1
L
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
29
25
KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT
Special Session
Monday, September 25, 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
~9I
lid
o~
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
2
I N D E X
September 25, 2006
--- Commissioners' Comments
1.1 Consider/discuss, take appropriate actions to
approve Sheriff and Constable Fees
1.3 Consider/discuss, approve interlocal subdivision
ETJ agreement with City of Ingram
1.4 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
Kerr County membership in National Association
of Counties
1.2 2007 Kerr Emergency 911 Network budget presentation/
approval
1.5 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to adopt
Kerr County proposed 2006-07 holiday schedule
1.6 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
construction of doorway between Collections and
County Clerk's office
1.7 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to adopt
resolution authorizing sending notice to all health
care providers and pharmacies, authorizing County
to pay indigent and Medicaid rates for care of
inmates in the custody of Kerr County
1.9 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to make
any changes in proposed FY 2006-07 budget that
Commissioners' Court considers warranted by law
and required by the interest of the taxpayers
1.8 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on any
matters that may arise from progress report on
Kerrville South Wastewater Project
1.10 Public Hearing on Proposed FY 2006-07 Kerr County
budget
l.ll Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to adopt
FY 2006-07 Kerr County budget
1.12 Public Hearing for Revision of Lots 16, 17 & 18 of
Riverside Park, Vol. 1, Page 70, Pct. 4
PAGE
5
8
9
13
18
30
36
42
43
85
85
86
87
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
3
I N D E X (Continued)
September 25, 2006
PAGE
1.13	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for	
	bringing Vista Hills Road into compliance for	
	County to accept it for maintenance, Pct. 1	87
1.14	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for	
	approval of a manufactured home community	
	at 150 Lydick, Pct. 1	95
1.15	Consider and approve interlocal agreement between	
	Kerr County and City of Kerrville for operation	
	of the Butt Holdsworth Memorial Library, authorize	
	County Judge to execute and forward agreement to	
	the City of Kerrville	103
1.16	Consider/discuss, approve interlocal agreements	
	between Kerr County and City of Kerrville for	
	firefighting and emergency medical services, and	
	authorize County Judge to execute same	107
4.1	Pay Bills	126
4.2	Budget Amendments	127
4.4	Approve and Accept Monthly Reports	131
4.3	Late Bills	132
5.1	Reports from Commissioners/Liaison Committee	
	Assignments	--_
---	Adjourned	135
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
9
On Monday, September 25, 2006, at 9:00 a.m., a special
meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in the
Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, Kerrville,
Texas, and the following proceedings were had in open court:
P R O C E E D I N G S
JUDGE TINLEY: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
Let me call to order this regularly scheduled meeting of the
Kerr County Commissioners Court scheduled and posted for this
date and time, Monday, September the 25th, 2006, at 9 a.m. It
is that time now. Commissioner Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Will you please rise and
join together with me as we pray the Lord's Prayer, followed
by the pledge of allegiance to the flag.
(Prayer and pledge of allegiance.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: If there's any member of the audience
or the public that wishes to be heard on a matter that is not
a listed agenda item, feel free to come forward at this time
and tell us what's on your mind. If you wish to be heard on
one of the agenda items, we'd ask that you fill out a
participation form; they're at the back of the room and
available for you. It's not essential. If we get to that
particular item and you wish to be heard, even if you haven't
filed a participation form, get my attention some way, and
9-25-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
5
I'll give you the opportunity to be heard. It helps me, if
you want to be heard, if you'll fill out that participation
form, because I can note my agenda to be sure and try and get
back to you. But if there's anybody that wishes to be heard
on any matter that's not a listed agenda item, please feel
free to come forward at this time. Seeing no one to come
forward, we'll move on. Commissioner Williams, what do you
have for us this morning?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just thankful for the extra
rain we had. Glad you're back safely, Judge. It never ceases
to amaze me how quickly our land turns green and beautifies
itself after we have a rain. We went through a whole summer
and the place looked like a burned out desert, and all of a
sudden it's green and lush again, and that's neat. That's all
I got.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't have anything. I just
want to hear about the Washington trip.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Commissioner Nicholson?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Good rains in west Kerr
County. We're thankful for that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Hear, hear.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That -- I couldn't have said
it better myself.
9-25-oE,
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Well, I appreciate that.
I appreciate you gentlemen taking care of the tax rate while I
was gone. I noted that Commissioner Baldwin handled the
matter with great dispatch.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Less than one minute.
JODGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We were out of here.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's probably an all-time record.
I doubt, because of my legal training, that I could have
gotten the thing convened in that period of time.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: T wouldn't argue with that
point at all. (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not debatable, is it?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: As indicated, I was in Washington,
D.C. three days last week on behalf of Kerr County, and with
representatives from the City of Kerrville and Economic
Development interest. Our purpose was to make contact and to
see as many of our congressional, both House and Senate,
representatives as -- as we could. Mr. Guy Overby with the
Kerr Economic Development Foundation got it set up and did a
wonderful job. I don't know how he squeezed in as much as he
did for us being able to see all the folks that we did. In
addition, we managed to squeeze in one or two more after we
got there. But I think we were favorably received. We wanted
9-25-OF
1
"°' 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
23
24
25
7
to be sure that all of those congressional people, both the
elected members and their staff, realized that -- that they
that -- that would be handling particular types of issues.
They -- they've got some pretty large staffs, and they've got
their staff people segregated depending upon the type of
matter, type of issue. But, all in all, I think we were
favorably received. We're going to try and maintain
continuous contact with those folks, and hopefully it -- it
will bear fruit down the road. As with typical happenings in
D.C., everybody is nice and gracious to you, but we'll see
what happens when it gets down to the nitty-gritty and we've
got a particular item that we have a particular interest in,
and we'll see what happens to that once it winds its way
through the Congress. But, all in all, I think it was a good
trip. We were favorably received, and -- and I think there
was appreciation on behalf of the people in Congress, and --
and the Senate and their staffs that we came to see them and
made that person-to-person contact. We'll see what the future
brings. Hopefully it will be good.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Buster, you're right. He
9-25-u6
8
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
wouldn't -- or he's right; he couldn't have done it in a
minute.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's get on with our agenda.
First item, consider and discuss and take appropriate actions
to approve the Sheriff and constable fees pursuant to Local
Government Code 118.131.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: In essence, we just have no
changes. I think our fees are in line across the state with
most of it, and these were set last year, and I'm not
recommending that the County change any of them.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second -- third.
JUDGE TINLEY: Are you going to make a selection of
which one to put down over there? You make the call.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I seconded.
MS. THOMPSON: You seconded?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I will.
MS. THOMPSON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Of course, my name starts
with a B, so I could be the motion maker and Letz could be the
second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's let her make the call. Okay,
-zs os
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
9
we have a motion for approval of the agenda item. Any
question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify
by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Let's move
to Item 3; consider, discuss, and approve interlocal
subdivision ETJ agreement with the City of Ingram.
MR. EMERSON: The short answer on that, gentlemen,
would be that it's the same agreement we have with the City of
Kerrville, with the exception that the ETJ was reduced from
2 miles to one-half mile, and they still have the same
obligation to provide us with a copy of the plat for comments.
And otherwise, they're going to handle all the other duties
that go along with plat approval.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of the agenda item. Any question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- I have -- the question I have
is that there's -- is there a -- do we have a plat, or --
Greenwood Forest comes to mind right away. That subdivision
9- 2 5- O h
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
is likely to split with a half mile ETJ. Is it?
MR. ODOM: I'm sorry, what?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Greenwood Forest.
MR. ODOM: Greenwood Forest.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is it all in the ETJ? The
reason is, it seems like --
MR. ODOM: No.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Buster's saying yes, it is.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Not all of it. The major
part of it is.
MR. ODOM: The major part of Greenwood Forest, the
mobile home part starts to fall out of it back there.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: S think it gets into -- I mean,
it's -- hasn't Ingram been doing it all along? I always
thought they just used our rules.
MR. ODOM: They did, but Judge Henneke did not
finalize it when he was in office.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. And the other question I
have, I think it needs to be pointed out -- this came up with
the City of Kerrville one; this does not cover O.S.S.F. and
this does not cover mobile home rental communities. So, it's
-- I mean, this is not everything being handed over to them,
so there's still -- in many ways, the law has not simplified
things. It's almost made it more complicated in other areas.
9-25-Oti
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What about the water
availability issues, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If the city doesn't have it in
theirs, it doesn't apply.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You can take the law that
says that the ETJ is 1 mile outside the city limit line and
change it to one-half mile?
MR. EMERSON: It's one-half mile on theirs.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Based on the population?
MR. ODOM: Population, less than 5,000.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Super.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But water availability is a good
issue -- is an important issue, because I don't think there's
anything like that in the municipal code. And they kind of
base the subdivision rules -- or the agreement we have with
the City of Kerrville is more based on their code as opposed
to our rules, so it's an issue -- I think they could adopt it,
but they have to go proactively and do that.
MR. EMERSON: The last conversation I had with Danny
ii Edwards was that they were trying to base their subdivision
rules off of ours, and sometime back they requested a copy of
our rules so that they could emulate them.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: You had a comment, Mr. Odom?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. Does that include floodplain?
9-25-06
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Are they going to take care of floodplain --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No.
MR. ODOM: -- in their ETJ? Just the municipality?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, they -- no. This just
covers subdivisions, platting only.
MR. ODOM: Platting only.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions or comments on
the motion? All --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's the reason I say it's
made it more complicated in areas, because they still have to
deal with two entities.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other comments? All in favor of
the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(NO response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Let's move to
Item 4 --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge?
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Before we move on to that,
there's a provision that we also have with the City of
Kerrville related to making sure that their rules and our
rules are hand-in-hand. We had a deadline set. Did Danny
Edwards mention anything about when this --
9-'5-06
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
13
MR. EMERSON: It's in there. I don't remember
exactly what their date is, but it's shortly after this
meeting.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. EMERSON: October something.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, great.
JODGE TINLEY: Item 4, consider, discuss, and take
appropriate action on Kerr County membership in the National
Association of Counties. As -- as most of you gentlemen
recall, this item was placed on the agenda a few meetings ago
by the County Treasurer. At that time, no action was taken.
I put it back on the agenda primarily because of -- of the
suggestion of the Texas Association of Counties, which is an
organization that we rely on quite a bit and with whom we have
virtually all of our insurance, with the exception of our
health benefits program. The -- the item that they are
stressing more so than any others is the -- the availability
of a prescription discount program to every citizen in this
county if the county is a member of National Association of
Counties. Now, that's not going to help a great deal people
that have an insurance program, but for those that are
uninsured -- the percentage, I can't tell you. I think
statewide, it's probably somewhere around 20, 25 percent, if I
recall correctly.
The other thing that comes to mind where that might
9 ~5 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
14
be helpful is -- I'm sure you've been reading about the -- the
doughnut in the Medicare prescription program, where once a
certain threshold of purchase has been reached by
Medicare-eligible persons, suddenly they have zero coverage,
and -- and they're essentially on their own for the next
significant amount of prescription purchases. It occurs to me
that may be helpful in -- in that. The cost, as noted, for a
one-year membership is 800-something. It's there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's two different
numbers, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, the -- the 700 number that you
see was last year's program.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: And the --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I see it now.
JUDGE TINLEY: This year's program is 861, and if --
if we're going to do that, I think we -- we need to make that
decision now so that we can budget for it for the upcoming
year. I don't think it's included in any of our budgetary
figures at this point, and the Auditor is shaking his head,
indicating no, it is not.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, if I -- or is he
fixing to talk?
JUDGE TINLEY: No, I was just passing along --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If I knew that we had
9-25-Ob
1
. ~ ,,
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
"°' 1 3
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
23
+' 2 4
25
15
citizens that added up to this 800-some-odd dollars, if there
We have -- we
have a Representatives and we have two Senators that vote the
way we like them to, and if they don't, we find somebody that
will. It's pretty simple in my mind, so I'm not a real big
lobbyist guy. I don't know that I need to send $800 of Kerr
County taxpayers' money to help those folks from New Jersey.
It just doesn't -- doesn't jibe with me.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The question I have is the --
you know, I can see that -- maybe the savings, but how do you
get the information out to those that need it? I mean, the
people that may qualify and may need the 20 percent, how are
they going to know that the County has joined this? I'm sure
they're going to have to apply for a card, and the reality is,
as wonderful as our press is in this town, and I'm sure they
can give us lots of press, they'll probably reach 10 percent
of the people, and probably not the people that need it. So,
I wonder -- I just don't see how -- how you get that out
there. If there was a -- a way to do that, I would probably
be much more inclined -- or, you know, may be at least a
little bit more inclined to go along with it.
9 _ , 0 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
~4
25
16
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, you know, I don't have the
numbers, but -- but I don't think there's any doubt but what
if it were utilized to any significant degree by those in this
county that are eligible for this kind of help, that we would
easily surpass the $800. But the -- the getting the word out,
I think, is a major obstacle, and it -- that would be
necessary in order so that they could avail themselves of it.
There's one more item that's mentioned in here, and I know we
have some -- a number of different supply discounts available
to us. Apparently, they've also got contracts with Office
Depot, which allows deep discounts on some of its office
supplies and products. Whether or not that's better than what
we have now, I don't know. I've not looked at them, but
that's just a different benefit that they tap. I can
certainly understand getting the word out. That would be
necessary in order for citizens to avail themselves of it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The Auditor has been jumping up
and down back there.
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I just know that Bandera
County did this, and they offered the citizens this card. And
they -- I think they had an amount and handed them out to
schools, various civic clubs, and it -- from what I see, it's
been very successful.
JUDGE TINLEY: I could see where handing them out at
the school, they would get home to -- to younger parents,
y-zs-oE
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
17
which may be the group that you're trying to reach more and
more if there's -- if they're not skilled laborers and that
sort of thing.
MR. TOMLINSON: I don't really -- I don't remember
the details about how much usage that they've had, but I -- I
do remember hearing the Court talk about the numbers of cards
that they issued, and it is substantial.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would imagine the
logistics of the program put out by NACO would give you some
suggestions on how you do that. Service clubs, schools,
pharmacies, doctors' offices, publicity; there are a whole lot
of ways you can get the word out. And I -- I agree, Judge, I
think that in a heartbeat, we -- the number of people who
would apply for it and use it would far surpass the $800 that
we'd have to put up for it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Tommy, in Bandera County, is the
County given, like, 10,000 cards, and it's up to us to hand
them out? They don't need to apply; they're just given a card
and that qualifies?
MR. TOMLINSON: They're just given a card, period,
and they don't have to sign an application or anything. They
can be handed out on the street.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And it's good for any pharmacy?
MR. TOMLINSON: I can't answer that one. I don't
know. I don't know. I don't know who honors what -- what
9-'S-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
18
vendors honor those cards.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: My guess is all your
national chains would recognize it. You know, people like
Walgreen's and Eckerd's and Saveon and all those people, and
national chains surely would recognize it, or they couldn't
have the kind of successful program they've had.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Couple thoughts. First, I
share and agree with Commissioner Baldwin that we don't need
any -- any help lobbying Washington, D.C. The second thing
is, I don't know enough about the administration of this
program to know whether we ought to get into it or not. If it
means we're going to get 1,000 phone calls here wanting to
know how they get their cards, then we're not equipped to be
an administrator of the program, and don't want to hire
anybody else to get equipped. So, the little I know about it,
I'm not in favor of doing it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else on it, gentlemen?
Anybody have anything to offer? Let's move to our timed item
of 9:15, 2007 Kerr Emergency 911 Network budget presentation
and/or approval. Mr. Amerine?
MR. AMERINE: Morning, Judge Tinley, Commissioners.
'~ JUDGE TINLEY: Morning.
MR. AMERINE: I'm Bill Amerine, Director of Kerr
911. I'm here to present the 2007 proposed budget for Kerr
911. I'd like to read a brief summary, if you will, and then
9-zs-o6
1
"' 2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
'^ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2G
23
"~ 2 4
25
19
I'll be glad to answer any questions y'all might have. The
budget process for Kerr 911 is guided by the Health and Safety
Code 772, Subchapter (d), stating that the Director shall
prepare, under the direction of the Board of Managers, an
annual budget for the district. To be effective, that budget
2006, be presented to and approved by Commissioners Court --
that's why I'm here today -- and be presented to and approved
by the governing bodies of each other participating
jurisdiction. The City of Ingram and City of Kerrville
approved, on 12 September and 19 September respectively,
budget highlights.
We're presenting a balanced budget. There's an
expenditure reduction from 2006 of $32,215, or about an
8.6 percent reduction. And, actually, after the board
approved this budget, we've had a staffing change that will
take effect on 1 January that will have another $13,856
savings. And I can answer questions about that when we --
when I start addressing questions. So, the total savings in
service charge from 6 percent of the total telephone service
base rate to 5.25. Which doesn't sound like a lot; it's
.75 percent, but the net savings to the citizens is $26,754 in
service charges, or about a 12 and a half percent reduction in
q-zs-a~
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
20
Our vision for 2007 -- this is one of those things
have on our priority list, and we have yet to get around to
it, but now that we have new call center equipment, new
software, seem to have a lot of the other issues behind us, it
is our number-one priority. So, our top priority for 2007,
and hopefully we'll actually get the prerequisites done by the
middle of next year, by 2016, the complete implementation of
Phase I and Phase II wireless location process. We hope to
complete all the interactive map data validation by July of
2007. This data is instrumental in allowing dispatchers to
have a pinpoint graphic map, interactive map that shows where
the call comes from. Right now we have that capability for
the city of Kerrville. Most of the data validation is
affecting the rural nonincorporated area of the county.
We hope to complete the MSAG and the ESN updates;
those are essential for the validation of road names and house
number ranges, so that when customers apply for phone service
or change their phone service, they won't be putting down
nonrealistic addresses which we receive currently today.
We'll have the money and the time, now that we're -- all the
infrastructure is in place, to enhance our 911 public
awareness and education, which is still an issue. If you saw
9-25 U6
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
today's paper, you see that the director and the supervisor of
dispatch are still complaining about 50 percent of the calls
we receive being nonemergency, and that's a big issue. When
you take away those resources for actual emergencies, they
can't address the real emergency.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Actually, I saw you
complaining about it.
MR. AMERINE: I said the director and supervisor.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, okay.
MR. AMERINE: We are going to continue to provide
addressing coordination for the city of Ingram and Kerr
County, and we completed an interlocal with the City of
Kerrville to assist them in their process. We won't take on
that responsibility; the City of Kerrville will continue to do
that, but we'll -- we have an interlocal to assist them in
that process. We'll be recompeting our bank services, as
required by law, and implementing and adopting a Texas records
retention schedule and policy. I guess we've exceeded that
policy in the past, 'cause we keep everything. We don't
destroy anything, but it's starting to become cumbersome. We
have an entire vault that is full of paperwork that goes back
to the inception of 911, and it's too hard to maintain. And
we'll continue 911 sign sales. That's the summary of the
budget. I'll be glad to answer any questions.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Question.
~-zs-o~
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
23
29
25
MR. AMERINE: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And it's -- you were talking
about reducing your staff January 1?
MR. AMERINE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is this the same thing as the
GIS Address Coordinator --
MR. AMERINE: No.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- that's going to be funded
for the first six months?
MR. AMERINE: No, that is not.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's two different issues?
MR. AMERINE: At the employee's desire, our office
manager will be resigning on 1 January to pursue her life
elsewhere. What our plan is initially is to outsource the
bookkeeping and accounting of Kerr 911. We anticipate the
cost of doing so to be about $8,200 a year, versus the 28,000
we pay the office manager today, so there's going to be a huge
savings there. If that doesn't work out, if we actually need
a receptionist and full-time or part-time bookkeeper, then
we'll reevaluate that. But the plan right now, going into
1 January, is to outsource that function. The Board of
Managers has told me that they don't want a single point of
failure at 911, and if we go -- if we release the address
coordinator at the middle of the year, which is in the budget,
and have myself being the only full-time employee, then when
9 ? 5 0 h
23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
I'm not there, there's no one to support 911. So, when the
That's why there isn't as much savings
Mr. Amerine for your stewardship. You've taken an operation
that was stumbling, and in some people's minds, bumbling for a
number of years, and you've turned it around and you made it
work, and I commend you for what you've done. I think you've
done a splendid job, and I think your budget this year is
excellent. I was looking at your vision for '07 and I thought
one thing was missing that I wanted to ask you about.
MR. AMERINE: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You and I have talked about
this on a couple occasions. I don't see in there, in the
vision for '07, any status or planning for implementation of
Reverse 911. Could you address that issue for me?
MR. AMERINE: Yes, sir, be glad to. One of my
concerns all along with a reverse emergency notification
system is the -- the total cost of owning a function like
that, and how do you administer that? Because 911 wouldn't be
the sole user of such a system. I mean, the Sheriff's Office,
the Kerrville Police Department, the water -- river
authorities. I mean, you could -- Texas Department of Health.
9=s oe
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
Any number of those folks would be a legitimate user of such a
system. One of the things -- as Commissioner Williams and I
have spoken in the past, I think the proper way to approach
this is to look at who the base users are going to be and come
up with a system -- a shared cost for that. But that being
said, that's the standard answer from a year ago. I was asked
to participate in the Kerr County community planning process
this year, a plan that is about to wrap up. The number-two
priority on that is an item that actually addresses this
reverse 911 process. We hope to try to go the grant process
with that, and I think we'll be successful, because other
counties such as Comal, which we've talked about, was
successful in receiving grant money, and not just initial, i
up-front start-up, but sustaining grant money year to year.
So, that's the -- that's the process we're looking at right
now, because that kind of eliminates the whole issue about
getting a whole group of people together and deciding how much
they're going to toss in to fund that process.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do you have some idea of
what the cost would be?
MR. AMERINE: It depends on whether you go
facility-based; in other words, you buy the hardware and
software and maintain it, or whether you go with service-based
and you use an Internet-based system, but they run about
$50,000 a year every year.
9-25-06
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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The reason I keep bringing
it up is 'cause I think it would be a valuable service to our
citizens, but all of the 911's that are under the aegis of
AACOG now have that service.
MR. AMERINE: Yes, sir, I agree with you 100
percent. I think it's worthwhile. And, actually, if you
looked at spreading that cost out -- let's assume that the
grant process goes south. If you looked at spreading the cost
out, 911 would be a participant in partial funding of that. I
don't think it would be a huge cost for each agency that's
interested in being a legitimate user of that. Probably
talking a couple -- you know, tens of thousands, rather than
50,000 or 60,000 per group. The other thing that we'd have to
work out, and probably require an interjurisdictional
committee on how we're going to use that, because the way it
works is the allocation of minutes. So, do we allocate a
certain number of minutes to the Sheriff's Office and to P.D.,
or do we have a lump sum -- let's say we have 50,000 minutes,
and if Rusty sends out a message to every one of the citizens,
that means then he's used the entire allocation. That's the
kind of issues that we need to look at to make sure that it's
appropriately administrated, that it's going to be dealt with
appropriately.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do you know what the usage is by
the other counties?
9-25-06
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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't know the
utilization, because it's relatively new. I think it's within
its first year or 18 months. I can find that out.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Be interesting to see, I mean,
other counties that are starting to -- comparable with us, how
much they're using it, whether it's really worthwhile. It's
one of those things that sounds good, but I have my doubts how
useful it really is.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It comes in cases of
emergency. That's --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, I mean, there's -- normal
people -- I don't know if you put cell phones on or not, but a
lot of people don't have phones -- out in the far rural areas,
in weather-type situations, frequently there's phone line
problems. I mean, it's gotten a lot better in recent years,
but we still have a lot of times where our phones go out.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll find out.
MR. AMERINE: I mean, the typical use, just to let
you know -- and this was something that most of the other
counties have identified. They use it for public health
notifications, like pandemic information, wildfire -- where
have you a wildfire out of control in one of the parts of the
county, you want to notify citizens that are in harm's way.
High water, with the flooding that we experience from time to
time here. Could have an Amber Alert, and you want people in
9-^_5-Oh
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
a certain part of the county to be looking out for a
particular vehicle or individual. There's all sorts of
legitimate uses. And I -- you know, when you look at the
total price tag, it's not that expensive to implement a system
like that.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I move to approve the 911
budget as submitted, and then I want to make a comment.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of the 911 budget as submitted. Questions or comments?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What we have here is a
government entity that is funded by taxpayer fees, tax
dollars, and they're proposing to reduce their budget. Have
you ever heard of that before?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We should just be running the
guy out; there's something up.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Actually, we're going to
have a budget hearing after a while. If you'd stick around
and give us a few pointers, we'd be indebted to you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Also reducing the staff.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Improved substantially since
he's been here. He's done a good job.
MR. AMERINE: I think, just to put anybody's mind at
ease, I don't anticipate any reduction in core services at all
9-25-OE
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
in this reduction of budget or staffing. It should be just a
more efficient way of doing business.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Amerine, on the wireless
upgrades, --
MR. AMERINE: Yes, sir?
JUDGE TINLEY: -- have the costs on those things
stabilized and kind of shaken out and reached level? Or --
'cause I know they were all over the map initially.
MR. AMERINE: They still -- you're right on both
sides. And let me try to be brief. There is no F.C.C. or
state-mandated way for companies to pursue cost recovery, so
they can come up with whatever scheme they want, and it's a
negotiated process. Some of them use cell towers and
circuits. Some of them use customer base as a basis for cost
recovery. So, for instance, in our county, Sprint-Nextel is
going to be based on customer; they're going to be quite
expensive, whereas Verizon bases on the number of cell towers
and circuits they require, and they're going to be quite
affordable, but the costs themselves have stayed the same. In
our budget last year, we allocated over $75,000 for that, and
since we didn't implement it, that money has rolled over to
capital cash as reserve for equipment replacement in 2011, to
the tune of about $100,000 is what's rolled over to our
capital cash. But, yes, to answer your question, those prices
-- those costs have stabilized, but they're still
9-25 06
29
1
"- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
~- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
""^ 2 4
25
fundamentally all over the map on how they're calculated.
JUDGE TINLEY: But I note that one of your
priorities is -- for the coming year is to get all of those
MR. AMERINE: Yes, sir.
JUDGE	TINLEY:	And the	F.C.C. keeps stretching this
t out	again and	again	and again. Where are they
now?
MR. AMERINE: For most of the smaller carriers,
which we have two of them here in Kerr County -- what used to
be Cellular One, which has got a new owner down here, as well
as our local Five Star Wireless -- have applied for extensions
to the drop-dead date for having that implemented. My last
discussion with the General Manager over at Five Star Wireless
is that that -- they don't have a specific date now for
implementation of Phase II. They are on Phase I, which
provides some information. I think the cost -- overall cost
to these smaller carriers are tremendous, especially depending
upon the network that they choose. And, unfortunately, the
911 networks, who collect 50 cents per month per customer,
don't have the whereabouts to pay those companies back what
they're going to invest in doing that, so it's a financial
burden on -- on all parties concerned in the public safety
sector to make that happen.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you.
9-zs-oe
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
MR. AMERINE: You bet, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any question or discussion on the
motion? All in favor of that motion, signify by raising your
right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Let's move
to Item 5, if we might. Consider, discuss, and take
appropriate action to adopt the Kerr County proposed 2006-'07
holiday schedule. The -- schedule that you have was furnished
to me by Ms. Nemec, the County Treasurer. It, according to my
calculation, provides for 12 holidays, which I think is one
day less than current, if I'm not mistaken, or maybe one and a
half days less than what we have had this past year. But
that's my calculation.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This year, we -- as I recall, we
had -- because of Christmas, we had to -- we did some juggling
to make it fit better; we went higher than normal. The
comment I have is, one that I see is missing Veteran's Day.
JUDGE TINLEY: November the 11th?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Which I believe is a --
MS. NEMEC: Saturday. I think it's a Saturday. I
think that's why it's not on there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is it not a -- it's usually --
a zs-o6
31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
but do they -- on the federal -- those powers that be that set
that stuff, banks and all that stuff, do they move it to
Friday or do they just not have it? It's usually one of
those --
MS. NEMEC: I didn't see it on their schedule.
That's -- you know, I got this -- I pulled it off the
Internet.
JUDGE TINLEY: Falls on Saturday.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's on Saturday, so they just
don't give that holiday this year? 'Cause it's a --
everything is closed, but it's one of those that doesn't go to
a Monday; it's one of the few that stays on the actual date.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think -- I think the intent, at
least on the federal level, is to have that holiday actually
celebrated on the 11th day --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- of November.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Whenever that is.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, not a Monday.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. That answers that one.
The other one that I know Commissioner Baldwin frequently
brings up, and I'll bring it up first, is Texas Indegendence
Day. I think that's a more appropriate holiday than two on
the list that I see, being Columbus Day and MLK Day. But
y-zs-o6
32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
since that's not a statewide holiday -- or I guess federal --
federal holiday, though it should be, I understand the logic
for that, with kids and things of that nature and schools.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't think Columbus Day
is a national holiday either, is it?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is it?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, I'm pretty sure Columbus Day is
a national holiday.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why is a good question, but --
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm not going there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Columbus sailed up the
Guadalupe, I guess.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I still think that -- every
year I say that, that we need to take Texas Independence as
opposed to MLK.
COMMISSIONER LETZ; San Jacinto Day, do banks close
on that day?
MS. NEMEC: What day? I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Texas Tndependence Day. San
Jacinto Day, April 21st.
MS. NEMEC: Did I put it on there?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He's shaking his head no.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Tt's not on --
~-zs of
33
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
l5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
MS. NEMEC: If I didn't put it on there, then it's
not.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There are at least three --
MS. NEMEC: The only ones that I put on there was
what I pulled off the Internet as federal holidays.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: As federal holidays.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There are at least three of
these that conflict with Commissioners Court dates, but I
guess we'll discuss that at another time, reset Commissioners
Court dates.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think our approach has been if it
falls on a Monday that's the second or fourth Monday, we just
go to the following day.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: The next business day.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Barbara, how many days did we
have last year?
MS. NEMEC: I think we had one more day than we have
this year. One and a half, maybe. Because of Christmas, we
gave a half a day more 'cause of the way it fell. And then,
due to the -- that Saturday Veterans Day that we don't have
this year. But if we take off MLK, then we'll have two and a
half less days this year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But we could add San Jacinto day
y-zs-ot
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
and be the same as we normally --
JUDGE TINLEY: Are we talking about San Jacinto or
Texas Independence? They're two different dates, March 2nd
and April 21.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Independence.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's March 2, I believe.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: San Jacinto is April 21, if I'm not
~ mistaken.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. I didn't know -- I
thought they were -- okay, either one.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's the way they do it
down in Comfort.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We take both. Either one of
those two is fine.
JUDGE TINLEY: Plugged into that monument?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let's do that. Let's
substitute Texas Independence Day for MLK.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I was just going to add Texas
Independence Day. And the reason being is that we've had 13
previously. The only reason we're down one this year, from
the employees' standpoint, is that the Veterans Day falls on
Saturday.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's the day? March what?
JUDGE TINLEY: Two.
9-25-0 F,
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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: March 2.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think next year -- next
year, at a year when Veterans Day is during the week is when
the issue on substitution comes in, in my mind.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval by adding
Texas Independence Day of March 2.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Buster, how many years --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How long did it take us to
get that done?
JUDGE TINLEY: We don't have a second yet, unless
you --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and a second for
approval of the holiday schedule as submitted, with the
addition of Texas Independence Day on March the 2nd.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It will drop off next year.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any question or discussion on the
motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your
right hand. i
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Next item,
consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on construction
A-^5-06
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
36
of doorway between Collections and County Clerk's office.
Commissioner Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, thank you. I asked
Brad to come and talk about how much does it cost, and what do
we have to go through to put a door there? And I don't --
this Court has not approved the door yet, but I think that
this is the steps you take to get approval.
MR. ALFORD: Talked to our Maintenance Department,
Alyce in particular. She went out for the costs of a door,
which includes the lock, of 63.29. Had D.W. Electric come in.
There's possibly an electrical plug in the location of the
door; $70 to disconnect it. Other unbeknown costs, such as
maybe an extra two-by-four stud here or there, trim, et
cetera, they thought $50 to $75 would cover it. Total of
$208.29, to be covered by the Maintenance Department -- or
installed by the Maintenance Department.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, now we know the cost.
Let's talk about why we need to do it. In my mind, the only
reason you need to do it is if you're going to give that space
to the County Clerk. Otherwise, you're tearing up her office
to create a hallway for you. So, I don't know why we even
need to do this.
MR. ALFORD: Just to make it easier for the people
to find them between the two offices. Instead of having to
send them out the hallway and around the corner, they can
9 'S-05
37
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
point them straight through the door.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Where is this door going to go
into your office, Jannett?
MS. PIEPER: Right at the end of the -- right as you
walk in, where the little cubbyhole is.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: In that cubbyhole?
MS. PIEPER: Yeah. It will make it easier, too,
when we share employees.
JUDGE TINLEY: The -- the south door going into the
County Clerk's office, as you go in that door, you look dead
ahead into the east wall of his office, right there by that
corner. It'll also facilitate the painting of little yellow
footsteps, won't it, Buster?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are you going to paint little
yellow feet so these people can find it?
MR. ALFORD: I would like to get the door in pace
before we discuss that matter.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're avoiding these yellow
feet.
MR. ALFORD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're going to have trouble
over that. I want the yellow feet on the floor.
MR. ALFORD: You and Commissioner Brown -- or Judge
Brown.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Where do the -- the people go
9-25 OG
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
38
in the clerk's office?
MR. ALFORD: Back towards the back half. The County
Court at Law, I believe, is where they mainly go in at.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So somebody there, when we
get through with their paperwork, they can just say, "See that
door over there?"
MR. ALFORD: That's correct.
MS. PIEPER: Instead of trying to direct them out
the door, around the corner, past the elevator.
JUDGE TINLEY: These are folks that are looking for
an excuse not to be able to find this man right here.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely.
JUDGE TINLEY: We want to make it real easy.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And it's in the Maintenance
budget?
MR. ALFORD: Well, no, sir. You know, there is no
Maintenance budget for this. I have -- I'm going to have some
money left over in my telephone budget, that if we get this
implemented for October 1, I can transfer some over.
Mr. Holekamp had put an additional $400 in the County Clerk's
budget for some construction that she's offered to let us use
also. So --
JUDGE TINLEY: Seems that 400 would cover it.
MR. ALFORD: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Should cover it.
9 25-05
39
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
MR. ALFORD: Yes, sir, if we go to the new budget
year.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tell me what kind of door. I
mean, I see all these words here --
MR. ALFORD: Just a regular hollow-core door. Being
as it's not in a hallway, it doesn't have to be a fire door,
so it's just a hollow-core door with a lock on it, locking
handle. More of, I guess, a residential or inner office door.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Pretty secure?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No.
MR. ALFORD: No. I would say no.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: There are some extra secure
doors in storage, different locations around. You could have
a look at them and repaint them.
MR. ALFORD: Where are they at?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Out at my storage facility. It
doesn't have the frame, and it's a steel door, but there are
some doors there.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know how secure it
needs to be.
MR. ALFORD: Well, and that's what --
MS. PIEPER: Well, with my outside office doors
having the -- the dual locks, and then his as well, I think --
MR. ALFORD: That's kind of why we elected to go
with a more inexpensive route, being as we were already
5 '5-06
40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
securing the outside perimeters.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why do you even need a door?
MR. ALFORD: We don't, I don't think. It's just
for -- in case, you know, there's a doorway there. It's --
we're assuming we need a door. I really don't know if we do
or not.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, if the approach is to
facilitate people going from one office to another, just cut
an opening.
MR. ALFORD: We talked about how to swing the door
to the inside to where it's open all business hours.
MR. TROLINGER: Only thing I could see, to chime in
on the door issue, Brad's office right now only has one door.
Does he have to have two, as far as fire and safety?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Good point.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But this isn't a fireproof door.
MR. TROLINGER: No, for ingress and egress, getting
I out.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If that's an issue, then we've
probably got to get a better door than what we're talking
about.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, what he's saying is
that -- doesn't have anything to do with the door; it's just
being able to get out.
JUDGE TINLEY: Access.
9 z5-o5
41
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. PIEPER: In case there's a fire at his door that
he -- the only door that he's got now, he can't get out of
there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Amazing that --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: He doesn't need a door; he just
needs an opening.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Amazing, catching up with
that now after 25 years.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I still don't see the
reason for a door. I guess if they want an opening, that's
fine, but I don't see the reason why you need to put a door in
that opening. Just extra money. Cut an opening and put trim
around it and be done with it.
MS. PIEPER: That's true.
MR. ALFORD: That's true.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Get somebody to cut a hole in
the wall.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move that we authorize --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't think we can act on
this.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Consider, discuss, take
appropriate action on construction? Yeah, we can.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move we --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I was reading the wrong
9-25-06
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
42
thing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- that we authorize the
Maintenance Department to put a doorway opening between the
Collections office and the County Clerk's office, at a cost
not to exceed $200, funds coming from the County Clerk's
budget.
MR. ALFORD: That physical door, you want to exclade
the physical door?
MS. PIEPER: Yeah, just an opening.
MR. ALFORD: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Any
question or discussion on the motion? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(Commissioners Baldwin, Letz, and Nicholson voted in
favor of the motion.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(Commissioner Williams voted against the motion.)
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not necessary.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Let's go to Item 7;
consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to adopt
resolution authorizing sending notice to all health care
providers and pharmacies, and authorizing County to pay
indigent and Medicaid rates for the care of inmates in the
custody of Kerr County. I put this on at the request of the
s zs o6
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
Auditor. The Indigent Health Care Solutions program that we
have adopted apparently requires that we send these notices to
health care providers and pharmacies that we're going to take
this particular type of action. Anything you wanted to add to
that, Mr. Tomlinson?
MR. TOMLINSON: I do. There's one issue
concerning -- that I'll talk about at the budget --
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: -- budget item.
JUDGE TINLEY: This is part of the implementation of
the Indigent Health Care Solution package that -- that we've
contracted for the coming year? Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 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. Let's move
to Item 9, if we might. Consider, discuss, and take
appropriate action to make any changes in the proposed Fiscal
Year 2006-200 budget that Commissioners Court considers
warranted by the law and required by the interest of the
q-zs-oE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
23
24
25
44
taxpayers. I put this on the agenda to deal with, I guess,
last-minute/final budget items, so that we could get those
matters handled. I've got a partial list of items that I have
talked about; you gentlemen may have some also. The County
Clerk, as you know, had a request -- I believe it was for a
plat cabinet. Her option was to do a complete switchover of
how she was going to handle those, and -- and I believe it's a
scanner and a large printer for plats, an entire system that
she proposes to take out of her Records Management fund that
is a dedicated fund.
MS. PIEPER: That is correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: And you want to give us some more
edification on that, Ms. Pieper?
MS. PIEPER: Well, The Software Group is not going
to be supporting my land records -- my official public records
package any longer, and so I am -- between our I.T. Department i
and myself, we're scoping out different vendors. So, in the
budget, I would like this money to be put so that we can get
new software for the land records package. And then, instead
of having to buy plat cabinets every year that's been such a
-- taking place, I would like to buy a large scanner/printer,
and this money would be taken out of Records Management money
that I have.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How -- can you walk me through
how the public will now look at plats? I mean, if we don't
9 zs-oE
45
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
have a plat cabinet, everything is scanned in computers, and
whoever wants to come in there and look at a given plat, how
do they do that?
MS. PIEPER: If they walk in -- if I go with this
new system, they just walk in the office and pull it up on a
computer.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. But -- okay. Falling
Water Subdivision is large. How do you --
MS. PIEPER: You can click on --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How do you see it?
MS. PIEPER: Well, you can -- you will be able to
click on the different pages. You will be able to zoom down
into a particular lot. If they want to print the whole thing,
you know --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess my issue is that the
computer screen is, you know, this big. These plats are biq.
You start reducing them down, I don't see how they're being --
how you can look at them and really see much detail on them,
'cause some of them are pretty crowded as they are.
MS. PIEPER: Well, at that point, you're probably
going to be looking at one or two lots, and then you can look
at one lot at a time. You can zoom it up as big as the screen
is.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess -- I mean, let me go a
different direction. One of the things we use on the plat are
y-zs-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
plat notes, and there's a lot of them on there that are very
important to the public from the -- and that's -- and we're
relying on those, everything from water availability, well
locations, floodplains and all that information is in each of
not going to be usable. So, the only way someone's going to
really be able to see this stuff, if I'm envisioning this
right, is to print the plat. Well, I'm sure we're going to
charge a fair amount to print these big plats, and I'm -- I'm
just wondering if we're not -- if we're not becoming very
non-consumer-friendly by doing this. And, I mean, it's a
question, and maybe I don't understand how it's going to work.
MS. PIEPER: Voelkel Engineers have been using the
system for a couple of years, and they -- they're all
computerized and are with it and seem to like it. But you can
zoom on whatever you want to make it larger on the computer
screen.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. I think that if we go
with this system, I think we need to really relook at how we
do plat notes, to have them so they're more easily viewed by
the public, because I don't think they're going to be viewed
very easily on -- on a big plat the way that we're currently
doing it. I mean, we've got wall-to-wall writing on our plats
right now, or page-to-page, side-to-side, whatever you want to
a 'S-n5
47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
say. Mr. Odom?
MR. ODOM: Sir?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Am I off-base on -- you know,
'cause you deal with them probably more in the public than
anyone else.
MR. ODOM: I don't know. I don't think you're
off-base, but then again, I don't know exactly what the --
with my eyesight, anything would be bad. (Laughter.) But do
you have a --
MS. PIE PER: Well, too, is they'll be on the
Internet, to where he could sit in his office and call up the
subdivision plat as well.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I see a plus to doing it.
I'm just trying to figure out -- we may want to -- I don't
know if there's a way that we can do the plat notes. That's
my probably biggest concern, that maybe we do those in a
different format, and have them scanned in separately so
people can get to the plat notes in one -- go down them on a
list and then see the actual plat, itself. Because we've been
relying on that heavily for informational purposes to the
public, and I see it being a lot more difficult now.
MR. TROLINGER: Is it your concern, Commissioner,
that the plat notes are on, say, the bottom or the very top of
the --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're all over. They're
e-zs-o6
48
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
l6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
surrounding it.
MR. TROLINGER: Right. And that somebody might just
print out their particular plat and not get all the notes
included?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, 'cause they're going to
have -- they're going to have to scroll all the way around it
to read the notes, and they may not -- I mean --
MR, TROLINGER: I understand.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just harder to view them. But I
think it can be solved by putting the plat notes in a
different format, having them in a -- almost like a -- a
Word-type document that's attached to the plat, maybe, or
something like that. I mean, I don't --
MS. PIEPER: That's very possible, too.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It just -- we may need to look
at what the ramifications are in how we make the public use
these plats, not just making it convenient for us to store
them.
MR. TROLINGER: So it's really a procedure, how the
plat's distributed once it's electronic; whether Jannett
allows the public to print out that one small piece, or if
they're required to get that small piece and the notes
whenever they -- whenever they want to print out from the
computer screen. If they want to take a snapshot of what
they're seeing on the computer screen, then they'd be required
a_s-on
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
to also get the plat notes.
MR. ODOM: That's right, procedurally.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, because I think you need
the -- it's real -- you know, I see a lot of problems coming
if that's -- if those notes get left by the side.
MS. PIEPER: Well, but I cannot require somebody to
get all of a document. If somebody wants to come in and just
print Page 3 of 20, I have -- that's -- I can't govern that by
law.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But we could put in a big
disclaimer that there are plat notes that apply to this that
are -- I just -- that's my concern. Now, from the standpoint
of -- I think there is a lot of benefit to doing it, as long
as we can make sure that the plat notes are there and the
public can easily print on the big scanner at a reasonable
price.
MS. PIEPER: Right. We're charging $5 now.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's reasonable. And, John,
you can work out these other details?
MR. TROLINGER: Yes, sir. It's just procedure
mostly. But keep in mind, we're not just talking about plats;
we're talking about all of the land records that are in the
County Clerk's office. Everything. And --
MS. PIEPEF.: It's -- basically, it's changing
software, but doing the same thing we're doing right now with
9 ^_5-06
50
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
~__
our official public records.
MR. TROLINGER: Right now, they're digitized back to
1997, I believe.
MS. PIEPER: 1986.
MR. TROLINGER: Well, the index is '86, but the
actual image --
MS. PIEPER: Right.
MR. TROLINGER: -- is '97, and we're talking about
going back with all the records, to digitize all of them.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And those people that want to --
that have a big scanner will be able to scan the whole plat.
Most of the surveying firms in town have large scanners, so
they could go on and -- and download the full plat.
MS. PIEPER: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER LETZ; At a big size.
MS. PIEPER: Or if somebody doesn't have a big
I
scanner, then --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Y'all can do it.
MS. PIEPER: If y'a11 allow me to purchase one, they
can come in our office and -- just like they do right now.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. TROLINGER: And for someone that doesn't want to
come in the courthouse, they're -- if they want to go to a
local copy store and have them perform the service, that's
also a typical way to get a large print.
9-25 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
51
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is all coming out of your
Records Management fund?
MS. PIEPER: That is correct. I also need to make
one comment, though. I need to up that amount by about
probably 6,500, because I have a -- my big scanner that we
have used since day one from Software Group has broke, and
John says it's -- because of the age and all that, it's better
just to get a new one rather than trying to get that one
fixed, if it can even be fixed.
MR. TROLINGER: Well, I recommended that we purchase
a new scanner and send the other for repair.
MS. PIEPER: Oh, okay.
MR. TROLINGER: We'll still have the old scanner;
we're not junking it. We're going to get it repaired.
MS. PIEPER: Oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Still the six grand which is
still in Records Management?
MS. PIEPER: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All of this money that we're
talking about is --
MS. PIEPER: The money has been building up
throughout the year, and that's the only thing that this
money -- by law, that we can use it for, is records
management.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where are you going to put
a-zs-ob
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
52
this new technology so it's easily accessible for the public?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: In the Collections office.
MS. PIEPER: I have three public terminals right
~ now.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Juvenile detention
facility.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good use of it. Put it in
the Collections office; that's a great use for it.
MS. PIEPER: I have three public terminals right
i now.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, the same terminals will be
hooked up, accessed the same way as all the other records?
MS. PIEPER: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- I think it's a good idea
overall, as long as we work through some of the bugs and make
sure the disclaimer's there, that people who start printing
single pages, that there's a lot of this information related
to O.S.S. F. and shared wells and non-shared wells and
everything else on these plats.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Trolinger, on the plat, can that
thing be programmed to provide, on any print that's made, a
notice that there are -- there are plat notes or provisions
that are an integral part of -- of the subdivision, language
of that sort that might be given to the County Attorney so
that they're specifically put on notice when that thing prints
9- 2 5- O b
53
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
out, it's going to end up being printed on it?
MR. TROLINGER: One of the vendors we're looking at,
yes, but we haven't chosen a software vendor yet, so I can't
say definitely that they'll be available. We're getting ready
to go through the demo process, so I can make that a
III condition.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that's pretty important.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
MS. PIEPER: Actually, I think both of the vendors
that we're looking at can do that, because they will put on
all my required stamps on the documents as it goes through.
So --
MR. TROLINGER: Oh, yes, that's correct. Yes,
that's possible.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the other thing that we'll
be -- I think you need to figure out a way to print off the
plat notes, which -- you know, and I don't know -- I mean,
one, you have to figure out going forward. We can require
them to be submitted in a different format that can be scanned
in page by page, but on the old ones, I don't know how -- I
mean, how that's going to be done.
MS. PIEPER: I think it can be framed where, if you
want a plat, the whole plat prints out and you can't print
just part of -- or a section of a plat. I mean, because it's
going to be cheaper for the public to get the whole plat
9 2 5 0 6
54
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
rather than get six or seven pages.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, we can't spend a whole
day on a plat. Can we go to the next item or something? What
was -- what was the bottom line figure that you're --
JUDGE TINLEY: 117 and change.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 117 and change.
JUDGE TINLEY: That includes the 6,000?
MS. PIEPER: No, sir, it doesn't. I would like
I that --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a firm number, not
knowing who the software's going to be?
MR. TROLINGER: It's based on the software costs and
the indexing and imaging costs to be done as the Records
Management money becomes available. In other words, we've got
~! thousands -- hundreds of thousands of pages, and those will be
scanned over time, and that's the variable cost.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: My question went to the cost
of software. Since you didn't -- since you hadn't
concentrated your decision on one or another of software, the
cost is going to be the same, no matter --
MS. PIEPER: No, we're in -- we're negotiating,
depending on which company we go with. We don't have firm
prices on --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I guess that goes to the
heart of my question.
9-25-06
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
55
MS. PIEPER: But -- but we're thinking that this
amount of money -- actually, 117,825, if we're adding in that
6,500.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. PIEPER: We think that will cover either
software, plus the --
JUDGE TINLEY: Repair to the existing scanner?
MS. PIEPER: Yes, plus the -- the scanner and
printer that we'd like to get.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion that we
authorize up to 118,000 for a new land records software system
to be purchased out of the Records Management fund.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How did you arrive at 118?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 'Cause they said 117 and
800-some dollars. And I just rounded up, 'cause I don't know
what --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I thought 6,500, plus --
JUDGE TINLEY: 111,325, and then add 6,500, comes to
117,825.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I didn't know the amount; I just
rounded up.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that noted -- is that
noted in this list of amendments that the Auditor gave us?
MR. TOMLINSON: I do want to say that the Clerk has
y-2s-o6
,_
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
56
referred to Records Management moneys. The -- the fund is
actually a Records Archive.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: That's a separate fee from -- from
Records Management.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My motion is the Records Archive
I fund.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We have a motion to expend up
to $118,000 out of the dedicated Records Archives fund for
upgrade in scanning and printing in the County Clerk's office.
Any second?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I second that motion.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and a second. 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.
MS. PIEPER: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: I've got another item that was
mentioned that dealt with a vehicle for the Environmental
Health Department. The budget, at present, contains -- I
believe it's a $6,000 capital outlay item dealing with -- that
would be the first set of lease payments for the Environmental
5-25-U6
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
57
Health Department, a new vehicle to be purchased by them.
Yes, looking at Page 50 of your budget, if you will turn to
that, you have it in-hand.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What year is the vehicle
and how much mileage does it have?
MR. ARREOLA: It's a 2007; it's new.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No, the one --
MR. ARREOLA: The one we have? I provided you a
full record of each vehicle, and the one we're talking about,
it's 63,158 miles, 2000.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: My '99 pickup's got 100,000
miles on it, and it's probably going to go another hundred. I
don't know of anybody that trades in a vehicle with
60,000 miles on it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's the problem with it?
MR. ARREOLA: It needs some work. Needs -- it's not
working properly. We have scheduled maintenance that I have
been putting off because of the cost, probably another $2,000
that we need to put on it to keep it running good. So, we
been putting money --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 2,000?
MR. ARREOLA: $2,000, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: To get it running good?
MR. ARREOLA: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Versus the new one at a cost
9-25 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
of?
MR. ARREOLA: Thirty -- 29,000 over five years.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sounds like a deal to me.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we're going to repair.
MR. ARREOLA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We need to delete the
lease-purchase and add in repair of $2,000.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's a motion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's a motion.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion and second to delete
the acquisition of a new vehicle, lease cost in the existing
budget of $6,000; in lieu thereof, add $2,000 to Vehicle
Repairs.
MR. ARREOLA: Is that going to be in the same line
item, or it's going to move to another?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It will be on the repair line
item.
MR. ARREOLA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. Repair line, add --
MR. ARREOLA: Add $2,000 to maintenance in the --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: To the maintenance.
MR. ARREOLA: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any question or discussion on that
motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your
9-^_5-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
59
right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry.
MR. ARREOLA: I have a couple of questions on my
budget, if you --
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm sorry?
MR. ARREOLA: I have a couple of questions on my
printout budget, if you don't mind.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. ARREOLA: First is my salary. The latest
printout I have, it doesn't have any COLA, any -- it has last
year's salary, and I don't know if that's the way it's going
to be? It's just FICA, maybe.
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't know which one you're looking
at, but the one I have here I think is going to have a COLA.
I'll calculate it right quickly.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Should be last year's plus the
COLA.
MR. ARREOLA: Okay. So, it's just a typo?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Yeah, it's included.
MR. ARREOLA: Probably don't have the same -- the
same copy.
JUDGE TINLEY: This is an 8/31 or 9/1 version that I
9-^_5-06
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
23
24
25
60
have.
MR. ARREOLA: 8/31?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
MR. ARREOLA: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Actually, I dated mine 9/1. Any
other questions?
MR. ARREOLA: Yes, sir. On On-Site Council Fees, I
would like to make that $2,500 instead of 1,800. That's
basically what we normally pay. That's money we collect for
the State and then we send it to them back, so it's -- it's
not coming out of the general fund.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's a pass-through?
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
MR. ARREOLA: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: The projected year-end cost for the
department is just under $2,300 for this year, and we have
budgeted -- apparently you only originally requested 1,800.
MR. ARREOLA: Yeah, that was when I begin that, but
we need 25.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. ARREOLA: It's On-Site Councils, 434.
JUDGE TINLEY: 2,500 is your request?
MR. ARREOLA: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Do I hear a motion to that
effect?
9-25-06
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
61
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved -- second.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and second. Any
question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify
by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(NO response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir.
MR. ARREOLA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If we start trading
vehicles in at 60,000 miles, we're not going to be able to
afford a Sheriff.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: About three or four times that
~ many.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Take you about six months
to get that far?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: At the most.
JUDGE TINLEY: Judge Wright sent me a note on her
budget. I don't know whether you've increased her bond cost.
Apparently, she's -- let me take a quick look here. She says
her actual bonding cost is going to be 178. We've only
allotted 100 in the -- in here. Apparently, she's got an
actual quote.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move we change it to 178.
9-25-06
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
62
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to increase
the J.P. 2 Bond line item to 178. Any question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, what are the other
J.P.'s? What did we put in for bonds?
JUDGE TINLEY: That's a good question. Looks like
one is $200.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Nevermind, you don't have to
go any further.
JUDGE TINLEY: Three is $320, four is $100.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Maybe we need to change them
all.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's pretty interesting.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions or comments?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: 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,
there's a couple of items on the position schedule that we've
got some questions with Maintenance on where the personnel are
shown, and where they're actually included on the -- on the
budget. I don't know that we've got any problems with the
9-25-06
1
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
63
amounts; it may be just reshuffling them or moving them from
one place to another on the position schedule.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, on Maintenance, I think
I'd really almost rather -- I mean, we can look at it now, but
I think that's going to probably -- possibly have some changes
in there based on whatever we end up doing finally with that
department. There may be some reorganization and changing up
and down, and I suspect it will take a budget amendment during
the year to do that.
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't have anything to indicate
that the numbers are not correct in that particular
department. Now, there's another one that we may have to look
at some adjustments on.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, following up on that,
that's correct, we may have to do that. But secondly, did we
move the -- the costs for parks mowing to Road and Bridge like
we talked about doing?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think so.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I thought we did, but --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I thought we did.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I thought we did, too. I
just want to be sure.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes is the answer.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That would be a good answer.
9-zs 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
64
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think also we need to note
that I think the way to handle it down the road on some of the
airport work, assuming the County does bid, and if we do
happen to be successful bidder on some of that work, it will
probably require a budget amendment during the year.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That'll be part of it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Like I say, I don't have anything to
indicate that the numbers are not correct.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move to the Tax Assessor. That
position schedule, according to Ms. Bolin, indicates that
there needs to be some changes there. They're not
significant. The good news is that it comes down about
$1,700. But she's given me a position schedule here on -- on
a couple of changes. I think it has to do with some movement
of some people in positions. And it was also, I think, some
longevities that -- that needed to be recognized.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Plus 17?
JUDGE TINLEY: No, it's actually down about 1,700.
It goes down from 196,239 to 194,516 on her -- on her direct
personnel costs. That, of course, doesn't include anything
with the rollups. But -- you know, one thing would be just to
leave it as-is. There's adequate funding now, and adjust that
based upon their actual pay grades and whatnot.
9-25 Gti
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
65
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: And there'll be some excess.
MS. BOLIN: That'll be fine.
JUDGE TINLEY: It's not as though you won't have
enough money.
MS. BOLIN: Right. That's what I wanted.
JUDGE TINLEY: Might be a problem if you weren't
going to have enough. Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, on these -- like the Tax
Assessor's changes, is she going to bring that back to the
Court for us to adjust that position schedule, or how does
that information get into the payroll system, is what I'm
thinking. I mean, do we need to come back and approve that so
there's a court order?
MS. NEMEC: I received changes from department heads
or elected officials, and also from the Auditor, and I've made
those changes to the position schedule, so I can get you an
updated schedule --
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. NEMEC: -- of what I've done, and you can file
it with the budget.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. That would be helpful.
MS. NEMEC: 'Cause I have made probably some of
those changes that y'all are talking about.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We're dealing off of that book
9-~5-06
1
L
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
66
that you furnished us --
MS. NEMEC: Okay, there have been changes.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- about a month ago, I guess.
MS. NEMEC: Yeah, there have been changes to that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MS. NEMEC: Per the Auditor's instructions, and then
also some other departments that had changes done to them, or
that, you know, something did not coincide with what they had.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, we normally adopt the position
schedule as part of the budget.
MS. NEMEC: But the dollar figure that you all have
in your budget should be correct, because the Auditor has that
figure, and that's the figure that he plugged into those line
items, so that figure is correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, you may want to make sure
that the changes that you're talking about are reflected, just
so they're --
MS. BOLIN: The only problem that I have is, I have
two people that would have not gotten longevity, that were not
included on here. The people are here, but the longevity was
not.
MS. NEMEC: See, and that's been changed.
9-25-06
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
67
MS. BOLIN: That has been changed?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right.
JUDGE TINLEY: The Auditor was wanting to be heard
about this.
MR. TOMLINSON: I gave you a list of amendments.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, I'm going to get to that in
just a second.
MR. TOMLINSON: But -- excuse me -- all the position
changes are reflected in -- in this list that I've given you
today. So, what Diane -- what the Tax Collector's talking
about is already in these numbers.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, good.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: They're not -- they're not in the
proposed budget, but they are in the list that I handed out.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So we'll need to adopt that list
of amendments as of today to the budget, in addition --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Adopt the budget with this
list of amendments, right.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: And then you'll do a new printout
reflecting these amendments?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. Plus the -- plus the ones that
you've just done.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes.
9-25-06
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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's see, what was it? Week
before last, we approved a change in the Treasurer's budget.
Are there any more changes to be made in the Treasurer's
budget relative to those figures in view of that action?
Okay.
MS. NEMEC: May I have -- may I look at the latest
run on my budget? 'Cause I don't -- Environmental Health
didn't have his latest run, and I just want to make sure.
MR. TOMLINSON: If you'll look in the -- on this
I list --
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
MR. TOMLINSON: -- I changed the -- let's see, let
me find it here. Right at the bottom of the page, about six
lines up, eight lines, I've changed the official salary from
the 28,750 to 43,257.
JUDGE TINLEY: Page 1?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah, the first page.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which page?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Page 1.
MR. TOMLINSON: First page of this list.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I see it, thank you.
9-?5-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
69
MR. TOMLINSON: Of amendments. And I've also --
JUDGE TINLEY: The rollups changed, and then postage
was increased to 3,000. Office supplies was increased to
3,600. Is that correct?
MR. TOMLINSON: That's correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any other changes to be made
to that budget? Okay.
MS. NEMEC: May I see the --
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
MS. NEMEC: -- budget, please? No, the budget that
the Judge has.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm sorry, I had my --
MR. TOMLINSON: Barbara, the -- that budget is the
proposed budget.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's the one that -- I'm sorry.
Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: So it won't -- that one will not
have these changes.
MS. NEMEC: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: And here are the changes that go with
that that are bracketed through there, if you want to take a
look at them.
MS. NEMEC: Okay, thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay? All right. Those are the only
items that -- that I had placed in my final consideration
9-~5-Ob
70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
file.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I do have a question, Judge.
It might affect one of these numbers. In another agenda item,
we're going to talk about the EMS and the fire contract, the
library contract. The status of Animal Control, what do you
know about that? And does that affect our budget?
JUDGE TINLEY: Right now, we've got the total cost
of Animal Control in the budget. My recollection is about
142. And -- oh, no, correction, that would be the City's
portion of the cost, would it not?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We still haven't heard back from
the City on that?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Not that I know of.
MR. EMERSON: I talked to the City Attorney last
Thursday and Friday, at which point he talked to the City
Manager, who gave us kind of an unintelligent answer.
Basically, it was we're the provider, and therefore we were
supposed to provide the contract. And my answer to that was,
well, our last notification from you was that you canceled the
contract, and to our -- to our knowledge, there has not been
any further discussion by City Council on the issue;
therefore, we have no contract. And they requested that I
forward the contract, so we updated it, forwarded it over, and
I guess we'll see what happens tomorrow.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is their number approximately
9-zs-oa
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
142,000? Does that number ring a bell?
MR. EMERSON: I don't -- I'm sorry, Judge, I don't
remember the exact number.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, so you forwarded a new
contract over to them?
MR. EMERSON: Correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That answers the question.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I've got some observations
to make that could lead to specific changes; I'm not sure. I
see a budget that's -- where spending exceeds revenues by
about a million dollars, and that -- without a tax increase,
and that deficit funding comes out of the rainy-day fund,
lowers it by about a million dollars. And the primary reason
for that million-dollar deficit spending are due to generally
two things; one, significant increases in the costs of joint
operations between the city and the county, and then a much
larger increase is increased payroll. By my count, we're
proposing to increase our head count by seven or eight people,
and that probably costs somewhere around $850,000, something
like that.
The specific changes are these. We've established
an H.R. department, and that adds one person, which is
partially offset by the deletion of a Deputy Treasurer
position, so in terms of head count, there's a wash there. In
9-~5-06
72
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
23
24
25
terms of costs, there's a little more cost. We're adding two
Officer into the Juvenile Detention Facility Director's job.
So, depending on how that comes out, we're adding either seven
or eight people and $800,000 or $900,000 in payroll costs.
And to pile that on top of the fact that we already --
compared to other counties our size, we're already employing
more people than any other county our size. So, I certainly
see us going in the wrong direction. We're adding payroll
costs, and we're deficit spending. And it's a whole lot more
difficult to cut payroll costs than it is to add to it. Once
-- once they're added, it's pretty much pulling teeth to get
it out of there, and I think we should rethink those -- those
eight additions.
I see the Sheriff's Department -- Sheriff, we're
adding three dispatchers when we're pretty certain that we
have a less than economically viable situation by having two
dispatch units, one in the city and one in the county. That
work could be done better and for less if we had one. Should
we be adding three dispatchers when there's uncertainty about
that question? I don't know. The case for two more in the
9 zs o6
1
'" 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
^^ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
"' 2 9
25
73
216th District Attorney's office is very appealing. They've
got numbers to back it up, and I can't deny the need there.
think our Road and Bridge Department is a very frugal
department. When they say they need more one more road crew
member, I don't question that. That's general observations,
Detention	Facility	Director's	job.	And the precedent	for
that, of	course, is	almost all	other	counties who have	a
I
juvenile detention facility have those two -- have one job and
Commissioner, I admire you
and your -- your bulldog-type thinking. And you've brought up
that issue, one guy being in both places, just about every
meeting we've had in the last five or six months. But I think
-- I	agree	with you.	Always have	agreed	with	you.	And if
there	was	something -	- you know,	if that	issue	came	before us,
I would vote with you. But I don't -- I don't think that that
issue's going to -- you know, you take Tinley out behind the
woodshed and kind of work him over a little bit, and we can
take turns on him, I guess. But I don't know how you get that
thing done. And each department that's come in that has asked
for more people, the whole thing's driven by population
increase in our community, and I -- and I see that. I watch
Fox News, and they're talking -- you know, all the hippies on
9 25-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
74
the east coast and the hippies on the west coast are talking
about the housing thing going under. That's not happening
here. Everywhere I look, there's homes -- large homes being
built. And those people come here and demand more services,
or them being here is -- the services are demanded of us. And
I -- because of that, I see Rusty's increase. Because of
that, I see the D.A.'s increase. And because of that, I see
the Road and Bridge. And then -- so we're back to the
juvenile facility and the probation issue. And would you like
to take Mr. Tinley out first, or do you want me to take him
out? (Laughter.) I don't know.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: He's only got one vote.
You got one. I've got one.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd vote with you, but I
don't think that'll go anywhere. I just don't see it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I share your concern about
that, and -- you know, following up on what Commissioner
Baldwin is saying. But, you know, it seems to me there are a
couple other votes in another location in this building that
didn't want to do that when we had an opportunity to do that,
and I'm not sure that's going to change. But the issue of --
of the District Attorney and the new District Attorney -- the
District Attorney made a compelling case. He did. And I
think there was no argument about his stats being what they
are. What's lurking behind the scene, however, is the
9-25 06
1
'° 2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
w^ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
~s
creation of another district court, and if that happens,
and -- which requires legislative action, then that changes
one or two legislative sessions.
The other issue with respect to dispatch, I share
just as passionately with you your point of view. I believe
that we have an opportunity, and I know that the ball's in my
court to craft a resolution that hopefully the City and the
County will latch onto and take a deep introspective look at,
at merging dispatch. To me, that is so obvious that it just
defies logic for us not to do it. And so we're going to be
adding three dispatchers to get the Sheriff's complement up to
10 to match the City's complement of 10 to do the same work,
duplicating the same efforts day after day after day. So, I
pledge to the Commissioners I will get that resolution drafted
and before the Court very quickly.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I pretty much agree with what
Commissioner Williams and Baldwin said, and you as well,
Commissioner, on the dispatch issue. I think that's probably
the one that we really need to work on the hardest. And I
like the way I saw -- or have seen Mr. Amerine run 911, and I
think it needs -- he's an integral part of this, and I think
s zs-oF
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
~6
if he can bring those efficiencies along to dispatch and move
good option, 'cause he certainly has demonstrated an ability
to run an efficient operation. And -- but I think, going back
to what Commissioner Baldwin said about population, I don't
know how many of you take National Geographic. I think my
wife does; I got it yesterday, and there was a map in the
newest version, and there were about 20 locations in the
United States designated with little blurbs, and one of the
20, and the only one in Texas or any of our surrounding
states, was the Texas Hill Country. It -- I don't think it
was intended to be an advertisement for people to come here,
but I think that's the kind of advertising that we're getting,
and we're going to continue to have the growth. I just don't
see anything changing in that area. So, I think we're going
to have to hopefully continue to be very frugal, but I think
we're going to have certain areas where we're dealing with the
public, we're going to have to increase staff over time. But
Juvenile Probation, I think they're -- both these two have
alluded to the two judges sitting upstairs in the annex, and I
think we need to get them on board to combine those positions.
I just don't see how you can do it without their support.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, let me tell you, combining
those two is a legal impossibility now, with the Juvenile
Probation Department, under state law, being under the
5 'S-n5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
77
auspices and jurisdiction of the Juvenile Board, and the Kerr
County Juvenile Detention Facility being under the
Commissioners Court. So, right now it's a -- it's a legal
impossibility. It cannot happen. Let's assume for the moment
that -- that both were under the same agency. The only way
that will work is if it's under the Juvenile Board, because by
state law, the Juvenile Board has jurisdiction over the
Juvenile Probation Department. Now, having said that, of the
50-some-odd detention facilities that are under the control of
the Juvenile Probation Department of that particular county
where that facility is located, I think you will see that all
of those, with one possible exception, the Chief Juvenile
Probation Officer is not also the facility administrator.
They're two separate -- two separate operations, and they have
totally separate individuals, so I don't know what you're
going to obtain by that. But right now, at the present, under
the present structure, it is legally impossible to combine
those two.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, you got out of that
trip to the woodshed, didn't you?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I'll go to the woodshed, but
I'm going to tell you the same thing when we get there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's a possible solution,
Judge; we can give you back the Juvenile Detention Center.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think you might find some
q-zs-ob

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
~a
reluctance. I'm reminded of the Toyota commercial, "You asked
for it; you got it."
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We got it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think we asked for it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, I don't think so either.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We just got it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Be that as it may...
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, we need a -- a motion here
to amend -- adopt or to amend the budget with the --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We got to do the public
hearing first.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, no, we can go ahead and make
these amendments.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: This list of amendments. I think the
Auditor has one more that we're going to get to, but -- and
we'll give him that opportunity, but in addition to the ones
we've considered, we also have these amendments as he's lined
here. Most of them -- most of them are salary adjustments,
retirement, rollups, tax and so forth.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion to approve
the amendments provided by the Auditor.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Did we have another one, did
you say?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We'll, we're doing one at a
9-25-06
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
79
time.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I second that motion.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and second to
approve the amendments to the -- I note you have 'O5-'06 at
the top of that; should be '06-'07, of course -- as provided
by the Auditor. Three pages, delineating by account number
and "From" and "To." Do we have any 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. Mr. Auditor?
Do you have something you want to weigh in on?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. Just my skeptical nature made
me research the issue of -- of prisoner medical, and in
relation to the indigent health care rolls. I did this last
week, and -- and determined that even though -- even though we
can pay the indigent health care rate for prisoners'
medications and -- and physicians' services, it does not count
toward our -- our total liability for indigent health care.
JUDGE TINLEY: That doesn't surprise me.
MR. TOMLINSON: So, what we -- what I remember about
the budget workshops is that we -- we removed approximately
9-'S-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
2J
80
$20,000 to $30,000 from the jail medical budget and increased
Indigent Health Care. So, I think it might be -- it might be
wise to change that, to go backwards with that change.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is it 20 or is it 30?
MR. TOMLINSON: We -- we've already changed -- if
you change it to -- by 20,000, it'll give us 70?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, I don't think so. I think
I all you left in there was enough for the jail doctor, and
then -- maybe 20,000 total.
MR. TOMLINSON: We added 20 on top of what was
I there.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't have my last run of
I the --
	JUDGE TINLEY: It went from 80 to 30.		
	SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah. And that'	s --	
	MR. TOMLINSON: It's 30 now?		
	JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.		
	SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes.		
	MR. TOMLINSON: So I don't have -- I	don't	really
have a	feel for what --		
	SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: About 20 of that	was	going to
be --	or 15, 16, 17, 18 -- about at least 18 of	that	30 was
going	to be the jail doctor's contract salary.	Now,	the other
proble	m I have along with Tommy's, and I hadn't	seen	the
people	that are going to handle a lot of that,	is ac	tually
5-~5-ny
81
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
And
unfortunately, now the V.A. Hospital is doing the same thing;
that if it is a veteran put into custody, that their services
cut off and the County has to start picking up the bill, and
that could have a drastic impact. So, if this new company
that I haven't had the chance to meet with, that's going to do
everything, is not going to be able to meet that as well as we
should, I'd say leave it at at least what it was last year.
If not, upping it from the 80 to 100, 'cause we're going to
have some drastic increases this next year.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, what should the number
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't spend it unless it's an
actual medical deal, but I would say put it at 100,000 in that
budget, because I think we're going to need it until we -- we
find out what this new company's going to be able to do and
how many prescriptions. I went to, you know, a
$12,000-a-month prescription bill from 6,000 just in the last
few months because of what M.H.M.R. and the V.A.'s' going to
start doing.
A 25-06
82
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. TOMLINSON: We don't have any experience today
about what paying the indigent health care rate will do to --
to Prisoner Medical. Now, we've had an estimate from -- from
experience from other counties that -- that it could be --
JUDGE TINLEY: 30 percent less, I think.
MR. TOMLINSON: -- 30 to 40 percent less. So --
but -- and that doesn't have anything to do with what the
Sheriff's talking about, with initial costs from M.H.M.R. and
the state. So, it's hard to -- to estimate, you know, what
our total would be. I think -- I think we could lower the
Indigent Health Care budget by at least 25,000. I think we
have it -- I think we have it at --
JUDGE TINLEY: 910.
MR. TOMLINSON: -- 910,000.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's actual payment. That doesn't
including include the administrative --
MR. TOMLINSON: That's right.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's just eligible expenses at 910.
MR. TOMLINSON: So, above -- above that, then it
would just have to be an increase in -- in the Sheriff's jail
budget. Or we could leave it -- I mean, we could go ahead and
leave the 25 in the Indigent Health Care, and later on
transfer it -- transfer it over to his budget when needed.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, the only -- within the
first three months of the budget, if things don't change and
9-25-OF
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
the new company or indigent health care doesn't make up a big
difference, with 30,000 there, and with just prescriptions,
not medical bills and not inmates' overnight stays in the
hospital, with just what prescriptions are going, within three
months of the new budget, we're going to be overdrawn in that
budget.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, I noted in the current list of
bills, it's over 10,000.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah, and that's just bills,
not prescriptions. And, yeah, unless this new company the
County's going to makes a big difference, I'm very concerned
about where we're going with inmate medical.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What is in the line right
~ now?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: 30,000.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 30,000.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And we want to go to 100?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Total, between the 25 in
indigent and --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, we can, you know --
JUDGE TINLEY: His requested was 80. That was
before we got into the Indigent Health Care portion of the
solution. As a result of that, it was dropped to 30. Now,
the Indigent Health Care portion of the budget was
increased -- that has been increased recently. It started at
a-zs-on
84
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
800, which wasn't going to be enough to begin with, we found
out right away, to 910.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: If you can put it back --
JUDGE TINLEY: Theoretically, we've got 50 -- we've
got 50 in the Indigent Health Care for the Sheriff's Office
because of the 50 we took away from him, we added over here.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, if you can put that 50
back in and put it at least back up to 80, that would give us
enough working room in there to see what the new system and
the new company's going to be able to do to at least get us
through six months or so.
JUDGE TINLEY: What he's suggesting is amending the
Indigent Health Care budget, to lower it by 50 to 860, and to
increase the Prisoner Medical from 30 to 80 by that same 50.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make that motion.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Any
question or discussion on the motion? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion carries. We're a little
bit past our -- first of all, do we have any more budget items
that we need to look at? Let's go ahead and take about a
9-~5-06
85
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
15-minute break. We're a little past due.
(Recess taken from 10:47 a.m. to 11:04 a.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to order, if we
might, please. We were in recess for a short period of time.
We have a 10 o'clock timed item; consider, discuss, and take
appropriate action on any matters that may arise from progress
report on Kerrville South Wastewater Project. Commissioner
Williams has advised me that that one's not quite ready. Some
of the principals that need to be here cannot be here today,
and he wants to pass on that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll put it back for our
first meeting in October, Judge, and the Grantworks folks will
be with us that day. We'll have a little bit update --
additional updated information, and we'll also restyle the
agenda item so that we can take action on a subsequent
application for additional funding for Phase IV at that time.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right, thank you. We'll move to
Item 10, and at this time, I will recess the Commissioners
Court meeting, and will convene a public hearing on the
proposed Fiscal Year 2006-2007 Kerr County budget.
(The regular Commissioners Court meeting was closed
at 11:05 a.m., and a public hearing was held in open
court, as follows:)
P U B L I C H E A R I N G
JUDGE TINLEY: Is there any member of the public
~-a5-o6
86
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
that wishes to be heard on the proposed Fiscal Year 2006-2007
Kerr County budget? Any member of the public wishing to be
heard on that proposed budget? Seeing no one moving to come
forward or seeking to be recognized, I'll close the public
hearing, and I will reconvene the Commissioners Court meeting.
(The public hearing was concluded at 11:05 a.m., and
the regular Commissioners Court meeting was
reopened.)
JUDGE TINLEY: And we'll go to Item 11, to consider,
discuss, and take appropriate action to adopt the Fiscal Year
2006-2007 Kerr County budget.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, I move adoption of
the budget for 2006 and '07, with the amendments as proposed
and approved by the Court.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to adopt the
proposed Kerr County FY '06-'07 budget, including -- to
include the amendments that were made earlier today and
approved by the Court. Any question or discussion on the
motion?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm not very proud of the
budget, but I'm going to vote for it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions or comments? All
in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
9-zs-o~
87
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. We'll move
now to Item 12, and I will again recess the Commissioners
Court meeting and convene a public hearing for the revision of
Lots 16, 17, and 18 of Riverside Park, as set forth in Volume
1, Page 70, Plat Records, and located in Precinct 4.
(The regular Commissioners Court meeting was closed
at 11:06 a.m., and a public hearing was held in open
court, as follows:)
P U B L I C H E A R I N G
JUDGE TINLEY: Is there any member of the public
that wishes to be heard with respect to the revision of Lots
16, 17, and 18 of Riverside Park, as set forth in Volume 1,
Page 70, Plat Records? Anyone wishing to be heard on that
item? Seeing no one seeking to come forward or seeking to
obtain recognition to be heard, I will close the public
hearing for the revision of Lots 16, 17, and 18 of Riverside
Park, as set forth in Volume 1, Page 70, Plat Records.
(The public hearing was concluded at 11:06 a.m., and
the regular Commissioners Court meeting was
reopened.)
JUDGE TINLEY: And I will reconvene the
Commissioners Court meeting and move to Item 13; consider,
discuss, and take appropriate action for bringing Vista Hills
Road into compliance for the County to accept same for
9-~5-Oc
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
maintenance, that being located in Precinct 1. Mr. Odom?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. Thank you, Judge. Vista Hills
Road was a County-maintained road from the time it was built
in 1988 until June of 1999, when the homeowners at that time
wanted it to be a gated community. At their request, it was
abandoned from county maintenance by Court Order Number 25891,
and the road was gated. Since that time, the gate has been
removed and the owners have changed. The current owners have
contacted us and Commissioner Baldwin requesting the road be
maintained by the County. Kerr County Subdivision Rules state
that the County shall accept a road for maintenance when all
the conditions in the attached chart -- and you have that with
the agenda item that I've put -- when they've all been met,
and all the tests and the inspections must be paid by the
developer.
At the request of the homeowners and Commissioner
Baldwin, I inspected the road and found that it is in dire
need of repair. The road currently has 6 inches of Type C
base, which is pit run material, which is not unusual for that
-- every other road in there is built that way. The rules
call for 8 inches of Type A, which is all a quarried base of
limestone, which is crushed base. The road width is correct;
it's at 24 foot of pavement. The cul-de-sac's in place and
it's correct. The current road needs the following: Base
failures need to be repaired, cold mix patches on the potholes
~-zs-oe
89
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
at the edges, cut the brush back off the right-of-way and
herbicide the edges, and a new single sealcoat should suffice
that. The homeowners would like to know before they pay to
have the road work done if the Court will accept the current
6 inches of base instead of 8, and if they must have a density
test, et cetera. They would also like some assurance that if
they expend the funds to complete the road, that Kerr County
will accept the road for maintenance. I'm open for any
questions or --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What do you recommend?
MR. ODOM: I believe that I can do -- that these
gentlemen can do exactly what I've proposed to do. I don't
think tests are necessarily -- I mean, it's a good road. It's
just oxidized and cracked. The base is the same road. I'm
familiar with that area; I've done zipping up and down that.
That's all good material. I'd just say that you fix the base
failures and do the cold patching and do a seal, cut the brush
back.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: A single-layer sealY
MR. ODOM: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And how -- that's the part
that I kind of question a little bit. How does that differ
from if you were building a brand-new road, the single layer?
MR. ODOM: If I was building a brand-new road, it
would be a double penetration.
S 25-u6
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
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Double penetration.
MR. ODOM: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And you think you can get
away with a single penetration? I mean, it would be adequate?
MR. ODOM: If memory serves me right, sir, that --
already done a sealcoat back in that area, so it already had
one seal on it. And it had the rock -- looking at it, it came
from	Henry -	- Mr.	Griffin's	pit down here. It	was big -- big
pea	gravel.	So,	that runs	in line with their	-- just from
memory. So, I remember us having that down for maintenance at
the time to do another seal, and then the doctor that owned
the majority of this land asked to have it gated, and so we
went to the Court and had it abandoned in 1999. So, if you
ask that it could be a double penetration, I would leave that
to your discretion, but basically, the road there has just got
some base failures, and -- and more than anything, that's
oxidation because there was nobody living on the road.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I kind of look at this as -- I
think it's virtually impossible to bring an old road to
current standards without building a new road. I mean, you
can't do it. So, I look at this as if -- if Len feels that
the road basically meets our minimum requirements with
upgrades, I think that's sufficient. I don't -- you know, I
don't know if it's really a variance, in my mind, that, you
9-_5 O6
91
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
know, we have to grant. I think it's -- 'cause it's -- we
have -- I think there's kind of an "or equivalent" type
language.
MR. ODOM: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's implied. And I think
it's -- you know, as long as Len's comfortable that the road
should be accepted, an existing road, I think that's fine with
me.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know whether you can
I do --
MR. ODOM: I happen to be familiar with it out
there. So, I -- like I say, it's unique, because it was built
to standards at the time.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, and the cul-de-sac is a
good size.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir, it's a good cul-de-sac.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is this the group right here,
these three guys?
MR. ODOM: Elgin, would you like to address the
Court? Or does the Court have any questions? I mean --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's a pretty rough looking
crowd you got there with you, Leonard.
MR. ODOM: They promised to shoot over my shoulder.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see, okay. They're some
9 25-Oti
92
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
rough looking -- I asked the Sheriff to kind of search them a
little bit, 'cause somebody's holding a piece back there
somewhere. But I agree with Letz, that if -- upon the
recommendation of the Road Administrator, that it's a good
thing. And it's -- to tear that entire road out and rebuild
it to bring it up to county standards, I don't know if this
county can afford to do that, but I'm certainly in favor of
it.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The Road Administrator is
always very cautious, so if he says something can be done, I
take him at his word.
MR. ODOM: May I -- let's make sure that we're not
setting precedents at all, because this is unique. If someone
came to us -- if these gentlemen had came to me and it was
something that was not County-maintained and built to county
standards, then I would say, "Here it is; this is what you
do." But this is unique. It's up there. And we have four,
five homes in there, maybe six now -- seven. Seven homes,
where before there was really nothing there but a water
system. And so, you know, we're talking about a different
scenario. I don't want the Court to think that I'm just
making an exception for them up there. This is a unique deal,
and it's not like it hasn't been done before. It was built to
a standard.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, and that may be --
9-25-06
93
1
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 may be the key here, Leonard. What I'm about to say --
I'm not opposed to it, and the length of the road is probably
not more than a quarter of a mile.
MR. ODOM: If it's that much.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But in terms of precedent,
don't overlook the ongoing efforts that we've had on
Creekwood. Those folks want us to take Creekwood -- us to
take Creekwood into county maintenance. You know, I don't
know if this is an identical situation or a different
situation, but I'm not opposed to it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the Creekwood issue and
a lot of these issues, I think you have to look at -- our
rules have changed a lot. Traffic volume and counts and
classification of roads has been a big change. This is going
to be a country lane -- paved country lane, based on the
requirements, where Creekwood, based on the rules now, is into
a collector.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's true, and that is a
distinction.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's a lot different.
MR. ODOM: A lot different.
JUDGE TINLEY: At the time this road was approved,
the standards, the 6-inch base was --
MR. ODOM: Type C.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- was appropriate?
q-zs o~
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
MR. ODOM: Was appropriate. And it was up until we
changed the rules.
JUDGE TINLEY: Just here earlier this year?
MR. ODOM: Earlier this year.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Upon the recommendation of
the Road and Bridge Administrator, I move that we -- that the
County -- Commissioners Court/County will take in this Vista
Hills Road into the county system after they've met these four
issues that the Road and Bridge Administrator's laid out; base
failure repaired, cold mir, patches, brush cut off the
right-of-way, and a new single sealcoat.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of the agenda item as indicated. Any question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Commissioner, do you want this
brought back to the Court to make the decision?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. No, I think the --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Len can make it?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- Road Administrator signs
off on it, and we go from there.
MR. ODOM: If you like, I'll send a letter at that
point on acceptance to the Court, to c.c. everybody.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think that's good communication.
~-zs oc
95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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: That motion does carry. Let's go to
Item 14; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action for
approval of the plan for a manufactured home community at 150
Lydick and located in Precinct 1.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. This is before the Court
again. I was asked to bring it again. Mr. Howard has been
before the Court several times. Today we're presenting the
plan for a small manufactured home community of three units,
his office and shop. To approve it as presented, it will need
a variance from paving the road and clearing a 30-foot
right-of-way. Basically, what he's asking for is 20 foot that
we've been to the Court before. The -- the catch to this is
that in our manufactured rules, which were not changed, it
says that I have no alternative but to say -- you go through
it and it says paved road, but then it goes back to the
existing Subdivision Rules, and here's a unique situation,
because it will be an unpaved, basically, country lane. And
we have that in our Subdivision Rules, but I'm going to have
to ask the Court for a variance to do this. And the 30 foot
is given as part of the right-of-way, so there's 20 foot that
9-'S-Oo
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 had discussed before, which is acceptable to me. The other
question was -- was a cul-de-sac. He's got this design with
the circular road through there, which is acceptable, that EMS
and emergency vehicles could get around. We looked at the
analysis of runoff. There's only one-tenth of a cubic foot
per second difference between having this unpaved, so there's
not a problem with runoff. He's looking to have an unpaved
country lane, and I think that I'll present it to the Court
for your -- your comments and --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask you, to trigger a
manufactured home, it has to be two or more --
MR. ODOM: Units, rented.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- units -- excuse me?
MR. ODOM: Two or --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: "Two or more" is the way it's
worded, I think.
MR. ODOM: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And in here, it shows that
there are three.
MR. ODOM: That is correct, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This one here has access by a
different driveway. These back here, the driveway that he --
that Leonard's referring to, I think this home is actually
there.
MR. ODOM: That's correct.
9-25-On
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
I
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And this one may or may not
show up. They're talking about putting another one here for
their college-age kid, a place for their college-age kid when
he comes home. She doesn't want him in the house. (Laughter.)
I'm just quoting what she said.
JUDGE TINLEY: Doing something smart, isn't she?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. I think it's something
to do with laundry or something.
MR. ODOM: Like a boomerang, it keeps coming back.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This home is not here
presently, and it may never show up; we don't know. So, that
is two or more, definitely. But in my -- in my mind, this --
this one here is -- has access by another driveway. And I --
to me, I don't know how you -- the two or more thing doesn't
come into my mind as part of the game, because it has
different access to it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's all on the same lot,
though.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It is all on the same lot, I
understand.
MR. ODOM: All the same lot. And that was a
preexisting condition before Mr. Howard bought this. So, in
other words, when he bought the property, it had this mobile
home on it and it had a house. And that's his office for the
water department right there, so basically, he is adding one
5-zs-on
98
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
L2
23
24
25
back there. He wants to have a rental, and the other one
would be for a relative.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the -- this one's an office,
right?
MR. ODOM: The house is.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This mobile home.
MR. ODOM: No, that's a rental.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh, okay. So, there's three
I rentals?
MR. ODOM: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, two rentals.
MR. ODOM: And a possible --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This is a rental and this is
a rental, and this is for a family member, no money to change
hands.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is -- I've talked to --
MR. ODOM: Bruce.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, Bruce, or I've talked to
people on this, it seems, several times. I have no -- I
think, on the road issue, whether it's paved or unpaved, I
mean, I don't recall why we say paved in our manufactured
home --
MR. ODOM: I don't know.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we need to look at that,
add it on the list to look at that once we do our final
y-zs-oF
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
LL
23
24
25
99
tweaking on the Subdivision Rules, 'cause I don't think we
can -- my recollection was we can't make the mobile home rules
any stricter than our Subdivision Rules. So, I'm a little
bit -- I just don't understand that. So, I don't have a
problem on that part of it. On the other -- and what's the
right-of-way on the mobile home?
MR. ODOM: We had talked at 20 foot, because of the
house and the location of the house.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But what's our rules say?
MR. ODOM: 30.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 30. Why can't you get 30? Why
can't you make the cul-de-sac -- well, the right-of-way go to
the inside? I mean, you --
MR. ODOM: You're up against the fence. You can go
to the right. Could they get 30-foot from that fence?
MR. HOWARD: I don't believe so. I believe it's --
the house and the other -- the shop buildings would encroach.
I think it would be very difficult to do. They have some --
the well or a shed up in front. That's shown on there, and it
would really jam it right up against it.
MR. ODOM: Now, the road doesn't have to be built
there but the right-of-way could -- might be given.
MR. HOWARD: The -- the whole point, I think, from
the Howard standpoint -- and I've discussed this with both
Mr. Baldwin and Mr. Letz. You're really serving potentially
9-'S-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
two residences. That's really what it boils down to. And
this is not -- they're not dedicating this to the County for
county maintenance. This is a private driveway, private
maintenance. And I can see in your rules if you had a half
dozen or more units you were serving, then you've got a
different ballgame. But this tract is not that big; it can't
have that many. So --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think our rules -- and
I'm not going to oppose it. I think this is a -- I commend
Mr. Howard for doing it the right way and trying to come to
the Court. I mean, it's a bad situation for us to try to make
it fit our rules; it just doesn't fit it real we'll. I mean,
the other one down here, that driveway isn't in -- doesn't
really meet the standards real well either. I don't know how
you count that driveway. I mean, the reason for the rules is
driven by -- the reason the State did it, it's driven by
emergency services, and that's -- you know, and the roads you
put -- the more we do, the worse we make on it this particular
lot. So, no matter whether we give a variance or not, I think
it's a bad precedent. But...
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Have all the water and
septic issues been addressed?
MR. HOWARD: My understanding is -- of course, he's
got the water system out there, and that's a nonissue. The
septic, the County's -- Miguel was somewhere. Anyway, he was
9-25-06
101
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
not going to give his approval until the Court gave the
approval for the variance, so that they could go forward.
JUDGE TINLEY: He didn't see a problem?
MR. HOWARD: No, he did not see a problem.
JUDGE TINLEY: As it's laid out here?
MR. HOWARD: Correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I remember when it came to us
before, in the entrance coming off Lydick Lane, where you --
wherever it is here you drove in, there was a -- there was a
telephone pole or a high line, an electrical pole --
MR. HOWARD: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- there in the middle of the
road. What did we do about that?
MR. HOWARD: The -- we're working with Windstream.
They are to move that pole, eliminate it entirely, and all the
guy-wires.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Actually, a truck came
through there and took it down anyway.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Took it down?
MR. HOWARD: Yeah, it's nearly removed by itself.
MR. ODOM: And there is a plat note here as well as
a letter that I have from Mr. Howard stating the fact that
he's working with the new telephone company, and they are
trying to get that easement, but have been assured that we're
q-zs-oe
102
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
23
24
25
-- that is going to be addressed. And -- and basically, even
if you give this variance, or whatever the wording we use, but
if there is a variance, it will never be maintained by the
County. It doesn't meet it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's not the driving force
behind our rules.
MR. ODOM: No, but I'm just saying if there is --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Nothing to do with it, really.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move for approval of a
variance from paving the road, and having a 20-foot
right-of-way. Is that all you're asking?
MR. HOWARD: Right.
MR. ODOM: Right.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of the agenda item as indicated. Any question or discussion?
All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right
hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(NO response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Thank you,
gentlemen.
MR. HOWARD: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Next item is -- sorry, did you have
9 25 06
103
1
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
something?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, I'll be quiet.
JUDGE TINLEY: Next item is to consider and approve
an interlocal agreement between Kerr County and the City of
Kerrville for the operation of the Butt-Holdsworth Memorial
Library, and authorize County Judge to execute and forward the
agreement to the City of Kerrville. Commissioner Nicholson?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes. We've prepared a new
library agreement, and the essential difference is that last
year we had some language in Part 5 that said the County's
contribution shall be a minimum of "X" dollars. I don't
remember what those dollars were. That same -- in a different
form, that same language is in here again, minimum
contribution of 443,667. I don't think there's any intention
that the contribution will be any more than that. We can
leave "minimum" in there if we want to, or we can change it to
"County's contribution shall be 443,667." I point out that is
50 percent of the proposed operating expense budget for the
library. And this budget was developed with participation
from the new revamped Library Advisory Board, so it's gotten
more critical and careful examination than the one we got last
year, and I'm recommending approval of it, approval of the
contract. And I'll make that motion, that we approve the
contract.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm going to second the
9-^5-06
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
104
motion, with a question.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and a second. Any
question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that 443,667 the exact
figure that's in the budget today?
JUDGE TINLEY: Should be the one that's in there
now. I know we had the figures transposed of 934 previously.
I'm not sure about the 667. I think I can find it pretty
quick.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We ought to look.
MR. TOMLINSON: It has 443. Doesn't have the --
JUDGE TINLEY: Doesn't have the change?
MR. TOMLINSON: No.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Maybe they won't notice.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We've got to fix that. We
have to amend the budget, or --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We got to go all the way back.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Got to go back and do that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Add $667.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or we can do a budget amendment
during the year.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody want to volunteer their
budget up to give up that money? I know the Tax Assessor has
some extra in hers.
a=s-oh
105
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2~
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: She already gave it to us.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If you could get the Juvenile
Detention Facility guy moved over to the library, and maybe
that --
JUDGE TINLEY: Hadn't thought of that one.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Two questions. Has the County
Attorney looked it? You're happy with it?
MR. EMERSON: Yes and yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a question.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And another question, before --
did -- did y'all look at -- did you look at this before the
City Attorney looked at it and it was signed by them? I mean,
I don't -- in future years, I'd rather the "County
contribution shall be" language be in there, as opposed to
minimum contribution. Just a note, but since it's already
been signed by the mayor, it's okay this year.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: One feature of it that was
new to me was the last sentence of Part 5, which said the
"City proposes to fund $50,000 in Capital Improvement Projects
for a study of library facilities and services, with no
funding participation from the County." It is good to point
out that the County will not participate in that $50,000
study. And then, just as an editorial, I might add that it's
my opinion that the capital improvement project study is
premature. We don't currently have a vision of what the
9-25-06
1
"` 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
^'°~ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
`"' 2 9
25
106
result -- the study may result in spending for capital
improvement projects that haven't been well thought out. And
if the County continues to participate in sharing operational
costs of the library, undoubtedly those operational costs
DODGE TINLEY: By the same token, Commissioner, in
the following paragraph, there is a statement, "This one-year
agreement recognizes the stated intent of the County
Commissioners Court to phase out, over time, its funding
participation for library services. City staff will research
other funding options to be presented to the City/County for
library operations beyond FY '07." I think that's helpful to
have in there too, because it conforms with those discussions.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I highlighted that
also, that particular paragraph, the sentence that you noted,
Judge. And I guess, since the City's already adopted this and
the mayor's already signed it, more than likely, it was
drafted by the City. It didn't take note of the County's
position to urge creation of a library district, but that's
okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I probably should say at
this point in time that -- that it's my expectation that the
Library Advisory Board, and perhaps even the Friends of the
Library, will recommend against a -- I think they will
9-^_5-OF
107
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
L 1
22
23
24
25
recommend against the formation of a library district.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I guess they got a good
option in mind.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And I'll -- I will join
them in that recommendation.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Got a -- did I make a
motion to approve and authorize County Judge to sign?
I
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I believe so. I believe
Commissioner Baldwin seconded it.
MS. THOMPSON: We have a motion and a second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any further discussion on the
motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your
right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(NO response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. We will move
to Item 16; consider, discuss, and approve an interlocal
agreement -- interlocal agreements between Kerr County and the
City of Kerrville for firefighting and emergency medical
services, and authorize County Judge to execute same.
Actually, we've got two separate agreements, so we've got two
items in one agenda item. I would note in the firefighting
agreement, in the first full paragraph, "beginning on the lst
s-zs-us
108
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
day of October, Texas," I think that should read "2006." And
"together with personnel" on the following line, "to 2006," I
think the "2006" needs to be eliminated, so that it reads,
"beginning on the 1st day of October, 2006, a pumper truck and
other firefighting equipment, together with personnel, and
terminating on the 30th day of September, 2007." I don't know
how that got jumbled in there, but it makes no sense the way
it's written.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. Well, let's clean
up the City's mess and send it back over there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, that's cumbersome.
Did you get some suggested changes?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, yeah. Where it says "Texas"
after October, in lieu of "Texas," put in "2006." And then on
the next line, where it reads "to 2006," line through those,
leaving the comma in.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On the first -- under the --
where it says "A. Structural Fire," the second-to-last line,
"For the Kerrville South area, City shall be considered the
'first responder' fire department..." Is there a map that
goes along with this?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just came out.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think that's on EMS.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, that's EMS.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's EMS.
9-25-06
109
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the reason is that I think
that we understand -- at least I understand kind of where that
area is, but it also covers area north of town. And I think
it's -- it really would be helpful to the public -- in fact, I
had a constituent who recently called and I couldn't give him
a definitive answer. They live on the north side of town, and
I'm not sure where the break -- they think they're on the
wrong side of a given street; that the line goes down their
street and they're on one side, and the other side is served,
but their side is not. And I don't have a map to know where
this line is, so I think it would -- we really need to know
where this area is, I think.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You mean Kerrville South?
I Both?
	COMMISSIONER	LETZ:	Both.
	COMMISSIONER	BALDW	IN: Or this --
	COMMISSIONER	LETZ:	I think the whole area.
	COMMISSIONER	BALDW	IN: The coverage area.
	COMMISSIONER	LETZ:	The whole coverage area. I
think	that needs to be	tied	down.
	COMMISSIONER	BALDW	IN: I agree with you. It needs
to be	-- the verbiage n	eeds	to be put in there, and we've
always	understood that	north	was included.
	COMMISSIONER	LETZ:	Right. And I think -- but I
think	it would be helpful to	get a -- I think, a plat,
9-25-06
110
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
basically, that just says this is the primary -- the first
responder coverage area.
JUDGE TINLEY: Former Kerrville South area
delineated on a map and designated as an exhibit to the
contract.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think it should be
called Kerrville South area. I think it should be the first
responder area.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I agree with that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Area of first response.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or area of first response,
something along those lines. And get a -- and I'm sure the
fire department --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They have it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They have a map or certainly
have some way of defining where -- what they consider the area
to be. I think that way, the public will be aware as well.
You know, because of the date and where we are, I certainly
don't want to delay this. And -- you know, from the
standpoint of approving it, but I think that needs to be, you
know, brought out.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
JUDGE TINLEY: Possibly do an addendum to the
contract later on.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
9-25-06
111
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: You remember, under Grass
Fire, my concern about that language of everybody calling back
and forth? They fixed that, and very, very well, I think.
It's very plain and to the point.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the other -- the thing
that -- going back to the areas of coverage, under Auto Fires,
it doesn't say where. I mean, it's obvious -- if I was to
read this, I would read it to mean that if there's an auto --
a wreck just outside of Comfort, that Kerrville's going to
send a truck, and that's not the intent or what happens. So,
I think -- you know, 'cause that would be served by Comfort,
but it doesn't say that here. It just says the City shall
respond to auto fires.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And they do.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not in Comfort.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: In Kerr County anywhere. They
always have.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay? If it's just this side
of Comfort, but inside Kerr County, we have had the City of
Kerrville go down there to help with cleanup and rescues and
everything else on all auto fires.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think that's true.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. I stand corrected, then.
I have never noticed a Kerrville fire truck at a wreck outside
9-zs-o6
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
of Comfort.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On the interstate I have, but
not --
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, don't go down there and have a
wreck to prove it.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't know that it's
~ needed.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It's not that often, but they
have, and we request them sometimes. Now, if I can back up on
your very first paragraph on here, under number 1-A,
Structural Fire -- right now is the first time I've ever seen
one of these agreements, okay? And where it says in there
about the jurisdiction has not responded within four minutes,
the Sheriff's Department dispatcher may request they send a
pumper, we have never done that. That's always -- the
volunteer fire departments have always requested the City of
Kerrville's assistance. It has never gone through our office.
I don't know what their old agreement was, but -- I mean, I
don't mind us doing it, but a lot of times it is the
volunteers requesting additional help, not -- the Sheriff's
Office never has. And the City of Kerrville dispatches for
the volunteers.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Seems like an unnecessary
~ process.
3-25-Oti
113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't mind leaving it in
there if we can, but I don't want to all of a sudden have to
be left totally up to the Sheriff's Department when we may not
even be at that scene or whatever yet, not in four minutes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, the sentence that
really needs to be addressed is the next one, the City shall
not be obligated, huh?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's kind of --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The volunteer fire
department is on the scene first, and the only one on the
scene of the --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Kerrville South is always hard
to get to. City of Kerrville can beat most of them out there.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: When they're on the scene
and they decide they need more help, who do they go to?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: They call straight into --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Dispatch?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: -- Kerrville P.D. dispatch, not
Sheriff's Office dispatch, and they request additional
assistance, 'cause they're the ones that dispatch Kerrville
Fire Department. They don't come through the Sheriff's
Office.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's way it should be.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I'm not -- you know,
probably should have had a lot of these conversations before
y-zs-aE
114
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
today, but on D, I'm not sure I understand what that -- I
mean, what we're saying there. I mean, it says if there's
a -- as I read that, if there is a false alarm on a fire on an
alarm system in my house, they're going to respond, and that
doesn't make sense. And they -- it doesn't make sense. A and
B, they don't do it. So, I mean, I think, you know, it's --
it's a bunch of fluff that's not accurate.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, that part on the false
alarms, now, the part on the investigations they do do, and we
do --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: -- ask for --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The Fire Marshal's office -- as
to the county Fire Marshal, I understand that part of it, but
some of that language -- you know, again, I think the
appropriate way is to approve this, probably, and then maybe
look at an addendum to the agreement, and look at maybe a lot
of these changes that are -- look at it in the next year,
or -- or through the addendum process. Is there a motion to
approve this?
MS. THOMPSON: We have no motion.
JODGE TINLEY: No.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion to approve
the fire contract -- what's it called? -- the Interlocal
Agreement for Firefighting Services between the City of
9-25-U6
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
Kerrville and Kerr County as submitted, and authorize County
Judge to sign same. And we'll bring it back at a future time
and work on an addendum to this agreement.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And change the date --
correct the dates, the things that the Judge noted in
Paragraph 1?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. And authorize the Judge to
hand-write in the changes that he noted in the first
paragraph.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
indicated. Any question or discussion on the motion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, if the Judge is
handwriting changes, maybe we should address the Sheriff's
Department dispatcher thing while he's there hand-writing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's a pretty big deal.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, it is. To be honest
with you, I never paid any attention to it. I just -- I just
saw law enforcement.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just don't want to get in a
situation where we don't have a contract the 1st of October
'cause the City's not going to be able to -- and I'm also --
maybe not -- thinking this through, I don't even want the
Judge to make his changes on it. We'll do it all through the
addendum process. Because once we start changing it, then the
y-zs-o6
116
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
mayor has to sign it, and he can't make any changes until
after the City Council meeting, and that won't be until after
October --
JUDGE TINLEY: You're exactly right. If we make any
change, that's, in essence, a counteroffer, and all bets are
off.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, my motion is that we approve
the contract as submitted, and that we'll bring it back at our
next meeting in October to offer an addendum to the City to
correct some of these.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask a question.
That's fine. And your second -- you seconded it?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: In that -- in the Structure
Fire part where the Sheriff's Department -- what if you
just -- and the idea of this whole thing is that if the
volunteer department doesn't answer within four minutes, then
the dispatcher calls the city fire department out. So, if you
just struck "Sheriff's Department" out of that, then whoever's
dispatching would automatically send -- do you agree or not
agree?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it makes sense to do it
that way, but I think it still changes the --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, for the future.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: For the future, correct.
9-25-06
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 BALDWIN: For the future.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: What you're -- the rationale is,
whoever dispatches that truck normally will dispatch that
truck?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Sure.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Very good.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And that's kind of been the
agreement -- the understanding all along. Four minutes, call
the City.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, are you -- and in your
discussion with that, you may want to define what "responding"
is. Some people are going to think that it's on the scene.
Other ones are going to think that it's just when they're
notified.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Notified, left the station,
responded.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: A lot of times, "notified" and
"left the station" is a big difference, and so getting on the
same --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't think getting on the
scene is "responded." They may have responded, but they say,
9-25-06
118
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
"Yeah, we know about the fire; we got to go."
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I would ask for a copy of this
so I can give it to my dispatchers so, as it's written right
now, we can try and abide by it until y'all make your
amendments.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other discussion? All in favor
of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. We'll move to
the EMS contracts.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Number 4, on the Y.O. Ranch
area, I'm not real clear what's happening with that. Do they
have ambulance coverage out there or not?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: They do from -- I always
get mixed up -- Kendall or Kimble -- Kimble. From Kimble
County. What's probably confusing is that we don't have an
interlocal agreement with Kimble County. They say they'll
provide the service, but they don't want an agreement.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And don't want to be paid for
it.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: They don't want the $1,000.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's the fire agreement, I think.
9-'_5-06
119
1
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: That's correct. I'm
confused.
JUDGE TINLEY: The fire agreement that we don't
have.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We don't have an EMS either, I
don't think.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No, but they're -- that
service is being provided by Kimble.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Who has the agreement? I
thought there was an agreement in place.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, they never did sign it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They don't want the liability,
in other words.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't understand that, but
I guess it's cool. As long as they have -- you know, the
citizens out there, as long as they have fire coverage and
ambulance coverage, that's all we should be concerned with, I
~ guess.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think they're now -- the
citizens are now satisfied with their -- if they weren't, we'd
be hearing from them.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, that's true.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And I think that in
addition, that helicopter -- air ambulance gave them more
9-25-06
120
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
confidence that their needs will be taken care of.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What is this fee schedule
that's attached to this --
JUDGE TINLEY: I think that applies to a standby fee
for -- for an ambulance. I asked where Exhibit B was, hourly
charge for dedicated ambulance service. It's going to be an
event, and they said that that's what that applies to. I'm
having a hard time --
MR. EMERSON: Paragraph M is where it shows up in
the contract.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Paragraph M?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. But I'm having hard time
finding the fee schedule, what the standby is for an
ambulance.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's kind of what I'm
asking. We've got everything in here under the sun.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Junkyard peddlers, sexually
oriented businesses. Doesn't tell you what the ambulance fee
is.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The City has a new approach;
they wait until we can't make a change --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not a bad --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- and then submit the
documents.
9-zs-oF
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 WILLIAMS: Not a bad strategy.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, we got the Exhibit A, Service
Area, this morning. And I did inquire about Exhibit B, and
the initial response was that -- from the City Secretary was
that there wasn't an Exhibit B. And I referred her to
Paragraph M, and she said, "Well, that's already in the fee --
that's in the fee schedule." I don't see it there. But it
was meant to be an hourly standby charge, if you want an
ambulance standing by at some sort of an event.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, there's a lot -- there
are numerous times during the year that we may be doing a
hazardous search warrant or hazardous entry or barricaded type
subject, and we're going to call for EMS to come out and stage
or stand by at a location very close to where that event's
going to take place in case we have something major happening
during it, and I would like to know what the fee's going to be
when I do that. I haven't seen this contract either. So --
and S don't know if that's one of the things that are included
in there.
JUDGE TINLEY: I can't find the hourly standby
fee --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I can't either.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- of an event or activity for an
ambulance in that schedule.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I mean, I'd say,
9-ZS-06
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
122
based on this, it's the same as what we did with the first
contract; we need to approve it and then put it on our next
agenda with a list of where we need an addendum, and maybe
send an addendum back over there.
JUDGE TINLEY: We probably got a 30-day bail-out on
this thing, don't we?
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE TINLEY: 90 days, unless there's a breach, in
which case you got 30 days to cure it.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That standby fee is on the
fee schedule. I don't have --
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't think it's on this particular
fee schedule; it's on another one.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It's on the -- I think they
must have sent this by mistake. This doesn't have any --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Wrong attachment.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move approval of an interlocal
agreement for emergency medical services --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- between City of Kerrville and
Kerr County.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Any question or discussion? All in favor of the
motion, signify --
9-25 06
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
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No, I just have some
discussion.
JUDGE TINLEY: Sorry.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I've qot your September 1
letter saying that we were wanting to adopt a policy of
~ user-pay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Any response to that?
JUDGE TINLEY: The response -- here's an August 31
memo from Chief Holloway -- to Chief Holloway from the EMS
Coordinator mentioning the review of EMS fee schedule.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's the response?
JUDGE TINLEY: That's all I've seen.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: Unless something got by me, that's
all I've seen.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Does the -- I'm just looking for
the actual paragraph related to billing.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Part A -- Part III,
Paragraph A. Part III.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I couldn't -- I can't read that
paragraph, 'cause there's a stickum over that paragraph.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, the August 31st memo
really is -- Commissioner, is really a nonresponse. It's a
memo, but it doesn't say anything.
9-^5-06
124
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
I5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The underlying economic
model is -- was it Ronald Reagan who called it voodoo
economics? It would suggest that Kendall County could cut
their fees in half and their revenues wouldn't go down. So
there's no reason for us to double our fees, 'cause our
revenues wouldn't go up.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, they acknowledge that revenues
would qo up, amazingly. If the -- if the fee schedule
increase were adopted for all patients, the net revenue would
increase approximately $100,000 per year. That's a pretty
nice chunk of dough.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, but they -- then they
go on and list all the reasons why they don't want to take the
100,000.
JUDGE TINLEY: The fact that 70-something percent
are Medicare, that has no bearing on it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand.
JUDGE TINLEY: They're going to do what they're
going to do. It' beyond my comprehension of why you would
provide a service to an identifiable segment of the population
and not at least charge them what you know your cost is to
provide that service. In addition, those that have private
insurance, they're sure as the dickens not going to pay any
more than -- merely because it's below cost, any greater
amount.
9 %5-~6
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
125
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think the --
JUDGE TINLEY: Mind-boggling.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we're, as a body, in
total agreement. I think the best approach may to be visit
with some City Councilmen and get it on their agenda to ask
why the City Manager and the Chief think the way they do.
JUDGE TINLEY: I know one of those guys, and I think
I'll talk to him.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know several of them.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why don't you want to cover
your costs?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I don't see -- I mean,
we get the same answer from the City Manager, so the only way
to move forward on this is to talk to Council directly.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Apparently.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And probably one-on-one.
MS. THOMPSON: You have a motion and a second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any further discussion on the
motion? Thank you, Commissioner, for throwing that in. All
in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(Commissioners Baldwin, Williams, and Letz voted in
favor of the motion.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(Commissioner Nicholson voted against the motion.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry.
9-zs-oe
126
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Did you vote against?
(Commissioner Nicholson nodded.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Do we have anything else --
anything we need to go into executive about here? All right,
we will move on to the approval agenda. Let's talk about the
bills.
	COMMISSIONER	BALDWIN: Well, personally, I think
that we	probably need t	o pay our bills. It's just --
	COMMISSIONER	NICHOLSON: I second.
	COMMISSIONER	LETZ: Good business?
	COMMISSIONER	BALDWIN: It's good business.
	JUDGE TINLEY:	I have a motion and second to pay the
bills.	Any question or	discussion? I would point out the
Sheriff'	s prisoner medi	cal pharmacy bill for this trip is
about 11	grand.	
	COMMISSIONER	LETZ: Thanks, Rusty.
	SHERIFF HIERH	OLZER: It's not by choice, believe me.
	JUDGE TINLEY:	Why is J.P. 3 ordering letterhead?
	COMMISSIONER	WILLIAMS: We've got a new J.P. coming
I in.
MS. PIEPER: She'll need it come January.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, but J.P. 3 is coming out
of -- J.P. 3 isn't going to be around in January.
MS. PIEPER: Oh. I don't know.
JUDGE TINLEY: Hence my question.
9 25 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
127
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: He's ordering enough to get him
through till January.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I've got plenty, thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: You don't need any more? That's the
economic model. We have a motion and a second?
MS. THOMPSON: We have a motion and a second.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Any other 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 go to
Budget Amendment Request Number 1.
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 1 is for the Juvenile
Detention Facility. We're transferring $28.52 from
Professional Services to Residential Medical, and along with
this we need a hand check payable to H.E.B. for --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval.
MR. TOMLINSON: -- 28.52.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded, to include
a hand check to H.E.B. for 28.52. Any question or discussion
on the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
9-25-06
128
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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: Number 2 is for the County Jail, a
request from the Sheriff to transfer $240.49 from Jailer
Salaries, 23.40 to Prisoner Medical and 217.09 to Vehicle
Maintenance. Along with that, I have two late bills, one
payable to H.E.B. for $53.91.
JUDGE TINLEY: 53.09?
MR. TOMLINSON: 91. 53.91.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right.
MR. TOMLINSON: And the other is to Krauss Garage
for 2,482.75.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 2,000 what?
MR. TOMLINSON: 982.75.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. Or --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- motion.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and second for
approval of Budget Amendment Request Number 2 and payment of
late bills to H.E.B. for $53.91 and Krauss Garage, $2,482.75.
Any question or discussion on the motion? All in favor of the
9-25-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
129
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Budget Amendment
Request 3.
MR. TOMLINSON: This is a request to transfer funds
from the General Fund to Indigent Health Care in the amount of
$39,810.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Any
question or discussion on the motion? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Budget Amendment
Request 4.
MR. TOMLINSON: Four is to declare an emergency and
pay 47,409.58 for Eligible Expenses for Indigent Health Care.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
9-25-06
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
130
of the agenda item for Budget Amendment Request Number 4. Any
question or discussion on the motion? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(NO response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Do we have any
further budget amendments?
MR. TOMLINSON: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do we have any late bills --
MS. PIEPER: I have one, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- that we haven't passed?
MS. PIEPER: Judge, I have a budget amendment.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Sorry about that.
MS. PIEPER: And I don't know if Mindy had given
y'all a copy, so I'll give you mine. This is my part-time --
I mean my overtime employees. We had a total of 425.44
overtime hours, and Mindy has found where to take the money
from in order to get them paid to clear out that budget cyc12.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do you want to give -- do you have a
copy?
MS. PIEPER: I don't have an extra copy.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's the only one? Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: I don't have it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: $7,000, about.
9-25-06
131
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: We'll need to give it back to the
Auditor so -- he can recite those things better into the
record than I can.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. The request is to transfer
3,337.21 from Operating Equipment, 1,767.05 from Software
Maintenance, 2,000 from Group Insurance, with 6,199.58 to
Overtime and $470.45 to FICA Expenses and 984.13 to
Retirement.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of the budget amendment request as indicated. Any question or
discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. I -- I have in my
hand monthly reports from the District Clerk as amended for
August 2006, and from Justice of the Peace, Precinct Number 1.
Do I hear a motion that those reports be approved as
presented?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
9 25-06
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
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: That motion does carry.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the Auditor has
something else.
JUDGE TINLEY: What do you have for us?
MR. TOMLINSON: I have an issue I haven't made up my
mind on. We -- we have a -- a principal/interest payment that
is due on 10/1.
JUDGE TINLEY: 10/1?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. And it's -- it comes -- it
comes out of the '06-'07 budget, and we're not going to have a
meeting until after it's past due. It's -- the principal is
25,644.82, with interest of 3,343.16. It's for the equipment
that Road and Bridge financed through lease/purchase agreement
with Security State Bank. And --
JUDGE TINLEY: Chip spreader and --
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: And I don't have to have a check.
We -- since it's with Security State Bank, we can just
transfer the funds internally to the bank. But I -- I want to
5-25-06
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 approval so I get -- for the -- it would be the -- Monday,
the 3rd, I believe it is, or is that the 2nd? The 2nd. And I
would like to be able to make that payment on that day.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: When it's due.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What do we need to -- we need to
approve authorizing a --
MR. TOMLINSON: The payment of that -- of the
principal and interest on that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The principal and interest. Why
do we have to approve it if it's in the budget? Why can't you
just do it?
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I --
JUDGE TINLEY: That's why he's having a hard -- he's
not sure what he thinks about it, I guess.
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I mean, in the past -- I mean,
policy has been that the Court approves the writing of a check
for whatever --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. TOMLINSON: -- purpose. And so we're not going
to have time to get the Court to approve that process.
JUDGE TINLEY: That technically would fall under --
kind of a late bill?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, okay. Okay, as a late bill.
MR. TOMLINSON: But it's not payable out of the
9-~~-05
134
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
L2
23
24
25
'OS-'06 budget; it's payable out of the '06-'07 budget.
JUDGE TINLEY: But it's due immediately after the
first of the year, and if we wait until the regular meeting,
it'll be technically past due?
MR, TOMLINSON: That's right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, what am I making a motion to
I do?
JUDGE TINLEY: Say, "So moved."
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for payment
to Security State Bank for the equipment as indicated. Any
question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: As per the Auditor's
explanation.
JUDGE TINLEY: Correct. All in favor, signify by
raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote,)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign,
I
(NO response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Okay. Do we have
any reports, gentlemen?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, sir.
9 ~S-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
135
JUDGE TINLEY: You're going to Buzzie's and have
some barbecue, right?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Probably all by myself.
JUDGE TINLEY: Wait a minute.
MR. EMERSON: You kind of blew through the executive
session so fast, I couldn't get my hand up.
JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, I'm sorry.
MR. EMERSON: But that's okay. I need to talk to --
I need to talk to y'all in executive about pending litigation
very quickly.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. So, at this time, we'll go out
of public or open session, and it's 12:06 p.m.
(The open session was closed at 12:06 p.m., and an
executive session was held, the transcript of which
is contained in a separate document.)
JUDGE TINLEY: It is now 12:16, and we are back in
public or open session. Does any member of the Court have
anything to offer with respect to anything that occurred in
closed or executive session? Hearing none, I gather there is
none. Anything further to come before the Court today? We'll
stand adjourned.
(Commissioners Court adjourned at 12:16 p.m.)
y-%5-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
136
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 29th day of
September, 2006.
JANN~E/TT PI~E~PE•R~, Kerr County Clerk
BY : _ Z f~2~c1~ ----- -
Kath~ik, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
9-25-06
ORDER NO. 29943
SHERIFF AND CONSTABLE FEES
Came to be heard this the 25th day of September, 2006, with a motion made
by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the Sheriff and Constable Fees as per LGC 118.131.
ORDER NO. 29944
INTERLOCAL SUBDIVISION ETJ AGREEMENT WITH CITY OF
INGRAM
Came to be heard this the 25th 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 the Interlocal Subdivision ETJ Agreement with the City of Ingram.
ORDER NO. 29945
2007 KERR EMERGENCY 911 NETWORK BUDGET
Came to be heard this the 25th 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:
Approve the 2007 Kerr Emergency 911 Network Budget as submitted.
ORDER NO. 29946
KERB COUNTY PROPOSED 2006-07 HOLIDAY SCHEDULE
Came to be heard this the 25th day of September, 2006, with a motion made
by Commissioner Williams seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the Proposed 2006-07 Holiday Schedule with the addition of
March 2, 2007, Texas Independence Day.
ORDER NO. 29947
CONSTRUCTION OF DOORWAY BETWEEN COLLECTIONS AND
COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE
Came to be heard this the 25th day of September, 2006, with a motion made
by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 3-I-0 to:
Authorize the Maintenance Department to put a doorway opening between
the Collections Office and the County Clerk's Office, at a cost not to exceed
$200, and the funds to come from the County Clerk's Budget.
ORDER NO. 29948
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SENDING NOTICE TO ALL
HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS AND PHARMACIES AND
AUTHORIZING COUNTY TO PAY INDIGENT AND MEDICAID
RATES FOR CARE OF INMATES IN CUSTODY OF KERR COUNTY
Came to be heard this the 25th 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:
Adopt a Resolution authorizing sending notice to all Healthcare Providers
and Pharmacies, and authorizing the County to pay Indigent and Medicaid
Rates for the care of inmates in the custody of Kerr County.
ORDER NO. 29949
PROPOSED FY 2006-07 KERB COUNTY BUDGET
COUNTY CLERK
Came to be heard this the 25th day of September, 2006, with a motion made
by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Authorize up to $118,000, for a new land records software system to be
purchased out of the dedicated Records Archive Fund for upgrade in
scanning and printing in the County Clerk's Office.
ORDER NO. 29950
PROPOSED FY 2006-07 KERR COUNTY BUDGET
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
Came to be heard this the 25th day of September, 2006, with a motion made
by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Nicholson. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Delete the acquisition of a new vehicle, lease cost in the existing budget of
$6,000; and, in lieu thereof, add $2,000 to Vehicle Repairs.
ORDER NO. 29951
PROPOSED FY 2006-07 KERB COUNTY BUDGET
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
Came to be heard this the 25th 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:
Change On-Site Council Fees from $1,800 to $2,500.
ORDER NO. 29952
PROPOSED FY 2006-07 KERB COUNTY BUDGET
JUSTICE OF THE PEACE #2
Came to be heard this the 25th 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:
Increase the JP #2 Bond line item to $178 from $100, for actual bond cost.
ORDER NO. 29953
PROPOSED FY 2006-07 KERR COUNTY BUDGET
AUDITOR
Came to be heard this the 25th day of September, 2006, with a motion made
by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the 2006-07 amendments as provided by the Auditor; three (3)
pages, delineating by account number and "from" and "to".
ORDER NO. 29954
PROPOSED FY 2006-07 KERR COUNTY BUDGET
SHERIFF'S OFFICE
Came to be heard this the 25th 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:
Amend the Indigent Health Care Budget, to lower it by 50 to 860, and to
increase prisoner medical from 30 to 80, by that same 50.
ORDER NO. 29955
ADOPT FY 2006-07 KERR COUNTY BUDGET
Came to be heard this the 25th 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:
Adopt the budget for FY 2006-07, with the amendments as proposed and
approved by the Court.
ORDER NO. 29956
VISTA HILLS ROAD COMPLIANCE FOR COUNTY TO ACCEPT IT
FOR MAINTENANCE
Came to be heard this the 25th 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:
Upon the recommendation of the Road & Bridge Administrator, move that
the Commissioners' Court and/or the County will take in Vista Hills Road
into the County system after having met the four (4) issues as brought
forward by the Road & Bridge Administrator: base failure repaired, cold
mix patches, brush cut off the right-of--way, and a new single sealcoat.
ORDER NO. 29957
APPROVE PLAN FOR A MANUFACTURED HOME COMMUNITY AT
150 LYDICK
Came to be heard this the 25th 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 with a variance from paving the road and have a 20 foot right of
way.
ORDER NO. 29958
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN KERB COUNTY AND CITY
OF KERRVILLE FOR OPERATION OF BUTT HOLDSWORTH
MEMORIAL LIBRARY
Came to be heard this the 25th 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:
Approve the Interlocal Agreement between Kerr County and the City of
Kerrville for the operation of the Butt Holdsworth Memorial Library, and
authorize County Judge to sign same.
ORDER NO.29959
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN KERB COUNTY AND CITY
OF KERRVILLE FOR FIRE FIGHTING
Came to be heard this the 25th day of September, 2006, with a motion made
by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Nicholson. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the Interlocal Agreement for Firefighting Services between the City
of Kerrville and Kerr County, as submitted, and bring back to our next
Commissioners' Court meeting in October to offer an addendum to the City
to make corrections.
ORDER NO. 29960
INTERLOCAL AGREEMEENT BETWEEN KERB COUNTY AND CITY
OF KERRVILLE FOR EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
Came to be heard this the 25th day of September, 2006, with a motion made
by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 3-1-0 to:
Approve Interlocal Agreement for Emergency Medical Services between the
City of Kerrville and Kerr County.
ORDER NO. 29961
CLAIMS AND ACCOUNTS
Came to be heard this the 25th day of September, 2006, came to be
considered by the Court various Commissioners Precincts, which said
Claims and Accounts are:
Accounts Expense
10-General	$	139,05915
14-Fire Protection	$	8,249.25
15-Road & Bridge	$	36,781.42
18-County Law Library	$	4,106 18
50-Indigent Health Care	$	48,809 36
76-Juv Detention Facility	$	6,288.00
TOTAL
$ 243,293.36
Upon motion made by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner
Nicholson, the Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to pay the
claims and accounts.
ORDER NO. 29962
BUDGET AMENDMENT # 1
LATE BILL
JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITY
Came to be heard this the 25th 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 transfer the following expense
codes and issue a hand check in the amount of $28.52 to H.E.B. for 08/06
Medical:
Expense Code Description
76-572-333 Resident Medical
76-572-486 Professional Services
Amendment
Increase/QDecrease
+ $28.52
- ($28.52)
ORDER NO. 29963
BUDGET AMENDMENT #2
LATE BILL
COUNTY JAIL
Came to be heard this the 25th 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 and issue hand checks in the amounts of $53.91 to H.E.B. for 08/06
Supplies and $2,482.75 to Krauss Garage for 08/06 Vehicle
Repairs/Maintenance:
Expense Code Description
Amendment
Increase/QDecrease
10-512-333 Prisoner Medical
10-512-454 Vehicle Maintenance
10-512-104 Jailer Salaries
+ $23.40
+ $217 09
- ($240 49)
ORDER NO. 29964
BUDGET AMENDMENT #3
GENERAL FUND
INDIGENT HEALTH CARE
Came to be heard this the 25th 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 transfer the following expense
codes:
Expense Code Description
Amendment
Increase/()Decrease
10-700-015 Transfer out + $39,810.00
50-390-015 Transfer In + $39,810 00'
*-To cover IHC bills being paid on 09/25/06.
ORDER NO. 29965
BUDGET AMENDMENT #4
INDIGENT HEALTH CARE
Came to be heard this the 25th 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 transfer the following expense
codes:
Expense Code Description
50-641-200 Eligible Expenses
Amendment
Increase/()Decrease
+ $47,409 58`
*-Declare emergency and take funds from Fund #50 Surplus Funds.
ORDER NO. 29966
BUDGET AMENDMENT #5
COUNTY CLERK
Came to be heard this the 25th 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:
Amendment
Expense Code Description Increase/()Decrease
,,_ 10-403-112	Overtime +	$6,149.68*
10-403-201	FICA Expense +	$470.45'
10-403-203	Retirement +	$484.13*
10-403-202	Grouplnsurance -	($2,000 00)
10-403-563	Software Maintenance -	($1,767 05)
10-403-569	Operating Equipment -	($3,337.21)
*-To pay earned comp time to four employees on 09/29/06 payroll.
ORDER NO. 29967
MONTHLY REPORTS
Came to be heard this the 25th 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 the following monthly
reports:
District Clerk -Amended August, 2006
JP #1
ORDER NO. 29968
BUDGET AMENDMENT
ROAD AND BRIDGE
Came to be heard this the 25th day of September, 2006, with a motion made
by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Authorize a payment to Security State Bank and Trust of principal and
interest that is due on October 1, for the chip spreader that Road & Bridge
.~ financed through alease/purchase agreement.