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

6~'
-~.
6-'
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
I N D E X
September 14, 2009
--- Visitors' Input
--- Commissioners' Comments
1.1 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
Kerr Emergency 911 proposed 2010 budget
1.2 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action
regarding annual courthouse lighting agreement
with Kerrville Christmas Lighting Corporation
1.3 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
contract with Hill Country Alternative Dispute
Resolution Center
1.4 Open bids for electrical, plumbing, HVAC, and
pest control services and submit them to Kerr
County Maintenance Supervisor for review and
recommendation
1.5 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
approve service agreement with Cad Supplies
Specialty for plat scanner
1.12 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
accept and approve requests from elected officials
and department heads for appropriate office
staff pursuant to L.G.C. 151
1.13 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
approve 2010 resolution for Indigent Defense
Grant Program and authorize County Judge to
sign same
1.14 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
declare 14 VHF mobile radios as surplus property
and dispose of same
1.11 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
PAGE
6
8
11
20
26
30
32
33
35
37
concept plan for the Colvin subdivision 42, 83
1.15 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action up to
and including litigation to resolve the Ingram
Lake construction encroachment on William Vlasek's
property 44
25
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I N D E X (Continued)
September 14, 2009
1.18 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
approve closure of Flat Rock Lake effective
October 1, 2009, until further notice; advise
state agencies of our intention to lower lake
water level and obtain proper permits
1.19 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
approve dredging and cleanup of Flat Rock Lake
under direct supervision of Road and Bridge
1.20 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
ban use of power boats, jets skis, and other
pleasure watercraft during period of Flat Rock
Lake closure
1.21 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
authorize sale of materials removed from Flat
Rock Lake; put into place accounting procedures
as may be required to assure proper controls
1.6 Public Hearing on proposed Kerr County 2009
tax rate
1.7 Public Hearing on County Clerk's annual archival
plan
1.9 Public Hearing to establish a District Clerk
Technology Fund
1.8 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
approve County Clerk's archival plan as submitted
1.10 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
authorize and/or approve preliminary planning,
evaluation, and initial construction aspects
and procedures of proposed Law Enforcement Annex/
Adult Probation Building
1.17 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action
regarding request for proposal of new telephone
system for county courthouse
1.16 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
approve electrical, plumbing, HVAC, and pest
control services contracts
PAGE
45, 82
46
46
46
68
70
70
71
72
80
93
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
I N D E X (Continued)
September 14, 2009
PAGE
1.22	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on	
	approval of Office of Court Administration	
	Contract Number 10-011	96
1.23	Consider/discuss, review county investment	
	policy and take appropriate action to make any	
	necessary or desired changes	100
1.24	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on	
	FY 2009-10 budgets and fiscal, capital	
	expenditure, and personnel matters related	
	thereto for various county departments	108
1.25	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to	
	authorize publication of notice(s) of proposed	
	salary, expenses, and other allowances of Kerr	
	County elected county or precinct officers for	
	FY 2009-10 and set date, time, and place of	
	public hearing on same	129
1.26	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to	
	establish a District Clerk Technology Fund	158
4.1 Pay Bills 158
4.2 Budget Amendments 159
4.3 Late Bills ---
4.4 Approve and Accept Monthly Reports 161
5.1 Reports from Commissioners/Liaison Committee
Assignments 162
5.2 Reports from Elected Officials/Department Heads 164
Adjourned 165
25
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
On Monday, September 14, 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: Okay, let me call to order this
regularly scheduled meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners
Court which was posted and scheduled for this date and time,
Monday, September 14, 2009, at 9 a.m. It is that time now.
Commissioner Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would you please rise and
join me for a word of prayer followed by the pledge of
allegiance.
(Prayer and pledge of allegiance.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank. At this time, if there's any
member of the public or the audience that wishes to be heard
on any matter that is not a listed agenda item, this is your
opportunity to come forward and tell us what's on your mind.
And we won't be able to respond, but you can certainly tell
us what's on your mind. If you wish to be heard on an agenda
item, we'd ask that you wait until that agenda item is
called, and then give us what's on your mind at that time.
We'd prefer that you fill out a participation form -- there's
some located at the back of the room -- if you wish to be
9-14-09
6
1
?_
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
heard on an agenda item. If there don't happen to be any
there, or if you fail to fill one of those out and we get to
an agenda item that you wish to be heard on, get my attention
in some fashion and I'll see that you have that opportunity.
But right now, if there's any member of the public that
wishes to be heard on any matter that is not a listed agenda
item, feel free to come forward and tell us what's on your
mind at this time. Ms. Rackley, I noticed that you have some
individual items with respect to your participation form that
may not be appropriate for the public hearing on the tax
rate, so this may be your best opportunity to speak if you're
going to talk about specific instances.
MS. RACKLEY: Well, okay, if that's what you want.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I think -- I notice that
you've got several different specifics here, and that really
is not appropriate when we're talking about the tax rate.
We're not talking about valuations; we're talking about the
rate --
MS. RACKLEY: I know you are.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- for this year.
MS. RACKLEY: But that's just what this is about.
You don't need to increase the tax rate. If you got the two
people, Diane Bolin and Pollard Hickman Coates, IV, doing
their job, you would see that all they have to do is do their
job. And -- and here, this person is 25 cents. This is --
9-14-09
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
these are all business properties, and these are all in this
Schreiner tract. One is 25 cents a square foot. One is 90
cents a square foot. One is 33 cents a square foot. I did
these at random. I've got a whole page of stuff that I've
got printed out, though. Another is $7 a square foot.
Midtex Oil has to pay $7 a square foot, while Frank Nagle has
to pay 25 cents a square foot. And I have a big list of
Schreiner Block that I took these from. And some of these
people have ag exemptions on business property. One's a
restaurant. One's a -- does telephone service and so forth.
You need to get these people doing their job. All they have
to do is type in the street and start comparing the
properties. I typed in "Connie Lane" just for the heck of
it, because it's out in Ingram, and because there was a
listing out there for 123,000. You just have to type in the
street address and see -- and compare them. It's real easy
to do. If I can do it, I would hope that an employee of the
Kerr Central Appraisal District could do it. There's not a
need for a tax rate increase. It's getting the employees to
do their job. Real simple.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, ma'am.
MS. RACKLEY: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Appreciate your comments.
MS. RACKLEY: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is there anyone else that wishes to
9-14-09
8
1
?-
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
have for us this morning?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Nothing, Judge. Ready to
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just glad we got some rain,
lots of it. We need some more.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner 4?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Appreciative of the rain.
I The bridge project at Mayhew went forward on Friday. It is
I
open this morning, as promised, at 6 a.m. for traffic. The
bridge was completely removed and all new box culverts
installed over the weekend.
JUDGE TINLEY: In the rain.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: In the rain. And they were
fighting rising water, and not -- not like a flood, but they
were having to move water from the upstream to the downstream
to keep the area dry while they were trying to set the new
boxes, and they -- they accomplished it. It's amazing. We
had a really -- we do have a really good bridge contractor on
the job, and that's what really made it work. The ordinary
people, I don't think, could have pulled it off; don't have
the equipment. Good news for that -- that deal, and I'm
sure -- I know it's an inconvenience for some of the
9-14-09
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1.3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Great.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's enough for now.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Commissioner 1?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All I have to say is we're
talking about accomplishments here. We're fixing to hear
from Mr. Amerine, which I think is -- has accomplished more
-- he and the Kerr Emergency 911 has accomplished as much as
any organization --
(Commissioner Oehler's computer made a noise.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What is that?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I didn't do it, Buster; it
did it automatically.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do we have the landing
lights turned on?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Bill Gates calling you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. The -- I think they
have accomplished as much as anybody in this town, so that's
all I wanted to say. So far. We'll take a look at his
budget here in just a moment.
JUDGE TINLEY: You may have a different viewpoint?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: May have a little different
viewpoint here in just a few minutes.
JUDGE TINLEY: I know that some of you -- or
9-14-09
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Golly.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- department, and those people
deserve a lot of credit for the hard work that they've done
down there. They have saved the citizens of this county a
whole lot of money during the past year that -- that we've
taken control of that particular function. And -- and those
of you in the audience that -- that may not be aware, the
County has an obligation under the law to provide health care
services to those people who are classified as indigent under
the law, under state law. This is not something we adopted;
this is something that got adopted for us, but we get to fund
it, like a lot of other things that come from those
governments that are higher up the food chain than are we.
But our people have done an absolutely fabulous job of -- of
prescribing good policies, getting us to adopt them, and
administering that program, and have saved you a lot of
~ money.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, may I give an example
of that?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, sir, you sure may.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: In August 2008, our monthly
financial payment was $66,000, for August. And August 2009,
this year is $4,000. It's gone from 66 to 4.
9-14-09
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
11
(Commissioner Oehler's computer made a noise.)
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I don't do this on purpose, I
promise. (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's a little red --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That did it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's a little red horn
know that this department exists, or this function exists
within county government. It's something you need to know.
There is significant potential financial exposure by virtue
of the mandate that's imposed on us, but these folks are
doing a fabulous job, and they deserve recognition for it.
That's my purpose in mentioning it. Let's get on with our
agenda; we got a fairly lengthy one. The first item on the
agenda would be to consider, discuss, and take appropriate
action on the Kerr Emergency 911 2010 proposed budget.
Mr. Amerine?
MR. AMERINE: I'm Bill Amerine, Executive Director
of Kerr Emergency 911. Our offices are located at 819 Water
Street, Kerrville, Texas. I'm here today to present the 2010
budget. In accordance with the Texas Health and Safety Code
772, Subchapter D, the director shall prepare, under the
direction of the board, an annual budget for the district.
To be effective, the budget must be approved by that board,
9-14-09
1
,~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
12
which was done on the 20th of August, 2009, and then -- then
presented and approved by the Commissioners Court, City of
Kerrville, and City of Ingram. I'm here today to present
that budget. The budget highlights, it's a balanced budget
again this year. Gross income increases from 2009 are about
$13,000, and we're also spending that increase, so it pretty
much balances out. We're seeing a continuing trend of
wireless increases while wire line traditional phone services
are decreasing. We have a proposed salary staff increase of
4.2 percent. There's no changes this year. We always
consider as part of the budget process changes to our
surcharge rate for 911. After looking at our needs, we see
no need to raise that rate. However, next year, we're fairly
confident we'll actually be able to reduce that rate again.
Towards the end of 2010, we'll be adding -- the
last quarter, we'll be adding a full-time staff member, a GIS
address coordinator, who will then continue in that position
in 2011 and beyond. The vision for this next year for 911
would be to replace the PSAP and call center equipment in
both the Kerrville Police Department and the Sheriff's
Office, with enhancements to the Sheriff's Office. One of
the problems we've had fairly consistently with the Sheriff's
Office is continuity with our connection. We have a T-1
connection, which is kind of flaky. We're going to look at
upgrading that, in addition to adding an additional
9-14-09
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
__
workstation. Their call volume and needs require two
workstations for their staff. Continue to enhance 911 public
education awareness. As a matter of fact, we're on a
campaign this fall to do that. We'll be out traveling about,
and we'll continue that in 2010, continue to provide
addressing coordination for Ingram, Kerrville, and Kerr
County, and, of course, make 911 signs. And with that
overview, I'll be glad to answer any questions the
Commissioners or Judge Tinley have.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Amerine, you mentioned that
there was no change in the -- in the surcharge being imposed
upon the citizens that have telephone service.
MR. AMERINE: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: And that, going forward, it was your
hope and intention, based upon looking forward in your
budgetary process, that you'll be able to reduce that rate
again?
MR. AMERINE: We've done it twice in the past.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. AMERINE: You did it.
JUDGE TINLEY: When did that occur? When did those
occur?
MR. AMERINE: We did that in 2006 and again in
2007. We did not do it in the 2008 or 2009 budget. Overall,
from the -- my tenure, we've reduced the tax rate 12.7
9-14-09
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1 '7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: The surcharge to the --
MR. AMERINE: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- telephone subscribers?
MR. AMERINE: Right. And it's not a lot. I mean,
when I got here, the -- the surcharge was 50 cents per phone
line. It's 34 cents now, but we see that being reduced again
as we go forward.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Going in the right
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's fantastic.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Bill?
MR. AMERINE: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How are we doing with getting
address signs out?
MR. AMERINE: It's -- you know, every time we write
an article, or a concerned citizen -- we have a friend of
911, Ed Fournier, who occasionally writes letters to the
editor on our behalf. Every time we have some sort of public
notice, we have a very brief increase in signs sales. I
would think that we still have a significant number of folks
with no signage whatsoever on their properties. Just as we
have -- and this is really a good number. Out of 32,000
phone lines in Kerr County in our jurisdiction, we only have
9-14-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
,~
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
15
50 of those phone lines that have no address associated with
them. I mean, that's 99.99 percent compliance with an
address to a phone number. That's really a good number. But
those 50 people we've contacted three times by letter and
phone call, and this last time, we're going to send a
registered letter to try to get them to come forward. And
the people who have responded, they just aren't interested in
associating a physical address with their phone number.
Privacy is more important than their personal safety. They
feel they'll be able to communicate their location when they
~ need us. But we do continue, to answer your question, to
push those sign sales.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not sure if you're aware,
but counties were given the authority -- I think it's
effective September lst -- to make it a -- I want to say
criminal offense for not posting a sign.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Misdemeanor.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Misdemeanor. Would you be in
favor of us pursuing that?
MR. AMERINE: Absolutely. I think in the past,
I've asked that question, and the answer back then was that
you couldn't levy such an ordinance. But, you know, the City
of Kerrville and Ingram do have that ordinance, to have a
fine associated with not having signage. And sometimes
that's what you need to get people to help themselves, 'cause
9-14-09
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that's what it really comes down to. We're not interested in
anything other than being able to find them when they call
911.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. We might take -- have
you looked at the bill?
MR. AMERINE: I haven't seen it, but I'll look into
it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It would be interesting to see
if you support it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Bill, I noticed you got
about $217,000 in your capital cash account. And you make
some comment about scheduling a replacement of PSAP
equipment, right? Is that adequate? Or --
MR. AMERINE: Well, actually, the 217,000 is cash
in a cash account. We actually have a C.D. which we're going.
to utilize. We suspect that the total cost of that
replacement will be between $250,000 and $300,000. Even with
that expenditure, we'll still have approximately $350,000,
$400,000 seed money for 2014 when we replace that equipment
again.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. Thank you for
MR. AMERINE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- nevermind. I'll ask you
9-14-09
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: There was a lot of concern about
getting you guys geared up to do the wireless function, and
there was a lot of concern that that was just going to be
horrendously expensive. That hasn't turned out to be the
MR. AMERINE: You know, an interesting phenomenon
occurred from 2005 to present, where a lot of the primary
providers, like Verizon and T-Mobile, have decided that it
costs more for them to administer a cost recovery for that
service than it does just to go ahead and provide it. I'm
sure that they roll that cost into their fees for their
customers, but we don't have to pay the cost recovery as a
911 district any more. So, the actual cost, even though we
continue, even in 2010, to allocate $54,000 to pay those
services, hasn't worked out to be that expensive. Now, we
still have two outstanding companies that haven't come
forward to -- to either say whether they are or they're not
going to do cost recovery. That's Five Star Wireless and
AT&T Mobility. But when it all shakes out, I think it's
going to be a lot less expensive. If you remember, I think I
said several years ago over $100,000. I believe it will be
less than 40 when it's all said and done, per year.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can we take that a step
further, and what -- what is the status of 911's ability to
locate wireless telephones?
9-14-09
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
18
MR. AMERINE: Regardless of who your wireless
provider is -- and I like to say that because there are so
many different ones out there. Currently, Kerr County is
100 percent Phase II compliant, and what that means is that
if you're using a wireless device, and you're not standing
inside of a metal building or in a basement, because that is
essential, believe it or not, even though the call will
connect, for those systems to work, especially if they're
GPS-based, you have to have a clear view of the sky, or very
little obstruction between you and the sky for that to work.
But if you have no obstructions between you and the sky of
any significance, then we can locate you, and the accuracy
that we've seen since this was implemented late last year was
anywhere from a few yards to maybe a couple hundred yards
from where the call is initiated. And where this becomes
critical is out in the rural areas. In the city, it's never
difficult to find somebody, but if somebody's been in a
hunting accident out on a hunting lease, we can find them
fairly quickly.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any more questions for Mr. Amerine?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, I just have one. I
guess it's the same one that goes with everything that --
every budget that comes through here. Did you say you had 4
and a half percent increase in salaries?
MR. AMERINE: 4.2 percent.
9-14-09
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 OEHLER: This year, I'm not sure we're
going to give any increases, and we kind of -- that's yet to
be determined, but from my standpoint, I think that -- that
we probably ought not to approve any, but that's just my
feeling as your Commissioner.
MR. AMERINE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I may be out -- outvoted, but
I don't believe anybody else is going to get a raise to that
magnitude, any of the other parts of the county government.
MR. AMERINE: Well, if I can explain that a little
bit, my increase is only going to be 1.7 percent. I know
that it's just the increase in general. I'm doing a parity
adjustment for my associate director; his increase is going
to be close to 7. And then there is an hour increase for our
waged secretary/receptionist. It's not an increase in hourly
rate, but an increase in number of hours which is driving
that percentage point up, so it looks like an inflated amount
when, in actuality, it's not.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I appreciate the job you do
and what's been accomplished.
MR. AMERINE: Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Just thought I'd throw that
out there, because it's -- we're going into times -- I know
you're in real fine financial shape, which you have made a
lot of effort to make that happen.
9-14-09
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. AMERINE: Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: But, anyway, that's just --
that's a feeling that I have, and I think a feeling of a lot
of constituents, that you don't give raises or increases
whenever you're going in a down economy.
MR. AMERINE: I understand.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions for Mr. Amerine?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, sir.
MR. AMERINE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We need approval of this?
MR. AMERINE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, I would move
approval of the 911 --
JUDGE TINLEY: We already got it over here.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You already got it?
JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion and a second for
approval of the agenda item. Question or discussion? All in
favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Let's move
to Item 2, if we might; consider, discuss, take appropriate
9-14-09
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
action regarding the annual courthouse lighting agreement
between Kerr Christmas Lighting Corporation and Kerr County.
Mr. Bond, good to see you this morning.
MR. BOND: Good morning, gentlemen. How is
everybody today? It's that time of year again. I stand
before you today just to get approval from the Court on the
', annual agreement that we have each year to come on the
property and begin decorating the	courthouse	lawn,	as well as
the courthouse itself. Actually,	I've shared	with	-- with
the Court as well -- hopefully, each of you has at your spot
a mock-up of this year's redesign of how we're going to
decorate the courthouse itself. We try each year to do
something new and special, and try to keep our -- our annual
Christmas lighting up to date. This year, we're -- we're
taking a pretty big step forward, I think, and we're going to
recommend that we change the way we decorate the courthouse,
do away with all the up-and-down light strands, which are not
only expensive to run, but also have been up that way for, I
think, close to eight years, maybe nine. It's been that way
for a long, long time, so we think maybe it's time for a
change.
And what we have there is just a mock-up --
computer mock-up of what we think would be a nice, new, fresh
look for the way the courthouse is decorated this year. I've
had a chance to visit with Tim, and I shared, I think, with a
9-14-09
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
couple of y'all a little bit ahead of time just to kind of
get an initial reaction. So far, it's been pretty positive.
The only thing I think is -- is important to consider is that
we will have to affix some brackets to the courthouse walls
to -- to mount those wreaths in order for it to be safe and
secure, which will require a little bit of drilling into the
mortar to mount those brackets in the mortar of the bricks.
Pretty common thing to do. I've got numerous mortar-hanged
brackets on my house at home as well. Just wanted to kind of
get some initial reaction from the Court on that, make sure
that there wasn't any opposition to it before we start
spending money on ordering those wreaths.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are these lights in between
the wreaths?
MR. BOND: Yes, sir, mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And in the wreaths -- like,
on the front of the courthouse, in the wreaths themselves,
will there be lights?
MR. BOND: Yes, the wreath itself will be lit as
I well.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This is one of the classiest
looks I've seen. This is really class.
MR. BOND: Everybody that I've spoken to so far has
been positive and excited about seeing something new.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know about drilling
9-14-09
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
23
(Laughter.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Bond, the brackets that you're
talking about, will they be unobtrusive --
MR. BOND: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- when the decorations aren't
MR. BOND: Absolutely. And, actually, we can
design them in such a manner that they can be taken down
during off season. What will probably have to remain is the
actual hole that we drill.
JUDGE TINLEY: Sure.
MR. BOND: We'll have a permanent --
JUDGE TINLEY: Where you screw into it.
MR. BOND: Screw into it, right, so it will be
basically invisible in the off season.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you going to have to
rework your electrical to accommodate this, --
MR. BOND: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- or take off --
MR. BOND: We've actually redone the rooftop. All
of the cords will come from the top down. We've got plenty
of electrical up above, and it's nice in this design, because
we can reuse lights we already own to do the -- the new
design, so we won't have to purchase a whole bunch of new
9-14-09
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Tim, you've -- you've looked at
this, discussed it with Mr. Bond, and y'all have been through
it, and it's something that's doable from your standpoint?
MR. BOLLIER: Yes, sir, I feel that it's doable.
And it's like I told Kyle; the only problem that we have is
we got to be real careful what we affix on the new part of
the courthouse over here, that little --
MR. BOND: Paraffin.
MR. BOLLIER: --	paraffin around	there,	because
that has Styrofoam in it.	And we have to	be real	careful
with what we do there. And --
MR. BOND: If you notice, on the --
MR. BOLLIER: Kyle and I was talking about it. I
think that there's ways -- I mean, there's several ways to
affix that to the courthouse.
MR. BOND: We'll be working directly with Tim. In
the annual agreement, I've asked for one additional week this
year, to begin October the 24th, which is one additional week
more than we would usually take. We will spend that weekend
getting those brackets affixed and begin that process, and
work with Tim on that. Ordinarily, that process is handled
by community service workers, the decorating of the
courthouse itself. This year, I would recommend that some
folks from our group are involved in that process as well,
9-14-09
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and	help	with Tim,	and we'll have a lift out there to get up
and	down	and do it	safely.
JUDGE TINLEY: It's doable, Tim?
MR. BOLLIER: Yes, sir, it's doable.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Ms. Rackley?
MS. RACKLEY: How much does it cost Kerr County for
them to do the lights?
JUDGE TINLEY: Zero.
MR. BOND: Zero. Costs zero. We are a self-funded
volunteer organization that's funded --
i MS. RACKLEY: Yeah, they ask me for money all the
I t ime .
MR. BOND: Well, it's by donation only, yes.
MS. RACKLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What about your plans for
the grounds, Kyle?
MR. BOND: The grounds this year will be the same
as last year. We don't have anything new this year. We do
', have new LED lights that we're going to be putting into the
displays, which will save on electricity costs, and they last
approximately seven to eight years, as compared to one or two
L compared to the old incandescent lights. So, we're stepping
forward in technology, and it will save us all money in the
long run. That's all I have today, unless anybody has any
concerns.
9-14-09
26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Any more questions for Mr. Bond?
Okay. This is an action item, gentlemen.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move for approval.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item. Question or discussion? All in
favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
~I JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry.
MR. BOND: Thank you, gentlemen.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Bond.
We'll move to Item 3; consider, discuss, take appropriate
action on contract with Hill Country Alternate Dispute
Resolution Center. Mr. Ed Reaves. Good to see you this
~ morning, sir.
MR. REAVES: Good morning, Your Honor,
Commissioners. The Hill Country A.D.R. Center, as you know,
is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, and it was founded --
revived, actually, from an earlier start in 2002, with the
support of the Commissioners and the Kerr County Bar
Association. Since then, the volume has grown steadily each
year, and we have had over 800 mediations actually held. And
it's really a lot more that is involved in that, because in
9-14-09
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
any given month, we may have, you know, anywhere from three
to six cases that are actually scheduled and we make a
reservation for where to hold it, and they're settled under
threat of mediation. And, you know, so we feel like it does
a lot of good, not just from the individual mediations -- we
had 153 last year -- but also through the change in culture
that's being introduced from a purely "kill 'em till they're
dead" litigation approach to that of trying to find an
alternative means of peacefully resolving disputes. Which
the state experience has been that people are more satisfied
with something they worked out, even if they've have to
compromise somewhat, than if it's imposed by a third party.
Now, we had 153 cases last year. That was up a
little bit from the year before. Last year we had really a
record settlement rate of almost 89 percent. It was about --
over 82 in '08. That's higher than the state average of
about 75 percent, and some urban areas only have a little
over 50 percent settlement rates. But we have the advantage,
because we're small enough; we can find out a little bit
about each case and try and recruit the best mediator for a
particular fact situation. And that's our lifeblood. We
have over 75 volunteer mediators who, without any
compensation, spend their day, and sometimes into the night,
trying to -- to bring settlement to the case before them.
And also, we have now introduced peer mediation both at
9-14-09
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Talley, which I reported to you in writing, and also B.T.
Wilson Elementary Schools, and hopefully this is something
that will grow, the idea that you don't have to duke it out
on the playground. You know, there are other ways to -- to
resolve disputes. So, we would respectfully request renewal
of our contract with Kerr County for the -- the coming year.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mr. Reaves?
MR. REAVES: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The -- your group is one of
my favorite groups in town, because of the fact I believe
that reasonable people can sit gown and work through anything
if you stay there long enough, and y'all do that. Is there
-- I can't imagine how you -- how you would do this, but has
anyone ever sat down and figured out or estimated how much
money you save people -- like, save the taxpayers because of
the unclogging of the court system?
MR. REAVES: Well, the only analysis that I'm aware
of was in -- in Travis County, and they -- they calculated
that there was a $5,000-a-day savings for cases that would
have been tried in court. And, for example, we had 16 C.P.S.
cases last year that were mediated. Only one of them just
totally did not -- we didn't get a settlement on. And
there -- let's say that of that number, 10 of those would
have been jury trials. Well, both of the family law masters
have told me it takes a minimum of five days to try a C.P.S.
9-14-09
29
1
,~
3
4
5
6
.~
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
case. Well, whether it's 5,000 or 3,000, whatever figure you
use, if you have 10 cases, it would have taken five days;
that's 50 days of trial. That's a huge amount of money that
can be saved. And, of course, the courts are so crowded,
they have a great need to find more efficient ways to manage
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Commissioner, to answer that
question a little bit, I just did a quick calculation. Of
the 153 cases you mediated, say it took two days on average,
$1,000 per case. That's $306,000 savings.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Wow. We need to give y'all
~ more money.
MR. REAVES: Bless you. (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm kidding.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm going to ask the Auditor --
there's a special account that we maintain from court costs
on cases filed for that purpose. Are there adequate funds in
that account to fund for the coming year?
MS. HARGIS: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. REAVES: And, if I may add, Your Honor I know
this lady's going to ask, you know, about where the money
comes from. The money comes from litigants.
MS. RACKLEY: I know that.
MR. REAVES: Great.
9-14-09
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. RACKLEY: I've been one of the litigants.
MR. REAVES: So, a little bit of each filing fee
goes to the A.D.R. fund. And --
MS. RACKLEY: But they are not unbiased.
They're -- they're for the county, and they're for the -- the
Appraisal District, so you just throw your $500 away.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mr. Reaves, we appreciate
the work that you do. I think the Alternate Dispute
Resolution is a good thing for Kerr County, or any county,
and I do appreciate what do you.
MR. REAVES: Thank you, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would move approval of
the contract for the Alternate Dispute Resolution Center, and
renewal fee being $15,000 for the ensuing budget year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
indicated. Further question or discussion on the motion?
All in favor of that motion, signify by raising your right
hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. We thank
you very much, Mr. Reaves. Let's move to Item 4, which is a
9:30 timed item. It's a bit past that time now. And that
9-14-09
31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
item is to open bids for electrical, plumbing, HVAC, and pest
control services, and submit to Kerr County Maintenance
Supervisor for review and recommendation.
(Low-voice discussion off the record.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The first bid is from Foss Pest
Control in Ingram, with a schedule of amounts as listed on
the bid form. Second one is from Kerrville Air Conditioning,
Refrigeration and Heating, Inc., it looks like. That's on
HVAC, of course. Next bid is from Whelan Plumbing, on
plumbing services. Next one we have is from D.W. Electric
on, I assume, electrical -- yes, on electrical work. Next
one we have is from Guadalupe Electric on electrical work.
Next one we have is from Airtech A/C and Heating, on HVAC.
The next one is from Hill Country Pest Control for pest
control services.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I move we accept all
proposals and forward them to the Maintenance Director for
recommendation.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
indicated. Further question or discussion?
MS. RACKLEY: Did you get three bids on everything?
JUDGE TINLEY: There's a hand raised out here. You
need to identify yourself, sir.
MR. MITCHELL: Doug Mitchell, Hill Country
9-14-09
32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: One, two, three, four, five, six --
looks like we got seven.
MR. MITCHELL: Thank you, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and a second.
Question or discussion on the motion? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Let's move
to Item 5, if we might; consider, discuss, and take
appropriate action to approve service agreement with Cad
Supplies Specialty for plat scanner, indicating it's the same
agreement as the prior year with no increase in fees.
Ms. Pieper?
MS. PIEPER: Judge, you basically said it all.
It's just another year that we need to renew our maintenance
agreement for our plotter-scanner.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: 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.
9-14-09
33
1
?_
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Let's move
to Item 11; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on
concept plan for the Colvin Subdivision. Mr. Voelkel?
Mr. Colvin? Are you folks here yet?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I don't believe they're here
yet.
JUDGE TINLEY: They probably assumed it was going
to take place after 10:15.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: We'll pass that item for now and
move to Item 12; consider, discuss, take appropriate action
to accept and approve request from elected officials and
department heads for appropriate office staff pursuant to
Local Government Code, Chapter 151. I put this on the
agenda. As I'm sure members of the Court know, there's a --
a Local Government Code provision that talks about each of
the department heads or elected officials to seek the Court's
authority to appoint the various positions that are shown.
All of them are keyed, or have been, at least in the past, to
our master position schedule that we have developed in
accordance with our budgeting process. And we had a number
of -- of departments and elected officials that have asked
9-14-09
34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
for their request to be approved. I can go through here.
Mindy Williams, the County Treasurer; Leonard Odom, the Road
ii
and Bridge Administrator; Linda Uecker, District Clerk; Rex
Emerson, County Attorney; County Court at Law, Judge Spencer
Brown; I.T. Department, John Trolinger; Auditor department,
Ms. Hargis; J.P. 1, Judge David Billeiter; Sergeant Chris
Lalonde, Texas Department of Public Safety; Tim Bollier,
Maintenance Supervisor; Bruce Curry, District Attorney; Janie
Whitt, Animal Control; H.R. Department, Eva Hyde; Extension
Office, Mr. Roy Walston; Jannett Pieper, County Clerk; J.P.
2, Judge Dawn Wright; J.P. 3, Judge Kathy Mitchell; Juvenile
Probation, Jason Davis; Kerr County Environmental Health, Ray
Garcia; Juvenile Detention Facility, Mr. Stanton; Sheriff's
Department, Sheriff Hierholzer. All of those are the ones
that have been submitted to this point for approval.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, may I ask a question?
JUDGE TINLEY: You may.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think -- I tried to keep
up with all that, and I think they were all county employees
or connected to the county except for D.P.S. What -- why
would they seek our permission to do anything?
JUDGE TINLEY: Because -- the only -- the only
answer I can give you for that, Commissioner, is if you'll
recall, we have a separate budget for Department of Public
Safety in which Kerr County employs a secretary that works
9-14-09
35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1 '7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
for	the Department of Public Safety.	We pay	that	-- we pay
that	secretary, provide benefits, and	she's	shown	on our --
or he or she, as the case may be, is shown on our position
schedule, so that individual's classified as a Kerr County
employee.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. All-righty.
JUDGE TINLEY: I can understand, at first blush,
you might say, "What do we have to do with the Department of
Public Safety, except call them when we need them?"
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval of the agenda
item.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 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 does carry. Let's move
to Item 13; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to
approve the 2010 resolution for the Indigent Defense Grant
program and authorize County Judge to sign the resolution.
Ms. Hargis.
MS. HARGIS: This is the annual resolution that is
required by the State of Texas in order for us to accept the
9-14-09
36
1
2
3
4
5
6
.~
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
grant, and we have to have this resolution approved and
signed when we send in our acceptance, so I'm just asking for
I you to approve the grant. It is 26,000 this year; it's gone
down about -- not quite $1,000 from last year.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Ms. Hargis, this formula
', grant provides us with $26,317 for indigent defense. How
I~ much have we spent?
MS. HARGIS: Well, we spent it all for indigent
I defense.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Some beyond the grant?
MS. HARGIS: Way beyond the grant.
JUDGE TINLEY: Hundreds of thousands of dollars.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I just thought I'd like to
get it in the record.
MS. HARGIS: I don't have the exact figures, but
I'm sure it's anywhere from 250,000 to 300,000.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item. Question or discussion? All in
favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
9-14-09
37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. We'll move
to Item 14, to consider, discuss, and take appropriate action
to declare 14 VHF mobile radios as surplus property and
dispose of the same. Sheriff?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. These are the old car
radios coming out and being replaced with the digitals, and
what I would like to do with these is not -- I know that
we've talked to Len Odom about his supervisors' vehicles
getting some of them. We would like to give them there. I
got a call from a place called Loyal Valley which is creating
a new volunteer fire department in Mason County; they're
between Mason and Cherry Springs, and they have asked if
there's any way that they could get four or five of these
radios for their new vehicles. And then I'd like to also
contact our local volunteer fire departments that these
people operate and offer them these radios. They won't work
for us any more because they're not digital; we can't deal
with the P.D. And the only short-term effect they will have,
if Kerrville Fire Department goes digital, which they are
doing, then they won't work for those fire departments; they
won't be able to communicate with Kerrville. But I do think
that it's wise.
JUDGE TINLEY: Sheriff, it occurs to me that if
we're going to -- if those are still capable of being
utilized by VFD's, for example, we first need to offer them
9-14-09
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
to departments in Kerr County, or ones that serve Kerr
County, such as Comfort, Tierra Linda, Castle Creek --
'~ COMMISSIONER LETZ: Castle Lake.
JUDGE TINLEY: Castle Lake, the ones that -- ones
that serve Kerr County, and to the extent there's any excess,
certainly, our good neighbors up in Mason or other counties
would be next in line. But --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I agree with you 100 percent.
And these are -- this is only the first batch. As you know,
I've got about 53 vehicles that will be done, and a lot of
them are portables, and we are making sure that we do have
plenty to furnish our local departments, 'cause I think they
are the most important to us and our citizens. But a
brand-new volunteer fire department that can assist between
Mason and Cherry Springs that -- you know, they don't have
much equipment at all. They were -- were calling, asking if
there's any way, and that's why I put it on the agenda.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask you a question.
I'm assuming that we can transfer from one department to
another inside the county. Can you transfer from a county to
another county? Don't you have to declare -- let me finish.
Don't you have to declare it surplus somehow? And then how
do you get it over to the other county?
MR. EMERSON: You declare it surplus anyway, and
then the transfer within the departments occurs after that
9-14-09
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
agencies.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Now, I'm under the -- wait
just a minute. Once it's declared surplus, then we can just
donate it to those volunteer fire departments. There's not
really a -- a paper trail after that. These -- if these 14
radios are declared surplus, I give them to those volunteer
fire departments, and they're out of my inventory.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sheriff, are you going to
come back at a later date asking for the same thing for the
remainder? Why don't you just make it all-inclusive, do it
one time?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Because until we get that next
grant to replace the next radios, I'm not going to declare
the radios as surplus.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's -- I realize that
you need replacement radios.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But the main thing that
brought this up now is when we did get a call -- of course,
Len wasn't in a hurry on his. He just said yeah, he could
use them. We thought he'd want more than four or five. He
was the first one we contacted. And I wasn't going to bring
it up yet, but then when the volunteer fire department out of
Loyal Valley called and said that they're -- they don't have
9-14-09
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
could help that small department.
JUDGE TINLEY: Sheriff, you're confident that, down
the road, as -- as we continue this transition to digital
radios and you take these VHF radios out of service, that
there will be ample, down the road, radios to service all the
Kerr County VFD's, and also those that serve Kerr County, are
you not?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I am confident. The ones in
Kerr County, no doubt, okay? I don't know, you know, if we
start furnishing Comfort or Tierra Linda, how many they would
need. I don't know how much equipment they have, and so I'd
hate to say, "Yes, I'm confident," and then come up a few
radios short. I just -- I don't know. Between portables --
you know, portable radios, yes, there's going to be probably
close to 75 to 100 portable radios that will gradually get
replaced over the next number of years, you know, so you have
those. Now, a lot of these departments, it's kind of similar
to what Len said. They want them in the supervisor vehicles
or they want them in -- in their fire trucks, all right? I'm
not so sure I want them in private vehicles that aren't
belonging to the fire department, if you know what I'm
talking about. I have some issues, because there are a lot
of different frequencies there, if these radios are going in
9-14-09
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
___
private vehicles. If they're going into fire
department-owned vehicles, fire trucks, tankers, you know,
all that, then there's no doubt we'd have plenty of radios
for everybody.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. And that's something, of
course, that you're -- when they make -- make a request for
those, you're asking what they're going to do and what
they're going to put them in, aren't you?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. RACKLEY: I have a question. Is the VHF radios
JUDGE TINLEY: No, ma'am.
MS. RACKLEY: Uh-huh.
JUDGE TINLEY: But they can communicate amongst
themselves much better --
MS. RACKLEY: And there --
JUDGE TINLEY: -- than a megaphone or a holler.
MS. RACKLEY: -- there is supposed to be a paper
trail, by the way.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion that we
declare the 14 VHF radios surplus and give the Sheriff
discretion to dispose of them as he feels appropriate.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: As long as they go to
9-14-09
42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
governmental entities.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second. I'm glad you added
I that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
indicated. Question or discussion on the motion? All in
favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry.
(Low-voice discussion off the record.)
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't see -- I don't see
Mr. Voelkel. Mr. Colvin, do you know whether Mr. Voelkel's
going to be here this morning?
MR. COLVIN: He's not planning to come, but he's
available on telephone call if you need him.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let me go back and call Item
11 -- recall Item 11; consider, discuss, and take appropriate
action to concept plan for the Colvin Subdivision.
Mr. Colvin?
MR. COLVIN: Good morning.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Morning.
MR. COLVIN: I don't have a copy of the plat,
Commissioner Oehler. I --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Mr. Voelkel got my copy. So
9-14-09
43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
we can try to wade through this as much as we can.
MR. COLVIN: Would y'all prefer that I go get one
and come back?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is this the same --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: This -- no, this is a
different deal. This is up at --
MR. COLVIN: It's a 48-acre tract at Hunt that
Nancy and I own.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We need to see it.
MR. COLVIN: I agree.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: What it is, is a concept
plan.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And Mr. Voelkel and I have
dealt with it, and I met with Mr. Colvin, and I don't know
why he's not here to --
MR. COLVIN: He took a fall Wednesday.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Oh, he took a fall?
MR. COLVIN: And was out Thursday and Friday and
Saturday, so he's kind of moving around -- that's why he's
not here this morning. I'll run down to his office and get
i one .
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You run down to his office
and get one. I think we can go through it without him having
to be here. If you don't mind, we can call it later.
9-14-09
44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. COLVIN: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, that item will be subject to
recall. Let me go to Item 15; to consider, discuss, and take
appropriate action, up to and including litigation, to
resolve the Ingram Lake construction encroachment on William
Vlasek's property. Mr. Emerson?
MR. EMERSON: Yes, Judge. As you know, when the
Ingram Lake was drained, there's been some controversy over
whether or not Mr. Vlasek encroached into the public easement
of the waterway when he built his retaining wall. Over the
last six months, that issue has bounced around between
multiple state agencies. It's probably gone through half a
dozen different state agencies. They've essentially all
determined that the County needs to deal with it. They're
not willing to deal with it, and so it's back in our lap.
So, I would like permission from the Court to communicate
with Mr. Vlasek, try to work out this issue, and in the event
that we can't reach some reasonable agreement, then we need
to pursue litigation to protect the public easement.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'll move to give you that
authority.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: There's a lot of controversy
around this issue, and I believe it can be resolved if we let
the County Attorney take the lead on the thing, and I'll be
9-14-09
45
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I
', glad to help, and whoever else we need to involve. We'll
come up with some kind of resolution to this problem.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and a second as
indicated. Question or discussion on that motion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm amazed that suddenly we
have taken control of the state agencies and D.P.S. a few
minutes ago. I can't wait to see how this thing transpires
through the day.
JUDGE TINLEY: By the time we get to noon, we'll
have full charge of everything, Buster.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Man, I'm exited.
MS. RACKLEY: Buster, I agree with you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. There's a first.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: The Judge will be governor.
JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, no thanks. No thanks. We have
a motion and a second. Question or discussion on the motion?
All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right
hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Okay, let's
move to Item 18; consider, discuss, and take appropriate
action to approve -- approve closure of Flat Rock Lake
effective October 1, 2009, until further notice, and advise
9-14-09
46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
state agencies of our intention to lower lake water level and
obtain proper permits. Commissioner Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, can you call all
four items? They're all related to discussions all over the
Is that going to take us a
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Shouldn't take too long.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me call Item 19; consider,
discuss, take appropriate action to approve dredging and
cleanup of Flat Rock Lake under direct supervision of Road
and Bridge Department. Item 20, consider, discuss, and take
appropriate action to ban use of power boats, jet skis, and
other pleasure watercraft during period of Flat Rock Lake
closure. Fishing boats powered by trolling motors permitted
access to lake in areas unaffected by dredging activities.
And item 21, to consider, discuss, take appropriate action to
authorize the sale of materials removed from Flat Rock Lake,
and put into place county procedures as may be required to
assure proper controls regarding sale of county property.
Okay, there you go. The whole enchilada.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The whole enchilada is on
the table. Thank you, Judge. The purpose of all of these is
to get this Court's consideration and approval to shut down
Flat Rock Lake and to dredge it and take out the excess silt,
9-14-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
47
the idea being that we're going to work essentially on the
north side of the lake, as close as we can -- well, within
the length of -- of all of our property that fronts the lake.
The first item is to get the Court's approval to do that, and
to notify to shut down the lake and to dredge it, and to
authorize us to lower the lake and obtain the proper permits;
i.e., from T.C.E.Q., I believe, and Parks and Wildlife, for
the removal of material from the lake bottom. That's the
first item.
The second deals with doing all of this work under
the supervision of the Road and Bridge Department. We have
had meetings with Leonard and his staff with respect to the
logistics required to do this and the type of equipment that
we anticipate working on this project. And, for the Court's
benefit, we just concentrated on the use of a -- a big Cat
hydraulic excavator like so, and would propose to lease that
for the period of time after the -- after the drying event
takes place after the water is lowered. And the third item
has to do with banning power craft on the lake during the
period of excavation and cleanup. I think there's probably a
safety issue there if we were to continue to permit power
craft on the lake, jet skis and other things that pull water
I skiers.
And the fourth item has to do with the sale --
permission of the Court to authorize the sale of materials we
9-14-09
48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
remove from the lake, and we need to talk about what the
price per cubic yard would be today, what the Court deems an
efficient -- effective rate that we would charge per cubic
yard for that, and authorize the Auditor and the Treasurer to
set up the necessary controls for the handling of the money.
The County would have the authority to move material -- to
remove it, and the sale of that material. So, all of those
are the four items, and they're open for discussion, Judge.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Bill, first, I guess the
question I have -- and Bruce may know from Ingram Lake. What
permits are required?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, you may recall --
Commissioner Oehler can weigh in on this -- we received a --
we were chastised by the T.C.E.Q., the Watermaster
particularly, because they didn't get advance notification of
our intent to lower the lake in Ingram. Is that correct,
Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's correct.
I, COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Secondly, we need a permit,
or it needs -- at least we need to advise, one or the other,
Texas Parks and Wildlife -- Leonard, do you want to come to
the podium, please? -- of our intention to clean up the lake
and dredge it and take materials from the lake bottom. If
there are others, I don't know what they are, but those two
notifications, I believe, are appropriate ones. Are there
9-19-09
49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
any others, Leonard?
MR. ODOM: No, sir. T.C.E.Q., Parks and Wildlife,
and floodplain with Mr. Hewitt.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Have we -- have you visited
with T.C.E.Q.?
MR. ODOM: Well, I have prior to this, and
explained that we would be dredging; I didn't know the exact
time, and that I wanted to avoid the confrontation last time
that we had. They were notified properly ahead of time. And
I was -- every time I go to Austin, I get -- something
happens. So, I go to Austin, and John Paul Jones is on
vacation, and this problem came down when we put the plug in
there. And they were properly notified, even at that; John
Paul Jones was. He just wasn't around. So, we're trying to
do this in a -- in a manner in which Mr. Segovia down in San
Antonio doesn't have hypertension.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me add another little
factor here before the discussion. It would be the intention
-- my intention to notify all the property owners of lowering
the lake and so forth and what we're going to be doing, all
the property owners on the Bandera Highway side or south side
of the lake. As a matter of courtesy, I went to Comanche
Trace and visited with Mr. Trevor Hyde after our meeting the
other day -- which I think was Thursday, right? -- at Road
9-14-09
50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and Bridge, to advise him of what we've been doing -- what we
were planning to do, as I have advised him on previous
occasions informally, and at this particular time to ask
permission for us to have access to the dam for the purposes
of pulling the plug, basically, through his property, which
-- which is on the Bandera Highway side in the vicinity of
the dam, and Trevor was very gracious in giving us that
permission. And then they sent a letter of concern, which,
Judge, he -- and Mr. Hyde is in the audience today, and he
may wish to speak to this whole issue. But that's all part
of the notifications and so forth, so property owners know
what we're doing, when we're doing it. And when we're doing
it is from October 1 through January 31, essentially, and
we'd let the water rise back -- put the plug back in, let the
water level rise back up so that we don't affect the fish
spawn and so forth in February.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What -- do we know what level
the plug inside -- in other words, how much water will be in
the lake after the plug is pulled?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're going to send --
Bruce has arranged to send the divers -- diving team down
that removed the plug at Ingram for just that purpose,
Commissioner, to determine exactly where it is, you know, how
much debris is around it down below, and at that extent we
can determine how far up off the bottom that intake is.
9-14-09
51
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Generally, somewhere between
6 and 8 feet, kind of like it is at Ingram. I believe it's
about the same level. I talked to Doug Hill, who is doing
the diving, same guy that did it in Ingram, and he's already
been down and kind of done a preliminary evaluation of what's
there. He said it's the same thing that we had at Ingram,
with the exception of a few truck tires around that got in
the way, but that it's just basically silt and sticks and
stuff that are built up over the plug. He's already done
that and is ready to proceed here -- I believe the week of
the 21st is when he's thinking about doing the diving, and
start pumping that mud away from the ball so we can get it
out.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We need to determine that,
and that -- and there's another meeting scheduled to discuss
this and Mr. Hyde's letter, and he and his people will be at
this meeting scheduled for 10 o'clock Tuesday morning in
Leonard's conference room. And we need to determine, you
know, what level -- where is that outflow pipe.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Because there are --
Comanche Trace has concerns with respect to protecting its
intake structure on the south side of the lake, so we need to
be cognizant of that and determine what the --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Part of the problem is, we
9-14-09
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
MR. ODOM: Long time ago.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So, we really don't -- nobody
on this Court, that I'm aware of, has any knowledge of what
that's going to look like when it's drained. So, this will
be a learning experience, and it will also give some
knowledge for the future, what needs to be done. And I've
also contacted the research station at Mountain Home about
the possibility of removing a large amount of fish and
holding them in their tank -- their lakes until such time
that we can put the water back in, because we don't know
where the reservoirs are going to be and how deep some of
those are going to be, and -- you know, in that lake location
when it's drained. There will be some, but we don't know
where.
I COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I might add, for the
Court's benefit, that part of the plan is to remove the
material and sell it by the cubic yard, and the proceeds from
that removal and sale will go toward the anticipated repair
of both Ingram and Flat Rock Lake Dams next year. Those are
moneys that will be applied for that purpose.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And cover the cost? Will it
9-14-09
53
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
also be applied to cover the cost?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Of this? Yes.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, of course.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: The rental of the big
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What I'm talking about is
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Leonard, do you anticipate
renting a six-wheel dump truck as well, a large six-wheel
dump truck, all-terrain dump truck? I would -- we've done
some of this on a lot smaller scale, and I would highly
recommend that. I mean, they're expensive, but you're going
to -- it's -- you're going to get really bogged down and make
an excavator work a whole lot quicker.
MR. ODOM: If it is like Ingram, that may be
feasible. I'm just not quite sure. Talking this morning to
~ some of the men that have been around the last time it was
done, they're sort of leery about where that hardpan's at.
It could be very deep. So, a six-wheel truck could --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Depends on how soft the bottom
is.
MR. ODOM: Depends where I find that bottom at.
This is going to be -- I know nothing about it. We have
never done anything, so it'll be -- it'll be interesting.
9-19-09
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
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It's going to be an
experience, but I think it's going to be a good one. And
it's a good cause; it needs to be done. This thing is -- you
know, we can do a lot of their improvements in the future for
access to -- you know, have river access that's nice, and not
when you step off the bank and you sink up to here in mud,
you know. It's just not a very good experience.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: There -- I'll visit with you
later. You may want to look at crane mats also.
MR. ODOM: Pardon me?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Crane mats.
MR. ODOM: Well, --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You can --
MR. ODOM: -- we had some, and I had some mats that
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You can get them used in
Houston; they're pretty cheap. And, you know, they're --
we've used them on, obviously, a smaller scale.
MR. ODOM: That may be what we do, you know, to
spread it out. Maybe we could have --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Help us figure out how to get
the stuff out of there, you know, without having to track --
MR. ODOM: If it's not there, then it's 17 feet
down. That's hardpan for the drilling and all.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It will be an interesting
9-14-09
55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
experience, but I believe it's one that we need to do. And I
think we can --
MR. ODOM: We'll use a 345, is what I'm thinking,
with a 5-yard bucket, so that will load a lot of trucks if --
if there's hardpan, and if it's not, then maybe that one
truck will get up -- up above, and it depends how many trucks
we got. But if we can swing it with a 345, that excavator
will be right in there and we can dig a lot of material, if I
can get them out of there.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: 5-yard bucket will dig a lot
MR. ODOM: A lot of material.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: A lot of material.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Commissioner Letz, one of
the items we left unresolved, as a recommendation, basically,
was what will be a reasonable charge for this material by
cubic yard? Now, we defer to you, because we know you use
stuff like this and have that experience. We've been all
over the lot; 2.00, 2.50, 3.00, 3.50, and up to 4.00, but we
haven't decided what that number should be.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think you have to look at the
material, and you need to really see -- it may be -- it's one
of those things; if it's, you know, good material, like I
would anticipate it is, I'd say 3.50, 4.00 is appropriate for
that. If someone -- it may also be appropriate to contract
9-19-09
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
screen, screen it, and then be able to increase -- that way,
that person could, you know, be getting rid of it and raising
-- and pay for the screen, basically, by charging a higher
price for it. If it's screened, the good material can go
probably for, really, you know, $12 a yard, and then the --
the other part can go for fill. You really got to look at
it, and it depends on how compacted is it going to be? How
sloppy is it when it comes out? And that's going to depend
largely on how long does it take for it to be -- so you can
do anything with it? 'Cause it's going to be pretty sloppy.
MR. ODOM: Pretty sloppy.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, you know, I'll be glad to
visit -- I might get one of my guys to stop by and visit with
~ Leonard that does this for us, and kind of the problems we've
found when we do it.
MR. ODOM: Has to be incentive.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We want to get rid of the
stuff. We want people to come get it.
MR. ODOM: Has to be incentive for people to
come -- want to come in there, Judge.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, Mr. Hyde may want to
speak to this issue.
JUDGE TINLEY: Are we about through with this
discussion? Mr. Trevor Hyde from Comanche Trace is here.
9-14-09
57
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
level at which you draw water out, relative to the level of
what the lake's going to be when that plug's drawn, as to
whether or not you're going to be able to actually pull any
water. Is that basically the bottom line?
MR. HYDE: That's the primary concern, that we're
10 feet below the lake level. We measured it Friday. I'm --
I appreciate Bill coming by and giving me heads up on
Thursday, and we believe that the plug's about 2 to 4 feet
below that. We'll see once they come in and divers go down
and look at it. But before pulling the plug, we'd like to
know where it is. And one thing I keep hearing is that,
"We've never done this before. We're not sure. We haven't
talked to the agencies that are involved." I have. So, it's
pretty easy to get ahold of John Paul Jones, the Deputy
Watermaster. He told us, Comanche Trace, that he would not
approve to have the plug pulled. We're in a drought. The
people downstream, once you pull the plug, no one else is
getting water. Y'all are saying four months.
Our company has 1926 water rights. We use -- about
85 percent of the water on our golf course is treated
effluent from the city. The other 15 percent comes out of
that river. We have a $200 million tax base to the county;
generates about a million dollars a year in actual taxable
9-14-09
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
revenues to the county. I think y'all need to consider your
options. I think you need to talk to the agencies. I think
you need to talk -- I talked to the City Manager; he wasn't
aware of this either. The City has a park as well. There's
property owners on the lake, and I think all those things
need to be considered so y'all can make an educated decision
on what's in the best interest for everyone, not just the
county. There's other people there. A floating dredge is
used in a lot of other lakes. We have some vendors; we'll be
happy to supply names and contact numbers so y'all can get
bid proposals on that. That would leave the lake up and
running. That wouldn't cause us any impact, wouldn't cause
the City or property owners or taxpayers the use of the lake.
I think there's a lot of things that need to be -- get
!, considered before y'all can make an educated decision. Be
I~~ happy to answer any questions from our end.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a call in to the
City to advise them, and we haven't made any contact, but
certainly --
MR. HYDE: I talked to the City Manager on Friday,
and -- or Thursday or Friday, after I talked to you, and it's
just a short notice. Y'all are talking about making a
decision in two weeks and shutting the lake down, pulling the
plug, and no one even has talked to permit people. No one --
and, Bill, I support you; you've done a great job, and I
9-14-09
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
support what -- everything y'all do, and we're willing to
help out and offer our property or do anything we can. But,
I
you know, again, we have an operating entity out here that
y'all are talking about crippling for -- and y'all estimate
i
four months. I've seen these projects go on, and sometimes
it takes eight months.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: How much water do you use,
the 15 percent out of the lake in conjunction with the
85 percent every time you water?
MR. HYDE: 85 percent is treated effluent; goes on
the golf course. Our greens have a fresh water loop, which
is from our 1926 water rights.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That comes from the --
MR. HYDE: Dedicated water. Fresh water.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Right, I understand. I
understand about dedicated rights.
MR. HYDE: And that's dedicated on the golf course,
what I'm saying, for fresh water only. So, what happens is,
if y'all cut that and pull that plug and we're below that,
then all of a sudden we don't have water coming in, and so,
you know, that amount of water, whether that's 50,000 or
200,000, whatever, gallons a day, we're zero. And --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Depends on what -- you know,
depends -- there's a lot of variables in that, and there's a
lot of concessions that could be made to rechannel that
9-14-09
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. HYDE: Right.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You can extend your -- your
suction down lower and divert the water into there where it
wouldn't affect you.
MR. HYDE: Right, that's what I'm saying. Seems
like there's a lot of options that need to get looked at.
When I hear the guys saying, "We've never done that before,"
I~ not sure where the bottom is, taking equipment, have you
looked at a floating dredge? Have you looked at other
alternatives and everything? What's the expense? What's the
revenue factors, you know? Instead of, in two weeks, saying,
"Hey, we're going to shut the lake down."
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, we're -- you know, the
message in the madness is, we're trying to generate revenue
rather than spend tax dollars.
MR. HYDE: I'm hearing that clearly. But you need
to remember that Comanche Trace --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's a consideration. A
couple million dollars to dredge that thing that we don't
have.
MR. HYDE: Comanche Trace generates, since I've
been here, and right now currently, a million dollars a year
estimated annually to the city.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: But that's not -- that's all
9-14-09
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
part of our maintenance and operation money.
MR. HYDE: I -- clearly, I respect that. But I
also know that -- I've been told what the County expense is
', at Comanche Trace. (Made a hand gesture indicating zero.)
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's great.
MR. HYDE: I'm just saying let's look at some
options, gentlemen.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We'll explore those
options, and if you'd be so good as to provide us with the
information that you referenced a minute ago about alternate
methods and so forth, we'll examine those. We'll examine
those within the context of the funding we have available to
get this project underway, and be prepared to talk about
those at a meeting on Tuesday.
MR. HYDE: Yeah. Look forward to meeting tomorrow
~ morning.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Hyde, obviously, none of this
project is going to go forward without the appropriate
discussions and concurrence with the state agencies having
jurisdiction and the required permits being obtained. And we
appreciate your input and any information that you can
provide with regard to what your needs are going to be to --
~ to provide for your ongoing operations. Certainly, we don't
want to do anything that's going to jeopardize that. You're
25 ~ a valuable asset to this county, and we want you to grow and
9-14-09
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
62
be successful. And I know you're going to continue to
participate in these meetings, and let's take a look at what
other options are available and how we can get this
accomplished at the least cost to the taxpayers, and make
sure that everybody's rights are protected.
MR. HYDE: I appreciate it. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: A couple comments. One of the
things I think would be helpful to get from you is, the
timing of this is to go into a time of the year when I
anticipate you use a lot less water.
MR. HYDE: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, you know, hopefully
that's -- you know, obviously, we wouldn't want to do this in
the middle of the summer, when your intake's --
MR. HYDE: I wish I had that crystal ball. But if
you're going to ask me, I can tell you --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We don't know. And, certainly,
the fact we had some rain doesn't mean the drought's over.
Certainly, it's helped. The river flow is up quite a bit,
which changes a lot what T.C.E.Q. might have said a couple of
days ago. Flow is probably going to pick up a little bit.
The other part of it is, at least issue a notice, and not
necessarily to you. If the City Manager says he doesn't
know, well, then he should maybe look at our agenda. We have
discussed this on numerous occasions.
9-14-09
63
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: A lot of times.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: For at least six months, there
has been a discussion of that dam, that lake, and this plan.
So, you know, did we give a specific notice? No, we didn't
have it on our agenda to do that. That's what the purpose is
today.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, it will be --
MR. HYDE: I hope the communication between the
County and the City, or from either, vice-versa, is good.
I'm not -- it's a Kerr County --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm just saying, so the public
can be aware, this isn't like we just put on it the agenda
today. This has been discussed as agenda items previously.
MR. HYDE: Bill brought it to me a couple weeks
ago -- three weeks ago, and just in a verbal deal at a lunch
deal, and came to my office on Thursday saying it's on the
agenda on Monday. I didn't know anything. I don't see any
other property owners here.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that's fine. The fact that
it's on the agenda -- it was discussed, but no action. This
is the first action item. And I think that, you know, it may
be -- the time period may be rushed a little bit. It may
mean that we go pull the plug, look at it, and then plug it
again, and then go back and do it again. I mean, Ingram
Lake, it has taken a couple of times to do this. We may go
9-14-09
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
64
MR. HYDE: If it takes a lot longer than what's
estimated, it puts us in -- if we're in a drought, that puts
us in a big problem.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: An option may go be to go in
there, work for two months. Maybe it gets postponed a little
bit. See what happens. Get the material -- some material
out, and then have a plan for another future year. I did a
calculation. We're talking about 200,000 yards of material,
minimum. That's very conservative, the material in that lake
that needs to come out. It does need to come out for the
benefit of everybody, including, I think, y'all's facilities.
So, I think that, you know, it's a project that needs to be
done, but I agree, we don't need to rush it.
MR. HYDE: Maybe some of the other property owners
might want to get in and dredge at the same time or whatever,
so collectively there's better use of that, versus just the
county property.
JUDGE TINLEY: Your point about communication is
well-taken. It can always be better, and we all need to work
on that.
MR. HYDE: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Let's go to our
10 o'clock timed item that we've run over -- our first
10 o'clock timed item.
9-19-09
65
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, before we do that, do we
need to take any action on any of these?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, --
JUDGE TINLEY: Excuse me.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- I think we ought to.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
them.
JUDGE TINLEY: Your point's well-made,
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Item 18 is to
appropriate -- to approve the closure of Flat Rock Lake
effective October 1, 2009. And let me say that that's the
date we set. It's a date, but it can be altered based on
circumstances. And we also realize that even though we may
begin the process of lowering the lake level somewhere in
that time frame, it's going to take a long -- probably a
month before any other activity takes place.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Commissioner, I mean, I think
the -- you know, what I would like is -- I don't know if we
need to approve Item 18 or not, but for you to proceed and
come back on the 24th with a definite plan and what these
state agencies have said. Mr. Hyde has said that the
Watermaster has some reservations.
9-14-09
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: He may.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: He may. I think we need to
have all of those things on the table, so I think we need to
proceed with notifications to state agencies and local people
and get it on their agenda to do the actual closure.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We can do it that way. We
can continue our meetings and -- and send out the
notifications. Watermaster's going to be in control. If he
says no, it's no. And so we can do that and bring it back on
the 24th, whatever the Court's --
MS. GRINSTEAD: 28th.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't really see how -- you
know, I'm not a watermaster, but how this really affects the
flow of the river. It will increase the flow for a short
period of time, as long as --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It will continue to be
essentially the same.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Anyone that's drawing water
out, like Comanche Trace, the intake can be adjusted to be
accommodated. It shouldn't change anything on the flow of
the river, other than increase it while the lake's drained.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Momentary increase -- or
periodic increase, and then it goes back to normal.
MR. HYDE: Who owns the water in the river?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: State of Texas.
9-14-09
67
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. HYDE: Right. So, the water is U.S.
controlled, right? So, if you want to change or alter the
water and flows and all that, you'll have to get approval
first, right?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Except you can't change the
flow, and it's not changing. It might increase the flow.
The flow isn't going to change. The Watermaster's going to
require, during fill-up of the lake and during draining of
the lake, that water rights are met, and the river -- we
can't just stop the flow of the river. At Ingram we didn't
stop the flow of the river.
MR. HYDE: So -- I'm just asking a question about
what you were saying. So, it seems appropriate, right, if we
could get approvals before setting a date to do something
with the lake?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's right. That's what
we're doing, I think. Then the other items, I think, really,
all of them can be researched a little bit further. We don't
need to take any action right now.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's just hold off.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We'll continue our
meetings, send out notifications, and come back.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I thought we were in
9-19-09
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 OEHLER: Been busted back, Buster.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I know.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We'll return.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else on those items? Okay.
~I
Now let's go to our timed item for 10 o'clock. At this time,
I will recess the Commissioners Court meeting and I will
convene a public hearing on the proposed Kerr County 2009 tax
I rate .
(The regular Commissioners Court meeting was closed
at 10:23 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: The tax rate -- proposed tax rate
for 2009 for Kerr County is .4293, that being 42 and 93/100
cents per $100 valuation, which is comprised of 39.71 for the
Kerr County portion, and the lateral roads being 3.22 cents,
for the total of 42.93. I would point out that this rate is
the same tax rate that was in effect for the year 2008. With
that introduction, is there any member of the public or the
audience that wishes to be heard with respect to the Kerr
County 2009 tax rate? Yes, sir. Please come forward and
give us your name and address, and -- and give us your input
with regard to this matter.
MR. ROBERTSON: Commissioners, my name is David
Robertson. I live at 511 Winged Foot Lane in the city of
Kerrville. I just wanted to ask a question, Your Honor. Are
9-14-09
69
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
you saying that the tax rate will remain the same, or will it
be going up?
JUDGE TINLEY: Tax rate is -- the proposed tax rate
is the same tax rate as we had the previous year.
MR. ROBERTSON: Oh. Because I thought I read in
the paper that it was going to be raised, and that's why I
was here.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, you know, in the interest of
transparency, state statutes have dictated that we publish --
actually, we weren't required to hold this public hearing.
We're holding it to give the citizens an opportunity. It's
only in the event you increase your tax rate where it is
above certain other benchmarks that you're required to hold a
public hearing. Ours is not exceeding any of the -- any of
the benchmarks by state statute. But in the interest of
transparency, the state has had us do all these other
calculations, and frankly, it's very, very confusing to me,
and everybody else. And so it gives the appearance that
maybe we're raising the tax rate, but the proposed tax rate
is not an increase.
MR. ROBERTSON: Thank you. Then I have nothing
more to say.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Thank you. Anybody
else that's been gripped by confusion? Anybody else wish to
be heard with regard to the 2009 Kerr County tax rate? If
9-14-09
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
70
not, I will close the public hearing, and I'll convene a
public hearing with regard to the County Clerk's annual
archival plan.
(The public hearing was concluded at 10:25 a.m.,
and a second public hearing was held in open court,
as follows:)
P U B L I C H E A R I N G
annual archival plan?
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Seeing no one seeking to be
recognized or coming forward, I will close the public hearing
on the County Clerk's annual archival plan, and I will open a
public hearing slated for 10:10 a.m. to establish the
District Clerk Technology Fund.
(The public hearing was concluded at 10:25 a.m.,
and a third public hearing was held in open court,
as follows:)
P U B L I C H E A R I N G
JUDGE TINLEY: Is there any member of the public
that wishes to be heard with respect to the establishment of
the District Clerk's Technology Fund?
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Seeing no one coming forward, I will
close the public hearing with respect to the District Clerk
Technology Fund, and I will reconvene the Commissioners Court
9-14-09
71
1 meeting.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(The public hearing was concluded at 10:26 a.m.,
and the regular Commissioners Court meeting was
reopened.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's quickly take Item 8, if we
might; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to
approve the County Clerk's archival plan as submitted.
Ms. Pieper?
MS. PIEPER: Gentlemen, since 2003 we have had an
archival fee not to exceed $5 on all of our recordings and
filings, and once a year I am required to submit a written
plan. And this -- this year's written plan, what I would
like to do is to contract with the company to scan my books,
records, documents, as I have in the past. And instead of
I, piecemealing them, you know, a little bit this year, a little
'~ bit this year, a little bit the next year, I would like to
I~ contract with them to do a large majority of them, and pay
them out over a four- or five-year period.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that's your plan?
MS. PIEPER: That is my plan. And out of budget
this year, I would like to request $80,000. And that money
is the dedicated money that comes in for this year.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is that what's already been vetted
MS. PIEPER: Yes.
in connection with the budget workshop that's --
9-14-09
72
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1 'B
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Budget workshops that we've held?
MS. PIEPER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move approval of the archival
plan presented by the District Clerk -- I mean County Clerk,
excuse me.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
indicated. Question or discussion on the motion? All in
favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Thank you,
I ma'am.
MS. PIEPER: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: We'll go to our 10:15 item now; it's
a bit past that now. Consider, discuss, and take appropriate
action to authorize and/or approve preliminary planning,
evaluation, and initial construction aspects and procedures
of proposed Law Enforcement Annex/Adult Probation building.
I put this on the agenda to go to the next steps, as it were,
of the proposed structure that we've got out for the Law
Enforcement Center, for the building for the Adult Probation
and Sheriff's Department annex for their administrative
people. I asked the County Attorney to provide a -- from a
9-19-09
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
legal standpoint, what the -- what the next steps are. I
think each of you have been given a copy of that with regard
to new construction, which, of course, is what we're dealing
with. The first item would be for the approval of either
issuance of an RFP for architectural services, or to approve
an order for the exemption from competitive bidding pursuant
to the provisions of Section 262.024, Subsection (4),
inasmuch as we're dealing with professional services.
That's of the Local Government Code?
MR. EMERSON: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Also, I've asked to be here
', today Mr. Peter Lewis, who has been working with us on the
project to this point. Mr. Lewis, if you'll come up, there's
probably going to be some questions for you. I've asked
Mr. Lewis to be here today in order to give us kind of a
go-forward chronology of what he sees as the next step to
move this project forward. So, the County Attorney's
provided us with the legal. You tell us what it is to start
-- start getting the job done. What are the next steps, --
MR. LEWIS: Very good. Good morning.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- in your estimation?
MR. LEWIS: Judge, Commissioners, we've already
been engaged with the Commissioners Court and with the Judge
in preliminary planning for what is approximately about a
13,600 square foot building on Clearwater Paseo to be used by
9-14-09
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
74
the Sheriff's Office and Adult Probation. We have a
conceptual plan that I think has been reviewed and generally
blessed. The next stages -- steps would be to execute
technical documents, construction documents that could be
prepared for bidding and general construction. In the course
of that process, we have -- and this would go through the
City of Kerrville for permitting. There is a site
development plan process that we would -- that we would enter
into, and we have put together a team of consultants who have
given us an idea of what the process would be from their
perspective, their fees and the time schedule to do that.
We would -- so, in short, we would execute
I
construction documents for bidding and permitting, and then
', we would assist the County in soliciting competitive bids
from general contractors. We would help you evaluate those
bids and help in the selection of that, and once a general
construction contract has been approved, we would be the
County's agent during construction to monitor construction
and make sure that all the work was done in compliance with
the documents. Scope of the work includes the building I
described and some additional parking on-site, parking on
Clearwater Paseo, and behind the proposed building, as well
as modifications to the detention pond that is out there. We
will be displacing -- we'll be -- we propose to locate the
building on the edge of the existing detention pond. And
9-14-09
75
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2
21
22
23
24
25
there has been general construction in the area on Schreiner
University campus, as well as -- as well as across Clearwater
Paseo, that will take some analysis of the -- how that
construction has impacted that existing detention pond's
capacity. So, that would be the process.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge -- and I may have fallen
asleep during one of our meetings; I can't remember, but we
haven't hired Peter Lewis yet, have we?
JUDGE TINLEY: We hired him to do preliminary.
MR. LEWIS: Right.
suppose part of the preliminary is what's it going to do to
-- what's it going to take to make this a permanent,
go-forward type project.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, the first step is to hire
an architect, which Mr. Lewis may be...
MR. LEWIS: That is -- yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And then the next step --
MR. LEWIS: I am an architect.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm aware. (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Does that architect then go
to the City to get the permits?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know. The architect --
I think that's part of the scope of work that has to be
9-14-09
76
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
obviously, I don't,-- I don't know if, generally, contractors
can do that, or architect. Whoever does it, someone has to
do it on the County's behalf, or we have to do it in-house.
And then I think the -- you know, I think we need to look at
the contract with the architect, whoever that is, figure out
exactly what we want that architect to do in this situation.
I think that there are other options that we can do through
construction management and some of that other stuff, but to
me, I would agree with what's written here. This type of
building, I think the County's going to be better off hiring
an architect designing and putting it out for bid rather than
do some of these other more complicated processes.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's been my thinking from the
beginning, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: At least the nature of this
', building. If you're doing a school, a lot of times, or
something like that, then other options are better, but this
is a pretty simple building. I think we're going to get a
far better bang for our buck putting this thing out for bid.
I think there will be a lot of interest in this building.
So, under the agenda item, what we need to do is authorize
preparation of an RFQ for an architect.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, what does this here
say from Rex, this little piece of paper here? It says,
9-14-09
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
~~
approve issuing RFP for architect, or pass an order for
exemption from competitive bidding --
JUDGE TINLEY: Do you want to --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- under professional
services.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm sorry.
MR. EMERSON: It's -- basically, it's the Court's
option. Your normal bidding procedures under -- I think it's
262.023, state that everything is going to be bid out;
everything is going to be issued for RFP or RFQ. Under
262.024, Subsection (4), because it's a professional service,
it does give the Court the option to bypass the bidding
procedure and essentially just choose a professional to
represent them in a limited capacity like that.
JUDGE TINLEY: And then we can go forward with
negotiation for the scope of work and the fees to be charged?
MR. EMERSON: Correct. And then, if, you know,
Mr. Lewis is not reasonable on his fees, then we can come
back and pick somebody else.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Pick somebody else.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm certainly in favor of
passing an order and exempting us from the competitive
bidding.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is our agenda item styled --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It gets us down the road
9-14-09
78
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1 '8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
faster.
JUDGE TINLEY: Good point.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree with that. Can we do
that under the agenda item?
MR. EMERSON: I think so.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move that we -- what do we
do? Ask for an exemption, or we declare an exemption?
What's the verbiage? Exempting ourselves from competitive
bidding under professional -- under 262.024(4).
JUDGE TINLEY: We engage in negotiations with
Mr. Peter Lewis and Associates to provide a scope of work and
a proposed schedule of fees for architectural services in
connection with the listed project.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. (Laughter.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Was that a motion, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely, that was my
Don't you feel better?
MR. LEWIS: I like that. Moved and seconded.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and a second.
Further question or discussion on that motion? Commissioner,
you make very, very great motions.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely.
MR. LEWIS: Articulate.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tight.
9-14-09
79
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: 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: That motion does carry.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You may think I've had some
law training on some of this stuff.
MR. LEWIS: You had me going there. Judge, I
assume that we will -- you and I will be in conversation
about that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Absolutely.
MR. LEWIS: How to execute on the directive from
~ the Court here.
~i
JUDGE TINLEY: Absolutely. We will begin to move
forward as fast as we can.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So --
JUDGE TINLEY: We appreciate your accommodation.
MR. LEWIS: I appreciate y'all. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, we can have a -- how long
do you anticipate to get a contract back before the Court?
JUDGE TINLEY: I think we can get something back
fairly quickly from Mr. Lewis.
MR. LEWIS: I need to get with the Judge and Rex.
9-14-09
80
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, at our next meeting, we
hopefully can approve a contract. How long -- based on your
familiarity with the project, how long to get bid documents?
MR. LEWIS: I think probably six to eight weeks.
', COMMISSIONER LETZ: Six to eight weeks.
MR. LEWIS: The engineering -- probably the site
engineering piece and then the mechanical, electrical,
plumbing and the office bid out, so it's a pretty
straightforward deal. We're acting on that conceptual plan;
it's pretty straightforward, and we'll get our team to do it.
I understand that time is of the essence. I understand the
compelling reasons to move forward, so we'll get our team to
act on it, and we're -- we appreciate the work.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Anything else on that item?
~ Thank you.
MR. LEWIS: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's go to -- we've got a 10:30
item, Item 17; consider, discuss, take appropriate action
regarding request for proposal of a telephone system for the
County Courthouse. I assume you're seeking authority to seek
requests for proposals for a new system as outlined in the
agenda item?
MR. TROLINGER: That is correct. Essentially,
Judge, we're in contact with three vendors. We're going to
request those vendors to give us proposals. Additionally,
9-19-09
81
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I'd like to post the notice -- the request for proposal on
the notices page on the county web site.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, you want approval to
MR. TROLINGER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
indicated. Question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And this will -- you'll
coordinate this with the County Attorney? And they usually
go through -- the Auditor should be involved with this. I'm
not sure how our new process is -- I mean, we need to make
sure we're following the law.
MR. TROLINGER: Naturally, the County Attorney will
be involved.
(Low-voice discussion off the record.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or discussion
on the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by
raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry.
Commissioner Williams had a question or concern about Item
9-14-09
82
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
18. Let me recall that quickly. Consider, discuss, take
i
I~ appropriate action to approve closure of Flat Rock Lake
i
', effective October 1, 2009, till further notice, and advise
state agencies of our intention to lower lake water level and
obtain proper permits. Your question, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: My question is, based on
the discussion of the Court, which we essentially deferred
action on these four things pending further meetings and so
forth, do I need the Court's approval to advise state
agencies, et cetera?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: In my mind, no. But we'll be
glad to pass an order if you -- you know, on --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I think that might be
appropriate, 'cause that's a very major undertaking, lowering
the level of that lake and seeking state approval, or
appropriate agencies' approval, whichever.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think you probably -- we
probably do need to -- if you're talking about seeking
permits and those kind of things, yeah, I think that we
probably need to pass an order.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion, then, that
we authorize Commissioner Williams to pursue required
permits.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For the purpose of --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: For the purpose of draining
9-14-09
83
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Flat Rock Lake. However, timeline has not been specified at
this point.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: From appropriate state and
federal agencies, whichever.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'll second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
indicated. Question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You sure this is your
heart's desire?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We'll talk.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Just want to make
sure he's comfortable here.
JUDGE TINLEY: All in favor of the motion, signify
by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: I see Mr. Colvin back with us, so
I'm going to recall Item 11; consider, discuss, take
appropriate action on concept plan for the Colvin
Subdivision. We now have a picture.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We now have a picture.
MR. COLVIN: Good morning again.
9-14-09
84
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: One picture or two pictures?
MR. COLVIN: There's two.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: There's several.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Probably two.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'll see if I can -- if I can
~ explain what -- what he had.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Everybody on the same page
here, on the one page that we have? This is a concept plan,
now, remember. This is not a preliminary plat. He has a
total of 47.85 acres. It's all one tract, but it's --
Highway 39 cuts off the part that goes to the river.
Mr. Colvin has an existing 40-foot right-of-way that comes
off of Highway 39 and goes up, and it's just -- it's really
just an access easement to go -- he has a tower on top of
this hill that is leased. This -- the land is leased to the
person that has the tower. What he wants to do is -- is use
the same easement, continue it on up to the top of the hill,
and sell off 40 -- I mean 21 acres, that being the access.
It would be one owner; there would be no -- and in the
restrictions, it would not be allowed to be divided again.
This would be 21 acres.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This says 23, Bruce.
24.75.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Where do you see that?
9-14-09
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
85
MR. COLVIN: Well, that's the entire back half.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's a different deal.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Look at the big number,
47.85, and the line is not in yet for the 21. That will be
cut off. That's where the tower is, and that land has not
been sold; that's just leased.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay. The other thing is, is
that down here on the river, along his waterfront, he wants
to sell an acre for recreation only and give -- designate a
40-foot-wide easement to access that. This is not buildable.
It's all in the floodway, 1 acre.
I
~'~ COMMISSIONER LETZ: Does that -- I guess my
question is, why wouldn't you do a 60-foot easement?
MR. COLVIN: 40 versus 60 doesn't really matter.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The reason is 'cause 60 is what
our rules require, and that makes it a whole lot simpler.
MR. COLVIN: As far as accessing the floodplain?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On both roads. Both of them,
60-foot.
MR. COLVIN: The existing right-of-way is already
40 feet; it's been in place since 2000.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It's not intended to be
developed any further than making one lot sale.
9-14-09
86
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, but it doesn't make any
difference. That's going to require a waiver, which opens up
Pandora's box, in my mind, of --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: This couldn't be done under
right-of-way.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not without what,
Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think you need a 60-foot
right-of-way. That's the only drawback I see.
MR. COLVIN: Is -- perhaps there's some form of a
grandfather that we might be able to fall back on to continue
to use that existing 40 foot?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: This is -- this could never
ever be a county road, for one thing.
MR. COLVIN: No. And the easement would not allow
any further access to any additional properties.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Still requires a waiver, I
think. You know --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, that's what this
preliminary conference is about.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think that, you know, to
me, if you give a waiver for this, then you have to give it
for any -- if it's two lots, what difference does it make?
9-14-09
87
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
getting to a point as to where do you draw the line? And
we've been -- the only -- you know, I don't know about us
granting a waiver for this, unless there was a situation
where you didn't own the property. I mean, like, if you --
if there was a 40-foot road all the way back there and you
didn't own that tract back there, then, obviously, you can't
do it. But here you do have the ability to increase the size
-- the width of that.
MR. COLVIN: Right. But in view of the 40-foot
easement already being in place, and having been in place for
nearly ten years, wouldn't we be protected by an original
grandfather clause of some sort?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think so, sir.
MR. COLVIN: Okay. Well, 60 feet, then.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay. That's what this is
all about. But it's just a -- you know, it's less than five
lots.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: For one thing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's going to have to be a
minimum requirement from a road standpoint.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: The road is basically -- the
road -- not basically, but the new owner -- proposed owner
doesn't want any other traffic over there on that road, and
9-14-09
88
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to his back acreage.
JUDGE TINLEY: The road's probably going to remain
the same. It's just the amount of right-of-way that's going
to be dedicated as part of this.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: No place -- this is a way
steeper grade than what would be minimally required by the
County for a road. I mean, there's some extenuating
circumstances, I believe, that go along with this. And being
as it's over 10 acres and it's only one lot, basically -- it
would be four, though, if you did it -- if did you a --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- an alternate plat. 'Cause
you --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the road -- I mean, I
the road construction is easier for me to swallow than the
right-of-way. 'Cause once the right-of-way's there, the
right-of-way is there.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And, you know, there's going to
be restrictions and all that. A lot of things always happen,
and someone -- you know, another tract may be sold off here,
and it just makes it easier to me if you at least have the --
have the right-of-way right now. Roads are not that much of
9-14-09
89
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
a concern.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So, if he agreed to do a
60-foot-wide right-of-way, then you would -- then there's no
problem with it being -- it's less than five tracts of land.
It's over 10 acres on the big one, and the other one is just
a -- basically, a -- not basically, but it's a recreation.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Who has access to that other
one, the 1-acre? What's the purpose of it?
MR. COLVIN: Solely for recreation.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: For this --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Same guy.
MR. COLVIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Same person.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are we dealing with just one
person here?
MR. COLVIN: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We're dealing with one
~~ person.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with Letz on the
right-of-way issue, 'cause once -- you've got to establish
that at some point. You can't go back later on, or it's
I' difficult to do. So, you're talking about 60 feet inside
that property and 60 feet out to the community park or
~!i whatever the thing is down to the river, as well?
i
MR. COLVIN: The acre on the river would be a
9-14-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
13
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
90
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So -- I don't know. I mean,
I can't see why we -- why it's so important, what -- I like
the right-of-way, but I don't know about the size of the road
on the man's private property.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, the road -- that's what I
say; I can probably go along with a variance on that, to not
have to build it up to county standards. But --
JUDGE TINLEY: The road's really not an issue now.
We're just talking about the right-of-way.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Certainly not to me. But
what about down to the river part? Same thing?
MR. COLVIN: It goes from the highway to the river,
Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Same thing?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Not ever going to be able to
divide that. It's just a recreational lot; can't build on
it. It's in the floodway, and so I don't really see the
justification for a 60-foot-wide -- he's willing to go 40,
which is way beyond what you need to drive down to go
swimming .
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think you're probably
making a good point there, too.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On this -- on that one, I'm --
9-14-09
91
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I mean, I can probably go along with a 40-foot. I mean, that
-- 'cause that's -- it's a different type of --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Unusable.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Unusable for -- really, only
usable for recreation.
~ COMMISSIONER LETZ: Never will be used other
than --
!i COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Recreation.
I'~ COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: The lot's too small to build
on, even if it were outside the floodplain.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That one doesn't make much
difference, but on the other one, it really has to be 60 foot
wide.
MR. COLVIN: So, 60-foot-wide right-of-way, and
everything else is okay?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And agree to do a variance on
I the road.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, the road -- the grade and
the road construction.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And you're saying 40-foot
right-of-way on the recreational parcel?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. Is that all right,
Leonard? Does that make sense to you?
9-14-09
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
MR. ODOM: Yes. You're talking about going up to
the 21 acres, 60 foot?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. ODOM: No road, per se. What he's got is an
easement, not a --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. ODOM: -- not a public road. What was the
other one? Was it 40 foot down to the river?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, 40 foot down to the
river. That's not --
MR. ODOM: And make a note on the plat that,
basically, that whatever that lot is, 21 acres is
nondivisible.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. ODOM: And the other one is recreational, and
no residential on that 1-acre lot. That should take care of
it.
MR. COLVIN: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Sounds like it in a nutshell,
I Leonard.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Where is this thing? Where
I is that?
MR. COLVIN: It's behind our house.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Behind your house?
MR. COLVIN: Mm-hmm. It's back behind the cell
9-14-09
93
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
tower all the way to the back of the property, and then an
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else on that item,
gentlemen? Why don't we take about a 15-minute recess?
(Recess taken from 10:50 a.m. to 11:11 a.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to order, if
we might. The next item on the agenda, Item 16, is to
consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to approve
electrical, plumbing, HVAC, and pest control services.
Mr. Bollier, you've had an opportunity to review the bids
that were previously received and submitted to you for
evaluation?
MR. BOLLIER: Yes, sir, I have. And my
recommendations are -- for HVAC would be Airtech. And my
recommendation for pest control is going to be Foss Pest
Control, F-o-s-s. My electrical recommendation is going to
have to go to Guadalupe Electrical, and for my plumbing, I
only had one, so that was easy, Whelan Plumbing. And that's
my recommendation, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: And, as usual, those are the
first-priority agencies, and if they're tied up or otherwise
unable to provide you with the level of service that you
need, you then drop down to the next low bidder and right on
down the line?
9-14-09
94
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1a
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. BOLLIER: Yes, sir.
~~~ JUDGE TINLEY: That's been our protocol here for --
MR. BOLLIER: That's the way it's been forever.
'i JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. I move we accept
the recommendations of the Director of Maintenance.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to accept
the Maintenance Supervisor's recommendation and award bids as
indicated. Further question or discussion on the motion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Question. How many -- how
many changes are in there?
MR. BOLLIER: All of them but one, sir, Whelan
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And the rest of them are new
companies?
MR. BOLLIER: Will all be new, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Have they ever worked for us
I before?
MR. BOLLIER: I believe back when I first started
sir, when Mr. Holekamp was still here, I believe Guadalupe
Electric was -- was our electric people at that time.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, thank you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I seem to recall that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, that's true.
9-14-09
95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The Sheriff has --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Only question I have, Tim,
since we replaced -- or you've replaced half those
air-conditioners on top within the last year, this isn't
going to affect any of the service contract or anything you
have on those, is it?
MR. BOLLIER: No, sir. No, sir, should not.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Different company put them in.
~ All right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The other question, Tim, on
m clad you spoke up, Sheriff. Have all of the
employees of these companies gone through the proper
background checks? To work on --
MR. BOLLIER: They will have to do that, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They may not, but they will?
AUDIENCE: It can be provided.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We will have to run and do
criminal background checks on anybody I allow in that
building, and there very well could be some that I won't
I allow.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, okay. Just make sure
when you relay back to these vendors --
MR. BOLLIER: Yes, sir. I'll tell them to get in
contact with our Sheriff, and bring all names that will be
doing their service work to him so that they can be --
9-14-09
96
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Qualified.
MR. BOLLIER: -- taken care of.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any more in connection with
that particular agenda item? Let's move to Item 22 --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Wait. Did we vote?
JUDGE TINLEY: Huh? Did we vote?
THE CLERK: We need to vote.
MR. BOLLIER: You didn't vote, sir.
THE CLERK: You had a motion and a second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Excuse me. I thought we voted on
that item. Any further question or discussion on the motion?
All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right
13 hand.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I Bollier.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Thank you, Mr.
MR. BOLLIER: Thank you, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move to Item 22; consider,
discuss, and take appropriate action on approval of Office of
Court Administration Contract Number 10-011. I put this on
the agenda. This deals with the reimbursement for the Region
6 Administrative District for the judge here, and this
provides -- looks like something slightly in excess of
9-14-09
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
$40,000 for that purpose.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: For this county?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes. That's incoming, and not
outgoing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is because -- is Steve
Ables still the Administrative Judge? Or is he --
MS. HARGIS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, this -- this is because
he's Administrative Judge; we get 40,000 for the support we
~ provide.
MS. HARGIS: To administrate, yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's the reason for this.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Further question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Help me a little bit.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The 40,000 that comes in
I because of this is earmarked for his use?
JUDGE TINLEY: For certain purposes, yes. But,
essentially, that's in order to perform his duties as
presiding judge of the 6th Administrative District.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, basically, it's a salary
9-14-09
98
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Well --
MS. HARGIS: It's several things.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, it's a whole lot of things.
It's also for the -- to provide -- indicates here certain
funds for payment of salary expense for administrative
assistant.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I think there's some
visiting judge money there, too. I mean, that -- it can be
used for visiting judges too and all that.
MS. HARGIS: Not in that.
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't think so. Not for --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: In the --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Different one.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: In the assistant salary, is
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This isn't --
MS. HARGIS: No, it's not in lieu of.
JUDGE TINLEY: If you'll look --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I was afraid that was the
answer, but okay. '
MS. HARGIS: It goes for office supplies,
technology, phone; there's a lot of things. She does -- the
administrative assistant does not get all that money.
9-14-09
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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MS. HARGIS: And then there's travel, things of
that nature in there.
JUDGE TINLEY: It's reimbursable cost, is what it
amounts to, in addition to assistance for the administrative
assistant, essentially is what it is.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Further question or
discussion?
MS. UECKER: I have a question.
JUDGE TINLEY: All in favor -- yes?
MS. UECKER: Does that -- does that contract
include for the office space? Is that a --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Probably could. That could be
a direct expense. That's a pretty high-dollar square
footage.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It suddenly is a
high-dollar... (Laughter.)
MS. HARGIS: I don't believe so. I'd have to
check.
JUDGE TINLEY: You don't think there's been
allocation of -- of that number in the past?
MS. HARGIS: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Maybe we need to ask for an
9-14-09
100
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
increased allocation.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Now, this is something that
the former auditor maintains; is that correct?
MS. HARGIS: That is correct. And part of his
salary is in there.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see, okay. If we sit here
and visit very long, --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Find out what it's all
about.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- going to find out what
this thing does.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions or comments?
All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right
hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion carries. Let's move to
Item 23; consider, discuss, and review county investment
policy and take appropriate action to make any necessary or
desired changes to such policy. This is an annual
requirement that we take a look at this.
MS. HARGIS: I gave each of you a new one, and --
can everyone hear me?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mm-hmm.
9-14-09
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
MS. HARGIS: I wasn't -- I didn't receive this. I
changes are very beneficial. They're more or less
housekeeping. But there's a change on Page 3 which says
that -- which we have already done that -- in order to
appoint the Treasurer as the designated investment officer,
the Court would have a resolution, and we already do that,
but they have now added that to the investment policy. On
Page 4, there was --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Wait just a second. Back on
Number 3 -- Page 3, please.
MS. HARGIS: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, they -- now it's a
requirement that we do a resolution -- the Commissioners
Court does a resolution that --
MS. HARGIS: That designates --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- that adopts this
investment policy?
MS. HARGIS: That designates the investment
officer.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see. The -- the Treasurer
and the -- somebody.
MS. HARGIS: Okay, yes. The reason for that is,
9-14-09
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
when we -- when we open an account with a new bank, we need
that resolution, so it was a problem in the past, so I think
that's why they've added that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So we've always done that?
MS. HARGIS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But now it's just built in
MS. HARGIS: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. I begin to -- begin
to understand where we're headed here.
MS. HARGIS: Okay. Again, it's housekeeping
mostly. If you'll look at Page 4, Item 8, broker-dealers in
the past were normally considered your financial houses, and
the banks did not consider themselves as a financial house,
and so they -- the paperwork that they signed, if we had a
C.D. with them, it said broker-dealer. The banks objected to
being a broker-dealer; they're a bank. And so now they've
just added the word "bank" wherever there is a broker-dealer
so that it clarifies that broker-dealer-bank.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do we need "broker-dealer"?
MS. HARGIS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's your opinion. And I
agree with it.
MS. HARGIS: Okay. Again -- on to Page 5. Again,
this is further clarifying, at the top of the page, that --
9-14-09
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
and also, there has been in the investment act a new item
added, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. I'm sure
this has probably come out of what happened around this time
last year in Wall Street, so that's a new authority and a new
agency that's been developed by the feds. And the
certification, again, you're adding banks and pools.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Wait a minute.
MS. HARGIS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're moving a little bit
too fast here for me. So, the -- this SIFMA, Financial
Industry Regulatory Authority -- let's see, S-I-F-M-A.
Financial institutions and broker-dealers who desire -- why
isn't the word "bank" in there?
MS. HARGIS: Because I don't think the banks have
to do it, just broker-dealers. Because, again, you're
dealing with only financial houses here, not C.D.'s.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, those folks that
transact business with the County must supply the following
documents, so the broker-dealer has to provide a SIFMA and a
FINRA. (Laughter.) I'm just reading here.
MS. HARGIS: That's right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You handed me this.
MS. HARGIS: That's what it says.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All right. Now, where --
when are we going to get our SIFMA's and FINRA's?
9-14-09
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
(Laughter.)
MS. HARGIS: Right now, we don't deal with any
broker-dealers, so we don't have to do that right now.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Very good. Thank you,
ma'am. Okay.
II MS. HARGIS
is a good change. They asked for a current copy of the
investment policy. There are a lot of -- of governmental
agencies who do not review their investment policy annually,
so this kind of says you have to do it. And then the last
sentence, the County -- in the section under certification,
the County shall not enter into any investment transaction
with any broker-dealer-bank-pool prior to receiving the
written instrument described above. So, in other words, we
can't buy it or give them the money for it until we have that
written document. It's always been that way, but it was
never really written in here, so that's a good -- that's a
good change.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Good.
MS. HARGIS: Again, the second page, under 9 on
Page 6, referring to banks and purchasing under the CDARS
national program -- and we have pretty much opted not to do
that, but it is in here in case we do in the future.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are you talking about the
9-14-09
105
1 CDARS?
2
3
4 an "E"
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. HARGIS: The CDARS.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would that be misspelled,
MS. HARGIS: And the -- F, again, talks about the
-- the SIFMA's or however you want to pronounce it. Page 8,
again, I think these are some good changes. It requires that
the banks give us their margin on a daily basis, where in the
past they've had to give it to us on a monthly basis. And
with the market changing, I think that's a good thing. And
the safekeeping receipt that we receive must be provided to
the County by the custodian. Under the Public Funds
Investment Act, the custodian maintains our copies of our
pledged securities, so that if that particular bank goes
down, then the custodian holds our collateral so that we can
go and get it. So, this was one of the major reasons for the
Public Fund Investment Act.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tell me who our custodian
is.
MS. HARGIS: To be honest with you, right now, I
don't -- Security State Bank, I think they use Frost Bank,
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes.
MS. HARGIS: I believe that's correct. It's been a
I but I'm not sure.
9-14-09
106
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I
while since I've looked at it. And they have -- to be a
custodian, there's certain criteria that they must meet. In
the past, the banks have been providing us the custodial
reports. In other words, they've been going through the
bank. Now it's saying that the custodians have to extend it
directly to us, which I think is a good thing.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I do too.
MS. HARGIS: And the last sentence here, Mindy and
I both agree we didn't want to do any of these pools, and it
says by law, the County may not participate in collateral
pooling through a depository bank, which is a good thing.
The pooling was where you could get into a pool in a bank
with other governmental entities, and our biggest fear was
how we identified ourselves in that pool, and how -- how
would we know what our documents were? So, it just wasn't a
good instrument for us, and we just kind of threw it out.
It's an optional instrument, but now it says we can't do it,
period. The repurchase agreements, which we do not do, it
talks about the -- the SIFMA's again, and again, on a daily
basis. Firstly, the designated custodian, the bank. And,
the percentages of diversification have changed a little bit.
This is to make sure that we don't necessarily put all of our
eggs in one basket. And the last sentence on Page 9, or the
top -- the very top sentence says, "Maximum percentages
listed above are based on amortized book value at the time of
9-14-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
107
purchase." This is very important. The book value that we
purchase them at is what we always want to know, 'cause
that's the principal we have involved in it. And it's not
said that in the past, and that's a very good change. And
that's pretty much it, so the changes are really for our
protection.
JUDGE TINLEY: Does the -- does this provide for an
alternate or deputy investment officer? It occurs to me that
Commissioner Baldwin, with his great interest in this
subject, might be designated.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You might think that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All my medical knowledge and
now my legal training, we're talking about big -- big bumper
sticker here.
MS. HARGIS: In most of the documents, it does
authorize the Treasurer; however, you can authorize whomever
you would like, whether that be a person on the Court or
whatever. But we will need to change the document if you
would like to join it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm excited.
MS. HARGIS: He has to go to school.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I'm out. (Laughter.)
Is this -- these changes were from last year?
MS. HARGIS: No, the changes occurred in this last
25 ~ legislative session. Remember, I told you when you first
9-19-09
108
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
we have to adopt, that we don't have much choice in, and
that's what these are, in order to stay current with the law.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll move approval of the
county investment policy as presented.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item and the updated county investment
policy. 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. Let's move
to Item 24; consider, discuss, take appropriate action on
fiscal year 2009-10 budgets and fiscal capital expenditure
and personnel matters related thereto for various county
departments. I put this on the agenda as kind of a last-gasp
shot at any budget issues that we've got hanging out there,
so that we could, at a minimum, discuss them now,
irrespective of whether we took action on them now. I think
this item, coupled with the subsequent item on the agenda,
depending upon what happens there, determines how things go
forward there. But any -- any items that need to be
9-14-09
109
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: If it's the one that you
communicated to me, I think that's already been fixed.
MS. UECKER: Okay, great.
JUDGE TINLEY: Very minor.
MS. UECKER: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Very minor, yeah. The telephone?
MS. UECKER: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. After an analysis.
MS. UECKER: All right, thanks.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, so the -- the main issue
here is, because of some posting, this is our last
opportunity to modify elected officials' salaries?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes. If there is going to be any
modification, there will have to be a posting. That's under
the following agenda item.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, my only concern has to
do with the budgetary that -- some of the budgets, especially
one budget or two budgets that were presented to us, of the
District Judges' staff budgets where there are increases in
salary included in that, from 8 percent down to 3 percent,
and I advocate that we oppose those budgets. I don't believe
9-14-09
110
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
they're justified. I don't believe any of the other county
officials are going to get them at this point, and I think
whatever we do -- whatever they do should be tied to what we
do with all the other staff.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner, I think that, of
course, is not -- that's not something that must be resolved
before we go forward today, as I'm sure you understand, and I
think those items are still under some discussion. But --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I just wanted to bring it to
light.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, we need to bring the light of
that when the appropriate time presents itself.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. HARGIS: Eva?
MS. HYDE: Go ahead.
MS. HARGIS: No, I -- as of right now, we have
291,596. We had some minor adjustments plus or minus that
occurred since our last meeting, and those have all been
done, anybody that needed a little bit more postage or a
little bit more office supplies or something after they
relooked at their budget, or a line item they forgot or
something. It amounted to about $5,000 or $6,000. So, you
know, that's --
9-14-09
111
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: $5,000 or $6,000 increase?
MS. HARGIS: Increase. Well, yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll be.
MS. HARGIS: Yes. So, the amount of money we had
as of last court date, I think, was 299,000, and so now we
have 291.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, when is our -- I guess,
our next budget workshop? Are we going to have any more? I
mean, when are we going to discuss Bruce's issue he raised?
JUDGE TINLEY: I think -- let me work from the end
backwards. Certainly, on the 28th, when we are due to
consider the final adoption of the budget, any changes that
need to be made to any budgets can be made at that time, as
long as they're not changes that require any sort of public
notification or some sort of other notice under the
Government Code that we haven't previously done. But with --
with those exceptions, we can make any changes to any budget.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: At that meeting. So that --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: But today what we need to
talk about is, if we plan to give any increases to elected
officials or department heads, that would -- if that were to
happen, would require a public hearing.
JUDGE TINLEY: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It requires --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: My --
9-14-09
112
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, not a public hearing, but a
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: A notice.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Notification.
JUDGE TINLEY: A notice and a separate -- a
separate -- in addition to a separate notice, it would also
require a separate court order with respect to that.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But not department heads, just
elected officials.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Elected officials.
JUDGE TINLEY: Elected officials only.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You know my feeling on that,
but I'll say it one more time. No.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I did.
JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Hyde, you had something. You
want to come on up here? And
MS. HYDE: Just when we had the budget hearings,
the -- I brought up -- and I think that y'all remember,
because you had some questions on it, but we had discussed
$20 reimbursement to employees that are participating in
wellness, fitness, have a trainer, and it was kind of left
out there. And I know that it's not in there, and I'm hoping
that you guys will agree to it, especially if there is no
9-14-09
113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What are we doing? Go over
that again?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Explain how it works.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Explain how it works.
MS. HYDE: The employees, or any -- anybody that is
going to a physical trainer, paying for it, going to a
fitness -- participating in any of the fitness, because we
have multiples out there, then they can get reimbursed up to
20 bucks per month. They show that they have gone and they
participated and they're trying to get healthy and fit. They
need to bring us something each month before -- it's a
reimbursement payment, because under I.R.S., we would have to
show that, you know, as a reimbursement. And it's a max of
240 bucks per employee, per year.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do we have the criteria in place
of -- or a proposal of criteria that would be required to be
in compliance of that program to obtain that reimbursement?
MS. HYDE: Yes, sir. I went and even looked at the
State of Texas website to see what they have, and they have a
small one as well. Theirs is 50 bucks a month, but they have
~ more money than we do. And --
JUDGE TINLEY: Except we're not in charge of them.
9-14-09
114
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's exactly right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Are they back in charge?
MS. HYDE: I thought we were in charge of them.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We took over Texas this
MS. HYDE: So, what they have --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And we're going to cut
their number.
MS. HYDE: You have to bring in verification that
you have been. And I believe one of the questions was, well,
how do you know -- you know, are they losing weight? Are
they getting more fit? We're not the police, so to speak.
But at the same time, if they bring -- it's a simple, "I've
been twice a week, every week for this many weeks," and it's
signed off by whoever you go to. That's basically it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Seems pretty loose to me.
MS. HYDE: Well --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You ain't kidding.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Especially that last p,grt.
~, MS. HYDE: Well, it would be, like, from -- I don't
want to name any names of locals, but, I mean, it couldn't be
like Eva Hyde signing for everybody. It would have to be
someone from the location that they're going to, and it would
have to be witnessed by the employee. I mean, if they turn
it in and it's fraudulent, then we just take it to Rusty --
9-14-09
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
excuse me, the Sheriff, and it's fraud.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do you want more work to do,
Sheriff? Is that why you raised your hand?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But -- a little bit different,
but on this, in my department we don't do the reimbursements.
I hope that really does go through; I'm strongly in favor,
but we do it as far as training hours already. Any of my
employees that go to any of the local fitness places here are
allowed to -- they actually sign in. We have a sign-in
sheet. We've worked it with the training places, a sign-in
sheet, sign-out sheet where they have to put in how many
hours they've been there, and then that can be sent in to
TCLEOSE and give them training hours for physical fitness
training. Okay? It just gives them hours. But some of
these places, such as some who do -- some of us go to, are
$150 every five weeks, which is even a break in itself.
And I think to encourage people to do it, the $20
for -- at least they -- I agree with Eva; they need to show
that they're going at least twice a week. If they don't go
twice a week, it shouldn't even -- they shouldn't be allowed.
It shouldn't be counted. It's got to be signed in so they
actually do it to get that benefit from the training to keep
our health issues down. I know it's kept my sick call -- you
know, calling in sick, it's kept a lot of things down in what
my people are doing. And in the last three months, just one
9-14-09
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
group -- not the ones going to Ultra Fit or the other ones,
but just one group in our department alone has lost over
280 pounds and getting fit, and this is a major improvement.
JUDGE TINLEY: Sheriff, you mentioned in your
department, if there's any of this -- any of this fitness
training done, that this goes in to TCLEOSE for -- for
physical fitness training, credit for that purpose, TCLEOSE
purpose. Are they required under TCLEOSE rules to have so
many hours per year physical fitness training?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No. You're required to have
so many hours of training. What type of training it is, now,
it can be sitting in a classroom, going through school, or --
or going to fitness training or whatever. They're not
required to have fitness training.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, there's some -- aren't there
some mandatory types of training that your officers are
required each year -- for example, weapons training?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Certain training?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Weapons, racial profiling,
cultural diversity, all those are required. TCLEOSE has not
required the physical fitness training yet. I wish they
would; I think it would be advantageous. But they do give
training hours for physical fitness training.
MS. HYDE: I work with all -- all of the
9-14-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
13
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
117
respondents locally, and we have a Kerr County rate that
we've been able to get through all the locals that, again,
have responded. So, it's not -- rather than try to pick one,
people need to have flexibility and need to have choices.
So, there's some choices, and there's quite a few choices in
Kerr County where people can go.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How would you budget for
this?
MS. HARGIS: It's 75. If they --
MS. HYDE: $72,000, based on 300 people -- 300
~ people.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All 300 people going to the
spa --
MS. HYDE: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- twice a week?
MS. HYDE: No, sir. No, sir, they're not.
JUDGE TINLEY: And it would be included as part of
our health benefits program?
MS. HYDE: Yes, sir. When I talked to TAC -- I had
talked to you about it. When I talked to TAC, these are the
types of things that TAC is looking for when we -- when we're
looking for our insurance. What are we doing to help
employees? What are we doing to promote health and wellness
and safety? And so all these little things that we're trying
to do, although they're small baby steps, they look good when
9-14-09
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
we try to apply.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there -- is the primary
purpose of this weight loss? Or --
MS. HYDE: It's fitness. It's getting up off your
tailbone versus sitting on the couch, and bringing awareness
to -- to employees. When we did that wellness fair last
year -- I know most of y'all came -- we had a lot of folks
that were at risk. They were highly obese. I was one of
them. Oh. And, you know, getting off your tail and doing
something is -- is the first step. We have a lot of folks
that walk around the courthouse. Those of you that have been
around here, you see us walking. You see a lot of the
employees walking. We're doing Walk Across Texas; we've got
six teams that are going to do Walk Across Texas so far that
I brought up. So, people are -- people are starting to get
it.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Jonathan, a lot of those
trainers, and the one most of us go to, will tell you very
directly up front, if you're coming to that trainer just to
lose weight, go back out the door you came in. He doesn't
want you. It's a fitness program, not a weight-loss program.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess what I'm trying to --
you know, I like the wellness approach, and I probably am in
favor of this. And it's a pretty big chunk of money. We
don't have a whole lot. This is -- it's kind of in lieu of
9-14-09
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
salary increases; it's that big of a chunk. But I'm trying
to figure out how you measure it a little bit, because
you're -- there are people that are walking around the
courthouse, that are doing other things that maybe
increase -- they get no credit. And so you're only saying
you can only get a credit if you're going to a fitness
center. You know, and I -- that's good, but there are a lot
of other people -- there's lots of other ways to be -- well,
maybe this is the only way we can do it; I don't know, but
it's -- it just seems that it would be so much better if we
come up with a results-oriented --
COMMISSIONER	BALDWIN:	Yeah,	I agree.
COMMISSIONER	LETZ: --	plan.	But we may not be
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I go to a fitness center
sometimes, but I don't go to a trainer. I'm in there and out
of there, and nobody even knows I exist. So, how would I --
how would -- there's nobody --
MS. HYDE: If you go to a physical fitness center,
they have -- they -- all the big ones here in town, and even
the smaller ones, have got folks that work there, either at
the front desk, or this manager or the trainer in charge or
whatever, and they know who's in their facility. They have
to because of liability expense.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, sure, you're there,
9-14-09
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
120
but that doesn't mean a damn thing. You know, I --
MS. HYDE: Part of it has to be the individual,
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. No. I can walk up to
one of those people and say, "Okay I ran 4 miles and I got my
heart rate up to 160 for 10 minutes." And they say, "Sure,
of course you did," and sign off.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Most of them, Buster, like the
one that we do the sign-in sheets, we do on -- on a regular
one, not a trainer, but one of the fitness center -- the
employee actually signs in what time he gets there and signs
out what time they leave. And if they want to stand around
and twiddle their thumbs for an hour, you know, while they
say they're working out, then that employee's got a problem.
I don't see anybody wanting to do that. And I think part of
it is just straightforward honesty from the employee, 'cause
they're going to have to do it under this. And what I'd
recommend is two times a week, an hour each time, is what
most of them say to really start working out and getting
theirself back in physical shape.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, it has to be signed off
by somebody at the --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: They sign off on our sheets
that we do. And I know a lot of them have gone through --
and I'll find out mine in a week, but cholesterol levels have
9-14-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1 '8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
121
dropped drastically, which is major as far as health and
health insurance with the county.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do we -- are the fitness
centers or the employees or someone keeping records on
cholesterol and weight during this program? It sure would be
nice, to me, that -- you know, if we do this, that we can
measure it a year from now to see if, county-wide, there was
weight loss county-wide, cholesterol, something like that.
Some kind of a -- a measure that it's working.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, if you had a personal
trainer, they would keep those records, but not everybody has
a personal trainer.
MS. WHITT: Like, in my case, my doctor just took
me off my cholesterol medicine, because it's gone down.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner, I think --
', MS. WHITT: Same one that Rusty's going to.
JUDGE TINLEY: You know, you may be able to
quantify weight loss, but I can't -- you know, otherwise, you
got all sorts of privacy issues.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sure.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think where you're going to see
the results is that cost is going to be more than offset by
what we expend in -- in our health benefits program, or it
should be. That should be where you get the ding.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So it's dollars and cents.
9-14-09
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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm, sure. Isn't that the
world's common denominator?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, it is.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Look at what -- what she just
said. Her doctor took her off of her cholesterol medicine.
That isn't cheap. If my doctor takes me off of that, it's a
pretty good savings.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm certainly in favor of it.
I'm just trying to make sure that we're -- is there a way
that we can do -- or a plan to do another health fair --
MS. HYDE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- a year from now?
MS. HYDE: No, sir, we're going to do one this
year. We're going to do one every year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Every year. And that right
there should be able to track --
MS. HYDE: It will help us, yes. Unfortunately,
you know, I can't give out some of this information.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You can -- you can --
MS. HYDE: But we can show high levels. You know,
we were here last year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Show the number of people that,
you know --
25 ~ MS. HYDE: Highly obese.
9-14-09
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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We don't want any names, but we
can see overall trend is more obesity or less obesity in the
county.
MS. HYDE: We had three levels of obesity: Obese,
highly obese, and morbidly obese. And out of 275 employees,
150 were obese or higher. That's half our staff.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That was me.
MS. HYDE: That was me.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How much money? Say it
~ again?
MS. HYDE: The max -- the max, if all 300
employees -- and you guys know 300 people aren't going to do
this.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How much do you want to put
in the budget?
MS. HYDE: $72,000. Unless -- unless you guys
agree that we should put in half of it. We might get half of
the people to do it, which is less. And then if we have
more, I need to come back and ask for more.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd probably say 50,000.
JUDGE TINLEY: Forty, 50, somewhere.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Forty -- 40 is a nice
number. Forty.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, the thing is about
this, the ones that come back for reimbursement actually have
9-14-09
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
an expense.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: The ones that choose to do
the stuff where they do it on their own, there is no expense.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So that's what you're really
reimbursing, is just the ones that actually choose -- some of
them are not able to do it on their own, maybe. There are
lots of reasons for that, but if they are willing to go do
that, I think they -- it's a good thing to a level. I mean,
~, we can't pay much, but we can help.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think it's a good
program, but are you going to design a verification document
that's uniform for your purposes?
MS. HYDE: Well, I'd like -- the verification
program needs to be one -- and I'll have to work with Rex to
make sure, and with Rusty, because it would be fraud. This
would be no different than what they sign on their
timesheets. If they turn it in and they're not doing it,
it's fraud, and surely to goodness, we don't have anyone that
stupid. If we do, they don't need to be here anyway.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I think another issue is, as
Commissioner Oehler said, the folks that will be applying for
this reimbursement have already demonstrated their commitment
by making a financial commitment themselves.
9-19-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
125
MS. HYDE: That's right.
JUDGE TINLEY: And if they're going to throw their
money away, that's not real smart to start with, you know.
So --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good point.
JUDGE TINLEY: Why pay 50 bucks a month so they can
get -- and do nothing so they can get 20 bucks reimbursement
for nothing? Makes absolutely no sense. But there does need
to be some accountability furnished to us.
MS. HYDE: I'll bring the accountability sheets for
~ next Commissioners Court.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What -- what involvement, if
13
14
15
16
17
18
1 '~
20
21
MS. HYDE: We have been trying to look at getting
part of -- getting to be a part of the TAC insurance pool.
It's a good pool. It's a good set of insurance. And when I
first came here, that was one of the tasks that several of
y'all asked me; how come we can't get in TAC? We can't get
in TAC because of the stuff that happened before, because of
the lasers that we've had, and because of the health of our
employees and the ages of our employees. We were a high
22 ~ risk.
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that still kind of the --
MS. HYDE: Well, they told me when I first started
here that it would take five years to clean our records up,
9-14-09
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
126
and this year they told me that we're looking very good.
We've decreased our worker's comp. I think y'all get checks,
and get to see those checks. Our insurance accountability is
much higher than it was. We continue to get reimbursements
from -- and we've taken charge of that. And I think that's
the thing -- only one of the things that they were looking
at. Now what I'm trying to do is do things like the wellness
fairs, getting health, fitness, and safety -- safety was a
big one. Even for insurance, safety is a big one. So,
trying to do all these little things to make us look and feel
~, better, but also be better.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't have a great deal of
faith in TAC, myself. So, you know, I don't know that I
would hang my hat on on anything -- any of that you just got
through saying. But I'm for this program. And, you know, if
it saves us some money from the state -- I mean, from them,
that's cool. So, how do we do this without bending the
budget?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I think we give direction to
the Auditor to plug in a figure as part of our health
benefits program to make allowance for this, with Ms. Hyde to
develop the -- the reporting and certification criteria. And
I think -- I think 72 is high.
MS. HYDE: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: I mentioned 40. I heard another
9-14-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
l~
20
21
22
23
24
25
127
figure of 50. Let's settle on a number here, guys.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I like 40.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Forty's fine.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Forty.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Forty's fine.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else?
MS. HYDE: Another option. It's small, but I'd
like to request an additional $2,500 for rabies vaccinations
for the seven people at Animal Control. I thought that we'd
have enough money this year, that we could get it through,
and I don't -- I don't. In the immunizations.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: New budget, or amendment to
this budget?
MS. HYDE: An amendment to this budget in that one
JUDGE TINLEY: Wait a minute. Wait a minute, I'm
confused. We're talking about the year -- current year
budget?
MS. HYDE: For next year's budget.
JUDGE TINLEY: Next year? That's also part of
the -- be part of health and fitness, I would assume, or
safety, either one.
MS. HYDE: It's in a different line item. I'm just
asking if I could have --
9-14-09
128
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
to
17
18
la
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. HARGIS: I'm sure she has enough money left in
her current budget to take care of it for this year.
MS. HYDE: Okay. So, we can have it?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes. No?
MS. WHITT: In my budget?
JUDGE TINLEY: In your current-year budget.
MS. WHITT: Oh, yes. Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It is.
MS. WHITT: Yes.
MS. HYDE: Okay, then we won't need it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Solved that problem.
MS. HYDE: Then we'll get it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. That's it? Okay. Okay, any
other budget items?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, you -- under 1.24, you
know, it says personnel matters related to various county
departments. Have you called 25, or did we do 25?
JUDGE TINLEY: No. No, we're still on 24.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay, we haven't done 25 yet.
JUDGE TINLEY: No, we haven't done 25 yet.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'll just reiterate, I think
those District Judges' budgets up there are part of that --
that issue, and I would hope that other districts -- or other
counties within our district also will refuse to pay those
increases in salary.
9-14-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1 '7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
129
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner, with regard to what's
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's what I -- the way I
sir?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: This may go along with what
Bruce was trying to do. And the way I look at it or read
it -- and if it would help open the discussion, then under
Item 24, I would propose a 2 percent salary increase for all
county employees. If that's where we're at, we need to
discuss it more, which is what came up last budget workshop.
If this is the appropriate time.
JUDGE TINLEY: To include elected officials? All
county employees?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: All county employees.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Including elected officials.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me at this time go ahead and
call Item 25, then, to consider, discuss, and take
appropriate action to authorize publication of notices of
proposed salary expenses or -- and other allowances of Kerr
County elected county or precinct officers for fiscal year
9-14-09
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
130
2009-10, and set date, time, and place of public hearing on
same, to be considered in connection with Item 24, which is
~, still open.
MS. HARGIS: And in order that you -- this is the
capital outlay that you're seeing, but if you'll look at the
bottom of the page, the very bottom left-hand corner, there's
a note that gives you kind of an idea of what that would
cost.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's the difference
between 10,450 and 12? What's the distinction there?
MS. HARGIS: We had originally used an estimate of
12 million, and in that 12 million, there are some of the
salaries from the other agencies in there. And the position
schedule shows 10,000 -- 10,450,000.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The position schedule
verifies 10,450?
MS. HYDE: Verifies what?
MS. HARGIS: 10,450,000.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We have available -- quote,
available 250,000?
MS. HARGIS: We had 291. We just spent 40 of that,
so we're down to 251.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do we have any new
cost-of-living numbers?
MS. HYDE: They don't come out until tonight or
9-14-09
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
tomorrow.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: They were minus two last
MS. HYDE: It's normally around the 15th.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mrs. Auditor, are you saying
that the 10 million, 450 is county employees only?
MS. HARGIS: County employees and elected
officials, anyone that goes through the Kerr County payroll
system that we pay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But not D.A.'s and Probation
and all those other folks?
MS. HARGIS: Those are excluded.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MS. HARGIS: But our benchmark has been about
12 million, because it gave us just a benchmark.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: If that was done, minus two
C.P.I., and you give an increase of two, that that's over a
4-point swing -- 4 percent swing in a down economy. I think
it's not the thing to do.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I kind of disagree that it's
4 percent, but, you know, I would -- with that, Bruce. But
one of the big reasons this County did a whole lot over the
last number of years, not just last year -- last year was a
big one, but even for several years before that, getting us
back up to parity with other agencies, our size P.D.,
9-14-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1a
20
21
22
23
24
25
132
everybody else, and that has -- the proof has been shown to
that. At this current date right now, I have no openings in
my department; 96 employees without a single opening, because
we do not have the turnover that those that have been on the
Court know has plagued the Sheriff's Office for years. And
all of that is because this Court has taken the action to
keep us up parity with -- with the agencies around. That's
been a major, major part of this.
From what I understand, we -- the other agency that
we have to look at around here is P.D., or -- or the City of
Kerrville. Now, somebody may have changed it, but from what
I understood, theirs was going to be 2 percent, or right at
it, plus then after that, they -- halfway through the next
budget, they're adding some merits into theirs. I'm not
asking for the merits to even make that go up more, but I
would like to see this County stay even, at least with the
', base on the 2 percent. I know they're giving their
dispatchers and that more than that, which may cause me other
issues, but if we could stay with the -- the parity, I think
it would -- it's gone a long ways in the last five, six years
to really help our department, and that's the only one I can
speak of. I don't know what the rest of the department heads
can say, but whether it's my jail or Sheriff's Office or
clerical part of mine, what this County has done has been
fabulous, and I hate to see us have to try and do that all
9-14-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1 '~
20
21
22
23
24
25
133
over again in five years if we don't try and stay up. If it
can't be the 2 percent, Bruce, you know, do -- look at 1.5
seriously, anything to keep us up with our competitors.
C.P.I. may be one thing, but this County's got to look at
what do our competitors do for the staff.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion that we have
a 2 percent COLA across the board, effective April 1st.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Effective what?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: April lst. It cuts the number
in half for the budget year.
JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's think about that just
for a second.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Probably get it moving, anyway.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 2 percent, April 1. Now,
why -- why the April 1?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It -- one, I think the
likelihood of the cost-of-living increasing by that point is
pretty likely. And I think it also cuts the dollar amount
impact in half, which helps us next budget year, which we
know is going to be a difficult year.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why -- why wouldn't you
just move to defer a 1 percent increase until April lst?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just -- I just -- 'cause I
said 2 percent April 1st. (Laughter.) And I think 1 percent
9-14-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1.5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
134
is really almost meaningless.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think he meant what he said.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Apparently.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
MS. HARGIS: I just want to add, I know Kendall
County had a big salary survey and program, so I'm sure they
went up significantly. And I understand Gillespie County has
gone up as well. Bandera didn't -- I haven't heard from
Bandera.
MS. HYDE: Bandera is going up as well.
	MS. HARGIS:	Bandera is going up. So, I think all
of the -	- despite COLA	and everything else, the core counties
around u	s -- now, not n	ecessarily in the whole state, because
I've bee	n looking at --	a lot of the auditors on my listserv
say no,	no, no. But ou	r surrounding counties that we do
compete	with are giving	raises.
	COMMISSIONER	BALDWIN: Well, they're probably doing
what we	did last year,	to be honest with you.
	MS. HARGIS:	Kendall County is, but I don't think
the othe	r two are.	
	SHERIFF HIERH	OLZER: Kendall was already there,
Buster.	They're going	up.
	COMMISSIONER	BALDWIN: It's my turn. I watch the
Fox News	guys and the -	- and the experts on there, and they
say that	-- and they're	the only ones that know. But they
9-14-09
135
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
say there's going to be another dip, actually, in the
economy. Things are going to go south next year again. And
if we don't give a pay raise in a down economy -- and I
basically agree with that thinking. And then next year it's
going to be a down economy, and then the second dip hits, and
we're going to be in a down economy. We're never going to --
we're going to be in the same shape, if we're not careful,
like we were last year, and we're all going to be back on the
food stamps, and it's going to -- and then trying to catch
up, then you're talking about another gigantic step just to
stay up with the inflation number. So, I -- I agree with --
and don't y'all tell anybody I agreed with Rusty, but I agree
~ with Rusty this time.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Believe me, I won't.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We need to -- we need to
keep some in there and keep it going just to stay up with the
world revolving around us.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We may need to keep our
revenue to ourselves rather than giving to it employees to
cover the losses of revenue that are going to occur --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They're going --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- in a down economy. You're
going to have -- you're going to have this -- this new
veterans 100 percent disability deal that is going to grow,
and revenue loss, and all of our other revenues are down.
9-14-09
136
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
We've had some good things happen with indigent health care.
We have -- we have a jail contract with Gillespie County for
prisoners. Those two things are wonderful. But I -- and I
really hate to be the one that does this every year. I do
want people to earn a decent wage, but what they're being
paid now and what's happening nationwide with job losses,
there's no way you can compare losing a job or a position to
a couple of percent on top of what they're already making.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I think there's value
in protecting what we did for our employees last year, and I
think that the point that Commissioner Baldwin makes is a
good point. I think we also, by deferring action, whatever
the percent may be, by deferring it to midyear -- mid-budget
year, we have, in effect, then taken into consideration the
potential for revenue -- some revenue losses based on the
enactment of the veterans disability law. That takes them
out of the equation, so I think we've taken a look at that.
The original time we talked about that, we hadn't taken that
into consideration, and you pointed it out to us. So, that
deferring does take that into effect. So, the question would
be, in my mind, what is -- what is a reasonable percentage to
take -- to accord our employees? And if we do so at midyear
or some other point.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So, if things don't improve
by midyear, you'd be willing to take that 2 percent away?
9-19-09
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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, if things don't
~~ improve, or if they get worse than anticipated, right, the
Court always has the ability to relook at the issue, based on
revenue or projected revenue loss.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I just think --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's always our
~ prerogative.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It is. I just feel like that
a lot of times, even in our personal lives right now, if we
can put any dollars back, we probably ought to.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm sitting on a motion,
gentlemen -- I'm sorry.
I
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: No, I'm through.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm sitting on a motion. I don't
have a second yet.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't think I'd second it.
I think I would second doing 2 percent right now for the full
year.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do I hear a second to the motion
offered by Commissioner Letz? Commissioner Letz' motion dies
for lack of a second. Do I hear any other motion in
connection with these two agenda items?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move that we do a
', 2 percent salary increase.
JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion for a 2 percent --
9-14-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1~
20
21
22
23
24
25
138
across-the-board, I assume, all Kerr County employees?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: 2 percent increase for the entire
budget year for all Kerr County employees. Do I hear a
second to that motion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Rusty, second. (Laughter.)
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I would if I could, Buster.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do I hear a second to Commissioner
Baldwin's motion for a 2 percent? Commissioner Baldwin's
motion dies for lack of a second. Do I hear any other motion
in connection with Agenda Items 24 or 25?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'll move that we oppose the
District Judges' budgets upstairs for any increases in salary
whatsoever for their staff for this year.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can we tack onto that the
issue of all these -- either -- either oppose the court
reporter issue, or have somebody come tell me how this thing
works. We hire people and pay them good salaries to do this
work, and then we turn around and hire people to do the same
damn work. I don't get it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, the court reporter would be
part of the staff on those budgets.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, is "staff" in your --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- your verbiage? I'm
9-14-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1~
20
21
22
23
24
25
139
sorry. Okay.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Any increase in salaries for
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That includes court
reporters.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Ms. Hargis? The 2 percent
that Commissioner Letz moved, given at the midpoint of the
budget, would be about 130,000; is that correct?
MS. HARGIS: Mm-hmm, about.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, what if it were 1.5 at
the six-months marker? That would be what?
MS. HARGIS: Another half of that 130. Another
half of the 130.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 195? Just under 200,000?
MS. HARGIS: 65 onto 130, 195.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let's try it again.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Wait a minute, we're not done
with mine yet.
JUDGE TINLEY: Wait a minute, we got a motion here.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm sorry.
JUDGE TINLEY: We got a motion on the floor.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And also included in my
motion would also include the auditor and her staff. We'll
9-14-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1.3
14
15
16
17
13
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
140
I
get them all.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, that one district --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's District-appointed. I
mean, they appoint those positions and they set salaries.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What is your --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What is your motion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What is your motion?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: The motion is to reject any
salary increases for the district judges' staff, including
court reporters and auditor and her staff.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is this a motion that, in
your mind, is symbolic in nature?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, I'm sure that it's not
a thing that's normally done.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That may be an
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: But I would prefer for them
to understand that nobody else is really getting any big
raises down here, and the ones they're projecting and
proposing are in excess of what we're doing down here.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand your point. I
understand your point.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And, you know, they can
always mandamus us to do it. I think we ought to give them
9-14-09
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
that opportunity, and then see if all the other counties will
band with us to reject their -- their increases.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I guess that's where I was
going with the question. 'Cause sooner or later, if that's
their mind-set, you're going to get an order to that effect.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, that's fine. Then the
public can understand and know that they're -- they're
proposing and making us do this without our approval.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Wait a minute. Wait a
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and a second to
oppose --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. No, he said "reject."
Reject and oppose, in my mind, is two different things.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. To reject any increases in
staff salaries of the district courts, including court
reporters, and also to include auditor and staff.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Would you change it to
"oppose"?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I will change it to "oppose"
if that will help you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll do it.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay, change the word to
9-14-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1 '~
20
21
22
23
24
25
142
JUDGE TINLEY: All right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And repeat that one more time,
the last part? Is there a part in there that if we give an
increase -- I'm not sure; there may be a motion floating
around here somewhere that it should be the same increase
that all of the county employees get.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's not in there.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I will add that to it, saying
that if those -- any increases shall be tied to what the
County does.
JUDGE TINLEY: For their employees?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: For their employees.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Is the second good on that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We have a motion and a
I second.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oppose.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Oppose.
JUDGE TINLEY: That this Court oppose any increases
in the salaries of the district court staff, to include
District Court Judge's staff, to include court reporters, and
to include auditor and staff, which are in excess of
increases granted to Kerr County employees. Is that
correctly stated, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That is correct.
9-14-09
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
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. And is that your second to
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's fine.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Okay. Let's open the
discussion on that motion. Any discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I -- I back up
Commissioner Oehler because of the down economy, the downturn
of the economy. I think this is a fair and equitable way to
approach this thing.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, I don't -- I will
support it based on the change in the language, in terms of
"oppose" versus "reject."
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess the question is, what
numbers are in the budget that we're working with right now?
Their numbers, or no increases?
JUDGE TINLEY: For their particular budgets?
MS. HARGIS: Their budgets, the increases are in
there. Keep in mind, we only pay one-fourth -- well,
actually --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MS. HARGIS: Of their budget.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
THE CLERK: Judge, would this be under Item 24 or
under Item 25?
9-14-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14-
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
144
JUDGE TINLEY: This would be under Item 24.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah, 24.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or discussion?
All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right
I hand .
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.}
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Okay, do we
have any other motions to be offered by any member of the
Court in connection with Items 24 or 25?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, let's try it again.
I would move that -- that all Kerr County employees be
granted a cost-of-living allowance in the amount of 1.5
percent, to be effective April 1, 2010.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and a second as
indicated. Question or discussion on that motion? All in
favor of that motion, indicate by raising your right hand.
(Commissioners Baldwin, Williams, and Letz voted in
favor of the motion.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(Commissioner Oehler voted against the motion.)
25 ~ JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Are there
9-19-09
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
any other motions or other matters to be offered in
connection with Item -- first, 24?
MS. HARGIS: We need to talk about the capital.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. HARGIS: Each of you have before you a new
capital listing. The change is coming in basically as we
discussed earlier, in the park area. We have -- we
originally had budgeted 206,000 for the dams plus 50,000 for
the repair or the dredging. We have added an additional
200,000 to the repair of the dams. We also need --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And 25,000 on the dredging.
MS. HARGIS: And then we added another 75,000 for
the dredging, so that total is 529. Our issue now is,
with -- estimated with issuance cost, it's at 4. 6, almost
4.7. Our resolution said 4.1. In order for us to stay
within that resolution, we need to amend the resolution,
stating that anything over 4.7, because of the architectural
fees that you just entered into with -- the possible RFQ that
you entered into the with the architects for the building.
So, we'll need to amend that resolution.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: What is the payoff period?
What's the length of --
MS. HARGIS: As I recall, the financial adviser
said without going, you know, for a regular bond issue, we'd
have to -- seven years is the maximum that we can go on this.
9-14-09
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
Seven years.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Seven years?
MS. HARGIS: Seven years.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What are the -- I know that
we're fairly broad in the use of some of these funds. Say we
don't use 200,000 for dredging or dam repair. How can we
reallocate that money?
MS. HARGIS: It would have to come back to the
Court and state that you had finished the projects that you
thought you had completed, or that you had -- had funds from
some other source. For instance, if we sell the dirt from --
you know, for the dredging, that will pay for the dams; then
you reallocate those funds to another area, but it'll have to
be by resolution through the Court so that, you know, there's
public information. We --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The funds cannot go into the
MS. HARGIS: No, they cannot. They have to be
used -- the only time they can go into the general fund, you
could send in -- it's -- the law provides that any capital
money interest earned should go to the debt service fund, but
it does have kind of a little gray area that allows you to
transfer the interest income, if necessary, at the end of all
the projects. Not during the time that you're doing them,
but at the end of the projects, if you have surplus funds
9-14-09
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
available, you could only transfer some of the interest
earnings to the general fund. But most of the time, most of
the entities that I've been involved with over my time frame
have been to reallocate that to another capital project,
because that's what you've got the money for and it is
intended for. And keep in mind, you come under an arbitrage
agreement with this, and you have to justify this to I.R.S.,
so you have to be very careful as to what you do with it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the other option is, of
course, to repay the debt.
MS. HARGIS: That is the other option. You take
the money that's remaining and you pay down the debt, or you
pay down one of the other debts. You know, we have a very
big balloon note on the one that we did two years ago;
800,000, so it's a pretty big balloon. What we do is pay off
all the other notes; that is the last one, is 2013. The jail
will be paid off in 2012, and then in 2013 we have a big
balloon payment of 800.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Emerson, Agenda Item Number 24,
as broad as it is, is adequate to amend the reimbursement
resolution for capital expenditure items, and to include in
that reimbursement resolution --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- lake dredging and damage repair?
MR. EMERSON: I don't know. How's that for an
9-14-09
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
answer? It specifically mentions capital expenditure, which
I suspect would give it broad basis. I mean, you're going in
changing all the earlier obligation.
MS. HARGIS: I think the resolution will probably
have to be changed with a specific --
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, the resolution has to be
changed, but my question to Mr. Emerson is the breadth of the
agenda item being adequate to cover this Court --
MS. HARGIS: Increasing the capital?
JUDGE TINLEY: -- approving a motion which would --
which would amend that resolution to increase the amount, and
i
to include the lake dredging and dam repair aspects, 'cause I
don't think those two items were in the prior resolution. I
don't have it in front of me.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, they were, but not to
the extent, Judge. We added money to it because we thought
that the dam repairs were going to exceed 100,000 per that we
had allocated before, so now it's 200,000.
JUDGE TINLEY: Was dredging in there also?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Dredging was in there for
50, and we increased it to 75.
JUDGE TINLEY: We're just increasing the amount,
then, is all we're doing. If those are already mentioned,
all we're doing is increasing the amount.
MS. HARGIS: Yes, they were already in there.
9-19-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1 '~
20
21
22
23
24
1.4 9
We're increasing the amount to the 529.
MR. EMERSON: May I ask a question?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, sir.
MR. EMERSON: And this will be to Jeannie, on the
accounting stuff. But if the capital money goes into the
dredging and the dam repair, and then we're taking money back
out from the -- the sand and the soil that's sold off the
bottom, can that be held in a separate account, or is that
required to be credited back against the capital bond?
'Cause it's resulted from that expenditure.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The proceeds from the
dredging is what you're asking about?
MR. EMERSON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That was the intention, to
MS. HARGIS: I'm going to have to do just like you
do. I don't know. I've never had, in my 30 years of having
capital, where we actually sold a product. And then usually
we did put it back into capital if we did have anything, but
not anything of this magnitude. I would have to ask our --
our tax attorney for that.
MR. EMERSON: Okay. Well, the reason I'm asking is
'cause I think they're talking about a potential of 800,000
to a million dollars from material dredged off the bottom of
25 ~ the lake.
9-14-09
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
150
MS. HARGIS: We talked --
MR. EMERSON: And from what I -- you know, this is
your area of expertise, but from what I remember, under the
arbitrage clauses, if we miss our projected by "X" amount, we
face a penalty.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, but arbitrage is
based on earnings on the amount you borrow.
MS. HARGIS: There are some other areas in
arbitrage besides the earnings, but I think as long as we
stayed under five million, we'd probably be okay. It's when
we go over the five million threshold. Again, this is an
area that I've not -- not been in before. I'd like to talk
with Tom Spurgeon and ask him, because I was not made aware
of that either until Friday or Thursday, when we had that
meeting. We're talking -- half a million is the high as we
talked. We didn't get -- I mean, we talked about a million,
but we're not sure that we'll have that much dirt.
JUDGE TINLEY: It's not essential that we amend
that resolution today, is it?
MS. HARGIS: No, because we still have enough for
the architect. But I would -- you know, I would like to see
at least the budget go up, and then we'll do the -- redo the
resolution.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. HARGIS: And in the meantime, I want to talk to
9-14-09
151
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Tom and see what we have to do with those funds. I just
don't have the expertise on that, and I'd be afraid to
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think it would be safer to
come back in with a -- changing the resolution itself.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, that's obviously the -- if
we're under a real critical time constraint, that's one
thing, but if we're not under that time constraint, let's do
a specific as to the resolution, and have all of the nuts and
bolts in it that needs to be there for the tax or arbitrage
angles.
MS. HARGIS: I think it's the arbitrage angles that
we need to work on. Most of the time, the arbitrage that I'm
familiar with addresses the interest income, and that is
true, but there are some other -- other specifics, and it
just depends on how --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There may be --
MS. HARGIS: Yeah. It depends on how it's written.
And he's right, it is -- each issue is taken on its own.
Actually, there is an opinion written that you pay for on
every tax note of this kind where the attorney actually
reviews exactly what you've done, and then tells you whether
or not you have arbitrage on anything else other than the
interest earnings. So, I would like -- since Tom is an
expert in that field, I think we should just ask him.
9-14-09
152
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1 '7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Rather be safe than sorry.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We could come back in here
Thursday or Friday and then have really clean, clear numbers,
and change -- amend the resolution and do it right.
' JUDGE TINLEY: As far as that goes, we could
probably do it on the 28th.
', COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We could, unless we're
foaming at the mouth and have to get 'er done this week.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm not foaming.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Buster just wants to have a
meeting when you're out of town.
JUDGE TINLEY: I see.
MS. HARGIS: But I would just add one thing. We
are getting close to the S5 million, and so we don't -- if we
can avoid going over the 5 million -- if there is anything
else that any of you have that is a capital project over the
next two years, please let me know about it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Salary increases.
MS. HARGIS: No.
~li COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask you something.
~, If we were going to amend the resolution today, what would we
-- what would be the number that we amended it to?
9-14-09
153
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. HARGIS: Well, it's at 4 million 7 right now.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's what?
MS. HARGIS: 4 million 7. Close to 4 million 7.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, 4, 6.
MS. HARGIS: So you put an estimate -- it's an
estimate in the resolution, that you just don't go over that
amount.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Could you tell me what the
I number is?
MS. HARGIS: 4,7. 4 million 7.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're going from 4,7 to 4,7?
MS. HARGIS: We're going from 4,1 to 4,7. The
original resolution was 4,1.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, thank you. There it
is. Thank you very much.
MS. HARGIS: And, remember, the resolution is just
to make sure that, in case we have to spend funds prior 'to
receiving the receipt of the funds for the note, that we have
-- we can get reimbursed.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: God.
JUDGE TINLEY: Are you good on that?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, Bang right I am.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Practicing law is tough,
I isn't it?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, it is. It's not for
9-14-09
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
little children.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else on Item 24?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's not for the unlicensed,
I can tell you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Item 25, based upon the --
based upon the action taken previously, it would seem that
there needs to be publication of a notice under provisions of
the Local Government Code of the proposed salary expenses or
other allowances of Kerr County elected county or precinct
officers for FY 2009-10 of the one and one-half percent
effective April 1, 2010, and setting of date, time, and place
of public hearing with respect to that. Is that your
understanding, Mr. Emerson, that that would have to be in
order to effectively go forward?
MR. EMERSON: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's the date of the public
hearing requirement?
JUDGE TINLEY: We got to give 10 days -- 10 days
advance notice, which means for the 28th, we're going to have
to get that put together within the next day or two, and
published not later than Wednesday.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, in a day or two.
JUDGE TINLEY: Or Thursday.
25 ~ MS. HARGIS: Yes. I already have the form. I'll
9-14-09
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
155
just -- we'll just do the multiplications. I'll go over it
with Ms. Hyde and make sure that we're both on the same page,
and have the Judge review it and get it in the paper. Get it
~ over there today.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Which means we got to set a
public hearing, and that's probably going to be on the 28th
also, probably 9:45. Don't we already have the notice set
for the budget at, say, 10:00 and the tax rate immediately
following?
MS. HARGIS: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Or vice-versa.
MS. HARGIS: So, we'd have to have it before.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion that we
authorize publication of notice for proposed salary increases
for Kerr County elected officials at 1.5 percent, effective
April 1, and set a public hearing on same at 9:45
September 28th.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Did you just say elected
officials, or elected officials and employees?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, this is just -- this is
just a requirement for our salary or elected officials'
salaries.
MS. HARGIS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: May I ask a goofy question?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
9-14-09
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
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah?
JUDGE TINLEY: Sure.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The agenda item here, it
says "notice of proposed salary expenses and other
allowances." Why that verbiage?
JUDGE TINLEY: Because that's taken directly from
that provision of the Local Government Code, I believe in
Chapter 151, --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And his --
JUDGE TINLEY: -- which talks about that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And his motion, just using
the word "salary" covers all that? Or do we need that -- the
other verbiage?
JUDGE TINLEY: I think it's probably adequate as
stated.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Only thing you're doing is
increasing the salary. You're not giving the other --
MS. HARGIS: We still have to show them, but we
don't have to show the increase in that line item.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That causes some other
things down the line, though. Okay. I'm just trying to
practice law here. I'm just trying to get a little practice
in.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second the motion.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
9-14-09
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
indicated. Any further question or discussion on the motion?
All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right
I hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry.
MS. HARGIS: I wanted to just make a little bit of
clarity here on the $20. The $20 will appear in -- in the
employees' paycheck, so when they request a reimbursement of
that $20, it will go through payroll. So --
JUDGE TINLEY: So, it's like any other payroll item
when it comes to seeking reimbursement for matters which are
not authorized?
MS. HARGIS: It's a benefit, and it has to go
through payroll.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: By the time that gets all
watered down, like this 1.5, it will have taken it all.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Never know.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Got two bucks left.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Two bucks left.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. That brings us to Section 4
of the agenda.
MS. UECKER: One more, 26.
JUDGE TINLEY: Oh.
9-19-09
158
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
MS. UECKER: And it's just a formality.
JUDGE TINLEY: Seems like I misplaced that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's right there, if you want.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Item 26, to consider,
discuss, take appropriate action to establish a District
Clerk Technology Fund.
MS. UECKER: Yeah. I'd already previously
submitted my plan, I think last month, and it's already been
made a part of the record, and that resulted in this
notice -- this public hearing notice today. So, I just need
approval after the hearing so I can start charging that fee
today.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item. Question or discussion? All in
favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Now we go to
section 4. Payment of the bills.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move we pay the bills.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I second that emotion.
25 ~ JUDGE TINLEY: Motion and second that we pay the
9-14-09
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
bills. Question or discussion? All in favor of the motion,
signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Do we have
any budget amendments?
MS. HARGIS: We have quite a few.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The -- we're on budget
MS. HARGIS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:. Okay. The first one, these
record management, you're moving -- tell me what that is.
You're moving out of group insurance into salaries?
MS. HARGIS: I believe we had more employees in
that particular line item than we indicated at the beginning
of the year, and so we didn't put -- I didn't put enough in
that line item. It ended up in salary instead of this group
insurance. That's a special fund. That --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. It's dedicated, yeah.
And you can -- but you can spend it on salaries?
MS. HARGIS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Okay.
MS. HARGIS: I think we have one or two people in
9-14-09
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
there --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that two full-time
people, or is that --
MS. HARGIS: She has one.
MS. PIEPER: I think you're talking about Linda's,
aren't you?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, is this Linda's?
MS. HARGIS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I can't keep up with you
people. And I'm not going to bring it up, but if I were, the
Court-appointed reporters -- I mean the special reporters, I
can't get over that. I'm sorry, that I don't understand, but
it's just the way I am.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We just share some of the
same things, Buster, and concerns. And there are some others
we don't, but that one, we do.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, unbelievable. I guess
-- I expect that's all I have.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do I hear a motion that the budget
amendments, as evidenced by the summary reflecting Budget
Amendment Request Numbers 1 through 27, be approved as
presented?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
9-14-09
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
approval of the Budget Amendments 1 through 27 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: The motion does carry. Do we have
any late bills?
MS. HARGIS: No, sir, we do not.
JUDGE TINLEY: Monthly reports. I've been
presented with monthly reports from Road and Bridge;
Constable, Precinct 1; J.P., Precinct 3; County Clerk;
Constable, Precinct 4; District Clerk; J.P., Precinct 1;
J.P., Precinct 4; J.P., Precinct 2; and Environmental Health;
and payroll for August '09 and the Treasurer's report for
August '09. Do I hear a motion that these reports be
approved as presented?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: 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.
9-14-09
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
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Do we --
we'll now move to reports from Commissioners in connection
with their liaison or other committee assignments.
Commissioner Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The bids for the Phase II
of the airport construction job came in, and Commissioner
Letz and I both received a copy from the Airport Manager.
They're really kind of interesting, and they're pretty
consistent with what's going on in jobs that you and I know
about in terms of estimated costs versus actual construction
bids. And there were -- 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,
12 -- about 12 bids received by TexDOT for the airport
construction job. And it would be fair to note that TexDOT
engineer's estimate was 7.323 million to do that job, and the
low bidder came in at 4.261 million. Tells you something.
JUDGE TINLEY: Few million dollars less.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what's going on out
there. Of course, the Court remembers that we put up our
match for this project based on 8 million, wasn't it? Half
of our 10 percent -- or it was 5 percent we ended up putting
in? So, what's to happen, I don't know. We'll go to the --
that board meeting on the 21st and we'll find out what's
going to go on.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else?
9-14-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
13
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
163
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Briefly, on ETJ, I met with
Councilman Motheral. Not an overly productive meeting. I'll
have a plan to report at our next meeting, hopefully. I know
he'll be gone the rest of this week, or most of this week.
There's some challenges there. On the appeal that the Court
submitted to GMA-9, Water Development Board, I think everyone
got a copy of a waiver from some timing issues that I worked
on, I guess, late last week, or week before. But also, there
is a meeting scheduled that was called by GMA-9 for the 21st,
which is next Monday, at 10 a.m. And if the Court as a whole
wants to go, we need to post that. I plan to attend, but I
don't know really -- I'm not real happy with the way it went
about. And Ray Buck -- they kind of just set a meeting date
and proposed it, and said that Ray and I have to adjust our
~I schedules to be there, bottom line. And, you know, I
think -- and I said I would be there for a couple -- you
know, part of the meeting, anyway.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I plan to go just to
listen.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I don't want to -- I don't
recommend any -- I think U.G.R.A. takes the same position,
more of a listening meeting, no action really contemplated.
Anything -- any action item would come back to the Court on
9-14-09
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
the 28th. But if more people -- if the majority of the Court
wants to attend and listen, we do need to post it. And
that's it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Oehler?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Nothing more than the
Mountain Home Fire Station has a top on it, and they're
framing up inside, and their fundraiser is scheduled for
October 10th. It's supposed to be able to be held in the new
fire station.
JUDGE TINLEY: The invite I got says it's going to
I be there.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's what mine said. So,
that's good news. And it's just -- you know, that's a great
thing for our end of the county. That's it for me.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, sir, I don't have
anything. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do we have any reports from elected
officials? Department --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Just one item, in executive.
One item in executive.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Department heads?
MR. TROLINGER: I'd like to report that the Kerr
County Historical Society website issue has been resolved.
I've kept y'all in the loop on all the e-mails, and worked
9-19-09
165
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
had a nice result. Ms. Teague, the webmaster for the Kerr
County Historical Commission, has presented us with a new
site, revamped, and it's very professional, and I believe it
resolves all the issues we've had.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
MR. TROLINGER: You're welcome, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other department heads? Okay.
It would appear at this time we need to go into executive
session very briefly, so at this time, we will go out of --
out of open or public session at 12:39 p.m.
(The open session was closed at 12:39 p.m., and an
executive session was held, the transcript of which
is contained in a separate document.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. It is 12:44 p.m., and we're
back in open or public session. Any -- any member of the
Court have anything further to offer in connection with
today's meeting? Hearing nothing, we'll be adjourned.
(Commissioners Court was adjourned at 12:45 p.m.)
9-14-09
166
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
STATE OF TEXAS ~
COUNTY OF KERR ~
The above and foregoing is a true and complete
transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as
County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County,
Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth.
DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 18th day of September,
2009.
21
22
23
24
25
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
B Y . ~~~ ~ ~i
Kathy Bani Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
9-14-09
ORDER NO. 31430
KERB EMERGENCY 9-1-1 2010 PROPOSED BUDGET
Came to be heard this the 14t" day of September, 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 the Kerr Emergency 9-1-1 2010 Proposed Budget.
ORDER NO. 31431
COURTHOUSE LIGHTING AGREEMENT WITH KERRVILLE CHRISTMAS
LIGHTING CORPORATION
Came to be heard this the 14th day of September, 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 the annual Courthouse Lighting Agreement between Kerrville Christmas
Lighting Corporation and Kerr County.
ORDER NO. 31432
HILL COUNTRY ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CENTER CONTRACT
Came to be heard this the 14th day of September, 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 Hill Country Alternative Dispute Resolution Center (HCADRC) Contract and
renewal fee being $15,000.00 for the ensuing budget year.
ORDER NO. 31433
MAINTENANCE BIDS FOR ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, HVAC AND PEST
CONTROL SERVICES
Came to be heard this the 14th day of September, 2009, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Oehler, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Accept all proposals, and submit to the Kerr County Maintenance Director for review and
recommendation:
1. Foss Pest Control, Ingram, TX with a schedule of amounts as listed on the bid
form
2. Kerrville Air Conditioning, Refrigeration & Heating, Inc. on HVAC
3. Whelan Plumbing on plumbing services
4. D. W. Electric on electrical services
5. Guadalupe Electric for electrical services
6. Airtech A/C & Heating on HVAC
7. Hill Country Pest Control for Pest Control Services
ORDER NO. 31434
SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH CAD SUPPLIES SPECIALTY FOR PLAT
SCANNER
Came to be heard this the 14th day of September, 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 Service Agreement with Cad Supplies Specialty for Plat Scanner for the County
Clerk's Office.
ORDER NO. 31435
REQUESTS FROM ELECTED OFFICIALS AND DEPARTMENT HEADS FOR
APPROPRIATE OFFICE STAFF
Came to be heard this the 14th day of September, 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 requests from Elected Officials and Department Heads for appropriate office
staff pursuant to LGC 151:
1. Mindy Williams, Kerr County Treasurer
2. Leonard Odom, Kerr County Road & Bridge Administrator
3. Rex Emerson, Kerr County Attorney
4. Rosa Lavender, Kerr County Victim Services Department
5. Spencer W. Brown, Kerr County Court at Law
6. John D. Trolinger, Information Technology Department
7. Paula J. Hargis, Kerr County Auditor
8. David J. Billeiter, Justice of the Peace, Pct #1
9. Chris L. LaLonde, Kerrville Highway Patrol
10. Tim Bonier, Kerr County Maintenance
11. E. Bruce Curry, 216`" District Attorney
12. Janie Whitt, Kerr County Animal Control
13. Eva M. Hyde, Human Resources Department
14. Roy Walston, Kerr County Extension Office
15. Jannett Pieper, Kerr County Clerk
16. Dawn Wright, Justice of the Peace, Pct #2
17. Kathy M. Mitchell, Justice of the Peace, Pct #3
18. Jason P. Davis, Juvenile Probation
19. Ray Garcia, Kerr County Environmental Health
20. Kevin Stanton, Kerr County Juvenile Detention Center
21. W. R. Hierholzer, Kerr County Sheriff s Office
ORDER NO. 31436
2010 RESOLUTION FOR INDIGENT DEFENSE GRANT PROGRAM
Came to be heard this the 14th day of September, 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 2010 Resolution for the Indigent Defense Grant Program, and authorize County
Judge to sign same.
ORDER NO. 31437
DECLARE 14 VHF MOBILE RADIOS AS SURPLUS PROPERTY
Came to be heard this the 14th day of September, 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 declaring 14 VHF mobile radios from the Kerr County Sheriff's Office as
surplus property, and authorize the Sheriff to use his discretion to dispose of same, as
long as they go to governmental entities.
ORDER NO. 3143 8
LITIGATION TO RESOLVE INGRAM LAKE CONSTRUCTION ENCROACHMENT
ON VLASEK PROEPRTY
Came to be heard this the 14th day of September, 2009, with a motion made by
Commissioner Oehler, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Authorizing the County Attorney to communicate with Mr. Vlasek to try to resolve the
issue, and in the event no reasonable agreement can be reached, then to pursue litigation
to protect the public easement.
ORDER NO. 31439
KERB COUNTY CLERK' S ARCHIVAL PLAN
Came to be heard this the 14th day of September, 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 Clerk's Archival Plan as submitted.
ORDER NO. 31440
PRLIMINARY PLANNING, EVALUATION AND INITIAL CONSTRUCTION
ASPECTS OF PROPOSED LAW ENFORCEMENT ANNEX/ADULT PROBATION
BUILDING
Came to be heard this the 14th day of September, 2009, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Exempt ourselves from competitive bidding under 262.024, subsection (4), and engage in
negotiations with Peter Lewis and Associates to provide a scope of work and a proposed
schedule of fees for architectural services in connection with the listed project.
ORDER NO. 31441
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (REP'S) FOR NEW TELEPHONE SYSTEM FOR
KERB COUNTY COURTHOUSE
Came to be heard this the 14th day of September, 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 going out for Request For Proposals for a new telephone system for the Kerr
County Courthouse.
ORDER NO. 31442
LOWERING OF FLAT ROCK LAKE LEVEL AND OBTAINING PROPER PERMITS
FROM STATE AGENCIES
Came to be heard this the 14th day of September, 2009, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Oehler, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Authorize Commissioner Williams to pursue the proper permits for the draining of Flat
Rock Lake from the appropriate State and Federal Agencies.
ORDER NO. 31443
AWARD BIDS FOR ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, HVAC AND PEST CONTROL
SERVICES
Came to be heard this the 14th day of September, 2009, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Oehler, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Accept the recommendations of the Maintenance Director, and award the bids as follows:
HVAC - Airtech A/C & Heating
Pest Control -Foss Pest Control
Electrical -Guadalupe Electric
Plumbing -Whelan Plumbing
ORDER NO. 31444
OFFICE OF COURT ADMINISTRATION CONTRACT NUMBER 10-011
Came to be heard this the 14th day of September, 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 Office of Court Administration Contract Number 10-011.
ORDER NO. 31445
KERR COUNTY INVESTMENT POLICY
Came to be heard this the 14th day of September, 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 Investment Policy as presented.
ORDER NO. 31446
FISCAL YEAR 2009-2010 BUDGETS AND FISCAL, CAPITAL EXPENDITURE
ANDF PERSONNEL MATTERS
Came to be heard this the 14th day of September, 2009, with a motion made by
Commissioner Oehler, seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Oppose the District Court Judges' budgets upstairs for any increases in salary whatsoever
for their staff this year, including court reporters, and including the Auditor and her staff,
which are in excess of increases granted to Kerr County employees.
ORDER NO. 31447
FISCAL YEAR 2009-2010 BUDGETS AND FISCAL, CAPITAL EXPENDITURE
ANDF PERSONNEL MATTERS
Came to be heard this the 14th day of September, 2009, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 3-1-0 to: (Comm Oehler opposed)
Approve all Kerr County Employees to get a 1.5% cost of living increase effective April
1, 2010.
ORDER NO. 31448
PUBLICATION OF NOTICE OF PROPOSED SALARY, EXPENSES AND OTHER
ALLOWANCES OF KERB COUNTY ELECTED OFFICIALS
Came to be heard this the 14th day of September, 2009, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Authorize publication of Notice(s) of proposed salary, expenses and other allowances of
Kerr County Elected Officials at 1.5% effective April 1, 2010 for FY 2009-2010, and set
a Public Hearing for Monday, September 28, 2009 at 9:45 a.m.
ORDER NO. 31449
DISTRICT CLERK TECHNOLOGY FUND
Came to be heard this the 14th day of September, 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 establishing a District Clerk Technology Fund.
ORDER NO. 31450
CLAIMS AND ACCOUNTS
Came to be heard this the 14th day of September, 2009, came to be considered by the
Court various Commissioners Precincts, which said Claims and Accounts are:
Accounts Expense
10-General	$	179,654.96
15-Road & Bridge	$	87,831.29
16-2008 Capital Projects	$	961.73
26-JP Technology	$	2,500.00
31-Parks	$	40.00
50-Indigent Health Care	$	4,010.62
76-Juv Detention Facility	$	1,675.94
77-LEOSE Funds	$	5,000.00
83-216th District Attorney	$	1,888.21
86-216th CSCD	$	2,335.89
TOTAL
$ 285,898.64
Upon motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the
Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to pay the claims and accounts.
ORDER NO. 31451
BUDGET AMENDMENT NOS. 1 THROUGH 27
Came to be heard this the 14th day of September, 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 paying the Budget Amendments as presented.
ORDER NO. 31452
MONTHLY REPORTS
Came to be heard this the 14th day of September, 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 Monthly Reports from:
Road & Bridge
Constable Pct # 1
JP #3
County Clerk
Constable Pct #4
District Clerk
JP # 1
JP #4
JP #2
Environmental Health
Payroll for August, 2009
Treasurer for August, 2009