1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT Regular Session Monday, December 10, 2007 9:00 a.m. Commissioners' Courtroom Kerr County Courthouse Kerrville, Texas PRESENT: PAT TINLEY, Kerr County Judge j"' H. A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1 JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3 'O BRUCE OEHLER, Commissioner Pct. 4 ^" ABSENT: WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2 ~' 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 December 10, 2007 PAGE 1.1 Consider/discuss take appropriate action on request to use portion of courthouse grounds and parking area on January 11, 2008, for Cowboy Breakfast 8 1.2 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on Ingram ISD septic problem and proposed emergency repair by ISD maintenance personnel 14 1.3 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on request for variance to install small septic system on First Street in Ingram based on imminent installation of city sewer 15 1.4 Open bids received for digital video recording system for the juvenile detention facility and award appropriate bid 32,77 1.5 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on how to allocate excess funds from the '06/'07 library budget 34 1.8 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action con- cerning deed without warranty filed by Energy/ Land, Inc., to Kerr County 36 1.9 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action con- cerning expiration of lease for Cat 924 loader and 12H maintainer 38 1.10 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for concept plan of Camp Verde Store 43 1.6 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for concept of revision of plat for 707 Ranch, and set public hearing for same 48 1.12 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action concerning final revision of plat for Lot 67 of Cypress Springs Estates, Phase 2, Section One 51 1.14 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to ratify and confirm submission of application to AACOG for solid waste grant to purchase two vehicles; authorize resolution in support of same 52 1.15 Consider/discuss take appropriate action on appointing committee to review and present recommendation on long-range facility needs of Kerr County Jail and Law Enforcement Center 53 1.7 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on final revision of plat for Hill River Country Estates 57 1.16 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on reviewing current burn ban implementation and notification procedures, exemptions for prescribed burning during a burn ban, and website revisions related to burn ban 61 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I N D E X December 10, 2007 1.17 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to rescind all prior Commissioners' Court orders authorizing individual department/official cell phone contracts 1.11 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action con- cerning concept of Solar Village, Lots 14-17; set public hearing for same 1.13 Consider/discuss, formulate & adopt Kerr County's position regarding utilization of Kerr County Airport Authority; forward same to Texas Attorney General; appropriate action as necessary 1.18 Approve the assessment as a result of Texas State Comptroller's audit and authorize payment of the assessed amount 1.19 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to authorize Jerry Shiever to prepare early referrals of all delinquent personal property accounts. 1.20 Receive information on legislative & regulatory updates and elections and take any desired appropriate action to finalize TCDRS plan and elections for Kerr County for 2008 1.21 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on authorizing the financial adviser to prepare recommendations for the most economical and beneficial type of short-term financing for the County, and begin documentation necessary for the short-term financing application 1.22 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to adopt an order, based on burn ban status, pro- hibiting sale or use of restricted fireworks in any portion of unincorporated area of the county 1.23 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on Edward Martin contract 4.1 Pay Bills 4.2 Budget Amendments 4.3 Late Bills 4.4 Approve and Accept Monthly Reports 5.1 Reports from Commissioners/Liaison Assignments 1.24 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on hiring a part-time deputy (Executive Session) 3.1 Action taken on executive session item(s) --- Adjourned 71 72 78 88 95 100 105 107 112 113 116 117 118 120 121 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 4 On Monday, December 10, 2007, at 9:00 a.m., a regular meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in the Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, Kerrville, Texas, and the following proceedings were had in open court: P R O C E E D I N G S JUDGE TINLEY: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Let me call to order this regularly scheduled meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court posted and scheduled for this time and date, Monday, December the 10th, 2007, at 9 a.m. It is that time now. Commissioner Baldwin? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. Would you stand and join me in a word of prayer, and then we'll do the pledge of allegiance. (Prayer and pledge of allegiance.) JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: At this time, if there's any member of the public or the audience that wishes to be heard on any matter that is not a listed agenda item, why, you're free to come forward at this time and let us know 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. They can be found on the table at the rear of the room. If they're not there, let us know and we'll get some there. Or if we get to an agenda lz-io-o~ 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 item and you haven't filled out a participation form and want to be heard, get my attention. I'll see that you have that opportunity, because we want you to have an opportunity to be heard on any matter that you have an interest. But if to come forward at this time. Seeing no one coming forward, we will move on. Commissioner Baldwin, what do you have for I'm excited about this meeting and moving forward JUDGE TINLEY: Very well. Commissioner Letz? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Couple of things. One, this is meeting that there was the Hill Country group that met, Commissioners and County Judges, and they had set -- the next date is going to be January 30th, 10 a.m., in Marble Falls. It's a Wednesday. Kind of a 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. event, and make sure that the rest of the Court is aware of it, and the County Attorney as well. Good meeting. I think it's -- basically, I think we're -- the direction that this whole group is going is basically how to act in a common front where we can agree with Legislature, trying to get some things done legislatively, where the bottleneck is, if there i2-io-o~ 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 benefit than anybody else. And I was interested in reading in the paper Saturday that the City of Kerrville has decided a new river crossing is going to go in out in the county. And I just thought that was a rather interesting thing, and I wasn't aware that we had discussed it with them. So, I thought I'd -- Len, you might want to look at Kerrville Daily Times; here's a copy of the article. They've decided they're going to put in a new bridge across the Guadalupe just to the east of Guadalupe Heights, so I thought that might be an interesting thing for the County to be aware of, since the City's going to put a bridge in the county. Other than that, I just hope we get a little more rain. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Commissioner Oehler? COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, only thing I have this that was sent out to all the installers, all the septic installers, and probably the designers, that had a -- and it was sent out anonymously. And it had a self-addressed envelope to me for the survey to be sent to, thus making it look like I sent the survey out, trying to go after our Environmental Health Department, and -- and in a lot of ways that -- that's just not right. And I wouldn't do it that way, and I had nothing to do with it. And I want to set the is-io-o~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 record straight that somebody did this anonymously, and I don't know who it was, but I didn't do it. And I wish whoever would have guts enough to come forward and -- and take the credit for it, and also the blame for it. And we have gotten a lot of those letters back, and I've turned them over to Environmental Health, Ray Garcia, who's the head of that department. Only three out of about 14 or 15 were signed. The rest of them were signed John Doe. This John Doe must have sent them out to start with. But, anyway, I just wanted to be sure we set the record straight that I had nothing do with that, and if I had, I would -- I would take the credit for it, or the blame. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Bruce, I just never saw you as the kind of guy to beat around the bush like that. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, I just wouldn't. That's just not my nature. If I had a problem with them, I'd go to them and talk to them about it, which I have done in the past. i COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely. I' COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And -- but I do think it's ', pretty -- pretty ironic that all of a sudden, it made it look like I did it, and I didn't. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What did you do with those that weren't signed, the "John Doe" stuff? COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I gave them all to Ray lz-io-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 BALDWIN: I hope they went in the trash can. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, that's what needs to happen to the ones that don't have enough guts to sign them. And the ones that did, I took it as a form of complaint. He'll be following up on the ones that did sign. So, anyway, that's all I have this morning. JUDGE TINLEY: Certainly, Commissioner, if somebody -- some citizen, or even someone that's involved in the process with Environmental Health, has an issue with the operation of that department or anybody there, or in your oversight, you welcome them bringing those directly to you, do you not? COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Sure. JUDGE TINLEY: That's kind of the way I thought. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I don't -- JUDGE TINLEY: If citizens have a concern or thoughts or ideas or suggestions about anything in county government, we want to hear from them. This is their government, and we're trying to -- we're trying to do their work, and they're certainly entitled to have whatever input they desire. Let's get on with our agenda, if we might. First item on the agenda is to consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on a request to use a portion of the iz-io-o~ 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 courthouse grounds and parking area on the early morning of January the 11th, 2008 -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, did we do public comment? JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I didn't -- JUDGE TINLEY: For a Cowboy Breakfast in connection with local area and Hill Country District Junior Livestock Show activities. Mr. Bondy? Mr. Bondy asked that I put this on the agenda, and actually, I put it on the last agenda, if you'll recall, and had it styled wrong for it to happen in December. Actually, it was going to be tomorrow, I recall, and that wasn't the case at all. So, that was my faux pas. Let's see if we can get it straight now. Mr. Bondy and Mr. Talarico, glad to have you here this morning. MR. TALARICO: Thank you, Judge. MR. BONDY: Thank you, Judge, Commissioners. The Chamber and Kerrville Main Street were approached about the possibility of resurrecting the Cowboy Breakfast along with the Hill Country District Junior Livestock Show. And, once again, you know, one of the things that we strongly believe in is building community, and it's a shame that it wasn't -- didn't take place last year. And so we saw it as a great opportunity to -- to bring it back, to partner with these lz-lo-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 10 folks, with Main Street, kind of show the community that there are multiple parties behind it, and trying to build its success. So, the next step we came up with was, where's a -- not that the star is a bad location, but it's not a real high visible location, and we thought of the courthouse grounds. Certainly, as people drive by, they see the Christmas lights that are here; it's a highly visible location, and it would be a perfect spot to hold the Cowboy Breakfast, with your permission. Our tentative timeline is to have it run from 6:00 to 8:30 on Friday, January the 11th, 2008. We'd like to have some live entertainment. We'd like to have some goat milking, some cow chip throwing, possibly even a minibike ~~, demonstration in the parking area. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I nominate the Judge. (Laughter.) MR. BONDY: So moved. Do I hear a second? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. MR. TALARICO: To be milked or thrown? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Both. JUDGE TINLEY: I'm versatile. MR. BONDY: We come before you with the request to utilize the courthouse grounds and part of the parking areas for that breakfast on the 11th. And be happy to answer any questions. JUDGE TINLEY: The portion that you're asking to 1Z-io-o~ 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 use is primarily over here on the east side? MR. BONDY: Yes, sir. We would -- truth be known, we were talking about it at our last meeting on Thursday; we ~, really would like to have the portion that's Sidney Baker and i Main Street, because there's a tremendous amount of visibility that would be accomplished there, but we would defer to your better judgment. If you'd prefer us to be on the east side, we would be okay with that as well. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Have we -- JUDGE TINLEY: Sidney Baker and Main, which would be the west -- MR. BONDY: West side. JUDGE TINLEY: -- and the south side? MR. BONDY: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Huh? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Have we checked to see if there's a jury in, or selecting juries? Or what -- JUDGE TINLEY: It's on a Friday. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, I thought you said ~ Thursday. MR. BONDY: Right, Friday, January 11th, which would be the week before -- MR. TALARICO: The stock show kicks off that next Tuesday. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the ideal location i2-lo-0~ 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 would be -- you know, certainly, the south or the west side are the most visible, but it's also the worst from a parking standpoint. But -- JUDGE TINLEY: The previous ones were held over here. They blocked off Earl Garrett and had it in that -- I believe it's, what, the 200 block of Earl Garrett? MR. BONDY: Correct. Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Where they had it? And -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: How about the employee parking lot? Which wouldn't disrupt the parking and getting around the parking lot a little bit. It would disrupt that portion. JUDGE TINLEY: Well, see, they're going to be cleared out by about 8:30. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. JUDGE TINLEY: So that's going to be a minimal impact on the parking anyway, wherever they are, 'cause they're going to be starting early. But there will necessarily have to be some parking going on towards the tail end of that function. MR. BONDY: We might recommend that you -- if you have some barricades, barricade the inside parking spaces which are adjacent to the actual grounds, which would leave the outside spaces available for parking. COMMISSIONER LETZ: What -- how much area do you need? Like, would a corner -- would the corner at Sidney lz-lo-o~ 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Baker and Main be okay? MR. BONDY: That area -- that's also where there's the greatest amount of pavement. The parking area would probably be ideal, along with the grassy area and the -- and the pavilion. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. Road and Bridge can maybe set up some barricades along the -- where the parking area -- or leave them for y'all to set up that morning or something. MR. BONDY: Right. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or Maintenance. Maintenance can probably do it. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Could probably park a lot of people at Grimes. They're not going to have any funerals before 8:30. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. MR. BONDY: We'll check with them. JUDGE TINLEY: Not likely. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That would be a first. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Well, there's no question about that it's a community event, and in connection with Hill Country District Junior Livestock Show and Association and all their activities, the Court has been very much involved in sponsoring and working with the Youth Exhibit Center. It's I think it's just a matter of working out the 12-10-07 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 details, from my -- my perspective. I don't know how the other members of the Court feel. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion that we authorize Cowboy Breakfast to be held at the southwest corner of the courthouse square on the morning of January 11th, and allowance be made for vehicles to get by on the inside of the parking area. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'll second that. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as indicated. Further question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: The motion carries. Thank you, gentlemen. MR. BONDY: Thank you very much. We appreciate it. JUDGE TINLEY: I'm going to start picking my team, and the gentleman to my right is going to be my first choice. Yeah. See? He's working -- working already. Thank you. MR. BONDY: We look forward to seeing you there. JUDGE TINLEY: We'll move to Item 2; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on Ingram ISD septic problem and proposed emergency repairs by ISD maintenance personnel. iz-io-o~ 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 I6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: This item is going to be passed, because we don't take action on emergency repairs. We give variances, to my knowledge. JUDGE TINLEY: And the emergency repairs are done directly with the Environmental Health? COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Directly with Environmental Health Department. And the situation is pretty well -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Done? COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- done. It's not been completed, I don't think, but the end result is -- is going to be what was asked for, and all this paperwork we got that did not come in the right form. JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody else -- COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I was informed of that over the weekend. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We'll move to Item 3; consider, discuss, take appropriate action on request for variance to install a small septic system on First Street in Ingram, based on the imminent installation of city sewer. We have Mr. Digges, the honorable Danny Edwards from the City Attorney's office in Ingram, and Mr. Garcia. Who wants to run with the ball here? MR. DIGGES: I instigated this, so I guess I should come up and talk about it. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. i2-io-o~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 16 MR. DIGGES: It's a -- a residence in Ingram where it's going to be in the first phase of the sewering of that city. And we were asked by the sellers of the property to install a new septic system, as the one that was there was -- was failing. And so we have made a determination by soil profiles what type of conditions we got there. We got a couple of feet of clay, and we got caliche beneath it, so we've got a good absorptive soil beneath. And our thinking is, why put in a full-blown system when we can do an abbreviated or smaller system and certainly get by until the sewers were to come? In that regard, Danny Edwards may be a feel for that. But, you know, we used to do septic inspections back in the early '90's, before the County even became involved in doing inspections. And this was inspections at the time of sale; not for new installations, but it was the existing systems. And there was a number of times where we just came across a 500-, 550-gallon tank, 100 foot of drain field, and people have been operating on that for 10, 15, 20 years. And so the system that we're suggesting would be in line with that, and so it could easily last that long, and it would save the sellers of the property about $3,000 to put in a smaller system than the full-blown system. Once all that is-io-o~ 17 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 -- that larger tank and that -- that would more than double it was in and the new sewer was in, they're going to be required to connect on, and so it's just going to be gravel and dirt, and it's going to be just a waste of -- of effort and money, in my opinion. And I thought the Court might feel the same, and so that's -- that's why I instigated this. And Ray's here to talk, and Danny too, to give you that update. MR. EDWARDS: Morning, Judge. JUDGE TINLEY: Good morning. MR. EDWARDS: And Court. I talked this morning with both the U.S.D.A., who has given us our grant, and the engineer to try to get as updated a report as I could give you. All plans have been completed. They have been sent to U.S.D.A. We have met with the City of Kerrville to make sure that we're in line with all their specifications, et cetera. In talking with the U.S.D.A. representative this morning over in Fredericksburg, they're awaiting some minor paperwork. I call it minor in comparison to the last two and a half years that we've been fighting this project, which has been unduly delayed by many -- on many counts. But all the plans are finished. They have been forwarded to U.S.D.A. They've -- right-of-ways and designating where the right-of-ways would iz-io-o~ 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I talked to the engineer. All of this is obviously U.S.D.A. when necessary. I have -- I have acquired all of the right-of-way for the main lines. They're all signed and ready to be recorded. We have about four or five minor rights-of-way up in the city that we still have yet to acquire. Ninety-five, 96 percent of the lines will be laid in the city streets, so we have very few rights-of-way to acquire. Once we -- the bid -- the spec book for bids is complete. The contract -- the blank forms of contracts are complete, and they have not yet been sent to the U.S.D.A. That was one of the things he requested this morning. I have to empathize with the engineer; he lost his number-one girl about four months ago, and I think he's been living in chaos down there ever since. But he says the spec book is finished, the contracts are finished, and they should go out sometime either late this week or next week. The encouraging word that I received from U.S.D.A. this morning was, once they have every single, solitary sliver of paper they need, they usually get it approved in about 30 days, so that's kind of a happy thing. The bad news is, this has to be approved by T.C.E.Q., and I don't think anybody wants to prognosticate what T.C.E.Q.'s going to do. But as far as the engineering and paperwork, it's ready to la-io-o~ 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 go. We anticipate -- the engineer, rather, anticipates the construction time on this will be -- assuming we get, on the first -- the bid process, as all of you know, takes 45, 60 days sometimes, and assuming that the first bid that we get is something we can live with, that's another element you have to consider. But it's moving as rapidly as it can. They estimate the construction time on it at about 12 months, roughly. And because it's -- the design of it is -- is tremendous. We -- by necessity, we had to make a change in plans where our main line was going, and by that necessity, we eliminated three lift stations and saved us about, oh, $750,000, $800,000 on our project. So, the mother of necessity created an opportunity to -- to save a considerable amount of money. I am encouraged that we're this far along. And that's about it. I'll answer any questions you might have. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Danny? MR. EDWARDS: Yes, sir? I COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You feel quite -- I mean, I i can tell you feel quite sure that the -- that the new system is going to come on board; you're going to get your grants and all that? MR. EDWARDS: Oh, yeah. We've -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's going to happen, but it's not like you to use the word "imminent." 12-10-07 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. EDWARDS: Well, I don't know what "imminent" means to some people. (Laughter.) COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There's my lawyer. MR. EDWARDS: Well, this -- with all due respect, this work's probably six to nine months behind schedule, for reasons -- no fault of the City of Ingram. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure. MR. EDWARDS: And it's just -- and, of course, one of the things we're concerned about on the first bid process is that the numbers that we presented to U.S.D.A. to obtain this grant are now three years old, and PVC pipe's gone up about 30 percent or more, and so we don't know what the results of that will be when we get our first bid in. However, we did eliminate -- there was three lift stations that were in our original numbers, so we're hoping that that compensates somewhat. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You talked about -- you talked about 30 days on part of it, getting the -- getting all the paperwork in and sending it off to somebody, and it'll take 30 days or so for you to get the stamp of approval from that, and then you talked about 12 months -- MR. EDWARDS: Construction. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- construction. So, there's -- there's 13 months right there. And then what other time frame? Are you saying that in about 13 months, we 12-io-o~ 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 should be on line? And -- MR. EDWARDS: Well, you've got your bid process, which is 30 to 60 days -- 45 to 60 days. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sixty more days, okay. MR. EDWARDS: And I can't tell you how long it will take for the engineer to provide the remaining documentation they requested this morning, which is basic -- one of them requires the signatures of the mayor and the approval by the City Council, which is the right-of-way map, and I'll have all of the rights-of-way completed probably next week without -- without any problem. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, a long time. The reason I'm asking these questions is to grant a variance for a small septic system -- and I'm not -- I heard Charlie talk about buckets or something; I don't know -- I don't remember what. But small septic systems, and I'm -- and I want to get to our guy here and find out about this time frame and the -- the small system, and how long -- you know, if there's enough -- if this small system will last long enough for y'all to get on line and all those things. MR. EDWARDS: Let me make one comment before he takes over. First of a11, I want to say how pleased the City of Ingram is with the County having taken over the septic regulations. We've been short-handed out there for almost a year and a half, doing anything on this. Since they took it i2-io-o~ 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 we can, and I think we're seeing good results already, so we're very pleased with that. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Edwards, you mentioned that one T.C.E.Q. that gives you any indication of where they're going or how fast they're going to go? MR. EDWARDS: None whatsoever. They've had the -- they've had the plans for the -- well, it's the original plan. They've had the final plans for some -- a month now, I guess. They don't require all of the necessary paperwork U.S.D.A. does, obviously, because of the grant. So -- but they do have the final plans for review, and they -- it's my understanding -- and I'm not professing to be an expert, but U.S.D.A. looks at one phase of operation, such as the feasibility of it, the finances, and T.C.E.Q. looks at the physical aspects of it, the engineering and et cetera. So -- but, no, I have no indication from T.C.E.Q. as to how long is-io-o~ 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 they might take to review it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But it sounds like you're looking at about 24 months. MR. EDWARDS: Pardon? COMMISSIONER LETZ: About 24 months, probably. I mean, about two years to get online -- two, two and a half years, more than likely, to get online. MR. EDWARDS: That's your words, not mine. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, the reason I want -- well, when you were calculating up over here, we were up to about 18 months. If you're going to allow T.C.E.Q., you know, three to six months, that puts you from -- you know. MR. EDWARDS: You have a history with T.C.E.Q., Commissioner? I mean, you may have. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't have a good history with them, no. MR. EDWARDS: I thought maybe you know something I don't know. COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. They're -- I mean, as you -- it's just a large agency; it takes a long time to act. So, if they're being -- I would be -- if I were in y'all's shoes, I'd be very happy to get it in three months, an answer out of T.C.E.Q. This puts you closer to two years, so -- and then you figure out some kind of -- you know, you bid it, and you're going to allow another 60 days from awarding the bid 12-10-0~ 24 1 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 starting construction, likely. So, you're looking at two to two and a half years, I would think. I mean, when you start adding up all the dates, from now. MR. EDWARDS: I hope not, but you may be right. JUDGE TINLEY: Well, of course, this -- you've been involved in this process how long, Mr. Edwards? MR. EDWARDS: About two and a half years. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, to this point. And -- MR. EDWARDS: That's right. JUDGE TINLEY: -- the citizens of Ingram are deeply indebted to you for your perseverance -- MR. EDWARDS: Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: -- in hanging in with this thing and going forward and getting this funding. MR. EDWARDS: It's been -- JUDGE TINLEY: You've been instrumental in doing that for them. I appreciate your work. MR. EDWARDS: It's been a cooperative effort along with the County, with U.G.R.A. and with the school district, the City. It's been a -- Kerrville. It's been a -- it's really been a mutual government agreement. It's been a long process, but we're very pleased with the progress as much as we have. Also, I do empathize with these people who are facing having to rebuild septic systems. And I guess my only comment would be -- is that anything that's done to improve lz-io-o~ 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 the septic system in the city of Ingram is a tremendous thing, because we still have culverts and 55-gallon drums out there used -- being used as septic tanks, so any kind of modification that's made to update one is certainly an improvement over probably 50 percent of the systems that we have. And so I would commend your Environmental Health Department for working in that respect also. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I kind of encouraged Environmental Health to do this, because there's no point -- I've encouraged Environmental Health to work with these property owners to do what we could do minimally to make them where they're safe until they do have time to hook up to the new wastewater system, 'cause I really hate to see people spend money unnecessarily. But we do have to cure problems when it becomes a health and safety -- MR. DIGGES: I agree. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- issue. MR. EDWARDS: As I say, I'm really pleased with what they're doing, and anything that's done is an improvement for the city of Ingram. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I understand. MR. EDWARDS: Thank you. MR. GARCIA: The only thing I would submit to the Court on these issues for the variances is that we -- the Court recognize that in the event of a failure of one of lz-io-o~ 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 these systems -- we don't suspect that system will fail, but in the event it does fail, is that what would the Court require on this variance if it -- if it did fail? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Good question. MR. GARCIA: Other than that, we -- we want to work 'I with the city of Ingram; we want to do what we can to help i these people because of the sewer system. I won't use "imminent," but the -- COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, I believe if you use a designer to go evaluate the problem, and then they come up with a solution that -- that would last, in their opinion, for at least two years, I think that that's a reasonable request, and it would also save the landowner a lot of money. And I do believe those variances need to be considered here on a case-by-case. I don't think we can just give a blanket variance for the city of Ingram. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree on that point. But I think the question would be, is if it fails, it needs to be upgraded to a new standard so it's not failing. I mean, the variance is only in effect to the point that the system is operating as designed, which is correctly and efficiently. If it doesn't, then additional work has to be done, even during the variance period, in my mind. MR. GARCIA: Exactly. And that's what we want to make sure, that if it does fail, is the Court going to i2-io-o~ 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 require that they install a full system? JUDGE TINLEY: Or whatever is required to bring the system into an efficient operation that's in compliance with health and safety norms. MR. GARCIA: Yes, sir. MR. DIGGES: In this instance, what we can do -- what we've basically done is, the property has already changed hands, and they've escrowed money for the full-blown system, but we've also given them the price for the smaller system. So, in this instance, if you all want us to, we could have them hold that additional money in escrow until it I~ actually hooks up to city sewer, and then that -- that money can be released back to the sellers. JUDGE TINLEY: I don't know that we want to get involved in somebody's private transaction. I think we're in a position to talk about variances and what happens in the event the variance is granted. If it doesn't work like it should be in a properly operating system, then that's going to therefore require you to upgrade the system to one that is properly operating, whatever that may be. But I don't think we need to get involved in someone's private transaction. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, that's between the buyer and the seller. If they want to leave the money in escrow, that's up to them. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What kind -- what kind of i2-io-o~ 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 system has failed there, Charlie? MR. DIGGES: Well, we weren't asked to analyze the existing system, but the -- apparently, a pumper went out there and found that the tank was dry, and that it was an old type tank and it was leaking -- apparently leaking. And we did encounter -- when we did our soil profiles, we did encounter the old drain field, and it was those old 1-foot long clay tiles that are -- are left with an inch gap between the whole series of them, a whole row of them. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. MR. DIGGES: And I can -- I can offer the Court this. You know, part of what makes a septic drain field fail is the development of what's called the biomat, and it's just a thick layer that gets more and more impervious over the course of time. And, so, you're not going to have one. I mean, it's going to -- it's not going to mature enough to fail. So, this -- that system won't even start getting a mature biomat till probably four or five years old, and so I'm pretty confident -- like I said, we've analyzed a bunch of systems back in the early '90's, and this is a typical type hill country installation, that it didn't do real good to Camp Meeting Creek, but as far as surfacing on the ground, you know, we have a lot of installations out there where it was a problem, you know, for collectively a bunch of them going into Camp Meeting Creek. But -- but as far as it is-io-o~ 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 surfacing on the ground, nothing would surface on the ground, ', and it would not be an imminent or immediate health hazard. I~I COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How many of these kind of issues or situations are in the city of Ingram? MR. DIGGES: I don't know. I think we're going to see more. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, could you estimate? Is there hundreds? MR. DIGGES: That I really don't know. You know, you've got a lot of older homes there, that probably there's -- I mean, Ray may know better than me, but there's probably just a small percentage that have updated systems. So, the type of system we're proposing is probably as good as the average system there, and it's going to be brand-new. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Ray, how does it work? When -- I'm going to guess that there's lots of these kinds of things in Ingram, and we -- you may be back in here every month with one or two of these every month. Who knows? When -- when these things do happen, is Charlie Digges locked in to get all the business? Or how does that -- how does that happen? MR. GARCIA: No, it's whoever they hire. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The private property owner 23 24 hires? 25 i2-io-o~ MR. GARCIA: Right. 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. MR. GARCIA: We provide a list of professionals -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, good. MR. GARCIA: -- to the public. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You don't make a recommendation? MR. GARCIA: No. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You don't say, "Oh, hey, Charlie did the last one; you may want to talk to him"? You don't do that, do you? MR. GARCIA: No, we don't. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, thank you. MR. GARCIA: You're welcome. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think this is a good fix for a bad problem, and it's a reasonable request. We have to -- something has to be done because of the health and environment risk, so I think it's -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is that a motion? COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I move -- I move that we -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Wait, I got one more question. One more question. The variance -- the variances under -- in our rules and regulations cover this kind of an issue? MR. GARCIA: No. That's why we're here, because if it was a variance going through our department, the rules is-io-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 state it's going. to be equal to or better than. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. MR. GARCIA: But, again, that's why we're up here, is to get a variance from the Court, because it doesn't meet the minimum state standard. But, again, as Charlie and Danny had mentioned, from what was there to what Mr. Digges is proposing, in anybody's book, is an upgrade. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And it's not meant to last for 20 or 30 years. It's just meant to go for a couple years, till we get -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Two years. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- the sewer. JUDGE TINLEY: Essentially, you're asking for a temporary system. MR. DIGGES: Yes. JUDGE TINLEY: "Temporary" being a rather fluid term here. MR. DIGGES: Yes. JUDGE TINLEY: All right. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I move that we grant a variance from our rules to install a temporary septic system on the Robert Dreiss property in Ingram, Texas. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the property's at 211 I East -- COMMISSIONER OEHLER: 211 -- lz-io-o~ 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 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 211 First Street, I guess. 211 First Street. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah, 211 First Street. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second, with one addition. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as indicated. Question or discussion? COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that does include, Commissioner, that should the system fail during the variance period, it will have to be required to be brought up to a standard to meet health and safety requirements? COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yes, it does. JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or discussion on the motion as indicated? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Thank you, gentlemen. We'll go to Item 4; open bids received for digital video recording system for the Juvenile Detention Facility and award of the appropriate bid. I have -- the only one that's come to my attention is the one that I am now opening. (Discussion off the record.) JUDGE TINLEY: The -- the only bid that has been is-lo-o~ 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 tendered to me is one from Guardian Security Solutions, and ', the -- this meets and/or exceeds requirements with no exceptions. The total is $37,130. Three copies included. I don't recall what the budgeted or anticipated amount was. Do you recall, Mr. Stanton? MR. STANTON: Yes, sir. It was 50,000. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MR. STANTON: That's what was budgeted at the beginning of the year. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move we accept the bid and refer it to Mr. Stanton for evaluation and recommendation. JUDGE TINLEY: Would that be in connection also with Mr. Trolinger, the I.T. Manager? COMMISSIONER LETZ: If he needs to be involved with it, yes. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as indicated. Question or discussion on the motion? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I would just -- all of these specifications in our backup, there's a lot of stuff -- JUDGE TINLEY: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- here, and I hope that they would go down this list and make sure these bids meet -- i2-io-o~ 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 JUDGE TINLEY: The bidder indicated -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I know what they indicated. JUDGE TINLEY: So, certainly, they need to verify that. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And if you can come back before we leave today, we can approve it. MR. STANTON: Yes, sir, I will. JUDGE TINLEY: 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: The motion does carry. We'll move to Item 5; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on how to allocate excess funds from the '06-'07 library budget. Commissioner Oehler? COMMISSIONER OEHLER: This reappeared this month, and there has not been another meeting of the Library Board to find out what that amount is. But if we could take action and decide now, determine how we want to apply those funds or what we want done with whatever excess funds are -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What are our options? COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, I think we have an i2-io-o~ 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 I6 17 18 I9 20 21 22 23 24 25 option to allocate that toward a part of our commitment for this year. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: As a -- a credit toward what we have budgeted this year. Or we could make a donation of it to the library to be used for whatever way they intend to use it, or I think we could ask for them to send us a check. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Send us a check back and run it back through our system. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd rather -- well, go ahead. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And are you -- are you pretty comfortable, if we -- if we left it there and just asked them to apply it as a credit to what we committed this year, are you pretty comfortable that that can happen, and -- COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, we would just not send -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That much. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- that money. We'd deduct that from our amount that we've allocated and budgeted, and -- would be my suggestion. JUDGE TINLEY: The bean counter has -- COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Bean counter says we can't do it? MS. HARGIS: I would rather get a check from them. Because there was so much confusion last time, I think we iz-io-o~ 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 should just get a check. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay. ~~ COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: She's probably right. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Better for paperwork. ', MS. HARGIS: It's a better paper trail. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Then we can decide what we I want to do with it. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'll move that we ask the City of Kerrville to give us whatever funds that are left over from last year's library budget that the County funded, and be returned in the form of a check. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second -- third. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Motion made and seconded as indicated. 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. Let's move to Item 8, if we might, to consider, discuss, and take appropriate action concerning a deed without warranty filed by Energy/Land, Inc., to Kerr County for property located in Precinct 1. Apparently the easements were transferred to i2-io-o~ 37 1 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 some years ago, or to the public, possibly, in connection with the platting process, and the grantor in this non-warrantied deed has been paying taxes on this property for a number of years, and they'd like to stop that, so they just filed a deed. The question is, apparently we probably need to accept that conveyance. Is that correct, Mr. County Attorney? MR. EMERSON: Yes, Judge. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MR. EMERSON: And this is prior to Len's time. This is just another one of the corrections of the road system. JUDGE TINLEY: Goes back a ways, doesn't it? MR. EMERSON: Yes, sir. MR. ODOM: Right. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move that we do accept the deed filed by Energy/Land, Inc., to Kerr County at this particular location -- and, I'm sorry, I don't -- .43-acre tract, R13384, I think would specify the location. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Off Lehmann Drive South. Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to accept the conveyance as indicated. Question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) i2-io-o~ 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 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Let's move to Item 9; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action concerning expiration of a lease for Cat 924 loader and -- and 12H maintainer. MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Odom? MR. ODOM: Good morning. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Good morning. MR. ODOM: We have leased two pieces of equipment from Caterpillar Lease for five years, and the leases will expire at the first of the year. We contacted Cat for terms to continue the lease, and found the following information. In reference to our Cat loader, it expires January the 6th, 2008. We currently pay $1,037.95 per month, and the purchase price is 41,269.20. To extend the lease for one year would be $934.16, with the purchase price of $37,485 in January of '09. We would like to work with the Auditor -- and Jeannie was gone last week, and I had talked to Tommy; he was there. But we'll get with the Auditor to -- we'd like to purchase this loader now at $41,269.20. We have some options with the lease money we have. We can lease -- purchase this, and I believe make the payments over a five-year period. We have about 1,100 hours on this loader, very low hours. To go back iz-io-o~ 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 out, you're talking about $100,000 or more for a new one, up. 120, probably, and so this is a good buy. This loader is not worn out. It would last us a very long time. We feel like 41,000 is appropriate. So, we have the money that's there in this year's budget already, and probably have some excess funds left that we could apply to the note, or to pay down, but I'll let the Auditor play with the figures, but we would like to purchase that. The 12H motor grader has an expiration of lease February 4th of '08. We're currently paying $1,277, with the purchase price of $116,000. Cat will not extend the lease on this piece of equipment. We would like to replace this motor grader with a smaller new one, either five-year lease or amortized purchase. So, we -- I have looked out there off the Buy Board, and TexDOT's -- there's some smaller units. They're not Cat; Cat didn't have the A.G. -- the Houston thing. But a new one out there with scorifier and cab and all like that, a smaller blade, 12-foot blade, would run about $119,000, so we would like to look at that. We're not -- we'll come back to you probably in January, when I have a little bit more information. I've got a little bit of time on the 12H, but we're probably going to let that go back. I think that we have discussed that in the past, that I wanted to go to smaller units. This gives me an opportunity to do that. And I think, dollar-wise, we'd be better off than spending the money on this big 12H when I lz-io-o~ 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 have plenty of 12H's out there. They can always switch -- the crews can switch, depending on the job, if I have some smaller ones. And this one is back in Buster's area predominantly, so we're in, you know, a tighter area, and I feel like we could accomplish more. When we need a big one, we'll just switch out and use one -- one of the 12H's that we have. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that's a good thing to do, get a smaller one. Can you go over -- back on the loader, where is that money coming from -- MR. ODOM: Well, I have the lease right now. COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- in the budget? i MR. ODOM: Based upon 1,037.95. And, so, I looked at it this morning; I was just running some numbers. We're probably looking at -- I don't know, about a $41,000 note. If I just -- you're looking at approximately $600 a month payment, and I'm basing that on a 5 percent municipal loan. Probably -- that's probably where it's going to come out, with the fed. I think interest rates are dropping, and will continue to drop for some time. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, you're looking at directions today as to which way to proceed? MR. ODOM: That's right, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I think -- I think on the loader, since he's got early January, he's got to -- he's got iz-lo-o~ 41 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 I8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to tell them which direction -- MR. ODOM: I got to make a decision on this. JUDGE TINLEY: Whether purchase or re-lease -- renew his lease. I think he wants some specific action on the loader today. The grader, we can wait till next month. MR. ODOM: January, mm-hmm. JUDGE TINLEY: You don't have the entire $40,000 in your budget -- MR. ODOM: No, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: -- to make the entire purchase? MR. ODOM: No. JUDGE TINLEY: Are you suggesting that maybe we -- we handle that as part of our capital package that the Auditor's working on now? MR. ODOM: We certainly could. And we could apply that amount of money, which is around $9,100, back in, you know, reducing that portion there if we did it that way. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, he can just deal with this like we did with them all. I'll just make a motion that we authorize the Road and Bridge Department to pursue purchasing the 924 Cat loader number -- Vehicle Number 6YW00908, and work the details out with the Auditor as to the best way to accomplish this, and use the lease funds towards that purchase price. Certainly, it's far better -- that's my motion. 12-io-o~ 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 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as indicated to authorize the purchase as indicated for the loader. Question or discussion on the motion? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Discussion. Just in your conversation with Caterpillar, you might mention to them that extending the lease for one year and getting a $4,000 credit seems a little bit harsh, in my mind. And in the same tone, I think we may want to start looking at, taking into consideration on future bidding for this large equipment, the leases of them. Caterpillar leases are not real favorable sometimes. I mean, I think John Deere has a much better lease-purchase program. You may -- you know, it may be a consideration in the future on some of these. MR. ODOM: I looked at John Deere, but my problem runs when you start running the smaller maintainers, you don't hit the 20,000 mark. You'll hit up above 24,000, 30,000. Then you'll hit 15 and 17, and there's not this niche. But I certainly have been considering John Deere. That yellow paint is getting more and more expensive. And, you know, if they don't want to lease something at 116,000 residual, they'll go out and they'll make themselves $40,000 or $50,000 by selling that 12H, which is fine. But to meet my purposes, I believe that we're better off -- that's the reason I say we can take the 924, 'cause I couldn't -- you iz-io-o~ 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 can't find one that -- with 1,100 hours on it for that kind of price. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Anyway, and then you'll come back to us on the other item? MR. ODOM: Yes, sir, come back later on. Just give me a little bit of time. But I wanted -- January is the -- I have to make the decision on that loader. JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion, indicate by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Thank you, Mr. Odom. And you'll be back next month on the -- on your loader issue? MR. ODOM: Maintainer. JUDGE TINLEY: Excuse me, maintainer. MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's go to Item 10, if we might; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action for concept plan of Camp Verde Store located in Precinct 2. Mr. Odom? MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. Camp Verde Store has purchased the adjacent lot for 2.01 acres, and wishes to plat la-io-o~ 44 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 it as one piece of property. This will make a 3.42-acre commercial tract. And so, under commercial, I'm bringing it to the Court. I don't see a problem. I think this -- there was a problem of the way they originally conceived this, and they've corrected this, and I think that it is appropriate. But, then again, it is commercial, and I bring that before the Court as far as being able to combine these into one lot. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Let me give a little history. I've been involved with this one; it's a bit of a confusing situation. The whole parcel was originally one tract. It was an illegal subdivision split, and the store kind of was carved out by itself, and the cemetery for the Walters family was kind of held by the Walters family. The store then needed to upgrade the septic, and they didn't have enough -- they're putting in an aerobic one, but regardless of the type of system, they didn't have enough land; they couldn't put it in. They were kind of -- their hands were tied. Nothing they could do to put in a legal septic system on the tract that they bought. And meanwhile -- and it was all brought to the Court, and -- or brought to Road and Bridge as an illegal subdivision by O.S.S.F. when they found it. For the last year or so, they've been working with O.S.S.F. department -- or Environmental Health Department, and also, Commissioner Williams arranged a meeting between the Walters family and the Camp Verde Store folks. They were going to -- as a 1z-io-o~ 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 solution, what they finally agreed to do was to buy the rest of the Walters property, which would give them enough property to put a system in. The issue was, does this need to be platted? They're taking what was an illegal subdivision and then going back to initial plat. If they would have bought the whole thing originally, it wouldn't have to be platted; just a piece of property they bought. But since there was an illegal subdivision in the middle is kind of how it got to us today to make a determination. Does ', it needs to be platted or not? And I -- Rex is aware of it, and I don't know -- you know, I don't have an opinion. I don't think they have a strong feeling one way or the other. They would plat it if we say so. That's kind of where it is. And then they -- you know, I guess the purchase -- the closing -- does anyone know, did the closing take place on the 7th? Does anyone know? MR. GARCIA: I never received word of that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It was set to close, the purchase, last Friday, I believe. I have no idea if it did or didn't. But the determination was, you know, what do we need to do? Because the -- Environmental Health is holding up the septic based on platting rights. Now, assuming they purchased it, that all got -- COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Should they follow the revised plat and move the lot lines if it were illegal to put 12-io-o~ 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 there to start with? COMMISSIONER LETZ: It wouldn't be revised, 'cause there's never been a plat. MR. ODOM: Metes and bounds. COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can make them plat a one-lot subdivision, or we can say it doesn't need to be platted, and Environmental Health can work with them as a -- you know, that's the -- and I think it's more for clarification to Environmental Health to know what they have to do. And if we require platting, I would recommend that we authorize ', Environmental Health to proceed with the O.S.S.F. during the II platting process. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: But they basically -- what they've done, though, is they've -- they had a -- the 1.41 acres. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And that, in itself, is a lot, right? COMMISSIONER LETZ: It wasn't originally, but it was when they bought it. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It was when they bought it, because that was an illegal deal. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, an illegal subdivision. And I think the -- Rex has been involved with this for some time, and I got involved with it as well. One of the issues iz-io-o~ 47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 was this was not -- you know, we were holding their feet to the fire on the platting originally, because these weren't uninformed buyers and sellers here originally. I mean, certainly, the Walters family is aware of platting requirements, and the purchaser was using a large law firm out of Houston; they should have been aware, so we said, "Y'all are going to plat this." But then when they bought it, the County comes up with -- COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So what are you suggesting we do? I mean, it's going to -- you just said -- well, you own three -- two lots; now you're going to be crossing lot lines. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think that I would -- my recommendation would probably be to make them plat it, just to clean up -- clean it all up. And then -- COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Make it all one lot. COMMISSIONER LETZ: One-lot subdivision. Plat it as a one-lot subdivision, but authorize Environmental Health Department to grant -- or give the permit for construction of a new septic system during the platting process. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. You're exactly ', right. JUDGE TINLEY: That was a motion? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, that was my motion. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We have a motion and second as indicated. Further question or discussion? All in favor is-lo-o~ 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 of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That motion does carry. It is now 10 o'clock, so we will go to the timed item. Item 6; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action for concept of revision of plat for 707 Ranch, as set forth in Volume 7, Page 347, Plat Records, and set a public hearing for the same. MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. The original plat of 707 Ranch is 16.07 acres with two lots. Mr. Carswell is dividing his 9-acre Lot 1, making it a three-lot subdivision. Each ~~ lot is over 3 acres, served by Aqua Texas Water Systems. The owner of Lot 2 is purchasing the new lot. Since all parties will be involved, I have a question to the Court. Is it necessary to set a public hearing? If so, we ask that you set it for January the 14th, 2008, at 10 a.m. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can you explain -- go over that again real quick? MR. ODOM: Sir? COMMISSIONER LETZ: My mind was on the last one. I was going -- can you say that again? MR. ODOM: We're trying to -- we're trying to find out if it's necessary to have a public hearing. We have -- i2-io-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 the subdivision involves two people. The purchaser of Lot 2 is purchasing the changed 1B, so we got the same people involved in it. Do we need to have a public hearing? COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. MR. ODOM: Good. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not under our new rules. Correct? MR. ODOM: Then we would construe this as an amended lot, then? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, this is an amended lot. MR. ODOM: Taking one and creating -- we're not removing a lot. But that was one of the questions I have. We -- we are creating a new lot. We're not just taking a lot out or changing an angle. So, it is an amended lot, then? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Wait, wait. MR. EMERSON: Wait, wait. No. MR. ODOM: I take it to be a revision. (Discussion off the record.) MR. ODOM: Is it a new lot? AUDIENCE: Yeah, a new lot. COMMISSIONER LETZ: You're right, Leonard. MR. ODOM: It's a revision? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Revision. MR. ODOM: So it will need a public hearing? We need to set that for January 14, 2008, at 10 a.m? lz-lo-o~ 50 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think so, but let me -- hold on a second. Let me find this. MR. ODOM: It's somewhat ambiguous. I've scratched my bald head a couple of times. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is that what happened? (Discussion off the record.) COMMISSIONER LETZ: Revision. Public hearing is required. MR. ODOM: Okay. Can I have a motion to -- COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I move that we -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Set a public hearing. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- set a public hearing for January -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 14. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- 14th. MR. ODOM: 2008, at 10 a.m. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: On the agenda item. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to set a public hearing on this matter for January 14th, 2008, at 10 a.m. 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.) iz-io-o~ 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 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Let's move to Item 12, to consider, discuss, and take appropriate action concerning a final revision of a plat for Lot 67 of Cypress Springs Estates, Phase 2, Section One, as set forth in Volume 7, Page 172, Plat Records, and located in Precinct 4. MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. This plat was done under the alternate plat process to correct a division of property by relatives. Mr. Holloway is giving land to his grandson, Mr. Boothby. MS. HARDIN: Wrong one. You're on the wrong one. MR. ODOM: Huh? MS. HARGIS: Twelve. MS. HYDE: Hill River. JUDGE TINLEY: No, Cypress. MR. ODOM: Huh? COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Cypress Springs. MR. ODOM: Which one? MS. HARDIN: Cypress Springs. MR. ODOM: Cypress Springs? COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's Hill River. JUDGE TINLEY: No, we're on Item 12. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Oh, he jumped to Item 12. JUDGE TINLEY: It's not 10:10. MR. ODOM: Okay. Cypress Springs at the back, is-io-o~ 52 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 okay. Well, we could have -- when Don Voelkel was here, we could have waited. Anyway, we could put that last. I'm sorry, Don, I forgot you were here. The public hearing for this revision was done in November. This revision was done under the alternate plat process. The .68 acres of land was previously unplatted, and they are adding it to Lot 67 in Cypress Springs Estates, Phase 2, Section One. At this time, we ask that you approve the plat as presented. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So moved. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of the agenda item. Question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. We'll move to Item 14; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to ratify and confirm submission of application to AACOG for Solid Waste grant to purchase two vehicles for Environmental Health and authorize a resolution in support of the same. I put this matter on the agenda at the request of Environmental Health. The deadline for submission of the grant request -- the application was last Friday. That was accomplished. The Environmental Health is asking that that application be iz-io-o~ 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 confirmed. It cannot go forward, however, without the Court passing a resolution in support of the same, which is the action before the Court today also. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I'd move that we approve the resolution and authorize Mr. Garcia to go before AACOG and get his money for his vehicles. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think that's a wonderful idea. I'll second it. JUDGE TINLEY: Does that include ratification of the submission of the application? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I expect so. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. All right, we have a motion and a second. 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 go to Item 15; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on appointing a committee to review and present recommendation to Commissioners Court on long-range facility needs of the Kerr County Jail and Law Enforcement Center. Commissioner I Letz? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I put this on the agenda. We talked about this once before. Sheriff was here a minute is-io-o~ 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 ago. But the Sheriff and I worked this up together. I really -- today I don't think we need to appoint the committee. This is -- I put it on the agenda really more to make sure everyone is in agreement, if there's any addition to the charge of the committee, and just put everyone -- you know, I'll put it on our first meeting in January to come up with -- each of us to nominate someone for the committee or bring up a name. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, Commissioner, I think some of those fellows on that original committee that built the original jail are still around. Would you like to just kind of renew their -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. But I -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know what the hesitancy is about. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- and I think this is going to be somewhat of a time-consuming job. And -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think it's going to be -- two things that I think we all just need to kind of think i about, and maybe select, one, someone who'll put the time time in, 'cause I think it's important, and I think it's something that you need to look at, and also I would hope we could come up with a diverse group from different backgrounds, and from different -- not all retirees; I'll say i2-io-o~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 I3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 55 that. Because I think that you have different perspectives of different -- you know, depending on what you're doing. And I think that, you know, I certainly -- and retirees are a great resource, and I think we need to have some on here, hopefully, but I think we'd like to get some other people that are more in the workforce, so to speak, right now. I think that's another good thing, to get a different breadth of people on this committee. The Sheriff will not be on the committee; he will not be appointing anybody. He will be an advisory person to -- kind of a resource to them. JUDGE TINLEY: He won't -- he won't be -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not a vote. JUDGE TINLEY: And he won't be able to say anything don't think that it would ever be possible to keep the Sheriff muzzled, but he will be mostly serving as a resource to the committee, not trying to drive the school bus. But the -- anyway, this is the idea we came up with. We want them to look at lots of things, including -- I know Commissioner Baldwin has brought up looking at the possibility of housing them in tents and things of that nature. That is included in here under the jail standards portion. We -- I actually talked about that in our meeting the other day. It is possible to, although I'm not sure is-io-o~ 56 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 I4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 it'll save much money because of all of the requirements we have to -- things we have to put in the tent to make it meet the jail standards requirements. But I think it's something certainly to look at. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, you know, there are some folks here in the county that are really interested in that, and we can sit here and talk about it all day long and never really get an answer to those folks. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And hopefully when we get to that part of it, we can have Adan or somebody from his place to come down here and make a presentation in a workshop-type setting, and say, "You can do this and you cannot do that." Let's get on down the road. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Could get Sheriff Joe from Arizona to come down and make a presentation. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, anyway -- COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Bring some of his uniforms I with him. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The purpose today is to put it on the agenda so everyone can be thinking about it, talking about it. Hopefully on January -- first meeting in January, we'll actually make the appointments to it. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Super exciting. COMMISSIONER LETZ: If anybody has any changes or i2-io-o~ 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 additions, we can certainly make that at the same time. That's it. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, thank you. Anything further on that particular agenda item? COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Let's go to our timed 10:10 item, if we might. That's Item 7, to consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on final revision of plat for Hill Country -- excuse me, Hill River Country Estates, as set forth in Volume 2, Page 118 and 119 of the Plat Records, and located in Precinct 2. Okay. We're ready to go on Hill River Country Estates, -- MR. ODOM: All right, thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: -- Mr. Odom. MR. ODOM: The plat was done under the alternate plat process to correct a division of property by relatives. Mr. Holloway is giving the land to his grandson, Mr. Boothby, who you met back in September, when the Court allowed Mr. Boothby to install and operate the O.S.S.F. while the platting process could be completed. The process is now complete. However, the Boothbys do not have money for the filing fees at this time. The surveyor has donated his time and paid the Environmental Health fees. At this time, we ask the Court to consider waiving the county fees and approve the plat as -- as presented. As of this morning, I -- Truby lz-io-o~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 58 O.S.S.F., with the wording on the plat, because it does not comply with the state standards. Ray's here, and I want to turn it over to him. But as far as the plat is concerned, to my knowledge, this is ready to go, with the exception maybe of the wording that O.S.S.F. has as far as signing off on it. MR. GARCIA: Although the situation is improving here, the plat doesn't meet the current state standards for the Court give some guidance on how we can change the wording on that, or possibly just grant a variance for that. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What's the wording that you have a problem with? MR. GARCIA: On the O.S.S.F. wording? It's just -- it doesn't meet standards, so we were just asking that the Court give some guidance. MS. HARDIN: The smaller lots where Mr. Holloway sold land to existing lots, those existing lots were so small that even when they purchased this land from him, they're too small for state standards. So, it's improved the subdivision of those lots as a whole, but they still don't meet the state standards. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask a question. Let iZ-io-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 young man that had been to Iraq or -- MS. HARDIN: Yes. MR. ODOM: Yes. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And he's there, isn't he? Back of the room right there. Welcome home. MR. BOOTHBY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It seemed to me -- or maybe my memory is not as good as it used to be -- no comment. But it seemed -- I remember us saying that we were going to do everything that we could to see that this young man's needs were met. Now, I don't know why we're bogging down over some words here. I'm not sure why we're doing that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I suspect it's only because we can give a variance of this type. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And the variance is available here, even though it's outside the state rules and all of that, huh? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I mean, there was -- these lots were smaller. I mean, they're lots. They can build a house on them; nothing in state law prohibits them from being able to construct on them. They did a revision, and they're still small, so I'd say yes. And I'll make a motion that we grant a variance on the lot size for the -- I'm thinking -- I got to think about what we just did in our newest rules. This is a -- this was done prior to our new iz-io-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 rules being in place. I'll make a motion that we grant a variance on the lot size, or the O.S.S.F. requirements related to lot size. MR. ODOM: And that you would waive the fees? COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that we'll waive plating fees. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes. Second. MS. HARDIN: County fees. The county fees. COMMISSIONER LETZ: County platting fees. JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and a second as indicated. 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 now to Item 13; consider, discuss, formulate and adopt Kerr County's official position regarding the utilization of the Kerr County Airport Authority created under House Bill 956, and approved by the voters of Kerr County on May 22nd, 1970, and forward same to Texas Attorney General, Greg Abbott, and appropriate action as may be required. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, can I ask you to defer this one, to pass on it till after the break? II JUDGE TINLEY: Sure. i2-io-o~ 61 1 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: The reason is, Commissioner Williams asked me to present this. I want to look at some of his backup in a little more detail. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, not a problem. I assume that no member of the Court has any problem? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: None. JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move to Item 16; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on reviewing current burn ban implementation and notification procedures, exemptions for prescribed burn during a burn ban, and web site revisions related to the burn ban. Commissioner Letz. COMMISSIONER LETZ: You're not giving me time to regroup at all over here, are you? JUDGE TINLEY: No. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I put this on the agenda. I think our administrative assistant, Jody, gave us what her current procedures are as well this morning. First thing, on the notification process, it seems to me that most of what she is doing and the calls can be -- this can all be handled just by one e-mail going out to everybody. And I think everyone is -- I mean, by looking at your list, if we could get the volunteer fire departments, that would even be better, but -- you know, 'cause I don't think dispatch will tone them out. That would go -- but I think we just need to add all we can to our distribution and just have one e-mail iz-lo-o~ 62 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 sent out through your office. That's the -- to me, the easiest way to make sure everyone is informed. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. l COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do you have -- COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I don't have any -- I can't see anything wrong with that. I still feel -- there's some -- there are some of my volunteer fire departments that don't have a person in the building, or their computer is at the fire station; there's nobody there to read it, so I still call them. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's -- I take that responsibility to do that myself, and try to do that as soon as we do it one way or the other, so they know immediately where the fire -- the burn barn stands. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: Can the -- 911 has the ability to text message -- do a tone out and a text message to the volunteer firemen; is that not correct? COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think they do. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, through the pager system. JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm, that's what I'm speaking of. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That would be wonderful if they'd do that. Then everybody -- all the firefighters that i2-io-o~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 63 have the radios will be notified. They can -- SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I know they used to do that, Commissioner, but after the director changed at 911, I don't know if they do it any more. There may have been some technicalities in there or something where they thought they shouldn't. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think they do, because he's always whining about having to pay for it. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So it would seem to me that they do it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, that answered my question, that it's Mr. Amerine's office. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. JUDGE TINLEY: What I'm suggesting is if -- if they have that capability, and I believe they do, that when the burn ban notification, either the placement of the burn ban or lifting of the burn ban, goes to 911, that e-mail could include a request that all volunteer fire departments serving that particular area for which the notification is given do a tone-out and text message to the volunteer fire department members in that area. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I like that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that's good. Now, the only other part is weekends, which it seems that we tend to 12-io-o~ 64 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 I2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 get a -- rains always begin on Saturdays and Sundays, it seems. And, you know, what I've always done myself is I've always called the Sheriff's Department, and that was it. I think that the -- you know, I think it would be a good policy probably to call the Sheriff, K.P.D. dispatch, and our e-mail Mr. Trolinger. More work for us, but -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: E-mail Trolinger? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I would not e-mail -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He enjoys those phone calls in the morning. I call him early in the morning. -- if Jody can give us the phone numbers. Only one I don't have is K.P.D. dispatch. But that's, during the weekends, a good -- if you do lift it during the weekend, so that at least these people are notified. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You know, it doesn't -- like, if we -- if we were to call -- let's say we call Bill Amerine and say, "Mr. Amerine, burn ban's on in my precinct. Would you notify -- make sure that the fire chiefs are notified?" By the process that you outlined, he would call the -- the police department and do it. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, PSAP dispatch center. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So our phone call to the 12-10-07 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 would -- I would hope. You understand what I'm saying? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. I just -- I mean, I understand, but I just -- you know, I don't -- being an entity that we have no direct tie over, being K.P.D., and it's -- I mean, I'm not going to speak for what that group's going to do. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do or not do. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But in a perfect world -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: In a perfect world, they could do it. But I don't know, so I just tend to -- I always call the Sheriff and I'll start calling K.P.D. and our volunteer fire departments as well during the weekends, but I think if we can -- you know, the main thing is to get the information out to key people, what the burn ban -- what we're doing with it. The other part of the agenda item that I -- or two other items. One -- I wish Mr. Trolinger was here -- is related to the web site. Currently, we have information on there that just says at the very top of our -- it says "Burn Ban in effect" or "not in effect," and call the number. I think it would be really helpful to put in there, one, a precinct map color-coded, with streets on it, and I've asked him to prepare that for us. I think it would be very helpful to have it on the web site for lots of reasons, but I think burn ban is one that comes to mind quickly, so people know exactly is-io-o~ 66 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 where they live, which precinct, 'cause a lot of them just don't know that, or where their properties are. The other thing is, the fact that we lift -- whether we're in a burn ban or not in a burn ban state, the law still has requirements as to outdoor burning, and I think that we should at least reference that, and some of the those key provisions related to wind and temperature and humidity. I think we should summarize a couple of those key points and let the public -- just because we, you know, lift the burn ban doesn't mean they can go out and burn in a north wind. It's against the law, and if they break the law, I expect the Sheriff to cite them for it, whether we have a burn ban on or not. And that would -- generally, that's the reason we have fires. You know, at times forecasts are wrong and things happen. That's understandable. We're never going to get rid of them, but -- Mr. Trolinger's here. John, do you know where we are on our precinct map, color-coded, that we can zoom in on with streets? MR. TROLINGER: I have asked the 911 Commission for their electronic maps, since we had a problem scanning the paper copy, and I have not received that yet, but I think we'll be posting an electronic version soon, hopefully by the end of this month. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Well, the other item was, I think we need to add a little bit more information. iZ-io-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 I'll be glad to get with you about what we just talked about, about some state law requirements on burning outdoors, so that it's not just a blanket burn ban on, burn ban off, so that people are on notice that there are other laws that are always in effect related to outdoor burning. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I tell you, the big question that is always asked me is about barrels and burn pits and grates over the top of them and those kinds of things. And I think there is some leeway in the law there. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's the law. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It talks about the grate being certain sizes and that kind of stuff. But it would be kind of -- I get that phone call more than I do wind velocity and all that kind of thing, so I think adding that kind of information would be -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can put a link to that exact section of the state statute related to it. That's probably the easiest thing. JUDGE TINLEY: That's the household exemption to the burn ban? Is that what you're talking about? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It may be. JUDGE TINLEY: If they're burning in a barrel, if they got it covered and all that. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure may be. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And then the -- the last item iz-lo-o~ 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 addressed in this is related to prescribed burns when burn bans are in place in recent years. I think -- yeah, we have always -- if someone has a burn plan that has been approved by the NRCS office, they can burn during the burn ban as long as they're following the requirements that they set forth in their plan. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Has there been prescribed burning going on? COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Not yet. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not yet, but it usually starts -- well, as soon as we get a hard freeze, it will start. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I know. I saw on TV the other day, just out west of here they're burning, about the last two weeks, I guess. Conditions are all perfect out there. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And it's -- you know, and usually -- it may have been cold enough out in the western part of the county. In the eastern part of the county, we still have quite a bit of green, but you could start them. Now is the time that they usually do start them, middle of December through basically the end of February. And I would, again, recommend that -- you know, that we do that. I'll make a motion that -- or include that in my motion, that we allow prescribed burns during a burn ban. It does a lot of iz-io-o~ 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 good. There is risk; they can get out of control. They did last year, a pretty good-sized one just north of Whiskey Canyon, I believe. But, you know, I think the -- the benefit outweighs the risk, in my opinion, of allowing those prescribed burns. And there is a -- I don't know if the courts really bear much -- there is now a Hill Country chapter of the prescribed burning association -- anyway, the '~ association that -- the group that does meet and do all this. And I think -- so I think a lot of people -- there are a lot of people that are more educated, and there's much more of a network of people and resources, you know, to do this properly. So, with that, I'll probably do -- I'll make a motion that we authorize the same prescribed burn procedures that we've authorized previously, and delegate that to the MRCS office, so if someone has a prescribed burn plan filed with them that they've approved, that they can -- people can burn during burn bans. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: What is MRCS? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Soil Conservation. Joe Franklin's group over there. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as indicated. Further question or discussion on that motion? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I just wanted to make iz-io-o~ 70 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 a comment. It's kind of related to it. You know, I saw in the news this morning that former Vice President Al Gore is on his way to receive his award for his work on global warming. Is -- what was that award that he's getting today? MS. VAN WINKLE: Nobel peace prize. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Nobel peace prize today. It just happened to be the same day that about half of our country is socked in with freezing rain and airplanes can't fly, and I just thought that was kind of interesting. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. If I figure out how to connect those up there in an hour or two, I'll let you know. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, no problem. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any other question or discussion on the motion? All in favor of motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, and on that item, I'll -- do we need a motion or just a direction? I'll be glad to work with Mr. Trolinger on getting the additional language related to the burning on the web site, and Jody related to the other issues we discussed. I don't think we need a motion on those, really, but I'll -- it's up to you. i2-io-o~ 71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 I2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE TINLEY: I don't know that we need -- I think the direction is adequate, that we all want to improve the dissemination of that information and the additional information to the people that know where they are. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll go ahead and get with him on that. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. It's not quite 10:30, so we'll quickly take up Item 17; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to rescind all prior Commissioners Court orders authorizing individual department or official cell phone contracts. This was placed on the agenda as a follow-up to the official plan that was authorized for the issuance of cell phones under one master contract. Excluding, of course, Sheriff's Department and law enforcement personnel. This is kind of a cleanup -- follow-up there. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of the agenda item. Question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. It is now is-io-o~ 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 10:30, so we will take up that particular item, Item 11. Consider, discuss, and take appropriate action concerning a concept for revision of plat for Solar Village, Lots 14, 15, 16, and 17, and set a public hearing for the same. Mr. Odom? MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. There are two homes on four ~I I', lots. Mr. Morgan owns Lots 14, 15, and 16. House on Lot 17 encroaches on Lot 16. Therefore, the owners wish to revise the plat under the alternate plat process and make two lots out of four. Lot 15B will be 2.64 acres, and Lot 17 will remain at 1.18 acres, and both lots are served by a private water system. If a public hearing is required, we would like '~ to set it for January the 14th, 2008, at 10:05 a.m. I have a question whether it's called amended or whether it's called revision. I -- this one's a good question. It -- it is changing the plat, but we're changing a lot line between two owners, not changing the size of the lots. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Neither one of them is changing the size? MR. ODOM: Neither one of them; the same size. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, good. MR. ODOM: But the lines have skewed different. They've balanced out the same acreage on both lots, and trying to make it where the individual who built his house over on another man's property -- try to resolve that issue. Now, that would seem to be an amendment, but not quite sure. iz-io-o~ 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 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- as I read the new state law that we've adopted, if we're correcting an error, basically, or if there's a -- correcting something, it becomes an amendment, which doesn't require a public hearing. If we're doing something other than correcting something, then it's a revision. JUDGE TINLEY: You are more than correct, in my opinion. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think this is a revision. ~i MR. ODOM: Revision. All right. Then I would like ~ to set a public hearing for January the 14th, 2008, at ~I 10:05 a.m. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And -- and all we're doing is setting a public hearing? MR. ODOM: That's correct. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And -- MR. ODOM: Basically letting y'all look at this concept right here to see if there's any problem. I don't see it, if the lines are -- are such to eliminate the problem. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's go back and talk about the correcting and -- as opposed to what, again? COMMISSIONER LETZ: If you're changing a lot or a subdivision -- making a subdivision requires a revision. If iZ-io-o~ 74 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 you're correcting -- and the language that they use is -- I'll just read the first couple of them -- to correct an error in the course or distance shown on the preceding plat; to add a course or distance that was omitted; to correct an error in the real property description. Those types of things do not require a public hearing under the new state law. But if you're changing -- if you're revising a lot for any other reason other than a correction, it does require a new public hearing. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I guess -- I guess my problem with all that is -- is the definition of "correction." Correction of error. Just the first glance at this thing, it appears to me that this is an error, you know? And we're correcting -- or we're asked to help correct that error. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I -- I think you're -- it's a valid point. I think it's a judgment call, and we could -- I think this one could go either way. I think the reason is, this is a pretty large correction here. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And it really wasn't an omission or anything. It was -- something wasn't done right. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just a mistake somebody made back down the line. COMMISSIONER LETZ: When they built the house in i2-lo-0~ 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 the wrong place. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. But the house builder, the encroacher, is -- the amount of property is not changing, and the other party's property -- amount of property is not changing. It's just a line. Now, is there any -- is there any cost to the property owners to have this public hearing? MR. ODOM: Well, it would be the cost of the revision of the surveyor. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, that's going to be regardless. MR. ODOM: Yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think it costs the property owners any more money, because, unfortunately, the County has to pay for the publication of the notice. It's a delay, but it's no additional cost. JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner, I think all of the information on the original plat was probably correct, so we're not correcting information on a plat. There was an error, but the error didn't occur in the platting process. It occurred when the improvements were placed upon the property. And they were incorrectly placed on the property, didn't comply with the setback and on the right lot and so forth. So, we're moving lot lines, is what we're doing. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with you. iz-io-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 JUDGE TINLEY: That would be a revision. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see exactly what you're saying. These folks just happen to be my constituents. I just want to make sure that we're saying -- saying the right thing here. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- you know, your discussion, I mean, it could fall under Item 6, -- I'll just read it -- to correct an error in course and distance of lot lines between two adjacent lots if both lot owners join in the application for amending the plat, neither lot is abolished, the amendment does not attempt to remove recorded covenants or restrictions. I think it does meet that, but it's a -- you know, I would tend to think like the Judge, probably. I would go with -- that it's more a revision, because it's pretty significant. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's not an error. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But, you know, if the answer to the thing is -- is to do what the engineer is recommending to do here, if that's the answer and there's no more cost, then, you know, let's get on down the road. And I'd like to make that motion. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and a second for the public hearing as indicated for January 14th, '08. is-io-o~ 77 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: At what time? JUDGE TINLEY: 10:05 a.m. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 10:05. MR. ODOM: 10:05. JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or discussion on the motion? All in favor of that motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Let's take about a 15-minute recess. (Recess taken from 10:37 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.) JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to order, if we might. What I'd like to do while it's in front of me at this point is go back to Item 4; open bids received for digital video recording system for the Juvenile Detention Facility and award appropriate bid. I've had returned to me the bid that we received from Guardian Security Solutions. It has been reviewed by Mr. Trolinger and Mr. Stanton, and they both indicate that the bid as submitted meets all specifications of the request for proposal. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I make a motion that we award the contract to Guardian, subject to the County lz-lo-o~ 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 Attorney's review of the contract when it's submitted. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as indicated. Question or discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Let me see. Are you ready to proceed with Item 13? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, I'll call Item 13. Consider, discuss, formulate, and adopt Kerr County's official position regarding the utilization the Kerr County Airport Authority created under House Bill 956, and approved by the voters of Kerr County May 22nd, 1970, and forward the same to Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, and appropriate action as may be required. Commissioner Williams originally placed this on the agenda. He and Commissioner Letz deal primarily with the airport matters as liaisons, so I'll shift it over to Commissioner Letz. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think Commissioner Williams put a fair amount of information in the backup related to I! historical footnotes and airport authority law and things of that nature, which are, I think, certainly relevant. And he iz-lo-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 79 and I were working on a position statement from the Court. I think everyone was furnished this morning a draft copy that Commissioner Williams started, and then I did most of the work on. It has some blanks in it; a couple pages long, and the -- the gist of the, you know, response that we're drafting -- I'll just read the first paragraph. Fundamental question concerning the Kerr County Airport Authority is, how can the express will of the people of Kerr County that voted for an airport authority be negated by failure of governmental entities to follow through with administrative duties called for by the election? That's kind of the summary of it. Basically, the voters voted for it. The City Council and Commissioners Court didn't follow through with some appointments to that board, and it never -- nothing has ever happened since then. the voters to vote on something and then ignore it. I just think it's a real slippery slope for any governmental entity to follow. So, the response is, that's the basic issue. The issue was brought to the voters in 1970 because of governance problems and governance issues. Those governance issues continue today. That's kind of the nature of the response, the direction I'm working on. Certainly, it's not in final iz-lo-o~ 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 form. I think this is something I think the full Court needs to sign off on. This is a pretty important position statement, and we'll bring that back to the Court at our next meeting, possibly the first meeting in January, depending on what the agenda looks like and where we are on the response. I know that there is a -- certainly, a time issue in getting a response back to the Attorney General. That's why I may bring it back on the second meeting of this month. I know the Airport Board is considering it tonight, or this afternoon at their meeting. And in the backup material, there is the response that came through Mike Hayes from the City of Kerrville. The thing of most concern in that to me wasn't their response as much as it was his last sentence, saying they weren't going to really address airport governance until after the Attorney General opinion, which could be six months from now, which is a real concern to me, because the Airport Board has, many times in the past couple months, expressed a real concern with continuing at the current framework. Another thing that there is a -- one that Commissioner Williams wanted me to bring up, he attended an item on the City Council agenda two weeks ago, about, and there's a copy of the transcript that went in the -- in our backup material between his communications, what he said, and he was representing himself, not the Court. But there's an interesting exchange between him and the mayor. iz-io-o~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 81 Another interesting point of that is the City chose session. I personally have a problem with that from, one, a philosophical issue; I think these should be public discussions, but secondly, I'm not sure how they could get there. But that's an issue between the City Attorney and City Council, not us. Maybe the Attorney General at some point. But that's kind of where all of this is. The City took no action on appointing anyone to work with Commissioners Court to work on the governance issue at that meeting two weeks ago. That's kind of where we are. Just an update. And I'm sure it will be on our next agenda again. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, the good people of Kerr County voted for an airport authority in 1970, and it appears here that Commissioners Court canvassed the votes and adopted and accepted and approved, and all those things. I'm just wondering if -- is there a possibility somewhere in the law that there is some kind of limitation -- statute of limitation type thing, if -- even though the voters approved something, that if it's not put in place in 12 years, that it's defunct, no longer -- lack of interest -- MR. EMERSON: Would you like a comment? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd like an answer to that MR. EMERSON: There is no statute of limitations in lz-io-o~ 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 broad general terms that I'm aware of. I talked to the -- the Legislative Archive Library; they did some research. They did not find any statutes rescinding the original statute creating the authority. And because of the language in the original authority where it says that the board shall be populated within 10 days, that's one of the reasons we went to the Attorney General's office to determine if, 37 years later, we could populate a board that was supposed to have been done in 10 days. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, that's kind of my question. But, see, I just think that -- you know, and you may not like what an airport authority is. I don't know. I'm not sure. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Bad things, in my mind. But I -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I do too; I question some of that stuff. And I'm wondering -- let's say that the Attorney General says, you know, you guys are right. You need -- the people voted, and you need to have that airport authority. Now, does -- would we come under the airport authority rules of that day? I'm sure they've changed; surely some of this stuff's changed. Or would it come under the present rules, whatever they might be? But I think the important thing is, whether you like an authority or not, or you like me or not, the people of this county voted -- spoke on an issue, and end iz-io-o~ 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 '~ of conversation, as far as I'm concerned. JUDGE TINLEY: The focus should be the fact that there was a governance issue back in '70, and I was there. And I was -- I specifically -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How old were you then? JUDGE TINLEY: Considerably younger, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see. JUDGE TINLEY: And as Commissioner Letz said, some of the governance issues that seem to exist now were also similar ones that existed then, and -- and it was for that reason that that whole matter came up. And the important thing is -- is that the public made an expression of intent that there be an independent entity that would control the operation of that airport. And whether it's an authority, something that comes into being by virtue of an interlocal agreement between the two owning entities, I think the important point is that the public made their expression of intent that it, in fact, be an independent entity, governed by a board that is separate and apart from the governing commissions or councils of the governments that owned it, and I think that's what needs to be paid attention to. Whether you do it by virtue of the language that created that authority, with all of the particulars in there that specified the number of directors and what their qualifications are, and the meetings, and what their -- what i2-io-o~ 84 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 their responsibilities were and their limitations, whether you do it that way or some other way, I think you still need to end up at the end of the line where it's an independent entity that is controlling that airport. And, you know, I -- apparently, the City is not going to put anybody on a committee to even consider the governance issues out there. I forwarded the request that the Court suggested, and probably have not had sufficient time to receive a response, but based on the information contained in the City Attorney's ~ letter, I'm not sure we'll get one. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that's a problem. I mean, I kind of share the outcome with the Judge here. I mean, I don't -- in many ways, it may be better not to have the authority there, but I think that's irrelevant here. I think what you said is true; the voters voted for it. I think the -- the way to get down the road on the airport is through an independent board, whether it's an airport authority or whether we -- City/County jointly come up with a governance arrangement that allows for an independent entity out there. I mean, how we get there doesn't make any difference, but clearly, the voters wanted this in 1970. They voted for it. And this wasn't a real close election -- I mean, a real small election. There was several thousand people that voted. It was a -- for that time, it was a pretty large election -- a large turnout in an election, i2-lo-0~ 85 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 which also shows that this was an important issue to the public and the citizens of Kerr County. So -- and at the time, it would have had the full backing of the Commissioners But I think, you know, another thing I just wanted to really bring up is, when -- and I think it's true. When Rex requested the opinion, I don't think we -- the Court or Rex took a position that it was valid or not valid, per se, but it needs to be resolved and answered. This thing has been lingering there for, it appears by the long-term record, 37 years, and it was brought up all of sudden when some things happened by some ordinances, plats by the City in the county, which clearly was done to get rid of this. Then we did the governance agreement not too long ago that, you know, had some other problems, and this was discussed then. And I think it was based on the City Council -- or the City Attorney's view at that time that, oh, that this was a -- the airport authority doesn't exist. Well, you know, after we started looking at it, I'm not so sure that it doesn't exist. That's why the request went to the Attorney General to give us a third-party independent opinion, is -- should we go down that road, or should we go down another road? And I think the end result can be the same, virtually, either way, but I iz-io-o~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 86 think we need to get this resolved and finalized one time, once and for all. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Taking -- taking a stand that we're not going to deal with governance until we hear from the Attorney General, that's an irresponsible place to be, in my opinion. You know, we're talking about -- talking about a major -- or fastly becoming a major part of government, period. City and county government in Kerr ~, County. And, you know, all the plans and the things that -- dreams and hopes that people have for that property out there, and kind of -- it's kind of a -- I don't know what you call that, but it -- I think it's irresponsible. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And an interesting point is, Commissioner Williams visited with John Mosty, who was on City Council at the time, and his recollection was -- his recollection was that this was at the end of his term. If you look at the dates, the election took place May 22nd; it was right about the same time City Council elections took place, and some action was done on some appointments just prior to that that were kind of temporary appointments, or to an advisory status, and then their election took place, City Council changed hands, and all of a sudden, nothing happened. You know, who knows why nothing happened? I think the -- the finger can be pointed at both the City Council at the time and the Commissioners Court at the time. I mean, it wasn't i2-lo-0~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 87 like -- you know, who knows? But, Mr. Mosty has no real recollection as to what happened. I don't know if Bill talked to any other of the City Councilmen at the time, but the people that were appointed to the temporary board were prominent citizens. It appears to me, if you look at the record, that those temporary appointments were intended to be the long-term appointments. They weren't just, you know, average Joe Blow. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You had Tuffy Cowden. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yep. Earl Garrett. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Earl Garrett. And four or five -- if I remember correctly, four or five of those guys that are that caliber, that have held this county together for a long, long, long time. And some of them are still out there -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, holding it together. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- holding it together. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. That's why I -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with you. It -- yeah, I saw that list of names, and that's not a short-term group at all. That's a long-term group. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, anyway, so I'm looking forward to getting an opinion, and we'll have a formal position that I think the whole Court should sign off on; hopefully, we'll all be in agreement. iZ-io-o~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 88 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Looks to me like if the City didn't want to go along with doing it the way they set it up to do it, they ought to try to undo it by an election of I voters. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure. Fix it so we can get down the road. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: If you don't want it, then let's vote. The voters need to be the ones to change it; they're the ones that put it in, and they need to initiate this. MR. EMERSON: Just one brief comment on that. The existing statute that set up that authority doesn't have any provisions in it to undo the authority. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Oh. Once it's established, it's there. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. And it is -- it just isn't something that was a whim. The Legislature passed a specific bill to do this. I mean, it's pretty serious, in my mind. So, anyway, I'm looking forward to getting a response from the Attorney General, and put it back on our agenda. That's it. JUDGE TINLEY: Is that it for Item 13? Let's move on to Item 18, to approve the assessment as a result of Texas State Comptroller's audit, and authorize payment of the assessed amount. Ms. Hargis? is-io-o~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 89 MS. HARGIS: I don't have the exact amount in front of me, Judge. Do you have it? It's around 11,000. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 11,930.04. MS. HARGIS: Right. Half of it was -- came out of the District Clerk's Office for coding things, that -- to a line item that shouldn't have been coded to that, and splitting. Another half of it was in the J.P. area, where it was a child safety belt situation, where we were supposed to do a 50/50 split, and it wasn't clear, and the software didn't work properly. And so it didn't -- most of it was more or less a software situation, and those have been corrected. And I think that was also prior to Odyssey. And we -- when we checked, that goes back to 2000 -- actually, 2004 and '5. In 2006 and '7, you can see that it cleared up. So, we are trying to keep on top of all those things so that we manage not to do that. And a few little minor errors other than that, but that was the bulk of it. That was about $9,000 of the eleven. But he shared all of his findings with me, and all along the way, and -- and he is correct in what he did. JUDGE TINLEY: And these are -- these are amounts that we just failed to collect? MS. HARGIS: We collected them, but we didn't share properly with the State of Texas. JUDGE TINLEY: We did collect it. i2-io-o~ 90 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. HARGIS: Okay? We collected -- for instance, on the seat belt, it was a $100 fine. We were supposed to give $50 to the State and keep 50. We kept 100. JUDGE TINLEY: And the records clearly indicate that we kept the 100? MS. HARGIS: Yes. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. ', COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And the same with the EMS trauma fund? MS. HARGIS: We kept all of that. We weren't breaking that out as well. JUDGE TINLEY: So, we had their money for some time. MS. HARGIS: Yes. And then we did have a couple of reports which were not timely submitted, and that's something we really need to be very careful of. He was more adamant about that point than anything else, because they can actually take away the 10 percent they give us if we don't do a report on time, and fine us on top of that. So, we need to be sure that we get these records in on time. JUDGE TINLEY: Were those records from various offices? Or -- or -- MS. HARGIS: It was various offices. Two different offices, you know, didn't necessarily get the report in on time, and then they didn't get it submitted on time. So I lz-io-o~ 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 can't, right off the top of my head, recall which department that was, and I'm sure there was a reason at the time. This has been going on since July, so bear with me. But, you know, he just said that is something that -- that the State just frowns on. They -- they're more -- I mean, the other things that he found were really, you know, just software. So, if we could authorize to pay that, and we don't have a budgeted item for that. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So what do you recommend? Where do we find it? Take it out of the Sheriff's salary or what? MS. HARGIS: Well, we'll take it out of contingency funds for right now, and then we'll have to probably look at raising our contingency amount, maybe in January-February, 'cause we're going to use -- we didn't put very much in there this year. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion that we authorize payment of 11,000 -- 11,000, right? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: $11,930.04 to the State Comptroller, with funds to come out of the contingency fund -- Nondepartmental Contingency fund. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and a second. Question or discussion on the motion? iz-io-o~ 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 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just a question. Do we have a -- a mechanism in place that we, being the big "we," the County, know what reports are due when, and who's responsible for filing them, so we can -- I mean, it seems that we're can cause some huge consequences to the taxpayers, everything from the I.R.S. to the Comptroller, and who knows who else? MS. HARGIS: I hate to make a blanket statement, probably something that we need to address in our internal control. I'm still not totally aware of all the reports that we need to address, so we're trying in our audit to go around and - - when I finish it, to make sure that those reports get done on time. I'm also trying to assist those deputies that are having trouble balancing, perhaps to get -- part of it is a balancing problem. They -- each department has their own funds that come into their checking account, and then they balance, and then they take the money to the Treasurer's office, and then those reports are generated. And they've had a great deal of difficulty in the software making their reports balance, and so we -- the District Clerk's Office is being audited now, and we're trying to help them with some iz-io-o~ 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 software patches, so to speak, or some different types of software that's free so that they can do these things in a little more expedient manner. We also probably need to -- he and myself, and maybe John, and meet with Odyssey and say, "These are the problems," that we need them addressed. 'Cause, unfortunately, we haven't had anybody to directly -- who understands the accounting side of it, to talk with them but ever since I've been here, I know every month some of the departments have trouble balancing. So, you know, in addition to the deadlines, you know, they can't -- they don't want to give you a report that's incorrect, and so that's what they're having a problem with. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that -- I mean, sounds like we're going down the right trail. We just need to make sure that we get -- and either, it seems, is a logical spot, whether your office or the Treasurer's office, 'cause money usually goes with these, and they're -- they're usually on a regular basis. We set up a system that if we don't have a check cut by a week before these things are due, someone iZ-io-o~ 94 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 needs to be saying: Hey, where's the report? Where's the funds?" MS. HARGIS: Mindy and I can work together on those, too. I have ticklers set up on mine, and I think she probably does as well, but I just don't want to make a blanket statement to that effect. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You can look at these different funds here and -- and basically tell where they -- what office they're generated out of and that kind of thing. But this EMS trauma fund, what -- I can't imagine where in this courthouse a -- MS. HARGIS: In the County Clerk's office. And I've forgotten where the fine is -- it's associated to a fine, an additional fine. If you -- and I don't know what the original fine is, but if you do one thing, then you have to pay this. And -- and Jannett's not here, and she probably could tell us. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. MS. HARGIS: I mean, it's a fine. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I guess it's based on half of the ambulance that we own. JUDGE TINLEY: Could be. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I bet it is. JUDGE TINLEY: My recollection, Commissioner, is that it's in connection with D.W.I. cases, where a certain i2-io-o~ 95 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 portion of a cost assessed in that is supposed to go to hospital trauma support. MS. HARGIS: Right. That's right, he is correct. And so when she gets those kind of fines, then she collects that. And we get to keep half, and then they take half. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: But we've been keeping both halves. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Nice try. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Doesn't appear to be any fine. JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and second. Further question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Let's go to Item 19; consider, discuss, take appropriate action to authorize Jerry Shiever to prepare early referrals of all delinquent personal property accounts. I put this on the agenda in response to a letter received from Mr. Shiever. There's recent legislative action that authorized us to proceed more quickly against personal property tax delinquencies, I guess the theory being that that property 12-io-o~ 96 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 can move around. Real estate's not going to go anywhere, but if you're going to assert a lien against some property that's personal property, the quicker you get around to it, the more likelihood you'll be able to still find it within your county to be able to do that. But the -- the legislative action authorized this to be done as early as April the lst, but it requires a certain amount of notice in order for that to occur, and in order for that notice to be given, the Court's got to authorize it. So, I -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's just -- that's all there is to it? It's just move -- move the date or the time frame for him to file? JUDGE TINLEY: It -- it allows him to proceed as early as April 1. Generally, on the real property, before attorney's fees attach, it's July 1, so that's another 60 -- 90 days, another quarter before you can proceed against those. The -- the collection fees that are associated also begin with the April I date, if the Court authorizes that. If you start -- allow the start of the proceeding sooner, why, the collection fees can -- can attach sooner. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, it sounds good. I mean, is there any traps, or do you see anything? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is this -- is this a big I number? MS. BOLIN: The personal property accounts that we lz-io-o~ 97 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 I4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 lose? Yes. 'Cause you have businesses that are open on January 1, and may close February 1. We don't get that -- the taxes for that year because they're closed, and by the time July lst comes around, they're long gone. And if we can do it on April 1, then we can collect a lot easier. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. What are we making the I motion to do? To -- COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Authorize Jerry Shiever -- JUDGE TINLEY: Well, it's -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, authorize the County. I think we need to authorize the County to do it. JUDGE TINLEY: For the -- for the 30-day notice, to turn them over on April the lst. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make that motion, that we -- that we change our policy and allow, per legislation, personal property delinquent accounts to be turned over for collection as of April 1st of each year. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and a second. Further question or discussion? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. So, we're talking about 30-day notice? JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And, now, what about these figures, from 15 percent to 20 percent collection penalty? i2-io-o~ 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 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is it the same -- JUDGE TINLEY: Well, yeah, it also -- normal attorney's fees are 15 percent. This same legislation authorized the increase to 20 percent, the theory being that the more you have to pay to -- to solve the delinquency, the more incentive there will be to pay the tax. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The lawyer has to work a little bit more. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Little harder. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So we have the -- JUDGE TINLEY: No, I don't think that's it at all, Commissioner. I think -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's exactly what -- JUDGE TINLEY: -- I think the taxpayer, when looking at, "Do I want to let this ride a while?" -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. JUDGE TINLEY: -- he's less likely to make the decision, "I'll let it ride a while longer." COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We have the 30-day notice and the increase in the percentage of collection penalty. Is there anything else? COMMISSIONER LETZ: That is in my motion, to increase the penalty. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, just those two things. MS. BOLIN: I have a question. Is the 20 percent is-io-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 going to be for all of their collection? JUDGE TINLEY: No. No, this is just personal ~ property. MS. BOLIN: Okay, because the 20 percent is for all collections. It shouldn't be just for this one -- JUDGE TINLEY: They authorized that to increase 15 to 20 percent on real property also? MS. BOLIN: Yes, on everything. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- JUDGE TINLEY: I don't think we're in a position, because of the agenda item, to address that with regard to -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. JUDGE TINLEY: -- delinquent real property accounts, because we're specifically talking all delinquent personal property accounts on this agenda item. COMMISSIONER LETZ: You may put it on our next agenda. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what Jerry's asked us to do. JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, that's what our attorney has asked us to do. MS. BOLIN: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by i2-io-o~ 100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carried. Item 20; receive information on legislative and regulatory updates and elections, and take any desired appropriate action to finalize T.C.D.R.S. plan and election for Kerr County for 2008. Ms. Hyde, I owe you a an apology. When we were considering this item before, you mentioned some of the items that you and Ms. Hargis ascertained at the conference, and we took action on that and I immediately went to the next item and didn't give you the option to continue with your explanation. MS. HYDE: No problem. JUDGE TINLEY: But this is your opportunity. MS. HYDE: What I did, I took the liberty of just putting some highlights down so that you -- if you want to, you can read more later. I'll try to make it extremely brief. Some of the misconceptions, or some misnomers that sit out there is that matching only exists after retirement, death, or disability. And disability, T.C.D.R.S. is not going to determine disability going forward. They will determine what they call an early retirement. There was an legislative update on the new disability process. If an is-io-o~ 101 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 employee is eligible for service retirement, T.C.D.R.S. is not going to determine disability. Disability application will be considered as an application for service retirement. In addition, if the disability needs to be proven for other benefits, the employer -- that's us -- will be responsible is still looking at changing that, because they do not believe that T.C.D.R.S. should be a disability expert. How can I retire? That hasn't changed; it's still the 60 plus 8 years of vested, age and years of 75, and any age and 30. COMMISSIONER LETZ: What -- going back to the other thing about the service versus disability, does that mean that any employee can say they're service retiring whenever they want? MS. HYDE: No, sir. What they can say is, if an they can turn in for disability retirement. However, comma, T.C.D.R.S. is not going to determine disability. As long as they have the age and the time of service, they're just going to call it early retirement. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But if they don't -- if they don't qualify, if they're not 60 or age of 75 or 30 years of service, then the County's going to have to -- for them to iz-io-o~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 102 get any funds, the County's going to have to make a determination that they're -- JUDGE TINLEY: Disabled. COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- disabled? MS. HYDE: That they're disabled. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Then they don't just automatically get it. MS. HYDE: Right. Which, in the past, they did. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, okay. MS. HYDE: And so the County didn't have a decision -- you know, didn't have a part in making that decision. So, I think it's good they're allowing the County to be part of it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. MS. HYDE: A lot of folks have questions about getting time, so I went ahead and put that down. Yes, you can get time from another system, but that's -- that is the key. It's time; it's not money. A lot of people think it's interchangeable, and it's not. And there's a few little pitfalls there. You can get it from E.R.S. You can get it from T.R.S., but -- T.M.R.S., but only select cities, so you have to check before you just assume that you're going to get it. J.R.S. is the courts; T.R.S. is the school system. City of Austin, and prior military service, you can get up to five years prior military service. i2-io-o~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 103 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is city of Austin a separate MS. HYDE: No, sir -- I don't know. I didn't ask. up to 8. And Ms. Hargis and I will update you later, because they haven't determined exactly the whole range that they're going to do. The 7 that are -- that are here are life-only benefit, where the retiree gets a monthly payment, but there's no -- there's no monthly payments to a beneficiary. That's a pretty big statement that people don't understand, so this year, this is part of the training that we'll be doing. We'll be doing some T.C.D.R.S. training, where people can come and we can discuss it. There will be a guaranteed term for 15 and a guaranteed term for 10, and the retiree will get a monthly payment. If they pass during the payment, then a beneficiary can receive that, but the key on that is the term begins when you retire, not when you die. There's been some problems with that. Or options to pay one beneficiary for the lifetime, it's 50 percent of retiree's payment, 75, 100, and 100 with a pop-up. Pop-up is still being determined. So, it's kind of like a parachute, a lump sum -- a bigger lump sum. The retirement paperwork change? Absolutely, every year. Get with H.R. and we'll give you the la-io-o~ 104 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 most current up-to-date. What's the maximum I can put in the system? 7 percent. That's the maximum. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can employees opt out? MS. HYDE: Of the retirement system? No, sir. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The reason -- I would change the word, then. I wouldn't say you "can." You "will." MS. HYDE: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The max amount I can, when I read that, implies that I could put nothing in if I want. I think, to clarify -- okay. MS. HYDE: Change. What's the maximum match the County can contribute in matching? I updated this one, because I think all of our assumptions were, we were doing it. So, we can match up to 2.5 or 250 percent. Of course, this year we went from 1.90 to $2.10, or 210 percent. JUDGE TINLEY: Forward only. MS. HYDE: Forward only. We ain't going backwards. COMMISSIONER LETZ: You might put that in there, "forward only." All right. Do we need a -- JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Any questions for Ms. Hyde on this? We will be finalizing the elections that we made that have previously been authorized with T.C.D.R.S. They must be done and in their hands by this Friday, and that will be done this week. Okay. Next item, 21; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on authorizing the iz-io-o~ 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 financial adviser to prepare recommendations for the type of short-term financing that would be most economical and beneficial for the County and begin the documentation necessary for the short-term financing application. looking forward at the -- at the capital items that we're going to look to, including within the -- within the debt service item, and what she's seeking today, if I understand her correctly, is to get Mr. Henderson, our financial MS. HARGIS: Yes, that is correct. We don't really need an amount right now, but what we do need for him is to gather up all the financial information he needs, any prospectus that he needs to put together, maybe perhaps contact some of the banks just to see what the marketplace is. The other thing is, he can give us a good guide as to how the marketplace is falling. And, you know, perhaps we may need to get ready sooner than later, because it may, you know, be to our advantage. He did tell me Friday he sold an issue for 3.94 in the valley. That is phenomenal interest. So, I think we're going to -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We want some of that. MS. HARGIS: Yeah. I think we're -- and if the fed 12-io-o~ 106 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 goes down again, I think you're going to find that to be pretty true. January is a very good month generally for municipalities to get on board on a bond issue or a loan. I don't know why; nobody really understands it, but that's a great month. You usually get your best -- I don't know whether it's because that's when all of our tax money comes in, so our picture's better, but that's been true in my entire career; January is a great month to go to the marketplace. So, he's going to have some suggestions for us, and then we need to try to get together and put together an amount. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. I'll make a motion that we authorize Ms. Hargis to -- our financial adviser to prepare recommendations for short-term finances. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as indicated. Does that include him beginning the paperwork model that's going to have to be shopped also? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, sir. Yes, it does. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any question or discussion on the motion? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Question. At what point in this process will -- will you invite Mr. Henderson? MS. HARGIS: He's going to come on the 14th. He couldn't come today, and so he will be here on the 14th. iz-io-o~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 107 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions or comments? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. We'll move to Item 22; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to adopt an order based on burn ban status prohibiting the sale or use of certain restricted fireworks; i.e., skyrockets with sticks and missiles with fins, in any portion of the unincorporated area of Kerr County. Commissioner Williams asked that this item be placed on the agenda. I think the matter has been before us a time or two before. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We adopted it last time for the first time in the history of this county. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I believe it has to be done by December 15th, which is why it's on this agenda. JUDGE TINLEY: I believe there is a deadline, and it' s imminent . COMMISSIONER LETZ: Imminent. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's imminent, but I don't know -- I mean, it's raining out there. I mean, is this something that we need to do just because it's a cute little 12-io-o~ 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 thing to do? Or is -- JUDGE TINLEY: Sheriff, what kind of -- what kind of problems did we have of people dealing with these bottle rockets, and rockets and -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: With fins. JUDGE TINLEY: -- missiles and all that stuff? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Missiles with fins and bottle rockets with sticks. It's weird reading that law, but last time, which was the first time that it was banned, we had some violations. We really didn't have too many; it wasn't extravagant. You know, they did keep us busy either way. I mean, any time people are setting off fireworks, we're going to get calls all the time about it. But it's -- it just depends on what the weather's going to do. I mean, if it's not going to get much wetter than now -- we get one day of sunshine, we're back in what could be a serious situation, because of how much rain we got earlier in the year and how tall the grass and everything is, but I wouldn't be one to make those recommendations. JUDGE TINLEY: Did we get most of the cooperation from the -- from the sellers of fireworks? If my recollection serves me, they just didn't supply those items for sale on a local basis. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah. Under some of the requirements, they even have to put notice on their stand iz-io-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 that they're not allowed to sell those, and then they pull those ones off the shelf. And I do know the people that own -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mr. W. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: -- Mr. W's, and they didn't have any problem doing it at all, okay? Because they are conscious, and they own property in this county. MR. EMERSON: The statute requires the sellers to post notice if there's a restriction. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are we required to give a location for them to -- for people to do these kind of fireworks? Like, I know that cities, it seems, usually put, like, a -- JUDGE TINLEY: Safe zone. COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- safe zone. We're not required to do that? Thank goodness. I mean, I -- it's -- and it is -- Rex, is there a way -- can we change the action? I mean, can we vote for it and then suspend it at our next meeting if we want? MR. EMERSON: Give me a minute to read the code. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's see, our next meeting is the 27th. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, it's -- you know, it's so much the whim of the weather. And if we're in a little bit of a wet period, three or four days of cloudy weather iz-io-o~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 110 forecast around the 1st, no, I don't want to ban them. But if we're expecting dry weather and 30 mile-an-hour north winds, yes, I would. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I would imagine, though, those companies like Rusty was talking about, like Mr. W, and then they have -- whatever action we take today is probably what they base their purchases and all that on. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's true. MR. EMERSON: I'm going to answer tentatively yes, 'cause under Subsection E, it states an order issued under this section shall expire upon termination, as provided under Subsection B, if drought conditions no longer exist. So, if you don't find that there's a safety hazard existing, it'll kill the order. JUDGE TINLEY: Basically, it's tied to the burn I ban . COMMISSIONER LETZ: Tied to the burn ban. JUDGE TINLEY: If the burn ban's in effect, this would be in effect; if the burn ban's not in effect, -- MR. EMERSON: Well -- JUDGE TINLEY: -- this would not be in effect? COMMISSIONER LETZ: You're making one more assumption in this line of thought, I think, Judge. MR. EMERSON: Subsection B of 352.051 is not the same section that the burn ban's under, so -- iz-io-o~ 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 OEHLER: Burning up the sky doesn't qualify as burning up the ground. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, but your answer is that we can suspend it, so I would be in favor of doing it. I'll make a motion that we impose the -- whatever it is -- the restriction -- what are we doing? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're -- you adopt an order prohibiting the sale or use of fireworks. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion that we adopt the model order prohibiting the sale of and use of restricted fireworks, with the caveat that we may suspend that at our next meeting if we so choose. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as indicated. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That includes missiles with fins? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Missiles with fins. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Whew, that's a big one. JUDGE TINLEY: We're talking about Iran now. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. This is getting serious. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any other questions or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. i2-io-o~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 112 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: The motion carries. We'll go to Item 23; consider, discuss, take appropriate action on the Edward Martin contract. Mr. Emerson? MR. EMERSON: As the Court may recall, there was a snafu with the payroll on this gentleman several years ago, and Ms. Hyde was authorized to pursue the collection of the overpayment. He made a significant contribution toward that collection, and then left the County's employment. Subsequent to that time, he stopped paying on the -- the agreement that he had with the Human Resources Department. I came to the Court with Ms. Hyde and y'all authorized me to pursue recovering the money for the taxpayers. Through a series of communications, I've talked to Mr. Martin. He's agreed to resume payments at the rate of $200 per month, and he has -- he did make his first payment before November 30th, 2007, and has indicated that he will each month thereafter. So -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion we approve the contract as submitted with Edward Martin. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I second it. MR. EMERSON: And authorize the Judge to sign. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And authorize the Judge to 12-10-07 113 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 sign. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval as indicated. Further question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Why don't we defer on 24, since that's an executive session item, and go to Section 4 of the agenda for payment of the bills. Okay. First section of 4, payment of the bills. Do we have a motion? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move we pay the bills. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for payment of the bills. Questions or discussion? MS. HARGIS: Yes. JUDGE TINLEY: I raised an issue -- MS. HARGIS: Yes, and we are -- we are removing it. We checked it out this morning, and we are removing the bill. That was to First Insurance Agency for $1,123, because it's a duplication of insurance coverage. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Very good. JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions or discussion? i2-io-o~ 114 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: How did you figure that out, Judge? JUDGE TINLEY: Well, there was an indication here of crime policy in that bill on Page 5, and I recall that when we were trying to deal with -- as opposed to have a whole bunch of individual policies dealing with fidelity issues and defalcation, that we -- we were able to secure one coverage for all Kerr County employees, officers, everybody for -- for crime. And so it occurred to me, that one may be a duplication. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Defalcation must be a lawyer I word. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. That's when you make off with somebody else's stuff, see. So, we save $1,123, you know? Ain't a pile of money, but it's a pretty good bit. Buy lunch for a whole bunch of folks for a pretty good while. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: A tire for Road and Bridge's new tractor. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Any other question on any of the bills? Okay. Just as an information item, Indigent Health Care, I'm going to be talking with our new indigent health care administrator over at the hospital and see if there's -- this thing is being really watched carefully. This thing is really, really accruing some big-time bucks; about $65,000 this go-around. So -- iz-io-o~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 115 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, in that area, it may be a good idea -- I'm not volunteering, but it may be a good idea, when we do the liaisons in January, to appoint a liaison to indigent health care that so someone has a regular meeting with those folks, 'cause that's something we don't do, and we probably should. And that would be a good function now to give Commissioner Oehler, probably. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Let me tell you something, y'all have overloaded me. I'll give up -- I'll give up some of mine. COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, but I think it's probably something that would be a good idea to keep it on our radar screen. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And, you know, meetings and updates and all that. JUDGE TINLEY: Well, as I'm sure the Court recalls, probably about a year and a half ago, Ms. Taylor, who is now the deputy to Ms. Williams in the County Treasurer's office, was handling that matter at Peterson Hospital, but actually came to us with some suggestions on how we might be able to maintain better control of that, and we adopted them at that time, and it was beneficial, I think. And because of her knowledge in -- in dealing with that issue, I suspect that when I have my discussion, that I'm going to see if lz-io-o~ 116 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Ms. Williams will let me incorporate her into that, because she still has excellent knowledge of how that program works, and I want to utilize the benefit of that knowledge. Makes sense. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That makes a lot more sense than putting me on there. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just think we need to do it; it would be good. I might even volunteer for it. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You might get put into it, too. Doesn't take a whole lot of votes to get you in. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I should have said Commissioner I Williams. JUDGE TINLEY: You may have started something you don't want to get rolling. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. JUDGE TINLEY: Any other question or discussion on the bills? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. ~~ (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Budget amendments. Looks like we have one with the County Attorney. That's in the summary here, to move from his Public Service account, $400 up to his Bonds account. is-io-o~ 117 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move that we approve that. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'll second it. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of the budget amendment request. 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: Do we have any other budget amendments? MS. HARGIS: No, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move to late bills. We -- we've been given an itemization of the late bills. They all deal with insurance, both the health benefits and then the various Texas Association of Counties policies. For the Court's information, I think those are the net payments to I TAC . MS. HARGIS: Yes. JUDGE TINLEY: After getting a credit of some $68,000; is that right? MS. HARGIS: No, $69,344. JUDGE TINLEY: Sorry, I was off a little bit. That's the amount of credit that we got, and when you look at the total amount of the coverage, that's a pretty significant lz-io-o~ 118 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 credit compared to that total amount. I didn't compute the percentage of total cost. Did you, Ms. Hargis? MS. HARGIS: No, I didn't, but that's nearly -- actually, better than half. We also have another $2,600 refund check that will be coming from them for -- JUDGE TINLEY: Off of the law enforcement liability policy, for a rider that -- that I looked into and determined that the -- actually, the District Judges had been carried as insured under the law enforcement liability for administrative duties, and their coverage that we provide for 'i ~' them included coverage for those items, so we reversed that and are eliminating that rider, and that's 2,600 bucks worth coming back. ~~ MS. HARGIS: And the reason that these are late is ', that they have deadlines. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval. Question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. I've been ', presented with monthly reports from the County Clerk for i2-io-o~ 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 October this year, as amended; Constable, Precinct 4; Constable, Precinct 1; Constable, Precinct 2; County Clerk for November this year, both general and trust fund; Justice of the Peace, Precinct 3; Justice of the Peace, Precinct l; and Justice of the Peace, Precinct 2. Do I hear a motion that these reports be approved as submitted? COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I move approval. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Third. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of the reports as submitted. Question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Do we have any reports from any of the Commissioners in connection with their liaison or other assignments? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any reports from elected officials? Okay. At this time -- it is 11:53 a.m. -- we will go out of closed -- excuse me, go out of public or open lz-io-o~ 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 session to go into executive or closed session to consider Item 24. So, at this time we'll go out of open or public session. (The open session was closed at 11:53 a.m., and an executive session was held, the transcript of which is contained in a separate document.) JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. It is 12:11 p.m, and we're now in open or public session. Does any member of the Court have anything to offer with respect to matters considered in executive session? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion that we authorize the Sheriff to hire a part-time deputy, not to exceed 15 hours per week. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The funds to come from the Deputy -- SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Salary line. COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- Salary line item in his ~ budget. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I still second it. i ~i JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as indicated. Further 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. i2-lo-0~ 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 (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Gentlemen, do we have anything else to offer before we adjourn? This meeting will be adjourned. (Commissioners Court adjourned at 12:12 a.m.) STATE OF TEXAS ~ COUNTY OF KERR ~ The above and foregoing is a true and complete transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County, Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth. DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 14th day of December, 2007. JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk BY : __ ~ '~~~u~G ______ ___ _ Kathy anik, Deputy County Clerk Certified Shorthand Reporter lz-io-o~ ORDER NO. 30639 USE OF COURTHOUSE GROUNDS FOR COWBOY BREAKFAST BY HILL COUNTRY DISTRICT JUNIOR LIVESTOCK SHOW Came to be heard this the 10th day of December, 2007, with a motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Oehler. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to: Authorize the Cowboy Breakfast to be held at the southwest corner of the courthouse square on the morning of January 11th, 2008, and allowance be made for vehicles to get by on the inside of the parking area. ORDER NO. 30640 VARIANCE TO INSTALL A SMALL SEPTIC SYSTEM ON FIRST STREET IN INGRAM Came to be heard this the 10th day of December, 2007, with a motion made by Commissioner Oehler, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to: Grant a variance from our rules to install a temporary septic system on the Robert Dreiss property in Ingram, Texas, at 211 First Street, to include that should the system fail during the variance period, it will have to be required to be brought up to a standard to meet health and safety requirements. ORDER NO.30641 OPENING OF BIDS FOR DIGITAL VIDEO RECORDING SYSTEM FOR JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITY Came to be heard this the 10th day of December, 2007, with a motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Oehler. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to: Accept the bid from Guardian Security Solutions, for a total amount of $37,130, and refer it to Mr. Stanton, and Mr. Trolinger the I.T. Manager if need be, for evaluation and recommendation. ORDER NO. 30642 EXCESS FUNDS FROM 2006-07 LIBRARY BUDGET Came to be heard this the 10th day of December, 2007, with a motion made by Commissioner Oehler, seconded by Commissioners Baldwin/Letz. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to: Ask the City of Kerrville to give us whatever funds that are left over from last year's library budget that the County funded, and be returned in the form of a check. ORDER NO. 30643 ENERGY/LAND, INC. DEED WITHOUT WARRANTY Came to be heard this the 10th day of December, 2007, with a motion made by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to: Accept the deed filed by Energy/Land, Inc., to Kerr County at this particular location, .43-acre tract, R13384, off Lehmann Drive South. ORDER NO. 30644 EXPIRATION OF LEASE FOR CAT 924 LOADER Came to be heard this the 10th day of December, 2007, with a motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Oehler. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to: Authorize the Road and Bridge Department to pursue purchasing the 924 Cat Loader, Vehicle Number 6YW00908, and work the details out with the Auditor as to the best way to accomplish this, and use the lease funds towards that purchase price. ORDER NO. 30645 CONCEPT PLAN OF CAMP VERDE STORE Came to be heard this the 10th day of December, 2007, with a motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to: Accept the Concept Plan of Camp Verde Store as a one-lot subdivision, but authorize Environmental Health Department to grant the permit for construction of anew septic system during the platting process. ORDER NO. 30646 CONCEPT OF REVISION OF PLAT FOR 707 RANCH Came to be heard this the 10th day of December, 2007, with a motion made by Commissioner Oehler, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to: Set a public hearing for January 14, 2008 at 10:00 a.m. for the Concept of Revision of Plat for 707 Ranch, as set forth in Volume 7, Page 347. ORDER NO. 30647 REVISION OF PLAT, LOT 67 OF CYPRESS SPRINGS ESTATES, PHASE 2, SECTION ONE Came to be heard this the 10th day of December, 2007, with a motion made by Commissioner Oehler, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to: Approve the revision of Plat for Lot 67 of Cypress Springs Estates, Phase 2, Section One, as set forth in Volume 7, Page 172, located in Precinct 4. ORDER NO. 30648 AACOG SOLID WAS"hl; GRANT APPLICATION FOR PURCHASE OF VEHICLES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH Came to be heard this the 10th day of December, 2007, with a motion made by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Oehler. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to: Approve the Resolution, and authorize Mr. Garcia to go before AACOG and get the money to purchase 2 vehicles for Environmental Health, including ratification of the submission of the application. ORDER NO.30649 HILL RIVER COUNTRY ESTATES Came to be heard this the 10th day of December, 2007, with a motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to: Grant a variance on the O.S.S.F. requirements related to lot size, and waive the platting fees. ORDER NO. 30650 BURN BAN IMPLEMENTATION AND NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES Came to be heard this the 10th day of December, 2007, with a motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to: Authorize the same prescribed burn procedures that we've authorized previously, and delegate that to the NRCS office, so if someone has a prescribed burn plan filed with them that they've approved, that people can burn during burn bans. ORDER NO.30651 RESCIND ALL PRIOR COMMISSIONERS' COURT ORDERS AUTHORIZING INDIVIDUAL DEPARTMENT OR OFFICIAL CELL PHONE CONTRACTS Came to be heard this the 10th day of December, 2007, with a motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to: Approve rescinding all prior Commissioners' Court Orders authorizing individual department or official cell phone contracts. ORDER NO. 30652 CONCEPT FOR REVISION OF PLAT FOR SOLAR VILLAGE, LOTS 14, 15, 16 & 17 Came to be heard this the 10th day of December, 2007, with a motion made by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to: Set a Public Hearing for January 14 2008, at 10:05 am. for the revision of plat for Solar Village, Lots 14, 15, 16 and 17. ORDER NO.30653 AWARD BID FOR DIGITAL VIDEO RECORDING SYSTEM FOR JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITY Came to be heard this the 10th day of December, 2007, with a motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Oehler. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to: Award the Contract to Guardian Security Solutions, subject to the County Attorney's review of the Contract when it's submitted. ORDER NO.30654 ASSESSMENT DUE TO TEXAS STATE COMPTROLLER'S AUDIT Came to be heard this the 10th day of December, 2007, with a motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to: Authorize payment of $11,930.04 to the State Comptroller, with funds to come out of the Nondepartmental Contingency Fund. OZI)F;R NO. 30655 PREP,~1~1TION OF l?ARi,Y IZEFEREZALS OF ALL DELINQUENT PERSONAL. }'IZOPER'hY ACCOUNTS Came to be l~c~:~rd this the 10th day of December, 2007, with a motion made by CommissionLt- .etz, seconded b}~ Commissioner Oehler. The Court unanimously approved by vo~~~ of 3-0-0 to: Change our ~-~,ilicy and allow, ,~cr legislation, personal property delinquent accounts to 1~;~~ ~ _{rued over for col lcction as April 1st of each year, which includes a 30-day notice and the increase in the percentage of collection penalty to 20 percent. ORDER NO. 30656 SHORT-TERM FINANCING FOR COUNTY AND DOCUMENTATION REQUIRED Came to be heard this the 10th day of December, 2007, with a motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to: Authorize Ms. Hargis, and our financial adviser, to prepare recommendations for short-term finances, including beginning the paperwork model that is going to have to be shopped for. ORI~I:R NO. 30657 h1 R ~ ~ WORKS BAN Came to be f~card this the 10th day of December, 2007, with a motion made by Commissioner ~_etz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously approved by ~~~a~c of 3-0-0 to: Adopt the m~~r;el order prohibiting the sale. of and use of restricted fireworks, including mi:~si~~;s with fins and l~o~tie rockets with sticks, with the caveat that we may suspend .;.:;tat our neX~ mecti~~~ if we so choose. ORDER NO. 30658 EDWARD MARTIN CONTRACT Came to be heard this the 10th day of December, 2007, with a motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Oehler. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to: Approve the contract as submitted with Edward Martin for collection of overpayment of payroll, and authorize the County Judge to sign same. ORDER NO. 30659 CLAIMS AND ACCOUNTS Came to be heard this the 10th day of December, 2007, came to be considered by the Court various Commissioners Precincts, which said Claims and Accounts are: Accounts Expense 10-General $ 207,641.42 14-Fire Protection $ 21,460.33 15-Road & Bridge $ 78,065.32 18-County Law Library $ 1,611.00 19-Public Library $ 36,972.25 31-Parks $ 3,726.82 40-Alternate Dispute Resolution $ 14,000.00 50-Indigent Health Care $ 64,731.77 59-General Contractual Oblig. $ 1,000.00 76-Juv Detention Facility $ 5,869.92 TOTAL $ 435,078.83 Upon motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to pay the claims and accounts. ORDER NO. 30660 BUDGET AMENDMENTS FOR 12/10/2007 Came to be heard this the 10th day of December, 2007, with a motion made by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Oehler, the Court unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to transfer the following expense codes: Approve the Budget Amendments for 12/10/2007 as per the Summary presented. ORDER NO. 3 0661 LATE BILLS FOR 12/10/2007 Came to be heard this the 10th day of December, 2007, with a motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Oehler. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to: Approve the Late Bills for 12/10/2007, as per the Summary presented. ORDER NO.30662 MONTHLY REPORTS Came to be heard this the 10th day of December, 2007, with a motion made by Commissioner Oehler, seconded by Commissioners LetzBaldwin, the Court unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 the following monthly reports: County Clerk -October, 2007 Amended Constable Pct #4 Constable Pct # 1 Constable Pct #2 County Clerk -November, 2007 General & Trust Fund JP #3 JP # 1 JP #2 ORDER NO. 30663 PART-TIME DEPUTY FOR SHERIFF'S OFFICE Came to be heard this the 10th day of December, 2007, with a motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Oehler. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to: Authorize the Sheriff to hire apart-time deputy, not to exceed 15 hours per week.