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
Special Session
Monday, April 23, 2007
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
BRUCE OEHLER, Commissioner Pct. 4
Y
V
~-
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
2
I N D E X
April 23, 2007
PAGE
--- Commissioners' Comments 5
1.1 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action regarding
rates County pays to funeral homes for cremations,
transportation fees, and first call charges 7
1.2 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to accept
Misty Lane in Megan Manor for County maintenance,
with no obligation to be responsible for drainage
easements and/or detention structures 22
Consider/discuss, take appropriate action
concerning final plat of Pirate Place for Center
Point Independent School District 24
Consider/discuss, take appropriate action
concerning final plat of Infamous 1169 25
1.5 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action regarding
approval to enact a weapons policy for retired law
enforcement officers 29
1.6 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
approve contract with Hunt Volunteer Fire
Department; allow County Judge to sign same 36,42
1.7 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
approve resolution of proclamation designating
July 1-4, 2007 as "The American Family Reunion" 37
1.8 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
approve resolution of proclamation designating
May 3, 2007, as "National Day of Prayer" 40
1.9 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
approve Bill of Sale and assignment of certain
wastewater improvements constructed in Phases II
and III, Kerrville South Wastewater Project, as
provided in agreement with U.G.R.A.; authorize
County Judge to sign same 40
Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
approve interlocal agreement with Bexar County
to participate in Bexar County Regional Public
Defender's Office; authorize County Judge to
sign same 43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
3
I N D E X (Continued)
April 23, 2007
PAGE
l.ll	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to	
	authorize independent or outside audit, in whole	
	or in part, of affairs, activities, and/or	
	transactions by or with County Treasurer's office	
	and/or other offices as applicable or necessary	53
4.1	Pay Bills	83
i 4.2	Budget Amendments	84
4.3	Late Bills	--
4.4	Approve and Accept Monthly Reports	90
1.12	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to review	
',	applications for open position in Environmental	
	Health for an inspector (Executive Session as needed)	91
1.13	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action regarding	
	transferring employee from Road and Bridge to	
	Maintenance (Executive Session)	91
3.1	Action as may be required on matters discussed in	
	Executive Session	92
5.1	Reports from Commissioners/Liaison Committee	
	Assignments	95
---	Adjourned	110
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
4
On Monday, April 23, 2007, at 9:00 a.m., a special
meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in the
Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, Kerrville,
Texas, and the following proceedings were had in open court:
P R O C E E D I N G S
JUDGE TINLEY: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
Let me call to order this regular meeting of the Kerr County
Commissioners Court scheduled and posted for this time and
date, Monday April 23rd, 2007, at 9 a.m. It is that time now.
Commissioner Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. Would you stand
and join me in a word of prayer, and then we'll have the
~ pledge of allegiance.
(Prayer and pledge of allegiance.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. At this time, if there's
any member of the audience or the public that wishes to be
heard on any matter that is not a listed agenda item, feel
free to come forward at this time. If you wish to speak on an
agenda item, we'd ask that you wait until that item is called,
and in order that I can be apprised that you want to speak and
not pass over that item too quickly, if you'd fill out a
participation form at the back of the room, I would appreciate
it. You can bring it up here after you've filled that out.
If, for some reason, you haven't filled out a participation
4 ~3 0~
5
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
form and want to be heard on an agenda item, just get my
attention in some manner, and I'll see that you have an
opportunity to be heard. But at this time, if there's any
member of the public that wishes to be heard on any matter
that is not a listed agenda item, please feel free to come
forward at this time. Seeing no one moving forward, we'll
move on with the agenda. Commissioner Baldwin, what do you
have for us this morning?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Nothing.
JUDGE TINLEY: Amazing.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, it is. I thought we
quit doing this part of the --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We did last week -- last
time.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- agenda. No, I don't have
anything. Yippie skidoo.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Commissioner Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll talk more about it
later, but I had the opportunity to attend the 25th Annual
Aviation Conference in Corpus Christi, and the first person I
bumped into walking out of the hotel, walking to the meeting,
was Scott Tinley. Sure glad I was by myself. He says, "Is my
father here?" I said, "I don't think so."
JUDGE TINLEY: He didn't tell me he was going. I
had no idea he was there.
4-23-07
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
6
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, he was there, but so
was I. I'll talk about it later.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't have anything this
morning.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, all I can say is I guess
kind of a report, but not really. It's on the Highway 39 and
1340 bridge projects. The committee had their last meeting on
Phase 1 last Tuesday. We all came out in agreement with the
first phase of the project. There'll be a public meeting on
May the 3rd at the Hunt School from 6:00 to 8:30 for everybody
to attend that would like to and ask questions. And I think
that TexDOT has really, really done well working with the
committee, and made a lot of concessions, and actually
redesigned every one of the bridges because of committee
input.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that public input meeting
that's coming up just for the bridges in Precinct 4, or is
that for all of them that they're going to be doing in this
project?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: This is only bridges that are
on 39 and 1340. And there are nine total bridges, and the
first three is Phase 1, which would be the two Smith
Crossings, one-lane, and Hope Crossing, which is just this
side of Camp Waldemar. That will be the first phase. And
9 ^_3 0~
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
TexDOT assures us that there'll be one contractor doing all
three simultaneously, so that was good news for us. We had 14
TexDOT members show up at our last meeting; every specialty
that TexDOT's had was represented at that meeting to answer
questions and to give information on the projects.
JUDGE TINLEY: Seems like it's moving along well.
Anything else?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Not at this time.
JUDGE TINLEY: By way of information to the Court,
the Court will recall that I was previously authorized to
initiate and file claims on the former Treasurer's official
bond. Last week I filed with the bonding company two claims
on that bond as previously authorized by the Court, each of
those claims being in excess of $12,000, so I'll keep you
apprised of where that goes as it progresses. Anything else
before we move on, gentlemen? Okay, let's move on with the
agenda. Item Number l; consider, discuss, and take
appropriate action regarding rates Kerr County pays to funeral
homes for cremations, transportation fees, and first call
charges: Mr. Grimes? We've got two Mr. Grimes here. Are you
going to let him do the heavy lifting, John?
MR. JOHN GRIMES: I've been to the dentist, and I'm
all numb. (Laughter.)
MR. JOHNNY GRIMES: Probably lucky.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, we are. If you'll give us your
9 23 07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
8
name and address, and proceed.
MR. JOHNNY GRIMES: I'm Johnny Grimes with Grimes
Funeral Chapels. On behalf of the funeral homes in Kerr
County, we're represented by Gene Allen, Kerrville Funeral
Home, and our funeral home, John Grimes and Johnny Grimes.
Cynthia is not here this morning. Invited her, but she didn't
show up, so -- with Wright's Funeral Home. There's three
agendas that we'd like to address with you. One is the -- the
county cremations. Anytime there's a pauper burial, anytime
they're indigent, we have some paperwork that we fill out to
present to the Judge, and those charges have been $600 for
years, and we'd like it to be raised to at least $750. The
other agenda would be transportation of human remains to
Austin to the medical examiner. Those charges have been
currently $230. Each funeral home has different charges.
Kerrville's is $250, and I'm not sure what Wright's is, but
that -- I've been in business 10 years, and I haven't seen
that price increase in 10 years. And y'all know the price of
gas and employee wages and so forth. Anytime we take a body
to medical -- or to the medical examiner, there's at least a
four- or five-hour wait for them to do the autopsy. And if we
could raise that price to $350 flat fee across the board for
every funeral home.
The third thing I'd like to bring to your attention
is the first call. Anytime that there's a death -- unattended
4-^3-07
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
death in the county, the J.P. or Sheriff's Office or police
office gives a funeral home a call, and in Kerr County, we're
all on rotation call, so if we get the call today, Kerrville
or Wright's will get the call tomorrow and so forth. Texas
Funeral Service Commission has brought to our attention that
the County is responsible for those charges. They say --
I they're saying that we cannot pass that on to the family if
the family's not present. So, if Jack Jones was killed in a
car wreck and there's no family to be contacted, and they
contact us, we can't pass that charge, which is $350, on to
the family. The county is responsible for that charge. And
I've submitted the information to y'all on that. If there's
anything I can explain to you, I'll be glad to.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Johnny, that $350 that you're
talking about right there, is that -- now, is that -- what is
-- what's covered in that fee?
MR. JOHNNY GRIMES: Okay. What that is, is we call
that a first call charge. Every funeral home has that, and
every funeral home has that itemized on their price list.
What that is, if we make a removal to a hospital, a car wreck,
a murder scene, anything that we're transported out to, we
make that removal, bring the body back to our location.
That's called a first call.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see. Okay.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's even though y'all may
9-23-07
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
10
not handle the funeral.
MR. JOHNNY GRIMES: Correct.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It might be done by a different
funeral home.
MR. JOHNNY GRIMES: And how that's been brought to
our attention as well is, if -- if there's a passerby on the
interstate, and they live in San Antonio and they pass away in
Kerr County, the Sheriff's Department calls us, Kerrville, or
Wright's out; we make the removal, bring it back here, and
then a funeral home in San Antonio calls us and says, "We're
going to accept the body of Jack Jones. We're not responsible
for any charges, because there was no family contact." In
return, it's never been brought to our attention that Kerr
County is able to pay that charge, because we didn't know
about that. So, in this case, we're bringing it to y'all's
attention that, legally, we're not able to charge that funeral
home for that charge.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Another funeral home? Or
the --
MR. JOHNNY GRIMES: Or family.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Family, okay.
MR. JOHNNY GRIMES: Correct.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And that could add up to be
substantial, because normally there is not a first family
contact, or family contact prior to that funeral home getting
4 - ^ 3 - 0 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
11
the call and getting that -- the deceased person. Because you
MR. JOHNNY GRIMES: And I think a lot of that might
be common sense as well. Let's say somebody passes away, and
Rusty knows that they're good friends of -- of us. Obviously,
they're going to contact the spouse or a child and say, you
know, "Dad passed away. Do I need to contact Grimes or
Kerrville or Wright's?" And in that case, if he can't get
ahold of anybody, I would -- I would think that you would know
to contact somebody if you -- if you know that. If you know
that they're friends of ours or -- or friends of Gene's or
friends of Cynthia. But in a lot of cases, that doesn't
happen, so it sure is a gray area. But as the law states, it
says any unattended death, which could add up quite a bit.
And the only time that we've run into that problem is whenever
it's an out-of-town funeral home. Gene and I have a -- you
know, a good working relationship. We're -- in the past,
we've just always observed a -- you know, taken that cost in
the hip. So, the only time it's really been an issue is
whenever it's out-of-town funeral homes that have this in
place. And San Antonio is one where, you know, they're
saying, "Look, we're not going to pay you anything for that,"
9-23-U7
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and we just absorb the cost.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me ask you this, Johnny. Is the
nature of your request, the -- the $350, for, one,
transportation anytime there's an inquest order or -- or
autopsy, rather, and two, to cover first call charges
generally in those cases where you're called for removal?
MR. JOHNNY GRIMES: No, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. JOHNNY GRIMES: That'll be additional.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. JOHNNY GRIMES: $350 is for us just to --
transportation charges to Austin.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. To -- to the medical examiner
for autopsy?
MR. JOHNNY GRIMES: Correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: When you talk about first call
charges, you're talking about miscellaneous charges that --
that may accrue prior -- when removal of a body is directed by
anybody acting under authority of law under the statutes, all
charges which accrue up to the time that a family may take
responsibility for it?
MR. JOHNNY GRIMES: Correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. JOHNNY GRIMES: And those are two separate
charges. First call, we understand what that means. But what
9-23-U7
13
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
that really means is actually physically going out and making
the removal and bringing the body to us. That is a $350
charge. On top of that, if we have to transport the body to
Austin, that's an additional $350 charge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Rex, have you looked at the law?
Do you -- first, I mean, on the first call charge, if the
County's obligated for that, we're obligated for it; I think
i we should start paying for it. But I'd like Rex to look at it
III to make sure he concurs that we're obligated. The other one,
I! I don't have a real problem with the increases, except that
it's out of our budget cycle, when we do budgets. It's
hard -- I don't know that this would qualify as an emergency,
which means that we really don't have any funds in our budget,
and my preference would be if we could wait to do that during
our budget cycle, increase the fees. I don't have -- I think
that your -- the request is legitimate, that your costs have
obviously gone up.
MR. JOHNNY GRIMES: So, effective --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It would be effective
September -- or October 1.
JUDGE TINLEY: October 1.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I don't have a real problem
with that. Just -- it's real hard. We just can't --
MR. JOHNNY GRIMES: Justify?
9-23-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
14
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- pull money out of thin air.
MR. JOHNNY GRIMES: The first call charges would be
effective immediately?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If --
MR. JOHNNY GRIMES: And then the other charges would
be effective September 1?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That would be -- I mean, I don't
know that -- if everyone agrees on those being the correct
charges, that's how I would look at it. But on the first call
charges, I want Rex to make sure that he thinks the County is
responsible for that. Not that -- I mean, you know, if we
have an option of taxpayers eating it or you eating it, I'd
rather you eat the cost. But if we don't have --
MR. JOHNNY GRIMES: Appreciate that, yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But if we don't have that
option, you know, we'll -- I think we need to -- we're
obligated to pay it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Been there before, huh, John?
MR. JOHN GRIMES: Yes, sir. The main thing -- one
thing Johnny didn't cover, if our funeral home handles that
service, then y'all are not billed the $350 for the first
call. This is for calls where a person is not, say, from here
or whatever, and there's no way they can find out who to
contact. Then they call the rotation situation, and that's
where the $350 will be charged. If it's a firm that -- say
4-^3-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
15
Gene Allen's going to handle it. Well, then you're not billed
that $350. If we handle it, you're not billed that $350. If
Wright's handles it, you're not billed the $350. Now, we're
talking about first call, and that's mandated, and y'all have
a copy of what the law is, and that's been in effect for a
number of years. But we've always kind of embarrassed the
funeral home on the other end, saying, "Look, we're a small
country town and we don't have a contract like what Dallas,
Houston, San Antonio has." But it's mandated by the -- by the
State of Texas that that be paid.
JUDGE TINLEY: What you're saying, John, is that --
MR. JOHN GRIMES: Sir?
JUDGE TINLEY: -- that families can voluntarily
assume that obligation; they're not required to, but they can,
and very often in a local context, more often than not, they
do?
MR. JOHN GRIMES: Ninety-nine and nine-tenths
percent of the time. But, you know, the problem that we have
is with our J.P.'s ordering an autopsy, and then we have to
take it to Austin, and we stay and wait for it, and there's
times that we've waited as long as five or six hours. You
know, what the other firms do, I can't say. I can't speak for
them. But -- so we stay and wait. But normally, we're told
to be there by 10 o'clock, and then we may not fall to -- our
body that we brought, till maybe 4 o'clock that afternoon.
9 '_3 07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
16
JUDGE TINLEY: That's a separate issue that we need
to address, as we've talked about before.
MR. JOHN GRIMES: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. But, I mean,
we're here -- I, personally -- I -- the first call situation,
you know, is one thing. I realize y'all don't have the funds
and you're going to have to -- you know, and we're not here
raising Cain, saying, "Well, the law says you're supposed to
pay it, and you've had four or five years free ride." No.
We're just -- as common courtesy, we're coming before you to
let you know that we have a problem.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I need to understand, a
little clarity. John, the $350 charge that you're talking
about would then only be levied or billed to the County in
situations where the body was destined for another location
and another funeral parlor or whatever, right?
MR. JOHN GRIMES: Yes, sir. Somebody passing
through town or whatever, killed in an accident, has a heart
attack or whatever, and they rotate the funeral home that's
on -- on call. If it's in one precinct, it's another, you
know, judge. So, all four J.P.'s need to be aware of this,
and they -- when we gave you this little short form about the
first call charge, that's been mandated -- I don't know. Rex,
you may can tell us when it was officially started, but I know
Fredericksburg has been doing it for a couple of years.
MR. JOHNNY GRIMES: But it's such a gray area,
9-23-U7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
17
because the first sentence in the paragraph states the funeral
storage of the dead body on to the family or person
responsible for funeral arrangements when that person did not
directly request the funeral home to transport or store the
dead body. So that is pretty much straight across the board,
even if it's a local family here that couldn't be accounted
for, or a transient that's going through town. So, it's kind
of a gray area, saying we got to do it straight across the
board, or we hand-pick it, and it's really not fair to
hand-pick it whenever --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I mean, it sounds
appears that the County may be obligated for that. If that's
the case, if were obligated, we're obligated. We'll pay it.
MR. JOHNNY GRIMES: And Rusty might answer it a
little better. I don't think it happens that often. I would
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I think that's probably pretty
accurate on when. The only concern is -- the only question I
have, say it is a -- a deceased person that's living here and
has some family here, okay? But they don't know what funeral
home they want to use, and the J.P. uses the rotation. Then,
when that family actually gets together, they decide they
4-23 07
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
18
really want that person buried in their old hometown of -- you
know, in Arkansas or wherever. Is that a first call charge
type situation, where y'all aren't going to handle it then,
but yet he died here and had family here? To me, that would
be too, and that's where you're going to start adding up even
-- even more of those. It's going to be a pretty good expense
eventually, but there -- I agree with y'all; there's no choice
in the matter.
MR. JOHNNY GRIMES: And in the past, it's always
just been a common courtesy between funeral homes. Where this
got brought to our attention is on Bandera, for instance,
where it's close to San Antonio, we get hit with that every
month, where the San Antonio funeral homes are saying, "Look,
we're not going to pay you for that $350." We just absorb it,
because we can't argue with them because Bandera or Kerr
County do not have this in place.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm only going to go back to
it one more time. Let's assume that a Kerr County resident is
involved in a traffic accident on a freeway in San Antonio and
is killed, and the body is removed from the expressway to a
funeral parlor in San Antonio.
MR. JOHN GRIMES: Goes to the medical examiner.
See, we don't have a medical examiner situation here. If we
had a medical examiner situation here, they -- M.E. would go
9-23-07
1
L
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
19
out to the scene and he would have either a contract with
somebody in town, or he would have a vehicle where they would
transport the body from the scene of the death to the M.E.'s
office. But we don't have that here.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What happens to the $350
charge in the situation like we talked about?
MR. JOHN GRIMES: Up there?
MR. JOHNNY GRIMES: There is no charge.
MR. JOHN GRIMES: There is no charge.
MR. JOHNNY GRIMES: Because we go straight to the
county coroner or the medical examiner in San Antonio.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, say that person dies in
Brown County.
MR. JOHN GRIMES: In what county?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Brownwood. I presume they don't
have a medical examiner.
MR. JOHNNY GRIMES: We go to that funeral home and
make the removal, and then if that county has this in force,
then they bill the county. If not, then we just bring a check
as common courtesy and say, "Jack Jones Funeral Home, what is
your charge?" And they tell us $200 or $500; we write them a
check and pass that on to the family.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But you just said something
else here, Johnny. You said if that county has this
particular law in force. Is this selective in enforcement, or
9-_'3-0~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
20
is this universally enforced?
MR. JOHN GRIMES: It's supposed to be universal, but
not everybody -- an example is Fredericksburg. One funeral
home adheres to this; another funeral home there does not, but
this is the law. This is not a gentleman's agreement
situation.
JUDGE TINLEY: Bottom line of what I'm hearing here
is that on this first call issue, is that in those situations
where it's feasible, reasonable, and you guys -- any one of
you here locally are in charge of -- of the situation, more
often than not, the family picks that up, it's handled, and it
doesn't become an issue. Only when it becomes an issue
because of out-of-county issues or -- or maybe some other
extraordinary circumstance, at that point you're going to have
to come to the County and say, "Under the law, this is your
obligation."
MR. JOHN GRIMES: That's correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any other questions? Gene,
you got anything to throw into this mix here?
MR. ALLEN: No, sir. We just need help.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Thank you, sir. Appreciate
I it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This is almost not fair to
have both Grimes guys here at the same time. Not fair to --
MR. JOHN GRIMES: I came out of curiosity. I didn't
4-23-07
2 1
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
know whether I'd be able to talk or I'd be through -- I've
been at the dentist's office since 8 o'clock.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We need that number; I need
to talk to your dentist.
JUDGE TINLEY: Numb him up some more?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: We'll take a look at it and have the
County Attorney verify that, and I think you've got a good
sense of where we are on it.
MR. JOHNNY GRIMES: So, we're looking for September
for the other charges?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. And we're looking --
MR. JOHNNY GRIMES: October?
JUDGE TINLEY: We'll consider these in our upcoming
budget, and then the other issue, we're going to get Rex to
take a look at it, and then we'll go forward.
MR. JOHNNY GRIMES: You'll be in contact with us?
All right. Thank you, gentlemen.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And if we go -- go through
this scenario here where you come back and make a presentation
again, John, I really think we need to talk about the autopsy
issue.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: One more time.
MR. JOHN GRIMES: We're ready to talk about it.
9 '_3-07
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
z2
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All right.
MR. JOHNNY GRIMES: And one thing that we'd -- we've
talked about, too, is getting the medical examiner to come
down to talk to the four J.P.'s or to the Sheriff's
Department, whoever needs to be in -- and maybe not enlighten
them, but just give them some explanations on when and why
and --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
MR. JOHNNY GRIMES: -- on how to order autopsies.
And maybe where it won't be -- you know, 'cause then y'all's
budget -- I think y'all spend about $50,000 a year on
autopsies and transportation.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hm.
MR. JOHNNY GRIMES: Maybe we could cut that down on
that end of it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think so too.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You might be watching during the
budget process to make sure we don't overlook this.
MR. JOHNNY GRIMES: Okay. Thank you, gentlemen.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
MR. JOHN GRIMES: Thank y'all.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any member of the Court have anything
further to offer on that particular issue? Let's move on to
Item 2. Consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to
accept Misty Lane in Megan Manor for County Maintenance, with
4-23-07
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
no obligation to be responsible for drainage easements and/or
detention structures. Mr. Odom?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. Megan Manor was recorded in
Volume 5, Page 231, March the 26th, 1986, but was never built.
Back in September of 'O5, we were contacted by Vordenbaum
Engineering as agent for a new owner about what was needed to
develop it and have the County maintain the road. We checked
with legal and were told they could build it as platted.
Therefore, I've been working with Kevin Spraggins with
Vordenbaum, and Wayne Wells on the drainage and the road
construction. The road and drainage has been completed.
Signs are in place. We have a two-year maintenance bond. All
the engineering fees have been paid. We have a letter stating
detention structures are to be the responsibility of Lot 16
and 17 owners. Therefore, we ask the Court to approve adding
Misty Lane to the list of County-maintained roads, accepting
no responsibility for drainage easements and/or detention
ponds -- structures.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: With your -- just curiosity.
Was the road built to '84 standards or current standards?
MR. ODOM: Current standards.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Current standards.
MR. ODOM: With base.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. ODOM: Looks sort of like the same type of
9-23-07
24
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
design that was in Falling Waters with the ribbon.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mm-hmm.
MR. ODOM: Looks nice. Hot mix.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I move that we accept Misty
Lane and Megan Manor for county maintenance, with no
obligation to be responsible for drainage easements or
detention structures.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of the agenda item as indicated. Any question or discussion
on the motion? All in favor of that motion, signify by
raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(NO response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. We'll move to
Item 3; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action
concerning the final plat of Pirate Place for Center Point
Independent School District located in Precinct 2. Mr. Odom?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, just a second. I'm
aware of the issue -- part of the issue that Mr. Odom has
placed on the agenda with respect to the letter of credit and
so forth. We're not completing the plat within a certain
period of time. I am not aware of -- was not aware of any
4-23-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
zs
environmental problems until I returned to my office at
5 o'clock -- or about 3 o'clock on Friday afternoon, and found
to Mr. Wiedenfeld with respect to certain environmental
issues. I'd ask to pull this today, bring it back on a
subsequent meeting, and give Mr. Odom and I an opportunity to
meet with Mr. Voelkel and Mr. Wiedenfeld and find out where we
stand on this entire issue.
JUDGE TINLEY: Seems reasonable. Any other member
final plat of Infamous 1169 located in Precinct 9.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. The concept for the plat was
to be done under the alternate plat process. Mark has
obtained a letter of credit to assure the roads are built to a
privately maintained country lane. Item 6 of the General
Notes states, "In accordance with Kerr County -- Kerr County
Subdivision Rules and Regulations, this subdivision is
permitted for a maximum of 233 lots." Mr. Voelkel placed --
and Don didn't do anything wrong, but he placed this statement
on the plat because of 6.03.C.5.a; "Statement as to the total
number of lots permitted to the subdivision required on all
final plats." The owners stated that the lots will be no
smaller than 125 acres, and there will be covenants written to
9-zs-o~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
that effect, and the road is being built with those sizes in
mind. It seems inappropriate for the statement to be on this
particular plat, but we were not sure how you would want to
address this issue. Since then, I had talked to Mark last
week; he does have the restrictions and covenants drawn up by
so I don't have a problem with that. The plat meets all --
all the requirements of Kerr County Subdivision Rules;
therefore, I recommend the plat be accepted as presented.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Mr. Odom, do you think we need
to have that section taken out where there's a maximum of 233
lots? That seems to be -- if they have covenants, you know,
stating what the lot sizes will be?
MR. ODOM: I think that it's probably appropriate to
do that, but I hate to -- if we could be contingent on having
the mylar and all change, that gives -- the problem is, he's
got everybody signed on it.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay.
MR. ODOM: I think with the record, we would --
covenants state, in fact, right in Section 8, that they cannot
subdivide less than 125 acres.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay.
9-^?-0~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
27
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think, I mean, the intent of
that is from a water standpoint, water availability. It's
supposed to be all lots; it has nothing to do with what's
actually being done out there. This is a number that's for,
kind of, Headwaters.
MR. ODOM: That's a Headwaters issue --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay.
MR. ODOM: -- that we looked at.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So, that basically would
allow -- that would be water availability, how many lots could
have wells on them, I guess, if that --
MR. ODOM: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, if they divide it up.
It's not -- I mean, the fact that there's other restrictions
that are more restrictive doesn't -- I mean, those are the
ones that are going to govern. And it also says -- I mean,
covenants can always be changed, and this also says that
that's -- it's putting in that maximum on there, so I would be
in favor of leaving it on there. I think it's supposed to be
on all plats.
MR. ODOM: It helps us in the future. We could look
a year or two down the road and I could keep up with the
number of lots, look at it, and that's what I've had a problem
with in the past. We have no earthly idea; you have to try to
research and find. But I think with that -- with the way it's
9-23 07
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
28
worded and all, that had to do with Headwaters, and I think
that it would be acceptable.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay. Just checking. I move
that we approve the final plat for Infamous 1169.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
indicated. Any question or discussion on that motion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just a question. This is just
more of a thought about those lots. The right-of-way's 60
foot?
MR. ODOM: We have that mile and a half of 30 foot.
Y'all gave them permission to go ahead with that 30, because
they didn't own any more land.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: But they did build the road to
county specs?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. ODOM: But inside it is 60 foot. Inside the
subdivision, that 1,100 acres, is 60 foot, and that mile and a
half or mile, whatever it is, is -- is the 30-foot easement
that was essentially done under 1.03.
JUDGE TINLEY: What's the access road that serves
that subdivision?
MR. ODOM: That is -- we call it Love Road.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Love Ranch Road.
MR. ODOM: Yeah, and they have a name change. It's
4-'3-07
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
Love Ranch Road.
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.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. We'll move to
Item 5; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action
regarding approval to enact a weapons policy for retired law
enforcement officers. Our Sheriff.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is this the -- just to make
sure, is this the same thing you have an Attorney General
opinion requested on?
MR. EMERSON: Yes.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Part of it, okay? The thing
is, there's federal law and there's state law, and there are
some differences in it, but I'm trying to write our department
policy that adheres and fits both so that we don't have to
worry about whether there was a federal officer retired or
state officer; I have a department policy on how we handle it.
It can be more restrictive. And that way it just sets us --
it doesn't matter, as long as he's retired. The law does
allow -- under federal law, it allows that a person who has at
e-z3-o~
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
Under the state law, it says that the person must be
receiving benefits from retirement, okay? And that the
certificate is good for two years. What we have done is, I'm
writing a policy -- and part of y'all's, I did change one
section in there, is our firearms proficiency policy shall
read that they must be receiving benefits, already be retired,
and all certificates must be renewed annually, so every year.
That way I'm covered under both federal and state, and we can
allow, you know, retired officers to get a certificate of
qualification so that they can carry concealed handguns or
carry weapons -- continue to carry them in our jurisdiction,
which I think is good. I have a couple that are -- are
retired, such as Brown Stokes, okay, and he wants to be able
to carry his. I've been approached by a couple from other
states. They have to provide all the documentation and that.
And then the other part of this is, it says that the
department -- the head of the state or local law enforcement
agency may collect fees -- may set fees to recover expenses in
doing this. And what the expenses would be, we -- we aren't
9-23-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
31
and want to qualify, and then take them out to the range on a
special day. That doesn't happen. They can go out to the
range the same time we qualify either new employees or our
yearly qualification, and go out and qualify at that time.
So, your expenses at that time are the target itself and the
-- what we call the old pasties that you tape up on the target
after you shoot it and things like that, and just the
instruction part, and probably a little portion of our range
fees out at -- at Jack Burch's place. So, we're looking at
charging about a $25 fee for these officers to get -- for us
to qualify them. But the main thing that this says, under (g)
under the state law, is it does say a county law enforcement
agency must obtain approval of the program authorized by this
section from the Commissioners Court of the county before
issuing certificates. That's why it's brought to y'all, okay?
That's the whole reason. It says that I must have y'all's
in -- in Brown Stokes carrying a sidearm and a concealed
weapon program?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Probably really isn't that big
of a difference, other than not having to go through the state
when carrying concealed weapons. And law enforcement officers
normally, if you are under both federal and state, you can
4 ?3 0~
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
carry anywhere in the United States, and there's some places
in the U.S. that do not recognize Texas' concealed handgun
license.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Concealed or always -- for a
law enforcement person, always in the open, right?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It doesn't matter. You can --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Doesn't matter?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: If he's carrying it open, he's
got to have identification on him so you don't scare people
half to death. But the main thing on this is, I just have to
have y'all's approval to have my -- my program.
JUDGE TINLEY: Sheriff, let's look at Page 5 of 7 of
your draft policy, middle of the page.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Now, the draft policy also
covers all my firearms policy. It's not just the --
JUDGE TINLEY: I understand.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: -- the retired.
JUDGE TINLEY: But this is just under the
paragraph -- beginning paragraph under Retired Peace Officer
Proficiency Certification.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Are you with me?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: I tried to read that and understand
what it meant, and it is stilted, in my opinion. First --
9 23-07
33
1
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: The first paragraph says, "Kerr
County Sheriff's Office will allow honorably retired peace
officer or federal criminal investigator under article, and
honorably retired federal criminal investigators under
article" -- well, I left out the federal article; it's
actually House -- Federal Bill 218. I can add that back in
there.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I think it's 218. I have it
right here.
JUDGE TINLEY: The matching up of your verbs here --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Just the matching --
JUDGE TINLEY: -- and your nouns and whatnot, if
you'll take a look at that.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Maybe I can get you an English
teacher in here to help you. (Laughter.)
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You'd be surprised how many
people in my department think they're English teachers when it
comes to writing policy.
JUDGE TINLEY: I see. Okay. Maybe I can use one of
~ them.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah. Oh, I'm sure I will
I hear --
JUDGE TINLEY: It just didn't read smoothly --
4-'3-07
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
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right. It just --
JUDGE TINLEY: -- and understandably to me.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: This federal bill, H.R. 218,
that's the only thing that ought to be --
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: -- typed in there under the
first criminal investigator under article. And the difference
is, a federal officer, FBI agent, you know, and those are not
considered peace officers under the definition by the state of
Texas, except in a breach of the peace or an immediate, you
know, deal to squash crime. They can't just go out and arrest
people in the state of Texas. Most of them don't, so that's
why have you the two different ones.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How would you know about
Number 3 under psychological? Physical, yeah, you can
determine, but how would you know under psychological
disability?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Under their requirements, they
are required to show that; we're not. Every agency that's
ever hired officers, okay, has to have a psychological done on
every officer you hire, and there has to be proof of that.
And if that officer from, you know, New Mexico or wherever
wants to qualify for that, he has to show us that proof. We
don't have to, you know, go out and get it done. He has to
show it.
9-^3-0~
35
1
G
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd move for approval.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of the agenda item. Any question or discussion on the motion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the Sheriff's going to
consult with an English teacher on that paragraph?
JUDGE TINLEY: Absolutely.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. And this is the one other
one that I said in there, and I believe you have it in here.
Let me find exactly where it states that. Because in the
firearms policy, it has -- it does show two years, I believe,
and that has been changed to one year. They renew it every
year, and not every two years.
JUDGE TINLEY: It's going to read "expires on the
first anniversary date" rather than the second anniversary
date on Page 7 of 7?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right. 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. We'll go to
4-23-07
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
Item 6.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And first, real quick, before
you get totally off that, it doesn't say that the Court sets
that fee, okay? And the official fee, I will ask that it be
set during regular Sheriff's Office fees in the budget, okay?
But I don't hear any negatives of setting a fee of about $25
for that type of cost?
JUDGE TINLEY: That's your approximate cost?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Long as it doesn't cost us
anything, that's fine.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Good enough. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: We'll then go to Item 6; consider,
discuss, and take appropriate action to approve a contract
with the Hunt Volunteer Fire Department and allow County Judge
to sign same. Our contract from Hunt Volunteer Fire
Department came back. The cover letter which transmitted it
noted that the workers compensation coverage portion of it was
deleted, since they do provide their own. Secondly, they
indicated that they had modified Item 5. I don't see that
they've modified it. Did you, Mr. County Attorney?
MR. EMERSON: I haven't seen a copy of the return,
so I don't know.
JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, okay. A thousand pardons. A
thousand pardons.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Want the County Attorney to
4-23-0~
37
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
review this and come back a little bit later in the meeting
MR. EMERSON: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's leave that one hanging on
the hook for a minute and go to Item 7; consider, discuss, and
take appropriate action to approve resolution of proclamation
designating July 1 through 4, 2007, as "The American Family
Reunion." I put this on the agenda at the request of one of
my colleagues up in Williamson County. This is patriotism at
its finest, it appears, and what it does, it allows us to
designate essentially our Independence Day period as American
Family Reunion in Kerr County, as other counties have done.
The resolution, I will read into the record. It's a
resolution of Kerr County Commissioners Court expressing
support for declaring July 1 through 4, 2007, as The American
Family Reunion in Kerr County, Texas. "Whereas, we, the
people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect
union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide
for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and
secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our
posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the
United States of America; and whereas, we, the people, pledge
allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to
the republic for which it stands, one nation under God,
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all; and whereas,
9-^_3-07
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
we, the people, request that the following theme be proclaimed
for our nation, The American Family Reunion for the
celebration of the 4th of July, 2007. The American Family
Reunion, July 1 through 4, 2007, a reunion of present
perspectives with past patriotism for future families,
celebrating our origins, our heritage, our liberty; and
whereas, we, the people, wish to thank the County for your
time and consideration of this request and for the
proclamation of the same, and for the contributions that you
and all of our state public servants make, both personally and
professionally, and request that it be further proclaimed that
God bless America and all nations who pursue liberty and
justice for all; Now, therefore, be it resolved that Kerr
County Commissioners Court proclaims July 1 through 9, 2007,
as The American Family Reunion; and, therefore, let it be
further resolved and proclaimed that all citizens be
encouraged to participate in honoring our nation in the spirit
of this celebration in perpetuity." Designated to be adopted
this 23rd day of April, 2007, and signed by all members of
this Court.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, I'd move approval of
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The second "whereas," on the
9-23-07
39
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
"American."
JUDGE TINLEY: Oh.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The same correction in the
fourth "whereas," fourth line. God bless "American" instead
of "America."
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: With those two corrections,
I move approval.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of the resolution as indicated. Any question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You want to change the
spelling, but you definitely want to leave the word "God" in
there?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, thank you. Just wanted
to make sure.
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.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Good deal.
JUDGE TINLEY: We'll make those corrections and get
9-~3-07
40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
take appropriate action to approve resolution of proclamation
designating May 3, 2007, as National Day of Prayer. I put
this on the agenda at the request of Fern Lancaster, who, as
most of you know, has been the person in charge of the
National Day of Prayer ceremony that has occurred here at the
courthouse for -- I can't tell you how many years, but several
years. There's a ceremony out in front at which various
proclamations are read, all the way from the national level
down to the local level, with various persons participating.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
executed and proclaimed at the ceremony to occur on May the
3rd of this year. 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'll move
to Item 9; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to
approve bill of sale and assignment of those certain
wastewater improvements constructed in Phases II and III of
9-23-07
41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2L
23
24
25
the Kerrville South Wastewater Project, as provided in
intergovernmental agreement dated July the 12th, 2004, between
Kerr County and the Upper Guadalupe River Authority, and
authorize the County Judge to sign the same. Commissioner
Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Judge. This is
in keeping with our interlocal agreement, where the County, as
you may recall, is the lead agency in getting the funding and
doing the contracting and constructing the wastewater
collection system. This is for Phases II and III. As we did
at the conclusion of Phase I, we executed the bill of sale and
assignment, and assigned the pipes and laterals, et cetera, in
these two -- in these areas, as designated by the metes and
bounds and descriptions, to the Upper Guadalupe River
Authority. They, in turn, will be the keeper of it from this
point forward, maintain, operate it, and so forth and so on.
So, I would move approval of the bill of sale and assignment
as proposed.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of the agenda item as indicated. Is there any discussion or
questions?
	COMMISSIONER	WILLIAMS: Just one	other	comment,
Judge.	I'll -- I will	convey this to them	-- if	you'll sign
it, I'	ll convey it to	them Wednesday when I	meet	with their
4-23-07
42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
board to talk about other sewer projects we have in the
pipeline.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any other questions or
comments? All in favor of that motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Let's move
to -- let's move back to Item 6, if we might. Consider,
discuss, and take appropriate action to approve the contract
with the Hunt Volunteer Fire Department, and allow the County
Judge to sign same. Where are we, Mr. County Attorney?
MR. EMERSON: After reviewing the contract, I think
you're correct. They indicated an intent to change Item
Number 5, but they did not on the actual contract. Based on
their accounting procedures that they -- that they have
submitted in Item Number 2 in their letter, I don't see a
problem changing Item 5 to their requested language, if that's
what the Court desires, but either way it's okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. The --
MR. EMERSON: It's a system based on reimbursement
of expenses with proof of documentation.
JUDGE TINLEY: The existing language is actually
less restrictive than what they were proposing, in my mind.
9-23-07
43
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
MR. EMERSON: Correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER:
I contract --
I'll move we approve the
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- with Hunt Volunteer Fire
Department and authorize the Judge to sign.
JUDGE TINLEY: That was a second, Commissioner
Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and a second. All
in favor -- any question or comment -- further question or
comments on the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify
by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(NO response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Let's move
to Item 10; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to
approve an interlocal agreement with Bexar County to
participate in the Bexar County Regional Public Defender's
Office and authorize the County Judge to sign same. I was
presented with some information concerning what -- what is
essentially a pilot program. By way of background,
occasionally when indigent defendants are tried in our local
4-23-07
44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
criminal courts, they have the right to have those cases
appealed, and in doing so, appeal counsel must be provided for
them, as well as the record to go up on appeal and so forth.
The normal course of events is that, occasionally, trial
counsel is appointed. More often than not, there is a
was convicted to handle the appeal, and those appeals are at
the cost of Kerr County, just as the cost of the trial
representation of the defendant.
The project that's being developed in the Bexar
County Appellate Public Defender's Office, it's an initial
18-month period that they're going to try and ramp this thing
up. If we will participate in the program, the appeals are
absorbed -- the cost of those appeals are absorbed, and -- and
other than providing the record, which we have to do anyway,
and the cost of transmitting that record down to Bexar County
for the appeal in the Fourth Court of Appeals, we have no
further cost in it, so it would save us some money for
attorney's fees that would otherwise have to be paid to
attorneys handling appeals for indigent cases. I think
there's some other up sides to it also. You've got a -- it's
probably a more efficient manner for handling appeals, because
you've got experienced appellate attorneys that that's all
that they're doing, is handling appeals. Some of the research
that must be done sometimes by attorneys who do not regularly
9-23-U7
45
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and routinely handle appellate work, sometimes there's more
research has to be done by those folks, rather than the
experienced appellate people, so that's a cost savings, as I
see it. Plus they've got considerable experience in handling
appeals.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge?
JUDGE TINLEY: I think it's a great program.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree. When I read the, I
guess, pack that I was sent on this, only question I had is
who -- what county is responsible for maintaining the records?
It's still going to be Kerr County, I would think, maintaining
all of the court records up through the District Clerk's
Office, and how -- I didn't see anything in the documentation
that was sent to me about how you -- how that's done. Does it
just happen?
JUDGE TINLEY: When an appeal is perfected, there's
a designation of what needs to be included in the appellate
record. You got two different -- two different records. One
is a statement of facts, which is a verbatim transcript of
the -- of the testimony proceedings, much as we have here in
this -- in this court.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
DODGE TINLEY: And then you have what they call the
transcript, which is the -- the various file documents; the
indictment, the various motions that are filed, the charge to
4-23-07
46
1
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 jury, all of those various written documents. And
sometimes the entire record of documents is necessary.
Sometimes the entire record is not necessary. It depends on
what the issues are on appeal. But the -- the transcript and
the statement of facts for an indigent defendant would
continue to be the cost of Kerr County, as it is now. Once
that record is transmitted, under this interlocal agreement,
after the appeal is considered, that record would come back to
Kerr County at the cost of the Appellate Public Defender's
office. But the permanent records are maintained here, yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So -- but -- so, it's no
additional work for this District Clerk, based on -- they're
going to put the same file together they currently put
together, and then Bexar County will maintain that file until
it's through the appellate process, and then send the whole
file back and it goes back into our system?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just didn't understand how
that part of it worked.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And the pilot program just
simply is trying to get -- to see if a regional type public
defender's office would work. But, better than what's going
on now.
JUDGE TINLEY: It would be a better system, and more
efficient.
9 23-07
47
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: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: And --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: At the cost of the state.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I'm not sure where their
funding is coming from. I suspect initially it's a grant
funding program. But I think there are some efficiencies to
be gained, primarily because of the proficiency of -- of
attorneys who handle only appellate matters.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: And -- and sometimes, frankly, issues
are appealed that maybe shouldn't be appealed. Where you have
maybe two decent issues, they take up 10 points of error, and
it's more of a shotgun approach. That's just a personal
opinion, though. Mr. Emerson, did you have some comments?
MR. EMERSON: Couple of quick comments, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. EMERSON: I went upstairs and talked to the two
District Judges, and Judge Prohl said that in his district,
they have done exactly the same thing, except they have jumped
on a pool out of Midland/Odessa.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. EMERSON: For west Texas. And he said they
don't have that many appeals, but they were excited about it.
And Judge Ables was not available, but he did say Judge Ables
was aware of this program, was behind this program and thought
4-~3-07
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
it would be very cost-efficient. Now, there's a couple of
minor issues. I would point out, under Paragraph 1.04, that
if their funding under the existing program expires, the
County is obligated to fund for an additional period of at
County's cost. And under Paragraph 1.07, currently, the way
the system is set up, is your judges act as kind of a check
and balance on approval of additional expenses. If an
attorney gets appointed to do an appeal, and they want to
spend $10,000 on an investigator, they have to get preapproval
to do that. 1.07 pretty well implies just an open checkbook,
and then the County will reimburse the investigating agency,
so I don't think it would hurt on that particular paragraph to
put some kind of qualifying language limiting the County's
obligation.
JUDGE TINLEY: As a practical matter, on an
appeal -- in appeal situations, generally, the time for
investigators has long since gone. I mean, that -- you do
that prior to trying the case at the trial level, normally.
MR. EMERSON: Unless Mr. Jones pops up and says, you
know, "I had all this evidence, and my attorney just wouldn't
look into it."
JODGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm, yeah. Newly discovered
MR. EMERSON: Correct.
4-23-07
49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And you're saying that --
that when the program reaches its -- not its end, but is it --
is it, like, a three-year program? Is that what you just
said?
MR. EMERSON: I think 18 months.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 18 months. 18 months. And
then the counties will continue at least one year?
MR. EMERSON: That's -- under 1.09, it says the
participant shall make a good-faith effort to continue
spending existing funds budgeted for indigent defense through
the program on a prorated basis for a period of at least one
year beyond the task force funding in order to give the full
effect to the program. So, if their funding expires, we're
still in for another year afterwards to finish up the appeals
that they have in process, and that's -- I mean, that's not
unusual.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But that --
MR. EMERSON: 'Cause if you had a private attorney,
you're still going to follow it all the way through.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We still have the cost
regardless.
MR. EMERSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Those expenses wouldn't -- it
wouldn't anticipate there would be any more than we'd have to
pay anyway?
4-23-07
50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. EMERSON: I wouldn't think so.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Be the same basic dollars. On
1.07, is that a -- I guess, what is the likelihood -- the
chance of charges of additional investigations and things of
that nature? I mean --
MR. EMERSON: I don't -- this program is being put
judges basically preapprove expenses within a limit. If an
attorney approaches them and says, "I need additional
investigating expense," the judge will say, "Okay, I'll
authorize you on this particular case up to some -- 'X' amount
of dollars." I don't know that there's any check and balance
in Bexar County. I don't have that knowledge.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's the last sentence, I
think, that kind of gets my attention, along with Commissioner
Letz. "Costs of investigators, translators, or any other
collateral cost must be absorbed by PARTICIPANT." And that's
highlighted in capital letters, meaning that if we -- if we're
the participant, and that case goes from Kerr County to Bexar
County, those costs go with it and they're ours to bear. Is
that how you would read that?
MR. EMERSON: Well, what that situation would be,
appellate case ends up in Bexar County in this firm's lap, and
9-'s-a~
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
51
they decide that they need translators or investigators or
whatever additional expense they need. What they're saying
is, we will do our job to the best of our ability, but you're
going to pay the bill.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what I said.
MR. EMERSON: Yeah, it's our cost to bear. But
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: That would be our cost anyway, but
the local judges.
MR. EMERSON: Correct.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: My question is, if Judge Prohl
is participating in the West Texas for this very same purpose,
why would we need to do it in Bexar County as well?
MR. EMERSON: Judge Prohl's participating on the
other four counties in his district with the west. My
understanding is Kerr -- Kerr County's under the Fourth
Judicial Administration Region, and that whole group of
counties is trying to put together this appeal.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, but three of Judge
Prohl's counties are involved in this list of counties.
MR. EMERSON: Correct.
9-~3-07
1
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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Medina -- Mason, Menard, and
I Kimble.
MR. EMERSON: Right. But those -- those counties
have -- historically, have always hooked up with San Angelo
and counties west on their agreements. That's all I can tell
I You.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So, we probably wouldn't be
allowed to participate in the West Texas, being as that we're
involved with the region of Bexar County.
MR. EMERSON: It probably would not be as efficient
to hook up with West Texas. It's much easier for somebody
from Bexar to drive up here and do something if they need to
take care of it than to drive here from Midland.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: And to process and argue an appeal at
the Fourth Court in San Antonio.
MR. EMERSON: Correct.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How would you -- on 1.07, what
language would you recommend inserting or requesting be
inserted -- we can't unilaterally do it -- to give a little
bit more protection to Kerr County taxpayers?
MR. EMERSON: I couldn't give you exact language at
this point. I think somebody needs to talk to Judge Ables,
which is one reason I was trying to get to him and find out
what the Bexar County procedures are.
9-~3-07
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
53
JUDGE TINLEY: Best thing to do at this point is
just kind of pass it and bring it back, and let Rex work those
issues, I would think.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. Looks like it's a good
~ program.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I like the idea.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: A lot.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Anything else on that one,
gentlemen? Let's move forward. Consider, discuss, and take
appropriate action to authorize independent or outside audit,
in whole or in part, of the affairs, activities, and/or
transactions by or with the Kerr County Treasurer's office
and/or other offices as applicable or necessary. Commissioner
Oehler?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I put this on the agenda
mainly because it seems that a lot of the investigation has --
the investigation has gone about as far as it's going to go
without an audit. Evidently, the Comptroller has chosen not
to get involved in it up to this point, other than doing what
investigation they did, from my understanding. And if they're
going to do the whole thing, they're going to have to find
some state funds missing. That's my understanding. I could
be wrong about it, but that's what I've been told. And so I
e zs-o~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
54
feel like that, in order for Kerr County to get -- get back to
a zero starting place in the Treasurer's office, we need to
have an audit done, to investigate that and see whether
comes out. I just think it's time that -- I get asked this
question all the time, almost every day, everywhere I go.
They say, "What's happened to doing an audit to investigate
the Treasurer's office?" And I think any other offices that
may be needed to be looked at to determine where we are with
our finances in Kerr County. And Tommy Tomlinson talked to me
a while ago and said that -- he now says that the
Comptroller's going to come in and do some kind of an audit in
the next month or two, but I was just told that prior to this
meeting, and that information had not come before. So, that's
kind of where I am with it. I don't know what your -- what
the rest of y'all's feelings is on it, but I do think it's
important that we -- that we go forward and go out and get
some proposals from qualified people, whether they be local
and qualified and experienced, or whether they be in large
firms that would make a proposal of what it would cost to do
this, and at that time make a decision on who we would like to
have do it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I mean, I -- I think
we are at the point we need to move forward, and in my mind --
I mean, I didn't know the Comptroller was going to do
9-_'3-0~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
55
anything. But I think, you know, what we need to get first
is -- I'm not sure how we do this, but we need to generate
exactly what we want. We can't afford, I don't think, to go
to Peat Marwick and say, "We want you to audit this." I mean,
we would -- it's like giving a blank check to somebody. We
need to give them some specific things that we're looking at,
certain accounts we're looking at, or -- you know, and I
don't -- I'm not real sure how we develop the list of what we
want and then go to the next step as to, what's this going to
cost to get this?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We do it through a scope of
engagement, and that's a very good point.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We have to identify.
Otherwise, we're giving a blank check to somebody.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And if we want to give a
blank check to it, then be prepared to put some zeros after
that first number, 'cause that's what it's going to take. You
have to have a scope of engagement that identifies the
department, what you want them to look for, how far back you
want them to go and so forth. And are we talking about ar.
ordinary type audit? Are we talking about a forensic audit?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: For --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I don't -- I don't have the
9-zs-o~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
56
knowledge to know what questions to even ask in the scope of
engagement. I think -- I mean, I think it's complicated. I
don't know -- you know, I think we probably need to -- you
know, my preference would be not to go with a local firm, but
I wouldn't mind a local firm helping us design the scope of
engagement, 'cause I think you almost need an accountant to --
to write something like that. I don't know if y'all are, or
the Auditor is, you know, knowledgeable to do that or not.
But I think it would be better from a -- a perception
standpoint and other standpoint to have a non-local firm do
it. But I certainly think we need some expertise figuring out
what -- how do we specifically say what we're looking for?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If you remember, last meeting
the Kerr County Sheriff brought us a report on the issue, and
he said that soon he would be back with some recommendations
as -- toward the -- toward an audit, and in my mind, I would
personally hike to hear that report. That would be step one
for me, in order -- and then to start putting together this
list of issues and items that we want to take a look at.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think, clearly, the Sheriff's
to start looking at where to look. They've done a lot of
research. I don't know if they're at that point or not. I
So, Rusty, where are we
9-23-0~
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
57
on your investigation?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay. As you know, our
investigation was presented to the Grand Jury. It was passed
by the Grand Jury; they're wanting a little bit more
information on other matters. Whether this County aoes
number one, from what we've seen -- and we've gone through
thousands of records, okay? I cannot release what that is,
one, because it is still before a Grand Jury, and two, because
it's an ongoing investigation till after the Grand Jury
decides. Our investigation was totally turned over to the
A.G.'s office. They've been running with it, presenting it.
I do not see -- from what we've been able to uncover through
all of our investigation, at this point, I do not see any
additional criminal type charges that would be, because there
are some things under the law, and they're under
misapplication of funds by fiduciary or under theft or
anything like that, that would go to whether or not it was
reckless, negligent, or just mistakes. So, it would depend on
what the goal is of the County -- of y'all.
Now -- one. Now, to recover some late fees, things
like that, that are not criminal in nature, that could be done
either by civil suit or whatever procedure y'all want. There
are some deficiencies that I think we uncovered. I think
Tommy would agree with this, 'cause we've had some -- some
9-23-07
1
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
conversations about it. Where -- the main part that I see, or
where the County was deficient in some areas, is if one
department turns in funds, we collect fees, like I do over
civil process or I do over -- you know, whatever fees I
collect. We had got to the point where we had, like, a civil
account, checking account, and we actually wrote a check to
the Treasurer's office to cover that, so we'd have a permanent
record of that check and everything. Other departments have
collected cash in the past, and then you take that cash, and
they would take it down to the Treasurer's office and get the
Treasurer to sign a receipt for it, perhaps. Perhaps not.
When they were required. And that's Kerr County local
requirements, okay? And turn that money over to the
Treasurer.
Well, then you have turned -- a lot of them turned
the receipt and the money in to the Treasurer. They may have
kept a copy of the receipt for themselves, but who's ever to
ask, you know, "What did you do?" The copy of that receipt
never went directly to the Auditor of the county, unless the
Treasurer gave the Auditor a copy, so you could have
situations there where you had cash; the receipt was kept by
the Auditor. You -- I mean by the Treasurer, cash kept by the
Treasurer. And I'm not naming this Treasurer. I think we've
uncovered everything -- or -- or any former treasurer. I just
see a weakness, and I explained it to the County's audit firm
9 23-07
1
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
that comes in and does a yearly audit to where, if you had an
unscrupulous person down there, they could destroy the
receipt, keep the cash, and who would ever know whether that
Now, I think the new computer system has ways of
keeping up with it. I think the County needs to enact
policies that, like, if my department turns money over to the
Treasurer, also return a receipt of that to them, but also to
the County Auditor, so that they know what to look for. They
know to look for a deposit of this amount going in somewhere.
And that's where we didn't have a good checks and balance.
Other than that, I think you're dealing with a lot of late
fees and that, and I'm not going to get into whether or not
there should be an audit. Now, Tommy explained to me this
morning, too, that the Comptroller has notified the County
that they're going to be coming in and doing just one of their
normal audits that they audit each agency around. It's dust a
-- you know, every so many years, they come in and audit and
make sure everything is taken care of.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sheriff, the point you make
with respect to the check and balance of the routine
acceptance and receipt of moneys, regardless of the source,
is -- is typically something that our normal outside auditor
should have focused on and corrected by reason of his letter
4-23-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
60
back to the Court at the conclusion of his engagement.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That is true.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's not new stuff.
That's not new territory.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It isn't necessarily new, but
my problem is, without that double-check and balance, how
would our outside auditor even know to look?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It needs to be corrected; I
agree with you.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's why it needs to be
corrected. Nobody would even know to look at that, okay?
That's where the policy needs to be corrected, is -- is my
opinion. You know, will an outside audit actually even show
all of that, of any kind? I don't know. Because if the -- if
the department head -- and the County does collect money from
Probation, from my office, D.A., you know, everywhere, all
right? If they didn't keep a copy and they don't remember,
two years ago, how much money they gave that Treasurer, how
are you ever going to find it?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're making a point, and
I'm going to follow up on it. You're making a really good
point, and it is something that this Court needs to do. When
we engage the external auditor, we need to examine one more
time -- I don't think we've examined -- we haven't examined it
in the eight years I've sat on this Court. We need to examine
9 23 07
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
61
the scope of that -- of that engagement.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It's --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And I think we're going to
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right, I agree.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: At least we're going to put
out RFQ's for an audit, and that's the appropriate time to
examine the scope of that engagement. If we want to expand
it, that's the time to expand it.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And I agree; you're probably
right there. Now, like I said, our investigation, I saw, does
not show where we may have had hundreds of thousands of
dollars missing in this county by embezzlement or anything. I
can't show any of that. I can't show anything like that,
okay? And I think my investigators and number of subpoenas
and all that we did was a very thorough investigation. I
can't open that investigation up to the public and let them
see what all we went through just because of Open Records, but
there are a lot of little things in there that I think it
would be wise for the County to look at, either through the
normal auditing procedure -- if you hire, you know, somebody
to come in, I think they can give you points. I'm not going
to recommend one way or another what y'all do, 'cause I have
no idea what it would cost either.
4 '_3 0~
1
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
And I don't know if filing on the bond for late
Tinley got involved in and we got involved in where we're
trying to change some stuff through state Legislature and
other counties deal, such as there is now a law that says if
my department collects fees, I'm required to turn those fees
over to the County Treasurer within the same business day.
Failing that, within seven business days, okay? And failing
that, at least once a month, if the Court has given
permission. But there is nothing in that law that ever
required a time limit on, from when the Treasurer got the
money, for them to actually put it in the deposit. And when
you're talking millions of dollars, you're talking a lot of
lost money in interest if they waited six months to deposit
that money. So, yes, I think there's a lot of those type of
things that need to be looked at. I know the Legislature is
looking at changing that, putting the same statutory
requirements on treasurers across the state for doing that in
smaller counties. And there's just -- there's a whole gamut
of different things that -- that should be looked at.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Rusty, after some point,
presumably the Grand Jury will be finished with their -- and
do what they're going to do or not do. At that point, will
you be able to come to us and give us some more specific areas
that we may want to look at? You mentioned late fees several
4-23-U7
1
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
times. An area that we can look at, as I think we also looked
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I will mention --
may be some problems, as opposed to just a shotgun approach.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I will be more than happy at
any time to sit down and point out some areas that my
investigators or us have found that I think are some weak
points, and in procedural and in how things are done. I don't
have a problem doing that anytime with anybody. I already,
you know, got a call from our current audit firm, and we've
talked for over an hour on the phone about some of those.
That I can do at any time. I cannot get into anything in the
criminal investigation. One, at this point, because it's not
concluded, 'cause the Grand Jury hasn't concluded it. Two is,
if that investigation is no-billed, I believe Rex will say
that in a criminal investigation that does not go anywhere,
it's also not public record by law. I cannot release it --
it's not whether I want to or not -- on the criminal
allegations or the criminal investigation part. But as far as
policy and where we see weak points and where we see things
that may be able -- I think that should happen, and I would --
I would definitely avail myself and our investigators at any
9-_'3-0~
1
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
time to point that out.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: This all sounds real good,
and -- I mean, it sounds like, you know, that it's going to be
good for the future, but what about what's past? What about
what's gone on in the past? If we don't examine it now and
find out what has happened or not happened, it's not ever
going to happen, the way we're talking now. Yes, we can
change policy in the future. We're talking about an
again, the general public is saying they want to know where we
stand on past issues. We can fix the problems for the future
with future auditors, but there's nobody that's going to come
in and find out, without us asking and approving something to
be done for an audit, of what's past. And that's what I want
to know, and I think that's what a lot of the citizenry wants
to know, is what's past? Where are we?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And, Bruce, I have no -- I do
not disagree with you one bit, okay? I totally agree with
what you're saying. I'm just saying that we've looked at
almost two years, okay? And I don't find where we're going
to -- if the goal is to find more criminal charges, I don't --
I'm just letting you know up front, from what we've looked at,
and we've looked at about two years, I don't see any of that
coming up. Now, maybe something could come up that -- that we
haven't -- I'm not an auditor, and I'm, you know, not an
9-23-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
65
attorney, but I've done as thorough of an investigation as I
think can be done on the criminal side. It's not my place to
do a civil investigation. I won't get into that. That's
something an auditor, an outside law firm, whatever, would
want to do. And if that's the stance that this Court takes,
then, you know, I'm just letting you know where we are and
what I've seen in this investigation and where it could go.
It could end up being public. It could --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Rusty, I don't -- in my mind,
the goal is not to see if there's additional criminal charges.
The goal is to see what -- what -- I guess what the status is
of that department at a snapshot in time, which is --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And that's exactly where you
take my agency out of this -- this whole deal. My agency is,
you know, to investigate criminal charges, to investigate any
criminal acts, all right? And that's what we've done. Now, I
cannot go into, and wouldn't know how to go into a lot of the
civil stuff, and that's not my place. And that's where the
Commissioners Court needs to make their decision on what y'all
want to do. I can only speak to -- to us doing criminal
investigations.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: See, 'cause I don't -- I don't
see how we can find what needs to be fixed unless you look at
what happened.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And I think you have a very
9-^_3-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
66
good point there. And that is -- okay, all I can tell you is
what I've seen, what happened, and the recommendations I would
make. But I haven't gone into a lot of the other civil
accounting stuff. That's not my job.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But you can -- at this point,
you can give us at least a -- directionally, these are areas
that you said --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That we can --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- to look at. And that's what
I think we need to probably get with an accounting firm to
look at. You know, what other areas should we look at --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I can give you a lot of those
areas.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- from a policy standpoint?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And a lot of things have come
up, you know, that could be a cost to this county, all right?
Such as, you know, when is it that a former employee gets
dropped from the insurance program; County's not paying
insurance, okay, any more? Is that a criminal violation, that
that employee stayed on there a month? A year? Not
necessarily.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's neglect. It's neglect.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It's neglect, okay. And in the
criminal law, there's a big difference between reckless and
neglect, and that's where I'm out of it. And that's why I
9-23-07
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
67
said a lot of those, yes, there could be a lot of things that
this county needs to do, and I think should do, and I'm not
the one to recommend those type of changes. I'll be happy to
sit down, point out what we've seen to anybody, but I can't
recommend changing -- that would go to accountability and
civil stuff.
JUDGE TINLEY: Two questions, Sheriff. In your
investigation or any investigation the Attorney General's
office may have done, to your knowledge, was any assistance
requested or obtained from the Public Integrity Unit of the
Department of Public Safety?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I can't answer that question,
okay? I know when it was first brought up, the Rangers were
asked to assist in the investigation, and there was a -- they
declined. And that's where it ended, okay. And so, you know,
once the Rangers -- and that, to me, is D.P.S. on this type of
investigation. Once they declined on that, and then when the
Attorney General's office got it, as far as doing an audit and
that, we had to be able to show that there were missing state
funds.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, you don't know whether the Public
Integrity Unit was ever even consulted about it?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It was not consulted by my
office.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
4-~3-07
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
68
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The Rangers were. I do not
know, when we gave a lot of it over to the District Attorney,
who all at Austin that he consulted with. I know he did with
the A.G., and then the investigation was turned over to the
Attorney General's office, and they came down and met with us
and went over everything before it ever went to Grand Jury.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Second question. You had
indicated that you had, as a result of your investigation,
come up with a number of concerns about procedures and
methodology that had been used heretofore, and had a lengthy
conversation with the outside auditor about that?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Did you also have those same
conversations with the County Auditor, the inside auditor?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes, I did.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It seems to me that one way
that we could maybe get some advice, this county has a wealth
of retired people that have a lot of credentials; they have a
lot of experience, and if maybe we could ask for those --
somebody like that to come in and kind of visit with us and
visit with the Sheriff about some areas that he feels like
need to be looked at, would that not be information enough
to -- to go and get somebody to do those and do an audit on
those suspect areas?
9-23-07
69
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
]5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, I agree with you.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I don't believe that we need
on this agenda item. It's the Treasurer's office and other
offices that could be linked as being necessary or applicable.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The only difference I have
there is -- is, yes, it's Treasurer's office, and when you
talk other, it's every other office in this county --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Right.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: -- that sends money to that
Treasurer's office, one form or another. Some use checks,
some use cash, some use whatever. But you are looking at
every department, which needs to be -- and a iot of people --
you know, I found -- we discovered where one agency or one
department did not realize that you had one day, seven days,
and at the very most, 30 days to qet money down to the
Treasurer. They weren't -- they didn't know about that
section of the Government Code, so that's been corrected.
They were advised about it. But when one department holds
money for, you know, 60, 90, 120 days, that's in violation of
the Government Code. So -- but it wasn't because they were
intending to deprive our civil money. It may have just been a
very small amount; they just let it build up until it got to
the point they ought to deposit it.
9-23-U7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
~o
So, there's an educational stream, and there needs
to be some internal stuff that needs to be done, okay, to do
that. And the only thing I would ask is, at this point,
before I become very involved, I would like to get to a
through the Grand Jury. I'm not doing, you know, a lot more
investigation. Those weren't the questions they asked. But
I'd like to get some kind of ruling from the Grand Jury one
way or another before I get real involved in doing other
things, and which could be in a month. I mean, they could
very well take it back --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, the thing -- I guess my
biggest concern is that -- that the meeting -- I think it was
either -- I think it was two meetings ago, whenever this came
up the first time, was that, you know, I think I asked you a
direct question of whether or not you would give us ample time
prior to concluding your investigation to authorize an audit,
if one was deemed necessary, and at that time you indicated
that that was the case, that you would.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, then next thing we know,
it goes to the Grand Jury. And if the Grand Jury is going to
-- you know, they could possibly be meeting on this issue in
another three weeks again. And, you know, I just -- I just
9-~'3-0~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
71
want to be sure that they have as much information as they
could possibly have before this investigation is closed.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It would have to be reopened
again, and there are things that can happen.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: There are. And let me --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: But that I don't think are
right.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Let me explain the way this
works. We had some points that we had to look at, that we
started our investigation. We went through; we found some
even other points that -- you know, some of this stuff going
to Grand Jury is not what the original investigation even
showed, okay? And we -- and we've done that. And the last
time I was before the Court, I gave you that, you know, the
District Attorney had called the A.G.; A.G. had called and
said what Grand Jury they wanted to go to, and we advised you
of that. I can't release, I can't do anything else until
after that Grand Jury is over. That Grand Jury decided to
pass it, wanted a little bit more information. We're in the
process of doing that. It will go back to them probably the
next Grand Jury. I don't know. I don't -- I don't control
which Grand Jury it goes to.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And I tried to keep y'all
9-23-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
~z
informed. Now, what I'm saying is, I don't personally see
more criminal stuff coming, okay? If this county were to do a
-- a forensic type -- or an audit, and you end up showing
things, and I think what the law actually says is, as far as
negligence, reckless, that plays a big role in this
misapplication, theft, you have to really look at a lot of
that and understand, and that's what attorneys do better,
okay? And defenses to prosecution, you have to look at. If,
in the future, okay, you have, you know, a long statute of
limitations, and if this County -- if y'all decided to do an
audit besides the different outside entity, and they were to
show something else that could possibly be criminal, I mean,
all you're talking about, Bruce, is not an investigation that
stopped and started and reopened. You're talking about a
different issue totally at that point, okay? Which is a new
investigation, and should be a new investigation. And it
would go -- we'd work with that auditor. It's not whether we
would reopen something that's already been looked at. If
there's a new point, it's a new investigation.
You know, if Mini-Mart gets broken into, that's one
investigation. If they get broken into tomorrow, that's
another investigation. It's a different deal, whole different
at. But as far as criminal, I think we've done as -- I'm very
4-'3-u~
73
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
time and the subpoenas and the records and the interviews,
that there are some issues that I think the County needs to
' look at.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Bruce, are you -- are you
suggesting that we tap into the retired community, an Exxon
person that's retired here that is an auditor-type person, and
tap into them to take a look at this thing?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's what I'm suggesting we
do in the beginning.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Get somebody like that to take
a look at, you know, some of the -- you know, just kind of a
quick overview of where some problems are. And --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And maybe see if they're --
you know, what their little short investigation would tell us,
and give us some advice on whether we need -- how far we need
to go with this, or if we even need to do it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. I think it would be
almost foolish for us to spend possibly $100,000, or hundreds
of thousands of dollars to correct things like Rusty was
talking about, this receipt issue that moves around. That
would -- that would be almost foolish to do that.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I don't disagree with that at
all. I don't intend on anything like that, but I do think
9 23-~7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
74
that there are some expert people that live here that have
credentials, that have experience.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And we could ask that --
somebody like that to come forward and work with us in the
very near future to do a little preliminary investigation of
some kind, to give us some ideas of how deep this thing needs
to go, or if it even needs to go.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, there's a couple
points here. Investigation is one thing. Tapping into that
brain trust to help us -- help us device a scope of engagement
is something else again. If we're talking about having
somebody who has great expertise in audits, certified public
accounting and governmental auditing and et cetera, et cetera,
et cetera, then come sit with us, take a look at the picture,
and help us devise a scope of engagement for an external
audit, I would support that.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And that's --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If we're talking about an
outsider, undefined, whoever that might be, with his or her
credentials to do an investigation, that's a different ball
game.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, I agree. I don't think we
want them to do any investigation; I think we just want to
figure out -- 'cause if we do the investigation, and if it's a
9-23 07
75
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
local person that volunteering, every side's going to think if
it's -- it's a -- you know, that person has an agenda, and
it's not going to be worth anything.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: "Investigation" was probably a
bad choice of words. But -- but, --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- you know, I do agree with
what Commissioner Williams said about the scope of --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- of --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Engagement.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- what needs to be looked at.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And I agree with you, because
the one thing that I think has to also come out of this, and I
think the County has the authority to do this, there has to be
a written set -- just like I've been redoing all my policies
and procedures for the Sheriff's Office. There has got to be
some of set policy and procedures on how every elected
official or department head or individual employee in this
county handles and deals with and keeps track of county
moneys. There needs to be some set policies in that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're absolutely right,
Sheriff. But that doesn't warrant an expenditure outside the
scope of the -- of the external audit we already commissioned.
That needs to be a part of that external audit, with specific
4-~3-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
76
instructions to that audit company what we want.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The expenditure part is totally
up to y'all. I'm just saying that there -- that -- and I'm
looking at four, okay? It's up to y'all, 'cause I've already
finished our criminal part of it, but I'm looking at four, and
I think there has to be some good policies, and strong ones,
set.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Oehler, I think your
term "investigation" may have been misunderstood. What I
perceived investigation to be would -- whoever this individual
or individuals are with appropriate expertise in trying to
give us some guidance as to the extent to which we need to go
forward and what we need to look at, obviously, they're going
to have to know what the existing procedures are that have
been followed to see where strength areas are, weakness areas
are, things of that nature, in order to be able to give us
that guidance. That's what I perceived it to be. But insofar
as actually doing an audit of the records, at this point in
time, no.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's internal control, is what
we're talking about. And I think they really need to meet
with -- probably the Sheriff can give him some ideas in
general terms. I think the H.R. -- Eva, I think, has looked
at a lot of these areas; she can give them an area, and I
think the Auditor. I think those three individuals can give
9-23-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
77
someone a lot of information as to -- well, those three kind
given to somebody, and they can say, "Okay, based on that, you
probably need to look here, 'cause you have a real problem in
this area." That's what I would hope we'd be able to find.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That would work for me. I
just want to get to the bottom of this. I don't care how we
get there. You know, I would like to see it put to bed. And
favor of that office or whether it is detrimental, it does not
matter. The thing is, I believe the public has the right to
MR. EMERSON: Just -- I don't think I'm restating
anything that y'all haven't already stated, but just to make
sure that we all understand each other, there's a fine line
between developing your scope for further investigation and
going in and investigating, and maybe accidentally messing up
the A.G.'s investigation and/or potential prosecution, if
that's what happens. So, the County needs to be real careful
not to cross through and completely contaminate the process
that's already ongoing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I think the first step is
to get the word out that we hope some of these, you know,
retired people would be willing to work with us, and get them
back before the Court and discuss a little bit further. I
9-23-07
1
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
mean, they're the ones with the expertise. But I agree, I
think we have -- and they have to be aware there's an
investigation, and that's why I think it's imperative that
these people talk with probably you, Rex, and Rusty, and maybe
the District Attorney's office, and Eva and the Auditor to
know kind of where they are. And they may say, okay -- 'cause
I think most of them are really looking at what our procedures
are for internal control. And then, once they know that, they
will then be able to know, okay, based on that, this is where
you need to look, because you didn't have a good check system
here, didn't have any good controls in place. And then we can
make a decision whether or not we're going to go and look at
those specific areas or not. But I don't see them looking --
doing any actual investigation. It's more a control issue.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Pearson, you had a question or
you packing about a 2-inch thick item up there.
MR. PEARSON: No. When this issue came up many
months ago, and when the Sheriff started his investigation, I
had some friends in the Comptroller's office that I talked to,
and one of their first comments was, number one, if there's
state money involved. Number two was that there needed to be
some type of an audit to determine if state money was
involved. They expected that to be done on a local level.
And -- and I understand what Bruce is saying; we have some
9-23-07
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
79
very competent people in this community, but then you go back
to the same thing that Commissioner Williams came up with, you
know. There's going to be a perception in the community,
"Well, is this guy a buddy of Bruce's or is he a buddy of
Oehler's -- I mean of Buster's or somebody?" I think you're
this county.
And -- and in getting back to this -- what the
Sheriff said about when moneys are supposed to be turned in,
Rex caught me in the Law Library one day; we both looked at
the Local Government Code. The Local Government Code says
funds should be turned in immediately. Immediately. That
don't mean tomorrow or yesterday; that means the same day that
you receive them. And as far as the accountability by
departments, it's a simple daily report by each department
head of moneys. Funds in, funds out, a copy given to the
County Auditor. And each department could compile their daily
report into a weekly report, turn it over to the Auditor, and
he would immediately know what funds have been funneled into
the Treasurer's office. Doesn't take rocket science to do
this. But I don't think that people in the county -- people
that I've talked to are not going to be satisfied until
there's some type of an outside audit, not a local audit.
It's been proven, in my opinion -- and I've read a copy of
9-23-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
80
the -- of the county audit. And I'm not an accountant; I have
trouble with two and two, but there was no -- if you look at
their critique in this thing, there's nothing in there, like
you say, to -- to give the County any guidelines. There was
no critique, as could I see it. And I think your -- your
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS:	It's going	to happen,	sir.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: --	comment on	that, is I	agree
with Mr. Pearson as far as probably an outside. As y'all all
know, when the Rangers, you know, denied assisting in this,
that left our agency to do the investigation. And I think
y'all all saw my temper one time before when I was getting
letters and hit from both sides, one saying, well, I'm a
friend of Barbara's, or one saying I'm going to -- you know,
out to hang Barbara. And I think an outside agency does bring
in -- even though I can promise you, we did as upright and
honest investigation, looking at everything that we could.
But I think an outside agency may keep that down some within
the county itself, 'cause then nobody has anything -- and I
don't disagree if this county goes that way.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we're all saying the
same thing; all saying that we need someone to give us some
expertise on what to look for, and then you hire an outside
person to look in those areas.
4 ~3 07
81
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
JUDGE TINLEY: I see some members of the media here
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just one footnote, Judge,
following up on what Mr. Pearson said. There's an old saying
we're all very familiar with that, "Familiarity breeds
contempt." And it goes -- that washes wide and fast, and all
sorts of directions. More than likely, there's not a local
firm that would want to do this. If we can -- if we can agree
JUDGE TINLEY: I would think so. Mr. Bittner, did
you have something you wanted to --
MR. BITTNER: I'd like to make just one quick
comment. Now, without a complete audit, how can there be any
closure on this? Without the facts. You know, you got to
have the facts. And a Grand Jury wasn't satisfied with what
was presented to them, and I'm appalled that our Treasurer,
our County Attorney, our District Attorneys, our District
Judges, Commissioners Court is not demanding clarification,
accountability. And the citizens from -- the taxpayers of
Kerr County are due accountability of their money. Y'all are
9-23-0~
82
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
handling $20 million a year of our money, and we need to
follow the money.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Jimmy? I can guarantee you
that if we was to spend $150,000 of taxpayers' money and we
didn't find anything, you would be in here raising hell about
that, too.
MR. BITTNER: Mr. Baldwin, --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that -- am I wrong?
MR. BITTNER: -- $100,000 to a $20 million budget is
a cup of coffee.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand that. Doesn't
have anything to do with it.
MR. BITTNER: No, sir, I would not be in here. But
if you push it under the table, --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Nothing's being pushed under
the table.
MR. BITTNER: -- then I will be here.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I welcome you.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think we've beat that one about as
much as we can beat it for right now.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: For right now.
JUDGE TINLEY: It will be back.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It will be back.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's take about a 15-minute recess.
9-'3-U7
83
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
(Recess taken from 10:47 a.m. to 11:08 a.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to order, if we
might. We were in recess. Why don't we go to Section 9 of
the agenda. Mr. Auditor? We're here about the bills.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. Are you here?
MS. BOLIN: I'm here.
JUDGE TINLEY: First item is to pay the bills.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move we pay them, so we can
discuss them.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's right, Jon.
JUDGE TINLEY: Second?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll second that motion.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right. We have a motion and
second to pay the bills. Any question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Any discussion.
JUDGE TINLEY: Page 28. We don't have Maintenance
here, do we? I see where we have a -- now that all the air
conditioning equipment at the jail has been replaced,
piecemeal -- though it hasn't been replaced, has it?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And it still breaks down.
JUDGE TINLEY: Keep going out here.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're all about the same age.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions or comments? All
4-23-07
84
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(NO response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Let's go to
budget amendments. Budge Amendment Request Number 1.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. Number 1 is for
Nondepartmental, to transfer $7,984 from Workers Comp to
Unemployment line item for -- this is to pay TAC for
unemployment audit.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: For an audit?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, for last year's actual.
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: Motion does carry. Budget Amendment
Request Number 2.
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 2 is -- is from the Sheriff,
to transfer $330 from Dispatchers line item to Emp]oyee
Medical Exams.
4-23-07
85
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 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. Budget
Amendment Request Number 3.
MR. TOMLINSON: Three is for the 216th District
Court, request to transfer $724.64 from Court-Appointed
Attorney line item, $32.85 to Court Transcripts, and $691.79
to Court-Appointed Services.
COMMISSIONEF. WILLlAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Any question or discussion? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Budget Amendment
Request 9.
MR. TOMLINSON: Four is for the 198th District
4-23-07
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
86
Court, and this request is to transfer $2,025.43 from
Court-appointed attorney service -- Court-Appointed Services,
$814.33 to Court-Appointed Attorney line item, and $1,211.10
to Civil Court-Appointed Attorney line item.
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: Motion does carry. Budget Amendment
Request 5.
MR. TOMLINSON: Five is for the County Judge, to
transfer $56.87 from Conferences, Dues, and Subscriptions to
Out-of-County Mileage line item.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Any
question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, quit going out of county.
JUDGE TINLEY: They keep dragging me over to the
Legislature, places of that nature. Any other questions or
discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
9-?3-07
87
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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 Number 6.
MR. TOMLINSON: Six is from the Tax Collector, to
transfer $3,142 from Capital Outlay into Software Maintenance.
This is for payment of the voter registration maintenance
for -- for voter -- to Software Group.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Any question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is the one that we didn't
approve last time?
MR. TOMLINSON: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And we've been browbeat by the
Tax Assessor; we need to pay this one.
MR. TOMLINSON: I was too.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions or comments?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: She just sent us about 30
newspaper articles about all the --
MS. BOLIN: That kind of explained it. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Educational process, right?
4-23-07
88
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. BOLIN: Absolutely.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions or comments?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: One more quick -- is the State
going to get their system in line at some point? Is it going
to be abandoned?
MS. BOLIN: We don't know what's going to happen.
A]1 we know is this May 12th election is going to fall flat on
its face.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MS. BOLIN: But we're not. Kerr County is not.
JUDGE TINLEY: After the Tax Assessor talked to me
after we passed on it last time, and she explained the problem
to me, I -- I suggested to her that when she contacts the
State, to let them know that we would be seeking reimbursement
for this because their system wasn't capable of handling what
it needed to do.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can try.
JUDGE TINLEY: Worst that would happen is we get a
i no.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. I would --
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.)
9-23-07
89
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Any other budget
amendments?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Number 7?
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 7 is between Nondepartmental
and Crime Victims Rights Coordinator, Rosa Lavender. There
was a request from her to transfer $285 from -- into her Local
Mileage line item to reimburse her for mileage that this grant
will not pay. So, I recommend that we take the $285 from the
Property Insurance line item from Nondepartmental.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Does the grant pay for any
~ mileage?
MR. TOMLINSON: I think it pays $100, and she had
already used that. But she thought originally that the
mileage could come out of another line item, and they
disapproved it. I believe that's correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
MR. TOMLINSON: She's visited with the Judge about
it.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Any question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, we need to -- we need to
actually budget this round for that.
MR. TOMLINSON: I think she's taken care of that in
q ~,-n7
90
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the next grant application.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh.
JUDGE TINLEY: Probably as part of -- if it's not
permitted under the new one, as part of our in-kind --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- contribution.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: She can pay for it out of her
pocket.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other question or discussion?
All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right
hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry, Do we have
any late bills?
MR. TOMLINSON: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: I've been presented with the
following reports: Justice of the Peace, Precinct 1, Justice
of the Peace, Precinct 4, Justice of the Peace, Precinct 3,
and County Clerk, Trust and General Fund. Do I hear a motion I
that these reports be approved as presented?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
4-23-07
91
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
l3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
as indicated. Any question or discussion? All in favor of
the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Okay, we are back
to Item 12. Consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to
review applications for open position in Environmental Health
for an inspector. Does any member of the Court have anything
to offer in open or public session before that matter might be
considered in executive or closed session?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I believe we should discuss it
in closed session.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It concerns personnel and also
salary.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me go ahead, then, and call Item
13 also. Consider, discuss, and take appropriate action
regarding transferring employee from Road and Bridge to
Maintenance. Does any member of the Court have anything to
offer in open or public session before this matter might be
considered in executive or closed session? Apparently not, so
at this time, at -- at 11:17, we will go out of public or open
session to go into executive session and consider those two
items that I just called.
9-23-07
1
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
(The open session was closed at 11:17 a.m., and an
executive session was held, the transcript of which
is contained in a separate document.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, we are back in open or public
session. It is 11:42. Does any member of the Court have
anything to offer in connection with matters discussed in
closed or executive session?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sure. I'll make a motion that
we offer the opening in the Environmental Health inspector to
Mr. Roy Shaver at a 17-5, which is $28,807 salary.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I second the motion.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
indicated. Any question or discussion on that motion? All in
favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(Motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have some -- I have a
question, though. He's going to Dallas in June? Or that's
when the next school is?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: He is able to be -- he will
come to work as soon as his obligation is over at Schreiner
College at the end of the month.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: End of the month. So, do we
9-^_3-07
1
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
pay all expenses to Dallas, and is there a fee --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: There is a fee. It's not --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Hotel room?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It's not a big thing. It' a
three-day course.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Meals and travel and --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Mm-hmm. And I don't know how
much is available in that -- that's something else that
I've -- I'll bring that probably on the next agenda just for
discussion.
MS. HYDE: Mr. Rex said I needed to -- we've got a
letter that we need to put on the agenda to address that the
next time.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Next meeting, there are some
things.
MS. HYDE: To answer Mr. Baldwin's question.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I don't think they have money
in their budget.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's fine. I just wanted
to make sure. If there wasn't, we need to fix that before he
gets going. And then I really like the idea of us rewarding
people for education -- obtaining education, a higher level of
education. I think that's neat.
9-23-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
94
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, we've got it in the --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sheriff's Office.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- Sheriff's Office, and to a lesser
degree in Road and Bridge. But if there's any special skills
that can be achieved through education in any of our
courthouse staff functions, we need to recognize those. I
agree with that. Any other -- any other action to be offered
in connection with any items discussed in open -- or closed or
executive session?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, under Item 1.13, I'll make
a motion that we transfer Sonny from -- back from Road and
Bridge to our Maintenance Department, effective immediately.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
indicated. Any question or discussion on that motion?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's a question out
there.
MS. HYDE: Where do I -- where would I put him back
into the --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Maintenance.
MS. HYDE: -- production? With Tim?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Maintenance, yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Maintenance, yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And -- well, at our next
meeting, we'll also realign the responsibilities for that, and
4-23-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
95
let them take over park maintenance.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm not sure that's even been taken
out. May not have been.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Might not. We need to make sure
that Maintenance person is aware that he's responsible for
that item.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just so they understand,
they got the work that goes with the guy.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other question or comments on
that motion? All in favor of that motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Okay. Let's
go to Section 5 of the agenda. Do we have any reports from
any Commissioners in connection with their liaison or other
assignments?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Nothing, other than I, once
again, would like to say that we need to get our joint
dispatch committee together pretty soon. So, Commissioner
Letz, if you would be kind enough to just think through that
process.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Am I on that committee?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes. We're in trouble.
4-^3-07
1
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
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me clarify that for you, if I
might. I contacted -- after we amended the committee
composition, I contacted the City. Number one, we could not
find initially where they had made their appointments. In
truth and in fact, they had.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They did?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, in truth and in fact, they had.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Early January.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: And so we have those. And also, they
have no objection to Mr. Zachary being added to the committee.
The -- the response was, they didn't feel it was even
necessary to carry it back before Council; fine with them.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let her rip. So --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with that, too.
Well, good. So, we're off and running on the thing.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And their -- their
committee's in place?
JUDGE TINLEY: Their -- their -- they designated ~'.
Chief Young, --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Chief Holloway.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- City Manager, I believe, and I
4-23-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
97
believe Chief Holloway. We've got them designated there.
They did, in fact, respond to that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well -- so, I really think
that our committee needs to get together one time, just us
chickens, and kind of get -- make sure we're all riding the
same horse, and then invite them somewhere for an initial
meeting pretty quick.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We want to be proactive on
this thing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. I agree.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We'll set it up.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You know, that's just been on
my mind.
JUDGE TINLEY: You got anything for us, Commissioner
Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just a word, Judge, about
the air -- the 25th Anniversary Air Conference sponsored by
TexDOT Aviation. In addition to greeting your son in the
driveway --
JUDGE TINLEY: Was his conduct good, by all
appearances?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Conduct was really good. He
4 ?3 07
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
98
was there for oil and gas; that means he was going to make
in aviation-speak most of the time, and they take for granted
that everybody in the audience knows all the acronyms and what
they mean and how they apply, and whatever, whatever,
whatever. But we talked about the future and the air taxi
market, very light jets and how they serve the market, et
cetera, such as ours. And we talked about -- the one that
really got my attention was new instrument approaches coming
to an airport near you, and we've talked about that at the
Airport Board, having to do with the Wide Area Augmentation
System versus the existing instrument landing system; the one
that's global positioning-driven and the other is
whatever-driven, and had an interesting discussion about that.
We talked about airport leases and how we can perhaps maximize
that, and some considerations in that regard. And, just
generally speaking, it was informative, and I was glad to have
that opportunity to attend.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: What do you got for us?
9-~3-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
99
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't -- only thing I have is
probably going to be dovetailed with what Commissioner
Oehler's going to talk about related to the Ag Barn and his,
you know, spending part of an afternoon walking around, trying
to come up with some plans. I'll turn it over to him.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's good. Leave to it me,
I huh?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I will say, we were going to put
it on this agenda today; then we decided we really need to
get -- have a little bit more of our ducks in a row as to
exactly what the drawing -- because I suspect that it might
get a fair amount of --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I want you to know, these are
some professional drawings.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's a preliminary drawing.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: This is a brown bag special.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Brown bag special?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Except it's on a white piece
of paper.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Rex, do you want a copy of
this?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I didn't see -- I don't see
an engineer's seal on this.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Let me tell you something,
there's not one. We talked about lots of things when we were
9-23 07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
100
out there, one of them being building a new, basically, hog
This is -- these are estimated prices on buildings that are
150 feet wide, 300 feet long, three different plans. And
there's quite a difference in money, because some of them have
internal columns like our existing indoor arena, and for
spectator things, those are not good. For a lot of reasons,
they're not good, but it makes it cheaper, 'cause your beam
for your truss isn't going to have to be as heavy if you have
columns under them, and that's why there's a difference in
We also -- I mean, this just gives us an idea of what
There's
no labor. There's no concrete, and I believe that any new
This has many, many more uses if you have concrete, and you
can tailor it to do just about anything if you have -- or --
or hard surface in there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And kind of just a little
direction, what we're -- Bruce and I are thinking, we're going
to be coming back at the next court to propose building this
building. It will be on the -- probably on the east side of
the big arena. Leave the existing exhibit hall as-is, but
tear off all of the barn portion where the hog pens currently
are and all that area back there, tear that off and turn that
9-_'3-07
101
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
into parking. Rehab the -- where the horse barns are
currently housed, rehab -- well, first, take the horse stalls
that we feel are needed, that number of them -- we're not sure
what that number is yet -- probably move them up to one of
those storage areas next to the arena, where they would
actually be used a lot more; we could keep more control on
them, and then rehab that barn that's never been used for both
a combination of storage and 4-H projects, and probably
concrete floor there and put sides on it. I mean, make that
into a usable barn too. And -- but because of the way that
was built, it's not suitable for a big barn. It's got too
many supports in it and things, but it certainly is good for a
lot of storage.
One of the storage uses would be the -- the fair,
and others. There's a lot of little storage things out there,
and maybe try to clean up that lot a little bit, put about a
third of it to half of it in storage, and the other third and
half for an area that Roy has been looking for, to use for
youth exhibits under the 4-H, for -- basically, so people
can -- in the city of Kerrville can have a spot to keep their
animals. And he's -- he has -- so that's kind of what we're
looking at. And -- you know, and hopefully starting that this
year. We have some money budgeted for the rodeo arena this
year in the budget; we're probably going to look at bringing
that -- transferring those funds to start the rehab this
9-23-07
102
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
summer of the barn where the horse stalls are.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And get rid of the excess
ls. Those things are nothing but a liability.
aettina anv rent off of them. One reason we're not
is because they're out of sight, out of mind. You can't tell
if there's a horse in the thing until you walk down there, go
through it, and look and see if there's any horses. People
are bringing them in, so they'll get one key, you know, and
one key fits all the locks. Their buddies come along behind
them with more horse trailers, and they pay for one horse, and
they may put five of them in stalls, and we don't catch them,
so we get no revenue off of it anyway. If we move some of
those up into that outside area on the east side that's closed
to the indoor arena, then they can be policed, and they also
can be locked down by pulling doors down. If somebody puts a
horse in there, you can lock that thing up, and they'll come
get their horse. They'll be -- and they'll be willing to pay
to get their horse back that way. You can have a secure,
policed area that way. The way it is now, that -- that thing
is just totally out of sight, basically out of mind. We don't
have that much staff out there any more, and that's -- 18,000
square feet is how big that building is.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which one?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: The outdoor pavilion.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Pole barn.
9 23-07
103
1
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: 18,000?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Pretty much.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Dirt floor in it?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yes. It's 19 by 200.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And we're looking at -- at
concreting part of that floor, if not all of it, over time. I
mean -- I mean, just -- it's a good building; it's just never
been used. And it's absolutely just ridiculous not to use the
building for something.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What would it cost to
concrete the floor?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, you're looking at
~ probably --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: $6 a foot.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- about $105,000, $110,000.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What was the Fair
Association willing to spend for a new building?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think $30,000 or $40,000, I
I think.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why couldn't they
participate?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's the idea. That's the
thought.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's the idea. I mean,
that's what we talked about. Both of us have talked about it.
9-^_3-V7
104
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
And the Fair Association needs a permanent storage for all
their floats, their -- all the -- whatever they have that they
utilize in the fair. They need a 30-by-40 enclosed, but a
permanent building. And I hate to see us take up any more
space for something like that when we have that kind of space
available. We could utilize that 30-by-40, which is not a
very big area, a 1,200-foot building, and then put maybe
community service stuff in another part of that next to it,
and then maybe make more county storage if needed. And all
that would be enclosed, and we could get rid of all the
containers, the out buildings and all that stuff that is not
being -- I mean, the more we do of that, the more disjointed
it gets.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. I mean, a lot of -- right
now, a lot -- all of the pens for the stock show are housed in
the arena, some of the side parts of the arena. If we can put
those out in this barn, make it a storage building where we
need it, that stuff's all usually moved around by equipment,
anyway. What's the difference if we move it from the side of
the arena with a forklift or move it from the outside storage
area with a forklift?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Most of it's only moved once
or twice a year.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would this facility -- this
facility would eliminate the pens behind the existing exhibit
4-_3-07
105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
hall?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yes. Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And it would -- and,
therefore, it, in effect, replaces them for the stock show
people.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, my question really is,
is this building going to be sufficient -- large enough -- to
meet the needs of that growing stock show?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I believe so. It's going to
actually be larger.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's larger in that area. And
also, the idea would be to put the auction rings in this
building.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So that --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So you keep animals out of the
exhibit hall.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So that what remains, then,
as an exhibit hall would be for people use, limited though it
is?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What improvements are we
talking about to make to that building; i.e., restrooms,
concessions and all that other stuff?
9-23-07
106
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We haven't gone that far. We're
-- we're really at the point right now of trying to figure up
a footprint, so to speak, and get some preliminary costs on
some of these newer structures, new things. And I think it's
go, maybe with a little -- hopefully get some grants or some
other outside funding. And maybe if we need to do a little
bit of a short-term tax anticipation note or something like
that, but to try to get this thing -- you know, it's not a --
this is not a huge plan. It's not an intent to really do a
major overhaul of the exhibit hall, Phase I. Maybe part of
it. And I think, really, before I'd want to spend much money
on that portion of the building, I really want to see what the
Fair Association's plans are and where they're going with some
of their plans. Because if -- I mean, and it may be that it's
better to use, you know, some county money to get -- to
encourage that getting done, as opposed to, you know, going
into those old buildings. You got to figure it out. I just
think we're not to that point to know really what improvements
need to be made.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I participated with that
long enough with you for you to know that I -- I believe that
we have to improve the agricultural part. I know we need to
do that. That's an obligation we need to have. But at the
risk of sounding like a broken record, we also need to talk
4-23-07
107
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
about improving and working toward improving the people side
of the equation, and take a look at everything that's being
missed in this county by virtue of the fact that we don't have
adequate facilities to do it. Two things come to mind
meeting, he did a yeoman's job in getting that into the Y.O.,
but we absolutely overran and ran over that, used up that
hotel ten times over, more than it -- than it was built and
probably can handle. I also had the opportunity to visit with
the Master Gardeners at their meeting at the Inn of the Hills.
650 Master Gardeners were in Kerr County for that meeting, and
they, too, overran the Inn of the Hills. It was great; we
managed to accommodate them. We got them in there, took the
money, and sent them all home in both cases, but we need to
examine very carefully, hopefully with another governing body
in this city, how we take care of people and people needs
going forward.
Sudie Burditt prepares and keeps a running list of
running list of lost business. It would blow your mind if you
could see how much and the size of some of the meetings that
we have lost. We have the rooms to do it
9 23-U7
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
somebody else is going to get it, and we're going to be set --
we're going to be wishing that we'd done something about it.
Fredericksburg is currently engaging in building hotel rooms
just as fast as they can build them over there, which tells
you that they're thinking this same thing we should be
thinking. I think we need to examine very carefully with the
City how we get this done with a public/private consortium,
and get it done.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't disagree with anything
you're saying, but I think that that -- Bruce and I are
looking at trying to fix this facility for this purpose.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I commend you for that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think -- and I think it's
this ag facility.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree. You're right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, I mean, the ag facility is
we get this taken care of, I think then we focus on something
else that we can figure out, a joint governmental or private
joint, you know, effort.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't disagree with what
you're saying, Commissioner, except I think you can do both at
the same time. You can put them on two separate tracks.
9-23 0~
109
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't have a problem with that
at all.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I agree with the two separate
tracks issue, because there's not really room for both. But,
anyway, that's kind of where that is. I think we'll present
something more next meeting. And I also mentioned it to Rosa
Lavender, that's going to find me a half million dollars right
quick to do some of this work, and so she's out doing whatever
she does, trying to find some, I hope.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's money out there.
U.S.D.A. has money out there for things like this.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's probably enough on that
for the time being.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Probably come back at our next
agenda or the one after that with more of a -- of a plan that
we can present. And --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah. I'll draw it off
similar to the way I drew this one. (Laughter.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Professional style, of course?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Little bit larger paper,
little bit larger plan for those of us --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Maybe some color?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- that don't see as well as
we once did. Only other thing, I guess, is Animal Control is
9 23-07
110
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
doing very well. They've -- they're continuing to get animals
adopted. And I appreciate your support on the Environmental
Health, and I'm so glad we had a really good applicant come in
to that job. Be disappointing to me if it doesn't work out,
but I think it -- that's a good one. I'll leave it alone at
that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is that it, gentlemen? We stand
adjourned.
(Commissioners Court adjourned at 12:03 p.m.)
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF KERR
The above and foregoing is a true and complete
transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my
capacity as County Clerk of the Commissioners Court
of Kerr County, Texas, at the time and place
heretofore set forth.
DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 27th day of
April, 2007.
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
BY: __1~( ____ ____ ____
Kathy nik, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
9 23-07
ORDER NO. 30239
ACCEPT MISTY LANE IN MEGAN MANOR FOR COUNTY
MAINTENANCE
Came to be heard this the 23rd day of April, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Oehler, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court unanimously
approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Accept Misty Lane in Megan Manor for County maintenance with no obligation to
be responsible for drainage easements and/or detention structures, located in
Precinct 4.
ORDER NO.30240
FINAL PLAT OF INFAMOUS 1169 RANCH
Came to be heard this the 23rd day of April, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Oehler, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court unanimously
approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the final plat for Infamous 1169 Ranch, located in Precinct 4.
ORDER NO. 30241
WEAPONS POLICY FOR RETIRED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS
Came to be heard this the 23rd day of April, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve enacting a weapons policy for retired Law Enforcement Officers.
ORDER NO. 30242
RESOLUTION OF "THE AMERICAN FAMILY REUNION"
Came to be heard this the 23rd day of April, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the Resolution of Proclamation designating July 1-4, 2007 as "The
American Family Reunion", after making the following 2 corrections:
In the second "Whereas", in the first sentence, change "American" to
United States of "America"; and in the fourth "Whereas", in the fourth
line, change "American" to God Bless "America".
ORDER NO. 30243
RESOLUTION OF "NATIONAL DAY OF PRAYER"
Came to be heard this the 23rd day of April, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the Resolution of Proclamation designating May 3, 2007, as "National
Day of Prayer".
ORDER NO.30244
BILL OF SALE AND ASSIGNMENT OF KERRVILLE SOUTH
WASTEWATER PROJECT TO UPPER GUADALUPE RIVER AUTHORITY
Came to be heard this the 23rd day of April, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the Bill of Sale and Assignment of those certain Wastewater
Improvements constructed in Phases II and III of the Kerrville South Wastewater
Project as provided in Intergovernmental Agreement dated July 12, 2004, between
Kerr County and the Upper Guadalupe River Authority, and authorize County
Judge to sign same.
ORDER NO. 30245
HUNT VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT CONTRACT
Came to be heard this the 23rd day of April, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Oehler, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the Contract with the Hunt Volunteer Fire Department, and authorize
County Judge to sign same.
ORDER NO. 30246
CLAIMS AND ACCOUNTS
Came to be heard this the 23rd day of April, 2007, came to be considered by the
Court various Commissioners Precincts, which said Claims and Accounts are:
Accounts Expense
10-General	$	136,049.50
15-Road & Bridge	$	26,834.23
18-County Law Library	$	304.00
31-Parks	$	56.95
40-Alt Dispute Resolution	$	14,000.00
50-Indigent Health Care	$	23,682.23
76-Juv Detention Facility	$	4,890.64
TOTAL
$ 205,817.55
Upon motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin,
the Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to pay the claims and accounts.
ORDER NO. 30247
BUDGET AMENDMENT # 1
NON-DEPARTMENTAL
Came to be heard this the 23rd day of April, 2007, 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
10-409-207 TAC Unemployment Ins.
Amendment
Increase/QDecrease
+ $7,984.00
10-409-204 Workers Camp. - ($7,984.00)
ORDER NO. 30248
BUDGET AMENDMENT #2
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
Came to be heard this the 23rd day of April, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously
approved by vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense codes:
Expense Code Description
10-560-220 Employee Medical Exams
Amendment
Increase/()Decrease
+ $330.00
10-560-107 Dispatchers - ($330.00)
ORDER NO.30249
BUDGET AMENDMENT #3
216th DISTRICT COURT
Came to be heard this the 23rd day of April, 2007, 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
10-435-497 Court Transcripts
10-435-402 Court Appointed Attorney
Amendment
Increase/QDecrease
+ $691.79
+ $32.85
- ($724.64)
ORDER NO. 30250
BUDGET AMENDMENT #4
198th DISTRICT COURT
Came to be heard this the 23rd day of April, 2007, 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
10-436-402 Court Appointed Attorney
10-436-403 Civil Court Appointed Atty
10-436-401 Court Appointed Services
Amendment
Increase/()Decrease
+ $814.33
+ $1,211.10
- ($2,025.43)
ORDER NO. 30251
BUDGET AMENDMENT #5
COUNTY JUDGE
Came to be heard this the 23rd day of April, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously
approved by vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense codes:
Expense Code Description
10-400-486 Out of County Mileage
Amendment
Increase/ODecrease
+ $56.87
10-400-485 Conference Dues & Subs - ($56.87)
ORDER NO. 30252
BUDGET AMENDMENT #6
TAX ASSESSOR-COLLECTOR
Came to be heard this the 23rd day of April, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Oehler, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense codes:
Expense Code Description
10-499-563 Software Maintenance
Amendment
Increase/()Decrease
+ $3,142.00
10-499-570 Capital Outlay - ($3,142.00)
ORDER NO. 30253
BUDGET AMENDMENT #7
NON-DEPARTMENTAL
CRIME VICTIMS RIGHTS COORDINATOR
Came to be heard this the 23rd day of April, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Oehler, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense codes:
Expense Code Description
10-438-426 Local Mileage
10-409-480 Property Insurance
Amendment
Increase/QDecrease
+ $285.00
- ($285.00)
ORDER NO. 30254
MONTHLY REPORTS
Came to be heard this the 23rd day of April, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously
approved by vote of 4-0-0 the following monthly reports:
JP # 1
JP #4
County Clerk -Trust and General Fund
JP #3
ORDER NO. 30255
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT INSPECTOR
Came to be heard this the 23rd day of April, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Oehler. The Court unanimously
approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Offer the opening of the Environmental Health Inspector to Mr. Roy Shaver at a
17/5 which is a salary of $28,807.
ORDER NO. 30256
TRANSFER EMPLOYEE FROM ROAD & BRIDGE TO MAINTENANCE
Came to be heard this the 23rd day of April, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the transfer of Sonny Schmidt back from Road & Bridge to our
Maintenance Department, effective immediately.