1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT
Special Session
Monday, June 23, 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
~~
V
d0
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I N D E X
June 23, 2008
--- Commissioners' Comments
1.1 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
amend variance given on proposed plat for Live
Springs Ranch, Court Order #30856
1.2 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for
cattle guard policy
1.3 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
direct Road and Bridge Department to remove
cattle guards on Wilson Creek Road
1.4 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action
concerning division of property on Calcote Road
1.5 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for
final plat of Olson Acres
1.7 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
reappoint Commissioner Williams to the Board of
Directors of the Alamo Area Housing Finance
Corporation; allow County Judge to sign resolution
in support of same
1.6 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for
multiple plat issues associated with Privilege
Creek subdivision
1.8 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
ratify ProDoc litigation software account
1.9 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action
regarding fee officer accounts and depositing
requirements (Re: AG Opinion No. GA-0636)
1.10 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
requested resolution from Schleicher County
supporting its position with respect to CPS
costs as a result of CPS activities
1.11 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
request unclaimed Capital Credits received from
Electric Cooperative from Texas Comptroller of
Public Accounts; authorize County Judge to prepare
letter of request
PAGE
5
9
18
20
26
26
27
33
35
42
44
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I N D E X (Continued)
June 23, 2008
1.12 Discuss State Senate Committee Hearings on
subdivision authority and the Hill Country
Coalition of Counties
1.13 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
approve amendment for City of Ingram/Kerr County
Animal Control agreement; allow County Judge to
sign same
1.14 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
file Secretary of State report and dissolve
"Hill Country Juvenile Facility Corporation"
1.15 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
schedule budget workshops
1.16 Discussion regarding transition from a paper
version of Commissioners Court agenda/backup
to an electronic version
PAGE
45
78
80
81
85
1.17 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
appoint committee to draft policies and procedures
to comply with IRS Taxable Fringe Benefit
regulations 95
1.18 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
approve 2007 Comprehensive Annual Financial
Report of period ending September 30, 2007 106
1.19 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
allow Sheriff's Office to apply for a grant to
assist with radio conversion 128
1.20 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
approve Tetra Tech contract for Phase IV of the
Kerrville South project, subject to approval of
County Attorney; allow County Judge to sign same 132
4.1 Pay Bills 133
4.2 Budget Amendments 135
4.3 Late Bills ---
4.4 Approve and Accept Monthly Reports 136
5.1 Reports from Commissioners/Liaison Committee
Assignments 137
5.2 Reports from Elected Officials/Department Heads 139
--- Adjourned 143
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
On Monday, June 23, 2008, at 9:00 a.m., a special
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 meeting of the Kerr County
Commissioners Court regularly scheduled and posted for this
time and date, Monday, June 23, 2008, at 9 a.m. It is that
time now. This reminds me of a wedding where one side of the
family's not represented too well. (Laughter.) That's
better, John. Appreciate that. Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Please stand and join me in a
moment of prayer, followed by the pledge.
(Prayer and pledge of allegiance.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. At this time, if there's
any member of the public or the audience that wishes to be
heard on any matter that is not a listed agenda item, this is
the time for you to 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. They're located at the back of the room,
I think. If not, if you haven't filled out one, if there's
not any more there, or when we get to that item, if you
suddenly decide you want to be heard on it, get my attention
6-23-08
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
in some way and I'll see that you have that opportunity. But
right now, if there's any member of the public that wishes to
be heard on any matter that is not listed on the agenda, come
forward and tell us what's on your mind.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Seeing no one coming forward, we'll
move on. Commissioner Letz, what do you have for us this
~ morning?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I really don't have anything.
I just had kind of a busy weekend and a busy week coming up,
and I'm just ready to get through today. That's it.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I notice that we got a -- a
notification in our box about an outdoor burning workshop
that's going to be at the Ag Barn on Thursday at 1 o'clock,
and I hope there will be some people that will attend that,
and maybe more understand about when they can burn and when
they should burn, when they shouldn't, even if the burn ban
is in effect or not. Anyway, that's about all I have.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Commissioner Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The burn ban workshop, I
just want to bring you up to date of where I got involved in
this thing. The J.P. in Precinct 1 brought it to my
attention that if you lay the state law down and then you lay
the rules from the Forestry Service down, and the Parks and
Wildlife set of rules, and all three of them say something
6-23-08
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
different. So, being the alarmist that I am, that's how this
thing was born, is we need to get to the bottom of it and
everybody get on the right and the same page. And J.P. 1 is
willing to prosecute and -- and do things with this, so --
but in order to get there, the guru's coming down. I got
some Tivy athletic information here. There's all kinds of
girls -- there's several girls from Kerrville that had won
some awards, but one from the courthouse family,
Miss Bonier, made the all-district team, all-region team,
all-state team, and my little avenue of information, I
understand there may be more to come, even bigger than
all-state. So, it's pretty exciting. And that's all I have,
Judge. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Commissioner Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just another footnote on
this outdoor burning workshop. It was Commissioner Baldwin's
idea and we picked it up and took it to AACOG. And AACOG is
footing the bill for the speaker that's coming, and that's
Dr. John Ockles, and he's of the Texas Illegal Dumping
Resource Center. And he's going to be doing what
Commissioner Baldwin indicated, telling us how the law really
reads, despite information that comes from three or four
different sources. But one of the things I think is
interesting about this is, there's a lot of people that
believe it's okay to burn domestic waste in a barrel, which
6-23-08
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
it is, but -- but what they don't realize is that in today's
fumes and all sorts of things in the air, even though you're
only messing with your domestic waste stream. So, I again
emphasize that, as Commissioner Baldwin did, anybody that
needs to have more information or consistent information
about outdoor burning should be at this workshop, a couple
hours as time well spent.
I spent about four days -- three and a half days in
you can't educate a commissioner, but the State continues to
insist that we try, and so we'll do that. And I was
interested in the growth in that particular city, 'cause I
was telling Judge Tinley that I was in Waco in 1953 when the
tornado wiped out that town and killed 113 people, wiped out
the entire downtown area, all around city hall and the city
square and all of that stuff. And it's been, you know,
through the years, fits and starts as to how they should deal
with that tragedy and rebuild the city, and they've had some
things happen. Convention Center was built, a new hotel was
built, and one thing or another, but the reality was that a
whole lot of the downtown area never really took hold, and
was in the process of being rebuilt. It was kind of
gratifying to see that after all of those years, now,
6-23-08
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
suddenly, there is a real renaissance down there, and there's
construction going on everywhere, which is a revitalization
of the downtown of that town. So, just something to keep in
our mind as we worry about and work with the City and so
forth on revitalization of our own downtown. That's all I
have, Judge.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Judge, I have one more thing
I'd like to mention.
JUDGE TINLEY: Sure.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Today is the -- is the
beginning of cleanup being done with an abatement program
that's starting in west Kerr County. In fact, there've been
some areas cleaned up in other precincts as well, but the
Ellerbracht property at Mountain Home is going to be cleaned
up, and also an area in Bee Caves that had a bunch of junk
cars on it is being cleaned up as of -- today is the first
day, after all the notifications have gone out and all the
legal part of the law had been adhered to. And so those
areas are going to be very -- very well cleaned up. And it's
been an eyesore for a long time, and we have a really good
enforcement department now with Environmental Health and
working with Solid Waste, and they've worked real hard on
this with the County Attorney to see it happened, and I'm
really pleased that it is happening.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Commissioner. We've got
6-23-08
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
a fairly lengthy agenda. Not overly, but let's get to work
on it. The first item on the agenda is to consider, discuss,
and take appropriate action to amend the variance given on
proposed plat for Live Springs Ranch, Court Order Number
30856. Commissioner Oehler?
that we needed to push this forward.
JUDGE TINLEY: Very well. Well, any member of the
Court have anything further to offer on that? We'll move to
Item 2; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action for
cattle guard	policy.	Mr.	Odom.
MR.	ODOM:	Yes,	sir, thank you. Before you, you
have the policy that we wrote up for y'all's review. It's
not anything formal, other than y'all's review and comments,
and also the form that we would send out. So, I'm open for
suggestions on whether this is acceptable or not. It is a
policy that we looked at.
JUDGE TINLEY: Are we always going to have six
months lead time to be able to do these notifications, or
does that need to be a lesser period? Or is that something
required under state law? Where do we come with the six
months notification?
MR. EMERSON: We're safer with six months, Judge,
6-23-08
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
considered part of a fence, and if you're going to remove or
change or alter in any way part of a fence or a common
boundary, you have to provide six months written notice.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. EMERSON: So --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess --
JUDGE TINLEY: That satisfies me.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- what time frame are you
looking at? Just guessing, that you would then, if we
implemented this, have all the cattle guards removed?
MR. ODOM: I would send out the notifications this
week to those people that are affected on those five cattle
guards.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, no, I'm talking about the
policy. When will the last cattle guard be gone? If we
adopt the policy today, how many years is it going to take to
get rid of all the cattle guards? Ten years? 'Cause
you're -- you have a 10-year maintenance program, so about
every 10 years?
MR. ODOM: Every 10 years, yeah. It would be 10
years going through.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You know, I don't -- my
preference is really that if you're -- kind of this, but an
additional thing also, that if -- or ownership changes. And,
I mean, I'm thinking of -- this is probably really more out
6-23-08
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
of Bruce's area than mine, but there are some areas where a
cattle guard's going through a ranch, and the cost to the
property owner to put fences on both sides of the road is
pretty extreme, to me. And -- but if one side of the road
gets sold, all of a sudden, that changes the ownership, and
then I think that person needs to fence their property
anyway. I mean, I think there's an ownership component or a
land change or land use component that needs to be looked at,
rather than just saying we're going to take out all cattle
guards. And that is what the reason is, obviously, it's on
the agenda, because Wilson Creek Road -- and that is what
happened on Wilson Creek Road that caused the issue of taking
out those cattle guards. So, I think that -- you know, I'm
not -- I don't know why we need to get rid of all of the
cattle guards, especially on some of the more rural roads.
But as soon as they're -- you know, like I say, either fences
get erected for whatever reason, or ownership changes, and
when we do maintenance, I think we take them out at that
~ point.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I'm kind of as
curious as you are as to what is our plan? I've got some
roads, as Mr. Odom knows, where three, four, five cattle
guards -- Fall Creek Road comes to mind; there's several
there. And what are we talking about in terms of scheduled
maintenance? Are we talking about sealcoating? Talking
6-23-08
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
about rebuilding the roads? What are we talking about,
and -- and how do we go about this so we don't get another
Wilson Creek Road on our -- on our hands up here?
MR. ODOM: Well, essentially, when I move in to do
maintenance on that, probably for sealcoat in most cases,
most of the roads we have, with the exception of -- probably
less than ten miles of road are dirt now. All of them are
~ sealcoated. So when we go through our maintenance programs,
is what I'm looking at, we could have an answer, other than
when I wrote this up, I used the word "shall." I didn't want
a question about "may be," "should be," "shall be." "Shall
be" is very explicit as to policy for me, but I'm open -- it
makes sense, what you say. I don't know what I do. I guess
when I identify that -- that road and we're doing maintenance
on it, then I guess that we would go through the Appraisal
District and see which side -- do they own both sides of the
road? Fall Creek may not be that way. In some areas, it is.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, the 20X Ranch is one
of them.
MR. ODOM: Well, 20X. Also, Mr. Holekamp's up
front --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's another one.
MR. ODOM: -- is another one, and so there are some
exceptions, and that may be the way we look at it. But I'm
trying to get a policy before I get out and send -- trying to
6-23-08
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
verify how --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How about "may be"? "May
be" phased out as opposed to "will be" phased out.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I don't -- I'm with
Leonard. I mean, to me, the cattle guard issue is safety --
a safety issue. And it's either a safety issue or it's not a
safety issue. In six months, you got to remove it -- we're
going to remove the thing. You can put your fences back and
whatever. I mean, that, to me, is -- I like what he's
saying. You do it and get it out of the way.
MR. ODOM: Out of the way. I -- you know.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, I think you do it -- I
agree with Jonathan. Because of the practicality of it and
the cost --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Bruce, don't agree with him
this early in the meeting. (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, I have to on this one.
I mean, it's just -- it makes sense. You don't force people
to lay both sides of the road when there's one cattle guard
and they own property on both sides. Or if they don't, one
side will probably be fenced and the other side not. But
cost of fencing now is -- on deer-proof, is about 25,000 a
mile. And low fence is somewhere around 12,000, 14,000 a
mile. It's very expensive to do that for removal of one
cattle guard. I think you do it whenever you wind up with
6-23-08
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
I3
14
15
16
17
18
I9
20
21
22
23
24
25
people fencing both sides and they become obsolete, and not
able -- there's no purpose for them once you have a fence
down both sides of the county road.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, even -- I mean, I'm not
sure if I heard exactly what you said, but, like, if you
sell -- I think the -- take the Holekamp property. If they
sell everything on one side of the road, to me, that means
they need to fence their side too at that point. I mean, and
then the other people, they need to fence, because I don't --
we don't want to -- in my mind, we don't want to not have a
fence just so cows can graze the right-of-way. That's the
safety concern, and that's -- where Wilson Creek happened,
the only thing that there was for them to graze that wasn't
fenced was the right-of-way. And, you know, why --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, that's happening on
Fall Creek. They're right out there on the right-of-way.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, they're on it, but
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right, there are no fences.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm saying if you have a fence,
and then all the -- the only open range, so to speak, is the
right-of-way, and that was the case on Wilson Creek. That --
you know, it doesn't make sense to me then. But it is --
it's a very -- I think we have found, because of Wilson
Creek, it can be a very contentious issue to people, and I
6-23-08
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
don't want to put Road and Bridge into -- you know, that's
why I support us making the policy and making the decision
rather than Road and Bridge doing it, because, you know,
we're the ones that --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, in one way, if we force
people to fence their property, that's kind of an unfunded
mandate, too.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You can look at it that
~ way.
JUDGE TINLEY: You think the criteria ought to turn
more on when property ceases to be owned by a single owner on
both sides of the road?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, and then the next
maintenance after that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I like that idea.
II COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah. And what you have --
MR. ODOM: So we're looking at a 20-year span.
JUDGE TINLEY: Could be.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Could be.
JUDGE TINLEY: Or more.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or when you do the next
maintenance. I mean, it just depends when you do it. I
mean, or -- you know, or at your discretion. I mean, it
doesn't have to be when the next maintenance is. Really, it
can be -- I'd probably say I'd be more inclined to trigger it
6-23-08
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
on the change of ownership on one side of the road. And,
Len, it will be at your discretion when you want to remove
the cattle guards. You don't have to wait on maintenance.
do with who owns what or how much money they have. It's a
safety issue. And it's either a safety issue or it's not.
If it's a safety issue, we need to pull the cattle guards
out. If it's not a safety issue, let's don't even order this
thing; let's get on down the road and quit fooling with
cattle guards. Besides that, those people are too expensive
anyway, sitting around guarding people's cattle. That was a
joke.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The guy that used to sit in
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, what you're going to
have -- what you're seeing all over the county and all over
the state is that people who have this open land, and in most
places, unless you get into to some real rural areas, is that
you have somebody come in and buy the thing. They're going
to fence their property to keep people from driving off the
county road and just driving onto their property anywhere
they choose, and that's going to be a natural course of
6-23-08
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
progression as the way we -- as when we grow. And it's
pretty evident everywhere you go, people want to -- they want
to kind of secure their own property and not have it
available for people just to go and do and, you know, have --
have their own good fun time on somebody else's-land.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What's the compromise here?
Let's do something with this thing.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I think either way we go, it
looks like Leonard's going to have to do some more tweaking
and polishing on his policy, don't you think?
MR. ODOM: Why don't I come back with something?
And I have some ideas that you've got. I'll get with Truby
or Kelly and we'll try to put something together that makes
sense, what you say. And our position is, we want a policy.
"Shall be" is a policy.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What you may look at a little
bit, and I think it is -- from a safety standpoint, is the
traffic count on the roads. As the traffic counts go up,
livestock on the road becomes more of a safety issue.
MR. ODOM: More of a safety issue.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That is the case on Fall
Creek, I can tell you.
MR. ODOM: And, you know, it's a unique situation
that we have on Wilson Creek Road, because that is the
bypass, and we've had that three times bypassed in there.
6-23-08
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
And I think someone has died on Wilson Road from the bypass,
ran off. So, you know, it's work. And how many times it's
been hit, the cattle guards, and we repair, but that is the
only way to get out of Comfort down 27, so it's -- it was a
', unique situation. And had I to do it over, I probably would
I
have done it different, probably. So, I'll come back to the
Court with something else.
JUDGE TINLEY: We ready to move on?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, we've got a related issue,
Item 3; consider, discuss, take appropriate action to direct
the Road and Bridge Department to remove the cattle guards on
Wilson Creek Road.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Now the truth is going to
come out.
JUDGE TINLEY: Now --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There you go. The real
issue comes out.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On the -- or in the backup,
there is a plat that kind of shows Wilson Creek Road and the
property ownership. Originally, all of that land was one
ownership owned by the Roane family, and it was bought, and
then it's been since subdivided. And this is a case where it
is now -- it was one landowner. There's now -- one, two,
three, four -- six, and a subdivision. Including a
6-23-08
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
subdivision. All of this property has -- well, I shouldn't
say all. The lower part towards Highway 27 is not currently
fenced. Everything above that, there are fences on both
sides of the road. All the landowners -- we've talked to
them all. All of the landowners, with the exception of
Mr. Bohnert, who owns the southern part, don't have a problem
with us removing cattle guards. And their, actually, cattle
guards were put back in, because Mr. Bohnert leases the
property under the statute. Leasing, you have to give notice
through the lessee.
JUDGE TINLEY: On the southern stretch of property
there adjacent to the road, is that fenced?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. That's the only part that
is not fenced.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, I see the rub.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And in my mind, the -- the
three that we had previously removed should be removed.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which three were those?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This one.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The northern --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The northern two that are
crossing it, and the next one down.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The bottom two towards Highway
27, one is at Highway 27. And, you know, it's a little bit
6-23-08
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
of a safety concern letting livestock get onto Highway 27, in
my mind. And the next one is up at the upper -- you know, is
the boundary of Mr. Bohnert's property. And, to me, that --
and I'll make a motion to authorize Road and Bridge
Department to give notice that the upper three cattle guards
be removed.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
indicated. Question or discussion on the motion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Question. This notice, now,
is there a time frame on the notice?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We send notice, and then
there's -- six months after they receive the notice, we'11
remove them. And that's statute.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's the same six months
that we discussed earlier?
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 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.)
I, JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. We'll move
to Item 4; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action
concerning the division of property on Calcote Road and
6-23-08
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
21
located in Precinct 1. Mr. Odom?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. There were some Environmental
Health issues on a piece of property, and one of the issues
was whether it met the grandfather date the Court set on
determining if the owner had to go back and plat a property.
This 5-acre tract was divided into two parcels of 2 and a
half acres on January the 11th, 2001. The grandfather date
was December 11th, 2000. The 2 and a half acre tract in
question was transferred five times before the current owner
purchased it in 2007. The current owner of the property, Mr.
Arnold Garcia, is here today asking the Court for a variance
of the grandfather date, because it was done only 30 days
after December the 11th, 2000, and the subdivision rules in
effect at the time would have allowed 1-acre tracts with a
water system, and we have no way of knowing if the person
dividing the lot fell under the family exception to platting
originally. There's a nice manufactured home on the lot, and
the owners are unable to get a permit to construct a septic
system until this matter has been addressed. Both Mr. Garcia
and Ray Garcia -- but I see Tish back there -- are here to
answer any questions you might have.
JUDGE TINLEY: The grandfather provision, that's
the subdivision rules that came into place in December 2000
that said you can't divide an already subdivided lot without
either showing yourself under an exemption or replatting.
6-23-08
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. ODOM: That's correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, anything done before that time,
it's king's X. Anything afterwards, essentially --
MR. ODOM: Right. And here's the gentleman that's
the fifth owner of the piece of property. It was done
approximately 30 days after originally. You're working under
the old subdivision rules, which allowed 1-acre tracts.
Here's a 2 and a half acre tract, and so, you know, we're
punishing an individual that's really innocent in it. And
I'm not saying give a variance for the action thereof. Give
a variance to the date. We're only 30 days; that's close
enough for a hand grenade. (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't have any problem with
that. I mean, I think it's -- you know --
MR. ODOM: It solves a problem.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are they going to -- are they
going to plat it? I think they need to plat it, just so we
can clean it up as we're going. But --
MR. ODOM: Mr. Garcia? We have discussed that in
our office.
MR. GARCIA: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Please give us your name and
address.
MR. GARCIA: Arnold Garcia.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. And where do you live, Mr.
6-23-08
23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
l9
20
21
22
23
24
25
Garcia?
MR. GARCIA: I live on 132 Montebello Court.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Go ahead, sir.
MR. GARCIA: We planned to -- to get this land
fixed up real nice and neat. It's just we're having problems
with, like, getting the septic put in. And as far as a plat,
I don't quite understand what the plat -- I mean, when you
ask the question, are we going to plat it --
MR. ODOM: What we were talking about, going ahead
and either make a -- combine it, or either make a one-lot
subdivision.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: A plat, it's legal terminology
for having to file -- it's a formal plat with the County.
The cost, which I'm sure is really your biggest concern, not
counting the survey cost, is probably in the neighborhood of
$100 or something like that. Isn't that about right,
Leonard?
MR. ODOM: Probably.
MR. GARCIA: Whatever we need to do, that's what we
-- you know, we want to do. But --
i COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
~' MR. GARCIA: -- we want to do everything right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do you have -- I presume, since you
bought it, there's a legal description that you have that a
plat can be put together.
6-23-08
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. ODOM: I believe that, looking at it, he could
put it together. Either he might be able to combine, or --
or I have to go back and look again, but we had discussed
that, with the possibility. But, basically, he was really
messed up with the fact that it was after that date.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. I think we should do a
plat so that if -- when you sell it again, we don't have this
same problem. Then it's a --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So that there will be a
permanent record here, that we'll know what you have from
this point on.
MR. GARCIA: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And --
MR. ODOM: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- this guy, if we don't
grant this variance and allow him these few days on this
issue, then, I mean, he's never going to be able to do
anything with his property.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree totally.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You know, and he didn't know
i
all this when he bought it, so it's not his fault, and we
shouldn't -- so I move that we grant that variance from the
time frame issue.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The grandfather date?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
6-23-08
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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
indicated. Question or discussion on the motion? All in
favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Thank you,
gentlemen.
MR. GARCIA: Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Leonard, will you step
Mr. Garcia through the platting process so he clearly
understands?
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE TINLEY: There's some professionally prepared
field notes that are attached here.
MR. ODOM: Right there. It's not much left to do.
JUDGE TINLEY: There can be an engineered plat
drawn from that, I would think.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Might want to make sure and
check that he doesn't have any cattle guards out there,
though.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, find out about that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. Have to remove them.
MR. ODOM: I have 20 years to take it out.
6-23-08
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
JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Let's go to Item 5, if
we might; consider, discuss, take appropriate action for
final plat of Olson Acres located in Precinct 4. Mr. Odom?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. If the Court remembers, there
was a gentleman in here trying to do this at the end of Goat
Creek Road. Olson Acres is a one-lot subdivision consisting
of 5.2 acres. This tract of 5.2 acres may not be subdivided
into smaller tracts, and today we're requesting a final plat
approval of Olson Acres.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Are you waiting on me to make
a motion? Well, I did.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Move to approve.
JUDGE TINLEY: He thought you did.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, I make the motion to
approve the plat.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of 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're about
a minute out of 9:30. We'll go to 7; consider, discuss, and
6-23-08
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
I5
16
17
I8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
take appropriate action to reappoint Commissioner Williams to
the Board of Directors of the Alamo Area Housing Finance
Corporation and allow County Judge to sign resolution in
support of same.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item. Question or discussion on the
motion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are you on the board now?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, it's a reappointment?
~I COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: 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. It is now
9:30, so well consider Item 6; consider, discuss, take
appropriate action for multiple plat issues associated with
Privilege Creek subdivision. It says the County Attorney,
but I believe Mr. Jackson probably wants to be heard to
update us. Is that correct, sir?
6-23-08
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
MR. JACKSON: Thank you, Your Honor. I am -- I'm
going to hand these out. These are folded up copies.
Everybody else received a copy, and then I left these a
little easier to open up. So --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll look over his
shoulder.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, that's fine.
MR. JACKSON: Everybody look on those. You've seen
this master plat a couple of three times, and there have been
ongoing discussions, which is all part of the Kendall County
settlement of the lawsuit. There were some additional
changes that have been requested by Kendall County.
Essentially, they are to take off any reference to the
Kendall County property. It's a Kerr County matter;
obviously, that's what you have jurisdiction over, and that's
what the settlement's about. That's what the lawsuit is
about, was Kerr County property. They wanted us to show the
location of a gate, which is right on the edge of the green
area. We've done that. The EMS site is located where we
talked at the last meeting. And then we showed the road just
west of the green area to be public, and they would prefer
that it be named Lane Valley, as opposed to Turkey Nob, which
we're fine with. Those are the only three changes from the
last, and then hopefully final master plat, which will become
a part of the settlement, and probably entered very shortly,
6-23-08
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
so that we'll go on with this development.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Where does Lane Valley stop
and Turkey Nob begin?
MR. JACKSON: At the green.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: At the green, okay. But
it's one --
MR. JACKSON: One continuous road, that's right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And why do we do that?
MR. JACKSON: They asked that it be done, and the
developer was fine with that request. It's not something
that had to be done. It wasn't a legal requirement. It's
just a matter of preference of --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, you're driving down the
road, and before you know it, the name's changed?
MR. JACKSON: That's right. And there will be a
gate there. It'll -- that will help a little.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But now you're proposing
that it all be Lane Valley all the way to Kendall County
line, I guess?
MR. JACKSON: No. No, it will be Turkey Nob
through the green area.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: See, we're dealing with
these Comfort people. Just nod your head. (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I guess maybe I'm kind of
behind the curve, but what does Kendall County have to do
6-23-08
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
with Kerr County, period, when it doesn't affect them?
'~ COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It doesn't, but they sued,
so they got involved.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Shouldn't have gotten on
first base.
MR. JACKSON: Let me make clear, and I said this
the last time, is that whatever you say goes, and they
understand that. So, these are all requests, not demands,
and we come to you with that specific thought in mind. It
isn't something that they are requiring as much as they're
asking for, but they understand, and the District Judge who's
overseeing this resolution settlement and lawsuit understands
that Kerr County will control Kerr County property.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's important.
MR. JACKSON: It is.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Leonard? Do you have any
I specific thoughts regarding these -- what, three issues?
MR. ODOM: The issue I have as to the original was
this 1-foot strip at this gate back here. This road was
built at the request of Kendall County, and also the back
road is the reason that road comes off Lane Valley to the --
to the subdivision. They -- that was forced upon them. But
there is something -- and originally, when we talked about
it, that 1-foot strip is something there, and I'm not -- I'm
not that knowledgeable of whether we have tort liability or
6-23-08
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
not, but they have a gate, but this is part of an agreement
that Kendall County wanted, so I guess you could enter into
this back side. I -- I don't know if it's going to be
finished or not. I would assume that it's going to be
finished. But the question would always arise, this 1-foot
'i strip. Our rules say you cannot do that. I think the state
law says that you cannot do that to cut people off from the
property. However, I'm -- I'm not versed in law.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're not practicing law?
MR. ODOM: I'm not practicing law.
MR. JACKSON: The I-foot matter is a private
restriction easement issue. It is the subject of a separate
lawsuit. It is not something that I think has anything to do
with, nor can it control or dictate what happens on an actual
plat or a master plat or a concept plan. It's just out
there. Our position is the same as Leonard's, that it has no
effect. It will not be enforced. But for the purposes of
this settlement and this master plat, it's not an issue.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, the developer in this case that
you represent, making the request for these changes, which
have been essentially requests by Kendall County, has not
acquiesced in the validity of that 1-foot --
MR. JACKSON: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: And that matter will continue to be
litigated?
6-23-08
32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. JACKSON: It will.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: And as Leonard's pointed out, the
District Judge mandated that we cross the 1-foot for entry
during the pendency of the litigation. So, those are all, as
we know, legal issues of interest, but not for the platting
or the concept master platting.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: To be sure I understand,
there are two circles over what we know as Lane Valley Road,
and then there's this green section. The request is that the
name of Lane Valley Road continue through those two circles
up to the green; is that correct?
MR. JACKSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. I move approval.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the matters as requested by Attorney Jackson.
Any further question or discussion on the motion? All in
favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(Commissioners Baldwin, Williams, and Oehler voted
in favor of the motion.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Let the record
reflect that Commissioner Letz neither participated in the
6-23-08
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
discussion nor voted on the matter.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, David.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move to Item 8, if we might;
consider, discuss, take appropriate action to ratify ProDoc
litigation software account. Mr. Emerson?
MR. EMERSON: Thank you. As the Court's well
aware, we're becoming involved in more and more civil
litigation representing the County. The ProDoc litigation
software will allow us to do discovery and basically create
various litigation documents that we need in a small amount
of time, as compared to the system that we currently have.
Unfortunately, the County doesn't have any library of
documents. We inquired; none of the other counties are
either willing to have -- or share their documents in this
manner, and despite repeated requests, T.C.E.Q. hasn't
produced any documents. So --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why does that not surprise
I me ?
MR. EMERSON: -- we're proceeding on our own. The
ProDoc litigation software would be a license for four
simultaneous users. I think that's anticipatory a little
bit. At this point, I can't see more than two to three
people at the same time using the system, but that will give
us room to expand.
6-23-08
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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're asking for this
service that provides all of these various types of documents
that are shown on this matrix with dots; is that correct?
MR. EMERSON: Correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And what will the -- what
will be the monthly fee for the use of all this?
MR. EMERSON: $135.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For all of that?
MR. EMERSON: Correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: And that would be payable out of the
library funds, I presume, wouldn't it? Law Library?
MR. EMERSON: I don't know if it qualifies or not.
But if not out of the library funds, we can cover it out of
our existing budget.
JUDGE TINLEY: Would this not qualify, Ms. Uecker,
out of the Law Library?
(Ms. Uecker nodded.)
JUDGE TINLEY: We've got -- those are dedicated
funds; we can't use them for anything else. It occurs to me
that's where we ought to fund it from. No shortage of money
there, is there?
MS. UECKER: I don't think so.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move approval.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
6-23-08
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
approval.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Out of Law Library fund.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Excellent.
JUDGE TINLEY: All in favor, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries.
MR. EMERSON: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Emerson. Let's move
I to Item 9.
MS. WILLIAMS: Morning.
JUDGE TINLEY: Consider, discuss, take appropriate
action regarding fee officer accounts and depositing
', requirements, reference A.G. Opinion Number GA-0636.
Ms. Williams.
MS. WILLIAMS: Morning.
JUDGE TINLEY: Good morning.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Morning.
MS. WILLIAMS: It was suggested that I put this on
the court agenda. The County Attorney was nice enough to get
me a copy of the A.G.'s opinion, and then I printed it out so
that each of you would have a copy of that. We knew this was
6-23-08
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
coming down the pike -- not necessarily this thing, but we
knew that we were going to have to address the daily
depositing of the fee officers with the County Treasurer. It
looks like we're going to have to go ahead. There are
certain accounts that I think the District Clerk, the County
Clerk, and the Tax Assessor probably will still have to keep
open, but the others -- the J.P.'s, some of the other
accounts -- are going to have to be closed.
I have been in touch with -- I've talked with the
County Auditor in Navarro County, and she sent me a
spreadsheet program that they have been using for 20-some-odd
years. They have a separate bank account where their fee
officers deposit daily into this separate bank account. Once
the monthly reports are balanced, then the money is
transferred from there over to the Treasurer's account. The
money that's in the re -- they call it a revolving and
clearing account. It is tied to a sweep account so the money
can be swept into a higher interest bearing account.
Basically, I just wanted to make the Court aware that this
Attorney General's opinion is out there and we're going to
have to look at taking care of this within probably the next
30, 60 days, something like that. And if the County Attorney
and County Auditor have any input, I welcome them to please,
you know --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a question.
6-23-08
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
MS. WILLIAMS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Ms. Williams, if we adopt
this policy change as per your recommendation today, where
does that put us with respect to these issues when the County
hits 50,000?
MS. WILLIAMS: We would already be in compliance.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Total compliance?
MS. WILLIAMS: I would think so, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Or partial?
MS. WILLIAMS: I would think total compliance.
Because, basically, the fee officers would not have their
bank -- their individual bank accounts. They would be
required to deposit daily into the revolving and clearing
account. It would be a separate bank account at the county
depository bank, and at that point we would be in compliance
with the 50,000 population.
JUDGE TINLEY: The revolving or clearing account
that the various fee officers would deposit into, that is an
account over which only you would have disbursement
authority?
MS. WILLIAMS: I believe that myself and the County
Auditor. There would be two.
JUDGE TINLEY: Be jointly, but it's basically your
account?
25 ~ MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
6-23-08
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
38
JUDGE TINLEY: The various fee officers, contrary
to how they may handle it now into their separate accounts
that they transfer to you once a month or once a week or
whatever, --
MS. WILLIAMS: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- they would have no disbursement
authority out of these accounts?
MS. WILLIAMS: The way I understand it, no.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think that's the -- that's the
critical part of the A.G. opinion, as I understand it, is
that once the funds are placed on deposit, only the Treasurer
should have disbursement authority, as opposed to any of the
other fee officers.
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir, that's what I understand.
And I know there's things that we're going to have to work
out with the elected officials and the fee officers and stuff
and get kind of everything, you know, worked out. But I
think that we can do this. And, like I said, I just got the
spreadsheet this morning from the Navarro County Auditor, and
I want to look over it. It's -- it looks like it will be
something that we can use.
JUDGE TINLEY: Are you asking the Court to take any
specific action today, or are you just updating us and you
want to work on this thing and come back for a definitive
policy change?
6-23-08
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
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes. I just want to inform the
Court, let you know that it's out there; it's coming down the
pike. And I will come back with it. The County Attorney,
maybe County Auditor, we can get together and -- and the
elected officials too, the fee officers.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, they're going to necessarily
have some input.
MS. WILLIAMS: Oh, yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Uecker, you had a comment?
MS. UECKER: Yeah, a couple of them. Of course,
everybody knows what I think about A.G. opinions. They're
just that; they're opinions. And although the wording in
this opinion, you know, says the fee officer shall not have
a, you know, separate bank account -- and, first of all, I'm
not opposed to, you know, looking into this. But, you know,
it also does not prohibit the fee officer from having
individual bank accounts. And I think it conflicts --
there's conflicting statutes, first of all, with the one
that, you know, says the under 50,000 deposits monthly, over
50,000 deposits daily. I think that's a conflict of statute
to start with. There's also some conflicting statutes -- and
I didn't have time to pull them this morning, but I know one
of them is Chapter 117, and the other one is Chapter 42, I
think, of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code, regarding
certain accounts. So, I mean, those are just things that I
6-23-08
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
think probably we need to look at.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The only two sections of
law that were referenced, Ms. Uecker, in the Attorney
General's opinion were LGC 113 --
MS. UECKER: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- and 133.
MS. UECKER: And I think 133 is County Clerk funds,
isn't it? Isn't that strictly County Clerk?
MS. PIEPER: 118.
MS. UECKER: Yeah, and that's why I brought up
Chapter 117 and 42, because they were not mentioned in this
opinion.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That was a little bit -- I was
a little confused about the over 50,000/under 50,000. Since
it says, "except as required by statute," that means that
that doesn't apply to Kerr County at this time, the way I
read the summary. Am I misreading that? I mean, I don't see
that this is a -- the Auditor says I'm misreading it. To me,
I don't see this changes, the way I read it, any --
MS. UECKER: Well, and the other thing is -- is the
requirement that the fee officer deposits funds into the
Treasurer directly also doesn't state in what form. Is it
cash, or is it a check out of an individual bank account?
See, there's nothing that prohibits Jannett or I to have an
6-23-08
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
individual bank account. And to deposit into the funds that
this is saying is required, doesn't say in what form.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Or an electronic transfer.
MS. DECKER: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Sounds to me like we need
more information on this before -- sounds like you're heading
down the right path, though.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, we're going to get
there eventually, probably in the next census or next couple
years, and it's good to get it going. We've already talked
about that. From a control standpoint, we need to get the
money deposited and accounted for as quickly as possible.
JUDGE TINLEY: Your intention at this point is to
work with the elected officials and the fee officers, the
~~ County Attorney, and put something together?
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: And then come back to us?
MS. WILLIAMS: Research it further and try to get
something that will be workable for everybody.
JUDGE TINLEY: Good.
MS. WILLIAMS: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any member of the Court have any
additional questions on that?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move on to Item 10, if we
6-23-08
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
might; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on
position with respect to C.P.S. costs as a result of C.P.S.
activities there in Schleicher County. I put this on the
agenda at the request of Schleicher County officials. They
activity in the F.L.D.S. facility there in Schleicher County.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Only comment I would have,
Judge, I don't disagree with the intent, because I think they
have been whacked badly and are now looking at the potential
of bankruptcy. I think the "Resolved" in the resolution
proposed for Kerr County needs a little strengthening, and
also there's an error in one of the whereas's, and I would
propose that the resolved be -- we add to the resolved, "The
Commissioners Court of Kerr County adopt the attached
resolution in support of Schleicher County, which petitions"
-- tells what we're going to do -- "which petitions the State
Legislature to appropriate funds to eliminate the financial
burden on the taxpayers of Schleicher County." To me, that
tells the story. The way it is right now, it leaves it kind
of hanging.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Shouldn't you also put as it
6-23-08
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
43
issues, or something like that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: As it relates -- I think it
needs to be -- they need to be responsible for everything
except this one instance, in my mind. Which is a pretty big
incident.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Big incident. Was that a
motion Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, it is.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Will it incorporate my
language?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir, it will.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
indicated.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We'll work on it, yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd like to point out the
~~ names on the signatures on the Commissioners Court here, the
~', Judge is Johnny Griffin, and Kirk Griffin is the Precinct 3
~ Commissioner. Same name, and if you look at the F's in their
signature, they're exactly the same.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: What are you suggesting?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mama taught them how to
I write.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I know those two guys.
They're a hoot.
6-23-08
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
JUDGE TINLEY: Johnny is retiring.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: He's been there 20-some-odd years, I
I think.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Long time.
JUDGE TINLEY: It's interesting to note that,
according to what he told me, that when -- when the original
search warrant was brought to him for issuance, he sent them
back out the door.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Really?
JUDGE TINLEY: He said he didn't want any part of
it. Any other question or discussion on the motion? A11 in
favor of the motion, indicate 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: Jody, I'll get with you on
the break and we'll change it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's go to Item 11, if we
might; consider, discuss, take appropriate action to request
unclaimed capital credits received from Electric Cooperative
pursuant to Section 74.602 of the Texas Property Code from
the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, and authorize
County Judge to prepare letter of request. This is an annual
6-23-08
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
45
thing. I think this is probably the third year now that
we've requested these capital credits, or the specific kind
of request to be done by a specific deadline to get the
money, and we're just asking the Court to let me do it again,
to get us some money.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. All in
favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. We'll move
to Item 12; discuss State Senate Committee hearings on
subdivision authority and Hill Country Coalition of Counties.
Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. I put this on the agenda
primarily because of a couple letters to the editor and other
information, and also as an informative item related to the
Hill Country Coalition. I think the Court was aware that I
was going to possibly testify at those hearings, and the
hearings were held in Austin last Wednesday. The Senate
committee on International Trade Relations, Senator Lucio is
the chairman of that, and he had an interim charge from the
6-23-08
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
Lieutenant Governor to look at subdivision rules, and he kind
The gist of the, I guess, concerns that were raised
Bill Williams, right after they received their letters -- was
that there was a behind-the-scenes large pot of money that
was contrary to -- that we did or didn't know about possibly,
but that was contrary to, I guess, our intent, being Kerr
County Commissioners, an intent of pretty limited additional
authority that we were looking at requesting from the
Legislature. And I told them at the meeting that if that was
the case, you know, I'd be, you know, interested to find out
about it, and certainly don't support it. And I told the
Senate committee that -- I said that the Hill Country
Coalition of Counties -- County Coalition is not a formal
group. It is kind of a round-table group that counties from
I5 -- or I5 counties from the Hill Country, we've met several
times since the first of the year, and where we have common
interest, we felt that it is better to speak with one voice,
as opposed to each have their own different approaches in
dealing with the Legislature. You tend to get more
6-23-08
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
accomplished if you're speaking with one voice up there.
it kind of settled on -- they all agreed with Kerr County, as
opposed to Kerr County agreeing with them as to what we could
all agree with. That's just not -- it wasn't just Kerr
Then
authority. My testimony -- and I meant to bring a copy to
hand out to the Court; I put it in everyone's box -- was
basically -- and this is what the Hill Country Coalition
agreed was three items that we think that counties should
have additional authority in.
First, we felt that there should be a requirement
for a buffer area around noncompatible commercial land use
next to an existing residential subdivision. In our terms
for this county, that means that if you have an existing
subdivision, and a rock quarry, which is incompatible with
residential use, goes in next to it, then there has to be a
buffer between those two. That was that issue. The other
issue was that counties should have authority to look at and
6-23-08
48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
regulate lot sizes and density, besides only relying on water
availability. Water availability has forced counties that
use groundwater into setting up a scenario where we are
almost prohibiting development around some of the areas,
'cause you can't get lots small enough in areas where we have
communities, such as Center Point.
Under our current rules -- and we've tried to make
some allowances, but still, you still have -- basically have
to have a 3-acre average if you're going to put in a
subdivision, and in Center Point, that pretty much prohibits
anything, from any kind of a subdivision going into that
community. And same around Comfort, same out in Hunt, same
around Mountain Home. If we were able to look at something
other than water availability, or not having that the only
thing, that would enable us to have some other basis, 'cause
right now we just don't have that authority. It would also
allow to us look in areas that are -- you know, where you
have a very steep terrain, to take drainage into --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask you a question.
What would be -- what would be an option to water
availability? What would be something that you could use as
a tool to --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think drainage is one that
enters into it as an issue. That is -- you know, like, if
you go in some parts of the county, I think drainage and
6-23-08
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
49
water quality become an issue.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And we have some authority
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We don't have authority -- we
don't have authority to set lot sizes without using water
availability, period, and that's the bottom line. You can't
use size. You can look at drainage and you get into some
state law on drainage that you can't -- you know, but it's
the law says that you do a water availability study. We've
done kind of a very regional approach, but it's questionable,
really, how, you know, that would stand up in court too. We
can't look at an area, we can't sit down and say, okay,
terrain in this area is logically going to come in with a
higher density; therefore, we can go into right around Center
Point and go in with a greater density, so we go -- you know,
you can kind of average out across parts of the county. And
we don't -- just don't have the ability to look at anything
other than straight water availability that you have a 3-acre
average right now. No legislation has been written. The
difficult part is in the details. And your question is very
good as to how you get there. What is the other authority?
Maybe it's just to be able to set lot size limits, you know.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Water availability may be
6-23-08
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
50
the only thing there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And maybe you have to go in and
change water availability to look at it -- rather than a
subdivision only, as it is now, to look at it regionally to
have a little bit broader impact. And then the third item
that was discussed was the dreaded impact fees. I said
"dreaded" because it draws a lot of attention from the state
lobbyists. But the -- it was a very narrow request or idea,
and it was at -- and the example that I used was the most
recent one we had, Live Springs out in the western part of
the county. We have 100 homes going in off the end of
Henderson Branch Road, and the county -- and the taxpayers of
the county as a whole are going to be -- at some point, when
that development takes off, be required to do upgrades on
Henderson Branch Road, which is a very difficult road to
upgrade, just because it goes through the camp -- through
the -- I mean, it's kind of -- it's a difficult --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It stays out of camp. It's
before you get to the camp.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, but it's a -- it's
still -- it's a difficult issue to burden the taxpayers.
Impact fees, as I learned at the hearings, generally are
assessed on the -- by cities, anyway, at the time building
permits are issued. We don't do building permits. We don't
~ want to do building permits, but we do do septic permits.
6-23-08
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
51
editor, and I think the meaning of the letters that I
received personally -- and who I also had lunch with with
Bill was Granger McDonald and Justin McDonald. Justin's
president of the local homebuilders' association, and
Granger -- which I didn't know, but he informed me that he's
first vice president of the state association, and will be
the president of that association during the next legislative
session. And I think that kind of is an answer to me as to
why they were so upset about the resolution that didn't
really say anything, in my mind, but it is because that state
association traditionally has been very opposed to any kind
of additional authority to counties. And -- you know, and I
think that's kind of where that is. That's kind of an
update.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I voted to go along with the
resolution for those three issues, and I've been dealing with
this issue	for a long,	long	time.	That	-- all three	of those
issues are	important,	and I	think	there	are actually	others.
6-23-08
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
But if we can get somebody to sit down at the table and work
on those three issues, it would be, I think, a super change
for county government in the great state of Texas.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think that's kind of the
key issue, Commissioner, is getting a place at the table to
talk about it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what I voted for, is
to get a place at the table, to have the conversation. I
don't know anything about big money. I don't know anything
about lobbyists. I have no idea about any of that stuff.
That did not come into the -- when I voted to join in the
resolution, it had nothing to do with it, so my vote to go
along with the resolution is simply to have better
government, more aware of what's going on in our communities,
and the growth. The growth is an issue that, if we don't get
a handle on it, it's going to run right over the top of
everybody.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's interesting that
the -- and Senator Lucio primarily asked a lot of questions
of people that testified. One of the questions he asked -- I
think it was Judge Sumter from Hays County, and she, I think,
wants more authority than I think people in Kerr County want,
which is fine. They have a lot of different problems that we
don't have. But Senator Lucio asked her, does -- would she
like to have the ability to issue building permits and have
6-23-08
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
building codes? And her response -- she hesitated a minute
and said, "That is not what we're asking for." And then he
responded, "I understand that's not what you're asking for
right now. Would you like it?" And she said -- thought a
Hays County wants, certainly not what the Hill Country
Coalition -- 'cause each member of the -- each entity or each
member that goes to the Hill Country County Coalition are
independent. It's not one voice speaking. We're individual
counties, and there's no organization there. Buster
mentioned the big money lobbyist thing. I think I probably
didn't mention that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I wasn't supposed to bring
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You are. I'm glad you did.
Mr. McDonald's concern was that there was people behind the
scenes manipulating, or potentially going to manipulate the
Hill Country County Coalition that were more of the liberal
environmental bent, with the -- what the implication was -- I
did a little bit of work after I met with him, and I found
out what the problem was. Well, I shouldn't say that. What
I think the problem was is that the group that facilitated
the Hill Country County Coalition is the Hill Country
Alliance, and the Hill Country Alliance is perceived -- and I
6-23-08
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
don't know if they are or aren't -- as an environmental
no-growth group. It's based in Travis County. After I found
that out, 'cause I didn't know that much about Hill Country
Alliance, I called their executive director, Christy Muse. I
asked her -- or told her, I said, "You're a problem."
You're -- I said, "I don't want to be painted as an
environmental group. The fact that you're facilitating
doesn't make any difference to me, but if you have some
agenda," I said, "our working together is about to end." I
said, "That's not what we're here for." She assured me that
she is just facilitating this. She likes the fact that we're
getting together and working as a county, but they have no
ulterior motive in the Hill Country Alliance.
I take her word for that, but it's up to the group
as a whole whether they want her or her -- or that
organization to facilitate some of the discussions. Without
them doing -- none of the counties have a budget for this
type of thing, and someone has to kind of coordinate, and.
that's what she was doing. But that is, I think, what draws
-- and I got a lot of the negative interest about Hill
Country County Alliance. I did not do anything with the
resolution we passed, 'cause this all surfaced right after
that. I think it's on my desk somewhere; maybe Jody still
has it -- Jody has it. I read it again. It really doesn't
say anything. I think it was -- you know, other than we
6-23-08
55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, San Marcos. In San
meeting. Anyway, that's kind of it. I thought I'd put it on
the agenda, update it maybe on the next agenda. I know
Granger McDonald wanted to be on the January -- the July 14th
agenda, but I decided because of some other calls and talking
with Commissioner Oehler to go ahead and put it on the
agenda.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's another factor,
In our efforts to qualify for grant funding from Texas Water
Development Board for the project in Center Point, we adopted
the Model Subdivision Rules, which came from and originated
from Texas Water Development Board, the purpose of which is
to clean up some of the subdivision problems that existed on
the border and now is applicable to any county in the state
of Texas. And we adopted those model subdivision rules, the
purpose of which was to create and insure our -- our
eligibility for T.W.D.B. funding on the EDAP program, and
6-23-08
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
and hopefully attract that funding.
But Commissioner Letz also focuses on another
issue. We're going to have to -- excuse me. At some point
on that land for what we term -- term to call "workforce"
type housing, if no other better definition. Because that's
where available housing can be -- can and should be probably
placed in this county. And if we have to rely on water
availability to establish the lot size, we're never going to
get anything done over there, 'cause you're going to be down
to nothing but either 5-acre or 3-acre averaging, and it's
not going to happen. So, we're going to have to take a look
at that at the right time to be able to make what our
ultimate goal is in terms of appropriate land use east of --
east of here.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: One of the things I believe
6-23-08
57
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You know, once you do that,
you can have a lot smaller lots and you can have things that
you cannot have before that happens.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's why I think we need to
look. I don't mind water availability being used as a
criteria for lot sizes, but I think you have to look beyond
subdivisions; you have to look at it regionally, because, you
know, the County has -- you know, we work with Headwaters on
this. I mean, their charge is groundwater. We know how many
acre feet of permit ability they have, and that can be a
little more concentrated in certain areas, and should be more
concentrated in certain areas. Certainly, the City of
Kerrville has a lot higher density than we're allowed to have
in the county.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: True.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that's -- that has to be
addressed.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: But when you
available, that takes care of a lot of probl~
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Also creates
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And in the
or Center Point, eastern Kerr County, if the
make wastewater
=ms.
other problems.
case of east --
River Authority
6-23-08
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
advances a water availability plan to use surface water in
conjunction with groundwater, that again enforces our ability
to -- or need to do something in that regard.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that's an issue that Burnet
County has, when you said that, is that they use surface
water primarily, and because of that, they have no ability to
set lot sizes or regulations at all other than septic, and
they're putting in some of these septic systems. So they're
on, basically, city lots spotted around the -- or
quarter-acre lots, much like we had along Camp Meeting Creek,
and they're having a real hard time figuring out how to
regulate those lot sizes. So, there's, you know, problems
coming down the road with some of these.
In addition to those three items -- this is a
there are also some problems with the current Chapter 232.
The titles of the subchapters don't make sense any more,
after the last legislative session. I mean, they're talking
about, you know, rural counties and counties close to the
border and different things, and some of them just need some
cleaning up, so they need to look at that and clean up the
terminology that was brought up. They need to really look at
the exemptions that they grant. Exemptions are a real
problem, you know, because what happens is, much like we
6-23-08
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
dealt with one this morning, or may have dealt with it this
morning, someone is exempt if they're going to give it to a
relative, and then as soon as that relative sells, that
triggers platting. But no one knows that that happens, so
you end up with -- exemptions create a lot of problems. That
was also brought up.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I tell you what, if you was
to get into the building permit issue, though, where we're
out there inspecting electrical work and plumbing work and
all those things, can you imagine? I mean, Rusty Hierholzer
would have to take second stage to that -- to that little
program.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: To that nightmare.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: To that nightmare.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what it is, a
nightmare. And I, for one, would never want us to go there.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Me either. But there's got
to be -- but we have to be at some place to where the public,
people that come in here and buying a home and a piece of
property, are protected. And I'm not -- I know that when you
buy a home out in the county, that there is -- you know, your
lending institutions -- some lending institutions require
these inspections, but I'm -- I don't know how good they are.
Mine wasn't very good, I know that. But I think --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think, too, as long as
6-23-08
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
this -- whatever gets taken to the Legislature and ultimately
passed, if it's a local option, it's one thing, and that --
that being the thing where you can pick and choose what you
need for your county, and not be subject to a mandatory
enforcement of whatever they come down the pike with.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that was discussed.
Everyone -- I mean, when asked a question, everyone said it
should be a local option, because some counties don't want
this other additional authority. It makes no sense for them.
You go out into far west Texas or far north Texas, possibly,
I mean, they just don't need more regulations, and they don't
want those. But some counties that do have a lot of growth
do need some additional authority. So --
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Roesch? You have filed a
participation form indicating you wanted to be heard on this
issue?
MR. ROESCH: Yes, thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Give us your name and address for
the record, please.
MR. ROESCH: I'm Heinz Roesch; I'm the executive
officer of Hill Country Homebuilders' Association. Judge
Tinley, Commissioners, I just want to touch on a few points
that you discussed also, you know, in your discussions just
now. I want to briefly describe the Hill Country Alliance
Coalition, talk about model subdivision rules, fire
6-23-08
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
61
suppression systems, building codes, and then the overall
economic environment. Let me start just by saying I was
together with Commissioner Letz at this Senate hearing last
week and testified on the other side of the issue. The
legislative sessions for increasing county powers, and has
not been able to do so, has invited a list of, I think, 25
commissioners and judges throughout the state, from north of
Dallas down to the valley, from El Paso all the way to east
Texas, all giving testimony on the side of increasing the
powers of counties for various reasons and for various
motives. So, it took about four hours of laborious testimony
before the first person speaking on the other side of the
issue was able to testify. By that time, the senators who
are on the committee, you know, were already tired, and maybe
not listening as much as -- as they should have been.
But, nonetheless, be that as it is, the way we
understand it, the Hill Country Alliance is a group of
environmentalists who advocate no growth throughout the
state. And, yes, as Commissioner Letz also said, they are
involved with the Hill Country Coalition, inasmuch as that
they provide infrastructure for those meetings to happen.
But I think it's not as altruistic as Commissioner Letz said,
that they just do it in order to help the coalition. I think
6-23-08
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
they have their agenda, and through the provision of these
services, you know, try to advocate no growth. We, the Hill
Country Homebuilders' Association, the Texas Association of
Now we come to subdivision rules. As you also said
counties in the state of Texas are able to adopt the model
subdivision rules, and those model subdivision rules give you
compliance with those model subdivision rules. You can
require certification that there is proper stormwater
drainage available in a proposed subdivision, and you can
also ask for certification that water, sewer, electrical, and
gas meet all state standards. And last, but not least, you
by. So, these model subdivision rules give you sweeping
powers. They also mandate that there's adequate drinking
water and sewer facilities in accordance with Health and
Safety Codes, and they also mandate or give you the power to
mandate certain setbacks within subdivisions, so you have a
whole bunch of instruments at your disposal already that you
6-23-08
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
63
can use to regulate your -- your growth.
Also, last, but not least, the model subdivision
can prevent that. You have the instruments in your hands.
Use those instruments to regulate what you need to regulate.
And also, you have, with regard to platting approval process,
very, very similar or equal powers as a city also has for
their subdivision rules, so you have very good rules and
instruments in your hands already. Also, the -- since last
legislative session, you can mandate in proposed subdivisions
that there is adequate fire suppression systems in place for
subdivisions with 50 lots or greater. You can mandate that a
facility of up to 5,000 gallons of water is available to be
available for fire departments to use in case of fire.
Also, since 2001, the State has mandated a
statewide building code, statewide not only in cities, but
also in unincorporated areas of the city. It is the I.R.C.
building code that is required to be used since 2001. And
also, in 2003, the T.R.C.C., the Texas Residential
Construction Commission, mandated that all homes be built to
those standards. As you may be aware, starting from
September 1, 2008, this year, the law also will require that
6-23-08
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
64
all new homes be being constructed after that date have to
have a minimum of three code inspections; a pre-pour, a
pre-close, and a final inspection. Without those
inspections, it is very likely that the title transfer cannot
occur, or it's also very likely that banks will not do any
financing for properties that do not abide by these rules.
So, your two building codes are in place, and they are going
to be enforced come this September. And also, if you look at
what the Texas Windstorm Insurance Association last said,
they have found --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The who?
MR. ROESCH: Texas Windstorm Insurance Association.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Who in the hell's that?
MR. ROESCH: It's one of your agencies here in the
state -- or in the -- in the U.S. And they have said that --
or they have found during the last hurricane, for example,
Rita, they have done some calculations or some comparisons,
and they found that those homes in the U.S. that were being
built according to code had much less claims than those who
were not built to codes. All I'm trying to say is -- and I'm
trying to be brief -- is the codes work. Homes that are
being built to code are better than if they're not being
built to code.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a question. Just
who's going to do these building inspections?
6-23-08
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
65
JUDGE TINLEY: Bingo.
MR. ROESCH: The building inspections are being
mandated. You can go on the Texas Residential Construction
Commission web site. They -- the inspections have to be done
either by a licensed engineer, licensed architect, or by
state-certified code inspectors that, you know, are listed on
the web site.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Under the authority of
whom, and who pays for it?
MR. ROESCH: Under the authority of the Texas
Residential Construction Commission, and the builder has to
pay for those inspections.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. That's not a
county issue.
MR. ROESCH: No, sir. But --
JUDGE TINLEY: Don't want it to be, either.
MR. ROESCH: -- all I'm saying, you probably don't
that want that to be a county issue.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Already said that.
MR. ROESCH: There is building codes in place for
the state, and they seem to work. Commissioner Letz also
touched on the buffer zones, you know, between residential
and commercial areas. That's something we very much would
also be in support of, and would like to work with you in
defining how exactly one would, you know, go about regulating
6-23-08
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
66
that. But buffer zones, we believe, are a good way of
on when you levy impact fees during the process of
development, you know, can be a very costly proposition for
developers. Our feeling is that if you develop, you improve
the land, and the property tax base that you create through
the improvement over time should be well positioned to
developments. So, having said all that, current economic
environment, you know, we all know is not as good, you know,
as we all would like it to be. Yes, Texas is a lot better
than the national average, and probably the Hill Country
within Texas is better than Texas. But we, too, don't need
any more regulation. We, too, don't need any more fees. I
think we are advocating responsible growth, and we want to
work with you in a cooperative manner to find ways and means
of doing that.
JUDGE TINLEY: As a result of the more recent
MR. ROESCH: Well, since 2003 to today -- when I
started as C.E.O. in 2003, we had just around 100 members in
6-23-08
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
67
the association. We're now going on 400 members in the
association five years later.
JUDGE TINLEY: Last year, what --
MR. ROESCH: In the recent year, membership has not
grown any more, even though the beginning of this year, in
January, we added 203 new members over the course of a
two-day period.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How many counties do you
represent?
MR. ROESCH: We represent 13 counties. But it's,
in the north, San Saba and to McCulloch County, and south,
it's Val Verde. But the main -- 85, 90 percent of the
membership is domiciled in Kerr County or in Gillespie
county.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I probably misunderstood you
in your -- early in your talk, but I thought I heard you say
that the Hill Country Coalition is a group of
environmentalists.
MR. ROESCH: The Hill Country Alliance is a group
of environmentalists, and you can go on their web site; it's
hillcountryalliance.org. All very public.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What is an environmentalist
to you?
MR. ROESCH: Well, they are advocating no growth.
They --
6-23-08
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
68
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And that's my second point.
You said something about that they are a no-growth -- no
growth.
MR. ROESCH: No growth.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Zero growth.
MR. ROESCH: Yes. That's at least our
understanding, that that is what their main agenda is. And
it's -- you know, they -- we feel there has to be growth. If
we stop growing, then we're dying. And we --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well --
MR. ROESCH: We don't want any rampant growth. We
are advocating reasonable.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There's always going be to
be growth.
MR. ROESCH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You know, if this
Commissioners Court made a firm decision and said, "Okay,
there's not going to be any more growth in this county,"
that's impossible.
MR. ROESCH: That's not going to happen. It's not
good for us.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, that's beside the
point. The -- I mean, we can't change the law. The law
allows people to do certain things with their property.
MR. ROESCH: Yeah.
6-23-08
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
69
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And --
MR. ROESCH: Property rights are, I think, a very
important part here in the great state of Texas.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, that is a big part,
but to say these folks that we have aligned ourselves with
are no-growth and a bunch of environmentalists, I think your
language is a little bit out of line.
MR. ROESCH: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's my opinion. And
you're kind of -- and we're kind of, in a way, aligned with
these people by sitting down at the table with them. Don't
agree with those folks over in the corridor -- the San
Antonio-Austin corridor. There's some strange cats over
there. But, nevertheless, we're -- we're neighbors, and
we're having good conversations with them.
MR. ROESCH: Right. But if you also look at the
Hill Country Coalition, it's a coalition of -- that names 15
counties in that resolution. Three of those counties,
Burnet, Blanco, and Llano, have already decided not to sign
that resolution. Burnet, just a couple weeks ago, had it on
their agenda and declined.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So you're in opposition to
us signing the resolution? Is that your whole deal?
MR. ROESCH: Well, we do not support that way of
advocation -- advocating -- yes, we would like to sit
6-23-08
~o
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
together with you, and in a cooperative way, and come up with
ways and means and rules how to regulate responsible growth
in unincorporated areas.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are you interested in
regulating, or you just want to open the gates and let
everybody do what they want to do?
MR. ROESCH: I think there has to be regulation in
order for responsible growth to happen, but we don't want to
add additional rules and regulations to what you already
have. The powers that you have we feel are already adequate
in you doing a responsible job. It's a matter of using those
powers in an appropriate way that you already have, rather
than adding --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just a second. Do you know
what ticks me off more than anything? What angers me is the
fact that y'all start writing these letters and start
contacting all these people out here and start using this
language without coming and talking to us like good neighbors
should. That makes me mad. You guys need to come in here
and do exactly what you're talking about doing.
MR. ROESCH: That's what I'm doing right now.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with you
110 percent, we need to sit down and have these visits. But
we need to sit down and have these visits; let's don't go out
6-23-08
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
here and start throwing rocks and throwing mud at some
environmentalist, because some of that dirt gets on us, and I
don't personally -- number one, I don't like that.
MR. ROESCH: Well, I apologize if we ticked you
off.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Your apology's accepted,
sir. Thank you.
MR. ROESCH: That was not the intent. Our intent
is to sit -- to start the process of cooperating and working
together.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We should have a dialogue;
there's no question about it. Some of your concerns may be
concerns that we need to address, or vice-versa. And I would
ask you, of the three things that Commissioner Letz listed
that are important to us, which were the requirement for a
buffer zone for noncompatible land use -- and I'll give you
the most recent illustration of Wheatcraft in Center Point,
where it comes in and does its thing on 125 acres, which is
totally incompatible with the subdivision that was there to
begin with across the road, and homes that were already there
and schools that were already there. What about a buffer
would you oppose? Secondly, lot sizes and density,
determining lot sizes by reason -- and density for -- by
reasons other than water availability. What about that would
you object to? And talk to me a little bit about impact
6-23-08
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
72
fees. What do you think is improper about impact fees? And
I'll give you the most recent illustration, which is Live
Springs Ranch in Commissioner Oehler's jurisdiction, where
the developer -- within his rights -- was proposing to
increase the number of lots available on the property he'd
subdivided from 60-some-odd to over 100. Which he can do.
But tell me about the impact on a county road, and why he
should not participate in the improvement of that county
road. Talk to us about those three issues.
MR. ROESCH: Well, the first issue, buffer zones,
Commissioner Williams, is specifically one of the issues
where I said we would propose instituting some kind of rules
and regulations to define buffer zones between noncompatible
land uses. So, I think there --
~ COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. So, there's a basis
to sit down and talk.
MR. ROESCH:	Yes, sir.		
COMMISSIONER	WILLIAMS: Oka	y.	
MR. ROESCH:	As far as lot	sizes	is concerned, the
model subdivision rules	allow you to	limit	minimum lot sizes
based on water, sewage,	drainage, the	rules	-- the
definitions. And I thi	nk, you know,	there	-- you know, those
are instruments that ca	n be used and	should	be used to define
responsible subdivision	guidelines.		
COMMISSIONER	WILLIAMS: So	you sa	y we don't have an
6-23-08
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
73
issue there? Is that what you're saying?
MR. ROESCH: Well, I think you already have
instruments in your hands that you can use to -- to achieve
what you want to achieve.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm not sure that we do.
I Go ahead.
MR. ROESCH: Not have -- but here, too, you know,
the devil lies in the detail and requires, I think, careful
consideration, and requires discussion and a dialogue. And
we're open and making ourselves available to be open for
those discussions.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. ROESCH: And as far as taxes are concerned, I
mean, that's a Pandora's box. I think today's forum is
probably not, you know, the proper meet -- you know, time to
discuss all of that. But the impact fees in general -- and
generalizations are always difficult -- put the burden on the
incremental user, on the -- you know, the last one that
brings -- you know, that does something, you know, wants to
develop something, and he has to pay that impact fee. It
puts the burden on that last incremental user, whereas the
improved infrastructure is benefited from everybody along
that county road that serves at the end a new subdivision.
And we just feel that there's other ways of financing
necessary and required infrastructure to allow for reasonable
6-23-08
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
74
growth.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: A couple comments, Heinz. The
-- I'll start off on impact fees. I don't think the
intent -- I think you said you have to look at the details.
One of the problems -- I don't disagree that, long-term, if a
development is successful, that increased tax base will
likely help fund road improvements. The problem you get,
there is a -- I guess a little spike of road damage when that
development's being built. If -- you know, on any
development, all of a sudden you start having a huge increase
in big truck traffic. One truck is about the same as 100
cars, or even 1,000 cars, whatever the ratio is, but you end
up with a lot of damage during the construction phase. And
that's the part -- you know, I don't think it's anyone's,
really, intent to get 100 percent of a road upgrade funded
through impact fees. But there's a -- you know, there's an
extreme of nothing to paying for a whole road upgrade, and in
that middle ground, there should be something that the
developer or the lot owners help fund part of that cost to
the County that is a direct result of subdivision. That's
where I -- kind of where I am on the impact fees, and you
have to look at it.
MR. ROESCH: I don't think, you know, Jonathan,
that you will find our side being on either end of the
spectrum. We need to find the point where it makes sense,
6-23-08
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
75
economic sense also, that developments can continue to
happen.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
MR. ROESCH: And in an attractive way. And, you
know, if you look at the long-term basis that the -- what is
it? -- the planning for the -- for the state of Texas, which
the State Comptroller currently bases, I think, their
long-term projections on growth over the next 10 to 15 years
of the Texas population by, I think, 60 -- around 50 to
60 percent, somewhere in that area. If you accept that
premise, and I think we'll see that, then it doesn't take
rocket science to assume that the Hill Country will see a
disproportionately large share of that growth. And in order
to preserve what we all love, the Hill Country, let's come up
with rules and regulations that preserve that -- that what
makes the Hill Country special. That's why I moved here in
2001. I'm a newbie on the block. You know, I love the Hill
Country, and I want my investment in the ranch that I bought
being preserved. But, at the same time, I want to be able to
do with my ranch -- not what I damn well please, but -- but
what I believe is within my rights, and that's why I bought
the ranch in the first place.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that, I mean --
MR. ROESCH: So, I'm on your side. I just want to
I make sure --
6-23-08
76
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. ROESCH: -- that we talk.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the other issue is, on
the -- the lot sizes, I mean, the model subdivision rules,
I! you know, do give counties a lot of authority that they
didn't have in the past. The problem is, you still -- when
you get to the lot size, you still have to base it on water
availability, and that, in this county, gets us to a lot size
that does not encourage development in some areas.
MR. ROESCH: But if you look at sewer -- if you
look at sewer requirements, then you can also --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But if you're on groundwater,
you still have that minimum lot size that is prohibitive for
development in some of these communities, and we just don't
have the flexibility. That's really -- you know, I think
that, you know, you and some of the others in the
association, looking at this, think we're trying to make it
more restrictive. We're actually trying to go the other
direction; we're trying to be able to have a little bit of
ability to allow for a little bit greater density in areas
and look at much more of a big picture than the microcosm of
a subdivision. But certainly welcome the dialogue, and it's
always fun. We had a fun day listening to all the testimony,
didn't we?
MR. ROESCH: Yeah, sure did. Well, thank you very
6-23-08
~~
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
much, again, for listening. And I'll once again reiterate
our apology. Our intent was not to offend, but to open a
dialogue.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Let me say one more thing.
And I do agree with Commissioner Baldwin. It's much
', easier -- you know, there's not a man at this table that's
not willing to sit down and discuss issues at any time. My
phone, I have three numbers on my deal; I can be called
almost any time and be available for these kind of
discussions. But for several people to assume that we're
trying to take more control and thinking we're throwing in
with somebody that we're only talking to is not fair.
MR. ROESCH: Okay.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It would be great if we could
have that dialogue ahead of time and not be beat up in the
paper over something that's absolutely false.
MR. ROESCH: Well, we were just as surprised by
what happened in the paper as you were -- to what was
reported in the paper as you were. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Roesch. Anything
else from any member of the Court with regard to this
particular item?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are you kidding? Surely
you're joking.
6-23-08
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
JUDGE TINLEY: I thought maybe there was somebody
else you were mad at that you wanted to --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm not mad at anybody but
Jody.
JUDGE TINLEY: Why don't we take about a 15-minute
recess.
(Recess taken from to 10:36 a.m. to 10:54 a.m.)
', JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to order. We
were in recess. We'll take up Item 13; consider, discuss,
take appropriate action to approve amendment to the City of
Ingram/Kerr County Animal Control agreement and allow County
Judge to sign the same.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I move for the agenda item.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item. Question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Discussion or comment would
be that the Animal Control Manager and I met with the City of
Ingram, with the mayor, and they decided that it's way more
trouble than it's worth for them to try to have a different
licensing program than what we have, and they weren't very
successful at it. And they decided that it was more trouble
than it was worth, and we could do it and keep the revenue
from it if we would just make it standard county-wide. And
6-23-08
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
I3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
79
they offered up this amendment, and that's where we are.
JUDGE TINLEY: County Attorney had an opportunity
to review it?
MR. EMERSON: I have, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. EMERSON: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Any further question or
discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just a question. In our --
have we had any conversations with the City of Ingram related
to the change in policy related to the City of Kerrville, you
know, that we've proposed? For the budget change?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We have not.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Have not?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We need to discuss that so we
can offer something up to them.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: As a group. Maybe we should
put that on the next agenda to make whatever --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Be consistent.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Right, be consistent.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other question or discussion?
All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right
hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
6-23-08
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
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. We'll move
to Item 14; consider, discuss, take appropriate action to
file Secretary of State report and dissolve Hill Country
Juvenile Facility Corporation. I put this on the agenda. As
the Court will recall, we had a Kerr County Juvenile
Facilities Corporation that we thought was the only
facilities corporation that we had, and when the resolution
of the juvenile facility occurred, we dissolved that
corporation, and we recently discovered that we've got
another facilities corporation. There's no need to have it.
County Attorney's recommendation is that we resolve it. We
need to file the report and then file Articles of
Dissolution, and that's his -- that's his recommendation.
It's been vetted with the District Judges also. They've said
they have no objection to that, and, in fact, think it's the
proper thing to do.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item. Question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: When did -- why was -- did we
miss it the first time? Or is there -- why was there two?
Or do I care?
6-23-08
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: The answer is, I don't know, I don't
know, and you probably shouldn't care.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. EMERSON: And it was dissolved the first time.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What?
MR. EMERSON: The other one was dissolved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The other one was, but we don't
know why we had two?
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. We'll go to
Item 15; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to
schedule budget workshops. Okay, when do we want to hold
them, gentlemen?
MR. EMERSON: Linda Uecker wanted me to tell y'all
that she'll be on vacation from June 30th to July 14th, so
please don't schedule her during that time period.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So let's do her -- when was the
vacation?
MR. EMERSON: June 30th to July 14th.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll be out-of-pocket
August 12th to 20th. That's neither here nor there.
6-23-08
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
MR. BARYON: The Sheriff will be back in town on
July 7th.
JUDGE TINLEY: We definitely want to get his done
before July the 7th.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. July the 4th, we'll
just do them all.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd rather do -- we've gone
through two formats; back-to-back days, half days or full
days, whatever's required, or once a week for a while. I
personally like the once a week. Are Wednesdays good days
for you, Judge?
JUDGE TINLEY: Wednesday is a good day for me.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Fine with me.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd rather do every Wednesday,
just let you schedule them based on availability of people.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why don't we do every
Wednesday in July?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Fine. Start them at 9 o'clock
in the morning?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Is that early enough? It's
just about here, isn't it?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Starting after -- the week
after July 4th, which is a Friday, so it would be July --
what, 9th?
6-23-08
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
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Good idea.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: July 9th, and go on till we're
done.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 9 o'clock start?
MS. HARGIS: When?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: July.
MS. HARGIS: July what?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 9th, Wednesday. 9 o'clock in
the morning will be the first one.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: July what?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 9th.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 7-9, 7-16 --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I got a calendar on here.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- 7-23 and 7-30, right?
9, 16, 23, 30? Get the calendar out.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm committed on -- on the 9th. Why
don't we start them the week after that? 16th, 23rd, 30th.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: 16.
MS. HARGIS: Is that enough time, Judge?
JUDGE TINLEY: Begin the 16th.
MS. HARGIS: Is that enough time? Three?
JUDGE TINLEY: Sure.
MS. HARGIS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On the 16th, 23rd, and 30th?
6-23-08
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: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And then the first
Wednesday in August, which is the 6th.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, if we need four.
(Low-voice discussion off the record.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay?
MR. BARYON: Are y'all going to schedule which
department when, or do we need to call and make an
appointment?
JUDGE TINLEY: We'll, we've got a rough already
that -- that was plugged in. If you're looking at Sheriff's
Office, he's going to be at the tail end.
MR. BARYON: Okay. So, the 30th?
JUDGE TINLEY: That one may be the 6th.
MR. BARYON: Of August?
JUDGE TINLEY: Of August.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Preferably the 30th, though.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. We may have to massage who's
going to be at each one.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, we have one scheduled kind
of for the 6th as well, if we need it?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay, now, what was that
about the 6th? I missed the 6th.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: One on the 6th also, a budget
6-23-08
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
85
hearing set up for the 6th.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Of July?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: August.
I COMMISSIONER OEHLER: August 6th, okay.
MS. HARGIS: Can I make a comment here, please,
while y'all mark your calendars? I just want to say thank
you to every elected and appointed official. They all got
their budgets done and they were very cooperative, and within
the two-week time frame, and we really appreciate that. They
had -- it's been a fun, exciting time, and everybody has --
has done a great job, and I want to say thank you to each and
every one of them for that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Very nice. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, got that one resolved. Let's
go to Item 16; discussion regarding transition from a paper
version of the Commissioners Court agenda and backup to an
electronic version of the agenda and backup. Commissioner
Baldwin, as the -- as the emerging technological guru on this
Court, what do you -- what do you propose we do on this?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well --
JUDGE TINLEY: Transitioning over to a totally
electronic game here?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I think that we should
all -- during the next break period, we all need to go take
tours of the men's room to start with. Other than that, I
6-23-08
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
think John should -- why did you call on me? (Laughter.)
JUDGE TINLEY: I said you're the emerging
technological guru of the Court.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, that's because I never
say anything, see, and you just -- you just see me as an
emerging -- which I am. That's fine. And so -- well, I
appreciate the hand-off there, Judge, and I'm going to hand
it off to John, and -- and Jon. I said Jon.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Okay, I got some
questions. I think we need to do it as soon as we can, but I
need to be able to access it from home.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, me too. I need to be
able to work at home.
MR. TROLINGER: I expected that was the next thing
you'd desire. Is that a requirement right away?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. Well, I mean, I can't --
I mean, yeah, because if I can't access it from home, it
doesn't help. I go through my agendas over the weekend.
MR. TROLINGER: We have a way to --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not here in the office on
the weekends.
MR. TROLINGER: -- to send a copy over to the
laptop from the shared drive, the agenda. Is that all you
need to do, is have --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That will work, yeah.
6-23-08
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
87
MR. TROLINGER: -- have the agenda?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Long as I can look at it, I
don't have to -- as long as I can get the agenda on this and
I can take it home with me, that's what's I need.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This says it's read-only
anyhow. What we're seeing says it's read-only anyhow.
Right?
MR. TROLINGER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Correct?
MR. TROLINGER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. So, what's -- is
there a problem?
MR. TROLINGER: Well, accessing from the -- there's
two different philosophies here. Do we just copy the files
to your computer while it's plugged in here, or do we go
through the process of setting you up with access to the
county network from your house?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, if we wanted to also
access our e-mail -- you and I have had this discussion
before -- and work -- and be able to do our agenda, is that a
possibility?
MR. TROLINGER: You can do both of those things
without being connected to the county network.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why would I -- I get the
6-23-08
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
feeling you don't want me to be connected to the county
network at home. Why don't you want me to be connected to
the county network from home, I guess? I don't know that I
want to be; I just want to know why you don't want me to.
MR. TROLINGER: I just want to make sure we're
clear on what the requirement is. If we need to connect you
to the county network, then I need to make sure the computers
are -- are very secure, so that if someone else ended up with
the computer, they couldn't log into our network. That's my
number one concern.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What --
MR. TROLINGER: If someone picked up your computer
and took it. If it was stolen, the issue of security.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. But, I mean, what --
what could I access with that anyway? I mean, I tried to
get, by mistake, into the County Attorney's, and it said I
couldn't go there a minute ago, so I already can't go outside
of Commissioners. And everything that I can access here is
public information.
MR. TROLINGER: Being --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know I can't access the
budget remotely, 'cause I've got to be on this little deal
for that, right?
MR. TROLINGER: What I'd like to -- yes, that's
correct. But I just want to make sure we set -- you know, we
6-23-08
89
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
have a set of requirements, and then I can decide if I need
to get y'all logged in remotely to the network. And the two
-- the two things I'm hearing right now is, we don't.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, wait a minute.
MR. TROLINGER: My preference is --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Don't jump to conclusions
here. Why can't we have the ability to access the budget?
We're coming up on budget workshops. What if we want to do
some work at home, access the budget and see what's going on
and do whatever suggestions we can do within the framework of
the software. Why can't we have -- can we not do that?
MR. TROLINGER: You can.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We can, okay. Right now?
MR. TROLINGER: No. No, I'd have to visit with
each of you and probably end up coming to your homes to make
sure it's set up correctly.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: But if we use this laptop, we
can take this home and you can make that information
available?
it MR. TROLINGER: I can make the agenda and the
e-mail available if you take it home and plug in the
Internet. To access the financial software, you'd have to
connect to the county network, and we'd have to go through
the whole process of setting up that security. Just more
time is all.
6-23-08
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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Related question. I'm probably
looking at the County Attorney because of all these Open
Records requests we've been inundated with recently. Can I
delete things off my laptop, my e-mails?
MR. EMERSON: No.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Don't they get kept somewhere?
I have to keep -- doesn't John always keep them somewhere
hidden?
MR. EMERSON: My understanding is they're safe, but
e-mails are government documents, and if you'll recall,
that's the same thing that the Harris County D.A. got
indicted for about three months ago, was deleting e-mails.
MR. TROLINGER: It does not get saved, and my
policy is -- to each department head, and in writing, is that
you have retention requirements, and you must follow those
locally. I can't -- I can't keep up with every retention
requirement throughout all the offices.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can you create -- well, we're
getting into a different area. I think we need to create a
way to do it and not open these -- it starts getting real
cumbersome. But, anyway, I'll put that on the agenda. He's
got me trained over there.
MR. TROLINGER: Depending on you all's level of
access -- Internet access at the home, it'll take two or
three weeks probably to get y'all set up for access to the
6-23-08
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
91
county network.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's for the county network, if
you want access, for example, to the budget and the Incode,
MR. TROLINGER: Exactly.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. But as to the other, you can
do that fairly easily and quickly?
MR. TROLINGER: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: For the e-mail, and read-only with
regard to the agenda and the backup?
MR. TROLINGER: Yes. We can do that here in place
today.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're gaining on it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I mean, at a minimum, I
want to be able to take my agenda home, however you make it.
I mean, that's -- you know, and I would like to have budget
access, because, as you know, I'm probably at my home office
more than the courthouse office.
MR. TROLINGER: It's good. I'm all for the remote
access capability. I just wanted to let you know, once we
set the -- you know, once we outline what you need, then
we'll make it happen. Just takes longer to do the second
thing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, I understand that.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: One step at a time.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
6-23-08
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
92
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you have any other
questions, Commissioner Letz?
MR. TROLINGER: And I think Commissioner Baldwin is
the -- is the go-to guy, because he will come immediately to
my office with any -- any need.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's true.
MR. TROLINGER: He knows where it's at.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, is that a nice way of
saying to get the answer directly, we just go to you?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think that's what he's
saying.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think so too.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: John, on the -- if we're going
on the -- we're talking about going paperless, so I presume
that that means it'll be set up so that the press, the City,
everyone -- I mean, I don't see -- if we're going to go
paperless, we need to go paperless. It doesn't make any
sense to have to do some paper, some non-paper. That's where
we're going?
MR. TROLINGER: Right now, we're paperless as far
as the agenda itself, but not the backup material.
~I, COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the public needs to be
I, able to have access to that full packet, just like I have it
on here. I mean, I -- you know.
MR. TROLINGER: So, currently, the backup material
6-23-08
93
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
is not available to the public?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. I -- I think it should
be, which would solve -- I mean, I can't -- well, I'm looking
at the rest of the Court. I don't know why we wouldn't want
it to be.
MS. BOLIN: What about with executive session?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. No, you don't want that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, executive session
wouldn't be, but we usually don't have backup in our books on
executive session. I mean, that's pretty rare.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, even now, with the
paperless system, Commissioner, we don't provide copies of
the agenda with the backup back there for the public. The
public can come in and get a copy of the agenda and know what
items we're talking about. We do provide it, I believe -- am
I right, Ms. Grinstead? -- for the press and so forth. But
if anybody asks for it, it's available.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I wouldn't know why you
wouldn't put the full packet on -- basically, on the Internet
when we're posting the agenda.
MR. TROLINGER: Once it's scanned, it's just
another file. It's no extra effort on my part.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it would -- I mean, if
we're going to go paperless, we need to go paperless.
Otherwise, it defeats the whole purpose.
6-23-08
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
94
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sounds good to me.
MR. TROLINGER: I agree. So, we should publish the
backup along with the agenda for each court?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Online.
MR. TROLINGER: Will do.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And are these set up so we can
print somewhere?
MR. TROLINGER: Yes. Currently, it prints to
the --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Goes to Jody's office.
MR. TROLINGER: Yes. And plans are to connect the
copier in the back to the network for printing.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that suggesting that,
since I have a printer in my office, I can't print out of my
office?
MR. TROLINGER: From where you're at here, no, you
cannot.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If I bring this back to my
office, I can print out of my office?
MR. TROLINGER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: With the docking station?
MR. TROLINGER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Wonderful.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Buster, are you sure you're
6-23-08
95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the guru, or is Bill the guru?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: My docking station is in my
office. I print in my office.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Is that your chair where you
dock?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. (Laughter.) Yeah.
Keep her in the wind, mate.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm going to continue to work
through our emerging technological guru.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I appreciate that,
Judge.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think you ought to keep an
eye on him. I think he's hiding out in Trolinger's office.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's cooler down there.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Anything else we need to do
there? Let's go to Item 17; consider, discuss, take
appropriate action to appoint a committee to draft policies
and procedures to comply with I.R.S. taxable fringe benefit
regulations. I.R.S. is currently auditing all counties in
Texas for compliance with these regulations. Four main areas
that were discussed recently at the auditor's conference in
May, those being uniform policies, cell phone policies, day
trip reimbursed meals, and the use of county vehicles for
commuting to and from work.
MS. HARGIS: Okay. First of all, don't kill the
6-23-08
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
messenger. I -- I was not able to be there on Friday when
the audits that were taking place and what was happening with
those audits. Since I've gotten back, I got a visit from the
TAC representative -- the human resource, actually, TAC
representative, who -- who was actually there when the I.R.S.
agent was visiting the auditor's conference. She had pointed
small county, and I had never heard of Wheeler County, so I
looked it up. Wheeler County is approximately 5,000 people.
Wheeler County was fined $57,000 by I.R.S., plus they were
required to go back and do W-2's from 2004 through 2007.
They did forgive the penalty, but not the interest, and most
of us may or may not be aware that the interest is actually
higher than the penalty, because the penalty is once per
year, but the interest keeps going.
The -- what the I.R.S. is saying is that, first of
all, we can do anything we want to for our employees. That's
not the problem. What they're saying is there's certain
things that we do for employees that they consider a fringe
benefit, that being part of a salary benefit to that
employee. So, for instance, if we provide a uniform, it has
to be a uniform like -- the Sheriff's Department is exempt
6-23-08
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
97
from most of these rules. It has to be a khaki type, you
know, uniform, more like a military type of a uniform that
they can't wear anywhere else.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Like maintenance.
MS. HARGIS: Like maintenance has? No, maintenance
wears blue jeans, and blue jeans are -- she specifically said
no blue jeans. The other thing she specifically said, and I
did find out we don't pay for this, but no cowboy hats. In
this part of the country, D.P.S. wears cowboy hats; our
Sheriff's deputies wear cowboy hats, but they buy their own,
so we don't have that as a problem. The uniform has to
actually be some kind of khaki pants that matches the top,
that you wouldn't wear anywhere else. It has to be -- you
can't wear blue jeans and put it on the pocket or put it on
the band. It's still blue jeans. She said you can still
take a shirt and wear it. The polo shirts, she said --
because, you know, a lot of times you got golf shirts with
people's names; people wear polo shirts everywhere, so they
said no polo shirts. They don't care where it's at,
Sheriff's Department, anywhere. No polo shirts. Then she --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: How ridiculous.
MS. HARGIS: Well, it's -- boots are another
problem. I mean, no boots. And -- and the City gives two
pairs of boots a year, and I'm sure we give boots. What it
is saying, basically, what we need to do is we need to find
6-23-08
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
98
out -- and I called around, and to find out exactly what each
We do
So,
arena, and -- and how much they're worth. All we have to do
is include that in their W-2 wages.
Now, it does two things. First of all, it is going
to elevate the employee's salary, but they will benefit from
more retirement going into their retirement account. Also --
and, Janie, please, if I may use her example, because I know
what they just did. They provide five shirts a day, because
they're -- they -- you know, because of what they do, and
it's kind of hard to launder and so forth, which I think is
very reasonable. It's very reasonable. They've got the
shirts at a very nominal cost, but five shirts is around $80.
And I figured $80, $90, I figured what they would pay
retirement, tax, and so forth, could be $15 to $20. So,
they're still benefiting from that additional $60 worth of
money they really didn't have to put out of their pockets.
So, yes, it has a consequence to them, but I think it's still
small compared to what the consequences would be to us. And
if you were in a private organization, you would already have
been doing this.
6-23-08
99
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
L5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Over the course of my 30-year career as being a
income is down, they begin searching for someplace to make
'~, money, and they always hit government last, because they know
~', even themselves, they don't follow these rules. But this is
the first rule. The second rule is the cell policy -- cell
phone policy. And there was a lot of discussion at the
medium-sized counties that because of this rule, a lot of
monitor -- which we try very diligently to do. We send out a
copy of every cell phone bill to each department. We ask
each department head or elected official to identify any
personal phone calls. Those are then billed back to the
employee, and the employee pays for those. As long as we can
consistently do that, we're fine. That cell phone thing is
really not an issue. We're pretty good about that.
Probation, Adult Probation, to save money, they'll send their
people to Austin to drop off a prisoner, and they come back.
Well, they're out of town, basically, and they've got -- most
of the people at least have lunch, so they're given a lunch
expense. And I've read through this I.R.S. reg and tried to
6-23-08
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
figure out a way around that, but it says that, basically,
even if that person is given -- let's say you give them $20,
Even if they do that, you still have to include that as a
benefit, because they didn't stay overnight. The way the reg
reads is, if -- if it's not connected to an overnight stay,
or associated with an overnight stay, then it doesn't -- so
we have quite a bit of that going on, simply because it's the
cheapest way to do these day travels. And Rusty does a lot
of it. Juvenile Probation does a lot of it. The Detention
Center does it. It saves us a lot of money, so I don't think
The next one, I know that since I've been here, you
Sheriff's Department, but it does not exempt Road and Bridge
or anyone else that would take a vehicle home. Even Leonard
is not exempt. So, you might want to come up with an
allowance for him, or he has to come up with a commuting
miles. There's got to be a way of, you know, computing that
as well. It's -- it's such a large project, and I don't know
what everybody does, so what I would like to do is have a
meeting with all of the departments that are involved in
these type of things, which mostly is about five, I think,
6-23-08
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
101
have them come in, and let's sit down and figure out the best
possible way. The reason I'm suggesting this is that the
I.R.S. agent said that those counties who try to come into
compliance as soon as possible after the seminar will not be
Now, I can't guarantee that; I'm not going to do
that, 'cause I've worked with I.R.S. a long time. I.R.S. has
real strange rules when they want them. These have been on
the books from the beginning. It's just like we talked about
I.R.S. came up with the arbitrage rules in 1982.
They didn't start doing the penalty until 1992. The other
one was -- again, you know, I came from a water board
background. We gave per diems -- like you get a salary, they
got a per diem for coming to the meetings, and they got,
like, $25 a meeting. Well, as time went on and they became
in existence longer, they went to the Legislature and they
got their per diems raised. Well, when they got them raised,
they were going over $600, and I.R.S. knew it, and they
weren't reporting it. Well, in 2000, they came in and said,
this has been on the books for a long time; this is salary.
Well, they're just part-time, you know, come once a month,
and it made a liability. It created all kinds of problems.
I.R.S. agent stood up and said, "It's been on the books, so
6-23-08
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
102
there's really not much we can do."
I understand that the Treasurer's association, that
they did appear as well, and there was so much controversy
that the I.R.S. agent walked off the stage. The I.R.S. agent
did that as well when we did the directors' per diem. There
were probably, oh, I would say 2,000 people in the audience,
and they were kind of yelling at the agent, and they walked
off. So, they're not going to change it. We just need to
conform and do the best that we can, and just be proactive.
I would say we probably try to put these in place as of
October 1. If they come in and they audit us, we'll just
have to do what we can do. We just have to do --
JUDGE TINLEY: What specific action do you want the
Court to take today, other than to --
MS. HARGIS: Authorize me to work with these
people, and authorize them to work with me.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I think you've got that
authority, and they have it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why don't I make a motion that
you get with the County Judge and come up with a committee,
and let the County Judge appoint the committee?
MS. HARGIS: That's fine.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, to me, that way I
think -- two reasons. One, I think the Judge probably knows
-- I mean, make sure that everyone's being caught that does
6-23-08
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
it. Because this -- I don't mean "caught" in a bad way; I
just mean included. (Laughter.) Change the word to
"included." And then it can go out through a -- you know, as
the Judge does frequently, with e-mails to those people.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I believe the committee ought
to be all the departments that are affected by this.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There's five?
MS. HARGIS: I'm not sure. I know there's at least
five. I mean, we've got -- there could be more.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the cell phone thing,
that's -- I think we fixed that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, I think we've got that nailed
I down .
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's nailed down now. But,
you know, in the past -- we don't have to go retroactive to
the past and figure out, do we?
MS. HARGIS: Well, remember what I said? Wheeler
County went back -- they had to go back to 2004. I don't
know till they show up on our doorstep. So, all we can do is
go forward right now.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, it's Animal Control,
Maintenance, Road and Bridge, Environmental Health, Sheriff,
and then there's the other general -- they're the specific
ones. Then, generally, on some of the per diem stuff could
6-23-08
104
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
I2
13
14
I5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
be --
	JUDGE TINLEY:	Be anybody.	
	COMMISSIONER	WILLIAMS: Constables. Constab	les
wear	shirts with their	badges on them.	
	COMMISSIONER	LETZ: Yeah, constables. They	kind
of, I	presume, are the	same as law enforcement.	
	MS. HARGIS:	Yeah. Law enforcement has -- y	ou
know,	again, if it's a	shirt that's -- that's like a -	- like,
Bill,	like you have on,	a white, long-sleeve shirt, or	kind
of a	uniform type shirt	with a logo, then it's okay.	It's
just	a polo shirt that	they object to.	
	COMMISSIONER	BALDWIN: What about pink? Can	we get
the S	heriff's Departmen	t to wear pink?	
	MS. HARGIS:	They did in another county. We	can
try.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pink polo.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I thought that was inmates.
JUDGE TINLEY: What's the difference?
MS. ROMAN: You can wear the jeans as long as the
County does not provide them? I mean --
MS. HARGIS: You can wear and have anything you
want. It's just that if we provide the blue jeans, we have
to put that amount of money that we pay to purchase the blue
jeans into their salary. So, we can do anything we want to,
and I don't think we want to change our policy. We just want
6-23-08
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
105
to get into compliance with the regulations.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the Judge -- I still go
back to what I said. I think it's -- it's a county
responsibility, not an auditor responsibility, that we get
this policy done, so I think it needs to come from the Judge
to set up this committee to do it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is there -- I'm ready to
appoint a committee.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, we'll do it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's do it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what she's asking
for.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I realize that, Bill.
The -- my question is, I mean, I can see the Judge and the
Auditor on it. Is there a reason that the personnel people
need to be there at all?
JUDGE TINLEY: Payroll. That's going to be part of
a payroll function.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: H.R. needs to be involved in
it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, there's three. That
committee is big enough right there. And to meet, and
then -- and then these department heads of these five or more
would be part of it as well.
6-23-08
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
JUDGE TINLEY: Part of the committee, or who the
committee would meet with?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I would rather them not be
part of the committee, but could.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, that's okay. So,
Auditor, H.R., and Judge.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
indicated. Question or discussion?
MS. PIEPER: We already had a motion on the table.
JUDGE TINLEY: There was no second. The first
motion died for lack of a second.
MS. PIEPER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Come on, Jannett.
JUDGE TINLEY: All in favor of the motion, signify
by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion carries. Okay, we'll go
to -- it's now 11:30; we'll go to our 11:30 timed item,
Number 18. Consider, discuss, take appropriate action to
approve the 2007 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report of the
period ending September 30, 2007. A 2007 audit will be
6-23-08
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
presented by Keith Neffendorf of Neffendorf, Knopp, Horry,
and Doss.
MS. HARGIS: Yes. I'd like to introduce Keith to
the Commissioners Court. I think you all have a copy. I
prefer you use the copy that was bound, 'cause there were
some changes made. If you don't have that, Keith has some
extra ones.
MR. NEFFENDORF: Anybody need one?
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't have my bound copy here.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We got the whole thing in
our backup here; is that right?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. But there was -- apparently,
between the backup and the final, there were some changes.
MR. NEFFENDORF: Yeah, I did some wording -- I made
some wording changes. Anybody else?
JUDGE TINLEY: There you go.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've got one, thank you.
MS. HARGIS: You got one? Judge?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Actually, I think this is my
third or fourth one.
MR. NEFFENDORF: No, there shouldn't be that many.
Should just be two.
MS. PIEPER: May I have one, please?
MR. NEFFENDORF: Sure.
MS. PIEPER: Thank you.
6-23-08
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
MR. NEFFENDORF: Okay. Like he said, I'm Keith
Neffendorf, with Neffendorf, Knopp, Horry, and Doss out of
FrA~Prirk~hnr~. We did the audit for the County for the year
audit report, as you recall, GASB-34 came along and changed
the way counties and governments did their financial
reporting. As you can see by your report, you now have two
sets of financial statements. The first set is on a full
accrual basis of accounting. It includes all your fixed
assets, depreciation, long-term debt. And the second set is
the -- basically, what I call the old way, the governmental
basis, where you just account for moneys by funds, and that's
where you also do your comparison to the budget to actual.
Anyway, the report formats didn't change much. We'll go over
this and hit the high points. If you have any questions, you
stop and ask me, or later if you have some, I'll be glad to
answer them.
After the table of contents, on Page 1, the
Independent Auditor's Report just says we have made an audit
of the financial statement of Kerr County, Texas, as of
the -- for the year ending September 30th, 2007. The third
paragraph there, we state our opinion. The financial
statements referred to above present fairly the financial
position of the County as of September 30th, 2007, and
respective changes in financial position for the year then
6-23-08
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
ended. This is the standard auditor's clean opinion letter.
The next section, Pages 2 through 7, is called
Management Discussion and Analysis. This gives highlighted
financial information in a narrative summary. In accordance
with accounting/auditing standards, we're not required to
give an opinion on it, and therefore, I'm not going to go
over it. A lot of times the readers like this information.
It gives a good summary of the overall financial aspect.
First statement that we give an opinion on is
Exhibit A-1 on Page 8, the Statement of Net Assets. This is
the equivalent of a balance sheet for the County, and as you
recall, it includes all the assets/liabilities of the County
as a whole. Under the assets, you can see you have your
normal cash and equivalents of almost $6 million, and you
have your receivables and capital assets. Of course, the
capital assets makes up the bulk of your assets. Total
assets for the County is 54,889,000. The liabilities,
including your normal accounts payable and accruals, and then
you have your long-term debt that's split out between due
within one year and due over a year, so your total
liabilities are 6,902,000. That leaves your net assets --
and this is equivalent to a stockholder equity, retained
earnings of a private business. Total net assets of a
$47,987,000. And end of year, of course, in the budget,
$41 million is invested in capital assets.
6-23-08
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
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Neffendorf?
MR. NEFFENDORF: Yes, sir?
JUDGE TINLEY: The information for -- under assets
of court fines and fees receivable, --
MR. NEFFENDORF: Uh-huh.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- what was your source of
information there?
MR. NEFFENDORF: As in the past, the Auditor's
office has done a spreadsheet, and gone to each office and
come up with the balances that were due as of September 30th,
and made an estimated with an allowance for uncollectible
accounts.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, thank you.
MR. NEFFENDORF: Mm-hmm. On Pages 9 and 10 is the
Statement of Activities. This is the equivalent of the
income statement. GASB-34 requires it to be in this format.
And you can see, we start out with your expenses, and they're
shown there by those primary functions. Total expenses for
the County -- and, remember, this includes the
depreciation -- are 20,371,000. Then you have to subtract
off certain items that are listed there under Program
Revenues. Your charges for services, these are all your
fines/fees collected by the various offices. Then you have
your operating grants, your capital grants. You come up with
a net expense to the County of 16,526,000. Then the bottom
6-23-08
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
part shows how that was financed through general revenues.
Your taxes levied for general and then debt service amounted
to about 11,600,000. Sales and other taxes, 2,900,000. Then
you have your other items listing investment earnings, so
your total general revenue's 16,587,000. So, your net change
for the year was 60,925. That increased your net assets,
including the prior period adjustment to record all your
roads and bridges and right-of-ways, 35 million, so your net
assets at the end of the year were 47,987,000.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How did you come up with
the figure for roads and bridges and assets? How did you
determine that number?
MR. NEFFENDORF: Once again, the Auditor's office
went in and got the values and figured the various amount of
miles of roads, and came up with an estimate. And it took
the corresponding depreciation that had been accumulated over
those years.
MS. HARGIS: He worked with TexDOT on that. The
state agencies helped.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's a formula for
determining that?
MS. HARGIS: Yes.
MR. NEFFENDORF: Right, mm-hmm. Yeah, and it also
takes in the condition of the roads and stuff. The -- back
when this first started, we went to several seminars put on
6-23-08
112
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
by TAC, and -- and they gave a real good source of
information from TexDOT. And then that number -- those
numbers were basically used to come up with the numbers
derived here.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
MR. NEFFENDORF: So, after the Statement of
Activities, starting on Page 11 is the balance sheet for the
governmental funds. This is the way we used to always see
all the governmental audits before GASB-34. This just
basically shows your assets, liabilities and fund equities by
fund. And you can see the General Fund had assets of
3,835,000, liabilities of 1,491,000, so it shows a fund
balance of 2,343,000. Road and Bridge had assets of 870,000,
liabilities of 313,000, so it had a net fund balance of
556,000. Then your other funds -- these include your special
revenue funds, debt service, capital projects -- had assets
of 1,991,000, liabilities of 333,000, so a net fund balance
of 1,657,000. So, your total assets as a whole on a
governmental basis were 6,697,000. Liabilities, 2,139,000.
So, a net fund balance for the governmental funds, 4,558,000.
JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Hargis?
MS. HARGIS: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: How closely do these actual fund
balances come to the projected fund balance that -- that's
prepared at the beginning, or going into a new budget year,
6-23-08
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
where we project and actually use that as a benchmark for our
I budget planning?
MR. NEFFENDORF: Can I answer that?
JUDGE TINLEY: Sure.
MR. NEFFENDORF: There's a statement in the back
where we show the comparison of budget to actual.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. NEFFENDORF: For both the original and ending
~ budgets.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. NEFFENDORF: And I can tell you they both came
out better.
MS. HARGIS: Yeah.
MR. NEFFENDORF: They -- both funds, General and
Road and Bridge, came out a little bit --
JUDGE TINLEY: Better than what we projected?
MR. NEFFENDORF: Right, mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, that's generally the case.
MR. NEFFENDORF: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: The revenues, we --
MS. HARGIS: We usually under-project the revenue.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- try to be conservative, and
expenses, we try and be -- have a little cushion there.
MS. HARGIS: Yes.
MR. NEFFENDORF: That's good policy. Being a
6-23-08
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
German, I like that. I like conservatism.
JUDGE TINLEY: I was going to thank you for putting
the reports in English for us, as well as the German that you
may be used to.
MR. NEFFENDORF: Yeah. But, anyway, if you take
that net fund balance figure there, 4,558,156, at the top of
the next page, Exhibit C-2, called the Reconciliation, this
is how we reconcile from governmental to GASB-34. After the
fund balance of 4,558,000, of course, you have your prior
period of adjustments. We recorded the roads and bridges,
and then the next item is your capital assets. If you take
your beginning fixed asset cost minus your accumulated
depreciation minus any long-term debt, that gives you that
figure of 6,725,000. You add back your current year capital
outlay, long-term debt principal payments, 1,113,000.
Subtract off your 2007 depreciation expense, 1,521,000. You
add back your other accruals adjustments where you're
converting from modified accrual on governmental to full
accrual for GASB-34. That's mainly for taxes, fines, and
fees and receivable, 1,926,000. That's how you get to your
net assets on your GASB-34 of 47,987,000.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask you a question.
Give me an example of what a capital asset is. Is that the
County Jail?
MR. NEFFENDORF: Yes. Anything over -- I think
6-23-08
115
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. HARGIS: $1,000.
MR. NEFFENDORF: -- depreciation.
MS. HARGIS: A thousand.
MR. NEFFENDORF: Okay. Okay, that would be all
your vehicles, buildings --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MR. NEFFENDORF: -- equipment, machines.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It says here, "Capital
assets used in governmental activities are not a financial
resource." Is that -- to me, that language says to me --
MR. NEFFENDORF: That's what -- that verbiage came
from converting from governmental to GASB-34.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MR. NEFFENDORF: And governmental, it is a
financial --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what I thought. So
it's not supposed to make sense?
MR. NEFFENDORF: No.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MR. NEFFENDORF: Well, it does in the fact that you
got to realize when you're dealing with two sets of financial
statements, one is prepared on one basis and another set is
prepared on another basis.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Thank you, sir.
6-23-08
116
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. NEFFENDORF: You bet. And, likewise, on Page
The
That revenue is
390,000 for the year. You add back your proceeds trom
capital leases, 105,000, so the net change, your deficit for
the year was 285,000. Road and Bridge had revenues of
2,403,000, expenditures of 2,709,000. You had a deficit of
305,000. You add back your proceeds from capital leases, you
had a net change or deficit for the year of 41,000. All your
other funds -- special revenue funds, debt service, capital
projects -- had revenues of 5,079,000, expenditures of
5,173,000, deficit of 93,000. After your other financing
sources, net deficits were 66,000. The total as a whole for
the governmental basis: Revenues, 20,475,000; expenditures,
21,265,000; with deficits of 790,000. After you add back
your lease-purchase proceeds, 396,900, you come up with a net
change of -- deficit of 392,000.
The next page, you start out with a deficit of
to GASB. You add back your current year capital outlays and
long-term debt principal payments of 1,113,000, subtract off
your depreciation of 1,521,000, you add back your adjustments
for adjusting from modified accrual to accrual with your
6-23-08
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
taxes and fines receivable, 862,000. So, your net change in
GASB-34 was a positive 60,925. So, you can see under one --
on the governmental, you actually had a deficit, but when you
convert that to GASB, you had a positive number. Page 15 is
Fiduciary Net Assets. In Agency Fund, that just shows the
cash at the end of the year, 990,000, and amount due to other
governmental units, 990,000. That balance is derived from
all the official fees account from the Tax Assessor/
Collector, J.P.'s, County and District Clerks.
Page 16 starts the notes to the financial
statements. The first part of the notes just goes over the
part I already discussed about the presentation of the
financial statements being on the GASB-34 and governmental
basis, so I won't go over those. The first one I'd like to
go over starts on Page 21. That shows the budgetary
information, and it gives an explanation there. And later we
will see that the County was in compliance with the budget
and actually met the -- was better than the budgeted
expectations. Page 22 starts the notes on the deposits and
investments. The County is required to comply with the
Public Funds Investment Act. As you can see, at the end of
the year, the deposits at the bank were 5,812,000, and these
were entirely covered by FDIC coverage or pledged collateral.
And at the bottom of that page, we show the deposits and
temporary investments, give a summary there of the accounts
6-23-08
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
118
of Security State, -- and you added a little bit -- Bank of
Page 23, the receivables, that just gives a summary
of the breakdown of those funds receivable for property
uncollectibles. Page 24, 3.D., the Capital Assets. That
gives a summary of your initial balances in all your capital
assets, your increases/decreases, and, of course, big prior
period adjustments to record the infrastructure, roads and
bridges, and your ending balances. And, likewise, that gives
you a summary of those accounts for the depreciation, and
comes up with your net fixed assets, or capital assets. Top
of Page 25 shows the depreciation expense for the year,
1.5 million, and was charged to those programs and/or
functions. 3.F. starts the long-term liabilities. It shows
the beginning balance in bonds and notes payable and capital
lease obligations of 6,526,000. You issued 369,000 in lease
purchases, you retired 1,743,000, so your ending balance in
long-term debt was 5,151,000.
Then on Page 26, we give a breakdown showing a
6-23-08
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
119
summary of each one of the individual certificates of
page, we show the five-year annual requirement showing the
principal/interest requirements over the next five years for
those certificate of obligation and notes payable. Bottom of
State Bank, Caterpillar, and Ford Motor Credit Corporation.
retirement plan through the County as a member of the Texas
County and District Retirement System. This disclosure is
provided to us by them, and it gives a brief summary of the
plan description and funding policy.
And on Page 29, you can see that the County's total
pension costs for the year -- this is the County's portion --
was 800,621. Then it gives a summary of the actuarial
valuation information. This is provided, again, by them to
us. And on the top of the next page, 30, it gives a summary
showing your particular county's account with them. You can
see, as of December 31st, '06, the latest actuarial valuation
date, we'll call this, 18,402,000 in assets, liability of
20,440,000, so we had an unfunded 2,036,000, and your funded
6-23-08
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
120
ratio is now at 90 percent. So you can see, each year funded
ratio has gone up, and that's good. In fact, y'all are a
little bit higher in your funded ratio, and most of them are
85 to 90. Y'all have crossed over 90.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're doing better than
Gillespie?
MR. NEFFENDORF: I don't know right offhand, but I
think probably so. 'Cause I don't think theirs is quite that
high.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes.
MR. NEFFENDORF: Y'all -- I think there's only two
counties that I do work for that are over 90 percent funded.
So --
JUDGE TINLEY: What about our contingent liability
with regard to health care benefits for retirees?
MS. HARGIS: It's not on this audit.
JUDGE TINLEY: Not on this one?
MR. NEFFENDORF: No, thank God. It's coming,
though, real quick, 2009. We've got to book the liability
for it. GASB-45 gave us till 2009 fiscal year to book the
liability.
JUDGE TINLEY: We're going to wait until the last
moment to get the pain?
~! MR. NEFFENDORF: Well, I mean, that's up to y'all's
discretion. Most -- most counties are going to wait till
6-23-08
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
I6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
121
2009 to book the liability, and very few of them are going to
fund them.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have no contractual obligation to
provide that.
MR. NEFFENDORF: Yeah.
MS. HARGIS: On an annual basis.
JUDGE TINLEY: Pardon?
MS. HARGIS: On an annual basis only. We're going
to take that at that point.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. NEFFENDORF: Note 3.L., Risk Management, says
the County is exposed to risks, and most of those are covered
by your interlocal agreement with the risk pools created by
the Texas Association of Counties. Then you also have, at
the bottom of the page, Self-Insured Group Medical Insurance
showing the limits per year and aggregate amount. The note
on Page 31, 3.J., there is a restriction on the net assets,
of course, on the debt service. Your debt service funds are
restricted to use for payment of principal/interest on your
bonds, 172,000. Note 3.K. is your Prior Period Adjustment.
In accordance with GASB-34, counties had a deferral period to
book their infrastructure assets, and that adjustment was
made. That shows the net adjustment for the booking of the
infrastructure assets of 35,186,000. Prior years, Note 3.L.,
Change in Accounting, that's the -- the tax collection rates.
6-23-08
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
122
The estimate for the allowance of uncollectible taxes was
to actual statement. You have two columns there, the
original and final amended budgets, then your actual
comparison. On the revenue side, you can see your final
amended budget's 13,063,000. Actually had revenues of
12,992,000, so you're short by 71,000. But on the
expenditure side, you budgeted 13,980,000. You actually
spent only 13,382,000, so a favorable variance of 597,000.
So, the excess -- you had planned on a deficit of 916,000; it
was only 390,000, so you're overall favorable of 526,000 for
general fund. Likewise, on Page 33, the revenues were
budgeted -- final amended for the Road and Bridge, 2,335,000.
Actually collected 2,403,000 so we have $68,000 positive.
Expenditures, you budgeted 2,488,000; actually spent
2,709,000, so you're unfavorable by 220,000. Once you add
back the proceeds from capital leases of 264,000, you can see
the net change there. Your planned deficit was 152,000; it
actually only turned out to be 41,000, so you have a
favorable variance of 111,000. Thank you. That's it for the
regular reports. Then you have the supplemental letters.
6-23-08
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
123
Did you get your -- you've got a copy in yours? Yeah. There
should be two of them.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think I'm missing mine.
MR. NEFFENDORF: Okay. Everybody else got them?
The supplemental?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, I've got them both
I here .
MR. NEFFENDORF: Okay. The first one is the report
on compliance and internal control over financial reporting.
In addition to our regular audit, the financial statements,
we had to also test for compliance with laws, contracts,
regulations, and grants. The second paragraph there says the
results of our test is no -- showed no instances of
noncompliance. Internal control over financial reporting, in
addition to our audit test internal control system used for
financial reporting, and the last sentence of the second
paragraph, you know, that no matters involving internal
control considered to be a material weakness. The second
letter is our communication to you in accordance with
generally accepted auditing standards. We are required to
list these items as shown there, what our responsibility is
under U.S. generally accepted auditing standards, significant
audit findings. Difficulties encountered in performing the
audit, there were no non-corrected -- uncorrected
misstatements. The journal entries were made, so there are
6-23-08
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
no uncorrected misstatements. There were no disagreements
with management. And then, finally, the other audit findings
and issues that, in addition to those items as disclosed
before, we have to show our nonmaterial weaknesses.
These are our recommendations. On the -- during
the audit of the various offices and departments of the
county, there have been very few internal audits done in the
past, and most of them we did find had adequate internal
controls to the extent possible. Some of them, the size of
the staff limited what you do with internal control. We
recommend that the County Auditor perform internal audits on
a periodic basis of each office and department, and I think
she's already said that she's already begun those internal
audits in the '08 fiscal year, which we're glad to see. The
other items there, during our audit of those various offices
and departments, there were some official fee accounts, when
they had their listing for the bank accounts and what the
balances were supposed to be in there through the year, some
of them had accumulated a little different balance, or there
might be have been a difference, and we just recommend that
you talk to each one of the offices about going back and
seeing what they can do to come up with what those
differences were, and resolve them. Like I say, sometimes
there might be nothing we can do other than write them off.
And the same way on outstanding checks. On the
6-23-08
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
125
reconciliations, some of those offices, they had checks that
were over a year old. We recommend at least annually, once a
year, that they look at those outstanding checks, and then
review and make adjustments accordingly.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any questions for Mr. Neffendorf?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a question. Is
the -- up front, the management discussion and analysis, is
that what you've been working on, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not as much this year, I think
MR. NEFFENDORF: Yeah, there -- I mean, the
management discussion and analysis generally is -- there's
required elements in there, and those are disclosed here, and
then it gives the opportunity, if you want to make, you know,
other comments and stuff, those are -- that's strictly
y'a p 's, so you can do that. All we want to make sure is we
have the required elements.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think, you know, probably
depends on the year what the Court wants to do. Next year we
may go back a little bit more to the -- more like what we did
previously, where we have a little bit more discussion. But
this year, it's important we get this done. That's primarily
because we started late. That's why we have a little more of
6-23-08
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
126
a time issue this year.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any more questions for
Mr. Neffendorf? Thank you, sir.
MR. NEFFENDORF: You bet.
JUDGE TINLEY: We appreciate you being here, and --
MR. NEFFENDORF: All right. Well, I appreciate it.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- going over this with us.
MR. NEFFENDORF: You bet. We appreciate the
cooperation of Jeannie, the Auditor, and all the offices we
went to see, 'cause we went to see them all.
JUDGE TINLEY: You want the Court to take action to
accept and approve --
MS. HARGIS: But I also want Keith to tell you that
there is a new requirement for next year. I need y'all to --
to approve the audit, and then let him talk to you about this
new requirement for next year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I make a motion we approve the
!, 2007 Comprehensive Annual Financial Audit.
i
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. 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.)
6-23-08
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
127
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry.
MS. HARGIS: The committee.
MR. NEFFENDORF: Yes. Well, what's coming down
now, on the statements of auditing standards, we have to
actually meet -- we'll have to actually meet with you guys,
if we're going to do the audit, or whoever you get to do the
audit, along about October or November, 'cause we have to do
a planning meeting with what's considered the "board of
governance."
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. NEFFENDORF: Which, in y'all's case, is the
Judge and Commissioners. Now, there's two items to consider
-- that you might want to consider, and I'll give you a
letter later. We're in the process of drafting a letter that
you might want to consider. What some people do is just have
an audit committee, where you might have a Judge and a
Commissioner just meet with -- but that's up to y'all. We're
going to leave that to your discretion. And all I'm saying
is that we -- you know, when the time comes, whoever your
auditor will be will have to meet with you all to get a
planning thing -- and it's a good thing. I think it -- in my
opinion, it's a step in the right direction.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir.
MR. NEFFENDORF: You bet.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else on that agenda item?
6-23-08
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
We'll move to Item 19; consider, discuss, and take
appropriate action to allow the Sheriff's Office to apply for
grant to assist with the radio conversion. Was the Sheriff
going to come for this one? It has his name here.
MR. BARYON: It did have his name here, but I think
on the -- something -- on the back, he scratched his name out
and put my name. So, good morning. As y'all well know,
we're going to -- we're looking into having to upgrade our
radio equipment from analog to -- converted to a digital.
I've checked with -- right now, we're looking at just
upgrading mobile units and hand-held units that we have.
I've checked with AACOG. There is no grant money available
at this time to assist us with that. They may have some
money later available to help with infrastructure upgrades,
which will be a big help for us, but nothing to help us with
mobile units and hand-held units. The Sheriff wanted me
to -- to talk to y'all to see if y'all would approve us
seeking a Peterson grant -- Peterson Foundation grant to
assist with a portion of this funding. I have spoken with
Mr. Oehler at the Peterson Foundation, and he did tell me
that -- that -- of course, all taxing entities are on the
bottom of their -- their list, but he did give me -- he will
recognize -- accept the request if we -- if y'all ask me to
do so. He did advise that I should not put in for more than
$60,000 at a cap, as a max.
6-23-08
129
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: On the request?
MR. BARYON: On the request. That will about put
us a third of what our goal is going to need to be from what
II the Sheriff asked for in the budget. So, that's kind of
where we are. It's -- like I said, they're -- taxing
entities are kind of on the bottom of their list right now of
who they're giving grants to, but if you want me to try to
seek that out, I'll be glad to do so.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I certainly hope so, Clay,
that you -- that you go after that money. And, you know, I
mean, we're talking about a -- really and truly, a safety
issue to all the citizens of our county.
MR. BARYON: Correct.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The way I see it. When we
first started talking about this radio issue, my first
thought was, well, we're trying to stay up with the Joneses,
but it's much more than that, and I think Peterson and
everybody else should be -- should participate in this thing.
MR. BARYON: Well, and it's also -- ultimately,
what we're trying to do is going to be mandated.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm.
MR. BARYON: We have a -- we're ahead of the
timeline on the mandate, but it's going to have to be
ultimately done. But just to --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What you're saying is the
6-23-08
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
they also got that grant.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Got a grant, yeah.
MR. BARYON: Through, I believe --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: AACOG. Homeland Defense,
right?
MR. BARYON: I think -- if I remember right, they
got 200,000, if I understood the article right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Fifty-two.
MR. BARYON: Through Senator Smith.
JUDGE TINLEY: No, Congressman Smith's office.
MR. BARYON: Congressman Smith's office. So, they
had that -- so that also gives them an extra edge on
purchasing this equipment that they need to have. They did
have the foresight and started a year or two ago purchasing
digital compatible equipment. And, of course, the equipment
that we'll be purchasing will both be digital compatible and
analog compatible, and so we can go either way with it. But
ultimately, there's going to be a timeline in which we're --
all law enforcement agencies are going to have to be digital
compliant. That's just --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: 2015? Is that correct?
MR. BARYON: I believe that's -- that's currently
what was done.
6-23-08
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
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, I would hope that City
at this point at making a January 1st swap-over. I mean,
they're being -- they're working with us. But what it'll end
up doing is that we will not be able to -- if they do make
the swap-over, just like D.P.S. made, with our analog
equipment, we can't hear their digital traffic. Now, they'll
be able to hear our traffic, because a digital will also pick
up the analog channels, so they'll be able to hear both sides
and basically come to our rescue, but we're not going to be
able to hear what they have going on on their channel to
assist them. And just like right now, we can't hear D.P.S.
when they check out over the interstate unless they check out
through our office, which they're doing, because they like
for	us to	know that	they maybe can help. But that's where
the	radio	situation'	s at.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think that everybody wants
MR. BARYON: Would y'all like for me to do that?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move that we ask the
6-23-08
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
Foundation in regards to the radio conversion.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
indicated. Question or discussion on that motion? All in
favor of that motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. We'll move
to Item 20; consider, discuss, take appropriate action to
approve the Tetra Tech contract for Phase IV of the Kerrville
South project, subject to approval of the County Attorney,
and allow the County Judge to sign same. Commissioner
Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That pretty well states the
case, Judge, and I want the County Attorney to review it.
I'd like to have the Court's authority to move forward on it.
And I have one question with respect to the project
description, which I'll -- I'll research out and discuss with
Tetra Tech. I would move approval.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agreement. Subject to the County Attorney's
approval of the contract?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
6-23-08
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
JUDGE TINLEY: 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. There's no
executive session matters noted on the agenda. I assume
there are none? We'll move on to item -- Section 4 of the
agenda, payment of the bills.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move we pay the bills.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for payment
of the bills. Question or discussion on the motion? Page 3.
We've got shipping charges to Federal Express to ship stuff
to our inner city. I assume they're machines?
MS. PIEPER: That is correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Why are we paying the shipping
charges? What's the problem?
MS. PIEPER: Because some of them were needing
repairs, and we had to send them in for repairs.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do we not have a warranty on these?
MS. PIEPER: Yes, we do.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We're talking about a pretty
good chunk of dough here, about 1,140 bucks. And there were,
6-23-08
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
what, three different invoices, as I recall looking at them.
Page 29. I'd be interested to know what the -- what kind of
dental services these individuals had before they hit our
jail. I'd be willing to make a wager they hadn't seen the
dentist or couldn't spell it for ten years prior. Then they
hit our jail, and suddenly they have to have all sorts of
dental work.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Boy, that's --
MR. BARYON: All I can tell you about that, Judge,
is that we only send them to the dentist if the doctor tells
us to, at that point. So, if the doctor looks at them and
says they need to go to the dentist, then we make a dentist
appointment. We don't do it just because they want a dentist
appointment.
JUDGE TINLEY: It occurs to me that if they make a
complaint to the doctor, the doctor's concerned about his
liability of not sending them to the dentist, so he's going
to say pack them over there.
MR. BARYON: Judge, I don't know how you want me to
answer that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I got a pair of pliers I'll
loan you when they start complaining, before you carry them
to the dentist.
MR. BARYON: I'm afraid liability would be a little
bit more if I started yanking teeth.
6-23-08
135
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That wouldn't include pain
and suffering, would it?
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, that's all I got to squawk
about. Anybody else? All in favor of the motion, signify by
raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Budget amendments.
You'll note in your materials that you've got a budget
amendment all dealing with the Juvenile Detention Facility.
That appears to be the only one.
MS. HARGIS: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Looks like Kevin's getting himself
positioned to using a lot of part-time people, as opposed to
full-time, and --
MS. HARGIS: We just had to move his line items
around, because there were so many changes that we suggested
we do this one on its own, because the payroll is hitting
this next time, and to keep him from going over, this is a
true amendment. And Kevin worked this up on a spreadsheet.
He feels like this will take him to the end of the year.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
6-23-08
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
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Question or discussion? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Do we have
any late bills?
MS. HARGIS: No, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Monthly reports? I've been
presented with the following reports: Monthly investment
report as of May 31st, 2008, from Patterson and Associates
through the Treasurer's office, and monthly reports from
District Clerk, Justice of the Peace, Precinct 4,
Environmental Health, and then an amended report from the
District Clerk. Do I hear a motion that these reports be
approved as presented?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that the
designated reports be approved as presented. Question or
discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion,
signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
6-23-08
137
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. We'll move
to information. Reports from Commissioners? Liaison/
committee assignments? Commissioner Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sir, I don't have anything
to add to this wonderful moment.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Commissioner
Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Nor do I.
JUDGE TINLEY: Three?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll be in San Antonio for part
of the South Texas meeting, other than the latter part of
this week, and then on Friday, probably will be in San Marcos
for the Hill Country County Coalition meeting.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: But not the Hill Country
Alliance meeting?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not the Hill Country Alliance
~ meeting.
JUDGE TINLEY: If you see a sign on the door that
says "Hill Country Alliance," you're not going?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll go the other way.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Commissioner 4?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Not a thing, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: One item that I'd like to throw out
for consideration, I had a call from the Parks and Wildlife
6-23-08
138
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
I6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
individual, the one that is currently headquartered out at
the management area; also gets involved with outreach
programs, prescribed burns, stuff like that. He's here in
town. He inquired if maybe we had some office space here in
the courthouse that -- that we might be able to provide to
him. I inquired about room across the river there at their
headquarters, and he said, well, they didn't have any room.
I told him I would drop it in your guy's lap and -- and see
where we go from there.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do they want us to provide a
vehicle and insurance and telephones and stuff like that,
I too?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, he said he wanted an aide. I
told him I thought you'd be available; you had about half a
day left.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I got a good half a
day left; I'll be happy to help any way I can.
JUDGE TINLEY: How --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I know we got some used
furniture, Judge, if we can just find a place to put it.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think the area where the old
parole officers are is currently in use. I think that's
probably the only space we got available, is that one.
But --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd have to give it some
6-23-08
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
thought. You sprung on it me there.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We got room at the Ag Barn.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, he also made inquiry at the
Extension Service, and they said they didn't have any.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, we'll have an extra
office out there at the Ag Barn that's really not being used
for much.
JUDGE TINLEY: Upstairs?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Downstairs.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Downstairs.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Well, let's chew on that, and
maybe -- we're not there yet.
MS. HYDE: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: And maybe we'll gnaw on an item to
discuss again at our next meeting. Okay.
MS. HARGIS: Okay. I've been here; then I'm going
to let her up. You -- we have the Commissioners Court report
ready. It is on your laptops now. The gentleman created
that report on Friday, so you're the only people that can
open it. So, you got your e-mail to use the budget program
right now for the Commissioners Court and the Judge, so you
can see that report as well. If you pull under Budget
Reports and you go down and look under Commissioners Court,
you pull -- just hit on that report, and it'll show you all
6-23-08
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
JUDGE TINLEY: That's the budget summary report
MS. HARGIS: Yeah, and it has the projected ending
balances. And we have not finished all of those yet, so
don't depend on those quite yet. They should be finished by
tomorrow. The expenses should be finished now, but I've got
to do the revenue this afternoon. But other than that, we're
okay. I have finished the little analysis summary, you know,
that we worked off of last year. I have everything done
there except the General Fund, because I -- you know, I mean,
since this is my first year, I don't want to put out an
amount there that I'm not real comfortable with yet -- and
I'm not -- as a beginning balance or an ending balance yet.
Pretty much predicted the revenue, and -- and we need to look
at the expenses, and then we'll plug those in. So -- but
it's ready. All you got to do is plug it in. So, if there's
any questions, I just wanted to tell y'all, Thursday and
Friday and Monday and Tuesday, I will not be here. Ken will
be here if you need to make an appointment with him, or if
6-23-08
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
you need me by phone, I will be baby-sitting at home. So --
JUDGE TINLEY: Are you hopeful that by Wednesday,
you'll have these things in place that we can refer to?
MS. HARGIS: The projected?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
MS. HARGIS: That -- I was told by my office just a
few moments ago that the expenses would be ready by noon, so
the revenue side is -- will be in by the end of today.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. HARGIS: So you should be able to use that
tomorrow.
JUDGE TINLEY: Wednesday you're going to have
something that you're comfortable with insofar as
benchmarking for it?
(Ms. Hargis nodded.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, thank you. Do you have
anything?
MR. EMERSON: Well, I think Eva was next.
JUDGE TINLEY: But you're an elected official.
MS. HYDE: I'm last; it's okay.
MR. EMERSON: Okay. Just two quick things. We
filed suit last week on the West Creek environmental health
issue. The petition went in, I believe, Wednesday. Letters
went out to the defendants Thursday, and interestingly
enough, I had a phone call this morning from an attorney
6-23-08
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
142
wanting to know what we can do to resolve it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good.
MR. EMERSON: So that's positive. On a different
note, Ilse and I, last Friday, met with the attorneys for the
Castlecomb Subdivision out at -- on that septic issue with
the cluster system on Peterson Farm Road. Spent about an
hour and a half with Environmental Health and the attorney
walking around the site talking about options, and I think
that's going to move toward resolution.
JUDGE TINLEY: See, Buster? When you get lawyers
involved, oftentimes there are good and meaningful results.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's two for Precinct 2.
Thank you.
MR. EMERSON: You're welcome.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I bet that's true.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Ms. Eva?
MS. HYDE: I know that it's lunchtime, so this is
quick. These are for y'all's review. I will put them on the
next agenda. There's two sections; one is the annual
retirement plan assessment, and the second part is telling
you how much -- no, no, no. You're not separating them, are
you?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We're getting two? I thought
we were just getting one.
6-23-08
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
143
MS. HYDE: Then this one's for here.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're supposed to have
two?
MS. HYDE: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
(Low-voice discussion off the record.)
MS. HYDE: I'll put it on the agenda for next time;
~, then I'm going to ask the Auditor to work with me to get us
some preliminary numbers. I think he's already got some.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, we're supposed to read
these at our --
MS. HYDE: At your leisure.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Bedtime reading.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's all you have?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Don't mess with it.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm not encouraging you; I'm just
wanting to be sure. Are you through? That's a yes-or-no
question.
MS. HYDE: That was it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Is there anybody else?
Mindy? Clay?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Buzzie's, Buzzie's.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It's Monday.
JUDGE TINLEY: We stand adjourned.
(Commissioners Court adjourned at 12:19 p.m.)
6-23-08
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
144
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 27th day of June, 2008.
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
B Y : ___ _ ~ ~.t~G_____________ _
Kathy nik, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
6-23-08
ORDER NO. 30886
WILSON CREEK ROAD CATTLE GUARD
Came to be heard this the 23~d day of June, 2008 with a motion made by Commissioner
Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of
4-0-0 to authorize the Road & Bridge Department to give notice that the upper three (3)
cattle guards on Wilson Creek Road will be removed six (6) months after a notice has
been mailed.
ORDER NO. 30887
GRANDFATHER DATE FOR PROPERTY ON CALCOTE ROAD
Came to be heard this the 23rd day of June, 2008 with a motion made by Commissioner
Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously approved by a
vote of 4-0-0 to grant a variance from the grandfather date for the subdivision rules and
environmental health issues.
ORDER NO. 30888
FINAL PLAT OF OLSON ACRES
Came to be heard this the 23`d day of June, 2008 with a motion made by Commissioner
Oehler, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a vote
of 4-0-0 to approve the final plat of Olson Acres.
ORDER NO. 30889
ALAMO AREA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Came to be heard this the 23rd day of June, 2008 with a motion made by Commissioner
Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of
4-0-0 to re-appoint Commissioner Williams to the Board of Directors of the Alamo Area
Housing Finance Corporation and allow the County Judge to sign the Resolution.
ORDER NO. 30890
BOERNE FALLS RANCH MASTER PLAT/PRIVILEGE CREEK SUBDIVISION
Came to be heard this the 23rd day of June, 2008 with a motion made by Commissioner
Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court approving by a vote of 3-0-1
(Commissioner Letz Abstained) to approve the Master Plat of Boerne Falls Ranch, and
changing the road name from Turkey Knob to Lane Valley, and relocate a gate at the
edge of Privilege Creek area.
ORDER NO. 30891
PRODOC LITIGATION SOFTWARE
Came to be heard this the 23~d day of June, 2008 with a motion made by Commissioner
Letz, seconded by Commissioner Oehler, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of
4-0-0 to approve the funding for the ProDoc software out of the Law Library Fund.
ORDER NO. 30892
SCHLEICHER COUNTY SUPPORT TO CPS COSTS
Came to be heard this the 23`d day of June, 2008 with a motion made by Commissioner
Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of
4-0-0 to support Schleicher County by a resolution with respect to CPS costs to their
County.
ORDER NO. 30893
UNCLAIMED CAPITAL CREDITS FROM ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE
Came to be heard this the 23`d day of June, 2008 with a motion made by Commissioner
Letz, seconded by Commissioners Baldwin/Oehler, the Court unanimously approved by a
vote of 4-0-0 to authorize the Judge to send a letter requesting unclaimed capital credits
received from Electric Cooperative to the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts.
ORDER NO. 30894
CITY OF INGRAM ANIMAL CONTROL AGREEMENT
Came to be heard this the 23`d day of June, 2008 with a motion made by Commissioner
Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of
4-0-0 to approve the Amendment to the Ingram/Kerr County Animal Control Agreement
and allow the County Judge to sign same.
ORDER NO. 30895
DISSOLUTION OF THE HILL COUNTRY JUVENILE FACILITY CORPORATION
Came to be heard this the 23rd day of June, 2008 with a motion made by Commissioner
Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously approved by a
vote of 4-0-0 to file the Secretary of State report and dissolve the Hill Country Juvenile
Facility Corporation.
ORDER NO. 30896
IRS TAXABLE FRINGE BENEFIT REGULATIONS
Came to be heard this the 23rd day of June, 2008 with a motion made by Commissioner
Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of
4-0-0 to authorize the County Auditor to appoint a committee made up of the Auditor,
H.R. and the County Judge, to draft policies and procedures to comply with the IRS
taxable fringe benefits regulations.
ORDER NO. 30897
2007 AUDIT/COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE
PERIOD ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2007
Came to be heard this the 23rd day of June, 2008 with a motion made by Commissioner
Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of
4-0-0 to approve the 2007 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the period ending
September 30, 2007.
ORDER NO. 30898
PETERSON FOUNDATION GRANT
Came to be heard this the 23rd day of June, 2008 with a motion made by Commissioner
Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Oehler, the Court unanimously approved by a vote
of 4-0-0 to authorize the Sheriff's Office to apply for a Grant from the Peterson
Foundation to assist with their radio conversion.
ORDER NO. 30899
TETRA TECH CONTRACT FOR PHASE IV
KERRVILLE SOUTH PROJECT
Came to be heard this the 23rd day of June, 2008 with a motion made by Commissioner
Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a
vote of 4-0-0 to approve the contract with Tetra Tech for the Phase IV of the Kerrville
South project, subject to the approval of the County Attorney, and authorize the County
Judge to sign.
ORDER NO. 30900
CLAIMS AND ACCOUNTS
Came to be heard this the 23`d day of June, 2008 the Claims and Accounts were
considered:
Accounts Amount
10 -General	$208,153.40
14 -Fire	$15,444.85
15 -Road & Bridge	$74,894.17
16 - 2008 Capital Projects	$10,429.74
18- County Law Library	$1,259.00
26- JP Technology	$1,111.24
31 -Parks	$7,858.50
50- Indigent Health Care	$44,883.73
62 - 1994 Jail Bond	$375.00
76- Juv Detention Facility	$2,533.49
TOTAL $336,943.12
Upon motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to pay the claims and accounts.
ORDER NO. 30901
BUDGET AMENDMENTS AS OF JUNE 23, 2008
Came to be heard this the 23`d day of June 2008, with a motion made by Commissioner
Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously approved a vote of 4-
0-0 to approve the Budget Amendments as presented.
ORDER NO. 30902
MONTHLY REPORTS
Came to be heard this the 23rd day of June 2008, with a motion made by Commissioner
Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Oehler, the Court unanimously approved the
following monthly reports:
District Clerk
JP#4
Environmental Health
District Clerk -Amended
Treasurer -monthly investment report