1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT
Special Session
Monday, August 27, 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

'O
r
ao
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I N D E X
August 27, 2007
---	Commissioners' Comments	
1.1	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action	to
	authorize Clear River Advocates' use of Fl	at
	Rock Lake Park on September 1, 2007	
1.2	Presentation from Investment Advisor Linda	
	Patterson with Patterson & Associates	
1.3	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action	on

~	Kerr County Investment Policy	
I
11.6	
Consider/discuss, take appropriate action	
on
i	issues involving tract size, right-of-way	
	dedication, floodplain admin., and review	
	process in the ETJ of Kerrville	
1.4	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action	to
	renew appointment of Hugh Jons to 9-1-1 Bo	ard
	of Governors	
1.5	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action	to
	approve 2007 Audit Engagement Letter from	
	Pressler, Thompson and Company; authorize	County
	Judge to sign the same	
1.7	Consider/discuss, take	appropriate	action to
	accept the resignation	of Precinct	1 Justice of
	the Peace effective as	of close of	business on
	August 31, 2007		
1.8	Consider/discuss, take	appropriate	action to
	appoint a new Justice	of the Peace	for Precinct 1
1.9	Consider/discuss, take	appropriate	action to use
	budgeted funds from 15	-611-552, Em	ulsion Oils,
	after October 1, 2007		
1.14	Consider/discuss, take	appropriate	action on
	delinquent tax notices		
1.18	Presentation of Safety	Award from	Texas
	Association of Countie	s	
1.10	Consider/discuss, take	appropriate	action for
	revision of Lot 13 and	water well	lot in Oak Ridge
	Estates; possibly set	date for public hearing
PAGE
6
14
17
32
40
63
63
72
73
76
78
91
95
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
August 27, 2007
1.11 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
purchase Road and Bridge software
1.12 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
adopted '07-'08 Kerr Central Appraisal District
budget
1.13 Consider, discuss and take appropriate action on
proposed amendment(s) to taxing unit agenda for
Kerr Central Appraisal District 2006 budget, in
accordance with request letter dated 8-2-07
1.15 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
adopt the fees charged for civil services by
the offices of Sheriff and Constables
1.16 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
appoint County Judge Pat Tinley to Board of
Trustees of Hill Country Community M.H.M.R.
Center for a two-year term effective 9-1-07
1.17 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
further discuss new policy and fee schedule
for Kerr County Exhibition Center (Ag Barn) &
rescind all previous orders pertaining to such
1.19 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
advertise for RFP's for professional services of
an architectural design/evaluation/site planner
for the Youth Exhibition Center building project
101
107
112
113
114
116
134
1.20 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
accept a donation of metal folding chairs from
City of Kerrville; instruct Maintenance Department
to transfer same from Blackwell Fire Station to
HCYEC for storage and use 152
1.21 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
adopting a policy on filing unofficial plats not
approved by Commissioner's Court in Plat Records
or other location in County Clerk's Office 154
1.22 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
making minor adjustments to Sections 6.02, 6.03,
and 6.035 of Kerr County Subdivision Rules and
Regulations relating to plat size requirements
and OSSF requirements 155
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
4
I N D E X
August 27, 2007
			PAGE
1.23	Consider/discuss, take appropriate	action on	
	setting up workshop with Bickerstaf	f, Heath,	
	Delgado, Acosta, Ltd., to review ne	w legislation	
	concerning county subdivision rules	& regulations	158
1.24	Consider/discuss, take appropriate	action on	
	renovation plan for pole barn at Hi	ll Country	
	Youth Exhibition Center & authorize	going out	
	for bids for concrete work		162
1.25	Consider/discuss, take appropriate	action regarding	
	what level of worker's compensation	should be	
	carried on Sheriff's Office reserve	deputies	178
1.26	Consider/discuss, take appropriate	action to	
	discuss possibility of the City of	Ingram entering	
	into a contract with Kerr County fo	r animal control	186
4.1 Pay Bills 195
4.2 Budget Amendments 199
4.3 Late Bills ---
4.4 Approve and Accept Monthly Reports 203
5.1 Reports from Commissioners/Liaison Committee
Assignments 203
5.2 Reports from Elected Officials 210
--- Adjourned 216
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
5
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: Okay, let me call to order this
regular meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court which
is posted and scheduled for this time and date, Monday,
August 27th, 2007, at 9 a.m. It is that time now.
I Commissioner Oehler?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Let's have a moment of prayer,
and then we'll be following that by the pledge of allegiance.
(Prayer and pledge of allegiance.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. At this time, if there's
any member of the public or audience that wishes to be heard
on any matter that is not a listed agenda item, why, we
welcome you to come forward at this time and tell us what's on
your mind. If you wish to be heard on an agenda item, we'd
ask that you fill out a participation form at the back of the
room. If they're not there, or if for some reason you don't
fill one out and suddenly feel the urge to be heard on an
agenda item, if you'll get my attention when we get to that
item, I'll see that you're recognized. But right now, if
there's any member of the public or audience that wishes to be
25 ~ heard on any matter that is not a listed agenda item, please
8-27-07
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
feel free to come forward at this time. Seeing no one coming
forward, we'll move forward. Commissioner Oehler, what do you
have for us this morning?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, not a whole lot. I
i
could talk to you about an hour but it probably doesn't serve
any purpose at this point. There's just a lot of things going
II on, as usual. Animal Control and Environmental Health, and
had a Library Board meeting the other day that was not very
enlightening. And, I don't know; I guess one of the comments
I'd like to make is the fact that it seems to me that the City
of Kerrville does just not want to get along. They -- they
just kind of give us a mandate; say, "Here it is, y'all just
pay it." We're like the ATM machine, and we don't really have
much -- much authority to negotiate anything with them. I
think that's really sad. And I don't know where they come up
with some of their numbers, 'cause they don't tell us, but
they want us to pay, and I don't like that. But I'm not sure
what I can do about it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Been there, did that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Dittos Number 4. We've got
-- we've got a small problem. Today we're going to appoint a
new Justice of the Peace in Precinct 1, and whomever that
person will be will be brand-new to the job. And the very
next day, it is his turn to magistrate out at the jail. I
8-27-07
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
think there's -- out of the next three days, a couple of them
are J.P. 1's turn, and there is some reluctance on other
J.P.'s to help us and fill in that particular -- those
particular days. So, we're trying to work it out even as we
speak, waiting on some return calls, and -- but it just blows
my mind sometimes, the lack of cooperation around our family
here. But, anyway, before I say something I shouldn't, I
think I'll quit.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Got up early this morning to
do a -- make a speech that Judge Tinley threw the requester
over to me, and so I had to get up and get my computer and
projector and hightail it down to the Inn of the Hills to talk
about AACOG for the better part of 30 minutes this morning.
We did that. But I also want to thank the new employee
welfare fund, I believe it is, for the beautiful plant they
sent my bride in the hospital, and she asked me to find out
who's responsible for that. So, I asked Jody this morning so
she could send a thank-you note. But we're going to move
Ms. Lew this morning for rehab and get her out of the
hospital. We thank whomever for the beautiful plant.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's under Eva and Mindy.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll convey it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is that it?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: At this point.
s-z~-o~
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just a couple of not real
tired, it's because Sam informed us last night we have ghosts
and monsters in our house. (Laughter.) So -- so Karen said
we're going to spray our house, and she's going to pick up
some ghost and monster spray killer, and we will eliminate
them from our house; we will not have another night like last
night.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would that be one of those
old spray cans?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not sure what Karen's going
to get for that, but I assured Sam we will not have them in
our house this evening. I'm not sure we talked about it in
court before, but it's a -- I met with an individual --
interesting. In 2009 -- July, I believe -- we will be hosting
in Kerrville the International Congress of Speleology.
Speleology is the -- it's kind of like spelunking, but it's
beyond just caves. It's kind of karsts, which are limestone
aquifer rock cave systems; kind of includes all that. And we
are in the -- just by our geography, are one of the largest
karst systems in the world. And the International Congress --
it's a pretty big deal. About 2,500 people are coming in from
all over the world for this. I met with their director, and
will hand out a few of these, and these are available for
anyone else that wants them. This is the first flyer.
8-27-07
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
They're going to be here for a full week, in conjunction --
they're primarily going to be at Schreiner College. They've,
I guess, rented Schreiner for that week, and -- but they will
also be using other venues in the city, and certainly a lot of
people around. A lot of them, I -- it was described to me as
the type of individuals that will be here, it'll be a group
that are on expense accounts from universities and governments
around the world, and that there will be another group that
will be in tents and backpacks from around the world. Those
are the more cave people -- cave crawlers, and the other ones
are more on the aquifer side. But, anyway, they kind of work
together. Should be pretty interesting. There's a lot more
coming up down the road about that, but I just thought I would
let everyone know that they will be hosting that. Only the
second time in history that this congress has been in the same
country twice, and it was in the United States in 1981. And
we beat out New Braunfels. We didn't have anything to do with
it; they internally decided they thought we were a better
location than New Braunfels.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Jon, didn't they say that
our -- our underground system is similar to others, like --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Eastern Europe has quite a few,
and evidently Vietnam has quite a few, and Cuba. Cuba has
become a little bit of a challenge. They'd like to have Cuba
25 ~ involved, but it's more a diplomatic issue. And also,
8-27-07
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Kerrville, we've spent quite a bit of time -- we don't have
any control over it, but getting visas to these people are --
it's a challenge, because evidently we're so much more
i
difficult, and we're going through the State Department.
', Anyway, they're doing all kinds of stuff. They're working
with Sudie's group a little bit already, and they're going to
have field trips going to caves all around here. And, anyway,
!, they'll be here; it will be a pretty big deal for about a
I
week, and I think it's towards the end of July in 2009.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And we may have the
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- some things like that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They've actually even offered
some funds possibly to help things along in some areas.
Unfortunately, not enough to really help along too much, but
anyway... And I guess the last thing I want to bring up -- I
can't even remember if we met since we had the last round of
flooding, but -- I think we did, but the -- that last big
flood, while the -- the rise on most of the creeks was not
real significant, there was one creek, North Creek, which
comes close to Kendall County, but comes -- feeds to Cypress
Creek. Anyway, it was probably the highest it's ever been,
and as a result of that, Cypress Creek flooded Comfort. And
8-27-07
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
it was probably the second worst, in my memory, flood of
Comfort. The park in Comfort had about 3 feet of water
through it. It was that deep. The drug shop, Cypress Creek
Inn, all those businesses along there, all those homes were
flooded significantly. The old baseball field, which is now
the softball field for the high school, was pretty much
demolished. Old football stadium was under about 3 feet of
water. It was a very significant flood right in that area.
It was quite phenomenal. Easiest way, if you go into Comfort
cross Cypress Creek right there, the water was probably 3 or
4 feet above the guardrails on the bridge.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm with you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It was a major, major flood, and
it came down to -- it was North Creek was what caused it. It
was not coming down through Cypress Creek. It was just
going -- it's kind of -- the watershed of it's along Highway
87 towards Fredericksburg up Steeler Hill, kind of where North
Creek comes from. But, anyway, just thought I'd bring that
up. A lot of those people -- the businesses could use your
support in buying things, 'cause they need a little bit of
revenue, and restaurants and all the other businesses, and the
people, and some donations. They were hit pretty hard.
That's it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. I want to thank
8-27-07
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
Council of Governments. He's been our go-to guy with AACOG at
player down there, and on the board, and I believe the
executive board also, and has really done a good job. And
that's -- that was the subject of his -- of his discussion
this morning with the club that he made the presentation to.
So, I'm sure they found it very informative, and -- but the
bottom line is, I appreciate his service that he's given for
Kerr County on that AACOG Board.
I was -- I was privileged to attend and to present
some awards to some young people with 4-H this past weekend.
As some of you may know, there are at least two awards that
this Commissioners Court gives out. One is to the particular
4-H youth that -- that has done an outstanding job in their
programs. The other is to -- to an adult volunteer. Of
course, all those 4-H activities are family-based, and there
are a lot of adult leaders and volunteers that are there, so I
was privileged to present both of those awards, as well as
three different Gold Star awards that -- that the local 4-H
group awards. I've said it before, and I'm going to say it
again; that we hear that that Ag Barn complex doesn't even
break even, that we end up spending more money than it brings
in. And there's some intangibles that you don't see out
there. Those young people that are involved in 4-H programs,
25 ~ they don't show up in my juvenile court. They're involved in
s-z~-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
13
a lot of real positive programs. They're positive kids.
They're developing positive life skills, positive leadership
skills, and they practice those skills and they help develop
their peers around them. So, as a consequence, I don't see
them, and that's a tremendous savings to Kerr County. We talk
about the cost of our juvenile justice system. Yes, it is
expensive. But it's like the Fram commercial; you pay me now,
or you pay me later. And I think the cheaper way to go is to
pay it on the front end and try and keep those kids out of the
adult criminal justice system, and if we can do that, we're
far, far ahead economically. And when it comes to the benefit
of those kids as future adult citizens, I don't think there's
any question but what we're far ahead. So, the 4-H programs
are a good thing, and I was proud to participate in them.
I That's all I have.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, one quick note in the
context of AACOG the Court might find interesting. That is
that Mayor Gene Smith of the City of Kerrville has joined that
Board of Directors, having been selected to replace Patrick
Heath, who for 28 years was the mayor of Boerne and a well
established member of the AACOG Board. And so Mayor Smith
prevailed, and -- in the discussions with the mayors of
Boerne, Bandera, Fredericksburg, and Kerrville, and he is now
a member of that board for the remainder of his term, I guess.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Let's get with the agenda
8-27-07
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
and move to Item 1. Consider, discuss, and take appropriate
action to authorize Clear River Advocates use of Flat Rock
Lake Park on September 1, 2007. I put this on the agenda.
Mr. Willis and his group had their little gathering down
there, and they had some weather issues and they weren't able
to do a portion of their program that they had planned because
of -- because of the weather issues. And so, in essence, they
-- they kind of cut it in two, and did part of it down there,
which I was very happy to participate in, and the balance of
it they want to do down there on September the 1st in the
MR. WILLIS: Absolutely, 7 p.m.
JUDGE TINLEY: I do note that we've got some sort of
a -- some sort of a fun run that's going on during the day
that involves Flat Rock Lake Park to a smaller degree, but
mostly over on the city side with the Kerrville-Schreiner city
park over there, and the park is available in the evening.
So, based upon those two factors, why, I put that on the
agenda for the Court's approval to allow Mr. Willis to finish
up his Clean River programs.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is this a continuation of
the floats and so forth that we -- or is this actually a
cleanup program?
MR. WILLIS: No, this is the continuation of the --
of the event that we had of the floats. We were only able to
8-27-07
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
do the floats, so we have the fashion show and the dance --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. WILLIS: -- that are following.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This is not the actual river
cleanup?
MR. WILLIS: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Taking trash out and so
forth?
MR. WILLIS: We're attending the U.G.R.A. cleanup on
I the 8th.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. WILLIS: We're going to have -- they're having
one, so we're going to do that one.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And Flat Rock Lake Park's
not being used as a storage area for trash?
MR. WILLIS: No. We won't even actually -- we're
mostly using the boat ramp for this event, anyway. So --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. I only ask the
question because one time the park was used for sort of a
receptacle for trash taken out of -- out of the river, and it
stayed out in the park for an extraordinarily long time, so I
I just wanted to be sure what was taking place. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: From 7 p.m. till?
MR. WILLIS: Well, it'll probably last till the park
closes. I think at 11:00, right? So, we'll shut her down
8-27-07
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
when the park closes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Good. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Any question or discussion? All in favor of that
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Thank you,
Mr. Willis.
MR. WILLIS: Boy, that was easy.
JUDGE TINLEY: Appreciate your work.
MR. WILLIS: May I approach?
JUDGE TINLEY: What do you have?
MR. WILLIS: I have something for you and for
Mr. Oehler here for being judges at the parade this year.
JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, okay. That's most kind of you.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I like that, and thank you.
That was a really big judging.
MR. WILLIS: Yeah. We11, you know, the weather
scared them off. But, you know, we should have a pretty good
group at the dance and fashion show, and we're hoping that you
guys will attend.
e-Z~-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
17
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you so much.
MR. WILLIS: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: We appreciate that.
MR. WILLIS: Y'all have a good day.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move to Item 2, if we might, a
presentation from investment advisor Linda Patterson with
Patterson Associates. Ms. Hargis, our auditor, has asked that
this item be placed on the agenda.
MS. HARGIS: Good morning. Commissioners, I'd like
many years, and I've worked with her for many years. She --
her firm specializes in governmental entities and investing
with governmental entities, so I'm going to let her kind of --
she's more adept at this than I am, so I'm going to let her
kind of talk about it. Then we can go into policy after she's
kind of introduced herself to you.
MS. PATTERSON: Good morning. As Jeannie said, my
name is Linda Patterson, and I spent 20 years in government
myself, in Fort Worth and with the state of Texas. I was Fort
Worth's city treasurer, and then the deputy state treasurer
for the state of Texas under Kay Hutchison. So, my background
being public, when I established a firm, we decided to focus
strictly on city/county governments, school districts and so
forth, and we currently have about $3 billion under
8-27-07
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
18
management. The most important thing is to make sure that you
have a good, strong foundation in what you're doing, and make
sure that you have good controls in place. And so Jeannie
asked me to take a look at your investment policy and make
some suggestions to what might be changed to make sure that
you have those controls in place and make sure that everybody
can sleep and know that even with the markets as we've seen
them over the last couple weeks, really jumping around, that
you have good, secure investments, good investments that will
give you a reasonable yield, because that's very important,
since this is an incredibly important asset to you. Second to
your employees is your money, and making sure that that money
works, and so that's what we do and what I do. And if Jeannie
would like, I'll walk through some of the suggestions that I
made on your investment policy.
MS. HARGIS: Yeah. I think we haven't really
discussed the policy, so -- did y'all want to go into that,
which is the next item on the agenda? Or do you want to talk
about --
MS. PATTERSON: Or do you have any questions for me?
JUDGE TINLEY: Tell us a little bit more about how
you traditionally operate with -- with government entities,
how you -- how your compensation is based, what your track
~ record is relative to in-house management by government
entities, to the extent that you have that information
8-27-07
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
19
available to you.
MS. PATTERSON: Oh, it's -- I live it every day, so
it's definitely available to me. Now, what we -- what we do,
and in working with the different kinds of entities that we
work with, one of our most important things -- and I was
talking to Mindy this morning about it -- is that the people
that we work with are educated in what we do and why we do it.
We always use the in-house people to make sure that we
understand your cash flows, and so we -- we work constantly
with people inside, but taking away the really more
time-consuming parts of investing, plus adding an experience.
I've been in the market -- I hate to admit it -- about 30
years, so it's -- it's -- we're in there every day. And what
we do is work with your internal staff, your Treasurer, your
Auditor, to make sure that they understand what's going on in
the market without taking a lot of their time. And then we
take -- and when you have money available to invest, or when
we think -- for instance, right now we're of the opinion that
probably the fed will cut, and so it's important right now to
make sure that you lock in something at 5 percent rather than
slide down with the pools that are very convenient, but not
going to be a very good investment for you. So, it's a
constant communication situation.
But then what we do is, we never touch any entity's
8-27-07
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
20
become your agent in the market. We take care of looking at
the market, making our call on what is going to happen with
the rates and where you should be investing, when you should
be going longer, when you should be going shorter. And
sometimes our advice is, you know, just stay in the pool, stay
very liquid, stay in the bank. It all depends on what the
market is, what's best for you. And then we take care of
I getting competitive bids, making sure that you're getting the
best interest rate that you possibly can. Our scope in what
we deal with, obviously, you know, being in the market a long
time and having had, luckily, the positions that I've had, and
having now $3 billion that we're in and out of the market with
all the time, you get the benefit of going in with a 300-pound
gorilla, and so we get the best rates for you. We settle the
securities. And then what we do on the other side is -- and
that's all with the agreement -- with the communication of
your staff. And then what we do is settle those securities --
if we end up buying a security, we settle it into your
account, so that, again, we don't touch it.
One of the other, I think, important things,
especially from your viewpoint, is the reporting, because too
many times I see entities that are really not getting good
information on the portfolio. Really, a consolidated,
summarized look at what am I really earning? What does it
really look like for liquidity? What kind of diversification
8-27-07
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
21
do I have? And those kinds of things we incorporate. To me,
reporting is very critical, and we do monthly reporting,
quarterly reporting, your GASB, annual reporting to make sure
that the decision-makers, the management, the Court
understands what your portfolio is, and if we are and you are
fulfilling the goals that you set out first and foremost in
your policy. So, it's a full gamut. We just take away the
time-consuming thing, which to us is kind of the most
important thing, because we're getting the best rates for you,
but also providing that information back to you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How are you compensated?
MS. PATTERSON: Oh, compensated. I knew there was a
question I forgot about. A good one, too. It used --
traditionally, money managers are paid on assets under
management, with basis points under management. So, it would
be -- for instance, if you're in a money -- money market funds
or a mutual fund or someone's managing your own money, they
get paid "X" basis points or hundredths of a percent on the
assets that you own. After dealing with governmental entities
for so long, I have heard so many times that governing bodies
don't want to speak basis points, and can't decide how that's
going to affect your budget. So, what we normally do is we'll
present it both ways, and you can choose it. Present it
either as a basis points on assets, which normally is going to
be about 7 to 9 basis points, so .0007 to 9 basis points. Or
8-27-07
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
22
what a lot of our clients do is actually go for a set annual
rate, so that that annual rate is something that they can
budget and understand. And -- and normally, it's much less
than you could hire a beginning person for; I'm going to guess
about 25,000 to 27,000 a year for a lot of expertise, but also
something that you can manage.
Now, we do have smaller clients that, what we do is,
they don't need us very often, or even large clients. Giving
you an example, Nueces County Hospital District. Very large,
lots of money, but they don't invest very often; it's
long-term money, and they don't want us in there every day.
They don't even want us to do the reporting for them. They
said, "We can do that. But when we need you, when we're going
to make a decision, then we want to be able to call you." So,
they keep us on a small retainer so that they have access to
us any time they want.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How much -- what is the -- I
guess the difference between what your county clients have
received versus what you get -- you currently get as just the
pool, which you --
MS. PATTERSON: Well, the pool -- okay, all of the
pools -- and, actually, I've sat on or managed most of the
pools in the state at one time or another, and I truly believe
in the pools. But I think right now is an excellent example
of why you need diversification and why you need to do more
8-27-07
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
23
than the pools. If, for instance, the fed is going to reduce
rates -- and we're all waiting for Friday, going to wait and
see what Bernanke says. But the indication is, and you've
seen it already this year, the pools have gone from about a
5.35, a 5.30 -- you know, they're going down and will continue
to go down as there's more anticipation of a rate cut, in
which case you are totally at the mercy of short-term rates.
~, You're going to flow with federal funds, because that's how
the pools have to invest in order to give you liquidity, so
you're going to slide down here. And we did it in 2001, if
you remember, at the beginning of 2001. The federal funds was
6 and a half percent. At the -- January of 2002, we were at
1 percent and stayed there.
So, during these periods of time, it's very
important that you look at not staying in the pool, but, for
instance, we're looking out in the 6-month area right now for
a lot of our clients, and we're getting 5 -- oh, 5.10 to 5.20,
lock that in. Not going very far. Matching your liabilities,
your payrolls, your payables, your debt as much as service,
locking that in, and then having those rates stay over a
period of time, when if you stayed in the pool, there's no
telling this time. I don't believe in the calls for
recession, but I think you might very well see federal funds
going down to 4 and a half, 4.25. So, you would be locked in
at a 5.20, 5.30, instead of following the rates down again.
8-27-07
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
24
Now, when the rates stayed at 1 percent for a long period of
time, there was -- there was very little reason not to be in
the pool, and we kept a lot of our clients in totally liquid
securities. But when there were little moves in the market
and we could get above the -- the pool rates, then what we did
in the bear market, as the rates went up, then we kept moving
out very small steps and moving them up with the yield.
You know, the -- I actually wrote the Public Funds
Investment Act that controls the -- all of the investments
changed constantly and been refined over the years, but really
what we were saying and what investors have to say is, I want
the safety. I want to make sure that I preserve that -- that
capital and that principal, but I'm not going to ignore a
reasonable yield. And a reasonable yield right now is a 5.25.
So, I'm going to work the money and make sure that that money
is earning at a reasonable rate. The last thing I am
suggesting to you is that you go for the gold ring, 'cause
that's not where public money belongs. It's not reaching out
too far and grabbing -- trying to get a 6 or a 7 when it's not
there, but making sure that it's constantly working. I always
give people the example of the fact that when I was city
treasurer, just by consolidating money and making sure that it
was compounding all the time -- 'cause we work a lot with our
clients on policies and procedures, internal controls,
8-27-07
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
banking, and by doing that you can pick up a lot of yield just
because you're being more efficient with your money. You did
ask before what -- what kind of result we have, and, of
course, I'm S.E.C. registered, and I can't -- any more, I
can't give you projections any more; I'm not allowed to do
that. But from our history now of almost 14 years as a firm,
I could probably tell you that, over that time, we add about
three-quarters of a percent to what people had done before and
what the pools are doing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What would -- I'm sure you've
looked at our financial situation, basically. What would that
yield? Let's say three-quarter -- half to three-quarters of a
percent, what would that yield, based on the --
MS. PATTERSON: What would that make for you?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MS. PATTERSON: Probably, over a period of a year,
probably $70,000 to $80,000 at least. And, there again, it's
depending on what --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sure.
MS. PATTERSON: -- what the rates are going to do.
If we go back down to 3 percent -- knock on wood we don't,
I but...
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Ms. Patterson, you said
earlier that you wanted to educate our in-house folks that --
Mindy, as an example. I'm wondering to what extent that
8-27-07
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
26
you're talking about. Just Mindy? Or are we all going to
know as much as you do now? Or what -- how does that work?
MS. PATTERSON: I can't promise you that. I've been
at this a long time. But, actually, what we do a lot of is
teach investments, and we know that the best clients we have
are educated clients, so we don't just say, "Mindy I think we
ought to go out and buy in the 5-year -- in the 5-month area,
6-month area." We send out an e-mail every day that takes the
information of the market, and instead of just throwing
statistics at you that housing starts are there, or employment
stats, how this is really going to affect the market. How's
this going to affect your portfolio? And then we provide
ongoing -- you know, if there's any question that any of your
staff have, then they just call us, and -- and we're there to
fill in exactly, you know, what's going on or why we made a
decision or why we think the cash flow should be this or that.
We do a lot of that. In fact, I do a lot of training on-site
with all clients, just to make sure that they understand what
we're doing.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'd like to follow up on
Commissioner Baldwin's question. I think that's an
interesting question, too. In my experience on this Court,
what we've done in the past is adopt a policy, and then sit
back and -- and not very proactive about it, leaving it to the
Treasurer. Which we should do, and that's okay, and the
s-2~-o~
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
MS. PATTERSON: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that part of your
MS. PATTERSON: Absolutely. Almost all of the
clients that we have, I am on the road a lot because of that.
I usually -- most of my clients like to have at least an every
six month look with me in front of the Court or the board or
commission, and telling you exactly what's happening. And we
try with our reports to do that too, so that you see in a
graphical manner what's -- what's important. And you're so
close, I could actually do it once a quarter.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where's your base of
operation?
MS. PATTERSON: TexPool.
23			
24			
25			
	8-	27-	07
COMMISSIONER LETZ: TexPool.
(Discussion off the record.)
MS. WILLIAMS: Most of our funds are at Security
MS. PATTERSON: Austin.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Currently, our -- our funds are
in TexPool? Is that what are we in right now?
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
State Bank. They are swept into an investment -- a sweep
account every evening. There's --
JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Patterson, I've got --
MS. WILLIAMS: Sorry. There's a certain amount that
stays in the checking account, and anything over that is put
into that investment sweep account.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's that sweep account earn?
Do you know?
MS. WILLIAMS: Not right off the top of my head.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Half a point.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Maybe 1 percent.
MS. PATTERSON: Well, the sweep, my guess would be
about 3 and a half to 4.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Three different areas I'd like to
address with you, if I could, please. Number one, I think you
mentioned that you provide monthly reports to the Treasurer,
the Court, the Auditor and so forth, and as well as recaps on
a quarterly, semiannual, and annual basis, I presume?
MS. PATTERSON: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: The work that you do, that takes some
of the workload off of the Treasurer, I assume?
MS. PATTERSON: Yes, it does, quite a bit.
25 ~ JUDGE TINLEY: I presume because of that, you're
8-27-07
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
MS. PATTERSON: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. PATTERSON: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: The third question I have for you is,
do you more than earn your keep, or at least earn your keep?
MS. PATTERSON: I don't ever -- I don't ever
approach an entity unless I think that we can help you. I
never do that, because -- and, for instance, very, very small
entities, I don't -- you know, I usually do it pro bono, just
because I'm a -- I'm a real supporter of local government.
i But if I don't think that we can help... But I can see what
you're doing here. You know, you're not even using the pools.
You're in the banks, which is the best -- Mindy's got you in
the best bank situation that you can be in. But she also has
a lot of other hats to wear. You know, after 20 years in
government, I know I never had less than about 10 hats to
wear. And so, having us add value in order to watch the
markets and give some ideas to her -- and her call is the
final call. We don't do anything about the portfolio. In a
public setting, I don't believe you can have discretionary
management. I think it's always nondiscretionary, because we
always have to get the approval from her before anything is
done. And so, yes, I think we do add a lot of value. I mean,
8-27-07
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
right now we would -- we would have you up around 5 percent,
at least. And 1 percent is 1 percent.
JUDGE TINLEY: And even considering your
compensation, the net return to the County is greater than we
would normally receive -- and 7. realize we're speaking in
broad brush strokes here.
MS. PATTERSON: Right;. Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: But ---
MS. PATTERSON: But ~~s I said before, it -- it truly
is -- you know, over our history, net of our fees, it's about
three-quarters of a percent th~~t we add.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any other questions for
Ms. Patterson?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Is this a service that we
would have to go out for propo:~al on, or is it something we
can just do?
JUDGE TINLEY: This is -- I think would fall under a
professional service. We're looking at requests for
qualifications, and I'm going to defer to the County Attorney
over here if we -- I may have blindsided him, which, of
course, he's used to by now.
MR. EMERSON: Well, in this particular instance, I
don't know the answer, though.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
s-z~-o~
31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. EMERSON: I think we've addressed this issue
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What have other counties
counties, school districts, hospitals, airports. Most people
consider it a professional service, as you would legal fees,
engineering fees, architectural fees, because it is more of a
qualification base than it is on a strict bid. So,
occasionally we will get somebody who wants to go out to bid,
which is fine. You know, we have no problem standing up with
our qualifications against anyone. But I would say it's more
on the professional service side.
MR. EMERSON: My only comment, Judge, would be that
the statutes and the Attorney General opinions are real
specific on what's professional and what's not. I just -- I
couldn't say without going in and looking.
JUDGE TINLEY: Without researching? Okay. Any more
questions for Ms. Patterson?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, ma'am. We appreciate --
MS. PATTERSON: You're quite welcome.
JUDGE TINLEY: We appreciate you coming here, and we
appreciate the benefit of this information. And I'm sure it's
something that we're going to seriously consider.
8-27-07
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
MS. PATTERSON: Well, and since we -- this is
wonderful, because we manage the funds for the city of
Kerrville, so it allows me to go down the street and visit
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Do you have anything else
to the next one for policy.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right, thank you. If nobody else
has any more on that, we'll go to the next item. Item 3;
consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on Kerr .County
investment policy. Ms. Hargis?
MS. HARGIS: I think all of you had the opportunity
to have a copy of this draft for a month or so. Your last
update, I believe, was 1994, and a lot of laws have changed, a
lot of things have changed since then. This pretty much
mirrors the law, except that we have put the provision in
there that you could hire someone. And -- excuse me -- and
covers the scope of our -- your particular funds versus
someone else's, because the law has everybody's funds in it.
But you want to pretty much mirror the law as much as
possible. It also adds the years that you can do it, and the
type of investments, so that you -- if you wanted to broaden
them, 'cause I have made them very conservative. I am -- and
Linda can tell you this, 'cause I've been working with her for
8-27-07
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
33
that are not safe, so I have limited those type of things. In
other words, I don't -- you know, the law says you can go out
and buy foreign bonds and corporate bonds and things of that
nature. You put in this policy what you think you want to
invest in, so that if you want to broaden that, you know, I'll
be glad to do that. I'm just not an advocate of broadening it
out any more than I think the instruments are safe. And --
and Linda's pretty much looked at those things that I have
recommended to you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't have a copy of that.
Does the Court have a copy?
JUDGE TINLEY: I know I received a copy several
weeks ago, maybe longer than that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MS. HARGIS: I thought I had -- we had given it, I
think, in another agenda. The other thing that we have added
in here that wasn't in the '94 law, when you originally did
that policy, was the training. The other thing is the
designation of your investment officer, which is the
Treasurer, and then you have an alternative. Don't really
name names, so that it gives you the opportunity to just --
whoever's in that position would be -- assume that position.
And pretty much, other than that, I haven't really addressed
8-27-07
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
anything that's not currently in the law. But I'd like for
y'all to all have a copy of it, and -- but the '94 one was the
real basic law. And in 1990 -- I think it was '92, the law
came out.
MS. PATTERSON: '87.
MS. HARGIS: Actually '87, but most people didn't
worry about it till '92. And, so, a lot has changed. In
fact, I think most legislative sessions, some little tweak
changes. So, you're -- the thing with the investment policy
is this; that you're -- you're required to have quarterly
reports. You're required to review the quarterly reports.
The quarterly reports are to be signed by the Treasurer and
submitted as part of your minutes. You're to review annually
your investment policy. You don't have to change it, but you
have to annually review it. And by annually reviewing it, if
there are legislative changes or banking changes -- in other
words, if you want to broaden your investments and you want to
add brokers to your list of investment brokers, then you might
make some changes, but usually those are amendments. You
don't really have to change the whole policy. But I'm
recommending you change the whole policy now, because the
other one is so old that it doesn't incorporate the law as it
is today.
So, this is just something from my practice and
something that, you know, I was very well aware of. And one
8-27-07
35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
of the things that I did in my practice was doing investments
for other entities, and when I -- my company became so large,
I couldn't do that. And I met Linda probably in 1992. She
was a speaker for me at my -- the Texas society, and she began
to help me with all my water districts, and it became a real
asset to my firm and to my entities because of her
availability to go out there and spend the time. Because I
had put a staff person that did nothing but call banks every
morning, and that becomes very laborious. It also requires a
lot of expertise in today's market. I think all of us -- and
in as many years as I've been doing it, there's still paper
out there that if you ask me what it is, I'm going to draw a
blank. And I think that in her report, she will list the
portfolio, she will tell you those types of instruments. She
gives you the market value.
One of the reasons for the Public Funds Investment
Act was the -- in Orange County, they bought reverse repo's,
and that was what started all of this type of a situation,
because Orange County lost a lot of money on those reverse
repo's, and the Court said, "We don't -- we never saw what he
did, so we don't know." So, the law came back, especially in
Texas, and said, "Well, we're going to keep you informed so
you can't make that statement." So that you have to have this
quarterly report; it needs to be part of your minutes. And I
will tell you, I was very -- Linda was already hired when I
8-27-07
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
went to the city, and I was excited to get to work with her
here as well. And I will tell you that that portfolio
increased by $150,000 to $200,000 from the time I went there,
and she was there only six months earlier than I was. And --
and so she did a lot of work on their portfolio, and provided
a lot of good information. And they also needed to update
their -- their policy and procedures. So --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is -- question. I'm not sure if
I've seen this or not; I certainly haven't gone through it in
great detail, so I'd rather not act on this today. I'd rather
do it at our next meeting, if that's all right.
MS. HARGIS: That's fine.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the question I had was,
looking through -- glancing through it, this says the
Treasurer is authorized by Commissioners Court to do it. Does
the Commissioners Court have authority totally for the
investments, or is this something that's statutorily under the
Treasurer's job description by statute?
MS. HARGIS: I'm not real versed in this, since I've
only been here a short period of time, but what I've read in
my auditor's manual is the Treasurer's responsible for doing
the investing, but I think that the ultimate responsibility
falls back on the Court.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Court adopts the policy, the
Treasurer administers it; is that correct?
8-27-07
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
37
MS. HARGIS: Yes.
MS. PATTERSON: If I might, the act does put the
responsibility for the investment and for the transactions on
the investment officer; in this case, the Treasurer. But the
act also clearly says that the fiduciary responsibility, no
matter who's doing it, remains with the Court.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a question,
Ms. Hargis. I assume that Ms. Williams, the Treasurer, is on
board with this --
MS. HARGIS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- policy change?
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And can I also assume that
Ms. Patterson has had the opportunity to review our current
policy and offer suggestions?
MS. HARGIS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pro bono?
MS. HARGIS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Ms. Hargis, let's pretend
that we adopt the policy for -- one year?
MS. HARGIS: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that correct?
MS. HARGIS: That's right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can -- inside that year, can
there be a change to it? As an example, you mention that you
8-27-07
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
are a conservative investor. What if we decided in a couple
of months that we want to be a little more aggressive? Can
you -- can you go in and change -- or is that a policy change?
MS. HARGIS: It would be.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Really, my question is, can
you change the policy before the year -- before the annual
review?
MS. HARGIS: Yes, you can. You just have to review
it annually.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MS. HARGIS: But you can change it monthly if you
want to, because it's your policy.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, by the same token,
Commissioner, you can make the policy broader, but from a
discretionary basis, you don't have to be as broad as the
policy is. You can provide for a broader range of investment
vehicles or products, but -- but the discretion would be there
to go there, but you don't have to go there. I'm -- I'm kind
of like Commissioner Letz. Number one, I'd like to get an
answer on the issue of whether we must advertise or submit
requests for qualifications and so forth, and have an
opportunity to look at this a little bit more, and maybe bring
both of those items back once we've got those answers, and
wrap this whole thing up as a package. And I think that may
8-27-07
39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. HARGIS: That would be fine. And if you want to
look at the act, it is out on the web -- on the Internet, the
actual Public Fund Investment Act. And I think I've got the
chapter referred to in here, so you can just go out online and
see that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The only other thing to add, I
was -- I mean, I don't -- it would be nice to have a clean
copy that we could vote on at the next meeting. I assume
we're going to go straight with it, rather than a red-line
version. So, if you just print one like that, that way we can
have an actual version.
MS. HARGIS: Well, I had given it to you that way so
that if y'all wanted to make any changes, I thought you would
have submitted them, 'cause I did give it about a month ago, I
think, in some of your packets. But in -- if you're fairly
okay with this, or if you'll let me know if there are any
changes, or if you want to -- after you look at the act, if
you'd like to add -- again, the Judge is very correct, and we
found that to be true in all my entities. You need to make it
as broad as you think you want to make it. Then you don't
have to change it. One of the things we did in the beginning
was, it said -- I think it was in '94, where you had to put a
list of brokers, and so we ended up putting maybe one bank or
two banks, not thinking. And so then, the attorneys all came
8-27-07
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
back and put every bank and every type of entity in the world
out there that you could use, so that you didn't have to come
back and make those changes, because it is rather laborious to
do that kind of thing. So, any changes that you have, if
you'll just let me know, I'll incorporate those and give you a
clean draft.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you.
MS. HARGIS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you very much. Thank
you, Ms. Patterson.
JUDGE TINLEY: We appreciate your work on this,
Ms. Hargis, and appreciate you being here, Ms. Patterson.
MS. HARGIS: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move to Item 6, which is a
timed item. We're about three minutes late on it now.
Consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on issues
involving the tract size, right-of-way dedication, floodplain
administration, and review process in the ETJ of the city of
~i Kerrville. Commissioner Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, sir. This is a
timed issue at 9:47, and we -- we are four minutes behind. I
apologize for that. This issue is -- we've been dealing with
this for a couple of years, and just recently, some of these
8-27-07
41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
things that I have listed here have started popping up, and
there are some questions back and forth amongst several of the
Indians in the community. And -- but when I heard the
statement we could possibly -- it could possibly be worse
today than it was before we started working on it, that
bothered me a little bit, because we're trying to fix
something. If we're not -- if we're not moving in the right
direction to fix something, I want to back up and try to
address a couple of these issues today to maybe get us all
along the same page if we possibly could. So, Commissioner
Letz, I think -- did you have some comments about the tract
size?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have a general comment, that
the -- kind of the framework of the deal we worked through is
before City Council; I believe they approve the second reading
tomorrow night. And one of the -- it's taken a long time to
get this through, and largely because of the -- I guess the
process that the City has versus what the County has. The
County has one set of -- our Subdivision Rules and
Regulations. We kind of are all-encompassing. The City's is
different, and I think it's under a couple of different
documents. But I think that the -- I know the -- well, I know
the City's representative is here; Mr. Browning's in the
audience. And I believe the second reading is on their agenda
for tomorrow. Tract sizes, I can go through on that one --
8-27-07
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
and, Mr. Browning, if you'll step in if I'm incorrect on tract
sizes -- the City's recommendation to them tomorrow night is
to adopt the County's rules 100 percent on tract size.
MR. BROWNING: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, there's no problem with
that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're both using the same rules.
MR. BROWNING: Gentlemen, as long as you understand,
those are in the ETJ.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Correct.
MR. BROWNING: And those are lot sizes that are not
served by municipal utilities.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're talking about their rural
standards only. They have regular standards and a rural set
of rules.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, when the -- so, when the
City Council adopts a plat, and the lot sizes are on there,
they're basically going to be the same as the County's, and --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- they have the authority to
do it. And --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- they're off and running.
Okay. Right-of-way dedication. The question has come up
that -- where this started was out in Kerrville South, there
8-27-07
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
move the right-of-way line back to where it's supposed to be.
And the County's always maintained that road, and the City is
approving the plat. So, does the City have the authority to
approve new properties for the County?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No.
MR. BROWNING: No. No, sir, we do not. And -- and
JUDGE TINLEY: Give your name for the record.
MR. BROWNING: Certainly. My name is Gordon
Browning. I work for the City of Kerrville.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Go ahead.
MR. BROWNING: And Commissioner Baldwin and
Commissioner Letz were involved in a number of these meetings
that we had, trying to resolve some of the issues. And the
issue of how we are going to handle right-of-way dedication in
the ETJ to the county, and how we were going to handle
floodplain administration in the ETJ by the county were issues
that, unfortunately, have not been totally resolved. This is
the first plat under these new review requirements that have
indicated a right-of-way dedication. Now, we -- we told the
surveyor, take the standard city note off the plat that refers
to dedication, because we cannot accept the dedication, and to
work out how we were going to handle that. There's a number
8-27-07
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
44
of ways we can do that. We can put a note, at the County's
request, on the plat to handle dedication. We can leave the
thing platted to the center line of the street. We can show
it as an easement. So, what we need to do is work out how the
County wants to handle these issues, because this is the --
like I said, the first one, and I think we all know it's not
going to be the last one.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
MR. BROWNING: And, unfortunately, the way the state
statutes read, where they said one -- one authority will
review plats in the ETJ, they didn't address some of these
issues either. And I -- and I'm sure that the City of
Kerrville and Kerr County are not the only two entities that
have had this issue come up. And we're more than willing to
sit down and work up something that is going to make the
I County comfortable, because it's going to be your road.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It seems to me that, on this
one, it would be easier -- I mean, we don't accept, for
maintenance anyway, county roads on plats. That's just -- a
separate court action does that. We don't -- I mean, we have
to specifically accept a road for maintenance.
MR. BROWNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I don't know why the plats
-- you know, leave it off of the city plats. Clearly, the
City can't sign for the County. And just put it on the
8-27-07
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
45
Court's agenda if it's a right-of-way issue, that we
specifically do it as an agenda item. Doesn't have to be
related to the plat, it doesn't seem to me.
MR. BROWNING: Well, I wasn't aware that you did two
separate -- that you took right-of-way dedications at the
court level, as opposed to as a dedication by plat.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We do -- dedications can be on
the plat, I guess. But the --
MR. BROWNING: The acceptance.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- acceptance into the county
system is a separate action.
MR. BROWNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Now, would -- would we prefer
easement or ownership?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Ownership.
MR. BROWNING: I think you want ownership.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, there's no question about
it, but you brought up we could leave it --
MR. BROWNING: I'm just telling you there's a litany
of ways that -- that this can be handled, and -- because it's
your road. It is your call. And, you know, in this
particular case, I think that y'all know that the road's
I there; you've been maintaining the road. You basically own
the road by prescription at the moment. It is just that a lot
of these areas in the county are still platted to the center
8-27-07
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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. That's why it seems to
me it's a lot simpler to remove it from the platting process,
'cause once you get it in part of the patting process, then it
has -- our whole set of rules come into play, whereas if we
can do it by a specific court action on changing the
right-of-way or accepting or not accepting it -- I see the
County Attorney raising his hand.
MR. BROWNING: We're going to need to show somehow
on the plat what is happening to that piece of property.
MR. EMERSON: The problem with plats right now is
it's -- it's up in the air; it's a gray area. There's
conflicting Attorney General opinions out there, and there's a
new request that just went in to clarify. And one opinion
says that if it's on the plat, whether or not the Court
accepts it or not, it becomes a county road, period, for
maintenance. And then there's another opinion out there that
says that's clearly not the case; the County has to
specifically accept it. And there's a request for an opinion
that's gone out to clarify that, but we don't have the answer
to that. So, it's a mess right now.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But it's -- I mean, at the
moment -- I mean, notwithstanding what the Attorney General's
going to end up saying, my preference would be that we have a
separate action that does it, and it's not on the plat, and
8-27-07
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
47
that -- where the City, in the ET J, can do the platting
portion, but then it has to come to the County for a specific
MR. EMERSON: And that was -- the essence of that
comment, basically, was that if it's not on the plat, it helps
us clarify things until the Attorney General figures out which
side of the road they want to be on.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Typically, our plats have a
disclaimer that says a particular road is not accepted into
the County's system for maintenance. Will that practice
continue?
MR. BROWNING: Are you addressing that to me, sir?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I guess --
MR. BROWNING: Or to the attorney?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, their plats are city
plats. They're not our plats.
MR. BROWNING: Yeah. They're -- the verbiage is a
lot different, and we're looking at different --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How would we get that
disclaimer in place? I'll direct that to Commissioner Letz,
who's our resident expert.
MR. BROWNING: Well, if you wanted to put a note on
there that roadways shown are not necessarily -- I don't know.
We have to be fairly careful on how we word that. It would --
roadways shown on here do not necessarily become county plats
8-27-07
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
why we have attorneys.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. BROWNING: Is to work out that kind of stuff.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the idea is a good idea.
I think it is probably best to put a note on the city plat
that specifically says nothing is -- there's nothing related
to the ownership in the county that can happen under this
plat. I mean, it's got to come to the County to accept the
road, change the right-of-way, to do anything. That has to be
', a separate action by the County, 'cause the City doesn't have
the authority under the statute to accept property for the
County, and we don't want you to have that authority.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, that -- I agree. And
that could also include not only the dedication or the
acceptance of the right-of-way, but the inclusion in the
county system for maintenance.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All -- everything related to
that should be, you know, an exception on the plat -- on the
city plat in the ETJ.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, Mr. Browning, when --
s-z~-o~
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
MR. BROWNING: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- and you see that it's a
County-maintained road or a county road, do you -- do you
notify -- are you going to notify the Road and Bridge
Department of that? Or --
MR. BROWNING: Yes, sir. I think we're all still
learning how to handle --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I understand. That's
the reason we're here today.
MR. BROWNING: And that is our -- our plan right now
is that plats that are in the ETJ, that are not going to be
hooked up to municipal sewer or water, are going to be
funneled to the Environmental Health officer for septic tank
-- to look at it from that standpoint. And roadways, other
than just a connection, will be sent -- unless you want that
done as well, will be sent to the Road and Bridge folks.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think all of them.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: All of them.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All of them. Any plat in the
ETJ needs to be forwarded to the County, just for
informational purposes. And that was, I think, part of our
original discussion.
MR. BROWNING: Okay.
8-27-07
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
50
alerting them that, hey, there's some -- you know, the County
needs to look at the road issue here. Obviously, I think it
goes to Environmental Health; they know what their purpose is
to look at. And -- but I think that all -- any plat in the
ETJ needs to go to both entities so we could update our
records so we know what's going on.
MR. BROWNING: We can do it as -- we can send them
for informational purposes, or specifically noting that they
are looking for on-site septic or they are looking for roads
to be maintained by the County.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mr. Browning, do city
ordinances pertaining to road construction; i.e., gutters and
so forth, curbs and gutters, sidewalks, is that going to be
the standard? Or are county road standards going to be --
MR. BROWNING: We split the -- we split that,
Commissioner. We split that into two parts. If they're in
our large lot rural -- rural development area, they're to the
county standards, and to smaller subdivisions -- I will give
you the example of the one on Goat Creek Cutoff. That was a
commercial development started some years ago. We required
curb and gutter streets. We are reviewing these ETJ plats as
potential future developments inside the city.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's a -- they basically
8-27-07
51
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
accepted the County's rules for the roads in the ETJ, and I
think ours were a little bit stricter than the City's, their
rural standards were. The curb and gutter stays, but there's
a waiver process.
MR. BROWNING: There's a process to --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: To not have to do the curb and
gutters.
MR. BROWNING: There's also a waiver process for
sidewalks and a number of things for the large lot
developments.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. And that's an area that
they know -- the City knows that I was uncomfortable with. I
mean, but I understood their point of view as well. I mean, I
-- you know, as long as they're reasonable in the waiver
process, I'm okay with that process. But if they start
getting unreasonable, I think we have to look at this again.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can we move to floodplain
administration?
MR. BROWNING: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: One comment first.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I've heard just a little bit
of -- of news, I guess, of the platting thing, and especially
those plats being reviewed in a timely manner, or the County
timely reviewing them. They've been late. I know of one that
8-27-07
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
just happened.
MR. BROWNING: One that just happened.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And, you know, it's not fair
MR. BROWNING: No, sir, it's not.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- to be put on the spot for a
two- or three-day review whenever it specifies a much longer
time frame.
MR. BROWNING: We accept that responsibility. We
have, under statutes, 30 days to review a plat. And I have a
schedule worked out where everybody gets them the exact --
you're exactly right; this one fell through the crack. We
have two more plats that came in last week that will involve
County review, and they'll be out either today or tomorrow.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How is the floodplain
administration program working in the ETJ?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I can --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Everybody happy?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. At the moment, the County's
doing the ETJ. Len's doing the ETJ. Len gave me a -- a Xerox
copy of something that says that -- and I don't know if it was
new or old, and I haven't really gotten the time to look into
it -- that the City can handle the floodplain determination in
the ETJ. I haven't looked into that or talked to Rex about
8-27-07
53
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
it, but Len seems to think that, and if that's the case, I
think that should be added to it. I think the City should do
it in the ETJ, just from the standpoint of the one-stop
shopping. But it's just a matter of checking out the legality
of that, making sure -- and, you know, Len -- I forgot what
bill it was. I don't -- you know, Len gave me that
information.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, especially being as a
lot of the ETJ will become part of the city, and if you don't
address those floodplain issues at that level, then you have
conflicts there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. I mean, the more the
City can do in the ETJ, if we're going to let the City be the
one to administer that, the better, in my mind.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you agree with that?
MR. BROWNING: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MR. BROWNING: Do you?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, I do. Very much so.
JUDGE TINLEY: Good.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Very much so.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Boy, we're happy today.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, this is a love-fest.
(Laughter.) You remember, now, you walked up there on your
own. Nobody told you to come to that podium.
8-27-07
54
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. BROWNING: Yes, sir. I thought it was better
than to sit back and...
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, that's true. You know,
I appreciate you being here. Thank you.
MR. BROWNING: You bet.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mr. Voelkel?
JUDGE TINLEY: Don, you had an issue?
MR. DON VOELKEL: If you have a plat that's going to
be public roads -- I know on private roads in the ET J, no one
accepts maintenance or dedication, so if we have a public road
in the ETJ and we submit plats and have them approved by the
City, but there's no dedication, do we need -- then need to
bring the plat to the County to get approved? Or are you just
going to do it by order that since the plat's been approved
and recorded, then y'all accept the dedication, but not
maintenance, and so it's --
MR. BROWNING: You're talking about a brand new
road?
MR. VOELKEL: Right, that has to be dedicated to
public. Not a private road. But if the City's process does
not have that dedication as part of that plat, can -- what's
the process? That's just my question.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it would be -- it's
cleaner that way, a better trail. It's a little bit more
work, obviously, for the developer. I mean, I'm not as much
8-27-07
55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
r--
concerned about if it's a public road as if it's a
County-maintained road. My big concern is, I don't want a
County-maintained road accepted by the City. So -- or by
their platting process.
MR. DON VOELKEL: But either way, the dedication
doesn't happen till y'all dedicate it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that it needs to be a
separate -- I think a separate action by the Court.
MR. DON VOELKEL: So, we --
~ COMMISSIONER LETZ: But not the plat. We don't --
II you don't bring the plat back. You just bring a court order.
MR. DON VOELKEL: So, we get the plat approved
through the city staff, through Gordon, and then once it's
platted, then we get on the agenda to dedicate the streets?
Does the dedication happen right when that plat happens, or do
we wait a year when the maintenance kicks in?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Don't ask these detailed
questions.
MR. DON VOELKEL: See, we're doing it; we got to
know what --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Len, when do we do it? The
County -- I mean, is it a year after the maintenance?
MR. ODOM: Year after the maintenance.
~, COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, it'd be the same as we do
on --
8-27-07
56
1
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. DON VOELKEL: The dedication happens a year
after the plat is processed?
MR. ODOM: No, I accept it.
MR. BROWNING: Y'all have to accept the dedication
initially, and then accept the maintenance of the road, then,
I guess a year later. Is that how it works?
MR. DON VOELKEL: That's the way it's going right
now.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. DON VOELKEL: But that's what my question is, is
if we go to Gordon and get a plat approved, and there's a
public road in the ETJ that's a new road, then the next step,
I guess, would be coming to the Court -- and say we have the
plat approved. We need to get a court order to approve the
dedication only, not the maintenance --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. DON VOELKEL: -- of these new roads.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that's --
MR. DON VOELKEL: Is that -- does that sound like
what y'all are --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Sounds to me like you give --
the County and the City both review it at the same time, and
you make that determination, you know, up front when you're
doing your -- when you're doing your preliminary plat process.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's what we're trying to
8-27-07
57
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
avoid, is having both parties review all these plats. We're
trying to let the City do it. And assuming that the City's --
we've agreed on the road construction, and if the City accepts
it, we just have -- we're assuming that the City inspected the
roads, it was built to the standards that we are willing to
accept. So that -- I mean, I think once we get it into our
platting process, it causes a lot of extra work for the
developer, which we're trying to get out of. That's why we
just do a court order -- even though it's another two weeks
later, do a court order, and then you can attach just a
statement that this has been approved by the City.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, there is one other
element; I think we've had some experience on that recently in
both Precincts 1 and 2, and that is a review of plats that are
situated both inside and outside the ETJ. Can we talk about
that for a moment?
MR. BROWNING: Certainly.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Ball's in your court.
MR. BROWNING: Well, sir, my understanding -- and,
again, I fall to our attorney's understanding -- of the way
the statute was written, was that the City had or could have
the authority to review plats in the ETJ. That review
authority would stop at that ETJ line. And in those
instances, as much as one hates to be -- feel sorry for a
developer, he will have to go through both processes, because
8-27-07
58
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the County will have to look at the portion that is outside
the ETJ and not -- and in the county. Now, again, this cannot
be the only -- the only two entities that have faced this
dilemma. And is there a way, in the case of a development --
the subdivision Las Colinas comes to mind as a perfect
example, to where that was being developed as a single-unit
development. Could those not be transferred one to the other
through some kind of an agreement or understanding, if it's
legal?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We tried -- originally, in the
first one of our meetings, we said if it's more than
50 percent in the ETJ, the City would handle it; if it's more
than 50 percent outside the ETJ, the County would handle it.
But the attorneys, I think, in the City and the County both
agreed that that's not what the statute said we could do. So,
I mean, it kind of has to go through both processes. You
know, only -- the only way to solve that is to, down the road,
put it in the county. If the County was the party doing it,
the County has authority in the county, and the -- you know,
but that's not the way we chose to set it up originally. And
I think -- you know, I sure hate to go back and try to redo
that at this time. I think maybe we can look at this a lot
closer when the city's population tops 25,000 and their ETJ
goes to 2 miles, because that really changes --
JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, yeah.
a-z~-o~
59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- how they're going to handle
it. So I think, for the time being, we just leave it the way
it is, rather than try to go back and reinvent the wheel again
and delay it another two years.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which leaving it as it is
means that there is a dual review?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, thank you.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: One way to handle the -- the
review thing for the County's purpose, I guess, would be that
if there were going to be a road that was going to be taken
over for maintenance by the County, that would trigger an
automatic review whenever the platting process is --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: See, the problem --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- in the beginning stages.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: See, the problem is, that's
contrary to state law. The state law says we have to come up
with one system for the ETJ, and it can either be ours,
theirs, or a hybrid. And we're kind of -- well, we're
doing -- we're creating a hybrid. The City's changing theirs
to be a hybrid.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think just asking for review
would be a conflict.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we can review it, but
can't go through the -- once they're in our platting process,
s-27-o~
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
we're trying to get away from. I think what can happen if
it's in the -- going back to Bill's question, if it straddles
the line, like Las Colinas, what, in reality, happened,
because -- is that the City handled it all, and then at the
very end had to come to the County for review and acceptance
also. And I think that we may be able to modify our rules to
let those come through with one -- pass through the
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Which we did.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, which is what we did
there. And just -- the City would be doing the work, but the
plat -- the final plat would have to go through both entities.
So we don't have -- 'cause I think it's very confusing for the
developer to have to be talking both to Gordon and Len during
the construction and all that. I mean, okay, this piece of
the road needs to be inspected by the County; this piece needs
to be inspected by the City. I think it's much better to let
it go through the city system as an ETJ, and then the final
plat has to come to the County. That's the way it's going to
be.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: If they adopt our rules, it's
pretty well solved the problem as far as your -- your
specifications and stuff for --
8-27-07
61
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2~
2~
2_`
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You got right-of-way
dedication and then this recent issue, like with -- outside
the ETJ, like Las Colinas. That's the only two things that I
can think of, and it's really not that painful, I don't think,
for somebody to walk in here for five minutes and get that.
If the law says that the City cannot accept county property,
then they got to walk in here and do it. It's just simple as
that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But we can come back in and do a
change similar to what we're recommending later on today; just
add it on the ETJ language that final plats in the ETJ where
they -- part of the property is in the county outside the ETJ,
it comes through at one meeting. They only have to do a final
plat on it. They don't have to do a preliminary plat, a
concept plan, or a --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 'Cause the City's already
done all the inspections and all that stuff already anyway.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think there's going to be
some communication back and forth when that preliminary plat
originally comes over to the County. If it's like -- you
know, half of it's in the ETJ, I think the communication needs
to go on between our department and Gordon's as to how it's
going to be handled. I think we have to look at them case by
JUDGE TINLEY: Do you have all the answers you want,
case.
8.~-
62
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1E
1.
1f
1!
2~
2
2
2
2
L
I Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: By gosh, I got more than I
was counting on. Anything else, Leonard? Did you have
anything that you wanted add to this?
MR. ODOM: No. Y'all have covered --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And the County Surveyor's
here with his hand up.
MR. LEE VOELKEL: Just one other issue. It's not
listed here, so we may not be able to talk about it, but I
thought since we had the benefit of Gordon here to explain how
drainage is being handled in the ETJ properties -- are we
using the County's drainage rules, or --
MR. BROWNING: We -- in the --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Wait a minute. Wait. The
attorney's saying no, we're not going to talk about it today.
Thank you, Gordon, for coming.
MR. BROWNING: No, not a problem.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Appreciate it.
~ MR. BROWNING: You bet. I may stick around and see
what else y'all are doing.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, it's ugly. (Laughter.)
L
~ COMMISSIONER LETZ: But just a general statement;
3 we're using the County's.
4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank y'all. Thank you very
5 ~ much for the time.
8-27-07
63
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1~
2C
27
2~
2:
2
2
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any other member of the Court
have anything further on that one? Let's move to Item 4;
consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to renew the
appointment of Hugh Jons to the 911 Board of Governors -- or
Board of Managers. Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you very much. It is
that time. Mr. Jons' term is up this -- this September. He
phoned me and asked that he would -- if we'd please renew him;
that he enjoyed his work there. And I talked with
Mr. Amerine. He says that Mr. Jons is a huge benefit to the
Board of Managers at 911. So, with that, I move that we
reappoint Hugh Jons to the 911 Board of Managers.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
indicated. Any question or discussion? All in favor of that
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. We'll move
to Item 5; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to
approve the 2007 audit engagement letter from Pressler
3 Thompson Company and authorize County Judge to sign the same.
~ Ms. Hargis?
- MS. HARGIS: Yes. I think all of you have a copy of
8-27-07
64
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
MS. HARGIS: Part of it is boilerplate, but then the
expansion section is the section that we talked about at the
prior meeting, is to expand the scope. Most of the other
stuff is pretty much required for an auditor to give to you.
But under the audit procedures on -- I believe this is, like,
Page 3, under Expanded Scope, that those are the things that I
asked him to expand on. And if there's anything else you want
me to put in here, you know, that's kind of what I need.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: These are suggestions you
made to the audit firm?
MS. HARGIS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why only just Precincts 3 and 4?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's the question I wanted
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, but I was named.
JUDGE TINLEY: Withdraw it. He can ask it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not withdrawing it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's his precinct.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's his precinct, that's
right. Go ahead.
MS. HARGIS: I don't know.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it should be all of
8-27-07
65
1
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. HARGIS: Yeah, it does.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, let's do them all.
JUDGE TINLEY: Now you can ask about 1 and 2.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'll tell you my feelings on
the thing; I'll just jump out there. I'm not willing to go
with the same firm again. We've had this firm, I believe, 14
years. There's been lots of problems that have come up in the
-- since January; actually, started long before January 1.
And the last meeting, when we discussed this, we talked -- we
were talked to about, well, it's too late now to go out, and
nobody else -- but why was it too late? Why was this not
brought up early enough on to go out for -- for a proposal or
qualifications for a new auditor? And I will not support
this, and I'll probably be outvoted, but I don't care. I
think it's wrong, and we've been with this firm too long.
No -- no bad feelings toward them at this time, but I do not
feel that they have done us a good job like I would expect if
we had a new firm come in and do an audit. And I think we're
at the point where, with all the other things we've had -- the
issues since I've been here since January, the problems that
have been pointed out with various departments, and audits of
those departments, I just -- I'm not going to go for it, clear
and simple.
8-27-07
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
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, Commissioner, I tend to
agree with you. And I -- just for your information, I don't
think that we should stop with just the audit. I think we
need to look at our banking, we need to look at our insurance;
we need to look at absolutely everything. I think it's that
time -- we're in that season to take a look at everything.
And I don't know that I'll vote against this, but I do know
that I'm very hesitant to vote for it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- as I recall, the
suggestion last time was that -- you know, is that there's one
-- well, I agree with you, we need a change. I said that last
time, but I think that the -- you know, the reality is, no one
on this Court put this on the agenda to change it, and now we
got to the deadline that -- you know, it certainly can't be --
the auditor wasn't here. So, the -- this should have been
addressed earlier. It's this body's responsibility to get it
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Normally, the auditor of
record is the one that used to bring this forward in a timely
manner, and that did not happen this year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I don't disagree with
to make a change. And had it not been for a change in audit
s-a~-o~
67
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-- auditors and all that's entailed in that, I probably would
have insisted on that. But -- and I would not have voted for
the standard letter of engagement had it not included the
expanded scope, because the expanded scope deals with some of
the issues that have been of concern. And while this is
couched in auditor's language, and sometimes difficult for a
mere human to decipher, I believe that we're talking about
controls. Am I correct, Ms. Hargis?
MS. HARGIS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And that being the case,
then, I -- I would go along with -- with it, knowing that we
will change auditors and put an RFQ out for the audit for the
ensuing year.
MS. HARGIS: Yes, and I've already contacted several
audit firms to try to get them to be -- across the state, to
get them to be willing to -- to do that. And most of them
have already made their schedules, and I did contact about
five different firms, some of which were given to me, their
names, some of them which I knew. And, unfortunately, they
schedule their -- their audits pretty far out, and there's so
many 9/30's. If -- if we had even a 12/31 deadline, it would
be a little easier. But most governmental entities are at
9/30, so it makes those firms that specialize in this type of
business pretty thin. But, you know, if -- if the Court
decides they want to do something else, I'll do what you want
8-27-07
68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would offer one other
change, Ms. Hargis. Under the Expanded Scope, where you talk
about Ag Barn, that's a generic reference. I think the
reference should be that we will look at the facilities
booking activities, because it involves more than just the Ag
Barn, and receipts of -- we have more than one facility. So,
~I I'd like to see it changed to "facilities booking" as opposed
to just Ag Barn.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The specific -- the facilities,
you're looking at the Hill Country Youth Exhibit Center and
Union Church. That would work.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Just amazing, we get all these
proposals for changing the process. I think that's a
wonderful thing, but why hasn't it been done before now? All
of a sudden, wow, we see there's a problem. Somebody jumps up
and, wow, you -- we need to look at all these things. You
know, that's all fine and good, but why couldn't it have been
looked at years before, I guess is my question.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And the next paragraph also,
Commissioner, instead of "in the County Clerk's," should it
not read, "for the County Clerk's office"? And the same for
the next -- "for" the District Clerk's Office. Just being
picky here. And in the Tax Office, "for" the Tax Office. In
the Treasurer's office. Just being grammatically picky.
8-27-07
69
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It's amazing to me that all
this stuff wasn't done on common practice, rather than a newly
added way they're going to do the audit.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner, I -- I'm compelled to
share some of your sentiments. This appears to be somewhat of
an exercise in closing the gate after the cows got out, but
unfortunately, we can't change yesterday's news. Best we can
do is to try and make tomorrow's news better. So, we are
where we are, and that's unfortunate.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval of the audit
engagement letter as amended.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and second for
approval, as indicated. Any further question or discussion on
that motion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, whose -- whose cows
are you referring to? Are they our cows?
JUDGE TINLEY: Among others, yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Probably mine; they're out all
the time anyhow. (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are they Letz' cows?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The only comment I'd like -- I
think that it -- one thing I've learned from this process and
from some of the problems we've had is that we need to pay a
lot more attention to the engagement letter in the future, and
8-27-07
~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
always looked at them as kind of boilerplate, and that didn't
work. I think we really need to look very carefully. There
is a lot -- you know, obviously, it's very, very important,
one of the most important things we do. And I think we need
to do a better job of really making sure that we're getting
our money's worth.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That we're doing it correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just wanted to make one
more comment, that I agree with Commissioner Williams; that
I'm going to vote in the affirmative, but we're going to take
a long, hard, close look at it next year.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we need to change next
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're going to change.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Do we need to be reminded of
what time of year that is so we don't fall late again?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree, that's a good --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: The process could not be done
correctly.
MS. HARGIS: I've already asked most of the -- of
the auditors that I have asked if they would be willing, I
have sent a copy of the current audit and said we will have
8-27-07
71
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
those in the spring, so that you will have plenty of
opportunity to review those before we have to make a decision.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Very good.
MS. HARGIS: March is my -- my goal right now.
JUDGE TINLEY: You'll bring it back to the Court in
MS. HARGIS: We'll bring some names to you possibly
in February, and then have the presentations in March, and
then that'll give you an opportunity to have -- to review
their qualifications and decide which firm that you want to
use.
JUDGE TINLEY: And that'll be timely, and insofar as
having the maximum number of firms that do these kinds of
audits available to you?
MS. HARGIS: Right. And by notifying them now of
that, they can put them in their schedule, and that's what I'm
asking them to do. And I'm going to try to get some
additional names when I go to my governmental session on the
15th of September. I -- actually, it's on Monday, the 17th,
and see if there's any other firms there that would like to
come. And I'm going to try to get you as many names as
possible. I'm not as familiar with the names on this side of
the state as I am on the Houston side, but it's much cheaper
to say -- because they're going to travel. We need them to
be, you know, on this side of the state, the western side of
8-27-07
72
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I the state.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other question or comment on the
motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your
right hand.
(Commissioners Baldwin, Williams, and Letz voted in
favor of the motion.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(Commissioner Oehler voted against the motion.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Let's take
about a 15-minute recess.
(Recess taken from 10:31 a.m. to 10:51 a.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to order, if we
might. Let's move to Item 7; consider, discuss, and take
appropriate action to accept the resignation of Precinct 1
Justice of the Peace effective as of close of business on
August 31, 2007.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move for approval of the
agenda item.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of the agenda item. Any question or discussion? All in favor
of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
8-27-07
73
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. We'll move
to Item 8; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to
appoint a new Justice of the Peace for Precinct 1.
Commissioner Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, sir. First of
all, I want to say that we are -- we live in a blessed
community. When the word got out that there would -- we would
be appointing a new Justice of the Peace, you can see by the
resumes we have in our packet the quality of folks that showed
an interest in it. And it's kind of difficult when you --
when you have that quality of a person or a group of persons
with that quality, to select one out of it. And -- but I
personally have -- have done that. I've made a choice, and I
want to make a recommendation to the Court. But before I do,
I want -- is there any reason anyone would like to go and talk
about some of these things in executive session or not? I
don't see that, but --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree with your comments.
Great candidates.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They are great candidates,
and it was somewhat of a difficult decision. But, in my mind,
one person rose above the rest of them, and that's because of
8-27-07
74
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
the experience in this particular field, the work he has done
in this particular field. I talked with the present Justice
of the Peace the other day, and he made the comment to me that
Constable Billeiter appears in all of his courtrooms and
watches and works at it, and learning, and, you know, he put
-- put a great deal of effort into -- into that process. So,
with that, I move that we appoint David J. Billeiter to fill
the unexpired term of J.P. Precinct 1.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for the
r a~ indicated. This will be until the next general
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: The way the law reads. Any question
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just a comment. I think
Commissioner Baldwin's analyzed it very carefully and well.
There was a fine group of resumes turned in, and people
showing an interest in that, and I thank them for submitting
their resumes and exhibiting a willingness to be involved in
county government. My experience in watching Constable
Billeiter is that he has a tremendous dedication to youth and
to try to keep youth going in the right direction, and for
that I commend him. I think the choice is good, Commissioner.
25 ~ COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you very much.
8-27-07
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
JUDGE TINLEY: Further questions or comments, et
I cetera?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, when's the next appointment
come up?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We'll talk about that in just
I a minute.
JUDGE TINLEY: All in favor of the motion, signify
by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Judge
I Elliott?
JUDGE ELLIOTT: Yes, sir. You know, we spend
thousands of dollars training justices of the peace, and I
just wanted to leave with the Commissioners Court a training
manual for the new Justice of the Peace, the Judge Roy Bean
Country. (Laughter.) This is the way it should always be.
Here's the Judge Roy Bean Almanac. And instead of going to
Austin, they could go out to Langtry. And this is a critical
training that every J.P. should have first, and I wanted to
leave that with y'all to pass along to the new justice of the
~ peace.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's good of you, Justice.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Judge Elliott.
s-z~-o~
76
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Has been.
JUDGE ELLIOTT: Hey, I could still put a warrant out
ommissioner. (Laughter.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Until close of business.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes. Sure nice to see you
again. Now -- now we have the dilemma of having an open
constable seat. So, if you all and the press would assist us
in -- in asking people that have an interest in being the
constable of Precinct 1, my -- I'm just -- my thinking is --
is that we leave that slot open for two weeks to give the
public an opportunity to come in and turn a resume in or
however they want to handle it. Hopefully, the -- hopefully,
the other constables will pick up -- pick up the slack for
J.P. 1 in that two-week period. If not, they should. So,
that's all I got to say about that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're welcome.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move to Item 9; consider,
discuss, and take appropriate action to use budgeted funds
from the account 15-611-552, Emulsion Oils, after October 1,
~II 2007. Mr. Odom?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. Good morning.
JUDGE TINLEY: I am advised by the Auditor that that
manner -- that matter can be handled by you counting that work
as an encumbrance on the '06-'07 budget. I had thought it was
s-Z~-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
77
for up to 30 days. Actually, they advised for up to 60 days.
MR. ODOM: 60 days.
JUDGE TINLEY: And as long as you turn that in as an
encumbrance to the '06-'07 budget, I think you're okay.
MR. ODOM: Good.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It doesn't have anything to
do with when the work actually begins? Doesn't it have to
begin in '06-'07 budget?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, he's qot it planned in the
'06-'07 budget.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's close enough.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't see it makes any
difference one way or the other. If the Auditor has a problem
with it, we just roll it -- I mean, just -- it goes into
reserves and you take it and you increase your budget for next
year.
MR. ODOM: Next year. Well, I just wanted to bring
it up, you know, to the --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Either way works for me.
MR. ODOM: That's fine. That's -- we're going to --
it's not saying that -- we're not through sealing, but we've
had a lot of flooding and distractions on roads that we do not
maintain and everything else, trying to help everybody, so
we're running behind.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
8-27-07
78
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. ODOM: So, thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. ODOM: That takes care of that.
JUDGE TINLEY: I apologize. It was just called to
my attention that we have a timed 10:30 item, being Item 14,
that I should have taken up first. Let me go straight to
that. Item 14, consider, discuss, and take appropriate action
', on delinquent tax notices. Commissioner Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. I had a
constituent come by a couple of weeks ago -- almost two and a
half weeks ago with an issue that I'm not even going to begin
to try to explain. So, I've asked my constituent, John Pike,
to come here and explain, and when he gets to the bit, y'all
may want to get under the table. It could be a little bit
unsafe out here. But he can explain it better than anybody,
'cause it actually happened to him.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Pike, let me first apologize for
not bringing that item up immediately after we came back from
the break. It was a timed item, and I apologize. I just
I missed it.
MR. PIKE: That's no problem at all. Good morning.
The purpose for me being here this morning, as Buster has
pointed out, is I'm seeking assistance of you people to remove
a bogus tax lien against my home that shouldn't exist. In
other words, it was based on a tax delinquency, and I've never
s-Z~-o~
79
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
had a tax delinquency, ever, against this property or any
property that my wife and I own here in this county, or any
county in the state of Texas or anyplace else. I was
obviously a little shocked when I got this letter from a law
firm in Austin -- can you hear me?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, sir.
MR. PIKE: Okay. Saying that the Kerr County Tax
Collector had placed a tax lien against my home, and turned it
over to their office for collection. This apparently was done
because of some expediency in trying to process the legitimate
tax delinquencies on this thing. So -- but the problem is
that the -- the quarterly paying taxpayers' accounts and the
legitimate delinquent payers is all mixed together in the
computer, and the computer does not differentiate one from the
other. Now, where this thing got off track is when the Tax
Collector decided to issue these delinquency notices prior to
the deadline or the due date for the quarterly taxpayers. Do
you understand that? Nobody ever puts out a delinquency
before the deadline or the due date for any account. And when
she did that, that kicked these things in and caused these
things to go to -- to Austin for collection. And I can
understand her urgency on the -- the legitimate delinquency,
but that does not justify putting out a bunch of bogus tax
liens against several people here in the county on this thing.
8-27-07
80
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
This is ridiculous. So, I spent two and a half weeks working
with a couple of County Commissioners, several discussions
with the County Attorney trying to get some action taken on
this thing, and I haven't been able to get anyplace as far as
getting anything in writing so far.
Now, what I've been told is that this new software
that's supposed to correct this problem and be able to
separate the -- the legitimate tax delinquencies from the
bogus tax -- or the people who are not delinquent has finally
been processed, but it's been in -- lack of funds, I guess,
for over a year now? They couldn't get this thing done, which
is ridiculous. And now they need this thing to separate these
things so they can identify them, which, in my mind, is not
necessary, because everybody who got a delinquent notice
that's bogus took it to the Tax Office, presented it to them
along with their receipt showing that they weren't delinquent,
so they already kicked them out in that manner, and something
should have been taken. But, nevertheless, we've had to go
through this two-and-a-half week process thing.
Now, I -- I will digress here for just a moment to
make an observation. There's obviously a problem there in the
tax department. I understand that when the County hires an
employee, that employee has a supervisor that can do
evaluations, perform an appraisal, provide assistance, and get
corrections to take place. However, if somebody's elected,
8-27-07
81
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
collector to replace the former tax collector. So, I would
assume this same authority could put together, say, a two-man
ad hoc committee that can provide oversight to this department
down there and sit down with them periodically and say, you
know, "What are your problems? What are the deficiencies here
in the system? What kind of funds do you need? How can we
run the thing?" At least that's the way to manage it, not to
do it here in this court or in the newspaper. But that's
what's happened in this thing so far.
So, what I'm asking is that the bogus tax lien
been a tax lien against my property. In other words, I don't
want to look in two or three months and find out where there
was a tax lien against my property in July, but it was removed
in September, indicating that it was a legitimate tax lien and
I did something to correct it, to get it removed. And
furthermore, I'd like in that letter a statement where they
8-27-07
82
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
have not just assumed, but they have checked and confirmed
that there's been no late tax payment or late payment reported
to any of the three credit bureaus that might affect my credit
rating. So, that's why I'm here this morning, to get
something done on that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Several things about this
r me. Thank you, Mr. Pike, for being here, and
thank you, Commissioner, for putting it back on the agenda.
Mr. Pike visited with me, as he did with Commissioner Baldwin,
and others have visited with me; I've had phone calls about
this, and I visited with the Tax Assessor/Collector. I was
intending to put this on the agenda two weeks ago for an open
discussion, and I was asked by the Tax Assessor not to do
that, that the problem was being rectified. I'm concerned
because I'm getting conflicting stories. I think Commissioner
Baldwin's getting the same conflicting stories. We were told
that it's a software problem. Then we're told that it's not a
software problem; it's been fixed, and -- but we didn't know
it, and so forth and so on. That's one element that deals
with the fact that you got a delinquent tax notice that led to
a notice of tax lien, and so that has to be corrected, and
we'll ask Mr. Trolinger to talk about that in a minute,
because I think he's done some research into it. He's our
I.T. guy. The other part of this that bothered me is that we
were also told that the delinquent notices -- that a letter
8-27-07
83
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
would go out from the Tax Assessor/Collector correcting the
fact that you got a delinquent tax notice and telling you that
that was in error, and that it would be expunged from the
record, eliminating any potential for penalties and so forth.
But of equal, if not greater importance, that a letter was
supposed to go out listing all of those of you who've got
these notices to the attorney in Austin -- law firm in Austin
that does this work for us, telling them to hold off; there is
no reason to file tax lien notices, and to expunge that or to
back away from that process. As we speak this morning, I
don't think any of that's been done, has it, Mr. Pike?
MR. PIKE: Not to my knowledge.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. PIKE: It's been two and a half weeks.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, these are things we need
to get taken care of. And it is not only a concern of this
gentleman, but it's a concern of many others who got these tax
notices incorrectly.
MR. PIKE: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It needs to be taken care of
now.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the question I have, and
it's probably to the County Attorney, who -- I don't know that
we have authority, the Commissioners Court, to direct the Tax
Assessor to send that letter. If we do, it should -- I
8-27-07
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
84
MR. EMERSON: I think the limit of your authority,
Commissioner, is to draft a resolution by the Commissioners
Court requesting the Tax Assessor to do those things. I don't
think you have the authority to go down there and hold her
hand and make her do it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can pass a resolution. Can
we -- and I don't know if any of the -- of these liens have
gotten into the -- the land records or not, which would be my
worst fear, and your worst fear.
MR. PIKE: That's right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can we -- what can we do in that
regard to halt any of those liens from being filed or accepted
by the County Clerk? Or can -- is there anything?
MR. EMERSON: I think, technically speaking, the law
firm in Austin is probably working on a contract with the
County, and I think it is within the authority of this
Commissioners Court to send a letter to the law firm in Austin
directing them to cease and desist.
JUDGE TINLEY: I got a -- a telephone message from
the tax attorney in Austin, and in that message, the tax
attorney accepted responsibility for this snafu, and indicated
8-27-07
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
85
that their office would be sending out to each affected
taxpayer a letter of apology. Now, I don't recall that --
that there was a specification of what was going to be in that
letter, but I -- Mr. Pike, I think your request is -- is
reasonable and it's appropriate. And -- and neither you nor
any of the other taxpayers that received those who should not
have received them should suffer any negative effects. And
everything you asked for is -- is something that is
reasonable. I think we do have the ability to request of the
tax attorney's office that they include within that letter,
and to take any necessary steps, and represent that they will
take all necessary steps, to accomplish every single thing
that you have asked for. And -- and then we have the ability,
as having oversight of that contractual relationship with Kerr
County, to, I think, enforce that occurring.
MR. PIKE: I appreciate that you recognize that.
You know, there's two problems. You have to correct the mess,
but there ought to be a way to prevent it. As I said, there
needs to be some kind of periodic review of that department,
even if it's unofficial. I assume that there's an entity of
authority here; otherwise, I wouldn't be standing here asking
for your help if you couldn't do anything. So, you need to
provide -- in a department like that, that has so many
financial transactions taking place for so much money, some
kind of an oversight that -- that's not just totally
8-27-07
86
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
disciplinary, but is assisting, also helping these people.
There's no excuse for that software to sit there for a year
and not be updated because of no funds. That's ridiculous.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'd like to hear that aspect
of from it Mr. Trolinger. There is another aspect of it, too,
while Mr. Trolinger's coming up, and that is advising the law
firm at a time period prior to the deadline. Not only that
created a problem for those of you who walk in the Tax Office
to make a payment, perhaps on the last day or just before
close of business, but it also affects those who pay online.
MR. PIKE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And any early notification
prior to the action, I guess, of that particular day --
MR. PIKE: 11 o'clock at night.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- then makes somebody else
delinquent that paid online. So -- and Mr. Trolinger maybe
can address those.
MR. PIKE: There are only about 30 million people
probably in this country that pay bills on a direct withdrawal
on an account, and the creditor never withdraws that money
ahead of the deadline. That doesn't happen.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think what -- what may be able
to be addressed on your oversight issue is through our
policies. That -- and I don't know if we have it in our
purview or not, but we may be able to -- delinquent tax
8-27-07
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
notices should never be sent, probably till five days after
they're delinquent, in my mind, 'cause you have mail problems;
you have other things. I mean, to do it the day or the day
after is unreasonable, in my mind.
MR. PIKE: Or before.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or before, certainly. But I
don't know if that's something we can add in our policy, but
we may be able to. It's something we can certainly look at.
Oversight -- I think, you know, we have budgetary oversight,
but beyond that, we don't.
MR. PIKE: But that's leverage.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It is leverage. But --
MR. PIKE: I mean, somebody in this county I can't
believe can't provide some legitimate oversight to that
department down there. As I said, as assistance, if nothing
else, to help. You just can't have a department like that --
nobody can run any operation without some kind of supervision
and review.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And a little bit -- we do have a
change, and we're revising our policy and procedures related
to handling funds and money and things of that nature, and I
think we may be able to address part of that through there.
But the statutes also basically mandate that we fund that
office. I mean, we have some budgetary oversight, but it's
within limitations, too.
8-27-07
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
MR. PIKE: If you got control of any budget, you've
got control.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But we have limited control over
the budget.
MR. PIKE: But it needs it badly.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: When did -- I don't want to
get nosy, but when did you get the phone call from
Mr. Schober?
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't know, a week or so ago.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: A week or so ago?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What I'd like to do is make a
motion --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Wait a minute. You got some
more information coming.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: About the software aspect.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I can still make the motion I
want to make.
JUDGE TINLEY: Sure.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I make a motion to authorize the
County Judge to work directly with the law firm that we've
contracted with to resolve all matters and others as he sees
appropriate, including all those Mr. Pike brought forward in
resolving the issues with these delinquent tax notices being
s-z~-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
89
sent out inappropriately.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll second it, if you'll
let us hear from Mr. Trolinger.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and a second. Now,
let's move on. Mr. Trolinger?
MR. TROLINGER: Yes, sir. Well, Commissioner
Williams approached me approximately two weeks -- two weeks
ago and asked me to investigate the issue with the delinquent
tax notices. I went to the Tax Assessor/Collector and sat
down with her. She explained the situation. I understood
that the report had been run before it was actually due to be
run.
MR. PIKE: That's right.
MR. TROLINGER: I looked at some code tables and
some things like that. I don't, as I.T., understand all the
complexities of all the taxing entities, but what I did find
was that this is essentially a clerical error. There is not a
problem with the software. And just simply, as you found with
your research, Mr. Pike, the report was run before it should
have been run.
MR. PIKE: And that's inexcusable. You don't ever
run a delinquency before the due date of something. That was
just poor judgment. And I certainly think -- my experience in
management, which is extensive, is often when the war is this
8-27-07
90
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
way, everybody wants to attack that way. The problem in
problem-solving is to identify the problem. The problem is
not the quarterly taxpaying system; it's the way it's being
administered. And -- and I would think that, as I said, we
need an ad hoc committee of some kind to go in there and help
these people. And, certainly, you shouldn't have a -- a
computer deficiency that lasts for a year or exists for more
than a year. That's just not --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: From what you're hearing, we
didn't have a deficiency.
MR. TROLINGER: That's correct. The code tables, et
cetera, I didn't find any -- any substantial issue with.
There may have -- may have been something that the software
vendor, the support people helped with in the background that
I didn't know about that resolved the issue, but it -- it's
not something I handled directly.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the other item -- and if
Commissioner Williams will work with me on a resolution, I
think the Court can do a resolution to the Tax Assessor
identifying the problem and putting a requirement -- or
request that delinquent statements never be mailed out prior
to the date of the delinquency.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Will do.
MR. PIKE: If I can, the reason I was told that was
25 I done is because she said she was under pressure to get out the
8-27-07
91
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
legitimate delinquencies as early as first of July, because
they've been existing for some time. I can understand that,
but that does not justify putting out bogus tax liens on the
people who are not delinquent. But that's the reason she said
she did it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Any -- any further
question or comments with regard to the motion before the
Court? 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've got an
11 o'clock timed item that we've now run over, but we'll go to
it. Mr. Larry Boccaccio with the Texas Association of
Counties is with us here today, and this is a happy time, a
good day.
MR. BOCCACCIO: Good morning, all.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Morning.
MR. BOCCACCIO: I come bearing gifts. Actually,
this was the 2006 safety award that was -- it was done during
the County Management Institute in May in Austin, and I'm just
now getting around to bringing it out here, so just -- just a
little late. But a couple of the -- the players in this, I
want to recognize Rusty for his efforts, and Len for their
8-27-07
92
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
efforts out at Road and Bridge, 'cause they're helping y'all's
worker's comp costs go down. So, there is a nice little
plaque y'all can put up in a prominent place, and if you want
to do a picture, we can do that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where's the check?
JUDGE TINLEY: No check this time, Commissioner.
MR. BOCCACCIO: I actually had somebody ask that.
They said, "Don't -- just bring the check; forget the plaque."
I went, "Well, I don't know." I think that's coming in the
form of a worker's comp credit, isn't it?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's good.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, we've got a significant credit
coming on --
MR. BOCCACCIO: I want to say you have -- Victor
will be doing that probably when -- right around renewal time.
So --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Victor gets to do the money.
MR. BOCCACCIO: He gets to do the good stuff. He
gets to give money away. So, here I am. Do y'all want to do
a picture?
JUDGE TINLEY: Come on up here.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Who's got a camera?
JUDGE TINLEY: The scribe here has got a camera.
8-27-07
93
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. VAN WINKLE: My camera is giving me a little bit
of a problem, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Does the thing work or not?
MS. VAN WINKLE: Not right now, Buster.
JUDGE TINLEY: If it doesn't work, we can't take a
picture, then.
MS. VAN WINKLE: I thought I was going to be able to
get it to work. I am so sorry.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We need to buy you a new
~ battery?
MS. VAN WINKLE: No, my toggle switch is busted.
JUDGE TINLEY: Your toggle switch is busted?
MS. VAN WINKLE: It works when I hold my tongue
right, and I'm not doing that. So, sorry, I apologize.
JUDGE TINLEY: You get to stay here for the rest of
the day until our camera works. Isn't that great?
MR. BOCCACCIO: I love it.
JUDGE TINLEY: We appreciate it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
MR. BOCCACCIO: You're welcome.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
MR. BOCCACCIO: You're welcome. Judge, I'm going to
leave you with it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you so much.
8-27-07
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
MR. BOCCACCIO: You're welcome. Good job, y'all.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The county family is the best
working group on earth.
MR. BOCCACCIO: I know it. And it's --
MS. VAN WINKLE: Actually, it is working.
JUDGE TINLEY: Now it's working? Here you go. Come
I on back.
MS. VAN WINKLE: The authority of the Court -- the
authority of the Court superseded the whole problem.
(Discussion off the record.)
MS. VAN WINKLE: Could you huddle together a little
closer, please?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Move up there, Bill.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Get over here.
MS. VAN WINKLE: Hold your breath, smile, and don't
blink. (Picture taken.) Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: You like that?
MS. VAN WINKLE: I think it's good.
JUDGE TINLEY: Great. Thank you.
MR. BOCCACCIO: You're welcome.
JUDGE TINLEY: Appreciate it. Thank you so much.
MR. BOCCACCIO: Surely.
JUDGE TINLEY: You come on and see us any time.
s-a~-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
95
MR. BOCCACCIO: I'll do it.
JUDGE TINLEY: We'll take your money over here.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Couple times a year be fine.
MR. BOCCACCIO: Couple times?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And if Victor always brings the
check, tell him to come twice a year.
MR. BOCCACCIO: Y'all take care.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
MR. BOCCACCIO: You're welcome.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, in addition to the comp credit,
I would remind you that a couple years ago we got a check for
about 18 grand on our safety -- safety program, so it's good
news. Okay, let's get back to where we were. Let's go to
Item 10; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action for
revision of Lot 13 and water well lot in Oak Ridge Estates and
possibly set a date for public hearing. Mr. Odom.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. Mr. Wiedenfeld is seeking
guidance on how to proceed with a legal -- possible legal
maze, as inferred from the letter from the County Attorney.
He states that a new well is needed, and in the past the Court
has abandoned road easements back to the property owner when
the easement no longer serves a purpose for the public. I
could not tell if Mr. Wiedenfeld owns the easement by the plat
and all through to the well; it just says public road
easement. Or that -- whether he owns it or whether the
8-27-07
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
adjacent property owner owns that. A legal opinion is
probably needed to determine who owns what, and that does not
involve the County Attorney, in my opinion, to do that. I
think that's probably legal on Mr. Wiedenfeld's part. If the
legal opinion is determined, then we don't see -- the
department doesn't see why this could not be done, as long as
Mr. Wiedenfeld pays the revision of plat and no cost is
incurred by the County. And if the Court agrees, we will need
to set a public hearing, and I think Mr. Wiedenfeld is here to
Attorney to speak to this document he gave us a little bit,
just to give us a little guidance?
MR. EMERSON: I don't think -- the problem is, I
don't think we have enough information at this time to address
it. I don't know if the County owns the property itself, or
if we merely have an easement. And depending on what the
situation is determines the procedures of the Court.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, also, after we make
that determination, then there apparently -- according to what
you provided us in Section 263 of the Local Government Code,
there's a process to go through in determining value and how
we do all this; is that correct?
MR. EMERSON: There's a very specific process and a
specific set of priorities for who can purchase the property
8-27-07
Q~
L
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and what the order of priorities are.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: First step is to find out who
owns the property, correct?
MR. EMERSON: Correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mr. Wiedenfeld maybe could
shed some light on that.
MR. WIEDENFELD: That was -- Charles Wiedenfeld.
I'm representing Wiedenfeld Water Works. I guess the first --
and that was my question when I came to them, was who owns the
property? And, you know, Appraisal District indicated that
the owner of Lot 13 did, but by my calculations, in his tax --
what he's been paying taxes on is on .81 acres, which that's
what calculates out land that he owns outside the easement.
The easement itself is roughly about four-tenths of an acre.
The 50-foot easement is about four-tenths of an acre, and
which would make his property -- if he was the owner, paying
the taxes on it, would be about 1.2 acres he'd be paying taxes
on, which it doesn't appear that he is. I'm not paying taxes
on it. I only pay taxes on the well lot, which is a 50-by-50
piece of property. So that's why I went to Mr. Odom and said,
"Who owns it?" And is it an easement that can be abandoned
back to adjacent owners, or -- and like I said, my purpose is
I need to drill a well, and I don't -- can't get it inside my
existing 50-by-50. I could possibly, at the very -- I mean,
8-27-07
98
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
worst case scenario. But that's why I would like to be able
to move it onto property, like I say, within the area that
this easement's on.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You own the well lot,
correct?
MR. WIEDENFELD: I own the well lot, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Looks to me like there's
also another property owner that might have a potential
interest, and that's the property to the south. Would that be
correct?
MR. WIEDENFELD: Well, all the properties -- all
properties have access to a county-maintained road all around
this property.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand that.
MR. WIEDENFELD: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But any abandonment, the
interest comes upon abandonment; is that correct? Somebody
can say, "Hey, I got an interest in that."
MR. WIEDENFELD: Okay, I see. The lot on the south
side would have, yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. Who's your surveyor?
MR. WIEDENFELD: Well, I was seeing what this
decision was, and then I'll go get a surveyor. But -- and
bring it back to the legal, I guess.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the key is who owns
a-z~-o~
99
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Easement.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- the easement.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or the property under the
MR. EMERSON: Correct.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And go from there. If it's the
County, we have one process. If it's somebody else, you never
have to talk to us again.
MR. WIEDENFELD: It was represented to me it was
dedicated to the public as part of the process -- I mean, the
platting process.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, that's a revision of plat.
MR. EMERSON: Even if the County doesn't own the fee
simple property underneath, we still have the easement, and if
he wants to expand this in that easement for his water well,
it's still going to require abandonment of a certain portion
of the easement and all the procedures that go with it. But
as I told Len when I talked to Len, it's no reflection on
Charlie or anybody else in particular, but this is a private
legal issue that he needs to get an attorney and go through
procedures to determine the ownership on the property, and
then determine how to acquire the property. You know, as far
as we're concerned -- as far as the County's concerned, the
8-27-07
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
easement's there; it exists, and if a private individual wants
to make a change, they need to go through the procedures to do
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You can't just leave the
easement there?
MR. WIEDENFELD: I have to own the land to drill a
well on it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. And your -- are you --
well, it's none of my business how you're figuring out where
you're drilling your well.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you talking about the
entire easement, or just a small portion?
MR. WIEDENFELD: I was -- I was going to split it --
I'd already talked to the neighbor. I said, well, you know --
'cause after visiting with Len, you know, he thought it could
be done, or Truby was saying it sounds like abandonment of
easement was possible. And I said, "Well, we'll split the
property, you know, 'cause I only need a 25-foot easement."
And at that time, I was under the belief that he was paying
taxes, because that's what's the Appraisal District had told
me, but after I did some further looking into it, he -- he
hasn't been paying taxes on that easement. He's -- all the
rest of the -- you know, the road right-of-ways within the
subdivision, property lines go out to the middle of the road,
and then everybody is paying. But in this case, on that
s-a~-o~
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
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. We're currently using
programming of our own design to manage citizens' concerns,
the state road list, traffic accidents, daily worksheets, work
schedules and hours, sign placement and inventory, equipment,
repairs, and et cetera. They work well, but they're not
integrated. We visited with John about our needs and what
software might be available. Truby has been researching what
is available, and at what cost. Last week we got information
on CompuLink's Visual Road and Bridge IMS. There are
currently six counties in Texas using their software. Truby
talked with four of those -- that was Grimes, Falls, Red
River, and Denton -- and found all of them liked the product
and are extremely pleased with the service they receive.
Denton County Road and Bridge has used it for seven years, and
said they couldn't imagine trying to do the job without it.
CompuLink will convert all of our current files to the new
system for $500 to $1,000, depending on the amount of data we
send them. The regular price of this system is $20,000 plus
$1,000 annual maintenance fee. They're running a special that
ends October the 1st of '07 for all 21 integrated modules for
an annual subscription of $1,750. The only other software we
have considered is $20,000 per module, plus $1,000 annual
maintenance fee per module, and the minimum number of modules
is three, which would be $60,000 plus $3,000 on an annual
8-27-07
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
basis. We currently have money in engineering to pay for the
software and conversion, and ask the Court to allow us to
purchase it at this time. For the upcoming year, we would
need to set up a line item for software maintenance. We've
had John out to talk about it, and I think Truby has talked to
him. His opinion -- I wasn't privileged to be at that
meeting, but got the -- the gist that I think John was -- I
think approved --
MR. TROLINGER: I did the research. It looks great.
Looks like a wonderful software package, and it even includes
provisions for animal control, for instance.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I saw that.
MR. TROLINGER: If we want to expand the scope of
JUDGE TINLEY: Several questions.
MR. ODOM: All right, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Are you telling me that our cost to
be up and running on that --
MR. ODOM: $1,750.
JUDGE TINLEY: $1,750, and then thereafter, same
annual cost?
MR. ODOM: Same annual cost.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, they're increasing --
JUDGE TINLEY: Excluding all of these base setup,
$20,000, excluding the three minimum, the $1,000 per on an
8-27-07
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
104
annual basis, and we're looking at a one-time cost this year
of $1,750; thereafter, annually at $1,750?
MR. ODOM: $1,750, and probably anywhere from $500
to $1,000, depending upon the amount of money to integrate all
the data that we have.
', JUDGE TINLEY: So, to bring it over one time?
I~', MR. ODOM: That's right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Now, next question.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, Judge, if I can make sure
I understand.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, instead of paying $20,000,
$1,000 annual, then they're just paying $1,750 for as long as
you're using it?
MR. ODOM: That's right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You're increasing your
maintenance and decreasing your up-front end?
MR. ODOM: That's right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sounds like a pretty good deal
I to me .
MR. TROLINGER: It appears to be, correct. It's a
little bit complex, and I haven't seen the contract yet. I
think we'll get those details straight once we have the
contract.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Seems like a good deal.
8-27-07
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
MR. ODOM: As I understand it, what I presented to
', you is it's going to cost me $1,750 per year. Pick up the
phone and call them any time. The research we've done on
I
that, it says that, you know, it's exemplary. This
I, individual's been doing it for a good while.
~i
', JUDGE TINLEY: Question. How many of these modules
can or will you use, either now or in the foreseeable future?
MR. ODOM: Well, I don't have an answer today. I
haven't seen all that they've had. Truby's been more in line.
I've asked her to follow up and do that, but I'm going to
guess everything I read here may be a separate module in
itself. Complaints, et cetera. So, whether we use all 21, I
don't know, but someone -- maybe Animal Control, some of the
others may be able to use that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Question. By having the license
running to Kerr County, can we transfer the use of that module
over to Animal Control?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And Environmental Health.
JUDGE TINLEY: Same question.
MR. ODOM: Environmental Health, I don't have an
answer, but maybe John's -- I don't know.
I
MR. TROLINGER: Right. Those are questions that
will be answered with the contract. We haven't got to that
stage yet.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
8-27-07
106
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
MR. TROLINGER: We just wanted to come and present
that it's here, that we have 30 days left, that we can't
afford to do it, and we wanted your -- input to you, and
vice-versa back. We would proceed -- proceed on to get more
information.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Looks good.
JUDGE TINLEY: We need to take a look at that
contract. If it's properly represented, as you've indicated,
and as Mr. Trolinger has indicated, looks like it's something
that we could get a lot of use of. I see a benefits module in
there, too.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: Track benefit hours earned and used,
or comp time and things of that nature.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Solid waste.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, we got a solid waste module.
All sorts of --
23
24 today.
25
8-27-07
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We don't need Court action
MR. ODOM: All sorts of them.
MR. TROLINGER: There are a lot of components, a lot
of interesting things in this software. But the key here is,
again, the urgency of -- of getting in under the time limit to
get this deal.
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
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: October 1 is when the deal
MR. ODOM: That's -- that's it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Get it reviewed by the
County Attorney before you bring it back.
MR. ODOM: Yes, we'll run the contract past the
attorney.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sounds good.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Odom.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Looks like you got a good thing
working there. Let's move to Item 12; consider, discuss, and
take appropriate action on adopted '07-'08 Kerr County
Appraisal District budget. I assume that budget was adopted
at the Appraisal District's meeting of, I believe, the 23rd.
They were scheduled to adopt it on that date, as per their
communication to me. The budget copies have been provided to
members of the Court. Per the Court's instruction, I sent out
a communication to both members of the board of the Appraisal
District, with copies to the governing boards of all of the
entities who participate in the funding of that budget. A
copy of that letter was furnished to each member of the Court
previously.
COMMISSIONER LETZ:	Judge,	refresh	my	memory. What
is the COLA that the County -	- we're	looking	at,	at the
8-27-07
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
moment, of incorporating? Two-point --
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't think we zeroed in on it.
We're looking at anything from 3 up to 4, I think, generally
is probably a good range.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Their COLA is 3.3 that they're
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, but they created the reserve
for merit increases, which would provide effective salary
increases of 7 percent.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, I saw that. But their
actual COLA is 3.3, but they have a reserve that doesn't -- of
another 3.7 percent which doesn't have a whole lot of
background on it, other than how it's going to be allocated.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, it may be moot. The
Judge says they've already approved it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They've approved it, but then we
have to approve it, and the other entities that fund it have
to approve it. And if we don't, and if enough other entities
don't, --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: They'll have to go back.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- then they have to go back and
relook at it. And my memory is that this is similar, but they
build in that merit increase almost every year at about this
rate.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
s-2~-o~
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: Which I -- you know --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It just doesn't seem fair that
they can do this every year, and they have done it evidently
for quite some time, and expect for the school districts and
City and the County and all the other taxing entities to go
along with it. And I know for a fact that school teachers
don't get that kind of an annual raise, so why in the world
would they approve that kind of a budget increase for our
Appraisal District?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What they've done is figured
out a way to finesse it by creating that merit pool, and then
they apply the merit pool on top of the COLA next year, so
they figured out a way to get around all that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Rather creative.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion to vote
against approval of the Kerr Central Appraisal budget.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
disapproval of the Kerr Central Appraisal District budget for
'07-'08 as presented. Any question or discussion on the
motion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I do have a question.
There's a 3.3 across the board for everybody throughout,
right?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
8-27-07
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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And then they have a 3.7 set
up for each employee?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Hard to tell. It goes into a
~ pool.
JUDGE TINLEY: They show salaries at 7 percent
differential.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, that's 3.7 for everybody.
JUDGE TINLEY: But they broke it down into a COLA,
and then the balance of it to merit raises.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, they're planning --
JUDGE TINLEY: Appears they're coming out at 7.04.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They're planning on giving a
merit raise to each and every employee out there?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's hard to say.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, no, it's not hard to
I saY-
COMMISSIONER	LETZ:	I mean, by what	they've
submitted, it's hard to	say.		
COMMISSIONER	WILLIAM	S: No, they've	-- they've said
they're going to do it.			
COMMISSIONER	BALDWIN	: Yeah, they sa	y they're doing
it, 3.3 and 3.7. That	adds up	to 7 percent.	
COMMISSIONER	LETZ:	What I'm saying,	it's hard to
say. In their backup,	it has	every position.	
8-27-07
111
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And it says 3.3. Then at the
bottom, it has a block of the merit amount of $16,000, and I
don't know if that's what they mean, giving to it everybody,
or give it all to one person.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Judge, when did you get the
values in that was -- when was the date that you received
those? The certified values.
JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, the certified tax rolls?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Right.
MS. HARGIS: August 8th.
JUDGE TINLEY: Pardon?
MS. HARGIS: August 8th.
JUDGE TINLEY: August 8th, which the -- the statute
anticipates that those values, certified tax rolls, should be
furnished to the jurisdictions affected by July the 25th.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's what I thought.
JUDGE TINLEY: So --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So, you know, --
JUDGE TINLEY: Two weeks late.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- they're wanting a raise in
salaries for doing such good work, but yet they're not on time
like they're mandated to be with the certified tax rolls.
JUDGE TINLEY: I pointed that out in my letter to
them, Commissioner.
8-27-07
112
1
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 OEHLER: I know you did, and I
appreciate that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other question or discussion on
that motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. We'll move
to Item 13, to consider, discuss, and take appropriate action
on the proposed amendment to the taxing unit agenda for the
Kerr County Appraisal District '06 budget in accordance with
the request letter dated August 2, '07. This has to do with
the reserve account for their potential building renovation.
They want to transfer the surplus in the '06 budget to the
building reserve account for the '07 budget.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd like to know -- I did not
see in the backup as to what the dollar amount we're talking
about is.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, it's not there. I was
going to ask that same question. Nor did they tell us how
much they spent last year doing whatever it is they did.
JUDGE TINLEY: One way to make them tell you,
gentlemen.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion that we vote
8-27-07
113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
disapproval of the proposed amendment to the taxing unit
agenda for the Kerr County Appraisal District '06 budget, as
set forth in the August 2, '07 letter. Any further question
or discussion on that 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 15; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to
adopt fees charged for civil services by the office of Sheriff
and constables. Sheriff, I put this on the agenda without
consulting you. I didn't know whether you'd be ready for it
or not. They must be approved and forwarded in before October
1, and if you're not ready to go on it, just say so.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No. In fact -- in fact, even
before it was on the agenda, Jannett had sent it over to me.
We both agreed to it, and I guess we may have had a
miscommunication. I thought she was going to put it on. You
thought I was going to put it on, but that's fine. We are
well prepared. And I haven't seen what you did, but what
8-27-07
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
114
Jannett and I talked about, I have no proposed changes in it
from what we worked last year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Same as last year?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Same as last year.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. That makes it pretty simple.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move we set it as the same
schedule as last year.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and second to adopt
the fees charged for civil services by offices of Sheriff and
constables as was put into effect for last year. Any question
or discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion,
signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Let's move
to Item 16; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to
appoint County Judge Pat Tinley to the Board of Trustees of
the Hill Country Community Mental Health and Mental
Retardation Center for a two-year term effective September 1,
2007.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
8-27-07
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
115
JUDGE TINLEY: You don't want me to explain this to
you, do you?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the County Attorney wants to
~ delay us.
MR. EMERSON: Well, I have a question for y'all. Do
we currently have a member of the Commissioners Court on that
board?
JUDGE TINLEY: No, we do not. For a number of
years, Dr. Sam Dunkin has been the Court's appointee to that
board, and Dr. Dunkin has done a tremendous job. And he
served notice that it was time for him to hang it up, and so
he would -- he would not accept reappointment. Traditionally,
~I
I the members of that board have been the county judges of the
various counties that are comprised within the -- within the
jurisdiction of that Mental Health Authority. And --
MR. EMERSON: My follow-up question, then, would be
have you checked with the Attorney General's opinions to see
if there's a conflict between being on this board and being an
elected official?
JUDGE TINLEY: No, I haven't. But I assume Judge
Jim Barden and Judge Evans and, you know, the myriad of other
judges that serve in the same capacity in their county as I
serve here have resolved that issue, and that's been resolved
8-27-07
116
1 long ago.
2
3 Judge.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think that's correct,
MR. EMERSON: That's my two questions.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Already been done.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Any further question or
discussion? All in favor, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion carries. Let's move to
17; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to further
discuss new policy and fee schedule for Kerr County Exhibition
Center and rescind all previous orders pertaining to the same.
I'll give it to you guys.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My colleague to the west.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Why put it on me? You're the
one that put on it here.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I didn't put it on here.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We have been discussing it.
We have been discussing this for quite a while, and Ms. Hyde
and I have been working, as well as Jonathan, trying to come
up with some new policies for booking procedures and -- and
fees for the Exhibition Center. And I believe that we finally
8-27-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
117
have a fairly good set of guidelines here. I'd like to get
the rest of the Court's input, and also Ms. Hyde, I think, has
MS. HYDE: If we go to our current policy, there are
some changes that would have to be made. We talked about it
during the workshop. I think there was a little bit of
concern that these would change, and they do need to change a
tad to match the policies on the portion --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What are the changes in the
existing?
MS. HYDE: If you go to --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The underlined portions?
MS. HYDE: -- Number 5 -- no, Number 5. It says the
deposits are due with each contract. Our policy is that the
deposits are due with the reservation. And then the same
Number 5, where it says balance due for rental is not -- is
payable not less than 10 days. This says 21 days.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Change it from 21 to 10?
MS. HYDE: Change it from 10 to 21.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 10 to 21. Any others?
MS. HYDE: Number 8. We don't have three rental
categories any more, so the suggestion was to cut out the
first two sentences and just leave the qualified for the
not-for-profit down.
25 ~ COMMISSIONER LETZ: Say that again?
s-a~-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
118
MS. HYDE: We don't have three rental categories.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MS. HYDE: So in this Number 8, it talks about
commercial, not-for-profit, and educational events, and then
it's talking about the rental rates. To qualify for
not-for-profit; you have to have a 501(c)(3), and all other
organizations are going to be commercial. But then you go to
educational. I understood no admission fee or entry fee is
charged. Social events are considered commercial events.
Number 8 really doesn't -- doesn't fit any more.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, do you think just take out
the entire Number 8?
MS. HYDE: Yeah, because we show what not-for-profit
is, and it will be up to Commissioners Court to decide who
gets what.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, we're not changing
Number 8, we're taking it out?
MS. HYDE: Then Number 14. The deposit, again, for
catering is 10 days, not 5.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Go back to Paragraph 11. We're
talking about reduced rate or free use.
MS. HYDE: Number 11?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. So, the way we're saying
free use.
8-27-07
119
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. HYDE: This is the policy that's been on the net
for several years.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MS. HYDE: I think the big -- the big kicker is the
one at the bottom; the exceptions to the policy will be
allowed -- approved by Commissioners Court.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, in the future, we're going
to have to -- any nonprofit that wants a reduced rate is going
to need to come to the Court to get approval, and at that
point that rate discount would be approved?
MS. HYDE: We've got -- we've got a listing on the
back page of what we were able to show -- showed as nonprofit
commercial in the past, and that we're -- we're under order
27353. So, we could take that order and utilize that action,
correct?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I mean, I think we ought
to get all the other orders, but we may want to use that
nonprofit -- I mean, to keep from having these entities -- if
we agree on them coming back to the Court, I think we should
do it at our -- on whichever running list. We shouldn't make,
like, the -- I'm trying to think of one here. Well, Senior
Games banquet. I think we ought to have referred to an annual
list that we approve, rather than -- you know.
JUDGE TINLEY: One-by-one basis?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Rather than a one-by-one.
8-27-07
120
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How about this entire list?
Are we sure that all these events still take place?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I'm just thinking. You
know, maybe we -- I'm not saying we should include all of
these on the list. I'm saying we should do a list.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree. I'm just saying
probably some of these don't even take place any more.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. I think that we could --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I believe we'll be able to
develop a better list after October 1, when we have -- have
another person that's going to be in charge of bookings and
all these kinds of documents.
', JUDGE TINLEY: And it also occurs to me that
whoever's doing the booking can qualify by having exhibited
the appropriate nonprofit tax certification that we identify
in here.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're taking out that proof,
though. Paragraph 8 is where you identify nonprofits.
JUDGE TINLEY: Maybe we need to keep that.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You can put that back in.
MS. HYDE: Put back in the 501(c)(3)?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, to qualify for not-for-profit.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think that pretty well takes
care of nonprofits.
', COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That needs to be in there.
8-27-07
121
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Those middle two sentences,
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Wait, wait, wait, wait.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Now, I don't know that I think
that all nonprofits should get reduced rates.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, it doesn't say they
are. It just says to qualify, they have to show a 501(c)(3).
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So you qualify, and then you
get -- it takes Court approval.
MS. HYDE: Well, it says to qualify for the
not-for-profit rental rate. And later on, it talks about the
rental rate based on the three different sections that we used
to have -- or four.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. I
MS. HYDE: Or five. So -- but the new policy states
that the bottom line is that they -- when they come, it's up
to Commissioners Court to say and vote on what discount they
get, from 0 to 100 percent.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: For -- and I don't know if --
you know, I'm trying to think of a good example to use, but
I'm sure there are examples out there that I couldn't come up
with, that it's a nonprofit that may not be -- that I have any
interest in giving them a discounted rate. The fact that
you're a nonprofit doesn't mean you should automatically be
8-27-07
122
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
subsidized by the taxpayers of this county.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, a nonprofit,
basically -- I think you could say Hill Country Telephone
Co-op. They're basically a co-op that they're not-for-profit,
but they're a commercial business.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a good example.
getting a discount.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: They're paying full price.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But there are -- I just -- I
think we need to -- I think it's probably better to take 8 out
right now. I think we need to maybe just refer to that non --
you know, we need to develop a separate court order, maybe, of
who's going to get free use on that. That should be done on
an annual basis.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: By leaving the reference to
501(c)(3) in, it probably needs some adjustment. We could
re-tailor that to indicate that they're qualified to be placed
on a list, but they still have to receive Commissioners Court
approval.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
MS. HYDE: I can do that. I can just define what
8-27-07
123
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If you're not a 501(c)(3), you
have a very slim chance of getting approved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We just need to distinguish
that they're qualified to be placed on this list. That does
not automatically grant them an exemption.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. My turn? Paragraph 4. I
guess a lot of this is cleanup. Second line, lessee to hold
two or more dates with a single deposit.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Paragraph 5, a qualifier at the
beginning, except for multiple-date users, comma, deposits are
due at each contract.
MS. HYDE: Say that one more time?
JUDGE TINLEY: Except for multiple-date, quote,
unquote, users. Paragraph 6, last sentence. Equal to or
greater than the amount of the base facility rental. Or are
you wanting to talk about the base -- or the gross rental of
the -- of the canceling event?
MS. HYDE: I assumed it was the --
JUDGE TINLEY: Facility. Base facility.
MS. HYDE: The base rent.
JUDGE TINLEY: Then insert the word base -- the word
"facility" after base. Okay. Go to Paragraph 13. Last --
8-27-07
124
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
last bullet under alcohol. If the service of alcohol requires
the presence of a peace officer, presence of peace officers,
who determines that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think you need to get rid of
I the --
MS. HYDE: I have no idea.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think probably get rid of the
"if . "
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah, I think it does require.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. If you -- I mean, get rid
of the "if" and then that solves that one.
JUDGE TINLEY: The service of alcohol requires the
presence -- and this expense shall be borne by the -- okay.
MS. HYDE: So, cut out, "If the service..."
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just get rid of the word "if."
The service of alcohol requires the presence of peace
officers, and this expense shall be borne by the lessee.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, the service of alcohol
will require one. Why don't we do that? Will require the
presence of a peace officer. Make it a requirement.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Insurance requires that? Yeah.
Our insurance requires this anyway.
MS. HYDE: Although it's not in here, there's been a
request. The other peace officers locally are charging
8-27-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
125
between $30 and $35 for their services per hour, so while
we're doing the increase, I would recommend we go ahead and
increase the rate of the peace officers.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: What we --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's up to the peace
officers and Sheriff's Department.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't think you can have that
in there. I think that is up to the individual peace
officers. 'Cause we can't act as a security company; it voids
everything. You can't put that in there.
MS. HYDE: So -- well, the peace officers are the
ones that were talking to me, and they said that in the past,
it was in this.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's just -- no.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Never been that way?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Never been in that, and cannot
be in that.
MS. HYDE: So, it's something to determine with the
people.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It is up to whatever peace
officers are working out there and whoever's renting it out to
make those arrangements, and we cannot be involved in it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: $50?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: If they can get it from them,
25 ~ yeah, you know.
8-27-07
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
126
MS. HYDE: Well, then we need to make sure that
JUDGE TINLEY: Nope, I don't think you can do that.
Ms. Hyde's just saying --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: She's saying we're doing it.
MS. HYDE: I'm saying it's in your contracts -- our
contracts.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We need to look at our contract.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We need to redo the contract.
MS. HYDE: The next part is after this is approved,
then Ilse and Rex can help me do the contracts.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, 15, equipment rental. Rental
only for on-premises use. Gentlemen, if you'll recall, the
Camo Claus event, that equipment's going off-site.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We may want to add to it that,
"unless otherwise authorized by Commissioners Court."
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MS. HYDE: So, just add "unless otherwise
authorized"?
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, unless otherwise approved --
authorized by Commissioners Court. Okay.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: 'Cause I'll tell you, the
~!, table and chair thing has been, you know, a nightmare. We
8-27-07
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
127
haven't really gotten anything out of it, and there has to be
somebody check them out, check them in, and I think it's a
waste of our time and it tears up the tables and chairs.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Plus I think we shouldn't be in
private business. Let private business worry about that.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We don't need to be in
competition.
MS. HYDE: You're on Number 16. That fee is changed
from $150 -- it says a fee -- recommending a fee of $300 will
be charged the lessee for setting up and taking down the
facility after the scheduled event. It's now $300.
JUDGE TINLEY: Instead of $150.
MS. HYDE: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Under 17, Declarations, have
we always outlawed glitter or confetti?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We did, because the former
Maintenance Director said it's a real problem. They paste it
on the wall and paste it on the posts and all that stuff.
These -- these things, a lot of these came from Glenn.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: When he was in charge out
there. He said those things are just really a problem.
JUDGE TINLEY: I can imagine confetti being a
problem, trying to sweep it up.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And pasting glitter all over
8-27-07
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
128
everything.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's all I got. Are we going to
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Only -- yeah. One more
comment here. Tim -- Tim has talked to me about the fact that
there have been some recent problems with people coming out
and wanting to ride in the indoor arena after 5 o'clock. And
we need to make sure that this is -- that if they're paying a
rental fee to do that, to ride, is that going to be included
in these same hours of operation, or do we need to have a
separate -- separate notation for that?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That would be people who
have rented it?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, I'm taking it that it's
private individuals coming out wanting to exercise their
horses. And then --
MR. BOLLIER: Yes, sir. Like, we'll get a phone
call from -- there's several different ladies that come out
and ride after 5 o'clock, and we charge them $20 to ride in
the barn. But I have a question on that. If we're going to
have somebody out there after 5 o'clock, then I need
maintenance personnel out there to be with those people,
~ because that's a liability towards the County, isn't it, if
something happens?
s-2~-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
129
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I was going to raise that.
What about the liability issue if somebody goes out there and
gets thrown off a horse?
MR. BOLLIER: That's what I'm saying. But is it
worth -- is it worth them being able to come out there after
5 o'clock and me having personnel out there, and they're only
paying $20, where I'm paying this person -- this guy to be out
there overtime to be there? Is it worth all that?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We need to make a notation in
there that it only -- only applies to facilities rental.
Not -- if you want to rent the whole indoor arena for a day,
that's one thing. You can ride till 11 o'clock at night if
you want to. But if you're just coming out there wanting to
warm up your horse or practice, we got to figure out some way
to put that in there, that's not allowed after 5 o'clock.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He's also talking about
people not -- they may not even be associated with an event.
MR. BOLLIER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Right, that's exactly what
we're talking about. So we need to pass some kind of a rule
or whatever, or just flat not allow it to happen.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What happens to those folks
that -- this same kind of people, between 8:00 and 5:00?
MR. BOLLIER: If they call during 8:00 to 5:00, and
if there's not any event or anything going on during the day,
8-27-07
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
130
we usually let them come in, because we have personnel out
there. They pay us $20 to ride for an hour or two, and then
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm still concerned about
the liability issue.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I am too.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not so sure we should let
people that aren't renting the property use the property.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, in fact, that $20
is -- that's their 20 bucks that says I'm renting it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know. But, I mean, I'm -- I'm
not sure that's a real good practice.
MR. BOLLIER: This has been going on --
JUDGE TINLEY: An hour, 15 bucks.
MR. BOLLIER: This has been going on ever since I've
I been here.
MR. WALSTON: I'm not sure, liability-wise, if these
being equine events, that it doesn't fall under the same
liability that you would have just for hosting any other
roping or anything else that you're having out there.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, the problem with that is
you have somebody that's leased the facility and has put up an
insurance policy. In this case, there's no insurance policy
except the County's.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The Judge says on the -- this
8-27-07
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
131
sheet, the fee sheet, we have practice ride listed as $15.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Maybe we need to take that
off.
MS. HYDE: Well, if the going rate is $20, I'll
change to it $20.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm not so sure we even want to leave
it on there, 'cause that -- that gives somebody the
opportunity to show up out there during scheduled potential
hours of operation and say, "I want to ride around out here
for an hour."
MS. HYDE: Do we utilize a "hold harmless" agreement
that would hold us harmless against any liability?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's the point.
MR. EMERSON: There may be exceptions under the
recreational statutes, but I just need to look into it.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Take that too.
(Discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I know there are people that
like to do that, but it's really not a sanctioned event; they
really don't have the facility rented. And I really believe
it's more of a --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Burden.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah, it's a courtesy type
thing I'm not sure we need to extend for liability purposes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that also the case with
8-27-07
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
132
practice roping? It's a courtesy?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Sure.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, we got to have a contract for
it. If they're -- if they're going to be doing that, we got
to have a contract. And they'll put up an insurance policy if
they do that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, what we're talking about
applies to both categories, then.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, it would, I think.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What about -- well, what about
the 4-H folks? Do they just show up out there to ride around?
MR. WALSTON: They'll show up the day they're
supposed to use the outdoor arena. They don't --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're using that one facility
and that's it?
MR. WALSTON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, they're not riding round the
polo field, riding --
MR. WALSTON: Well, not supposed to be.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. WALSTON: I mean --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think -- I tend to -- I
don't think we want people just showing up there individually,
', individuals using that property. 'Cause, like, for example,
if there's an armadillo hole or -- or, you know, who knows
8-27-07
133
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
what happens, something around there, you know, polo field or
inside. If something happens, we're accepting money; there's
a certain thought that we're maintaining it and taking care of
it.
	COMMISSIONER	BALDWIN:	I couldn't agree more.
	MS. HYDE: Yo	u want	me	to mark them out?
	COMMISSIONER	LETZ:	Yea	h, both those practice ones.
	MR. WALSTON:	Is th	at n	ot -- that's not to include
the 4-H	arena, to where	they	can,	if they call 4-H --
	COMMISSIONER	LETZ:	4-H	folks, if they're using the
4-H are	na -- 4-H people	using	the	4-H arena, that's -- that's
okay, I	think.			
	MR. WALSTON:	Now,	I do	know that we occasionally
get peo	ple that say, "W	ell, I	wan	t to use the indoor arena."
I tell	them -- I say, "	That's	not	ours." That's -- you get
the --	we say, "You can	use t	he 4	-H arena." Other than
that...				
JUDGE TINLEY: I think that solves that problem.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Why don't we -- are we through
butchering this?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For now.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And if the --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Why don't we bring it back at
the next meeting and let Eva go ahead and put the final --
hopefully the final --
8-27-07
134
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Bruce made a comment about a
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We will -- we need to discuss
it at the next meeting, I think. It needs to be a proper
agenda item.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. All right.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It needs to be a proper agenda
item.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, that's what I thought.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah. You were just trying to
trap me; that's what you were doing.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, it appears that we're not going
to be able to get this plowed through --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Before lunch.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- before lunch, so why don't we --
why don't we adjourn until about 1:30.
(Recess taken from 12:08p.m. to 1:38 p.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's come back to order, if we
might. I think the next item on the agenda is Number 19;
consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to advertise
for RFP's or RFQ's, as the case may be, for the professional
services of an architectural/design/evaluation/site planner
for the Youth Exhibit Center building project. Commissioner
8-27-07
135
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, it's pretty
self-explanatory. I think we need to advertise for
qualifications. That would include being a site planner and
evaluation, and possibly having architectural capabilities as
well. What's behind all this is the fact that we want to --
we've talked about it before, doing some -- some building, new
construction as well as some demolition work to be done at the
Ag Barn, and -- or Exhibition Center. I'm going to get -- I'm
going to quit saying Ag Barn; I'm just going to call it Youth
Exhibition Center or Kerr County Exhibition Center. Anyway,
we have to -- we have to do this sort of thing to get a -- get
people to come in with their qualifications, and then once we
have them come in, we make a decision on who we'd like to put
on board, and move forward with the project. And in order to
be able to do this project, we're going to have to have some
professional service to do these kind of things, because we're
-- no matter whether we spend tax money or whether we spend
grant money, foundation money or whatever, we're going to have
to have a plan, and this is the first step in that plan.
JUDGE TINLEY: You're talking more of a plan, as
opposed to an architectural plan, as it were, for a specific
building? You're talking about an overall plan and concept?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We're talking about mainly one
part, maybe two -- two parts of it, but one would be a
8-27-07
136
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
demolition; the other one would be a new building.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Bruce and I have talked about
this. We're agreeing where we're going, but I think we need
to be -- I think we need to really be careful. I mean, we
can't advertise something generally. We've got to be pretty
specific as to what we want. And I don't want anything to do
with architects, because I have not had good experience with
architects on any building public project. I'd rather hire a
construction manager firm -- manager firm that will then do
those things for us. And I think, then --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do what things for us?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All these same things that Bruce
went through; would do the construction, if we get to that
point, but also there are capable engineers and architects or
designers in-house to work with. I mean, we're -- there's so
many unknowns at this point in the project that I think, you
know, we need to be comfortable with a -- hire a firm to work
with, but I think I'd rather get the firm to do the
construction part of it as well.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You mean oversight?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Construction manager, basically.
And Rex gave me -- about a month ago, I asked him for this
information. There's different ways of selecting a contractor
for construction services through competitive sealed
proposals, contracts for facilities construction
8-27-07
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
137
manager-slash-agent, and then there's also contracts for
facilities construction manager at risk. So, there's kind of
-- on the construction side, there's three different types
that the law allows us to do, and I think we need to kind of
look through those and figure what fits best, 'cause I think
that gives the best latitude as to how to proceed. I mean,
architects, they're going to want to come in with all kind of
grand plans. I don't want anything to do with those things.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you looking for site
planning at this point?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Both.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 'Cause I don't see that
called for under the -- under the construction manager agent
piece.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I think you could probably
-- I mean, you know, I think you have some -- I don't know
about the construction manager agent one. The only one I
dealt with -- was familiar was when the K.I.S.D. built the new
high school, they had a construction manager; manager at risk,
I believe, was what they chose. And that one -- I mean, I
worked with their management team on designing all the
athletic facilities, and they had no plan going in of what
they wanted. They didn't have a plan in the high school going
in. This firm they were using was -- an architect was
involved with it, but that was obviously a much bigger
8-27-07
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
138
project. But I just think it's a better approach, 'cause, you
know, I don't think that we know exactly what we want them to
build -- design and build yet. Bruce and I have talked about
it quite a bit amongst ourselves, and part -- and a lot of
it's going to depend on if we can find some grants, what the
grants want to build. I mean, there's a -- and I don't want
to go out and design one building, and then take it to a grant
and they say, "Well, we really don't want to build that kind
of barn," and then you have to go back and start over. I'd
rather try to get a system that's -- you know, hire a
professional to assist us in this whole process.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, that was the reason I asked the
question I did. We're not in a position to design a
particular building. I think what Commissioner Oehler's
talking about is, if we look at these -- what are there, four
various types of functions to be performed here? We carve out
', the architectural, and someone to assist us with design
evaluation and site planning.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: And for the overall definition and
layout of -- of the type of project that you're looking for,
and then once you get the footprint nailed down, and -- and
the type of project that you want, then you go forward as to
each of the elements. And you may or may not -- for example,
if you use an engineered steel structure, you know, the -- you
8-27-07
139
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
get those engineering services generally furnished by the --
by the materials provider. You don't get involved with an
architect. I'm -- I'm somewhat like you. For the type of
thing that I think we've got in mind, that I don't -- I don't
want a high-flying architect to get involved at the get-go.
But I think for the overall layout, you know, and the -- and
how all these elements are going to work in combination with
one another, I -- I think it probably needs -- we need some
additional expertise.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, we're going to need some
design capabilities in this thing, because it's not going to
just have -- it won't just be, in my estimation, one building
with nothing in it. I mean, you're going to have to have
restroom facilities. You're going to have to have lighting
and P.A. systems and stuff like that, that all come into part
-- into play on the total building project. And the design
and the site plan, to me, is the first step. And from there,
we can go -- now, as far as somebody to oversee the project as
a manager, I think that's a different -- different person.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see that coming in after
construction begins.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah, somebody that oversees
to make sure they're following the plans and --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm.
25 I COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- and you get what you're
s-z~-o~
140
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
paying for. That's what I feel like a construction manager
is.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: At what point in this -- in
you guys' thinking does funding come into play?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: After the design and the site
plan is developed. Without that, you can't -- you don't have
anything to go to grants.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, I mean funding for these
services.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: When does that --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're going to ask somebody
to provide design/evaluation/site planning. At what point
does funding for that service come into play?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I believe that comes in this
coming year's budget. By the time we advertise for this,
we'll be in the -- and actually select somebody, it will come
out of Professional Services within our county budget, the way
I -- the way I view it. And I don't -- I don't anticipate
this being a huge cost to get somebody to do this up front.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: See, I -- the way I read the
construction manager at risk, they do all that for you free.
I mean, you know, they're talking about -- you know, and I
think that we're going to need some -- you know, we're going
to need drawings, going to need some stuff that's pretty
detailed, and I don't think it's going be to be real cheap.
8-27-07
1 41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
You know, we need more than a draftsman, and if we hire a
construction manager and they're going to get the job if we
get the money, then they'll do it at no cost to us.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Does that violate the bidding
process?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Hmm-mm. It's right here.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, Commissioner, look at
-- if you're looking at construction manager at risk --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 271.118.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Look at Subsection C.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I was looking back on
Subsection E.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I just -- I can't see that the
construction manager -- I don't see how that's going to enter
into play early on. You kind of have to give parameters of
what you want to do first, and seems to me like that that
company wouldn't be -- wouldn't be guaranteed the job. This
is -- we're talking about spending over a million dollars.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand. I'm not
23
24
25 all fit
8-27-07
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: No, but I don't see how --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I just want to see how it
trying to throw --
14~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I know from past experience,
you got to get your design and your architectural stuff done
up front in order to be able to put plans together so that you
could go out for bids.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess my concern is that we're
just spending a whole lot of money, where we're going to be
changing as we go. An architect or engineer, you're going to
-- you know, you're going to be paying them $70,000 right off
the top. They're going to take -- they're going to take 5 to
7 percent for them to seal anything, and probably closer to 7.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'm not talking about an
engineer; I'm talking about a site planner and a design
person, and those kinds of things are going on what my vision
is, and I think what your vision is. It's not that complex.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So I don't think we're talking
about a huge amount of money. Now, if we hire a structural
engineer and do all that -- I think that's why we don't go
with another kind of structure than an engineered metal
building, the pre-engineered building, which comes as a
service provided by the companies that sell those things.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. But, see, I don't think
-- I don't -- you know, the engineering -- the building may
not be engineered, but it's going to have to get engineered
electrical, going to have to be engineered. We're going to
8-27-07
143
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
pay for all this engineering one way or the other. We have to
by law.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So...
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Then how do we start -- until
we get a site plan done and do all that, we're not going to
know how much the rest of this stuff is going to be.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, maybe -- maybe what
we're talking about is hiring a site planner.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, a site planner -- I
think we've got a site plan. I think maybe hire a -- you
know, I'm trying to think who's a non-architect around that
does this kind of work. Someone like Mickey -- Thompson? --
Thompson.
JUDGE TINLEY: He's in the racing business.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: He's not --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mickey Thompson.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mickey Thompson. He's an
architect, but he also -- I mean, we can probably hire him --
actually, I'm not positive he is. I think he is. I know he's
a designer. I think he's actually a designer, not an
architect. And we can get with him and get him to give us
some drawings that are approved. That's -- you know, I guess
that's --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, to my mind, it's
s-z~-o~
144
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
basically -- the site plan part of it is, yeah, we're going to
put it here. How does that tie into everything else? That's
the minor part of it. The main part is the design part and
the drawings, to get what it's going to look like, whenever
you go to these places and ask for money.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I guess if it's multiple
facilities -- you're talking about more than one facility, and
rehabilitation of others is in place, I guess somebody has to
tell you how to position all that to accomplish what you want
to do. I don't know.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We need a draft plan, and, I
mean, --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah. But, I mean --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- someone who's going to say
the sewer's here; here's where the sewer hookup is, here's
where the power's going to come from, so we look like what we
know what we're talking about when we go ask for money.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's where I think a
designer and site planner comes into play.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Design basically what you
want, and you draw the plans and you put it -- locate it on
the site, and then you kind of know you have a place to start.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just put out an RFP for
25 ~ those services.
8-27-07
145
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: See what we get.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: RFQ or whatever.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We won't get what we're
looking for if we don't.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we have to figure out
how to word an RFP for what we really want. I mean, I can see
us getting everything from big architectural firms to who
knows who if you put out an RFP for -- you know, people have
big, grandiose ideas of what they think we're going to try to
do. We're not too grand in our ideas.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We've been down that road
before.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Now, that's where we get into
narrowing down the people that have -- basically, getting down
to earth on a plan, and not turning it into some kind of a
grandiose --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why do we have to do an RFP? If
we're talking about spending $5,000, plus or minus, or less,
why don't we just go find a couple in town, talk to them, and
do it?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, maybe that's a good --
good evaluation.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 'Cause I --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I just thought we'd open it up
8-27-07
146
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to the ones around town, come in and give us their --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Once you do an RFP notice -- I
mean, if you do a formal RFP, there's going to be costs
related to that. Why don't we try to find someone and do it?
JUDGE TINLEY: We can either do an RFQ, or we could
tell Bruce to go beat the bushes and find --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Shake.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- find who might be available to do
these kind of things that he's got in mind. General, overall
site evaluation and planning, and here's the elements we want
in it. And what -- you know, what would you do it for? And
bring it back to us.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I was just thinking about
opening it up to the public, rather than -- so that way they
wouldn't say, well, we're picking one person out of the hat,
and they're -- you know, I don't want to be in trouble over
that, either. They'll say, "Well, you picked one of your
friends." That's why I would say advertise for it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You can shake one out of my
tree. How's that?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay.
certain -- I mean, maybe just put an ad in the paper, or say
we're going to be interviewing these on such-and-such a date,
8-27-07
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
147
or if you're interested, contact you or me or whatever.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Can you work that up, Judge,
to where we could do that? I mean, with your legal background
and your gift of gab and all that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, wait a minute. If we're
talking about legal, we've got a man over here that wears that
hat, and -- and gets a check for that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think Jody could come up with
the language.
JUDGE TINLEY: I suspect between the folks in the
Auditor's office and Rex and I, we can come up with something.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is this going to be just a
notice in the newspaper?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: There's not many other ways to
advertise.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: A notice in the newspaper
would actually be the basis for an RFP or RFQ.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're soliciting that back.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But it's a much more informal
process. And I don't know that we're at the point we can say
this is what we want exactly, as doing an RFP or RFQ. I think
we're just saying we'd like to talk to people that are
interested in doing this. That's kind of what we're doing.
JUDGE TINLEY: We're looking at qualifications for
8-27-07
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
148
the type of people that -- that offer the type of services
that we think is going to fit this. And, frankly, I don't --
I don't think that's a bad way to go, because what we want is
everything short of essentially architectural services on a
specific structure.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is what I see.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think that's the right way
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I just think it's best to put
it out to the public. Every time something is not, there are
things that are brought up later about it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Sure.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Give everybody the same
opportunity.
JUDGE TINLEY: If there's anybody in your tree, you
might want to call it to their attention.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll look in the tree.
JUDGE TINLEY: Everybody look in their tree.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If it were me, I'd go talk to
Mickey Thompson and tell him what I wanted, and then let him
direct me to those people that do what I want. And he may be
one of them. I don't have any -- I'm not sure.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's kind of -- maybe we can
process and contact the ones we want. That way we
8-27-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
149
can't say they're not talking to him.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Encourage Mickey to come down
here and talk to us.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, he will.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Come down whenever we --
whenever we have this --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Another one who is an architect
that does a lot of this stuff similar is Peter Lewis.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, absolutely.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Peter does a lot of --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Get the checkbook out.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: He'll do it pro bono for a
while.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We can work up --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Ten minutes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't know what the point
is, but at some point he'll work pro bono.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Anyway, I would hope we could
run an ad in the paper to ask for people interested in this
project with those qualifications to come in and talk to us
about it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well --
JUDGE TINLEY: If we're going to do a public
advertisement, I think the Court needs to authorize it today
25 ~ under this agenda item, and --
8-27-07
150
1
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: Second.
THE CLERK: No motion.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm trying to get it going
here, Judge.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm looking at Commissioner
Letz to frame the motion.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion that we
authorize publishing a public notice for a site planner --
what do you call these things?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Design.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: For design and site planners to
assist Commissioners Court with ongoing projects previously
discussed at Hill Country Youth Exhibit Center.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm not about to second
something like that.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I will. I'll second it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Repeat it.
JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion and a second. Any
further question or discussion on the motion? All in favor of
the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge is going to write that?
We'll give you input. Is that what I heard?
8-27-07
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
151
JUDGE TINLEY: You can give me input.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What I figure out when we're
going to --
JUDGE TINLEY: County Attorney and Auditor and --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Jody.
JUDGE TINLEY: The Auditor has been complaining that
she's a little short on duties and needs a little something to
keep her occupied, so I thought we'd include her on this also.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We need to put a time frame on
that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm saying we need to get -- we
part of the motion, put a time frame, or we're going to have
people come into the court.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think they probably need to
meet with you and me, and we'll recommend one or two to the
Court.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. When we put out the public
notice, that will necessarily have to include a "response by,"
a specific date and time.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not more than two -- two weeks,
get back to Bruce and I.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move to Item 20; consider,
8-27-07
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
152
discuss, and take appropriate action to accept a donation of
metal folding chairs from the City of Kerrville, and instruct
Maintenance Department to transfer same from Blackwell Fire
Station to Hill Country Youth Exhibit Center for storage and
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This one should be a
no-brainer, Judge. The points that were given to me for the
Court to take a look at are on the backup material. I'm not
sure how many chairs there are, but there's a whole bunch of
them. They want to give them to us to store them, use them.
If they'd like to borrow them sometimes, they'd like to know
that they can do that. Move approval.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask you something.
The way I read -- almost read this is that we -- our
Maintenance people go over to the Blackwell Fire Station and
pick them up and carry them to the Ag Barn and store them.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How did Walter and Kyle Bond
get into --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They lease space there for
8-27-07
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
153
them?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No. They bring it to our
attention because the chairs are there in the space that
they're leasing to store the Christmas stuff. So, here's the
deal.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Very good.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions or discussion?
All in favor --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We're going to store the
chairs, and we're going to --
JUDGE TINLEY: We're going to own them.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're going to own them.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay. But those are subject
to use whenever they want them?
JUDGE TINLEY: That's right. And they come pick
them up and bring them back.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay, as long as they pick
them up and bring them back.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Where is the use part? I didn't
see that in here.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It says use. We're not
just --
JUDGE TINLEY: Number 5 and Number 6.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: If they need them, they can use them.
8-27-07
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
154
And in the event they need them, they pick them up and they'll
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's charge them.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Doesn't say free of charge.
MS. HYDE: Does it say free?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. It says they can use them.
I think it's probably implied.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Send them a bill, anyway. If
in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Item 21; consider,
discuss, take appropriate action on adopting a policy on
filing unofficial plats not approved by Commissioners Court in
the Kerr County Plat Records or other location in the County
Clerk's office.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This came about because one of
our local surveyors had a situation -- he had a plat that was
exempted under the plat requirements as a family division, but
they wanted to file it of record. And I think Jannett has
8-27-07
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
155
actually resolved this issue. I was very uncomfortable with
allowing people just to file things in our records just for no
-- just because they wanted to, 'cause I can see that being a
real problem long-term. Jannett came up with a way that, if
they file an affidavit, do it as an attachment to the
affidavit; that she has to file affidavits of record, and that
would be a little bit more of a control so we don't get a
'i whole bunch of unnecessary documents filed in the county
records. So, I think it's kind of been resolved by Jannett's
imaginary way of looking at it.
MS. PIEPER: Yet it still follows the statutes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, still follows the
statute. 'Cause my main concern was, I didn't want unofficial
plats being right next to official plats, so we can -- people
couldn't tell one from the other, some that were blessed by
the Court, some that weren't. And I think that probably
resolved it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Way to solve it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, that's it.
JUDGE TINLEY: So no action is required?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't -- I think this was
resolved by the County Clerk.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's go to Item 22, if nobody
else has anything to say on that. Consider, discuss, and take
appropriate action on making minor adjustments to Section
8-27-07
156
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's a copy of Court Order
30362 in the backup, which takes care of the first part of
that. That was done in early July of this year. This is kind
of a combination of items that Commissioner Oehler had and I
had originally. But the second part of it relating to
', O.S.S.F. requirements, I just handed out a proposed change.
This came about because of the situation that, when you go
through the alternate plat process, you don't file a
preliminary plat, and it's on the preliminary plat where you
locate structures, wells, and O.S.S.F. facilities. So, this
language was intended to say that on alternate plat process,
you either have to also attach a plat or have a certification
from the land surveyor that says no structures, wells,
O.S.S.F. systems are located, and that certification has to be
on the final plat. And that way, it'll make O.S.S.F.'s life a
lot easier, 'cause they'll know right up front in the
alternate plat process if there's any structures they need to
worry about.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion that we amend
Kerr County Subdivision Rules and Regulations per the
language.
8-27-07
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
157
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
indicated. Any further question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: The only thing that I would
say on that is, that just says that there are none located
there. I guess that's to mean that they're not encroaching on
any of the -- the revised part of the plat where they moved a
lot line or something like that. Where they would still -- by
doing this, it would still -- nothing would be affected.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's not the way -- yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. The way I look at it,
they either say there's no structures there, wells or
O.S.S.F., or they have to put the plat that says there -- that
locates them.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Locates it on there.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If there's an encroachment,
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That they'll show it on the
preliminary plat. Which would require --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We talked about this the other
day. I believe it is important to change this.
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.)
8-27-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
158
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Item 23;
consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on setting up a
workshop with Bickerstaff, Heath, Delgado, Acosta, Ltd., to
review new legislation concerning county subdivision rules and
regulations.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I put this on the agenda. When
we were in Austin last week, we met with representatives of
Bickerstaff Heath; they also sent us a letter earlier about
some of the changes, and they offered, when we were in Austin,
to come down and visit with us, and Commissioner Baldwin
talked to Claudia -- what's Claudia's last name?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Russell.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Claudia Russell. And she's
agreed to do this at no charge. Otherwise, I was going to see
if Rex could pay for it out of one of his funds, 'cause we
have no money for it. But since she's doing it free of
charge, all the better.
21
22
23
24 would ~
25 probab7
MR. EMERSON: Free? Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Free's good.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Free's good. But I think it
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's okay, isn't it, Rex?
8-27-07
159
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
knowledgeable on subdivision rules and regulations, follows it
through the Legislature. We just need to kind of set a time
that we can authorize Commissioner Baldwin to set up a
meeting.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's offer them two
different dates, so we don't have to come back and go back and
forth.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just offer two dates at one
time, and let them choose one of those.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do we need to do it before the
beginning of the new fiscal year?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We want to do it pretty
quick, actually.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We want to do it, because then
we can look at these -- yeah, the sooner the better. But late
September, early October.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Probably, like, on an
afternoon of one of our Monday meetings, or -- Judge, what
does that do to you?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not good for him.
JUDGE TINLEY: Monday meetings, I've got juvies in
the afternoon.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, those kids can wait.
s-27-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
160
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think it'll take --
JUDGE TINLEY: Some of them actually can't wait.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: An hour? Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, yeah, they can wait an hour.
They can't wait a day, though.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, the -- I agree. It
shouldn't take over an hour to do the whole thing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Eva doesn't seem to think we can
do anything in an hour.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sometimes we can't. Got a
battery in that thing, Judge?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
(Discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I do it the old-fashioned way,
on a calendar.
JUDGE TINLEY: What do you think, big man?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask you this. Do
y'all like Mondays? Do you like afternoons?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How about Tuesday, the --
September 18th or 25th, at 1 o'clock? Or 1:30?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Tuesday?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Tuesday.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's okay.
25 ~ COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The 18th.
8-27-07
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
161
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 18th?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 18th.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 1 o'clock?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 1 o'clock. There's one date.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: September 18th.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, September 18th, 1 o'clock.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And then the following
Tuesday?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 25th?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 25th.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. Are we getting into a
bind with some of our last-minute tax stuff?
JUDGE TINLEY: No, I think we're okay. Same time on
I the 25th?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: 1 o'clock? Is that what I heard?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're going to ask them
which one works best for them?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And if we have any other
workshops we need to do, that may be a time to do that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Same time. And if we have
other stuff we're working on --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah, if you need to sit down
8-27-07
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
162
in workshops, might as well do it in the morning and do this
in the afternoon.
JUDGE TINLEY: Or do it immediately following.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Maybe we could have our
recommendation to go over our planning function by then.
JUDGE TINLEY: Got them. We won't know until he
brings its back, right? Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Try to get it today.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right. That handle that one?
Let's move to Item 24; consider, discuss, and take appropriate
action on renovation plan for pole barn at Hill Country Youth
Exhibit Center and authorize going out for bids for concrete
work.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This -- I'll turn it over to
Roy, but the -- we thought the bids were going to come in a
little bit lower than they did. We're actually -- I shouldn't
say the bids came in -- the scope keeps increasing on the
concrete work. So, the -- the bid came in slightly over, by
$3, over $25,000, which triggered us going out for bid on this
concrete work. And I think, actually, it's a revised plan now
a little bit from what I --
MR. WALSTON: I've got a plan -- let me let y'all
have it -- we got drawn up. It's a rough draft that we've
kind of thrown together, and in an effort of try to figure out
exactly what we're working with, as far as what area. And I
8-27-07
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
163
was trying to -- I included in there -- actually, you may have
one extra, yeah. I included in there the storage and
concession area, the restroom facilities and maintenance area,
or workshop. Not knowing exactly what size you needed, that's
kind of what we put together. This is extended a little more
than what we originally planned, whereas it's now including
moving the road that goes through the pole barn back one more
section, so that would allow us 13 lamb and goat pens. And
that's the primary reason for that, is on -- we don't -- we
really don't know how many numbers we're going to be needing,
but I feel like where we'll be, we may can -- we can probably
edge out 10, but that extra three lamb pens would sure be a
big benefit, because I think that's where our -- a lot of our
numbers are going to be coming from.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Roy, how flexible are the hog
pens to be traded out for lamb pens? The reason is, you know,
I mean, things obviously change over time, but we're certainly
in a -- in a goat period right now, and it seems that -- you
know, but we may be back in a swine period in another 10 years
or 5 years. So --
MR. WALSTON: Well, the only thing -- and I think I
understand what you're talking about, as to whether we can --
we can use the hog pens for lamb pens and vice-versa.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. Yeah, and vice-versa, by
splitting them by dividers or --
8-27-07
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
164
MR. WALSTON: Yeah. The only difference in those
are going to be, the lamb and goat pens are going to be on
dirt, and hog pens are going to be concrete. It's -- I say
dirt; it's going to be on chaff that they can sweep out and
clean up, and where the hog pens are concrete. And other than
that, that would be the only thing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What -- on this plan, what would
be the areas that are concreted? Everything?
MR. WALSTON: Everything with the exception of where
the lamb and goat pens are.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What about that arena that
you show --
MR. WALSTON: Uh-huh, it would be concreted. You
put Astroturf on it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you going to have a
drainage system underneath the concrete?
MR. WALSTON: The drainage system will be in the hog
pens. They'll be -- be draining out to the outside edge. And
that's one of the things that I guess we need to decide, as to
what I'm -- what I'm considering on the hog pens and what
they're doing at James Madison in San Antonio in their hog
facility. The kids go along with a scoop and they clean their
pens and they put it in a bucket and pile it up, and we can
mix it with that mulch that we mulch from the -- you know, the
piles. After they get all the feces picked up, then they --
8-27-07
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
165
then they wash down the rest of it, and that's not going to
leave a whole lot. Our problem with the septic system lies
with having shavings, and shavings mixing with the feces, and
separating the shavings and the feces in the -- in the septic
system.
system?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Septic system or sewer
MR. WALSTON: Sewer system.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That would be from before. It
would actually get to the sewer, city sewer.
MR. WALSTON: So we're trying --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's what we talked about
MR. WALSTON: Trying to get away from that and do it
just with the kids going in, cleaning it up.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This is the old horse born
we're talking about?
MR. WALSTON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is the -- is the area that
you've identified as exercise and maintenance underneath that
roof, or is this outside?
MR. WALSTON: No, sir, it's outside. It's outside.
The only thing that's underneath the roof is basically the --
and, actually, the squares -- the small squares are the poles.
It's a -- from the lamb and goat pens to the hog pens is
8-27-07
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
166
what's underneath the roof. It's a 90-by-200-foot barn.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what it is,
90-by-200?
MR. WALSTON: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: The only problem I see with
this really is the fact that -- that we're not to the point
yet, we don't have the money to go and do these restrooms and
all that stuff. That, we thought, would come later. I mean,
it's a good time to get cement poured, but if you don't put
your plumbing in and do it, all the planning for this, you're
kind of shooting yourself in the foot. So, I'm not -- I'm not
a real big fan of going ahead and doing that part.
MR. WALSTON: Well, that's -- a lot of this was just
to give y'all an idea and us an idea as to how everything
would fit together, if this would be something that y'all
would be interested in.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What would the cost -- how
would the cost increase, by how much, if you included the --
putting in the plumbing for restrooms and concession area?
MR. WALSTON: The plumbing I don't have figured,
just the concrete portion of it. The total concrete, just for
the concrete on that -- and that's based on the bid that we
got -- would be $53,900.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 53.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's for the whole building?
8-27-07
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
167
MR. WALSTON: For the whole building.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What is --
MR. WALSTON: And that's not including the plumbing.
And the other question I have that I need to ask is, the water
lines that are there, do we need to go in and -- and possibly
go ahead and redo the water lines that are there? Or do we
just assume that they're still going to be in good condition?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Most of those water lines, to
my recollection, every time I've dug one up out there
accidentally, they've been galvanized; they weren't plastic.
MR. WALSTON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So, you know, I would say
they'd be fine. If they're plastic, they should probably be
done. But Button would know. Get hold of him. I'm pretty
sure the ones that are out there are galvanized.
MR. WALSTON: Do they run -- I guess they run down
through the center of the barn.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: They run through the center of
the barn; they come from the big building, my best
recollection is off the east wall down, and then they go
across the building. Button will know better than I.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: City water or well water?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It's all city water; there is
no well water any more. Not unless y'all have hooked it back
up.
8-27-07
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
168
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How much water are we looking
at? I mean, if you -- in the hog or the pen area, how many
hookups are you going to have?
MR. WALSTON: Depending on how many -- we'll have
one per pen.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Talking about putting
automatic waterers in.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Going to come in overhead?
MR. WALSTON: Uh-huh, and have it insulated.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, I mean, the line that gets
out here is what Bruce is saying; that line's fine, but once
you get up into the building, you'd probably be better off
running new.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah.
MR. WALSTON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Cutting it off on the outside,
tying into it.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah, you don't want to have
anything break under the slab.
MR. WALSTON: See, that's what I was wondering, is
how it came into the building, but we can figure that out as
to -- and then everything inside, 'cause that -- I didn't want
it breaking underneath the slab, and then we're back to square
one.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is the -- the storage area for
8-27-07
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
169
the fair and for the livestock show, is that just to hold it
in place, or is that the amount that they want? Can you
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: They wanted 1,200 square feet.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I thought they wanted more than
what they wanted. We just -- that's basically one of the --
where they can frame in one of those --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're a long way from 1,200
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, Roy and I talked about
it before the meeting today, and my suggestion would be, the
plan here originally proposed less pens, and only took up
basically half of the building, and that would leave enough
space to do all the other storages that need to be done, plus
a shop for Tim to build things in and a concession and
restrooms. And if -- my thought is that we go with kind of
the original plan, and just do -- you know, don't cement the
whole thing till we get ready to do the rest of that plan.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I don't think we -- we're not
to the point -- we don't have the money, number one, to do
this down here. Even if it were just the concrete, we don't
8-27-07
170
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
have that money available. And -- and then, at some point in
time, it's not real expensive to add onto that pavilion type
building back to the west, add another section, which is just
a roof. You know, it's not that expensive to add those things
on later. If they -- if they have enough kids participate in
this and they run out of space, that could be done relatively
cheap.
MR. WALSTON: The outside -- basically, what we're
looking at for the outside is going to be a -- a shade cloth,
heavy shade cloth material that allows some air ventilation
through there, but then keep rain and any bad -- bad weather
out. But --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's just my thought. I
think that we're -- we don't have but a certain amount of
money budgeted. And I know there's another individual or two
or three that will pick up the cost of the balance, whatever
we don't have when it comes to all the plumbing and
electricity and all the pens and all the finish out part.
There are other people that are going to pay for it. But I
think we need to stick with what we --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Should we -- Bruce, in your
mind, do you think just do half the building concrete, and
then leave the -- even the maintenance area off?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Oh, yeah. I'm not -- are you
talking about leaving the maintenance area out for now?
8-27-07
171
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
That's -- I agree. I'm just saying not do anything --
anything at all --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: To leave the east half of the
building dirt floor, as-is?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Dirt floor, as-is, till we
have time to plan what we're going to do in there, and do it
right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. I'd like to give a
little more consideration to the Fair Association, too.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They need the space.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I totally agree. They said
they wanted a 30-by-40, and I think that space is available,
and if we don't take it up completely with this right now.
MR. WALSTON: I think we've got actually in the bid
that we submitted -- or actually in the -- in the drawing or
the concrete that we figured is including the driveway that is
there now. So, that's actually going to be -- one, two,
three, four -- it would be about -- about five sections of it,
five of the eight sections.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How often would all these
pens be used?
MR. WALSTON: How often?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
MR. WALSTON: They'll be used from -- we'll start
8-27-07
17~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
buying animals in June, and they'll stay -- some of those
animals will be in there till February, March. Pigs will be
starting about first of September, and they'll be in there
till January, February, March.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It's almost a year-round
thing. But I sure am -- you know, I know how much money we
have that's available, and I don't believe we ought to exceed
that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I think what Roy's
plan to do the five bay area they'd have done originally, just
go ahead with that, and leave the -- scale back a little bit
on the number of pens, and leave the whole maintenance area
and restrooms and all that off for the time being. We can
always add that as a second project.
MR. WALSTON: That would be something that we
probably -- as far as if we have to, if it -- numbers-wise,
right now, like I say, sheep and goats are really increasing.
If we need to go in there and -- and use part of that hog barn
or hog pen area, we can probably figure out a way to make that
work.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm wondering if, in doing
it the way you're suggesting, Jonathan, if we can't figure out
how to take care of the Fair Association people now in this
reconfiguration a little bit.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I think if you -- I think
8-27-07
173
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the Fair Association said they were going to pay for it to
start with.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think that -- you know,
and I'd rather -- in this kind of a building, having some cold
joints isn't a big deal in my mind. It's a storage building;
that's all it's going to be, so if we have some cold joints in
there, I don't see that as a problem. I think we need to get
this going, and then I think we need -- the next step would be
probably Fair Association, Stock Show Association, if they
want some space there, and then maintenance, which -- and all
those are still plumbing-free. And the final step -- or
maybe, at the same time, do the restrooms and the other stuff.
I think we probably need to add restrooms pretty soon, but I
just think we need to get this part going and then come back
and do the rest of it.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, we'll see, too, what
happens with the upcoming -- this coming year's budget.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: If we're going to have funds
available to do some of this, you know, not terribly expensive
work, but --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, we can start it. But the
$25,000 is all we have to put in for the concrete. In the --
Boy's part, there's a max of $25,000 in this year's budget,
8-27-07
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
174
and we've kind of committed that for this project, for that.
Then the rest of it's donated funds for 4-H projects.
JUDGE TINLEY: There was some mention that the
estimates came in over the $25,000 bid threshold. I'm given
to understand that that $25,000 increases to $50,000. I don't
know the effective date, but I think it's fairly soon.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: September 1, according to what
we learned in Uvalde. Right, Buster?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's correct. Which is
Monday and award a contract, Rex? (Laughter.)
MR. EMERSON: I think I need to see your update
material before I answer that, 'cause that wasn't part of the
update that I went to.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Need to go to Uvalde more
often, I can see that.
MR. EMERSON: I think you're just getting a little
close to the border, Buster. The rules kind of change.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm no design expert, but
wouldn't it be more appropriate in that second phase to move
those restrooms over there so they're back to back with that
big concession area, where you're going to need a lot of
plumbing, instead of the original area back in there?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's why we need a site
8-27-07
175
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
planner and designer.
MR. WALSTON: I'm glad y'all see how much trouble it
is trying to figure out how to do this.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You better stick to sheep
MR. WALSTON: Well, the problem is, if you put --
the reason we put it out there is so that they'd have an
outside -- outside door to where they could get to it, and
wouldn't have to...
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We'll work on that plan.
Let's work on that later.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
MR. WALSTON: That can be -- that can be moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, just get the 4-H pens
going; that's what we need right now.
MR. WALSTON: Now, we did want to have it set up to
where the -- where the restrooms were available for both
sides, where you can lock it off.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Roy, when you're talking
about buying the hogs, start buying them September 1, they --
this is for kids that don't have a ranch or a place to house
and raise their animals, so they can do it right here and come
out there daily and --
MR. WALSTON: Yeah. And I had a lady call day
8-27-07
176
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
before yesterday or yesterday -- or I guess -- I guess
Friday -- Thursday or Friday, and that situation, she has a
young -- has a son that's in third grade, would like to start
showing, and -- and I asked her, I said, well, you know --
'cause lambs and goats, a lot of people are putting them in
their back yards. But I said hogs -- I said, "do you have a
place to keep it?" "No, I don't have a place."
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think the city of Kerrville
ought to allow that, actually.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Think they ought to?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think River Hills, especially.
MR. WALSTON: As long as it's not your neighborhood.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Could have it right next to
the golf course; that would be a good place.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Careful, Bruce, I live over
there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Now that we've taken all
that fertilizer out of Camp Meeting Creek, I guess we can --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Add some back.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. So, we need to --
what do we need to do? We need to approve the portion of the
site plan that we approved, and authorize --
MR. WALSTON: Put it up for bids, or not?
8-27-07
177
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I'd say authorize doing
it. If we don't have to, we don't have to. Authorize going
out for bids on the concrete work on five of the bay areas --
up to five of the bay areas.
MR. WALSTON: Yeah. It's -- let me see. I can tell
you how many square feet that is. That's what you actually
need it for.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: 3,700 and -- no, that
wasn't -- how much was that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Pretty reasonable.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: More than that. What was that
original plan, Roy?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: He's looking. Original bid,
that's what you're looking for?
MR. WALSTON: Mm-hmm. 8,700 square feet.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 8,700? I'll make a motion that
we approve the plan as revised today for the renovation of the
pole barn, and authorize going out for bids on the western
8,700 square foot portion of that concrete.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
indicated. Question or discussion? All in favor, signify by
raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
8-27-07
178
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. We'll move to Item
25; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action regarding
what level of workers compensation should be carried on
Sheriff's Office reserve deputies.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay. I attached a copy of the
original court order in 2005 which gave the authority to have
10 reserve deputies and to cover workers comp on those 10.
Now, we haven't had any since then. I do have three that I
would like to swear in as soon as possible. And as part of
that court order back then, it did say to approve workers
compensation. You can see the ratio printout from what
workers comp would cost adding volunteers to it, and it starts
out at 177 a month -- or a year, rather, per reserve, and goes
up from there at $5,200 increments, as if you were saying that
that's the salary level, even though they aren't. If you put
the reserves saying that they were close to a starting deputy,
what that would amount to is 5,200 times 6, and that wouldn't
even be quite a starting deputy, but would amount to a cost of
$1,066.62 per year for workers comp for the reserve. I know
the workers comp pays the medical bills, but these guys are
volunteering their time, and at the low end of that ratio, if
one got hurt on duty, it's only paying them $78 a week while
they're out of work, from whatever job they would normally
have. And this expense in the -- the bonds, each reserve has
8-27-07
179
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
to have a $2,000 bond, which I can come up with funds for
that; that's about $50 for the bond, and then we provide the
uniform and vest and that out there out of what we currently
have. I think it can save this county a lot of money. Two of
the three that I want to swear in as reserves right now could
actually get a patrol car tonight if we wanted to and are
short, and put them out on the road to work the full shifts,
'cause they've already been officers with us before, and the
benefits would be tremendous over hiring new officers. I just
don't know what level y'all want to set the compensation at.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How many do you have on
staff now?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Reserves? None, because their
workers comp hasn't been picked up, 'cause I haven't had any
yet. Now we're at the point finally where we have the program
set and I've got good people. The thing with reserves with
our department -- and that's why we haven't had any; they are
fully certified, qualified peace officers. They're going to
-- they're not going to be people off the street. These
people can work shifts. They can help out at the courthouse.
They volunteer their time, so the work schedule's different,
but if I have some off, they can actually get in a car and
work. I can give you the name of two of the three that I want
to swear in as reserves.
25 ~ COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, there's six of them, and
8-27-07
180
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
at 177?
you have -- have the lowest level --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Right.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: -- then it's 177 a year.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Right.
', SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: If you want to get it closer to
i
what a -- a starting salary is for a deputy -- now, you're not
paying that salary; it's just the same type benefits as far as
workers comp -- then you would have to multiply that 177 times
six. That's -- it's 177.77, so it would be $1,066.62 a year
for each reserve to be added to the workers comp.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And at the minimum --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Not the -- the minimum would be
the 177. It's just what level do you want to --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And then, at the 1,066.62
level, how much would they get per week?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, at the 177 level, they're
getting $78 per week.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, okay.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: 1,066.62 level would just about
put them equivalent to what a normal deputy would get.
JUDGE TINLEY: 468.
25 ~ COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What are you asking for?
8-27-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
181
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: These people are going to
volunteer a lot of time and a lot of risk, and if they get
hurt doing their job that they're not getting paid for, and
can't work, I think we should at least compensate them in that
through the workers comp program equivalent to what any other
deputy would have, which would be paying that premium of
$1,066.62 per year, per reserve.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Times three deputies now?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right now, three.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, if he puts three on, that's
per -- per reserve deputy.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And anytime that I would add
another -- there's a couple of real good officers with the
City fixing to retire that I wouldn't mind adding. That can
wait till after -- well, I won't say it would be after
January, because this deal is January to January, is y'all's
workers comp, not October to October.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: January 1 through
December 31?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there any --
JUDGE TINLEY: There's no proration of that, either,
23
24 of that
25
8-27-07
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's right.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah. So, anytime we would add
one on, it would add -- it would cost another $1,066.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
182
JUDGE TINLEY: If they come on for the last half of
the year, it's not half of the premium. You pay it whether or
not you use nine months out of the year, 90 days out of the
year, or the entire 12 months.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there any assurance they're
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Sure. It's part of my
requirements in being a reserve. They have -- they're going
to -- at one time, TCLEOSE had -- they had to do 20 hours a
month. They took away all that, okay? The reserve program
that we have instituted does not have a set number of hours,
but it is a reserve program. If we have people that don't
want to work and don't want to donate hours per month, they're
not -- they're not going to be a reserve for us. There's no,
technically, hiring and firing. It's -- I need these people
to be able to volunteer and be able to work, and that's one of
the reasons we're very selective, is if we have a big trial
coming up, we're short-handed on the street. I expect to be
able to get these people to work.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: What happens if you have one
that is no longer there and you bring in another one? Are we
going to have to pay a second premium on that one?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't know how that part
would work. I don't know if that's a new premium and drop the
8-27-07
183
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
first one, or if you just set 10 and pay 10, you know, every
year, or what you -- I don't know how -- what the particulars
would be on that, Bruce.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Seems to me like if you had
three and one left and then another one came, you'd still
maintain the three you said we were going to have that we paid
for in the beginning.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: What do they do with worker's
comp now?
MS. HARGIS: I think -- well, they do an audit at
the end of the year. But I think if you probably choose a
number and you pay it, it wouldn't matter if one came in and
left, as long -- it's the number of people. It's not -- it's
not based on that particular person.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: As long as you maintain the
number. If you don't maintain the number and it drops to two
and you've been authorized to have three, you pay for --
you're not going to get a refund.
MS. HARGIS: Well, when they do the audit, they do
give you some money back, depending on how many people you
I
actually had, what your payroll really was, so forth and so
on. It's all taken into consideration.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, in reality, you're not
insuring the individual; you're insuring the position.
MS. HARGIS: Mm-hmm.
8-27-07
184
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, we -- you already have the
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes, in your --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Under that court order?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Under that court order. The
Court unanimously approved, by a vote of 4-0-0, authorized the
Sheriff to initiate a reserve deputy sheriff program, up to 10
deputies, and include workers compensation for volunteers.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion that we agree
to fund three positions through workers compensation for the
Sheriff's Office Reserve Deputy program, with the amount of
$1,066.62 the premium per position.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Effective when? Talking
about January 1? Or now?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, on this, I would like it to
be effective as soon as possible on the three. January 1, I'd
like to add more to it, because there are some other ones that
would like -- but --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do you have money in your budget
for this?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: As long as there's any left in
my deputy -- in my jailer salaries any more.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion, subject --
subject to the Sheriff coming up with the funds in his budget.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'll second it.
8-27-07
185
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Is there any amendments taking
any more of out of my jailer salaries? I want this in there
first.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and second as
stated.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Would this rescind the
previous order that -- authorizing up to 10?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. Just rolling -- we're only
funding three.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just funding.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Funding three right now, and
hopefully after the new budget, I'll try and get the other
ones.
MS. HYDE: Funding them at what grade?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: At the rate --
JUDGE TINLEY: Six increments per. Six increments
of 5,200 per.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah, so it's actually 31,200.
MS. HYDE: The salary, that's what you put them --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: There is no salary, but that's
what they have to have them in at.
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.)
8-27-07
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
186
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Thank you, gentlemen.
JUDGE TINLEY: Item 26; consider, discuss, take
appropriate action to discuss the possibility of the City of
Ingram entering into a contract with Kerr County for animal
control. Commissioner Oehler?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, Dan Edwards called the
other day and asked to meet with Janie Roman, myself, and also
Howard Jackson came, the mayor, and we sat and talked about it
for quite a while and came up with some numbers. I thought
Janie would be here. Of course, I didn't tell her; I forgot
to tell her we were doing this, so she's not here. But --
JUDGE TINLEY: We've got -- you got the Honorable
Mayor of Ingram.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: The Honorable Mayor of Ingram
is here.
MR. JACKSON: I don't know about the "honorable."
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, I'm somewhat
questionable too in that sense.
MR. JACKSON: Depends on who you talk to.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We came up with kind of a -- a
semblance of a plan that we thought might work, and that being
that we could add a half an employee. We'd already authorized
8-27-07
187
1
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 half an employee for a kennel worker, and we could increase
that to a full worker in this year -- upcoming year's budget,
and then it would be the ordinary costs of operation, and felt
like that it could be done. Under -- the first figures that
we talked about, that Janie came up with, were -- were fairly
high, a figure of 40,000, and we went down and talked as low
as 30,000 on these to be able to do animal control for the
City of Ingram. They've just lost an officer who got killed
in a car wreck and that was doing the animal control. And
they have had a contract with us, as you well know, for the
last -- oh, I don't know how many years, where you have --
you're able to bring us 10 dogs per month for $350 a month.
That's what the contract has been up to now. And so I'd kind
of like to throw it out on the table and let Mr. Jackson tell
us what's on his mind.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask you a question,
though, before we go to Mr. Jackson. So, we're -- you want to
take a halftime kennel worker and make it a full-time. How
does that help us go out to Ingram and get --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, you'd actually increase
that to a -- it would be a part-time kennel worker and
part-time animal control person.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Is what it would wind up
~ being.
8-27-07
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
188
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Be half -- it wouldn't just be
a kennel worker. You'd have to get a person that had some
qualifications in that job, more so than just a kennel worker.
But you felt like without -- with -- for that amount of
I
increase in the budget, besides the fact we need to increase
gas and oil and FICA and all that, you know, everything that
goes with it, I think the base cost is going to be somewhere
around 30,000. It could be a little bit less if we wanted to
negotiate this, throw it on the table.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why don't we just do like City
of Kerrville; make them pay a percentage based on pickups?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We could do that. They did --
like, I believe -- what were the numbers she gave you the
other day, Howard?
MR. JACKSON: I think it was 15 -- 57. I don't
remember right off the top of my head. Something like that.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think that's right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Seems to make it easier
long-range, and keeps us consistent with what we're doing with
Kerrville, is divide up our budget based on a portion of
costs.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: They really haven't brought us
very many animals that need to be picked up. Their initial
year, first year is going to be a lot.
8-27-07
189
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. JACKSON: That's part of it. Probably both from
a budgetary standpoint, and like Commissioner Oehler's saying,
we really don't know what that's going to be when the job is
being properly done. No reflection on Mr. Andrade, but he had
so many hats that he couldn't really take care of any one of
them properly. It's not his fault. It's just -- there's just
too much to do. So, somehow or another, what we need to do is
figure out some -- what I'm thinking is some sort of interim
for, say, the first year, and let's see what we get, and kind
of -- and we also discussed about our municipal court
processing violations and collecting that revenue. I don't
know what that's going to be.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Sure. And you're going to
get --
MR. JACKSON: So we can -- my thought is, we use
part of that revenue to offset some of that cost, and -- but
we really don't know what we're going to run into from your
standpoint or mine.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah. And Janie was also
saying that, you know, they have their own registration fees
for the animals, the owner registrations, just like the county
has registration fees, and they'd get to keep that revenue, as
well as they generate revenue off the citations that were
written. And, you know, it will be a fair amount of work in
the beginning to try to get it on track and get people
s-2~-o~
190
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
educated to what, you know, animal control's really about and
how to keep their animals, you know, penned up or -- or
whatever in order to keep them from roaming around. But the
initial year is going to be a learning curve for everybody.
And I -- you know, I think it's a good deal. That way we'll
have universal, uniform rules, county-wide, basically, that
cover animal control.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's fine. I mean, that's --
long-term, it sounds like y'all are going to go to kind of
allocation of budget. That's where I was going. So --
MR. JACKSON: I think at this point, what we need to
do is come up with some kind of number that we can both live
with for the first year, and then we'll look at it next year
and see; we'll have some numbers and data to work with, and
then we can really get down to...
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well. My question is, the
Animal Control budget that was presented so far contains a
certain level of staffing, and you had advised the City what
we thought that was going to be. Now we're going to add some
more staffing. Are we picking up that total tab, or are they
picking up that tab?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, that would be
included -- whatever we agreed upon in the contract, that
would help fund that -- offset the cost of that additional --
8-27-07
191
1
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: It wouldn't affect our split
with the City?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not this year.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Not this year at all.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think what he's saying,
Commissioner, is that this -- this additional add-on will, in
essence, fund the staff and the related supplies and equipment
and so forth for requirements in order to have another part of
a person added in order to take care of this additional
obligation to the City of Ingram. That's --
MR. JACKSON: I did think of one thing. It's
probably not a lot, but I have no idea how much equipment that
we have that we would no longer need. There may be something
you can use; I don't know.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We're looking for a pickup
bed.
MR. JACKSON: I don't think we've got that, but I'm
thinking of the -- the tools.
JUDGE TINLEY: Catch poles.
MR. JACKSON: Catch poles and whatever, I don't even
know. But whatever we have would be surplus to us.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the number 30,000, y'all
have agreed?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, that's what we kind of
got down to.
8-27-07
192
1
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. JACKSON: I wouldn't say we agreed to that.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: They didn't agree to this. I
asked them to come in and we could negotiate with the Court.
I'm thinking, you know, that realistically -- I mean, actual
dollar cost, which is what we're trying to do with everybody,
you know, you add the other half an employee, and you get it
up there to 25 for sure.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And they're only at 4,200
right now.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: They're at 4,200, so they
would already have that basically in the budget. And increase
their budget, like, 21,000 or something like that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
MR. JACKSON: That would be a stretch. I'd have to
run some numbers on my budget. Of course, we're talking about
a $700,000 budget, versus -- I don't even know what yours is,
but percentage-wise, it's a good chunk. What I've looked at
initially, I can come up with probably about 20, maybe 21.
And that's really stretching it.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'd be willing to do that.
MR. JACKSON: That's just --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You'll have to dip into the
mayor's discretionary funds, Howard.
MR. JACKSON: Yeah, I can take it out of my salary.
JUDGE TINLEY: I thought that -- I thought the 20 to
8-27-07
193
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
21, you'd already depleted your salary in that account,
though; you'd already thrown your salary in.
MR. JACKSON: Oh, yeah. Yeah, that's scraping
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I move that for the -- you
said you had 21,000 you could deal with?
MR. JACKSON: I can --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You can scrape up 21,000?
MR. JACKSON: I can squeeze that rock that hard.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Can't do 25, but --
MR. JACKSON: Seriously, I -- I ran my calculator
all weekend trying to trim here and there.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Move that we contract --
contract with the City of Ingram to do their animal control
services for one year for this 2007-2008 budget year, $21,000,
and that that be reviewed after the end of this year for next
year's contract.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
indicated. Further question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the proper interlocal
agreement will be forwarded through the legal -- through
Mr. Edwards and Mr. Emerson.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Mr. Emerson review the
s-z~-o~
194
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
contract.
MR. JACKSON: I think they know each other.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else, gentlemen? All in
favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Thank you, Mayor.
MR. JACKSON: Appreciate it.
JUDGE TINLEY: We appreciate your patience waiting
i on us .
MR. JACKSON: This would be effective October 1?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Effective October 1.
MR. JACKSON: Well, you're covering for us now, so
it really is not going to change a whole lot.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You can do just like we do the
-- we pay ours to the city in 12 installments. We don't pay
it all in one lump sum.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You can pay it all up front if
~ you want.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You can pay it all up front if
~ you want.
MR. JACKSON: If I hang onto it, I can get a few
percent interest there.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah.
8-27-07
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
195
MR. JACKSON: Thank you, gentlemen.
JUDGE TINLEY: Appreciate it, mayor. Okay. I guess
it goes without saying we don't have any executive session
items, do we, gentlemen? Okay, let's get to --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Get to the part that the
Auditor loves the best. Section 4, payment of bills.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I like the new format, madam
Auditor.
JUDGE TINLEY: What are you talking about?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Budget amendments.
JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, yeah. Yeah. I'll get to that
momentarily. Right now we're talking about paying the bills.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move we pay the bills.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to pay the
bills. Any question or discussion? I had a couple of
questions that I left voicemail messages on. I don't know
whether you had an opportunity to get them yet. The first
one, Page 2, Columbia Casualty Company, professional, R.
McCall, $7,500?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I wondered about that
~ myself.
JUDGE TINLEY: I comes out of Commissioners Court
budget. Is that a deductible, maybe?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: If I -- the name R. McCall does
8-27-07
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
196
sound like it could be a deductible in a lawsuit that had been
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. That would be a deductible?
MS. HARGIS: Yes. If you like, I can look at it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's go to Page 16.
MS. HARGIS: We had a $10,000 deductible.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right.
MS. HARGIS: I remember that. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Last entry. Linda Uecker,
reimbursement for postage, $3,000?
MS. HARGIS: I didn't look at that one, but I can
MR. EMERSON: She mailed her Christmas presents
early, Judge. (Laughter.)
JUDGE TINLEY: I -- I don't know that we should even
think about having an expectation that any of our elected
officials or department heads or employees should have to
advance out of their own pocket for the County's benefit --
now, I know Rusty has -- Rusty does some on his credit card;
they do them with prisoners and that sort of stuff, and -- and
I think that's probably where people are off up in Tennessee
and they call Rusty and said, "Oops, hit a snag," and he says,
"All right, give them this credit card number; let it rip,"
and then he comes back. That's extraordinary. But --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, would this really
8-27-07
197
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
mean to -- "reimburse" may not be right. It's probably to
reconstitute the postage machine.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, but the payee is listed as
Linda Uecker.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, I see that.
JUDGE TINLEY: And it shows "reimbursement."
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And a big number.
JUDGE TINLEY: It's a real big number; got my
attention right away.
MS. HARGIS: We shared signing off, and this is not
one I signed off on, so I can't give you the answer.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Want to pull the bill?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Yeah.
MS. HARGIS: I won't even guess.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Eva may be going up there to
get her or something; I saw her leave.
JUDGE TINLEY: 66683.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What page?
JUDGE TINLEY: 16.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh, I thought you were doing it
on the new one.
JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, no. Those are the only two I
I had.
MS. HARGIS: Anybody else?
8-27-07
198
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I can't remember what number
we're supposed to look at.
MS. HARGIS: 6683.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: She also fixed the door chime.
That was only 29.90, though.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: What page are you on?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 16.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'm on 16.
(Discussion off the record.)
MS. HYDE: She has a machine, and they have to feed
it. So, in order to feed it, y.ou have to pay for it up front.
So, she has the money in her budget, and she's just asking to
move the money to pay it.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So it's not from her personal
I funds?
MS. HYDE: No, it's for the Pitney Bowes automatic
machine.
JUDGE TINLEY: Payee should read "Pitney Bowes."
MS. HYDE: Or whoever it is.
JUDGE TINLEY: Or Postmaster. And it should read
"postage," period.
MS. HYDE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Not reimbursement.
MS. HYDE: To feed the machine.
s-2~-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
199
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Just means her office
~ evidently --
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. I know she mails out jury
notices and all that other stuff, and she uses a lot of
postage. But, okay.
MS. HARGIS: We're switching people in my office,
too. Joy's doing this all by herself, and Nona's doing
something else, and I think she may have been -- this is --
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any other questions? Do you
have a motion?
THE CLERK: We have a motion and a second.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right. All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Let's go to budget
amendments. As I left a message for you, Ms. Hargis, I like
this new format. What I see it as being available to us is,
with one motion, to approve all the budget amendments as per
the summary, unless somebody wants to pull one of them out and
talk about it individually.
MS. HARGIS: And those are here for you as well,
just like the old style.
s-z~-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
200
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, I've got a whole file here.
Thank you. My -- another question I left for you was on Item
Number 12, Juvenile Probation, alternate housing, 27,6. On
that one, you have declaration of emergency and come from
reserves. I think my question is, why are Jailer Salaries not
available to us for that one also?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: 'Cause y'all have done sucked
that well dry, probably.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not yet.
MS. HARGIS: No, not yet.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We got another month to suck
it dry.
MS. HARGIS: That was Tommy's call on that one. I
asked the same question. It was my opinion we just take it
from any surplus -- from the surplus from that item.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd rather take it from jailers.
MS. HARGIS: Rather than declare -- in other words,
he's out of budget, but then we -- as long as we have budget
within our whole budget, I think that we're okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: After 10 and 11, it comes down to --
looks like 106 left in jailer salaries.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 127 at least -- yeah, but if you
take this one out of jailer salaries, he'll be down to about
$80,000 still.
8-27-07
201
1
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: And the only thing I will tell
you is I don't have any more option, okay? So, we're going to
have the last few months of this budget year at full staff,
and then hopefully the 3,000 on the -- say 3,100 on the
workers comps is what I'm going to be needing.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's your monthly jail
I salaries?
I~ SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That the -- I couldn't tell you
without going back and looking it up, what the full month
would be.
MS. HYDE: About 30K.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: A month at full staff.
MS. HYDE: About 30K a payroll here at full staff.
JUDGE TINLEY: Full payroll would be 60 grand a
month, then?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're still okay; have about
20,000 extra.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're going to get it,
Sheriff.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Oh, I know you're going to get
it. I'm not worried about that.
MS. HARGIS: We have some other items, too, that we
could --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: There were, for a short time --
if we had to, there were the two deputy openings for one or
8-27-07
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
202
two pay periods, which would give you probably 15 total,
something like that. You know, somewhere around that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Take it out of jailer salaries.
Then we can look at them; maybe have to put a little money
back if we have to in September.
JUDGE TINLEY: With that change, do I hear a motion
to approve all the budget amendments as per the summary
provided by the Auditor's office?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do I hear a second?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion and second. Any
question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify
by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Did you see him sign this,
Madam Auditor? Hallelujah. Thank you.
MS. HARGIS: There was only 18 this time. Last time
there were 31.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Still a lot of paper
shuffling.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Do we have any late bills?
8-27-07
203
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Ms. Hargis?
MS. HARGIS: Yes, sir?
JUDGE TINLEY: Any late bills?
MS. HARGIS: No, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I've been presented with
monthly reports from Justice of the Peace Precinct 3, Justice
of the Peace Precinct 4, District Clerk, Constable Precinct 3,
and County Clerk, both general and trust funds. Do I hear a
motion that these reports be approved as presented?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded 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. Any reports from
any Commissioners in connection with their liaison assignments
or otherwise?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, a quick one for Ms. Hargis.
MS. HARGIS: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: At this time of year, we tend to
do a whole lot of these summaries.
MS. HARGIS: Yes.
8-27-07
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
204
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can you make sure you date them?
MS. HARGIS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because the one that's on the
web site I don't think is the current one. I pulled one --
well, the one I got last -- Friday? I think from Jody --
MS. HARGIS: John put the -- yeah, he put the wrong
one out initially, and he was supposed to switch those out for
me .
MS. HARGIS: Right after I sent it to him, John
Trolinger got ahold of me, and we didn't put the new position
on there, so I had to go back immediately and change it. And
he was in my office and left, and was supposed to go change
it, and he may not have.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. If we have dates on them
that way, it just helps me. Another comment. Tomorrow, on
airport matters on tomorrow evening's City Council agenda, the
City Manager is going to present the issue of the Airport
Manager reporting to the Airport Board to them. I had a
little bit of a problem initially with him doing it in this
format, because I don't think it's the City Council's
decision; it's the Airport Board's decision. But his logic
was that they are party to both the management contract and
the interlocal agreement between the City and the County.
8-27-07
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
205
They seem to think it affects that agreement. I don't -- I've
read it again, and I don't see how it affects that. But the
management contract is certainly handled by the City Council.
So, that's the reason he's doing it. And I plan on attending
that meeting and will make a brief statement -- hopefully a
I brief statement.
JUDGE TINLEY: What you're saying is, it's going the
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We hope.
JUDGE TINLEY: Or it appears to be going the right
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Don't know. The -- the -- from
my meeting with Mr. Hofmann last week, I anticipate his
statement to be, "The votes on the Airport Board are to do it,
but I don't support it," being -- "I" being him. He doesn't
want to make a change, so I'm not sure how Council's going to
receive that kind of a split direction.
JUDGE TINLEY: Are you a sporting man, Mr. Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But that's why I think I'l1
attend the meeting.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think that's a good idea.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But -- and also, the mayor has
voiced opposition to this in the past, so I don't -- and if
the Council says no, it doesn't mean it isn't going to happen.
It just may make things a little bit rockier to get in.
8-27-07
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
206
Because it's not their call.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I told Commissioner
Letz I had a chance meeting with the mayor in the parking lot
at Albertsons the other day, and he was quick and loud to tell
me that he'd been looking at those contracts, and he's got
some suggestions on how they get modified. I don't know what
that means. I wouldn't presume to try to translate that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, you know, what -- from what
Mr. Hofmann's told me, he's presenting, even though it's not
his recommendation to do it, scenarios to enable it to be
done. So, I'm not -- you know, I got probably mixed signals
out of that meeting, so I'm not exactly sure what Council's
~i
going to do. I hope it's to go with the recommendation, what
the Airport Board wants. And my plan is to really try to stay
above that fray and really talk more about the Chapter 22
interlocal -- of the Transportation Code, and explain that
this is not a part of the city or the county; it's an
independent board, and that board has spoken as to how it
feels it should proceed.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And in the airport vein,
Judge, the consultant who's doing the work for the Airport
Board has scheduled a whole series of meetings with Airport
Board members and City Manager and et cetera, et cetera.
Coming up, what, next week?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: September 11th.
8-27-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
207
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: September 11th.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think they're sending a
second consultant; this is not going to be Bobbie Thompson.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, it's the head guy.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The head guy.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Head guy.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know. It's a second
round of the same with a different person. You know, I'm not
~! sure what that means.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't either.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's it. I will -- one other
interest. There is a -- "flurry" might be a little bit
strong, but a bit of a flurry of activity of people inquiring
about building private hangar facilities at the airport.
There are three that are on the table right now. We're not --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Board's being kept in its
usual -- a little bit in the dark on these, so we're not sure
exactly what the status of all of them are, but we are aware
that they're going to be presented, I think, at our next board
22
23 negotia
24
25
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Does the City Manager
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, not going to.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well --
meeting.
8-27-07
208
1
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: One has been presented, one
is going to be presented, and one's --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're not sure. Some -- I have
been told by third parties that some of the them have already
been negotiated without the board looking at them. But,
anyway, that's -- we'll hopefully get the results.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I will tell the Court, I got
a major missile from the Texas Water Development Board with a
request that they're looking for to sort out what they want to
hear and see and evaluate on our application for Center Point,
eastern Kerr County, some things that need to be provided to
me by the Auditor's office. Some I need to review with you,
Mr. County Attorney. I put one in your box, Commissioner,
because they had some suggestions about things that they
wanted to deal with on our Subdivision Rules and Regs. We
have to have what they think is a model subdivision rules and
regs. At first I was concerned about that, but then I kept
reading, and they have a very simple solution for us to just
throw a body of things they like on the tail end of ours to
accomplish what they're looking for. But I'll get with you on
how we deal with that. We'll sort it out, get all that
information back. I have a telephone call from Mr. Groves;
he's going to continue working with us, Judge. You and I had
some discussion about that, and we'll take it as long -- as
far as we can. And --
8-27-07
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
209
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is all neither good nor
bad; this is just paperwork?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. It's part of the
process. No, it's not good or bad; it's part of the process.
And also, I sent a draft letter of intent to the City for
their review, and perhaps consideration. I've not heard an
acknowledgment to that or anything about it. Keep you posted
on that.
	JUDGE TINLEY: There is	-- that particular issue, or
the issu	e of -- of where they are,	their position, I believe
is -- is	the terminology used in t	heir agenda for tomorrow
night.	That is an additional item	there.
	COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS:	Okay.
	JUDGE TINLEY: Is for th	em to determine what their
position	is relative to the Center	Point wastewater project.
	COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS:	Okay. When we get that city
agenda,	Jody, could you put a copy	in our boxes, please?
	MS. GRINSTEAD: For City	Council stuff?

I	COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS:	Yeah.
	MS. GRINSTEAD: Mm-hmm.	
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I didn't know that was on
there, Judge. That would be good. Also, I'd like to tell the
'~ Court that I've had two phone calls from these various
interested parties for leasing of the Juvenile Detention
Facility, most recent being this morning while we were in
8-27-07
210
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
court, and previously, late last week from the Cornerstone
people out of Colorado. The T.Y.C. has -- is going to release
another request for proposals, and I think there's another
month or so for people to get -- that are interested to
resubmit it to T.Y.C. Neither of these folks seem to know
whether those who'd already jumped through the hoops are in
for consideration, or whether they've got to jump through the
hoops again, but whatever. So, there is still interest in our
facility. That's the bottom line.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody else have anything to throw
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Not really.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any elected officials have any
reports? I knew I shouldn't have asked that question.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's right, you shouldn't.
Two things. First, last time we told y'all in executive
session of the two lawsuits, the one that had been thrown out
but was being appealed up to the Fifth Circuit. Fifth Circuit
had ruled on that one and ruled in our favor, so that one's
', gone. Technically, I guess, they could have filed another
~~ appeal in 30 days, but usually, once the Fifth Circuit's done
I
it, it's over. The second thing is just an F.Y.I., because
y'all's next meeting is after the 1st. If your new J.P. is
taking office the first of the month, your new deputy
constable will not have any law enforcement powers and will
8-27-07
211
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
have to give up his peace officer's commission until a new
constable is appointed, that they can work under his license.
Or you're going to have to move him to another constable's
office.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Start over.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Once David's --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The present deputy constable?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: He will go out of office as far
as a peace officer; not as far as employment, but as far as
any law enforcement powers. Once David gives up his office,
at midnight that night, that deputy constable loses his
commission. He has to be commissioned through his constable,
and if there isn't one, he's lost his peace officer --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Can he be recommissioned by
any constable?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's up to the Court, who
they want to authorize to have -- you know, what constable
they want to authorize to have an office of a deputy
constable, and then he's got to be resworn in as a deputy
constable with that office. And there's a lot of -- if he
loses all his peace officer powers, he won't be able to
legally carry a gun or anything.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Does Constable 2 have a
deputy?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Two has -- yes. That is --
8-27-07
212
1
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: Eddie North is a deputy
constable under 2.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay. Now, you can authorize
as many deputy constables as you want, but he will just lose
his commission effective, you know, when David goes out. He
needs to understand that he won't be allowed to carry that
badge or weapon or do any law enforcement duties.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can he switch to another law
agency and carry his license, and then two weeks later, when
we get a new constable, switch again?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: He can. It's a -- number one,
if he switches over to 2, there's a form that's called an F-5
that has to be sent in to the state terminating him from
employment with David. Then there's an L-1 that's got to be
sent in to the state hiring him with Precinct 2, and he's got
to be resworn in. And then if you do that vice-versa, the
same thing. And then his -- in his work history with TCLEOSE,
which, you know, any agency can pull up, it's going to show it
kind of odd, 'cause it's going to show, well, he worked for
this constable's office for one month, he got fired or quit or
whatever, went to work for this one for three weeks, got fired
or quit, whatever, and went to work for this one for -- and
8-27-07
213
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
then each constable that he goes to work for and leaves has to
him, why he was being terminated or resigned or whatever. And
then, technically -- last Legislature did this -- before the
next constable can pick him up, they have to send in writing
to TCLEOSE and request a copy of that F-5 on why he was let go
or resigned from the prior one, and they can't hire him until
they have it, or it's a criminal offense against that
constable. We're going through this with our new hires.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask you this.
What's -- what would it do -- what would it do if he just laid
it down for two weeks?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Not one thing. He can lay it
down; he just cannot be a peace -- he cannot do any peace
officer duties.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Until there's a new constable.
Carry a gun, put a gun in his car or anything -- well, a gun
in his car, now -- now with the weird legislation on
unlawfully carrying --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We can all carry a gun.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: He can probably do that, but he
cannot present himself in any way, shape, or form as an
officer. He's still a -- he is a certified peace officer, but
he is not commissioned through any office, so he won't have
8-27-07
214
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
any law enforcement powers.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, given the
circumstances of the individual we're talking about, is there
any reason why he couldn't be under Precinct 2, if the
constable has no problem? Doesn't make any difference?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Other than just all the
paperwork, and by the time you get that letter sent in, get
that back and everything else, it could end up being that
you've already got somebody else appointed in 1. It's a
time-consuming deal.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Commissioner Baldwin, sounds
like you need to name your constable a little earlier than
what you'd anticipated.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, it does. Or -- I don't
see any problems with the guy going without a gun for two
weeks. I mean, what's the problem with that? Unless you're
totally addicted to it, like Rusty.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah, you can see mine. But he
-- it's just the powers he has --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He takes a shower, you know,
with that darn gun on his --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You have to take the badge
off too?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: He can't present himself in any
8-27-07
215
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
way, shape, or form as a law enforcement officer.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So I'l1 go and talk to him.
Have you talked to him about that?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, I thought I'd better bring
that -- I didn't know if you wanted to try and appoint --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: He was wearing a gun today when
he was in here.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, yeah, he was wearing that
gun, Glock 40.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: If we get him right out and do
some training, I think he would be a good choice, what you've
got. I think he's a great guy, but I don't know if he's going
to be ready for that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll go talk to him. If he
doesn't understand, I'll run him by you.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Sounds good.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're the daddy of Kerr
County, aren't you?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, he is, too.
JUDGE TINLEY: Being modest.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He just doesn't want us to
use any more deputy salaries.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. I'd better go get to
s-2~-o~
216
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that right now.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else, gentlemen? We'll
stand adjourned.
(Commissioners Court adjourned at 3:14 p.m.)
STATE OF TEXAS I
COUNTY OF KERR I
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 4th day of
September, 2007.
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
B Y • __ _ _ ~G~%7GG~ ____ _____
Kathy nik, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
8-27-07
ORDER NO. 30481
CLEAR RIVER ADVOCATES' USE OF FLAT ROCK LAKE PARK
Came to be heard this the 27th day of August, 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 use of Flat Rock Lake Park by Clear River Advocates' on September
1, 2007 from 7:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m.
ORDER NO.30482
9-1-1 BOARD OF GOVERNORS
Came to be heard this the 27th day of August, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court unanimously
approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Reappoint Hugh Jons to the 9-1-1 Board of Managers.
ORDER NO. 30483
2007 AUDIT ENGAGEMFN"T LETTER FROM PRESSLI;K, "I'1 ]OMPSON AND
COMPANY
Came to be heard this the 27th day of August, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioners I3aldwin. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 3-1-0 to:
Approve the 2007 Audit Engagement Letter from Pressler, "hhompson and
Company, as amended.
ORDER NO.30484
RESIGNATION OF PRECINCT 1 JUSTICE OF "1'IIE I'h;ACF,
Came to be heard this the 27th day of August, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Letz. 1'hc Court unanimously
approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Accept the resignation of Precinct 1 Justice of the Peace, Vance R. Elliott,
effective as of close of business on August 31, 2007.
ORDER NO. 30485
APPOINTMENT OF NF;.W JUSTICE OF THE PEACE I' OR PRECINCT 1
Came to be heard this the 27th day of August, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Letz. 1`he Court unanimously
approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Appoint David J. Billeiter to fill the unexpired term of Justice of the Peace,
Precinct 1, until the next General Election.
ORDER NO.30486
DELINQUENT TAX NOTICES
Came to be heard this the 27th day of August, 2007, with ~ motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams. 1~he Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Authorize the County Judge to work directly with the law fine that we have
contracted with to resolve all matters and others as he sees appropriate, including
all those brought forward by Mr. Pike, in resolving the issues with these delinquent
tax notices being sent out inappropriately.
ORDER NO.30487
2007-08 KERB CENTRAL APPRAISAL DIS'~'RI~T 1311DGI?"1
Came to be heard this the 27th day of August, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Oehler. "I'he Court unanimously
approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Vote against approval of the Kerr Central Appraisal District Budget for 2007-08 as
presented.
ORDER NO. 30488
KERB CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT 2006 BUDGI;~f PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS
Caine to be heard this the 27th day of August, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Oehler. 7~he Court unanimously
approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Vote against the proposed amendments to the taxing unit agenda for the Kerr
Central Appraisal District 'Oh budget until we get further information as set forth in
the August 2, 2007 letter.
ORDER NO. 30489
SHERIFF AND CONSTABLES FI:LS
Came to be heard this the 27th day of August, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. "I'hc Court unanimously
approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Set the same schedule as last year to adopt the fees charged for Civil Services by
the offices of Sheriff and Constables, as we put into effect for last year.
ORDER NO. 3 0490
BOARD OF TRUSTIES OF HILL COUNTRY COMMUNI"i'Y MI?N"I`AL
HEALTl~ AND MENTAL RETARDATION Cl?N"hI;IZ
Came to be heard this the 27th day of August, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Lets. The Court unanimously
approved. by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Appoint County Judge Pat "Tinley to the Board of Trustees oC the I-Iill Country
Community Mental Health and Mental Retardation Center f or a two year term
effective September 1, 2007.
ORDER NO.30491
ADVERTISE FOR IZFP'S FOR YOUTH EXHIBITION C1~.N"1'L;R 13Ull,DING
PROJECT
Came to be heard this the 27th day of August, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Oehler. "1`he Court unanimously
approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Authorize publishing a public notice for design and site planners to assist
Commissioners' Court with ongoing projects previously discussed at the Hill
Country Youth Exhibition Center.
ORDER NO. 3 0492
ACCEPT DONA"LION Ol' METAL FOLDING CIIAIRS I~'ROM C1'I'Y OF
KERRVILLE
Came to be heard this the 27th day of August, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner I,etl. "I'he Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Accept a donation oI metal folding chairs from the City of Kerrville, and instruct
Maintenance Department to transfer same from Blackwell 1' ire Station to I-Iill
Country Youth Exhibition Center for storage and use.
ORDER NO.30493
KERR COIJN7'Y SUBDIVISION RULES AND RI;UULA"hIONS
Came to be heard this the 27th day of August, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
flmend the Kerr County Subdivision Rules and Regulatior7s per the language as
presented.
ORDER NO. 3 0494
RI~NOVATION PLAN 1~'OR POLE BARN AT HILL COUNTRY YOtJ"TH
1;XI IIBITION CENTER
Came to be heard this the 27th day of August, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Oehler. The Court unanimously
approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the plan as revised today for the renovation oI~ the pole barn, and
authorize going out for bids on the western 8,700 square toot portion of that
concrete.
ORDER NO.30495
WORKER'S COMPF_,NSATION FOR SHERIFF'S OFFICE Rl?SERVE
DEPUTIES
Came to be heard this the 27th day of August, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Oehler. "I'he Court unanimously
approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
ngree to fund 3 positions through Worker's Compensation for the Sheriffs Office
Reserve Deputy program, with the amount of $1,066.62 being the premium per
position, subject to the Sheriff coming up with the funds from his budget.
ORDER NO. 3 0496
CITY OF INGRAM CONTRACT WITH KERR COUNTY ]~ OR ANIMAL
CONTROL
Caine to be heard this the 27th day of August, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Oehler, seconded by Commissioner Lett. "fhe Court Lulanimously
approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Contract with the City of Ingram to do their animal control services for 1 year, for
this 2007-08 budget year, for $21,000, and that to be reviewed alter the end of this
year for next year's contract, prepare the appropriate lnterlocal Agreement, to be
approved by the Colmty Attorney's Office, and forwarded to Mr. Edwards, to be
effective 10-1-2007.
ORDER NO. 30497
CLAIMS AND ACCOUNTS
Came to be heard this the 27th day of August, 2007, came to be considered by the
Court various Commissioners Precincts, which said Claims and AC:COLIntS are:
Accounts Expense
10 -General Fund	$	158,053.82
14-Fire Protection	$	21,652.65
15-Road & Bridge	$	35,792.18
18-County Law Library	$	1,660.24
50-Indigent Health Care	$	25,767.54
76-Juv Detention Facility	$	2,011.52
81-District Administration	$	46.70
82-SO Law Enforcement	$	76.90
TOTAL
$ 245061.55
Upon motion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded b5~ ti~O1711111SS1011er I,etz,
the Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to pay the claims and. accounts.
ORDER NO. 30498
BUDGET AMENDMENT NUMBERS 1 TI IROUGI 118
Came to be heard this the 27th day of August, 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 Budget Amendments, with one change to Amendment No. 12 from
declaring it an emergency and taking the funds from the Ueneral I' and balance
reserves, to taking that amount from Jailer Salaries.
ORDER NO. 30499
MONTHLY REPORTS
Came to be heard this the 27th day of August, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Oehler, the Court unanimously
approved by vote of 4-0-0 the following monthly reports:
JP #3
JP #4
District Clerk
Constable Pct #3
County Clerk -General & "Trust Fund