1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT
Regular Session
Monday, January 11, 2010
9:00 a.m.
Commissioners' Courtroom
Kerr County Courthouse
Kerrville, Texas
PRESENT: PAT TINLEY, Kerr County Judge
H.A."BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1
WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2
JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3
BRUCE OEHLER, Commissioner Pct. 4
Q
..r
~.-~
..-~
0
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
January 11, 2010
--- Commissioners' Comments
1.1 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
order authorizing County Clerk to publish notice
of public hearing in connection with issuance of
series of tax-exempt obligations to be issued by
the County to finance County's portion of
construction of hangers at City/County Airport
1.2 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
accept and approve donation made to Kerr County
Juvenile Detention Facility by the King's Ransom
Foundation and modify budget to include both
revenue and expenditure of funds
1.3 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
approve submission of Energy Efficient and
Conservation Block Grant application to Office
of the Comptroller of Public Accounts and
authorize County Judge to sign application
1.6 Consider/discuss, accept Constable, Precinct 1,
annual report on racial profiling
1.7 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
annual report from Kerr County Historical
Commission; approve list of members
1.8 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to issue
addendum to Request for Proposals for construction
of Sheriff's Office Annex/Adult Probation Office
facilities to reduce the bid bond requirement from
10o to 5% of bid price and include provision(s)
for liquidated damages
1.9 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
appoint Linda Garrett to ESD #2 Commission
4.1 Pay Bills
4.2 Budget Amendments
4.3 Late Bills
4.4 Approve and Accept Monthly Reports
1.5 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action
regarding property appraisal reports from TAC
PAGE
5
13
20
21
28
28
29
36
37
51
57
58
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)
January 11, 2010
PAGE
5.1 Reports from Commissioners/Liaison Committee
Assignments 68
5.2 Reports from Elected Officials/Department Heads 76
1.4 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
order authorizing issuance of approximately
$4,550,000 in principal amount of Kerr County
tax notes, Series 2010; authorizing levying of
tax for payment thereof; authorizing execution
of paying agent/registrar agreement and purchase
contract; and authorizing and approving other
instruments & procedures and sale related thereto 81
--- Adjourned 86
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
On Monday, January 11, 2010, at 9:00 a.m., a regular
meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in
the Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse,
Kerrville, Texas, and the following proceedings were had in
open court:
P R O C E E D I N G S
JUDGE TINLEY: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
Let me call to order this regularly scheduled meeting of the
Kerr County Commissioners Court which was scheduled and
posted for this date and time, Monday, January 11, 2010, at
9 a.m. It is that time now. If you would please join --
rise and join me for a moment of prayer, and then followed by
pledge of allegiance.
(Prayer and pledge of allegiance.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. At this time, if there's
a member of the public or audience that wishes to be heard
with respect to any matter which 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 an agenda item,
we'd ask that you fill out a participation form. There
should be some located at the rear of the room. If, for any
reason, you haven't filled out a form and wish to be heard on
an agenda item, when that item is called, get my attention in
some manner; I will give you the opportunity to be heard.
But right now, if there's any member of the public or
1-11-10
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
we'll be out there. The next day, Wednesday, anyone that
wants to go to Austin, they can listen to the statewide
committee on subdivision regulation rewrites, all that other
stuff that I'm working on. So, I'll be up there. Next week
there's a -- on the 21st, there's a -- our appeal will be
heard by Water Development Board up in Austin on the 21st,
and then on the 29th, Hill Country County Coalition's meeting
in Austin again, I think. Anyway, so I'll be traveling
around a little bit.
Another thing, I don't know if anybody from the
press was there. Quite a few from the public were there last
Thursday -- I think it was Thursday -- when U.S.G.S. gave a
presentation on a -- a study of -- they're about to embark
on, or looking to embark on it. Pretty interesting. I was
fascinated by it; of course, I get fascinated by this stuff.
They have chosen -- and this is the central region, which is
south of Denver, has chosen to do a very detailed, high-tech
study of the Trinity Aquifer. They did one several years
ago; it's a 5- or 6-year study on the Edwards. That's where
all of the real detailed knowledge of the Edwards Aquifer
came from. They went from that, and they're doing one up in
Oklahoma, the Arbuckle-Simpson Aquifer, and that aquifer up
there, along with what they learned on the Edwards, is
somewhat similar to the Trinity. And they're -- and they're
in the process of doing the scope of work to see about the
i-ii-io
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
funding of it. It will be a -- probably a 5- to 7-year
project if it is approved by the U.S.G.S. higher-ups.
And what this project will do, they go in with a
lot of seismic data and mapping over areas of the Trinity,
and they're -- they kind of go into detailed areas in quite a
few different locations. One area will be eastern Kerr
County, one down towards Pipe Creek, and we're talking about
adding one from Kerrville up into Gillespie County. And it
will enable them to be able to map with pretty good accuracy,
in 3D, the aquifers, and they can split it out by zones.
They can go in and map the main rock and sand, the thickness
of it, in 3D over the entire area. The -- you know, the -- a
little bit of, I guess, the down side of it is you got
tools -- remember, in science, it's -- data in depends on
what data's coming out of it, so if there's too many
assumptions made, I don't think there's a whole lot of value.
But if they do it the way they're talking about,
and very detailed, talking about -- a lot of it's done
through magnetic surveys, and which they -- anyway, I'm not
going into detail on how they do it, but they'll run
helicopters possibly on a mile grid over pretty large areas,
and then do all this mapping. But, anyway, if this does come
to happen, it will be a tremendous tool for this whole region
in the state, and it says a lot, I think, of the importance
of our aquifer in this state. The region that's doing this
i-ii-io
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
is the entire -- is the third -- middle third of the United
States. It's that U.S.G.S. office that's focusing on this,
so it's pretty interesting stuff.
'I JUDGE TINLEY: Are they doing that in a lot of
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They do one. This will be the
third one in the middle part of the United States. And
they're at a point now that -- they learned a lot on the
Edwards, 'cause it's a little bit, in a way, easier. But
they've learned a whole lot more on the Arbuckle-Simpson.
And what they can also do with this is they can actually map
the pretty minor faults, so they can figure out, you know,
exactly where -- they can't say where the water is, but they
can say where the sands are, or the different zones. And I
think in the Edwards -- and they got this done partially, but
they did the Edwards; they did an area up around Camp Bullis
and they were able to differentiate, I think, between 11
different zones in the Upper Trinity, which is the Glen Rose.
Pretty detailed. So, anyway, it's a -- an exciting thing if
it happens. Looks like it will. But it's a -- and the
purpose of the meeting was to garner support and pretty much
bring up the -- through mostly the groundwater districts.
They'll be the main participants with it, using that data and
getting it, you know, into this big new model. It's called
HIRT vision. Anyway --
i-ii-io
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 WILLIAMS: Is this something they're
doing of their own initiative or in conjunction with Water
Development Board or what?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's a U.S.G.S. initiative.
They -- they're out there. It's just, you know, funded as a
line item in the national federal budget, and it's for the --
to do this type of work. And they think that this is a -- an
aquifer, because of the rapid growth in this whole region,
that it is a very important thing. And there's, you know,
acknowledgment that people don't understand this aquifer;
it's a very complicated aquifer. And they have some tools
they can come in that would really be a big benefit to this
area.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm sure the driving force, in
reality, is Austin, San Marcos, San Antonio. I mean, they're
where the people are that need -- that are coming up this way
into the zone. So, it's -- it was interesting for those of
us that like that kind of stuff.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, Jon, as you know, the 3D
seismic has proven to be highly successful utilized in the
exploration of oil and gas, and it's probably the biggest
thing to come down the pike there for the last 25 or more
years.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
i-il-io
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
JUDGE TINLEY: It's really -- really proven to be a
tremendously accurate exploration tool, so no reason it can't
work for fresh water strata, either.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that's exactly -- and
they're -- I mean, this is technology that's been in the oil
business probably for the last 25 years, and they're finding
I that they can modify it, tweak it a little bit, and go with
much shallower zones and get a little bit more precise. Oil
and gas is a little bit broader usually. But it's pretty
interesting. One of the things that is -- if this thing all
happens, when they do their magnetic surveys, they use a
helicopter and just -- this tool they use, unfortunately,
looks like a giant torpedo, and they're flying real low, and
they get a lot of the -- so they're saying they go out and do
a very large -- they learned this in Oklahoma; they need to
do a very large P.R. campaign before they start doing this,
because people get very upset with these things, like a
torpedo flying low on black helicopters.
JUDGE TINLEY: Black helicopters syndrome.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, anyway, it's pretty
interesting.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I wonder if GMA-9 will take
any of this data and put it to good use.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Actually, I will -- Ron
Fieseler of GMA-9 is one of the driving forces behind it. It
i-ii-io
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
was actually a letter that he wrote that got this on the
radar screen of the U.S.G.S. So -- so, you know, I haven't
always seen eye-to-eye with Mr. Fieseler. You know, this
one, we're in agreement.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, that's good.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's it. Other than it's
been awful cold outside.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do you have anything for us,
Commissioner Oehler?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Burn ban's on in Precinct 4.
It may be coming off in the next day or so; we got some
moisture moving in maybe. The other thing, we -- Buster and
I and the Judge attended the ribbon cutting yesterday of the
Mountain Home Volunteer Fire Department's new building.
Very, very nice. And a representative from the foundation
was there that helped fund that thing, and it's -- the second
phase will be coming pretty soon, I think.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which foundation was it?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I believe it was Cailloux.
They didn't want a lot of recognition out of it, so I won't
talk about it much. But --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: For -- if I may add one other
comment, I heard two -- two precincts have burn bans on. We
really don't have in place a system, since Joe Franklin left,
for burning prescribed burns during a burn ban. I will try
i-li-io
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
to get with their new -- Joe Franklin's replacement this
week, so there's a --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Who is it?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Wayne something-or-another.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: He's over there?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, he's in the NRCS, same
office Joe was in. And he's -- they don't have a whole lot
of burn knowledge in that office. But I've talked to them
once briefly about it, but I -- you know, we don't have a
policy yet. Certainly, people that are certified burn
managers can burn as they choose, but others, it's a little
bit gray. But I'll get with them, see if we can get the same
system in place that we did last year.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That system worked pretty
well.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: What is Phase 2 of the Mountain Home
Fire Department?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It's going to be a big
training room and I think some showers and -- and some office
space.
JUDGE TINLEY: And that'll be on the --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Be on the east side.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- east side? Okay. Okay.
Anything else?
i-li-io
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 OEHLER: That's it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's get on with our agenda, if we
might. First item is to consider, discuss, take appropriate
action on order authorizing the County Clerk to publish a
notice of public hearing in connection with the issuance of
the series of tax-exempt obligations to be issued by the
County to finance the County's portion of the construction of
hangars at the City/County airport. I put this on the
agenda. It's part and parcel of our debt issue. After
considerable discussion with Ms. Hargis and discussion with
the financial adviser, the bond counsel, because of the
uncertainty as to -- as to the exact facility that they want
to build out there, when they want to build it, where they
want to build it, and how they want to build it, I suppose,
the recommendation that Ms. Hargis and I have to the Court,
based upon the advice from the financial adviser and the bond
counsel, is that we put that one on the shelf for now, and if
and when it becomes more of a reality in the definite
foreseeable future, then we'll bring that back.
That's something that -- that issue has to be
handled separately from the other capital items debt issue
because of the nature of use of the facilities that'll be
constructed with those funds, and if need be, we can bring
that back and probably have the whole thing completed in 60
days or less. So, the recommendation that Ms. Hargis and I
i-ii-lo
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
are making at this point in time -- and I assume I'm speaking
for you, ma'am -- after we had a lengthy discussion, is that
we pass on this for the time being.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, let me -- let me
enlighten the Court a little bit about a conversation that I
had subsequent to you and I talking about this very issue. I
understand the logic that you're putting forward, and that of
Ms. Hargis, that we don't want to be issuing debt and paying
interest on outstanding debt, not knowing the particulars or
the details of when and where and so forth. I did have a
conversation with a member of the board, and it's not
important which one, and they will be discussing probably
today the fact that it is their intention -- it likely will
be their intention to instruct the firm that's doing the new
airport master plan to take this particular issue and
front-load it into the master plan and do all the work
necessary to determine the who, what, where, and why on this
issue. And it is his sense that, that being the case, they
would be in a position to start construction on T-hangars
with all the particulars laid in place about the fourth
quarter of this year, with six months construction time,
making them -- you know, and maybe not that much, but they
could be built out by the end -- maybe the end of the first
quarter of the following year, of '11. So, with that little
caveat, where do you think that leaves us in terms of what
i-ii-lo
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
you're proposing?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, we -- we had talked with the
financial adviser and the bond counsel about, you know, maybe
sometime this year, and they said, well, even so, you know,
that's a ways down the road, and until you know exactly what
you want -- and by that time, you may be into the next budget
year. There may be funding available so we don't have to do
that issue, even. So, we really don't know what we're
dealing with at this point in time. But when we responded to
the bond rating agency, they specifically inquired about
potential projects -- capital projects that -- that we might
have within next 12 months in which there might be debt
issues involved. We did disclose this one. I -- I was aware
at the time that the -- the master plan, which probably will
not commence for another month or two because of the funding
issue on it, I'm given to understand, and if they front-load
it, that master plan's going to be probably up to six months
in process, and that'll get us towards the end of the year,
and that -- that may be a legitimately good forecast.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The entire plan will be
about six months. I think it was -- the point was being made
that they would ask that firm to take this particular issue
and front-load it in the entire plan so that they would have
the information in-hand with respect to T-hangars. But, you
know, if we need to set it aside and then move it when
i-ii-io
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
there's more information, whatever.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I do know the Airport Board
had talked about one number of hangars, and then they talked
about a larger number of hangars, so they're not really solid
on -- on the size of the facility. That's probably another
thing being studied.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Twenty-five or 50,
somewhere in that range.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- how does this
relate to the other projects that are also -- I mean, we
pretty much did the, as I recall, one- to four-year funding
under this bond proposal of projects at the airport. I mean,
it was all of the projects out there, such as the water line,
the master plan, which is going right now, and the water
line's really in about the same situation as the hangars
right now. It's in a little bit of a stall because of -- of
finding out exactly what they're getting for it, because of
some conversations I've had with the City -- or the fire
marshal in the city.
MS. HARGIS: That one is true, but we don't have to
have separate funding for the water line or the master plan,
because that's considered a public issue. The reason we went
ahead and split the other one out is, it -- there's federal
requirements that we have to, and a special public hearing.
Those can be sold privately, because they're smaller. We
i-ii-io
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
only took 325,000 out. The rest of it's still there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, it's just that one project?
MS. HARGIS: Right. If we could have encompassed
that project in the main bond issue, we would have -- have
deleted it. But we have to sell that separately anyway. It
was probably going to be a private issue, and a private issue
we can get done in 30 days or less. So, it's not like -- you
know, it still had to be a separate bond issue. And it's got
a $30,000 price tag on it, anyway, for cost of issuance, so
we didn't really want to incur that. I'm also concerned that
we might need more money, so I would rather wait till we know
exactly how much money we need, 'cause it could be 500,000
instead of 325.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, it could.
MS. HARGIS: And it has to be a separate issue
anyway.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. All right, that makes
sense.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It may be zero.
MS. HARGIS: It could be.
JUDGE TINLEY: Very well could be. The only thing
we carved out of the capital issue was that, and it's because
of the use. It's not a purely public use. These are going
to be for private use, going to be leased by the Airport
Board for private use. That was the reason it had to be
i-ii-io
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
carved out and handled in a different way. There's some
different federal laws and tax laws.
MS. HARGIS: We have to do more public hearings and
stuff, and so we might as well, you know, just wait till we
really know. Then we can get the exact number.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, these are the same
moneys that we will deal with in 1.4 later on?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I think it's wise -- I
mean, I can't imagine us taking too many more steps until we
know, you know, are you building a big building or a little
building? And how many buildings are you -- you know,
that's --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, that's important.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's good business to -- you
know, let's encourage them to get their little ducks in a
row.
JUDGE TINLEY: And by the time we're in the next
budget year, which will be in October, things may be in -- in
shape that we don't have to do a debt issue at all.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's true.
JUDGE TINLEY: The thing, I think, that got -- that
got our attention up front quickly was the $30,000 cost --
i-ii-io
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
estimated cost of issuance for this -- this small item. And
until -- until we really knew what we were going to do and
how we were going to do it, we didn't see that it was
justified that we could incur that cost.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I didn't realize this one had
to be a separate issue until just now.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Does that affect the
interest rate in any way, public or private -- personal
versus public placement?
MS. HARGIS: Not really.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MS. HARGIS: I think that, you know, it's still a
tax-exempt bond. It's just that there's different federal
requirements, and because of the usage, again, it has to be
sold separately. So, you know, I mean, I don't think it's
going to affect the interest rate. It's just, you know, the
hoops that we have to jump through and the fact that it can't
be a public issue; it has to be a private issue. So, a
private issue of that amount of money is not hard to come by,
and I -- you know, we're dealing with S5 million, and we need
close to that. When you, you know, need to subtract out the
interest for that and the cost of issuance, it just seemed
wiser to me, especially after the meeting I attended in
December.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right.
i-li-lo
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
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Anything else from any member
of the Court with regard to that particular agenda item?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We will not be doing a
public notice on this? Is that --
JUDGE TINLEY: No. No, there's no need to if we're
not going to go forward with the issue.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: That agenda item was provided for
the notice of a public hearing that's required --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In the event of --
JUDGE TINLEY: -- by FIRA, or whatever that acronym
is under the federal law. Let's go to Item 2, then.
Consider, discuss, take appropriate action to accept and
approve a donation made to the Kerr County Juvenile Detention
Facility by King's Ransom Foundation and modify the budget to
include both revenue and expenditure of funds. Mr. Stanton?
MR. STANTON: Good morning. We received a donation
right -- a little while back of $1,000 from the King's Ransom
Foundation to purchase food items and also clothing items for
the kids out at the juvenile facility, and we're just asking
the Court to authorize us to -- to receipt that donation and
also to exchange it in our budget, amend our budget to be
able to spend it, and also receive it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Spend it in the manner that the
25 ~ donor has requested?
i-li-lo
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
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir. Yes, sir, to purchase
the --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That would be for what?
MR. STANTON: The two stipulations that they had
when they put it in was that -- that we use 500 of it to buy
meals for Christmas and for New Year's, and another 500 to
purchase clothes for kids, when we get kids into the facility
that don't really have clothes that they can wear when they
come to court and different things like that, to use that
money for those two items.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Question or discussion on the motion? All in
favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Thank you,
sir.
MR. STANTON: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: We'll move to Item 3; consider,
discuss, and take appropriate action to approve the
submission of the Energy Efficient and Conservation Block
i-ii-io
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
Grant application to the Office of the Comptroller of Public
', Accounts, and authorize County Judge to sign the application.
Ms. Lavender?
MS. LAVENDER: Good morning.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Good morning.
MS. LAVENDER: Last time we were here, we knew we
were going to get 100,000, but we didn't know how much more
than that, and in late December, we found out we were going
to get a little over 115,000 out of this allocation. And Tim
and I spent quite a bit of time discussing what we needed to
do with this, as you all had mandated that we do, and I think
you have a copy of the grant in your -- in your deal. You
may not have had time to look at it, but what we decided to
do -- it's $115,153, is the total allocation we're going to
get. And we decided the best use of it -- and the way that
the grant is worded, we need to look at ways to save energy,
save on our utility bills, and make the courthouse and the
Law Enforcement Center more energy efficient. And so we
decided that probably the best thing to do was to replace
these two air-conditioner/heating units here in the
courthouse that are so old with some energy-efficient heat
pumps, and the estimates we used were based on one bid that
we received. We'll have to go out for bids on the
air-conditioners. So, we -- you know, we had to use an
estimated cost, but we feel like that we can get the two
i-ii-io
23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
air-conditioner units here at the courthouse replaced for
about $13,000. And then we'll complete the replacement of
all of the air-conditioning units at the jail with the rest
of the -- or the bulk of the rest of the grant money, with
energy-efficient heat pumps. Those units on the jail are 15
years old, and you all had already, out of regular county
funds, replaced several of them in recent years. We feel
like this is the most efficient use of the money, the bulk of
the money. It's $83,000 it'll cost us, we believe, to
replace those units. And then the other thing that we'd like
to do is replace the T12 lighting here in the courthouse with
T8 bulbs, and also install motion sensors in areas where we
have little or no traffic. For example, the Law Library,
maybe some of the storage units, and maybe some of the
offices where you just have a single person in that office,
rather than flipping lights on and off and, you know, leaving
the office lights on when you're out of the deal, you'd have
a motion sensor in there that would turn the lights -- and
I'm sure you've been in buildings that had these. And KPUB
recommended this when they did the energy audit and said this
might save us some significant costs on our lighting. And so
that's the 18,000 for that. And then we've got two
district --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask a question.
MS. LAVENDER: Excuse me. Go ahead.
i-li-io
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand that -- I
understand that a motion -- somebody walks in a room, light
comes on.
MS. LAVENDER: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Does it go off when someone
leaves, or just after a time frame?
MS. LAVENDER: No, it would go off when the person
leaves. Now, there will be probably a little small reset
time on it. But we feel like that -- that'll -- that would
be good for a lot of the offices and a lot of the areas of
the courthouse, and probably save us some electricity.
JUDGE TINLEY: These are recommendations that were
included --
MS. LAVENDER: Right, in the KPUB --
JUDGE TINLEY: -- in the audit that KPUB was kind
enough to donate for us?
MS. LAVENDER: Right, correct. And then the other
thing we added, simply because we had the money to do it, I
don't know whether you've been up in the district courtrooms
lately. I spend quite a bit of time up there, and the
thermostats up there were installed when that unit -- that
area was redone in '98, I think. And, you know, it can be as
much as 10 degrees difference in the front of the courtroom
and the back of the courtroom. And they come on and off, and
they're very -- you know, very inefficient fuel-wise, and so
1-il-lo
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
we decided we'd replace those four thermostats. And if we
have money available, you know, when we get this done, when
we get the bids in, then we may add some other thermostats.
Tim says there's several other inefficient thermostats in the
courthouse that could be replaced. What we're going to do
is ask, you know, in this grant deal for the 114,550. That
leaves us about a $600 cushion, and until we get the bids in
on the air-conditioners, we feel like that we need to leave
that 600 uncommitted. And it may be that we'll end up with
more than 600 left over and be able to do some other
thermostats or whatever, or additional lights. We feel like
this 18,000 will do everything we need to do with the lights.
And so I --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On the light bulbs, are
MS. LAVENDER: No, go ahead and replace all of
them.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All of them. What are you
going do with the old ones?
MS. LAVENDER: Well, I would think they need to be
recycled.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, it just seems -- you hate
to -- I mean, it seems like we have a lot of money in light
bulbs just to throw them away. It seems --
1-ii-lo
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
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Light bulb sale?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- kind of wasteful.
MS. LAVENDER: That would be a Tim question, not a
Rosa question.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: All right.
JUDGE TINLEY: You can take two with you, Jon.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't want to take two home.
MS. LAVENDER: Well, actually, you could do
something like you could donate them to Habitat for
Humanity's Restore if you really want to do something with
them.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Seems that we shouldn't throw
away a bunch of good light bulbs. I mean, I think -- how
many do we have in here? Twenty in this one room? We
probably have, you know, thousands.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Buster has one burned out
over there.
MS. LAVENDER: We were waiting to replace that one.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You are good. God, I knew
there was something wrong.
MS. LAVENDER: The allocation grant paperwork is
due on Friday, and so we need to get the Judge to sign it.
And --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I move approval of the
submission of the Energy Efficient --
i-ii-io
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
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- Conservation Block
Grant, and authorize County Judge to sign same.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item. Further question or discussion
on that -- on the motion? All in favor of the motion,
signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Let's go --
MS. LAVENDER: While I've got the floor, let me
tell you one other thing. Last week we received the final
approval on our juvenile grant that we applied for through
the Edward Byrne Justice Grant program, and it's almost
$70,000, and Jason and them are going to get two new vehicles
ordered this week for it. And we're waiting -- we think the
latter part of this month, we'll get the other Byrne grant,
which includes 10 vehicles -- or five vehicles for the
Sheriff's Office and the software for 198th District Court
people. So, we're getting more money.
JUDGE TINLEY: Always nice getting other people's
money. It's our money, but the bigger share we get coming
back to us, the better off we are.
i-ii-io
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
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Just so we get our fair
JUDGE TINLEY: Better than our fair share,
hopefully. Let's move to Item 6, if we might. Consider,
discuss, and accept Constable, Precinct 1, annual report on
racial profiling. Commissioner Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It explains itself. It's
something that we do annually, and the report is in your --
in your computer. So, I move for -- what do we do, accept
it? I move for acceptance.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item. Question or discussion on the
motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your
right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. We'll move
to Item 7; to consider, discuss, and take appropriate action
on the annual report from the Kerr County Historical
Commission, and approve the list of members. Commissioner
Baldwin again.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, we do it every year,
guys. And the report is in here, the things that they have
i-il-io
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
done, the executive summary, the reports of their future
desires, et cetera, et cetera. Some of the awards, and some
of the issues that they're planning on in the future. We
have -- we actually have to take action on approving the
membership list, and I'd like to read those names in right
quick. This is the membership list for the -- let's see --
for 2010. Ann Bethel, Sue Dyke, Haskell Fine, Julius
Neunhoffer, Bill Rector, Julia Stehling, Irene Van Winkle,
Lew Williams, and Mindy Wendele; Wilma Teague, Linda Nielson,
Larry Welty, and Carol Darling are nominated as new members,
and I present them to you for approval.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the membership list as indicated. Question or
discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion,
signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. We'll move
to Item 8; to consider, discuss, take appropriate action to
issue addendum to Request for Proposals for construction of
Sheriff's Office Annex/Adult Probation office facilities to
reduce the bid bond requirement from 10 percent to 5 percent
i-ii-io
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
of the bid price, and to include provisions for liquidated
damages. I put this on the agenda after discussion with
Mr. Peter Lewis, the architect on the project. The request
to lower that bid bond price is -- we got a requirement for a
performance and payment bond, whoever the successful bidder
is, anyway. And hopefully we won't have them spending all
their money that they add to the bid by putting up the bid
bond, and we'll get maximum -- maximum interest in our -- in
our construction bids. The liquidated damages came about as
a result of -- we got us a drop-dead deadline in the contract
for September 1, and we want to make sure there's an
appropriate incentive for whoever is the successful bidder to
meet that deadline. Mr. Lewis?
MR. LEWIS: Well, I think you have summarized it,
Judge. Commissioners, good morning. And I -- those are the
two issues at hand, and also just a -- a quick update. We've
had a lot of interest in the project. We have 11 bidders who
have received sets as of today from all the local suspects,
as well as folks from Boerne and San Antonio, and -- and have
been in conversation with them. We do have a pre-bid meeting
this week here at 10 o'clock on Wednesday. It's a mandatory
pre-bid, so we'll see what their level of interest really is,
and then bids are due next Friday. Commissioner Baldwin and
I were on TV on Friday morning to talk about this project a
little bit, so we've got it out on the airwaves as well, and
i-ii-io
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
31
I suspect that we'll get a few more interested bidders by the
time bids are due. This is the -- one of the -- one of the
two or three public projects being bid in about a 100-mile
radius right now of any consequence, so it is a good thing.
And so I think that we will see some very good numbers from
this.
Back to the issue at hand, we do -- we had some
inquiries about a 10 percent -- requirement for 10 percent
bid bond, and we see 5 and 10 percent. The larger the
project, the smaller the bid bond, but it did seem a little
bit of a disincentive. What the bid bond is, for the
uninitiated, is -- it is a guarantee that the bidder will
honor their bid, so that someone that comes in with a low bid
doesn't walk away. If they should do that, they sacrifice
the bid bond. If it is 10 percent of a -- of a, you know,
one and a half to two million dollar project, that's
$150,000, $200,000. So, we -- I brought the issue to the
Judge for your consideration of reducing that from 10 percent
to 5 percent. I think that's fine. That would be our
recommendation. And then liquidated damages, that is -- we
did place a -- you do have a deadline, a drop-dead date for
the tenants -- for the occupants to move in, but we had
nothing to hold over a contractor's head in the event that
they exceeded that deadline, and liquidated damages is a tool
for doing that. And there's -- typically, it's a per diem,
i-Zi-io
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
and it can be anything that the Court desires, but it should
be reasonable or, again, it will be a disincentive to the
bidders. And so we discussed this. We suggested something
like $500 a day, so that --
JUDGE TINLEY: Or maybe even a little less. Our --
our exposure is -- our primary exposure is the lease cost,
ongoing lease cost for the probation. And there's a holdover
clause, I believe, at 125 percent, which runs it up to about
$4,000 a month, which would -- we could cover that at about
350, probably, under liquidated damages. So, 350 -- 300 to
500, I would say, would be probably appropriate. As you say,
you don't want to make it too high.
MR. LEWIS: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Because you'll run people off.
MR. LEWIS: So -- yes. So, I think anything in
that $300 to $500 range is appropriate and reasonable, and I
don't think that either of those numbers, anything in that
range, would -- would discourage prospective bidders, at
least qualified, bona fide bidders. So --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you ever say to them, "We
will pay you what we've agreed to pay you if you meet
the deadline in the contract that you have signed"?
MR. LEWIS: We -- I mean, the contract -- the
contract stipulates that there is an early -- the concept of
early completion bonus or incentive, and I have -- I've never
1-ii-io
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
seen that on a public project. I'm certain that that might
be considered on public work. Is that -- is that your
question? To say either that, yeah -- yes, you will be paid
what you've agreed to, or that there is some additional
incentive to complete it?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. No, my question was,
we'll live up to our part of the agreement if you will. What
in the hell do you draw a contract for if you don't live by
it?
MR. LEWIS: Well, that's -- you know, and that is
it. And the -- on the flip side -- the contract is that
document that states that. On the flip side, people walk
away from those all the time.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
MR. LEWIS: The -- I don't know all the details,
but I know that the Lemos Street Bridge crossing had
liquidated damages on it, and that contractor exceeded that
time. They just kept working away, and I imagine that's all
being worked out. But, you know, that's a very big project.
It's not a -- it might not be very punitive on a more modest
project. And this is a nice project, but it's -- you know,
it's not a 12 or 15 million dollar deal. I think it probably
behooves the Court to consider liquidated damages, just so
that the Adult Probation folks can be guaranteed occupancy,
and the Sheriff's folks as well.
i-li-io
34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure.
MR. LEWIS: So, specifically, no, we don't state
anything other than in the contract regarding guaranteed
payments.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there a -- and I'm just -- I
don't -- I'm not as familiar with the lease that we currently
have. Is there a reason for us to give an incentive to
finish it up to a month early? Will it save us money?
JUDGE TINLEY: No.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Doesn't help us if they really
finish it earlier?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Main thing, we just want to
finish it on time.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Or else.
JUDGE TINLEY: I would think 350 would be -- would
be adequate to cover our -- our ongoing costs if we have to
remain under a holdover status in the other -- other
facility.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, 350 per day?
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm, per day.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Till whenever?
MR. LEWIS: No, until their completion. And
completion, we certify that with a substantial completion, so
that the burden is on us to help compel them to finish. And,
1-11-10
35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
of course, the burden is on them. This is a project that
bona fide contractors are going to want to get in, complete,
and get out of, and they can make some money doing that if
they do.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I agree.
JUDGE TINLEY: The contractor wants to finish as
quickly as possible, because that maximizes the contractor's
profit. And I don't think the time limitations are --
MR. LEWIS: It's a generous --
JUDGE TINLEY: -- unreasonable for this particular
kind of project.
MR. LEWIS: It's a fairly simple project.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move approval of the agenda
item, and set liquidated damages at 350 per day.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
indicated.
18
19
20 as well?
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do we --
MR. LEWIS: Do you want to do one on the bid bond
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. That includes reducing the
bid bond from 10 percent to 5 percent?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: And to establish liquidated damages
i-li-io
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
36
at $350 per day beyond the required completion date. Further
question or discussion on the motion? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry.
MR. LEWIS: Very good. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you.
', MR. LEWIS: Thank you, gentlemen.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's go to Item 9, if we might.
Consider, discuss, take appropriate action to appoint Linda
Garrett to the Emergency Services District Number 2
Commission. Commissioner Oehler?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yes, sir. We -- this will
fill our Board of Commissioners for ESD Number 2. We were
waiting for Mrs. Garrett to get -- get approval from her
employer that it would be okay for her to serve, and she got
that. So, I move that we appoint Linda Garrett to the ESD
Board of Commissioners Number 2.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item. Question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just wanted to say that
she's going to make an excellent board member. She's an
i-ii-io
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
37
excellent person.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: She really is.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions? 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. That motion
does carry. I have purposely skipped over Item 4, as I'm
sure is evident to all. We anticipate having with us both
our bond counsel and a representative from the office of our
financial adviser to go over those items for us. So, let's
go ahead and go forward with Section 4 of the agenda, if we
might, the payment of the bills.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move we pav the bills.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for payment
of the bills. Question or comment or other discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's see. Now, we're
paying this pile of stuff right here, right?
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MS. HARGIS: You did get a new report that will be
included in your packets from now on, and that's so that you
can understand what direct payables are paid in between.
JUDGE TINLEY: We'll get to that in just a minute.
Let's go ahead and do this first, and then we're going to
1-ii-lo
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
skip to that, 'cause I got some questions on that.
MS. HARGIS: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and second to pay
the bills. Further question or discussion? All in favor of
the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. We have a
Direct Payables Receipt Register that's been provided by the
Auditor's office. Do you want to give us some --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't see that.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- general lead-in on that,
Ms. Hargis?
MS. HARGIS: Yes. We do pay direct payables, as
you're aware, every Friday for bills that are going to incur
a late charge, or someone that -- mostly that should be used
for people who are going out of town and for registration or
something of that nature, and they're traveling. We're
including this because I want y'all to know everything that's
paid. And the -- the bills that you see in the first part of
the report, those are bills that would have incurred a late
fee, and we don't want to incur the late fee, so we paid
those. The others are bills that have been requested to be
paid by the department heads, and because of either the bills
i-ii-io
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
not being -- coming in late to their office, or in this
particular case, we've got an unemployment contribution that
goes through both the Treasurer's office and the Human
Resources department, it didn't get to our office until late,
and they requested payment, because on the 10th of the month,
it had to be there. And I think that can be cured, but we'll
have to work with them	on that.	The	postage --
COMMISSIONER	BALDWIN:	Did	you just use the word
"cured"?
MS. HARGIS: "Cured." I did.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's making something
well that's sick.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, that's kind of what I
MS. HARGIS: The next one is postage, and we
understand from -- this is coming from the Tax Assessor's
office -- that they didn't realize that their meters were
down, and they didn't have any postage. We're trying to
point these out so that the department heads understand
that -- that they need to get these things in on time. They
need to be more cognizant about their bills. And when they
come in the door, just having the ability to run them through
I
direct payables and the Court not see them is not going to
happen. Now, this has been going on since I've been here,
1-ii-io
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
and I just feel like we're -- in my prior occupation, I
always presented every bill, whether it was late or
otherwise, to the directors, and I feel you should be
respected in the same manner. I think you need to know all
the bills that go through my office, whether they're a direct
payable or a late bill or anything of that nature. And so
we've actually come up with this little spreadsheet so that
you can see these. And, any question on that?
JUDGE TINLEY: The -- the bills that are shown on
the direct payables, they are not, then, included on the
general roster of the bills that we just paid?
MS. HARGIS: They are not.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. So, that being the case, in
order to comply with the law, we need to approve these direct
payables also, albeit separately, or collectively with a
motion, one or the other. But --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just a minute, Judge. She
shook her head no.
MS. HARGIS: No, I -- I was agreeing; they do. I
would prefer that you do.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, okay.
MS. HARGIS: I didn't mean to shake my head. I was
just trying to listen.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sorry.
JUDGE TINLEY: Most of these end up as direct
i-ii-io
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
payables because of the time frame of when Commissioners
Court falls?
MS. HARGIS: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: And then the time frame of getting
them paid, that would otherwise incur some sort of charges in
addition to the bill itself. We're not necessarily talking
about undue delay within a department. Have we pretty much
got that behind us, and we're just now trying to --
MS. HARGIS: We're still working --
JUDGE TINLEY: -- keep things on schedule?
MS. HARGIS: We're still working on that just a
little bit.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. HARGIS: We need to improve that, just -- we
still have to -- people need to watch when the bills come in
the door. They need to check their dates, and -- and
sometimes they don't, and then it falls on us and looks like
we're doing them. That's the reason why these late bills are
being paid. But we're working on that, and it's getting
better, because they're entering them, but sometimes it's
unavoidable, strictly because we got -- you know, Court
doesn't meet. But that last meeting in December, or end of
the month, you've got really almost two, two and a half weeks
in there, and some of these companies, like Walmart, they are
notorious about charging you late fees, and it's not small.
i-ii-io
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
So, you know, those we try to avoid. Ikon is another one; it
has a late fee on it, and it has to be paid by the first of
the month, and we don't meet the first of the month. So, we
just -- we want y'all to be not only aware of them; we would
like to have your approval, knowing that the reason we're
paying them is -- is listed for you. And if you object to
that, we need to know that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I think under the law, we --
we have an obligation and are required to approve every
expenditure of county funds.
MS. HARGIS: I believe that's correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: What knowledge does your office have
of these bills that go to the departments -- I guess my
question is, when a bill comes in, do you folks not see it
until it goes to the department that incurred it, and at some
point in time, in some manner, finds its way back to you? Or
do you have some prior knowledge of it by looking at our new
purchasing system, that something's hanging fire out here?
How do you folks handle that, knowing that we've got
something out here that's not being handled in a timely
manner, I guess is my question.
MS. HARGIS: I can't give you the exact
percentages, but we get a number of the bills that are
directed to each department. We do not open those; we put
them in their boxes. Sometimes we will hand-carry them to
i-il-io
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
them. They -- a lot of the departments get their bills
direct, so we never see them until such time as they come to
our office, so we don't really know the late dates or
anything of that that nature until they hit our office, and
that's after they've already been processed by that
particular department. And some of the departments have only
one person who handles bills, and so if they're out or
something happens, they, you know, tend to sit on their desk.
We've cured a lot of that, but we still have a little bit, to
where we need people to realize if they've got a bill -- and
some of them just don't get them. I mean, it just depends on
the time frame we get them. You know, we meet the second
week of the month, and sometimes that's on time. Like,
today's the -- what, the 10th? Well, most bills are due and
payable by the 10th without a late fee. So, there's not much
anybody can do about it.
I JUDGE TINLEY: I guess my point, then, is if
there's dalliance in a department in -- in reviewing and
approving their bills and getting them back to you for
payment by the Court, at the present time, your way of
handling it is after-the-fact.
MS. HARGIS: Because we have no other way of
~ handling it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. HARGIS: And because we don't see the actual
i-ii-io
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
bill itself until it comes into our office, it's been opened,
it's been approved. The P.O. system doesn't really help us a
whole lot, because we don't have the actual bill in front of
us. It's when the actual bills come into our office that we
review them right away to see if there's any -- even though
they've gone through the P.O. system, we look and check all
the dates, and when they're going to be late, then we try to
pull those out, because we don't want to pay the late fees.
If they were a dollar or two, it would be different, but
they've gotten pretty substantial over a period of time,
where the least you pay is $25. You start adding that up
over a period of time, it gets to be quite a bit of money.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I like you paying -- I like
the late fee part of it. I mean, I appreciate you doing that
to avoid costing us money. And -- but it has to be done in
this format. We have to be notified of them, number one.
But I -- let's talk -- and the Judge's line of questioning,
let's talk specifically. Now, the second section of it, it
'i doesn't have anything to do with late fees. Department head
-- "requested," maybe? Is that the word?
MS. HARGIS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Like the TAC unemployment
contribution. Now, why would that be here and not be in the
regular set of bills?
MS. HARGIS: It was due on the 10th. And their
i-ii-io
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 BALDWIN: So, is it a late -- it is a
late bill, then?
MS. HARGIS: It would have been a late bill, yes.
There's no fee on it, but --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
MS. HARGIS: -- it has to be in to the State of
Texas by a certain time frame.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Now, did -- is that because
it laid on someone's desk, or TAC didn't get it here in time?
MS. HARGIS: You know, we have a report that comes
off our system, and then we receive the formal document to
send to TAC, and they -- there is some accounting that has to
be done with that. I mean, they have to check to make sure
that that's the correct employees that they're showing that
they're billing us for and so forth and so on. So, you know,
this time of year, it could -- I don't know when it came in.
I can't tell you that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well --
MS. HARGIS: I'd like to be more proactive. I
understand that -- that this particular one, it could have
come in the last week of the month, and because of the two
holidays, it probably slipped through.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, actually, this is --
this is a budgeted item, I'm sure. You know, we budget
i-li-io
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
$25,000, $30,000 for this particular insurance per annual,
and we pay it four times a year.
MS. HARGIS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I don't know how that
would lay on somebody somebody's desk or wait on them to bill
us. It should be an automatic, every -- every quarter.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What I'm hearing --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just the way I see it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If I'm -- between the two, if
I'm understanding, the actual premium is based on the number
of employees.
MS. HARGIS:
COMMISSIONER
got to verify those.
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
That's correct.
LETZ: At that quarter, so someone's
BALDWIN: So the number changes?
LETZ: The number changes.
BALDWIN: But the payment's made --
LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- each quarter.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Percentage is probably the
same, but the numbers change.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Should be pretty close, I would
think.
MS. HARGIS: It's based on the gross salaries of
that quarter.
i-ii-io
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
47
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And the same thing -- is
this other TAC unemployment insurance thing, is that the same
thing? Same number, isn't it?
MS. HARGIS: Yes. They just listed it twice for
you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're not going to pay it
twice here in just a minute, are we?
MS. HARGIS: No.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What about the vehicle gas
and maintenance? Who is that? Is that Rusty's?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah, bound to be.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Huh?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Bound to be.
JUDGE TINLEY: Have we all agreed that that's
Rusty?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I haven't yet.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just want to know.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Either Rusty or his
chauffeur.
MS. HARGIS: No, actually, it's not Rusty, because
if you look at the account number, it's 640; it's the
Maintenance Department.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Uh-huh.
MS. HARGIS: And --
25 ~ SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Falsely accused again.
i-ii-io
48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I was just fixing to take up
for you, Rusty.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah, me too. (Laughter.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Hold your breath for that to occur,
Rusty.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I will.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I like -- I like that
it's saving us money on the -- avoiding the late fee. I just
-- I don't understand the rest of it. We either pay our
bills and do it in the right way or we don't.
MS. HARGIS: It's just something you haven't been
presented in the past, and I just felt that it needed to be.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I appreciate it. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's a -- it's going to
probably -- or hopefully solve a little bit of the problem of
coming in late, because it's going to be more publicized that
they're not getting their bills in to the Auditor on time.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, we can call them out
one at a time.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: One at a time, like the Tax
Assessor not reading her postage meter on time.
JUDGE TINLEY: As a matter of fact, I've got in red
ink on that report, "What department?" Question mark.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, there's a -- there's
1-11-10
49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
different -- whatever 572, 475, 640 -- 640 is Maintenance; we
just got told that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Yeah.
MS. HARGIS: The 76 is the Juvenile Detention area.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Who's 572?
MS. HARGIS: That's -- that's the juvenile -- it's
all juvenile, 'cause it says 76 in front of it. All the 76's
are Juvenile Detention.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MS. HARGIS: And some of these departments want to
make sure they have all their tickets to compare to the
tickets they've, you know, been issued on this gas and stuff,
so there is some accounting involved in it. But I agree, it
-- you know, by putting it on the agenda, it does make a
difference. Sometimes people think they can just send it
through and it won't make any difference, but it does.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's my understanding the
report on the second page is the same as the first page --
same numbers, just in a different format a little bit?
MS. HARGIS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's the detail of it?
MS. HARGIS: It's more the detail.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I know there's companies
i-ii-io
50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that -- that send us bills, and they want -- you touched on
it, about because of our meeting dates, we can't seem to hit
perfect on them, but I don't know any other way to do it,
unless we have a special meeting in between our regular
meetings just to pay bills. But I don't know how to do that.
MS. HARGIS: I don't think we have enough for me to
recommend doing weekly. If our volume -- if we grow and we
get -- if we go over 50,000 and it comes to that point, then
I'll come back and request it, but at this time, I don't
think so. Most of the ones that we are having are the same
-- same vendors, you know, that their bills just fall in the
gap.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
MS. HARGIS: And so until such time as we have
enough to warrant you coming together and having a special
meeting -- because that takes a lot of your time. So right
now, for, you know, maybe 10 bills a month, I don't think
that's -- that's a real issue.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, going forward, because these
bills are not included in the regular batch, we need to
approve these expenditures also to comply with the law?
MS. HARGIS: Please.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Do I hear a motion that the
bills as reflected upon the Direct Payables Receipt Register
be approved?
1-il-io
51
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion and seconded for approval of
the payment of the bills as shown on the direct payables
receipt register. Question or discussion on the motion? All
in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Do we have
MS. HARGIS: Yes, we do.
(Discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's the Sheriff again.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sheriff with big bucks.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Would you just go down the
list? There's only four.
MS. HARGIS: Yes. The first one is for the County
Court at Law. And we have a portion of the -- their -- the
Judge's salary that comes out of one line item, out of -- of
428, and one that comes out of 427. And the way the
payroll's set up, it's hitting -- we had plenty of money in
427, but it's hitting 428, so we just -- we're just really
moving money to make it look -- because it wasn't a budgeted
line item there. His whole salary was budgeted for group
i-il-io
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
insurance actually in 427, so that's just a matter of a
mathematical move there. The VINE program, we -- we
receipted the money, we approved it, but we didn't -- we
didn't set up a budget item to spend it, so we can't -- can't
spend it till you approve the budget item. The court
transcripts, we've already gone over.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But on the court -- so the
216th is out for the year already?
MS. HARGIS: Mm-hmm, that's correct.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's three months.
MS. HARGIS: We got hit --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Three months and they're out
MS. HARGIS: We got hit the very first month of the
year for $10,000, and they only budgeted 12, so they're done.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How much was in there
originally?
MS. HARGIS: Twelve.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you participate in their
budget process?
MS. HARGIS: No, sir, I don't.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's nobody's business
until we get here. That's a statement, not -- you don't have
to respond to that; I understand. But I will say that.
MS. HARGIS: Taking into account that the District
i-ii-lo
53
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Judge is -- this was his first year of handling it, and he
was kind of by himself this year, maybe. I don't -- I don't
know what they do on the transcripts. If you look back in
past years, sometimes they don't use it at all, and then
sometimes they use it all right away. And in the last two
years, that's been the case, so I would say in the future,
they probably need to take -- take a harder look at that.
The 198th usually does not use theirs.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, court transcripts, and
we -- we discuss this almost every meeting, throw this
around. And here's -- not only have we depleted the budget
in three months, but we're going $485 over now, this time.
Is that what I'm seeing?
(Ms. Hargis nodded.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, don't we see that the
next seven months, we're going -- we're going to have to be
moving a lot of money around so that we can pay people to do
court transcripts, right? I mean, wouldn't you suggest that
let's move -- let's find a pile of money and move it over
there now? Or are we going to piddle it around like this?
MS. HARGIS: I'd rather piddle it around. Because
they --
23
24
25
i-ii-io
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I would too.
MS. HARGIS: -- they may not have any more.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, come on.
54
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. HARGIS: Generally speaking, it's one case or
two cases. It's not -- it's not a whole bunch of them.
That's the issue.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:, It's easier to track if you
do it this way, I think.
MS. HARGIS: Well, I don't want to move money from
somebody else's line item until we need it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, ma'am. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Commissioner, are other people
already being paid to do this?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't have any idea.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You had to ring his bell,
didn't you? You really did. (Laughter.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Got some extra gasoline you can
throw on this fire over here?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've no idea.
MS. HARGIS: I'm not going there.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Judges have the authority to
lower the rate they can charge for this, don't they?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do they?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think they do. Reckon we
could maybe pass a note on to them, request that?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You dreamer.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do we have another budget amendment,
Ms. Hargis?
i-li-lo
55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
MS. HARGIS: We have one other one, and that is the
I.T. budget. And when we set the I.T. budget, we put all the
phone costs in the I.T. budget. And we didn't put any in
nondepartmental, and so John prefers that the internet cost
hit nondepartmental, so we're moving that to that line item.
So, we're moving our internet -- we get a separate bill for
our internet charge for the phone line, okay? It's a
separate bill. It's a small amount of money. And it had, in
the past, gone to nondepartmental, and we -- when we did the
budget, we set up for our basic phone bills and long distance
and the internet to go through John, and he prefers having
the internet split out separately, so we're going to put that
back in nondepartmental.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This is for the remainder of
the year?
MS. HARGIS: For the remainder of the year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's the reason? I think it
makes sense, to me, to be in his budget.
MS. HARGIS: He didn't want it in his budget, so
I'm just trying to comply with the department.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: This is a service charge, as opposed
to a capital item.
25 ~ MS. HARGIS: Yeah, this is just the monthly charge.
i-ii-io
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
It's a small amount of money, as you can see, $1,000 a
month -- a year.
JUDGE TINLEY: All the software -- annual software
updates are in his budget. Capital costs for new equipment,
the computers, --
MS. HARGIS: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- telephones and so forth, that's
in his budget. But he wants the service cost for the
Internet service moved into nondepartmental?
(Ms. Hargis nodded.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Equivalent of a monthly phone
bill.
MS. HARGIS: It is. It's a small amount. It's a
small amount.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval of the budget
amendments as presented.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the budget amendments as presented on the
summary. Question or discussion on the motion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Question. Rusty, what was
your comment going to be, that this may be the last of it?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No. No. That transcript that
you're talking about in -- I don't know, was that 216th
court? That very well could be -- and the reason for the
i-il-lo
57
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
high cost is in that organized crime murder case that we've
had pending for over a year now, with all the 23 defendants,
I know that the Court ordered that all of those videotape
interviews, statements, everything be transcribed and given
to all the defense attorneys. And I -- I know our department
didn't do the transcribing; it was just too overwhelming for
us, so it may have been that the Court had them do that.
That's where that bill's coming from. That's why you get
one -- and there's very few that it ever happens. First case
I've seen. But there were -- there were well over 50
interviews on video tapes that all had to be transcribed in
that thing. Just a possibility of an explanation.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other question or discussion on
the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Do we have
any late bills?
MS. HARGIS: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Reports.
MS. HARGIS: Can we go back?
JUDGE TINLEY: I've been presented with monthly
reports from Constable, Precinct l; Justice of the Peace,
i-ii-lo
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
Precinct 3; Justice of the Peace, Precinct 4; County Clerk
and Environmental Health. Do I hear a motion to approve
those reports as presented?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the named reports as presented. Question or
discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion,
signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Ms. Hargis,
', you had something else?
MS. HARGIS: Yeah. Can we go back to Item 5, which
was at 10 o'clock? I think it's 5.
JUDGE TINLEY: Say again?
MS. HARGIS: Item 5 on the agenda. I think it's 5.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, yeah, if you want to go there.
It's a 10 o'clock timed item, Item 5. It's after that time
now. Consider, discuss, and take appropriate action
regarding property appraisal report from Texas Association of
Counties. Ms. Hargis?
MS. HARGIS: As you recall, we -- about -- I want
to say three months ago, we got a letter from TAC saying that
i-ii-io
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
they were going to offer us a free appraisal service, and
they would let us know when we would be getting ours. Well,
we're fortunate enough to be one of the first ones to get
one, and this is really good, because in the past, my
predecessor had always used the Appraisal District, and we
had requested them to come over every year, and they had not.
So, this is a thorough audit. We accompanied this gentleman
throughout the entire system, as did the Sheriff, and so we
really feel like we have good values. It is going to be an
increase in our insurance, because you can see some of the
values were under, and I've been concerned about that.
Especially, like, the building with historical, and it's
better to be over-insured than under-insured with these
things, because the 80 percent, 90 percent coverage, then we
start building, then we're going to end up -- so, we -- we
will have to pay a little bit more premium. We have not been
billed that yet, but we wanted y'all to be aware of the
values. And if you had any problems with any of them, or --
we've looked at them; we feel like they're very fair. And
some of them went up, some of them went down.
And the other thing that we had in our policy --
and I think that Rusty can address this -- is, for instance,
that out at the jail, we have that building behind the jail
that has radio equipment and stuff. That was all lumped into
one, so it was hard to determine how much the value of that
i-ii-io
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
building was. So, now what this adjustor has done is split
it all out so that every freestanding building is on its own
on our policy, which is, I think, much better. And not
having been here all those years, it was kind of hard for me
to determine why they were lumped together. Now they're all
split out. And I think Road and Bridge also helped, as I
understand. All the large departments actually went with
this gentleman and agreed with him on these values. So, we
just need you to -- you know, basically wanted you to review
it so that when the increase in premium comes up -- because I
have -- I have agreed that the increase in premium needs to
be made. You also have pictures of all the facilities, which
I think, you know, is -- is a good thing. Tracy's worked
really, really hard with this insurance to try to get
everything we have on there. There's been some gaps, and
every time we think we've closed a gap, we find something
else, but we hope we have everything on here. Our -- the new
upgrade in -- on our accounting system, our computer system,
is going to allow us to put pictures of every asset, and
we're going to -- in the process this next six months of
doing that, so that if someone needed to see the value of any
particular large piece -- especially large pieces of
equipment, that would be in our computer system and
available. So --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Is that going to be public?
i-li-io
61
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Pictures of the --
MS. HARGIS: It's -- I don't -- I don't know.
We're not going to make it public, because in order to make
it public, we'd have to make our whole accounting system
public. We don't have a way of doing that. If a person
wanted a copy of a picture of the assets, they probably could
get it, 'cause it's public. They have them now; it's just
that -- being able to have them with our values so that if
there is a claim, it makes it a lot easier for us to process
that claim.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I can understand the values
being public. Sometimes the -- the design or diagram of some
of the things we might have -- you know, you're kind of
getting into blueprints, a sabotage-type deal. I don't -- I
wouldn't necessarily want those --
MS. HARGIS: It's not going to be anything but the
front of the building, Rusty. There's not going to be any
interior-type shots.
JUDGE TINLEY: This is part of that ongoing process
that Ms. Soldan's been working on to give us the complete
inventory of our assets and to document them, arrange them
and so forth. And when it comes to having each one of these
buildings listed separately, I think that avoids us having an
issue down the road, if there is a loss, to know what the
actual amount of insurance on that particular structure was.
i-li-io
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
MS. HARGIS: That is correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: I would call the Court's attention
to the first item on there. The value of the courthouse has
increased by over a million dollars, with the comment that
the new windows improve value.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Seven million.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- that number's the one
that -- that seems low to me. I don't think you can rebuild
this courthouse for $9 million. I mean, that number -- of
all the numbers, that's the one that jumped out at me --
well, there's two numbers that jumped out at me, and that one
~' jumped out as being low. And I would be amazed if
Commissioner Williams' Center Point office has a $244,000
value. (Laughter.) That building is nothing but a -- a
shed, and without any heat. I mean, you don't want to meet
with him over there during the winter; you'd freeze to death.
But, I mean, that number seems -- but it's probably better to
be high than low.
MS. HARGIS: This is what I need your comment on.
If you -- and then if you feel we need to insure the building
for more than the appraisal, that's fine. I just need --
JUDGE TINLEY: Look at the line.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, mine's only 1,000.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh, 17,000, okay. That's more
in line.
i-ii-io
63
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Something's happened,
because it's not worth 5,000.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The other thing, the airport
isn't on here. None of our property at the airport is. Is
that under a different schedule?
MS. HARGIS: The City is still carrying the
property. We're carrying the liability, because that's part
of the management agreement.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MS. HARGIS: But we will incur that when we take
over the maintenance side of it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. All right.
MS. HARGIS: But if you would like for me to
increase these, if y'all would just let me know. I mean, I'm
-- I agree with you; we probably couldn't rebuild for
nine million.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let's go back to the one
that Commissioner Letz just referenced.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The Center Point Road and
Bridge precinct garage, okay? What contributes to the
218 percent increase in value there? Is it because of
equipment that's parked there or what?
MS. HARGIS: Yeah, we put a trailer there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We put a trailer there?
MS. HARGIS: Remember, he got a trailer -- was
1-ii-io
64
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
it --
MS. SOLDAN: FEMA trailer.
MS. HARGIS: A FEMA trailer.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pardon me?
MS. HARGIS: A FEMA trailer.
MS. SOLDAN: I don't think that FEMA trailer's
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: He got a regular trailer --
that's the one out west? -- that we went to. That's the
regular trailer house, single-wide.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Didn't we buy one in Ingram?
We paid 8,000 for it.
MS. HARGIS: Well, this one --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: This is a bigger one.
MS. HARGIS: This is a bigger one. We got it for
3,200, but to replace it I think would be more. But that --
he put the trailer there so that they could have a true
substation and have people actually work out of that, out of
that office.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where are you hiding that
trailer, Sheriff?
MS. HARGIS: No, not the Sheriff.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Not me. That's Road and
Bridge.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Road and Bridge.
i-ii-io
65
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Out there at their precinct
yard in Ingram.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It really must be under
wraps.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It's in the back. It's a
pretty good size trailer.
MS. HARGIS: You're talking about the Center Point
location.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're talking Ingram.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're talking Ingram; I'm
talking Center Point.
MS. HARGIS: There's one there too, as well, isn't
I there?
MS. SOLDAN: There is a structure there. The FEMA
trailer is not there right now.
MS. HARGIS: Okay. I don't know the answer to that
I one .
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just a corrugated metal pole
barn in Center Point.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Exactly. There's no
I trailer.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No door on it. Is there a
I door?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, there's a door.
MS. SOLDAN: There is a door. We couldn't get
i-ii-io
66
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
inside; he could only base his estimate on outside.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Someone --
'~, COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We've got -- Rusty's got a
communications trailer. But you keep it on your grounds.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: He didn't even see that one.
MS. HARGIS: No, there's a new one out there.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Road and Bridge got a second
FEMA trailer.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's right.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Not too long ago.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There's one at Ingram.
Where's the other one?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I thought that moved to
your precinct.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That was the very first one;
it was 8,000 bucks, and it's not near as big as the second
one.
18
19 Bridge.
20
21
22
23
24
25
because --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, then it's Road and
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Must be in their yard,
MS. SOLDAN: The last one they just got is, I
believe, at their Spur 100 location.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You might want to take a
look at that.
i-ii-io
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
67
JUDGE TINLEY: We may have something stacked on the
Center Point that needs to be at the Road and Bridge main
office.
MS. HARGIS: Where's Spur 100?
MS. SOLDAN: Main office across from the Ag Barn.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The other thing is the recycle
building or center. Shouldn't the City carry that?
MS. HARGIS: It's our property.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's our property, so we keep
the insurance on that?
MS. HARGIS: Mm-hmm, it's our property. They're
renting.
JUDGE TINLEY: This is not necessarily insurance.
This is what we own. Now, for insurance purposes, the lease
may provide otherwise. I think they're obligated for all the
operational and maintenance costs, and unless the lease
provides otherwise, normally the owner of the property
provides basic hazard insurance. But we have to go to the
lease to find out exactly what the obligation is. And what
action do you desire us to take on this item other than
acknowledging --
MS. HARGIS: Do you agree with the values? Do you
want me to increase some of the values?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's the bottom line? I
don't see it.
i-li-io
68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thirty million.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 33,550.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think they're --
they're better than they were.
MS. HARGIS: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think they're okay. I think
we might want to look at -- next year, look at the
courthouse, make sure that's a real -- that's a good number.
That's the only one that's a little concerning to me.
~ COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree with that.
MS. HARGIS: I can call Peter and ask him what he
thinks it would cost to rebuild based on square footage.
We'll come up with a better number. I'll bring it back next
time. Do you want me to do that?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Okay, anything else? Why
don't we take about a 20-minute recess?
(Recess taken from 10:18 a.m. to 10:45 a.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to order, if
we might. We were in recess. Let's continue with Section 4
of the agenda -- no, we've concluded 4. We'll go to 5,
reports from Commissioners in connection with their liaison
or committee assignments. Commissioner Baldwin, do you have
anything in the areas of your liaison assignments?
i-ii-lo
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
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir, a couple things.
There'll be a -- they're bringing the AACOG road show down in
February early, and while I tentatively put a hold on the Ag
Barn, there's some thought maybe we could find a venue with a
few more creature comforts. We're looking alone; the County
doesn't get the bill for that. Got some scouts out looking,
so we'll see. But worst-case scenario is it will be at the
Ag Barn unless we notify people to the contrary. And on the
11th of February, we'll be doing a public hearing in Center
Point on the wastewater -- as a requirement of Section B of
the T.W.D.B. master plan, and so there'll be notification
going out for that. Just in the F.Y.I. category, the Center
Point Alliance for Progress again this election cycle will
conduct a candidate's forum for all contested races, and --
and we'll be inviting all other candidates that are not
opposed if they wish to come be introduced and make a
comment. That will be on the 5th of February. That's it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, thank you. Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I received word from the City
giving me the schedule for the year for Library Board
meetings, so at least I'm up to speed on that.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Don't hurt yourself, now.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And on the -- Commissioner
i-ii-io
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
70
i
Williams pointed out that Councilperson Keeble will put on
the City Council agenda for tomorrow night the subdivision
regulations in the ETJ, and I presume that's going to be a
status report as to where that is. And it's been a while
since we've met, but where that process is right now is
that -- I think it was probably late November was the last
time Councilman Motheral and I met, and both of us are in the
process of rewriting our respective rules to accommodate one
set -- to try to come up with one set of rules. Councilman
Motheral told me that he thinks that they should be based on
the city rules, and in my opinion, it needs to be based on
the county rules. ,
And the reason for me is not -- and I said I really
don't care what it's based on, but I said there's two
requirements that have to be in anything that I can support
coming to this Commissioners Court on, and one is, you recall
that several years ago, as part of the Center Point project,
we had to adopt the state model subdivision rules, which
covers all lots in the county less than 5 acres, and that's a
pretty broad -- broad and specific set of provisions,
probably 20 pages long. And the County is required, under
those grants that we've been receiving, to enforce those
exact rules, and there can't be any deviation from that. And
I've told that to Councilman Motheral. He was kind of, "Oh,
I didn't know that." So, that is a -- will require a major
i-ii-io
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
change to the City's rules. Because, I mean, it's not a gray
area. We don't have any option.. I said their option is they
can write a check to the state for the -- and the county for
all the grants that we've accepted up to date, because that's
the penalty for not doing it.
And the other thing that I said that has to be in
the -- and any set of rules that I would take forward to
Commissioners Court would be that there can be no
subjectivity in it. There -- you know, on roads, I don't
care, roads, any part of it, it has to be black and white
what the rules are. The current city rules largely state,
"to current city standards," and that isn't going to cut it.
The standards have to be spelled out. And I told them that
the county -- that any -- or I guess the third thing that I
wouldn't support would be any provision -- or a provision has
to be in there, I guess, that both entities have to approve
any waivers in the ETJ. 'Cause we're not going to get in a
situation that I hear too frequently, and I heard about it
just again from Dick Colvin, through a letter of the City
giving a direction, and then three months later sending out a
new letter and changing what was told to them. That happened
on the project out by the -- that Dick Colvin's working on
out by the airport. And so those three things. And, to me,
I don't care really, like I said, who writes the rules. The
city -- the county rules are a lot easier to adapt, in my
1-11-10
72
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
opinion, than the city's rules, but that's where we are, and
it's not an easy task. And until the City staff or City
Council understands that those three things are not
negotiable, then maybe we can -- you know, once we get there,
we should be pretty much pretty far along. So, I'm rewriting
our rules, trying to accommodate the city's rules, and he's
rewriting the city rules trying to accommodate the county
rules, and it's a little bit of a waste of time to me, but
that's the way he wanted -- or I guess we're proceeding. So,
that's where we are.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, that's it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Oehler?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, let me see. Animal
Control has gotten all sides closed in with roll-up doors
now, courtesy of Pat Ginsbach, which is a very big
improvement. They can open and close those and not have
those doors that were just lifted up, hanging by a cable. It
could fall on somebody. So, that's been upgraded. And --
and let me think. Other than that --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Janie's radio thing.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah, Janie did a little
radio thing the other day.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: State-wide radio thing.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It's going well. She's done
i-ii-io
73
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-- she's really been pretty aggressive on a lot of things out
there, just like Environmental Health has been. There's big
changes in the way they do business and the problems they've
had and the way they have to address them. Anyway, Janie's
doing real well.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Since he's not going to go more
into the detail on Janie --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Just go right ahead.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: There was a story, I think,
that came out of Beaumont, I believe, originally. There was
a cruelty case, and someone got into the state organizations.
Texas Public Radio did it.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And it was in reference as to
who to contact about cruelty. I don't know what agency was
talking to the state. The recommendation was to talk to Kerr
County's Animal Control, because they are very adept and
doing a fantastic job of handling cruelty cases, animal
control cases. And the Texas Public Radio contacted Janie;
she gave them an interview which aired statewide, I believe.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah, got all that. I'm glad
you mentioned it. I'm glad you were aware of it. Let's see,
she has done -- and they do -- it's kind of like our
Environmental Health Department; it's been kind of the
example that T.C.E.Q. points to whenever there are counties
i-il-lo
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
that are having problems. The same way with our Animal
I Control.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I saw that article that the
Commissioners are talking about. It was good.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah. So, I think we're
taking a proactive approach to a lot of things, and I think
it's coming along -- I know it's coming along well. I don't
think; I know it. I see that it has. Now, if we could just
do something about the Sheriff, we'd be in good shape.
(Laughter.)
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It's a lost cause.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Prayer and fasting.
JUDGE TINLEY: Speaking of animal issues, we've got
an employee in the County Attorney's office, Christine
McEntyre, that is really on the leading edge of animal issues
statewide, and beyond the state, actually. She was involved
in Katrina down in New Orleans helping with some of those
animals. But some of you may have seen -- there have been a
series of news reports -- I believe it was on Channel 12 --
dealing with a case of an animal that had been abused or
neglected that had been taken from a puppy mill and so forth.
And Ms. McEntyre has -- far as I know, she spends all her
vacation time responding to these -- these crises in animal
control where they -- there was one up in Fort Worth recently
where there were, like, 400 animals that they had to make
i-ii-io
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
some disposition of. And she's been doing a lot of the
statewide emergency planning; she's been at the leading edge
of that. I think it's later this week, possibly next week,
there's a -- a CARRT trailer that's being delivered.
Actually, she's going to go down and take custody of it in
San Antonio, "CARRT" being -- I believe it's Companion Animal
Rescue Team, is what that stands for, I believe. But she
is -- she's really out there at the forefront of everything
going on in the state when it comes to animal issues, and the
state's getting the benefit of a lot of her work and
expertise, and we need to recognize her for that.
Phone system, they're continuing to run cable. A
lot of you have had those people in your hair with wires
dangling. I think the wires this time are green, are they
not?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Green.
JUDGE TINLEY: Courthouse, the windows are
complete. They're doing some minor touch-up on some of them.
It's very, very minor. The main portion to go is the front
doors. If you haven't noticed, the front doors have been
removed. They're gone. We're boarded up in the front.
They're being completely reworked. The -- all of the
remainder of that door unit is going to be reworked on-site
so that we get the same appearance, but it'll be upgraded to
new. When they get through with those doors and bring them
i-ii-io
76
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
in, they will only open one direction, and they -- they will
seal when they're closed, which will be a -- a new experience
for a lot of us, where you can't stand down in front of the
County Clerk's office and feel the breeze from the front
door. I think Chuck Brecher -- his comment to me was,
"There's a gap wide enough, somebody can throw a dead dog
through there." It made the point, but maybe it's a little
harsh. But I think we really got something to be proud of
with those windows. Let's go to elected officials. Elected
officials got any -- got any reports they'd like to --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Enter the Sheriff.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Just quickly, just the jail
status, I think one thing needs to be brought out. But
before we get to that, as far as pending, you know, people in
jail, this morning the total overall population was 142.
We've been staying right around that area for quite a while
now. There's 38 of them in the 216th court waiting to go to
court. There's 27 in the 198th, and there's 35 in County
Court at Law. So, we've got 35 that are serving time either
in jail or waiting on transport to T.D.C. And Gillespie
County has 11. We've got 16 parole violators and 47
probation violators. We do currently have inmates out of
Travis, Bexar, Montague, Winkler, Kimble, Hidalgo, and Taylor
County. Most of those also have local charges; that's why
i-ii-io
77
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
they haven't gone back to their own counties yet. But my big
issue is females. This is something that needs to be brought
up. I have four female cells that will house a total of 32
females, eight in each cell. It's by design. They have to
be kept out of sight and sound of all male inmates, so it's
all down one side. And we are at a critical time with
females. Gillespie County was housing a couple. I made them
come get them Friday and take them back. We couldn't house
their females any more. Friday, we had 30 females in 32
beds. We were fixing to have to -- we were keeping our
fingers crossed all weekend, we didn't have to put them on
the floor. Currently, as of this morning, I had 27 females
still in jail. Of those 27 females, 24 have no bonds. The
other three, two of them have $100,000 bonds, and the other
one's got a $75,000 bond. Those people aren't going
anywhere. I'm stuck. If we go over -- actually, you know,
80 percent of 32 beds would have been 26 females. Problem
is, when you only have four cells and classification, you
really can't even hit the -- you know, the 80 percent. It
may not be long, with the way our female situation's going,
that I'm going to have to request this Court to house females
out of county. We're going to have to come up with something
different on females. My male population is fine, but the
female population is -- is not going down. It's been coming
up for a couple of years now. I think we had mentioned it
1-ii-io
78
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
one other time. But I do see us having to take some kind of
long-term solution with housing female inmates, and I don't
know what that would be. I don't know if the old juvenile
detention facility -- if you tried to revamp that, I'm afraid
that the cost... Because when you're talking females, I'm
not talking minimum security females. You know, some of
these are murder and that. You still have to build it for
all the way through the deal of minimum to maximum, and I
just don't know where we're going to go, gentlemen, with the
female situation.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sheriff, are the jail
standards different for holding a female prisoner versus a
male prisoner?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They're the same stringent
standards?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Same standards totally on
those. I know that Bandera -- I don't know how many female
beds they have. Now, in their old jail, they had one, so I
don't know, when they built this one, you know, what they
have. You know, Gillespie County, of course, the same.
Kimble County wasn't even designed to house females.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How about -- how about the
new Bandera --
25 ~ SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't know how many -- like
i-li-io
79
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I said, I don't know how many female designed beds they have
at Bandera. I know that they -- they originally stated that
they were going to be charging $50 a day housing per inmate,
and I think they've dropped it down to 40 now, the last I
heard. 'Cause Gillespie's even having to house some people
there. But, you know, unless Gillespie has to house females
over there, they're only a 96-bed jail. Now, ours was built
with 32 females out of 192. If they're a 96-bed jail, I
doubt that they have very many female cells. It could be
that we end up having to go quite a ways to house females.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is your facility constructed in a
manner that would allow you to convert some of your male cell
blocks to female and still maintain the sight and sound
separation?
SHERIFF ~IERHOLZER: Short answer is no, okay?
It's not -- the males are housed down the main hallway. The
cells face each other, and the cells are interlocked; two
cells have common gates that you can see each other, you
know, through there. And then the sound is not. The
females -- the hallway that the females are housed down, the
middle part of that hallway, or the -- the center area is our
medical area, and then storage, and then you have a blank
hallway, and then you have the females down that far side.
So, they are out of sight and sound at this point. I don't
know that we could reconfigure that jail. I've thought about
i-ii-io
80
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
it and thought about it, any way that would allow us to house
more females inside our own facility. Plus with the male
population, it still stays up. It's just not -- you know,
we're not critical right now, but I don't know that if we cut
out, you know, that many more female beds -- or added that
many more female beds, taking away from the male beds, that
we would really be doing ourselves any service, other than
putting us up over what we probably should have with males.
It's just going to be an issue that I'm afraid the next two
or three years isn't going to solve.
MS. BAILEY: You might want to put that on the
agenda for discussion next time.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Might be a good idea.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I thought it ought to be
mentioned before this afternoon.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, that's all the good news I
have.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other elected officials?
Department heads? We'll be in recess till 1:45, take up Item
Number 4.
(Recess taken from 11:03 a.m. to 2:11 p.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's come back to order, if we
might, for our Commissioners Court meeting. We were in
i-ii-io
81
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
recess. We'll go to Item 4; consider, discuss, and take
appropriate action on order authorizing the issuance of
approximately $4,550,000 in principal amount of Kerr County,
Texas Tax Note Series 2010, authorizing the levying of a tax
for the payment thereof, authorizing execution of a paying
agent/registrar agreement and a purchase contract, and
authorizing approving other instruments and procedures and
sale related thereto. I put this on the agenda in order to
comply with the requirements to sell the pending debt issue
that we have to do a number of capital items, most notable,
probably, of which is the Kerr County Sheriff's Office
Annex/Adult Probation building, various items of equipment,
and so forth. We have with us today Mr. Dusty Traylor with
R.G. --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: R.B.
JUDGE TINLEY: RB Dain -- RB -- RBC Capital now?
MR. TRAYLOR: Judge, you're as good at it as I am.
It's RBC Capital Markets. They change their name once every
six months just to aggravate us a little bit.
JUDGE TINLEY: Whether you need it or not?
MR. TRAYLOR: That's exactly right.
JUDGE TINLEY: And we've also got Tom Spurgeon, our
bond counsel, here with us with us to lead us through this
little drill. Dusty, it's all yours.
MR. TRAYLOR: Judge, Commissioners, again, my name
i-ii-io
82
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
is Dusty Traylor with RBC Capital Markets. Bob Henderson and
I have the honor and privilege of representing the County as
financial advisers. I apologize for my tardiness this
afternoon. We entered into the market this morning with the
tax note issue, for -- to be able to put four and a half
million dollars into the County's project fund, and we
entered into a negotiated underwriting with Southwest
Securities. Southwest Securities went out and took the bonds
in their various blocks and broke them up and sold them off
to individual investors at the individual maturity levels
that you have there. You're selling -- you're selling these
notes in maturities 'll -- 2011 through 2016. This is a
process that we have today that's been going on for a number
of months. We worked closely with the Judge and definitely
with Jeannie to help prepare the disclosure document that was
disseminated to the -- to the investors in these bonds, and
to obtain a municipal bond rating for the County on these
notes.
As you know, the higher your bond rating, the
better you're deemed in the market as a worthy credit, and
this time the County's credit was upgraded to a double
A-minus, which is a significant upgrade. And it represents
the strong financial condition here in the county, as well as
the economic claim here within -- within Kerr County, being
-- being a strong county and represented as a strong county
1-11-10
83
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
for -- for investment by municipal bondholders. Southwest
Securities ended up coming back to us with a bond that is
actually a par amount of 4,350,000. We're still putting
$4,500,000 in the -- in the project fund; however, we're
doing that with a combination of a par amount on these bonds,
plus there's a premium amount that the buyers of the bonds
are paying for the bonds to the County so that you can get
four and a half million going into your project fund. And
the true interest cost -- that's the interest rate on these
notes plus the cost to issue the notes -- is 2.7022 percent.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 2.7 --
MR. TRAYLOR: 2.7022.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's pretty good.
MR. TRAYLOR: I'll tell you, this is a favorable
time to be in the bond market right now. There's a flight to
quality that's gone on in the marketplace. Folks want
municipal bonds, and the short end of the yield curve is a
very good place to be. Those short end of the yield curve
interest rates are very low, and that's precisely where
you're selling these notes. You're not going out a long way,
you know, 20 or 30 years. You're just going out six years.
You put these notes at the right spot in the yield curve to
get a good bid, and you've done that here at 2.7022 percent,
so that's something we, as your financial advisers, are very
excited about. It's a great interest rate. Mr. Spurgeon is
i-ii-lo
84
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
here from -- from McCall, Parkhurst, and Horton. Their role
is to make sure that these notes are issued in compliance
with the state and federal laws, and then shepherd this
process through the state Attorney General's office. I'll
turn it over to Tom for any comments that he may have.
MR. SPURGEON: Very briefly. Judge and
Commissioners, I'm delighted to be here again, and I
mentioned to a couple of you, it's been a couple years, and
it's always a delight to come back and see y'all again, and
your faces just haven't changed, and everybody looks good and
all those kind of things. The -- what you have in front of
you is the order itself that authorizes the tax notes that
Dusty was describing to you. It's -- I'm not sure if you
have a copy of the draft that was put in the -- or that we
sent a couple weeks ago, but the only thing that's changed is
essentially filling in all the numbers that -- that Dusty's
given you today. It's -- it's a straightforward order, if
you will. I mean, it authorizes the issuance of these tax
notes to Southwest Securities at the interest rates and the
principal amounts that are in the numbers that Dusty gave
you. It requires that the County levy a tax on an annual
basis, approves the official statement that was used for
purposes of the offering document, approves the paying
agent/registrar agreement with Wells Fargo. That is -- is
really your intermediary, if you will, between -- you send
i-ii-io
85
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
them the money, they send it on to the bondholders, or in
this case, what's called a depository trust company, and then
they -- they forward it on through sort of electronic
processes and things like that. So, that's -- that, in a
very quick nutshell, is -- is the order that you'd be passing
today. I'll be glad to answer any questions that you have.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any questions for Mr. Spurgeon?
MR. TRAYLOR: Any questions for me?
JUDGE TINLEY: So, what you're seeking today is an
order which authorizes the issuance of $4,350,000 in
principal amount of Kerr County, Texas tax notes, Series
2010, and authorizing the levying of a tax for the payment
thereof, and authorizing execution of the paying
agent/registrar agreement and a purchase contract, and
authorizing and approving other instruments and procedures
related thereto, and the sale of those bonds.
MR. SPURGEON: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: As per the summary which you've
given us, with the final pricing numbers from Southwest
Securities.
MR. SPURGEON: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is that correct?
MR. SPURGEON: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, that covers -- this
language you have on the agenda item, "other instruments and
i-ii-io
86
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
procedures," that covers all of that?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that called an order --
is that what that's called, entitled "Order"?
JUDGE TINLEY: That's exactly what I read off.
And, of course, what would probably work is someone saying,
"I so move."
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I so move.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and a second as
indicated. Is there any further question or discussion on
that motion? All in favor of that motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Gentlemen,
anything else to come before the Court in today's meeting?
We will be adjourned.
(Commissioners Court adjourned at 2:15 p.m.)
i-ii-io
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
87
STATE OF TEXAS ~
COUNTY OF KERR ~
The above and foregoing is a true and complete
transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as
official reporter for the Commissioners Court of Kerr County,
Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth.
DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 13th day of January,
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
Kathy B nik, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
2010.
i-ii-io
ORDER NO. 31584
DONATION MADE TO KERR COUNTY JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITY BY
THE KING'S RANSOM FOUNDATION
Came to be heard this the 11th day of January, 2010, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Oehler, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve donation made to Kerr County Juvenile Detention Facility by the King's
Ransom Foundation and modify budget to include both revenue and expenditure of
funds.
ORDER NO. 31585
SUBMISSION OF THE ENERGY EFFICIENT AND CONSERVATION BLOCK
GRANT APPLICATION TO THE OFFICE OF THE COMPTROLLER OF PUBLIC
ACCOUNTS
Came to be heard this the 11th day of January, 2010, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve submission of the Energy Efficient and Conservation Block Grant, and
authorize County Judge to sign same.
ORDER NO. 31586
CONSTABLE PRECINCT #1 ANNUAL REPORT ON RACIAL PROFILING
Came to be heard this the 11th day of January, 2010, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Oehler, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve acceptance of Constable Precinct # 1 Annual Report on Racial Profiling.
ORDER NO. 31587
ANNUAL REPORT FROM KERR COUNTY HISTORICAL COMMISSION AND
LIST OF MEMBERS
Came to be heard this the 11th day of January, 2010, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve annual report from the Kerr County Historical Commission and approve list of
Members.
ORDER NO. 31588
ADDENDUM TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF
SHERRIFFS OFFICE ANNEX/ADULT PROBATION OFFICE FACILITIES TO
REDUCE BID BOND REQUIREMENT FROM 10% TO 5% OF BID PRICE AND
INCLUDE PROVISIONS FOR LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
Came to be heard this the 11th day of January, 2010, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Oehler, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve Addendum to Request for Proposals for construction of Sheriff's Office
Annex/Adult Probation Office facilities to reduce the Bid Bond requirement from 10% to
5% of bid price and set liquidated damages at $350 per day beyond the required
completion date.
ORDER NO. 31589
APPOINT L1NDA GARRETT TO EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT NO. 2 (ESD
#2) COMMISSIONERS
Came to be heard this the 11th day of January, 2010, with a motion made by
Commissioner Oehler, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve appointment of Linda Garrett to the Kerr County Emergency Services District
#2 (ESD #2) Board of Commissioners.
ORDER NO. 31590
CLAIMS AND ACCOUNTS
Came to be heard this the 11th day of January, 2010, came to be considered by the Court
various Commissioners Precincts, which said Claims and Accounts are:
Accounts Expense
10-General Fund	$	274,612.56
15-Road & Bridge	$	22,406.59
16-2008 Capital Projects	$	12,320.35
18-County Law Library	$	4,751.62
21-Title IV-E	$	18.50
27-Community Corrections	$	2,300.00
39-Grant H-Misdeamor Div	$	4,285.75
50-Inigent Health Care	$	7,205.46
76-Kuv Detention Facility	$	245.84
83-216th District Attorney	$	340.98
86-216th CSCD	$	2,825.73
TOTAL $ 331,313.38
Upon motion made by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the
Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to pay the claims and accounts.
ORDER NO. 31591
DIRECT PAYABLES
Came to be heard this the 11th day of January, 2010, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve payment of direct payables as presented.
ORDER NO. 31592
BUDGET AMENDMENT NOS. 1 THROUGH 4
Came to be heard this the 11th day of January, 2010, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve Budget Amendment Numbers 1 through 4 as presented.
ORDER NO. 31593
MONTHLY REPORTS
Came to be heard this the 11th day of January, 2010, with a motion made by
Commissioner Oehler, seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the Monthly Reports from:
Constable Pct #1
JP Pct #3
JP Pct #4
County Clerk
Environmental Health
ORDER NO. 31594
ISSUANCE OF $4,350,000 IN PRINCIPLE AMOUNT OF KERR COUNTY, TEXAS,
TAX NOTES, SERIES 2010, LEVYING OF TAX FOR PAYMENT, EXECUTION OF
PAYING AGENT/REGISTRAR AGREEMENT, AND PURCHASE CONTRACT,
AND APPROVE OTHER INSTRUMENTS AND PROCEDURES AND SALES
RELATED THERETO
Came to be heard this the 11th day of January, 2010, 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 issuance of $4,350,000 in principal amount of Kerr County, Texas tax notes,
series 2010, and authorizing the levying of a tax for payment thereof, and authorizing
execution of the paying agent/registrar agreement and a purchase contract, and
authorizing and approving other instruments and procedures related thereto, and the sale
of those bonds.