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
KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT
Regular Session
Monday, November 13, 2006
9:00 a.m.
Commissioners' Courtroom
Kerr County Courthouse
Kerrville, Texas
PRESENT: PAT TINLEY, Kerr County Judge
H A."BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1
WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2
JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3
DAVE NICHOLSON, Commissioner Pct. 4
~.
U
Q
M
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
	I N D E X	
	November 13, 2006	
		PAGE
---	Commissioners' Comments	5
1.1	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on	
	Texas Yes! Grant & contract	11
1.2	Consideration/approval of EIC project to provide	
	funding to Hill Country Shooting Center	13
1.3	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on	
	2007 Employee Health Benefit Proposals	21
1.4	Open bids for electrical, plumbing, HVAC and	
	pest control	40
1.5	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on	
	Maintenance & Custodial Departments reorganization	41
1.9	Public Hearing for Revision of Plat for Lot 17A	
	& 16, Cypress Spring Estates	58
1.8	Consider/discuss, adopt resolution authorizing	
	County to submit grant application for Phase IV of	
	Kerrville South Wastewater Project	58
1.11	Public Hearing for Revision of Plat for Lots 43B &	
	46, Wood Trails Ranch	61
1.6	Consider/discuss, approve filling open full-time	
	position in Maintenance Department	62
1.13	Public Hearing for road name changes and regulatory	
	signs in various locations	69
1.7	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action regarding	
	IRS meeting in reference to 6-30-06 tax period	70
1.10	Consider/discuss/action for final revision of plat	
	for Lot 17A & 16, Cypress Spring Estates	100
1.12	Consider/discuss/action for final revision of plat	
	for Lot 43B & 46, Wood Trails Ranch	101
1.14	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for	
	road name changes and regulatory signs	102
1.15	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for	
	final plat of T-H Acres, Precinct 4	106
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I N D E X
November 13, 2006
1.16 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for
revision of Lots 5 & 6 of Cypress Springs, set
public hearing, Precinct 4
1.17 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for
revision of Lots 16 & 17 of Bear Creek Ranch
Estates, set public hearing, Precinct 1
1.18 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
consider lease of two maintainers and one loader
fox' Road & Bridge
1.19 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to set
public hearing for revision of plat for Lots 124B
& 131A of Falling Water
1.20 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action regarding
application for grant from Peterson Foundation to
purchase a new Live Scan Fingerprint system
1.21 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action regarding
approval of new telecommunications equipment lease
with Windstream Communications
PAGE
106
109
113
118
119
120
1.22 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to accept
resignation of Robert L. Weinberg from the Alamo
Area Senior Advisory Committee 124
1.23 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to adopt
Resolution opposing revenue and appraisal caps and/
or unfunded mandates on Texas counties and cities 124
1.24 Consider/discuss, approve revised Subdivision Rules
and Regulations, set Public Hearing for same 130
1.25 Reports from the following Departments:
Facilities and Maintenance ---
Information Technology 150
Road and Bridge 158
Collections 167
4.1 Pay Bills 169
4.2 Budget Amendments 173
4.3 Late Bills 178
4.4 Approve and Accept Monthly Reports 179
--- Adjourned 182
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 Monday, November 13, 2006, at 9:00 a.m., a regular
meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in the
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
time and date, Monday, November the 13th, 2006, at 9 a.m.
(Prayer and pledge of allegiance.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you very much. At this time,
if there's any member of the public or the audience who wishes
to be heard on any matter that is not a listed agenda item,
we'd ask that you come forward at this time and tell us what's
on your mind. We'll need for you to give your name and
address as you -- as you come forward. If you wish to be
heard on any agenda item, a listed or posted agenda item, we'd
ask that you fill out a participation form. They can be found
at the rear of the room. And it's not essential that you do
that, but it helps me to be aware that there's someone that
wants to speak on that item when we get there. If you haven't
filled out a participation form, and decide you want to have
input on an agenda item, when we get to that item, get my
11-13-06
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
attention in some manner and I'll give you the opportunity to
be heard. 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, please feel free to come
forward at this time and tell us what's on your mind. Seeing
no one coming forward, we will move on. Commissioner Baldwin,
what do you have for us this morning?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, a couple of things. I
see my good friend Harold Smith from The Horizon subdivision
back there; that he and I have had several discussions regards
to the L.C.R.A. power line issue, and haven't always seen
eye-to-eye on it. And over the weekend, I had several phone
calls and e-mails asking the Commissioners Court to fire
another shot at a resolution for us to join the City Council
in requesting L.C.R.A. to bury all the lines. I want y'all to
put your thinking hats on and think about that in the next
week or so, and we'll -- if it looks or sounds palatable to
you, we may make another run at it. We've done so many
resolutions on this Court through the years that I've very
seldom seen us not be able to come out with one. But this is
one of those issues that just is just not -- there's not a
good answer for the thing. So, I think we ought to fire
another shot at this thing, and I'll -- I'm willing to stand
out there in front and take the heat for it. I guess that's
all. I started to get into football, but my feelings are so
11-13-06
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
hurt from the weekend, I just -- just don't have the heart to
talk about it. (Laughter.) Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Judge. At the
last month's directors meeting of the Alamo Area Council of
Governments, one of the bits of information that was shared
with us that I think the Court and the public might find
interesting has to do with the population estimates from the
State Data Center for Kerr County. You'll recall that the
2000 census, our count for Kerr County was 43,653. As of
July 1, 'O5, the estimate -- population estimate was 46,846.
As of January 1, 2006, the population estimate for Kerr County
is now 47,265. That represents a six-year change of
8.3 percent. For those of you who don't think our county's
growing, if anybody exists that doesn't think our county's
growing, you better think again.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On L.C.R.A., I'll be glad to
work with Commissioner Baldwin in trying to come up with a
resolution that's palatable to myself. I have -- and I can
tell you right now, mine is that I like the criteria L.C.R.A.
is using. I think they need to consider underground. I mean,
you know, I have no problem with that; I just think that
ii-is-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
there's -- the true -- all of the -- well, I'll just have to
what information I have on the underground item.
The other item I have is, I'm not sure if everyone
is aware or not, but there were several very bad accidents on
Highway 27 recently. Two people were killed at Government
Crossing on Highway 27, and there was another serious
accident -- I don't know the details of it; it was in the city
limits, right at -- before you get to the airport just going
out of Kerrville, right on that corner right there, kind of
where the R.V. storage place is. I know they had Highway 27
closed for quite a while Saturday evening with that one. And
I will probably be getting with Commissioner Williams and
again work on a resolution firing off to TexDOT about
expediting their current plans to expand into -- most of that
highway into a four-lane road. Traffic is getting more and
more every day. A lot of heavy truck traffic is already on
there. I think the 10-year plan is to make a good part of
show it probably needs to be done sooner rather than later.
11-13-OF
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
That's all I have.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Nicholson?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Couple things, Judge. The
hunters and the snowbirds are back, and just about the time we
get settled down from the -- from the summer vacation and
that's a real economic blessing to Kerr County, particularly
west Kerr County. And we have to put up with a little bit
of -- of traffic and other stuff we don't like, but it's well
worth it. It's awfully dry out there. I hope the hunters
don't let their -- their campfires get out of control, 'cause
I think we're right back where we were about a month ago and
being on the verge of a really big problem for wildfire.
And, second, I want to talk just a second about
Animal Control. I usually talk about that at the end of our
sessions when I do my bragging on our terrific Animal Control
facility. Pat Ginsbach is a patron and benefactor of the
Animal Control facility, and he contributes more than money;
he contributes his time. Pat is out there a lot, and he's --
manager out there several months ago. A real good letter to
the editor from Pat Ginsbach, and a good poem by one of our
employees out there, Charity Everett. If any of you missed
it, get a copy from me; it's really good. October 2005, we
11 13 06
J
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
adopted 13 animals out there. October 2006, we adopted 76.
It's -- we're really moving along, and that new facility is
part of it. When people are looking for an animal and they've
got an attractive and convenient and comfortable place to see
what we've got available, it makes a difference. More of them
go home with an animal because of our new facility than did
before. And Janie and her staff are working very, very hard
at it. They're on the telephone all day long trying to find
homes for these desirable animals, so keep an eye on them.
They're	doing good work	out	there	. That's	all.
	COMMISSIONER	LETZ:	To	piggy-back	that a minute, I
went by the facility the other day, and that new addition is
fantastic. It is really, really nice. I think we owe another
thank you to the benefactor that donated the money to make
that possible. And not -- I see a city representative in the
back of the audience, so I'll just fire my -- my sidewalk shot
across the -- over to the city, that my father-in-law was
wondering why that sidewalk was there when I drove by, and I
explained. I just wanted to make the point, we're waiting for
the City to do an upgrade of sewer plant so they can extend
the sidewalk in front of the sewer plant as well. (Laughter.)
JUDGE TINLEY: I think the -- the upgrade at the
sewer plant was part of this recent bond election. I think
they were --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
11-13-06
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
JUDGE TINLEY: -- going to do major renovation of
the headworks and lot of that other portion of the facility
out there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- yeah. I would, you
know, just -- our renovation triggered a sidewalk being built
at a cost of about $8,000 to the taxpayers or benefactors,
either way. I think the City should, and hopefully will, do
the same.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's something --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Follow their own rules.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- something going on out
there right now. There's a huge crane out there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Maybe they're building a
I sidewalk.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Maybe they are. Pre-formed.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: With rebar, 12 inch on
center. Better sidewalk than my driveway.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm sorry, Mindy.
JUDGE TINLEY: As all of you in the audience know,
we had the Veterans Day holiday over the weekend, and I was
privileged to attend a couple of those events, those
ceremonies. We had one here at the courthouse on Friday
morning. I -- I was encouraged by the expression and show of
patriotism and love of country which I saw at those events;
however, I was discouraged about who I saw at those events.
11-13-06
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
11
involved in these events, and a recognition of our veterans.
Our veterans of the greatest generation and conflicts after
World War II are slowly slipping away from us, and so we need
They are the ones who are
You look over in the Middle
East, and you see youngsters over there 18, 19, 20 years old,
and they're the ones that are carrying the ball. And, surely,
when we get those people back, they'll be involved, but until
that occurs, we need the folks in that age group that are here
on the home front to participate in those events. So, what I
would ask each of you is, as we have those events, if you
would, in addition to participating yourself, try and get
these younger people involved. Let's move on with our agenda.
The first item is consider, discuss, and take appropriate
action on the Texas Yes! grant and contract. Mr. Miller?
MR. MILLER: Good morning, Judge and Commissioners.
(Discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Morning. I'm Bob Miller; I'm executive
director of the Texas Arts and Crafts Education Foundation.
We've been developing River Star Events Park for the past
three, three and a half years now. In front of you this
morning is some pictures of the park, improvements we've made
11-13-06
12
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
23
24
25
over the last year. I kind of wanted to bring you all up to
date on that also. The grant request that we are asking you
for agreement on today really is the same -- exact same grant
that we requested last year. You made us agents for the
County where we carry out all the paperwork, all the
submission -- do all the submissions for the grant. And it is
a grant for rural tourism to attract tourists to the rural
counties in Texas, and Kerr County still counts under that.
And this is the last year of the program, I believe.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If I remember correctly, you
use this for advertising purposes?
MR. MILLER: Marketing/advertising, yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And you agreed to be the
responsible party and take the County Auditor off the hook,
but make sure he's in good shape?
MR. MILLER: We give him copies of everything we
submit to the Department of Agriculture.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval of the --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- grant.
MR. MILLER: It's a reimbursement-type grant.
There's no money issued up front. We have to submit the
support, then they send us a check, which limits the risk from
anybody.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion. Do I have a
11-13-06
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
second? I have a motion and second, all right, for approval
of the application as proposed. 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. Thank you,
Mr. Miller.
MR. MILLER: Thank you very much. Appreciate it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move to Item 2; consideration
and approval of the City of Kerrville Economic Improvement
Corporation's project to provide funding to the Hill Country
Shooting Center located adjacent to Cypress Creek Road.
That's State Farm-to-Market 1341 here in Kerr County.
Ms. Wendele?
MS. WENDELE: Judge, Commissioners, my name is Mindy
Wendele. I'm Director of Business Programs for the City of
Kerrville, and this is the second time I've had the
opportunity to come to you to ask permission to spend money in
Kerr County. By law, according to the Development Corporation
Act of 1979, we -- the City of Kerrville is a 4B -- Section 4B
Economic Impact -- Economic Improvement Corporation collecting
half-cent sales tax. Anytime that we want to spend that money
outside of our jurisdiction, we have to ask the jurisdiction
11-13-O F,
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
where the money is to be spent permission. So, I stand before
you to ask that permission to spend the half-cent sales tax,
4B money on the Hill Country Shooting Sports Center located
where the Judge has indicated. The Economic Improvement
Corporation met and approved this funding agreement on October
the 31st; asking permission for you to approve its expenditure
in the county today. And the funding agreement will go to the
City Council as a part of state law also tomorrow evening for
their City Council meeting. This is for an Olympic style air
hall that Mr. Birch is starting construction on as we speak.
Scheduled to be completed by June 30 next year. I'll be happy
to entertain any questions.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion and second for
approval of the agenda item and approval of the project. Any
question or discussion on the motion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Probably more to our County
Attorney. I'm sure you've received a -- correspondence from
the law firm about one of the neighbors that is alleging some
Clean Water Act violations, and talks about filing a lawsuit.
Is there any risk to the County if those allegations are
correct, and we're supporting funding at that facility?
11-13-06
is
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. EMERSON: Not that I'm aware of. And I really
don't have any information on the alleged lawsuit.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do you think --
MR. EMERSON: If you approve the City's funding --
or the Economic Improvement Corporation's funding, I'm not
sure that gives you any liability. I don't see the connection
there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. I was just -- you didn't
get a copy? I mean, I know that all members of the Court
received a letter from the law firm about it. I think the
City -- I know the City received it as well.
MR. EMERSON: Kathy Mitchell brought me a copy this
morning, but I haven't had time to read it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And another question I have is
the -- and I think everyone knows I've had -- I receive a lot
of complaints about this facility because it's in my precinct.
And I also see a lot of good that comes from the facility, so
I kind of probably watch it a little bit closer than the rest
of the Court. Is this facility set up as a nonprofit?
MS. WENDELE: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Does it get the funding because
it's a nonprofit or because it's a business? Is that any --
MS. WENDELE: That's a great question. The -- not
to speak for the -- individually for the members of the
Economic Improvement Corporation; however, they were provided
11-13-06
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
from staff an economic impact study, and that's -- that is the
basis of their decision. Not because it's a nonprofit, but
because it is an economic boon to our community. And we -- we
provided them with an economic impact analysis on
their booked -- already booked and future bookings with their
contract with the U.S.A. Shooting, and based on that, those
numbers, that's what they determined.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The actual facility under this
is a -- is an air hall?
I MS. WENDELE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess I'm -- can you explain
that, what it is?
MS. WENDELE: If Mr. Burch was here, he could do a
much better job than I, but I will attempt. He is in -- he's
in Colorado Springs right now, training. The air hall is
approximately a 30,000 to 31,000 square feet open hall with --
with sectioned areas, so it can be used not only for Olympic
sports, but for community activities also. There will be
equipment in there for -- for what it sounds like, air
shooting, air hall. Air shooting, so it's not like that --
possibly that the concern might be coming from some of these
-- some of the neighbors out there as far as an environmental
situation, because it's -- this is all enclosed. And it will
take him from now until June 30 to get this thing done. He's
already gotten -- he already has several -- he and Sudie
11-13-06
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Burditt already have several shooting events scheduled for '08
for that -- you know, for that building. So, it's totally
enclosed, I think is -- does that answer your question? With
the equipment inside.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Part of it. Is this -- also,
maybe someone on the Court may know the answer to this better.
Is this, I guess, a replacement to what is done, or used to be
done in the ag building? I mean --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It serves as that -- it does
that as well? As a --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, it's a BB gun place.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Or pellet gun.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Pellet guns and things like
I that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But it -- that's the other --
you know, we've been looking for an alternative place to do
that for some time, and this will fill that need as well.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: A 4-H type function as well.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I like this kind of
project, Mindy, better than some of the others, because this
one clearly brings revenues and jobs.
11-13-06
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. WENDELE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Or this facility; I'm not
sure about this. That's what economic development's all
about.
MS. WENDELE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or discussion on
the motion? The economic impact analysis, do you have, for
the benefit of those who are here, for example, the projected
impact in 2008 with that facility?
MS. WENDELE: Judge, I do not have that information
as far as the -- the economic impact that the groups will
bring. The study that was presented to the Economic
Improvement Corporation board members was based on some -- on
retail sales, total retail sales, total taxes collected, and
total -- anything that was direct. We have to divide these --
these economic impacts into direct and indirect, and so we
were basing it on a direct. And anything that -- anything
that -- for example, retail sales, hotel nights and so forth,
that would be direct. Anything that they do -- they purchase
and so forth other than that would be indirect. I did not
bring that. I'll be more than happy to get a copy of that to
the --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sudie's here. She'll have
it.
11 13-06
19
1
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: Do you -- Sudie, do you have those
numbers?
MS. BURDITT: Actually, for the year -- I'm sorry.
Sudie Burditt, Director of Kerrville Convention and Visitors
Bureau. You're asking for the year 2008, and I --
JUDGE TINLEY: Whatever information you've got.
MS. BURDITT: -- and I do not have the 2008.
JUDGE TINLEY: I want those folks to know the
economic impact that that facility has out there. For
example, we had this shoot this last May.
MS. BURDITT: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: One shoot. What was the economic
impact of that shoot? Do you recall?
MS. BURDITT: About $2.1 million.
'. JUDGE TINLEY: That's direct?
MS. BURDITT: That's direct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. BURDITT: On those 10 days of those 58 countries
being here. Now, the seven-year contract of the original
events, which we have expanded numerous times now, but of the
seven-year contract with U.S.A. Shooting and the U.S.
Olympics, that direct was 41.5 million for those particular
events. But, I'm sorry, I don't have the 2008 figures busted
out. We now have additional events because of this facility,
the air rifle and air pistol facilities. We now have the
11-13 06
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
N.R.A. collegiate event for 2008 will be here in the summer --
July of 2008, so now we have expanded beyond the U.S.A.
Shooting, U.S. Olympic events in relationship to the air hall.
It will -- it will bring us many other events. We have a
Daisy BB event also starting immediately after the 4th of July
in 2008. And we have the -- Terry? National Guard --
MR. KENNEY: The U.S.A. National Championship.
MS. BURDITT: U.S.A. National Championship also
booked. So, there are a number of -- we have expanded beyond
the U.S.A. shooting events. Does that answer your question?
Sorry I don't have 2008 on the tip of my tongue.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
MS. BURDITT: I actually haven't broken out '08 by
itself.
JUDGE TINLEY: Bottom line is, it is a tremendous
economic generator --
MS. BURDITT: Bottom line, tremendous.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- in this area.
MS. BURDITT: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: One more question, if I could,
Judge. The -- the other -- there were some permitting issues,
with T.C.E.Q. primarily, previously about not being done
properly, and have those all been rectified?
MS. WENDELE: Yes, sir.
MS. BURDITT: Actually, Terry has their latest
11-13-06
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
letter with him that says all's clear, don't you?
MR. KENNEY: Yeah.
MS. BURDITT: The latest letter from T.C.E.Q.?
MR. KENNEY: Yeah.
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. That motion
does carry. Thank you.
MS. WENDELE: Thank you, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move to Item 3; consider,
discuss, and take appropriate action on the 2007 employee
health benefits proposal. Mr. Looney. Good morning, sir.
MR. LOONEY: Morning, Judge. Morning,
Commissioners. I have a -- that doesn't work, does it? I
have a file out in the car that I can go get real quick, and
it's the necessary information to give you my two-hour version
on the renewal. I've got another file over here, which is my
45-minute presentation, or I can give you the one you've got
in front of you, which is about 12 minutes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I like this one so far.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Start with 12 and see where
that takes us.
MR. LOONEY: Do the 12 minutes, and we'll see where
11-13-06
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
When everything was said and
Actually, we had two, one that was almost complete, and then
the renewal from Mutual of Omaha. The -- after going through
all of the information, and the spreadsheets are in there, the
information shows us that Mutual of Omaha is still competitive
with their rates. We also went back and looked and asked for
any complaints. We went through the complaint registers and
the phone registers that Mutual of Omaha provides for me. We
went through the H.R.A. administration process, which we
turned over and changed this last year to another
administrator. And we're having -- we didn't find any major
administrative glitches or errors or anything else at that
point. Didn't have any complaints I've been given, as far as
employee complaints. Other than the standard that everything
costs too much and -- and that process.
Based on the information we received in the renewal,
there was one -- on the spreadsheet, there was one quotation
by United Health Care, but it was the one that was not totally
complete. They bid on a 12-15 contract -- I mean a 1L-1L
I contract instead of the 12-15 contract that we requested. If
I
we add back in the additional liability that would be required
11-13-G6
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
to meet the requirements of our RFP, that it would cause their
costs to be in excess of what Mutual of Omaha's costs are.
There was another quotation that was provided by Finserve,
which has lower numbers on the front end side of it by -- by a
few percentage points. But after reading the request for --
answers to the requests for proposal, there were two items
that they requested that -- that we cannot allow. One is that
they retain the right to change the rates after the beginning
of the year based on full experience through the end of the
year. That required us to sign a waiver document that stated
that the rates did not have to be held firm after the
presentation, and they also requested the attending physician
statements on four different employees.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What company is that you're
speaking of?
MR. LOONEY: Finserve. So, that was -- even though
those numbers look a little lower going in on the front end,
by the time we back in and come out the back end, it could
significantly be greater, or we could end up with employees
that were lasered or had higher deductibles. And rather than
face that potential, Mutual of Omaha has no lasers. They
cover everybody at the same basic deductible moving forward
into the next year, which makes that a much more preferable
benefit to the County.
JUDGE TINLEY: The Finserve option or requirement to
11-13-06
24
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
obtain physicians' statements would give them the option to
laser employees if they met certain criteria?
MR. LOONEY: Well, they wouldn't laser it until they
got full information through end of the plan year, plus the
attending physician statements on the other people, so we
wouldn't know what the rate was going to be until probably
January or February of next year. January, probably, of next
year.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, it could result in two
possibilities; one, substantial increase in rates, lasering,
or both?
MR. LOONEY: Or both. Could be any one of the
three. There are -- you know, so based on -- based on what
you see in the representation from the proposals and the
competitive rate structure, we had some 12 companies that --
that were given the information and came back and said that
they were either not competitive with -- most said either not
competitive, or we don't have the type of -- of
physician/hospital network in your area which would benefit
the county. So, they didn't have the P.P.O. networks that
were in the county that would help. So, they came back and --
and we got those responses from the majority of -- well, from
13 different companies -- 12 different companies, and they all
provided the same -- basically the same information, and had a
total of about five weeks to review it, so we're not going
11-13-06
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
to -- we don't want to hear anybody that says, hey, we didn't
get sufficient time or didn't get sufficient information of
that process.
I have had an opportunity to visit with Mrs. Hyde,
and I suspect by -- you know, sometime in the future, she may
have a piece of my hide on the wall in there. But the -- you
know, the relationship -- the relationship, I think, is going
to be very positive moving forward. We had a very good visit
We've set up some calendar events for moving forward, as far
as some different reporting. I see reports on a monthly
basis, and I review those and accumulate those reports, and so
we're going to be funneling some of those reports back to Mrs
Hyde now on a regular basis so she'll have a chance to review
those. The only -- there's three concerns that I've got that
I think we need to be aware of. One is that in your packet,
I've given you kind of a summary from the Government
Accounting Standards Board, or GASB Rulings 43 and 95.
Government Accounting Standards Board has determined
their liability is for all benefit plans for any retirees, any
type of benefit that you offer to a retiree moving forward.
In the past, we've always had the GASB rulings on a pension
and profit-sharing plan, where you had to develop the
liability for any retiree benefits based on the actual
liability generated from a pension plan or profit-sharing
11-13-06
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
offered to a retiree, whether you contribute or not. So,
there has to be a report generated. It's supposed to be an
actuarial report, which means that we have to hire an outside
actuary to come in and actually do the reporting. The report
itself for -- for Kerr County is going to include information
concerning any kind of premium liability that's projected
i moving forward for any type of retiree benefit offered. So,
it may end up to be zero, but the report needs to be
generated.
The concern we have going forward is, if there is a
liability generated, is it required to be funded? At that --
funding of that liability becomes a significant question. And
the pension area, yes, you're required to report that funding
liability as a budgetary item. And there's some question
right now as to whether or not we have to show the liability
for retirees in the medical plan as a budgetary item, so that
is something that we need to address, and need to address that
based on your direction, either through the County Auditor's
office or do an RFQ for an actuary to do the report.
x
ii-is-o6
z7
1
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: You can go either way?
MR. LOONEY: Either way.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Auditor can do it, or --
MR. LOONEY: But the Auditor can do it on his own
account, as far as hiring service to be done.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see.
MR. LOONEY: But the County Auditor is not supposed
to be the one that generates the report.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll direct a question after
you're done.
MR. TOMLINSON: I've already had the information
with an actuary firm --
MR. LOONEY: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: -- on this issue. And -- and Kerr
County's not -- will hit the -- the benchmark.
MR. LOONEY: The threshold?
MR. TOMLINSON: Threshold for next year, for
'06-'07.
MR. LOONEY: In the past, we haven't been concerned
about it, because there's -- the limit of the -- the threshold
we're discussing is the budgetary limits -- no, it's the --
MR. TOMLINSON: Total assets.
MR. LOONEY: -- total assets. Before you have to
make those reports on your financial statements. And you will
11-13-06
28
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
discussed in the past, and I believe Mr. Nicholson has brought
it up on a couple of occasions, is what about an employee who
has health insurance coverage through some other source or
some other resource? Do we allow them to waive or waiver out
of the plan? We're getting more and more information and more
and more requests for that type of proposal. We can allow
that to occur. We can allow an employee to waive out of the
plan, but I suggest that they have to meet certain criteria
before they do that. One is that they show proof of coverage
from some other resource; a permanent form of coverage, not a
temporary policy. Not a, you know, 30-day contract, but
something that shows that they have coverage elsewhere. And
then, if they have coverage elsewhere on a permanent basis,
allow them to waive that participation.
The waiver of the participation releases the County
from the obligations of the fixed cost that you have for the
medical plan going forward. The fixed cost this year is
approximately $105 per month, per employee. If you wish to
credit that to the person who had waived out of participation,
we can generate that type of -- of contractual agreement with
Mutual of Omaha and through the personnel rules that allow
that to occur. And my recommendation also is for that
11-13-06
29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
contribution to be placed in a flexible spendable account for
for the health care or premium payment process under the
cafeteria plan. That also limits your liability moving
forward, because under the cafeteria plan, in the year in
which it's granted, if it's not used during that year, then
you lose it. So, then it becomes a single one-year budgetary
item that goes into the budget for that purpose. And I
believe if we meet those criterion, that that will allow
employees that -- and particularly where you have a number of
retired military that are in the area currently. So, I think
that is something that I would recommend, as long as they meet
that criteria.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How do we go about doing that?
MR. LOONEY: It's a -- it's a documentary personnel
rule type change. You say, "Okay, as a county, this is what
we're going to do under personnel rules, and the personnel
rules are based on this, making you eligible under these
guidelines." And then we take those personnel rules and we
give them to Mutual of Omaha and say, "Administer it in this
manner."
11-13-06
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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, at some point, Ms. Hyde
MR. LOONEY: We discussed it briefly in our meeting,
but we didn't have the specific -- we didn't outline the
specifics. But part of the personnel rules -- we discussed
the personnel rules, the impact that it has on the insurance
side of the -- of the personnel functions. And so they --
yes, we will bring that to the Court.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. So, the other general
question I have is, last year, the savings accounts were not
being utilized by the employees to a large extent. Has that
changed, or are they still not being utilized a great deal?
MR. LOONEY: We -- we budgeted -- we budget about
$200,000 a year liability into those accounts. To this
point -- this point in the year, we've spent about 160,000 of
that 200,000.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, it's being used.
MR. LOONEY: So it is being used. What we're seeing
now is that accumulation that was not used for a couple of
years, all of a sudden, the entire amount's used this year, so
it's -- it's doing what it's supposed to do. It's reimbursing
for those deductibles on -- for the individuals that did not
have losses or didn't file them, now that they've filed them,
now they're being reimbursed for them.
11-13-06
31
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Gary, on that issue, the
savings account issue, when we started that program two years
ago or so, there was a -- we talked about a national trend
moving in that direction.
MR. LOONEY: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Even heard President Bush
talking about it numerous times. Is that still so? Is the
trend still moving in a savings account --
MR. LOONEY: Very much so. What's happened --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- direction?
MR. LOONEY: What's happened is that the insurance
industry as a whole did not approach the sale or marketing of
that product in a very expedient manner. They took their time
developing programs. One of the things they did was they went
out and bought banks, they went out and bought credit card
companies, they went out and bought all of the other -- and
brought into their organizations all of the things that make
that work. And now they're marketing the product as a
package, whereas two years ago, the major insurance companies
were not marketing. They were not offering it as a package
marketing deal. So, now we're seeing it as a -- as multiple
options most often. We're not seeing the health savings
accounts as much as the health reimbursement arrangements.
The health reimbursement arrangement is a corporately managed
process, where the health savings account is an individually

ii-is-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
managed process. So, we're really seeing a lot more activity
now.
The other area -- one of the other areas I wanted to
mention to you, too, is -- and I think we need very much to
look at the wellness incentive. We're at the point now where
I've got enough information or data to see where we are as far
as moving forward and projecting -- back in August, I believe,
I projected the numbers for this year. And if you see where
we came out, where the actual numbers are coming out is,
they're within about a half a point. So, we're -- data is now
getting to the point where we can project and generate what
our losses are going to be. The one thing that's going to
impact that is a healthier workforce. So, we're seeing a lot
more incentives now in the development of wellness and
wellness incentives. Mutual of Omaha has contracted with a
company called My I.Q. -- I think -- no, it's --
MR. TOMLINSON: Health I.Q.
MS. HYDE: Health I.Q.
MR. LOONEY: Health I.Q. My I.Q. wouldn't register
very good this morning, I'm afraid. But the -- the Health
I.Q. And that is another item we're going to bring to the
Court. Ms. Hyde and I have not had a chance to fully examine
how it functions or works at this point, but she's had
experience with that in the past, specifically that -- I
believe specifically that organization.
11-13-06
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
33
MS. HYDE: Right.
MR. LOONEY: So, we're looking forward to bringing
of the person's height, weight, all the blood work, things of
that sort to develop a baseline. It's not anything other than
developing that baseline, then giving us an indication of
where we are status health-wise. The last one that we -- that
we did actually was -- was in Cameron County, and Cameron
County completed theirs, I believe, in August or September.
And employees are not required to do it; it's something that's
provided for them, paid for through the claim function. They
had a number of employees that didn't participate in that.
One of them happened to be a county commissioner, and the
county commissioner deceased. He had a -- I believe he had a
heart attack, and so it would have been very good to have been
able to assess him early if he had participated. So, we want
everybody to participate, including commissioners. So --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Gary, how far are we away
from the ability to offer health -- health club memberships,
some kind of incentive? If I lose my 25-pound goal, there's
some kind of reward for me, those kinds of things?
MR. LOONEY: All of that -- that type of

it-is-o6
34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
functionality is actually, again, back to the personnel rules.
to establish, as far as giving credit to an employee, either
through a premium allocation or some sort of bonus incentive
through a local health care organization. A lot of that is
the community. You can establish that in any manner you want
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Isn`t that really what
what happens is that we have those people that are currently
doing the programs enter into -- that are currently paying for
them, and that they enter into them not having to pay for
them. The people that we want to get into the programs are
the ones that know they've got a problem, but are really
concerned about how they're going to do something about it
And that's the challenge of wellness, is -- of a voluntary
versus mandatory type of program. I can go and put pamphlets
everywhere, tell everybody, you know, all kinds of wonderful
things about getting into a health care center, but if they
have to turn sideways to get through the door, there's a good
chance they're not going to go and do it. So, those are the
-- you know, those are the people we want in the program.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Can you give us any
estimate of what -- if we adapted -- adopted a wellness
11-13-06
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
MR. LOONEY: The cost? It -- the cost from a claims
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Do you have any data that
would show that comparable populations of those that have
wellness programs, health costs are lower than those that do
not?
MR. LOONEY: On the mandatory basis, yes. We're
only been allowed in about the last two, three years as -- as
a result of the HIPAA regulations. HIPAA regulations did not
allow us to put in a wellness program that was mandatory with
penalties or gains or losses either way, which we can do. But
making a mandatory wellness program now is available under --
because of the HIPAA regulations. So, we've got about, two,
two and a half years of data. The data -- actually, the
majority of the data that we've got comes out of South Africa,
because South Africa has had wellness programs in place for
12, 15 years, and the data that was coming out of there shows
us that mandatory wellness programs can generate anywhere from
8 to 12 percent savings in claim costs. And for us, we're
talking about right at a million -- let's see, a million,
eight, so 10, 12 percent can generate a couple of hundred
11-13-06

36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
thousand dollars in savings.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I want Mutual of Omaha to pay
my health club membership dues.
MR. LOONEY: That's fine. You're a self-insured
plan, Commissioner Baldwin, and that will show up as a claim
and be -- be subtracted from your H.R.A. account. How's that?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thanks a lot.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Can they also put a gun to
your head to make you go? (Laughter.) Gary, did I understand
you correctly that the aggregate contract bid by Mutual was
not a 15-12?
MR. LOONEY: No, it is.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It is. That's what I --
MR. LOONEY: Yes, it is.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The United Health Care was not.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, you had three bids plus
Mutual of Omaha?
MR. LOONEY: Correct.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's up from last year.
MR. LOONEY: Yes, it is. We still have -- at this
point in time, we've got right at five ongoing medical claims
that we expect to exceed the $50,000 deductible. This last
year, we -- to date, we've received a hundred and -- about
right at $150,000 reimbursement on our specific insurance
program, and our premium for that, I believe, is right at
ii-is-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
37
200,000 total. So, I'd have to go back and look to be sure,
but by the end of the year, we expect to receive
reimbursements in excess of $200,000. Those are bills that
have already been received that just have not been paid at
this date.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The action needed today is that
we approve or accept the proposal from Mutual of Omaha, and
then direct our H.R. Department and you to proceed with --
MR. LOONEY: Correct.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- analyzing the plan?
MR. LOONEY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That was my motion.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion and a second as
indicated. Commissioner, does that permit the development of
the personnel rules for the opting out procedure that -- that
was indicated?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that's a different
issue, as I understood it. I mean, I think -- I think, yes, I
want that done, but I don't remember -- didn't know that it
had to be on this. I think they need to bring that back to
the Court for us to look --
MR. LOONEY: Bring it back for approval.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: As well as the health.
JUDGE TINLEY: My concern is, if -- if we accept the
11-13-06
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
plan as it is specified now, do we have the option to plug
that in before the first of the year?
MR. LOONEY: Oh, sure.
JUDGE TINLEY: The opt-out?
MR. LOONEY: All we're -- all you're doing now is
approving Mutual as the administrator and the insurer. The
rest of it are personnel policy and rules.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: However, this does not
include the Mutual of Omaha Health I.Q. program?
MR. LOONEY: It's an option. It's an option. It's
not something that's automatically required or included in
this plan.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: An option that requires
additional funding?
MR. LOONEY: No, it's part of the claim function.
It becomes -- it is paid as a claim.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. LOONEY: And that is just a matter of coming
back to the Court and say, okay, do you want to do it? The
obligation from the claims standpoint is the same as paying
for it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Got you.
MR. LOONEY: If you're self-insured. But then it's
the time as to when we put that -- and it can be put in
11-13-06
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1S
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2S
39
anytime during the year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think my idea is that we --
those items come back at one time, either, you know, in the
next couple of weeks -- before the end of the year, anyway,
and next meeting in November or first meeting in December, for
us to make the adjustments to the plan. And Ms. -- one of
y'all can bring it to the Court.
JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Hyde?
MS. HYDE: We do need to have the opt-out approved
prior to us doing open enrollment, and the plan at this point
is to do open enrollment the last week of this month. I don't
want to wait. We have been late in the past, and this needs
-- this needs to be something that's a priority.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, what you're suggesting is we need
to have those things before us at our next meeting so that we
can finalize those so that we can move forward with the
enrollment procedure?
MS. HYDE: Absolutely.
MR. LOONEY: That's fine.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else you wish to add,
Ms. Hyde, on this entire presentation?
MS. HYDE: Mr. Looney and I talked in a short, brief
time, but the things that we discussed I think are going to
help us going forward. Safety has to become prevalent in our
culture. It has to become a habit, So, some of the things
11-13-Oo'
40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that we're going to introduce is going to be a change, which a
lot of folks are resistant to change. We understand that.
But we also want to make sure that folks understand that these
are not things that we want to do to make it hard on them. We
want to make it better. So, that's it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Change is a'coming, huh?
MS. HYDE: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Thank you, ma'am.
MR. LOONEY: And I think we're all going to enjoy
it. Thank you very much.
JUDGE TINLEY: Good. Thank you, Mr. Looney.
', COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions or discussions 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. Thank you,
Mr. Looney.
MR. LOONEY: Thank you, gentlemen.
JUDGE TINLEY: The next item that we have before us
is Item 4; open bids for electrical, plumbing, HVAC, and past
control services. Okay. First one we have is from Terminix,
for pest control services. Next one we have is from Starkey
11-13-06
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
41
Pest Control for pest control services. Next is a pest
control services bid from Hill Country Pest Control. Next bid
is from Guadalupe Electric for -- I assume this is electric
only, and not -- not HVAC also?
MS. DAVIDSON: Correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: It indicates it's just for electric.
Next one we have is from D.W. Electric for electrical
services.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: A lot of bidders this time.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: Next we have plumbing services from
Whelan Plumbing. And then Compton's of Kerrville bid on HVAC.
That appears to be all of them.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I move we accept all bids
and refer them to, I guess, Ms. Davidson and Mr. Bollier for
review and recommendation.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
indicated. Any question or discussion on the motion? All in
i 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. The next
item on the agenda is consider, discuss, and take appropriate
11-13-06
42
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
for them to come back and give us a kind of an update, a plan
on where they are on budgets and things of that nature. The
memo I sent Mr. Bollier and Ms. Davidson related to the budget
breakdown for your department.
MS. DAVIDSON: Did I hand you the right thing?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, I'm just reading my memo to
you. Personnel breakdown, breakdown of your responsibilities,
and just the status of revised job descriptions, just kind of
the items I think we left on the table when we split things
up.
MS. DAVIDSON: I thought you were asking --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, this is just kind of where
MS. DAVIDSON: I'll go first.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. DAVIDSON: We really haven't gone into that in
depth right now, being that we are in training mode still, and
working on getting our end of the year taken care of first.
We had talked to Tommy about the budget, and he was -- my
understanding that he was waiting on the 90 days, and then we
11-13-06
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
43
would sit down and talk about our split up on our budget.
I were going to organize the departments, but maybe I'm in error
there. While I can understand that Tommy may not want to do a
formal budget split, I think you all do need to have a split
between you all as to how y'all are operating, 'cause I don't
see how y'all can operate for several months without knowing
what your budgets are. The other thing, this -- you know, I
MS. DAVIDSON: I think Tim has taken care of the
the jail maintenance part of that. I have taken over
custodial, and still trying to work on admin with him, being
that that's a very -- kind of a touchy area that we have to
sit down and talk to each other about on a daily basis. So --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- on the Ag Barn issue, or
actually, all issues -- all the areas, everything is working
well from the standpoint of -- of coordination? One of the
concerns I think we had was that we're now having the trustee
program, and also the community service was now having to be
split and worked and coordinated. You know, that's all
11-13-06

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
ZS
44
working all right?
MS. DAVIDSON: We seem to be working fine together
and working things out. I think it's still rolling just the
way it was. Being, though, that he is taking over the
maintenance end of it, working more in tune with the jail and
the Ag Barn area, instead of doing the work, he's working with
each individual area. That's my -- and I work here from the
courthouse, working on custodial and --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess my view was, I thought
we were getting more -- or y'all would be working on more of a
plan.
MS. DAVIDSON: I think we need a little guidance,
though. I do. My fault. I -- maybe I'm not understanding.
I would like a little guidance on it, not just, "Here, do it."
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think I would like to
see how y'all are planning to break out the budget. I agree
that Tommy doesn't need to do it right now, but I think y'all
do have a Maintenance Department budget; I'd like to see how
-- what you all consider to be Maintenance Department and what
y'all consider to be Custodial. 'Cause I -- and -- well,
'cause I see those as very different functions, and they've
been combined up until now. I have no problem with leaving it
as a single budget in -- from a county standpoint at this
time, but I think that each of y'all need to have your own
budget, 'cause I don't see how you can operate your
11-13-06
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2D
21
22
23
24
25
45
departments without it.
MS. DAVIDSON: I understand, and I'd like to do it
eventually, but I don't think we can just be shoved in it just
right away. I think it takes a little training and
understanding of which comes out of what line item.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Tommy?
MR. TOMLINSON: I've basically changed -- already
done the operating items, except for -- except for personnel.
What -- what I did -- excuse me -- I tried to separate
everything that's custodial in the old Courthouse Operations
budget, and everything that's maintenance I put in the old
Parks budget, is what I did. And so everything that has to do
with maintenance is in the Parks budget, and everything that
has to do with custodial is Courthouse budget.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Courthouse, okay. I
MR. TOMLINSON: Ms. Hyde -- the H.R. Director and I
visited with Commissioner Williams some two or three weeks
ago. We came away there -- from there with the understanding
that we would not do the personnel changes until the 90-day
probation period expired, and that we would know for sure at
that point what person went to what business. That's what --
what the H.R. Director and I thought was the plan. That's the
reason we didn't change the budgets for personnel.
i MS. DAVIDSON: And I was handed this the other day
by Mindy and wasn't explained anything, not knowing what it
11-13-06
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
96
was all about. So -- never told what was going on.
MR. BOLLIER: Same here,
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- maybe at our next
meeting, I think we need to have a -- you need to either ask
questions now, and I can try and answer, at least my feeling.
Maybe the rest of the Court have got feedback too, but I don't
want to -- part of the evaluation that I'm going to have on
each of y'all is how y'all set up the departments and do this.
I can't -- I mean, I don't want to wait 90 days to do this. I
think the plan needs to be set in place now, 'cause unless
there's some pretty big problems, I don't anticipate a change
in 90 days, I mean, my -- I voted to do this thinking this is
going to work, and I don't want to really wait 90 days. So,
what I'd like to see is kind of a -- a breakdown of how y'all
envision long-term working together on things Iike the Ag
Barn. Because with you doing the work here and Tim doing the
work there, obviously, there has to be a written plan as to
how this is going to happen. Who is the point person with
community service? Because I think that's a -- how that's
going to work, because I think that could be a confusing issue
if Tim calls, you know, community service folks and gets --
wants them, and you want them at the same time. So, I think
there needs to be some plan on that, and, you know, the whole
thing. I just think I would like to see more of a written
plan as to how things are going to work. I don't know how the
11-13-06
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2D
21
22
23
24
25
47
rest of the Court feels.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think what I hear the
Commissioner saying is that he wants y'all to be proactive.
MS. DAVIDSON: Correct.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Don't ask us what you ought
to do and how you ought to do it. Tell us how you think it
ought to be organized and how you should do it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One of the concerns you
registered -- asked a question about has to do with Ag Barn
set-ups and so forth, rentals and set-ups and take-down. I
find it a little bit -- little bit of a concern, when reading
Barn and the set-ups and that things get changed at the last
minute, which creates problems for them. He doesn't know
about them. So, there is room for trying to figure out how
this is going to work better.
JUDGE TIN LEY: Have we had any of these incidents --
I think this plan's been in effect, what, about 30 days? I
think October 10th is when we launched this balloon. And
maybe -- maybe it's a failure on my part as the Court's
liaison for -- for maintenance functions, but there hasn't
been anything brought to my attention that there were
difficulties in that respect. Is this just a concern you have
that this could happen, or has it happened? Or --
11-13-GE
48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. BOLLIER: It has happened before. Like, when
you have people that are sick and stuff like that, and if you
got people that are sick, then you don't have anybody at the
Ag Barn, because Shel runs the Ag Barn, basically, himself.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Has that happened within the
last 30 days?
MR. BOLLIER: Yes, sir, it has.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. BOLLIER: He wasn't sick; his child was sick and
was in the hospital.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. BOLLIER: And when that kind of stuff happens,
then you're short. And then if you don't have community
service workers, you're short, and that does happen quite
frequently. Here in the last 30 days, it hasn't happened very
often. We have been lucky and had community service workers.
But in the past, there has been times to where we have set-ups
to do, and we have no community service workers.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: A couple things in your
report that I find kind of interesting, Mr. Bollier, in your
breakdown of your time.
MR. BOLLIER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which you've highlighted
your direct involvement --
MR. BOLLIER: Yes, sir.
11-13-06

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
49
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- for hands-on work.
MR. BOLLIER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: With no particular order or
preference, I'm just going to call them out here.
MR. BOLLIER: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You talk about it took you
an hour to work on an ad for part-time help. Ms. Hyde could
probably do that for you pretty quick; you wouldn't have had
to spend that time. Secondly, you're showing time that you
actually spent cleaning a bathroom. I thought that was
custodial work.
MR. BOLLIER: That's at the Ag Barn, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't care where it is.
MR. BOLLIER: Well, I was under the impression that
I was supposed to do the custodial work and everything at the
Ag Barn, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And the work at the Ag Barn,
clean out the arena, move pens, move tables, trash -- move
trash, put the arena together, racks and tables and trash
i pickup and all that good stuff, put horse stalls together, set
up tables, unload tables.
MR. BOLLIER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In terms of set-up, do we --
do we attempt to charge the person who's using the facility
for set-up and take-down sufficiently to cover our expense?
11-13-06
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
I7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
50
MS. DAVIDSON: I know you all have been asking for a
set-up fee for the beginning and the take-down, the set-up and
the take-down. We have only charged one certain amount for a
set-up. Maybe we should -- or I should get with you all and
go over that and change it. That would be -- to my
understanding, that would be great. I'd like to change some
it up a little.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What really caught my eye
was on Thursday, November 2nd, when Tim identified his day --
this is an 8-hour day he identified. Work at the Ag Barn,
arena with tractor, horse pens for a particular meet, fix the
horse stalls, fix the gate, take the bull pens and so forth,
then help the antique people set up their tables with
community service workers. Wow. We are sure generous with
your time.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- I think you
touched on a point that -- well, first let me start with this.
I'm not complaining to y'all. I think that this Commissioners
Court knowingly didn't delve into the Maintenance Department
for the last two years, for a very good reason, and I think
the time has come to change. I am very concerned about our
budget already, and we have a -- or very close to it, or
11-13-06
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
51
rapidly approaching it. We are definitely going to have a
huge expenditure in the jail maintenance that we didn't budget
for. Our air-conditioners and doors are having lots of
problems, and it's just a function of age. It's just
something that we should have planned for better. Those air
conditioners and all that stuff is going on 15 years old --
15, 17 years old, and it's all breaking. And I think the
rough estimate is somewhere -- well over $100,000 of
unbudgeted dollars that may be needed in that -- for the air
conditioning system out there. So, that's -- and I -- you
know, talking with the Sheriff, and as the Sheriff's liaison,
and he has made me aware there's a Iot of problems in the jail
maintenance side. So I think that -- I don't know that we
to keep up with the problems that we're getting over there,
just, like I said, a particular function of age. I think,
it's nothing other than that. So, what I want you two to do
is really look at where we are. Yes, you have budgets. Yes,
we're not going to hire a whole bunch more people -- or no,
we're not going to hire a whole bunch more. I'm not going to
vote to do that, but I want a plan as to where we need to go,
I haven't been happy with the courthouse grounds for how long,
Buster? Ten years?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Since they planted that
11-13-06
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
52
cactus thing out there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Since they planted the cactus
thing and I got mad about it. I think we need a plan for -- I
think this courthouse square needs to look better than it
does. It looks terrible; nothing but weeds, and there's wires
hanging out there. I'm not complaining to you. I'm just
saying I want -- I would like for both y'all, for your
respective areas, to come to the Court with a -- kind of a
better plan. And it doesn't -- I mean, don't drop everything.
i Work on this, and at the next meeting or the first meeting in
December -- doesn't make any difference; it's been languishing
for years -- I would like to get an idea and direction as to
what you all see is needed. I just don't think we properly
looked at either of your departments during the budget
process, and I want to know how -- and I'm real alarmed that
we're going to have a real problem later this year.
MS. DAVIDSON: On your standpoint, being that that's
part of your -- your other job, is you do landscaping, do you
have any ideas? (Laughter.) That would be wonderful. I
mean, I, you know, could probably find things that are less
maintenance -- you know, having to take care of a lot of extra
plants that are -- that's what I would like to see, some
suggestions from you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll have to talk to the County
11-13-06
53
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
time. I get a little bit leery about trying to closely tie
those two items together. I think it's a little bit of a --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I would encourage the two
of you to talk to our H.R. Director, Ms. Hyde, about how to
develop an organization proposal, and bring one to this
Commissioners Court that -- that's got all of your good
thinking in it. We don't know how to do your job. You do, so
tell us the best way to do that.
MS. DAVIDSON: I do want to say that I know when we
did this, that she was just coming on and having a few things
of hers to take care of, and so it was kind of -- "Ahhh." And
she's like, "Ahhh," and we're, like, "Okay, okay, hold on.
We'll back off a minute and let you get settled in." And then
that's where it needs to go after that. So --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're -- I mean, we're not
sinking. I'd just like to be more proactive.
MS. DAVIDSON: No, by no means are we --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't want y'all to wait 90
days to see, 'cause part of my 90 days is to see how y'all do
this step. Something that Commissioner Williams said, it was
something I never had thought of until I started looking at
some of the numbers and thinking about it. We currently
charge a fee for set-up and things of that nature at the Ag
Barn. Then we take that, but that money never finds its way
back into the Maintenance Department. Or, you know, it goes
11-13-06
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
59
into the general fund, and part of it goes to the Stock Show
Association. You know, I think that's a -- that maybe needs
to be looked at.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It should.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think if you're -- and
operating -- I mean, I don't know that we should be spending
-- well, if money's coming back in, I think it needs to
somehow either -- if Tommy can figure out a way to get that
money back into paying for that Maintenance employee, that's
what the fee is being charged for. I don't know how you can
do that. Or some way, 'cause I think that -- you know, we're
looking at these -- or I look at how many employees we have
and what they're doing, and I think there's a -- the
Maintenance Department's a little bit being artificially
pushed up numbers-wise, because a lot of what they're doing
has nothing to do with maintenance; it has to do with set-up
that we're supposed to be billing out for third parties. I
think we need to look at how we're doing this whole thing.
MS. DAVIDSON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In that same context, we're
not charging appropriately for what's being done.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
I
MS. DAVIDSON: So it's time to change.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, yeah. That's kind of -- but
I'll get off my soap box on maintenance. I just wanted to --
11-13-06
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2D
21
22
23
24
25
55
and I knew y'all didn't have a lot. I just put on it the
agenda so we can give a little more direction.
MS. DAVIDSON: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, this lady has a comment.
AUDIENCE: If I can put in a commercial for what to
improve the courthouse, check with the Native Plant Society.
Low maintenance, low water use, it's really the way to go, and
it sends a message to the community as well.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that's a very good idea.
MS. DAVIDSON: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Riverside Nature Center, that --
probably that whole group would be very helpful, as would the
Master Gardeners. We certainly support them so they can
support us.
JUDGE TINLEY: In my capacity as the Court's liaison
for maintenance functions, after we hatched this plan a month
ago, my emphasis to Tim and Alyce has been to try and maintain
the functional and operational aspects of it to make sure that
the job gets done.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: I was aware that they were going to
have to be doing a lot of communication, sorting out --
there's some gray areas. Is this a custodial issue? Is this
a grounds issue? Is this a maintenance issue? What is it?
There's some other issues about if -- if you've got a very
11-13-06
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
56
minor custodial issue to be performed at a remote location
get that done. I -- I have -- I have told Tim and Alyce,
let's try and get the operational and the real-world functions
done, and then you can build your paper plan from there and
your job descriptions. And -- but the main thing is to be
sure that you're communicating and both of you know what's
going on in the other's camp so that something doesn't fall
through the cracks. So, to the extent there might be some
shortage of -- or deficiency in the paper plans being
generated, lay it right here in my lap. I'm responsible for
it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think it's a problem.
ying there's a problem. I just think that it's a --
from talking with -- with, basically, the Sheriff through the
Ag Barn -- not the Ag Barn, the jail, and hanging out at the
Ag Barn a fair amount and I see Tim out there, I just thought
that some of these things needed to be really kind of worked
on. I wanted to make sure that they're -- when I look back at
when we set this up, I don't think we gave a whole lot of
guidance as a Court, and I think that that's -- I think that
was our problem. It's kind of my goal to come back today and
11-13-06
57
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
say, Hey, I understand we didn't give a lot of guidance. This
is kind of a little bit more direction, what we want.
JUDGE TINLEY: No question.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or what I want.
JUDGE TINLEY: No question. It was very spongy, and
there were going to be issues that needed to be worked out on
a daily basis for -- for some period of time. They're still
being worked out on a daily basis. I have discussions with
both Tim and Alyce daily, several times a day sometimes, about
separate things. What do I think? And, you know, we talk
common sense, and things -- things that may not otherwise be
applicable. I don't know.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Let's --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Before -- if we can get 18
out of the way, Mr. Buck is sitting there waiting to talk on
1.08. Before we take a break, can we do that one?
JUDGE TINLEY: We've got some timed issues I need to
get to, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm sorry.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think I can get back to that
quickly. At this time, I'm going to recess the Commissioners
Court meeting, and I'm going to convene a public hearing for
the revision of plat for Lots 17A and 16 in Cypress Springs
11-13-06
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
58
Estates, Phase I, as set forth in Volume 7, Page 12, Plat
Records, and located in Precinct 4.
(The regular Commissioners Court meeting was closed
at 10:16 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 regard to the revision of plat
for Lots 17A and 16, Cypress Springs Estates, Phase I? Seeing
no one wishing to be recognized or coming forward, I will
close the public hearing for revision of plat for Lots 17A and
16, Cypress Springs Estates, in Phase I.
(The public hearing was concluded at 10:26 a.m., and
~ the regular Commissioners Court meeting was
reopened.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's go back to Item 8, then.
Consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to adopt a
resolution authorizing Kerr County to submit an application
for a Community Development Block Grant through the Office of
Rural Community Affairs for Phase IV of the Kerrville South
Wastewater Project.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Williams.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, sir. This is --
as we've talked about in the past, would be our application
for funding for Phase IV of the Kerrville South Wastewater
11-13-06
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
59
Project. I see Mr. Buck is here, and I've agreed with him and
his Finance Operations Committee to appear before them
tomorrow with -- in the hopes that they will also be a
participant in Phase IV, as they have in Phases I, II, and
III. This is pretty standard. This is our application --
resolution that would authorize us to move forward in our
request for funding of up to a half million dollars in grant
funds. I would move adoption of the resolution.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
and adoption of the resolution as indicated. Any question or
discussion on the motion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Does Mr. Buck have any comment?
MS. BUCK: Your Honor and Court, the comment that I
have is that we've enjoyed, I think, a good relationship with
this Court, especially Commissioner Williams in pushing this
project forward. Recently -- in September, in fact -- we
approved our strategic plan, a five-year goals and objectives,
what we think we can best serve the community, and part of
that is -- is facilitating this sewage treatment or sewage
collection. I don't know what the board's going to vote.
Again, you're -- you said that you were going to make a
petition to them, so that's where we are.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions or comments?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We appreciate what you guys
11-13-06
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
do.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you very much, Ray.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. All in favor of the
I motion --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I got a question for
Mr. Williams.
JUDGE TINLEY: Sorry.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I never have been sure how
you pronounce this. Is it colonia funding?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Colonias. It's that block
grant that comes down for --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We don't have to do
anything extra to qualify?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We've already done that?
That's my only question.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're qualified because
we're a hundred -- within 150 miles of the border.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions or comments? All
in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Judge.
11-13-06
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
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me move to Item 11. I will
recess the Commissioners Court meeting, and I'll now call a
public hearing for the revision of plat for Wood Trails Ranch,
Lots 43B and 46, as set forth in Volume 4, Page 98, and Volume
5, Page 140, Plat Records, and located in Precinct 4.
(The regular Commissioners Court meeting was closed
at 10:21 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 regard to the revision of the
plat for Wood Trails Ranch, Lots 43B and 46, as set forth in I'
Volume 4, Page 98, and Volume 5, Page 140 of the Plat Records?
Yes, ma'am? If you would come forward and give us your name
and address, and tell us what's on your mind about this
subject.
MS. LEONHARDT: I'm Arlene Leonhardt, and I'm here
~ for the homeowners association of Wood Trails. And the only
thing we want to be sure of is that that -- those additions of
property are put in with the normal plot description, and
those are not separate lots. The additions that are being
made are not going to be individual lots? They are going to
be put into the description of the existing lots? That was
our only question.
JUDGE TINLEY: This is a public hearing, and we can
take your comments; we can take your suggestions. When we get
11-13-06
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
62
to the actual consideration of the item, which is Item 12 on
the agenda, hopefully someone will be able to answer that
question for you. I think Mr. Odom's here, and maybe he can
tell us at that point.
MS. LEONHARDT: All right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, ma'am. Is there anyone
else that wishes to be heard concerning the revision of plat
for Wood Trails Ranch, Lots 43B and 46, as set forth in Volume
4, Page 98, and Volume 5, Page 140 of the Plat Records?
Seeing no one else coming forward or seeking recognition, I
will close the public hearing for the revision of plat for
Wood Trails Ranch, Lots 43B and 46, as set forth in Volume 4,
Page 98, and Volume 5, page 140 of the Plat Records.
(The public hearing was concluded at 10:23 a.m., and
the regular Commissioners Court meeting was
reopened.)
JUDGE TINLEY: I will reconvene the Commissioners
I
courts meeting, and we will go to Item 6; consider, discuss,
j and approve the filing -- filling of open, full-time position
in the Maintenance Department. This also shows to be an
executive session item, Is there any portion of it that needs
to be considered or could be considered in open session at
this time?
MR. BOLLIER: No, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY; Okay.
11-13-06
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
63
MR. EMERSON: May I ask a question, Judge?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes.
MR. EMERSON: Is it related to a particular
employee's duties or responsibilities of an existing employee?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No.
MR. BOLLIER: It just has -- it just tells what each
individual does.
JUDGE TINLEY: Talking about job descriptions?
MR. BOLLIER: Yes, sir. Well, more or less what
they're just doing, like at the Ag Barn. It's just kind of a
breakdown of where everybody is and where everybody's working.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why don't you start it, and the
County Attorney will tell you -- it may not qualify for I
executive session.
MR. BOLLIER: Okay. Well, here I've -- I have
prepared -- there's three pages here, why I need more
employees in the Facilities and Maintenance Department. And I
have a table here that shows the hours that are -- that need
to be spent at each location, the courthouse, jail, JDC, and
Aq Barn, and work the supervisors -- hands-on work at all
facilities. Like, at the courthouse, I show that I need
j somebody here, you know, around four hours a day. The jail,
eight hours a day. JDC, two hours, and the Ag Barn, I need 16
hours there, and Monday through Saturday. And Sunday, I show
eight hours, and then I show working supervisor, four hours at
11-13-06
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
64
each of -- at each facility. And this is all based on a
not show up for community service when you need them most.
The fact they're used to curb employee need is not always a
reliable source of manpower, and makes work scheduling very
difficult at times. Staffing needs to be at a level by which
needed.
Every day work is accomplished in an economical and
efficient manner. Because we have few employees in this
department, individuals have to handle multiple areas of
responsibility. And in the last few weeks, each member of my
limited staff has worked 40-plus hours each week. With
additional employees, I can utilize a 7-day rotating work
schedule, which will help to get control of the comp time,
overtime problem. And if it -- employee assignments: As of
today, I have Shel at the Ag Barn, Exhibit Hall maintenance
and set-up. Shel works weekends for Dan Edwards and is not
available to help on weekend schedules at Ag Barn. Shane's
responsible -- responsibilities consist mainly of the jail,
because knowing the ins and outs of this facility takes a
while to learn, which makes it more efficient to leave Shane
here, and the jail takes up most of his time. And Tim should
be working maintenance, hands-on, half-time covering other
i1-i3-o6
65
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2D
21
22
23
24
25
facilities -- that's myself. And this is where the
i maintenance seven to eight hours a day, some days doing set-up
~ at Ag Barn, not stopping for any breaks or lunch. Note,
keeping up with the Ag Barn/Exhibit Hall set-ups for events is
difficult with the limited staff I have at present, and gets
near impossible when there are last-minute changes to the
event set-ups or items needed that are added which I have not
been told about. I would like to be part of review process
when these events are set up so that I can better schedule
manpower needed. I would like to suggest a time frame which
dictates the last day changes can be made by the exhibitors or
to our users of the Ag Barn/Exhibit Hall facilities.
And then, on the back, I have where -- I show the
overtime and part-time moneys that were spent last year. Over
the past year, like at the courthouse, I have part-time used
was $809. Courthouse overtime used was $777.22. At the jail,
part-time used was $5,195.24. The Ag Barn, part-time used was
$1,705, and at the Ag Barn, overtime used is $1,791. Actual
part-time/overtime expense was $10,277.46. And down here, I
have part-time/overtime. In amended budgets for '06-'07,
11-13-06
66
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
lI
12
13
14
15
16
1?
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
courthouse part-time shows nothing now, which was $4,000 on
Ili 513, which Tommy went over earlier with us. And courthouse
~ overtime, I spent 12 -- I have $1,200 in there, $5,000 in jail
part-time. Ag Barn, 2,500. Ag Barn/Exhibit Hall overtime, I
have 2,000. And in 513 account, which Tommy went over earlier
why all that was left the way it was.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right now, you are down half an
employee? Were you -- we have budgeted for one-half a person
right now that is -- that spot's open, correct?
MR. BOLLIER: Right. Right, because Charles Utz
quit. He was my part-time help at the jail, and he quit.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: And he was handling virtually all of
the maintenance functions at the jail? He was pretty well
assigned there?
MR. BOLLIER; He was there, period. But Shane would
go over there every morning to help him out, because he --
there's more than Charles could do in two hours while he was
there.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, the position that you have open
is a part-time facilities --
MR. BOLLIER: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: And if that's -- the position is
filled, you -- you then have Shane freed up to do more on
other assignments?
11-13-06
67
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. BOLLIER: Well, if I have him only part-time,
there's more work there at the jail than a part-timer can do.
And I have -- I have brought with me today a box of work
orders that we have done over the past year.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Please don`t. (Laughter.)
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER; Thing is, it's just the jail.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We need to take that
half-time person and move it to a full-time person, and get on
down the road.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree. I think that's a --
what we -- basically, when we did our reorganization, we went
down one person in the Maintenance Department.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And -- and, to me, I look at it,
even if you do it equal, half goes into the custodial side and
half goes into this side, and a half and a half makes it a
full person. And I think -- I mean, we're just back to where
we were if we authorize a full-time position, which is taking
that half and just adding another half to it.
i COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Are we increasing the
budget?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: No, we got the money in the budget.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Money is overly funded in the
budget. We funded a supervisor, and when we did the
I1-13-06
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
reorganization, we went with two working supervisors instead,
so I think there should be -- there's budgeted funds.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Appears that way.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, what you're asking, then, is
instead of having a half-time person, in order to handle the
load that you have, instead of filling that as a half-time job
or part-time job, you want a full-time person?
MR. BOLLIER: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I make a motion we authorize the
Maintenance Department to change the half-time slot to a
full-time slot, with the understanding that there will be less
comp and part-time -- or comp time used.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Overtime.
~ COMMISSIONER LETZ: Overtime. I
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What grade and step?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know. Work that out
I with them.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. I mean, it's just a --
it's going to be whatever fits in the schedule for a
maintenance worker. I mean, work with Ms. Hyde on that.
it COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I second that motion.
i JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of the Maintenance employee as indicated. Any further
question or discussion on the motion? All in favor of the
11-13-Oo
69
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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 me
it quickly adjourn -- or recess the Commissioners Court hearing
I
and convene a public hearing that was scheduled for 10:30 for li
road name changes and regulatory signs in various Locations,
as advertised.
(The regular Commissioners Court meeting was closed
at 10:32 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 -- member of the
public that wishes to be heard concerning the road name
changes and regulatory signs in various locations as published
by the Court? Seeing no one coming forward, I will close the
public hearing on the road name changes and regulatory signs
in various locations as published.
(The public hearing was concluded at 10:32 a.m., and
the regular Commissioners Court meeting was
reopened.)
JUDGE TINLEY: And I will reconvene the
Commissioners Court meeting, and at this point, we`ll stand in
recess for about 15 minutes.
(Recess taken from 10:33 a.m. to 10:51 a.m.)
11-13-06
~o
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to order, if we
might. The next item on the agenda is Item 7; consider,
discuss, and take appropriate action as a result of meeting
with I.R.S. on November 7th, 20D6, in reference to tax period
June 30th, 2006. Ms. Nemec? What do you have for us this ~,
morning?
MS. NEMEC: This involves an employee, so I just
want to make sure it's okay with her that it is in open
I session.
MS. MAGENHEIMER: That's fine.
MS. NEMEC: Is that fine?
MS. MAGENHEIMER: No problem.
MS. NEMEC: This was on the agenda a couple of --
well, I think it was last month, and it was in reference to a
letter that we had received from I.R.S. What happened was, on
the May 31st payroll taxes, once our Auditor reconciled the
payroll tax -- well, not the pay -- the bank statement, it was
brought to my attention on June the 22nd, I believe, that the
payroll taxes had not cleared the bank, the deposit. And so
at that time, I contacted I.R.S. and explained to them that it
had not cleared, and asked at that time what I needed to do to
make sure that we did not get penalized for it. And they told
me that I needed to wait until we sent in our 941 report, and
at that time, to ask that any penalties and interest be
I
removed, and so I did that. And then I got a letter from them
11-13-06
71
1
Z
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
stating that until they reconciled the 941, they could not
So, they issued the letter. And when they issued
the letter, I invited Jackie Magenheimer, who was my clerk at
that time, and Eva, which is her boss now, to go with me to
San Antonio to take care of the matter and to see what the
I.R.S, would say at that time. So, we went on Tuesday -- last
Tuesday, and we talked to a representative there, and I showed
them where Ms. Magenheimer had gone into the system. At that
time, how we were doing it was through wire transfers through
Security State Bank. And I showed them where Ms. Magenheimer
had gone in through the wire transfer through Security State
Bank, and where she had gotten her verification dated 5-31, to
where it had printed out her verification through Security
State Bank on two sheets, and see what they suggested that I
do. Because we got the -- the letter from I.R.S. stating
penalties and interest for that period. They said that --
there in San Antonia that they were not allowed to waive any
penalties based on -- on me showing them this information;
that what I would have to do is write back to where they wrote
me the letter from and send a copy of this to them, and write
-- send them a copy of this, and to write the circumstances
that I had told them had occurred, and they were the only ones
11-13-06
72
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that would be able to waive that amount, that penalty and
interest. So, I want to share with you the draft that I've
drafted up to send to them.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Barbara, did all three of you
go to San Antonio?
MS. NEMEC: All three of us went to San Antonio,
yes. And there's one for each of you and one for the clerk.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One short?
MS. NEMEC: Oh, you're one short?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've been treated this way
all my life. (Laughter.) Thank you.
MS. NEMEC: I have an extra one. Okay. And this is i
to the I.R.S. It says, The County received your letter dated
November 6 assessing penalties for late payment of payroll
taxes for Form 941 for the quarter ending -- ended June 30th,
2006. Please note the attachment which shows that the deputy
clerk for the pay -- for the taxpayer initiated a timely wire
transfer for the payroll taxes that were due on June 2nd,
2006. The attachment indicates that the wire transfer was
initiated on May 31st, 2006. The wire transfer verification
attached indicates that the payroll tax deposit for May 30th,
2006 payroll was made timely and in good order. Only later,
once the bank reconciliation was reviewed, was the County
Treasurer able to see that the transfer was -- that the
I
I
transfer never occurred. At that point, the taxes were
11-13-06
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
73
deposited immediately. When these payroll taxes were
originally due, the County Treasurer conferred with the deputy
attached shows that the tax deposit was initiated, but upon
further investigation, it is clear that there was a breakdown
in completion of the transaction. In order to prevent this
problem from reoccurring, the taxpayer will now begin to make
I
payroll taxes -- payroll tax deposits using the Electronic
Federal Tax to Payment System, which is called EFTPS, directly
rather than using the wire transfer method used previously.
The EFTPS system provides a deposit record and trace number
that can be used as a receipt. The taxpayer regrets that the
tax payments were not made on time and is making every effort
to comply. Steps have been taken to insure timely payment and
penalties assessed be waived. Thank you for your
consideration on this matter.
The EFTPS system is the most current way that
employers are depositing tax payments. It's -- you go online
and you -- you hook up directly to I.R.S., and it is -- once
you do that, you get a confirmation number, and it's their
11-13-OE
74
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
responsibility from there, once you get your confirmation
number, for them to hook up to your bank and withdraw those
funds. And when the lady told us -- you know, when you --
when you send them a letter, they want to know how it
happened, proof that there was an initial attempt to deposit
your taxes on time, and then they want to know how you're
taking the matter to prevent it from happening again. So,
that's where the basis of the letter came from.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Barbara, tell me, why didn't
the wire transfer work? I mean, I don't -- I don't understand
how those things work. Why didn't it -- when she entered it
and mashed the button, why didn't it go?
MS. NEMEC: Do you want to address that, Jackie? ~
MS. MAGENHEIMER: Well, I would like to refer back
to the third paragraph.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Third paragraph, okay.
M5. MAGENHEIMER: Actually, Barbara was standing
right behind me when I was doing this. She was watching me.
And I had not really been trained adequately to do this, but
she was feeling a little shy in doing it, so she asked me.
And, for whatever reason, lack of training that I had, that --
that was not finalized. Whatever, that last push -- that
button was to be pushed did not happen.
MS. NEMEC: This was just our third time to do this.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm not questioning that you
11-13-06
7s
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Il
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
did it or didn't. I just want to know where the glitch is.
Or obviously a glitch somewhere. Or maybe -- maybe not.
MS. MAGENHEIMER: Well, my lack of training.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's the answer?
MS. MAGENHEIMER: Is the glitch.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The glitch was, the final button
~ wasn't pushed properly.
MS. MAGENHEIMER: Exactly. But it wasn't done on --
with mal-intent.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm a little curious about
Paragraph 2 in your cover note -- in your letter -- proposed
letter to the I.R.S., which you say wire verification attached
indicates that the payroll tax deposit for the May 30, '06
payroll was made and in good order. Only later, when the bank
reconciliation was reviewed -- it doesn't say when that was --
was the County Treasurer able to see that the transfer never
occurred. At that point, the taxes were deposited
immediately.
MS. NEMEC: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm a little confused by
that. Were the taxes not in the bank -- deposited in the bank
prior to May 30 or on May 30?
MS. NEMEC: No. See, we got this verification when
-- when Jackie did them. We got this verification from the
system. And it said 5 -- 5-31-2006. That, to us, told us
11-13-06
76
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that they had been done. Like I said, this was just like the
third or fourth time we had done it. The first two times,
Security State Bank came and walked us through it. We had
i never done this before.
~ COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, what you're saying
should have taken place was an electronic debit of our account
for purposes of taxes; is that correct?
MS. NEMEC: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Before it was forwazded to
I the I.R.S.
MS. NEMEC: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that what you're saying?
MS. NEMEC: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And if I understand you
I
correctly, then, you're saying that the electronic debit of
our account didn't take place?
MS. NEMEC: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Therefore, there weren't
funds to -- to send -- to forward to I.R.S., and that's why it
didn't clear the bank?
MS. NEMEC: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Did I understand that
~ correctly?
MS. NEMEC: That's correct. But when we saw this
print, and it's dated 5-31, and it has the amount and the
ii-is-o6
77
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
checking account and everything that it -- it's taken out
from, we assumed everything cleared, went through okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But do we know why the
electronic debit of our --
MS. NEMEC: Because it was --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- of our account didn't
function properly?
MS. NEMEC: 'cause it wasn't -- the transaction
wasn't completed. There would have actually been a third page
to this.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I see.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They exited before they should
have exited.
MS. NEMEC: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Nemec, you indicated that this
procedure had been accomplished on two or three prior
occasions?
MS. NEMEC: Right.
~ JUDGE TINLEY: And it was done with the assistance
of personnel from Security State Bank and Trust?
MS. NEMEC: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Who else participated -- who was
actually handling the -- from your office was handling the
activity concerning those prior occasions?
MS. NEMEC: The --
11-13-06
7s
1
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: Were you present?
MS. NEMEC: Was I present? Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. So, you were working with --
or Security State Bank was working with you to go through this
procedure on those two or three prior occasions?
MS. NEMEC: Actual -- well, actually, I think they
were training Jackie on the direct deposits and the 941's, and
I was doing the payroll. And this end of it, Jackie was
doing.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, what you're telling me is that
Security State Bank personnel were training Jackie, and not
you?
MS. NEMEC: Yes, that is correct. Right, Jackie?
MS. MAGENHEIMER: No, it's not. I was observing.
They were training Barbara.
MS. NEMEC: You weren't doing this end of the
payroll?
MS. MAGENHEIMER: No.
MS. NEMEC: And I was doing the payroll?
MS. MAGENHEIMER: I was observing that training; I
did not actually do it.
JUDGE TINLEY: But you were present when Security
State Bank was going through the procedure on two or three
occasions prior to the May 30 --
MS. NEMEC: I was present, yes.
11-13-Oo'
79
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: -- May 31 payroll?
MS. NEMEC: I thought Jackie was actually sitting
down at the -- I thought you were the one actually sitting
down doing it, and I was overseeing it.
MS. MAGENHEIMER: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. And this was two or three
occasions prior to the May 30 or 31 --
MS. NEMEC: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- payroll. This documentation that
you've attached to your letter, this cash management, this is
documentation that is generated within your office in
connection with this transaction?
MS. NEMEC: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: What documentation does the Security
State Bank generate in connection with this type of a
transaction?
MS. NEMEC: What do they generate?
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
i MS. NEMEC: I believe I have what they have -- what
they generate. They sent me something, and I took that to
I.R.S., and they said that -- that just meant that we logged
onto their system; it didn't mean anything to them.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. NEMEC: They didn't even suggest I send that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Does the Security State Bank and
11-13-06
80
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Trust not generate some documentation that confirms the
transmittal of those funds?
MS. NEMEC: I'm sure they do, but when I asked them
for the 5-31, what they sent me, I guess because it didn't
finalize -- no, I don't have it, because the I.R.S. said that
just shows log-on, information when we logged on that day.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, what you're asking --
MS. NEMEC: And because there was no -- there was
nothing transferred. They didn't have anything that showed
that anything was transferred, 'cause nothing was actually
transferred. It shows that we were logged on that day
i attempting to do something, but it doesn't show anything was
i actually done.
JUDGE TINLEY: Had anything actually been done;
I
i.e., confirm that the funds had actually been transferred,
would not Security State Bank have issued some sort of
documented confirmation that that had, in fact, occurred?
MS. NEMEC: Well, let's see. I have the one here
I from...
JUDGE TINLEY: Does Security State Bank and Trust
not have a standard itemized protocol to be followed for these
kinds of -- of federal tax deposit transactions?
MS. NEMEC: See, on the one that you all have --
this is the one that was done on the 15th, and it has "Created
by" and "Approved by," and on those that you have, it does not
11-13-06
81
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
have "Approved by."
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This top portion right here.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The "Created by" or the --
and/or the "Approved by," is there some password or code that
you use that tells the system it's a duly authorized source
that's expending those funds?
MS. NEMEC: Yes.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So you've got a password?
MS. NEMEC: I've got a password, Jackie has a
password.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And I don't know what it
is, so I couldn't transfer those funds?
MS. NEMEC: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There should be some
confirmation of the debit from the bank. I certainly confirm
all the debits I have on my account.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think what she's saying is she
I could -- when she did the reconciliation, that's when the
I debit showed up as not going through.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think it's when the Auditor did the
reconciliation.
MS. NEMEC: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: He didn't find it. Do you know
whether or not there's a standard protocol sequence issued by
Security State Bank and Trust for deposits of this type?
11-13-66
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
MS. NEMEC: I don't know.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Does the Auditor know?
MS. NEMEC: Other than this here, that it does show
you if it's been approved.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, the bank obviously has some
documentation concerning what occurs each time a depositor's
funds are transferred within that bank.
MS. NEMEC: I'm sure they do.
JUDGE TINLEY: On the depositor's account over to a
third party.
MS. NEMEC: Well, they sent me a confirmation by
mail, the wire transfer confirmation.
JUDGE TINLEY: By mail or fax, or --
MS. NEMEC: By mail.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Wire transfer confirmation
that they`re sending it to the third party?
MS. NEMEC: Once they've sent it. But, you know,
that doesn't happen right away,
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think what the Judge and I
are asking about, don't they give you a confirmation of the
debit?
MS. NEMEC: They mail it to us, but not right away.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, you --
MS. NEMEC: I mean, this is our confirmation right
11-13-66
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
here.
I COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't see it.
MS. NEMEC: No, it's not -- it's not there. I mean,
that right there, it's not there, because it didn't go
through.
JUDGE TINLEY: What you're telling me is when --
when you authorize a -- a transfer, they confirm by mail in
these instances also?
MS. NEMEC: What do you mean, in those instances?
JUDGE TINLEY: In I.R.S. tax deposit instances. Do
they --
MS. NEMEC: If they go through.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- certify them by mail also?
MS. NEMEC: Yes, if they go through.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. What does it normally take,
three days for you to get that?
MS. NEMEC: No. No, it takes longer than that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Five days?
MS. NEMEC: I really don't know. I'll check next
time how long it takes. I've never paid any mind to how long
it took.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'd be real interested in knowing how
long that process takes. It occurs to me it shouldn't take
more than three to five days.
MS. NEMEC: I don't know.
11-13-06
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
84
JUDGE TIN LEY: I'd also -- and I think I mentioned
it to you --
MS. NEMEC: No, I know it takes longer than that,
'cause I've -- I like to file my stuff right away, and it lays
on my desk way too long before I can file it.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think --
MS. NEMEC: And what -- this thing is also -- I say
it comes in by mail. It comes in -- it sits at one of the
drive-throughs, and they -- different people pick up different
things. Sometimes they'll give it to another department that
goes and picks it up, and so by the time I get it,
sometimes -- it just depends who they give it to to pick it
up. And they do that to me, too. They'll say, "Will you take
this to the District Clerk? Wi11 you take this to J.P. 1?
Will you take..." So, I think that's what the delay is, that
they keep our -- everybody's stuff in the drive-through. And
sometimes, by the time I get it --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That seems unacceptable.
MS. NEMEC: They hold our stuff.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. I agree.
COMMISSIONER LETZ; I mean, Security State Bank,
that -- I mean, I don't -- they're not here.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That is unacceptable.
MS. NEMEC: That's how they do our stuff. I say by
mail.
11-13-Ob
85
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1s
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: I --
MS. NEMEC: They do all our -- all our
correspondence that way.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How many departments deal with
Security State directly with cash or deposits? I mean,
District Clerk does and the Sheriff, Rex. Quite a few.
County Clerk probably -- I'm sure does.
JUDGE TINLEY: Tax Office.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Tax Office.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I've never had a problem like
that. I always get it directly from them.
MS. NEMEC: Yeah, they don't give us --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Haven't had any kind of
problems like what's she's talking about. Security State's
been fabulous.
MS. UECKER: They give me stuff to take to Barbara,
and I make sure that she gets it that very day, you know, for
those type of reasons. Now, how long they're holding it over
there, you know, I don't know.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do they -- and this is -- I
i mean, when you go or you go or you go, I mean, you don't
personally go each time. I would assume you would send
someone from your office. Or do you personally --
MS. UECKER: I do.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You personally go?
11-13-06
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
I4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
86
MS. DECKER: Mm-hmm.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I send somebody.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It seems to me that -- I'm a
little concerned, and maybe you might want to -- Ms. Hyde's
looking at our personnel procedures. It seems a little bit
loose on dealing with the bank. Even if Rusty -- I mean,
sends one of your deputies or whoever you send, I think it --
I'm a little concerned about financial information being
transported in that manner. But, anyway, that's another
issue. Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think I mentioned the last time we
were discussing one of these issues, I seem to recall asking
you to obtain a -- the protocols that the bank has for
handling these kinds of issues, and have you made inquiry of
the bank about that?
MS. NEMEC: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: Would you mind doing that?
MS. NEMEC: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: The -- who's responsible for training
in your office?
I MS. NEMEC: For training?
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
MS. NEMEC: I am, or whoever -- like, with this new
-- it just depends. Like, when we went onto the new system,
well, we had someone from Incode come and train us. And when
11-13-06
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
87
we were training on the direct deposit and 941`s, the bank
came and trained us, so it just depends.
JUDGE TINLEY: But it's your responsibility to see
that that training occurs?
MS. NEMEC: I would say so.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is this cash management
software, repetitive wire transfer editing, so forth, is that
our software, or is that provided by the bank?
MS. NEMEC: That`s the bank.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And about that, I notice that
there's not a date -- a place for a date on this form at all.
How would you -- how would you know what date that you sent a
transfer?
MS. NEMEC: It's on the very bottom.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, that's going to be a
question to the computer guru with all this psychobabble down
here, and then a date. Is that what that means?
MR. TROLINGER: That's the date that it was printed.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Was that the date that it --
that this was sent, or tried to be sent?
MR. TROLINGER: Negative. It's the date that that
I page from Internet Explorer was printed on the printer.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, how do you keep a record
II of what date you actually transferred...
JUDGE TINLEY: Do you recall how much the penalties
11-13-06
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
88
and interest were?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't get an answer to my
~ question?
JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Usually when you ask a
question, there's an answer comes back. But maybe not at this
point. How do you know what day you transfer money from one
place to another?
MS. NEMEC: Well, we print this out the same day
that we do the transaction.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MS. NEMEC: That's the way we know.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Sorry, I thought you were just doing
musing there.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, I really -- it was a real
question.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. All right. You recall the
amount of the penalty and interest that we've got in issue
i here, Ms. Nemec?
MS. NEMEC: It was a little over 12,000.
JUDGE TINLEY: Have you forwarded this letter that
you've given us a copy of today?
II MS. NEMEC: No. No, I wanted you all to read it and
get any suggestions from you all.
11-13-06
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
la
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
89
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Ms. Nemec, you had indicated
on this cash management document that you gave us that there
was supposed to be a third page to this?
MS. NEMEC: Well, I notice that -- now that I'm
sending them, that I'm getting that third page.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What does that third page
consist of?
MS. NEMEC: It says Approved. "Created by" and
"Approved." Do you want to see it?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes. Following up kind of
on Commissioner Baldwin's question, the only date that appears
here is -- is this submit date, and that in this case was two
weeks after the fact. That would be --
MS. NEMEC: No, that was for 15th payroll. That's
another payroll.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a different payroll?
MS. NEMEC: Yeah. That's just for an example.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There was no submit date on
these first two pages anywhere.
MS. NEMEC: And, see, this is for the 15th payroll,
so here it says submit date; that's for the 15th, but I
initiated it on the 14th, and that's the date that's down
here.
COMMISSIONER. WILLIAMS: But even in this scenario,
you don't get from the bank a reasonably immediate
ii-~s-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
90
confirmation of the debit?
MS, NEMEC: Not till I get the confirmation when it
comes through -- and, see, right here, it has 6-14 and what
time I sent it. This is the confirmation right here.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, we've got -- we owe
$12,000 for this one late payment, more or less. Is that --
is additional interest and penalties being incurred? Is it
not going up?
MS. NEMEC: Yes, until they receive the letter and
determine whether they're going to waive --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What reason do we give them
to approve our appeal? We say we didn't make the payment on
time.
MS. NEMEC: Well, like I said, they want to know
what we're going to do to correct that from happening again,
which is the EFTPS payments, and they're going to like that
because that is their system that we're going to start using.
And with the confirmation that shows that we -- weren't malice
in trying to do anything; that we tried to send it, and it has
the 5-31 date on the attachment that I'm sending that shows
that we, you know, did try.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, we're -- our appeal is
that we made a good-faith effort?
MS. NEMEC: Right,
~ COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And we're sorry that they
11-13-06
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
91
didn't get their money, and we hope they give us another
chance?
MS. NEMEC: Right. We weren't just negligent and
just didn't do it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Did the representative of I.R.S. last
week give you any ballpark estimate of the likelihood of
success of the appeal?
MS. NEMEC: Do you remember, Eva, what she said?
MS. HYDE: It wasn't positive. The only positive
thing that she said was that we needed to pay quickly, because
the penalties and fines continue to accrue at 1 percent per
day, up to 25 percent.
JUDGE TINLEY: Per month?
MS. HYDE: Per month.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How long has the I.R.S. had
this EFTPS system in place?
MS. NEMEC: I don't know. Who told me about this
was a C.P.A. that looked over this this weekend and helped me
with this letter, and she says she gets -- she`s been writing
letters like this to I.R.S. for over 20 years, and getting her
clients' moneys -- penalties and interest dropped.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- are you sending the funds
with the letter? I guess is -- what from what Ms. Hyde said,
it seems that if that penalty and interest is accruing at a
daily rate, the funds should be sent immediately, and then
11-13-06
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
92
request a refund, rather than potentially lose more money. I
mean --
JUDGE TINLEY: Or credit against future tax
obligations, either way.
MS. NEMEC: We can do that. That's why this is not
the final letter. That's -- I hadn't sent the letter
yesterday, just based upon --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would think -- I mean, I have
no idea, but I would think maybe they'd make -- be, I guess,
more inclined to review it if we sent the money in and then
done it. I don't know if this is -- that would have any
impact or not, but either way, I think we ought to send the
funds in that they say to stop the hemorrhage.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We haven't heard from the
Auditor on this one.
MR. TOMLINSON: I agree that we need to pay it, I
i mean, A.S.A.P.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd probably recommend wire
transferring the funds, and send a copy of that with the
letter, as opposed to sending a check. 'Cause a check will
take another week, and a wire transfer will get there today.
Or -- or use the FT -- whatever that thing is called, FT --
EFTPS, use that system if you can. And I would think you
probably can.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any more questions for Ms. Nemec?
11-13-d6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
93
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I really do have one of the
I Auditor.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Well, any more for Ms, Nemec?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have one for Ms. Nemec.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The EFTPS -- now, this is
boy-dummy talking here. Once you access that system and
you're going to transfer the money to them today or tomorrow
through this, how is -- how is the bank put in -- how is our
local bank put in that loop?
MS. NEMEC: What I need to do is call the I.R.S. and
set up -- set this up with them. And I need to give them our
routing number with the bank's routing number and our account
number, and they will draft on the bank for -- and they'll do
that every pay period from now on.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, you don't -- you don't
have any -- you won't have any contact with -- directly with
the bank from --
MS. NEMEC: No, it will be directly with I.R.S. from
now on, and they'll give me a confirmation number. As soon as
I call in the amount of taxes, they'll give me a confirmation
number, and from there, it's up to them to get their money
i from the bank.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do we need -- as the penalty and
interest, the 12,000-plus is not a budgeted item, do they not
11-13-06
94
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
need a -- does not the Court need to authorize that
expenditure, Tommy? I make a motion that we direct the
Treasurer and/or Auditor, whoever needs to get this done, to
transmit the funds -- the penalty funds -- penalty and
interest funds due in this matter today to the I.R.S. to stop
additional penalty and interest from accruing. And those
funds would come out of our -- Tommy can find what account it
can come out of. Tommy?
MR. TOMLINSON: I would take it from the Contingency
account in Nondepartmental. I
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's my motion.
I
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I'll second that, but I i
got a question.
I
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Question?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, the basic amount is
$90,431; is that correct?
MS. NEMEC: Yes, sir,
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And then the interest and
penalty is on that 90,000? I
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: No, it's on the penalty. The penalty
is $11,000 or $12,000, but it continues to accrue on that
penalty amount.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can we have for the record again
11-13-06
95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the exact amount that's transferred?
MS. NEMEC: I'm looking for it, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's where I was going.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Since it's growing every
day, we probably don't know the exact amount.
MS. NEMEC: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But we can get close.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm a little bit disappointed
that the 90,000 hasn't been sent.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It has.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It has?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Two weeks late.
MS. NEMEC: It was sent June the 22nd, when the
Auditor made us aware of that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN; Okay, thank you.
MS. NEMEC: 12,650.97.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 12,650.97?
MS. NEMEC: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What was that date through?
MS. NEMEC: June the 6th -- I mean -- I'm sorry,
November the 6th.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN; Today's the 13th.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, there would be an additional
amount on top of that, but at least it will stop the major --
ii-i3-o6
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
96
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: $13,000.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or discussion on
the motion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just one --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I've got a question for the
County Treasurer.
MS. NEMEC: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It occurs to me that the
last couple years, we've -- we've periodically spent time
dealing with errors made in the Treasurer's office, and -- and
an inordinate amount of time. And I'm also aware that those
errors go back to at least 2002. I've -- I'm about to lose
hope that anything's going to change. What's it going to take
to stop the errors being made in the Treasurer office?
MS. NEMEC: I'm going to start handling it from now i
on, sir. I was delegating. That's all I can say.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: My question really doesn't
deal with this motion; it deals with after we've done this.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I guess the question I have
is, when did we receive notice on this?
MS. NEMEC: The letter was dated November the 6th,
and I actually received it, like, November 3rd or 4th, before
it was dated.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, so it's been fairly
recent. Okay, thank you.
11-13-06
97
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions 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. Ms. Hyde,
Ms. Magenheimer, you all were involved in that particular
incident in San Antonio that's the subject of the agenda item.
Is there anything either one of you wish to offer in
connection with that?
MS. HYDE: Yes. I'll make this real quick. When we
were in the office, I asked a couple of questions as well of
the agent. This is pretty serious, and I knew that you would
want additional questions asked, so I asked who, what, when,
where, why, and how, as far as what do we need to do? Why do
we need to do it? And what would be the best thing going
forward? The agent responded, not only do we need to send the
full letter back showing the documentation; we need to have a
letter requesting abatement. We need to show that we've never
filed late before or had any problems, and to possibly use the
new system as an excuse, the new system being the new computer
system. She said that sometimes that has helped. She also
I
said that in the future, if we had any other questions, we
could call 1-800-829-1040, and we can request a transcript of
11-13-06
98
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
i our account back as far as we want. So, if we call that, we
I can say we want four quarters at a time, hang up and call
again. So that if we want to go and ask for the Auditor to
i help us to look at what have we done? What have we not done?
Is there anything else out there? We can have a basis or a
foundation going forward to clean everything up, just in case.
So, she also gave me -- and I didn't make copies of this --
~ all the I.R.S. transaction codes that appear on the
transcripts, so that the Auditor and the Treasurer can read
I
it. He said that will be the biggest problem; we won't be
~ able to read the report without these. It will also have in
the file a person that they can contact to help them with
reading the files going forward.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Have you reviewed the letter
from the Treasurer?
MS. HYDE: Yes, I have.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Does it satisfy the request of
~ the agent, in your mind? You mentioned the word "abatement,"
and I don't see the word "abatement."
MS. HYDE: Well, to be quite honest, I had to ask
the County Attorney this morning what the difference between
an abatement and an appeal was to make sure that I was clear,
and I'm going to ask the County Attorney to tell us what those
are one more time. Thank you, Mr. Emerson.
MR. EMERSON: As this Court's aware, I think an
11-13-06
99
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
appeal is basically your -- you want to second-guess the
opinion of the lower authority, and you'd like a higher
authority to look at it, possibly reverse the decision. The
abatement is to basically cease and desist; you want it to
stop as-is and be wiped out. So --
JUDGE TINLEY: Which is one and the same as waived?
MR. EMERSON: Correct.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I appreciate your
report. You have more to add to it, I can tell.
MS. HYDE: Well, T wanted to finish answering
Commissioner Letz' question, and that is, I think that the
documentation, Barbara, that you took -- you know, that big
pile of stuff that you took, I think that that would also
help. She had a lot more documentation showing print
screens -- multiple print screens of what they attempted to
do, and I think that that documentation and the letter that
the lady explained to us, you know, your letter that you got,
make sure that she puts all that -- that documentation in
there, and I think that -- that would fulfill what she was
telling us to do.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, my question to --
really is directed to Mr, Tomlinson. Have we talked
sufficiently today, and are we taking the necessary steps to
11-13-06
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
avoid a repetition of this with the bank?
MR. TOMLINSON: I think this is -- I think the
payment method that was described, I mean, through the I.R.S.
is probably -- in my mind, is the best way to handle the
payment. I mean, if you have someone draft on an account,
that's a safe way to make sure that it gets done.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Magenheimer, did you have
anything you wish to offer in addition to what's been
indicated here today? You were also present during this
incident that's made the subject of the agenda.
MS. MAGENHEIMER: I really felt like it was a wasted
trip, because they really could not help. I mean, she -- the
agent -- as Eva said, we needed to talk to the people in
Ogden, Utah. So I felt like it was a wasted trip. We really
didn't get any satisfaction about the concern as to why we
were there.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, thank you. Anything else from
anybody else in the Court here? Let's move --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Did we vote? Did we vote on it?
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm sorry. Yeah, we voted on -- on
the payment of the penalty and interest.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, I remembered that. Let's go to
Item 10; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action for
11-13-06
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
101
the final revision of plat for Lots 17A and 16, Cypress
Springs Estates, Phase I, as set forth in Volume 7, Page 12,
Plat Records, and located in Precinct 4.
MR. ODOM: Good morning. I think you can solve the
problem with the money, taking it out of the County Surveyor's
budget line item.
MR. VOELKEL: Wait. Wait.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree, salary.
MR. ODOM: Salary, as well as the budget.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I move to approve the
revision of plat for Lots 17A and 16, Cypress Springs Estates,
Phase I, Volume 7, Page 12, in Precinct 4.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of the agenda item. Any question or discussion? All in favor
of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Let's move
to Item 12; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to
consider final revision for plat of Wood Trails Ranch, Lots
43B and 46, as set forth in Volume 4, Page 98, and Volume 5,
Page 140, Plat Records, and located also in Precinct 4.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. This alternate plat will take
11-13-06
102
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
2 acres and .45 of an acre of land from the 25.596 acres
outside the subdivision to enlarge Lot 46 and 43, Wood Trails
Ranch, making 43B-R, 1.46 acres, and Lot 46R, 10.35 acres.
There is also -- in relation to the lady's comment there in
the public hearing, that this will not be separate; they're
combining into these two lots. This meets all the
requirements of the Kerr County Subdivision, so at this time,
we ask that you approve the revision as presented.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of the agenda item. Any question or discussion? All in favor
of 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 14; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action for
road name changes and regulatory signs in various locations.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. Well, before you, you have
that list of what we sent to the newspaper, and these are the
speed limits. We have speed limit changes and name changes.
If you have any questions, I'll be more than happy to try to
answer them.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval.
11-13-06
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
103
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of the agenda item. Any question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I might have a question.
The reason for changing Arlitt Ranch Road to Burr Oak Road is
owner's discretion. That means the owner has requested a name
change?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir, Mr. Nicholson. Buddy Henderson
did.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Are the Hendersons the only
ones that live on that road?
MR. ODOM: No, sir, there are other people back
there. I can't remember -- at the very end, and there may --
may be one in the middle there. But Buddy has that place in
between -- had two places, I don't know if he bought the
Arlitt place up front there.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay.
MR. ODOM: As well as his original place there.
Probably three people.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there any specific notice
given to these people about a road name change? I mean, those
that --
MR. ODOM: In the paper.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Newspaper?
MR. ODOM: Newspaper, sir.
I1-23-06
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
104
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't -- I don't know of
any reason to be concerned; I don't have any specific
knowledge of anybody to be concerned about it, but I just
wondered about it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess this is kind of a
general question. I mean, a lot of them are £or 911 reasons,
but -- and I don't know this situation. In fact, I wouldn't
have even looked at it if you hadn't said something, but it is
impacting more than one person, more than one family. They're
going to have to change their addresses. And the reality is,
legally, I think we posted the proper notice, but at the same
time, I think from a common courtesy standpoint, I hate to
change someone's road name.
MR. ODOM: Procedure?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Hate to change their -- make
them get a new mailing address because one person wants to. I
mean, I would be kind of upset if someone on Lane Valley or
any other road wanted to change it and changed it, and, you
know, I just missed it 'cause it wasn't reading the newspaper.
Which I --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: They have -- the owners may
know about it, be in agreement with it, but I don't know that.
So --
MR. ODOM: Mathis lives at the end; that name came
to me, and there was another gentleman, but he was from --
11-13-06
105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
from Houston. Was an insurance salesman, I believe.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. ODOM: Buddy and Arlitts.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's change it, then.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Let's change it.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. If it's not good,
we'll hear about it.
MR. ODOM: I know that we followed the procedure
when the request was put in.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I didn't have any questions
about that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I know there's been an Arlitt
Ranch Road for centuries and centuries that I've been here.
And I --
JUDGE TINLEY: Didn't realize you've been here that
~ long.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. And I
wondered about the change. And I had those same questions in
my mind, but I -- I just couldn't imagine Buddy trying to do
something out of line.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't think so, no. I
think probably what we'd find is that the Arlitts are out of
the picture.
MR. ODOM: They are out of picture.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, they're changing the
11-13-06
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
106
name.
MR. ODOM: Arlitts sold it to the --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Hendersons.
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 does carry. Let's move to
Item 15; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action for
final plat of T-H Acres located in Precinct 4.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. Previously, the Court approved
a concept for the plat on October the 23rd of '06. Therefore,
we request that you approve the final plat of T-H Acres as
presented.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of the agenda item. Any question or discussion? All in favor
of 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 16; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action for
11-13-06
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
107
revision of Lots 5 and 6 of Cypress Springs, Phase I, as set
forth in Volume 7, Page 12, Plat Records, and set a public
hearing, such property being located in Precinct 4.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. This revision is being done
under the alternate plat process and will combine Lots 5 and
6, making one lot, SR, 4.69 acres. At this time, we ask that
you set a public hearing for December the 27th, 2006 -- I
would like to change what I have at 10:00 to 10:10 a.m.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask you a question on
the -- on that date. Are we sure we want to pile up that
date -- meeting date with a bunch of these kind of things?
Historically, the Court comes in and pays the bills and gets
up and leaves, as opposed to sitting here all day dealing with
plats and --
JUDGE TINLEY: Are you concerned the Grinch is going
to come see you if you spend too much time here?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I hadn't thought about the
Grinch, but since -- I'm glad you brought it up.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What's at issue? What date
is it?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The 27th.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: December 27th.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And the reason that day is
set is, historically -- the Auditor's gone; he's not going to
back me up -- is that we come in and pay the bills.
ii-is-o6
108
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'll probably take comp
time that day anyhow, so... (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there a reason it can't be
pushed into January? Other than --
MR. ODOM: We11, Mr. Voelkel, is there a reason why
we can't put it over to the first meeting in January?
MR. VOELKEL: I don't think that would be a problem.
Either one of the ones coming up, I don't think that's a
problem.
MR. ODOM: I don't know what that date is.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: First date in January will
be -- will be the 8th.
MR. ODOM: January the 8th, 2007, at say 10 o'clock?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We didn't set anything else
on that date this morning, did we?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not yet.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's don't --
JUDGE TINLEY: 10 o'clock on this one?
MR. ODOM: 10 o'clock.
MR. VOELKEL: What was that date, Mr. Odom?
MR. ODOM: January the 8th, 2007, at 10 o'clock.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion to that effect?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
11-13-06
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
109
JUDGE TINLEY: We now do. I have a motion to set a
public hearing for January 8, 2007, 10 a.m. Any question or
discussion? Ali 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 17. Consider, discuss, and take appropriate action for
revision of plat for Lots 16 and 17 of Bear Creek Ranch
Estates as set forth in Volume 3, Page 75, and set a public
hearing for same.
MR. ODOM: This is a family division of property,
exempt from platting under 1.03B of Kerr County Subdivision
Rules. However, the owners have decided to file it under the
alternate plat process. They're dividing two lots into three,
I making Lot 16A, B, and C. Each lot is over 3 acres and will I
share a water system that originates on Lot 15, also owned by II
a family member. At this time, we ask that you set a public
hearing for January the --
JUDGE TINLEY: 8th.
MR. ODOM: -- 8th, 2007, at 10:10 a.m.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move that we approve this,
and I have a comment to make when we get a second.
JUDGE TINLEY: The public hearing?
11-13-06
110
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: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll second it.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and second for the
agenda item, to set a public hearing for 10:10 a.m. on
January 8, '07. Any question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just wanted to make a
comment. This particular area is formerly a junkyard that
Kerr County Environmental Health Department had removed, and
it's now a family living area. Kind of proud of that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The question I have is for the
County Attorney. We are -- we may be changing our Subdivision
Rules, in which case this plat will be not legal as of the
date of that public hearing. Is that a problem?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah.
MR. EMERSON: Yeah.
MR. ODOM: But if we have this on record prior to
being finalized, because the direction that -- that we
received -- well, that I received was that until it is
changed, and you go through that precedence of trying to set
-- we knew that there would be a change. We didn't know when.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
MR. ODOM: And that if it's prior to, that we would
accept it, because we're posting it now, prior to any change.
And it is legal at this point to do this.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What are the --
ii-i3-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
111
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are you comfortable with that?
MR. EMERSON: I think that's a policy decision for
y'all.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't have a problem. The
change will be that to qualify as a public or community water
system, it'll have to be licensed by T.C.E.Q. These little
family ones will no longer be acceptable. We've had multiple
people trying to get around it. As a policy standpoint, I
don't have a problem with doing this one now and -- and going
forward. I just wanted to point out that this is about -- I
think it can be changed based on what we had last -- or a
couple meetings ago.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And the flip side of that is
that if we approve a family issue today, and then turn around
and tell them no later in January, I don't want to be sitting
here being a part of that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. And, I mean, I think the
other reason to do it is they're not required to do this.
They can do this whether we want them to or not.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And they're just trying to keep
the record straight.
MR. ODOM: Keep the record straight.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We appreciate that. So that
would even be -- even be more --
11-13-06
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
112
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We asked the family to get
legal documents about this water system thing crossing other
property lines and all that. So --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, I mean, I don't have a
problem. I just wanted to bring it up. Rex says -- County
Attorney says this is a policy issue; therefore, I think the
policy can be that we do it.
MR. VOELKEL: I just wanted to comment on
Commissioner Baldwin's statement about -- they have hired a
local attorney. Mark Andrews is preparing the paperwork
for -- agreements for the water system. That's not required,
but at the meeting we had with Mr. Odom and the Commissioner,
they agreed to do that. We will also bring that document
prior to this public hearing just for y'all to review, to see
how it's being written. But I suggested that along with
Mr. Odom. I think it's an excellent request, and they are
carrying through with that.
MR. ODOM: We'll make sure they have water
available.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mr. Odom, when this comes before
us on the 8th, you might just make sure -- we might make a
note in that motion that this was --
MR. ODOM: Contingent on that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, it was done prior to the
change.
11-13-06
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
113
MR. ODOM: Oh, okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions or comments?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're pretty strong in that
this thing's going to change, huh? That Subdivision
Regulations will change before then, huh?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, y'all -- y'a11 verbally
directed -- behind these purple tabs, we have the revised
version.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I couldn't care less what
happened before today. It could change, believe me.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Requiring people to deal
with T.C.E.Q. is pretty onerous.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, it is.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions 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: Now that we've considered down
through Item 21, let's go to 22; consider, discuss, and --
Sheriff, I called those items, and you weren't --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, no, no, no.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's talk about 18, if we
might. Consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to
11-i3-06
114
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Road and Bridge Department.
MR. ODOM: We have three pieces of leased equipment
that we acquired on a five-year contract. They were bid at
the same time; however, the delivery dates and contracts were
staggered, and they will expire different times in December,
February, and March. We would like permission from the Court
to proceed with acquiring leases for three new pieces before
the new prices go into effect in January. We would take
delivery of the grader that is due in December and wait on
delivery of the other two until the old lease expires. These
pieces of equipment are available through cooperative
purchasing	and can	be leased,	just	as we'	ve done in	the past.
So, we are	working	with -- I	have	legal -	- I haven't	talked to
Rex at this point, but I have talked to the Auditor on
acquiring these leases in the most cost-effective ways. So,
as I get that information and look at it, I will get with
legal to make sure that everything is kosher.
JUDGE TINLEY: On existing leases, do you have a
purchase option on these?
MR. ODOM: I think maybe one that I do -- well, I do
have options to extend the lease, and that's one thing that
I'm looking at. And I believe that I do have -- I could
purchase them, and that's something I want to look at and see
11-13-06
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
what the amortization is, if I couldn't hold, because the
increase is going to be substantial.
JUDGE TINLEY: I assume you've kept the equipment in
good order and --
MR. ODOM: Very good order. And I'm looking at that
option, but I will get with the Court. I will look at the
amortization and whether I couldn't stay pretty close to what
I'm paying right now if we purchase those pieces of equipment.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, what you're asking for the
Court's permission for today is to try and do this at
pre-January 1, '07 pricing schedules?
MR. ODOM: That's right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: These are all budgeted items?
MR. ODOM: These are budgeted items. I do have
money in there; however, I don't -- it's like everything else.
That dart wasn't close enough, I don't think, to some of this.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: These are not subject to bid
process?
MR. ODOM: If -- if we purchase something, we could
exercise the option that we've got an agreement. I believe
that I can. If I did it a lease-type deal, I could make a
substantial off H.G.A.C., TexDOT, things like that. We could
purchase, and then have financial finance it.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: They actually have -- H.G.A.C.
actually has state bid on most of those items.
11-13-06
116
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. ODOM: That's right.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And that prevents you having to
go through --
MR. ODOM: So I don't need to go through formal bid
out there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, that's fine.
MR. ODOM: I'd like to stay within parameters of
what I have for inventory for maintenance and stuff like that
So, we may be able to purchase; I don't know. Those are some
options that I bring the Court. But I wanted to bring it to
you and say here's what I'd like to do; give me permission to
go out for a lease, or purchase maybe, if I can finance it
properly.
JUDGE TINLEY: Are you going to bring those --
MR. ODOM: I will bring them to you.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- arrangements back to us?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Looking for a motion.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion and second for
approval of the agenda item. Any question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ; Why do we need a motion? We're
11-13-06
117
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
not doing anything.
MR. ODOM: Well, the --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We're moving the money up
into this year's, as opposed --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, we are.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's budgeted.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It's budgeted. I mean, to
me, it's more a direction.
MR. ODOM: More direction.
JUDGE TINLEY: You don't need a formal order from
I the Court?
MR. ODOM: I don't think so, other than I want it
officially on record that I've asked permission to do this.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. ODOM: And y'all wouldn't be surprised when I
come in with it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, hold on a second. Are
you okay with that, Mr. County Attorney?
MR. EMERSON: I think I'm lost somewhere in here,
whether we're purchasing, leasing, or --
JUDGE TINLEY: We don't know.
MR. ODOM: We don't know. We're going to look at
the most financial -- best aspect that we can get.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: He's just advising us that he
wants to look at various options.
11-13-06
118
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The money's been budgeted.
Go buy it. See you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I withdraw the motion.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Or lease it or whatever.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Someone's got to sign.
JUDGE TINLEY: He's going to bring any formal
transaction back to us for final approval anyway, so it
doesn't make any difference. Okay, let's move to Item 19;
consider, discuss, take appropriate action to set public
hearing for revision of plat for Lots 124B and 131A of Falling
Water, as set forth in Volume 7, Page 52, Plat Records.
MR. ODOM: For the record, that's Precinct 3. That
was left off.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They dust do them and then undo
them again.
MR. ODOM: Now, I am sorry. I looked at this this
morning; I thought she had it in. But I don't know if she
gave you a copy of what I've -- of the revision. But the
owners would like to combine two lots into one under the
alternate plat process. This meets all the requirements of
Kerr County Subdivision Rules, and we ask at this time to set
a public hearing for January the 8th, 2007, at 10:15 --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
MR. ODOM: -- a.m.
11-13-06
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: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to set a
public hearing on the agenda item for January 8, 2007, at
10:15 a.m. 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. Now do we go
to 22? Item 20, consider discuss, and take appropriate action
regarding application for grant for Peterson Foundation to
purchase a new Live Scan Fingerprint System. Before you get
started, Sheriff, if you go past 12:00, lunch is on you.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I can make it real short. The
whole backup's in your packet. (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You're not going to like
the lunch over at the jail.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Probably not.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It's called quality control.
You need to eat over there once in a while.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I talked to a couple of
buddies of mine over the weekend around the state and asked
them about this thing, and everybody's saying that this is the
state of the art.
11-13-06
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
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No ands, ifs, or buts.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Pretty neat if we get it funded.
I'm in favor of it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I am too. I'm in favor of
Rusty going to Peterson Foundation to get a grant.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's a motion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It was.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of the agenda item. Any questions or discussion? All in
favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Let's go to
Item 21; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action
regarding approval of a new telecommunications equipment lease
with Windstream Communications.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You have a copy of the lease
agreement with you. It's one that has been worked for quite a
while. I know it's been talked about at different times
whether to do the entire courthouse under one -- or entire
county, or just ours. I need to get moved on -- moving
forward with our system. We do have the problems with not
enough lines and busy signals, and this has gone to the Court
11-13-06
121
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
two or three times. I spoke to Curtis again this morning.
Whether you do it this way or whether you do it all as one
won't change the bottom line price to the County, 'cause the
equipment's different and set-up's different. He said it
wouldn't have any effect on it. Number two is, I did have
added in under the indemnity clause, "to the extent allowed by
law." They did change that contract, put that in there. But
Rex just pointed out one other one on Page 8 of the contract,
15.01, Parties' Expenses. Under that paragraph, he'd like to
see if they would also add the same thing. But it is under
the indemnity. I don`t know if they'll go back and let us
hand-write that in there or if they will add that same thing
or not, but --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tell me what you're talking
about. 15.01?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Page 8, 15.01, where it says
"Parties' Expenses." Lessee shall pay -- you can read the
paragraph, but right at the end, Rex suggested a little while
ago that we also have them put that in there, "to the extent
allowed by law."
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Those words, "to the extent
allowed by law"?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's correct. Same words we
added at the end of the indemnity deal.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You have funds in your budget to
11-13-C6
122
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
cover this?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. In reality, this --
the -- even though there's a couple other pages for the
agreement of communications services and the maintenance
schedule, all those figures that are on those two separate
little agreements are figured into the bottom line price on
Exhibit A of the original agreement. The 583.02 is the cost,
and currently ours is 640-something or 680-something, so this
is actually going down over the lease period, not going up.
And Curtis did tell me he is working on the one for the entire
courthouse for y'all.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move approval of it -- of the
agreement with Windstream for telecommunications equipment,
Sheriff's Department, with the addition of language on 15.01.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And if they do not add that
additional language, is there any guidance on that one
paragraph? Is there any guidance from the Court on what I
should do? 'Cause I don't know.
JUDGE TINLEY: Don't sign it.
I COMMISSIONER LETZ: Don't sign it.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It's not me. It's going to be
you, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: I ain't going to sign it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And authorize the County Judge
to same -- sign same.
11-13-06
123
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Oh, and on the other grant, I
do need the authorization --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: On the grant, I need the Judge
to sign that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Any
question or discussion on the motion? Mr. Trolinger, have
you reviewed the enclosed equipment, on the telephone --
MR. TROLINGER: No, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- equipment?
MR. TROLINGER: No, sir, but it's been since June
that this has been going on, and I know I did look at -- at
that time, I looked into it, the scope of it.
JUDGE TINLEY: And this is adequate for his needs
out there, plus it gives some expansion capability?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I can answer that. It
definitely does.
MR. TROLINGER: It did in June.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. It adds a whole 'nother
module, a lot more lines, and up to 24 more e-mails. It
expands that whole system at the same time.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any other questions or
comments? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your
right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
11-13-06
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
124
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(NO response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Let's move
to Item 22. Commissioner Williams, you had mentioned to me
that that item probably needed to be passed?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We'll just withdraw that.
Mr. Weinberg's had a change of heart since he --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- since he learned he only
has to go to five meetings next year instead of 12.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh my gosh.
JUDGE TINLEY: He can fit that into his schedule,
huh? Great. Let's go to Item 23; consider, discuss and take
appropriate action to adopt a resolution opposing state
legislation that would impose revenue and appraisal caps
and/or un -- I assume that means unfunded mandates?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir, that's what it
means.
JUDGE TINLEY: On Texas counties and cities.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I placed this on the agenda,
Judge, because we're getting to that time when the Legislature
is about to reconvene, and the governor has a task force out
and about the state whose appearance most recently was in San
Antonio last Friday, taking testimony, which this task force
commission is going to recommend certain aspects of
11-13-06
125
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
legislation regarding these two items. It appears that we're
going to be faced with the same legislative concerns and
battles that we faced two years ago with respect to these caps
that are being proposed by the governor. And it was my
thought that perhaps we'd like to be on record as not being in
favor of it, and let our legislators know that. That's the
purpose of the resolution.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, when we talk about
capping the appraisals, through the years, government entities
in this county -- county and city and other agencies have
basically lived on the increase in appraisals. And because of
the increase in appraisals, we haven't had to raise taxes
because of that increase. And now that there's a tax freeze
in both city and county, the legislators now want to come
along and cap that appraisal.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They -- that doesn't appear
to be a real friendly move, to me, toward local government at
all.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It truly is not,
Commissioner. It is a very unfriendly move, and it's the
same -- it's the same repeat of what the governor attempted to
do two years ago, capping the ability of county -- revenue
streams that the county government or any local government
relies on to perform the services that are required of us to
I1-13-06
126
1 do.
2
3
4 on,
5 alr
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Correct.
going to be a lot of ratcheting down. And it seems to me to
be an improper attack on the appraisal system. The appraisal
system was set up by the state Legislature to appraise
properties within 5 percent of market value, so I don't know
how you're going to reconcile that law, which has been on the
books since Hector was a pup, with caps that somebody's trying
to impose on top of. So, it just seems to me we ought to be
on record as not being in favor of that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And then you have the tax
freeze, and now we're talking about appraisal caps, plus all
of those things they send down here, the -- the things that
Rusty talks about at his jail as an example, the taking care
of these people. The State says you shall take care of these
people in a certain way, but they don't send any money down
here for us to do that; we have to scurry around. It just
seems awful unfair, and I'm going to make a point here that
our State Representative is major in favor of this kind of --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir.
of appraisal caps.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: He is?
11-13-06
127
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 WILLIAMS: Yes, he is.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: How about our senator? Do
we know about that?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Senator? Who is that?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Fraser.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, yeah, he will be.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Did they notice the -- the
governor didn't get six out of ten votes in the last election?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't think it has anything
to do with that any more. I think it has to do with
appointments and being friends and -- and being able to have
lunch with so-and-so and so-and-so nowadays.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm surprised at
particularly Harvey, but also Fraser.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The -- I don't know that
about Fraser, but just watching his background, he probably
really likes this stuff.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Now, what you've just said
is -- is quite true in terms of the whole -- in the context of
the whole picture; that if you look at the Q and A that was
provided to us by our Texas Association of Counties General
Counsel, 50 percent of the county budget is used for jails and
law enforcement. 65 percent of county budgets are used for
State-required services. This is the point you're trying to
make, Commissioner. And the largest local optional
11-13-06
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
expenditure that we have anything to do with, really, aside
from mandates, is roads and transportation, and we fund that
through variable sources. Counties collect 14 percent of the
taxes -- of property taxes. Cities collect 15 percent.
School districts collect 60 percent. Special districts
collect 11. But yet counties and cities are getting hammered
with this type of legislation. Doesn't make any sense.
COMMISSIONER LET2: I think it's a feel-good
legislation for those legislators so that they can go to the
people that elected them and say, "I've lowered your taxes,"
and they don't have to deal with the consequences of that
decision.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's true.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I guess that's right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Of course, ad valorem tax is
the most unfair tax in existence today, and they all know
that. They know that the ad valorem taxes is goofy. But why
don't they fix the system? Why don't they fix it? I don't
have an answer for them. Unless it's sales tax or --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: State income tax.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- a flat income tax or a
flat tax. Or, you know, there's got to be something to do
with that. But as opposed to rolling up their sleeves and
fixing the problem, they send this crap. And I've just
about --
11-13-06
129
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 WILLIAMS: About had it?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've just about had it. I
went on the radio a couple weeks ago, and I called Harvey and
told him to listen, 'cause I was going to get on him. This is
coming down the pike, so I'm on him.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree totally. They need to
fix the problem, not pass the buck.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, they need to fix it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree. I move the
adoption of the resolution.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for adoption
of the resolution as indicated by the agenda item. Any
further question or discussion on the motion? All in favor of
the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I will also do an article in
the state magazine coming up soon.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You will?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's good.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You have power these days.
11-13-06
130
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
You're a --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm a big shot.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You're a big shot.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Of course, I can't spell big
shot, but --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But I are one?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But I are one. (Laughter.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move to Item 24; consider,
discuss, and approve revised Subdivision Rules and Regulations
and set a public hearing for the same.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, are we going to work
until we're done, or are we going to go to lunch? I have no
preference.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why don't we work through
and get it done?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Commissioner Letz, I want to
ask you about one of the conversations that we had a few
minutes ago in regards to family water systems and -- and is
that in here? That is no longer going to be allowed? That
there has to be -- I've been sitting here thinking about that
ever since you said that. What does -- what does that
accomplish, once we say to a family that you can't share water
with your brother next door? What are we trying to accomplish
with that? And let me finish here. The -- it seems to me --
it seems to me that the Headwaters Underground Water District
ii-i3-o6
131
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
is heading off into la-la land to me, as far as I'm concerned.
And the lady was here just a few minutes ago, and I'm -- I'm
sorry she's not still here.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Was that her?
AUDIENCE: Yes, it was.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The lady -- the new board
member.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let's call her back so she
can hear what we have to say.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It just seems like to me that
they're getting out in left field with some of their thinking.
And I'm wondering how this is going to -- how this is going to
play into -- into their game. If we -- if we tell a relative
that they can't provide water, so that's going to require
somebody -- all of these four lots or whatever in this
specific issue a while ago, they have to provide their own
water well. And here you're only talking a few acres. What
is Headwaters going to require, and how -- how will this thing
play into their la-la-ville direction?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Two questions. Well, let me
answer two ways. One, if it's a family -- truly a family,
they're exempt by law from platting, so they have nothing --
this doesn't affect them one way or the other. They can do
whatever they want.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That was good, Judge.
11-13-06
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
JUDGE TINLEY: That's the response.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let the record show...
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- I think -- but for the
non-family ones -- and the family ones, I have absolutely no
problem with them doing it. What has happened, we've had
several come through us of people trying to get around the
platting requirement, and -- or lot size requirement, and
putting these non-family real small agreements -- well use
agreements together, and they end up having problems lots of
times, I think, as you and I both know. I mean, working --
you know, a well goes down, then they put -- I think Bill had
one in his district; a constituent said they were -- one
wanted to cut off the other one, and then they ended up in a
lawsuit over it. I think that happens quite a bit on these
type of -- 'cause there's really no formal agreement. And
this would just, I think, eliminate that happening. There are
very few true water systems that are not T.C.E.Q. and
non-family really around any more. And the few that have
come -- I think we've had three come before the Court this
year that were really just trying to circumvent the rules.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: T.C.E.Q.'s threshold is 16
or more connections?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's 15, 15 or more.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 15?
11-13-06
133
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: But we're going to be more
restrictive than that. We're going to say if it's two or
three, you've got to go get a T.C.E.Q. license? They're
really hard to deal with. You know, they're not -- the
individuals are not hard to deal with; the regulations are
hard to deal with. It drives your costs up a lot.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Let's go through them, and we
can see -- and, you know, we can hopefully make a decision
today. The changes are not that many.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Most of them we talked about
last time. Page 14, the changes are all highlighted in gray,
or shaded in gray.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Take out "drinking"?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, no. Drinking, that's --
this is the current language that's been changed. I had
potable drinking water. It's probably a little bit redundant.
Rather than just potable water, we used to say, but that --
all that gray language has been added.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, you added the word
"drinking"?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I added the word "drinking."
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Potable doesn't mean
I drinkable?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I think it does, but I
11-13-06
134
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
think that -- I just decided to add it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 14 --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just leave me alone, Buster.
The part that's -- the change is on, if you go to Sb, it
says -- the third part of that will now read, "The total
number of lots permitted in any subdivision that uses a
community or public water system licensed by T.C.E.Q." That's
saying that you've got to have a T.C.E.Q. licensed system to
get down to a -- less than 5 acres. Now, they can be more --
they can be at 5 acres and still do a -- a handshake-type deal
if they want. Doesn't have any impact. Doesn't prohibit
them. It just says you're not going to get a smaller acreage
lot size.
	COMMISSIONER	NICHOLSON: So, if you got lots that
are more -	- 5 or more	acres, this doesn't apply?
	COMMISSIONER	LETZ: Hmm-mm.
	COMMISSIONER	NICHOLSON: Okay, that helps some.
	COMMISSIONER	LETZ: And -- and part of the problem
was whethe	r -- I don't	know that we're -- you know, we're
currently	in a situati	on where we -- if we allow this, the
people --	then we're a	llowing a plat to go through, and then
Headwaters	won't give	them a well permit.
	COMMISSIONER	BALDWIN: That's my question.
	COMMISSIONER	LETZ: Yeah.
	COMMISSIONER	BALDWIN: That's my question.
11-13-06
135
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That does exist. That's not the
total reason for doing it, but there is a situation now that
exists where, under our rules as we currently have them, we
approve a lot, and Headwaters doesn't approve a well because
they don't do wells on -- the spacing isn't correct for them.
But that's not the -- you know, that's not my reasoning for
doing it. My reasoning is that I think people are
circumventing the rules and doing things, getting into a lot
of issues with not having agreements properly.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If that were to happen, what
you just said, --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- would that not be, in
effect, inverse condemnation of that person's property?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We'll have to ask the
attorney.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's -- well, I look at that
as a Headwaters issue. I don't think Headwaters really has
any authority to set lot sizes. They set well spacing and
pumping limits, in my opinion.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, I mean, that's -- you know,
but I don't know how Headwaters wants to interpret that. We
have worked fairly closely with Headwaters up to now. I
think, you know, hopefully we certainly will in the future as
11-13-06
136
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to, you know, make -- try and have the same go together, our
lot sizes and their pumping limits and spacing requirements.
But, you know, I don't think that -- there's a benefit from
keeping that conflict -- from doing it, by making this change.
If we don't make this change, I think we need to make a
requirement that it can't just be a -- a handshake agreement.
I
I think there needs to be a real agreement, because I think it
causes some real problems.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, we've had those.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think it's a -- you know,
'cause -- and we used to have the word "shared well." There's
a -- "shared well" is what really caused the problem; that I
took out altogether. So, anyway, it's -- you know, I have no
strong feeling one way or the other on this. It was just a --
we discussed it a couple weeks ago. I can rewrite it allowing
getting rid of it as strict as this is and reducing it to
making them at least have a -- a written agreement.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Will T.C.E.Q. license
situations less than 15?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They're not even a part of
the deal. The --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, they won't. But all
we're -- what we're saying is that if you're licensed, you get
to go to a 3 -- a 3-acre average lot size.
11-13-06
137
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're just saying that if you're
not licensed by T.C.E.Q., you're not getting -- you can have a
5-acre lot size. We're not saying you can't do it. We're
just saying you're going to have to have a 5-acre minimum lot
size.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And which -- let me say, and
what that does, it allows those people to easily get an
individual well if they want down the road. They're not
boxing themselves in by -- into that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: My concern is that if you
had -- if you had good neighbors and you have an agreement --
a written legal document agreement on this providing water one
to another, I -- I just -- I have a hard time seeing where
that's any of my business as a government to tell them that
they can't do that. I struggle with that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, it just goes into the --
I the --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 'Cause if it falls to
protecting the property --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, not protecting it. Just
goes into we're allowing a higher -- if you're on a community
water system, we allow a higher density. It's just a matter
of that, because of economics, and also water use and
11-13-06
138
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
penetrations into -- you know, things of that nature. So, we
give a -- our whole rules provide a -- I guess an incentive
being able to go to a smaller lot size if you go with central
water systems and central sewer systems. That's just part of
that. It's just --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just don't -- I understand
what you're saying, and I really don't have a fight with that.
I'm just -- my concern is -- is what we approve here, and we
say 3 acres or 5 acres or whatever the issue might be, and
then the people leave this room and go over to Headwaters to
make sure that they're going to have potable drinking water,
drinkable water, and Headwaters says no, no, no. You -- you
can't drill a well; your lot's too small. Then what -- I
mean, what happens there?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I think it's -- I think
the County may be in a little bit of an awkward situation. If
we -- if we knowingly allow lots to be done that are in
conflict with other laws, I guess we're protected from the
standpoint we say you also have to follow all other laws,
including -- we specifically name Headwaters. I mean, I don't
know if -- you know, I would defer to Rex on that, if we have
any exposure if we knowingly allow -- but we're really
knowingly not allowing those lots because they have a shared
well agreement. They have an agreement that allows for one
well to serve more than one lot. So, we're -- I think we can
11-13-06
139
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
clearly do it. I think that our experience hasn't been real
good of them working real well, and if you think it" s none of
our business, I don't have a strong disagreement that it's
none of our business.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm just concerned about what
Headwaters is going to do down the road. I really have a
concern about that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- well, I think that up
until now -- and I hope Headwaters will continue to look at
data coming from Region J and others, and do what they've been
doing. I mean, I don't -- I mean, up till now, they haven't
been unreasonable in giving well permits, so I don't know why
they would change, you know. But I've tried to write our
Subdivision Rules -- they have nothing to do with Headwaters.
I mean, other than fact that we listen to Headwaters when they
-- you know, certainly, I'm aware of what their rules are. I
think we try to make them mesh where we can. I think we've
been able to up till now. But, like I say, we deal with more
public safety issues, and because of water availability, the
Legislature gave counties the ability to set lot sizes. They
didn't give Headwaters the ability to set lot sizes.
Headwaters has authority to do pumping limits and well
spacing.
	COMMISSIONER	BALDWIN:	Can you	get	that	to me	in
writing?	I'm not sure	they know	that.	That'	s my	-- tha	t's my
11-13-06
140
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
bottom line statement. I'm not sure they understand that they
can't set the size of a lot.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, that -- but that's not our
problem.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand. I understand.
But the person that comes in that's developing the property or
buying the property, he lives here; he's going to be in a
dilemma then.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They do it de facto by well
spacing. They don't come out and say, "We're going to have
Lots 2, 3, 4, 5-acre." They do it de facto. You got to have
"X" number of space between wells, so in effect, they've done
it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Except that the problem coming
from Headwaters' standpoint is, lots -- well spacing works
fairly well in a perfect world of uniform size lots.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It doesn't work with our lots,
'cause we never get uniform size lots.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All of ours are odd-shaped, in
which case you start getting into a real issue. It's very
conceivable that you can have 6-acre lot sizes, and by well
spacing rules, not be able to put wells.
11-13-06
141
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because you've got long, skinny,
and weird-shaped lots, and where -- I mean, where the first
person puts their house in a subdivision starts dictating
where all the other houses can be located. And you may not
have locations that are -- you know, with our terrain, that
you can do that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And there's one member of
that board who lives in my precinct who just can't quite
understand that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, but that's not our
problem.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I realize.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Anyway, maybe we ought to go on
through all the changes and see if all of them -- the changes
on the next page, the first paragraph are the same. Second --
it's all the same until we get to the last gray under 5.01.E.
We included the City of Kerrville and the City of Ingram as
areas that qualify as high-density development areas. We had
not included them previously, just the ETJ's. The next change
is on the next page, and again, this is the same issue on the
water, T.C.E.Q. issue. Next page, 19, there's no change here.
I'm just highlighting, 'cause we are going to get in some of
the FEMA issues later. There`s no change here. Concrete
monuments are still required if any portion of a subdivision
11-13-06
142
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
is in the floodplain. And then the next one, there was just a
change in spacing for drainage; there's no substantive change
there. Next is Page 26, and there is -- we need to hand-write
in a change -- where did I write it? I thought I wrote it --
let me look at my other 26. I'm looking for something. I
have a handwritten note somewhere, and it's not on the copy
that I grabbed to look for. Anyway, the change here is the
second sentence, "Minimum size shall be 21 inches vertical and
26 inches horizontal." That should be 24 inch and 36 inch,
and that's what the surveyors say fits better. And this is no
longer an issue, because we're changing our plat cabinet
system where we're not going to use plat cabinets.
MR. ODOM: I'm sorry, did you say 36 or 30?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 36.
MR. ODOM: So, minimum is 24 and 36?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The -- the maximum sizes are
correct?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. Next, on Page 27, you
might remember that -- I think Don Voelkel was the main one
speaking -- that there is a potential problem that if we put
~ the actual base flood elevation number on a plat lot, that
that number is changed. The current language is as we have in
B, and then the first shaded part under 6.02.C.13. That's
currently in there, but what I would propose doing is adding
11-13-06
143
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
floodplain, the current 100-year floodplain shall be shaded on
the plat and a plat note shall be added to the plat as
follows: Lots numbered "blank" have areas within the 100-year
"blank", dated "blank", and shaded hereon. Prior to any
construction on these lots, owner shall obtain a floodplain
development permit from Kerr County Floodplain Administrator
to insure compliance with Kerr County Flood Damage Prevention
Order. So, we would also then take the Paragraph B above and
move that down below that, that paragraph I just read. The
question is -- we have two questions here. One, I know
probably Leonard could read it, or -- I don't know if Rex
wants to look at this a little bit. There is a requirement
under the federal statutes that -- what's that -- read that
sentence about data, Leonard, would you?
MR. ODOM: Well, it essentially says that you can
have a shaded area, but then the other comes back and says
that -- requires that all new subdivision proposals and other
proposed developments, including proposals for manufactured
home parks and subdivisions greater than 50 lots or 5 acres,
!, whichever is lesser, include within such proposal base flood
elevation data. So, I take that to be finished floor.
11-13-06
144
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
comes back and it says these parameters. And so --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The question is, does base flood
~I elevation data mean a number, or does it mean a shaded area?
MR. ODOM: Shaded area.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or can it mean a shaded area?
MR. EMERSON: I'll find out for you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. ODOM: And if we do -- excuse me. If we do
change the thing, we need to change our Flood Prevention
Order.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We need to change that either
way, 'cause this is different than any language we have, and
we need to get them into the same -- the Flood Prevention
Order definitely needs to be changed once we decide on the
language we want to use. Next, on Page 33, the paragraph
that's shaded we moved to this location. Same language, but
it was in a spot that it wasn't practical on how the money was
being spent. They need to -- this is now done before the
final plat. Anyway, it's just more a timing issue as to when
that data's actually done.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's a good one.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No change. And the -- 42, I
think that's the last one -- yeah, 42. Some of our -- we
require 8-inch base in some roads, collectors and arterials,
and we added that language in here to allow that, you know,
11-13-06
145
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
8 inches. We used to say 6 inches, and it was in conflict
with another paragraph. And then on Page 47, as you've heard
-- well, first on 46, under Minimum Requirements, we had a
typo under Arterial Road. We say 90 feet; previously it just
said 90. Then on the next page, adding some language to
give -- Kerr County Subdivision Administrator may approve
equivalent depth requirements and base materials to meet the
requirements for minimum compacted depth of base and minimum
base material; see Section 7.06.8 and Appendix I. That's
giving, basically, Leonard a little flexibility, that if he's
out there on a road that is an existing road, it may not have
the specified -- the current specification exactly for the
base; however, in his opinion, it's an equivalent, he can make
that approval without having to come to us and give us a
waiver. That's it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you want approval, or are
you going to let these other people look at it and come back?
Or --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would probably say that, you
know, Rex needs to look clearly at that one, because that's
something that we definitely don't want to get in violation of
the federal statute in the floodplain, and see exactly what we
need to do there. I think the change is a good one. The
recommendation -- if we can do it. On the first one, I think
I just need direction from the Court what we want to allow on
11-13-06
146
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
lot size with T.C.E.Q., 'cause -- and, see, I have --
certainly, it's stricter than it was. We can change it to
what I recommended, or we can modify it a little bit and just
require that they have a contract on the -- on how the
community -- the non-T.C.E.Q. water systems are to be managed.
Whenever we get these finalized, we need to approve them and
do a public hearing.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You know, just -- just the
contract doesn't necessarily solve the problem. If you do a
', linear contract and suddenly have a change of mind and not
renew the contract, you got the same problem all over again.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Probably a bigger problem.
Probably.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If you have a contract? 'i
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. I
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Even if you have a contract, the
consequences if they don't follow it.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let me ask you again,
Commissioner. I may not be listening as well as I should.
The T.C.E.Q. has got some minimum, either 15 -- 14 or 15 or
16; we're not sure.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Are we going to be
requiring systems -- community systems with fewer than that to
get a T.C.E.Q. license?
11-13-06
147
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, 'cause T.C.E.Q. will not
give the license. We're just saying that you're not going to
get -- if you're going to be less than 15 connections, and not
a family connection, then you're going to have to have 5-acre
lot sizes. That's what we're saying.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. I'm all right with
I that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay with me.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What will Headwaters require?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If that's -- if that is
agreeable, then I think we probably could approve it subject
to Rex looking at the language, and we'll just go with the
version that's required by federal law.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And we need to set a public
hearing. I did make a motion to approve them subject to
visiting with the County Attorney on the one floodplain issue,
and set a public hearing. Rex, do we need 30 days, or can we
do it in 15 days, since I don't think there was actually any
requirement for a public hearing? Or is there, on these
rules?
MR. EMERSON: I think there is a requirement for a
public hearing under Subdivision Rules.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 30 days?
MR. EMERSON: It is.
11-13-06
148
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: At least, yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, need to have a public
hearing.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 27th?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: January 8th.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: January 8th, 2007. This way we
won't have a problem with the other one, either.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 27th.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, we can do it -- when's our
first meeting in December? Nope, it will have to be
January 8th.
JUDGE TINLEY: What time?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 11:00?
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We have a motion for approval
and setting a public hearing -- approval subject to the
working out of the floodplain base flood elevation language,
and setting the public hearing for January 8th, '07, at
11 a.m. 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.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, why don't we -- why
don't we break for lunch, let these people go eat lunch, and
11-13-06
149
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
then we'll come back and pay bills and get our reports, and
that's it. I mean, we're -- but you're talking about more
than just a few minutes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You have -- don't you have an
item yet?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, we're down to bills and
reports now.
JUDGE TINLEY: No.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: From the departments?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: At least we ought to do that
while they're here.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah, they've waited a long
I time.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We've got the Auditor; he's
ready to go.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I didn't think he had the
~ energy.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Let's move to Item 25,
departmental reports. Facilities and Maintenance. I think we
kind of already got that this morning, didn't we?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think we can draw a line through
I that one.
11-13-06
lso
1
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. DAVIDSON: It's okay? Bye, then. Is that it?
Bye. See y'all. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: That put a smile on their face as
they ran to lunch. I.T. John? How bad do you want to go to
lunch?
MR. TROLINGER: Is it lunchtime? Good afternoon.
I've just got two items on the written report that I
distributed this morning. Y'all should have a copy. The
Sheriff's starting -- starting a program of scanning his paper
documents in the jail, and law enforcement's real good at that
end. It's going to simplify life a lot for the Sheriff's
Office. Odyssey public access is online for criminal and
civil jail and bond records, Tax Assessor and appraisal
records. I consider this to be the substantial completion of
the project.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Appraisal's online now?
MR. TROLINGER: Tax, yes. Tax and appraisal; I
lumped it together. But it's the Tax Assessor/Collector.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: About the privacy notice stuff
on law enforcement officers?
MR. TROLINGER: That -- that's -- I think you're
referring to the employee records?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: well --
MR. TROLINGER: Privacy statement? Or the --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Referring to a law enforcement
11-13-06
151
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
officer's home address and things like that online, okay? And
I think that there was -- and I was told -- Diane wasn't there
when I went to talk with her about forms that can be signed to
keep law enforcement officers' home addresses off of the
public data.
MR. TROLINGER: Yes.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And if there is, I would
appreciate you waiting to put all that online until we can get
those officers' addresses privatized if that officer wants it.
I don't think he needs to have his -- his home address put
online to anybody that wants to pull it up.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is that permitted under state law?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes.
MR. TROLINGER: I met with the Tax Assessor --
JUDGE TINLEY: They've got a good lobby, don't they?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't know where it came
from, but this is on officers' personal information and on
addresses.
MR. TROLINGER: I met with the Tax Assessor about a
month ago regarding this when -- when we got serious about
putting the records online, and she told me that there was
a -- basically a form that could be filled out by law
enforcement officers, and I think there was another group, and
I went to each -- what I thought was the department that was
11-13-06
152
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
involved, the Sheriff being the number one, and notified them.
But it's probably been --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: What did I tell you? I wanted
to get the forms, and I haven't had a chance to get the forms.
And I hope you don't have it already online, 'cause Diane
wasn't there when I went to get --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is this about protecting
the home address of law enforcement officers? I can Google
you on the Internet this afternoon and find out what the
square footage of your house is.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, no, a lot of that
appraisal stuff did go off, okay?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm just using that as an
example.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah. But, no, I think with
law enforcement --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If they want to find out
where you live, they're going to find out.
MR. TROLINGER: In any case, the records are already
available on the Central Appraisal District's website, for the
most part. And this is basically the same thing, but with the
payment history that the Tax Assessor -- where the tax
collections history has been added to it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Will there be a problem going
in there and removing his address?
11-13-06
153
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
MR. TROLINGER: From the Tax Assessor's site? No.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Anybody's site.
MR. TROLINGER: But from the Central Appraisal, I
don't have any say-so over that.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But there are forms. I think
every officer needs to be given a chance to get those forms
filled out.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Why haven't you done that up
to this -- before today?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Because that first came up
election night, and Diane Bolin wasn't available to get the
forms, and people in her office didn't know.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've never heard such whining
in my life.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I just think it's jumping too
quick to give officers' addresses.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, we'll do everything we
can to take them out, if you`ll provide them with the --
whoever wants to be protected. Right?
MR. TROLINGER: Actually, it's up to the Tax
Assessor/Collector; it's not up to me.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The only heartburn I have over
it is they agreed to wait until we could see what the officers
were doing, and that didn't happen.
11-13-06
154
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with you.
MR. TROLINGER: And it sounds like the Sheriff did
not have that meeting with Diane Bolin in time to head this
off.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's correct. Now I'm mad.
MR. TROLINGER: And I assisted the Collections
Department with financial reporting and automation, and I'd
like to commend Collections. Brad's doing a really good job
at taking advantage of the Odyssey system in general, and
helping other departments implement the system. And we're
starting to take advantage of the advance features, especially
in his office. Those are the highlights I wanted to give.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What do you mean in this
one? "The County Clerk's office continues to assess fees and
court costs when filing new cases? I.T. will no longer pursue
this issue."
MR. TROLINGER: I got in the middle of a procedural
policy, how things are done in the office, issue at some point
two months ago -- before that, and made an attempt to get --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Impose your rule?
MR. TROLINGER: -- the procedure changed. I -- I
came and reported to y'all on that. You kind of nodded your
heads and said yes. I made the change. They changed it back.
That's as much as I can do.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
11-13-06
155
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. TROLINGER: I talked to all the parties
involved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. TROLINGER: Just a better way of doing things.
It's procedural.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: John, what's your feeling on
getting all the problems resolved with Odyssey that came out
-- that were kind of put forward by the president, or whoever
those folks were? I know I sat in on that meeting for a
while, and Buster did as well. Can't remember who else. When
they came down here and admitted that there was -- they sold
the product to us that had a lot more problems than they
thought. And, actually, it wasn't -- they weren't concerned
they sold it to us; it's that they sold it to others after us.
Is that -- are you comfortable with that? We're getting what
the taxpayers paid for?
MR. TROLINGER: For the courts, I am. For law
enforcement and jail, there are issues that need to be
resolved, but for the courts side, I'm very satisfied with tYie
software system. And to answer your question, Software Group
will be here tomorrow with that list that was generated when
they came on-site and met with the Sheriff and with you all.
They'll be here tomorrow all day to meet with the -- one-hour
period each with the various offices and departments. And
then the actual changes go in effect for tests tomorrow night,
11-13-06
156
1
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 then Wednesday night is when they go live on our -- what's
called production system.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, you think that with a --
within a reasonable period of time, they will fix all of the
problems that are known? I mean, granted, there's some new
ones that may come up. I guess my -- let me go -- head this a
little bit different way.
MR. TROLINGER: Oh-huh.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're spending a lot of money on
this software, and we did it in large part because of a
personnel savings down the road, which didn't happen this year
because there were problems with the system. Is it going to
be rectified this year?
MR. TROLINGER: Is what going to be rectified? This
is -- there are 3,000 screens on this system; it's just huge.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, but -- I understand that.
MR. TROLINGER: The major -- the prime issues that
were brought out, I believe tomorrow they're going to visit
with each office, each department, and address -- "Here's what
we're fixing today," literally, and "Here's what's going to be
fixed in December, and then here's what's going to be fixed in
March of next year." That's their outlook right now.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. So, their goal is to have
everything working properly by March '07?
MR. TROLINGER: It's hard to say. Software is just
11-13-06
157
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
so complex. You know, tomorrow we may find a problem and have
to delay December. But, no, the only outlook that I've got
right now is that we've got a patch cycle and a release cycle,
and those are the dates that I have right now.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me come at it from the
back door. Has anything been identified by our user group
that they have refused to fix?
MR. TROLINGER: No.
~ COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. Just --
MR. TROLINGER: Not that I know of.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just wanted to make sure we got
what we paid for.
MR. TROLINGER: But just -- just the example that
you gave where they -- they stopped the sales process until
they get everything caught up to where it needs to be. I'm
really encouraged with the support, and it's second to none
for the -- for what it is. Software's a very complex,
expensive thing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Expensive, yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions for
Mr. Trolinger? Thank you, sir.
MR. TROLINGER: You're welcome.
11-13-06
158
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Road and Bridge?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. Road projects, September and
October, used approximately 16,000 gallons of oil to seal Kerr
Country Drive, Stonybrook, Drummond, Andrew. We're still
working -- waiting on paperwork from the property owner there
in Upper Turtle Creek so we can open that realignment; we
haven't heard anything or got anything, so I don't know where
that status is at this point. We're just waiting for them to
come through and open it up. We have two crews repairing --
the streets were torn up for the sewer projects in Kerrville
South. We've essentially got that done. Talking to Gail this
morning, we feel like the final level-ups and all that we'll
have done. Should be done by the end of this week, so we'll
keep a tally of that, and will get reimbursed from the
contractor on our asphalt. And so we'll keep -- that was the
meeting I had with that gentleman, to get reimbursed from his
account.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that the plan, to
reimburse us for asphalt?
MR. ODOM: Asphalt.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What about time? Hours?
MR. ODOM: Well, I -- you know, that's something I
guess the Court needs to address. I was told go do it.
That's what I'm doing. So, I want at least my material,
because I did not have that. So that is something --
11-13-06
159
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I thought the grant included
the putting the streets back into the condition prior to.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, the grant paid for --
there's a bone of contention here that has to get resolved.
We'll have to work our way through it. The contractor
contends that he restored the cuts -- fills and cuts up to
what the specifications called for. You're shaking your head,
but that's what he contends.
MR. ODOM: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And I've raised the issue
with the engineer, because we've had to spend time and
materials to put a layer on top of where he let off about an
inch.
MR. ODOM: About an inch.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: About an inch.
MR. ODOM: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In order to finally do a
sealcoat at some point in time, when Leonard gets around to
doing that. So, we have to work our way through the issue,
see if we can get reimbursed for it.
MR. ODOM: Part of the problem was that we had an
appendix which shows how to do that. What was proposed at the
initial meeting was a variance from that to bring it up to
3,000 p.s.i. concrete, so we wouldn't have to cement it. That
was flush. What happened is that the city inspector got there
11-13-06
160
1
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 changed everything up, and dropped it down to an inch. In
other words, city inspector says, "This is what we want.
You're not going to put this 3,000 p.s.i. in there; we may
have to dig it up sometime in the future."
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's why we have this
issue.
MR. ODOM: That's the reason there is a problem.
And so the plan was doing sort of what it was said. So, I
think that is something that we can address at some time in
the future, but I just tell you that the asphalt is something
I did not budget for to be used like that. So, I feel like if
I can get that money, that is just something that -- it's over
with and we go on down the road.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're saying that we address
this in the future. Did you just tell us that the city
inspector is making decisions on county roads?
MR. ODOM: That's correct, sir. That was their
project.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, not on county roads.
He made a change after the specifications have been all agreed
to, specifications of the project, which the contractor
adhered to and the engineer had certified and we agreed to.
Then the city inspector came along and said no, we can't have
that. I've got to make a change in terms of the fill, so that
makes it easier for us if there's a line break somewhere to go
11-13-06
161
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
down there and find the line break and fix it. The result of
that was, the contractor did what -- then adhered to the
change recommended by the City, and filling it back up, he
I
', came to within an inch or an inch and a half of the top. That
created the problem. So, the change wasn't the contractor's
fault, wasn't our fault. It was the change that was initiated
by the city Public Works Department that created the problem.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, the City -- was the City --
I'm kind of where Buster is. Was the City inspecting the
roads or the sewer?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They were inspecting the
fill. The cut and the fill.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I don't have a problem
-- well, I got a problem with it either way, but if they're
inspecting the sewer line which they're going to end up --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Maintaining.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- maintaining, they have a
reason to make some comment. But they don't have any business
inspecting our roads.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, that wasn't the case. I
don't think we're trying to say that they were inspecting the
road. They were inspecting the cut and the fill and the cap,
and they changed the specs.
MR. ODOM: Changed the specs. And so the aftermath
was, here's what I had.
11-13-06
162
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why don't you send the City the
bill?
MR. ODOM: Well, I want to get paid for my material.
i COMMISSIONER LETZ: I understand.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: See if we can work it out.
MR. ODOM: I want to see if we can work it out.
That's what I said. Well, I believe that the contractor will
reimburse me for that amount of money. We're keeping up with
the material that I'm using.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're keeping track of it?
MR. ODOM: Keeping track of it, and we'll go from
I there.
JUDGE TINLEY: I assume this was the city engineer,
was it not?
MR. ODOM: Sir, I don't know. Whoever the inspector
was from the city.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Public Works Department,
Judge, and the person they assign to constant inspection of
that -- of those pipes and insulation of those pipes. And he
put his head together with the Public Works Director, and
together they came up with a decision that affected what we're
talking about.
JUDGE TINLEY: It wasn't some guy out there on the
end of a shovel who just decided to --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No.
11-13-06
163
1
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 want to do this differently?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. ODOM: We're currently working on a list of
roads that need to be sealcoated this budget year, and when I
complete that -- we have it together; we just haven't
formulated it. And I've looked at my calculations. We'll
furnish you a copy of that, and have our calendars built for
the remainder of the year. Office project. You can see that
the subdivision plats, as well as the floodplain permits are
there. I do have a question on Center Point school. I would
assume -- I don't know if it's December or January; I forgot
to look, but that's coming up pretty soon. I would assume to
extend that again. And this would be the second extension.
So, they have built a home; someone's living in it, but no
one's ever built the road up there. So, when that comes due,
I'll come to the Court again about that. What do we do? Do
we just extend the -- renew the permit?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which one are you talking
~ about?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Center Point.
MR. ODOM: Center Point school. That's where they
were going to build multiples homes in there and build the
road. Of course, our subdivision -- new Subdivision Rules say
two years, right? Extension over --
11-13-06
164
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll pick up the discussion
with the superintendent over there, 'cause I think they've
probably put a hold on building additional homes there.
MR. ODOM: Yeah. I haven't seen anything else going
on, but they have one there, and someone's living in it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
them,	went	over their	drainage study, and had	some problems
there.	We	discussed	roads. One of the issues	-- I believe
that that can be resolved internally there on that
subdivision, but one of the points that I brought to the young
man that's the engineer for it was egress/ingress into the
subdivision. And I don't know how they're going to resolve
that, but showing in some manner -- my suggestion was legal
counsel to somehow address that they have egress/ingress.
Because that subdivision entrance is in Kendall County, and
there's a stretch of road, apparently, when this was put
together from that cul-de-sac that never was built, so that's
an issue they're going to have to take up with Kendall County.
So, I'm just telling you now, they may be coming to something,
but I don't see how we can until I find out we have
egress/ingress. I'm not a lawyer.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You're working with Rex on that?
MR. ODOM: Well, at this point -- I will when they
11-13-06
165
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
come to me with how they're going to do that. I have
discussed it with Rex.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- I think you -- the word
should be rescind, not resend. Just on --
MR. ODOM: Where am I at?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Under Privilege Creek Ranches.
It says type -- second category, it says cancel; then it says
resend.
MR. ODOM: Oh.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just a typo. Otherwise --
MR. EMERSON: Just to expand on that, too, the last
conversation I had with David Jackson about two weeks ago was
that he was anticipating things gearing up on a case that was
going to go all the way up. He said there were plenty of
resource on both sides of the ball game, and there wasn't
anything else out there particularly like it, and he
anticipated it going all the way up. So, we'll see.
JUDGE TINLEY: Support your local Bar Association.
MR. EMERSON: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Odom.
MR. ODOM: All right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One quickie -- just two
things. You got in there, first of all, the Court needs to
note there is an issue with Martin Marietta. I see where the
-- you're still waiting for the application?
11-13-06
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
166
MR. ODOM: Right, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That would mean they have
not filed the application?
MR. ODOM: They have not filed the application.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There is an issue kind of
like the fat lady waiting to sing in the wings. There's an
issue in the wings on this one, so the Court needs to be aware
of that. Secondly, what with respect to Flat Rock -- Flat
Rock Dam, I received a report from T.C.E.Q, Dam Safety
Division too late to get it on the court agenda. I've got it,
and I'll put it on the court agenda next time.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What is it? What did they
say?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's some minor things we
need to talk about.
MR. ODOM: And for your general information, I will
be at another seminar this week. I think I'll be back Friday,
I think. I leave tomorrow.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You sure do get educated a lot.
MR. ODOM: Well, you can tell, if I have "rescind"
down there -- Rex went to English class. I was totally
impressed that he had the vocabulary to be able to define the
information you wanted. And you can tell that mine was
football practice, and I missed it -- that class, okay?
JUDGE TINLEY: Let the record reflect they're both
11-13-06
167
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A & M graduates.
MR. ODOM: Yes, but he went to class, and I --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You played football.
MR. ODOM: I stayed in the tape room all the time.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What's important, anyhow.
JUDGE TINLEY: When you go to that seminar, Leonard,
if you wouldn't mind taking that bright inspector from the
city with you, maybe you can --
MR. ODOM: He's been out there. Our people have
been talking to him, and, you know, he was caught in a
situation where he was told to do something, and that's sort
of the way it was. Do it this way, or they would not maintain
the maintenance of it. So, I'm making it work. We're almost
through, so it's almost history.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do you have any more money than what
you show on your report, Brad?
MR. ALFORD: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Good. Put it up here.
MR. ALFORD: It'll currently be on your desk.
Submitted y'all the stats that y'all have become used to --
used to through Mr. Trolinger. I mean, we're -- right now,
basically, we're 3 or 4 percent higher this time this year
than we were last year, so we're still working.
11-13-06
168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
zl
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why not more?
MR. ALFORD: Why are they that much higher?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why aren't you higher?
MR. ALFORD: Don't know, Don't have an answer for
you. Judge, I did find -- your 6 percent was turned into
5 percent. So, the --
JUDGE TINLEY: That's when they got time served?
MR. ALFORD: Time served. There's 30,000 in
warrants, 988 outstanding in attorney's fees, 14,000 still on
payment plans, 2,500 still in T.D.C., and that equals the
total of 6 percent, which is now 5 percent, because some of it
was restitution that was turned over through Probation. So,
actually, our collection rate that the State recommended is
almost 90 -- it's 95 percent instead of 94 percent.
JUDGE TINLEY: Appreciate your work.
MR. ALFORD: Will's still over at the County
Attorney -- or not County Attorney. Nevermind, you can't have
him too. Still over in the County Clerk's office at least two
days a week, sometimes more, sometimes less. But he's
scheduled to be over there two days a week. That seems to be
pretty well going --
JUDGE TINLEY: That's working out okay?
MR. ALFORD: Yes, sir. So far, so good. We're
still doing indigent health checks for them, and that seems to
be a pretty smooth flow for information back and forth via
1I-13-06
169
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
e-mails. That's really about it. I mean, it's -- we're
rocking along.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody got any questions for
Mr. Alford?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Good job.
MR. ALFORD: Thank you, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Anybody got any
executive session items as a result of matters we discussed in
open session?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do we need to go in executive
session to talk about cheeseburgers and --
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, we can.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- fries?
JUDGE TINLEY: Aggies and inspectors?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, let's get on to Section IV.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Mr. Attorney, could I see
you for about 30 seconds after we get through here?
MR. EMERSON: Sure.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm next.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Forget lunch.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move we pay the bills.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to pay the
11-13-06
170
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
bills. Any question or discussion? Okay, what is this item
on professional, almost $5,000 on Commissioners Court, first
page?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Law Offices of Charles?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I want to be Charles.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
MR. TOMLINSON: It's legal fees on -- for our
defense on a case that he represented for -- against our law
enforcement liability. $10,000 deductible, that we pay
everything up to that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Why is that charged to Commissioners
Court? We ought to charge it to the Sheriff's salary.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Ha.
MR. TOMLINSON: Which page are you on?
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm on Page 1.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Page 1.
(Discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we should take it out of
the Sheriff, but --
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
(Discussion off the record.)
MR. TOMLINSON: It's a law enforcement --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It's still going on.
MR. TOMLINSON: Law enforcement case.
11-13-06
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
171
JUDGE TINLEY: But that's a --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's an inmate lawsuit. It's
a guy that fell out of a bunk.
JUDGE TINLEY: It occurs to me that we need to
charge that against the Sheriff.
MR. TOMLINSON: We've always -- we've always
budgeted that there.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's go to Page 14, if we might, the
reimbursement for phone expense. I notice that -- that that
J.P. is approximately double the other J.P.'S. I assume
that's a cell phone issue. The following two pages, you've
got 3 and 4. Are we talking about apples and oranges, or are
we talking about apples and apples?
MR. TOMLINSON: I don't know. It could be more than
one month. I don't -- there's some people don't turn them in
every month, so I'd have to look. I have to look at the bill.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think that maybe brings us to -- we
called -- we mentioned at some time about trying to limit the
number of cell phones we have and limit the -- the allowance
that we were going to give for cell phones. I have the
impression that maybe some of these cell phones aren't used
totally on county business, but I have no way of knowing that
for sure. Page 25 and Page 48, the prisoner med. Why do we
have different entries? I thought we went totally to indigent
health care system off of the -- of the jail medical.
11-13-06
172
1
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 did.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: We're paying the -- for the
prisoners that are not on indigent health care, we're paying
through the jail budget.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. These are -- these are
non-qualifying -- non-qualified under the indigent health
care, okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: The bills get paid at the same rate;
they just get paid through the jail budget.
JUDGE TINLEY: Categorized differently.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Question on that, Tommy. I
thought that was -- that group was going to qualify.
MR. TOMLINSON: No, I wrote you a memo on that.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I got two memos on that, how
the billing was going to work, but I thought back in their
sales deal, all inmates would be indigent.
MR. TOMLINSON: No.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: They get paid at the same rate.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Page 45 real quick. The
Alamo Iron Works and Dynamic Fastener for the park. Does that
have to do with our trying to bridge Third Creek? What's the
deal with that?
11-13-06
173
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. TOMLINSON: I have to look at the bill. I don't
know what it is.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Three grand's not a whole lot of
iron, is it? Not any more.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No.
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.)
MR. TOMLINSON: We have 55 pages of bills, and I
can't remember them all.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You can't?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tommy.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm surprised at that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's go to budget amendments.
Budget Amendment Request Number 1.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay, 1 is for Road and Bridge, to
transfer -- their request is to transfer $474 from
Contingencies to the Insurance for vehicles.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Any question or discussion? All in favor of the
11-13-06
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
174
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 2.
MR. TOMLINSON: 2 is for D,P.S. They requested that
we transfer 36.39 from the Telephone line item to
Miscellaneous for -- it's for a notary stamp and record book
for the clerk.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve.
JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion and second. All in
favor, indicate by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I thought he was going to
bring Kerr County's newest employee over to meet us.
MR. TOMLINSON: She's been around.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: She has not been in this
courtroom.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN
I met her.
I mean, that was our
11-13-06
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
175
agreement with him.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay,
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Hire her and bring her over
here so we can meet her, our own employee.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: He gets grouchy when he
misses his lunch.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Talking about the DPS
secretary? I know. They brought her out to our office, Tommy
did. Tommy may be gone and didn't get to bring her around
here.
JUDGE TINLEY: Budget Amendment Request 3.
MR. TOMLINSON: All right. 3 is from County
Extension. They have a request to transfer 795 from Operating
Equipment to Repairs and Maintenance to install a keypad lock
for the Extension Office.
JUDGE TINLEY: We got security problems out there,
I Sheriff?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Not that I'm aware of.
MR. TOMLINSON: They're -- they told me that they
were having a hard time with -- with the meeting room that's
li adjacent to the office, having control over who goes in and
who -- and so they'll know who's been in and who's been in the
facility. So that by giving out the code to the people that
need to be there, then they have some control over --
JUDGE TINLEY: The first time they go there.
11-13-06
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
176
Subsequent times they go there, they'll never know about it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, the code -- the lock records
who goes in.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The newer ones will record
every time somebody goes through them and who went through.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Pretty good deal. That building
gets used a lot by a lot of different people. Move for
approval.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of Budget Amendment Request 3. Any question or discussion?
All in favor, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Budget Amendment
Request 4.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay, 4 is for Elections, to
transfer 296 from Signs to Software Maintenance.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Any question or discussion? All in favor, signify
by raising your right hand.
11-13-06
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
177
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Budget Amendment
~ Request 5.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. 5 is for the 216th District
Court. They need to transfer $10,060.37 from Court-Appointed
Attorney line item to Court-Appointed Services.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved, with a comment.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Question
or comment?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Tommy, next time you bring one
of these to the Court, let's put a little extra money -- go
ahead and move more than is needed, 'cause don't we use
Court-appointed services off and on throughout the year?
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, it's not used that -- that
frequently.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Psychiatrists and that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is this on that Mexican national
case?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: We where we had the Mexican Consulate
involved and psychiatrists lined up three deep out in the hall
or something.
I1-13-06
178
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: That's what it's for.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right, that's fine.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We're going to have a lot more
next month.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Does that include
interpreters?
MR. TOMLINSON: (Witness nodded.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions or comments? All
in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. We have any
late bills?
MR. TOMLINSON: I have one, payable to CDW
Government, Inc., and it's for the purchase of a -- a computer
for Human Resources.
JUDGE TINLEY: How much?
MR. TOMLINSON: $1,064.99.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Any
question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Trolinger -- this was
11-13-06
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
179
initiated by Trolinger?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Just a comment, that Eva's
scrounged most of the furniture and everything else she
needed, a lot of it from Juvenile Detention Facility, so she's
been very frugal with taking care of our taxpayers' money down
there.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think most of it came out of my
~ office.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I thought the --
MR. EMERSON: I think we donated a pretty good
share, too.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The computer also?
JUDGE TINLEY: The computer temporarily until this
new one came in, which that's fine. That's -- better her use
it than me. Any other questions or comments? All in favor of
the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. I've been presented
monthly reports from the District Clerk for September '06;
J.P. 2, September '06; J.P. 2, October '06; J.P. 3 and J.P. 4.
Do I hear a motion that these reports be approved as
presented?
11-13-06
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1D
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
180
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Any question or discussion? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. You got any
reports from any Commissioners in connection with their
committee or liaison assignments?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, sir, thank you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I do.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Very -- he does.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Commissioner Nicholson and I
began the process of going through 25 applications for
i replacement for Ms. Mitchell. We narrowed that down to eight,
I believe, that we're going to interview, and we intend to
winnow that down to three or four that we're going to present
to the Court. And we'd like to have a meeting scheduled for
that purpose next Monday, maybe in the 9:30 time frame or
10 o'clock time frame.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: With the Court?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm, for the final
interviews.
11-13-06
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
181
JUDGE TINLEY: What's the Court's pleasure? What
time?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Doesn't make any difference.
Nine -- or 10:00 is better for me, But, I mean --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 10 o'clock's good.
JUDGE TINLEY: Ten's fine.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Ten will work.
JUDGE TINLEY; 10 o'clock.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. So, we'll tell
Ms. Mitchell to set that up. For Commissioner Baldwin's
benefit, he's asking when the retirement event will take place
for Mr. Notzon retiring from 35 years at AACOG. That will be
Sunday, January 28th, at San Antonio Convention Center, from
3 to 5 p.m,
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sunday, January 28th.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. And one other
quickie. On the first two phases of Kerrville South project,
we waived the inspection fees for septic mitigation, and it
was my belief that we waived it for the entire Kerrville South
project. The Environmental Officer has asked whether or not
that applies to the current inspection fees for -- it would
have to be inspected on 82 more hookups -- mitigations. Do I I
hear any change in our policy? If not, I'll tell him to
continue. Thank you. That's all I got, Judge.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Only comment I have is, I will
11-13-06
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
I4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
182
not be around for the meeting on Thursday, so everyone --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What's that meeting for?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's canvassing votes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Canvass, and there's one other item
dealing with election issues, as I recall.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have a nephew's wedding that
I'm going to.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else? We stand adjourned.
(Commissioners Court adjourned at 1:14 p.m.)
11-13-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
183
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 17th day of
November, 2006.
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
BY: G~ir~/G
Kathy ~ ik, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
11-13-06
ORDER NO.30002
TEXAS YES GRANT AND CONTRACT
Came to be heard this the 13th day of November, 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 Application to the Texas Yes Grant and Contract as proposed.
ORDER NO. 30003
CITY OF KERRVILLE ECONOMIC IMPROVEMENT CORPORATION
FUNDING PROJECT FOR HILL COUNTRY SHOOTING CENTER
Came to be heard this the 13th day of November, 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 City of Kerrville Economic Improvement Corporation's project
to provide funding to the Hill Country Shooting Center located adjacent to
Cypress Creek Road (FM 1341) in Kerr County.
ORDER NO. 30004
2007 EMPLOYEE HEALTH BENEFIT PROPOSALS
Came to be heard this the 13th day of November, 2006, with a motion made
by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioners Nicholson. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Accept proposal from Mutual of Omaha, and direct the Human Resources
Department and Mr. Looney to proceed with analyzing the plan.
ORDER NO. 30005
BIDS FOR ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, HVAC AND PEST CONTROL
Came to be heard this the 13th day of November, 2006, with a motion made
by Commissioner Letz seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Accept all bids and refer to Ms. Davidson and Mr. Bollier for review and
recommendation:
1. Terminix Pest Control Services for pest control services
2. Starkey Pest control for pest control services
3. Hill Country Pest Control for pest control services
4. Guadalupe Electric for electrical services
5. D W Electric for electrical services
6. Whelan Plumbing for plumbing services
7. Compton's of Kerrville for HVAC

ORDER NO. 30006
RESOLUTION FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
FOR KERRVILLESOUTH WASTEWATER PROJECT
Came to be heard this the 13th day of November, 2006, with a motion made
by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The
Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Adopt Resolution authorizing Kerr County to submit an application for a
Community Development Block Grant through the Office of Rural
Community Affairs for Phase IV of the Kerrville South Wastewater Project.
ORDER NO. 30007
MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT POSITION
Came to be heard this the 13th day of November, 2006, with a motion made
by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Authorize Maintenance Department to change the half time slot to a full
time slot, with the understanding that there will be less comp/overtime used.
ORDER NO. 30008
IRS MEETING OF NOVEMBER 7, 2006
Came to be heard this the 13th day of November, 2006, with a motion made
by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Direct the Treasurer and/or Auditor to transmit the penalty and interest funds
due in this matter today to the IRS to stop additional penalty and interest
from accruing with the funds to come from Contingency account in Non-
Departmental (in the amount of $12,650.97 as of 11-06-2006).
ORDER NO. 30009
FINAL REVISION OF PLAT FOR LOT 17A & 16, CYPRESS SPRINGS
ESTATES,PHASEI
Came to be heard this the 13th day of November, 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 final revision for Plat for Lot 17A & 16, Cypress Springs
Estates, Phase I, Vo17, Page 12, Pct. 4.
ORDER N0.30010
FINAL REVISION OF PLAT FOR WOOD TRAILS RANCH, LOTS 43B
& 46
Came to be heard this the 13th day of November, 2006, with a motion made
by Commissioner Nicholson, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The
Court unanimously approved by Record vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the revision of Plat for Wood Trails Ranch, Lots 43B & 46, Vo14,
Page 98, and Vol. 5, Page 140, Pct 4.
ORDER N0.30011
ROAD NAME CHANGES AND REGULATORY SIGNS
Came to be heard this the 13th day of November, 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 road name changes and regulatory signs in various locations:
Speed Limit
Bear Creek Road
Bear Creek Road
Bear Creek Road
hTame Chance
Arlitt Ranch Road SW
King Elk Road S W
Starlite Village E
35 from Sheppard Reese to Primrose
45 from Primrose to curves near Guadalupe
Curves near Guadalupe to Kerrville City
Limits 30
to Burr Oak Rd SW
to End of the Trail Ranch Rd S W
to Mesa Verde Dr. E
ORDER NO. 30012
FINAL PLAT OF T-H ACRES
Came to be heard this the 13th day of November, 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 final Plat of T-H Acres, Pct. 4.
ORDER NO.30013
REVISION OF LOTS 5 & 6 OF CYPRESS SPRINGS, PHASE I
Came to be heard this the 13th day of November, 2006, with a motion made
by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court
unanimously approved by Record vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the revision of Lots 5 & 6 of Cypress Springs, Phase I, Vol 7, Page
12, and set a Public Hearing for 7anuary 8, 2007 at 10:00 a.m.
ORDER NO. 30014
REVISION OF PLAT FOR LOTS 16 & 17 OF BEAR CREEK RANCH
ESTATES
Came to be heard this the 13th day of November, 2006, with a motion made
by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The
Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the revision of plat for Lots 16 & 17 of Bear Creek Ranch Estates,
Vol 3, Page 75, and set a Public Hearing for January 8, 2007 at 10:10 a.m.
ORDER NO.30015
REVISION OF PLAT FOR LOTS 124B & 131A OF FALLING WATER
Came to be heard this the 13th day of November, 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 revision of Plat for Lots 124B & 131A of Falling Water, Vo17,
Pg 52, and set a Public Hearing for January 8, 2007 at 10:15 a.m.
ORDER NO. 30016
GRANT FROM PETERSON FOUNDATION TO PURCHASE LIVE
SCAN FINGERPRINT SYSTEM
Came to be heard this the 13th day of November, 2006, with a motion made
by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the application for a grant from the Peterson Foundation to
purchase a new Live Scan Fingerprint System.
ORDER NO. 30017
TELECOMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT LEASE WITH
WINDSTREAM COMMLJI~IICATIONS
Came to be heard this the 13th day of November, 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 Agreement with Windstream Communications for
telecommunications equipment, for the Sheriffs Department with the
addition of the language in Paragraph 15.01 to add "to the extent allowed by
law), and authorize County Judge to sign same.
ORDER NO. 30018
RESOLUTION OPPOSING STATE LEGISLATION IMPOSING
REVENUE AND APPRAISAL CAPS
Came to be heard this the 13th day of November, 2006, with a motion made
by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The
Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Adopt Resolution opposing State Legislation that would impose revenue and
appraisal caps and/or unfunded mandates on Texas Counties and Cities.
ORDER NO.30019
REVISED SUBDIVISION RULES AND REGULATIONS
Came to be heard this the 13th day of November, 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 revised Subdivision Rules and Regulations, subject to visiting
with the County Attorney on the one floodplain base flood elevation
language, and set a Public Hearing for January 8, 2007 at 11:00 a.m.
ORDER NO. 30020
CLAIMS AND ACCOUNTS
Came to be heard this the 13th day of November, 2006, came to be
considered by the Court various Commissioners Precincts, which said
Claims and Accounts are:
Accounts		Expense
10-General	$	112,467.02
14-Fire Protection	$	10,416.66
. 15-Road & Bridge	$	81,464.43
18-County Law Library	$	92.00
19-Public Library	$	36,972.25
31-Parks	$	3,163.35
41-Records Archival	$	3,983.99
50-Indigent Health Care	$	34,592.44
76-Juv Detention Facility	$	5,450.93
TOTAL $ 288,603.07
Upon motion made by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner
Letz, the Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to pay the claims
and accounts.
ORDER NO. 3 0021
BUDGET AMENDMENT #1
ROAD & BRIDGE
Came to be heard this the 13th day of November, 2006, with a motion made
by Commissioner Nicholson, seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense
codes:
Expense Code Description
15-611-480 Insurance Vehicles
15-611-599 Contingencies
Amendment
Increase/QDecrease
+ $474.00
- ($474.00)
2
ORDER NO. 30022
BUDGET AMENDMENT #2
DEPT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
Came to be heard this the 13th day of November, 2006, with a motion made
by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioners Nicholson, the
Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following
expense codes:
Expense Code Description
10-580-499 Miscellaneous
10-580-420 Telephone
Amendment
IncreaselQDecrease
+ $36.39*
- ($36.39)
*-For notary stamp and notary record book for new DPS clerk.

ORDER N0.30023
BUDGET AMENDMENT #3
COUNTY EXTENSION SERVICE
Came to be heard this the 13th day of November, 2006, with a motion made
by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioners Nicholson, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense
codes:
Expense Code Description
10-665-450 Repairs & Maintenance
10-665-569 Operating Equipment
Amendment
Increase/()Decrease
+ $795.00'
- ($795.00)
*-For new keypad security lock at Extension office (per bid copy attached).

ORDER NO. 30024
BUDGET AMENDMENT #4
ELECTION EXPENSE
Came to be heard this the 13th day of November, 2006, with a motion made
by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense
codes:
Expense Code Description
10-402-563 Software Maintenance
10-402-457 Signs
Amendment
Increase/QDecrease
+ $296.00*
- ($296.00)
*-4% increase in Annual Maintenance contract for equipment.
ORDER NO. 30025
BUDGET AMENDMENT #5
216th DISTRICT COURT
Came to be heard this the 13th day of November, 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:
Expense Code Description
10-435-401 Court Appointed Services
10-435-402 Court Appointed Attorney
Amendment
IncreaselQDecrease
+ $10,060.37
($10,060.37)

ORDER NO. 30026
LATE BILL
HUMAN RESOURCES
Came to be heard this the 13th day of November, 2006, with a motion made
by Commissioner Nicholson, seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to issue a hand check in the amount
of $1,064.99 to CDW GOVERNMENT, INC. for CDW-G/Tower; monitor;
Office Basic 2003; & install software (Expense Code 10-493-569).
ORDER N0.30027
MONTHLY REPORTS
Came to be heard this the 13th day of November, 2006, with a motion made
by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 the following monthly reports:
District Clerk -September, 2006
Activity Report, JP #2 -September, 2006
Activity Report, JP #2 -October, 2006
7P #3
JP #4