1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT
Regular Session
Tuesday, October 10, 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
ABSENT: DAVE NICHOLSON, Commissioner Pct. 4

_9
a
O
_...
2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
I N D E X
October 10, 2006
PAGE
--- Commissioners' Comments 5
1.2 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on request
for resolution in support of Texas Brush Control
Program in the Guadalupe River Basin 13
1.1 Consider/discuss advertising of proposals on
electrical, plumbing, HVAC, and pest control 20
1.3 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
allocating storage space to County Treasurer 21
1.4 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on any
matters that may arise from progress report on
Kerrville South Wastewater Project; approve
filing new Colonias application for $500,000 to
fund Phase IV, Kerrville South Wastewater Project 22
1.5 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
software problems causing delays in payroll tax
submissions 43
1.7 Public Hearing concerning Revision of Plat for
Lots 13A & 13B of Riverside Park, Precinct 4 55
1.9 Public Hearing concerning vacating, abandoning,
and discontinuing Live Springs Ranch, Precinct 4 56
1.6 Consider/discuss, approve new cellular phone
service contract for Environmental Health Dept. 56
1.12 Public Hearing for revision of Lot 5 of
Creekwood IV, Precinct 2 61
1.8 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
approve revision of plat for Lots 13A & 13B of
Riverside Park, Precinct 4 62
1.10 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
abandon, vacate, and discontinue old plat of Live
Springs Ranch, Precinct 9 63
1.11 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for
approval of new final plat of Live Springs Ranch 65
.1_.13 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for
revision of Lot 5 of Creekwood IV, Pct. 2 68
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I N D E X
October 10, 2006
PAGE
1.14 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for
road name changes and regulatory signs in various
locations, set public hearing for same 69
1.15 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for
concept of an alternate revision of plat for
Cypress Springs Estates, Phase I; set public
hearing for same, Precinct 4 73
1.17 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for
concept of alternate revision of plat for Wood
Trails Ranch, set public hearing for same, Pct. 4 73
1.16 Presentation by representative of Texas Association
of Counties of liability insurance; renewal credit
from TAC Risk Management Pool 76
1.18 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for
revision of Lots 16, 17 & 18 of Riverside Park,
Precinct 4 79
1.19 Consider/discuss take appropriate action to name
a private road in Precinct 4 82
1.21 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to approve
resolution to participate in Indigent Defense
Formula Grant Program 83
1.20 Interview four finalists for position of Facilities
Maintenance Direr_tor, take appropriate action to
extend an offer of employment (Executive Session)
1.22 Reports from the following Departments:
Animal Control
Extension Office
Environmental Health
4.1 Pay Bills
4.2 Budget Amendments
9.3 Late Bills
4.4 Approve and Accept Monthly Reports
1.23 Workshop-Review on minor modifications to Kerr
County Subdivision Rules & Regulations
--- Adjourned
83
84
91
91
95
97
99
141
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
On Tuesday, October 10, 2006, at 9:00 a.m., a regular
meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in the
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let me call to order this
meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court regularly
scheduled for this date and time, Tuesday, October the 10th,
2006, at 9 a.m. It's a bit past that now. Our normal meeting
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Please stand and join me in a
moment of prayer, please.
(Prayer and pledge of allegiance.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. At this time, if there's
any member of the audience or the public that wishes to be
heard on any matter that is not a listed agenda item, feel
free to come forward at this time. If you wish to be heard on
absolutely essential that you do that, but it helps me to know
that we have a public member wishing to participate in an
agenda item. But at this time, if there's any member of the
audience or the public that wishes to be heard on any matter
that is not a listed agenda item, feel free to come forward at
io-io-o6
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
this time. I thought our Collections manager was coming
forward.
MR. ALFORD: No, computer issues. Thank you,
gentlemen.
JUDGE TINLEY: I see. Okay. Seeing no one coming
forward, we will move on. Commissioner Letz, do you have
anything for us this morning?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just have made some
interesting observations for the past few weeks. Water is
always an interesting topic, and it's really interesting to
watch what other counties do around us, most notably recently
Kendall County. They've had a lot of discussion over there
about what to do on -- on density. And the Commissioners
Court came out, and a split decision 3/2 vote came down that
there will be no exceptions anywhere in the county; there will
be a 5 -- or 6-acre average for lot size whether you're in
downtown Comfort or Tapatillo Springs, which is another
high-density area. And they've really taken action to -- and
not only have they done that, and I find that some of their
actions are pretty interesting, but also the Cow Creek over
there has assumed, based on what Headwaters thinks, a huge
amount of authority on lot sizes, regulation of underground
water that I think, from Rex's and my discussions, and
discussions that the Headwaters Board has had with their
attorney, they don't have that authority.
io-io-oh
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
But, anyway, it's just real interesting what other
counties are doing. And there's a lot -- and I'm bringing it
up, really, as a -- I thin}: it's really important that we
follow the law. I know it's not -- doesn't sound like a real
novel idea, but I think we, as the Court, have looked to our
legal counsel on these issues and have pulled in the reins a
lot on things that people in the public want us to do, whether
it be regulating signs and billboards, regulating lot sizes
and wells and all this stuff. I mean, I think it's really
important that we do what's right and do what the law says,
and not try to grab all kinds of authority that I don't think
counties have. Okay. It's an interesting observation from
other counties.
DODGE TINLEY: Anything else?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, sir.
DODGE TINLEY: Thank you. Commissioner Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. I want to
piggy-back just a little bit on county authorities. This
L.C.R.A. issue is ruffling some feathers. And the travesty of
the whole thing, I believe, is that there is a small group of
citizens that are misleading other citizens. And, you know,
it's to -- we all saw our names in the newspaper. I saw a nig
ad there, and I understand there was two of them, actually; I
only saw one. People are actually believing now that we are
in charge of L.C.R.A. We probably -- I mean, I've got -- I
iu-io-o6

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2 L
23
24
25
got an e-mail this last week from a lady in Llano, Texas -- I
Kerrville, and she just kind of stuck it to me as if I were in
charge, like many, many others are. I think -- I think that
this Court needs to make a response to that. It's gone long
enough and hard enough to where our citizens are believing
something that is not true, and I think that Commissioners
Court needs to come out with a strong statement, and we can
always	ask the	County	Attorney to do it for us.	(Laughter.)
I said	"ask."			
I really believe that. I mean, it's gotten -- I
think we're all big boys and we're strong and tough, and we're
elected to handle the -- you know, the -- stand in the face of
the storm for the people, and don't mind that at all. But
when there's -- but when there is untruths told, I think that
we need to stand up and -- and take a stand against that, too.
And, personally, I believe that it's a small group driving
this thing that got mad at this Court because we didn't take a
stand in the beginning. Remember, we -- we had an issue on
the table and we did not vote on it, and I think that that
angered some folks, and now they're taking it out on us. And
that's -- that makes me want to throw up, actually. I'm just
-- we need to take a stand on this thing, and it will -- I
will probably bring it to the Court at some point in the very
near future to do something. I don't know exactly what to do
io-io-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
8
The second issue is, I've gotten a call over the
weekend from the hospice -- local hospice group that they're
caring for a former TexDOT local engineer, and the family's
wishes is that a road would be named after him before he
Loop 534, which I'm assuming that's all in the city, or at
least city	ETJ. And he is	the	guy	that designed it and	
oversaw the	construction of	it	and	the whole thing, so I	just
think that'	s a likely road	to	name	after him. I will --	I'm
going to call the City today and just see where all that is.
And, again, if this Court needs to take a stand and -- and do
a resolution or something, authorize the Judge to write a
letter or something like that for that cause, I think it would
be very wise and the right thing to do. That's all.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I find Commissioner
out there is being engineered by a group of folks who have --
have a solution in mind. What I find interesting is that the
batch of phone messages, if you're not in the office, at the
10 In 06
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
23
24
25
same time, and they all say the same thing. And the last
batch had to do with "underground is the answer." And one
fellow was so enlightened about the whole thing that he said
in his message to me, "Underground is the answer. Bury the
towers." (Laughter.) I find that interesting.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And then one was, "Stop
U.G.R.A."
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. So, yeah, I don't
know the answer. The answer's certainly not here. The
answer's in the Public Utilities Commission when L.C.R.A.
makes their recommendation or series of recommendations or
whatever they're going to do. But I think the -- what I find
troubling about this -- and I agree with Commissioner Baldwin
and his assessment of it -- is that so much enlighten --
disenlightenment or unenlightenment just spreads like
wildfire, and now it is the popular theory that underground is
cheaper than -- than surface and on top. I don't know if it
is or not, but if you're going to put that theory out, at
least put some supporting evidence out that backs up your
contention, and that hasn't happened. Other than that, this
was a pretty good weekend -- holiday weekend. Remember, this
is the weekend that Columbus sailed up the Guadalupe to
discover Kerrville. You do remember that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I do remember; I was here.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's why we had that
io-io-oh
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
I6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10
holiday this past Monday. And the University of Texas won.
The Bears won. Poor old Cowboys just couldn't quite get it.
MR. ODOM: A & M won.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, that's right. A & M
won. Oh, my goodness. How could I have forgotten that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, if I may go back, there's
one other comment, before I forget, on the same basic issue of
county authority. The City sent over a -- a draft of the new
ETJ rules that they're proposing, and I would just
encourage -- I don't know if everyone got it; I know I got a
copy of it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I didn't.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll give to it Kathy to get
copies out to everybody. We're heading for a head-on
collision with the City over this, I think. Their rules for
their roads for ETJ are not acceptable, and I think we need to
look at -- I bring it up -- may have to ask Rex to do a little
research. My -- I recall -- my recollection is that if we
can't come to an agreement with the City over these rules --
you know, hopefully we can. They're hopefully logical people
over there on this. There's an option, I think. It's not
mediation, but it's something like that almost, and it goes to
a third entity to come up with these rules. And I think that
the -- we need to be prepared for that, be able to discuss
that, because the rules -- the draft that I got out of P & Z
io-io o~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2q
25
11
is pretty onerous in my opinion. The good news is there are
one -- I think two members of the City Council that are
through City Council, much less over to us. But they're -- it
is -- the rules they're proposing is nothing like Commissioner
Baldwin and I met with them and talked about. Nothing. So, I
think that's real important.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm glad you mentioned that,
because I had a forewarning from a member of the P & Z that
they were going to -- going over a whole bunch of issues that
were counter to our long-established subdivision rules and
regulations, so I'm glad you're on top of it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: The -- on the issue of L.C.R.A.,
referring to, while they do not say that your elected members
of Commissioners Court and your elected members of the City
Council have any authority, it clearly implies that by
directing the reader of the -- of the advertisement to contact
these elected officials, with the apparent thought in mind
that if you bring enough pressure to bear there, things can
change. Well, obviously, things can't change. With regard to
your suggestion that maybe we need to adopt some sort of
official statement of position, if the -- if the County
10-10-06
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
12
Attorney doesn't honor the request, now that we've already
passed by him, maybe we can get our resident wordsmith to work
on that, just as another option. But what I've been doing
when I get specific written communications from citizens, I
respond to them and tell them, you know, I appreciate their
interest; however, this Court has no authority or jurisdiction
over that issue, and the P.U.C. does, and they should direct
their -- their thoughts towards that agency in that regard.
So, I've been trying to respond to any written communications
I get. Obviously, if I get voicemail messages, there's --
there's not an address to which I can respond, but I'm -- I'm
trying to keep the fire put out. But I think they're --
they're pouring more fuel on it on the outside than I'm
putting out on the inside. So --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm doing the same thing.
actually met with one of those leaders that -- that financed
the ads in the paper, and on several occasions, and it's like
that I've never met with them. So, that's why I say the
JUDGE TINLEY: A lot of these people are not going
to be heard because they're given to understand that we're the
ones that need to hear them, as opposed to the P.U.C., who
really are the folks that need to hear what they have to say.
in io-a~
13
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
So, from that standpoint, it is a travesty. Let's move on
with the agenda that we've got before us. We have a timed.
and Comal Counties. Mr. Bartel's here with us. Mr. Bartel,
if you'd be kind enough to give your name and address for the
reporter for the record, and then tell us --
MR. BARTEL: I'm Fred Bartel, 101 Waring-Welfare
Road, Boerne, 78006. I have to admit, I'm from Kendall
County. Thanks for the flowers. Kendall County's done an
awful lot on trying to control density, and this drought has
helped a lot. People begin to realize that if we don't
provide some open-space land to recharge this aquifer, we're
not going to have enough water. And that 4-acre, 6-acre
density is becoming very popular. We've -- a lot of folks in
the past have said, "Well, we can't do anything about it
anyhow." Well, they can. So, we've had standing-room-only
crowds coming in there to Commissioners Court to discuss
people's feelings on -- and it's a battle between property
rights, for the developer and the people that are trying to
protect the aquifer, and that battle will go on. And I'll get
off my soapbox, but thanks again.
It's been a little over two years since I briefed
io-io-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
14
originate correspondence not only from Kerr, but from Comal
and Kendall, to the various boards -- soil conservation boards
and so forth to try to get financing for this program. In the
looks very good this time. He said it's one of the
high-priority items, and so we're going to try to help put the
pressure on to focus attention on this thing. All three
County Commissioners are working on resolutions. Some of them
have already forwarded -- one's already forward; the other
one's in the mail, I think, to help us on this thing. It's a
matter of review.
As I told you several years ago, I learned that
A & M was doing research on rainfall interception, and I went
to one of their labs. They have ten labs in seven counties
that are studying interception of rainfall, and the one that I
visited was in Waring on the Seidensticker Ranch. And out
here in these big cedar trees are sensors up in the top, in
the middle, down at the bottom, even some under the litter
under the trees. That's transmitting data to Uvalde to a
central computer that measures rainfall interception. And,
for example, at Waring, since the year 2000, 151 inches of
rain had fallen on that particular area. 61 percent of the
io-io-ob
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2q
25
rain that fell on those cedar trees did not reach the ground.
A large majority of our rainfall comes in half-inch or less
increments, and a mature cedar tree can retain about a
half-inch of rain, and so it just evaporates. It's gone.
This test has been repeated over and over, and, of course, the
more half-inch or less incidents of rain you have, the better
it is. So, here I am talking to you about conserving water; I
come up here in the middle of a cloudburst, but that's all
right. (Laughter.)
But the other side of this thing is, how do you
clear cedar? How do you do anything about this when -- when
it costs $200 an acre to clear heavy cedar? Then I learned
through Farm Bureau newspapers that there was a thing called
the Texas Brush Control Program, where the State has been
paying for 70 percent of the cost of clearing cedar. I found
that this has been going on in seven river basins. I found
that up through last year, for example, they had paid to clear
56,000 acres of cedar just in Gillespie and Blanco County on
the Pedernales River. And the sad part of this is, not one
dollar was ever contributed to the Guadalupe River Basin. And
so I started this effort on those three counties because of
the Trinity Aquifer, the fact that it's a priority groundwater
management area, and a lot of development going on out there,
plus the Canyon Lake. And so I think that this time, we stand
a much better chance.
~o io 06
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
This program helps everybody. A lot of people
think, well, this is to help the ranchers. Well, just look at
what it's doing, how many thousands of acre-feet of water that
would be available for recharge if we cleared the cedar. Of
course, there's got to be some follow-up -- and, Commissioner
Letz, you know this too. Cutting the cedar tree down is the
i beginning of your problem. First off, you're a landowner and
you're going to have to put $50, $60 an acre into that program
to pay your share. And if you're going to get any
amortization on this, you're going to have to defer that
ground. You're going to have to control second-growth cedar,
forever. And we have a federal program; people do
participate. We had 26 people sign up for the federal program
last year, and only enough money for six. So, people want to
participate. And I really appreciate your help in this thing
and allowing me to come to speak with you today.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mr. Bartel? I got a question
for you. I don't understand why there's a fight between
I
on this thing. But if -- are you saying that if this program
goes through and we get what we ask for, that a property owner
is required to participate?
MR. BARTEL: Are you talking about the Brush Control
Program?
io-io-ac
1
7
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
17
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir.
MR. BARTEL: No, it's strictly voluntary. And if
out -- it's just like EQIP. A technician comes out, walks
through the property with you and looks for areas that might
be critical. If you've got a golden-cheeked warbler or
black-capped vireo habitat in there, they might recommend that
you try to keep some motts in there for that. They're going
to recommend that you do this on your best land, because
you're trying to get some return on your investment, and you
don't want to be clearing cedar on a 30-degree slope. So,
it's voluntary. But what surprises me is the participation.
I was on a bus tour last year in Gillespie and Blanco County.
There are places along farm-to-market roads where we drove
seven miles, and it was a continuous sign up; one rancher
after another participated in this program. They're very
excited about it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's a -- it's purely
voluntarily, like Mr. Bartel says, and it is -- the landowners
are standing in line to do it. It's basically the same as the
EQIP program under the Soil Conservation Service. And there
is a -- I know in this county, those that deal with Soil
Conservation folks quite a bit, there is far more demand than
dollars. So, I think it's -- I make a motion that we approve
the resolution. I think it's a real good program, and I think
io-io-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
18
that the Guadalupe Basin has been left out, which is shameful
in my mind, that our legislators haven't funded us like the
other river basins.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll second it, but I'd like
to amend just one part in the "Whereas." It talks about,
"Therefore, be it resolved that the Commissioners Court of
Kerr County, Texas, recommends..." I think we need to state,
"recommends to the Texas Legislature that sufficient funds be
provided."
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, I'll accept that
~ amendment.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and a second. Any
question or discussion on the motion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've got a -- not on the
motion. Eut, Mr. Bartel, are you related to the former
Commissioner Bartel?
MR. BARTEL: Cousin.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're cousin to him? What a
great man. Good man. And I believe that cedars -- God made
cedars to cut down. That's what they're for.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Fenceposts.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's why he created them,
to cut them rascals down, so I'm certainly in favor of this.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: One other question. I don't
know if you've talked to someone -- I really don't like to
io in 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
19
might get them on board as well, 'cause they are providing
funds into Kerr County and Bandera County for their own
program. They're doing it through Soil Conservation Service.
MR. BARTEL: I talked with them, and especially down
ounty, where the watershed recharge area is. Now,
they have their own program. They pay, like, 20 percent or
something like that, I think. But Danny Scheel and I have
talked about that thing, and, in fact, discussed about whether
we should include them in this thing. There's been some
preliminary studies right now that shows that this area we're
talking about -- Kendall, Comal, and Kerr -- is the best
payoff for the dollar that we could come across because of the
high density of -- of development in this critical aquifer.
We're in a heap of trouble with this Trinity Aquifer, and
everything we can do to put some more water in there, I think,
is going to be helpful.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the other side of that is,
has a direct relationship to the increase in spring flow,
which increases river flow, and the more water we can take out
of the river, the less is coming out of the aquifer, any
aquifer.
MR. BARTEL: Thank you.
lu-lii-06
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
~0
21
22
23
24
25
20
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other question or comments on the
motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your
right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Let's go to
Item 1. Consider/discuss authorization for advertising of
proposals on electrical, plumbing, HVAC, and pest control. I
think this is basically an annual --
MS. DAVIDSON: Annual thing.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- that we've put out for bids for
these outsource functions.
MS. DAVIDSON: Correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
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: The motion does carry.
MS. DAVIDSON: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Let's move to Item 3
io-io-oE
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
quickly. Consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on
allocating storage space to County Treasurer. This relates to
one of those two closets that are in that little hallway there
by the Parole and the Historical Commission --
MS. NEMEC: Actually, both of them.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. NEMEC: I went from 1,178 square feet to 221 in
the office that I'm in now, and I have a lot of files that
didn't fit in there. And I've put them in there; I had no
choice. And, so, I'm here to get permission to use both of
those closets. One of them locks. The other one, there's
files in there that are unsecure, because it doesn't lock.
And if I get permission today to use both of those closets,
I'll have Maintenance put a lock on the other one, because
there's files in there that are -- files that really should be
under lock and key, and I'll have to tell Maintenance to get a
lock for that closet.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What's in the closets now?
JUDGE TINLEY: Nothing.
MS. NEMEC: Well, there wasn't anything in there,
but now I have my files in there, 'cause I had no choice, and
I just put them in there 'cause I didn't have anywhere to put
them.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Prior -- prior to her
utilizing them, they weren't being utilized for anything.
io-io-oF
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2~
23
24
25
So...
MS. NEMEC: And it was either that or leave them out
in that little hallway out there where -- you know, nothing's
in there.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have no problem with it.
You need a court order?
JUDGE TINLEY: No. I had -- I was down there the
other day when I noticed this was on the agenda, and I
mentioned, I think, to Debbie -- I think you were off running
an errand or something -- that, you know, if you need that
space, for goodness sake, use it. That's why it's there.
Nobody else is using it, and, you know, use what you need.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You can do it. Do you want a
court order?
MS. NEMEC: I just want to make sure it's okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Absolutely.
MS. NEMEC: Okay, thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move to a 9:30 timed item.
Consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on any matters
that may arise from progress report on Kerrville South
Wastewater Project; also approve filing a new Colonias
application for $500,000 to fund remaining Phase IV of
Kerrville South Wastewater Project. Commissioner Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Judge. This is
the agenda item that I had put on two weeks ago. And the
io-ia-aE
23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Grantworks folks, our friends Eric Hartzell and Reagan
Lenehan -- Regan's new to the scene, incidentally, Judge and
Court. Regan took Dave Tucker's place. And I got to tell
you, Regan, you make a better appearance standing before us
than Dave Tucker did.
MS. LENEHAN: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Of course, I would have made
a better appearance than Mr. Tucker.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But Eric is an old friend;
he's been here many times before. What we want to do today is
give the Court an update on Phases II and III of the Kerrville
South Wastewater Project, tell you exactly where we stand. We
are nearing -- rounding the corner, would you say?
MS. LENEHAN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Rounding the corner. And I
want these folks to give us that report. It is not, however,
an issue that we need to talk about, and hopefully find a
basis for a resolve. And then we need to talk about moving
forward and secure funding for the remainder of the project,
which is Phase IV, which will come down the Bandera -- I mean
the Ranchero Road. So, whoever wants to lead the discussion.
Regan, is that going to be you or Eric? Whoever.
MR. HARTZELL: Probably Regan will start off. She's
the person who's in charge of managing the current Phase II
and III grant, and so I'll let her start.
10-10-06
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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Could we start by going over
Phase I, so I can remember?
MR. HARTZELL: Okay, I'll do that. Eric Hartzell
with Grantworks. Phase I was the Wood Mobile Home Park, which
connected about 57 households to the City's municipal sewer
system. And that was completed -- oh my goodness, probably
about two years ago now. And this -- this new Phase III and
IV are the Loyal Valley Subdivision, which are around 100
homes that are mostly mobile homes in this area, and that's --
that's Phases II and III, sorry. And Phase IV, then, would be
taking Ranchero Road from the Bandera Highway down to Loyal
Valley and hook up the duplexes and homes that are along tnat
street.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How many?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One important element of
Phase I that you didn't mention, Eric, and that was the part
that took us across the Riverhill Country Club, bypassed the
Rolling Green Lift Station, which was a major piece of Phase
I, and which took a lot of work to get done, and was delayed
immeasurably by the flooding in the year 2002.
MR. HARTZELL: That's true. That was something the
City had required that we do for the project, was to reroute
that flow around their lift station.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That was a condition the
City set in return for giving us the authority to hook these
io-io-o6
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
up to the city system.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Does the -- is the City happy
with all we've done for them? I mean -- I mean, we're kind of
handing them 150 customers so far; we're going to hand them
more, which is a revenue source for them. They're getting it
at no cost. So, I mean --
MR. HARTZELL: I think there -- I think there have
been different administrations in place throughout the last
few years, and both U.G.R.A. and the City -- actually,
U.G.R.A. is sort of who initially spearheaded --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. HARTZELL: -- this, and they were kind of going
to own the system and then work with the City as a kind of a
wholesaler. And -- and so there have been some sort of
different arrangements discussed throughout the years as it's
moved along. I think the City appears to recognize this is a
valuable asset to them, and we haven't had any real issues
with -- dealing with the City. They've been cooperative with
these projects.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think part of the answer
to your question, Commissioner, is it goes to the interlocal
agreement that was negotiated between U.G.R.A. and the City of
Kerrville to take on the administrative role with the
maintenance role of the system. And in that interlocal
agreement, the previous U.G.R.A. manager, not the current
10 10-06
26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1L
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
one -- or not Mr. Brown, but the one in the middle, negotiated
a clause in there that gave the City an option -- or U.G.R.A.
an option, I forgot who -- to purchase it for peanuts. And
that's kind of a bone of contention out there. I'm not sure
the City wants to acquire it. And in our minds, since we gave
it to U.G.R.A., and there will be close to $2 million
invested, they probably ought to hold onto it, and take the
rest of it as well, which is this two phases. And, so, that's
kind of up in the air, and it's up to them to negotiate their
way through that and either renew their administrative
contract or something.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there just -- you know --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Didn't mean to complicate
it, but it's -- that's in there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why wouldn't the City want it?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why would they want it?
They probably wouldn't.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I mean, they're getting
users who are going to pay a monthly service charge, and
they're going to pay for that sewage then to be treated.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And they're getting money to
maintain it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're getting money to
maintain it. Why wouldn't they want that?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why would they want to take
io is-ob
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
over the responsibilities of ownership?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
MR. HARTZELL: Why wouldn't they.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why wouldn't they?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Because it -- because it is
then an official extension of their services beyond their --
their corporate limits.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They have, by policy, said
they won't go beyond their corporate limits, except in
situations like this with interlocal agreement.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Changes the dynamics of it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I understand.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I got a nod of consent back
there from Stuart.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Just trying to get the
whole big picture before we get on to where we go next.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But that's not our issue.
MS. LENEHAN: Well, then, good morning,
Commissioners. Nice to meet all of you. The updates on the
Phase II and the Phase III portion of the project, which, as
Eric mentioned, is the Loyal Valley area, is that we are --
is io nh
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
public right-of-way is complete. And we have hooked up about
80 houses to the system, and all of those homes have set up
accounts with the city to receive service. And at this point,
we feel like we have -- we have enough funding, through three
grant projects, to -- to pay for all of the costs associated
with hooking up those homes. And the next step in the process
is the septic mitigation, and we are -- our budget is very
tight at this point, and so we are discussing different
options for the septic mitigation portion of the project. Ano
Commissioner Williams and I have been discussing the Loyal
Valley -- the areas that are in closest proximity to the
creek, and basically prioritizing those -- the septic
mitigation for all homes on Loyal Valley, and then basically
keeping -- running through all the homes in the project area
until we run out of funds in the grant. So, our -- our goal
would be to do -- of the 80 homes that we have in the area,
we're hoping to do, you know, at least 60 of those, and then
just kind of moving along and along and along until our grant
funds run down -- run out.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And then?
MS. LENEHAN: Then?
MR. HARTZELL: Well, then we'll move to Phase IV --
area.
1n-10-06
z9
1
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: And that's consistent with
And I think it's a
the last two years, where our budgets that we applied for
these grants were created back in, I think, 2002 and '3. And
since then, we've had a 40 percent increase in PVC, and so the
engineers are just trying to squeeze what they can out of what
we have available. But there have almost always been some
overruns in terms of our -- what we've been able to secure in
our bidding, and so we've had to defer some of the project
costs to a future -- to future grants.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, it's your assessment
that we can probably mitigate about 60 homes on funds that
remain in the grant pool; is that right? Grant and match
pool?
MS. LENEHAN: That's exactly what it's looking like
The -- the one caveat is just that we -- I just
n invoice from the construction contractor. Hasn't
even been approved or signed off on by the engineer at this
point, so this is my most recent estimate, and -- and based on
the costs that -- you know, the invoice that he's showing and
the amount remaining, it's looking like we'll definitely be
io-io-oF
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
able to do 60, and then we'll hope to just kind of maybe
squeeze a few more out of -- out of our budget.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Our environmental officer is
here. Miguel? The thought was that we would mitigate the
septics that are in the closest proximity to the watercourse,
Camp Meeting Creek and so forth and so on, which essentially
would be all of Loyal Valley as it loops around, and to the
extent that we have funds remaining, then we would take
whatever you identify as the most needy of those and mitigate
until we run out of funds. Do you see anything inherently
wrong with that plan?
MR. ARREOLA: No, sir, looks good.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How many additional homes will
be hooked up in Phase IV?
MR. HARTZELL: Phase IV, we'll have to actually
resurvey. This area was surveyed about four years ago. It
needs to be resurveyed. At the time, there were about 20, 25
additional homes. This grant's actually a little larger than
the amount we had applied for previously for Ranchero; it's a
half a million dollar grant, so maybe it will squeeze a few
more into it by going further down Ranchero. But the engineer
will have to do a budget for us. And today, what we're --
we're asking the Court to consider is allowing us to -- we'll
have to actually come back for a formal resolution, but we'd
like to go ahead and initiate conversations with U.G.R.A., the
io-io 06
31
1
G
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
City, and the engineering firm to get the ball rolling, and
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm glad you mentioned that
part of it, Eric, 'cause I think we definitely want to try to
hook up some other things on Ranchero, not least -- not the
least of which are the mobile home park, where they had agreed
with us that when the line got there, they would hook it up.
And also, in my mind, if it's possible, even though many of
the homeowners might not qualify on the threshold of -- income
threshold, Quail Valley also is an area that could be
legitimately hooked up as well, or a line extended there, and
that goes directly down to the lift station.
MR. HARTZELL: Okay, yes. The -- the key there, as
you mentioned, would be the incomes, because these programs
are designated for low to moderate income homeowners -- or,
I'm sorry, residents. And so we would have to make sure we
have that mix of lower-income folks in the equation, so we --
that would be done by a door-to-door survey. And we will need
to conduct another door-to-door survey for this Ranchero
phase, and if we can squeeze those Quail Valley folks into the
budget and into the beneficiary count to keep -- to maintain
our low-income focus, then we certainly will do that.
JUDGE TINLEY: What percentage of low income is
io-io-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
grant?
MR. HARTZELL: Okay. This is a state and federal
program, so it's not as simple as a number, but to qualify the
projects, we need to have 51 percent of the beneficiaries.
However, to score high enough to actually get it funded, we
need to have 80 percent.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. HARTZELL: 80 percent is what we're looking for,
which is easy in Loyal Valley and less easy along Ranchero.
But the mobile home park that you mentioned, which is north --
I believe north of Ranchero --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: West.
MR. HARTZELL: It's sort of northwest, on the
northwest side, that area. If we can incorporate that, it
probably will bring the numbers up, 'cause I believe it's a
lower income community for the most part.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think so.
MR. HARTZELL: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's always been my
understanding that that used to be called Blue Ridge Mobile
Home Park. I've always understood that that would be a part
of Phase IV. So --
MR. HARTZELL: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- keep knocking on that
door, my good friends.
is-io 06
33
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
MR. HARTZELL: I know that the Court had -- I
MR. HARTZELL: About the septic tanks. I remember
that. So, it's in our minds and in our plans.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Regan, help me understand
this. Your e-mail to Commissioner Williams says that the --
that you have sufficient funds to hook up the homes and
mitigate all septic tanks on Loyal Valley. And then on
another one, on a memorandum to Bill, it says the same thing;
you do have enough budget -- budget funds will cover septic
mitigation. And then at the bottom, it says you don't. And
then you stand before us today and say you don't. So --
MS. LENEHAN: Well, part of -- part of that probably
has a lot to do with the fact that I'm new working on the
project, so --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Ah, I see.
MS. LENEHAN: Getting through the -- sorting through
the notes on the projects and kind of getting myself caught
up, there was probably a little bit of a learning curve in
there. But it also has to do with the fact that the project
has been stopped and started a number of times, or at least
once or twice, it's my understanding. And part of that is
'cause, as Eric mentioned, the initial surveys on this project
iu io oe
34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
were done, I think, back in 2002.
MR. HARTZELL: 2000.
MS. LENEHAN: Or 2000. And so there were -- you
know, since that time, a number of people have moved into or
moved out of the area. And it became apparent, once the
contractor started hooking up -- or started construction on
the project, that we really needed to stop and resurvey the
area and make sure that we were including all of the eligible
homeowners that we could, and also make sure we weren't
hooking up a vacant house, or if a mobile home had -- you
know, trailer had moved off-site, that we weren't, you know,
putting a tap in where there was nothing. And so the numbers
have fluctuated a little bit, and -- and that's -- because of
that, and because of the fact that we are now getting our
first invoice from the contractor since the end of July, you
know, we've -- there have been some changes with the budget.
And I think there also have been some -- the impact fees or
the city fees were originally not part of the grant.
MR. HARTZELL: Right. Originally, the impact fees
hadn't been budgeted, so we had to make room for those as well
in the grant.
MS. LENEHAN: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a $300 tab, right?
MR. HARTZELL: It's a big hit.
MS. LENEHAN: $500 a home, when you're looking at 80
10 10-06
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
We're supposed to try to hook up as many or all of the low
', incomes, though, that we can identify, but it is a moving
target. The -- the people -- a house that had somebody in it
two months ago will be vacant now. And technically, then,
we're not supposed to hook it up, but when you have a
contractor out there, it's very -- it's very hard to pin down
exactly which houses we're supposed to hook up and which ones
we're not, and so that was kind of the issue with some of the
fluctuating. What we ended up doing is setting a deadline. I
think the Court had actually approved a deadline for getting
folks to set up their accounts. That way, we could have a
fixed number that we said, okay, no more after this point.
We've had calls since then from folks who have moved in, or --
you know, they're saying, "Oh, well, can I hook up now?" And
we had to draw a line, because the contractor was trying to
get finished and out of there -- or with his work, and we
could trickle in connections over the next, you know --
MS. LENEHAN: Ad infinitum.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're still getting calls.
MR. HARTZELL: We're still getting calls.
in-io-oh
36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. LENEHAN: Another thing is that the grant
deadlines are now coming up -- two of the grants -- soon.
Because of that, you know, it just doesn't make sense for us
to leave a contractor out there and keep extending and
extending these projects. So -- so that has -- that's why the
numbers have fluctuated a little bit.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. You did well. I just.
want to say one more thing. Everything that we've done so far
is in Commissioner Williams' precinct. Across the road is my
precinct.
MS. LENEHAN: Oh.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And we probably need to get
kind of serious about that pretty soon. 'Cause I'm just one
vote here, but I can twist arms.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do you have room in your
office for all those sewer files I'm going to bring over to
you?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. No, I don't. But Rusty
I does.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't mean to pick on the
City, but they're charging $500 per -- thing? Has anyone
thought of asking the City to waive that fee so we can do more
septic mitigation? Which helps the City, 'cause it cleans up
the creek that goes through the city.
10-10-06
37
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: That's good.
MR. HARTZELL: We've been told that that is not
I possible to waive that impact fee. Impact fees -- I think
it's something to do with the legality of how they're
structured in the first place, that it makes it difficult for
cities to waive.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We've explored that,
Commissioner Letz, and they can't waive an impact fee. They
waive it through the county, I believe.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What if we bought them a new
ambulance?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I thought we did that
already.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, half of an ambulance.
What if we buy the other half?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think it should be
explored again.
MR. HARTZELL: Doesn't hurt to ask.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because I think it's a --
that's -- you know, you're talking about 80 homes at $500 a
pop; that's 4,000 -- $40,000.
MS. LENEHAN: Forty.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can mitigate the rest of the
septics and clean up Camp Meeting Creek, which is a city
io-io-oe
38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
problem. It just doesn't make sense to me that the City
doesn't cooperate with that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I look at things very
simplistically.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree, Commissioner Letz.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me inquire, if I might. We're
looking and making an application for a new grant for Phase
IV, which is going to get you into Precinct 1. In order to do
that, is it not true that we've got to proceed to close out
these phase -- the Phases II and III that are still open?
MS. LENEHAN: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I'm given to understand
there's a deadline on making application for Phase IV.
MS. LENEHAN: Yes.
MR. HARTZELL: December 1st.
JUDGE TINLEY: December 1, okay. Are we going to be
in a position where we can close out II and III so that
appropriate application can be made for Phase IV and keep this
ball rolling?
MR. HARTZELL: Yeah.
MS. LENEHAN: Yes.
MR. HARTZELL: That's our goal.
MS. LENEHAN: That's our goal.
MR. HARTZELL: It's going to happen.
io-io-oF
39
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
G 1
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: I like the "yes" better than, "That's
our goal." Didn't you?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, I did.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm going to take the "yes."
MR. HARTZELL: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, thank you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And one other question about
the match, that you talk about a match in funds can be in cash
or in-kind. Road rehabilitation on the part of the County
could qualify for in-kind, could it not?
MR. HARTZELL: Certainly.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. HARTZELL: Certainly. I don't think the
County's ever put any match into these yet. But the match on
this new grant will be $25,000 for the $500,000 grant, and we
will ask, I guess, U.G.R.A. -- and, actually, the City, if
they were to waive their tap fees or their -- I'm sorry,
impact fee, that actually can count toward the match. That
can be the match. We do that in other communities and
counties all the time with Colonia grants. The City of
Aransas Pass, for example, waived its tap fee and its impact
fee for San Patricio County, and that was the match, so we
don't have to worry about cash coming in from a third source
or another source. So, we definitely will approach the City
about this again. I think --
io io 06
40
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 WILLIAMS: So will Commissioner Letz
and I.
JUDGE TINLEY: Eric, let me ask you. You say the
City of Aransas Pass found it to be lawful to waive those
impact fees?
MR. HARTZELL: Well, Aransas Pass' fees were
actually called tap fees. There was a tap fee and a -- they
have a different term for it.
MS. LENEHAN: Capital recovery?
MR. HARTZELL: They don't call it capital recovery,
either. It's not technically an impact fee. It's a capacity
buy-in fee or something like that. So, I don't want to -- I
don't want to step on any lawyers' toes. So --
JUDGE TINLEY: We might be talking about an issue of
semantics here.
MR. HARTZELL: May be.
MS. LENEHAN: It may be.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, there -- if I understand
this, summarizing it, there's not any issue that we need to
deal with with respect to the current one; we just need to
have an action authorizing you to proceed with an application
for a $500,000 grant, Colonias grant. CDB block grant, right?
MR. HARTZELL: That's right.
MS. LENEHAN: That's right.
10 10 Ob
41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1L
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That would probably include
part of Precinct 1?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll second your motion.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That is a motion, and thank
you for the second.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're welcome.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and a second on the
agenda item to proceed with authorizing the Grantworks people,
on behalf of Kerr County, to make application for the Phase IV
$500,000 grant.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any question or discussion on the
motion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I do have a question. Is
someone going to qo back and revisit this $500 impact fee
I issue?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes. I'll take my airport
buddy dowci there, and he and I can talk with a couple
Councilmen.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're going to take a
constable with you? Is that what you said?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I said my airport buddy.
io-io-ot
42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
We'll talk to a couple Councilmen.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, council.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If we need a constable,
we'll take them too.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just my recommendation.
That's -- hinting at it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would have one comment,
Judge, before we call a vote, though. Mr. Arreola, if you
would, in addition to the 43 some-odd that we've identified on
Loyal Valley, if you could take a cursory inspection and give
us any sense of what others to get us to 60 might be in
priority list number one? Okay, appreciate that.
MR. ARREOLA: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions or comments? All
in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion carries. Thank you for
being here with us.
MS. LENEHAN: Thank you.
MR. HARTZELL: Good to see y'all again.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm remembering the "yes" answer.
MR. HARTZELL: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
10-10-06
43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. HARTZELL: We'll get it done.
MS. LENEHAN: We'll get it done.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's go to Item 5; consider,
discuss, and take appropriate action to software problems
causing delays in payroll tar, submissions. Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I put this on the agenda. This
is based on a memo, if I -- the memo is not in my packet. I
don't know if y'all got it in your packet or not, but a memo
we all received from the Treasurer related to a -- a problem
with the payroll being submitted timely -- payroll tax being
submitted timely. And I put it on the agenda 'cause if we
have a computer problem, it needs to be worked on. So, Mr.
Trolinger or Ms. Nemec, whoever wants to answer -- you know,
address it. Because, I mean, this is one of those things that
I think is pretty critical.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, and I guess --
MS. NEMEC: Can I see the memo? I don't --
(Discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: She's got it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: First sentence, second
paragraph.
MS. NEMEC: This was with the -- the bank. This was
through the banking part; this was not with Incode. This was
with the submission through the Internet banking, cash
io io ob
44
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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is just a bank problem?
MS. NEMEC: Well, with the banking part of it. It
wasn't through the software program. It was through --
through Security State Bank and the banking part of it.
but also, because we found that there is no checks and balance
system by us doing it through the Internet, and so we went
back to the old way of doing it through faxing it, because
this way it requires two signatures, if we do it by fax, and
this way there's a checks and balances system between the
Auditor and the Treasurer, because it requires two signatures.
And this way, when we submit it, the Auditor's office is -- it
requires their signature, and they check right at that time if
that is the correct amount, so there's a checks and balance
system put back into place by doing it that way. And we just
feel more comfortable that they're checking the amounts. And
so it was something that happened one time, and then since we
went back to doing it the old way and found that, well, that's
probably better anyway, because now there's that checks and
balance system put back into place, and right there and then
i they can check and make sure that that is the correct amount.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that's -- that's good. I
have the signatures, 'cause it resolves all that and the
10-10 Ob
45
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
thing's done timely and all that. But going back to the
backup, so Security State couldn't do it right? I guess I
have a real problem with a depository bank not being able to
work with deposit -- or transferring and depositing funds
electronically. And --
MS. NEMEC: I can't remember the details of that,
and when I saw this on the agenda, I went -- tried to go back
to my files, but we have so much stuff in boxes still, and I
couldn't find where all that was. And I called my former
part-timer who transmitted all that, and she couldn't remember
the details of it either, so I don't really know the details.
Tommy, do you remember what happened back then? On that one
incident where it was the 22nd --
MR. TOMLINSON: Something about their approval of it
from -- from the bank. The bank was sending back to us a
communication to approve the transfer. I think that's what it
was. I'm not sure, either. I just -- I just knew that --
that through the bank reconciliation, how we knew, because the
debit never hit our account, so that's when that alerted us to
know that -- that the transfer had not happened.
MS. NEMEC: And that was, like, on the 22nd that
they sent that approval back, and that's how we knew, yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: When did we put in the new electronic
system? When was that established? Do you remember?
Approximately. Ballpark.
io-io-oE
45
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. NEMEC: I don't remember.
JUDGE TINLEY: First of the year? Middle of the
year?
MS. NEMEC: No, it must have been in May, I think.
MR. TOMLINSON: March?
MS. NEMEC: Well --
MR. TROLINGER: March 15th was the first payroll.
MS. NEMEC: Yeah, but I don't think we went on the
941 in March.
MR. TROLINGER: Are you talking about Security State
Bank's 991 filing?
MS. NEMEC: Yeah. I don't think we did that right
away. And what happened was, when we found this out, that
this happened, I called I.R.S. right away and said, "This is
what happened," and so, you know, "IS there going to be a
penalty?" And they said, "Well, we won't know that till -- we
can't tell you that until you submit your 941, and at that
time, ask for it then." And then they sent me a letter, when
I asked for that, and they said, "Until we figure out your
taxes and stuff, then we won't know at that time." So, they
said there might not even be one, so I just tried to get a
step ahead when I sent that letter to them. So, at this
point, we don't even know if there is going to be one or not.
JUDGE TINLEY: On the electronic -- the electronic
methodology, walk me through step-by-step how that occurred or
io-io-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
47
how that was intended to work.
MS, NEMEC: When we submit electronically?
DODGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm, yeah. That came in, I guess,
is what I've heard. How -- how were the steps to
occur on that to make that happen?
MS. NEMEC: Well, what happened in March, we went
electronically as far as direct deposit for the employees.
So, we submit that direct deposit through Security State Bank,
okay? I want to say that the 941 -- and maybe it did happen
in March. I want to say we started that a month later. I
really can't remember. I do the direct deposits and submit
them through Security State Bank Internet cash management
system. The 941's were also being transmitted through the
cash management system, Internet banking. So, there's one
process; one is direct deposit and the other one is the 941
submissions. I want to say this one was -- what, June or
July?	This particular	one that --	that didn't go through?
	COMMISSIONER	LETZ: May?	
MS. NEMEC: And it had something to do with, like
June 22nd, --
MS. NEMEC: Yeah, it was June 22nd.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- three weeks afterwards,
you found out that the May 30 taxes had not been successfully
10-10-06
48
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
transmitted.
MS. NEMEC: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a three-week lapse.
MS. NEMEC: Okay. So, it was the May taxes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is the -- the Internet banking
management or whatever you just said, is that something that
Security State Bank has? Or --
MS. NEMEC: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's their -- they have set
the contract up or set up that system?
MS. NEMEC: Right. Right. It has nothing to do
with Incode.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the reason I -- to me, we
need to get into an electronic as much as possible, because I
think it's more efficient time-wise. So, I mean, I like the
fact -- and I think I totally agree, you need to have a checks
and balance. I think it takes two signatures, but that can be
done internally. I really would like to find out why that
system isn't working at Security State Bank, because I think
that's their problem. I mean, if they can't -- and, you know,
I cannot imagine they don't have the system that they can
transfer and do this electronically, because I would almost --
whoever some of the other larger employers in the county are,
whether -- you know --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They're the depository for
io-io-oe
49
1
L
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2 1
22
23
24
25
others besides us.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. I mean, whoever handles
them, those payrolls are much larger than ours, and probably
are certainly done with a frequency -- if not a greater
frequency than ours, I can't imagine those are being done
manually. Just because -- anyway, so I think we need to
figure out how to make it work electronically. But I do like
the two signatures, you know, out of your office and Auditor's
office. That way, I think it avoids future confusion.
MR. TROLINGER: And, Commissioner Letz, the only
thing I was able to find on Incode was -- and this -- it's
exactly as described on the bank web site, by the way. But on
the Incode payroll side, we've reviewed with the Incode
trainer, and there is some setup that still needs to be done
to make that work correctly, and I'm hoping that while the
trainer's here on site, you can work with them to make sure
that initial setup that should have been done gets completed,
so H.R. doesn't have to do quite so much work on startup.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. But, you know, whoever --
Tommy, you tend to work probably with our depositor more than
the Treasurer does. I mean --
MR. TOMLINSON: No.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You don't?
MR. TOMLINSON: No. We just -- we reconcile the
bank statements, and we -- we're -- we have online capability
10-10 06
50
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
with the bank and are able to look at all the transactions.
And that's basically why we -- I mean, I have -- my signature
is required, but as far as making deposits and those kinds of
things, we're really not involved in it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My question was as to if the
problem's at Security State Bank and their software, that
needs to be fixed at Security State Bank, and not at our cost.
'Cause, I mean, if a problem was truly at Security State Bank,
I think they should pay any penalty we get, not us. I mean --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That raises a question.
Again, I don't understand why it would take a month for us to
know that we had a problem. What would cause that kind of
delay, from the bank or wherever? And I'm reading from your
note.
MS. NEMEC: I want to say that that's when you
reconciled the bank statement and found it.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah, we found it.
MS. NEMEC: That it hadn't been -- it hadn't been
done yet.
MR. TOMLINSON: Right.
MS. NEMEC: And I want to say that -- you know, I
don't have it in front of me and I couldn't -- I couldn't find
it. And I want to say that there was a problem with the
approval, and I think what happened is that my former
part-timer, when it was submitted, the approval -- the
io io-o6