1
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, August 25, 2008
9:00 a.m.
Commissioners' Courtroom
Kerr County Courthouse
Kerrville, Texas
PRESENT: PAT TINLEY, Kerr County Judge
H.A."BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1
WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2
JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3
BRUCE OEHLER, Commissioner Pct. 4

4
CSo
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
August 25, 2008
--- Commissioners' Comments
1.1 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action
on request from Hill Country District Junior
Livestock Show Association to use Kerr County
Courthouse grounds on January 16, 2009, for
Cowboy Breakfast
1.2 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for
ordering the general election
1.3 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
set public hearing for the purpose of continuing
the Records Archive Fee and written plan for the
adoption of such for budget year 2008/09
1.4 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for
final plat of Sanderosa Estate
1.5 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
authorize Kerr County Maintenance Supervisor to
go out for bid for electrical, plumbing, HVAC,
and pest control services
1.6 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action
concerning two jail analysis proposals
1.7 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
storm water issues regarding property located
on Highway 173
1.8 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
appoint Elizabeth Hughes for ESD #1 Commissioner
1.9 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
designate the 2007 loan transaction with Banc
of America Public Capital Corp., a bank qualified
transaction for purposes of Internal Revenue Code,
and authorize County Judge to submit amended form
to Internal Revenue Service
1.10 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
imposition of optional local fees in addition to
registration fee as provided by Chapter 502 of
Texas Transportation Code
PAGE
6
9
10
11
13
14
16
25
44
45
48
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)
August 25, 2008
Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
proposed joint funding agreement or resolution
with City of Kerrville on joint City-County
operations/projects
1.12 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
clarifying a budget item on the "Interlocal
Agreement for the Continued Existence of a
Joint Airport Board to Provide Management of
Kerrville/Kerr County Airport"
1.13 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
appoint Commissioners Baldwin and Letz to
renegotiate the "Interlocal Cooperation Agreement
between Kerr County and the City of Kerrville for
Regulation of Subdivisions Within the City of
Kerrville's Extraterritorial Jurisdiction" with
City of Kerrville
PAGE
50
59
66
1.18 Open bids and award contract for 3 interior walls
for maintenance shop at Hill Country Youth Exhibit
Center, one 12' x 10' rollup door, one 10' x 10'
rollup door, and one 3' x 7' walk-thru door with
hardware 68
1.19 Open bids and award contract for reworking
electrical conduits and wiring in the front
area of Kerr County Courthouse square 72~
150
1.14 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action
regarding FY 2008-09 budgets, budget and salary
policies and fiscal, capital expenditure, and
personnel matters related thereto for various
county departments 74
1.15 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to set
date, time, and place of public hearings on Kerr
County FY 2008-09 budget 120
1.16 Consider/discuss, approve by record vote the
proposed Kerr County 2008 tax rate and set date,
time, and place of first and second public
hearings on such tax rate 129
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I N D E X (Continued)
August 25, 2008
PAGE
1.17	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to	
	authorize publication of notice(s) of proposed	
	salary, expenses and other allowances of Kerr	
	County elected county or precinct officers for	
	FY 2008-09 and set date, time and place of	
	public hearing on same	134
1.20	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to	
	change salary grade for Assistant Auditor	
	(Executive Session)	---
4.1	Pay Bills	135
4.2	Budget Amendments	---
4.3	Late Bills	
4.4	Approve and Accept Monthly Reports	150
5.1	Reports from Commissioners/Liaison Committee	
	Assignments	152
---	Adjourned	164
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
On Monday, August 25, 2008, at 9:00 a.m., a special
meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in
the Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse,
Kerrville, Texas, and the following proceedings were had in
open court:
P R O C E E D I N G S
JUDGE TINLEY: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
Let me call to order this regularly scheduled meeting of the
Kerr County Commissioners Court, posted and scheduled for
this time and date, Monday, August the 25th, 2008, at 9 a.m.
It is that time now. Commissioner Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If you'll please rise and
join with me in a word of prayer followed by the pledge of
allegiance to our flag.
(Prayer and pledge of allegiance.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Be seated, please. At
this time, if there's any member of the public or the
audience that wishes to be heard on any matter that is not a
listed agenda item today, this is your opportunity to come
forward and tell us what's on your mind. If you wish to
speak on an agenda item, we have participation forms at the
back of the room. We'd ask that you fill one of those out.
It's not absolutely essential, but it is helpful for me to
know that there is someone that wants to speak on a given
issue. And, however, if -- if we get to an issue, you've not
8-25-08
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
filled out a participation form and you wish to be heard on
that issue, just get my attention some way and I'll see that
you have the opportunity to be heard on that issue. But
right now, if there's any member of the audience or the
public that wishes to be heard on any matter that is not a
listed agenda item, please feel free to come forward at this
time. Seeing no one coming forward, Commissioner Williams,
what do you have for us?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Nothing, Judge, except the
rains were good. We just didn't get enough of them, and the
burn ban is on in Precinct 2.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is that it?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Short and concise.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not much. Good week last week.
Had some good rains. Burn ban's on in Precinct 3, too. I
almost lifted it, but decided to leave it on.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I left mine off.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yours is off?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: See, you got all the rain
out there.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Bull, we didn't get as much
as you got. (Laughter.) But it's green. Well, the areas
that got more, you know, Ranchlands, out in that area, got 3
8-25-08
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
or 4 inches, and Hunt got a lot, and the largest part of the
area got 3 to 4 inches. We only got an inch and
three-quarters. But --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He's bragging, is what that
is.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- everything is green, and
we haven't had a lot of high wind, so I decided to leave it
off for a few more days. That's it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else for us?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Nope.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I have a couple of
things. I was visiting with my dear friend Rosa Lavender,
and she was telling me that she was notified by the
governor's office Friday regarding the VOCA grants. There
were three grants granted for Kerr County -- or in Kerr
County; the Hill Country Crisis Council, Kids Advocacy Place,
and the Crime Victims Coordinator of Kerr County. Those
three grants were totaling $322,919. Entire AACOG region,
which includes San Antonio and Bexar County, they only got
1.4 million in grants, with a total of 12 grants, three in
Kerr County, and that's about 20 percent of all those grants
is coming into Kerr County, so we are very proud of that.
Rosa's hard work and -- is she here? Yeah, she's in the
back. Thank you for your hard work and what you do for us.
And what precinct do you live in?
8-25-08
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. LAVENDER: Precinct 1.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Number one, attagirl.
(Laughter.) And she's smart. Also, in regards to our
visiting judges emptying the jail issue, we need to -- we
want to get that thing cranked up as quickly as possible and
get it going. The meeting that we had been talking about,
what I would like to do -- and y'all can talk with me
privately later on if -- if we have some problems with it,
but our first meeting in September is the 8th. The
Commissioners Court's in session on September the 8th at
9 a.m., generally. I'd like to bring us in early that
morning with the D.A.'s and judges, and all those people that
are involved in this thing, and -- and sit here and have a --
a powwow and a workshop type setting, and see if we can't
nail this thing down and get -- get her going. So, about
7 a.m. on the 8th, if we can. That's all, Judge. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: To follow up on yours, Commissioner
Baldwin, there were -- there was a sizable award to CASA, but
it's for the entire Alamo area region, and, of course, our
local organization which serves, I know, Kerr and Bandera
Counties, and maybe one or two others, of course, will
obviously share in that in some manner. But I noted those,
and noted that particularly the Crisis Council got a -- got a
healthy amount of funding.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They did.
8-25-08
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
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's exciting.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, let's get on with the business
at hand. First item on the agenda is to consider, discuss,
and take appropriate action on request from Hill Country
District Junior Livestock Show Association, along with the
Chamber of Commerce and Kerrville Main Street, to use the
Kerr County Courthouse grounds on January the 16th, 2009, for
their Cowboy Breakfast, which would be the -- I don't know
which annual Cowboy Breakfast, but it would be the second
annual on the courthouse grounds, I think. Mr. Talarico?
MR. TALARICO: Thank you, Judge, Commissioners. I
have Johnna Wade with me representing the Main Street and
City of Kerrville. Brian Bondy gives his regrets for not
being able to attend today as a representative of the
Chamber. We'd sure like the Commissioners and the Judge to
approve the use of the courthouse again for our Cowboy
Breakfast this year. It will be the fifth annual; second
annual if we do it here, which we hope you approve. We have
found that last year, the grounds were perfect for it. We
had a much greater attendance, and it just -- it just went
off without a hitch, and we appreciate that and would like to
continue with this as a tradition.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
8-25-08
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
approval of the agenda item. Question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Good parties. Good parties.
MR. TALARICO: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: You indicated that with a little bit
more lead time here, you think you can make it bigger and
better, and by a pretty good margin?
MR. TALARICO: We believe so. We believe so.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Further 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. Thank you
for being here.
MR. TALARICO: Thank you, gentlemen. We appreciate
it.
JUDGE TINLEY: The next item on the agenda is to
consider, discuss, and take appropriate action for ordering
the general election. Ms. Alford?
MS. ALFORD: Yes, sir. Good morning. This is the
order and I need you to sign to order the November 4th
general election to elect the Sheriff; Tax Assessor; County
Attorney; Commissioners, Precinct 1 and 3; Constables 1, 2,
3, and 4; District Judge, 216th; District Attorney, 198th;
Justice of the Peace, Precinct 1, for an unexpired term; and
8-25-08
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
County Treasurer for an unexpired term.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item. Question or discussion? All in
favor of that motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
MS. ALFORD: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do we have the original order?
MS. ALFORD: You have the original one.
JUDGE TINLEY: Pardon?
MS. ALFORD: You should have the original one.
JUDGE TINLEY: Unless she's got it there, I don't
have it here with my materials.
MS. ALFORD: You can have mine.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move to Item 3; consider,
discuss, take appropriate action to set a public hearing for
the purpose of continuing the Records Archive Fee and written
plan for the adoption of such for the budget year 2008-09 in
accordance with the Local Government Code, Section 118.025.
Ms. Pieper?
MS. PIEPER: Gentlemen, the records archival fee,
there is a law that states that I have to do a written plan.
8-25-08
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
We set a public hearing and go through that, then y'all
approve it, and then we can continue to collect the $5
records archival fee. And so at this point, we just need to
set a public hearing.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What day?
MS. PIEPER: I don't have a calendar with me.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What day would you like?
MS. PIEPER: Whatever the next Commissioners Court
~ meeting is.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 8th.
JUDGE TINLEY: What does it need, 10 days?
MS. PIEPER: Yes, I believe so.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Isn't it, Bill? 7th or 8th?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I believe so.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's the 8th.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: September 8th, first one.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What time? 10:00?
MS. PIEPER: 10 a.m. is fine.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval that we set the
public hearing September 8th, 10 a.m., for the records
archival fee.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for setting
of the public hearing as indicated. Question or discussion
8-25-08
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
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.
MS. PIEPER: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move to Item 4; consider,
discuss, and take appropriate action for the final plat of
Sanderosa Estate located in Precinct 1.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. This property on Calcote Road
came before the Court back in June, and you granted a
variance from the grandfather date on the subdivision rules
in Court Order Number 30887, and I instructed Mr. Garcia to
plat it as a one-lot subdivision. At this time, all the
requirements have been met; therefore, we ask that you accept
the final plat of Sanderosa Estate in Precinct 1 as presented
today.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll move for approval.
~ COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item. Question or discussion on that
motion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I just wanted to say
that this gentleman has worked very hard to do the right
8-25-08
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
14
thing with the guidance of our Road and Bridge office, and
it's a neat thing to see when people work together.
JUDGE TINLEY: Further question or discussion? All
in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. We'll move
to Item 5; consider, discuss, take appropriate action to
authorize Kerr County Maintenance Supervisor to go out for
bid for electrical, plumbing, HVAC, and pest control
services. I assume this is the annual bid process that you
go through?
MR. BOLLIER: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Question or discussion on the motion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: When do you want the -- when
are the bids due back?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I believe the 19th of
September is what I saw.
MR. BOLLIER: 19th of September.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, 19th. Okay.
8-25-08
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
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I would also encourage you to
visit with the County Attorney on some of the requirements
that, say, for instance, pest control may have in order for
people to be able to bid. It seems that there may be some
elements in that that are a little bit farfetched, in my
opinion, one of those requirements being that I think you
have to have a million or $2 million policy for an uninsured
operator or something of a vehicle on county property or
something. There's a little bit of --
JUDGE TINLEY: Overkill?
MR. OVERBY: -- overkill, it seems, that would
allow -- that would not allow some of the people that do have
proper insurance and licenses to do this service to be cost
prohibitive to -- and unheard of, in some of the cases, to be
able to bid.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: To state that another way, I
think we need to, on a lot of these, use the minimum -- the
state law minimums --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: There you go.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- for the insurance
requirements. Because most of this is not the type of work
where they're going to be endangering buildings or anything
like that. They just need to carry what's required by law.
JUDGE TINLEY: State law minimum seems appropriate.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Sounds good to me.
8-25-08
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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that's going to work.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Further question or
discussion on that motion? All in favor of the motion,
signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Let's move
to Item 6, if we might; consider, discuss, take appropriate
action concerning two jail analysis proposals. Mr.
Hierholzer.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, I think all of us agree
that those proposals are, in my opinion, extremely high as
far as cost. It does show some of the details that can be
done, and I don't really recommend at this time that we go
with either one of those proposals. I'm more in line with
what Commissioner Baldwin said a while ago and what we talked
about last week. I don't know if we can set a firm date, or
who you want to notify on a Monday -- is that what September
the 8th is?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Normally that is a Grand Jury
and court date, one of the courts in one of their counties,
so I don't know who you want to --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's just a starting date.
8-25-08
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah, we just --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Something to start with.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But I think we should also
include the -- the Judge-elect if we can get him in on the
meeting, 'cause it's going to affect his docket more than
anybody's. From what I see, the 216th is the major docket
problem we have, and he'll be the Judge of that court. But
just the material we were provided by those analysts, those
companies, I think is fabulous material for us to all look
JUDGE TINLEY: Like you, I found that the proposals
do incorporate some information that was pretty enlightening,
and things that -- that maybe we want to discuss in a -- in
an open discussion format, and probably wait to do anything
here until after we've had the meeting with all the parties
concerned.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But I also think we need to
have the municipal court judge as part of that meeting.
Unfortunately, you know, I -- going through jail stuff, we've
had a person in jail for six days for sitting out a fine for
having -- what was it? Too much garbage clutter, some city
offense. And it's a young person that evidently didn't haul
off all their garbage or something, so they sit in jail for
two weeks while we pay them, sitting out a fine that they
couldn't pay. I think alternative sentencing guidelines can
8-25-08
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
help with some of that type of stuff. I just think --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Community service type work.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I think we need to look at
some different options. To me, jails -- the way things are
going now, jails should be meant for violent and constant
criminals, not --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not garbage people?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Not just a way to get a point
across. I think that's the wrong issue. So --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Now, Rusty, too, there --
there is a lot of folks in the courtroom today that don't
normally come here and don't -- probably don't keep up with
us and what we're doing, and some of them don't care, and
that's fine. I understand that clearly. But bottom line,
what we're talking about here, we're trying to figure out a
way to get people out of jail that don't need to be in jail,
as opposed to spending 10, 12, 15 million of the taxpayers'
dollars building a new jail. And that's what we're talking
about, and that's what we're working at, just for their
information.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And it -- and it's exactly
right, and it's not just to get people out of jail that don't
belong. It's to speed up the system.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: There isn't -- for people that
8-25-08
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
don't know, I have people in our jail right now, and there
isn't any reason for it, that you have somebody in jail 500,
600, 700 days that are waiting to go to trial. Or sitting
there 300 days, you know, and then get -- get dismissed or
not guilty, and we have paid medical, we have paid housing,
we have paid food, we have paid everything for these people
for hundreds of days to walk out and nothing ever happened,
and they didn't get their day in court.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree with you. I agree
with you, Sheriff, with respect to the proposals. They're
both very interesting, and they're very pricey. But what was
interesting about it to me was that one of them -- at least
one of them provided you with a real blueprint for the
discussions that you're going to take -- that Commissioner
Baldwin and you are trying to put together for later in this
year. And I think that's good, because it outlined many,
many things you ought to examine that might not come to the
forefront that have been listed.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It outlined a lot of things in
there that I wouldn't even have thought of.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And I think that's where those
proposals can be very advantageous for us to look at.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Now knowing what they are,
we can examine them ourselves.
8-25-08
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
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I have a little bit
different	opinion	on that. I	-- I think there very	well may
be a value	to some	of those --	of an outside person	to help
facilitate those discussions. I think you -- they are
experts in that field. I certainly don't want to pay what
they're paying, but I would encourage the Sheriff to talk to
both of them and just see what they'd charge just to come and
facilitate a meeting, and not get that involved.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It's going to be this. I've
talked to them about that, and it's -- the difference is,
these -- these companies and these corporations that are
doing this can't afford to do it -- we're a little bit ahead
of the curve from where most counties start looking at this.
The one that -- the one did it in Midland County, okay, they
were already housing inmates out of county. They were
already spending right at a million dollars a year somewhere
else just to house inmates, so at that point, a $70,000 bill
to -- to do a total analytical study -- which did help them,
because it enabled them to no longer house out of county.
They're still going to have to add onto their jail, is what
the study came up with, but they were able to speed up and
fast-track everything enough that they weren't having to
spend a million dollars a year any more in housing out of
county. At that point, that $70,000 bill is not bad at all.
8-25-08
21
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
We're at that -- you know, if we don't do something pretty
quick, then yes, we're going to be at that. point where we're
going to be housing out of county again, as we did in years
past, a long time ago. We're already losing -- from when I
first took office eight years ago, we were able to house
other counties' inmates in our jail, and we brought in, you
know, probably, profit-wise, 300,000 a year doing that. So
we're losing that, because I can't house other counties'.
But we are -- we're just at the point where we're going to
have to start spending.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just -- you know, I think we
understand where we need to look and where we're probably
trying to go, but you're talking about a lot of different
independent elected officials and trying to keep them focused
and have an accountable plan that we can go back with some
accountability. It's going to be a real challenge, and I
think sometimes it's better to have an outside person kind of
coordinating some of it. So, you know, maybe there's other
options out there. I just think -- I don't want this thing
to get lost in the details, because we know what -- we kind
of do have a good idea, I think, what needs to be done, but
implementation is going to be pretty difficult when you get
on an independent elected official's turf. And that is why I
think there's a possible -- there's some value to you having
a third party involved, at least from a facilitation
8-25-08
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
standpoint.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, from these proposals and
the prices on both of them, I -- I truly believe that those
companies, with their personnel and the way they do it, they
earn that.-- that bill. I mean, it's not wasted money that
the County would waste. It's just a hard pill for me to
swallow, at least, in saying, "Yes, spend this money just to
do a study," 'cause that's the way most people look at it,
without looking at the details. I think you're exactly
right. We're going to have some -- some issues between
elected officials and departments and how they want to
schedule their dockets, or they want, you know, me to be able
to bring inmates over and have court hearings, or whether
it's -- yeah, there are going to be some issues that we're
going to all have to sit down and agree that this has got to
be solved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And it's going to take
commitment by each elected official to truly analyze their
own operations, because what's going to come out of this,
probably, in multiple offices is that they're part of the
problem. And it's real hard to get some of these people to
admit that they're the problem.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: May be easier to hire a
mediator.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's what I'm saying.
8-25-08
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
Something, a facilitator -- that's why I used the word
"facilitator" -- may be of benefit. I just think it's a --
you know, --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- I think we're going down the
right road, but we just need to make sure we don't get
derailed along the way because of egos.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Do you want Jody, then, to try
and set up a meeting to begin with? Do you want my office
or -- or -- you know, I mean, to get this thing off center
and actually start moving?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm setting this meeting up.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You want to set it?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If you want to set up
something separate to go do a study, go do it. We're doing
this thing, and we're going to get her done. If you -- if
you're going to study it, we're going to be through by the
time you get to where your study's going.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Commissioner, I hate to say
this, but this is exactly what Jonathan and I are talking
about. There's a lot more to it than just, we're going to
sit and --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand exactly what
you're talking about, and we're not going to throw up any
more roadblocks. We're going to move forward.
8-25-08
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
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's what I'm --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Conversation's over.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: So, you're going to set up the
~ meeting?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely am.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, you know, if this
works, it'll be wonderful. We don't have to spend the money.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: But later in the year, if
this doesn't work, what y'all are proposing to do -- and we
sure hope it does; it will be a lot cheaper, but maybe by the
end of the budget year, Rusty might have some money left over
in his jailer line item where we can fund that study.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely. I like it.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: And even before the end of the
budget year, we might be able to see that, and do it midyear.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's true.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's just do it now.
(Laughter.)
JUDGE TINLEY: We already know where the money's
coming from, right?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else on that particular
8-25-08
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on storm water
issues regarding property located on Highway 173.
Commissioner Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I placed this on the
from Mr. Trevor Hyde, president of Comanche Trace. I've had
innumerable telephone calls from people who live out in the
vicinity -- in The Homestead or in the vicinity with respect
to some developments taking place on some adjacent.. property.
I'm not certain what, if any, authority the Court has, but I
thought it would be important to bring it to our attention,
because it not only affects what's taking place on this
property that's being developed, or its use is being changed,
but it does have a lot of effect on adjacent pieces of
property. I passed Mr. Hyde's letter on to the County
Attorney and asked him to take a look at what, if any,
authority the County has in this matter. It's my
understanding that this probably is a T.C.E.Q. matter, but I
wanted to be certain that that was the case. There are also
people here who have an interest in it, and I think the Court
needs to listen to some of their concerns, even though we may
not have authority to do something. But nonetheless,
Mr. County Attorney, based on the letter that we received
from Mr. Hyde in which he outlines the nature of the problem
8-25-08
26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2~
29
2`
and the -- the particular permitting that is required, I
think it's Storm Water Pollution Permit Number 3 or whatever,
what is your opinion with respect to the County order to
MR. EMERSON: Commissioner, as you know, the -- the
Commissioners Court only has the authority delegated to it by
the state, because you're a subdivision of the state. And
when you get into private property in unincorporated areas of
the county like this, if it's not being subdivided, our
authority is very, very limited. You can -- we can go in and
we can clean out drainage ditches, we can regulate sexually
oriented businesses, wild animals, that type of thing, but as
far as the construction of a particular type of business and
its effects on drainage, we don't have any authority.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The agency that can compel
is the T.C.E.Q.; is that correct?
MR. EMERSON: That's my understanding.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And because the
development's taking place on property -- or the disturbance
of the existing property is on 5 acres or more, I think
that's a parameter; is that your understanding?
MR. EMERSON: That's my understanding, for T.C.E.Q.
to get involved. Now, there's a lot of civil issues between
adjacent property owners on changing and runoff and drainage
and natural water flow, but that's not something for this
8-25-08
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2~
2~
2.
Court to be involved in. And the few statutes that are out
there as far as the County's ability to control that type of
issue seem to be related to counties with populations of
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's certainly no
prohibition to the County being in touch with T.C.E.Q. and
following up to see whether or not an SWP-3 plan has been
filed? Would that be your --
MR. EMERSON: That's a fair statement.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- thought? Okay. There
are folks in the audience who may want to speak to the issue,
Judge, if you'll ask about that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Those of you that might be --
there's a gentleman right here. If you'll come forward to
the podium and give us your name and address, please?
MR. MEYERS: Sure. My name is Jim Meyers. My
address is 360, that's 3-6-0, Saddleclub Drive in Kerrville.
Thank you for the opportunity to present to the Commission,
and it's -- I'm a few years retired, so I've kind of put
myself back into gear here this morning to do a presentation
to you, or at least to kind of give a position of The
Homestead. I'm the president of the homeowners' association,
and we have probably about 55 homes now at The Homestead. By
estimate, we would say that if the rainwater runoff and storm
water runoff from this proposed development is not adequately
8-25-08
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
controlled, it's going to adversely affect Homestead's
property, in addition to probably between 12 and 15 other lot
owners who are members of the association within The
Homestead. Historically, we've had runoff when very heavy
rains occur, and, of course, it will dissipate eventually,
but we just don't want to exacerbate that situation.
I have here a letter that I prepared. As you are
already aware, there are many issues associated with the
proposed building of a 300-unit mini storage facility on the
18-acre Louis Howard property on Texas Route 173 in Kerr
County. These issues were brought to your attention in a
letter from Comanche Trace Realty Company dated August the
8th, 2008. The Homestead at Turtle Creek -- which we'll call
"The Homestead" from now on -- homeowners' association board
of directors has reviewed the letter, and concurs in its
findings. Several issues raised in the Comanche Trace letter
are of great concern to the board and to the members of the
association. Although the ground has been significantly
disturbed and trees removed from the mini storage site
property, there are no plans for controlling, containing,
preventing storm water runoff from the proposed development
into the association's property or private property within
The Homestead. Although The Homestead has engineered water
diversions to appropriately divert runoff from occasionally
heavy rains, they are not intended to divert large amounts of
8-25-08
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
2F
storm water runoff that may be generated by several acres of
impervious structure, such as roofing and roadways.
Storm water runoff from the elevated ground
comprising the Howard property already passes through The
Homestead. Long-lasting heavy rains like we experienced in
2007 already cause significant water flow through some lots
in the community when the ground is fully saturated. This
situation will only get worse unless a storm water runoff
plan is developed, approved, documented, implemented, and
supervised. This issue has been raised with the Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality. The proposed
construction site lies within the city of Kerrville's
extended territorial jurisdiction. Being within the ETJ, we
believe that the special development regulations apply to
this project. The project should also comply with all other
city, county, and state regulations applicable to the
proposed use and development. At some time in the future, it
is likely that the Howard property and whatever improvement
is placed upon it will be assimilated into the Kerrville city
limits. To protect the health, welfare, safety, and property
values of The Homestead, The Woods community nearby, and
nearby Comanche Trace, we believe that a stronger and well
coordinated effort should be made by the City to assure
compliance with every aspect of the endeavor.
The Howard property is surrounded by present and
8-25-08
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
proposed residential development. The development of a large
mini storage complex immediately adjacent to expensive homes
in well managed associations such as The Homestead, The
Woods, and Comanche Trace raises questions of whether or not
the proposed use has been reviewed under the provisions of
the Kerrville Comprehensive Plan, and did that review
determine that the proposed use is consistent with the
property's best and highest use within a residential area?
Is the proposed commercial use consistent with the property's
current zoning within the ETJ? And I think those are some
questions that need to be addressed and answered. There are
several governmental agencies that have become involved in
this project, but the City of Kerrville has the primary
responsibility, as we see it, for the oversight and
regulation of development within the ETJ in compliance with
applicable regulations. We would request that all parties --
and that includes the County, the City, the State, everybody
who's got a piece of this thing, handle on it -- should work
together so that we can develop a good project there that
does not create	a bad relationship between	the	other
neighbors. And	-- and that's pretty much	the	end of the
statement.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This is another
illustration of --	I already	made	this	point	to my two
colleagues who are	about to	engage	the	City	in discussions
8-25-08
31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
with	respect to what takes place in	the	ETJ.	And, to	me,
it's	just another illustration of -	- of	how	the ETJ,	under
the current situation, becomes never-never land or no-man's
land, if you will, by reason of the interlocal agreement that
exists between the County and the City. I realize the
property is not being subdivided, and that ties our hands to
some extent, but by the same token, here we have a situation
where the City disclaims any responsibility for doing
anything. The County, by reason of the County Attorney's
opinion, its hands are tied, because we're not -- the
property is not being subdivided. And so who gets injured?
No one but the property owners adjacent to it have the
potential for injury. I think that's a problem, and I hope
that when you two gentlemen engage the City again, some of
these issues may be taken up as to who properly has some
reason to engage and be involved in situations in the ETJ.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- the answer to
that is probably going be the Legislature.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Could be.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think the -- I agree
totally with what the County Attorney said related to our
authority in the ETJ on these types of matters. If they're
not -- if there's not a subdivision plat, we're pretty much
taken out of the loop, and I think the City's the same. I
don't think they have any zoning authority or anything like
8-25-08
32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that. They need some planning in	the ETJ, but	I don't -- I'm
not sure they have	much authority	there, from	my
conversations with City Council and the City Manager. But,
you know, I think it possibly goes a lot, you know, back
to -- I know Commissioner Williams and Baldwin myself were at
a meeting on Friday where this was talked about. That is a
legislative problem. And, you know, it's something that some
of us -- or I'm working on with other counties in the Hill
Country, is to at least look into this, at least giving
counties the option to get some of this authority at a local
election basis. It cuts both ways, though. We have to be
real careful, in my mind, when you start going down this --
this is a situation where there are a lot of civil remedies,
but that's costly to the people that are involved, and that's
the problem there. I think -- by looking at the photographs,
I think there's ag violations, probably the Agricultural
Code, drainage. I mean, there's a lot of state law on that,
but it's between you and the neighbor, unfortunately, not
between any governmental entity and the property owners.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Hyde, do you wish to be heard?
If you'll come forward and give us your name and address,
please, tell us your position on this.
MR. HYDE: Trevor Hyde, 2801 Comanche Trace Drive.
Good morning, Judge, Commissioners. I echo everything
Mr. Meyers said. My -- some of the questions I have -- I
8-25-08
33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
mean, does the -- does the County have any jurisdiction over
fire safety? Health? Any language within there that y'all
can make sure that the citizens that are in this area are
protected? There's -- you know, if there's no water to the
site, how are they going to do any type of fire protection?
I know Comanche Trace is not allowing water over there. I
know The Homestead is not, and I know The Woods is not. So,
are they going to be drilling a well in the ETJ? I think
there's a septic system from the neighboring property that
goes across and into part of this 18 acres, and I think from
fire safety, health and welfare, you know, you probably do
have some jurisdiction. When you have a developer that's out
there -- or maybe he's not a developer. He's clearing land
without the necessary inspections, environmental reports, and
drainage studies. And y'all look at us, okay, it's y'all's
-- you know, your problem. We understand and sympathize with
you. But on my end, I look at it, y'all do have some
responsibility. And I know y'all have language that allows
you to have some responsibility, and how far do y'all want to
take that? I'm not saying, hey --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Now, that -- tell me what
that is.
MR. HYDE: Well, as far as in your language like
the City has -- I haven't read your documents, but --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You just said you knew.
8-25-08
34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. HYDE: Excuse me. I would think you would.
Excuse me, let me reword that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MR. HYDE: And I think for, you know, the
protection of the public in this area -- I mean, if you lived
right behind it, you'd feel just like these people do. I
mean, a 300-unit storage facility that people can store
whatever, it could cause fire and damage, and these people
have homes that butt right up to it. What are any type of
setbacks? I think y'all have seen the pictures. The
gentleman's actually put material on neighboring property.
He's actually destroyed the fence and everything, and so
it -- it's serious to us, and we're looking for y'all's help,
if you can help. And, you know, he doesn't have a permit
from TexDOT. He hasn't done the traffic study. I've asked
Mike Coward that. Again, this gets into traffic and safety
and health, the citizens in the county that drive up and down
there. Everybody in this room and all these people over here
pay significant tax dollars to the county as well.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Hyde, the -- I'm sorry.
MR. HYDE: No, go ahead.
JUDGE TINLEY: On the issue of health, we, of
course, would have jurisdiction if there is a desire to put
in an on-site sewer facility, a septic system, and that, of
course, would come through our Environmental Health
8-25-08
35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Department. Insofar as water, if -- if utilities are not
extended to it by some private organization that has it
within its area of responsibility or service area, and
there's a desire to have a well, that, of course, as you
know, would go to Headwaters.
MR. HYDE: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: And they would determine whether on
not a permit should be granted for a well, which, of course,
would relate directly to a fire. But, unfortunately, we --
we only have what the Legislature says we can have. The
City, on the other hand, is a -- you talk about health,
safety, and welfare. The City has a general grant of
authority within the area subject to its regulation to do
anything related to health, safety, and welfare, excluding
only that which they're specifically prohibited from doing.
We're just the flip side of that.
MR. HYDE: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: We've only got what they
specifically give us, and unfortunately, the only -- the only
tool they've given us to this point, other than the septic,
for example -- and, of course, we've got police powers there.
As you mentioned, it borders Highway 173. The traffic issue
is a state issue. Certainly, we have police powers there,
law enforcement, insofar as traffic violations occurring in
the area. If they see those, they're certainly going to
8-25-08
36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
enforce the law. But, unfortunately, we don't have any
specific land use or land regulatory control authority. I
think, as Commissioner Letz said, if we're going to go to
that next level, we have to get that from the Legislature.
have to become in order to handle the enforcement aspect of
this enhanced scope, but certainly to the degree we have
enforcement and regulatory authority, we're going to exercise
that. The -- the civil issues that you point out, I think,
are -- they're right there right now.
MR. HYDE: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: And it occurs to me that if there
have occurred, if litigation were initiated there, things --
things might get aired out in a little more thorough manner.
But it appears that T.C.E.Q. dealing with your drainage
issues and whatever permits they require are your most
prospective enforcement at this point in time.
MR. HYDE: Well, I appreciate that. And -- and I
thing and working together with neighbors. And, obviously,
we don't have that situation here. And, you know, being an
active developer here in the city, and also from part of our
8-25-08
1
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
significantly changes the use of their property from
agricultural and putting in a commercial 300-unit, inviting
the public to come and put personal belongings there, and it
butts up to the ETJ -- and the setbacks are clear from the
City's end of it; from 25 feet, if it's a storage facility,
off the property line. You can see what he's already
building. His pad is right on the line. R.V. storage has to
be 50 feet off. Those are the type of things I think -- I
hope that you can work in concert together to make it a
continuing growing and better place for all the citizens.
Thank y'all.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with that 100
Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. We appreciate your --
input is today. Yes, ma'am? Please come forward
and give us your name and address, and tell us your position
on this matter.
MS. STACY: My name is Debbie Stacy. I'm here on
behalf of Jim and Debbie Stacy, who live at 435 Saddle Club
Drive here in The Homestead. Good morning, Your Honor and
8-25-08
38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
us, as it should be to y'all, because we're facing the very
real possibility of home devaluation. And if that happens,
you also fail -- you also -- you also will experience a
reduced tax base. We are in agreement with Mr. Meyers and
There is no provision for storm water runoff, and as one of
those properties that could be affected by this, I can tell
you that last year, when we had those heavy rains, the
culvert underneath the street sent a river onto our property.
With -- with what this -	- what has	happened	on this property,
the ground has changed.	The trees	have been	removed. We're
facing -- we're facing the distinct possibility that that
water is going to come up to our home now. So, that's just
our property.
Let me also make a couple of other points that I
don't believe have been made to this point, which should
concern the health and safety all the residents of Kerr
County. If this project is allowed to proceed and we end up
with standing water, gentlemen, we already have confirmed
cases in San Antonio of West Nile Virus. It's not hard to
believe, with standing water, that that could end up here in
8-25-08
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
39
Kerr County. That not only affects those of us who live over
there; those mosquitoes will travel throughout Kerr County,
and they will continue to -- to breed. The other thing is,
You have
increased drug activity. Again, when we purchased our
property, none of that -- none of that happened. But these
last two points affect everyone in this room, the increased
criminal activity and the very real possibility of West Nile
Virus. So, those last two points I wanted to -- I want to
make, because they will affect everyone here in Kerr County.
Thank y'all so much.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Ms. Stacy. We appreciate
your comments. Is there anyone else that wishes to be heard
with regard to this particular agenda item? Anybody else?
Mr. Meyers, an additional point you wish to make?
MR. MEYERS: Yes, thank you very much. I
appreciate the opportunity to make a second little comment
here. Trevor kind of brought up the safety issue. I'm a
safety guy; that was my career. I'm kind of a
belt-and-suspenders kind of man, you know; can't be too safe.
But one of the things that struck me the other day as I was
driving by there, we're turning -- we're talking about fire
safety. Right now on that property is a line of uprooted
8-25-08
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
trees and brush. It's probably 200 feet long, and it's
probably maybe 30 feet wide, 40 feet wide. It's just like
a -- a row of debris sitting there. As it sits right now,
started, it's going to go across 173, or it could actually
blow over onto The Homestead. So, I mean, that sort of stuff
presents a concern to us, and it's a little disturbing to
say, well -- or hear that, you know, well, yes, the County --
we could do this, but the City can do that. And yet I think
that we should look a little closer, and maybe work a little
closer with the City to -- to make sure that they take health
and safety issues into -- into consideration, and do it soon
so that we don't have something go on, as Debbie said, you
know, that could be a -- standing water, or it could be a
fire hazard, or any other type of hazard that's up there.
And I think these things can be addressed. I mean, most
government agencies have some type of emergency provisions
for safety and health, and I would exhort the Commission here
to talk to the City and get them to do what they have to do
to make that happen, to make it safe and keep it safe.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just one final comment.
I'll continue to monitor -- for the information of the people
who've come out for this issue, I'll continue to monitor with
8-25-08
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
T.C.E.Q. as to whether or not they filed for their SWP-3,
storm water pollution permit, and what the status of that is.
And I'd also like to ask the County Attorney one more
question. And if you don't have the answer today, Rex,
that's fine; you and I will talk about it later. Is there
anything in the Health and Safety Code that provides the
County with some authority in this particular instance? You
don't have to answer now. I'll talk to you about it later.
MR. EMERSON: Well, the only particular issue that
would arise would be possibly under the nuisance statute, but
right now, there's nothing there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. EMERSON: And if you would allow me to address
the fire issue, 'cause that's been raised several times.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sure.
MR. EMERSON: Other than the county fire marshal
enforcing the International Fire Code in commercial
structures out in the county, or the burn ban, we don't have
any authority, guys. I'm sorry, we're just -- we're not
located adjacent to a major metropolitan area, and our
population isn't high enough.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And a final comment. I've
heard from several people that, you know, we don't want to do
it. It's not that we don't want to do something. We don't
8-25-08
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
have the ability to do something. It's -- we have no more
rights related to all these issues than you all do. What we
could do, possibly, and I'd be supportive of either
Commissioner Williams or the Judge writing a letter to
T.C.E.Q, asking them formally to monitor the situation, but
beyond that, I mean, they're the state agency that has the
ability to do it. And we just -- I mean, we just don't have
the authority, and I'm afraid the City doesn't have much
authority here either.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I think Commissioner Williams
has already indicated that he's going to indicate his and
this Court's interest in -- in particular issues that relate
to this matter as it relates to T.C.E.Q.'s regulatory
authority.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's correct, Judge.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm just --
MR. MEYERS: So that's going to happen?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can do an official -- you
know, authorizing him to write the letter if we want. I
don't know that if that makes any difference, but from the
sake of involvement, --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Will do.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- that's all we can do.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have one final question.
MR. MEYERS: Yes, sir?
8-25-08
43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You suggested that we
contact the City and encourage them to do the right thing.
Are you going to do that as well?
MR. MEYERS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are you -- are you going to
City Council like you did here today?
MR. MEYERS: If we know when the meeting is to be,
sure, we'll be there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Tomorrow night.
MR. MEYERS: I've got a letter -- a similar letter
to what I've presented here that's going to be sent to them.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Tomorrow night.
MR. MEYERS: Tomorrow night?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: May I suggest that there's
wisdom in going over there?
MR. MEYERS: I understand. And -- and I do
understand your comment, Commissioner Letz, that you have
certain regulatory constraints on what you can do or can't
do, depending on how you're authorized. But I think what
we're really saying here is that we would request that the --
the County -- the County use the bully pulpit, if you will,
to borrow the phrase. I mean, if you talk to the City at any
time, if you write them a letter, write letters to T.C.E.Q.
and anybody else that you think is appropriate to support
this position. And I'm hearing, too, that we need some
8-25-08
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
enabling legislation to give the counties more clout. I
mean, it's kind of hard to accept, in my mind, as to how you
can say, well, if you're close to a big city, then you would
have these things, but we have the same issues as big cities,
even if we're small.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I've spent probably more time
in the past year than the rest of the Court has on this
particular issue. I have been meeting with a lot of other
counties, primarily in the Hill Country, and we're looking at
how you get there.
MR. MEYERS: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's not that we're going to
try to get there, necessarily, for Kerr County. We may or
may not. That's another hurdle. We're just trying to figure
out where you go into state law and try to make the changes
to give someone this authority. I mean, it's -- this is a
monumental task to first figure out where you make the
changes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's a sticky wicket at
best.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Meyers.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anyone else? Okay, let's move on,
then, to Item Number 8; consider, discuss, take appropriate
action to appoint Elizabeth Hughes for the Emergency Services
8-25-08
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
District Number 1 commissioner. Commissioner Oehler?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Move approval. We had a
vacancy by resignation from a previous commissioner, and
Ms. Hughes has agreed to serve.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item. 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. Here,
again, it appears like we have a wedding with very poor
representation on the -- what is this, the groom side? This
is the bride side, isn't it?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Must be the groom's side.
Must be the groom's side.
JUDGE TINLEY: No, I think this is the bride side,
because that's where the bride's parents are seated, is on
this side.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think we're backwards
today.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Okay. Let's move on to Item
9; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to
8-25-08
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
designate the $1,030,000 2007 loan transaction with Banc of
America Public Capital Corporation, a bank qualified
transaction for purposes of Section 265(b)(3) of the Internal
Revenue Code, and authorize the County Judge to submit an
amended Form 8038-G to the Internal Revenue Service. There's
a whole lot of bureaucracy in that statement, isn't there?
MS. HARGIS: Probably. This is really a very
simple transaction. It looks very difficult, but what it --
what it basically is saying is that Banc of America has a
commercial branch that sells paper for large notes, and they
would like to move this over to their smaller commercial
division, which does loans like you and I would do for cars
and things of that nature, because the tax break to them
would be better. An 8038-G is the form you send to I.R.S.
that says that you're able to give a nonprofit status or tax
breaks on an issue, and in order to change from one type of
an agency to another, even though it's in the bank. We'll
have to reissue that. I think I gave y'all an attachment
that our attorney said that he would prepare that form and
then forward it to us, 'cause he wants us to be the one that
signs it. So --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think he's absolutely
right; we need to be in control of this, and not the bank,
and I have no objection to our doing it. I prefer the route
that is outlined by bond counsel.
8-25-08
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
MS. HARGIS: And, again, this is the -- the leasing
that you did in 2006, but you actually received the funds in
2007. So, I would request that the Court approve this.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Motion that we authorize County
Judge to submit the amended Form 8038-G to the Internal
Revenue Service, and all the paperwork will be approved and
prepared by our bond counsel, Mr. Tom Spurgeon.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
indicated. Question or discussion on that motion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes. At -- she's right; at
first glance, it is a little bit confusing, but as I took a
look at it and got to understand it some, and then see that
Mr. Henderson says it's an okay thing, and then Mr. Spurgeon,
and I've got -- I've grown to respect those two guys quite a
bit more. Mr. Spurgeon, obviously, had went out of his way
just a little bit to make sure that Kerr County is protected
in this issue, and -- and I appreciate that very much. So,
it's a done deal, far as I'm concerned.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or discussion
on the motion? Did you have any additional comments,
Ms. Hargis?
MS. HARGIS: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: All in favor of the motion, signify
by raising your right hand.
8-25-08
48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. We'll move
to Item 10; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on
imposition of optional local fees in addition to the
transportation fee as provided by Chapter 502 of the Texas
Transportation Code. This was before the Court previously.
We now charge the $10 add-on for every vehicle that's
licensed. We have the opportunity to charge up to a dollar
and a half per registration for a child safety fund fee, but
we are required by law to expend those funds for a school
crossing guard program, if we have one. If we don't have
one, to deposit that money in an interest-bearing account and
expend it for programs that are designed to enhance child
safety, health, or nutrition, including child abuse
prevention and intervention and drug and alcohol abuse
prevention. I read that where it says "and" to
parenthetically include child drug and alcohol abuse
prevention. Do you do likewise, Mr. County Attorney?
MR. EMERSON: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Because it's related
information indicated to you, it doesn't give you much
guidance beyond that. But then there's a provision where
8-25-08
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
we've got to split those funds up with the incorporated
cities within the county.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
I
JUDGE TINLEY: Based upon population. I see
Commissioner Baldwin with a little grin on his face. I --
let me predict his thinking. His thinking is, "Why are we
going through this drill? We'll just do what we've done for
eons and keep the $10 and go on down the road."
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 100 percent, exactly.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Is that your motion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I thought it was.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I appreciate your
explanation, though.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to have our
imposition of fees under Chapter 502 of the Texas
Transportation Code be as they have been previously, with the
$10 per vehicle add-on. Question or discussion? All in
favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Ms. Grinstead, we
will do the certification to our folks at the state and get
8-25-08
50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that in. I think it has to be in fairly quickly.
MS. GRINSTEAD: Friday.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move to Item 11; consider,
discuss, and take appropriate action on proposed joint
funding agreement or resolution with the City of Kerrville on
joint City/County operations and projects. I put this on the
agenda at the request of -- of the City. They acted upon
this, apparently, at their last meeting and have approved it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would it be your
understanding, Judge, that the -- the approval of the funding
plan for the funding agreement, whatever you want to call it,
this is all still subject to the budgeting process and the
allocation of funds in subsequent budget years?
JUDGE TINLEY: No question about that, 'cause we
can't legally -- we can't legally commit beyond the coming
budget year. The other thing that I have some concern about
is --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have another concern,
too.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- the Exhibit A, where it states
airport --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Doesn't have a CIP in it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, it does not indicate that that
change in percentage relates to maintenance and operation
only. There are some other asterisks, but there's not any on
8-25-08
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
the airport, but that could be construed to include capital
projects.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: The other thing that -- other
questions I have, I recall there being, on the fire, a $5,000
incremental increase. That was a suggestion. I don't know
where we -- I know where the 3 percent came from. When
Commissioner Letz came in with his late-night spreadsheet
that literally saved the day, and it did, --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- there was a 3 percent annual
increase mentioned there that we worked off of. So, I don't
have any -- I don't have any particular problem with that.
Same thing with the library. But I don't recall there being
any considerable discussion about those escalators during our
joint meeting. And I'll leave it at that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I thought the 5,000 went by
the board, did it not?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, the City came back with
one of their proposals with a 5 percent increase, and I
looked back at the dollars that we were talking about, which
was 5,000, and I believe 3 percent is very close to -- it's,
like, 5,200, something like that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Fifty-four.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 5,400. So, that's where I came
8-25-08
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
up with the 3 percent. And I -- you know, I don't have a
problem with those being included. I think, you know, it
makes sense to have some kind of escalator in there, at least
for -- you know, cost-of-living type of items. But I'm just
happy they put in 3 percent instead of 5.
JUDGE TINLEY: The library -- I don't recall there
being any discussion during the meeting about once that got
reduced to 200 -- now, it's shown here on your sheet what we
adopted; however, that came from the joint efforts of the
financial officer of the City of Kerrville and our Auditor.
It doesn't show the -- the 3 percent escalator on the fire,
and it doesn't show it on the library, showing it all the way
out. On the fire, it just shows an "N/A" all the way across
at 180, and on the library it just shows it dropping to 200
in the third year and then remaining there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I recall a comment by
Ms. Hargis and -- what's Josh's --
JUDGE TINLEY: Josh Selleck.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Selleck. That the -- there
were some details they didn't elaborate on because of the
time factor they were under. I don't know if that was
necessarily the point. I mean, I don't think -- I agree that
there was not much discussion on those points on this. You
know, and those items are -- while they -- you know, they
kind of cut both ways, and I think the -- you know, I don't
8-25-08
53
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
though I agree, they weren't really discussed. I do have a
problem with the airport capital funding not being included,
'cause that is a significant dollar figure that varies from
The whole intent was to have the City
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Should be really
significant in the next couple of years because of the
taxiway project, so I think that needs to be clarified,
Judge. And it's M and O only. Percentage split does not
include CIP; there's a fifty-fifty split forever.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Long as there are two
JUDGE TINLEY: And what I'm hearing in the way of
census is that this -- we're in favor of the joint funding
agreement, subject to, number one, there being an asterisk by
the airport that the arrangement -- the reduction in funding
by the City includes maintenance and operation expenditures
in excess of revenues only, and capital expenditures would
continue to be shared equally between the City and the
County, and the additional caveat that the approval of this
plan does not constitute a commitment of funds beyond the
next budget year.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
8-25-08
54
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Current appropriated funds.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I believe that was all made
clear at the time.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But that's not reflected in
their resolution.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I understand. That needs to
be reflected in their resolution.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's true. Are we going
to do a resolution? Or -- you know, I feel like everybody in
this room understands that we cannot commit a future court to
any funding. We all understand that, but I'm not sure people
outside this room understand that clearly, so I think it has
to be in there -- that verbiage has to be in there somewhere.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree, it ought to be in the
part of the --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It should be. You're
absolutely right, Commissioner, and it should be in their --
their third "whereas," when they talk about it's in the
public interest to adopt a three-year funding plan with the
County, subject to --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Annual appropriations.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- annual appropriations.
It doesn't say that, and it ought to say that, or some such,
Judge.
8-25-08
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
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Stated something that's not
right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why don't we fix the resolution
', and send it back?
'I
', COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Why don't we do our own
resolution? I don't know if you can fix theirs.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I don't mean fix it.
Keep it mostly as-is, redo it, and send it back.
JUDGE TINLEY: Amend it with the language that
Commissioner Williams --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There you go.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- just inserted, and then put the
asterisk there on the airport on Exhibit A.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
indicated. Question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask -- let me ask one
more question. I think I went to sleep there just for a
moment, so I missed this. On the three-year funding plan,
Exhibit A, the library has two cute little stars, and then
down below the two little stars, it says the amount is fixed
as shown, and FY 12 and on is subject to a 3 percent
escalation. Does the word "escalation" mean go up?
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
8-25-08
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
56
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And the library we're
bringing down, and then we're using language here talking
about it going up. Is that lawyer talk? You're coming down,
but you use language about going up? Or -- and I'm telling
you, I'm reading this; I'm not making this up.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, it refers to the -- to the
chart up there, which goes through --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: It says "F 11 11." That should read
"FY 11." But it refers to that chart, which would be for
those three years. And for fiscal year 12, which would mean
the next one, --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- and beyond would be subject to a
3 percent escalation.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, we come down to the
200,000 and then we start going back up after that,
3 percent?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a question.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Y'all are going to have a
fight out of me over that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is the 3 percent based on
our $200,000 contribution, or is the 3 percent based on the
total budget alignment?
8-25-08
57
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Based on 200,000, the way
I --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just thought I'd raise the
question.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's the way I view it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. That's --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's my opinion and only
i mine .
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What would be -- what would
be wrong in saying, "City, you own the library; pay for it"?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Your constituent,
Mr. Benham, might write another column about that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, that -- him writing a
column is better than coming in here and spending a half a
day. How's that? I enjoy his column.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- the answer, to
try to answer your question, is that the -- we pretty much
are saying the library is yours, and based on their million
dollar budget, 200,000 and we're not a partner in the library
with them. What we're saying is that we think it is a
worthwhile thing for the County to have a public library, and
we're willing to fund it at a fixed level, at 200,000, and
then put in an escalator or no escalator on it, 3 percent a
year, just to kind of keep up with inflation.
8-25-08
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
58
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: At the same time, we're
taking on more funding of the airport to offset the cost of
the library.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, fiscal year '12, we'll
have a real conversation about this. Or next -- next year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Have another conversation.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I would say if we agree to
this, and if we don't have big arguments next year, and the
agreement continues on through fiscal year '12, then the
fight should be pretty well over.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- and, you know, I
think the -- depending on how the airport shakes out, which
is a little bit of an unknown on the financial side --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Very much unknown.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the intent there very much
is that the airport should start costing less.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That is our hope.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And desire.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And it's the airport board's
hope.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And desire. So --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you for allowing me to
8-25-08
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
ask that question.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion that's before us.
Further discussion or question on the motion? All in favor
of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion carries. Let's move to
Item Number 12; consider, discuss, and take appropriate
action on clarifying a budget item on the Interlocal
Agreement for the Continued Existence of a Joint Airport
Board to Provide Management of Kerrville/Kerr County Airport.
Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I can't find it on my thing up
here. But, anyway, the -- there's two points in the
agreement that I had a concern with, and the most important
one is that we talked about requiring a budget -- a detailed
budget be presented to both the City and the County, and that
the format of that budget presentation is attached as Exhibit
-- A?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or B? And I think on that, I
agree with everything to that point. The question I have is
that if you look at that, and that's what they're presenting,
the implication is that that's the budget; it can't be moved
without going back to the City and the County, and I don't
think that is the intent. I mean, I -- I don't want the
8-25-08
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
60
Airport Board to have to come back to the City or County if
they want to move $100 from maintenance of lawns to light
bulbs. I mean, I want them to -- I want to approve a total
dollar amount.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What section are you
speaking to?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I don't have it --
(Low-voice discussion off the record.)
MR. EMERSON: 4(b).
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 4(b).
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 4(b), Content and Format. The
budget shall be substantially conformed to the format and
line item content as specified and depicted in Exhibit B. It
says -- and I just think that we need to have clarification.
I don't think we need to change the agreement. I think we
just need to, maybe, between us and the City, go to the
Airport Board and say, the intent is you submit it in that
form, but you can -- once that is approved, they have the
latitude to move items from line item to line item.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think it's implied in Subsection
C, where it talks about excess spending prohibited. Without
prior written approval of each party, the Board shall not
expend or incur obligations which at any time will exceed the
total amount of the board budget. So, I think it's -- I
think it's somewhat implied there. They just can't go over,
8-25-08
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
61
I
but they can move things around if they need to.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't disagree with that, but
~, I think it's gray. I just thought if we just sent a letter
over to the City and have them sign it that it's a
clarification point, that that would be a way to clarify it.
Or we can be silent on it. The other item that I have on
there, which is just a -- was just a general comment, on the
next page, under 5(a), a dollar amount of 187,000 was put in
there for this year. That is -- we have not approved and
they have not submitted a final airport budget yet, so that
number that was put in there, that number's in the agreement.
There may need to be a budget amendment with that once we get
the actual number, and maybe that will work.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think we ought to just
delete the dollar figure and just leave the percentage,
'cause that's all we agreed to.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Then we'd change the agreement,
and I don't want to change the agreement. That's what I'm
saying. That's why I talked to Rex about both of these
items. We decided let's go ahead and sign it, get it done.
We can handle that through a budget amendment after the fact
whenever they come up with their final number, which would
change that, and then we can also do the other when we do the
clarification.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If we're doing a
8-25-08
62
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
clarification letter, over the Judge's signature on the other
point, you can make the point here the same way.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that's what this -- you
know, because those are two points, and they sort of don't go
to the substance of the agreement, and I didn't want to
recommend the Judge not sign it because of those two items.
But I think we do have to pay our --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Either that, or they can just
operate with that amount of money for this year. That will
give them time to make a budget for next year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If that's enough money for this
~ year.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, they might have to do
it on that amount of money.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's a possibility the
budget could come in less.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: True. If it does, that's
fine. We're covered.
COMMISSIONER
there's a -- I mean, I
go in and say, "Here's
we're not listening to
COMMISSIONER
LETZ: I'm just saying that, you know,
don't think it's particularly right to
your number," before we have a -- and
what you --
OEHLER: That number wasn't pulled out
of the sky.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Pretty much, it was based on
8-25-08
63
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
operations last year.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But there's been a change on
how they operate this year.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It was based on some history;
it wasn't just pulled out of the air.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, that's true. But the
scope of work on the -- on the contract with the City is --
the contract has changed. Hopefully that'll draw that down a
little bit.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That number shouldn't have been
put in there, in my mind, but it's there, so it's there. But
that was -- maybe we need to do a budget amendment at some
point to get the right number in there, and it's not. I
don't --
JUDGE TINLEY: It's signed with the understanding
that, number one, the percentages are correct. The actual
amount expended was to be determined based upon the actual
budget that's approved and the appropriation of funds.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sounds good. I like that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think -- and the
reason --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And only if it's less than
the amount that's been put in there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the --
8-25-08
64
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not to exceed.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. Well, we're capped. All
you have to do is not approve it, and last year we funded
more than this amount.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's what their maximum is.
The reason -- the clarification is really for the Airport
Board more than the City, you know, so that they -- you know,
they understand that they don't have to come back to us if
they need to change money around a little bit.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, I agree with you 100
percent. Is this new -- this new work going on out there on
the runways --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Taxiway.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Does that affect this budget
in any way?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, it's our -- our match
is already appropriated.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It was primarily matched by
E.I.C. Almost entirely, I think, matched by E.I.C. It was a
big match.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, it was. I think 80-some
thousand dollars. Wasn't it 800 this year?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, maybe this year it is,
but, I mean, in next year's --
8-25-08
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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Four each.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Four million, so it's
10 percent of 4 million, so 400,000.
JUDGE TINLEY: 400.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The E.I.C. is funding that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So we've already approved
that, so all we're doing is clarification today.
JUDGE TINLEY: Your -- if I understand what your
intent here is, that we approve the agreement and I'm
authorized to sign it, and that I return it to the City with
the clarification that it is done so with our understanding
that -- that the Airport Board not be required to -- so long
as they stay within the total amount of the budget, not be
required to obtain approval from either the City or the
County if they need to move items around in their budget.
And secondly, that the -- all the percentages are correct on
maintenance/operation for the airport; the actual number
that's inserted in there is, number one, not necessarily
correct, but would be based upon the actual budget that's
approved, and subject to approval in each of our respective
budgets.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That was my motion.
8-25-08
66
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: All right, I see. And I don't
recall if you had a second or not.
THE CLERK: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll second it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, now we have a second. Okay.
Now that we've discussed it, do we want to discuss it
further?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, sir.
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. Let's go to
Item 13; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to
appoint Commissioners Baldwin and -- or Commissioner Baldwin
and Commissioner Letz to renegotiate the Interlocal
Cooperation Agreement between Kerr County and the City of
Kerrville for Regulation of Subdivisions Within the City of
Kerrville's Extraterritorial Jurisdiction with the City of
Kerrville.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
8-25-08
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
approval of the agenda item. Further question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Good luck.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I was just wondering, do you
think that we should add in there that we need to take Rusty
with us?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, I refuse. It's in the
city; get the Chief of Police.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I did have a conversation with
Mr. Hofmann, and we're further apart than I thought. I'll
just leave it at that. Just -- we'll go from there.
~~ COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But this has to be done.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Has to be done one way or the
I other.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It has to be done.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think that when we go, I
think -- well, it's up to Commissioner Baldwin. I'd probably
like to have Rex attend that meeting with us, at least the
first one.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: If you take Rex with you --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They disagree on the enabling
legislation.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, they do, and members
of the Council are saying the same thing.
'~
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. Anyway --
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We have a motion and a
8-25-08
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
second. Further question or discussion on the motion? All
in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's go to Item 18, open bids and
award contract for three interior walls for the maintenance
shop at the Hill Country Youth Exhibit Center, one 12-by-10
rollup door, one 10-by-10 rollup door, and one 3-by-7
walk-through door with hardware. You got any bids?
THE CLERK: Only the one that I put on there for --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's electrical.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's electrical on the courthouse
grounds, I think.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What do you do when no bids
come in?
MR. EMERSON: Sorry?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What do you do if we don't
receive any bids for a project?
JUDGE TINLEY: Start over.
MR. EMERSON: Go back to square one.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Bid it again?
MR. EMERSON: See what happens.
8-25-08
69
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: What's the anticipated cost of these
particular improvements, Mr. Bollier?
MR. BOLLIER: It was, like --
JUDGE TINLEY: Do you have a ballpark?
MR. BOLLIER: I think it was 9,000. Wasn't it,
Commissioner Oehler? Something like that. 9,000, somewhere
in there.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Depends on if you do it -- do
it in-house, it will be something like that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I was just going to ask the
question, why can't we do it ourselves?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We can.
MR. BOLLIER: We can.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why are we going out for
bid?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, we probably have to go
out for bid for materials, because it's part of the project.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, certainly, I
understand.
JUDGE TINLEY: We're talking about under 25,000
here.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well --
JUDGE TINLEY: And that's probably why it was
difficult to obtain bids, because of the low value of the --
of the project.
8-25-08
70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
I5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I believe so. Let's see if
we have community service; there may be some metal building
people on there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And this gets into that
problem, just everything that we do out there is subject to
bidding because of the -- the way the statute reads. That's
one project.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Cumulative -- cumulative
cost.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But if we have the ability
to do the labor, the actual construction, why can't we do
that? We did the whole annex basement, basically, with our
people and jail release people, right?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I have no problem using
inmates to help build that stuff out there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Rex, can we not violate the
bidding rules if we do it in-house and buy the materials off
of a state site that's already preapproved?
(Mr. Emerson nodded.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Let's go that route.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Let's do it. If I have to
drag my welder down here to do that, let's do it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, boy.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Get 'er done.
JUDGE TINLEY: Bruce with his magic hot stick.
8-25-08
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
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah, get the stick down
I here.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Bruce and I were working a
couple weekends on a fence down there.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move to item -- do we need any
formal court action? Obviously, we can't take it under this
agenda item, so it wouldn't make any difference, would it?
Mr. Emerson? Insofar as saying, "Let's do it ourselves," we
can't take any formal action on --
MR. EMERSON: Correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- that basis under this agenda
item, can we?
MR. EMERSON: Correct.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Let's wait till next meeting.
I'll put something on to authorize Tim to go out and get
prices on materials, something like that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Isn't this in the budget
somewhere? Can't we -- we have talked about it. If it's
budgeted, why can't we just do it?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I thought --
MR. BOLLIER: I thought we had talked about it, but
it fell in there where we had to go out for bids.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Under the state contract,
then, this takes care of that issue.
8-25-08
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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's coming out of your budget.
Doesn't matter how you do it.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You could do it however you
I want to do it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Go do it. Are we okay? Can we
just go do it?
MR. EMERSON: Sir?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can we go do it?
MR. EMERSON: I don't know that you have to take
any formal action if you're just doing it in-house.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Get 'er done.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Just go do it. Get 'er done.
MR. BOLLIER: So, it's get 'er done, right? Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Item 19, open bids and award
contract for reworking electrical conduits and wiring in the
front area of the Kerr County Courthouse square. We have
here --
MR. BOLLIER: One.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- one bid.
MR. BOLLIER: I don't know. Probably --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: D.W.
MR. BOLLIER: If there's one in there, that's
probably who it is.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We have excited the
8-25-08
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
community, haven' t we?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Heavy-duty stuff.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Nobody wants to work for us.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE TINLEY: We have one bid from D.W. Electric,
and it specifies what they will do, furnishing labor and
materials to various things. The amount is 24,4. 24,400.
Obviously, the Maintenance Supervisor has not reviewed the
specification of what the proposal is issued to accomplish.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll move we accept the bid and
give it to the Maintenance Supervisor for recommendation.
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: That motion does carry. Why don't
we take us about a 15-minute recess or so, and we'll come
back.
(Recess taken from 10:30 a.m. to 10:50 a.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to order and
8-25-08
74
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
get back on our agenda. Item 14 is to consider, discuss, and
take appropriate action regarding the FY 2008-09 budgets,
budget and salary policies, and fiscal capital expenditure
and personnel matters related thereto for various county
departments. We've got some fine-tuning to do with regard to
these items. One of them that comes off the top of my head,
the Court, I think, had indicated that -- that it was
inclined to allow the Extension Office to acquire a vehicle,
the -- the exact make, model, style and so forth to be
determined. And in that regard, the -- the capital outlay
item is there, but the item just above it titled "Operating
Equipment" previously had some -- had some funds requested in
there for fuel, based on 30,000 miles a year, and that got
deleted. It had 7,500. I made a quick calculation that said
7,300; I just did a slightly different calculation than
Mr. Walston did. But if there's going to be a vehicle, there
has to be an allowance for fuel and minor maintenance, and
the figure that he had in there of 7,500 is probably
appropriate.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Question, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are all these other travel
reimbursements and so forth going to remain as proposed? Are
they going to get -- are they going to disappear? Are they
going to get lumped up into one transportation allowance or
s-2s-os
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
what?
JUDGE TINLEY: No, they're going to remain as-is,
but there is a significant reduction in each of those
accounts from last year to this year based on the acquisition
of a vehicle. The remaining amount in there is to provide
for per diem and lodging and so forth, --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- primarily. Out-of-county only.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. I see it now.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, where are we? Do you
want me to ask him a tough question?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are we on the vehicle thing?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, that's kind of where we are.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Why are you so hung up on
buying a Suburban?
MR. WALSTON: Basically, we can get a
nine-passenger vehicle.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You can't do that in a
bigger van that's safe as everything else?
MR. WALSTON: As far as --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Y'all kind of help me. I've
already completed my questions.
8-25-08
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 WILLIAMS: You only had two questions?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
MR. WALSTON: You know, to get into ten-passenger,
we have to get into the vans. And --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We don't want ten-passenger.
MR. WALSTON: Do what?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We don't want ten-passenger.
We can get that off the table.
MR. WALSTON: We got to go back, so I was trying to
get as many passengers as I could.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You can get nine in a
Suburban?
MR. WALSTON: We can get nine in a Suburban, a
three-bench-seat Suburban. You -- and the other -- the other
vehicles that I've looked at, I think there's a Ford
Expedition, XL or EL, that I think we can get nine in. You
know, and that's -- that's kind of the two. If we want to
get fewer than that... But I think, cost-wise, it's -- you
know, they're all pretty comparable. So --
JUDGE TINLEY: There are smaller vans available,
too.
MR. WALSTON: We can get -- I mean, if we want to
get down into some smaller vans, you know, we get down into a
seven-passenger, and I was -- I was trying to keep the
passengers, primarily, because most of our judging teams that
8-25-08
77
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
we haul, you can put two teams in a nine-passenger van. When
you get to the seven passengers, you're cutting one team out.
So -- but that's where I was getting the nine passengers
from, was the number of kids that we put in there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's the cost difference
between the seven-passenger van and a Suburban?
MR. WALSTON: Well, I can pull those up, and I'm
going to have to get more detail for you to do that. But
I've looked at several of them, and it depends on where you
look at to the difference. You can look at one comparison --
if you're looking at Chevrolet, you know, they're going to --
they're pricing the Ford vans higher than what they show on
their comparisons. So, you know, actually, I'm going to have
to go to a dealer and see what they're going to price it at.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You can go to the state website
and look at all of them.
MR. WALSTON: Buy Board? Or --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Buy Board, and pick -- give you
a comparison, not that you necessarily want to buy it right
there.
MR. WALSTON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Get a comparison.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Was the $10,000 capital
item, was that what a lease would cost per year?
MR. WALSTON: That's from the same -- the same one
8-25-08
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
the Sheriff's office uses to purchase their vehicles. I
called them, and he said, basically, a -- you know, for a
2008 Suburban is 36,000. Over a four-year period, it comes
out to 9,000 a year.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. WALSTON: So, that's where that came from.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I think there's some smaller
vans, too, that have nine-passenger capability, up to nine.
Of course, then when you get to ten or better, that's when
they get in trouble with the longer -- longer van.
MR. WALSTON: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: With a higher center of gravity and
so forth.
MR. WALSTON: Haven't been able to find a smaller
one that will hold that many, other than the Expedition.
Everything I've seen is -- it gets into seven.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And moving forward, because we
need to move forward, I think it makes sense for you to have
a vehicle, much more than what you have been doing. Let's
put in 9,000, but don't authorize any expenditure until we
come back and decide what we're going to do.
JUDGE TINLEY: I've got no problem, really, with
just leaving the funds in there, in the budget, so that we
can plan on acquiring a vehicle. But he's also going to need
the fuel --
8-25-08
79
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- there in that upper line item of
7,500, which he had in there. That -- and, like I say, I
calculated it just roughly on 30,000, came out with 7,300.
And, of course, you're going to have some minor -- minor
maintenance, routine service.
MR. WALSTON: And that's my main question, I guess.
I wasn't real clear as to whether we want to go on into the
bigger vans, or if -- what our -- what our --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No.
MR. WALSTON: -- parameters --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We don't want to go into a big
van.
MR. WALSTON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We want to either go Suburban
or small van.
MR. WALSTON: When you get into the big vans, it
gets cheaper per vehicle.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We don't want to go --
MR. WALSTON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't like the liability
that goes with it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Safety factor, yeah. If we can
restore that 7,500, and you want to reduce the 10 to 9? Is
that what you're talking about?
8-25-08
80
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's what he says, that's the
maximum you're going to need is nine for a Suburban.
MR. WALSTON: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, when you put in 36,000, your
nine is just going to cover your principal; there's going to
be a factor in there for leasing, so let's leave ten.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Ten, I think, is better.
MR. RUARK: He's got 9,000 for the Suburban and
1,000 in there for an office computer, so that's your 10,000.
MR. WALSTON: And we can probably get that computer
done this year.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Nine probably includes the
financing.
JUDGE TINLEY: The nine does include --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I would think so. You're
doing it over six -- four years.
MR. WALSTON: He said over four years. He said
it's -- it's 36,000, and I didn't ask him about interest. Or
I figured he had that --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What did you say, Bruce?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I said the 9,000 includes the
financing, I believe.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh. And did y'all hear what
he said about the computer?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yes.
8-25-08
81
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. WALSTON: We can get the computer this year, or
we should be able to.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's for the laptop; that's not a
desktop.
MR. WALSTON: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. And we don't have any
additional desktops.
MR. TROLINGER: We don't have any additional
laptops. We have desktops.
JUDGE TINLEY: Excuse me, laptops.
MR. TROLINGER: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. So, we're restoring the
10,000 and restoring the 7,500. Okay.
MR. WALSTON: Anything else? Thank you, sirs.
Appreciate it.
JUDGE TINLEY: What else do we have, gentlemen?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think on the budget, I don't
recall any other really unfinished items.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Did we put -- take me to the
visiting judges. The numbers that you put in the 216th --
you put some in 216th and some in 198th.
JUDGE TINLEY: 12,5 in each.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I remember now. Very good.
JUDGE TINLEY: There's a -- a salary policy that
could very well come into play, depending upon what happens
8-25-08
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
with the personnel increases. As I'm sure all of you
remember, we -- I think it was while I was on the Court; it
may have been previous. There was a policy put in place that
the Sheriff's salary would be not less than $5,000 more than
the chief deputy.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: Which I think he's probably bumping
right at that now. And if one of the proposals that has been
vetted here is incorporated with that policy in place, it
would require the budget to be automatically increased to a
higher figure for the Sheriff's salary only in order to
comply with that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think we need to stay with
the policy.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We can't -- can't allow the
second-in-command to make more than the elected official.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, wouldn't make more. Just --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, even --
JUDGE TINLEY: -- within the 5,000.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- within that range.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'll give you a for-instance.
I have some thoughts on some things that could affect the
bottom line of the budget. But say, for instance, if -- if
there was a 5 percent proposed for all elected officials and
8-25-08
83
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
department heads, and a 10 percent for all the other hourly
employees, and in that case and scenario, you would have the
Sheriff being able to get an extra bump because of the rise
in his chief deputy, which he'd be the only one that would
get more, say, than 5 percent, and I don't agree with that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, you -- well, and what
would you do, remove the 5 percent?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I would remove -- I would
remove that court order that ties it to an exact $5,000 above
whatever. Because in that case, just my -- what I just told
you, it's going to allow -- even if none of the other elected
officials got anything --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure, I understand exactly
what you're saying. I'm in agreement with you. That's fine.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think we need to rescind
that court order.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The -- the -- so it doesn't
matter, as long as the Sheriff makes at least a dollar more
than the chief deputy?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: No, I'm not saying that. I'm
just saying that you don't have -- it doesn't have to be
5, 000.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand. You know, I
agree with you. I don't know why we put 5,000, but we did.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think that was my
8-25-08
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
predecessor's suggestion.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know. Can't
remember.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: But, anyway --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, I'm fine with that. I
see what you're saying.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Because it's unfair for the
other elected officials in some case -- some point in time.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Could be.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure.
JUDGE TINLEY: And the Sheriff has risen to speak.
Or observe; I'm not sure which. Did you just -- you just --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, I would like --
JUDGE TINLEY: -- arise to observe?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I think the only thing you
have to look at -- I'm not complaining about my salary; don't
get me wrong. But in the equity of it, Bruce, what you have
to look at, the normal standard around this county, even,
between the department head or the elected official and their
next in line is normally 15,000, 20,000 difference, or 10,000
in there already. There is a large enough gap that you don't
have to worry about the second-in-command making more than
the department head or the elected official. Because of
going way back, the Nash study, and then what the Court did,
8-25-08
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
straightening out a lot of things with employees, that gap
closed. And the first three or four years I was Sheriff, the
chief deputy made more than the Sheriff, okay? The -- your
predecessor in your seat actually made a recommendation at
one time to bump the Sheriff's salary to 20,000 more so that
difference, okay?
My issue is, I -- if you look at -- and you just
bear -- and I don't know how to say this without creating a
lot of stuff, but when you look at the head of the detention
center -- Juvenile Detention Center, he's paid as much as
your Sheriff, okay? When you look at a police chief that's
paid 20,000 more than the Sheriff, you look at a Road and
Bridge that's paid 30,000 more than your Sheriff, then I
think you need to look at where that gap is. If you -- one,
I agree with you, the order may ought to be rescinded, and I
-- 'cause it is kind of hard, 'cause it always keeps your
Sheriff or that position going up every time your chief --
and I don't think your chief deputy should be frozen unless
he's at that end in the step and grade scale, like was agreed
upon at the 20 years. But I think at that 20 years, end of
the step and grade scale, your Sheriff should be at a
position where you never have to worry about his
second-in-command making more. Because the second-in-command
8-25-08
86
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
does a lot.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But every federal lawsuit,
every, you know, thing else you have does fall on the
Sheriff.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'm not really arguing that
fact with you. I'm trying to figure out a way -- and if we
do need to make that gap bigger, then maybe we should make
the gap bigger, but don't tie it to a court order that
mandates that whenever -- that could create something that
you would be the only one that would get, and none of the
other elected officials or department heads would get.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And I totally agree with that
philosophy of it, but I think it's due to how narrow the gap
is.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I have no problem with there
being a gap. It's -- it's just how you get the gap. We may
differ in the way we go about it.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, if a court order is
required just to set a margin between an elected official and
chief deputy, then make it a blanket court order that sets
the margin for all, not just the Sheriff.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah. I just want to get --
I want everybody to be treated fairly and equally as much as
8-25-08
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
possible.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do we have --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: However we get there is
immaterial to me. It's just the fact that it needs to be
that way.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do we have a new summary sheet?
That one-page sheet that I like to look at that gives the
numbers? The Auditor's nodding.
JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Hyde, you had some comments?
MS. HYDE: Just that, you know, during the last 12
to 18 months, we've been revamping on the worker's side.
This next year, we're going to have to revamp on the
department head side, but that's going to take some
discussions, probably workshops, to discuss it. I have
requested Kevlar from head to toe. But we do need to look at
those, and look at the salaries and look at the grades where
you have top-level officials and then second-in-commands.
What -- what are our expectations, and where are those people
going to go? Because, as y'all have taught me well, if
something happens to the elected official or department head,
the second -- if it's an elected position, then that chief
deputy steps in. So, I think that we need to look at those.
But I think the first -- the first item that we had to work
on was worker bees, and that's what we've been focusing on.
So, 2008-2009 -- or, like I said, I just need the -- I've got
8-25-08
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
it in the budget so I can have Kevlar from head to toe on
those.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I didn't mean to jump -- Judge,
are we -- seems like we were kind of done with the rest of
the stuff, other than --
JUDGE TINLEY: I --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'm not done with it. What
do you mean?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We've got to talk about the
total numbers now.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Oh, yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's where --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's what I'm talking
about.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We got to look at where the
dollars say what we can and can't do.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's exactly right.
(Ms. Hargis handed documents to the Court.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. These -- these
three scenarios that we've just been handed out here, will
they all three require a tax increase?
MS. HARGIS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes.
(Discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What --
8-25-08
89
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Wait a minute, Jon. Let me
stay on my thinking here just for a second, please. Now, all
three require a tax increase. Can you tell me what each one
of them -- what kind of tax increase would be required for
each one of them?
MS. HARGIS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, good.
MS. HARGIS: I mean, I wasn't -- I was letting
y'all debate the others. Are you ready for all the rest of
the paper?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, I want you to tell me.
I don't want any more paper.
MS. HARGIS: Don't want any more paper?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm not --
JUDGE TINLEY: Some of us may.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They might. I don't want
any more. I've got to get a damn wheelbarrow to get all this
stuff out of here. I just want to know.
MS. HARGIS: Well, I'd rather --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MS. HARGIS: I'd rather pass them around.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Inquiring minds want to
know.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that Shakespeare?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, I believe so. No,
8-25-08
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
it's the guy underneath the bridge.
JUDGE TINLEY: First off --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's good, Bill.
JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Hargis, before you get started,
let me --
MS. HARGIS: I thought you weren't quite ready for
~ me yet .
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me ask if maybe the headings on
two of these may be reversed. The one that says 10 percent
plus step increase for the department heads and employees has
a smaller number than the one that has the 10 percent plus
step increase for employees only. Seems to me that --
MS. HARGIS: Okay. The one with department heads
is nine -- 946 -- you're right. We did these in a hurry.
JUDGE TINLEY: But --
MS. HARGIS: There's only $13,000 difference
between the two.
JUDGE TINLEY: Right. Right. But --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, they're switched?
MS. HARGIS: Well --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which one are we looking
at?
MS. HARGIS: Okay. If you --
JUDGE TINLEY: The one that says "10 percent plus
step increase for employees only" should read "for department
8-25-08
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
heads and employees."
MS. HARGIS: Haste makes waste.
JUDGE TINLEY: And the one that reads, "Step
increase for department heads and employees" should have
"department heads" deleted from it. Correct? Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. So, it's backwards.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. There's a small number
difference, but, I mean, you can --
MS. HARGIS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay. One of the questions
that I believe the Judge asked this morning, do you have the
paperwork on that?
MS. HARGIS: Yes, sir, I do. That's not it, but I
was waiting for you to ask for that. Now, I've done this in
two scenarios. Okay, can everybody hear me?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No.
MS. HARGIS: One is the revenue side and one is the
expense side, is what I think you wanted.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: What I want, and it should be
very simple,
MS. HARGIS: It's the revenue side.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- and that is to get the
difference in the amount that was budgeted last year and the
proposed recommended amount that was asked for this year.
MS. HARGIS: Yes, sir, that's what you have.
8-25-08
92
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That number is what I'm
looking for. That number will tell a lot of stories.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's the number you're
looking for again?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'm looking for the number of
difference --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Between the proposed and final?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: No, between what we expended
last year -- last year's budget, and what the increase of
that amount is for this year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh, the total.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: The total.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Budget increase.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Budgeted increase for this
coming year.
JUDGE TINLEY: We got the percentage -- the --
MS. HARGIS: The expenditure one is titled
"Expenses." You got three -- the three scenarios as well
there. You have the first column, which was the approved
budget for last year, the expenditure side, general fund.
Then you have the expenditures proposed for this year, and
the difference, and I believe that's what you asked for,
Commissioner Oehler.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Are you telling me that
there's a difference of two -- there's $2,188,000 difference
8-25-08
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
in the proposed requested -- or recommended budget for this
coming year over last year?
MS. HARGIS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Then why did you give us the
figure of 821,000 last time?
MS. HARGIS: The 821 was only the difference that
the revenue at the old rate would bring -- would bring in.
When I did the proposed budget that you have in front of you,
I took the new certified tax value, multiplied it by the old
tax rate, which was .3592 for the general fund --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I don't know why this is so
confusing.
MS. HARGIS: That's exactly --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Really, I don't know how such
a simple thing can be so confusing.
MS. HARGIS: Okay. You asked for us to give you
the approved expenses for last year, which were 14 million --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I asked for the difference in
the amount of budget that was requested here over last year.
MS. HARGIS: That's what you have.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's what you're saying
that this $2,199,000 is?
MS. HARGIS: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Or the $2,188,000.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Total budget. Total budget
8-25-08
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
increase.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
MS. HARGIS: That's the total. That's not --
that's not raises; that's budget. Budget to budget,
everything.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Everything to everything.
MS. HARGIS: Everything to everything. There were
increases --
JUDGE TINLEY: General fund only?
MS. HARGIS: General fund only. There were
increases in the budget other than the raises that were
proposed.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I understand that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Here, again, the two headings are
reversed on your budget expense comparison. The bigger
figures should include department heads and employees.
MS. HARGIS: Well, because I used the same sample.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So -- okay. So, department
head goes up on top and department head comes out of the
second one?
JUDGE TINLEY: Right, exactly.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: But based on this, what I'm
seeing right here -- of course, I haven't read the whole
thing, but to fund a $2,199,000 increase would take
8-25-08
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
approximately 9 cents on the tax rate.
MS. HARGIS: Your value increased.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I understand the value
increased.
MS. HARGIS: And if you'll look at the revenue
side, I think that would help you some. If you look at the
first line that says, "Option 1, no raises," if you took the
value for 2008-2009, --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Mm-hmm.
MS. HARGIS: -- that will -- at the same tax rate
that you had last year, it will produce $1,132,566 more.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Mm-hmm.
MS. HARGIS: You subtract that revenue from your
2 million; that is the difference that you need to raise over
what the tax rate would have been if you'd left it alone.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Mm-hmm. Okay. Well, see, to
me, that's confusing too. I think it's confusing to the
public. What -- if our effective tax rate is correct at
.3712, if it's not been misfigured and, you know, everything
is like it's supposed to be, .3712 applied to this year's new
tax values -- taxable values would generate the exact amount
of money that we spent last year in last year's budget; is
that correct?
MS. HARGIS: It would expend the same amount of tax
revenue, not -- not expenditures.
8-25-08
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
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, tax revenue to fund
last year's budget.
MS. HARGIS: Right. It would --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Is that correct?
MS. HARGIS: The 37 includes Road and Bridge. Yes,
it would.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay. If that be the case,
then why would we not add to that the total difference in the
budget request for this year and apply a tax rate that would
generate enough money to fund that additional -- the
additional expenses over last year?
MS. HARGIS: If you'll look at the spreadsheet that
I gave you that has the red on it --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We have red on there?
MS. HARGIS: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The one that was in our
packet?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: She handed it out just now.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay, this one.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Tax rate estimates?
MS. HARGIS: Right. As you recall, there -- the
856 is the new number because of some of the changes that you
made at the last budget workshop, which was last Thursday.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Right.
MS. HARGIS: Okay. Then we add the additional
8-25-08
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
steps that the -- the additional amount of money that it
would take to fund the additional step. This one is with
department heads. That, then, would give me a negative of --
of the million 42.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay.
MS. HARGIS: In order to fund that million and 42,
I would need the tax rate that is attached, and I've showed
you on the side in black.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And that would be on top of
the effective rate, or on top of the old tax rate?
MS. HARGIS: Be on top of the old tax rate.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Why, is my question.
MS. HARGIS: The effective rate produces the same
amount of revenue as you produce the following year -- the --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: The previous year.
MS. HARGIS: The previous year.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The effective rate.
MS. HARGIS: Effective rate basically is your --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Based on the new values.
MS. HARGIS: As your value goes up, your rate goes
down.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I understand that. That's
why it's .3712 and not .3896.
MS. HARGIS: If I used the effective rate, I would
8-25-08
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
have to actually raise more revenue than if I used the tax
rate that I used last year.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's correct, 'cause the
rate went down.
MS. HARGIS: It's very difficult to understand that
if -- let me take maybe a simple scenario. If I had a
million dollars at a tax rate that was 10 cents, and then the
following year my value became, let's say, a million, two,
then my tax rate -- effective rate went down to 8 cents. But
my expenses went up from the 10 cents to I2 cents, so now
I've got a 4-cent gap that I have to cover.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's -- I mean, that's
exactly what I'm saying. But what I'm saying is, why would
you add -- why would you go to all the trouble to make it
confusing to use the old rate to do one figure, instead of
taking the effective rate and then taking the amount of money
that you need to cover this year's budget and apply a tax
rate to the effective rate to get that amount of money that
you need because of the increased values?
MS. HARGIS: When I did the budget, I did not have
the availability of the effective rate. I had an estimate,
and that's what I --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I understand. We're talking
about now. We have an effective rate figure now.
MS. HARGIS: I used -- normally in the budgeting
8-25-08
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
process, you assume that the -- that the elected officials
are going to either remain at the tax rate that they have, so
that they can have a level that's consistent with what
they've had in the past and raise enough revenue based on
using the same rate that would cover their expenses. So, my
assumption was that, because you've used that same tax rate
for four years, that you would use it for the fifth year, and
that's the reason that I plugged it in. To use the effective
rate -- I mean, I can go back and use the effective rate, but
it was just simpler to say off of the .3592 which I already
have in the -- because the -- the rate is divided between --
'cause you can see on your summary sheet ten different items,
so -- and then I would have to go back and change it. It was
just simpler. That's --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay. So, what you're saying
in this first line here, you have the red numbers of 856 and
186,714. That equals $1,042,940. And you apply this 3-cent
-- .0367 tax rate is what's needed to generate that money.
On the old tax rate, not on the effective rate.
MS. HARGIS: That is correct, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: The rate today. That's what
you're saying?
MS. HARGIS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Seems to me like it could
8-25-08
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
have been a lot simpler the other way around, but --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Seems --
JUDGE TINLEY: The Legislature has, by very
confusing statutory language, dictated what all these things
are, and given the terminology of "effective tax rate" and
all this other stuff. But --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- personally, I think
effective rate is what's confusing. I think we should
eliminate the whole term "effective rate." It's a tax rate.
That's what it is.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: The effective rate is
generated so that you --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're absolutely right, it
does confuse things.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: But the effective rate also
is the basis for what you have to go by so that you can
establish rollback.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, but that's legislative.
That's a gimmick.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Been there for a long time.
This is not something that went through --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's a legislative gimmick.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- while I've been missing in
action for eight years.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Gimmick?
8-25-08
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 LETZ: Gimmick.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What you're saying, Bill, is
that you think there's lawyers involved in this thing?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Lots of them.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Lots of them.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're really sharp today.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll telling you what,
buddy, I'm ready.
JUDGE TINLEY: You're starting off the week great.
You've got one thought already for this week.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: See?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Anyway, I think we finally
got that one understood, even if I don't totally understand
why, but --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, we'd be adding 3.67 to
the existing
MS. HARGIS: .3592, which is your --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- .3592.
MS. HARGIS: -- general and debt service, right.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And that is the -- that is
the --
MS. HARGIS: That is if you --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: 100 percent, across-the-board
raises for everybody, cost-of-living, whatever you want to
call it; is that correct?
8-25-08
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
MS. HARGIS: No, sir. The first scenario says
that --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Except --
MS. HARGIS: -- the 10 percent you requested at the
workshop meeting, that we add an additional step.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Mm-hmm.
MS. HARGIS: The first one says that it's an
additional step for all employees and department heads. The
second scenario says that it's 10 percent, employees' step
rate increase only, and the third scenario is 10 percent
raises for everybody, period.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, I think we got a little
confused on all the other stuff. But -- so, if we have --
it's a 3.74-cent increase is what we need to do under the
second scenario on here?
MS. HARGIS: That's correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: That includes Road and Bridge.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That includes everything.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm, yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Three -- three and
three-quarters cents, basically, increase.
MS. HARGIS: Road and Bridge, which I didn't do
here -- Road and Bridge is at .0304, and we propose to bring
them to .0322, which is -- which is their M & 0 maximum.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But this -- this sheet includes
8-25-08
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
everything, or just those three items?
MS. HARGIS: This is just the general fund. And
the -- everything that would fall in the debt service, and
the debt service is included in here. Keep in mind, we did
have -- in this negative of 856, we have -- we lost an issue,
but we picked up an issue this year as our first payment on
the one we got last year. And also, one of our principal
payments on one of the other issues is higher this year, so
there's a little bit of a debt service increase here as well.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: This is a zero-based budget
and does not include any deficit spending?
MS. HARGIS: No deficit spending. In fact, if
you'll see in the first and second scenario, in order to
hold -- I was asked to hold the fund balance at 20 percent or
higher, and in order to do that, I needed to add 25,000. And
that's in the first and second scenarios that you see there.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay.
MS. HARGIS: So, that -- I mean, those are all --
all variables for you to consider.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay.
MS. HARGIS: These are the separate questions I've
been asked from several of you. So --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay. Well, it's time for me
to continue being myself, I guess. I've been thinking quite
a bit about this budget thing over the -- over the weekend,
8-25-08
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
and not only do we have a responsibility to our constituents,
but we also have a responsibility to provide our employees
with a decent wage. And I believe we're -- we're all in
agreement with trying to do the best we can with what we have
to work with. What I'm -- last year, the employees -- hourly
employees got -- hourly employees, whatever you want to call
it, they got 3 and a half percent. All the department heads
and elected officials got 3 and a half and 3 and a half,
which is 7. I propose we reverse the percentages this year,
and that we give elected officials and department heads
5 percent, and all -- everyone else 10 percent. If you take
that over the last two years, this year and last year, and
you total up what -- what everybody has received, the elected
officials and department heads have received or will receive
12 percent increases based on that number, which is an
average of 6, which is probably more than a lot of other
companies and corporations are giving. And employees would
be up to 13 and a half percent total if we do what I'm
suggesting.
I do believe -- and I realize that we're behind
some of the major employers in Kerr County in what we pay our
employees, but I think we need to take our time and make some
steady increases over the next several years, rather than
trying to give such a huge influx all at one time to
everybody. I believe that we are -- our biggest problems are
8-25-08
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
in the areas of our hourly people, where we have the largest
turnover, and I believe they're the ones that are furthest
behind and need to be brought up so we can compete for those
people in the job place -- in the job market. But this plan
will necessitate a rate increase. We have no doubt about
having to increase the rate. There hasn't been an increase
for a long time on taxes, and there's a lot of reasons we can
do this. One of them is the fact that we've lost $776,000 in
65-and-older tax freeze. And that's not something we need to
complain about, but it's something we have to deal with. And
had we had that 776,000, we'd be talking about almost no tax
increase whatsoever, but we don't, so we have to face
reality, and it's up to the people who are left to pay.
So, we're going to have to -- we are -- we're going
to have to raise the rate. It's just a matter of how much
and what we agree to. And I do not have the numbers of what
I'm proposing would save as far as the tax rate, but I
believe it would save probably a half cent, maybe. Not much,
but I think it's something, and I think we do have an
obligation to the taxpayers to -- to give them our best
service that we can give them, and not hit them as hard all
at one time. And I believe that if we -- we give ourselves
10 percent after getting 7 last year, I think it's wrong.
It's fundamentally wrong, and I just totally disagree with
it. A small COLA for us is fine, but not -- not as much --
8-25-08
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
not 10 percent.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Now, you're -- see, you just
brought up my question. Are we talking about a salary
increase, or are we talking about a COLA?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You can call it anything you
want to; it's still an increase. I don't care how -- any
terminology you use, I don't care what you call it, it's
still an increase in salary.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's correct. So -- so,
what you're saying, then, is give the elected officials a
5 percent salary increase, and then a 7 and a half percent
COLA?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: No.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, that's what I'm
asking. What --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: No, that's not what I'm
proposing.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All right.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'm talking about 5 percent.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I want the COLA instead.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, I'm not going to -- I'm
not going to say -- you know, we if we go with a pure COLA,
we all know that that could be 11, 12 percent.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Right.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And I don't believe that we
8-25-08
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
can afford to do that for everybody this year. I think with
what's been had in the last few years, and with our benefits
package and everything that we have that others don't have, I
believe that we'll still be competitive and will get the
people's salaries up or give them a COLA that would allow
them to make enough money to where they could be off food
stamps.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Bruce, I'm with you almost
100 percent, but not quite. And my hangup is -- is a COLA is
what it is. The cost-of-living, the cost it takes us -- and
that's all of us -- to go to H.E.B. and get our milk and
bread and go over to the gas station and get our gas. The
cost to do that is what it is.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's true.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Whether it's 3 percent or
85 percent. I don't have any idea where it is, but it's a
lot. But it -- but it's there, and that is also a reality.
So, that's where you and I differ a little bit. I think -- I
think the COLA is the important part, to me. And then -- and
that's giving everybody the ability to go down and stay up
with the cost of eggs a little bit, so we don't -- to me,
that's where the reality is.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Now, a salary increase, this
10 percent language and this 5 percent language, I'm with you
8-25-08
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
100 percent.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, that's just -- it's a
matter of terminology, whatever you want to call it, but it's
still an increased cost to the County, and it's an increase
in our tax rate. And --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And I don't know that -- that
I could walk down the street and face my constituents that --
on a 10 percent COLA, salary increase or whatever. It's just
a plain old check, is what it amounts to.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: One -- just a brief comment.
You know, and everyone can look at things the way you want
to. You chose to look at the last two years. If you went
back three years and four years, all of a sudden you realize
that the employees were taking -- were adjusted the third and
fourth year past, and the reason we adjusted the elected
officials and department heads last year is 'cause they were
skipped for years. So I think, you know, you can't -- you
know, it's kind of like any number or any statistic;
depending upon what you want to show, you can make the
numbers do it, depending where you draw the line. So, I look
at more of a philosophy; look at it more like Buster. A
COLA's a COLA, and I think that everyone should be entitled
to a cost-of-living adjustment.
We started out this year trying to give the
8-25-08
109
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
employees a boost, because we felt that they were losing
ground. I think everyone is agreeing on that. And, you
know, one of the proposals I hear shows a -- a step increase
for the lowest of the hourly workers, and then basically a
always -- you know, we get -- we're the ones going to get
dinged on because we make the decision, but that's just part
of the job. I mean, you got to do what you got to do.
People both ways can gripe, but I just think that it is the
right thing to do for people to get COLA's. I don't think
you should make less this year than you did the previous
year. And I think that's why Social Security does COLA's.
That's why a lot of retirement funds do COLA's. I mean, and
I don't think the County is any different than that. When it
comes to the salary increases, I think the priority, in my
mind, is employee -- hourly workers.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's why I said what I did.
Because this narrows the gap a little bit for those
lesser-paid employees, way less-paid employees, to get -- to
do some good, to get them up to where they're where they
should be and able to afford to go, like, to H.E.B. a little
bit more, like Buster says. And, yes, it's -- you know,
elected officials are probably going to shoot me for saying
it, but I just believe that this year, the people that are
hurt the worst are the ones that have the least.
8-25-08
110
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think we tried to address
that, Commissioner, by proposing an extra step and grade for
our people in certain -- certain categories. I agree with
Commissioner Letz; the erosion of an individual's buying
power in today's -- in today's economy is the same whether
you're an elected official or whether you're appointed or
whether you're hired on an hourly rate. There is no
distinction when you go out to purchase whatever you go out
to purchase. And Commissioner Letz is right in reflecting
back more than just two years ago in terms of how we've dealt
with these things. And every time you skip, then at some
point in time, you're going to make up, and so that's the
penalty for skipping, for whatever reasons you did the
skipping. And I'm not inclined to do that. I think a
COLA -- I agree with Commissioner Baldwin, and a COLA in the
amount that we've been talking about is top to bottom; there
is no distinction.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's why there are five of
us on the court.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Exactly.
JUDGE TINLEY: Unfortunately, we're put in a
position where we have not done what we should have done in
prior years.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's right.
8-25-08
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
JUDGE TINLEY: Government bodies traditionally are
prone to react rather than be proactive, even to the point of
give longevity and educational increases to our employees
that I think was a good policy. It gives them kind of an
insurance policy that periodically they will get an increase.
Beyond that, we've tried to do COLA's. But, unfortunately,
the marketplace has outpaced us. And I think we all approach
this knowing that because of our inaction in prior years,
what we've done is, we've got our employees who are lagging
behind others that are in the marketplace, similarly
situated. And as a result, when we lose employees, our exit
interviews are showing that 95 percent, I believe was the
number, are exiting and leaving us because of pure
compensation issues, not related to benefits. The responses
have been, "I can get the same or similar benefits plus more
money somewhere else for a like position."
So, what we're trying to do is, number one, play
catch-up. Well, unfortunately, when you play catch-up from
last year, you're getting yourself to last year, and then you
look around and see what the marketplace is doing this year,
so you're not really catching up. You're catching up to be
behind again. And when Commissioner Letz mentioned people
really going to try and get into the marketplace, and get our
8-25-08
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
step increase to try and bring them to maybe the lower end of
the current level, as opposed to last year's level. I think
it's a good concept. Unfortunately, yes, it will require a
tax rate increase. There's going to be a tax rate increase
irrespective, because we've not done what we should have done
in prior years. That's plain, pure, and simple. Our
financial adviser urged us to increase our tax rate. His
rationale was primarily based upon the impact of the over-65
tax freeze and the loss of tax base this past year, and
the -- all the various indexes, the Consumer Price Index, the
wholesale price index.
All of those indexes indicate significantly higher
pressures this year on all of the economic needs of
everybody. Grocery -- they talk about core, they talk about
non-core, all of that mishmash. But the bottom line is,
every single employee of this county, be they -- be they
elected, be they a supervisor, a department head, or the
lowest man or woman on the totem pole, when they go to the
grocery store, when they go to the hardware store, when they
go anyplace to purchase goods or services, they notice right
away, "Gee, that's really gone up," because it has. Fuel
costs are out of range. Utilities are going up. We're
having to plan for that. Yeah, COLA's appropriate for
s-a5-os
113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
lE
1.
lE
1~
2c
2
2
2
2
2
everybody, but I think if we're going to get all of the main
cogs of our machine up to where they need to go, we need to
start adding the additional step to those people. I think
the real issue today is whether or not that additional step
includes department heads or does not include department
heads. And there's probably -- they can make a case
department by department; this one should be, this one
shouldn't be.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're not going to do that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, you know, that's -- that's a
hard row to hoe.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I wouldn't suggest that
either.
JUDGE TINLEY: And I -- I think that's the real
decision that we got to make today. That's what I see as
being the Court decision.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, one other comment. I
want to go back to the very beginning of the budget process,
~ is that our first meeting, I think we had every elected
official in the audience, and they went in and all of them
L worked very hard and cut -- $1.4 million?
~ MS. HARGIS: Six.
3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: $1.6 million from their own
4 budgets, cutting wherever they could, whether it be delaying
5 a year on new cars or delaying a little bit on a computer and
8-25-08
„~
c
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
I9
20
21
22
23
24
25
~~~
1 all that. And I think that -- you know, and that was the
2 first time since I've been in office that we had all of the
3 elected officials really come to us with a -- wanting to help
~ the hourly employees, and they did that. And I think, you
~ know, if it's -- yes, it means we have to have a tax
> increase. I don't -- I don't like it, but I think they have
done their part, and now we need to do our part.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're right. I hope we
would all vote on that issue.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: One addition to that,
Jonathan, is that they didn't say just help the hourly
employees, because of what y'all have been talking about, the
cost-of-living. They said all of them; department heads,
elected officials, including yourselves and everybody.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, where are we?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, really, it's set up as an
action item, and I think in order to be able to discuss Item
16, we probably need to know where we're going to go here,
folks.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, we do. Ms. Hargis,
want to come back to the podium so we can make certain that
we know where we're going with these 15 sheets of paper we
got here?
MS. HARGIS: Yes, sir.
8-25-08
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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 10 percent raise for a11,
step increase for employees and department heads, is --
MS. HARGIS: And a reserve.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And a reserve.
MS. HARGIS: Is .379.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I've got to find it.
JUDGE TINLEY: We're not at the tax rate issue.
We're at the -- what the employee compensation is going to
be.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what I'm looking at.
Am I correct?
JUDGE TINLEY: Adjustment -- no, you probably need
to be looking at --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Depending on which one of the
plans you want to follow.
JUDGE TINLEY: There you go.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: If you're talking about the top one
there --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, am I hearing y'all say
that the 10 percent salary increase, included in that is the
COLA?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm with you. I would rather
-- I don't like that word on here. You know, for future
8-25-08
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
~ years.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Say that again?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: A COLA's a COLA. Then you have
increases on top of it. I understand what Bruce is saying,
that it's all an increase, but --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The 10 percent is --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is the COLA.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- is the COLA.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right, okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There's not a salary
increase.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Correct.
MS. HARGIS: I used the word "adjustment."
JUDGE TINLEY: Here we are. COLA equal to the
adjusted 10 percent as shown.
MS. HARGIS: And step increase.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Now, is it actually 10 percent,
or is it actually 10.38 percent?
MS. HYDE: 10.381.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 381. And that's to keep us in
the step and grade?
JUDGE TINLEY: That's what we've been calling the
adjusted 10 percent.
MS. HYDE: Right. Ms. Hargis used "adjusted"
because it's confusing. But you're doing -- you're doing the
8-25-08
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
grades so that we don't blow the step and grade out of the
water.
(Multiple low-voice discussions off the record.)
THE REPORTER: I need to know what's on the record
and what's not.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, you have a complaint
here.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm sorry?
THE REPORTER: I need to know what's on the record
and what's not. There are several conversations going on
here.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think Commissioner Williams is
going to put something on the record here.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Assuming he gets his mind
wrapped around it.
JUDGE TINLEY: I see.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. What's confusing me
is tax rate. With additional step increases, except -- okay.
That's -- that's the increase for department heads and
elected -- and hourly-rated with a step, and the rate is
10.381 for the COLA. And this gives us this tax rate right
here; is that correct?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. My motion would be
-- let's see if I can get it out here. That -- you haven't
8-25-08
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
called this, Judge, Item Number 16, have you?
JUDGE TINLEY: No. No, it's 14. And we got --
everything's open under 14, I assure you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Including the Sheriff's policy.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That we go with the tax
rate estimates for '08-'09, with an additional step increase.
Additional step increase would include hourly-rated and
department heads, but not elected officials, and the COLA is
equal to 10.381, and the amount of the tax rate to cover that
is .0379 increase. Is that correct, Ms. Hargis?
MS. HARGIS: 036.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pardon me?
MS. HARGIS: .0379, that is correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's my motion.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You excluded the elected
officials and department heads?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Excluded elected officials, not
department heads.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For the step.
JUDGE TINLEY: For the step increase.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No step for elected
officials.
25 ~ COMMISSIONER OEHLER: How are you going to get a
8-25-08
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
step for us?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a good point. But
they're out of it, anyway. They're out of it. And if you
figure out how they get it, they're still out of it.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, your motion is for the Court to
approve a COLA equal to the adjusted 10 percent, which is
effectively 10.381, as per the step and grade, be four steps,
plus a one-step increase for all county employees except
elected officials?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's my motion.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And you're putting -- you're
putting this number here, whatever it is, the tax rate, in
that court order, and are you real comfortable that we --
you're putting an accurate number in there?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Take out the tax rate. We
don't need it. The tax rate comes in another agenda item.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think so.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Number 16.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think so too.
JUDGE TINLEY: When I restated, I did mention
the --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- I did mention the tax rate.
8-25-08
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
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion on the floor. Do I
hear a second?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I second the motion.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion is made and seconded.
Questions or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify
by raising your right hand.
(Commissioners Baldwin and Williams voted in favor
of the motion.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(Commissioners Letz and Oehler voted against the
motion.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Chair votes in the affirmative.
Motion carried. Anything else to discuss under Item 14?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Probably going to get plenty
of discussion on that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else on 14, gentlemen?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Not that I can see.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: A few more like that and I'll
be ready to go eat lunch.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, we'll go to Item 16; consider,
discuss -- excuse me, Item 15. Consider, discuss, take
appropriate action to set date, time, and place of public
hearings on Kerr County FY 2008-09 budget. That public
~ hearing is a date after the 15th day of the month next
followin the month in which the bud et was repared, the way
g g P
8-25-08
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
I read the Local Government Code. Is that what you've got?
MR. EMERSON: To be honest with you, Judge, I
didn't read it before this meeting.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. EMERSON: Haven't read it since last year, so
I'll have to rely on your expertise.
JUDGE TINLEY: I cheated yesterday. So we're
looking at -- we're going to do it --
MS. HARGIS: We also have to have 10 days to give
it to the County Clerk, remember. But I think we'll be okay
on your schedule, probably.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, what's the date?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's the date?
JUDGE TINLEY: It can be the 16th.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It can be the 16th?
JUDGE TINLEY: And -- well, and I think -- I think
the Tax Assessor has proposed that we meet on the 16th for
the second public hearing on the tax rate.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: September the 16th?
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The second meeting or the
first?
MS. BOLIN: If we do the first on September 2nd,
then we'll do the second one on September 16th.
MS. HARGIS: September the 16th, I believe, is your
8-25-08
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
JUDGE TINLEY: No.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The 8th and the 22nd.
MS. HARGIS: Okay, yes. It's the way that the
calendar reads. That way, we'd have the two public hearings
on the second -- second -- first public hearing on the budget
and the second public hearing on the tax rate, and then you
would approve the budget just like you did last year. We
have to -- this time of the year, you have to have some
special meetings.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, we're having -- on the
16th, we're having a meeting?
MS. HARGIS: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, no, that's not been determined
yet. I'm --
MS. HARGIS: You can back that up.
JUDGE TINLEY: What would be wrong with holding the
first public hearing on the 8th, the second one on the --
MS. HARGIS: It's not sooner than three days, not
greater than 14. She has to get this publication in today.
Diane, is that publication -- I think if she puts both days
in --
MS. BOLIN: I have to put both dates in.
MS. HARGIS: If she puts both dates in, then you
can't meet for the first public hearing not sooner than
8-25-08
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
three, not greater than 14.
JUDGE TINLEY: What would be the problem of having
our -- our first public hearing on the 8th, and having our
second public hearing on -- what's the second meeting date?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 22nd.
JUDGE TINLEY: The 22nd. That's within the 3- to
14-day window.
MS. BOLIN: Well, it's actually seven days. It has
to be in the paper seven days before the public hearings.
MS. HARGIS: So, if you put it in tomorrow, which
is on the 26th --
JUDGE TINLEY: The notification must be at least
seven days before the public hearing. So, we're not
violating either way there. What's wrong with the 8th and --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: 22nd.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- and 22nd for those two hearings?
MS. BOLIN: Nothing's wrong, as far as I'm
concerned.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. BOLIN: You have to adopt within three to 14
days after the second public hearing.
MS. HARGIS: See, that's the problem.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, set a special date.
MS. BOLIN: To adopt.
MS. HARGIS: To adopt the rate, you'd still have to
8-25-08
124
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
have one special meeting after the 22nd.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
MS. HARGIS: Would you rather do that?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, we're going to go to
regular Commissioners Court days that we're doing?
JUDGE TINLEY: Why not?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't know why not.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Then we can do --
MS. HARGIS: What is the following Monday after the
22nd, Judge?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 29th.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The 29th.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We could actually adopt on
the 22nd too, couldn't we?
MS. BOLIN: No.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: After you put it on, you have
another deal to adopt?
JUDGE TINLEY: No, there's -- there's a 72-hour
notice, apparently, after the two hearings --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay. Then we --
JUDGE TINLEY: -- in which we can adopt the tax
rate, but we got nine days in order to do that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It says must adopt tax rate
by September 29.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, we can do it the 24th --
8-25-08
125
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
or we can't make it -- the 27th -- 72 hours.
JUDGE TINLEY: Takes three days, yeah.
MS. HARGIS: After the advertisement -- there's an
advertisement -- I believe another advertisement, so I have
to get that --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just give us a date.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Really.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Takes forever just to get a
date, doesn't it?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just give us the dates.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 26th, then probably have our --
a date to adopt then?
JUDGE TINLEY: We have to -- in this initial
notice, we have to notify the date that we propose to
actually adopt the tax rate?
MS. BOLIN: No, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: I didn't think so. So, we can set
the two hearings now for 9/8 and 9/22 at 10 a.m.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Who made that motion?
MS. BOLIN: Are we doing the budget, or are we
doing the tax rate? We're on the tax -- we're on the budget
part.
MS. HARGIS: The budget, you can do. You can --
8-25-08
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
the first public hearing --
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm sorry, we're on the tax rate.
Thank you for getting me on track. I appreciate that. No, I
was seriously off.
MS. HARGIS: The first -- we can have the first
budget hearing on the 8th and the second one on the 22nd.
But we can't --
JUDGE TINLEY: You don't have to have but one
hearing on the budget, do you?
MS. HARGIS: I thought it was two.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I thought all we had to
have is one.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Just post it, have a hearing,
and then you --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Then you set the rate.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Then you adopt it, then set
the rate.
JUDGE TINLEY: It's got to be after the 15th --
public hearing for a date after the 15th day of the month
next following the month in which the budget was prepared.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Be September, wouldn't it?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, it would be September.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Has to be September.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Every year we do this.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We can't wait till October to
8-25-08
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
do this.
JUDGE TINLEY: That would be --
MS. HARGIS: So, we can't --
JUDGE TINLEY: You're going to have to speak up so
I can understand what you're saying.
MS. HARGIS: Go for it.
MS. HYDE: Four-day work week? Can that be put
somewhere? There's been lots of questions.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Far as I'm concerned, it's
dead.
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't hear any answers.
MS. HYDE: I don't either.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It's dead?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You don't think it's dead?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I don't want it to be dead.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For this budget year?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I don't want it to be dead.
I want it to go for one year and then try it out. If we
don't like it, we don't do it any more.
i
MS. HARGIS: Can we get the date on the budget --
JUDGE TINLEY: We're working on the budget now. It
has to be after the -- after the 15th, which, if we're going
to do it on a regular day, it needs to be on the 22nd.
MS. HARGIS: Okay. That will be our hearing for
the budget.
8-25-08
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
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
MS. HARGIS: First and only hearing. That's the
only thing you can do is have the public hearing that day.
You cannot adopt the budget till after you adopt the tax
rate, so you'll have to wait till the 29th.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's what he just said.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. You can't adopt it on that
same day?
MS. HARGIS: No, you have to adopt your tax rate
first.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Well, we'll do that on the
29th, okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All right. So, we're going
to have a budget hearing on the 8th.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Fill in all the blanks and then
we'll go to lunch, and after we're done, everyone can sort it
out.
JUDGE TINLEY: Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Hold
on just a moment here. So, the suggestion is that we have
', the public hearing on the budget 9/22/08 at 10 a.m., correct?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I believe we already have a
10 a.m.
MS. GRINSTEAD: No, on the 8th. On the 8th, we
i have --
8-25-08
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
JUDGE TINLEY: No, we don't, because that wasn't
included within this agenda item. That's the next agenda
item.
MS. GRINSTEAD: No, Jannett already has a public
hearing set at 10 a.m. on the 8th, so we can't use that same
time, is all I'm saying.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I'm awaiting a motion for a
~I public hearing on the budget on 9/22/08 at 10 a.m. I
continue to wait.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move that we do that.
', JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Public hearing on the
budget on 9/22.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Do we need a motion for that?
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to hold a
public hearing on the budget for 9/22/08 at 10 a.m. Further
question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify
by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Now we go to Item
16; consider, discuss, and approve by record vote the
proposed Kerr County 2008 tax rate and set date, time, and
8-25-08
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
place of first and second public hearings or such tax rate.
MS. BOLIN: I think we already set the 8th and the
22nd as our days. I just need a time. 10 o'clock is taken
on the 8th. What time do you want to have that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, 10:15?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What time do you want to
have it?
MS. BOLIN: 9 o'clock.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Fine with me.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's fine.
MS. BOLIN: 9:15? 9:30?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 9:30.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 9:30.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: On the 8th?
MS. BOLIN: On the 8th, yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: And that'll be here in Commissioners
Court courtroom?
MS. BOLIN: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. BOLIN: And then on the --
JUDGE TINLEY: What time?
MS. BOLIN: -- 22nd -- what time did we do --
10 o'clock for --
MS. HARGIS: 10:00 on the 22nd? Or we can do 9:30
again. Or do we need to do it after the budget hearing?
8-25-08
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
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't think it makes any
difference. We can't adopt a budget until after we set the
tax rate on the 29th, anyway.
~i
MS. BOLIN: Right, okay. Then we'll do it at 9:30.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. BOLIN: And then, just for thought process, you
can adopt three days to 14 days after the second public
hearing, so if you decide you want to do it at the end of
that week, then y'all can decide that later. 'Cause I don't
need it for this, but I do need a record vote.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: For which one do you need a
record vote?
JUDGE TINLEY: 16, the proposed tax rate.
MS. BOLIN: The tax rate.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Which is?
MS. BOLIN: Good question.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, if you want me to vote
on it, we're going to have to find out what it is.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Ms. Hargis? We're adding
what to 3.92? 3592?
MS. HARGIS: The total tax rate, including Road and
Bridge, needs to be .4288.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: .4288. That's everything?
JUDGE TINLEY: Current rate is .3896.
MS. HARGIS: Mm-hmm. The current rate, the total
8-25-08
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
rate of .3896.
MS. BOLIN: Mm-hmm.
MS. HARGIS: Unless she and I added something wrong
a while ago.
JUDGE TINLEY: I come up with 4275.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what I come up with.
MS. HARGIS: I got .3592.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 3.5 what?
MS. HARGIS: .3592. Then add .0379, and then you
need to add .0322 for Road and Bridge. .4293.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 42 what?
MS. HARGIS: 93.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We got three numbers out
there now.
MS. HARGIS: One more time. .3592 plus --
JUDGE TINLEY: I have a splendid idea. We're going
to be in recess until 1:30.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That makes sense. Let's
go.
(Recess taken from 12:04 p.m. to 1:35 p.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to order, if
we might. We are back on Item 16. As I recall, we were
discussing what the new proposed tax rate would be, and there
was some number-crunching going on. And where did -- where
8-25-08
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
did everyone agree to light?
MS. BOLIN: We came up with .4293.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Say it again?
MS. BOLIN: .4293.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And we have our dates and
I times?
MS. BOLIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MS. BOLIN: That increases the total revenues by
15.65 percent. So, what I need is a record vote for the
.4293, and we set our dates for September 8th at 9:30 in
Commissioners Court, and September 22nd at 9:30 in
Commissioners Court.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion that we set
the tax rate for 2008-2009, total tax rate at .4293, and we
set public hearings for September 8th at 9:30 and
September 22nd at 9:30.
JUDGE TINLEY: Here in Commissioners Courtroom?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Here in Commissioners
Courtroom.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: There was a second, Mr. Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and seconded as
8-25-08
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
indicated. Question or discussion on the motion? Okay. You
need a record vote on this?
MS. BOLIN: Yes, sir, I do.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'll start down here. Commissioner
4?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Commissioner 4 votes yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner 3?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner 2?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner 1?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I vote aye.
JUDGE TINLEY: And the chair votes aye also.
MS. BOLIN: Okay, that's all I needed.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. BOLIN: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Next item, Number 17; consider,
discuss, and take appropriate action to authorize publication
of notices of proposed salary, expenses, and other allowances
of Kerr County elected county or precinct officers for fiscal
year 2008-09 and set date, time, and place of public hearing
on the same.
MS. HARGIS: This is the sheet that I gave you.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a public hearing already set
on the budget for 9/22.
8-25-08
135
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I make a motion that we set the
public hearing for 9/22 at 9:45.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion and second to
authorize publication of notices of proposed salary,
expenses, and other allowances of Kerr County elected county
or precinct officers for FY 2008-09 for September the 22nd,
2008, at 9:45 a.m., here in the Commissioners Courtroom.
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.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. We've got
one agenda -- I mean one executive session item on the
agenda. Rather than doing an in-and-out, why don't we go to
Section 4, payment of bills.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've got a couple of
questions.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right, sir.
MR. BOLLIER: Judge?
JUDGE TINLEY: Wait a minute. That's right. We'll
get to you in just a second. We'll come back to it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Page 12. I think we'll
probably have a -- 'cause I'm going to be the only one that's
8-25-08
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
concerned about this issue, but -- so we'll probably have a
private conversation about this, but as an example, County
Court at Law, general fund, the first set of -- actually,
second set, Ms. Rode, reimbursed steno machine repair,
something, something, $359. And if I knew -- back in the
olden days once, there was -- it gave the -- what line item
that that was coming out of, and I could go there and I could
go to that line and I could see that there's plenty of money
to do that kind of thing, and my fears and bad dreams would
go away. But I can't do that any longer.
MS. HARGIS: Okay. We'll see if we can't modify
this report and ask them to add that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just stop and think about
that, you know, 'cause probably half -- I would think if
we're going through these bills, that's kind of what --
that's what I look for.
MS. HARGIS: If -- if I read you okay, and the
position that you had, the County Court at Law is -- I can't
quote off the top of my head; it's four-something. 403, I
think. If you go to 403, and you would go to the repair line
item, then you would see -- so it gives you the department.
And let's go to it so you can see.
MR. RUARK: What's the account?
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me ask a question.
Commissioner, are you concerned about --
8-25-08
137
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. HARGIS: 10.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- which budget department, or the
specific line item?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Specific line item.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I mean, I can see County
Court at Law here, and I can figure out where that is in the
budget. I know it's earlier on and that kind of thing.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. So, for each separate
expenditure, as opposed to just knowing the sequence --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are they charging this out
to Kleenex, or are they charging it out to Ms. Rode's steno
machine, or what?
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What are they charging it
out to?
COMMISSIONER
be things that have had
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
money was coming from.
in.
OEHLER:
opened in
BALDWIN:
OEHLER:
It just
I agree with you; that would
the past.
Oh, yeah, absolutely.
That didn't say where the
all of a sudden got plugged
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Or what it was for, in some
instances.
8-25-08
138
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think our job is just to,
you know, dot the I's and cross the T's, and I'm doing my
best to do that. So, we'll think about that.
MS. HARGIS: I can -- we can call and ask to have
that report modified.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Here's a good one. Page 4,
Human Resources.
MS. HYDE: Oh, lord.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What I'm seeing here is
Office Depot, bought a headset for $719.98.
MS. HARGIS: Two headsets.
MS. HYDE: Two headsets.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What the hell do those
headsets do?
MS. HYDE: They allow the people not to sit there
with a phone against their ear.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, what line do they come
out of?
MS. HYDE: Office supplies.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What do they do?
MS. HYDE: Allows them to be mobile so we're not
running back and forth trying to answer phones.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Those things cost that much?
MS. HYDE: Yes, sir.
8-25-08
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
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Whew.
MS. HYDE: Those were the cheap ones.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Don't get any of the
expensive ones.
MS. HYDE: I won't.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Page 5, County Jail, halfway
down. Cleaning Ideas, floor pads.
MS. HARGIS: It's for a buffer.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm sorry?
MR. BOLLIER: For a buffer.
MS. HARGIS: For a buffer. It goes in a buffer.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Does that go in the
jail, or maintenance?
MS. HARGIS: No, it goes into the jail, 'cause it
came from the jail. They have their own buffer.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: To be honest, Buster, half the
time it comes out of mine, half the time it comes out of his.
It's maintenance. I couldn't -- I couldn't tell you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, it's just public money.
Hell, let's don't worry about this.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It all goes to maintenance,
but those machines stay out at the jail, and we use them on
the buffers.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sounds like a maintenance
issue to me, but if you see it differently, you're the
8-25-08
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
Auditor.
MS. HARGIS: The bill came from the Sheriff's
Department and it was coded accordingly, so that's where we
put it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, ma'am.
JUDGE TINLEY: Wait a minute. Before you leave
that page, while we're there on the jail, I've got one.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Richard Montgomery.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. He's a dentist.
JUDGE TINLEY: $2,000. I thought we were paying
for extractions, not major oral surgery.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That inmate had -- that's one
of my complaints about inmates staying in our jail too
long -- impacted wisdom teeth that were ordered to be taken
out.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, did he get there just
in time to have that done, or had he been there for a little
while?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No. Unfortunately, on that
inmate, he had those six months ago. He ended up getting
prison time. We sent him to the prison. He got brought back
a couple weeks ago. Dr. Montgomery had said it was an
emergency. Then we sent a note with him to T.D.C. that it
was an emergency situation, had to be done. The inmate got
8-25-08
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
brought back on a bench warrant. He still had the same
problem, and he complained immediately. We took him back to
the dentist. He said, "That's it." This was an emergency
and had to be done. We're stuck.
JUDGE TINLEY: Why don't we send that bill to
T.D.C.? They failed to do what --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I want to see T.D.C. pay it,
Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: We can sure ask them, can't we?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Send it for reimbursement.
JUDGE TINLEY: Why was that particular inmate
brought back on a bench warrant?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: At a witness in another trial,
I think. Could have been another case pending, too.
JUDGE TINLEY: Did that other case go to trial?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't remember. I don't
know if it has yet or not.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: While we're there, while
you're standing and have the floor and are comfortable and --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Oh, yeah, here it comes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Tell me about one of my
favorite constituents and why EMS was out there for $634.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Because they charge us for
every call they make to the jail, just like they charge you
if they go to your house. I've disagreed with that. I've
8-25-08
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
asked them why, since we supplement them, but we get bills
I too .
JUDGE TINLEY: Are you ready to go to the next
page, Buster?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I am.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's go to Page 6.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm pretty excited. Page 6,
down at the bottom, the Sheriff's Department.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Now you see why I think my
salary ought to be better than Juvenile Detention. But go
ahead.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, this is just --
JUDGE TINLEY: Juvenile Detention doesn't have
these kind of problems.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Isn't that the truth?
JUDGE TINLEY: I explained this to him when we
broke for lunch, that Juvenile Detention is ahead of budget.
That's saving us money. He's just costing us money.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: If you have 4 to 6 inmates to
150, you're right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And this is just for
educational purposes, nothing else. Peterson Regional
Medical Center, about $2,400, investigation expense.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. A lot of that will be
8-25-08
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
sexual assault exams, okay? In a sexual assault case.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Those, we will normally get
reimbursed, and it goes into the general fund. But we do
file with the Attorney General's office and that, or Crime
Victims gets reimbursed if they go anywhere. So, you -- we
have to pay it up front, but then you get reimbursed for it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just so you're not over
there investigating the hospital.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: Are you through with Page 6?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I am, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me come back to one on Page 6.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You're having fun, aren't you,
Judge?
JUDGE TINLEY: This also is under the jail. This
is good news, folks. Towards the top of the page, Air Evac
EMS, $6,250. Ms. Lavender negotiated that down from over
$16, 000.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 60,000?
JUDGE TINLEY: 16,000.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, 16. I was going to
say, what did they do, take them to Beijing for the Olympics?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, that was the bill that
8-25-08
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
came in. It was 16,000-something dollars.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, I misunderstood the
Judge. I thought he said 60.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Can we join the deal and pay
an annual fee?
JUDGE TINLEY: Family rate?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Now, I will be honest; that
does bring up a very good and valid point. I think if the
County had somebody that had the time to check a lot of these
type bills and do just what Rosa did on that, that this
county could save on that. I don't have the time to call on,
you know, thousands and thousands of medical bills and try to
negotiate, and that's not my duty, but I think it would be
advantageous for the County to look at that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, we're going to go over to a
contract primarily, if I'm understanding where you'd like to
go. So, that's --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is this the first time we've
had Air Evac go to the --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No? How often does it happen?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: About twice a year. This one
was different in that normally about twice a year, they
8-25-08
145
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
actually get air-evac'd out of the jail. This one got
transferred to the hospital from the jail by ambulance.
That's your ambulance bill. And then the hospital decided to
air-evac to San Antonio, which we had no say-so in, of
~ course.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just wonder if it wouldn't be
worthwhile to work with Air Evac and see if we can get a
different rate negotiated for us if we use them that much.
JUDGE TINLEY: You may continue.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. Page 8. Again,
the line item issue, the County-sponsored general fund there,
a third of the way down. Both of these folks are from the --
let me say it right -- historical group, and that's one of my
little jobs. And I'm wondering, reimbursement of supplies,
$337. It just seems like an awful lot of money when their
budget's not much bigger than that.
MS. HARGIS: They submitted the bill, so -- I mean,
I can pull them for you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, I don't want -- what I'm
asking you, though, is can I see --
MS. HARGIS: That all goes to Historical
Commission. We just have one line item for them.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MS. HARGIS: We don't break them down. That's why
they're under County-sponsored.
8-25-08
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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Could be, Buster, that
they're -- they're kind of like the fire department; they
have to submit bills for their total amount, and then they
just bundle together a bunch of bills at one time.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's exactly what happens,
yeah. Page 9, and here's the big one. Three-quarters of the
way down, Road and Bridge, Guadalupe Wastewater, dam repair,
windmill.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Repair damn windmill. It's
obvious. (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So --
JUDGE TINLEY: What is it you want to know?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, we got "repair" and
"dam" backwards? Is that all there is to it?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Repaired the damn windmill,
okay. Must be in Precinct 3.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Must be in 3. Must be by the
cattle guard.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Probably on Wilson Creek
Road. (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Pulled the cattle guard out
and ran into the windmill.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that Richard Bohnert's
25 I windmill?
8-25-08
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
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Or is it Jon Letz' windmill?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We don't have any left.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I hope we're not filling
water tanks up from windmills.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know. They couldn't pull --
probably, seriously, what it is, 'cause they cannot pull out
of the river. They need to water --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Hope you got a big storage
tank. Windmills sure take a while to fill a water tank.
Takes a while.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Two gallons a minute?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just tell me that's a bad
choice of words.
MS. HARGIS: I'm sure it is.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's what you wanted to hear.
That's what you got.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, okay. And I think I
know what this is. Page 10 up at the top, Y.O. Ranch Hotel.
And I think I've seen the word "juveniles" there, maybe. Is
that a meal?
MS. HARGIS: That's IV-E funds.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sorry?
MS. HARGIS: Those are IV-E funds. Those are grant
~ moneys.
8-25-08
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
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Of course, IV-E funds.
That's -- tell me what that is.
MS. HARGIS: Okay. We get a grant from -- well,
from the Juvenile Probation Department right now, that's the
money that we may or may not get in the future, for holding
-- paying residential and for transportation, transporting
juveniles. And, you know, to be honest with you right now, I
can't answer the exact question on that one.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Y.O. Ranch Hotel.
Has to be a meal or something, but 35 bucks is a pretty heavy
meal.
MS. HARGIS: It could have been there was an
', officer that brought a child here and it was late; they had
I! to put him up for the night or something.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: $35?
JUDGE TINLEY: Pretty good rate, isn't it?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Pretty good rate. I can't
~ get that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sleeping in a stable behind
the inn.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Judge, that's all --
that's all the questions I have.
JUDGE TINLEY: All you got?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's all I have, sorry.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Anybody else want to take a
8-25-08
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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He answered all my
', questions.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do we have a motion yet?
I~, COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move we pay the bills.
' COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
I
'~ JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to pay the
bills. Question or discussion?
I COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Does that include the cell
phone?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, that's included in each of the
items. They allocate that as per -- this list is for
informational purposes to show you what it would have been
without the contract and what it is with the contract.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I like this, too.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Further question or
discussion? A11 in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. I didn't
see any budget amendments.
MS. HARGIS: No, none. Not until the first --
8-25-08
1
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
remember, we do them once a month, the first of the month.
JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, okay. Any late bills?
MS. HARGIS: No late bills.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I've been presented with a
monthly report from Constable, Precinct 3. Do I hear a
motion that that report be approved as submitted?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Question or discussion? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Let's go
back to, while we are still in open session, Item 19. Open
bids and award contract for reworking electrical conduits and
wiring in the front area of the Kerr County courthouse
square. This matter was -- the bids were received and
accepted and referred to the Maintenance Supervisor for
recommendation. And do you have something that you wish to
go forward on, Mr. Bollier?
MR. BOLLIER: I would just say I would like to
recommend this bid here by D.W. Electric.
JUDGE TINLEY: For 24,6?
8-25-08
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
151
MR. BOLLIER: For -- I can't see it, Judge. For
24,4.
JUDGE TINLEY: $24,400?
MR. BOLLIER: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. And you're recommending the
acceptance of that bid?
MR. BOLLIER: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the bid 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.
MR. BOLLIER: Thank you, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do we need to go back into any other
items at this point in time before we go into executive
session? Okay. We will go out of open or public session at
1:47 -- excuse me, 1:57.
(The open session was closed at 1:57 p.m., and an
executive session was held, the transcript of which
is contained in a separate document.)
8-25-08
152
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We're now back in open or
public session, and it is 2:18 p.m. Does any member of the
Court have anything to offer with regard to any matter
considered in closed or executive session? I failed to
inquire a while ago for reports from Commissioners in their
committee or liaison assignments. Do you have any wonderful
news for us, Commissioner Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, I don't. No, I don't.
If I do, I'll call you tonight.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right, that'd be wonderful.
Commissioner Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Nothing, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I've just been working with the
airport folks trying to get that moving, and we're moving
slow -- or they're moving slow.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask you a question
about that. When will they put on the new board members?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They are working on that.
They're putting -- they're going to advertise for it, put a
notice, get a little bit of press about it. I think they're
looking at towards mid-September.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh. Within -- within a
8-25-08
153
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
month?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They want to get a couple weeks
out, give notice. They've got quite a few applications -- I
say quite a few. Several applications already, and they're
trying to -- they want to make sure that everyone -- you
know, the public that may want a position out there is aware
of what they're doing. And they've got some process set up;
I can't remember. I think --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You know, in my mind, my pea
brain, just watching y'all and listening to you for a year
and a half now, once you get that board -- the new board
members on board, and -- and they should -- the minute
they're sworn in, they should have some kind of understanding
of what's going on there, aren't these other issues that
y'all deal with -- still dealing with every day, shouldn't
those issues go away at that time?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the goal.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: As soon as -- as soon as the
Airport Manager is hired and the budget is resolved. And the
~ budget, that comes, really, back to you for this next year.
', The manage -- what is going to be left is the management
contract with the City.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Talking with the board members,
they're going to -- and talking with the City, the City's
8-25-08
154
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
still going to provide the bulk of the services under the
management contract, and I think they're currently discussing
exactly what that means. And I think it's on the City's
agenda for tomorrow night.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The new full board should
address the permanent Airport Manager?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, the current board is. The
short -- the three-person board is doing that right now.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. And then budget.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And budget. They're
working on that now. And they're also -- well, Commissioner
Letz and I had lunch with one of the members of the board
today, and we talked about the budget process. They're
trying to get their arms around a budget process, and which
the largest piece of which is the contract with the City for
services, and they're trying to figure out what stays, what
doesn't stay within the framework of that contract. So,
they're working on it. They're gaining on it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: One of the -- I think the
difficult things that the board -- while they're very
knowledgeable about budget issues, they're not necessarily
knowledgeable about governmental agencies and how governments
work. As an example, I gave them -- I said, you know, for --
in the management contract, there's a big area for fixing the
8-25-08
155
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
roads and fixing potholes and all that kind of thing, and I
this is what you're going to charge us, and have it under a
governmental schedule, rather than have it as just a big
contingency sitting out there, as it has been. And that way,
they have a lot more control -- the Airport Board will have
control over what their expenditures are. And I just tossed
that out to them as the type of thing that they might want to
look at, and they're very appreciative, 'cause they don't
know that those types of schedules even exist. So, you know,
that's the type of, I think, input I'm giving them. I'm
giving this to Bruce, the interim Airport Manager, as well,
saying, "Here's an option," rather than -- because I know
that the City is having difficulty figuring out what's going
to be included and not included, and they're having that same
difficulty. The only thing that's known is the Airport
Manager will not be a City employee any more.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's wonderful. Couple of
questions to do with the airport. Are those hangars -- some
of the hangars going to have to be relocated because of the
taxiway?
8-25-08
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
156
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: They don't have to be
relocated?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No. There was some
property over there that was acquired -- that was acquired
outside the airport, within the -- within the loop. Within
the airport property, but outside the aviation part, because
of some relocation of -- of the taxiways. Airport Loop Road
will have to be, but not the hangars.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The only thing that may --
Dugosh has a hangar outside their main building.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That is my question.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: A patio hangar, yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That one, I think, may have to
be relocated. I'm not sure.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So, that will be relocated at
somebody's expense.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not sure.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Won't be ours.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I understand it won't be
ours, but it's not going to just be taken down and not put --
not relocated somewhere.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think he's wrassling with
whether or not to continue that piece of his operation, those
patio hangars.
8-25-08
1
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
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay. What's the Airport
Manager's name out there?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Bruce McKenzie.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Bruce McKenzie.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Bruce McKenzie. Do you know
what his phone number is?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have it in my office.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: In my office, I have it. I
know it's 896.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'll get it from you after
the meeting, 'cause I have a constituent that wants to ask a
bunch of questions.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's the other one?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Let him ask them.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: No point in wasting our time,
me asking you his question.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: He needs to talk to the
Airport Manager.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else? Anything else?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Library, it would seem to me
that, being that we're going to not be arguing about funding
for the library any more, there really is not much use of
8-25-08
1
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
having a -- a member on the Library Board.
JUDGE TINLEY: I thought you were having big fun
over there.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Bruce?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, you're going to get
cookies and Coca Cola every month. What's the matter?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We do not.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The gold watch and the dead
turkey at the end of retirement -- I mean at retirement.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: No. I just thought I'd throw
that out there, just to say, well, you know, what's the point
of me being over there for these meetings whenever we're not
discussing anything to do with funding any more? The funding
stuff is already set by agreement, from now on.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd have been gone a long
time ago.
JUDGE TINLEY: I thought you and Antonio were
pretty tight.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Not necessarily, but we're
not real far apart either. Just staying at arm's length;
', that's the way it's best for us to be. His arm's length.
Mine's longer.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are you a -- I'm like Buster;
I'd have been gone a long time ago.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I understand.
8-25-08
159
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are you a member of that board
I based on --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It was a -- it's a liaison,
but it's also a voting member of that board.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. But --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That board has no authority
to do anything. You can stand there and vote all you want
to, but you're not changing anything.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Who created the board? I
guess, what's the board -- is it a city board?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It's an advisory board.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It was created a couple
~ years ago.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah, a couple years ago. It
used to be a, you know, nonvoting member. But, you know, I
asked them when I went over, "Am I a voting member of this
thing?" They said yes. I said, "Why?"
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess what I'm looking at is,
if it's -- I presume there's some ordinance or court order or
something that makes it that the County has a slot on that.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Cheryl needs to look for
I that .
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You might want to say that and
tell them we don't need it any more.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I don't know what the purpose
8-25-08
1
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
of me going to that meeting any more. I haven't really
understood the purpose for a long time.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, I have one quickie.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I could spend my time doing
other things that would be more productive.
JUDGE TINLEY: You may want to make -- if there's
not a court order that says you're on, you might just gently
pull back and be done.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There is a court order that
we adopt in January of every year when we make assignments.
JUDGE TINLEY: That doesn't put him on the library
board; that just makes him a liaison to the library.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
~ COMMISSIONER LETZ: I bet there's something that
says a commissioner is on that board, and I bet it's
something in the city.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Otherwise, I'd be a nonvoting
I member.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. So, I bet it's a city
thing that needs to be changed.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If it's a city thing, if you
miss three in a row, you're automatically gone. They've
tried that on me before.
8-25-08
161
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I haven't missed any, but I
can sure do it. Not a problem.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, I'll confirm this,
but I understand that our application with T.W.D.B. for
facilities planning --
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- could go to the board in
September, the T.W.D.B. board.
JUDGE TINLEY: Good.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll confirm it in the next
couple days.
JUDGE TINLEY: Speaking of progress, we're trying
to set up a meeting with representatives from the Texas Youth
Commission for a comprehensive site evaluation on the larger
portion of our detention facility. They claim they want to
bring all sorts of people over here, their administrative
people, their educational people, their treatment people,
their construction people. I don't know. They're probably
going to need one of those more than 10-passenger buses, and
they could be at risk coming over here.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do I need to bring a
sandwich that day or a sleeping bag?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, they're talking -- I talked to
them about whether it's going to take half a day, and the
response I got was that, no, with that many people that were
8-25-08
162
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
planning on being here, there's probably going to be more
than a half a day's talking, so we ought to plan on a half a
day up to a full day.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And out of the meeting, I trust
that you will find out what portion of the 6 million we get?
JUDGE TINLEY: I've already asked, but I'm going to
ask again, 'cause I didn't get the answer the first time.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: On how to get there.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. If they'll tell me what the
renovation costs are, I'll figure it out.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Attaboy. That's what I'd
I do.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not that I'm a liaison to it,
necessarily, but on Friday morning at 9 o'clock, GMA-9 is
holding a board meeting, I believe, over at U.G.R.A. Very
important meeting. They are -- are setting the desired
future conditions for the aquifers, and they're moving and
trying to get some done, and there's some disagreement on
this, I think on Headwaters as well right now. But
they're -- the direction that is being pushed by Blanco
County, who I think chairs this thing, is to go ahead and
start picking some of these aquifers and doing the desired
future conditions. One of them is Edwards-Trinity for Kerr
County. Another one is the -- is the Glen Rose, which is a
shallow aquifer, a lot of ranching. Trinity is not to be
8-25-08
163
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
included. But my recommendation is strongly that they not do
this, because I can see them picking off these -- satisfying
Blanco County, getting all these other counties, and at the
end, Kerr County's going to be left holding the bag without
any negotiating position. I think they need to do them all
at one time till the end of the process, and definitely don't
need to decide or future conditions on the Trinity or the
Edwards in Kerr County at this time, 'cause they don't have
the science to back it up. So, I'll be at that meeting
making a statement, but -- pretty important.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Tell them I said I agree with
what you say.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: And you can tell them that that's my
position also.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, that does mean -- I take it
that some of y'all may not be there?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We shouldn't be taking a
vote, though, should we?
JUDGE TINLEY: No, I'm just talking about
individually.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll just give my input.
Anyway, interesting.
JUDGE TINLEY: You can tell them there is
considerable agreement with the position you're taking.
8-25-08
164
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
How's that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm sure that will carry a lot
of weight.
JUDGE TINLEY: We'll get the Sheriff to go with
you.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That and $2, you can get a
cup of coffee.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Get Rusty involved with you
and you got it going.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Take Ray.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else, gentlemen? We are
adjourned.
(Commissioners Court adjourned at 2:33 p.m.)
8-25-08
165
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
STATE OF TEXAS ~
COUNTY OF KERR ~
The above and foregoing is a true and complete
transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as
County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County,
Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth.
DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 29th day of August,
2008.
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
BY: __ _ _ _
Kathy ik, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
8-25-08
OKDIR NO. 30950
HILL C;OUN"I'RY I~IS~I'RIC'1' I,IVI;S"hOCK SI-IOW ASSOCIATION USE
OF 1~1~:iZR COUN'I'1'' COUR~hI IOUSC~ GROUNDS ON 01/I6/2009 FOR
I~1 [(~_ C'UWi3O~' 13RI~:nh.l~~ASI~
Came to be heard this the 25th day of August, 2008, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court
unaniar:c~~sly approved h~~ a vote of~ ~-0-0 to:
Approve the request of the Hill Country District Junior Livestock Show
Association, along with the Chamber of Commerce and Kerrville Main
Streetu to use the Kerr County Courthouse grounds on January 16, 2009, for
their C'o~.~~bov I3real:fast.
ORDER NO. 30951
OIZDI;R GI?NI;RAI, IJLECTION
Came to be he~~rd this the 25th day oC /august, 2008, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court
unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve Ordering the General Election to be held on November 4, 2008, in
Kerr County, 'l~exas.
ORDER NO. 30952
SET PUBLIC HEARING FOR RECORDS ARCHIVE FEE AND
WRITTEN PLAN FOR BUDGET YEAR 2008-09
Came to be heard this the 25th day of August, 2008, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Oehler. The Court
unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve setting a public hearing for September 8, 2008 at 10:00 a.m. for
continuation of the Records Archive Fee and written plan for adoption of
such for the budget year 2008-09 in accordance with LGC 118.025.
OIZI~I:R NO. 30953
FINAL PLAT Oh SANDEROSA ESTA"TE
Came l>> ire heard this the ?>th c~la~ of~ August, ?008, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Oehler. The Court
unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Appro~~c he ii,~al plat oi~Sandc.~osa i~state, located in Prec7nct 1.
ORDER NO.30954
ANNUAL BIDS FOR MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT
Came to be heard this the 25th day of August, 2008, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court
unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Authorize the Kerr County Maintenance Supervisor going out for annual
bids for electrical, plumbing, HVAC and pest control services, with the bids
to be returned by September 19, 2008.
ORDER NO. 30955
APPOINTMENT OF ELIZABETH HUGHES FOR ESD # 1
COMMISSIONER
Came to be heard this the 25th day of August, 2008, with a motion made by
Commissioner Oehler, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court
unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the appointment of Elizabeth Hughes for Emergency Services
District # 1 (ESD # 1) Commissioner.
ORDER NO.30956
DESIGNATE THE $1,030,000.00 LOAN TRANSACTION WITH BANC
OF AMERICA PUBLIC CAPITAL CORP A BANK QUALIFIED
TRANSACTION
Came to be heard this the 25th day of August, 2008, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court
unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Authorize County Judge to submit the amended for 8038-G to the Internal
Revenue Service to designate the $1,030,000.00 Loan Transaction with
Banc of America Public Capital Corp a bank qualified transaction for
purposes of 256(b)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, with all the paperwork
to be approved and prepared by our bond counsel, Mr. Tom Spurgeon.
ORDER NO. 30957
IMPOSITION OF OPTIONAL LOCAL FEES
Came to be heard this the 25th day of August, 2008, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court
unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Keep the imposition of the Optional Local Fees, as provided by Chapter 502
of the Texas Transportation Code, as they have been previously, with the
$10.00 per vehicle add-on.
ORDER NO. 30958
JOINT FUNDING AGREEMENT CITY OF KERRVILLE ON JOINT
CITY/COUNTY OPERATIONS AND PROJECTS
Came to be heard this the 25th day of August, 2008, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court
unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the Joint Funding Agreement, subject to, adding an asterisk (*) by
the airport that the arrangement of the reduction in funding by the City
includes maintenance & operation expenditures in excess of revenues only,
and capital expenditures will continue to be shared equally between the City
and the County, and with the additional caveat that the approval of this plan
does not constitute a commitment of funds beyond the next budget year,
(subject to annual appropriations).
ORDER NO. 30959
CLARIFICATION OF INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR CONTINUED
EXISTENCE OF JOINT AIRPORT BOARD
Came to be heard this the 25th day of August, 2008, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court
unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the Interlocal Agreement for the Continued Existence of a Joint
Airport Board to Provide Management of Kerrville/Kerr County Airport,
and authorize the County Judge to sign same, and return it to the City with
the clarification that it is done with our understanding that the Airport Board
not be required so long as they stay within the total amount of the budget, to
obtain approval from the City or the County if they need to move items
around in their budget, and that that percentages are correct on
maintenance/operation for the airport; the actual number is not necessarily
correct, but would be based on the actual budget that is approved, and
subject to approval in our respective budgets.
ORDER NO. 30960
RENEGOTIATE INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT
BETWEEN KERR COUNTY AND THE CITY OF KERRVILLE FOR
REGULATION OF SUBDIVISIONS WITHIN THE CITY OF
KERRVILLE'S EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION WITH THE
CITY OF KERRVILLE
Came to be heard this the 25th day of August, 2008, with a motion made by
Commissioner Oehler, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court
unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Appoint Commissioners Baldwin and Letz to renegotiate the "Interlocal
Cooperation Agreement between Kerr County and the City of Kerrville for
Regulation of Subdivisions within the City of Kerrville's Extraterritorial
Jurisdiction (ETJ)" with the City of Kerrville.
OIZI~ER NO. 30961
OPI?N I3I[~S FOR RLWOIZKING I~:LF~CTRICAL CONDUI"I'S AND
WII? NG IN f~ lZ0'~l"I~ ARf ~ ~l Ol~~ KI?RIZ COUN"hY COUR"hI IUUSE
S~,)CARI;
Came to be heard this the 25th day of August, 2008, with a motion made by
Commissioner Lets, seconded by Commissioner Oehler. "I,he Court
unanimously approved by~ a vote of~=~-t)-0 to:
Move we accept the bid from D. W. Electric for labor and materials in the
amount of~ $24,400 for reworking electrical conduits and wiring in the front
area of 'I~e ltel'1' Co~~niv Cour~!~ouse Square, and give to the Maintenance
Supervis~~r for rccommcndatiozr.
ORDER NO. 30962
FY 2008-09 BUDGETS, BUDGET AND SALARY POLICIES, AND
FISCAL, CAPITAL EXPENDITURE AND PERSONNEL MATTERS
Came to be heard this the 25th day of August, 2008, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court
unanimously approved by a vote of 3-2-0 to: (Commissioners Baldwin and
Williams voted yea, Commissioners Letz and Oehler voted nay, The Chair
voted yea)
To approve a Cost of Living increase (COLA) equal to 10.3 81 % (which is
equal to 4 steps on the grade/step schedule), with an additional one step
increase to include hourly employees and department heads, but not elected
officials.
ORDER NO. 30963
SET PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR THE KERR COUNTY FY 2008-09
BUDGET
Came to be heard this the 25th day of August, 2008, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court
unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Set a Public Hearing for the Kerr County FY 2008-09 Budget for September
22, 2008 at 10:00 a.m.
ORDER NO. 30964
PROPOSED KERR COUNTY 2008 TAX RATE AND SET PUBLIC
HEARING FOR SAME
Came to be heard this the 25th day of August, 2008, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court
unanimously approved by a Record vote of 5-0-0 to:
Set the total tax rate for 2008-2009 at .4293, and set public hearings for
September 8, 2008 at 9:30 and September 22, 2008 at 9:30 in the
Commissioners' Courtroom, and approve by a Record Vote of 5 yeas, zero
nays, as follows:
Commissioner Oehler	yea
Commissioner Letz	yea
Commissioner Williams	yea
Commissioner Baldwin	yea
The Chair	yea
ORDER NO. 30965
PUBLICATION OF NOTICE OF PROPOSED SALARY, EXPENSES
AND OTHER ALLOWANCES OF KERB COUNTY ELECTED
OFFICIALS FOR FY 2008-09 AND SET PUBLIC HEARING
Came to be heard this the 25th day of August, 2008, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court
unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Authorize publication of Notice of Proposed Salary, Expenses and Other
Allowances of Kerr County Elected County or Precinct Officers for FY
2008-09 and set a public hearing for September 22, 2008 at 9:45 a.m. in the
Commissioners' Courtroom.
ORDER NO. 30966
CLAIM`S ANI~ ACCOUN"1'S
Came to be heard this the 25th day of August, 2008, witih a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Letz. "The Court
unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve Claims and Accounts as presented.
ORDER NO. 30967
MON f~f fLY RIPOR"hS
Came to be herd this the 25th day of August, 2008, with a motion made by
Commissioner Lett, seconded by Commissioner Oehler. "1'he Court
unanimously appro~~ed by a v~~i~ of~4-0-U to:
Approve the Monthly Reports from:
Constable Pct #3
ORDER NO. 30968
OPEN BIDS FOR REWORKING ELECTRICAL CONDUITS AND
WIRING IN FRONT AREA OF KERB COUNTY COURTHOUSE
SQUARE
Came to be heard this the 25th day of August, 2008, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Oehler. The Court
unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Accept the Maintenance Supervisor recommendation to accept the bid by D.
W. Electric in the amount of $24,400, for reworking electrical conduits and
wiring in the front area of the Kerr County Courthouse Square.