1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT
Regular Session
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
8:00 a.m.
Commissioners' Courtroom
Kerr County Courthouse
Kerrville, Texas
PRESENT: PAT TINLEY, Kerr County Judge
H.A."BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1
WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2
JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3
BRUCE OEHLER, Commissioner Pct. 4
r"
O
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
T N Tl F X
November 13, 2007
--- Commissioners' Comments
1.3 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
request by Hill Country Alternate Dispute
Resolution Center to renew contract with Kerr
County to provide mediation services & for funding
1.4 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
Martin-Marietta Flood Plain Permit
1.16 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
approve order to vacate, close & abandon old
portion of Upper Turtle Creek Road, execution
of road dedication deed for new portion, Judge
to sign both documents, & Road and Bridge to
open new roadway to traffic & close old portion
1.17 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for
concept of Longbow Subdivision
1.18 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
release Letter of Credit #25399-5 for Live
Springs Ranch
1.20 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
draft Kerr County Subdivision Rules and
Regulations
1.21 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
determining procedure to review various options
to solve long-term jail overcrowding problems
and other issues related to Kerr County Jail
1.23 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
receive and approve bids for RFQ for planning
services at HCYEC; review recommendation from
review committee and award contract for planning
services
1.5 Consider/discuss, take action to approve creation
of new position at Juvenile Detention Facility and
options of filling if new position is created
1.6 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
approving contract between Kerr County Juvenile
Detention Facility and Dr. Chris Meriwether to
act as facility's Health Director
1.7 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
advertise for bids for digital video recording
system for Juvenile Detention Facility
1.22 Consider/discuss, authorize Sheriff to dispose
of three county vehicles
1.24 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
Commissioner Letz providing opinions to Road
and Bridge Department concerning subdivision
platting requirements
PAGE
6
7
9
15
16
19
20
25
27
29
40
42
44
47
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 (Continued)
November 13, 2007
1.1 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
request from Riverhill Oaks Homeowners Association
to rent Union Church at $37.50 for 3 dates in 2008
1.25 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
cast votes for Director of Kerr County
Appraisal District
1.2 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to renew
Kerr County Market Days usage License for 2008
1.26 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
approve employee voluntary supplemental in-
surance programs or plans with guaranteed issue
and county-approved electronic enrollment
features and funded through employee payroll
deduction; authorize County Judge to sign
agreement for same
1.8 Public Hearing for final revision of Plat for Lots
1, 5, 6, 11, 12 & 13 of Hill River Country Estates
1.9 Public Hearing for final revision of Plat for
Lots 25 & 26 of The Horizon
1.11 Public hearing for revision of Lots 99, 100
and 101 of The Horizon
1.13 Public Hearing for revision of Lots 113 & 114,
Escondidas de Cypress Springs
1.10 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
final revision of plat for Lots 25 & 26 of
The Horizon
1.12 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on final
revision of Lots 99, 100 and 101 of The Horizon
1.14 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for
final revision of Lots 113 & 114, Vistas
Escondidas de Cypress Springs
1.27 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
appoint Kerr County Sheriff's Department Lt.
Bill Hill to AACOG Criminal Justice Advisory
Committee, and KPD Capt. Jeffrey Wendling as
alternate, effective immediately; notify AACOG
of same
1.28 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
reappoint Kay Mosty Hayes to Kerrville/Kerr
County Joint Library Advisory Board to a two-
year term ending November 2009
1.15 Public Hearing for final revision of plat for
Lot 17, Privilege Creek Ranch
1.29 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
approve contract with Dietert Center and Hill
Country Court-Appointed Special Advocates and
allow County Judge to sign same
PAGE
51
54
59
65
85
86
86
87
87
88
89
90
90
92
93
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I N D E X (Continued)
November 13, 2007
PAGE
1.30 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
implementation of the Burn Ban 94
1.31 Presentation of audits on the following
departments: J.P. 1, J.P. 2, J.P. 3, J.P. 4,
District Attorney, County Attorney, Animal
Control, and Jail Commissary 95
1.32 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action
regarding Interlocal Agreement with TAC Risk
Management Pool 100
1.19 Receive report from Freese and Nichols on
Ingram Dam and Flat Rock Dam evaluation of
concrete slab voids 103
4.1 Pay Bills 133
4.2 Budget Amendments 142
4.3 Late Bills ---
4.4 Approve and Accept Monthly Reports 145
5.1 Reports from Commissioners/Liaison Committee
Assignments 145
Recessed 158
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
On Tuesday, November 13, 2007, at 8:00 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
(Commissioner Baldwin not present.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me call to order this regular
meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court posted and
scheduled for this time and date, Tuesday, November the 13th,
2007, at 8 a.m. It's just a bit past that time now.
Commissioner Oehler?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Let's have a word of prayer,
and followed by the pledge of allegiance.
(Prayer and pledge of allegiance.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Be seated, please. 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, you're free to come forward at this time
and tell us what's on your mind. If you wish to be heard on
an agenda item, we'd ask that you fill out a participation
form. I think there's probably some at the back of the room.
If not, we'll see if we can't get some hustled in here. But
if we get to wn agenda item, you haven't filled out a
participation form and you want to be heard, get my attention
11-13-07
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
in some way and I'll see that you're heard. But right now,
if anybody wants to be heard on any matter that is not a
listed agenda item, why, please come forward at this time.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Seeing no one coming forward, we
will move on. I'm sad to report the passing of our longtime
department head of our Court Compliance section, Mr. Brad
Alford, after an extensive illness. This past weekend, he
passed away, and services for him will be tomorrow at 10:30
at the Cowboy Hills Church out off of Peterson Farm Road, I
believe it is. There will be a number of folks that -- that
will be attending that funeral from the courthouse, I feel
certain. While we will not be closed here at the courthouse,
we will be minimally staffed, so that if you need -- have a
need for some courthouse services, why, please be patient
with us because of our courthouse employees paying their
respects to Mr. Alford and the members of his family.
Commissioner Oehler, do you have -- what do you have for us
this morning?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I don't have much. We got a
lengthy agenda. Only thing, tomorrow is going to be the day
we pull the lower plug in the Ingram Lake, and we have two
very experienced -- one experienced -- well, two experienced
divers. One will be diving and one will be tending for him,
and that'll be Pete Blommers, and he will be doing the
11-13-07
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
diving. He's 74 years old, and he volunteered to do it.
That was one of the things he did for business for years and
years. And Mike Hughes is going to tend for him, and he's
the owner -- one-time owner and started Oceanarium, one of
the largest underwater diving salvage companies in the world.
And tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock -- and I forgot to tell
you, Len; I haven't seen you till now, but Mr. Blommers will
be there and will be ready to do the diving. And --
MR. ODOM: 9 o'clock?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: 9 o'clock. That's it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Commissioner Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll save mine till the
end, Judge. We got a long day ahead of us.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Likewise.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move on. The first item on
the agenda that's not a timed item is to consider, discuss,
and take appropriate action on the request by the
H.C.A.D.R.C. to renew a contract with Kerr County to provide
mediation services in Kerr County, and for the funding of
same. That's Hill Country Alternative Dispute Resolution
Center, is what that long acronym stands for. They've been
providing mediation services for a number of years.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, I think we skipped
1.1 on the bottom of the first page.
11-13-07
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
JUDGE TINLEY: That's a timed item at 9 o'clock.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, I'm sorry.
JUDGE TINLEY: And since we started at 8:00, that's
the reason I skipped over it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I apologize.
JUDGE TINLEY: And since it is plugged in at that
time -- even though, probably, had we thought, we would have
put those in at 8:00 and 8:10, but we didn't. So --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I apologize.
JUDGE TINLEY: I advised folks that we're going to
stick to this schedule.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is the same form as we've
had previously, Judge?
JUDGE TINLEY: Far as I know, yeah. Same format;
we just plug in the funding that was anticipated via the
budget for -- for the revenue stream that comes from the
filing of cases. Is that correct, Mr. County Attorney?
MR. EMERSON: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item. Any question or discussion?
All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right
hand.
11-13-07
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. We'll move
to the next item; consider, discuss, and take appropriate
action on Martin Marietta floodplain permit. Commissioner
Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I put this on the agenda,
Judge. This has been an issue that's been in front of the
Court for some time. Subject to review by the County
Attorney, and so any comments the County Attorney might have,
or any comments that some of the principals in this matter
might have, I think we'll open the floor for that. I know
Mr. Happy's here, and Mr. Emerson has a memo in our packet.
Mr. Happy also.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: He's requested a continuance by
his letter.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I know. There's a letter
to the Judge, but I think Mr. Happy wants to speak to that
issue. And there's a brief by Mr. Happy in the --
JUDGE TINLEY: Any member of the Court have any
comments before we hear from Mr. Happy? Mr. Happy?
MR. HAPPY: Thank you, Your Honor. If it please
the Court, I'd like to just read my letter into the record.
And, in addition, my wife Mary Ann had wanted very much to be
11-13-07
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
here for the hearing, but she's having medical treatment in
Seattle, and this hearing was scheduled after her treatment
had already been set up, so she -- she, unfortunately, can't
be here today. This is addressed to Judge Tinley. "Dear
Judge Tinley, the Commissioners Court consideration of my
appeal of the Kerr County floodplain administrator's grant of
a floodplain construction permit is on the court's agenda for
today, November 14, 2007. I hereby respectfully request a
continuance of this hearing. The reasons for my request are,
number one, on May 14, 2007, the Court requested Martin
Marietta and me to prepare briefs in support of our
positions. I promptly responded on the assumption that
Martin Marietta would do the same. However, Martin Marietta
took four months to reply and did not provide me with a copy
of their brief. I was given a copy of the brief quite
recently, and due to family illness, have not had an
opportunity to obtain necessary rebuttal evidence for the
Court's consideration. I believe that fairness requires I be
given a comparable time to gather evidence and respond to
Martin Marietta's brief, as they took such a long time to
obtain their evidence. Number two, the Court's agenda for
today is very crowded, and my presentation will require at
least an hour of the Court's time, plus time for Martin
Marietta to respond. Such long presentations will be
prejudicial to the Court's proper consideration of the other
11-13-07
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
matters on the agenda today. I am, however, attaching to
this letter a preliminary response to Martin Marietta's brief
which summarizes the evidence and legal issues that I intend
to present to the Court in support of my appeal. Of course,
I will appear at the court session today to personally
request this continuance. J. Nelson Happy."
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's one correction to
your letter, Mr. Happy, before we move on. You talk about
the agenda for today as the 14th. It is the 13th. You may
want to change that in the record.
MR. HAPPY: All right, I sure will do that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: With the Court's
permission, I would move that this be continued until the
26th of November at 1:30 p.m.
JUDGE TINLEY: I see no objection, other --
MR. EMERSON: Can I make one brief comment?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes.
MR. EMERSON: In all due respect to Mr. Happy --
and I'm not defending Martin Marietta; I'm not their
attorney, but both parties were provided the opportunity to
submit a brief. Martin Marietta basically responded to
Mr. Happy's brief. Mr. Happy's response that was presented
today appears to focus primarily on the issue of mining,
which is what his primary concern is, 'cause it's right next
to his property. The issue that's before the Court is not
11-13-07
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the mining issue; it is whether or not they can build a road
across their property. The engineering design that was
presented to the Court shows a no-rise design. And, you
know, I still stand by my original recommendation, that it's
the Court's ministerial duty, after reviewing the
information, to approve the permit.
MR. HAPPY: Can I just briefly respond? I strongly
disagree with Mr. Emerson. It's not a matter only related to
a road, and that's what I address in my brief today. And in
addition, I -- I believe the law is very clear that the Court
is going to have to consider all the factors before granting
any permit to Martin Marietta; that's it's not a ministerial
act, it's a judicial act, and the Court needs to have a full
opportunity to hear the evidence and hear the law and make a
decision based on the law and facts.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Did you make a motion?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I did, for a continuance to
November 26th at 1:30 p.m.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll second that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
indicated. Question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I just -- you know, I have a
hard time -- I mean, I understand Mr. Happy's situation, but
this Court, I believe, must be fair to all parties, and if --
it's kind of like approving a subdivision plat. Whether it's
11-13-07
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
~I~ contested or not, if they've met all the criteria, then I
don't see that we have the right to hold up an approval.
That's just -- that, to me, is just common sense.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't disagree with that, but
I'm -- I'm really leaning more on the second part of his --
second paragraph about our agenda today and trying to get
through this. I think it's more efficient from our
standpoint to do it in 10 days, and I don't think that's
going to probably likely cause any hardship on Martin
Marietta. If they were here and -- you know, if they had to
have it today, I'd probably go along and say do it today.
But, you know, I tend to agree with you. I don't -- you
know, unless something earth-shattering happens, which I
don't expect, based on what the County Attorney said, I think
this is going to get approved. But -- you know, but my
reason is not related to that; it's more from a timing
standpoint.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't think two weeks is
any big impediment to -- to disposition of the issue, and I
think Mr. Happy, as well as Martin Marietta, deserves the
full opportunity to be heard.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions or -- or
comments? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(Commissioners Williams and Letz voted in favor of
the motion.)
11-13-07
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
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed?
(Commissioner Oehler voted against the motion.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: See you on the 26th at
1:30 p.m.
MR. HAPPY: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: We'll move to Item 5; consider,
discuss -- well, I don't see Ms. Hyde or Mr. Stanton here.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One question.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
'~ COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I advised the gentleman on
1.1 that we were moving up to 8 o'clock, and if there's not a
timed item, can we get his issue out of the way?
JUDGE TINLEY: I have -- I have no objection to it,
other than the fact that we've got it posted for 9 a.m. Is
there a problem with that?
MR. EMERSON: There is if you violate the posting.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, that -- that's my concern.
Even though we -- even though we changed to 8:00 at the last
minute, we didn't go back and change these others. So --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Leo, my apologies.
MR. BOUDREAUX: No problem.
JUDGE TINLEY: We got to go with what we posted.
I'm sorry.
MR. BOUDREAUX: No problem.
11-13-07
15
1
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: Let's go to Item 16; consider,
discuss, and take appropriate action to approve, number one,
order to vacate, close, and abandon the old portion of Upper
Turtle Creek Road; two, execution of road dedication deed for
new portion; and three, authorizing the Judge to sign both
documents; and four, Road and Bridge to open the new roadway
to traffic and close the old portion, that road being located
'~ in Precinct 1. Mr. Odom?
I! MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. I'm --
JUDGE TINLEY: We got to you quicker than what you
expected, obviously.
MR. ODOM: What I expected.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: This has been ongoing for
quite a while, from what I understand. Several years.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: At least.
MR. ODOM: That's before I -- yeah. 2004, if
memory serves me right. That was -- Franklin was here. We
posted the road October the 22nd, 2007, as well as here in
the courthouse telling the public we would open the road
today, November the 13th, 2007. Now we need to approve the
following: Approval of the Order Vacating, Closing, and
Abandoning Portion of Old Road, and have Judge sign same;
return the completed documents to the Jons law firm, and for
them to complete the road dedication deed; approval for the
Judge to sign the road dedication deed once it is complete,
11-13-07
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and allow Road and Bridge to open the new road and close the
old road today as posted.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All documents have been
approved by the County Attorney?
MR. EMERSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second -- third.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item as indicated. Any question or
discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Let's move
to Item 17; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action
for concept of Longbow Subdivision located in Precinct 2.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. Mr. Williams purchased this
property by metes and bounds as a 10-acre tract with the
intention of dividing it with his friend, Mr. Long. When the
survey was done, they found the property was 9.95 acres,
including the road right-of-way of Willow Bend Drive.
There's an existing home well and septic on Lot 1. There are
no improvements on Lot 2. At this time, we ask for a
11-13-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
17
variance for lot size -- for lot size for Lot 1 for
4.94 acres, making Lot 2 5.01 acres, and we ask that you
allow this subdivision be done under the alternate plat
process.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let the record reflect the
Mr. Williams he's talking about is not Commissioner Williams.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just --
MR. ODOM: You would have to recuse yourself if it
i was .
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The only --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't want to confuse things
and complicate things, but our -- depending -- this is a
concept plan. Depending on when they get this to the Court
will have a great impact.
MS. HARDIN: They've asked to do it next week
before you do the --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Before we do the hearing?
Okay, 'cause this will not be allowed after our revisions.
MR. ODOM: Okay. And the reason we're looking at
this is because the house has the well and septic and all
like that, and we were wanting the new lot to be up to code.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Doesn't make any difference.
I'm just saying after our rules, this will not be allowed.
MR. ODOM: No variances?
11-13-07
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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No variances will be allowed on
anything like this in the future for any reason. Which, you
know, it's just that -- if we can get it done before, I have
no problem with it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is the plan to bring it
I back before --
MS. HARDIN: Yes.
MR. ODOM: Yes. We wanted to present it to the
Court and see how you felt about it, and -- and come back.
MS. HARDIN: Surveyor told him he could have it
done by the next court date.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: These are both individual
I wells?
MR. ODOM: Yes. That's the reason Lot 2 was going
to be over 5 acres.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, this is a concept
only, so it doesn't require court action.
MR. ODOM: Doesn't require -- other than your
comments, is what we were looking for, so this surveyor could
finish it up.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think Commissioner Letz
summed up the comments.
MR. ODOM: Okay, sir. We know what to tell
Mr. Williams.
11-13-07
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
I9
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Better hurry.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Better hurry.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Time is of the essence.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.. Anything further on that
particular agenda item, gentlemen? If not, we'll move to
Item 18; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to
release Letter of Credit Number 25399-5 for Live Springs
Ranch.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. Live Springs Ranch has been
completed, and in your packet you'll find a letter of final
inspection from Wayne Wells. At this time, we ask that you
allow us to release Letter of Credit Number 25399-S to Frost
national Bank, re: Live Springs Ranch, contingent upon
receiving payment for the last invoice of $323.62 from Wayne
Wells for engineering fees.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That is really a finely built
subdivision.
MR. ODOM: It's a good subdivision.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Very, very -- the roads and
all -- I went through it the other day, and it is really,
really fine. I mean, that is -- that's going to be privately
maintained?
MR. ODOM: That will be privately maintained.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Wow. If we get everybody to
do like that, we wouldn't have any problem with any roads.
11-13-07
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
I'll tell you, they really did a fine job. I'll move for
approval.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 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.
I
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. We'll move
to Item 20; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on
draft of Kerr County Subdivision Rules and Regulations.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, really, all I want to do
today is just -- and I went through it very briefly -- is to
kind of make sure the Court is aware of the impact of our
changes, and our biggest part of the change is that the
exemptions -- all of the exemptions that are allowed
currently under, I think, Section 1.08, none of those will be
allowed any more for tracts that are 5 acres or smaller, and
no variances will be allowed for those smaller tracts.
That's the biggest area. The other -- well, it's -- I'll say
it's one of the other. The other biggest -- or really big
area is that all subdivisions where there's any lots 5 acres
or less will have to do a full water availability analysis
under Chapter 230 of the -- not Government Code.
11-13-07
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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Water Code?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, it's the administrative --
TAC, Texas Administrative Code. And there will be no
allowance for, like, this lot -right here. They'd have to do
a water availability study to do the one we just looked at,
regardless of size.
MR. ODOM: May I --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
MR. ODOM: What about the exceptions under 1.03?
How do you work that in? Because there is nothing in
guidance of the size of that lot. If it's --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's 1.03 say?
MR. ODOM: Well, it has A through H, 10 acres or
~ more --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If you're over that acreage
size, those apply. If you're under, none of them apply.
This trumps that whole section.
MR. ODOM: So, in other words, if it's less than 10
i acres --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Less than 5 acres.
MR. ODOM: Less than 5 acres.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, 5 acres or less.
JUDGE TINLEY: 5 acres or less.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 5 acres or less, that there
will be no exemption.
11-13-07
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
MR. ODOM: Even under 1.03?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Under anything.
MS. HARDIN: Can we change the rule and -- I mean,
change the 1.03 to read that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, we can put a -- yeah, we
can put another paragraph in there, "This only applies to,"
you know, "the acreage limits." We didn't make some of those
changes until it's approved by the Court, because it makes --
that will require a lot of changes in our rules to try to put
people on notice a little bit more. That can be done, but
once the -- once the rules are adopted after the public
hearing, if they are adopted, then we can modify it in the
verbiage a little bit. We just can't change the content.
So, yes, we can put that language in there, but we're not
going to -- I don't want to rewrite the whole rules until we
get the public hearing. Does that make sense?
MS. HARDIN: Mm-hmm.
MR. ODOM: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Emerson?
MR. EMERSON: Just to make it clear for the public,
Jonathan, will you explain why we've had to add this section
into our rules?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- we are -- a couple of
things happened, but the main reason right now is that we are
applying for an EDAP grant, and -- through the Water
11-13-07
23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and other parts of the Subdivision Rules, Chapter 232
overall, and didn't change it, so if you're going to go for
EDAP funds, wherever you are in the state, you have to adopt
the model rules, and there is no variance allowed at this
time. We're working with -- or talking to Water Development
Board legal staff, and there may be some modifications in the
future, but for the time being, there will be -- their rules
will have no variance allowed to them, and they only address
subdivisions that are 5 acres or less. And there will be a
slight change on this. Our current rules say less than
5 acres and 5 acres or greater. If you're 5 acres exactly,
you're going to be in the new category, not the old category.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And the reason why they
insist on the model rules for EDAP funding is because of the
bitter experiences down in the counties where they gave money
to correct bad situations, only to find later that counties
didn't do anything clean up their act, and the same things
repeated themselves in terms of no infrastructure, bad
infrastructure or whatever. And so they said, well, one way
11-13-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
24
Currently, we have an application pending for $385,000 for
the next phase, and if we're granted that phase and get that
completed, then we'll be going back for construction
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My overall feeling is the
changes are good for the most part. I don't -- I'm not real
happy with the water availability part of it; I think that's
a little bit unreasonable on small lots -- or small number of
lots in a subdivision. But the other part of it -- most of
it addresses wastewater issues, and I think that -- I think
they're very good, and also water systems. You know, there's
no longer going to be any shared well situations on small
lots. Those are out. We've got to have a licensed system
now, so it's going to make a lot of the things that we've
done in the past no longer possible. But, you know, a lot of
them are not necessarily bad. But, anyway, that's really --
and, anyway, 5.09 is the section that I've added with all the
changes. You can read that one section and pretty much get
the gist of the changes that I've made to our rules. The
other change that I did include into it is under Fire Safety,
there's some new legislation that allowed us to require
subdivisions to put in storage tanks for fire suppression,
and I included that in there.
11-13-07
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(Commissioner Baldwin entered the courtroom.)
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Morning.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Morning.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: With a -- if it's 50 lots or
less, I think they have to put in a 2,500-gallon storage
tank. If it's a total of 50 lots or more, it's a
5,000-gallon storage tank, and just a dry hydrant, not any
water system. But it does give some fire suppression
ability, and that is a new requirement.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What section is the fire
safety? Is that 5.09?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. I may not be able to tell
you that right now.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's not there. I can't --
it's in here, I know. It's just whatever --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll take your word for it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll look for it and let you
know.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further on that particular
agenda item? We'll move on to Item 21, unless you see the
need to have the Sheriff here for that, the jail.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Fine.
JUDGE TINLEY: Item 21; consider, discuss, and take
appropriate action on determining procedure to review various
11-13-07
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
options to solve long-term jail overcrowding problems and
other issues related to the Kerr County Jail. Commissioner
long-term issues, including -- and he's very agreeable to
this looking at housing prisoners in tents, expanding the
trustee program. He wants it to be a very -- you know,
looking at the judicial side to see if we can get people
moved through more quickly. You know, it's not just to look
at expanding the jail; it's looking at anything that we can
do to keep from expanding the jail, but it may well include
looking at that as well. It's also looking at a little bit
of the infrastructure, and the current jail is now
approaching 15 years old. Looking at the new -- you know, if
we -- whatever we do, how we would address some of those
things. Like, if you did add some, I guess, more minimal
security-type area, what's that do to the cafeteria-type
stuff and the clinic and some of those issues? So, it's kind
of far-reaching. I just put it on the agenda right now to
see if the Court, you know, wants to pursue it. If they do,
I think I'll put it on the next agenda with an actual written
charge that the Sheriff and I will get together and write,
and as to what they will look at. In the meantime, everyone
11-13-07
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
may think of -- I don't know; maybe each Commissioner can put
a person on it, or maybe the Court can put two people. I
don't think you want a real large committee. Probably five
people total and the Sheriff, you know, something like that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I agree, it's something we
need to be looking at, because we're going to be facing that
issue. It's -- we seem to have gotten somewhat at a static
level out there on jail population in areas where we could
release prisoners on bond, those that were bondable. But it
seems like we've kind of got us a static population, so it's
-- it's bumping the limit, so that's what we need to be
considering.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll put it back on the next
agenda, try to write up an actual charge, and maybe each
person can put one person on the committee.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Good idea.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's go to Item 23;
consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to receive and
approve bids for RFQ for planning services at the Hill
Country Youth Exhibit Center, review recommendations from
review committee, and award the contract for planning
services. Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I wasn't sure if we could --
Ms. Hargis wasn't sure if we could open these prior to being
here today or not, so we didn't. So, our first part of the
11-13-07
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
agenda item is to open the bids.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And announce what we received,
and then the committee -- basically, Commissioner Oehler and
myself -- will go back and look at them and come back with a
recommendation. Since I suspect we'll be meeting again
tomorrow, we can recess this item till tomorrow, and I think
we probably have to time to take a look at them. We received
two. One is from Peter Lewis Architects, and the other
one -- Mr. Lewis wasn't so concerned about it; he didn't have
his sealed, so pretty easy to look at what he submitted. The
other one, I guess, isn't sealed either, but we didn't -- I
didn't open the box. I don't know if anyone did or not.
This is from -- you can read it; I can't.
JUDGE TINLEY: The second is from Ray and
Hollington Architects out of Houston, Texas. For purposes of
-- looks like the -- there's a schedule of services in the
Peter W. Lewis Architects and Associates proposal, and that
carries with it a schedule of fees totaling $23,400. The Ray
Hollington is a lengthy proposal, and I'm trying to see if
we've got a definitive schedule of proposed services.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: A lot of pictures.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. It's -- like I say, it's -- I
don't quickly see the -- they describe their process for
review and planning, but I don't see any schedule of fees
11-13-07
29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
offhand.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Looks --
JUDGE TINLEY: I'll let the committee work on that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I move we accept
those two bids and refer them to the review committee. And I
assume that you're going to come back during this cycle --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Today or tomorrow, I would
suspect.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Your earliest convenience,
I whatever.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and a second as
indicated. Further question or discussion on the motion?
All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right
hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do you want this one back
from Peter Lewis?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Let's go back to Item 5;
consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to approve
creation of a new position at Juvenile Detention Facility,
and the options of filling that vacant position if a new
11-13-07
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
position is created. Mr. Stanton and Ms. Hyde, we deferred
this until your arrival.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Stanton?
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir. Thank you. We're
requesting the ability to -- or we're asking the Court to let
us create a position of an Assistant Facility Administrator
out at the juvenile facility, and outlined in the -- in the
letter that you're reading at the current moment would be
some of the job duties performed by that person. It would
also -- we could do it in the current budget that we
currently have, with being able to move some line items
around, and it wouldn't -- it would not cost any more to
create this position.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It wouldn't cost any more --
what, now? Say that again.
MR. STANTON: It wouldn't cost -- creating this
position would not cost -- it would not change our bottom
line of our budget.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What -- I guess, what's the
reason for it? And also, I guess -- I guess I'm a little --
not inclined to start a new position right after we just went
through budget and did all this in the rest of the county.
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir.
11-13-07
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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess, why are we looking at
MR. STANTON: Well, with the Texas Youth
Commission -- with everything that is going on with T.Y.C.,
and I've -- you've had a chance to read the paper and know
what all's going on, T.J.P.C. is -- is kind of retreating and
covering their flank, I guess, so that the state doesn't --
or the government -- federal -- I guess, federal doesn't come
in and kind of blindside them, such as what's happening with
T.Y.C. So, T.J.P.C. is coming in with more regulations, more
rules, and more standards that we're having to follow, and
it's just getting to the point that -- as Ms. Hyde was saying
this morning, it's a situation where, at any given time --
I'm kind of surprised my phone hasn't rang yet here. On
weekends, I get an average of 20 to 25 phone calls a weekend,
and it	would just be nice	to be	able to have someone that
could	assist in preparing	a --	(Cell phone rang.) It's not
mine.	Preparing a lot of	the -	- a lot of stuff. We're
having to -- we just -- we just -- we're having to create --
we just got a new facility nurse. T.J.P.C. has set out
standards where we have to have a health service coordinator
and health service authority. We are -- they're creating new
grievance procedures where we have to allow the juveniles to
have access to -- direct access to telephones and computers
to file grievances for abuse and neglect and different items
11-13-07
32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
like that. And it's just -- the paperwork is kind of
overwhelming, to be honest with you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mr. Stanton, you have no
assistant now; is that correct?
MR. STANTON: No. No, sir, I don't.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What happens when you take
a vacation? Who's responsible for the facility in your
absence?
MS. HYDE: He is.
MR. STANTON: I am. T.J.P.C. standards state that
I have to appoint or set somebody up as -- as the acting
director when I leave, and the way that it's been done for
the past year, year and a half, is that whoever the acting
shift supervisor is on duty assumes those duties when I'm out
of town.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And that individual would
have the same responsibilities and authority that you
currently have, in your absence?
MR. STANTON: In my absence, yes, sir. If they're
not able to get ahold of me, yes, sir.
MS. HYDE: And that leads to, I'm sure, your next
question. The problem is, it could be any one of four to six
to eight, because your shift supervisors also take vacations,
and also need coverage. The problem is, no one has been
trained in the duties and responsibilities that Kevin is
11-13-07
33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
responsible for, so it's kind of, you know, a lick and a
promise is where we've been. With T.J.P.C.'s increased --
new training, new regulations, new procedures, new policies,
Mr. Stanton cannot do it by himself. It's just -- it's not
there any more. And, unfortunately, with this last audit, I
think a lot of that came to light, and what's coming down the
pike. There's more coming down the pike. So, he's stretched
as it is, but with this increase, it's going to get worse.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, I would take it, then,
from your comments that you are recommending this change?
MS. HYDE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Based on your review of the
Juvenile Detention Facility and the -- and the supervision
structure?
MS. HYDE: Yes, sir. And that way, we can have one
second -- one assistant, one second to Kevin that can go to
the training, be completely trained, so that if there's -- if
there's a case where Kevin actually takes a week's vacation,
there can be someone that steps in and actually does the job,
where Kevin can have, you know, five consecutive days off
without dealing with these problems, which he does. The only
time that I know of in the last year that he's taken time off
was a short vacation, and the only reason why no one could
call him was he was out of the country, literally. But when
he came back, his cell phone was blown up.
11-13-07
34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Based on this lack of training,
because of the position not existing, am I to understand that
when he's not available, he's trying to take some time off,
he's designated, say, a shift supervisor to be acting
administrator, if there is a problem, the procedure is, when
the problem is laid in the lap of the -- of the shift
supervisor who's the acting administrator, the first thing
that individual does is call Mr. Stanton, wherever he may be?
MS. HYDE: Yes, sir, it is.
JUDGE TINLEY: Vacation or otherwise.
MS. HYDE: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, you convinced me on that
part. Now, where's the money coming from?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, that's what I want to
get back to. Where is the money coming from? Because you're
pointing out a couple alternatives here in terms of --
MR. STANTON: Well, that's -- the alternatives are,
if we fill the position, that the person -- that would be the
promotion. If we -- because of what the Court did prior to
this budget year, created an extra position out at the
facility to use as the coverage person for the vacations and
holidays, there is an extra person out there that -- that we
could move into the slot of whoever took the assistant
position -- assistant administrator position. So, that way
11-13-07
35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
it would only -- there's only a difference in the salaries of
about $2,000.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That would eliminate that other
position?
MR. STANTON: We could either eliminate it --
MS. HYDE: And come back later and request that
other position if we feel that we need it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: By eliminating it, are
we -- then do we then have a problem with respect to our
ratio of J.D.O.'s to --
MR. STANTON: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- occupants?
MR. STANTON: No, sir. No, sir, we'll never have
that problem, because the most we can hold is up to 25 kids.
And I have gone about in the last year certifying all of my
control room operators as J.D.O.'s, so we always have at
least three people on duty, so we're -- we're good up to 24
kids. And so -- and luckily, we've only got up to -- well,
lucky or unlucky, we haven't got up to that number but twice.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So we're relatively revenue- or
expenditure-neutral, as long as we don't come back and hire
-- fill the position that we're eliminating. So, it's -- so
we're really not -- we may not be expenditure-neutral.
MS. HYDE: May not.
MR. STANTON: We can -- honestly, I mean, it would
11-13-07
36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
be -- it would be --
MS. HYDE: But at this point, we still have $15,000
in for a part-time position, so we could take -- use that 15
for a permanent part-time position. So, then you've got your
assistant that can help cover as well as that permanent
part-time position that can help cover, and that way it would
still be neutral.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I assume the person that
you're talking about to fill this spot is already on staff?
MS. HYDE: As a part-time.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And that individual's
salary is what grade right now?
MS. HYDE: 14.
MR. STANTON: No, sir -- are you talking about who
would assume this position? The facility --
MS. HYDE: Oh, my bad. I'm sorry.
', MR. STANTON: Currently, he's an 18-5.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He's an 18-5, and you'd be
moving that person to a 20?
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that correct?
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And the difference between
the 18-5 and the 20 is the $2,000 you reference here?
MR. STANTON: Roughly, with FICA and insurance.
11-13-07
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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Now, his leaving his former
position then creates a vacuum? That's a question.
MR. STANTON: Well, that's where we would have to
move some internal people around and put somebody to assume
his positions that he currently -- or that person currently
holds.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And then that gets back to
Ms. Hyde's explanation that there was a full person or a
portion of a person built into the budget?
MS. HYDE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. STANTON: Yeah, we've currently got $15,000 in
part-time and $10,000 in overtime still in our budget that
hasn't been touched.
MS. HYDE: We don't want to touch the overtime, but
we could touch the $15,000 and make a part -- permanent
part-time position.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So I'm a little confused now as
to what you're asking us to do. You want us to create the
new position, and we're canceling a position? The one
that -- floating position you mentioned earlier is being done
away with? What's that --
MS. HYDE: Make it a part-time -- make it -- let us
hire a part-time permanent employee.
11-13-07
38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Which you have budgeted
already?
MS. HYDE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And you'll take 2,000 -- where
is the other 2,000 coming from? From that line item?
MS. HYDE: We'll probably take it out of the --
when we talked to Ms. Hargis, there's several different
places that we could take it out of.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. STANTON: And, basically, nothing would -- we'd
be the same staffing, same ratio, same everything as last
year, except now we have an assistant facility administrator.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would move approval of
the request to create a new position. As Assistant Facility
Administrator; is that correct?
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And at assigned Grade 20.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And eliminating the -- which
position are we eliminating?
MR. STANTON: It was a vacation J.D.O. -- vacation
coverage J.D.O. is what it basically is.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That was what level?
MR. STANTON: That was at a -- well, the person
that's doing that right now was at a 16-5.
11-13-07
39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And eliminate -- it's a
floating position, right?
MS. HYDE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And continue that position,
and eliminating the floating position of a J.D.O. I guess
that covers it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
indicated.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And --
JUDGE TINLEY: Question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And there will be --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Only thing I'd like to say is
that I believe this next time -- you know, next budget year,
'~ if you're going to do this, you really ought to think about
it in advance. Just having approved a budget, this is not
something that I'm real fond of doing after -- in the middle
of a budget year.
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir. I apologize for that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the only reason -- I agree
with Commissioner Oehler, as I stated earlier, but the only
reason I'd even go along with 2t is because I'm hearing that
there are new rules coming down that you didn't know about
during the budget preparation, that are changing.
MR. STANTON: One of the really neat -- not neat
11-13-07
40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
things; one of the really -- things that's going to kind of
really affect a lot of the detention facilities out there is
that T.J.P.C. is no longer doing announced visits; they're
going to knock on your door at 3 o'clock in the morning and
say, "Hi, we're here to do an audit." And -- which is good.
I'm glad that they're changing. It's just the fact that
it'll -- it will help identify some of the problems.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I support this, but like I
say, there should be some warning. If not -- well, I guess
we may have to do it again, but I'm -- I really prefer that
to be done at budget time.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You'll bring a budget amendment
at our next meeting to figure out how to get the funds moved
around?
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other question or discussion on
the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
it 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 6; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on
approving a contract between Kerr County Juvenile Detention
Facility and Dr. Chris Meriwether to act as the facility's
11-13-07
41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
health director. I believe you've looked at the agreement,
have you not, Mr. Emerson?
MR. EMERSON: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think you actually drafted it,
didn't you?
MR. EMERSON: What we actually did was we took the
physician health services agreement that was with the jail
and removed some paragraphs and added a couple paragraphs to
make it fit the Juvenile Detention Facility.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I certainly move for
approval, because -- a number of things. Dr. Meriwether's
been a good servant to not only this community, but this
facility for some time now, and if he's willing to continue
his services, I'm certainly willing to continue with him.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item. Question or discussion? The --
having a -- having the health director by contract also
prevents us, at least in a lot of cases, from having to carry
some of the these kids to the emergency room, which has an
economic benefit, because the nursing staff will be able to
contact Dr. Meriwether directly, so that's an additional
benefit. Further question or discussion? All in favor of
the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
11-13-07
42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Item 7;
consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to advertise
for bids for digital video recording system for the Juvenile
Detention Facility. Mr. Stanton?
MR. STANTON: This was in the capital outlay item
budgets that were -- were done in the previous budget year.
And what -- at this point, what we're doing is requesting the
ability to go out for bids for those services that have
previously been budgeted.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This would be a replacement
for the entire system; is that correct?
MR. STANTON: It would be a replacement for the
entire recording system. We're only replacing four -- five
cameras, but we'll be using -- we'll be utilizing the other
24 cameras that are out there.
JUDGE TINLEY: Are the other 24 cameras digital?
MR. STANTON: They're compatible, yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: What are you going to do with
the cameras that are no longer in use? Or are there going to
11-13-07
43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
be some you're not going to use?
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir, there's going to be five
that we're going to be replacing. And two of them, we're
replacing because we're going to be able to use audio and
video in the control room, and also in the intake area, which
T.J.P.C. is requesting that we have audio as well as video
now. So, we will have five -- approximately five cameras
that are still working, that -- but we're having to replace.
JUDGE TINLEY: What do you plan to do with those
cameras?
MR. STANTON: We were planning on just keeping them
as spares in case something went out; we'd have those to
replace the ones that -- the existing cameras.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You have any other needs for
them?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, I think we could
probably discuss some of the needs as we go on, maybe even
for the courthouse, for security.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are they digital cameras or
are they analog cameras?
MR. STANTON: I believe the ones that are out there
right now are analog, but from talking to the -- the
gentleman that's helped us, or come out and looked at them,
they're compatible, both digital and audio, both ways.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We'll keep that in mind.
11-13-07
44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I move approval of the
request to advertise for bids for a digital video recording
system for the Juvenile Detention Facility.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item. Questions or discussion? All
in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Thank you,
Mr. Stanton.
MR. STANTON: Thank y'all.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move to Item 22; consider,
discuss, and authorize Sheriff to dispose of three county
vehicles.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: These are just three of the
very old ones that we've had that aren't worth very much.
One of them's a '96 Chevrolet pickup. The air conditioning,
heating core, everything else is out on it. It's one we
absorbed from the task force when the task force was
dissolved. It's just been in storage. The other one, I
believe even a year -- about a year ago, I already got
permission to get rid of it; we just hadn't done it yet, and
that's that old, red D.A.R.E. Camaro that we used to have
11-13-07
45
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
I3
14
15
16
17
18
I9
20
21
22
23
24
25
before we purchased that other. And the last one is a '93
Chevrolet Caprice that was kind of -- the blue one the former
Sheriff drove for a while, and former chief deputy drove for
a while, that they're just junk. And since I had two of the
C.I.D. cars that were totaled out the last few months, we're
trying to group all these up and see if what we're getting
off insurance on those two cars, if we can take these three
also and trade in to get at least another C.I.D. car.
JUDGE TINLEY: What -- what method of disposal? Do
we declare them surplus?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Declare them as surplus. Then
at that point, I can -- like, Ken Stoepel or any of those can
come in and look at them as a trade-in. If we want to get
rid of them any other way, I have to do it over a -- you
know, the last few years, we always did. Any other way, you
have to do it in sealed, but if you're just trading them, you
can trade them. Any other way, you have to bid them.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think surplus, go out for
bid.
MR. EMERSON: You have to put them out for bid,
Rusty.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We don't want to do them
surplus.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, just -- that's the way
they've always gotten rid of them, is just trade them.
11-13-07
46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You can trade them -- you can't
trade them, you don't think?
MR. EMERSON: Let me look into that to make sure
before you do it.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You might not want to declare
them surplus if you're going to trade them.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You don't want to do them
surplus, I'm pretty certain, unless you're going to do some
sort of a bid or auction for them. I think you ought to be
able to trade them in, as long as you get fair market value
for them. No, you don't think so?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Surely not, if we declare
them surplus.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: These are not seized vehicles;
these were actually County-owned vehicles. Seized ones are
different.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Come back in two weeks.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No problem.
MR. EMERSON: The statute's very specific on how
you have to dispose of surplus property, and I don't have it
in front of me to make sure, so --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Look at it and see.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: If it's not surplus, then
it's probably a different way to do it, but --
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further action on that item,
11-13-07
47
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
gentlemen? Let's move to Item 24; consider, discuss, and
take appropriate action on Commissioner Letz' providing
opinions to Road and Bridge Department concerning subdivision
platting requirements. That's an interesting item.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I put it on the agenda --
I frequently get calls from Truby and Len about an
interpretation of Subdivision Rules. And I usually -- I
usually give it to them pretty freely, but this last time,
Truby asked me to give it to them in writing. And I think
it's a good idea; I agree with that, but after I gave it to
them in writing, I started thinking about it, that I'm not
i sure I'm authorized to give opinions in writing to Road and
Bridge on subdivision rules and interpretation. So, I just
put on it the agenda just to kind of get it before the Court
and let them know. And, I mean, it's not -- you know, what I
have done in the past is given my opinion. It's just that;
it's my opinion, and sometimes Len agrees, sometimes Len
disagrees. Sometimes, you know, it comes to the Court. You
know, anyway, so it's on the agenda to see if I should
continue that practice or not. Len?
MR. ODOM: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do you wish to be insulated from
that practice, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I just -- I'm just -- you
11-13-07
48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. ODOM: I apologize. Normally I'm there and can
and Truby needed an answer from O.S.S.F. I agree with one
statement that you made; the other part I disagree, because I
got more information from Brandenberg, and I think they're
two unique situations, and the Court can make that decision.
We don't have a problem, and I don't think that you're
stepping over on the statutes at all. That is an opinion,
and it is something that is in the best interests of the --
your constituents. And in the interpretation of this, it's
judgmental. Ministerial duties, and then it's judgmental
because of the circumstances. So, therefore, I do agree with
you on the law down there in -- because -- because the Court
had directed us previously. Mr. Henneke -- Judge Henneke had
directed Frank to do -- where you have an easement created
for financial reasons. That's the reason that was created,
was on financial reasons down there. And then there was --
the family divided it on 1.03, so I agree there. The other
one was that I found an easement -- a road easement created
in 1995. Brandenberg didn't get back with you. So, I say
that that's exempt prior to December of 2000, so, therefore,
that that would go forward. But O.S.S.F. had to have a
decision -- they needed to do it, because some people had
11-13-07
49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
some septic systems, and that was the reason you were called,
MR. ODOM: General issue.
think that's a little bit of a gray area. Not sure how much
latitude I really have on interpreting rules. Obviously, I
mean, I tend to -- I wrote the rules for the most part, or
authored them, anyway, and they're approved by the Court, so
I know a little bit of the -- I guess the detail of them,
maybe more than some of the other Commissioners. But I just
wanted to -- you know, if I'm going to be doing that, I want
the Court to know I'm doing it, and I want them to agree that
it's okay for me to do it. And I also want the County
Attorney to pretty much say that's okay too, because when it
comes to a legal opinion of them, he's the final --
interpreting our rules, he's our final guru. And I think,
generally, when we -- Len and I have a disagreement, usually
it comes before the Court or goes to Rex then. But it's just
a -- if I'm going to be doing it, which I have no problem
doing it; I just want the Court to be aware of it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, knowing you so well,
Jon, and how difficult it is to get an opinion out of you, I
11-13-07
50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
would -- I'd like to see you continue giving your verbal
opinions to them. Keep the thing running, keep it moving.
But when it comes to writing, I don't think I would
participate in that. I certainly would get the County
Attorney to do that, though.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's my opinion. As you said,
Commissioner, sometimes you and Leonard agree; sometimes you
disagree. We've seen -- we've seen demonstration of that
today. I don't suppose there's anything wrong with anybody
on this Court or anybody else having an opinion about
anything, but if it comes down to what's binding on the Court
and Kerr County, the ultimate authority is going to be the
County Attorney, because that's -- that's whose opinion we
legally rely upon and must rely upon. But insofar as any
member of the Court or anybody else verbally, in writing, or
otherwise expressing an opinion on an interpretation,
certainly, you know, we're privileged to do that. But the
binding effect of it is somewhat questionable, I would think.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do you agree with that, Rex? I
mean --
MR. EMERSON: I do, and I think everybody's on the
difference between Leonard or the Court taking action on your
guidance, as opposed to legal opinion and the resulting
immunities that derive therefrom.
11-13-07
51
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. ODOM: And for your information, I did write --
O.S.S.F. required a writing, and it needed it then, so that
was the reason I did it. I followed through after
investigating it with the different surveyors and finding --
and gave written opinion myself. So, in that aspect, you
know, I tried -- and I appreciate your opinion, because it
needed some help at that time.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I'll continue to give
opinions on a limited basis.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further on that particular
item? Okay. It's now 9 o'clock. Let's go to Item l;
consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on a request
from the Riverhill Oaks Homeowners Association to rent the
Union Church at historical rate of $37.50 for three dates in
2008, being the annual meeting January 10th, and potluck
socials on April 17th and October 16th, for small, tenured,
not-for-profit homeowners association. Mr. Boudreaux?
MR. BOUDREAUX: Good morning.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Before Mr. Boudreaux
starts, let me say that my property is in the Oaks of
Riverhill; I'm a member of this association, and so I will
recuse myself from this discussion.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Boudreaux?
MR. BOUDREAUX: I am here on behalf the Riverhill
Oaks Homeowners Association of 60 folks, who have enjoyed
11-13-07
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
meeting three times a year for many years at the historical
Union Church, and as have I requested, would like to continue
to do that at the historical rate. We are a nonprofit
organization, and we are a tenured organization, and request
that we be permitted to continue at the historical rate.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do you know offhand what the
non -- what the posted rate is for what you were trying to
do?
MR. BOUDREAUX: Yes, sir. I'm told that it was --
it's $100 a time.
JUDGE TINLEY: I believe the new rate schedule that
we approved is $25 an hour, but I believe there's a four-hour
minimum on the use of that facility. I think the issue is
really, are we going to adopt a policy of those that have had
previous use of that facility being able to continue at the
old rates, or did we adopt a new policy, and it applies to
everybody from the adoption of that policy date forward? I
think that's really the issue that we've got.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I think --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's the question on the
table today.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, that's what I see.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That issue, to me, we go by our
I
new rates, and our new rates are $100. Now, we have the
11-13-07
53
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
latitude to grant a reduction from that rate. I mean, I
don't want to ever get connected -- I mean, from now forward.
To me, the historical rate is nice to know what we used to
charge, but it's irrelevant. Now we can give a discount off
our current rate, and -- and one -- and I think they qualify
to at least be under for consideration, being a nonprofit,
and a local nonprofit.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Being a nonprofit and a
tenured nonprofit?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I think, you know, I
wouldn't -- I guess I wouldn't mind giving them a 50 percent
reduction. I think we need to somewhat stay with our current
format; we need to give a 25, 50 or 75 percent reduction.
And --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Now, they have the word
"small" in here, that they are a small group, which means
that they can't afford the new rates. I mean, I'm just being
honest; that's the way I read that, is that --
MR. BOUDREAUX: Yes, sir, that's the intention. We
have 60 property owners, and we -- our only source of income
is the assessment on those property owners, and our budget is
small.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I don't believe less than a
dollar a person would be unreasonable.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I mean, I'll make a
11-13-07
54
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
motion to grant a 50 percent reduction.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And that rate would be $50?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: $50.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'll second the motion.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to grant a
50 percent discount from the current rate schedule to the
Riverhill Oaks Homeowners Association. Any question or
discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(Commissioners Baldwin, Letz, and Oehler voted in
favor of the motion.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Abstain.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let the record reflect that
Commissioner Williams abstained from participation or voting
on that item. Thank you, sir.
MR. BOUDREAUX: Thank you.
~ JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's move to Item 25;
consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to cast votes
for directors of the Kerr County Appraisal District. I put
this on the agenda. As all of you know, annually we cast our
votes based upon the vote allocation that's given to us, and
they're shown on your backup to the agenda item. The votes
that we have per director are 1,101. Since there are five
elected, we have five times that, or 5,505. We can cast all
11-13-07
55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
or any portion of those votes for one director, spread them
out. The only caveat is that if we want to move to have a
director removed, we have to have had at least one vote cast
for that director.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I mean, I think it's --
obviously, in my opinion, we need to have Mr. Lewis
re-elected, 'cause he kind of represents the Court, and he's
the person I go to if I have a problem with that board. I
think in the past, generally, we cast all our votes for that
one person, but we could cast one -- I don't know that I'm --
I may want sometime to remove .somebody out there, so we could
put one for each of the others and then the balance for
Mr. Lewis.
JUDGE TINLEY: That would be 5,500 for Charles
Lewis, and then one each for each of the five others, for a
total of 5,505, which would be the total cumulative votes we
have.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's my motion.
I
JUDGE TINLEY: All right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and a second as
indicated. Question or discussion on the motion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Only an observation more than
anything else, is that I don't recall ever seeing Comfort ISD
and Medina ISD being part of this ballot before.
11-13-07
56
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I was going to ask you
about that in terms of his representation.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. I mean, I just --
it's -- I mean, obviously, they're -- they have a lot of
property in the county, but I just never noticed them being
part of the voting for the county before. But it doesn't
make any difference from our standpoint who we vote for. I
just thought that was interesting.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Are all of these -- are all
these up?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think they're all up every --
all up every two years, I think.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay. 'Cause I'm not -- it's
been so long since I've been involved with this, I don't --
I'm not very well up on it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think every two years.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Every two years? Every other
year.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So, some of these other
areas, areas like Ingram and Hunt, they won't be able to have
their own appointee with just their votes. They would have
to get votes from some other source.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. And K.I.S.D. has worked
with the other entities historically to allow representation
11-13-07
57
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
of most of the entities. I think there's -- and I will also
j note that I think there's two new ones, it appears to me.
Hank Moody is a new person. I believe Mr. Stanley used to be
a representative from the city of Kerrville, and Mark Bigott
or Bigott, whatever.
JUDGE TINLEY: Bigott.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Bigott.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Bigott. I don't believe he's
currently a member either. But -- so, anyway, looks like
there's some new people, new names on this list. Kirk
Griffin has been on there for some time. So has Phillip
Stacy and Ray Orr.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other question or discussion on
the motion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. I've got a -- I
got a comment to make on that.
~ JUDGE TINLEY: All right, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: To add to that discussion on
the other end of the table. The fact is that this probably
is one of the most important boards in this community, and
it's just like anything else. These guys get on there for
two years, and they finally figure out where the men's room
is and who the other members of their board is and how they
function, how this thing functions, and suddenly they're
11-13-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
58
try to figure out a way to make their length of service
longer, or -- I don't know -- I don't know the answer to it,
but it's just -- it's a problem. I see it as a problem, a
major problem.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that the -- from my
this one -- and I said Mr. Stanley; it's actually Mr. Stanley
Beard, the person that rotated off, I think represents the
city of Kerrville. He's had health issues that have
prevented him from attending many of the meetings, so there
is probably going to be a change to get more participation.
But I agree with you, you need to be on that board a little
bit. But I also think that the -- the entities in the
community	need	to	look to these	people for	setting the --	you
know, the	tone	of	the Appraisal	District, '	cause it is a	very
important board, and they do appoint the ARP members. And
it's -- this board has a great deal of everyone's pocketbook
in the county. That is a very important board.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: This board also hires and
fires the Chief Appraiser.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right. Well, I'm
comfortable with Mr. Lewis' representation for Kerr County.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No question, he's a giant.
11-13-07
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
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other question -- sorry. Any
other question or comment 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
back to the 9:10 item now. Consider, discuss, and take
appropriate action to renew the Kerr County Market Days usage
license for 2008. Ms. Anderson?
MS. ANDERSON: Good morning. Pleasure to be back
before you this morning. I thank you for your time on your
agenda. 2007 is our sixth year of operation of Kerr County
Market Days, and it has certainly been our most successful
year, and we're here this morning to ask for renewal of our
agreement for 2008 with no changes to the current agreement.
The changes we implemented in 2007, the March date, the
two-day event on Memorial Day, went very, very smoothly; I
think contributed greatly to how well the market went this
year. Our size of the market continues to grow. We're
running right now about 9 percent above last year, and it's
certainly on track to maintain that through the end of the
year. So, very short and sweet and simple.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: LuAnn, after we approve
this, this will make how many total years?
11-13-07
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
MS. ANDERSON: 2007 is actually our sixth year. We
began in midyear in 2002.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MS. ANDERSON: And, so, counting that as our first
year, we're -- '07 is our sixth, and this will make our
seventh year.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Golly, it's flown by, hasn't
it? Time is fun when you're having flies. Thought I'd throw
that in there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Your schedule is once a
I month?
MS. ANDERSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Have you found, after going
to that once a month, that it has increased your
participation?
MS. ANDERSON: I believe it has, particularly with
the current situation and what we've been in for the last
couple years with the increase in gas prices, because some of
~I our vendors do come from some distance. And it's been very,
very good for them to not make that journey twice a month, so
we've really taken off in our participation and putting it
into that one event each month. And we're still not in
direct competition with any significant events in this part
of the state, so we're getting more new vendors and getting
some very high-quality folks, and continuing to have a change
11-13-07
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
in what we offer to our customers; continue to have some good
variety in what's available at the market.
JUDGE TINLEY: What's been the progression,
numbers-wise, of the number of vendors, and how has that
stabilized?
MS. ANDERSON: Well, in 2002, in our first market,
we had 12 vendors, and we had rapid growth in that first
year. I think in '03 and '04, we probably had 100 vendors at
a couple of our markets. We may hit that number again this
year at the November market, and perhaps the December market.
But what has really changed is our average, which had sort of
in the early years been about 45, 50 vendors per market. Now
we're averaging 65 to 70 per market, and we've already been
over 80 one time this year -- actually, twice, Memorial Day
and this past market in October. So, that -- that average
number is moved up and is holding very steady right now.
JUDGE TINLEY: In terms of remaining space here at
the courthouse, are you pretty well maxed out, or do have a
little cushion?
MS. ANDERSON: We have some space. We are not
maxed out. And we really think that that's to our advantage.
We don't ever see trying to become a huge market with 150
vendors or anything like that. What we want to focus on and
what we have been pretty strict on this year is reviewing the
application for vendors so that we're being more and more
11-13-07
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
selective about the vendors we accept to come to this market.
And having that finite number, I think probably max about
100, it really helps us. It gives us the ability and
justification for saying, "I'm not quite sure that's exactly
what we're looking for in this market," and recommending some
other venues to some of our applicants.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I want to thank you for the
work that you and Jackie have done in keeping this thing
flowing, and when we come back after your weekend to our
courthouse, we find it in at least as good of shape as it was
in before you started the weekend, and never had a problem
with any debris or trash that wasn't under control, and
everything seems to be in super order. So, I thank you for
that.
MS. ANDERSON: Thank you, I appreciate that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree with that, Judge.
And I come in after you've done your weekend thing, and the
driveways are clean and there's no trash on the lawns, and I
commend you for that.
MS. ANDERSON: Thank you very much. We have some
folks who assist us with that, and they work very hard. We
don't ever want you to see any trash left over from Market
Days.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Do you charge the vendors a
fee to come in and sell?
11-13-07
63
1
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. ANDERSON: We do. The first year there was no
anywhere, which gives practically everybody an opportunity to
take part in the market, and also makes it very accessible to
our nonprofit groups who use this as a fundraising
opportunity. But, yes, we charge -- if you register and pay
in advance, we charge $15. If you come through the gate,
we'll make you pay $25.
JUDGE TINLEY: And you use that money for your
administrative expenses, your advertising and things of that
nature?
MS. ANDERSON: Our biggest single expense is
advertising. Second largest expense is for the Aorta-cans,
and that takes up probably 30 to 40 percent of our total
revenues. So the rest is spent on things like printing and
supplies and safety gear, and we bought our own barricades.
We have some capital investment, plus we have this past year
$1,200 for the bench to the courthouse. So --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you ever see -- how do I
more vegetables?
11-13-07
64
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. ANDERSON: I wish.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
MS. ANDERSON: We --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I may be living in the past;
I don't know. But I just -- I can't help but think that that
is a perfect avenue for an old coot like me to come get my
okra and squash.
MS. ANDERSON: We wish. Two things have happened.
'06 was a terrible year for growers. In fact, my own crop
failed. '07, in the beginning, we thought it was going to be
fabulous, before everything drowned. So, for the last two
years, it's been extremely difficult to even find any local
produce to bring to market. What we did have, because of our
March startup date this year, we had several brand-new and
very large and fabulous plant vendors who were here in March
and April and May, some folks bringing in their own homegrown
plants, and a lot of those herb and vegetable plants. And so
we had some really good participation on the plant side, but
we are always searching for people to bring the produce.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That would be neat. I'd
like to see it.
MS. ANDERSON: I would too.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We have a motion yet?
JUDGE TINLEY: No, we don't have a motion yet.
11-13-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
65
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion we reapprove
the contract with Market Days group.
JUDGE TINLEY: For 2008?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 2007-2008.
JUDGE TINLEY: You have a second, Commissioner
I Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I would.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 2008.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right. We have a motion and
second. Any further question or discussion on that motion?
All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right
hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Thank you,
Ms. Anderson.
MS. ANDERSON: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: We'll move to Item 26; consider,
discuss, and take appropriate action to approve Kerr County
employee voluntary supplemental insurance programs or plans
with guaranteed issue and County-approved electronic
enrollment features, and funded through employee payroll
deduction, and authorize County Judge to sign agreement for
11-13-07
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
same. I put this on the agenda at the request of Mr. Looney.
specified with his bids for -- for the employee health
benefits plan. And with regard to -- I think at some point,
the issue was raised about that that needed to be put out for
bids, and my understanding is -- and the County Attorney has
programs.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I don't have any problem
control -- is this open to any -- to all insurance companies?
How do we keep from having our H.R. Department having 500
different insurance companies that we have to work with?
JUDGE TINLEY: This is how -- exactly how we have
the process and reviewed by our consultant, with the
requirements that if someone wants to be considered for that,
they must offer guaranteed issue with no evidence of
insurability, and be compatible with the electronic
11-13-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
67
enrollment process.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, all the supplemental
insurance is part of the current RFP that's out there?
JUDGE TINLEY: No, it's separate and apart from the
RFP, because this is voluntary and there are no county funds
I involved. But the plans or proposals were submitted to our
consultant for review.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, how -- I guess my
question is, if there's no RFP, how do they know to submit
them to the consultant for review?
JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Hyde?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I thought that was the whole
reason we were changing, is that we didn't want to be picking
a person that we were going to have to get supplemental
through; it was open to everybody, or we weren't going to do
it at all.
MS. HYDE: When the RFP goes out for the insurance,
that opens up the door for all insurance carriers. The
biggest thing that most of the supplemental insurance
carriers are going to have a problem with is the guaranteed
issue. That means it doesn't matter what is wrong with any
employee; they are guaranteed issue. You can't get that
typically from most of your supplementals, unless it's --
it's the first time.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. So, it's part of -- the
11-13-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
68
supplemental	is part	of	the	RFP.
MS.	HYDE:	It	was	not put out as an RFP, no. All
it did --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If it's not RFP -- you just
said it was out through the RFP.
MS. HYDE: Because the insurance companies -- the
insurance companies know when they see the RFP. Just like
here locally, we've had several local insurance carriers.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How do they know?
MS. HYDE: 'Cause they read the RFP.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But it's not part of the RFP.
You just told me the supplemental is not part of the RFP, so
how do insurance companies know that we are going to offer
supplemental?
MS. HYDE: Because typically you offer supplemental
insurances.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. That's -- see, I mean,
I just want to make sure that we're playing on a level field.
And if the insurance industry aren't told that we're going to
do supplemental, how do they know that we're going to do
supplemental?
MS. HYDE: Well, any insurance company that's
currently doing supplementals, they know. They knew
before -- before anything was ever asked. They saw what was
in the newspapers, and they have contacted Gary.
11-13-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
69
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We are changing from what we've
done in the past this year.
MS. HYDE: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How do they know that we're
doing it differently? Where was it -- is it written in the
RFP that doesn't cover supplemental that we're doing this? I
mean, I think that we're -- in my opinion, I'm not going to
approve this unless it's open to the whole industry, and I
don't see how the industry knows about it.
MS. HYDE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We haven't done an RFP; how do
they know? I mean, you told me it's not part of the RFP that
we put out.
MS. HYDE: That's right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So it's not out to the
industry, then.
MS. HYDE: It was not put out as part of the RFP
last year or the year before or the year before.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And we've been criticized for
that, and we're not doing it that way any more.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner, I'm not sure that
it -- it was not part of the bid portion of the RFP or the
Request for Proposals. I think the RFP -- I want to look at
it to be certain, but I think the RFP stated that we would
also be considering voluntary employee supplemental
11-13-07
~o
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
coverages.
MS. HYDE: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Now, those are not bid. Those are
not bid, but the fact that those were included as -- from a
notice standpoint is I think what you're concerned about.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I -- yeah. The notice
part of it, but what you're saying is anybody that does these
two things, any company can then write supplemental insurance
with Kerr County if they do these two items on here, that
they'll accept anybody and will do it electronically, then we
have to accept them. Whether --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Is that correct, Ms. Hyde?
MS. HYDE: That's not how I understood it, no, sir.
They have to go through Mr. Looney, and they have to be able
to utilize the software package that we're trying to
purchase.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. How do they know to go
through Mr. Looney?
MS. HYDE: Because it says in the notice to contact
him.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We've never done a supplemental
RFP; you just told me that.
MS. HYDE: It's not under the bid. You asked if we
were bidding it. No, sir, we're not bidding it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We have a document floating out
11-13-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
71
there, a public notice that's saying anybody -- anybody that
wants to offer supplemental insurance to Kerr County
employees, please contact Mr. Looney?
MS. HYDE: I can go pull the newspaper and see
what -- exactly what this newspaper article says.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just want to make sure that
even -- I mean, that we're -- we're doing it the way we said
we're going to do it. I'm not positive, from what I'm
hearing, that we are.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, that raises another
question, too, and how are all these supplemental carriers --
how are they made aware of the two conditions or policy,
whichever -- however you want to state it, of guaranteed
enrollment and the elec -- guaranteed approval, insurability,
and electronic enrollment? How do they know that?
MS. HYDE: When they contact the consultant and
they talk to the consultant. And, I'm sorry; that's where I
went. I was trying to get a hold of Gary. Gary's stuck in
the airport.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That gets back to
Commissioner Letz' first question. Are we setting up a
situation where we're going to have 500 supplemental
insurance carriers out there?
MS. HYDE: No, sir, that was not -- that's not the
intent at all.
11-13-07
72
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: In fact, by following the process
that we're following, at the consultant's recommendation,
we're trying to avoid that. We are currently doing payroll
have to do payroll deduction for, and that's all we're doing
employees are free to accept or not accept at their own
choosing. They're paying for it, so it's their call to make.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: But I think probably what we need to
the Request for Proposals, see exactly what that language
was, and we're going to have an advertised portion, and then
there's going to be probably an expanded response. So, let's
pull those and take a look at them, and we'll come back and
take a look at it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess my question is, if -- I
mean, the RFP may -- I'd like to get a copy of the RFP.
Maybe if I read it, maybe I wouldn't have some of the
questions that I'm having on the insurance. But if the RFP
says that whoever gets our coverage has the option of writing
11-13-07
73
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
supplemental, and only with that one company, I don't really
have a problem with that, but I just need to make sure that
we're all playing on the same -- you know.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think what that means is
that it's just -- that company also has the right to offer
the supplemental, in addition to the ones that already exist
that can qualify.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But if you -- but if you go
with the "in addition," then every company that meets those
two qualifications can write supplemental insurance, and we
have to do it, and that's going to be a lot of people,
potentially.
MR. EMERSON: I'm not sure how we get there, but my
understanding is -- and I don't know if this will help or
hurt, but my understanding of the process was that we wanted
to narrow it to one primary company that we would do
deductions for, and then any other company that wanted to
provide it, it was up to the employee to pay direct, in order
to save H.R. from getting into situations where they were
dealing with 35 different companies.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
MR. EMERSON: I don't know how the notice went out
to determine who that primary company is.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, and that's my question.
But I guess if it's just -- and where is the notice that said
11-13-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
74
we're doing it? Because this is the first time we've really
talked about supplemental here.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: The thing is, I think that
one of the reasons it may have been written the way that it
was, that there are quite a few employees that have been with
a different company than what may or may not get the bid, and
they were concerned that they would be having to change their
coverage. And this would allow them to continue using their
same alternative coverage, or whatever you want to call it,
that they've had in the past, if they can qualify to do the
electronic filings. Is that correct?
MS. HYDE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You can't -- you can have
more than one company doing it this way, which does open it
I uP•
COMMISSIONER LETZ: To everyone.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: As long as they can qualify.
I think that that will allow them to sell supplemental
insurance to employees.
MS. PEREZ: Good morning. Teri Perez with Alamo
Insurance.
JUDGE TINLEY: We probably got this thing all
discombooberated six different directions. Head us back to
the middle, okay?
MS. PEREZ: Different viewpoints; it's very good.
11-13-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
75
I work with Gary, and actually, he's my boss. And,
unfortunately, he wasn't able to make it today, so we do
apologize for that. However, if I could just interject, what
normally we do is we shop the market, if you will. The RFP
was put out into the public for the medical and various other
things that go along with that. The supplemental portions,
though, were actually bid out to the market by our company.
So what we do is we just basically blanket, you know, all the
different carriers and request for them -- from them, excuse
all carriers out there can do it. In fact, there's a lot of
And so what we did is we basically got all these
bids in, and they were evaluated by Gary, and we determined a
certain package, and that's what it is that we're trying to
present here today. The companies that we have presented to
you will provide guaranteed issue to the employees to a
certain level, and they will accept the feed, and they will
accept pin signatures so that the H.R. folks don't have to
deal with all the paperwork, all the applications and losing
of the paperwork on the carrier's side. And it's actually to
11-13-07
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
the benefit of any client, Kerr .County being one of them, to
to do it here and set it up. So, with all those things and
having those goals in mind, it kind of narrows the field as
to who the players are going to be at the end of the day. A
number of the supplemental carriers, again, will not accept
data, you know, through another system, meaning an enrollment
system that is not their own. So, again, it kind of, you
know, narrows that field a little bit.
MS. HYDE: And part of that is because they -- they
will not -- they will no longer own our data. Currently,
they -- if you have a supplemental -- and I'll use
Commissioner Baldwin. If you have a supplemental and they
have your name, they own your information. We don't have any
right to tell them no currently with the ones that we use.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So all supplemental goes
through Alamo Insurance Group?
MS. PEREZ: I'm sorry?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All the supplemental insurance
11-13-07
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
you put out the bid under certain criteria.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MS. PEREZ: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, not for evaluation. You
said Alamo Insurance Group set-the criteria for how we're
doing supplemental.
MS. PEREZ: Well, we cite the criteria based on
what it was that the client wanted, and the client wanted --
which you guys are the clients -- wanted the online
enrollment system and the guaranteed issue for policies for
people that perhaps may not be insurable in any other form.
'Cause you do have employees that, quite frankly, can't get
coverage for those types of policies, so being that that was
part of the criteria, yes, we sent out to market what the
criteria was that you folks were looking for as an end
result. I'm sorry, did that answer the question?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It does. I'm just -- that's
not all that I thought Gary's company was charged with doing.
I thought they were doing evaluation. It just seems like
it's a little bit odd to me. I mean, I don't know that I
recall ever authorizing Alamo Insurance Group to go out there
and set the criteria for supplemental insurance and go out
and solicit bids for it. We did -- I mean, that's not what I
11-13-07
78
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
recall doing.
MS. PEREZ: I don't think we set the criteria. I
think --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's only two -- there's
only two parameters.
MS. HYDE: Only two criteria. Guaranteed issue to
every employee.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Guaranteed issuance to
everybody, right, regardless of past history. And do
electronic --
MS. PEREZ: Or current history.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Only two policy issues
there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, any company in the nation
that meets these two criteria can write supplemental
insurance in Kerr County.
JUDGE TINLEY: No, they were -- they do respond to
Alamo.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Where's the RFP for that
purpose? See, that's what I'm saying. I just don't think we
can do that.
MS. HYDE: But there's no county -- there's no
county funds, so there was no RFP needed. This is --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How do we prevent somebody else
from -- okay, I'm just saying -- I don't know.
11-13-07
79
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, they're preventing
themselves -- if they don't want to assure guaranteed
acceptance into the plan, that automatically takes them out.
That's their decision. Or if they don't want to abide by
electronic application or enrollment, if they say, "We don't
want to do that," then they're automatically out of the plan.
I think the distinction between the two is that we're not
paying for any of this.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, I'm not -- I'm concerned
about it being a level playing field, that any company is
allowed to write it under these two criteria.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any company is still allowed to
write --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Whether Alamo Insurance writes
it or not.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any company is still allowed to
write it, whether they've talked to Alamo Insurance or not.
You can -- you can contract with any number of -- of
providers, through brokers or otherwise, for whatever
coverage you desire. The key is, if it's going to come
through payroll deduction from Kerr County, it must have
these two features with it. And that's how -- that's how it
was narrowed. The others are still free to write whatever
coverage on whatever terms they choose with any employee of
Kerr County.
11-13-07
80
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, any company that allows you
electronic sign-up and will not turn anyone down can write in
Kerr County.
JUDGE TINLEY: No.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's what you said. There's
only two criteria, I'm being told.
MS. PEREZ: Well, it's the two criteria that
started out as to what, you know, the client wanted. I mean,
in theory, you've got -- you know, you've got hundreds of
carriers out there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MS. PEREZ: But the question is, do you want every
single one of them on the grounds going from location to
location? Probably not, because it kind of gets in the way
of your everyday business. So, part of the whole H.R.
function and the employee benefits function is to get an
employee benefit package. So, what we -- again, what we were
asked to do, it's my understanding, unless I'm wrong, is to
verify that we can find somebody that would provide the
employees here with guaranteed issue coverage, and that --
because, you know, the folks here wanted to go online, move
in that direction; you know, have that in it as well. You
know, we've been -- we've been doing this for a while, and
I'll tell you, it's really tough getting carriers to, one,
take the feed via the way that we're trying to do it, through
11-13-07
81
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
part is the guaranteed issue. You know, that's -- that's one
thing that I think, from the employees' standpoint, that's a
real biggie, because you do have folks here that, I mean, are
just -- may not be able to get coverage through any other
means. So, being able to offer those two things is a great
thing. But putting them together, you know, now you have
more obstacles in the way, because supplemental carriers --
you know, a lot of them are coming out with the new online
enrollments for themselves, which is great, and they can
provide additional, you know, perks and bells and whistles
for clients that provide their policies to their employees.
But, again, as we were kind of talking about, it becomes
their data, and if you should cut your ties with that carrier
at some point in the future, you know, the question becomes,
can you get the data back? So --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess, you know, I --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Another thing is that any
as long as they pay for it.
payroll deduction.
MS. PEREZ: But that's not actually true, sir. Not
every employee can get coverage, and that's the whole reason
for the guaranteed issue.
11-13-07
82
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: They could go somewhere else
and get other -- and not have payroll deductions; they can
pay it out of their own pocket.
MS. HYDE: Yeah, they can.
MS. PEREZ: They can apply for it, but that doesn't
mean they're going to get it.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's right. But if they
find the coverage they're looking for, they can do it
themselves.
MS. PEREZ: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Just -- it's not going to be
a payroll deduction.
MS. PEREZ: Absolutely.
MR. EMERSON: Can I ask three specific questions
that I think will help cut to the chase? How did Alamo
Insurance disseminate notice to the insurance companies?
MS. PEREZ: We bid to the market the way we
normally do. We send out the information that we have
regarding the current benefit plan design and what the
client's end goal is. Again, the guaranteed issue limits,
the higher the better, and we send out to the marketplace to
people that we deal with and we work with, and different
carriers in and around San Antonio, Texas.
MR. EMERSON: Okay. The second question would be
how many companies have responded?
11-13-07
83
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me interject another question
before we get there. Is that a normally accepted method in
the industry for soliciting proposals for the types of
coverage that you were soliciting?
MS. PEREZ: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. HYDE: There's 24.
MR. EMERSON: Twenty-four companies responded?
MS. PEREZ: And not all of them supplied bids.
MR. EMERSON: Okay.
MS. PEREZ: We did have some decline.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Did Alamo receive any
compensation through any of these insurance companies for
supplemental for doing this?
MS. PEREZ: Generally, if we are the agent of
record, yes, we do.
JUDGE TINLEY: Are you acting as broker in this
case?
MS. PEREZ: In this case, I believe we are, for the
~ voluntary.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. PEREZ: But that's -- again, I'm here for Gary,
so --
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. PEREZ: But I believe we are.
11-13-07
84
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, our consultant chose who
they're going to offer the supplemental to, and then they're
getting a commission for it?
MS. PEREZ: For the supplemental portion.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, supplemental portion
only.
MS. PEREZ: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I've got a problem with that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Based on the number of --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think that`s what we
hired the consultant to do.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Based on the number of
enrollees.
MS. PEREZ: Yes, sir.
MS. HYDE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think that's the job of
our consultant.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's the third question?
MR. EMERSON: That was it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
~' JUDGE TINLEY: Do we defer, gentlemen?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: See how difficult it is for
11-13-07
85
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Letz to give his opinion about that? It's like pulling teeth
or something.
JUDGE TINLEY: Got another degree in dentistry,
didn't you?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Golly, wears me out
sometimes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Wearing myself out, too.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. If there's no further action
on that, we'll take about a 15-minute recess.
(Recess taken from 9:45 a.m. to 10:06 a.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's come back to order, if we
might. I have permission of Commissioner 1 to proceed. Item
27 -- or, excuse me, scratch that. Let's go to Item 8. I
will recess the Commissioners Court meeting at this time and
I will open a public hearing for the final revision of plat
for Lots 1, 5, 6, 11, 12, and 13 of Hill River Country
Estates, as set forth in Volume 3, Pages 118 and 119 of the
Plat Records.
(The regular Commissioners Court meeting was closed
at 10:07 a.m., and a public hearing was held in
open court, as follows:)
P U B L I C H E A R I N G
JUDGE TINLEY: Is there any member of the public
that wishes to be heard with respect to the final revision of
plat for Lots 1, 5, 6, 11, 12, and 13 of the Hill River
11-13-07
86
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Country Estates?
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Seeing no one coming forward, I will
close the public hearing, and I will reconvene the -- I will
convene a public hearing for the final revision of plat for
Lots 25 and 26 of The Horizon, as set forth in Volume 6,
Pages 323 to 326, and located in Precinct 1.
(The public hearing was concluded at 10:07 a.m.,
and another public hearing was held in open court,
as follows:)
P U B L I C H E A R I N G
JUDGE TINLEY: Is there any member of the public
that wishes to be heard with respect to the final revision of
the plat for Lots 25 and 26 of The Horizon, as set forth in
Volume 6, Pages 323 to 326, and located in Precinct 1?
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Seeing no one coming forward, I will
close that public hearing, and I will convene and open a
public hearing for the revision of Lots 99, 100, and 101 of
The Horizon, as set forth in Volume 6, Pages 323 to 326, and
located in Precinct 1.
(The public hearing was concluded at 10:08 a.m.,
and another public hearing was held in open court,
as follows:)
P U B L I C H E A R I N G
JUDGE TINLEY: Is there any member of the public
that wishes to be heard with regard to the revision of Lots
11-13-07
87
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
99, 100, and 101 of The Horizon, as set forth in Volume 6,
Pages 323 to 326?
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Seeing no one coming forward, I will
~ close that public hearing, and I will open and convene a
public hearing for the revision of Lots 113 and 114, Vistas
Escondidas de Cypress Springs, as set forth in Volume 7, Page
363, and located in Precinct 4.
(The public hearing was concluded at 10:08 a.m.,
and another public hearing was held in open court,
as follows:)
P U B L I C H E A R I N G
JUDGE TINLEY: Is there any member of the public
that wishes to be heard concerning the revision of Lots 113
and 114, Vistas Escondidas de Cypress Springs, as set forth
in Volume 7, Page 363, and located in Precinct 4?
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Seeing no one coming forward, I will
close the public hearing for the revision of Lots 113 and
114, vistas Escondidas de Cypress Springs, as set forth in
Volume 7, Page 363.
(The public hearing was concluded at 10:09 a.m.,
and the regular Commissioners Court meeting was
reopened.)
11-13-07
88
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on the final
revision of plat for Lots 25 and 26 of The Horizon, as set
forth in Volume 6, Pages 323 to 326, and located in
Precinct 1.
MR. ODOM: Yes. This is removing of the line
between two lots, making one. At this time, we ask approval
for the revision of Lots 25 and 26 of The Horizon, Volume 6,
Pages 323 to 326, done under the alternate plat process.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and second 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 12; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action
for the final revision on Lots 99, 100, and 101 of The
Horizon, as set forth in Volume 6, Pages 323 to 326, and
located in Precinct 1.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. This is removing of the
lines, making one lot out of three. At this time, we ask
approval of this revision of Lots 99, 100, and 101 of The
Horizon, Volume 6, Pages 323 to 326, done under the alternate
11-13-07
89
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item. Question questions or
discussion? 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. We'll move
to Item 14; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action
for final revision of Lots 113 and 114, Vistas Escondidas de
Cypress Springs, as set forth in Volume 7, Page 363, Plat
Records, and located in Precinct 4.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. This revision is combining
two lots into one. At this time, we're requesting approval
of the final plat for Lots 113 and 114 of Vistas Escondidas
de Cypress Springs.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Any question or discussion? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
11-13-07
90
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Let's move
to Item 27; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to
appoint Kerr County Sheriff's Department Lieutenant Bill Hill
to the AACOG Criminal Justice Advisory Committee, and
Kerrville Police Department Captain Jeffrey Wendling as
alternate -- or alternative, effective immediately, and
notify AACOG of the same. Commissioner Williams?
Commissioner Baldwin? One of you pick it up and run with it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move for approval.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 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: That motion does carry. We'll move
to Item 28; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to
reappoint Kay Mosty Hayes to the Kerrville/Kerr County Joint
Library Advisory Board to a two-year term ending
November 2009. Subsequent to this agenda item being posted,
I was advised that that should have read a three-year term
ending November 22, 2010, according to Brenda Craig,
11-13-07
91
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Kerrville City Clerk.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's good, Judge. I
appreciate that. I wasn't certain whether it was two or
three. I've spoken with Ms. -- Ms. Hayes, and I've also
spoken with Commissioner Oehler, and I would move her
reappointment to the Joint Library Advisory Board.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For a three-year term
ending November 2010. Correct?
JUDGE TINLEY: Is that your second, Commissioner
Oehler?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and a second. Any
question or discussion on the motion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Question. How many terms
will this make?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This will be her second, I
I believe.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second? Or she's in her
second right now?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, this would be her
23
24
25 yes.
11-13-07
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: She's in her first.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes. My understanding,
second.
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 OEHLER: There's a maximum of two
terms; is that right?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, I don't know.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Or can it just go forever?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Go forever, I think, if you
have the stomach for it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. And is she always a
three-year -- three-year term?
(Commissioner Williams nodded.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other question or discussion?
All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right
hand .
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. At this
time, I will recess the Commissioners Court hearing and open
a public hearing for the final revision of plat for Lot 17,
Privilege Creek Ranch, as set forth in Volume 8, Page 21, and
located in Precinct 3.
(The regular Commissioners Court meeting was closed
at 10:19 a.m., and a public hearing was held in
open court, as follows:)
P U B L I C H E A R I N G
11-13-07
93
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
plat for Lot 17, Privilege Creek Ranch, as set forth in
Volume 8, Page 21?
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Seeing no one coming forward, I will
close the public hearing for the final revision of plat for
Lot 17, Privilege Creek Ranch, as set forth in Volume 8, Page
21, and located in Precinct 3.
(The public hearing was concluded at 10:19 a.m.,
and the regular Commissioners Court meeting was
reopened.)
JUDGE TINLEY: And I will reconvene the
Commissioners Court meeting and go to Item 29; consider,
discuss, and take appropriate action to approve the contract
with Dietert Center and Hill Country Court-Appointed Special
Advocates, and allow the County Judge to sign the same.
These contracts were presented. Since receiving them and
reviewing them, I'm -- I would ask that the Hill Country
Court-Appointed Special Advocates contract not be considered
at this time until I've had a chance to review some budgetary
concerns concerning that. The Dietert contract appears to me
to be in order.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval of the
Dietert contract, and authorize County Judge to sign same.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
11-13-07
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
approval of the Dietert contract and authorize County Judge
to sign same. 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 30; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on
implementation of the burn ban. This is a 90-day rollover
item, I believe, and it was time for that one to come up
again.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
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: That motion does carry.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, just for the record,
that revision includes the ability of each Commissioner to
set the burn ban or suspend the burn ban in their precinct,
as they deem appropriate.
11-13-07
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
JUDGE TINLEY: Suspend it or reimpose as they may
see from time to time, as conditions warrant. Exactly.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move to Item 31, presentation
of the Peace, Precinct 3; Justice of the Peace, Precinct 4;
District Attorney; County Attorney; Animal Control; and Jail
Commissary. Ms. Hargis, County Auditor.
for my file to come. But in the J.P. departments, as with
all of the departments, most of this was just -- this was a
cash audit that I did, focusing on internal control for cash
purposes. And in the J.P. offices, we found -- 'cause you
can see from your report, just minor things that we needed to
clean up and implement, and those have been done, and I think
they're all on board with them. I was very pleased with
those audits. And, as I said, the next go-round, we'll deal
with a little bit more internal control, but I think we -- we
have our cash going to a safer area. And the minor errors
that they had on their jackets I think are going to be taken
into consideration. We are going to meet together as a group
and work on some joint-type implementations of different
types of internal control, but I think for right now, they're
11-13-07
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
doing a very good job, and very pleased with all the clerks.
They're very conscientious with their jobs, as are the
judges, so I'm real pleased with that area.
In the District Attorney's office, that audit also
went very well. The only thing we found there was some
dormant accounts that we've asked them to clean up and
dispose of that have been around for a long time. In the
County Attorney's office, same situation. Everything was
being done very well there. The only thing we asked there is
maybe to have a little bit more modern technology with some
of their spreadsheets, as far as following some of the
receivables that they have. Otherwise -- but they were
keeping those in a -- in a spreadsheet by hand. Animal
Control did very well. They also included everything, and
cash-wise it's as tight as possible. We did check that.
They were using several receipt books, so we have reduced
those down to one so that they have more continuity and don't
have as many receipt books found. We also made some
constructive suggestions to them, and they were -- those have
already been implemented.
The Jail Commissary is the annual audit that they
give to you. That has to be submitted to the -- the justice
-- I mean, the state of Texas, and we're going to implement
there some additional software just to help us to balance
those things a little bit easier. And, again, mostly
11-13-07
97
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
productive, I think, and everybody's willing to do those.
You know, I'm real pleased with the way everything came out.
This is our first round. We're finishing up -- we're
report ready for you at the next meeting. So, everybody's
just been real great, and working with us really well. I
would like to introduce, though, while I'm here -- Ken, would
you like to come up? Ken Ruark is the internal auditor that
I spoke to you about that's been helping me with these
audits, and Ken's background was internal auditing in
Chicago, and he's working part-time, 'cause he won't work
full-time. So, 10 hours a week, and he's been very good in
helping me to get around to all these departments. Now, I
did do the commissary myself, and the J.P. offices. But
we're going to have some suggestions, I think, in the spring
to maybe help with some of the other problems we've been
dealing with as far as the software is concerned. But for
right now, we're just mainly looking to make sure that our
cash situations are tight, and our security's tight. And so
far, that's what we're finding. And if we're not, it's just
a minor thing, and we're making sure those are corrected.
And so are there any questions about the data that you
received?
11-13-07
98
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: A couple -- a comment and a
question. Have we done these before?
~, MS. HARGIS: No.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I didn't think so. I was just,
like -- you know, yeah, I'm glad we're doing them.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, this is good stuff.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. The question was on
J.P.'s, there was only one statistic that was kind of quoted,
the number of cases per year and the budget. Is there -- I
mean, was that just that you felt that was a good measure of
their activity? Or why did you only include that particular
statistic?
MS. HARGIS: We -- each one of them got a specific
sample. And, to be honest with you, as we got down the line,
we got a little bit better with what we asked. And some of
them had the data readily available; some did not. We're in
transition with, you know, two of them. And so I think that
as we go along, we'll get more of that data. We will do the
J.P.'s again, quarterly. I would like to do those quarterly.
And, no, you've never had these done before. And should you
have had them done? Yes. But it's very hard for me,
especially right now, since I don't really have that fourth
person to help -- Tommy's really here to mostly train me, and
so I just -- this is my way of learning how the departments
work, as well as -- as, at the same time, providing them and
11-13-07
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
you with comfort that we're doing things efficiently and in
the right manner. So, again, I think they're good tools for
us to watch. Now, the commissary you have been getting, at
least on an annual basis, because that's required by law, and
as well as the others. But we don't have big staffs, so
we're trying real hard.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Ken, thank you.
MS. HARGIS: Any questions?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Welcome to Texas.
MR. RUARK: Thank you. I've been here four years.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Four? We'll, you're an
old-timer, then.
MR. RUARK: Okay. Thank you much.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Looks like it's a wonderful
thing that this is being done for the first time, and it's
not only reflecting what has been going on, but it's also
kind of a protection to those other elected officials that
are involved in handling money, and it's a good thing.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It is a good thing. We're
focusing on cash controls now, and that's good.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do we need to accept those, or
just the presentation?
MS. HARGIS: I need you to accept at least the
commissary one, because it has to go to the state.
11-13-07
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
JUDGE TINLEY: Are we in a position to do that with
the agenda item as styled, Mr. Emerson?
MR. EMERSON: No, sir.
MS. HARGIS: We can put it back on.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Anything else on that
particular agenda item? Let's move to Item 32; consider,
discuss, and take appropriate action regarding interlocal
agreement with the Texas Association of Counties Risk
Management Pool.
MS. HARGIS: That is on your agenda because they're
changing their year end to July 31. We had used -- it was
the same fiscal year end as ours, but they're actually
changing that to July. So, we'll pay a premium for this
year, and then we'll turn around and have to pay another
premium in July. And they're also changing carriers, I
believe, as you can see from that letter, so we have to agree
to change, and I don't know that we have much choice.
JUDGE TINLEY: The note I have on what was provided
to me said that it was reviewed and approved by the County
Attorney; is that correct?
MS. HARGIS: It's been a while.
MR. EMERSON: If this is the same agreement I
reviewed a while back, yes.
MS. HARGIS: Yeah, we've had it since July.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
11-13-07
101
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But nothing affects our
coverage, right? This is -- this is administrative on TAC's
~ part?
MS. HARGIS: Strictly --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Consolidating various
little departments into one?
MS. HARGIS: And changing their renewal date to
July instead of -- instead of October.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Why would they change the
renewal date? I don't follow that.
MR. EMERSON: I suspect this is a follow-up to
their change of their administrative pools, when they took
their three separate pools and made it into one family back
in the middle of summer.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I was there and voted
on that. But I don't recall -- that's the reason for my
question. I don't recall any date changes in there, but I
guess there was.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What -- I mean, just -- I don't
know that we have a choice, but what it does, it makes it
harder yet again for us to look to alternative coverage,
because the anniversary date is an odd date. I mean, most
11-13-07
102
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
I2
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
other coverages you do on an annual basis. This puts it into
a way-off cycle from anybody else's in government, which I
suspect is another reason they're doing it, even though they
probably wouldn't say that. But their coverage is the most
~ economical right now, so...
JUDGE TINLEY: In context, if they're doing it in
July, it's probably better than our health benefits coverage,
because we're -- when we budget, we're plugged in for only
three months, and we're flying blind for nine. With this,
they're plugged in for nine months, and we're only flying
blind for three. So I guess, relatively speaking, this is
probably better. The ideal thing would be for everybody to
be October 1.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It takes a lawyer to see it
that way, but okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So what are we voting on?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I guess we have to vote on
it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, approval of the interlocal
agreement.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move we approve the
interlocal agreement with TAC Risk Management Pool as
presented.
25 ~ COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
11-13-07
103
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the interlocal agreement with the TAC Management
Risk Pool -- Risk Management Pool. 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 matters to go into executive session, gentlemen?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We still have one item that was
skipped.
JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, yeah, 10:30. And we're at 10:30
exactly right now.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Nice plan.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. You guys thought I just threw
this together without thinking, didn't you?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: We'll go to Item 19; consider --
receive a report from Freese and Nichols on the Ingram Dam
and Flat Rock Dam evaluation of the concrete slab voids.
Commissioner Williams.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I placed this on the agenda
because we received the reports from Mr. Schuster of Freese
and Nichols. And I don't know about the rest of you, but I
11-13-07
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
need an explanation, so the best way to get the explanation
i, is from the folks who did the work. Mr. Schuster?
MR. SCHUSTER: I'm going to set up a projector. Is
that possible? I see a screen behind you. Is it possible we
can set up a projector? That way we can show you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This one over here I think
is the best way.
JUDGE TINLEY: We normally let Buster set these up
because of his expertise in that field.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, his expertise in this.
Do I just bill y'all direct? Or --
MR. SCHUSTER: Please.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, be happy to. Where'd
the lawyer go?
(Discussion off the record.)
MR. SCHUSTER: All right. Judge, Commissioners, my
name's Stefan Schuster. I've brought Les Boyd with me as
well to present to you the nondestructive evaluation of both
Flat Rock and Ingram Dams. The contracts were signed in
early June, and then we had 12 weeks of rain. I'll talk
about that in a little bit. My presentation is going to
cover, really, the introductions and field observations, the
recommendations, and then what do we recommend for the next
steps? There was a T.C.E.Q. inspection of the dams in 2006.
The Commissioners Court solicited vendors to evaluate the
11-13-07
105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
condition of the dams in February '07. Consultant was
selected in May, and then we had 12 weeks of rain, and field
investigations were started in early August, and then today
we're reporting to you.
The report was turned in in October. I threw this
in here really just for my own edification, 'cause I was
curious to see whether the rains we had during June were
unusual, and so we looked at the last 20 years of records
pretty much. And I guess we should have done this earlier to
realize that, indeed, we have a heavy spike of rain in June
and July on a regular basis, so we should have known that
ahead of time. But, unfortunately, hindsight's 20/20. So,
I'm going to go ahead and explain a little bit to you about
the field methods that were conducted in order to evaluate
the subsurface conditions under the dams. As a qualifier, we
really looked for more -- this investigation focused more on
the contact between the concrete caps and the earthen
foundation than to look at really deep subsurface seepage
underneath the earthen structure. We have to do a different
type of testing in order to get down to penetration to go
through 20 feet of soil, so these investigations focused
really on the integrity of the cap and the -- the contact
with the surface beneath the concrete.
The first method that we used was ground-
penetrating radar. We set up grids that were 5-by-20 feet
11-13-07
106
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
across each of the dams, and then pulled across two different
types of machines. One was a 400 Megahertz and one was a
1,500 Megahertz electromagnetic -- electromagnetic wave pulse
generator, and then the reflections of the waves tell us
about the subsurface conditions. Here's a schematic of what
the ground-penetrating radar equipment looks like.
Obviously, we get some reflections from the rebar in the
concrete as well, but we're looking for the changes in the
subsurface condition outside of the rebar. And I've got an
example of this. It looks a little cryptic, but if you look
at it a little bit, this is what the data looks like coming
out of the ground-penetrating radar. You can see the bottom
of the concrete slab line, and you can see when it jumps.
There are areas where there is different contact, when
there's a different medium reflecting the waves back to the
equipment, and so this is the type of analysis that was done
by Olson Engineering.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Stefan, don't go off of
that just yet.
MR. SCHUSTER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: On the right where it says
area of water-filled void, --
MR. SCHUSTER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- that's telling us that
there is a particular void there; it's obviously filled with
11-13-07
107
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
water, and we get a different signal?
MR. SCHUSTER: It's the change in the medium of the
reflection of the waves. So, what you see here is really
sort of -- you want to just draw a straight line, and then
you see the wave jumps, so there's -- there's a difference in
the medium from the wave reflection, and that's really what
the ground-penetrating radar looks for, is that change in
reflection of the wave returning back to the receiver. This
may have been a bad example. It was the only one we had a
graphic of, because it's not a real distinct -- to the
untrained eye, it's not necessarily a very distinct showing
of a void. But I'll show you some maps that were interpreted
based on this data. I just wanted you to understand what
type of data was collected by the equipment as we went across
the dams.
Once we had the ground-penetrating radar data and
the grid pattern across the dams, we went back and verified
where there were areas of suspected voids with a slab impulse
analysis. Very simple technology, really. It's a hammer
that has a sensor on it. It gets pounded on the surface, and
then, again, based on the reflection of the subsurface and
the delay in that signal returning, make an interpretation
about what type of subsurface conditions exist. Then, to
verify that data a third time, we also used an impact echo
analysis. This is equipment that's been designed by Olson
11-13-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
108
What I'm going to go through now are the composite
maps that were created based on the ground-penetrating radar
and the slab impact analysis for each of the dams. And I've
included a photo on the right to give you a little bit of
perspective on what we're going to talk about. We're going
to talk about Flat Rock first, and this is the long stretch
of Flat Rock that's on the south side, I guess -- let me try
to get my bearings, make sure that's right. But it's the
long stretch, and it's about a 500-foot section. And what
we've got, you can see the two ground-penetrating radar data
at the top. One is the 400 Megahertz, and the bottom one is
1,500 Megahertz. Obviously, the frequency of wavelength has
a different penetration and tells you a little bit more about
the subsurface than the other. And being able to combine
those, we -- we were able to come up with these composite
maps.
The areas of white are indications where we have
solid contact with the equipment. Where we have gray, there
may be -- there is no bottom reflection, so we didn't get a
reflection off the bottom -- the interface between the
concrete and the dirt. And then the areas where there's
green, there's a possible void or minor void. The yellow
11-13-07
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
coming back from the ground-penetrating radar unit. Then,
once we went in -- and these maps will all be duplicated in
terms of the methodology. Once we've identified a certain
area where we see that there may have been voids, we went
into the slab impact and echo analysis and pounded with the
hammer to verify whether there were holes, and whenever we
got a signal of a 3, there was definitive non-reflection from
the bottom, so there is a void present wherever we see a
number 3 in these grids. And these are 9-by-9 grids, about a
10-foot square area in terms of -- excuse me, a 100-foot
square area in terms of coverage here.
So, you see in -- for instance, in this particular
example, with the slab impact analysis, we see verification
that there is a void here, because we really do have a
non-reflective surface beneath the concrete cap. So, as you
look across, you see that there are -- certainly, it's not
necessarily a regular pattern of voids, but there's certainly
a significant area across the surface of the dam where we do
not have contact with the earthen foundation beneath the
crest here. We move on to the downslope, and the sequence
of the dams. Again, so the picture -- the long side of Flat
Rock Dam, this is now the front side of the dam. And we can
11-13-07
110
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
see, again, there are certainly areas where there are
pretty clear red mark in areas, and then you can also see
that in this bottom part, again, we see significant voiding
in this area. And, again, confirmed by some of the
ground-penetrating radar.
To really summarize, in glancing through this, we
can see, certainly, that -- that this is, you know, the short
section of Flat Rock Dam. There's certainly areas where we
analysis. One of the things I do want to qualify is, in
summary, in terms of the data, about 12 percent of the
concrete areas have voids, but another 18 to 20 percent have
possible voids, with approximately 70 percent of the areas
having contact between the concrete and the earthen
foundation. However, I do need to qualify that there's
certain areas of both dams that were inaccessible due to
moisture. It was just so slick, you just could not get on
the dam to be able to assess in those parts of the dam.
Flat Rock, we actually had excellent coverage with
very, very few areas that were not accessible to the dam.
However, on Ingram Dam, there was quite a bit of moisture,
not only on the top, but also on the downstream slope, which
made it very difficult to be able to get our equipment in
11-13-07
111
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
there and get up and down the hills. So, even on the short
section of Flat Rock Dam, we still see some voided areas.
The area over there that's between the 60- and 70-foot mark
is actually going to coincide with the crest having a -- a
void as well. So, this may actually be something where
there's significant washout, not only on the crest, but also
on the downstream slope.
We switch over to Ingram Dam. Again, this is on
the crest on the north side facing the road. We see some
voiding right at the -- right at the spillway at the 180 --
160 to 180 mark, again, confirmed by the slab impact
analysis. We look at the downstream slope of the north
section of the dam, and again, spotted areas where,
particularly along the seams, there were certainly areas
where there were voids readily identifiable, particularly
with the slab impact analysis. You clearly heard the hollow
sounds as you pounded the hammer on the -- on the dam. This
is now looking at the south side, the short stretch on the
other side of Ingram Dam. This is certainly the area where
there was quite a bit of problems with access. I'm sure all
of you have seen the recreational activities that go on on
the dam; it's quite interesting to watch those kids slide
down. Makes you wonder what you were doing at that age.
But, certainly --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sliding on the dam.
11-13-07
112
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. SCHUSTER: Sliding down the front side of the
constantly wet, so we never had an opportunity to test that
area at all. And it's -- certainly, in terms of visibility,
you can see holes or pieces of rebar sticking out, which also
makes sliding down the dam quite dangerous. But -- but,
certainly, there are areas of Ingram Dam where we have some
suspicion of voids where we just were unable to test with the
equipment. And you can see on the downstream side, again,
most of that area was very difficult to be able to assess
properly. But, again, you can see, certainly, there's areas,
particularly the area at the very bottom, end of the
downstream slope, the 220-foot section, there was a void at
the very bottom, which certainly makes us think that there
may be some deeper seepage coming through, because there's
not that much void at the very top of the crest of the dam.
So, in summary -- this is a spreadsheet of the
visual data you just saw in terms of the percentages of
contact. So, overall, you see that, you know, Flat Rock Dam
does have more voids than Ingram Dam, and significantly, in
terms of nearly double the percentage of contact. What's
interesting to note is that Flat Rock Dam has had some
grouting done in the past, and in looking at how the grouting
11-13-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
113
prior to the -- to the grouting, and grouting was just done
in a systematic fashion, so we may have actually, you know,
picked up voids between the areas that were grouted
previously. So, Flat Rock Dam, even though it's had some
repairs, does show more voids than Ingram does. And, again,
you can look through there. Rarely does the area of -- areas
of concern exceed 15 percent in terms of voids. So, in
another 20 percent that were tested that are certainly
questionable in terms of the bottom reflection from the
tests. Approximately 70 percent of the accessible concrete
areas do show contact with the subsurface, and in our
opinion, tend to be sound. And our recommendation is to go
back and fill the voids based on the additional sounding.
So, we now have a map of where the concrete --
where the voids may be, and they'd be the target areas in
terms of the grouting. But we do recommend the program for
the grouting with somebody that's actually going to excavate,
have a destructive testing, where actually somebody goes in
and looks at the bottom of the previous grouting to see if
the previous plugs ever made contact with the bottom of the
-- or with the earthen structure underneath the concrete.
11-13-07
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
There's my contact information here at the end. But we do
want to cover -- I brought Les with me as well to talk a
little bit about some of the recommendations, what we would
recommend for a future action in terms of addressing these
voids. Again, you know, 70 percent of the surfaces are in
good contact with the earthen foundation. You know, there's
no immediate concern, in my opinion, in terms of the safety
of the dam; we didn't see water weeping out. We certainly
got a good test, with 12 weeks of heavy flows prior to our
tests, so I think that our time testing was very appropriate,
because we had some risk ahead of time, but we did find that
about 70 percent of the concrete cap was still intact, or has
contact.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You kept saying, I think,
that the spillway area was difficult to run your tests on.
', Wouldn't that be the more likely place for water to be able
to get under the shell and wash out and create the cavities?
MR. SCHUSTER: Potentially, I think the -- in terms
of the risk in terms of water seepage is really anywhere, you
know, where there's a seam or there's any water contact
whatsoever. In terms of the spillway, I don't think there --
certainly, in terms of there's water flowing across it at all
times, and the likelihood of there being some voids,
particularly on the downstream side, are probably more
significant than in other parts of the dam. But I think that
11-13-07
115
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the -- the upstream side of the dam is equally at risk in
terms of -- because it's all saturated with water. So, water
always flows in a preferential path, so once you've given it
a particular pathway underneath one concrete slab, it's going
to go that direction. So, obviously, the -- the testing the
spillways would involve -- we need dry -- we need to have
that surface dry in order to look at the contact and be able
to get a sounding.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If we -- if we drained --
drained one or both, you would eventually come back and do
that?
MR. SCHUSTER: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
MR. SCHUSTER: And I would certainly recommend
doing that in terms of the repair, because that's certainly a
critical part of doing a repair on the dam, is that we have a
-- we have a dry spillway, not only to be able to assess it
with the same nondestructive evaluation, but also to be able
to assess where there may be voids within the spillway.
So --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are y'all going to give a
ballpark figure to do this?
MR. SCHUSTER: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. SCHUSTER: Absolutely. We kind of sat down,
11-13-07
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
worked through it a little bit. I'll let Les explain that,
since he certainly --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Before you move on to that,
just help me understand. On the back here of your report, in
Appendix B, --
MR. SCHUSTER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- you've got three
categories; void, questionable, and sound.
MR. SCHUSTER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand sound. I
understand questionable. I'm not sure I understand what
you're telling me with "void."
MR. SCHUSTER: You don't understand -- which was
the last one?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What do you mean when you
say "void"?
MR. SCHUSTER: A void. There was absolutely no
reflection coming back from any of the testing equipment.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. SCHUSTER: So the -- the three gradations, in
terms of no bottom reflection, minor, and questionable, we do
get a signal. On the areas that are classified in red on the
maps, and we're classifying as a void, we got no return
signal at that point, so there's no -- there's no -- air is
not a conductor of that wave at all, so it just gets dead --
11-13-07
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
you get no return to the receiver at all. So that's why we
interpreted a void when there was no return signal, either
from the ground-penetrating radar or from the slab impact
analysis or from the impact echo. So, the three methods
determine whether there was a void, whether there's no
reflection.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Were you able to test the
entire southern portion of Ingram Dam?
MR. SCHUSTER: Except for the 40 or 50 feet to the
south of the spillway, because it was pretty much always wet.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, we're in the process of
draining that right now.
MR. SCHUSTER: Right.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We pull the plug on it
tomorrow.
MR. SCHUSTER: Oh, wow.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And that -- we thought we
were going to dry the spillway by pulling the upper plate,
but we have so much flow, it's kind of stabilized, and
I
there's still about 2 or 3 inches of water. But once we pull
the bottom one, I don't know how much of it's going to drain,
but the spillway will be dry.
MR. SCHUSTER: Perfect.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And, you know, that's going
to give you a good opportunity to really get a good look at
11-13-07
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
that. And we were there the other day pulling the upper
plate; there are some areas over on that side that you can
see down in.
MR. SCHUSTER: Oh, yeah, absolutely. That's what
I'm talking about. There's some visual areas where --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: When we pulled -- we pulled
that upper plate, there's a small pipe down -- looks like to
me like maybe a 3- or 4-inch pipe over close to that, where
that plate is, where the first drain -- that upper drain is.
MR. SCHUSTER: Right. Right.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: At the bottom. When they
pulled the plate out, the water increased tremendously for
some unknown reason out of that lower little pipe. And it
was -- it was clear -- it was running slightly before the
plug was -- the upper drain plate was pulled, but once it was
pulled, the flow increased and it got muddy for a short time.
MR. SCHUSTER: Interesting. Now, this is over
towards the zero to 40-foot --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: The other side over there,
just about where you see the vegetation.
MR. SCHUSTER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: The pipe is down where that
little --
MR. SCHUSTER: Right. So this is --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- red spot is.
11-13-07
119
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. SCHUSTER: Over here -- right here, right in
that area where we suspected some voids and saw some water
flow as well, absolutely.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That, to me, looks like a
real problem area.
MR. SCHUSTER: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: The concrete surface over
there on the cap on the back side is -- it looks horrible.
MR. SCHUSTER: Yeah, we talked about -- the area,
actually, you and I talked about, where we think there might
be some flow underneath, some significant flow, 'cause it's
kind of coming around the edge.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: To me, it is -- it's a
concern.
MR. SCHUSTER: I agree. There's -- the vegetative
growth actually along that edge is from that flow. It's
certainly been coming for a while. It's not a new flow.
There's all kinds of algae growth along the bottom of that
drain, so that -- that leak has been there for some time.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Within a very short time, we
should have the water level lowered to where that spillway
will be dry.
MR. SCHUSTER: Okay, excellent.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Stefan, when T.C.E.Q. was
here and inspected Flat Rock Lake Dam, one of the things that
11-13-07
120
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
testing reveal anything specific about that, or were you
unable to do it because the water was flowing?
MR. SCHUSTER: No, we had an opportunity to test
there, and this is that area here. And you can actually
see -- in the photograph, you can see some moisture there at
the bottom. But we did not detect any significant voids, as
you can see, with the ground-penetrating radar. And looking
at it -- well, we got both -- we got the 400 and the 1,500,
so there were some areas where we couldn't get the 400
Megahertz machine to go in. But even -- even here, we only
show voids at the -- at the upper end by the spillway, and
then at the very crest, where there may actually be -- part
of that flow may actually be coming in under the plate, and
then coming back out towards the bottom. But we didn't -- we
didn't show any voids at the bottom, but that area certainly
is of concern. I mean, obviously, we have a void on that
downstream face, so there is certainly water moving
underneath there, or potentially could be moving underneath
there. We certainly see it coming out, so I guess we can see
there's water moving underneath. And, you know,
interestingly enough, some of the photos -- Terry Bushnell
from U.G.R.A. was very helpful in taking photographs during
11-13-07
121
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the time it was flooding to help me assess where -- not only
the downstream slope. And that certainly speaks -- if you
look at the crest, we show lots of voids along the crest, so
downstream side. So, in the end, you know, again, probably
30 percent of the surfaces have -- have voided areas, or at
least have questionable contact. And our recommendation
would be to, based on	these soundings, put	together a	grout
program to address --	or grouting program	to be able	to
address those voids. And I certainly want Les to talk about
that a little bit, to give you an explanation.
MR. BOYD: Morning.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Morning.
MR. BOYD: The key thing I think we have to look
for here is to find a contractor that -- that's familiar with
this type of work, with pressure grouting. Because if you
get someone in there and they -- they put too much pressure
on it, they will literally uplift the slabs and damage the
11-13-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
122
undermined, if it continues to get worse, you're going to get
to a point where the slabs will not be able to span the
distance of the void. They'll collapse, and then you'll
start losing the embankment itself. So, what we're
recommending is that you -- you initiate a program similar to
what Stefan had mentioned that they did at Flat Rock in the
past. You can see the old grout holes. I don't know how
long ago that was done or who did it, but it's very similar
to that nature. You'd asked a question about had we put a
pencil to it. Yes, but it's very speculative. You don't
have a quantity of anything that you can -- can identify. We
can't tell you that the void is 6 inches or 6 foot, so we're
going to be pumping essentially blind until the -- you hit
refusal and it doesn't want to take any more grout. So, what
we've come up with is establish a solicitation program with
the contractor to where you essentially set up pay items for
him to mobilize to the site. You put him on a crew rate per
day, so many dollars per crew day or dollars per man-hour,
and you identify the things that you can literally keep track
11-13-07
123
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
of by how many people are there, how many days they work,
what type of equipment they have. And then you just have to
have a pay item for the materials that he'll utilize, like
the cement, and keep track of those. And maybe have a
sliding scale where the first 1,000 bags of cement are a
certain rate, and if he stays and goes into the next zone,
then you get some break, hopefully, on the cost of the
materials. The best thing we can put together is probably
that you're looking at maybe 7 or 8 days for Ingram, maybe 10
days on Flat Rock. To bring a crew in, specialty grout
equipment, and work towards getting the holes drilled and the
grouts pumped, we put to it a labor rate for couple of guys
to drill the holes, a guy to operate the grout pipe, someone
to oversee that, and the kind of numbers we're coming up with
are in the $60,000 to $100,000 range.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is that total?
MR. BOYD: Total. We're thinking it's going to
take something on the order of 20 days, probably.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 20 days total?
MR. BOYD: Yeah, and it will probably be a little
more in favor of Flat Rock than Ingram, but, you know, we're
kind of just pie in the sky right now, taking a guess.
But --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's the -- I presume it's
best to do this when the flows are low.
11-13-07
124
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. BOYD: Yes, it would be best if you could
reduce the reservoir level. What will happen to you if you
don't, you're going to see the water that's passing through
the voids is going to carry the grout you're trying to pump.
It will be going somewhere where you really don't want it at
', the present time. If you'll reduce the level, then the grout
that you pump can seek those pathways that the water is
presently traveling, and it'll set up and perform -- become a
barrier to that flow through there in the path. Now, the
thing I want to tell you, though, is this is -- the program
that we're talking about is to just reestablish contact
between the foundation and the bottom of the concrete caps.
It will not do anything for you if you have seepage under the
dam. It's not a grouting program to do cutoff type seepage;
it's just to restore foundation contact.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Buster, when did Halliburton
do that?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Long time ago.
MR. BOYD: Halliburton did it?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Late '80's.
MS. HARDIN: 1987.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: '87?
MR. BOYD: So you got about 20 years at Flat Rock
out of the last grouting program. And one of the things we
talked about --
11-13-07
125
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Has it ever been done at
Ingram?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yes, it was done at the same
time in Ingram as it was done at Flat Rock.
MR. SCHUSTER: I didn't see any grout holes on
Ingram at all.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I was --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It was done.
MR. SCHUSTER: It was done?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I remember seeing them do it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Same time.
MR. SCHUSTER: They did a clean job.
', MR. BOYD: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, out there, we -- we do
II everything right. It used to be Number 4, but now it's
Number 1.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Joint -- you know, joint
knowledge now.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
~, MR. BOYD: Well, do you know if the people that did
it for Halliburton are still around?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, I don't have a clue. I
know Rusty Hierholzer; that's about as far as I can go in
this thing here.
11-13-07
126
1
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: He was not on the grouting
i crew.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I was not on the grouting
I crew.
MR. ODOM: Is grout the only acceptable means?
There's foam now that you can use to do this.
MR. BOYD: You could go with probably a foam, and
what I suspect may happen is we may see the grout travel
beyond what we really want to see, and we may have to go to
some chemical additives to make it take a little quicker set
so that it doesn't travel so far. Probably the -- you know,
~! grout is good in that it's stronger than foam, so it will
', actually come back and lend support, you know, from the
foundation to the bottom of the slab that's not presently
there, or wouldn't be there with a really low strength type
material.
MR. SCHUSTER: I think with the foam, too, even
from my own experience, it's hard to control the expansion of
the foam, and so there's that risk of it actually creating
additional pressure, whereas it's controllable with the
grout.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It scares me to death to
overfill -- or to start raising the cap. Man, you got
', problems.
MR. BOYD: I mean, it's a very critical piece of
11-13-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
127
MR. SCHUSTER: That's why we're talking about it
really does need to be a qualified vendor, not just somebody
who can grout. It's somebody who may have some experience
In --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do you have a list of those
qualified vendors?
MR. BOYD: No, sir, we don't. We've dealt with
some generally on the anchoring. We've been -- my primary
focus in the last ten years has been anchoring dams and the
grouting that goes along with those anchors, and it's a very
specialized group that does that type of work. It's really
key to the equipment you pick and the operator that you put
on that piece of equipment, so that he has bypass features
where we can -- if he sees pressures coming up, he's got a
way to bypass that pressure instead of putting it under the
structure. And he's got the control, and he's got a pattern
of bleed holes that are drilled into the structure for relief
so that you -- you know, that you're not just going to lift
it. I mean, it only takes a few pounds of pressure to lift a
slab, so you have to be very careful. And they have to be
careful about the manner in which they do it, whether they
start low and go -- push it up high, and don't push it more
than 5 or 10 feet, and all of that will have to be worked
into this program.
11-13-07
128
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I remember when we did it in
'78 or whenever it was, the -- no.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: '87.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: '87, I'm sorry. It was
very, very limited on the number of people to do that type of
~ work, and that's how we ended up with Slumberjet, I think.
It may be still that way.
MR. BOYD: It's still that way.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. And I bet we end up
I, with people like Slumberjet.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Either Slumberjet or
Halliburton, somebody that has that expertise.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Halliburton, yeah.
MR. BOYD: It's not an expertise you're going to
find in your normal general contractors.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: These dams are very
important.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, they are.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, indeed.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And the maintenance and the
repair of those are very important.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, how do we find those
people to do that?
MR. BOYD: We put out a public notification, and we
can contact people that we've dealt with in the past and see
11-13-07
129
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
what kind of recommendations they make. Like, the guy I knew
that was the best grouter, he's retired, so -- so now we have
to, you know, start working within that network. But
especially advertisement for that particular type of contract
will draw -- I bet it probably won't draw a whole handful,
but it will draw some.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, but there has to be
somebody out there.
MR. BOYD: There are.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're not the only people on
earth with that problem.
MR. BOYD: No. No, there's a lot of people.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And then your report then
becomes the basis upon which they estimate costs to do this;
is that correct?
MR. SCHUSTER: That would be a start, absolutely.
MR. BOYD: Yes.
MR. SCHUSTER: But, again, that materials aspect is
unknown. That's really the difficult part. We don't know
whether the hole's 6 inches or 6 feet.
I MR. BOYD: Do you remember how long they were here
in '87 to do the two dams? Two weeks?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, something like that.
It -- they weren't here long.
MR. BOYD: About the same thing we're thinking it's
11-13-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
130
going to take this time.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Seems like we ought to look at
this as a next August-September project, or our lowest flow,
if we don't get a hurricane, anyway. That's the best time.
Maybe late July.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I don't know that Flat Rock
has an upper level drain or not, but Ingram in normal flow,
you can pull that upper plate and you can dry the spillway
without lowering the level of the lake more than about 3 or
4 feet.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Bruce, I don't think we do.
I think we have a lower drain or out -- outlet, and there was
a mechanical device still in place that used to move that or
take it out, but that's broken.
MR. BOYD: There's a stem on the gate on the crest
that went down and operated what looks like would have been a
slide gate to that pipe that come out the downstream side.
It does not look operable right now.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what I'm told; it's
not operable.
MR. BOYD: If you start far enough ahead and the
contractor's good, they can dewater. That means if there's
one of them that you can't pull down, he can set up some
siphons or some pumps or something.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: He can set up a big siphon on
11-13-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
131
it and lower the level.
MR. BOYD: Right, and get it down to where it's
I workable.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: But Ingram's very easy to do
that. In fact, I think Billy Buttry's the one that put
that -- he actually cut the cap and put the second drain in
on the upper level so they could drain it down and dry the
spillway.
MR. BOYD: In the reports, too, the other way that
you could address this is you can just go in literally and
destruct the top portion of the cap, and then fix things in a
standard method with concrete; you know, clean up -- clean up
the void, fill it with concrete, and replace the cap. But
that's very extensive work. Very -- only thing it does --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I like the idea, but it's too
expensive.
MR. BOYD: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Also kind of risky if you have
a hurricane right in the middle of your cap being off.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Wash the whole thing out.
MR. BOYD: There's a lot of exposure.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank y'all.
MR. SCHUSTER: Thank you.
MR. BOYD: Thank you.
11-13-07
132
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Gives us something to chew
on.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Within the next few days,
that spillway should be dried up on Ingram.
MR. SCHUSTER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: If we're successful tomorrow
morning getting the plug out. I think we will be. Don't you
think, Len?
MR. ODOM: If we get the cable and we don't --
shouldn't have any problems.
MR. BOYD: How long are you holding it down?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Till February.
MR. BOYD: We'll make a pointed effort to get back.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Before the spawn starts.
MR. SCHUSTER: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, that's right. You'll
provide us some information about who we might contact?
MR. SCHUSTER: Absolutely. Absolutely, we'll stay
in touch with you on that. I've also got C.D.'s of basically
all of the data and the presentation that I've given, so I'll
let you have a copy of everything as well.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Give it to Road and Bridge;
they can put it in the file somewhere.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think that's a good idea.
MR. SCHUSTER: Right. Thank you.
11-13-07
133
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thanks, Les. Good to see
you.
MR. BOYD: Thank you. Appreciate your time.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Does that do it?
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Anything else on that
particular item, gentlemen?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, I don't think so.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I guess we're down to the
payment of the bills, aren't we?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Guess so.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me inquire again if we've got
any matters for executive session.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: I'll take that as a no. We'll move
on to Section 4 of the agenda. Payment of the bills.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Buster, are you going to pick
on the one I'm going to pick on?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, I just wanted to make a
comment. I personally think we need to pay our bills.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. I assume that was
a motion?
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion and second to pay the bills.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Yeah.
11-13-07
134
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
JUDGE TINLEY: Question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But I can't wait to see what
~ you got.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I cannot believe the one
thing that you pick on every time, which I feel like you're
justified, but just don't know how to fix it, and that is the
transcripts from district court this month, $8,300 to one
particular court reporter. How in the world do we fix that?
Is that an item for another agenda?
JUDGE TINLEY: This Court cannot fix that. The
Legislature had an item when they were in session recently to
fix that, and the Legislature, to my knowledge, did not pass
that item.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Chose not to do it.
JUDGE TINLEY: I can only assume that the -- that
the court reporters' lobby was stronger than the county
commissioners' lobby, and as a consequence, that didn't get
fixed.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I guess I need to pass out
some Kleenex, then, huh? Wipe their tears over paying this
bill.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's it. Other comments?
Questions? Let me inquire about Page 25. $850 for
telephones.
25 ~ MS. HARGIS: That was the long distance bills that
11-13-07
135
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
finally came in. Windstream had trouble getting us our
bills, and we finally got them in, and it was kind of a
nightmare, but that's four months worth of long distance.
JUDGE TINLEY: How did it get charged to H.R.?
MS. HARGIS: I think because they're old bills;
that's where we had some money left. We're moving money
around.
JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, okay.
MS. HARGIS: All your -- most of your utility bills
are still coming in for September. And those were very old,
and they actually faxed them to us, and the stack was, like,
this high. It was huge, so we just had to find money. So,
some of these are not necessarily in the accounts. You have
to look at your supplementals.
JUDGE TINLEY: The only other comment I have is on
Page 68, Indigent Health Care, I was concerned when we had an
$84,000 lick at us, and I was told that apparently there had
been a bunch of bills held over at the -- in the office of
our partial employee, and they just all came in at once, and
that's why we had 84,000, I believe is the number in round
figures. And --
MS. HARGIS: There's also two people on there that
have very large hospital bills.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm, yeah.
MS. HARGIS: They're major medical type hospital
11-13-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
136
bills, so there's $20,000 for them.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. If this continues at this
rate, we're going to be out of luck before the end of the
budget year, unfortunately.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I can't think of her name.
Alice? Alison?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Do you want me to --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Tell her to stay. I've got a
comment to make during the comment period she needs to hear.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Don't leave.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Don't leave yet.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions or comments?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I would just like to
ask one simple question about the Indigent Health care.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: When these -- it's just
something I'm going through with one of my doctors right now,
and it just makes me wonder about all kinds of things, and
that's the coding. I'm assuming that these doctors and
hospitals and the -- and pharmacists and all these folks that
we pay code their bills, even for Indigent Health care, as if
they would for you and I. Do we -- does the employee over at
the hospital, do they -- do we watch this coding issue?
MS. HARGIS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I found one on my personal
11-13-07
137
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
bills that was a major amount of money, and I'm not paying
the damn thing, I can tell you that, because it -- I checked
it out, and it is not coded properly.
JUDGE TINLEY: You didn't receive the services? Is
that what you're saying?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely did not.
JUDGE TINLEY: The honest answer to that,
Commissioner, is I don't know. I do know the diagnosis
coding makes no difference.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: The principal thing that our
employee at the hospital looks at is the eligibility of -- of
the person receiving the service as being qualified under the
indigent health care program. As to whether or not that
employee then looks at each bill to determine or in some
manner ascertain that the service performed maybe fits the
diagnosis, or verifies with the -- with the patient that
they, in fact, received that service, I seriously doubt that
they verify that. I'm not sure, number one, that they have
the qualification in the first instance, and in the second
instance, I would imagine that some of these patient
recipients are -- are not that easy to get ahold of.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's an interesting problem,
though, you pointed out.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It is.
11-13-07
138
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's a high percentage of
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And we just pay them and go
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No one checks -- no one
probably has the ability to check them. The only person that
knows if they got the service was the person that received
it, and the reliability of a lot of those indigent health
care -- even trying to find them to ask them if they received
it, how do you do that?
JUDGE TINLEY: The second part of that is, if you
ask that person, they may not know what procedures they got.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Exactly, yeah.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Nor do they care. It's not
costing them anything.
JUDGE TINLEY: Bingo.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, that's probably the
big deal there. The one I went through was, part of the
criteria to charge me at -- on a certain code was I had to
spend more than 60 minutes with this doctor, and I spent less
than five. You know, and it talked about -- talked about all
kinds of intensive this and intensive that. I simply walked
in, told them I didn't need their services, bye, and out the
door I went. And I got charged for this really major
60-minute intensive -- all this stuff. And I just flat ain't
11-13-07
139
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
going to pay it, boys, I'm telling you -- I'm here to tell
you.
JUDGE TINLEY: You didn't become the proverbial
60-minute man, then?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely not.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I wish the County did have
something, 'cause where we really, I think, have problems is
inmates that are not indigent health care.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Right, exactly.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We have to pay the full bill,
and I don't have anybody to advise, other than just coding
the bills.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: See, there's no telling what
we're missing there.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Or none at all. And this
year, I can promise you it's going to be horrendous. We've
had over probably $30,000, $40,000 in bills just since the
budget started. It's going to really be a serious year on
inmate medical.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do you have any --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Good news?
JUDGE TINLEY: -- sage suggestions, Ms. Hargis?
MS. HARGIS: Well, the program that we have,
between the -- you know, as far as the coding is concerned,
11-13-07
140
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
complaints, even from the doctors. But I've noticed that the
girls in my office are very cognizant; if it doesn't look
right, they call and they don't pay it. So we are trying to
check as much as we can. They've entered them so many times,
they know when they're right or wrong, and so they call. And
we had a pharmacy that said -- in fact, it was CVS, and said,
oh, we had a contract; we owed them more money. And we said,
"oh, no, we don't." And also, the indigent health software
provider is an expert in that field, and so if we have
problems, they negotiate with those people as well. And we
didn't owe them any more money. And, so, if we'd have just
taken the face value, but we didn't do that. So, we
investigate everything that seems out of the norm, even the
hospital bills on those two people, because they were so
large. We did go back and research those.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. HARGIS: So the small stuff may get through,
but the really big stuff stands out, and we check it out.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do we -- do we or can we
negotiate with the hospital directly on the rates we pay for
Indigent Health care?
MS. HARGIS: No, I don't know that. Question. I
11-13-07
141
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
they're not happy with that already, because it's already
coded in our system. And they began to call in and say we
~~
should get -- I can't remember what the reduction is now, but
it's considerable.
JUDGE TINLEY: There's an allowable amount just
I
like there is for Medicare and some of those.
MS. HARGIS: Yeah, and they -- that's all they get.
', COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right.
MS. HARGIS: So that does help a lot with Rusty's
', situation, because he doesn't pay 100 percent, and -- but
~'~ there's no way, like he said, for us not to put them on
there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Some of my issues are -- and
without mentioning names, just something that I have a
problem dealing with, and I wish the Court could help in one
way or another, is I had two guys end up in our holding tank
and detox tank overnight a long time ago, okay? Both charged
with Class C misdemeanors, public intoxication. Two of them
beat up a third one that was in there. The third one's
released from jail, you know, the next morning. He does have
to be transported to the hospital. He is treated for some --
some head injuries. But it was a fight, okay? That's been
probably four months ago, five months ago. He is not in
jail. He has seen I don't know how many specialists in San
11-13-07
142
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Antonio. He is now going to another specialist to see about
nerve problems in a hand. I don't know if those are related
to the fight that occurred in jail, or if we're paying for
this person's total medical care forever and a day. And
we're still paying all those bills. Now, I'm not, you know,
medically inclined, or insurance -- I don't have any way,
other than coding those bills and saying pay it. And I don't
think the County should be doing that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other comments? Questions? All
in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Budget amendments.
We've got a summary provided to us again, so that we do not
have to go through the 23 separate budget amendments for this
past budget year that are carry-overs, accruals, and one for
this particular budget year which would recognize some new
income, which is always welcome.
MS. HARGIS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval of the budget
amendments.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to approve
the budget amendments per summary. Question or discussion?
11-13-07
143
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
I7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just wanted to make it
clear what I'm seeing here. As an example, Number 5 --
j Request Number 5.
MS. HARGIS: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: In your -- in the red there,
several thousand, a couple of -- $2,000 or $3,000. Now, what
I'm thinking I'm seeing here is that our budget is one month
old, and we're already --
MS. HARGIS: No, these are old. These are last
year.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: These are all coming from
last year?
MS. HARGIS: All these 25 are last year.
I COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, when will we get a total
tally of how much these district courts burned the taxpayers?
MS. HARGIS: Well, we're cutting it off as of this
one, so it'll go on the new year.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, like, next month,
possibly, you would have a number showing the total amount of
money that they went over budget?
MS. HARGIS: Well --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Those are your bosses, now,
so be careful what you say.
MS. HARGIS: Yeah. We should be ready to close out
our books and look at the audit, see what our beginning fund
11-13-07
144
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
balance is and things of that nature, yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. I just think it's
important for the taxpayers of Kerr County to see how these
departments and these offices go over, and how much -- this
is a major -- in my opinion, a major amount of money, just
this one month.
JUDGE TINLEY: Once they close out the books,
Commissioner, they'll be able to show the total expenditures
made during that fiscal year for that department. You can
then compare it to the budget as adopted and give you a
pretty quick reference as to, --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- you know, what they put back in
or what they -- additional they had to drag off.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Golly, this is wild.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions or comments?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I certainly couldn't run my
home like that, I can tell you that much. Not very long.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not very long.
JUDGE TINLEY: Other questions? Comments? All in
favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Do we have any late
11-13-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
145
bills?
MS. HARGIS: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have some monthly reports. Road
and Bridge, September '07; Constable, Precinct 4; Justice of
the Peace, Precinct 1; Environmental Health; Justice of the
Peace, Precinct 3; Constable, Precinct l; Constable, Precinct
2; County Clerk, both general and trust fund; and Justice of
the Peace, Precinct 2. Do I hear a motion that these reports
be approved as presented?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the designated reports as presented. 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 LETZ: Yes. And I'm -- the reason I
asked our reporters to stay for this part is, I was requested
by the Airport Board -- in a meeting yesterday, there was a
request from the entire board to urge the two entities on the
11-13-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
146
airport, being the City and the County, to quit messing
around, start meeting, and work on a long-term governance
agreement for the airport. Commissioner Williams and I were
present, and told them the Court appointed two members to
start that discussion in August, and that we were waiting for
our counterparts at the other entity, being the City, to
appoint somebody, and they have yet to do so. And they
want -- this is from the Airport Board. Their request is to
get letters to the Editor, people screaming, do whatever it
takes to get both entities to sit down and start meeting on a
long-term governance agreement with the airport, because the
current way of operation out there with three board members
is not good. They don't like it. They're unhappy, and they
want it fixed. And I know that was voiced to the young man
that was there from the Kerrville Daily Times. I'm not sure
of his name, but I just wanted to make sure that the -- those
that were covering the Commissioner Court were also aware of
the feeling of the Airport Board. And this -- and to me, as
a Commissioner, I think it is ridiculous that the City has
just sat on their hands for three months when there's a
situation out there that needs to be addressed. And there --
there are arguments that we need to wait for the consultant.
You know, I don't mind waiting to make a final determination
till we get the consultant's report on economic development,
which I'm not sure how that necessarily relates to
11-13-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
147
governance, but clearly, we can sit down and start
negotiating and talking as to where we want to go with the
long-term governance of this airport. So, that was my
~' comment that I wanted to make.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I concur. No need to add
anything.
JUDGE TINLEY:	Any other	reports	from --
COMMISSIONER	WILLIAMS:	Yeah. I	got a couple
quickies here.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We were advised by O.R.C.A.
that we have been given a planning grant in the amount of
$30,000, which we'll be using in conjunction with the Center
Point/East Kerr wastewater project. Couple quickies real
quick here. Unemployment for Kerr County right now is about
3.9 percent. TexDOT was in the last AACOG meeting and made a
rather extensive report on structurally deficient bridges.
This is a topic of high public interest, given the failure of
the bridge in Minneapolis over the Mississippi River. So,
TexDOT has gone in, taken a look at all the bridges in the
state, and there are thousands of them, as you might imagine.
And the ones they've identified as structurally deficient
bridges in Kerr County are on-system bridges. They are their
bridges, not the off-system ones. There are no structurally
deficient off-system bridges. All the on-system ones that
11-13-07
148
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and another on F.M. 1340 at the Lone Star Crossing. They're
aware of all these, and they're indicating that whatever
remedial action needs to be taken is now flowing in the
conduit. For your edification and interest, if you have
nothing else to read, I'll give you a copy of the AACOG
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thanks, Bill.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're welcome. For fiscal
probably go down, based on the fact that Bexar County has
asked to take back the Ryan White program, which is the
H.I.V. program that was administered by Bexar County. They
at one point said we can't handle it any more. They came to
AACOG, asked AACOG to take it over. We did take it over,
restructured the whole program and got it functioning
properly, and now the County Judge has said, "I think we'll
take it back," so we're going to give it back to them. So,
anyhow, this budget will probably be reduced within the next,
oh, three, four, five months to accommodate the removal of
the Ryan White program. That's it, Judge.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Great report.
11-13-07
149
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other reports from
I Commissioners?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, I'll report in response
to Commissioner Williams on the bridges that have been
identified as structurally unsound. The two Smith Crossings
on Highway 39, and Hope Crossing have already been let.
They're working out some contract issues right now with the
successful bidder. They should start construction no later
than the 1st of December. Phase 2 of the project involves
Lynxhaven, Panther Creek, and Mayhugh, which is right by
Stonehenge. We are having our, hopefully, last meeting on
Phase 2 of the committee on Thursday morning, and hopefully
that will go well, and they can go ahead and get the bids out
on that so they can start. One of the Phase 3 will be
Shoemaker and Hunt. Those are other -- that wasn't
identified in your report, but they will be redone too,
upgraded. That will be another year away at least before
those two --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Bruce, as an example, like
the bridge there at Stonehenge, or Honey Creek, whatever you
want to call it, will that -- will that bridge be raised?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It will be raised slightly
and create enough open area underneath it to where it will
drain better.
25 I COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
11-13-07
150
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: The volume of water that it
will take will be increased quite a bit. That's the worst
crossing, really, on the whole North Fork, because it stays
flooded when the others are already dry.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Because it's so low.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But it's the cutest.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: But it will be raised, and
that is one of their most difficult ones to work with,
because the roadway -- the approach from the Hunt side is
below the level of the ground --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, sure is.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- on the downstream side.
And, so, they're going to have to raise that up some, but not
too much. They've just got to match -- they've got to match
up with the flow rate coming with -- you know, based on the
drainage from upstream.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And that's the way the
engineering is going to work on it. But that has been one of
their biggest challenges.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Which bridge is that, Bruce?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's the one right before
you get to Stonehenge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mayhugh.
11-13-07
151
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Down in the dip before you
get to Honey Creek. It's a bad deal. They've looked at
other options to straighten it out, but that requires
right-of-way acquisition and all that, and they don't have
time for that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've been dealing with the
Lemos Street a little bit; they're fixing to redo that thing.
And I think, personally, the debate is, from my point of
view, being raised out in Hunt, being flooded in, and if you
just wait a couple hours, it's going to go down, or at least
i
overnight it'll go down and you can get out. But that's kind
of the debate now. Do we need to build one for a 100-year
flood, or do we need to build one for 5-year? That kind of
thing.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And that's what these --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But I'll lose the argument
I on that.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: The ones in the Hunt area
were supposed to be built on a 5-year frequency, but they've
got an exemption down to 2-year frequency, so that would --
made it possible to lower the bridges down and not make them
so high that they didn't -- they looked out of place.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Yeah.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And where the roadway floods,
you can't get to the point -- what point is there having a
11-13-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
152
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And, so, anyhow, that's where
we are on that project. And I also talked to Coward the
other day; they're starting the surveying on the Camp
Arrowhead crossing, Flaming Arrow Crossing, and also have
started surveying on the Hoot Owl Hollow bridge. So, they're
-- they're moving along. Out there by Weltners.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, yeah, out there.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Where Welt used to live.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, one other quickie --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's okay, I'm about done.
That's -- the only other thing that I have is that we have
had some problems in terminology in Environmental Health
Department on letters that went out to these people that have
not turned in their final drawings so that the homeowners can
get their permit to operate. Had an instance where a lawyer
had been retained by a homeowner in the west, trying to get
to the bottom of it and figure out what to do to make this
final drawing come in of what was built on the property. And
we had been sending out letters saying you must turn in your
as-built drawings. Well, the terminology's wrong. You have
to base it on what's in our rules, because that terminology
is not in the state rules, nor in our rules. So, it has to
11-13-07
153
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
be the design has not been approved because the drawing of
what was built has not been submitted.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, yeah.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So, basically, that's what
the -- it's just a change in verbiage. But that's going to
make it legal for us, based on our rules. So, we worked
through that last week -- or I did with Environmental Health
and this lawyer that was working for the homeowners, and sat
down with Tish and Ray and -- and the lawyer. The four of us
got around the table, and the lawyer figured out what we were
doing wrong, to not be able to put pressure -- legal pressure
on these people to turn in those final -- you know, final --
not as-builts, but built according to what was permitted to
be built. And without that, they're not going to get
approval. But that's all.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: See how we give credit to
lawyers occasionally?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: In this case, it was a big
help. Anyway, I just wanted to let y'all know that. That's
the other thing, and that's enough out of me. Y'all --
JUDGE TINLEY: You had something else?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: At the request of
Dr. Troxel, I'm going to make an appearance before the
K.I.S.D. Board of Trustees tonight to talk about Cornerstone.
Cornerstone has asked for a recommendation from their board,
11-13-07
154
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and it's on their agenda, and Dr. Troxel asked me to be
there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're the outfit that wants
to lease the Juvenile Detention Facility?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything additional to report on
I that?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No. I have to call them
this afternoon. I'm going to find out where the letter of
intent is. Haven't seen it back, unless you got it.
JUDGE TINLEY: My understanding was that they were
supposed to hear something from T.Y.C. -- my recollection was
November 9. Am I correct on that date?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That date rings a bell.
JUDGE TINLEY: So maybe you'll get an update from
them.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I will, or I'll call this
afternoon.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, good.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, one last item I have
related to our Subdivision Rules. I mentioned it to
Commissioner Williams, but I visited with the legal staff at
Water Development Board, and the way I did the draft revision
is acceptable to them, and they're willing to sign off that
our rules are acceptable. Which that clears the way for our
11-13-07
155
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
grants to go before their board, probably in December. But
if it gets -- for some reason, it gets pushed back, it will
be at the latest January, but they're still aiming, I
believe, for their board approval in their December meeting.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: To facilitate that, if we
get adoption on the 26th, and need that to be hand-delivered
to them so that they have them so we can make the December
~ meeting --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: He's got a copy of them
already.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, he needs to see an
adopted copy.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: The -- the constitutional amendment
for the bond for Texas Water Development Board did pass.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do we know when those bonds are
going to be sold?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, but I'll try to find
out.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Be interesting to know when
the pipeline's going to open up.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah. So you can be at the
doorstep?
JUDGE TINLEY: We are already at the doorstep.
11-13-07
156
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
hand.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: With a bigger hat in our
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else, gentlemen?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: What are we supposed to do
with these --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We need to recess.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- request for proposals or
qualifications?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We'll get them from Cheryl
after lunch, and we'll recess on that one item, Judge, and
then we can come back. And Bruce and I can look at them
before we go to lunch, probably. I don't think it will take
that long.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And then come back --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Tomorrow, we can make a
recommendation.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- on the recessed item for
~ today.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Come back when?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Tomorrow.
JUDGE TINLEY: Tomorrow we're here at 11:30 anyway.
Point of information. We're scheduled to have a meeting
tomorrow at 11:30. We may be slightly delayed starting that,
11-13-07
157
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
depending upon the time frame with regard to the services for
Brad Alford. But if we don't start at 11:30, it'll be
shortly thereafter, and when we get everybody gathered up,
we'll -- we'll start then. Anything from any elected
officials?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: -There just is one deal
tonight, if you didn't see it in the paper. It might be
interesting to some of y'all, on the forum out at Schreiner
College on the effects of immigration and illegal immigration
on Texas. And one thing, thanks to my chief and one of my
captains, they put together some figures. Just this year,
January to now -- to November, on what it's cost this county
in housing people with I.N.S. holds and that, and that's over
-- it's going to exceed, not counting medical, $75,000, is
what it cost us in housing illegal immigrants.
JUDGE TINLEY: What kind of reimbursement do we get
for that?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We get the SCAAP funding,
which is that alien assistance. It's not just on -- on
illegal aliens; it's any type of -- of non-citizen that we
house. And it's tied to criminal charges, of course, but
what was it this year? I think the County saw about 13,000 a
year on that. But there -- there's going to be a lot of
issues. They've got a forum, somebody out of -- I think it's
Lamar Smith's office, and there's a panel and different
11-13-07
158
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
', subjects tonight, and it can be interesting, what the effects
are, whether it's education, health care, any of that kind of
stuff. And it affects our county.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any other reports? We'll be
in recess till 11:30 tomorrow morning.
(Commissioners Court recessed at 11:41 a.m.)
STATE OF TEXAS I
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 20th day of November,
I 2007 .
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
BY: _ _
Kathy nik, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
11-13-07
ORDER NO. 30597
HCADRC CONTRACT RENEWAL
Came to be heard this the 13th day of November, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Oehler. The Court unanimously
approved by vote of 3-0-0 to:
Approve renewing the HCADRC Contract with Kerr County to provide mediation
services in Kerr County, and for funding.
ORDER NO. 30598
MARTIN-MARIETTA FLOOD PLAIN PERMIT
Came to be heard this the 13th day of November, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 2- l -0 to:
Move for a continuance on the Martin Marietta Floodplain Permit to November 26,
2007 at 1:30 p.m.
ORDER NO. 30599
VACATE, CLOSE AND ABANDON PORTION OF UPPER TURTLE CREEK
ROAD
Came to be heard this the 13th day of November, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Oehler, seconded by Commissioners Williams/Letz. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to:
Approve the Order to vacate, close and abandon the old portion of Upper Turtle
Creek Road, the Execution of Road Dedication Deed for new portion, authorize the
Judge to sign both documents, return the completed documents to the Jons Law
Firm, for the Jons Law Firm to complete the Road Dedication Deed, authorize the
Judge to sign the Road Dedication Ded once it is completed, and allow the Road
and Bridge to open new roadway to traffic and close the old portion, located in
Precinct 1.
ORDER NO.30600
LETTER OF CREDIT #25399-5 FOR LIVE SPRINGS RANCH
Came to be heard this the 13th day of November, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Oehler, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to:
Approve releasing the Letter of Credit #25399-S to Frost National Bank for Live
Springs Ranch, located in Precinct 4, contingent upon receiving payment for the
last invoice of $323.62 from Wayne Wells for engineering fees.
ORDER NO. 30601
BIDS FOR PLANNING SERVICES AT THE HILL COUNTRY YOUTH
EXHIBIT CENTER
Came to be heard this the 13th day of November, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court unanimously
approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Open the bids received from:
1. Peter W. Lewis Architect - with a schedule of fees totaling
$23,400.00
2. Ray + Hollington Architects, out of Houston, Texas;
and accept the bids for RFQ for planning services at the Hill County Youth Exhibit
Center, and refer them to the Review Committee.
ORDER NO. 30602
CREATION OF NEW POSITION AT KERR COUNTY JUVENILE
DETENTION FACILITY
Came to be heard this the 13th day of November, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve creating a new position of Assistant Facility Administrator at a Grade 20
and eliminating the floating position of a Juvenile Detention Officer at a level 16/5.
ORDER NO. 30603
KERB COUNTY JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITY CONTRACT WITH DR.
CHRIS MERIWETHER
Came to be heard this the 13th day of November, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Oehler. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the contract between the Kerr County Juvenile Detention Facility and Dr.
Chris Meriwether to act as the facility's Health Director.
ORDER NO. 30604
BIDS FOR DIGITAL VIDEO RECORDING SYSTEM
Came to be heard this the 13th day of November, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve advertising for bids for Digital Video Recording System for the Kerr
County Juvenile Detention Facility.
ORDER NO. 30605
RIVERHILL OAKS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION RENTAL OF UNION
CHURCH
Came to be heard this the 13th day of November, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Oehler. The Court unanimously
approved by vote of 3-0-1 to:
Grant a 50% reduction, for a rate of $50.00, for the Riverhill Oaks Homeowners
Association (ROHA) to rent the Union Church for each of three dates in 2008:
Annual meeting January 10th and potluck socials on April 17th and October 16th .
ORDER NO. 30606
CAST VOTES FOR DIRECTOR OF KERB COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT
Came to be heard this the 13th day of November, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Cast 5,500 votes for Charles Lewis and 1 vote each of the other 5 members, for a
total of 5,505 votes, which is the total cumulative votes we have.
ORDER NO. 3 0607
RENEWAL OF KERR COUNTY MARKET DAYS USAGE LICENSE
Came to be heard this the 13th day of November, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously
approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the Contract with Kerr County Market Days for 2008.
ORDER NO. 30608
REVISION OF PLAT FOR LOTS 25 & 26 OF THE HORIZON
Came to be heard this the 13th day of November, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the Final Revision of Plat for Lots 25 & 26 of The Horizon, Vol. 6, Pages
323 to 326, located in Precinct 1.
ORDER NO. 30609
REVISION OF LOTS 99, 100 AND 101 OF THE HORIZON
Came to be heard this the 13th day of November, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Oehler. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the Final Revision of Lots 99, 100 and 101 of The Horizon, Vol 6, Pages
323 to 326, located in Precinct 1.
ORDER NO. 30610
REVISION OF LOTS 113 & 114, VISTAS ESCONDIDAS DE CYPRESS
SPRINGS
Came to be heard this the 13th day of November, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Oehler, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the Final Revision of Lots 113 & 114, Vistas Escondidas de Cypress
Springs, Vo17, Page 363, located in Precinct 4.
ORDER NO. 30611
APPOINTMENTS TO AACOG CRIMINAL JUSTICE ADVISORY
COMMITTEE
Came to be heard this the 13th day of November, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Appoint Kerr County Sheriffs Department Lt. Bill Hill to the AACOG Criminal
Justice Advisory Committee; and Kerrville Police Department Capt. Jeffrey
Wendling as alternative, effective immediately, and notify AACOG of same.
ORDER NO. 30612
REAPPOINTMENT OF KAY MOSTY HAYES TO KERRVILLE/KERB
COUNTY JOINT LIBRARY ADVISORY BOARD
Came to be heard this the 13th day of November, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Oehler. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Reappoint Kay Mosty Hayes to the Kerrville/Kerr County Joint Library Advisory
Board for a three year term ending November 2010.
ORDER NO. 30613
DIETERT CENTER CONTRACT
Came to be heard this the 13th day of November, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Oehler. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the Contract with Dietert Center, and authorize County Judge to sign
same.
ORDER NO. 30614
IMPLEMENTATION OF BURN BAN
Came to be heard this the 13th day of November, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Oehler. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve Implementation of the Burn Ban, which includes the ability of each
Commissioner to set the burn ban or suspend the burn ban in their Precinct, as they
deem appropriate.
ORDER NO. 30615
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH TAC RISK MANAGEMENT POOL
Came to be heard this the 13th day of November, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve Interlocal Agreement with TAC Risk Management Pool, as presented.
ORDER NO. 30616
CLAIMS AND ACCOUNTS
Came to be heard this the 13th day of November, 2007, came to be considered by
the Court various Commissioners Precincts, which said Claims and Accounts are:
Accounts Expense
10 -General Fund	$	240,260.69
14-Fire Protection	$	22,231.33
15-Road & Bridge	$	138,165.15
18-County Law Library	$	637.00
19-Public Library	$	36,972.25
20-Road Districts	$	206,529.89
50-Indigent Health Care	$	70,347.71
76-Juv Detention Facility	$	12,725.30
TOTAL
$ 727,869.32
Upon motion made by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner
w1111amS the Court ~.::~la:::mr".:sly a,,,,rn,~ed by ~J~ta of d_n_n rn r~a~~ +hA Cl~ir~e onr~
~ J NN " ~..) .~... ~ .. ~, ~., Z.u y «.... iuia J ullu
accounts.
ORDER NO. 30617
BUDGET AMENDMENTS NOS. 1-23 FOR 2006/2007 AND
BUDGET AMENDMENTS NO. 1 FOR 2007/2008
Came to be heard this the 13th day of November, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Oehler, the Court unanimously
approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the 2006-2007 Budget Amendments, and the one Late Bill, as per the
Summary presented.
ORDER NO. 30618
MONTHLY REPORTS
Came to be heard this the 13th day of November, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously
approved by vote of 4-0-0 the following monthly reports:
Road & Bridge -September, 2007
Constable Pct 4
JP # 1
Environmental Health
JP #3
Constable Pct 1
Constable Pct 2
County Clerk -General and Trust Fund
JP #2