1
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, September 10, 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
i
~- i
0
2
1		I N D E X	
		September 10, 2007	
			PAGE
2			
	---	Commissioners' Comments	5
3	
1.1	
Update on the L.I.F.E. Program	
8
4			
	1.2	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to	
5		accept resignation of Charles Donellan from	
		Alamo Area Senior Advisory Committee and appoint	
6		Patrice B. Doerries to fill vacancy	14
7	1.3	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on	
		autopsy transportation and pauper cremation	
g		charges paid to funeral service providers	17
9	1.4	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action in	
		2007-2008 budget process to use some money in	
10		Fund 20 to purchase used excavator	23
11	1.5	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for	
		Revision of Plat of Vistas Escondidas de Cypress	
12		Springs, & set public hearing for same	29
13	1.6	Consider/discuss take appropriate action for Pre-	
		liminary Plat of Vistas Escondidas (to be renamed)	30
14			
	1.7	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for	
15		Revision of Lots 99, 100 and 101 of The Horizon,	
		and set date for public hearing for same	39
16			
	1.8	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for	
17		revision of Lots 25 & 26 of The Horizon, and set	
		date for public hearing for same	42
18			
	1.10	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on	
19		Kerr County Investment Policy	43
20	1.11	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to	
		hire Patterson and Company as investment advisers	
21		for Kerr County	47
22	1.9	Request to raise or build a new high water bridge	
		on Town Creek Road and Old Harper Road, Silver	
23		Saddle Housing Subdivision	48
24	1.12	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to	
		establish the cost for obtaining a copy of the	
25		FY 2007-08 Kerr County Budget from County Clerk	55
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I N D E X
September 10, 2007
PAGE
1.13	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to	
	further discuss new policy, fee schedule and	
	booking agent for Kerr County Exhibition Center	
	& rescind all previous orders pertaining to such	56
1.14	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to	
	appoint a new Constable for Precinct 1	67
1.15	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on	
	proposed changes for FY 2007-08 budget	71
1.21	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on	
	governance issues related to the Kerrville/	
	Kerr County Joint Airport Board	115
1.16	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to	
	set date, time, and place of public hearing on	
	Kerr County FY 2007-08 budget	125
1.17	Consider/discuss, approve by record vote the	
	proposed Kerr County 2007 Tax Rate and set date,	
	time, and place of first and second public	
	hearings on such tax rate	129
1.18	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to	
	authorize publication of notice(s) of proposed	
	salary, expenses, and other allowances of Kerr	
	County elected county or precinct officers for	
	FY 2007-08 and set date, time, and place of	
	public hearing on same	143
1.19	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to amend	
	the Kerr County EDAP Application, requesting only	
	Planning Activities Funding	147
1.20	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to	
	amend the contract for services with Tetra Tech	
	to provide planning services	147
4.0	Approval Agenda (Bills, budget amendments, reports)	156
5.0	Reports (Commissioners, Elected Officials,	
	Department Heads)	161
		180
---	Adjourned	
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2~
On Monday, September 10, 2007, at 9:00 a.m., a regular
meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in the
Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, Kerrville,
Texas, and the following proceedings were had in open court:
P R O C E E D I N G S
JUDGE TINLEY: Ladies and gentlemen, let me call to
order this regular meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners
Court which was scheduled and posted for this time and date,
Monday, September the 10th, 2007, at 9:00 a.m. It is a bit
past that time now. If you would rise and join me in a moment
of prayer, and then we'll do the pledge of allegiance to our
nation's 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. If you wish to be heard on an agenda item, we
would ask that you fill out a participation form. There
should be some at the back of the room. If for some reason
there aren't, when we get to that particular agenda item, if
you'll get my attention in some manner, I'll see that you have
an opportunity to be heard. If you -- if you haven't filled
out a participation form and for some reason want to be heard
on an agenda item, get my attention; we'll give you the
opportunity to be heard. We want you to have that
9-10-07
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2`
opportunity. But if there's any member of the audience 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'll move on. Commissioner Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do you have anything for us this
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. I kind of wish you had
added General -- the general reports to Congress today.
JUDGE TINLEY: Petraues?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Petraues -- to your prayer.
In my opinion, that's going to be one of the turning points
for our country today. We've had some really great football
over the weekend.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Really great.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Boy, I'm telling you what,
man, it was a fun time. But, Judge, that's all I have. We
have an interesting and large meeting today.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Commissioner Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, Judge, I do have
something here. I want to pass this out to members of the
Court and read this into the record. This is a letter I am
writing to you as County Judge that reads, "Dear Judge Tinley,
based on independent research and review of applicable case
law and statutes regarding the prohibition to
9-10-07
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
self-appointment, and acting on the advice of independent
counsel, I hereby tender my resignation as a member of the
Kerrville/Kerr County Joint Airport Board effective
immediately." Signed William H. Williams. That's all I'm
going to say about it now, Judge. I'll have plenty more to
say about it when we get to the airport agenda item.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else for us this morning,
Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That will do for now.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: First, it was great football.
And the Aggies squeaked out. What can I say?
MR. ODOM: Aggies won.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They won. They won, but they --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Took half a day.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- took half a day, that's
right. But they did win. And the other item I have is
something kind of similar to what Commissioner Williams just
said. I will read a similar letter into the record and hand
it out. "Dear Judge Tinley and Kerr County Commissioners
Court, last Friday, September 7th, 2007, I became aware of
potential conflicts in case law and statutes concerning my
appointment to the Kerrville/Kerr County Joint Airport Board.
After consultation with counsel and others concerning this
matter, I hereby tender my letter of resignation from the
9-10-07
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Kerrville/Kerr County Joint Airport Board effective
immediately. Jonathan Letz." And like Commissioner Williams,
I'm sure I'll have a few comments to make a little bit later
during the day. That's all I have.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Oehler?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'm not going to have a whole
lot to say this morning. I think we'll just get on with the
meeting.
JUDGE TINLEY: You're not resigning from anything
this morning?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'm not resigning from
anything. I may be shot, but I'm not going to resign. I'm
not going to go willingly. (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Need to announce our stall sale.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, yeah, I can tell you we
did sell the -- the horse stalls over the weekend at auction,
and I believe they brought a significant amount of money, more
than we expected. And we will get the final total from our
Treasurer at some point, I guess, when we ask for it. But I
didn't -- wasn't there, but anyway, Danny Feller did the sale
at no charge. He auctioned them off, and I don't exactly know
how many buyers there were there, but there were more than two
or three. I think we did real well in it, and I'm glad to
report that we probably got more for them than we had in them.
9-10-07
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2~
2;
2~
2`
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's good.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's always a good thing.
One reason you go to auction instead of just having bids.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Auctions are amazing.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah, they are.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or can be amazing, I should say.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How many did we sell,
Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Forty.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Forty? Wow•
JUDGE TINLEY: As they say in the trade, they
brought good money.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's get on and get down to
business. First item on the agenda is an update on the
L.I.F.E. program. Ms. Schuster with the Kerr County Juvenile
Probation. Mr. Walston?
MR. WALSTON: I was going to introduce her and just
give you an update.
JUDGE TINLEY: Go ahead.
MR. WALSTON: Judge, Commissioners, I appreciate
y'all including Carla on your agenda this morning. I'd just
like to give you a little bit of an update on this program,
kind of where it got started. I know it's been a long program
i going. We've been at it for about three or four years, I
9-10-07
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2C
21
2~
2~
2~
2
guess. The Judge came to us and -- and asked us about how we
could possibly incorporate this program or a program similar
to this, and this is a program that actually we're starting
here in Kerr County. It's a pilot program; it's not done
anywhere in the state. I've contacted our 4-H specialist, and
they say yeah, we've got another program similar to this in
South Texas. Well, that's confined inmates. These are not
confined inmates. They're young men and women that
voluntarily, with the Judge's -- with the Judge's input, are
participating in this program. So, it's -- it's L.I.F.E. -- a
L.I.F.E. program entitled Leadership is for Everyone. And one
of the -- when we started this program back with Kevin Stanton
in that Juvenile Chief Probation position, Kevin and I got to
visiting and saw there were some available funds through the
board and through federal funding that -- that is available
that we can utilize for this program. Now, Jason Davis has
picked the ball up and run with it. And, finally, with the
thanks of Carla Schuster and her wisdom and excellent
educational support, she's -- she's carrying the ball and
doing an excellent job with it. And, like I say, this is a
pilot program. It's been going since the middle of June, and
I just want to let Carla go ahead and fill you in on what
she's seen how the program's run.
MS. SCHUSTER: Thank you. Good morning.
I COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Good morning.
9-10-07
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2c
2~
2~
2`
MS. SCHUSTER: We have 12 different subjects that we
We have -- so far, we've covered
three. And the classes, it's very -- I don't know who learns
more, me or them. The kids are -- seem to be responding very
well to things we have in there. We play lots of games.
We've discussed self-esteem, trustworthiness, and character
traits. My classes range -- probably, the total is probably
close to 30 kids. I have two classes, two different age
groups, one on Monday evening and one on Wednesday evening,
and it's a lot of fun.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody on the Court have any
questions of Ms. Schuster?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you for your service.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Do the kids seem to be
responding well to it?
MS. SCHUSTER: I'm going to tell you, whatever -- I
have two rules in my classroom, and the first one is that
everybody has to participate. The second one is that nobody
talks while I'm talking. But everybody wants to have their
time around the table, and that's what we do. And, yes, they
do. It's amazing; they all want to come in and tell me what's
gone on the last week or the last month, decisions that
they've had -- that they've faced. They enjoy telling me, and
they're very forthcoming with things. And we discuss how they
9-10-07
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2~
2~
2`
could have handled it or that they did a really good job on
what they chose. So, yeah, I think so.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do you -- how do the kids get in
MS. SCHUSTER: They are -- whenever they come before
the Judge, the Judge requires that they come to the class.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, these are just Kerr County
kids?
MS. SCHUSTER: Yes, sir. But so far, the ones that
have started my class and that have come, it -- I guess -- I
had a kid that asked me, "Does anybody just kind of skip your
class?" And once they come, they don't. They've all been
there. So, they keep coming back.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How long do these classes
last?
MS. SCHUSTER: They're two hours.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And the duration of the
whole course?
MS. SCHUSTER: Whatever their time frame that
they're serving on probation. So, that's why we kind of broke
it up into 12 different subjects, 'cause at any point in time,
they can come into the class; they can gain some knowledge of
whatever it is we're talking about, and that can be used on
its own. I have some -- I think the least or the shortest
amount of time is probably maybe three months, and I have some
9-10-07
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1~
2C
27
2~
2:
2
2
that are on there for a year. So --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is this a -- I mean, the
attendance is required as a condition of the probation?
MS. SCHUSTER: It's required. But I'm sure that
they all have ways to get out of coming. And the only time
any -- anybody has missed or they're not there is if they have
told me ahead of time they're not going to be there. And if
they're off of probation, they've done their time.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Have any continued to come after
the probation?
MS. SCHUSTER: Yes, and that's the most exciting. I
still have some that -- actually have some that they are
getting off, and they're wanting to participate, roll into
some of the 4-H programs, and I'm real excited about that.
So, they're looking forward to it, and they keep telling me,
"We're really passionate about this. I really want to do
this. Can you help me?" And I'm willing to help them
however. So --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Outstanding.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Great.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think I've mentioned a number of
times that the kids .I don't see coming before me as the
3 juvenile judge in this county are those that participate in
} the 4-H programs or programs of that sort, so it's really not
~ rocket science. We just conceived an idea to try and blend
9-10-07
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
the 4-H life skills program and put that together with our
juvenile justice probationary programs. And, as Roy said, it
took us a while to get this thing launched. We had to go up
through the district office and the state and back down to
district, and we -- but we finally got it nailed down. And
it's really too early to tell, but the indications we've
gotten to this point are pretty -- pretty doggone encouraging.
She's -- she gives us a report every couple of weeks, and
we -- there's some disappointments, but --
MS. SCHUSTER: There's some that are not going to
catch on. But there are -- it's amazing, because even in the
conversation with the kids, there are things that they're
telling me that maybe they don't realize that they've learned.
That's what I think is really great. 'Cause they'll realize
later, but they're already doing some of those things. And it
may be in their own way, but they're still doing it.
JUDGE TINLEY: We're hoping for good things to come
of it. And the 4-H people on the state level are watching
this thing, and hopefully we'll -- maybe we'll have something
that they can look at in the future. Thank you, Ms. Schuster.
MS. SCHUSTER: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Appreciate it.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, is there a slot for
somebody that's a little bit older?
9-10-07
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: We might be able to make a special
dispensation.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would you -- would you get
me a wheel chair to roll me in?
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's go to the second item.
It is a timed item at 9:15; it's just a bit past that now.
Consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to accept the
resignation of Charles Donellan from the Alamo Area Senior
Advisory Committee and appoint Patrice B. Doerries, Senior
CARES Coordinator, to fill this vacancy. Commissioner
Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Judge.
Mr. Donellan, unfortunately, has experienced some bad problems
with his health, and felt that he could not continue in
service to the Advisory Board on the Area on Aging. And he
notified us of that -- he notified the agency of that back in
May. So, it's kind of been laying dormant for a few months.
I had an e-mail from a lady at AACOG who oversees the senior
activities and programs reminding me that we had a spot open
and we needed to fill that, and so she had suggested somebody
in our midst who might be willing and able to do that, and
that is a lady named Patrice Doerries, who is the CARES
Coordinator for the Hill Country Crisis Council. Ms. Doerries
and I met and talked about this and the programs, and -- and I
want the Court to meet her this morning. Patrice, would you
9-10-07
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1~
2C
2:
2;
2.
2
2
come to the podium, please? And just give us a little sense
of who you are and what you're all about, and then we'll go
from there.
MS. DOERRIES: Okay. I'm Patrice Doerries. Good
morning. I am the Senior CARES Coordinator for the Hill
Country Crisis Council. I'm sure you all know that we have
almost twice the number of seniors in Kerr County as the state
does demographically. And I am a resident of Kerr County. I
am 60-plus, so I think I qualify as a senior. And --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Both of us do.
MS. DOERRIES: Okay. And after my husband retired
and we moved to Kerr County, I opened the Alzheimer's
Association here in Kerr County, and it closed last summer.
And Sheryl Howard with the Hill Country Crisis Council asked
if I would come and do the same thing. So, I have a lot of
experience with seniors, and I welcome the opportunity to
continue to serve in this capacity. I do train with Debbie
Billa, who is the Executive Director of AACOG, and we are
master trainers for Stanford University Medical School, and
there is a lot of work that is being done here. My
observation historically has been that seniors retire here,
but they really do not have a plan as to what's going to
happen if a crisis takes place. In checking with Adult
Protective Services, Leslie Flores and Charles Burkhalter, the
caseworkers, they are overloaded with seniors who lack
9-10-07
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
resources or are unable to care for themselves and are in a
crisis situation. So, I welcome this opportunity to be an
advocate for seniors from Kerr County, and if you have any
questions, please let me know.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Patrice. If the
members of the Court don't have any questions about it, I'll
put a motion in front of us. I move that we accept the
resignation of Mr. Charles Donellan, with thanks and
appreciation for his service, and appoint Patrice B. Doerries,
who is the Senior CARES Coordinator for the Hill Country
Crisis Council, to fill the vacancy on the Alamo Area Agency
on Aging.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
indicated. Any further question or discussion on the motion?
All in favor of that motion, signify by raising your right
hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Thank you,
I ma'am.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you very much,
Patrice.
MS. DOERRIES: Thank you.
9-10-07
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
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move to Item 3; consider,
and pauper cremation charges paid to funeral service
providers. I put this on the agenda at the request of
Mr. Grimes and Mr. Allen. They have appeared before the Court
some few months ago, as I recall. I don't recall exactly when
it was, but they had raised, as I recall, three issues. One
was the rising costs of transportation for autopsies, the
pauper cremations. There was an issue with respect to what
they term "first call," but I understand that that's off the
table at the present time, and so we're looking solely at the
transportation for autopsies and the pauper cremations this
morning. One additional item on the crash bag as an add-on,
if that's necessary because of the circumstances of the death
or whatever. Any of you gentlemen like to come forward?
Mr. Allen?
MR. ALLEN: Judge, Commissioners, thank you for
allowing us to come before you again this morning. As you
recall, several months ago we had -- we had come before you,
and I think Commissioner Letz had asked us to come back later
in the year, closer to the end of the budget year, while y'all
were preparing for the new budget cycle. And that's what
we're here today for, to come before you again. I'm here
representing my firm, Kerrville Funeral Home. Johnny Grimes
was supposed to have been here, but I think he got tied up,
9-10-07
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
and John's here representing Grimes Funeral Chapels. I've
dropped by a handout for you, some statistical information
that we had -- we'd gathered and compiled for your -- your
review. Dropped that by Friday. I hope you've had an
opportunity to look at that and review it. Is there any
questions pertaining to what I've submitted to you in regards
to that?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, I have one. The Judge
indicated that one of the items that has been under discussion
is off the table, and that's the first call issue, and that we
were down to maybe one or two items as per your memorandum to
the Court. I -- I didn't hear anybody say that it's on or off
the table, the issue of refrigeration, which you seem to be
asking for some compensation for that.
MR. ALLEN: No, sir, that was for information
purposes only, to let you know the extra mile that we, as
providers, are -- are doing for the county.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. ALLEN: We're not asking for any consideration
in that part other than just continued cooperation and trying
to resolve those issues in a timely manner, where we're not
continually losing more revenue.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- I know that in the past,
I think Mr. Grimes, maybe, and I have talked about the number
9-10-07
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
of autopsies	that	are done in this	county,	and	there	was talk
about having	the	medical examiner	come in	and	give a	-- kind
of a talk to our J.P.'s about when autopsies are required and
not required. And that's something I think we may just want
to -- I bring it up now, because we have a new J.P. that runs
today; we have another one that was born -- or not born,
elected -- J.P. 3 -- not long ago. So, it may be a good thing
to do that again or bring that up. And I -- I only see one
J.P. in the room now, J.P. 1. He may talk to Mr. Grimes about
that. I think that it is something -- I mean, obviously, if
we need to do autopsies, they need to be done. But if, you
know, they don't, we don't need to do them just for no reason.
MR. ALLEN: Commissioner, if you will, Johnny Grimes
and I have been working on that. We've had numerous
discussions about it. We're trying to put that together and
cause that to happen, and we're willing to sponsor it and --
and make it happen on behalf of the county, try to help
educate the --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I appreciate that.
MR. ALLEN: -- the members. And, as well, there's
new legislation in place concerning death registration
electronically, and we need to coordinate the efforts of
getting the justices of the peace educated and up and running
on that, and we're trying to coordinate those efforts jointly.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, your request here today is that
9-10-07
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the Court consider the autopsy transportation charge being
increased to $350, that the cremation -- pauper cremation be
increased to $750, and that when there's a use of a crash bag
because of particular circumstances of the death, that the
Court authorize the payment of $125 for that particular item?
That's your request today?
MR. ALLEN: Correct. And the crash bag statement in
there is just -- just to state that we're not asking for an
increase over that. That's what's been charged in the past,
and we're not asking for any increase there. And also noted
on the transportation charges, if you will, there was -- there
was a sentence in there that clarified if there's any waiting
time, there won't be any extra charge considered there. That
$350 is to and from Austin with no waiting time.
JUDGE TINLEY: And that's traditionally what you've
done. You take the body to the medical examiner's office, you
wait on them to perform their service --
MR. ALLEN: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- after making an appointment, which
may or may not come to pass --
MR. ALLEN: Absolutely.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- in a timely manner. And then,
when that's completed, you return the body back.
MR. ALLEN: Typically speaking, if we make a removal
the night before, the J.P. calls the medical examiner's
9-10-07
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
office, sets an appointment. Typically speaking, it's a
10 o'clock appointment the next morning most of the time.
Sometimes they'll say 8 o'clock, so in turn, we've got to get
up pretty early and get there because of traffic and so forth.
We wait for them to complete it. If it's a 10 o'clock
appointment, there's a lot of times we're stuck there waiting.
You know, and it's usually -- it kills a day.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do you recall the last time this
was increased?
MR. ALLEN: I've owned Kerrville Funeral Home for
six years, and it's never been increased since I've been here.
Mr. Grimes may be able to --
MR. GRIMES: Been close to probably ten years.
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't know. It hasn't been since
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My recollection, it was -- I
know it's increased since I've been a Commissioner, but
obviously it was probably about ten years ago, early in my
term. Okay. I don't really have a problem with it. I think
their costs have gone up during that period, and it's not a
huge budgetary impact. The total impact to our budget's
$2,620. I'm -- I have no problem with doing it. We can
probably -- as far along as we are in the budget process,
after the budget is adopted, do a budget amendment and take
the funds from somewhere in the Sheriff's Department.
9-10-07
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. ALLEN: Commissioner Letz -- Commissioner Letz,
as Judge Tinley and I discussed before Commissioners Court
this morning, considering the -- the current level of
autopsies being performed at the request of J.P.'s in Kerr
County now and so forth, and with that decline, I don't think
we're going to see an issue with that line item in the budget
being a problem. And certainly on the pauper cremations,
that's declined, and -- and that's an effort between the
funeral homes and Judge Tinley. Judge Tinley's done a great
job in riding herd over that situation. And, of course, both
-- both firms, Kerrville Funeral Home and Grimes Funeral
Chapels as well, have embraced a program that Judge Tinley
knows about. It's called Life Legacy. It's a nonprofit group
out of Tucson, Arizona, that will take the deceased for -- for
organ and tissue donation, and if the family will agree to it
and sign off on it, and the individual -- deceased individual
meets all the requirements, then that alleviates the County
from having to even consider pauper cremation.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, we probably don't need to do
any budget amendment, just need to approve the changes. I'll
make a motion that we approve transport fee increase -- or
autopsy increase by $350, so that that amount will now be
$2,350, and county cremation is an increase of $100, so that
amount will now be -- 625? 725?
JUDGE TINLEY: 750.
9-10-07
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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 750.
JUDGE TINLEY: 750 on county cremations and 350 on
their transportation costs. They can't control the autopsy
cost; that's done separately by the --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's set by the medical
examiner.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. Second.
MR. ALLEN: And that would be effective October 1st
for the new budget cycle, correct?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. And if budget amendments
are required during the year, then we'll look for the funds.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and second as
indicated. Any further question or discussion? All in favor
of that motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Thank you,
gentlemen. We appreciate you being here.
MR. ALLEN: Thank you. We appreciate y'all very
much.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's go to Item 4, if we might.
Consider, discuss, and take appropriate action in the '07-'08
9-10-07
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
budget process to use some of the money in Fund 20 to purchase
a used excavator. That's a pretty good-size piece of iron,
isn't it, Leonard?
MR. ODOM: Sir?
JUDGE TINLEY: That's a good-sized piece of iron,
isn't it?
MR. ODOM: Good-sized piece of iron, yes, sir.
Before I start, what I'd like to say to Rex and to Mr. Baldwin
and Mr. Letz is that people do not ask who lost, and close
only counts in hand grenades and horseshoes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It was a good game; put it that
~ way.
MR. ODOM: It was a good game.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Regardless of who the opponent
was.
MR. ODOM: That's true. And both sides played good;
that was good offense. Not very good defense, but good
offense. We might have a problem come -- come turkey day; I
don't know.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You might.
MR. ODOM: You're going to play us there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand. I'm not
talking about my team.
MR. ODOM: No -- well, I will be at your team for my
reunion; I will be seeing that Baylor game too.
9-10-07
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: It would be a miracle, but miracles
have been known to happen.
MR. ODOM: Have been known to happen, yes, sir.
This is a -- in talking to the Auditor, they talked to me
about some funds that we had. And the problems I've been
having with those two Gradalls, I've had -- I've just spent
over $11,000 just to repair one, which with my budget, I
thought I had it right down to the end of the year. I've
already replaced one engine -- diesel engine in the other one.
So, you know, when we bought these, we knew that they were
used, and this is an opportunity to pick up, I believe, an
excavator that's a used excavator, but it's through the Buy
Board. It is about two years old; I think an '06. It's got
about 1,100 hours on it, approximately. It's a $300,000 unit,
and can be purchased for around $206,000, and I may be able
to -- we may be able to do better than that; I don't know.
But I know that this is the purchase price.
It is an opportunity, I believe, over the long term
to use the excavator. It is hydraulic. I'd eliminate the old
things. What I have is a 1989 and a 1990. It's electrical.
It's very difficult to keep the electrodes -- the diodes and
things like that go out on it, so it was a maintenance
problem. But, you know, the idea is -- is to have less down
time. The new machine is hydraulics, very -- simpler to work
on, lasts easier. It is a good piece of equipment, and I
9-10-07
26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
believe will last us another seven to ten years, well past my
tenure for the County. So, I would ask the Court to consider
this. The funds are available to purchase this.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Leonard, is this a Gradall-type
COMMISSIONER LETZ: A Gradall.
MR. ODOM: It is a Gradall.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, it's not a track machine, then?
MR. ODOM: No, sir, it is mobile. It is just like
the others; it is capable of going anywhere we need to go.
It's got a 30-foot reach with that bucket, which helps me for
trash or brush or debris like that. It's a little bit longer
reach than what I have now on the old units, and it is
something that I think that in the future we could probably
eliminate one or both, maybe keep one as a backup for this one
here in case it went down. But we could eliminate one or two
of those old units. And --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The success we have on surplus
or eBay-type things on this equipment, that may be a good
avenue to get rid of one of those. Probably be a good --
MR. ODOM: It would bring a good penny. They're
worth a lot of money, just the used ones, yes, sir. And
it's -- this would fit into what I'm thinking about doing with
the crews, to have more maintenance done, because we have
9-10-07
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
three-man crews. I'm probably going to reassign some people,
and one of the people is one of the better Gradall operators.
So, we can do more ditches and things like that. That's where
our complaints are going to; brush cutting, ditches. A little
Alamo Heights is what we're becoming. Different type of
complaints.
JUDGE TINLEY: I probably don't want an explanation
of that, do I, Leonard?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Probably not.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's the -- where are the
funds coming from?
MR. ODOM: From road districts.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh, it's that money that --
okay.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We talked about it last time.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How much is in that fund?
MR. ODOM: Over $209,000. It's something we did
years ago; we finished the road districts.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I got in the middle of a huge
conversation at the football game the other night. An angry
constituent here and the former TexDOT engineer over here, and
I'm in the middle of it, and keeping my mouth shut. And
they -- the war was how cities and TexDOT level of governments
9-10-07
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
can't seem to get into a maintenance mode. It is just good
and refreshing to hear that the County's doing the right
thing, of -- we build good roads and we put forth effort and
money. That's what the key is, is spending money, having
someone that understands what maintenance does, and having a
board that approves the money understand it as well, and I
think we have a great situation here. They couldn't -- they
couldn't seem to bring the county in the conversation,
because -- because of that, because we do the right thing.
MR. ODOM: I think we have for 17 years. I think
we've been on the right direction. I've had support --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's not get carried away
here. Seventeen? (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion that we
approve the request to use the road district excess funds for
the purchase of a --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What are you going to do? A
specific amount, aren't you?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. A Waukeski, I guess,
Pierce Limited --
22
23
24 Waukesha.
25
MR. ODOM: Waukesha-Pierce.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Waukesha? Polish name.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Old Indian talk.
JUDGE TINLEY: Waukesha.
9-10-07
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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It is.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Excavator-slash-Gradall for
total purchase price not to exceed $206,055.40, and request
that Road and Bridge look into surplussing the -- one of our
other pieces of equipment and selling same.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
indicated. Further questions or discussion? All in favor of
the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. We'll move
to Item 5; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action for
revision of plat of Vistas Escondidas de Cypress Springs, as
set forth in Volume 7, Page 363 of the Plat Records, located
in Precinct 4, and set a public hearing for the same.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. This is a revision, combining
two lots into one, and at this time we request a public
hearing for October the 24th, 2007, at 10:10 a.m.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion and second to set a
9-10-07
30
1
2
10:10 a.m. Any further question or discussion on the motion?
All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. We'll move to
Item 6; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action for
preliminary plat of Vistas Escondidas, that to be renamed, and
located in Precinct 2.
22 here.
23
24
25 questic
MR. DIGGES: Yes.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. This plat is both inside and
outside the ETJ in Precinct 2. It's a total acreage of
77.48 acres, and will have eight lots. Enclosed in your
packet is the preliminary drainage study, but Wayne Wells has
not reviewed it at this time. They're asking for a
County-maintained road, and we believe the following items
need to be addressed: The name of the road and the name of
the subdivision are both duplicates and need to be changed.
The developer is asking for a variance to the 50-foot building
setback on the road within the subdivision. Attached to the
-- your packet is a letter from Mr. Digges, and I believe he's
9-10-07
31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the Court, and I believe he's aware of the name change. You
saw prior to this we had the same name in Precinct 4 out
there, and we've gone through this, I think, previously in the
last couple meetings about having the same name, so that needs
to be addressed as well as the street name, I believe.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Leonard, what's the reason for
the developer wants -- the reason for the variance request?
MR. ODOM: We11, if you take a look at that on the
contours and all, I can see where they're coming from. You're
going to be setting back -- it is so close up there on top
with the crown up there that that extra 25 foot is going to --
the building sites are right up in there on -- on this crest.
If you take another 25 feet in there, you're pushing them off
that slope, and it's just -- unfortunately, it's just the way
it is. And when we look at variances, we look at the impact
that one would have. And I can see their argument, as well as
-- as far as that variance on that short road. Must be 400 or
500 feet. Am I right?
MR. DIGGES: Yes.
MR. ODOM: Something like that, and goes to a
cul-de-sac, and there's no outlet at all. So, they're not
asking for a variance up front on our public road. But I
think --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Only on the cul-de-sac?
MR. ODOM: It's on a cul-de-sac. And when you look
9-10-07
32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
at the contours there, you'll see that that crown -- that
crown of that hilltop is right there. And if you have another
25 feet, that's pushing them off that slope.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, what you're saying is these
people that want to buy these larger-acreage tracts that live
out in a rural environment so that they won't have a neighbor
right at their -- out their side window are all going to be
right there at the top of the hill.
MR. ODOM: They're going to be at the top of the
hill. The same thing, but then it falls off. But, you know,
it's -- I'm not sure what the cost would be, and it always
costs money to look down on people. (Laughter.) So, I guess
that's something that you have to consider. But if you're
looking at the building aspects, I can understand the
marketing aspect of it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Leonard -- and maybe just --
it's not really this way when you get up there, but it appears
to me that if they would just shorten that road a little bit,
it would greatly improve the --
MR. ODOM: Come up before he hits that --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, just shorten it back this
way. You're going to add the other -- you know, and --
MR. ODOM: But you're going to dig into that hill,
now. You're going -- if you shorten that road, that
cul-de-sac comes out, and so you're going to drop it.
9-10-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
33
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh, I see. You're coming up
that hill.
MR. ODOM: Yeah, that's all hill.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. ODOM: So you're going to end up dropping that
thing, and you'll make the driveways maybe go way back up in
there for sure.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, the thing is that that's
a minimum setback. If you do the variance, it doesn't mean
that somebody can't hang their house off the bluff.
MR. ODOM: If they want to be like California,
that's -- more power to them.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Just gives them the right to
do it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's the --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It's not mandatory.
MR. ODOM: That's right, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What setback are they proposing?
MR. ODOM: 25 foot.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 25.
MR. ODOM: Instead of 50.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What about the name issue?
MR. ODOM: Mr. Digges?
MR. DIGGES: The name of the subdivision?
9-10-07
34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
MR. DIGGES: We're going to change that. We're
going to have -- we didn't find out till about a week ago that
the name was in conflict, so we're going to have to pick
another name.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: According to Road and Bridge
review, you need to change both the name of the subdivision
and the name of the road.
MR. DIGGES: Yes, both. We're going to change both
of those.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You could call it Charlie
Digges Road.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Call it whatever you want.
Just don't call it Escondidas.
MR. ODOM: I would ask the Court to -- with those
contingencies, to do that and allow the variance, subject for
them to start construction. And the other subject would be
that -- that the drainage study and street profiles be
reviewed and provided before any construction starts. There
can be some clearing and some minor dirt work, but as far as
construction, until I get those road profiles and all --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know why we have to act
today. It seems like there's a lot of things they don't have
done, and we're doing a lot of, you know, conditional things.
I And --
9-10-07
35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. ODOM: Yes, and that's been submitted.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What else?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Drainage has been submitted?
MR. ODOM: Drainage has been submitted, but the
engineer has not had time to review all of it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Engineer hasn't reviewed the
drainage study.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Variance on setback.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Variance on setback. I think
-- I think I'm with Jon; I think we need to get closer to
reality before we start --
MR. ODOM: Have the corrections done? I think so.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. Before we approve it,
either preliminarily or finally, I want the name cleared up.
I don't want to go through the same thing we went through a
month ago or two months ago.
MR. ODOM: Okay, sir.
MR. DIGGES: Is it possible to act on the variance
request today? Is that a possibility?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: A variance request for what
reason?
9-10-07
36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. DIGGES: Well, so we know -- we are showing it
as 25 feet now on that road. If y'all aren't going to approve
it whenever we bring it back for the preliminary, we need to
reflect it accurately as it's going to be approved. So, I
don't know if y'all want to think about it more. All we're
i
saying is that along Deer Park Lane, where you may choose to
increase your road width at some time because of traffic,
we're not asking for a variance request; we're leaving it at
50 feet. So, in case you have to get more right-of-way,
there's no structures that are going to be a problem. But on
that short street that's not going to go anywhere within the
subdivision, we don't see, you know, why you would have -- or
the public would have an interest in trying to control that,
and if they wanted to come closer to the -- to the roadway,
~ why they couldn't.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is this -- is that portion in
the ETJ? Isn't part of this in the ETJ?
MR. DIGGES: The road is, like, probably 80 percent
in the ETJ and about 20 percent in your-all's --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is the ETJ line written on this
~ map somewhere?
MR. DIGGES: Yes. It starts at the -- it would be
the west side of the road, of the short cul-de-sac road, and
then runs to the east and then southeasterly.
MR. ODOM: Come maybe 50, 100 feet up, then you'll
9-10-07
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
see the line going across there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh, there it is. Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Now I see it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Lower part is actually the --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: About 60/40, something like
that, maybe? About 60 percent/40 percent, something like
that?
MR. DIGGES: Well, it's quite a bit --
MR. ODOM: 70 to 80 percent is in the ETJ. Really,
all we have is sort of the lots -- they have the entrance
right there, and that's --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What side? The city of
Kerrville?
MR. DIGGES: They're on this side, the northern
I side.
JUDGE TINLEY: City of Kerrville has got most of it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think the -- the issue
-- I mean, the cul-de-sac -- the variance issue's going to be
more --
JUDGE TINLEY: City.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- a city issue.
MR. DIGGES: I don't think y'all have building
setbacks in the ETJ, do you?
MR. ODOM: We do.
AUDIENCE: Whatever line they place on -- whatever
9-10-07
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
setback line they place on this plat and it's recorded will be
setback lines.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. But what I'm saying is
i
that that road, all of the variances requested for Lots 2, 6,
7, and 8 are all accessed in the ETJ, so we don't need to do a
variance, because they're going to handle that part of it.
The only part of this subdivision that we're going to handle
as a county is going to be this lower part, where no variances
are required.
MR. DIGGES: That's okay with us, too. (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Isn't that --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, and --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Variances are required.
MR. ODOM: Remember, I'm going to maintain it.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: See, this is 35 on here, and
JUDGE TINLEY: All the way up the road.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: See, here's the 25; it goes
around. This part is in the county.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just a very small piece.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the building site of that is
going to be up on top, which is in the ETJ.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, access is. I mean, the
9-10-07
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
I guess we could -- I mean, I -- you know, if it makes you
comfortable on Lot 3, I wouldn't mind giving a variance. That
would be the only lot that may be applicable, in my opinion.
JUDGE TINLEY: What I'm hearing, Mr. Digges, is that
I think the Court's comfortable with a variance, but they want
to see the whole thing as it -- as it's going to get nailed
down with the subdivision name change and the road name
change.
MR. DIGGES: Sure.
JUDGE TINLEY: Bring it back, and wrap it all up at
MR. DIGGES: We'll come back and see --
JUDGE TINLEY: Looks promising on the variance.
MR. DIGGES: Okay, that's great. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And the drainage study, that
there are no issues that are not -- outstanding issues that
are not addressed. Correct, Leonard?
MR. ODOM: At this point, I -- we don't see any.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, thank you.
MR. ODOM: Just reviewing it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is that it on that one?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir, that's it. I'm sorry.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move to Item 7; consider,
discuss, and take appropriate action for revision of Lots 99,
100, and 101 of The Horizon, as set forth in Volume 6, Pages
9-10-07
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
40
323 to 326, Plat Records, and set a date for public hearing
for the same.
MR. ODOM: I want to make sure that's 323. Is that
what you said, sir?
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
MR. ODOM: All right, good. If that correction was
made -- we had a typo. Also in your packet here is revisions
of Lot 99, 100, and 101 of The Horizon, Volume 6, Pages 323 to
326, Precinct 1. The owners wish to make three lots into one.
At this time, request a public hearing be set for October
22nd, 2007, at 10:05 a.m.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for public
hearing on the revision of Lots 99, 100, and 101 of The
Horizon, as set forth in Volume 6, Page 323, for October 24th,
'07, at 10:05 a.m. Any further question or discussion on that
motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your
right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I would like to make a
I comment.
9-10-07
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
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If -- has anybody been out
there to see this? This is going to make a really, really
pretty piece of property. It is unbelievably beautiful.
These folks are doing the right thing, believe me. It is
very, very nice.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a gated community.
JUDGE TINLEY: Are there any improvements on that
~ property now?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know for sure. I
think so. I think there's a --
MR. ODOM: Hang on just a second. I believe -- yes,
sir, there is. On 26R, there's a structure up there. Not on
25, but on 26R, there's an existing structure. And it's -- it
slopes down, comes down the hill. So, the old structure is --
I mean -- when I say "old structure," the existing structure.
JUDGE TINLEY: Which agenda item are we talking
about here?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, we're still on 7.
MR. ODOM: Am I on the wrong one?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, that's the same one.
JUDGE TINLEY: 99, 100, and 101.
MR. ODOM: I'm sorry.
JUDGE TINLEY: Are there any improvements on
these -- any of those three tracts in The Horizon?
9-10-07
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
MR. ODOM: I don't think so.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I do.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything more on that particular --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Pretty piece of property.
JUDGE TINLEY: Number 7?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, sir. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move to Item 8; consider,
discuss, and take appropriate action for the revision of Lots
25 and 26 of The Horizon, as set forth in Volume 6, Pages 323
through 326 of the Plat Records, and set a date for public
hearing for the same.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. This is removing of the line
between two lots, making one. At this time, we're requesting
a public hearing be set for October 22nd, 2007, at 10 a.m.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to set
public hearing at 10 a.m. on October the 24th, 2007, for the
revision of Lots 25 and 26 of The Horizon, as set forth in
Volume 6, Pages 323 to 336. 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.
9-10-07
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
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Let's move
to Item 10, if we might. Consider, discuss, and take
appropriate action on Kerr County investment policy.
MS. HARGIS: I think all of you have a copy. I
actually handed out another copy this morning.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is this different than the other
one?
MS. HARGIS: No. I just wanted to make sure you had
one this morning.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I got to find it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Very well done, good and
MS. HARGIS: Again, mostly -- mostly mirrors the
Public Fund Investment law. If you would like to include some
additional investments that are not here, you know, I'll be
glad to -- there are other investments, but they're -- I don't
consider them -- you know, we can do foreign bonds now. I
don't think we want to consider something like that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We need to stay with the law
explicitly.
MS. HARGIS: I think simple is better.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And the Treasurer, who is
the constitutional investment officer, is in complete support
of this new policy?
9-10-07
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
MS. HARGIS: Yes.
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. Yes, I am.
JUDGE TINLEY: Merely because we authorize
additional investments does not mean we would be required or
otherwise compelled to invest in those particular investment
products, does it?
MS. HARGIS: That's correct. It just gives you the
capability, so you don't have to change your policy as often.
JUDGE TINLEY: I gather from what you're telling us
is that worst case or best case scenario, or as the case may
be, you can't see us going with any investment products which
are outside of those within the authorized investments as set
forth in this policy?
MS. HARGIS: Not at this time, unless there's
legislation -- there is additional legislation that comes up
with a -- an investment that I think is fairly safe.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, of course, at that point in
time, we'd be required to look at the policy as we are, what,
once a year, plus anytime the legislature meets, anyway.
MS. HARGIS: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But even though we're
required only to review it once a year, we can change it, or
the Judge?
MS. HARGIS: The Judge.
9-10-07
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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval of the
investment policy as presented by the Auditor and the County
Treasurer.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to approve
the proposed investment policy. Any further question or
discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have a question.
Depositories. At what point do we -- do we name the county
depository?
MS. HARGIS: You sent out an RFP, I think -- I want
to say two and a half years ago, and it's a four-year
agreement. I think that's pretty much Court policy. I would
suggest that we -- I would like to do it now, but we can't
because we do have a contract with them, but I think you need
to do one at least every three years because of -- of the new
banking products that are out there. You need to be sure
they're competitive, that they offer us the products that we
can be more productive with. I'm not necessarily sure that we
have that now. I've learned over time that sometimes the --
even though we don't necessarily always like the bigger
banking institutions, they offer us services that increase our
productivity, perhaps even take the place of an employee, so
sometimes it's good to look at that, at least every three
years. But this is a four-year contract, so we really can't
9-10-07
46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
do anything until next year. Probably the end of next year,
we'll start looking at RFP's. That's a pretty long process.
It's -- I would say it's about a six-month process, because
you need to send out the RFP's; it takes them a while to get
them back to you because they are so detailed. Rex and I will
have a fun time going over them.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's a four-year contract that
we're on now. Did not the Legislature recently authorize
those contracts to be two-year contracts?
MS. HARGIS: That is correct. And -- but I don't
know that we can get out of this one now, because it was a
four-year contract. But now they can't make you do more than
a two-year contract, so that's good.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: When we get to that point, this
is just a -- make sure we work closely also with the Human
Resources Department because of payroll deductions and things
of that nature that are kind of all related with this. And I
recall some problems in that area, or some costs and things
with our current depository that we didn't really address last
time, 'cause we really didn't do many direct deposits.
MS. HARGIS: That's one of the services you want
them to provide to you free, because you're giving them your
business.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MS. HARGIS: Keep in mind, you have a really large
9-10-07
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
book of business, so you want to try to negotiate those kind
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. That's just something
I'm bringing up, that we need to keep that on the burner as
well.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Don't our depository
agreements run on a calendar year, not a budget year?
MS. HARGIS: You know, to be honest with you, I
haven't seen an agreement. I think you signed it -- I don't
know. I really don't know.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or discussion on
the motion? A11 in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Let's move
to Item 11; consider, discuss, take appropriate action to hire
Patterson and Company as investment advisers for Kerr County.
MS. HARGIS: We all just got a copy of this. I just
gave a copy of this contract to Rex, so if you're not
comfortable approving this yet, I would understand that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we ought to defer. We
can certainly give the County Attorney time to review it.
9-10-07
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
MS. HARGIS: 'Cause I just sent it to him Friday; he
may not have even opened it up.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: He had some other issues on
Friday he was working on, I think.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. However, the amount
of money that would be required to -- for this contract is in
place in the Auditor's budget?
MS. HARGIS: Yes. I say that with a broad brush;
I'd better check it to make sure.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, you'd better.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything more on Item 11? Let's go,
then, to our 10:00 o'clock timed item. It's just a bit past
that now. Item 9, raise or build a new high water bridge on
Town Creek Road and old Harper Road to the Silver Saddle
Housing Subdivision. Mr. Roy Lee Graham asked that this item
be placed on the agenda. Come forward, Mr. Graham. If you
wouldn't mind, give us your address too, please, sir.
MR. GRAHAM: I live on 1605 Muleshoe, which is in
the Horseshoe Oaks Addition on Town Creek Road. Between
Morris Road and the Old Harper Highway is where our addition's
at. Silver Saddle and Muleshoe are the two streets involved.
We have six other houses involved in the same cutoff area.
When Town Creek gets up, we're marooned. We can't get any
ambulance; we can't get any mail. We don't get any
newspapers. You don't get anything. Since January 1 this
9-10-07
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
year, on the paper that I gave y'all, we'd been trapped in
seven times. The very day that I brought the paper up here
was the eighth time that we was trapped, 'cause I couldn't get
back out. I brought a little -- now, I won't take up much of
y'all's time, but we did a little survey there, and in our
additions, we have 41 homes that are affected by this.
There's a total of 105 persons that live in the 41 homes in
that area.
We have a new bridge that's been put in -- or a new
culvert that was put in earlier this year. It's been washed
out four times. It's got one tunnel, 4 feet high. The
engineers that put it in, they did a pretty nice job, except
they didn't put the whistle in the same direction that the
river flows, so any trash that comes down blocks it off. The
water goes over it. It backs all the way up to the next
bridge, which is 1 foot high. We can't get out. On Lemos
Street and Town Creek, there's six 4-foot whistles, and the
water gets over it. It runs down pretty quick there, but it
doesn't run down on our end. On the -- on the upper end on
the Old Harper Highway and Town Creek is the 1-foot high
bridge. We have a 5 and a half foot elevation from our level
to the level on the Old Harper Road. If we had a bridge that
went straight across there, we could get in and out.
As it is now, if anybody gets sick in there -- and I
have how many elderly people is on here too, but I don't think
9-10-07
50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
y'all are interested in that. But you couldn't get an
ambulance in there. We have one way out, to drive through Ed
Higgins' pasture and go out on I-10, but you must have a
four-wheel drive truck to do that if it's rained. And, like I
said, eight times this year, we've been blocked in. In the
past -- that's this year. In the past, we've been blocked in
three, four, five days at a time that we can't get out. We
have a bunch of people that work in there, need to get to
their jobs. To get to their jobs, they drive up to the end of
Silver Saddle, walk out to the interstate through the mud, and
have somebody come pick them up and take them to work. Some
of us are too old to do that.
And just -- our request is that if the -- the bridge
at Morris Road and Town Creek, you know, has nothing to do
with it. It's fine like it is, because we know we can't cross
it when it gets up. They can't come in and put up "Road
Closed" signs. We had some inside there that I personally
would put up for our addition, but the County or somebody's
taken them out. I don't have any signs in there any more.
And usually when it rains, I get up about 4 o'clock and go put
the signs out. We have one family in there that will try to
cross that water; I don't care how deep it is, and I go down
there and sit with my phone on 911 watching him, because he's
going to wash off. He's got a little, bitty Ford Focus, and
two kids, that they go across there with water up on the
9-10-07
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
i
doors. You know, somebody's going to get hurt. Somebody's
going to have to have a -- we don't even have a place we could
land the helicopter, Air Life, if it came in.
Our subdivision is -- the houses are in a perfect
spur, is what it amounts to. And we just would like to
address maybe getting the bridge on the west end of Town Creek
raised to a -- to a level. And if we had four or five of
those 4- to 6-foot culverts, and then the bridge go across
them, I think that we'd be able to get in and out at all
times. And I know y'all have to do a survey and -- and all of
that, but as most of y'all up there know, I've worked in
construction -- road construction basically all of my life,
you know, heavy equipment and everything, and I know what it
takes to build a road and a bridge and all of that. But
safety-wise, we're in jeopardy over there. And that's really
about all I've got to say. Some of the owners of the homes
are here. You know, I don't know that y'all want to hear from
them. I think I gave y'all all of the statistics that -- that
I can give you.
And I know that y'all are going to have to do a
survey and a study of it, but we're -- we're in trouble right
now. We don't usually have this much rain in Kerr County, but
who says when it's going to stop? This last weekend, when I
was down here on Tuesday, it only rained 2 inches. Road's
closed. Some -- most of the people had already gone out to
9-10-07
52
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
work that morning, the ones that work. They couldn't get
home. You know, you have to wait till 5:00, 6:00, 7 o'clock
at night for the water to go down so you can cross it. And
we're really afraid that some of the elderly's going to have
problems and we can't get an ambulance to us.
22 that?
23
24
25 exited.
MR. ODOM: Oh, of course.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely. Y'all are
have a safe ingress-egress to your home and those kinds of
things. This gentleman driving through water with his
children needs to be taken out behind the barn, have a little
hill country talking to. But I think the first step toward
the remedy to this thing is you and your group sitting down
with Mr. Odom, and let -- and let Mr. Odom come up with the
best -- it may not be this bridge that you're thinking. It
may be something better. Now, I don't know, but, you know, if
you sit down, have a little brainstorm, I think reasonable
people can sit down and work something out.
MR. GRAHAM: I understand that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Would you agree to that?
MR. GRAHAM: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mr. Odom, would you agree to
9-10-07
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
MR. GRAHAM: I have a copy of the names of people
and the houses and stuff in there, if the Court would like to
have it. I only have one copy of it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I would.
MR. GRAHAM: I just didn't have enough time to get
any more copies made. But I do have one copy of that; y'all
can make some more, or --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Grinstead can make copies of
that, Mr. Graham.
MR. GRAHAM: Thank you. And that's all, gentlemen.
JUDGE TINLEY: It seems that the start point is
to -- to assess the situation and see what the best solution
is.
MR. GRAHAM: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think that's what Commissioner
Baldwin is suggesting here.
MR. GRAHAM: And I --
JUDGE TINLEY: That's step one.
MR. GRAHAM: I and several of the neighbors will be
glad to visit with -- and anything, and help with the survey
or anything that they want to do.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Super.
MR. GRAHAM: But, you know, I'd like to express, you
know, that I do know road construction and things like that.
9-10-07
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
JUDGE TINLEY: The new Holdsworth thing that comes
through there, that hasn't provided any benefit?
MR. GRAHAM: We can't get to it. We're not going to
have access to it.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right.
MR. GRAHAM: We're not going to have access to it.
The bridge is beyond Morris Road, and there's no access from
Town Creek to get to it, period. We can't get there. And on
this side of the access bridge -- or the bridge going into the
new addition, there's a gully that's about 35 feet deep and
about 50 yards wide that's been washed in there over the
years, and you can't cross it, not unless somebody built a
bridge on it. And our only other alternative is -- and I know
the interstate's not going to give us an exit.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: No.
MR. GRAHAM: I haven't gone --
JUDGE TINLEY: Don't see that happening.
MR. GRAHAM: I haven't gone to them yet. But
that -- I won't take up any more of y'all's time. I
appreciate y'all.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you know Mr. Odom? He's
at the door. At the door.
MR. GRAHAM: Yeah, okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Say something nice about the
Aggies.
9-10-07
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
MR. GRAHAM: Okay. I got a couple good jokes.
(Laughter.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That may not be what he's looking
I for.
MR. ODOM: This bridge sounds like a 3- to 10-year
project.
~~ COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's Aggie engineering.
I MR. GRAHAM: They won.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Graham.
MR. GRAHAM: They won their football game.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any member of the Court have anything
further on that particular issue?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Here's your list.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move forward, then, to Item 12.
Consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to establish
the costs for obtaining a copy of the FY 2007-'08 Kerr County
budget from the County Clerk. Ms. Pieper? She was here a
moment ago.
MS. PIEPER: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: There she is. I think,
traditionally, rather than go on the dollar per page, what
we've done is provide $20 or $25 a copy. Is that what we've
done?
MS. PIEPER: That is correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
9-10-07
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
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Was it $20 or $25?
MS. PIEPER: Y'all have done it both. Y'all have
JUDGE TINLEY: See how good my memory is,
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What do you recommend?
MS. PIEPER: $25.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I make a motion that we set the
cost of receiving a copy of the budget at $25.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
indicated. Any question or discussion on the motion? All in
favor of that motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Let's move to
Item 13; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to
further discuss new policy, fee schedule, and booking agent
for the Kerr County Exhibition Center and rescind all previous
orders pertaining to the same. Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Even though I have some more --
I think it's a little bit unclear still in some points, I
25 ~ think we're at the point that we understand what we're trying
9-10-07
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
57
to do. And I don't want to make a motion quite yet; I want to
hear any other opinions, but my thought is we approve it, do a
little bit more tweaking on it, get the verbiage so it's
not -- it's more clear, and get on down the road.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I kind of agree with that.
I think there are some opportunities to clarify some things,
and I see no need for Number 4, based on what's contained in
Number 5, so maybe we need to do a little bit more tweaking.
But you're right, we should move forward on it.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'll second it, if that's what
we're waiting on.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion, then, to
approve the revised Hill Country Youth Exhibit Center booking
procedures and rental rates, and rescind all previous orders
related to this issue.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
indicated. Any further question or discussion on the motion?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One comment, Judge. Who --
who do you want to give these suggested revisions to?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think Ms. Grinstead.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pardon?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Our court administrator, Jody
I Grinstead.
JUDGE TINLEY: As booking agent, are you speaking?
9-10-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
58
Is that part of your motion, or is that a separate item?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. This is being worked on, as
you know, primarily by -- I think Ms. Hyde was doing it, and I
think we're at the point it can really -- I mean, we need to
transfer it up to this office. It's not a Human Resources
issue; it's something we're -- you know, that needs to come up
to Ms. Grinstead's office at this point. And I don't see that
the booking agent issue is on the agenda. Or is it? Oh, it
does say booking agent. Well, we might discuss that too in a
I minute.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. And, Ms. Uecker, you had some
comment you wanted to make?
MS. UECKER: Just a clarification. Several months
ago, I came as a board -- director on a board for HILCO
requesting an amount for their annual meeting that I think is
in January or February. The date's been reserved. But, you
know, I was told to come back after some of this stuff had
been done with the booking and rates. I don't know what
you're -- what you're looking at.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What were you requesting back
then? To -- this is the one with the chairs? No, that's a
different one.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I don't know. This was -- she
was asking for what the rate --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Would be.
9-10-07
59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: What was it, $160, what you
were requesting?
MS. UECKER: Right.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: To have that meeting.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So this would just be a use of
the Exhibit Hall?
I MS. UECKER: Exhibit Hall and the chairs and tables
for the meeting. Based on the fact that this credit union is
owned by the county employees, state employees, and the city
employees.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that would be --
probably have to come back on another motion and look at some
of the -- what the discount is to some of the agencies, but
this would qualify as a 50 percent discount, which would get
us pretty close. That would be, like, 175 plus the cost of
the chairs.
MS. UECKER: Which is fine.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me -- let me --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You could have the Union
Church and have it for $100, instead of having it at the Ag
Barn. Of course, you --
MS. UECKER: I don't think the Union Church is big
enough -- is big enough for us.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay. How many people are you
talking about?
9-10-07
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. UECKER: Between 150 and 175.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay.
MS. UECKER: Maybe 200. So, do I need to come back,
then? Or put it back on the agenda?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I don't think -- that's not
really a good agenda item for what you're asking.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We need to -- probably at our
next agenda, we need to go down through the list of various
things and assign those that use on a regular basis, what the
discount will be.
MS. UECKER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And so we'll look at that at the
next -- Jody will be preparing that.
MS. UECKER: Was that a yes, I need to get it back
on the agenda?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You need to come back -- you
don't need to get it back on the agenda; you just need to make
sure that Jody has what you want on the agenda.
MS. UECKER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We'll look at it at that point.
MS. UECKER: 'Cause we use it every year, just that
one time a year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Commissioner, Number 8, I
think, is the illustration and the dollar amount. I think we
9-10-07
61
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2~
2L
2`
need to take another look at it. The illustration talks about
an event costing $1,000, and we're talking in this Number 8
about the ability to roll -- roll your deposit forward. It
seems to me that you have to put the $500 deposit up, and when
you come -- it comes time for your first event, to pay for
that first event, $1,000.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And then the $500 continues
to roll until the very last time that you do it, at which time
you use it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That $500.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: $500.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think it's not properly
stated.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I've already noted and worked
that one out.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS
Ms. Grinstead, here's some
changes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Question on the -- on the reservation
form where the various fees -- items and fees are noted. It
was my understanding, from the discussion that we had
previously on this item, that the practice ride and practice
rope were coming out of there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think so.
9-10-07
62
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1°
2C
27
2~
2:
2~
2
MS. HYDE: We kind of talked about that, that the
facility can be used by participants of the rented event per
their authorization, but if those increase the time that
people have to be there to staff it, then shouldn't we charge
them for it? For example, if we have to come in earlier
because they're going to be practice roping during -- for the
roping event, although they've rented the facility, these
people are going to come in and use it, and we've got to come
in and open it up early or late.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm lost a little bit. But,
Judge, to get -- if we -- let me add to my motion. That
authorizes myself and Commissioner Oehler to make minor
changes that don't change -- I mean, of wording and a few
things of that nature. I think we clearly understand the
intent of the new policy, and that we can work through these,
and we'll just, you know, proceed that way, or we'll never get
this thing approved. I agree with you; I thought we had taken
that out, but --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah, the practice ride
definitely needs to come out. Practice roping session, they
could actually come and rent the thing under -- under our
policy of rental for half a day, which would be four hours.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what I thought she was
talking about. I thought she was talking about practicing for
9-10-07
63
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1~
1~
2(
2'
2:
2
2
2
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah. Well, it's --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're going to have a roping
tonight at 9:00, but I'm going to go in there at 2:00 to warm
up.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: No.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think that's what she's
saying.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We don't want to do that.
MR. BOLLIER: What we have is people coming in
during the day when this arena is set up, and they want to
come in at 8 o'clock, 10 o'clock, 11 o'clock, and ride during
the day, just a practice ride. You know, they may just want
to come in and work their horse out for an hour or two. Well,
in that case, they have been doing that before, and charging
them $20 a horse -- or $20 an hour for one horse. Well, you
know, then it's become a problem because of the liability
issue there. And, so, like, if we're going to allow -- if
we're going to allow people to come in and stay, use the arena
i for a half a day, which -- but as long as they have the
liability, have the insurance, use it for a half a day, I
would like to see that they're not -- if we have O.T.R.A.,
which is on Friday and Saturday, I would like to see that
3 arena where these people can't come in on that Thursday,
4 because that Thursday is when we have to finalize that arena
5 and get that arena worked up and looking good for that Friday.
9-10-07
64
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2c
2~
2~
2`
So if, for any reason, you're going to allow any of that to
happen, I would like to see that on a Monday, Tuesday, or a
Wednesday, unless we have some other event in there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that needs to be worked
out on the booking side. I think we take the practice rides
and roping off of this altogether. If they want to rent the
facility for an afternoon, they can. The issue you're talking
about, Tim, is really related more to availability and
booking, and that needs to be coordinated through the booking
process.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And they need to provide the
insurance policy to do that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Absolutely. And that might
necessitate an additional entry on the indoor arena. This
shows for a full day only, except from midnight till 6 a.m.
You probably need to insert a half a day --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- item right after that first one.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And this does not -- this also
needs to be understood; this does not apply to 4-H, who uses
that thing with -- uses that for that purpose a lot of times
as an event, even though it's a practice, when they can't use
the outdoor arena. And they have leaders; they have their own
insurance policy, so it does not apply to them using it for
9-10-07
65
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
practice, as long as it's a sanctioned event with adult
leaders present. They need to be sure and let the booking
agent know that they're going to need it so that it doesn't
conflict with something that's already booked.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We've got a motion and a
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: God, what was the motion?
Does anybody remember?
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion was to approve it, with the
authorization to Commissioners Letz and Oehler to make
modifications or adjustments to clean up the discrepancies,
and to address the issues that we've put before the Court here
today and on previous occasions.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Minor changes.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Minor, yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: You like that?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, man.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other question or discussion?
All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right
hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. We'll move to
Item 14; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action --
9-10-07
66
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Wait, wait, wait, wait.
JUDGE TINLEY: Oh.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Oh, yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: We remain on Item 13.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I move that we change the
booking agent to be Jody Grinstead at the Commissioners Court
and Judge's office, and that she be our new booking agent.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And that the previous one be
assigned to the County Extension Office.
JUDGE TINLEY: Exclusively?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Exclusively.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Compensation for
Ms. Grinstead? Compensation?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's built into the budget.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Shouldn't it be in the
I motion?
COMMISSIONER	LETZ:	No,	it'	s in the budget.
JUDGE TINLEY:	It's	not	in	the motion.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Apparently not.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But -- what was the -- I think
the portion about Extension Office needs to be deleted.
That's not on the agenda. I think all we need to talk about
9-10-07
67
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
is the booking agent only, so I think we need to focus on that
point only. If there needs to be a future agenda item related
to that, we can put it on next time.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other question or comments on the
motion? All in favor --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And that that be effective
immediately.
JUDGE TINLEY: All in favor of the motion, signify
by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Now we'll move to Item 14. Consider,
discuss, and take appropriate action to appoint a new
constable for Precinct Number 1. Commissioner Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, sir. Did -- did
y'all get a copy of the resume?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Of the one person that -- we
only had one person that showed interest. We had several
phone calls from a couple of people that lived in other
precincts and that kind of thing that wanted to be the
constable, but didn't -- didn't fit our -- didn't fit the
program. So, we have one in here, and I might say in my
9-10-07
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
opinion that it ain't going to get any better than this.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Looks overqualified to me.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He is overqualified. He is
a -- he is a master peace officer, which is the highest level
of peace officer you can go. And, of course, the position not
only -- the constable being probably the oldest law
enforcement officer on earth -- in the history of the earth,
but it's -- is that not a fact? Yeah, that's the truth.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Talking about the person?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, I'm fixing to get to the
person. No, the position -- the office of constable is the
oldest law enforcement office in the history of the earth.
And this particular person kind of fits that very well.
(Laughter.) But the only question I have at this point, do
you gentlemen have anybody that you want to recommend for this
position?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm just ecstatic that this
individual applied.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I am too.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I'm not.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm excited. So I move that
we appoint, for the unexpired term of Constable Precinct 1,
the honorable John N. Lavender.
25 ~ COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
9-10-07
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: Motion made and seconded as
indicated. Any question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: This should lower the
Sheriff's budget a little, being as he's going to be moving.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Wrong.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Because he'll be -- the person
replacing him will be coming in at a lower level.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It is a possibility.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's great stuff, isn't it?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We'll get to borrow that
from the Sheriff's budget later.
'~~ COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You know, if this is
approved, we need to say to Mr. Lavender, you need to get a
bond. And it's my understanding that you can do that in an
hour or half a day or whatever, and we want to get that
approved as soon as possible so he'll be a legal -- whatever.
He'll be a legal constable. And I assume that Mr. Lavender
will find someone -- his judge, the newly appointed judge in
J.P. -- in Precinct 1 -- to swear him in and those kinds of
things. So, it may be that at least three of us come back in
in three days to approve this bond. I see you're thinking,
and that worries me just a little bit.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, the question I have,
Commissioner, you said for the unexpired term. I think the
9-10-07
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
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: And if it's -- now, if it happens to
be a -- the majority of that term has already been served,
that will be that time, but if it's not, it'll come sooner.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's fine. I'm just
worried about the man's bond and being a legal peace officer.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So if he goes out and gets a
bond, we can come back in here in a few days, at least three
of us, and approve that thing?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Certainly.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. Yes, sir, can do.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: I got a motion and a second. Any
further question or discussion on that motion? All in favor
of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Let's take
us about a 15-minute recess.
(Recess taken from 10:30 a.m. to 10:50 a.m.)
9-10-07
71
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to order, if we
might. We were in recess. The clerk brought it to my
attention at the break that with regard to Items 5, 7, and 8,
that the record may reflect that those public hearings are set
on October the 24th, when, in truth and in fact, they should
be October the 22nd, which is our second regular meeting in
October.
MS. HARGIS: You mean September?
JUDGE TINLEY: I just wanted to be sure that --
MS. HARGIS: September?
JUDGE TINLEY: -- I know I wrote down the 24th of
October.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: October. I wrote down the 22nd.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's what I heard.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: On one of them.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I wrote down the 22nd on all of
them.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, the intent of all those motions
was to set it on the second meeting -- regular meeting in
October at 10 a.m., 10:05 a.m., and 10:10 a.m. on October the
22nd. Is that not correct?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Let's move on, then.
Item 15; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on
9-10-07
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
proposed -- any proposed changes for the FY '07-'08 budget. I
put this on as kind of a catch-all, primarily for the Court's
benefit, and not to open the floodgates for others. But let's
see where that leads us.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I have one issue
that's going to open the floodgates to others, but I want to
wait till Ms. Decker's out of the way -- or Ms. Decker takes
care of all of her business.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tonight.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- and --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Late night.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- and come back to it later? Are we
going to be spending some time on those items?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I think -- I think my
issue's going to take a few minutes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Five minutes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Well, the reason I mention
that is that the Auditor's going to have to leave us here in
about less than an hour, and I wanted to -- I wanted to be
sure and get her in tune with whatever we're doing here. Both
that item, and then there's several other items; Items 16, 17,
and 18, I believe.
9-10-07
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
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's fine.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's go.
MS UECKER: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: What do you got?
MS. UECKER: In my initial request for my budget, I
had requested a one-step merit for my chief deputy, and a --
an increase for another position, and I think the notes were
in -- in my request. We discussed these, Ms. Hyde and myself,
and came up with some documentation on it. I see that it's
not in the proposed budget on those salaries, and I just want
to see, you know, what the Court's position is on it, see if I
can get those merits put in there.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tell me again. One-step
merit for your chief deputy?
MS. UECKER: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And what was the other one?
MS. UECKER: The other one is -- and I don't know if
you want names or not.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No.
MS. UECKER: Okay. The other one was to -- it's not
an increase; it's just a -- increased duties, to move one
person from a 15 to a 16 at the same -- at the same step.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that one -- I mean, I
think that people need to be paid for the job that they're
doing, and if you and Ms. Hyde are in agreement that this is a
9-10-07
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
I~! Step 16, that needs to be a 16. That change just needs to be
made. That's not really -- I mean, it's obviously a budget
impact, but that has to be done, in my mind.
MS. UECKER: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: From a -- from a monetary standpoint,
is it an even wash? Or are you going to, like, a 15-4 to a
16-4? In which case, it's going to be an increase.
MS. UECKER: 15-4 to a 16-4.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. So, there will be a monetary
increase --
MS. UECKER: Yes. Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- on that one. And on the
merit, I'm a little -- I mean, I don't recall -- I don't know
what the Judge's direction was, early on, on merit increases
this year. I don't know. I mean, some -- you know, I don't
know if he just left it up to the -- I remember you asking,
but I just don't know what his guidance was to people that
prepare the budgets.
MS. UECKER: I thought I'd better come back and ask,
because in going through the budget process -- and I know that
there have been some granted based on job increases and
performance, so I thought, okay -- I stay confused about do we
give merit increases or don't we, every year. And then, if we
-- if we say we don't, there end up being some. So, the only
way I'm going to know is if I come up here and ask.
9-10-07
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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that's what I --
JUDGE TINLEY: For clarification purposes, my -- my
guidance to the elected officials and department heads was
that any personnel matters, other than those mandated by
existing policy; for example, longevity and educational
issues, should be addressed to the Court.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MS. UECKER: And that's why I'm here.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And, so, have we -- have we
authorized any other merit raises to chief deputies?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't recall any.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, this would be first --
not the only one, but the first one.
I JUDGE TINLEY: I don't recall any others that we
I have .
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:
one, then, of probably several.
and Ms. Hyde had -- came up with
remember what your words were.
MS. UECKER: Justifica
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:
So, this would be the first
But -- and you said that you
some reasons -- or I can't
tion.
Justification for it. And
what is that?
MS. UECKER: Well, my chief deputy's been with me a
long time. She's stepped in since I lost the last chief, and
has gone over and above to do even the job beyond chief
9-10-07
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
deputy. She's given time to the County on weekends and on
evenings and, you know, we've discussed stuff that has to be
done, plus she's also my bookkeeper. So, in addition to being
chief deputy, she's also the bookkeeper and has all of these
intricate reports to do, plus has taken over some of the
disciplinary duties from me, and has just gone above and
beyond the call. And even my -- the rest of my staff says,
"Boy, we need to do something for poor Robbin." You know,
she's -- "We just really need to do something for her; she's
working way too hard." And, you know, and I keep -- I'm
having to push her to take vacations. She says, "Well, I
don't have time. I got this report to get out and I got that
to get out, and I got that to get out." So -- plus she has --
well, this has nothing to do with it, but this -- this job
comes first, but I know she does have another job that she has
been putting -- you know, telling them that she can't do
because she has to stay here and do some things at night.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: When -- has she had a merit
increase in the last few years?
MS. UECKER: No.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Seems to me like if you
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't either.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think we ought to do it. We
9-10-07
77
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ought to reward people that are going above and beyond the
call of duty on their jobs, because we --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What is a one-step merit
increase?
MS. UECKER: Well, it would move her from a 19-8 to
a 19-9. She's been a county employee for --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 25 percent?
MS. UECKER: 2.5.
MS. HYDE: 2.5.
MS. UECKER: And she's -- the other thing is, she's
kind of taken it on herself to be, like, the computer program
problem fixer before we go to John, or before we go to the
Software Group.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think you've sold us already.
You can quit selling.
MS. HYDE: The good news is that when we put these
in, because it's a chief deputy, and we -- one of the things
that she and I discussed heartily -- how's that? -- we
discussed very deeply, was that there are position schedules
and there is descriptions for these folks. However, comma,
this one has got -- has now raised that bar. So, before we
start talking about others getting one, they're going to have
to hit that bar as well. You see what I'm saying? Because
this person is doing the bookkeeping, this person is doing
software maintenance, this person is -- is their go-to, so
9-10-07
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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This one has hit the bar
with respect to the job she does in this department? Or has
raised the bar for all chief deputies?
MS. HYDE: I think it's raised the bar. Before
someone can come in and ask for another merit increase, then
this bar is sitting there now. Software maintenance,
bookkeeping, and -- I mean, I know that in the County Clerk's
office, they're working towards that as well, so that the
chief deputies are truly getting better at a spot that if, God
forbid, somebody resigns, retires, whatever, --
MS. UECKER: Dies.
MS. HYDE: -- those chief deputies can step in. I
didn't say that; you did.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do we have a current policy
that sets chief deputies at a certain step and grade?
MS. HYDE: No. What you have right now, we have --
MS. UECKER: At 19.
MS. HYDE: -- a precedent where they've been set at
19's forever.
JUDGE TINLEY: Essentially, what you're saying,
then, is this increase is -- is as much based upon an increase
in duties, of job description.
MS. HYDE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And there may be others coming
9-10-07
79
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
down the road.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which is what it ought to
I be .
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. I mean, I don't have
any problem with it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't either.
MS. UECKER: Okay. And then the other one is --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Don't push too far.
MS. UECKER: Well, I'm just clarifying.
MS. HYDE: The other one is okay.
MS. UECKER: Thank you. I'll shut up.
offer?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I want to talk about
the Sheriff's budget, oil and gas -- no, gas and oil.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That was --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Stand up there and tell me.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I mentioned this to the Judge,
too. The only thing that concerns me on there, under the
original budget, I requested 130,000 for the year to do
everything, all included. The Judge put it back down to 115.
I got -- and that's gas and oil for all the cars. I got the
Maxey Energy bill Friday, which was 10 for one month, and I'm
afraid if you multiply that out by 12 months, that's 120
9-10-07
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
before you make any oil changes. And I just think it may need
to go back up, unless y'all want to just see what happens.
But all I've heard all weekend is gas prices are going up.
JUDGE TINLEY: What's your projected amount that you
will use this particular fiscal year?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: This coming?
JUDGE TINLEY: This existing year.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: This existing.
JUDGE TINLEY: The projected estimated amount. I
don't have mine in front of me.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: What they had projected, end of
year, and -- but, see, this was as of March 31st is what I
had, okay? Was 94,000. But that was as of March, projected
end of the year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My feeling, Rusty, on this is
that we budget for 100 percent staffing in all departments.
You obviously have the largest staffing, and the reality is
that you will not be 100 percent staffed throughout the year,
which means that you always have a little bit of cushion in
your budget, and I think that that cushion is there. And, you
know, I will note that we're really tight on the oil and gas,
and it may -- there may need to be a budget amendment to shift
some funds.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Which is fine, if that's the
way -- just looking at an average of 10,000 a month, it was
9-10-07
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
of your department.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And that's before you do any
oil changes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I understand.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Jailer salaries.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's it. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's all you got?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's all.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Anything else?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, I still have -- I have
some budget concerns in some areas. And, of course, I'll pick
on the Sheriff first; then I'll go to the rest of them, but
it's not really picking. I just think that, you know, there's
some things that -- a lot of people I'd like to have a -- have
a Tahoe, drive around town too, and I go in a lot of rough
places, but, you know, I would -- I'd go along with one Tahoe
and four Crown Vics. I know we've discussed this over and
over again, and I'm probably the only one that's -- that's
fought this thing throughout. He has an Expedition right now,
and I would say that could become part of the fleet for the --
the beginning of the fleet for the other deputies that he
thinks needs one -- the Tahoes. And I -- I could go along
with doing one of these a year, but not four a year, and then
9-10-07
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
82
next year we do four more, and then I can see coming down the
road, and what that's doing is expending a lot more money over
the long haul, as well as the gas and fuel and tires and
everything else, 'cause they're not, I don't believe, as cheap
to operate as the Victoria, and sure cost more. They cost
25 percent more. So, I'm -- I'm not willing to go along with
the four requested. I'm -- you know, and that's just me. And
I -- I just -- that's the way I feel about it, and so I'll
throw it out on the table and see if y'all are still hung
third more.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Oh, a third more.
JUDGE TINLEY: Because you base it on the existing
cost; that's going to be amortized over three years. You got
the same cost over four years. So, based upon your original
investment, that's a one-third increase.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's true.
JUDGE TINLEY: So --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So, I can't --
JUDGE TINLEY: That's a pretty good jump.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It's a big jump, and you're
going to have an extra year's financing, and what's going to
happen is you're going to have them worn out about the same
9-10-07
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
time that they are paid off. And I think we're getting an
extra year or two or three out of Crown Vics after they're
paid off, and I think that's another way to look at it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I mean, I agree with
part of what you said. I don't think we need a full fleet of
Tahoes. I think that it makes sense to have one per shift.
And future years -- next year I'm not in favor of Tahoes.
Now, if we were to do -- you know, I could go two this year
and two next year. I don't have a big problem. But I think
it does make sense, from the safety standpoint of the deputies
and for the taxpayers, to have some four-wheel drive vehicles
out on the road. And, you know, I think that having one per
shift is a good thing to do and the right thing to do, but I
understand one year or two years doesn't make that much
difference.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'd rather do the two this
year and two next year. That would at least get halfway to
where I'd like to be. And I think it makes more sense,
because you put them in, and then that way they're staggered
to where you don't have all of them coming due for replacement
all at one time.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's a good point.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The issue, to me, is not
Tahoe versus Expedition or any other car like -- vehicle like
that. The issue, to me, is having vehicles that can get
9-10-07
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
through the terrain we have to avoid the water problems we've
had with the Crown Victorias, the loss of those vehicles.
That, to me, is the issue. If it's how many you need, how
many do you need, Sheriff, to be certain on each shift that
you accommodate the needs based on weather and other
considerations?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Four.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pardon?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Four.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One on each --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: One on each shift. You don't
know. You know, and that puts it with the sergeants on each
shift. Each sergeant would have the Tahoe, and that leaves
you five Crown Vics on each shift as long as you're fully
staffed, but you've got to have the one on each shift. You're
running 24 hours a day. Either you're going to run one on
each shift for a 24-hour period, or you're going to share two,
okay, and you're going to double the mileage and wear it out
just as quick. And I have a deal on what we were -- y'all had
looked at some on the sharing of cars, and that's the same
thing you're going to end up with. And I have a letter in
here I'll be more than happy to read you about the City's
problem with sharing cars and the maintenance costs and the
wearing them out. And with today's car -- John Lavender's not
in here; he used to be an auto mechanic. The computerized new
9-10-07
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
you start changing drivers in them, you're going to start
having more and more problems, and that's exactly what this
is. That's why you need one on each shift. I will agree not
to go to a whole fleet of Tahoes. In fact, we're looking at
some other things other departments are doing that are cutting
down some costs too. But the Crown Vics are -- are a water
problem, and most deputies will tell you. And you need one on
each shift and you don't need to share it; you're going to
wear it out.
JUDGE TINLEY: Can't the -- can't the water problems
with the Crown Vics, the intake problem, can't that be solved
with training? How difficult is it to train an officer not to
drive off into water that's going to end up giving him that
sort of a problem and put him on foot?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Both of these issues that we've
had, okay, have never driven off the paved road or were even
on low-water crossings. They were on regular intersections,
one here in town, one in Ingram -- I mean in Center Point, in
town. You have to get to those, okay? My guys, I can promise
you, they won't go across low-water crossings or anything
else, and it's causing us a problem. That last high water
deal we had, we actually got into a -- to a D.O.S. scene
before the water came up, and we had to get a flatbed wrecker
to get -- to lift our car back up, 'cause the flatbed stood up
9-10-07
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
higher, and get us back out of the D.O.S. scene. And we also
had to use a wrecker to get the hearse into the D.O.S. scene.
We've got a lot of areas in this county where you need taller
vehicles, and we don't have a choice. I'm not worried about
the -- the high-speed pursuits. That's not what we're that
concerned about, but being able to get on the roads in this
county, and the way all these people are building houses way
back in the subdivision, way back in low-water crossings, you
know, we've got to get to them.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's -- I mean, I'm not
concerned about the high water issue. That should be
education. I'm more concerned about -- this year, for
example, going out anywhere on Lane Valley, I mean, you needed
a lot of times a vehicle that was higher. You had debris on
the -- on the Guadalupe River bridge four or five times. And,
I mean, Road and Bridge can't be everywhere at once. They've
got to be able to get through. I mean, people living out in
the more rural areas tend to not have cars, period. And in
their families, I mean, most of them are driving S.U.V.'s of
some sort, husbands, wives, whatever.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We just heard about the Town
Creek area this morning.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, I mean, I think -- I have no
9-10-07
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
87
know that it has to be done this year. I agree that we
need -- you know, yes, it's nice to -- I don't have a problem
with it. I'll support two this year and two next year or four
this year. I think we need to get there.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Rusty, do the Tahoes float?
That seems like to me that's really the question that's on the
table. But if I had -- if I were king for the day and I can
make decisions, I would -- I'd lower the tax rate in Kerr
County and give the taxpayers some of their money back. But I
am not king, and I know that the -- I know that the taxpayers,
the citizens of this county, demand law enforcement protection
', and fire protection and an ambulance, and a halfway decent
road to drive on. And that's not because of you and you're so
cute and all that, but it's this Court's duty to provide them
with law enforcement protection. Now, I'm not completely sold
that everybody that lives off out in the woods and don't have
cars and all that -- I don't know that that's the case. And I
do somewhat agree with the Judge; how dumb can you be, driving
off in a bunch of water? But -- but I also agree with you
that -- that you got -- when you get a call, you got to go to
them, and you have to have a vehicle to get you from Point A
to save -- saving life and property. So, with all that said,
I still would like to consider lowering the tax rate and
giving some of the -- (cell phone rang) That's a $25 fine.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We have -- we -- the only way I
9-10-07
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
can do this and try to keep it to where capital outlay wasn't
any more than last year was do with the four years.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So -- let me finish. And so
I'm -- if I had to vote right now, I would vote that you would
get one per shift.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Which is four.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What is the dollar amount
we're talking about difference here? Not brand name, the
dollar amount.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You have to look at two
different situations. One is the equipment that is on the
vehicle, because it's the County's equipment, and you have to
add this to the price. Last year's --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can you give us a summary -- a
total, so we don't spend all day on this?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Total base price on the
vehicles is about 7,000-something.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Difference per vehicle?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Does that include all your
equipment costs?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It's a little bit more on that
~ part .
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's close enough.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah. I share Commissioner
9-10-07
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
89
Baldwin's point of view. I think I'm looking at it from the
standpoint of the Sheriff being -- deputies being able to get
where they need to get when they need to get there. And
$7,000 per vehicle, stretched out over the lease period, to
me, is not insurmountable.
payment by one year.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One year.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And that figure, to my
knowledge, was 57,000, what you had presented.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay. The difference -- that's
right. The difference is, the other thing we did this year
from last year, last year we had four cars. My mileage is
getting up there; I can show you what it is. This year we put
five cars, so you're adding one more car, plus you're adding
one more year. So, it's not -- total bill, that's the
difference; you're adding one more vehicle this year, as
opposed to the past.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, I've said my piece
pretty much. I just -- you know, I'm not against law
enforcement in any form or fashion. It's just that it's
amazing we've gotten by all these years without them, and now
all of a sudden we want four in one year. And that's the last
I'm going to say about it.
9-10-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
90
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He's not going to get four
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Better get them this year.
I'll say the same thing again next year.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. What else we got to kick
around the stump here?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't have any.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Only other thing -- we're
talking about budget stuff that we're --
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Everything to do with budget?
That's where we are, right?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Salaries?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah, salaries. You want
to -- do you want to start, or you want me --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I've already told my -- went
down the list and already said my opinion on them.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'm going to say my piece.
I've come up with a different version.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Ms. Hargis, everything that
you have listed on this sheet that you gave us this morning,
it appears to me that, starting with the constables, you have
a 3.5 and a 3.5 included in that, increase? That's more than
25 ~ 3 percent.
9-10-07
91
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. HARGIS: On the constables? Yes.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yes. Is that what --
MS. HARGIS: That was what was the recommendation
that Ms. Hyde gave.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: The recommendation of who?
MS. HARGIS: Ms. Hyde.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay.
MS. HARGIS: Actually, there was -- it's a 4.03, and
then a 3.5. It was 3.5.
MS. HYDE: No, that's -- no. This one is the COLA,
and this is -- this is where they're at currently. They got a
4 percent last year.
MS. HARGIS: Three and a half to three and a half.
Some of the others are not exactly three and a half and three
and a half.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay, let me just start out
there. Constable 1 through 4 are set -- the present salary is
33, 994.
MS. HARGIS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's correct?
MS. HARGIS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: The proposed salary for the
coming year is 36,461.
MS. HARGIS: That's right.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That appears to me to be --
9-10-07
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
MS. HARGIS: 3.5 and 3.5.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Twenty --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 7 percent.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's 7 percent, okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's 3.5 base and 3.5
COLA. Is that the way you've got it recommended?
MS. HARGIS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'm not sure I go along with
the 3.5 increase and the COLA on these. And -- however, I do
so on the County Clerk. I do on the District Clerk and the
Tax Assessor/Collector. When it comes to Commissioners, that
figure is a 3.5?
MS. HARGIS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Plus what? Another 3.5?
MS. HARGIS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And the years of service?
MS. HARGIS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I disagree with the 3.5 on
Commissioners in addition to a COLA. I do buy the years of
service, because as you've been in longer, you're probably --
you should be worth more to the taxpayers, and that gives a --
that gives a variation between somebody just coming on in
their very first year and somebody who's been here a long
time. I can go along with that one. I do not like the 3.5,
because it gives us a greater increase than what we're giving
9-10-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
93
to the employees. I think it's wrong.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I got an ally here now. Now
I'll start talking.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, that's the way I feel.
I don't think it's right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. That's fine.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I disagree that you hand-pick
I clerks and --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree with that, too.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- all of that.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I disagree.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's why it's out there on
the table.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My view is that the only ones
that get a -- a salary increase are the County Clerk, District
Clerk, and J.P.'s. And everybody else gets -- and everyone
else is getting an increase on the longevity side.
I COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay. Are you saying that --
~ COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the County Clerk,
District Clerk, and J.P.'s get the increases as recommended.
Everybody else only gets the COLA.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You didn't include the Tax
Assessor in that?
9-10-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
94
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Once again, that's
selective -- that's selective or arbitrary, based on your
point of view. And -- which is perfectly fine. You got --
everybody has a right to do that. But I think if you're going
to look at improving the base salary of any elected official,
you look at it top to bottom. We've been through this
exercise repeatedly. We've gone through it again this time.
Last time we looked at it extensively, the amount of money
that was ultimately agreed for those improvements was cut
seriously in all categories, particularly -- particularly the
Court. So, my feeling is that if anybody in this -- any
elected official deserves consideration, they all deserve
consideration.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think the years of service
does give that consideration. But I don't -- you know, I see
that -- the way I feel is, if you do like you're talking about
doing your salary comparison to other counties and things is
one thing, but we're -- we're looking in the areas I believe
that Jonathan and I basically agree on, and -- but I -- I
totally, totally disagree with doing it for the Commissioners.
I think it's just dead wrong.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the other reason, I mean,
I've changed a little bit since last time I brought it up,
9-10-07
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
because at that time, longevity wasn't included. I think
doing a longevity policy change and across-the-board increases
is just wrong. I mean, I think -- you know, I'm much more
willing to split that over two years, maybe look at the other
elected officials that didn't get one other than the six that
I'm recommending this year, looking at them next year. But --
or two years down the road or sometime in the future. But, I
mean, the reality is, if you look at the -- all of that
combined, there's a lot of elected officials, myself being
one, that's getting about a 10 percent increase, and I don't
think -- I think that's too much. I don't think that's
reasonable.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, if you put it all
together, I wouldn't -- I wouldn't disagree with you. But if
you're going to take out any base consideration, improvement
to the base salary, then my view is then you have to improve
I
the proposed longevity. We set it at $100 to get it
~I~!, established. So, if you're going to take out the base
improvement out elected officials top to bottom, then the
incremental -- incremental piece on longevity should be looked
at again.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's fine the way it is.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I knew you would.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's talk about longevity
for a second. Now, I -- my memory says that we left here the
9-10-07
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
other day saying that -- "years of service" was the words I
kept hearing. Years of service needed to be contiguous?
JUDGE TINLEY: "Continuous" is the term I threw out,
But, see, that doesn't -- that doesn't make any sense to me at
all. If you're talking about years of service -- and Bruce
and I -- I'll just use myself as an example. I was here four
years and laid out five -- four, five years and came back.
Why would that previous -- my first four years be left out?
JUDGE TINLEY: You're exactly right. I don't think
continuous should be applicable to an elected official.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that going to change?
JUDGE TINLEY: That experience you bring back --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- with you when you come back, and
that's -- that's the --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's what the whole thing's driven
by.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't have any problem
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. It just doesn't make
any sense to me. You know, years of service is years of
service. Doesn't matter where they were.
9-10-07
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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But you're not talking about
talking about years of service as an employee prior to being
an elected -- you're talking about as an elected --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, talking about elected
official.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Talking about an elected
official.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: As elected officials. And,
you know, I've been here long enough that -- to have heard
this story before about, well, we can take care of this group
over here this year, and then next year we'll take care of
this group over here. Well, we never get to that group over
there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It never happens. So, I --
you know, if we're going to give any raises, we need to kind
of be fair across the board, in my opinion. I just -- I --
why would you leave out constables? I mean, why?
', JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner, let me pose this
'~i question to you, if I might, so that we can get some
clarification.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what I'm trying to do.
9-10-07
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
speaking as an elected official in that particular office?
For example, we've got a situation before us right now, the
individual served as a constable; he's now going to be serving
as a justice of the peace. Both of those positions are
elected. Are you going to accumulate those, or are you going
to restrict it to the same elected office?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, that should carry with
him. There should be some portability in that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's not that big a deal. I
wouldn't do that, but it's not that big a deal one way or the
other to me.
JUDGE TINLEY: I just wanted that clarification.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's why you're Number 3
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Usually when we disagree on
something.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, the two Commissioners
on the left side of the dais --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Our friends. You are our
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you opposed to adjusting
elected officials' salaries in principle, or just amount of
the proposed increase?
9-10-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
99
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the ones that I've
designated are -- one group, the J.P.'s, got additional work
put on them by the Legislature, and I think that that's no
different than adding additional work to employees. And we --
we relook at their position -- our position schedule and make
adjustments there accordingly. That's how I view the J.P.'s.
The other two are offices that I think they've done
outstanding jobs in their offices and they've got some of
the -- great responsibility and large staffs, and I'd like --
I think they probably should be bumped up a little bit. And
this is departing from a policy that this Court adopted before
I was on the Court, I guess some point in the early 90's, of
equalizing four offices, and I don't think those four offices
are equal. I think we should make some adjustments. That's
my reasoning.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm going to agree with one
of your concepts here, but for a different set of reasons.
Going to surprise you. I think 7 percent is too high.
Cost-of-living should be what it is; that's established and we
all recognize that. But I think 3 and a half percent top and
bottom is too much. 2 percent would be more acceptable in my
mind, and one of the reasons is because 3 and a half and 3 and
a half is 7, and we were critical of KCAD for 7 percent. I
don't want to get in that bind.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I wondered if that was going
9-10-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
100
to come out before I was going to say it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Bingo.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I thought about it. So --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I was -- that was going to be
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Beat you to it.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. But if we leave -- if
you leave the Commissioners Court out of it, then that makes
it a little more palatable. So, now we're --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I assure you, that is sure
enough the case. Leave Commissioners Court out of it
completely, except for the COLA's.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I don't agree -- I mean --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Which we always do.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We do that. We historically
have done that. I think the Commissioners -- if we're going
to look at top to bottom, you have to include the
Commissioners. I think we ought to look at those that I --
you know, in my view, deserve it, and if we want to do a top
to bottom next year, something like that, we'll do a top to
bottom. But, I mean, at some point you've got to increase
Commissioners' salaries. And, obviously, it's -- it looks bad
25 ~ to the public that we're voting ourselves increases, but you
9-10-07
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
seen. Rusty wants to talk.
JUDGE TINLEY: What's new?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Just one issue. That in the
proposed -- and y'all will recall this. In the past, the
County adopted the policy that the chief deputy not make -- or
the Sheriff make 5,000 more than the chief deputy. At this
proposal, because my chief deputy is in line for the
longevity, so he will, in reality, be getting a 6 percent this
year, because of longevity, starting October 1. That's his
anniversary date. This gave the Sheriff's position a
7 percent, so if you take away the 3 and a half, then you're
going to put us back down below what the County had adopted.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think there may be another solution
to that issue, Sheriff.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Get rid of me?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, that's always an
option.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Hire my chief deputy for a
constable position. I'm just -- what was proposed in there,
and I don't even know if you even knew it, kept us right at 1
percent better. So, I don't know. He was getting a 6; I was
getting a 7.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, what's your view? I
mean, you're kind of -- it's kind of divided at the moment, it
appears.
9-10-07
103
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, the -- the longevity thing I
think got pitched out on the table at the last minute when we
met the last time dealing with these issues. The other issues
had been massaged and crunched, all those numbers, by the H.R.
Director, and she brought those to us after -- after looking
at a lot of different things, comparable counties, comparable
duties, so forth. So, there was at least, apparently, a whole
lot more thought given to those. Now, when the -- when the
longevity thing for elected officials came out, it, in my
view, just kind of got pitched out as an afterthought at the
end of the meeting, and I'm not sure that's been totally
thought through and -- and considered to the extent those
other ones were. So --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, you're saying that you think
~ we should do as recommended originally and get rid of the
longevity? That's kind of where you're coming --
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, at this juncture, yes. I don't
think the longevity has been looked at to the degree that --
that all the other items were looked at. As you recall, there
were some adjustments, some additions, deletions and so forth
to what the H.R. Director brought us. But the longevity
just -- just was kind of an afterthought in our -- our last
meeting when we discussed those.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's kind of -- I can go
there. I can live with that idea. I'd rather have the other,
9-10-07
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
but I just think -- I think the overall package is too high.
That's --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's what I think.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, you're saying, Judge,
that we should reconsider the longevity issue? Is that what
your point is?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For another time?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And think it out more
~ carefully?
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And leave the recommendation
in place, top to bottom, that came from the H.R. Department?
Is that what I'm hearing?
JUDGE TINLEY: Essentially. Because that's the H.R.
Director's job, is to be in tune with those sorts of things.
And -- and she actually spent a fair amount of time to crunch
those numbers, review comparable figures, see what's being
done across the state and other counties that have similar
budgets, similar populations, and things of that nature. She
spent a good deal of time on that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think so.
JUDGE TINLEY: It wasn't something she just
scratched out some numbers and threw out on the table. There
9-10-07
105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
was some pretty good effort put into it by her.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Well, since I'm the
one who proposed the longevity plan, if it means the Court's
going along with the H.R. Department's recommendations, I'd be
willing to put the longevity plan on hold for the next budget
year.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I still don't agree. I'll
agree on everything except Commissioners, and the extra 3.5.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, there's another
solution to that, Commissioner, and that is that these are
salaries that are set for the job. Any individual holding a
job that doesn't want to take that salary can keep the salary
-- his or her salary the same. You do not have to accept it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think as long -- that's true,
and I just think it's important that you keep the budget the
same for all four Commissioners. I'll make a motion that we
approve the two recommendations made by the District Clerk,
and we accept the --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: H.R.?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- the elected officials' salary
schedule as recommended by the H.R., with the exception of
deleting the longevity as proposed -- as set forth.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: For all elected officials.
(Discussion off the record.)
9-10-07
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
JUDGE TINLEY: You seconded?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I seconded.
JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, you seconded? Okay. We have a
motion and a second. Further question or discussion on that
motion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Now, you did the salaries,
but -- and you did the District Clerk issue?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that the only thing that
came up today? We've been here two and a half days on this
one issue, and that's all we're going to do?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We spent a good bit of time
on Tahoes, but --
MS. HYDE: We got one for -- if we're doing the
District Clerk's, we got one for Tax Assessor/Collector too.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What is that?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Here we go. What do you
think?
JUDGE TINLEY: We've got a motion in front of us
now.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm ready to vote.
JUDGE TINLEY: Further question or discussion on
that motion? Essentially, you're just deleting the longevity
aspects of elected official --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct.
9-10-07
107
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Question -- further question?
All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right
hand.
(Commissioners Baldwin, Williams, and Letz voted in
favor of the motion.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(Commissioner Oehler voted against the motion.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Now, we have
other business in connection with that particular agenda item;
is that correct?
MS. HYDE: That's correct. I think. Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Do you have another matter you
wish to present?
MS. HYDE: It's with the Tax Collector, yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. HYDE: It's on --
JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Bolin, what do you have for us?
MS. BOLIN: Ms. Hyde's going to take care of it,
because she understands what's she's doing, and I don't.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. BOLIN: I gave justification when I first gave
my budget for these, and I didn't realize that we needed to do
this today.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. BOLIN: So --
9-10-07
108
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
MS. HYDE: These are -- real quick. These are
realigning like we did in other departments, so that we have
starters, mediums, and then supervisors, like we talked about
before, on two positions that are 15's, a step increase due do
merit, and one 13 step increase for merit.
JUDGE TINLEY: Are they changing job descriptions?
MS. HYDE: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: In all three?
MS. HYDE: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Enhanced job descriptions?
MS. HYDE: Yes, and cross-training.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's not merit increases;
they're job description increases.
MS. HYDE: Whatever we want to call them, yes. I
mean, what I'm trying to do is create -- create parity within
these positions, so when we do job description changes and we
add job performance as well as what they're supposed to do,
cross-training and supervisory levels, then yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Well, you've been involved in
the original job description as well as the development of the
new description.
MS. HYDE: Right.
23
24
25 a step.
9-10-07
JUDGE TINLEY: Talking about three positions?
MS. HYDE: Mm-hmm. Three positions, 2.5. It's just
1
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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There is no basic budgetary
impact to this?
MS. HYDE: 2.5 percent.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 2.5 for three?
MS. HYDE: For three.
JUDGE TINLEY: Three positions.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Three positions.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I see a perplexed look on the
Judge's face.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, when we're talking about
revamping a job description, I think the elected official
essentially has the authority to come in and specify that, do
they not?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I think we -- I mean --
JUDGE TINLEY: We're really not talking about merit.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that's the issue here. I
mean, I think there's -- I mean, obviously -- well, I won't
say obviously. I have a problem with performance out of that
department. There is a lot of -- we had a lot of headaches
this summer because of some mess-ups in the Tax Assessor's
office. That's in the back of my mind. That's why I say
merit -- I mean, I have a real problem giving merit increases
in a department that had a lot of problems. Now, if we're
changing job descriptions, or reworking like the Judge is
talking, that's a little bit different. That's why I asked
9-10-07
110
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
the question, is this merit or not? The answer was, "Well,
whatever you want to call it." Well, no, that's not whatever
you call it. Merit increases is doing an exceptional job and
getting moved up. A job description change, you're increasing
job responsibilities. And I'm not real sure what we're doing
here .
MS. HYDE: These are job responsibility changes.
21
22
23 this?
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion to approve --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why are we so late in doing
MS. HYDE: In doing what?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This, for this department.
But in the past, when I've gone back and looked at the
discussions and the transcripts, the word "merit" and "job
descriptions," all these things have been used in the past.
To me, this is -- this is realigning job descriptions, so that
our step and grade starts looking like a true step and grade.
That different offices -- you know, just because you have
different job responsibilities doesn't mean that those job
responsibilities should be higher grades or lower grades.
Some of these are entry-level positions. So, an entry-level
position ought to fall within a range on our grades. If
they're supervising people, they ought to fall within a range
on the grades. So, to me, it's revamping the job
descriptions.
9-10-07
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
I thought we went through steps and grades and evaluations and
so forth during all our workshops. Why are we now doing
MS. HYDE: No, there weren't any during the
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, why weren't they? Why
are we doing it now, would be my question.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- I think the -- I
wasn't in on those discussions, but first I'll make a motion
to approve the recommendation of the H.R. Department related
to the Tax Assessor's office.
MS. HYDE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion and a second.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the comment is -- and I
~ think the -- you know, I agree with Commissioner Williams;
this is too late to be doing these things, and these should
have been brought up during the workshop of the department.
Ms. Decker did that. I don't recall whether Ms. Bolin did it
or not. I don't recall that she did, but I know Ms. Decker
did. So, you know, that was -- it was -- it needs to be done
during that phase of our budget process, in my mind. But --
JUDGE TINLEY: In defense of Ms. Bolin, she made
these requests in her budget request that I initially
9-10-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
112
received.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Now, the degree to which they were
discussed, if at all, during the workshop may be a different
issue, but she had these in her request.
~ MS. BOLIN: My understanding was that we were not to
III discuss any salary issues during the workshop; that it would
be discussed at one of the meetings.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MS. BOLIN: So that's why I did not bring it up.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. BOLIN: And, Commissioner Letz, just for
clarification for you, since you haven't spoken to me
regarding the issue with the problem in my office, it was a
software problem. There was -- is a glitch in the way that
they code the statements, and there are two separate types of
statements that we're dealing with.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Ms. Bolin, if we sent out
statements that were in error and we knew there was a software
problem, we're at fault.
MS. BOLIN: We did not know until after they went
23
24 that nc
25
9-10-07
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. I'm not going to go into
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and second. Further
out.
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
question or discussion on the motion? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Jannett?
JUDGE TINLEY: Are those all the budget items?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Jannett? You're not going to
I do one?
MS. PIEPER: Well, I'm concerned now, because I
approached y'all also about a merit, and I heard it was
stripped. But, I mean, the last time I looked, it was there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You punched a sleeping bear.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I know. I know.
That's just one of the several.
MS. PIEPER: But I do have one -- mine is because of
an increase in job duties; it's just a one-step.
MS. HYDE: This is just --
I
(Low-voice discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is it in or not?
MS. PIEPER: The one that was -- the very first one
that was posted on the web site was there. And I haven't
checked the web site, but -- since then.
25 ~ MS. HYDE: Ms. Hargis stripped any merit increases
9-10-07
114
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that were presented with their documentation. They were
stripped out of the budget.
MS. PIEPER: But I have one additional employee and
one merit. Or raise, or whatever you want to call it.
MS. HYDE: The additional employee is still in
there, but the merit increase is gone.
JUDGE TINLEY: The additional employee deals with
the records.
MS. PIEPER: That is correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: As I recall.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is that a recommendation from
the H.R. Department as well, that change?
(Ms. Hyde nodded.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion to approve
the recommendation related to the County clerk.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Which one?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Only one. The new job is there.
MS. HYDE: The job is there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Job description.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's one step?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: In the County Clerk's office.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: One step?
MS. PIEPER: Yes.
MS. HYDE: Yes, sir.
9-10-07
115
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and second for
by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion carries. Can we go to the
next item, gentlemen?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why not?
j JUDGE TINLEY: Let's go to Item 16; consider,
discuss, and take appropriate action to set date time and
place of public hearing on the Kerr County FY 2007-08 budget.
(Discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Airport's timed at 11:00.
JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, my goodness. I apologize,
Commissioner. I completely lost sight of the addendum. Let
me defer action on 16. We have an 11 o'clock timed item.
Item 21; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on
governance issues related to Kerrville/Kerr County Joint
Airport Board. My apologies, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No problem.
JUDGE TINLEY: Completely got by me.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I put this on the agenda late --
or not late; I guess about 11 o'clock on Friday, based on
9-10-07
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
116
numerous conversations I had with the County Attorney related
to my position on the Airport Board, as well as Commissioner
Williams' appointment. And, basically -- some of the members
of the audience were not here -- both Commissioner Williams
and I resigned this morning from that board. The basic issue
concerning the Airport Board is the conflict of interest
issue, and it comes into -- "noncompatibility," I think, is
the actual term. It's based on statutes, case law, and
Supreme Court decisions, that you can't appoint yourself to a
board, and basically means that Commissioners can't appoint
themselves to a board of this type.
I've been rather irritated by this, and I think I've
voiced that to a number of people, some City Council people as
well. The biggest problem I have -- I do not have a problem
with the, I guess, oversight originally when the City Attorney
drafted the agreement through his office. Mistakes are made.
This was -- in my opinion, was probably an oversight. Could
have been an oversight. But where I really have a problem is
that this issue has been brought up by myself and Commissioner
Williams at the vast majority of the Airport Board meetings.
We have brought this up from a managerial standpoint, a
financial standpoint, and a legal standpoint. I felt there's
a conflict of interest in the way it was being operated.
The -- Chapter 22 of the Government Code, which we are
operating under on the Airport Board, is a pretty clear
9-10-07
117
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Through the -- not -- or I guess the opinions voiced
at the Airport Board by both the City Attorney and the City
Manager, they consistently say that I was wrong, Commissioner
Williams was wrong, and others on the board were wrong, that
there was no conflict. And I think the case -- the truth now
comes out that the fact is that there is a conflict that
prohibits both the City Council members from being on that
board, and Commissioner Williams and I from serving on that
board. This should have been looked into several years ago.
It was clearly brought up by Airport Board, and I think there
is absolutely no good explanation for the City staff's lack of
cooperation looking into it; lack of cooperation with the
Airport Board, for that matter. I think that the -- you know,
to me, this is a very important issue, and I'm very
disappointed the direction we've received from the City staff.
I think this is mostly their responsibility. They certainly
should have come through it. I think that the County Attorney
and the Commissioners bear some of the responsibility, because
we did, you know, have the -- even though we didn't draft the
agreements to the County, we certainly have been using them
and working with them.
This was kind of caught both by the -- as I
understand, by the County Attorney and the City Attorney about
9-10-07
118
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the same time, that this was a problem. And the -- I think
action was taken promptly as soon as it was found out. And
I'd like to take this as -- I think the good news is, I think
the opportunity now presents itself for us to move forward on
the Airport Board and create it up -- set it up as a legal
entity, separate from the City, separate from the County. I
think it will be more separate than I had originally thought
of, kind of along the lines that Judge Tinley recommended
several years ago, that it'll be a board -- should be a board
without any Commissioners or any City Council members or
County employees or City employees serving on it. It's going
to be set up -- to run it, there will be budgetary oversight
~~ both by the City and the County, and other than that, it will
be an independent board. That's what I think it needs to be.
That's what the law provides for. And I'll -- hopefully, the
Court will, later on, you know, allow me to continue to work
on getting us to this next step on the airport, and depending
on what that board feels, I hope to be involved with the --
continue to be involved with the airport. That's all I have
to say at the moment.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, having resigned from
the Airport Board earlier, whatever I say now has to be taken
as a County Commissioner, and not as an Airport Board member.
And I think it's more than just coincidental that the City
Attorney, acting in an advisory capacity, just happened to
9-10-07
119
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
stumble upon a 1928 case law from the Texas Supreme Court.
And what's interesting is that he stumbled on that, having
done the research necessary to propose some amendments to the
governance agreement that had never been presented to us prior
to having been presented to City Council. And the interesting
thing about it is that when we sat and negotiated the
governance agreement some four years or so ago, that same
research didn't take place, and that same case law wasn't --
wasn't brought to light, nor was the negotiating committee
comprised of Commissioner Letz and myself and two members of
City Council, nor were we familiar with that.
Be that as it may, it is what it is, and the law of
the state of Texas will always prevail. And so, as a County
Commissioner, and one who has a deep and abiding interest in
the airport and its issues and its growth, not only for
economic development reasons, which I think it is an integral
part of our economic development program in Kerr County, but
also I have an abiding interest because it's a major piece of
my precinct, and I'm going to continue to be interested in its
development and so forth. I think it's an opportunity, as
Commissioner Letz said, for us to back away and for the City
Council members to back away, and for City staff to back away
and let this airport function the way it is now, hopefully,
going to be intended to function.
25 ( I don't see -- I see if there's any conflict of
9-10-07
120
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
interest, in my mind, it comes from the City providing
services as a contractor, and having the lead -- the lead
executive in charge being a City employee. Those are
conflicts of interest. And, so, if we get the opportunity to
straighten that out, I hope that Commissioner Letz and I do
get the opportunity to meet with members of Council -- City
Council and work a new governance agreement out. I think that
we have the opportunity to correct those obvious deficiencies
and flaws, so I welcome the opportunity. I think we have the
potential now to structure a board with businessmen and
aviation people who have -- people knowledgeable about
airports and how they're run, and set up a board that can
function in the true essence of the word, and can conform with
the law. So, I welcome the opportunity to move forward.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: One other thing I'd like to
bring up. And while I focus -- and I think everyone's been
focusing largely on the conflict inherent because of the
self-appointment, there are other problems with the way we're
operating right now with Chapter 22, and I refer to Section
22.083(c). I'll just read one very short sentence.
"Disbursements from the fund" -- being the airport fund --
"shall be made by order of the joint board." This was an
issue that has been discussed many times by the Airport Board,
and we were told it was not our job to get into the details of
that; that it was up to the City to approve those bills. That
9-10-07
121
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
is exactly contrary to state law. And the -- and this is the
one that really probably got me more irritated than the other
one, because the other one, you have to go through some
statutes and some case law and some Supreme Court opinions to
get there. This one, it's black and white. I mean, I don't
see that there's much discretion in that one. And that's not
the way we were told to operate. And it was brought up -- I
brought it up; I was told I was wrong flat out by the City
Attorney, City Manager, and there's just no excuse for that.
So, that's how I feel about it.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Now maybe the grass will get
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Huh?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Maybe the grass will be mowed
out there, too.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And bluebonnets.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: When they're in bloom.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think the -- two things I
think that are -- you know, Rex and Commissioner Williams,
this is how I see us going from here. I want to try to get
past this as quickly as possible. I would be very interested
in serving. I think Commissioner Williams would, too, on
being appointed by the Court to work with representatives of
the City Council, along with our County Attorney and whoever
9-10-07
122
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
they choose, to come up with a new governance agreement that
is legal. And that needs to happen, I think, as soon as
possible, because there's a lot of things in play at the
airport right now that need to be handled. In the interim --
I talked with the County Attorney -- I believe that the three
other members, being Mr. King, Mr. Vogt, and Mr. Bobertz,
their appointments are valid, and that they should continue to
operate the airport as the Airport Board until such time as a
new governance agreement is put together. And I would
encourage them to continue and act accordingly.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I concur with that. And
I've spoken with the County Attorney about that as well, and I
believe that it is important for the Airport Board to continue
to function while we're working on a new governance agreement.
And after seeing the provision of the Transportation Code that
calls for a specific forum based on the size of the board, I
believe we have the -- there is authority inherent in that
Transportation Code to do that. Am I correct, Mr. County
Attorney? That three people can continue --
MR. EMERSON: Three people can proceed, yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Wake up. Yes, sir.
MR. EMERSON: I'm awake. I was trying to -- you
lost me in your train of thought there for a second.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Three people could proceed?
25 I MR. EMERSON: Correct.
9-10-07
123
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. And that being the
case, then I would sincerely hope that that does happen while
we sit down, and hopefully that would be immediately, and
negotiate a new governance agreement.
JUDGE TINLEY: Have we finally found an avenue
that'll maybe put this thing in operation as we originally
conceived it to be in 1970, when we put that board into
existence?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I hope so.
JUDGE TINLEY: That would be wonderful.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Does the County Attorney have
anything to add?
MR. EMERSON: Not unless the other three of you want
clarification on the doctrine of incompatibility. I talked to
Commissioners Williams and Letz extensively Friday. But if
y'all want me to expand on this issue --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You've also been talking with
22
23
24
25 want tc
MR. EMERSON: Correct.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do we have any formal action that we
the City Attorney.
MR. EMERSON: Extensively.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Y'all are in pretty much
agreement as to where we are right now, anyway?
9-10-07
124
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- in connection with this item?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move we appoint Letz and
Williams to work with City Council members to get the airport
headed down the right road.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: But not to the Airport Board.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Didn't say a damn thing about
it. But --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: To negotiate a new
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'll second your motion.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and a second as
indicated. Further question or discussion on the motion? All
in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
22
23
24
25 might.
(Recess taken from 11:56 a.m. to 1:35 p.m.)
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Well, it
looks like we've got a little ways to go here. Why don't we
come back at about 1:30, gentlemen?
9-10-07
125
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
consider, discuss, and approve by record vote the proposed
Kerr County '07 tax rate and set a date, time, and place of
first and second public hearings on that tax rate. Did we do
16? I don't remember 16.
THE CLERK: We did not do 16.
JUDGE TINLEY: Excuse me, you're exactly right. I
had it checked, but we had to back up and come back to
something. I'll come back to 17. 16; consider, discuss, and
take appropriate action to set date, time, and place of public
hearing on Kerr County FY 2007-'08 budget. I have got a --
according to the timetable that I've got us working off of
now, I've got a final adoption date of 9/28, which I believe
is a Friday. Because of the spacing of -- of -- between
notices and hearing dates and so forth, I've got the public
hearing dates on 9/20 and 9/24.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do we have -- we have two public
hearings?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Name your poison.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Doesn't make a difference to me.
I'd rather do 10:00, personally.
9-10-07
126
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: That's fine. 10 o'clock.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. So, that's all we need to
do, is just set the public hearing right now, right?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, the two -- well, we approve by
record vote the proposed tax rate. We don't finally adopt the
tax rate until the 28th.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: And then we set the date, time, and
place -- obviously, the place is going to be right here in
this courtroom -- of the two public hearings.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Under Item 16, I'll
make a motion that we set the two public hearings on the Kerr
County Financial Year 2007-2008 budget on 9/20 at 10 a.m., and
9/24 at 10 a.m., and they'll both be held in the -- what's
this -- the Commissioners Courtroom. What's the name of this
place?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It says "County Courtroom" right
I there.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and second to set
public hearings on the --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 20th and 24th.
JUDGE TINLEY: I've got this all discombooberated
I here.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, want me to withdraw that
9-10-07
127
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
motion?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. We're talking about the
budget, aren't we?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll withdraw my motion.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm still on Item 17, in case you
guys haven't figured that out. Hold what you got there;
that's going to be great for 17, Jon. Talking about time and
place of the public hearing on the Kerr County FY 2007-'08
budget. Now, I anticipate we will adopt that budget on the
same date that -- that we adopt the tax rate on the 28th. We
can certainly have the public hearing on that date or any date
prior. It's your call if you want to do it.
MS. HARGIS: Ten days.
JUDGE TINLEY: Pardon?
MS. HARGIS: Excuse me. Ten days after we publish
this. We have to have ten days to publish this.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, that's going to be for the
I 24th.
MS. HARGIS: Yeah, so that would be fine. No sooner
I than that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's the -- yeah. We're going
to publish that, so we could do it on the 24th.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. We could do it on the 24th,
9-10-07
128
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: When's that going to be
published? Tomorrow?
MS. HARGIS: Well, I doubt if I can get it in.
Probably Wednesday.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Before the 14th.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thursday is going to be soon enough
for ten days prior to that, but --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think from a public
standpoint, you want to have the hearing on the budget before
your drop-dead date on the tax rate.
JUDGE TINLEY: Sure.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd rather do it on the 24th.
So, I'll make a motion that we set the public hearing on the
Kerr County Financial Year 2007-2008 budget at 9:45
September 24th, in Commissioners Court Courtroom.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: At what time?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 9:45.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: 9:45.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's on the budget?
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know it's an odd time.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's the same day as regular
Commissioners Court?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, that is the same day as the
9-10-07
129
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
regular Commissioners Court meeting.
THE CLERK: We have a motion.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That'll work.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: And we have a second. Motion and
second to set the public hearing on the Kerr County FY
2007-'08 budget for 9:45 a.m. on September the 24th, 2007,
here in the Commissioners Court Courtroom. Any question or
discussion on that motion? All in favor of the motion,
signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Now we'll go
to Item 17; consider, discuss, and approve by record vote the
proposed Kerr County 2007 tax rate and set date, time, and
place of first and second public hearings on such tax rate.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Does someone have what our tax
rate is, handy?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I thought we had a memo, did
I we not?
JUDGE TINLEY: I thought we'd go ahead and do the --
go ahead and get the motion on the --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I make a motion that we set our
9-10-07
130
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
first public hearing on the 2007 tax rate September 20th at 10
a.m., and our second public hearing on the Kerr County 2007
!, tax rate September 24th at 10 a.m.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Both of those to occur here in the
Commissioners Courtroom?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right. We have a motion and a
second. Any further question on that motion? All in favor of
that motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Now, with
regard to the proposed tax rate, I received a notification
from our financial adviser, Mr. Bob Henderson; it came in
Friday during my absence, and I provided each of you gentlemen
with a copy of it. Essentially, Mr. Henderson is concerned
about the growing impact of the tax freeze on our -- on our
tax base, the over-65 tax -- tax base, and that approximately
40 percent of the tax base being frozen. In his
communication, he recommends that -- that we try and counter
that -- not try and counter, do counter that, by increasing
the tax rate within rollback parameters in order to be able to
put ourselves in a position to compensate for that -- that
9-10-07
131
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
growing frozen part of the tax base. That's the way I read
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's the way I read it.
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't know whether any of you guys
read it differently.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I didn't realize it was
40 percent. I didn't ever do the math, but -- so 40 percent
of the taxable value is now frozen.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. About $800 million,
isn't it?
MS. HARGIS: 847 million. Yeah, it's about -- it's
40 -- I can -- I haven't researched the county, but the city
is at 40 percent, so they're -- you're 40 percent within the
city limits, and I think outside the city limits, you're
probably about the same. Probably over that outside the city
limits.
JUDGE TINLEY: And if my recollection of our
discussions is correct, we've got approximately one and a half
cents -- actually, I think it's 1.55 of total tax rate --
MS. HARGIS: To get us to the rollback rate.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- before we hit rollback.
MS. HARGIS: And that's --
JUDGE TINLEY: I think where we are now in rollback
MS. HARGIS: Equivalent to -- a penny is worth what?
9-10-07
132
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Is it 300 --
JUDGE TINLEY: 262.
MS. HARGIS: 362,000, I think I gave you on that
schedule.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: A penny generates what?
JUDGE TINLEY: 262, I think.
MS. HARGIS: No, it's 360-something. Do you have
it?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not real inclined on raising
the tax rate. I understand what Mr. Henderson is saying,
but --
MS. HARGIS: 262 -- yeah, 262, you're right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not voting for raising the
tax rate right now, not when we're giving increases in salary,
we're going and buying Tahoes and these other things and doing
that, and increase the tax at the same time.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm not either, but I think
he's just pointing out to us that we're going to hit a bind --
a real bind here, either in the next year or the year after.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And there is some latitude
to do something about it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree. I mean, I think it is
-- I'm glad he -- he's putting us on notice that it's going to
have a big impact on us down the road, as it will for the city
9-10-07
133
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It will peak out at some
point, but it's -- right now, it's still on the incline. And
the City's going to find out that same thing after they've
been in a couple three years.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, Jeannie says they're
already at 40 percent.
MS. HARGIS: They're already -- even though this is,
you know, the first year, and I think it's -- you know,
compounding them at -- I think we figured 140,000. I don't
know what it actually came out to be when they finally got it
designated out. Do you remember, Diane? But it's going to
hit them faster than it is you. But you're -- having the
opportunity to have worked with both rolls, you're about twice
as large as they are, so yours is actually going to be twice
the hit. So, your first year was probably around 140, your
second year 280, and now you're at 580. So, you're
compounding faster than they are. And --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It will hit a point, though,
where you kind of -- it really doesn't -- it will kind of go
up and down after a while. I was on the school board in
Ingram when this was done with school districts, and, well,
the first five or six years were tough, and then after that it
starts to --
25 ~ MS. HARGIS: Level.
9-10-07
134
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- kind of level.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because people start --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Attrition takes care of --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The deceased makes up for the
newcomers.
MS. HARGIS: Well, I think you probably reach that
plateau where they bought their property slipping -- the
growth catches up with itself.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know how else to say it.
MS. HARGIS: Well, actually, I'm not real sure about
that either, because, unfortunately, most of the time when one
does pass away, then I think an over-65 person generally ends
up buying that house.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah, but the thing is, they
come in at the new value. They don't go back to what the
I value --
MS. HARGIS: It's a one-year deal. It's a one-year
deal.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's where you start making
it up.
MS. HARGIS: Those little, small increments.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: When somebody either sells or
moves on or whatever, you know, that property that's been
frozen, when somebody else comes in and buys it, they're going
to be paying at the new value.
9-10-07
135
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do we ever make it up, or we
just slow the growth rate?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You -- actually, it does
actually kind of level off. It kind of goes up --
MS. HARGIS: I don't think you make it up. I think
you just catch up, is what you do.	And	the only --	the only
thing in the law that is a -- that	could	hurt us over time is
that the widow can be as young as	57, so	that if --	in that
household, so if one passes to the	next,	then, you	know, it
may not --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, and what happens is,
what -- the next thing that'll happen, and it might should
have happened this year -- and this is getting me in a lot of
trouble; I'm going to say it anyway. At some point in time,
whenever these things start happening, you either have to
raise the tax rate or you have to not do some things and --
give COLA's, for instance. And might have to be for one year,
and that would probably be what we should have done this year,
to do just what Mr. Henderson is saying. We're just going to
prolong it till next year. That's just my --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sooner or later we have to
deal with it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, I think that's his message.
You're just postponing the agony.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
9-10-07
136
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: That's exactly what it is. But, you
know, raising the tax rate is never good news, but that's
essentially what he's saying. Good, sound financial planning
would indicate that --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're going to have to --
JUDGE TINLEY: -- we ought to utilize some of that
1.55 cents that's available to us in order to position
ourselves in order to take care of this continual dilution of
our -- of our tax base.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It's going to have an impact.
It's already taken its toll, and that's just --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The way it is.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- the way it is. I mean, you
don't have the -- the income. As long as we continue to gain
a good amount of increased new property values, or new
construction coming in, and appraisals continue to go up
somewhat, as long as we're very careful how we spend our
money, we'll be okay. But it's going to be a real tough
couple years. This will be the best one for a while.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But talking about
positioning ourselves for the future, Judge, we do that also
by -- by locking in a higher effective tax rate and work
with -- with the next ensuing year.
JUDGE TINLEY: Sure, that has a bearing on that
also, just like a debt structure has on your ability to have
9-10-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
137
MS. HARGIS: 38 --
MS. BOLIN: .3587, and then it's .467.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Give me -- what's the total
again?
MS. HARGIS: With the Road and Bridge --
MS. BOLIN: Okay, that's not including Road and
Bridge. Hold on. Do the jeopardy song.
JUDGE TINLEY: What do you show, Ms. Hargis?
MS. HARGIS: Well, I don't have anything with me,
but I think it should be .3875, and .3869 is the total with
Road and Bridge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let's be sure.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's nail it down.
MS. BOLIN: .3896.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's more like it. .3896.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: .3896.
JUDGE TINLEY: And of that, give me the breakdown of
what's Road and Bridge and what is --
MS. HARGIS: .034 for Road and Bridge.
MS. BOLIN: Wait, are we talking about current taxes
9-10-07
138
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I or the ones that we're going to be using?
MS. HARGIS: The ones we're going to use.
JUDGE TINLEY: I want to know what the tax rate in
Kerr County, total rate, was for last year. This --
MS. BOLIN: Okay. The county is .3587. Road and
Bridge was .0309.
JUDGE TINLEY: .0309, and .3587.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's .3896.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. That brings your total to
.3896.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right, current.
MS. BOLIN: Yes, sir.
MS. HYDE: For 2007, right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Now, because of rollback issues, we
must reduce Road and Bridge to .0304, which is going to make
the other one go to -- to remain the same, three -- .3859.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One.
JUDGE TINLEY: No, two. .3592, correct? Which will
give you .3896.
MS. HARGIS: And of that, the tax rate is .0483.
JUDGE TINLEY: Say again?
MS. HARGIS: The tax rate portion is -- debt tax
rate portion is .0483.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do we need to, in the motion,
9-10-07
139
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. HARGIS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The debt, the Road and Bridge,
and the --
MS. HARGIS: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Are you sure we need to ,break the
debt portion out of it?
MS. HARGIS: Yes. Yes. If you haven't been, you
I need to.
JUDGE TINLEY: The debt portion is included within
the .3592, okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, what's the new M & 0 number?
JUDGE TINLEY: That would be this .3592.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, but if we have to
separate the debt out, we need to know the --
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, what you can do is make a
motion that the overall tax rate be set at 38.96 cents per
100, broken out at 35.92 cents per hundred for general fund
M & O, which includes within it 4.83 cents for debt, and the
Road and Bridge portion to be 3.04 cents per hundred.
MS. HARGIS: Okay. This meeting, really all you're
supposed to do is set the public hearings and discuss the
rate. You don't vote on any rate at all.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh, okay. So, a total one?
MS. HARGIS: You discuss the rate that you're going
-- that was in the newspaper, and then you have the two public
9-10-07
140
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
hearings, and then you adopt the rate.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 'Cause that is the proposed
MS. HARGIS: You're proposing a total rate. You
don't have to break it down right -- you know, that's the way
I -- now, the County may be different from --
JUDGE TINLEY: I believe it is. I believe we set a
proposed rate, and you do so by record vote of each member of
this Court.
MS. BOLIN: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: And that doesn't mean that that's
where it's going to end up; that's your proposed rate. And
then the final adoption will take place on the 28th of this
I month.
22 rate?
23
24
25
MS. HARGIS: You publish the effective tax rate.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The effective tax rate.
MS. BOLIN: The proposed -- the proposed effective
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, then, you said the proposed
rate is a total, or do you break it out with the amount --
MS. HARGIS: I think the proposed rate doesn't have
to be. Now, when you do the final adoption, it does.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What do we publish?
MS. HARGIS: You publish the rate range.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just the proposed total
9-10-07
141
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
tax rate.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And that is?
MS. HARGIS: Well, it's a range. You do not put any
total in there. You have -- the rollback rate is in there.
The effective rate is in there. I mean, that's the reason why
you publish that, is that you have a range to deal within.
And then --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MS. HARGIS: Because it gives you two options. You
either can use the effective rate or the rollback rate,
whichever is lower. And then you can go over the maintenance
rate by 8 percent, not to hit the rollback rate. And that's
pretty much your parameters. You can -- you have to have
public hearings on any of that if you go above it. And
because you're going over the effective rate -- remember,
whichever is lower -- you have to have public hearings.
'Cause the effective rate -- when you have growth, your
effective rate is lower, so it's -- the purpose of the
newspaper is to give the taxpayers the effective rate that
would bring in the same dollars that you had last year, what
that rate would be. And then the second part is to show them
what the rollback rate would be. If you took your 8 percent
of -- times your maintenance tax, and add your debt rate, that
becomes your rollback rate. You can do either of those or a
range in between without causing rollback. So, you have a --
9-10-07
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
142
MS. HARGIS: Just for a total rate.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. I'll make a motion --
JUDGE TINLEY: We're going to take about a 15-minute
recess here and make doggone sure we know where we're going.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Good.
(Recess taken from 1:57 p.m. to 2:20 p.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to order, if we
might. After research, it indicates that on a proposed tax
rate, which is -- which exceeds either the rollback rate or
the effective tax rate, as those terms are defined in the Tax
Code, whichever is the lower, that there must be a proposed
tax rate set with a record vote and public hearings to be held
before the adoption of that rate. So, at this juncture,
because the proposed -- if there is to be a proposed tax rate
totaling .3896, which is the current tax rate, that rate would
be in excess of the effective tax rate, and it would be
necessary for there to be a motion that the proposed tax rate
for the 2007 year in Kerr County, the total rate be 38.96
cents per 100. And of that sum, 3.04 cents is Road and
Bridge, and 35.92 cents is general fund and M & O, and which
includes within it debt service of 4.83 cents.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Everybody's in agreement.
9-10-07
143
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm waiting for an "I so move."
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. You can make those
you described it?
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
indicated. Any question or discussion? We will take a record
vote on the motion. Commissioner Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Aye.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Aye.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Aye.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Oehler?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Aye.
JUDGE TINLEY: Chair votes aye. Now, let's get on
to the next order of business. How's that, gentlemen?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Moving right along.
JUDGE TINLEY: Item 18; consider, discuss, and take
appropriate action to authorize publication of notices of
proposed salary, expenses, and other allowances of Kerr County
elected county or precinct officers for FY 2007-08, and set
date, time, and place of public hearing on the same.
9-10-07
144
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We have an amendment that
', has to take place with respect to the COLA adjustment for at
least the County Attorney. Does that also apply to the County
Judge?
MS. HARGIS: No, those are --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Somebody want to give us the
I number?
MS. HARGIS: The number's right on that sheet.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I can't hear you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Ms. Hargis says the number --
the question is on the County Attorney.
MS. HARGIS: He currently makes what's in the first
column. The next column is his present supplement. There is
nothing in the third column. In the fourth column, the 3.5
first, and then another 3.5.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the three -- 75,603 times
13.5.
MS. HARGIS: And then again times 3.5.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: She's saying he's getting 7.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well -- yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. But the issue was, is
that only what Kerr County pays him?
MS. HARGIS: Yes. Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That was the issue.
9-10-07
145
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. EMERSON: I think the confusion is probably my
fault, because all I was calculating in was the COLA.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. EMERSON: So --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- is correct, and all we
need is a motion to set the time and place and authorize
~~ publication, right? And set the date, time, and place for
public hearing. What dates do you need, Judge?
JUDGE TINLEY: There's only one hearing on that. We
could do that one also on the 24th, if that would be your
~ preference. Or -- or some other date.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 24th. I make a motion that we
have the public hearing on September 24th at 10:15.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or should we do it before the
other one? Does it make any difference?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We had two earlier ones in
that time frame, did we not?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, this -- should this
hearing be before the others, or does it make any difference?
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't think it makes any
'~ difference. Those are public hearings only.
9-10-07
146
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 10:15.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Here in the Commissioners Courtroom?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And authorize publication of
notices. Who's publishing? Diane? Okay.
MS. BOLIN: For the public hearings?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
MS. BOLIN: Or the tax rate?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, for the -- this sheet.
MS. PIEPER: No, I normally do that.
MS. BOLIN: Jannett does that, I thought.
MS. PIEPER: I normally do 16 and 18, and the Tax
Assessor/Collector normally does 17.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You do 16 and 18, so the County
Clerk's going to do this one.
MS. PIEPER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. And the County Clerk to
publish that notice.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
MS. PIEPER: Okay.
MS. HARGIS: I just know where I send it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We have a motion and a second.
Any further question or discussion on the motion? All in
favor of that motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
9-10-07
147
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, just for clarification on
the other -- so everyone knows which notices they're
publishing in these, 16 and 17? I mean --
JUDGE TINLEY: Item 16, the County Clerk is going to
take care of that one. Item 18, the County Clerk's going to
take care of that one. Item 17, the Tax Assessor will take
care of that one.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We'll go to Item 19; consider,
discuss, and take appropriate action to amend the Kerr County
EDAP application requesting only planning activities funding.
Let me also call a closely related item, Number 20. Consider,
discuss, and take appropriate action to amend the contract for
services with Tetra Tech to provide planning services.
Commissioner Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Judge. I'm just
going to distribute some information to the Court to bring you
up to speed on where this is. I'm not asking for any action
today, and the reason is because we don't need any action
today, particularly to amend the application. I received word
back from Water Development Board late Friday, after I placed
this on the agenda, that indicated that since we're not asking
9-10-07
148
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
for an amount greater than we had originally applied for, we
don't need to have a new resolution. So, we're asking for
less than what we originally applied for. And what this is
all going to boil down to is that we're going to end up --
'cause we noted earlier, I think, that the -- probably a
couple more applications to them as we progress through this
project, and working out -- working with them on the rules.
So, what I've given the Court today is just an
update on some of the materials that they have requested that
we send. I'm packaging all that together, getting ready to
send it back to them to respond to all the -- the attachments
that they sent looking for additional information. And on the
Tetra Tech thing, I want to get with the County Attorney to
take a look at the current contract and see what amendments
need to be made to that current contract to reflect where we
are. You'll see here, by the information that's provided by
Tetra Tech, that the planning engineering subtotal that we're
really talking about now is $385,000, and as we work through
this phase by phase by phase, we will end up getting to that
$12,670,000 total project. So, today, all that -- all I'll be
bringing back later on the Tetra Tech contract is $385,000 to
amend their contract.
Now, there's a timeline also that's provided. First
time I've seen the timeline. And it takes us through where we
are today to -- hopefully without any -- any slips of the lip,
9-10-07
149
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
it takes us through into construction in July of '09, and into
'010, which is probably about reasonably accurate, based on
the way these things move forward. The EDAP application which
is really being amended provides a whole bunch of things that
we got to think about doing. And the -- a lot of the
information I've already gathered or am in the process of
gathering, but one of the big elements of that is some
modifications to our Subdivision Rules. T.W.D.B. believes
that we need to either adopt their model rules -- subdivision
rules, as -- as a supplement to ours, or amend certain
sections of that. Not being our recognized authority on that,
I asked Commissioner Letz to get involved with T.W.D.B. and
their attorney, and he's done that. And, Jon, will you fill
the Court in on what you see on the subdivision rule stuff?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Rex has also done a fair amount
of work on this. But I visited with their attorney, and we
have -- our rules have to incorporate their model rules, or
there's an avenue for substantial compliance that we can do,
that our rules are in substantial compliance to theirs, which
is probably the route that I'm going to recommend. And, you
know, visiting some with Rex about it, the differences, for
the most part, are not real significant, but there are some
that are pretty significant. The -- their rules -- their
model rules were drafted -- I mean, a little bit of history; I
think it explains why we have some conflicts, too. Their
9-10-07
150
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
model rules were drafted based on the border counties'
original EDAP funding parameters, where they had a lot of
colonias, so their rules deal heavily -- or rely heavily on
the Texas Water Code for their authority, and go a -- pretty
extensively in waterways, water issues. That's not a real big
issue for us.
The one time that we ventured a little bit down that
road, we just didn't have anyone on staff to review them, and
we kind of backed off from that in our newest version. Their
rules do not have a whole lot to do with road construction,
compared to what we have, and drainage and engineering, all
that stuff. So, we're far more than they are in some areas
and less in other areas. The -- the laws have changed to
allow who can apply for EDAP funding, and also the laws have
changed to what our authority is under Chapter 232 of the
Local Government Code. The bottom line is, there are
inconsistencies that I have found between their model rules
and what authority we have under Chapter 232, and it's because
they're used to working with Subchapter B and C counties, of
which we are not. We're a Subchapter A county. So, anyway,
it gets into -- I can tell Buster's already, like, "Will you
shut up?"
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. No, you're doing fine.
We're not a colonia county, though.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's right, we're not. But we
9-10-07
151
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-- anyway, so they're looking at three or four points that I
found out -- "they" meaning Water Development Board -- with
their attorneys as to how we mesh, you know, being a
Subchapter A county applying for EDAP versus what their rules
require, because there is flat conflict. And then I'm working
with Rex and Water Development Board also to look at some
minor changes that we can incorporate pretty easily, and then
those where we have some heartburn, we'll bring back, or we'll
recommend them to come back to the Court. But those that we
really have a hard time going along with, we're going to have
to probably meet and see if we can meet their guidelines by
substantial compliance. An example of that is, according to
their model rules, we -- "we" being the Commissioners Court --
cannot give a variance for a setback rule on O.S.S.F. or
building -- or structures. And I said, you know, we generally
don't do that type of thing, but I said we occasionally need
to. I mean, either a terrain situation or there's existing
structures and things. It's -- I said we can try to comply,
and we do, but there's occasions that we may have a lot size,
just because of circumstances, that's 4.99 acres, and their
rules will not allow us to give that variance. And I said,
you know --
MR. EMERSON: We are still on Item 19, right?
9-10-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
152
comply with the model rule requirement.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One other footnote for the
Court. I exchanged e-mails with the person, Francia
Harutunian, who is the lead T.W.D.B. agent on this
application. Among other things, she said, "I would suggest
in our letter, with the current information in-hand, plus
answers requested with our letter of August 17" -- and I
believe I've got a copy of that for y'all -- "we can present a
request from the County to our board for only planning funds.
This request could involve a 75 percent grant or more, with
the remaining 25 percent being a local match. After the board
approves this funding and during the planning process,
T.W.D.B. staff will contact the Department of Health to
request the evaluation of nuisance determination. Should that
determination be positive, any future funding of acquisition,
design, or construction can be provided at a higher than
50 percent, and perhaps up to 100 percent for acquisition and
design based on financial analysis."
So, as soon as we get this stuff in and they move it
through their hoops, they'll assign the Department of Health
to do an evaluation in the area. I feel very confident that
once we get the Department of Health over there and examine
some of the problems that exist in some of those smaller lots,
all of which are on septic, and some of those businesses along
Highway 480, all on septic, in close proximity to the wells,
9-10-07
153
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
schools, churches, and other things have had problems, we
should be able to get that -- that finding of nuisance by the
Texas Department of Health. Well, I just wanted to bring the
I! Court up to speed on where we are today. We'll be back with
the Subdivision Rules as soon as Commissioner Letz can get
that pieced together for us, and we'll go from there, as well
as the contract amendments, which I'll talk to the County
Attorney about.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is there going to be a
breakdown on this subdivision rule --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- deal?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, we've got it --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: A show-stopper?
Deal-breaker?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You mean a "breakdown" as in a
~ problem?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not from what I've seen. I
mean, a lot of changes they want are to add a word to the
definitions. I mean, you know, a lot of them are pretty
minor. There are a few that I have a little bit of heartburn.
I can live, but I don't know that I want to give away that
authority. That's why I think we want to look at a different
approach, substantial compliance. I don't want to adopt their
9-10-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
154
their rules, to me, was nothing but confusion for us locally,
because their rules only apply to lot sizes of 5 acres or
i less, so we would still have to keep our other rules in place
for everything bigger than that. Then you'd have conflicting
rules, and that would be a nightmare. So, I just think we
need to -- there's, like, 10, 15 areas where they pinpointed
that we had a problem in our rules.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Could you -- could you adopt
their rules as an addendum to ours, and just use -- just use
theirs for specific times like this?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We have to adopt -- their rules
have to be adopted county-wide.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, no.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what creates a
problem. So, we need to address the issues one by one and
work out the problems.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it can be done. I mean,
and they were -- you know, the guy I talked with -- Joe
Reynolds, I think, was his name, the attorney at Water
Development Board. He was very easy -- I mean, willing to
work with us. You know, it was just a matter of, you know, he
doesn't have any wiggle room; that they have to -- they have
to sign off that their rules are being followed. And -- you
know, but I don't -- we can get there.
9-10-07
155
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Jon did. Jon mentioned it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: It occurs to me that one possibility
we might explore is that we adopt their rules on anything
under 5 acres, and anything over that, our existing rules
remain in place. Maybe they'd deem that substantial
compliance.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They might.
JUDGE TINLEY: If that's where they're focused, is
on the smaller tracts.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They would go with that. But
it's just -- I just think it would be confusing to our public,
'cause you'd -- we'd have to go into our rules, then. I can
see the public being very confused by us having two sets of
rules. And Rex -- I mean, it's just -- I would rather try to
go the other route if we can, because most of their changes
are not too significant. Some of them are pretty good; I
mean, be good to have. The only issue I see is we're going to
have to put language in there like we did with engineering on
drainage, that the developer's going to have to pay for an
engineer of our choice to review the plans, because we don't
25 ~ have anyone on staff. And --
9-10-07
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
156
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which is not a bad rule.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's not a bad change.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Anyhow, I will bring it
back. Just wanted to bring you up to speed.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Is that all we have on those
two items?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Well, it looks like we're down
to the payment of the bills, so it would seem.
MS. HARGIS: I think there's some --
JUDGE TINLEY: Everybody get regrouped and get the
right information before them?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Shuffling paper.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd like to make a motion.
JUDGE TINLEY: You may.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. I move we pay the
I bills.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to pay the
bills. Any question or discussion? Sheriff, what is ANCO
insurance liability, Hartford med. renewal?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's our law enforcement
liability insurance policies that --
JUDGE TINLEY: Is that an annual premium?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Annual.
9-10-07
157
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
today.
JUDGE TINLEY: $1,176? That's pretty cheap.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Cheapest thing he's done
JUDGE TINLEY: Probably true. I would have thought,
with some of the things they get involved in, that it could be
a good deal higher than that.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I have well-trained, very
effective staff that does their job real well and don't get
sued too much.
11
12
13
14 sued.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Too much.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Knock on some wood.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I won't ever say we don't get
right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Let's go to
budget amendments. We've got a summary of those items before
you. One includes a -- a late bill and a hand check to --
looks like County Treasurers Association of Texas for the
Treasurer, I believe, of $150, in order that she might be in
9-10-07
158
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
good graces with those folks. But all the rest of them are
spelled out in this summary sheet. I've got the backup
information here available if anyone needs to look at that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can we just go down the line
one -- one time, and to refresh my mind on how this thing
works? Now, I'm assuming that the red numbers are the
negative. Is that --
MS. HARGIS: Right, that's where you're short.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. And, like, the very
first one, Road and Bridge revenue, it sayeth -- that's Old
I Testament talk --
MS. HARGIS: Right. When you get revenue that's
unbudgeted, you have to put -- amend it to be able to use it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Right.
MS. HARGIS: So, that's all black, because that's
22
23
24
25
MS. HARGIS: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: With the 456.
MS. HARGIS: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, I'm with you.
revenue we didn't anticipate coming in.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, the 4,881 is in the
current budget, and unexpended budget balance is 5,337?
MS. HARGIS: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And requested amendment -- so
that's an increase in that line.
9-10-07
159
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, somebody paid us
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Explain Number 5, please.
MS. HARGIS: Okay. I think that's because --
remember, they didn't have a manager in that department, and
j we hired one, and so there wasn't a budget in that line item,
in Environmental Health. I think you had two managers; you
had an interim manager, and now you have a regular manager.
And we ran short in that one, so we had to transfer --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I guess that's kind of my
question. We have a manager -- had a manager, and then had a
period of time when we didn't have a manager. Now we have
another manager, and we have surplus in that line item, and
we're taking it because we are adding a clerk; is that
correct?
MS. HARGIS: I think that's correct. I think they
have hired a clerk in the meantime, before you hired the
second manager. I'm not exactly sure of the dynamics that
went on in that office.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's stay on that one just
nd. On Manager, we're taking 11,000 out of it and
9-10-07
160
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
MS. HARGIS: And moving 5,500 from Manager to
Vehicles to get their --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see. Okay, cool.
MS. HARGIS: -- so that they can get their cars.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And 10,000 of it to the
I Clerk?
MS. HARGIS: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, thank you.
MS. HARGIS: So, we were actually over in those line
items, so we needed some in the Vehicle Repair, so that's
where that went.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions on the budget
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move for approval.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: All of them as per the summary?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. I guess.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I have a motion.
i COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: And a second. Any further question
or discussion on the budget amendments? All in favor, signify
by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
25 ~ (No response.)
9-10-07
161
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. I believe we took
care of the late bill on that last one?
MS. HARGIS: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: As part of the budget request
summary. I've been presented with monthly reports for
Constable, Precinct 1; Constable, Precinct 4; J.P., Precinct
1, and Environmental Health. Do I hear a motion that these
reports be approved as presented?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion and second that reports be
approved as presented. Any further question or discussion?
All in favor, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Got any
reports from any of the Commissioners in connection with their
liaison or committee assignments? I think we pretty well
covered the airport issue.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I believe we did.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Looks like we've got a gazebo
going on outside.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And a sidewalk.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And a sidewalk. And I don't
9-10-07
162
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
know when the completion date is, but you know when the
i JUDGE TINLEY: I'm going to tell you in just a
I~, minute, unless you want me to do it now.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, sir, absolutely not. I
don't want to steal your thunder.
JUDGE TINLEY: I've got lots of thunder.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You need it.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's probably true, at home and
elsewhere. Is that all you got?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I guess so.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You stole my thunder.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Why me? One, four, three,
two? How does it go?
JUDGE TINLEY: Just jump in there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm worn out on the airport.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You're worn out?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have nothing else.
JUDGE TINLEY: I figured that's why I was coming to
22 ~ you.
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, as far as I know, I
haven't been out to -- we haven't had another inspection, to
my knowledge, at the Animal Control, but the drain situation
9-10-07
163
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
where we were written up has been rectified. They are working
as well as they're ever going to work, and maybe better than
was ever expected. Of course, the horse stall sales was a
good thing. Let me see, what else is happening? I haven't
had a problem with Environmental Health in about two weeks, so
I can't say anything about that one.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What about the --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: About what?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do you have a timeline on when
we're going to bring people -- Hill Country Youth Exhibit
design people in?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think we need to do that.
~, We need to have that on -- like, make a few phone calls. We
kind of put the ad out, but we haven't got any calls --
~, JUDGE TINLEY: No, we haven't got the ad out yet.
I COMMISSIONER OEHLER: The ad's not out?
JUDGE TINLEY: No. I've got some rough language,
and I'm going to get with the Auditor --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I've talked to a couple of
people that are interested in doing it. I know you've talked
to one.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Talked to one.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So I know there's three that are
interested, but it's probably more.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah. And the one that I know
9-10-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
164
about is that they will -- they'll be glad -- you know, we
can't guarantee them they'll get the bid or anything, but they
do all the services that we need done, and it's part of --
part of a planning package. And they do the engineering of
the slab and the building, and do a site plan and everything,
the design part of it. So, I think those services are out
there, almost -- at almost no cost.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The ones I've talked to, one of
the ones I talked to was pretty much the same kind of thing.
No cost.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: They'll all want to bid on it.
Whoever gets the bid on the thing eventually, you know, will
be paid, you know, out of their contract price. But that's
kind of where that is.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, you and I will just get
together, then, and kind of go over that.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I would encourage -- we need
to get that ad in the paper.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So that, you know, in two
weeks or so, at the next meeting, we ought to have somebody in
here to get this thing rolling.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm encouraged to hear that there's
I that much interest from folks.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Mm-hmm. Well, it's what they
9-10-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
165
I area.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It is.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not huge, but it's -- it's a big
-- its a type of project that a lot of people are capable of
doing. It's not like, you know --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah, it's not a specialized
thing, where -- very few people can build a hospital, you
know.
II COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. This is -- pretty much if
you can -- if you're a contractor, you can do this job.
JUDGE TINLEY: Reckon we can get that much interest
in the courthouse windows?
', COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm -- that might be a little
more difficult. Little more difficult.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You take care of your deal
over there. We'll take care of ours.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We'll take care of ours.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I'm dealing with the folks over
there that remind me on almost a weekly basis, "Now, don't
forget, we want to see what you're going to do, and we got six
months to pat our foot about it." So, now to the item of the
day. Commissioner Baldwin, Gene Lehmann, the benefactor
', who -- who provided the gazebo to us, I talked to him last
9-10-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
166
week, and he indicated that all of his children were going to
be available on October the 12th.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Columbus Day.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Columbus Day.
JUDGE TINLEY: And that's a Friday this year. Don't
know whether that's going to be a courthouse holiday or
whether the following Monday will be. That's another thing
~I
that we'll take up before we adopt a budget on the 24th, or as
', part of the budget, maybe. But he indicated if there was any
way possible if we could do whatever we were going to do on
that date, he would -- he'd particularly like for that to
happen, and I think it's appropriate that we do it on that
date. So, we need to plan some sort of a dedication ceremony
to do that on that date, in the morning. Apparently, A & M
plays down at College Station on that -- the next day, so he's
going to be wanting to go down to A & M to watch the ball
game, I think.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: God, for what reason?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Needs to take Leonard with
him. And Rex.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, are you finished on that?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. You mentioned
i something -- are you going to put it on the next agenda, all
those other documents that are part of our budget that we
9-10-07
167
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
- -----
don't spend much time on, such as the calendar and --
MS. WILLIAMS: Holiday schedule.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Y'all are doing that? It will
be on the next agenda, all that other stuff?
MS. WILLIAMS: Jody and I were just discussing that.
We'll get together and look at the calendar, the rest of this
year and the nine months beginning next year, and see what the
holidays -- where they fall.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And we need to also get, I
believe, the position schedule and all that other stuff. All
kinds of stuff that has to go in our budget that we need to --
so it would be nice if we get that whole package ready at our
next meeting so we can look at it and approve it. And -- you
know, before we forget about it.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think Ms. Williams has
something that she needs to report on to us before we -- being
as she is one of the elected officials' reports.
JUDGE TINLEY: It's now that time for reports by
elected officials. Ms. Williams?
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Step right up here.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Not going to like it.
MS. WILLIAMS: Okay. The County Auditor told me
9-10-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
168
the County Treasurer. And correct me if I'm wrong, but that
we will be doing away with those bank accounts that these fee
officers have right now, which means if they're going to be
turning in funds daily to me, it's going to be cash, checks,
credit card transactions. That is going to put a real burden
on my office, if that's what I'm understanding from the County
Auditor.
MS. HARGIS: No.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No.
MS. HARGIS: Okay. I was asked by Mindy last Friday
that -- she and the Sheriff were discussing whether or not the
officers should turn in their money daily or within seven days
or 30 days. And, reacting to her question, I looked it up,
and we discussed the fact that we'll be getting to the 50,000
mark pretty soon. My suggestion was that we, in the next
year, slowly take one office at a time and convert it over.
We won't -- if we don't want to do it this year, and think
we're going to be at the 50,000 mark next year, that's fine,
but I don't think it's something we want to do quickly. It's
something we're going to have to take our time and do one
department at a time, get used to that department, then take
on another department. So, it's going to take a while to do
it. If you don't think we're quite ready for that yet, you
9-10-07
169
1
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, I would -- what I would like to see, though -- what I
would like to see from all of the departments is that we start
turning their money in on a weekly basis, writing a check to
the Treasurer on a weekly basis with their checking accounts,
because in order for us to get the full bang for our buck out
of our investments, we need to get the money out of their
accounts. And, to give you a small idea, you could have as
much as $10,000 a day in one of your J.P. offices. You
multiply that times four, that's 40, and then in the bigger
offices, so we could have -- we have a lot of money that sits
in -- in non-interest bearing type accounts that we need to
take care of. So, I would suggest at this time -- I don't --
and she asked me about it, so I thought that's what she wanted
to do. It would be nice to have them do daily, and they will,
at 50,000, have to do it. But if they're not ready for
that -- and my other comment to her was we need to get them
together and kind of get everybody on board and give them a
little advance notice. This is something that's going to take
some time.
JUDGE TINLEY: Question.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How many offices do we have that
are -- or checking accounts do we have floating around?
MS. HARGIS: We have -- all the J.P.'s have their
own. Mindy, help me with this. The clerks have their own
checking accounts.
9-10-07
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
170
MS. WILLIAMS: County Clerk, District Clerk, Tax
Assessor, Sheriff, all four J.P.'s. And I believe --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Constables.
~' MS. WILLIAMS: No, constables don't have bank
accounts. But the Juvenile Probation Department and the
County Attorney does.
MS. HARGIS: We have a lot.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: When you say 50,000, you're
talking about when the population --
MS. HARGIS: When the population --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- in Kerr County hits
50,000?
MS. HARGIS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Then it's mandatory?
MS. HARGIS: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MS. HARGIS: And I think -- which I think we're
around 44,000 to 46,000, so if it doesn't happen this year, it
will next year. So, what I would suggest we do is maybe get
our transition program started this year, and then implement
it in the following year. That will give us a chance to get
her department to where it needs to be.
JUDGE TINLEY: Question. At what frequency are the
fee officers turning in their funds now to the Treasurer's
office?
9-10-07
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
171
MS. HARGIS: Once a month.
Sheriff, whomever, are maintaining separate demand deposit
accounts, which are not accruing any sort of earnings?
MS. HARGIS: I don't know that to be a fact, but the
ones I've seen are just regular checking accounts.
MS. WILLIAMS: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, they are not.
MS. WILLIAMS: The majority of those fee officer
accounts do accrue. We have one J.P. who, when they set up
their account, set it up as a non-interest bearing account.
The reason I believe behind them doing that was they were
concerned that the interest would not offset the service
charge that the bank was charging at that time. Now, I don't
believe the bank is charging us a service charge.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are these all with the same
depository, or different banks?
MS. WILLIAMS: They're the County depository.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's good.
MS. WILLIAMS: There is one correction. The Tax
Office does turn in their moneys either once a week or every
other week as the moneys are accrued. But all the other fee
officers -- the County Clerk, the District Clerk, the four
J.P.'s, even the Sheriff -- turn them in once a month. After
9-10-07
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
172
they -- after the end of the month, they receive their bank
statements, they reconcile it, they do their report, they get
it to balance, then they turn the fees over to the Treasurer.
MR. EMERSON: Do Rusty's first.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay. First, and this is
something -- 'cause I did bring it to Mindy's -- this is what
we discovered during the investigation we did on the former
Treasurer. It's -- it's Chapter 113 out of the Local
Government Code; the Judge has it. What it says is it doesn't
matter how many bank accounts you got. Any officer that
collects fees is required by -- under Chapter 113 to turn
those in to the County Treasurer by the end of the business
day. Failing that, within seven days. Okay? And the only
other way -- and this is where we couldn't find that the Court
had ever done it, and it probably should be on the Court's
agenda. The only other way that you can keep those fees, like
Animal Control had been keeping stuff a full month before they
turned -- is with approval of Commissioners Court, which means
there ought to be a court order saying that those officers
collecting fees can turn those in once a month. Otherwise,
they have to be turned in no later than seven days, and
preferably at the end of the business day they're -- they're
taken.
Now -- and then once you hit a population of 50,000,
in talking to the D.A. about this during all that
9-10-07
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
173
investigation, that 50,000 goes by the U.S. census, okay? Not
just that we think it might go up. Whatever -- whenever the
next census is; 2010, I guess. Whatever it is, if it shows
Kerr County's over 50,000, then I think there's a whole lot of
things that have to change, including that. Okay? But I
would recommend if y'all want to let department heads keep
their money until the end of the month, there needs to be a
court order, which there isn't. But the other thing is, why a
lot of your department heads, such as mine, has individual
accounts, I have a civil account. That civil account is -- is
deposited in daily. It's audited by the person taking it,
which is my civil secretary and by my secretary, and it's
balanced there, and then the County is written a check from
that, so we have a checks and balances. That goes through
about three steps, and, you know, it's supposed to be being
done weekly right now, is the way it was supposed to have
been, so that we would stay in our bail bond fees.
Anything that -- any county official, not just
elected. Any county employee who accepts fees or collects
fees, whether it's a bail bond or whether it's constables,
civil papers that they serve and gets mailed in, serving civil
subpoenas, whatever, okay, any money coming in is required by
law right now to be deposited with the Treasurer, at the very
most, within seven days. And that's something this County's
had an issue with for all these years. 'Cause I never could
9-10-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
174
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just -- let's hear from Rex;
then I have a further comment.
MR. EMERSON: I was just going to say, my
situation's a little bit different, because we have a checking
account, but our checking account is a trust account. We take
in the moneys from hot check payers. Once a month we
reconcile, we issue the checks to the merchants, and it's only
once a month that the County generates its fees, and that
check itself goes to Mindy, usually that day or the next day.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, most of your funds is trust
account; they're not county funds.
MR. EMERSON: Right. Mine sits in trust all month
until the end of the month, when the software reconciles and
cuts a check to the merchants.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's not a fee. Okay? If
it's not a fee, it doesn't fall under that chapter, which is a
different --
MR. EMERSON: The fee is generated once a month, at
the end of the month, when it reconciles and our statutory fee
is paid.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Seems to -- well, I would think
that we probably did the once-a-month thing a lot when bank
I statements would come out once a month. But with online
9-10-07
175
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
daily. And with that being said, I think people should -- we
should just get in the habit of doing it once a week, and then
', that gets us in a better -- you know, it gives the Treasurer's
~ office time to get used to this, and in about two years, we
i
may or may not be at the point that we're going to have to do
it daily.
MS. WILLIAMS: My one concern is that there are some
funds -- and I'll use the District Clerk -- that have to be
held in trust. And I don't think that those could be turned
over to me. I think that the Court orders the District Clerk
or the County Clerk to put that money into a separate account.
JUDGE TINLEY: Trust funds are going to be separate,
anyway. She's got a number of trust accounts that she
maintains and she brings to the Court every year.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Talking about fees.
JUDGE TINLEY: Very similar to Rex's trust account,
where that's other folks' money. That's not our money.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can't invest that, I don't
think.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It's not a fee. What they're
talking about is fees under Chapter 113.
MS. HARGIS: Yeah.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: So if it's not considered a
9-10-07
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
176
under those regulations.
MS. HARGIS: You're -- yeah, you're actually not
supposed to -- Rex, correct me if I'm wrong. You're not
supposed to make interest on that trust fund.
MR. EMERSON: Actually, we can. We can by statute.
We can make it, and interest goes to the benefit of the
~ County.
MS. HARGIS: Right. But what about the other
departments? Can they do it as well?
MR. EMERSON: Depends on the account. Depends on
MS. WILLIAMS: I think it depends on what the Court
says they have to do.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why don't y'all work out a
game plan in terms of what you think is best and a transition
period, time to get there.
MS. HARGIS: Yeah.
MS. WILLIAMS: The one -- I'm sorry. The one
concern that I had is if we went -- and maybe I misunderstood
Jeannie, and I probably did. But if we did away with their
independent accounts, they would be turning over all their
cash and checks that they brought in that day to me. I would
have to have -- and I still am going to have to have a
breakdown of what goes where. What is county money? What is
state money? What are the GL codes that tie to that? So, I'm
9-10-07
177
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
willing to work with her and anyone else, and if we start on
it now, I think by the time we get to the 50,000 and we have
to do it, it'll be in place and it won't be so difficult.
MS. HARGIS: We need to work on this a little bit.
I was -- I thought we were just visiting. I had, you know, no
idea, you know. 'Cause I haven't thought it through myself,
either. Tommy and I were just kind of brainstorming about it
a little bit this morning.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, we need to be looking out ahead
of us, and that's what y'all are doing at this point, then.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The current law that all
department heads need to be reminded of right now is,
actually, the way it's set up right now, everybody is supposed
to be turning them in no later than -- it should be the same
day, but no later than seven days.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we ought to maybe send
out a memo, maybe out of Rex's office, 'cause he's the County
Attorney, and remind everyone of that policy, and start
getting them to do it, because I think it -- I mean, with the
technology today, there's no reason not to, and it's a lot of
money that we're losing the use of.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But you may want to set some
times, 'cause I know Mindy would just about die at the end of
the day if, at 4:45, all the department heads throughout the
county walked in with all this money on Friday afternoon and
9-10-07
178
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
said, "Here it is."
MS. HARGIS: Well, right now they have their own
checking accounts, so all they would bring is one check.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. But they -- they don't
have to do it all on Friday.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: J.P.'s can do it --
MS. WILLIAMS: Stagger them.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Just have to set it up.
MS. HARGIS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Work it out with you.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Now, the one thing I wanted to
mention as far as department head's report, every time y'all
see my chief deputy from now on, you have to call him grandpa.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Really?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: He's now the proud grandpa of a
little boy.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is he really?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's neat.
MS. HARGIS: Just real quick, 'cause I know there's
a bunch of kids standing out in the hallway -- I tried to talk
to you a little bit about this, Judge, but it looks like the
auditor will not do the audit. And we -- I need to either get
an RFP ready so y'all can approve it whenever -- at these
9-10-07
179
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
public meetings so I can get it out. One of the auditors that
I talked to, remember, in Austin, I got a letter today saying
they would not be interested in doing the 2008 audit. I have
one firm that's kind of interested in doing it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Did you know?
MS. HARGIS: No, nobody did. We just found out.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, Pressler Thompson says
they're not doing it?
(Ms. Hargis shook her head.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There are plenty of them out
MS. HARGIS: So we just need to -- we'll just need
to get y'all to approve an RFP to go out. If you approve it,
then I'll just go ahead and put one in the newspaper and get
it out there, and I'll send out some letters as well.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd prepare it so we can approve
it at the next meeting.
MS. HARGIS: Okay. And just keep in mind, we were
late this year with our audit, so as long as we get it out in
April, I'd be ecstatic. I think we can do that. We just have
to put a time frame, okay?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Not your fault on that deal.
9-10-07
180
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
That's the previous auditor that didn't get us warned up in
time and get us on notice so that we could advertise for an
auditor in due time.
MS. HARGIS: He was. -- when we made the changes to
I! the engagement letter, he just felt that -- that he -- no
matter what he did, that it wouldn't be sufficient, and so he
just felt that it would be better if we got somebody that we
had more trust in.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sometimes you call those
blessings in disguise.
MS. HARGIS: So --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Work itself out.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, ma'am. Do we have any
other reports from elected officials? Department heads?
Roadhands?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: There are still a few brochures
up here about speleology if anybody wants them.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's fold it up. We'll be
~ adjourned.
(Commissioners Court adjourned at 3:10 p.m.)
9-10-07
181
1
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 14th day of
September, 2007.
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
B Y : __ _ _ (~__~_~_________________
Kathy anik, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
9-10-07
ORDER NO.30502
ACCEPT RESIGNATION OF CHARLES DONELLAN FROM AI,AMO AREA
SENIOR ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND APPOINT PATRICE B. DOEIZRIES
Came to be heard this the 10th day of September, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court unanimously
approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Accept the resignation of Mr. Charles Donellan, with thanks and appreciation for
his service, and appoint Patrice B. Doerries, who is the Senior CARES Coordinator
for the Hill Country Crisis Council, to fill the vacancy on the Alamo Area Agency
on Aging.
ORDER NO. 30503
AUTOPSY TRANSPORTATION AND PAUPER CREMATION CHARGES
Came to be heard this the 10th day of September, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the transport fee for autopsies to be raised to $350, and county cremations
to be increased to $750, effective October 1, 2007.
ORDER NO. 3 OS 04
USE FUND 20 TO PURCHASE USED EXCAVATOR
Came to be heard this the 10th day of September, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioners Oehler. The Court unanimously
approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the request to use the Road District excess funds for the purchase of a
Waukesha Pierce Limited excavator/gradeall for a total purchase price not to
exceed $206,055.40, and request Road and Bridge looking into surplussing one of
our other pieces of equipment and selling same.
ORDER NO. 30505
REVISION OF PLAT OF VISTAS ESCONDIDAS de CYPRESS SPRINGS
Came to be heard this the 10th day of September, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Oehler, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court unanimously
approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Set a public hearing for October 22, 2007 at 10:10 a.m. for the revision of Plat of
Vistas Escondidas de Cypress Springs, Vol 7, Page 363, Precinct 4.
ORDER NO. 30506
REVISION OF LOTS 99, 100 AND 101 OF I'HL IIOIZILON
Came to be heard this the 10th day of September, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Oehler. "l~hc Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Set a public hearing for October 22, 2007 at 10:05 a.m. for the revision of Lots 99,
100 and 101 of The Horizon, Vo16, Pages 323 to 326, Precinct 1.
ORDER NO.30507
REVISION OF LOTS 25 & 26 OF THE HOIZIION
Caine to be heard this the 10th day of September, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Oehler. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Set a public hearing for October 22, 2007 at 10:00 a.m. for the revision of Lots 25
& 26 of The Horizon, Vol 6, Pages 323-326, Precinct 1.
ORDER NO. 30508
KERB COUNTY INVESTMENT POLICY
Came to be heard this the 10th day of September, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letr. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve of the Investment Policy as presented by the Auditor and the County
treasurer.
ORDER NO. 30509
COST OF OBTAINING A COPY OF THE 2007-08 KERIZ COUN"1'Y I3UDUE"1
Came to be heard this the 10th day of September, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. 1'he Court unanimously
approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Set the cost for receiving a copy of the 2007-08 Kerr County Eudget at $25.00.
ORDER NO.30510
POLICY, FEE SCHEDULE AND BOOKING AGENT FOR HILL COUNTRY
YOUTH EXHIBITION CENTER
Came to be heard this the 10th day of September, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Oehler. The Court unanimously
approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the revised Hill County Youth Exhibit Center Booking Procedures and
Rental Rates, and rescind all previous Court Orders related to this issue, and
authorize Commissioners Letz and Oehler to make modifications or adjustments to
clean up discrepancies, and to address the issues that we've put before the Court
today and on previous occasions.
ORDER NO. 30511
CI~IANGE OF BOOKING AGENT
Came to be heard this the 10th day of September, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Oehler, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court unanimously
approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Change the Booking Agent to be Jody Grinstead at the Commissioners' Court and
Judge's Office, and that she be our new Booking Agent, effective i1nil~~diatcly.
ORDER NO. 30512
NEW CONSTABLE FOR PRECINC"I' 1
Came to be heard this the 10th day of September, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Lear. 'l~hc COLA"I ~u7animously
approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Appoint, for the unexpired term for Constable Precinct 1, tl~ic I-Ionorable John N.
Lavender.
ORDER NO. 30513
FY 2007-08 BUDGET
Caine to be heard this the 10th day of September, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams. 'hhe Court
unanimously approved by vote of 3-1-0 to:
Approve the 2 recommendations made by the District Clerk, and that we accept the
Elected Officials' salary schedule as recommended by I fuinan Resources, with the
exception of deleting the longevity as proposed for all F,lected Officials.
ORDER NO. 30514
FY 2007-08 BUDGET
Came to be heard this the 10th day of September, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Oehler. The COUI't unanimously
approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the recommendation of the Human Resources Departrncnt related to the
Tax Assessor's Office.
ORDER NO. 30515
FY 2007-08 BUDGET
Caine to be heard this the 10th day of September, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the recommendation by Human Resources related to the County Clerk's
Office.
ORDER NO. 30516
AIRPORT BOARD REORGANIZATION
Came to be heard this the 10th day of September, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Oehler. ~1~he Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Appoint Commissioners I,etz and Williams to work with City Council Members to
get the Airport headed down the right road; to negotiate a new Governance
Agreement.
ORDER NO. 30517
PUBLIC HEARING hOR KERR COUNTY FY 2007-0~ I3t1DG1"I'
Came to be heard this the 10th day of September, 2007, with a moii:~r; n~~ade by
Commissioner Lett, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously
approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Set the public hearing on the Kerr County Financial Year 2007-0~ I3udget for
September 24, 2007 at ):45 a.m. in the Commissioners' Court Courtroom.
ORDER NO. 30518
KERR COUNTY 2007 TAX RA1'F,
Came to be heard this the 10th day of September, 2007, with a motion r~~zade by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. "I'he Court unanimously
approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Set the first public hearing on the 2007 Tax Rate for September ?0, ?i)07 at 10:00
a.m., and the second public hearing on the 2007 Tax Rate for Septem'~~er ''~, ?007
at 10:00 a.m., in the Commissioners' Courtroom.
ORDER NO. 30519
KERR COUNTY 2007 TAX RATI
Came to be heard this the 10th day of September, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Williams. "'~he Court
unanimously approved by vote of 5-0-0 to:
Set the proposed tax rate for the 2007 year in Kerr County, the total rate be 38.96
cents per 100, and of that sum 3.04 cents is Road & Bridge, and 3~.9? cents if
General Fund and M & O, which includes within it debt service o1~ 4.b3 cents.
Approved by a record vote as follows:
Commissioner Baldwin -Aye
Commissioner Williams -Aye
Commissioner Letz -Aye
Commissioner Oehler -Aye
Judge Tinley -Aye
5 Ayes, 0 Noes
ORDER NO.30520
PUBLICATION OF NO'T'ICE(S) OF PROPOSED SALARY, IXPI:t~SLS AND
OT~-~R ALLOWANCES OF KERR COUNTY ELEC~hI;I~ COUiti"hY OR
PRECINCT OFFICERS FOR FY 2007-08 AND SET PUBLIC Ill:ARING
Came to be heard this the 10th day of September, 2007, with ~ mt~tiun made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Set a public hearing for September 24, 2007 at 10:15 a.m., in the C~rnmissioners'
Courtroom, and authorize publication of the Notice of Proposed Salary, Expenses
and Other Allowances of Kerr County Elected County or Precinct O1'~ ~cers for I~Y
2007-08, and the County Cleric to publish that Notice.
ORDER NO. 30521
CLAIMS AND ACCOUN"I'S
Came to be heard this the 10th day of September, 2007, came do be considered by
the Court various Commissioners Precincts, which said Claims and Accounts are:
Accounts Expense
10 -General Fund	$	117,514.26
14-Fire Protection	$	10,416.67
15-Road & Bridge	$	27,202.22
18-County Law Library	$	747.00
19-Public Library	$	36,972.25
50-Indigent Health Care	$	54,819.47
76-Juv Detention Facility	$	2297.42
TOTAL
$ 249,969.29
Upon motion made by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Letz,
the Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to pay the claims an.i accounts.
ORDER NO. 30523
MONTHLY REPORTS
Caine to be heard this the 10th day of September, 2007, with a m~~tion made by
Commissioner Oehler, seconded by Commissioner I3ald~~in, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 the following monthly reports:
Constable Pct. # 1
Constable Pct. #4
JI' # 1
Environmental Health