1 2 3 4 5 - -6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT Regular Session Monday, October 8, 2007 9:00 a.m. Commissioners' Courtroom Kerr County Courthouse Kerrville, Texas PRESENT: PAT TINLEY, Kerr County Judge H A."BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1 WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2 JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3 BRUCE OEHLER, Commissioner Pct. 4 4 ~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 2 I N D E X October 8, 2007 -- Commissioners' Comments 1.1 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action regarding Sheriff's Department vehicles 1.5 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to accept the resignation of Robert. L. Weinberg from the Alamo Area Seniors Advisory Committee with thanks and appreciation, and appoint Margie G. Jetton to this position effective immediately 1.2 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for preliminary plat for Vistas Grande, Pct. 2 1.3 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to change the public hearings set for November 12, 2007, to November 13, 2007, due to holiday schedule 1.4 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to reduce letter for escrow on interest-bearing account from BTEX Ranch, L.P. for Privilege Creek, a/k/a Boerne Falls Ranch, Pct. 3 1.6 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to formulate and adopt policy on Kerr County's funding or funding formula in future years for the Butt-Holdsworth Memorial Library 1.7 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to authorize use of portable stage maintained at Youth Exhibit Center for Families and Literacy street dance at reduced or no cost 1.8 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to adopt an order expressing official intent to reimburse with tax exempt obligation proceeds for costs associated with constructing or acquiring various improvements within the county 1.9 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for a motion to ratify motion to approve the language in House Bill 3195, which states that the Commissioner's Court adopted a budget on September 28, 2007, that raised more revenue from property taxes than in the previous year PAGE 12 27 28 39 41 49 58 63 69 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 I N D E X (Continued) October 8, 2007 PAGE 1.10 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to nominate and elect Appraisal District Board of Directors members for the 2008 and 2009 term 71, 106 1.11 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to approve the new contract, policies and procedures, and the list of organizations which receive discounts at the Hill County Youth Exhibit Center 72 1.12 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to adopt TCDRS plan for 2008 79 1.13 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on interlocal agreement with Kendall County and the City of Kerrville for EMS in the Falling Waters subdivision area 86, 108 1.14 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to ratify TXDOT condemnation acquisition of 3.954 acres at airport and authorize County Judge to sign closing documents on behalf of Kerr County in connection with such acquisition 91 4.1 Pay Bills 92 4.2 Budget Amendments 97 4.3 Late Bills -- 4.4 Approve and Accept Monthly Reports 101 5.1 Reports from Commissioners/Liaison Committee Assignments 101 1.15 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action, if any, on pending proposal(s) by letter of intent to lease a portion of the Kerr County Juvenile Detention Facility to Cornerstone Programs Corporation (Executive Session) 105 --- Adjourned 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 4 On Monday, October 8, 2007, at 9:00 a.m., a regular meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in the Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, Kerrville, Texas, and the following proceedings were had in open court: P R O C E E D I N G S JUDGE TINLEY: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Let me call to order this regular meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court scheduled and posted for this time and date, Monday, the 8th of October of 2007, at 9 a.m. It is that time now. Commissioner Williams? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Will you please rise and join me for a word of prayer, followed by the pledge of allegiance to our flag. (Prayer and pledge of allegiance.) JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. At this time, if there's any member of the public that wishes to be heard on any matter that is not a listed agenda item, feel 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. They can be found at the rear of the room. It's not essential, but it helps me to be aware that there's someone that wishes to be heard on that issue, and hopefully not miss them when we get to that item. But if you fail to fill out a participation form and want to be heard on an item, just get my attention when we get to that 10-8-07 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 5 item in some fashion, and I'll see that you have an opportunity to be heard. But right now, if there's any member of the public that wishes to be heard on any matter that is not a listed agenda item, please feel free to come forward at this time. Seeing no one coming forward, we will move on. Commissioner Williams, what do you have for us this morning? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't have anything. I'm just ready to do our business. JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Commissioner Letz? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just one minor thing, just to pass on before I forget; it's a message from a committee out of Comfort that's been looking at incorporation, and they have -- I think they're going to go down that road and try to incorporate Comfort. They have met with Judge Schroeder in Kendall County about it, which is basically the only -- the reason it may not happen. So, depending on what they negotiate with Kendall County. I know their committee has spent a lot of time looking at Ingram, primarily, locally as to how Kerr County and Ingram worked through that process. I But the reason for bringing it forward today is that they i will also be incorporating part of Kerr County into Comfort, i pulling it in, which makes sense. And they wanted to make sure that we didn't feel slighted, in Kerr County, that they went to Kendall County first. I assured them that that's a 10-8-07 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 far bigger hurdle, if they have to work out a deal with Kendall County, than with Kerr. We don't have that much involvement, just a few streets and things. But, anyway, it's an interesting time for them going down that road. It's taken a long time to get to this point. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Where was the first county seat of Kerr County? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it was Comfort. MR. ODOM: It was in Kerr County. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: West Kerr County. MR. ODOM: It was in Kerr County. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Bruce's house. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah, right. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, before Kendall County existed. JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else? COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's it. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I just want to remind everybody that this Saturday, starting at 4 o'clock, Mountain Home Volunteer Fire Department, we're going to be frying fish, and want everybody to come that can and wants to come. And -- and there's no advance tickets. The way you pay for it is by donation only, to help fund the fire department, and it's the second annual. It's taken them a long time to get used to having a fundraiser, but they're going to be doing 10-8-07 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 7 some, hopefully, building program here in one of these years, and they'd like for people to come and help them out. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you cooking? COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yes, sir, frying fish. Rex is going to help, and quite a few others. So, if you're hungry on Saturday, well, come out and have some fish. JUDGE TINLEY: What time? COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Starts at 4:00, probably serve about 5:00, till it runs out. Cooking 150 pounds of catfish. That's it. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And the raffle issue, $1 per ticket, and there is some major, major prizes. JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm, I was going to mention that. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I got that list yesterday, and, heck, I'm going to go. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah, well, you should. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I should; that is true. COMMISSIONER LETZ: You have to be present? 'Cause there's another -- I have to be at a Fishes and Loaves dinner for my -- possibly both of my children will be performing in Comfort. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, they're $1 with the fire department, but if you buy them here today, they're $2. COMMISSIONER LETZ: $2. (Laughter.) COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Give us a little gas money. 10-8-07 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 8 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's right. I'm selling them, too. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I've got a couple of ~I things. One, a month or so ago, today was a holiday, and so I set up .some doctor's appointments and things that I can't get out of, so around 11:00 or so, I'm going to disappear and go take care of those things that I've committed myself to. Number two, there is a small debate, I understand, out in the ', community about who voted for the salary increases, and I understand that there's a side that's -- I'm a hero because I voted against it, and then there's a side that I'm a villain because I voted for it. Well, I'm here to set the record straight. I voted for it, and I'll not back up from that. I -- I deserve a salary increase just like everybody else on -- on earth. So, I did vote for it, and I'm not a hero to those -- that particular group of people, and that's fine with me. I got to tell you, to me, that -- that kind of stuff is just silliness. When you -- when you hear these debates out there and people getting kind of vicious about them damn Commissioners raising their salaries, you know, that to me is just absolute silliness. There -- there are so many things that -- that should be debated. One that comes to my mind that, if people want to really get in a debate and talk about real dollars and cents, let's talk about the district courts, the two district courts 10-8-07 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 in this county. Two district courts in this one county. Personally, I like the idea of having one single district in Kerr County where you have one sitting judge that takes care of Kerr County only. I don't know that we'll ever get to that point, but if I had the opportunity to vote, I would vote that way. But we have two, and both of them are extremely expensive. One of them -- and part of the district court system is the D.A.'s office, and one of them is housed out in another county, so taxpayers -- Kerr County taxpayers' money gets up and leaves and goes to Junction. Just part of the debate. And I don't know if that's going to continue when the lieutenant -- I understand the lieutenant's running for that position up there, and I don't know if he lives in Junction or where he lives. I don't care. But, you know, if you wanted a real debate, that is -- that's something that we should all talk about, I think. If you -- 'cause you're talking about real dollars and cents there when you start looking at all of the things that the district court system has in it. So -- y'all keep looking over at Rex, I think. Has he got his handcuffs out? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not yet. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Anyway, that's my little soapbox for the day. And, you know, arguing -- and people arguing about whether I should have a salary increase or not is ludicrous, silly, and they need to get a job and do 10-8-07 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 10 something with theirselves. And -- but if you want a debate, let's talk about district courts in Kerr County. There's a debate with real money. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree with you on the salary issue, and I supported you on it. I voted for it, 'cause I don't believe any elected official is a second-class citizen. Enough said. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Only comment I'll make on that one is that I wish they would get their facts straight when they write these articles. And the issue of -- and this is just -- maybe it's an education problem that maybe we should take more time on. It's a little bit different, what we do and what City Council does. If you look at their agenda, I think we're -- we were compared to the City Council working free or whatever that is, $25, and I think if you look at our responsibilities compared to theirs, I think it's a little bit different. But we haven't done a very good job of educating the public. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They lose sight of the fact that the City Manager earns as much as this entire Court to do all their work for them. JUDGE TINLEY: As Dennis Miller would say, you don't want to get off on a rant. However, you do have something on your mind, right? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's true. 10-8-07 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 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Speaking of -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't think you'd call that a rant, though, Judge. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Maybe a rave. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: A rave. JUDGE TINLEY: Speaking of getting your facts straight, we have someone I'd like to introduce; Mr. Jeff Wright with the Daily Times who's here with us for the first time this morning, at least the first time to my knowledge. I've not seen him previously. Welcome. Hope that you get your facts straight. MR. WRIGHT: Me too. JUDGE TINLEY: But we appreciate you being here. The other thing that I want to mention -- couple things. One is, there are some tremendous auction -- silent auction items at this Mountain Home Volunteer Fire Department function. I haven't seen the list for this year, but I know what they were last year, 'cause I was there. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Some good stuff. JUDGE TINLEY: And they got some really, really neat stuff. Good crowd. Good time was had by everybody. The other thing I'd like to mention is, this coming Friday, the 12th, right out here, we will be dedicating the Frances Lehmann pavilion. The 12th, Friday, 2 p.m. All of you that 10-8-07 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 12 can be there, we'd like for you to be there, and I think it's going to be a -- a good and appropriate event. And, fortunately, we'll be able to have the entire Lehmann family there, so any of you that can be there, why, please join us. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, I have one quickie; you just reminded me. I'm advised that Senator John Cornyn '~, will be guest speaker for the Republican Women of Kerr i i ~I County, a noon appearance on the 27th of October at the Inn ~', of the Hills. There will be more details about this coming II out, but this, I believe, was the date, and the good senator's coming to town. JUDGE TINLEY: Is that also a Friday? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I believe it's a Saturday, Judge. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Okay, let's get on down to business here. First item on the agenda, consider, discuss, and take appropriate action regarding Sheriff's Department vehicles. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, gentleman, you asked me to bring it back, so that's what we're doing. JUDGE TINLEY: We asked to you bring the item back, not the vehicles, Sheriff. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We brought you the vehicle, too. I figured we'll do a little bit better. As most of you have seen, there is one of the vehicles sitting out there. 10-8-07 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 One of the misconceptions, I think, that a lot of people have had is that what we're trying to do is get luxury vehicles. That is not what this is. We're a rural county. I need than the Crown Vics. And I need to be able to go through some water, at least without totaling out a vehicle because of where the air intake sits on the Crown Vics is too low, right behind the wheel well. The air intake on the Tahoe sits up on top. We also have a lot of areas in the county, as most of you are aware of, such as Guadalupe Ranch Estates, Primrose, Elm Pass II additions, not -- not the public maintained roads that Mr. Odom keeps, because I think Kerr County does have some of the best paved roads of any county around, and I think we can all attest to that. But, unfortunately, paved roads in the rural county is not where the Sheriff's Office does most of our business. We're not the highway patrol; I don't have them just out there on the highways. I have them out in these subdivisions. A lot of them are public access, but not public roads, and a lot of our calls are out there. One real quick example is just a few months ago, we had a deal about -- started about 4 o'clock in the morning where we had a group of citizens that had been out all night. Some of them stayed a little bit longer than they probably should have. They got on four-wheelers, went back in their ranch, and nobody had heard 10-8-07 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 14 from them. And these -- it was two ladies without shoes on. It was cold; it was freezing weather. This was, like I said, a few months ago, and they called needing help. You could not get into that ranch, into those roads where they could have gone on that four-wheeler, in a Crown Vic. It doesn't stand high enough. The Crown Vic stands 5.6 inches off the ground, and that's before your shocks and everything else. And I know it's kind of funny, but all of y'all know about the one the other day that hit a raccoon and tore a radiator out from underneath it. And, you know, I mean, that's sitting pretty low, okay? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I can't believe you keep saying that. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, it happens, and I'm not going to deny it. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: A coon tore up your car. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes, Crown Vic. Tore the bottom out from a radiator. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Big coon or small car? I What? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Low car, and big coon. But we do have these problems in Kerr County. I'm asking for one Tahoe -- which is a police package. It's built for police work. It's built for pursuit work. It's built to -- to uphold to the rigors of police work. It's got dual batteries 10-8-07 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 in it for the electrical components and everything else. And I need the four on -- one on each shift, which is four, okay? Some of the differences, if you wanted to know, the gas tank capacity is 26 gallons in the Tahoe. It's 19 gallons in the Crown Vic. It gets around -- a little bit better gas mileage, which was asked one time. The Tahoe is stated at 16 in the city, 20 on the highway. On the Crown Vic, it's 14 in the city and 21 on the highway. So, in reality, even though the Tahoe has a little bit bigger engine, the 5.3 compared to the 4.6, it does do a little bit better, and it's designed for police work, specifically designed for it. And so I'm still asking that we get four Tahoes and one Crown Vic, which because interest rates have dropped down, is a total of -- I think we budgeted 57,000, and what we had for a four-year term is 54,209.53. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 54 what? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: $54,209.53 per year for a four-year lease. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Times four. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's four Tahoes and one Crown Vic. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That includes the Crown Vic also? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. I just really wanted the four Tahoes. The other thing about it -- and I think to-s-o~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 16 Mr. Brian Brooks can tell you also; he's with Holiday Motors, who sells the Vic under the D.P.S. contract. D.P.S. is going to them; they're buying another hundred and something this year to replace their pickups with. Plano Police Department did a long-term study on the comparison between the Crown Vic and the Tahoe, and found that, cost-effectiveness, the Tahoe was better than the Crown Vic. It's got a 100,000 mile -- 5-year, 100,000-mile power train warranty on it, where the Crown Vic has a 5-year, 60,000 miles. And, as we all know, we don't get rid of them in five years. It's the mileage that goes up, and this County's always kept ours over that. ~' So, that part's better, and just the reliability is better, and he's here to answer any questions you might have as to the design. COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's in the budget right now, the number? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: 57. COMMISSIONER LETZ: 57? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't have any problem with it. I think the Sheriff's made his case for the need. I'm not troubled by it. JUDGE TINLEY: Sheriff, there was one mention made outside in response to an inquiry I made about overall value, and your dealer rep indicated to me some information. I'd like for him to repeat that for the Court's benefit. 10-8-07 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Sure. On the resale? JUDGE TINLEY: All the information. MR. BROOKS: Are you talking about the resale value, sir? JUDGE TINLEY: The overall value. MR. BROOKS: Overall value. Well, part of that study that Plano did was the residual value at the end of the service life of a vehicle. Plano generally goes 100,000 miles before they flip a vehicle, and I just took -- just on Friday of last week, took an '04 Tahoe police vehicle in trade, 115,000 miles; we allowed 7,250 on trade-in. Crown Vics in the same mileage range, you're looking at 500 to 1,000 residual value. So, the -- the difference is that we've gone as high as 9,000 on a trade-in on a police Tahoe that had -- this one had had previous body damage to it that was repaired. Ones that we've had that haven't had no body damage, we've allowed $9,000 on trade-in for vehicles that have 100,000 miles on them. So -- SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The last Crown Vics we did trade in to Philpott Motors, who has the contract on the Crown Vics -- the last ones we traded in to them, we got $300 a piece. JUDGE TINLEY: What's the mileage on them, roughly? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Our mileage is roughly between 150,000 and 170,000. 10-8-07 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 WILLIAMS: After how many years? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That was after -- five? MR. BARYON: Five. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: About five -- five, six years. DEPUTY BEHRENS: 2000's. Those were 2000's. JUDGE TINLEY: What -- what about the residual value when they get up to 150,000? MR. BROOKS: I would say the value on those would be in excess of $4,000 each, even at a hundred -- we have Tahoes that we've taken in at 180,000 miles; we've allowed $4,000 a piece for them. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: What -- refresh my memory. What's in the budget right now? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: 57,000. JUDGE TINLEY: No, not the dollars. What vehicles are in the capital -- on your list? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: There aren't, because last Commissioners Court, we took them all out and decided to bring it back here. Buster had made the motion for one -- was it four Crown Vics and one Tahoe the last time? And then I argued that, and it's gone back and forth, so it was said that I wouldn't do anything until after this Court -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: I knew you -- I knew you were bringing it back. I just thought we -- I thought we didn't 10-8-07 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 change anything. JUDGE TINLEY: We didn't change the amount in the budget. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. But we took out -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. JUDGE TINLEY: The amount in the budget remained the same, and that's what we're working from, is what's budgeted. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And the only addition -- now, this would be the 54,209, and, you know, we still have to do the decaling on them, which the decaling normally runs 395 a piece, but that's whether we get the Crown Vics or the Tahoes; we still have to do the decals. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All that other stuff is in it, like the two cage -- there's two cages in it, I understand, and both of those are in there. And that little box that's in the back end to put your weapons and -- SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't know if the box -- the storage box is not there. You have the back end. It does have the digital camera, the cages, the radio, the sirens, the light bar. Which this light bar actually even has a directional signal on it for -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Have you asked the guy to give you a box? MR. BROOKS: They're 250 for that box. to-s-o~ 20 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 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How much? MR. BROOKS: 250. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You can do two of them, then. We'll buy one if he'll do two. (Laughter.) Otherwise, you may not sell anything here today at all. JUDGE TINLEY: Our resident Monty Hall over here. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But these do -- the Tahoes do already come with the deer guard/brush guard on them, where the Crown Vics, we have to have them installed, and they're $500 a piece. And these are already in that price. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Light bars, -- SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Everything. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- radio systems that are already tuned up to our system? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. JUDGE TINLEY: Put the chip in. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Put the chip in and it's ready to go. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We normally -- all our Crown Vics we've gotten in the past, normally everything is in them. Everything is there except for the decaling and the deer guards. That's just the way they're purchased. And on the Tahoes, everything is there except the decaling. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: What does it do when you add two Tahoes and three Crown Vics? 10-8-07 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 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, the biggest -- COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Surely you have those numbers. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, not two; I did go three. I figured you might ask. Because if -- if I went at least three, Bruce, then what I would do is put my Expedition on the road to be the fourth one, so that we would have four of those type of vehicles on that and put one on every shift. And then we'd do three Tahoes, two Crown Vics, and one of the Crown Vics just plain-Jane, without the equipment, which would lower the price, too, and I'd drive a plain-Jane Crown Vic. COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's that budget? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That budget for four years would be 49,038 per year. COMMISSIONER LETZ: What is it -- what would -- do you have that number for three years? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Three years would be 63,500. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Have we set up most of your purchases in the past on four or three? JUDGE TINLEY: Three. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Three. We set some of them up on four. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I think the first year, when the County went to six vehicles, if I'm not mistaken, that 10-8-07 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 l7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 one may have been four, because that was the first year the County went to the lease. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think you're right. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: When I took office, and then after that, we dropped it down to five vehicles and went three years. COMMISSIONER LETZ: How many miles do you drive a year on average? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: On average, 35,000 on patrol. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do you have a number on the two Crown Vics on three years -- excuse me -- and the Tahoes on four? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He just happens to have it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Three Tahoes. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: May not have it broke down that way. JUDGE TINLEY: What is it a year on each vehicle? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: On the Tahoes, for -- well that's four Tahoes. JUDGE TINLEY: What is it for one? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay. (Discussion off the record.) COMMISSIONER LETZ: Give him four Tahoes; he can divide it by four. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Unit price of a Tahoe is 41,3 10-8-07 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 -- or 41,487. JUDGE TINLEY: Is that total contract price? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's total. JUDGE TINLEY: Is that total sales price, or lease contract, total pay? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That is total price of the vehicle. That's before you'd add in leasing it, you know. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: At whatever interest, okay. III The purchase price of the vehicle. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Give him the lease price for four of them. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: For four? JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay, I can do that. The lease price on a three-year term -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, four-year. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Four-year term. COMMISSIONER LETZ: On Tahoes. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: On four Tahoes only is 45,337.56. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Then what's the lease -- JUDGE TINLEY: What's the Crown Vic? COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- on Crown Vics? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: On one -- 10-8-07 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE TINLEY: For three years. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: On two for three years is 19,409.23, and that's one of the Crown Vics equipped and one not. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. (Discussion off the record.) JUDGE TINLEY: That can't be right, Sheriff. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's three-year. JUDGE TINLEY: That's an annual cost? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's three-year. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Two vehicles. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Two vehicles, three years. One equipped, one not. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're mixing apples and oranges. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's a three-year lease. And the Tahoes, 45,000 is a four-year lease. JUDGE TINLEY: The 45,000 figure, -- SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. JUDGE TINLEY: -- is that the unit cost with all the lease costs rolled in? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's four Tahoes totally for four-year lease with everything included. COMMISSIONER LETZ: 45,000 divided by four gives us the unit of the lease. 10-8-07 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 JUDGE TINLEY: They're not $11,000 a piece. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, per year. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: 45,000 per year. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For four years. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: For four years. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right. So that you got rollup costs of about 4,000 per vehicle. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's 45,337.56. COMMISSIONER LETZ: About 59,000, then. 58, 59. JUDGE TINLEY: And your Crown Vic was -- for two I was 19? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: 19,409.23. That's three-year lease on those. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mm-hmm. What's third year -- Judge? 34 -- JUDGE TINLEY: $34,002, less -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Plus 19,409, is -- COMMISSIONER OEHLER: 50. COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- 54,000. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah. If you did three Tahoes for four years, it's $34,027.03. JUDGE TINLEY: 53,4. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's my motion. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's three Tahoes. 10-8-07 26 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 COMMISSIONER LETZ: My motion is three Tahoes for four years, and two Crown Vics for three years. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And one of them not equipped? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, whatever that -- yeah. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Two years? Two years on the Fords? JUDGE TINLEY: Three. Four years on the Tahoes lease, and three years on the Crown Vic lease. Three and two. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: My question is, what happens next year? And we have a -- now we're tied into a four-year lease plan rather than a three-year lease plan, and it's going to come back next year and the year after that with more vehicles, and it's going to extend the time, and you're going to spend a whole lot more money at the end. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Next year, I would hope to replace with all five Crown Vics again. I just need an S.U.V. on each shift, okay? So, you're going to have the one extended year's payment; there's no doubt there. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So we're actually going to -- SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We're going to go back down to Crown Vics. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So we're actually only going 10-8-07 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 27 to pay one -- one more year for Tahoes to get what you want, and then go back to Crown Vics for the next years? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right. Now, the only one that will wear out a little bit sooner than the other ones is the Expedition, 'cause it's got -- already got 30,000 miles on it. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We have a motion and a second as indicated. Further question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (Commissioners Baldwin, Williams, and Letz voted in favor of the motion.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Opposed. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Just to be consistent. (Discussion off the record.) JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's move to Item 5, if we might, and take care of that matter. Consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to accept the resignation of Robert L. Weinberg from the Alamo Area Senior Advisory Committee with thanks and appreciation, and the appointment of Margie G. Jetton to the position effective immediately. Commissioner Williams? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Judge. We've had a little turnover in this committee, but I think if the 10-8-07 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 Court approves Ms. Jetton's appointment today, we'll have two very, very good representatives to AACOG on the Seniors Advisory Committee. So, I'd like to move the acceptance of Bob Weinberg's resignation with our thanks appreciation for his support, and move the appointment -- include the movement of appointment for Margie G. Jetton to that position on Alamo Area Seniors Advisory Committee. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I'm very proud to second that motion. JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and a second. Any question or discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Margie, it's time for you to go to work. MS. JETTON: Okay, I'll do it, and I thank you very much. I always like to be an advocate. Thank you. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Margie. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. The next item, consider, -- Item 2; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action for the preliminary plat for Vistas Grande located in Precinct 2. Mr. Odom? 10-8-07 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 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. Good morning. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Morning. MR. ODOM: This plat is both in the ETJ of Kerrville and the County's jurisdiction in Precinct 2. It has a total acreage of 77.48 acres, and will have eight lots. This will be County-maintained roads. We still need a street profile and ditch drainage study, and it's our understanding that Vordenbaum Engineering's working on this and will get it to Wayne Wells. I talked to Wells -- Wayne Friday afternoon, and he had -- to his knowledge, he has not received anything from them. The developer is asking for a variance to the 50-foot building setback to be at 25-foot, as shown on the plat for Lot 3. The City has approved the portion in their ETJ, and we assume they will be inspecting the construction. They also had the name change as directed by the Court, and I recommend that we accept this preliminary plat. JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Odom, you say you assume the City will be making these inspections. Are they obliged to make these inspections? MR. ODOM: They are obliged to -- to do that in their ETJ, just like they did up on Sheppard Rees. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MR. ODOM: I knew that that word "assumed" -- I wouldn't have put that in there, but Truby did. COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're inspecting the roads? 10-8-07 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 30 MR. ODOM: They're inspecting the roads, based upon their -- their rules and regulations that they have there. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What is the name of that street with the cul-de-sac? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Ca11e Poco. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Calle Poco. MR. DIGGES: In Spanish, it means "short street." COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Short street. I guess we need to keep an eye on that so we're not approving any ugly language or anything. 'Cause I certainly can't read it. MR. ODOM: 390 feet. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 390 feet. MR. ODOM: That is a short road. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: When do we anticipate the profile and drainage study? Do you know? MR. ODOM: I'm not quite sure. In talking to Wayne, he said he would go back to check. Talking to Charlie Digges here, he said that Vordenbaum said that he has already reviewed that with Wayne, and Wayne, from his memory, said he would check to be sure, but he doesn't recall that. And this is the second time I've talked to Wayne about it. So... COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is -- MR. ODOM: I know that the City has had those, and they have reviewed it, but we -- we felt like we needed an 10-8-07 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 31 opportunity to review those plans since it is partly in our ETJ and we're responsible for part of it. So, Wayne -- I have not talked to him this morning, but I intend to get back with him. But the rules say that they can stake, they can do clearing and grubbing, and they can do some minor work out there, but the major work, Mr. Digges, is not to be done until I get those street profiles. MR. DIGGES: I understand that. MR. ODOM: Okay. And we've discussed this before, so we'll get with Vordenbaum to see where we're at. I would assume this is sort of a precarious -- it's a catch-22. The City's doing it, and they go there, and assuming all of it's done -- and I have one little portion down there in front that's mine, and so we assume that this is correct, that it's been looked at as far as the City's concerned, and we'll go forward with it. If we have any questions, Wayne will bring it up. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The variance from setback is only on -- on the Lot Number 3; is that correct? MR. ODOM: That's correct. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Leonard, the -- up to the north, Deer Park Lane comes from the south, correct? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right. 25 I MR. ODOM: Yes. 10-8-07 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 32 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why is the lot narrower up there? What's the right-of-way up on that northern piece of it? MR. ODOM: Oh, you're talking about the place that doesn't show that? COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's up here -- I mean, I just -- I presume 16 is 50-foot right-of-way. I'm wondering why that right-of-way -- MR. ODOM: 50 foot, I believe, is where we looked -- Truby and I looked at this. This is somewhat ambiguous. You see an unshaded area. Part of this had to do with the state, and in 1996, I believe, we looked -- or I had her look that up. Somehow, this property belonged to the state of Texas, and was bought and developed, and this other is prescriptive all along here; should be 25 foot each side to the center of the roadway. And I believe that, looking at this, Lots 1 and 2 shows to go all the way across. That's the reason it's shaded. The other part's unshaded, and that comes from this opposite side. Truby and them -- I believe as part of this on the opposite side goes all the way up against them. So, it was -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, that road that gets to Lot 1 and 2 is a 50-foot right-of-way? MR. ODOM: I believe it's 50 foot on Deer Park. COMMISSIONER LETZ: 50. 10-8-07 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 MR. ODOM: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why are we going with the 16 -- 50-foot right-of-way? MR. ODOM: Well, I guess I messed up. I assumed that I've got a county road right there, and -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, if -- if it's -- to me, that needs to be -- I mean, there certainly is, I mean, enough acreage -- MR. ODOM: Well, I guess you could grant that on 3, 4 and 5. COMMISSIONER LETZ: If it's going to be a county road, certainly, we want a 60-foot right-of-way. MR. ODOM: Charlie, am I correct in my assumption? That's just 50 foot, right? MR. DIGGES: It's hard to say by looking at this, I must admit, because if you look where it has the cul-de-sac street coming in Deer Park Lane, it's got that 32-foot distance there along the shaded part, but it's at a skew, so I would need to check on that. I mean, we can -- we can tell you that if we need to make an adjustment and if we're not giving you 30 feet off that side, we certainly will. That's not our intention to short you all. COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. MR. ODOM: Yeah. MR. DIGGES: And the reason why you have the shaded 10-8-07 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 34 areas is -- is we're -- any place where the developers actually own the property, they're going to dedicate it to the County. But there's certain places here where they abut Deer Park Lane where they don't own the property. MR. ODOM: That's right. MR. DIGGES: In their deed, it didn't come into them, so they can't grant it to y'all. MR. ODOM: It came from the opposite side of the road when we looked at it. It was -- it was strange. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It's a narrow -- narrow road, only really accesses these Lots 1 and 2, and doesn't access any other properties at the end of the road, or on the -- be the west of the road. They must have access from another way. MR. ODOM: Well, Deer Park comes all the way through, goes from 16 -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 16 to Lower Turtle Creek. MR. ODOM: -- all the way to Lower Turtle Creek. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay, I got you. MR. ODOM: You have access in here. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So, the light shaded area is just basically in addition to the existing road? MR. ODOM: No, they're deeding that all the way across. In other words, they own all the way across. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay. to-a-o~ 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. ODOM: Okay? When you look down 3 and 4 and 5, you say, why do we have this shaded? And when we started looking back into it, this was precarious because of the state owning it, and it was sold from the opposite side, and they had the deed all the way over to the property line. So, we had two different scenarios. They couldn't deed anything they didn't own. It belonged to -- it's already deeded to the County. I think that I've got 50 foot. I may be wrong; it may be 60, but in the back of my mind, I'm thinking it's 50 foot. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Can we determine that by the time we get back for final? MR. ODOM: Yes. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I mean, maybe this is one of those, because it's both city and county, we definitely need to have 60-foot right-of-way on that entire -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- stretch. Even if the rest of the road is 50 foot, let's try to start making it better. MR. ODOM: Well, like Charlie said, the 31.2 feet, and that shows, I guess, on up to the center. And I have to check to see if it is 60 foot on that other side. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I can't -- MR. ODOM: I missed it. Looked at this, and it was 10-8-07 36 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 confusing to me, because both sides turn from one side to another. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I -- I understand the confusion. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, we want 60 feet all the ~ way. MR. DIGGES: So we'll give you -- you know, if we're just giving you 25, you know, it's there by easement now. The entire thing is by easement to Kerr County now. But if we're only giving you 25 now from the center line, we will give you 30 feet. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. MR. DIGGES: Then it won't be easement; it will be dedicated. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: From the center line, 130 feet? MR. DIGGES: Yes. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And that will be reflected on the final? MR. ODOM: On the final. MR. DIGGES: Yes. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But that gets us to 55 feet, I then. MR. DIGGES: We can't -- we can't solve what's on the other side. 10-8-07 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 MR. ODOM: You know, that's -- that's the dilemma. It's already platted on the other side, or metes and bounds on the other side, I guess. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Kind of like J.J. Lane revisited here. COMMISSIONER LETZ But -- I'm thinking through this. JUDGE TINLEY: Roadway's already located there, which presents the problem of 25 foot either side of the center line. Otherwise, you could go 35 feet and bring it all up to 60. MR. ODOM: Yes, if that's 25 on the other side. JUDGE TINLEY: But then your roadway's going to be -- MR. ODOM: Shifted over. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Your road won't be in the center of the right-of-way, but at least you'll have a total 60-foot right-of-way. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Nothing new. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, what's new about that? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, it just seems to me that when we're doing these developments, it makes sense for us, where we can, to get the -- we either get the right-of-way now or we're going to buy it later. And now we can make them dedicate it to us, especially when it's going 10-8-07 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 to be a county road. MR. ODOM: So, you're saying if we have actually 25 on the opposite side, that they should give 35? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, that's what I think. MR. ODOM: All right. We'll just have to check to see if we're running at 25 or 31. If we're running 31 -- well, just depends what the other side is. I have to look up those deeds. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And on the waiver, I don't -- that's not that big a deal. MR. ODOM: On the -- well, we discussed that last time. They brought it here, and that's what they were told to do, and that's what they did. Two things; that was that 25 down on setback, and the name change. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I move approval of the preliminary plat for Vistas Grande in Precinct 2, with the -- showing a 25-foot setback for -- variance for 25-foot setback on Lot Number 3, and showing a 35-foot dedicated -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right-of-way, 60, whatever it takes. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You can't -- well, 35 from the center line. MR. ODOM: On this property. COMMISSIONER LETZ: He doesn't know what this is exactly. I'm just saying we need to get a 60-foot 10-8-07 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 right-of-way by the time we're done. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All right, 60-foot right-of-way. You figure it out. MR. ODOM: I'll figure out -- I'll get with I Charlie. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For this portion that's identified on the plat. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and a second. Any question or discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Let's move to Item 3; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to change public hearings set for November the 12th, 2007, to November the 13th, 2007, due to the holiday schedule. We just weren't paying attention to the possible holidays, were we? MR. ODOM: Well, I think that we had set this prior to you setting this schedule, which was after the 1st, so we wanted to come back to the Court and ask to change this to the 13th -- JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 10-8-07 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 MR. ODOM: -- of November. We apologize to the Court, but we were going under the assumption that we didn't ~, -- it was still the same, and when y'all changed it, we'd already committed to making these changes. JUDGE TINLEY: There'll have to be republications, I won't there? MR. ODOM: I believe so. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. MR. ODOM: But the 30 days would be there; just be a day later, so they would -- but we need the publication. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Have they been published? MR. ODOM: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Have they already been published? MR. ODOM: Yes. JUDGE TINLEY: For the 12th. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Republish. JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do we need to read all these into the record, Judge? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Probably a good idea. JUDGE TINLEY: That will be Hill River Estates, Lots 1, 5, 6, 11, 12, 13 in Block 2 will be at 10 a.m. on the 13th, in lieu of the same time on the 12th of November. The Horizon, Lots 25 and 26, will also be at 10 a.m. on the 13th, 10-8-07 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 in lieu of the 12th. The Horizon, Lots 99, 100, and 10, will be at 10:05 a.m. on the 13th, in lieu of the 12th of November. Vistas Escondidas de Cypress Springs Estates,. Lots 113 and 114, will be at 10:10 a.m., in lieu of that same time -- on the 13th, in lieu of that same time on the 12th of November. Privilege Creek Ranch, Lot 17, you're asking that that be set for 10:15 a.m. on the 13th of November, in lieu of its originally set time for 10:05 a.m., because of the duplication in time. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval of all the changes identified. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval. Any question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. We'll go to Item 4; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to reduce letter of escrow on interest-bearing account from BTEX Ranch, L.P., for Privilege Creek, also known as Boerne Falls Ranch, located in Precinct 3. Mr. Odom? MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. BTEX Ranch, L.P., the developer of Privilege Creek, also known as Boerne Falls, 10-8-07 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 placed $543,223.30 in escrow to secure the letter of credit for the roads in Privilege Creek, Phase 1. At this time, he is asking the Court to reduce the amount of security by $215,589.75. Attached is their engineer's estimate and an invoice for materials crushed to support the amount of monies spent for the road materials. I estimate the amount of base produced would approximate what has been placed in stockpile and on the roadway. If the Court chooses to reduce the escrow amount, we suggest the developer bring in a new letter of escrow for $327,633.55, and at that time we will return the old one. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, you're saying that he's built part of the road, and you want to reduce the original amount down to -- MR. ODOM: This new amount. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- that new amount that he's put into the road. MR. ODOM: That's correct. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know -- you do that? I don't know if I've ever done that before. Is that kosher? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, if there's a letter of credit to cover the remainder of work to be done. MR. ODOM: The remainder of work to be done. And I believe that we have, but not in that significant fashion. We've discussed that before. I -- 10-8-07 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 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you cool with that, Mr. County Attorney? MR. EMERSON: It can be done. It's my understanding, I think part of the money is supposed to be held for a year or two after the road's built to make sure it's built properly. MR. ODOM: Have to for county maintenance on that main road. There would be a maintenance bond for 30 percent of that amount on the main -- main road. He'll have to produce a maintenance bond to us. MR. EMERSON: It's over and above what's here? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would that 30 percent maintenance bond be 30 percent of the total amount, which was 543? Or -- MR. ODOM: Well, not all the roads are -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- or 30 percent of 215 -- MR. ODOM: The maintenance bond is only for those that are county-maintained. If they're private roads, there's not a maintenance bond that's needed. And part of this -- or the majority of the fingers of the roads that go off Privilege -- Turkey Knob Road, we're going to maintain that. That's the arterial. So, whatever 30 percent of the -- building that portion, he has to provide us a maintenance bond for one year. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: But there is actually dollars 10-8-07 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 put in escrow to pay for this road? MR. DIGGES: They put money into escrow, is what they did. They paid into an escrow account or savings account, and then that bond was issued off that amount of money, 500,000. So, now he's reduced that amount that's on the job, so what is left to be done on Phase 1 is 300-some-odd thousand left to do, and that's up to the Court. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: This is only Phase 1, though. There will be another -- MR. ODOM: Only Phase 1. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- another escrow required for Phase 2 -- MR. ODOM: That's right. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- on down the road. JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Emerson, should we be concerned about a retainage here, a storage retainage of 10 percent? Seems to me like they're asking for draw-down dollar per dollar. MR. EMERSON: I think that that's exactly what they're asking for, Judge. But since it's a partial draw-down and the project's only, I guess, based on dollars, 40 percent complete or 30 percent complete, -- MR. ODOM: Probably something like that. MR. EMERSON: -- I'm not sure that the Court can't just hang onto that on the back end. But that's -- 10-8-07 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, what I'm concerned about is, if you're drawing down pro rata portion, dollar for dollar, and there's difficulty during Phase 2, you've got no retainage to look to as to the first phase. You may have the pro rata portion of -- of Phase 2. This isn't a bonded project. I just think it may be wise if we were -- as to the amount that we're reducing, that we hold back 10 percent of that. MR. EMERSON: I think that's the more conservative route to take, yes. JUDGE TINLEY: So, instead of authorizing reduction of the -- what is it, 212,000? MR. ODOM: 215,000. JUDGE TINLEY: 215. We -- MR. ODOM: Hold back 21. JUDGE TINLEY: -- hold back 21,5 of that, and for the balance, 90 percent of the 215, we allow a reduction. That might be more appropriate. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And the maintenance bond would be even outside of that. JUDGE TINLEY: Yes. MR. ODOM: That's correct. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, yeah. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, that's totally separate and apart. When you -- 10-8-07 46 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 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: When does the maintenance bond -- when do they come in and do that? Isn't that -- MR. ODOM: When we accept it. I would bring it to the Court for acceptance. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And -- MR. ODOM: But we have a problem right now to accept it. I don't know if we would accept anything, 'cause they still have the gate locked on one side, and you don't have all the way through. You only got this section right here. All the legal has not been resolved. I understand that there was to be an opinion made Friday -- or by Friday by the Kendall County Judge, but I don't know if that's -- I haven't had a phone call one way or another. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Maybe we should just pass on this for two weeks until they get it straightened out. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I didn't realize there was a legal -- they have a gate locked that -- they have a gate locked on a road that we're thinking about reducing the bond on? MR. ODOM: Sir -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Have they built inside that locked gate? MR. ODOM: Yes. They can, yes. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Have they built inside the locked gate? 10-8-07 47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 No. gate? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I've not been out there. MR. ODOM: Are you talking about a home, you mean? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, built the road. MR. ODOM: They're building the road now. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's inside the locked MR. ODOM: That's correct. And the question is -- is tying into Kendall County, and that's a legal question, and which their lawyers -- it's a civil matter in which they are saying that they have the authority to do that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That doesn't have a lot of bearing, actually, here in terms of reducing the -- MR. ODOM: Reducing this -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- the escrow. So, if we're following the numbers -- am I correct, Judge, if we follow the numbers that you're throwing out, we'd be adding back, in effect, 21,5, and that would reduce the security instead to 194,089 instead of 215,589? JUDGE TINLEY: Instead of reducing the escrow by 215 and change, whatever it is, reduce it by 90 percent of that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Well -- JUDGE TINLEY: Same difference. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 195,000 will get us there. 10-8-07 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 can -- I'll contact them and tell them that's what the Court decided to do; it's y'a p 's opinion to do it. But they have reduced it, and it can be built. Material's out there to be done. Their question is -- is a legal question. I'm sure they'll resolve it, but the Court was aware of that when we did the preliminary. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. But this is not -- this is not part of that issue. MR. ODOM: This is not part of it. JUDGE TINLEY: You'd be reducing that escrow by 194,030.78. MR. ODOM: Say that number again? JUDGE TINLEY: 194,030.78. MR. ODOM: I'll check your number, make sure. JUDGE TINLEY: I think this works as good as an Aggie calculator. MR. ODOM: Well, I was going to say, Texas calculator works pretty good. Sometimes they're good in business. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, are we taking any action today, or are we bringing it back? COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I guess it depends if we get a motion or not. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I move we reduce the letter of the -- the letter of escrow on interest-bearing account 10-8-07 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 i G.F. Number 070721K from 543,223.30 to 194,030.78. I ~~ JUDGE TINLEY: By 194 -- reduce it by that amount? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Reduce it by that amount, yes, slr. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and second. Any question or discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (Commissioners Baldwin, Williams, and Oehler voted in favor of the motion.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: Let the record reflect that Commissioner Letz did not participate in the discussion, nor I vote . COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sissy. JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move to Item 6 quickly, if we might. Consider, discuss, take appropriate action to formulate and adopt policy on Kerr County funding or funding formula in future years for the Butt-Holdsworth Memorial Library. As I'm sure members of the Court recall, there was discussion that we needed to give some ongoing forward direction to this issue, so that notwithstanding our pronouncement that we've made in prior years, that a clear -- 10-8-07 50 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 clear message is delivered to our funding partners, so to Commissioner Oehler a little bit about it, and suggested that maybe the Court would like to -- maybe the Court would want to consider our position being based on a percentage, as opposed to a dollar figure. Given that everything else has a tendency to grow each year in terms of inflation and other considerations, I thought maybe if we established a percentage that -- reducing a percentage until we get to the level we like or are willing to sustain, that might be a better approach than trying to fix a dollar amount. My assumption is that we probably are somewhere -- in terms of funding, somewhere between 48 and 50 percent right now. We funded at last year's level, which was a little bit short of what they requested this year, so more than likely, we're at about 48 percent right now, somewhere like that, 47, whatever. If we were to consider, in subsequent budget years, going down to 45 and then 40 percent of the budget, whatever that budget is, for library services only, maybe that's an approach, and so I throw it out there for discussion as a possible approach. 10-8-07 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 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What is the approach? Reduce it by a particular number -- percentage number next year? Is that what you're saying? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And what is that number? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I'm just throwing it out for discussion. Perhaps 45 percent, and in the ensuing year, 40 percent of the total budget. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess I kind of look at it -- I mean, I'd kind of like to see where the City's going with the library, to see a plan from their standpoint. I mean, I know at least one Councilman is very much -- at least publicly has stated he thinks the library needs to be moved and something totally different done. I don't know where the City is on that whole issue, really. I think that if you -- I'm in favor of what you're talking about doing, a percentage, a little bit, but if we start getting into we're ~I just going to fund a flat amount or a flat percentage, does that mean we no longer have say into the -- the operational side? Which we never have had, anyway. (Laughter.) But -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, what's your point? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Letz is going to get some control out of this thing. Okay. I want to hear it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But do we want to try to get control over some of the operations of the library? I mean, 10-8-07 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 it's a -- you know, so it's kind of a -- you know, where do we want to be, I think, is the first step. What do we want to do with the library? And then -- and kind of what does the City plan to do with the library? And then make a I! decision. I mean, I think I'm -- overall policy right now is a little bit premature, in my mind. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If we -- if we confine our discussion to funding library services only, they can move that building anywhere they want to move that building, or construct a new one, and we're only talking about what goes on inside the building. Not the building. Which, in my view, it should be -- that should be the case. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: They're -- City is doing a study right now on all of their buildings, and the library is included in that study, to see what's recommended about -- you know, as far as renovation or new location. And I believe the study's going to show that the new location is absolutely necessary to do, because that -- that facility is not a good library. You don't have any parking. The access is horrible. And that has nothing to do with us. I mean, I'm kind of to the point where I'd like to just say, okay, this is how many dollars we're going to give you a year. We went ahead and funded it back up to last year's level last meeting, and I feel like that we need to not reduce it too 10-8-07 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 much all at one time, like the City does us. They go up a lot all at one time. I think we -- when we decide that we're going to reduce some of our -- of our contribution, it doesn't need to be so drastic that it hurts the library. And so I -- you know, my recommendation would be somewhere maybe in the range of 10,000 a year until you get down to 400,000. That's just my thought. That may not have any -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's kind of what Bill's saying here, only he's not using a flat amount of money; he's looking at the percentage side of it. And I don't have any idea what those numbers equal, as far as -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If I had a chance to get the exact number we had this year, I could have told you, but I don't know. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But I -- I don't think we're ready to do this because of that discrepancy right there, if nothing else. But I don't know if I agree with the fact that -- I just don't understand why we'd want to wait for -- to see what their plan is. It doesn't matter what their plan is. If they build a Taj Mahal or put the library in a tent somewhere, our operations will still be the same. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, if we cap it, it will be, but if they build a Taj Mahal, the operations could double. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: And if they build a new 10-8-07 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 facility, I can almost assure you, the operation -- the annual operations will increase drastically. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. I agree 100 percent. That's why I think that -- I like -- I like Bill's idea here. I just don't know if those are good, firm numbers. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't either. It's just a suggestion. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just don't know that. But if you reduce it next year by 45 percent, and then the '~ following year by 40 percent, and then the next year by 30 percent to get to the 400,000 or whatever the -- this wonderful, magical number is, I kind of think that's the way to do it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Want to offer them the property by the jail, since they don't want that for anything else? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I still haven't figured out why they don't want to deal with that. I don't know. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Maybe we can give them the option to put a library or a jail there. (Laughter.) MS. VAN WINKLE: Combination. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In the same building. JUDGE TINLEY: Obviously, it's an issue that needs to be addressed. The sooner we start, we can throw it out on the table and have it there available. It may be premature, 10-8-07 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 but there's a lot of other issues. One, I think -- I don't know whether it's feasible. You mentioned, Commissioner Oehler, something about looking on a per-call basis with regard to some other services. For example, our -- the fire contract this budget year went up 40 percent. Certainly, I think if we were to reduce this one by the same percentage, that would be a pretty drastic, significant move. That would be about $175,000, which I don't think anybody's ready to do. It needs to be out on the table; we need to have it there to continue to discuss, because it continues to be a bone of contention, and we need to -- we need to have a good idea where we're going somewhat in advance of the actual finalization of the budget process so that -- COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, I feel like -- JUDGE TINLEY: -- we're not in the dark where they are, and they're not in the dark. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That is right, and they need to know this well in advance so they can do their planning and be fair to them, and not do the same thing they do to us. You know, at least -- at least be try to be fair. And I do believe we do need to fund a large portion of that budget. But it's very difficult when you don't have any control, basically, over that budget, to always fund it at a 50-50 level, because you can have all kinds of different expenses, and where they decide to -- to provide different, more 10-8-07 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 expensive services as time goes on, that just means our amount's going to continue to rise. So, it's going to be -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's our amount this year? COMMISSIONER OEHLER: 443 is what we agreed to. COMMISSIONER LETZ: How about -- well, this is -- certainly, a one-year policy makes sense. I'd just -- how about putting them on notice, we're going to fund 400,000 next year, period; that's our maximum amount, subject to them working with us in good faith on operational issues and long-term needs of the library, you know. If they want to work with us -- if they want more money, they're going to have to come to us and change the way they operate. And we're willing to listen, but that's -- you know, that's kind of -- that way they're on notice, and we can always change it, you know, once they start doing some of their stuff down the road. That way, we can at least put it to bed for a year. JUDGE TINLEY: Well, the reality of the situation is, we can only -- we can only deal for a year at a time, because that's the way we're structured under the Constitution. But, you know, that's what our preliminary budget for this current year showed initially, was 400,000, and now we're -- we're back. So, that's why we're doing it early. But, you know, we'll continue to work on that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I'm ready to go, if Bruce 10-8-07 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 is, with 400,000. We can do it at 400,000, far as I'm concerned. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, I think that -- I really think, in all fairness, that we ought not to reduce it by that much in any one year. I think we need to prepare them for a little bit at a time. COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's a little bit? COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, I'm talking about 10,000 a year cut. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thirteen? COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, 13 for the first year; make it -- make it -- make it 430 next year instead of 443. I mean -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, that's fine. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I just feel like that we're not going to be doing what we should be doing if we drop it that much. If we drop it 10 percent, basically, in one year, I think that's -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Too much. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's too much. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The reality is that if we even follow what you're suggesting, we're going to be cutting it even more, because the budget's going to go up next year. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's right. You're exactly right. 10-8-07 58 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 430? I mean, I'd just as soon do something today so we don't have to look at it again for a while. But, I mean, I think I want to listen to what Bruce thinks is right, because I think he has a closer -- COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, you guys don't have to go to the board meetings like I do. You don't have to sit over there and listen to all this. You know, you're insulated over here, you know. You run off and all that kind of stuff. JUDGE TINLEY: Sheriff, can you -- COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I turned around; you were gone. JUDGE TINLEY: Could you free up your schedule to make one of your people available to go with Commissioner Oehler to the Library Board meetings? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: There is no way any of my people are going. I believe that meeting is probably within the city limits of Kerrville, so I'm sure K.P.D. would be more than happy to send somebody with him. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I want to ride in the Tahoe to do it. (Laughter.) COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: To or from? JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Are we anywhere on this one? Okay. Well, it's out on the table. Let's go to our 10 o'clock timed item; consider, discuss, and take to-a-o~ 59 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 appropriate action to authorize use of the portable stage to maintained at the Youth Exhibit Center for Families and Literacy street dance at reduced or no cost. I put this matter on the agenda at the request of Joe Herring, Jr., and Brian Bondy, who are here with us. They are ramrodding, so to speak, I suppose, a street dance to benefit Families and Literacy. It's going to take place in downtown Kerrville later on this month. And the -- Mr. Herring reminded me that this is the same stage that we used during -- during the sesquicentennial celebration, and as I'm sure members of the Court recall, it was through the committee that was put together by Mr. Herring and through the cooperation of the Chamber, headed up by Brian Bondy, that that sesquicentennial celebration was so well received and such a tremendous success. And in looking at the proposed schedule of charges that we put into effect on the Youth Exhibit Center, I don't see that there's any -- any separate item for the stage. Apparently, it's assumed that it will stay there, but of course, it is portable and has been moved. Either one of you gentlemen want to tell us what this event is about? MR. HERRING: We're having a -- like you said, a street dance to benefit Literacy Group in Kerrville. We would greatly appreciate the use of the stage. We've tried to raise enough money beforehand that every dollar sold -- every ticket dollar sold goes to that group. That group not 10-8-07 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 60 only does, you know, literacy classes; they do English as a second language class, they do citizenship classes, and they do some parenting classes, so they do really good work. There's also another motive to have it downtown. As you probably know, with the closing of Schreiner's and other things coming downtown, we thought it might be good to have a positive event downtown. And whether you like them or not, the group that's coming is -- will be kind of Beatles impersonators, so it might be fun. Might be a fun evening, but we really need to borrow your stage. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Who's going to transport it, and set up and tear down and bring it back? MR. HERRING: In the past, I believe the County did that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd rather -- I mean, I'd rather have our people do it than -- MR. HERRING: We would rather, too, because y'all know what you're doing. And we -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I wouldn't go that far. (Laughter.) But I'm all in favor of it, I can tell you that. ', I think it's neat. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that a motion? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think it's a neat deal, and it's part of the -- part of the community, what they're doing, and that's what we do. Is -- is it on our list? So 10-8-07 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 moved. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded -- I assume that's at no cost? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's at no cost, and our people move it. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any other question or discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Joe, what time of the day is this thing over? MR. HERRING: It will begin at 7:30; it's about an hour and a half, so be over around 9:00, 9:15. ', JUDGE TINLEY: You going to put tables and chairs up? MR. HERRING: We're going to ask people to bring their own lawn chairs. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tim, can you stay up that late? MR. BOLLIER: I'm fine with it. 25 ~ COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's the date? 10-8-07 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 62 MR. HERRING: October 20th. We'll actually need the stage at noon on October 20th. They have to set up sound and all other stuff, and -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: What day is that? MR. HERRING: That's a Saturday. MR. BOLLIER: You need the stage at noon? MR. HERRING: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Tim likes lunch at 12:00, so if he sets the stage up -- MR. BOLLIER: I'll miss lunch. MR. HERRING: Well, around noon. Additionally, we'd be happy to add y'all as a sponsor on the publicity, if that's agreeable to you guys. All right, thanks. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're welcome. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Joe, before you leave -- MR. HERRING: Yes, sir? JUDGE TINLEY: Thanks for all of your great work on the sesquicentennial. MR. HERRING: Brian did all the work. JUDGE TINLEY: Deeply indebted to both of you guys. MR. HERRING: Brian did all the work, and I caused all the problems. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, invite him to the dedication Friday. I JUDGE TINLEY: Yes. You're aware of the Frances to-s-o~ 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 Lehmann Pavilion dedication that's going to take place this Friday at 2 p.m.? MR. HERRING: I'd like to be there. Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: 2 o'clock this Friday afternoon. MR. HERRING: Thanks, guys. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Let's go to Item 8; consider, discuss, take appropriate action to adopt an order expressing official intent to reimburse with tax-exempt obligation proceeds for costs associated with constructing or acquiring various improvements within the county. This item was placed on the agenda at the request of the County Auditor. If the members of the Court will recall, we talked about some significant capital improvements. We were looking at structuring the payment for those a little bit different than in our regular budgetary process. That is what this process and order would accomplish. Ms. Hargis, with regard to the draft of the order, under item (ii), I have some expanded language there that I prefer; to add, after agricultural barns, "and Youth Exhibit Center complex" -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where are you, Judge? At the top or the bottom? Where are you? JUDGE TINLEY: (ii) towards the top. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: "And related facilities." 10-8-07 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 64 MS. HARGIS: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do we even need the words "agricultural barns" in there? Doesn't hurt. MS. HARGIS: It's better to have it as broad as you can get it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: That was the intent of my additional language, is to broaden it up. MS. HARGIS: Does everyone understand the reasoning for this? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand the reasoning, yeah. Could you give me a little bit of a minute explanation on Section 2? That language is a little cumbersome there. MS. HARGIS: In order to begin buying some of the things that we need, we put off -- the I.T. -- a lot of I.T. items were placed in the budget in the capital area. Some of those need to be ordered now in order to get here within 90 -- 90 days, and some of the people were expecting to have new computers in place, because theirs are not there. They've basically blown up or need to be replaced. You can't spend any of those funds without this resolution in place. Once this resolution is in place, if something needs to be ordered, then it can be ordered, and you can reimburse yourself, but you have to have the resolution in place and 10-8-07 65 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the order in place in order to do that. This is a pretty standard thing to do when you know you're going to do a long-term loan, because, to give you an example -- it would be the easiest example for me. For instance, if you were building a building, you would need to design it before you would know what the costs would be to go out for your long-term debt, so the architect would want his payment in advance. Ours is a little different, because we have several items in place, but it covers a broad band and it enables you to always be reimbursed. And I'm just accustomed, in my years of doing this, that we always got this in place, whether we used it or not. The attorneys just said it was a good thing to have in place. JUDGE TINLEY: Otherwise, you cannot reimburse yourself out of the funds from that issue? MS. HARGIS: Right, whether it's $50 or 100 -- you know, or $100,000, you can't. So, once it's in place, if we buy anything related to these areas, then we can be reimbursed. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Reimbursement window is open for up to 18 months? MS. HARGIS: Right. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: After you've purchased the equipment or whatever? MS. HARGIS: Right. 10-8-07 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 66 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Or placed in service. MS. HARGIS: Usually, if you went into a real extensive type loan program, then you might need 18 months, but I don't -- and that also allows you to -- the time to design, things of that nature. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- at what point are you going to come back -- are we going to prepare the actual list of things that are going to be included? I mean, to actually come up with the final -- MS. HARGIS: List? COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- list of items? MS. HARGIS: Well, I think we need -- we've asked everyone to -- you know, on the areas that we've talked about. And I think we have some from Road and Bridge; I think we have -- John has a detailed list, but we need to add ~' a few things to the list. I think, really, we need the design situation that you guys ordered on the Youth Exhibit Center before we put that one in. And I think talk to all of the department heads and make sure that the items that we took out of theirs are in here and so forth. If there's anything else -- it's come to our attention that we may have to broaden our H.R. software. We had a representative from the software company come in on Thursday. There's some glitches that have got to be fixed, which are going to require about a week's worth of work that we didn't 10-8-07 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 I8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 67 anticipate, things of that nature. It's going to have to be done in order to get our payroll to where it needs to be. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, I mean, we're talking a I month or so? I MS. HARGIS: Yeah, I think a month. We need to get -- I think we need to get Mr. Henderson in here, but he needs an amount, and we need to decide so we can start talking with him. If you want me to put him on the next agenda to discuss how we're going to do this financing, and what type of financing we'd like to do, but as far as the list is concerned, I think it's pretty well nailed down. We just need -- you know, I think that the youth barn would be the last component. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, it says, I mean, improvements to the courthouse. I'm not sure exactly -- MS. HARGIS: We probably need to go and get a general bid; we need to get some bids on some of this stuff, so it may take -- depending on when, you know, we need to authorize these people to go out and get bids on certain things. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: (iii), where you talk about improvements to the County's communication -- MS. HARGIS: The information system. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're talking about communication system other than the Sheriff's communication 10-8-07 68 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 system; is that correct? MS. HARGIS: We're talking I.T. here. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. MS. HARGIS: Again, this is broad language to encompass that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: On this one -- MS. HARGIS: Mm-hmm? COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- my name is misspelled. MS. HARGIS: Okay, I didn't catch that. I'm sorry. JUDGE TINLEY: You need to change your name. MS. HARGIS: Yeah, it is. I printed it without looking at it, sorry. I can fix that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval of the order expressing official intent to reimburse for tax exempt obligation proceeds for the costs associated with constructing or acquiring various improvements within the county, as amended through the discussions here this morning. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as indicated. Any further question or discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) 10-8-07 69 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. We'll move to Item 9 -- MR. TROLINGER: Judge Tinley, can I get clarification on what items Information Technology should be ordering with this in place? (Commissioner Baldwin left the courtroom.) JUDGE TINLEY: No, not from the Court. MR. TROLINGER: Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I thought you had worked that out with Ms. Hargis. MR. TROLINGER: Should I just work with the Auditor directly to work that out? I just want to be 100 percent sure, since this is something -- JUDGE TINLEY: You had a bunch of items that were includible that we moved out of the budget process over into the long-term upgrading process. MR. TROLINGER: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: That's essentially what we're looking at, so work with her on that. MR. TROLINGER: Okay, will do. Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Item 9; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action for a motion to ratify motion to approve the language in House Bill 3195, which states Commissioners Court adopted a budget on September 28, 2007, that raised more revenue from property taxes than in the previous year. 10-8-07 70 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Ms. Hargis, that was that wild and crazy language that had to go into the proposed budget, which was on the cover page in 18-point type or whatever it is, on the proposed budget. That did not have to be included, to my understanding, in the final budget. However, it's your belief that, out of an abundance of caution, that the motion approving the budget should have actually stated that this budget, in fact, raised ~' "X" number of dollars more than the previous year, thus resulting in a, quote, tax increase? MS. HARGIS: Well, actually, I read the minutes of that meeting, and you approved the language in House Bill 3195. JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. MS. HARGIS: But you included it with the adoption of the budget. The law requires -- 3195 requires that you do it as a separate -- as a separate item, so all you're really doing is making a separate motion for this. You did approve it, but you didn't do it as a separate motion. That's really all I need you to do, is just ratify it as a separate motion. It specifically says it has to be a separate motion. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as indicated. Is that satisfactory, Ms. Hargis? MS. HARGIS: That's fine. 10-8-07 71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Any question or discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. We'll move to Item 10; consider, discuss, take appropriate action to nominate and elect Appraisal District Board of Director members for the '08-'09 term. This is on the agenda as a result of communication that was sent to me by the Appraisal District. They've got a timetable there attached to the front of the material. I do not recall getting -- it must have come in separate communication -- the number of votes that we had available to cast in this election for the Board of Directors. COMMISSIONER LETZ: What -- do we know what member -- who's coming off? What member is up? I guess this gets into kind of a -- "delicate" is probably not the right word, but a -- entities work together a little bit to keep representation, and otherwise, the schools get everybody. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Isn't Mr. Lewis our representative? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, and I'm wondering what term is coming off. Who is -- I'd like to know why we got 10-8-07 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 this right now, what members are coming off right now, and what entities do they represent? I know he's required by law to do it this way, but depending on what this -- who this individual is, you know, depends on what I think we should I do. JUDGE TINLEY: I don't have a clue. I would suggest that -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Call them. JUDGE TINLEY: -- we defer and maybe come back after the break and take a look at this item. How does that sound? COMMISSIONER LETZ: That sounds good. Find out -- JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We'l1 go to Item 11; consider, discuss, take appropriate action to approve the new contract, policies and procedures, and the list of organizations which receive discounts at the Hill Country Youth Exhibit Center. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the last page in the backup, that's what I thought we ought to do based on what we've done in the past. I don't know if Bruce -- he and I -- you know, pretty much, those that were getting free use in the past get free use now. But "free use" now means you still pay for a lot of the costs that are out-of-pocket to the County. You get free use of the actual facility, not free use of tables, chairs, Maintenance Department, security, 10-8-07 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 you know -- JUDGE TINLEY: Concession stand. COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- concession, all that stuff. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah. There -- we have a lot of events out there that -- that pay, basically, from what we can find out, basic facility rental, but they don't pay anything for setup and tear-down. And I feel like that that's something that most everybody needs to pay, except for a very limited number, because it takes a lot of time to do all this stuff, and then when you have other groups come in and -- and/or caterers with groups and things like that, you have a lot of trash and you have -- all the stuff is real relative to what it actually costs us to operate that facility. And there are very few, in my opinion, that need to be given carte blanche on this thing. Very few. They need to pay at least half in most cases, and the setup, tear-down, and a deposit -- a cleaning deposit. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In that connection -- I agree with you. In that connection, Paragraph 8 in the -- in the booking policy -- COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- does not state what we just said. It discounts -- talks about to qualify for not-for-profit rental rate and so forth, and then it goes on talking about reduced rates will apply only to base rental. 10-8-07 74 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 And it doesn't -- it does not apply to rental chairs, tables, concession stands. Don't you think we should also include there it does not apply to setup and take-down fees? COMMISSIONER OEHLER: They should be in there. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: At that point, Number 8. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's -- I think it's easier to say what it does apply to rather than what it doesn't apply to. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, we're doing both in that paragraph. That's the way it reads. Will apply to the base rental and does not apply to these other things. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Doesn't apply to any other fees. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, simplify it that way. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- yeah, reduced rates will apply only to the base rental for the -- this -- JUDGE TINLEY: Take the last sentence out. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Take out the last sentence, really. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, that's fine. JUDGE TINLEY: I have some kind of grammatical changes that I made. I've provided copies. Those are on the first page. I think cleans it up grammatically and makes it a little clearer. Only other change that I saw is in the last page of the policies, a typo only under Paragraph 19, 10-8-07 75 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 last sentence, "overt time." Take the T out. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Read Number 3, Judge; I can't read that. What does it say? JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. First option. Any conflict of dates caused by request of the lessee or by calendar will be resolved and/or mediated by the booking agent, taking into account the varying circumstances, and the booking agent's decision will be final. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: I think, grammatically, it's clear. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Going back to the new list that was attached the last page, to me, the only event that gets free everything is the Hill Country District Junior Livestock Show, their use of it. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And 4-H. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And 4-H. 4-H -- COMMISSIONER OEHLER: But I will give you an example of what happened this weekend. It was a very, very nice event, but the 4-H and the Sunrise Lion's Club joined for a wild game dinner to raise funds for both organizations. That was a completely free event for all, including the Sunrise Lions, and the money that was taken in was split evenly. So, evidently, 4-H booked the facility. And, you know, I have nothing at all against the Lions; that's a great group of folks. They do a big service to the community, but 10-8-07 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 should they not pay something for, you know, their half of that function? COMMISSIONER LETZ: To me, they should. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: These are things that are going to come up. I'm just bringing that to light. That just happened. COMMISSIONER LETZ: They should. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: There was a crowd. We were out there Saturday. There was, I would guesstimate, somewhere around 1,200 people showed up. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Unbelievable crowd, and it was a great function, lots of good prizes. But it is a split thing. The moneys were actually split between the two organizations. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think that, you know, 4-H is a county function, County-sponsored organization. We should fund that 100 percent. Anybody else, they should pay, you know, half of whatever the cost should be there. I mean, it's a cost of the fundraiser. I mean, if you go to any organization that does a fundraiser, there's a cost to do a fundraiser. You hope that your income exceeds your -- sometimes they don't. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And a lot of times there are other places that are rented; the Inn of the Hills and -- and 10-8-07 ~~ 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 the Y.O. resort don't give those away for fundraisers. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Exactly. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And we have costs, and I'm not sure that the taxpayers should subsidize each and every one of these different organizations. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Shouldn't subsidize any of them. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And so that's -- I think that's going to be a change that we're going to deal with, and I think it's justified that we -- that we do charge for -- you know, what we spend as much as possible. 'Cause we give away a lot of time to the 4-H, and we should, and the Stock Show Association. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But if -- if everyone's in agreement on the nonprofits list, which is a free use, ', everybody else pays full rate until they come to the Court and get such designation. I'll make a motion that we approve the Kerr County Facilities Booking Rental Policy, as amended today, the Hill Country Youth Exhibit Center and Union Church User Agreement, the Hill Country Youth Exhibit Center Reservation and Event Information Form, and the list of nonprofits to get free use of the Hill Country Youth Exhibit Center. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as 10-8-07 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 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. Let's take about a 15-minute recess. (Recess taken from 10:36 a.m. to 10:55 a.m.) JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to order. First, let's go back to Item 10; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to nominate and elect Appraisal District Board of Director members for the 2008-2009 term. Ms. Grinstead, what -- where did we go to try and find out where we are on that? MS. GRINSTEAD: I called the Appraisal District, and they're closed for the holiday. JUDGE TINLEY: And? MS. GRINSTEAD: And I called Diane Bolin, and she was not sure. So, I got no one. JUDGE TINLEY: I see. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The only other question, is there a window in which to do this? Are we going to miss that window? 10-8-07 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 79 MS. GRINSTEAD: I couldn't get any information. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Since we -- JUDGE TINLEY: The window says, "by written resolution to the chief appraiser before October 15," we submit the name of nominees. It might be appropriate -- I think the only one we have is Charles Lewis. COMMISSIONER LETZ: How about we defer on this till right after lunch? I'll call him and find out. He'll know who it is. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Only one other question about that, too, Judge. In reading the -- the eligibility and so forth that Mr. Coates provided us, it talks about the Tax Assessor/Collector. Did we not establish the Tax Assessor/Collector as a nonvoting member of that board? ', JUDGE TINLEY: By law, she is a member of that I board, and -- and a nonvoting member, I think. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's go to Item 12; consider, discuss, take appropriate action to adopt T.C.D.R.S. plan for 2008. I put this on the calendar -- on the agenda, rather. As you know, we've got to submit annually our Texas County and District Retirement System plan each year by sometime in December, I think it is. We made, I think, one change, possibly two last year, and then we 10-8-07 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 recently approved, as part of our budget process, or during that same time frame, a 50 percent retiree COLA, which puts us in a position of having our current rate of 8.2, I believe it is -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. JUDGE TINLEY: -- as shown, and then the -- the retiree COLA is as set forth in that schedule; that's .088. Now, in addition to that, we have a life insurance component, and that's either .28 or .29, I believe. The bottom line of all of this means that we are within our budgeted rate, including the cost of the COLA. I merely need direction from the Court in order to make the report for T.C.D.R.S., and where we are is based on what we did last year plus a 50 percent COLA which we adopted for retirees for this plan year. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The 8.20 is an inclusive rate? It's the percentage, the COLA for the retirees, and the life insurance? JUDGE TINLEY: No, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's not? JUDGE TINLEY: The 8.20 does not include either of those two components. That's the adjusted rate for this year, based upon what we -- what we had in place for last year. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 8.51. 10-8-07 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 JUDGE TINLEY: Now, what had to be added to last year's rate was the .28 or .29 for the life portion of it. That's a separate component, and that would also have to be added to this one. And, in addition, we would have to add the retiree 50 percent COLA that we approved last month. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, we'd be adding .36. JUDGE TINLEY: Approximately, yeah. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: To the 8.2. JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For a total of 8.56, or ~ very close. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: And that's within what we have budgeted. I think we've got budgeted, like, 8.9. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think you're right. JUDGE TINLEY: Because that -- they recrunch those numbers every year. That's why you see a different number all the way across the bottom. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And this year, we're getting the benefit of kind of a -- a high interest earnings to the fund. We're getting some benefit from that. JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: May not always get that. JUDGE TINLEY: Sometimes it goes up, sometimes it 10-8-07 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 LETZ: Judge -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the chicken and feather routine. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do we have any -- under the retirement eligibility, do we have any say in that, or is that all dictated by the T.C. -- whatever it is? COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Thinking about retiring? COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, just looking at it. I'm thinking of some of -- you know, we have some -- as I look at this, you know, some of our employees have 30 years of service, which qualifies them for retirement, and they really don't have any incentive to stay around. But if we could kick up their retirement check if they stayed longer, if you went, like, to 35 or 40 years of service and got more money at that point, that may entice them to be worthwhile for them to stay. One I'm thinking that just comes to mind is, like, Doug Koennecke. Doug's got 30 years of service, I think. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: He's 53 or so. And, I mean, from a retirement standpoint, there's no benefit for him really staying with the County, but he's certainly a great asset to the County. I hope he stays. I think he's planning on -- he hasn't told me he's leaving or anything. But, you 10-8-07 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 know, if you could increase his retirement amount, and for all employees, if you have 35 years of service or 40 years of service, you get a greater percentage of your final salary, that may be something -- JUDGE TINLEY: Actually, I think it does. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It does? JUDGE TINLEY: I think it does, because it's essentially an annuity, so the greater the contributions in the 30 -- for example in the 31st, 32nd years, there are going to be greater contributions into his annuity fund, which would increase, you know. Plus he's -- plus he's getting older, which means it's going to be paid out over a shorter period of time, using standard actuarial methods, so it's -- he'll be getting some benefit of it. What we can do is, we -- we have the ability to determine the eligibility, ', and right now we are at 60 years of age and eight years or i more, because it takes eight years to vest; the rule of 75, which is when your age plus years of service equal 75, you're eligible; or 30 years of service at any age. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. JUDGE TINLEY: Those are our eligibility requirements now. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, that answered that question. Thank you. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I was just going to comment; 10-8-07 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 what you were saying, Judge, is correct. Like mine, I'm eligible, but if I retire now, it's, like, 1,700 a month. But what Jonathan is saying, the longer I stay -- if I stay another four years, it goes to almost 3,400 a month, so it does go up with your years. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, good. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, if you remember, what is the life insurance component here? JUDGE TINLEY: The amount? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes. JUDGE TINLEY: 20,000. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In this one? JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. We've got two different -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I know. That's -- I get confused. I thought 20 was what we added in our benefit package, and this was salary. This is salary. JUDGE TINLEY: We have two of them. We have a 20,000 component -- we have a 20,000 component in our health benefits plan, as a component of that also. We'll hear about that at 1:30 this afternoon. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And there's also another component of that, Judge, that I found out, 'cause I had a couple employees over the past years that did that; that it pays them on top of that. It pays them one year of full salary to their survivors. Whatever their salary is, it pays 10-8-07 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 that amount too. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you talking about T.C.D.R.S.? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I thought it was. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's kind of why I was asking the question. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: 'Cause I had -- I had -- well, the dispatcher that died on duty a couple years ago, his spouse actually got a full year's salary plus the life insurance policy. JUDGE TINLEY: That's if you were an active full-time employee. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: At time of death. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And that would have been in addition to the beneficiary annuity? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, yes. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Because there is a -- there is a beneficiary annuity. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right, he also got that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. That's kind of what I thought, but I wasn't sure. So, what do you need, Judge? JUDGE TINLEY: I need a motion to file with the 10-8-07 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 86 T.C.D.R.S. our plan for 2008, to be what we've got in place to this point, plus the 50 percent retiree -- 50 percent COLA for retirees adopted last month. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And the life insurance component? JUDGE TINLEY: Well, yeah. That's already in place, though. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as indicated. Further question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. We'll go to Item 13; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on interlocal agreement with Kendall County and the City of Kerrville for EMS in the Falling Waters Subdivision area. Commissioner Letz? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I forgot that -- I've been working on this. I forgot that y'all don't have copies of the agreements. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, we don't. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I can briefly go over them. We 10-8-07 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 can maybe pass on them if you want to read it before we ask the Judge to sign it. This is -- goes back to the agreement for basically Falling Waters, The Reserve subdivisions. We got a draft from Kendall County a while back. The City -- their draft did not include the City of Kerrville, and had an indemnification clause where they wanted us to indemnify them in case there was any kind of a problem. There was a -- two areas that were changed. The City has gone through it, and Mike Hayes has redrafted it. It includes the City of I Kerrville as a signing party to the agreement, and it also eliminated the indemnification clause, which the County Attorney also wanted out. Other than that, it's pretty much just a -- the agreement, and I'll hand it out. The only reason I'm going this far right now is 'cause Eric's here in case anybody has any questions for him. The hope is that we can approve this today, send it to Kendall County. It's very close to the form that they originally sent to us, which is very close to what we -- you know, they kind of drafted -- modeled their original draft after our West Kerr County agreement with Junction, so it was -- it's not onerous. Under the basic terms, it basically just says that if the Comfort ambulance is in, they will respond into Kerr County, and to pretty much all households that are addressed off Highway 87 or you get to off Highway 87 north of Comfort. We'll pay a fee. Eric and I were talking a little bit about 10-8-07 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 88 that, and I'm going to recommend an annual fee of -- flat fee of $3,000 that we pay Kendall County. That's higher than the per-call rate, kind of, that -- or per capita rate we pay the City. We pay them about $9.45. When we were at our meeting, Eric and I, with Kendall County, they were talking about -- more about $24, $25 per capita, so I thought $15 per capita, which there's about 200 people that are in their service area, plus or minus, and 15 was somewhere in between. We're not -- you know, they should accept that. I think we're being a little bit generous, in my mind, but it's not that much money to get this thing done. They only send the Comfort ambulance; all the dispatch, everything else stays with City of Kerrville, and if the Comfort ambulance is out, Kerrville EMS will respond. So, it's only under -- it's pretty limited use, but it will allow the Comfort ambulance out of Kendall County to go into Kerr County and do the transports. But I apologize for not giving everyone a copy of it. I've been reading through it this morning a few times, and neglected to hand it out. But, any questions other than looking at the contract? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This solves the problem? COMMISSIONER LETZ: If they accept it. Hopefully, they'll accept the agreement. I mean, this is -- it's a pretty big step. We've been working on this, I think, for four years. 10-8-07 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 WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's amazing that it takes that long. But I would like y'all to read it before, so we could maybe, right before 1:30, maybe come back at 1:15 from lunch, and give y'all time over lunch to read it. It's only a two-page document. But if anyone has any questions of Eric, he's been involved with the negotiations the whole way. JUDGE TINLEY: Essentially, you guys would be secondary response? MR. MALONEY: Yes, sir. We'd still have the capacity to respond as the primary responder, since Kendall County is not willing to take it 100 percent where the calls will actually go to their dispatch center. JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. MR. MALONEY: So they are strictly willing to offer Comfort EMS as a primary responder. Call still comes into our dispatch at the PSAP here. It would be transferred to Kendall County. Kendall County, in turn, would then dispatch Comfort EMS. If they were available, they will take the call; we'll never know -- we'll never hear any more about it. If they're not, they're going to have to -- JUDGE TINLEY: PSAP's going to know immediately whether or not they're going to be available, right? MR. MALONEY: Not ours, no, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: No. No, whether Comfort is going to 10-8-07 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 I5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 90 be available to respond. MR. MALONEY: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. And -- JUDGE TINLEY: So that gives them the option, then, if -- if Comfort's not going to be able to respond, they can dispatch you guys. MR. MALONEY: Yes, sir. So the call would come into here, and we would forward it to their PSAP in Kendall County. If Comfort's not available, they would immediately '~~ probably come right back, so -- and, right, in turn, they should know if they're in-house or not and if they are able to respond. So, we're not giving them 100 percent, so it isn't -- I guess the Y.O., I think we gave them 100 percent to Kimble County, as opposed to this is -- we're still kind of the primary responder, where Comfort's just going to be first. So -- JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I'll get copies to everyone. I think we're hopefully done with this. And, you know, the indemnification clause, there could be some heartburn in Kendall County, but I really don't see why. I mean, certainly, they're -- I mean, it's a government entity. I mean, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense why they're going to be adamant about that. MS. BAILEY: Can't indemnify each other by law, 25 I so... 10-8-07 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 91 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move to -- we're going to look at that later, along with Item 10. Let's go to Item 14; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to ratify TexDOT condemnation acquisition of 3.954 acres at the airport, and authorize County Judge to sign closing documents on behalf of Kerr County in connection with that acquisition. I put this on the agenda. We -- sometime back, back in '04, when -- when TexDOT was doing some condemnation out there, we had a court order which was open dealing with clear zone out there. However, that one spoke to, I think, a 3 point -- a different sized tract, 3.02-acre tract. And inasmuch as the actual amount of the closing and acquisition of the property comes out to be 3.954, just out of an abundance of caution -- TexDOT is doing the funding. The property's going to come into the city and the county, and we've been presented with closing documents for our signature -- my signature. And because the -- the acreage was different, I just wanted to get the Court's approval for me to go ahead and do that as to this different acreage. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For the record, this is for -- this is as a result of taxiway relocation, which causes the loop road to be shifted over to the north, correct? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. JUDGE TINLEY: I believe so. 10-8-07 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 92 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval. Any question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: I'm going to defer on Item 15, and come on down to the approval agenda. Payment of the bills. Ms. Hargis, Page 24, dealing with your office, actually. MS. HARGIS: Yes. That's -- JUDGE TINLEY: There's group insurance -- MS. HARGIS: We had some -- a little bit of group insurance left, and that's what I paid the internal auditor that I've hired out of. That's my new internal auditor that I'm sending around. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MS. HARGIS: He's 15 hours a week, and he finished that one item for me. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Okay. MS. HARGIS: So, that's pretty cheap for an audit. JUDGE TINLEY: So, we weren't buying insurance. We I were -- MS. HARGIS: No, it's an amendment. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. There is a contract -- MS. HARGIS: Yes, he's only contract. 10-8-07 93 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 I8 I9 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE TINLEY: -- for his services? Okay. MS. HARGIS: And for those of you who are not aware, he's going to be working about I2 to 15 hours a week, and we're going to try to get all the internal audits done of every department before January. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MS. HARGIS: So that we have kind of a handle on that. I thought everybody would feel better if we got that done. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. MS. HARGIS: And that's his occupation by trade, was an internal auditor. JUDGE TINLEY: Page 31, next to the last item. MS. HARGIS: Mm-hmm. JUDGE TINLEY: Liberty Flags and Specialty. Flags, $800? MS. HARGIS: I didn't review that one. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Page 31? JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. MS. HARGIS: I'll have to look at the invoice on that one. Did you -- do you know something about it? COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, I just had the occasion to buy some flags not too long ago, and depending on how many flags that is, that's probably not out of line. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 10-8-07 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 94 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And they don't have a very -- they have a very short life expectancy, too. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pretty expensive. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And they tend to be a lot bigger than you think they are, too. I mean, I thought, you know, a little -- I was planning to buy a 3-by-5. I asked them, what should I buy for the height of the pole? They told me I needed a 10-by-12, and I went down a little bit. But, anyway, flags are expensive. MS. HARGIS: They have gotten pretty expensive. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And they only last about, I think, three months, something like that, is what they project them, you know. MS. HARGIS: If they -- yeah. Since we've moved here, ours is torn up because of the wind. Anything else? JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's go to Page 46. In-town mileage we're paying? I can certainly understand out-of-town. I don't think -- you know, that's kind of like commuting expense. You can't -- MS. HARGIS: We paid two of these this time, and we had the department head sign off on them and they authorized it. So -- JUDGE TINLEY: Who was the other one? For the department head? 25 ~ MS. HARGIS: No, the other one was for another 10-8-07 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 95 clerk that was going -- going to the bank as well. I think this one is probably for deposits and things of that nature. I think, you know, we're asking people to use their personal cars, and, you know, a lot of times if you -- you know, unless I have to, I don't move mine. And so, you know, a lot ~', of people bring their lunch and stuff, so they feel like if they have to take their car to go to the bank. I can look this one up too, but that's what -- you know. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Does -- does the 4-H Coordinator get an allowance? JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, there's all sorts of travel allowances that they get out there. They get -- they get special allowances for stock show. COMMISSIONER LETZ: They get stock show; they get a regular travel allowance. JUDGE TINLEY: They get regular travel allowance. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Travel allowance should cover her in-county. I mean, you know -- COMMISSIONER OEHLER: If this is -- this is not part of the in-county -- part of that line item. MS. HARGIS: Let me look this one up. JUDGE TINLEY: I think this is a very slippery slope that we don't want to start down. MS. HARGIS: Okay, I agree. I agree. JUDGE TINLEY: And if -- if somebody doesn't want 10-8-07 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 96 to take their car to the bank, maybe they can be put to scrubbing floors while somebody else goes to the bank. Is that not an option? They won't have to leave that way. MS. HARGIS: Whatever the Court wants me to do. I'm not... JUDGE TINLEY: Next question I got is on the Tetra Tech. We have that money in-hand? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What page is that? I'm looking for it. JUDGE TINLEY: Way towards the back, Bill. 60. COMMISSIONER LETZ: 60. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, that's what I was looking for. We do have it both from U.G.R.A. and Water Development Board? MS. HARGIS: Yeah, we finished up all that. JUDGE TINLEY: That's all the questions I got. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval. Question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 10-8-07 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 97 (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Budget amendments. Again, I thank you for the summary. Makes things so much easier. MS. HARGIS: And there are a lot of them, because this is the end of the year. JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. MS. HARGIS: And I reviewed each and every one of them. We went through and made sure that if we took -- if we moved from that line item, we'd have sufficient to pay out in that particular fund. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: These are all attributable to the '06-'07 budget? MS. HARGIS: Right. We should have probably one I!, more, this next one. And -- JUDGE TINLEY: Other than Road and Bridge? MS. HARGIS: Right. Now, we're putting that one as -- actually as an encumbrance, which is different from an accounts payable. Which is -- Tommy had used the term a little differently than I like to refer to it. An encumbrance is some -- a product that you know you can't -- you want to -- you've ordered it, but it hasn't come in, or it's a function you're in the process of doing. These are actually bills that were incurred in the month of September, so we should have some more electric bills, things of that 10-8-07 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 98 nature, gas. Normal. It's not on the agenda, but we talked about -- I understand y'all talked about it at the budget meeting, possibly going to a weekly meeting so that we could pay bills. My suggestion would be that we leave it on a Monday, if we did it. That way you'd receive your packets in the same way; get them on a Friday. You're already used to coming in on Monday. And that's up to y'all. I think my staff -- we feel like we can accomplish that by doing it in that manner, and it would make our bills be paid more on a timely basis until we can get that P.O. system in place. JUDGE TINLEY: If -- if people pay attention to the policy on budget amendments and we get timely action by department heads on -- or if we go off of invoice, for example, won't that solve the problem? MS. HARGIS: It's not the invoices that's the problem. It was -- it was really the holding of those bills while the amendments were being approved that was the problem. If -- as you notice, the last month, six weeks since I found those sitting in there and made them pay them immediately, we haven't had any. You don't have any late bills. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MS. HARGIS: Let's go -- let's try a month and see how we do. I think I'm going to -- in fact, I haven't talked with John, but I talked to the new person -- I forgot his 10-8-07 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 99 name -- about finding out exactly who has Incode and who doesn't. We are passing out budget books to every department head so that they'll all have a budget book, and they'll know what their budget was along with everyone else's. And if they have access to Incode, they can look up their own financials on a daily basis. They should be able to see what they're doing. The departments are getting us the bills fairly promptly; it's just that we were holding them. And paying the invoices per the statement, the vendor doesn't care about that. That wasn't the problem. If you went over on that statement, then that statement got held another two weeks. So, if -- if everyone complies with the way it's written, and they don't purchase something that they know is going to go over their line item before they get permission, we'll be fine. And if they don't, I'm going to make them come here. I'm not paying it. JUDGE TINLEY: I think that'll solve the problem, Ms. Hargis. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the only time we might -- if you look at the calendar, between you and Jody, on our court dates, just the way the calendar falls, about twice a year, maybe three times, there's a three-week gap I between our second and our first meeting, and we may look at i those ahead of time and get -- you know, and just post a meeting right in that gap. 10-8-07 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 100 MS. HARGIS: Yeah, there's some months where you have five weeks, and those would be a good time to do that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This is one of those periods. During October/November is one of those periods, I think. JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. MS. HARGIS: Yeah, October does have five weeks. But I think right now, we don't have any bills; we're pretty much caught up, so I think we'll be fine. If -- if it looks like we're going to have a problem, then I'll -- I'll let y'all know. JUDGE TINLEY: I think if -- if the elected official or department head must present their budget amendment, or be available to do that, or both, that may solve the problem. MS. HARGIS: Well, I think if they all have access to their own financials and we show them how to actually look at that account to see what they've spent, who their vendors are, and how much money they actually have left, I think that'll help all of them. That -- that's -- in the past, when my clients could have the access to their own -- you know, on a daily basis, that made a big difference. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval of the budget amendments as presented. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 10-8-07 102 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 various capacities? Commissioner 2? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Only thing, I'd just like to note that the current unemployment rate for Kerr County is down to 3 -- I'm sorry, it's -- yeah, it is down. We are at 3.8, yeah, down a little bit from last month. That's it. JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Letz? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't believe I have anything. JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner 4? COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Animal Control is going to get a new bed and some cages out -- I think they got them actually last -- before the end of the budget year. Got a flatbed. The old truck with the solid fiberglass cages that was acquired from the City just kind of fell apart, and there's no ventilation. The fans quit working and some of the doors came off, and -- and those things need to be -- it wasn't -- it wasn't humane to haul animals in any more, so they got some cages from Ingram, as per our contract; they gave us some of their things that they wouldn't need any more, and they purchased a flatbed, I think, from Back 40 Supply, and they have that truck operational again. Ag Barn, stalls are gone. They were moved out almost immediately. Library, we haven't had a meeting since our budget was adopted. We'll have one, I think, next week. JUDGE TINLEY: You'll be able to carry the good to-s-o~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 103 news to them. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Environmental Health -- yeah. Environmental Health is working. They're having some problems with -- in the Ingram area because of, you know, I some failed systems. We had a lot of wet weather, for one thing, but encouraging them to work very closely and carefully with the people in the west that are having septic problems, to do minor repairs, maybe come to the Court for -- for exceptions or variances. To solve the health issue, but not to make those people put in all brand-new systems, knowing they're going to have a wastewater system coming their way in the next year or two years. I think it's unfair. I think -- and I'd ask them that they -- when they get into a situation like that, to come to the Court and ask us to grant a variance or exception to rules that will solve the problem temporarily, and then also have the residents sign saying that they will abandon the system as soon as the wastewater lines are available. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree with that. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I just don't -- I can't -- JUDGE TINLEY: Long as we get the potential health issue resolved. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Get the health issue taken care of. I cannot, in good faith, or any other way, justify somebody spending $8,000 for a system, knowing that it's 10-8-07 104 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 going to be abandoned in a year or two. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're right. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So, that's -- I wanted to let y'all know that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Also, I mean, there's -- or is there a requirement that residents hook up to the city system? COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Far as I know, it's going to be -- it's going to be mandatory. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. I think City of Ingram is adopting an ordinance to that effect. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That is the way the grants were acquired, was that people would be mandated in that area to hook up. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If we get the EDAP funds that we're asking for Center Point, that will be mandatory there, too. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You'll be having the same kind of issues in Center Point -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Exactly. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- that we have in Ingram, and I think that's the best way to handle them. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Probably makes sense. That's reasonable. I mean -- COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Other than that, I don't have 10-8-07 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 105 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I need to inform the Court Lynn Capers, who is the communications supervisor here with D.P.S., of course, when D.P.S. shut down its operation here, she relocated to San Angelo, and as a result of that, it was necessary that she resign her position, and she has submitted her resignation from the Regional Emergency Preparedness Advisory Committee that's administered out of AACOG. So, we will have to be taking steps to refill that position, so if anybody -- any member of the Court or any member of the public has anyone in mind that they think would be a good candidate to replace that individual -- Ms. Capers has extraordinary training and experience in communications, and if there's anyone having similar qualifications, we'd be interested in considering them for that position. That's all I got. Why don't we come back to Item 15, and that's a matter that Commissioner Williams and I need to talk about to you in executive session. So, it is 11:30 now, and we will go out of closed -- I mean open or public session at this time to go into closed session to consider Item 15; pending proposal by letter of intent to lease a portion of the Kerr County Juvenile Detention Facility, Cornerstone Programs Corporation. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, in addition to the County Attorney, I asked Mr. Stanton to join us in this 10-8-07 106 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 discussion. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. (The open session was closed at 11:30 a.m., and an executive session was held, the transcript of which is contained in a separate document.) JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, we will come back to public or open session at 11:53. We have a couple of items that need to be addressed that we're going to have to get more information on, so we will be in recess until 1:15. (Recess taken from 11:54 a.m. to 1:28 p.m.) JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to order, if we might. We got a couple of tail-end details we want to take a look at. First off, let's take a look at Item 10. Did you get any information from Mr. Lewis? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, I did. The -- and also, I read the thing a little bit closer. The person that is actually rotating off, it looks like, is going to be Stanley Beard, who's the representative of K.I.S.D. He's in poor health, and he's probably coming off, but we need to -- by reading through this, we need to nominate Chuck Lewis as well. All five spots are open right now, or come open the end of this year, so we'll need to nominate Chuck Lewis to keep him on the board from our spot. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. to-s-o~ 107 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the reasoning -- but there is a potential opening coming under K.I.S.D., who is Stanley Beard. JUDGE TINLEY: And we've generally been lucky to get one seat on that board, haven't we? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. And we can nominate more than -- we can nominate up to five, but I think historically, we've just nominated the one, hoping that, you know, that that's all we're -- would like to have. JUDGE TINLEY: Keeping all of our votes for what we would otherwise cast for five for the one candidate. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what we've done in the past. JUDGE TINLEY: Right. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. So, under that item, I'll make a motion that we nominate Charles Lewis to serve on the Kerr Central Appraisal District Board of Directors. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I second that emotion. JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and a second. Any further question or discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. We'll move 10-8-07 108 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 to Item 13, and reconsider, discuss, and take appropriate action on the interlocal agreement with Kendall County and the City of Kerrville for EMS in the Falling Waters Subdivision area. There was a draft of a contract presented. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The only modification -- or not talking about change, just filling in one of the blanks. The sum for this, I'd recommend we put in $3,000, which is just a flat fee, rather than going on a per service call. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Annual fee? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Annual fee. You probably didn't get a copy. MR. EMERSON: Is there any indemnification cause? COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, this is the one without the indemnification. MR. EMERSON: Thank you. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the only other -- the changes, from what we received from Kendall County, really are just a few minor changes City of Kerrville put in there related to verbiage, services -- and this is a services agreement, not an interlocal agreement, and things that really don't do a whole lot. JUDGE TINLEY: And the $3,000 will be a flat annual fee? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. io-s-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 25 109 JUDGE TINLEY: Is that a motion? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, that's a motion. JUDGE TINLEY: All right. ~' COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion and second for approval of the contract as indicated. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I'll get this down to -- authorize County Judge to sign same, and I will get a copy of this down to Judge Schroeder in Kendall County. JUDGE TINLEY: Very well. Any further question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Commissioner Williams, you had something else on Item 15? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I did, Judge. JUDGE TINLEY: All right. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: During lunch, I had a call from the Cornerstone folks, and so I returned that call, and in addition to the Court's position on moving forward on the letter of intent, they are wondering if we would be so good as to give them a letter which they can put in their proposal back to T.Y.C. indicating our support for their proposal. 10-8-07 110 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 And the letter would read along these lines: "This letter is in regards to Cornerstone Programs and its proposal to operate a youth facility in a preexisting building within Kerr County. We have had the opportunity to meet with Cornerstone representatives and review, et cetera, their proposal number whatever. We specifically were made aware of the following points: One, facility will house at least 48 at-risk T.Y.C. youthful male offenders, ages 10 to 13, and two, educational services will be provided on facility grounds through the Woods Charter School system. This correspondence is not contractual by nature; however, its purpose is to state that, as local officials in Kerr County, we have been notified and support the project Cornerstone Programs is pursuing in our county." JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It'll be a letter of support, and they asked that I convey similar thoughts to K.I.S.D. Any problem with that -- with doing that? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And we know that this charter school's going to provide these things? We already know that? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: This letter of support, in fact, -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, we do know that. JUDGE TINLEY: -- requires that, I think. 10-8-07 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 111 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Our letter of intent embodies that as well. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: And you're seeking formal approval by the Court to send that letter? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved -- second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of the transmittal of the letter as indicated. Any further question or discussion on the matter? MR. EMERSON: Just a general comment. As the Court may or may not be aware, it's my understanding that the director of contracts for T.Y.C. resigned last week. The assistant director for T.Y.C. contracts was terminated the week before. The person that's over the director for ', contracts, it is my understanding, is potentially leaving this week. So, despite Cornerstone's good intentions, this may all come to a screeching halt, because there's nobody left at T.Y.C. to review the contracts. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They mentioned that, because there was an article in the Houston Chronicle, I'm told, about that, Mr. County Attorney. It's just more of the upheaval at T.Y.C. These folks seem to think they're working sufficiently well off of the programming side, more with the 10-8-07 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 112 financial side. They're aware of it. They're very much aware of it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Buster? And Bill's going to make sure we get a resolution from K.I.S.D. as well. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thanking us for our position and making certain that this happened. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Whoop-de-do. JUDGE TINLEY: Our extraordinary efforts to protect their interests in this matter. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Have been successful. JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Gentlemen, do we have any further business to attend to in connection with the regular Commissioners Court agenda posted for this date? If not, that meeting will be adjourned. (Commissioners Court adjourned at 1:35 p.m.) 10-8-07 113 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 STATE OF TEXAS ~ COUNTY OF KERR ~ The above and foregoing is a true and complete transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County, Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth. DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 11th day of October, 2007. JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk BY• ___ ___ /~ ____ Kath~r1~Bik, Deputy County Clerk Certified Shorthand Reporter 10-8-07 ORDER NO. 30555 SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT VEHICLES Came to be heard this the 8th day of October, 2007, with a motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 3 -1-0 to: Authorize the Sheriff to lease 3 Tahoes for 4 years on the lease plan, and 2 Crown Victorias for 3 years on the lease plan. ORDER NO. 30556 RESIGNATION OF ROBERT L. WEINBERG FROM THE ALAMO AREA SENIORS ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND APPOINTMENT OF MARGIE G. JETTON Came to be heard this the 8th day of October, 2007, with a motion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to: Accept Robert L. Weinberg's resignation from the Alamo Area Seniors Advisory Committee with our thanks and appreciation for his support, and move the appointment of Margie G. Jetton to that position effective immediately. ORDER NO. 30557 PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR VISTAS GRANDE Came to be heard this the 8th day of October, 2007, with a motion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioners Letz. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to: Approve the Preliminary Plat for Vistas Grande in Precinct 2, with the variance for a 25' set back on Lot #3, and showing a 60' right of way for that portion identified on the plat. ORDER NO.3 05 5 8 CHANGE PUBLIC HEARING FROM NOVEMBER 12, 2007 TO NOVEMBER 13, 2007 Came to be heard this the 8th day of October, 2007, with a motion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Oehler. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to: Approve changing all of the public hearings set for November 12, 2007 to November 13, 2007, due to the holiday schedule: Hill River Estates, Lots 1, 5, 6, 11, 12 & 13, Block 2, at 10:00 a.m. The Horizon, Lots 25 & 26 at 10:00 a.m. The Horizon, Lots 99, 100 & 101 at 10:05 a.m. Vistas Escondidas de Cypress Springs Estates, Lots 113 & 114 at 10:10 a.m. Privilege Creek Ranch, Lot 17 at 10:15 a.m. ORDER NO.30559 LETTER OF ESCROW FROM BTEX RANCH, L.P. FOR PRIVILEGE CREEK Came to be heard this the 8th day of October, 2007, with a motion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Oehler. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-1 to: 349082.53 Reduce the Letter of Escrow on interest bearing account GF#070721K from $543,223.30 to $349,082.53. ORDER NO. 30560 USE OF PORTABLE STAGE AT YOUTH EXHIBIT CENTER FOR FAMILIES IN LITERACY Came to be heard this the 8th day of October, 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 use of the portable stage maintained at the Youth Exhibit Center for Families in Literacy street dance at no cost, and County personnel will move the stage. ORDER NO.30561 ORDER EXPRESSING OFFICIAL INTENT TO REIMBURSE WITH TAX EXEMPT OBLIGATION PROCEEDS FOR COSTS Came to be heard this the 8th day of October, 2007, with a motion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to: Approve the Order Expressing Official Intent to Reimburse with Tax Exempt Obligation Proceeds for costs associated with constructing or acquiring various improvements within the County, as amended through these discussions. ORDER NO.30562 RATIFY MOTION TO APPROVE THE LANGUAGE IN HOUSE BILL 3195 Came to be heard this the 8th day of October, 2007, with a motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to: Ratify, as a separate Motion, to approve the language in House Bill 3195, which states Commissioners' Court adopted a budget on September 28, 2007, that raised more revenue from property taxes than in the previous year. ORDER NO.30563 CONTRACT, POLICIES AND PROCEDURES AND LIST OF ORGANIZATION TO RECEIVE DISCOUNTS AT THE HILL COUNTRY YOUTH EXHIBIT CENTER Came to be heard this the 8th day of October, 2007, with a motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Oehler. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to: Approve the Kerr County Facilities Booking Rental Policy, as amended today, the Hill Country Youth Exhibit Center and Union Church User Agreement, the Hill Country Youth Exhibit Center Reservation and Event Information Form, and the list ofNon-Profits to get free use of the Hill Country Youth Exhibit Center. ORDER NO. 30564 ADOPT TCDRS PLAN FOR 2008 Came to be heard this the 8th day of October, 2007, with a motion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to: File with the TCDRS our Plan for 2008, to be what we have in place to this point, plus the 50% Cola as adopted last month for Retirees. ORDER NO. 30565 RATIFY TXDOT CONDEMNATION ACQUISITION OF 3.954 ACRES AT AIRPORT Came to be heard this the 8th day of October, 2007, with a motion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to: Approve ratifying TXDOT condemnation acquisition of 3.954 acres at the airport, and authorize County Judge to sign closing documents on behalf of Kerr County in connection with such acquisition. ORDER NO. 30566 CLAIMS AND ACCOUNTS Came to be heard this the 8th day of October, 2007, came to be considered by the Court various Commissioners Precincts, which said Claims and Accounts are: Accounts Expense 10-General Fund $ 183,657.12 14-Fire Protection $ 30,381.60 15-Road & Bridge $ 89,568.66 18-County Law Library $ 2,298.92 19-Public Library $ 36,972.25 31-Parks $ 20,165.25 35-JPO Grant G $ 2,390.00 37-Center Point Wastewater $ 73,056.00 50-Indigent Health Care $ 36,209.54 76-Juv Detention Facility $ 11,903.88 TOTAL $ 486,603.22 Upon motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Oehler, the Court unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to pay the claims and accounts. ORDER NO.30567 BUDGET AMENDMENT NUMBERS 1 THROUGH 28 Came to be heard this the 8th day of October, 2007, with a motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to: Approve the Budget Amendments as per the Summary presented. ORDER NO. 30568 MONTHLY REPORTS Came to be heard this the 8th day of October, 2007, with a motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Oehler, the Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 the following monthly reports: Constable Pct # 1 Constable Pct #4 Constable Pct #2 Justice of the Peace #3 District Clerk Environmental Health Department Justice of the Peace, # 1 ORDER NO. 30569 NOMINATE AND ELECT APPRAISAL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTOR MEMBERS Came to be heard this the 8th day of October, 2007, with a motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to: Nominate Charles Lewis to serve on the Kerr Central Appraisal District Board of Directors. ORDER NO.30570 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH KENDALL COUNTY AND CITY OF KERRVILLE FOR EMS IN FALLING WATERS Came to be heard this the 8th day of October, 2007, with a motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to: Accept the Interlocal Agreement with Kendall County and the City of Kerrville for EMS in the Falling Waters subdivision, for a flat annual fee of $3,000.00, and authorize the County Judge to sign same. ORDER NO. 3 05 71 CORNERSTONE PROGRAMS CORPORATION LETTER OF INTENT TO LEASE PORTION OF KERR COUNTY JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITY Came to be heard this the 8th day of October, 2007, with a motion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to: Approve the transmittal of the Letter of Intent, as indicated.