1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT Special Session Monday, September 24, 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 0 ~S O 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I N D E X September 24, 2007 PAGE --- Commissioners' Comments ................................5 1.1 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to approve extension for depositing funds with County Treasurer to the end of each month ............ .11 1.2 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to change County Family Protection fee to $15 in compliance with statutory changes .................... .15 1.3 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on City of Ingram animal control contract ............... .16 1.4 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for preliminary revision of plat for Lot 17, Privilege Creek Ranch; set public hearing for same ............. .19 1.5 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for revision of plat for Lots 1, 5, 6, 11, 12, 13, Block 2 of Hill River Country Estates; set public hearing for same ..................................... .20 1.6 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on Kerr Emergency 9-1-1 Network 2008 proposed budget.... .28 1.7 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to hire Patterson and Company as investment advisers......... .36 1.8 Public Hearing regarding Kerr County FY 2007-2008 budget ............................................... .39 1.12 Public Hearing regarding proposed Kerr County 2007 Tax Rate ........................................ .57 1.14 Public Hearing regarding proposed salary, expenses and other allowances of Kerr County elected county or precinct officers for FY 2007-08 .................. .58 1.9 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to adopt list of organizations which will receive discounts at the Hill County Youth Exhibit Center .............. .58 1.24 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to allow Milton Taylor to have limited temporary access across county land in order to facilitate court- mandated cleanup of his property ..................... .69 1.10 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to give the Hill County Youth Exhibit Center booking agent authority to make discretionary decisions as needed.. .86 1.11 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to approve use of Hill Country Youth Exhibit Center for HILCO annual membership meeting on Feb. 8, 2008, at the same rate as previous year ($162.50) ................. .89 1.13 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on request to locate proposed LCRA transmission line from Rim Rock substation to Stadium Drive substation as originally proposed in 1993, or 91, other more direct/more practical route or solution... 164 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I N D E X (Continued) September 24, 2007 P AGE 1.15 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to adopt the Kerr County Proposed 2007-08 holiday schedule.... 132 1.16 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to adopt the position schedule, step and grade schedule, and general provisions for FY 2007-08 ................ 139 1.17 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to authorize publication of an RFP for preparation of the 2006-2007 audit ............................... 166 1.18 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to adopt resolution stating Kerr County's intent to contract with Tetra Tech, Inc., for continuing engineering services for Center Point wastewater project, contingent upon funding grant from T.W.D.B........... 168 1.19 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on any desired cost-of-living adjustment for Kerr County retirees under T.C.D.R.S. plan ....................... 169 1.20 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to conclude claims on former Treasurer's bond and authorize County Judge to sign release of same....... 171 1.21 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to rescind Court Order #30492 regarding "Donation of Metal Folding Chairs from City of Kerrville", and cause same to be returned ........................ 174 1.22 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to assign employee to Kerr County Extension Office on a full time basis ................................. 176 1.23 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to approve resolution in support of Texas State Arts & Crafts Educational Foundation application to manage Arcadia Theatre as a multi-purpose public events venue .................................. 178 4.1 Pay Bills ............................................179 4.2 Budget Amendments ....................................181 4.3 Late Bills ...........................................--- 4.4 Approve and Accept Monthly Reports ...................181 5.1 Reports from Commissioners/Liaison Committee Assignments ..........................................182 5.2 Reports from Elected Officials/Department Heads......186 --- Adjourned ............................................192 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 On Monday, September 24, 2007, at 9:00 a.m., a special meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in the III Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, Kerrville, Texas, and the following proceedings were had in open court: P R O C E E D I N G S JUDGE TINLEY: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Let me call to order this regularly scheduled meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court which was scheduled and posted for this time and date, Monday, September 24th, 2007, at 9 a.m. It is that time now. Commissioner Baldwin? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. Would you stand and join me in a word of prayer, please, and when we complete ', that, we will do the pledge of allegiance. (Prayer and pledge of allegiance.) COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. 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, this is the time for you to tell us what's on your mind. If you wish to speak on an agenda item, we would ask that you fill out a participation form. They're located at the back of the room. It's not essential, but it's helpful for me to have those so that when we get to that item, I'm aware that there is a request to be heard so that I won't overlook that. However, if you fail to fill out a participation form and wish to be 9-29-07 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 I8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 heard on an agenda item, when we get to that item, just get my attention in some way, shape, form, or fashion; I'll see that you're recognized and have the opportunity to be heard on that item. But right now, if there's any member of the public or the audience that wishes to be heard on any matter that is not a listed agenda item, feel free to come forward at this time. Seeing no one coming forward, we'll move on. Commissioner Baldwin, what do you have for us this morning? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't have much to talk about, Judge. Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Williams? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That was quick. Well, in your absence from talking about the Tivy Antlers, I'll talk about them. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All right. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Had an opportunity to see them Friday night, and they're really exciting. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Pretty fun, aren't they? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Fun to watch. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm not going to make any comments about them. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, that's it. No more Tivy Antlers. In the absence of the Judge and maybe some of my colleagues on Thursday, I had a call from the Sheriff's Department, and any time I get a call from the Sheriff's 9-29-07 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 Department, my heart rate goes up, but this time he wanted me to come out and take a listen to the gentlemen who were down here from the Texas Commission on Jail Standards who were reviewing the jail, its operation and its processes and its records administration, et cetera, et cetera. I did that and signed on behalf of the Court, which is, I think, a requirement. And, so, Judge, I'd be happy to give this to you for your file. We passed with flying colors. JUDGE TINLEY: As usual. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: As usual. On Friday, the next day, at the conclusion of Congressman Smith's appearance and speech at noon at the Inn of the Hills, the Tax Assessor/Collector asked me to host the Secretary of State who was coming into town for a news conference. I think someone dropped the ball in the Secretary of State's office, and the news of his coming for a news conference was sparse. But, nonetheless, we were there with some few folks. Commissioner -- I mean, Justice of the Peace Ragsdale was there, and he took some pictures on behalf of West Kerr Current. And the Secretary of State was here to talk about voter registration and the need to do so, and to recognize Kerr County as a county which they're honoring for its voter registration efforts. County officials, employees of Kerr County play an important role in insuring that Texans are registered and equipped to carry out their most important 9-24-07 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 duty, the right to vote, and we are cited for our excellence in that field. Here's that proclamation, Judge. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Commissioner. Thank you. I think probably a lot of the credit to this goes to our County Clerk, who's in charge of our elections administration. And -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And Voter Registration ~ people. JUDGE TINLEY: And also the Tax Office that has the voter registration that's involved there. And those are the primary operatives when it comes to the election function, and we appreciate their efforts. Anything else? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Letz? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm kind of like number one; I don't have much to say this morning. JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner 4? Mr. Oehler? COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, this -- I'm going to pass out some information on -- that has to do with library. Went to Library Board, of course, on Tuesday, and our new appointee, Mrs. Moseley, and I came up with questions to our head librarian, and we asked for some answers to be given so that we could get a better idea of what we're funding and why we're funding it. And there was a little reluctance, but he did it, and here is the results of it, so that we can use 9-24-07 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 8 that maybe to finalize whatever it is we're going to do with the library budget before we finally adopt it on Friday. It's something I don't think we've seen in quite a while, showing all the various things, and there's -- front page is the answer to the question. First and second page, and actually the third page is a response from the head financial person at the City. And then there are a lot of numbers that are numbers of people and numbers of publications in circulation, so that you can get an idea of -- of what the real usage of the library is. One of the things that I get out of it is they're very short on the number of computers they have. That's probably something that needs to be funded in time, but they didn't ask for any of that this year; they're doing some other things in that regards. Anyway, that -- and also, I think we need to bring up that if we don't get some rain pretty soon, we're going to need to put the burn ban on. This old tall grass is drying out in a hurry, and this winter's going to be pretty critical, I think, to -- to some real problems with fire. The rain was wonderful, but now that -- now that the sun is out and it's curing, it won't take much to have a really severe fire. So, I think if we don't get some kind of moisture in the next few days, I'm -- I believe I'm going to probably put the burn ban on in Precinct 4. 25 ~ COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Were you and Mrs. Moseley 9-29-07 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 satisfied with these responses? COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We -- yes. We believe that we were -- it was answered, you know, to the best of their ability. We don't believe the numbers were -- were tampered with or anything like that. And it -- most of the stuff is -- you're not going to see an exact head count of users. From what I derived from it, it seems to be somewhere between 70 and 200 a day of actual people walking through the door. And I think in the past, we've been told up to 500 to 700, and I don't think the numbers in here will reflect that. Anyway, that is being used a lot, and it will show you that the majority of the users are going to be your -- your older people, from 50 years up, are going to be the majority of the users of that, but that's our population. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think older folks are 60 and up. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, I know. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Not 50. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I tend to agree with that. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: But I believe that -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It is what it is, guys. (Laughter.) COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So, anyway, that's kind of my little report on the library things. We have not gotten any 9-24-07 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 numbers, to my knowledge, on the usage of that facility, and basically what I wanted when we asked the questions, we want justification for the funding. And I don't think we ought to fund it without justification, so -- and I believe we have some now, finally. That's all I have. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Commissioner Baldwin, in a few years, what will be the definition of "older"? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's changing. JUDGE TINLEY: I see. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The number's moving around, even as we speak. I think a fellow from -- the nice Christian man that's touring New York today from Iran or someplace, that's one of his issues, is to set the -- the age for Americans. When -- you know, when are you old? See, that's one of his deals. And -- JUDGE TINLEY: I must have missed that. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Anything else you need to know? COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, if you live long enough, you get old. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what I've heard. Can I borrow a pen? JUDGE TINLEY: Sure. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: I would like to make everyone 9-24-07 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 aware -- as I'm sure most of you have seen, we have a -- a nice new gazebo out here on the courthouse lawn, and that was a gift to us from a private benefactor in honor and memory of his late wife, and that will be known as the Frances Lehmann Pavilion and Gazebo. And we're going to have a dedication of that -- of that facility on the 12th day of October; be at 2 o'clock in the afternoon right out there at the gazebo. And we'd -- we hope any of you that can be will be there and join us as we accept this gift and dedicate it in memory of the late Mrs. Lehmann. That's all I've got. Let's get on down to business. The first item that we have is consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to approve the extension for depositing funds with the County Treasurer for the end of each month per Local Government Code Section 113.022. Ms. Pieper? MS. PIEPER: Gentlemen, this code states that -- that the officer who receives funds shall deposit them with the County Treasurer on or before the next regular business day, and if that deadline is not met, then it has to be on or before the 7th business day. That statute also goes on to say that with the Commissioners Court approval, they may extend that period which the funds will be deposited, not to exceed 30 days. So, I'm here requesting that we continue as all elected officials are doing for the meantime, until we can get more of our software program bugs worked out, to 9-24-07 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 where we submit them at the end of each month. I've talked with the Treasurer, and she is not at a point to where she can accept these daily as well. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How long do you think that process will take? MS. PIEPER: We've been working on programming this software for a year now. I don't know. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You know, since our purpose is to -- to maximize our opportunities for earnings, it would seem to me the sooner we get the money in the bank -- MS. PIEPER: It's not any different than her -- than her drawing interest on the bank account or me drawing the interest in mine. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's a lot different, because we're getting ready to go with an investment policy that's going to be changing greatly the amount of revenue that we get by investing on an almost daily basis, not in bank accounts. Banks are very inefficient ways to earn money. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's my point. COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're changing the whole county's investment strategy. And I understand y'all have a problem, but we need to get, as soon as we can, to a system of at least getting in weekly deposits. Because money being held, I mean, at, you know, whatever the banks are paying versus, say, another one point or three-quarters of a point 9-24-07 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 more that we can get through investments is a huge total when we take it yearlong for the county, the amount of money that goes through our system. MS. PIEPER: Hopefully they'll get the software working accurately in time. JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Pieper, the authorization from the Commissioners Court to permit that period of time to be extended, that is applicable to counties with populations of 50,000 or less, is it not? MS. PIEPER: That is correct. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Well, with our rate of growth being what it is, it's anticipated that we're going to be there anyway here pretty quick. MS. PIEPER: Right. In our next census, yes. Yes. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's another issue, too. We spent a good bit of time talking about controls. Part of the controls that the Auditor and Treasurer need to be vigilant over is the deposit of money and the -- the controls that go with that. So, to stretch it out for 30 days, to me, seems to be counterproductive. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion that we authorize -- I'm thinking if I want to do all of them or just one. Actually, we can only deal with one, 'cause only one is on the agenda. Authorize the County Clerk to make deposits monthly through the end of the year, and come back at that 9-24-07 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 time with a plan as to how long, you know, to extend it beyond that. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'll second it. And I believe the reason for that is we -- is right now, our County Treasurer does not have the staff to do this daily. I think it's something we need to grow into, and seems to me that at some point we need to -- the ones that are ready to start doing it on a daily or a weekly basis can start doing that and kind of phase it in over time, and not have it all hit the same day. 'Cause we're going to have to -- we're going to have to fund more money, I believe, for another position in the Treasurer's office to be able to handle the daily deposits. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's why I mentioned weekly. And I think we need to plan. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we need to start. We need to get -- we can't just be talking about it; we need to start doing it. And I think we've put a deadline on this order. That's the way to get a plan. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah. JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion and second as indicated. Further question or discussion on the motion? All in favor of that motion, signify by raising your right hand. 9-24-07 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Jannett, since you're the first one to come to the Court, I think we can do it -- my preference would be end of the year, maybe do it all at one time, so we don't -- if you do put it back on the agenda, try to do a county-wide policy. MS. PIEPER: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Try to get something worked up through Mindy and whoever else can work on coming up with some plan so everyone knows where we're going. JUDGE TINLEY: Next item; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to change County Family Protection fee to $15 in compliance with the statutory changes to Government Code Section 51.961. Mr. Emerson? MR. EMERSON: Yes, sir. The Attorney General came out last year and declared that of the original $30 fee that was declared by the Legislature, $15 was set up two years ago to go to the state, $15 to stay within the county. The Attorney General came out at the beginning of summer and said the $15 that was to accede to the state is unconstitutional. Cannot do that. So, we have two issues, one of which is the County's been collecting the $30. The County can keep the 9-24-07 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 whole $30, 'cause that's what the court order authorized pursuant to statute. But going from here forward, the statute has changed, and the statutory limit has been decreased back down to $15, and we need a court order decreasing that family fee down to $15 again. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion that the County Family Protection fee be set at $15 in compliance with Government Code 51.961. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as indicated. Question or discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. We'll move to Item 3; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on the City of Ingram animal control contract. MS. ROMAN: Good morning. Our County Attorney and the City of Ingram Attorney have worked out the agreement regarding Animal Control. I've looked it over. It's pretty simple. I'm pleased with it. I would like y'all to look over it and see if there's anything that -- any questions that y'all might have. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How many man-hours are you 9-24-07 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 going to devote to this project? MS. ROMAN: Approximately -- well, approximately a halftime officer, is basically what it boils down to. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Only one thing. In the contract on Page 2, it seems -- and I don't know whether we need to specify being a halftime employee to do this or what. It says not fewer than two, and that's kind of what we have. Sometimes we have more than that. But that's what the city contract with Kerrville requires, and I'm not sure if we need to change that to -- MS. ROMAN: That was my question to Rex. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- halftime employee so that they don't think they're getting two full-time people. MR. EMERSON: We had extensive discussions about that, and the reason we left that alone is because these are the minimum standards for the county to maintain for the whole facility, not just for Ingram's little piece of it. MS. ROMAN: Right. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay. That was my question. JUDGE TINLEY: Contract's otherwise acceptable to you, Mr. Emerson? MR. EMERSON: Yes, Your Honor. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Janie, what did we do with staffing in your department for this next year? We added a half? 9-29-07 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 MS. ROMAN: One other employee, which is going to be half kennel, half A.C.O. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Pretty reasonable for doubling the size of the facility. MS. ROMAN: Right. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm just looking at you; I want to make sure that we're -- that the staff's not -- doesn't need to get larger. We're taking on more and more work all the time. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think this is a good time to prove that up. If it needs to be in the next year -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can look at it. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We can look at it some more. She believes she can handle it the way it is. MS. ROMAN: I believe we can make this work. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I move for approval of the contract. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of the agenda item. Any question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 25 ~ (No response.) 9-24-07 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 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. We'll go to Item 4; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action for the preliminary revision of plat for Lot 17, Privilege Creek Ranch, as set forth in Volume 8, Page 21 of the Plat Records, and set a public hearing for the same, same being located in Precinct 3. MR. ODOM: Good morning. This revision will make 15 lots of 108.97 acres. The lots are numbered 17A through 30. Friday afternoon -- right now, everything seems to be in order, and I want to set -- it's on the agenda to set a date. But Friday afternoon, a little bit after 2 o'clock, I got a call from Tish, and she said that she had not had enough time to review it. She was reviewing it Friday afternoon, I guess, for the first time, and that she needed contours for these individual lots. And I told her this is a revision, and normally what happens, that the contours were given on the original, and that -- but she needed it for individual lots. So, I told her to contact Mr. Grogan to see if he had those contours or not, and that if she felt like she couldn't have time to review it, then she could certainly be here. And I see she's here to talk to the Court that -- not to approve this revision at this time. But as I see it, I would like to set a public hearing for November the 12th, 2007, at 10:05 a.m. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval. 9-24-07 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 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and a second to set a public hearing on the matter for November the 12th, 2007, I at 10:05 a.m. Any question or discussion on that motion? All in favor of that motion, signify by raising your right hand. (Commissioners Baldwin, Williams, and Oehler voted in favor of the motion.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Abstain. JUDGE TINLEY: Let the record reflect that Commissioner Letz neither participated in the discussion or voted on the matter. Let's move to Item 5, if we might; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action for revision of plat for Lots 1, 5, 6, 11, 12, 13, in Block 2 of Hill River Country Estates, as set forth in Volume 3, Pages 118 and 119, and set a public hearing for the same, the same being located in -- in Precinct 2. Commissioner Williams? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Judge. This is not as complicated as it might look on the surface, but I want to -- before we get into it, I want to take an opportunity to introduce to the Court a young man who -- who our actions today will affect. Michael, would you come up to the podium, please? Let me introduce you to -- to members of the Court and the audience. Don't be nervous. That's fine 9-24-07 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 right there. Good. Thank you very much. I'd like to introduce to the members of the Court and the public Sergeant Michael Boothby, United States Army, who served two tours of duty in Iraq. Michael served in the 423rd Infantry Division, Company A, with the 172nd Striker Unit. He was a gunner on a striker unit. Michael also served six months on the Syrian ', border and six months in Mozul, a well-known hotbed of terrorist activity. Michael's striker was hit by an IED for the fifth time on September 17th, 2006. This time he was critically injured. Half of Michael's skull was blown away by the explosion. He was immediately sent to Balad, Iraq, where he was 14 days in a coma and was in surgery every day between the 7th and the 14th day. From Balad, Michael was sent to Germany for additional care, then to Bethesda, Maryland. After Bethesda, Michael was transferred to James Haley Veterans Hospital in Tampa, Florida, for continuing rehabilitation, and he continues his rehabilitation now. He and his wife Megan are expecting their fourth child, and this is -- the property that we're going to talk about is being given to Michael by his grandfather so he can make his residence in Kerr County. We thank you for your service. (Applause.) JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Michael. You may -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would you like to say something, Michael? 9-24-07 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. BOOTHBY: I don't know what to say. I'll be happy to answer any questions that are asked of me, but I really don't know what to say. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We appreciate you coming to court this morning. Appreciate your service to the United States, and God bless you and your wife. Mr. Odom, would you tell us what this is all about, please? MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. Thank you, Michael. This situation came to our attention when the owner applied for a septic. The original piece of land was 2.8 acres. Two small pieces were sold to adjoining landowners. First one was sold to the owner of Lots 5 and 6. The second piece was sold to the owner of Lots 11, 12 and 13. 1.003 acres, as shown as Tract I, was sold to the grandson, and this is where the new O.S.S.F. is to be placed. The remaining 1.509 acre, proposed to be Lot lA, Block 2, is to be used for a new well lot to improve and increase the water system that's currently located on Lot 5, Block 1. The grandson and his wife have a manufactured home in place, and are anxious to proceed with the installation of the septic. The earliest we can complete the platting process will be November the 12th, 2007, and having to wait until then for occupancy will be a great hardship on this family. Since all parties involved in this division have made every -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Every effort, in a very 9-24-07 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 timely manner, to correct the situation, and Mr. Holloway has assured he will complete the platting process -- Mr. Holloway is the grandfather of this young man -- we're going to ask the Court to consider allowing Environmental Health to issue a construction permit in advance of completion of the platting process. Now, if there are questions about the platting process the Court has, we'll deal with those right now. MR. ODOM: Right. And -- and as Mr. Williams says -- Commissioner Williams, we also ask for a permit to operate. Not only to permit this, but to operate this. And at this time, we need to set a public hearing for revision of plat for Hill Country River Estates, Volume 3, Page 118 through -19, for November the 12th, 2007, at 10 a.m. And any questions on the platting -- but this is a bad situation; we're correcting it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: First of all, on the septic issue, our intent is not to stop development. I mean, so we don't need any kind of waiver. That goes without saying, in my opinion. It's just to get -- it's more of a notification issue for us than anything else. And we've been notified, and they're -- and the individuals are proceeding, so, clearly, that septic can now go forward, in my opinion. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think we even need a 9-24-07 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 court order on that. That's just -- I mean, we can do one. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I think, probably, Commissioner, since there -- there seems to be some confusion in terms of enforcement, it might not be a bad idea for -- at the conclusion of our discussion, just for the Court to instruct Environmental Health Department to issue a construction permit so this can proceed. That probably is not a bad idea. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I have no problem with that. But, I mean, I don't -- our intent is to find the problems, not to delay people building homes. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Exactly. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Things of that nature. The platting issue, do you know if they're platting again? I mean, I see lot -- or Tract 1, which is 1.003 acres, and that's -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You've got to go to an earlier map, Commissioner, because that 1.07 -- 1.003 acres there -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- is the combination of several pieces of property. Am I correct, Leonard? MR. ODOM: That's correct. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: To -- to enable access, ingress and egress to this property, giving an easement for 9-24-07 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 25 entrance into this particular property. MR. ODOM: Yes. What they had done previously was to take Lot 5 and 6. They sold -- one person owned Lot 5 and 6. They had sold that piece of -- that parcel behind it. Then Lots 11, 12 and 13, they sold that parcel behind it there. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right. MR. ODOM: Without platting, okay? They brought it into Tract 1 -- or -- or Block 2, and Block 1 is down here with Lot 1. So, essentially -- and then they were given an easement. Well, that easement's all right under the 1.03, but we thought it was better to plat everything. And then this proposed Lot lA, Block 2, is to be the new well. COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's the acreage in -- is this 1.003 acres? MR. ODOM: .0327, and .269. And this 1.5 is the I well lot. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right. MR. ODOM: And 1.003 is the -- where the young man's going to live. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I -- this is the same situation we've done many times where we're taking old subdivisions, very small lots, and they're being combined into larger lots, and that's the direction this Court's consistently -- 9-29-07 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 MR. ODOM: That's right. COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- been in favor of doing. MR. ODOM: Yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Like you say, the lot for this young man is -- doesn't require platting. MR. ODOM: Doesn't require -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: It makes it better, in my opinion, to go ahead and do it all at once. MR. ODOM: All at once. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, we just need to set a public hearing? MR. ODOM: That's right. This is -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What day are you proposing? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll move we set a public hearing for -- MR. ODOM: Hang on just a second. COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- for 10 o'clock on the 12th, I believe. MR. ODOM: On the 12th of November, 10 o'clock, I I believe. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second that. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for a public hearing on this matter for November the 12th, 2007, at 10 a.m. 25 ~ COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I just -- you know -- 9-24-07 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 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And instruct Environmental Health to issue a construction permit for the septic. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I think -- I mean, instruct them to proceed with the process. I mean, I don't -- once they've done their evaluation. I mean, it needs to be in compliance, but -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, yeah, exactly. Sure. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. But it's a -- there shouldn't be any holdup, in my mind, approving it for construction, assuming the system is in compliance as designed. JUDGE TINLEY: Any question or comments on the I motion? MR. ODOM: Did I answer your questions sufficiently, so that you understood? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. MR. ODOM: It was a little bit complicated, but I think cleans it up and makes it where it's good for everybody. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is this that property right at the very end of the -- ', COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This is way up on top, on Hill River Estates. And the point you made earlier about combining these small lots into one is a good thing. And this particular property is adjacent to Camp C.A.M.P. way up 9-29-07 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 28 on the top of the hill over there. MR. ODOM: Right at the very end. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions or comments 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.) THE WITNESS: That motion does carry. We had a timed item for 9:30. It's a bit past that now, so I will call Item 6; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on Kerr Emergency 911 Network 2008 proposed budget. Mr. Amerine? MR. AMERINE: Judge Tinley, Commissioners, I'm Bill Amerine I'm with Kerr Emergency 911 Network. I'm here to present the 2008 proposed budget. In accordance with Texas Health and Safety Code 772, Subchapter D, the Director shall prepare, under the direction of the board of managers, an annual budget for the districts. To be effective, the budget must be approved by the board, which was done on the 30th of August. Must be presented and approved by Commissioners Court; that's why I'm here today. Be presented and approved by governing bodies of each other participating jurisdiction. City of Kerrville will be tomorrow evening, and Ingram was on 9-24-07 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 the 18th of September. Budget highlights. This is a balanced budget. We do anticipate expenditure increases from 2007 of about $10,343, which is a 3.04 percent increase. The majority of those increases are on staff training and professional seminars, as well as increase in professional fees that we pay for audit and C.P.A. services. Because of staff restructures, we anticipate a reduction overall -- a reduced overall employee cost overhead of about $9,069, or about 7.66 percent on our overall employee cost. Our goals for 2008 are to complete all Phase I and Phase II provisioning by early 2008, and I'll talk a little bit more about that in a minute. Provide interactive map capability for K.S.O.; the contract for that has been approved. We're just waiting for schedules so that we can install this. And what that is, for some time City of Kerrville has had an interactive map capability with the 911 system that allows the dispatcher to see an actual map of where a call originates from. We did not install it in the Sheriff's Office back in March of last year because the county data was not at a point where it would be of any use. In other words, they'd have the map, but they wouldn't have the ability to pinpoint the call location in the county. Well, that was completed in August. The grant was at work for getting those data files completed, and so the 9-24-07 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 order has gone forward to purchase that mapping software and install it for the Sheriff. It's going to be of great help, because it's going to be able to allow the dispatchers to provide directions to the dispatching officer of exactly how to get to that location. Also, Phase I and Phase II wireless is in place. It will pinpoint with latitude and longitude the location of the wireless call, and that mapping application will -- again, will give an investigator indication of where that call originates from. We're going to spend a little bit more money in 2008 on 911 public education and awareness. We're going to continue to be address agents for the city of Ingram and Kerr County, and of course will continue to sell signs. Since we started the sign sales, we've sold 11,000 signs. Although that sounds really good, we still see a lot of them out there. By our estimation, there's at least 4,000 homeowners in Kerr County that still don't have any signage, so we'll continue to press that. Happy to answer any questions the Court has. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are signs still $5? MR. AMERINE: Still $5 for single-sided signs. We make them in about two and a half minutes right in our office. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Best deal in down. COMMISSIONER LETZ: When will the -- maybe you answered this and I was reading and didn't listen. When will 9-24-07 3l 1 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 wireless stuff be done? MR. AMERINE: Well, you know, we signed a contract with Intrado in October of 2006 to take our stand-alone database for location information, which is over at our PSAP at the police department, and move that remotely to two locations, and have them do validation of that data as that data is fed to them by the phone company. We still haven't completed that process. Intrado has been involved in a lawsuit with Greater Harris County 911, and was renegotiating their state contract. So, because we're small, not spending a lot of money with them, we're not getting a lot of attention from them. But we're starting to see progress; that's going to be wrapped up. We have set the circuits in place with AT&T and Windstream to get the selective routing capability for the Walnut tandem in San Antonio that we need to get the wireless in place. As soon as those circuits are tested, which I expect to be done in about two to three weeks, we'll submit the Phase I service request. All the wireless carriers. We'll get Phase I done before the end of this year, Phase II by probably the second quarter of next year. So, we have all the steps in place, and we -- as a contingency, since we don't want to wait on Intrado any longer, we'll make those service requests whether the database goes remote or not. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, that whole wireless phase 9-29-07 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 I2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 will be done by the end of this year, and -- MR. AMERINE: Phase I by the end of year, this year. Phase I, I've talked about in previous years, will provide the cell tower location, with a physical address of where the call is being handled, and Phase II will actually provide a latitude and longitude of where that call originated from. So, it will be in two phases. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Be great to get that -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Bill, you talk about Kerr 911 will retain a 5.25 percent surcharge rate. Is that a reserve? Is that what you're talking about? MR. AMERINE: No. Every year, as part of our budget process, we're required by 772, Subchapter D, to evaluate the surcharge that we charge each phone customer. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, I got you. MR. AMERINE: And we reduced that, if you remember, from 6 percent to 5.25 percent last year. Until we fully understand what the cost of Phase I and Phase II is going to be, we didn't want to reduce that fee any further this year. However, I anticipate, 'cause we have a pretty good idea what the cost will be, that in the 2008-9 budget, we'll drop that probably another 12 percent. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What is the rate that's currently put on land lines -- and we'll get to cell phones -- per line as a 911 charge? 9-24-07 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 MR. AMERINE: 36 percent -- 36 cents. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 36 cents. MR. AMERINE: Per month. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that down from 41? MR. AMERINE: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. And what'-- what charge is put on cell phone use? MR. AMERINE: Fifty cents. That's set by the State. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. MR. AMERINE: We don't have any authority over that. State Comptroller and CSEC, Commission on Emergency Communications, sets that rate. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, thank you. MR. AMERINE: You bet. JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Amerine, there was an issue here fairly recently about two subdivisions having similar names and causing confusion about where emergency service response should be because of the confusion of the names of the subdivisions. MR. AMERINE: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: This mapping technology that you're going to get installed in the Sheriff's Office, that will resolve that problem, won't it? MR. AMERINE: Yes, it will. It will also resolve 9-24-07 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 34 to a larger extent some of the -- as you know, we have known -- we made some efforts in 2003 and -4 to resolve the duplicate road names. We still have some that are remarkably similar. This will resolve that as well. So, we have a lot of "Oak" roads in Kerr County, and this will pinpoint those much better. COMMISSIONER LETZ: On your revenue line items under 101, local 911 service, is that the fee that comes off of every land line? MR. AMERINE: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And by looking at this, the trend appears that there are fewer land lines, or are we paying less money, receiving less, or both? MR. AMERINE: Well, both. It's actually both. We're paying less and we're having less land lines. Time-Warner Cable is anxiously waiting for us to get this selective router in San Antonio up so that they can start providing VoIP via the cable modems that they provide for tel -- for TV service. We expect to see a lot more folks go I! to these kind of call plans, because long distance local charges are much less than traditional. We also have Vonage in our area, and people are opting -- even though it gives us at 911 a little bit of caution, they're opting to use cell phones only. Even with the technology I'm talking about with Phase I and Phase II, it's not precise like a physical 9-29-07 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 35 address is, but a lot of folks are going to wireless phones instead of traditional phones in their homes. That's why that's going down; it's both of those reasons. COMMISSIONER LETZ: My final comment is, overall, you're doing a very good job of keeping the line under budget. This is up from last year, but if you look back through 2005, we're below 2005. You've done a -- in my mind, an excellent job of getting the addressing off high center and continuing to upgrade the technology and equipment, so keep it up. MR. AMERINE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER LETZ: We need to approve it? MR. AMERINE: I need approval. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval. Any question or discussion on the motion? Appreciate the presentation materials that you provided. They were very comprehensive, and very understandable too. MR. AMERINE: Thank you, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. 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. 9-24-07 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 36 (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. It's not quite 9:45. We'll move to Item 7; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to hire Patterson and Company as investment advisers for Kerr County. Ms. Hargis? MS. HARGIS: I think y'all have a copy of the final II draft that Ms. Patterson sent to us. And -- and Rex and I -- it reflects all of his corrections. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This is signed off on by the County Attorney? MS. HARGIS: Yes. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval as presented. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of the agenda item. Any further question or discussion? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have a couple of questions. Ms. Hargis, this is a one-year -- MS. HARGIS: Yes. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- a one-year document? MS. HARGIS: Right. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Now, the one single thing that I liked about the entire thought was that our -- our County Treasurer -- our new County Treasurer, through this document, will be trained and -- and be able to understand -- 9-24-07 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 37 MS. HARGIS: Yes. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- investments and those ~I I things that a County Treasurer is required to do. MS. HARGIS: And she'll also prepare the quarterly report and the annual report, which will be of great assistance to the -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's wonderful; I'm glad she's doing that, but my -- my single thing that I focused on when y'all were in here was the training for our County Treasurer. And that's one thing I'm going to keep a close eye on, and if -- at the end of this first year, if I'm uncomfortable with that, I will not vote for this again. MS. HARGIS: Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Any other question or comment? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I just -- I think it's -- I'm very thankful of Ms. Hargis and the Treasurer for bringing this forward and coming up with a mechanism to handle the County's and the public's funds in a much better way than we have in the past, and give the different revenues to the taxpayers. JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Hargis, compensation to be paid under this agreement, there are two different methodologies. Are we dealing with the lesser of the two? MS. HARGIS: I would prefer we deal with the lesser 9-24-07 38 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 I9 20 21 22 23 24 25 of the two, which is to take a percentage, because I think the percentage will come in around 14,000. JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. MS. HARGIS: And that's what I budgeted. JUDGE TINLEY: But that's where we are here? We've got an alternative to deal with? MS. HARGIS: Yes. She asked you, and you asked for both, so she gave you both. i JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MS. HARGIS: Yeah, I would -- I would take the lesser, because that's based on the portfolio, and we won't have necessarily all of our portfolio with her. There's some that we'll manage on our own, and I'll help the new -- Mindy with that as well. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. So, the -- so, the percentage compensation is the one that you're recommending to be approved -- MS. HARGIS: Yes. JUDGE TINLEY: -- as part of the contract? MS. HARGIS: Yes. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That would be inclusive in my motion, Judge. JUDGE TINLEY: That would be included in your motion? All right, very well. Any further question or 9-24-07 39 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 I8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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. It is a bit past 9:45 now. I will recess the Commissioners Court meeting at this time, and I will convene a public hearing which was scheduled for 9:45 this morning regarding the Kerr County Fiscal Year 2007-2008 budget. (The regular Commissioners Court meeting was closed at 9:50 a.m., and a public hearing was held in open court, as follows:) P U B L I C H E A R I N G JUDGE TINLEY: Is there any member of the public that wishes to be heard concerning the Kerr County FY 2007-08 budget? I have two participation forms here that have been furnished to me previously. Mr. Benham? MR. BENHAM: Mr. Lipscomb was here first, but if you want to -- JUDGE TINLEY: All right, sir. I've got his also, and he brought them up, so if you want to come on up and -- MR. LUTHER: I didn't fill one out, Judge. JUDGE TINLEY: That's fine. We'll get to you, sir. MR. LUTHER: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. As I indicated at the 9-24-07 40 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 beginning of the meeting, it's not essential. Just make sure I don't miss you. MR. LUTHER: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: All right, sir. Mr. Lipscomb, if you'd give us your full name and address, please, and tell us j what's on your mind. MR. LIPSCOMB: Full name's John David Lipscomb. I reside at 909 Lake Drive here in Kerrville. Judge, Commissioners, and fellow Kerr County residents, I'm here this morning to talk about the proposed budget item; in particular, one item about reduced funding for the library. First of all, let me say as a taxpayer, I encourage the Commissioners' efforts to be good stewards of our county tax dollars. It's a task that requires making a lot of tough choices. However, I must object to one of those choices, and that is the one that reduces full funding for the library. I find it sadly ironic that Butt-Holdsworth Memorial Library is celebrating 40 years of service to this community in its current facility, and still does not have a stable funding source. It was just two years ago that the County decided to cut public -- excuse me, library funding. That was the year the Peterson/Cailloux Foundations stepped forward with funding and averted a reduction in service. At the time, the foundations made it perfectly clear that the rescue was to be 9-24-07 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 a one-time event, as those foundations do not feel it is their place to support a public library, and rightfully so. Public libraries are to be financially supported with public funds. Hopefully this funding situation can be resolved in the near future. That hope is based on a resent request by one Commissioner for statistics concerning library usage, a positive sign that Commissioners are seeking a better understanding of library operation. But a word of caution; statistics alone cannot tell the entire story. There are both tangible and intangible benefits associated with any service. Consider a scenario where, during a period, county-wide statistics reflect a reduction in arrests, traffic violations, burglaries, et cetera. Will patrol cars ' be sold, law enforcement personnel be laid off based on what could be just a short-term trend? I'm sure a review of data representing library operations during a period -- over a period of years will provide assurance the library is performing with expenses in proportion to services provided, especially when compared to other Texas libraries of comparable size. In closing, the library is open 58 hours a week, ready to provide services to anyone and everyone. The library should receive full funding. Thank you very much. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Lipscomb. I Mr. Benham? 9-24-07 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. BENHAM: Thank you. Thank you, Your Honor. Joseph Benham, 609 Rim Rock. Your Honor, with your indulgence, I'd like to preface my remarks on the budget by expressing my thanks and that of my wife for the quick action that your Road and Bridge folks took on the potholes that developed in our road during and after all of those heavy rains. I wasn't sure that the shocks in my old pickup were going to survive all those potholes, but your people got in there quickly and worked on them, and I'm sure will continue to stay on top of it, and we're grateful for that. And if you'll convey my thanks, I will be grateful. I'm sure that my new county Commissioner, Mr. Baldwin, had a significant hand in that, and I'm grateful to him. I have to say, I am distinctly impressed to see him in a white shirt and tie. This -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Especially after having that shovel up there filling up your pothole. (Laughter.) Not easy. MR. BENHAM: Momentous event. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It is. MR. BENHAM: I would like to also express my personal appreciation to the Judge for his warm welcome when I came over to his table at the Chamber of Commerce banquet, where I was happy to see him there supporting that important organization. Gentlemen, I won't duplicate the eloquent 9-24-07 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 remarks of my good friend, Mr. Lipscomb. I would remind you of two things. First of all, the growth in this county is occurring largely -- not entirely, but largely outside of the city of Kerrville. It is your constituents, although your constituents are also Kerr County residents -- city of Kerrville, pardon me. Your constituents are city of Kerrville residents, as I was until recently, but they -- many of them live outside the city limits of Kerrville. Therefore, our library is a city/county facility. It is used heavily by people who live outside the city limits of Kerrville, and I would urge you to keep that in mind as you are approaching this. I will duplicate one thing that Mr. Lipscomb said, and that is that I sympathize with you greatly on the difficulty of finding enough money to fund essential services with what you have available to you. I personally think that our Legislature made a huge mistake -- even though I benefit from it indirectly, I guess, or in one way, I think our Legislature made a huge mistake in dumping this tax freeze for senior citizens on the local governments in such a way that it probably would have been almost impossible for you to oppose it if you wanted to get re-elected. I've been covering politics since the mid-1950's, and I understand the realities of elections. However, to tell the counties and the cities, "You go to your voters and tell them that they 9-24-07 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 can freeze their taxes if they're over 65 or disabled," both At the same time, I continue to believe that this library is a sufficiently important element in this community. I hear people say -- and my friend, Mr. Nicholson, used to enjoy needling me about this -- how, "Oh, we can get what we need off the Internet. I can go into Wikipedia and find what I need; I don't need to go to the library." Well, I don't know if all of you know it; I'm sure some of you do. Any one of you could leave this room during your break, go in, bring up Wikipedia on your computer, and put anything in it you want to. There is no accountability for Wikipedia. There is no accountability for an awful lot of the other things that are on the Internet. MoveOn.org is a prime user of the Internet, and I dare say all of you saw that scurrilous ad they recently ran regarding one of our most distinguished military leaders. I -- I use the Internet some. I use my own library, I use the Internet, and I use the Butt-Holdsworth Library, all three. But I think to say we can simply depend on Wikipedia -- on the Internet for our information is not, frankly, a responsible attitude. 9-24-07 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 I'll say one more thing, then I'll be happy to try to answer any questions. When we had a -- when you gentlemen were facing this a year ago, you may remember -- you weren't on the Commission yet, Mr. Oehler, but the others were -- a gentleman whom I don't know, a feisty little fellow from out in the west part of the county somewhere. He came up here and he said, I've never spoken at a public meeting before, but, he said, I feel so strongly about this that I'm going to tell you that I want you -- my wife and I want you to fund this library fully, want you to meet your full obligation on this library. He said -- and this is the key part of what he had to say -- we are a literate community. The people who are moving in here from elsewhere are literate people. They read. They're, in many cases, very well-educated, and we need that library. And he wanted you to fund it. Well, we are a literate community, gentlemen. We are a community that's increasingly made up of people who are better educated than their parents or their grandparents were, and we need this library. I don't minimize the difficulty of coming up with money. You don't have the privilege that the federal government does of just printing more when you run out. You have to make what you have stretch. But I would urge you with all my heart to please find the money to fund your half of that budget, and your half of that budget is more than the 9-24-07 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 $400,000 that I understand is in this year's proposed budget. As always, I'm grateful to you for your time. I'm grateful to you for your service to this community. You gentlemen put in an awful lot of time for not a whole lot of money, although you get paid more than some public servants, but not nearly enough, and I'm grateful for that. But I would urge you to redouble your efforts to find this money. If I can answer any questions, I'll be happy to, but otherwise, I'll yield the floor. JUDGE TINLEY: Any questions for Mr. Benham? Thank you, sir. MR. BENHAM: Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, sir? If you'd come forward and give us your name and address and give your comments, please, sir. MR. LUTHER: Sure. Thank you very much, Judge. My name is Joe Luther; I'm a county resident. I live at 113 Spring Branch Drive, which is out in Saddlewood. I'm here today on behalf of your Kerr County Historical Commission, of which I am the vice chairman. I'd also like to speak to you from the perspective of the presidency of the Kerrville Genealogical Society. I'm a heavy user of the library. I have been all my life. I just retired from the University of Nebraska, where I was a professor for over 30 years. Obviously, my students are heavy users of libraries, and I 9-29-07 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 think you understand why. And you've certainly heard the comments that have been made today. I'd like to just very briefly say that I believe the library is the basis of economic development in the county. I believe the library that I prepared earlier concerning the characteristics of our population. There's a couple of sayings that go here. My favorite one is, "The problem with today is that tomorrow isn't what it was yesterday." That's kind of a catchy thing, but the problem with today is that tomorrow isn't what it was yesterday. And you'll note that 25 percent of the population of Kerr County in the year 2000 was over age 65, and as I understand from talking to other people, today it's closer to 30 percent. Now, these are people who, by and large, are retired. They represent an important part, if not the most critical part of the economic base of Kerr County, because what they represent are transfer payments. If I can use myself as an example, I moved back home. I grew up here, graduated from Tivy High School in '61 and went off to see the world, and I've just come home. I bring a lot of money into this community. That's money that comes from outside. It's Social Security money; it's my pension money from my retirement program, and my pension money from the Veterans Administration. I spend that money right here in Kerr 9-24-07 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 48 County, and because of that, it has a multiplier effect of I believe that, by and large, the senior citizens unty are well educated. They have a lot of leisure Society and at the Historical Commission, that by and large, a lot of these people are very, very interested in the history of this area. I think if you look at the number of people that turned out for the Camp Verde celebration, the number of people that attend and participate in historically-related events here, demonstrate their strong interest. I believe that if a person was looking at the description of Kerrville on the Internet and seeking a good place to retire, that the library quality would certainly be a major part of that. I would want to know that there's a good library here. And, fortunately, because I had visited my parents here so much, I had a good idea of what was involved with the library. We have plans. The Genealogical Society is just county Historical Commission is in the process of engendering exhibits, new relationships with the Schreiner University and with the library. Our collections are growing. We are one 9-24-07 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 of the public-accessible collections of old photographs that are not in somebody's private hands, but in fact can be looked at by the local public, and we're doing a lot of digital photography work at the present time. So, let me just conclude by saying I urge you to consider increasing your support for the library, because I think you get a good return on investment. I think it's a real high-leverage item here, and that we recognize that we have a good quality library here that attracts a lot of people. And if you don't believe me, try finding a parking spot down there after lunch. Thank you. I'll be happy to answer any questions. JUDGE TINLEY: Any questions for Mr. Luther? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, Mr. Luther. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. We appreciate it. Is there anyone else that wishes to be heard concerning or regarding the Kerr County FY 2007-08 budget? AUDIENCE: One back here. JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, ma'am. If you'd come forward and give us your name and address, and tell us -- tell us what you wish. MS. TROLINGER: My name is Judy Trolinger. I live at 126 Pleasure Hill Road, Ingram, Texas. We're residents of the county. I was just going to sit and listen, but I -- I'll keep this short. The library. You do not need electricity to read a book or a newspaper, and I think that 9-24-07 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 50 needs to be kept in mind. I use the Internet. It's great, hold onto our past, and especially for Kerr County. We've been lucky; we have not lost the courthouse. Look at what happens when Mother Nature hits, and courthouses and libraries and all our educational systems can just be wiped out. So, while the Internet is great, we've got a lot of people in this community that will not get computers, because we are a large retirement center. As far as the History Center itself, we come under over to Mr. Antonio Martinez, the director, to get full access to Ancestry.com, which is one of the biggies for genealogists. We're paying for that out of our funds. And a lot of people think libraries are obsolete. "What do you need a library for?" Like I said, you can't -- books don't need electricity. And as far as the History Center, we're just kind of out there in la-la land; there are still people II that don't know we're there. We're protecting Kerr County history. We have the microfilm -- the newspapers on microfilm back to 1899. That's not on the Internet. You 9-24-07 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 can't find all of Kerr County history on the Internet. We average -- in one month, we can average as high -- we have gone as high as 300 people in that building a month. We're open six days a week. We have people coming in here, they're looking not only for the living relatives; they want to know about Kerr County. We have a web site to where people can post queries. We have had phone calls as far as Japan and Germany that are wanting information for people that are here. And when -- in the overall priority of things, libraries have a tendency to kind of take a back step, and -- but I think it's important that we have it. I first walked into the library we have here in 1969. We have a unique library. It's beautiful. It's right there on the river. It doesn't need to be moved. It needs -- it needs to be maintained. And many a day it's hard to find parking around the library. But I wish you'd really and truly try to pull what you can out of there and support this library before it falls apart, or around our ears. And keep on -- and, again, I will end by saying, books and newspapers don't need electricity. Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Ms. Trolinger. Is there anyone else that wishes to be heard with regard to the Kerr County FY 2007-08 budget? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, can I make a quick comment, if I might? 9-24-07 52 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Surely. COMMISSIONER LETZ: A couple of things that were been part of the Commissioners Court budget. That is a -- was done through grants, and is a City of Kerrville function 100 percent. So, I mean, the City never asked us to be part of that, to my knowledge. And it was done by the City of Kerrville, so anything related to that is not a county function, never has been. Just let me finish, please. The other issue, the -- the funding at the library that is in the budget right now is basically what came out of an agreement between the City of Kerrville and Kerr County last year. Many of you know we have been at odds over this because of the -- what we have felt is a lack of information and a lot of -- of access to information and other things coming from the City of Kerrville, who is the managing partner, so to speak, of the -- of this arrangement. So, we came -- the Commissioners Court came up with a plan, basically, that we're just going to fund a certain amount. We're not -- there's nothing set that we fund half of the library. That's been a common practice for a while. We told the City of Kerrville, and they were very comfortable with the arrangement that we came up with, that we were going to fund a flat amount, and the City would be 9-24-07 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 53 responsible for the remainder. I, and I don't think anyone funding was done, that we had no input into that process, but I've always been very supportive of the library. And we've told the City of Kerrville recently we'd be willing to look at -- they have plans to do some major changes of capital improvements; we'll be glad to look at those. But we were trying to get away from this annual bickering over the funding of the library. We just said we're just going to fund a flat amount, and the City of Kerrville seems to -- or at the joint meeting two years ago, year and a half ago, was very supportive of this idea. So, I'm not sure -- you know, I just wanted to kind of set the record straight a little bit as to where -- how we got where we are. It was an agreement by the City of Kerrville and Kerr County. And, you know, there's no intent on my part to cut funding for the library. It's just a matter of trying to have -- we were not allowed to have input into the process; therefore, we came up with a different plan. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just one other comment, Judge, if I might, responding to one of the things that Ms. Trolinger said. If I -- excuse me. If I understood her correctly, she indicated that the library's literally falling down around their heads. I assume that comment meant the 9-24-07 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 physical property, the building. And you -- you're nodding that that's correct. Well, the point I want to make is, that's not our building. We have never funded that building. That is a city of Kerrville building. The maintenance of that facility is solely in their hands; has nothing to do with Kerr County. JUDGE TINLEY: Any other member wish to be heard with regard to -- you had an additional comment, Mr. Luther? MR. LUTHER: I just had a question of Commissioner Letz. JUDGE TINLEY: And what might that be? MR. LUTHER: Is it true that the Commissioners are proposing to reduce the library budget by about $60,000? JUDGE TINLEY: Well, we have a proposed budget that is on file, and -- but the budget has not yet been finalized. MR. LUTHER: Yes. JUDGE TINLEY: There will -- there will be action taken at the end of the week in that regard. In -- in follow-up to Commissioner Letz' comments, I think there was -- there was general agreement until approximately two years ago that the operational aspects of that library be funded 50/50 by the City and the County. At our joint meeting last year, it was clearly indicated to the City by Commissioner Letz, and my recollection is others seemed to be in support of that, that on an ongoing, going-forward basis, 9-24-07 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 rather than look at it on a 50/50 participation in whatever City of Kerrville, that on an ongoing basis, we were going to fund a specified flat amount, and not only would it be a flat amount, but that it would probably decline from year to year on an incremental basis, in order that there might be a resolution where the City would take full control of that, or possibly the creation of a library district. And that was the -- those were the two other options that were laid on the table last year at our joint meeting. But the -- the figure in the budget, as I recall, at present is $400,000 on behalf of the County. Hopefully that'll answer your question. MR. LUTHER: Yes, thank you. Judge, thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Is there anyone else that wishes to that I think is significant? JUDGE TINLEY: All right, sir. MR. BENHAM: You already heard from the historical possibly can. We -- in my case and Mr. Lipscomb's case, being the Friends of the Library, we are doing as much as we can, and I think we have a very proud record of doing everything we can. We have volunteers over there putting in 9-24-07 56 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 handicapped parking, for which I personally am very grateful; I need handicapped parking. But the agreement was, particularly from the foundations that we managed to get a lot of money out of, that that property would be used for library purposes. So, I think the history folks and the Friends of the Library can say honestly that we put our money where our mouth is. We don't just come in with our hand out and say give us -- give the library money. Obviously, since you have access to tax funds, you have the ability to raise more money than we do. But we raise every nickel we can, and we work very hard doing it, with our book sales and so forth, to put as much money into that library as we can. And so this is not just a one-way street where we come in and say give us some money. We are doing everything we can to fund the library to the extent that we possibly can. And I'd like to think of it as a partnership between government and the private organizations to continue keeping that library as up to speed and as -- as valuable a resource as it is. And I 9-24-07 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 57 appreciate your letting me add that. Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Benham. Anyone else that wishes to be heard with regard to the Kerr County Fiscal Year 2007-08 budget? Seeing no one else seeking to be recognized, I will close the public hearing regarding the Kerr County Fiscal Year 2007-08 budget. (The public hearing was concluded at 10:15 a.m., and the regular Commissioners Court meeting was reopened.) JUDGE TINLEY: It is after 10 o'clock. We ran over, and so I will go to the 10 o'clock timed item, and convene a public hearing regarding the proposed Kerr County 2007 tax rate. (The regular Commissioners Court meeting was closed at 10:15 a.m., and a public hearing was held in open court, as follows:) P U B L I C H E A R I N G JUDGE TINLEY: Is there any member of the public that wishes to be heard regarding the proposed 2007 tax rate? Any member of the public wishing to be heard with regard to the proposed 2007 tax rate in Kerr County? Seeing no one seeking to be recognized, I will close that public hearing. (The public hearing was concluded at 10:16 a.m., and the regular Commissioners Court meeting was reopened.) 25 ~ JUDGE TINLEY: And noting that it is past 10:15, I 9-24-07 58 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 will convene a public hearing on the 10:15 item, that being a public hearing regarding the proposed salary, expenses, and other allowances of Kerr County elected county or precinct officers for Fiscal Year 2007-08. (The regular Commissioners Court meeting was closed at 10:16 a.m., and a public hearing was held in open court, as follows:) P U B L I C H E A R I N G JUDGE TINLEY: Is there any member of the public that wishes to be heard regarding the proposed salary expenses and other allowances for Kerr County elected county or precinct officers for Fiscal Year 2007-08? Any member of the public wishing to be heard regarding the proposed salary, expenses, and other allowances of Kerr County elected county or precinct officers for Fiscal Year 2007-08? Seeing no one seeking to be recognized on that subject, I will close the public hearing. (The public hearing was concluded at 10:17 a.m., and the regular Commissioners Court meeting was reopened.) JUDGE TINLEY: And I will reconvene the Commissioners Court meeting and take up Item Number 9; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to adopt a list of organizations which will receive discounts at the Hill Country Youth Exhibit Center. Commissioners Letz and Oehler, which one of you two wants to lead off? 9-24-07 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: Letz does. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess I do. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: As y'all recall, we have changed the booking procedures and the fee schedules and things of that nature. Previously, we had different categories that we gave reduced rates to, and we've changed that from a -- to more of a percentage basis. You just get a -- either a 25, 50, 75 percent discount off of whatever the rate turns out to be when you calculate it. The -- and there was a difference for local commercial, different than other commercial, which I guess would be non-local commercial. And it's sometimes very difficult to differentiate one from the other. Then there were nonprofits that were given various, and not always consistent, reductions. And then there was an issue whether a local nonprofit or a non-local nonprofit, and it was really kind of -- it was a cumbersome system. In the backup is the -- what we previously did under Court Order 27353, "LC" being local commercial, "C" being commercial, and "NP" being nonprofit. And it's on the agenda to get some guidance as to what do y'all want to do? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: "Commercial" meaning that they make money -- that they're making money out of the deal. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But -- and where the lines get really blurred, if you -- and a good one is a pig sale, which 9-24-07 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 is done for the benefit of 4-H, but by private people that are making money. And some of those private people making money at the pig sale may be part of 4-H. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: But they're still making money. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So -- COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That makes it commercial. ~I COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, 4-H gets free use, but does a 4-H pig sale that's benefiting some people -- should they pay? That's the kind of things that we need some guidance as to how we're doing it. Other things are on the nonprofit side. You have organizations like the agility dogs. That is a national organization that has local members. Well, say there wasn't a local member, but local people are attending. Well, is that a -- you know, is that local or not local? You know. Brangus Association, Red Angus Association. I mean, there's -- you know, almost anything that goes on out there that may be on the commercial side can also come in with a nonprofit thing. I mean, it's just -- it's a -- it's a problem. So, I thought we'd just put it on the agenda to see how y'all want to proceed now. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Help me understand the difference between, under commercial, American Boer Goat Association, American Meat Goat Association, and Hill Country Meat Goat Producers Gathering under nonprofit. Help me 9-24-07 61 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 I8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 understand the distinction there. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's -- I can't tell you. You know, it's -- a lot of the associations are nonprofit, but they're kind of not nonprofit. I mean, that's what's difficult. You know, I'm actually in favor of -- I mean, I'd know, benefit to the local community, we want to give some subsidy to that, whether, you know, it's helping the youth in some of these associations, like the Boer Goat Association. You know, let's come up with a list, give them a 25, 50 percent discount. I'm not in favor, really, of giving anybody a -- or very few a 75 percent discount. I think you give our 4-H people free use -- or 4-H clubs free use. Beyond that, maybe 50 percent discount to some that we figure, you know, under some methodology, you know, deserves a discount. You know, most of these events are benefiting the community. Most of them have people come in from out of town staying in hotels, eating at our restaurants, so it's real hard to pick and choose which ones get discounts and which ones don't. So, that's kind of on the table. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: One of the problems is -- one of the problems being that we still have expenses. We have -- we have people that are on -- that are being paid. All of these events generate a large amount of trash. They require cleanup, setup, and so I -- I just -- I'm beginning 9-24-07 62 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 I9 20 21 22 23 24 25 to believe that we need to have fair charges for those things to at least cover our expenses. I don't believe that it's right for Kerr County taxpayers to subsidize, you know, completely some of these nonprofit groups. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Commissioner, is it a possibility that in the new fee structure -- or in doing this list, that we can -- that we can think about discounts for the rental, but charge the actual cost of setup and take-down, which includes trash cleanup? COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I agree. You know, and it takes time to do all that. And -- and some of those costs are, you know, not as high because we use some community service, but somebody has to supervise them. And we have -- you know, the cleanup part of it and the preparation and making sure it's clean and -- and then ready for the next event to come in. It costs money, and we need to be compensated. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. A good example on -- on some of the hidden charges is that events that go 8:00 to 5:00, we have staff out there, and we really don't -- don't charge for that additionally, 'cause they're there regardless. But once someone stays after 5 o'clock, we have to pay somebody overtime to be out there at that facility, and whether it's -- you know, no matter who it is, we have to pay that money. And we feel that it's -- you know, I feel, 9-24-07 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 63 anyway, that it's a -- we should be compensated for that part. And I think it's very important -- in the past, at times we did not have a Kerr County employee on-site, and I think that's a mistake. I think we need to always have a some of our facilities of giving keys out, let the people lock up themselves. I just think that's not a good practice any more. So, I mean, if we're having an event, we have to send an employee there, and they have to pay for that. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And some of the new policy that's being adopted, too, is -- requires security to be there during the event to make sure that we don't have fights and we don't have disorderly conduct or whatever to -- during those times. And they need to be dealt with, and the security person or peace officer is about the only one that can do that. We don't need to endanger our regular maintenance staff people to do that. So, that is a -- you know, we're -- that part of the expense, though, is going to be passed directly on and contracted for by the people that -- that lease that facility. Kerr County is not in the security business. That's another thing that's -- that is required now. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I know when I rented the 9-24-07 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 64 is, that it was by contract. I was required to provide security for the function. I had to pay somebody, a police officer of some sort, to do that. Is that what we're talking about doing here? COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, that doesn't have anything to do with this -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- directly, but, I mean, yes. Those are things we talked about the other day. This is kind of another part of the policy that we're trying to get direction on. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Personally, I think that we need to simplify this as much as possible. Commercial and noncommercial, and that -- or nonprofit. And it's got to be -- it's got to be simple, and it's got to be firm, what it would do, 'cause I can't -- can't imagine Jody looking at these individually and trying to figure out, well, is this a commercial function? Taking someone's word for it if they're commercial or a nonprofit? I mean, whatever we do has to be simplified and -- and we have to be firm, and understand the thing for her purposes, if nothing else. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- I mean, the approach to me is that we come up with a list, and if you're not on our list, you pay full rate, period. And that means these people have to come up to us, and then we can add to 9-24-07 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 that list. This is a little bit -- maybe a starting point. We can bring it back at the next meeting. And some of these people come in one time, and we keep them on a list. We need to redo the list periodically, and let people submit them to -- anyone that's interested, inform our administrative assistant, and we can get it on a list and make a decision what the discount will be. I think it's easier if we can do a full rate, 50 percent, or free. I mean, rather than doing too many categories. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. And so I just think we need to come up with a list, because Jody's been getting a lot of calls, and we're kind of -- we made a lot of changes, and there's a lot of people that are kind of on hold from a contract standpoint as to what they're doing or want to do out there. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Before we finalize this, I don't disagree with either of the comments about -- Commissioner Baldwin's or yours, in terms of trying to simplify it. I think we should do that. Too many categories become too confusing, and if you take a look at this list, some probably could be recategorized or reclassified. But when we finalize the -- the discounts, can we also consider making it part of our policy that the discount applies to the rental of the facility, and there will be actual charges a-z9-o~ 66 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 assessed for cleanup, setup, and take-down, as distinguished from rent? COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Those are on the list right now for charges. The new list of what -- what the facility costs, the setup and the tear-down is one cost, and then you have the rental is the secondary cost. COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can do that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So we'll, I guess, bring it back with a -- a starting point. Is that what I'm hearing? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: As an example, under local commercial, Thousand Hills Cowboy Church team roping. I can't -- well, number one, they're almost through with their own facility anyway. I doubt if they'll be using ours. But I couldn't see them as a for-profit deal at all. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Right. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Or proms for high schools is another category. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, exactly that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They're not commercial. COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Anything else on Item 9? 9-24-07 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 MR. BENHAM: Your Honor, are public comments allowed on that item? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Please say no. (Laughter.) JUDGE TINLEY: You're in luck, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, it's Joe. JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Benham's not -- his hearing is not what it used to be. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see. And he lives in my ~ precinct. MR. BENHAM: There are a lot of things that aren't what they used to be, but that isn't what I came up to talk about. I wanted to try to offer something I hope might be helpful. Before I moved up here, I was president of a property owners association for 12 years, which, among other things, owned a swimming pool, and we had people who wanted to have swimming parties, birthday parties and so forth at the pool. We broke it down into -- the cost down into two areas. One was a basic cost, what you paid to rent the pool. That covered the lifeguards and the electricity and so forth. We had a second charge, which was actually a deposit that said you put up -- and I don't recall the amount of money -- several hundred dollars. You put up so much money, and if you clean the place up and take all your trash with you, you get that money back. And that, we felt, was fair to the property owners, because it protected our community interest, 9-24-07 68 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 but it also kept the usage of the place within reach of people who couldn't shell out $1,000 or $1,500 for a kid's birthday party. I heard what you said about the security. I was also chairman of our community public safety committee for a number of years, and I -- I know how significant security is. That would cover the security aspects and the I cost. And I agree with Commissioner Letz 100 percent; you want a county employee there. You don't want to just hand out keys. But if you let -- if you give the people the option of cleaning up their own mess and taking it with them, you could keep it within reach of some nonprofits that might not otherwise be able to use it, and I would hope maybe you take consideration of that. That, to me, is a win-win situation, and it worked for us. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We do have -- we do have a deposit built into the proposed policy, and we are going to increase that some because of the mess that some leave because the deposit hasn't been big enough. They say, "Well, you know, if it's only $100, why do we want to clean it up? You clean it up." MR. BENHAM: I hear you. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So we're increasing that amount of deposit. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Why don't we take about a 15-minute recess mid-morning here? 9-29-07 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 (Recess taken from 10:35 a.m. to 10:55 a.m.) JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's come back to order, if we might. We have a 10:30 timed item on the -- on an addendum that was subsequently posted. It's listed as Item 24, but it is a timed item for 10:30. Of course, we took a break. That item is consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to allow Milton Taylor to have limited temporary access across county land to enter a portion of his property in order to facilitate Court-mandated cleanup of his property. Ms. Bailey? MS. BAILEY: Thank you, Your Honor. Morning, Commissioners and Judge Tinley. This item we put on the agenda to hopefully assist Mr. Taylor -- Milton Taylor in cleaning up his property that was Court-mandated by a probation judgment he entered into back in November of '06. He was charged with not having performed under that agreement as required, so there was a motion to revoke his probation filed. He spent some time in jail, and we have reached an agreement with Mr. Taylor on how he's going to proceed to actually do the cleanup. When I say "we," the prosecutor, the Environmental Health Department, and various representatives of T.C.E.Q. who are assisting with the whole process. There is a color photograph attached to your agenda item that explains a little bit more clearly what we're 9-24-07 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 talking about, and if you'll turn that on its side, you can kind of see that's the aerial view of the property that's There are three major areas of pollution -- of solid waste, mostly cars and car parts. As you can see, the one on the very left runs along Third Creek, right adjacent to Third Creek, and has probably the most number of vehicles that need to be removed. Mr. Taylor was able to move those down there by using a small road on his property, but he indicates to us that since the grade is pretty steep there from his house down -- well, this -- this is his house, apparently, and there's a little road down by the side of it. That was where he was able to move the cars down there, but it's fairly steep here, and he says it would be very difficult to pull items back up that grade. There used to be -- where the little red mark is down here, where I say, "Approximate location of requested access," he used to have a gate there and accessed his property that way. Since this adjacent property is county property, the County has fenced across that, so he no longer has access there. His proposal is to open up the county fence there so that a crusher can come in and have access to that back portion of his property through that gate area, and then at the end of the probationary period, which is now scheduled January 24th of '08, he would then, at his own expense, have to replace the 9-24-07 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 county fence there. So that during the period between now and the end of January of '08, he would be able to access the back portion of his property through that temporary easement. It is our recommendation that we allow that to happen, because I think would it facilitate his ability to do the cleanup in an area that's very environmentally sensitive. ', COMMISSIONER LETZ: Ilsa, is the access only to get the crusher back in there? Or is it daily access during that period? MS. BAILEY: My understanding is -- and his attorney's here; he can speak to it. My understanding is that the purpose for that would be to remove the vehicles. However, I think if we give him access, it would be so hard to police that, I think we either just have to say you have the access until January 24th of '08 through this area, or you don't. If you want to limit it that way, that's certainly something I think that we could do. I just think it would be hard to police. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think you -- access is an issue. Access for what purpose? For a crusher to get in and do what it has to do and stack the crushed things up on a -- on a flatbed and move them out? Or access so he can move out those units one at a time and take them elsewhere into Kerr County and recreate what he's got down here? MS. BAILEY: That is a concern. I have just -- I 9-24-07 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 don't think Mr. Cortese has even gotten my letter, but I wrote him a letter on Friday exactly to that effect, because I have heard some -- some indication that he may have intention to move the property -- the solid waste to another location. And, certainly, if it's going to be solid waste in another location, it would be illegal, and we certainly don't want to facilitate that kind of -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's my whole point, I counselor. MS. BAILEY: -- process. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't want to facilitate creation of another situation like this elsewhere in the county. JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Bailey, the court order that we're talking about that's currently in place in that requires this to be accomplished by the end of next January. Would that permit this solid waste to be moved to another location, and just so long as it's not on this particular property, it could be -- it could be moved to another location and -- out of sight, out of mind, so to speak? Or would that also be in violation of the court order? MS. BAILEY: The court order itself addresses just this property; it doesn't address that issue. However, state law, and certainly our county rules, require that solid waste not be placed anywhere except in an approved, licensed 9-24-07 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 salvage yard. I don't know if Mr. Taylor has another approved, licensed salvage yard. I don't believe he does. If he has a salvage yard that these items could be placed in, legally, properly screened, properly licensed and so forth, then I don't think we have any control over that. However, if he places it anywhere else, it will be a new illegal dumping case, which would require a new -- well, would allow us to file a new criminal case and a motion to revoke his probation for violations of the law. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. If he removes it, but to a nonlicensed facility, that would, in fact, be in violation of the existing court order? MS. BAILEY: Yes, because it -- because one of the provisions is, don't violate the law. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But our concern here today is to either allow him to use the county fence and -- and county road, probably, -- MS. BAILEY: Yes. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- to get ingress/egress to move the junk out that we've ordered him to move. MS. BAILEY: Yes. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And it looks to me -- MS. BAILEY: If you want to restrict it to only allowing a crusher to enter and leave, we could -- we could 9-24-07 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 certainly restrict it in that manner. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, that would be a crusher, perhaps, and a flatbed. If you're crushing them, you're going to put them on something and move them out someplace else. MS. BAILEY: That would be my understanding. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, allow him to get that stuff out of there. I don't care if he uses a helicopter or -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's an idea. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- a little red wagon. COMMISSIONER LETZ: How do we control access to the park? Is that gate not locked? MS. BAILEY: I believe that there is a gate -- if y'all see the yellow dotted line where it crosses the county road, I believe that there is a gate right there that we would have to give him access to. But that would be more of a -- either give him a key or combination to a gate that's already in existence. The only one he'd actually have to create is the gate down here where the red line is. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't think that gate is locked. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It is periodically, to I control access. 25 ~ COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If the weather's bad. 9-24-07 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 OEHLER: The damage that we've had with people going down there in muddy times, and -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If the weather's bad, yeah. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: If the weather's bad. MS. BAILEY: There has been some recent vandalism down there with people driving in, so I suspect that it may be locked more in the near future than it has been in the past. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think it's locked most of the time now. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have actually no problem with using -- letting him have access to putting a gate in to get the equipment in. My only concern is -- a little bit is -- and during -- while work is going into operating the crushing and loading them and all that, I don't see why they can't use that road. I don't know why they need access to the park for that. Getting the vehicles -- the trucks in and out, sure, I have no problem with that at all. 'Cause I'm just really concerned about access into the park as -- you know, all of a sudden, other issues come up on responsibility when the gate's open or closed, and who's responsible for all that and things of that nature. So, I'd like to keep the county gate locked as much as possible. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: All times, except whenever you're driving through it. 9-24-07 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 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Nights, things like that, and then let him access his property other times, you know, through his property, which he can do. And then, when he needs to get the crusher in or the trucks in and out -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, let's see if we can establish where that gate is. There used to be a gate on -- hanging on a couple posts that was on Mr. Taylor's property, not on that county fence, correct? MR. CORTESE: There is a -- what we -- what I was always raised to call a lifetime gate, an aluminum gate. It's on a set of posts. The County offset themselves about 2 feet and built a fence. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Correct. MR. CORTESE: Obviously, to prevent Mr. Taylor from attaching a gate. All Mr. Taylor wants to do is -- and he will -- his intention is that even in this interim, that he will attach all the wires, keep the fence in place, keep his gate locked so that no -- there's nobody -- if somebody has access to the county park, they're not trying to come into his property. But he -- this -- the only access to the back of this property is either across the creek, driving through the creek, or to come down an about -- I don't know what degree it is, but an extremely steep incline at the back of his house, which is normally -- I mean, very, very -- very difficult. I've personally been back there. Very difficult. 9-24-07 ~~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 I5 16 17 18 I9 20 21 22 23 24 25 The -- you know, all he's asking for is this access to go in and clean up the property. Now, that will entail more than just a crusher showing up one day and crushing all the deals; he's got to go in there and he's got to prepare the vehicles for the crusher, and then the crusher has to come in and crush them, and they have to come out. So, there is going to be access. He's going to be accessing the property. Now, obviously, he's not going to be accessing the property every day, and that gate on the county property does remain closed, I believe, generally when it's wet, and because there's -- if you can look in these aerial photographs, you can see doughnuts that have been cut out there in the field, that -- even when this aerial photograph was taken. So, kids have been going down there periodically, when it's wet and rainy, and doing doughnuts. You can even -- like I say, you can see in that aerial photograph, and I'm not sure when that was taken, but I know it's been taken some time ago. MS. BAILEY: In June. 9-24-07 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: I understand that, but that will soon be rectified. Go ahead. MR. CORTESE: It was granted without charge a number of years ago. So, I mean, the -- the point is, you know, that's -- that easement was given. I mean, he's just asking for an easement to get in this property and remove these vehicles on this back side of Third Creek, I'll refer to it as. I'm not sure if that's the back side or the -- I'll say it's the south side of Third Creek. And that's what he needs. He needs that -- otherwise, he's got to cross the creek, and then that'll -- with the water flow currently in the creek, you really can't do that. So, that's all he's trying to do. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, or tell me for certain, but at the point that -- counselor, at the point where you're marking "requested access" on the county fence there, there's no county gate there. MS. BAILEY: There's no county gate. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So this means that Mr. Taylor will cut the county fence and install a gate; is that correct? MR. CORTESE: There's a gate there. What we will do is -- what I've talked to him about is -- is cutting the fence and placing the appropriate brace so the fence doesn't 9-24-07 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 loosen. Place the appropriate braces in there, and attach the wires to the posts that he currently has there on his gate, and so that there remains a -- a continuous -- contiguous fence quality, you know, that it is not -- nothing sagging. It doesn't look bad; it'll look good, until we complete this removal. And in -- I'm sorry. And in response to somebody's comment, there -- under the T.E.C.Q. rules, there has to be an R.I.R. report. This is where they have to come in, and a consultant will actually -- in this case, we've -- we were arranging for consultants. They will actually determine what needs to be -- what falls under the solid waste and what will be removed under T.E.C.Q. rules of solid waste. As far as moving it somewhere else, that's really not an option, because if these items fall under solid waste, they have to be removed under T.E.C.Q. rules. So, if they're in that report as items that will be removed under the solid waste, they have to be removed under the solid waste, because they're in the R.I.R. report and they all have to be accounted for subsequently in the subsequent reports to T.E.C.Q. So that's really not -- I don't know where that new rumor has come from, but anyway, it's unfounded. Now, Mr. Taylor, under our agreement -- and I want to -- just so that it's clear, he -- he remains a licensed salvage yard, and as long as the property -- the points on the property that qualify to be a salvage yard, the intent 9-24-07 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 is -- is that there will still be -- I'm not going to hide this, because the intent is that there's still going to be ', cars there. That will qualify as a salvage yard for the cars. They will just be limited to the area that falls under the T.E.C.Q. rules, as well as the floodwater rules for the salvage yard. So that Ms. -- if you -- on that map, if you want to point out that area. MS. BAILEY: Let me clarify that. There's another map that is with the probation order in addition to this map, which shows the floodplain for the property that Mr. Taylor owns. He owns the piece that encompasses those three areas to clean up. He also owns this little area right up here on Highway 27 that's Trucks and More. That's his -- his sales business. All of that is in the floodplain except for this area right up here, this circular area. So, what we have agreed with Mr. Taylor is that he has, he says, 15 or 20 vehicles that he believes are good enough that he wants to hang onto them, and this area is going to be added to his license -- his salvage license. So, there will be vehicles remaining on that location; however, it will be properly screened as required by county order and by state law. So, this area will be cleaned of junk vehicles. The vehicles that he wants to keep will be placed there, and it'll be screened. This area will be -- in the middle will be cleaned out, and this area in the back will be cleaned out. 9-29-07 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 81 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: There's very little area that's going to be left for a salvage yard. MS. BAILEY: Exactly. And it will be properly screened so that it will no longer be an eyesore. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Anybody have any idea how many vehicles we're talking about are going to be removed in this area here? MS. BAILEY: You know, I started counting them, and I didn't actually finish, but there are several hundred, I think. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And is the time we're talking about, between now and January 24, 2008, is that going to be sufficient to get this done? MR. CORTESE: Well, that depends. Because -- I believe that depends on T.E.C.Q. Am I correct? MS. BAILEY: Yes. There -- the order has multiple stages in it, because T.C.E.Q. has some requirements that one thing be done before another. The R.I.R., the Release Investigation Report, has to first be done, and then that tells what has to be removed in -- in addition to the solid waste things. Like, if there's ground pollution, that has to be dug up and replaced. They outline all that. Then the removal is done, and then there's another report that they have to do. Now, according to my understanding of the order, and what T.C.E.Q. says at this point, January 24th should be 9-24-07 82 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 a sufficient amount of time for all the solid waste to actually be removed. Then there's another set of timelines where that report has to be submitted to T.C.E.Q. They have to approve it or give requirements of additional work that has to be done, and that part will come after January 24th. But that part, we have no control over the timeline, so we're not going to hold Mr. Taylor's feet to the fire unless T.C.E.Q, says, you know, "Do this by this date." COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, the area that we're talking about that all of these vehicles are going to come out through this access point, which ties into this road that goes into the piece of Flat Rock Lake Park -- MS. BAILEY: Yes. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- that's going to be accomplished between now and January 24? All of that surrounding his buildings in the middle, those are going to come out and go to Riverside Drive; is that correct? MS. BAILEY: Well, actually -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No? MS. BAILEY: All -- all of these except the few that he wants to save are going to be crushed as well. The difference is that the crusher doesn't need access through the red gate to get these up on Riverside Drive. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's my point. They're coming off Riverside Drive. 9-24-07 83 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1.9 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. BAILEY: So, once he finishes there, then he's going to move the crusher around there and crush these, and there's also some from this area that are going to have to be crushed, and all that is going to be moved, and then he's going to take the 15 or 20 that he wants to keep and move them back up to this area that will be added to his license. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Who's going to monitor this process? MS. BAILEY: Environmental Health and my office. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Approval to do what? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Gain access to -- to the -- as detailed by counsel for Mr. Taylor. Limited access by restructuring the fence and tying it to a gate at the point identified by counsel as an access location. And that'll extend until January 24, 2008, at which point in time we expect the fence to be restored to its -- like he found it. MS. BAILEY: At Mr. Taylor's expense? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, ma'am. MS. BAILEY: And also, I think as part of that order, we should ask Mr. Taylor to keep the county gate locked at all times when he's not using it. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree with that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Keep the gate in -- however he finds it when he goes in. If it's unlocked, leave it 9-24-07 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 unlocked; if it's locked, leave it locked. JUDGE TINLEY: Let me -- let me address the issue of the scope of this authorization. Now, granted, he's going to be able to move a crusher in there, and then he's going to crush vehicles and they're going to come out, probably on a flatbed trailer. My understanding is there will be some additional solid waste that won't go through that crushing process that will have to be removed from that same area. MS. BAILEY: Yes. JUDGE TINLEY: Is that not true? MS. BAILEY: Yes, because I believe that they have to remove, say, batteries and oil pans and that sort of thing prior to the actual crushing. JUDGE TINLEY: So we're not just talking about the crusher. We're talking about the crusher or other necessary actions that have to be taken or conveyances to move out all of the solid waste that's back there, as required by the T.C.E.Q. mandate. MS. BAILEY: I think that would be a correct way to state that in the order. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, next question. Are you proposing that Mr. Taylor be under, as part of this authorization, a mandate to remediate whatever -- whatever may occur to our property, the county property, as a result of these actions? For example, we've heard about the fence, 9-24-07 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 restoring that. It may well be that in utilizing that roadway that is there now on county property, that that roadway, you know, possibly will have some rains; it gets rutted up, maybe put in worse condition than it's presently in. MS. BAILEY: I think it would be appropriate to require that he remediate the roadway to its pre-access condition. JUDGE TINLEY: The way the fence, the property, whatever may be occasioned by his activities there. That's what I'm getting to. MS. BAILEY: I think that's correct. JUDGE TINLEY: At his expense. MS. BAILEY: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I accept all that, Judge. Thank you. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and a second, as drawn out over a period of some time, I suppose. Any question or discussion on what's proposed here? 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.) 9-24-07 86 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Thank you. MS. BAILEY: And, Your Honor, may that be effective today so I can tell him that he can start moving things out? JUDGE TINLEY: There wasn't any other date put on it, so -- MS. BAILEY: All right. JUDGE TINLEY: But we do have a termination date. MS. BAILEY: Yes, January 24th of '08. JUDGE TINLEY: Yes. Okay, thank you. MS. BAILEY: Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move to Item 10; consider, discuss, take appropriate action to give the Hill Country Youth Exhibit Center booking agent authority to make discretionary decisions as needed. Commissioner Letz? Commissioner Oehler? Which one of you guys wants to run with this? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess I'll go. While we're in this interim process, probably more than down the road, but down the road as well, there's things that come up where I think our booking agent, who's our administrative assistant, needs a little bit of discretion to make some decisions on her own without coming back to the Court every time. And I'm blank as to an example what we're talking about. Possibly some of the, you know -- can you think of 25 ~ one, Bruce? 9-24-07 87 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, basically, say a small little local group that just needs to meet and doesn't require any -- any real setup or take-down, that may want to go in there. Say, like -- like HILCO or something has just an officer meeting they wanted to have, or something that was a group of 10 or 15 or 20 people, and rather than having all the other charges for that time, like, she could use discretion and say, "Okay, you can meet there, you know, if you clean the place up." And, you know, the charges are going to be by the hour instead of a half-day rental or full-day rental or whatever. 'Cause we do have a provision. those kind of things. If they wanted to have a meeting that's going to last two hours, pay 50 bucks and go have a meeting, and not require a lot of county services. That would just be one small example. And there will be other small -- real small minor things that happen that don't really fall under the full-blown rental charges, and setup or tear-down. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And there's -- and here's another example. Might not be a real good one. Insurance requirements. We may have insurance from -- this may not be 9-24-07 88 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 riders come in, if -- hopefully through the County Attorney's office, they can come up with some key things that she needs to be able to look at, and approve an insurance -- COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Binder. COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- binder. Binder and things like that, so she has some authority to make the decisions basically without having to call Commissioners Court every time something isn't as cookie-cutter as we have in our rules. Pretty minor things. And if she is uncomfortable with making decisions, she'll obviously put it on our agenda. Giving a little bit of discretion when it comes to the nonprofits coming down the road, if they're not -- you know, sometimes they may not have the exact time. If it fits in with our rules and exactly, you know, how they're handled, that type of thing, I think just more minor little bookkeeping-type issues. I'll make a motion that we grant our administrative assistant authority to make minor discretionary decisions related to booking of the Hill Country Youth Exhibit Center. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and a second. 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. 9-24-07 89 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carried. We'll move quickly to Item 11; consider, discuss, take appropriate action to approve the use of Hill Country Youth Exhibit Center for HILCO annual membership meeting on Friday, February 8th, 2008, at the same rate as charged previous year, $162.50, HILCO being a credit union owned by county, city, and state employees here in Kerr County. Ms. Decker, I think the agenda item speaks for itself. Obviously, that's what you want us to approve? MS. DECKER: Right. And I've done that presentation before. I'm just waiting to see, you know, if yes, and how much so I can pass that on. COMMISSIONER LETZ: How many people come to this? MS. DECKER: It's usually about 150. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are they all going to pick up the trash? MS. DECKER: We can pick up our trash if we have to, sure . COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just a meeting, or is this a dinner or what? MS. DECKER: It's a dinner. It's the annual membership meeting where the board members are elected and any business takes place. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Like telephone co-op? 9-24-07 90 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. UECKER: Right. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You're going to need tables and chairs set up for that function, and -- MS. UECKER: Yes, but we can do that as well. We've done that, too. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Our preference is no, we set them up, or that they don't get set up, because basically it's a liability issue. If HILCO people are out there setting up tables and chairs and hurt their back, all of a sudden we have more problems. So, have we calculated what the rate would be if you -- if HILCO was charged? MS. UECKER: I haven't heard anything. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I'm guessing this is about a 75 percent discount, something like that, you know, would be my -- COMMISSIONER OEHLER: How about 250? Is that fair? COMMISSIONER LETZ: 250 in the interim, until we -- MS. UECKER: Sure, that's fair. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: This time next year, we'll have it more nailed down, but that'll -- we'll set up tables and chairs. I move that we charge 250 for HILCO to have their annual membership meeting at the Ag Barn. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as indicated. Sorry? Question or discussion? 9-29-07 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. UECKER: Okay. Y'all are going to set up the tables, and -- but we'll take our trash, right? COMMISSIONER LETZ: You can clean up, yeah. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Put it in the trash cans. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Put it in the trash cans. MS. UECKER: Okay. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Clean up, or we'll have to go back and get a belated deposit for cleanup. COMMISSIONER LETZ: You don't have to put it -- you don't have to take it in your trunk home with you, no. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We'll send -- sic Joe Benham on you. MS. UECKER: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Let's move to Item 13; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on a request to locate the proposed L.C.R.A. transmission line from Rim Rock Substation to Stadium Drive Substation, as originally proposed in 1993, or other more direct and/or more practical route or solution. I put this on the agenda at the 9-24-07 92 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 request of Mr. David Jones, who's here with us. Mr. Jones, MR. JONES: Good morning, Your Honor, Commissioners. Thank you very much for this opportunity. I'd also like to take just a moment and say thank you very much, Bill, for your recognition of the young man's service as a veteran. We all appreciate that -- that note. My name is Thomas David Jones. I reside at Number 2 Antelope Trail here in Kerrville with my wife, Mary Elaine Adamek Jones. I'm joined here today by Cynthia and Mark Hoffmann, a couple of my neighbors, and Susan and George Cooper. My wife's family, Charlie and Lil Adamek, have owned the land at 2199 Sheppard Rees Road since the early '60's. Family ranched and hunted the land for almost 50 years. Family, along with other families along Sheppard Rees, including Lavern Harris, paid from their own pockets to pave that initial asphalt road there. We've suffered through drought, the big fire of '99. So, until now, even acts of God have not stopped us from being good stewards of the land. But in May of 2006, the god-like entity in the form of Lower Colorado River Authority appeared in our Kerr County, announced to the community meeting that they were going to build a transmission line from Rim Rock Substation adjacent to The Horizon development to some arbitrary point on the line that runs between Stadium and the Ingram 9-24-07 93 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Substation. I'm sure y'all have seen these maps before, but this will aid in the discussion. Their plan -- their plan was to have a community meeting where they announced to everyone they were going to build this transmission line, and they went back to Austin and waited. And their plan to divide and conquer, of course, worked in the name of community input; they created an atmosphere of neighbor against neighbor, which led to creation of groups -- of groups. These groups centered around the various routes that were developed. By a study done by the prestigious law -- engineering firm of PBS&J, those of us that intervened early in the case received these, at a cost to the L.C.R.A. and the taxpayers in excess of $250,000 to $300,000, and the bill keeps running. The route that they selected in this study -- or that they noted as their preferred route was A-C-P. A-C-P is the most direct route. It's the shortest, least expensive of the eight routes that they proposed. In August of 2006, the preferred route was rejected by the Kerrville City Council in the form of a resolution that said that the route chosen should not be seen from Highway 27 and should be underground. Although a resolution was passed, no correspondence was sent to the L.C.R.A. or -- or P.U.C. by the Kerrville City Council. As you know, you gentlemen passed the same virtual resolution, and the Judge sent a 9-24-07 94 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 letter to the L.C.R.A. expressing your opinion of the same concept. Let's put it underground. Let's not see it from Highway 27. In spring of 2007 the L.C.R.A. chose, as preferred route, Route 8. Route 8, which is listed in your -- on the right-hand side in the -- in the columns there. These routes are made up of links, as you probably know, and so they just string these links together and come up with a route. So, Route 8 was -- was chosen as their preferred route, or recommended. And then in June -- June 26th, 2007, in response to a group of neighbors and friends at the end of Route 8, the Kerrville City Council endorsed Route 7. Route 7 is -- only difference between Route 7 and Route 8, they're identical until they get to a point where Route 7 goes into the county and Route 8 goes through the city. So, a bureaucracy in Austin has scripted, formatted, executed, and accomplished exactly what they set out to do. They divided, they conquered, they dictated what they think is best for Kerrville and Kerr County. Let's get some additional facts. In 1991-'92, KPUB and L.C.R.A. presented a plan to the Kerrville City Council to close the loop and connect the Stadium Substation to Rim Rock. At that time, it was presented as providing power to the other side of the river from Stadium. Review of the City Council minutes revealed that they were moving forward 9-24-07 95 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 working through KPUB and L.C.R.A. Then, on April 9th, 1972, L.C.R.A. withdrew its application. Things were -- just went back and we'll just deal with it. So, you know, flashing back forward, the Stadium Substation is not even on the map. It was not -- it was never considered as part of the study little bit and picked it up. You see the Harper Road Substation noted, the Ingram Substation noted, Rim Rock. But Stadium is just about where the 8 is under the heading "Route" on your map, if they were to have put it in. L.C.R.A. contends that the eight routes presented are adequate. Careful analysis of the links demonstrate, however, that a significant portion of the individual links are repeated over and over again in the majority of the eight cases -- eight routes. For example, Link F, which goes through the Harris property, is on six of the proposed routes. Seven of the eight proposed routes include the G link. You can ascertain this by glancing down through the column of the alternative routes, and you will see the letter "G" in seven of the eight, as you will see "F" in six of the eight, and you will see "B" in five of them. So, it's just -- really, there's two routes. You're either A-C-P, or you take out through the county. The G link makes a 90-degree turn at the highest point on Sheppard Rees Road, 2010 elevation, which is also one of the highest points in 9-24-07 96 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Kerr County. One other fact. The majority of power from the Rim Rock Station goes to the city of Kerrville. The usage from the substation is 82 percent KPUB, 18 percent Central Texas. This is in their study. The L.C.R.A. stated that their projection projected three objectives. Let me pass out this little analysis that I pulled together. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. Thank you very I much. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're very welcome. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Can I get one of your maps? MR. JONES: No, not yet. This is the last one I've got. I know you're armed, but -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You are a rare individual, saying no to the Sheriff like that. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: If he'd been here last week, he knows I don't have any bullets. MR. JONES: We've danced before. L.C.R.A. has three objectives; complete the loop, voltage support for Harper Road and Stadium Substations, which are both located in the city limits, and building a new substation between Harper Road and Ingram. If you review the cost analysis table of the savings, over $5 million, L.C.R.A. should be able to achieve these objectives with a Rim Rock to Stadium Substation line. For all of these reasons, we're asking you for a resolution that requests the L.C.R.A. expand their 9-24-07 97 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 study area to include the Rim Rock to Stadium Substation route and study that option to the same extent that they have studied the other options. To expand on my analysis there, I took a table from the PBS&J study where they give the distance in feet and they present what's called a total line cost, which I then extrapolated a cost per-foot of the line for all of the various routes. Then they had a total substation cost, which is listed there, and a total project cost. The last column is a ranking of those project costs with the cheapest route being Number 5, A-C-P, the next one being Number 7, the next one Number 8, and so on. So, then I took those figures and I said, "It's 3 miles, 15,840 feet, from Rim Rock to Stadium. So, I took the highest figure of the line cost, multiplied that out, took the highest figure for a substation, added that amount, and came up with an estimated Rim Rock to Stadium cost of 10,000 -- excuse me, $10,748,000. In the City Council meetings back in the 90's, Bill Taylor proposed a budget of $3.8 million to do that same thing. It's a little more cluttered now, so let's triple that; that's 11,4. That's still well within the budget that they've outlined for any of the other routes. So, I ask again for this resolution that would at least enable us to approach Austin again, not on bended knee -- I never go there like that -- to study this thing with the same intensity that they studied the other -- 9-24-07 98 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Do you have a draft of the resolution, by chance? MR. JONES: No, sir, I'm sorry. I'm not an attorney. I'll be happy to -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Neither are we. Or four of us, anyway. Count him out. MR. JONES: It's -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm not writing this one. MR. JONES: I'll have you one within the hour. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: David, a question. Would this require -- or is it built into your calculations here, some modifications to the Stadium Substation, increasing its size or capacity? MR. JONES: Well, I've sort of included that in the -- in the concept of that. That's their substation cost. Yes, there would be some additional cost, but my whole point is that if they go any one of these other routes, the cheapest one is $16 million. And, by using their figures, you know, we're at 11, so there's a $5 million amount of funds there that they can treat any of those other problems, plus additional cost of land, et cetera, et cetera. JUDGE TINLEY: What you're asking for is a resolution from the Court that requests -- P.U.C.? MR. JONES: L.C.R.A. JUDGE TINLEY: L.C.R.A. 9-29-07 99 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. JONES: And the P.U.C., for that matter. JUDGE TINLEY: And P.U.C. to consider additional routes for the location of this transmission line, including, but not necessarily limited to, the route that went direct -- that was proposed back in the early '90's that went directly from what is now Rim Rock Substation directly to Stadium Drive Substation? MR. JONES: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Not endorsing, but merely asking for that to be considered? MR. JONES: "Endorsement" is such a good word, though, Your Honor. (Laughter.) JUDGE TINLEY: So much more easily understood, I would imagine would be your thinking. MR. JONES: Absolutely. Absolutely. JUDGE TINLEY: I see. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Where is the Stadium station again? You said under the "L" or under the "T" in Texas? MR. JONES: Okay. If you draw -- if you extend the line that they are showing, that white line, -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. MR. JONES: -- that's their right-of-way. And if you imagine 16, you come to a point about right there. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mr. Jones, I will say, this is probably one of the -- I understand more after this 9-24-07 100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 presentation than I have most -- most of the others that I've had to listen to, so I appreciate that. MR. JONES: I am cursed with common sense, I'm sorry. Again, it's part of L.C.R.A.'s program. You know, they blew us all up and we all -- you know, I mean, it's like a Ben diagram, you know, where you get various groups, and the friend of my enemy is my -- whatever. And so, yes, it's just -- by the time you get down to the point where you're ready, you know, they -- the L.C.R.A. attorney, last week in the hearing, said -- when asked how much it's going to cost, he said, "Oh, $20 million," you know, to go from -- to go to Stadium from Rim Rock. And they didn't study it. He already said, "We didn't study it, but had we, it would have cost $20 million." So, I am also inhibited by having to tell the truth. So, you know -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask you a question. Let me ask you a question real quick. You're going to go from Rim Rock over to Stadium. Say yes. MR. JONES: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes. And then -- all right. And then how do you get it out to Ingram? What happens from that point? MR. JONES: There's already -- stand there at Stadium and look west. There's -- that line is already there. 9-24-07 101 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But it's not drawn on here. MR. JONES: Yes, it's that white dotted line. JUDGE TINLEY: Right here. MR. JONES: This line right here, that's an existing line, that white line. That white dotted line. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: Does L.C.R.A. or KPUB, for that matter, own any right-of-way -- if you take a direct route from Rim Rock Substation to Stadium Drive, the route that was essentially proposed back in the early '90's, does L.C.R.A. or KPUB own any existing right-of-way through there? MR. JONES: Yes, they own about a fifth of it. They own the Section A -- I mean, they have the right-of-way to it. The -- and the easement. Already existing service lines. It's not transmission lines, but they have that right-of-way, which just adds to -- though you can't find it in the charts that they gave you, adds to the validity of -- of using A some way. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We're going to have to acquire a lot of right-of-way going some of those other routes, I believe. COMMISSIONER LETZ: All those other routes. MR. JONES: All of them. It's ... COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I have no problem supporting a resolution asking them to study an additional 9-24-07 102 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 alternative. That makes -- I mean, I don't -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't either. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The whole process, I've never had any -- I'm not going to get in a position of picking a route, because then we're back to the -- like you say, that divide and conquer mentality. I think I represent everybody in Kerr County, but I think that you study as many alternatives as possible. This sounds like a viable alternative that should at least be studied. So -- MR. JONES: Well, they had those three options that they -- one, it wouldn't complete the loop. Well, it does. They had voltage wouldn't be enough. Well, they didn't study it, so they can't really say that. And they -- they don't have a substation on the -- on that line. Well, you know, again, you know, if it's just -- if it's not a dead-end substation, it's just a carry-along station, again, I'm not an engineer, but that's a budget issue that they could at least approach or study. And, I mean, just on the face of it, instead of going 500 feet, you go 1,500 feet. Seems like -- COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Makes too much sense. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: David, if you know, what is -- where is this issue in the conduit or the process of deliberation? MR. JONES: Well, I need it this afternoon, because 9-24-07 103 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 we've got to go at 9 o'clock in the morning to the hearing July the 25th on adequacy of the routes, and being a neophyte in this, I thought we would be before the P.U.C., but that's not the case. You go before an administrative judge who then, you know, calls all the L.C.R.A. attorneys by their first names and says, you know, "Well, gee, this is" -- and, j you know, blab, blab, blab, and this, that, and the other, and, "Well, these routes are adequate." You know? And so they said, "Let's go forward; these routes are adequate," so we appealed it. So, the P.U.C. agreed to hear our appeal, so we came before the -- before the P.U.C. last week, week and a half ago, and they say, "Well, gee whiz, you know, we've heard about another route that's half the distance, you know. What happened to that?" And that's when the attorney got up and said, you know, "Well, we didn't even study it. You know, it's through the city, and we didn't want to have anything to do with it, and it costs $20 million." And so, you know, he's got credibility. And so the P.U.C. says -- one lady said, "I'm not going to support the appeal." The commissioner said, "Well, I want to look at it." And the third guy said, "Well, I just got this thing last night and haven't had time to read it." So, he then was persuaded by staff and by -- and by the other woman -- the other commissioner, and so they turned down the appeal. Chairman 9-24-07 104 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 said, "You will have time at the hearing on the merits next week to present any other information you might have and any other approach you might have." And so, as we fashion our presentation, and have been for the last, you know, six weeks, eight weeks, ten weeks, seems like this would be beneficial. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I don't know if -- I mean, it's not totally necessary to do a resolution. You could just do a simple letter from Commissioners Court. If you do a resolution, he's got to have it today. Who's going to write it? He's going to write it and get it back in here and come get all five signatures on it this afternoon? JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're back here at 1:30. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That may be magical in itself. JUDGE TINLEY: This gentleman is reading my mind. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And -- but I would -- I would hope that the -- you know, I'm like Jon on this thing. I'm not in favor of recommending this route. All I'm in favor of is recommending that they take another look at this route. JUDGE TINLEY: Look at other -- other alternative routes, including, but not limited to, the -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that what his resolution 9-24-07 105 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 is going to say? COMMISSIONER LETZ: See, it's already work -- he talked so long, now we have to break for lunch, so he bought himself an hour and a half. JUDGE TINLEY: And he's going to get Kathy -- MR. JONES: Certainly wasn't my intention. JUDGE TINLEY: He's going to get Kathy to write that up for him when we break for lunch. MR. JONES: I'll buy Kathy's lunch. JUDGE TINLEY: And he'll be ready to roll. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You have an attorney in the background. JUDGE TINLEY: We got someone that's -- that's filed a participation form. If we don't have any more questions right now for Mr. Jones, I'm going to follow the order here. Any more questions for Mr. Jones? Mr. Machann, you filed a participation form. Feel free to come forward and give us your address, and -- MR. MACHANN: Dwaine Machann, 222 Sidney Baker South, Suite 436. I'm a local attorney here. I represent a group of 74 property owners in Kerrville/Kerr County who are part of this proceeding with the P.U.C. They've asked me to make a presentation to the Court in opposition to this proposal. I've been primarily involved at a local level with the City Council here a few months ago. Obtained the 9-24-07 106 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 original eight. L.C.R.A. came up with eight routes. Those routes -- and I haven't lived and breathed this every day, but they've been discussed for a long time; locally, Austin, that L.C.R.A. has been successful in dividing, or attempting to divide and conquer. Because, obviously, what they're -- what they want to put in is a significant transmission facility. It's going to affect property owners, there's no way around it. A lot of opposition. There's probably 100 intervenors that have filed, maybe more. Some of these people might could tell me more. I represent 74 of them, about two-thirds of those that filed. I want to show you a map prepared by my client. I want to get this thing oriented so I can make sense out of it. That shows -- this is north. This, I believe, is twenty -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Seven. MR. MACHANN: -- seven. Guadalupe is right here, through here. The eight routes, again, have been under public scrutiny for a long time. L.C.R.A., in their application, probably in February -- January or February, after a lot of public hearings, they said they preferred Route 8, which, generally speaking, starts over here at the Rim Rock Station, comes around this way, comes back up 9-24-07 107 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 this -- COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Crosses 27 over -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Bear Creek? Is that Bear MR. MACHANN: Way over here, Bear Creek Road, and then comes up this way and then came through the city. Their second alternative is the one that both this Court and the City Council says we don't want any part of, A-C-P route right up the Guadalupe River, up Guadalupe River Basin. That's their second choice. And so I think what you've received here is -- understandably, I've come from one perspective, and Mr. Jones is coming from another one, but I think you've received not really a complete picture. This group, with all due respect, Mr. Jones, is in here. They don't like this route. Understandable. What they've been in favor of is the A-C-P route through the Guadalupe River. And what's happening here at this late date is, they're losing. The full trial starts tomorrow. I think it's scheduled for about three days this week. The Jones group -- we came to Council and said, "Instead of coming right up -- up here, a future development on Bear Creek Road, and instead of going through an area in the city, why don't you move it out here to a less populated area? Why don't you not run it up in these areas -- high development, future developments, Wren road, et cetera?" And Council says, "Makes sense to us." 9-24-07 108 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 They endorse coming out here in this area. The P.U.C. staff basically has said, you know, "We like that Route 7; makes a lot of sense to us. Wasn't recommended by L.C.R.A., but we like it for a lot of reasons." It gets it out of the Guadalupe River Basin. It's not any more expensive than the rest of them, affects less habitable structures. You can see that book he brought; it's thick. There's lots of stuff there. So, City Council says we support this, and we sent that to P.U.C. back, I believe, in June. The P.U.C. now has said, you know, we kind of like that one too. And, believe me, they're not arm-in-arm with L.C.R.A. Quite the contrary. L.C.R.A. doesn't like our Route 7. They want 8, or they want up the Guadalupe River, period. They won't bend. The P.U.C. staff and the P.U.C. engineer have submitted an alternative, what they call 7A that's been accepted by the administrative law judge. It's part of the -- it's a new route. There's a process, evidently, you go through when you get routes, and that's a certain legal procedure as to whether the routes are adequate or not. And they've added one, which is 7A, which is it gets up here around 27, jogs a little bit from 7. Seven comes up here; 7A comes up here and jogs back, so it's got a couple of jogs in it that avoid some -- what they call habitable structures. And even the -- the P.U.C. staff and the P.U.C. engineer says we think that's the best one out of all -- out 9-24-07 109 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 I8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The Jones group has gone before the P.U.C. pretty late in the game; about June or July, if I'm not mistaken, maybe June, when they realized that what was happening was the Council position was being listened to by the Public Utility Commission staff. It's not L.C.R.A. Make sure that -- they're two different people here, adamantly opposed to each other about half the time or more. They saw the P.U.C. staff and the P.U.C. engineer say this is the best route. Let's forget 5 and 8, L.C.R.A., because they go down the Guadalupe River. They go through the middle of the city of Kerrville. They go through future development areas. There is a better area that affects less people, less development, doesn't go through the city. When all that started happening, this group, who wants it to go down the Guadalupe River Basin because they don't want anything over here -- they don't want 8, they don't want 7, they don't want 7A. They said, "Well, we better find something to do," and so they went back to 1992 and found a resolution that said let's go to Stadium Drive. I'm not an engineer. I've got the reports here. I've got court orders, I've got L.C.R.A. applications, I've got briefs, I've got engineer statements, all of whom say, number one, this request is really late in the game, because everybody's already ruled for a long time these eight are 9-24-07 110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 I8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 plenty of alternatives. And, number two, L.C.R.A. says, "That doesn't work for us at all, because it doesn't address future needs." There's a three-prong deal. The last one is the future needs of the county to the west, and they said going to Stadium does not address that at all. I'm not an engineer, but the engineers are supporting that. And all the filings -- and I've got copies, and I can give you, but they're this thick, that -- and so the administrative law judge said, "We're not going to allow any more routes. We've got nine routes; that's plenty for public input for us to make a decision on." So, they're too late, et cetera, et cetera. Doesn't address this, doesn't address that. There are no numbers that this group has put together that say what the cost is going to be. This is going to go through the city directly. And they had some support initially on the basis of, "Make it all underground for 3 miles and we'll support it." Well, that is not going to happen through the P.U.C. or L.C.R.A., the state or anybody. It's too damn much money, pardon my French. But there are no numbers presented by anybody what this costs. The administrative law judge says, "No, we're not going to add more routes here in July when the full hearing is in September." Starts tomorrow. They then appealed it to the Public Utility Commission. There's some appeals board, three people, I guess. They voted it out 9-24-07 111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 two-to-one. "No, we've got plenty of routes to consider. We got nine routes to consider. We've got the P.U.C. input. and conquer. They don't want it to proceed. They would like to have the Guadalupe River route, because they don't want anything coming this way at all, so that means you got to come up this way. The yellow -- I don't think I'm misrepresenting; that you're -- that's proposing this. All the routes except A-C-P go this way, and so they're saying that's let's muck up the process and stop it by adding something. And then what I think is really telling, they say if you don't like -- if the direct one doesn't work, we have other alternatives we'd like to discuss, you know? They do. Goat Creek Road and others; they've got two others, maybe three or four they've talked about. All come up this way through the Guadalupe. If we can't go underground, I really -- I don't know much about it, but I doubt very seriously you're going to get this transmission line under any circumstances underground for 4 miles through the middle of the city of Kerrville to Stadium -- to the Stadium substation behind the football field. When they say we've got some right-of-way, I -- I'm not in a position to say they don't. I think they say maybe 9-24-07 112 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 a fifth. I don't know where that is; I think it's all over here by Horizon. I think they got about a fifth of it, maybe half a mile. The other 2 and a half miles is underground through the city of Kerrville, through the middle. I just don't see it as feasible. And L.C.R.A.'s engineers, and engineers from the P.U.C., I believe -- I know the L.C.R.A.'s do. I know the administrative law judge, I know the Public Utility Commission agreed with them. Getting to Stadium Drive, it doesn't -- it doesn't work. It doesn't satisfy future west county service. And that's without even talking about cost. Can you even do it physically? Much less -- I mean, the -- this entire commission has -- the commission, administrative law judge, everybody says we're not going underground with this thing. The costs go from $17 million to $58 million, because we've addressed those too. You know, if we come down through here, through the Guadalupe area and go underground, it runs the cost about $58 million, as opposed to 17. I don't think it's going to happen. So, I think what we have here is a delay tactic on the eve of trial that says we've been turned down by the administrative law judge in Austin; we've been turned down by P.U.C., the commission -- not the staff, but the board. We've, in essence, been turned down by the P.U.C. staff and their engineers who've looked all these eight and say we got 9-24-07 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 113 plenty of choices here, and we think the west side over here than anything the L.C.R.A. picked out. They really want to come through the Guadalupe River, or stop it. KPUB took the position in 1992, "We need this facility," and 15 years later, L.C.R.A. has said, "We need the facility." Unfortunately, it's going to affect people. The green -- talking about the divide and conquer, the green, that's the group I represent, for what it's worth. They're opposed to A-C-P route. They're opposed to the route that runs right up Kerrville, or these developer areas. Put it out here in a less populated, less offensive area. Doesn't cost any more. Length is about the same. And, again, P.U.C. staff is saying we like that. And the trial starts tomorrow, and this is why they filed in June. "How about let's pull up the 1992 City Council minutes and see if we can't just go to Stadium Drive?" This came up in June of this year. JUDGE TINLEY: Question. MR. MACHANN: Yes, sir? JUDGE TINLEY: It's been reported that the City Council of the City of Kerrville passed the resolution for the route that you mentioned -- 9-24-07 114 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 MR. MACHANN: That's correct. JUDGE TINLEY: -- that goes way out. MR. MACHANN: That's correct. JUDGE TINLEY: Because, quote, there was no -- no one to oppose that request. MR. MACHANN: I disagree with that characterization of what happened. JUDGE TINLEY: Then there were folks opposing it? MR. MACHANN: Didn't say that. I said I disagree with the characterization that the reason they passed it is because nobody opposed it. I think they passed it 'cause it makes sense. We made a lengthy presentation, and we provided lots of arguments about habitable structures that were affected, not affected, the Guadalupe River Basin, future development, areas to be developed on Bear Creek Road, Wren Road, existing homes. As an example -- and I will agree with these -- these people to a large extent. This PBSC group or whatever -- this engineer's group, I don't think they can count, or they have something else in mind. One of the major items they've used to support the route L.C.R.A. wants is it interferes with less number of habitable structures. It won't. By -- it's not even close. What they did in counting habitable structures is, they took the assisted living home -- living center out off 27 there on the left; they call it Mountain Village or something like that. It's got 50 9-24-07 115 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 units in it. They counted that as one. They went through Granger MacDonald's assisted living senior citizens apartment project. It affected eight four-plexes. Those are actively living people; four families times eight is 32, the way I do math. They counted that as eight. And once they took those kind of comparisons, because they have other structures out further west that were on 7, we -- they said we got a lot more habitable structures out here. Well, they didn't use the same rhyme or reason, because they -- and I'm not trying to be -- you know, they took very small structures and they all counted one, but a four-plex apartment project counts as one, not four, and eight of them counts as eight, not 32. And we're supposed to avoid interfering with children, hospitals, apartments, but the retirement villa that holds 50 is one. When you approach those numbers, everything flip-flopped. And so our argument for City Council was, they're hanging their hats on habitable structures. They're wrong, by probably twice as many habitable structures on their route as on 7. Council looked at it and says, "Makes sense to us." JUDGE TINLEY: Is -- MR. MACHANN: They don't -- JUDGE TINLEY: Is my recollection not correct in -- in that the mayor or one or more City Councilpersons, subsequent to the Council's action on -- on endorsing, as it 9-24-07 116 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 were, that route that looped around, stated that the reason it was approved by Council was because no one was there to oppose it? MR. MACHANN: I don't know if a Council member or mayor said that. If they did, I'm sure that was their opinion and they believed it. All I can say is that I was intimately involved in that project for two months, and I think it's safe to say that the majority of the Council, by far -- and it was a 5-0 vote, by the way -- saw the wisdom in Frankly, the Council was upset at L.C.R.A. because they think -- Council was much like your -- the Commissioners. Y'all said, "We don't want it in the Guadalupe." First thing is, if you can put it underground, do it. And one of the -- I've got some of your quotes here that one of the engineers at P.U.C. used as support for his 7A, of keep it out of the Guadalupe River Basin. I think y'all said that, if at all possible. Bear with me. L.C.R.A. says, "We hear all of that, and here's our new list," and they gave a list and published it and put it on a big map, 1 through 8. You would think Number 1 is the first one and Number 8 is the bottom one, okay? No. City looked at that and says, "Looks good." They took Route 5, A-C-P, and stuck it way down here at Number 5. You got to read this report. What they did was they put their first route at the top, of 8, and they went 7, 9-24-07 117 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 6, 5, all the way down, but 5 was the number two choice. Now, P.U.C., if you don't approve us going this circuitous route around Saddlewood and running, that next choice is to run it up the Guadalupe River. That created extreme consternation with the City Council members. JUDGE TINLEY: Did -- did not -- MR. MACHANN: And so -- and I was -- and I -- this is not hearsay. JUDGE TINLEY: Let me get to my question, if I might. MR. MACHANN: Mm-hmm. JUDGE TINLEY: The route which the City Council selected -- MR. MACHANN: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: -- and, in effect, endorsed -- MR. MACHANN: Yes, sir, they did. JUDGE TINLEY: -- did that not move the location of that line more out of the city into the county? MR. MACHANN: Yes, it did. JUDGE TINLEY: Than what it had previously been? MR. MACHANN: Yes, it did. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MR. MACHANN: That -- but I think what you've also heard today, which is that this line was in the city, dramatically -- all of Bear Creek Road is county, so I think 9-29-07 118 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 we need to -- I think, again, we need not to be -- the only part that moved from the city under 7 is after it crossed the Guadalupe River, 'cause everything on the other side of the Guadalupe River all behind Saddlewood, the entire length of Bear Creek Road, that's county property. It's to your benefit to get it off that Bear Creek Road. That's -- this isn't a city/county dispute, in my opinion. That's county -- that's county property. It is in the city's ETJ. It is prime development property, and they're going to run that transmission line right down -- right down the side of it, paralleling the creek -- Bear Creek, and run it right down the side. JUDGE TINLEY: So, what you're asking -- MR. MACHANN: And we -- and the Council says, "We don't like that route, nor do we like the one that comes through Guadalupe River Basin." I think this group wants it back on the Guadalupe River Basin or anyplace else, but there are no other alternatives of the eight that the -- that's been submitted to the state for a year and a half. JUDGE TINLEY: So, what you're asking us to do, then, is to deny a group of our citizens in this county an opportunity to be heard on an issue, if the P.U.C. or whatever other agency may be involved are willing to give them that opportunity? MR. MACHANN: These agencies have already said no 9-24-07 119 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 twice. That's my point. It's already been through the agencies. JUDGE TINLEY: What would the harm be, then? MR. MACHANN: I don't know. I'm not -- I'm not -- I'm not here to say, "Guys, don't pass this resolution; I don't want them to have their say in court." I haven't been involved in this extremely protracted litigation for a year and a half or two years. I've been very local here. All I know is that it's been going on for a few years. I know that the administrative law judge has said no for various reasons. I know that L.C.R.A.'s engineers have said this doesn't even come close to satisfying our needs, and I know that they appealed it to the P.U.C. commission, whoever that is, but it's not the staff. It's a commission of three. They've said no, we're going to proceed ahead with the nine routes that are now before us. I -- I don't -- I don't disagree with you that, you know, maybe this has been something that should have come up two years ago. And maybe somebody should have said something about it, but -- and so I'm not in favor of denying anybody anything, but I am talking about reality. Trial starts tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock. JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I understand that. MR. MACHANN: And there's already been two rulings by a judge and appeals commission that says no. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mr. Machann, can I make a 9-24-07 120 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 comment -- or question -- one quick question to the Judge? Judge, my feeling is I'm really hungry right now. We're not going to finish this before lunch. But, you know, my idea on a resolution is to get L.C.R.A., basically, or whoever to say that they have studied all alternatives. I have never been satisfied that they've studied all alternatives. They have done a very poor job overall, in my mind, of certainly educating the community, this Court included, on the -- on this matter. I -- from hearing Mr. Machann, you know, a lot of that is hearsay. I, you know, believe -- I'm sure that most of it is accurate, but I don't see any great harm in doing a resolution. I mean, I think it's a -- makes sense, but it's got to be very broad, and not recommend that they stop anything. I just want L.C.R.A. to say they've studied everything, and I'm not so sure that they have. And I've never -- you know, they've never convinced me, as many times as they've been here. MR. MACHANN: And, believe me, I can't tell you that they've -- I'm not here on behalf of L.C.R.A. at all. I'm not a proponent of L.C.R.A. JUDGE TINLEY: Now, it may well be these folks may appear before the P.U.C. tomorrow and be told flat out, "I don't care what kind of resolution you got from whomever, but that issue's been addressed. We find there are adequate routes. See you. Go home." 9-24-07 121 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 to happen. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's probably what's going JUDGE TINLEY: Well, but -- MR. MACHANN: Would you consider -- are you going to change your prior resolution or your prior position about the Guadalupe River? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not. MR. MACHANN: Are you going to make that part of this deal so that they understand where you're coming from? JUDGE TINLEY: My concern is that even if it may be too little, too late, it's been decided once to 22 times before, I don't want to be in a position of denying any citizen or group of citizens in this county from having the opportunity to try and present their position, whatever that may be, or, quote, having their day in court. MR. MACHANN: I understand that. JUDGE TINLEY: Before a state agency. MR. MACHANN: I understand that. JUDGE TINLEY: It's broad brush. MR. MACHANN: I understand that. The only thing I'm asking that you consider, then -- I'm not -- I've certainly been accused of being hard-headed, but I'm not stupid -- well, sometimes I am, but not always. At least consider that whatever you pass, don't lose what you passed before. Because I don't know that everybody knows -- this 9-29-07 122 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 has been a year, year and a half ago, y'all passed a resolution that says, give due consideration to underground. They're saying they have; we're not going to do it. Well, repeat that; that would be great. And then their second was that the existing future aesthetics of Guadalupe River Valley be among the highest priorities of consideration to determine placement ideally above or below ground -- I'm reading this. I don't think it's your exact quote, but I'm reading it from the testimony given by the P.U.C. staff and their engineer. What I'd hate to see is a message that's not complete, which is -- that just says, "We want you to now go look at this route." Or we want you to -- in other words, that waters down in any way the A-C-P -- I mean, I think y'all pretty clearly said you don't think it's good to come up the Guadalupe River Valley. JUDGE TINLEY: I don't think what the request is before us today -- MR. MACHANN: Well -- JUDGE TINLEY: -- and our existing resolution, I don't think they're in conflict. MR. MACHANN: What about their request that says "or other locations"? JUDGE TINLEY: There may be other locations that have not been studied. MR. MACHANN: I'm sorry, I'm not -- I'm not here to 9-24-07 123 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 argue, but I do think that it would be good to make sure it's clear. These are bureaucrats. This is the P.U.C., a bunch of engineers, L.C.R.A., and they're going to take this letter and use it however in the hell they think is best to use it. And if L.C.R.A. can use it for A-C-P route, they'll damn sure do it, 'cause that's what they want. They want to come up the Guadalupe River. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't have any problem with that statement. I think that I haven't changed my view on the Guadalupe Valley. JUDGE TINLEY: So far as saying that the -- that this is not meant in any manner to diminish the resolution previously passed by the Court? COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's fine. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree with that too. MR. MACHANN: That's all I'm saying. Y'all have any questions? MR. HOFFMANNN: Can I make some comments? JUDGE TINLEY: Just a moment. We'll make sure we're through here. Are you through? MR. MACHANN: I've done about all the damage I can do, yeah. JUDGE TINLEY: Any more questions of Mr. Machann? Come forward and give us your name, please, sir, and your address. 9-24-07 124 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 I2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. HOFFMANNN: My name is Mark Hoffmann, and my address is 265 St. Mark Path. And I just want to make a comment, that I respect the position that you guys took. I would caution you to not make the decision that the -- that the P.U.C. has to make. Let them make the selection of routes. And just -- all we're trying to do is make sure that they have all the information and all the data presented to them. You can't take a 10-minute presentation and condense what, you know, six months of administrative process takes into account. So, you know, let's -- that -- we trust the P.U.C. and we hope that you guys will do that too, and let them make that decision. Our -- our effort today was just to make sure that they have all the information and all of the data to make the proper decision. And another point I'd like to make -- and I'm a little confused, because the 70 clients that Mr. -- is it Machann? MR. MACHANN: Yes, sir. MR. HOFFMANN: -- represents supported our appeal, when we were appealing that to the P.U.C. And so, at that point in time, we had, you know, total backing of all the parties involved. We did -- there's not one party in the process that objected to our appeal, other than L.C.R.A. So, I'm -- I just want to stress that. MR. MACHANN: I beg to differ. Initially, there was some support by my group. It was conditioned upon 9-29-07 125 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 I8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 absolutely the entire route -- I mentioned it a while ago -- considering another route going directly to Stadium. It's got to be underground or we're not going to support it. I've been told by my client unequivocally, who I talked to this morning -- clarify this for me, because I'm looking through documents this thick that I got on Friday. I have a -- I've got a filing here, filed by the attorneys on the 20th day of September, 2007; pretty recent. It's, like, last Thursday. This is by the Minton, Burton, Foster and Collins firm. I have no connection to these guys, but they do represent the group I represent. This is the statement of position filed with the P.U.C. last Thursday. I've got a copy, if anybody wants to see it. Nowhere in here do they support this route, if y'all would like to see it. What happened, as I'm told, is -- is that initially, they said, you know, that might not be a bad idea to have them consider everything. We need to have it underground. You know, this isn't going to be feasible otherwise. It's a lot shorter; maybe underground works, because it's only 3 miles instead of 7, and maybe the underground cost would not be prohibitive. But what actually happened, I'm told -- this is hearsay, Mr. Letz, 'cause I wasn't there -- is that when it actually got to the hearing before the administrative law judge, is that this group says, 9-24-07 126 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 "Well, we got a couple two or three other alternatives we'd like for y'all to consider, too, if you don't like this one, like going up goat Creek Road, doing this and doing that. And so it wasn't -- it didn't end up being what it was initially stated to be, which is we want to run directly to Stadium from Rim Rock. Our group says, "Fine, keep it underground." Got to the hearing and it's, like, "Well, we probably don't have a very good case here, because we got no numbers, we have no engineering, and we got some other routes we'd like for you to consider too, because we think 8 and 9 is not enough. How about 11 or 12?" At that point in time, the group I represent, they tell me -- just told me this morning; I haven't met with them. He said we would -- (Low-voice discussion off the record.) MR. MACHANN: He said that's what happened. We do not support this, because -- because of not underground. All that's okay, but -- because that's not what they believe is happening today. MR. HOFFMANN: I'd like to clarify what happened, because when you have counsel coming forth and -- and speculating what may or may not happen, I'd like to clarify what happened. Okay. On the route of adequacy, it goes to a hearing before the ALJ, Judge Sullivan. I've been at every one of these hearings, been at every one of these proceedings. What I'm giving is not hearsay. These are -- 9-24-07 127 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 there was a court or -- and he keeps referring to the thing tomorrow as a trial. It's not a trial; it's a hearing. It's an open hearing. Okay. At the ALC, Judge Sullivan denied our request to consider the route Rim Rock to Stadium. Okay? And our attorney -- Jones-Cooper, our attorney, appealed that decision. And it went -- it didn't go to a hearing. It went to the open meeting of the commissioners, three commissioners -- three P.U.C. commissioners. David Jones, Mary Elaine, Cynthia and I were all at that -- at that hearing. The day before that open meeting, the 70 -- all of them, every client that he says today that he represents, filed a proclamation -- I'm going to provide all five of you with a copy of that after lunch -- endorsing our appeal. Okay? And it did have language in there about portions of the line being underground, and you can read it this afternoon. But they all endorsed it, and they have not withdrawn that endorsement. They have not changed that position. The fact that it's not stated in their current position doesn't withdraw it. So, once again, I just encourage you to pass a resolution or send a letter that we're requesting. But -- MR. MACHANN: Like, 60 seconds, I'll be through. We're not going to get anywhere here. Nobody -- I don't know -- I admitted this from step one. What I have from my client -- I believe what my client tells me. I usually ask a 9-24-07 128 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 MS. HOFFMANN: Client? Sorry. MR. MACHANN: If you read the administrative law judge orders, Hoffmann supports two additional routes in the event Stadium isn't working. What my client tells me this morning -- maybe -- there's always usually two sides of the story. I don't usually do this, but I will in this case. I said, "Fred, when I looked at your support filed by your lawyers, it says we support this -- their proposal if a portion of the line is underground." I said, "What does that mean?" He says they made a mistake. I said, "What do you mean, he made a mistake?" He said, "Our intent was all of it underground, and we made that clear subsequently." That's the only explanation I have for, obviously, a difference of opinion as to where my clients -- I was hired last week to come do this, and I'm being told by my clients they're fully behind me, so I don't know what else to say. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It seems like y'all -- I mean, the last 30 minutes, I haven't heard anything change, that the resolution -- you don't mind the resolution, as long as we protect our earlier resolution. I think I'm fine with that. MR. MACHANN: I think what I have heard Commissioners Court say -- and if your decision is you'd like to now pass a resolution that says L.C.R.A., P.U.C., 9-24-07 129 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 everybody, make sure you've given everybody a fair hearing, I got no problem with that. As I've said before, and I think what y'all proposed is this doesn't take away from our prior one of whatever date it was; I think it's important. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree with that. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with that too. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can I go eat now? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Lady had her hand up. JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Cooper? MR. MACHANN: Excuse me. Y'all don't need me any more? I mean, I -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: See ya. MR. MACHANN: Or want me any more. Bye. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Bye. JUDGE TINLEY: You take your choice. MS. COOPER: I'm very hungry and I won't take long. MR. MACHANN: It doesn't matter. MS. COOPER: My name is Susan Harris Cooper; I live at 2075 Sheppard Rees Road. I absolutely agree with Mr. Machann; we have let the bureaucrats from somewhere far away divide us. In the city, in the county, neighbor upon neighbor, and they have succeeded, and you've just seen it. It's not going by Dr. Speck's house; it's going by my house and my parents' house, and these people, and that's why we're 9-24-07 130 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 fighting. And we've been fighting all along. It's not a delay tactic. And that's why we're here today. They never studied that Stadium Drive. It's never been studied. It's the closest. It's the common-sense, logical route, but it was never studied. All we're asking is to give us a chance to go back and study what makes sense in our city and in our county. It is never too late to avoid a wrong decision. Never. When we can take a little more time, put some energy and resources into what's best for everybody. Everybody. There is a consensus here. We haven't found it. And we are marching down what I fear to be a very, very wrong decision. You are going to scar some of the most beautiful hill country land with the way this is going right now. And if I were them, I would be arguing just as hard to put it up there with the Hoffmanns and the Joneses and the Harrises and the Coopers, 'cause it is not in my back yard. So, I don't blame them. Let's pull together. This is our chance to pull together and not let bureaucrats in Austin tell us what's best for our community, and that's what we're asking for. It's never too late to avoid a wrong decision. And I thank you. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just want to know who's going to draw up the resolution, and are they going to add in 9-24-07 131 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 there that -- what's it going to say? JUDGE TINLEY: My understanding of what it's going to say is that it is our desire as a court that all possible feasible routes for the location of this line be considered, including the line from Rim Rock Station to Stadium Drive, and that this resolution does not impair or negate our prior resolution passed by this Court on whatever date that was. That's my understanding of what we've heard here. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll vote for that. You want to vote right now for that? Before the document arrives? Or are we going to come back later on? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd rather see a document. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All right, let's do it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can I go eat now? JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. We'll be in recess till -- let's say quarter till 2:00. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Quarter till 2:00. Let's all say it together; quarter till 2:00. (Recess taken from 12:30 p.m. to 1:45 p.m.) JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to order, if we might. We were on Item 13, but I'm going to move on with the agenda and come back to -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I wanted to talk about the L.C.R.A. issue. (Laughter.) 9-24-07 132 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 JUDGE TINLEY: I'll give you opportunity about that later, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Little joke there. Just a little joke. JUDGE TINLEY: Give you an opportunity to collect your thoughts on it a little bit better so that they can be more comprehensive. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. JUDGE TINLEY: Let me call Item 15; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to adopt the Kerr County proposed '07-'08 holiday schedule. As you know, this is one -- actually, we had passed it as part of our budget, as I recall, in past years, but we're going to take a look at it separately. What you've got in front of you are actually two different ones that were proposed. I just threw them both in there, and let y'all run with it from there. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How many do we have currently? MS. HYDE: Thirteen. JUDGE TINLEY: Thirteen, I think. Yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I believe we have 13. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And we're proposing 15? MS. HYDE: I didn't -- no, sir, I have 13. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Whose is -- where are the -- who -- oh, you did this one? 9-24-07 133 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. HYDE: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Who did this one? MS. GRINSTEAD: I did, based on everything you've ever given in the past, 'cause I had no guidelines. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Based on everything we've ever done in the past? Why don't we just shut the courthouse down? COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I notice that Texas Independence Day is on Sunday, so I don't think we're going to give that one. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's see. Texas Independence Day came out of my -- off my list. MS. HYDE: It only came off 'cause it's on Sunday. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pardon? MS. HYDE: Texas Independence Day is on Sunday. COMMISSIONER LETZ: This past year, we had 13? (Ms. Hyde nodded.) COMMISSIONER LETZ: The current year, we have 13, so what we're doing, we're adding -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is Columbus Day on Monday? MS. HYDE: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me get my little calendar out. JUDGE TINLEY: Actually, the 12th -- 10/12 is on Friday. That's the day we're -- 9-24-07 134 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 MS. HYDE: That's Veterans Day. JUDGE TINLEY: The day we're having the -- the dedication for the Frances Lehmann Pavilion. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Veterans Day is in '~, November. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. MS. HYDE: 10/8 is Columbus day. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But that's not the real Columbus Day; that's our -- that's our -- JUDGE TINLEY: Monday holiday. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's the Monday day, right? MS. HYDE: That's the day that's on the calendar. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's the government day. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the day Columbus sailed up the Guadalupe, so we can celebrate that. MS. HYDE: Yes, sir, we can celebrate on a different day. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: No, Joshua Brown did. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Now we're going to give Joshua Brown Day. MS. HYDE: Well, Good Friday is in March as well, so it moved. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I guess -- if I was to make a -- an option of a change here -- well, I can't do that. Nevermind. I was going to give the 31st off for New Year's, 9-29-07 135 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 but that's already in this calendar year, so we -- oh, yeah, we could do that, couldn't we? COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It's in there. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, New Year's Day is off. What happens is we end up shutting down for half of the 31st anyway, in reality. MS. BOLIN: That's because most people think we're closed anyhow. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. So I would assume give that day off, and scratch either Columbus Day or Martin Luther King Day; make it a four-day weekend. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Wait a minute. Where are you at? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Add 12-31-07 as a holiday, and just scratch Martin Luther King Day or Columbus Day. Probably, just from a time standpoint of times of the year, I'd probably take out Martin Luther King Day, 'cause we have more holidays in the front of the year than the last part of the year. But I'm sure I'll open myself to all kinds of criticism for that recommendation. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I believe you probably are. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm not going there, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'm not making that recommendation. 9-24-07 136 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 MR. EMERSON: I'll call Fred Gamble for you. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Y'all just aren't nice. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: See, that's the only problem with it, is somebody's going to call them and -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, exactly. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- get it going. Actually, I agree with you 100 percent. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think a four-day holiday would be a lot more useful to the employees. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Than Martin Luther King Day. I agree with you. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Coming back on Monday a half day, and then leaving on Tuesday. MS. HYDE: Right. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. But ... COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, most of those coincide -- the days that aren't like Christmas and Thanksgiving coincide with bank holidays. 'Cause I know that there have been times whenever -- whenever the banks were closed and we were not, and that's not a really good thing. COMMISSIONER LETZ: We could -- we could take -- and I wouldn't be adverse to this; delete Columbus Day and put in the 31st. JUDGE TINLEY: New Year's Eve? 9-24-07 137 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: New Year's Eve. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Is Columbus Day normally a bank holiday? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would favor it that way. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Isn't Columbus Day normally a bank holiday? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Banks are closed a lot of days when we aren't. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I didn't think the bank was the problem. I thought it was school. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, that's an issue, too. COMMISSIONER LETZ: School's not closed for Columbus Day. JUDGE TINLEY: Not generally. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not generally. And they are closed on the 31st. MS. HYDE: Yes, they are. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd be in favor of that switch. Delete Columbus Day and add December 31st, to make that a four-day weekend. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Works for me. JUDGE TINLEY: Are you making that in the form of a ~ motion, Commissioner? 25 ~ COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, sir. I move we adopt the 9-24-07 138 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 2007-2008 Kerr County holiday schedule, with the modification that December 31st, 2007, be a holiday, and we'll delete October 8th, '07 as being a holiday. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's coming off the Human Resource Department recommended schedule. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Question or discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. THE REPORTER: Buster, did you vote? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I might. I might not. Yeah, I did. Yes. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And all -- all elected officials here support that, right? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Enthusiastically. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No. COMMISSIONER LETZ: You did earlier. You were nodding a minute ago, Rusty. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That may have been about something else. JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Jones? 9-24-07 139 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 MR. JONES: Yes, sir? JUDGE TINLEY: Do you have something cobbled together there? MR. JONES: It is -- JUDGE TINLEY: Ready to present? MR. JONES: -- being cobbled. It will be here in just a moment. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. It's not here yet? MR. JONES: No, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. We'll move on. MR. JONES: But thank you for asking. JUDGE TINLEY: Item 16; consider, discuss, take appropriate action to adopt the position schedule, step and grade schedule, and general provisions for FY '07-'08. We -- gentlemen, we have some -- some proposed changes to the general provisions that have been handed out to you. I assume the changes are those that are highlighted in gray, or whatever color the original may have had? MS. HYDE: It wasn't just -- yes, that's the Auditor's corrections, and H.R.'s suggestions. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What does the gray mean exactly? MS. HYDE: It's a change. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a delete? The gray 9-24-07 140 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 is a delete? MS. HYDE: Excuse me? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The gray area is to be -- proposed to be deleted? JUDGE TINLEY: No, no. Added. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Added? MS. HYDE: Changed. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, added to. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Added. JUDGE TINLEY: Modified, added. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I don't know that I like that first gray one. That's basically, as I read that -- MR. EMERSON: Since we haven't seen those schedules, -- SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And would it affect us. MR. EMERSON: -- we'd really appreciate it if y'all would verbally talk through what's added and what's deleted. COMMISSIONER LETZ: What is added on the first page is that the Commissioners Court may designate a county budget officer to make budget amendments without coming to the Court. JUDGE TINLEY: Or other -- MS. HYDE: Shall I go get the Auditor? MS. GRINSTEAD: They're not looking at the step and grade right now. 9-24-07 141 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 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're looking at a draft of -- MS. GRINSTEAD: Of the general provisions. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- general provisions. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Still like to see it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not so sure that I want to do that. I don't know that it's -- MS. HYDE: I didn't do it. I don't have a copy. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Jody, would you go -- i COMMISSIONER LETZ: Didn't I read that right? MS. HYDE: I think that's what it says. Must be approved by Commissioners Court, or Commissioners Court may designate county budget officer or other officer or employee of the county who may, as appropriate, subject to conditions and directions as provided by the Court... COMMISSIONER LETZ: Doesn't say we're going to do it, but I'd just as soon not have it in here. I like our format we're doing right now where we do all the transfers. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I do like the one part that says that prior to an expenditure, execution of a purchase order. JUDGE TINLEY: That was -- that was in the previous one. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's been there for a long time. 9-24-07 142 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. Doesn't mean anything, I but it's there. JUDGE TINLEY: That was the problem; I think you've identified it, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The other one is under salaries. Y'all have one yet? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Not yet. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Under salaries, "full-time" means except law enforcement officers, jailers, child care workers, and employees of the Juvenile Detention Facility, and community supervision and corrections officers who are authorized by the state to carry weapons, whose work week is 28 cycle... Basically, this is an accommodation that your people aren't counted in here; they're not full-time. So, basically, I don't have any problem with that one. They're just saying that law enforcement's not subject to the term "full-time" and -- as referred to -- SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I'm not sure that's exactly what F.M.L.A. says on that. I've got the book at the office. 'Cause it does address that specifically. JUDGE TINLEY: This may be an item that we want to put on our Friday agenda, it occurs to me. COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's quite a few changes here. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 9-24-07 143 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 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's go back -- let's go back to the very first one again. And my -- my question is ', simple, I think. Why would you want to add this verbiage in here? What does this accomplish? COMMISSIONER LETZ: It makes it so it doesn't have to come to the court. It speeds it up, maybe, a little bit, but it gets it -- I mean, to me, it doesn't accomplish any -- to me, it's a bad accomplishment. MS. HYDE: Do you want me to go get the Auditor to explain? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. MS. HYDE: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: If you want -- or the Judge wants us to wait and do it on Friday. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. I think we need to -- this probably needs to have all of the department heads and elected officials coming in to take a look at it. Probably something we're going to be looking at for final approval on Friday, I would think, these changes as well as any others, as to whether or not we want to adopt them. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: 'Cause Section 1, where that really does have an effect is -- 'cause we get calls all the time. Since today's Commissioners Court, say last Thursday we received a bill. Y'all had a cutoff for bills, so that 9-24-07 144 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 bill would never be approved to be paid, even though it's one of your normal bills, okay, until the next Commissioners Court in two weeks. And a lot of times that puts those bills late getting paid, and it's how a lot of the vendors look at it. We get it a lot with inmate medical, where these doctors and that are sending bills and they're all complaining that it takes too long for the County to pay the bill, depending on what time of the month we actually receive it. So, on that type of timeliness, I can understand what they're trying to do. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, I mean, in my mind, though, by triggers in the budget, when your account starts getting low, it needs to come proactively to the Court before it goes to zero. MS. HARGIS: We ready for this? JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. MS. HARGIS: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: What was your rationale for having someone other than the full Court approve budget amendments? MS. HARGIS: In the actual text that comes out of the Local Government Code, which is what I copied -- let's go by what we do today. MR. EMERSON: What section? MS. HARGIS: Okay, what you do today is that you -- you approve amendments on bills that have already been 9-24-07 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 145 incurred. If you read this paragraph, it says before the expenditure. The expenditure's already been made, so they're actually supposed to come to you before the expenditure, but they're coming after. So, we're already not doing this now. intended, which was to maintain a solid budget. What's happening, I feel like -- and I don't have any proof of this, but the fund balance is actually going down during the year because we're approving these amendments based on all these other people's accounts. So, we're playing Chinese checkers all the time, and I can't keep up with that. My suggestion is they have a bottom-line budget. They can't go over that bottom line. If they go over that bottom line, they have to be in here requesting. Now, we can tell you when they've gone over a line item, and continue to give you that. And then have the Judge -- which is what it says; it can be either -- exactly what I've said here. It says designate the county budget officer or another officer or employee of the county who may, as appropriate, and subject to conditions and direction provided by the Court, amend the budget by transferring amounts budgeted for certain items to other budgeted items. In other words, line item to line item within their own budgets. If they go out of their budget, that's when they need to come here. But what they're doing 9-24-07 146 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 now is that if they're out of a line item, then they went and grabbed some from the jail, when they still had some in their own budget. So, when they do their budgets, they need to learn to live within that parameter. Many of them have money left in their own budgets. Had they had to use them, they would have stayed within their own budget. You know, they all have money left because you gave them another line item through somebody else, so it doesn't make sense. To me, they're not budgeting. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the reason -- COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I don't -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: The reason that happens in virtually every account, including why Rusty has money, is because he has the biggest employee pool, and we don't ever stay 100 percent staffed, and yet we budget as if we're 100 percent staffed. MS. HARGIS: I understand that. It's not Rusty's budget that -- that is the problem. He's more online with his than anybody else. I'll give you a for-instance. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not saying -- MS. HARGIS: I hate to pick on Janie, but I just happened to look at hers. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Whose budget? MS. HARGIS: Janie's budget, the Animal Control. We have given her line item amendments, but we have moved 9-24-07 147 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 moneys from other departments into hers. You know, she still has 23,000 left in hers. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We haven't moved any money from other departments. MS. HARGIS: You haven't? COMMISSIONER OEHLER: No, it's been within her budget. We're moving money, almost every instance, from inside the same budget. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, use me as an example. Pretend I did something like that so we can get -- get to the bottom of this thing. MS. HARGIS: All right. I had one the other -- to give you an idea of -- Rex's is the biggest one, and I don't know that we can avoid that, is the Court-appointed attorneys. And those we have been taking from the jail. But there are other areas where we've taken -- but by coming to you just to move an item from one spot to another spot is -- is really counterproductive in -- in your -- in trying do the court. You know, notifying you of it and telling you of it so that you know how they're spending it, I think, is -- is more reasonable. Because if they know that they have to live within their bottom line, they will. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Most do. There are very few that I know of that we have -- other than Court-appointed attorneys, that we've transferred money out of one person's 9-24-07 148 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 budget into another one. MS. HARGIS: But just to give you an idea, when I stood up here the lst of August, I had to read 36 amendments, and ever since then we've had 36 almost per -- per court. So, what I'm saying is, that's an awful lot just to move it from one line item to another line item, especially if we gave you a report on that and -- and the Judge reviewed it. If he found those that he did not feel were appropriate, those would then come to you for approval. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, first of all, the Judge is no different than another Commissioner when it comes to these issues, so he just doesn't have any authority to approve it. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what it's saying here, though. Give him that authority. MS. HARGIS: He's the budget officer. JUDGE TINLEY: Assuming he wants it. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. So he -- he can make -- what you're saying is the County Judge can make a decision better than the whole Commissioners Court. MS. HARGIS: No, I'm not -- no, I'm not saying that. I'm just saying -- I'm trying to be more efficient with the way in which we handle the amendments. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So you can go straight to the County Judge and get approval without waiting for 9-24-07 149 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 Commissioners Court. MS. HARGIS: Well, here's the other reason that I I wanted -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't think I'm going to go along with that deal, personally. MS. HARGIS: Okay. But if y'all will please just hear me out. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. MS. HARGIS: Okay? Number one, we are always late on our bills. We're 45 days paying our bills. We have late payments on our bills because we approve the amendments on bills that have already been incurred. They don't get paid for another two weeks, so consequently, we're always behind. We're always late on our bills, and I don't think that we want that, especially when we're going to the bond market; that reflects on our credit. So, I'm trying to come up with a way to expedite the payment of our bills. A 30-day frame is reasonable, but 45 is not. And after looking, I had a stack that big that we were holding. At this time of the year, that's really not good, because I need to know what my position is this time of the year, so I ran those through. What we're doing by doing the amendments is, we're holding the bills that you have the amendments for; then we're putting those bills on at the next meeting. They're already late. 9-29-07 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 150 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Why are those bills being received so late to start with? MS. HARGIS: Well, they go to the department -- COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Two weeks to pay it doesn't sound unreasonable to me. MS. HARGIS: Well, they go to the department first to be -- you know, they're received in the mail. So, that department head generally needs a little bit of time to evaluate that bill. By the time it gets up to us, let's say it came in around the 3rd or 4th of the month. By the time it gets up to us, it's got to wait for the second billing of the month, just because of our cutoff time. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay. MS. HARGIS: It's -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Without going through the merits of the budget transfers that are before us today, there are two illustrations in the current list as to what you're talking about. One of them is -- again, this is not going to the merits of the transfer. One of them is Juvenile Probation, and they're transferring from outside the department. They're transferring from Custodial and Grounds and Jail Maintenance to shore up their budget request. MS. HARGIS: Right. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The second one is Agricultural Extension, which is going outside its budget and 9-24-07 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 I8 I9 20 21 22 23 24 25 151 transferring money to meet its request from Jail Maintenance. Those are two in the current list. MS. HARGIS: To me, that's a real amendment. If -- the purpose of an amendment, if you read the whole act, it talks about you have the authority to make amendments, but you -- it also says that -- that you don't want to make them on a constant basis, and that's really what we're doing. We're amending from the very first day, so it becomes such old hat, for the lack of a better term, that people are just doing it because they know you're going to do it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: See, what I see, Ms. Hargis, happening with your method -- and, you know, I'll probably get criticized by -- say Diane has -- you know, someone retired and it takes two months to fill that position, so all of a sudden, she has a pot of money there in her budget. Well, then she can either decide that, well, we're going to go ahead and send some of our people to some more conferences, or maybe we'll, you know, hire some part-time people here and there. I mean, and there's things -- MS. HARGIS: No, not -- your -- no. What I'm -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: But she has full discretion over her budget. MS. HARGIS: She doesn't have full discretion; she official, and it suggests the budget officer. If the budget 9-29-07 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 152 officer doesn't want to do that, you know, maybe perhaps one of the other Commissioners would like to do that. I would prefer not being the one. But -- COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Don't look at me. MS. HARGIS: I mean, we can continue to do this, but my thought would be that you approve the amendments first. We present the bills. If there's a bill you don't want to pay, we pull it. At least it gets paid on time. It's -- but it just seems like an awful lot of amendments to me, if -- when you make that many amendments to a budget, it's worthless. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But we don't -- I mean, you came towards the end. At the end of the year, we generally do. There are very few in the first half of the year. MS. HARGIS: In the city, we made none. None. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But they have a different system. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: A very different system. JUDGE TINLEY: If we're trying to -- if we're trying to make sure that there's timely payment of just obligations, wouldn't it be better if we got out of this mode of paying first and amending later? But rather, as has been the general policy since Buster -- before Buster came on the Court, -- 25 I COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Good lord. 9-24-07 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 I4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 153 I JUDGE TINLEY: -- that you amend prior to the expenditure being incurred. And that may cause a hardship on folks, but they need to know what's out there in front of them. MS. HARGIS: Well, and that's the intent. JUDGE TINLEY: But I do want to congratulate you on this summary that you put together, that procedure where we can pull out if there are any questionable ones, but otherwise just adopt them en masse, as per that summary. That has helped tremendously, and you saw right away that you didn't want to be standing up there and going through 25 different items, and I don't blame you. It's pretty evident I~ that that was something that you didn't like to do. This solves that problem. But I think the other solution is, that elected officials not incur debts until they got the money in their budget to spend. And that way, it'll be paid right away. MS. HARGIS: And that's kind of what -- what -- if you read the general provisions, that's what it says. It says before the expenditure. But that's not happening. You're actually amending it after the expenditure. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. What we need to do is make every department head and elected official comply with the policy as it has been written for years and years and years, and that'll solve the problem. 9-24-07 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 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I mean, to me, the solution is pretty much what the Judge is saying, but you put a trigger in there, when someone's balance in any line item goes down to, say, 5 percent, whatever -- some percentage, that they get advised of that automatically. They need to make some proactive changes. MS. HARGIS: They get sent, on the first day of every month, a copy of their budget. Every month, so they know. And if they want to call, I know we do calls, and we teach them how to do the budget online. In this next year, they can go on and check on a daily basis, which will help a ~ lot, which helped at the city as well, 'cause then they knew where they were. But it just seemed kind of strange to me that we'd be approving amendments on expenditures that had already been made. The bills had already been incurred; we had to pay them. We're just paying them late, and I don't think you want to do that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: We agree with the problem. We just don't like the solution. MS. HARGIS: I know. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The problem I have with the proposed solution is that it -- it transfers the justification of the budget request from the Court to an individual, none of whom seem to want to raise their hand to do that. 9-29-07 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 I4 15 16 17 I8 I9 20 21 22 23 24 155 MS. HARGIS: Well, I don't -- I don't really care if the Court does it, but I just feel like if we're going to put that in there, then it needs to be before you do the expenditure. Then we need to stick with your policy. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree with that. MS. HARGIS: And we need to send something out to them and say if you -- you need to check your budget before you make an expenditure when you know you're going to go over ', your line item. And you must get that amendment before you I! make that expenditure. It's much faster to get on the court agenda for something like that than it is for us, because we might skip a meeting in between. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And if you get it -- based on prior conversations, like, if we do some sort of a purchasing system, they won't be allowed to purchase something unless they've got the money, correct? MS. HARGIS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Exactly. MS. HARGIS: Because that system is set up that when they're over budget, it won't let them enter it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Won't let them enter and buy anything. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The sooner we get to that, the better. 25 I COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There is an old court order 9-24-07 156 1 here -- 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 them. MS. HARGIS: I have a copy of it. I got all of COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- that sayeth -- and that's Old Testament talk -- that if I want to go purchase a new computer, and there's not enough money in my budget, I've got to come here and get permission before I can do it. Why that doesn't work, I don't know, but that's the way it's supposed to be. That's the way it should be. True budget, I agree with you. By doing it this other way, that's not a budget. MS. HARGIS: Well, and I'm just trying to bring ~'~ that to you, because, I mean, it became very evident to me when I was holding a stack of bills this big and I said, "What are you doing?" "We have to wait." And at this time of the year especially, I need my payables on there so I know what our fund balance is, because it's important going into next year. I don't mind taking it out, but I wanted it in there so you could tell. I knew I would get opposition. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Can I make a comment in regards to that same type thing that she's suggesting? JUDGE TINLEY: If you'll say "please." SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Please. JUDGE TINLEY: All right. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Quickly. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Quickly. Number one, I 9-24-07 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 157 honestly feel that -- and, unfortunately, none of us really control what the District Judges do. But even though I had the money budgeted for jailer's salary, and don't have a problem with those amendments the Court deems necessary, but if I'm going to go over in mine so bad that I'm going to have to go to, you know, her budget to get money to pay what I'm short, then, personally, my ethics and that says that I need to be here asking you for that amendment, not the Auditor. And I think if -- if the District Judges and those are made to come when they go over it that bad, then they should be here asking for those budget amendments. Either that, or they need to do a better job of preparing their budgets at the beginning. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The problem, Sheriff -- the problem is exactly what the Auditor's bringing, this making the expenditures and then coming and asking for blessing on the expenditures. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, what they're doing is they're keeping their budget down low on Court-appointed attorneys, and they don't care, because it doesn't matter. Because when they spend way over it two and three times, they can just get it out of someone else's budget, and y'all are going to approve it without any sweat off their back. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or we have to declare an emergency or -- we got to pay it. 9-24-07 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 158 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But, I mean, if you hold them back, -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or -- SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: -- maybe some of the these court things will speed up through the court, or they'll give you a little bit more honest figure when it comes time to budget for those items. I try and give you an honest figure. Now, at times there's few of mine that I can't control, and that's where coming before would be a problem. Like, right now we're towards the end of our budget; we've been having to make budget amendments over inmate medical, okay? This morning we had a suicide attempt, 7:30 this morning. I've got an ambulance bill and all that. I can't say, "Nope, don't take him. I got to get this bill approved first before we provide the treatment." I've got to have the flexibility -- in those emergencies, you have to provide it. I don't have a choice there. I MS. HARGIS: There's an emergency provision. COMMISSIONER LETZ: You can also -- Rusty, what you can do there is, as one of your line items get down, come to the Court and say, "Hey, we're real low here; I don't think we're going to make it through the end of the year. Let me take some of the money out of Jailer Salaries that I'm not going to need and put it in this account." SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And I have no problem doing 9-24-07 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 159 that, just as long as it stays inside. But one thing I would like to see them be able to do, because of the late bills, or late payment of bills -- 'cause we get those calls all the time; it's just part of the way it happens -- is those normal bills, in a normal budget, as long as it's within my line item, I feel should be able to be approved automatically and paid automatically. Then when y'all review what was paid, if you had a problem with -- with what's on one of my bills, okay? Say, you know, I paid for a certain medicine or a certain food, and it was paid and the bill was paid and everything, but when I came to court, you had a problem with that bill. At that point, I think you should, one, chastise me for spending it, 'cause it should keep me in line, and two, if it was bad enough, reduce that line item in my budget by that much that you didn't think should be paid, and control it, but don't get the County in a credit deal by late payments. I COMMISSIONER LETZ: The reality is that, I mean, this Court -- long as I've been a Commissioner, we've never not paid a bill. MS. HARGIS: Right. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So we're going to pay it. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But we're always late. MS. HARGIS: I don't think you realize how late you really are on some of these bills. 9-24-07 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 160 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You really are. JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Hyde? MS. HYDE: Well, I didn't think I'd do this, but -- JUDGE TINLEY: You don't have to. MS. HYDE: I know, but I do. I do, 'cause I told Jeannie I'd support her on some things that I could. We have bills that we get, such as advertisements for new employees. And coming from where I came from, late bills were -- because we didn't pay -- as an organization, or as Kerr County, we shouldn't be paying late fees. Those are huge. Those are huge deficits against our moneys. But what we're doing is, unfortunately, because of the way that we have Commissioners Court set up and the way typically you get your bills, you get most of your statements the 1st through the 5th or the 25th through the 30th of the month. Well, let's look at it from a calendar. Think about how we have Commissioners Court. The second and the fourth Mondays, right? So, what ends up happening is we miss the deadlines. So, one thing -- and she won't like this, but one thing that we could do is go from a 10-day schedule prior to Commissioners Court for our bills down to a 5-day. That would help us some. But the other thing is, we could pay by invoice, not by statement. There's some that we could pay by invoice versus statement, which would also help us a little bit, and help clean up some of this. I don't think her intent was ever that you guys 9-24-07 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 161 would not have ayes or nays for the budget. It's trying to get the bills paid. And I think that maybe our terminology might be off a little bit, but we've got to find a way to get our bills paid. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I can tell you, I would rather see this Commissioners Court come in an extra day of session to pay the bills than I would turn it over to someone that is not accountable -- MS. HYDE: That's right. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- to the taxpaying public. MS. HYDE: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's where I draw the line, and I will fight the rest of my life over that. MS. HYDE: Absolutely. But there are some other things, Commissioner, like going to the 5-day or paying by invoice versus paying by statement. That could also help us. ~I COMMISSIONER LETZ: Those kind of things are -- those are in y'all's bailiwick, from my standpoint. I JUDGE TINLEY: Those are doable. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Those are logistical, as far as I'm concerned, for them. JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Hargis? MS. HARGIS: Yes? JUDGE TINLEY: What -- what's your input on, say, the 5-day as opposed to 10-day? 9-24-07 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 162 MS. HARGIS: The report has gotten ready for you -- it takes pretty much a day to get ready, and it's gotten ready on Thursday, so that's, you know, Thursday, Friday, and the court is on Monday. So, you know, we could take them up to that Monday or Tuesday. But it's really going to make it tight to get everything copied and that kind of -- and all the amendments done. But we can -- let me look at it. Let me look at it and see what my staff's schedule is and see what we can do. You know, I only have -- JUDGE TINLEY: I want to try and accomplish the timely payment of our bills. I mean, we -- that -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are we not on the agenda item? MR. EMERSON: You're, like, way out of the -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: He says we're not on the agenda item. MS. HYDE: It's under general provisions. MR. EMERSON: Where? MS. HARGIS: Right here. MS. HYDE: On the agenda item, it says under general provisions, and we're in the general provisions. MR. EMERSON: You're getting into payment procedures and all that other stuff. You're not getting into procedures for budget transfers. JUDGE TINLEY: And we got work to do at 3 o'clock, too, right? 9-24-07 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 163 MR. EMERSON: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MS. HARGIS: So, you want me to go back to the original language? Is that what you want me to do? JUDGE TINLEY: I want all the elected officials and department heads to take a look at these general provisions and any other input, have that available on Friday. We'll take this up in addition to what else we've got scheduled, ahead of final approval, and we'll look at any other proposed changes. MS. HYDE: Can Jody send them out to everybody? Can Jody put them out to everybody so everybody can get a copy? (Discussion off the record.) JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. What about the position schedule and step and grade schedule? Has that been finalized? MS. HYDE: The step and grade is finalized. The position schedule isn't finalized. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: She'll blame me. MS. HYDE: Because the 5.0. has some changes, effective today. JUDGE TINLEY: All right. We'll roll all three of these till Friday. MS. GRINSTEAD: Okay. 9-29-07 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 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's get back to Item 13, see what the cobbler has here. (Discussion off the record.) COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm in favor of it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I've got it -- JUDGE TINLEY: Oh. MR. JONES: You gave me instructions, Your Honor. It's the same thing. I just put it in -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It doesn't -- it doesn't address the issue about our previous -- JUDGE TINLEY: Last sentence. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, it does, too. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Last sentence. JUDGE TINLEY: And that this resolution does not impair or negate our prior correspondence. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You don't like the word "negate," do you? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I see it. No, I like it; that's a good word. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You do? Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: I think that's the term I used, I wasn't it? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't -- should it say correspondence or resolution? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, it was a resolution, 9-29-07 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 wasn't it? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Our prior correspondence and resolution? Or resolution? JUDGE TINLEY: And/or resolution. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And/or resolution. MS. HOFFMANN: Was it a resolution, though? I think it was just a letter. COMMISSIONER LETZ: A letter. MR. JONES: All they had in the study was your letter of December -- December the 3rd. I'm sorry, I've left that stuff -- JUDGE TINLEY: Is that all there was, is a letter? MS. GRINSTEAD: I think it was just a letter. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just a letter? JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, I move for approval. JUDGE TINLEY: As presented? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: All right. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll second. JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and second for approval of the resolution relative to the transmission line as presented. Any further question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. 9-29-07 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 I4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 166 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. MS. COOPER: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good luck. JUDGE TINLEY: We'll get all five of them right quick here. (Discussion off the record.) JUDGE TINLEY: Okay? MR. JONES: Thank you, Your Honor. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Let's now move to Item 17, if we may; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to authorize publication of an RFP for preparation of the 2006-2007 audit. Ms. Hargis? MS. HARGIS: Unfortunately, I'm still working on it. It's turned out to be about a 44-page document, and it requires a lot of detail as to our accounting system, number 'I of employees, so forth and so on. So, Tommy and I are still working on it. I came in over the weekend, but there was a lot of information I didn't have. You have to give them kind of an idea how many departments we have, what type of -- of accounting system we have, you know, what they need to look at. And the sample that was given to me by the County Auditor in El Paso was dated 2001. I wasn't comfortable that 9-24-07 167 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 it included everything, so I pulled down another one off the Internet that was 2007. So, we're comparing both documents to make sure that I have all of the newest accounting regulations that I need, like the Yellow Book, which is the G.A.O., just came out with a 2007 manual. So, it says 1996; it needs to say 2007. So, we're making those changes, and some of them I'm going to have to type in, so it's taking me a little bit more time. JUDGE TINLEY: Is everybody on the Court aware of the need of why we're here at this late date? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sure. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pressler-Thompson. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, okay. MS. HARGIS: And I think we can still get it done if I have it ready for you. That way, I'd like to get it ready for you, let you review it, and then at the next meeting we'll approve it. I'd rather get it right. COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're meeting Friday, if it can be ready by Friday. We can just roll it on the agenda if it's ready; if it's not, it's not. MS. HARGIS: I'm going to try to get it ready by Friday. I won't be here, but I can go over it with the Judge and y'all can review it. 25 ~ JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Okay, let's go to Item 18; 9-24-07 168 1 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 Center Point wastewater project contingent upon funding grant from the Texas Water Development Board. Commissioner Williams. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Judge. This, as it says, states our intent to continue to use Tetra Tech, who has been with us since the inception of this project, for their services that are detailed in the attachment, which total about $385,000 worth of their services to take care of the planning activities T.W.D.B. wants in the next phase. And the current contract we have is completed, and if the County Attorney thinks an addendum is appropriate, or a new agreement would be more appropriate, we'll do whatever he thinks is -- is the best way to approach it to detail the new scope of services and the level of funding, all contingent on grant approval by T.W.D.B. Move approval of the resolution. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and a second for your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 9-24-07 169 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 I8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. We'll move ', to Item 19; consider -- ~I~ COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's a typo. I COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll straighten them out. JUDGE TINLEY: Consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on any desired cost-of-living adjustment for Kerr County retirees under the Texas County and District Retirement System plan. Each year -- I think each year we consider whether or not we want to give retirees any COLA adjustment. I think each of you have been provided with information with regard to our buy-in that's estimated for our coming retirement year, and there's some information attached to what it would cost to provide a COLA, either based upon a flat rate increase or a CPI-based increase. My recollection is in the past, I think we've generally done a 50 percent COLA, if I'm not mistaken. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's right. JUDGE TINLEY: And the front page of the material provided to you makes provision for that. It says I4 percent. Actually, it's -- MS. HARGIS: .14. JUDGE TINLEY: -- .14. MS. HARGIS: And that's the 50 percent. JUDGE TINLEY: Which would be a 50 percent. 9-24-07 170 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. HARGIS: The only thing is, Judge, this one -- we don't have the current one, so I'm using last year's, 14 percent. But I'm sure it's not going to be a whole lot of difference. They have not produced a current schedule for this year. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Did they tell you what the level of funding is? JUDGE TINLEY: I think what is important is we've already got it included in our budget at 8.9 percent. We are currently -- our current rate is 8.75, which includes a 50 percent COLA for last year. And our $20,000 group term life insurance, the proposed rate for '08 has been lowered. Our base rate on our group term life rate went up very slightly, and so we're -- we're within our budget in all respects. So -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is this the third year we've done that? Or -- MS. HARGIS: I know you did it last year. I don't know if you did it the year before. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think it is the third. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Third year, and I think for the first time ever. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Maybe. I don't ever remember doing it. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, that we've ever done 9-24-07 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 anything like that. And, so, what do we need? A number? Or just ratify whatever you just got through saying? ~,, JUDGE TINLEY: Well, if you want to -- if you want to give the retirees a 50 percent COLA increase, that's what we need. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The total of all of that comes under our -- under what we budgeted? JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, it is within budget, what we've currently got plugged into the budget for retirement costs. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion we give the retirees 50 percent COLA's, as is within the current budget. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as indicated. Question or discussion? All in favor of the ~, motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: The motion carries. Let's move to Item 20; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to conclude claims on former Treasurer's bond, and authorize County Judge to sign release of same. I put this on the agenda. As the Court, I'm sure, recalls, we asserted some claims on the former Treasurer's bond. One of them was for approximately $12,500. The other one -- the other claim 9-24-07 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 that's been asserted is for $1,919 and change. We had some other potential claims, we thought, for the first quarter of 2006. Ms. Williams has worked extensively with the I.R.S. There was a claim of about -- potential claim of about 12,5 again that she managed to get resolved, even though we paid it. We've gotten full credit for that back, so that turned out not to be a claim. The reason I'm bringing it before the Court is the total amount of the bond coverage is $15,000. What the bonding company is -- has agreed to pay is the amount of that first claim of about 12,5, or less an amount that was -- a portion of it was tax, somewhere around $1,000. So, what they've agreed to pay is only penalty and interest, and plus the entirety of the second claim. I've talked with Ms. Williams to see if there are any other potential claims that we see on the horizon that might be asserted against that bond, because we've got about $1,850 left in coverage. But the bonding company, as a condition of sending us payment for the $13,137.59, they want -- they want a full release. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Right now? JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Now, we can either take our money now, or we can hold it open and not get our money now until we see where we are. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's not likely that there's anything looming out on the horizon, is there? JUDGE TINLEY: I can't think of anything. I've 9-24-07 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 talked to Ms. Williams. We've -- we've kicked this thing back and forth trying to figure out what other potential claims there might be against that bond, and there's nothing that either one of us knows about -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. JUDGE TINLEY: -- that would be something that would fall under a potential claim. And -- through the period December 31. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. So, with nothing that we can see -- the possibility of anything we can see looming out there, we probably need to -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Wrap it up and move on. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- wrap it up and move on. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Has the County Attorney looked at this release? Is it okay? MR. EMERSON: It's fine. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I make a motion that we accept the payment of $13,137.59 payment against the former Treasurer's bond, and accept the final release. JUDGE TINLEY: And authorize me to sign the final full release? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as indicated. Question or discussion? All in favor, signify by 9-24-07 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 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 21; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to rescind Court Order Number 30492 regarding donation of metal folding chairs from City of Kerrville, and cause same to be returned. I assume that's the chairs? Or the court order to be returned to them? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Probably do both, Judge. What the City giveth, the City taketh away. COMMISSIONER LETZ: They want their chairs back? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They want the chairs back. The chairs -- General Schellhase represented what had been told him from the prior Parks Administrator, that, "Get those chairs out of there; I don't want them any more. Get them out of the firehouse. Chief wants them out of the firehouse." So, by the time we got all that and got it -- did all that, the former Parks Administrator was history; he's gone someplace else, and we got a new one who said, "Well, I don't want to give those chairs away." In the meantime, we moved the chairs out, after the General gave us that -- gave us that memorandum. That prompted the Fire Chief to call over here. First of all, he wanted to know how 9-24-07 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 175 anybody got in his firehouse. Is that right, Ms. Grinstead? MS. GRINSTEAD: Yes. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, he told them that he -- the person that got in his -- in his firehouse had a key, and he didn't give it to them. And then he says, "I got to get those chairs back. There's been a change." So, rescind the court order. And I told the gentleman who called me -- I said, "Fine, you want them? Come get them." COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is that a motion? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a motion. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second -- third. Give back the chairs. JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion. MR. WALSTON: I was just going to tell you thank you. We're going to get use of them for our wild game dinner anyway. So -- JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion and a second for approval of the agenda item. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Whenever they want them back, they can come get them. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's kind of what I said, 'cause they got to move them someplace else. We're not going to take them to a new location. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And we're not storing them 9-24-07 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 any more, either. JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or discussion 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.) i JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. ~II COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Actually, I think we need to I ', send them a storage invoice of some sort. I JUDGE TINLEY: We'll start accruing that now that they're the new owners as of now. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Don't tell anybody. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Send the bill to the Chief. JUDGE TINLEY: Next item; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to assign employee to Kerr County Extension Office on a full-time basis. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, we, some time ago -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess he'll take this one. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- moved Alyce Davidson over to the Extension Office to give them some assistance in an area where they were having a problem with not being able to do all the jobs that needed to be done. And in the process, we allowed her to continue doing the county Ag Barn booking there, and since then, things have changed and she's no 9-29-07 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 177 longer booking. But I recommend that we assign her permanently to -- to Mr. Roy Walston at the Extension Office, and she'd be under his direction. JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Roy Walston says that's A-okay I with him. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: That was a motion? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure. You want to use the word "permanent," though? Full-time? COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Full-time employee of the Extension Office. I COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 'Cause Mr. Walston may change his mind next week. No, we're sorry, buddy. You're -- it's permanent. way. MR. WALSTON: A permanent position. Put it that COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah, until further notice. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: With a reminder that all Kerr County employees are at-will employees. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's right. JUDGE TINLEY: All right. We have a motion and a second. Any further question or discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 9-24-07 178 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 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. !, (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carried. Let's go to Item I 23; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to approve a resolution in support of Texas State Arts and Crafts ~, Educational Foundation application to manage the Arcadia Theater as a multi-purpose public events venue. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Don't ask why they want to do this, but they want to do this. They want to file an application, and they're asking us to give support to their application based on our experience with them developing River Star Park. And, yes, Commissioner, there are three errors in this one that need to be corrected. I'll make note of them. So, Bob Miller came to me and wanted to know if the Court would be good enough to do a resolution of support for their application. Doesn't cost us anything. I don't know why they want to take on that headache, but they apparently I do. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Who owns the Arcadia? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: City. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I thought -- I mean -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This is worse than us getting involved with the L.C.R.A., I tell you. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, we're just blessing it, you know? Move approval. 9-24-07 179 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 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of the agenda item. Question or discussion? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's a couple corrections I'll make for the final draft. 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: The motion does carry. Okay, we'll now move to payment of the bills. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Jon, what was the correction on the Tetra Tech one? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll find it and give it to you. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Why don't we just appoint somebody to pay the bills, and that way we don't have to waste our time in here like this? JUDGE TINLEY: I thought we'd appoint you. You have a great deal of seniority in these type of procedures. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's right. I could always do a little fundraising on the side to pay these things. JUDGE TINLEY: Not looking at Page 14, are you? 9-24-07 180 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 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, but I can. JUDGE TINLEY: Bottom. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Jody, here's both of them. A couple errors we need to correct. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I just wanted to point out one bill in here on Page 14. 198th District Court, Gray and somebody -- and I'm not trying to be rude; I really don't know. Is that Desprez? JUDGE TINLEY: I don't know the correct pronunciation. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Gray and somebody, for $2,432.50. That's an investigation on me. And what a horrible waste of money -- taxpayers' money. That's all. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move we pay the bills. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to pay the bills. Question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (Commissioners Williams, Letz, and Oehler voted in favor of the motion.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I oppose. JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Okay, we've got budget amendments. We have a budget amendment summary 9-24-07 181 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2l 22 23 24 25 that's been provided by the Auditor's office consisting of 24 budget amendments. Don't see any of them as late bills. MS. HARGIS: No. JUDGE TINLEY: Not any of them as late bills. Do I hear a motion that the budget amendments requests, as set forth in the summary, be approved in its entirety? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval as indicated. Question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Do we have any late bills? MS. HARGIS: No, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: I've been presented with monthly reports for Justice of the Peace, Precinct 3; Constable, Precinct 3; Road and Bridge for July and August 2007; Justice of the Peace, Precinct 4; District Clerk; County Clerk, both general and trust fund; Constable, Precinct 2; Justice of the Peace, Precinct 2, activity report; Environmental Health; Constable, Precinct Number l; and Justice of the Peace, Precinct Number 1. Do I hear a motion that these reports be 9-24-07 182 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 approved as presented? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of the designated reports as presented. Any question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Any reports from Commissioners in connection with their committee or liaison assignments? Commissioner Baldwin? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, sir. There's your pen, thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Williams? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir, Judge. You and I have a meeting tomorrow with people from Cornerstone Services ', with respect to the possible leasing of the Juvenile Detention Facility. Folks are flying in from Colorado. They'll also be meeting later in the day with Dr. Troxel with K.I.S.D., and introduce to him some individual from a charter school in San Antonio who would provide educational services. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: See, y'all are looking at 9-24-07 183 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 two different issues. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, the educational issue is one we kind of rolled in there; that we want whoever leases our facility to provide educational services, not depending on K.I.S.D. for their services. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see. JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Letz? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I can't remember when the last -- I think we had an airport meeting not long ago that I attended as a visitor. Very interesting meeting. I look forward to seeing -- I will look forward to seeing the minutes from that meeting, because there was a -- a number of things were brought up by other parties there about things that the Airport Board was -- had been kept in the dark about for the past year. Quite interesting. But I had nothing to do but just sit there and listen. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Made two of us sit there and listen. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What I want to ask you about, I've gotten a couple of e-mails from a fellow down around toward Comfort. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is he a candidate? 9-24-07 184 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: For the board? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, I presume. I've not talked to him personally; I sent an e-mail back. I guess he's one of Adolf Bartel's -- Richard Bartel, Bartel Road. Most of the Bartels live on Bartel Road, so I assume he's a relative of some sort. I've told people to feel free to forward those to us, and we can get with -- Jody, I think, can keep a file on them, or I'll keep a file somewhere, and at such a point that the City and County sit down and decide what's going to happen with the new board, we can just hold them in our files and get them to the right people at the right time. I'm a little bit disappointed to hear that evidently the City of Kerrville has no plans to make any -- to appoint anyone to meet with the County for some time. So, the three-member board that's currently operating under the old agreement is going to continue to limp along, and they're not very happy about it either, but the City's idea is that they want to wait until they hear from the consultants until they decide on anything. So -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I, too, have an application on my desk from a lady who came in, talked to me about it. She is a former airline employee of many years standing, retired, living in Kerr County. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the best way to handle 9-24-07 185 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 any of those is to refer them to Jody, keep a file on them, and then whenever the forces that be are going to make those appointments or recommendations or formulations, to get copies of those names and proceed in that manner. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Who are the three board members that's presently there? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Roger Bobertz, who is chair; Steve King, who's -- or president; Steve King is vice ', president, and Fred Vogt are currently the ones that are -- and they're a little bit nervous, because they can't talk to each other without a violation of Open Meetings Act. As soon as two of them talk, they have a quorum. Makes it rather difficult to conduct business, and at the present time, the president is out of town, so there's only two around that can do anything. And -- and a lot of actions can't take place until -- I mean, without that board's approval. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: As a matter of fact, they had a meeting here -- special called meeting; only two of them were there. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: To conduct some business here. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the good news is that there's quite a bit of interest in activities and building some hangars and things of that nature, both some commercial 9-24-07 186 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ones -- there's a proposal before the board about building similar to what -- the T-hangars that the City and County built some years ago, to build up to ten or maybe even more than that. And then there's a private individual who's looking to build a pretty good-size hangar for his personal use, similar to something like the Brinks hangar, but not quite that large. And they're talking to some others, so there's a lot of interest out there. But just going to have to stay the current course until the City appoints people to meet with the County. JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else? COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, I won't delay. Looks like I'll have a juvenile meeting here shortly, so I'll pretty well hold my peace until Friday, I think, on budget issues and that sort of thing. Which is not going to be anything new, but just -- I've done all my things. JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Anything else? Elected officials? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yep, just one. JUDGE TINLEY: Thirty seconds for all elected officials. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I just want to expand on something, the jail inspection that everybody went through. I think I ought to expand on what your jail staff go through getting prepared for one of those. And I just want to give 9-29-07 187 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 you a few items that they have to go through as two inspectors this year took a little over seven hours to do that jail inspection. Now, Judge Tinley's the one that's been out there in the past for the whole thing and seen a lot of it, but these are some of the things that I think y'all, as a Court, ought to know. And maybe if you see one of my jail staff, thank them, 'cause they do work hard getting this stuff done. Life safety. Inspected all life safety equipment, conducted and observed emergency drill review documentation, conducted staff interviews. They also actually set off a smoke alarm. They set it off in the back of the jail and see how long it takes for the staff to get to that location and enter that location with the full SCBA air packs on and operating, and it took them 45 seconds to respond. I think that's unreal. COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Wow. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Admission records; reviewed a random sample of 24 inmate files, interviewed staff, reviewed policy. Release records; reviewed a random sample of 10 inmate files and interviewed staff. Records and procedures; reviewed policy and documentation, interviewed staff, reviewed their little part of A.D.A. stuff that we have to do. And compliance evaluation classification; reviewed a random selection of 24 inmate files, reviewed staff training records, reviewed internal classification audits, reviewed 9-24-07 188 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 policy, interviewed staff. Health services; reviewed a random selection of 40 inmate files, interviewed staff, inmates reviewed training records. Part of that is also any inmate that stays in that facility longer than 72 hours has to have a TB test. All those records have to be kept forever and ever, and that's all that they do on a daily basis. Supervision and staff; reviewed a selection of 27 officers' TCLEOSE certification records, reviewed officer documentation, and interviewed staff. Personal hygiene; conducted a facility walk-through, reviewed facility work schedule. Sanitation; conducted a facility walk-through, interviewed staff and inmates. And they actually do go and find inmates to actually talk to them about what the conditions are. And we had some telling them it's the worst jail in the world; another one told them, "I've been in a lot of jails, and this is the best one I've ever seen." I thought that was kind of an interesting comment, but that's what they make. Food service; conducted a walk-through inspection of kitchen area, interviewed staff, discussed issues concerning diabetic diets, and reviewed documentation. And the day before this, or two days before this inspection, we got inspected by the Health Department, and it was a shame we didn't make 100 percent on that inspection. We lost 4 points 'cause there was two dented cans in our pantry, and it cost us 4 points in health inspection. 9-24-07 189 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE TINLEY: On the jail inspection or on the health inspection? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Health inspection. Didn't cost us on the jail inspection; cost us on the health inspection, 'cause there were two dented cans. Discipline; interviewed staff and inmates, reviewed policy and reviewed all the inmate rules and the inmate disciplinary procedures. Grievances; reviewed policy, interviewed staff and inmates. Inmates can write grievances, and all those are kept and have to be shown to the Jail Commission. Exercise; did a walk-through of the exercise area, reviewed documentation, interviewed staff and inmates. Educational and library, reviewed policy and schedule and interviewed staff and inmates. Work assignments, reviewed policy and schedule. Telephone, reviewed policy and schedule. And they actually look at our daily schedules. When do they get to do these things? And who got to do it this -- this day? And, like, on recreation, when an inmate goes out to recreation, the jailer taking them out has to actually initial that that inmate went or that that inmate refused. And every inmate has a right to go out there three hours a week, and so it's just a constant deal going on. Correspondence, reviewed policy and schedule and how all the mail is handled. Commissary, reviewed policy and schedule. Visitation, religious practices, and then if we would have had any other 9-24-07 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 190 things that -- variances and that. But another one is our M.H.M.R. stuff. We have to, and we do, notify M.H.M.R. of every inmate that's in that jail and every inmate that's released from that jail, and any inmates that have ever had any kind of inmate M.H.M.R. issues on a daily basis, and then they -- M.H.M.R. has to decide whether they want to offer more treatment, which we have to pay for if they do. But they get that opportunity. And that's every day of the week, seven days a week, the list goes over to M.H.M.R. I just think -- and psychiatric assessments, and you get into more and more pages, okay, of this. JUDGE TINLEY: Any hickeys, Sheriff? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: There was not one. The -- the full check that you see on the front of yours that they checked says, "This facility was inspected on the date indicated below. There were no deficiencies noted." And upon review of this report by the Executive Director, they issued a certificate of compliance. There was not one single misstep or record that they could not find. They did some things this year -- because normally we had -- we've had the same inspector for years. Well, he left two weeks ago, so the day before the inspection, we got notified it would be a brand-new inspector, and a different inspector would be coming with him, because it was also a training session. So, they went through every single thing we had this time, and I 9-24-07 191 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 was very pleased that staff, even with all the changeover we've had all year and everything else, that they did not find one thing. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Rusty, I saw where the newspaper quoted the Executive Director, Adan -- whatever. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Did he come down here? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So -- SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: They called him. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They carry around a little sheet with his remarks on it? !, SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, they -- the newspaper actually called him, because the inspectors are not allowed to say a word. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Media can show up, but they're not allowed to say one word in front of the media. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And so then they go back and call the Executive Director, I guess, and he can say whatever he wanted to. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Said he likes Kerrville. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, he likes Kerrville a lot. 9-24-07 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 192 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I think there's a lot of us and him that go back a long ways, not for the better. But I do think it was a lot on that jail staff, especially a lot of them being new, a lot of them still in training. And Sylvia, that I think they did a fabulous job. COMMISSIONER LETZ: He's telling you you're off agenda item. Hush. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, it was reports, so I gave a report. I'm not off the agenda. MR. EMERSON: I'm telling you shut up, sit down, so we can go on with court. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I was trying to be nice, Rusty. JUDGE TINLEY: Any other reports? We stand adjourned. (Commissioners Court adjourned at 3:05 p.m.) 9-24-07 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 193 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 1st day of October, 2007. JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk BY: ____ __ _ __ ______ _____ _ Kathy nik, Deputy County Clerk Certified Shorthand Reporter 9-24-07 ORDER NO.30525 EXTENSION FOR DEPOSITING FUNDS WITH THE COUNTY TREASURER Came to be heard this the 24th 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: Authorize the County Clerk to make deposits monthly to the County Treasurer through the end of the year, and then come back to the Court with a plan on how long to extend it beyond that. ORDER NO. 30526 COUNTY FAMILY PROTECTION FEE Came to be heard this the 24th day of September, 2007, with a motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. I'he Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to: Set the County Family Protection Fee at $15.00 in compliance with statutory changes to Government Code 51.961. ORDER NO. 30527 CITY OF INGRAM ANIMAL CONTROL CON"1~RAC"1' Came to be heard this the 24th day of September, 2007, with a motion made by Commissioner Oehler, seconded by Commissioners Baldwin. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to: Approve the City of Ingram Animal Control Contract. OI~EK NO.30528 PITBLIC HEARING FOR PRELIMINARY REVISION OF PLAT FOR LOT 17, PRIVILEGE CREEK RANCH Caine to be heard this the 24th day of September, 2007, with a motion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. 1 he Court l~nanimously approved by vote of 3-0-1 to: Set a public hearing for November 12, 2007 at 10:05 a.m. for the Preliminary Revision of Plat for Lot 17, Privilege Creek Ranch, Vol. 8, Page 21, Precinct 3. ORDER NO. 30529 PITI3LIC HEARING FOR REVISION OF PLAT, LOTS I, 5, h, 11, 12, and 13, HILL, RNER COUNTRY ESTATI~S Caine to be heard this the 24th day of September, 2007, with a motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams. "I'he Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to: Set a public hearing for November 12, 2007 at 10:00 a.m. for the Revision of flat for Lots 1, 5, 6, 11, 12 and 13, Block 2 of Hill River Country Estates, Vol. 3, Pages 118 & 119, Precinct 2. ORDER NO. 30530 KERB EMERGENCY 9-1-1 NETWORK 2008 PROPOSED BUDGE"I' Came to be heard this the 24th day of September, 2007, with a motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams. "I'he Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to: Approve the Kerr Emergency 9-1-1 Network 2008 Proposed V3udgct. ORDER NO.30531 INVESTMENT ADVISORS FOR KERR COUNTY Came to be heard this the 24th day of September, 2007, with a motion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Oehler. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to: Approve hiring Patterson and Company as investment advisers for Kerr County, and use the percentage fee schedule for payment of compensation. ORDER NO. 30532 MILTON TAYLOR COURT-MANDATED PROPERTY CLEAN UP Came to be heard this the 24th day of September, 2007, with a motion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to: Approve limited access to Mr. Taylor as detailed by counsel by restructuring the fence and tying it to a gate at the point identified by counsel as an access location until January 24, 2008 at which point the fence should be restored like he found it, at Mr. Taylor's expense, and Mr. Taylor will keep the County gate locked at all times when he is not using it. Mr. Taylor will be under a mandate to remediate whatever may occur to the County property as a result of these actions (possibly the fence or the roadway may get rutted up due to heavy rains and be in a worse condition that it is presently in). ORDER NO. 3 05 3 3 HILL COUNTRY YOUTH EXHIBIT CENTER BOOKING AGENT Came to be heard this the 24th 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: Grant the Commissioners' Court Administrative Assistant the authority to make minor discretionary decisions related to booking of the Hill Country Youth Exhibit Center. ORDER NO.30534 USE OF HILL COUNTRY YOUTH EXHIBIT CENTER FOR HILCO ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP MEETING Came to be heard this the 24th day of September, 2007, with a motion made by Commissioner Oehler, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to: Charge $250 for HILCO to have their annual membership meeting at the Hill Country Youth Exhibit Center on Friday, February 8, 2008. ORDER NO. 30535 KERR COUNTY PROPOSED 2007-08 HOLIDAY SCHEDULE Came to be heard this the 24th day of September, 2007, with a motion made by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to: Adopt the 2007-08 Kerr County Holiday Schedule, with the modification that December 31, 2007, be a holiday, and that we delete Columbus Day, October 8, 2007, as being a holiday. ORDER NO. 30536 REQUEST TO LOCATE PROPOSED LCRA TRANSMISSION LINE Came to be heard this the 24th day of September, 2007, with a motion made by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to: Approve the Resolution to LCRA to request that the proposed transmission line from Rimrock substation to Stadium Drive substation as originally proposed in 1993 or other more direct and/or more practical route or solution. OIZI~ER NO. 30537 RESOLUTION TO CONTRACT WITH TE"I'RA 'I'I:CI[, INC. Caine to be heard this the 24th day of September, 2007, with a motion n~iadc by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner I3aldwin. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to: Adopt a Resolution stating Kerr County's intent to contract ~~ith Tetra Tech, Inc. for continuing engineering services for Center Point Wastewater Project contingent upon funding grant from Texas Water Development Board. ORDER NO.30538 COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT FOR KERB COUNTY RETIREES Came to be heard this the 24th 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: Give the Retirees a 50% COLA as is within the current budget. ORDER NO. 30539 CLAIMS ON FORMER TREASURER'S BOND Came to be heard this the 24th 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: Accept the payment of $13,137.59 as payment against the former Treasurer's bond and accept the final release, and authorize County Judge to sign same. ORDER NO. 30540 RESCIND COURT ORDER #30492 Came to be heard this the 24th day of September, 2007, with a motion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioners Baldwin/Letz. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to: Rescind Court Order #30492 regarding "Donation of Metal Folding Chairs from City of Kerrville", and cause same to be returned. ORDER NO. 30541 KERB COUNTY EXTENSION OFFICE EMPLOYEE Came to be heard this the 24th 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: Recommend that we assign Alyce Davidson as a full time employee to Mr. Roy Walston at the Extension Office, and that she be under his discretion. ORDER NO. 30542 RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF TEXAS STATE AR"I'S & CKAl; TS I;DUCA'TIONAL FOUNDATION Caine to be heard this the 2.4th day of September, 2007, ~itl~l a u~otio~~ made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner I3aldwin. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to: Approve a Resolution in support of Texas State Arts ~, CraLts Educational Foundation Application to manage the Arcadia Theatre as amulti-purpose public events venue. ORDER NO. 30543 CLAIMS AND ACCOUNTS Came to be heard this the 24th day of September, 2007, came to be considered by the Court various Commissioners Precincts, which said Claimns and Accounts a-•e: Accounts Expense 10-General Fund $ 157,976.47 14-Fire Protection $ 13,000.00 15-Road & Bridge $ 39,206.02 18-County Law Library $ 109.00 28-Records Manage & Preservation $ 562.22 33-District Records Management $ 121.33 50-Indigent Health Care $ 33,630.62 76-Juv Detention Facility $ 3,176.05 81-District Administration $ 58.66 TOTAL $ 247,840.37 Upon motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams, tl~ie Court unanimously aj~~proved by vote of 3-1-0 to pay the claims and accounts. ORDER NO. 30544 BUDGET AMENDMENT NUMBERS 1 TIIIZOUGll ?4 Came to be heard this the 24th day of September, 2007, with a motion made by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner I,ctz, tLc Court unani.7~ously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to: Approve the Budget Amendments as per the Summary presci~tcd ORDI~~R NO. 30545 MONTHLY REPORTS Came to be heard this the 24th day of September, 2007, ~~~ith a motion mad:; by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner 1_ct~, the Coact nani~7~ously approved by vote of 4-0-0 the following monthly reports: J P tt3 C'vnstable Pct #3 Road & Bridge -July & August, 2007 JP #4 District Clerk County Clerk -General and Crust Fund Constable Pct #2 J P 1#2 -Activity Report Environmental Health Constable Pct # 1 JP #1