1
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, July 28, 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
a
r
Q
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
July 28, 2008
--- Commissioners' Comments
I
1.1 Report from Roy Walston regarding the Extension
Office
1.2 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
approve position change (step & grade) and title
to replace existing position
1.3 Presentation from Marc Hamlin regarding the
development of a county controlled and owned
software system for courts and beyond
1.4 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
requested Kerr County funding commitment to
TAC for participation in and/or support of the
development of a county controlled and owned
software system for courts and beyond
1.6 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action
regarding the Guadalupe River Parade
1.7 Presentation from Adan Munoz, Executive
Director, Texas Commission on Jail Standards
1.8 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action
regarding collection of delinquent court fines
and fees from County Court at Law, County Court,
and District Court and other related issues
1.13 Presentation to court of draft of City of
Kerrville and Kerr County Economic Development
Incentive Policy
1.5 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
release Letter of Credit #7080351 for the roads
in Estates of Johnson Creek
1.9 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
approve Maintenance Department to go out for
bids on walls and doors for maintenance shop
at Hill Country Youth Exhibit Center
1.10 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
approve reimbursement to Kerr County Fair
Association for 1/2 of an interior wall at the
Hill Country Youth Exhibit Center
PAGE
5
6
11
15
42
44
46
67
70
96
96
99
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)
July 28, 2008
l.ll Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
imposition of optional local fees in addition
to registration fee as provided by Chapter 502
of the Texas Transportation Code
1.12 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action
regarding restoration/replacement of courthouse
windows
1.18 Consider/discuss request to develop a large
tract in Bee Caves Creek into three 100+ acre
tracts
1.16 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
approve purchase agreement with Tyler Technologies
for import and balancing of Kerr County Certified
Roll; authorize County Judge to sign contract
1.14 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
recover costs of repair to Kerr County roads from
damage inflicted by mining vehicles/equipment,
aggregate haulers and construction equipment
1.15 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
set public hearing for the 2009-10 Texas CDBG
program cycle for 5 p.m. on Tuesday, August 5,
2008, at the Kerr County Courthouse
1.19 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
approve contract with Office of Rural Community
Affairs (ORCA) in the amount of $500,000 for
Phase IV, Kerrville South Wastewater Project;
authorize County Judge to sign same
1.17 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
discuss the FY 08-09 budget process
4.1 Pay Bills
4.4 Approve and Accept Monthly Reports
5.1 Reports from Commissioners/Liaison Committee
Assignments
5.2 Reports from Elected Officials/Department Heads
--- Adjourned
PAGE
101
106
115
123
125
128
129
132
134
141
141
147
148
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
On Monday, July 28, 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 scheduled and posted for this
time and date, Monday, July 28th, 2008, at 9 a.m. It is that
time now. If you would, please rise and join me in a moment
'', of prayer, followed by the pledge of allegiance.
(Prayer and pledge of allegiance.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. 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, we'd
ask that you tell us what's on your mind at this point. If
you wish to be heard on an agenda item, we'd ask that you
fill out a participation form. They're located at the back
of the room. That helps me to keep up with the fact that I
have someone that wishes to be heard on that particular
agenda item. It's not essential. If we get do an agenda
item that you wish to be heard on, and you've not filled out
a participation form and gotten it up here to me, just get my
attention in some fashion and I'll see that you have the
7-28-08
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
opportunity to be heard. But right now, if there's any
member of the public or the audience that wishes to be heard
on any matter that is not a listed agenda item, please feel
free to come forward at this time. Seeing no one coming
forward, Commissioner Baldwin, do you have anything for us
this morning?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sir, I do have one thing. I
want to remind everyone that the second week in August is the
-- the Cowboy Camp Meeting, I think the 7th --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: First week.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: First week in August --
that's exactly what I said, Bruce. You didn't pay attention.
And there's all kinds of neat and fun things going on out
there, of course, the barbecue being number one. But to show
you that God's grace is at the Cowboy Camp Meeting, one of
our speakers this year is a lawyer.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, really?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's an interesting --
interesting concept, and I don't know about it quite yet.
But, anyway, that -- just a reminder of that. I'm not
knocking lawyers, Judge, of course.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, you never have.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, I never have. Kind and
gentle. But that's all I want to talk about right now.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Commissioner Williams?
7-28-08
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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Nothing, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thankful for the rain, and just
as a little bit of an update, I had a nice conversation with
the Texas Farm Bureau. It was shortly after our last
meeting. We discussed cattle guards at some length, and I
think the County and the Texas Farm Bureau are on the same
page when it comes to cattle guards.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What page is that,
Commissioner?
JUDGE TINLEY: The right page.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The right page, that's right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Oehler?
', COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Camp Meeting is the 3rd
through the 10th, and it's always the first full week of
August; starts on the first Sunday and runs through the
second, and been going on for 70-something years, 75
probably, something in that neighborhood. And if you get a
chance, well, come out. Anyway, that's it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Appreciate everyone
being here today. Let's get on with our agenda. The first
item on the agenda is a report from Roy Walston with the
Agricultural Extension Service concerning activities at the
Extension Office. Mr. Walston?
MR. WALSTON: Thank you, Judge. Appreciate y'all
7-28-08

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
taking the opportunity to -- and letting us come forward with
you. I'm going to be brief. I've got a group of 4-H members
that participated in our Texas 4-H Congress, and I'm going to
let them visit with you on what they did in Austin, Texas, at
current district first vice president, and served on State
Council this past year. So, Lance?
MR. BAUER: Thank you. With me today are Tyler
Behrens from Center Point, Ashley McDonald from West Kerr
County, Ingram, and Nick Randall from Kerrville club, and I'm
from West Kerr County. 4-H Congress is a mock congress
experience that takes place every other year in Austin, when
the actual congress is not going on. We divide up into the
House and Senate, and within the House and Senate we actually
have committees, and we also have lobbyist groups and a press
corps that puts out a newspaper every day. We discuss many
different bills, and these bills are bills that have been
written by the participants, something that is affecting
them. And we get a big bill book and go through the bill
book, and there's lot of different activities. The governor
has a reception, and lobbyists have a reception, and it's --
it's pretty -- it's as close to the real deal as you can get.
And also, we are one of five groups, I believe, that actually
get to use the floor of the Capitol for our event.
~-zs-os
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
MR. RANDALL: One of -- I'm Nick Randall. I was
part of the House committee. And one of the major bills that
we talked about was homeschool UIL participation that's
brought about major, major problems with a lot of the kids
who felt that they were -- they should be allowed all the
rights that public school kids have, just like we do. So,
that was something that everybody talked about in there a
lot.
MS. McDONALD: I'm Ashley McDonald, and I was also
in the House of Representatives. One of the things is, once
the bill passes through the Senate and the House, and the
governor writes it -- or signs it into law, it actually goes
to Governor Perry and he reviews it. If he thinks it's
actually something that would benefit our state, then he
reviews it and sends it back for actual legislation.
MR. BEHRENS: I'm Tyler Behrens. I've got some
stuff for y'all to look at, if y'all want. I was in the
Senate along with Lance, and it was just -- it was a lot of
fun. We did a lot of, basically, the same bills. Some of
the House bills are different, for some reason. And so it
was a big experience to actually be in the Senate sitting in
those chairs and everything, and just go through the real
process. So, here's some -- this is the invitation to the
Governor's Ball. Those are the bills we went through, and
here's the newspapers.
7-28-08
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 OEHLER: Okay, thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you.
MR. BEHRENS: Oh, and this is -- everyone that was
there got one of these books -- binders, I guess. It's a --
we have the whole -- we have the whole list of the bills
right here. It was just a bunch of stuff there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I want to tell you young
people, it's a pleasure to see you in front of us this
morning, and it's also really a pleasure to see you involved
in citizenship and political science and learning about what
state government's all about and what our future -- our
future is bright with people like you. Thank you for doing
what you do.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Hear, hear.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm going to say again what I've
said numerous times before. These are the youngsters I don't
see in my juvenile court, the ones that are participating in
these programs through the 4-H and the Extension Service and
the FFA and those. They're kept real busy doing positive
things with other positive young people, and they don't have
time to get into mischief and show up in my court, and so
there's a big payoff in that. There really, really is. And
the bottom line is, it saves the taxpayers a whole lot of
~ money.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Lance, can you explain why you
7-28-08
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
were -- your expulsion from the Senate? (Laughter.)
MR. BAUER: That was -- that was one of our State
Council -- we -- the Senate was getting kind of monotone,
'cause everybody was just -- it was the same arguments over
and over and over about everything. And so the speaker --
or, I mean, the -- the lieutenant governor and I decided that
we'd like to spice things up a little bit. Since we kind of
planned and put Congress on, we decided to just add a little
excitement to the Senate, and that was how we decided to do
it. (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It worked.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else, Mr. Walston?
MS. BOYD: I just want to say real quick, Lance is
going off State Council this year, and Katie Muehlstein is on
her way to begin her term with State Council. And we are
very proud that we have, for the third year in a row, had a
representative on State 4-H Council. And we also have -- in
the top three offices, we have consistently had the president
or first vice president and second vice president, and
District 4-H Council for District 10. So, Nick Randall is
second vice president this year, and Katie Muehlstein is
second vice president, and we're very proud of them. They've
worked very hard to achieve those goals, and State Council is
a really awesome experience. They get to really do a lot of
cool things all over the state all year long. So, we're
7-28-08
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
proud of them. Lance is heading to Texas A & M, so I'm not
going to cry right now, but anyway...
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else for us, Roy?
MR. WALSTON: That's got it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. I appreciate it. We'll
I go to Item 2 quickly; consider, discuss, take appropriate
action to approve position change in step and grade and title
to replace existing position. Is this something that would
be more appropriately considered in a budget workshop
context?
MR. WALSTON: This is going to be --
JUDGE TINLEY: Is that where we're going?
MR. WALSTON: No, this is for the current budget
year, to be done prior to.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. WALSTON: I mean, --
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. WALSTON: -- we're basically filling the
vacancy of a position that we've -- we've lost effective the
22nd of August, and just basically filling in with a current
i
position. We have two secretarial positions. One's an
office manager; one's a secretary. We're promoting the
secretary to office manager, and that's the -- that's the
change in step and grade, is the promotion from secretary to
office manager. And we'll replace the secretarial position
7-28-08
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
with a new hire.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, there's no budgetary impact this
year?
MR. WALSTON: No, not this year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You can do that without --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sure.
JUDGE TINLEY: Sure, that's internal to you if
there's not budgetary impact.
MR. WALSTON: Well, as far as the step and grade,
we just need to -- from what I understood, we needed y'all's
approval to promote for the promotion for this step and
grade.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The step and grade are the same
as -- the office manager position isn't changing. You're
just filling that position. And the --
MR. WALSTON: Well, there will be -- that office
manager -- the office manager step and grade will not be the
same as the current one that's there. It'll be below the one
that's currently there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Below?
JUDGE TINLEY: You're bringing them in at entry
level as office manager, at that grade?
MR. WALSTON: No. It will be -- well --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What are you --
MR. WALSTON: I'm not sure what the entry level for
7-28-08
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
an office manager is, but it'll be -- I mean, Eva and I
visited about it, and whatever she set up is what --
JUDGE TINLEY: All this is to be effective
August 22?
MR. WALSTON: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: Why don't I suggest that you get
with Eva, and she can take a look. If it needs to come to us
here, we can take a look at it at our next meeting. That
should be adequate time, shouldn't it?
MR. WALSTON: Yeah. She said that we needed to
present it to y'all, and I thought she was going to be here
to -- to explain that. But as far as --
JUDGE TINLEY: What's your current office manager's
step and grade? Do you recall?
MR. WALSTON: The current one?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
MR. WALSTON: I believe is I4 -- maybe 6. 14-6.
I'm not sure about the current one.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Okay. So, it's a 14?
MR. WALSTON: I believe it's 14-6.
JUDGE TINLEY: You're promoting a secretary into
the office manager position?
MR. WALSTON: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: Proposing what step and grade, 14
I what?
7-28-08
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. WALSTON: To 14-6. It would be going to 14-6.
Like I say, I'm not sure about the current one that's there
now.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: See --
MR. WALSTON: I know it won't be going above the
current one.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know. I understand why.
MR. WALSTON: It's not going above the current one
that we've got now.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why don't you go with the
Judge's recommendation and bring it back next time. We have
to look at the dollars a little bit. I see a problem with
the dollar consideration.
MR. WALSTON: Okay. Yeah, I know it won't be going
over what we've -- what we've currently -- of course, we'll
be --
JUDGE TINLEY: Won't be any budgetary impact, but
you're bringing someone into a new grade at above entry level
step, --
MR. WALSTON: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- is the problem.
MR. WALSTON: Well, if it's -- like I say, I don't
know what the entry level is for office manager, so I don't
know.
JUDGE TINLEY: And there may be -- I don't know.
7-28-08
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
Ms. Hyde may -- there may be some modifications to job
description or something that she wants to bring to us.
MR. WALSTON: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's work it that way, okay?
MR. WALSTON: Okay, thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you very much.
MR. WALSTON: If y'all were through with those
handouts, if I could get that back for Tyler?
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Item 3 is a timed item for
9:15. Amazingly, we're on schedule. Presentation from
Mr. Marc Hamlin regarding the development of a county
controlled and owned software system for courts and beyond.
Mr. Hamlin is here with us today, and we appreciate you being
here.
MR. HAMLIN: Judge, Commissioners, thank you for
allowing me to come into your wonderful county and visit with
you today about a very important project. I need to get some
preliminaries out of the way. Buster Baldwin and I have
served on the -- the state board, and he has served in many
capacities, and he has helped me tremendously over the past
I~I years. I was president for two years, and during that time
he -- he helped me out tremendously. So, Commissioner, I
appreciate all the involvement that you have with TAC and
your County Judges and Commissioners Association. I also
want to tell you that I knew that Ms. Pieper and Ms. Uecker
7-28-08
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
16
back in yesterday and everything is green. So, I'm not for
sure of exactly how much power they really do have, Judge,
but it seems like that the rain has been bountiful here, and
we need as much as we can get in Brazos County, if y'all
could send it that way. Welcome -- where did Lance go? We
lost him. I was going to say welcome to Aggie land, and
hopefully he would come by and see me at the office. That
seems like an impressive group.
Gentlemen, the Texas Association of Counties is
project that is a necessity for county government. We have
tried to make as many presentations all over the state of
Texas that we possibly can, and this project is one that --
if I can, I kind of liken to it Bill Gates sitting in his
garage and building the first computer, trying to see what
was going to happen in the future, and having all the
naysayers saying that it wouldn't work. County commissioners
across the state of Texas, along with elected officials and
department heads, have to rely on vendors and what I call a
"dog and pony show" to come in and tell you what is the best
programs, software that can be utilized by all the
7-28-08
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
departments in county government.
As you well know, county government is a -- is a
being of its own. We need a specialty program that not only
is adaptable to county government, but is adaptable to
different counties for different needs. Take Brazos County,
all the felony cases, and that's the case it was in Brazos
County up until 1996. We had a District Court come in and
those matters.	Well,	guess who decided	-- the Attorney
General decided	that	the District Clerk	was the clerk of the
court since 1996, so that is a different -- and, you know,
254 counties; we have Houston with the largest population of
over 4 million. We have Loving County -- I'm not sure of the
population of Loving County now, but I do know that there are
different needs.
One of the things that government needs to be able
it needs to be able to communicate with other counties as
well. We have not been able to find that correct solution
for all of county government. That's the purpose of CIRA.
It is a visionary project. It is a project that I feel like
is a necessity. Texas Association of Counties and CIRA is
7-28-08
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
not out to make any money on this. We're trying to figure
out exactly how much it -- it will cost TAC before it's over
can go out for RFP's, but it will be a county program that is
developed by county commissioners, county judges, tax
assessor/collectors, clerks, sheriffs, so on and so forth.
Now, I know that -- that I've given you as quick as
y'all have been very active in the past in many different
areas, and I want you to know that because a lot of times we
don't understand whatever a vendor -- a software vendor is
proposing, just don't feel like you're alone, 'cause a lot of
times -- 254 counties -- this is the resounding message that
I heard over and over and over, is that Commissioners Court
feels like that they're exposed to this in meetings and
workshops, and they try to make the best decision that they
possibly can, but the problem is -- is that your elected
officials is going to be using these programs, your appointed
officials, your department heads. They're the ones that need
to have the input to know exactly what will work and what
7-28-08
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
Now, what are we asking for? We're asking for your
involvement through a resolution. And we're asking for --
and this is what LIRA project decided -- the board decided to
percent of your county budget. I don't know what that number
here is in Kerr County. All I know is that in Brazos County,
our contribution was $65,604.45. Commissioners Court in
Brazos County knows that we've got to do something. Two
years ago, they allocated $300,000 to do something. Last
year they again contributed $300,000 and put it into a -- a
project fund. This year they're contemplating doing the
exact same thing. Folks, again, I am not running down any
vendors	whatsoever. I	am trying to --	to work on a	theory
that --	that everyone	realizes that we	have a need	and we
have got to get on board with one another to realize the best
allies that we have is each other so that we can utilize the
system to its fullest extent. Our -- our citizens deserve
it, and we know that we need it. It's just hard to go about
it, especially whenever you're -- you're putting money up for
something, but you're not exactly sure what's going to
happen. We don't know for sure, but we know that we've got
to do something. Having said that, Judge, Commissioners,
please ask me any questions that you may have.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have one, Judge.
7-28-08
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
20
$15,000, based on this projection that you've shown us. My
real question has to do with the future, when you indicate
that the cost after developing the scope of work -- you
indicate the cost to develop the software is somewhere
between 12 and a higher number of millions of dollars. My
question is, where does that money come from?
MR. HAMLIN: That would also be part of the project
and saying, "We not only have a theory now. We have a
realization. We have a project that can work. This is what
it's going to cost." Gentlemen, you know, you look at that
number, and it scares all of us to death, but whenever you
look at 254 counties, you look at a minor contribution by
each county. And I say "minor"; one-tenth of 1 percent is
what we're talking about. Over -- and right now we have
collected 355,000 -- over 355,000 on 33 counties, 33 out of
254. Once we get the project and -- and get the idea from --
and get it completed from here to realization, then we will
have a good grasp on what it's going to cost county
government. The good part about it is, to answer your
question, that it's going to be a question in the future of
7-28-08
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
$7 million. $7 million for a population o~ L~u,uuu people
$7 million. I keep going back to that $7 million, because
when we bought it, the technology was seven years old.
Folks, we're 15 years down the road now, and we are in a
bind, as other county governments are, in trying to develop a
system that your Sheriff can sit down and utilize from
everywhere, from his booking all through -- all the way
through his bonds and the administration. Your clerks can
use it as well, and be able to have their imaging if they
want to image their documents, have it available. Again, I
want to emphasize the importance that Texas Association of
Counties and CIRA is not in this for a profit. This is a
theory that I believe is going to raise county governments'
level of professionalism to a tremendous degree. We are
having so many citizens across the state of Texas that feel
like that it is all over -- all over the board. In my
office, we have every document from the beginning of Brazos
County's time that has been imaged and available online.
Does everybody in state of Texas and every county and every
district clerk have that available? Absolutely not. We're
looking for standardization.
One of the big -- big important things that I feel
7-28-08
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
like as clerk that standardization is going to play a big
role in, is clerks are going to be able to report along with
other elected officials and department heads; we will have a
funnel -- a conduit into Austin on the -- on the requirements
that we have upon us that we have to make these different
reports every month. Why aren't they standardized? Why is
it that we don't have a computer program that all of us use
that we all can understand and that we can all utilize
between one another? Sorry, Commissioner. I went too far
with your answer, but that's my --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The question I have is that we
purchased Odyssey through The Software Group, and it was
supposed to do exactly what you're saying. And it's done, I
don't know, 75, 80 percent of that. It's got some problems,
and we know it's got problems and they know it's got
problems. Why can't, basically -- and I know TAC isn't
government, but it's kind of like government. Why do you all
think you all can do something that private industry cannot
do?
MR. HAMLIN: The quickest and easiest answer, it
goes back to the profit issue. This project would be
nonproprietary. It would be able to be manipulated and used
in any different county in any different way that a county
wants to use it. That's the key.
7-28-08
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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But then how is -- you said
you're not trying to cut out the vendors. Well, then, how is
-- are the vendors going to use software written by TAC?
MR. HAMLIN: Well, there again, these are going to
be your Windows-based programs that the -- that the vendors
will be able to bid on, that are going to be standardized, so
it's not going to be a project that we can do it all on our
own, because we're not in the vendor business.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, you're -- you're building
an Odyssey, what you're trying to do, or equivalent to
Odyssey.
MR. HAMLIN: We're trying to build -- no, sir.
from throughout the state that will be utilizing the program,
we are trying to build a system that is standardized, that is
nonproprietary, that can be configured in any different way.
And all of the things that I just said to you is absolutely
an oxymoron to most vendors, because they want you to be
dependent upon them to make those changes to -- to cost you
on upgrades, to cost you on whatever it is that they want to
come back as a vendor and tell you that it's going to cost.
This project is separate and alone from any ideology that any
vendor -- because it's in -- it's in direct conflict with the
vendor. We are -- we are trying to have it where it is so
7-28-08
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
standardized and it is user-friendly. And is this a project
that's going to work, that we're going to have in 2009? No.
This is going to take time.
JUDGE TINLEY: If I'm understanding you correctly,
that you're not in the vendor business. You're going to
develop -- and correct me if I'm not seeing this thing
conceptually correctly.
MR. HAMLIN: Yes, sir, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: You're going to develop a -- a
software concept, and then based upon that, private industry
will develop the actual software and market that software
through their existing marketing system? Is that what I'm
seeing?
MR. HAMLIN: Can you go with me to the next
counties that I need to visit with and say exactly what you
just said? Because that's exactly right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. HAMLIN: You said it just as well as --
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, unfortunately, I can't go with
you to the next counties, but I just wanted to see if I can
understand it.
MR. HAMLIN: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: There -- there's going to have to be
some sort of profit motive in it for those guys to step
forward and -- and with their geeks and so forth, to develop
7-28-08
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
there going to be some sort of proprietary function that
remains with Texas Association of Counties that, by virtue of
That whole
concept that you just outlined, Judge, is exactly the goal of
the CIRA board. And -- and, again, this is the resounding
message that continued to take place over the past two years
whenever I was president. It's amazing to me how many
commissioners courts felt obligated -- and that's a light
version of what you really want to say in some of the cases.
It's -- it's absolutely amazing the amount of money and time
that they have thrown and continue to throw at software
projects. This is a whole different concept. It takes out
the fact of proprietary; it takes out the fact of -- of being
able to have a system that you're going to have upgrades that
are going to continually cost somewhere down the line.
You know, one of the things, Commissioners, that
y'all haven't brought up yet, that a lot of the commissioners
that I've talked to, and judges, is they say, "Well, what do
we get out of it? If we're one of the first counties that
say, you know, this is a visionary project, we need it, what
do we get out of it? What about those other 220 counties out
there that decided that they do not want to?" Well, as you
7-28-08
26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
in-house. And their project, so you'll know, is almost
exactly what CIRA is trying to do. They only do it for
themselves. That's exactly what has happened over the state
of Texas, is that these smaller counties don't have the
budgets to allow them to spend the kind of money that is a
necessity to develop a project, so what we've had to do is
we've had to look at it and say, "Is there a need out there
for a professional standardized system?" Not just for Kerr
County, not just for Brazos County, but that can be developed
by elected officials and developed by appointed officials,
used by those same people that are developing it, and paid
for by the same people.
Judge, it absolutely makes all the common sense in
the world. It's a long-term commitment as far as being able
to get it developed, but I can't say enough to you how
important it is, not just to Kerr County, not just to Kerr
County government. I want to answer my own question,
whenever I said, "What do you get out of it?" I will say to
you, if you're one of the initial counties that come on
board, I will say to you that that would be a question. Once
7-28-08
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
we did come to the realization that this is a project that is
worthy of -- of going forward with, that we see the vision,
all of us see that this is something that we're going to go
forward with, we have the initial counties that have stepped
up to the plate and made it in their budgets to -- to send
money to the project. Once we do that, I think that it would
be you, Judge or Commissioners, depending on who's here at
the time, to ask the hard question. We've got it. We're
going forward with it. We -- but we want to know, out of
these other counties that are coming on board, is it going to
be a reduced rate if we -- if we go forward with it in the
future? Absolutely. There's something that's got to be
done.
My judge and commissioners are going to be asking
me the exact same thing. They -- they want to know, "Marc,
is there going to be something that we're going to get out of
it if these other people are not willing to step up early?
What is it that we're going to get out of it in the future?"
I want to go back to Bill Gates and him having that first
computer in the garage. This is such an important project to
county government. As long as that -- these vendors can
continue to do the things that they have done -- and, again,
I'm not picking on any one vendor, 'cause there are some good
vendors out there. But as long as they continue to have
these upgrades and continue to come back to counties and we
7-28-08
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
all stay separate, they're the ones that benefit, not us.
JUDGE TINLEY: John, you had a question?
MR. TROLINGER: Hi, I'm John Trolinger; I'm the
I.T. Manager for Kerr County.
MR. HAMLIN: Nice to meet you, sir.
MR. TROLINGER: Thanks for being here. I have one
interesting point to make, and one question. First of all,
you've got to get the counties to buy into this, so that's my
point. And you've got 33 so far that are willing, at the
one-tenth of 1 percent level. Do you see -- and then my
question is, do you see this project being like a motor
vehicle or a voter registration project, that eventually is
mandated or provided by the State, that all the counties must
adopt and -- and use at some level? Will it be a top-down
project at some point, maybe five years from now, where the
State says, the Office of Court Administration, "In order to
file your reports with us, you must have this system"?
MR. HAMLIN: To answer your question, I don't know.
What do we -- what do we know that our Legislature is going
to do for us? You know, they're about to meet in '09 again.
And, you know, that's a very good point that actually we
haven't addressed as a committee. I'm not for sure that --
that we, as county government, would take so kindly to the
state government mandating that we do something that we have
had to go out on our own and spend our own local dollars to
7-28-08
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
25
got together, just how much individual departments were going
to the Commissioners Court and asking for upgrades during the
last four years. We've got -- I feel like that we've got to
do something. We need to provide to the -- to all of our
constituents the best way that they can utilize county
government, and you, as county officials, have to have the
best computer system at your fingertips. Do we have that? I
just don't think that we have. I think that we have people
that are continually providing us services that a lot of
times, some of those services are not actually needed, but
we're having to pay for them. Go ahead, sir. Sorry.
JUDGE TINLEY: Question?
MR. TROLINGER: Thank you.
MR. EMERSON: My name is Rex Emerson; I'm the
County Attorney. And last year at the Elected Prosecutors'
conference, Tarrant County made a presentation that they were
already working on a software system similar to what you're
talking about, and any county that was willing to participate
could basically acquire the system for free. How, if at all,
7-28-08
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
does your system tie in with what they're doing? Or --
MR. HAMLIN: It does not. And I'm going to tell
you -- answer your question with going back to the
nonproprietary -- the non -- the standardization that is a
I necessity. I have visited with -- with Judge Whitley on
numerous occasions, and he -- he assures me that this is the
answer. And I will tell you that this committee has looked
in-depth at every program out there available to county
government, and not one -- not one -- not one project has the
vision that this project has. It's -- it's -- we were hoping
that that was the answer. Regardless, if tomorrow, ABC
Company comes up with the solution for county government,
LIRA would back off of this project in a heartbeat. We
are -- we are not -- this is not -- if there was a solution
out there, regardless of who it was, we would not be here
before you today. This is a project that, again, I can't
emphasize enough that is -- that is a vision of county
government, that is built by county government, that is used
by county government, and last but not least, paid for by
county government. Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It seems I heard you say
that -- that Harris County has developed their own system,
and how well does that system work? And if it does work very
well, why couldn't we utilize theirs to do what you're
proposing?
7-28-08
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
MR. HAMLIN: Harris County, even though they work
is -- is proprietary, some of it is owned by the county, but
it is so vast and so large, the concept does not run through
the mainstream of exactly the project vision that we have.
It -- we go back to this -- the standardization and going
back to the nonproprietary issue that has plagued county
government for so long. Ms. Pieper asked for a modification,
and, you know, anytime that you mention something about
modification, the -- the dollars roll, and I'm just not sure
exactly the cost on any different one. It's the same way
with Brazos County. If the -- if the basis of the computer
system in Tarrant County was something that we could utilize
and that we could -- without having that -- I don't know how
to say it. It's almost like being handcuffed, and
continually you have -- you know, you are restricted to where
that you're still incumbent -- it's still -- you know, you're
still dependent on that vendor, and that's what we're trying
to get away from. We're trying to develop a system that can
be manipulated, and it won't cost any one county an arm and a
leg, so to speak, and this is one of 254.
JUDGE TINLEY: You had a question?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: On the modification part, say
7-28-08
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
32
question. A vendor is in a profit mode; they have to make
money. Whenever you have a modification with a separate
system, it's going to cost some person some hours to be able
to go in and program whatever it is that you're going to
program. But wouldn't you rather be developing a
modification that is going to cost you one-tenth of what
you're paying now, to a county government agency which you're
a part of? That's the difference. It's going to cost --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Still going to cost. We're
MR. HAMLIN: We're going to be spending -- no, you
won't be spending the same dollars. You'll be spending
probably -- I'm guessing -- and these are my numbers --
one-tenth of what would you normally be paying a private
vendor, because you take out the profit side.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But if the modification is
going to be done and we pay TAC, okay, who's going to do the
modification? Is it going to be a private vendor that has to
-- that TAC will contract with to do it? I mean, there's got
to still be a profit in there for that vendor to upgrade it.
7-28-08
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
Because I may have certain reports and certain modifications
that I want our jail or Sheriff's Office to be able to do
that Comal County doesn't use, and won't use, so they don't
want it on theirs, but I do want it on ours.
MR. HAMLIN: That is where the nonproprietary
action comes in, to where that you are going to have a -- a
board, Texas Association of Counties, that will make that
determination, and that can be utilized by county government
on a nonprofit basis. That's what I just keeping coming back
to.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay. So, there's going to be
a board that decides whether I can have that modification?
MR. HAMLIN: Absolutely not. If it's
nonproprietary and can be modified, and that's what you want
in your county, then that's what you'll get.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But -- I guess two things.
One, basically, economics. I don't know of any private
company that has a 90 percent profit margin. I think it's
more likely it's going to cost maybe 10 percent less, or
maybe 20 percent, 'cause very, very few companies make a
20 percent profit. But that's just the economics side. I'm
still real unclear as to why you all think y'all can do it
better than private business. I mean, I -- you know, profit
is -- profit is why business works. And why would a
nonprofit be able to be more efficient and more -- more
7-28-08
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
Because it will be used and developed
by the people on a daily basis that are using the programs.
You just said a while ago -- I'm not sure, Judge, if it was
you -- said that y'all have a program that's 75 to 80 percent
fulfilled your -- your request.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or -- I have no idea. We have
Odyssey.
basically all it is.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But -- so, Odyssey is supposed
to do that, and Odyssey's trying to do that. They just --
it's hard, bottom line. And Legislature changes make it a
moving target. Every time they meet every two years, they
change the report; they change the structure of it.
MR. HAMLIN: And that's where your standardization
comes in. I keep going back to standardization and getting
county government to be able to understand that there are
several reports, several things that we continually do in a
different way that's not mandated by law. We just don't
standardize county government to be able to accomplish that.
Anybody -- any other vendor is not utilizing your County
Clerk and your District Clerk and your Sheriff and your Tax
7-28-08
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
Assessor/Collector and your Health Department Director to be
able to develop a program that can be utilized in their
county. No one else is doing that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess -- it seems to me that
your efforts would be better spent on the state -- the
Legislature, the Office of Court Administration, to tell them
to standardize. To lobby them and say, if the State would
quit making all this stuff so difficult, then the private
vendors would solve the problem a lot cheaper. But there's
no one telling the State to solve the problem.
MR. HAMLIN: Well, and I think that's part of
the -- the vision that we have for county government, is that
we are going to work with all the different entities,
including O.C.A., to say, "Look, we've got a project. This
is what county government is going to be using, by and large,
in the state of Texas, and we need to know what it is, or why
do you do the things that you do? Why do you require this
report or that report, or in this manner or that manner? Can
we come up with a solution to standardize it across the state
of Texas?"
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Hamlin?
MR. HAMLIN: Yes, sir?
JUDGE TINLEY: Am I understanding that a lot of the
savings to government entities, county government, comes
from -- again, back to your concept. You come with the
7-28-08
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
vision, you solidify that vision, you see that it's doable,
as it were. You then contract with a software developer, so
to speak, people that are in the business and have the
capability of writing software. You contract with them, they
put together the product, the software package. They're
paid. They make a profit.
MR. HAMLIN: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: And on an ongoing basis, they will
continue to act as a distributor, as well as for upgrades,
changes and so forth. They'll contract, but the real savings
is the licensing, whereas with a private vendor, it's
proprietary, and what we have is a -- a multitude of various
licensing fees that we pay to these private vendors. Is that
where the real savings is?
MR. HAMLIN: Judge, you've outlined several things
that are the key points. You're absolutely right. The other
thing that is a -- a visionary cost savings to counties is
that the more counties that are involved that cost-share in
this project, it -- it eliminates that single county from
having to -- to spend all the money that it's going to cost
on any given software vendor. That's one of the biggest --
the licensing, one of the biggest cost savings that you can
talk about. But what it boils down to is, the more counties
that we have involved in this, the less it's going to cost
each county.
7-28-08
37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: So, the proprietary aspect would be
Texas Association of Counties, and there would be no
licensing fees to county governments to utilize this system;
is that what I'm hearing from you?
MR. HAMLIN: Right. Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Next question, timeline. There are
a number of counties, including Kerr County, that have
recently acquired software systems and made substantial
investments in those systems, and in doing so, have gotten
themselves on the hook for a multi-year payout for the -- for
the privilege of acquiring that system. And what are we
looking at timeline here? Let's take your normal case
scenario that you're looking at, with the vision, the
solidification, and moving forward. What's the real timeline
that you're looking at here?
MR. HAMLIN: Three to five years.
JUDGE TINLEY: For the product to be on the ground
and running?
MR. HAMLIN: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Question. In your
conclusion recommendations, you talk about this -- or you
define this as a comprehensive integrated justice information
system. My question is, what, if any, other modules are a
part of this package?
7-28-08
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
MR. HAMLIN: All.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All?
MR. HAMLIN: All.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Everything that we have in
Odyssey would be replicated in your -- maybe more?
', MR. HAMLIN: Of course, as you well know, the --
~~ the CJIS, the Criminal Justice Information System, is the --
is the largest component of county government. This is
absolutely the beginning, as we see it, to a complete
solution for county government as a whole.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second question is, you
talk about in this conclusion that the commitment for funding
needs to be completed by June lst. I guess that's of this
year, so there's obviously some slippage.
MR. HAMLIN: Our -- yes, sir, there is. Our -- I
think we were a little bit aggressive on the timeline when we
first initiated the scope of work on the project. We had
anticipated a -- and maybe I was just being a little bit more
-- I'm not for sure. What I'm trying to say is, I was hoping
that there was going to be more counties on board early on,
and there wasn't. And I think that I probably underestimated
the amount of confusion out there with county government, not
just whether it's one elected official or another. But I
think it's -- it's really hard to get a grasp on 254
counties. There's a lot of commissioners and judges, clerks,
7-28-08
39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
able to make a living, whether it's farming and ranching or
running a generator off their shop -- well, that kind of
dates me, but -- we haven't had a generator in how long?
Alternator shop. It's really hard for these people to
dedicate the time that y'all have dedicated to be able to get
on board and know how fast technology is changing, the cost
of technology. You -- the average citizen out here is just
the amount of money that we're spending on technology. The
amount of money that we have -- when we first started out,
you know, spending $1,200 or $1,300 on a computer, and you'd
buy three or four, and commissioners would just all but, you
know, just completely have a fit 'cause you're spending all
this money on three or four computers. And, you know, how
many of those do you buy a year? If you buy a computer
today, three years from now, you know as well as I do, you've
got to replace it.
JUDGE TINLEY: As a follow-up to Commissioner
Williams' inquiry, my recollection of the initial proposal
when it came out was that you were wanting a commitment to be
generated from our upcoming budget year, our '08-'09 budget,
which, of course, we put into place generally somewhere in
7-28-08
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
the first or middle part of September of each year as part of
our overall budgeting process. I assume that's still what
you're looking for?
MR. HAMLIN: Yes, sir, Judge. In fact, you have a
copy -- hopefully you have a copy of the resolution that we
have given each one of the commissioners courts across the
state. As you see this, this is not a -- I don't know how to
say it. This is not a commitment from you that, if we get in
the middle of this and this miracle vendor comes across, and
all at once the -- all of the answers are there, all of the
questions have been answered, that we're going to just keep
the money and spend the money. We were looking for a
commitment by resolution, along with the -- the funds, so
that we can go ahead and get the funds ready to go and start
with the visionary project, the first stage, the first step.
But if, for some reason -- our goal is to have 50 counties
before we start. If we don't get to 50 counties, and this
committee says, "This is a great idea. We've done our due
diligence; we've tried, but we just can't go forward," each
and every penny that any one of the counties has put forward,
we're going to reimburse you. There won't be any cost
associated with it whatsoever. But this is a very, very hard
decision for the committee, that we have committed ourselves
to reaching 50 counties in the state of Texas on the initial
step. And -- and if we don't get to -- to our goal or close
7-28-08
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
to our goal, then each one of the counties that have stepped
up and sent the resolution in and committed the money, that
we're going to return that back to you, and in totality. So,
that's the hope of the committee.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any more questions for Mr. Hamlin?
We thank you for being here today. We appreciate you coming
down and telling us about this program and answering our
questions.
MR. HAMLIN: Well, y'all have had some tough
questions, and I appreciate everyone that has -- has asked
questions. These are all questions that we're sooner or
later going to have to answer. And I know that the -- the
purpose and vision of this committee is one that is
worthwhile to raise the professionalism of county government
across the state of Texas. And it's really hard sometimes
for commissioners courts like yourselves to sit back and say
that considering county government in all these other
counties is something that you need to do, but for the
betterment of county government as a whole, and to have all
of us standardize as much as possible, this is a project that
needs to go forward.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir.
MR. HAMLIN: Thank y'all.
JUDGE TINLEY: We appreciate that. The next item
7-28-08
42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
on the agenda, Item 4, to consider, discuss, take appropriate
action on requested Kerr County funding commitment to the
Texas Association of Counties for participation in and/or
support of development of a county controlled and owned
software system for courts and beyond. Gentlemen, as I'm
sure all of us realize, that has budgetary impact, and we're
in the process of doing a lot of budgetary things. It might
be well if we were going to defer on that to see where that
might fit in the rest of our budgetary actions, and to look
', at that later in light of those budgetary discussions.
~ Anybody have any feelings different than that?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I'm willing to deal
with it right this moment and say no.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just -- I can't imagine us
voting to spend 15,000 of the taxpayers' dollars on something
that may or may not be going on, when things are short and
tight as they are. And I've always been leery of someone
coming down here from Austin that's had a vision. You know,
you kind of got to watch those things, and I just -- you
know, I don't share that same vision. I'm not part of the
vision. I haven't had the vision. And so I would -- I'm
going to say no today, and tomorrow.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody else on the Court have
any -- I'll leave it to the pleasure of the Court.
7-28-08
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 LETZ: I'm kind of with Commissioner
Baldwin. Primarily, I think that there -- I think the focus
is wrong. You've got to get the State to change -- to agree
to at least integrate everything at a state level, and the
Legislature -- maybe legislation to require the State to do
it would be supportive. But -- and maybe a lobbying effort
to get that done, but until you get the State on board, I
just don't see that you can fix the problem.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I guess if we hadn't just
spent a million dollars plus on Odyssey and any associated
expenses to that since then, I might -- I might have been a
little more favorably disposed to this.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think another thing -- I said
75, 80 percent. Odyssey is probably -- John, do you have an
idea? Or, I mean, I know we hear -- and we hear very loud
the problems with Odyssey. How much of Odyssey is working,
in your mind?
MR. TROLINGER: Well, we've got individual
problems. We got a problem today we where we can't run some
certain forms that we're going to get patched, and that patch
is going to come this week. But. overall, the problems get
fixed, and we have full functionality. Maybe the County or
District Clerk can tell you something differently.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: 80 percent.
MS. PIEPER: I was thinking 70, but --
7-28-08
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
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's going south.
MR. TROLINGER: The problem -- the problem is, you
know, week to week, there's different problems. I can't
quantify it overall.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Problem is, when we patch one,
normally it messes up something else. It just takes a while
to get the patch to patch the patch.
MR. TROLINGER: But that's a good -- that's a good
overall answer, I think.
JUDGE TINLEY: As I said, pleasure of the Court.
Anybody care to offer a motion? Let's move on, then, if we
might. We have a 10 -- excuse me, 9:55 item that we're
slightly overrun on, Item 6. We'll do that right away.
Consider, discuss, and take appropriate action regarding the
Guadalupe River Parade. We have with us today Mr. Marvin
Willis, who's been heading up this project for a number of
years now, and pleasure to have you here, Mr. Willis.
MR. WILLIS: Good morning, Judge. Morning,
Commissioners. I'm here today to request the use of Flat
Rock Park for the 16th at 4 p.m. for the Guadalupe River
Parade. This is our sixth year to do this, and that's why I
come before you today, just simply for that reason.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What part of the park do
you want to use, Mr. Willis?
MR. WILLIS: I think we're going to be pretty big
7-28-08
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
this year if we don't have a flash flood, so we're going to
be just past the boat ramp and down the road a little ways.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't want to wish you
any bad luck, but --
MR. WILLIS: It happened last year, but we've had
-- that's the only year it's happened, so I think we'll have
a pretty good crowd. Most of the larger organizations in
town --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Your area of use usually is
somewhere in the area of the -- of the ramp.
MR. WILLIS: Well, the floats will go in at the
ramp, but we're going to be inside the park itself this year.
We'll have Harry and the Hightones for the dance there on the
street going around the park, and then we'll have some
vendors set up. Of course, all the floats will be there, and
hopefully you guys will all be there this year.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Have you made arrangements
for cleanup?
MR. WILLIS: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. As a matter of
fact, we all attended the U.G.R.A. cleanup yesterday, and our
group picked up 22 bags of trash.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Great. Great. Move
approval.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
MR. WILLIS: We'll get it done.
7-28-08
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
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
indicated. Question or discussion? All in favor, signify by
raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: It carries. Thank you.
MR. WILLIS: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: I appreciate having you here
Mr. Willis. Look forward to being with you.
MR. WILLIS: Okay. Have a good day, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a 10 a.m. item, and we'll go
to that now, a presentation from Mr. Adan Munoz, who is
Executive Director of the Texas Commission on Jail Standards.
Mr. Munoz, glad to have you here, and appreciate you
accepting our invitation to come down here. As I'm sure our
Sheriff has indicated to you, we're kind of bumping the top
on our jail census, and we've got some concerns on expansion
and some questions. Did you have a question for him,
Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, I just wanted to tell
Adan, please don't talk about having a "vision." (Laughter.)
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: He said he was going back to
Austin.
MR. MUNOZ: I just told the Sheriff when I heard
7-28-08
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
you talk about "vision," I think I better go back home.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely.
i, JUDGE TINLEY: But you're not originally from
I Austin?
MR. MUNOZ: No, sir, I'm originally from
Kingsville, Kleberg County.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sheriff of Kingsville, King
County --
MR. MUNOZ: King Ranch, Kleberg County.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Kleberg County.
MR. MUNOZ: I've had a diversified career, sir,
including a former vendor. I wouldn't want to be a vendor
before you today, either.
JUDGE TINLEY: Beat up on everybody but folks from
Kleberg County, didn't we?
MR. MUNOZ: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Well, that's
about the only -- that's the only place that they actually
won't listen to me. Judge, Commissioners Court, thank y'all
very much for the opportunity to appear before you this
morning. I understand from Commissioner Baldwin, from his
phone call, and from the e-mail I received from the Judge,
and in speaking with the Sheriff this morning, obviously,
Kerr County is not any different than anybody else in the
state of Texas right now as far as overcrowding and so forth.
I think they're legitimate concerns. I'm here to actually
7-28-08
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
answer your questions, because I believe part of what
Commissioner Baldwin asked of me was to come before you and
than happy to address any and all of the questions that you
have for me.
I can tell you right now, what I'll do is I'll pass
getting it to you ahead of time. I believe the Judge als
asked me for the justification and authority by which the
Texas Jail Commission operates off of. It's covered in the
letter addressed to the Judge. We're -- you know, as y'all
read through it, but more importantly, I think also the
follow-up documents that are attached to the handout I just
gave you is a step-by-step of what it takes for tents to go
up. Tents, gentlemen, is a temporary solution to a permanent
problem anywhere in the state of Texas. Tents can only be
constructed -- tents are permissible, first of all -- let me
back up. Tents are permissible in the state of Texas, but
they're only for temporary situations, "temporary" meaning a
length of three years.
So, when we speak -- as the Jail Commission speaks
to Commissioners Court, it's -- just coincidentally, the
7-28-08
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
49
fourth item down, the tents, it's only meant for minimum
security prisoners. You can't house anything else other than
minimum security prisoners. In talking to the Sheriff just a
little while ago, he doesn't even have enough minimum
security prisoners to be able to place into, say, a 48-bed
tent, 24-bed tent. Plus each construction that you do of
each tent has to be provided with electricity, air
conditioning, everything else that you would do with brick
and mortar. So, personally, to tell you -- and
professionally, as a former sheriff, where I sit in this
capacity today, you've got a short-term solution for a more
serious problem that you have.
In talking to the Sheriff -- and part of the
handout that I gave you also, Kerr County's jail population
has steadily been going up over the last ten years. I
brought you a month-by-month handout that says that your
population is steadily going up. Your population is driven
by your courts, either the lack of, to get them out of the
court system, get them out of jail, is what drives your jail
7-28-08
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
throw out, because you're full of beds of minimum or you're
full of beds of medium or you're full of beds of maximum.
I've also seen where the figures in the years -- in
the last ten years, you used to take in contract prisoners,
but the need for your own prisoners now, that has driven
where you are. You're not deriving any income either, but
each county has its own needs. Apparently, Kerr County has
dips. It has rises and has its, you know, dips. And
that's -- whether that's controlled by summer crowds,
tourists, whatever it is, only you yourself may know what
drives the capacity of each jail. Also, I will tell you, as
part of the last handout that I gave you, in order for you to
take a strong, strong consideration, one of the things we
hear statewide as I travel throughout the state is that tents
are good enough for our soldiers; tents are good enough for
Arizona. Well, Arizona doesn't have any standards. They
don't have any jail standards whatsoever. And the handout
also briefly tells you the amount of lawsuits that that
county has paid, because it's just not conducive.
You know, you and I -- and as a former sheriff, I
7-28-08
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
can tell you, and the Sheriff of Kerr County can tell you, we
want to pick them up, put them in jail, and throw away the
key. Unfortunately, that's not the way the system works.
that it will keep counties from getting sued and having to
wind up paying liability issues, much like Arizona has and
Maricopa County. That's briefly what I've got for you as far
answer, which I believe is more likely what you need.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Munoz, thank you for coming
down. As you've indicated, when you go around the state into
house these jail inmates in tents and derive labor from them,
require them to grow their own food and all these things, and
they don't -- they don't hear about the liability issues.
They don't hear about the lawsuits. But we get these
questions as elected officials all the time of why -- why are
these people in jail having such a good deal of it? Why are
-- why are they not required to work? You know, we can
barely pay our utility bills to get air conditioning, but it
doesn't seem to be a problem for them. They're out of the
heat, they're warm in the winter, nice and cool in the
7-28-08
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
summer, get meals provided for them that are approved by
dietary standards. If there's special diets required for
health or religious reasons, why, they get those. And --
and, you know, we get blasted with both barrels of that very
frequently. And, you know, you're the authority that must be
responded to when we don't abide by those standards, and
so --
MR. MUNOZ: Minimum security -- minimum standards
are driven by the infamous statement that Commissioner
Baldwin so adequately made at the beginning of this meeting,
called attorneys.
JUDGE TINLEY: I see.
MR. MUNOZ: And attorneys represent inmates, and
inmates bitch and gripe about everything. I guarantee you
that right now. I mean, it's just a way of life. We have a
complaint section in our agency that we get anywhere from 5
to 10, 15 a day. That's not counting the e-mails; that's not
counting the phone calls from the parents, from the friends
and so forth saying, "My poor child didn't get his medicine
today. My poor child's socks were wet today," and so forth
and so on. So, as long as there are individuals like that
who feel that they have a lawsuit against a county, that's
the reason minimum jail standards were created, so that we
hopefully can keep you out of the liability issues that
certainly exist, because we cannot control the inmates and we
7-28-08
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
cannot control the inmates' families and what they want or do
not want. And I will agree with you again; the perception of
the county is that that's what jails are for, is to lock
people up and punish them. But, unfortunately, if you don't
treat them a certain way, they have a right to sue you. And
I think -- I think you'll -- when you speak to your insurance
carriers, part of the rationale for the agency -- for the
Commission on Jail Standards is to try and keep you in
compliance, so that way, when an inmate does sue you and
you're in compliance, your defensibility is substantially
better than being out of compliance.
JUDGE TINLEY: The standards, themselves -- the
origin of your authority for the standards are done by the
Legislature; is that correct?
MR. MUNOZ: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: They're not, per se, mandated by
MR. MUNOZ: Sometimes federal court decisions
sometimes drive the adaptation or the change of standards a
little bit, but certainly -- but they're not driven by
federal court decisions. They're driven by the State
Legislature, the administrative codes, yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: If the standards are to be relaxed,
I'm going to call it, for lack of a better term, to provide
something that's less of a burden on county taxpayers, that
7-28-08
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
would have to come from the State Legislature and what they
mandate to your agency; is that correct?
MR. MUNOZ: That would be correct, sir. Any change
in standards is either driven administratively by us for
MR. MUNOZ: For example, we had a -- we had an
agency call us about two, three months ago. Actually, it was
a complaint driven by a mother of a female prisoner that was
in jail. What she was complaining about was that when the
daughter was given an exchange of clothing to wash them, the
agency was not giving her an exchange. They were taking her
clothes and going to wash them; in the meantime, she sat
there in her underwear. So, for clarification, what we did,
we told that agency, "When you take it, you've got to give
them something to cover themselves." An exchange of clothing
is not after you wash it, you do the exchange of clothing.
So, a change in standards for clarification came within us.
I have a commission that I report to. The commission will
adapt -- will take our recommendation. We adapt the
standards to clarify.
However, then you also have statutes created by the
Legislature. Legislature can always say -- for example,
there are some -- there's some facilities here in Texas we
can't touch because they only house federal prisoners, but
7-28-08
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
those facilities are contracting with county government.
Now, you ask me, as a former county official, if you -- if
Kerr County were to contract with a federal government just
to house nothing but federal prisoners, so you wouldn't make
money; you're drawing money, the extension of liability
extends to Kerr County. But some legislator was thinking
about some facility in his district that he wanted to make
sure that we couldn't touch, and they could operate any way
they want to, hire anybody they wanted to, not even be
certified jailers through training. So, thereby, we couldn't
touch them. That's horrible. But, nonetheless, that's a
statute that I've got to live with. Now, we're trying to
change that, because it shouldn't be any different, but those
are just two quick examples, for example. But they're driven
internally by us, or they're driven by state statute. Yes,
sir?
JUDGE TINLEY: With regard to the relaxation of --
of those standards that would significantly reduce the burden
on county taxpayers, let me ask you to look into your crystal
ball. If that -- if there were any appreciable reduction in
those standards, do you see those as passing muster with the
federal courts?
MR. MUNOZ: No, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. MUNOZ: No, sir, not at all.
7-28-08
56
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: So, basically, what we're looking at
MR. MUNOZ: Any time you relax --
JUDGE TINLEY: -- a requirement by federal courts.
MR. MUNOZ: Any time you relax, you know, somebody
-- somebody's going to file a lawsuit to challenge it. You
challenge it, the federal government is going to come in and
overtake it and say, "You're going to do it this way." Which
is exactly the reason the Texas Commission on Jail Standards
was created in 1975, is because of the state government -- as
you well remember, the state prison system was under control
by the federal government, 'cause they basically told them,
"You don't know how to run it." So, sheriffs and county
commissioners and courts throughout the state of Texas
decided, you know, that we need to set up an agency that we
can control -- or not we control, but we can create so it
will monitor Texas jails, so the federal government doesn't
come in and take over. Which is what this agency does. Yes,
Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The focus of most people's
attention with respect to tents seems to be Maricopa County,
Arizona. In your handout, on the last page, I note that you
tell us that -- apparently, I think you're telling us that
they -- Maricopa County spent $400 million to build a
building with 4,100 beds; is that correct?
7-28-08
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
MR. MUNOZ: That's correct. Yes, sir, that's the
number.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That tells me also that
Tent City in Arizona, if not now, will soon be a thing of the
past.
MR. MUNOZ: Well, not in Maricopa -- it could be,
depending on their local -- remember, now, what I said a
little while ago. They don't have any standards, so they can
keep them up as long as they want to. But they're also going
to continue to get sued as long as they want to.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If they're spending
$400 million on a building, would it seem to be
counterproductive to keep them outside if you've just built
a $400 million building.
MR. MUNOZ: But it is -- you know, that's -- this
is why -- for example, I'll give you a quick example. There
was a county in south Texas that just pushed and pushed and
pushed to build a jail -- I mean, excuse me, build a tent.
Ever since they built it and spent close to $275,000 to equip
it with air conditioning, to equip it with beds, equip it
with staffing and everything else, they haven't used it.
They took it down during the hurricane, 'cause they were
afraid it was going to wind up in Kerr County with the
hurricane. So, all I'm saying is, it's just not practical.
It can be used, but it's not practical. That's not -- that's
7-28-08
58
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
not your problem in Kerr County. Because, again, that's just
not the -- that's not the solution you're looking for.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And they can only be used
for one classification?
MR. MUNOZ: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And that classification is
some classification that we don't deal with on a regular
basis.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That classification is
minimum, and I normally won't have -- cause my outside
trustees normally have to be minimum. You won't have but
three to five that I can really fit into that classification,
or just not housing the minimums, you know.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If we have that -- have
those -- the numbers large enough to put a tent up, you still
have to air-condition it and heat it. And I remember back in
the olden days when we were talking about building jails,
that the lighting -- there was a certain amount of
candlelight that was required in those rooms so they can
read. And --
MR. MUNOZ: Everything you put -- everything you
I put --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So they can read the law and
sue us.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right.
7-28-08
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
MR. MUNOZ: Everything that you would have to build
around brick and mortar, that same thing you'll have to put
inside a tent, except in three years you're going to have to
take it down.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Then, after three years, you
got to take it down anyway.
MR. MUNOZ: Because it's supposed to provide a
temporary solution for you; it's not -- again, it's temporary
housing, tents. It's not permanent. So, again --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I'm with -- I'm with
all your friends and the Judge and this group here, saying
that if it's -- if tents are good enough for our military
people, it's damn sure good enough for these nuts. But the
law says, so we live by the law.
MR. MUNOZ: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And right now, the last
research I did, Maricopa County has paid out right at
$42 million in lawsuits that this county has paid, where
we're fortunate enough that our insurance deductible right
now for lawsuits is $10,000 dollars. The last I heard, when
Maricopa County can get insurance, their deductible is
normally a little over a million dollars per lawsuit, okay?
And, Sheriff Arpaio is considered the most sued sheriff in
the United States. Now, that's not counting the hundreds
7-28-08
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that are still out there that haven't even been heard yet.
MR. MUNOZ: Realizing also that the Sheriff from
Kerr County can do some of things that that sheriff can do;
he can give them pink underwear, give them all the other
things, but that's his desire. You know, but the tent
situation is just a libelous suggestion for you. That's the
best answer I can give you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. The pink underwear issue
doesn't reduce your costs.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, sir. The bottom line on
that is, they issue them underwear. We don't. You know,
they got to come with their own or pay it out of commissary
themselves. I'm not getting into pink underwear or any other
color, because we're not furnishing them to them.
JUDGE TINLEY: Now, that is a cost savings,
Sheriff.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's right.
MR. MUNOZ: There you go. Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions for Mr. Munoz?
MR. MUNOZ: Before I leave, I just want to -- some
of you might not have met -- Jackie Semmler is your local
inspector that inspects the Kerr County Jail. She's here
with me and in attendance today. I wanted some of you that
haven't met her -- she's been working for me now about six
months?
7-28-08
61
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. SEMMLER: Almost a year. Be a year --
MR. MUNOZ: Almost a year.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: She's the one we need to be
friends with.
MR. MUNOZ: Yes, sir, not me. Yes, sir.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Long as she's not on her way
out there right now.
MR. MUNOZ: She's a former jail administrator in
Burnet County and Callahan County. Very fortunate to have
her as one of my inspectors, and she is responsible over Kerr
~ County.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Fantastic.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Appreciate you coming down. I
was waiting for you to give us some kind of good news, some
of the -- some cost savings, some new thing we can build
that's not going to be very expensive. I guess you're just
going to tell us the bad news.
MR. MUNOZ: Well, you know, one of the things
that -- that, unfortunately, when we come from state
government, we don't bring a long-term solution. As someone
so adequately said a little while ago, however, we do try
to -- you know, having been a former sheriff, having been a
former vendor, and having worked in state government now my
second -- this is my second tour of state government. I used
to work for the governor; I used to work for the Attorney
7-28-08
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
62
in noncompliance; the other thing is, before we leave that
day, we're going to find you a probable solution to your
problem before we leave, because the quicker we can lessen
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Super.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: One question I would have.
Since we're at 192, we know some of the changes that would
take place, kind of like when the county hits 50,000
population. But once we go over 200 beds, besides the
recommendation of an infirmary, what other thing are we going
to have to consider with the addition of beds?
MR. MUNOZ: Just basically that, your infirmary.
Your medical situation is the only thing that basically
changes. That's one thing that y'all need to start looking
at also. In discussing it with the Sheriff, I realize you
have a multi-district District Judge situation where a lot of
your -- a lot of your prisoners sit in your jail a long
period of time. That's what's creating your jail
7-28-08
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
you need to try and maybe think about getting -- hiring a
consultant to do an in-depth study of your county criminal
justice system, because we can do a facility needs
assessment. We can tell you you're going to need 220 beds --
I'll just pick a number -- by next year, but that number is
also driven by the number of how quickly you get your
prisoners in and out of jail.
You can get folks to come in here and do an
in-depth study. And, trust me, I'm not promoting the private
sector, but I do know that we cannot do the in-depth study
for you. What these guys will come in here and do, they'll
study the relationship between your County Attorney, your
Sheriff, your District Attorney, your District Judges, your
District Clerk, and so forth and so on, to try and come up
with a problem solution. One of the counties that comes to
mind real quick is Midland County. Midland County are
shipping out anywhere from 30 to 50, 60 people a day.
They're now under capacity, just because of the way their
revamped structure -- how that works in the criminal justice
7-28-08
64
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
I5
16
17
18
I9
20
21
22
23
24
25
system.
I work.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Be wonderful if that would
MR. MUNOZ: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do you have some -- or can you
get some consulting firms that do that type of --
i
MR. MUNOZ: We can give you -- for example, we can
give you a list of three or four or five, and then after
that, it's up to you.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I picked up one the other day
that I can give you the information on, that were at the
sheriffs' deal last week.
JUDGE TINLEY: This might be also an appropriate
place to mention, as it concerns our jail inspection, I know
in the majority of the past several years, I've been present
for at least a portion of that, and the Sheriff has done an
excellent job, and I'm sure if those scores have been
reviewed, he ranks right up there at the top with all of the
inspections that occur in this state. I've heard him issue a
challenge to your inspector when the inspector comes on-site,
"I dare you to find something."
MR. MUNOZ: Well, you know what? And that's a good
feeling. I'll guarantee you, my inspectors get a real good
feeling if they come in a facility that's well run, and that
all comes back to how your sheriff manages. Not only do you
7-28-08
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
have an excellent sheriff -- and I'm not saying that because
I'm sitting in Kerr County and don't want to get a ticket.
You've got an excellent sheriff that cares, and this county's
also got a jail administrator that cares about the jail, and
that reflects on down --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
MR. MUNOZ: -- down the line to the personnel. If
you got a good sheriff, a good jail administrator -- I've got
counties, I guarantee you, they couldn't care less, and they
think that we're the enemy; we're only there to zap them and
so forth and so on. But if you've got good management style,
you'll have a safe jail, I guarantee you. Considering what
you have to work with, and including -- I'm sure you've got
turnover.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Oh, yeah.
MR. MUNOZ: You know, turnover is horrible. You
know, and in a jail, it's just --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You've said enough about him.
You can go ahead and go. (Laughter.)
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Let him keep talking. It's
about time.
MR. MUNOZ: Talking like a former sheriff.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: One thing y'all will notice on
this handout is -- the one that -- the one I printed up that
I've given each of y'all. If you look at it, you'll see
7-28-08
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
confinements here. This is today's population as of this
morning, and how many days each of those inmates individually
has has been combined in our jail, and you'll see that it is
a court problem that we have in this county.
MR. TROLINGER: That's a report from our Odyssey
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But you will see, these aren't
-- it's not a misdemeanor problem. This is our district --
it's a district court problem. Rex does too good at moving
them through; they have court every week. It's our other
ones that are -- are really going to cause us to spend
millions if they don't start doing something, moving these
inmates through.
MR. MUNOZ: Also what's going to happen, instead of
you taking contract prisoners, you're going to have to be
shipping them out, because, again, unfortunately, that's
where we come in. If we come in and find a classification
problem, we're going tell the Sheriff, "You got to move them,
put them somewhere else," and you'll be paying -- Smith
County in east Texas is paying a million dollars a year.
They're the tax base for Gregg County, the other county
involved.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And Jackie will love to hear
7-28-08
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
Jackie, but the issue we have been having is we have 32
female beds also, and when I have 30 females -- and the
female beds are eight-person blocks, so there's four of them.
And if you have 30 of them, you can't separate them out,
classify them correctly in reality, 'cause you only have four
places to go, and there's too much overlapping.
MR. MUNOZ: Females have always wanted a place at
the table. They have found it in most jails.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any more questions for Mr. Munoz?
We thank you for being here with us, sir.
MR. MUNOZ: Thank y'all very much. Appreciate it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Appreciate your cooperation.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a 10:30 item that I'd like
to go ahead and get done very quickly, if we could, or
reasonably quickly. Item 8, consider, discuss and take
appropriate action regarding the collection of delinquent
court fines and fees from County Court at Law, County Court,
and District Court, and other related issues. Commissioner
Oehler?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I believe Ms. Sue is here to
stand up and give us a little presentation, and --
MS. GLOVER: I am. Good morning, everyone. Rex
and Steve --
JUDGE TINLEY: You need to identify yourself for
7-28-08
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
the record.
'~ MS. GLOVER: I'm Sue Glover. I'm with Perdue,
Brandon, Fielder, Collins, and Mott. And we were here
several weeks ago, as y'all remember, and there were some
questions about our contract and making it more permissive
for those county offices to participate in the collection
program. And so Steve Lee with our office and Rex redid the
contract, and I think it is suitable now to everyone, in that
it is very permissive. And so y'all aren't -- although you
really couldn't, anyway; you can't act and make the J.P.'s
turn over their accounts or turn -- make the County Court
turn over their accounts, but the contract now just reads a
little clearer, and I think will be acceptable to everyone.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'll move approval of the
contract with -- with Perdue, Brandon, Fielder, Collins, and
Mott, for collection of delinquent --
JUDGE TINLEY: Fines and fees.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- fines and fees for the
court.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Rex, is everyone comfortable
with what "delinquent" is, as per that -- that language?
MR. EMERSON: I couldn't tell you if everybody's
comfortable or not. I can tell you the term was identified,
and that, just as she presented, it was -- the contract was
relaxed to give pure autonomy to any elected official to turn
7-28-08
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
over cases or not.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. And to turn over the
cases, and to choose what cases to turn over, et cetera? You
know, when you were here before, we had a brand-new employee.
MS. GLOVER: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And that was my hesitancy,
that we just wasn't ready to do that. But I think that we
are now, and I'm excited about this. And I think that she --
I can't speak for her, but the -- the department head has a
clear understanding of how that works and what -- what is --
can be handed over to you and what can't, and et cetera and
so forth. So, I'm certainly in favor of it. And I think
that there maybe are some -- right or wrong, that there are
some that you're willing to turn over pretty quick, huh?
MS. LYLE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Was that a second?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right. We have a motion and a
second.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: The longest second I ever
heard.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any question or discussion on the
motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your
right hand.
7-28-08
70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Ms. Glover,
thank you for being here.
MS. GLOVER: Thank y'all.
JUDGE TINLEY: We're going to take about a
15-minute recess. When we come back, I hope to address Item
Number 13. We'll be in recess for about 15 minutes.
(Recess taken from 10:32 a.m. to 10:50 a.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to order. We
were in recess for a short period of time. I'd like to go to
Item 13, if I might. We have a number of folks here for that
item. That item is presentation to the Court of a draft of
the City of Kerrville and Kerr County Economic Development
Incentive Policy. I put this on the agenda -- let me first
give a little history, if I might. As I'm sure the members
of the Court and some of the public recall, back in the
summer of '06, the City of Kerrville and Kerr County, by
joint resolution, authorized the development of a joint City
of Kerrville/Kerr County Economic Development Strategic Plan.
Pursuant to that resolution, a committee went to work, which
I was privileged to chair, and with the help of a -- I'm
going to say internationally known consultant, we developed,
7-28-08
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
71
and this Court, and again, by joint resolution, the strategic
plan was approved and adopted. And as part of that
resolution, there was a call, as suggested in the strategic
plan, for the formation of an incentives committee, an
resolution that approved the strategic plan incorporated the
creation of that incentives committee.
The committee was composed of nine members. There
were six of them that were identified not by name, but by
office, those offices consisting of Kerr County Judge, City
Manager of the City of Kerrville, president of the Economic
~ Improvement Corporation, the president of the Kerrville/Kerr
County Area Chamber of Commerce, Kerr Economic Development
Foundation president, and the mayor or his designee of the
City of Ingram. That group -- that core group was then
tasked with the responsibility of appointing three other
members to that committee, so that it comprised a total of
nine members. That committee was formed and began work in
7-28-08
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
there was a draft of that plan -- a draft, I want to
emphasize, that was presented to the City Council of the City
of Kerrville, and we are presenting that draft to you here
today.
I have a number of the members of that committee
Commerce. Mr. Warren Ferguson, a community representative on
that committee. Mindy Wendele, who was a very valuable
resource to that committee, and I think got tasked with a
good deal of the heavy lifting, and we appreciate that. And
then we have Guy Overby with the Kerr Economic Development
Foundation on the committee also. But with that
introduction, I'd like to now turn it over to Guy Overby with
KEDF for a short presentation.
MR. OVERBY: Thank you, Judge and County
Commissioners. Good to be with you today. I was glad that
the Judge -- I know he briefed you on some of the history of
the Economic Development Strategic Plan. I also want to take
it back even a couple years before the strategic plan. I've
kept this in this file, and it's constantly a reminder to us,
7-28-08
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
incentives to help expansion of businesses and operations in
Kerr County, and it urged KEDF to help in that and lead in
those responsibilities of working with economic partners.
I'm pleased today to come to you and present to you, again,
as the Judge has said, a draft of recommendations that could
fulfill that order that you had requested back in 2004. I
know that seems like a long time, but we have covered a lot
of extensive base to get there, and I think that the drafted
document that we have today is a very positive move for our
community.
As the Judge has said, this is a draft. The
you unanimously supported took their job very seriously. We
have looked at 12 different other communities, counties,
cities in our area to look at what type of incentives were
out there to help encourage business development and
expansion opportunities. We wanted to be sure what we were
offering were incentives that would help in those areas, but
we wanted to know what -- what we would be offering as far as
helping those developments. If you -- one of the things that
was called for in the economic development strategic plan
as we started talking about incentive development was to be
7-28-08
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
sure that we weren't giving away the farm in Kerrville and
Kerr County. We do have that quality of life that we have
business opportunities in our community.
If you would go to Page 2 -- and, again, I don't
mean to belabor a lot of things. I want to hit highlights
with you today. Even since this last draft, in the last
week, we've framed some different document and wording on
some of the draft that will be final -- in its final
presentation we hope to get along here pretty soon. But on
Page 2, I want to read just some of the procedures and how
the scoring of incentives would be, and it will talk about
some of those and how they would apply. The procedure, the
City of Kerrville Business Programs, under Kerr Economic
Development Foundation, will accept applications for projects
at any time. Applications will not be considered until
complete. Applications must be available to present projects
to the full membership of the incentive committee, or
designated subcommittee of the incentive committee, or both,
as the Judge has clearly identified those members.
Eligible projects can be projects within the city
of limits of Kerrville and within Kerr County. Applicants
7-28-08
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
on capital -- a return on investment calculation, job
creation impact analysis, and tax base adjustments, so that
we can look at what type of jobs, what type of wages, what
type of capital investment's going to be invested in our
community. If an applicant cannot make an economic
development argument along with one or more of the above
mentioned priorities or strategies, the applicant need not
apply, as the projects will not be processed. It is not the
intent of the policy to consider a project that is already
underway as originally planned when application is received.
The scoring of points, as our incentive committee
looked at the scoring, how we would evaluate, we found the
way that we wanted to score and the recommendation that we
would present to our government entities is that we wanted to
score it on 50 percent of capital investment and 50 percent
on workforce or wages in our community. Basically, each
project will be scored on a case-by-case basis, considering
added value and/or jobs created. Scoring weights for the
capital investment will be a maximum of 50 percent of the
7-28-08
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
total score, and wage and workforce, as I said, will be a
combined score of 50 percent. Large projects that are over
incentives in that situation. And what would happen, again,
the project is considered to be -- among other things, a
project is considered to be a target industry type if it fits
within the economic development strategic plan approved by
the Kerrville City Council and Kerrville County Commissioners
a unique contribution to the economy, development,
redevelopment, tourism, or employment opportunities.
As we go through, you're going to see on Pages 3
and through 4, 5, and 6, but 3, 6, and 7, there are different
ways of -- different opportunities that may be created
through incentives that may be necessary in different areas.
We're going to -- they could be coming through unidentified
areas, maybe through the Kerrville Enterprise Zone. There
may be some airport development areas that are designated.
There may be some reinvestment zones that would be identified
that we would use some of those tools in. And then there are
also available to our government entities several incentive
tools, but I'm going to speak specifically on one here in
just a moment. That would be a major tool that you would
7-28-08
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
consider as far as our economic incentive policy or
recommendations would be.
'~ But I do want to mention some of the other
incentive tools that government entities have. Of course,
the 4B sales tax is a great incentive in our community.
That's the half-cent sales tax that's accepted -- that's
collected here in city limits, but it's used on projects in
and out of Kerrville and Kerr County, like the Hill Country
Shooting Sports Center. Some other things could be waiver of
fees, especially -- that would be, like, from the City of
Kerrville. Other incentives would be like the state
increment financing, such as a TIF, a Section 380 grant.
Those are just some of those incentives that could be used.
And then, of course, other examples of incentives could be
the Freeport exemption that sets out -- like at the airport,
and some other things that the governor may have, like the
Texas Enterprise Fund, Texas Leverage Fund, et cetera. But
today we're going to talk about abatements. I know you hear
the word "abatements," and sometimes people go, "Oh,"
especially, you know, in your communities. But we would want
to use that as incentives, is what we're looking at.
Again, I want to come back to the point we talked
about earlier, that our -- our strategic plan and our
economic incentives committee -- again, remembering that
we're not trying to give away the farm, but we're trying to
7-28-08
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
encourage opportunities to help our capital investment and
our wages in our community. If you would go to Page 4 -- and
I know that we're coming back here, but I want to kind of go
investment, basically, we look at how we would score one
point for every $200,000 invested. Basically, you would cap
out at 15 points for capital improvement. The total maximum
score that you would score on an application would be 30
points, 15 points on capital investment and the other 15
points is going to come from wages and workforce training
investment in your community. So, those are the two scales
that we're going to have, but when we look at capital
investment, $200,000 of investment, capped at 3 million for
new -- for a business expansion opportunity, could get them
15 points in the scoring system. One point will be scored
for every 10 permanent, full-time, qualified employees who
are going to be compensated at 50 percent of what our current
wages are in our community and what the state income is right
now per job.
Right now in Kerr County, our wages per full-time
job is at 71 percent of what the state level is. What we're
trying to do to our businesses that want to expand or they're
trying to grow here -- and we know that they can't close that
wage gap from 71 percent, where we are now, to 100 percent,
7-28-08
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
going to be a scoring point for them, as far as helping their
business with those scoring points for that project. I also
want to mention to you that for businesses that have maybe
five employees or seven employees -- let's say five, for
example. Let's say that they're adding two jobs to their
company. We see that as a 40 percent growth. And if they're
going to be paying those wages and they're going to help
close that gap in our area here, that's just as significant
as a big company that's coming in on a bigger scale, and
we're obviously going to give them an incentive to try to
help their business to grow and expand in our area.
We need to remember that 85 percent of our growth
growth is going to be coming from the guys that are here,
that are established, that are trying to grow to that next
tier, and we need to be doing incentives to help them grow as
far as those can be reached. So, with that, if we look at
employees, they could score up to 10 points for jobs that
they have, as far as what they're adding. And then, also,
workforce development, they can score 5 points for every
$25,000 invested in workforce training. Coming next month --
gosh, Friday is August, so it's next month -- you're going to
see -- if you haven't read the newspaper, I know you guys
7-28-08
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
pretty well know what's going on. The Alamo Community
College District, with Kerrville Independent School District,
will be starting a community college basically here on the
temporary building on Sidney Baker, the old math building,
science building at Tivy High School, and then would be
looking at a permanent facility at the old Tivy Elementary
School in the '09-'10 year. But what we're looking at there
is, we're also going to have some college courses there to
help folks to get -- get part of the associate's degree --
We're trying to -- we have 40 percent of our kids
who are not going on to get further education. We're trying
to give them opportunities to get some education and
workforce training. And some of the workforce training that
we're already starting to look at for this year that will be
in place will be health care, will be the C.N.A. program,
which is not -- which will complement the L.V.N. and R.N.
program at Schreiner University, welding classes, and
construction classes, and so some of those courses we're
going to start putting in. So, we're starting to teach
safety courses, the basic courses, blueprint reading and all
those things, and keep continually building that way. But
our investment's here. If a company is wanting to expand or
~-ae-os
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
If an application comes in and scores less than 10
their current bases here that are expanding, a business
expansion opportunity here, we've geared our incentives to
really maximize the businesses that are here currently. So,
I know a lot of folks say, you know, "Well, maybe this is
just gearing for new businesses." Actually, it's a better
incentive for our existing businesses. And so what we've
done for business expansion opportunities, those businesses
that score between 11 and 15 points, which qualify for -- and
we have two scales of abatements that we would recommend to
you. There is a five-year abatement scale, and then if they
score between 16 and 30 points on their application, they
could score a seven-year type of abatement schedule. And
then new businesses, 11 to 18 would score -- it would be a
five-year abatement; 19 to 24 would be seven, and 25 to 30
would be reviewed, as we talked about earlier. There would
be clawbacks, and there would be performances that they would
have to meet. Those would be placed in the contract -- that
7-28-08
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
commitment would be in the community.
On Page 11 -- I'll try to move this as quickly
along as we can. I don't want to take all your time, but I
do think it's very important to kind of give you the basis of
it. When we're looking at businesses that are expanding
here, the minimum capital investment for business expansion
today for this incentive to apply would be $500,000. It's a
half a million dollars. Basically, when we look at that,
they can score 10 points for a business expansion right off
the bat for that kind of investment scoring in our community.
A half million dollars. For a new business coming in, it
would be 750,000. Again, with the scale on Page 11, when you
look at a maximum incentive of 15 points, it would be capped
at 3 million. And then, of course, the other points that
would be scored would be workforce training, workforce
development, to give that possible maximum scoring of 30
points. And the same thing would be on Page 12.
What I would like to do very quickly is just kind
of give you a hypothetical situation, an example of how a
business expansion opportunity would happen. Actually, the
two examples that we're going to give to you are two true
stories in the Kerrville area. Here is an example here on
Page 12 where a business owner currently owns 4 acres of
land. His current facility is 7,500 square feet. His
company is employing 15 workers in our community. They pay
7-28-08
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
83
to know what type of -- through their application, what their
scoring might be for those incentives. The company is --
what they're telling you, what they would like to do is they
would like to expand their current site with an additional
12,500 square feet. The company wants to add 20 more
employees, and increase their wages to $14 an hour, with an
average salary of 29,120. And the company has also mentioned
to us that if they're successful in expanding their business
here, that they possibly may have a supplier company that may
be moving into our community also. And the company says, "We
want to invest in workforce training, $25,000."
And so, with that, our incentives committee could
we could review and recommend the following. We know that
with the expansion of 12,500 square feet and building at $125
a square foot, we're looking at about $1.5 million, and
basically how we would score that, we would give them 10
points for the first 500,000 automatically, and then we --
remember, we have a cap of 3 million. And from 500,000 to
3 million, every -- from that situation, every 500,000 up,
they're going to get a point, 'cause we're going to give them
7-28-08
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
84
So, with a $1.5 million investment, they get two additional
points, so they would be scored 12 points on Page 13, as far
as that scoring is concerned. As far as wages and workforce
closing on our salaries in our community. They would be
scored 15 points, and therefore, the incentive committee
could recommend the following to our government entities as
They would qualify, back on Page 4, in the 11- to
15-point scoring system, and they would come in on a
five-year abated scale. How that would be broken down in the
five-year scale you see on Page 13. We would recommend a
40 percent, 30, 20, 10 percent case scenario over the five
years, with the maximum one and two. On Page 14, as far as
the Kerr County tax abatement or incentive, I know that we
can say that for the company, this particular situation, over
five years, the total new tax created would have been
$28,000. The County's incentives to that company would have
been about 7,900. Kerr County's new tax revenue with that
current business expansion would have been about $20,000.
And then, of course, the City of Kerrville would have their
numbers also plugged in with that. I remind you that the
Kerrville Independent School District is not allowed by law
7-28-08
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
to participate in those type of incentives. And so, again,
what we're looking at here as far as what we have as
incentives, that would be for our government entities.
The following on Page 14 is an example of a
business attraction or a new business to our community.
You'll see some of the names that we use on there. Sometimes
you've got to be creative in what you're thinking about. The
name of this example here was the Ichabod Crane Company
requested tax abatement to develop a new retail location in
Kerrville/Kerr County. They have requested economic
incentives. This is the business data that they have shared
with us. The company has acquired 35 acres at an
intersection near two major highways with high traffic
volume. The company purchased agricultural-exempt property
for $2 million for new development. The company store will
be 95,000 square feet; they got a sweet deal where they're
going to be doing the construction cost at $40 a square foot.
The company will employ 120 employees. And I want to mention
this right here. Of the 120 employees that are employed,
5 percent of the employees will be management and have an
annual salary of 50,000; 40 percent, or 46 of the employees,
would have a wage of $10 an hour, or $21,000 annual, but they
will have medical coverage. But 68 of the employees will
have an average wage of $10 per hour, but part-time jobs.
The company also tells us, well, they want to be
7-28-08
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
86
in our community of 15 points. In this scenario, because the
jobs that they're creating in our community do not help us
with our wages and closing the gap that we're doing in our
community -- actually, it's putting more of a strain on our
workforce training investment in our community. So,
therefore, what we would recommend to the Crane Company would
be, again, a five-year abatement to them scaled out with 15
points. Basically, how that would look as far as the Kerr
County incentives would be, basically, new tax created over
the five years would have been $68,250. The incentive given
to them would have been $19,110 from Kerr County, and the new
tax revenue for the county would have been $49,140.
Basically, if we had taken what also they had received from
the City, their total incentive would have been about $45,000
as far as that's concerned.
Just a couple of other closing things. I did want
Page 16 was another example of how incentives might be given,
7-28-08
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
87
just wanted to -- to state to you today that, again, the
committee has done a lot of work, and they have really taken
their challenge as far as what the incentives committee is
type of information as far as what we can do for incentives.
We can carry that into the housing and different things that
we're looking at. And -- and the good thing about this type
of incentive recommendation to you today is that it will be
reviewed annually and it can be adjusted as we need to as we
go by. But we've looked at a lot of things here as far as
investment and job creation or in our community. And with
that, I'll be quiet. Thank you, Judge.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Guy?
JUDGE TINLEY: Questions?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is -- is this -- how does this
MR. OVERBY: I would -- and, Commissioner Letz, as
earlier before, I said that we had talked with 12 others. I
would say that our draft is -- I wouldn't say that it's
very -- very on the top end of that. In fact, I think that
we have -- this committee and our community, we've taken it
to the point where it's really a very good incentive and a
7-28-08
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
good document for our community, and to encourage business
expansion. I mean, we have -- we have looked at several
communities. We wanted to make sure that we weren't out of
line with what we were doing. We wanted to be very
pro-economic development in our communities, but keep that
same type of quality of life that we have -- you know, what
we have in our communities, but we also needed to make sure
that we invest back in our workforce, because the workforce
issue for us needs to be our incentive that we're looking at.
We're not going to solve our workforce issues outside of Kerr
County. We're going to have to do it internally, and with
programs like the K.I.S.D. with A.C.C.D., that helps Center
Point, Ingram, our folks in Hunt, everybody. You know, we
got to make sure those incentives can help that. And so I
think that our document -- I'd like to say that we're on the
-- the cutting edge, really, of where we need to be as far as
incentives, and to offer that type of stimulus in our
community.
JUDGE TINLEY: Essentially, we're competitive.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I commend you and the
committee for their development of this draft. I like what I
see. I do have a question. Inasmuch as the Airport Board
seems to be heading for total independence, we believe, and
that they are, in fact, the keepers of the airport master
plan, would it not be appropriate in the review process for
7-28-08
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
the Airport Board to be a part of the review process for
anything the that takes place on the airport?
MR. OVERBY: I would think so. As far as sharing
this information with them?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, I'm talking about -- I
was looking at procedure, and --
MR. OVERBY: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- those who would be
involved in the review process.
MR. OVERBY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The airport master plan is
a separate document, and it is -- and it is commissioned by
the Airport Board.
MR. OVERBY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And administered by the
Airport Board. My question is, should they not have -- have
a piece of the review process for anything that takes place
on the airport? Just a thought.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me see if I can -- I think I
know where you're coming from. I think, necessarily, the
Airport Board -- when a proposal is submitted to the Airport
Board, for example, on some of their -- their facilities out
there, or a new building to be constructed, there's
necessarily going to have to be involvement with the
incentives committee, and I know that, internally, the -- the
7-28-08
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
Airport Board could offer some incentives of their own.
Reduced lease rate for an initial period of time, or some
other -- some other creative method of trying to get
development out there at that airport. But I see that there
would necessarily be, at the very least, an informational
exchange as between the Airport Board and the incentives
committee. I -- I just don't see it happening without that
if it involves the airport.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's really my concern.
I want to make sure they're involved in the review process.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Any other questions for --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Let's go back to the
Crane Company.
MR. OVERBY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They have created 120 new
jobs.
MR. OVERBY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And the percentage of the
abatement through the years goes down from 40 percent down to
10 percent through five years, --
MR. OVERBY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- is what I'm understanding
here. Now, is that -- is that an automatic number? It's
built into the original agreement? Or is it tied in any way
to productivity? In other words -- in other words, if they
7-28-08
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
say they're going to create 120 new jobs -- see, I've been
hung up for years in this thing. If they don't create 120
jobs, you don't get the full deal, cowboy.
MR. OVERBY: Well, that's correct, Commissioner.
And in this particular example here, the jobs didn't score
any incentive, so, basically, that wasn't even considered.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see.
MR. OVERBY: Because they were -- actually were
causing more of a barrier in our community, because they were
not increasing the wages. They were bringing jobs, but they
were jobs that were actually putting more of a strain on our
local community, so we didn't even scale that 120 in that
situation.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see that. Very good.
MR. OVERBY: And there would be clawbacks in that
scale that you're talking about, Commissioner. They have to
adhere to those -- those numbers.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I thought I heard you say
that early on, but I wasn't sure.
MR. OVERBY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I went into a coma there for
a minute.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On Page 2, under the procedure,
the City of Kerrville Business Programs, what is that? The
applications, how -- who decides who handles the proposal? I
7-28-08
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
mean, how -- who is running with it?
MR. OVERBY: I think in this -- Commissioner, in
this example here is -- is where they can drop those -- they
can pick up an application and where they can be dropped off
at, in this particular question right -- that first line
there. So, a lot of times, like in my office at the Economic
Development office, we're going to have -- I'm going to say
we're going to have a good majority of the folks, when they
first come in to get connected in the community, we're going
to help. That's what our job is to do. I think a lot of
times, if they're coming in, they're wanting to know what
incentives would be there. In that situation, we would
accept those applications on behalf of the incentive
committee, and so that's how that process would go. So, it
may go to Mindy's office. They may come downtown. They may
be a Main Street business downtown who's filled out an
application and submitted it to her office, and then the
committee would come back and review that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, the incentives committee
reviews all the applications regardless of where it is,
whether it's city or county?
MR. OVERBY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or a combination?
MR. OVERBY: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Then they make a
7-28-08
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
recommendation to the appropriate agency?
MR. OVERBY: That's correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any more questions for Mr. Overby?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just one quickie, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Sure.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Who are Community
Representatives 1 and 2? What is that designation all about?
JUDGE TINLEY: Great question. Diane Green and
Dr. Dan Troxel are the other two community members on the
committee. I apologize for omitting that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: They're the other two.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: As has been pointed out, this is
given to you for informational purposes. At this time, it is
a draft. As recently as last Friday, we -- we did some
restructuring and a few other things, and the substantive
portions of the draft will likely not change much, if at all.
We're trying to organize the document to make it flow a
little better and to make it more understandable, but it is a
draft, and there will be corrections or will be changes. And
we know, as the process goes on, that it's not going to be
perfect. We're going to have to -- we're going to have to
make changes as we go. We hope to bring the final document
back to you for consideration and approval, along with the
7-28-08
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
Kerrville City Council, in early September. That's -- that's
the timeline that we've got built in, so we want to give you
as much heads up on it as we can. As we rework these drafts,
we'll get them to you, and -- but we'll be coming to you for
final approval in the not-too-distant future.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, the court order went out
in 2004 for y'all to do this. Let's see, that's 2004 --
MR. OVERBY: I know.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me do some math here.
And then this report -- I understood you to say the report --
this report came out in January, and here we are right in the
middle of the budget. Let me think how this works. Is there
any relationship at all?
JUDGE TINLEY: No, sir. No, sir, there's not.
Actually, the -- this whole process did not begin until the
summer of '06.
MR. OVERBY: That's correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: When we launched the serious effort
on economic development to develop the strategic plan. That
took a year and a half, and then the resolution which
approved it in February created this committee of -- in this
year, and this is what we're coming with. I think rather
quickly, as a matter of fact.
MR. OVERBY: I would say a lot of the other
communities that we reviewed, to take the time that we've
7-28-08
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
done, I know it sounds -- Commissioner, that sounds like a
long time, but to do the strategic plan and to encompass
everybody and to have kind of a unified deal for economic
development, I think it speaks volumes for our area.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Appreciate your work.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, any suggestions that
we might have with respect to this while it's still in draft
form, do we channel them through you?
JUDGE TINLEY: Absolutely. Absolutely. The
committee -- we've been meeting twice a month. We've been
destroying everybody's Friday mornings, and -- and
essentially taken all Friday morning twice a month. And
we'll meet again first -- second Friday, I guess, in August,
and we'll look at what we did last Friday, which was -- there
were some significant changes; not really that substantive,
but from an organizational and clarification standpoint. But
we just want you to be in the loop, and as we get additional
drafts, we'll provide them to you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Very good.
JUDGE TINLEY: Appreciate you gentlemen being here.
And, Mindy, thank you for being here. I failed to mention
that Mindy's the Director of Business Programs for the City
of Kerrville, and that's why she's one of the other two
natural conduits for this process to get initiated in, both
through Mr. Overby at KEDF or with Mindy as Director of
~-2s-os
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
Business Programs, if they're coming through the -- through
the city channels. And that's how these things normally
originate, and they'll probably be the lead persons in all
this, naturally. Thank you. Appreciate you being here.
Okay. Now we can get back to where we were. Item
5; consider, discuss, take appropriate action to release the
Letter of Credit Number 7080351 for the roads in Estates of
Johnson Creek, and located in Precinct 4. Good morning.
MS. HOFER: I'm Kelly Hofer with Road and Bridge.
I'm filling in for Leonard this morning. The road in the
Estates of Johnson Creek has been completed, inspected, and
approved for some time. It is a private road and will not be
maintained by Kerr County. Therefore, the Letter of Credit
Number 7080351 for $7,110 should be released.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item to release the letter of credit.
Question or discussion on that motion? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. We'll move
to Item 9; consider, discuss, take appropriate action to
7-28-08
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
approve the Maintenance Department to go out for bids on
three interior walls for the maintenance shop at 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.
Commissioner Oehler?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I talked to Tim about it.
We've had this in the plans for quite a while. The slab has
been poured, and feel like we ought to go out for bids to get
this maintenance shop closed in with the doors and all. And
I asked Tim to go out and figure up -- figure out what he
wanted, and then we'll put the specifications if it's
approved and go out for bids to be constructed, the walls.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My only question is, is there
any way we can add more to this? 'Cause this -- because if
we're doing this bit by bit, every time we do it, we have to
have a formal, full presentation, and it costs the government
money. Can't we combine more bidding, rather than just three
doors?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, it's three walls and
three doors.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: This is to close it in, and
that is all -- it will be all of that project.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It is?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: There's nothing else to do
7-28-08
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
until we get ready to do some more substantial work, like on
the concession.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How's this tie in with the
fair people's desire to have storage space?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think the next item
addresses that. They're already -- they already have a bid
in-hand, and they're closing in their portion, and we thought
it would be a good idea maybe to do it all at the same time.
And if it happened to be the same contractor, fine, but if we
get a -- a better figure when we go out for bids -- but
they're the next item, is to --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: These three items are going
to be over 25,000?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: No, but the whole project's
going to total out close to that, and that's where we get
into trouble if we don't bid.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Even though we're doing it
in-house, most -- a lot of it in-house, the whole project, I
think every time we buy a light bulb, we got to bid.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Is that right, Mr. County
Attorney?
MR. EMERSON: Short of light bulbs, yes.
(Laughter.)
JUDGE TINLEY: When in doubt?
MR. EMERSON: Yes, sir.
7-28-08
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
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And this is not -- I don't
think the bid process is going to be -- it's not a big -- a
big deal. The specs are very simple.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's just every time we do it,
we have to advertise in the paper, and that's the cost part
of it.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That keeps us out of jail and
maybe still here in the job that we presently have.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval.
JUDGE TINLEY: Stated very bluntly.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I second it.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and a second 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 carries. We'll go to
Item 10; consider, discuss, take appropriate action to
approve reimbursement to the Kerr County Fair Association for
one-half of the interior wall at Hill Country Youth Exhibit
Center. Commissioner Oehler?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Mr. Bollier, it's your turn.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
~-zs-os
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
MR. BOLLIER: Well, we're -- the shop -- where our
maintenance shop is, it's in the middle. The Fair
Association is on the river side. And when they get through,
whoever's going to do their wall work is going to come in
there and put all four walls in there, and that wall
separates us from them. So, what I'm asking is for us to
help them pay for half of that.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, we got a common wall with the
Fair Association?
MR. BOLLIER: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: You want to split the cost of that
wall? We're going to do three of our own walls on the last
item, and we're going to split the cost, is what you're
asking, for the fourth wall?
MR. BOLLIER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's what the Fair
Association contacted us and asked, for us to please do that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And I --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You need a court order to do
that?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, if we're going to spend
money on it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'll make the motion to
7-28-08
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
ahold of and raise funds and all that all the time, but I --
I don't think that's the correct way to run a government.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Could this fee be used to
offset some of the, I guess, entities that we fund through
the County-sponsored, like this -- I'm looking at the child
abuse stuff and some of that stuff that the County Judge
does. Can we use that as a source to fund that?
JUDGE TINLEY: The information from TexDOT says
this fee is used for providing school crossing guard
services, and I don't know that we provide any of that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Our constables do that some.
JUDGE TINLEY: With remaining money used for
programs to enhance child safety, health, or nutrition,
including child abuse intervention and prevention and drug
and alcohol abuse prevention.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All on 50 cents, huh?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, or up to a dollar and a half.
What is our -- what is our $10 -- how much money does that
raise, off the top of your head, if you know?
MS. BOLIN: Not off the top of my head, I don't
know, but I know that it's --
JUDGE TINLEY: How many vehicles do we register a
year in this county?
MS. BOLIN: We register about 55,000.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Half a million bucks.
7-28-08
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
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's half a million
dollars. Over half.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, a dollar is going to make,
you know, --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 55,000.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- $55,000.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Wouldn't you think that it
it would be good to have some kind of -- some -- somebody coming
forward asking for money for a specific purpose before we
implement it?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We do it now. We do it every
~ year.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'm talking about the $1.50
i maximum.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean the --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Child safety.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm saying we're already doing
the alcohol and child abuse -- the Judge's stuff.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have some -- I'm going to call
them social service agencies, for lack of a better term, that
we provide funding to, primarily because they provide
services to our courts, a lot of them dealing with -- with
children and others dealing with children and adults.
Literacy, for example.
7-28-08
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
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, will this help to
offset the cost to the taxpayers as far as the property tax
issue goes? Rather than having to pay it out of what we get
in property taxes, this fund established at a dollar per
registration could go toward paying those services?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Yeah, it --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's a tax to residents, but
we'd change it from property tax to vehicle tax.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: What about the D.A.R.E.
program? The County doesn't pay for much of it, except for
the salary of the officer that instructs that; pay that
year-round. Can that be used to pay that salary?
JUDGE TINLEY: I want to go look at the specific
statute before I make any specific commitments. What I --
what I just mentioned was from the TexDOT transmittal, where
they talk about what these funds can be used for. But --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not a huge amount of money, but
it -- you know, the $10,000, $15,000 we send to some of the
agencies --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Does this require us to
provide the service, Judge, or could we fund -- use these
dollars to fund other agencies that do currently provide
those services?
JUDGE TINLEY: Without looking at the specific
statute, I couldn't tell you. I would suspect that as long
7-28-08
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
as you expended it to an agency that provided those services,
you're probably going to be okay, though.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It also could be -- I mean, I'm
just thinking again, without looking at the details -- some
of the work that Ms. Lavender does, doesn't she get involved
with a lot of child abuse and situations like that? I mean,
that's crime --
JUDGE TINLEY: Crime victims.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Crime victims. A lot of that
which it's always hard to find a source of revenue for.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What about child welfare?
The Child Welfare Board.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, it's just --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But, you know, I would hate
to see us adopt something, then we -- we're not sure that we
can use it for that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree with that. We need to
make sure --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do we have to do it today?
JUDGE TINLEY: No. No.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can we ask the County
Attorney to tell us?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, we sure could.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He knew that was coming.
7-28-08
106
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
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Be a great idea to find out
what we're going to use it for before we just all of a sudden
start charging a fee.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree.
JUDGE TINLEY: There is a requirement that we
notify TexDOT by September lst of each year whether or not
we'll stick with what we got, or we're going to do something
different.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: September 1.
JUDGE TINLEY: So we do have the time, if you want
to pass it.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: First meeting in August?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sure.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You didn't know that was
coming.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: He already made the notes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He probably already has the
answer.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Item 12; consider, discuss,
take appropriate action regarding the restoration-slash-
replacement of courthouse windows. Our six months moratorium
with the Texas Historical Commission, as required by law, has
run, and we are now in a position to take whatever action we
7-28-08
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
deem appropriate for our windows in the older part of the
courthouse. The funding that we put in the capital projects
was how much?
MS. HARGIS: 350,000.
JUDGE TINLEY: Just for the windows?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I thought it was 180.
MS. HARGIS: The total project for construction at
the courthouse is 350,000. I don't remember the exact figure
for the windows.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. You have a summary sheet in
the backup material that gives you kind of the chronology,
and secondly, what kind of response we got from -- and what I
got were ballpark estimates, one of the restorations being
about $1,500 per window. The other one indicating -- that's
restoration, now -- 265,000 from an outfit out of Lubbock
that appears to have the inside track on courthouses, for
some reason.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Looks that way.
JUDGE TINLEY: The other option, of course, that we
have is to write some specs to submit to outside vendors
for -- for new windows, if we decide to go that route, either
double, or even single sash, where you don't have the ability
to even open the window, probably with wood interior and no
maintenance, to the degree there is such, that exists on the
exterior, and low-E glass.
7-28-08
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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What -- I'd kind of like more
information before we do anything. I mean, I'd like to see
if we're going to -- like to see what the new windows that
are not in compliance look like, kind of know the detail on
that, and I'd like to find out exactly what the $1,500 per
window total would be. How many windows do we have?
JUDGE TINLEY: Seventy-seven.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Seventy-seven.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Seventy-seven times 1,500. So,
one of them's -- one of them's quite a bit cheaper.
JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, yeah. One of them's
significantly cheaper, yeah. The windows, if they're
fabricated new windows to replace these, in appearance, would
be very, very close to what we currently have. The specs, in
my mind, would include that we would use as much of the
interior trim and facing as we have there now; that the
interior portion of the windows that are fabricated, and they
would be fabricated, would be wood which is capable of being
stained to match the trims that exist. The exterior would be
of a color -- be metal clad, but they will be of a color
which essentially matched up with what the exterior looks
like now.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, the bids we got,
Judge, the -- the outfit out of Lubbock, he lists about 12
different items that he would do. The other fellow only says
7-28-08
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
that he will repair, strip, and reglaze at $1,500 a window.
Is there something missing here?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We had some of that done a
few years ago, and I don't think it held up very well.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's kind of why I'm
asking.
JUDGE TINLEY: I asked for a ballpark estimate, and
it's also based upon my -- my indication that most of the
windows that are repairable -- some are probably painted
shut -- very little, if any, interior repairs or painting
should be required. That's -- that was the criteria that was
given to him, and that's where he comes up with $1,500 a
window. I guess the threshold where we really are at this
point is, is the Court going to be insistent that we repair
our existing windows based upon historical considerations,
primarily? Or is that not as strong a consideration, and we
want to look more to -- as long as we can get a reasonably
matching appearance, but can get more maintenance-free and
more energy efficient windows, that that's where we want to
go? That's the threshold question, as I see it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean --
JUDGE TINLEY: We're going to flip a coin and see
7-28-08
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
which side the question comes down on?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd like to see a -- probably a
representative from both companies come down, and I'd like to
see a computerized drawing, which they -- both these
companies should be able to do, as to what it's going to look
like if we change out to the newer windows that I'm kind of
leaning towards. But I don't want to -- I mean, I need to
know exactly what it's going to look like before I vote one
way or the other. Obviously, if we replace these -- or
repair these, I know what that looks like.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I do want to know exactly
what we're getting for our money if we buy new metal clad
windows, and I want to see a rendering of what that's going
to look like in the courthouse.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with that, Judge.
I -- don't know that I'm inclined to bow down to the
hysterical crowd in Austin. So, you know, if we can -- if we
can select windows that are long lasting and they look
somewhat like our courthouse, I'm not saying we need to go
that route, but we want to take a look at them first.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Plus energy efficiency.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, absolutely.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Single pane windows don't do
much for that.
7-28-08
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: Well, you can get low-E glass with
single pane now, and that helps you some. But --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm just concerned about the
gaps and the wind blowing in the windows, themselves.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: There are some gaps.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Especially in my office. They
ought to be able to bring up a sample of a window.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: A sample.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It may not be an exact one, but
as close as the -- the quality that we're looking at. I
mean, it's a pretty big decision.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, it is.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Dollars and importance. I
i mean --
JUDGE TINLEY: I've got one -- one set of -- not
really a proposal, but it's submitted to Mr. Bollier from a
representative of Allen & Allen. Those are to be fabricated
either -- and there's two different options there. There's
one that's a completely wood window, and the other one is a
metal clad on the outside. But I would be happy to -- if you
feel more comfortable getting that gentleman here to -- would
you prefer that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think so. But I have a
question for our County Attorney.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
7-28-08
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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This obviously is going to be
over 25,000, so we have to bid it, but how do we bid it if we
don't know -- I mean, how do you come up with the specs for
windows that are -- other than just saying it's a window;
then it's a -- it can be all kinds of different types of
windows and types of wood, types of glass. I mean, it seems
a very difficult thing to pick -- to draw up the specs to
bid. I mean, unless we decide what we want ahead of time,
and then pretty much narrow the bidding that way.
MR. EMERSON: Well, I think you answered your own
question, 'cause there's really two ways to do it. One is
you write your specs very specific based on your choice and
then let the companies bid accordingly, and the other is you
write it broad and you make a best choice purchase, depending
on what's presented.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So we can -- we can do it real
broad, and then dollars are not necessarily real high on our
decision making. It's more of the kind of window that we
want.
MR. EMERSON: You can do it that way, sure. We
just need the purchase criteria, similar to what we've done
on some other bids.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, that helps.
JUDGE TINLEY: Using the example that he gave us,
they can essentially fabricate these windows to visually
7-28-08
113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
match, and you could write the specs where they -- you could
write alternate specs for double sash, single sash, interior
wood, stainable, exterior hard wood, paintable and/or
stainable, exterior metal clad, low-E glass, double pane.
You can put all sorts of options in there that you want.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We want the bids to come
installed.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We don't need any -- we don't
need to be installing our own windows around here, I don't
believe.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. No.
JUDGE TINLEY: No. Whole new ball game if we did.
If the Court is inclined to look at new windows as opposed
to, "No, we don't want to consider it; we want to do the
historical thing," that's one direction. If the Court's
inclined to look at new windows, I think the next step would
be to develop specs to go out for bids for new windows with
the various options that we may have talked about so that we
can take a look and see what we think is the best deal
overall.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm inclined to go with -- if
there's a savings -- well, probably -- I know long-term it's
more beneficial to go with new windows that are probably
metal on the outside. That's my gut feeling at this point.
7-28-08
114
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Just because, in talking to a builder over the weekend, they
said there'll never again be wood windows on a house, the
quality of wood nowadays has gotten so bad.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, you got to have
constant maintenance. They may be good for four or five
years. I think we're already having some problems in the
annex over here as part of the reason for this, and those
windows are not very old.
JUDGE TINLEY: And they need attention now.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: And, of course, it's going to take a
trainload of staging to get to those top ones.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm inclined -- let's try to
fix the problem for as long-term as we can, and save our -- I
mean, the courthouse is important, but let's try to save some
dollars on our utilities.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You can save dollars
long-term both ways.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: Why don't -- why don't I work with
Tim and the Auditor and maybe we'll develop some specs to
bring back to you to authorize to throw out in the clear next
meeting.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Sounds good.
7-28-08
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
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We'll have to overcome
Commissioner Baldwin's strong leanings towards historical --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Visions.
JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, vision.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Keep Austin weird. Yeah,
that's a vision.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Historical Commission?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think that's a copyrighted slogan.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, it probably is, but I
certainly want to be a part of it.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Judge, could you skip down to
18?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Whoa.
JUDGE TINLEY: I probably could.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Would that be -- is that okay
with everybody? They've been sitting here quite a while.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's go to Item 18, then; consider
and discuss request to develop a large tract in Bee Caves
Creek into three 100-plus acre tracts. Commissioner Oehler?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Jim Gardner is here. He
called me and wanted to know what an owner would have to do
in order to be able to sell three 100-acre tracts out of one
300-acre tract, and so I told him it might be a good idea to
come down here and meet with us and see what all they had in
7-28-08
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
mind as far as what they were going to do, and if there were
going to be any roads to be built or how the development was
going to be divided.
MR. GARDNER: Good morning, Judge.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And all that will factor into
the answer.
MR. GARDNER: Sorry. Okay. Good morning, Judge
and Commissioners. Appreciate the time to visit with you
today. I've got some maps here I'd just like to show you so
you can kind of orient -- I can kind of orient you with the
problem that we have. I think that's five; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And one for her.
JUDGE TINLEY: Probably best if you don't use the
word "problem."
MR. GARDNER: Right. Opportunity.
JUDGE TINLEY: There you go.
MR. GARDNER: What we're requesting is a variance
on the 40-foot requirement -- I mean on the 60-foot county
requirement for a road. If you'll look at this side of the
map, the road we're talking about is this red line. That's
Rocky Top Road. That is noted in all of the documents filed
with the county as a private community access roadway. It is
3.8 miles from the Cherry Springs intersection all the way to
the property that we're talking about, which is the one
outlined in blue in the lower left-hand corner. So, we're
7-28-08
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
talking about 3.8 miles, and we've got approximately 30
different homeowners along this road. The way the documents
are written is, each of those homeowners owns to the middle
of the road, so they granted a -- basically, a 20-foot
easement off of their property for the road initially when
that was -- when that was all developed. This was the old
Cullum Ranch, and it was developed back in the early '70's.
And, so, what we're requesting -- I'm representing
the principal involved here, who has this piece of property
under contract, and we're -- in our due diligence, we're just
trying to find out what we can and cannot do, and what we
have to do to comply with the county court. So, what we're
requesting is a variance on the 60-foot requirement on Rocky
Top Road all the way to the back. If we decide to develop
this property, we would comply with county requirements on
the 60-foot requirement, and it would be built to county
specifications. We're just trying to get the variance on
Rocky Top Road.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- let me understand this.
This tract right here, 310 acres, is this -- that's all y'all
are talking about?
MR. GARDNER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And all the rest of this stuff
is just lots?
25 ~ MR. GARDNER: That are just other tracts that were
7-28-08
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
25
all divided back in the early '70's.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That doesn't require a
variance. You can do -- you can do what you're doing. And
if you subdivide a 310-acre tract, any roads inside there
would be required to be 60 foot, but you can't control the
40-foot. That's been -- I mean, that's historically how we
look at these. We just don't want you going -- Gillespie
County is 25 foot.
MR. GARDNER: I was told by Road and Bridge that I
needed to have your blessing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think so. I mean,
unless I'm --
MR. GARDNER: I'll be glad to leave. (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, no, I don't see that
this requires a variance. I mean, you -- the road -- we have
a lot of subdivisions that the access to it is smaller than
our minimum requirements, and we don't have the authority to
require you to go back and require right-of-way on these old
roads, whether it's a county road or a private easement or
whatever.
JUDGE TINLEY: And because it's -- the roadway is
not on the property in question that you're developing, you
don't need a variance. I mean --
MR. GARDNER: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: We'd be granting a variance to
7-28-08
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
essentially other developers -- prior developers, property
owners, whatever. So, you know, our -- when you develop your
310 acres, are there existing roadways within or along the
perimeter of that 310 acres?
MR. GARDNER: Actually, the east boundary -- the
whole east boundary of this -- let me show you on this one,
'cause it's bigger. This whole east boundary is an old ranch
road, all right? But what we were talking about doing if we
were to come in and develop this would be to come along the
southwest and the west road, the west fence line, and put the
road in on that side.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, if you lay out a new road,
it's going to require that you comply with our --
MR. GARDNER: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- subdivision rules and platting
procedures.
MR. GARDNER: Right. And we don't have a problem
I with that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. GARDNER: We just wanted to get past this.
JUDGE TINLEY: Good gosh, if we made you
responsible for that --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Be impossible.
MR. GARDNER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I wasn't sure what the deal
7-28-08
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
MR. GARDNER: Well, the Road and Bridge told me I
needed your blessing, so I guess I don't.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You got our -- if it's a
concept plan, it usually comes before us. I would say --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: This is kind of a concept.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: From that standpoint, there's a
blessing, but it's -- I don't think it's a variance.
MR. ARENDALE: Can I address you?
MR. GARDNER: This is Mr. Bruce Arendale; he's the
principal.
MR. ARENDALE: You know, what -- what we thought
may be required, or I guess the question I would need to ask
you on the existing road that's on the east side of the
property, that's an existing 40-foot road easement that's
been granted when they subdivided the whole ranch, what he
was talking about. Could you subdivide -- or could you
divide the property into smaller tracts and have access to
that smaller tract through the existing 40-foot road easement
on the east side?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This road?
MR. ARENDALE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That road's --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Talking about this road here?
MR. ARENDALE: No, the one on the east.
7-28-08
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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Rocky Top Southwest?
MR. ARENDALE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The curved road would have to
~ go to a 60-foot easement to be brought to county standards in
the subdivision.
MR. ARENDALE: It's an existing road right now.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You have to look, I think,
probably to the County Attorney as to how you look at that
document.
MR. ARENDALE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 'Cause it's going to depend on
exactly what kind of a -- whatever created that road, how it
was created. That's going to be a legal determination if
it's -- it is possible that you can sell tracts off of that
road, or you may not. It just depends on that road.
MR. ARENDALE: Depends on how the easement was
created when it was subdivided?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. ARENDALE: The original? Okay.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: If it's just like the red
road, the access road, if it's the same as that, --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Probably can sell it.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- you probably can sell off
of that, as long as you have enough --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Long as you're over 10 acres.
7-28-08
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: Yeah, resulting tracts.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Ten or more. Road
frontage -- what is it, 200 feet or something?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, as long as they're over
10 acres, it wouldn't -- no, 200 foot. It wouldn't require
platting. But if you're going to go smaller than 10 acres,
it would require it to be platted. But you may or may not
be -- if you have to plat it, the portion you're platting is
going to have to be brought up to standards.
MR. ARENDALE: What's the 200 feet?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You have to have 200 foot of
road frontage.
', COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Per tract, that fronts a
public road.
MR. ARENDALE: Ten acres or over, 200 foot.
JUDGE TINLEY: Minimum of 10 acres, each having
200 feet of frontage on the roadway.
MR. ARENDALE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: In other words, you can't
create a flag lot where you have 60 foot and you go back and
then have you a lot behind you, another tract.
MR. ARENDALE: I understand that. Okay. Thank you
for your time.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, can we do 16 before
7-28-08
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
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's go to Item 16, if we
might. Consider, discuss, take appropriate action to approve
purchase agreement with Tyler Technologies for import and
balancing of Kerr County certified roll, and authorize the
County Judge to sign the contract. Ms. Bolin?
MS. BOLIN: This is the $6,500 that I brought
before you previously, where they're going to import our
certified roll this year instead of me doing it. They said
they have several means for us to check as we go. At this
point, I told Mr. Angell last week, I do not have any
confidence in their system whatsoever. Their calculations
have caused us more grief than anybody will ever know. I've
talked to John about it. He said that we really don't have a
choice; we have to do this contract. It's going to cost us
$6,500, and that's what this is for, so that we can do our
'08's. He told me I could load them if I wanted to, except
if I have any questions or any problems, I could not call
them.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sounds to me like a 20 percent.
JUDGE TINLEY: Maybe a 90 percent.
MS. BOLIN: Anyway, it's a contract that has to be
signed in order for us to collect '08's.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're recommending it, or
not?
MS. BOLIN: I don't have a choice this year.
7-28-08
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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That means yes? That's a
YeS?
MS. BOLIN: It's a pulled fingernail, yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item. Question or discussion on the
motion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Where's the money coming from?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What?
JUDGE TINLEY: You always create those problems,
Jon.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Where's the money coming from,
the $6,500?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Out of her budget, I guess.
MS. BOLIN: I don't have it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why didn't you say that?
MS. BOLIN: Actually, they agreed that they would
wait until the beginning of next year, so I did include it in
next year's software maintenance.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. All right.
MR. TROLINGER: Basically, The Software Group is
increasing the rate -- overall rate and cost to Kerr County
to bring it up more with their competition, is what I'm
seeing. Do you agree, Diane?
7-28-08
125
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
I4
15
16
17
18
I9
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. BOLIN: That part, I don't know, because I
don't know what the competition is charging.
MR. TROLINGER: Okay.
MS. BOLIN: I just know that our maintenance -- if
you'll notice, in my new budget our maintenance is doubled,
and we're down to one program with them, and that's
collections.
JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion and a second.
Further question on the motion? All in favor of the motion,
signify by raising your right hand.
I
(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: Item 14; consider, discuss, take
appropriate action to recover cost of repair to Kerr County
roads from damage inflicted by mining vehicles and equipment,
aggregate haulers, and construction equipment. Commissioner
Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I put this on the agenda,
Judge, because I get a -- a whole lot of telephone calls
often from folks who live off of C.P. River Road about
aggregate vehicles tearing up the roads, and I've had calls
as recently as last week about mining vehicles coming out of
7-28-08
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
pits and just making damage to the roads, and about flagmen
sitting there sleeping and not stopping the right vehicles
and causing all sorts of traffic problems. Also, I'm aware
of a litigation in Grayson County, which the County Attorney
and I have talked about, and Mr. Odom and I talked about it,
in which the county was successful in prevailing in covering
repair costs in a situation similar to this. So, what I want
to talk about -- I see Mr. Garcia back in the back, who has a
distinct interest in this particular issue. But we can just
talk about it, see whether or not it's something that we'd be
interested in attempting to pursue.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is there some legal basis that we
might have to recover costs that we have, extraordinary
repair costs and upgrade costs to those roads that our county
Road and Bridge people are required to perform that we can
definitely trace to these folks, and possibly recover?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Can you answer that, Rex?
MR. EMERSON: The answer is I think so, but I don't
know for sure. I do know that Grayson County was successful
about two weeks ago in a lawsuit for recovery of damages,
42,000 from one party, 20,000 from another. And I'm waiting
on information. I just found out about it. I just found out
about the lawsuit last week. I e-mailed the District
Attorney that handles their civil and criminal litigation in
Grayson County. I've not received a response back. I've
7-28-08
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
talked to Len, and Len was going to talk to their Road and
Bridge Department, and between the two of us, I'm hoping to
put together a full picture of what developed and how it
developed.
JUDGE TINLEY: Certainly, if we've got -- if we got
a part of this responsible for creating extraordinary costs,
and we have the ability to pursue that, I think it behooves
us to take a serious look at it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's why I put it on the
agenda, Judge. I really think the same as what you just
expressed. It's something we need to look at. We need to
know more about the Grayson County litigation, and we need to
have discussions -- meaningful discussions with those who are
causing the damage as to what they're willing to do prior to
getting involved in litigation. I'd like to see these folks
who use our roads for these purposes to step forward and be
proactive about the issue so that we don't have to be
reactive and go to court about it, and that's the whole
reason for putting it on the agenda.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I guess, at this point, what
we need to do is let the County Attorney and Mr. Odom get
their information, and they can collaborate and analyze it
and come back to us with a recommendation. In the meantime,
if those that are causing us to incur this extraordinary cost
want to get into a dialogue, well, we're available. Is that
7-28-08
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
right?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Anything further on that
item, gentlemen? We'll go to item 15; consider, discuss,
take appropriate action to set a public hearing for the
2009-10 Texas Community Development Block Grant program cycle
for 5 p.m. on Tuesday, August 5, 2008, at the Kerr County
Courthouse. Commissioner Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. This is to set
a public hearing, which is a requirement for applications for
C.D.B.G. block grants and colonias block grants, and it is in
connection with the upcoming grant cycle. What we'd like to
be in a position to do is file an application through
Grantworks for our additional quarter of a million dollars.
I anticipate that in -- in the Kerrville South Phase IV,
which we're going to talk about at the end of this agenda,
with the contract for a half million dollars, I anticipate
that we're going to run into some cost overruns because of
the length of time that's existed between the original
estimates of cost and now, and so this would take care of
cost overruns, and it would also take care of -- of Kerrville
South, where there are probably 15 or 20 homes in the old
Loyal Valley target area where folks have asked to be
connected since we closed those projects. These are people
who goofed around and didn't get their applications in at the
7-28-08
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
proper time, and therefore, they got passed by. And this
would also enable us, if we're favorably -- our application
is looked upon favorably, to do the balance of Quail Run.
The contract is going to take us from the lift station at the
end of Quail Run about 300, 400 feet up. It would be nice to
be able to take it all the way to Ranchero Road. That's the
purpose of this public hearing. Grantworks will come in and
conduct the public hearing on August 25. I move the
resolution.
JUDGE TINLEY: August 25?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: August 5, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Did you second that, Buster?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion and second 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: The motion does carry. Let's move
to Item 19 first, to consider, discuss, take appropriate
action to approve contract with Office of Rural Community
Affairs in the amount of $500,000 for Phase IV, Kerrville
7-28-08
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
South Wastewater Project, and authorize the County Judge to
sign the same. Commissioner Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Judge. This is
the contract with O.R.C.A. for a half million dollars, which
gets us into Phase IV of the Kerrville South project. And
engineering will get underway very quickly, as we've already
done that contract. I sent this down to the County Attorney
for review. I don't know if you've had a chance yet, Rex --
MR. EMERSON: Just finished it up this morning.
You're well aware of this, 'cause we've done this before, but
there's some pretty stringent reporting requirements that we
need to make sure we adhere to.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes.
MR. EMERSON: And, you know, don't lapse, because
they cut off our money if we do. And it's very stringent;
it's within 20 days of the end of the time period. The only
problem I see in the contract is in Section 10; it has a full
indemnity clause, so we need to add in the standard, "to the
extent allowed by law." It's not titled "Indemnity"; it's
titled "Independent Contractor," but it has indemnity
language all built into it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Section 10?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Section 10 or Page 10?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Section 10.
7-28-08
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
MR. EMERSON: I think it's Section 10. Let me
look.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Page 8.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which page?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 8.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 8, okay. What is your
question, Rex?
MR. EMERSON: Well, it's just -- it has all the
standard indemnity language in there, so I would recommend
that we add the standard exception that says, "to the extent
allowed by law."
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, it says that. "...agrees to
the extent allowed by law to hold the office harmless and
indemnify the office..." in the one I'm looking at here.
MR. EMERSON: I'm wearing new contact lenses.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Did I omit that page when I
sent that down to you? Did that page go missing?
MR. EMERSON: No, there it is. I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
~~ MR. EMERSON: It's at the end of the second
sentence.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: With respect to the
reporting requirements, we've been through this with these
people before, and every time that we have faced an audit by
O.R.C.A., we have come out with flying colors, so this is not
7-28-08
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
new territory we're plowing here.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The reporting is handled
through the Auditor's office?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes. Move approval of the
contract, and authorize County Judge to sign same.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item and the contract. 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.
I (No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. We'll go to
Item 17, to consider, discuss, take appropriate action to
discuss the Fiscal Year '08-'09 budget process. Commissioner
Letz, you asked for this to be placed on the agenda.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I put this on the agenda after
our last budget workshop. I was just -- I want to make
sure -- I think it was really answered after. I just want to
make sure -- we're going through and making all these changes
in our budget all the time -- that we have an original
requested budget that nobody's touching, so we have that.
And I guess -- where do I find that?
MS. HARGIS: It's the requested budget.
7-28-08
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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's the requested budget. So,
I the --
MS. HARGIS: It's frozen.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Where's the one that's being
changed?
MS. HARGIS: The administrative recommended budget.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, that was my main thing.
I didn't know if we had any other -- the other reason I put
it on here also, are we going to be okay for our workshops?
I mean, timeline? Everything going okay?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. I don't -- we had one or two
mention they had a problem with scheduling after we pretty
well got the scheduling laid into place, and -- but I think
in those instances, they can have an opportunity available.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We have two more sessions?
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: At least.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Two more to start with.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Two more.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, at least two more. We got two
more scheduled.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what I mean.
JUDGE TINLEY: We may have more than two.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll bet.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Anything else in connection
7-28-08
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
with that item? Why don't we go to Section 4. I believe
we've got all the agenda items covered now -- yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I believe so, too.
JUDGE TINLEY: Section 4, payment of the bills.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I'd like to make a
I motion.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's hear your motion,
Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Pay the bills.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and second to pay
the bills. Question or discussion? I'm looking at Indigent
Health Care, and it is --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Huge.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- a screamer.
MS. HARGIS: It is. It's not just one month.
Unfortunately, she waited, and we had a stack literally this
high. What she brought over was $350,000 worth. We've got
that down to the amount you see. She -- this is a new girl,
and she went to a conference, but this covered, I believe,
almost six weeks. And this should be pretty much the end, as
I've been told, of the large amounts that we pay, 'cause
their fiscal year end for indigent is August.
JUDGE TINLEY: Has Ms. Taylor in the County
Treasurer's office been kind of monitoring -- or someone in
7-28-08
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
your office also, I believe, --
MS. HARGIS: No, Nona's been monitoring.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- monitoring with the people at the
hospital?
MS. HARGIS: We've been monitoring, and it --
actually, Nona attended a class as well this month.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. HARGIS: And so did the person at the hospital,
the new person. They are going to go back -- I understand
that the girl at the hospital who does the work found that
there were some people that should be on Medicaid, and she's
going back and making those corrections. So, I think we'll
catch as many as we can. And now that she's gotten her
tools, because this is a new job for her, I think she's going
to get actually better at it as well. So, I don't know that
she has -- has visited with Beth; that would be the hospital
representative. I can't tell you that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge?
JUDGE TINLEY: Are we able to be in a position
to -- I know there's a -- there's a timeline requirement that
if you don't do something on one of those apps, they're
automatically approved. And we had had this problem
previously, that they were in a state of hiatus or
transition, or they didn't have the job filled, and those
7-28-08
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
things stacked up over there at the hospital, and as a
consequence, we had a whole bunch of them that maybe, had
they be properly reviewed, some of them might have been
disapproved as being ineligible. But we got -- we got beat
up by the timeline.
MS. HARGIS: I can't answer that. I can't answer
that right now. I don't know. I do know that we did have
some late ones. I'll have to ask that question. There are
two patients that have -- and I don't have it on the agenda,
but that have -- apparently you have the option, as a court,
to extend the amount of money you pay for a patient if you
want to. I'm not in a position to authorize that over what
the Court wants to do, but I'd kind of like to know if the
Court even wants me to present those, or if -- if we've
established that, you know, 30,000 is what we're going to
pay, and that's it. But we do have two patients --
JUDGE TINLEY: I have received notice of that, and
I put something on my dictation for all the Commissioners to
be notified of this situation. I think we need an agenda
item as to whether or not we're going to deviate from our
current policy of a max of 30,000 per eligible individual,
period. We're not in a position, obviously, to act on that
today. But -- so we're -- we're bound by that, as I see it,
if that's our policy currently.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But --
7-28-08
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
JUDGE TINLEY: As far as I'm concerned.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What kind of criteria do you
use to deviate from that, though? Is there some kind of --
something in the law that says in case this and this and this
happens, you can --
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, it -- when the total payout
exceeds 30,000, or the other criteria has to do with number
of inpatient hospital days, I think, exceeds a certain number
of days, whichever is -- less?
MS. HARGIS: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: Right now, we've adopted the -- the
minimum that we can adopt, which is 30,000 per eligible
individual, but we have the ability to lift that cap and make
it a greater cap for persons who are eligible for Indigent
Health care.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: First time I ever heard
that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, we have the ability to do
that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Interesting. I thought that
we had said that we really wanted Beth to keep an eye on
these things for a while because of her firsthand, hands-on
knowledge of it. Is that something I just dreamed?
JUDGE TINLEY: No. I think -- I think I mentioned
to you that I had asked her to kind of stay in touch there,
7-28-08
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
because I was concerned about this timeline. Now, this was
before I determined and was advised that -- that one of the
clerks in the auditor's office is as up to speed as Beth was,
apparently, on processing those things. But my concern was
more on the hospital end.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, sure.
JUDGE TINLEY: Because they hire -- and that
position, who's in there, comes and goes, and if they don't
act on it, if it just sits there, we get stuck with it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Win, lose, or draw.
MS. HARGIS: And we have spoken to the young lady
over there and told her that we will not, you know, have this
happen again. Because, first of all, it's a tremendous
amount of load. Even if none of the applications are late,
it's a huge load. I mean, it took us over a week and a half
just to get those in the computer. When they come over to
us, they're -- they're not at the amount of money we pay. We
have to enter every single pharmacy and every single one of
those, and what comes out as eligible is the program that we
have, and that takes hours. And --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm curious about something
you said a while ago. You said -- you said that she saved up
two month's worth, and she had gone off to a workshop?
MS. HARGIS: Well, I don't know that that's the
~-ZS-os
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
reason that she necessarily --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MS. HARGIS: But she had gone to a workshop,
because she's only been with them 90 days. She's apparently
a new employee. This is the first --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: She's gone to a workshop.
She knows better than to let these things stack up now; is
that what you're saying? Or did they teach her at a workshop
to --
MS. HARGIS: She has the eligibility
requirements -- more of the eligibility requirements.
There's a lot to learn, I think, under these requirements,
and I think for someone new, this is a little overwhelming.
And they -- it's also my understanding there's not anybody
there directly to train this person. They more or less learn
on their own with OJT, and that's why we asked Beth to help
that person.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, sure. Okay.
MS. HARGIS: And we try to also monitor that, and
when we find them wrong, we call her; we explain why. And --
and that's helped. But she's working very well with us; it's
just she -- she got behind.
JUDGE TINLEY: Could you continue to communicate
with Ms. Taylor in the Treasurer's office and have her, as
necessary and appropriate, to kind of keep her eye on what's
7-28-08
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
going on over there too? I mean, I -- I don't mind having
two watchdogs, but I don't want to end up with zero
watchdogs, if you hear what I'm saying.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think there's wisdom in
that. I really do.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Might be a good idea to ask
Mindy about that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well --
MS. HARGIS: The only problem with Beth is that
she's been away almost a year now, and the requirements --
some of the requirements have changed, and she's not
necessarily familiar with those. And that's one thing; the
longer you're away from it, and the new legal requirements
puts Beth at a disadvantage. So -- but I can ask her.
JUDGE TINLEY: Either that, or if you're
comfortable with the oversight that is coming through your
office -- I mean, if you're comfortable that that's adequate
to -- I just want to make sure it's covered, is where I'm
coming from.
MS. HARGIS: I would like to check out everything
before I say anything.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any other question or
discussion on the bills? All in favor, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
7-28-08
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
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Budget
amendments?
MS. HARGIS: There are none.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's kind of what I thought. Late
bills?
MS. HARGIS: There are none.
JUDGE TINLEY: Reports. I've been presented with
monthly reports from J.P. Precinct 4, and J.P. Precinct 4
amended report. Do I hear a motion that these reports be
approved as presented?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to approve
the reports as presented. 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. Any reports
from Commissioners in connection with their liaison or
committee assignments? Commissioner 1?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No.
7-28-08
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
JUDGE TINLEY: Two?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I've got a call in to Water
Development Board, but I understand that our application is
back on track for movement up there. I'll know a little bit
more a bit later this afternoon. But also, I want the Court
to know that I attended a U.G.R.A. board meeting the other
afternoon, because they had on their agenda the Center Point
project and so forth, and I detect a little bit of waffling
in terms of the water side of project coming from that side
of the equation. And I just want to make sure with Water
Development Board, if it turns out that water, for whatever
reason, determines it doesn't want to move forward, we don't
want that to impede our application with respect to the sewer
part of the project.
JUDGE TINLEY: There are two separate applications?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They're two separate. But,
see, they both -- the feasibility study, if you recall, had
two sections; it had a wastewater and water section. So, the
Water Development Board was kind of waiting on their
application to be perfected as well as ours. I just want to
make sure that if they decide they want to slow down or not
go, that it will not impede our application.
JUDGE TINLEY: Have they made -- obviously, they
haven't made a final decision as to which direction they're
going yet.
7-28-08
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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No. And there was a little
bit of -- little bit of an issue over there with Tetra Tech.
Mr. Groves -- Al Groves, Sr., and that board kind of got
crosswise a little bit, and they didn't -- he is now retired;
he's no longer associated with Tetra Tech. And one other
thing that's important that we'll have to bring back to Court
is that the Water Development Board, I believe, is going to
tell me this afternoon that all they're waiting on from us
would be a contract for the facilities planning, which is the
next level of funding, unsigned, but accompanying the
application. So, that's going to have to come from Tetra
Tech; they did the scope of work that accompanies the next
level of funding. I'll bring it back to Court, and if
necessary, and we'll get it ready to go up there to complete
the application.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If U.G.R.A. backs out or
decides not to pursue the water side of that, where's that
going to go?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What do you mean, where is
it going to go?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: From the standpoint of the
County. Do you think the County can step into that? Talk to
City of Kerrville? Talk to somebody else? You know, Comfort
W.C.&I.D.?
7-28-08
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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think, Commissioner, if
we wanted to, we could step into it. Only problem is, now
we're talking about a -- a water treatment facility; that's
what that feasibility study talked about, and using their --
using the 2000 acre feet of water that they have for the
beneficial use of people outside the city limits for county
use, so we'd have to enter into an interlocal agreement with
them to provide water. But, yes, we would move that forward.
I don't know why we couldn't.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm just -- you know, probably
we don't have enough information at this point, but --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, we don't.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, the water side of the
equation is, from my standpoint, critical to the county.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's very important, no
question.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, if U.G.R.A. doesn't want to
get into the water business, which they said they wanted to
do, then someone needs to get into this business.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We need to find a way, I
agree with you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, so, you know, it's --
and, I mean, we need to get some kind of direction from
U.G.R.A. board as to where they're going, because if they're
not going there, someone needs to pick that slack up for the
7-28-08
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
eastern part of the county and other parts of the county,
probably, as well.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think they're at the
point where they're going to have to, pardon the expression,
fish or cut bait, and that in order for their application to
move forward as it has to, they're going to have to have a
contract, unsigned, that accompanies their application, which
is separate from ours. So, if they determine that they're
either not going to use Tetra Tech, or if they're going to
use another engineering firm, then they need to move along.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. All right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: You got anything for us?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just one short thing, is that I
don't -- hopefully, Commissioner Williams got my e-mail, but
we have a -- he and I have a meeting set up with Scott Gross
and Max Hamilton Thursday morning -- Thursday afternoon to
try to resolve the airport governance agreement prior to our
joint meeting.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thursday. This Thursday?
MR. EMERSON: I don't have a copy. I still haven't
received a copy.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that's a good -- leads us
to the next question. We need to get with you, Rex, as to
7-28-08
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
25
where we go on what we're going to work off of at that
~ meeting.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Scott called me Saturday and
set that up.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Did you get my e-mail -- or
my voice message about prodding your counterpart down the
line for a draft?
MR. EMERSON: I did, but I haven't received a
response, and I don't have a copy. So --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What time, Commissioner?
Thursday?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 3 o'clock, I believe. It's in
the e-mail.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I haven't opened my e-mails
up yet; I'm busy in court.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's in your e-mail. I think
it's 3:00 -- 2:00 or 3:00. That's it.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'm not going.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You're not invited.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Good.
JUDGE TINLEY: And I know Commissioner Baldwin's
not invited, 'cause last time he showed up when two others
were present, --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That was a problem.
7-28-08
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
JUDGE TINLEY: -- he caught a lot of sand about
that. Do you have anything for us, Commissioner Oehler?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I don't need to say any more.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Do we have any reports
from elected officials or department heads?
MS. HYDE: It's just a pass-out.
JUDGE TINLEY: The Sheriff put one finger up in the
air; I guess he was testing the wind.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No. We did not get the grant
we applied for, for the assistance with the --
JUDGE TINLEY: Radios?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: -- exchange of car radios. I
wanted y'all to know that. The Chief Deputy is at AACOG this
morning in San Antonio trying to figure out some -- I think
the State has passed down some funding, and they're dividing
it up amongst the COG's. It's a long shot, but he's up there
to see if there's any way we can get ahold of some of that
funding.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Who are you working with
now, Sheriff?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't know who it was. It's
all to do with TDEx and everything coming out of Austin, is
where it went. But Clay has sat on a couple of those
communication committees with me, so he went for us, so he
went back to see. But we're going to have some issues with
7-28-08
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
car radios.
JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Hyde?
MS. HYDE: Just a pass-out, the blood drive that we
had talked about.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Can't squeeze blood out of
a turnip.
MS. HYDE: They'll set up on this side of the
parking lot.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Want to give blood today?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The 13th.
MS. HYDE: 13th.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: All right. Bring them on.
JUDGE TINLEY: Boards? Commissions? Committees?
Reports? Nothing? We're adjourned.
(Commissioners Court adjourned at 12:33 p.m.)
7-28-08
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
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF KERR I
The above and foregoing is a true and complete
transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as
County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County,
Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth.
DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 1st day of August, 2008.
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
BY: _ __ _ _ __ _____
Kathy nik, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
7-28-08
ORDER NO.3 0921
GUADALUPE RIVER PARADE
Came to be heard this the 28th day of July, 2008, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the use of Flat Rock Lake Park on August 16, 2008, for the 6th Annual
Guadalupe River Parade.
ORDER NO. 30922
COLLECTION OF DELINQUENT COURT FINES AND FEES
Came to be heard this the 28th day of July, 2008, with a motion made by
Commissioner Oehler, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve of the Contract with Perdue, Brandon, Fielder, Collins & Mott, LLP for
collection of delinquent court fines and fees.
ORDER NO. 30923
RELEASE LETTER OF CREDIT #7080351 FOR ESTATES OF JOHNSON
CREEK
Came to be heard this the 28th day of July, 2008, with a motion made by
Commissioner Oehler, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Release the Letter of Credit #7080351 for the roads in Estates of Johnson Creek,
located in Precinct 4.
ORDER NO.3 0924
BIDS FOR MAINTENANCE AT HILL COUNTRY YOUTH EXHIBIT CENTER
Came to be heard this the 28th day of July, 2008, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Oehler. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve Maintenance Department going out for bids on 3 interior walls for
maintenance shop at Hill Country Youth Exhibit Center, 1 12'x10' rollup door, 1
10'x10' rollup door and 1 3'x7 walk-thru door with hardware.
ORDER NO. 30925
APPROVE REIMBURSEMENT TO KERR COUNTY FAIR ASSOCIATION
FOR INTERIOR WALL AT HILL COUNTRY YOUTH EXHIBIT CENTER
Came to be heard this the 28th day of July, 2008, with a motion made by
Commissioner Oehler, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve reimbursement to the Kerr County Fair Association for %z of an interior
wall at the Hill Country Youth Exhibit Center.
ORDER NO. 30926
PURCHASE AGREEMENT WITH TYLER TECHNOLOGIES
Came to be heard this the 28th day of July, 2008, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the Purchase Agreement with Tyler Technologies for import and
balancing of Ken- County Certified Roll, and authorize County Judge to sign same.
ORDER NO. 30927
SET PUBLIC HEARING FOR 2009-10 TEXAS CDBG PROGRAM CYCLE
Came to be heard this the 28th day of July, 2008, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Set a public hearing for the 2009-10 Texas CDBG program cycle for 5:00 p.m. on
Tuesday, August 5, 2008, at the Kerr County Courthouse.
ORDER NO. 30928
CONTRACT WITH OFFICE OF RURAL COMMUNITY AFFAIRS (ORCA)
FOR KERRVILLE SOUTH WASTEWATER PROJECT
Came to be heard this the 28th day of July, 2008, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the Contract with Office of Kural Community Affairs (ORCA) in the
amount of $500,000 for Phase IV, Kerrville South Wastewater Project, and
authorize County Judge to sign same.
ORDER NO. 30929
CLAIMS AND ACCOUNTS
Came to be heard this the 28th day of July, 2008, came to be considered by the
Court various Commissioners Precincts, which said Claims and Accounts are:
Accounts Expense
10-General	$	224,740.87
15-Road & Bridge	$	50,875.97
16-2008 Capital Projects	$	9,170.14
18-County Law Library	$	2,562.41
26-JP Technology	$	222.52
50-Indigent Health Care	$	121,122.02
76-Juv Detention Facility	$	206.78
82-SO Law Enforcement	$	1,662.00
TOTAL
$ 410,562.71
Upon motion made by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner
~'~'illiams, the Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to pay the claims and
accounts.
ORDER NO. 30930
MONTHLY REPORTS
Came to be heard this the 28th day of July, 2008, with a motion made by
Commissioner Oehler, seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously
approved by vote of 4-0-0 the following monthly reports:
JP #4
JP #4 -Amended Report