1
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, November 9, 2009
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

^-._
1
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
November 9, 2009
--- Commissioners' Comments
1.1 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
renew Kerr County Market Days usage license
for 2010
1.2 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
approve resolution updating master plan for the
Kerrville/Kerr County Municipal Airport
1.3 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
adopt resolution in support of Kerr Economic
Development Foundation
1.7 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
request from Bob Wilson for an explanation as
to why Commissioners Court chose IKON copier
contract over Toshiba copier contract
1.4 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for
Tax Assessor/Collector's Office to be open on
December 31st, 2009, a scheduled holiday, to
allow for end-of-year tax payments, and also
open on March 2nd, 2010, also a scheduled holiday,
for the 2010 primary election
', 1.5 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
approve Kerr County Juvenile Center's policies
and procedures related to abuse and neglect
1.6 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
08/09 fiscal review of Kerr County Juvenile
Detention Center
1.11 Public Hearing for proposed private road name
Moorhead Road E., Precinct 2
1.8 Acknowledge receipt of quarterly investment
report from Patterson and Associates for
quarter ending 9-30-09
1.9 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
clarify Commissioners Court's intent in recent
designation of Ilse Bailey as acting County
Attorney of Kerr County
PAGE
7
13
16
20
34
37
46
48
55
55
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
3
I N D E X (Continued)
November 9, 2009
1.10 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
approve resolution supporting Constitution of
the United States of America
1.16 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
request for easement for equipment placed at
rear of courthouse property with Hill Country
Telephone Communications, LLC
1.19 Open bids for new county courthouse telephone
system
1.20 Question and answer session presented by Jim
Lehman and Daphne Webber, representatives of
the Office of Court Administration
1.24 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action
regarding City of Kerrville's application to
TCEQ for Certificate of Convenience and
Necessity for 2 miles outside corporate limits
of the city
1.26 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
renewal of financial services agreement with
RBC Capital Markets, Inc., as financial adviser
to Kerr County
1.12 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
approve private road name, Moorhead Road E.,
Precinct 2
1.13 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
	approve proposed road	name Chico's Road SW,
	Precinct 4	
1.14	Consider/discuss, take	appropriate action to
	declare a 1998 Ford F1	50 as surplus
1.15	Update on dog issues a	t Flat Rock Lake Park
1.17	Consider/discuss, take	appropriate action to
	approve filling out an	application for Texas
	Fleet Fuel; no bidding	process required
1.18	Consider/discuss, take	appropriate action
	regarding contracting	out Kerr County Jail
	commissary	
PAGE
61
70
78
80
91
118
121
122
122
124
124
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
4
I N D E X (Continued)
November 9, 2009
PAGE
1.21 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
authorize and/or approve preliminary planning,
evaluation, and other preconstruction activities
or procedures in connection with proposed Law
Enforcement Annex/Adult Probation Building 130
1.22 Status report and update on courthouse window
replacement project
1.23 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
approve by court order the County Auditor doing
audits for ESD's 1 and 2 when records become
available
1.25 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
report of meeting with TCEQ Watermaster
regarding Flat Rock and Ingram Lakes; authorize
lowering lake levels to facilitate dam repairs
and silt depth determination at future date to
be determined; provide notifications to
appropriate state/federal agencies as required
1.27 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
cast Kerr County's vote for Kerr Central
Appraisal District Board of Directors
1.28 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
request from Texas Association for Home Care
to declare November "Home Care and Hospice Month"
1.29 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
implementation of the burn ban
1.30 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
approve contracts with Turtle Creek VFD, Big
Brothers and Sisters, and Families & Literacy;
allow County Judge to sign same
1.31 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
determine and notify TCDRS of plan provisions
for 2010
1.32 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
set December 22, 2009, as the date for Kerr
County Christmas Luncheon
131
133
134
142
143
144
144
145
146
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
I N D E X (Continued)
November 9, 2009
1.33 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
requesting County Attorney to pursue Open
Meetings violation by GMA-9 and review
terminology in HB-1763
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
1.34 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
personnel matter (Executive Session)
--- Adjourned
PAGE
148
151
152
153
154
161
165
167
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
On Monday, November 9, 2009, 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 Kerr County
Commissioners Court posted and scheduled for this date and
time, Monday, November the 9th, 2009, at 9 a.m. It is that
time now. Commissioner Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. I have a special
guest that's coming in today to do this, offer a word of
prayer, and -- and then after he finishes, we'll do the
pledge of allegiance. My good friend is probably the best
justice of the peace in Precinct 1. (Laughter.) The
honorable David Billeiter. You're the only one there, I
hope.
JUDGE BILLEITER: And you're the best Commissioner
in Precinct 1.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Very, very good. Very good.
JUDGE BILLEITER: Let us go to the Lord in prayer.
(Prayer and pledge of allegiance.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
11-9-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
7
JUDGE TINLEY: At this time, if there's any member
of the audience or the public that wishes to be heard on any
matter that is not a listed agenda item, this is your
opportunity to come forward and tell us what's on your mind.
If you wish to speak on an agenda item, we'd ask that you
fill out a participation form. There should be some located
at the rear of the room. If there are none, or if you decide
that you wish to be heard on an agenda item and you haven't
filled out a participation form, that's fine too. It just
helps me to kind of keep up with who I need to recognize as
we go through the agenda. But if we get to an agenda item
you wish to be heard on and you have not filled out a
participation form, get my attention in some manner and I'll
give you that opportunity. But right now, if there's any
person that wishes to be heard on any matter that is not a
listed agenda item, feel free to come forward now and tell us
what's on your mind. Well, seeing no one coming forward, I
guess we'll move on. Commissioner Baldwin, what do you have
for us this morning?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sir, I do have a couple of
i items. I wanted to remind the Court, next Monday, the 16th,
we will be at Schreiner University at the library with the
Historical Commission. As y'all remember, they have moved
all of their stuff and things out there, and they have put --
putting everything on computer, and they wanted to kind of
11-9-09
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
show off what they're doing and what they're going to do.
So, that's next Monday. And then the following day is
Tuesday -- happens every week; Tuesday comes right after
Monday -- and we are back out there again, and I think we're
going to eat lunch there at 11:15, is when they want us out
there, and this is with Leadership Kerr County. They're
doing a program that just sounded really interesting to me,
so several of us have signed up to be out there. That
evening, the County Attorney and myself and several others
will be up on Upper Turtle Creek with the community out there
trying to form a cemetery association. You remember a few --
couple of years ago, we discovered that the County owns all
that property out there, that cemetery and the school and
everything. And -- and it -- recently, I had a gentleman
come in my office and say, "My mother is buried out there,
and my father's on his deathbed in the V.A. What can I do
about it?" I thought, oh, my god, I don't know. You know,
it's -- it's a Commissioner's duty to make those kind of
decisions. So, we're changing that, 'cause that doesn't work
real well. So, we're trying to form a cemetery association,
and -- and the County Attorney has agreed to go out and
explain that, and she has found an attorney here in town that
is volunteering his services to help them set it up. So,
it's going to be a neat thing and a fun thing, and that's
next Tuesday night. And I know that y'all are all -- will
11-9-09
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
all	be	there,	so we may think about that. So, anyway, thank
you	for	your	time.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, sir. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I pass, Judge. We got a
~ big agenda.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just a couple things. A lot
has happened the last couple weeks. Last Monday, we had the
administrative hearing on our appeal to Water Development
Board. Interesting. I think we presented the best case we
could have. It's now before the board of the Water
Development Board. It will be at their -- considered at
their January 21st meeting. See where it goes from there.
But I think we certainly did a -- raised the awareness of
these issues, probably on a statewide basis. The second
administrative appeal that they're hearing will be tomorrow
in Amarillo, which is related to a different set of
circumstances. They have a lot of water up there, but
they're arguing as to how they divide it up. And,
interestingly, there are four groundwater districts in GMA-1.
Three of them set different -- they all set different DFC's,
so they're trying to figure out which one works, and Boone
Pickens is right in the middle of that one. That's
11-9-09
1
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
interesting. That's happening tomorrow.
Another interesting thing, the Court might recall,
a month or so ago, I was nominated -- they nominated me to
serve on a committee, which I don't think we even really knew
what the committee was, but for better or worse, I was
appointed to that committee, and it's out of House Bill 2275.
It's the -- what's it called? -- Task Force on Uniform County
Subdivision Regulations. It's a 23-member committee, and the
first meeting is next week; find out what that's all about.
I'm not sure. Related closely -- well, the reason for it is
because legislation in the 80th Legislature changed Chapter
232, which gives us our authority for subdivision
regulations, and made all subsections applicable to all
counties. And before that, Subsection B only applied to the
border counties that were really -- really written for
colonias, and they're going to go back and rewrite that set
of rules under Subchapter B to make it applicable statewide.
A lot of conflict to that. That'll be interesting to see
where that goes. I think that's it. Bruce?
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Oehler?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, this maybe should come
under the meeting, but I'd like to talk a little bit about
some changes that are -- that are being planned for Animal
Control.	And	Janie	went	to a	-- a seminar,	conference,
whatever	you	want to	call	it,	in Las Vegas	recently. It was
11-9-09
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
paid for by Mr. Ginsbach; County didn't pay for it. She came
back excited, had some new ideas on sort of how to better
serve the community when we have-pet problems. And I want
her to talk about it just for a second. One of the things
that she did last week, on her own, that -- and what the
result is, and I think it's going to be a positive for a long
time to come, and it gives a chance to make the community
aware of what it is that she is doing right now. And if she
would come up here and tell us a little bit, very shortly, --
we got a long meeting; very briefly -- about what you
implemented last week that has really been a success so far?
MS. WHITT: Well, Freeman-Fritz received a pretty
large grant to spay or neuter animals over 40 pounds. People
weren't taking advantage of it, so I had them e-mail me a
flyer. We printed up a bunch of flyers, and four -- three
officers and myself paired up and we went door-to-door,
talking to people and handing out flyers. As a result of
that, within an hour of us handing out the flyers,
Freeman-Fritts had five -- five animals scheduled within one
hour. And as a result of that, as of right now, they have
done 10 spay or neuters, plus they have eight more scheduled.
We're planning on doing that, you know, on the slow days once
a week, going out for an hour, two hours at the most, and
handing out flyers for people to spay or neuter. I will be
putting other things on the agenda. One is -- is, hopefully,
11-9-09
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
I would like to change Animal Control's name, the facility
name. You know, work on new foster programs, things of that
nature. But we -- we really got a lot of good ideas, and I
think -- I really think it'll work.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It's been very positive.
Freeman-Fritts is picking up the tab; they have a grant to
pay for people's animals to be spayed or neutered, I believe,
that cannot afford to pay. That hasn't been done in the
~ past.
MS. WHITT: Pretty positive. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Of course, our thanks to
Pat Ginsbach, who has been a wonderful benefactor out at our
animal facility, providing us with facilities and the ability
for our people to gain additional knowledge and ideas such as
this most recent one. Day after tomorrow, Wednesday -- that
comes right after Tuesday, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Dadgum.
JUDGE TINLEY: Every week.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're picking up on this
I
stuff fast, I'm telling you.
', JUDGE TINLEY: Veterans Day, we will have our
Veterans Day program out here on the west side of the
courthouse, as we do every year at 11:00 in the morning.
Eleventh hour of the 11th day of the 11th month, if you'll
11-9-09
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
become known as Veterans Day to honor all veterans. And all
of you are invited. In addition, our congressman from this
district, Representative Lamar Smith, will be there and will
offer remarks on the program. So, that'll give you an
opportunity to have some interaction with our elected
congressional representative. So, all of you are welcome.
We look forward to seeing you. It will otherwise be a
courthouse holiday, but it'll be going out on the west side.
Let's get on with our agenda, if we might. First item on the
agenda is to consider, discuss, take appropriate action to
renew Kerr County Market Days usage license for 2010.
Ms. Anderson? Good to have you here this morning.
MS. ANDERSON: Good morning. It's a pleasure to be
back again. I met Commissioner Baldwin as I was coming in
this morning, and he thought maybe this was the fifth year
that we'd been here, and we sort of surprised ourselves when
what I'm really here for today is to ask for permission to do
our ninth year of Kerr County Market Days. I think in 2002,
none of us ever expected that this day would come, but we're
here, and we would request your permission to continue the
Kerr County Market Days event in 2010. You do have a very
long agenda, so I'm going to try to be real brief and just
say that everything went good in '08. It's going a whole lot
11-9-09
1
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
better in '09. We think '10 will be super fantastic, and we
don't look for any changes. And I'd be happy to answer any
questions that anybody might have, or address any concerns.
JUDGE TINLEY: The license agreement, Ms. Anderson,
is essentially the same as it was in prior years, with the
only change being the year; is that correct?
MS. BAILEY: I believe that's correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And last year, we -- seemed
But last
Some
MS. ANDERSON: Correct.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Two programs a month,
correct?
MS. ANDERSON: We have been doing the two-day event
on Memorial Day now for several years. This upcoming market
will be our first two-day Thanksgiving market.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Fantastic.
MS. ANDERSON: And it's already huge. And we
expect it to go well and be a real positive event for us that
weekend herein Kerrville.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is there a kind of a
I Thanksgiving theme?
MS. ANDERSON: Yes, sir, there is. Many of our
11-9-09
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
vendors decorate their booths. Of course, we're following
the lighting event and the Christmas parade, so the holiday
season will have been kicked off, because we hope to have
pumpkins and, you know, kind of festive Thanksgiving, and
moving into Christmas decorations in the booths. And --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Fine.
MS. ANDERSON: -- we're also looking forward to
some live music performances that weekend, which will be
I probably the biggest we've ever had.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not Commissioner Baldwin?
Not him, huh?
MS. ANDERSON: I haven't had the opportunity to ask
~ him yet. So --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What are y'all talking
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Playing music on the --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- courthouse square.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions for
2 2 Ms . Anc
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion and a second for
about?
11-9-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
16
approval. Any question or discussion on the motion? All in
favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Thank you,
I Ms. Anderson.
MS. ANDERSON: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: The next item on the agenda is to
consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to approve a
resolution updating the master plan for the Kerrville/Kerr
County Municipal Airport at Louis Schreiner Field. Mr. Bruce
McKenzie -- is your title Executive Director or President?
MR. McKENZIE: Airport Manager.
I
JUDGE TINLEY: Airport Manager.
MR. McKENZIE: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Good to have you here this
i morning.
MR. McKENZIE: Thank you, I appreciate that. Good
morning, Judge. Good morning, Commissioners. We are
required to update our master plan -- our airport has a
master plan; it's quite a lengthy document. It's quite
comprehensive, and it needs to be updated every five to seven
years, according to the F.A.A. This document was finalized
in 2003, but it's actually -- the research was done in 2002,
11-9-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
17
so we're due. That being said, we made a trip to Austin,
myself and two of the board members, visited with TexDOT
Aviation. They concurred with our conclusion that we do need
to update this master plan. In that verbiage, that means
that they agreed to fund 90 percent of it through a grant,
the sponsors being the County and the City will fund
5 percent each, the other 10 percent. This is estimated to
cost about $175,000, so that's what we've plugged in. And
I'm respectfully requesting that the Court approve their
5 percent of this through this resolution.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I believe we budgeted that.
I would move approval.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. You're correct, Commissioner, we got it plugged
in. We knew this was coming and knew it was a necessity.
I'll be out later on today to swear in the most recent --
I
MR. McKENZIE: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- appointment to the board. I look
forward to that. It's a privilege doing that. Any other
question or comments?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I do have another question.
MR. McKENZIE: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There's nothing in there
that is a brand-new project that we have not talked about?
11-9-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
18
MR. McKENZIE: No, sir. This is -- this is
strictly a master plan; updates everything that's happened.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand.
MR. McKENZIE: Everything that's changed in here.
But there's nothing --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Nothing new?
MR. McKENZIE: And this -- this will include -- the
Court would probably be interested to know, this will be
included in upgrading our plans for our T-hangars. That will
be in this master plan, how we're going to lay them out, how
we can address the new parallel taxiway, if, indeed, we
decide to put one in. It's a very comprehensive plan, and
that is all included in this master plan.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And it's -- one of the keys to
the master plan is, if it's not in the master plan, it
doesn't get funded. Or if it does, it's not -- it's not
consistent, doesn't get funded by TexDOT. So, it's pretty
much a very broad document that looks as to where the
airport's going in the future. And critical that its stays
current, because otherwise you do not get the -- the --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's also likely --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: State funding.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's also likely to be
25 ~ MR. McKENZIE: Yes, sir.
11-9-09
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There were some vexing
issues in the past, most notably being the moving of Highway
27. I would think that that would come out in this new plan.
MR. McKENZIE: Yes, sir. That's all -- all in the
~ plan .
JUDGE TINLEY: We've been real fortunate with
TexDOT Aviation just recently. They don't have that big of a
budget, but they plugged us in for -- I think initially, it
was 14 million, if I recall.
MR. McKENZIE: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Two phases, 6 million and 8 million.
The second phase that was just completed, bidding came in
significantly under what was estimated.
MR. McKENZIE: 42 percent under the engineer's
estimate, yes, sir. We were very fortunate.
JUDGE TINLEY: But we've -- we've received a lot of
funding for upgrades at that airport just recently.
MR. McKENZIE: Yes, we have. We're very blessed.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and a second. Any
further question or discussion? All in favor of the motion,
signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Thank you,
11-9-09
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Mr. McKenzie.
MR. McKENZIE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Bruce.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's go to Item 3; consider,
discuss, and take appropriate action to adopt a resolution in
', support of the Kerr County Economic Development Foundation.
Commissioner Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Judge. There's
been a lot said about the City's proposal to take over the
I~', function of economic development, and there have been a lot
of meetings, and there will continue to be some meetings,
particularly, I believe, tomorrow night, where this issue is
on the agenda. To say that KEDF has not done a good job is
to be disingenuous, in my opinion. I believe it has done a
good job. And what's noted in the resolution that I'm going
to ask the Court to consider is all -- are all of the -- all
of the things that have taken place that KEDF has been a part
of over the last seven years. It's a lengthy resolution, and
I think -- the Judge and I agreed that we probably don't want
'' to read it in there, but we do want it to be a part of the
record. The plan that's being advanced by the City envisions
the creation of a -- of a council to -- to actually take over
this function and push KEDF to the side. I, frankly, believe
that's an improper way to go about it. I think, Judge, you
may want to weigh in on all this in a little bit.
11-9-09
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
And, so, what this resolution proposes to do, first
of all, is memorialize the activities, point out the fact
that everything that takes place under KEDF banner is done by
one person, one paid staff member, which has been the case
since it was taken away or separated from the Chamber of
Commerce several years ago, and by a volunteer board. For
this to be anything other than an independent foundation to
do economic development, in my opinion, is a mistake. And so
what I'm asking the Court to do is consider this resolution,
and remind -- we want to remind both the City and anyone else
who's interested that this -- that a creation of a council is
not all that bad if it's done correctly, but it needs to be a
nongovernmental entity, and it needs not to be controlled by
one governmental agency to the exclusion of another
governmental agency, or -- or the minimizing of that --
marginalizing of that governmental agency. So, I would point
out that the -- the economic development plan, a strategic
plan that was developed by TX -- what's the name of that?
JUDGE TINLEY: TXP.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: TXP well over a year ago
resulted in not only both the City and the County unanimously
adopting that strategic plan, but it also evolved where the
City and the County together, as well as the City of Ingram,
put together a uniform set of -- of incentives for the future
of businesses in terms of retention and expansion and -- and
11-9-09
1
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
the attraction of new businesses. And we would point out
that that plan should be followed, and this should not be
taken over by one governmental entity to the exclusion of
others. So, Judge, do you want to weigh in on this?
JUDGE TINLEY: Be happy to, Commissioner. I -- I
concur with your thoughts. The strategic plan, which was a
year and a half in development, and it had participants from
city and county consistently all the way through, as well as
the business community, was unanimously adopted by and
approved by both the City and the County upon its completion
after that 8- to 10-month period. And the strategic plan, in
fact, suggested and called for the creation of -- of the
council that -- that was mentioned by Commissioner Williams
as -- as an advisory group to assist and advise Kerr
independent -- Kerr Economic Development Foundation in
establishing criteria for benchmarks and -- and performance
criteria and things of that nature.
The -- the objections that seem to have arisen most
recently in this effort by the City of Kerrville seem to be
that the -- the participation of the board of KEDF is too
unwieldy, too large. And there is a meeting scheduled
tomorrow, as a matter of fact, to consider reducing that
board. That action's been under consideration for several
years now because of -- of the number on the board, and --
and the other objections seemed to be the apparent lack of --
11-9-09
23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
of benchmarks or performance criteria. Of course, the -- the
council -- the advisory group, as anticipated by the
strategic plan, would have that very purpose, and would be
made up from all sectors of government and nongovernment,
business community and so forth for that purpose. So, I
think it is important that the lead effort for economic
development in Kerr County not be controlled by any single
governmental agency, be it city, county, or other
governmental agency. I think it's important that it be an
independent nongovernmental agency, because you've got so
many stakeholders involved in virtually every project, and I
think it's -- that's one of the reasons it's important.
The other -- the other -- another very important
reason is, when it comes to economic development, a lot of us
are kept in the dark about what's going on, and that's by
design. People don't want their business on the street.
When they're anticipating expanding their business, bringing
new business in, there's all sorts of competitive
considerations, acquisition of property, a lot of different
considerations that it's necessary that there be
confidentiality in the development of this kind of activity.
So, it causes two things to happen. Number one, people say,
"Well, nothing's going on over there." Well, there's
something going on over there. You just don't know about it.
And, as a matter of fact, that's by design. The second thing
11-9-09
1
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
is, if it's in a public entity, I have serious concerns about
the Public Information Act, which gives citizens the right to
public information. And if -- if these businesses and -- and
entrepreneurs that are wanting to enhance or relocate here
are -- do not have a secure feeling that their business won't
be on the street, I think it's counterproductive to the
economic development effort. But we need an effort in which
all of the stakeholders -- the governmental entities
certainly are stakeholders, because we end up being economic
partners in virtually every project that comes down the pike,
but there are a lot of other stakeholders involved too, and
we want them involved. They involve education. They involve
water resources. They involve other businesses. And I think
it's important that this be handled independently and outside
of the control of any single government entity.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge -- Judge, there's one
other thing I'd like to add to what both of us have said to
the Court and to the public about this. One of the
initiatives that's been on KEDF's plate and forefront in
their activities has been the effort to secure development of
a new U.S.D.A. facility for the Knipling-Bushland U.S.
Livestock Insect Research Lab. For many of you who do not
know, there is a laboratory out on Highway 16 North on the
left-hand side going to Fredericksburg. It's been there
since the end of World War II, I believe, just about, and the
11-9-09
1
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
work that they do is absolutely amazing with respect to
research for insects that -- that are detrimental to a viable
cattle industry. And that facility, if you went out to visit
it, is in quonset huts.
Now, quonset huts date back to World War II, and
the ability for these people, highly-trained scientists --
there's a cadre of them out there that are tremendous in
terms of their knowledge and their ability. KEDF has been
leading the effort for a new facility for that purpose, and
in the process, many trips to Washington. Much work has been
done, and over $4 million in federal funding has already been
committed and in the process of being expended for the
purpose of designing a new facility through the United States
Department of Agriculture. In that same context, KEDF has
purchased 86.71 acres of land on Peterson Farm Road for the
purpose of that lab relocating to a new facility. That's
highly, highly important, not only for us here, but for the
cattle industry in the United States of America, and anybody
else that has cattle that comes into the United States of
America. So, just needed to point that out.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I wanted to bring up one thing
that -- and I think the fact that we're even having the
discussion today is exactly the reason that we need to -- to
pass this resolution. I mean, I don't know -- three years
ago is when we did this strategic plan, three years ago that
11-9-09
1
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
everyone -- two years ago everyone signed onto it, including
the City Council, the Commissioners Court, and we were going
in one direction. And almost at a whim, the lightning bolt
hits down the street, I guess, and then they decide to change
directions, and now economic development is a long-term
process. And you can't change based on who's elected or
who's unelected here or down the street. It needs to be very
much -- I mean, certainly, independent to a degree, of local
government. It's got to be largely staffed and run and
decision making by local businesses, and that's the way KEDF
is set up.
To have -- you know, just because there's an
election takes place and we change direction in the county
how we do economic development is not going to work. That's
going to be the most detrimental thing we could possibly do.
We participated in an economic development strategic plan.
The City did. We just need to step back and let that plan
work; at least give it five, ten years before we start
tinkering with it and implement things that it said. KEDF
has come a long way since I've been a Commissioner. They're
getting -- they now have a very proactive person in Guy
Overby, who's president of it. He's doing a great job, and I
just think that we just need to implement some of the things
that were in the strategic plan. But to try to move and
change direction right now makes absolutely no sense to me.
11-9-09
1
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 BALDWIN: I agree with that 100
percent, and I also agree big time that an agency like this
should not be under the -- under one government entity.
However, I do disagree a little bit in the sense of this
transparency issue when you're dealing with public money.
If -- you know, if -- as long as we're -- the public is
paying for it, they -- you know, I just feel like that should
be an open book. And the answer to that, I guess, is, you
know, if you don't want people looking into it, then maybe
the funding needs to come from the private sector, those
businesses that they're out there dealing with and
protecting, and that's a wonderful thing.
I also think -- you know, I didn't realize that the
City -- I think the Judge -- somebody mentioned that the
City's goal was to just take the thing over. I didn't
realize that part. That's -- that would be a bad thing. It
would be a bad thing if we tried to take it over. It just
does not belong in a government entity. But I do believe
that those types of agencies that -- that are public funded,
people need to -- there's that old boy out in west Texas; I
can't remember his name. He's always talking about peeking
under the hood. We need to -- as a government body, we need
to be peeking under the hood at all times and make sure that
the thing is transparent as much as possible, and accountable
to those folks that actually pay for it.
11-9-09
1
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
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think there --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I know it's a good group in
place right now, but, you know, we're a good group. But we
still need to lay everything out on the table in front of the
folks that pay for it.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Also, that the KEDF,
especially Guy, being that he's the main source of
information, has done studies and things in areas to -- to
just report to the City especially on -- on what
infrastructure is needed in order to keep businesses in the
area. He did that just recently out between Ingram and
Kerrville with the industrial park area. You know, they --
there's some things that need to be done there that would
enhance those businesses, just by providing sewer and water
to them, that employ a lot of people. And he took the time
and went and spent -- I don't know. It took him over a
month, going early and meeting with all the employers out
there, to get information to supply that would be helpful in
business. I know that for a fact. But, you know, I have
no -- I would have no intention of anyone, us or the City,
taking that thing over. That doesn't make any sense at all.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, let me read the
resolved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Doesn't work.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Doesn't work.
11-9-09
1
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: Let me read the Resolved
into the record. We'll see where it goes. "Resolved: That
Kerr County Commissioners Court, by adoption of this
resolution, does hereby support the continuation of Kerr
Economic Development Foundation as an independent
nongovernmental entity and the establishment of an Economic
Development Council in support thereof as recommended by the
Economic Development Strategic Plan, which was unanimously
adopted by the City of Kerrville and Kerr County; and be it
i
further resolved that the Kerr Economic Improvement
Corporation provide the funding for the operations of KEDF
and provide the additional resources in support of economic
development projects which are initiated by KEDF; be it
further resolved that a signed copy of the resolution be
forwarded to KEDF, City Council, City of Kerrville, Ingram
City Council, and Kerr Area Chamber of Commerce." I move
adoption.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second, with a --
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
adoption of the resolution. And, Commissioner, I believe you
I
indicated that you want the -- the entire resolution to be
included within the record?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: For purposes of publication.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Commissioner, if they're -- if
11-9-09
1
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
you can accept a real minor amendment to it, on your first
Resolved, the last line, where it says "unanimously adopted
by the City of Kerrville and Kerr County," can we put the
date, or at least the year that that was done? 'Cause I
think it's important that we're changing course very soon
after everyone just agreed to go in one direction, or they
were talking about changing course. And I don't know what --
if it's 2000 --
JUDGE TINLEY: 2008. Early 2008 is when --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you talking about the
first Resolved?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. So, the last sentence
would read, "...was unanimously adopted by City of Kerrville
and Kerr County in 2008."
JUDGE TINLEY: I believe it was January 2008 that
the formal adoption took place, and which initiated also
the -- the incentives committee, which was subsequently --
their actions were approved in September of last year.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We can do that,
Commissioner, but the first Resolved just picks up the
~ mission statement of KEDF.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I guess my concern is
that -- I want it real clear that this is a very recent
event.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
11-9-09
1
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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I will find a place to put
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Somewhere, we need to put the
date that that resolution was adopted by the City and the
County to support this future plan.
JUDGE TINLEY: My recollection is January of '08,
but we can go back and make sure we put in the correct date.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That will --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have one question, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Here's an example of peeking
under the hood. Bill, did you say that KEDF has purchased
~ property?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And so those -- that's
public money commingled with private funds, I'm sure.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's money that -- the
bulk -- the bulk of it -- Judge, help me out here, but the
bulk of it is borrowed from the banks, and the interest is
paid through Kerr Economic Improvement Corporation.
JUDGE TINLEY: E.I.C., that's correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: E.I.C.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: As I recall.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If there's -- my point is,
11-9-09
1
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
if there's any public funds, somebody needs to be keeping an
eye on it, just to keep everything above board. That's all
I'm trying to say.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: As I recall, the predecessor to
KEDF owned property out towards the airport, and wasn't that
property somehow -- wasn't it configured and sold or swapped
for -- you know, it was a -- there was -- that's where the --
some of the funds came from, I believe.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, let me give you a total
history, Commissioner. Back in the -- when the insect lab
was originally created out just north of I-10 on Highway 16,
at that time, the predecessor of KEDF was the Kerr Industrial
Foundation, and they provided the land to the United States
government for that facility. It's 34 acres out there. And
they subsequently became the owners of some other property
totally unrelated to that out at the airport area, which they
still currently own. I think in connection with some
adjustments made to Mooney's operation out there, they
swapped some land with Mooney, but they still own some
acreage out there adjacent to the airport complex.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think what you're
thinking about was -- is embodied in one of these whereas's.
There was a time not too long ago where, to assist Mooney
applying for a Texas Capital Grant with the City of
11-9-09
1
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
Kerrville, the foundation gave a piece of land to Mooney
Airplane Company to expand its parking facility and clean up
some --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- issues. And that then
enabled them to go on and file an application for Texas
Capital Grants.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That was a different issue.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions? Comments?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We talked about everything
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's what --
JUDGE TINLEY: That lab --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I was going to bring that up.
JUDGE TINLEY: That lab is what solved the screw
worm problem --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- for the cattle industry.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely. I remember the
screw worms. Y'all want to talk about screw worms?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. As a kid, that was my
job.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Nasty job, I'll tell you.
11-9-09
1
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
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Nasty job, that old purple
stuff.
JUDGE TINLEY: The other thing that they're working
on which is somewhat interesting is the tick problem with
whitetail deer.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: And, of course, that -- that affects
the entire country. And they've been very, very successful
in working on that program.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You reckon they have
anything that'd keep fleas off of beagles at my house?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I bet they have something to
keep it off.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Might be able to keep it
~ off you.
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: That motion does carry. Let's move
to a timed item at 9:30. Item 7, consider, discuss, take
appropriate objection on request from Bob Wilson for
11-9-09
1
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
explanation as to why Commissioners Court chose IKON copier
contract over the Toshiba copier contract. Mr. Wilson?
MR. WILSON: Judge, thanks for the time. I wanted
to assure you that I grew up on a farm in Charlotte, Texas,
and I remember that purple screw worm stuff, Commissioner. I
have a handout. Thank you for the opportunity to address the
Court, Judge. I'll just read my statement. I wish to
address the recent copier award for the Commissioners Court
by the Commissioners Court. I obtained a copy of the new
signed lease agreement, which is included in the package.
Included in this is a copy of your signed agreement and a
copy of my proposed agreement, which clearly shows that I was
lower. And I was assured by Ms. Grinstead that I met all the
purchasing criteria, and by Judge Tinley that the County
really does want to pay, you know, the least amount possible
for these services. And, respectfully, I ask -- and I
reiterate, respectfully. Respectfully, I wish to ask for an
oral and written itemized account as to why I, being a lower
price, could not earn the Kerr County taxpayers' business.
And number two, just, you know, what the purchasing criteria
for Kerr County is.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me give you mine. You
won't get it in writing, but you'll sure get it in verbal.
MR. WILSON: Okay, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I am really kind of -- I
11-9-09
1
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
don't understand what you're doing here. This is kind cf
disturbing to come -- somebody to come in and ask these kind
of goofy questions. But lowest price --
MR. WILSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- product, all those things
are part of it, but my big issue is -- is the service that we
have gotten from the other company for -- how many years? A
lot of years.
MR. WILSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's enough for me, and
that's enough for you. Thank you.
MR. WILSON: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me address, if I might, the --
the agreements that were tendered were submitted to the
County Attorney for review.
MR. WILSON: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: There were significant problems with
the agreement which your company submitted.
MR. WILSON: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: And I'm sure that had something to
do with it. It certainly did in my mind. Along with
Commissioner Baldwin, our history with the IKON people, in
dealing with their product and the service that we have
gotten from them, was -- had been always satisfactory. Their
product had performed capably and up to our expectations and
11-9-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
37
beyond that. Thirdly, there were, of course, references by
each provider, and unfortunately, your references indicated
some negative report of Toshiba. representatives. Now, that
may have included you, Mr. Wilson. I don't know. But,
certainly, that -- that goes to the service issue.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Anything else?
MR. WILSON: I just wanted to ask. I understood
about meeting the criteria. The references, I -- I was told
everything was okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, we have a number of qualified
bidders on any particular item. Just because you're
qualified does not mean that -- that that means you're
assured any business.
MR. WILSON: I understand, Judge. Respectfully.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Thank you, sir. Let's move
to Item 4, if we might. Consider, discuss, take appropriate
action for the Tax Assessor/Collector's office to be open on
December 31st, 2009, a scheduled holiday, to allow for
end-of-year tax payments, and for Tax Assessor/Collector's
office to be open on March the 2nd, 2010, also a scheduled
holiday, for the 2010 primary election. Ms. Bolin?
MS. BOLIN: Well, last year we were closed on
December 31st, which was the very first time, as far as I
know. We literally caught hell over it for months, because
we've got taxpayers that insist on waiting until the 31st to
11-9-09
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
come in and pay their taxes. We have numerous ways that they
can pay them, but they want to do it in person. And it's --
I made the statement last year to y'all that I did not want
to be closed on the 31st again because of the problems that
we had with it. It was my understanding that several of you
got phone calls from constituents because they were upset
because we were closed. It is a very busy day for us. It's
a very busy day in my motor vehicle department, and I would
really, really request being open. I spoke to the Sheriff
about having someone here, security issue. And he said that
it would cost him about $200, but that someone would need to
be here. But I honestly feel like we need to be open.
JUDGE TINLEY: And you want to be open?
MS. BOLIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This is a little bit strange
for me. Good.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You would be open, just
your department? Your people, all of whom know of your plan?
MS. BOLIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And --
MS. BOLIN: Actually, they were the ones who said,
"I thought we weren't going to do this any more." Because of
the grief that we caught over it last year.
11-9-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
39
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask you something.
Is this a holiday? Is the 31st is a holiday?
MS. BOLIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're going to stay open
for what reason?
MS. BOLIN: For motor vehicle and property taxes,
but mainly property taxes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can you send out a note or
make phone calls and tell them to come in the day before?
MS. BOLIN: That doesn't work. We've tried the
newspaper. We've tried everything that we know. We can
accept payments online. We can accept payments postmarked
that day. But you've got your constituents who do not want
to trust those; they want to come in on the 31st. I
understand. It doesn't make sense to me either, but we've --
we've allowed everything that we can possibly allow, and I
really didn't think we'd have such a problem last year. We
had a -- a big repercussion over it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Go on to your other -- the
second -- the March 2nd date.
MS. BOLIN: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Obviously, that date, we -- we
have to be open, because it's a primary.
MS. BOLIN: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The election department,
11-9-09
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
anyway, has to be open.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Now, that one, I don't think we
have -- there's no option on that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's not a scheduled
holiday, is it?
MS. BOLIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It is?
MS. BOLIN: It's Texas Independence Day.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, Texas Independence Day.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's Buster's.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's Buster's holiday.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess the issue is -- and it
doesn't -- you know, I guess it makes a difference from the
standpoint that we -- it's not just your office that's
affected; it affects other departments as well. That means
that, you know, likely some -- possibly maintenance is going
to have to be at work that day, Sheriff's Department. I
don't know what it does on the -- the Auditor is sitting
here -- with dollars. I mean --
MS. BOLIN: Why would maintenance need to be open?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If something -- I mean, I think
we generally have Maintenance Department around any time
we're open in case something breaks. I think that it's a --
you know, I think -- I don't think you need a full staff, but
11-9-09
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
it does affect other offices. And I think that if we do
this, we need to figure out how we -- I guess you just get a
day -- a floating day for your employees to use when they --
when they would want to use it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:. Is the what your plan is?
MS. BOLIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: To give them an alternative
day?
MS. BOLIN: To give them an alternative day.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Or are you going to pay them
time and a half?
MS. BOLIN: Right, and that's for both of those
holidays.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They get paid time and a half
and get a floating --
MS. BOLIN: No, they'll get the floating.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, you would have your
employees, and they would have a floating day that they would
take off within a prescribed period of time?
MS. BOLIN: Correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The Sheriff will provide
courthouse security?
MS. BOLIN: Correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, there's the Sheriff.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It would be time and a half
11-9-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
42
for my guys.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There you go. Absolutely,
it would.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Don't have a choice.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know if I agree with
this or not. It's a holiday.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Nobody's ever called me. I
guess maybe they will now. (Laughter.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Probably a safe bet, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Pretty good bet.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On that day, I tend to agree
with Commissioner Baldwin. On the other day, I think that we
made a mistake on our holiday schedule, and I think that we
should substitute -- this is just throwing this out -- maybe
San Jacinto Day as a holiday, as opposed to Texas
Independence Day.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I disagree with you there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because I think that it's -- on
the election day, it affects a lot of different offices.
Things have to run smooth, and I think that it's -- that's a
problem day for us to be closed, county-wide. Because,
obviously, the election --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It's not going to happen
11-9-09
1
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
MS. BOLIN: It just happens to fall that way.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Maybe take San Jacinto Day for
one year, then go back to Texas Independence Day.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can't we just pretend Texas
Independence Day is another day? Y'all can't pretend very
well. (Laughter.) This is a holiday. You know, and the way
-- the way I see it is that we provide holidays for families
to be together. This is part of the Christmas issue. And I
don't get it. I don't know why you want to do it. I
wouldn't do it. I wouldn't.
MS. BOLIN: I --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I may be different, but I
don't have a problem with it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's fine, whatever you
want to do.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I don't have a problem.
We're in the service industry.
MS. BOLIN: Yeah, that's where my employees are
coming from also.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's fine. It's your
choice. You're the elected official.
MS. BOLIN: As opposed to -- they'll have a
three-day weekend for New Year, then another three-day
weekend some other time in December and January.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Maybe we can set up a little
11-9-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
44
bucket back there for the taxpayers that come in on that day
to throw in a couple of dollars to pay Rusty's people.
JUDGE TINLEY: I would have thought that an
adequate median education program alerting folks far in
advance that we're not going to be open on the 31st; however,
here are your options.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure.
JUDGE TINLEY: Post it by mail, online.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Pigeons.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Slide it under the door,
I whatever. But --
MS. BOLIN: We've had that happen, too.
JUDGE TINLEY: And that's effective. It works.
i
Probably not the most recommended method, but --
MS. BOLIN: No, it's not.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- my thinking is if you adequately
inform them so that they know what their options are, and
that personally presenting themselves on the 31st or any
other holiday is not an option, that ought to work. But I'm
sure you're the one that catches the most flak. And --
MS. BOLIN: Yes, we do.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- when that happens, as
Commissioner Oehler said, we're in the service business.
That's what we do.
MS. BOLIN: That's true.
11-9-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
45
JUDGE TINLEY: We work for these people, and we
need to be responsive to them.
MS. BOLIN: And to me, it's not like they're not
going to have a long weekend, because they're going to have
three days.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What are we going to do on this
March 2nd? This one, I'm -- its up to you, in my opinion.
The March 2nd one's a little bit more of an issue. I think
this affects the county as a whole.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I agree with you.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Better put that on the next
~I agenda and decide to substitute a day for the --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let's defer that. Let's
just deal with December 31st, which is coming up real quick.
I would move approval of the Tax Assessor's request to be
open on December 31st, 2009. What hours of the day are you
talking about, Ms. Bolin?
MS. BOLIN: 8:00 to 5:00.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 8:00 to 5:00.
MS. BOLIN: Same as normal.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion and a second.
Further question or discussion on this motion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What is the motion? I mean,
11-9-09
1
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
we're -- that we're agreeing with an elected official, or
what?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think she can probably set
her own, but --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Withdraw it, Bill.
Bill, please. (Laughter.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other question or discussion?
All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right
hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion carries. Thank you,
Ms. Bolin.
MS. BOLIN: You're very welcome.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move to --
MS. BOLIN: Just real quick, when do you want the
March 2nd one back on? The next meeting?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, bring it to us then.
MS. BOLIN: Okay, you got it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move to Item 5; consider,
discuss, take appropriate action to approve Kerr County
Juvenile Center's policies and procedures related to abuse
and neglect. Mr. Stanton, good to see you this morning.
MR. STANTON: Morning.
11-9-09
1
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
JUDGE TINLEY: I assume that these policies ar_d
procedures are some that are mandated by changes at Texas
Juvenile Probation Commission?
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir. With all the stuff that's
gone on with the Texas Youth Commission the past couple
years, T.J.P.C. has taken upon itself to, I don't know,
expand their abuse and neglect programs and policies, and
they've passed down a -- a guideline for all the detention
facilities to use; it's probably about 150 pages thick, that
we need to adopt our own policies and procedures. And
basically what I'm asking today is -- is this is -- this is
just a portion of our policy and procedure manual, and all
this covers is the abuse and neglect portion of that policy
and procedure manual.
JUDGE TINLEY: And these conform to the recent
regulatory changes from Texas Youth Commission and T.J.P.C.?
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir. Yes, sir, they do.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 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.)
11-9-09
1
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
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion carries. Let's go to
Item 6, another item of Mr. Stanton's. Consider, discuss,
take appropriate action on the '08-'09 fiscal review of the
Kerr County Juvenile Detention Center. I appreciate you
furnishing us this information. It's very enlightening.
Significant increase in this immediate past year over the
prior year, and I would note that it's very close to the --
very close to the same percentage increase of the referrals
that we've experienced in our Juvenile Probation Department.
There's been a significant increase in the past year over
prior -- over the prior year.
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: The amount of taxpayer funds that
are required to fund this operation continues to decline, and
that's good news, of course. The -- the percentage of
revenue from third-party users outside of Kerr County appears
to remain about the same. It's about 28 percent, the way I'm
calculating.
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Does that seem pretty much on track,
I'~, based on what you're seeing going into the current year?
MR. STANTON: It does. Well, in fact, we've had
one month so far this year, and actually, we've seen an
11-9-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
49
increase in out-of-county kids. This past month, we
actually -- we're about 22 percent over our last year's this
past month, so we're actually seeing an increase, even more
than we were last year, this year so far in the one-month
period. But we had about a 50/50 split this month -- this
past month, or about a 60/40 split this past month in
out-of-county compared to Kerr County kids.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is that -- the percentage of
out-of-county use continues to just slowly increase?
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's interesting. Also, it's
financially attractive.
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's the -- is the primary
decision geographic? I mean, 'cause it looks like --
obviously, the counties that are near us are the ones that
are using our facility the most. Is that the reason they're
using it, or is it the services that we offer?
MR. STANTON: I think it's a little of both. There
are other counties that -- other facilities that they could
use. We've tried to make our services a little more
user-friendly. I mean, we've -- we've agreed to -- with our
doctors and dentists, we've been able to help every county
get physicals and dental evaluations for their kids. We
11-9-09
1
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
don't pay for it; we bill them. We just do the transports
back and forth to the doctors and dentists for them, and
that's a big help, 'cause they'd have to drive all the way in
from their county, pick the kids up for a doctor's
appointment, take them back, where we can just run them over,
back and forth. So, there are a few things that we do that
other facilities aren't doing that I think -- I've gotten
some feedback that that's very helpful from other people like
that. Plus right now, the rates that we charge are a little
bit less than other people around that -- the other counties.
We charge about -- right now, about $5 less a day than a lot
of the other counties do. We've got one county, Cameron
County, that's sent us a contract that's going to be on the
next agenda. They're wanting to pay us $110 a day to house
their kids. They have their own facility; we would be kind
of an overflow facility if they get too full, but they
contract out at a rate of $110 a day.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's our current rate?
MR. STANTON: $90 a day.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that what you plugged in
for this current budget, $90?
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. What we had
talked about was looking at next year; come September of next
year, when the contracts are coming up due again, reviewing
it and looking, and looking at the surrounding counties and
11-9-09
1
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
seeing what they're paying or what their contracting rates
are at, and possibly bumping ours up a little bit. But, you
know, we're -- right now, we're staying pretty full, and.
pretty happy, and everything's going really well. So --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Kevin, let's see. Y'all are
probably going to throw rocks at me, but that's all right. I
see all kinds of breakdowns of counties and days and billable
days and all those kinds of things, but my question is -- and
you probably don't know the answer to this, but I'm just
curious.
MR. STANTON: Mm-hmm.
How many illegal aliens do
MR. STANTON: Last year, we had -- I actually know
the answer to that question. Last year, we had two that
I.N.S. had to come pick up. Other than that, in the -- in
the three years that I've been here, I can -- or the three
years that I've been running the facility, I could think of
about four or five kids that we've had to deal with that
I.N.S. has been involved with.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's fantastic. Thank you
for that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How does -- how does that work?
11-9-09
1
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
already knows?
MR. STANTON: I.N.S. usually knows before we get a
kid. I mean, the Probation Department is usually on top of
that. They'll tell us I.N.S. is involved with this kid
before they even bring them out to us, and then we'll just --
we house them till I.N.S. comes and picks them up or -- or,
you know, has their hearings and does whatever they do with
them.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But in the process, I mean,
they're -- they become responsibility of I.N.S. as soon as
that can be done? Or --
MR. STANTON: Well, they -- they're the
responsibility of whoever places that child in our facility.
I mean, we bill whoever -- if it's Kerr County, Kendall
County, Kimble County, we bill them, and then when I.N.S.
comes in and takes custody of them, they leave our facility.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there -- let me rephrase.
Is there a situation that we've dealt with where -- where
we're aware they're here illegally, and I.N.S. doesn't come
pick them up?
MR. STANTON: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
', MR. STANTON: Not that I've been aware of.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's your current status?
MR. STANTON: Right now, we have nine juveniles.
11-9-09
1
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
We have nine juveniles out there. This month -- this month
is -- in the last three years has been our lowest month every
year. With Christmas coming up and Thanksgiving, November,
December are usually our lowest months. Like I said, last
month we were actually 27 percent ahead of what we were at
last -- the previous year. So, hopefully we'll get back at
least even where we were last year.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do you need for the Court to take
any formal action, other than -- other than being aware of
the information you furnished us?
MR. STANTON: No, sir. And the other thing that I
need to let the Court know is that, with the new T.J.P.C.
standards that they're coming out with, every quarter I have
to present you -- the Court with a report. Not only the
financial issues, but also any cases of abuse and neglect,
restraints, those types of things. And I wanted to ask if
you guys -- if the Court would -- would want me to just
present it in report form, or if you actually want me to come
before you and -- and present it verbally. I -- I'll do it
either way, however you -- however the Court pleases.
JUDGE TINLEY: I would think initially, Mr.
Stanton, let's try the -- the report form. And then if we
feel like we need to do something in addition to that, if
~ there's questions we have or whatever, we got confidentiality
issues sometimes that -- that we have in these particular
11-9-09
1
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
kinds of cases, so -- for the protection of the children, and
so I would think, initially, that's -- let's try it on just a
report form.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's not something that the
so.
MR. STANTON: It's just an information -- it's an
information deal. And I have to present -- when T.J.P.C.
comes to do their audits of our facility, I have to show that
I've presented reports to the County Commissioners on a
quarterly basis.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with the Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any more questions for Mr. Stanton?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Good job.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir.
MR. STANTON: Thank y'all.
JUDGE TINLEY: You know, we never hear what's going
on out there, and if y'all stop and think about it, that's
good news.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's real good news.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Not like it used to be.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's go to our 10 o'clock --
11-9-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
55
actually, 10 o'clock item, Item 11. At this time, I will
recess the Commissioners Court meeting, and I will convene a
public hearing for the proposed private road name, Moorhead
Road East, located in Precinct 2.
(The regular Commissioners Court meeting was closed
at 10:02 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 respect to the
proposed private road name, Moorhead Road East, located in
Precinct 2? Seeing no one coming forward, I will close the
public hearing in connection with the proposed private road
name, Moorhead Road East, located in Precinct 2, and I will
reconvene the Commissioners Court meeting.
(The public hearing was concluded at 10:02 a.m.,
and the regular Commissioners Court meeting was
reopened.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's go to Item 8, if we might.
Acknowledge receipt of the quarterly investment report from
Patterson and Associates for quarter ending 9-30-09.
Ms. Williams, we have the -- the report, and you merely want
us to acknowledge that we've received it; is that correct?
MS. WILLIAMS: Are you talking to me, sir?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, ma'am.
MS. WILLIAMS: Sorry. Yes, I just need to get the
11-9-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
56
Court to acknowledge that we received the quarterly
investment report from Patterson and Associates.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is there any member of the Court
that did not receive a copy of this report? Let the record
reflect that all members of the Court, including myself, have
received copies of the investment report. I do have one
question, if I might. Ms. Williams, I noted there is a 2007
capital project. Should that not be 2008?
MS. HARGIS: We actually approved it in '07, so
that's why it's called --
JUDGE TINLEY: But in a lot of other places, it's
carried as 2008, if I'm not mistaken.
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. It's the same. Same
thing.
MS. HARGIS: One and the same.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Anything further?
MS. WILLIAMS: No, sir. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Let's go to Item 9, if
we might; consider, discuss, take appropriate action to
clarify Commissioners Court intent in recent designation of
Ilse Bailey as acting County Attorney of Kerr County. I put
this on the agenda as a result of some questions that may
have arisen with respect to the designation which the Court
made of Ms. Bailey to -- as the acting County Attorney, I
11-9-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
57
believe was the term that we used, to kick in upon the
resignation of our County
recently sworn in -- last
a week ago, I guess -- as
Mr. Emerson, in one of hi
a memorandum dealing with
dated October 29th, 2009,
Attorney, Mr. Rex Emerson, who was
Friday, I believe, as -- no, Friday
198th District Judge. And the --
probably final acts, forwarded us
that subject, the memorandum being
indicating that apparently there
was some confusion expressed to him or some question
expressed to him about the Court's intent with regard to that
appointment.
I would note that in Mr. Emerson's memorandum,
while he still was acting as County Attorney, he formally
appointed Ms. Ilse Bailey as his, quote, first assistant,
unquote, to be able to, in essence, be in command of the
County Attorney's office pursuant to applicable statutory
provisions, that being Section 601.002 of the -- of the
Government Code. But I wanted to make sure that the Court
had an opportunity to designate what its intent was, whether
it was to make her the acting individual, with the Court
having the options open to formally appoint someone to,
quote, fill the vacancy in the office of County Attorney at
any point in the future, or whether it was the Court's intent
to -- to designate her as the County Attorney to serve in
that capacity by appointment to fill the vacancy in that
office until the successor was sworn in. My understanding
11-9-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
58
was, obviously, from our request for -- for those that were
interested in the position to file applications and resumes,
that it was the former of those two, to designate her as the
acting so that we have our options open to actually fill the
vacancy in the future if we decided to do so. You gentlemen
may have had some other understanding. I don't know.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In that context, Judge,
then as first assistant, which was the designation that the
former County Attorney placed on Ms. Bailey, that would --
that would then give her the ability to, as first assistant,
to step up and run the office of County Attorney with no
further action on the part of the -- required on the part of
Commissioners Court until the next election. Is that
correct? Which would be March 2, 2010; is that correct?
JUDGE TINLEY: Or until this Court took formal
action to, quote, fill the vacancy and make the appointment,
which we would then have that right at that point in time,
up -- up to the point that the successor qualifies as a
result of the upcoming election.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Could be January of '11.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, could be.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It could be that far.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It could run that long.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It could, yes.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: If we decided that's the way
11-9-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
59
we wanted to go, and let --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the outside.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- let the election process
take --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Which is not a bad idea.
You know, the -- the thought of having someone there, even
though in my mind, anyway, it's a probability that the -- the
County Attorney would be elected in March, to even continue
this appointment on throughout the year to give that person
that much time, an opportunity to get up to speed on that
office. It's just -- it's just -- that's another option out
there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think my recollection was
that it was a -- that based on knowing all the facts now, we
didn't need to do anything to accomplish what we did.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think that's kind of
where I was, that we didn't want to do anything, and make --
and push the decision, if we want to -- choose to make i~~,
down the road a ways.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, in effect, what we're
saying is the action that we took, coupled with the
explanation or the appointment as First Assistant by the
former County Attorney, really, in effect, takes -- resolves
it.
11-9-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
60
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're consistent.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else on that item,
gentlemen?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What did we just do?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, we just clarified our
position, that what we intended to do was exactly what
Mr. Emerson did sort of before he left office by naming
Ms. Bailey as first assistant to give her the authority, but
that we reserve the right to make an appointment at any time
in the future, I guess up to the point where the successor
takes office in -- whoever that new -- whoever that person is
going to be, on January the 1st, 2011.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's good.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If we can go back to 1.8 a
minute, there's -- I made a motion that's just kind of
dangling out there.
JUDGE TINLEY: I didn't realize you made a motion,
Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I'll withdraw the motion,
11-9-09
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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just to make the record -- so
we don't have a motion just dangling out in space somewhere.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm sorry, I didn't realize you made
a motion. Must be my left ear again.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: One of those dangling
I motions.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, Janglers. You got to watch
them.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Watch those Janglers.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's go to Item 10, if we might, to
consider, discuss, take appropriate action to approve
resolution supporting the Constitution of the United States
of America. Commissioner Oehler, I'm going to let you have
this one.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: All right. Well, I had some
constituents in the west end of the county that have asked
that this be presented to the Court, and hopefully will get
approval. And Larry Heppler is here; he wants to address
this issue, and more than likely read it into the record, see
what happens. Mr. Heppler?
JUDGE TINLEY: Morning, sir.
MR. HEPPLER: Thank you, Judge. About a month ago,
I got an e-mail from a friend of mine in Clovis, New Mexico,
11-9-09
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
and he said that he was quite proud that he had just gone
before his commissioners with a resolution supporting the
Constitution. And I said, "That's a pretty good idea, and I
think I'll contact my commissioner and see what happens."
Well, he e-mailed it to me. I e-mailed it to Bruce, and he
said go with it. So, I'd like to read the preamble that came
with this.
Without question, the Constitution of the United
States of America is the most amazing document ever crafted
by people seeking freedom. This incredibly blessed work of
i
the heart, mind, and spirit has enabled our nation to foster
and preserve liberty and to root out injustice.
Unfortunately, it's becoming increasingly more evident that
the political atmosphere in America is clouded with
partisanship and polluted with influences which have under --
which undermine the foundation of our great nation. Both
major political parties have contributed to the turbulent
condition we are now experiencing. As a consequence, only
three in ten Americans trust Congress to make the right
decision for our country. At times like these, getting back
to the basics is of paramount importance. Honest,
free-loving servant leaders should all be able to embrace the
Constitution of the United States as a means to unify our
country. This is why it is important for Americans, at the
grass roots level, to get involved and ask their
11-9-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
63
to show their support of our Constitution by voting in favor
of this resolution.
As you read the resolution supporting the
Constitution of the United States, keep in mind that the
intent of the resolution is twofold. First, it specifics the
first and second amendments are the enabling amendments, and
without the integrity of these two amendments, all other
amendments are either at risk or may have never been adopted.
Secondly, the resolution asks all federal officials to
refrain from any effort to reduce or regulate any rights
protected by the Constitution of the United States of
America. Adopting this resolution is an opportunity to begin
to restore sanity, purpose, and optimism back to America. Do
you want me to read the resolution? Or just --
JUDGE TINLEY: It's your preference, sir. We can
have it included within the record, or --
MR. HEPPLER: If you would.
JUDGE TINLEY: But whichever way you'd prefer it.
MR. HEPPLER: Have it included in the record for
publication.
JUDGE TINLEY: Very good.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mr. Heppler, what -- when I
took my oath of office, I swore that I would uphold the
Constitution of the United States of America.
11-9-09
64
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. HEPPLER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What -- what -- by taking
this action that you're requesting today, what would that --
what would that do? What does that do?
States government have also given that same oath.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Correct.
MR. HEPPLER: And they are not abiding by it. So,
starting at the grass roots, we've got to support this
Constitution by putting it on the record again, and bringing
to mind -- to -- you know, that we need to support the
Constitution. I know you've all -- Bruce said that he --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We all take that --
MR. HEPPLER: -- swore to it. I've sworn to it
before. But our government is not abiding by it right now.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I'm not being
negative. I'm not being a smarty pants here, okay? I'm just
trying to figure out what we're doing. Sounds like to me,
though, that what you're asking us -- I mean, why don't we
write a letter to our congressman, or why don't we get ahold
of him next Tuesday when we're with him?
JUDGE TINLEY: Wednesday, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Wednesday.
JUDGE TINLEY: That comes after Tuesday.
11-9-09
~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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This Wednesday.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And our two senators write
them a letter; tell them, "Hey, we want you to uphold the
Constitution of the United States."
MR. HEPPLER: Wouldn't you like to have that
congressman and senator read this, that you've already --
you've adopted it again in support?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They know that I have,
though. I mean, that's the deal. Okay, whatever.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, I think we're just
basically restating our belief, and I think it would be a
good idea if we adopt this and agree to that, we hand this
off to our congressman -- congressman and senator and let
them see what they want to do with it. But I think it's a --
its not a bad idea, I don't think, to be reminded every now
and then that you really ought to --
MR. HEPPLER: It was adopted by two counties in New
Mexico, and I'm hoping that all counties in Texas will adopt
it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is it before the other 253
counties, to your knowledge?
MR. HEPPLER: Pardon me?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is it in front of the
commissioners courts of the other 253 counties?
MR. HEPPLER: No.
11-9-09
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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: To your knowledge?
MR. HEPPLER: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. What happened to the
other counties in New Mexico, I'm wondering?
MR. HEPPLER: Two of them adopted it, two adjacent
counties. But I don't know. This has only been a month.
JUDGE TINLEY: Roosevelt County, isn't it?
MR. HEPPLER: In Clovis?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
MR. HEPPLER: I don't recall the name of the --
JUDGE TINLEY: Clovis. I think it's Tatum and
MR. HEPPLER: Tatum I know adopted it, yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Roosevelt, I think. Those are
pretty independent ranch-type rural folks out there. I --
you know, it's difficult to see anything negative about the
Constitution. Maybe that's what the Sheriff wants to say.
He wants to impart some wisdom about the subject to us.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't believe there's
anything negative about the Constitution. I think we all
have sworn to uphold that. The only issue I had, is this
taking what would be your interpretation of the Constitution
and kind of putting that off on everybody else's -- everybody
else's thinking? 'Cause the only thing I have an issue with
over it, does this -- and you can clarify. And I'm not
11-9-09
h7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
trying to be smart-alecky or not, but I've had a lot of
people contact me saying that we need to uphold the
Constitution, which is to keep I.R.S. or any of the other
federal agencies out of this county, and from being able to
foreclose, or even filing I.R.S. income tax stuff. That's
where I'm at issue. Is this taking it that far?
MR. HEPPLER: No.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's an interesting
point, Sheriff, and one of the things that I noted in one of
the whereas's that talks about legislation before the United
States Congress that would, through regulation, taxation, or
restriction, alter the fundamental rights found in the First
and Second Amendments to the Constitution. Obviously,
everyone in this room right now has been taxed more or less
than they would like to be, and that's been -- it's part of
our being. And so I'm wondering how this particular verbiage
comports to what's already a part of our life, and that is
the Internal Revenue Service Code, which we all abide by as
citizens of this country. Your point -- your thoughts on
that, sir?
MR. HEPPLER: Well, involving the I.R.S., for
example, in health care is a -- is a mistake. They're having
-- they're revising the I.R.S. code with this new health care
bill, and it's going out of control. That's -- that's just
my thoughts on it.
11-9-09
68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just a note. There's a typo as
MR. HEPPLER: Yes, on the second --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second line.
MR. HEPPLER: -- second line, ought to be "all"
people instead of "app" people.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, there's two of them.
There's one, "fond" instead of "found," on the -- one, two --
fourth whereas.
MR. HEPPLER: That's not on the copy I submitted.
That's on the copy that Mr. Oehler retyped.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I didn't retype it. All we
did was make copies. Whoa, I just made copies.
Ms. Grinstead is the one that changed it.
MR. HEPPLER: I'm sorry, Jody.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I see.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions or comments?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I like -- I mean, just a
comment. I like the -- I mean, or like the intent on this of
supporting the Constitution and urging our congressional
delegation to support it. I'm a little -- you know, I would
rather have it reworded slightly to get rid of some of the
taxation language and some of the other language here, but
fundamentally, I -- you know, I like the concept. I just
don't like some of the wording a whole lot.
11-9-09
59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. HEPPLER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think I agree with that
thought, Commissioner. I don't think anybody here in this
room does not support the Constitution of the United States
and the Bill of Rights. That's a given. There are -- there
is some language in here that I am not comfortable with, that
is unnecessary in stating your support of the United States
Constitution.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other comments?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'd like to see them rework
it, bring it back.
JUDGE TINLEY: Maybe you can rework it, bring it
back in a more general format.
MR. HEPPLER: Could you be more specific on your
comments?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I'm particularly
concerned about -- one, two, three -- fourth whereas. Maybe
you'd like to take a look at that. Maybe some other
Commissioner may have some other thoughts.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mine would be pretty much in
the fourth whereas, and -- and actually, the third whereas a
little bit as well. Third and fourth whereas, when we're
talking -- you know, when we're talking laws and regulations.
Those --
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, gentlemen. We appreciate
11-9-09
'7 0
1
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: Larry, I'll get with you and
Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: We -- let's go to our 10:15 item, if
we might, a timed item. Consider, discuss, take appropriate
action on a request for easement for equipment placed at the
rear of courthouse property, Hill Country Telephone
Communications, L.L.C. I put this on the agenda initially at
the request of Mr. Trolinger, who's our I.T. Manager. And
let me first issue a disclaimer, if I might. My youngest son
is employed by Hill Country Telephone Cooperative -- I
believe that's who he's employed by -- which is affiliated
with Hill Country Telephone Communications, L.L.C., I'm given
to understand. As far as I know, he owns no interest in
either of those facilities, other than any co-op member owns
an interest in their own co-op. But, as a matter of fact, I
don't think he -- he even gets service from the co-op, 'cause
he lives here within the City of Kerrville at the present
time. So, he may have some other service he gets. I don't
see that I have any conflict, but I feel compelled to
disclose it. Hopefully that doesn't cause him any grief
either. So, I'm going to turn it over to -- to the people
from Hill Country Telephone Communications, L.L.C.
11-9-09
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. DREISS: I'm Jimmy Dreiss with Hill Country
Telephone Co-op. You did a good explanation on our
subsidiary, Hill Country Telephone Telecommunications, L.L.C.
We are proposing to set an equipment cabinet on the north
side of the courthouse property between the sidewalk and that
retaining wall where I guess the parking kind of goes below
grade level. This cabinet is to serve Kerrville business
district in this area. We're -- currently, we're building
fiberoptic cable up Highway 16, going out 27. We're also
going to go out towards Peterson Farm Road, Mooney, the new
high school, out that way, business district, and the
hospital, the hospital district where the mall is and
Albertsons and all that. We're going to use the cabinet to
offer high-speed Internet, give everybody a choice in town.
There's a couple other providers and we're just going to come
in and offer our services and -- and that.
And Hill Country Telephone does not pay for
right-of-way easements. We never have. We -- I've
negotiated many of these with private owners, county
right-of-way. We basically ask people to be a good neighbor
and help us out and that sort of thing. We've set the
installations. We work with landowners, we hide them, we do
whatever it takes to make sure they're not, you know,
sticking out. We plant shrubs, we build fences, we do
anything we can to -- to make them less obtrusive in the
11-9-09
72
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
area. The cabinet will be about my height, and it will be
about 4 feet wide -- about, I guess, 36 inches wide. I don't
have the -- the dimensions in front of me. It will be
ground, about -- a hole about 6 by 5, about 4 feet deep. So,
probably have a little archeological dig there to find out
what else is buried out there. (Laughter.) So, I do have the
form -- the right-of-way easement form for your
consideration. I'm sure legal will have to take a look at
this. I need to find out who I need to present that to.
So -- and that's about it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This is intended to be the
hub for what you're doing in stringing fiberoptic cable
throughout --
MR. DREISS: It is --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- the city?
MR. DREISS: It is one of the hubs.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One of the hubs.
MR. DREISS: One of the hubs. We -- we're going to
put one at Commerce Drive over in the Walmart area. There is
a public right-of-way, dedicated public utility easement
there. We're going to set one close to Peterson Regional;
there's another public utility right-of-way there. And we're
currently negotiating with Schreiner College to set one on
~I their campus.
11-9-09
73
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, first I want to say I
applaud your efforts. I really am pleased to see that you
are doing this. I'm hopeful that you'll continue doing it so
that anybody that wants high-speed Internet service can get
it. But it sounds like you're just trying to -- to
accommodate at this point the business community, and maybe
the educational community.
MR. DREISS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that correct?
MR. DREISS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are there plans that you
	MR. DREISS: There	can possibly be plans. You were
talki	ng about the economic de	velopment	and how people are --
don't	want people in their bu	siness and	things like that.
We're	-- there are plans, but	we would	not really want to go
into	them right now.		
	COMMISSIONER LETZ:	But they'	re, I mean, clearly
going	-- you're just talking	about the	city of Kerrville
area.	They're clearly going	throughout	the whole area with
these same type units.
JUDGE TINLEY: Would placing this cabinet at the
back of the courthouse facilitate making that service
available to this courthouse and Kerr County offices, make
that more accessible in the future if we would choose to
11-9-09
74
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
It's basically -- where we've decided on the hub, it's just
the crossroads there, and it's just easy to get to -- to all
locations north, south, east, and west from here. It's just
the way the power lines line up. And plus we already had an
access point there that we originally ran a fiber from Ingram
to Comfort, aerial, through this area, and we chose to put an
access at that point, thinking the courthouse would need
access in the future. We did this about three years ago.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd move approval, subject to
the County Attorney's office approving the form of the
contract.
', MS. BAILEY: I had an opportunity to review the
easement -- proposed easement last week, and my only minor
concern is on the second page, about the middle of the page,
the paragraph starting out, "The easement herein shall
entitle H.C.T. to the right to remove or repair any
equipment" -- it says, "to remove or repair any equipment
within such easements as may be determined by that company,
without being responsible for the replacement of
improvements, paving, or surfacing necessitated by such
removal or repair." If that's what your intention is, then
that's all right, but I have a little bit of concern that
that allows them to remove or move or modify their
11-9-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
75
installation, and if it causes any damage to our streets or
sidewalks, that they're not responsible for the payment of
JUDGE TINLEY: Your preference on the County's
behalf would be that they be required to restore the premises
to its original condition?
MS. BAILEY: Either that, or include some language
that says that they'll use their best efforts not to -- to
cause damage unnecessarily. That's entirely up to the Court,
but that's -- I just draw your attention to that language.
Otherwise, I see no problem with it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You could come up with some
language to address those -- that issue?
MR. DREISS: Yeah, we can.
MS. BAILEY: Yes. If you want to approve it
subject to that change, I think you could do that.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's basically what your
motion was?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's the motion.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'll second your motion.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
indicated. Question or discussion on the motion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Question. We have an item
coming up, Number 1.19, bids for the new telephone system.
11-9-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
76
Is Ingram -- is this same company one of the bidders with
MR. DREISS: Yes, we are.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The -- that's a big old ugly
box. Can you hide it? Can you dress something up?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If you put "Tivy Fight" on it,
he'll be happy.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Paint it blue and
gold; I'll be happy.
MR. DREISS: Yeah. Well, I think a --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't want you thinking.
I want you to tell me you're going to do it.
MR. DREISS: We'll conceal --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Trees, bushes.
MR. DREISS: We have in the past.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's a big old box, and
that thing's ugly.
MR. DREISS: I -- yeah. But we can -- we can --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Looks like my refrigerator.
MR. TROLINGER: Judge Tinley, we've had some
discussions -- some verbal discussions about maybe a -- a
service or bringing some fiber in the courthouse as part of
this project. I don't know if we can negotiate that before
you sign the contract, but we had some discussion about that,
and I wanted to bring that up.
11-9-09
1
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, we're looking down the road at
our operations too, is what -- essentially what you're
saying.
MR. TROLINGER: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: And what you're looking at, from
whatever provider it may be, good broadband access is going
to be essential for what you're looking at down the road?
MR. TROLINGER: In particular, we talked about
connecting two facilities in Ingram using the fiber that
Supreme brought through town.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do you know what he's talking
about, Jimmy?
MR. DREISS: Which two facilities?
MR. TROLINGER: Ingram City Marshal and the Ingram
courthouse annex.
MR. DREISS: And the annex. You want fiber to
those locations?
MR. TROLINGER: Yes, point-to-point from the
courthouse to the -- to those two facilities in Ingram.
MR. DREISS: Point-to-point? You just -- virtual
VPN type server?
MR. TROLINGER: Yes.
MR. DREISS: We can certainly look into it.
MR. TROLINGER: Okay.
MR. DREISS: I mean --
11-9-09
1
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
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other question or comment 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. Thank you, --
MR. DREISS: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- gentlemen. We appreciate that.
Let's do the first of our 10:30 timed items. Item 19, open
bids for that new courthouse telephone system. Far as I
know, I have some here.
(Discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What a leader. That's good.
Thank you.
THE CLERK: I copied one of the bids for each of
you. Those are individual copies for each of the
commissioners.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. The first bid that I am
opening appears to be from Carousel Industries. Looks like
these folks are located out of Exeter, Rhode Island? Wow.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Jobs must be tough up there.
JUDGE TINLEY: There are a number of options, so
I'm not going to go into each of them, but rather just to
acknowledge the bids that we received in response to the
11-9-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
79
Request for Proposal. The next one that I have is from 4ip
Technology & Media, L.L.C. They show to be out of
Fredericksburg, Texas. The next one is from Computer Plus,
and let's see where they're out of.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Kerrville, I believe.
JUDGE TINLEY: They're local?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I believe so.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. And the -- is this the last
one?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: The last one is from Hill Country
Telecommunications from Ingram.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move we accept all proposals
and forward them to the I.T. Department for recommendation.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to accept
all bids and forward to I.T. for evaluation and
recommendation. Question or discussion on that motion? All
in favor of that motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Let's be in
11-9-09
1
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
(Recess taken from 10:38 a.m. to 10:55 a.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's come back to order, if we
might. We have another 10:30 item that I feel compelled to
take up before we get to the item I think that's of the most
interest to the people here in the room. Item 20, question
and answer session presented by Jim Lehman and Daphne Webber,
representatives of the Office of Administration. This matter
was placed on the agenda at the request of Ms. Lyle, who
heads up our Court Compliance Department, I believe.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. Last time I saw
you was in front of the courthouse in Lubbock, Texas.
MR. LEHMAN: The day before the big storm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Exactly.
MR. LEHMAN: I remember.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Lehman, Ms. Webber, good to have
you here from the big city of Austin, I presume.
MS. WEBBER: Yes.
MR. LEHMAN: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. My question to you is, I
realize that there are a number of reports that all of our
court offices are required to file with Office of Court
Administration that are mandated under certain statutory
authority or -- or regulation. Beyond -- beyond reporting
these things to you, what -- what degree of authority does
11-9-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
81
your office have with regard to establishing policy for the
operations of -- of court collections or compliance offices
in each county of the state?
MR. LEHMAN: Well, we have statutory authority to
assist courts in counties that are mandated under Code of
Criminal -- Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 103.0033,
which I've given you a copy of.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. LEHMAN: And, essentially, that statute
requires that the cities and counties, or counties with
50,000 populations or more, have the Collection Improvement
Program, and it mandates them to have two -- two components
to that program. One is that their program be developed
based on a model that O.C.A. has created, and two, that they
also have a process for collecting cases that are more than
60 days old, or very delinquent. O.C.A. is concerned with
the front end, and essentially before it gets to the back
end. And in order to develop that model and get input from
everybody, we created administrative rules, which we also
have given you a copy of. That essentially lays out a
process for collections. And I've also attached a couple of
other items in your handout that specifically sets up a
process for dealing with defendants as soon as they come out
of court, if they're unable to pay court fees and fines
i
immediately. And that process goes from obtaining
11-9-09
1
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
information from them, contact and ability information, all
the way through the point of contact, if there's a default.
There is a tremendous amount of flexibility built in the
model, and essentially operational policies, who supervises
the program, if a program is centralized or decentralized,
all of those things are completely left up to the county or
the city that implements the -- implements the program.
JUDGE TINLEY: But, essentially, what we're talking
about -- what triggers your authority is the county reaching
a population of $50,000 -- 50,000 or more?
MR. LEHMAN: That's correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. So, under 50,000, other than
the mandated reports that come through your office, nothing
else is triggered; is that correct?
MR. LEHMAN: Everything else is voluntary. In
fact, mandatory programs were established because of the
success of the voluntary programs, one of which was created
right here by -- by you. So you're responsible for the
mandated programs, essentially, being put into the process,
and those programs have been developed based on the same
model.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. We were kind of the pioneer
here in Kerr County that actually led to the creation of the
office that you now serve in.
MR. LEHMAN: Right. And this young lady next to
11-9-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
83
me, Daphne Webber, is here. Her predecessor is somebody you
may know, Russ Duncan.
JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, yes. Oh, yeah. He's the one
that cranked it up here.
MS. WEBBER: And I think you guys are right on the
cusp of becoming 50,000.
JUDGE TINLEY: We think that may happen in the next
census. We don't know yet. Obviously, we're not there yet,
but we may get there; we may not. We don't know until that
census comes out, and it probably won't be until 2011,
actually, that we get those final numbers, --
MR. LEHMAN: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- you know, from the 2010 census.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What does happen at that
time if we reach the 50,000? Are you still in a guidance --
MR. LEHMAN: Absolutely. Absolutely. In fact,
we've been talking already and working with -- in sessions
with those cities and counties that have already identified
themselves at or exceeding the mandatory population limit.
And, yeah, we'll come in and we'll start. Now, it would be
probably very simple for a place like Kerr County to adapt to
the mandatory program, but there are cities and counties out
there who don't have the foundation that you do. So, we come
in, and first thing we do is ask for them to examine what
they have in place currently, and then to produce a plan
11-9-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
84
based on a list of components that we give them in a survey.
And the survey just asks them a lot of what you see here in
the critical components. Do you have written policies? Do
you have someone on staff, dedicated staff time dedicated to
collections? If a person seeks to have an extended period of
time to pay, do you take an application? All of those kinds
of things. And once we work with them to establish their
plan, the next step is to help them implement it, and then
the last phase is to help them maintain it.
MS. WEBBER: And I've come out about two weeks ago
and checked out the program, and Terry is doing just about
everything that -- that they -- that she needs to be doing.
There's a few things that she didn't do, but she's doing them
now. So, you guys are right in line with --
JUDGE TINLEY: Even though we're a voluntary --
MS. WEBBER: Even though you're a voluntary.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- participant?
MS. WEBBER: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: You're doing -- she's doing what
y'all suggest in the way of -- of requirements once reaching
50,000 population?
MS. WEBBER: That's correct. Yes, she is.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
~,I
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: But you don't have
established guidelines or procedures that are mandatory --
11-9-09
85
1
2
3 office?
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. LEHMAN: We don't have --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- for that particular
MR. LEHMAN: Those guidelines are generic. I mean,
they're pretty firm, as far as you have to take an
application when you do what you do. In fact, if you look in
the handout, one of them is sort of an at-a-glance chart. It
looks like -- this one right here is what I'm wanting to you
see. If you look at that -- I got it upside down. If you
look at that, you can kind of see the timelines. The person
comes in; take an application. You go through a process.
So, there -- there's a specific timeline. But if what you're
asking, Commissioner, is do we tell you who to hire, how much
to pay them, or --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: No, that's not --
MR. LEHMAN: -- how to get people from the judge to
the Collections office, or what person should run the
Collection office, how to set up your internal process?
Absolutely not.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's what my -- my main
question is, the process and the guidelines of exactly -- you
have to do this, this, and this, or you have to have this
specific computer program to do your business.
MR. LEHMAN: No. Your internal --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You don't have anything to do
11-9-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
86
with that?
MR. LEHMAN: No. Your internal procedures are your
own.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Procedures that will be set
up by Kerr County.
MR. LEHMAN: Right.
MS. WEBBER: That's correct.
MR. LEHMAN: As long as the components that are in
the model are being adhered to, --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Right.
MR. LEHMAN: -- then we're okay with whoever does
it and whatever independent internal procedures you have set
up on your own.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Right.
MR. LEHMAN: We don't interfere with that.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I just wanted to be sure that
there wasn't some statutory requirement that you had exact
procedures that we had to follow in that office, other than
just basic guidelines.
MR. LEHMAN: No. And we have suggested
implementation policies and maintenance policies, and those
policies have been established by places like Kerr County,
who've had, you know, a collections program established
for -- what, almost -- more than ten years. What works as
the best practice internally we make available to our
11-9-09
1
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
voluntary programs. We are statutorily required to solicit
and cultivate at least five voluntary programs, everybody in
them, so our mission continues on the voluntary side as well
as the mandatory side. But we don't have specific -- we
don't say, "You've got to come in at 8:00 and leave at
10:00." Those things are your -- your --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'm talking about the
methods -- the methods of the way that the -- the agreements
are made, and the exact process that's recommended that they
go through in order to insure that they do collect.
MR. LEHMAN: Well, we have -- we have -- as part of
the methodology, you can see in your part that certain
payment requirements as far as terms are concerned.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Right.
MR. LEHMAN: Not to interfere with judicial
discretion. But, for instance, on the justice court side,
four months is the suggested term for a justice count --
justice case to be paid. But there's an exception and
flexibility in that, based on ability.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Mm-hmm.
MR. LEHMAN: And based on judicial discretion.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Right.
MR. LEHMAN: None of what we do is going to
interfere with the judge's discretion to deal with the
situation the way they feel fit -- see fit.
11-9-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
88
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: There's no way that you would
dare cross a judge's order to do a specific thing to insure
collections?
MR. LEHMAN: No. We're not --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Insure how payments will be
applied to payment -- to the overall amount owed?
MR. LEHMAN: No, nothing in the process is --
conflicts with the Judge's discretion.
MS. WEBBER: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So there's no way that a
District Judge or a County Court at Law Judge would sign an
order saying that fines, fees, whatever, be applied to the
next month's payment, as opposed to being applied at the end.
MR. LEHMAN: Well, that's a policy --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: As long as it doesn't take
~ precedence over --
MR. LEHMAN: That's an internal policy decision.
Now, we could obviously recommend what works better. I would
probably suggest that that would be handled on a case-by-case
situation. If you have, for instance, someone who works out
on an oil rig and wants to -- he's going to be out for 90
days; he wants to pay up for 90 days, I don't have a problem
with that. On the other hand, you may have another situation
where you have someone that is notorious for not paying, and
they show up and drop a big payment down. If you advance
11-9-09
1
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
that for eight months, you may not see that person again.
MS. WEBBER: Right.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So, that's a case-by-case --
but that's not anything that's a significant --
MS. WEBBER: Suggestion.
MR. LEHMAN: That's a suggestion, not a mandate.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Mandated policy.
MR. LEHMAN: Right. Right. That's why you have --
I believe that's why you hire and have trained staff, to deal
with defendants and to deal with their various situations.
And that's why you have the judge.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Is one of your suggestions
that that department work very closely with the two that have
the statutory requirement or duty to actually do the money
collecting? Which would be the District Clerk and County
Clerk in this state -- in this --
MR. LEHMAN: I think it's a tremendous -- I
think -- first of all, I think everyone here is here because
you have the community's interest.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Right.
MR. LEHMAN: You want to put that first. It's in
the community's best interest that, you know, public servants
I work together.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Right.
MR. LEHMAN: For a common end. So, yeah,
11-9-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
90
obviously, it always works better if there's not a conflict
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Right.
MS. WEBBER: Everybody's on the same page.
MR. LEHMAN: Without a doubt.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any more questions?
MR. LEHMAN: And in the past, this has always been
one of the communities that we could trust to do that. This
program would not have been started or created without all of
you saying, "This is what the community needs." And, indeed,
it's been very successful because of that.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I just wanted -- I just
wanted to be sure that y'all -- that this was a flexible
thing, and that you weren't telling our office person that,
"You're going to do this, this and this, and nobody else can
tell you any different."
MR. LEHMAN: No.
MS. WEBBER: No.
MR. LEHMAN: We are --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Because that's --
MR. LEHMAN: We are employed by the state, but we
actually work for you.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's what I thought. I was
just checking.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any more questions for either of
11-9-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
91
these two individuals? Thank you very much for being here
today. We appreciate you providing us with the information.
MS. WEBBER: Thank you.
MR. LEHMAN: Pleasure and honor to be here.
JUDGE TINLEY: Appreciate you working with
Ms. Lyle, and I'm going to be interested to see what happens
in our next census. I think we all are.
MR. LEHMAN: We will too.
MS. WEBBER: Thank you.
MR. LEHMAN: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a number of people here that
are interested in Item 24, so we'll go to that item now.
Consider, discuss, take appropriate action regarding City of
Kerrville's application to T.C.E.Q. for a certificate of
convenience and necessity for 2 miles outside the corporate
limits of the city. Commissioner Williams, you asked that
this matter be placed on the agenda.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I did, Judge. Thank you.
And subsequent to the City sending out its notification ~o a
number of people, perhaps as many as 9,193 -- I'm really not
sure -- I've received no less than 20 to 25 phone calls in
the past week, e-mails and a lot of personal face-to-face
discussions with people who have a concern about exactly
what's going on. The City has said that it wants to extend
its extraterritorial jurisdiction by 2 miles in a sense from
11-9-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
92
the current city limits, and it wants to -- and there's an
action for a new certificate of convenience and need to
provide water and sewer utility service in Kerr County would
be for about 13,268 acres in a 2-mile radius belting the
existing city of Kerrville corporate limits. So, most of the
phone calls I've had have to do with, "What's this all
about?" And some people even thought that it was something I
initiated, and I want the record to clearly show I had
nothing to do with it. (Laughter.)
However, we're going to talk about it today,
because there's significant issues -- significant concern as
to exactly what this is all about. Is it a land grab? Yes,
if you think so, in terms of what the City's asking. Is it
annexation? In the original or current context, I'd say
probably not, but who knows what the future holds? And
what's it all about? How's this going to affect me as a
property owner with 20, 25 acres or more of property in Kerr
County, in the unincorporated area of the county? Does it
affect my taxes? Does it affect my well? Does it affect my
water supply? And lastly, what are you going to do about it?
So, I think with those thoughts in mind, I want to open up
the discussion. I want to get comments from other members of
the Court.
There are some things in there, before I turn it
over to other members of the Court, though, in the document
11-9-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
93
that was filed by the City of Kerrville, that really kind of
are troubling to me, and I think bear some examination. For
example, we're talking about in relation to the -- under item
-- Section 4 of the application, in relation to the proposed
CCN, "The City of Kerrville is the most centrally located
water provider" -- that may be true -- "with the best water
and financial resources to provide service, especially
considering the varied topography." That question is up for
debate, I would think. And Subsection C talks about
developers will be constructed -- this would be developers of
property in the unincorporated areas of the county, and I see
some of them sitting in the audience right now. Developers
will be -- will construct systems according to city
specifications as developments are planned and built.
They're seeing none at this particular time, but what that
means is that, should you decide as a property owner that
you, sometime in the distant future, wish to develop your
property for reasons of yours which you think are taking your
property to a highest and best use, you're going to do that
to city standards.
Another section which is kind of interesting to me
is that Kerrville, through adoption of resolution -- blank,
blank, blank -- established a leadership role in an effort to
insure the long-term availability of adequate water supplies
for municipal purposes in Kerrville and Kerr County. I can't
11-9-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
94
argue with that statement with respect to Kerrville, but I
respect to what they could do in Kerr County, what they
haven't done or what they propose to do. Kerrville is
requesting a water CCN that extends beyond its city limits
application. Water utility is a nonprofit system, thus
giving the City the ability to -- the area the ability to
benefit from water rates that are supposedly pumped back into
water conservation plan during droughts." For the sake of
this discussion, I would say so does the U.G.R.A. and so does
Headwaters Groundwater Conservation District.
Water conservation during droughts and our tiered
jurisdiction, thus allowing Kerrville to provide adequate
service to its customers. Kerrville plans on using these
water savings and developing additional water supplies, such
as treating reuse water to drinking water standards and
storing in aquifer storage and recovery system, purchase
additional surface water rights, develop additional
groundwater wells, and expanding the ASR system. All of that
is reasonable, I suspect, and is certainly laudable.
11-9-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
95
However, it doesn't talk about the major -- major part of
this whole equation, which is currently, there's no ability
to deliver any of that water outside the city limits of the
city of Kerrville. If Kerrville is awarded the CCN
requested, we would impose our strict conservation standards
and develop the water system described above for the entire
service area. So, then it goes on about financial and notice
requirements and so forth and so on. So, I'd like to hear
the comments of the Court about this. And, Judge, there are
a lot of people here today who would like to ask questions, I
think, and weigh in on the topic.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Let me -- I have a couple of
comments. And I think the -- you know, I'm probably more
confused than anything else. I just don't know what the
intent is of this. I see lots of -- of red lights that go
off. One, the ETJ is 1 mile, and they're talking about
2 miles here. Every projection I hear from the city staff is
that their ETJ is not going to be expanded to 2 miles into
the current -- or the census about to be undertaken, so
they're going on a CCN that's bigger than their ETJ, and I
have a -- you know, that gets into a lot of issues in my
mind. I don't think they have to be the same, but more
issues come up. Our Subdivision Rules and Regulations, I'm
not real sure how all this interacts, and I think it's
peculiar to me that city staff has not -- or city elected
11-9-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
96
officials have not contacted anyone on this court that I'm
aware of, even talked about any of these issues. And I think
that's -- you know, I don't know if they were trying to slip
one through quickly with no one knowing what happened.
I'd heard a rumor about this, but it just seems odd
to me that someone who's -- certainly, our constituents are
going to be greatly affected if they're outside the city
limits. Our constituents in the city are also going to be
impacted, so I think we have a bit of a fiduciary
responsibility to kind of get involved in this, even though
we're not a water purveyor, but certainly our citizens are,
and we're the elected officials that -- in that 2-mile area
that represent the people; they're not represented by City
Council. So, I think there's an issue -- a reason that we
need to be very much involved in this. And I really would
like to see the process slowed down greatly so that the
public can be aware of what's going on.
Now, it's possible that I may be in agreement with,
you know, the CCN; I just don't know. I don't know the
ramifications. I don't know how it's going to affect wells.
I lost track. I don't know how it's going to impact --
there's a lot of ranches around here that have carved out
1-acre tracts for their homesteads, and they go to families.
You may have a nephew or someone who has a 1-acre tract, and
all of a sudden, is the CCN which we're talking about small
11-9-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
97
tracts now going to be -- that are exempt from the platting
rules going to be subject to having a water system? How is
the water going to get delivered out into this area?
Certainly, someone's going to have -- if I had a ranch in
this area, or property, and wanted to, you know, give a
relative some land, certainly there wouldn't be some
obligation to extend a -- you know, a water main 2 miles out
into the ETJ. How does -- if a developer wants to do it, how
is the right-of-way acquired? How is the construction done?
There's just so many questions in this that it just goes on
and on and on.
So, I really think that the process needs to kind
of -- I'd heard a rumor that something was going on about
this through T.C.E.Q., but the fact that there was a 30 --
all of a sudden, residents -- constituents of mine receive a
letter that said you've got 30 days to make a decision really
took me aback. And I was very -- I'm kind of shocked that
the City of Kerrville didn't do a better job of informing,
certainly, the government entities that are involved, like us
and probably U.G.R.A. and Headwaters, to what the impact is
and what they're trying to do and kind of explain it. That's
just kind of where I am.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Jon, it looks like to me
that it's an infringement on the free enterprise system, the
competition with other water companies and their ability to
11-9-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
98
participate and have their companies to operate inside the
county as well. And -- and with that, it looks like to me
that it's a taking of property, is what it looks like. It
just -- it looks that way. I don't know where they're -- I'm
like you; I don't know where they're going, but just first
glance at it, it looks like a taking of property to me.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's missing in the
application is intention.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me address that, if I might.
I -- I contacted the City Manager --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There's a good start.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- about a week ago, and when I --
actually, I first noticed it in a publication in the local
newspaper under the legal notices. And I called him, and I
asked him if he had a white paper on what this was all about,
thinking that, obviously, they had thought this thing
through, and there were a number of motivational factors that
caused them to launch this thing. And -- and he said that
there was -- there was one being developed, and he would send
me a copy of it. I use the term "white paper." I don't know
that he agreed with that, but what -- what I got was a
memorandum that had attached to it a map that's attached
to -- everybody that got one of those notices, as well as one
of those notices. Which we got, anyway, because we own
property in the county that would be affected by this, so we
11-9-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
99
got one anyway. But the memorandum was a one-page document
reciting that -- that they have done this. Council has
initiated this process in order to insure the long-term
availability of adequate water supplies for municipal
purposes in Kerrville and Kerr County. Municipal purposes, I
think, is a very key word there. Further develop conjunctive
use of surface, ground, and aquifer stored water within
Kerrville and Kerr County, which, of course, is laudable to
the extent we can use surface water, which has been a model
that the U.G.R.A. has been very active in, as well as what
we've been active in. Encourage economical growth from
increased levels of water availability, insure that future
developments have the capacity for proper fire flow
protection. Without water, growth is limited. With the
proper water supplies and conservation measures that
Kerrville has to offer, positive economic impact associated
i
with smart growth will occur. And, that of course, is --
water is necessary for any growth to occur. But I've had a
number of constituents -- I suspect many of y'all have too --
that talk about within -- what's included within the
corporate limits of the City of Kerrville, they either are
not providing or have indicated they don't have the ability
to provide the type of services that they're asking for a
certificate of convenience and necessity out beyond that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
11-9-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
100
JUDGE TINLEY: We're not talking about -- just
about potable water; we're also talking about wastewater
services, so this has a lot of far-reaching effects. And I
know they have some initiatives under way to expand their
infrastructure in the city of Kerrville. They recently
authorized the sale of a pretty significant dollar amount of
bonds in order to enhance, and they're -- by all accounts,
they're trying to play catch-up within what they have now.
So, I'm also confused about it, and I -- I think the possible
remedy that -- that we have in order to get these answers
that we need, as well as the citizens, would be to request a
public hearing. That's what the notice gives, and that
would, as Commissioner Letz mentioned, kind of -- kind of
stabilize this process for now, and see where it goes,
without just letting it go like a runaway train.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I think --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, let me read a
resolution into the record, and then we can open it up for
people to comment. Because we're -- the resolution, in
effect, does what you're suggesting. This would be a
resolution of Kerr County Commissioners Court requesting that
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, T.C.E.Q., to deny
City of Kerrville's Application Number 36469C and conduct a
public hearing on the matter. Whereas, City of Kerr -- City
Council of City of Kerrville, on February 10, 2009,
11-9-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
101
authorized the filing of an application with T.C.E.Q. for a
Certificate of Convenience and Need to provide water --
water/sewer service for an area extending 2 miles beyond the
current corporate limits of the city into the unincorporated
area of Kerr County; and Whereas, said application is
identified as an amendment to the City's current CCN Number
12928, and received by T.C.E.Q. on July 28th, 2009; Whereas,
the area being requested includes approximately 13,268 acres
and 9,193 current customers in zip codes 78028, whatever -- a
bunch of zip codes; Whereas, there exists considerable
confusion and questions among property owners within the
proposed area as to the meaning of the City's intentions and
its ability to deliver water and/or sewer services to any
potential customers beyond its current service area; Now,
therefore, be it resolved that Kerr County Commissioners
Court, by adoption of this resolution, does hereby request
the T.C.E.Q. to deny the City of Kerrville's Application
', Number 36469 and take the necessary measures to conduct a
public hearing, and if necessary, a contested case hearing on
this matter at the earliest possible time. I would move
adoption of the resolution.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll second it. Then I have a
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and a second.
11-9-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
102
COMMISSIONER LETZ: One other comment that kind of
-- that I didn't mention earlier. As the Court will probably
remember, oh, a year ago, maybe a little over a year, I had
some -- at one of our joint meetings with the City, there
were some areas in my precinct that are very close to the
city that don't have services, and they said, "Well, we never
have, you know, looked at any of these. No one on the
Court's ever given us a definite list of these areas to
evaluate." And most of them are in my precinct. I did that;
I sent a list of all -- of several areas. One that comes to
minds is Roy Street, which is right up behind -- up by the
stadium, some of that area in there, which is almost in the
~, city. And the response we got back from the City on all of
this, the areas that I submitted was, "No, we have no
interest in expanding." And I find it interesting that there
are areas that are -- you know, from our standpoint, a
definite kind of health and safety issue; they're very small
lots, individual wells, septic problems, right next to the
city. They don't want to take those on, yet they want to
expand into all these other new areas. I see a conflict in
that, to me.
There's -- and Kerrville South is another great
example. I was at the -- happened to be over at the U.G.R.A.
offices a fair amount the past couple of weeks for some water
issues, and was parked up there and looked across the street,
11-9-09
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
I
and it dawns on me that if you're on the -- the west --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: West side.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- west side of the road,
that's all outside the Kerrville city limits. And the City
has done -- or actually has declined to want to do anything
from a water standpoint, utility standpoint, to try to
improve that area, other than point out to the County that
that's all your fault over there because you didn't have good
rules in place. And yet they won't try to work with us on
trying to figure out how to solve some of those problems and
deliver water, and in areas that are very high density right
now. So, anyway, just a couple other areas of conflict.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Some of those areas are
almost surrounded by the city.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. Mainly, the ones in my
~ precinct are.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yours are. Kerrville South,
just anything basically in -- Buster, correct me if I'm
wrong, but west of Highway 16 right there, starting at where
Big Earl's Barbecue was, that's all -- that's all the county,
right?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
11-9-09
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
they want more?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You got it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sounds like.
JUDGE TINLEY: You've got a way of boiling things
down to the lowest common denominator.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah. I can tell you, I
tried to get -- work with them to get a bunch of businesses
hooked up to city sewer out along Highway 27, and they were
all for it, except for the fact they couldn't get it to the
sewer plant 'cause the infrastructure wasn't good enough.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That area's been in the city
for many, many, many years.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah. And some of those
i, areas are even paying city taxes, and haven't gotten
services.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Never have gotten services.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Nineteen years.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm angry now.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I can tell.
JUDGE TINLEY: There have been a lot of opinions
expressed up here, and concerns expressed. I don't want to
let this thing drag on forever, but certainly, the public has
an opportunity to be heard. If there's anyone in the
audience that wants to give us their comments or thoughts on
this matter, why, we'll let you come forward one at a time.
11-9-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
105
Give us your name and address and briefly tell us what's on
your mind. Yes, ma'am. If you'll come forward and give us
your name and address, tell us what's on your mind.
MS. MATTHEWS: I just had a couple questions. My
name is Mary Matthews. I own 100 acres across from the
airport that's included in the CCN. I was wondering what
!, Mr. Williams was reading from earlier, what document?
'~, COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Actually, I was reading
from the application that was submitted to T.C.E.Q. by the
City of Kerrville, and I was reading from some -- some
sections of the notification, which I believe was published
in the local paper. Those were basically the things I was --
MS. MATTHEWS: The application, is that available
online? Or --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It should be, Ms. Matthews.
I'll give you what I have here, which you should be able to
pull it down.
MS. MATTHEWS: 'Cause there was some details that
were not available in the mailing they sent out.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The application number is
36469-C.
MS. MATTHEWS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And it is styled as an
amendment to the current CCN which the City holds, identified
I
as CCN Number 12928, and it's a T.C.E.Q. document.
11-9-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
106
MS. MATTHEWS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You should be able to pull
JUDGE TINLEY: Indicates this was received by them
July 28th of this year.
MS. MATTHEWS: Thank you. Then you've also
mentioned 13,000 acres, and my document says 60.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Your document says what?
MS. MATTHEWS: 60,000 acres.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It is 60,000 acres. If I
said 13, I misspoke. It's 60,000 acres, and 9,193 potential
customers.
MS. MATTHEWS: Okay. And the last issue I guess I
have about the resolution is that there's sort of a problem
here legally in that people that have more than 25 acres are
given the opportunity to opt out, but they have to respond
within 30 days.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And not only do you have to
respond; you have to provide them with the metes and bounds
and the total legal description of your property.
MS. MATTHEWS: Well, I was hoping that you might be
able to include something in your resolution that would deal
with this problem, because people who have over 25 acres will
not be able to go to a public hearing, because, obviously, a
~ public hearing would be after the 30 days.
11-9-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
107
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Will be after 30 days?
MS. MATTHEWS: Yeah. We have to respond within 30
days.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
MS. MATTHEWS: To opt out of this.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
MS. MATTHEWS: And --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, you have 30 days
to -- I'm going to ask Bill --
MS. MATTHEWS: You have to formally opt out.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- to also talk to this
particular issue. Thirty days in which to get your -- get in
to the T.C.E.Q. your request for a public hearing. I'm not
sure that the 30 -- same 30 days applies to the opt-out.
MS. MATTHEWS: No, it says if you're a land owner
with a tract of land at least 25 acres or more, you may
request to exclude the tract by providing written notice to
the Commission within 30 days from the date that notice was
provided by the applicant.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would recommend that -- I
mean, I have not read it, but to -- if you want to opt out,
or anyone that wants to opt out, send a letter saying you
want to opt out.
MS. MATTHEWS: But we don't know, because we
haven't had the public hearing.
11-9-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
108
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You could always withdraw your
opting out later, is what I'm saying.
MS. MATTHEWS: Oh. You can do that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would think -- I mean, I
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would think you could if
you wished to do that, yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I don't know, but if I
was -- you know, I think the safe course to allow you more
flexibility is for you to opt out. Later, certainly, the
boundary could be adjusted during this process, I would
think.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're certainly willing to
amend it, okay, if it covers a point that needs to be
covered.
MS. MATTHEWS: I was hoping that we would be able
to have a public hearing in order to find out more about it
before we had to make the decision.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the sense of th~s.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MS. MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, sir? Come forward. Give us
your name and address, and give us your comments.
MR. LOUK: My name's Rick Louk, 691 Pass Creek, and
I live in a development out there. We have a homeowners'
11-9-09
1
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
association, and I am concerned as to where they got the
number arbitrarily of 20 acres. There's no indication as to
how they came up with you can opt out if you got 20 or more
acres. Some of the notification to some of the people in our
development have more than 20 acres and were not notified
with any kind of letter. And we're interested in knowing
whether our association would qualify in that it's 220 acres,
and whether we could opt out as an organization. I guess
some of the questions that our -- people in our association
have is, what's in it for us? Obviously, with this -- this
issue. We all have our own well and septic as it is now. We
moved to the county because we wanted to be in the county,
not because we wanted to be in the city.
In my past experience, when an area wanted to be
annexed to a city, they went to the City and asked to be
annexed. And in my opinion, this down the road is going to
be an annexation issue, depending on who's in office and so
forth. And if they put in the -- the sewer and the water
eventually down the line, then the taxes will come with it
also, and who's going to pay for that? I'm concerned about
what's going to happen to my property value as a result of
people opting in and opting out, and what it's going to do to
the county as a whole. So, I hope that in this hearing, that
all these issues are addressed, and specifically, where the
city -- it's pretty obvious, just listening to what you folks
11-9-09
1
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
have had to say about it, what they're trying to do. And I
know from personal experience that the City can't take care
of the water demand they have right now, and it's pretty
obvious what they're looking to do. So, I -- I just hope
that this is slowed down and that it's investigated
completely.
JUDGE TINLEY: Sir, the notice that I've seen, the
break point is 25 or more acres. But be that as it may, one
suggestion I might make to you is, if you have a homeowners'
association, that if -- if, in a proper meeting of that
association, they vote to request a public hearing or to opt
out or both, I would think that you could probably take an
affirmative vote of the association, send them the whole
subdivision plat, to include the whole 220 acres I think you
mentioned. That's one possibility. The worst response you
could get is, "Well, there's more than one owner here, so we
can't honor this." But at least you're making the effort to
protect the subdivision as a whole.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Or your homeowners'
association, by its own action, could authorize that
particular communication on behalf of all of the property
owners within that subdivision, following up on what the
Judge is saying, so you cover both bases at the same time.
MR. LOUK: Well, part --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: With respect to
11-9-09
1
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
Ms. Matthews' question, though, and on point with yours as
well, it talks about a landowner of 25 acres or more, notice
to the Commission within 30 days from the date the notice was
provided by the applicant. I guess that would be the notice
that you received in the mail.
MR. LOUK: I didn't receive one.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You didn't receive one? A
lot of people did.
MR. LOUK: Right. And that's part of the issue.
AUDIENCE: No one that I know of that's here that
has less than 25 acres received notice. I mean, we found out
by accident, which I think is another issue, you know, this
notice.
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't know why we have the 25-acre
break point. That's probably another issue to be looked
into.
AUDIENCE: Could that be addressed?
JUDGE TINLEY: Why the 25, as opposed to 10 or 15
or 5, whatever. We appreciate you --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: By our rules, it would be in
I excess of 5.
JUDGE TINLEY: Under our rules.
(Several people speaking at once.)
THE REPORTER: One at a time, please.
MR. LOUK: Thank you.
11-9-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1.12
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir.
MS. MORE: I'm Linda More and I live on Center
Point River Road. And I've spoken to several of y'all, and I
also talked to some folks from the city and from the City
Council. And I said, well, where did this imaginary 25 acres
come from? Who set that acreage? Because if we hadn't had a
neighbor give us this information, we wouldn't have gotten
it, because we have less than 25 acres. And so I said, "Who
designated the 25 acres?" And he said, "Well, if you have
less than 25 acres, why don't you just go ahead and send in a
letter to the city and to the state asking to opt out, and
maybe they'll do it."
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Ask for a public hearing.
MS. MORE: I went, "Huh?" So, it's -- there's too
many unanswered questions that are scaring me about, is it
going to change my taxes? Is are they going to take my well?
Are they going to meter my well, or are they going to go
across our property with water lines? Just too much stuff
that's not covered in this that I think they're kind of
rushing passing that.
JUDGE TINLEY: I told you, I think they got that
woman stirred up a little bit, didn't they?
AUDIENCE: I have enough trouble doing sports, much
less all this stuff. I know drilling a well this summer --
we had to drill a well; our well went dry because of the
11-9-09
1
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
drought. That's 20,000 a month, and I'm sure other people in
our area did the same thing. It's a question -- it's
something to deal with, seriously.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other citizens have any comments
they wish to offer? Come on up, Mr. Childs, and tell us
what's on your mind.
MR. CHILDS: I'm Bill Childs and I live at 845
Turtle Creek Road. I don't have anything to add. The
questions are all great questions. And I'm worried more
about the hidden agenda and where it's going. And, of
course, the people with less than 25 acres, I think it's a
very valid argument. I think we're going to have to opt out,
because the hearing will certainly not be set before the
30-day time period is up, so I think we're stuck with having
to opt out. I don't know what the people with less than
25 acres can do. But there's a lot of great questions. And
all of the requests are there, and there's a lot more that we
probably haven't even thought about yet. So --
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Childs, I note that in the
notice that went out, it required that to opt out, you must
include a scale general location map and a metes-and-bounds
description of the tract of land. I would submit that that
may not be feasible in a lot of cases, and people may want to
give notice that they wish to opt out, whether they have
25 acres or 2 and a half acres, as far as that goes. But a
11-9-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
114
metes-and-bounds description may not be available. You may
have a -- a platted tract in a subdivision. That certainly
is available. The Appraisal District has some pretty good
maps which give you a general location where they have marked
out where each particular tract of land is that they deal
with. That may be a source of information for folks. If
they don't have a metes-and-bounds description, I would think
an explanation in their request, to opt out would be that it's
not available, and it's -- the location of the property can
be adequately described and ascertained, and don't feel it's
appropriate for them to be required to hire an engineer in
order to do a complete metes-and-bounds engineering
description just for this purpose. And I -- I think you'll
be heard, and I think you'll be considered.
MR. CHILDS: Absolutely. And I think the question
is, if we don't do this precisely the way they requested it,
which is a scale map of the general area and a
metes-and-bounds description, then could they deny our
opt-out? So -- so I've been scrambling, as everyone else
has, to figure out how to do that. We really -- I wish there
was a very specialized attorney here in town that we could
hire, because he could probably -- it's a very specialized
question, and a very legal question, and I think that's
probably what we need. And I don't -- I would suppose we
don't have anybody; probably we'd have to go to Austin to
11-9-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
115
find somebody that really zeros in on this particular
problem. But -- but, at any rate, if there is somebody here,
I'd love to be able to talk to them.
JUDGE TINLEY: My suggestion is that people utilize
the resources they have readily available to them. And --
and enough to identify themselves, identify their property,
and identify that they -- and the amount of property they
have, that they clearly desire to opt out. And I -- you
know, these rules are nice, but you can't always fit the
square peg in the round hole. And I think if they -- if the
Commission gets enough of these folks, I think they're going
to be compelled to pay attention. I just don't think they're
going to want to face that many individual constituents that
are trying to do the best they can with what they got to work
with, and just tell them, "Well, I'm sorry, we got these
bureaucratic rules, and you play by them to the T or you're
out and we're going to run smooth over you." I just don't
see them doing that. If they do, unfortunately, it's after
the fact, but there's recourse available, and it's called a
ballot box.
MR. CHILDS: Well, I appreciate the Court's going
for a hearing on this matter, and asking for the -- for the
entity to deny the request of the City at this point. As you
say, we may at some point say, "Hey, it's a good idea." I
I
I, don't think so, but it's possible. And -- and at least then
11-9-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
116
we'll have time. Thirty days doesn't give anybody enough
time. So, I appreciate the Court. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Childs.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One more comment, please.
Ms. Matthews called to my attention that in the -- one,
two -- third "whereas," we had misstated the number of acres
that's being proposed with what the City wishes to encompass
in its application. That should be 60,000, so we'll get Jody
to reprepare this for our signature. My -- my thought is
that for property owners with less than 25 acres, perhaps
this resolution, which will be out of here by this afternoon
or in the morning at the very latest, covers all of those
folks. But I would urge the press, in covering the story, to
talk to people in Kerr County and tell all those 9,193 folks
that this is an imperative for you, and you -- you need to
write the T.C.E.Q. demanding a public hearing, and if you
need to also state your opt-out preferences, then do so too.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, one other comment. I
think most of the people in the room are -- are residents
that live outside the city limits, but I also want to point
out that a lot of my -- and I've heard from constituents that
live inside the city limits. They'll probably go talk to
City Council on that route, but it's also a big impact on
those people as well. The City, from what I can tell, has
had difficulty providing the water quantity necessary. And
11-9-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
117
what this may do to the residents of the city of Kerrville
currently paying for the city system, it could drive their
cost up. I think it needs to be considered. It's not just
an outside the city limits of Kerrville issue; it's also
inside the city limits of Kerrville, because as they start
devoting resources to expanding the service area, and they
already have these other problems that could cost them money
as well. And the final thing, I would encourage everyone
also to contact your local state representative -- both
Representative Harvey Hilderbran and State Senator Troy
Fraser, because T.C.E.Q. tends to respond a little bit more
when they start pounding on their door than sometimes when we
do at the commissioners court level. So, I'd certainly
encourage you to contact them. And they have gotten involved
in the past on issues related to T.C.E.Q., and they have been
helpful.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We'll send copies of the
resolution to both Senator Fraser and Representative
Hilderbran.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I can assure you that if
there could be a meeting between Hilderbran and Fraser and
the T.C.E.Q., there might be a change of heart in what has
been, you know, promoted here. They do listen. Just like
TexDOT listens; it's no difference.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or comment on
11-9-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
118
the motion? All those in favor, signify by raising your
right hand.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, what was the motion?
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion is adoption of the
', COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
', JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. I thank all
of you for being here. I'm sorry for the delay in getting to
that item, but we -- actually, we skimmed over a couple of
timed items to get there. We'll give you folks time to
leave.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's go to our 11:15 timed
item now. Item 26, to consider, discuss, and take
appropriate action on renewal of financial services agreement
with RBC Capital Markets, Inc., as financial adviser to Kerr
County. I put this on the agenda. As everyone on the Court
is aware, we're in the process of having our financial
adviser work on a proposal that we're going to take to market
here quite soon, and he notified me that in seeing if his
ducks were in order, he discovered that the contract that we
have renewed 18 times now is up for renewal again. And --
11-9-09
1
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
MR. HENDERSON: I have an inner ear infection, so
I'm not going to be as animated as normal. In other words,
Commissioner, I'm going to let that go. For the record, my
name's Bob Henderson. I'm with RBC Capital Markets. We do
have the honor and the privilege of being the financial
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
MR. HENDERSON: In 25 years. Or maybe the sixth.
Our contract did expire on October the 29th, literally two
weeks ago, and -- not even quite that. And under the
Securities Exchange Commission rules, the municipal
rule-making board's rules, we need, for your protection, to
have a financial advisory contract in place so that we a.re
prevented from undertaking any activities that might be
deemed not in your best interest. The term of the contract
is five years. It is the same fees and expenses that we've
'I had for the past two renewals. The only thing that has
i changed is our name, once again. The last time our name was
', RBC Dain Rauscher. This month its RBC Capital Markets. What
11-9-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
120
it will be next month is anybody's guess. (Laughter.) So,
I'll be happy to answer any questions. I'm trying not to
breathe on the microphone; I don't want anybody else to get
sick.
I here?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You're sick and you came in
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's just approve this
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item and the financial adviser
agreement. 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.
23
24
25 of the
11-9-09
COMMISSIONER LETZ: When you're healthy.
MR. HENDERSON: Or Dusty Traylor will be here, one
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry.
MR. HENDERSON: We are proceeding with the
preparation of the documents, and we do expect to be back in
Commissioners Court in two or three weeks.
121
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Bob, did you say two or
MR. HENDERSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
MR. HENDERSON: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's go back and pick up
under Number 12 and move this thing forward. Consider,
discuss, take appropriate action to approve private road
name, Moorhead Road East, located in Precinct 2. Mr. Odom?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. Mr. Moorhead has requested
his private road be named Moorhead Road. The proposed road
is located off Sanders Way, which is off Elm Pass Road. 911
office has reviewed this request and has no issues with the
request, so at this time, we ask the Court for their approval
of the road name, Moorhead Road East, Precinct 2.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Question or discussion on the motion? All in
i
favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
11-9-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
122
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. We'll move
to Item 13; consider, discuss, take appropriate action to
approve proposed road name, Chico's Road Southwest, located
in Precinct 4. Mr. Odom?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. Again, we have a road name.
Mr. and Mrs. Vlasek have applied through the 911 office to
name a private road Chico's -- Chico's Road Southwest, which
is located in Precinct 4 near Camp Flaming Arrow on the
opposite side of Highway 39. At this time, we ask the Court
to approve the proposed private road name, Chico's Road
Southwest, and this road is to be privately maintained, not
by the County.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So moved.
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: Motion does carry. Item 14;
consider, discuss, take appropriate action to declare a 1998
Ford F-150 vehicle as surplus. Ms. Whitt, that's one that
you've phased out in your operation out there?
25 ~ MS. WHITT: Yes, sir. That's the old blue Ford
11-9-09
1
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
that had been moved from department to department, and it
needs a new motor. It just -- it's not in -- it's just not
able to be used any more.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It's junk, is what you're
trying to say.
MS. WHITT: Yeah, basically.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What happens to it?
JUDGE TINLEY: We sell it.
MS. WHITT: Going to try to sell it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Going to run an ad in the
~ newspaper?
MS. WHITT: Well, I'm going to get with the Auditor
I on that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, thank you.
MS. WHITT: We'll see what option is best for us.
JUDGE TINLEY: May be a matter for the scale.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Maybe a slash and crush.
MS. WHITT: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other question or comment? All
in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
11-9-09
1
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
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. We'll go to Item 15
for an update on issues at Flat Rock Lake Park. Update on
dog issues, excuse me.
MS. WHITT: Well, I'm happy to report that we have
had no issues at the park since -- since we set the new rules
in place to have the upper section of the park as an
off-leash area. We had one minor incident that really didn't
-- didn't involve us. It was reported to us. We asked that
person to contact law enforcement. But we have had no
issues. We patrol there, you know, pretty much every
morning, and we've had no issues, so it seems to be working
I well.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good. Thank you.
MS. WHITT: You're welcome.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You know when something works
for a while.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Finally did something,
didn't we?
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move to Item 17; consider,
discuss, and take appropriate action to approve filling out
an application to Texas Fleet Fuel. No bidding process
required. Sheriff?
11-9-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
125
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Y'all will recall a number of
months ago, Mr. Bill Williams came in and presented a
proposal to the County, and I just kind of let it slide for a
number of months. I did get with Rex, who looked everything
up. We do not have to do a bidding process on it. It is a
state bid -- or under state contract type deal on that co-op.
I don't intend on going to that company totally yet. I don't
intend on changing what we have, except I would like to go
ahead and fill out the application; have it. They do service
to a large number of gas stations and that all around the
state and in other states, and mainly on transports, where we
fill out the application, get it approved, and have those
cards to at least see how it starts to work before we -- we
would go to it totally.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let the record reflect that
the Bill Williams the Sheriff mentioned is not this one.
(Laughter.)
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: He's a lot younger. Oh, I
didn't say that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Rusty. What was the -- is
it basically the same kind of thing that you do right now?
You have your little cards, and you go to the gas station,
fill up, and --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right. There's --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What is the benefit?
11-9-09
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
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The price you get. And it's
so many cents above our --
JUDGE TINLEY: Rack.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: -- rack price or whatever.
The only issue I had is, there is something -- and, of
course, I'd let Ilse look at the application; it's a standard
application, before it's approved, is they have in there to
where they would like to bill it weekly. And I'm not sure
that really works for the Auditor nor myself, that we get
billed every week. And then, if you're two days late,
billing it weekly, with Commissioners Court only meeting, you
know, two times a month, it could rack up late charges. I
don't want to get into that type of -- of issue. And I had
not noticed that until this morning, when I went back through
everything, that --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That needs to be part of the
agreement of what --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That it's a once-a-month deal.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- is to be billed, and also
paid.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I agree.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll move approval of
authorizing you to submit -- or fill out the application and
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
11-9-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
127
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Subject to working out any
details with the County Attorney in the implementation.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
indicated. Question or discussion? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Item 18,
another item from the Sheriff. Consider, discuss, take
appropriate action regarding contracting out Kerr County Jail
Commissary.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The same company that we have
that officially started -- last Friday was the first meal
served by the Five Star Correctional that took over our meal
service, and about a 22 cents a meal savings right now. So
far, that's going real well. Haven't seen any kind of issues
or problems with it. It looks like a good one. But they
also do commissaries, and it would be -- the difference is,
we wouldn't have a lot of the in-house issues on auditing or
anything else, and a lot of it's done by computer program
with them. The Auditor still would have access, even to the
whole computer stuff. A lot of it goes back to the same
issue as with the food, in that they buy in such a large
11-9-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
128
bulk, 'cause they do commissaries all over, that their prices
are better. Consequently, their -- their profits are better.
So, when we -- we would be signing this and getting a
31 percent profit off the commissary sales that would go back
to the inmate. I think, in the long run, we may even come
out as well, if not a little bit better, because of the -- of
the price difference. The County Attorney -- I'd originally
given it to Rex to look at the contract. I think Ilse's
reviewed it, and as of Friday, she was finishing up that.
What did you get?
MS. BAILEY: I'm pretty comfortable with it. I
would like for Trolinger to take a look at it to make sure
that they're doing -- a lot of the proposal has to do with
computers that they provide that work their process. It's
interfaced to a certain extent with ours, and I want to make
sure that we've got no security issues there. But otherwise,
I don't have any problems with the contract. It's very
similar to the one that they did for the food service.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any requirement for competitive
bidding on that particular matter?
MS. BAILEY: No, because it's just -- it's a
sole-source provider, and --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It is required once every five
years. We have to bid this, even though it's --
MS. BAILEY: But we don't have to bid it the
11-9-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
129
initial time; at least that's our interpretation.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Every five years after that,
the Local Government Code says I'm required to bid it. I'm
not sure at this point that I would even -- they have a
stand-alone system for ordering. Everything gets scanned in.
I'm not even sure at this point that we're going to try and
interface it with our computer system at all. It may just
stand alone.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, you -- you want to go ahead
and go with this company?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, the other issue is --
I'd like to go with it. And then in our agreement, we'll
date it starting December 1st. December 31st, the lady that
has done our commissary for the last 15 years is retiring,
and I'd like to get this swapped over. And I think it will
save us in the long run, 'cause it will allow me to cut that
down kind of to a part-time type position. I'm not cutting a
position, Bruce; don't jump yet.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I thought I heard you say
that.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, I didn't say that.
Because the second part of that time will help fill in with
our gal guarding the trustee in the kitchen area, with those
-- with the one we have now.
25 ~ JUDGE TINLEY: You're going to use December for a
11-9-09
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
transition month, then?
i
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I have a motion. Did I hear
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion and second.
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. With regard
to the projects going on, the law enforcement/Adult Probation
building, Mr. Peter Lewis was not able to be here with us
today. He had a death in his wife's family, and he's tending
to that. I did get some details from him that I can report
to you. The development site plan has been prepared and
submitted to the City of Kerrville. It's in the review
process now. Once that final site plan has been approved,
the bid plans and documents, he hopes to have it ready in
approximately the middle of December. He sees that as the
probable time frame, possibly bid in early January, he said.
He doesn't like to put anything out for bid during the
holiday period, 'cause you don't get -- you don't get any
return on it. And because of the degree of complexity of the
11-9-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
131
project, he doesn't anticipate they'll need to be out too
long. Be received by -- by the end of January, and possibly
taking action on the bids in early February. So, that's the
report there.
On the windows, what you see is what you get. And
what we're getting, I think, is a pretty doggone good
product. They've had one minor glitch; they're short a few
trim pieces. Those are on order. But they're continuing to
move forward. They're on track, payment wise, for what
they've installed, so we can move that part of it forward
today. They will -- they intend to -- weather permitting,
there's a complete unit, door and surround unit for the west
end of the building that they plan on installing tomorrow,
and I think that'll make a -- a pretty strong visual impact
once that is in. But everyone who's made comments to me has
been very, very impressed by the look that we're getting, how
compatible the interior wood finish is with what we presently
have in place. It -- it's kind of like fitting a hand in a
fist-tight glove. Everything seems to be working really
well. Any member of the Court have any -- yes, Sheriff?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: On that same capital
improvement issue, I know that in that loan, in the financial
aspect of it, there's a lot of other things in the
departments that were approved, such as cars and things. Do
we have any idea of when that financial stuff will go through
11-9-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
132
so that those orders can be made?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mr. Henderson said two or three
weeks, he'd be back here for the document side of it. So,
Ms. Hargis, end of year?
MS. HARGIS: Right. I don't want anything ordered
until such time as we actually get it started, because we --
you know, we're trying to build our cash flow up. It will
come in in December. I think once we approve the document,
let me look at the cash flow, and I'll come back to the Court
and ask you if you're willing to do that or not. I'd prefer
you be in agreement with that before we did anything like
that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MS. HARGIS: Little different situation this year
than we had last time.
JUDGE TINLEY: That -- as to that issue also, we're
trying to move it forward to get that process underway so
that the funding can be in place as early as possible,
commensurate with what we got a deal with there. There's
essentially about a 45-day lag from --
MS. HARGIS: From -- yes, from the time --
JUDGE TINLEY: -- from the time you pull the
trigger on it till the time you actually get funding.
MS. HARGIS: I don't think we'll get funded at this
rate until probably January.
11-9-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
133
JUDGE TINLEY: That gives you a target to look at,
I SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But what I heard the Auditor
say, as soon as our balances are high enough and we have the
documents secured, she may be able to let purchasing go on,
~ maybe in December.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah, because it will take a
while once you place it, so I know there's computers; there's
all kinds -- to get those. I just didn't know when we could
start placing orders.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We'll let everyone know.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Item 23, consider, discuss,
take appropriate action to approve by court order County
Auditor doing audits for ESD's Number 1 and Number 2 when
those records become available. Commissioner Oehler?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: This is something that we
need to do every year for the Auditor. She has to have it
before she can do those audits. So, I move approval.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Question or discussion?
MS. HARGIS: I have. One of the E.S.D.'s has asked
11-9-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
134
me to go back and do -- I believe it's 2007. We did 2008,
JUDGE TINLEY: And you want to make --
MS. HARGIS: 2007.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- sure that '07 is also included
within the purview of this order?
MS. HARGIS: Yes, please.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's fine.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Ask that '07 be included in
JUDGE TINLEY: Very good. Further question or
discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Let's go to Item
25, to consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on a
report of the meeting with T.C.E.Q. Watermaster regarding
Flat Rock and Ingram Lakes, authorize lowering lake levels to
facilitate dam repairs and silt -- silt depth determination
at a future date to be determined, and provide notification
to appropriate state and federal agencies as required.
11-9-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
135
Commissioner Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Judge. There
was a meeting on October 27th. Commissioner Oehler joined me
in that meeting. The meeting was with Al Segovia, the
T.C.E.Q. Watermaster. Also in attendance were Charlie
Hastings of the City of Kerrville; John Hewitt, the Kerr
County Floodplain Administrator; Kelly Hofer, Road and
Bridge; and John Paul Jones of T.C.E.Q., and Mr. Segovia,
Mr. Oehler, and yours truly. And we talked about the issues
that Mr. Segovia had with respect to our desire to and need
to, at some point in the future, lower the lake level to
effect the repairs of both Ingram and Flat Rock Lake Dams,
and engage in some sort of a test project once the lake level
has been lowered to determine the depth of the silt so we
know what we're dealing with. We have no idea what we're
'~ dealing with.
And, so, Mr. Segovia had a list of questions. What
provisions will be in place to pass flows downstream, and
what amounts? And we sort of note -- noticed for him that
when there is no water going over the spillway at Flat Rock
Lake Dam -- I'm talking about Flat Rock now, basically --
there continues to be a flow downstream. And, undoubtedly,
that is coming from either around or underneath, one or the
other, and so there's nothing that we intend to do to disturb
that flow. He wanted to know whether or not we would be
11-9-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
136
amenable	to	pumping	water	over the	-- over the spillway	to
augment	flow	if need	be,	because it	concerns protecting	the
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- if I'm not telling the
I version.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We said yes, if we need to
put a -- a pump to augment the downstream flow, we could do
that. Will the Ingram Dam also require repairs? Yes, we
told him that Ingram Dam also requires repairs. And we also
made the point to him that it's necessary to lower the lake
level because the non-evasive testing that we did on Flat
Rock Lake and Ingram Dam before did not take into account any
voids that might be on the upstream side of the dam, the flat
surface of the dam. And, so, by lowering the lake level
appropriately, we can do that, so we can determine in advance
if we have more slurry that needs to be pumped in there for
the voids that we haven't earlier identified. As to the
wildlife -- Texas Parks and Wildlife being contacted for
approval of the necessary -- they haven't, but they will be.
And we know who that is that we have to send letters to.
What is the time frame -- these are all questions that the
11-9-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
137
Watermaster asked. What is the time frame once work begins
on either structure to complete each dam project? We
estimated that the start would be 2010, October, with a
finish somewhere around January 2011. The dam repairs
probably to both dams won't take that long, and so that
would -- that time frame would apply more to Flat Rock,
because we'd like to also at the same time do the testing on
the depth of the silt, and so if we had the water level down,
we can do the silt. So, silt-depth testing, that is a
confusing thing.
JUDGE TINLEY: It's tough to say, isn't it?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's tough to say, yeah.
What is the plan, he asked, for notifying downstream water
rights holders, riparian water rights holders, and how far
downstream will this notification be implemented? Well,
that's a good question. Answer is, we don't even know who
they are, so if any notifications were necessary, riparian
rights downstream and other -- other diversion rights
holders, it would seem to me that Mr. Segovia has those folks
in his file, and maybe T.C.E.Q. can engage in that
notification. I think he agreed to do that.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: He agreed to do that. Under
~ protest, but --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What is the time for
refilling the reservoirs? We estimated that to be about 90
11-9-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
138
days. And we also indicated our coordination with Comanche
Trace Golf Course and other water diversion rights holders on
Bandera Highway, west of the dam.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, that's the sense of it.
When we finished that meeting, he didn't indicate that he had
any objection to our doing it. And so our thought would be
that we would gear up to do this in the time frame around
October of '10 -- 2010, and get the -- get the dam repairs
done, and probably at the same time be able to engage in some
sort of test to determine what the depth of the silt is.
Questions?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We were trying to get it done
for this year, and he just -- you know, he kept dragging his
feet. He said, "No, no, no." I said, "Look, if we just
lower the level this year, we could find out what we need to
know" --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Next year.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- "for next year." Now, we
wouldn't have it down very long. It's just -- just long
enough to evaluate what we're going to have to do to make
sure that Comanche Trace can still have water going into
their intake.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You know, we have -- there's
11-9-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
139
nobody that has that knowledge about that lake, because it
hasn't been drained. And we have no plans that were drawn,
other than what -- the same dam as Ingram. So, you know, I
mean, it's really kind of a look-and-see type thing, and then
get an idea of what we're facing. This may be a three-year
project.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Probably.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: May be a one-year project,
but we don't know until we get some information.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, certainly, the silt
removal is a multi-year project, and we don't even know the
method yet. So --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I can tell you one method it
isn't, and that's dredging.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Very expensive.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Too expensive.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, I guess I'm asking the
Court to authorize our -- authorize to proceed lowering the
lake levels at a time, and do the silt-depth determination at
a future date to be determined. But it's going to be close
proximity to October of next year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, I would -- I think you, I
mean, get all the proverbial ducks in a row so that we can do
it next October. Or, you know, certainly --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: If there was some way he
11-9-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
140
would allow us to lower it this year, it would be fine, but I
don't think he's going to do it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, I don't think so
either. He's still concerned about downstream flow, and we
understand that.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We told him, you know, that
downstream flow is not going to be interrupted; it's going to
be increased for a short time, and then it's going to be
maintained by what the flow is.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And we asked them to
determine how big a pump we needed to pump water over to
maintain the flow; said, "Well, it needs to be the same as
the river flow." I said, "Well, the lake will never fill if
we pump the same amount out that's coming in." That's the
Old Ingram version, you know.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Ingram engineering, yeah.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah. That's that --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On the water rights issue -- or
diversion rights, if they provide them, that's great. But
Region J has it, and Jody is very familiar with mailing out
notices to anyone who has water rights. She's done it
before, all of South Texas for Region J before.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: She's frowning at you, but
thank you for the information. That's good to know.
11-9-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
141
MS. GRINSTEAD: Thanks.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Also, right now we don't
know -- and we'll find this out by subsequent discussions
with Comanche Trace. We don't know and they don't know the
depth of their intake box, and what's going to be involved in
protecting their ability to take water to meet their needs.
So, we'll find all that out. And we talked to -- well,
Mr. Hastings from the City was there, and we asked him if he
had any problems with respect to their park, which is across
the river from our park, and he didn't. But also, he
understood that this would be a good opportunity maybe to
clean out the gravel bar which is right in front of their
park. So, I thought we covered all of our bases. And what
we're saying is, let us -- we ask the Court to let us proceed
and set the date as we -- as we determine that we can do all
these things.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just take good notes, so as
this multi-year project continues, we'll know how to do it
the next year and the following year and the following year.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 'Cause it sounds --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think we finally have --
you know, we kind of -- we did drain Ingram last year, and
it's kind of like we asked for forgiveness.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
11-9-09
1
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
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We didn't really get
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. Bruce said, "Hey,
I'm sorry." Anyhow --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: But this is a different
situation, because there's a lot different -- especially with
Comanche Trace having -- having pumping rights right there.
You know, that -- and not having another source of water
coming in downstream of the lake, you know, it kind of stops
the flow whenever you plug that one up.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. The motion would be
to authorize lowering the lake levels to facilitate dam
repairs at a silt-depth determination at a future date to be
determined.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
indicated. 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: Motion carries. Let's move to Item
27; consider, discuss, take appropriate action to cast Kerr
County's votes for Kerr Central Appraisal District Board of
Directors. It's that time of year again. We have -- what, I
11-9-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
143
think 1,101 votes? We can accumulate our votes and cast
1,001 for our nominee, Charles Lewis; that will -- or should
insure his election, and the 100 somewhere else, or just cast
all 1,101 for Mr. Lewis. I don't think we're going to make
that much of an impact, but whatever the Court's pleasure.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I make a notion that we cast
1,101 votes for Charles Lewis.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
indicated. Question or discussion? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Item 28;
consider, discuss, take appropriate action on request from
Texas Association for Home Care to declare November "Home
Care and Hospice Month." Obviously, I received this from the
association to ask that we pass a resolution that's included
in your materials to proclaim November 2009 as Home Care and
Hospice Month in Kerr County.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved, and authorize the
County Judge to sign same.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
11-9-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
144
indicated. Question or discussion? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.}
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. We'll go to Item
29; consider, discuss, take appropriate action on
implementation of the burn ban.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. 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 carries. Let's go to
Item 30; consider, discuss --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved. (Laughter.) I
wanted to beat Letz this time.
JUDGE TINLEY: Consider, discuss, take appropriate
action to approve the contract with Turtle Creek Volunteer
Fire Department, Big Brothers, Big Sisters, and Families and
Literacy; allow County Judge to sign same.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
11-9-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
145
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion by Commissioner Baldwin.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
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 31; consider, discuss, take appropriate action to
determine and notify T.C.D.R.S. of plan provisions for 2010.
I thought I saw Ms. Hyde here. The Court has already, in the
budgetary process, determined the elections that we've made
for T.C.D.R.S. Essentially, the percentage contribution is
the same. The rate is set. It's a little bit higher rate
because of the economics in the plan investments. The -- it
includes a 50 percent COLA for retirees, which carries no
cost, but does make the provisions for it, as we have in the
past.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move for approval.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval as indicated. Question or discussion? All in favor
of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
11-9-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
146
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion carries. Item 32,
consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to set
December the 22nd, 2009, as the date for the Kerr County
Christmas luncheon. Commissioner Oehler?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's the date I'm
requesting that we set.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: The Tuesday before -- I
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, it is.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And that is ample time prior
Thursday; that's Christmas Eve. And then, of course,
Christmas is on Friday.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And, of course, everybody
will give a little bit to help pay for the meal that we will
propose.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's to come later.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And that's not any income to
me; it is to cover the cost of supplies.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are you planning -- how -- I
11-9-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
147
can't remember exactly what you do. You provide --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Everything. Except, like,
Betsy does the salad, and then we have some other people that
show up with cakes and pies and --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. So, you provide the
meat and --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Meat, beans, some sort of
salad -- other salad, like a pasta salad was last year. And,
again, there will be some -- be a larger amount of fresh
venison sausage, axis.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm in.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's -- as well as pork
I loin.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, does everybody in the
county participate financially? Or --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Mostly department heads and
elected officials.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For the cost of the meat
and stuff, right?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah. That's just --
JUDGE TINLEY: Reimbursement cost.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- reimbursement cost. We're
talking about minimal. It will be less than last year,
except if you give the same as you did last year, that leaves
11-9-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
148
more left-over money to do some of the prizes and things.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Good.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, fantastic.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sounds good.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I like the date.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I made a motion.
THE CLERK: I have a motion.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: And second. All in favor, signify
by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Item 33, consider,
discuss, take appropriate action on request from County
Attorney to pursue Open Meetings violation by GMA-9 and
review terminology in House Bill 1763. Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Really, the question to the
County Attorney is, what is the process? We notified
everyone at the administrative hearing about what we think is
an Open Meetings violation. But the concern was -- when I
talked to their attorney was that that may not be a proper
', venue to notify, and I'm not sure how you pursue an Open
Meetings violation. Is it through the GMA-9? Do we need to
11-9-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
149
send them a letter? Do we need to --
MS. BAILEY: There are a couple of different ways,
and probably what the Court needs to do is to authorize us to
pursue any and all necessary means to -- to address that Open
Meetings violation, because it could be either in the form of
a request for an Attorney General's opinion or a lawsuit or a
mandamus, or just a complaint to GMA-9, and we probably need
to confer about that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't want to spend any money
on a lawsuit.
MS. BAILEY: Exactly. I'm just saying the
potential different ways of --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Surely we can get a -- find a
II District Judge that will sign an order.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. I'll make a -- on
this part of the agenda item, I'll make a motion to authorize
the County Attorney to pursue the Open Meetings violation
against GMA-9.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
indicated. Question or discussion? All in favor of the
~, motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
11-9-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
150
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On the second part of that, the
language -- and this is something I'd just ask the County
Attorney to look into. In House Bill 1763, it refers to the
districts adopting the DFC's. The Water Development Board, I
guess, has deemed that to mean GMA-9, or GMA's adopt the
DFC's, and this actually came out of a -- Anthony Corbett,
U.G.R.A.'s attorney, he just couldn't understand that. And I
started thinking about it, and really, I don't understand it.
So, I'd really like you to look at that language of whether
-- if districts -- how they made the jump from districts
adopting it to a group of districts that doesn't even have
any legal status adopting it, as to how that's done. And if
that's -- and this may require an Attorney General's opinion
as to what that means. To me, I mean, to clarify it, can
"districts" be construed to mean a GMA? Or does it mean each
district has to adopt the DFC?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Jon, one of your steps
here -- just a recommendation here. One of the steps towards
all that, I would think, is to contact the guy that wrote the
bill and ask him his intent. And nine times out of ten, they
can answer that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh.
25 ~ MS. BAILEY: Well, there's an online bill analysis,
11-9-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
151
too, that we can on look at, but it's usually not a guy who
wrote a bill like that; it's usually many, many people
involved in many committee hearings.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, somebody carried the
bill, though.
MS. BAILEY: I see what you mean.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm just saying, it's really
not relevant to what we're doing, but I think it is a
confusing point. And if stuff's going to be looked at by the
Legislature, it'd be helpful at least to clarify it at some
point in that piece of legislation. That's it. I don't
think it requires a motion. I just wanted to --
JUDGE TINLEY: Just a question to the County
~ Attorney?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's move to Section 4 of
the agenda. First item under Section 4 is payment of the
bills.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm a firm believer in
paying my bills.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Want to pay mine?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you have any in here?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: No.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Nope.
25 ~ JUDGE TINLEY: Was that a motion, Commissioner?
11-9-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
152
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right. We have a motion.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: And a second. Question or
discussion on the bills? 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. Budget
amendments. I don't think we have any of those, do we?
MS. HARGIS: No, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Late bills. I'm looking at what are
denominated as late bills. Are these more accruals or
deferrals, as opposed to late bills? Or --
MS. HARGIS: No, I believe these are -- were bills
that came in after the fact, and we want you to see them. I
want y'all to see all the bills that go through our office.
So, if we do direct payments, you're going to see this
additional. Also, because of our system now, some of the
bills, if they were paid for last year, they have to be
printed for you separately, because the report won't print
out right now because of -- we're overlapping fiscal years
right now, and we haven't closed the books, so that's one of
the reasons why your reports are longer. So, having not been
11-9-09
1
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
here, I'm assuming that we've split it out in that manner as
well.
JUDGE TINLEY: And a lot of these are, in fact,
encumbrances on these late bills?
MS. HARGIS: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Which we'll see right after the
beginning of a new fiscal year?
MS. HARGIS: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. You need an order to pay
the -- what are denominated as late bills; is that correct?
MS. HARGIS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: And a second. 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. I've been
presented with monthly reports from J.P. Precinct 3, County
Clerk, Constable Precinct 1, Constable Precinct 4, and
Environmental Health, Kerr County payroll for October '09,
and Kerr County Treasurer for October '09. Do I hear a
11-9-09
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
motion that these reports be approved as presented?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that the
indicated reports be approved as presented. Question or
discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion,
signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Okay,
reports from Commissioners in connection with their liaison,
committee, or other assignments. Commissioner Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just don't forget about the
luncheon. I think we got another e-mail today reminding us
to pay up or shut up, or something like that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: When's the luncheon?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Next Monday.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I won't be there on Monday.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I will go to the deal on
Tuesday, 'cause I agreed to help pay for it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. That's all, Judge.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Ask Commissioner Letz if
he's going to be there.
11-9-09
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 BALDWIN: Commissioner Letz, are you
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think so. Didn't you pay for
I me?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I did, yes. That's the
reason -- (Laughter.) That's the reason I'm asking.
JUDGE TINLEY: I was hoping he'd say no and I could
ride on that prepayment, Bill.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's all.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any reports from you, Commissioner
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir, there is one. I
have some easement issues out at Kerrville South Wastewater
Project, Phase IV, with respect to getting those eight
properties on Ranchero Road hooked up. And so I had a
meeting out there that involved the City Engineering
Department and the City Manager and the Assistant City
Manager, and -- and a huge truck that you couldn't get in
this room, it's so big, to prove out the point that the
easement's not big enough for them to repair a sewer line.
So, we looked at all sorts of things, just spent a lot of
I' time talking about it. And the reality is, that's what we
have to work with; we have a 10-foot easement to put a pipe
down. And I've asked the property owners on Ranchero Road to
give a 20-foot construction easement -- temporary
11-9-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
156
construction easement to facilitate construction work. The
City doesn't particularly like that; it's narrow. And I
understand; it is narrow, and there are other utilities and
things that conflict with this particular easement. And they
did, in fact, bring out this huge truck that they use to suck
whatever they used to suck out of a pipe when the pipe is
stopped up. And they --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Fire truck?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- wanted to demonstrate
that they couldn't get that pipe in this particular easement.
So, to make a long story short, we walked up -- they wanted
to know if we'd consider the Ranchero Road side, putting the
pipe down. So, I checked with Road and Bridge to see whether
I we had a -- a sufficient easement there to do that. We
~I
i walked up Ranchero Road and looked at all the properties that
I'~
it front Ranchero, and there is a 15-foot easement that
exists -- road easement that exists along that strip of
II Ranchero Road. But the problem is -- and Commissioner
Baldwin and I have talked about it. It would be absolutely
horrendous, and I really don't want to go that way. It would
be horrendous to shut down Ranchero for construction in that
long block from 16 down to Ripplewood for any period of time
at all. With the volume of traffic that comes out of
Kerrville South in there, it just would be unbelievably
problematic. So, I did indicate we'd check on it, and I'll
11-9-09
1
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
get back with the City and tell them our findings, but we
haven't solved it. So, we do have a problem.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner, we've got -- right
there at the intersection of 16 and Ranchero, where they're
doing that construction work, that alone is creating enough
chaos.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: With the traffic flow on Ranchero.
', If you have to take a -- at least a good portion of the -- be
the northbound traffic, I guess it would be, on Ranchero to
lay in that easement that --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's not a good solution.
JUDGE TINLEY: No, I don't see it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not at all, and I'm not
proposing that. That just doesn't work. So, we'll have to
have another meeting with the City, tell them that's not a
good option. I'm not sure what we're going to do.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And along with that, there
possibly could be a conversation about eminent domain
regarding this. Bill doesn't like to talk about that, but
I'm saying that there's -- that's an option.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, that's a good point.
I thank you for reminding me. The original option was to run
laterals from those homes on Ranchero -- and I've talked to
11-9-09
1
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
the County Attorney about this -- down to the existing pipe
that runs through Oak Grove Mobile Home Park. The pipe's
already there, and it requires the owner of Oak Grove Mobile
Home Park giving us an easement to cut laterals through. So,
the thought occurred to me that, rather than going the main
route, maybe we can propose to him a solution that might be
more satisfactory to him, and that would be giving us the
easement to get the laterals across and into the existing
pipe. And if he changes the use of that property from a
mobile home park to something which he might consider a
higher and better use of that property, that we would -- we
would then put a pipe in parallel to Ranchero at back of the
those properties, and if he would give us an extra 10 feet.
I want to talk to Ilse about drafting up a proposed agreement
with him that embodies that solution, that -- that idea, and
we'll sit back down with the man and see whether or not we
I can work it out.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Are his mobile homes hooked
up presently?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: His mobile homes in that
park are hooked up to the pipe that goes through the middle
of the -- of Ranchero. That was Phase 1. That's the story,
Judge.
I COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just briefly, last Wednesday, I
was in Austin, met with Representative Hilderbran and
11-9-09
1
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
Representative Rose, and Chief of Staff Representative Miller
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's it.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I just -- I want to make sure
that we support Janie in what she's trying to do with Animal
Control. That is really a -- really a big step to getting
some of the problems -- I mean, we never cure them all.
We'll never be to a point where we won't have to have Animal
Control, I don't think, but if we can encourage people that
can't afford to have animals spayed or neutered to get it
done, at no cost, then there's no excuse not to have it done.
And that will sure help with the population -- overpopulation
of a lot of our problem areas that are overpopulated with
animals. And we're excited about her doing that. That's a
good thing. She's -- she's going out a lot, trying to get
animals adopted, and is doing a good job, I think. And, of
course, Ray -- Environmental Health has been great with what
he's doing, and -- and hopefully we'll get going the with the
Ag Barn stuff here before too long. I think that Rosa told
me the other day that there's some money out there, some
grant money that we didn't know existed, and she found --
found some to maybe start the first phase of what needs to be
11-9-09
1
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
done out there, and it might be enough to help. We'll get
that; maybe we can get some others, or it may be enough with
today's market. May need a little bit of our money to go
ahead and regrout and reinsulate that indoor arena.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: U.S.D.A. Parks and Wildlife
or some other source?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: No, it's another source. I
can't remember what she told me it was, but it's money that's
been approved.
JUDGE TINLEY: What they call SEGO money. It's
energy efficiency money.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: There you go. That'll tie
in. I think the grant initially is to have been 100,000
I
approved for just about everybody that applies for it, and
those that don't apply for it may get divided up the portion
of those that didn't -- didn't request it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, we've already -- Court's
already authorized serving notice that we wish to participate
in that.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yes. So that's a positive on
the Ag Barn. Other than that, that's it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any elected officials have any
reports they wish to --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You knew Rusty was going to
get up.
11-9-09
1
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
JUDGE TINLEY: You got 15 seconds, Rusty. That
includes the time it takes you to get up here.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Give me 45. Real quick, just
a status update on a couple of issues. One was, if you'll
remember during budget time, as part of the capital
improvement loan, we applied to a couple local foundations to
upgrade courtroom technologies. Both of those grants were
denied.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Oh, no.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: So that third that we put into
that capital improvement loan is still going to be there, and
whatever it can be used for. Now, there are some shorter
ways of doing that that we could upgrade that would be less
than that. It's a roll-around type system that would cost
about 10,000 that would be in there. It may be considered at
that time. Secondly, as I told you a while ago, the food
service has taken off. We'll see how that works. It seems
to be going real well. They did take over Friday. They even
provided the food for Juvenile Detention Center. All that's
been working correctly, and no complaints as of yet.
Thirdly, we currently have 161 inmates in-house. That was
this morning. That's getting closer to my limit. If we get
six or eight more, I'm probably going to have to tell
Gillespie County to start moving some, or we're going to have
to find another way. We currently have 15 Gillespie County
11-9-09
1
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
inmates. We have 32 awaiting trial for 216th, we have 23
awaiting trial for 198th, and we have 29 out of County Court,
and 51 that are already sentenced, waiting to be -- either
finish serving their county sentence or be shipped to T.D.C.
JUDGE TINLEY: How many of them are paper-ready for
other facilities, other than --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Probably about -- some that
are -- we consider them paper-ready now, T.D.C., there's
probably about six or eight of those that are paper-ready,
but we don't have dates when we can take them just yet, okay?
We get them paper-ready, and then T.D.C. give us the dates.
JUDGE TINLEY: Are we able to start the meter
running on the state of Texas when they are paper-ready?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No. They have to be
paper-ready for 50 days, everything sent in and approved for
50 days, and then after that they'll start letting us run our
meter. But they will normally get them out within
40-something days so that we don't get to run our meter on
those.
JUDGE TINLEY: Kind of like the Attorney General's
office. When they tell you six months on the opinion, it's
five months and 29 days.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Exactly right. But that's
kind of where we are. It is going up. I don't know -- now,
11-9-09
1
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
some of that, as you can see, I think the two district courts
now, after the last few meetings, 23 in the 198th and 32 in
murder ones that are going to be there quite a while. But
we're just going up.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any other elected officials?
Department heads? We have one executive session item dealing
with a personnel matter, so at this point, we will go out
of --
MS. HYDE: Can I introduce them to you before you
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, sure. We haven't gone out
MS.	HYDE: I	didn't	have	my hand up.	I	think most
of the Court	remembers	Carey	Malek	from Mutual	of	Omaha
several years ago. And then these are our folks from U.M.R.,
and they are in San Antonio, which is a whole lot closer than
Louisiana. So, I'm going to let -- Kelli Merchant is
actually the account exec, so I'll be working closely with
her.
MS. MERCHANT: Really excited to have you come on
board. We're going to get your plan up and going, which
you'll probably be seeing hopefully a lot of me.
MS. ARMMER: My name is Gloria Armmer. I'm a
customer specialist, so if you have any questions or concerns
11-9-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
164
about your benefits, you can contact me.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. What's the name of your
company?
MS. MERCHANT: U.M.R.
MS. ARMMER: U.M.R.
JUDGE TINLEY: The third-party T.P.A. that's going
to help us administer our employee benefits plan?
MS. MERCHANT: Correct.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You have cards and phone
numbers?
MS. ARMMER: Yes, I do.
MS. MERCHANT: I think I'm on her speed dial. I
think I'm already on her speed dial. We're looking forward
to it.
MS. ARMMER: Good to meet everybody.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Thanks for coming.
JUDGE TINLEY: And for the Court's edification,
Ms. Hyde and Mr. Malek and myself have been discussing some
plan issues that are going to dovetail and interface with --
with our coverage issues and our stop loss carrier and so
forth, so we'll be bringing that to you probably -- maybe --
maybe next meeting, but probably at the latest, first meeting
in December. Correct?
MS. HYDE: Talking about the plan documents?
11-9-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
165
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Yeah, final plan documents.
MS. HYDE: Yeah. The executive session is what --
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. There's some issues there,
yeah. So, at this time, we will go out of public or open
session to go into executive or closed session for the agenda
(Discussion off the record.)
(The open session was closed at 12:40 p.m., and an
executive session was held, the transcript of which
is contained in a separate document.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All right. We're back in open or
public session.! If there are proposed policy changes to our
employee benefits package, let me make a suggestion, and that
is that you work up some sort of a summary where you
delineate these in some sort of written format, and then give
an explanation of why it might be appropriate to consider
adopting them. We'll have an opportunity to -- to digest
those, maybe ask you questions about them.
MS. HYDE: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: Then, come next meeting, we can put
an agenda item on to make changes to our health benefits
policy and plan documents, and we'll wrap this thing up
~ properly.
MS. HYDE: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: And we'll all be legal. Okay?
11-9-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
166
MS. HYDE: All right, thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else to come before the
for the record, this is from Windstream. The representative
came while we were on break, 10 or 15 minutes late, and we
did not accept her bid. And evidently she took to it John,
and John had her file it in with the clerk's office, and she
had filed it in at 12:48. However, the first time she came
she was 15 to 20 minutes late, so we did not accept it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, there was mention made of that
during the break. It was certainly within 15 minutes of
10:30. And I mentioned to her shortly ago that she probably
needs to request an agenda item for the -- request the Court
to consider considering this bid, and give the explanation of
why it was --
MS. PIEPER: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- it was tendered late. But -- so
we expect to hear that next meeting, probably. I think there
was just some confusion. Of course, that's what was reported
to me. It'd be a matter for the Court to consider. Okay.
Anything else to come before the Court today? We'll be
adjourned.
(Commissioners Court adjourned at 1:06 p.m.)
11-9-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
167
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
official reporter for the Commissioners Court of Kerr County,
Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth.
DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 16th day of November,
I 2009.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
B Y . __Z ~i~`GC - ---------
Kathy nik, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
11-9-09
ORDER NO. 31505
RENEWAL OF KERB COUNTY MARKET DAYS USAGE LICENSE
Came to be heard this the 9th day of November, 2009, 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 renewal of the Kerr County Market Days Usage License for 2010.
ORDER NO. 31506
RESOLUTION UPDATING MASTER PLAN FOR KERRVILLE/KERR COUNTY
MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Came to be heard this the 9th day of November, 2009, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve Resolution updating the Master Plan for the Kerrville/Kerr County Municipal
Airport at Louis Schreiner Field.
ORDER NO. 31507
RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF KERB ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
FOUNDATION
Came to be heard this the 9th day of November, 2009, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Adopt Resolution in support of Kerr Economic Development Foundation.
ORDER NO. 31508
TAX ASSESSOR/COLLECTOR OFFICE HOLIDAY HOURS
Came to be heard this the 9th day of November, 2009, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Oehler, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the Tax Assessor/Collector's office being open on December 31, 2009 from
8:00 am to 5:00 pm (a scheduled County holiday) to allow for end of year tax payments,
and to have alternate floating days for the Tax Assessor/Collector's staff to be off for this
holiday.
ORDER NO.31509
KERB COUNTY JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITY POLICIES AND
PROCEDURES RELATED TO ABUSE AND NEGLECT
Came to be heard this the 9th day of November, 2009, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioners Baldwin/Williams, the Court
unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the Kerr County Juvenile Detention Facility Policies and Procedures related to
Abuse and Neglect.
ORDER NO. 31510
TELEPHONE COMMUNICATIONS EASEMENT FOR HILL COUNTRY
TELEPHONE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC EQUIPMENT CABINET
Came to be heard this the 9th day of November, 2009, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Oehler, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve Telecommunications Cabinet Easement for equipment to be placed at rear of
Courthouse property with Hill Country Telephone Communications, LLC, subject to the
County Attorney approving the form of the Easement Agreement.
ORDER NO. 31511
OPEN BIDS FOR KERR COUNTY COURTHOUSE TELEPHONE SYSTEM
Came to be heard this the 9th day of November, 2009, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioners Baldwin/Oehler, the Court
unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Open bids from:
1. Carousel Industries, from Exeter, Rhode Island
2. 4ip Technology and Media, LLC from Fredericksburg, Texas
3. Computer Plus from Kerrville, Texas
4. Hill Country Telecommunications from Ingram, Texas
And accept all bids and refer to the Information Technology Department for
recommendation.
ORDER NO. 31512
RESOLUTION REQUESTING TCEQ TO DENY CITY OF KERRVILLE'S
APPLICATION NUMBER 36469C FOR CERTIFICATE OF CONVENIENCE AND
NECESSITY
Came to be heard this the 9th day of November, 2009, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve Resolution to TCEQ to deny City of Kerrville's Application Number 36469C
for a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity for two miles outside the corporate limits
of the City, and to conduct a public hearing on the matter.
ORDER NO. 31513
FINANCIAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH RBC CAPITAL MARKETS, INC.
Came to be heard this the 9th day of November, 2009, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve renewal of Financial Services Agreement with RBC Capital Markets, Inc. as
Financial Advisor to Kerr County.
ORDER NO. 31514
NAME PRIVATE ROAD MOORHEAD ROAD EAST
Came to be heard this the 9th day of November, 2009, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve naming a private road, Moorhead Road East, located in Precinct 2.
ORDER NO. 31515
NAME PRIVATE ROAD CHICO'S ROAD SOUTHWEST
Came to be heard this the 9th day of November, 2009, with a motion made by
Commissioner Oehler, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve naming a private road, Chico's Road Southwest, located in Precinct 4.
ORDER NO. 31516
DECLARE 1998 FORD F150 VEHICLE AS SURPLUS
Came to be heard this the 9th day of November, 2009, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Oehler, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve Kerr County Animal Control declaring a 1998 Ford F150 (VIN
#1FTDF15YKNB60161)vehide as surplus.
ORDER NO. 31517
TEXAS FLEET FUEL APPLICATION
Came to be heard this the 9th day of November, 2009, 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 Kerr County Sheriff filling out an Application for Texas Fleet Fuel, subject
to working out all of the details on the Application with the County Attorney in the
implementation.
ORDER NO. 31518
CONTRACT OUT KERR COUNTY JAIL COMMISSARY TO FIVE STAR
CORRECTIONAL SERVICES
Came to be heard this the 9th day of November, 2009, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Oehler, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve contracting out the Kerr County Jail Commissary to Five Star Correctional
Services.
ORDER N0. 31519
AUDITS OF KERB COUNTY EMERGENCY SERVICE DISTRICTS (ESD) NOS. 1
AND 2 BY KERB COUNTY AUDITOR
Came to be heard this the 9th day of November, 2009, with a motion made by
Commissioner Oehler, seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Authorize the Kerr County Auditor to perform Audits of the Kerr County Emergency
Service Districts (ESD) Nos. 1 and 2, including performing the Audit for 2007 for ESD
#1.
ORDER NO.31520
TCEQ WATERMASTER REPORT REGARDING FLAT ROCK AND INGRAM
LAKES
Came to be heard this the 9th day of November, 2009, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Oehler, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Authorize lowering lake levels at Flat Rock Lake and Ingram Lake to facilitate dam
repairs and silt-depth determination at a future date to be determined (approximately
October 2010), and provide notifications to appropriate state and federal agencies as
required.
ORDER NO. 31521
KERB CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT VOTE FOR BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Came to be heard this the 9th day of November, 2009, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve casting 1,001 votes for Charles Lewis for nomination to the Kerr Central
Appraisal District Board of Directors.
ORDER NO. 31522
RESOLUTION TO PROCLAIM NOVEMBER, 2009 HOME CARE AND HOSPICE
MONTH
Came to be heard this the 9th day of November, 2009, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve Resolution to proclaim November, 2009 as Home Care and Hospice Month in
Kerr County, and authorize County Judge to sign same.
ORDER NO. 31523
BURN BAN
Came to be heard this the 9th day of November, 2009, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve implementation of the Burn Ban.
ORDER NO. 31524
CONTRACTS WITH KERR COUNTY ENTITITES
Came to be heard this the 9th day of November, 2009, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Oehler, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve Contracts with:
Turtle Creek Volunteer Fire Department
Big Brothers and Sisters
Families & Literacy,
And authorize County Judge to sign same.
ORDER NO. 31525
TCDRS PLAN PROVISIONS FOR 2010
Came to be heard this the 9th day of November, 2009, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve notifying TCDRS of plan provisions for 2010.
ORDER NO. 31526
2009 KERB COUNTY CHRISTMAS LUNCHEON
Came to be heard this the 9th day of November, 2009, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve setting December 22, 2009, as the date for the Kerr County Christmas
Luncheon.
ORDER NO. 31527
OPEN MEETINGS VIOLATION BY GMA9
Came to be heard this the 9th day of November, 2009, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioners Oehler/Baldwin, the Court
unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve requesting the County Attorney to pursue Open Meetings violation by GMA9,
and review terminology in HB 1763.
ORDER NO. 31528
CLAIMS AND ACCOUNTS
Came to be heard this the 9th day of November, 2009, came to be considered by the
Court various Commissioners Precincts, which said Claims and Accounts are:
Accounts Expense
10-General	$	157,764.82
15-Road & Bridge	$	65,728.87
16-2008 Capital Projects	$	15,800.60
23-Juvenile State Aid Fund	$	234.00
27-Community Corrections	$	61.50
28-Records Mgmt & Preserv	$	15,630.00
37-Center Point Wastewater	$	3,719.00
50-Indigent Health Care	$	23,106.85
76-Juv Detention Facility	$	3,622.58
82-SO Law Enforcement	$	217.50
83-216th District Attorney	$	749.69
86-216th CSCD	$	368.65
TOTAL $ 287004.06
Upon motion made by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the
Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to pay the claims and accounts.
ORDER NO. 31529
LATE BILLS
Came to be heard this the 9th day of November, 2009, came to be considered by the
Court various Commissioners Precincts, which said Claims and Accounts (Late Bills)
are:
Accounts
10-General
18-County Law Library
TOTAL
Expense
$ 4,665.32
$ 5,590.32
$ 10,255.64
Upon motion made by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Letz, the
Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to pay the Late Bills and presented.
ORDER NO. 31530
MONTHLY REPORTS
Came to be heard this the 9th day of November, 2009, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the Monthly Reports from:
JP #3
County Clerk
Constable Pct # 1
Constable Pct #4
Environmental Health
Kerr County Payroll for October, 2009
Kerr County Treasurer for October, 2009