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

~o
O
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I N D E X
September 8, 2008
--- Commissioners' Comments
1.1 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action
regarding annual Courthouse Lighting Agreement
with Kerrville Christmas Lighting Corporation
1.2 Consider/discuss, accept "Certification of
Unopposed Candidates" and issue an order for
unopposed candidates elected
1.3 Open bids for restoration/replacement of
courthouse windows and award contract, if
appropriate
1.4 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
declare three vehicles surplus property to be
auctioned
1.6 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action
concerning revision of Tract 70 of Clear Springs
Ranch; set public hearing if needed, Pct. 1
1.5 Public hearing regarding proposed Kerr County
2008 Tax Rate
1.7 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
grant a variance to Kerr County Flood Prevention
Order for home in Westwood Oaks, Pct. 4
1.8 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for
Cattle Guard Policy
1.11 Public Hearing for purpose of continuing records
archival fee of $5 paid on each document filed in
County Clerk's office in accordance with Records
Management and Archival written plan
1.9 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for
concept plan for revision of plat for The Woods
Section Two, Revision of Lots 79, 80, 81, 82 &
83; set Public Hearing, Pct. 2
1.15 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
approve Kerr County Historical Commission's
application to Texas Historical Commission for
Certified Local Government status
PAGE
6
16
21
22
22
24
30
32
36
54
54
82
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I N D E X (Continued)
September 8, 2008
1.16 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
ratify and confirm bylaws of the Kerr County
Historical Commission
1.10 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for
concept plan for revision of plat for Lots 11 &
12 of Four Seasons Addition; set public hearing,
Pct. 1
1.12 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
approve continuation of Records Archive Fee
of $5 on each document filed in County Clerk's
office
1.13 Consider/discuss, take appropriate actions
approving County Clerk's Records Management and
Archival written plan and for adoption of such
for budget year 2008/2009
1.14 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
approve contract with Department of State Health
Services for issuance of vital statistic records
via online; authorize County Judge to sign
1.17 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
renew Lexis legal research contract
1.18 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
establish an annual process of evaluation for
heads of departments that report directly to
Commissioners Court
1.19 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action
regarding fees paid for the use of HCYEC;
address possible consequences to groups that
do not clean up after their events
1.20 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
enter into interlocal agreement with Bexar
County Appellate Public Defender's Office for
indigent defendant appeals of criminal cases
from Kerr County courts
86
87
90
91
92
93
93
102
109
1.21 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
requested Joint Resolution of City of Kerrville,
City of Ingram, and Kerr County in approval and
adoption of Economic Development Incentive Policy 111
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I N D E X (Continued)
September 8, 2008
1.22 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
take appropriate action on requested memorandum
of understanding between Kerr County and Supreme
Court of Texas for support of continuity of court
operations in the event of an emergency
1.23 Consider/discuss, review county investment policy
and take appropriate action to make any necessary
or desired changes to such investment policy
1.24 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
whether COLA granted to Kerr County elected
officials in FY '08-'09 Budget should be applicable
to elected judicial officers whose salaries are
established by state statutes
1.25 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
establish Kerr County Holiday Schedule for
FY '08-'09
1.26 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
proposed pay increases for elected officials
and department heads for FY '08-'09
1.27 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
renew Data Processing Services agreement with
Indigent Healthcare Solutions; allow County Judge
to sign same
1.28 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action
regarding Indigent Health Care Service Agreement
with Sid Peterson Hospital
4.1 Pay Bills
4.2 Budget Amendments
4.3 Late Bills
4.4 Approve and Accept Monthly Reports
5.1 Reports from Commissioners/Liaison Committee
Assignments
5.2 Reports from Elected Officials/Department Heads
3.1 Action as may be required on matters discussed
in Executive Session
--- Adjourned
PAGE
113
114
116
131
138
163
165
179
182
185
186
195
199
201
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
On Monday, September 8, 2008, at 9:00 a.m., a regular
meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in
the Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse,
Kerrville, Texas, and the following proceedings were had in
open court:
P R O C E E D I N G S
JUDGE TINLEY: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
Let me call to order this regularly scheduled meeting of the
Kerr County Commissioners Court posted and scheduled for this
date and time, Monday, September the 8th, 2008, at 9 a.m. It
is that time now. Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Would everyone please stand for
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 that wishes to be heard on any
matter that is not a listed agenda item, this is your
opportunity to be heard. If you wish to be heard on an
agenda item, we would ask that you fill out a participation
form. They're located at the back of the room, and you can
get them up here so that I'll be sure and not miss you when
we get to that item. However, if you wish to be heard on an
agenda item and you haven't filled out a participation form,
just get my attention in some manner when we get to that item
and I'll see that you have the opportunity to be heard. But
9-8-08
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
right now, if there's any member of the audience that wishes
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Couple things, mainly dealing
with water. Last Friday, I think most of the members of the
Court were present; we had attended -- or I attended with
some others, about 100 of my closest friends, to listen to
GMA-9 recommendations. Quite astounding, in my mind. Every
speaker, and there was probably 30 or more, asked them to do
nothing that day. They ignored the public from multiple
counties, and went ahead and did exactly what they, you know,
had planned on doing. Astounding to me. I've never seen
public officials so oblivious to the wishes of the people --
constituents, and then acting without any science to do it.
Three of the aquifers they voted on, they didn't have -- have
never done any science on it; don't know anything about them,
some desired future conditions. Those were, fortunately, in
Blanco County. They did set the desired future conditions
for the Edwards-Trinity, which is west Kerr County. They did
that using the wrong model, in my opinion. They used the
Trinity model as opposed to Edwards-Trinity. Never even ran
the other model, but that didn't seem to bother them either,
and they set it to some unknown variable that the 2008 water
9-8-08
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
levels out there, which I'm not sure that that's even really
But I guess -- but I will say our -- I was not --
did not stay for the whole meeting, but I believe Headwaters
did; Mary Ellen Summerlin did vote against setting those, but
she was outvoted by her -- the other counties. Which I think
is an interesting case as well, how -- I guess back to the
one person/one vote issue. Kerr County's one of the largest
counties, along with Comal and Hays, in that GMA, yet they've
decided to vote equally among counties, so Blanco County has
as much of a vote as Kerr County and some of the other larger
counties, which I'm not sure that's actually proper, or
possibly legal. But, anyway, that was GMA-9. One of the
things that I'll probably bring to the Court at our next
meeting or the one after that is filing an appeal to that.
Commissioners Court has the ability to appeal those numbers,
and I would encourage anyone in the public to do the same,
and that starts the process through T.C.E.Q. and T.W.D.B. I
want to get a little bit of information as to if there's
going to be a cost and what's required if we file the appeal.
I think Region J will also file an appeal.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Have you investigated the
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. It seems odd to me, and I
9-8-08
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
8
don't -- I really have never looked into the GMA process,
other than fact that the Legislature created it. Haven't
been real fond of it from the beginning. Hopefully,
Representative Hilderbran and Senator Fraser will look at
what these GMA's are doing since they created them, and make
corrections to them, if they have the ability to do it, at
the next session starting in January. Especially
Representative Hilderbran, because I believe it will be
before his -- his subcommittee that he's on or chairs.
Depends on how things work out. Other than that, not a whole
lot going on. Just a little bit of water issues. Got a
little dove hunting in over the weekend; had a good time.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You didn't shoot anybody, did
You?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Didn't shoot anybody. That's
it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Oehler?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, I went to that water
meeting as well, and I was amazed at the number of people
that got up and thought that Kerr County ought to stop all
the drilling, stop all the permitting for wells so that they
could steal our water from us further downstream. That just
blew me away. I mean, you know, we still have the right of
capture in Texas, and I do believe we do have some rights to
produce water for people that move here, whether we really
9-8-08
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
want to grow that much or not, but growth is here and it's
going to continue. And I just don't -- I don't understand
people that are that selfish that they would -- would
these public hearings that we're going to have, and there is
some interest in holding the one on the 22nd -- maybe we
could have one during the day that we already have scheduled,
and then have another one in the evening. I understand from
past experience there hasn't been a lot of interest in one of
those evening sessions, but we might want to give them the
opportunity to do that. That's just a suggestion that we
might consider later on, if we have time to post a meeting
for that time and date. Other than that, I hope it continues
to rain.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Before we go back, one more
water issue, if I could real quick. Last -- I guess it was
Wednesday or Tuesday, Region J's representatives from Kerr
County met with our consultant, and we're looking at surface
water issues more and some ASR issues, and one of the things
that Region J is working on in Kerr County under the current
plan is identifying and valuing water rights in the river and
how we can move them up and down the river and what the
effect of doing that is, and getting an analysis of cost. I
think we've signed a memorandum of understanding with
9-8-08
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
10
U.G.R.A., the City of Kerrville about -- about that very
issue. But we're doing some work there, and it looks like
the ASR is going to become a more and more important part of
our long-term water needs, and we're looking at taking --
during high-flow periods of the river, is there any way of
taking additional water out, or can the City and U.G.R.A.
primarily take additional water out and use it in the ASR.
'~, It's interesting that rather than looking at the -- the, I
I
II guess, upper end of the permits, those that have the most
senior rights, the emphasis is looking at those that are not
the most senior, because they're more available. Because
they're not as -- I mean, you can only get water during
certain times, but for ASR needs, that's adequate. So,
there's a lot of work being done on the surface water side of
the equation as well right now. That's it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. I have a couple
of things I want to talk about. I want to -- want us to go
back and talk again at some point about having a vehicle for
our employees to go to the bank, run errands, et cetera,
because of the -- these I.R.S. issues that are really
clouding the conversation up. I think that we need to have
our own vehicle for that, and as well as the liability that
Rex has talked about. There are two jeeps somewhere in our
system that are no longer in service, and then the Sheriff
9-8-08
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
11
has an item on 1.4 today of declaring some vehicles unusable
for his department. And, just thinking, it's -- at some
point, we need to take a peek at all of that and see if there
isn't at least one vehicle that we can park here at the
courthouse for people to -- to use. That's one issue.
Number two, got a resignation from Eddie North over the
weekend, and just -- we're losing a great, great employee and
a great friend of Kerr County, several-generation man here,
and has served Kerr County I don't know how many years. A
lot. And he's resigned, and going on to bigger and better
things, I guess, and I just wanted to bring that up. And at
some point, I'm going to bring him in so we can thank him for
his service. That's a11.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I echo Commissioner
Baldwin's thoughts with regard to Eddie North. He's been a
-- a good and loyal employee all these years and served Kerr
County well, and we wish him well in retirement. On Friday,
members of the Court, Friday I participated in a meeting at
U.G.R.A. that involved River Authority, the City, Tetra Tech,
our engineer, Grantworks, our grant writers and procurers,
and, of course, U.G.R.A. Board members and administration,
and the purpose of which was to talk about the U.G.R.A.
exercising its option under its contract with the City to
turn -- to turn over Kerrville South Wastewater System to the
9-8-08
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
City. And there were several issues with respect to that,
and there are some things I want to bring to your attention,
so I'll take a minute or two to bring you up to speed on it.
I'm going to pass out a memorandum for the Court which has a
map and so forth, a couple memorandums behind it.
From the get-go, this is not an issue that we can
exercise any sort of veto power over. It is a contractual
issue between U.G.R.A. and the City. It's an option that was
put into their contract for treatment services and
administration of the Kerrville South Wastewater project way
back when, almost at the beginning or at the beginning, or
the completion of Phase 1 and 2 of this project. U.G.R.A.,
for whatever reason, believes that the City is better
equipped to and prepared to administer and maintain and --
and move forward on -- on the system, and so they're talking
about exercising that option, which would mean that the City
could purchase the system for what U.G.R.A. has into it. I
would remind the Court that Kerr County has to-date gotten
grants totaling $1,750,000 for the Kerrville South system as
we know it today. We have an extra -- an additional $500,000
which has been granted to us for Phase 4, and that has been
approved, and that -- that Phase 4 is already in engineering.
So, the bottom line is, we've got about -- including the
U.G.R.A. match of 170,000 and the proposed match of 25 for
the new phase, there's almost $2,450,000 worth of
9-8-08
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
infrastructure that we have originated or will complete by
the time this project is over that will be turned over under
That's nice
So, the map's in front of you, and I just want to
familiarize you with this. The map in front of you that I've
given you indicates the large blue was the original service
area. The -- the lines in green are what has been completed.
The yellow is what is anticipated to be completed in this
next phase for which we have already accomplished funding,
and the red would be something we'd like to do in the future.
When it's all said and done, the City -- before I get to
that, the City raised the issue of whether or not the lift
station which is at the bottom of Quail Valley was sufficient
to handle the new portions in yellow, and the engineer for
Tetra Tech, who is currently designing the latest -- the
newest phase, assured them that it was, but they're going to
rerun the numbers. It appears that the City is predisposed
to taking this over, and the service area will probably get
reduced in the process.
What's important to us in this next phase is the --
lots, those are, for the most part, the duplexes and quads
that are in that strip that are coming down Ranchero, many,
many of which have serious septic issues, and it's very
9-8-08
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
14
important to get those things taken care of. And this will
require the yellow line at the back of all those properties,
just pass the Nimitz School, you may recall that that mobile
home park had serious septic issues here a few years ago, and
the owner of that park entered into an agreement with Kerr
County indicating that he would hook up that park as quickly
as we brought a service line to him and all of those trailers
to get off septic, and the other yellow piece is a part of
Quail Valley that would, by gravity flow -- if funds are
sufficient, would flow into that lift station.
What this does -- at the moment, it doesn't do
service. Most of them are, as you know -- by extension of
the service beyond the city limits, they're charged one and a
half the current city rate, so I doubt seriously that
anything will happen significantly there in terms of the
rate. They're already paying one and a half times for that
service, so that's not likely to change. What this does do,
in my mind, however, is raise an issue for the future, which
we -- Commissioner Letz and I probably will be involved in
9-8-08
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
15
discussions with U.G.R.A. about the future, and the future as
to whether U.G.R.A. wants to be the agency in the middle as
we move forward with the Center Point/Eastern Kerr County
sewer system. If they do, great. If they don't, we need to
-- we need to examine that issue and determine as quickly as
possible whether or not they wish to continue to be a player
in the middle, as has been the case in the Kerrville South
project. Just wanted to familiarize you and let you know
where it is. And if you have any questions, I'll be happy to
talk to you about them after court and go from there. That's
all I have, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Commissioner. I have one
item. I'm sure most of you recall our recent experience, or
nonexperience, as the case may be, with Hurricane Gustav. We
have a longtime Kerr County employee, Christine McIntyre,
that is a legal assistant in the County Attorney's office who
has been on the leading edge of animal issues with regard to
emergency response. As far as I know, she -- she developed
the first policies and procedures. They've been submitted to
the state emergency management people, who have been quite
impressed with her work. Her team is called a CARRT team,
Companion Animal Response and Rescue team. I believe I got
that right. They -- during the -- during the emergency
management initiative that was put in place for Hurricane
Gustav, her team was down in Center, Texas, in east Texas,
9-8-08
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
16
and she was there to assist folks who had companion animals,
!, pets, so that we wouldn't have the same sort of a problem
that we had with Katrina and Rita, where we couldn't get
evacuations, particularly out of Katrina, because there were
no provisions made for pet animals, and as a consequence, a
number of people stayed in the city of New Orleans and it
created a tremendous problem.
And there's been tremendous strides made with
regard to efforts in emergency management with regard to
pets, because they have become an important component. And,
as a matter of fact, our state emergency response people have
-- have a separate component for that, and I believe it's
federally mandated now, if I'm not mistaken. But our legal
assistant, Christine McIntyre, from the County Attorney's
office is the go-to gal, I think, in the state of Texas when
it comes to matters of this nature, and I think we need to
recognize her for her work and commend her for all the time
and effort that she's put in, and I wanted you to be aware of
that. That's all I got. Let's move on with the agenda. The
first item is to consider, discuss, and take appropriate
action regarding the annual courthouse lighting agreement
between Kerrville Christmas Lighting Corporation and Kerr
County. Good morning, Mr. Bond.
MR. BOND: Good morning, everyone. It's that time
~! of year again. We get to, obviously, get your approval on
9-8-08
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the annual agreement with the Christmas lighting group. We
don't have anything significantly new this year. We did make
that change last year; we added the archway and got your
approval on that. I do know that there is some electrical
work in process. Worked with Tim on the courthouse staff
here, the county staff, and they are going to begin work on
that, I believe, at any time. He told me last week that it
was going to be last week, but I don't believe it's started
yet, so sometime very soon. Other than that, I don't really
have anything new to -- to alert you guys about this year, so
just the usual.
JUDGE TINLEY: Question. On the dates that are
~ mentioned, --
MR. BOND: Mm-hmm?
JUDGE TINLEY: -- are those dates plugged into the
weekend commencement and the weekend termination dates so
that they fall on the weekend that you guys normally start
your work?
MR. BOND: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: And complete your work?
MR. BOND: This year, the first -- we usually work
the three Saturdays leading up to the lighting ceremony. The
first Saturday that we'll begin was -- actually falls on the
lst of November this year, since it's -- usually it's the
last weekend of October. However, this year there are three
9-8-08
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
18
weekends prior to the lighting, so we do start on the lst of
November.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Does the date not need to be
changed on the -- on this agreement? It says January 17 of
this -- '08, it starts.
MR. BOND: '09. Supposed to be '09. That's
probably a typo. I'm sorry about that. Yeah, that does need
to be '09. I'll make that edit and get it to Jody if you'd
like.
MR. BOLLIER: Judge?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, go ahead.
MR. BOLLIER: This morning, Rex Emerson, our County
Attorney, informed me that on our agreement, that there's
nothing in our agreement that -- that says for them -- before
they can put anything up in our yard, that they have to go
either through Commissioners Court or through me, and I would
like to add that and maybe put that in our agreement.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it should go through
I You .
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I do too. Are you talking
about something new?
MR. BOLLIER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: A new display of some sort?
MR. BOLLIER: A new display, or put in anything
9-8-08
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
19
new. Electrical work, anything -- lights, add-ons, anything.
MR. BOND: So, you want a clause in there that just
says --
MR. BOLLIER: Needs to go through me first.
MR. BOND: It does state on there that we work with
you directly. There is a line on there, I believe, that does
say that we work directly with Tim on anything that we do. I
don't know if it specifically says anything new, but it does
state that we have to work with county staff on anything that
we do.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What it says is any
lighting displays to be affixed to the courthouse proper
shall be installed by persons designated by and under the
supervision of Kerr County Facilities Manager.
MR. BOND: Is that -- that's not adequate?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You might want to --
MR. EMERSON: My concern is that everything be
installed pursuant to code.
MR. BOND: Okay.
MR. EMERSON: That's why I think it's important
that Tim be right in the middle of it.
MR. BOND: I have no problem with adding that line
if it makes it --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The other, I think, question I
have is kind of a little bit related to that, is insurance.
9-8-08
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
20
Y'all have -- y'all carry insurance?
MR. BOND: Yes, we do.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's a Kerr County
requirement.
MR. BOND: Yes, absolutely.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That meets the --
MR. BOND: We began that, actually, last year, so
that is something that we do do.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Probably should be part of the
agreement, because that's a -- I know it's going be a whole
lot better than it was, because we're redoing a lot -- all
the electrical.
MR. BOND: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But there were a lot of
extension cords running around in prior years that --
MR. BOND: Yeah, and this --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So I think that it will be a
whole lot better because of our new electrical work that
we're doing.
MR. BOND: By the nature of what we do, there are
some -- some risks involved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why don't we add these two
sentences to cover the insurance and cover the prior approval
for anything new, that it has to match or meet city code --
building codes, and bring it back in a couple weeks.
9-8-08
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
MR. BOND: I can do that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: With --
MR. BOND: Sure. Can I work with you, Rex, on
making sure that --
MR. EMERSON: Sure.
MR. BOND: -- it meets your requirements? Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Probably work with Rex and Tim.
MR. BOND: I work with Tim all the time.
MR. BOLLIER: Okay.
MR. BOND: Thanks.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move to Item 2, if we might.
Consider, discuss, and accept certificate of unopposed
candidates and issue an order for the unopposed candidates
elected.
MS. ALFORD: Good morning. This is the
certification of unopposed candidates on the local level for
Constable 1, Constable 2, 3, 4, County Attorney, Tax
Assessor/Collector, Commissioner Precinct 1, Commissioner
Precinct 3, and County Sheriff, where they don't have to put
the little square to vote for them on the ballot.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item. Question or discussion on the
9-8-08
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
22
motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your
right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry.
MS. ALFORD: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, ma'am. Next item is Item
3, open bids for restoration or replacement of courthouse
windows and award contract if appropriate.
THE CLERK: I don't -- we have none.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have no bids?
MR. BOLLIER: No bids?
JUDGE TINLEY: Solved that problem, didn't it?
MR. BOLLIER: Real quick.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If at first you don't
succeed, try, try again.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. I know we had some folks that
were out here looking at what was going to be necessary, but
apparently --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I thought somebody was
interested.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Um -- I'll ask it later.
JUDGE TINLEY: We'll move to Item 4; consider,
discuss, take appropriate action to declare three vehicles as
9-8-08
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
23
surplus property to be auctioned.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: These are two old patrol cars
I
I and one old pickup truck. Pickup truck was originally a
216th Judicial District task force truck that came to our
department along with the task force when it dissolved. It
does not have air conditioning. It is not a good vehicle at
all. Wouldn't even guarantee how well it even runs any more.
I know the electric windows and all that don't work either,
I but it's --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: May be worth more for scrap
than it is for --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's a good possibility.
The two old patrol cars -- I know what Buster was saying
earlier. One, I know, has some serious motor problems, okay?
One of the -- it's a valve or ring that's out on it, and
Krauss has said it's not -- not worth it. The other one
probably runs all right, but these cars have over
200,000 miles on them. I wouldn't use them for much of
anything, other than taxi to Mexico or something. But I
would like to have those two vehicles declared as surplus so
that we can put them on that gov.deals auction site, see if
we can get rid of them.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Two or three?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It's two patrol cars and the
truck.
9-8-08
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
24
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Three total. Move that the
Court declare three vehicles, as detailed in the Sheriff's
memorandum as surplus and authorize the property to be
auctioned.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
indicated. Further question or discussion on that motion?
Any further -- all in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. We'll move
to Item 6; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action
concerning the revision of Tract 70 of Clear Springs Ranch as
set forth in Volume 3, Pages 116 and 117, Plat Records, and
set a public hearing if needed, property being located in
Precinct 1.
MR. ODOM: Yes, good morning.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Morning.
MR. ODOM: The landowner wishes to divide Tract 70
of 4.66 acres into two parcels. One parcel will be the
husband's; the other the wife's. The existing home will
remain on 2.66 acres.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Any logic given there?
9-8-08
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
25
MR. ODOM: No comment. (Laughter.) The existing
home will remain on 2.66 acres. The new lot will be 2 acres,
and both lots will be served by Aqua Texas. Restrictions for
Clear Springs Ranch allows for the lots to be divided into
tracts as small as 1 acre. Clear Springs Ranch is a
253.13-acre subdivision, and this division would make 54
lots. Therefore, the average lot size for the subdivision
will be 4.59 acres. Per Kerr County Subdivision Rules, Table
5, these lots with community water outside a high density
area can be a minimum of 1 acre with a 3-acre average. Even
though they meet all the platting requirements, we ask if
they would not fall under Section 1.03.B, which says that
this could be done as an exception to our subdivision rules,
state statute. However, it says -- well, let me finish this,
then. "A subdivision shall not be subject to the platting
requirements of these rules and regulations if," under
1.03.B, "the tract is divided into four or fewer parts, and
each of the lots is to be sold, given, or otherwise
transferred to an individual who's related to the owner
within the third degree of consanguinity or affinity." If
the Court finds they do not meet the exception, then we ask
that we set a public hearing for October the 14th, 2008, at
10:15 a.m. And we put that date because, actually, the --
Columbus Day is October the 13th, so we assumed that we would
i
go the next day.
9-8-08
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
26
Now, as I see it, it could be 1.03.8. However, the
problem will arise in the future that if this 2-acre lots is
sold, then we have a continuing problem of it needs to be
platted. So, either we do it -- either the Court would look
at it -- this is a concept, so they're looking at directions.
I feel like it probably should be platted, and that would
clear the problem up. Because if this individual -- let's
say the lady sells the 2 acres. You know, it's -- or it's
not in the third degree, unless there's a relative in the
third degree.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think they're exempt if they
I want to be.
MR. ODOM: If they want to be.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Except for one issue. It's
already in a platted subdivision. Is that -- do these
exceptions apply if you're already in a platted subdivision?
I mean, it just seems like an odd -- I mean, if one isn't in
a platted subdivision, it's not clear they can do it, and
they can obviously do it now. But if you -- once you're in a
platted subdivision, I think that changes things, to me.
MR. EMERSON: There's not an exception to the
exception in the statutes because it's in a platted
subdivision.
MR. ODOM: 1.03.8 applies now. But I just tell
you, somewhere down the road it needs to be platted.
9-8-08
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
27
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Is that just temporary, then?
MR. ODOM: This is as long as she owns that, the --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I know, but I mean the
relationship.
MR. ODOM: Relationship is --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's, I think --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: A relative issue.
MR. ODOM: I think the issue speaks for itself.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that the -- you know,
it's up to them. I think we should encourage them to plat
it, but if they don't want to, they don't have to.
MR. ODOM: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Leonard, on that drawing
that you submitted with -- with the agenda item, where it
splits the property, 2.66 for the existing residence?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And then the proposed
property line, which kind of does a thing like this, there
are a bunch of lines that look like a drain field, and -- for
a septic system, and they're in the 2.66 part. What is that?
Is that a drain field?
MR. ODOM: That is a drain field. You know --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For what?
MR. ODOM: For lot -- for the 2.66 acres.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Wow.
9-8-08
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
28
MR. ODOM: This goes up the hill.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. ODOM: It's flat in here. Here's where the
house is at, then all of a sudden, as you go to Upper Scott,
that really gets up in elevation up on top.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: These setback requirements are
met for that drain field?
MR. ODOM: I'm sorry, I don't know. We haven't
platted this. Only a concept, and I'm looking at the --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You might tell them that
they're -- I mean, they need to make sure, however they draw
those lines, that they're in compliance with Environmental
Health rules.
MR. ODOM: How do you do that on 1. -- 1.03.B?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's Environmental Health, not
under our subdivision rules. They have to follow our
Environmental Health rules. Nothing to do with subdivision
rules.
MR. ODOM: It would appear that they've tried to
meet the setbacks, the way they've divided it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Looks like they went around it.
They need to make sure they do. Otherwise, they're going to
I, have to end up having to do a new septic, which I don't think
will be a good thing for them to do.
9-8-08
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
29
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which is the higher
elevation, Upper Scott Road?
MR. ODOM: Upper Scott Road.
~' COMMISSIONER OEHLER: The whole width on what would
be the south side would be 300 feet. If that drain field
were -- if the drawing is accurate, it's probably okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Probably is.
MR. ODOM: Well, you have community water, so --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah.
MR. ODOM: -- as far as a well's concerned, you're
all right there. And up on top, that elevation up there, I
don't see how it's not -- I would assume it wouldn't come
down that slope off that 2 acres. But they could do it under
1.03.B. I would -- I will encourage them to do platting to
resolve the issue.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They could also do it under
undivided interest, in my mind. It's community property
right now. They have two different exceptions they could
use.
MR. ODOM: All right. Well, you've given me a
direction. That's what's I need.
JUDGE TINLEY: No further action of the Court is
required at this time? At this time, I will recess the
Commissioners Court meeting, and I will convene a public
hearing with regard to the proposed Kerr County 2008-09 tax
9-8-08
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
30
rate.
(The regular Commissioners Court meeting was closed
at 9:35 a.m., and a public hearing was held in open
court, as follows:)
P U B L I C H E A R I N G
JUDGE TINLEY: Is there any member of the public or
the audience that wishes to be heard with regard to the
proposed 2008 Kerr County tax rate? If so, feel free to step
forward. Yes, sir? If you'll come forward and give us your
name and address, and tell us -- tell us your thoughts on
this matter.
MR. BINGHAM: I don't know if this is an
appropriate spot in the agenda. I'm Wendell Bingham, 1895
Summit Top Drive. And if it's appropriate now, I'd like to
address the proposed salary increase.
JUDGE TINLEY: No, sir, that's not the issue at
hand. We're talking about a public hearing with regard to
the 2008 county tax rate.
MR. BINGHAM: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's the issue before the Court at
this time. Is there any member of the public that wishes to
be heard with regard to the proposed Kerr County 2008 tax
rate?
MR. DUNK: Please.
JUDGE TINLEY: Come forward. Give us your name.
MR. DUNN: My name is Neil Dunn. I live at 2287
9-8-08
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
31
Cypress Creek Road, Comfort, Texas, but it's in Kerr County,
Precinct 3. What I just wanted to bring up, 'cause I --
until this year, my taxes have been appraised in Kendall
County primarily. I mean, the property's in Kerr, but I
haven't really paid much attention, so I'm basing my
information on this. It was in the paper last week, I think
even before that, the proposal of 15.61-something, something;
I'm using that. That is the amount of revenue increase
you're -- when you take it into the budget, what you're
trying to accomplish by the tax increase. So, I get that the
current tax rate, the .3896, going to .4293, is an increase
in the tax rate of 10 percent. There are three calculations
in here relative to houses; that if you had a house that was
$132,000 last year, taxed at the current rate, that you pay
$516.24. The same house, further down, at the higher tax
rate is now worth $162,828. With a tax rate of .4293, that's
valued at 699.02, which represents a tax increase of
35.4 percent, in my calculations. So -- and part of that is
because of the tax rate increase of 10 percent, and the
22 percent increase of the value of the home based on the
appraisal.
And somewhere in the article, it talks about the
proposal is to generate $2.2 million in revenue, but it also
makes a statement that -- that with -- there -- it's most
likely that there will be more money generated than the
9-8-08
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
32
2.2 million. So, I walked across the hall and got the
proposed budget for -- that's for this year of $24,576,367,
multiplied that by 15.65 percent, indicating an increase in
funds of 3.85 million. And using the appraiser's value of --
of the value, properties have gone from 5.3 to 5.9 billion,
that the increase in tax rate generates 4.67 million, which
is an increase of 18.5 percent. My only question is, when
you couple that with the 10 percent increase last year, I
just wonder if there's some more -- some easier way on the
population than what we've got in front of us. That's all.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Is there any other
member of the public that wishes to be heard with regard to
the proposed Kerr County 2008 tax rate? Seeing no one else
coming forward or wishing to be recognized, I will close the
public hearing.
(The public hearing was concluded at 9:40 a.m.,
and the regular Commissioners Court meeting was
reopened.)
JUDGE TINLEY: And I'll reconvene the Commissioners
Court meeting, and we'll take up with Item 7; consider,
discuss, and take appropriate action to grant a variance to
Kerr County Flood Prevention Order for a home in Westwood
Oaks and located in Precinct 4.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. It came to our attention
through O.S.S.F. there was a new home being constructed in
9-8-08
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
Zone A of FEMA-designated floodplain in Westwood Oaks,
Precinct 4. As you can see from the photos, the home is well
on the way to being finished. FEMA requires a finished floor
at or above BFE. Kerr County Flood Prevention Order requires
a finished floor of a structure to be 1 foot above the base
flood elevation. The elevation certificate done by
registered surveyor shows that their home is .57 feet above
the BFE. Therefore, they meet the FEMA regulations, but fall
short of our Kerr County rule by less than a half foot.
Since it would not be possible to raise the house, we ask the
Court to grant a variance to Kerr County's Flood Prevention
Order and allow us to issue a development permit.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Where is this? Is this up
behind Greenwood Park?
MR. ODOM: Behind Greenwood Forest.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, you either grant a
variance or have those people tear down their new home?
MR. ODOM: No, sir. Well, they meet federal
guidelines.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand.
MR. ODOM: And to answer your question, I would not
make them do that at all. I think that they meet FEMA
regulations. Had we been involved in and known about it, we
certainly would have been, at that point, telling them where
they had to -- to go with it. But now you have a situation,
9-8-08
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
34
the house is there. They meet -- they're at the BFE --	
they're above the BFE by almost 6 and 5/8ths inches, so	
they've exceeded that. But our ordinance says a foot,	and
that's a safety margin -- good safety margin. But I --	I
cannot recommend a person not to finish their home.	
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I move approval.	
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.	
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for	
approval of the agenda item. Question or discussion on	the
motion? Was there a contractor involved in this?	
THE WITNESS: This was a young man that was doing
it on his own. Wasn't a contractor. They were just --	
they've been building this home a little bit at a time,	they
said.	
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. ODOM: So, they've even got it framed up, so
the worst that would have happened is that I would have not
issued a permit, would have said that they're in violation,
that they would have flood-proofed that area, and I wanted to
know what that area was. I figured around a foot is the --
you know, somewhere like that. But thankful that they're at
or above, and at least their insurance will be -- if they
take flood insurance, or they sell it -- I would assume that
they're paying for it, the way it was implied to me, as they
go along. I relate to that. As a kid, we were poor, so you
9-8-08
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
did what you could. And --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is there any jeopardy to
their ability to obtain flood insurance?
MR. ODOM: No, they could get it. It will be --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That would be the key.
MR. ODOM: That'll be the key. But the key is --
is that they're at or above. They get issued the development
permit. They can sell it. And we're encouraging the young
couple to -- or this young man to get the flood insurance
now, before, so it'll be grandfathered, and that he will be
able to sell that. So it's -- not everybody's going to be
able to walk in with cash. And he'll still be able to sell
his home, and grandfather that flood insurance to be covered
at that point. So, I'm just asking for a variance to issue
that permit. I wanted to come to the Court.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Environmental Health is how it
got to you?
MR. ODOM: Yes. They said it was all right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, how did you find out
that it was in the floodplain?
MR. ODOM: I had a complaint from O.S.S.F. came in.
Tish calls us sometimes when someone comes in for the way we
have our rules now, that we know ahead, and we went out and
looked at it. We had a neighbor complaint, and so we were
trying to figure out what the complaint was. And for -- the
9-8-08
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
36
complaint was a lady that was complaining, and the other one
was this house, and then we found -- we went through the
process trying to find out who --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I was wondering if our system
is working.
MR. ODOM: Our system is working. Unfortunately,
it was already built. But they didn't know, like us, that --
you know, I'm one person. There's no way to cover 1,100
square miles.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: One of our check points. We
find a lot of things.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's what the intent is.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yes.
MR. ODOM: That's right.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It's working.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other 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. We'll go to
Item 8; consider, discuss, take appropriate action for cattle
guard policy.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. Well, you have before you
9-8-08
37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
___
what I wrote up. I hope that everybody got to review it.
I'm open for comments. And if this is acceptable, I would --
that would be our policy.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's take all three of
these items here, and tell me what they mean.
MR. ODOM: All right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: When both sides of the road
are -- let's see. The cattle guards shall be removed during
scheduled maintenance of roads when the following
circumstances prevail: One, when both sides of the road are
no longer owned by one individual and/or both sides of the
road are fenced.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. That means, basically,
instead of one cattle guard going through -- if a property
owner owns both sides of the road, the comment from the Court
was that was so expensive that you wouldn't make them -- to
take out the cattle guard would not be appropriate; it was
too expensive. I think 16,500 was -- was the comment per
mile. Basically, that's it. Or when we run into a situation
like Wilson Creek, and you have one side fenced by an owner,
and -- and it's fenced on the other side, then -- and we do
not have open range, that that would be a circumstance we'd
look at. And when we're in maintenance, just not to go out
there, but when it comes on schedule to be sealcoated and
we're working that area, then to identify those issues where
9-8-08
38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
cattle guards are at.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, I'm with you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On that one, I would like to
add the exception -- and I'm looking at Rex to try to figure
out how to say it -- the same as our subdivision rules, about
if you're within the third-degree of consanguinity.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Consanguinity.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That that is -- does not
qualify. Because there's a lot of situations where family
ranches are given to -- divided amongst family members, kids
or grandkids, and that shouldn't trigger this happening, in
my mind.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have that on Fall Creek
I Road.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So -- but if it's going -- you
know, that's -- I think that would cover all those instances
if it's a degree -- if it's being divided among other people.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Before the Commissioner
moves on to number two and three, I want to ask you a
question about number one here. On Fall Creek Road also,
probably one, maybe two cattle guards where, notwithstanding
the ownership, we have fencing on both sides. One of them
comes to mind because it is in the first section of Fall
Creek Road that you likely will rehabilitate in this upcoming
budget year. My question is, will that one be removed?
9-8-08
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
MR. ODOM: I would have to -- I don't know who owns
-- does one property owner own both sides?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I know who's on one side;
I'm not sure who's on the other.
MR. ODOM: Okay. So, I'd say that it would fall in
there, but I would have to check to see who owns the property
or how they fail into 1.03.B.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But notification is six
I months?
MR. ODOM: Notification will be six months.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. So, how does the six
months notification fall into place in this situation when
you are about to rehabilitate a road?
MR. ODOM: Well, I --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If, for example, you
determine you want to rehabilitate the first section of this
road, and in the upcoming budget year, and it is short of a
six-month period, what do you do?
MR. ODOM: I would come to the Court first, tell
you what my intentions are, and then from there, to see if
there's guidance at that point. I think that's reasonable.
And then, if -- if there's agreement in the Court, or a
quorum of the Court that says yes, then I would go with that
six months notification, but give you the circumstances
behind it, just not to be pulling something out. If I had
9-8-08
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
to, then I would probably -- that first cattle guard you're
talking about, probably pull out and put in a new one, if I
-- if I was rehabilitating it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think, as I see it, Bill, and
Leonard too, you know you're going to -- if you're thinking
of doing a rehab of Fall Creek next year, --
MR. ODOM: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- then as soon as you know
that you're going to do that, or it's approved in our budget
to do it, you notify those people that those cattle guards
may be coming out. And if those people want to bring it to
the Court for us to look at a specific one, that's their
option, but without -- I mean, I think the burden should be
on the people, not you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: After the notice goes out.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the notice goes out,
just everyone on that road; say we're taking -- you know,
the -- we're planning to do some renovation out here, and
here's our policy, and let it be at that.
MR. ODOM: If you have an objection, then come to
the Court? Or invite that? Or --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That gives them notice.
MR. ODOM: Gives them notice.
9-8-08
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
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Proper notice, based on the
law. And then they can -- they'll have time to complain
about it if they want to. They can come to us before you
start tearing the road up and redoing it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's fine.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Item two, when damage to
vehicles or injury to occupants occurs.
MR. ODOM: Right sir. Well, this has to do --
let's take Bear Creek. It's been hit over three times, those
different areas. We came to the Court and asked permission
at that point to take it out. So, if there are accidents and
we get these accident reports, and we're finding that we have
maintenance on that, and -- and maybe there's an injury or
something, then we would --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: From people hitting the
cattle guards?
MR. ODOM: Yes, from people driving into the cattle
guards. Some of them are very narrow. Some of them are
young people that make misjudgments.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I believe that's an issue for
taking one out, because you can hit one and it be in one of
those situations where it's going through the open --
basically, you know, somebody's property. Take Fall Creek,
for instance. Just cause somebody hit one, I don't think
that's a reason to take it out.
9-8-08
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
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
MR. ODOM: I didn't say one. This was -- I would
probably look at something two or three times, and then it
says it has to be -- there's a -- there is a tendency to do
this. Just because it's one time, they might make a
misjudgment, or it might have been weather conditions. But
even Bear Creek there, for three to five times that we had
cattle guards --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
MR. ODOM: And so that's --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: But those numbers are in
there to reflect that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. On Bear Creek, you
had -- I remember seeing three different accident reports.
You know, there's a problem there somewhere. I don't -- I
don't know if those cars hit the cattle guards or what out in
that area. So, there -- to me, there's a problem that
needs -- something needs to be fixed. But I'm kind of with
Bruce, that when damage to vehicles or injuries to occupants
occur -- you know, I don't know if a meteorite hits the car
or if they actually hit the cattle guard or if they hit each
other dodging a goat, or those -- not goats, but cows out
there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Cows, yes. Not too many
goats.
9-8-08
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
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sheep out on the western
end.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Too many cows, not any goats.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So you may want to add some
verbiage in that thing to tell us exactly --
MR. ODOM: All right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tell the public exactly what
you mean there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, there is a situation
that occurs, I've seen it happen, where cattle guards have
been hit glancing blows because of excess speed on a road
that was not engineered for that kind of speed. That
happens.
MR. ODOM: That happens.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You and I both know that.
', COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But they move at night,
late. Cattle guards will move out in front of you on a
Saturday night. (Laughter.)
MR. ODOM: Hunting season also has an impact.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's not a pretty thing at
I all .
MR. ODOM: No.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But I tell you, this cattle
guard issue has generated more interest in this community. I
guess it's bumping the septic tank deal back in the '70's and
9-8-08
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
'80's, though. I'm telling you, it is the most exciting
thing.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Number three is --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On two, Leonard, I would -- you
know, and again, I'd visit with Rex on the language, but I'd
base it on road safety based on accidents, something along --
you know, rather than just saying, you know, damage to
vehicles. I think it's a safety issue, when there's a
specific safety issue that you feel is at a spot.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Like Bear Creek.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Like Bear Creek. And it's
based on accidents. You know, that's a justifiable reason,
to me.
MR. ODOM: So, if we could use Bear Creek as an
example, three or four accidents at this point?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. Or, I mean, I think -- I
don't know --
MR. ODOM: Or the severity of the accidents?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know if you want to tie
it to one -- I'd just say if it's a road safety issue. Maybe
you want to bring them to us and, you know, let us take the
heat. You let us make that call. But that's one that --
MR. ODOM: I think probably coming to y'all before
that would be a good way to -- to do that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I think that road safety
9-8-08
45
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
clearly needs to be on the list, and I think when the letters
then go out to those people, that's basically a -- a notice.
And it probably would be a good idea, when you send the
notice out to the people, you should probably copy at least
the commissioner of that precinct so we're aware that we're
about to get phone calls.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a good idea.
MR. ODOM: That's the reason I say I would probably
come to the Court before I would make that decision, and let
you know right up front.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That would be a good idea.
Great idea.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. And then three?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Only question -- go ahead,
I Buster.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: When number of lots served
by a road meets that of a collector road.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. Well, that's Road and
Bridge's answer to basically that criteria on -- I can't
remember the previous one, but it has a list of local roads
or -- or country lane, local road, collector road. When we
hit that criteria of a collector road, we felt like that was
an upgrade of 61 lots to 120 lots in there, which signified
about an 80-foot right-of-way, and that we should be -- that
it's just not a rural road any more. It is a traffic count
9-8-08
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
46
of 800 to maybe 1,200 cars, something like that, so that's a
large amount of volume on a road. And there's different
criteria to look at to do that, but when we get to that
level, there doesn't need to be a cattle guard there.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. So that when you
reach that level, you automatically are going to take the
thing out, irregardless of the fencing on the sides and all
that?
MR. ODOM: Well, that'll be a criteria we would
look at, so I would say that if it was split, we probably
wouldn't. I'd probably widen the cattle guard to 20 foot.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That was my suggestion, make
the cattle guard 24.
MR. ODOM: It depends how it plays and the
circumstances, but we're saying if you took this, and that it
met this other criteria up here, when we start to get a
collector, then we really need to take a look at it to see
the number of accidents, how much the ADT, the average daily
traffic count, is, and incidents. Those are the things. And
then I would come to court and tell you, and then if I'm
wrong, then certainly the Court can give their opinion at
that point; we'll go. But if -- if I feel it's justified, we
need something to justify it, and that's the reason. We're
on a collector when we start hitting those type of incidents.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Bruce, what -- how wide are
9-8-08
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
those out there on that state highway near your house?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: They're probably 24 feet.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 24?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You know, it's harder for a
24-foot cattle guard to move on a Saturday night than it is a
12-foot.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They don't move as bad, but
they can move, though. Those move, don't they?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, some people have had
that problem.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: On number three, though, I
can see where number three could come into conflict with
number one. You could have a situation where, at any
particular point on a -- on a county road -- I use Fall Creek
again as an example -- where a particular property owner
decides to subdivide his property, and the number of lots
increases dramatically, and all of a sudden, you've got this
-- you've satisfied the criteria of number three, but you
still have the situation where you have property owners who
own on both sides of the road that are not fenced -- one
side's not fenced. You could have that situation occur.
MR. ODOM: You might have that situation, but that
would be the circumstances that would prevail. We would look
at all that, and we would -- you know, just -- there's three,
I not just one to look at. And the most pressing issue would
9-8-08
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
48
be, you know, what is fair and reasonable? Just not to take
out a cattle guard.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, as an example, that
Grenada Springs or Grenada -- whatever it is, where you have
wider cattle guards --
MR. ODOM: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- that are basically as wide
as the roadbed.
MR. ODOM: You know, if the Court felt that way,
we'd probably come in there and have something made to try to
keep them where they're 22 or 24-something to meet the road.
But sometimes you only have 30 foot.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I mean, you're
basing this off road maintenance -- you know, your road
maintenance plan at the beginning of a budget year. I think
if you just come to the Court early in the year and say,
"Here are the roads we're working on; here are the cattle
guards we're looking at here. Our policy says we're going to
take these out unless y'all say otherwise," and we do it on
an annual basis. That way you have plenty of time from the
time -- your six-month time period.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Whenever you're doing the
road maintenance.
MR. ODOM: They've got all the time in the world
to --
9-8-08
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
49
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You can examine all these
criteria at the same time.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do them all at one time. If
you need to take them out, have that as part of the policy.
I have no problem with any of your criteria as a red flag,
but I think we -- the Court needs to look at them annually
before you start doing them.
MR. ODOM: And it gives you an opportunity to go
out there and check your -- that area.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I like that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Odom, is the only thing that
triggers a collector status for a road the number of lots
that it serves?
MR. ODOM: No, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. ODOM: Has to do with several different
criteria, so one may not justify doing that. It may be like
he says; may be at the back end. Now, we're still going to
have a traffic flow, but it depends where it's at. If
traffic flow has to do with the ETJ of a certain community,
that will dictate normally how much traffic, but you can
figure on the average in a rural area is two cars per house,
two trips day for each car. So, you know, it depends what
that traffic count is.
25 ~ JUDGE TINLEY: Well, if you you're going to use
9-8-OS
1
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
collector status of a road as a benchmark, wouldn't it be
appropriate to delete the reference to a requirement when the
number of lots served indicates that, but rather just say
when a road reaches the status as a collector road?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I see what you're saying.
'Cause lots is kind of --
MR. ODOM: Yeah. Well, but there's -- I would say
at that point, when I do that, I would have to look at it.
I'd come to the Court and tell you why. But when I start
getting 800 cars a day on a 30-foot roadway, and the road may
be 16 feet wide, we have a problem.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: With a 12-foot cattle guard.
MR. ODOM: With a 12-foot cattle guard, or a
10-foot cattle guard. You know, do we widen that? That
doesn't widen the road, but it widens that -- that particular
point. And if I don't have that many accidents, maybe that's
the solution to it, is opening it up. But -- I should have
gone to law school, Rex. I don't know.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I like the Judge's language
suggestion. When the road meets the status of a collector
road, and don't tie it to the number of lots. If you have
more than one criteria, that's a better way to phrase it.
MR. ODOM: I wouldn't look -- the ADT is what
really -- when I start getting to a collector, I start
looking at that traffic flow, and we will be running traffic
9-8-08
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
counts on that road as I start to sealcoat them anyway. So,
that's what we do to have a better idea what the development
is at the time that we're in there for maintenance.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think on the collector road,
I think it goes into, you know, the status of the road. You
talked about a collector road is 24 foot? 20 foot?
MR. ODOM: Arterial is 24. I believe it's 20 foot,
I believe. Or 22, maybe.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Of pavement. Well, if we have
a road that meets the traffic count of a collector road, but
the County isn't maintaining it as a collector yet, even
though we need to get there, I think we do need to start
looking at, you know, kind of how you -- Lane Valley is a
good example. All these roads we talked about are a good
example. Lane Valley, as you get out towards the end, is
14 feet, maybe?
MR. ODOM: Maybe. Sixteen, something.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: With a subdivision at the end
of it. So, you know, it gets it over -- it is probably an
arterial road in reality, yet we have a 24-foot right-of-way
in a lot of it. So, if we're working on that problem, I
don't think it makes sense to jerk out the cattle guard just
because, you know, we're not doing anything else on the road.
MR. ODOM: But if we do have long-term plans on
that, that would be something we would do in the future. And
9-8-08
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
52
I don't mean that I want to waste money. Cattle guards are
very, very expensive. Steel is very, very expensive, so it's
not something I would just want to do.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. ODOM: I want to have a little bit each year in
there to take care of it, and so that is some-thing --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Good time to -- as you make a
maintenance schedule, good time to look at all the cattle
guards on these roads, and you may defer to the next
maintenance schedule.
MR. ODOM: That may -- or two years down the road.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Have you gotten the guidance you
desire?
MR. ODOM: I've got some notes here. I'm sure that
we -- we'll refine it a little bit more next time I bring it
here.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I --
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else for Mr. Odom on this
agenda item?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just wanted to say that it
could be a couple weeks before this comes back. This is a
big deal, and I'm just wondering if, Mr. Voelkel, you want to
get in part of this? Do you want to get in on this deal?
9-8-08
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
53
MR. VOELKEL: Don't need to at all. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are you sure?
MR. VOELKEL: My cattle guards don't move.
(Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll bet you they do. I'll
show you one more time.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do we have a delineation of which
cattle guards are more prone to move than others?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know where they're
coming from on this, Judge. You and I both know better than
this argument. It doesn't matter if they're 24-footers or
not.
JUDGE TINLEY: Or oak trees.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oak trees?
JUDGE TINLEY: They move, sure do. Thank you,
Mr. Odom.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a 10 o'clock timed item, so
we'll move to that item. I will recess the Commissioners
Court meeting at this time, and I will convene a public
hearing for the purpose of continuing the records archival
fee of $5 paid on each document filed in the County Clerk's
office in accordance with the Records Management and Archival
written plan.
9-8-08
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
54
(The regular Commissioners Court meeting was closed
at 10:04 a.m., and a public hearing was held in
open court, as follows:)
P U B L I C H E A R I N G
JUDGE TINLEY: Is there any member of the public
that wishes to be heard with respect to continuing the
records archival fee of $5 paid on each document filed in the
County Clerk's office in accordance with the Records
Management and Archival written plan? Seeing no one coming
forward or seeking to be recognized, I will close that public
hearing, and I will reconvene the Commissioners Court
meeting.
(The public hearing was concluded at 10:04 a.m.,
and the regular Commissioners Court meeting was
reopened.)
JUDGE TINLEY: And we will go to Item 9; consider,
discuss, and take appropriate action for concept plan for
revision of plat for The Woods, Section Two, revision of Lots
79, 80, 81, 82, and 83, as set forth in Volume 7, Page 369,
Plat Records, and set a public hearing, such property being
located in Precinct 2.
MR. ODOM: All right, sir. You have the agenda
item as I addressed it here; hopefully you had an opportunity
to read it. Since this morning, I had a call and talked to
the City, and they informed me that this area was in the ETJ
of the city -- Gordon Browning. So, I -- this was as of --
9-8-08
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
let's see if I have my notes here. I think he said January
of '07. I told him if they went forward as of September of
'06, is when we first went to into the court, it was outside
their ETJ. Also, our map shows that it comes to the very
edge of the two lots. Gordon says that they changed it in
'07 and I haven't updated the maps, and I know that either
last week -- is Kelly's here? Was it last week or the week
before that we had 911 --
MS. HOFER: Oh, yeah, it was probably about a week,
week and a half ago that they upgraded the ETJ on my
computer, so it's the most current version of the ETJ for our
MR. ODOM: Yeah. We had them over here under that;
is so we would be more in compliance. And, of course, I
would say at this point, I've asked Gordon -- it's up to
y'all. I told him I would leave it to the Court, but we've
tried to work out a solution to this, as you've read right
here. I don't know if that solution is the solution, but
this is something that we've met with both parties and tried
to resolve the issue. If you like, I can put this off,
postpone this until the next meeting. And I told Gordon that
we would have time to meet and to go over this, or either
this becomes a city issue in its entirety.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, is it or is it not
9-8-08
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
within the ETJ?
MR. ODOM: It is in the ETJ, what he said. He said
he would send us a new map, that it is in the ETJ of the city
now.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we handle it.
MR. ODOM: Then turn it over to them?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, I think we do it right now.
These people have been working with us for two years on this.
MR. ODOM: I agree. That's what I told Gordon.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, we've handled it. We
made the determination for the public, and it's on the -- any
way you look at it, it's on the very edge of the city's ETJ.
MR. ODOM: Right there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And it's a complicated matter,
and I don't think we need to do that to the public.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree with that. I
think --
MR. ODOM: That's two people.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- we need to dispose of
this issue.
MR. ODOM: We tried to resolve the issue. I think
maybe it is resolved. Hopefully those parties are here,
Ms. Hinds and Ms. Kilgore. So, if you like, I will go
through this. The new owners of lot 81R and 83R are
requesting the cul-de-sac be further away from their home.
9-8-08
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
To accomplish this, there's several issues that need to be
consider, and going on that sketch, we have come up with the
two scenarios enclosed in your backup. Both would require
variances. Scenario 1 is to build the cul-de-sac in this way
without infringing on the neighboring lots, -- anybody else's
lot is not involved in it -- we are requesting to build it
with the 39.67-foot radius and with a 30-foot radius
pavement, which is the size of all other cul-de-sacs in The
Woods subdivision. We request a variance to the 50-foot
setback on Lot 79R. There was a variance granted, I think,
at the time when this -- in '06. Asked them to go to their
homeowners' association, and they were given a variance.
And my viewpoint on this is that a 50-foot radius
or setback is designed for new con -- a new plat, something
that's new. And so everything was followed by the surveyor
and all, but it was not a -- to us, really applied. And
since she already went to the homeowners' association, that
variance was given to her to build her house on that acreage
that she had. The cul-de-sac would not touch Lot 81R, so the
road easement would have to continue, and the lot frontage
for that lot would only be one-half of the road right-of-way
at 25 feet. That's not unusual, because in this plat, for
this -- that phase right there of The Woods, it was
9-8-08
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
originally only 25 foot, because it was -- Mr. Voelkel did
that. And so this would not be unusual with this plat.
There would be a -- 25 foot would have to go up to 81R.
Or Scenario 2, use the same construction of the
cul-de-sac and setback for Lot 79R, remove the lot line and
easements between 83R and 81R, making one lot. This would
give each parcel adequate road frontage and would solve the
problem, instead of extending the road up to 81R. After
choosing one of these options, we would like to set a public
hearing for October the 14th, 2008, at 10:10 a.m. And then
the homeowners, Mrs. Kilgore and Ms. Hinds, should be with us
today if you have any questions.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, under Option 2, the little
rectangle that sticks down between --
MR. ODOM: What you would do is just go to the
cul-de-sac, eliminate that line, and you would have
egress-ingress on 83R. I mean, the whole lot would be --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, basically, the cul-de-sac
I would be --
MR. ODOM: Be that --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- like a lollipop.
MR. ODOM: That's right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 83 and 81 are owned by
different people?
MR. ODOM: By the Hinds.
9-8-08
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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, they're owned by the
same person?
MR. ODOM: Same person.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. ODOM: And that's the reason I say we could
either eliminate the middle, and should they wish to do
something or sell that one, they can always come back to the
Court and --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I really like -- if I
understand Option 2, I like it better, because it gets rid of
the easement.
MR. ODOM: Gets rid of the easement.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think since --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's clean.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- some of these neighbors are
a little bit difficult to get along with, or were at one
', point, it seems like that's probably a good thing to do it
that way.
MR. ODOM: Well, that's what they wanted to do, was
see your direction. I will direct Mrs. Kilgore that that is
the way, to get with the Hinds, and we'll go from there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Rex, do you see any problem
with doing it that way?
MR. EMERSON: My only question is, if I'm not
mistaken, wasn't the original cul-de-sac size based on
9-8-08
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
turnaround of emergency vehicles?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, that's what we've
always wanted to try to accommodate.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
MR. ODOM: Well, again, this area is so open -- we
discussed that, and we felt like this is so open that this
would not constrict vehicles, because there's enough
turnaround off to the sides and all for it. So, if I've got
30-foot pavement inside the whole subdivision, then the whole
subdivision has a problem, so we're matching what is
existing. There's enough open area that we feel like there's
no problems whatsoever on this. They are also going to be
talking -- if you want to call it a fire hydrant, I call it a
pop-off valve, to see if that could be extended up around
this cul-de-sac and where the fire trucks could be able to
facilitate that, and they were to talk to the private water
system there to see if that could be done. That would be
incurred by them, which would be suggested to do. And we
just -- I don't see that encumbrance of having emergency
vehicles in there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is a 30-foot radius -- turn
radius not sufficient?
MR. ODOM: Well, that's paved. You're going to
have right at a 40-foot radius right there. That's a bit
tight, but it can be done. But it is so open right there on
9-8-08
61
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Mrs. Kilgore and the Hinds', we don't see a problem. And
part of the problem will be eliminated, because it will imply
basically this is the end of the road. This cul-de-sac will
end part of this problem where people are coming all the way
up to the Hinds' house and turning around in their driveway.
So --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Also, because of the -- under
Option 2, that leg that sticks down to the -- below gives a
vehicle, a large vehicle, a turn -- ability to turn around.
Can't make a circular turn, but they can pull in and back up.
MR. ODOM: And back up.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's an area there which is
not our standard cul-de-sac shape.
MR. ODOM: We feel like it would be acceptable.
That's not probably the best way, but this is not a new
design. This is working within the framework of the
restriction of the right-of-way and all.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Odom, is Option 1 the existing
plat now?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's what exists on the ground?
MR. ODOM: No -- well, no.
JUDGE TINLEY: I mean --
MR. ODOM: Scenario 1 was -- was what you see right
here on this drawing.
9-8-08
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
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
' MR. ODOM: We impose that right there, for --
JUDGE TINLEY: What's the existing plat show?
MR. ODOM: The existing plat shows it to come on up
to where this short road is at. And I don't know where she
-- did she put that --
JUDGE TINLEY: For that -- where that dotted line
is there for a cul-de-sac?
MR. ODOM: It would be -- to the property line on
81R, that would be center line. Then you would have a
50-foot radius from there. So, it encroached back up into
the Hinds' home right there, the new one that we set up
originally.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. The original plat
that --
MR. ODOM: The original plat had a cul-de-sac in
the corner of the house.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. It's -- the house is
part of the -- in the cul-de-sac.
MR. ODOM: We never did go in there to do that. We
just brought the road up within our right-of-way at this
point and stopped. But this one here -- the other one was
modified and brought back down. And now what we're saying
is, having this smaller radius down here, which brings
everything back closer to Mrs. Kilgore and them, and for a
9-8-OS
63
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
turnaround, plus the mail can be delivered now.
JUDGE TINLEY: Does the present plat show three
lots?
MR. ODOM: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. And --
MR. ODOM: 79R is Mrs. Kilgore.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. And it shows three lots as
indicated on Number 1.
MR. ODOM: This is the original.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is our current plat.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That was approved.
MR. ODOM: That was approved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Part of this was necessitated
by houses being in -- in the area.
MR. ODOM: Fences and --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Fences and houses are in the --
MR. ODOM: -- houses. Trees.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- road. And this is not, I
would say, uncommon. I've got a -- the deed shows a county
road going right through the middle of the house.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is there not an enforcement action
pending here?
MR. EMERSON: There was a notice that was sent out
because of a picket fence encroaching upon the currently
9-8-08
64
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
deeded cul-de-sac.
MR. ODOM: And then they came into the office and
we sat down and tried to discuss it and come up with a way to
design this. We said we could come to the Court at this date
and present it, and see if the Court would -- would consider
this, the new option. Personally, I think -- I won't say
personally. It's my opinion; doesn't make any difference.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Your opinion what?
MR. ODOM: I was just going to say that I think
this is a better solution, what we're presenting to you here.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is the road -- but the road is
not built where it shows on the plat, correct? The
cul-de-sac doesn't look like that right now. There is not a
50-foot --
MR. ODOM: There's not even a cul-de-sac.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No cul-de-sac there?
MR. ODOM: No cul-de-sac there now.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: See, the -- the plat's there,
but the road was --
MR. ODOM: We've had an extension of that plat so
this could be built, but she had asked to build her house --
to finish the house, and now she's at that completion, so now
we're looking at finishing the cul-de-sac.
JUDGE TINLEY: When were all these improvements on
Lots 81R and elsewhere placed on this property?
9-8-08
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
MR. ODOM: No, sir, that's existing structure. It
was always there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, that -- on 81R,
Ms. Kilgore, wasn't that your original home?
MS. KILGORE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. And so all of this
was her property at one time that's been sold. All this land
was hers at one time.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. So, the improvements were
placed there prior to this plat being put in place --
MR. ODOM: That's right.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- by the Court.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Apparently, when it was put in
place, we didn't have the improvements overlaid on the plat.
MR. ODOM: At the time, it was a private
subdivision. And when I originally came here, private
subdivisions had no rules; they sort of did what -- they
didn't follow subdivision rules. Even up to the time of when
I first came here, that was the case. Until we modified
the -- changed the rules, private subdivisions did their
thing.
JUDGE TINLEY: Pretty obvious that --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I just want to find out
from Ms. Kilgore if she's in tune with the Option 2 --
9-8-08
66
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Scenario 2.
MS. KILGORE: Well, I think that's their issue.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Whomever.
MS. KILGORE: The Hinds own Lots 81 and 83.
MS. HINDS: Excuse me, sir. What was the question?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The question is, are you in
tune with the suggested Scenario 2?
MS. LEITH: With one exception.
MS. HINDS: Yes, sir, with one exception.
MS. LEITH: The bigger issue --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Can you come up to the
podium, please?
MS. LEITH: Bigger issue on this happens to be the
50-foot radius. Because the 50-foot radius, at this point --
if it were built as it's shown on the plat, the 50-foot
radius comes almost to the front corner of Mr. and
Mrs. Hinds' home. So, the radius of the -- one of the things
that Mr. Odom had requested was that the radius be -- some
variance granted on it for Lot 79R, which is Mrs. Kilgore's,
but it doesn't make mention of this 50-foot radius for Mr.
and Mrs. Hinds, which --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Which one is the Hinds --
MS. LEITH: They own both Lot 83R and 81R.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me make sure we've got the
record corrected. You refer to Mr. and Mrs. Hinds. You are
9-8-08
67
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
not Mrs. Hinds?
MS. LEITH: I'm not. I'm here at the pleasure of
Mr. and Mrs. Hinds.
JUDGE TINLEY: Tell us who you are.
MS. LEITH: My name's Rene Leith, and I'm with
Stagecoach Realty, and I'm a personal friend of Mr. and
Mrs. Hinds. I represented them in their transaction of
purchasing this property.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, thank you.
MS. LEITH: So, the variance for their two lots
hasn't been addressed at all on the 50-foot radius by
Mr. Odom, only that of Mrs. Kilgore. She has the larger
issue with that 50-foot radius coming through her home, but
this comes right up to Mr. and Mrs. Hinds' home.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Where is Mrs. Kilgore's home?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't see which map
you're looking at.
MR. ODOM: She's looking at the original -- what
was proposed last time. She's not looking at --
MS. LEITH: This is the original plat that's
recorded.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's not what we're
talking about today.
MS. LEITH: Right. But this 50-foot radius is
indicated on -- on here.
9-8-08
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 WILLIAMS: Right.
MS. LEITH: And it's recorded as such.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
MS. LEITH: And so the 50-foot radius has only been
addressed on this portion, which is Lot 79R, which is
Mrs. Kilgore's. Mr. and Mrs. Hinds would also prefer that
this 50-foot radius have some variance, because it comes
I' right up to the corner of their home. So, if a variance is
granted on one portion, we're asking that it be granted on
their portion as well, so that it's a -- there's some
continuity in the radius, that it's entirely -- the variance
represents the entire radius, whether it's this scenario or
the other scenario that Mr. Odom proposed.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, if it's the other
scenario that Mr. Odom is proposing, we're talking about a
39.67-foot radius.
MS. LEITH: That's the radius of the actual
roadway, but this is a setback, a 50-foot setback.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MS. LEITH: So the pavement --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I see.
MS. LEITH: And then the setback -- or
right-of-way, and then the setback for the building.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But it doesn't come up to
the Hinds' home; it comes up to the property line.
9-8-08
69
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. LEITH: It does, where they have constructed a
fence and where they have some mature trees that they would
like preserved. So, if the 50-foot radius were to stay
intact, even with the first and second scenario that Mr. Odom
has offered, it still would be awfully close, if not
encroaching on their fence line and trees.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. I think I understand
~~ your position a little better.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Is that fence line already
inside of that easement or that cul-de-sac?
MR. ODOM: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
MR. ODOM: But, again, she's talking about this
coming on up. The variance -- I would say whatever the
variance that Mrs. Kilgore has, that that would apply there.
It's probably around a 20-foot or 10, whatever they had as a
setback that their association agreed to. I don't -- it's
not going to come up like she's talking about up to that
existing house up there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That was the reason I asked
the question, 'cause it doesn't come anywhere near the house.
MR. ODOM: Doesn't come anywhere near that, and I
don't know exactly why it's --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: But -- Ms. Kilgore, what was
the variance when you talked to the homeowners' association?
9-8-08
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
70
Was it 20 foot or 10?
MS. KILGORE: I don't recall. It's been a year and
a half since it was granted.
MR. ODOM: Yeah. So, you know, we're not here to
-- we want to keep that variance there, that I keep that
radius. If I have that 20 foot, I have a 60-foot radius
around there, and that's more than enough room for a vehicle
to turn around if I have the space.
MS. KILGORE: Doesn't the cul-de-sac issue in the
-- last month's version completely go away if we move the
cul-de-sac and the variance?
MR. ODOM: That's correct.
MS. KILGORE: Pertains to --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, to me, the -- yeah, if
you -- if the cul-de-sac is shifted up, basically you have
a -- potentially have a driveway that goes to the Hinds
property, and that may be a shared driveway if they sell one
of their lots at some point.
MR. ODOM: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the cul-de-sac -- the
50-foot setback should go up to the center of the new
cul-de-sac.
MS. KILGORE: Right, so there's not a -- you know,
is your concern there the fence?
MS. LEITH: And trees.
9-8-08
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
MR. ODOM: Yeah.
MS. KILGORE: But that goes away.
MS. HINDS: Okay.
MR. ODOM: We're not trying to take those -- that's
the reason we moved it up.
MS. KILGORE: If they grant that, then there's no
violation with a fence, because that piece is gone. Is that
not correct?
MS. LEITH: That's not what this specifics. It
specifies -- it's very specific to Lot 79R.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We did a variance to the
50-foot setback on Lot 79R.
MR. ODOM: Well, I understand, but I --
i
i
~, COMMISSIONER LETZ: Wait, wait. Hold on.
MR. EMERSON: Can I ask a couple questions real
quick?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I wish you would.
MR. EMERSON: This property was subdivided before
you sold it, correct?
MS. KILGORE: Correct.
MR. EMERSON: And that subdivision was properly
filed with the clerk's office, correct?
MS. KILGORE: Correct.
MR. EMERSON: The Hinds purchased that property
subject to that properly filed subdivision of this, correct?
9-8-08
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
MS. KILGORE: Correct.
MR. EMERSON: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm thinking where you're thinking.
MR. EMERSON: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Y'all want to share with us
kind of where you're thinking?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- well, the change --
I mean, the cul-de-sac can stay the way it is, the legal
right to it. It's just the way they want to modify it to
accommodate the location of the improvements, as I see it. I
mean, I think that the -- because the improvements, for the
most part -- I don't know about -- your house is on 79R?
MS. KILGORE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess my question is, if you
pull it back like you want to on Scenario 2, why can't the
pavement be wider than 39 feet radius?
MR. ODOM: Because of that property line over there
at the corner. As you come into that cul-de-sac, I pulled it
off that corner.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I see.
MR. ODOM: You're going into somebody else's
property, pulling someone else into it, and what I was doing
was staying within that radius off that point, and that was
39.76 feet -- or .67 feet.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Otherwise, you encroach on 77
9-8-08
73
1 or 78.
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: 77 or 78 or both.
MR. ODOM: Yes, 77 off that point there, and 78.
Without getting on any one of those properties, we stayed
within the two properties that were there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I got you.
remember this, but that was platted for Lot 78, 79, 80, 81,
82, and 83, so it was platted to serve six houses. It looked
like pie shapes. And my family bought that land before it
had been -- it was platted, but before it had been developed,
and we placed the house that's on your drawing in
juxtaposition to the trees, so as to have shade and to not
take out trees. When it became an eventuality to sell it, by
then, the County had paved the road that's sort of drawn
there. That wasn't the platted road; it was the driveway
that one family had used to egress and ingress over the 7 and
a half acres, and the County paved it when my neighbor on Lot
78, which you can barely see, convinced the County we had
enough homeowners there to deserve more than a dusty road.
So, it's had a strange history, because it wasn't -- it was
platted and drawn originally in the subdivision to serve six
families going in and out. And, as I mentioned last time,
it's really just a county lane or a glorified driveway. The
9-8-08
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
neighborhood doesn't have any 50-foot cul-de-sacs. Three
fire trucks could get in there if they had to -- heaven
forbid they ever did -- without hitting trees. You know, but
it's -- it's plenty sufficient pavement, in my aesthetic
opinion, to do what we need to do and to make both of the two
property owners who now own all the land -- and Lot 78, he'd
be very pleased to have a cul-de-sac there too. So, to me,
its a win-win deal.
JUDGE TINLEY: You're talking about Option 2?
MS. KILGORE: Well, it's not up to me to say Option
2, because I don't own the land; that's Lot 81 and 83.
Option 2 takes away that plat line, right? And makes it a
4-acre tract?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, just -- it takes just the
upper piece of it. It still is two lots; it's just that
little -- the boundary will change.
MS. KILGORE: I don't think that's for me to say.
But what I'm saying, the movement of the cul-de-sac from the
south side to the north side of that road I think makes
everybody happy. You know, frankly, I'm ready to get on with
it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll bet you are.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Which plan do y'all -- will
you agree on, the two parties?
MS. KILGORE: I'll agree on either of them.
9-8-08
75
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. HINDS: I will too.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Either one?
MS. HINDS: Either one or two.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay.
(Low-voice discussion off the record.)
MR. ODOM: Let me -- if we agree to this right
here, we will get her surveyor to work with us and see what
this setback will be. We originally had a 20-foot setback
years ago, and this 50-foot was new design with the new rules
and regulations. So, I don't see a -- I don't think I have a
major problem with this right here, but let me -- if we have
an agreement, we'll work forward and work through it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sounds like we have an
agreement for either of the two scenarios.
MR. ODOM: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which one is preferable
from your perspective?
MR. ODOM: My perspective is drop the line, make
one lot. Combine Lot 83R and 81R.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Scenario 2.
MS. HINDS: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: That takes away all the issue about
the improvements.
MR. ODOM: There's not another little road that
goes up there that I have to maintain at that point, and it
9-8-08
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
just clears the issue up. And if they wish to come back,
they can certainly do that. They would have to build a short
road right there if they sold something. But I -- my
indication is that they don't -- they want to keep it as one.
JUDGE TINLEY: And that also -- that also cures the
encroachment into the utility easements, the building setback
lines on the outer perimeter of the lots.
MR. ODOM: We will take a look at that point.
Whether it's 20 foot or 50 foot, may -- I don't know. I
haven't put the points on the ground, so I don't know.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask you a question,
though. If we granted the variance to one property owner,
why -- what would be the drawback of granting for both?
MR. ODOM: I'm sorry? Ask me again.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Granting a variance
for one property owner --
MR. ODOM: And not the other?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- and not the other. Why
couldn't you grant the -- I mean, what would be the drawback
of granting --
MR. ODOM: There would be none to me, in my mind.
I'm thinking once I give a variance here, it takes care of
the 50 foot and we come up with what's necessary for all
parties.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This lady's worried about
9-8-08
77
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
i
her trees.
MR. ODOM: Well, I don't want to take trees out.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And her fence, and something
else; I can't remember what it was.
MS. LEITH: That's it.
MR. ODOM: I don't know where that would move.
That's the reason I say if the surveyor will work with us,
we'll lay some lines out; we can see what's appropriate and
go back to the original plat and see what was there. I
assure you, it was not a 50-foot setback.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- this is a
concept plan; we don't need to vote on it. I can live with
either one of those two, and I think that's kind of what I'm
hearing from the Court. So, two is preferable to me, but
either one will work. I think it's solving some problems.
'Cause if we don't do something with it and clean up both
these lots, and the Hinds sell 83R, we're right back in the
same thing, because the driveway's on the wrong lot.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, I think we're doing the
best thing, cleaning up this whole --
MR. ODOM: Whole thing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- two-lot thing, and getting
it into the right -- you know.
9-8-08
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
78
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The way you have styled the
agenda item, you're talking about "take appropriate action on
the concept plan for revision of plat for The Woods, Section
Two, revision of Lots 79, 80, 81, 82, and 83." Does that --
the way you've styled the agenda item, that envisions the
concept plan as being Scenario 2?
MR. ODOM: Scenario 2.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what that envisions,
correct?
MR. ODOM: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. I would move that
we -- the Court agree with the concept plan for revision of
plat for The Woods, Section Two, with the revision of Lots
79, 80, 81, 82, and 83, Volume 7, Page 369 of the public
records, and set a public hearing for October -- what's the
date?
MR. ODOM: 14th.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 14th. At?
MR. ODOM: 10:10 a.m.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: At 10:10 a.m. Be prompt.
MS. KILGORE: That's Tuesday?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: County Attorney has his
hand up.
', MR. EMERSON: Under the proposed plans, is Lot 78
affected at all?
9-8-08
79
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
MS. KILGORE: No.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Didn't mention 78.
MR. ODOM: 78 is not affected at all.
MR. EMERSON: Okay. Nor is 77.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 79, 80, 81, 82, and 83.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 80 doesn't exist any more.
MR. ODOM: 80 doesn't exist.
MS. KILGORE: Really, all that exists now is 78,
which doesn't touch this; it's kind of back around the
corner, and then 79R, 81R, and 83R. That's what are now
platted.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 79R, 83R -- 81R and 83R.
MS. KILGORE: Right.
MR. ODOM: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think you -- those are the
ones that are listed. I think we just be silent on it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, I think you're right.
We'll go with what the agenda item is styled.
MS. KILGORE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If it's not germane to this
discussion, later it will go away.
MS. KILGORE: Good.
JUDGE TINLEY: Are you saying you withdraw your
I motion?
25 ~ COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, but we can't talk
9-8-08
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
about -- really, we can't talk about 83R, 81R, and 79R.
We're talking about the old original ones, even though this
is the same thing. We don't need a motion on a concept plan,
so we don't need any action, necessarily. We can just move
forward with --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Withdraw the motion.
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion is withdrawn.
MR. ODOM: Set a public hearing, then it'll be
alternate plat process; we'll bring it forward.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's fine. Set the
public hearing.
MS. KILGORE: Can I start road work once I have a
survey? Or do I have to wait till after the public hearing?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I wouldn't start anything until
you have final action.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We do need a motion to set
the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: My motion would be to set a
public hearing for October 14th for the revision of plat for
The Woods, Section Two.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. That's
10/14/08 at 10:10 a.m., right?
9-8-08
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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's exactly right.
Don't be late.
JUDGE TINLEY: Further question or discussion on
II the motion?
MR. ODOM: May I say something, too? However, I do
not know how y'all are going to resolve the issue of who does
what, who pays for what, so that's up to y'all. Between
dropping the line --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not a part of my motion.
MR. ODOM: Resolve that issue.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I'm curious about
something Leonard said. When the City calls and says, "Oh,
no you're not," what are you going to do?
MR. ODOM: I'm going to tell them, just like I told
them before, this was an '06 we started before this, and that
the Court would make that decision. And the comment to me
was -- was, "Let the Court make the decision." I will
contact them and say we made the decision; we're moving
forward.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Very good. Thank you very
I much .
JUDGE TINLEY: Further question or discussion on
the motion?
MS. KILGORE: I just think the ETJ may not include
Woodland Road.
9-8-08
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
82
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We don't care if it does or
doesn't.
~I MS. KILGORE: I think it stops by an inch.
JUDGE TINLEY: Further question or discussion on
the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
', JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
~ (No response.)
I
~,I JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Let's take
j about a 15-minute recess.
(Recess taken from 10:37 a.m. to 10:54 a.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to order, if
we might. We have a 10:30 timed item that we'll take up at
this time, that being Item 15; consider, discuss, and take
appropriate action to approve Kerr County Historical
Commission's application to the Texas Historical Commission
for Certified Local Government status. I believe Mr. Joe
Luther is with us here today. I saw him earlier. Maybe he's
not. There he is, okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You're up.
MR. LUTHER: I'm sorry, I'd fallen asleep. I saw
Leonard up there; I thought I had a ways to go. Good
morning, Judge Tinley, members of the Commission. This item
9-8-08
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
is to approve an application for status as a Certified Local
requires that we change absolutely nothing that we're doing.
They rewrote their web site this year, and I have been
reluctant to do this in the past because I thought we had to
set up some new regulations or something, but we don't. For
county commissions, as opposed to the city, our Kerr County
Historical Commission satisfies the requirement. Our bylaws
satisfy the requirement. Our membership and the actions that
we're taking satisfy the requirement. So, I believe, in
talking with the people in Austin, that all we need to do is
send in the form that had been approved by this body, and
then we'll be eligible for pass-through immediate funding to
help us do some of the items that you've seen on our budget
proposal. So, it's one way of getting access to a larger
pool of money.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which would come to the
state historic commission?
MR. LUTHER: Yes. And through them, from the --
organizations.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are -- is the historical
MR. LUTHER: Yes.
9-8-08
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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Stated in here?
MR. LUTHER: Yes, for the county, it is.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Should we say that somewhere?
MR. LUTHER: We do in our bylaws, which we have a
committee that I chair that is responsible for endangered
properties, so that if they're -- and as you well know from
past experience, if there's any threat to a historical
property, I'm usually popping up out here to talk about
getting a review of this before we take any action. Now, I
will say that in our exploring the room downstairs, in the
archives, we discovered that there has not been a review or
an inventory of historic properties in Kerr County since
1976, and we would want to undertake this in the next fiscal
year, and this would be one means of providing the funds for
doing that. The other thing that we could use these funds
for would be to send more of our members to the state
convention, which it's held in Austin this year, to get them
trained. I'm a great believer in succession planning, 'cause
I'm not going to do this forever, and we need to get other
people in line here to undertake this -- this job. So, it
doesn't require any additional allocation of money, doesn't
require the County Attorney to write any regulations or
anything. It just simply says yes, we're qualified; here's
our -- here's our material. The people in Austin tell me
it's just a walk-over.
9-8-08
85
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion that we
authorize the Kerr County Historical Commission to apply for
-- to submit an application to the Texas Historical
Commission for Certified Local Government status.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
indicated. Further question or discussion on that motion?
All in favor of the motion -- excuse me.
MR. EMERSON: Can I ask a question? What effect,
if any, does this have on the County? Does it obligate the
County to anything?
MR. LUTHER: No, not beyond what we're doing
currently. Everything that we're doing satisfies that
requirement.
MR. EMERSON: Okay.
MR. LUTHER: So there's no additional requirement
whatsoever. Except we will do -- and something we're
required to do now is do an inventory of existing historical
properties.
JUDGE TINLEY: But insofar as the -- the county
government operation, separate and apart from your
organization, there's no fiscal or other --
MR. LUTHER: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- obligations placed on Kerr
County?
9-8-08
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
MR. LUTHER: None.
JUDGE TINLEY: Further question or discussion on
the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.}
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Thank you,
sir. We need to go back and pick up some items.
MR. LUTHER: I had a related item.
JUDGE TINLEY: I understand.
MR. LUTHER: Just on the bylaws which have to go in
with this application. They were one and two here on your
agenda. It was just to approve the bylaws.
JUDGE TINLEY: I understand. Item 16, consider,
discuss, take appropriate action to ratify and confirm the
bylaws of the Kerr County Historical Commission.
MR. LUTHER: These are the bylaws that we discussed
before. They went before the County Attorney for review and
comment, and he made several suggestions to bring it in
conformance with the enabling legislation. We did that in
ii May. It was approved by the Historical Commission, and just
kind of got lost in a dark pigeonhole. But we're bringing it
back to you since we have to send in a copy of these approved
bylaws with this application.
9-8-08
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
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I move that we ratify
and confirm the bylaws of the Kerr County Historical
Commission.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
indicated. Further question or discussion on the motion?
All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right
hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Thank you,
Mr. Luther.
MR. LUTHER: Thank you, gentlemen.
JUDGE TINLEY: We'll go back to Item 10; consider,
discuss, take appropriate action for concept plan for
revision of plat for Lots 11 and 12 of Four Seasons Addition,
as set forth in Volume 5, Page 12, Plat Records, and set a
public hearing, property being located in Precinct 1.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. This is a situation where a
home was placed across a lot line, and the revision of this
plat would correct the situation. The owners have come to an
agreement; therefore, we ask the Court to accept the concept
and set a public hearing for October the 14th, 2008, at
10 o'clock, I guess.
9-8-08
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
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What were the others?
MR. ODOM: 10:10, 10:15, or 10:05.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Move that we set the public
hearing on October 14th, 2008, at 10 o'clock.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: This is some new construction
that was placed over a lot line?
MR. ODOM: No. This was a -- a gentleman bought
the house. Somebody had moved it in prior, and I think that
individual is having a vacation at Huntsville.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Oh.
MR. ODOM: And -- and so this new -- this young man
came in, and they were supposed -- they didn't plat anything;
they just set it up. And then this young man bought it, and
then found out that the house was over the lot line. And he
had neighbors that agreed that -- they even thought that the
house was in the right place. But there was no survey done
at the time on this plat. So --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay.
MR. ODOM: -- this corrects this problem. The
O.S.S.F. has gone through. There's an agreement with them
where the line's at. So, we ask to correct the problem and
let -- let this young man go on.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Leonard, do they have -- this
is a community water system?
9-8-08
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
89
MR. ODOM: It is a community water system.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What about sewer?
MR. ODOM: The sewer, O.S.S.F. has already looked
at it and approved that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And we can get a lot on that
.959 -- I mean the sewer?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. I'm sorry, I should have --
we looked at that, and yes, they can. And I believe that
this house already has a septic system, and it's down below
and away from that -- down and -- it -- looking at it, down
and to the left, I believe is the way it was described to me.
And that you already had an existing system in.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I was looking at Lot 11A.
MR. ODOM: 11A is already an existing home and is
already there, so that septic system and all is there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. ODOM: Taking a look, letting O.S.S.F. look at
it to verify it, but this is a concept, so my understanding
is it's agreeable to them.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. ODOM: That it would work. O.S.S.F. would have
the last say, but I feel quite confident. That was -- was an
issue, but -- and I believe Tish -- we asked Tish to be
there, or to discuss this at that time.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I assume there's a lot line
9-8-08
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
that separates 11 from 11A; is that correct?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir, that dotted line. And this
property goes up on a hill; it goes up very, very steeply, so
as you look at this mobile home, it was set at an elevation
that was in here, and then all the rest of it is not usable
up above.
JUDGE TINLEY: Further question or discussion on
the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. We'll now
move to Item 12, to consider, discuss, and take appropriate
action to approve the continuation of the records archival
fee of $5 on each document filed in the County Clerk's
office. Ms. Pieper?
MS. PIEPER: Gentlemen, this is just a continuation
of the records archival fee that we have been doing for the
last five years, and this is something that has to be done
yearly.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How much does it generate a
~ year?
MS. PIEPER: Right off, I couldn't tell you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, come on. We're friends.
9-8-08
91
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. PIEPER: We have -- we average 1,000, 1,500
documents a month, and it's $5 on each one of those.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And that money can only be
used for --
MS. PIEPER: For records archival.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Records archival. I move
for approval.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
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: The motion does carry. We'll move
to Item 13; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action
approving the County Clerk's Records Management and Archival
Written Plan for the adoption of such for the budget year
2008-09.
MS. PIEPER: The records management has been in
existence for years. The records archival has been in
existence for five years, and I'm combining the two because
they work hand-in-hand. And the records archival law states
that I have to do a written plan, so I have done that, and
I'm asking you to approve that.
9-8-08
92
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Question or discussion? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. We'll go to
Item 14; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to
approve contract between the Department of State Health
Services and Kerr County for the issuance of vital statistic
records via online, and authorize County Judge to sign same.
MS. PIEPER: This is just a continuation of the
year-to-year that we have to sign the contract with the
Department of State Health so that we can continue to issue
the vital records from our computer that we are linked with.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
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.)
9-8-08
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
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. We'll move
to Item 17; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to
renew the Lexis legal research contract. Mr. Emerson?
MR. EMERSON: Lexis legal research -- or Lexis is
our legal research engine that we use online. It's the one
that we replaced Westlaw with a couple years ago, cut our
price in half. Unfortunately, our contract has run, and we
have the renewal contract that's been placed before you. The
increase in fees from two years ago until now is $20 a month,
which is pretty nominal for the service, and we would ask for
you to approve it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Has the County Attorney
reviewed this? (Laughter.) Shall we get a second opinion?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, I don't think so.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item. Question or discussion on the
motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your
right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. We'll move
to Item 18; to consider, discuss, take appropriate action to
9-8-08
94
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
establish an annual process of evaluation for heads of
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's come to mind that we
heads on an annualized basis, and this would be a -- a means
and a process for doing that. The backup item on the agenda
sort of suggests how it could be done. Court may have some
different thoughts on the matter, but it would propose that
we analyze the -- during the budget review process, that we
also review the department head, but separately, 'cause when
they come in front of us for budget purposes, it usually has
to do with the dollars and some things that they particularly
want. But what this proposes is that you analyze the entire
department, the workload, special projects, personnel,
equipment, services needed, and more importantly, detail the
personal and departmental accomplishments of each department
head in a given year, in a budget year, and also have the
department head indicate to the Court in a report what they
would like to accomplish in the ensuing year with respect to
the department, changes that they envision, streamlining for
efficient and effective methods for doing business and so
forth. Review the current salaries of employees, including
step and grade, recommendations for upgrades, some of which
9-8-08
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
occur during the budget process, and anything else that they
believe is important. It suggests that it be a written
report, and be submitted to the Court from every department
head each year, in advance -- and we can set the time, but in
advance essentially of the budget process getting underway.
So, I put it on the agenda for the Court's thoughts and
consideration, and see where it goes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I like almost everything it
said there. The only thing that -- that might be a
contention would be exactly how -- how do we go about doing
this thing? And do we want to do it in an executive session,
the full Court do it? Or do we want to appoint a couple of
members of this body to do the interviews, et cetera? My
choice would be that the whole Court do it in an executive
session. This Commissioners Court has done that before, and
I don't recall that it was -- there was anything wrong with
it at all. You know, it accomplished what -- I just like the
idea of all five of us being in the room, everybody hearing
the same thing, and et cetera, et cetera.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't disagree with that.
And this -- you could go either way you want. My preference
would be for the entire Court to do it, and if we need to
state that as a matter of policy, we can do so. But this
envisions the entire Court doing it, and envisions the
department heads submitting a written report prior to the
9-8-08
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
review process so everybody has a chance to review the
report, ask questions, get their questions lined up, and
comments.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree with that, agree with
doing it as a full Court. I think it's going to be helpful,
though, if we have somewhat of a standard form that we're
working off of, as opposed to everyone looking at this and
being more subjective. And I think if we can get H.R. to put
together a standard format -- which it appears that H.R. has
already done that.
MS. HYDE: For your review.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Maybe H.R. would like to
'~ review that with us.
JUDGE TINLEY: Certainly sprang to her feet in a --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: She did.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- quick manner.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: She did.
MS. HYDE: That's just for your review and
consideration.
JUDGE TINLEY: As usual, stapled on the right
instead of the left.
MS. HYDE: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I never have quite figured
that out.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: She's left-handed.
9-8-08
97
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That explains it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can you -- you found this
somewhere, I take it?
MS. HYDE: I'm sorry?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Did you find this and copy it,
or --
MS. HYDE: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You made it?
MS. HYDE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You made this little bugger
up all by yourself?
JUDGE TINLEY: Sounds as though there's some
doubting Thomases up here, doesn't it?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I was not among those.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Looks very good.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do you want to tell us
about it?
MS. HYDE: This is a career development -- we don't
have a whole lot of career development that goes on with the
appointed officials, so this can be used for not only the
department heads, but also for their individuals. It can be
used throughout the offices. And it's basically -- most of
the time when you do evaluations, those are very subjective.
Sometimes you like people more than others. Sometimes
there's some bias that integrates itself. It just happens.
9-8-08
98
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
With this, you've got 50 percent that you can be biased on,
and you got 50 percent that's straight numbers. I went ahead
and kind of updated some of the performance and job
responsibilities and requirements, 'cause we were doing
Collections, so I used some of Terry's stuff. But you set
the plan, you set the goals. You meet your goals or you
don't. So, it makes it -- it makes it quite simple. When
you get to the subjective part, that is more, you know, do
you -- do you need improvement? Do you meet expectations?
Do you exceed expectations? And it's 1 through 6. Then it
figures it up for you. It automatically figures it up on the
computer; this is all computerized. I don't like the paper
stuff. And then on the last page, what you were talking
about, here's your goals and here's your plans for the next
year. Are you going to meet them? It does -- it does have a
six-month evaluation -- a reevaluation, just to make sure
that you're still on track to meet or exceed the goals and
expectations.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I like it. Thank you for
doing it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the other information would
just be an attachment to this?
MS. HYDE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, this could become the
9-8-08
99
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
model that we use with the policy. It meets everything that
I had envisioned.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, let's do something
here. What do y'all want to do?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would move that we
establish an annual process for the evaluation of heads of
departments that report directly to Commissioners Court, and
use as our model for review the Career Development Employee
Appraisal form as provided to the Court by Human Resources
Department, Ms. Hyde.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And incorporate your --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And incorporate --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, incorporate your backup
on the agenda item for the other information?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
indicated. Question or discussion on the motion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: My question is, when are we
going to do it?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That was my question.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, you can do it.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You already asked it, so all
right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All right.
9-8-08
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
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I would say it be done in
June, before the -- before the budget process starts.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, that's kind of what I
envision, Commissioner, that it's part of the process. It
certainly could come just immediately before we really get
into the nuts and bolts of the budget. And you're certainly
not going to spring it on people and expect them to do it
this year, but they now have a warning that we're going to do
it, so effective June of '09 is fine with me.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is -- June's all right. I was
going to say June is the when the budget gets going; a lot of
people are pretty busy already. I'd move it up to May.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: May is fine.
JUDGE TINLEY: May, I think, is probably --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: May would be good. That's
fine.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It needs to be done after
the Christmas gifts -- not gifts. (Laughter.) The Christmas
lists have been --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Freudian slip?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Whatever. You know, after
they've made their requests of what they want in the
following-year budget. And the evaluation would be a part of
that, in my opinion.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You're thinking it ought to
9-8-08
101
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
be about this time of year?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. No, earlier than this.
Earlier than this, like the May thing. The May thing will
work. Don't you have your requests --
JUDGE TINLEY: We generally start in May, but we
generally start getting the bulk of most of those in starting
in June.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why don't we say that they
be submitted to the Court by each department head no later
than May 30th of each year? That way it's -- whenever they
get it is fine in May, but no later than May 30th.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, they should have their
wish list by then.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Ms. Hyde?
(Low-voice discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Should I go back to the
Christmas gifts?
MS. HYDE: Maybe we could suggest that, because
this is the first time, that we have a mock drawn up so that
you guys can see what people are doing. Is that how you want
it? Is that how you want it presented? So that all the
department heads are kind of on the same page.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why don't you and I work
together to perfect the plan? That work for you? Work for
9-8-08
102
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the Court?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sure.
JUDGE TINLEY: Further question or discussion on
the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Thank you for
your work, Ms. Hyde.
MS. HYDE: You're welcome, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: We'll go to Item 19, to consider,
discuss, and take appropriate action regarding the fees paid
for the use of the Hill Country Youth Exhibit Center, and
address possible consequences to groups that do not clean up
after their events. Commissioner Oehler.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Some of what happens at the
Ag Barn during the course of the year, as we -- and this one
particular instance I'm going to bring up, I think we need to
-- the reason we need to talk about it is because we don't
need to, in my opinion, let nonprofits who ride in on events
that are County-sponsored basically get in without paying
their fair share of what nonprofits would pay based on our
fee schedule. And the one I mention is the upcoming -- in
October, is the 4-H and Sunrise Lion's Club wild game dinner.
9-8-08
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
In years past, the Sunrise Lions have not paid a dime for the
use of that facility, and I don't believe that they should be
treated any differently than any of the other nonprofits that
book that facility for various events. That's why I bring it
to the Court. The 4-H is not required to pay. And so it's
my feeling that they have had -- and I have visited a little
bit with some other folks that tell me others that would like
to ride in on those events because they don't have to pay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I was going to ask that
question.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And so that's why I put on it
the agenda. I think we need to pass some kind of a rule
about those kind of things, or else just state that this is
going to -- the way it's going to be.
'~ COMMISSIONER LETZ: What do they do with the
proceeds? Sunrise --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: They're split 50/50.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If they're making a profit out
of it, I agree with you. If 100 percent of the proceeds were
going to 4-H --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's not the case. They
are splitting the profits 50/50, and --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do we have established in
our fee structure there a cleanup fee which is a deposit in
advance?
9-8-08
104
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We do, and that -- that fee
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- for example?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: But from what Mr. Bollier
up. And so I think we need to put basically everybody on
notice, even the 4-H and stock show and everybody that uses
that facility, that, you know, they got to start putting up a
deposit if they don't intend to clean up what they brought
in. Because, you know, we don't -- the County, I believe, is
responsible for a lot of things, but, you know, they could at
least put the trash into containers. They could strip the
tables. And we don't expect them to sweep and mop, 'cause
community service does most of that. But, you know, it
should not be left in a -- in a bad condition like it has
been. And I think that that's something that the Court needs
to emphasize with those organizations, that, you know, all
the citizens pay for this, and it's not up to all the
citizens to clean up everybody's mess when the event's over.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner, it seems like you've
9-8-08
105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
got two main focuses here, the first one being that any time
there's an organization, nonprofit or otherwise, that
partners up with --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: County-sponsored organization.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- a county-sponsored or -- let's
say it's a commercial and partners up with a nonprofit.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: And in doing so, is going to derive
some benefit from the proceeds, that we're suggesting that
whatever rate is applicable, say, in the case of a free user
such as 4-H, and the partnering organization is a nonprofit,
the nonprofit rate would apply. And if there's a nonprofit
that's partnered up with a commercial outfit, the commercial
rate ought to apply.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's right.
JUDGE TINLEY: If either one of those derives
benefit from it.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I agree. That's why this is
here, because it's -- I know for a fact they haven't paid
anything. And -- and I asked Roy Walston earlier about how
much 4-H made out of that event last year, and they each made
about 10,000 bucks a piece. And so they can -- the other
nonprofit can sure enough pay the nonprofit rate, and also
put up a deposit, in my opinion.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't disagree with where
9-8-08
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
you're going. I think that's good. A question comes to
mind. For example, if a -- like, meat goat producers or
whatever link up with the stock show to have a sale out
there, same principle?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Same principle.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: If it's anything that's
deriving profit from an event held out there, and it's not a
County-sponsored, it -- they need to pay whatever the rate is
and whatever it says on the schedule, 'cause we approved that
schedule for nonprofits as well as the ones that are
commercial.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do you want to get down to detail of
whatever the split arrangement is as between the two
organizations? For example, 4-H/Lions, and they're going to
split it 50/50, so Lions should pay one-half of what the
nonprofit rate should be.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Exactly.
JUDGE TINLEY: If that's the split.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Exactly. That's the way I
see it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree. I think we probably
should bring back our policy and incorporate these changes so
we only have one document, as opposed to multiple documents.
9-8-08
107
1
2
3 agre
4 depc
5 as c
6 regL
7 way.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree with that, and also
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I had a good experience last
year with the Stock Show Association. We had -- remember,
they had their annual show and sale, and the very following
-- no, it was the fundraiser. The following Monday after
Saturday night, we had Hill Country Telephone coming in, who
had themselves a meeting with about 1,000 people. And I met
with -- I talked to the stock show group last year and said,
"Look, we don't have the staff to turn this thing around in
one day without you cleaning up a lot of the things that --
you know, strip the tables, put the chairs on the tables, and
we'll come in
real nice job
to 4-H events
there. It's
teaching tool
and cle
of it.
and any
not that
for the
~n the rest." And they
I think the same thing
other County-sponsored
hard. That's a good -
kids to help with the
did it. Did a
needs to apply
that go on out
- that's a good
dean-up as well
as, you know, they derive money out of that to -- to help
them pay for a lot of things throughout the year, and it's a
-- I think it just needs to be done as part of the use of
9-8-08
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
that facility.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, like Commissioner Letz says, I
think we need to -- we need to expand the policy to include
those particular concerns so that we've got it there as a
matter of public record.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, should we just --
should we make a motion to amend or add this to the policy,
the general policy for the use of that building?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. What I -- what would probably
be more appropriate is that the policy itself be reworked to
include those items, and then bring back the policy as
amended for --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- approval by the Court, I would
think, because then you've got specific language and
instances that you're -- that you're looking at.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We need to get it on there
before the 22nd, because that -- or on the next meeting.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Because that event is going
to be October the 4th, I believe. And I kind of wanted to do
this, put them on notice up front that that was going to be a
change. I think this has gone on for seven years, and it's a
great event, but, you know, all the taxpayers have a vested
9-8-08
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
109
interest in this, and I don't believe we ought to be
subsidizing a non-County-sponsored event.
JUDGE TINLEY: Equity is equity.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If you think it would help, us
doing a court order today, we could do one authorizing the
changes, and then stating that the actual language will be
brought back at our next meeting.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That would be fine.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
indicated for the amendments to the Exhibit Center use
policy. Further question or discussion on the motion? All
in favor, 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. We'll move
to Item 20; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to
enter into interlocal agreement with Bexar County Appellate
Public Defender's Office to authorize appointment of that
office for indigent defendant appeals of criminal cases from
Kerr County courts. I put this on the agenda not because I
believe it will be the primary handler of appellate cases,
9-8-08
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
110
since they've changed their -- their method of operation down
there. And I understand that our trial judges have indicated
that they, for the most part, intend to use specific
appointments here within Kerr County for appellate work on
criminal cases. The reason I put it on the agenda was so
that we had another option. By approving the contract, we
incur no obligation, but if an occasion should arise that
there's not available attorneys to handle the appellate
cases, or there are conflicts that -- that prevent that from
occurring, we do have another option so that those cases can
be timely appealed. So, that was my reasoning in putting it
on the agenda.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No obligation?
JUDGE TINLEY: That's correct, no obligation.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Who makes the decision?
JUDGE TINLEY: The trial judge. The trial judge in
each instance would make the decision as to whether or not to
designate this public defender's office to handle that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
'~ JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Question or discussion? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
9-8-08
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
111
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. We'll move
to Item 21; consider, discuss, take appropriate action on
requested joint resolution of City of Kerrville, City of
Ingram, and Kerr County in approval and adoption of the
the Court recalls when we signed a joint resolution with the
City of Kerrville for the development of an economic
in January of this year, designated the -- the formation and
operation of an incentives policy committee, which began
meeting in February of this year. The work on that committee
was concluded and is now being presented. The incentive
policy is what's being presented to you for approval. The
Ingram City Council approved the policy last Tuesday, I
believe it was. It is scheduled to be presented to the
Kerrville City Council tomorrow evening, all on the same
joint resolution to approve the incentive policy. A draft of
the incentive policy was submitted to you -- I'm going to say
approximately 60 days ago, and then approximately 30 days ago
now, the actual proposed economic development incentive
9-8-08
112
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
policy was furnished. I note that we have some of the people
that have an interest in that process. Mr. Bondy's here. I
don't see anyone else that was on the committee. If you have
any questions about it, we'd be happy to answer you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The committee that looks at
this, there's three -- three at-large members?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are we rolling over the ones
that were on that committee? I can't remember. Or are we
going to appoint new members to that committee?
JUDGE TINLEY: The resolution which is in place
does not provide for the rollover of those members. The --
the resolution which is in place provides that the other six
members of the committee actually designate and appoint the
three community members of the committee.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: And the current community members
are Dr. Dan Troxel, Warren Ferguson, and Diane Green. And
then, of course, the other six are designated in the existing
resolution that call for the formation of the committee.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So the six will choose the
I three?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what you did to
begin with?
9-8-08
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
113
JUDGE TINLEY: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And if you have a vacancy,
the six will pick the vacancy?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval of the joint
resolution of the City of Kerrville, City of Ingram, and Kerr
County, and adopt the economic incentive policy as developed
and proposed.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And authorize County Judge to
sign?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And authorize County Judge
to sign same.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and a second for
approval of the agenda item. Question or discussion on the
motion? All 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. Let's go to
Item 22; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on
requested memorandum of understanding between Kerr County and
the Supreme Court of Texas for support of continuity of court
i operations in the event of an emergency. This matter was
9-8-08
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
submitted to me by one of our District Judges, and I would
note that the communication that you see, I made a note on
there that it was mailed on August the 14th from Austin,
dated July the 22nd. They've got a -- they've got a little
problem over there getting their mail out. Either that, or
they got some pretty poor pickup by the Post Office
Department. This basically says that we will do what we can
to make our facilities available for the continuation of --
of court operations and services as may be needed to continue
the judicial process in the event of any sort of natural
disaster or emergency.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yippee.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's the end of it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll second that emotion.
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: That motion does carry. The next
Item, 23, consider, discuss, and review county investment
policy and take appropriate action to make any necessary or
desired changes to the investment policy. Ms. Hargis?
9-8-08
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: There should be none this year,
because the Legislature won't meet until next year. We
should expect some next year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is just an annual
requirement?
MS. HARGIS: It's an annual requirement that you
just review it. There's no changes. I recommend you don't
make them unless they're statutorily required, unless there's
some that you want to do.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I make a motion that we make no
changes to the County investment policy at this time.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If we need an action on it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
indicated. Further question or discussion on that motion?
All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right
hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, we just took action on
~ nothing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On doing nothing. But I think
we're supposed to do it annually.
9-8-08
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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Renewal of the old, right?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I love it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's go to Item 24;
consider, discuss, take appropriate action on whether COLA
granted to Kerr County elected officials in FY '08-'09 budget
should be applicable to judicial officers whose salaries are
established by state statute. I put this on the agenda
because there have been some recent changes to the state
statutes dealing with the compensation of judicial officers
that are, in part or in whole, compensated by -- by state
funds. In furtherance of that particular -- the most recent
County Court at Law Judge, including state supplements, to --
from $124,000 to $139,000. That was the minimum required
under the recent amendments to state statutes. The
requirement is that the compensation be not less than $1,000
less than -- than that paid to the District Judges of this
county, including any supplements which -- which they
receive. Their state compensation presently is $125,000,
plus they get a $15,000 supplement, which brings them up to a
total of $140,000; hence, I put the County Court at Law Judge
in at 139. Now, with regard to the District Judges, as far
9-8-08
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
as I know, they're still county elected officials, and we
have that situation also where their compensation is
determined by state statutes, and anything we do here, since
the caps have been taken off of their salaries, would then
therefore become applicable to all of those judicial
officers, both statutory county courts and district courts
I~ here in Kerr County. That's my take on it.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Are you saying that the COLA
that was approved or proposed would -- would apply to them as
well?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, because of the change in state
statutes, because the caps were removed by legislative
enactment. They were previously capped, but now they're not
capped. We can -- we can continue to supplement their
salaries above a cap, and it's done in a number of counties.
I think probably the -- by information, I'm told that El Paso
County was one. They were thinking Harris County. Aren't
there some others, Judge Brown?
JUDGE BROWN: I don't know.
JUDGE TINLEY: But there are a number of them that
have increased their supplements because of -- because of
what their -- their workload is, I assume. I don't know.
But it was done by the county. Did you wish to be heard on
this, Judge Brown?
JUDGE BROWN: Well, I don't know. What am I
9-8-08
118
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
supposed to say? I'm a county employee. I've been a county
employee for 26 years, so -- or twenty -- you know, 24, I
think. So, y'all passed -- I didn't have anything to do with
Says so on the wall; I got a plaque.
(Laughter.)
something.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, the way the agenda
blab. Are we just talking about a cost-of-living adjustment,
or are we talking about those occasions when a salary
adjustment may be also given to county elected officials?
What exactly are we talking about? Either or both?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, the agenda item is for a COLA.
If you'll recall, there was a -- there was a COLA that was
approved at the last meeting of this Court --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- for elected officials. And the
way that action was finalized, in my opinion, would include
the elected officials of Kerr County who were previously
capped, and that would include the County Court at Law Judge,
the District Judges, and I believe --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: District Attorney?
9-8-08
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
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Yeah, conceivably. But
District Attorney is totally State-paid.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: But he would get that -- he
would get that 10 percent -- 10.381 that was approved at the
last meeting?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, aren't District
Judges also totally State-paid?
JUDGE TINLEY: No. No, we presently pay a
supplement to District Judges.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Does the -- go to the District
Attorney, which is all State-paid. Obviously, we can't
mandate that the State's going to increase their salary.
JUDGE TINLEY: No. No.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, we just start paying a
portion of their salary?
JUDGE TINLEY: We would pay a supplement.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Which would be the COLA in
this instance.
JUDGE TINLEY: If they're not capped by statute.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But what if they -- I mean,
don't they get -- when their salaries are reviewed by the
state, aren't COLA's figured in?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I'm not sure what's figured
in. But when the state statute changes, as it did here very
9-8-08
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
recently, for example, Judge Brown was capped at $1,000 below
what the District Judges made. It couldn't go above that,
$1,000 below. Now the change says it shall not be less than
$1,000 below, but there's no cap.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Can be more than, but not
less than.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's exactly right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But how -- I guess my question
is, how often does the state adjust all those salaries?
Every two years?
JUDGE TINLEY: They have that opportunity. I don't
know how often they've done it. I've not looked at the
historical activities.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I don't think it's
right to give a COLA on top of a COLA if the State has been
giving adjustments to that salary primarily based on a COLA.
'Cause their workload may have shifted, but the job
description hasn't changed. I mean, haven't done anything
different. If they're getting COLA's every two years, I
don't think we should add a COLA on top of that. But if
there -- it's been stagnated for 10 years or 5 years,
whatever, I think it is appropriate. But I think you need to
know what the State is doing.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, previously --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or has done.
9-8-08
121
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Previously, like I say, till this
past year, they were capped and they weren't -- they weren't
considered, because their salaries were capped. They could
not receive more.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: But the most recent legislative
action changed that, and now that cap no longer exists.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I understand there's a cap, but
my question is, did it increase two years ago, and is it -- I
mean, every two years, has the Legislature increased those
salaries? Have they been doing that in the past? If they
', have, I would presume they're going to in the future, because
they tend to look after doing that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, as I indicated, the budget
which I filed increased, in Judge Brown's case, the
compensation from a total of 124 to 139.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Based on --
JUDGE TINLEY: Based on state statute.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: What are you saying, Rex?
MR. EMERSON: If I'm not mistaken, the District
Judges got a raise for the first time in six years in that
last legislative session. 'Cause it seems like it was three
sessions before anything changed.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are they -- do you have any
idea what the increase was, since a lot of these salaries are
9-8-08
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
tied to --
MR. EMERSON: I'm sorry, I don't know. But you're
talking about the District Attorneys and the District Judges,
I think the other part -- two parts of that question. The
other part is -- is that we only pay a percentage of that
supplement. Like, on the 198th, we're one of five counties,
so --
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
MR. EMERSON: -- y'all need to decide
percentage-wise how you're going to apply that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Probably certainly we're only
going to do it for the part -- if we do it at all, on the
part for Kerr County, for the D.A.'s and the -- for both
D.A.'s and both judges.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Up to the other counties to
give them anything if they want them to have it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's an interesting
point. If we were to grant the COLA adjustment predicated on
what we've talked about and indicated and done in the past
for Kerr County employees, and one of the other counties in
the judicial district chose to do something different, that
is a possibility, isn't it?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: A likelihood.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's a likelihood, more
9-8-08
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
than likely. Doesn't apply to Judge Brown, but applies to
upstairs.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, that part, to me, is
easy. I mean, any cost-of-living or salary adjustment to any
elected official, only the portion that Kerr County pays is
subject to that increase.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Judge, did you include all
this in your estimate, you and Ms. Hargis, after the last
Commissioners Court meeting?
JUDGE TINLEY: No. What I --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: This would be in addition to.
JUDGE TINLEY: What I -- what I filed with the
budget in Judge Brown's instance was the base minimum of 139.
He increased from 124 to 139. Now, that -- that's county
portion and state supplement combined, so that we're in
compliance with the state statute.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No COLA. No COLA?
JUDGE TINLEY: No, that was not in the budget.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's a pretty hefty
increase right there without the COLA.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, your --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Judge Brown, don't you hit
I me.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Your recommendation here is
9-8-08
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
124
that we not pay the County Court at Law, District Judges, and
D.A.'s the COLA?
JUDGE TINLEY: My purpose in bringing it was
because there's a rational distinction between county
employees, county elected officials, as we've come to know
county elected officials, that we have total control over the
salary, and those who are -- whose salary and compensation is
primarily set by state statute. Now, I -- I limited my
agenda item to the judicial officers. I'm not sure of the
applicability of --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: D.A.'s.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- of prosecutors.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. I'm going to take
that as a yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I see that there's a reason
for the distinction, and the Legislature made a significant
change from what we had done previously.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Have we ever applied the COLA
to those? I mean, to any of the of these other offices?
JUDGE TINLEY: No, we did not, because they were
capped.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They were capped.
JUDGE TINLEY: They were capped.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: A11 the -- I mean, I know that
County Court at Law was capped. Were the others capped?
9-8-08
125
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yes. District Judges were
'I capped?
JUDGE TINLEY: County Attorney, I think, was
capped. But there was a change in his instance that allowed
a small portion -- $1,600 and change? Does that sound about
right, Rex?
MR. EMERSON: More or less.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. About 1,600 bucks, I think.
There was that much room with him, based upon the new
legislation. You recall having seen the schedule of elected
officials. Customarily, in years past, that schedule has not
included the District Judges or County Court at Law Judge.
The reason was because they were capped, and they're only
placed on the schedule if there was to be some sort of an
increase, and so they were not put on the schedule. They
just weren't on the radar screen, for the most part.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, so now they -- now the
Legislature, in all of its wisdom, --
JUDGE TINLEY: Has put them --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- has put the monkey on us.
JUDGE TINLEY: But they've put them on the radar
screen.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Once again.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, now their salaries are
published like everybody else's; is that correct?
9-8-08
126
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, if --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If there's an increase.
~ JUDGE TINLEY: If there's an increase, yeah.
'~~ COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: And even -- even irrespective of the
~ COLA, they'll have -- Judge Brown, for example, will have to
be on there because of that legislation from the state
Legislature.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, my -- I guess my view
is, the COLA shouldn't apply because we don't set their
salaries. And if -- I just hate to see -- I mean, their
adjustments are made at the state level whenever they choose
to make it in the Legislature. They're making those
adjustments primarily for COLA reasons, I would think,
cost-of-living. I mean, the work is the work. And I think
that if -- you know, if the Legislature wants to give us the
authority to set their salaries, then we'll set the COLA's.
But if the State's going to set the salary levels, we'll let
them handle it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Judge Brown?
JUDGE BROWN: I'll just point out that the State
did set our salaries -- my salary, and now they don't set my
salary, because I'm -- you know, you can give me any amount.
It can't be --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They set your minimum salary.
9-8-08
127
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE BROWN: Yeah, can't be less than. But, I
mean, I just -- so they really don't set it. It's just
whatever y'all decide.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, but they --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Went from 125 to 139.
JUDGE BROWN: I got no problem with that.
(Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I wouldn't think you'd have a
problem with it. But do we need to add another $13,900 more
on top of that?
JUDGE BROWN: I'll give five of it back to my
secretary. She gets five off the top. I give her five of my
salary supplement.
JUDGE TINLEY: Judge Brown does defer from his
state supplement 5,000 of that supplement to benefit his
court coordinator.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that it gets into a --
a real different situation if we start setting salaries and
they start setting salaries. I think they're sitting -- they
took it over to set the salaries. Let them set the salaries.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And the COLA's.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I understand it's a minimum in
your case, but they're -- those minimums get ratcheted up
when they see fit to ratchet them up. Like they did, I
guess, this year.
9-8-08
128
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All right. Designate who --
II who we're dealing with here, now. Is the D.A.'s included in
this thing or not?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I don't think the agenda item
will allow that. I think we can only work with judicial
officers.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: By the agenda item.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Why did you do it that way?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, probably because of oversight.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a good reason.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: But we can do this again.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'm with Jonathan on this
deal. Let them set them. I don't think the COLA should
apply. In my opinion, it's outrageous what we've done,
anyway.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Did I have a motion over here?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I make the motion --
JUDGE TINLEY: All right.
9-8-08
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
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- we do not include the
District Judges -- the judicial in our COLA increases.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is the motion to approve
the agenda item?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: No, to not include elected judicial
officers whose salaries are established by state statute in
our COLA granted to Kerr County.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Does that include --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the District Judges
and the County Court at Law Judge?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And who else?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I realize that I'm taking my
life into my own hands.
JUDGE TINLEY: Which you've done before.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Which I have been known to do
I before.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and a second.
~ Question or comment?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's make it clear, if we
can, the reasoning behind our actions. And I think
Commissioner Letz is probably closer than anybody, in my
opinion. And that -- do you want to restate who sets the
9-8-08
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
salaries?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, the State has chosen --
the Legislature has chosen to set at least the minimum
salaries, you know, of District Judges and County Court at
Law Judges. And if they're going to set those salaries, I
presume when they set those, that they're looking at COLA's
as part of their factor.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Whereas, the opposite side
of that would be if -- if we set -- set the total salary for
them, then we were in control and we can put a COLA if we
I want to.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Or we'll know if there's a
COLA or not.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know if they've been
getting COLA's figured in or not, but you have to presume for
some reason they give them increases.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Got over 10 percent this
year, what they set -- what was readjusted.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think that's a good
I reason.
JUDGE TINLEY: Further question or discussion? All
in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
9-8-08
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
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We all hang together.
JUDGE TINLEY: We'll move to Item 25; consider,
discuss, and take appropriate action to establish Kerr County
holiday schedule for fiscal year '08-'09. I think H.R. has
placed a proposed one here before you, but there's some
alternates for selection.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How many did we have this
', year?
~ MS. HYDE: I'm sorry?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How many approved holidays
this year? Current budget year.
MS. HYDE: There's 14 listed here, and if you
decide to do both on Christmas and New Year's, that will take
it to 16.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Seems like I talked to someone
about doing both on Christmas -- Christmas is on what, a
Wednesday -- a Thursday?
MS. HYDE: Thursday.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Didn't we talk about
eliminating Columbus Day and doing something different around
Christmas? Didn't I talk to someone? I didn't talk to you
about that?
JUDGE TINLEY: I think they were messing with Texas
9-8-08
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
Independence Day, but we've already swapped that one for the
January holiday, as I recall. Isn't that right, Commissioner
Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That is correct, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, on Christmas, which day
will be the holiday? And same with New Year's.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Thursday and Friday.
MS. HYDE: They're both on Thursday.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thursday and Friday?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think that's a good idea to
do the Friday after the day.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm not all that sanguine
about Columbus Day. I don't remember Columbus sailing up the
Guadalupe to discover Kerr County. (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Didn't know him personally,
huh?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No. But I've seen some
people who've met him -- talked to some who met him. They're
the same people who tell you about cattle guards -- cattle
guards moving.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So -- so Christmas will be --
Christmas Eve will be a work day? And then Christmas Day and
day after is a holiday.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think that's a good plan.
Don't you?
9-8-08
133
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, I have no problem with
that. And then New Year's Day and the day after?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I prefer the day after.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We have to have New Year's Day,
though. We don't historically give two days at New Year's,
do we?
MS. HYDE: It has been for the last five years.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We've done New Year's Eve?
Okay. Then come to work on January 2.
MS. HYDE: Yes, but I think the question had been
in the past because some people were -- I spoke out of turn.
Nevermind.
MR. EMERSON: Recovering from moving cattle guards.
MS. HYDE: Thank you. (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Old Rex speaks our language,
doesn't he?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, he's right there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pretty sharp County
~ Attorney.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I would say New Year's Day
and the day after. I wouldn't say New Year's Eve. And then
that's -- if you're going to do that, you're going to -- you
won't have anybody show up anyway.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And how many do we have this
year? How many holidays?
9-8-08
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
MS. HYDE: On this sheet, there were 14.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're adding one. If we go to
this schedule, we're going to 15. We need --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: This includes Columbus Day.
MS. HYDE: I thought you were taking out Columbus
Day.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Get rid of Columbus Day and
do this.
JUDGE TINLEY: No, I count 14, including Columbus
Day.
MS. HYDE: Yes, there were 14 including Columbus
Day, but there was a different change. We were supposed to
discuss it, so you guys just said to not have Columbus Day,
which takes you down to 13.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Only problem is, Columbus Day
is a banking holiday, and that's not a good thing to have
offices closed whenever we're open.
JUDGE TINLEY: We've also got public hearings set
for the day after Columbus Day, by court order earlier today.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Go to the other easier one.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Why don't we just leave it
alone?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On Independence Day, are we
going to have Friday or Monday as a holiday?
MS. HYDE: July 4th is Saturday.
9-8-08
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 WILLIAMS: Pardon?
MS. HYDE: July 4th is on Saturday.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: When's the federal holiday?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Monday.
MS. HYDE: Monday.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Let's do Monday, then. Should
be the 6th. Okay. Caleb, you might note we give holidays
both for Memorial Day and Labor Day, unlike K.I.S.D.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Those days are not important.
(Low-voice discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, we -- so Columbus day is
in, and this matches our same number as this year, correct,
Ms. Hyde?
MS. HYDE: It will --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Can't hear you.
MS. HYDE: It will make it 14 if you leave Columbus
Day in.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We have 13 this year?
MS. HYDE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, Columbus Day comes out. I
make a motion we adopt the holiday schedule, with eliminating
Columbus Day. Christmas will be the 25th and 26th; New
Year's will be the 1st and the 2nd, and Independence Day will
be the 6th. Otherwise, it will be as presented.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
9-8-08
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 as
indicated. Further question or discussion on that motion?
All in favor of that motion, signify by raising your right
hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Gentlemen,
do we want to go back and reschedule some public hearings?
I
ICI COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Probably better.
JUDGE TINLEY: On Item 9, we've set a public
hearing for 10/14/08 at 10:10 a.m. Would it be appropriate
to change the date to 10/13 but otherwise leave the time the
same?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is that a motion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's a motion.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to change
the public hearing on that Item 9 to 10/13/08 at 10:10 a.m.
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.)
9-8-08
137
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: On Item 10, I'll recall that item
dealing with the concept plan for revision of plat for Lots
11 and 12 of Four Seasons. That public hearing is set for
10/14/08 at 10 a.m. Would it be appropriate to change it to
10/13?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval to change public hearing date from 10/13 instead of
10/14, and leave the time the same. 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: Do we have any more?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We need to make certain
that the participants are notified of the changes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Road and Bridge. Let Road and
Bridge know, Jody.
JUDGE TINLEY: Did we not set a public hearing --
or we had a public hearing under Item 11, okay. Okay. Do we
break for lunch and come back after lunch? Or do we charge
forward?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Break for lunch.
9-8-08
138
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Break for lunch.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Break for lunch.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I don't need to vote.
JUDGE TINLEY: We'll be in recess to reconvene at
1:30.
(Recess taken from 12:05 p.m. to 1:35 p.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's come back to order, if
we might. We were in recess for lunch. Okay. The next item
on the Court's agenda is Number 26; consider, discuss, and
take appropriate action on proposed pay increases for elected
officials and department heads for FY '08-'09. Commissioner
Oehler asked that this item be placed on the agenda.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I did. I've done a lot of
thinking about what's -- what's been done with all the
approved increases or proposed increases for elected
officials and department heads. I have no quarrel at all
with what we approved for the hourly employees, 'cause in the
beginning, when the department heads and elected officials
came to us first part of the budget, they were willing to
give up everything they could in their budgets to fund pay
increases that would equal 10 percent for all the hourly
employees, which I fully support. And that grew from that
into a 10.381 percent for all, including elected officials
and department heads, and an additional 2 and a half for our
9-8-08
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
hourly people. In my opinion, we have -- we have some that's
not warranted. It's too much in one year. All the elected
officials and department heads got 7 percent last year, which
I voted against for them -- or for the elected officials, for
sure.
So, I feel like that -- that we need to talk about
it again, and I think we have other discrepancies in these
departments other than just a few. For instance, Animal
Control and Maintenance and Environmental Health are -- are
vital points and parts of this county operation, and those
three department heads are making less than $40,000 a year.
I think they need to be brought up. Even with the
10 percent, they're going to be -- they're going to still be
under that. I think there are individual departments that we
need to address to get some parity with some other
departments, and those three being the -- I guess my target
ones. I do not want a 10 percent increase in my salary --
10.381. And you can call it COLA, you can call it whatever
the heck you want to call it, but it's still an increase in
salary.
I proposed at the last -- the last Commissioners
Court meeting that elected officials get 5 percent and
department heads 5 percent, and leave the other employees
like we had it. That was -- that never did come to a vote.
That would be my proposal today, is that we would do
9-8-08
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
5 percent for each one of those, and we commit to do that --
do some increases as needed each year, rather than trying to
do all this at one time. All this and other tight budget
tax rate the way it was figured to go above what our last
year's rate was. I think it's too much, and I think we need
to make some adjustments in it. It's just -- the people that
are going to bear this additional cost are going to be the
people that are under 65 and have -- don't have their taxes
frozen, which is about probably close to 60 percent of the
people are going to pay 100 percent of the increase. I don't
think it's fair to do that much at one time when we can do
less and we can commit to doing a little bit each year,
rather than hitting this kind of a percentage in one year.
If -- if this stands and gets approved and into the budget
and into the tax rate, it's huge for one year.
I think the Sheriff also ought to make more money.
I think that he's -- he is too close to what his -- his chief
deputy makes, and I think there needs to be a fairly good
gap. He has the largest department in Kerr County. He is
responsible	for	over 100 employees	and runs	the county jail,
and I think	his	-- even with the 10	percent	that he would
get, I still think he's not where he should be. I think he
ought to be a little bit higher, and I think these other
9-8-08
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
loss is going to be somewhere in the neighborhood of a
million, until this thing levels off at some point.
So, I think we ought to take care of the
discrepancies and get some of our department heads up where
they should be paid for the jobs they're doing, and then the
elected officials and department heads -- the rest of the
department heads should take less increase this year, and
look toward next year and the year after that. But 10.381,
in my opinion, for all elected officials and all department
heads, plus two and a half for department heads, is too much
in one year. And that's really about all I got to say about
it. And I doubt that there will be a motion to that effect,
unless I make one. And I make one that we do just exactly
what I said, and that would be the 5 percent elected,
5 percent department heads, and -- and then to raise Animal
Control, Maintenance, and Environmental Health Department
heads up to $45,000 a year each, and raise the Sheriff to
$85,000.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion. Do I hear a
9-8-08
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
second?
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Hearing no second, that motion will
die for lack of a second.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I will discuss it a little
more, if I may. I don't disagree with a lot of what Bruce
i
~' says. I think that the -- the department heads, and I've
said this several times before, have gotten adjusted fairly
frequently, in the past five years anyway, based on primarily
i
turnover. We've made changes in staff and promoted from
within, made adjustments here and there, and I don't disagree
with that part of the motion. Those three that you mentioned
probably should be paid more, based on the responsibilities
that they have. And I don't -- I really don't have a strong
disagreement with what you said about the Sheriff. I think
that the -- as you know, I voted with you before on the -- I
don't think the department heads should get the step
increase. That was the reason I voted against the previous
budget discussions on salaries and all that. But I think
that it isn't right to, when the cost-of-living is a certain
amount, to not compensate for the cost-of-living. And the
other thing I -- I'm not sure where you're going on the tax
rate. The reason we are where we are is because we haven't
done this tax increase. And I think the Judge brought this
up, you know, hopefully before, and even if I was to go along
9-8-08
143
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
with your proposal, which I'm not too far off of you on that,
I still want the tax rate to stay where it is, because we've
got to get -- we've got to get the reserves built up, and the
dollars we're talking about in our total budget are not that
done it two years ago or three years ago. We didn't do it,
and we're paying that price now. And the citizens are paying
that price too, but we also didn't increase their taxes
probably when we should have.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So, would you go along with
taking away the two and a half percent additional for
department heads?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me make a comment or
two. What you said deserves some comments. I appreciate
your position, and I too would be willing to revisit the step
for department heads. It was included in the motion last
time, but I am certainly willing to revisit it. I just have
a hard time with selective increases for certain department
heads. And I appreciate that there may be some that for
years were neglected, didn't get what they, today, perhaps
deserve, and certainly those that you mention are among them.
But that also is -- even though it's a COLA, what the Court
has proposed to do helps those folks catch up a pretty good
9-8-08
144
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
bit, and if we need to do more next year, we can do more next
year. But in closing, I would reiterate I'd be willing to
revisit the step -- step and grade, whether we include
department heads in that.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: The reason I say about the --
those three departments is because they are so far behind
some other departments, you know. And I guess Juvenile
Probation is one of those departments, and not taking away
from what he does. Or, you know, Juvenile Detention would be
another one, and Road and Bridge Department, another one.
Those department heads are paid so much more. And, yes, they
do have responsibilities, but I'm just saying some of these
others have also taken on board responsibilities. Animal
Control now does county-wide animal control, rabies,
everything else. It was the city of Kerrville and basically
the county outside of Ingram, but that -- and another
additional duty went on there without having any compensation
for it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, it's always been us
doing the animal control in the city; we just had a contract.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: But not with -- but not with
Ingram.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not -- no, but not with
Ingram.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That came on later. And, you
9-8-08
145
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
know, there are a lot of things. Environmental Health now is
doing a lot more than what they did with enforcing the solid
waste issue.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And they're doing it well.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And they're doing it well.
And they're also -- they're a trigger for some of our
subdivision rules and regs that catch things that normally
wouldn't be caught. And, oh, I just feel like that we need
to make adjustments whenever adjustments are justified for
what people and their responsibilities are with their jobs.
And by doing percentage increases, it just widens the gap.
The ones at the top get a lot more total dollars than the
ones at the bottom, and that's why I want -- I'm in favor of
the lowest paid people getting that extra two and a half
percent.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I wouldn't object to, you know,
revisiting the three department heads you're talking about in
this year's budget, or wait till next year, either way. The
Sheriff, I think, is in the situation of his chief deputy --
that we've always been aware of that and we've always kept
him, you know, above it. We've had various -- or try to keep
him above that one position. The current court order, I
think, is still in place of 5,000 -- 5,000 above it.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And, you know, I think we need
9-8-08
146
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to try to --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I believe the gap should be
wider than what it is.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I, frankly, think the
Sheriff ought to be earning the same thing as the city's
Chief of Police. How do you get there?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, you either bite the
bullet and do it, like what you're proposing to do with
everybody, or you take and you address those specific need
areas that you feel like are not paid adequately, and address
them that way, rather than do it with a percentage all the
way across. At least get them up to where they should be,
and not -- not just doing it across the board with a
percentage. And then with the percentage increases along
after that, then it seems to me to be more fair.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If you were to propose
selective increases for the department heads that you
mentioned, what would they be?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Elected -- what? I didn't
understand the question.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If you were to propose
selective increases for the department heads that you
I mention.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What would they be?
9-8-08
147
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think I said --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: He said 45,000.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- $45,000 for each of the
three that I mentioned, and 85 for the Sheriff.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What does that equate to in
I an increase?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Oh, it's -- I would say a
i
total increase would be -- Eva?
MS. HARGIS: It's about 3,000 --
', MS. HYDE: It would be about $12,000.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Somebody's got the numbers
out there.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: She said 12,000.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MS. HYDE: I said about 12,000.
JUDGE TINLEY: Hmm-mm.
MS. HYDE: That doesn't include the Sheriff. You
just asked me on the three, right?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: No, on the Sheriff also.
MS. HYDE: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Including the Sheriff.
MS. HYDE: About 17, 18.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Is that total? 17,000,
18,000 total? To bring those four --
MS. HYDE: I'm pulling numbers now, so --
9-8-08
148
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I know, but -- so that's in
the realm of reality.
JUDGE TINLEY: Seventeen additional on the Sheriff,
right?
MS. HYDE: No. The Sheriff is --
JUDGE TINLEY: 68,5?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: 65.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, he's proposed at 75.
MS. HARGIS: So that would be 10 for him, and I
think --
MS. HYDE: And about three each --
i
MS. HARGIS: For the others.
MS. HYDE: -- for the others. That's why I said
about 12. They're 17 --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sheriff is currently at 68,
and with the 10 percent goes to 75.
JUDGE TINLEY: You're talking about in addition to
I, what's proposed already?
MS. HARGIS: Be about 19.
~~ JUDGE TINLEY: In addition to what is proposed, not
', what they're currently at?
MS. HARGIS: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: But in order to fund that,
you'd reduce sizeably the amount you had done with the
9-8-08
149
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
5 percent instead of the 10 for department heads and elected
officials. That's the only way you reduce it significantly,
the total dollars. Cut those raises in half, basically, for
~, all the elected and all the department heads.
~I JUDGE TINLEY: And then turn around and add back --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: On those few -- select few
department heads, and get them up to where I feel like they
should be.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think you need to find
another way to pay for it.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think if we're going to look at
each individual department, we probably need to look at those
more in-depth, as opposed to just pulling figures out. My --
my calculations, and they -- I tried to make them based upon
information pulled from the approved budgets, the -- the
Animal Control department head increased, from last year to
this current year, 18.8 percent. I realize there was
a reorganization in the Environmental Health, but if the
figure I pulled for the last year's salary is correct, and I
know the one I pulled for this year is correct, that was over
~, 50 percent.
I
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: For Environmental Health?
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: As opposed to what Miguel was
making when he left?
9-8-08
150
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
--- __ ___
JUDGE TINLEY: No. There was a reorganization
there, so a lot of that does pertain to that, I understand.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Not back to where Miguel was
when he left, anywhere close.
JUDGE TINLEY: And, you know, in Maintenance, I
think Tim only had the -- there was some restructuring done
before the beginning of the budget year, with significant
adjustment of step and grade, but when it came to the budget
itself, I think Tim received a longevity step, plus the 3.5
COLA to put him where he is now. The way those budgets are
flexed there, it's kind of hard to tell. But contrary to
your statement that each department head got 7 percent, I
don't believe that to be true. In fact, Tim, for example,
I
didn't get that. Like I say, he got -- he got a COLA plus
his longevity step going into the budget. I don't think
Juvenile Probation received it. I don't think the Auditor
received it.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Auditor got other
compensation.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: To the tune of about
11 percent.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think it makes my point, that if
we're going to -- if we're going to try and focus in with any
degree of -- of comfort on what -- where these things are,
9-8-08
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
151
maybe what we're talking about is an entire new salary survey
here, rather than come up here at the eleventh hour, when
we're trying to adopt a budget, there's already an order in
place, and then there's a last-minute effort here to -- to
rework that order, as it were, on a piecemeal basis.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I realize it's the eleventh
hour.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I -- going back -- I
mean, I still support the department head issue. I think we
ought to do two and a half percent, and I -- I'm inclined to
agree with the Judge on taking a little time to look at the
department heads' salaries. And I think we've -- you know,
we -- I want to say this properly. We've had a tendency of
promoting from within, which is good, but when we do that, we
also look at what they're making and then figure out what the
increase is, which isn't good. They should -- the job is
worth a certain amount. And we've been able to hold those
', salaries down because we promoted from within. And that's
I
just not right.
'~, COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a real good point,
j Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And that's kind of my point.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that's basically the three
departments you're talking about. All three of those, this
', happened to. And I think that -- but I think we need to --
9-8-08
152
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
instead of just throwing out a number, we -- we've had -- in
my opinion, we've had a lot of problems when we start
equating groups of departments or elected officials in the
same salary, and things change. And, you know, I don't -- I
think you should look at each department individually and how
it fits into the system. And, you know, some departments, I
'~ mean, because of the educational requirements, they --
II they're going to get paid more. Just the way it is. But I
think we do need to look at them, and I think that we
probably haven't been fair to those three departments that
need brought up.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We just -- we just approved
or adopted a policy for review of department heads.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Certainly, this is an
appropriate subject during that review.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm with you. I agree that
we should take -- was it 2.5?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 2.5.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 2.5 out of the department
heads. I said that the very first day this issue came up,
and y'all looked at me like I was an alien of some sort.
But --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Not all of us.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's when you started
9-8-08
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
153
growing your beard, too.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I didn't mean illegal alien.
And -- and, you know, it just makes sense to me that we'd
take the 2.5 out. It doesn't belong there. But my only
other issue is, the 10 percent is a COLA. Yes, it is an
addition to the salary, but it's a cost-of-living adjustment
to where it comes in one pocket and goes right back out to
H.E.B., so it's not -- it's not like, at the end of the
month, we will have more money in our pocket or our
checkbook; checking account will have any more money in it.
It's just that we are staying up with the cost-of-living.
And so I'm not real convinced that 10-point whatever it is,
is an accurate number, though. Now --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I don't believe it is.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, you know, if -- you
know, if it's -- if it's less than that, we really need to
have the proper number, in my opinion, to vote on, if it's --
if we're talking about a COLA. And we need to look at the
index and find the real number. It may be more than 10,
whatever. I don't have any idea. But whatever it is, is
what we should approve.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, if it was -- what if it
was 8.2 or 8.5? Would you agree to go with that rather than
the 10.381?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely. Oh, yeah, no
9-8-08
154
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
question.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Something close to that, that
would stay in the step and grade?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Because we're talking about
a COLA here.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Stay -- but to adjust that to
something that would stay within the 2.5 percent for each
step.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Whatever.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: If it was 8 -- if it came out
to be actually, say, 8 percent, is what the feds say it is,
would you go for 7.5, whatever it would be?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Whatever the index says it
is.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Rather than -- 10.381 was
kind of a number we've pulled out of the air right now, in my
opinion.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, I don't think so. I
think we had information from the Human Resources that --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Wasn't pulled out of the air,
but it was a little bit high estimation, I think.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Figuring it on an
annualized basis for '08 is going to be close to -- Ms. Hyde?
12 percent?
MS. HYDE: COLA.
9-8-08
155
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 11-point something?
MS. HYDE: If it goes the way it's -- continues to
go the way it was through July -- August won't be out until
the 15th of September. Typically, your August numbers are
going to be flat, because everyone's gone back to school;
it's the end of summer. So, the actual number as of July was
6.913. If you extrapolate that out, it was 1.6 numbers out
there, which is almost 2, every single month. If you go to
the end of the year, August, September, October, November,
December, it's five months, and that brought it up. And
that's -- you guys had that in your books.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know about this
extrapolation nonsense. You know, we need -- you know, I'm
kind of heading off in Bruce's corner here all of a sudden,
because we have to have firm numbers, not what we extrapolate
things out to. I mean, I -- I may have to get mad here in a
minute. But we -- we need a real number. We're dealing with
taxpayers' money here. If it's 10.35 percent, that's what --
that's what we're going to give our employees, because it's a
cost-of-living adjustment. It's not a salary increase.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Even if it was 12 percent,
would you do the same thing?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. It's a
cost-of-living adjustment.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay.
9-8-08
156
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is the reason why.
JUDGE TINLEY: The difficulty we have is that we're
trying to determine a number that doesn't yet exist, because
we're having to light on a number that's going to be finally
determined at a later date, so we really don't have much
choice except to extrapolate based upon the trend that is
presently in place. Otherwise, you're looking at a number
for a half or two-thirds of the year, which, of course, is
not a year's worth of -- of cost-of-living adjustments. So,
you're pretty well forced to do an extrapolation in order
to -- in fairness to your employees, to come up with a full
year's worth, as opposed to a half a year or two-thirds of a
year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm not pretty much forced
to do anything. The last firm number I heard was 6.91.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the -- I think you need to
-- I'm kind of in between the two. You need to extrapolate;
j you have to look beyond that, but you -- I think that when we
made our decision, oil prices were -- since then have dropped
about 30 percent, and that's one of the biggest components of
our -- the whole reason for our cost-of-living this year.
It's all been driven by that, or a large portion. So, I
think that, you know, unfortunately, we don't have the luxury
to wait until we find out -- next week they could go back to
9-8-08
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
157
$150 a barrel, too. We just don't know.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's on its way up the last
two days.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Another hurricane coming.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, a big one. But, you
know, our job is to pick the best -- you know, figure out
what, in our estimation, the cost of living is going to be,
and I think we need to make an adjustment at that amount. I
think Bruce is right; I think we -- my recollection is we
bumped the amount up slightly to fit our step and grade, as
opposed to bumping it down.
MS. HYDE: Yes.
I
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Exactly. That's why it's
381.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, 381 instead of -- and,
you know, I would be fine with bumping it -- instead of
bumping up, bumping down, which lowers it 2 and a half
percent, 8.81.
MS. HYDE: 9.81.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 9.81.
JUDGE TINLEY: 9.81 was the extrapolated figure,
wasn't it?
MS. HYDE: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
9-8-08
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
158
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, if you adopt -- knock it
down to the nearest one, it comes to 7-point something.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Seven and a half plus --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Or you round it off at 10.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, you don't want -- I
think we get in trouble when we round off and don't stay with
our step and grade, the 2 and a half percent, whatever else
goes with that. I think that's where you cause lots of
problems with your bookkeeping.
JUDGE TINLEY: Right. I think that's why --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Problems for H.R. department,
and that messes up our whole step and grade schedule.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think that's why the 9.81 got
rounded, to stay within step and grade to the modified 10, or
adjusted 10, which is the 381.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah. So, it could be bumped
back down just the same way it got bumped up, to whatever
that step basically would be.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But I also disagree with you
~ on selecting certain department heads and raising their
salary at this time. I could -- your very first sentence was
these people -- these particular people -- I can't remember
exactly what you said, but they produce -- and for the
County. You know, I could throw in the Collections
9-8-08
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
159
department. She actually brings in cash money.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: She's also brand-new. This
is the very first --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: She's been a county employee
a long time.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: This is the first time she's
been in that position.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We should double her salary.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Because it's her first year?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: First two months? I just
think we need to get some parity in some of these things
where their duties by office and their department heads --
mainly, the department heads in charge of those departments
need to be compensated fairly.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with you. But I
think we need to do it in a more careful, deliberate manner,
than just like --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: This is the eleventh hour.
It's not 12:01; this is the eleventh hour.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, eleventh hour.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It's never too late until
the -- you know, until --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's almost too late. Too
late.
9-8-08
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
160
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- the buzzer goes off, till
we file an adopted tax rate and adopted budget.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, make a motion. See
what happens.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I already did.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Didn't work.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well --
II COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion that we do
not include the department heads with the additional step
increase.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'll second that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second -- third.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And third.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- to not include the additional
step increase that's in place under the current order for the
department heads.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Sorry?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, that's it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask a question. Is
it time for questions?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
9-8-08
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
161
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If -- by taking that out,
how much money did we save? Or if we were going to leave it
in, how much did that cost -- would that cost?
JUDGE TINLEY: $11,300.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: $11,300.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's a big one.
MS. HARGIS: 11,619.
JUDGE TINLEY: What?
MS. HARGIS: $11,619 for 11 people.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You have the right number?
MS. HARGIS: Yes.
MR. STANTON: I wanted to ask a question. Or
state --
JUDGE TINLEY: We'll get to you in just a minute.
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is it 11,300 or 11,600?
JUDGE TINLEY: I calculate 11,289, actually. Which
is the difference between the two summaries. Okay, I'll
defer to the Auditor, 11,6.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 11,6. That's a considerable
amount of money.
JUDGE TINLEY: You had a question, Mr. Stanton?
MR. STANTON: I just -- aren't -- by taking that --
and I'm not saying this for me, but by taking this two and a
half percent out, aren't you actually hurting the people that
9-8-08
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
162
you're trying to raise up?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: No, this has nothing to do
with the hourly people. This is only the department heads.
MR. STANTON: But you named the department heads,
and the department heads are the ones that you were trying
to --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I was talking about some that
we've paid too little already.
MR. STANTON: No, that's what I'm saying, 'cause
you're taking the department heads out of this equation. And
not -- I don't care one way or another for me, but you take
the two and a half percent out, and we were talking -- or you
guys were talking about trying to increase certain department
heads. But by taking the department heads out of it, you're
actually decreasing what they're getting.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I see what you're saying. He's
saying that we're --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I know what he's saying.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that was -- that's why I
was going to say something else. I think that I was looking
for -- to put that fund in, but I didn't know we had that
number, and in a separate line item so that we can look at
adjustments midyear. 'Cause it's not going to change tax --
change the tax rate, how we do the tax rate, and it gives us
the flexibility, when we have time to really look at the --
9-8-08
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
163
you know, around the first of the year, to look at those
three departments as to if we want to make an adjustment, and
put funding in the budget to be able to do that if we choose
to. And if we don't, then it just goes back to reserves.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any more discussion or questions on
the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion carries. Any other
business to be conducted under that particular agenda item?
Hearing none, we'll move on to Item 27; consider, discuss,
take appropriate action to renew the data processing services
agreement with Indigent Health Care Solutions and allow the
County Judge to sign the same. Ms. Hargis?
MS. HARGIS: As you know, the County is required to
-- to pay so much for indigent health care every year based
on our -- our tax levy, and this is a very large sum of money
that we've had on an annual basis. It's come to my attention
within the last week that we have had a great deal of
difficulty holding onto the employee at the hospital who
makes these --
JUDGE TINLEY: You're on the wrong agenda item.
We're talking about the contract.
9-8-08
164
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. HARGIS: The contract's already signed, isn't
it?
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't think it's approved by the
I Court .
MS. HARGIS: I don't think we had a new one.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, it's before me.
MS. HARGIS: I didn't put the contract on; I just
put the second one.
JUDGE TINLEY: No, I did, apparently. It got under
your name.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Data processing services,
indigent health care.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
MS. HARGIS: I'll defer that one to you, 'cause I
don't know.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. HARGIS: 'Cause I didn't know we had a new one.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's the contract -- a renewal of
the contract that we had in place with Indigent Health Care
Solutions, and I believe the County Attorney has reviewed it
and had some thoughts about one versus two years.
MS. HARGIS: Yes, I recall that. This is the
software company that we deal with that -- that keeps all of
the percentages, and we're actually using their server, not
ours. And they keep that data upgraded all the time, so we
9-8-08
165
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
make sure that we don't overpay or underpay any of these
amounts that we have.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask you a question.
Does this affect in any way where our -- where our indigent
health care employee is, whether there in Peterson Hospital
or Kerr County Courthouse?
MS. HARGIS: No, this software is used by my
office. This is -- this is on the county side.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move we approve it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item. Question or discussion? A11 in
favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Let's now go
to Item 28; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action
regarding the Indigent Health Care Service Agreement with Sid
Peterson Hospital and Kerr County. That would now be
Peterson Regional Health Care Center, right?
MS. HARGIS: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
~, MS. HARGIS: We currently have an agreement in
place that was signed in 2001. The agreement calls for the
9-8-08
166
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
hospital to provide an employee in their facility, and that
forth. I've only been -- I've been here a little over a
year, and in that time frame they have had three employees in
that position. This position is very valuable to us as a
county, because this is the person who makes the people
eligible and who makes sure that we pay -- or don't pay for
cases that we -- that we may or may not be liable for. They
currently do not have anyone in this position at all; have
not now for a week. They do not have anyone to train this
position. They have actually offered to pay one of our
employees after hours to come over to train their employee,
because they don't have anyone. And -- and we can't allow
these medical bills to sit on that desk very long. As you
recall, the Judge several months ago mentioned that once a
person becomes eligible and they have a claim, we have 90
days to pay that claim based on the -- the rate we should pay
it at. If we go over the 90 days, we have to pay 100 percent
of whatever the cost is. So, my suggestion, after working
with the hospital all week long and -- and coming up with
several ideas, what we have -- what I'd like to suggest to
you to consider is that the County now hire this person, Sid
Peterson Hospital pay 50 percent of this person, and we house
them in our facility so that we have the control over who
9-8-08
167
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
they make eligible, so that we make sure that we don't pay
for bills that we don't need to pay for. And this person has
been housed -- in most counties, according to our employee
who used to work there, all of the people are housed in the
county offices; they're not housed in the hospital. So,
we've really lost control of this person, and the more they
turn over, the worse it gets.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The hospital is willing to go
along --
MS. HARGIS: The hospital is willing to. I told
the -- I've been dealing with the assistant administrator; he
just took over this department a week ago, and he and I have
been discussing it every week, and they really don't have
anyone at all to train them. The person who trained the girl
that just left, she quit before this one did. So, we
currently have the only person in town who is trained on that
side, that -- to fill out the eligibility sheets and so
forth. And we really need to get this person in place,
whether it be here or there. They don't know exactly how
they're going to do it over there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What would the salary be for
this person? Or what is -- what are they paying right now at
the hospital?
MS. HARGIS: I think the hospital is paying
somewhere between 10 and 12. And it was our suggestion that
9-8-08
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
168
we bring them in at a 14-1. We talked all week as to whether
or not -- which is 26,000 -- whether or not the person was
leaving because it wasn't enough pay for their job and so
forth and so on. At the time, it doesn't seem to be the main
reason. One of the main reasons is that, because they're
50 percent hospital and 50 percent county, they're kind of
pulled both directions, and so when they don't have anything
to do, then the County -- then the hospital has them working
on their stuff, and so our -- the indigent health care kind
of takes a -- you know, a --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Back seat.
MS. HARGIS: -- back seat, so it's not getting the
attention. And it's worth a million-plus to us. It's worth
at least a half a million to them; you would think they would
be more aggressive with it as well. But it's -- to them,
it's better to make everybody eligible. To us, it's not.
So, if we have the person who's properly filling out the
paperwork here, and they're going to pay -- they have agreed
to pay the 50 percent. We just basically switch the
contract; we now house the employee. They pay 50 percent of
whatever we offer the employee. We house them here. Then we
will get our bills in a more timely manner so that we don't
have to worry about the 90-day situation. In fact, in
July -- I don't know if you remember or not -- I brought over
a huge number of bills. It was close to 150,000. And the
9-8-08
169
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
stack she brought over was literally 12 inches high, and we
quickly went through to make sure there weren't any old bills
in there, and there were some, and we had to check on them to
make sure that they didn't go past the 90 days. I'll give
you a for-instance. If you got a hospital bill that's
50,000, we might pay 10. If the 90 days goes by, we pay 50.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- I forgot what I was
going to ask.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask a question.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Maybe I'll remember.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Jog your memory there. Or
actually, I'm going to make a statement or two. But we act
like -- we act like this is something new over there, going
through employees every other week over there. It's always
been that way, except for the lady sitting here.
MS. HARGIS: Yes. That's a very valuable lady
right there.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Very valuable. But it's
always been that way. We would meet one week, and next week
we'd have a whole dadgum new employee over there, and all of
a sudden, we're in training mode again. It's been that way
since day one. The program itself is one of those things
that -- that I think is the right thing to do. Indigent
health care, those people that are truly indigent, that are
in need, that's our -- that's our business, is to help take
9-8-08
170
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
care of our neighbors, and that's what's neighbors do.
Besides that, it's State-mandated. (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In which case, State pays.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That helps it along real
rapid. But I want the thing brought over here, and so that
we can control it for the first time. But one thing I want
to remind y'all, that if our -- and I'm pretty dang close to
being an indigent, okay? So I want my -- I want my COLA,
Bruce. If I were an indigent and I needed to meet with
someone and do the paperwork, I don't think I'd want to do it
out in front of everybody. I want some privacy, 'cause I'm a
little bit embarrassed by this kind of stuff. So, wherever
we house them -- house this employee, I would hope that it
would be in a private location, not out in the middle of the
hallway out here. I guess that's about all I have to say.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, let me comment on
what he's saying before you answer, Jeannie. This whole
contract -- existing contract will have to be reworked to
accomplish what you want to set out. I don't have any
objection to that. But I notice in this contract, in
addition to -- it talks about this coordinator being a
part-time hospital employee. Hospital employee. And then it
talks about retain -- the hospital will retain administrative
supervision of the coordinator. So -- and then it talks
about keeping all the records, supporting documents, and
9-8-08
171
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
blab, blab, blab, blab, blab, blab, blab. So, what you're
really doing is setting up a sort of department here. And
the Commissioner's right; we need to make certain that there
is privacy involved in this and that those records are
protected, because there's federal law that deals with that
as well.
MS. HARGIS: Yes, sir. We -- we do keep the ones
that we have in our location under lock and key. Those are
locked every night, and they're only opened when someone is
working on them. Now, I really -- you know, Beth has been
instrumental in helping me to work through this situation. I
mean, Factually worked on this probably for five days,
talking back and forth to the hospital, because, really, they
didn't have a handle on the importance of it. I think they
do now. But I think that we need to bring it over here to
keep control over it. I -- I've looked at several spots in
the building, and we -- I don't have any room in my office.
The problem -- the only problem I had with it being in --
around in Mindy's office is, again, we get into internal
control here. We're taking cash, and so we don't really --
we're really limited as far as space is concerned. I don't
know exactly. I mean, I didn't want to choose a place, other
than Beth had told me in the other counties, they usually
work under the collector, in the Collection department.
That's a small office, and now they have Adult Probation
9-8-08
172
1
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 and going out of there twice a week, once on Tuesday
and once on Friday. So, there is a little spot, but it's not
very private, in the County Clerk's office at the end there
where there's a couch. We would have to put the file
cabinets in somewhere else.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We're talking about where
this is going to go, and we need to get rid of all this
~ rhetoric and decide first who's going to be in charge of it,
and then figure out what we're going to do.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I want it over here.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I want -- it's fine to be
over here, but I think it ought to be in the Treasurer's
office. The Treasurer ought to be responsible for it. I
think we ought to give her a part-time employee or another
full employee with what she already has, with the lady that
already has the experience.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm almost there, except for
the cash issue that she's talking about.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: What issue?
MS. HARGIS: The cash issue.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Internal control.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: The Treasurer doesn't have
internal control?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, no, no. It would be --
we would be breaching that by adding this on. I'm -- I'm
9-8-08
173
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
getting on the same page too, but we need to protect that
internal control with handling of cash.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And this has the
possibility of breaching that. If we can deal with that, I'm
-- I'm right there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Let me -- I need to back up
just a hair. The person that does this, don't they also --
they work with the family or the people to find out if they
~I qualify?
MS. HARGIS: Yes. They have to interview all these
families.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I don't know that the
Treasurer's office is where I want that person.
MS. HARGIS: It has to be handicapped-accessible.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know. The Treasurer's
office -- I mean, it's just --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It's not big enough. I'm
just saying I think it ought to be under her, under her
bailiwick.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh, yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do we have any more space
down there that the Historical Commission's currently taking
up?
MS. HARGIS: Well, we have some more space, but,
9-8-08
174
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's not
', handicapped-accessible.
MS. HARGIS: Not handicapped-accessible, because
you have -- you can go to the elevator, but you still have to
go up stairs to Mindy. And I actually helped a handicapped
lady one day, and I didn't think she was going to get -- she
didn't realize there was those extra set of stairs, and we
had a terrible time getting her down that little small flight
of stairs.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sorry, Rex, you got to move
upstairs.
MR. EMERSON: Corner office.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How much space do you need?
One little office?
MS. HARGIS: They need a small office.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How about Constable, Precinct
3?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We do have a lot of space
right downstairs in the basement right off the elevator. If
you wanted to craft an office for this purpose, we could do
it right there.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I think issue number one is,
we need to take advantage of this opportunity and get control
of that position and that program here, because, by its very
9-8-08
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
175
nature, it's a conflicted program.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
JUDGE TINLEY: We need to be in charge of it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
~~ COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree with that.
JUDGE TINLEY: We'll find a home for it. We'll
find a home for it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, we're getting the cart
ahead of the horse.
MS. HARGIS: Yes. We need to deal with the
hospital first, and --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's -- how is this
agenda item styled?
MS. HARGIS: Regarding the agreement. The
agreement is now that Sid Peterson have the employee. So --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We really need to restyle
this within the framework of what we're talking about so the
County Attorney doesn't go ballistic over here. We really
need to renegotiate the contract, with a view toward that
employee becoming a Kerr County employee and doing that here.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And have the County Attorney
write a new agreement.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And instruct the County
Attorney to write a new agreement. That's a motion.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
9-8-08
176
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion and second on the floor.
', Question or discussion on that motion? Essentially, we're
i
III going to put a new agreement by which we put ourselves in the
position the hospital is presently in, and we'll take control
over it, and they will pay to reimburse us for 50 percent of
the cost.
MS. HARGIS: Okay. The only thing I would ask the
Court is if we can get the agreement on the table and get it
negotiated by next time. Because, again, we have no one
doing this right now, and they have someone who's -- who's
basically just shuffling paper, but they're not really
interviewing or doing anything right now.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, sir?
MR. EMERSON: Can I ask who we're dealing with at
the hospital that I can communicate with?
MS. HARGIS: Joe --
MR. EMERSON: Joe Piszczor?
MS. HARGIS: He's the head of that department now.
I have his name --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So, in the meantime, Beth
needs to be doing this somehow or another.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Somehow or other. And figure
I out --
MS. HARGIS: Beth is helping the hospital --
9-8-08
177
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
MS. HARGIS: -- as much as she can. She also has
her job here, so she's going over -- you know, I don't want
to get into the Treasurer's --
MS. TAYLOR: There are no applications right now.
I mean, I've gone through -- and we've gone through them, and
we're getting them all processed, so hopefully... Right now,
there's nothing.
JUDGE TINLEY: You're keeping your thumb in the
dike .
MS. HARGIS: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. That's what you need to be
doing.
MS. HARGIS: The main thing is, we just don't want
to be backlogged. And so I guess, perhaps, maybe there could
be a plan by the next court session as to where we might
house this person. And could we start, maybe, interviewing
for this person in advance of the agreement, or not?
MR. EMERSON: They've got to create the position
and the funding.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can't do that under this
court -- agenda item, I don't think.
MS. HARGIS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, we could. Under the
way it's -- the motion was framed, we could.
9-8-08
178
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Frame your motion.
JUDGE TINLEY: Contract to include that Kerr County
hire the employee to be in charge of the program, and be
administered on a county basis.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: That calls for an employee.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It does.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And authorize the Treasurer
to -- we don't know the levels. I mean --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Salary would be 26?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're getting -- it's a pretty
far stretch to get to step and grade based on the agenda
item.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why don't we deal with the
contract and taking over the employee, and then sort out all
the other issues and come back.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: On the 22nd.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're moving in the right
I direction.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We have a motion and a
second. Further -- further discussion on the motion to redo
the contract, the interlocal agreement with -- or the
contract with Peterson? All in favor of the motion, signify
by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
9-8-08
179
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry.
MS. HARGIS: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I guess we want to fold up
our others before we go back to the closed session. Would
that be the Court's pleasure? Let's go to Section 4 of the
agenda, payment of the bills. Here's the bills.
MS. HARGIS: Commissioner, we were able to
customize the -- or add the account numbers to the report.
We have not got the budget line item; we're waiting on Incode
to customize the report to add that additional column for
you, but you do have the account numbers for each one of
them.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, ma'am, and it looks
very good. Thank you so much.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is that a motion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No -- yeah, I move that we
pay the bills.
JUDGE TINLEY: I thought that's what you were
thinking.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's exactly what I meant.
I got haywire.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to pay the
9-8-08
180
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
bills.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Question or discussion on the
motion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I do have a question, Judge.
On Page 1, the Commissioners Court, what in the world are we
doing paying lawyers for anything?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Rex can explain that one.
That's for the thing on the deed, to Richards.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Professional services,
draft, deed correction?
MR. EMERSON: If you go back 15 or 20 years, when
we had a whole series of roads that apparently the cattle
guards moved while they were trying to install them.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
MR. EMERSON: We missed our right-of-way on a
couple of them.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
MR. EMERSON: This is one of those.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: A couple?
MR. EMERSON: We -- we addressed this issue back in
January originally --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Wood Trails.
MR. EMERSON: -- and formulated the documents, put
them together, and then some question came up as to the
9-8-08
181
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
accuracy of the surveys, so Lee went out and resurveyed them
again. We had to move everything over. And because of the
liability and the fact that we wanted to clean this up --
JUDGE TINLEY: See there, Buster? They didn't want
to acknowledge that those cattle guards moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. (Laughter.)
JUDGE TINLEY: They finally had to do it, didn't
they?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Whole derv road's moved now.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: No, the roads didn't, but the
fence lines did.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Fence lines.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Property lines.
MR. EMERSON: Anyway, to make a long story short, I
paid the -- I paid an attorney to work with Lee Voelkel to
get the deeds 100 percent correct. And it's been an ongoing
cluster for about two months. Hopefully we're cleaned up
i now .
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Probably was the attorney that had
control of the clients?
MR. EMERSON: Hopefully.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Did they get them signed?
MR. EMERSON: Well, we're working on it.
9-8-08
182
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, okay. Any other questions or
comments?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Page 17. Is Peter Lewis
going to bring us something we can hang our hat on, after we
paid him $4,500?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Peter was going to come this
time, but because of the length of the agenda, the time
needed to do the workshop, I deferred it till the next
meeting. He wants about -- it's going to take at least an
hour of focus.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I would hope so. I'm --
JUDGE TINLEY: At those rates?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: At those rates, they need to
take at least an hour. Long as that's included in his price.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any 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: The motion does carry. Budget
amendments. Oh, do we have some fun here.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We have them, don't we?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's that time of year.
9-8-08
183
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've got a question.
MS. HARGIS: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Number 2, Road and Bridge.
Now --
MS. HARGIS: He was short some crews, and that's
the reason why it -- so he had some money in his crew
salaries, and he needed some money in his contract fees for
engineering.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Makes sense to me.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. I thought it was the
other way around when I first looked at it. I was wondering
why he was adding 50 grand to his crew salaries.
MS. HARGIS: Most everybody is staying within their
own department. The only place we're having problems is
Court-appointed attorneys, which I don't think any of you
were -- that and the housing, the alternative housing. Those
were the two areas that we had to get out of -- out of -- and
Rusty was kind enough to give up some money.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Some jailer salaries?
JUDGE TINLEY: Looks like I bailed out
Commissioners Court here.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Somebody have some cost
overruns?
25 ~ JUDGE TINLEY: Well, y'all had some professional
9-8-08
184
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
services shortage, and I was kind enough to take care of that
for you.
II COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, that's good, Judge.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Does that include some kind
of a psychiatric evaluation or something like that?
JUDGE TINLEY: For me?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: For us, being as you bailed
us out. You get yours free, don't you? Over at the state --
JUDGE TINLEY: Well --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, he can go on the
couch any time.
JUDGE TINLEY: Probably on a weekly basis, they're
looking at me.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move we approve --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- the budget amendments as
presented.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion and --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to approve
the budget amendments as presented in the summary sheet, the
total of -- looks like 28. 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.
9-8-08
185
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Do we have any
late bills?
MS. HARGIS: No, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: We haven't had any late bills in a
I
long time; you guys are staying on top of it.
MS. HYDE: She stays on top of us.
JUDGE TINLEY: Huh?
MS. HYDE: She stays on top of us to make sure we
get the bills in.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a good thing.
JUDGE TINLEY: Seems to be working, doesn't it?
I've been presented with monthly reports from County
Attorney, denominated Annual Report of Income Received;
Constable, Precinct l; Constable, Precinct 4; County Clerk,
both general and trust fund; Justice of the Peace, Precinct
3; Environmental Health; and Justice of the Peace, Precinct
1. Do I hear a motion that these reports be approved as
'~, presented?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can --
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded, approval
of the reports as presented. Question or discussion on the
motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your
9-8-08
186
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Reports from
I Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Buster, you got anything?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Here's a couple things --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I do, but I can't tell
y'all.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Couple things that I'll
give you that came out of the AACOG meeting. What I'm
handing out is a report that's done by the Alamo
Worksource -- Workforce Solutions, in color, and it depicts
the Kerr County job report and the unemployment rate. And
you'll notice that for the month of July, we went up from 3.8
to 4.1 percent. On the back -- or the second page, there's a
pie chart that shows where the county employment by industry
is, how it's broken down. Second thing I want to bring to
your attention is that there was a memorandum given to AACOG
Board of Directors, as well as the Rural Judges Committee,
that says Texas Department of Transportation has recommended
all Councils of Government across the state of Texas assume
the responsibility for backing rural planning organizations,
9-8-08
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
187
and they're suggesting that AACOG take over the
responsibility for rural planning transportation issues.
What does that mean to us? It means that probably we would
through all the rural counties through AACOG, and it's called
rural planning. And so there was a resolution top to bottom,
and the board and the rural judges would be the policy-making
board for this particular situation, and the resolution is
that the AACOG Board of Directors establishes the area judges
committee as the policy board for rural planning organization
responsible for conducting regional transportation planning
for the 11-county rural region surrounding Bexar County,
blab, blab, blab, blab, blab, and so forth. And that was
adopted, so I think -- I don't see anything inherently bad
about it. It just means we won't be meeting with the area
engineer as we have in the past. It'll all be handled
conjunctively.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Getting into a bigger
bureaucracy.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Probably, yeah. And,
F.Y.I., in terms of Alamo Regional Transit, there's a -- a
consultant study about to be released determining how we can
improve regional transportation in Kerr County. Just for
9-8-OS
188
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
your information, through the month of July, the total number
of trips that were provided by Alamo Regional Transit was
9,063 trips, totaling 125,000 miles of transportation
provided to those who need it in Kerr County.
JUDGE TINLEY: Done?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Main thing, as I mentioned,
Peter Lewis will be on our next agenda. Because of the
length of this one, I pushed it off for two weeks. It will
take an hour, hour and a half to do it in a workshop format,
set at 1:30, if possible. And, you know, we'll have some --
basically, three, four, five options that we can start
looking at for refiguring buildings and doing things, and
pick and choose what we like, don't like, and the intent
being there will be this meeting and then the final meeting,
rather than have a whole bunch of workshops along the way.
Trying to move it along pretty quick.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I do have one other
quickie, Judge. Just for the benefit of the Court, T.Y.C. is
due to have a -- its one-day inspection of our Juvenile
Detention Facility, I believe, on the 26th. Is that correct,
Jody?
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's all I have. Bruce?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Peter Lewis is going to be
9-8-08
189
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
here on the 22nd?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Boy, that's going to be a
full day for everybody. We start at 7:00 that morning, you
know.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can set up a separate day
for it if we need to. I just -- you know, if the agenda
starts getting like today's, I'd recommend we do a special
day, because it's too important for us to be rushed on it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We got to have enough time --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- to sit and look at it.
JUDGE TINLEY: We've got a whole slew of year-end
stuff; tax rate, budget, everything is going to get nailed
down two weeks from today. We might be better served by
maybe doing it on Tuesday afternoon or --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll check with Peter and get
with Jody. Are we all available Tuesday, the 23rd?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Sure, any time.
JUDGE TINLEY: Afternoon, after about mid-morning.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Tuesday afternoon, okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, afternoon I'm okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Let's see if we can
work that out, do a workshop at 1:30.
9-8-08
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
190
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: A workshop at 1:30.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Can we schedule a separate
evening budget, elected official, and tax rate hearing on the
22nd for the evening time, say at 6:00 or 6:30?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sure.
JUDGE TINLEY: We're required -- we've given our
notices under the statute.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'm just asking if it's
possible to have a second -- a second one of those meetings
on the same day.
JUDGE TINLEY: For the tax rate?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: The tax rate, budget, and
elected official salary increases.
JUDGE TINLEY: How many times do you want a swing
at this?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'm not going to swing. It's
a public hearing, right?
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's a chance for the
public to swing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree with Bruce.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I've had people ask me about
it. Some of them are working. They said, "We'd like to come
and voice our opinion, and we can't come during working
9-8-08
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
191
hours," which is whenever our regular budget hearing or those
hearings are. They're at 9:30, 9:45 or whatever they are.
They're five, ten minutes apart on the 22nd.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we should do it --
JUDGE TINLEY: Going to have to be in advance of
that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, because on the 22nd,
we're going to have to take a vote. We're going to have to
vote in here to make all our deadlines, I think, so we need
to do it before the 22nd in the evening.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's right. It's already
~ published.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can still do another one.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We could do one ahead of
that, right? Because we're -- if the Court wanted to.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We don't need to call it a
public hearing. We can call it a public meeting. It
wouldn't be the official hearing, but we could do a meeting.
MS. HARGIS: Diane's not here, but there are
publication rules. And, like, from the -- from today, when
we had the first public hearing, it's not -- it's not sooner
than three days from today, or not -- not later than 10 -- I
mean 14. So, that's why we put it at the next meeting.
JUDGE TINLEY: We're going to comply with what we
published. We're going to have another public hearing on the
9-8-08
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
192
22nd.
MS. HARGIS: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Just -- you know, as we're required,
and after we've published notice. What Commissioner Oehler
is suggesting is that we have some sort of a public meeting
to receive input from the citizens with regard to --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Three issues.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- these various issues.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That has nothing to do
with --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Legal requirements.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- legal requirements.
MR. EMERSON: I hate to be a sourpuss, but what
agenda item are we on?
JUDGE TINLEY: We're not on an agenda item.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We're -- this is Commissioner
reports. We're -- this is -- we just scheduled a workshop.
', Can we not schedule a meeting for a --
MR. EMERSON: Not during the report section.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: When do we do that?
MR. EMERSON: Unless you can tie it to one of those
agenda items. Or you can just schedule it.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We'll do it with Jody after
the meeting.
MR. EMERSON: There you go.
9-8-08
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
193
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Anything else?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We didn't put a day with it.
put into place. It could begin as early as the tail end of
this month. Probably will not really begin until the latter
part of October, depending on when the contractor can kind of
get his people into place. The bridge will not be
operational for that entire period. They're going to shut it
down completely. Late May maybe it'll be back up and running
again, so we're going to have some traffic problems.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, being as you mentioned
that, I've been on all this other stuff. I've kind of gotten
away from what I was wanting to talk about. Hope Crossing at
this side of Camp Waldemar is pretty well complete; has a few
little minor details left. Both Smith ones -- Smith
Crossings are under construction. Detours are in and
operational. Traffic lights are working. Had -- went to a
preconstruction meeting on Panther Creek Crossing, which is
this side of the River Inn. It was let. Going to start
construction in the next week or two on it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge?
9-8-08
194
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I notice in this memorandum
from the City Manager to Mayor and Council that they have
scheduled for October 14th -- or they're thinking about it --
an interlocal agreement with County Road and Bridge for
street maintenance, chip seal. Are you familiar with all
that?
JUDGE TINLEY: No, sir. When did that -- when did
that rear its ugly head -- rear its head?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's in there. You'll see
it highlighted.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Is that hot off the press?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Their press.
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't think I'm included in their
distribution. Well --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, we can make that
happen, Judge. Let me find it for you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Well, I don't think that's
necessarily a bad thing.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I don't either.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: No, it'd just be nice if they
let us know ahead of time.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Kind of nice if we knew
about it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
9-8-08
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
195
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Are they working a deal with
our Road and Bridge Department without our -- without talking
to us about it?
JUDGE TINLEY: The -- the item under October 14th,
pending agenda items, is interlocal agreement with County
Road and Bridge for street maintenance, chip seal program.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Maybe someone should inform
them they can't interlocal with County Road and Bridge.
Interlocal with County Commissioners Court.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Maybe somebody needs to
inform them of the process.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I've encouraged our Road and
Bridge Administrator to --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Be cooperative.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- be cooperative and confer with
the Public Works Director over at the City. I don't think I
told him to see if he can cut a deal and do a contract.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Sign any agreements with him.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just thought I'd let you
know.
JUDGE TINLEY: I appreciate that. Okay. Any
reports from elected officials? County Attorney?
MR. EMERSON: Very, very briefly. Just wanted to
let y'all know that we've -- you probably saw the expense on
there, but we've ordered Rosetta Stone for the office, in
9-8-08
196
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Spanish. We're making an effort to become more efficient and
bilingual, and save the Clerk's office hopefully from having
to translate all day every Tuesday. That's the theory,
anyway. So, we're going to work on that. And the proposed
position that's in the budget for the new County Attorney
position, we posted it on the T.D.C.A.A. web site as an
anticipated position. We've received, I don't know, 25 or 30
resumes up to this point.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that all?
MR. EMERSON: There's been a lot of interest, so
it's good.
JUDGE TINLEY: Really.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask you a question.
Rosetta Stone is just absolutely out of this world, great
stuff. Have you -- have you got it plugged in and running --
up and running and trying it or anything? Yes or no?
MR. EMERSON: That's -- short answer is no.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what I'm looking for.
And why not?
MR. EMERSON: Because there's an administrative
block on all the computers on installing software.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm sorry, what?
MR. EMERSON: There's an administrative block on
installing software on all the laptops and computers in my
office, and we have not been able to get I.T. down there to
9-8-08
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
197
either install the program or remove the block.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Not just your office.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How long have you been
trying that?
MR. EMERSON: Two weeks.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Two weeks.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Call every day at 8 o'clock
in the morning?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are you sure you don't want
to have your evaluation next week?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good point.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's a shame. That's a
rotten shame. Truly is.
MR. EMERSON: Theoretically, I'll be able to do
more than order Mexican food if we ever get the program in.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Hope you'll be able to shop
for groceries, too. In San Antonio.
MR. EMERSON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, our last two executive
session items, are they lengthy? Do you have any idea?
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't know. Not my items.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 'Cause there's a --
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't think they're going to be
that long, but let me -- any more from elected officials?
Department heads?
9-8-08
198
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. HYDE: Health fair Thursday, 9/11. Starts at
6 a.m., so the 5.0. can come, okay? Ends at 7:30, so the
5.0. can come all day long.
MS. PIEPER: Is it come and go?
MS. HYDE: Come and go.
JUDGE TINLEY: Starts at 6:00 in the morning?
MS. HYDE: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: For the benefit of the Sheriff's
Office.
MS. HYDE: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: And runs until 7:30 in the evening
for the benefit of the Sheriff's Office.
MS. HYDE: Absolutely, sir.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Now, wait a minute.
MS. HYDE: Yes, sir.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'll expect to see the Sheriff there
at 6 a.m. and at 7:30 p.m.
MS. HYDE: I did not ask for security; I asked
somebody to open the doors. But I did ask for security to
shut the door.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Doing it on 9/11, that's the
wrong day. We have a lot of things going on that day.
JUDGE TINLEY: 24/7 operation, Sheriff.
I
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I know. It's also a pain, but
9-8-08
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
199
that's all right. We're learning. We adjust to it.
JUDGE TINLEY: You had something?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, just the -- if the
executive sessions are not critical, I might excuse myself
and go to an Airport Board meeting.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Both of us. We both have
an Airport Board meeting.
MS. HARGIS: Won't take but a minute.
JUDGE TINLEY: Won't take but a second? At this
time, we will go out of public or open session at -- at 2:48
to go into executive or closed session.
(The open session was closed at 2:48 p.m., and
an executive session was held, the transcript
of which is contained in a separate document.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Its 2:54; we're now back into open
or public session. Any member of the Court have anything to
offer in connection with the matters considered in executive
~I session?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Under Item 29, I make a motion
that we set the Assistant Auditor's step and grade at 18-2,
effective September 1.
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.
9-8-08
200
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Any other
motions to be offered in connection with matters in executive
session?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not sure how to do the next
one.
JUDGE TINLEY: County -- County pay the difference.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I make a motion that the County
pay the difference between our standard amount and COBRA
amount for additional employee.
JUDGE TINLEY: Employee spouse.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Employee spouse, as discussed
in -- well, that's it.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: As per the agenda item?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, do we have to -- the
employee name? Do we need to go into the name of the person
or anything of the employee?
MS. HYDE: That should be HIPAA-protected.
MR. EMERSON: Why don't you use the initials if
you're going to do that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't want to do it. I
mean --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How about, "as detailed by
9-8-08
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
202
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 12th day of September,
2008.
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
Kathy.: anik, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
9-8-08
ORDER NO. 30969
CERTIFICATION OF AND ORDER FOR UNOPPOSED CANDIDATES
Came to be heard this the 8th day of September, 2008, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the Certification of Unopposed Candidates, and issue an Order for the
unopposed candidates elected.
ORDER NO. 30970
DECLARE 3 SHERIFF' S DEPARTMENT VEHICLES AS SURPLUS
Came to be heard this the 8th day of September, 2008, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Move the Court declare the 3 vehicles as detailed in the Sheriff's Memorandum be
surplus, and authorize the property to be auctioned.
ORDER NO. 30971
VARIANCE TO KERB COUNTY FLOOD PREVENTION ORDER
Came to be heard this the 8th day of September, 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 granting a variance to Kerr County Flood Prevention Order for home in
Westwood Oaks, Section One, Lot 20, 117 Acorn Court, Ingram, Texas, located in
Precinct 4.
ORDER NO. 30972
CONCEPT PLAN FOR REVISION OF PLAT FOR THE WOODS, SECTION TWO
Came to be heard this the 8th day of September, 2008, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve setting a Public Hearing for October 14, 2008 at 10:10 a.m. for the Revision of
Plat for The Woods, Section Two, Revision of Lots 79, 80, 81, 82 & 83, Vol. 7, Page
369, located in Precinct 2.
ORDER N0.30973
KERB COUNTY HISTORICAL COMMISSION'S APPLICTION TO TEXAS
HISTORICAL COMMISSION FOR CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENT STATUS
Came to be heard this the 8th day of September, 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 Kerr County Historical Commission to submit an Application to the Texas
Historical Commission for Certified Local Government Status.
ORDER NO. 30974
RATIFY AND CONFIRM BYLAWS OF THE KERB COUNTY HISTORICAL
COMMISSION
Came to be heard this the 8th day of September, 2008, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve ratifying and confirming the Bylaws of the Kerr County Historical Commission.
ORDER NO.30975
CONCEPT PLAN FOR REVISION OF PLAT FOR LOTS 11 & 12 OF FOUR
SEASONS ADDITION
Came to be heard this the 8th day of September, 2008, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Set Public Hearing for October 14, 2008 at 10:00 a.m. for the Concept Plan for Revision
of Plat for Lots 11 & 12 of Four Seasons Addition, Vol. 5, Page 12, located in Precinct 1.
ORDER N0.30976
CONTINUATION OF RECORDS ARCHIVAL FEE OF $5.00
Came to be heard this the 8th day of September, 2008, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the continuation of the Records Archive Fee of $5.00 on each document filed in
County Clerk's Office.
ORDER NO. 30977
COUNTY CLERK'S RECORDS MANAGEMENT AND ARCHIVAL WRITTEN
PLAN
Came to be heard this the 8th day of September, 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 County Clerk's Records Management and Archival written plan and for the
adoption of such for the budget year 2008-09.
ORDER NO. 30978
DEPARTMENT OF STATE HEALTH SERVICES CONTRACT
Came to be heard this the 8th day of September, 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 Contract between the Department of State Health Services and Kerr County
for the issuance of vital statistic records via on-line, and authorize the County Judge to
sign same.
ORDER NO. 30979
LEXIS LEGAL RESEARCH CONTRACT
Came to be heard this the 8th day of September, 2008, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Oehler. The Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve renewing the Lexis Legal Research Contract.
ORDER NO. 30980
EVALUATION FOR HEADS OF DEPARTMENTS REPORTING DIRECTLY TO
COMMISSIONERS' COURT
Came to be heard this the 8th day of September, 2008, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve establishing an annual process for the evaluation of Heads of Departments that
report directly to Commissioners' Court, and use as our model for review the Career
Development Employee Appraisal Form as provided to the Court by Human Resources
Department, Ms. Hyde, and incorporate the backup as additional information, to be
submitted to the Court by each Department Head no later than May 30 of each year,
effective May, 2009.
ORDER NO. 30981
FEES FOR USE OF HILL COUNTRY YOUTH EXHIBIT CENTER
Came to be heard this the 8th day of September, 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 authorizing the changes as discussed, and that the actual language will be
brought back to the next Commissioners' Court meeting:
1. That anytime there is an organization, nonprofit or otherwise, that partners up
with aCounty-sponsored or nonprofit organization, and in so doing, either organization
derives some benefit from the proceeds, that whatever rate is applicable, as in the case of
a free user such as 4-H, and the partnering organization is a nonprofit that the commercial
rate would apply; and
2. Whatever the split arrangement is as between the two organizations, i.e. 4-
H/Lions, and they are going to split it 50/50, then the Lions should pay one-half of what
the nonprofit rate should be;
3. And that nonprofits or anyone who is not putting up a deposit, that as soon as they
have one event that they do not clean up, that from then on deposits will be required.
ORDER NO. 30982
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH BEXAR COUNTY APPELLATE PUBLIC
DEFENDER'S OFFICE
Came to be heard this the 8th day of September, 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 entering into an Interlocal Agreement with Bexar County Appellate Public
Defender's Office, and authorize appointment of that office for indigent defendant
appeals of criminal cases from Kerr County Courts.
ORDER NO. 30983
JOINT RESOLUTION OF CITY OF KERRVILLE, CITY OF INGRAM AND KERB
COUNTY FOR APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
INCENTIVE POLICY
Came to be heard this the 8th day of September, 2008, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the Joint Resolution of City of Kerrville, City of Ingram, and Kerr County in
approval and adoption of Economic Development Incentive Policy as proposed, and
authorize County Judge to sign same.
ORDER NO. 30984
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN KERB COUNTY AND
SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS FOR SUPPORT OF CONTINUITY OF COURT
OPERATIONS IN EVENT OF AN EMERGENCY
Came to be heard this the 8th day of September, 2008, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the Memorandum of Understanding between Kerr County and the Supreme
Court of Texas for support of continuity of court operations in the event of an emergency.
ORDER NO. 30985
KERB COUNTY INVESTMENT POLICY
Came to be heard this the 8th day of September, 2008, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Make no changes to the Kerr County Investment Policy at this time.
ORDER NO. 30986
COST OF LIVING (COLA) GRANTED TO KERR COUNTY ELECTED OFFICIALS
IN FY 08-09 BUDGET TO INCLUDE ELECTED JUDICIAL OFFICERS WHOSE
SALARIES ARE ESTABLISHED BY STATE STATUTE
Came to be heard this the 8th day of September, 2008, with a motion made by
Commissioner Oehler, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Not include elected Judicial Officers (i.e. District Judges and County Court at Law
Judge), whose salaries are established by state statute, in our COLA granted to Kerr
County.
ORDER NO. 30987
KERB COUNTY HOLIDAY SCHEDULE FOR FY 2008-09
Came to be heard this the 8th day of September, 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 Kerr County Holiday Schedule for FY 2008-09 as follows
Veteran's Day	11/11/08	Tuesday
Thanksgiving Day	11/27/08	Thursday
Thanksgiving Friday	11/28/08	Friday
Christmas Day	12/25/08	Thursday
Christmas Friday	12/26/08	Friday
New Year's Day	O 1 /01 /09	Thursday
New Year's Friday	01/02/09	Friday
President's Day	02/16/09	Monday
Texas Independence Day	03/02/09	Monday
Good Friday	04/10/09	Friday
Memorial Day	05/25/09	Monday
Independence Day	07/06/09	Monday
Labor Day	09/07/09	Monday
ORDER NO. 30988
CONCEPT PLAN FOR REVISION OF PLAT FOR THE WOODS, SECTION TWO
Came to be heard this the 8th day of September, 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 changing the date for the Public Hearing from October 14, 2008 at 10:10 to
October 13, 2008 at 10:10 a.m. for the Concept Plan for Revision of Plat for The Woods,
Section Two, Revision of Lots 79, 80, 81, 82 & 83, Vol. 7, Page 369, located in Precinct
2.
ORDER NO. 30989
CONCEPT PLAN FOR REVISION OF PLAT OF FOUR SEASONS ADDITION
Came to be heard this the 8th day of September, 2008, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve changing the date for the Public Hearing from October 14, 2008 to October 13,
2008 at 10:00 a.m. for Concept Plan for Revision of Plat for Lots 11 & 12 OF Four
Seasons Addition, Vol. 5, Page 12, located in Precinct 1.
ORDER NO.30990
PROPOSED PAY INCREASES FOR ELECTED OFFICIALS AND DEPARTMENT
HEADS FOR FY 08-09
Came to be heard this the 8th day of September, 2008, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Not include the additional step increase for Department Heads that is in place under the
current Order for the Department Heads.
ORDER NO. 30991
DATA PROCESSING SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH INDIGENT HEALTHCARE
SOLUTIONS
Came to be heard this the 8th day of September, 2008, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the renewal of the Data Processing Services Agreement with Indigent
Healthcare Solutions, and authorize the County Judge to sign same.
ORDER NO. 30992
INDIGENT HEALTH CARE SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH PETERSON
REGIONAL HEALTH CARE CENTER
Came to be heard this the 8th day of September, 2008, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve renegotiating the Contract, and have the County Attorney write anew
Agreement, to include that Kerr County hire the employee to be in charge of the program,
to be administered on a County basis, and that the hospital will reimburse Kerr County
for fifty (50%) percent of the cost.
ORDER NO. 30993
CLAIMS AND ACCOUNTS
Came to be heard this the 8th day of September, 2008, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve paying the bills as presented.
ORDER NO. 30994
BUDGET AMENDMENTS
Came to be heard this the 8th day of September, 2008, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve paying the Budget Amendments as presented.
ORDER NO. 30995
MONTHLY REPORTS
Came to be heard this the 8th day of September, 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 Monthly Reports from:
County Attorney -Annual Report of Income Received
Constable Pct #1
Constable Pct #4
County Clerk -General and Trust Fund
JP #3
Environmental Health
JP #1
ORDER NO. 30996
SALARY GRADE FOR ASSISTANT AUDITOR
Came to be heard this the 8th day of September, 2008, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Set the Assistant Auditor's salary at a step/grade at 18/2 effective 9-1-08.
ORDER NO. 30997
PERSONNEL ISSUE REGARDING INSURANCE COVERAGE
Came to be heard this the 8th day of September, 2008, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Move that the County pay the difference between the standard amount and the cobra
amount for additional employee spouse as detailed by the Human Resource Department.