1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT
Regular Session
Monday, June 9, 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

a0
O
D
-S
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
I N D E X
June 9, 2008
--- Commissioners' Comments
1.1 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
decide on approved emergency response to
Privilege Creek Ranches/Boerne Falls Ranches
1.2 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
approve interim chief deputy position to
chief deputy in County Clerks Office
1.3 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
award bid for one 6-ton air conditioning unit
and four 8 1/2-ton air conditioning units
1.4 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
authorize civil enforcement of Texas Health and
Safety Code statutes for O.S.S.F. violations
1.8 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
approve UGRA requests for Kerr County to submit
signed Payment Policy form and Payment Agreement
form for laboratory services for Environmental
Health Department
1.9 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
compile a list of Kerr County transportation
projects for possible submission for funding
consideration under forthcoming Congressional
Surface Transportation Bill
1.5 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
address concerns from residents of Live Springs
Ranch regarding the proposed replat & variance
request
1.6 Conduct preliminary pre-public hearing conference,
discussion on possible variances and other issues
related to proposed replat of Live Springs Ranch
1.7 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action
concerning preliminary plat of Camp Verde
General Store
~' 1.13 Presentation from Sue Glover with Purdue,
Brandon, Fielder, Collins, and Mott regarding
collection of delinquent court fines and fees
PAGE
6
7
14
15
16
19
21
27
56
61
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
3
I N D E X (Continued)
June 9, 2008
PAGE
1.14 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action
regarding collection of delinquent court fines
& fees from County Court at Law, County Court,
and District Court and other related issues 86
Consider/discuss, take appropriate action
regarding compensation and costs incurred by
contractors who were requested by Sheriff to
assist in extinguishing of wildfires 118
1.17 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
designate, by resolution, engineering and
administrative service providers for 2008
Texas Community Development Block Grant
Colonia Construction award for Phase IV of
Kerrville South Wastewater Project 132
Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
designate, by resolution, authorized signatory
for 2008 Texas Community Development Block Grant
Colonia Construction award for Phase IV of
Kerrville South Wastewater Project 134
Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
resolution from Hill Country Coalition of Counties
concerning county authority concerning regulation
of subdivisions 135
1.12 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
requested Kerr County funding commitment to
Texas Association of Counties for participation
and/or support to develop county-controlled and
owned software system for courts and beyond 137
1.11 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
approval of management letter for 2006-07 audit 146
Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
rescind that portion of Court Order #30840
which declared the old Animal Control van
surplus, and allow van to be used by Kerr
County Maintenance Department 147
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
4
I N D E X (Continued)
June 9, 2008
1.20 Consider/discuss, authorize use of Texas
Procurement Card from Chase Bank for Sheriff's
Department
1.21 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
joint City/County functions
1.22 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
authorize interlocal agreement between Kerr
County and Kerrville/Kerr County Airport Board
for an employee benefits package for the Airport
Manager & such other services as may be required
1.23 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
adopt and order, based on the burn ban status,
prohibiting the sale or use of restricted fire-
works in any portion of the unincorporated area
of Kerr County
4.1 Pay Bills
4.2 Budget Amendments
4.3 Late Bills
4.4 Approve and Accept Monthly Reports
5.1 Reports from Commissioners/Liaison Committee
Assignments
5.2 Reports from Department Heads/Elected Officials
1.24 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
real estate matters (Executive Session)
3.1 Action as may be required on matters discussed
in executive session
--- Adjourned
PAGE
156
162
193
202
205
210
215
215
217
221
221
25
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
On Monday, June 9, 2008, at 9:00 a.m., a regular
meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in
'I 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 County
Commissioners Court meeting scheduled and posted for this
time and date, Monday, June 9th, 2008, at 9 a.m. It is that
time now. Commissioner Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Will you please rise and
join me for a moment of prayer, followed by the pledge of
allegiance to our flag?
(Prayer and pledge of allegiance.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. At this time, if there's
any member of the public that wishes to be heard on any
I matter that is not a listed agenda item, feel free to come
forward and tell us what's on your mind. If you wish to be
heard on an agenda item, we'd ask that you fill out a
participation form. There should be some located at the back
of the room. It's not essential; it just puts me on notice
that someone wants to be heard on that issue so that I can
not pass over that item without recognizing you. If you
haven't filled out a participation form and wish to be heard
6-9-08
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
on an agenda item, get my attention in some manner and I'll
see that you have that opportunity. But right now, if
there's any member of the audience or the public that wishes
to be heard on any matter that is not a listed agenda item,
come forward at this time and tell us what's on your mind. I
see no one coming forward, so we'll move on. Commissioner
Williams, what do you have for us this morning?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just wish the wind would
let up and the rain would come, Judge. Other than that, I
don't have anything.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. If we could get that
accomplished, we'd be a long way down the road, wouldn't we?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm putting it in your good
hands, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just -- only comment I have is,
I must have been living under a rock. I'm not sure when it
happened, but the Governor's mansion fire was a tragedy.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Happened yesterday.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's -- the comment is that
it's really sad, and they think it's arson, what I heard this
morning on the radio. It's a sad day for the state of Texas
to have that severe damage to that great building. That's
all I have.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: If there's any saving grace
6-9-08
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to that, it would be that it was being remodeled and all that
stuff was taken out and put into storage, so that's a good
thing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I don't have anything else.
JUDGE TINLEY: One?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, sir. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move on. The first item we
I have on the agenda is to consider, discuss, and take
~!, appropriate action to decide on approved emergency response
', to Privilege Creek Ranches/Boerne Falls Ranches.
!I Mr. Amerine, I believe you put this on the agenda?
MR. AMERINE: I did, at the request of someone who
is recusing himself on this subject. But let me just say
that 911 has no problem in facilitating a discussion about
what the appropriate response agency should be for this new
subdivision. Myself and -- I'll just take a moment to
digress here. Stand up, Mark. I don't know if everybody
knows Mark Del Toro. We hired him last May to replace Amanda
Hicks, who was our GIS address coordinator, and Mark showed
such promise that in January of this year, we promoted him to
Associate Director. He is my logical replacement at some
point in the future. So, I want everybody to welcome Mark.
He's a great guy.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Welcome, Mark.
6-9-08
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. AMERINE: But in any case, we went out and
best interests of the citizens of this subdivision, or any
subdivision, for that matter, that borders another county, to
go to an interlocal for joint response, I kind of outlined
what we did with The Reserve in Falling Waters.
Now, to address specifics, if the -- you know, the
Court decided to do nothing with Boerne Falls, we already
have an agreement in place so that those citizens who buy
properties out there will have emergency response, and those
would be -- law enforcement would obviously come from the
Sheriff's Office, and if you had to drive a vehicle from his
office out to Boerne Falls, that would be on Highway 27 and
Lane Valley all the way up to the first property in Boerne
Falls through one locked gate, and that distance is about
23 miles, and it would be about a 30-minute drive, looking at
the conditions of Lane Valley. Lane Valley is relatively
narrow at some points and has -- you probably know better
than me, but there has to be at least a half a dozen
low-water crossings.
6-9-08
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
Fire would come from Comfort EMS -- I'm sorry,
Comfort Volunteer Fire Department. They already respond to
that area as part of their fire district. And EMS would come
from Station 3 on Loop 534. The Kerrville Fire Department
EMS would respond to any medical emergencies. That's if you
did nothing. I had not taken the tack -- or hadn't even gone
down the thought process that the Sheriff and I were
discussing before Commissioners Court. I would not recommend
that Kerr County consider any response with their resources,
whether it be law enforcement, whether it be the Comfort
Volunteer Fire Department or EMS, through Kendall County,
going down I-10 all the way to Boerne and coming back on
Ranger Ranch Road to Turkey Nob. That -- that's a long
drive, and it would probably double the response times. Lane
Valley would be adequate, except for the biggest vehicle.
And I have other response times in here if you --
if the Court decided it would be in the best interests of
those citizens to try to go into an interlocal with Kendall
County to have shared response. The drive times are about
15, 16 minutes shorter from Comfort EMS -- from -- rather
than Station 3 with Kerrville EMS. And it's about the same
distance and time advantage if you were to come from Boerne,
drive all the way from Boerne EMS into the subdivision, and
it's about 15 minutes shorter on ranch -- Ranger Ranch Road
and on Turkey Nob. So, I open it to discussion, and I'll
6-9-08
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
answer any questions you have.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Amerine?
MR. AMERINE: Yes, sir?
JUDGE TINLEY: The arrangement that we have in
place with Falling Waters for emergency medical response, how
is that arrangement working? Does that seem to be going
satisfactorily?
MR. AMERINE: I don't know. I have heard things
from the Address Coordinator that the -- Kendall County's not
happy with it, but I don't have any firsthand knowledge of
that not being a working arrangement, that that doesn't work
well. And I would think that if there were issues from the
citizens' perspective, I'd hear that, because I've had
contact with the folks in The Reserve at Falling Waters for
some time. They're the ones that initially asked how to get
this process started; they went through my office. And I
would think that if they were unhappy with that arrangement,
they would be talking to us, and I haven't heard anything.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's the reason I asked you. I
figured if it -- if there were complaints or problems, you'd
know about them.
MR. AMERINE: Yes, sir. I don't think there's a
problem with that arrangement at all.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, on that Falling Water
issue, there -- on that issue, there was a fire in Falling
6-9-08
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
Water, in the Kerr County portion, last week, and it might be
a good thing to see -- it was a real test of how at least the
phone part of it worked, if it all was handled properly, so
y'all might want to look at that. It was a pretty minor fire
in a house under construction, as I understand it, and
And I know
'cause I guess it was a -- I don't know what the reason was,
but that would be a good case to make sure at least that the
-- the switching and all that stuff worked properly with that
911 call, 'cause I know it came out of the Kerr County
portion.
MR. AMERINE: What we did in that arrangement with
to our call center, and we just have an inter -- the
interlocal created a protocol for dispatch to say for those
residents of Falling Water and Reserve, law enforcement will
come from the Sheriff's Office here in Kerr County, and fire
and EMS will come from Kendall County. That's essentially
the way that interlocal is set up. We also have it coded in
the 911 record so that the dispatcher has the additional
piece of information to remind them. We did exactly the same
thing, if you remember, about a year and a half ago out in
Precinct 4 for the Y.O. Ranchland and Dominion, and it seems
to work -- I just spoke to one of the gentlemen out there
6-9-08
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
that set that up, Harry Budow, and they have nothing but
praise for the way that arrangement is working as well. So,
my -- my reason for being here was just to give the Court as
much information as possible so that they could make a
choice. If you want to just stay with the default
arrangement that we have access from Kerr County and Kerr
County resources, with the exception of Comfort, which you
already have a contract with for volunteer fire department
services, or whether you want to try to start negotiating an
interlocal with Kendall County for shared emergency access.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I appreciate your
information, Bill. It makes it crystal clear to me what I
would -- if I were an ambulance driver -- which I am not;
they won't let me drive those things. But I guess my
question is -- and I -- in all of your scenarios that you
drew up here, every one of them talks about this locked gate.
MR. AMERINE: There's two locked gates, and I'm
going to let the developer actually explain the specifics of
that. I think it -- those conditions are based on a
settlement of the lawsuit, and I don't want to get into areas
I really don't have firsthand knowledge on, but there is a
locked gate, and I believe it will stay that way. And I'll
let --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I want to ask Leonard
6-9-08
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
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: These locked gates, is one
of them across a Kerr County-owned road?
MR. ODOM: No.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: None of it is?
MR. ODOM: No. One's up front in Kendall County,
and then the other one's at the end of Lane Valley right
there.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: At the end of Lane Valley
before you go into these properties --
MR. ODOM: That's right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- that they're talking
I about?
MR. ODOM: Their easement is right there.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, it would be pretty
simple for me. If there's a locked gate, that means they
don't want you in there.
MR. ODOM: It's a private road.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I don't care what it
is. If it's a locked gate, they don't want an emergency
service in there.
MR. AMERINE: I don't think that's the developer's
choice; I think that was something he was pressed into by the
lawsuit. But just to answer your question, all the emergency
services I've spoken to -- I haven't spoken to Rusty about
6-9-08
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
I9
20
21
22
23
24
25
14
this, but whether it's volunteer fire department or EMS, if
they see a locked gate that's impeding their progress,
they're going to cut the lock and they're going to proceed.
They do that right within Kerr County on some of these ranch
gates that you see. They don't let a fence or a gate get in
the way of responding to that emergency.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand, and I'm glad
that that -- they're that way.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions for Mr. Amerine?
MR. AMERINE: Did you have any questions of the
developer, his perspective on this? He's here today. No?
JUDGE TINLEY: Apparently not.
MR. AMERINE: Okay, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir.
MR. AMERINE: You're welcome.
JUDGE TINLEY: We appreciate it. Any member of the
Court have anything further to offer on that agenda item?
We'll move on to Item 2; consider, discuss, take appropriate
action to approve the Interim Chief Deputy position to Chief
Deputy in County Clerk's office, effective immediately.
Ms. Pieper, I gather you want to make that position
permanent?
MS. PIEPER: That is correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What are we talking about?
6-9-08
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
15
MS. PIEPER: The Interim Chief Deputy to become the
full-time Chief Deputy at a 19-6, which is what her salary
has been, so there won't be an im act on the budget.
Y P
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval the agenda item. Question or discussion? All in
favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. We'll go
to Item 3; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action
to award bids for one 6-ton air conditioning unit and four
8 1/2-ton air conditioning units, in whole or in part, as
applicable. Mr. Bonier?
MR. BOLLIER: Yes, sir. I would like to make the
recommendation that we give the bid to Hardin Heating and
Cooling.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval at cited by the Maintenance Supervisor. Question or
discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is that the low bid?
6-9-08
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. BOLLIER: Sir?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Was it the lowest bid?
MR. BOLLIER: Yes, sir, the lowest bid by quite a
bit.
JUDGE TINLEY: And it did comply with the specs
that you --
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- advertised?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir, it does.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any other questions or
discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. We'll move
to Item 4; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to
authorize civil enforcement of Texas Health and Safety Code
statutes for O.S.S.F. violations at 108 West Creek Road.
Mr. Emerson?
MR. EMERSON: Yes, sir. And what I'd like to do is
yield to Ray first to give you the timeline scenario of
what's happened at the residence.
MR. GARCIA: On 108 West Creek, we had a complaint
of a halfway house going in, so we went out to investigate
6-9-08
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
the complaint to see if a system was modified or altered in
any way to see if a system had failed. And we came up with a
Following
that, we received another call, again, another complaint.
Went out, investigated, and saw that the drainfield was --
had some surfacing on it. Came back, contacted the owner,
had a discussion with the owner about repairing or getting
the proper permits for the system at 108 West Creek, and then
following that, nothing was done. So, again, we issued
citations. We issued one citation every week up to this
point to try to get compliance, to have them fill out the
proper paperwork for the O.S.S.F. system, 'cause right now
they are operating an altered system, because it was designed
for a single-family dwelling, and now it's a commercial
dwelling. It's an unpermitted system at this time.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And you're allowing that?
MR. GARCIA: No, we're -- we're writing citations.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see, okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's the increased load
on that septic system, Mr. Garcia?
MR. GARCIA: It was designed for 2,500 square foot
single-family dwelling, and now the -- it's a -- it's
commercially for 4,000 square feet, is what they're saying.
6-9-08
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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How many inhabitants of
that house, to your knowledge?
MR. GARCIA: The beds, I believe -- I don't have
the number of the beds with me right now, but they had
somewhere in the vicinity of 20-something beds in there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Wow. Where's the owner?
MR. GARCIA: The owner lives in Arizona, but the
operator of the establishment is here and lives in Kerr
County.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Either you or the County
Attorney, has the owner responded to the citations in any
way?
MR. GARCIA: No.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. GARCIA: And I have contacted the owner and we
have discussed -- one of the D.R.'s, Tricia Hulett, did
contact the owner of the establishment -- or of the property,
and made -- gave him all the information as to what they
needed to do. And, again, nothing was done. So, we have
expended and exhausted every avenue to contact and work with
the owner and the -- the lessee who's actually running the
halfway house.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, the -- the authorization you're
seeking today is to proceed with civil action?
MR. EMERSON: Correct.
6-9-08
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
JUDGE TINLEY: To enjoin the further operation and
use of that facility until it's brought into compliance?
MR. EMERSON: Correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. EMERSON: And we would seek it against the
owner and the operator of the facility. And the
communication our office has had was with the lessee operator
of the facility, and "defiant" is probably the best adjective
to apply to those communications.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval of the agenda
item authorizing civil enforcement of the Texas Health and
Safety and Water Code Statutes for O.S.S.F. violations at 108
West Creek Road.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item. Question or discussion on the
motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your
right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Let's move
to Item 8; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to
approve U.G.R.A. request for Kerr County to submit signed
Payment Policy form and Payment Agreement form for laboratory
6-9-08
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
services for the Environmental Health Department. Mr.
Garcia?
MR. GARCIA: This is an agreement for the county,
for Kerr County Environmental Health Department, and through
U.G.R.A., and basically what they're doing is they're taking
measures to reduce their losses from other entities that have
delinquent payments. So, apparently, the board came up --
U.G.R.A. Board came up with this payment collection
agreement.
JUDGE TINLEY: And they're requiring this of all
entities that utilize their services, their laboratory
services?
MR. GARCIA: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Emerson, have you reviewed the
agreement?
MR. EMERSON: I have, Judge, and it appeared
proper.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move approval of the payment
policy and payment agreement for laboratory services for
Environmental Health Department with U.G.R.A., and authorize
the County Judge to sign same.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
indicated. Question or discussion on the motion? All in
6-9-08
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
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, and take appropriate action to
compile a list of Kerr County transportation projects for
possible submission through the Russ Reid Company for funding
consideration under the forthcoming Congressional Surface
Transportation Bill. Commissioner Williams.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Judge. I put
talking about the new transportation -- surface
transportation bill that will come out of the Congress, I
believe, in the next session. They talk about the thousands
of transportation projects that will be embodied in that
transportation bill. This firm is one that specializes in
helping entities, whether they're cities, counties,
universities, educational institutions or anybody, in
obtaining federal funds for various and sundry purposes.
This one happens to be for transportation. So, I got ahold
of these people just to see -- on the strength of this
letter, just to see what would be required, and they sent me
back a -- a checklist for federal funding.
6-9-08
22
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Mr. Odom, come to the podium, please. Mr. Odom and
projects in Kerr County that we believe are appropriate for
funding, and that we do not currently have the funding for;
i.e., the extension of Thompson Drive, the -- the route on
the south of 39 on the south side of the river, such other
things. Some things that we've talked about with TexDOT, for
example, an extension coming across from State Highway 173 to
Bandera Highway coming across in the vicinity of Brinks
Crossing and hooking up with Airport Loop Road, things of
this nature. Bridge replacement that the County right now
doesn't have the money for, TexDOT indicated they don't have
the money for, and if we want to pursue these things, we
would have to pursue them on the basis of our funding them
and what they call pass-through financing.
So, here's an opportunity for us to put together a
wish list. I asked Mr. Odom to prepare that wish list and
include some of those county roads that we'd like to see
improved, or some bridges that we'd like to have replaced
that are not currently on the replacement list, and then
prepare this list and ship it off and talk to these folks
about what their involvement is and what the cost for their
involvement is, and how we might benefit in the surface
6-9-08
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
transportation act. Mr. Odom?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. Well, before you, you have a
list that's not necessarily probably everything. I would
leave that to each Commissioner to discuss it with me,
because, you know, sometimes I don't hear from the
constituents. But when I look at the overall project and
look at something, I'm looking out 20, 30 years from now,
which will not be in my longevity, okay? However, we need to
look for the next generation. I, personally -- and
priority -- this has no priority, other than a listing of
what came to my mind and I put down. That would be the
Court's decision, what your priorities are. But I thought
Spur 98 to Bear Creek. We've discussed that before, to
extend that over to Bear Creek. Then go in and for widening
Bear Creek to Freedom Trails, and land acquisition maybe at
that point. If nothing else, the corridor in there to secure
that property is a thought. Fall Creek Crossing, I need a
hydraulic study for that, and design and construction of a
crossing, or modification of that crossing is what I'm
thinking.
Lane Valley Road and Hermann Sons, I would like a
study and design and land acquisition to widen the roads.
I've listened to one of the agenda items; we were talking
about EMS and all. There's an opportunity maybe of some
property up there that I think is an excellent location with
6-9-08
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
24
But I see that
Valley, we need to be looking at land acquisition there to
widen that up for that area that's developing back behind.
The Hunt Road crossing, we have a study on that, but design
and construction of that new crossing. Already have in place
346,000, I think was the estimate. We have the funds at this
point, but we'll be discussing that in the budget.
The study for an outside corridor, this is
Mr. Odom's idea, but I'm -- I like the idea of trying to hook
up -- to connect Freedom Trails. There's always been
discussed Upper Turtle Creek coming across and eventually
coming out to I-10. I think that's a loop that needs to be
looked at. Other than something close to Comanche Trace,
that's not going to be 25 years down the road. I think if we
had that, you would take a lot of pressure and wouldn't be
coming in -- cost-wise, fuel and everything, time-wise, you
could release the west side all the way to I-10 and bypass
some of this, make it shorter. That's a thought. Going back
into Center Point area, somewhere back over in there, and
connecting up your area back over there.
6-9-08
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
Maybe contract for a GPS location and program to
inventory and evaluate all Kerr County crossings and drainage
structures. We do have some -- we have limited funds and we
need to do on a 10-year basis. Also, a floodplain study.
I've brought that to the Court the last budget time. I think
that it's something there that we ought to be looking at
county-wide for all the floodplain area that's unstudied, the
A areas, have a study done there. Maybe they would fund
something like that. That would tell us where the growth
areas are going. The flood zones like the AE are studied; we
know. It's the best information we could get. And I'm open
to annex that, I think, within -- shortly within the next
year, so I think that might be something that we'll put on
hold to look at. But that might be something if they didn't
annex it. I'm open to, you know, any suggestions or thoughts
that you would have. And maybe contemplate this and ponder
it, and we can address to as -- when this gentleman from
Washington, D.C. contacts us, maybe we can have something
that's more definitive.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think the action of the
6-9-08
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
Court today would probably be authorizing us to compile a
list, and communicating that -- that list with some estimated
costs, to the best that we could figure that out,
communicating it to this company and this group in
Washington, and see exactly what our involvement from that
point forward is all about. I can't tell you what it's all
about today, but it's an opportunity, and it's an opportunity
for some funding sources that may not have been be available
to us at any other time. So, that's where we are.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner, do you think it --
excuse me. I'm not sure what opportunity each of the
Commissioners have had to -- I know this thing hasn't been on
their plate too long; it came in within the last couple
weeks. To give each Commissioner the opportunity to --
between now and, say, the next meeting, to rack their brain,
mentally go through their precincts and come up with projects
that they think may be appropriate for this, communicate them
to Mr. Odom, and then maybe come back at the next meeting
with the idea of putting together a composite list -- wish
list, as it were, as you call it -- to send forward on up,
and proceed in that manner. Do you think --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That would be fine. That
authorization in two weeks.
6-9-08
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
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I certainly don't see
anything wrong with it. You know, it's an opportunity --
here we are begging the federal people to give us some of our
own money. That's fine. Let's do it.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: If we don't ask, we probably
~ won't get it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, we won't.
MR. ODOM: The worst they can say is no.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If everybody will funnel
their thoughts through Leonard, he and I will put it together
and we'll get it back on the agenda in two weeks.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think that will be great.
Anything else to be offered by anyone on the Court on that
item? Let's go to our 9:30 timed item, Number 5; consider,
discuss, and take appropriate action to address concerns from
residents of Live Springs Ranch regarding the proposed replat
and variance requests, Items 1.13 and 1.14 on the May 27th,
2008 Commissioners Court meeting agenda. This matter --
excuse me -- the matter was placed on the agenda at the
request of some private citizens. As a preliminary note, I
would indicate that before we can proceed forward with any
platting process out there, of necessity, there will have to
be a public hearing. This is kind of a pre -- pre-public
hearing, airing of concerns. I would hope that we try and
keep things limited so that we don't spend an inordinate
6-9-08
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
to today, I have reviewed and have digested. There were one
or two that came in today that I, frankly, haven't had time
to take a look at, since they just came in this morning. But
I want you to have the opportunity to be heard and express
your concerns, but of necessity, we will have to have a
public hearing, and that public hearing will be held. So,
let's try and keep the time spent on this item today to a
minimum, if we could, but still accomplish the purpose.
Mr. Whatley?
MR. WHATLEY:	Thank you,	Judge.	Chet	Whatley, 338
Kerrville.	I'm here to	address	just	briefly
today some of our concern for the landowners, and there will
be some others speak. But I purchased my property on April
the 7th of '08, and I find out on the lst of June that the
ranch now is doubled in size. My wife and I just brought the
property so we could go build a home and find our little
peaceful spot in the world, knowing the restrictions they
had, and although aware that they were able to replat their
property, never dreaming that it would go to the extreme that
it has now. We had several concerns out there that came up.
You had traffic problems. They came in and asked you for a
variance on the replat, which I believe was granted -- I'm
6-9-08
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
property owners' association, if it ever gets to the traffic
problem we're going to have, that we'll let them pay for
that. Well, that was nice of them. Except the problem is,
they sent us letters saying, oh, you're the present property
owner; you'll be excluded. I don't know how you exclude me
out of the property owners' association, because I pay into
it every year. If we have to widen that road, which it looks
broke.
So, I stand here today to ask you to consider, even
before the public hearing, to start looking at the road
requirements that you have, and say we need to escrow some
money here. Developer, you made a business decision. You
made a decision to make these lots this large. You've only
tried to sell them for less than 90 days, when they had the
grand opening. Economy's not the world's best right now,
like every other land developer. But they came in and asked
for a lot of -- a lot of things here that changed our lives
without any input, and all we're asking for is consideration
to look and hold to the requirements of the county and the
state. We can't say they can't replat it, but we'd like to
look at the minimum replat. I went back to them and said,
"You failed to disclose this to me."
6-9-08
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
It can't cost a lot to replat, because they told me
tted on April the 15th. That was one day. I don't
see a lot of consideration going into this replat. So, if
they replatted in one day, I know that they put an ad in the
Texas Monthly May the 5th and changed up the whole ranch.
decision based on that disclosure, and they did not. And
although I didn't ask, I think they're required to tell me.
lots less than 20 acres. I was one of the smallest property
owners when I bought; I had 22.8 acres, and now I'm one of
the largest property owners.
And I'm asking consideration be taken that -- and
that the developer take something on himself here, and I
think an obligation to say, let's look in -- they hold us,
the property owner, to a 15-acre replat. If we wanted to
break our property up, we could only go to 15 acres, which
excludes me, and I don't want to break it up anyway. I'm not
here for that. They went to 8 acres, so they're not even --
they're not even holding themselves to what they're holding
the property owner to. And they certainly should be held to
that standard, I would think, before they replat. I
personally think they ought to go to 20 acres and leave it
6-9-08
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
there, and they can more than sell those lots over time. At
least my experience in Kerr County has been to see that.
There's also -- they want to put in another road
that crosses some drainage, large amount of creek over there.
I don't know what they're doing about that, but as homeowners
going to be stuck with that, I don't know on that replat, but
they will certainly be in bottom land where we have a lot of
floodplain area, and that's going -- that's going to be a
problem. The other problem is Henderson Branch Road, which
is a county road. We went to 800 cars in a day, which would
be -- in a 10-hour day, would be one car less every minute.
Henderson Branch Road is not set to do that, that road. Then
Highway 27 on the entrance, you got a hill there; you got to
look, so you're increasing traffic there, and the state would
be involved. And then we have water problems, as we all
know. We had wells, and we're doubling the wells and all
that argument.
So, I'm asking you, before this consideration of
the variance on the road, that that be rescinded until they
come up with a way to pay for it. That would be my main
objection to what's happened so far. Because they have not
-- they just said homeowners will take care of it. It's not
the homeowners' property. We didn't replat. In fact, we're
against replatting this ranch. They need to escrow that
money, do a study, and tell us how much road we're going to
6-9-08
32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
I2
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
have to have there. Gated community. Can you imagine
doubling -- we have a gated community for safety, and now
we're going to double the ranch and double the traffic. And
thing to add to it. So, you know, I'll just turn it over,
but I appreciate your time. Thank you very much, and we'll
be back for a public hearing.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Whatley.
MR. WHATLEY: Thank you, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Dave Barney?
MR. BARNEY: Good morning. My name's Dave Barney.
I'm actually a resident of Kerrville, but I own property out
in Live Springs Ranch that I purchased last year. To keep
this concise, I'm going to read from some prepared comments,
if you don't mind. I think Mr. Whatley has done a very good
job of bringing out some key points that all of us tract
owners are feeling. I'm here in person today to emphasize my
interests that I've already presented in letters that I sent
to each one of you. And let me just say up front, I am not
in favor of the proposed replat, because the marketing
concept that was presented to me in 2006 was for large tracts
of land and restricted, gated community with a rural ranch
feel.
6-9-08
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
33
But equally important to me, I'm not in favor of
County Subdivision Rules and Regulations, and here's why. It
appears to me that the originally approved subdivision plat
of 60 tracts was not an arbitrary number of properties chosen
by the developer. As I look at the Kerr County subdivision
documents and the road construction standards, these 60
tracts line up specifically to road design criteria under the
local road definition. And if I may, this handout is a copy
from the Kerr County Subdivision Rules and Regulations that
are on your web site. You can see in the table that road
width, road base depth, and steepness of road grade are quite
different for a local road versus a collector road, and you
can see that the local road design is a design standard for
serving 9 to 60 lots.
And, again, the original subdivision plat approved
collector road standard is required for a higher traffic
count subdivision having 61 to 120 lots, as shown in that
table. Now, I believe that if the developer had come to you
in 2006 with an original plat of 109 properties, as they're
proposing now, your road design standards would have required
that they construct the roads as higher capacity collector
roads up front for approval by the Commissioners for the
6-9-08
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
platting of the subdivision. Now, the developer is proposing
the to increase the number of lots through replatting, but to
delay any upgrade to the subdivision roads so they do not
What I did not see from your last meeting minutes
of May 27th, I believe, is exactly how or by whom the
collector road upgrade costs would be paid. What you're
probably not aware of is that the Live Springs Ranch deed
restrictions for the subdivision specifically put the
obligation for road maintenance and any amendments to the
deed restrictions on the backs of the homeowner association.
And you're probably not aware that the unilateral control
granted to the developer over the homeowners' association
will be turned over to a new homeowner association made up
entirely of individual lot owners once the developer sells
90 percent of their lots. So, think of it this way. If the
replat and the variance are granted as proposed by the
developer, the developer can sell his 109 tracts as he
proposed, turn HOA -- homeowners' association -- control over
to the property owners, and then remove himself from any
financial obligation to upgrade the subdivision roads.
Now, once these tracts are sold, homes will be
built, and that is when the average daily traffic count will
increase, as tied back to the tables, as tied back to the
road design standards, as tied back to road maintenance. So,
6-9-08
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
35
road maintenance, and the collector road upgrade will be
terribly underfunded. Now, I believe this financial burden
could bankrupt the homeowners' association, and equally
Gentlemen, in my opinion, an HOA, a homeowners'
believe the developer who is in control of the homeowners'
association has a fiduciary responsibility to represent the
interests of all tract owners. The developer called for a
vote by ballot with a May 31st deadline of this year to vote
on their proposals for the replat and the variance, but then
they proceeded with their marketing of their replat in early
May, as I stated in my letters, before hearing from every
property owner by way of their vote. The developer first
proposed amending the subdividing section that's in the deed
restrictions. This is Section 3.24 of the deed restrictions.
They proposed amending it from a 15-acre minimum size down to
an 8-acre minimum size for any tract in that subdivision.
6-9-08
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
proposed replat.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
MR. BARNEY: And that May 30th letter is the
handout -- the secondhand out. So, I am struggling to see
how the developer's actions are fulfilling a fiduciary
responsibility that I believe is part of the homeowners'
association to represent every tract owners's interest.
Commissioners, I'm here today to respectfully ask that you do
not approve the replatting of Live Springs Ranch Subdivision,
and that you rescind your previous action taken on the
developer's request for a variance to the road upgrade
requirement. Thank you for your time this morning. I
appreciate your attendance.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Barney. Any member
of the Court have anything to offer with regard to this
particular agenda item? I would note that we have a
following agenda item that is kind of a follow-on to this
that might be as appropriate, or equally appropriate, to
offer any of those comments. Let's move on, then, to item --
excuse me?
MR. BACHMAN: Excuse me. Will the -- my name is
6-9-08
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
development company that works for Live Springs Ranch, the
owner. Will we have an opportunity to comment to the Court
on any of these points that were brought up?
JUDGE TINLEY: Certainly. You may comment now, if
you wish. I'm sorry.
MR. BACHMAN: Great. Appreciate that. Yeah. My
name is Chris Bachman, again. I work for the development
company on behalf of the owner, and I just want to start out
by saying that I do appreciate the Court. Thank y'all for
scheduling this to help, you know, get the truth out on the
table. And -- and we appreciate the owners being here and
the input they're providing, because communication is
important on -- on early phase of developments like this.
There have been a number of points brought up that certainly
warrant comment. And just -- one of the last things that was
brought up about the, perhaps, seemingly inconsistency in
that last letter that was presented, that change was actually
made in an effort to -- to help the -- the current property
owners with their perception that, you know, the -- you know,
that they don't want to get the development more dense. In
other words, if they want to keep the -- the resubdivision
minimum to 8 acres, we're more than happy to do that.
I'm just going to start rambling. There's quite a
few points here I need to talk about. One of them is, it's
our understanding that we are certainly within our rights to
6-9-08
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
was no misrepresentation on our part in -- in marketing the
property. And we do believe that it -- the resubdivision
will actually increase the property values. And there are a
lot of ancillary things that come up, and -- and we're
willing to discuss these things if the Court wishes to; i.e.,
aquifer draw-downs, septic drainfield, fences that may hurt
it, or bird hunting impact. Our understanding is, because we
have the right to -- to do this -- and, again, no
misrepresentation of anything, or that we're primarily
talking about roads, the road situation and the variance.
And, again, we're -- if you want to talk about any of these
other impacts, we're willing to do it.
You know, the Court approved -- you all approved
the variance request less than two weeks ago, you know,
regarding the developer's need not to immediately upgrade the
road from a local to a collector road. And -- and we just
believe that when you did that, that you -- you know, you
were thoughtful in doing it. You used common sense from the
standpoint -- let me back up for a second. You agreed to the
variance with certain qualifications that we agreed to, you
know. One is that we -- we account for the right-of-way to
be widened from 60 feet to 80 feet, a local to a collector,
which we are doing with our -- with our replatting. And,
6-9-08
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
agreement from a common sense standpoint that if the average
daily traffic count ever exceeds 800, that the road, from the
entrance up to the Gillespie County line, the main road will
occurs -- which we don't think it will ever occur, but if it
does, and 90 percent of the lots are already sold, then the
developer technically will be out of it, based on our
It's generally when lots are 90 percent sold, the
decisions on things reverts to the property owners'
association. But -- so if that sellout comes after the
90 percent mark, then yes, the property owners' association
would be responsible for it. But, you know, the -- we
believe it's our understanding that when you all granted the
variance request, that you looked at some common sense
things. One, it's a -- you know, it's a private road.
70 percent of the lots are in Gillespie County. It's one way
in, one way out. We -- the typical profile of the -- of the
buyers and the people that call us are not your, you know,
30-, 40-something-year-old, you know, soccer family that are
running in and out of town a lot. They're generally -- you
know, they're buying it for retirement or second -- a second
6-9-08
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
of, and, of course, are familiar with, granted, you know, the
number of lots served maxing out at 60 on the local road,
which is what we currently have, is one of the -- one of the
criterion. Now, further down, the -- the traffic count
volume is also a criterion. Our understanding is that
there's some flexibility in looking at those two things.
And, so, we don't see the average daily traffic count as ever
exceeding that, but if it does, again, we've got something in
place in the covenants that will trigger that -- that road
construction. We've got -- you know, there's -- I believe
the number -- the number was thrown out of 59 lots -- or,
excuse me, 63 lots under 20, I think it's at, lots under
20 acres now. We do have a few lots at -- at 8 acres that
people	seem to be	focusing on.	Most of	the, actually, new --
there's	only three	lots that are	under	10 acres on the
resubdivision, two 8-point-something and a 9 and a half. The
rest of them are generally, for the most part, in the 12- to
18-acre range.
But, again, I think we're -- maybe we're getting
into ancillary type of things that are outside of -- of what
the Court maybe would typically be involved in. But just,
you know, for this -- the overall perspective, you know,
6-9-08
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
right now we've -- we've got an average tract of about
37 acres. And we're -- and based on the proposed replat,
we'll be going to just over 20 acres, so it's still pretty
good-sized tracts there. So, you've got 2,300 acres with --
instead of having 60 tracts, we're going to have 109, if the
proposed replat goes through. And if we keep the current
subdivision minimum at 15 acres, again, we'll -- we'll take
it down to 8, if that's what -- if the current owners want it
to go down to 8, then we'll -- we'll do that. But keeping it
at 15, when you look at lot -- current lot sizes and the road
frontage requirements of the county, there's only 9 potential
tracts that we count that could be added to that 109. So,
the max number of lots that could ever be in there, by
keeping it at 15, now would be about 118 -- would be 118.
Let's see. Give me one second here. There were a
couple other items I wanted to mention. You know, with
regard to the new -- the Henderson Branch Creek -- the new
road that was referenced that will be going in, we're -- you
know, the developer's paying for that. There's no floodplain
issues that are going to come into play. We've got
professionals looking at that. With regard to the -- if the
average daily traffic count ever did exceed 800 -- which we
don't think it will, but if it did, and -- well, let me
backtrack from there, please. If the increased homes --
there's a concern for maintenance issues on that, on the
6-9-08
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
roads as a result of these. Well, number one, you're going
to have more property owners' association dues that are
contributing to that. And, you know, the roads that we built
out there are -- I mean, they're quality roads. We've got --
you know, they're built on -- on Enrock limestone. We have
very little clay. You know, our base material, our 6 inches
of base, you know, you hit a home run if you get Grade 2
base. Well, we've got Grade 1 base out there. And I don't
know if Wayne Wells is here or not, but --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: He's there.
MR. BACHMAN: Is he here?
MR. VOELKEL: He's here.
MR. BACHMAN: You know, Wayne, I don't know if
you're willing to share just your opinion, or Gillespie
County's opinion as it relates to, I guess, traffic. And
perhaps I can just give my -- my quick understanding, and if
you're willing to come up and say whether it's accurate or
not, and elaborate on it. But the way these chip seal roads
work, if you don't get a certain amount of traffic on them,
they become brittle or dead, in road contractor lingo, and
they're much more subject to breakoff and cracking. And the
-- the road that we've built out there, it's a high
quality -- it's a good road. And if you don't get a certain
amount of traffic -- in other words, any additional traffic
that we may get wouldn't make -- it will probably be good for
6-9-08
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
that road. Maybe I'll defer to Wayne, and you can say if
that's correct or not in your -- in your experience. But --
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Bachman, let me ask you, if I
might. This road that might someday become a collector road
because of increased traffic, does that roadway otherwise
comply with all the spec requirements under our Subdivision
Rules; i.e., depth of base, width of base, width of pavement,
maximum grade, --
MR. BACHMAN: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- curve radius and all that sort of
stuff? It otherwise complies with all the requirements of a
collector road?
MR. BACHMAN: Oh, no. I'm sorry, no. Of the local
road it does, not of the collector road. Yeah, it -- of the
local road. And, again, my understanding -- and,
Commissioners, you all can tell me if this is incorrect, but
my understanding was that the reason that you all felt we
were reasonable in our request to grant the variance and not
cause us to go up to the collector -- from the local to the
collector was because of the items stated earlier; i.e., you
know, we've got -- it's a private road, one way in, one way
out, most of the lots are in Gillespie, the profile of the
buyer, the type of subdivision it is. It's just -- it's not
going to have the traffic that a typical subdivision would
have, like --
6-9-08
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 WILLIAMS: I think there's a point to
than the developer would be required to bear the cost of that
improvement. Now, today we're hearing that the homeowners'
association is going to have to bear the cost of that
improvement. The variance, as I recall it, was advanced by
the developer, and in this mind, there was an assumption that
MR. BACHMAN: Okay. The current -- the seven
that made a statement about it maybe being muddy as to, you
know, how they're -- how those funds would be distinguished
and them not. participate in that. You know, we're more than
willing to -- to reword, if you will, our proposed covenant
amendment that addresses this issue. And I don't think y'all
-- I don't know if y'all have a copy of that yet, but we're
trying to make it very clear that if -- if the average daily
traffic count did ever exceed 800, which would kick into our
need to improve this road, that the current -- seven current
owners would not have to pay for it. Again, we're going to
have -- and we're going to have 50 -- 59 other contributors
6-9-08
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
to this, and -- and I'm confident that -- that, you know, we
can come up with language that would exempt them from any
cost associated with this -- with these road improvements.
And -- yeah?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just a comment. I want to make
it real clear that, in my mind, anyway, the reason for the
variance was these are brand-new roads, and I don't think
there was ever any intent by the developer to do what you're
doing originally. I mean --
MR. BACHMAN: No, there was not.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, the idea was that the -- I
mean, the fact that these are private roads is irrelevant.
The fact that the roads are going to be in Gillespie County,
a lot of it, that's irrelevant to me. If you would come in
now, you would have a collector road. That's just a black
and white issue. Since these roads were built, staying
somewhat consistent with our Subdivision Rules, we went to a
traffic count. The rules are not generally interpreted that
way, or -- and are not interpreted that way. It's "or." If
you read the rules, it's either over 60 lots or a traffic
count. So, if you're -- I mean, you're never in a situation
really that we're going to approve more than 60 lots and a
local road. And you can have less than 60 lots, and we may
take it up to a collector road because of what we think the
average daily traffic count's going to be. So -- but it's
6-9-08
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
not a -- it's a more, I guess, stringent requirement, not an
either/or. A minimum requirement.
MR. BACHMAN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You know, the -- I'm a little
bit like Commissioner Williams; I don't really recall who was
paying for it. In my mind, the developer was going to pay
for the upgrade, but I don't know that it was ever discussed
in detail. I just want to clarify one point, that the only
reason for the variance was the fact that the roads were just
built, and they're high quality local roads. One question I
do have of either of you, is the gradient on any of the roads
that we're talking about that would have to be upgraded to
collector greater than 12 percent now?
MR. BACHMAN: Well, there --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, greater than 10 percent.
Ten percent -- in other words, if they're -- if you have a
road as you go up the hill that's 12 percent right now, it's
going to be real hard to make that a 10 percent road in the
future.
MR. BACHMAN: Oh, yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, when you go up the hill --
MR. BACHMAN: Yeah. I think that -- I can't recall
if -- is Les here?
MR. HARVEY: Yes, sir.
MR. BACHMAN: There you go. Do we have that entry
6-9-08
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
47
road there going in?
MR. HARVEY: There are at least two locations where
the existing entrance road is at a 12 percent grade.
MR. BACHMAN: You know --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Makes it kind of hard to do
that later, sounds to me like.
MR. BACHMAN: Well, it does, and it won't get -- it
won't get done. I mean, you know, we're trying to -- you
know, from the get-go, we've -- we've built, you know, what
we think is a quality project, and we want to keep it that
way. And we're -- we think it's an asset to the community.
And, you know, we're not going to -- you know, money's not
going to be spent to go to a collector road now. Now, we can
-- we can leave it where it is, and sales can -- can linger.
And, you know, we've sold seven tracts. Now, there was
another statement made about 90 days from grand opening or
something. Now, this project has been -- we've been selling
for two years, and we have seven lots sold. We -- you know,
we can linger and -- you know, and the financial partners
decide to sell this and, you know, it -- who knows what would
happen, you know, with it? That's not a threat or anything;
its just -- you know, we feel like we're --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Pretty close to one.
(Laughter.)
MR. BACHMAN: Well, you know, you -- you go -- and
6-9-08
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
48
we don't live in a perfect world. And there was no
misrepresentation of -- you know, in this, and we do believe
that this is actually going to increase the property values
for the current owners. There was never any intent for the
property owners to participate in the cost of any upgrade
that would -- upgrade a road that would need to occur because
of the traffic count situation. So -- and we're confident
that we can handle that in the covenants with language that
has teeth in it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do you recall when the original Live
Springs plat was -- was approved? Do you recall the date
that that occurred?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Sometime in '06, from what I
understand.
MR. HARVEY: July or August of '06.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, thank you. Mr. Emerson, did
you have --
MR. EMERSON: One quick question, Judge. Were the
additional 49 lots marketed in the May edition of Texas
Monthly?
MR. BACHMAN: When you say they were marketed,
we -- I can't remember the exact language, and I think it's
"proposed" -- you know, I think "Proposed 8 acres to
50 acres."
MR. EMERSON: Were they presented for sale in the
6-9-OS
49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Texas Monthly?
MR. BACHMAN: Well, when you say presented for
sale, we didn't -- we didn't represent, nor did we ever --
that we could -- that we could close on the sale of a
property prior to final plat approval. I mean, it's -- it's
very customary to be able to -- to advertise a development
and pre -- pre-sell from the standpoint of taking
reservations on lots, all subject to final plat approval. I
mean, that's typically the way these developments work, is
you -- you know, you advertise, and if -- and there are
people that want to come out in the early stages, and if they
like a lot, even though there's not final plat approval, they
can sign a reservation letter. And -- and then, if the final
plat occurs, then you convert that to a -- to a purchase
contract. So, you know, any calls that we would get from
that Texas Monthly ad or anything else, that's the way that
we -- you know, what we let the people know.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: "Get Kinky"?
MR. BACHMAN: This is a proposed replat.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It says, "Get Kinky." Is
that what we're looking at here?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The darker square, Buster.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just for property owners --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This thing's really gotten
6-9-08
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
weird.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Aside from the road issue, I
think you have every right, other than possibly some civil
issues, if you -- that may be worked out with some of these
people. From the county standpoint, I mean, there's no
question. The only issue is the road issue and the variance
issue. Other than that, I mean, you certainly, from a
developer standpoint, have the right to do this, in my
opinion, with our Subdivision Rules. Just -- but it's
just -- it is the road issue. And -- and my comment, kind of
to move on, is, you know, seems to me it might be a good idea
to try to meet with some of these property owners and see if
y'all can come to an agreement on something, you know, in
between, and come back. Because it's going to be -- you
know, I didn't ask the question at the last meeting if you
talked to the property owners, but, obviously, they're pretty
united that they don't want this, and -- and I think that's a
consideration.
MR. BACHMAN: Well, yeah. And two of the seven
property owners, you know, have responded with affirmative
on -- on our voting ballot that we sent out. That was --
that we sent out in an effort to allow people to provide
feedback, and to -- excuse me -- and to make sure that there
wasn't some obvious issue that we needed to consider. So --
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Bachman, the -- the action taken
6-9-08
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
by the Court a little less than two weeks ago on the variance
was, according to my recollection -- understanding, was
something that would operate at some point prospective in the
future.
MR. BACHMAN: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: But there was nothing for anybody to
act upon then or right now, or maybe not for a good while, or
maybe forever. Am I correct in that?
MR. BACHMAN: To -- to act upon in terms of -- I'm
sorry, I don't follow you, Judge. In terms of the --
JUDGE TINLEY: The variance which was granted.
MR. BACHMAN: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Less than two weeks ago. Was
nothing that -- that required, or -- or forgave any immediate
action. The only thing it addressed is something that might
occur in the future at some point in time, correct?
MR. BACHMAN: That's correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. BACHMAN: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: My point is, if -- if there were to
be some reconsideration by the Court with respect to that
variance, since nothing was required to be done immediately
or not be done affirmatively or negatively, no one would be
prejudiced by the Court's action in -- in revisiting that
variance, would it?
6-9-08
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
MR. BACHMAN: I think I follow you. I apologize.
If you need to get this straight for the record, then I'm
going to have to ask to you restate that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. If the Court would revisit
the issue of the variance, --
MR. BACHMAN: Yes.
'~~ JUDGE TINLEY: -- because the variance itself
didn't require anybody -- any landowner, any developer or
anyone else --
MR. BACHMAN: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- to take any immediate action, or
to defer taking any action at that time, it's something all
prospective, out in the future, no one would be prejudiced by
the Court revisiting that issue now, would they?
MR. BACHMAN: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, you know, the issue
here, I believe, is pretty constant between the present
owners. They bought under one pretense of not dividing down
less than 15 acres, and then, you know, it needs to be
changed. And I'm not sure that the owner of the subdivision,
the majority of the -- doesn't have that right, as long as he
gets approval from the Court based on what the law is. But I
understand why they're frustrated, is because the rules have
changed, or are trying to be changed, and after they've
6-9-08
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
purchased property. And it probably is a civil matter; I
don't know. Mr. Emerson, do we have any authority to -- to
say we're not going to grant this unless you make a lot sizes
amendment of 15 acres? Do we have that authority to do that
on a developer?
MR. EMERSON: My initial response would be, this
isn't an action item today anyway.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Would be what?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Say that again?
MR. EMERSON: This is not an action item as listed
on the agenda, so you can't do anything anyway if you wanted
to.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's a lawyerly way of saying,
"I'm going to look at this a whole lot closer before I give
an answer," right? (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Or us either.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah. So, I think we need
to -- need to, for sure, do our homework on this. And it
seems to me that the developer needs to revisit all the
property owners and come up with something that will be more
palatable to everybody, so that there won't be a conflict
when it comes to final platting.
MR. BACHMAN: I appreciate your -- Commissioner
6-9-08
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
Oehler, your comments there, but, you know, what you all are
telling me by saying that is that -- sorry -- is that -- is
that we -- you know, is that you do have the right to tell us
that we can't subdivide the land down to -- to do the
resubdivision. Which, you know, I just need to know where
we're coming from on this. And I guess if the variance
request was not -- was not thought through -- I mean, you
know, we've got -- we've got marketing, you know, and survey
and engineering and expenses that we've, you know, incurred
since the variance request. And, you know, that, you know,
we'd like to pass through to the County, you know, if that's
going to be the position taken.
JUDGE TINLEY: Good luck.
MR. BACHMAN: Yeah, I know that's not going to
happen. I'm just saying, you know, we -- we will -- we will
visit with the -- with the current owners, and --
JUDGE TINLEY: You got some neighbors you need to
talk to.
MR. WHATLEY: We're not looking for an adversarial
relationship.
JUDGE TINLEY: I understand. You're neighbors.
That's what I'm talking about.
MR. WHATLEY: And we would just -- as Mr. Letz
said, we have not been approached. If they will sit down at
a conference room at a table with us, I'm sure we can all
6-9-08
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
55
come to an agreement. I didn't buy out there because it's
ugly; I bought out there because it's beautiful. They did a
great job doing it. There are some things that they didn't
approach when they approached the landowners. We got one
letter, then we get another. We're not looking for that
relationship out there at all. I'm looking to live in peace
and to have everybody happy. And I'm not above growth. I am
not one of these -- as you guys know, some of you, I've been
in business in this town for a long time, and I know it's
going to happen, so it's just against the tide. But on the
other hand, let's do something reasonable and make us all
happy, where we can all fit into the same ballpark and get
along. And we haven't heard that up to now, but I heard that
offer, and we're certainly willing to sit down and do that.
I think I speak for all the landowners. I'm just talking for
me, but we would love to do that with you.
MR. BACHMAN: Good.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's a great idea.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's excellent.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Do that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good start.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Our authority is pretty
limited in a lot of ways, what we can and can't do. We have
to follow state law.
MR. HAWKINS: May I say something?
6-9-08
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: Come forward and give us your name
and address, please.
MR. HAWKINS: Rocky Hawkins. I take care of a
ranch right next to their subdivision. We're still having
drainage problems and fences washed out and stuff like that
since it started. And Mr. Chaney has never been brought
forth on getting his fences fixed or anything. But since
this is all going on, we would -- you know, we'd like for him
to take care of that matter too.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, that's not something we have
any jurisdiction over, Mr. Hawkins. I'm sure you understand
that.
MR. HAWKINS: Okay. You're right.
JUDGE TINLEY: You need to communicate that concern
to the owner of the adjacent property, I would say.
MR. HAWKINS: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir.
MR. BACHMAN: We just found out about that a week
ago. I've got on it my to-do list.
MR. HAWKINS: I mentioned it to you right after the
deal two years ago.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any member of the Court have
anything else to do on that one? Let's go to 6, which is a
related item. Conduct preliminary pre-public hearing
conference and discussion on possible variances and other
6-9-08
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
issues related to proposed replat of Live Springs Ranch.
Mr. Oehler, to the extent we haven't already thrashed that
out, is there anything else you want to offer?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I don't believe so, Judge.
Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right. We've covered that,
I then .
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're not going to consider
rescinding the variance order?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, we could consider that.
I just -- I don't know if this is the time to do that or not.
MR. EMERSON: It's not an action item.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm not sure we have the agenda item
styled --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Correctly.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- accurately enough in order to do
that at this point in time. That would be something we maybe
need to re-agenda and come back.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge? Mr. Wells raised his
hand, the county engineer -- or consulting engineer.
MR. WELLS: I'm not the County Engineer. My name
is Wayne Wells.
JUDGE TINLEY: Engineer hired by the County on
occasion.
MR. WELLS: Engineer hired by the County, that's
6-9-08
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
(Laughter.) I work very cheap. I am also Gillespie County
Subdivision Inspector, is my official title over there. With
you gentlemen, I'm your consultant for your engineering
drawings and for your flood studies. I must commend y'all on
your ordinances -- or your regulations, rather, that y'all
have had the foresight to require additional right-of-way for
future planning. Unfortunately, my other residents of
Gillespie County haven't done that, and hopefully we're going
to do that with a revision to our ordinances. And I know
that neither you nor people in Gillespie County want to hear
what some other county is doing, but in our case, we have
decided that the roads in Live Springs that are in Gillespie
County are currently 20 feet, which is the secondary road
width, and we're going to stay with that.
Commissioner Oehler and I met with the developer
a secondary road -- or primary road requirement of 24-foot
width, but in Gillespie County it will not be increased to
that. We also looked at the adjacent property that has
access to this road, that's to the west from this property,
and thought about what future development may go in there.
And in that case, whoever buys the property and wants to have
access through Live Springs would have to get approval of the
homeowners' association, and probably foot the bill for any
6-9-08
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
increase in road construction. At this time, we are probably
not going to widen those roads to 24 feet, due to the fact
that if you've seen people travel on county roads, they're
unstriped; everybody drives down the middle of the road.
Consequently, there's no traffic on the edges, and they start
to deteriorate and oxidize, ravel, and eventually the County
has to go in and -- and do a chip seal over some of these
roads. And we've looked at the expense of -- you know, if
you're doing 20-foot versus 24-foot, you're looking at 4 foot
additional width, not only on all of your asphalt oil, but
also your rock, neither one of which are getting cheaper.
And so we made the decision that most of the roads in
Gillespie County, unless it's going to be just serving one
subdivision, will be secondary roadway.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mr. Wells, what's the width
when you start striping a road? Not -- just in general.
MR. WELLS: You can stripe them at any width.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, I mean, what's customary?
Let me ask Len. What's --
MR. ODOM: Minimum is 18 by the M.U.T.C.D. So --
and it has to do with traffic count. And that's not set, but
the State has made low-volume roads -- they're starting to
use a standard that they construe it on their farm-markets
that it's up to the courts to determine what that ADT would
be, but basically 18. When you start getting less than that,
6-9-08
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
when you get below 18, it's too narrow.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. All right, thanks.
MR. WELLS: And then, also, we have granted
variances like y'all have for private roads, and most of them
have to do with the geometry of the roadway. And,
consequently, I don't know about you Commissioners, but a lot
of Commissioners in Gillespie County, or a majority of
Commissioners aren't interested in maintaining any more
public roadways. So, anybody that does a private road and
winds up with a variance, any homeowners' association that's
coming in is going to be told just basically what's already
on the books with everybody else. You bring it up to county
standards and we'll accept it. And, as Commissioner Letz
brought up in this case, the entry road at Live Springs is a
I2 percent grade. Unless they bring it up to a 10 percent
for a collector road, if that's ever required, it won't ever
be needed. And I'm with Judge Tinsel (sic). I don't -- not
sure that this will ever be an issue, since -- if you look at
-- you know, ever went to 120 lots, you're looking at about
seven trips a day per lot on this road. And with fuel costs,
et cetera, people are not going to be making eight trips in
and out of there, I don't think. Or seven trips, even.
You're going to see less and less traffic. And that's just
my input for you, gentlemen.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any questions for Mr. Wells? Thank
6-9-08
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
you, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move to Item 7; consider,
discuss, take appropriate action concerning preliminary plat
of Camp Verde General Store located in Precinct 2.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. You have before you the plat.
We could have done this on an alternate plat process, but --
excuse me. If you don't mind, I'll wait.
(Several people left the courtroom.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Proceed, Mr. Odom.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. What you have is a
preliminary plat before you, and everything is all right. We
started back in February of -- of this year, I believe it
was, trying to get this resolved. We had some O.S.S.F.
problems. We resolved that, and the plat before you is
acceptable. However, for final, I don't have the authority,
but I want to present to the Court, I am concerned that since
this is commercial, 5.09 on water availability doesn't apply
to this. This is not residential. But what I'm worried
about is that in the future, unless there's a general note to
Lot 2 and say that it's a non-buildable lot, that this
individual could sell Lot 2 and someone put a residence on
there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's pretty much all in
the floodplain, is it not?
6-9-08
62
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. ODOM: It is totally in the floodplain. Now,
II can you build in a floodplain and resolve this? Yes, you
can. However, it is 1.4 -- 1.34 acres, so it's going to be
less than the 5.09. I believe that to have a final on this,
that we should have a note that says Lot 2 is non-buildable,
because somewhere in the future -- not that this individual
probably wants to do this, but let's just say ten years from
now they want to sell and they want to go wherever, and
someone buys Lot 2. There's no restrictions on it.
Headwaters would have to give them a water well. There's no
water system out there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree. Len and I talked
briefly about this. I think we need a note. I'm not sure
that it's -- "non-buildable" is appropriate, because as a
commercial, they may want to build on it. But I think it
should be no -- I think we put no well permit can ever be
issued. No wells can be drilled on that lot.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How about no residential --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No residential structures.
MR. ODOM: No residential. How's that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's fine.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, same thing. There's
always the possibility that, as a commercial operation, there
may, at some time in the future, be some desire on their part
to do something on that side of the road, 'cause it's kind of
6-9-08
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
park-like, and people come in there and it's -- whatever.
There was an urgent note from Mr. Luther this morning with
respect to this particular issue which I pulled down off my
e-mail, and I don't know what Mr. Luther was expecting, but
this is solely related to correcting long-term existing
septic problems. Is that correct, Mr. Odom?
MR. ODOM: My understanding, but I'm not O.S.S.F.
There was a problem, and it had to do with extending a line
on the back -- there was a right-of-way. The cemetery
belonged to another individual.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And that property's been
sold to these people.
MR. ODOM: That's right. That is Lot 1.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Incorporated into Lot 1,
I or --
MR. ODOM: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And so I don't think that
there's anything about what we're doing today that has any
effect on the structure with respect to historical
consideration.
MR. ODOM: No.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, it doesn't, and I think
it's -- you know, and it's just -- I think that's what Mr. --
the response to the e-mail. This was -- it was an illegal
subdivision created by mistake by the previous owners.
6-9-08
64
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. ODOM: That's right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: O.S.S.F. problems. We were
notified of that. The current owners of the store have done
everything possible to correct the situation, and what
they're doing protects the integrity of the historic value of
the property. They are adding -- they went and, at a huge
expense, bought additional acreage to put next to their
property.
MR. ODOM: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Which is part of the original
plat. So, I mean, you know, there -- it's a -- if anything,
it's a good historic modification, as opposed to bad. One is
insuring the -- you know, it has a septic system that can be
used. And they've also, in that process, acquired the
adjoining acreage, which was part of the store.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Odom, what are we going to call
this here subdivision?
MR. ODOM: Camp Verde Store, I guess.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Camp Verde Store -- General
Store.
JUDGE TINLEY: This recites it as Camelot Hills.
It's stated on here.
MR. ODOM: Sir?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the owner.
JUDGE TINLEY: No. "This plat, Camelot Hills
6-9-08
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
Estates, has been submitted to and considered by the
Commissioners Court."
MR. ODOM: I believe that that is the overall ranch
back behind that owns that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, we probably need to be
consistent in whatever we call this thing, wouldn't you
think?
MR. ODOM: I believe you're right, Judge. I'll
look at that and I'll get with the surveyor.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, the preliminary says
Camp Verde General Store, and that's what the agenda item is.
MR. ODOM: That's what the agenda item is on.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, why don't you make
everything consistent so that we know what we've got there.
I move approval of the agenda item, to take appropriate
action approving --
MR. LUTHER: Discussion? Point of order?
JUDGE TINLEY: Just a moment.
MR. LUTHER: Please.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll second that motion.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- preliminary plat of Camp
Verde General Store located in Precinct 2.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sorry, don't get mad at me.
I thought you were through.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's okay.
6-9-08
66
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
I8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Besides that, I'm sitting
right beside you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Does that motion include the --
JUDGE TINLEY: The note?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- the note?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, including the note.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No residential development on
Lot 2?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The note that would not --
that would preclude a residential dwelling on Lot 2.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. You have a second there,
Commissioner Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes. Unless --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- Commissioner Letz is just
foaming at the mouth over this, I'll second that.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right. We have -- we have a
motion and second, as indicated. Question or discussion by
any member of the Court? Mr. Luther?
MR. LUTHER: Thank you, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: You wish to be heard on this?
MR. LUTHER: Yes, please. The word "fiduciary
responsibility" was certainly bandied around a lot this
morning, but I do have a statutory responsibility, as a
representative of your county Historic Commission. Any time
6-9-08
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
agenda. And I regret -- and Commissioner Letz and I
discussed this a little bit, about my lack of information. I
don't even have a copy of the map of what's being proposed,
or a description, other than what appeared on the agenda as
being a -- a subdivision plat. Well, you can imagine, I've
spent the last five days in Purgatory, maybe even hell, as a
delegate to the state Democratic Convention.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Condolences.
notice. But I did send you, as Commissioner Williams said,
my intent to nominate this area for national historic
landmark status, and we have briefly talked about this
before. So, in my mind, when you say preliminary plat
dealing with the Camp Verde Store, you can imagine there's a
need to say, "Well, what's going on here?" I would like to
point out that the state Historic Commission in Austin has
been in contact with the people who run the store about their
plans to expand this to the north, with a restaurant being
built off the existing building, and they are in a holding
pattern, much like we are on the windows here, waiting for
advice from the State. Not to be an impediment to this
6-9-08
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
process, I just needed to connect with you this morning to
make sure that we weren't doing something that would somehow
affect the potential of bringing this in as a national
historic landmark, which is in keeping with the heritage.
In looking at this map, I'm -- I'm sort of confused
the river is still in the state right-of-way, and there's a
big area there that I would zero in on, on putting the
national historic landmark right there, because there's
enough room. That's between the farm-to-market road and the
river on the east side. There's enough room there to put in
such a landmark. And that, of course, is on the old trail as
well. I'm confused, in looking at this map, on the excess
right-of-way on State Highway 173, how the parking lot and
the courtyard for the store seems to be in state right-of-way
property. I'm also confused, because when I look on the plat
map -- not the plat map, but the property ownership map, the
tax map, the assessor's map, all along old farm-to-market
road 480, known as the Camp Verde Road, a great deal of this
area, I thought, since it doesn't appear on the tax rolls,
still was state right-of-way. And this is Lot 2, 1.34 acres,
and that -- that is included in the material that I sent to
you, and after I leave here this morning, I'm going to go
right across the hall and find out for sure.
6-9-08
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
So, in summary, what I'd like to say is that if
historic landmark, we need to be notified. Secondly, I would
like to ask the Court that somehow you build into the process
that anytime a plat comes forward that is affecting a
historic property, that you notify me or our commission so
that we can review it and take action. I have to tell you
that this property, and the area that you're looking at, even
where the septic area is, is probably one of the most
historic sites in the entire nation. When I put together the
material to do a nomination for landmark status, I came to
the conclusion, by comparison to others, that this is as
important or as significant as any -- many of the civil war
sites and many of the revolutionary war sites. This is built
-- this old farm-to-market road 480 is an old Comanche trace,
so Trevor was right; it is the Comanche Trace. In talking to
the archaeologists in this area, there have been a couple
cursory analyses done. Certainly, nothing done on this
property right here in terms of screening it for
archeological evidence, and then there is historical
archeology which deals with the actions that occurred here
with the Second Calvary --
6-9-08
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
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Joe?
MR. LUTHER: -- prior to the Civil War, and with
the Rangers -- yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's get to your question.
Do you have a suggestion on how we are going to know that
there's some kind of historical significance --
MR. LUTHER: Well, the list of --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me finish. Let me
finish my question. That -- how will we know that there are
some -- some historical significance to a plat that we get?
I mean, we're sitting here looking at a plat that you're
looking at right there, and I don't think we go out there and
check and see if there's any historical significance so we
can call you. Do you -- do you think that --
MR. LUTHER: Normally --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you have a --
MR. LUTHER: In my past experience, when somebody
submits a preliminary plat, let's say, there's a routine of
circulating that proposal among various agencies.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm.
MR. LUTHER: The engineers, what-have-you. If we
could add the Historical Commission to that list, I'll screen
it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Going to Commissioner
Baldwin's point, Mr. Luther, we don't routinely get that
6-9-08
71
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
information. Let me draw you a conclusion.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Rex is concerned.
JUDGE TINLEY: We'll get there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: With respect to county
property, there was an issue five years ago where we allowed
an organization to take over the utilization of county
property for the purposes of a nonprofit organization, and
develop that property. No one on this Court was aware there
were Indian mounds out there. It came subsequently to be
known. Getting back, then, to Commissioner Baldwin's
question, do you have a -- a course of action that you would
suggest to us so that we would know that and it would be a
part of the plat review process?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that the next meeting,
he needs to put that on the agenda, I think, 'cause the issue
we're talking about is Camp Verde preliminary plat.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I know.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think he needs to come back.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, exactly.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I have a comment on this
particular one.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're kidding.
JUDGE TINLEY: Was that your comment, Rex?
MR. EMERSON: My comment is we're way outside the
agenda item.
6-9-08
72
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
I7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mine's still on that little
I bit.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mine might be on that as well,
even though -- just a different angle.
j MR. LUTHER: Am I out of order here?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Almost. Very close.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Figure out --
JUDGE TINLEY: You can stay in the room.
(Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You may want to put it on the
agenda if you want to discuss the process. I have no idea
what that process should be. I think we probably --
MR. LUTHER: Okay, that's fair enough. That's
fine. I just wanted to say we needed more information.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But Camp Verde Store -- hang
around through the break, please.
MR. LUTHER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It is really related to the
National Register and how that works a little bit.
MR. LUTHER: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We have a motion before us?
THE CLERK: You have a motion and second.
JUDGE TINLEY: And it has a second. Any further
6-9-08
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
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 carries. We're going to
take about a 15-minute mid-morning break.
(Recess taken from 10:38 a.m. to 10:55 a.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to order, if
we might. We were in recess for a bit. We'll go to a 10:30
timed item, Item 13, presentation from Sue -- should be
Glover -- with Purdue, Brandon, Fielder, Collins, and Mott
regarding collection of delinquent court fines and fees.
You're up, girl.
MS. GLOVER: All-righty, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Come on up here.
MS. GLOVER: Let me give y'all a copy of this.
I'll give you one, Buster.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Let me kind of open a little
~ bit by --
JUDGE TINLEY: All right, excuse me. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think I placed this on the
agenda.
6-9-08
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
JUDGE TINLEY: Sure did. I apologize,
Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And the reason for it being
that our Collections Department -- it's not that they're
doing a bad job or anything like that. This is another way,
in my opinion, to collect some -- from delinquents on some of
the fines and fees that are generated through the -- through
our court system. And, in my mind, this is another way to
apply additional pressure to those people that are behind and
don't want to pay, and it would be no cost to Kerr County.
It would be an additional cost on the person that owed the
fines and the fees, and I think that just gives us a little
bit more leverage. And that's the reason for putting it on
there. And, so, I believe Sue is here to give us the
presentation, and she's passed out some -- a booklet to us.
MS. GLOVER: Good morning. Thank you. Also with
me is Stephen Lee. He's a partner with our law firm, and
works with me on the fine and fee accounts, and so all the
legal questions can go to him. But he's sitting right there
by Rex, so they can talk to each other. I was telling
Buster, I said, you know, the last time I came out here and
did a presentation for y'all was when I was still working at
TAC, and I came out here to talk about stormwater regulations
and what the County was going to have to be required to do,
and that was kind of a dismal day. But this -- this is a
6-9-08
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
___ __
better presentation, a much better presentation, 'cause, as
the few counties, although it is a growing trend, to have a
collections department. A lot of the counties are going
toward that because they see it as an advantage to get those
persons, whether they're in J.P. court, whether they're in
county court, or whether they're in district court, to get
them as soon as they walk out the door on a payment plan,
whatever type of agreement that they can come up with to
Where our services come in is, the statute that
cannot have those accounts turned over to us until they're
60 days delinquent, so that gives the County time to work
through their processes to get those individuals, you know,
the people that are going to pay, get them on a payment
agreement, if the Court does that. So, we kind of get them
after all of the other efforts have been exhausted, and so
those are turned over to us on a regular basis. We usually
-- with a County y'all's size, we'd probably do it monthly.
It sounds as if most of the stuff goes through the
Collections Department with Terry. And I wasn't real sure
about that coming in, whether your J.P.'s turn over stuff to
her or not, because when I was talking to Linda, we were
6-9-08
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
specifically talking about county and district court. But it
would be favorable to have everyone that we can involved in
As Bruce said, it is no cost to the County. What
we do is, once they've gone through the process -- the
offender's gone through the process, the County's tried to
make the collections on it, it's then turned over to us, and
then there's a 30 percent fee added on to the offender, and
our contract provisions -	- and	I've provided	y'all with a
sample contract, which is	under	Exhibit B of	the proposal.
And let me explain this the best -- 'cause it's an A.G. type
thing that came out. The A.G. came out several years ago and
said you can't put a fee onto someone that has never gone
through the court process. You can't put on that additional
fee.
And so what that means is, say someone gets a
speeding ticket; they sign that, yes, they're going to show
up, that they're going to call the J.P. They never call
them; they just totally ignore the ticket. Well, if it's
prior to June of 2003, the A.G. says you can't add that fee
6-9-08
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
on top of it. After June, the Legislature changed the
language where it can be added on. So, they call it
nonadjudicated persons, and it's people that have never gone
through the process. District court, you're not going to
have any of those, because district court, you don't accrue a
fine and a fee until you've gone through your day in court.
County court, there's not going to be very many of them.
Theft by check is one that just comes to my mind where you're
going to have people that don't show up, don't make a plea.
There are not going to be that many. In J.P. court, you're
going to see a lot more on your older stuff, that no one ever
showed up. And so on those small percentage, we do a
collection fee of 20 percent that would be out of the
County's portion, and it's only on those that are prior to
June 2003 that are nonadjudicated. Otherwise, it will go
directly to the offender, and they will pay the cost of the
collection program. Judge?
JUDGE TINLEY: June 2003 is the date on cases for
which we would lose some of our recovery, if there is
recovery?
MS. GLOVER: Prior to June.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's what I'm talking about.
MS. GLOVER: Prior to June, and only on those that
are nonadjudicated.
JUDGE TINLEY: I understand.
6-9-08
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
MS. GLOVER: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: But you're talking about five years
ago.
MS. GLOVER: Right. Right. And, so -- and in
I case --
JUDGE TINLEY: Those are pretty hopeless cases, or
should be anyway, aren't they?
MS. GLOVER: To some degree, if they're that old,
yes, sir, they would be.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. GLOVER: But a case that's maybe -- we've had
pretty good success, '97, '98, of collecting on those, and so
there would be a portion that would come out of the County's.
Because especially with y'all having the interstate here, and
specifically in J.P. court, or even in county court, somebody
comes through, they ignore their citation or they write a hot
check, never come back through, never follow up with it, all
of a sudden they get a letter from us and say, "Uh-oh, they
found me." So, you know, those are those collection --
collection types where we will find them, and so some of
those will be --
JUDGE BROWN: Question. What are you going to do
to them if they don't pay you?
MS. GLOVER: Well, there's nothing that we can do
to them if they don't pay us, except we have a process -- we
6-9-08
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
don't have warrant authority. Only the courts have warrant
authority, but it's amazing to me that most people don't
know -- unlike delinquent taxes, where we can go out and get
a judgment and take your property, we can't do that for these
offenses. But it's amazing, when they get a letter from an
attorney at law -- because they don't know that we don't have
any other type of authority -- you know, that warrant, you
would think, would scare the death out of them when they
receive that from the Judge. But when they get a letter from
us, attorney at law, it's amazing what that little verbiage
on there provides as an incentive for them to pay. So -- but
as far as going out, you know, serving a warrant on them, we
can't do that.
But we also have a process where, when the accounts
This will be at the approval of the Court. For each of the
courts we're working with, they'll get to look at the demand
letter. We send the demand letter back out. If we get it
back, we do an address correction; we send it back out. If
it's continually ignored, then we have a phone bank system
where we start calling them. We're very professional. We're
not going to call you at 6 o'clock in the evening and badger
you right as you're about to have dinner, but we are
assertive and very professional in making our calls. But it
does follow a process. So, if we can't get them with the
6-9-08
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
demand letter, it doesn't just stop there. We have other
processes that we will try to obtain y'all's money at those
different levels.
MS. LYLE: Could I ask a question? Can it be
reported to the Credit Bureau?
MS. GLOVER: We don't report to the Credit Bureau,
because -- but y'all probably could report it to the Credit
Bureau. The other thing, on County Court stuff, we can
collect on the hot check fine, the fee itself. We can't
collect for the actual vendor. So, if it was, like, the
Family Dollar store who -- you know, who the check was
written to, we can't get the restitution for them, but we can
get it -- because we don't have a contract with them. We
would have the contract with the County. So, other
questions?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a question of our
Court Collection people in the back. What's the percentage
of our delinquent accounts that are 60 days or more
delinquent?
MS. LYLE: I don't have that figure with me.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Glover, most of these are going
to be ones in which you can add the collection amount that's
due to you folks for your efforts.
MS. GLOVER: Yes, sir.
6-9-08
81
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's assume for the moment that you
make a partial recovery.
MS. GLOVER: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: How is that partial recovery
allocated as between your firm and Kerr County?
MS. GLOVER: If it's a partial payment, Judge, we
wait until the whole payment is made until we get our
collection part of it.
JUDGE TINLEY: So your portion comes on the back
end?
MS. GLOVER: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're liking that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Yeah. That was the reason
for my question, Buster.
MS. GLOVER: Yeah. If it's a partial pay and, you
know, they make one payment of $30 or $40, you know, we wait
until that full amount is paid before we take out our 30
percent on it. But you could pro-rate it out. I mean, you
could do that if the --
JUDGE TINLEY: I like the first method.
MS. GLOVER: Yeah. And that makes the most sense,
because --
JUDGE TINLEY: I think Buster does, too.
MS. GLOVER: -- as far as posting it would go, that
would make the most sense, because then it would show as a
6-9-08
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
fully paid item. We would know, then, that we were entitled
to that once we had got a report from the County. All the
money will go to the County. Doesn't come to us. We are not
bonded. We don't have the authority -- from my point of
view, we don't have the authority to accept that. The money
comes to the County.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Your fee for service is
30 percent; is that correct?
MS. GLOVER: Yes, sir. And, like I said, the money
comes to the County. The County enters it, and then once a
report is generated, again, it will show the amount due to
us, and the County will pay off of that. Because what we'll
do is, working with Terry in the Odyssey software, there
should be a way that, when those accounts are turned over to
us -- and Odyssey's pretty new out in the market as a
software program. What we will do is we will work up some
type of module update, whatever, that will be our cost, where
that when that information is turned over to us, it will show
on the County's record, as well as ours, that that 30 percent
has been added, as well as if it's been turned over to Omni,
which is the state warrant database system, so that if a
payment comes in, that total will show. It won't show what
the original amount was. Then the -- it will show the total;
it will break it out. So, whatever we have to do to work
with your software vendor to come up with that program, we
6-9-08
83
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
will do that. Other questions?
JUDGE TINLEY: Other questions for Ms. Glover?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: How can you find any fault
I with it?
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, ma'am.
MS. GLOVER: Thank y'all.
JUDGE TINLEY: Did you have any more comments you
wish to make, Judge?
JUDGE BROWN: No. I -- you know, you know how the
system works. If they don't make a payment in my court, they
go to jail, so that 60 days doesn't become an issue. If it's
60 days, they're in the Kerr County Jail over here.
MS. GLOVER: Right. Yeah, there's a big difference
between county, district, and J.P. You're dealing with
different offenders.
JUDGE TINLEY: Judge Ragsdale?
JUDGE BROWN: Might work for J.P. courts.
JUDGE TINLEY: Did you have any comments you wish
to make?
JUDGE RAGSDALE: I don't know what advantage this
is to us.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, you're currently using Omni
system, I believe, aren't you?
JUDGE RAGSDALE: Right, and the county collection
system.
6-9-08
84
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
JUDGE RAGSDALE: I don't know what -- I don't know
why -- I'm just ignorant; I don't understand why we need
anybody else. If anything, maybe more help in the
Collections Department to get it done inside our own system.
I don't know why we need someone else. But that may be --
someone else may have a venue to -- that is way beyond what I
do.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge Ragsdale, do you have any
idea as to how delinquent we are percentage-wise in the
J.P.'s overall? I mean --
JUDGE RAGSDALE: What -- I don't know what the
other judges do, but I do know that in my office, what I'm
pushing for -- and it's just -- it's a matter of time and
help. I have one clerk; she has to do -- I help all I can,
and she does what she does. But, anyway, we're shooting for
within two weeks of them not appearing in court, the case is
automatically sent to Omni. I say automatically. We do it
as quickly as we can, within two weeks. They issue a letter
to the people that's a demand for payment, notifying them
that -- that their ability to renew their driver's license
has been suspended until they take care of their business,
and which I don't have to do that, then. That's my $4 or $5
letter that I don't send. And we have an amazing recovery,
much -- much better recovery than when we were in the warrant
6-9-08
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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Linda, what's the district
courts look like -- what do their delinquents look like?
MS. UECKER: We're -- our collections is probably
get involved? I mean, you know, with district courts?
MS. UECKER: Yeah. And, you know, I'm not going to
attempt to speak for the other courts, how that's going, but
where I see this is a big benefit is on those felony cases,
and as a good tool for the Collections Department, 'cause
Collections does their job for 60 days, and then the -- you
know, they throw up their hands and, you know, "I can't find
this person." At that point, it's turned over to Purdue,
and, you know, because they have so many more tools to find
these people, you know, than what we do. I mean, we have
tools to find them, but not the way they do. So I see this
as a big benefit, specifically on felony cases.
MS. GLOVER: Can I just answer Judge Ragsdale's
concerns as well? We work kind of in combination with Omni.
We're definitely -- in fact, we have a great relationship
with Omni. The problem sometimes with Omni is that you can't
enter it in there because they don't have a Texas driver's
license, or it's not a moving violation, which sometimes J.P.
courts don't get in that. You get into more of a city
6-9-08
86
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ordinance, that type of thing, on non-moving violations. And
the other thing with Omni is that, because our driver's
licenses do go to six years now, it could take six years for
letter and just ignores it until they go renew their driver's
has been suspended, where we try to get the County's money
back to them within that fiscal year. And so -- and, like
Linda said, it's another tool for the Collections Department,
because we have five or six databases that we use; they're
worldwide that have address research in them. We've got a
call center, so that the Collections Department can kind of
stay on top of what's -- what's coming in today. And some of
that older delinquent stuff, we can take that burden and do
-- do our process. So -- so, I'm hoping it's advantageous to
everyone. Yes, Judge?
JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Glover, we've kind of expanded
our discussion, and to facilitate that, let me also call Item
14 of the agenda, to consider, discuss, and 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. I think that will legitimize
our discussion going just nearly anywhere it needs to go in
this entire arena. We already kind of started that way. Did
you have any other preliminary comments you wish to make,
6-9-08
87
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Commissioner Oehler?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: No, sir.
MR. EMERSON: Judge, I have a number of comments if
you're going to to expand into the other agenda item.
JUDGE TINLEY: Absolutely. That's why I called it.
MR. EMERSON: Okay, thank you. You can leave your
stuff there. Take one of each and pass it down.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: One of each and pass it down.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Lots of stuff.
MR. EMERSON: After your Commissioners Court
meeting last week, Ilse spent a lot of time working with
Terry to compile these statistics and put them on the
spreadsheet that you see. And to sum it up, basically, 216th
District Court cases, assessed fees over January 2007 through
May 31st, 2008, assessed fees were $14,335. The computer
report is obviously messed up, because they collected
$71,300, but this is using the statistics as supplied by
Odyssey, okay? Fines assessed were $98,714. Collected were
$54,037. If you look at the 198th, I'm just going to go to
the -- the fines. They assessed $245,675 in fines. They
collected $79,000. If you look at County Court at Law,
assessed, $773,686. Collected, $312,465. If you flip to the
actual spreadsheet that's attached, you can see the problem
with the statistics. If you look in the very first column
under January 2007, and the 216th and the 198th both are
6-9-08
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
showing starting out with significant negative balances, so
I'm not sure what to attribute that to, but that's the
numbers are also off on the 216th in January 2008, where it
shows negative 53,000, and April 2008 for the 198th, which
shows negative 117,000, approximately. The overall stats are
there for the collections, and they're accurate, to the best
of our ability.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are all three courts -- are
the numbers skewed in all three courts?
MR. EMERSON: Oh, no, just those oddball specific
instances that I pointed out. And they spent quite a bit of
time trying to resolve that, and never could figure out why
it was kicking out the negative numbers to start with. But
actual collection numbers that I quoted to you are accurate,
to the best of our ability, compiling all the reports on an
individual month-by-month basis. They tried to run a total
time span report, and the software system would not allow
them to do that, so they printed each and every month
individually and then went in with a calculator and compiled
them. So, the two-page attachment to it that says,
"Collections Report, County Court at Law" was generated back
in '98 and '99. The top number that you see from
January 1st, 1997, to May 31st, '98, was pre Collections
Department, when the County was using outside sourcing for
6-9-08
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
collections. And, as you can see, what that shows is that
the County essentially retained $109,000 in fines and fees.
summary of that information on the following two pages where
system -- and John would have to help us figure this out, I
guess, but just to give you an example of the problems we're
having compiling reports for the O.C.S., April of 2008 for --
for County Court at Law, it shows that we handled 400
cases -- and I'm not sure y'all have this particular
document, but it shows that we handled 400 cases. Dollars
assessed were 27,291. Dollars collected, 17,628. You run
the exact same report a second time, and instead of 400
cases, it now shows 478 cases for the exact same month, and
instead of 27,000 collected, it shows 36,000 collected. And
there's multiple months in here where I can show you -- I
have no explanation on why it does that. So --
JUDGE TINLEY: This is on the O.C.A. format?
MR. EMERSON: Correct. What I can tell you from
manually running each individual month and then adding them
up are the total numbers that I gave you originally up front,
which, at least for purposes of our office and County Court
at Law, like I said, show that we did collect $312,465 in
that time period. So, I think y'all need that information in
6-9-08
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
order to make a good decision. I would also point out to the
Court that under Transportation Code, Section 502.185,
Subsection (a), county assessor-collector or the department
may refuse to register a motor vehicle if the
assessor-collector or the department receives information
that the owner of the vehicle owes the County money for a
fine, fee, or tax, and -- and is past due. The "department"
is TexDOT. County can generate its own reports, or under
Subsection (b), the County may contract with TexDOT, which,
according to Russ Duncan, costs $23 a run and 12 cents a
name, and that will automatically generate a block across the
state of Texas.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's worth -- that's
valuable information there.
MR. EMERSON: There are other enforcement options
that will come in a more timely basis, since theoretically we
all register our cars once a year.
JUDGE RAGSDALE: Judge, you know, if Rex is
momentarily finished, anyway, I'm not sure that we're going
to see convicted felons, pot smokers and driving while
intoxicated clients as a big cash cow. I think that maybe
what the County can explore probably is a more comprehensive
program where we're not just thinking about dunning people
and -- and chasing them down till they finally give up and
write that $5,000 check that I'm sure they don't have. But
6-9-08
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
the possibility of working through the probation departments,
as well as the collection department, on working with people
letters. We -- we threaten people all the time, and we do
have a few teeth left in collection of these things. But we
send them letters that we've issued warrants for their
arrest. They disregard it. Omni sends them letters saying
that they can't renew their driver's license, and they
disregard it until it comes up to a critical time when
they're arrested or whenever they can not renew their
driver's license or whatever. If this thing doesn't cost any
money to the County, it's a fine thing, but don't think -- I
don't think that you could safely believe that someone that
was convicted of burglary or manufactured delivery of
methamphetamine is a big cash cow for you. I just don't
think that's going to happen.
JUDGE TINLEY: You're suggesting that we ought to
utilize the probation aspect to effect collection of these --
JUDGE RAGSDALE: Sure.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- these fines and fees?
JUDGE RAGSDALE: It's -- you know, I don't know
that I -- the probation office, I'm sure, is well worked, but
maybe adding something or someone to their program where they
can see those people that are at risk of revocation because
6-9-08
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
they're not paying, strictly because they're not paying, then
maybe work with those people a little bit more closely and
see if they can help them find ways of paying those fines and
fees. The alternative is to revoke their probation, and we
support them for the next few years, and I'm not sure that
that's cost-effective. But maybe not just one program, but a
combination of things.
MR. EMERSON: If I could address that, Judge, what
we do in County Court at Law is that, working with Judge
Brown, we have had a whole series of show cause hearings
where we have called those individuals in before they were
revoked and talked to them about their fees, and that's
worked very well.
JUDGE TINLEY: Plus with a show cause, there's a
potential for contempt, in which case they don't get credit
against their fine or costs if they're incarcerated as a
result of contempt findings.
MR. EMERSON: Correct. Correct. And I know --
JUDGE TINLEY: So the obligation continues.
They're not, quote, laying it out.
MR. EMERSON: Right. And I know there was some
reference made to that in the last meeting, and our judgments
that we use do specifically state that -- what they say is
that all remaining fines and costs shall be paid in
installments to the Kerr County Clerk as per agreement made
6-9-08
93
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
with the Kerr County Court Compliance. Defendant may serve
time in the county jail or pay off the fine and court costs
only at a rate of $50 per day. And the reason that's in
effective tool for capias warrants. When people don't pay,
the show causes don't work, and we say, "Here it is right
here in your agreement that you signed in court, that you're
just going to go to jail." And it's amazing how much money
is produced at that point in a very short period of time.
JUDGE TINLEY: You don't think that has any effect
MR. EMERSON: Very rarely. Most -- most of the
fines and costs that we assess that way are either, A,
concurrently with convicted felons that are in jail for a
long period of time, and we give them credit for what they
already have, or they're going to state jail and they're
going to be incorporated with some future period. That's
probably 80 percent of what we write off in that manner.
JUDGE TINLEY: Or if they're strictly misdemeanor
cases, it's time that's already been served; you got to give
them credit anyway.
MR. EMERSON: Correct. Correct.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It sounds -- I mean, we're
talking an awful lot; I'm not sure where we're going. But it
6-9-08
94
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
I7
I8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
sounds like there's not a problem, at least in J.P. 4. I
mean, you know, I'm not hearing much of a problem in County
Court at Law. I mean, there -- other than they kind of -- so
the problem is the district courts collection. Is that --
does that boil it down where we are? I mean, I'm asking.
That's -- since this is kind of what I'm hearing from all
this stuff.
MS. UECKER: Well, and going back to the negative
reports, you know, I don't know where they ran that, but I
gave the Court last week a copy of the 198th and the 216th
actual collection report that we ran off of Odyssey that we
actually verified. So, you know, I don't know where this is
coming from or where they got the negative whatever. You
know, I don't care. But the report that I gave you last week
are the accurate collections and credits and balances due.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, I mean, is there -- I mean
-- I guess, do we need to hire another collection company?
Do we need do it in-house? I mean, what -- I mean, is there
a problem that we're not getting? I guess -- I'm not sure
I'm getting the answer.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me make a comment or
two. I've kind of looked at this thing a little bit, and
there's all kinds of issues. There's all kinds of issues.
Once you start in this thing, it just really gets kind of
big. And what I want to do is round up all the players that
6-9-08
95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
I5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
are involved in this thing, everybody that's involved in it,
and get, like, Judge Brown and the County Attorney to teach
us all -- tell us all about this thing of time served so we
can understand what that means and how it applies to
collections. And it does, and in a big way. Rusty has
people that are inside trustees that he deals with time
served -- you wait till I finish.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I will.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The -- he has inside
trustees that he deals with in a certain way with numbers,
time served kind of thing, and then he has outside trustees
that are -- it's a whole separate game. Sit down and talk
about all those things so we can all understand how that
applies to the collections. And it does in a big way. The
Probation Department does -- does basically exactly what
J.P. 4 was talking about. They are kind enough to use the
probation thing as -- as a hammer, and most of the time it
holds these guys accountable to pay their deals. I think one
of the problems is -- is Trolinger's computer program.
We've -- for some reason, we cannot run a real live report on
this thing, but we've -- it's got to be done. We got to get
-- get that done. And then in the middle of all of these
things that we're talking about, I want us all to define the
word "delinquent." I'm not sure what that word means. I
know it -- I know it's two months to the law firm from
6-9-08
96
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Austin, but it may be three months to us. Because you -- you
could have a guy that's two months late on his payments and
is still on probation; we still have our hands on him. We
can still get -- see? So I don't know if two months or three
months or what it is, but we need to define what the word
"delinquent" means for us, for Kerr County and Collections,
before we do anything. That's my opinion. Rusty, did you
want to talk, by any chance?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I wanted to mention a little
bit about the jail credit, how that works on fines.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're going to have this
~ meeting.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good. The sooner, the
I better.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do we need to hear from the Sheriff
now, then?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Not really, but...
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Too bad.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You know how it is.
Somebody get him a stool so he can see.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You gave me an excuse.
District courts and county courts, that's the whole major
difference in how fines are collected. County courts can
sentence people to a county jail. District courts cannot,
unless they do the new state jail stuff and sentence them as
6-9-08
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
a felon to a state jail, which is a whole 'pother issue we'll
penitentiary, and then when he gets out, supposedly your
parole board is supposed to try and collect those fines for
us. And I don't know of one dime the state parole board has
ever tried to collect for a county, other than taking more
money away from the county. I've never seen them give any
back to the county, but that's what is supposed to happen.
If they are put on probation, okay, out of the district
court, then it's your probation office that collects it. If
they violate that probation for not paying it, then they go
to the county Jail just long enough to either get reinstated
on probation or sent to the penitentiary. So, the county
jail still never ever collects or has any credit, very seldom
for felony cases. And as Rex -- one report Rex did in the
same time period he was giving, the one -- the 216th court
had collected a total of -- let's see, jail credit was about
$580, and these are for both of those. Courts costs and
fines, and 198th was a total of about $163, wherein jail
credit given for county court for fines was $372,312.87, and
for costs was $285,583.02.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Over what time frame?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The same, January '07 to now.
6-9-08
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
Okay? So, there's where a lot of your credit comes with your
fines going away in county courts. What adds on top of that
is the way we do do good time and that inside the county
jail. An inmate is entitled -- one, he's entitled to this
credit on fines. He's entitled to it at either $50 a day or
$100 a day. Now, your city municipal court gives them $100 a
day jail credit for any fines and costs, so when they're
sitting in there on a city fine, it's $100 a day credit.
Most of your County Court at Law stuff and your J.P.'s here
normally give them 50. So, they're getting that much, plus
then, as long as they're, you know, behaving themselves and
doing all that, not causing problems in the jail, they're
allowed to get up to another third of that off on top of
whatever they're in the -- as far as their fine, okay. So,
you can add another third on top of that for time served
credit.
Then what you -- you also have that really costs
there is -- I think Ragsdale said it very accurate. There's
no cash cow, because if you put a person in jail on fines,
all you're doing is about doubling the cost. It's going to
cost -- it costs -- right now, in just figuring up over the
last year's jail budget, it costs us real close to $32 a day
to house an inmate. Then you're going to give him $50 a day,
plus another third, so you may give him up to $75 a day
credit, so you're going to give that inmate a hundred and
6-9-08
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
something dollars a day credit for his fines, is what it
amounts to. Unless you're with the city; then you're going
to give about $150. You know, a lot of these inmates won't
ever make that kind of money a day. They'd much rather sit
it out in jail and getting three meals a day, getting all
their medical stuff taken care of, getting $100 a day credit
on their fines and $50 a day credit on their fines too. That
jail's become a resort for laying out fines.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Too nice on them.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Don't have much choice, by
law. That's where we are. The big difference is County
Court at Law ones do sit it out. Felony ones never get the
i chance to.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And --
MS. UECKER: Let me add to that -- I'm sorry,
Buster -- is the experiences that I have had with the
probation departments on felonies, and the D.A.'s, they will
not revoke a person's probation merely because they owe
money.
JUDGE TINLEY: Financials alone.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's an administrative deal.
Yeah, they won't do it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, you -- you're putting
them back in jail. I mean, hell, we don't want them in jail;
we want them out here working and paying it.
6-9-08
100
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: On the administrative, they'll
give them 60, 90 days in jail, but that's not to collect that
fine. That's just in addition, then get back out. Then they
still have the same fine.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Would somebody talk again --
you touched on it, but I think it's important for us to
understand that, like, Judge Brown can issue a warrant and
arrest them if they don't pay their fine. What kind of teeth
does the district courts have like that?
MS. UECKER: Remember the years and years and years
of trying to get Commissioners Court involved in me going to
Austin to file a bill? Harvey tried to help me some to put
some teeth into the Legislature on that. That is exactly
what I was trying to do. That's exactly what I was trying to
do. Other than this Commissioners Court doing a resolution,
they didn't want to get involved, so it was just district
clerks against the world out there. And I went to Austin I
don't know how many times to testify on a bill that --
because certain counties said, "Well, our people can't even
eat, much less pay their fine. They shouldn't have to be
made to pay their fine." So, you know, I was beating my head
up against the wall. That's what I was trying to do for
years, and it never happened.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand, and I'm not
knocking that. I appreciate -- I remember you doing that,
6-9-08
101
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and I appreciate it very much. And it's suddenly very, very
clear what you were thinking and knowing. However, the fact
is, district courts don't have any teeth at all. They can't
say, "Go out and arrest this guy and put him in jail." Go
get him, lock him up or anything.
MS. UECKER: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So --
MS. UECKER: And that is why I see maybe a service
like this would be a bigger benefit to us than maybe County
Court at Law or --
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, and I agree. And I agree. I
think if we can -- if we can define the word "delinquent" --
and this is just me thinking. If we can define the word
"delinquent," and people are out there truly delinquent, I'd
say go after them.
MS. UECKER: Well --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely.
MS. UECKER: And your reference to the two months
is not because that's what we decide is delinquent. That's
what's the statute says. The statute doesn't say -- you
know, it -- it says 60 days after the delinquency is when the
collect -- the collections department can take it. If we
determine that three months is delinquent, then past that, 60
days later, they can get a hold of it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Maybe that's the way to do
6-9-08
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
it for the district -- for the district level. I don't -- I
don't think -- I don't think I would vote to approve
something like that for our county level, because we -- we
still have teeth and we still have our hands on a lot of them
and still have control of them, and can still get to them and
get them and all that.
MS. UECKER: But there may be a few cases where
this is helpful.
MS. GLOVER: That's right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It may be, but you're going
to have to define "delinquent" for me before I'll vote to do
that. But on the -- on the district level, I can see it, how
that works.
JUDGE TINLEY: It occurs to me that the contracts
could be structured that we would have the discretion as to
what cases we will put into that system. And if we chose,
for example, on misdemeanor cases, to maintain control of
those cases because the defendant was continuing on probation
and we didn't want to file to revoke his probation because he
ends up in our slammer and costs us more money that way, that
-- that we could have the discretion to retain control of
those cases. Those that -- where they were already off
probation because the prosecutors made a -- a prosecution
decision not to proceed to revoke solely on the basis of --
of financial issues, then we could throw those cases into
6-9-08
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
JUDGE TINLEY: We can do that, it would occur to
MS. GLOVER: Yes. Can I address that for a second?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can I ask a question before you
-- rather than try and define like that, couldn't we just say
that the County will proactively say, "These are delinquent,
and those are the ones you get," for whatever reason? I
mean, can't we just -- I mean, can't you do it that way?
Seems like a lot simpler than trying to figure out, "Well, in
this case we're going to let you get these at this point, and
these at this point." Just say, "Well, whenever we give them
to you, they're delinquent."
MS. DECKER: Exactly.
MS. GLOVER: And y'all can decide on delinquency.
But to kind of follow up with what Commissioner Baldwin was
saying, is that -- and I think Rex had a good point, too, in
that when we talked about the letter and how they signed it,
and he said that's just another tool that we use on our
collections, and that's what we try to be. We don't try to
be the cash cow for the county. Sometimes that happens.
We've had great success, and that happens, because you get
people out there that haven't paid. But we're just another
tool to help you achieve collections, and closing out
6-9-08
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
accounts that are sitting open. Now, I can tell you that in
you're dealing with -- for one thing, you're dealing with two
types of people. One is the average Joe, that's you and I,
that speeds and gets a ticket. You know, we don't ignore it
and evade it, but they do. They don't think they're going to
get caught. The second is -- just like the Judge said, it's
your hard core, your dope dealers, your felonies. You know,
those folks, it's going to be harder to collect from. But
it's just another tool to try to accomplish that.
And, you know, in county government -- and I know
this from all my years. You know, counties are so limited in
what they can do that it seems advantageous to use all the
tools that are available to assist y'all. And so we would
work with your collections department on those specific
things that you're talking about, Commissioner Baldwin, where
you said this person is on a time payment plan; they're
paying it out. Well, that's not delinquent. Or they're on
probation and they're keeping up with their probation fees
and they're -- that's not delinquent. But the person that
ignores the continued request, or the person that they can't
find any more because they've changed addresses so many
times. That's the other problem, sometimes, with Omni, is
6-9-08
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
it to whatever your driver's license address is. Well, if
you've moved, you're not going to get it. So, it's just
another tool, another layer to assist the County in their
collection work. And so I hope that's how we can identify it
and work with your collections staff on what they do consider
delinquent.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I just don't see any reason
why we wouldn't try to collect delinquent fines and fees.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Why would we not -- why would
we just leave that out there and kind of let them fall off
the face of the earth because we can't find somebody? But we
know somebody else might be able to, and it's not going to
cost us anything to do it. I mean, why wouldn't we try to
collect the money? That's my question.
JUDGE TINLEY: Good point.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You had a question?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Seems like it's well suited
for district court. I'm not convinced it's well suited for
County Court at Law.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, on County Court at Law, as
Mr. Glover said, you've got some instances where the
prosecutor, for whatever reason, didn't file to revoke.
Maybe it was only financial issues, and maybe these folks
just took a bow and just disappeared, and -- and they didn't
6-9-08
106
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
circumstances in county court that would be as appropriate as
in district court. Now, the collection process in county
court seems to run much more current. It's a lot more
unless and until the courts -- the district courts get the
kind of legislation that Ms. Decker was talking about, that
we have the ability to really effectively get the attention
of those folks, seems like these -- these folks got a better
shot at it than we do. Sheriff?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's -- the one difference I
because if county court isn't giving them the ability to
serve it out in jail -- 'cause they may give them six months
jail time, okay? And they're not indigent. Then they can
give	them	that six	month jail time and	the	fines	afterwards.
They	just	serve --	serving their jail	time,	and	so that way
it can work the same as district court, where you actually go
out and try and collect the money from them, instead of just
giving them -- and we give them $50 plus another $32 credit
sitting in jail, okay? So, I think it can be very
advantageous for county court to use it for the fine
purposes. Then if they don't pay it, then fine, stick them
back in jail, if that's what they have to do. Let them try
6-9-08
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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's not necessarily
delinquent. I mean, that's changing how County Court at Law
does their sentencing. What you're talking about has nothing
to do with the delinquents.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
MS. UECKER: I just -- I'm sorry.
MR. RUARK: I would just ask one question. If the
-- the County gave you $100,000 to collect, how much money
would you think you would be able to collect?
MS. GLOVER: That's an excellent question, and it
would depend. It would depend on how old it is, where it
came from, what court level. Because you're going to have
varying levels, you know. If you gave us $100,000, and it's
district courts, we're not going to be as successful as if
you give us $100,000 that is in J.P. court. Just, again,
because we're dealing with different offenders, different
people that pay. But where, in district court or in J.P.
court or in county court, if you've got a bad address out
there on that person, maybe that's the only reason they've
never paid it. So, in district court, where our percentages
may be lower, even if our percentages to get one or two
people to pay those higher amounts, it's worth it, where in
J.P. court, you get more and more people to pay the little
amounts. So, I know I'm not answering your question
6-9-08
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
directly, 'cause it's very -- you'd have to look at the age
of the accounts plus where you're coming from, but that can
kind of tell you the different layers of how it works.
MR. EMERSON: The follow-up question to that would
in J.P. courts can range from -- anywhere from 50 to 98
percent.
MR. EMERSON: What about county court?
MS. GLOVER: In county court, I'm not sure. I
panhandle area that we do county court stuff. But we
represent	-- on the	fine	and fee collection program, we
represent	more J.P.'	s and	that level of court than any other.
We do have county court and we do have district court, but
they're just not -- you know, and for one reason, because
y'all do have a collections department that can sit there,
and the minute that person gets adjudicated, you can say,
"Come over here, buddy. Sign up. Let's get you on a payment
plan." They've had a DWI; they're scared. They're going to
do it. Where the guy that just ignores his $120, $130
ticket, you're going to find a heck of a lot more of those
than you are the offender in district and county court.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Another question that I -- I
thought I was finished. Why would the county -- any county
6-9-08
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
not hire y'all for all courts? If they're going to hire you
for anything, why would they hire you for J.P. and not
district? It doesn't make --
MS. GLOVER: They do. Y'all know the independence
of courts and officials. And, so, even where y'all could
hire us today for everybody, that doesn't mean that the
J.P.'s would turn over their -- 'cause they're an
independently elected office. So, that's kind of -- that's
happened, where we've contracted in counties and wanted to do
all three levels, and for various reasons, we're negated on
that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Decker?
MS. DECKER: Just to kind of clarify, on the parole
cases, I mean, a defendant may be assessed a $10,000 fine,
and he may go to T.D.C. for 10 years, and after some portion
of that, he gets released on parole. For some reason, he's
got it in his mind -- he's done almost 10 years; "I don't
have to pay that fine." He's wrong. And parole will not
follow through on those cases. The statute very clearly says
that you -- that the parole department is supposed to notify
the --
JUDGE TINLEY: Sentencing.
MS. DECKER: -- the sentencing county, which they
But they -- and require them to come to us and either
6-9-08
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
pay the money or set up a payment plan. They don't do that.
Once they're out on parole, unless they get back in trouble,
they could care less. So, that's where this service would
come in handy, to find those people that have been released
on parole, to get their $10,000 or put them on a payment
plan.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure, I agree.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do we currently -- when we
get -- say we get notice by parole. Do we do anything to try
to collect that money?
MS. UECKER: No. No. 'Cause, see, we've already
done our job.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But couldn't --
MS. UECKER: They've been adjudicated. And we can
-- you know, like, if we tell -- we can tell collections,
"This person is now on parole." We do notify collections
that this person has been released on parole, and from here,
you know, it's up to us to try to collect it. We can't find
them. We don't know where to begin to find them. It's been
10 years.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's a hand in the back,
Judge.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You have a lady in the back.
JUDGE TINLEY: Terry?
MS. LYLE: Is there any way we could work closer
6-9-08
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
with the parole department? And with the probation
department?
JUDGE TINLEY: Terry, I understand you're fairly
new in that position, and I'll excuse you for that reason,
but probably not.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Probation, there would be, but
parole, no.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But you are notifying
collections of -- I mean, but they -- okay. 'Cause there's
got to be a mechanism to get the delinquents -- if it's going
to work, I mean, I think it still needs to come preferably
through one source, collections department.
MS. UECKER: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Gentlemen, are we in a position to
take any affirmative action today? Or are we going to
continue to gather some information, with an eye toward maybe
taking some action in the -- sometime before we finalize our
budget for next year? Any thoughts on that?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I don't believe we really
have any budgetary impact on this. This contract would
not -- would not affect our budget in any way.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm just trying to get a fuse on it,
though.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah, I understand.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm ready to vote that we
6-9-08
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
approve a contract with them on the district level, and then
possibly come a little later, once Terry gets her feet on the
ground and gets a handle on the thing, and everybody
understands what -- how the county level thing -- issues work
together.
JUDGE TINLEY: Come back and amend at a later date,
~ possibly?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why couldn't we just approve
the contract for all of them, and just -- we would give them
to them when they're delinquent, in which case --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Go right ahead. I'm going
to vote no, but I just told you why.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But if County Court at Law
doesn't do any -- if they don't deem them delinquent by us,
then they're not going to --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You can go and talk to
collections, though, and they -- there is no such thing as,
basically, delinquent.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's why I said --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They get -- keep getting
them way down the road.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, if it's not an issue,
what difference does it make to contract with them or not?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Go right ahead. I'm telling
6-9-08
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
~ you --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I mean, it doesn't make sense
to me.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There's a right way to do
this thing. I see your way as the wrong way to do it, simple
as that.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Your way might be the wrong
way. I just don't understand, if there's money laying out
there, and we have not collected it, and it's way beyond 60
days, --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is there some out there?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- why should we not be --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is there some out there?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I don't know, but if there
is, let's go for it. They'll find it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know that there is.
MR. EMERSON: If y'all pass an order, will you
please clarify whether or not you -- the County "may" turn
over all delinquent accounts, or the County "shall" turn over
all delinquent accounts?
JUDGE TINLEY: Have you reviewed --
~I MR. EMERSON: So I know what to do with the
contract?
JUDGE TINLEY: Have you approved the contract
format?
6-9-08
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
MR. EMERSON: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Bring it back.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, we would want it subject to --
if there's action taken today, obviously, and your suggestion
is, number one, subject to your approval; number two, "may"
as opposed to "shall." Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In addition to the point
the County Attorney made, "may" versus "shall," at what point
in this process do we define "delinquent"?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's not important.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It is in my mind.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think that Ms. Decker
defined it pretty well a while ago. It's 60 days --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: For the district level.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: For the district level.
MS. DECKER: Well, no. The statute says that you
can't turn over those --
MS. GLOVER: Accounts.
MS. DECKER: -- to this -- to the contract person
for 60 days after it becomes delinquent. So, if we decide
~~ delinquent is three months, then it would be five months
before they would be turned over.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And so the County Court at
Law could be different than what you've just described, and
6-9-08
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
115
the J.P. court could be different from what the County Court
at Law is.
MS. GLOVER: That's right.
MS. UECKER: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, at what point in this
process do we define "delinquent"?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I guess we do that before we
take a vote on this thing and contract with anybody to do
anything.
MS.	UECKER:	I	would	think --
MS.	GLOVER:	I	think	it would be up to the judgment
of each of those courts, --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah.
MS. GLOVER: -- Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pardon me?
MS. GLOVER: I think it would be the judgment of
each of those courts as to when it's delinquent. Because if
county court expends all their efforts and it's 120 days old,
and they say, "You know what? We've got a bad address on
this; we can't find this person. We're turning it over to
Purdue." Then that would be their decision. In J.P. court,
if they ever decide to turn any over to us, they could do it
based on the 60-day statute. You know, Linda's going to want
to turn it over probably as soon as she gets it, because
there is no other type of enforcement authority. So, I think
6-9-08
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
116
it's really going to depend on each of the courts. And the
contract is based where we can do it that way, especially
as -- like Rex said, put the "may" in there.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, is it true you would
turn it over as soon as you get it, Linda?
MS. DECKER: As soon as it becomes delinquent.
And --
MS. GLOVER: And hers would already have probably
run.
MS. DECKER: They're already delinquent.
MS. GLOVER: They're already delinquent.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: When you get them, they're
already delinquent; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why don't we get a contract
back that Rex has looked at that defines "delinquent," and
then we can --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You're going to get a
different -- get a variation from every elected official.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, that --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah. They'll either turn
them over or not -- or choose to or not, because they are
elected officials in those departments.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The contract needs to say that,
and Rex needs to approve the language.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think that's what the contract
6-9-08
117
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
will say, that each particular court will determine what the
delinquency is.
MS. GLOVER: That's right.
JUDGE TINLEY: And then, subsequent to that, the
contract would specify that the -- the court "may" authorize
them to be turned over for collection under this contract, as
opposed to "shall," something along that line. But --
MS. GLOVER: That's right.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- you're suggesting that let's try
and get us a contract in a form that's acceptable to us and
bring it back, and then take a shot at it then?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We don't even have a contract
in our agenda to look at.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It says "take appropriate
action."
MS. GLOVER: And the contract is under Appendix B
in your proposal, and it is -- it's a 30-day contract. So,
there's an in and out clause, 30 days. And we can change
things from "shall" to "may." But if you make it specific to
a particular court, then you exclude anyone else from -- and
we would have to amend the contract if -- if Collections, you
know, has worked their process and looks at it and says, you
know, some of these from county court can be turned over,
'cause we're just at a dead end with them. Or in J.P. court,
we're just at a dead end with them.
6-9-08
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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that generic contract
needs to go through the County Attorney and then modified and
come back, and we can have a contract.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody have a motion they want to
offer? Let's move on, gentlemen. We've had some folks
sitting here a while.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah, a long time.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's go to Item 15; consider,
discuss, take appropriate action regarding compensation and
costs incurred by contractors who were requested by the
Sheriff to assist in the extinguishing of wildfires.
Commissioner Oehler?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I put this on the agenda
because we had -- we've had some fires, of course, as
everybody knows, in the last few months, and we've had some
contractors get involved with helping extinguish those fires,
and they've incurred expenses. And what I was told in the
beginning was that they could take their -- their bills to
the Sheriff, and the Sheriff would see if he could figure out
a way to get them reimbursed. That's what I was told by the
Sheriff, and I instructed him to do so. But nothing has
happened, and I don't believe that Rusty has -- has the money
to pay them in his budget. And I don't believe the money is
available through FEMA. I have called and talked to a man --
6-9-08
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
Hannemann?
JUDGE TINLEY: Paul Hannemann.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Paul Hannemann.
JUDGE TINLEY: Forest Service.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Forest Service. And he tells
me that they have no way to fund any part of that process.
If we do call people out, it's not really up to them; they
don't have money to pay that with. And if they -- they have
a couple of people they call on, say, like Allen Keller or
somebody like that, that have a contract with the Forest
Service when they're called out to be reimbursed, but that's
the only -- the only way they can be paid. And I think
it's -- number one, if we call them out, we ought to expect
to pay them.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And I don't know whether the
Sheriff has the authority to call out people to help and not
compensate them or not, or whether he has a right to call
them out and expect for them to be compensated. So, I think
that's why I put this on the agenda. I wanted to let some of
the contractors that did assist with that, you know, give us
some information of, you know, what their expenses were and
time they spent, and I think we need to figure out some way
to either -- number one, some way to pay for this, and number
two, come up with a policy in the future of how this is going
6-9-08
120
I
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 work. If we're going to call people out, we need to
figure out a way to compensate them for it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Bruce, let me ask a
question. Judge, I've always thought that when the County
Judge declared a disaster in the county, and then you -- by
doing that, that's when you go after federal funding, which
is our money. That doesn't come through Forestry Service.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's through FEMA,
probably.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's FEMA money.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, it goes through the
Forestry Service to FEMA.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Does it really?
JUDGE TINLEY: And we had this situation
previously, Commissioner, and what we did, we consolidated --
this was for volunteer fire departments, and I think what
Bruce is talking about, I think that methodology is still in
place. They've got a schedule where they allow so much for
this piece of equipment, so much for this type of service.
And I think, when it comes to private contractors, there's a
requirement that they have some sort of -- of pre-established
relationship, and are designated and given a contractor
number, and if we call those guys out, then they can feed
through.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see.
6-9-08
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
JUDGE TINLEY: Is that your understanding?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's my understanding.
That's exactly what they told me.
JUDGE TINLEY: And we -- we got those -- whoever
was on board the last time -- I don't recall that there were
any private contractors, but the governmental entities are
automatically included, and we consolidated those reports
through my office. They went forward; we got paid. The
money came down, and we distributed it back out.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: To contractors?
JUDGE TINLEY: No, this was to the various
volunteer fire departments. There weren't any private
contractors, to my knowledge, in that one.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you going back to the
Kerrville South fire, Judge? Is that what you're talking
about?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sheppard Rees.
JUDGE TINLEY: Sheppard Rees, probably, yeah. But
if these guys have been called out to assist us, seems to me
that we've -- we've hired them on.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Me, too.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree with that. My only
additional point to that, then I'll find out how much we owe,
but -- but I think we need to look at these fires
individually. I'm looking at Rex here. If they were started
6-9-08
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
on a day when the winds were projected to be high, and there
was anything to do with a landowner, I think we need to then
go after the landowner to recover that money. And, you know,
obviously, the one that was started with the guy doing the
hamburgers on the side of the interstate, we're probably not
going to have much success on that one, but I think we have
to look at each one, and if they're --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sue Glover can find him.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Hand it over to Purdue,
Brandon.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If there's a -- if they broke
the law, I think they ought to be liable for it. I don't
know if we can do that, if that's -- if we can do that or
not, but I think they should be.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And I think we also have to
-- I agree with the premise, okay, Commissioner? I think we
have to have safeguards in there in terms of when we call out
this equipment. Any volunteer fire department can't just, on
a whim, call out equipment and run up a big tab for the
County, and then tell the Sheriff, "Oh, I did this," later.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: There would be a couple of
issues I'd have. Number one, I know -- and the two that we
mainly call out the most is Reichenau's and Rocky Hawkins.
You know, we have called them out on many fires, and I would
definitely recommend we continue to be able to do that, due
6-9-08
123
I
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 the fact that if we're waiting on bulldozers somewhere,
which is the main -- one of the best tools to fight fires --
tools to shut it off in this country, with the cedar the way
it is, we've got to get it out there quickly. When you look
at fires like we've had the last number of years, I can't
wait for 18-wheelers to load up bulldozers and come out of
Uvalde. It's going to be way too long, and that fire's going
to be gone. But I agree that these gentlemen do need to be
reimbursed, okay? I'd hate to see us get to the point that
we're not going to call out local resources just 'cause we're
afraid of reimbursement -- or afraid of costs. I also call,
you know, my entire department out, and Road and Bridge and
everybody else, just part of it to protect property and save
lives. I think we have to.
The -- but the issue I have is, like, we got a call
from somebody, okay? -- I won't mention the name -- that said
he wanted to be reimbursed for $75 in fuel for a tractor he
used. I have no idea who this person is, was, or anything
else. I do know there was one that was supposedly out around
that Byas Springs area that had a tractor on a private ranch
he was already working on, and I don't know if he's trying to
bill us for his own work he was already doing on that ranch
or not, but you do have issues like that. And that's the
same thing the Forestry Service -- I think it's going to have
6-9-08
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
to be set up to where we will have to give them a number or
', -- or whatever you want to say, you know, that -- that gives
the authorization that we have called them out, and we have
to deem it an emergency for us to call them out. It may be
that the County's going to have to set a fee by the hour for
bulldozing, or by the hour for whatever other type of piece
of equipment it is, kind of like the Forestry Service does.
Otherwise, you're going to end up with all these different
hourly wages and overtime rates, and -- and we've -- this
county's called people out ever since I've been in law
enforcement when it comes to fires. And I hate -- and I
think every one of these gentlemen that do come out would
come out either way. Normally, they call us first and ask
us, "Do you need help?" And they weren't expecting to get
reimbursed. Yes, they should be reimbursed, and nowadays it
gets very expensive not to be reimbursed. But there's going
to be some issues that we need to cover. But I wouldn't want
to get to the point that we we're scared to do it, 'cause --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why don't we agree to
develop a policy and come back with it that covers all these
issues?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we need a policy.
Also, I think we need -- I'd like to see us do a blanket
contract with any -- any of our contractors locally so we can
call them out, and then funnel it back through the Forest
6-9-08
125
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Service for FEMA reimbursement.. We could also have a
contract with these people, whether we ever use it or not.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't think that they will
do it funneled back through that way. Will they, Bruce? Was
that your understanding? I think it has to be --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I don't think so. There was
some stipulations that were given, some guidelines. He said
that in order to be able to be on the list and get one of
those numbers, you had to, number one, be trained to fight
fires, and have that certification to be able to bring
equipment into a fire.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That was a liability.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Another issue --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: This list goes on and on.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I even have one from where the
Forestry Service got 35 gallons of gas from us. I haven't
seen any reimbursement by them, either. I don't think we
ever will. It's part of us protecting our county and our
residents for something that goes wild. I agree totally with
Jonathan; if we can prove that the fault of the fire is
blamed on a certain landowner for violation of burn ban or
whatever, then we ought to go after that landowner. Now, one
-- one thing, we have some of them, such as the Byas Springs
fire, to this date, there may not be a cause to prove that
6-9-08
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
fire, other than there's even been -- we even have the
Forestry Service investigators up here helping us with that.
It could have been lightning from a week before that hit a
tree up there, and then when the low humidity and that hit,
it burned, and so I don't know. Some of those, we're not
going to be able to show a cause to. But put a dollar amount
maybe in the future budget or something, but -- that we can
authorize.
JUDGE TINLEY: Have -- have these contractors that
provided these services at your request, have they given you
billings or information --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It went through my chief
deputy and went on up to the Forestry Service. I know Rocky
has one. I don't know if -- if y'all wrote one up and gave
it, 'cause it did come in. I know we can get those, okay? I
don't know what y'all's was totally.
(Low-voice discussion off the record.)
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I know I saw his. Now, these
are y'all's coming in, both the interstate fires and this
last one?
AUDIENCE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We may have to use the
collection agency to set up a payment plan.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. (Laughter.)
MS. GLOVER: For the County.
6-9-08
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
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: For the County.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: They might have to set one up
with us.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For the County. And the
verdict is?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The verdict is, give me
$11,000, gentlemen.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Don't we have an emergency --
or a --
MS. HARGIS: We spent it already.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What?
MS. HARGIS: We spent it already.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We spent it? Not contingency.
I thought there was a special fund -- I think that's for
floods. That's flood damage or flood --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, flood.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Flood control.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, flood control.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We don't have a fire control.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We could change that next
year to flood and fire.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 11,000 for all three?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes, combined. Not counting
what Road and Bridge wants back, too.
JUDGE TINLEY: We need to --
6-9-08
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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Your costs, are these just your
standard hourly rate, or did y'all use an hourly rate?
MS. HAWKINS: These rates on ours are from back in
January. We've gone up since then, but it's not reflected on
~I this .
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is your customer rates on
I here.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And they had to pay overtime,
I know, to some of their employees.
MS. HAWKINS: Our employees keep time cards.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Then I have a small one for
the one I said I'd never heard of. That, I won't even give
you.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think we should probably
take it out of the jail -- jailers' salaries.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Jail salaries?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think that's a good place
to get it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You c
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You
left in there, don't you, Rusty?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No.
that to the defense attorneys.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: No,
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why -
~n probably get --
do have a little money
Y'all already gave all
that was last year.
- Judge, why don't we give
6-9-08
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
these to the Auditor to find the money somewhere, do a budget
amendment and authorize payment?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, I think that's a good
~ approach.
MS. HARGIS: Great.
JUDGE TINLEY: Sheriff, why don't you --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: On these three, I would
recommend, you know, that -- I do know these three were
legitimately used. They -- they had to drive -- I know
Reichenau's drove all the way out to the Midway fire, and
then turned around and went back out to the Upper Turtle
Creek fire, and hauling that type of equipment around is --
yes, I would recommend that these three gentlemen be paid for
it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Sheriff, would it be out of order to
suggest that, for the future, that you maybe put together a
draft of a -- of a policy for a procedure to call these folks
out, and -- and how their rate of compensation is going to be
set? So that we can take a look at it for future instances
where we won't -- we'll know exactly what's going to happen
next time this happens?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes, I think that would be --
would be wise for us to be able to do. And I think getting
with them and getting with Forestry Service to see what their
actual rate is in their contract, and then going through Rex,
6-9-08
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
we could probably come up with a feasible means --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You know --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: -- to continue to help us.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We're going to continue to
have the problem as we go -- go farther along, and we never
-- you know, and equipment costs were not very much, and fuel
costs wasn't much and, you know, people didn't mind. But you
can't expect somebody to come in here and just donate.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And just donate. You know,
ever since I've been around, we have got to be able to count
on our locals to help us. 'Cause they --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Sure.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: -- they do so much for us in
these fires and emergency situations; nobody else can deny.
Now, there's other issues, such as I know Fredericksburg had
one where a gentleman was helping and had the dozer catch
fire. It got too close and burned up, so then you're talking
about a reimbursement issue on that.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's why we talked --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We need to add all that.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- about a hold harmless
clause or insurance of some kind to take care of it.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't know if insurance
companies would pay -- if we're not using them for their
work, and we're using them for our work, is there maybe
6-9-08
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
something else that be has to be done?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, Sheriff, if you'll -- if
you'll work on a draft of that policy going forward, I think
that will -- that will be helpful. And it may be, if we have
a standby contract that we enter into, maybe we can get the
Forest Service to approve in advance that contract, and maybe
figure out a way to fund it through it. I don't know what
all the possibilities are, but we need to -- we need to try
and figure it out.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I heard on this one,
especially since the way the State's been ever since the
winter fires and this continual deal, Forest Service said
that they -- even though they've had a contract, that they
ran out of money a long time ago, supposedly, and aren't even
reimbursing those that they used to reimburse.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Forest Service tells me that
they're completely broke.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah, that's what I've heard.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Anything else further on that
item? Let's quickly handle a couple items before we break.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Want to make a motion or
whatever to instruct --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Give them the bills; then
they'll come back with a budget amendment.
JUDGE TINLEY: Or as approved bills, one or the
6-9-08
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
other. It will be in a stack of bills, with -- with or
without a budget amendment.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's quickly go to Item 17;
consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to designate
by resolution engineering and administrative service
providers for 2008 Texas Community Development Block Grant
Colonia Construction award for Phase IV of the Kerrville
South Wastewater Project.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Bye, y'all.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Judge. By
letter Judge Tinley received on May 23, official notice from
O.R.C.A. that we have been awarded a Colonia Construction
Fund Grant in the amount of a half million dollars -- we
already took the picture of that, so we knew it was coming.
Commissioner Letz and I, last Friday, scored the proposals
that were received for administrative services and for
engineering services. There was one proposal submitted for
administrative services; that's Grantworks. However, this
does not require us to score in the event that we only had
one proposal, so our resolution would contain Grantworks for
administrative. I believe we had seven -- is that right,
Commissioner? Seven?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, I think so.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Six or seven engineering
6-9-08
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
proposals from various size firms throughout the state of
Texas, and we scored those and arrived at the conclusion that
Tetra Tech should be the one awarded the -- they scored
highest, and should be the one awarded the Phase IV. Tetra
Tech has been our engineer on this project for Phases I, II,
and III, and there probably isn't any particular compelling
reason to change engineers. They've done good work for us
and so forth. So, I would move approval of the agenda item,
which identifies Grantworks as the administrative firm to --
for this particular Colonias Construction Fund grant of a
half million dollars, and continue with Tetra Tech for the
engineering services required as well.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the resolution, which contains the award of
administrative services to Grantworks, and Tetra Tech for
professional engineering services. Question or discussion on
the motion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just a comment on the scoring I
want to make. There's a form we are required to use, and on
that form there were several, you know, rating --
Commissioner Williams and I both did it individually, then it
did -- talked about them. Tetra Tech came out number one,
and the primary reason was, there's a -- there's an area for
work in the locality, and because they're the only ones that
6-9-08
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
have worked in the area, that they got higher there, which
put them over the top. The other firms -- there's, I guess,
three -- two other firms that were scored close to being as
high, but neither one of those firms had done any work in
this area. And that was the -- the difference on the -- in
the scoring, but it was -- the scoring used was what's
required to be used by the State.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Other questions or comments? All in
favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Betty, thank you for
coming.
JUDGE TINLEY: We'll go to Item 18; consider,
discuss, take appropriate action to designate by resolution
authorized signatory for 2008 Texas Community Development
Block Grant Colonia Construction award for Phase IV,
Kerrville South Wastewater Project.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This is --
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This is a companion
resolution which identifies signatory to the grant, being the
6-9-08
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
County Judge, Auditor, County Clerk -- who else is on that,
Judge?
JUDGE TINLEY: Those are the three.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Those are the three
signators for the grant. I move approval of the resolution.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the resolution on the agenda item. Question or
comment? 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 be in
recess until 1:45.
(Recess taken from 12:15 p.m. to 1:50 p.m.)
(Commissioners Letz and Oehler not present.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's come back to order, if we
might. Let's go to Item 10; consider, discuss, and take
appropriate action on resolution from the Hill Country
Coalition of Counties concerning county authority concerning
regulation of subdivisions. This item was put on the agenda
by Commissioner Letz. He's been involved in that Hill
Country County Coalition dealing with some of these issues.
6-9-08
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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Did you ring the bell for
him, Jody? Did you ring the bell for the Commissioners?
MS. GRINSTEAD: Cheryl did, yeah.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. If nobody's interested in
that one, we'll go to something else.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Here comes one.
(Commissioner Oehler entered the courtroom.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll be happy to make a
motion to approve it, and I do so.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item. Question or discussion on the
motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your
right hand.
(Commissioners Baldwin and Williams voted in favor
of the motion.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I abstained 'cause I wasn't
here for the motion.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, you was too. I saw that
foot come around the corner.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You were here for the
6-9-08
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
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: What was the motion?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'll vote yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right, motion does carry. We'll
move to Item 11 -- we can't move to Item 11 now. We'll move
to item 12; consider, discuss, take appropriate action on
request of Kerr County funding commitment to Texas
develop a county-controlled and owned software system for
courts and beyond. That "courts and beyond" is language at
TAC that they sent to us. Sometime back, I got a letter from
TAC that they wanted to explore developing a county-owned and
controlled software system that could be used by county
governments that would be compatible, and it was pretty
general in nature.
(Commissioner Letz entered the courtroom.)
JUDGE TINLEY: I inquired of them what -- what the
particulars were going to be. They finally got back, and in
dealing with costs involved, they said that the estimated
total is about $800 (sic). Those that -- that wanted to get
in, they wanted a commitment of one-tenth of one percent of
general fund revenue from the '08-'09 budget -- the '09
budget, effectively. And the Auditor calculated that amount
6-9-08
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
at 17,000 and change.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I have some
~, questions.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: On the front part of the
memo from TAC, aqui -- that's my Spanish -- and see this
little bullet right here? The very last one there, tell me
what that -- tell me what these words mean. It says, "Allow
any new legislative mandates affecting the system to be
implemented for all counties using the system uniformly."
JUDGE TINLEY: What that says is that a software
system developed would, on an ongoing basis, be added to the
system. Those counties that commit would be counties which
could participate in the utilization of that system. The
counties that don't commit, I guess, would have to buy their
way in later, maybe. I'm not sure. Or maybe couldn't at
all. They merely want a commitment at this point in time.
In that amount, $17,018?
MS. HARGIS: I thought it was less than that,
Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, maybe you calculate it
different than I do. You're showing $170.18?
MS. HARGIS: And I -- I did it twice. But you're
saying 17,000?
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. Move over three decimal
6-9-08
139
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
places. Two decimal places would be one percent. Three
would be one-tenth of one percent. Seventeen million general
revenue?
MS. HARGIS: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Lop off the last three
places, and you get 17,000.
MS. HARGIS: That's more than I thought it would
be.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. I just thought the decimal
place went in there automatically. You're showing me this
year's at $17,018,313. Just lop off the 313, and -- and put
your decimal place there, and you get 17,000.
MS. HARGIS: That's pretty expensive. That's just
-- that's forever, right? Once we sign up?
JUDGE TINLEY: No, that's for the development of
the system.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, on the next page, in the
middle of the page, I'm pointing -- you have to look when I'm
pointing, Judge. My gosh. See here? Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm, I'm with you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It says, "Developing a
framework on scope of work for a CIJMS solution will include
a comprehensive business process analysis, as well as a
detailed system design. Preliminary cost estimates are
between $600,000 and $800,000, and the process will take nine
6-9-08
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
to 12 months. Once this framework is complete, various
options become available, including the development of a
CIJMS-hosted software solution.. Preliminary estimates for
developing software are $10,000 to $12,000 over an 18-month
period; however" --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Million.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: "However, these are clearly
good faith estimates, and the cost could be substantially
higher contingent upon final framework and scope of work."
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How much higher than 12
million can it get?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you want me to throw them
out of the room, or do you want to? Isn't that a little bit
wild, those numbers?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I -- the numbers are wild, but
my -- my biggest question is, do they have any track record
of being able to do this kind of stuff?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. No, this is the pilot.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, software companies, as
we know -- technology -- what's the name of the outfit we
hired?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Tyler.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Tyler Technologies, that are --
that's their business and they've been doing it for years,
6-9-08
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
can't get it right, much less going to some people that --
you know, in the government sector, or sort of government
sector, you know, getting it right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd have a hard time voting
for something like this. Just doesn't make sense to me.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I really don't see --
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- the need, for most of us.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What do you see as being
the value of it?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, the value of it -- and
probably in the not too distant future, our Odyssey, just
like the one before it, is going to be phased out, for a
number of reasons, if for no other reason than --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Doesn't work.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- Tyler Technologies needs to get
reloaded. Technology has a way of doing those things.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, about every six,
seven years.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's the track record.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But this -- I mean, this is --
their concept is to replace Odyssey-type software?
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And not -- it's just for
counties.
6-9-08
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: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: In this particular instance.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, not just for counties
generally, but for Texas counties.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, and you look at -- if
it were to cost 10 or 12 million dollars, if we spread that
amongst every county in the state, you're talking about a lot
less money than what we've got: in our --
JUDGE TINLEY: We put a million bucks in Odyssey
this last go-round.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sure, yeah.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And that's the other side of
the way to look at it, I believe.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. But, I mean, I think
you have to look -- I mean, I don't see this a whole lot
different than me deciding I'm going to go out and write
software and going out and say, "Give me the money." I mean,
I would be much more comfortable if this was a -- a private
sector person saying, "We will build this for the counties
and do it," but to have them doing it internally, I just
don't see that they have the expertise of ever doing anything
like this.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, there's another
issue, too. Say it takes 10 to 12 million dollars to develop
the software, and then TAC is going to give it to
6-9-08
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
participating counties? Or they're going to lease it to us
for another fee? I suggest to you, it would be the latter.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, unless you got around
on the development phase of it, which might not count for
anything, other than just paying to develop it.
JUDGE TINLEY: The whole concept is that those that
-- those that have paid for it, that have been on board, when
the end product comes out at the tail end, will be -- have
the ability to participate in whatever that project is. You
know, the theory being that they'd already paid for it. Now,
if you're asking me if I have a contractual agreement that
says that, no, I don't. Now, we can certainly make
additional inquiries and find out -- I doubt if they have any
contractual type situation at this point.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Seems to me that if they want
to do this, they ought to come before us and give us a little
more detailed plan of what they're -- they're wanting to do
for that kind of money, and what we're going to get out of
it. Rather than just help develop --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- pay for the development of
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, I agree with that. I
thing, it is extremely complicated to try to make a software
6-9-08
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
package that covers all county needs. 'Cause our needs are
so diverse, and it's really, really hard. And, you know --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And look who the letters's
from. Woody Gossom is retired military; he's never had to
spend a penny of his own money. (Laughter.) So --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He's a nice guy.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He's not going to -- well,
he's not going to walk in here and tell you what he can do
for you. "Send me a check."
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, what I would say to
that is that if he doesn't walk in here and explain to us
what he wants to do, --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, he did walk in the
Judge's office, I understand.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- show us how he's going to
go about it and the cost, and what the benefits are, then why
would we vote for it?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He's been in the courthouse
just recently.
JUDGE TINLEY: He was here to take a look at our
Odyssey system for -- Wichita County was looking at what they
were going to do.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That was something else.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, he came here -- yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He's been down here nosing
6-9-08
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
around.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: How many counties does he
have signed up?
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't have a clue.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's another question.
JUDGE TINLEY: Why don't we invite whoever's
ramrodding this program to come over here and --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That'd be Woody Gossom.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think he ought to come over
if he wants us to give him any money to develop anything.
JUDGE TINLEY: This says to contact Gail Latham,
LIRA Director.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Woody writes the
letter, says, "Okay, if you guys have any problems, call this
chick."
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Call Gail.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm gathering that's the -- the
Court's instructions to me at this point?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sounds good to me.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are you going to invite him
down to make a presentation?
JUDGE TINLEY: Sure.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, super.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm going to set them up at about
6-9-08
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
1:00 -- I mean 11:30.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So that will get them out
~ by noon?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, no, so that they can take you
to Buzzie's, Buster.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, man.
JUDGE TINLEY: See? Let's go to Item 11; consider,
discuss, and take appropriate action on approval of
management letter for 2006-2007 audit.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, we can pass on that. We
don't have it finalized yet.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That was quick.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I was -- I've done my first
part. Now I'm waiting on the Auditor. She was waiting on
me; now I'm waiting for the Auditor.
MS. HARGIS: And I'm waiting on the external
auditor, so we're all waiting.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Everybody's waiting on
somebody.
JUDGE TINLEY: And I'm waiting on a bus.
MS. HARGIS: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Trying to get it done as quick
6-9-08
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
147
as we can. It'll be back.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well that's an '06-'07 audit.
There's probably not a huge rush on it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, there's a big rush.
There's some people that aren't happy.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's go to Item 16; consider,
discuss, take appropriate action to rescind that portion of
Court Order Number 30840 which declared the old animal
control van surplus, allow the van to be used by Kerr County
Maintenance Department. Commissioner Oehler?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, it seems that this was
offered to -- to Mr. Bonier before we declared it surplus,
and since that time, he has determined that he really does
need it to help him with kind of replacing an old truck that
he's using, I believe, for hauling gasoline or diesel or
something. And so he is -- he's caught a real hard time over
this because of all the grief he caused in this process.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, yeah.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Saying that he did not want
it. Yeah, he did want it. And finally now, he is back and
says he definitely does want it, and not going to change his
mind, so I figured if we're going to let him use it, we need
to get it off of the surplus list and put it back in the
county inventory.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
6-9-08
148
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And I move that we rescind
the court order.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item. Question or discussion? A11 in
favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Item 19;
consider, and review options of presentation on '08 budget.
MS. HARGIS: Judge, I'm going to defer to Ken.
That's another one of those things we need y'all's decision
on.
MR. RUARK: Okay. We went back and played with a
little bit of the Incode budget process, and then we had our
little training class up here, and we feel that the best way
to handle that for the Commissioners Court is to create a
second -- another budget code just for the five of you to
use, okay? So, what we'll do is that I will -- and I'll use
the term "freeze" the departmental requested budget, which
everybody's doing now, next Monday. And that will be
constant; that budget code will never be changed by anybody,
III okay?
JUDGE TINLEY: That's D.R.?
6-9-08
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
MR. RUARK: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. RUARK: So, that's the -- that's the record of
what everybody entered. Okay, the second, then we'll move it
to -- and we can call it whatever you want, but I just said
Commissioners Court, C.C., or whatever anybody would like.
And that'll be the Commissioners Court to do with as you
want, okay? It will work the same way -- the same thing as
the training manuals have had. You can go in there and put
your notes; you can do whatever you want to. The only caveat
with all this -- and it's a Windows exception -- is that if
you're both in -- or any of you or all four of you are at the
same account at the same time trying to update, no Windows
program -- database will let you do that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, we found that out the
other day.
MR. RUARK: Okay. So, that's just not going to
happen. But you can all look at it; you can all look at the
same thing, but if you go to type something, you press enter,
and all four of you at the same time -- at the same place, at
the same time, that won't happen.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
MR. RUARK: But the odds of that -- I can't
imagine, with the length of budget, that you're all going to
be at the same place at the same time probably, but if that
6-9-08
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
l3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
150
happens, that's what it would be. Then, when you're done
with your preliminary working thing, then we can move that to
where you're in this courtroom and you're going through the
budget process, we can have that. And then we can have
Approved/Recommended budget, which becomes the final budget,
and then when you're sitting here and talking, then that just
gets to be updated, and then you can go from there. And
that's the simplest process. We can do more, but it depends
on how much -- you know, I'll defer to you gentlemen, how
much you really want to -- how many notes you want to put in.
If you each want your own set, we can do that, but I don't
know that -- you know, I'm just --
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, there will be a separate
column for me of -- A.R.?
MR. RUARK: Yes.
MS. HARGIS: Yes.
MR. RUARK: Yeah. The report will be separated,
and we have two budgets, okay? You can -- I can do the D.R.
budget on a report, show the previous years, and I can do the
A.R. budget on that same report. The Commissioners Court, if
you wanted to show that as another column, then I'd have to
have some custom code, then, through Tyler Technologies,
which isn't a big deal.
MS. HARGIS: We can get it done.
MR. RUARK: We can get it done. But if you just
6-9-08
151
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
use the working budget, you know, Commissioners Court, we'll
be fine with all your notes and whatever else. And, again,
you can change the numbers. If you wanted to get in there
and you actually wanted to change the numbers instead of just
making notes, you can do that too.
MS. HARGIS: And we might suggest, you know,
that -- remember, there were three blocks of notes; one, two,
three, and so I would suggest maybe that you take the
permanent note block number one, Buster. You take the second
one, and you take the third one, and then you hit
Departmental and take the block number one of that. So, each
one of you has a different place for your notes.
MR. RUARK: Yeah, we can show you that too. I'll
sit down and work with you on that.
MS. HARGIS: 'Cause otherwise, they're all going to
be in the same square. You have to identify your name. And
if you each had your own block, then you --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are you saying, though --
back to the columns.
MR. RUARK: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The other day, when we left
it, if I wanted to look at last year's or a previous budget,
I needed to shift from my page to another page.
MR. RUARK: Yeah. There is a report --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is it still that? Or --
6-9-08
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
152
MR. RUARK: If you were looking at just the report,
and you had -- and you wanted to compare the last three years
budgets with whatever budget codes you're looking at now, and
then you wanted to go look at the departmental notes in
detail someplace else, that wasn't on that report, yes, you
would have to -- you'd have two windows open; you'd have to
click, and one would be open. You know, you would minimize
and maximize; that's all you'd have to do. You could switch
back and forth.
MS. HARGIS: The detail one is high level, so if
you wanted the detail behind it, then you'd open the little
screen. The report would be the higher level; it just gives
you the one amount.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Why can't I have a column
that's last year's number, and the column right next to it
this year's number?
MS. HARGIS: You will have that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't want to split from
screen to screen.
MS. HARGIS: You will have that on the report.
What I'm saying is, if you want any other detail on that
report, or anything else that you needed to go back that
wasn't on that report, then you'd have to minimize. You'd
have that ability.
MR. RUARK: You'd have that ability. You'd have to
6-9-08
153
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
minimize it.
MS. HARGIS: But you don't have --
JUDGE TINLEY: But the numbers -- initially, what
we'll be looking at, that will have the departments
requested?
MR. RUARK: Right.
MS. HARGIS: Then C.C.
JUDGE TINLEY: Then the --
MR. RUARK: That would be a custom if we do that,
though.
JUDGE TINLEY: And the A.R. and the C.C., that's
going to have --
MS. HARGIS: No, we do the C.C. in between.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. RUARK: If we do go that route, I have to -- we
can do that. That would have to be a customized report, and
we can do that.
I JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. But -- but that one is going
to show the activity for the prior year?
MS. HARGIS: For the prior four years.
JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, for the prior four years.
MR. RUARK: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Including from the -- from the
current year?
MS. HARGIS: Well, you'll have four -- four years,
6-9-08
154
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
including --
JUDGE TINLEY: Original budget, year-to-date,
expenditures, encumbered?
MS. HARGIS: And then 2003-2004, 2005-2006,
2006-2007, and then your current year. You'll have plenty of
data.
JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, yeah, have lots of historical
detail.
MR. RUARK: You can even drill down if you want to.
You can go back a little bit.
JUDGE TINLEY: Plus the notes that are --
MS. HARGIS: Plus all the notes.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- that that particular department
has put into their request will be there also.
MR. RUARK: Right. Correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Sounds like it's going to be pretty
much what we need.
MR. RUARK: I think what you'll find, okay, once
you go through the process -- and, again, I'll offer this.
If you want to do a practice run and just see how it will
work, we'd be willing to do whatever you want to do.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How about two practice
runs?
MR. RUARK: We can do two or three, however you
want. We'll be willing to do that, and then we can work out
6-9-08
155
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
any of the -- you know, the issues that you have before you
get here for the final approval. And then you can, you know,
just work -- call them work sessions or whatever, but that's
what, in effect, they are.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MR. RUARK: I think what you'll find, okay, in my
experience, is that once you -- once you get through this and
you realize that that paper isn't shuffling that you were
mentioning, I'll bet you cut hours off your budget process
sitting in this courtroom, because you will just be looking
at this, and it's going to be a whole lot faster.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That would be a plus.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That would be -- that'll be
astounding, too, this year.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I have one question about it
all. Why can't we put in the salary stuff?
MS. HARGIS: You get --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: 'Cause that, to me, is the
whole picture of looking at our budgets. Salary's the major
part of --
MS. HARGIS: You got your position control schedule
today.
li MR. RUARK: Okay, let me add to that, all right?
Next year, okay, that the -- the H.R. module that they've
just put in, okay? Next year, when all that is functioning
6-9-08
156
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
properly, that will be downloaded from the H.R. module into
the budget process.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That didn't tell me nothing.
MR. RUARK: Okay. We11, let's see.
MR. EMERSON: Let me interject here. Y'all can
talk about this outside the agenda, since that's not on here.
MS. HARGIS: Good. Thank you.
', COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What is the agenda?
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're tough today.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Wait.
JUDGE TINLEY: Rusty, I don't think it makes any
difference what your interpretation is.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It's a presentation; it's how
I'm going to present it to y'all with no salaries.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's go to Item 20, if we might;
consider, discuss, and authorize use of Texas Procurement
Card from Chase Bank for the Sheriff's Department.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Hmm.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Now I'm mad at her, so I ain't
saying nothing.
MS. HARGIS: Rusty and I have been looking for some
type of -- of a card that we could monitor that he could use
for his officers, especially his officers that are having to
go and pick up prisoners. And this particular program is the
6-9-08
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
157
State of Texas Procurement Card. It's through Chase Bank.
Chase only monitors it, but it: is the Texas -- it's what the
Texas Rangers use; it's what U.P.S. uses. It's what the
State of Texas uses. I'm not advocating that we do it
throughout the county. I'm only advocating that we do it for
his office as an experiment. Now, how this works is that
Rusty becomes the administrator of this card. He will give
that person a daily amount of money, or -- or however much he
wants to give for that travel. He can actually monitor that
live during the process, and so if he sees that that person
is trying to spend more money, they can't, because the card
will lop off. And -- and we can also put in there the
specific things.
The only problem with travel -- and he and I both
have gone through more than one of these presentations -- is
that -- was when they eat, was the only part that we have --
you know, you can't -- if they wanted to have a drink, then
we're just going to have to monitor the ticket. But that's
why we want to do it, just for. these guys that are
transporting, because he has to -- he's using -- currently
using his own personal credit card, which we don't get the
discount for state taxes on, for one thing. Also, we've had
so many people travel lately, you know, it's kind of putting
a burden on his own card. And we need to -- he needs to be
able to send these officers out on the spur of the moment if
6-9-08
158
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
they need to get another plane ticket because they need to
fly back, which they had -- this last month's been pretty
hectic. So, there's no charge for the card, and it has a big
star on it, and it will have t:he name of the county. It will
have their name. But -- but we're only -- he doesn't want to
issue it to very many right now. Maybe five, I think, is all
we're thinking about. Five cards.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If he had a -- if he had a
deputy out in Los Angeles picking up a prisoner, and what I
understood you to say was that you -- you authorize $500 for
that trip, and he's got to lay over. They -- L.A.'s not
going to release this guy, so he has to lay over an extra day
and he has to get another hotel room, et cetera, so it takes
a little bit more money than what you had originally
authorized. How do you --
MS. HARGIS: He simply calls Rusty, and Rusty goes
on the computer and authorizes more.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see. You like that power,
~ Rusty?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You can just mash a button?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Not for that purpose. I'd
like it for a lot of other purposes, but not for that one.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, thanks.
MS. HARGIS: But the other card companies that we
6-9-08
159
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
looked at wanted to have a charge on it, and we didn't want
to even get into that. So, it's a pilot program. I'm not
suggesting we do it for the entire county, but just for this
purpose right now.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What fees does Chase --
MS. HARGIS: None.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- levy?
MS. HARGIS: None. There is no cost to us at all.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think there's a rebate.
MS. HARGIS: Yeah, there's a rebate to us if we go
over a certain amount. But there's no way we would do that
just using it for this purpose. If we would want to get into
a rebate situation, what I would suggest is that it would be
for utility bills or something of that nature, so we could
get a rebate. I'm not really interested -- reading a few of
the e-mails that I got on my List Serve on Friday, which I
~I haven't had a chance to share with Rusty, I don't think that
we're ready to do it county-wide, but I think that we can use
it for a pilot program. Since there is no cost, the only
thing we have to sign is we have to sign the state of Texas
contract, which Rex has not reviewed. So, I would prefer
that he review that before we did that. But we wanted to
bring it to y'all to see what your thoughts were on it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think it's terrific. I'd
vote for it today if I needed to.
6-9-08
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
160
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I think there's a couple
you charge require a name on the card and not just your
department. And that's why this is the same thing D.P.S. and
everybody else uses when they're charging gas or charging
things, and that way the State gets a full detail deal of it,
and if they've gone over their allotment, you know, the State
has recourse to get it back from them. The other benefit I
works just like that is the Texas Procurement site, the
contracts. We'll be part of that, so as far as getting
things that are -- bid-wise, we'll have three different
avenues to get it from. After this type of contract, anyhow,
because of H.G.A.C., Buy Board, and now this one that doesn't
cost you, but you still get into the state bidding prices.
You know, I don't like giving out cash every time I have
somebody traveling. I think it can be hazardous, and in more
than one way. I got -- and this is just one of those things
that happened. This last month alone, we've had to fly two
to pick up inmates, and next week or week after, I'll be
6-9-08
161
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
flying two to Alaska. And that gets pretty expensive and
gets to be a lot of cash, and it's not something that I like
to keep around the office. So, if we can use this card, that
will work for that; it will be a lot better off.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I like it. I think it's a --
MS. HARGIS: And keeping that much cash, too, is an
internal control problem that we have to deal with.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Buster said earlier, "I'd vote
if I could." We can vote today, couldn't we?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's styled appropriately.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know. I just -- I
thought you said you were going to get Rex to review this
contract.
MS. HARGIS: It can be subject -- Rex, do you have
a problem with that?
(Mr. Emerson shook his head negatively.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion we approve
the use of the Texas Procurement Card from Chase Bank for the
Sheriff's Department, subject to County Attorney's review of
the contract.
JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion and a second.
Question or discussion on the motion? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
6-9-08
162
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Okay. We
are to Item 21; consider, discuss, take appropriate action on
joint City and County functions.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Functions.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Functions. I put this on the
I agenda, and I think last time we -- I think we had talked
about an error. It said airport and other functions, and the
County Attorney was being picky that day and said that we
couldn't talk about some of these other functions. So, we
just have functions that we're talking about today, and this
is partially kind of as an overview. My goal would be that,
by the end of this, we're all in agreement as to what's -- I
guess Commissioner Williams and I have kind of talked about
with the City that we can hash out a little bit and then send
them in writing where we are, because this has been a long,
drawn-out process. And it's also a little bit of a follow-up
to a conversation the Judge and I had about how all this --
how the dollars balance. I'll just state my recollection as
to what -- where we are on these joint projects. The animal
control, the County -- and we're talking about the next
budget year, being the 2008-2009. Animal control, in
relation with the City of Kerrville, anyway, the County will
pick up 100 percent of the cost of that.
6-9-08
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
163
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's about 100 and --
JUDGE TINLEY: 125.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 125.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: 125.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How much was that number?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 120,000, 125,000, somewhere in
there. We have never discussed what to do with Ingram; keep
the same relationship with Ingram we currently have, or if
we'll do something different. I mean, it's just never been
part of the discussion, so I don't know. It's something we
need to probably discuss at some point, but that's a separate
issue. We're talking about City of Kerrville here.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So, I figure we're going
to -- nevermind.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The library, at one point we
were reducing funding at the library, then we were just going
back and forth and around. The -- and Bill's and my
recollection are a little bit different on this, I think. I
recall that we were going to keep funding the same. I think
Bill recalls that we were going to go to $400,000 this year,
and that very well may be right. I just -- we had so many
meetings with our --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Am I correct, Bruce?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You're correct.
6-9-08
164
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
__
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. So --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's my recollection.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The library goes to $400,000,
from 460 this year, plus or minus.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 447.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 443.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: 443.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So -- fire, I believe there was
a $5,000 increase the City were proposing. We really never
discussed that a whole lot.
JUDGE TINLEY: That would be 180, up 5,000?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. EMS, no change. Same
agreement we currently have. And then airport, it's the new,
quote, Airport Authority, with the major issue there -- or
change there being that the Airport Manager will report to
the board, and that is being worked on, that agreement, by
the City Attorney and County Attorney. Over the next five
years, the M & 0 portion of that budget will become 100
percent responsibility of the County. However, for this
current budget we're working on, it'll be still be split
50/50, M & 0, and as well as capital --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And CIP.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, CIP as well, and capital
items. Future budgets past that, it will go to 60/40 with
the County for M & 0, but the capital items will remain
6-9-08
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
165
the exact amount, the library funding is being reduced in the
future. We've agreed -- "we" being Bill and I, primarily,
with Councilman Gross -- that rather than get into a big
discussion on long-term funding, their request was that they
keep things a little bit quiet right now while they're
working with the -- primarily the Butt Foundation on a
long-term direction for the library.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There was no -- no
commitment on the library now in terms of an expanded,
improved version, but -- except that you go ahead and develop
your plans and then come talk to us.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Would it not make sense to --
year, if we're going to increase the amount the County pays
for the airport joint operations, wouldn't you want to try
and adjust those in the same amount?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, there's another
Airport Board continues to develop the property, then -- then
the underwriting or subsidy, if you will, should gradually
shrink, which could be the offset to our -- to our adding the
10 percent, or could be even greater than that. Nobody knows
6-9-08
166
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
for sure, but the goal is to completely develop the property.
And when that happens, the airport revenue stream increases.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Should be a wash eventually.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Or should even make -- turn a
~ profit.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the -- ultimately,
that's the goal.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The goal. I don't think it's
really a good idea to tie one -- anything to another item. I
think these are all somewhat independent. I think we kind of
look at the overall picture, and whether we balance to the
dollar isn't critical, but clearly -- I clearly wouldn't want
us to get out of balance $100,000 either. You know, I don't
think it's -- many of our taxpayers are the same. It doesn't
make -- you know, I'm not adamant that we get totally in
balance with -- on whatever we take off. I think it's more
of a directional thing and a philosophy thing as to how we do
things, and what department -- or what -- I mean what entity
is responsible for some of these operations, and who is
better suited to do some of them. To me, the airport has
always been a -- it fits the County better than the City.
It's served by a lot of county people. Usually library's the
opposite; I think it's more of a City function. So -- but
6-9-08
167
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that's kind of where we are. And I think, you know, kind of
where we are, I think the County will probably be in the,
quote, red next budget year, and then pick that up the
following year.
JUDGE TINLEY: The animal control change, was there
any specific consideration for that entire funding
~, requirement falling on the County?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there any what?
JUDGE TINLEY: Specific consideration. Offset.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Any quid pro quo.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
'~ COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not for that, particularly,
because that one, I guess, has been on the table as one that
we had agreed to do for a long time. That's one of the first
things we said, "Yeah, okay, we'll take that over." So, I
don't think there was any particular quid pro quo for that,
Judge.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Except that the city ordinance
would be looked at, and -- 'cause we'll be enforcing the
county rules, not the city ordinance, if they're any
different.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I was only referring to a
dollar quid pro quo.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: What did you say about fire
6-9-08
168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and EMS?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: EMS was no change, and fire, I
think, was -- they propose a ;5,000 increase.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That puts it at 180?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 180.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think that's what it is.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, 175 now.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, to 180.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: In that fire deal, is there
any consideration to their currently dispatching all the
volunteer fire departments? Is that into any of the -- any
of the fire contracts? And right now, they do, although they
informed me last week that they want --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There wasn't anything that
came out of our discussion, Sheriff.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I just didn't know how that --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It was my understanding
that -- that they would do that.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, they informed me as of
last Thursday that as soon as I can get the equipment moved,
they no longer want to dispatch for volunteer fire
departments or Comfort or any of the other ones. And I don't
even know if I have the capability to incorporate that
equipment into my dispatch equipment. But that's what I
was --
6-9-08
169
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The reality is, Sheriff, in
the discussions that Commissioner Letz and I had with the two
City Councilmen, it's very likely those two City Councilmen
didn't even know about this.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd say the answer is no, we
can't do that right now. I mean, I just think -- I mean,
it's another example of -- like they did with the
communications system.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: They told me --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We'll let them know and discuss
that with Councilmen Hamilton and Gross, anyway, that that is
just not acceptable; that the City has to be aware of what
the County's -- you know, what the County's doing. They
can't just dump things in our lap.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, the radio situation
hasn't changed, and the only thing that's changed now is,
I've also been told last Thursday that we will dispatch for
all the volunteer departments.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Did they give you a cutoff
date?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I was told when I first heard
about it -- they sent -- their dispatch supervisor advised my
captain that they wanted it done as soon as possible, but
that they were not going to actually put a cutoff date. The
next -- I asked for a meeting with that dispatch supervisor,
6-9-08
170
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and so that next morning when I went over there, one of their
changed a little bit. Well, I know you're going to have to
get Advantage or get somebody to say how much it's going to
cost to -- to install antennas on my building, on the
equipment they have, the cards and that, actually have them
moved and installed into our consoles, which I don't know if
they can be. And I said, "Well, I'm going to have to get
with Advantage and find out what kind of cost you're talking
about.	" And then they said,	well, as	long as we	-- it's	just
gotten	too much for them to	do, and as	long as --	maybe	we
can get it done at the end of the fiscal year.
JUDGE TINLEY: Sheriff, let me think out loud a
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: And the City has a contract with
Kerr Emergency 911 Network to do their dispatching of the 911
obligations, does it not?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: To a point. You know, I guess
you could say that, because they do send out Kerrville Fire
Department and Kerrville EMS, okay, based on 911 calls. Now,
if the call's out in the county, they transfer it to us for
that type of law enforcement information.
6-9-08
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
171
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, because -- because you're the
responding agency.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Agency.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah, but they do dispatch
everybody else.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They dispatch the firemen --
firefighters.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: They do dispatch the
volunteers. That's what they're wanting to not do any more.
JUDGE TINLEY: I understand them not --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Wanting to.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- wanting to, but we got a 911
function that's in the middle of this thing that -- I think
you got to respect that pathway.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, I blew a gasket, you
might say, over it, and kind of said some other things. And
then Friday evening, I did get a call from that captain
wanting to meet with me, actually this morning, and talk
about how -- quote, how this was going to work again.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why don't we, in our letter
back to -- whatever it comes out with, say that that 180,000
includes dispatch of the fire -- volunteer fire departments;
put in our letter that that's our proposal. If they want to
go back and change something, you know -- I mean, I don't --
6-9-08
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
172
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just say it includes
continuing the practice of --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Dispatching.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- dispatching volunteer --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm kind of like the Judge; I
don't -- I mean, it shouldn't have to be talked about,
because there's no difference between -- if they want to do
the dispatching function, which they do and have done for a
long time, it's no different than dispatching your office
versus a volunteer fire department. You're the end user;
they're the end user. That's where I think the Judge is
going. I agree with that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I do, too.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I also didn't know if there
was a contract or agreement under this a long time ago, you
know, when the County did all the volunteer fire department
dispatching, and then during my predecessor's administration,
it went over to the City doing it. I don't remember if that
was an interlocal agreement, written agreement. I was going
to have to research that too. I had no idea how they ended
up with it exactly.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I can't imagine that it's
that much work, either.
I
~, SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Personally, I think it's more
because none of the volunteer fire departments are digital.
6-9-08
173
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
JUDGE TINLEY: Are what?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Are digital. And that could
probably cause some issues.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Therein lies another problem.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Therein lies a big problem.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Big problem. And I have let
-- I have let several of the Councilmen be aware of that
situation, which they knew nothing about.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, that's what
Commissioner Letz and I were talking about with them, you
know, that conversion to digital on such a short time frame,
and what it means to us.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: They didn't really know what
was going to happen until the Sheriff came to us and made us
aware of the fact that they was going to do this, and pretty
much mandate what we were going to do, you know, if we wanted
to communicate with them any more. That, to me, is just not
quite right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, what I'm reading here is
that the County's going to take 100 percent of the animals,
still pay 400,000 for the library, up 5,000 for the fire
department -- fire service, no change in EMS, and eventually
100 percent of the airport. Where is the benefit for the
County?
25 ~ COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's a savings -- there's a
6-9-08
174
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
$43,000 --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There's a savings?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, there's a $43,000 reduction
in the library this year.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The savings comes -- well, two
things. One, I think the library -- the airport will start
functioning as a much better entity long-term, and the
library funding is going to be reduced in the future.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, eventually -- like, what
if -- what if you -- what if we reversed all of this, though?
Like, City, you're going to take 100 percent of the animals,
and pay us for the library and fire, and -- and you're going
to pay us and pay us and pay us. They're going to say,
"Well, where's the benefit for us in this thing?" Is there
mathematically a benefit to the County? I mean, I don't see
that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This first year, it's going to
cost us 87,000, approximately, more.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right. Which is on the --
that's on the animal control difference.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's the animal
control/library switch. There's no change in the airport
this year.
25 I COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No.
6-9-08
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
175
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I don't see how you get that
number. You may have to do a little better math for me.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, 125,000 we're picking up
in animal control. We're knocking 43,000 off the library.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're adding five, but that's
really a little bit of a different thing.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You're also -- this first
year, but then next year, the airport's going to be down
10 percent.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Next year, the library will be
down -- library will take off 100. I mean --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, I mean, they're very clear.
We -- they very much know that our view -- or my view, and
think Bill's view at the library is that we're going down
substantially to a fixed amount close to 100,000. So,
there's a $300,000 change there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's never been any
change --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Which is more than the airport.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- by us in our stance with
respect to a lesser commitment. Okay. And I think the quid
pro quo on the airport is that it will continue to grow, and
that 10 percent will be --
6-9-08
176
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, long-term, the benefit -- I
mean dollars, looking at dollars only, the County's long-term
getting a better deal if the airport continues to grow from
where we're going.
JUDGE TINLEY: The M & 0 budget for the airport,
what's that figure, roughly?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: About 125 apiece this year,
I wasn't it?
JUDGE TINLEY: 250? Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm asking Jeannie. I
think --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 180; it's 360.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. HARGIS: Yeah, but that included the capital.
In the actual budget itself, when I was there, the airport
revenue was pretty much taking care of the normal things at
the airport.
JUDGE TINLEY: M & 0.
MS. HARGIS: The M & O, except for the salary of
the Airport Manager.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, about a hundred --
MS. HARGIS: That's a part-time person, so I don't
know what that is. But the other part that they did was use
their Street Department out there, which we didn't pay for.
So, is Leonard going to go out and do the M & 0 side?
6-9-08
177
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can put street stuff out
MS. HARGIS: I don't. think so.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's one of the problems.
MS. HARGIS: You got -- well, you did -- you got a
pro -- they came through with a pro rata share, so -- but
black and white, the M & 0 side is pretty much covered by the
fees that are coming in for the planes and the fuel and so
forth. It's only -- it's only the salary portion that
wasn't -- wasn't taken care of. And -- and then you would
have to then, at that point -- 'cause that's the real black
and white. You'd have to add back -- either Leonard has to
start doing the ramp -- you know, fixing the stuff out there
and mowing, and --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's all in the contract --
~ management contract.
MS. HARGIS: That's in your contract, remember, but
not -- I'm saying in the -- if you just look at the budget
the real way it was done, okay, take out your pro rata share.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: As a result of -- once this
interlocal agreement between the City and the County is
ratified by both, and the Airport Manager and whatever his
resources become employees of the board, the board will have
to establish what that rate of -- what that compensation is
all about. That is all part of the airport budget. But on
6-9-08
178
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the other side of the equation, those charges that are in the
city contract with the airport. board today for City Manager
oversight -- somebody else's oversight -- somebody else's
oversight, and all of the things that go into that particular
contract are going to have to be looked at, and they are
going to have to go down.
MS. HARGIS: They should go away. Why should you
pay for any -- any of the City's oversight at that point?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MS. HARGIS: Because -- you know, unless the board
put themselves on a per diem and did something else. I
wouldn't think they would do that. But I would think -- I
haven't looked at it in a while. Let me look at it, but I
would think it might still be 180, our share, for the first
year till they get everything in place, and whoever they use.
Now, if they decided to put a bid out again like they did
last time, between -- for the -- you know, the mowing of the
grass and all of that, then it might cost us, so at that
point, then I would want to see whether we -- then we would
have the option of using our own. If we use our own labor,
then we can keep the actual cost down.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Should be a lot of
revisions in terms of charges coming out for services.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But bottom line, I think, Bruce
and Buster, is this next year it'll cost money. It should go
6-9-08
179
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the other direction in the coming years, and we should -- and
I'd say in five years to ten years, somewhere in that range,
we'll be spending less money on all these services than we
currently are.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've got another issue to
bring up. We -- in our budget, we have $10,400 for First
Responder supplies. Supplies. And a little bird tells me
that we -- we fund it from our. side $10,400, and then on the
city side, in the -- in our --
JUDGE TINLEY: EMS.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- EMS contract, that they
-- our contract that -- however much we pay in for the EMS
contract, that 10,400 is lined in that budget as well. So,
we're paying double --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Twice.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- for that item. And I
kind of think that's true. I had a City employee say, yes,
it appears that way, and we've made a mistake and we -- we're
getting that corrected.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But we're not going to refund
you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, they didn't say that.
And that's my point. I think that we should somehow
officially authorize the County Auditor to go and get that
10,400 from last year.
6-9-08
180
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Seek reimbursement.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree. But do we have to use
the City for First Responder -- is there a reason we have to
use them?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, First Responder is out in the
county.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know, but we use them for the
coordinator of it.
JUDGE TINLEY: And f_or training.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Training. You got to
I have --
MS. HARGIS: Use them for training.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can't we use somebody in
Rusty's office?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. No.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They train EMS.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They meet monthly. They
really do, and it's a serious thing to everybody.
MS. HARGIS: Yeah. You don't want to pay for the
training of the person to be able to do training.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And they're trained by EMS,
right, Buster?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, mm-hmm. Do you agree
with the statements I just made?
MS. HARGIS: Yes, I do.
6-9-08
181
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What are you doing sitting
here? Why aren't you over there getting our 10,000 back?
MS. HARGIS: I've already billed them up to this
point.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I'm only curious, and I
wouldn't -- I don't want to take on the training, but I'm
wondering what level they train First Responders at. Because
I have two certified first -- I just don't know what level
they train them. I have two certified first aid and CPR --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's a level above the EMT.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay. Then that's above,
yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I mean, they do kind of some
serious stuff.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They keep people alive until
the ambulance gets there.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Oh, yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Or supposed to. But that's
what they're training.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But they're training them at
above an EMT level?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I think so. Yes, sir,
pretty sure. They've got some pretty heavy duty stuff.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's good. I have no
6-9-08
182
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But 10,400, we should -- I
mean, at least one year. Maybe more, huh?
MS. HARGIS: No.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just one?
MS. HARGIS: Well, just that one year that I'm
aware of.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: A couple of -- a couple of
questions. Based upon your discussions -- and I realize
you're only talking to, what, two of the Council reps -- they
clearly understand that, as part of this whole -- I'm going
to call it "package" for lack of a better term, 'cause I
think that's essentially the way it's being presented, that
library funding is -- it would not be a shock or surprise if
they see that down $100,000 next year?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not in my opinion.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that was clearly
conveyed to them, and it was :in agreement, and basically was
a plea by Councilman Gross that if we could just hold off a
year before doing a serious reduction to let them try to work
on -- so it's not in the press a whole lot about, you know,
some problem with the library while they're trying to obtain
6-9-08
183
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
additional funding through the Butt Foundation.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's my understanding
~ too, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, 'cause it was the --
you know, all of the background that went -- that passed
around between Bill and I and Mack and Scott had it all
listed together, and it was all tallied up, and there was
some -- library, I think, was kind of cut in half, I think it
was.
JUDGE TINLEY: 180 is the figure I saw.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, yeah, they're very much
aware of it, and that was never taken off the table; it was
just deferred a year. And also need to make a note, though,
that it's -- very much aware that the reason it's not on the
agenda now is that Commissioner Williams and I -- like I
said, if the Court thinks that, you know, we need to make
some changes to these numbers, that's certainly the Court's
prerogative right now to make some changes.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think that's what we're talking
about.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the reason why it's
on the agenda.
JUDGE TINLEY: And let me ask you about the fire
issue. Do you recall here a year or so ago, we were at 125,
6-9-08
184
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and we were presented a -- a request for almost triple that,
up to 368 -- 369, as I recall. And we came in at 175. The
rather minimal increase of 5,000, in your discussions with
those folks at the -- that you were speaking of from the
Council, do they clearly understand that those increases
would be -- would continue to be minimal; i.e., increments of
approximately $5,000?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's their proposal. And
their -- to be honest, I mean, they came up with that $5,000
increase, with the idea of going up 5,000 every year into the
future as kind of an inflationary number. And then also,
first I've heard from the City, anyway, they recognize that
if we didn't fund that at all, it would make no difference in
the size of that Kerrville Fire Department. And this is --
this is above -- this is a bonus to them which provides
service in the county. It really does not cost the City
anything.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We've made that point
repeatedly.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And they acknowledge it, that's
true.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Their fixed operational costs
are --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- what they are, even if they get
6-9-08
185
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2 3-
24
25
zero from us.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's right. They can
respond to 100 calls or no calls; their cost is not changed.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: What would happen if, in the
future, we met our fire needs with another volunteer fire
department?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Say that again, Bruce?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: If we met our need for fire
protection with another volunteer fire department, say in
Kerrville South, and we might not need their services any
~ more .
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Contracts are one year at a
time.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That would go -- you know, be
reduced to zero.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If we didn't need it, or if
they were covering only a portion of the area.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And, see, that's the whole
point we made. You know, if we stopped doing business with
you for fire services, you know, your operational costs
remain fixed. They're not going to change. You're not going
to get rid of a fire company or shut down a firehouse.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Unless you close it down and
get rid of -- reduce your staff.
6-9-08
186
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, and they don't --
they're not going to do that. So --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Is their requirement just on
structures?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: To help us? I believe so. I
don't think it covers grass fires.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What was the question?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Is that just on structures.
'Cause the Byas Springs fire, the last big one that we had
fire departments from all over., Kerrville was not one of
those.
MS. HARGIS: I think it's only structures.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That agreement is structures,
but I would think they're under -- from a mutual aid
standpoint, they would be required by state law to assist if
there's a -- a need.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't think that they have
a lot in the line of brush trucks any more like they used to.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't -- I don't know.
MS. HARGIS: No, the mutual aid is city to city.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Our contract is pumpers,
1,500 gallons a minute and three guys and all that stuff.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Structures.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
MS. HARGIS: Okay. Well, you know, when I was in
6-9-08
187
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Conroe, there was a big dispute between the volunteers and
the city, and the city actually cut off mutual aid from the
volunteer fire departments, anal then they didn't want any aid
from the volunteer fire departments. So, cities can cut
themselves off and not provide mutual aid. And that's going
-- they're going that way because they don't want to pay for
going outside of their city limits.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They did work on one of the
fires, didn't they? Isn't that one --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We had -- they came out to the
interstate fire, I do believe. Okay. Because we had so many
large ones. But the Byas Springs fire, the main one out
there, they did not.
MS. HARGIS: Can I suggest something? On the
animal control, you know, we're charging the City of Ingram
for one person, basically. Couldn't we charge at least the
City for one person?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You just mean today or what?
MS. HARGIS: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: She's going for the throat
here.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I didn't hear what you said.
You said you wanted --
MS. HARGIS: The City of Ingram -- the City of
Ingram, we charge for one person.
6-9-08
188
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Right.
MS. HARGIS: Why can't we charge the City of
Kerrville for one person?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would -- I mean, I would,
rather than -- I would rather use a blank number. But to
accomplish that, we could -- just an idea -- propose phasing
it in over two years, since we're in the red so much. And
we'll kind of cut our -- you know, half this year and half
the next.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think that's going to be a
good idea, because I tell you, I think we're going to be
faced with some funding issues.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Faced with what?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Some funding issues.
MS. HARGIS: We've got some.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Income.
MS. HARGIS: Our fuel costs are really going to go
up, and even -- you know, and that's one of our departments
that's out on the road.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. But I think it's a good
option, I mean, to phase this in over two years, only going
half this year. City will continue to pay -- you know --
JUDGE TINLEY: 62,5, whatever.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- 60,000. Just make it a flat
62,5, whatever. A flat amount this year, and then it'd go to
6-9-08
189
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
zero the following year, and then we can make the -- and also
use that little bit of leverage against the library, make
sure that it does go down.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think that gives it more balance,
don't you?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Makes it more
palatable, I think.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah, makes it -- I like that
better.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Say that last part again?
And what does it do for the library?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, it's just -- there's a --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Leverage.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- a number out there that we
can play with next year when we go to them and say we're
going to reduce our funding 100,000, and we can say, "But
we're going to pick up 60,000 more at animal control." But
next year, the numbers -- the 40,000 deficit will be switched
where the City would have it, and this year we're going to
have it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay with me.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I like that. I think it's
better. I don't think we ought to try to do too much in this
very first year.
6-9-08
190
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think it's a -- I mean,
and I don't -- you know, this is why I wanted to put it in
writing to them, because when we agreed on the animal
control, the library was still on the table originally. So,
I think this is going back and getting it for the whole
Court, and it's still -- it gets us to where we're, I mean,
long-term trying to get with all of those functions.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: 'Cause we're not asking them
to take -- take basics on anything for this first year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Hmm-mm.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Going to cost us more.
They're going to get -- kind of get away without having to --
at least they're not going to have to go through the phase-in
or phase-down or whatever.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, either way we go,
whether we decide animal control in -- in two years, which is
fine with me, it goes to 60-some-odd thousand dollar savings
for them this year.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which, if they look at it,
becomes somewhat an offset to our reduction in the library.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That would be my preference.
JUDGE TINLEY: It occurs to me that you want to --
we can only budget from year to year -- express our
6-9-08
191
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
longer-term thinking about where these numbers are going in
terms of the discussions that we're having.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, I agree.
JUDGE TINLEY: So that we don't get this claim of
surprise potentially later. And -- and, you know, it's
turning the cards face up on the table, and I think that's
the best way to play the game.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that's why I think it's
important, 'cause -- we haven't discussed it so much, but I
think it's important for us to send this in writing to them.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: "Here, this is where we are,
and this is where we think we're going next year based on the
discussions," and make sure that they agree.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But your reality is no
different than what they've done to us in the past. They've
set out these various scenarios and projected long-term
increases and all of that, this same -- same thing. You get
to write the letter, Judge.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you need a court --
JUDGE TINLEY: Kept me from having to ask that
question, didn't it?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you need a court order
from us to pursue that budgeted money? Or just --
MS. HARGIS: No. Let me just try to --
6-9-08
192
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think we need a court
order authorizing us to communicate with the City our
position on these matters. So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I thought you already had
I that .
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Need to authorize the Judge
to write the letter.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And ask the County Judge to
sign same.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Now
JUDGE TINLEY: Question or
motion? All in favor of the motion,
right hand.
(The motion carried by una
JUDGE TINLEY: The Auditor
her hand, too.
that it's about over?
discussion on the
signify by raising your
zimous vote.)
did not need to raise
MS. HARGIS: I'm excited.
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion carries.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I'll be glad to work
with you on this letter if you need any assistance.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm sure you don't.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I -- I assure you, I'm going
6-9-08
193
1
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 staff it before I put it in final form and let it fly.
Let's go to Item 22; consider, discuss, take appropriate
County and Kerrville/Kerr County Airport Board for an
employee benefits package for the Airport Manager and such
other services as may be required. It's the "such other
services as may be required" that's got my curiosity.
Commissioner, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I just kind of --
just kind of broad-brushed that, just in the event there was
something that came up. But what this does is put us in a
position of offering to the Airport Board what we have long
said was the potential of all of this, with respect to the
Airport Manager becoming -- and any other persons that he has
as a resource, becoming independent employees of the Airport
Board. We understand that the City cannot offer an extension
of their benefit package to the Airport Manager or his
resource person, but we know we can through interlocal
agreement. Am I correct, Ms. Hyde?
MS. HYDE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And so, therefore, what
we're saying is we're authorizing that agreement, so when the
Airport Board gets ready to do that, they know where they can
turn for that benefits package.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Part of the reason for this
6-9-08
194
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
being on the agenda is that the -- this has been an issue
with some of the Airport Board members as to how the -- how
do they do --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How to do it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We've said the -- well, the
County can do it, but we thought it would really be helpful
if we can just give them basically a court order and say, "We
can do it; here's the package. If you choose to come to us,
this is what the deal is." Not committing anything from our
side, just saying if they want to use the County package,
this is what it is.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sounds like an olive branch
to me.
MS. HYDE: I wasn't sure how you wanted to look at
it, so there's a short version and a short-long version.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I asked -- I sent Eva an
e-mail -- I don't know, a week or so -- week ago -- probably
last Thursday or Friday night; gave her about a day. So --
but the -- and said we need to, one, make sure we can do
this, check again. And two, put together a summary sheet of
our package, our benefit package, so that we can send this to
the Airport Board.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This life and health care,
20,000? Or 2 million?
MS. HYDE: Excuse me?
6-9-08
195
1
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: At --
MS. HYDE: That's how much it pays off. That's the
insurance that we pay for.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm looking at -- okay.
Okay, that's the insurance. It's not a statement of the
maximum health care.
MS. HYDE: No, sir, that's on this one.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pardon me. Excuse me.
MS. HYDE: No problem.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The only thing I would say we
have that we could add on this, on the -- is the retirement
savings portion, to put the year, and this year we're at
210 percent, just so they know.
MS. HYDE: I was hoping we were going to change it,
so I didn't want to put it on there. Hopefully, we'll be at
$2.50, and that way it will be there; it's maxed out. I
don't have to change it any more.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think you put the current
year, and 210 percent would be a good idea.
MS. HYDE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Question, either to
Ms. Hyde or Ms. Hargis, one or the other. Taking -- assuming
that the Airport Manager, who is currently an employee of the
City of Kerrville and under their benefit package -- I assume
that the pension is T.M.L.; is that correct?
6-9-08
196
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. HARGIS: T.M.R.S.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Can that be bridged? Can
his -- can his credits and so forth --
MS. HARGIS: His credits can, but not the money.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Credits, but his pile of
money is his pile of money. But his credits can be bridged
over to T C.D.R S.?
MS. HYDE: This "years" -- this "years" is length
of service.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: His vesting?
MS. HARGIS: Right. That's all --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, he becomes vested day one.
MS. HARGIS: Yes, if_ he's --
MS. HYDE: If he's met the eight-year rule.
MS. HARGIS: 'Cause theirs is five.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That should be noted on
here also, that T.M.L. -- vesting of T.M.R. --
MS. HARGIS: T.M.R.S.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- service units or
whatever can be bridged into T.C.D.R.S.
JUDGE TINLEY: Service time credits, but not funds,
can be transferred to T.C.D.R.S.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Judge. That's a
better expression of the intent.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we might attach both of
6-9-08
197
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
these, actually. I think -- I mean, I think the second sheet
of the actual summary of benefits gives the benefits, and
this gives a good summary, just like you have it. But those
two additions to the summary page, and then just a copy of
the court order that the County offers this to the Airport
Board should they choose to use it. And I think it'll help
them make their decision and, you know, be certain that this
can be done without them having to create their whole system.
MS. HYDE: Do you want the cost -- the current cost
for, like, our insurance for families?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, might as well. I think
that should be included. The other issue -- and I guess it
was Eva; you talked with me about it. Maybe it was Jeannie.
Someone talked to me about what happens if there's that loss
from the -- the maximum loss for the employee, up to the
40,000, how that gets handled if there's a major claim. Does
the County eat it, or does it get billed back, half to the
City as part owner of the airport, but if we're going to be
responsible for the M & O budget long-term. And my answer --
or question to her was, can we insure against that $40,000
max? And if we could, that would be a good option so that
they're -- you know, that's just covered by insurance, and
pass on --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That would be another cost
to the Airport Board to pick up.
6-9-08
198
1
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: Does that makes sense?
JUDGE TINLEY: If we pick -- if they contract to
put that employee under our plan, the stop loss is going to
apply to that employee, same as it would any Kerr County
employee, it would seem to me.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But it's coming out of the
County budget, not the Airport. Board budget, that first
$40, 000.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Unless we collect for it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And you wouldn't collect for it
unless you needed it. For a small entity like that board, it
would be very hard to come up with a $40,000 hit in one year
if there is a big claim.
JUDGE TINLEY: What you're suggesting is that the
contract provide that the board would stand in the place of
the County as to that employee?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. And we --
JUDGE TINLEY: In terms of funding any claims?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, and could possibly
insure that.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: 'Cause it would be a direct
cost to the County.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: As legitimately chargeable
6-9-08
199
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
back to the Airport Board.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah, right.
MS. HYDE: That's why I say that we couldn't really
do anything until we talked to that man right there, and it
was great he walked in. So, I know he's being blindsided,
'cause I haven't talked to him.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What we're talking about, Rex,
is the ability of the County to provide a benefits package to
-- through interlocal agreement, to the Airport Manager. And
the answer is that we can do i.t, and Eva's printed up our
package. Where we're at now i.s that, if -- on our health
insurance policy, if there is a claim, a major claim, the
County pays the first $40,000 right now out of our general
fund.
MR. EMERSON: So we need an MOU.
JUDGE TINLEY: It's 50.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 50,000 -- well, first 50,000.
But if -- since this is not going to be a County employee,
how do we get that first $50,000 the responsibility of the
Airport Board, and can they buy their own insurance against
that $50,000 maximum?
MR. EMERSON: The first question is yes, we can put
it in an MOU, and the second question is, I don't have a
clue. They need to talk to an insurance agent.
MS. HYDE: Already sent out an e-mail.
6-9-08
200
1
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: Thank you for your candor.
JUDGE TINLEY: I knew that answer.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, anyway, I think that's --
Eva's sent out -- I think to Gary Looney, sent him a request
if that can be handled through a policy, but that would be a
logical way to handle that risk, depending on the cost.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Get that premium on the
policy.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Shouldn't be that much. I
mean, maximum loss is 40,000, and that's --
MS. HYDE: Fifty.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Fifty.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Make sure the Airport Manager
stays healthy.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MS. HYDE: Kathy's typing, so I just wanted to make
sure.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Anyway, we're just going to put
it in a court order that we can offer that package, and send
it to Airport Board for their decision. That's a motion.
JUDGE TINLEY: But are you proposing as part of
that motion that the financial aspect of it be that the
Airport Board stand in the place of the County as to the
self-funded portion -- well, no, it would be any portion of
it, because we pay stop loss insurance premiums for anything
6-9-08
201
1
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 and above -- above the 50, excuse me, for -- up to the
stop loss limit. That they stand in the place of the County
as to the funding obligations for -- for those claims?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would think, yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes. The answer is yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And -- and in response to
your first question as to what other services might be
required -- may be required, I'll just give you a for
instance. The Airport Board, under the new interlocal
agreement, would have the opportunity and the obligation to
perhaps set up its own finance package, financial employee
package. If they chose not to do that and wanted to, by
interlocal agreement, do less, that would be one of those
other type of services for which we could charge
reimbursement for the cost of it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or they may choose to do it
with the City.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Or they could continue what
they're doing, yes. Such other services. Illustration only.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And, again, this is just
basically letting the Airport Board know that we're willing
to work with them on whatever they want.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion as to the health
benefits portion of the package. Do we have a second?
6-9-08
202
1
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 CLERK: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a second. Any question or
discussion on the motion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And just a request that the --
well, all we need is a court arder. Don't need a letter from
the Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: All i.n favor of the motion, signify
by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All apposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Okay. Do
we -- are there other service: as may be required? Are there
any motions to be offered in connection with those at this
time?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, sir. If they come up,
we'll talk about them at the time.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's go to Item 23;
consider, discuss, take appropriate action to adopt an order,
based on the burn ban status, prohibiting the sale or use of
restricted fireworks, those being skyrockets with sticks and
missiles with fins, in any portion of the unincorporated area
of Kerr County. I assume you're talking -- are you talking
about just 4th of July, or are you talking about forever?
6-9-08
203
1
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: Talking about 4th of July.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That was my question.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: July 4. Last opportunity.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Are you talking about just
that day, or for --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, for the holiday. The
period leading up to the holiday.
' JUDGE TINLEY: Whatever portion of time fireworks
sales are lawfully authorized for that particular holiday.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Generally starts, what, a
week ahead of time?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: More than that. More than
that, I'll bet you. When do they start selling?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's what I'm not sure of.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I may go to church with you,
Buster, but --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We found something Rusty
didn't know.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And admitted it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And admitted it.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Problem is, you can still, a
lot of times, buy those things at all times of the year.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is there a period of time
6-9-08
204
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
by law that they would -- retailers are authorized to sell?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
MR. EMERSON: Yes. I don't know exactly what it
is, but I know it's approximately -- I think it's 10 days
before until either the day of or the day after.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. So, we'll go by the
County Attorney's definition of time frame.
MR. EMERSON: If you --
JUDGE TINLEY: It's in the statute, I think.
MR. EMERSON: If you just say the July 4th
fireworks sale period, you'll cover it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the sense of the
motion I offer.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You're going to ban those?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The missiles on sticks and
that kind of stuff.
JUDGE TINLEY: Skyrockets on sticks and missiles
I with fins.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Last opportunity for this
year.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do I hear a second?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a second. Any question or
discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion,
6-9-08
205
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
signify by raising your right hand.
', (The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Why don't
we go to the bills right now, Section 4 of the agenda,
payment of the bills.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move we pay the bills.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to pay the
bills. Question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yes.
MS. HARGIS: Yes, si_r.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Page 18, County Auditor's
budget, desk for $2,300.70. And I didn't notice there being
any capital outlay money in the original capital outlay
budget, but there was a budget amendment that went to capital
outlay on March the 11th. And this is a new desk. Was the
desk broken? Is it put on one that was there originally?
What happened to it?
MS. HARGIS: My desk is not functioning for my
back, okay? With --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: The desk doesn't function for
your back?
MS. HARGIS: The desk was not meant for a computer,
6-9-08
206
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and therefore, I'm -- they've done everything they can to
!, give me a keyboard. The desk also is falling apart.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay.
MS. HARGIS: If you want to come in and look at it,
it's been there since 1984.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay. I just wanted an
explanation, because we don't normally -- we don't normally
do -- and this is partially my fault, or maybe a few others'
fault, for doing a budget amendment in the middle of the year
for a capital outlay line item that was not part of the
original budget.
MS. HARGIS: I also was not here to prepare my own
budget for this year. I was here, but I did not prepare this
budget.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, I just think we need to
be real careful about those kind of things happening. And --
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other items?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Bruce, say that again about
a budget amendment. What did we do?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We authorized a budget
amendment back in March to transfer money into her capital
outlay line item.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: To make this purchase?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: To make this possible. But
there was no explanation that I was able to find anywhere of
6-9-08
207
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
what that money was to be spent for.
JUDGE TINLEY: No, there were -- there were --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: The new forms; I've got it in
j the office.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, but there's previously been
two desks -- or two desk units, I'm going to call it, for
lack of a better term, for that office earlier this year that
were -- that were ordered and installed in there.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: But there was no money in the
capital outlay line item for that from the original budget
when it was approved.
MS. HARGIS: That is correct, because the prior
Auditor prepared that budget, and so in order for me to
purchase the things that I needed for my office as a new
Auditor, I had to move that money from that line item, from
capital --
JUDGE TINLEY: So, the initial money went to
purchase those first two that went in there?
(Ms. Hargis nodded.)
JUDGE TINLEY: We didn't leave enough money for
yours?
MS. HARGIS: No, I put enough for all of them.
JUDGE TINLEY: Oh.
MS. HARGIS: The problem was that mine was ordered
at the same time, but it didn't come for four and a half
6-9-08
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
208
months.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Okay.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So, I guess what I'm saying
is, I think that we need to be more careful about some of
these things, and I would like a little bit of explanation of
what the moneys are going to be spent for, especially in
capital outlay, if a budget amendment is offered during the
course of a budget year.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, I hear you.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Does that not make sense?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, it does, and I hear you
loud and clear.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Otherwise, we just see money
move from one line item to another.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If you'll tell me, I'll be
happy to ask the question. I mean, I don't know how else to
get the answer.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, that's what I'm doing
right now. But, anyway, I just -- I was a little bit shocked
when I found out that that money was being spent for
furniture.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I was thinking this
morning -- I was talking to the County Auditor. Do you
remember what it was like a few years ago? I mean, people
were just spending -- remember_ that, Bruce? I mean, people
6-9-08
209
1
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 just spending money, and we would come along and
replenish it. You know, budget amendments, one right after
another. It didn't matter how much was in the line item or
anything; they just spent it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They were all --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Went and bought things.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It was the craziest thing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They were all red when they
came -- all the accounts were red when we finally saw them.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Crazy. So, we've come a
long way, man.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Oh, I know we have. I know
we're doing better. This lumping all the budget amendments
together is -- we'll talk about that in a minute when we get
on budget amendments.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Any other questions or
comments? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(Commissioners Baldwin, Williams, and Letz voted in
favor of the motion.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I oppose it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Say again?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I oppose.
6-9-08
210
1
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. That motion does carry.
Let's go to budget amendments. The Auditor presented us with
a summary sheet for -- looks like nine different budget
amendments.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Here's my example. We don't
-- you know, we get this long -- we get the -- you know,
rather than go through one at a time like we used to do, then
we get this combined deal.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And that's all fine and good
for most things. Most of it's pretty much self-explanatory.
But the one previous to this ghat I brought up was not
explained. We didn't know if it was going for computer
equipment; we didn't know if i_t was going for whatever, but
it was a capital outlay line item.
JUDGE TINLEY: Your point is, on capital outlay
items, because of the nature of them, you think there should
be some additional information presented with those?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yes, I do. I think so.
That's just my way of thinking.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I want to follow up on your
point and ask, with respect to Item Number 7 -- I can
understand the second 5,000 for vehicle gas, oil, and
maintenance. I clearly understand that. But I don't
understand the first one with respect to a transfer of $5,000
6-9-08
211
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
into operating expense. That goes to the budget -- really to
the budget. And what are we suggesting here? That we
under -- underestimated the basic parameters of operating
~ expense?
MS. HARGIS: I think the cost of operation has gone
up, because we have more animals now today than we did, so
therefore this is mostly dog food.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mostly what?
MS. HARGIS: Dog food, and kitty litter and things
of that nature. The things treat the animals require.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Well --
MS. HARGIS: The food has gone up, and so we needed
to raise that so that she would make it through the year.
She also had -- in the past, a lot of this food had been
donated, and it wasn't this year, and so that's another
reason. They kind of went on the trend of donated food, and
they haven't gotten that much of donations this year for that
type of -- of a situation.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, that's fine.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Just had to get -- that is a
big expense, and one of the tYiings is that Walmart used to
let us go pick up all their broken bags and stuff. They've
stopped that; can't do it any more.
JUDGE TINLEY: All of the donated food items in the
-- in the food pantries around the country are way down
6-9-08
212
1
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 of the economy in general.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Exactly.
MS. HARGIS: And then the second one on that one is
the donated money that she got, she's budgeting to spend what
she received for operating expenses. A lot of people wanted
it to go back to pay for the dogs, so --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That one I understand, but
the first one I didn't understand. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Bruce's comment -- I mean, I
think --
MS. HARGIS: Do you want an explanation under --
with each one? We can do that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. I mean, this form is no
different than those individual sheets used to be. If we
have a question -- and I'm sure on the other -- on the one
that you're talking about, it was on here, capital outlay,
and that's for us to ask the questions. I mean --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I know. I took blame for
part of that, because I didn't ask the question.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll -- this is, to me, a lot
more efficient. I'd rather -- but this is the same
information that's on the sheets, I think.
MS. HARGIS: Yeah. The sheets are attached to mine
if you'd like to see them. They're actually exactly the same
as what you get.
6-9-08
213
1
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: How much -- how much is in
each one of our conference lines?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 900 bucks.
MS. HARGIS: I think it's a combination for all of
you.
JUDGE TINLEY: 1,500.
MS. HARGIS: 1,500 each.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 1,500 each.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think so.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I thought we got 900.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I thought it was 900. What
is it, Judge?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 1,500.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, it's 1,500, 1,600.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move up to a five star
hotel. Motel 6.
(Low-voice discussion off the record.)
MS. HARGIS: I have to look up the detail on that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We equalized it between all
elected officials; I think have the same amount.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, and then --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Not all.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Here's one for 2,400, and
then we're adding 500 more -- or 400 more.
6-9-08
214
1
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: For who?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Environmental Health. I
guess they have several --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, they got a new guy that
needs to go to training.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One that they hadn't
budgeted for, right?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Right. We didn't know we was
going to have him.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the way I read that.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Move some money around to
make that happen.
JUDGE TINLEY: All ghat being said, do I hear a
motion that the budget amendments as shown on the summary
sheet be approved as presented?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to approve
all the budget amendments as shown on the summary sheet.
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. Do we have
6-9-08
215
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
any late bills? No late bills?
MS. HARGIS: No, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: I've been presented with monthly
reports from Constable, Precinct 1; Constable, Precinct 2;
Constable, Precinct 4; J.P., Precinct 1; J.P., Precinct 2;
J.P., Precinct 3; County Clerk, both general and trust funds;
and Road and Bridge Department.. Do I hear a motion that
those reports be approved --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- as presented?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that
reports be approved as presented. Question or discussion?
All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right
hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Do we have
any additional reports from any members of the Court in
connection with their liaison or committee assignments?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Commissioner Baldwin and I
have been working on a burn ban seminar, which AACOG will
fund for the speaker. And our only commitment would be to
advertise same, provide the names of the folks we'd like to
6-9-08
216
1
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 invited, and the facility at which to conduct this
seminar. We reserved the exhibit hall for the 26th; is that
correct, Jody?
MS. GRINSTEAD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 26th. And the invitations
will go out sometime after this coming Wednesday, when I give
the invitee list to AACOG and they'll send them out. Be no
cost to us for the speaker; AACOG's bearing the cost of the
speaker and so forth. Anything else I left out,
Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. It's just going to be a
-- it's going to be a big deal., we hope.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's all I got, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other member of the Court have
any reports to make?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, only report I'll make
on Ag Barn is the slab has been poured for the new
maintenance area and the Fair Association, and another area
there that could be designated for some other purpose in the
future. And I'm going to get with Tim, and we're going to
get a materials list together and get some prices on
materials to close that shop there, put a roll-up door and
walkway, and I think we'll get some prices on some line and
things. We'll have to get that done -- probably put it on
the next agenda to authorize for bids. Except that, you
6-9-08
217
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
know, it could be a -- it's a combined thing; it will be over
25,000 probably, you know, in the whole scope of things, and
so it might be a good idea to bid them, although the
materials will be very inexpensive. We're talking about
probably somewhere under $5,000. So, anyway, that's about
all I got about that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other reports from
Commissioners? Department heads? Elected officials?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Uh-oh.
JUDGE TINLEY: Scratch that last communication.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Sorry, you already stated it.
Too late.
JUDGE TINLEY: Huh?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: One quick thing. I think it's
time that we seriously start putting some committees or
groups together to start talking about the radio tower
system, the radio system, because that is over a million
dollar project. And we have averaged inmates over 200 for
the last month on certain days. And the jail -- I should not
be over 153. And, you know, it will go down again some
during the winter; it does this during the summer. But I
think it's time we do some very serious talking about what
we're going to do, either a bond issue, either getting with
the courts, doing something. I don't know what to do, but
the overcrowding issue, that's going to hit us real hard,
6-9-08
218
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
real quick, for a lot of millions.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there a way where we can --
this is actually a report section. Put it on the agenda
sometime.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I will.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody else?
MS. HYDE: I have three. I wanted to let y'all
know that Russ Duncan will be here tomorrow. I'd already
talked to Commissioner Baldwin about it. And what he's going
to do is, he's going to bring in best practices, and we're
going to do them with Commissioner Baldwin, and then we'll
review them with y'all once we get to a point so that you can
approve or disapprove what you believe the collections office
should be doing. So, he'll be here tomorrow, and then he'll
be here again next week, and he'll come by again next week
for two days. There's one.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There's three days of Russ
Duncan.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: More than one human could
stand, right?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You just had a long time off;
it's okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I guess so.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Just think, he could have
been here all this time. You are the liaison for that, I
6-9-08
219
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
take it .
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What's that?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Meeting with Russ Duncan.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh.
MS. HYDE: (Held up a check.) We like money.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Dear Ms. Hyde.
MS. HYDE: You don't. have to worry about that.
It's $28,117.46 that --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For what?
MS. HYDE: -- that i.s coming back to us. If you
think back about 18 months ago, Mindy and I were on lots of
little projects to try to help find ways to get money back
and auditing things. So, when y'all told me that I needed to
do the unemployment, I had them do an audit for the last five
years of our unemployment, what we've paid in, and seems like
we've overpaid by about $28,000. So, you get $28,000 back.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's good.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Good job, Mindy and --
MS. HYDE: Mindy.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- Mindy and Ms. Hyde.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Very good, ladies. Thank
y'all very much. We need to do that about once a month.
Could you do that once a month?
MS. HYDE: No problem.
JUDGE TINLEY: Not for this same thing.
6-9-08
220
1
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. WILLIAMS: Oh.
JUDGE TINLEY: Find something new.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just do it a couple of times
a week and satisfy old Rusty.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Call Tim; he'll build you
one.
MS. HYDE: And then, last, on -- back during
budget, we had asked for about $50,000. We weren't sure how
much it was going to be for the H.R. software and the
computers and the interface. It looks like there's going to
be about $20,000 left. It goes back into --
JUDGE TINLEY: That capital fund?
MS. HYDE: Yes, sir. 'Cause I was going to say the
"B" word.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS:
put back that we don't have to t
jailer's salary line later.
MS. HYDE: So he ought
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:
MS. HYDE: Thank you.
That's two things that we
eke from the Sheriff's
to be nicer to me, right?
I agree.
Thank you, Commissioner
Baldwin.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You think I've ever listened
to Buster?
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Is that it? Okay, let's go
6-9-08
221
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
out of public or open session. It is 3:25. We'll go into
executive session to consider the item on the agenda.
(The open session was closed at 3:25 p.m., and an
executive session was held, the transcript of which
is contained in a separate document.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We're now back in public or
open session. It is 3:43. Ariy member of the Court have
anything to offer in connection with matters considered in
executive session? Hearing none, anything further,
gentlemen? We'll be adjourned.
(Commissioners Courts adjourned at 3:43 p.m.)
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF KERR ~
The above and foregoing is a true and complete
transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as
County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County,
Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth.
DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 13th day of June, 2008.
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
B Y : __~ ____ _ ______
Kathy Fnik, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
6-9-08
ORDER NO.30870
APPROVE INTERIM CHIEF DEPUTY POSITION TO CHIEF DEPUTY IN
COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE
Came to be heard this the 9th day of June, 2008, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously
approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the Interim Chief Deputy position to become the full-time Chief Deputy
at a grade/step 19/6 in the County Clerk's Office effective immediately.
ORDER NO.30871
AWARD BID FOR AIR CONDITIONING UNITS
Came to be heard this the 9th day of June, 2008, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Oehler. The Court unanimously
approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Award the bid to Hardin Heating and Cooling, as low bidder, for 1 six-ton air
conditioning unit and 4 eight and one-half ton air conditioning units, in whole or in
part, as applicable.
ORDER NO. 30872
AUTHORIZE CIVIL ENFORCEMENT FOR OSSF VIOLATIONS AT 108
WEST CREEK ROAD
Came to be heard this the 9th day of June, 2008, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Oehler. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Authorize the civil enforcement, against the owner and the lessee operator of the
facility, of the Texas Health and Safety and Water Code Statutes for O.S.S.F.
violations at 108 West Creek Road, to enjoin the further operation and use of that
facility until it's brought into compliance.
ORDER NO. 30873
PAYMENT POLICY FORM AND PAYMENT AGREEMENT FORM FOR
LABORATORY SERVICES
Came to be heard this the 9th day of June, 2008, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Oehler. The Court unanimously
approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve UGRA requests for Kerr County to submit signed Payment Policy form
and Payment Agreement form for laboratory services for the Environmental Health
Department, and authorize the County Judge to sign same.
ORDER NO.30874
PRELIMINARY PLAT OF CAMP VERDE GENERAL STORE
Came to be heard this the 9th day of June, 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 Preliminary Plat of Camp Verde General Store, located in Precinct 2,
including the note that would preclude a residence dwelling being located on Lot 2.
ORDER NO. 30875
RESOLUTION TO DESIGNATE ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICE PROVIDERS FOR 2008 TEXAS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
BLOCK GRANT COLONIA CONSTRUCTION
Came to be heard this the 9th day of June, 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 Resolution to designate Engineering and Administrative service
providers for 2008 Texas Community Development Block Grant Colonia
Construction award for Phase IV of Kerrville South Wastewater Project, which
identifies GrantWorks as the Administrative Firm for this particular Colonias
Construction Fund Grant of $500,000, and continue with Tetra Tech for
engineering services requested as well.
ORDER NO. 30$76
RESOLUTION TO DESIGNATE AUTHORIZED SIGNATORS FOR 2008
TEXAS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT COLONIA
CONSTRUCTION AWARD FOR PHASE IV OF THE KERRVILLE SOUTH
WASTEWATER PROJECT
Came to be heard this the 9th day of June, 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 Resolution to designate authorized signatory, being the County Judge,
Auditor and County Clerk, for 2008 Texas Community Development Block Grant
Colonia Construction award for Phase IV of the Kerrville South Wastewater
Project.
ORDER NO. 30877
RESOLUTION FROM HILL COUNTRY COALITION OF COUNTIES
REGARDING REGULATION OF SUBDIVISIONS
Came to be heard this the 9th day of June, 2008, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the Resolution from the Hill Country Coalition of Counties concerning
county authority concerning regulation of subdivisions.
ORDER NO. 30878
RESCIND PART OF COURT ORDER #30840 TO ALLOW KERR COUNTY
MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT TO USE THE OLD ANIMAL CONTROL
VAN
Came to be heard this the 9th day of June, 2008, with a motion made by
Commissioner Oehler, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve rescinding that portion of Court Order #30840 which declared the old
Animal Control van surplus, and allow the van to be used by the Kerr County
Maintenance Department.
ORDER NO.30879
TEXAS PROCUREMENT CARD FOR SHERIFF' S DEPARTMENT
Came to be heard this the 9th day of June, 2008, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously
approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the use of the Texas Procurement Card from Chase Bank for the Sheriff's
Department, subject to the review of the Contract by the County Attorney.
ORDER NO. 30880
JOINT CITY AND COUNTY FUNCTIONS
Came to be heard this the 9th day of June, 2008, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Authorize the Commissioner's Court to communicate with the City, our position
on joint City and County functions.
ORDER NO. 3 08 81
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN KERB COUNTY AND
KERRVILLE/KERB COUNTY AIRPORT BOARD FOR EMPLOYEE
BENEFITS PACKAGE FOR AIRPORT MANAGER
Came to be heard this the 9th day of June, 2008, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Offer a benefits package, through Interlocal agreement, to the Airport Manager and
that the Airport Board stand in the place of the County as to any portion of the stop
loss insurance premiums for anything over and above the stop loss limit, and add to
the summary page the retirement savings portion which is at 210% matching by the
County for 2008.
ORDER NO. 30882
BURN BAN
Came to be heard this the 9th day of June, 2008, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz Court unanimously
approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Adopt an order, based on the burn ban status, prohibiting the sale or use of
restricted fireworks, those being skyrockets with sticks and missiles with fins, in
any portion of the unincorporated area of Kerr County, through the 4th of July,
2008 holiday sales period for fireworks.
ORDER NO. 30883
CLAIMS AND ACCOUNTS
Came to be heard this the 9th day of June, 2008, came to be considered by the
Court various Commissioners Precincts, which said Claims and Accounts are:
Accounts Expense
10-General	$	352,815.67
14-Fire Protection	$	16,371.36
15-Road & Bridge	$	40,784.58
19-Public Library	$	36,972.25
50-Indigent Health Care	$	68,989.67
76-Juv Detention Facility	$	4,222.97
TOTAL
$ 520,156.50
Upon motion made by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner
Williams, the Court unanimously approved by vote of 3-1-0 to pay the claims and
accounts.
ORDER NO.30884
BUDGET AMENDMENTS NOS. 1-9 for June 9, 2008
Came to be heard this the 9t" day of June, 2008, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Oehler, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the Budget Amendments as per the Summary presented.
ORDER NO. 30885
MONTHLY REPORTS
Came to be heard this the 9th day of June, 2008, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Oehler, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 the following monthly reports:
Constable Pct # 1
Constable Pct #4
Constable Pct #2
JP #3
JP # 1
JP #2
County Clerk -General and Trust Fund
Road & Bridge Department