outcome, and I think it'll work. Franklin agreed -- you know,
the Court did this in 2004. It was acceptable.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other --
MS. THOMPSON: You have a motion and a second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 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.)
9 11 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
109
DODGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Let's move
to Item 13; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to
amend Kerr County Subdivision Regulations to include an
additional exemption to the platting process. Mr. Odom, and
you have some support here with you in the audience?
MR. ODOM: I believe Mr. Digges is here. I would --
I guess probably the best thing to do, Charlie, is to give my
time to you to let you address the Court, and then if there's
any questions there, I'll be more than happy to -- unless the
Court would like to ask me.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Let me make a comment first. I
think we're already doing this outside of subdivisions.
Outside of subdivisions, I think we are -- the way we are
interpreting the rules, there is already a provision that
allows adjusting lot lines -- or property lines, not lot
lines. Adjusting property lines without it triggering the
platting process. Inside subdivisions, I have -- one, I'm
going to be opposed to it, 'cause then we're going to start
getting plats that aren't accurate again, which we've been
working as long as I've been a Commissioner to try to resolve
that, and two, I don't know if -- as I read it, I'm not -- I
don't know how Rex reads the law, but as I read the law, we
can't do this. Rex?
MR. EMERSON: I concur. How's that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. We can't do it. We can't
5-ii-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
110
make the change inside of subdivisions; the law is very clear.
We have to do a public hearing process on any revision.
MR. ODOM: I agree. We don't have the authority or
the manpower that the City does.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We don't --
MR. ODOM: The City has that power and we don't.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Also, to answer the question,
Charlie, you're -- by law, we can't do it in subdivisions, and
we're already not doing it outside of subdivisions.
MR. DIGGES: Okay, I think that would be fine. So,
outside the subdivisions, we can move these -- move lot or
tract lines that are described by metes and bounds?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, property lines. Outside
subdivisions, lot lines can be adjusted, and that does not
trigger platting.
MR. DIGGES: Okay. Then I think we have a --
MR. ODOM: I think you have an answer to that.
Anything that's platted, no.
MR. DIGGES: Right.
MR. ODOM: But if it's outside that, yes. And then
if we're not creating any other -- any other lots, then we're
all right; we can move that line.
MR. DIGGES: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And you also, I mean, need to
follow all the other provisions. But if you're just adjusting
9 11-06
111
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
a property line between two property owners and there's no,
really, sale going on, that's fine.
MR. DIGGES: Yes. Just, you know, so oftentimes,
because of a driveway, or they want to make an extension to
the house and it's the best direction to go, they want to
purchase a small strip.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the concern is that, since
it's less than 10 acres, it's a division of -- could be
construed as a division of property, and we're not construing
it that way. We're not -- I don't think that's what the --
the exemption says, because I think there's an exemption that
talks about if the parties remain the same or something like
that, you know. Or one party keeps the interest and the other
parties --
MR. ODOM: Yeah, it's under 1.03 there. Somehow --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's an exemption.
MR. ODOM: We had that one incident before down
toward your area.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know why the law is
there, but I'm glad it is. I just like the idea of 20 years
down the road, when a question comes up about a piece of
property, we'll have records in this courthouse of what line
is where and what's been removed and all that. I just think
that is so important.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- the intent of the
9-11-06
112
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
law makes a lot of sense. I think it's -- you know, but
it's -- it's no discretion whatsoever. The law is you don't
want people to be buying into a subdivision and then changing
the subdivision without people being aware of it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, absolutely.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's the reason for it. And
it's a very good reason.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It is.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think this is the
intent. I think it's caused a little bit of cost on these lot
line adjustments, but I think the -- the law's the law.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Anything further on that Item
13? Let's move to Item 14; consider, discuss, and take
appropriate action to abandon, vacate, and discontinue the
plat of Live Springs Ranch as set forth in Volume 7, Pages 190
and 191, and located in Precinct 4.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. Attached you will find a
letter from the owner of Live Springs Ranch and his surveyor
requesting Live Springs Ranch, Volume 7, Page 190 through 191,
be vacated on September the 25th of 2006. However, we did not
receive the request until August 31st, 2006. Voelkel
Engineering must vacate this plat before a final can be given;
the hope to present the final plat on September 25th of 2006.
The developer owns all the property, but there is another
piece of property outside this -- this platted subdivision
9-11-Oti
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
113
that has access by a road. Considering the Court's schedule,
this date, September the 11th, 2006, was the first date to
request this action. That's the reason we're here. The way
abandonment of -- of a plat. Our policy has been to set, and
previously we have always come to the Court to set a public --
a public hearing at the first available court date, with at
hearing, we present the action to be taken. We would like to
know which route the Court prefers.
I would -- under the circumstances, my understanding
is that the individual that has access -- I found this out
Friday afternoon, that this individual that has access on this
public road is aware of it, what Don Voelkel told me. So, he
said that they did contact him before they came to us with it,
and I	wasn'	t aware	of that	until Friday.	But how	would	the
Court	-- if	this is	legal,	talking to Rex,	under	their	certain
circumstances, if that individual is there -- and I won't put
words in your mouth, but under the circumstances, I'm under
the impression they can do this without going to the Court.
The question would be, would that be proper without the Court
knowing what's happening? I just bring up a -- bring
something up on the 25th, and you really haven't been
y-ii-oe
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
114
presented with anything. I would like to know what your
procedure would be.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Whatever it takes to have
clear records in 20 years.
MR. ODOM: Well, would a concept plan be the -- the
appropriate way to do it? And then go from 25 days
thereafter?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm confused.
MR. ODOM: Well, I --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I am too. Leonard, what were
you saying about a property owner on a public road had been
notified?
MR. ODOM: Well, apparently, that Live Springs
originally had nine lots to it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MR. ODOM: And an individual owned this property.
And part of the agreement was that he had a road easement --
he had an easement, which was the main road that went in,
okay? And this was part of the original deal back when, I
believe, Imel and them had this back in -- sometime in 2000.
Now they wish -- it's been acquired by the McCombs family --
to be expanded, not only redesigned, but going from our county
into Gillespie County. And so the question would be, all
right, if they abandon it, then all the property is owned by
one family, the McCombs family, so there's not a reason why
9-11-OE
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
you couldn't abandon the plat. The question would be the road
access. And they -- Voelkel told me that -- that that has
been resolved with the property owner. I mean, he has no
problem; they're not vacating the road. They're going to
vacate the plat -- the lots. And I don't --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Isn't the road part of the plat?
MR. ODOM: That -- the road is part of the plat.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You can't -- if you vacate it,
you vacate it. I mean --
MR. EMERSON: I think that that's an issue by
itself, is whether that property owner would object to the
cancellation of this subdivision. And the problem that's
involved in this is that, in an effort to try to finish by the
25th, the developer and the surveyor and whoever else
published notice of a public hearing for the 25th without a
public hearing ever being set by this Court. You know, and I
may just be reading it too literally, but I think by doing
that, if they proceed to a full hearing for cancellation on
the 25th, they're creating a voidable order of the court.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I am really lost now.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
MR. EMERSON: In other words, you need 25 days
notice by publication.
MR. ODOM: From this Court.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. They can't publish.
q-ii-oa
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
MR. EMERSON: This Court has to set the date.
MR. ODOM: The publication.
MR. EMERSON: And then proceed from there. It would
be like me walking in and saying, you know, I really -- next
week I'd like the Court to cancel my subdivision, so I just
kind of put my own newspaper notice in there prematurely and
hope you do it.
MR. ODOM: And then you find out 25 days later that
you've got a subdivision; you don't know anything about it.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think I'm probably the
culprit in this. My reading of the Subdivision Rules
suggested to me that we could issue -- make the announcement
of public hearing and then proceed to fix that later, so I
must be wrong about that.
MR. ODOM: Well, that's what I told them before, but
they proceeded on. That was my -- I'm not a lawyer. So, I --
I felt like that was wrong, and that we should -- that's the
reason this agenda item is here to come before the Court. And
I have no problems for setting up or vacating the plat, but
it -- by my rules, it would be October the 10th.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think we --
MR. ODOM: 2006.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Based on what Commissioner
Letz said, we've got to back up and do it right. And --
MR. EMERSON: I did talk to the Voelkels --
9-11-OE
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
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think me and Mr. Voelkel
made the decision. That's why he's not here.
MR. ODOM: Not surprised.
MR. EMERSON: I was going to say, I did talk to the
Voelkels last week, and we discussed this issue thoroughly,
and they understood where I was coming from.
JUDGE TINLEY: That may be why they're not here.
Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Leonard, is there a -- I'm
still not clear on what you're talking about.
MR. ODOM: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is there another property
owner that's outside of this subdivision?
MR. ODOM: There is an adjacent property owner that
has access through this subdivision that's being requested to
be --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And if we abandon this thing,
then we're cutting him off?
MR. ODOM: Well --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: From his ingress-egress?
MR. ODOM: -- if he has an agreement already, prior,
an easement there, I -- it really gets in a gray area. Then
Voelkel might be right. But, to me, if you vacate the plat,
you vacate everything.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely. Sure, the road's
y ii on
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
part of the plat. That's --
MR. ODOM: Well, that's the way I -- I don't know
how you just do the vacating of the lots themselves without
the road. I'm not a lawyer. I just -- I'm a layman. I'm an
Aggie, so I --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He's an Aggie.
MR. EMERSON: We did win over the weekend.
MR. ODOM: He stayed in school two weeks longer than
I did.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Procedurally, what we need
to do, then, is set up a public hearing more than 30 days from
i now.
MR. ODOM: Counting what -- if I take today and go
30 days, then October the 10th, 2006, and I believe -- well, I
said today. Counting today, if you use the analogy of today
and 30 days, it would be October the 10th. Otherwise, it
would be another two weeks.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You only need -- actually, you
only need 21 days.
MR. ODOM: Pardon me?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You need 21 days by the statute
for this particular notice.
MR. ODOM: 25, you mean?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 21.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 21.
9-11-06
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
119
MR. ODOM: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: My reading of this item
says we've got the leeway to set that public hearing, so I'm
going to make a motion that on October 10, 2006, at 2 a.m., we
conduct a public hearing on order of the Court to abandon,
vacate, and discontinue Live Springs Ranch. Am I on the wrong
thing?
MR. ODOM: No, sir, but your timeline sure is long.
I mean, we have -- you set it at 2 o'clock in the afternoon.
JUDGE TINLEY: No, he said "a.m."
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In the morning.
MR. ODOM: Oh, 2 a.m. in the morning. Can I have
Truby represent me then? (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let me amend that to
10 a.m.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think we've already just set one
for 10 a.m.
MR. ODOM: How about 10:05?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay, at 10:05 a.m. I'm
going to be on a cruise either way, so --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: October 10th?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah, 10 a.m., public
hearing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to set a
9-11-U6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
120
public hearing for October 10, '06, at 10:05 a.m. to -- for
action to abandon, vacate, and discontinue a plat of Live
Springs Ranch. Any question or discussion on the motion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just a comment. But, Leonard,
as I -- from what they're trying to do, we can have the
hearing, we can vacate it, and we can do the final all at the
same time, at the same meeting.
MR. ODOM: I believe so. Just have three different
agenda items. Public hearing, --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So they're not delayed.
MR. ODOM: -- vacate --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Delayed two weeks.
MR. ODOM: -- and do a final. And they're putting
up a Letter of Credit is -- is the way we're going to -- the
way they're going.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Better check to make sure they
have enough.
MR. ODOM: Two-point -- nevermind. I believe I
could build a road for what they have. I don't want to, but I
could.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This is probably unwritten,
but I just always felt like one of the duties of the
Commissioners Court is to make sure people have ingress-egress
to their property, so I just want to be careful that we're not
cutting some guy off, the ability for him to get to his house.
9-11-06
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
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This public hearing will
give him an opportunity.
MR. ODOM: And there's -- and there's a circumstance
that's even following this. It's similar to that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Does it -- no, I'm not reading
this again. There's no requirement here that we notify all of
the individuals?
MR. ODOM: If we do it this way, there is no
requirement to notify. If we go the public notice, there is.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
MR. ODOM: And that's the kicker that I had, that
that individual, even though he didn't own anything in that
subdivision, was not being notified.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I mean, the public -- even
with the public notice, I think it -- because of Commissioner
Baldwin's concern, which I share, you may want to have someone
from your office contact the individual or qet a letter from
them to make sure that he is aware of this, from the
standpoint of, legally, the fact that we don't have to give
notice is sufficient, but I think we want to make sure that
the individual who uses that road is aware that that hearing
is taking place, and if he wants to come make a comment, he
can.
MR. ODOM: That can be handled, sir.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And, Leonard, we're -- I
9-il-oH
122
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
la
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
think the Court is saying we want to he]p the McCombs in their
effort to vacate and abandon this subdivision, but we want to
make sure we do it the correct way.
MR. ODOM: Do it correctly, that there's nothing
that comes back on anybody. We're not opposed to the project;
it's a good project.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Is that it on that one? Let's
move to Item 15; consider, discuss, and take appropriate
action --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Did we take action?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know there's a motion and
second.
MS. THOMPSON: We have a motion and second. ~
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We didn't vote yet.
JUDGE TINLEY: A thousand pardons. Any further
question or comment on the motion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, hold on. Let me figure
out what the motion was.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Public hearing.
JUDGE TINLEY: Public hearing.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Very good.
JUDGE TINLEY: You ready?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: All in favor of the motion, signify
9 ii-o6
123
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(NO response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. We'll now
move to Item 15; consider, discuss, and take appropriate
action --
MR. EMERSON: Quick question, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes?
MR. EMERSON: Does that motion include publication
for the notice? Since it's required to be published 21 days
before and says Commissioners Court shall publish?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's just procedure.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, I think so.
MR. EMERSON: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, Item 15. Consider, discuss,
and take appropriate action for revision of plat for Lots 79,
80, 81, 82, and 83 of The Woods, Section Two, as set Eorth in
Volume 4, Page 176, and located in Precinct 2.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mr. Odom?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. The public hearing for these
lots was held on August the 28th, 2006. This revision will
make three lots instead of five. The Court instructed the
Kilgores to get with Miguel to be sure the septic would work
on the smaller lot. The Kilgores have furnished us a letter
y-ii-oE
124
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
of credit and will have one year to build the cul-de-sac to
specifications. They plan to build a home on Lot 79-R, and
would like to wait until the construction is completed before
I they build the cul-de-sac so that heavy trucks will not damage
it. We don't have a problem with that. All other criteria
has been met, so at this time, we ask that you approve this
revision of plat.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And Environmental Health
signed off on the septic?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir, they sure did.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Any question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I got a question. In the --
in the letter from -- Leonard, from you to us -- yeah, to us,
it says that you -- someone would like to wait until
construction is completed before they build the cul-de-sac so
heavy trucks will not damage it. And, of course, I agree with
that; that makes sense. But I'm wondering, does the letter of
credit assure us that the cul-de-sac will be built if we wait?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. I mean, basically, it -- it's
-- we can file on the letter of credit.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MR. ODOM: If he doesn't do that.
9-11-U6
125
1
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: Make sure the money's there to
build it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other question or comment on the
motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your
right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(NO response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Let's move
to Item 16; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action for
the concept plan to revise Lot 5 of Creekwood Section IV, as
set forth in Volume 6, Page 290, and set a public hearing for
the same, located in Precinct 2.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mr. Odom?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. This is a concept plan. The
owners on either side of this lot have purchased it and would
like to divide it under the alternate plat process. The i
division appears to meet all the requirements of Kerr County
Subdivision Rules. As we are still learning the new rules and
how they apply to different size lots, we're not sure whether
this plat needed to be signed by Environmental Health, since
each lot will be over 25 acres. At this time, we ask that you
set a public hearing for this revision of plat for October the
10th, 2006, at 10:15 a.m.
9-11 06
126
1
2
3
4
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to set a
public hearing for October the 10th, 2006, at 10:15 a.m. Any
question or discussion on the motion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: In answer to your question, yes,
it does. I think any plat requires --
MR. ODOM: Well, I was thinking that it did. Used
to be exempt, but at this point --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All of them have to go to
Environmental Health. Is this the location in Creekwood IV
that we keep on having problems with?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This is 5. This is the part
way back in the back.
MR. ODOM: Sack in the back --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's not the one --
MR. ODOM: -- part of it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, this is back behind all
the open areas. This is moving --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is not the Burgess area?
MR. ODOM: No, this is not.
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.
A-ii-oH
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
127
(NO response.)
JODGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. We'll move to
Item 17. Consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to
rescind Court Order Number 29827 to abandon, vacate, and
discontinue Privilege Creek as set forth in Volume 7, Pages
136 and 137 of Plat Records, and located in Precinct 3.
Mr. Odom?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. In your packet, you have the
documentation from the counselor, who is present, Mr. Jackson,
explaining the need to keep the Privilege Creek Subdivision as
platted until such time as the owners have submitted a new
preliminary plat for Falls Ranch. At this time, we ask that
you rescind Court Order Number 29827, leaving Privilege Creek
Subdivision as recorded in Volume 7, Page 136 through 137.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of the agenda item to rescind Court Order Number 29827 and
leave intact the plat of Privilege Creek as set forth in
Volume 7, Page 136 -- Pages 136 and 137 of the Plat Records.
Any question or discussion on the motion? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(Commissioners Baldwin, Williams, and Nicholson
voted in favor of the motion.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
9-ii-u6
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
128
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Abstained.
JUDGE TINLEY: Why don't we --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I abstained.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, yeah. Why don't we be in
recess for lunch until about a quarter until 2:00. We'll come
back and handle the rest of this agenda, as well as the
reports that are scheduled.
(Recess taken from 12:15 p.m. to 1:45 p.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to order. We
were in recess for lunch. Let's move to the next item on the
agenda, Item 18. Consider, discuss, and take appropriate
action to amend the start date for the H.R. Director, Eva
Hyde, from October 2, 2006, to October 1, 2006.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, it was called to my
attention that the October 2 date would -- would make Ms. Hyde
have to wait almost two months for health care, whereas if she
were -- her start date was October 1 -- there's a 30-day
waiting period, so if you had October 2, that means you'd have
to wait 59 days. So, I placed it on the agenda to see if we
could --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
9-11 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
129
of the agenda item. Any question or discussion? All in favor
of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(NO response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Let's move
to 19; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on audit
engagement for Kerr County for fiscal year ending September
30th, 2006. I put this on the agenda in collaboration with
the County Auditor. We received a proposal from Pressler,
Thompson and Company concerning engagement for the annual
audit as required by law. The only question that I have is, I
think there are several components to how this audit's going
to be paid for. Some of it comes out of Juvenile Probation,
some of it comes out of Adult Probation, and then the majority
of it comes from this Court; is that correct, Mr. Auditor?
MR. TOMLINSON: That's correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: And do you have those numbers?
MR. TOMLINSON: 4,000 of it's paid for by Adult
~ Probation.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: 1,200 from Juvenile. The balance is
from the County.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, the amount we have in our current
proposed budget is adequate to cover the County's share of
9-11-06
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
that cost?
MR. TOMLINSON: 25,000.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: How does this compare to
what -- total cost compare with the previous year total cost?
MR. TOMLINSON: Same.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I got a question, Judge.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We don't have to take this
out for bid, because it's professional services?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a question.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How many -- how many years
has Pressler Thompson been doing our audit?
MR. TOMLINSON: Probably six to eight years.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I ask the question because
many government agencies change every five years to a separate
-- a different auditor. So, I don't have anything against
Pressler Thompson -- for or against, but I just raise the
question.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We put it out for bid, didn't
we, about four years ago? Three years ago? Seems that we've
just --
MR. TOMLINSON: I don't remember.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Seems that we've done it once
since I've been a Commissioner, went out for bid.
y-ii-o6
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
MR. TOMLINSON: I'm sure -- think for sure we have
some --
JUDGE TINLEY: Say again?
MR. TOMLINSON: I said I think for sure that we've
done that since Commissioner Letz has been here.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sut I share your concern. I
think it is probably preferable, anyway, to change auditors i
I
every so often so you don't get too close a relationship.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think that's the whole
purpose of another agency doing it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have a question.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: On Page 1 of the proposal,
about halfway down, there's a Number 1 and a Number 2. Is
this something new?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Where it says Management
Discussion and Analysis and Budgetary Comparisons? What page
are you on?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: First page of the letter.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: First page, right after
Number 2, Budgetary Comparison Schedules, Schedule of
expenditures of federal awards. I just don't recall -- is
this something new?
MR. TOMLSNSON: Not new. We've had it for -- it's
to include single audit for federal funds that exceed -- if we
9-11-06
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
have federal funds that exceed $500,000, we do a special
audit.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's one of the prerequisites of
that particular funding program, is it not? That there be
i a --
MR. TOMLINSON: Right, they're all -- all those, the
requirements for any federal fund grant's the same. If the
cumulative amount of all your grants exceed 500,000, then you
have to have a single audit. We've done that -- in fact, year
before last, we had our -- our funds exceeded 500,000. They
did not last year.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see. So they didn't do
this part last year?
MR. TOMLINSON: No.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Got a keen eye, Commissioner. Keen
eye.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I do. Actually, it was
something totally different than what I thought, but --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Don't say that.
JUDGE TINLEY: What -- I guess, particularly from a
timeline standpoint, number one, what are your thoughts about
going out for RFQ's again, and where's that going to put us
time-wise? That's probably going to take -- by the time we
9-11 06
133
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
get the proposals out, get them back, evaluate them, and make
an award, we're probably at least 60 days down the road, maybe
closer to 90. How's that going to affect us insofar as being
able to be timely on our audit?
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, we -- we start gathering
information next month. We -- we send out confirmations in
October.
JUDGE TINLEY: What are your thoughts about going
out for RFQ this year?
MR. TOMLINSON: I'd rather wait to give plenty of
time. I'd like to -- I'd like to do it, like, in December or
January for the next year.
JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, that would be for '07-'08, then,
you're talking about?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Then am I correct in -- in assuming
that you think we're a little bit late in the game for this
immediate past -- or soon will be this immediate past fiscal
year?
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, in my experience in audit
~ firms, --
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
MR. TOMLINSON: -- they have a schedule, and they're
-- they're booked -- their schedule is from -- from now
through probably December or January.
9-11-Oh
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
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: So I think we'd run into an issue of
not -- maybe not getting enough interest, because they
don't -- they might not have the time to put in on it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, I'm with you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, this needs to be on our --
probably in January or February?
MR. TOMLINSON: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: If we're going to submit requests for
qualifications.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's fine. Just wanted to
raise the question.
JUDGE TINLEY: It's a good point.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are you going to put it on
the -- get the word to Kathy, Commissioner, to bring it back
around then?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The Auditor can bring it
back. He knows what --
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah, sure.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I don't think I have a motion
at this point.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We need a motion? Do we
need a notion to approve engagement of Pressler, Thompson
Company for the audit? I move it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
9-ii-ob
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
JUDGE TINLEY: That's for the fiscal year ending
September 30 this year?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right.
MS. THOMPSON: And do we need to include having the
County Judge sign?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion. Any questions or
discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify
by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.) i
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(NO response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. We'11 move
to Item 20; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to
amend Court Order 29831 to allow the Blue Knights to use Flat
Rock Lake Park the weekend of October 28, '06, that being 27,
28, and 29 October, instead of the weekend of October 21, '06.
This is -- I'm sure most of you recall, we approved their use
of the Flat Rock Lake Park for the October 21 weekend. They
came back and asked us to change that. we may have us a
little snafu here. It seems that Kerr County Fair is going on
that particular weekend, the following weekend, the
October 27, 28, and 29 weekend. Alyce tells me that it's
doable by requiring the parking of trailers to be over on the
9-ii-o6
136
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
Swap Shop park side, putting their trailers down in there as
opposed to where they've put them in previous years down in
Flat Rock Lake. That'll make Flat Rock open for the Kerr
County Fair. You have not yet talked to McCutcheon -- Rob
McCutcheon about that?
MS. DAVIDSON: No, I have not. But I can, I mean,
in a heartbeat.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
MS. DAVIDSON: It just depends if he wants to
compete with that, since there's a chili cook-off going on
during the fair, and then their chili cook-off. We'll talk. ~
I'll talk to him.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. DAVIDSON: And get back with you.
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't see this as something that we
must make a decision on today. We can bring that back after
she has an opportunity to discuss the logistical situation
with McCutcheon. Anybody else have any different thoughts?
Okay. Okay, that brings us to our departmental reports. I.T.
MR. TROLINGER: Well, good afternoon. I've got a
relatively large report 7 handed out this morning just before
court. Should be on your desk in front of you. I want to hit
the highlights real quickly. The County Clerk's evaluating
her land records and electronic imaging of all the land
records versus -- right now they're on racks. That'll be a
9 11-U6
137
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
large project, probably $200,000 by the time it's done. She's
budgeted for the money available in the Records Management
fund to -- to cover the cost of that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- this is for plats,
~ correct?
MR. TROLINGER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Plat files?
MR. TROLINGER: Plat files and actual deed records
that are on racks right now.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- more from the plat side,
if they're imaged, how do people access them easily with the
imaging?
MR. TROLINGER: The primary method's going to be to
print out a copy for a user that wants a plat. But to examine
a plat, I think she's still going to -- I don't know if she's
going to retain that paper or not. I don't know. But the
plan right now is the scanning capability, the printing
capability, and the workstation will be able to view the plat.
But, you know, depending on how many users she has doing that,
we may only have one workstation for -- that has a large
enough screen, basically.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That was my concern. I mean,
obviously, you have much less equipment, because the screen is
so much larger. To be able to see it, it's got to be the size
of a plat, basically.
9-ii-oc
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
MR. TROLINGER: Well, an image is an image. If it's
the size of a plat versus the size of this, then you have to
scroll around.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, but you can't --
MR. TROLINGER: On-screen.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: My experience is that I can't
figure out what a plat looks like from scrolling around to 10
different screens.
MR. TROLINGER: That's a good point. We'll have to
look at that as we get into the project.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Got to be -- you know, they have
to be usable. And, I don't know how often or even -- you
know, the public looks at those plat files. I have no idea.
But I just thought when we look at them here, when they're on
three sheets, as we require under our rules, that makes it
very cumbersome to figure -- to look at them, but much less
having them, you know, off an image in a computer that you're
just going to be able to look at snapshots of.
MR. TROLINGER: Okay, we'll make sure to concentrate
on that as we get into the project. I -- I don't see this
happening before the end of the year. We're at the evaluation
stage on selecting vendors to do the scanning and indexing
work, et cetera.
JUDGE TINLEY: You said total cost of approximately
200,000?
5-11-GN
139
1
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. TROLINGER: That's my rough estimate, including
the -- the everything included.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I believe she's tentatively
indicating this will have to come up as one of the tail-end
budget items that I'm building a file on, 111,000, mas ox
menos, out of the Records Management fund, that specialized
dedicated fund, for this equipment and supplies, I guess. I'm
not sure what all --
MR. TROLINGER: Yes, sir. Last year, there wasn't
anywhere near enough to get started on this project, and now
that the fund is built up to the point where we can get a
start on the project, we're ready to go.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: $200,000 worth?
MR. TROLINGER: No, sir. The initial cost is about
$100,000, and then once we get that initial cost and the
initial infrastructure in place, such as the large scanner and
printer, then the records can then be scanned -- imaged and
brought into electronic format. And I've got a quote from one
company that shows that that's about $100,000 worth of work
also, depending on how we do it, in-house or send it outside
to a wholesale -- have it all scanned at once.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But that 100,000 wasn't
included in the County CLerk's budget, was it?
MR. TROLINGER: It'll be broken out over probably
several years to fully scan.
9-11-Oo
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
140
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is the -- you mentioned the deed
records that are on racks. Do you know what portion of this
project is the deed records versus the plats?
MR. TROLINGER: The plats is -- the plats are, for
the hardware, $25,000. And scanning, if we do it in-house,
there's no additional --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess I'm trying to figure out
the -- I was -- I'm sorry, I missed the meeting when this was
discussed, but what's the drive to do this? I mean, is it
space, because of the cabinets that are required for the
plats? Is it trying to become more efficient, or -- I mean, I
see -- I don't -- I see scanning a lot of things is real
helpful, 'cause you save space. But the platting side of it,
I just don't -- seems like a larger expenditure for something
that -- if you're going to have to everyone that wants to look
at them printing a copy, I don't see how we're gaining a whole
lot. Truby?
MS. HARDIN: In the Subdivision Rules, there's --
there was a request for a copy; I think it's a DWG file for
every plat that's been done, so the surveyors have those files
for every plat that's been done for the last 30, 40 years.
MR. TROLINGER: Oh, great. So they've got a CAD --
AutoCAD file available now.
MS. HARDIN: One of them, yeah. There was a place
in San Antonio where you could get any of them that were done
9 11 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
in Kerr County. I've never gone to the site, but -- never had
a need for it, but I don't know why we would need to scan them
if the files are available.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. That's good.
MR. TROLINGER: Well, the difference between the
original document and the document that's on the -- on the
surveyor's computer is different. The County Clerk's got the
original with a stamp and approval. I think that's the
primary difference on these records --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the --
MR. TROLINGER: -- that Truby's talking about.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And if that is the difference, I
guess I've often wondered what the purpose of the DWG file
requirement in our Subdivision Rules was. And it sounds like
it's not being used by anyone in the county, certainly.
MR. TROLINGER: It's -- AutoCAD is the name of the
software file, and it's a very special software program for --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. Well, I understand that,
but I thought it was being used by somebody. That's why it
was in there for so long. Okay.
MR. TROLINGER: Is it the architects that use that
file to trade data?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Architectural engineer.
MS. HARDIN: Surveyors.
MR. TROLINGER: Should be the surveyors exchanging
9-11-06
142
1
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 data in that format.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We probably need to revisit this
at some point.
MR. TROLINGER: In any case, the -- the remaining
records will be scanned, and we're also looking at electronic
filing by the title companies, versus having to come into the
office in person and file. We went and looked at Bexar
County's operation, and they basically went from a very large
room with very many computers and public access to having a
mostly empty room with computers in it for their land records
lookup, and filing purposes.
JUDGE TINLEY: And it's more efficient for the court
personnel as well, isn't it?
MR. TROLINGER: I think it's the same amount of work
for the court, except they can process it in batch form.
Instead of having it come in -- trickle in during the day,
they can process it electronically all at one time.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Could multiple plat users
use this -- say, if you had two, three people in there at the
same time researching plats, can they all be serviced at the
same time? Or do they have to wait in line to get in front of
a screen?
MR. TROLINGER:	It would be	-- right	now, we've got
three workstations; it would be three	at a time. If it's made
available to the public -	- like, for	instance,	the way Bexar
9 11 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
143
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Truby, not to get off this, but
MS. HARDIN: Most of them have it in their offices
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, okay.
MR. TROLINGER: Probably the second item that I
wanted to touch on was that KPUB did routine maintenance of
the courthouse transformer this past week. They found damaged
power cable and repaired it at the same time. They really --
the KPUB crew really went the extra -- to the extra effort to
dig into this and find the problem, and then get it repaired.
I don't think we all saw that, because it was a 7 a.m. -- or a
7 p.m. to 10 p.m. event for them. I helped out Collections
with financial reporting, and I've got a separate written
report on that, if we need to talk about that after
Collections reports to you. It goes in-depth into financial
reporting, and it's one of the key pieces of Odyssey. I don't
know how much time you'd like to spend on something like that
in court, but it does pertain to the Court because they are
financial reports that you receive. And I'll just -- I'll
leave it at that. I'll let the written report say the rest.
9-11-06
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
144
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I've got a couple items.
Talk about, please, electronic time reporting with the S.O.
MR. TROLINGER: Yes, sir. I sat down with the
Sheriff's Office, with the Sheriff's secretary, training
officer, and the Sheriff, and we reviewed the electronic time
reporting and spent over an hour, probably, reviewing it. And
their determination is that it will not work for them. I
don't know if those are the correct -- the exact words.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is the Sheriff just being
stubborn on this?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Me, stubborn?
MR. TROLINGER: No, sir. They took a hard look at
the --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Still got a quill pen and
an inkwell there doing pay records?
MR. TROLINGER: They took a hard look at it, but it
I is --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I'm not stubborn.
MR. TROLINGER: It would be a significant change
from the way they're doing things now, which is half
electronic and half paper. But it -- in some cases, it fits
the way that they're doing this.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The way -- if I can speak on
that subject, you'll understand why.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I was hoping you would.
g-ii-o6
145
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay. Real quick, what --
what -- the problem we have with the way the electronic
reporting reports is, it's going to report exactly what hours
a person works, which is true, and exactly what hours they
take off. Okay. And then you get into a mixture of the 160
hours to 171 hours, which is different, all right, for law
enforcement, and at the end of it, the bottom line on what you
report is there are times, such as holidays, if an officer
works on a holiday, we do not pay him those extra hours, okay?
It goes into a holiday bank that he can take off. Otherwise,
all they add up is -- all they build up is vacation. That way
I don't pay out the amount of overtime. If we go to this
system, everything that they do, instead of us having the
flexibility of trying to give it off in the same 28-day
period -- pay period, it's going to pay them for it, and that
will cost this county a whole lot more in actual dollars,
'cause I lose the flexibility of being able to change things
around to give people time off so they get their time without
having to pay them for every minute that they --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm thinking, though,
Sheriff, that the program can be revised to accommodate the
peculiarities --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: My understanding is the program
If it can be, I'd be more
9 11 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
You know, I really thought at the beginning when we talked it
would be harder on who our approved users are and submitting
it, 'cause it goes from the individual officer to a
supervisor, and then to the chief, and then to our personnel
clerk on how all this stuff gets -- we've got a lot of checks
and balances. And I thought that was going to cause us a
problem, but in dealing with John on it, that's not the
problem. It's the problem that it's going to pay them for
every minute that they're out there, and that's not the way we
can do business without my payroll and my overtime being ten
times what it is now. And that's why I say no.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Do we -- anywhere in the
county, are we still using time clocks?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I have one that we haven't used
I in --
MS. DAVIDSON: Maintenance. We do in Maintenance.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Why?
MS. DAVIDSON: Why? Just to keep an eye on -- track
on things. When -- when you have, I think, computers,
sometimes it gets a glitch, and this is just exactly what he
did. And --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You've probably got an
antique there.
MS. DAVIDSON: Probably do.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Most businesses probably
q ii ob
147
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
haven't seen one of those in 40, 50 years.
MS. DAVIDSON: We use it every day.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't have a problem -- it's
a good system and it's a good way of keeping track of most of
it. I'm just concerned about how we're having to pay overtime
by going to it, 'cause it's either that or we have to falsify
what we submit by saying they took this off and not this. And
that's not a true deal of what the officer actually wants to
sign off on, and then I've got a problem.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's a two- or three-day
training session that's scheduled in October with the software
people; correct, Mr. Trolinger? On payroll. Right,
Mr. Auditor?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, that's right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll find somebody with the
right answer here. Is there any reason why this wouldn't be
discussed with those folks, or are they the wrong people?
MR. TROLINGER: That's the right time and the right
people.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And it should be.
JUDGE TINLEY: Basically, what the Sheriff's saying
is if a program can be modified or devised that will do
electronic time reporting which incorporates the nuances that
you need to have --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Then I have no problem; I'm all
9-ii o~
148
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
for it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's nail it.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Thanks. Mr. Trolinger,
could you talk about the last item on your report?
MR. TROLINGER: There's a district court case -- I
was asked by the Sheriff's Office investigations to examine a
hard drive, and I made a brief review, recommended it be moved
on to Austin, and I've been subpoenaed in the actual case
that's gone to trial.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That wasn't a hard drive of
a Kerr County-owned computer?
MR. TROLINGER: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. That's all. That's
all I've got.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How is the Odyssey?
MR. TROLINGER: I've got some issues with some of
the departments that need to be corrected.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: With the program, or with the
departments?
MR. TROLINGER: With the people.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I got issues with Odyssey,
~ but --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We need to have a workshop on
Odyssey sometime this fall so we can get -- hear both sides.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We had one three weeks ago.
9-11-06
14S
1
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. TROLINGER: At the Sheriff's Office, we had a
pretty in-depth discussion -- two weeks ago? Three weeks ago?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: About three weeks ago, when I
demanded they come down or I was going up there.
MR. TROLINGER: Okay. And then, also, I had a
one-hour session with each of the patrol -- actually, all law
enforcement at the Sheriff's Office to get feedback and to
give training on the new features that were released a
couple-three weeks ago.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is your perception that most
departments are happy with Odyssey?
MR. TROLINGER: Oh, no, they're going to complain.
It's just human nature. They use it as an excuse, mostly.
It's very difficult to deal with some days. Some days I'm on
my last nerve.
JUDGE TINLEY: Resistance to change?
MR. TROLINGER: Yes, sir. And, you know, just like
Brad, he can tell you I've gotten down to my last nerve on
this. And it's -- it's about procedures and how things are
done. But the software is -- especially on the court side, I
think is just the greatest thing since sliced bread. But
depending on which user you go to and see how they're using
the software, and the process on how they've been told to use
the software, that's all the difference.
JUDGE TINLEY: Training issues?
9-11-06
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
150
MR. TROLINGER: Sir?
JUDGE TINLEY: Training issues again?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Attitude.
MR. TROLINGER: I'm down to personnel and people and
how things are done, procedure. And there's a big one that --
that Collections has with their -- with their report to the
Commissioners. That will come up today.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir.
MR. TROLINGER: You're welcome.
JUDGE TINLEY: Road and Bridge?
MS. HARDIN: I think all of you have a report before
you. And in July and August, we did over 71,000 gallons of
oil on the roads that we have listed there. We ran out of
money before we got all the roads paved. Those that were not
completed will be done as soon as you give us some more money.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Glad to see you got Precinct 3
taken care of.
MS. HARDIN: We got Precinct 3. Unfortunately, most
of them were in 1 and a few in 2, but the next list of things
were all done in 1, so he should be happy. Town Creek project
was completed on August 31st, and it took us -- took the
contractor only 57 days. The realignment of Upper Turtle
Creek is complete, and we're still waiting for the paperwork
on that one. They finished placing concrete curbs and black
-ii-oE
151
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
base to take out the large dip on Ball Drive that we've been
"stop ahead" signs, speed signs, because once the dip is out,
the speed's going to go up tremendously. Mr. Matter's crew
has been working on Upper Turtle Creek clearing the brush,
cutting back the hill and installing new fences for a better
line of sight on Keith Boulevard, which is something that's
been in the works for several years.
On subdivision plats, we only -- there were nine new
ones since the last report, and most of those are plats that
were done under the alternate plat process. We're -- and then
on the floodplain, we only had -- out of all of this list,
only two of those are new. All the others are still pending
completion, 'cause they have six months to finish them. We
got a couple of reports from U.G.R.A., people doing things on
their property. One of them was Mr. Stevens, who had his
permit from last -- last month. He has six months to comply,
and they lust wanted to know if he was in compliance. And the
other one was a piece of property that was near the city
limits, but not in the floodplain, and they were moving dirt
around, but we have no jurisdiction over that.
We have one employee who is out on worker's comp
because he hurt his back while he was shoveling asphalt on
Ball Drive. Our budget is real close, but we're working to
9-11-U6
152
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
get everything finished that we can within the budget. And I
have one other thing that was not on the list. I designed a
web site for Road and Bridge to link to the county site. I've
linked it to the Subdivision Rules, Manufactured Home rules,
the floodplain permit. Would y'all like to see a copy of it
before I send it to Mr. Trolinger to put on, to see if there's
anything else that y'all would like to have on there?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So you'll be able to access
the Subdivision Rules on the Internet?
MS. HARDIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's good.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But you can't change them
around. Locked version.
MS. HARDIN: They're done on the -- they'll be in
Adobe format, which is what I sent earlier, just as those that
are -- I think Kathy -- y'all got a copy? Y'all got a copy
Friday?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
MS. HARDIN: Of the Subdivision Rules. It will be
exactly what's printed in that book, except I don't know how
to put it on the site. Would y'all like to see a copy of it
before we do it to see if there's anything else that you'd
like to add?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Not me.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No.
q-ii-o6
153
1
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. HARDIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We'll look at it. Then we'll
leave it to Trolinger to make the changes, or you. We'll look
at it. It's easier to look at it -- it's a lot easier to look
at it on the interest, to me, and see then if you have
comments about it.
MS. HARDIN: Okay, that's fine. I just thought
maybe there might be something else you wanted to add.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Now, that's 20th century
work, 21st century work. That's good work. Unlike the old
way of keeping time records, you're progressing.
MS. HARDIN: We don't have a time clock either. Are
we going to be expected to do some kind of electronic
timekeeping? That's the first I'd heard about it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes. The answer is yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You are.
MS. HARDIN: Okay.
MR. TROLINGER: I talked to Mr. Odom about it,
probably just in passing, to ask his thoughts on it.
MS. HARDIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, ma'am.
MS. HARDIN: Okay, thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Facilities and Maintenance?
MS. DAVIDSON: I guess we're talking time clocks
9-11-Oti
154
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
now? I'm next, huh?
JUDGE TINLEY: Or newer generation time clocks,
maybe.
MS. DAVIDSON: I like the older clock, though. July
and August were rough months for us, being with Glenn's
sickness and death, and then August trying to recover from
that. So, things were like, I guess, a fog for the last two
months. So, with the Youth Exhibit Center, things have been
going smoothly with the work there. Exhibit Hall has been
staying steady. In August, there were, as you see on there,
only two dates that took in revenue, and the others were
non-revenue. That's -- that's a lot that didn't -- money
didn't go into. So, there's a lot of things that I'd like to
work out on this, on the reservation end of it. If anybody
has any input and would like to help me, I'm -- I'd be willing
to learn, big-time, about that. So, other than that, that is
it. There hasn't been much, other than last Thursday and the
electricity being turned off. Maria was here; she took care
of that, so -- she worked with Trolinger, and hopefully that
will take care of some of the power surges that I see down in
your department.
MR. EMERSON: Okay.
MS. DAVIDSON: And I think Brad was talking also
about power surges in his office. So, work from there and see
what happens. We'll keep a close eye on that. So, that's it.
9-11-06
155
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Not much going on. Any questions?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Utilities are a big issue at
the Hill Country Youth Exhibit Center.
MS. DAVIDSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are we taking all the steps
that we could be taking to curb our electric use when the
building is not being rented?
MS. DAVIDSON: I hope so. I will keep up on that
for sure. It was stressed before Glenn passed away that that
was to be done, lights turned off in the indoor arena. If you
didn't need them on, you didn't use them; don't drive the
Bobcat if you didn't need to, just 'cause you're bored, things
like that. A/C turned down -- I mean turned up to accommodate
not being cold in there. There are things that we have been
trying to keep an eye on. I think it needs to be watched
closely, closer than it has been. I feel that somebody should
be out there supervising it more than it is right now.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Seems like to me that Glenn
had replaced and put in more efficient light bulbs of some
sort at one time in the last couple of years.
MS. DAVIDSON: They're all fluorescent.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know; I don't
remember.
MS. DAVIDSON: They're the same ones that Mindy
orders all the time for us that we use now. I'm not sure. We
a-ii-o~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
156
use the same ones here in the courthouse that we do out there
as well.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's the new electronic --
so-called electronic flourescents that use that ballast
that --
MS. DAVIDSON: Correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. DAVIDSON: The same ones that we're using here
now, so they're used out there as well. So, I have other
issues, but I can talk later about them. I'd rather not bring
them up now. So, other than that, that's it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Wait a minute. What do you
mean, you can talk later?
MS, DAVIDSON: I'll talk later. This is report
time. Other issues I'd like to bring up later.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, I see.
MS, DAVIDSON: Okay?
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions? Thank you,
~ ma'am.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner, help me with
my memory. Were we a test case for Odyssey? Are we the --
one of the first ones to install it?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The answer is yes.
MR. TROLINGER: For the full integration for law
9-11-06
157
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
enforcement and jail, we were the first, and we received a
substantial discount. The cost to Odyssey is twice for the
courts what it was last year.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, the 254 counties
having to keep -- having to pay jailers and deputies under the
same laws that we do, somebody's going to come up with a
solution to this -- this issue of the program not working for
them.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And Odyssey -- on the payroll,
Odyssey may be able to. It's just trying to keep the times
right now, okay? Without that, maybe the meeting in October
will help it. But when Trolinger and all of us looked at it,
without what I consider changing what is reality on times, we
can't get around it, and hopefully that can be worked out
right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The only other county 1 know
of is Abilene.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That has Odyssey?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Hays County is going to do it.
Guadalupe County is coming up in the next few weeks to look at
it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Gillespie County started last year in
some respects.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Partially.
9-ii-oF
158
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. TROLINGER: Dallas County uses courts.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Dallas County were the first
ones using everything. There are what I consider major
problems in it right now that we're discovering in law
enforcement or jail that --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: My only point is the fact
that it won't -- it's not a useful tool to you now. Doesn't
mean that it has to be that way forever.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's right.
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, just a minute. Odyssey has
not handled payroll.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What?
MR. TOMLINSON: Odyssey program is not -- does not
handle the payroll. That's a totally separate --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: -- piece of software. Odyssey has
nothing to do with payroll.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, how will we address
that in October, then, if it's a different package?
MR. TOMLINSON: Because the people that are coming
are the people that designed our software for payroll.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is that Incode?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
9-11-06
159
1
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: Same issues, just different
company.
JUDGE TINLEY: Same problem, different players.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All under the same roof;
different room, probably.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Collections?
MR. ALFORD: Any questions?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Looks like you're staying where
you are.
MR. ALFORD: So far. The report, as y'all know, we
haven't been very accurate, as far as what we deem to be
accurate, since we left the old system. I've been in touch
with Software numerous times. I have an e-mail along with the
I.T. department here, something we're trying to do. We're
trying to go back -- I like the old system on how much was
assessed, how much we collected, so I can come in here and
tell you basically what we're making. That report at this
particular time, due to issues that it does not exist and will
not exist for some time, it's something we're working on.
It's a big picture that involves all the clerks' offices, the
courts, all kinds of stuff.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do we have a target date?
MR. ALFORD: No, sir. The last e-mail I got
basically says -- this particular person I've been talking to
9-ii-o6
16G
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
says, "I requested a change to the standard report, but at
this time, until it's complete, I cannot fulfill your
request." So, in other words, it has been submitted as an
issue, but we have no end date on it. It's something that
John and I have talked about extensively over multiple
meetings. I mean, John ran some figures for me the other day.
It shows that last year, '04-'O5, we collected $606,000. Have
an outstanding balance, including credit, of $92,000. Well,
that all looks real good, but I'm not real sure how accurate
it is, 'cause I got to picking it apart and I found where
we're $32,000 off just because probation fees are still in our
system. So, you know, I just -- I'm not real comfortable
submitting y'all a report and not knowing how accurate the
figures are. I can't tell you plus or minus 10 percent or
$100,000; S just -- that's something I can't do right now.
So, that is something that we're working on to try to get
fixed up.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is the amount collected
I accurate?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah.
MR. ALFORD: Yeah, probably. But I -- my main
concern right now is -- is outstanding. I don't think -- I
mean, this one shows that for '04-'05, we have $92,000
outstanding, and I've already eliminated $32,000 of that. So,
you know, that's telling me that we're basically, you know,
9-ii-o6
161
1
"~, 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
$50,000, $60,000 outstanding for '04-'O5, which to me would
i said that for sure. And, so, that's kind of -- you know, I
don't know how accurate they are, but I think that we can
I
assume so far that we've collected $606,000 for '04-'O5 year.
Other projects I have going on, I'm currently trying
to work with Alyce to build the Youth Facility/Maintenance a
web site and get a lot of her policies, procedures, forms
where people can just download them, print them out, e-mail
them back, whatever she wants to do. We met a couple of weeks
ago. I kind of gave her some guidelines, and she went back to
her office to work on forms and statements like that. Rest of
I my	computer	work has	been, you know, pretty	slow.	I've	helped
do	-- John's	scared	to death that everybody	will -	- last	year,
with this power shut-down, and I'd run around the courthouse
showing everybody how to do backups of all their files and
stuff like that. But other than that, it's been pretty --
pretty quiet. Mouse doesn't work, stuff like that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You haven't ran around
MR. ALFORD: Okay, I have waddled extremely fast for
my age, thank you very much.
9-11-06
162
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. The -- do you want to
talk about cutting the door and painting big yellow feet on
the floor?
MR. ALFORD: I'm not --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I like the yellow feet.
MR. ALFORD: A11 I learned this morning was I'm not
going to have an office in a bathroom.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How much would it cost to put
a door in your office wall?
MR. ALFORD: Well, I'm not very sure. I know where
there's possibly $400.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We better get somebody else
~~ if he can't up come with numbers like that.
~ MR. ALFORD: I said I know where there's $400 of
free money. Does that count?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: $400 of free money?
MR. ALFORD: That you've already budgeted, but
haven't spent, so I guess it's free. No, Glenn had put some
money in Jannett's budget to do some type of -- y'all may know
more about it than I do -- cabinets or --
JUDGE TINLEY: Counters.
MR. ALFORD: Right. And I'm not very sure that's
going to be getting done anytime soon. So, Jannett had
suggested maybe we could look at that $400. I've talked to
one individual about just putting a hollow-core door, you
9-ii-oh
163
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
know, a lockable door. It doesn't have to be a fire door or
real secure where we're just -- that way, in the afternoons we
can close the door and we're done with it. So, I -- I don't
know how talented --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Under fire marshal regulations,
if it goes out to a hallway, it has to --
MR. ALFORD: This is internal. This is internal.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay.
MR. ALFORD: Now, I'm not really sure of our
Maintenance Department's skills. They may be able to take a
saw and cut a hole in it; $200, $300, we're done. I don't
know.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Why don't you find out about
I that?
MR, ALFORD: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else, gentlemen?
MR, TROLINGER: Brad, do you want me to talk about
the financial report?
MR. ALFORD: No, 'cause I'm still in disagreement
~ with you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Why don't -- why don't you get
yourself comfortable with the accuracy of what you're doing
and come back here next go-around and be in a position to
comfortably tell us you got the highest collection rate of any
Collections department in the state?
9-11 06
164
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. ALFORD: Did you hear that?
MR. TROLINGER: Well, I've got a complete report on
exactly what Brad's addressing, and I -- I can tell you what
the problems are right now.
JUDGE TINLEY: Would I understand it?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can you fix the problem?
MR. TROLINGER: Yes, sir, it's in English.
JUDGE TINLEY: That doesn't mean I can understand it
if it's -- if it's high-tech, John.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is it fixable?
MR. TROLINGER: Yes. It requires changes in court
procedures.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, boy.
MR. ALFORD: Yeah. That's why I don't want to talk
about it right now,
JUDGE TINLEY: That means the judges are going to
have to change what they're doing?
MR. TROLINGER: No, sir, but I think it needs to be
addressed with you a11, 'cause financial reports that you
receive, both Collections and --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's talk about that.
MR. TROLINGER: The County Court and the District
Court, actually.
MR, ALFORD: The problem is right now that -- that
we're having a lot of the old -- in the old files, whenever
9-11 06
165
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
-- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
•"' 2 4
25
probation was integrated with us, they would put in probation
fees into our system. well, that's something that y'all
aren't concerned about; that's probation fees. But they're in
of time, I just went down, started doublechecking some of
these cases, and to and behold, $32,000 of it was probation
fees, Crimestoppers fees, MAD fee. I mean, just go on and on
and on. That was assessed by Probation, so what I've been
doing is basically omit -- trying to omit those fees.
Another problem we're having is a lot of these
reports will show -- well, the Clerk's office are assessing
court costs before the case has ever gone to trial, before the
Judge has ever slammed the hammer and says that you owe this
kind of money. What the -- I'm assuming what they're doing is
trying to stay ahead of the curve. The clerks, whenever the
that the day of court, whenever the Judge slams the hammer
down, $500 fine, all they have to do is add the fine. Kind of
helping them out. Well, that's causing great concerns with
these reports, because, you know, we may have $100,000 worth
of costs in the computer system that's never been adjudicated.
So, for that reason --
N 11 n6
166
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That sounds like to me that
needs to stop.
MR. ALFORD: It -- I mean, that --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's not real. That they're
-- I mean, that they're doing it is real, but it's not a real
number.
MR. ALFORD: Well, it's -- and it's not a real
number. The only thing I think it's probably doing is trying
to help them save time, 'cause whenever they walk into the
courtroom, instead of having to enter two fees, they're only
having to add -- enter one.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand clearly, but I
don't know that anybody at this table is interested in saving
time.
MR. ALFORD: Well --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: At this point, we want ~
accurate numbers.
MR. ALFORD: I understand. I'm just telling you
where the Collections Department's coming from.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And what if that was stopped?
What would happen?
MR. ALFORD: I think that, eventually, we would
start having a more accurate report. I mean, I can't tell you
how long it's going to take to get this cleared up.
JUDGE TINLEY: How's that going to affect you?
9-11-05
167
1
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; That's a problem if we don't have
court costs before we're in court, because we sit down with a
defendant across the table, we negotiate a plea bargain, and
then we immediately start filling out our paperwork. We have
to have court costs to put in the paperwork to get the
~I judgments.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But you fax everything I do
when we get the judgment.
JUDGE TINLEY: What's the timeline lag between it
being -- probation costs assessed and actual costs assessed?
What's the timeline lag there?
MR. EMERSON: I don't know when they're putting the
probation in the system.
MR. TROLINGER: Months.
JUDGE TINLEY: Months.
MR. ALFORD: Could be years. You know -- well, say
the County Attorney's office files a case for assault, issues
a warrant. Johnny absconds; he moves to New Mexico. It may
be four or five years before he's ever arrested.
JUDGE TINLEY: At the point that case is filed, is
there a cost that accrues in your system?
MR. ALFORD: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's not when they're getting down
to the plea and it's, you know, within a day or two, or maybe
even a week or two of going to court, when they need to have
y-ii-o6
168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Z1
22
23
24
25
that figure?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, that makes a little
more sense.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's more realistic. But don't
accrue a cost that -- that hasn't been added to be paid just
because the case is filed.
MR, ALFORD: And I'm kind of talking out -- I don't
want to put Cheryl on the spot, 'cause I don't know how much
she knows; I'm not real sure. I'm assuming that whenever the
case is brought up is when they're putting in the court costs.
I really don't know that for sure, but I'm assuming they're
trying to do as much as they can all at once, i
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Well, the other thing you and
I have talked about is defendants -- for example, say he's
adjudicated or deferred adjudication, and he's out on
probation for a year, and he -- you've got probation fees of,
say, $25 or $40 a month, whatever it is, and you immediately
plug in the entire 12 months at that figure, and then
subsequently his probation is revoked. You've told me that
the way your system is set up, you continue to show -- let's
say he's revoked at the end of six months -- the remaining
balance, six months at $40 a month, $240 as a receivable.
MR. ALFORD: Forever.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, that's not earned. It needs to
be dropped off.
9-1]-U6
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
IO
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
169
MR. ALFORD: Well, and that's what threw John and i.
MR. TROLINGER: Well, the two things I found, and
you've touched on both of them, are that, yes, number one,
court costs are being imposed when a case is being filed. And
although it looks great to have Odyssey as a calculator, the
district courts use a chart to look up these numbers, and it's
a very simple process. Odyssey can act as a calculator
without filing -- without including the financial charges when
the case is filed, and it's a couple of steps to show the
clerks how to do that. But, really, what -- really, the
reason I wrote this report, and I want to bring it to your
attention, is that this affects all Odyssey financial reports,
and it affects GASB, Government -- Governmental Accounting
Standards Board. And it affects GASB-34 that the Auditor
receives from the courts, which is a report in Odyssey, and
makes it basically useless, from what I'm seeing. And it
affects several other financial reports; some of them are
I brought directly to Commissioners Court and filed with the
i County Clerk.
The Collections department brought this up, and I
9-11-On
1
`~ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
-- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
170
delved into it because Brad just got on my last nerve,
that the criminal cases, when they're filed, fees are being
assessed, the court costs, at that time. And these cases
right now, if you go and look in Odyssey, you will see
thousands, probably tens -- hundreds --
MR. ALFORD: I don't know. A lot.
MR. TROLINGER: A lot of money there that has not
een assessed. There has not been a judgment on
there's a disposition on the case.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, what you're saying is when a case
is -- criminal case is filed, it automatically imposes
whatever the normal cost is for that type of case. It shows
up on an operating statement as having accrued, and on a
balance sheet it's going to show up as a receivable.
MR. TROLINGER: Yes, sir. And Software Group asked
very point-blank -- they recommended against this. And I've
talked with Software. They have three or four counties that
continue this practice, with the old software and new both.
And it's -- it's always been a problem for them, is what
they're telling me.
JUDGE TINLEY: Under the old system, Brad, it didn't
5-ii-oe
171
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
do this?
MR. TROLINGER: It did.
MR. ALFORD: Not the report, the particular report I
ran, because what I ran worked off of the supposed dates --
MR. TROLINGER: And that's the key. Brad had a
report in Legacy that he wants to create in Odyssey, but I see
that report as violating the -- you know, a couple of -- a
couple of codes, possibly, by extracting certain things from
the financials and really not displaying the true numbers that
are in the system. In other words, Brad's old report would
extract certain fees that, you know, he needed to report on,
but the probation fees were still there. And just like you
brought up, the Probation Department, it looks like -- I'm not
going to use the wording I wrote in the report, but they
didn't manage those fees, and they remain on the cases, even
once the probationer has stopped -- you know, correct. And
those fees remain today on those cases, some of them ten years
old.
MR. ALFORD: Can I say something?
JUDGE TINLEY: Do you have an issue?
MR. EMERSON: Do y'all want me to go get the Clerk?
MR. TROLINGER: I did discuss this with the County
and District Clerks, and presented them with this write-up
presented to you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Rex, is there -- when y'all are
9 11-06
172
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
handling your cases in there, is there enough of a standard
schedule of costs in each particular kind of case that you can
look at where you can extract that off of a -- of a checklist,
mylar checklist or something, and just plug it in over there?
So that you're in a position to make plea bargains
intelligently, and let somebody know when they enter a plea
that day or the next week exactly what it's going to be, and
be right 95 percent of the time?
MR. EMERSON: My uneducated guess would be that it
should be easy enough to put together a cheat sheet.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. EMERSON: For specific offenses. 'Cause I can
tell you right now, probably two-thirds of them are $289 or
$311, but I don't know why they vary on some cases. But the
only thing we do have to have is, we have to have an accurate
number before we can fill out the judgment sheet. Because by
the time we assess credit for jail time and so forth, we have
to have a number to work off of.
JUDGE TINLEY: You can calculate the credit yourself
and -- granted, it'll take you a little time and be a little
effort, but that -- that's the real particular variable in
each case, isn't it? Except for this class of case as being
289 and this class being 331?
MR. EMERSON: Correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
9-ii-oF
173
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. EMERSON: We generate our judgments manually.
We can do them very quickly as long as we have the numbers,
but it would be -- I don't know what the solution is, but it
would be almost impossible to say we're going to have to stop
every single judgment to go to the clerk to get an accurate
court cost and then come back and fill out the judgment. That
would take a morning's court that normally takes two or three
hours and turn it into all day.
MR. TROLINGER: To look up the court costs?
MR. EMERSON: If they're not already calculated
somewhere.
MR. TROLINGER: Only the court costs are being
assessed when the case is filed, and they're typically $249,
or if there's a bond --
MR. EMERSON: Isn't that what we're talking about?
MR. TROLINGER: Exactly that.
MR. EMERSON: So if you're not preassessing, how do
I get my court costs?
MR. TROLINGER: Isn't it the same on the majority of
cases?
MR. EMERSON: They jump all over the place.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: There's a lot of different
things.
MR. TOMLINSON: Judge? I think -- I think you hit
on it a little bit earlier when you said that if -- if the
9-ii-o~
174
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
time span from the time the clerk initiated the fees in the
system and the date they actually went to court, if that time
span was fairly short, you know, there wouldn't be an issue.
Because I think that --
JUDGE TINLEY: Vast majority of those cases, they're
going to come out that way.
MR. TOMLINSON: Right. So -- so all you're going to
have, if you waited until you knew they were going to be on
the docket -- the case was going to be on the docket, and then
put the fee in, then you would be relatively sure that those
cases were going to turn over the next -- the next court date.
So, if you ran a report at any given time, the most you would
have outstanding on those -- on those fees would only be the
amount for just those causes.
JUDGE TINLEY: For the next docket, yeah.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But you can't do that, because
your dockets normally -- especially district court, and some
county court, your dockets, you know, are five, six pages,
where you may have 60, even just the incarcerated inmates, and
you bring them all over and they go before the Judge. And out
of those 60 cases, 55 of them will be reset. You got to go
back in and remove it from those? Because your dockets
continue.
MR. TROLINGER: Judge, I --
JUDGE TINLEY: We're looking at this down at County
9-11-u6
175
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Court at Law. Now, you're -- you couldn't use that upstairs,
because --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: A lot of our County Court at
Law ones end up being the same way.
MR. EMERSON: Well, County Court at Law, we may
plea -- on a morning docket, we may plea 75 percent of our
docket, but somebody's still going to have to go back in and
manually back out that other 25 percent, or you're still r.ot
going to have an accurate report.
MR. TROLINGER: I've been through this to my last
nerve, basically. I've sat in the courtroom, I've sat behind
the clerks while they're entering cases. I've entered cases
this weekend, and the proper way to use Odyssey is to assess
the fees when the court case is disposed of, when a judgment
is issued.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I would think just this one
-- the GASB issue is enough to set off alarms.
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're doing something wrong
I here.
MR. TOMLINSON: I look at the materiality of what's
involved. And if I'm -- if I'm dealing with a relatively few
number of cases, I consider the -- those fees that are out
there that haven't been adjudicated, if they're not material
in number, I'm not going to worry about it, because the
9-11-06
176
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
percentage of -- of those fees to the total amount of fees
that we're talking about is zero, almost. So -- and as far as
the probation fees that Brad's talking about, his -- his issue
with probation fees being on the court is that he doesn't have
any control over them. I just take them out. I mean, I get
the same thing, and -- and I have a little grid set up that I
go down the list of fees and I plug them in, and I know which
are county fees, which are state fees, and what are fines, and
that's all I use. So, it's -- it's -- the probation fee part
of this is not an issue to me. So --
MR. TROLINGER: And I --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I just deal with it.
MR. TROLINGER: And Tommy's -- the Auditor's office
is going through a lot of work to figure out these numbers, I
think, and Odyssey has built in to provide these financial
reports. And that's the key. That's what we're talking about
here, the difference between having to do things manually and
having -- and using the tools available.
MR. EMERSON: Just one general comment. I think the
reports are extremely important to be accurate, but I would
request that somehow it be worked within the system. The
whole idea is to speed up the system, not slow it down.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
MR. EMERSON: And as it is now, whether it's
personnel or Odyssey or whatever, we'll finish our morning
a-ii-o6
177
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
docket and they're still doing paperwork an hour later because
of inputting the computer and working people through the
system. So, whatever we do, you know, we need to speed it up,
not slow it down. And I don't know what the solution to that
is.
MR. ALFORD: Can I say a couple things now?
MR. TROLINGER: I agree.
MR. ALFORD: This is my time, Trolinger. One thing
that I want to argue about, John was saying that -- whenever
he said my reports weren't accurate; I was withholding
something, keeping something out, I'm not real sure what he's
referring to, other than the fact in the old system, I was
able to tell it I only want the Kerr County Clerk's fees, and
that's what I gave y'all. We only -- I only wanted the money
that y'all were involved in. So, I don't know what you're
talking about, I was holding out other fees.
MR. TROLINGER: Well, the -- the actual -- the
actual total due on those court cases right now, if we go in
and look at them, there's a total due there of, say, $50.
MR. ALFORD: Mm-hmm.
MR. TROLINGER: Because there's still a probation
fee left.
MR. ALFORD: Mm-hmm.
MR. TROLINGER: Well, you were only running a report
that showed --
9-ii o6
178
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. ALFORD: The Clerk's fees.
MR. TROLINGER: -- zero, basically, balance due. In
other words, that $50 was still there from probation, but you
we presenting a report that showed zero balance due, as far as
your report.
MR. ALFORD: So, I was perjuring my reports?
MR. TROLINGER: Not at all. What I'm saying is --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Time out. Time out.
MR. ALFORD: Yeah.
MR. TROLINGER: It's a perception issue in some
ways.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You're turning this into a
problem-solving session.
MR. ALFORD: I agree. That's what I --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This doesn't solve the
problem. This is reporting time. What's the path forward?
MR. TROLINGER: This is my report. I've got two
recommended solutions. One was to stop imposing a court cost
on the criminal cases when they're filed. The second is that
the County Clerk should account for the community service,
probation fees on the past case -- on cases before April 7th,
2006, when we transitioned --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Who are the right people to
deal with those two potential solutions? To come to some
conclusion?
9-11-u6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
179
MR. TROLINGER: The County Clerk and the County
Attorney are the ones involved, 7 believe. The County
Attorney from the standpoint that he does County Court at Law,
and the -- you know, the court process. They need to make
sure this is going to make things better.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'd suggest you get the
right people together and come up with a solution, and then
probably tell Commissioners Court what that solution is.
MR. TROLINGER: These are the two recommended
solutions that I have. There may be others from other
departments.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think the County Attorney
has to weigh in on number one, particularly.
JODGE TINLEY: Yeah. He's got to do something
that's going to work with his moving of cases through courts.
And -- but I agree with Brad on that probation issue. If --
we shouldn't be carrying those probation fees if they're --
i if, number one, they're no longer accrued or should be accrued
because the guy's been revoked. I mean, they're not owed.
You pay fees while you're on probation, not when you've been
revoked.
MR, ALFORD: That's my point. I guess that's why I
was turning in falsified documents for, because I was omitting
the Probation Department fees. No, I'm just joking with John.
That's fine. I'm just saying I don't know. I don't think
a ii-o6
180
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
right now, today, I can give y'all a fair, accurate report,
period.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. ALFORD: We're working on it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, y'all -- y'all know what the --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Talk it out.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- wrinkles are. Have at it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No blood on the floor.
MR. ALFORD: But if I cleaned it up?
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, that appears to be it for the
-- I'll remind you gentlemen that we've got a public hearing
for the tax rate this coming Friday, the second one. It's
probably going to be another nonevent, as was last Friday's.
And then the following week, the 20th, there will be the
meeting to adopt the tax rate, as well as the Ingram -- Lake
Ingram Road District. We ready to --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Question.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah?
MR. EMERSON: Go ahead. One question, an issue
that's just general. I don't know what the status is or if
y'all have heard anything or not, but just a brief reminder.
You're three weeks from the end of the year, and the last I
heard from the City, they were canceling the animal contract.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Say it again?
MR. EMERSON: I haven't heard anything since.
5-11-06
181
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
Haven't received a request for a contract or any other --
JUDGE TINLEY: You mentioned that to me, and you
mentioned that to Mr. Hayes, had you not?
MR. EMERSON: I did mention that to Mr. Hayes, and
he said he hadn't heard anything either; he'd check into it.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Maybe we can lease them the
Juvenile Detention facility to put their animals in.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think it would be a good idea if we
put our chief dog catcher on that case.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I haven't heard from them.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Question.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Have we done budget hearings
-- budget hearings? Public hearings on the budget?
JUDGE TINLEY: There will be one on the 25th.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: And then the adoption of the budget
on the 25th.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: There's one public hearing required.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Same date? That's all I
wanted to know.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Yeah, got it programmed.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But there's no other --
JUDGE TINLEY: Specifically provides in that statute
9 11-Ofi
182
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
that it may be adopted immediately following the public
i hearing.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But there's no other changes
coming that we know of as to what we had the last time we met?
Was that going to be pretty well -- the last workshop?
JUDGE TINLEY: No, there's -- there's going to --
there will be some issues come up prior to the adoption of the
budget, I feel sure. There always are.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I mean, on that day? Or is
there going to be any other hearings in between now and then,
or are we going to run it right to the end?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Going on vacation?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Huh? No, I don't mind. I'm
~ just --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I was going to do it while
you're gone if we could.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: This may be a good thing.
Normally we have a lot more discussion, and I guess I'm
missing out on argument's sake or something. I mean, normally
there's a lot more -- more questions about the budget than
what we have had this year. I just didn't know if there was
any other changes than what Tommy had supplied us all with, or
is this kind of where we're headed on the 25th?
DODGE TINLEY: The question was, are you going to be
unavailable for some period?
9-11-06
183
1
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: No, I am not. I made sure I
will be available. But I'd like some forewarning.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we are reaping a little
bit of benefit this year from being extremely conservative the
past two or three years, and we're able to -- we've been able
to downsize, I think, county government. And we have been
able to grow, through the tax base growing, into a little more
comfortable situation this year.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay. But the -- such as the
4.2 proposal for all the employees, it's still in? Well, a
lot of mine are hearing rumors, et cetera, even from other
employees, that it's been changed to 3.0. There's just a lot
of rumors --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let the rumors flow.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's hard to do when you got
that many.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It's still there, 4.2.
That's not final; we can do something different.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right.
MR. EMERSON: One other thing for y'all to think
about. There's the question of the Treasurer's salary.
There's been multiple discussions, and I know there was a memo
that went back from the Treasurer; I think it came up to the
Court, that said that if -- if the salary does not at least
match Commissioners Court, consider this my official written
9 11-On
184
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
notice for grievance procedure.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is this on the agenda?
MR. EMERSON: This is a general statement, okay?
There's specific time frames associated with doing the
grievance procedure, and her letter, I guess, is tied to the
attachment showing what her salary would be that's in the
budget, and the statute says she has a right to have the
grievance hearing before the budget is passed. So --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Point well taken.
MR. EMERSON: -- y'all think about that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And we would have to form a
grievance committee, and we have to call one up.
MR. EMERSON: You're going to have to have a
Commissioners Court, and y'all are going to have to decide
which of the two procedures that you want to follow.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm.
MR. EMERSON: And then act accordingly within, I
think, a 15-day time period.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What are the two procedures?
MR. EMERSON: One of them -- one of them has
statutory members of the grievance committee, multiple elected
officials plus, I think, four members of the public. And the ~
other one is that the Commissioners Court just says that we're
going to take nine members of the public and turn it over, and
the nine members of the public are basically previous Grand
9 11-n6
185
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Jury members from the last year.
JUDGE TINLEY: Previous year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that's -- I thought
every year we adopted a format, and that's the format we
adopt. I think we do it once a year, and that's the one we've
always, I think, adopted.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Actually, I thought we did it
the other way.
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't think we adopted one. But --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We used to, though.
JUDGE TINLEY: But we used to until the statute
changed. And now we don't have to make that election until we
determine if a grievance committee is necessary, the way I
read the statute.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So --
MR. EMERSON: I guess the question at this point is,
y'all need to figure out whether or not the statute's been
triggered by the attachment to the proposed budget that shows
her salary at 27,000 as opposed to her letter that says if you
don't make me at least this amount, then I want a grievance.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that's something you
have to tell us. Did the budget trigger that period?
MR. EMERSON: Tommy would probably have to answer
that, because I don't know enough about the budget process to
say what the official proposed budget is at what point.
9-11-06
186
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. TOMLINSON: Well --
MR. EMERSON: That's when it kicks in.
MR. TOMLINSON: When it was filed, it became a
public document, and I think that's effective notice.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Proposed.
MR. EMERSON: But the statutes -- I don't know. I
don't have enough experience in budgets. That's the problem.
MR. TOMLINSON: I think -- I always thought that it
said that -- well, that the Court had -- the Court notified
each public official of what their salary and -- and budget
i was.
MR. EMERSON: Well --
MR. TOMLINSON: The question is whether or not
filing of a proposed budget is notice. I don't know -- I
don't ever remember writing an official letter.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, there was a memo sent out to
every elected official as to the proposed salary.
MR. TOMLINSON: You attached it too, didn't you:
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm, yeah. Most of them, it was
just an attachment of that public notice that ran August 31st.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What did the Treasurer get?
JUDGE TINLEY: She got an attachment that showed
what was off the budget.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 27?
JUDGE TINLEY: Uh-huh, 27,850.
9-ii-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
187
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd say that would trigger
the -- the period. So, it's 12 days from that date?
MR. EMERSON: I don't know. Let me look at my
I statute.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Meeting this Friday, and when
was the next one?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Wednesday.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Wednesday, the 20th? At what
time?
JUDGE TINLEY: I think it's at 10 a.m. That's on
the adoption of the tax rate.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We have a meeting the 27th, too.
JUDGE TINLEY: 25th.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 27th. Deposition.
JUDGE TINLEY: Oh.
MR. EMERSON: Do you want an answer?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
MR. EMERSON: 152.015, Subsection A, the public
members of the salary grievance committee shall be selected at
a meeting of the court at any time during the year, but not
later than the 15th day after the date a request for hearing
I
is received.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What was the date of her letter?
JUDGE TINLEY: We can handle it. Let me handle
that.
9-11-05
188
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. EMERSON: September 8th.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is the next step to decide
what her salary's going to be?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's already -- I think
the -- from what I'm hearing, the grievance has been set, and
I guess by her letter, we could -- we have to go with the
process of grievance unless the salary's raised to
commissioner, which she said she won't do it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, unless it -- if it's
changed to commissioner's level. Lower, and the grievance has
been triggered. Well, it's lower right now.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Playing Pong?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Playing games, or what are
you doing?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Hey.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Buster, full house beats a
I flush.
MR. EMERSON: If y'all don't have a procedure in
place, then I think you need to have a Commissioners Court
meeting and put one in place pretty quick.
JUDGE TINLEY: It's going to happen.
MR. EMERSON: Okay. Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All right, now. What all was
just said?
9-11-06
189
1
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: Full house beats a flush.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see. Okay, thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What was just said, I believe,
is that we're having a special Commissioners Court meeting
real soon.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Did I interpret that correctly,
~ Judge?
JUDGE TINLEY: Probably.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: To -- to form -- put together
-- to decide what avenue we're going to go on the grievance
committee and to call that grievance committee in.
MR. EMERSON: Correct.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Or put it together, whatever
~ it is.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: There's a step before that,
I think. Her letter to us says if you leave it at the
commissioner's level, this is not a grievance. If you don't
leave it at the commissioner's level --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, so --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- this is a grievance.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see what you're saying,
yeah.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, I think that's step
one; decide what level it is.
9 11-OF
190
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Are you ready to talk about paying
the bills or doing something silly like that, Mr. Auditor?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah. I -- first I'd like to ask a
request of the Sheriff, if he has a spare deputy he could send
along as escort with me tomorrow.
JUDGE TINLEY: Where are you going tomorrow?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: To see the I.R.S.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He's going to --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Go in two vehicles. Gas
doesn't cost that much.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right where AACOG is, that's
where he's going.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Have a fun trip, Tommy.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Want an armored car?
JUDGE TINLEY: Who else didn't get a copy of the
I bills?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I did.
JUDGE TINLEY: When was that made available?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Last week.
JUDGE TINLEY: Never got them.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Use mine.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, you've probably got tagged what
I want to get tagged.
9-11-06
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
191
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I got a few things tagged.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Scary, Judge, when you stop
getting the memos.
MS. THOMPSON: You can borrow mine.
JUDGE TINLEY: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Bills -- are we on bills?
MR. TOMLINSON: We're on the bills.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move we pay the bills.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Any questions about bills?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I second.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: On Page 8.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, we have a motion and a
second here to pay them.
JUDGE TINLEY: Number 4 made the motion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. And you seconded?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any questions or discussion?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Question. Page 8, 198th
District Court. There is some travel reimbursement for Judge
Ables, who is in the 216th.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sometimes --
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, they -- they've punched the
wrong number.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Page 20. This
9-11-06
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
192
question applies to Page 20, 24, and 38. On Page 20, it's
Courthouse and Related, but the first item is an item for the
Kerr County Treasurer. Same with Page 24, Parks and
Maintenance. The item was for the County Treasurer. And on
Page 38, Youth Exhibit -- Exhibition Center, first item,
again, County Treasurer. Just a question.
MR. TOMLINSON: On Page 28?
JUDGE TINLEY: 20, 24, and 38.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And 38.
MR. TOMLINSON: Oh, 38, okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm not saying don't pay the
bill. I'm just wondering if it's on the wrong page, that's
all.
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, no. I think -- I don't know.
I'll have to research that to find out. I don't know why
that --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Want to look at one of them
right quick?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do you want to pull them?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pardon?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Want to pull those three or
four?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I guess we could pull
them till they're located where they properly belong.
9-11-06
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
193
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You don't want to pass them
going to the wrong --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What number do you need to
look up?
MR. TOMLINSON: That number right there, 5812.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 5812.
MR. TOMLINSON: It's all the same, I'm sure.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, the name over here,
Treasurer and KPUB, City, that's the --
MR. TOMLINSON: Payee.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Payee. I can see why you
asked the question. My kidneys just kicked in.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, particularly vehicle
maintenance, fuel reimbursement. All of them are fuel
reimbursement.
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, it's -- it's -- I don't
actually have an invoice on this one. It's payable to -- I
don't know; I can't answer the question. I mean, I think it's
a reimbursement for -- to -- from one department to another.
I think we -- I think we paid the bill, and we're reimbursing
one -- one department from another. I'm not sure. I'll have
-- I just have to ask the question.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The reference is on Page 20,
24, and 38. Same thing, all three.
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, they're all the same. They're
9 11 06
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
194
all the same -- see, this is a worksheet that they've done,
and it shows the equipment and the person that used the
vehicle, and the beginning mileage and the ending mileage.
And then we -- this is all that we paid, $211 for this
quarter, and 85.60 for this one, and we've broken it down by
department, so it's all from the same schedule. I just have
to ask my people --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: -- what it is.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, Bill, do you recommend
that we go ahead and pay it, hoping that it's a real, live
thing? Or --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We pulled it already.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We pulled it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Your kidneys haven't kicked in
yet.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Pulled it?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, pulled them.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Pulled those four.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions or discussion on
the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
9-11-06
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
195
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Budget Amendment
Request Number 1.
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 1 is for Nondepartmental.
We're asking for a transfer of $490 from Telephone Access Fees
to Telephone in the Nondepartmental.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
DODGE 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.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. Number 2 is for the Tax
Assessor. The Tax Assessor's asking for an amendment to
transfer $830 from Office Supplies to Bonds and Insurance.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
MR. TOMLINSON: I do have -- I have a need for two
hand checks with that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Still second it.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve the hand
9-11-06
196
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
checks.
JUDGE TINLEY: Hand checks to and for what amount?
MR. TOMLINSON: They're $500 each to First Insurance
Agency.
JUDGE TINLEY: Two at 500?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: To First Insurance?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right. All in favor of the
motion to include two hand checks, $500 each, to First
Insurance Agency, 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
~ Request 3.
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 3 is for Election Services,
request from the County Clerk to transfer 699.99 from
Elections Supplies to Operating Equipment.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Any
question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify
by raising your right hand.
9-11-06
197
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
L1
22
23
24
25
(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 Road and Bridge, to
transfer 52.58 from Miscellaneous to Training.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. 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: Motion carries. Budget Amendment
Request 5.
MR. TOMLINSON: Five is for Adult Probation, to
transfer $2.02 from Miscellaneous to DOEP Instructor's line
item.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Any
question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Seems like to me last time we
9-11-06
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
198
were pulling money out of the DOEP.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Put it back.
MR. TOMLINSON: We did.
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: Budget Amendment Request 6.
MR. TOMLINSON: Six is for the County Attorney.
He's requested a transfer of 568.56 from his Public Service
Account, with 995.92 to Assistant's Salaries and 37.94 to FICA
Expense and 39.70 to Retirement.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Why didn't we just pick up
from one person to the next?
MR. TOMLINSON: Apparently, we may have had to pay
him some vacation.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's the County Attorney;
he can answer that.
MR. EMERSON: What did I do?
MR. TOMLINSON: We had to pay Jerry some vacation?
MR. EMERSON: Not that I'm aware of, but I couldn't
tell you an exact answer, because as far as I know, he never
has done his exit paperwork with the Treasurer. That was the
A 11 06
199
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
last I heard.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Why aren't we paying the new
-- Ms. Bailey just out of Mr. Phillips' old salary?
MR. EMERSON: Well, we can, but she makes more than
Mr. Phillips did. That's why there's the adjustment in there.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's the answer.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other question or comment? We
have a motion?
MS. THOMPSON: No.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Any other
question or comment? All in favor of the motion, signify by
raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(NO response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Budget Amendment
Request 7.
MR. TOMLINSON: Seven is for transfer of funds from
General Fund to Indigent Health Care in the amount of
21,221.78.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
9 11-06
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
200
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. 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 carries. Budget Amendment
Request 8.
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 8 is -- is for the
expenditure of that transfer, to declare an emergency and take
from surplus funds the 21,221.78.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to declare
an emergency and approve the budget amendment. Any question
or comment? How far does this get us away from the 8 percent?
Are we going to be able to file any claims?
~I MR. TOMLINSON: We're starting with a new year now.
State's year is up.
JUDGE TINLEY: This isn't a carryover?
MR. TOMLINSON: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any other question or comment?
All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right
hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
5-11 06
zol
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Budget Amendment
Request 9.
MR. TOMLINSON: Nine is for -- between the County
Court at Law and County Court. We're asking for a transfer of
3,190.69 from Court-Appointed Attorneys in County Court, with
1,125.69 to Court-Appointed Attorney in County Court at Law
and $2,065 to Master Court Appointments in County Court at Law
budget.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved -- second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Any
question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Are you going to
reduce your budget by $3,100?
JUDGE TINLEY: I may have already done it. Yeah, I
just did it with that -- or will.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Next year's budget.
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't recall. I think I may have
reduced it just a little bit. I don't think I increased it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I mean, that's what you
apply to everybody else. By god, you didn't use the $3,200;
let's cut it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Good thing I'm here, isn't it?
9-ii-o6
202
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
GG
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Good thing I hung onto some,
isn't it, Buster? Any other question or comment? All in
favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Budget Amendment
Request 10.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. Ten is for Juvenile
probation. This is from the Chief Probation Officer. His
request is to transfer $400 from Retirement and 345.40 from
FICA Expenses into Attorney Ad Litem Fees.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. 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 carries. Ruche t. Amendment
Request 11.
MR. TOMLINSON: 11 is for Nondepartmental. We have
a need to transfer $230 from Pauper Burial to Autopsies and
9 1 1 0 6
203
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Inquests.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Any question or comment?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We really need to get the
medical examiner from Austin down here to --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: True.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- do a school on this.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: They have a new one, too, so it
may be worth it to get -- Bayardo retired.
JUDGE TINLEY: That Travis County Medical Examiner's
office is in just a state of chaos, and we're looking at a
private M.E. that's going to -- someone off of that staff
that's going to set up or has indicated that they are going to
set up somewhere in the central Texas -- San Marcos, Seguin,
New Braunfels area.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: She was pretty good, but --
JUDGE TINLEY: To do the service.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Travis County is not -- you
know, they sent us all notice they may not even accept any
more. And, unfortunately, we've had several that have had to
go, so this will not be the last deal. But they have been
I
I~ accepting them pretty regularly; it's just hard to get
anything out of them. But, yeah, it's going to get --
~-ii-o6
204
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Bexar County accepts them?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Bexar County had kind of done
the same thing and weren't going to accept any either.
Everybody's getting overloaded and understaffed, but Travis
County did finally add more staff.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That would be a --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You think Sid Pete could set
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Who?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sid Peterson, the new
mean, I don't know what it costs to run one of those labs. We
got to pay the doctor, but I'm sure it's just, you know, a
bunch. But the area counties, I'm sure, do a bunch.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But I can't say what the J.P.'s
do or the city, you know, as far as when they order one, but I
can tell you that the ones that are out in the county and are
actually ordered for an autopsy, a lot of times that's even
us, as the Sheriff's Office, requesting it, where the J.P. may
not have originally thought there should be one. But when
there's any questions that could come up later -- autopsies
are kind of a hard thing to do. You get a one-time shot at it
and that's it. And I don't want something coming up later on,
a death that throws everything into question and we did not
5-11-06
2os
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
perform an autopsy to -- to find out the exact cause of death.
JUDGE TINLEY: Bottom line, what the Sheriff just
said is if we want to be mad at somebody for spending too much
money on that, be mad at him.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's pretty close to being
it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're mad at you all the time
anyway.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: So what's the difference? See,
it didn't give you any enjoyment, did it?
JUDGE TINLEY: We got a motion? Any other questions
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 carries. Budget Amendment
Request 12.
MR. TOMLINSON: Let me run -- rather than pulling a
bill, I'd like to explain this, the bill that Commissioner
Williams had.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which one -- which page are
you explaining?
JUDGE TINLEY: We're back on the bills, the bills
that were pulled, the four of them.
9-ii-oF
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
206
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. It's an internal transaction.
These -- these departments get their fuel from Road and
Bridge, and we're -- it's an internal journal entry, is what
it amounts to. We're reimbursing Road and Bridge.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, we need to revise that
motion and leave those four items in.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: When the Judge calls it
back, what do we need to do?
~I~I JUDGE TINLEY: I suppose, just on the four items
that were pulled, do I have a motion on that?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of the payment of the four items that were previously pulled.
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 -- motion does
carry. Budget Amendment Request 12.
I
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. Number 12 is for the 198th
Iii District Court. It would be to transfer $420 from Court
Transcripts to Court-Appointed Attorneys.
9 11 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
207
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 carried. Budget Amendment
Request 13.
MR. TOMLINSON: 13 is for the 216th District Court.
They're requesting a transfer of $403.88 from Operating
Equipment and $11.47 from Miscellaneous, with $90.35 into
Office Supplies and $325 into Special Court Reporter. The
item with the asterisk, 5,522.50, we need to declare an
emergency and take that from surplus funds.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval, and as to the Court-Appointed Attorney item, declare
an emergency and take it from surplus funds. 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.
q-ii-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
208
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Budget Amendment
Request 14.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay, 19 is for the Jury department.
We're transferring $409 from Operating Supplies to Court
Interpreters.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Any
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: Motion carries. Budget Amendment
Request 15.
MR. TOMLINSON: 15 is for the Law Library. We have
a bill for $4,106.18, with no funds. We need to declare an
emergency and take from surplus funds to pay this -- pay --
make this payment.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is one of those little bit
of gray areas. It's vague whether that qualifies as an
emergency, in my mind.
MR. TOMLINSON: These aren't tax dollars, though.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This is the Law Library
a-ii-oE
209
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1L
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
funds.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It comes from designated funds,
but I don't know if it changes the definition of "emergency."
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: My question --
MR. TOMLINSON: It's Kerr County -- for county
purposes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: My question --
MR. TOMLINSON: I'll say it's for a public purpose.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The balance is now $22. Do
not spend any more. Don't order anything else. You only have
$22.01 left; don't buy anything else.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I could be wrong. Don't these
things come on, like, a subscription; they just mail them to
you as updates come?
MR. EMERSON: What's the bill?
MR. TOMLINSON: This is from West. West Publishing.
MR. EMERSON: Yeah.
MR. TOMLINSON: Vernon's statutes, Family Code.
There's West information charges, $1,320. There's
approximately 20 Vernon's statutes. I guess they're an
appendix or --
MR. EMERSON: Probably the updates. You get annual
~ updates.
MR. TOMLINSON: And that's for 610.99. I don't
think -- I think they come --
5 ii oe
210
1
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: Yeah.
MR. TOMLINSON: -- without ordering them.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: May be the ones I put in over Labor
Day. Do I have a motion?
MS. THOMPSON: No.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: There was no motion?
MS. THOMPSON: No.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Any
questions 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.)
DODGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Budget Amendment
Request 16.
MR. TOMLINSON: If it'll make you feel any better,
this Law Library fund, the fees for -- Law Library fees for
court cases are so high that we will -- in my estimation, will
never spend all the money that generates in the Law Library.
JUDGE TINLEY: The bad news is, that's the only
purpose you can spend it for.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Can't transfer it anywhere
9- 1 1- 0 6
z11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
else.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It does furnish all the
officers with new law books each year.
MR. TOMLINSON: Right.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That was a big expense when it
I was coming out of my budget.
MR. TOMLINSON: 16?
JUDGE TINLEY: Uh-huh.
MR. TOMLINSON: This is for Environmental Health.
This is request is to transfer 698.31 from Group Insurance,
358.31 to Gas, Oil and Maintenance, and $340 to the On-Site
Council Fees.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN; Septic tanks, I'll second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Any
question or comment?
(Discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Because it's septics tank, I
wanted to qet in on this thing. I wanted to make the motion.
JUDGE TINLEY: 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
9-ii-oE
212
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
Request 17.
MR. TOMLINSON: Is from the -- for the jail, from
the Sheriff, to transfer 35,109.69 from Jailers Salaries; 375
to Employee Medical Exams, 1,364.60 to Operating Supplies,
20,720.79 to Prisoner Medical, and 12,649.30 to Utilities.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
MR. TOMLINSON: I do need hand checks.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
MR. TOMLINSON: For -- one to the Walmart for
121.25.
	COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that the employee --
	JUDGE TINLEY: 121 what?	
~	MR. TOMLINSON: 121.25.	
	JUDGE TINLEY: 121.25, okay. I have a	motion --
have	a motion and second for approval and check	to Walmart --
hand	check to Walmart for 121.25. Any question	or comment?
	COMMISSIONER LETZ: The utilities run	a hundred --
almost 130,000?	
	SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: This all -- well,	I guess
that'	s for Auqust, isn't it?	
	MR. TOMLINSON: That's correct.	
	SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Huh?	
	COMMISSIONER LETZ: That was August.	'Cause, I
mean,	it will be a little bit more.	
	SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah.	
9-ii-o5
213

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Probably close to 140,000,
JUDGE TINLEY: Nice and comfy out there --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Not really, but --
JUDGE TINLEY: -- in the jail.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Must be.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You keep it so cold.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We only keep a couple of the
cells cold, and that's so that all the drunks don't throw up
all over the floor.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Little bit too much
I information.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You wanted it. But we've got
30-some-odd very large air conditioners, and as hot as August
was, we don't change the settings; they're set and that's it.
It's just -- they really got us this last year.
MS. THOMPSON: We have a motion and second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further 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 carried. Budget Amendment
Request 18.
MR. TOMLINSON: 18 is for the Juvenile Detention
Facility. This is a request from Kevin Stanton to transfer
9-11-06
214
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1,138.89 from Retirement, 942.54 to Residential Medical and
196.35 to Telephone line item.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Does this take them through
the end of the budget year?
MR. TOMLINSON: Maybe. I don't know.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't know. So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 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 carries. Budget Amendment
Request 19.
MR. TOMLINSON: 19 is for the Courthouse and Related
Buildings. We need to transfer 3,600 from Group Insurance,
2,523.52 from Maintenance Superintendent line item. And
381.09 goes into Repairs and Maintenance, and 5,741.43 to
Utilities.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 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.
9-11-06
215
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
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Budget Amendment
Request 20.
MR. TOMLINSON: 20 is a request from the Treasurer
to transfer $319 from Retirement and 1,681 from Group
Insurance, to transfer 2,000 into Part-Time Salaries.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 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 carries. Budget Amendment
Request 21.
MR. TOMLINSON: 21 is for the County Clerk. The
Clerk has requested a transfer of 187.95 from Software
Maintenance to her Notices line item.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Any question or comment? All in favor of the
9-11-06
216
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(NO response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Budqet Amendment
Request 22.
MR. TOMLINSON: 22 is from Juvenile Probation. We
have -- have bills for alternate housing of $26,579, and for
Diagnosis and Treatment, we have bills for 3,605, and for
Medical, we have invoices for 939.68. We have no funds
available, so we have to declare an emergency and take it from
surplus funds.
JUDGE TINLEY: I guess we don't pay that one.
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I think -- I think the statute
says that if you -- if it's a health and safety issue, then
the -- the emergency declaration is not an issue.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, health and safety could
be debated here, though. The Judge could have sent the kids
to our local facility instead of alternate housing.
MR. TOMLINSON: That's where they are.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'll consider sending those that I'm
going to hear here in a little bit to your house.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Alternate housing is our
place?
MR. TOMLINSON: That's right.
5-11-06
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
217
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, probably most of it is.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: To our place? So, we're
taking the money out of the left hand and putting it in the
right-hand pocket? So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Any question or comment? 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.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Judge, I want to go back,
if I might, and just comment on the Environmental Health
issue. That's -- I was thinking about vehicle maintenance,
spending some more money on that. When we get back to the
budget, I'm going to propose that we not buy a new vehicle for
Environmental Health. The one we're talking about trading in
has only got 60,000 miles on it. Mine's got 100,000. Len
Odom's got 200,000. We don't need to be trading in a vehicle
that's got 60,000 miles.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I got patrol cars with 150.
JUDGE TINLEY: Buster's got 350 on his.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Pretty close.
JUDGE TINLEY: Not talking about your car, Buster;
9 11-OE
218
1
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'm talking about you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: His body.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: More than that.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We have Budqet Amendment
Request 23.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. 23 is for the Hill Country
Youth Exhibition Center. We need to transfer $225 from
Supervisor line item to Part-Time.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 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 carries. Do we have any --
any other budget amendments?
MR. TOMLINSON: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any late bills?
MR. TOMLINSON: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: I have -- I've been presented with
monthly reports from the District Clerk, as amended, for June
'06; District Clerk for August '06; Justice of the Peace,
9-ii-o6
219
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Precinct 2; Justice of the Peace, Precinct 3; and the
Sheriff's Department. Do I hear a motion that these reports
be approved as presented?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. 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: That motion does carry. Okay,
gentlemen. We have any reports from any of you in your
capacity as liaison or otherwise?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I was alerted
yesterday to remind Number 4 that ESD Number 2, you have two
appointments coming up. I think we do that in December.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, there's two people going
off.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Good reminder. I'll talk
briefly about Animal Control. Real brief.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: One, Janie broke her
kneecap, and she's in a knee immobilizer. She's back at work.
9-11-06
220
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
70
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I don't know how; she can't drive. I guess they put her in
the back of one of those trucks and -- and haul her to work.
So, she'll be on light duty for a few weeks. What I've handed
you here is the results of some work that Commissioner Baldwin
and I did with Animal Control about three months ago, I think
it was. We spent a couple hours with Janie and all the
employees, and helped them work on some -- their thinking
about ways to improve their operation. So, one of these
sheets is what they came up with about their need for
improvement, and that is just shorthand for different
procedures they need to work on. And the other one is the
goals that they came up with. I'm bringing it up now, because
I was out there and saw these on the bulletin board --
employee bulletin board, and I really like what I see here.
And it's working. Adoptions are up, euthanasia's down,
there's more education of the public, and registrations are
increasing, so they're on the right path out there. 7 just
wanted to report that to you and let you know about it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Good. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Two quick items.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- reports? Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Two quick items, Judge. You
may remember the Wheatcraft issue in Center Point, and we had
a -- T.C.E.Q, conducted a public meeting, and then finally
5-11-06
221
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
issued a -- about a month ago, issued a draft permit for
review and comment. The folks in proximity of the Wheatcraft
operation have banded together, and they have formed a group
called -- what's it called?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: TRPA, Texas Rivers Protection --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
it COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- Association.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Right there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, Texas Rivers
Protection Association. Anyhow, they formed this group, and
these folks are contesting the Wheatcraft to T.C.E.Q. -- the
Wheatcraft permit. They've retained an attorney, and I'm just
giving you a copy of the attorney's letter to T.C.E.Q.
outlining the reasons why a contested hearing should be
granted. The other thing is that at the upcoming meeting of
the AACOG Management Committee and Board, we probably will
adopt a procedure for replacement of the executive director,
who has indicated he's retiring the first of the year, Al
Notzon. So, we'll probably set up a procedure for selecting a
new executive director, interviews and whatever, whatever,
whatever.
JUDGE TINLEY: The indication is that he's going to
be retiring at the end of this year?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: January, he's indicated.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
~ ii oh
222
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How long has he been there?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think he's been in that
job about 30-some-odd years, 38 years or something like that.
I A long, long time. Long time. So, his replacement will be
difficult to find, but we'll go through the process.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He's been named outstanding
director in the nation more than once.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Often, yes. He truly is. I
don't know of anybody in my experience who has a more
commanding knowledge of what a COG's all about than he does.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, when the retirement
party hits, let us know. ~
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For sure, yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Expect a good party?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, yeah, should be a good
one. They'll move it downtown somewhere.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: More than likely will be.
JUDGE TINLEY': Any other reports? The -- the City
Council of City of Kerrville is due to consider the EMS issue
tomorrow night. And --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What part of it?
JUDGE TINLEY: I think just a basic approval of the
implementation of the program as they've got it outlined right
now. The economics of it, I -- I thought maybe our EMS
liaison would want to be there to beat the podium to tell them
9-11-06
223
1
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 raise their rates.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I sure can.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's -- I mean, I guess
I was a little disappointed about the quickness and lack of
thoroughness of their looking at our proposal. I distinctly
remember at our joint -- at our workshop of myself saying
that, you know, I'll support the budget amount as y'all are
requesting, but that comes at a -- basically, an assurance
that you all will look at some of our issues. And I recall
the City Manager indicating to me at that meeting that, yes,
they would, and the fact that he would contact me about some
of the sources that I had been quoting at that meeting. Which
he never contacted me, and obviously didn't spend much time on
our suggestion. So, you can pass that on to the mayor and his
counterparts if you so choose, or not.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I may have to take Rusty with
me. The Auditor wanted him, but I get first shot at it.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Nope, I got work to do in this
county. Y'all have fun.
JUDGE TINLEY: Maybe he could assign you one of
those big bad guys he's got out there. That might be
necessary.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I could do that. He'll wear
black and white stripes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Wrong side of the bars.
9-ii of
224
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I just -- is it the -- is it
the desire of the Court that an effort be made to remind those
folks that -- that our budget process this year was based upon
that premise?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that's something that
I'll bring it -- or it needs to be brought up to them again.
I don't think it's a budget issue. I'm not going to say we
~ need to cancel or our EMS contract or not pay the amount, but
I
I think that -- I think it needs to be pointed out to them
that they assured us that they were going to look at our
concerns, and our first concern, they didn't even give -- you
know.
JUDGE TINLEY: Seems to me they dismissed it out of
~ hand.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In that context, when I was
going into the last Airport Board meeting the last Tuesday, I
bumped into the Fire Chief in the hall, and he looked like he
wanted to say something, so I just said, "Spit it out,
Raymond, whatever you got on your mind." But the bottom line
was, he said, "Well, you know, it's about -- what do you guys
-- what are you guys going to do about EMS?" I said, "We've
done it." And I said, "I read in the paper today -- I think
in the morning, I read in the paper where you're recommending
no change." "Well, I ain't recommending that." I said,
9-11-06
225
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
"Well, whether you did or whether you didn't, that's what I
read in the paper." He said, "Well, I'm just telling the City
Council the way I see it," So, that's your recommendation.
Your recommendation is not --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Over at City Hall, they
refer to Kerr County government as the ATM. If you need some
cash, go over to the middle of town and see those
Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The big ATM.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: They made a $94,000
withdrawal one time.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We11, I think what they're
going to say is that we sent over there asking them to adopt
the Kendall County schedule, and they're going to say, "We
looked at that, and that's it." They did.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think you're right, but I
think that's not a good-faith statement made in public.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, that's kind of what we
asked them to do, though. Not kind of; that's exactly what we
asked them to do, to adopt Kendall County's schedule. And I
wish I could remember the comment I got back as to -- even
though the rates are small, the amount of money that the
County puts in it is a lot more than what we put in -- in
ours.
JUDGE TINLEY: In Kendall County, you're talking
9-ii-o~
226
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
about?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's their contention.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, their response was that -- that
even though their charges were small, the amount of -- of
additional support needed from -- from county government was a
whole lot less than these other counties. But the thing that
is -- that I cannot comprehend is, why you would, knowing that
your cost is a good 50 percent or more higher than what you're
charging, your actual cost, why would you continue to set your
rates at some figure below known costs? That makes absolutely
no sense to me, none whatsoever.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: My recollection is that we
still have on the table a possibility of setting those Kendall
County rates for runs that are made outside the city limits,
to ameliorate the shortfall in the revenues.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: To me, that sets up a -- a
disadvantage for the folks who live outside the city limits.
We're charging them more money while we continue to subsidize
the system to the extent that they want.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You're right.
MR. EMERSON: Can I make two general comments? From
talking to rank-and-file EMS paramedic/firefighters in the
city, number one, the information they're being told does not
accurately reflect the communications and the information that
y-ii-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
z2~
I I've heard exchanged with my own ears. So, they're being fed
disinformation. And number two, several of them said that in
their meetings for several years, that they've recommended
that the City increase the rates to cover actual costs, and
they've always been told no. So, that's within their own rank
and file.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I've got a mole over there,
too. That's true.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is the -- is the problem the
Police Chief or City staff?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: City staff.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's a problem once it gets into
the City Manager's office?
(Commissioner Nicholson nodded.)
I COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Police Chief?
I COMMISSIONER LETZ: Fire Chief, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What was --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've heard it was the Police
Chief.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It wouldn't surprise me. At
least I'd understand the problem.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How much is the line item?
JUDGE TINLEY: For EMS, the contract's $232,000.
The figure they gave us for that contract alone was 231 and
9-11-06
228
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
eight-something.
COMMISSIONER LETZ
An interesting thing, while
we're on this topic, I had an exchange -- I think I referred
to it at the meeting -- of e-mails from Chief Holloway about
what happened to Falling Water Subdivision north of Comfort,
and the last e-mail that I got from the Chief on that topic,
which was over a two- or three-day period, was that -- that
the contract to enter into Kendall County was with the City
Attorney. And I asked Rex to check on it, 'cause they wanted
to have it done in Falling Water by October. City Attorney
never heard anything about it. He's not working on anything.
The Police Chief told me in the e-mail -- I might still have
it; maybe I'll send it to back to the Police -- I keep saying
"Police Chief." Fire Chief. Send it back to Chief Holloway
and say, you know, I talked -- "When's this coming out of the
City Attorney's office?" Because, evidently, he's not working
on it. So, there is some miscommunication going on between --
internally in the City of Kerrville on some of these issues.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, Judge, if you're going
over there, you certainly have my blessings on bringing those
topics up. Well, I heard -- didn't you say that? Didn't you
say, "Y'all want me to say these things"?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, he did.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I want you to say them.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, he's wanting to go over
9-ii-o6
229
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
there and do it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Want me to go start the fight again,
I huh?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm sorry, I misunderstood
you. I thought you said you wanted to.
JUDGE TINLEY: No, you know my demeanor. I never
like to do that. I think four and a half hours is about max
before the slippage factor occurs with this group. Do we have
anything else, gentlemen? We stand adjourned.
(Commissioners Court adjourned at 3:51 p.m.)
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF KERR
The above and foregoing is a true and complete
transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my
capacity as County Clerk of the Commissioners Court
of Kerr County, Texas, at the time and place
heretofore set forth.
DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 18th day of
September, 2006.
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
BY : _ _ __ ____ _ ___ _
Kath~ik, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
9-ii-o6
ORDER NO. 29902
SET PURCHASE PRICE FOR A COPY OF THE 2006-07 BUDGET
Came to be heard this the 11th day of September, 2006, with a motion made
by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Set a flat fee of $20.00 for a copy of the 2006-07 Kerr County Budget.
ORDER NO.29903
REAPPOINT RON VICK TO 911 BOARD OF MANAGERS
Came to be heard this the 11th day of September, 2006, with a motion made
by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Nicholson. The
Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the re-appointment of Mr. Ron Vick to a two-year term of the 911
Board of Managers.
ORDER NO. 29904
PAYMENT OF VACATION BALANCE TO DIANE BOLIN
Came to be heard this the 11th day of September, 2006, with a motion made
by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Nicholson. The
Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve payment of vacation time to Diane Bolin for four (4) weeks pay at
her rate of pay as Chief Deputy Tax Assessor-Collector.
ORDER NO. 29905
SET PROPOSED SALARIES FOR ELECTED OFFICIALS
Came to be heard this the 11th day of September, 2006, with a motion made
by Commissioner Williams seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 3-1-0 to:
Set the proposed salary increases, expenses and allowances for Elected
Officials of Kerr County, Texas, in accordance with the Public Notice
published in the Kerrville Daily Times August 31, 2006.
ORDER NO. 29906
REVISION OF PLAT FOR LOTS 7A & 8, TREASiJRE HILLS RANCH
Came to be heard this the 11th day of September, 2006, with a motion made
by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the revision of Plat for Lots 7A & 8, Treasure Hills Ranch, as set
forth in Vol. 5, Page 50 Plat Records, and Vol. 5, Page 397 Plat Records,
located in Precinct 1.
ORDER NO. 29907
SET PUBLIC HEARING FOR REVISION OF PLAT FOR LOTS 13-A &
13-B OF RIVERSIDE PARK
Came to be heard this the 1 lth day of September, 2006, with a motion made
by Commissioner Nicholson, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The
Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Set a Public Hearing for October 10, 2006 at 10:00 a.m. for the revision of
Plat for Lots 13-A & 13-B of Riverside Park, as set forth in Vol. 7, Page 251
Plat Records, located in Precinct 4.
ORDER NO. 29908
SET PUBLIC HEARING TO ABANDON, VACATE AND
DISCONTINUE PLAT OF LIVE SPRINGS RANCH
Came to be heard this the 11th day of September, 2006, with a motion made
by Commissioner Nicholson, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Set a public Hearing for October 10, 2006 at 10:05 a.m. to abandon, vacate
and discontinue the plat of Live Springs Ranch, Vol 7, Pages 190 & 191,
Pct. 4.
ORDER NO.29909
REVISION OF PLAT FOR LOTS 79, 80, 81, 82 & 83 OF THE WOODS,
SECTION TWO
Came to be heard this the 11th day of September, 2006, with a motion made
by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the revision of Plat for Lots 79, 80, 81, 82 & 83 of The Woods,
Section Two, as set forth in Vo14, Page 176, and located in Precinct 2.
ORDER NO. 29910
CONCEPT PLAN TO REVISE LOT 5 OF CREEKWOOD IV
Came to be heard this the 11th day of September, 2006, with a motion made
by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Set a Public Hearing for October 10, 2006 at 10:15 a.m. for the Concept Plan
to revise Lot 5 of Creekwood Section IV, as set forth in Vol 6, Page 290,
located in Precinct 2
ORDER NO. 29911
RESCIND COURT ORDER #29827 TO ABANDON, VACATE &
DISCONTINUE PRIVILEGE CREEK
Came to be heard this the 11th day of September, 2006, with a motion made
by Commissioner Nicholson, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The
Court unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-1 to:
Approve rescinding Court order #29827 and leave intact the Plat of Privilege
Creek as set forth in Vol 7, Pages 136 & 137 of the Plat Records, Precinct 3.
ORDER NO.29912
AMEND START DATE FOR HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR
Came to be heard this the 11th day of September, 2006, with a motion made
by Commissioner Nicholson, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The
Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Amend the start date for the Human Resources Director, Eva Hyde, from
October 2, 2006 to October 1, 2006.
ORDER NO. 29913
AUDIT ENGAGEMENT FOR KERB COUNTY FOR FY ENDING
SEPTEMBER 30, 2006
Came to be heard this the 1 lth day of September, 2006, with a motion made
by Commissioner Nicholson, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The
Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve engagement of Pressler Thompson & Co. for the annual audit for
Kerr County for the FY ending September 30, 2006, and authorize County
Judge to sign same.
ORDER NO. 29914
CLAIMS AND ACCOUNTS
Came to be heard this the 11th day of September, 2006, came to be
considered by the Court various Commissioners Precincts, which said
Claims and Accounts are:
Accounts Expense
10-General	$	86,032.37
14-Fire Protection	$	10,416.67
15-Road & Bridge	$	30,653.45
18-County Law Library	$	215.00
19-Public Library	$	25,000.00
50-Indigent Health Care	$	22,083.58
71-Schreiner Road Trust	$	31,200.80
76-Juv Detention Facility	$	1,555.71
TOTAL
$ 207,157.58
Upon motion made by Commissioner Nicholson, seconded by
Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0
to pay the claims and accounts, with the exception of the four (4) items set
aside from pages 20, 24 and 38 regarding County Treasurer.
ORDER NO. 29915
BUDGET AMENDMENT # 1
NON-DEPARTMENTAL
Came to be heard this the 11th day of September, 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
10-409-420 Telephone
10-409-421 Telephone Access Fees
Amendment
Increase/()Decrease
+ $490.00
- ($490.00)
ORDER NO.29916
BUDGET AMENDMENT #2
LATE BILL
TAX ASSESSOR
Came to be heard this the 11th day of September, 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 and issue two (2) hand checks in the amount of $500.00 each
to First Insurance Agency; one to FIRST INS/Bond for Isabel D. Bolin as
Interim Tax Assessor (9/1-12/31/06) (Policy Number: 70138208) and one to
FIRST INS/Bond to Governor of Texas for Isabel D. Bolin (9/01-12/31/06)
(Policy Number: 70138209):
Expense Code Description
10-499-206 Bonds & Insurance
10-499-310 Office Supplies
Amendment
Increase/()Decrease
+ $830.00
- ($830.00)
ORDER NO. 29917
BUDGET AMENDMENT #3
ELECTION SERVICES
Came to be heard this the 11th day of September, 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
10-402-569 Operating Equipment
10-402-330 Election Supplies
Amendment
Increase/QDecrease
+ $699.99
- ($699.99)
ORDER NO.29918
BUDGET AMENDMENT #4
ROAD & BRIDGE
Came to be heard this the 11th day of September, 2006, with a motion made
by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense
codes:
Expense Code Description
15-611-485 Training
15-600-499 Miscellaneous
Amendment
Increase/()Decrease
+ $52.58
- ($52.58)
ORDER NO. 29919
BUDGET AMENDMENT #5
ADULT PROBATION
Came to be heard this the 11th day of September, 2006, with a motion made
by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioners Baldwin, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense
codes:
Expense Code Description
10-571-103 D O.E.P.
10-571-499 Miscellaneous
Amendment
Increase/QDecrease
+ $2.02
- ($2.02)
ORDER NO. 29920
BUDGET AMENDMENT #6
COUNTY ATTORNEY
Came to be heard this the 11th day of September, 2006, with a motion made
by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioners Baldwin, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense
codes:
Expense Code Description
10-475-103	Assistant's Salaries
10-475-201	FICA Expense
10-475-203	Retirement
10-475-498	Public Service Account
Amendment
Increase/()Decrease
+ $495 92"
+ $37.94'
+ $34.70"
- ($568.56)
*-September 2006 transition from J. Phillips to I. Bailey
ORDER NO. 29921
BUDGET AMENDMENT #7
GENERAL FUND
INDIGENT HEALTH CARE
Came to be heard this the 11th day of September, 2006, with a motion made
by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioners Letz, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense
codes:
Expense Code Description
10-700-015
50-390-015
Transfer Out
Transferln
Amendment
Increase/()Decrease
+ $21,221.78
+ $21,22178'
*-To cover IHC bills being paid on 09/11/06
ORDER NO.29922
BUDGET AMENDMENT #8
INDIGENT HEALTH CARE
Came to be heard this the 11th day of September, 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
50-641-200 Eligible Expenses
Amendment
Increase/()Decrease

*-Declare emergency and take funds from Fund #50 Surplus Funds
ORDER NO. 29923
BUDGET AMENDMENT #9
COUNTY COURT @ LAW
COUNTY COURT
Came to be heard this the 11th day of September, 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
10-427-402	Court Appointed Attorney
10-427-403	Master Court Appointment
10-426-402	Court Appointed Attorney
Amendment
Increase/QDecrease
+ $1,125.69
+ $2,065.00
- ($3,190.69)
ORDER NO. 29924
BUDGET AMENDMENT # 10
JUVENILE PROBATION
Came to be heard this the 11th day of September, 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/QDecrease
10-570-402 Attorney Ad Litem Fees + $745.40
10-570-201 FICA Expense - ($345.40)
10-570-203 Retirement - ($400.00)
ORDER NO.29925
BUDGET AMENDMENT # 11
NON-DEPARTMENTAL
Came to be heard this the 11th day of September, 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 & Inquests
10-409-404 Pauper Burial
Amendment
Increase/Q Decrease
+ $230.00
- ($230.00)
...- ORDER NO. 29926
CLAIMS AND ACCOUNTS
Came to be heard this the 11th day of September, 2006, came to be
considered by the Court various Commissioners Precincts, which said
Claims and Accounts are:
Accounts Expense
10-General	$	86,032.37
14-Fire Protection	$	10,416.67
15-Road & Bridge	$	30,653.45
18-County Law Library	$	215.00
19-Public Library	$	25,000.00
50-Indigent Health Care	$	22,083.58
71-Schreiner Road Trust	$	31,200.80
,,~ 76-Juv Detention Facility	$	1,555.71
TOTAL
$ 207,157.58
Upon motion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner
Nicholson, the Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to pay the four
(4) items that were previously pulled from Claims and Accounts from pages
20, 24 and 38 regarding County Treasurer.
ORDER NO. 29927
BUDGET AMENDMENT #12
198TH DISTRICT COURT
Came to be heard this the 1 lth day of September, 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
10-436-402 Court Appointed Attorney
10-436-497 Court Transcripts
Amendment
Increase/()Decrease
+ $420.00
- ($420.00)
ORDER NO. 29928
BUDGET AMENDMENT # 13
216TH DISTRICT COURT
Came to be heard this the 11th day of September, 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:
Amendment
Expense Code Description Increase/()Decrease
10-435-310	Office Supplies +	$90.35
10-435-402	Court Appointed Attorney +	$5,522.50*
10-435-494	Special Court Reporter +	$325.00
10-435-499	Miscellaneous -	($1147)
10-435-569	Operating Equipment -	($403.88)
*NOTE: Declare emergency and take funds from # 10 Surplus Funds.
ORDER NO. 29929
BUDGET AMENDMENT # 14
JURY FUND
Came to be heard this the 11th day of September, 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
10-434-496 Interpreters
10-434-331 Operating Supplies
Amendment
Increase/()Decrease
+ $409.00
- ($409 00)
ORDER NO. 29930
BUDGET AMENDMENT # 15
LAW LIBRARY
Came to be heard this the 11th day of September, 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
18-650-590 Books + $4,084.17
NOTE: Declare emergency and take funds from # 18 Surplus Funds.
ORDER NO. 29931
BUDGET AMENDMENT # 16
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
Came to be heard this the 11th day of September, 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
10-640-331 Vehicle Gas, Oil & Maint.
10-640-434 Onsite Council Fees (State)
10-640-202 Grouplnsurance
Amendment
Increase/()Decrease
+ $358.31
+ $340.00
- ($698.31)
ORDER NO.29932
BUDGET AMENDMENT # 17
LATE BILL
COUNTY JAIL
Came to be heard this the 11th day of September, 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 and issue a hand check in the amount of $121.25 to WAL-
MART COMMUNITY for Wal-Mart/Sheriff s Department Account:
Amendment
Expense Code Description Increase/()Decrease
10-512-220	Employee Medical Exams +	$375 00
10-512-331	Operating Supplies +	$1,364.60
10-512-333	Prisoner Medical +	$20,720.79
10-512-440	Utilities +	$12,649.30
10-512-104	Jailers Salaries -	($35,109.89)
ORDER NO. 29933
BUDGET AMENDMENT # 18
JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITY
Came to be heard this 11th day of September, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioners Letz, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense
codes:
Expense Code Description
76-572-333 Resident Medical
76-572-420 Telephone
76-572-203 Retirement
Amendment
Increase/QDecrease
+ $942.54
+ $196.35
- ($1,138.89)
ORDER NO. 29934
BUDGET AMENDMENT # 19
COURTHOUSE & RELATED BUILDINGS

Came to be heard this the 11th day of September, 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
10-510-440 Utilities + $5,741.43
10-510-450 Repairs & Maintenance + $381.09
10-510-104 Maint. Superintendent - ($2,523 52)
10-510-202 Group Insurance - ($3,600 00)
ORDER NO. 29935
BUDGET AMENDMENT #20
COUNTY TREASURER
Came to be heard this the 11th day of September, 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
10-497-108 Part-Time Salary
10-497-202 Grouplnsurance
10-497-203 Retirement
Amendment
Increase/()Decrease
+ $2,000.00
- ($1,681.00)
- ($319 00)
ORDER NO. 29936
BUDGET AMENDMENT #21
COUNTY CLERK
Came to be heard this the 11th day of September, 2006, with a motion made
by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the
Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following
expense codes:
Expense Code Description
10-403-430 Notices
10-403-563 Software Maintenance
Amendment
Increase/()Decrease
+ $187.95
- ($187.95)
ORDER NO. 29937
BUDGET AMENDMENT #22
JUVENILE PROBATION DEPT.
Came to be heard this the 11th day of September, 2006, with a motion made
by Commissioner Williams, seconded by C
Baldwin, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense
codes:
Expense Code Description
10-570-482 Alternate Housing
10-570-480 Diagnosis & Treatment
10-570-333 Medical
Amendment
Increase/()Decrease
+ $939.68*
*-Declare an emergency and take funds from #10 Surplus Funds.
ORDER NO. 29938
BUDGET AMENDMENT #23
HC YOUTH EXHIBITION
Came to be heard this the 1 lth day of September, 2006, with a motion made
by Commissioner Nicholson, seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense
codes:
Expense Code Description
10-666-108 Part-Time
10-666-105 Supervisor
Amendment
Increase/()Decrease
+ $225.00
- ($225 00)
ORDER NO. 29939
MONTHLY REPORTS
Came to be heard this the 11th day of September, 2006, with a motion made
by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 the following monthly reports:
District Clerk -Amended June, 2006
District Clerk -August, 2006
JP #2
JP #3
Sheriff s Department