1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT
Special Session
Monday, September 28, 2009
9:00 a.m.
Commissioners' Courtroom
Kerr County Courthouse
Kerrville, Texas
v
PRESENT: PAT TINLEY, Kerr County Judge ~
H.A."BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1
WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2 ~
JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3 0
BRUCE OEHLER, Commissioner Pct. 4
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I N D E X
September 28, 2009
--- Commissioners' Comments
1.1 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
approve Master Agreement with Texas Online for
e-filing with the courts; authorize County Judge
to sign the agreement
1.2 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
approve agreement with Simplifile for e-recording
in County Clerk's Office; authorize County Judge
to sign the agreement
1.3 Presentation by Fred Pentz regarding Veteran's
Service Officer
1.7 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
FY 2009-10 budgets and fiscal, capital expenditure,
and personnel matters related thereto for various
county departments
1.8 Public Hearing on proposed salary increases,
expenses and allowances for elected officials
of Kerr County, Texas for FY 2009-10
1.24 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
adopt the proposed salary increases, expenses,
and allowances for elected officials of Kerr
County, Texas, in accordance with the public
notice published in Kerrville Daily Times
1.4 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
Order Expressing Intent to Reimburse with Tax
Exempt Obligation Proceeds for costs associated
with constructing or acquiring various capital
assets and improvements within the county
1.6 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
approve new copier contract for County Judge and
Commissioners Court
l.ll Public Hearing on FY 2009-10 Kerr County Budget
1.25 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
adopt FY 2009-10 Kerr County Budget
PAGE
6
12
13
15
33
48
48
49
51
54
54
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 28, 2009
1.9 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
adopt 2009 Kerr County tax rate, to include
maintenance and operations, interest and sinking
(debt), and lateral roads tax rate
1.10 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
adopt 2009 Lake Ingram Road District tax rate
1.12 Public Hearing for revision of plat of Lot 3 in
Heritage Park Subdivision, Section I
1.13 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
accept final revision of plat of Lot 3 in the
Heritage Park Subdivision, Section I
1.5 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
remove concrete island on the north side of
lower level parking of the courthouse
1.14 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
roll $20,000 from the 08/09 budget to the 09/10
budget for the Hermann Sons Road and Westwood
Drive ROW projects
1.15 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
set a public hearing for private road name,
Moorhead Rd. E., Precinct 2
PAGE
56
62
66
67
72
76
82
1.16 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
agreement with San Patricio County designating
Kerrville/Kerr County as point-to-point evacuation
shelter for evacuees from San Patricio County in
the event of a hurricane 83
1.17 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on the
Kerr County Personnel Handbook 85
1.18 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action
regarding opening of the bids submitted to
provide food service for Kerr County Jail 98
1.19 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
approve professional services contract with
Peter Lewis for architectural services on new
Law Enforcement Annex/Adult Probation Building
and related improvements 100
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 28, 2009
PAGE
1.20 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
accept and approve requests from elected officials
and department heads for appropriate office staff
pursuant to LGC 151 107
1.23 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
adopt the position schedule, step and grade
schedule, and general provisions of Kerr County
for FY 2009-10 108
4.1	Pay Bills	110
4.2	Budget Amendments	111
4.3	Late Bills	---
4.4	Approve and Accept Monthly Reports	114
5.1	Reports from Commissioners/Liaison Committee	
	Assignments	115
5.2	Reports from Elected Officials/Department Heads	116
1.26	Open 2010 Kerr County employee health benefits	
	proposals and refer for evaluation/recommendation	117
1.21	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on an	
	Animal Control/personnel matter (Executive Session)	---
1.22	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on a	
	personnel/health benefits matter (Executive	
	Session)	---
--- Adjourned
121
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
5
the Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse,
Kerrville, Texas, and the following proceedings were had in
open court:
P R O C E E D I N G S
JUDGE TINLEY: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
Let me call to order this regularly scheduled meeting of the
Kerr County Commissioners Court which is posted and scheduled
'~
for this date and time, Monday, September the 28th, 2009, at
9 a.m. It is that time now. Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Would everyone please stand and
join me in a moment of prayer followed by the pledge.
(Prayer and pledge of allegiance.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. At this time, if there's
any member of the public or the audience that wishes to be
heard on any matter that is not a listed agenda item, this is
your opportunity to come forward and tell us what's on your
mind. If you wish to be heard on a matter that is an agenda
item, we'd ask that you fill out a participation form.
They're located at the back of the room, or should be. If
you don't happen to fill out a participation form and we get
to an agenda item that you wish to be heard on, get my
attention in some manner, and I'll see that you do have that
opportunity. But at this time, if there's any member of the
9-28-09
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
public wishing to be heard on any matter that is not a listed
agenda item, come forward and tell us what's on your mind.
Seeing no one coming forward, we will move forward.
Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, I have a couple of
things. It's been a busy couple of weeks. I know
Commissioner Oehler and I gave a talk with the Farm Bureau;
it went very well, good turnout there. Commissioner Oehler
stole the show like always, but it's all right.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I did not.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Last -- was it last Monday? We
had a joint sort of meeting with GMA-9. It went about as I
thought it would, which was a good exchange. I think they
understood us a little bit more as to what the appeal from
our standpoint was about, and U.G.R.A.'s and Region J's, all
three appeals. And, you know, a lot of the things really
weren't within their purview. Other things were, and they
chose not to really to do anything. It was just kind of a
good discussion, but nothing was resolved. So, we'll proceed
with forwarding the appeals to the Water Development Board
this week. Over the weekend, I met with a group of diverse
citizens out at Cypress Creek Community Center regarding a
road district they want, and it was a very lively discussion
about the road district. And the bottom line was they want
to proceed, so we'll be working on our second road district
9-28-09
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
since I've been a commissioner, the first one being Ingram
Lake Estates. It will be modeled after that, and that will
probably be on our next agenda. And next Wednesday, the 8th,
there's a Region J meeting coming up. Everyone's welcome to
go to Bracketville, and --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Man, I'm in.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Oh, boy.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And --
JUDGE TINLEY: What time's the bus leave?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the meeting's at 10:00,
so it will be a little bit of an early morning.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Maybe we can go down the
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, you have to go all the
way to Del Rio and spend the night.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Del Rio, that's the spot.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Anyway, that's what's going on
in my world the last couple weeks. Bruce?
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Oehler?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, I guess I still need to
mention the Mountain Home Volunteer Fire Department's going
to have their annual -- fourth annual fundraising event,
which is going to be a catfish fry. Which the group that
helps me all the time, and my wife, do this, it'll be a large
9-28-09
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
group of probably around 20 people help put this thing on.
We project to fry probably about 500 pounds of catfish, which
I'm not looking forward to, but that's what we're going to
do. And that's about it for --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: At least it's cool -- cooler.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah, pray for cool weather.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Commissioner.
Commissioner Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. I just wanted to
comment on the GMA meeting, and commend Commissioner Letz for
being there. And how you do that, I don't know. Those
people don't even speak the same language we do, and how they
arrive at their decisions doesn't even make sense to me.
So -- I was there. I was there in the back of the room, and
I watched all my stomach could handle. And on October the
10th, Bruce's party, but that -- early that afternoon,
there's a fundraiser for CAM that we all support, and have
for years, out at Hosanna Lutheran. It will be one of the --
one of the better bands in the area will be there.
JUDGE TINLEY: Who might be that?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They're called Big Band.
I'm not sure who their wonderful bass player is, but he's a
I commissioner over in Precinct 1.
25 I COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Find out.
9-28-09
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And then that evening, we
my opinion, one of the best parties in Kerr County.
Wonderful, perfect, good, excellent catfish, and then all
kinds of stuff and things to win and purchase, et cetera, et
cetera. So, it's a -- that's a fun day. It's October 10,
and I'll see all of you at both of those functions.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It's also in the new fire
station.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: New fire station, that's
right. That's all, sir. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You may have to wait for
your helping of catfish. I had mine Friday at the Texas
Rangers -- retired Texas Rangers -- Former Texas Rangers golf
'~ tournament, which was in conjunction with a big fundraiser,
and I got to eat some of Bruce's catfish, so I can tell you
you're looking forward to a treat, as if you didn't know
that. The Court may have checked their mailboxes and found a
letter that I wrote to Texas Water Development Board asking
for an extension of the grant so that we can finish Sections
B, C, and D. The delay in doing A, in large measure, came
about because the -- the T.W.D.B. questioned a criteria for
mobile home inclusion in certain areas of the service area,
so we had to do a lot of work to overcome that, or to get the
9-28-09
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
answer and propose a criteria that they would accept for
these inclusions. And that -- that is because sometimes in
these mobile home parks, places like that, a mobile home will
be there one night and gone the next night, and who knows
what's coming in behind it?
Anyhow, it took a lot of time to get that done, and
we did it, and we sent the extension request up, and far as I
know, the extension will be granted. At the same time, I
took the opportunity to present them with some preliminary
findings that came out of the colonia study done by
Grantworks for eastern Kerr County with respect to stormwater
and floodwater, thinking that there may be some dollars at
T.W.D.B. for flood control and things of that nature, and
that study certainly indicated the need for some of that.
And if we could do that in conjunction with putting in sewer
pipes at some future date, we'd be ahead of the game. So, we
planted some seeds up there, and we hope to see what will
take place with that. That's it, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Commissioner. I was in
Washington, D.C. week before last with a delegation from --
representing Kerr County, and the delegation consisted of
City Councilmen, City Manager, and City of Kerrville, the
president of Kerr Economic Development Foundation and
Kerrville Area Chamber of Commerce, both the -- the executive
assistant, Brian Bondy, and also the new president of the
9-28-09
1.1
1 chamber and member of the -- strong member of the chamber,
2 KEDF board, Peterson Hospital board, Steve Huser. And the --
3 it was fast and furious. Some of you may have read the
4 account in the newspaper. We made a lot of stops, and I
5 think made some headway. Primary projects we were working on
6 were the U.S.D. -- new research lab for the U.S. Department
7 of Agriculture, agriculture research service facility, the
8 entomology station. As some of you may know, we're working
9 on a program to try and get them a new facility out at
10 Peterson Farm Road near the airport. Overall, it's about a
11 ~ $40 million project.
12 We've been through the feasibility study stage. We
13 got the funding for the design and engineering. We completed
14 that this past fall and winter, and into the spring. Right
15 now we're working on construction funding. Of those, that's
16 the big end of it, and a major chunk of money. We had the
1~ opportunity to see both our congressmen and -- and some
18 others. We had to go across the aisle, since that seems to
19 be who's controlling the money now, and we got a very good
20 reception, I'm -- I'm glad to say. Had a good meeting with
21 Senator Hutchison and her staff. And Senator Cornyn was not
22 available; we did meet with his staff and got another good
23 reception there. Members of the Agriculture Research
24 Service. Overall, I think we had a real good reception, and
25 I think we got some positive feedback, and hopefully we can
9-28-09
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
senatorial delegations issues concerning our Veterans
Administration facility here, and some issues with regard to
that facility to try and get some more activity out there,
upgrade in services and so forth. But, all in all, it was a
fast and furious three days. It started out way before dawn
on Wednesday, and we got back about dark-thirty on Friday.
So, it was -- it was fast and furious, but hopefully we -- we
did some good. Let's get on with our agenda, if we might.
We have a 9 o'clock item, to consider, discuss, and take
appropriate action to approve the master agreement with Texas
Online for e-filing with the courts, and authorize County
Judge to sign the agreement. Ms. Pieper?
MS. PIEPER: Gentlemen, this is basically going to
replace the agreement that we have on file now. It's taking
out Bearing Point as one of the vendors.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Why does it take Bearing
Point out as one of the vendors?
MS. PIEPER: 'Cause they filed bankruptcy and
they're reorganizing, and --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Good reason.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are the economics of this
agreement reasonably the same as the other one?
MS. PIEPER: Yes.
9-28-09
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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
j JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Ms. Pieper, has the County Attorney had an
opportunity to look that the document --
MS. PIEPER: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- and finds it acceptable? Sorry?
MS. PIEPER: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Question or discussion
'I 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 carried. We'll move to
Item 2; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to
approve the agreement with Simplifile for e-recording in the
County Clerk's office and authorize the County Judge to sign
the agreement. Ms. Pieper again.
MS. PIEPER: The e-reporting is for the official
public records that we are fixing to go online with, and so
this is just a basic agreement, again, that we want approved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Nothing changes?
MS. PIEPER: This is a completely new contract.
The other -- the other one was for court records. This is
9-28-09
14
1
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 official public records.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's different about this? I
guess different vendor?
MS. PIEPER: Different vendor.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is it -- I mean --
MS. PIEPER: One --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why are we switching?
MS. PIEPER: Because one vendor only does e-filing,
the other vendor only does e-recording. One only does courts
and the other one only does official public records.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, why are we changing the
public records side? Is this -- this is a different vendor
than we used to use?
MS. PIEPER: We have not ever had the public
records to where --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MS. PIEPER: -- people -- banks and title companies
and stuff could do e-recording.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. This just for the
recording, not -- not the viewing?
MS. PIEPER: Correct, just recording of it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Okay. Do you have a
motion yet?
JUDGE TINLEY: Again, has the County Attorney had
an opportunity to review this contract?
9-28-09
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. PIEPER: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Found it acceptable?
MS. PIEPER: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Very well.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Question or discussion? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry.
MS. PIEPER: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move to Item 3, a presentation
by Mr. Fred Pentz regarding Veterans Service Officer.
Mr. Pentz, thank you for being here today.
MR. PENTZ: I have an extra copy for -- a file
copy, if you need one for the county. Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's okay, we got one.
MR. PENTZ: You got one? Okay. First off, Judge,
I'd like to thank you and the Commissioners for giving me the
time to talk just briefly about the county service officer
project. To give you a little idea of my background, I'm
retired military, retired United States Navy. Please don't
9-28-09
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
hold that against me if you're from the Marine Corps. In
the -- pardon me? In the years since I've been retired, I've
spent a lot of my personal time working on veterans affairs.
I've been a county service officer in the state of New York.
I've also been a veterans services officer for the American
Legion for several years, and I've worked on many veterans'
issues. So, just to give you an idea of my background and
why I -- why I propose this, I actually had some issues with
the existing services here in the county provided by the
Texas Veterans Commission. When I started looking into those
issues along with Mike Lamm from the Texas Veterans
Commission, we found out that the state -- that Kerr County
does not have a county service officer. Now, it's not
mandated that the county have one, because the county's under
200,000 in population. But I want to go over a little bit on
the background of why I think there's still a need for a
veterans service officer.
As you're certainly aware of, our veterans
population in the county is increasing rapidly. The current
existing counselors, whether they be from veterans groups
offering assistance, Texas Veterans Commission, or other
organizations, really don't do any kind of outreach
activities at all. You'll notice there's a dearth of press
releases, newspaper articles concerning veterans affairs.
There's no real veterans' newsletter in the area, and there's
9-28-09
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
really not a lot of outreach to homeless veterans, which we
do have in the county, in case people didn't know that.
We're all aware of the large background in the existing
system of the veterans -- Veterans Administration.
There are several resources available to veterans
in the county, including the Texas benefits -- Texas Veterans
Commission, T.V.C. counselor at the V.A. Hospital. However,
he handles primarily just medical claims; he doesn't handle
any other issues. There's also an appointment counselor from
the T.V.C. over at the Workforce office. In fact, they're
getting their new counselor today reporting in to replace
Mike Lamm. There's also a Vietnam veterans volunteer at the
V.A. Hospital that does some counseling and paperwork, and
then there's service officers at the various veterans'
organizations, such as the American Legion and VFW. However,
none of those people really coordinate any kind of their
activities. They all have their own little pockets of
interest, and they don't really speak to each other too much,
other than the service officers from the veterans'
organizations.
Next page of the presentation talks a little bit
about why there's a backlog. The current veterans population
of Kerr County is estimated at approximately 7,000 in the
latest census. That will change, obviously, this year, and
it's going to go up, I think, quite strongly, because there's
9-28-09
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
obviously been a big influx of people into the community,
both retirees and just people moving here because it's such a
desirable place to live. That's why I moved here. One of
the reasons I moved here was because of the V.A. Hospital
being here, and the other was because of the services
available and the atmosphere of the community, which I
absolutely love. And I've lived here for over three years,
and I certainly haven't seen everything that Kerr County has
to offer, but I'm proud to be here, and I don't intend to
i move .
The current delay in processing Veterans
Administration claims is anywhere from 12 to 18 months.
Obviously, that doesn't have anything to do with the local
organizations. The difficulty comes from -- processing
claims comes from identifying, finding records, getting
somebody in the system that can find the records. A lot of
our older veterans don't have their written records any more,
so there's a built-in delay just in trying to get them into
the system. Obviously, our memory fades with age, but our
medical problems increase, or they become very burdensome.
We have a lot of veterans in our local nursing homes who
really don't get a lot of services from the veterans
assistance programs. The T.V.C. counselor at the Veterans
Hospital has responsibility for over 20 counties. He does
not deal with just Kerr County, nor does he keep track of
9-28-09
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
whether veterans are coming here from Kerr County, as opposed
to Kimble County, Gillespie County, Bandera County, et
cetera, et cetera, et cetera. He doesn't see that's really
in his mandate, that he needs to keep track of whether
veterans come from a certain county. He's more -- more
focused on processing paperwork and getting it up to
~ Washington.
The current counselors, no matter who they are,
don't spend a lot of time on outreach activities, which in my
background has been a very strong way of reaching out to the
veterans community. We don't reach out much to nursing
homes, and we don't really have an effective publicity
program that will publicize changes that affect the veterans
communities, such as the recent changes in the homestead
exemption law and the appraisals for disabled veterans. Many
of the veterans that I've had a chance to talk to, and I live
in a retirement park here in town, are not aware that the
homestead exemption changed and that their property exemption
changed, and I've got several veterans in the park that I'm
looking for to try to get their exemptions. But there needs
to be some kind of organized program to reach out to those
people so they know about those exemptions. I know that
in -- in Fredericksburg, the county service officer up there
is having problems with their county organization in terms of
getting that paperwork processed at a county level. We're
9-28-09
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
Next, I kind of analyzed what I think the future
population trends might be in Kerr County, depending on some
things that are in the works. Obviously, we've all talked
about traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress
disease. These things are getting worse and worse based upon
the kind of wars that we're -- that we're involved in, so
we're seeing more and more people come home with those kind
of injuries, which we've never really faced at all in the
past. If the Kerrville V.A. Hospital is selected to be the
location for the V.A. follow-on care program, which it's
under consideration, there will be a large influx of wounded
warriors coming into Kerr County on both a short-term and a
long-term basis. And if Kerrville is selected as the
location for the homeless veterans project, which I
understand we're still in the running to be selected for,
there will be additional veterans identified needing
assistance that are not currently registered in the system,
and they'll provide a unique challenge, as they're not
currently serviced effectively.
I've spoken to Amy Blanks, who is the social
service director for the Salvation Army here in town, and
they run the only -- really, the only transient and homeless
shelter here in town at the current time, and they don't have
an effective program of identifying how many veterans come
9-28-09
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
through their program. I know of at least two veterans that
are in their program right now that haven't even received any
~ services from Veterans Administration, and I'm personally
working with them to try to get their paperwork instituted so
they can get some kind of assistance. We really don't have
that. If we get the homeless project here, there's going to
be even more people that have those similar problems.
Homeless veterans are -- and I helped organize, two years in
a row, a homeless veterans' stand-down in the Tulsa, Oklahoma
area. Homeless veterans provide a very unique problem that's
not really covered by Veterans Administration assistance, in
that their problems are physical problems of immediate need.
They need dental care. They need immediate health care
issues. They need clothing. They need a lot of issues that
the current services just aren't there for.
So, there's another future project in the area that
may draw wounded -- wounded warriors into the system. The
Reverend Dave Roever, who established the wounded warrior
rehabilitation ranch, called the Eagle Warrior Ranch in
Colorado, has already purchased property; not in Kerr County,
I don't believe, but close to Kerr County, with the intention
of developing a similar ranch in the area where they would
bring wounded veterans and wounded soldiers into the area to
help provide services. And that provides another opportunity
for a county service officer to have a program that he could
9-28-09
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
help people in the area. So -- and that's a very, very --
very unique program that he runs in Colorado. The general
goals of establishing a county service officer would be to
improve the effectiveness and overall service of the
veterans' community by providing an additional counselor to
concentrate specifically on Kerr County residents only. He
would be the primary focal point and coordinating person for
future benefits seminars and job fairs, instead of having
various agencies just do -- on their own, doing job fairs or
benefits counseling or stand-downs or whatever, to have
somebody that could coordinate those activities to insure
that there's not a duplication and that there's a more
effective outreach.
The detailed functions. Texas is unique, and I
know that you're possibly all aware, the Texas Veterans
Commission is mandated as the primary veterans assistance
program in the state of Texas. Now, that's unique to Texas.
Most states don't have that. Most states' veterans services
fall under the Department of Labor, but in Texas, it falls
under the Texas Veterans Commission. Therefore, the county
service officer would only handle Kerr County residents, and
would not be the primary medical benefits counselor, 'cause
the Texas Veterans Commission counselor at the V.A. Hospital
still would be mandated to do those functions. But the
county service officer would be the main point of contact for
9-28-09
23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
local media via press releases, newspaper articles,
television interviews, publishing a regular newsletter for
area veterans, and would also be responsible for data
collection and reports to y'all, each of the County
Commissioners, on the effectiveness of the programs as they
relate to Kerr County residents, as opposed to just having an
overall number of how many people are handled at the V.A.
Hospital.
I think it would be a good thing for the county to
know how many residents in the county are actually being
serviced by local agencies, and then the county service
officer would act as a liaison from the county commission to
all the veterans' service organizations here in town; would
also maintain a strong relationship with all the county and
local service agencies, such as the Salvation Army, the
Christian Area Ministry, other social services agencies that
may be providing services to veterans that are not being
captured in any kind of a data collection right now, and
could follow up on any problems that are identified where a
veteran says he's not getting the services that he thinks he
deserves from the county, and there would be somebody that
could act as a veterans' advocate to county service agencies.
We still maintain a strong relationship with the V.A.
Hospital, visiting veterans at the hospital and having
25 ~ regular outreach programs to the local nursing homes,
9-28-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
24
homeless shelter run by Salvation Army, and other functions.
Most of those functions that I just went over --
most of those functions, the great majority, are not covered
by anybody local. Benefits to the program would be obvious.
We can find homeless veterans and take them out of the
system. They'd come directly off the county indigent care --
medical care program, so that's a dollar benefit to you as a
county organization. In addition, we can find veterans that
are not in the system and get them into the system. The
average veterans' pension can be as much as -- a disability
can be as much as $1,000 to $1,500 a month, which is
increased purchasing power. So, the -- the issue that you
would have to decide as a commission would be, do you want to
fund the program? And then the initial funding of the
program and follow-on funding. The training for the program,
if you decide to have a county service officer, is funded and
mandated by the state of Texas to be provided for and paid
for by the Texas Veterans Commission, so there would be no
additional cost to the county. And I've kind of outlined
what all the additional costs would be in the proposal, but I
don't want to take up any more time.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Pentz, obviously, the thing that
would be a concern to the Court here would be what would
our -- what would the obligations on Kerr County be on an
initial and ongoing basis? And you've indicated what the
9-28-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
25
items are. I think probably what -- before we can give it
any meaningful consideration, what we'd really like to see
from you are some hard-dollar estimates of --
MR. PENTZ: Sure.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- what those costs would be. As
you may or may not know, we are in the final throes of
completing our budget for -- for the coming fiscal year. The
likelihood that we'd be able to do anything at this late date
for the coming year is very questionable, but it's something
that we might desire to take a look at plugging in on a later
date. But we need to know what those hard-dollar costs would
I be .
MR. PENTZ: Sure, I can do that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do you think you might be able to
put something together in that respect and furnish it to us?
MR. PENTZ: Yes, sir. I can have that in a couple
~ weeks to you.
JUDGE TINLEY: I would appreciate that, and I know
the members of the Court would too.
MR. PENTZ: Yeah. I was out of town a lot for the
last -- since I talked to you -- since Mike Lamm and I talked
to you to originally come up with the idea of this, I was out
of town to -- to a retreat, a religious retreat, and so I
didn't have a lot of time to go through the -- go through
town to get some numbers, and I had intended to do that. So,
9-28-09
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: In order to be able to take a
serious look at it, we'd have to have that information.
MR. PENTZ: Sure.
at finalizing everything for coming fiscal year today, --
MR. PENTZ: Yeah, I understand that.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- in all probability.
MR. PENTZ: I knew that up front when we talked.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You have touched on what
appears to be a real need, and the information you've
presented was very enlightening.
MR. PENTZ: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And I concur with what the
Judge said. If you can get us information -- information
that will enable us to have a serious look at it from a
fiscal perspective for the next budget year, that will be
helpful.
MR. PENTZ: Thank you, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mr. Pentz?
MR. PENTZ: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: A number of months ago, it
9-28-09
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
MR. PENTZ: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- talking about the 5 acres
out there and building facility, et cetera. And the Court
had asked me to see if I couldn't get someone from the V.A.
to come here to visit with the Commissioners Court -- and
i
when you visit with Commissioners Court, you're visiting with
the citizens of Kerr County -- and to kind of give us an
outline on what the plan was, how those things work. And,
you know, what my interest was, is -- is this going to be --
is this -- will this affect our budget in some way? Is
indigent health care involved in this thing? Who's going to
give them health care? And are there family members involved
in it? Is there housing issues? So, will it be a -- will it
be a cost to the taxpayers of Kerr County? And the V.A. has
decided not to come here and explain anything to us, so I've
got a little negative here going on.
MR. PENTZ: Well, I've had some negatives with the
V.A. too, but I try not to talk about those. (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And in here, you say Texas
is unique in having a mandated statute. Well, who -- who
mandates that? The State?
MR. PENTZ: Yes, sir, that's actually mandated in
9-28-09
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
in grant money to U.S. Department of Labor because they
hadn't been able to find enough counselors in the state of
Texas to run what's called the Disabled Veterans Outreach
Program. The Texas Veterans Commission went to the state and
said, "Wait a minute, wait a minute. Give us this program
and we'll run it." So, Texas -- actually, the state
~I legislators of Texas actually mandated the Texas Veterans
Commission to be the representative of the state of Texas for
veterans programs, and that money that's funneled to Texas
from the -- from the Veterans Administration and from U.S.
Department of Labor goes to the Texas Veterans Commission to
run Veterans Commission programs, and that's different from
any other state in the union. There's no other state in the
union that does it that way.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, if they do that, why
don't y'all do -- why are you in here asking us to do it,
then?
MR. PENTZ: Well, because I -- I believe that a lot
of the things that I put in my presentation, the Texas
Veterans Commission doesn't do.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MR. PENTZ: The Texas Veterans Commission counselor
at the V.A. Hospital, I'm not sure that anybody knows who he
is. But I can tell you that there's a lot of veterans out
here in Kerr County that don't know who he is and that
9-28-09
29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
haven't talked to him, or have gone out there when he's had
the door closed, and they've walked away, because he doesn't
do things by appointment, and because he doesn't place any
preference on Kerr County. And because there's nobody that
can advocate to the T.V.C. counselor at the V.A. Hospital,
they fall into a gap where they don't know what to do, and
that's what I'm proposing, is that as a representative of the
commission and as a representative of Kerr County, we could
-- the Texas service officer could fulfill that function as a
veterans' advocate for our county veterans.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mr. Pentz?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there a possibility, in your
opinion, of going to -- I mean, basically, to do partial
funding, possibly from the county, and eliminate that
position that's funded out at the state organization level?
It seems like -- I mean, it seems like the problem is that
they're -- they're funding a position; the position isn't
functioning very well, and if we were to -- is there a
possibility of going there and revamping how they're doing it
in Kerr County?
MR. PENTZ: I would say, based on my conversations
with the counselor at the V.A. Hospital, that's not a very
likely thing that the Texas Veterans Commission would be
looking to do. I only say that because he may be unique to
9-28-09
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
this part of Texas. I've talked to T.V.C. counselors in
other parts of the state who don't have the same outlook
towards county functions, if you will. And -- but he had a
rather negative attitude towards county functions -- county
residents.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Baldwin, with respect
to the lack of information on what's known as the homeless
housing initiative, one of the items we addressed to
congressional and senatorial delegations was we didn't have
that information, and we wanted it. And we're hopeful of
receiving it through the Secretary of General Affairs'
office, and hopefully we can get it that way. And I agree,
'~ it's a major negative. The fact that they don't openly want
to -- seem to want to talk about it a whole lot makes us
rather suspect, and it's a concern.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. And, of course, we
all -- I mean, we all want to participate with the veterans.
JUDGE TINLEY: We want to help our veterans.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We want to help our
veterans, but we need to know --
JUDGE TINLEY: Sure.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- how they expect us to
help them. And if it was a budgetary issue, too late.
', COMMISSIONER LETZ: Going back on the -- was it
25 1 Texas Veterans Commission?
9-28-09
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
MR. PENTZ: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How is that organization -- I
mean, who is that organization? Is it a state organization?
MR. PENTZ: It's a state organization. It's run
by -- Jim Niers is the Commissioner of the Texas Veterans
Commission. Their main office is headquartered out of
Austin, and they are statewide, and they are a direct
function of the state government. They report directly to
the state Legislature.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are they -- are they
gubernatorial appointees? The reason I'm going down this --
JUDGE TINLEY: You know what? I don't know the
answer to that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It seems -- going back, it
seems to me there's a framework that needs to be improved
upon, and it's -- and we certainly have legislators that
represent us and others, and if it's a -- if the problem's
with that commission and their direction that they're going,
that ought to be part of the solution, in my mind.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The Texas statute that you
referred to that requires this type of a counselor, it's
based on the size of the county?
MR. PENTZ: Yeah, that's correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: About 200,000?
9-28-09
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
MR. PENTZ: 200,000. If your county is 200,000 in
population or more, you are required to have a county
veterans service officer.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Anything less is not
required?
MR. PENTZ: Anything less, it's a -- it's at the
desire of the County Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In those situations where
it is mandated by Texas statute, is funding provided?
MR. PENTZ: By the county.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, by the county, but not
~ by the state?
MR. PENTZ: But the training -- the training
function is provided by the -- by the Texas Veterans
Commission, so there's kind of a split funding. The Texas
Veterans Commission is mandated to provide initial and
continuing training for county service officers.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: But the funding of the positions is
a county function.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any more questions for Mr. Pentz?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I do have one more.
Mr. Pentz, have you met with the local council, with General
Schellhase and that group?
9-28-09
33
1
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. PENTZ: I've had the opportunity to meet his
wife at the Salvation Army thrift store.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, good for you.
MR. PENTZ: But, no, I don't believe I -- I really
haven't. I just haven't had that opportunity.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That may be step one. Thank
you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. We appreciate it.
MR. PENTZ: Thank you, Judge. Thank you,
Commissioners.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move to Item 7; consider,
discuss, take appropriate action on FY 2009-10 budgets and
fiscal capital expenditure and personnel matters related
thereto for various county departments. I'm going to be
jumping around here a little bit, because we've got a certain
sequence we need to take some of these things in, and before
we adopt the tax rate, we need to adopt the budget ahead of
that, so I'm going to be bouncing around a little bit. But
Item 7 is what's before us now. I have one item that came in
belatedly dealing with Alamo R.C.& D. that apparently got
omitted from the budget under County-sponsored. There should
have been $1,000. I don't think it got in there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It did not. I don't
believe it did, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: As I recall, that's one that we
9-28-09
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
just -- within the last six months, when Joe Ramos was here,
I think there was a $14,000 --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Within the last six weeks.
JUDGE TINLEY: Six weeks? Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We just got 14,000 from
them, and I think there have been several occasions where
Kerr County has been awarded grants from these folks in
significant sums, the highest being something like 35,000 at
one time.
JUDGE TINLEY: And, apparently -- I apologize for
that oversight. I did not get that in there. That's $1,000,
Alamo R.C.& D.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, is that the
~ membership dues? Or is that --
JUDGE TINLEY: No. No. No, that's --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that participation?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's participation, Kerr
~ County.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No dues.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What -- are we opening the
table up for those kind of issues?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, it's wide open.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Did -- did we settle on the
problem of volunteer fire departments asking for help and
9-28-09
35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
people bringing in bulldozers and us being able to help them
with funds, et cetera?
MS. HARGIS: I believe we put extra funds in there
in the amount of $30,000.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think that's right. That's
I what I remember.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Just for the case that -- you
know, in case that does happen and they have to be called in,
they have to be called by the Sheriff to receive
compensation.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. And do we have any
guidelines on -- I mean, do we -- do we pay them for their
beer? Or just their tires or just fuel, or what?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think it's fuel and time
and manpower. Not liquids.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Might not be a bad idea to
make that decision, though.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: At some point.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think you and the Sheriff
ought to come up with that policy.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: One of us and the Sheriff,
I at least.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You mean you don't want to do
9-28-09
36
1 it?
2
3
4
5
6 Bil
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Maybe the Judge will do it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Don't increase my bailiwick.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Who is that? Is that you,
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're kicking that can all
around here.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I know. It's not mine.
~! Somebody needs to step up to the plate.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Most of those are out west
that we have to deal with.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Field's wide-open.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: No.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That was the only one I
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, I have one. I have
one. I think there's been some new information that's come
to light that, for some reason, we've never had before, and
-- and it only -- the Judge and I attended a public hearing
upstairs last week with Keith Williams regarding the proposed
salary increases for their department people. And -- and
from what I've been able to find out, they have the authority
to set those salaries, compensation for their court reporters
9-28-09
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
and the County Auditor, and the County Auditor's salary could
not be increased more than 5 percent without Commissioners
Court approval. Which that didn't happen, so it wasn't
signed, what we requested on the Auditor. The compensation
for the -- his court coordinate -- not coordinator, the court
reporter, was set at 5 percent increase, and he has the
authority to go up to 10 without Commissioners Court
approval.
However, he -- it was found out that he does not
have the authority to set compensation for the court
coordinator, and I have the law here. It's Section 74.104,
Compensation. And I'll just read it, make it part of the
record. "The judges shall determine reasonable compensation
for the court coordinator, subject to the approval of
commissioners court. Upon approval by commissioners court of
the position and compensation, commissioners court of the
county shall provide the necessary funding for the county's
budget process. County funds may be supplemented in whole or
part through public or private grants." And so that tells me
that we have the authority to set the court coordinator's
compensation. And what was proposed by -- by the Judge was
an 8 percent increase in compensation for the court
coordinator. I suggest that -- and by Court Order Number
31446, we opposed the funding of anything over what was
approved by the Court for the raises for all other county
9-28-09
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
employees, elected officials, and department heads, which was
one and a half percent starting in April. So, I suggest that
we -- we amend the court coordinator's salary to reflect the
old salary with the same compensation as all the other county
employees, starting in April with a 1.5 increase.
JUDGE TINLEY: With respect to the other employees
that fall under the District Judges' budget, would those also
be part of the regular county budget process? Mr. Emerson?
MR. EMERSON: It's my understanding, Your Honor.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I would recommend that that
be part of the -- part of what I'm saying that we should do,
is make them -- tie them to everybody else. That's all
other employees, to be fair. I think it's the fair thing to
do. I guess that's why the law is there like it is.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Only exemption, by your
reading of the law, Commissioner, is court reporter?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Court reporter and --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And auditor.
JUDGE TINLEY: Auditor.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Auditor and court reporter is
the only ones that they actually have the authority to set
compensation, and they give parameters and limits for that,
which that was not exceeded in his -- his order that he
signed on Thursday, I believe it was.
9-28-09
39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Did -- I want to ask you
again; I misunderstood you, I think. Did you say that they
actually gave one to the Auditor?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yes, they gave the 1.5 that
I we --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 1.5?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And she was --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that over and above what
I we did?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: No. That was --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's the same one?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Same one.
JUDGE TINLEY: The Auditor requested from the judge
exactly what Kerr County employees got.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And that's honorable.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I commend her for that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I commend her for that.
That's good. What about the court reporters?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Court reporter got 5 percent.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 5 percent.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: But they can give them up to
10 without Commissioners Court approval.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Does that 5 include what we
had given? Or -- it's over and above?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Just 5 percent, I believe,
9-28-09
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
MS. HARGIS: No, I did not include anything extra.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Not above. Strictly
5 percent, the way I understood it. That's my
recommendation.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This doesn't resolve anything
about the court reporter issues that Commissioner Baldwin
brings up about them getting paid and then repaid to do more.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I brought that up at the
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- problems than it fixes,
so I'm going to shut up for a few years. But I'll be back.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: But, anyway, that's -- I know
I will be in there with you, because I think it's unfair.
But that's --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree with you, Commissioner.
I appreciate you going and the Judge going to the hearing.
And I think that --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: If you're a Kerr County
employee, you're a Kerr County employee. You should be
treated the same.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's right. That's what
to do. I'm not trying to hurt anybody or go out
9-28-09
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
for anybody personally. This is business. This is what
', we're supposed to do.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner, as I'm sure you
recall, because you made the motion to oppose any increases
in excess of that which were granted to Kerr County employees
only, there was a -- a motion that passed this Court to that
effect, and it occurs to me that with that motion approved
and in place, now that we know what the law is, that is where
i we are.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's the way I see it, and
especially if you agree with that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, there's the man that --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Rex, do you agree with what
we're saying here?
(Mr. Emerson nodded.)
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good with me.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's all it is.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think the budget needs to be
adjusted accordingly, then, for all of the District Court
personnel that we have authority over.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I agree.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any more items with regard to
I Item 7?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just a quick question.
Ms. Hargis?
9-28-09
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
MS. HARGIS: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What is the amount in
professional services for either the Commissioners Court
and/or nondepartmental that is not allocated to specific
purposes like the auditor, or -- I mean, like the outside
auditor, things of that nature?
MS. HARGIS: I think we put 25,000 this year in
there for that, is all. Everything else is allocated.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Now, does that -- does that
include surveying?
JUDGE TINLEY: That would.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Outside engineer.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Lawyers and that kind of
~ thing.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Professional services.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It includes the lawsuits that
the Sheriff gets us into? (Laughter.)
MS. HARGIS: No.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, there's a deductible
that comes out of those lawsuits.
MS. HARGIS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Does that come out of that line
I item?
MS. HARGIS: It's been coming out of his budget.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, that's better.
9-28-09
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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's where it belongs.
MS. HARGIS: We haven't had it. So --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, you're -- I don't know
where it could come out of my budget, and we do have two
pending that there will be bills submitted after October 1,
okay? And I don't have either one of those deductibles in my
budget. Never have. They've always come out of professional
', services.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And -- I mean, and that's a --
that is a little jab to the Sheriff. He's done an excellent
job of keeping us out of lawsuits. I believe there's a
$10,000 deductible.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: $10,000 a piece. Now, these
two I don't have any problem with, but there will be some,
and this won't be that amount.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the reason I'm bringing
this up, just for the Court, there's a couple other items
that are not big-ticket items, but I think there will be a
little bit. And I'll know more after our meeting with
U.G.R.A. today. The appeal going on to the GMA-9 process,
Ray and I have talked. It's felt that it's probably going to
be wise to have a geologic or a modeling person hired to do a
little bit of the -- to be able to speak intelligently once
this thing gets to Austin. They -- and also, they think
there's a need for an attorney also. I don't see a need for
9-28-09
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
an attorney in this appeal, but I there think there will be a
little bit there. And the other thing, we have had some
budgeted or earmarked for some water issues, and I think with
the Legislature coming on with what it is, I think that's
going to be important to have some. I think we have 35,000
there earmarked for --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think so.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- for water attorney-type
stuff.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just want to make sure that
we're covered on the professional services side, because I --
I see those two. And, I mean, 5,000 should be enough for
both of those, in my mind.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, the 35,000 was
intended originally for water attorney advice in terms of the
negotiation you and I are going to start.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But not the other -- second
issue that you raised.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. I think there's
probably enough there. I just want to make -- 20,000 may
seem a little bit light on that item.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What is this expert witness
type guy? Who -- what kind of person is that?
9-28-09
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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not -- it's a John Ashworth
type person, but probably not John Ashworth, because he's
representing Region J. I think he gets into a conflict a
little bit there. But the person Ray has found, I'm not
so -- so positive we need this person. I think it's very
limited, but I think the use -- and I think we'll probably be
able to share it. I'll bring that at the next Commissioners
Court meeting to kind of go over.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We budget for it and they
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They'll pay part of it. Region
J may part pay of it; it will be on that agenda, too. So,
they've come up with a guy with LBG Guyton who's the head of
the Austin office, a modeling expert. One of our -- the
appeal talked about modeling a lot. That's one of the big
problems, and I think it would have more weight when it gets
to their board especially, depending on what the Water
Development Board does. Of course, if we're going to
challenge that their model shouldn't be used for this, then
we probably ought to have somebody that knows what they're
talking about other than me.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can you take him on a deer
hunt down at your place or something?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We don't have any deer.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see. (Laughter.)
9-28-09
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
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Available deer, anyway.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, okay. The price just
went up. I see.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, anyway, I think it's a
pretty nominal amount. I'm talking about $1,000 or $2,000
total maximum at the outside. There's probably enough there.
I just want to make sure that this other water issue -- I
think it will be a little bit more significant on both the
G.B.R.A. discussions and also the east Kerr County
discussions on water availability and, you know, what water
rights could be acquired.
MS. HARGIS: We also raised contingency this year.
We used 50,000 last year; I put it to 65,000 this year, so --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
and in nondepartmental.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, that's -- that's plenty,
then. Those two are enough.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No change needed.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any more items with regard to Agenda
Item 7? Ms. Hargis, with regard to Road and Bridge
equipment, the -- the resolution that we're going to be
dealing with doesn't talk about specific items of equipment,
9-28-09
47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. HARGIS: We don't want to spell it down. We do
have a list that we're going by, but we're not -- you know,
not held to that list.
JUDGE TINLEY: As long as it fits within the
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. All right, thank you. Is
that it as to Item 7?
MS. HARGIS: That's it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do you have any more items that you
', MS. HARGIS: Well, I just -- and it's going back to
this gentleman on the V.A. And it's just a personal thing
with me, but my mother was a World War II veteran, and we had
a lot of problems -- she had a brain tumor. We had a lot of
trouble in the Veterans Administration, and we had an
advocate that was hired by Montgomery County, and he actually
took her to the hospital and drove her to Houston, and was
instrumental in a lot of help. So, just my two cents worth.
!~ JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, thank you. We've got a 9:45
timed item. At this time, I will recess the Commissioners
Court, and I will convene a public hearing on the proposed
9-28-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
48
salary increases, expenses, and allowances for elected
officials of Kerr County, Texas for FY 2009-10.
(The regular Commissioners Court meeting was closed
at 9:54 a.m., and a public hearing was held in open
court, as follows:)
P U B L I C H E A R I N G
JUDGE TINLEY: Is there any member of the public
that wishes to be heard with respect to the proposed salary
increases, expenses, and allowances for elected officials of
Kerr County, Texas for FY 2009-10? Seeing no one coming
i
forward, I will close the public hearing on the proposed
salary increases, expenses, and allowances for elected
officials of Kerr County, Texas for FY 2009-10.
(The public hearing was concluded at 9:54 a.m.,
and the regular Commissioners Court meeting was
reopened.)
JUDGE TINLEY: And we will go to Item 24. That
agenda item is to consider, discuss, and take appropriate
action to adopt the proposed salary increases, expenses, and
allowances for elected officials of Kerr County, Texas, in
accordance with the public notice as published in the
Kerrville Daily Times.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of that agenda item. Question or discussion? All
9-28-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
49
__
in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(Commissioners Baldwin, Williams, and Letz voted in
favor of the motion.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(Commissioner Oehler voted against the motion.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Let's go to
Item 4; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on
order expressing intent to reimburse with tax-exempt
obligation proceeds for costs associated with constructing or
acquiring various capital assets and improvements within the
county. Ms. Hargis again. We previously passed a
resolution, and there have been some additions to that.
MS. HARGIS: Yes. So, this is just a revision.
JUDGE TINLEY: We've increased it to the amount as
shown on the projects and capital items list which you
furnished to members of the Court, with a resolution capped
at --
MS. HARGIS: 4.9.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- 4.9 million.
MS. HARGIS: The reason being, if there was
anything else that needed to come up, we wouldn't have to go
back to this resolution.
JUDGE TINLEY: That includes cost of issuance also?
MS. HARGIS: That includes cost of issuance. And I
would not advise you to go over that, because, again, if we
9-28-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
50
go to 5 million, we're in the arbitrage, so we need to keep
it under 4.9. But this is just in case something else does
come up that we -- that we need extra money for, a grant or
something before we go with this issue.
JUDGE TINLEY: This is a cap; it's not a
requirement.
MS. HARGIS: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This is for two years --
budget years, correct?
MS. HARGIS: Supposed to be for two budget years,
most of the items.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This particular item?
MS. HARGIS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's the current amount?
MS. HARGIS: The current amount we put in there was
4.1. We've already gone over that; we're at 4.7.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would move adoption of an
order expressing intent to reimburse with tax-exempt
obligation proceeds for costs associated with constructing or
acquiring various capital assets and improvements within Kerr
County.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. I assume
that's capped at 4.9?
9-28-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
51
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Question or discussion on that
motion? All in favor of that motion, signify by raising your
right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Let's go to
Item 6; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to
approve new copier contract for County Judge and
Commissioners. Ms. Grinstead was working on that item. The
contracts were submitted to the County Attorney for review
and approval. There are two contracts under consideration.
In my last conversation with Ms. Grinstead, who is on
vacation this week, she prefers the Ikon contract. It's
actually a little bit less after some -- some arm-twisting
and whatnot, and it's also the contract I think that the
County Attorney, upon review, thought was the most
appropriate, after a couple of modifications. Is that
correct?
MR. EMERSON: That's correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, there would have to be a couple
of minor modifications, as there are with most of our
contracts, and -- but it would be subject to the County
Attorney's approval.
9-28-09
52
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which one are we --
JUDGE TINLEY: The Ikon.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The Ikon, okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We need a motion on that?
JUDGE TINLEY: I just jumped right in the middle of
JUDGE TINLEY: I see.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You make the motion now.
JUDGE TINLEY: I was waiting on you for that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I thought it was kind of --
what was interesting is, she didn't mean to get into this
bidding war, but Jody just kept dealing with these people,
and they got into a bidding war, and it just came down, came
down. One of the guys called me the other day and said to
me, "I'm thinking about purchasing a new vehicle. Can I
borrow Jody when it comes that time?" (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good idea.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You know, there's another
part of this thing, and one of the criteria that I would use,
and that is the folks that we deal with presently, that we
have been dealing with for years and have -- have had
excellent service from, I just think that that's a big, huge
part of it, even though they are a little bit higher.
JUDGE TINLEY: Not any more.
9-28-09
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
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. Oh, that's right.
That's right, they came down. So --
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. She beat up on them pretty
good, I think.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. It got really funny
there at the end. So, I move that we accept the proposal
from --
JUDGE TINLEY: Ikon.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- Ikon.
JUDGE TINLEY: Subject to the wrinkles being worked
out with the County Attorney?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I thought we'd done that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, we got to clear them with the
vendor, but I don't see that as a problem.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Subject to the County
Attorney's approval, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
indicated. Question or discussion? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. At this
time, I will recess the Commissioners Court meeting, and I
9-28-09
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
will convene a public hearing under Item 11, the public
hearing on the fiscal year 2009-10 Kerr County budget.
(The regular Commissioners Court meeting was closed
at 10:01 a.m., and a public hearing was held in
open court, as follows:)
P U B L I C H E A R I N G
JUDGE TINLEY: Is there any member of the public
that wishes to be heard with respect to the 2009-10 fiscal
year Kerr County budget? Seeing no one coming forward, I
will close the public hearing on the FY 2009-10 Kerr County
~ budget.
(The public hearing was concluded at 10:01 a.m.,
and the regular Commissioners Court meeting was
reopened.)
JUDGE TINLEY: And I will reconvene the
Commissioners Court meeting and go to Item 25; to consider,
discuss, and take appropriate action to adopt the fiscal year
2009-10 Kerr County budget.
MS. HARGIS: I think you all have the final copies.
I have the two revisions of the $1,000 and of the lowering of
the salaries. Is there anything else?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move we approve the budget as
modified today.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the proposed FY 2009-10 Kerr County budget, with
9-28-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
55
the adjustments as just discussed. Question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: First, can you give us -- do
you have handy a total expenditure?
MS. HARGIS: Yes. Sorry, we didn't pass out all
the books. The total expenditures on the general fund is
21,989,453, Road and Bridge 2,869,042, and in the
miscellaneous funds, 361,128, for a total of 25 thousand --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Million.
MS. HARGIS: Excuse me, 25,219,623.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 623?
MS. HARGIS: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you.
MS. HARGIS: You will all be receiving your books
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right.
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.)
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I oppose because there are
salary increases in there that aren't justified.
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Okay, let's
9-28-09
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
go to our next 10 o'clock timed item; to consider, discuss,
and take appropriate action to adopt the 2009 Kerr County tax
rate, including maintenance and operation, interest and
sinking funds, or debt, and lateral roads tax rates.
Gentlemen, there's going to be a number of motions required
with respect to this. According to Ms. Bolin, who has
provided that information to me, there are a total of -- one,
two, three, four record votes to be cast on the following
motions; a motion to adopt the maintenance and operation tax
rate of 35.92 cents per $100.
MS. BOLIN: No, sir, .3592.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, that's 35.92 cents per $100
MS. BOLIN: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: For the 2009 tax year. I guess,
stated in tax rates, at .3592.
MS. BOLIN: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do I hear a motion to adopt the
maintenance and operation tax rate of .3592 for the 2009 tax
year?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and a second.
Question or discussion on that particular motion?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: The only thing I will say is
9-28-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
57
that I will probably vote for this, because it would not have
any effect on -- the tax rate would remain the same even
without the increases in salary, or with the salary
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other question or discussion on
that motion? We'll take a record vote. Commissioner
Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Aye.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Aye.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Aye.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Oehler?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Aye.
I JUDGE TINLEY: And the chair votes in the
affirmative. Do I hear a motion to adopt the interest and
sinking or debt rate of .0379 for the 2009 tax year?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Question
or discussion on that motion? Again, gentlemen, record vote.
Commissioner Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Aye.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Aye.
9-28-09
58
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Aye.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Letz -- or Oehler?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, he gets two votes down
there in Comfort now. (Laughter.) I see how this works.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's how they do it on the
east end.
JUDGE TINLEY: And the chair votes in the
affirmative, and that motion also passes. Do I hear a motion
to adopt the lateral roads tax rate of .0322 for the 2009 tax
year?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Any
question or discussion on that motion? All in favor of the
motion? We'll take a record vote. Commissioner Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Aye.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Aye.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Aye.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Oehler?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Aye.
JUDGE TINLEY: I started to give you two this time,
9-28-09
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
the combined total tax rate for Kerr County of .4293 for the
2009 tax year, which is a total of the M & 0 at .3592,
interest and sinking at .0379, and lateral roads, which is
.03 -- .0322, and which is a tax rate which will raise more
taxes for maintenance and operation than last year's rate?
Commissioner Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: May I ask a question?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It raises more revenue than
last year's rate; however, it is the same rate that it was
last year. There's not a tax increase in this.
JUDGE TINLEY: Not a tax rate increase, no, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: It's very similar to this
transparency, when we had the gentleman come before us at a
public hearing. We're required to disclose if we will be
getting more tax money than we got last year.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: And if you're getting a dollar more
tax money, you must so state. Commissioner, I would submit
to you, if we're not having growth and increasing our tax
increase by dollars, we've got a serious problem
', economically.
9-28-09
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
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: But that's the way we're required to
disclose it under state law.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: So --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think it's important,
Judge, that we just point out that -- that the motion that's
before the Court right now raises property taxes in last
year's budget by $179,879, which equates to a 1 percent
increase, and of that amount, $74,127 is tax revenue to be
raised from new property added to the tax rolls.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Excellent.
JUDGE TINLEY: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there -- is there a motion
on this one?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm -- yes, there is.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: There is a motion and a second.
THE CLERK: On the combined total, we do not have a
motion.
JUDGE TINLEY: We don't? So that --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Further
9-28-09
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
61
go by record vote again. Commissioner Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Aye.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Aye.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Aye.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Oehler?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Aye.
JUDGE TINLEY: Chair votes in the affirmative.
With respect to the budget which we just adopted, there needs
to be a follow-on motion, as indicated by Commissioner
Williams, that the 2009-10 Kerr County budget which has been
adopted will raise more total property taxes than last year's
budget by $179,879, which is a 1 percent increase, and of
that amount, $74,127 is tax revenue to be raised from new
property added to the tax roll this year. Do I hear a motion
to adopt the budget with that proviso?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
indicated. Question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. And why are we -- why
is this? Why are we voting on this thing?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: State law.
9-28-09
62
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: State law, very simply.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That -- somebody get Harvey
Hilderbran in here. This is the craziest thing I've ever
seen, amongst many today.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think the transparency has created
confusion rather than transparency.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It really has.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and a second. Is
that a record vote requirement?
MS. HARGIS: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: Pardon?
MS. HARGIS: No. No.
JUDGE TINLEY: All in favor of the motion, signify
j by raising your right hand.
I
i
~ (The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
', JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Okay, we
got that behind us. We'll go to our next 10 o'clock timed
item, which is to consider, discuss, and take appropriate
action to adopt the 2009 Lake Ingram Road District tax rate,
again a record vote. It would be on a motion to adopt the
Lake Ingram Estates Road District tax rate of .3611, or 36.11
cents per $100 valuation for the 2009 tax year, and which
would be a tax rate which will raise more taxes for the
9-28-09
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
maintenance and operations than last year's rate. Do I hear
a motion to that effect?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Further
question or discussion on that motion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, did that -- did those
numbers change from last year to right now?
MS. BOLIN: They did. They went down.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They've gone down because --
because a lot of it's been paid off?
MS. BOLIN: Correct.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Down from what, though? I
think that would be an interesting thing to --
MS. BOLIN: It was .399 something.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MS. BOLIN: Last year.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's good. Okay, thank
I You.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question. The -- it says here
this rate will raise more taxes for maintenance and
operations than last year's rate. Does -- is that the debt
or the bond payments?
MS. BOLIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Does it escalate over time,
9-28-09
64
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
or -- I mean, I guess why are we raising more than we did
last year?
MS. HARGIS: It's the values. The property tax
values went up, so you're -- the same thing; you're raising
more money just because the values of the property went up
with the lower rate.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I thought that this rate
was calculated based on -- we knew what the debt payment was,
and we adjusted a -- we put a tax rate in to pay that debt.
MS. BOLIN: Correct.
MS. HARGIS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's different than last year?
MS. HARGIS: No, the debt is the same. It's just
that the value in the district, even with the lower tax,
still raises more money than it did last year, and we -- it's
not a lot. It's just a little bit.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. So, it's as close as we
can get it?
i
MS. HARGIS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But it still raises more. You
don't want to raise --
II COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are there additional
~~ properties that have gone on the tax rolls of Lake Ingram
Road District?
25 ~ COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You know what? I don't know.
9-28-09
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
65
MS. BOLIN: No. It's just the values have gone up.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just the values have gone
I up-
MS. HARGIS: Yeah. I understood it originally
started at a million two, and now it's up to six three, so,
see, it's just gone up.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Just some of those properties
have gone up in value, just like mine did. Whether it did or
not, it went up.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, right. I understand
I that .
JUDGE TINLEY: Further question or discussion on
that motion?
THE CLERK: You need a record vote.
JUDGE TINLEY: Be a record vote again.
Commissioner Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Aye.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Aye.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Aye.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Oehler?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Aye.
JUDGE TINLEY: The chair votes in the affirmative.
MS. BOLIN: Thank you, gentlemen.
9-28-09
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
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's go to our next
10 o'clock timed item. I don't know how we figured out we
were going to do all these at 10 o'clock, the same time. At
this time, I will recess the Commissioners Court meeting and
I will convene a public hearing for the revision of plat of
Lot 3 in the Heritage Park Subdivision, Section I, as set
forth in Volume 4, Page 96 of the Plat Records, and located
in Precinct 2.
(The regular Commissioners Court meeting was closed
'~ at 10:15 a.m., and a public hearing was held in
', open court, as follows:)
P U B L I C H E A R I N G
JUDGE TINLEY: Is there any member of the public
that wishes to be heard with regard to the revision of plat
of Lot 3 in the Heritage Park Subdivision, Section I, as set
forth in Volume 4, Page 96? Yes, sir? If you'll come
forward, give us your name and address, and give us your
input with regard to this subject?
MR. HORNBACK: My name is Michael Hornback, and I
live in Heritage Park II at 214 Deer Park Lane. And I'd like
to know what the revision is.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll show you. It's
splitting that parcel into two, one at 5.04 acres and one to
6.96 acres.
MR. HORNBACK: May I pull it forward?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sir, would you like to have
9-28-09
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
this?
MR. HORNBACK: Yes, I would. Thank you. That's
all I have.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. You just needed information?
MR. HORNBACK: Yeah, I needed information. Is it
appropriate to ask what the revision is? Is the property
going to be split and sold?
JUDGE TINLEY: The owners apparently asked for this
revision, and what the subsequent -- owner subsequently does
is really of no consequence to us, as long as it's lawful, of
MR. HORNBACK: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: You're welcome. Thank you, sir.
Any other member of the public that wishes to be heard with
respect to the revision of plat of Lot 3 in the Heritage Park
Subdivision, Section I, as set forth in Volume 4, Page 96,
Plat Records? Seeing no one else coming forward, I will
close the public hearing with regard to the revision of plat
of Lot 3 in the Heritage Park Subdivision, Section I, as set
forth in Volume 4, Page 96, Plat Records.
(The public hearing was concluded at 10:17 a.m.,
and the regular Commissioners Court meeting was
reopened.)
9-28-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
68
final revision of plat of Lot 3 in Heritage Park Subdivision,
Section I, as set forth in Volume 4, Page 96, Plat Records.
Mr. Odom?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. Ms. Conrad owns Lot 3 in this
Heritage Park I subdivision, and she wishes -- it's over
12 acres, and wishes to divide that into two lots, Lot 3A at
5.04 acres and Lot 3B at 6.96 acres. Presently, Lot 3A has a
well on it, and that well will stay with that lot, which is
acceptable. And the other is to be connected up -- it fronts
Deer Park Lane, I believe, and is serviced by Aqua Texas,
which is community water. At this time, we ask the Court to
accept the final revision of plat for Lot 3 in Heritage Park
Subdivision I, Volume 4, Page 96, Precinct 2.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What's the acreage in each
lot?
MR. ODOM: 5.04 and 6.96, which is -- meets
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Two different accesses off
two different --
MR. ODOM: Two different accesses, one at each end.
JUDGE TINLEY: You have a question over here?
MR. HORNBACK: You said one piece is going to be
accessed off Deer Park Lane?
MR. ODOM: That's correct.
25 ~ MR. HORNBACK: And where does that easement or
9-28-09
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
right-of-way go through?
MR. ODOM: I don't have the slightest idea.
There's an easement. You know, that's up to them to --
MR. HORNBACK: I'm against the property; that's why
I'm concerned.
MR. ODOM: Well, they have the right to subdivide
it. I'm not that privileged of --
MR. HORNBACK: Well, there's no access off Deer
Park Lane to that property.
MR. ODOM: It shows that it is, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Shows on the map.
MR. ODOM: Shows it on the map. Sure does, sir.
236.73 feet.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
MR. ODOM: Which is 150 feet frontage, which is
acceptable.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is Deer Park Lane a
County-maintained road?
MR. ODOM: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, it is.
(Low-voice discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 5.04 has access off of
Burney Road; is that correct? And the 6.96 has access off of
Deer Park?
MR. ODOM: That's correct.
9-28-09
~o
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. HORNBACK: I got another question here.
MR. ODOM: All right, sir.
MR. HORNBACK: You mentioned the
that the community well?
MR. ODOM: No, the water well is
That's an existing residence there. And t;
6.96 acres, is to be community water; Aqua
water from that. And I have a letter from
water well. Is
on 3A, sir.
ze 3B, the
Texas will provide
Headwaters from
Gene Williams. It's acceptable.
MR. HORNBACK: Judge, I have another question.
When this property was surveyed, I don't know who hired the
surveyor, but they drove across my property without even
coming up and ringing the doorbell.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I can't hear you, sir. Can
you come to the podium?
MR. HORNBACK: Surveyors drove across my property
without coming up to the house and ringing the doorbell,
asking if they could go back. They were looking for points
of this property here. And so I went around; I talked to the
surveyors about two days later, or the next day. I didn't
say anything to them. I just I questioned them, who was
driving across my property? Because it's been so dry, I
could tell somebody had driven across it. In the future,
whoever requests their property be surveyed, it would be nice
to know up front that we're going to have people in the area.
9-28-09
71
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
If they're going to access my property, I would like to know.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That would have been a
private surveyor.
MR. HORNBACK: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree with you, but that's
nothing the County has any authority over.
MR. HORNBACK: Well, I just wanted to make it
known.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand.
MR. HORNBACK: That's how people operate.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't disagree with you,
but it wasn't a county surveyor.
MR. HORNBACK: I could squeal about surface damage,
but I'm not. I just want to be informed when somebody
accesses my property.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's reasonable.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do you have a motion?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, I'm getting ready to
make it. I would move approval of the revision of plat --
final revision of plat for Lot 3 in Heritage Park
Subdivision, Section I, Volume 4, Page 96, Precinct 2, as
presented by Mr. Odom.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
indicated. Question or discussion on that motion? All in
9-28-09
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
72
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. Now let's
go back and start cleaning up. We'll go to Item 5; consider,
discuss and take appropriate action to remove the concrete
island on the north side of the lower level parking of the
courthouse.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I like that. We're
going to "clean up," and we're going to the Maintenance
Department.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What a -- I'm kind of
responsible for Tim doing this, because I had a request from
upstairs, the District Clerk, that that island be removed.
It's real hard for her to get in her parking place because of
that curb, because she can't really make that turn, and it's
real narrow there. If that was removed, it would be a lot
easier, 'cause that's kind of where a whole bunch of the
courthouse people park.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where is that island?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It's right at the -- if you
i come down the sidewalk past the tree, going down into the --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, okay. Okay.
9-28-09
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
73
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That island extends on out
past the retaining wall.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I got you.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Just remove it from the --
MS. UECKER: Harder getting out of it than it
is getting in.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's more like a peninsula than
it is an island.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Commissioner.
(Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Concrete peninsula.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm trying to figure out,
where is this island?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It will be an island if you
bust out one little section.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I read over the weekend a
saying of an old president, and his saying was, "Don't tear
down a fence until you know why it was built in the first
place." Now, that's -- and it started to make me wonder
about this. Why -- why was that island built there? What
was the purpose and the function of that thing --
JUDGE TINLEY: In my opinion --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- in the beginning?
JUDGE TINLEY: My opinion is for safety, so as to
avoid -- even though it's a one-way, people don't always go
9-28-09
74
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
one way there. I can attest to that, because some fine
uninsured individual who was dropping his son off to attend
to business in the County Court at Law on a Tuesday morning
criminal docket decided to go out the wrong way, and caught
me coming in. And, of course, I couldn't see him, 'cause he
was below grade when I pulled in. And he --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You were in the wrong?
JUDGE TINLEY: I was trying to go the right way in,
and he was going out the wrong way. My point is, people
don't always do what they're supposed to. And if someone
comes down there the wrong way and makes a left going into --
towards the maintenance access, they could easily clean out
whoever's parked along there. I think it's a safety issue,
and I think the island needs to stay there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Even though it's a
~ peninsula.
JUDGE TINLEY: The peninsula needs to stay there.
With all due respect, Ms. Uecker, --
MS. UECKER: I understand.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- you can find another parking
place.
MS. UECKER: I understand. It's not that I have a
problem with it there. It's too long. I just think it's a
little bit too long.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, we could spend $1,500, $2,500
9-28-09
75
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to make it a little bit shorter, but I'm not in favor of
doing that, very frankly.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't think I am either,
because -- 'cause I look at it exactly the same way, that it
was built there for safety reasons. But it's not anything
that I'm going to lose sleep over tonight, I don't think.
JUDGE TINLEY: Nor am I.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But don't give Linda my home
~ phone number.
JUDGE TINLEY: She already has mine; it's in the
I book.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's why it's on the
agenda, so we can discuss it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think it's been
I discussed.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah, I think it's been
discussed. Just have to take more time to park, and hope
that the Judge that parks next to her continues to have a
small vehicle. Maybe you ought to switch spots, Judge, and
put the grape jelly jar next to it.
JUDGE TINLEY: I could do that, 'cause I can turn
around on a dime down there.
MS. UECKER: Yeah, you can turn that thing around
in the parking place.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Looks like he's going to
9-28-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
76
move onto your next maintenance item, Mr. Bollier.
MR. BOLLIER: That was it, buddy.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Anything further on that
agenda item? Okay. Let's see if we can't do some more work
here. Let's go to Item 14; consider, discuss, take
appropriate action to roll $20,000 from the '08-'09 budget to
the '09-'10 budget for Hermann Sons Road and Westwood Drive
right-of-way projects located in Precinct 3. Mr. Odom?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. I believe that you have, out
of the agenda item, information that I received from the
Highway Department, and I had approximately 20,000 this year
set aside for that acquisition. Of course, my -- if my
memory's correct, what the State said that they were going to
do and what they are finally finalized in this letter was not
exactly what we anticipated, so they were going to do more
than what they're doing right now. So, I ask the Court, if I
have any savings at all in my budget, then I would ask up to
20,000. I think that would help in that acquisition of
right-of-way, which would change Westwood to come -- instead
of that angle, to come at it 90 degrees, and to change
Hermann Sons and shift back to the Kerrville side at that
intersection. And so I think this would make a -- be
appropriate. I had planned on doing that, but the State did
not follow through expeditiously as they said they would a
year or so ago. And, you know, I just would like to save
9-28-09
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
~~
that money and roll it over into the next budget year. I
don't know if rollover is appropriate, but that's essentially
what we're doing, is if I have not spent that up to 20,000, I
would like to -- just 5,000 or 6,000 would help reconstruct
that.
JUDGE TINLEY: What you're trying to do is to bring
both of these in, except at an angle, where there's a hard
line of sight for a driver because they're not perpendicular
to the roadway.
MR. ODOM: That's correct. And there will be a
light up there, a blinking light at this intersection, so
we're not talking about a three-way, but we're talking about
just a cautionary as well as a red light at these two
intersections. There's been a death at Westwood right there,
and so they have some funds allocated towards safety.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're -- the project -- what
TexDOT is doing is they're going to add a turn lane from
Wilson Creek to the county line. And as -- as soon as they
announce that -- I mean, Leonard and I have been working on
this for probably four years trying to get this thing worked
out. And we saw an opportunity to get TexDOT to help pay for
the majority of it, 'cause it's a state highway and it was a
safety issue. Their funding got a little bit tighter than I
think they were thinking, and they're afraid they're not
going to have it. The reason, we thought we'd just buy the
9-28-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
78
right-of-way; they would do the tie-in. It appears now that
we're going to buy the right-of-way and do part of the
tie-in, or we'll be required to. We won't know for sure
until that contract gets let, which I think is going to be
COMMISSIONER LETZ: From what they're talking
about. And if the project comes in a little bit under bid, I
think TexDOT's willing to roll the total dollars in to get
this whole project done. It's just where the bids come in
that's going to be the issue. Even if we don't have the
funds to do the -- the road work next year in the budget,
'cause it's not a budgeted item, I think it makes sense to go
ahead and acquire the right-of-way right now. And I've
talked to -- 20,000 should cover most of it, based on the
appraisal we got. And kind of --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's the purchase of land
and the surveying and the whole thing?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Surveying's pretty much been
done. Lee's already gone out there and surveyed it. You
know, what we did, Lee went out there, did the survey. We
sent that survey to TexDOT and said, "Here, this is what we
want to do on the county road side. Does it work with your
plans?" And they just have one little issue on one road. I
forget the road's name -- Eugene. Eugene Road, about how it
9-28-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
79
ties in. That's going to have to get worked out at some
point, but they're in favor of the project.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Leonard, let me ask you a
question. This is my boy-dummy question for the year. Why
try to carry that over, which may or may not happen? Why not
just build the 20,000 into the new budget and let this thing
die?
MR. ODOM: Because we didn't know until I'd already
set the budget. We just -- I just found out last week. I've
been trying to get an answer for months, and I finally got
something written from them that -- what they were going to
do. The answer is, "I don't know, because so-and-so has to
give me an answer," or, "So-and-so has to give me another
answer."
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If we get -- and I see the
Auditor shaking her head a little bit. If we get letters --
offer letters out this year -- she's still shaking her head.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You can't carry it over, can
you?
MS. HARGIS: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: We can encumber for a very short
period of time, but we're trying to limit the amount of
encumbering we're doing past the end of the budget year.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What's the time frame?
25 ~ MS. HARGIS: Well, if you encumber something,
9-28-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
80
though, you already had to be committed to it. If we have
not committed to it, it will happen in the next fiscal year,
so no. My suggestion would be we amend the new budget and
just put the $20,000 in there. You're basically effectively
doing the same thing.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
MS. HARGIS: But you can't really encumber it,
because you haven't contracted for it and so forth and so on.
It already has to have been at least contracted for.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Emerson, will the agenda item
allow us to do an amendment, or is that going to have to be
brought back?
(Mr. Emerson shook his head negatively.)
MS. HARGIS: I don't think it will. I think I'll
have to bring it back.
JUDGE TINLEY: That means no, it's going to have to
come back, right? That's what I thought. Okay.
MR. ODOM: All right, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: We're on the same page.
MR. ODOM: We're on the same page.
JUDGE TINLEY: Just going to get there a different
~ way.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The goal, Commissioner, is
9-28-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
81
just to line up Eugene and make it come together with
Westwood and Hermann Sons?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Eugene's going to still be
isolated a little bit. That's really not much more than a
driveway to serve two families, but we're making -- Westwood
and Hermann Sons will be across from each other,
alignment-wise, and 90-degree corners to -- or intersections
to Highway 27, whereas now both of them come in at a
pretty -- one of them, Westwood, at a very severe angle, and
Hermann Sons at a pretty bad angle.
MR. ODOM: Right. What we'll have is a three-way.
You'll have a turn -- turn-in there and deceleration lane,
which will make a right into Hermann Sons, which will open
that area up tremendously, make it safer.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Eugene is a little driveway,
like I say. Kind of comes off at a bad spot no matter what,
now or later. The last word I had with TexDOT on Eugene was
they would allow them to have a separate highway cut for that
road, and if -- at some point, if they do subdivide that
property or do something different, they're going to have to
change the alignment of Eugene and move that entrance over
towards Westwood more.
MR. ODOM: And Eugene's only 20 foot right-of-way,
so it's very narrow for one home back there, maybe two back
there at the end.
9-28-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
82
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you sir. Okay. Why don't we
take about a 15-minute recess.
(Recess taken from 10:34 a.m. to 10:56 a.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to order, if
we might, after our recess. Let's go to Item 15; to
consider, discuss, take appropriate action to set a public
hearing for private road name, Moorehead Road East, located
in Precinct 2. When do you want it?
MR. ODOM: November the 9th, 2009, at 10 a.m.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move we set a public
hearing on the private road name Moorehead Road in Precinct 2
for November -- November 9?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir, November 9.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: November 9 at 10 a.m. Is
that correct?
MR. ODOM: 10 a.m.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
indicated for a public hearing 11-9-09 at 10 a.m. Question
or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by
raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
9-28-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
83
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. We'll go to
Item 16; to consider, discuss, take appropriate action on
agreement with San Patricio County designating Kerrville/Kerr
County as point-to-point evacuation shelter for evacuees from
San Patricio County in the event of a hurricane. This was a
matter that was worked collaboratively with the Kerrville
Fire Chief, Mr. Robert Ojeda, Mark Beavers, the Assistant
Chief/Training Officer over at Kerrville Fire Department. Of
course, Chief Ojeda is the county Emergency Management
Coordinator, I believe is his title, overall, and then he
works with the political -- political leaders, be they in the
city or the county, as the case may be. But this was a
matter that was worked out with them. I think it had been an
informal thing previously, for which there'd been no
documentation. But -- but they submitted to me and asked me
to present it to the Commissioners Court, and it's something
I had input on from day one, and seems reasonable.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, may I ask you a
question?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What -- what are we
committing to? What are we committing Kerr County to?
JUDGE TINLEY: That we are acknowledging that the
San Patricio County folks kind of have a slot here if there's
9-28-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
84
an evacuation. We -- we know that we will be getting those
JUDGE TINLEY: It's just prearrangement. But
insofar as committing any resources, we're not doing that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
I COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the idea would likely be
the Ag Barn facility as a staging area? Or is that decision
to be made in the future?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In these different --
JUDGE TINLEY: The one that they've discussed as a
priority is the Lion's Camp.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And they're on board?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes. Lion's Camp is on board, yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is Ingram High School?
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't know about Ingram.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Not sure about that one.
JUDGE TINLEY: I presume they are, but I know the
Lion's Camp is.
AUDIENCE: They are.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Heck, yeah, then. I move
9-28-09
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
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
indicated. Question or discussion? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Let's go to
Item 17; consider, discuss, take appropriate action on Kerr
County Personnel Handbook. Ms. Hyde. There she is.
MS. HYDE: Should be some extras.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Right-hand staple again.
JUDGE TINLEY: Don't have any problem figuring that
authorship when we see where the staple is.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: No doubt about where it comes
from, the way it's stapled.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Here's some extra.
MS. HYDE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Ms. Hyde, did you turn one
II of these in to -- or give one of these to all these state
agencies that we take care of?
MS. HYDE: What? I'm sorry?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: One of these?
9-28-09
86
1
2
3
4
5 to?
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. HYDE: This?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, this.
MS. HYDE: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Not yet, but you're going
MS. HYDE: This is for y'all. I'm grabbing. I'm
not catching. They don't -- the policy book is approved by
y'all.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm, I know.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you talking about a
finished copy?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Where's the standoff here?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: With a ribbon on it?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Baldwin is referring to
the fact that we take care of D.P.S. and numerous other state
agencies.
MS. HYDE: Oh. Oh. They were invited --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, state agencies.
MS. HYDE: They were invited to participate.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do they go by this? Do they
live by this, or do they have their own little --
MS. HYDE: I don't think so. I think they go by
typically their own policy books, if they have one. I don't
think that many have one.
9-28-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
87
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that's an interesting
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure it is, 'cause of a
number of things.
MS. HYDE: But if you go to -- oh, well, since --
well, I was going to let them just read it, but okay. If you
go to the last page, --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Last page.
MS. HYDE: -- when Commissioner Williams and I got
together to do some revisions, there is something in here
regarding employees that fall under us that don't exactly
fall under us. So -- let me find it. Can I come back to
that one? There is a section that talks about people that we
take care of, and they're supposed to follow these policies,
procedures, and guidelines as outlined by Commissioners
Court.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think where, you know, you
get into an issue, say the secretary at D.P.S. does something
that is against our policy book. Do we have any authority --
we surely can't fire her, even though we're paying her salary
and benefits. Well, I would think we could fire her, because
they work for us. What's the recourse we have if someone's
breaking our policies that we're paying salary for?
MS. HYDE: Are you putting me on the spot? Are you
going to help me out here?
9-28-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
88
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Same things go with any
MS. HYDE: I would assume that since they are an
employee of Kerr County, and Kerr County is paying for that
employee, my assumption would be that if they broke policies,
procedures, and guidelines, then we could, in fact, request
separation and stop paying them.
MR. EMERSON: I think she's exactly right. The
only exception to that would be if we have some kind of
interlocal agreement, say, with D.P.S. that says that our
employee that's working over there under that agency is
subject to their policies, and she -- and she signs off and
understands that. Otherwise, we still have liability issues.
MS. HYDE: With that employee.
MR. EMERSON: Because they're our employee.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think maybe it's in it, but
we need to make sure that that language is in all of our
contracts for interlocals or however we do this stuff with
these agencies. I mean, they're all right now, but as we
annually redo them, I'd say it's kind of an important point,
if it's not in there. It may be in there.
MS. HYDE: It is in there, but I got to find it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right.
MS. HYDE: There are a couple of things that are
correct in the policy book. I did not print out
9-28-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
89
100 copies of them again.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I noticed.
MS. HYDE: On Page 4, the date and order number
will be changed when I have a date and order number for the
policy book. On Page 10, the page number for requests from
employees or from elected and appointed officials for changes
in the policy book will be put in once it's final. Section
8, the Sheriff's Office, security section is not complete.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That will be in mine.
MS. HYDE: And then the one thing that y'all had
asked that's still open is that -- and throughout, there are
certain areas that say, "Exception, law enforcement." And
y'all had requested that Rusty and I get together and put
that list together. As soon as you guys tell us that this is
it, then he and I will sit down and we'll do it.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And along those same lines,
the only thing that I would want to make sure is understood,
I have three policy manuals in the department already; I have
one for jail personnel about 2 inches thick, one for law
enforcement personnel about 2 inches thick, and one for
I~' clerks, clerical and secretaries and that, that's about an
inch and a half thick. I want -- and I will adopt any of the
policies that are in this county one that pertain to
employees and personnel into mine. And that's what Eva and I
want to do once y'all adopt this policy manual, is we'll make
9-28-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
90
sure that they read the same. But I do not want to have to
issue to all my employees another policy manual, 'cause
there's just too many different things in there. You
carry -- automobile accident investigations will be different
in this one than they are in ours. We have a totally
different way of doing it. And then just the individual
day-to-day work and dress code and everything else is totally
different. I do not want my employees getting issued this
policy manual, which really will have -- we have had problems
in the past when -- when we did it before with Barbara Nemec
and that when she was in control. It just created way too
I much confusion.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We had contradictory policy,
then. You end up with contradictory policy.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You do. That's why I would
rather Eva and I sit down and adopt -- I'll reword mine so
that the things that affect personnel will read the same in
both of them. But I don't want this policy manual.
MS. HYDE: We agreed we can bring that back to
Commissioners Court so that y'all can look over the documents
to make sure we haven't left anything out between the two.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sounds good.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's why, in the policy
manual, where you have written in there, "This pertains to
law enforcement," or "does not pertain," this does. The --
9-28-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
91
you know, the gist of it makes it sound like this policy
manual does pertain to them too, 'cause you have some things
that say it does, some things that say it doesn't. I would
rather just, in the very front, it's opened up that it
doesn't pertain to law enforcement -- you know, Sheriff's
Office at all. Refer to their policy manual.
JUDGE TINLEY: Because in the end, you're going to
incorporate and adopt into yours whatever general portions
are appropriate for yours, and --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's correct. Just one
Office uses their own.
JUDGE. TINLEY: Okay. Makes sense.
MS. HYDE: When we do open hire orientation, which
we'll start once we have this, Rusty and I will have that
separate, so that when a new employee comes in, all the
benefits, payroll, anything to do with our policy book will
be reviewed during our open -- or our new hire orientation
with that employee. So, he's going to have to give me part
of his so that we can do -- here's how you get paid. This is
all the same, but it's going to be out of his book, not out
of this book.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right.
MS. HYDE: Does that makes sense?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We're just going to take
9-28-09
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
what's in your book and adopt it into mine so it will read
the same.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do we -- do we take action
~ on yours?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The very first one I did in
2000, 2001, you did. There's been a lot of changes in it
since. In fact, it's been totally reissued, and you have
not. Now --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is the answer going to be no
here or what?
MS. HYDE: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm just looking for a yes
or no thing.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: If you want to look at it,
take action and responsibility for what I adopted, that's
fine, Buster.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes or no will work.
MS. HYDE: On the question that you asked,
Commissioner Baldwin, if you go to page -- well, it's not --
you don't have your page, I don't guess. It's Assigned
Staff, 1.23, and here's the revision. Staff members who are
assigned to Kerr County, but are paid directly by another
government or private organization, are not employees of Kerr
County. However, comma, as a condition of their assignment,
such staff members are governed by all terms of these
9-28-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
93
policies not in conflict with their contract for services or
JUDGE TINLEY: What he just referred to is exactly
the flip side of that. They're not working for us, but we
are paying them.
MS. HYDE: So, do we want --
JUDGE TINLEY: That's probably what we need to have
by interlocal agreement, it would seem to me, if they're not
under our direct control. Does that make sense, Mr. Emerson?
MR. EMERSON: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. HYDE: So, do you want me to get with
Mr. Emerson and add something, and make it for the first
revision after y'all approve one?
JUDGE TINLEY: He's looking for something to do, I
know. He's told me recently that he's got very little on his
plate. (Laughter.) See those alligators on top of his head?
They've already covered him up.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The swamp has gotten high.
Ms. Hyde, on the third page, those items that you and I
worked laboriously over, right?
MS. HYDE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Number -- Page 4, I see
somebody tweaked what you and I tweaked, and I have another
suggestion here. We're talking about the last sentence,
9-28-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
94
Elected or appointed officials may promulgate a different
written policy on a specific element of work applicable only
to that official's employees, and his specific policy shall
be -- it says "on record." I would suggest that it should
say, "shall be confirmed by Commissioners Court."
MS. HYDE: All right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Which is a polite way of telling the
Sheriff we're going to approve -- we're going to have to
approve his policies.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I knew you'd notice that,
Judge.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I have no problem with that,
Just puts more of us in that barrel.
JUDGE TINLEY: Buck stops here.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, Ms. Hyde, do you want us to
approve this today? Is that what you want us to do?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, I think we need to
move this --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We need to do something.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We need to kick this can
down the road finally.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I mean, I appreciate
all the work that a lot of -- I mean, I have not been as
9-28-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
95
involved as I know two of the Commissioners have, or at least
Williams, and I know Oehler's been very much --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Buster, probably.
MS. HYDE: Buster was too. So was the Judge.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I appreciate all the work
you've done, and all the other elected officials, department
heads.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I really think it's kind of a
-- it's been a good experience, because all of the other
elected officials participated in it, and department heads,
to make it happen, to where, you know, there was a lot of
discussion. That -- that way, you know, you can't gripe.
Really shouldn't gripe if you've had input.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's exactly right.
Everybody -- everybody's had the opportunity to buy in, put
in their suggestions and their comments or objections,
whichever, and a lot of work has gone into it, and I want to
personally thank Ms. Hyde for a lot of hard work, a lot of
revisions. And I think it's time. Let's see, this hasn't
been done since 1990 --
MS. HYDE: The official word was 1999. But what
Cheryl and Jannett found is that, really, 1999 was a copy
from 1986.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Been a long time. Long
time in coming. And -- you know, and the way it's set up
9-28-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
96
now, I don't think we'll ever have to go back and do as much
work as has been done to get it to this point. I think Eva
can take a look at things as they evolve or develop and make
single -- singular suggestions on changes in the future. So,
I would move adoption of the Kerr County Personnel Handbook
as presented and amended.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
indicated.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We've got discussion, Eva.
JUDGE TINLEY: Question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: All I would like to say is,
I'd like to echo about Eva; she's done a fantastic job, spent
a lot of -- a lot of time. Just a lot of conversation and
discussion between her and the other people that
participated, and I -- you know, sometimes she doesn't -- we
give her a lot of static, but she doesn't get a lot of credit
sometimes. This is one she needs credit for.
JUDGE TINLEY: You're not suggesting that we not
give her any static?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Absolutely not. (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I can't go there. You were
about to hemorrhage out there, Ms. Hyde, about something?
MS. HYDE: Please include in there that you're
9-28-09
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
abolishing the old one, because, remember, I got the A.G. to
agree that we can do the one-time good deal on the privacy.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Abolish or supersede?
MS. HYDE: He used the word "abolish."
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I can change the motion to
adopt this one as we had stated earlier, whoever -- according
to the motion, and abolish the previous handbook, previous --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Any and all?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Any and all.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Previous handbooks.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'd second that.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Except law enforcement. Don't
abolish mine.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sheriff, I wouldn't try to
abolish anything that you have your hands on.
JUDGE TINLEY: We're going to leave you swimming on
your own on that one, Sheriff.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I figured that. Thank you.
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.)
9-28-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
98
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion carried.
MS. HYDE: Thank you, gentlemen.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Eva.
JUDGE TINLEY: We'll go to Item 18; to consider,
discuss, take appropriate action regarding opening of the
bids submitted to provide food service for the Kerr County
Jail.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That one came, and you can
tell it was opened, because it was not even marked as a bid,
and it is one that declined to bid, is all it is.
JUDGE TINLEY: Declined to bid.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Declined, yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Aramark Correctional Services
has elected to submit no bid.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If you'd serve hot dogs and
veggie burgers, we wouldn't have to do this.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Three copies?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't know what they sent.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're all the same, probably.
Aren't they?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: There's this with it, so I
don't know. This was Compass.
JUDGE TINLEY: Five -- the first bid we have is
from Five Star Correctional Services.
(Low-voice discussion off the record.)
9-28-09
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: It's like Christmas up there.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Various bid prices based upon
full-service or groceries only. The next bid is from ABL
food -- ABL Management, Inc., another food service proposal.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: This one has a little satchel
I on it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are you going to try to get
back with us today on this?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, don't think so. I think
this one's the same as that one.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Here's the box.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Got cherries -- cherries or
~ apples?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Cherries.
JUDGE TINLEY: Section 2, I think, has some
methodology for determining price, but there's a number of
other considerations.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It should be by the number of
meals served.
(Low-voice discussion off the record.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Then we have a proposal from Canteen
Correctional Services. And they, too, have a matrix to be
used in establishing cost. Is that all we have?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's it.
9-28-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
100
JUDGE TINLEY: So, essentially, we have three bids.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Three bids and one no-bid.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move we accept all bids and
forward them to the Sheriff for analysis and recommendation.
JUDGE TINLEY: Take the no-bid, too. I have a
motion to accept all bids and refer them to the Sheriff for
evaluation, analysis, and recommendation?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes.
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. That takes
us to Item 19 on the agenda, which is to consider, discuss,
and take appropriate action to approve professional services
contract with Peter Lewis for architectural services on new
Law Enforcement Annex/Adult Probation building and related
improvements. As I'm sure the members of the Court recall,
at our last meeting, we elected to try and reach some
agreement with Mr. Lewis on his -- the possibility of
utilizing him for the project and the parking areas and
9-28-09
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
detention pond and the engineering that goes with it, and I
guess that's essentially what it all includes in inclusion to
building, doesn't it?
MR. LEWIS: Yes, sir, it does.
JUDGE TINLEY: I provided -- Mr. Lewis got me late
last week a copy of a proposal that I did provide to the
County Attorney. Mr. Lewis had submitted an earlier, as
referred to in the covering e-mail, which I did not put in
the clear, because at the time he submitted it, I didn't know
whether we were going to try and use an RFQ or whether we
were going to try and negotiate with Mr. Lewis, and the Court
elected to try the negotiation route. I didn't want to put
his in the clear if -- if it was going to be on some sort of
competitive basis, so I -- I held that. It was marked
confidential, so that's the reason for the reference to the
previous proposal, so to speak, which has had some pretty
significant paring down, which I appreciate those
considerations. County Attorney had a couple of issues with
respect to the proposal. One of them was a standard
indemnification issue which, as I understand, is not a
problem. The other has to do with ownership and
dissemination of the final work product, and protection of
the -- of the professional, and not doing a wholesale
construction phase using those documents. I can understand
that. But, of course, we need ownership of the final plan
9-28-09
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
documents, and I think the County Attorney's position is
we're not going to disseminate that to anybody without your
prior approval, other than what's going -- goes into the
public records.
MR. LEWIS: Of course.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's a matter of public record to
anybody looking at it. But we're going to need to know
those.
MR. LEWIS: And as you and I have discussed with
Mr. Emerson, I'm very agreeable. He's going to provide the
language. We will modify our agreement to reflect that
language. That's geared -- as I mentioned, that is geared
toward working with developers that have been known to take
architects' and engineers' work and replicate it without due
compensation, and I trust that you're not going to go build a
bunch of these around the county, and if you do, then we can
maybe assist you in doing that.
JUDGE TINLEY: I hope we don't ever have to build
but one. Do you have -- Mr. Lewis, do you have any more
comments or concerns that you want to bring forward to us
with regard to the proposal which you've submitted?
MR. LEWIS: I've tried to articulate all the things
that we will be doing for this fee. This work that we will
-- that the city will require us to do in terms of
preliminary site plan, and then, of course, the stormwater
9-28-09
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
103
detention is a big issue, and we have John Hewitt, who is a
engineering on that. That's probably as big a piece of this
project as the building itself, because that -- the pond
there -- and the Sheriff let us know that last week, with the
heavy rains, that that pond did what it always does, and that
is exceed its capacity and overflow into the parking lot.
And our goal will be to correct that, and we will correct
~ that and make sure it doesn't overflow in the parking lot or
into the buildings.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's good.
MR. LEWIS: Just a -- yeah -- small consideration.
But -- but the --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Any extra fee for that?
MR. LEWIS: No, it's all in here. It's all in
here. That's part of the deal.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Don't encourage him.
MR. LEWIS: Now, I told the Judge, this is an
aggressive fee. I believe it is. We're not going to get
rich doing this work, but we will make a living doing it, and
we'll meet the need that the County has, and we appreciate
the opportunity at least to sit here and talk to you about
it. If you have any specific questions -- I've detailed
9-28-09
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
everything in here. I don't think I need to go through and
read it all, but if you have any specific questions, I'll be
I~ happy to answer them. And you see, I did -- we did some
preliminary work for you, and we've acknowledged that and
credited the value of that work back to you, and I think
that's fair. And we're happy to do that.
', COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move approval.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll second the emotion.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
', approval of the agreement. Subject to the amendments to be
made by the County Attorney as you've indicated, I assume?
~I MR. LEWIS: And you will get those to me so that I
can update this? Or are you just hand-writing those in, or
how do you want to do this?
JUDGE TINLEY: Just work directly with Mr. Emerson,
and once he's approved it, he'll present it to me for
I execution.
MR. LEWIS: How do you want to get that to me, sir?
MR. EMERSON: Quickly.
MR. LEWIS: If you want to call me, I'll come by
and pick it up, or fax it or whatever -- however you want to
handle that.
MR. EMERSON: Okay.
9-28-09
105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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. As you well
know, we're on a fast track trying to push this thing as fast
as we can. We appreciate your cooperation.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, just --
JUDGE TINLEY: It will be -- and you need to
understand that -- that our performance on this contract will
be subject to the issuance and funding of the capital debt
issue for this project. Do you have that clear
understanding?
MR. LEWIS: Yes, I do.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Is that where you're coming
MS. HARGIS: No, I need the amount.
~'~, JUDGE TINLEY: The amount is $73,488.
MS. HARGIS: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: No, actually, because we haven't
paid any of the preliminary, it's actually $78,488.
MS. HARGIS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, my motion didn't
specifically authorize you to sign a contract, but that was
the intent.
9-28-09
106
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
I4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Actually, my second was.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And the number that you
just recited, Judge, is Mr. Lewis' fee?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, that's correct.
MR. LEWIS: Not the construction cost.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If it was, the building came
down a whole lot. 78,000.
MR. LEWIS: That's right. It's smaller, too.
JUDGE TINLEY: That was the number that you wanted,
Ms. Hargis, wasn't it?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Ms. Hargis?
MS. HARGIS: Yes, sir?
JUDGE TINLEY: That was the number that you wanted?
MS. HARGIS: Yes. I just need to know what his
fees are going to be.
JUDGE TINLEY: The gross contract amount that we
approved? Okay.
MS. HARGIS: I just need to add it to our overall
scope of our issue.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, it --
MS. HARGIS: It wasn't included in that number.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I think we're going to have
enough. I'm confident we are. Mr. Lewis is going to -- is
going to beat these people up like you wouldn't believe. You
9-28-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
107
think -- you think Jody beat them up, Commissioner. We're
going to let him squeeze these bids, okay?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: If he needs help, I'll be
glad to help him.
JUDGE TINLEY: And I will be there also.
MR. LEWIS: Appreciate the offer.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Anything else on that item,
gentlemen? Thank you. We appreciate it.
MR. LEWIS: I appreciate the opportunity. Thank
you. And we are excited about getting started.
JUDGE TINLEY: As are we. Let's move to Item 20;
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. Hopefully, this is the last round of that
that we didn't get previously on the staffing of various
departments. I think we've got -- I know we have the 198th
D.A., the Maintenance Department, Tax Office, and Court
Compliance, and hopefully that's all of them.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item as indicated. Question or
discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
9-28-09
108
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Let's go to
Item 23; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to
adopt the position schedule, step and grade schedule, and
general provisions of Kerr County for FY 2009-10. These
are -- these are pieces, I guess, or sections of our budget
document that have all of these various things in there that
~ we've adopted. That also includes a holiday schedule, I
think, under general provisions, doesn't it?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes.
MS. HARGIS: You basically already approved it when
you approved the budget, but you can approve it again. It's
inside the budget book now.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Step and grade has been --
has been subject to reflect --
MS. HARGIS: There's two step and grades.
MS. HYDE: There's two step and grades now. I'm
requesting that I get a court order on the second step and
grade, 'cause I get a court order every year on the first
step and grade. Since we have two, that way I can put it on
24
25
9-28-09
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Two?
JUDGE TINLEY: One for October and one for April 1,
I there.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
109
starting April 1?
MS. HYDE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Need a motion for approval,
including the two -- two step and grades to be utilized
during FY '09-'10.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for the
agenda item as indicated. Question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I think what the Auditor
said, this is already -- we've already approved it
technically in the budget book. I wonder if we're not adding
confusion by having two budget --
MS. HARGIS: Well, I think she wants a separate
order. I mean, it doesn't matter to me, but --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It basically establishes what
she has done, I believe.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right. It's not two
~ budgets.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Confirms it to where that's
the schedule and we'll abide by it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right. And then that will
be modified April 1 again.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's the way I see it.
9-28-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
110
JUDGE TINLEY: I think the general feeling of the
public when we talk about, quote, budgets is the numbers, the
dollars and cents, because we traditionally added other
things to that document as a master document for our
operations. I don't think it's inappropriate for us to adopt
the position schedule, step and grade, and general
provisions, which includes holidays for the coming year.
Further question or discussion? All in favor, signify by
raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion carries. Let's -- why
don't we go to Section 4, get that out of the way. Payment
of the bills.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move we pay the bills.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll second that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for payment
of the bills. Question or discussion? First item on there,
the prepayment of rent. That's being charged to this year's
budget?
MS. HARGIS: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. All that's going to do is
reduce the fund balances, 'cause it works out six of one,
half a dozen of the other.
9-28-09
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
MS.	HARGIS:	We	just	show it	as prepaid for right
now. Then we	reverse	it	after	October	1.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, thank you. Any other question
or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by
raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Budget
amendments. I've been presented with a summary for Budget
Amendment Request Numbers 1 through a bunch -- 46. 1 through
46.
MS. HARGIS: I would have to tell you, most
everybody stayed within their own department. The budget
looks really good. I think we still have, you know, some
bills that are outstanding that, you know, come in for the
15th, but by and large, I think we have met the budget very
well this year.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, the other thing I would note,
46 budget amendments, not a single one of those are --
they're all made within the existing budget.
MS. HARGIS: That's correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: There's no effort or request made to
go outside the budget to charge against reserves.
MS. HARGIS: That's correct.
9-28-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
112
JUDGE TINLEY: Do I hear a motion to approve the
Budget Amendment Request Numbers 1 through 46 as shown by the
summary sheet?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the Budget Amendment Requests 1 through 46 as
shown. Question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've got a question.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: On Page 1, Commissioners
Court, I'm -- what I'm seeing is -- is that we're taking $960
from professional services and putting it into conferences?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Other way around.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's the other way around?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're taking $3,000 out of
conferences and putting it in professional services?
MS. HARGIS: We're taking --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 960.72.
MS. HARGIS: -- 960.72 out of the conferences and
putting it into professional services. For -- those are for
the attorneys that we needed to cover, some of the attorneys,
so that's the reason we did that.
25 I COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, we take money from my
9-28-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
113
travel and give it to a bunch of lawyers? I'm telling you,
there's something wrong here. (Laughter.)
JUDGE TINLEY: I knew you'd snap eventually.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Something's wrong here.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Buster, now you know how I
feel this time of year.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, I do.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You've got two days to go
take a trip.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I tell you. Hey, hey, I'm
going to Corpus for the week.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Speaking of that, now, the
budget -- our -- our conference that the State requires us to
attend, did that money change this time?
MS. HARGIS: Yours? I'm not sure. Each individual
conference is different, so I -- I don't get the information
on yours.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Too late now.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah, it's a little late.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's the same, isn't it?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just have to go to Motel 6.
JUDGE TINLEY: No, it is slightly -- it is slightly
~ higher.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, okay.
9-28-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
114
JUDGE TINLEY: Slightly higher.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You added on to it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Not much, but...
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions or comments?
All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right
hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Do we have
any late bills?
MS. HARGIS: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: I've been presented with monthly
reports -- monthly report from Constable, Precinct 3. Do I
hear a motion that that report be approved as presented?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the indicated report as presented. Question or
discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
9-28-09
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
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Reports from
Commissioners in connection with their liaison or committee
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, sir, I think I covered them
this morning.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Oehler? Okay.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Thank you for reminding me.
I'll come back to that. Commissioner Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. I'd just like to
report that the Historical Commission is up and running, and
running well. And we're talking about, at some point very
soon, for this Commissioners Court to be invited out to
Schreiner Library and to see all of these functions, you
know, the living histories and all those things that they've
been working on. It's really, really neat stuff. So, we can
go out there and even have a lunch.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Wow.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, that's big stuff
there. And so, anyway, it's cooking.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Doing very, very well.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Who is -- who's heading it at
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's confidential
9-28-09
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
information.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's what I thought.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Have to kill you if he
tells you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: That means you don't know, right?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's -- that means I don't
know, and don't rile me up.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sue Dyke.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sue Dyke.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is that it, Buster?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir, that's all. Thank
you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Nothing, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Do we have any reports from
elected officials or department heads? Okay, why don't we --
MS. HYDE: Yeah. It's a quick one. 'Cause now
that you've passed it, we'll put together the dates for the
policy book reviews so that all employees will go through the
policy book reviews. It'll take approximately four to five
hours, so it will take approximately four weeks to get it
done with all employees.
9-28-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
117
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Then you got to get
everybody's signature on an acceptance page, correct?
MS. HYDE: Right. Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me go back to Item 26, which is
on an addendum that I'd not yet considered. That item will
be to open the 2010 Kerr County employee health benefits
proposals and refer the same for evaluation and
recommendation. Oh, boy, we got a nice little stack down
here.
(Low-voice discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's all kinds of stuff in
I there.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let me see here. The first
one we have is from I.H.S., and I'm not going to even attempt
to look at any of the specifics, other than to refer to the
fact that's who it is. Tim, do you want to give us a hand
here? The next one is from Data Path Administrative
Services.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What are these for?
JUDGE TINLEY: Health benefits.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're getting so much -- but
this is administrators, right? Who's going to administer?
MS. HYDE: Both.
JUDGE TINLEY: Both. This one is from Don Wallace,
and it appears to be through American United Life and One
9-28-09
118
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
America Company. Another one submitted through
Mr. Wallace -- Don Wallace and Associates, through Travelers.
Another one submitted through Wallace and Associates, and it
appears to be underwritten through UniCare. Then we have one
submitted by American United Life. This may be part of -- of
one of the others; I'm not certain. Another one submitted on
behalf of Entrust. That's E-n-t-r-u-s-t.
(Low-voice discussion off the record.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Here's another one submitted through
Willis H.R.H. Another submitted through Wallace and
Associates through Humana. I'm thinking -- was it five or
six? Seven proposals that we received, which, in the
industry, is a pretty strong response. This one apparently
is through Willis also. Came unhitched here.
(Low-voice discussion off the record.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Through U.M.R., whoever that may be.
And another proposal submitted, Mutual Assurance
Administrators, Inc. And this is a submittal on behalf of
Data Path Administrative Services. This is probably part of
that one that I announced a little bit ago. That's just the
big binder for it. This is one submitted -- it shows A.B.C.
Company, underwritten through the Principal -- well, I think
that's just a sample there. It's underwritten through the
Principal Financial Group. I'm not sure. I'm sure the
25 ~ agents --
9-28-09
119
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
MS. HYDE: Here, that goes with that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
(Low-voice discussion off the record.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That also appears to be Willis.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Buster?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh.
JUDGE TINLEY: And apparently, lastly, we have a
proposal from Texas Association of Counties, who, for a
number of years, has chosen not to submit to us.
MS. HYDE: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I move we accept all
bids and refer them to the H.R. Department and our outside
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How many were there?
JUDGE TINLEY: Seven is what Ms. Hyde indicated.
MS. HYDE: Seven.
JUDGE TINLEY: That is a strong submittal.
consultants for evaluation.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
indicated. Question or discussion? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry.
9-28-09
120
1
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: Where did TAC come from all
of a sudden after all these years of begging?
MS. HYDE: We worked very hard with them.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Did she say something?
JUDGE TINLEY: I think the normal -- normally, if
you can get four competitive bids, that's considered a good
response.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: We've got almost double that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's three more than we've
had the last few years.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's good.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think we had five one time.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Did we?
MS. HYDE: Yeah, but that one was negated,
I remember?
JUDGE TINLEY: That's right.
MS. HYDE: 'Cause they didn't do right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I believe, unless I've missed
something, that handles all of the open session items. Is
that correct, gentlemen?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I believe so.
JUDGE TINLEY: At this time, we will go out of open
or public session at 11:47 for the purpose of going into
executive or closed session.
9-28-09
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
121
MS. WHITT: Can I move this? 'Cause I can't see.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We can't see you if you don't
move it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just stand on this box,
I Janie.
(Discussion off the record.)
(The open session was closed at 11:47 a.m., and an
executive session was held, the transcript of which
is contained in a separate document.)
JUDGE TINLEY: It is 12:25, and we are in open or
public session. Does any member of the Court have anything
to offer in connection with matters discussed in executive
session? Hearing nothing, anything further to come before
the Court this meeting?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mr. Buck just walked in.
He may have something.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're going to lunch.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, you're going to lunch.
JUDGE TINLEY: We'll be adjourned.
(Commissioners Court was adjourned at 12:25 p.m.)
9-28-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
122
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 1st day of October,
2009.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
Kathy anik, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
9-28-09
ORDER NO. 31453
TEXAS ONLINE MASTER AGREEMENT FOR E-FILING
Came to be heard this the 28th 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 the Master Agreement with Texas Online for e-filing with the courts, and
authorize the County Judge to sign same.
ORDER NO. 31454
SIMPLIFILE AGREEMENT FOR E-RECORDING
Came to be heard this the 28th 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 Agreement with Simplifile for e-Recording in the County Clerk's Office,
and authorize County Judge to sign same.
ORDER NO. 31455
ADOPT PROPOSED SALARY INCREASES, EXPENSES AND ALLOWANCES FOR
ELECTED OFFICIALS OF KERB COUNTY, TEXAS
Came to be heard this the 28th day of September, 2009, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve adopting the proposed salary increases, expenses and allowances for Elected
Officials of Kerr County, Texas, in accordance with the Public Notice published in the
Kerrville Daily Times.
ORDER NO. 31456
ORDER EXPRESSING INTENT TO REIMBURSE WITH TAX EXEMPT
OBLIGATION PROCEEDS
Came to be heard this the 28th 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 the Order Expressing Intent to Reimburse with Tax Exempt Obligation
Proceeds for costs associated with constructing or acquiring various capital assets and
improvements within the County, with a cap at 4.9%, including cost of issuance, for two
(2) budget years.
ORDER NO. 31457
COPIER CONTRACT FOR COUNTY JUDGE AND COMMISSIONERS COURT
Came to be heard this the 28th 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:
Accept the proposal from Ikon, with minor modifications, subject to the County
Attorney's approval.
ORDER N0.31458
FISCAL YEAR 2009/10 KERB COUNTY BUDGET
Came to be heard this the 28th day of September, 2009, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 3-1-0 to: (Commissioner Oehler opposed)
Adopt the Fiscal Year 2009/2010 Kerr County Budget, as modified today.
ORDER NO. 31459
2009 KERB COUNTY TAX RATE FOR MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION
Came to be heard this the 28th day of September, 2009, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously
approved by a record vote of 5-0-0 to:
Adopt the Maintenance and Operation Tax Rate of .3592 for the 2009 tax year.
Commissioner 1-aye
Commissioner 2-aye
Commissioner 3-aye
Commissioner 4-aye
Judge Tinley-aye
ORDER NO. 31460
2009 KERB COUNTY TAX RATE FOR INTEREST AND SINKING (DEBT)
Came to be heard this the 28th day of September, 2009, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Oehler, the Court unanimously
approved by a record vote of 5-0-0 to:
Adopt Interest and Sinking (Debt) Rate of .0379 for the 2009 tax year.
Commissioner 1-aye
Commissioner 2-aye
Commissioner 3-aye
Commissioner 4-aye
Judge Tinley-aye
ORDER NO. 31461
2009 KERR COUNTY TAX RATE FOR LATERAL ROADS
Came to be heard this the 28th day of September, 2009, with a motion made by
Commissioner Oehler, seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously
approved by a record vote of 5-0-0 to:
Adopt Lateral Roads Tax Rate of .0322 for the 2009 tax year.
Commissioner 1-aye
Commissioner 2-aye
Commissioner 3-aye
Commissioner 4-aye
Judge Tinley-aye
ORDER N0.31462
2009 KERB COUNTY COMBINED TOTAL TAX RATE
Came to be heard this the 28th day of September, 2009, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously
approved by a record vote of 5-0-0 to:
Adopt Combined Total Tax Rate for Kerr County of .4293 for the 2009 tax year which is
the total of the M&O at .3592, I&S at .0379 and Lateral Roads at .0322. "THIS TAX
RATE WILL RAISE MORE TAXES FOR MAINTENANCE AND OEPRATIONS
THAN LAST YEAR'S RATE."
Commissioner 1-aye
Commissioner 2-aye
Commissioner 3-aye
Commissioner 4-aye
Judge Tinley-aye
ORDER NO. 31463
FISCAL YEAR 2009/10 KERR COUNTY BUDGET
Came to be heard this the 28th day of September, 2009, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously
approved by a record vote of 5-0-0 to:
Adopt Fiscal Year 2009/10 Kerr County Budget which will raise more total property
taxes than last year's budget, by $179,879.00, which is a 1% increase, and of that amount
$74,127.00 is tax revenue to be raised from new property added to the tax roll this year.
ORDER NO. 31464
2009 LAKE INGRAM ESTATES ROAD DISTRICT TAX RATE
Came to be heard this the 28th day of September, 2009, with a motion made by
Commissioner Oehler, seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously
approved by a record vote of 5-0-0 to:
Adopt the Lake Ingram Estates Road District Tax Rate of .3611/$100 valuation for the
2009 tax year. "THIS TAX RATE WILL RAISE MORE TAXES FOR
MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS THAN LAST YEAR'S RATE."
Commissioner 1-aye
Commissioner 2-aye
Commissioner 3-aye
Commissioner 4-aye
Judge Tinley-aye
ORDER NO. 31465
FINAL REVISION OF PLAT OF LOT 3 IN HERITAGE PARK SUBDIVISION,
SECTION I
Came to be heard this the 28th day of September, 2009, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Oehler, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve Final Revision of Plat of Lot 3 in the Heritage Park Subdivision Section I,
Volume 4, Page 96, located in Precinct 2.
ORDER NO. 31466
NAME PRIVATE ROAD, MOORHEAD ROAD E
Came to be heard this the 28th day of September, 2009, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Oehler, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve setting a public hearing for November 9, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. for naming a
private road, Moorhead Rd. E., located in Precinct 2.
ORDER NO. 31467
AGREEMENT WITH SAN PATRICIO COUNTY DESIGNATING
KERRVILLE/KERB COUNTY AS A POINT-TO-POINT EVACUATION SHELTER
Came to be heard this the 28th 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 Agreement with San Patricio County designating Kerrville/Kerr County as a
Point-To-Point evacuation shelter for evacuees from San Patricio County in the event of a
hurricane.
ORDER N0.31468
KERB COUNTY PERSONNEL HANDBOOK
Came to be heard this the 28th day of September, 2009, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Oehler, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Adopt the Kerr County Personnel Handbook, as presented and amended, and abolish any
and all previous Kerr County Personnel/Policy Handbooks.
ORDER NO. 31469
BIDS FOR FOOD SERVICE FOR KERR COUNTY JAIL
Came to be heard this the 28th day of September, 2009, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Open bids for Food Service for the Kerr County Jail:
Aramark Correctional Services, LLC - NO BID
Five Star Correctional Services for groceries only
ABL Management, Inc. for food service proposal, Section 3 has methodology to
determine price
Canteen Correctional Services , with a matrix to be used in establishing cost
And accept all bids and forward to the Sheriff for evaluation, analysis and
recommendation.
ORDER NO. 31470
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACFT WITH PETER LEWIS FOR
ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES
Came to be heard this the 28th day of September, 2009, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve Professional Services Contract, in the amount of $78,488.00, subject to the
amendments to be made by the County Attorney, with Peter Lewis for architectural
services on new Law Enforcement Annex/Adult Probation Building and related
improvements, and authorize the County Judge to sign same.
ORDER NO.31471
REQUESTS FROM ELECTED OFFICIALS AND DEPARTMENT HEADS FOR
APPROPRIATE OFFICE STAFF
Came to be heard this the 28th 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:
Timothy Bonier, Maintenance Department
Diane Bolin, Tax Assessor
Terry Lyle, Court Compliance Department
Amos Barton, 198th District Attorney
William E. Ragsdale, Justice of the Peace #4
ORDER NO. 31472
POSITION SCHEDULE, STEP AND GRADE SCHEDULES AND GENERAL
PROVISIONS OF KERR COUNTY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009-10
Came to be heard this the 28th 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:
Adopt the Position Schedule, 2 Step and Grade Schedules (1 for October 1, 2009 and 1
for April 1, 2010), and General Provisions of Kerr County for Fiscal Year 2009/10,
which includes the Holiday Schedule.
ORDER NO. 31473
CLAIMS AND ACCOUNTS
Came to be heard this the 28th day of September, 2009, came to be considered by the
Court various Commissioners Precincts, which said Claims and Accounts are:
Accounts
Expense
10-General	$	181,618.70
15-Road & Bridge	$	31,480.06
16-2008 Capital Projects	$	2,565.75
18-County Law Library	$	3,538.67
21-Title IV-E	$	102.73
28-Records Mgmt & Preserv	$	1,055.00
50-Indigent Health Care	$	5,505.90
76-Juv Detention Facility	$	7,450.34
82-SO Law Enforcement	$	354.76
83-216t" District Attorney	$	1,385.50
TOTAL	$	235,057.41
FY 08/09 Juvenile Probation	$	30,827.174
TOTAL	$	265,885.15
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. 31474
BUDGET AMENDMENT NUMBERS 1-46
Came to be heard this the 28th day of September, 2009, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve paying the Budget Amendment Numbers 1 through 46 as presented.
ORDER NO. 31475
MONTHLY REPORTS
Came to be heard this the 28th day of September, 2009, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the Monthly Reports from:
Constable Pct #3
ORDER NO. 31476
2010 KERR COUNTY EMPLOYEE HEALTH BENEFITS PROPOSALS
Came to be heard this the 28th 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:
Open bids for the 2010 Kerr County Employee Health Benefits:
IHS
Datapath Administrative Services
Don Wallace through American United Life and One America Company
Don Wallace through Travelers
Wallace and Associates through Unicare
American United Life (may be part of a prior one already named)
Entrust
Willis through HRH
Wallace and Associates through Humana
Willis through UMR
Mutual Assurance Administrators, Inc.
Datapath Administrative Services (may be part of one already named)
Willis through ABC Company underwritten through The Principal Financial Group
Texas Association of Counties
And accept all bids and refer to Human Resources Department and our outside
Consultant for evaluation.